Which case had the potential to affect more people, Presser v. Illinois or Hernandez v. Texas?
1d2594f91416fa49505511eadaaf9e72
Presser v. Illinois Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." Saying the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state and that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
1251a68142e006ae4d1f8e0d52188d64
Hernandez v. Texas Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was written by Justice Earl Warren. This was the first case in which Mexican-American lawyers had appeared before the US Supreme Court.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
e01b2c7dbf0e404859d70e0e5a0c9463
Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
955450ca78ba6b9f3c3bc971de5961c6
United States v. Lopez United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the second United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned possession of handguns near schools, was unconstitutional because it did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. After the "Lopez" decision, the act was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.
ed5b41aa83a783b3e6fdf24d09ab56a0
Montgomery v. Louisiana Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in "Miller v. Alabama", 567 U.S. ___ (2012) , that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.
7259cc3853617f9b0a58bf94a33d0e7d
Tapia v. United States Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot give a criminal defendant a longer sentence to promote rehabilitation.
12382da34f89d237f6f2b6ece2aa74b9
Baker v. Carr Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.
622f4a11188ac149ad50e00e9150e6fd
Duncan v. Louisiana Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states.
c2ddabe8ea1ee031edd84b11bd409594
Ewing v. California Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) , is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in "Harmelin v. Michigan", 501 U.S. 957 (1991) , the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in "Ewing" and the companion case "Lockyer v. Andrade," 538 U.S. 63 (2003) , the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
f259df7e04f88eb767c797a621d62b5a
Aikens v. California Aikens v. California, 406 U.S. 813 (1972) , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court where a petitioner (in the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiff (Aikens) is called the "petitioner" and the defendant (the State of California) is called the "respondent") was appealing his conviction and death sentence. After oral argument had been made on the case, but before the court decided on it, the Supreme Court of California in "People v. Anderson", 6 Cal. 3d 628 (1972), declared the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution. This made his appeal unnecessary because the decision in "Anderson"
f68f9945a61c7252e7b738e969e48976
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988) , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression.
2ba82790de947e76c4d7b01c6897166b
Rummel v. Estelle Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) , (sometimes erroneously cited as Rummel v. Estell) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole under Texas' three strikes law for a felony fraud crime, where the offense and the defendant's two prior offenses involved approximately $230 of fraudulent activity.
c19a91b9e8ac6292beb8a5450dd8e200
Stump v. Sparkman Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.
755c4cb8c3a481dc40b16786ad6f0265
Taylor v. Illinois Taylor v. Illinois, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. "Taylor" was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in "Washington v. Texas".
3f121d61517a680c62abc1e6da80362a
Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.
7b07d87387cebccd488c194ded46eadc
Jacobson v. Massachusetts Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.
817f216a3cd10efc6ee54fa539d53641
Alexander v. Sandoval Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) , was a US Supreme Court decision that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact.
9e3564c2e14d77090a9b56d5b4d57f79
Marco A. Hernandez Marco Antonio Hernandez (born 1957) is an American attorney and judge in the state of Oregon. A native of Arizona, he served as a Circuit Court judge in Washington County from 1995 until 2011, including as presiding judge for three years. He currently serves as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
e70fd780a6396063ae46bfb5514674ca
United States v. Ortiz United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.
b84c14897e4c060ad41e56b35377e0a1
Brown v. Texas Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.
d384ef5380d61c4d6744e70101d1f462
Mullenix v. Luna Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.