Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (decided May 17, 1954): “separate is inherently unequal”, invalidating on Equal Protection grounds school segregation by race (this applies only to schools within the same district, of course, and could not invalidate “white flight” into other districts or into private schools); unanimous decision, though it was almost 8 - 1 because Jackson’s law clerk (William Rehnquist) was telling him to vote the other way (as my Con Law professor pointed out, this was a “policy” decision; this was one of three consolidated cases and the Court could have agreed with the Delaware court holding that separate being equal should be decided case-by-case)
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (decided May 17, 1954): same holding as Brown, but as to segregation in D.C., where the Fourteenth Amendment (and its Equal Protection clause) doesn’t apply; segregation wrong on Due Process grounds (Fifth Amendment) Saenz v. California Dept. of Social Services, 526 U.S. 489 (decided May 17, 1999): limitation of welfare benefits to newly arrived residents to the amounts they would have received in prior state infringed on freedom of travel though such right is not mentioned in Constitution Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. --- (decided May 17, 2021): though police can without a warrant search a vehicle impounded after an accident (Cady v. Dombrowski, 1972), they need a warrant to conduct a weapons search of a house to which wife called them for an outside conversation with husband who was in danger of shooting himself CIC Services v. IRS, 593 U.S. --- (decided May 17, 2021): Anti-Injunction Act (which prohibits “stay” applications to avoid paying a tax) did not bar taxpayer’s pre-enforcement challenge to new reporting requirements for consultants of “captive insurers” (which are sometimes used for tax avoidance) because IRS did not follow “notice and comment” rulemaking procedures required by Administrative Procedure Act BP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. --- (decided May 17, 2021): on appeal of order remanding removed case to state court (suit was by city against oil companies for concealing environmental impact of fossil fuels), court can review all grounds argued by defendant for removal in opposition to motion to remand, not just the one (involvement of federal officer) that made the order appealable (28 U.S.C. §1442) McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (decided May 17, 1993): Federal Tort Claims action dismissed as premature (even though all that happened was initial pleadings) until administrative remedies are exhausted, no matter how long they take to process, and even though claimant was pro se Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (decided May 17, 2010): life sentence without parole for a juvenile for non-homicide (it was attempted armed robbery) is “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of Eighth Amendment Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (decided May 17, 2010): Chilean court’s “ne exeat” order (prohibiting leaving jurisdiction without consent) issued to non-custodial father created “right of custody” under the Hague Convention; United States court therefore had power to order mother to bring child back to Chile; law of “sister signatory” (Chile) entitled to great weight in construing the Convention
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (decided May 17, 1971): injunction barring leafletting warning against local “blockbuster” (realtor who scared white homeowners that blacks were moving in, convinced them to sell at below market value, then resold at above market to blacks) was in violation of First Amendment
Comments