Slaughter-House Cases (1873)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Louisiana created a state-licensed slaughterhouse monopoly to regulate butchers. Independent butchers argued it violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the monopoly and gave the Clause a very narrow interpretation, limiting it to rights of national citizenship, not state-level rights.

3) Why It Mattered
This was the Court’s first major interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It essentially gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause, forcing later civil rights arguments to rely on Due Process and Equal Protection instead.

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
After the Colfax Massacre in Louisiana, federal charges were brought against white men who killed dozens of Black citizens. The Supreme Court overturned the convictions, holding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and that the 14th Amendment only restricted state governments, not private individuals.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had outlawed racial discrimination in public accommodations like inns, theaters, and public transport. The Court held that the 14th Amendment only restricts state action, not discrimination by private individuals or businesses.

3) Why It Mattered
This ruling gutted Reconstruction-era civil rights protections and allowed Jim Crow segregation to flourish unchecked for decades.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Homer Plessy, a mixed-race man, challenged Louisiana’s law requiring segregated railway cars. The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that “separate but equal” facilities for Black and white citizens did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

3) Why It Mattered
This case legitimized racial segregation and provided constitutional cover for Jim Crow laws across the South for more than half a century.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was convicted under New York’s criminal anarchy law for publishing a manifesto advocating revolutionary socialism. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction but, for the first time, held that the First Amendment’s free speech protections apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Jane Roe (a pseudonym) challenged a Texas law that criminalized most abortions. The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment encompasses a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The Court established a trimester framework balancing women’s rights with state interests.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Pennsylvania enacted abortion restrictions, including spousal notification, parental consent for minors, and informed consent requirements. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade but replaced the trimester framework with the “undue burden” test: states cannot place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before fetal viability.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Two men were arrested in Texas for engaging in consensual same-sex intimacy under a state sodomy law. The Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that it violated the liberty and privacy rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court explicitly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents challenged the city’s handgun ban after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

3) Why It Mattered
This case incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, ensuring that the right recognized in Heller applied nationwide.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
James Obergefell and other same-sex couples challenged state bans on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses guarantee the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, making marriage equality the law of the land.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Mississippi passed a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, directly challenging Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, upheld the law and explicitly overruled Roe and Casey, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Students for Fair Admissions challenged the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, arguing that their consideration of race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that race-conscious admissions programs at both schools were unconstitutional.

3) Why It Mattered
This decision effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions, overturning decades of precedent (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003) that had allowed limited consideration of race to promote diversity.