What are the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time?

[malkusm]

I'm just legitimately curious what folks here would say. I should be able to rattle them off but I can't bring as many to mind as I'd like.

Edit: I'll try to compile them in the OP as a reference.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens.

Knox v. Lee (1871)

Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), was an important case for its time where the Supreme Court of the United States reversed Hepburn v. Griswold (1870). The Court held that making paper money legal tender through the Legal Tender Act did not conflict with Article One of the United States Constitution.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal."

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I.

Nebbia v. New York (1934)

Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Perry v. United States (1935)

The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld restrictions on the ownership of gold implemented by the administration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to fight the Great Depression. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the opinion for each case, finding the government's power to regulate money a plenary power. As such, the abrogation of contractual gold clauses, both public and private, were within the reach of congressional authority when such clauses presented a threat to Congress's control of the monetary system.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent.

United States v. Alcoa (1945)

Alcoa said that if it was in fact deemed a monopoly, it acquired that position honestly, through outcompeting other companies through greater efficiencies. Hand applied a rule concerning practices that are illegal per se here, saying that it does not matter how Alcoa became a monopoly, since its offense was simply to become one.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[3][4] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere.

Bennis v. Michigan (1996)

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture.
Tina B. Bennis was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile in which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. In declaring the automobile forfeit as a public nuisance under Michigan's statutory abatement scheme, the trial court permitted no offset for petitioner's interest, notwithstanding her lack of knowledge of her husband's activity.

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012)

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

The Supreme Court, in a complex opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld the requirement to buy health insurance—the "individual mandate"—as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress' Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, but they did not join in a single opinion, A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the act, a large expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress' spending power since it unconstitutionally coerced states to accept the expansion or lose their existing Medicaid funding.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Well Roe v Wade is an obvious but I will need some time to fully type up everything that comes to mind.

 

[Travlyr]

Subverting the Constitution by claiming power it does not have ... Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

 

[KnowNothing]

This thread will be awesome, and easy to fill.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a landmark[2][3][4][5] United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for Americans to have health insurance by 2014.[6][7][8][9]

The Supreme Court, in a complex opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld the requirement to buy health insurance—the "individual mandate"—as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress' Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, but they did not join in a single opinion, A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the act, a large expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress' spending power since it unconstitutionally coerced states to accept the expansion or lose their existing Medicaid funding.

 

[James Madison]

Marbury vs. Madison

 

[Occam's Banana]

Just a few right off the top of my head:

- Marbury v. Madison.
- the Alcoa anti-trust case (1950s-ish ?)
- I know some Holmes-court cases should be on any such list, but I can't immediately recall any them off-hand.

 

[Travlyr]

Knox v. Lee (1871)

 

[awake]

The recent EPA ruling.

 

[malkusm]

The recent EPA ruling.

I assume you mean this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

 

[Tod]

Dred Scott

Here are names/explanations for some other court cases which may or may not be the worst ones....

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/top-10-worst-supreme-court/content?oid=5378990

 

[musicmax]

In addition to Wickard v. Filburn and ACA (and I don't buy the idea that Roberts' ruling in the later constitutes a partial reversal of the former), I'd nominate:

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) The Court sanctioned use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, (2012) The Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband. Double bonus points because (a) Mr. Florence was wrongly arrested, and (b) he was arrested not for a crime but for a civil fine (a traffic ticket that he'd actually paid off).

Bennis v. Michigan 1996 Tina Bennis and her husband owned a car, in which Tina’s husband engaged the services of a prostitute. The State of Michigan seized the car as a public nuisance. The Supreme Court determined that the government could take Tina Bennis’ property, without due process or appeal, even though she didn’t know that her property was being used in this way.

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court that the government’s need to protect itself from spies outweighed the civil rights of Fred Korematsu and other innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry. The Court also ducked the chance to address the myriad other civil rights violations that marked the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 The Court upheld a Louisiana law requiring forced segregation by train car on the East Louisiana Railroad. This protected racial discrimination in state laws under the “separate but equal” doctrine, which would remain in place until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Keep in mind, Plessy didn’t just allow for self-segregation or discrimination by private individuals. It expressly upheld the right of states to force segregation upon others.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) The Court declared that all blacks — regardless of whether they were slaves or free men — were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also ruled that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The decision meant that slavery would be constitutionally permitted throughout the entire country and its territories.

 

[Aratus]

chief justice taney's ruling on poor dred scott's petition becuz

it helped to trigger our civil war as it destroyed his reputation.

 

[malkusm]

Dred Scott

Here are names/explanations for some other court cases which may or may not be the worst ones....

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/top-10-worst-supreme-court/content?oid=5378990

Quite a liberal list, particularly their opinion of Lochner v. New York (1905), which to me seems like a good decision. Also, the right of tobacco manufacturers to advertise.

 

[KnowNothing]

I gotta ask. What exactly is the "downfall" of Marbury v. Madison decision? I mean I always thought that it was something that reinforced the third branch of gov't reducing any "surplus" of power in other branches.

SCHOOL ME.

 

[muzzled dogg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

 

[Travlyr]

I gotta ask. What exactly is the "downfall" of Marbury v. Madison decision? I mean I always thought that it was something that reinforced the third branch of gov't reducing any "surplus" of power in other branches.

SCHOOL ME.

It subverted the original intent of the Constitution. The Supreme Court assumed power that was reserved to the States and the People. That decision undermined the checks and balances of government. They still don't have the power of judicial review, but they claim it anyway.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

 

[malkusm]

Bump for other suggestions

 

[Pericles]

Barron v Baltimore - the origin of the notion that the Constitution applied only the federal government and the BoR did not apply to the states - which led to the 14A to overturn this case, Dred Scot, and do other unintended damage.

US v Cruikshank - reenforced Barron above in specifically stating that the 2A applied to the federal government only, and states could prohibit private militias, which had been recognized by the Militia Act of 1792. The SCOTUS not only gutted the BoR, but federal law as well.

 

[Pericles]

It subverted the original intent of the Constitution. The Supreme Court assumed power that was reserved to the States and the People. That decision undermined the checks and balances of government. They still don't have the power of judicial review, but they claim it anyway.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

This line in the decision is the fatal flaw "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." because it was taken to mean that the states were not the final arbiter of whether or not a federal law is constitutional as a power of Article I, Section 8.

The SCOTUS was not intended to have the sole power of declaring a law unconstitutional.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The Alcoa decision wasn't a Supreme Court decision -- it was a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Listing Marbury among cases like Plessy and Kelo is inconsistent. If the Court shouldn't have the power of judicial review, how can you complain when it upholds the actions of legislatures and local governments?

A textual basis for judicial review can be found in the language of Article III, Section 1, which invests "the judicial power of the United States" in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts that Congress might establish. "Judicial power" had historically included declaring what the law is, so it's no stretch to assume it included the power of judicial review. Federalist #78 supports this view:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.