With big historical political actions and movements occurring, we should all set aside time to inform ourselves about the past, present, and future of our so-called “melting pot” of a country. To start us off, I’ve accumulated some lesser-known, but still important, Supreme Court cases to get our historically inclined brain gears going.
- Ex parte Quirin (1942)
-
This case (that wins the best name award) evaluated the constitutionality of trying foreign nationals accused of espionage in a military tribunal.
Back in the days of World War Two, eight Nazi saboteurs were found and captured on U.S. soil. President Roosevelt authorized their trial by military tribunal (meaning they were tried by military court standards rather than civilian court standards) which led to the question of whether this violated their constitutional rights to a fair trial.
The court upheld the use of the military tribunals, reasoning that the enemy combatants, even if they were U.S. residents, did not have the same trial rights in times of war. Thus, threatening the right to a fair trial for all non-white U.S. citizens at the time.
This case set a precedent for how the U.S. treats enemy combatants, influencing policies in the post-9/11 era. It begs the ethical question of whether there should be separate punishment systems for the military when they should be held to the same legal standards as all citizens.
- Missouri v. Jenkins (1990)
-
This case covered the federal authority in addressing school segregation decades after Brown v. Board was proven to have not been fully effective in the integration of schools.
It examined whether a federal judge could order increased local taxes to fund improvements in Kansas City Schools to combat segregation’s lingering effects. They were planning on funding educational improvements to predominantly black schools rather than forcibly busing them to predominantly white magnet schools. The court ruled that federal judges cannot impose taxes but can require local governments to find the funds necessary for remedies.
This highlighted the challenges of enforcing desegregation and balancing federal and local power, thus begging the question of the citizen’s right to delegate where their tax money should go.
- Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
-
SCC v. SPR concerned the issue of whether corporations have the same constitutional rights as individuals.
Sparked by the dispute of where California could tax the railroad properties differently from other businesses because the company sought to exploit public resources while receiving land grants and subsidies from the government. Though the case technically focused on taxation, it became significant for a statement in the headnotes asserting that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to corporations. It’s often cited as the foundation for corporate personhood in the United States though the decision itself did not explicitly make this ruling.
SCC v. SPR played a crucial role in later cases like Citizens United v. FEC, begging the question of whether mass corporations should have more rights than citizens.
- Olmstead v. United States (1928)
-
Olmstead v. U.S. was a case on the issue of privacy rights and the admissibility of wiretapped evidence.
Federal agents had wiretapped Roy Olmstead’s phone without a warrant to gather evidence of illegal bootlegging. Olmstead argued this violated the 4th (which is rarely used in Supreme Court trials) and 5th Amendments. The court ruled against Olmstead stating that wiretapping did not constitute a physical trespass.
This case was later overturned by Katz v. U.S. (1967) but it sparked early debates about privacy rights in an age of technology. This leads us to wonder where our information is going, and if our digital footprint (even if your Instagram account is private) can legally be used against us in court.
- Korematsu v. United States (1944)
-
This was the case that questioned the constitutionality of Japanese-American internment during World War Two.
Fred Korematsu refused to comply with an executive order mandating that all Japanese Americans relocate to internment camps. He argued this violated his rights under the 5th Amendment. The court upheld the internment policy as a necessity of wartime.
Although Korematsu has been widely criticized and effectively overturned in later opinions, it remains a stark reminder of civil liberties’ vulnerability during a crisis, something that should be at the forefront of our minds these days. With many whispers of upcoming war caused by our new President, one must ask how far back we can regress, even to days of internment camps.
- TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (2025)
-
The most recent, but certainly the most bizarre of the cases, TikTok V. Garland is a case that will forever haunt our generation with its outlandishness.
In this case, the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from the Foreign Adversity Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which mandates the sale or ban of TikTok in the U.S. due to national security concerns, was questioned.
PAFACA (enacted in April of 2024) requires foreign-owned applications deemed national security threats to divest the U.S. operations or face a ban. TikTok (owned by Chinese company ByteDance) was directly targeted, with a compliance deadline of Jan. 19th, 2025. TikTok challenged the law, asserting it infringes on 1st Amendment rights by depressing free expression without sufficient justification. Lower courts upheld the law, leading to an expedited Supreme Court review.
The court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of PAFACA, allowing the federal government to enforce the divestiture requirement.
While TikTok remains available in the U.S. due to Trump’s recently issued executive order granting ByteDance an additional 90 days to complete the divestment, there is still the very real possibility it will be banned once more. On a closing note, I feel it’s important to remember this ban, which labeled Trump “the heroic one” by bringing the app back, was enacted by him during his first presidential term.