Gonzales v. Raich
545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Opinion Summary
Held that Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown marijuana even where state law permits its use for medical purposes. Under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has the power to regulate local activities that substantially affect interstate commerce in the aggregate.
Related Cases
Schenck v. United States
249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Upheld the Espionage Act conviction of a man distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I. Justice Holmes introduced the 'clear and present danger' test for limiting free speech, stating that 'the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre.' The clear and present danger test was later replaced by the Brandenburg incitement test.
Gideon v. Wainwright
372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Unanimously held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. States must provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford them. Clarence Earl Gideon, who had represented himself and lost, was acquitted at retrial with appointed counsel.
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Struck down a Connecticut statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives by married couples. Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, held that the Bill of Rights contains penumbras and emanations creating a constitutional right to privacy. This right to marital privacy became the foundation for subsequent decisions including Roe v. Wade.
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination requires law enforcement to advise suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation. The now-famous Miranda warnings include the right to remain silent, that statements may be used against the suspect, the right to counsel, and that counsel will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Established the modern incitement test for the First Amendment, holding that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Overruled the earlier 'clear and present danger' test from Schenck, providing the strongest protection for political speech.
Case Information
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Court Level
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Date Decided
- Monday, June 6, 2005
- Citation
- 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- United States Federal