← Back to Gallery

Famous Court Cases

Six US Supreme Court Decisions That Reshaped American Life: From Jim Crow's End to the Roberts Court's Rewrite of the Constitutional Map

"Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
— Chief Justice Earl Warren, Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
6
Landmark Cases
68
Years Spanned
2
Unanimous Rulings
1
Right Overturned
9
Justices Per Bench
1

Brown v. Board of Education — The End of Plessy

347 U.S. 483 • Decided May 17, 1954 • 9–0 • Warren Court

A unanimous Supreme Court led by Earl Warren, just five months on the bench, ruled that "in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place." The decision overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson holding that had legitimized Jim Crow for fifty-eight years. The case bundled five lawsuits from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Implementation took decades; the case itself was an earthquake.

Chief Justice Earl Warren — Author of the Opinion

Born Mar 19, 1891 – Died Jul 9, 1974 • Confirmed Mar 1, 1954

Three-term Republican governor of California, Eisenhower's first appointment to the Court, and the leader of one of the most consequential terms in Supreme Court history. Warren personally lobbied each justice to deliver Brown unanimously, telegraphing that anything less would invite Southern resistance. He wrote the 11-page opinion in plain language so it could be read aloud on the radio.

"We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
— Chief Justice Earl Warren, Brown v. Board of Education, May 17, 1954
🏫
September 1950
Linda Brown Denied Admission
Seven-year-old Linda Brown is denied enrollment at Sumner Elementary, the white school four blocks from her Topeka home. She is required to attend Monroe Elementary, an all-Black school 21 blocks away.
📝
February 28, 1951
NAACP Files in Topeka
The NAACP files Brown v. Board of Education on behalf of 13 parents and 20 children. Twelve other plaintiffs join Oliver Brown as named lead. The case is consolidated with four others from across the country.
🎥
December 9, 1952
First Oral Argument
Thurgood Marshall argues for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; John W. Davis, the most experienced advocate of his generation, argues for South Carolina. The Court divides; Chief Justice Vinson is unable to forge a majority.
September 8, 1953
Death of Chief Justice Vinson
Chief Justice Fred Vinson dies of a heart attack. Justice Felix Frankfurter privately calls his death "the first solid piece of evidence I've ever had that there really is a God." Eisenhower appoints Earl Warren in his place.
December 7–9, 1953
Reargument
The Court orders the case reargued under new Chief Justice Warren. Marshall and Davis face off again. Warren begins privately lobbying each justice toward unanimity, especially the reluctant Stanley Reed of Kentucky.
📣
May 17, 1954
Decision Day
At 12:52 PM Warren reads from the bench: 9–0. "We come then to the question presented... Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race... deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does."
🔬
May 31, 1955
Brown II: "All Deliberate Speed"
The Court issues its remedy: desegregation must occur "with all deliberate speed." The vague phrasing licenses a decade of Southern resistance. Massive Resistance, Little Rock, Prince Edward County's school closures all follow.
Thurgood Marshall

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Chief Counsel and architect of the litigation strategy. Argued Brown twice before the Court. Appointed first Black Supreme Court Justice in 1967.

📝
John W. Davis

The 1924 Democratic presidential nominee and most experienced Supreme Court advocate of his era (140 cases). Argued for segregation in his last case. Lost. Died of cancer the following year.

👩‍🎓
Linda Brown

The 7-year-old Topeka girl whose father Oliver was the named plaintiff. She lived to see the case's 60th anniversary; died in 2018 aged 75.

👑
President Eisenhower

Privately disapproved of the decision and refused to endorse it. Called the Warren appointment "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made." Eventually sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock in 1957.

📚
Outcome: Constitutional Earthquake, Slow Compliance
Brown legally ended de jure school segregation but did not enforce desegregation; that took the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and decades of federal court oversight. Many Southern districts technically remained segregated until the late 1960s. Brown is universally regarded as the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century.

Comparison Across the Six

Brown is the case the others are measured against. Like Loving and Miranda it expanded constitutional rights through the 14th Amendment. Like Roe it generated decades of resistance. Unlike Citizens United and Dobbs, it overturned a precedent (Plessy) to expand rather than contract individual liberty. Unanimity gave it institutional legitimacy that no contemporary 5–4 decision could match.

2

Miranda v. Arizona — The Right to Remain Silent

384 U.S. 436 • Decided June 13, 1966 • 5–4 • Warren Court

Ernesto Miranda, a 23-year-old labourer with an eighth-grade education and a long arrest record, was interrogated for two hours in 1963 by Phoenix detectives without a lawyer present and without being told he could remain silent. He confessed and was convicted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial questioning. Every American police drama begins from this rule.

🔒

Chief Justice Earl Warren — Author

Decision Issued: June 13, 1966 • Five-justice majority

Twelve years after Brown, Warren wrote his second great rights-revolution opinion. The Court was now bitterly divided: Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas joined; Clark, Harlan, Stewart, and White dissented. Justice Harlan called the rule "a hazardous experimentation" with public safety. Warren took as his model the FBI's existing internal practice of warning suspects.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."
— Standard Miranda warning, derived from the 1966 opinion. Warren's draft did not specify exact wording; the warning above became the standard police adaptation.
🚒
March 13, 1963
Arrest at Home
Phoenix police arrest Ernesto Miranda at his home in connection with a kidnapping and rape. He is taken to the station and identified by the victim in a lineup.
March 13, 1963
Two-Hour Interrogation
Miranda is interrogated by Detectives Cooley and Young for two hours without a lawyer. He signs a typewritten confession. The form contains a printed paragraph stating his rights were known — but no one read it to him.
June 27, 1963
Conviction in Maricopa County
Miranda is convicted of kidnapping and rape based on the confession. He is sentenced to 20–30 years in prison. Court-appointed attorney Alvin Moore had objected to the confession's admission — preserving the issue for appeal.
📚
November 22, 1965
Cert Granted
The Supreme Court agrees to hear Miranda's appeal alongside three other cases (Vignera, Westover, and Stewart) raising the same issue: must police warn suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation?
🎥
February 28 & March 1, 1966
Oral Argument
Miranda is represented by John Flynn of Phoenix; Arizona by Gary Nelson. Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall (himself a former Brown advocate) does not file in support of either side — the case is too divisive within the federal government.
🔕
June 13, 1966
Decision: 5–4 for Miranda
Warren writes for the majority. Police must inform suspects of: (1) the right to remain silent; (2) that statements can be used against them; (3) the right to an attorney; (4) appointment of counsel if indigent. Justice Harlan reads his dissent from the bench — "fairly perplexing."
🍺
January 31, 1976
Miranda's Death
Miranda — whose conviction was sustained at retrial without his confession — is stabbed to death in a Phoenix bar fight. The suspect is arrested and read his Miranda rights. He invokes them and is released.
👨
Ernesto Miranda

The defendant. Reconvicted at retrial without his original confession. Stabbed to death in 1976 at age 34. Allegedly his killer was read Miranda warnings.

John Flynn & John Frank

Phoenix attorneys who took Miranda's appeal pro bono. Frank had clerked for Justice Hugo Black in 1942; he drew on that experience in framing the Fifth Amendment argument.

📝
Justice John Marshall Harlan II

Author of the principal dissent. Warned that Miranda would "produce a serious handicap" for law enforcement and that the warnings "voluntary or coerced... will plague the law for years."

📖
Justice William Brennan

Drafted memos urging Warren to make the warnings more concrete and less optional. His private memo to Warren of May 11, 1966, helped shape the four-part formulation.

📱
Outcome: Universal in American Police Procedure
By 1968 every American police force had adopted some version of the Miranda warning. Dickerson v. United States (2000) reaffirmed the rule against a Republican statutory challenge. Vega v. Tekoh (2022) limited civil enforcement but left the rule itself intact. The phrase "you have the right to remain silent" entered global vernacular through Hollywood; Miranda is arguably the most-quoted Supreme Court ruling in popular culture.

Comparison Across the Six

Miranda is part of the same Warren Court rights revolution as Brown, Loving, and Gideon. Like Brown it relied on incorporation of Bill of Rights protections through the 14th Amendment. Unlike Brown it was 5–4 and politically vulnerable, prompting decades of attempts to weaken it. Yet by 2000 it had become embedded in police practice in a way Roe never quite did in medical practice.

3

Loving v. Virginia — The Right to Marry

388 U.S. 1 • Decided June 12, 1967 • 9–0 • Warren Court

Mildred Jeter, of African and Indigenous descent, and Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, married in Washington D.C. in June 1958 because Virginia's "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" forbade their marriage. Returning home to Caroline County they were arrested at 2 AM in their bedroom. Sentenced to a year in prison — suspended on condition they leave Virginia for 25 years — the Lovings spent nine years pursuing their case before a unanimous Court ended anti-miscegenation laws in sixteen states.

💍

Mildred and Richard Loving — Plaintiffs

Married June 2, 1958 • Arrested July 11, 1958 • Vindicated June 12, 1967

Mildred (1939–2008) and Richard (1933–1975) had grown up together in racially mixed Central Point, Virginia. Mildred wrote to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in 1963 about their case; Kennedy referred her to the ACLU, which provided counsel. Mildred reluctantly accepted activism; Richard preferred to stay quiet. He was killed by a drunk driver in 1975; Mildred lived another 33 years and saw her case cited in support of same-sex marriage in Obergefell.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
— Chief Justice Earl Warren, Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967
💍
June 2, 1958
Marriage in Washington D.C.
Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving travel to Washington to marry, evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. They return to Caroline County and hang their marriage license on the bedroom wall.
🚒
July 11, 1958
Bedroom Arrest
At 2 AM Sheriff R. Garnett Brooks and his deputies break into the Lovings' bedroom on a tip. They flash a torch at the marriage certificate. Brooks tells Richard, "That's no good here." They are arrested for "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."
January 6, 1959
Plea and Banishment
Judge Leon Bazile sentences each to one year in jail, suspended for 25 years on condition they leave Virginia. They move to Washington D.C., where Mildred is unhappy and Richard pines for the country.
June 1963
Mildred's Letter
Mildred writes to Attorney General Robert Kennedy describing their plight. Kennedy's office refers her to the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU lawyer Bernard Cohen takes the case, joined by Philip Hirschkop.
📝
January 22, 1965
Bazile's Notorious Ruling
On reconsideration Judge Bazile writes: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
🎥
April 10, 1967
Oral Argument at the Supreme Court
Cohen and Hirschkop argue for the Lovings; R.D. McIlwaine III for Virginia. Richard sends a message via Cohen: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia."
🎉
June 12, 1967
Decision: Unanimous for the Lovings
Warren writes for a 9–0 Court striking down anti-miscegenation laws in 16 states under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Lovings return to Virginia. They build a house and raise three children.
Bernard Cohen & Philip Hirschkop

The two ACLU lawyers who argued Loving. Cohen was 32, Hirschkop 30. Hirschkop made the equal-protection argument; Cohen the due-process argument. Both lived to see Obergefell cite their case.

Judge Leon Bazile

The Caroline County trial judge whose 1965 reconsideration opinion (the "Almighty God" passage) became national evidence of segregationist theology and helped propel the case to the Supreme Court.

👩
Mildred Loving

The reluctant plaintiff. Lived to issue a 2007 statement on the 40th anniversary supporting same-sex marriage: "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."

👨
Richard Loving

The bricklayer-husband. Killed June 1975 by a drunk driver in Caroline County. Mildred lost her right eye in the same crash. He is buried near their original homestead.

💍
Outcome: Sixteen State Bans Struck Down
Loving immediately invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in sixteen states (mostly the former Confederacy plus Oklahoma and West Virginia). Alabama did not formally remove its dead-letter ban from its state constitution until 2000. The case became the principal precedent cited in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) for same-sex marriage. Mildred lived to see that connection drawn.

Comparison Across the Six

Loving paired with Brown forms the high noon of the Warren Court's equal-protection revolution: the same logic that desegregated schools desegregated marriage. Like Brown it was unanimous; like Roe it located a fundamental "right to marry" in the 14th Amendment. Unlike Roe and Dobbs, no later Court has come close to disturbing it; the personal happiness of Mildred and Richard Loving made the principle hard to attack.

4

Roe v. Wade — The Constitutional Right to Abortion

410 U.S. 113 • Decided January 22, 1973 • 7–2 • Burger Court

"Jane Roe" was Norma McCorvey, an unmarried 22-year-old Texan unable to obtain an abortion under the state's 1854 ban. Texas attorneys Sarah Weddington (26) and Linda Coffee (28) filed a class action in 1970. The Burger Court, by a 7–2 vote, located a "right to privacy" in the Fourteenth Amendment broad enough to include the choice to terminate a pregnancy. Justice Blackmun, who as a former counsel to the Mayo Clinic had spent the summer of 1972 in its medical library, wrote the trimester framework.

Justice Harry Blackmun — Author of the Opinion

Born November 12, 1908 – Died March 4, 1999

Nixon's third appointment, confirmed unanimously in 1970. A Republican from Minnesota and former Mayo Clinic general counsel. Spent two weeks of summer 1972 reading medical literature in the Mayo library before writing Roe. The opinion's medicalized, trimester-by-trimester framework reflects that research. Blackmun received hundreds of thousands of pieces of hate mail and death threats over his remaining 21 years on the bench.

"This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
— Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973
📝
March 1970
Coffee & Weddington File in Dallas
Sarah Weddington (26) and Linda Coffee (28) file a class-action complaint in the Northern District of Texas on behalf of "Jane Roe" challenging the 1854 Texas abortion ban.
June 17, 1970
Three-Judge Panel Strikes Texas Law
The federal three-judge district panel rules the Texas statute unconstitutional but declines to enjoin its enforcement. Both sides appeal directly to the Supreme Court — the procedural mechanism that gets Roe on the docket so quickly.
🎥
December 13, 1971
First Oral Argument
Weddington argues for Roe; Texas Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd opens for the state with the regrettable line, "It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word." The Court is unimpressed and short-staffed (only seven justices).
📚
Summer 1972
Blackmun in the Mayo Library
Justice Blackmun, drafting the opinion, spends two weeks at the Mayo Clinic's medical library researching the history of abortion regulation, fetal viability, and obstetric medicine. The trimester framework emerges from this research.
🎥
October 11, 1972
Reargument with Full Court
With Powell and Rehnquist now confirmed, the case is reargued before the full nine-justice Court. Weddington argues again; Texas's Robert Flowers replaces Floyd.
🔬
January 22, 1973
Decision: 7–2 for Roe
Blackmun delivers the 7–2 opinion. White and Rehnquist dissent. The decision establishes a trimester framework: states cannot prohibit abortion in the first trimester; may regulate to protect maternal health in the second; may prohibit (with health/life exception) in the third.
📚
June 29, 1992
Casey Reaffirms but Modifies
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 5–4, reaffirms the "essential holding" of Roe but replaces the trimester framework with the "undue burden" standard. The plurality is written by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter — all Republican appointees.
Sarah Weddington

Argued and won Roe at age 26 — the youngest person to argue and win a Supreme Court case at the time. Later a Texas state legislator and aide to President Carter. Died 2021.

📝
Linda Coffee

Co-counsel and Weddington's law-school classmate. Drafted the original complaint. Largely retreated from public life after Roe; lives quietly in rural Texas.

👩
Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe")

The plaintiff. Never had the abortion the case was filed to obtain — she carried to term and gave the child up for adoption in 1970. Later became an anti-abortion activist; in a 2020 documentary said she had been paid by anti-abortion groups for her testimony.

Justice Byron White

Author of the principal Roe dissent. Called it "an exercise of raw judicial power... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment." Lived to see Casey reaffirm Roe in 1992.

🌓
Outcome: 49 Years of Federal Constitutional Right; Then Reversed
Roe legalized first-trimester abortion nationwide and shaped American constitutional law and politics for half a century. It was reaffirmed in Webster (1989), Casey (1992), and Whole Woman's Health (2016). Casey replaced its trimester framework with the "undue burden" standard. Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned both. Of the six cases on this page, only Roe has been formally reversed.

Comparison Across the Six

Roe sits uneasily among the six. Like Brown, Loving, and Miranda it expanded individual liberty against state power; like Obergefell it grounded that liberty in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. But unlike them it provoked an organized half-century counter-movement that culminated in Dobbs — the only direct repeal of one case on this page by another.

5

Citizens United v. FEC — Money as Speech

558 U.S. 310 • Decided January 21, 2010 • 5–4 • Roberts Court

Citizens United, a conservative non-profit, produced a 90-minute documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary campaign and wanted to distribute it through video-on-demand. The Federal Election Commission ruled this an "electioneering communication" subject to the McCain-Feingold Act's restrictions. The Roberts Court — in a 5–4 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy — held that political spending by corporations and unions is protected First Amendment speech. The decision created the modern Super PAC.

💵

Justice Anthony Kennedy — Author of the Opinion

Born July 23, 1936 • Confirmed February 3, 1988

Reagan's third nominee, confirmed only after Bork's defeat and Ginsburg's withdrawal. Kennedy was the Court's most consistent First Amendment expansionist. The Citizens United majority joined him: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito. Stevens dissented in a 90-page opinion he read for 20 minutes from the bench — one of his last acts before retirement. The case was reargued at Roberts's direction to address the broader question of corporate political speech, surprising the parties.

"Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
— Justice Anthony Kennedy, Citizens United v. FEC, January 21, 2010
🎥
January 2008
Hillary: The Movie
Citizens United produces the 90-minute documentary attacking Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary campaign. They plan to distribute it via DirecTV video-on-demand. The FEC declares this an "electioneering communication" that violates the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
January 15, 2008
D.C. District Court Rules for FEC
A three-judge panel rules against Citizens United, finding the film "susceptible to no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office." Citizens United appeals.
🎥
March 24, 2009
First Oral Argument
Theodore Olson argues for Citizens United; Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart for the FEC. Stewart concedes that the government's logic could extend to banning books that mention candidates — an admission that shocks the Court and shapes the outcome.
📝
June 29, 2009
Reargument Ordered
The Court orders an extraordinary reargument and broadens the question to whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. FEC (2003) should be overruled. The signal is unmistakable.
🎥
September 9, 2009
Reargument with Solicitor General Kagan
Newly confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues for the government in her first Supreme Court case. Olson argues again for Citizens United. Both major precedents are now openly on the table.
📝
January 21, 2010
Decision: 5–4 for Citizens United
Kennedy writes for the majority overruling Austin and parts of McConnell. Stevens reads his dissent from the bench: "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
💵
January 27, 2010
State of the Union Confrontation
Six days after the decision, President Obama, with Justice Alito sitting in the front row, criticizes Citizens United from the State of the Union podium. Alito visibly mouths "Not true." It is the most public Court–President clash in recent memory.
Theodore B. Olson

Former Solicitor General who argued Bush v. Gore for Bush. Argued Citizens United for the plaintiff. Later argued Hollingsworth v. Perry for marriage equality — an unusual ideological combination.

Justice John Paul Stevens

Author of the 90-page principal dissent. The 89-year-old justice retired four months after the decision; the dissent was effectively his valedictory. He continued to denounce the case in his post-retirement writings.

📝
Elena Kagan

Argued the government's losing case as Solicitor General. Was nominated to the Supreme Court four months later, succeeding Stevens. Has dissented in subsequent campaign-finance cases.

👨
David Bossie

President of Citizens United, the organization. A long-time conservative activist who later became deputy campaign manager for Donald Trump in 2016.

💵
Outcome: The Super PAC Era
Within weeks the D.C. Circuit's SpeechNow.org v. FEC decision (March 2010) extended Citizens United to give birth to the modern Super PAC, which can accept unlimited corporate, union, or individual contributions. By the 2024 cycle, Super PAC spending exceeded $4 billion. Public confidence in the Court's neutrality on campaign finance has been a casualty; Gallup polling shows the case opposed by ~70% of Americans across party lines.

Comparison Across the Six

Citizens United is the only one of the six in which the Court expanded the rights of an institution — the corporation — rather than of an individual. Like Roe and Dobbs it was 5–4 and provoked organized backlash. Unlike the Warren Court cases, it overturned precedent (Austin, McConnell) to constrict, rather than expand, government regulation. It is the Roberts Court signature decision before Dobbs.

6

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health — The Reversal

597 U.S. 215 • Decided June 24, 2022 • 6–3 • Roberts Court

Mississippi's 2018 Gestational Age Act banned most abortions after 15 weeks — deliberately defying Roe and Casey. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the state's last abortion clinic, sued. The Roberts Court used the case to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey outright. Justice Alito's draft opinion was leaked to Politico on May 2, 2022 — the most consequential leak in Supreme Court history. The final opinion, issued seven weeks later, returned abortion regulation to the states.

📚

Justice Samuel Alito — Author of the Opinion

Born April 1, 1950 • Confirmed January 31, 2006

George W. Bush's second nominee, confirmed 58–42. Alito had argued in his Reagan-era Justice Department job application that he was "particularly proud" of his work that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Thirty-seven years later he wrote the opinion overturning Roe. The majority: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett. Roberts concurred in the judgment but would have upheld the 15-week ban without overturning Roe outright.

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have inflamed debate and deepened division."
— Justice Samuel Alito, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, June 24, 2022
📚
March 19, 2018
Mississippi Enacts the 15-Week Ban
Mississippi's Gestational Age Act bans almost all abortions after 15 weeks — well below the viability line of roughly 24 weeks established by Roe and reaffirmed in Casey. The state openly invites a constitutional challenge.
November–December 2018
District Court & Fifth Circuit Strike Law
A federal district court strikes down the Act as a clear violation of Casey's viability rule; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms. Mississippi petitions the Supreme Court.
📑
May 17, 2021
Cert Granted
After holding the petition for nine months, the Court grants certiorari on the single question whether all bans on pre-viability abortion are unconstitutional — signaling its willingness to revisit Roe's viability line.
🎥
December 1, 2021
Oral Argument
Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart argues for the state; U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Julie Rikelman argue against. The conservative justices' questioning makes it clear that Casey, not just the viability line, is in jeopardy.
📧
May 2, 2022
The Politico Leak
Politico publishes Alito's full 98-page draft majority opinion overturning Roe — the first time in modern history the full text of an unissued Supreme Court opinion has been leaked. The Court launches an internal investigation but never identifies the leaker.
📚
June 24, 2022
Decision: Roe and Casey Overturned
By 6–3 the Court upholds Mississippi's law; by 5–4 it overturns Roe and Casey altogether. Roberts concurs in the judgment alone. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent jointly: "With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent."
🌍
2022–2024
Trigger Bans Take Effect
Within 100 days, 13 states' "trigger laws" take effect. By mid-2024, 21 states have substantially banned or sharply limited abortion. Voters in Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, and elsewhere approve constitutional amendments protecting abortion rights at the state level.
👩‍⚖️
Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Co-author of the joint dissent. Asked at oral argument: "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?"

Chief Justice John Roberts

Concurred in the judgment but not the holding overturning Roe. Tried unsuccessfully to broker a narrower ruling that would uphold the 15-week ban without disturbing Roe. The first time he failed to control a major Roberts Court outcome.

📚
Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Confirmed 8 days before the 2020 election, replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Provided the decisive fifth vote to overturn Roe. The case had been called — even by Roberts — "a clear constitutional shift" without her appointment.

📢
Diane Derzis

Owner of Jackson Women's Health Organization, "the Pink House," Mississippi's last abortion clinic. The clinic closed days after Dobbs. Derzis has since opened a new clinic in New Mexico to serve Mississippi patients.

🌍
Outcome: Reversion to a Pre-1973 Map
Dobbs returned abortion regulation to the states for the first time in 49 years. By 2024, an estimated 25 million women of reproductive age live in states with substantial abortion bans. Voter referenda in red and purple states have overwhelmingly favoured abortion rights, complicating the political picture. The decision is the only direct repeal of one case on this page (Roe) by another. It is also the first time in modern history the Court has formally taken a constitutional right away.

Comparison Across the Six

Dobbs is the rarity in this gallery: the Court's reversal of one of its own rights expansions. It mirrors Citizens United in being a 5–4 ideological decision of the Roberts Court, but is the more consequential because it directly removed an established right. Where Brown, Loving, Miranda, and Roe expanded the constitutional protection of the individual against the state, Dobbs returned that protection to the political process — the doctrinal pole opposite of the Warren Court tradition.

Comparative Analysis

CaseYearVoteAuthorCourtDirectionStatus
Brown v. Board19549–0WarrenWarrenExpanded equalityStanding precedent
Miranda v. Arizona19665–4WarrenWarrenExpanded due processStanding (limited 2022)
Loving v. Virginia19679–0WarrenWarrenExpanded libertyStanding precedent
Roe v. Wade19737–2BlackmunBurgerExpanded privacyOverturned in 2022
Citizens United v. FEC20105–4KennedyRobertsExpanded corporate speechStanding precedent
Dobbs v. Jackson20226–3 / 5–4AlitoRobertsRemoved privacy rightStanding precedent

Key Patterns in 70 Years of Landmark Rulings

The 14th Amendment

Five of the six cases (all but Citizens United) turn on the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The Reconstruction-era amendment, drafted to protect freed slaves, became the source of nearly every modern individual-rights doctrine.

Unanimity Then Polarization

Brown and Loving were 9–0; Miranda 5–4; Roe 7–2; Citizens United 5–4; Dobbs 6–3. The arc traces the Court's decline from broadly bipartisan civil-rights consensus toward openly partisan division.

The Warren Court

Three of the six (Brown, Miranda, Loving) come from the 16-year Warren Court (1953–69). No subsequent Court has so consistently expanded individual rights, and the 21st-century Roberts Court is in many respects defined by its rollback of Warren-era doctrines.

The Cycle of Overruling

Brown overturned Plessy (1896). Dobbs overturned Roe (1973). The Court occasionally reverses itself; usually the direction is toward broader liberty. Dobbs is the conspicuous 21st-century exception — the first reversal that has constricted, not expanded, individual rights.

The Personal Becomes Constitutional

Brown bore Linda Brown's name; Loving the Lovings'; Roe Norma McCorvey's pseudonym; Dobbs Mississippi's Health Officer's. Behind every constitutional principle is a particular human story — and increasingly the cases are publicly fought as such.

The Democratic Counter-Reaction

Several of the cases provoked decades of organized resistance: Massive Resistance after Brown; the Right to Life movement after Roe; campaign-finance reform efforts after Citizens United; ballot-initiative protection of abortion rights after Dobbs. The Court's word is rarely the last word.

Interactive Mega Timeline — Six Decisions Compared

Drag to pan • Scroll to zoom • Hover events for details