# Supreme Court Rulings Hub Map of content for **Supreme Court cases and confirmation events** documented in the KB. The Court is the mechanism through which the conservative legal movement has achieved its most durable policy victories — outcomes that cannot be reversed by elections, executive orders, or congressional majorities without either a constitutional amendment or a future Court willing to overturn precedent. The [[Federalist Society Founding]] (founded 1982) exists to produce the judges who produce these outcomes. The pipeline is: identify sympathetic legal talent → cultivate through clerkships and conferences → nominate → confirm → decide. The cases below are organized into thematic clusters that correspond to the major projects of the conservative judicial agenda. Individual case pages live in `/Policy/Legal Cases/` as `type: court-ruling` — see [[Legal Cases Hub]] for the filing test and the lower-court cases this index does not cover. --- ## Racial Hierarchy and Voting Rights The Court's longest through-line: from constitutionalizing slavery through constitutionalizing segregation through dismantling the legal infrastructure of civil rights enforcement. The pattern identified in [[Dred Scott v. Sandford]] — the Court using constitutional interpretation to protect existing power hierarchies against democratic expansion — recurs across two centuries. | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Dred Scott v. Sandford]] | 1857 | 7–2 | Black people are not and can never be citizens; Congress cannot prohibit slavery in territories | | [[Plessy v. Ferguson]] | 1896 | 7–1 | "Separate but equal" — constitutional sanction for [[Jim Crow Era]] segregation | | [[Brown v. Board of Education]] | 1954 | 9–0 | Overturns Plessy; segregation in public schools unconstitutional | | [[Thornburg v. Gingles]] | 1986 | 9–0 (judgment) | Establishes the three-prong *Gingles* test for Section 2 vote-dilution claims; results, not intent | | [[Shaw v. Reno]] | 1993 | 5–4 | Bizarrely-shaped majority-minority district states an Equal Protection claim; race cannot be "predominant factor" | | [[Shelby County v. Holder]] | 2013 | 5–4 | Guts VRA preclearance (Section 4b/5); voter suppression laws pass within hours | | [[Allen v. Milligan]] | 2023 | 5–4 | Upholds Section 2 and *Gingles* framework; Alabama must draw second majority-Black district — the false reprieve | | [[Louisiana v. Callais]] | 2026 | 6–3 | Rewrites VRA Section 2 to require intent, not effect; majority-minority districts now suspect | | [[Trump v. Barbara]] | 2026 | 6–3 | Upholds birthright citizenship, striking EO 14160; constitutional holding only 5–4, Kavanaugh concurrence offers statutory path to end it | **The arc:** *Dred Scott* (slavery is constitutional) → *Plessy* (segregation is constitutional) → *Brown* (segregation is unconstitutional) → *Shelby County* (the tools enforcing desegregation are unconstitutional) → *Milligan* (brief reprieve: Section 2 upheld) → *Callais* (the tools creating minority representation are unconstitutional). The current Court has not restored *Plessy*, but it has dismantled the enforcement mechanisms that made *Brown*'s promise operational. The redistricting sub-line runs in parallel: *Gingles* (1986, builds the Section 2 vote-dilution framework) → *Shaw v. Reno* (1993, the Equal Protection counter-pressure on majority-minority districts) → *Milligan* (2023, framework upheld) → *Callais* (2026, framework rewritten to require intent). *Shaw*'s "race as predominant factor" test was the tool eventually turned against the very districts *Gingles* made possible. The **citizenship sub-line** runs from the same *Dred Scott* root in the other direction: *Dred Scott* (1857, Black people can never be citizens) → the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] Citizenship Clause (1868, overturning it) → [[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]] (1898, extending *jus soli* to children of immigrants) → *[[Trump v. Barbara]]* (2026, the first serious attempt in over a century to narrow that guarantee — defeated 6–3, but with the constitutional holding surviving only 5–4 and Kavanaugh's concurrence sketching a statutory path to end birthright citizenship by legislation). It is the only case in this section where the current Court's outcome runs *against* the restrictionist project — though narrowly, and with a roadmap left behind. --- ## Dark Money and Corporate Power The campaign-finance and corporate-power line, through which the Court transformed the [[First Amendment]] from a protection of individual speech into a protection of corporate and donor spending. | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Standard Oil Breakup]] | 1911 | 8–1 | Broke up Rockefeller's monopoly; established antitrust as legitimate government power | | [[Buckley v. Valeo]] | 1976 | per curiam | Money = speech; contribution/expenditure distinction; structural foundation for *Citizens United* | | [[First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti]] | 1978 | 5–4 | Corporate political speech protected in ballot measures; doctrinal bridge to *Citizens United* | | [[Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]] | 1990 | 6–3 | Upheld limits on corporate independent expenditures (anti-distortion rationale) — **the precedent *Citizens United* overruled** | | [[McConnell v. FEC]] | 2003 | 5–4 | BCRA upheld; brief high-water mark of campaign-finance deference (later substantially overruled) | | [[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life]] | 2007 | 5–4 | BCRA electioneering-communications restriction narrowed; pre-BCRA "magic words" framework substantially restored | | [[Davis v. FEC]] | 2008 | 5–4 | BCRA Millionaire's Amendment struck down | | [[Citizens United v. FEC]] | 2010 | 5–4 | Corporate independent expenditures are protected speech; unlocks the dark-money infrastructure | | [[SpeechNow.org v. FEC]] | 2010 | 9–0 (D.C. Cir.) | Contribution caps to IE-only committees violate First Amendment — **creates the Super PAC** | | [[Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett]] | 2011 | 5–4 | Struck Arizona's public-financing "matching funds" trigger; kneecaps public-financing schemes built to counter big spending | | [[McCutcheon v. FEC]] | 2014 | 5–4 | Aggregate individual contribution limits struck down; narrows "corruption" definition further | | [[Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta]] | 2021 | 6–3 | Struck California's donor-disclosure requirement; constitutionalizes donor anonymity — a major dark-money shield | The campaign-finance sequence: *Buckley* (1976, spending is speech; independent expenditures by individuals cannot be capped) → *First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti* (1978, corporations have First Amendment rights in ballot measures) → *McConnell* (2003, BCRA briefly upheld) → *Wisconsin Right to Life* (2007, BCRA narrowed) → *Citizens United* (2010, corporations can spend without limit on candidate elections) → *SpeechNow* (2010, D.C. Cir., creates the Super PAC) → *McCutcheon* (2014, aggregate contribution limits struck). Each step follows from *Buckley*'s premise. *Citizens United* is the single most consequential decision for the organizational landscape of the modern right. Without it, SuperPACs, dark-money 501(c)(4)s, and the donor networks documented throughout this KB would not exist in their current form. The full chronological view of this arc — including the statutory framework ([[Tillman Act]], [[Federal Election Campaign Act]], [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]]) and the [[Federal Election Commission]] agency capture — lives in [[Campaign Finance Timeline]]. The Foundations-shelf navigational hub is [[Campaign Finance]]. --- ## Religious Establishment The "religion cases" — a systematic project to redirect public funds to religious institutions, primarily through education. The four decisions from 2002–2025 constitute a step-by-step demolition of church-state separation in public funding. | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Bob Jones University v. United States]] | 1983 | 8–1 | IRS can deny tax exemption to religious schools practicing racial discrimination; government interest in ending discrimination outweighs religious exercise | | [[Zelman v. Simmons-Harris]] | 2002 | 5–4 | School vouchers for religious schools upheld; "neutral" programs with private choice don't violate Establishment Clause | | [[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby]] | 2014 | 5–4 | Free-exercise branch: closely-held for-profit corporations can claim RFRA exemptions from the contraception mandate | | [[Trinity Lutheran v. Comer]] | 2017 | 7–2 | States cannot exclude religious organizations from generally available public benefits based on religious *status* | | [[Espinoza v. Montana]] | 2020 | 5–4 | State Blaine Amendments cannot exclude religious schools from tax-credit scholarship programs | | [[Carson v. Makin]] | 2022 | 6–3 | States cannot exclude religious schools based on religious *use* (i.e., actual religious instruction); completes the status→use transition | | [[St. Isidore Catholic Charter Case]] | 2025 | 4–4 | Whether states may directly fund religious charter schools as public schools; Barrett recused; 4-4 tie sets no national precedent | **The sequence:** *[[Bob Jones]]* (1983) — the government can condition tax benefits on nondiscrimination, even against religious objection. *Zelman* (2002) — public money can flow to religious schools through "neutral" voucher programs. *Trinity Lutheran* (2017) — states cannot exclude religious institutions from public benefits based on religious *status*. *Espinoza* (2020) — state constitutional barriers (Blaine Amendments) to religious school funding are unconstitutional. *Carson* (2022) — states cannot exclude religious schools even when the money funds actual religious instruction. *St. Isidore* (2025) — the logical terminus (religious charter schools as public schools) reached a 4-4 tie, leaving the question unresolved. The arc from *Bob Jones* to *Carson* represents a 40-year inversion: in 1983, the government's interest in nondiscrimination outweighed religious exercise claims. By 2022, religious exercise claims outweigh the state's interest in maintaining secular public education. *Burwell v. Hobby Lobby* (2014) sits on the parallel free-exercise track — extending religious-exemption claims to for-profit corporations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, rather than the establishment/funding question the other cases turn on. --- ## Reproductive Rights | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Roe v. Wade]] | 1973 | 7–2 | Constitutional right to abortion; trimester framework | | [[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]] | 2022 | 6–3 | Overturns Roe; returns abortion regulation to the states | *Dobbs* was the culmination of the 50-year Federalist Society project. The decision was made possible by the three Trump appointees (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) — whose confirmations were themselves made possible by the McConnell-engineered confirmation pipeline documented below. --- ## Economic Liberty and Deregulation The Lochner line: the Court constitutionalizing economic liberty against legislative regulation. Discredited for most of the 20th century, the approach is being rehabilitated by the contemporary conservative legal movement through the major-questions doctrine, the end of Chevron deference, and originalist economic-liberty claims. | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Lochner v. New York]] | 1905 | 5–4 | "Liberty of contract" — struck down bakery worker hour limits; inaugurated Lochner era (~200 regulations struck down, 1905–1937) | | [[West Coast Hotel v. Parrish]] | 1937 | 5–4 | "The switch in time" — upholds minimum wage, overrules *Adkins*, ends the Lochner era of economic-liberty review | | [[West Virginia v. EPA]] | 2022 | 6–3 | Major-questions doctrine; agencies need clear congressional authorization for decisions of "vast economic and political significance" | | [[Loper Bright v. Raimondo]] | 2024 | 6–3 | Overturns *Chevron* deference (*Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*); courts no longer defer to agency statutory interpretation | **The arc:** *Lochner* (1905, economic regulation is unconstitutional) → *West Coast Hotel v. Parrish* (1937, the "switch in time" that abandoned Lochner-era review) → *West Virginia v. EPA* (2022, major-questions doctrine limits agency authority) → *Loper Bright v. Raimondo* (2024, Chevron deference overturned). The contemporary movement has not formally resurrected *Lochner*, but it is rebuilding the same constitutional framework — judicial supremacy over economic regulation — through new doctrinal vehicles. --- ## Second Amendment The gun-rights line: from no individual-right holding for 220 years to a constitutional framework that makes most gun regulation presumptively suspect in 14 years. | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Printz v. United States]] | 1997 | 5–4 | Anti-commandeering doctrine: federal government cannot compel sheriffs to execute Brady Act background checks; becomes constitutional sheriff origin myth | | [[District of Columbia v. Heller]] | 2008 | 5–4 | Individual right to bear arms established; strikes down D.C. handgun ban; Scalia's originalist showcase | | [[McDonald v. Chicago]] | 2010 | 5–4 | Incorporates the *Heller* individual right against the states via the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] | | [[NYSRPA v. Bruen]] | 2022 | 6–3 | Historical-tradition test replaces interest-balancing; strikes down NY concealed-carry law; triggers cascade of lower-court rulings striking down gun regulations | | [[United States v. Rahimi]] | 2024 | 8–1 | First post-*Bruen* correction: DV-restraining-order gun ban upheld; *Bruen* needs a historical principle, not a "twin" | **The sequence:** *Printz* (1997, federal government cannot commandeer state officers for gun regulation) → *Heller* (2008, individual right established) → *McDonald v. Chicago* (2010, right incorporated against states) → *Bruen* (2022, historical-tradition test; any regulation without a founding-era analogue is presumptively unconstitutional). The post-*Bruen* cascade has put domestic-violence restrictions, felon-in-possession laws, age-based purchase limits, and sensitive-places designations in constitutional jeopardy. *Printz*'s anti-commandeering holding, meanwhile, was repackaged by Richard Mack and the CSPOA into the [[Constitutional Sheriff]] doctrine — a far-right ideology with no basis in the actual opinion. --- ## Wartime Executive Power | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Korematsu v. United States]] | 1944 | 6–3 | Japanese American internment upheld; Jackson's "loaded weapon" dissent; never formally overruled | | [[Trump v. Hawaii]] | 2018 | 5–4 | Travel ban upheld on deferential review; formally repudiates *Korematsu* in dicta while (per the dissent) replicating its logic | *Korematsu* is the racial-security through-line: the precedent that national security claims can justify mass deprivation of constitutional rights along racial lines. The structure recurs — Japanese internment → post-9/11 Muslim surveillance → Trump travel ban → 2025 immigration enforcement targeting Latino communities. Roberts's 2018 repudiation of *Korematsu* in *Trump v. Hawaii* was dicta, not a holding; Sotomayor's dissent noted the majority was formally condemning *Korematsu* while replicating its logic. --- ## Elections, Redistricting, and Democratic Machinery | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Bush v. Gore]] | 2000 | 5–4 | Halted Florida recount; awarded presidency to George W. Bush by 537 votes | | [[Rucho v. Common Cause]] | 2019 | 5–4 | Partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable in federal court; removes the federal check on partisan map-drawing | | [[Moore v. Harper]] | 2023 | 6–3 | Rejects the strong [[Independent State Legislature Theory]]; state courts retain review of legislatures' federal-election rules | *Bush v. Gore*'s per curiam opinion included the extraordinary disclaimer that it should not be cited as precedent — an acknowledgment that the reasoning was tailored to produce a specific outcome rather than establish a legal principle. *Rucho v. Common Cause* (2019) extended the Court's hands-off posture from one disputed election to the structure of all of them: by declaring partisan gerrymandering beyond federal-court review, it effectively ratified the [[RedMap Project]] strategy and pushed every map fight into the state courts — the dynamic that drives the [[Redistricting Timeline 2025-2026]]. *Moore v. Harper* (2023) then preserved that state-court backstop by rejecting the strong Independent State Legislature Theory, even as it left a residual federal-oversight hook for future litigants. --- ## Anti-DEI / Affirmative Action / Title IX | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]] | 1978 | 4–1–4 | Strikes racial quotas but allows race as a "plus factor"; Powell's diversity rationale governs for 45 years | | [[Grutter v. Bollinger]] | 2003 | 5–4 | Upholds race-conscious law-school admissions; the high-water mark of the diversity rationale | | [[Fisher v. Texas I and II]] | 2013 / 2016 | 7–1 / 4–3 | Tightens strict scrutiny but preserves *Grutter*; the last time the Court upheld affirmative action | | [[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard]] | 2023 | 6–3 / 6–2 | Ends race-conscious college admissions; "colorblind Constitution"; the legal anchor of the anti-DEI campaign | | [[DOE v. Smith College]] | 2026 | — | Title IX investigation of women's college for admitting transgender women; first application of biological-sex-only interpretation to admissions | **The affirmative-action arc:** *Bakke* (1978, Powell's diversity-rationale compromise) → *Grutter* (2003, the rationale at its peak) → *Fisher I & II* (2013–2016, narrowed but upheld) → *Students for Fair Admissions* (2023, overruled in substance). *SFFA* is the keystone: engineered by [[Edward Blum]] (the same operator behind *Shelby County* and *Fisher*), it supplied the "colorblindness" reasoning that the post-decision campaign extended from admissions to corporate, contracting, and government [[DEI]] and [[Affirmative Action]] programs — operationalized through [[America First Legal]], [[Section 1981]], and [[Executive Order 14173]]. --- ## Sexual Privacy, Marriage, and LGBTQ Rights The substantive-due-process and equal-protection line governing sexual privacy and LGBTQ status — a back-and-forth in which the conservative legal movement lost ground for two decades, then began clawing it back. Case pages currently live in `/Resistance/Legal Frameworks/`. | Case | Year | Vote | What it did | |---|---|---|---| | [[Loving v. Virginia]] | 1967 | 9–0 | Strikes down interracial-marriage bans; the substantive-due-process / equal-protection foundation later built on for marriage | | [[Bowers v. Hardwick]] | 1986 | 5–4 | Upholds criminalization of same-sex intimacy; no constitutional protection for "homosexual sodomy" | | [[Romer v. Evans]] | 1996 | 6–3 | Strikes Colorado's Amendment 2; states cannot single out gay people for across-the-board disfavor | | [[Lawrence v. Texas]] | 2003 | 6–3 | Overrules *Bowers*; criminalizing same-sex intimacy violates substantive due process | | [[United States v. Windsor]] | 2013 | 5–4 | Strikes down DOMA Section 3; federal government must recognize state same-sex marriages | | [[Hollingsworth v. Perry]] | 2013 | 5–4 | Prop 8 defenders lack standing; same-sex marriage resumes in California | | [[Obergefell v. Hodges]] | 2015 | 5–4 | Constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide | | [[Bostock v. Clayton County]] | 2020 | 6–3 | Title VII bars employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity | | [[United States v. Skrmetti]] | 2025 | 6–3 | Upholds state ban on gender-affirming care for minors; declines heightened scrutiny for transgender status | **The arc:** *Bowers* (1986, no protection) → *Romer* (1996, no naked animus) → *Lawrence* (2003, *Bowers* overruled) → *Windsor* (2013, DOMA falls) → *Obergefell* (2015, marriage right) → *Bostock* (2020, employment) marks three decades of expanding protection, all resting on the substantive-due-process foundation laid in *Loving*. *Skrmetti* (2025) is the inflection point in the other direction: by declining heightened scrutiny for transgender status, the current Court signaled the limits of that expansion and gave states latitude the *Obergefell*-era doctrine would have constrained. --- ## The Confirmation Pipeline The cases above are produced by justices who are produced by a pipeline. These events document the pipeline's operation — the political mechanics through which the Federalist Society's preferred candidates reach the bench. | Event | Year | What happened | |---|---|---| | [[Federalist Society Founding]] | 1982 | The organization created to cultivate and credential conservative legal talent | | [[Bork Hearings]] | 1987 | Senate rejects Reagan nominee 58–42; galvanizes conservative legal movement, teaches it to vet for confirmability | | [[Garland Blockade]] | 2016 | McConnell refuses to hold hearings on Obama nominee for 293 days; holds seat open for Trump appointment | | [[Kavanaugh Confirmation]] | 2018 | Confirmed 50–48 despite sexual assault allegations; Manchin sole Democratic yes | | [[Barrett Confirmation Rush]] | 2020 | Confirmed 52–48 eight days before election; fastest confirmation since 1975; zero minority-party votes | **The pipeline logic:** *Bork* (1987) taught the movement that ideological purity must be paired with confirmability. *Garland* (2016) demonstrated that raw procedural power — simply refusing to act — could hold a seat open. *Kavanaugh* (2018) demonstrated that allegations would not derail a nomination if the majority held. *Barrett* (2020) demonstrated that the procedural norm McConnell had invoked to block Garland (let the voters decide) could be abandoned when the calculus changed. The pipeline produced the 6–3 supermajority that decided *Dobbs*, *Callais*, and the religion cases. --- ## The Taney Pattern The recurring structural pattern: the Court using constitutional interpretation to **protect existing power hierarchies against democratic expansion**. | Era | Case | Hierarchy protected | |---|---|---| | Antebellum | *Dred Scott* (1857) | Slaveholder property rights | | [[Gilded Age]] | *Lochner* (1905) | Employer economic dominance | | Jim Crow | *Plessy* (1896) | White supremacist social order | | Wartime | *Korematsu* (1944) | Racial-security state | | Campaign finance | *Buckley* (1976) / *Citizens United* (2010) | Donor-class political spending | | Voting rights | *Shelby County* (2013) | State-level voter suppression | | Redistricting | *Rucho* (2019) | Gerrymandered legislative majorities | | Voting rights | *Callais* (2026) | White-majority district structures | In each case, the Court frames its decision as a neutral application of constitutional principle (states' rights, equal protection, free speech, color-blindness). In each case, the practical effect is to insulate a hierarchical arrangement from democratic challenge. --- ## Cases Referenced but Not Yet Built The following SCOTUS cases are referenced across the vault but do not yet have dedicated Event pages: - *Brnovich v. DNC* (2021) — Narrowed VRA Section 2 vote-denial claims; the companion to *Shelby County* on the time/place/manner side - *[[Trump v. United States]]* (2024) — Presidential immunity for official acts - *303 Creative v. Elenis* (2023) — Free-speech exemption from public-accommodation anti-discrimination law (LGBTQ angle) - *Gratz v. Bollinger* (2003) — Struck Michigan's undergraduate points system; the *Grutter* companion case *(Built 2026-06-05: Moore v. Harper, Students for Fair Admissions, McDonald v. Chicago, Shaw v. Reno, Thornburg v. Gingles, United States v. Rahimi, Trump v. Hawaii, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, Regents v. Bakke, Grutter v. Bollinger, Fisher v. Texas I and II.)* ## See Also - [[Federalist Society]] — The organization that produces the judges who produce these outcomes - [[Federalist Society Founding]] — The 1982 origin event - [[Gerrymandering]] — The redistricting context for the voting rights cases - [[Redistricting Timeline 2025-2026]] — The active redistricting wave shaped by *Callais*