Case name and year. 

 Opinion by

 Main issue in case        

Type of opinion

Supportive of individual right?

Main clause of 2d Amendment quoted  without  introductory clause?

Spencer v. Kemna. 1998   

 Stevens 

 Article III case or  controversy

Dissent from denial of cert.

Yes, but could possibly be read as referring to rights under state constitutions

No quote

Muscarello v. U.S. 1998   

Ginsburg

 Fed stat. interp.

Dissent

Yes

Partial quote

Printz v. U.S. 1997

Thomas

Federalism

Concur

Says that Miller did not decide the issue. Thomas appears to support individual right.

Full quote

Albright v. Oliver. 1994

Stevens

14th A. and § 1983

Dissent

Yes

Partial quote

Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 1992

O'Connor

14th A.

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

U. S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 1990

Rehnquist

4th A. applied to foreign  national

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Lewis v. U.S. 1980

Blackmun

Interp. of Gun Ctl. Act of 1968

Majority

Ambiguous, but probably not. If an individual right, less fundamental than some others

Full quote

Moore v. East Cleveland. 1976

Powell

14th A

Plurality

Yes. (But contrary opinion expressed by Justice Powell after retirement.)

Partial quote

" "

White

""

Dissent

Yes

Partial quote

Adams v. Williams. 1972

Douglas

4th A.

Dissent

No

Full quote

Roe v. Wade. 1973

Stewart

14th A.

Concur

Yes

Partial quote

Laird v. Tatum. 1972

Douglas

Justiciability

Dissent

Ambiguous

Partial quote

Burton v. Sills. 1969

Per curiam

Challenge to state gun licensing law

Summary affirm.  

Ambiguous

No quote

Duncan v. Louisiana. 1968

Black

Incorporation of 6th Amendment

Concur

Yes

Partial quote

Malloy v. Hogan. 1964

Brennan

Incorporation of 5th Amend.

Majority

Yes

No quote

Konigsberg v. State Bar. 1961

Harlan

1st Amendment

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Poe v. Ullman. 1961

Harlan

14th Amendment

Dissent

Yes

Partial quote

" "

Douglas

" "

Dissent

Yes, but implicitly abandoned in Adams.

No quote

Knapp v. Schweitzer. 1958

Frankfurter

Incorp. of 5th Amendment

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Johnson v. Eisentrager. 1950

Jackson

5th A. applied to trial of enemy soldier

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Adamson v. Calif. 1947

Black

Incorp. of 5th Amendment

 Dissent

Yes

Partial quote

Hamilton v. Regents. 1935

Butler

Conscientious objector

 Majority

No, but not necessarily inconsistent with an individual right.

No quote

U. S. v. Schwimmer. 1929

Butler

Immigration laws

Majority

Ambiguous

Full quote

Stearns v. Wood. 1915

McReynolds

Article III case or controversy

Majority

Ambiguous, since court refuses to hear any of plaintiff's claims

No quote

Twining v. N.J. 1908

Moody

Incorp. of 5th A self-incrim.

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Trono v. U.S. 1905

Peckham

5th A. in the Philippines

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Kepner v. U.S. 1904

Day

" "

Majority

Yes. Same as Trono.

Partial quote

Maxwell v. Dow. 1899

Peckham

Incorp. of 5th A. jury trial

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Robertson v. Baldwin. 1897

Brown

13th Amend. 

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Brown v. Walker. 1896

Field

5th Amend.

Dissent 

Yes

Partial quote

Miller v. Texas. 1894

 Brown

14th Amendment

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Logan v. U.S. 1892

Gray 

Cong. Power from 14th A.

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Presser v. Illinois. 1886

Woods

2d A

Majority

Yes

Full quote

U. S. v. Cruikshank 1876

Waite

Cong. Power under 14th Amendment 

Majority

Yes. A basic human right guaranteed by the Const., like 1st A. rt. of assembly

No quote

Scott v. Sandford. 1857

Taney

Citizenship; Cong. powers over territories.

Majority

Yes

Partial quote

Houston v. Moore. 1820

Story

State powers over militia.

Dissent

Yes, but also supportive of a  state's right. (A later treatise  written by Story is for individual right only.) 

No quote



Share this page:

Kopel RSS feed Click the icon to get RSS/XML updates of this website, and of Dave's articles.

Follow Dave on Twitter.

Kopel's Law & Liberty News. Twice-daily web newspaper collecting articles from Kopel and those whom he follows on Twitter.

Author page on Amazon.

Search Kopel website:

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional rights and public safety.
Donate Now!

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org

Copyright © 2018