 Albert Wiley v. Moses Keokuk (1869) |
|
In this case, Moses Keokuk, a chief of the Sac and Fox Nation, successfully used habeas corpus to free himself from the arrest and detention of a U.S. Indian Agent after he left the Sac and Fox reservation without authorization. When a lower court ordered his release, the agent appealed the case to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, acknowledging the mobility and autonomy of Native Americans.
|
| Ann v. Henry Hight (1816) |
|
Ann was a Black woman indentured by a man who took her from Maryland to Illinois and finally into Missouri, contrary to an Illinois law that required the consent of the servant if they were taken beyond the state's borders. Upon her employer's death, the executor of his estate, Henry Hight, claimed her as a slave for life. Ann petitioned for her freedom in a Missouri court and won.
|
| Ann Williams, Ann Maria Williams, Tobias Williams, & John Williams v. George Miller & George Miller Jr. (1832) |
|
In this successful freedom suit, a mother petitioned for her freedom and that of her three children. While her claim for freedom was not recorded in the documents filed with the court, it was likely on the basis of Maryland's ban on the importation of enslaved people for the purpose of being sold. Ann Williams had been brought into the District of Columbia in 1815 to be sold south to Georgia. In response to the impending sale, 24 year old Ann leapt from the attic of the three-story tavern owned by George Miller. Her arms and back were broken in the fall, and she was purchased by the tavern keeper for $5. The jury in her case rendered a verdict for her freedom and that of her children.
|
| Applegate v. Luke (1927) |
|
After the Phillips County Chancery Court struck down Arkansas' Alien Land Act of 1925 as unconstitutional, Attorney General H. W. Applegate appealed the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Justice T. H. Humphreys upheld the lower court's ruling, arguing that the alien land law violated Section 20 of the the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution.
|
| Arch v. Barnabas Harris (1818) |
|
This freedom suit illustrates how enslaved people presented a fundamental issue in the legal system. The central question in Arch's case was a question between personal liberty, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, versus a right to personal property, also enshrined in the Declaration.
|
| Aspisa v. Hardage Lane (1837) |
|
In this freedom suit, Aspisa sued for her freedom, arguing that her mother's residence in the free Northwest Territory before being taken to St. Louis where Aspisa was born entitled her to her freedom. Aspisa had filed previously against former enslavers including Joseph Rosati, the first Bishop of Saint Louis. A jury decided in favor of Aspisa's freedom in 1839, however, in a subsequent trial, the court determined her status was enslaved.
|
| Baker v. Nelson (1972) |
|
Baker v. Nelson was first same-sex marriage case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court, stating that the case did not bring forward "a substantial federal question." This case reflects the lack of thought given to LGBTQ+ rights in 1972.
|
| Batson v. Kentucky (1986) |
|
The Supreme Court reinforced the precedent set in Strauder v. West Virginia and Swain v. Alabama by ruling that racial discrimination in selecting jurors deprives the defendant of their rights during the trial and denies the broader public faith in the fairness of our justice system.
|
| Charles Mahoney v. John Ashton (1791) |
|
This freedom suit was based on the claim that the petitioner was descended from a free Black woman who was an indentured servant when she arrived in colonial Maryland from England. Mahoney's attorneys invoked the Somerset principle, 18th century British case law, and even the Declaration of Independence to secure his freedom, but after three jury trials, Mahoney remained enslaved.
|
| Charlotte Dupee, Charles, & Mary Ann v. Henry Clay (1829) |
|
In this freedom suit, Charlotte Dupee sought to claim freedom for herself and her children from Henry Clay, the outgoing Secretary of State and leading Whig Senator from Kentucky. While the courts did find in her favor, Charlotte continued to resist her enslavement until she and her daughter Mary Ann were ultimately manumitted 1840.
|
| Clark v. Board of School Directors (1868) |
|
In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the segregation of students based on race was unconstitutional. It was the first and only 19th century court to overturn school segregation.
|
| Coger v. The North Western Union Packet Co. (1873) |
|
In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a steamboat company's removal of a Black woman from its dining table violated her constitutional right of equality under Iowa's constitution, relying heavily on the Court's earlier decision in Clark v. Board of School Directors. This case came nearly 100 years before the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States that upheld Title II of the newly passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations.
|
| Commonwealth of Virginia v. Quander (1874) |
|
Newspaper coverage from the Alexandria Gazette in 1874, reporting on the court cases of Felix and Julia Quander. The married couple were charged with resisting the efforts of Fairfax County constables executing a warrant for the seizure of cattle belonging to the Quanders. Felix, Julia, and their four children were all arrested, brought before a justice, and bailed for further examination. Two months later, Felix and Julia's cases were brought before the Fairfax County Court, where Julia was found not guilty of assault and battery, and Felix was fined $10.
|
| Criminal Docket, Sweetwater County Rock Springs Precinct, September 1885 |
|
A Coroner’s Inquest investigated the murders of Chinese mine workers in Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory, in September 1885. While 16 white miners were arrested for participation in the massacre, no one was ever held legally responsible.
|
| Dorinda v. John Simonds Jr. (1826) |
|
In this case, an enslaved woman named Dorinda sued for her freedom in a Missouri court, claiming she had become free due to being taken to reside in Illinois for a time. While her suit was pending, Dorinda wrote to her attorney with concerns that her enslaver had violated the court's order not to remove her from its jurisdiction. Her suit was eventually dismissed, and it is unknown whether she was able to obtain her freedom.
|
| Dow v. United States (1915) |
|
In Dow v. United States, the Court of Appeals ruled that people from Southwest Asia could be considered white and were eligible for citizenship. This decision came seven years before the Supreme Court ruled that migrants from Japan and India were not white enough to be eligible for citizenship.
|
| Edward Gantt v. Thomas Baldwin (1836) |
|
This case centers on the whereabouts of a mixed race woman named Fanny who was enslaved by Edward Gantt. Gantt claimed that while aboard a steamboat captained by Thomas Baldwin, Fanny went missing. Gantt brought an action in trover against Baldwin to recover the monetary value of Fanny, $1,500. Witnesses deposed on behalf of Baldwin claimed that no such woman was ever on board, and also described the people of color who worked on the boat as well as those enslaved by passengers.
|
| George Quander versus the Law (1897-1908) |
|
George Quander was the nephew of Felix Quander. Like his uncle, George had run-ins with Fairfax County officials, culminating in 1908, when he was shot and killed by a deputy sheriff serving a warrant. The Alexandria Gazette is unsympathetic in its coverage of George Quander's encounters with the court, its officers, and the racist white citizens of Fairfax County.
|
| Hundley v. Gorewitz (1942) |
|
In this case, a federal court struck down a restrictive covenant in Washington, D.C., under the "change of neighborhood" doctrine which allowed a court to declare a restrictive covenant unenforceable if the neighborhood had changed to the point that the original purpose of the covenant had been defeated. In the Hundleys' case, NAACP lawyer Charles Hamilton Houston persuaded the court that the neighborhood was already becoming predominantly Black. These private agreements that prohibited the sale or rental of land to non-white individuals were intended to maintain residential segregation. Restrictive covenants were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).
|
| In re Halladjian et al. (1909) |
|
In this case, a Massachusetts circuit court ruled that people from West Asia were so intermixed with Europeans that the Armenian plaintiffs should be considered white and admitted to U.S. citizenship.
|
| In the Matter of Elizabeth Denison, James Denison, Scipio Denison, and Peter Denison, Jr. (1807) |
|
Elizabeth, James, Scipio, and Peter Denison Jr. filed a writ of habeas corpus, seeking their freedom from Catherine Tucker based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. Their enslaver claimed ownership based on Jay's Treaty, which allowed settlers of this territory to hold property of any kind, including enslaved people. While the courts eventually decided in favor of Tucker, the Denisons escaped into Canada, taking advantage of a doctrine that there was no obligation to give up fugitives from a foreign jurisdiction. They eventually returned to Michigan Territory and lived as freedmen.
|
| In the Matter of Hannah and Biddy and their children on Petition for Habeas Corpus (1856) |
|
In the decision in this case, a California judge ruled that Biddy Mason and her three children, as well as a woman named Hannah and her nine children and grandchildren, were "free forever" after their enslaver brought them into the free state of California to reside.
|
| In the Matter of Julia alias Mary Ann on Habeas Corpus (1836) |
|
In 1834, Julia successfully filed a freedom suit in St. Louis. Two years later, her mother, having secured her own freedom, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Julia, claiming that she was still being held by her former enslavers. When Julia was presented to the court, the writ was discharged, the court "being satisfied that she is contented with her situation, and does not wish to exchange it."
|
| In the Matter of Ralph on Habeas Corpus (1839) |
|
Ralph was an enslaved Black man who made an agreement with his Missouri enslaver to purchase his freedom. In order to earn the sum, Ralph was permitted to move to Dubuque in order to work in the lead mines. When he failed to pay the money after several years, his enslaver came to Dubuque with the intention of taking Ralph back to Missouri. Ralph appeared before the Court on a writ of habeas corpus, where the Court found that as slavery was prohibited in Iowa Territory, he was entitled to his freedom. This case was the first case heard by the Supreme Court of Iowa.
|
| In the Matter of the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Elizabeth Bird (1867) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Elizabeth Bird shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, Bird argued that she was made the legal guardian of Missouri Bird, a ten year old child, by the child's mother, and claimed that Missouri was being confined to the house of Frances Pattmore. Pattmore responded that Missouri's presence in her house was of her own free will. The court awarded custody of Missouri to Pattmore.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Agnes Smith for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1921) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Agnes Smith shows legal challenges on the part of women in the early twentieth century from carceral confinement. After she was committed to an institute for "feeble-minded youth," Agnes' parents attempted to regain custody of her. The court denied the writ, claiming that Agnes was a "fit and proper subject" for the institution.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Alice McKay for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the Body of Mary McKay (1891) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Alice McKay shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a mother petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after placing one of her children with a charitable organization to receive medical care and custody of the child was eventually given to a married couple. Before a court order was made in the case, the mother abducted the child from the married couple's home. Custody of the child was awarded by the court to the married couple.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Andrew J. Sawyer for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Chin Tu Ling, Lee Shun, and Look Fung (1898) |
|
In this case, three Chinese girls between the ages of 15 and 18 used habeas corpus to free themselves from the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company responsible for developing the Chinese Village for the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition in Omaha. The judge found that the girls were being kept for "immoral purposes" and were remanded to the custody of a missionary doctor who would make arrangements for their return to China. After this judgment, the company filed their own petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an attempt to re-establish custody of the girls, who, they argued, owed a contractual obligation to the corporation until the close of the exposition. In this second case, the judge released the girls into the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company so that they could fulfill their contracts.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Claus Hubbard for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1898) |
|
In this case, a prominent member of Omaha's 3rd Ward was arrested for vagrancy. To challenge his wrongful arrest, Claus Hubbard petitioned for habeas corpus, arguing that he was targeted by police because of his activism in the community. Hubbard frequently provided legal advisement and bail to African Americans facing indiscriminate arrests. The court agreed, ordering his release and also admonishing the police for violating the constitutional liberties of citizens.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Gussie Burns for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1920) |
|
In this case, Gussie Burns was arrested for vagrancy, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail. After her sentencing, she was subjected to a physical examination and reportedly found to have venereal disease. As a result, she was sent to the Omaha Women's Detention Home for treatment. After being confined to the home for four months, Gussie petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that her 30 day sentence had long since passed, the disease she was alleged to have did not exist, and that officials would not release her until she consented to "an operation for the removal of certain tubes." A writ was granted, though the outcome of her case is unknown. Cases like Gussie's illustrate the legal sophistication of women in the face of attempts to subordinate them during the Progressive Era.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Jacob West for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1843) |
|
In this case, Jacob West, a white man who had resided within the Cherokee Nation for thirty years, was charged with the murder of a Cherokee man in a tribal court. West petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, claiming immunity from the tribal courts as a white man. The writ was denied by the district court judge, who argued that given West's term of residence within the tribe, he was subject to their jurisdiction: "He has made himself one of them and is to be regarded as an Indian." West was executed by the tribal court.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Mary Marshall, mother of William Marshall an Infant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Mary Marshall shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and child custody in the nineteenth century. After being abandoned by her husband, a mother and her three children were forced to enter a charitable home. When one child became ill, he was given to the custody of a physician. The court ruled that custody of the child was lawful, but that in six months time, the mother could petition to amend or modify the judge's order.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Standing Bear et al. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1879) |
|
Standing Bear's writ of habeas corpus showed implications for citizenship, land dispossession, and human rights.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Yu Gum and Yu Hung for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886) |
|
The habeas corpus petitions of Yu Gum and Yu Hung show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, two sisters were detained in Seattle for being in the U.S. unlawfully. When they were set to be deported to British Columbia, the girls petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The outcome of their case is unknown.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for the Person of Nan Oy (1888) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Nan Oy shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, Nan Oy was arrested crossing the U.S. border to be with her husband, a U.S. citizen. She was ultimately deported.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Elihu Schooner for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1858) |
|
When Elihu Schooner was arrested as a fugitive from slavery, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Born free in Ohio, upon hearing the facts of the case, Schooner was released by the court.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Ham Hung Wah by Tom Sing for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1911) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Ham Hung Wah shows legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century. In this case, the twelve-year-old native-born son of Chinese immigrant parents was arrested and detained as "an alien Chinese person seeking unlawfully to land in the United States" after returning to America from China where he had been visiting his grandparents. To support his son's petition, Ham Hung Wah's father also submitted an affidavit from prominent white members of society testifying to the family's trustworthiness, membership in the Presbyterian Church, and adoption of the "habits of western civilization." The petition was eventually dismissed at the request of Wah's attorney. His fate is unknown.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of John Jones, alias John Cook, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1857) |
|
When John Jones was arrested as a fugitive from slavery, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Born free in Pennsylvania, upon hearing the facts of the case, Jones was released by the court.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1892) |
|
In this case, Juan Rey Abeita petitioned on behalf of his three sons against the superintendent of the Government Indian School in Albuquerque, who refused to allow his sons to return home. The writ was granted, but Abeita later withdrew the petition. Records in the Office of Indian Affairs indicate that the agency pressured the superintendent into releasing the children to avoid an unfavorable legal ruling.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Kichitaro Kubota and Ise Kubota for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1920) |
|
In this habeas case, a Japanese immigrant and his new wife were denied entry to the United States after visiting Japan. Kichitaro Kubota presented evidence of his employment and property-ownership to the court and condemned the prejudice that led to their exclusion. The judge found that Kubota and his wife were entitled to be admitted into the U.S. and ordered them released from detention.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of William M. Parkinson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1852) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of William M. Parkinson shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a father used habeas corpus in an attempt to retrieve his nine-year-old son from his ex-wife and her new husband. The child's fate is unknown.
|
| James Ash v. William H. Williams (1843) |
|
In this successful freedom suit, James Ash was freed from enslavement by the Circuit Court of D.C., based on provisions in the will of his former enslaver. She stipulated that her enslaved people were not to be taken out of Maryland or sold. Should either event occur, they were to be declared free for life. Ash's new enslaver appealed the verdict, but it was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
|
| John Heo v. Robert H. Milroy (1880) |
|
In this habeas suit, John Heo was arrested by an Indian agent after he refused to reside on the reservation with his wife and children. Heo argued that he had severed his tribal relations, as had his parents, and that they never lived on a reservation or accepted government annuities. Despite "constantly living with the whites engaged in the pursuits of civilized life" and having "at no time lived with any tribe of Indians" or "acknowledged himself a member of any Indian tribe," the judge ruled in favor of the Indian agent, and Heo remained in custody.
|
| John Johnson v. Sosthene Allain (1816) |
|
John Johnson filed a petition for freedom in a New Orleans court, asserting that although born free in New York, he had been illegally sold into slavery and was now being held on a sugar plantation. Johnson and his attorneys invoked New York's gradual abolition laws to establish his free status. The Louisiana court ruled in his favor and Johnson claimed his freedom.
|
| Juan Domingo Lopez v. Francis Phillips (1770) |
|
In this colonial era freedom suit, attorney Samuel Chase argued that slavery was "odious to the British Constitution" and freedom a "Natural Right" two years before Lord Mansfield did the same in Somerset v. Stewart.
|
| Julia, alias Mary Ann v. Robert Duncan (1834) |
|
This freedom suit was brought on behalf of Julia, a child under the age of 21 who was unlawfully enslaved in St. Louis by the man who sold her free mother into slavery in Louisiana. Although the court granted Julia her freedom, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by her mother two years later shows that Julia was still being held by her enslaver.
|
| Kinney v. the Commonwealth (1878) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeals in Virginia upheld the state's laws prohibiting interracial marriage. When interracial marriages became legal in Washington, D.C., Andrew Kinney, a Black man, and Mahala Miller, a white woman, traveled from the home they shared with their two children in Augusta County, Virginia, to be married. Upon their return, Kinney was indicted in the county court for "lewdly associating and cohabiting" with his wife and fined $500. Kinney appealed his case to the Circuit Court and again to the Supreme Court of Appeals. The court affirmed both lower courts rulings, stating that "if the parties desire to maintain the relations of man and wife, they must change their domicile and go to some state or country where the laws recognize the validity of such marriages."
|
| Korematsu v. United States (1984) |
|
In this case, Korematsu challenged his 1942 conviction by filing a writ of coram nobis, which asserted that his original conviction was so flawed as to represent a grave injustice and should be reversed. The judge granted the writ, thereby voiding Korematsu's conviction.
|
| Lum Jung Luke and E. M. Allen v. C. E. Yingling and H. W. Applegate (1926) |
|
Lum Jung Luke and his business partner, E. M. Allen, applied for an injunction against Arkansas Attorney General H. W. Applegate and prosecutor C. E. Yingling, who had threatened to begin an escheat proceeding (the process of transferring assets to the state) against Lum due to his status as an alien ineligible for citizenship. Chancery Judge A. L. Hutchins ruled in Lum's favor, not only enjoining the attorney general, but also striking down the Alien Land Act of 1925 as "unconstitutional and void."
|
| Margaret Quando v. Thomas Wheeler (1721) |
|
This colonial freedom suit was brought by Margaret Quando, a free Black woman, on behalf of her two daughters, who were caught up in an indenture scam by Thomas Wheeler. The court found in favor of the Quando women.
|
| Martin v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1805) |
|
The Martin case set precedent that women were the same legal person as their husbands. The case itself was brought by James Martin in an attempt to recover his Loyalist mother's property which had been confiscated by the post-Revolutionary government of Massachusetts when she and her husband fled during the war. The court in this case ruled that because Anna Martin had not intended to forfeit her land but had been forced to leave with her husband as required by the marital law of coverture, her property could not be confiscated.
|
| Matilda v. Isaac Vanbibber (1815) |
|
Matilda was a Black girl, aged twelve or thirteen, who was brought into Indiana Territory and later forcibly removed to Missouri Territory and sold as a slave. In her petition for freedom, Matilda argued that she earned her freedom while in Indiana Territory by virtue of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which banned slavery in the new territories.
|
| Mays v. Burgess (1945) |
|
In this case, the Court of Appeals for D.C. affirmed the lower court's ruling that restrictive covenants, agreements among property owners forbidding the sale of their properties to Black people, was legal. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Henry Edgerton argued, "It would seem to be unsound policy for a court . . . to enforce a privately adopted segregation plan which would be unconstitutional if it were adopted by a legislature." When Clara Mays attempted to appeal this decision, the Supreme Court declined to hear her case. Restrictive covenants were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).
|
| Mendez v. Westminster (1947) |
|
Menedez v. Westminster found educational segregation toward Latino students unconstitutional.
|
| Milly v. Mathias Rose (1819) |
|
In this freedom suit, Milly sued for her freedom on behalf of herself and her two children Eliza and Bob. Milly argued that she should be free on account of being held in slavery in the free Illinois Territory.
|
| Mima Queen & Louisa Queen v. John Hepburn (1813) |
|
This unsuccessful freedom suit reflects the legal challenges to slavery and hinged on the Supreme Court's decision that hearsay about family genealogy could not be used as evidence, setting later precedent. Mina (spelled Mima in the court record) Queen petitioned for her freedom and that of her daughter on the grounds that her great grandmother Mary Queen was a free woman of color. When the lower court disallowed critical testimony about Mary Queen's origins and status, Queen appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error, arguing that hearsay testimony should be allowed in a petition for freedom case. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, upholding the lower court's ruling.
|
| NAACP v. Allen (1972) |
|
In this case, the court ruled that the Department of Public Safety of Alabama needed to follow affirmative action principles to reduce discrimination.
|
| Opinion of Chief Justice Hornblower on the Fugitive Slave Law (1836) |
|
Justice Hornblower’s opinion in the State v. Sheriff of Burlington County called into question the authority of the Fugitive Slave Act. The opinion calls into question discrepancies between the federal law and state statute. This opinion is over the case of the Helmsley family. Alexander Helmsley and his wife, Nancy, were a free black couple living in New Jersey. Someone accused them of being fugitive slaves. Under the Fugitive Slave Act, the family should have been sent back to their former enslaver; however, New Jersey’s Personal Liberty Law protected them from being extradited from the state. Hornblower’s opinion advocated for following the state personal liberty law over following the federal law.
|
| Paul Jones v. George W. Jones (1840) |
|
Paul Jones initiated a suit in a Wisconsin Territory court against George W. Jones for several sums of money owed to him for labor, goods, wares, and merchandise. George argued that Paul was purchased as a slave for life from French inhabitants who were entitled to hold slaves according to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
|
| People v. Belous (1969) |
|
This is a case before the California Supreme Court looking at abortion rights. It focused on a physician's ability to practice medicine unimpeded and the extent of physicians' abilities to determine when an abortion would be necessary to protect a woman's life.
|
| People v. Buffum (1953) |
|
One of California's pre-Roe v. Wade abortion cases, the decision in Buffum attempted to regulate abortion tourism to Mexico. This case determined that California could not legislate medical practices in Mexico, causing an increase in abortion clinics across the border in Tijuana.
|
| Perez v. Sharp (1948) |
|
In this case, a 4-3 majority of the Supreme Court of California ruled that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the 14th Amendment. It was the first of any state to strike down an anti-miscegenation law in the U.S, preceding Loving v. Virginia by almost 20 years.
|
| Peter and others v. Susanna Elliott and Rachell Elliott (1787) |
|
This freedom suit was brought forth by 22 enslaved people who were freed by a deed of manumission that was then contested by the executrixes of the former enslaver upon his death. The court found in favor of the re-enslavement of Peter and the other 21 freedmen.
|
| Plymouth, Massachusetts, Colonial Court Cases (1646-1675) |
|
These excerpts from the Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England document Native Peoples' engagement with the law after a 1641 code grants due process.
|
| Roberto Alvarez, et al. v. E. L. Owen, et al. (1931) |
|
This case was the first successful school desegregation case in the United States, decided fifteen years before Brown v. Board of Education. When the school board in Lemon Grove, California, attempted to build a separate school for students of Mexican origin, the court ruled that the segregation violated state laws which considered people of Mexican descent to be white.
|
| Smith v. Directors of Independent School Dist. of Keokuk (1875) |
|
In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's ruling that the Keokuk school district could not refuse to admit a Black student based on race. Legal precedent for this case as set in the 1868 ruling in Clark v. Board of School Directors.
|
| Somerset v. Stewart (1772) |
|
This case heard before the English Court of King's Bench determined that slavery was unsupported by English Common Law and that no enslaved person could be forced out of England to be sold into slavery. James Sommerset was an enslaved person who had been purchased by Charles Stewart in Boston, Massachusetts, then taken to England. Sommerset later escaped, and Stewart had him captured and imprisoned on a ship headed to Jamaica. Sommerset's godparents applied for a writ of habeas corpus. Following the court’s decision, enslaved people in the American Colonies filed freedom suits based on Mansfield's ruling.
|
| State of Iowa v. Katz (1949) |
|
In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a lower court's jury verdict that Katz Drug Store violated the civil rights of three Black patrons when workers refused to serve them at the store's soda fountain.
|
| State of Missouri v. Celia (1855) |
|
In this case, eighteen-year-old Celia was convicted of murdering her enslaver. The case considered whether Celia was guilty of murder or if she could be acquitted due to self-defense from sexual assault. The court ruled that Celia's enslaved status prevented her from being eligible to protect herself, and she was sentenced to death.
|
| State of Nebraska, ex rel. Daniel Freeman, v. John Scheve et al. (1902) |
|
In this case, Daniel Freeman, recognized as the first homesteader under the 1862 Homestead Act, made a public grievance over the use of the Bible in a public school near Beatrice. When the teacher refused to cease using the Bible, offering prayers, and singing hymns in her classroom, Freeman took his case to the school board, who defended the teacher. He then took his case to the courts. The lower court also sided with the teacher, and he appealed the case to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The higher court found that the actions of the teacher and the school board violated the provisions in Nebraska's constitution regarding the separation of church and state. The U.S. Supreme Court did not make a similar ruling until 1962 in Engel v. Vitale.
|
| Statement of Facts in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1854) |
|
The parties in Dred Scott v. Sandford agreed to a "Statement of Facts" about the timeline of events in Scott's life that were relevant to his freedom suit. This agreed upon evidence downplayed Dred Scott's active role in putting his case before the court.
|
| The Slave, Grace (1827) |
|
In this freedom suit, an enslaved woman who had spent time in England was re-enslaved once she voluntarily returned to her home in Antigua. The court found that while she became free once she set foot on English soil, her status reverted to that of enslaved once she returned to Antigua.
|
| The True Facts in the Case of Felix Quander (1879) |
|
In August 1879, Felix Quander was shot and injured by law enforcement officers while evading arrest. In a letter to the Editor of the National Republican newspaper in D.C., Quander's attorney describes the event, as well as previous incidents that lead up to the shooting and capture of Quander. Related newspaper coverage of the ordeal and subsequent court case follows. While the National Republican and Evening Star tend to display varying degrees of sympathy for Quander, the Alexandria Gazette is harsh in its judgment of the man and his reputation.
|
| Trouble in Fairfax: The Quander Case (1879) |
|
In February 1879, Felix Quander and his family were the victims of violence at the hands of county officials. In a letter to the Editor of the National Republican newspaper in D.C., Quander, or someone writing on his behalf, describes the attack upon his family. Related newspaper coverage of events follow.
|
| Unis et al. v. Charlton's Administrator et al. (1855) |
|
In this freedom suit, the descendants of a Black woman named Flora claimed their freedom on the grounds that Flora was free before being abducted and sold into slavery in Virginia. Between 1826-1855, a series of cases bounced around county and appellate courts in Virginia before finally being decided against freedom for Flora's descendants.
|
| United States v. Cartozian (1925) |
|
In this case, the District Court of Oregon debated whether an Armenian immigrant was white enough to be naturalized. Just two years after the Supreme Court ruled that Ozawa, a Japanese man, and Thind, a South Asian man, were not white enough for naturalization, the Oregon court ruled that people from Asia Minor were close enough to European descent to be naturalized.
|
| United States v. Cisna (1835) |
|
In this case, a white defendant was charged with horse stealing on Wyandot tribal lands in Ohio. The court ruled that the state was within its rights to punish its citizens for crimes committed against Native Americans on tribal lands.
|
| United States v. Yellow Sun (1870) |
|
In this case, a federal court in Nebraska debated the question of federal or state jurisdiction over Native Americans suspected of a crime committed outside a reservation. The court held that there were no treaty rights or congressional provisions that required federal jurisdiction, therefore states had jurisdiction over crimes committed within its boundaries unless on tribal land. They also held that because crimes committed on tribal lands were not in violation of any federal laws, the state had civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribal lands.
|
| United States, ex rel. Standing Bear, v. George Crook (1879) |
|
In this case, Judge Elmer S. Dundy ruled that "an Indian is a person within the meaning of the laws of the United States," and that they were entitled to the right of expatriation. Standing Bear and 29 other Ponca had left their reservation in Indian Territory without the permission of the federal government and returned to Nebraska. They were later arrested and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted. Judge Dundy's opinion led to the release of the Ponca petitioners.
|
| Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. The Knights of the Klu Klux Klan (1982) |
|
A sign of progress in the fight for civil rights for Asian immigrants, the Vietnamese Fishermen's Association filed a class action lawsuit against the KKK and won. The KKK was burning the fishermen's boats and were found guilty of violating the Vietnamese fishermen's civil rights.
|
| Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965) |
|
In this case, a U.S. Court of Appeals decided that a lower court could rule a contract unconscionable and therefore not enforceable. Ora Lee Williams, a resident of an underprivileged Black neighborhood in Washington, D.C., had signed an installment sales contract containing a clause that gave the seller the right to repossess all prior goods purchased under the contract upon missing a payment on the most recent purchase, even if she had already paid enough to cover what was owed. Justice Wright remanded the case back to the lower court with a new definition of unconscionability. This case is an example of abusive credit practices targeting those in poverty in the U.S.
|
| Winny v. Phebe Whitesides alias Prewitt (1824) |
|
This case was the first freedom suit heard by the Missouri Supreme Court. Winny claimed her freedom on account of being brought into the free territory of what would become Illinois before being removed to Missouri. The court found in favor of her freedom, establishing a "once free, always free" precedent that was eventually overturned by the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
|