 United States v. The Amistad (1841) |
|
This freedom suit originated after 53 Africans revolted and took control of the Spanish slave ship that intended to enslave them in Cuba. The ship was eventually seized by the U.S. Navy off the coast of Long Island and the Africans were taken into custody and charged with mutiny and murder. After a series of court appearances, the Supreme Court ruled that the Africans were "free negroes" who had been "unlawfully kidnapped, and forcibly and wrongfully carried on board" the Amistad. They were ordered to be released. After obtaining their freedom, missionary groups helped the surviving Africans return to Sierra Leone.
|
| United States v. Thind (1923) |
|
The Supreme Court found in U.S. v. Thind that Indian immigrants were not eligible for naturalization, based on a contested category of whiteness. Contradicting their 1922 ruling in Ozawa naming caucasian identity as a requirement for naturalization, as a South Asian immigrant, Thind was deemed ineligible for citizenship because, despite being racially caucasian, he did not appear white.
|
| United States v. Windsor (2013) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. It examined the argument of a same-sex couple who were married in Canada and wanted the tax benefits of marriage after one partner died. While same-sex marriage was recognized by the State of New York, the Defense of Marriage Act prevented federal recognition of their marriage.
|
| United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) |
|
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court solidified the principle of birthright citizenship, affirming that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' citizenship, is a U.S. citizen.
|
| Worcester v. Georgia (1832) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee people had sovereign powers as a nation. The case arose after a Protestant missionary was convicted of residing among the Cherokee Nation in Gwinnett County, Georgia, without a license from the state. The Supreme Court vacated Worcester's conviction, stating that individual states did not have authority over Native American affairs
|
| Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that stated that youth and inexperience with law enforcement should be accounted for when evaluating custody. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that previous rulings had rejected reliance on factors such as age and inexperience in custody analysis.
|
| Yasui v. United States (1943) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court held that curfews against minority groups were constitutional at a time of war against the country that group's ancestors originated from. After the Executive Order 9066 was issued in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were subject to curfews and other restrictions in addition to being removed to internment camps. Minoru Yasui was convicted of violating the curfew. This was a companion case to Hirabayashi v. United States, decided on the same day.
|