5 Supreme Court Cases That Changed Everything (And Still Control Your Life)
By Trinity Barnette
The Supreme Court of the United States holds an extraordinary amount of power within the American legal and political system. As the highest court in the nation, its primary role is to interpret the Constitution and ensure that laws passed by Congress, enforced by the executive branch, or enacted by states do not violate constitutional principles. But in practice, its rulings extend far beyond the courtroom—they shape civil rights, influence public policy, and define the boundaries of government authority for generations.
Established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Court is composed of nine justices who serve lifetime appointments. Their decisions are final, binding, and carry the force of law across all 50 states. In many cases, these rulings have dramatically altered the course of American history—overturning legal precedents, dismantling or upholding institutional practices, and recalibrating the balance between individual rights and state power.
In this article, we’ll explore five of the most impactful Supreme Court decisions to date—cases that not only marked pivotal moments in American legal history, but continue to influence everyday life in profound ways. From civil rights and reproductive freedom to criminal justice and campaign finance, these decisions reveal just how much control the judiciary has over the most intimate and structural aspects of our society.
Understanding these rulings isn’t just about legal literacy—it’s about understanding the system we live in.
Let’s begin.
Brief Description:
This landmark case struck down racial segregation in public schools and became a foundational victory for the Civil Rights Movement. It overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and the doctrine of “separate but equal,” declaring that segregated educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Background:
In the early 1950s, public school systems in many states remained racially segregated due to laws that allowed “separate but equal” facilities. Oliver Brown, a Black parent in Topeka, Kansas, sued the local Board of Education after his daughter was denied entry to a nearby all-white school. His case, combined with four others, challenged the constitutionality of racial segregation in public education.
Legal Question:
Does the racial segregation of children in public schools, even if the facilities are equal in quality, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public education violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Impact:
This decision marked a turning point in U.S. legal and social history. It invalidated laws enforcing segregation in schools and set the stage for desegregation across the country. The ruling helped catalyze the Civil Rights Movement and served as a foundation for future legal challenges to institutionalized racism.
Legal Term Spotlight: What Is a “Holding”?
The holding is the Court’s official ruling—the legal conclusion that answers the case’s central question. It establishes binding precedent and becomes the law of the land.
Think of it as the moment the Court says:
“This is what the Constitution means, starting now.”
Brief Description:
This landmark decision recognized a constitutional right to abortion, framing it within the broader right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. It established a framework balancing individual autonomy with state interests, profoundly influencing reproductive rights law for nearly five decades.
Background:
In 1970, “Jane Roe” (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey), a Texas resident, challenged the state’s abortion laws, which prohibited abortions except to save the mother’s life. Represented by attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the Dallas County District Attorney, alleging that the state’s laws were unconstitutional. The case escalated to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in 1971 and rearguments in 1972.
Legal Question:
Does the Constitution recognize a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Holding:
Yes. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a woman’s liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. However, this right is balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and prenatal life. The Court introduced a trimester framework to guide permissible state regulations.
Impact:
The decision invalidated many state laws restricting abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. It significantly reduced maternal mortality rates associated with unsafe abortions and expanded women’s autonomy over reproductive decisions. Roe v. Wade became a central point in national debates on reproductive rights, influencing subsequent cases and legislation. In 2022, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe, returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states.
Brief Description:
This landmark decision established that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of their constitutional rights prior to interrogation. These rights, now commonly known as “Miranda rights,” include the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel, ensuring protections against self-incrimination under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Background:
In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, in connection with a kidnapping and rape case. During a two-hour police interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes without being informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney. His confession was admitted as evidence at trial, leading to his conviction. Miranda appealed, arguing that his confession was inadmissible because he had not been informed of his constitutional rights.
Legal Question:
Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to individuals subjected to police interrogation without prior notification of their rights?
Holding:
Yes. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution cannot use statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. This includes informing suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.
Impact:
The ruling mandated that law enforcement officials must inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, leading to the standard practice of delivering “Miranda warnings.” This decision significantly impacted law enforcement procedures and reinforced the importance of constitutional protections during the criminal justice process.
4. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Brief Description:
This landmark decision established that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage across all 50 states. The ruling was grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Background:
James Obergefell, a resident of Ohio, married his terminally ill partner, John Arthur, in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. Upon Arthur’s death, Ohio refused to recognize their marriage on his death certificate. Obergefell sued the state, arguing that Ohio’s refusal violated the Constitution. His case was consolidated with others challenging same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, bringing the issue before the Supreme Court.
Legal Question:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does it also require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another state?
Holding:
Yes. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other jurisdictions. The Court reasoned that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty, and denying this right to same-sex couples violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Impact:
The decision invalidated all state bans on same-sex marriage, ensuring marriage equality nationwide. It marked a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights, affirming that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal recognition and protections as opposite-sex couples. The ruling also underscored the evolving understanding of liberty and equality under the Constitution.
5. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Brief Description:
This landmark decision dramatically altered the landscape of campaign finance in the United States by holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The ruling effectively allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, leading to the rise of Super PACs and significant increases in election-related spending.
Background:
Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primaries. However, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Citizens United challenged these provisions, arguing that they violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
Legal Question:
Does the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the BCRA violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech?
Holding:
Yes. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the BCRA’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures were unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. Therefore, the government cannot suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Impact:
The decision led to a significant increase in political spending by corporations and unions, primarily through the creation of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds independently of candidate campaigns. Critics argue that this has led to undue influence by wealthy entities in elections and policymaking, while supporters claim it upholds free speech rights. The ruling remains a contentious issue in debates over campaign finance reform.
Conclusion: Why These Cases Still Matter
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are not just historical moments—they are living precedents that continue to shape the boundaries of freedom, equality, power, and justice. Each case featured in this article didn’t just shift legal doctrine—it redefined what it means to live under the Constitution.
Brown v. Board of Education ended legal segregation in schools, but its legacy reminds us that access to education and racial equality remain ongoing struggles. The promise of equal protection under the law is far from fulfilled.
Roe v. Wade recognized bodily autonomy as a constitutional right, and its reversal in Dobbs shows just how vulnerable rights can be when they are not protected by lasting structural change. It’s a reminder that liberty must be constantly defended.
Miranda v. Arizona gave voice to the accused and reinforced protections against abuse of power within law enforcement. In a time of increased scrutiny of the criminal justice system, its principles are more relevant than ever.
Obergefell v. Hodges affirmed that love and partnership deserve legal recognition regardless of gender. Yet in today’s political climate, LGBTQ+ rights face renewed threats, making this ruling a cornerstone worth protecting.
Citizens United v. FEC redefined political influence, giving corporations and billionaires unprecedented sway over elections. Understanding this case helps us see the ways money and speech have become dangerously intertwined.
Together, these cases represent the evolving relationship between the individual and the state. They define our rights—and the limits of power. To understand the Supreme Court is to understand the legal engine behind many of the freedoms, conflicts, and inequalities we live with today.
