landmark cases


Google Doodle honors civil rights hero Fred Korematsu

  • Fred Korematsu, the civil rights hero who crusaded against the United States’ internment of the Japanese in the 1940s, is the subject of the Jan. 30 Google doodle.
  • The digital tribute honors Korematsu, who died in 2005, on what would have been his 98th birthday. 
  • In 1942, the activist was arrested for evading Japanese internment, which eventually prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to step in and challenge his conviction in the landmark Supreme Court case, Korematsu v. United States.
  • In one of the most contentious rulings in its history, the Supreme Court upheld Korematsu’s conviction as constitutional. It’s a decision that’s still referenced today by current Supreme Court justices as a blemish on the nation’s history. Read more

follow @the-movemnt

In 1967, Richard and Mildred Loving were at the heart of the landmark civil rights case that legalized marriage between races—this documentary novel tells the story of the devoted couple who faced discrimination, fought it, and won. Loving vs. Virginia isn’t out until January, but we’re sharing it today to honor the stories and people around the country that fight hate with love. We hope you go out and vote!


February 1st 1790: Supreme Court first meets

On this day in 1790, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court, met for the first time at the Merchants’ Exchange Building in New York City. The Supreme Court is the only federal court specifically established in the Constitution (in Article III), and was implemented in 1789 with the Judiciary Act. The original role of the Supreme Court, according to the Constitution, was jurisdiction over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section II). The location of the Court moved a number of times, finally gaining its own building in Washington D.C. in 1935. The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; the first Chief Justice was Founding Father John Jay. The 1803 landmark case Marbury v. Madison formed the basis for the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review - when they can invalidate laws by declaring them ‘unconstitutional’ - which is now a major part of the Court’s role in American governance.

On November 4, the story of Mildred and Richard Loving, the couple who inspired the landmark 1967 civil rights case, Loving v. Virginia, which challenged laws prohibiting interracial marriages, will be told on the big screen in the new movie Loving. Before its release, it’s important to understand the world in which they lived. What was it like to marry interracially in a state where it was illegal? Read more.

Richard and Mildred loving circa 1967. Their interracial marriage brought about the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, in which the court unanimously struck down laws banning such marriages as a violation of due process and equal protection under the constitution. 

Every step along the way to the Supreme Court lower court rulings used fallacious reasoning to rationalize the blatantly unconstitutional law. The worst of which might have come from US. District Court Judge Leon M. Bazile when he stated: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Thankfully, the Supreme Court wasn’t having any of it and the ruling struck down anti-miscegenation laws nationwide (the only states where they had remained at that point were in the south.)

When I met with Judge Gorsuch on Feb. 7, I sought to ascertain his potential to be an independent check on the president. The judge was clearly very smart, articulate and polite, with superb judicial demeanor. But over the course of an hour, he refused to answer even the most rudimentary questions.

I asked him whether an unambiguous Muslim ban would be constitutional. He refused to answer. I asked him if he agreed with conservative lawyers who say the president has abused executive power. He refused to answer. I asked him whether he thought the president’s comments on voter fraud would undermine our democracy. He refused to answer. I asked him about landmark cases like Citizens United and Bush v. Gore. He refused to answer. Since he claims to be an originalist, I asked him about his view of what the framers intended with the Emoluments Clause in our Constitution.

He refused to answer any of these questions. He told me he couldn’t give me his view of any case, past or present, or any constitutional principle, because it might bias him. This blanket excuse frustrates any examination of what kind of judge the nominee will be. As the conservative icon Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote, “Proof that a justice’s mind at the time he joined the court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias.”

How many times can the animators show characters passing the same object while supposedly going in a straight line?

Let’s find out!

Hey, it’s the Washington Monument! Cool!

…oh? Is there a second Washington Monument? I wasn’t aware.

Wait, a third Washington Monument? 

Are there, like, backups of every national landmark? In case the first one falls over or something?

Yup, and there’s yet another Washington Monument. It’s not really even a surprise anymore.

And another. Sheesh, that’s 5 Washington Monuments now.

6! The Washington Monuments just don’t stop.

7. 7 Washington monuments. Ah-ah-ah.

8. Yes, ok, you proved your point, animators. There are a lot of Washington Monuments. We get it.

9! Can we please stop now?! This is entirely too many Washington Monuments.

10! Look, I’m getting sick of Washington Monuments! Stappit!

11! No more! No more Washington Monuments! Please!

12! 12 Washington Monuments! I’m going insa-…

…hey, wait, is that a giant duckling driving a racecar?

Top 5 cases in the Phoenix Wright series

5. Turnabout En Suite. Released as a tech demo for Nintendo’s new 3DS console, this unique case uses the 3DS’ front-facing camera to reveal that the murderer was in fact you, the player.

4. Turnabout Blossom. When a newly-retired Phoenix takes Maya to go visit a traditional American cherry blossom festival, he’s just expecting a quiet day out. But when an American shrine maiden is found stabbed and Maya is found holding the knife, Phoenix’s quiet day is ruined as he’s forced to approach the bench once again to prove her innocence - and figure out why the blossoms on the body appear to be weeks old…? Find out the truth for yourself in this puzzling case that was pulled from shelves by Capcom after executives realized someone had accidentally hidden a photograph of a dude’s weiner somewhere in every character sprite and background cg.

3. Turnabout Fifty Bucks. In this landmark case for the series, Phoenix steadfastly refuses to defend any new clients or leave his office until Edgeworth gives him a cool fifty bucks. When he gets the fifty bucks, the game ends, the player’s save is erased, and the game cart shoots out of the DS across the room.

2. Turnabout Big Top. Fuck off, it’s my list.

1. Turnabout Ghosts. Uh oh! Trouble for Phoenix Wright once again as he’s forced to determine which of a cast of fifty characters could be the murderer, and this time some of them are ghosts


May 17th 1954: Brown v. Board of Education

On this day in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The decision declared racial segregation in schools unconstitutional, striking down the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ segregation which had been enshrined in the 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson. The Brown case had been bought by African-American parents, including Oliver L. Brown, against Topeka’s educational segregation. It was argued before the Court by the chief legal counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Thurgood Marshall, who went on to become the first African-American Supreme Court justice in 1967. The Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, declared that segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The landmark decision is often considered the start of the Civil Rights Movement, which fought for racial integration and full equality for African-Americans. The movement transformed American society, leading to the end of legal segregation and landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965). However, the mission of the movement, so eloquently expressed by Dr. King, to achieve full equality, is far from over.

“We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal
- Warren’s opinion for the Court

Woman in 'Roe V Wade' landmark abortion case dies aged 69

The woman whose court case resulted in the legalisation of abortion in the US has died, aged 69.

Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as Jane Roe, whose Supreme Court case Roe v Wade ruled a woman had a right to end an unwanted pregnancy, died on Saturday (18 February) following heart problems, The Washington Post reported.

Human remains found at Oxford home after huge explosion

McCorvey adopted the pseudonym Roe in order to argue her right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in the landmark 1973 case.

Her initial aim was not to challenge abortion laws for everyone in the US, but rather to argue her right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, in a case she brought to court in 1970.

Racist posters litter primary school and library in Manchester

In Texas, where she lived, abortion was only legal if the life of the woman was in danger. McCorvey argued she should be allowed to end her pregnancy if she did not want the baby.

However, although Roe v Wade resulted in the legalisation of abortion, in a 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled seven to two in favour of allowing women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, ‘Roe’ did not benefit from the ruling.

'Made to feel like a criminal’: Dwight Yorke denied entry into US under Trump’s border laws

McCorvey was not granted permission to end her pregnancy, although she won her initial court case, and a challenge to the initial ruling from a Texas court continued throughout her pregnancy.

By the time the Supreme Court announced its decision, McCorvey had given birth to her baby, whom she put up for adoption.

Although McCorvey eventually abandoned her alias and campaigned in favour of abortion rights, she later became a born-again Christian and pro-life campaigner.

You may be interested in:

squatsandsci-fi replied to your post: What’s happening with the shaytards??

I only vaguely know about those guys but was being nosy after you posted about them and watched their latest vid and the comments are out of control. I hate how much people think people in the spotlight owe them/think they can comment on their lives (esp when we see so little of what actually goes on). The whole situation is so crazy

100% girl. And i actually truly think of all social media celebrities that the line is the potentially crossed with Youtubers the most - it seems as if someone daily vlogs viewers really think they have complete access to every single emotion and moment that person has which is so untrue especially considering the creator gets to self edit. 

My comments in this instance are more in shock in this the juxtaposition between what was put online previously and what is the reality right now. It’s the starkest I’ve seen to date. This is going to become a landmark case in the absolute toxicity that can fester in the relationship between creator and viewer. 


I don’t know about you, but I’m appalled that Petsmart does not sell “Happy Bananaversary” dog cookies and quite frankly, I’m ready to sue


March 6th 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford

On this day in 1857, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sandford. The case originated when Dred Scott, a slave, claimed that because his master - army surgeon Dr. John Emerson - took him to the free territory of Wisconsin, he was a free man. By the time of the case, Scott and his family belonged to Emerson’s widow Eliza Irene Sanford, who refused to allow Scott to purchase his freedom. In response, Scott sued her and argued that he was already free due to his time in Wisconsin. State court declared Scott free in 1850, but Sanford’s brother appealed the decision and the case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court in 1856; a clerical error meant Sanford’s name was mispelled in court records. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that African-Americans were not United States citizens because they were not part of the Constitutional ‘political community’, and thus could not sue in federal court. The decision also established that Congress could not ban slavery in federal territories, and held that slaveowners’ right to slave property was guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The Court’s complete rejection of African-American rights evoked outrage from Northern anti-slavery forces, and emboldened Southern slaveowners as they sought to expand the ‘peculiar institution’. The decision, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, is thus considered one of the causes of the American Civil War as it flared sectional tensions. Taney’s tenure ended with his death in 1864, but due to his role in the Dred Scott decision, he has gone down in history as one of America’s worst Chief Justices. Scott and his family were freed by a new master two months after the decision, and found employment in St. Louis; however, Scott died of tuberculosis in November 1858. The Dred Scott decision is one of the most disastrous in American history, and was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

“[African-Americans] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit”
- Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford

anonymous asked:

Kind of urgent, at least answer before next month (tw for US presidential elections) ok so it seems really plausible that Trump will become president come November. tbh im really scared?? what exactly are his plans for the community? what will happen to us if he is president? -j

Ryn says: 

Okay so not to sugercoat anything, Trump (and more so his running mate Mike Pence) does not have the greatest track record in terms of LGBTQ rights. According to the 2016 Republican Party official platform, their plans include the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges (the landmark case last year that allowed queer couples to marry), so-called “religious freedom” bills that would allow people to refuse goods and services to LGBTQ people, and a legalization and possible government funding for conversion therapy. The platform also claims that states should be able to dictate protections or a lack thereof for LGBTQ Americans, including which bathrooms trans people should be allowed to use. 

It is very likely that whoever is elected will be able to nominate at least 4 Supreme Court Justices, which, since they serve for life (or until they step down) could have extremely long lasting and far reaching effects for the community. 

This is scary. I know. It puts us in a very dangerous situation. There is a solution. Vote. If you or any of your friends are over 18, vote. We cannot win this election if people don’t vote. I will personally be voting for Secretary Clinton in November, and as a moderator team, we ask that no matter how you cast your vote, please do not cast it for Donald Trump. 

If, on November 9th, we discover that Trump has become the President, then our best hope is to not go silent. We will not lay down and silently allow our rights to be taken away. So long as it is safe to do so, participate in rallies, in protests, sign petitions, call for our rights to improve. We must raise our voices and show that we will not be silenced and shoved back into the closet. 

Stay safe, friends, and please, on November 8th, vote. Vote not just for the presidency, but in your local elections too. Vote in candidates who will protect LGBTQ rights at all governmental levels. 

Disclaimer: These endorsements come from the party stances on LGBTQ rights, and while my personal vote is based on much more than this, these endorsements are not based around anything else, including but not limited to foreign policy, economic policy, etc.
Natalie Portman To Play Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg In 'On The Basis Of Sex'
EXCLUSIVE: Natalie Portman is set to play Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in On The Basis Of Sex.
By Ali Jaafar, Mike Fleming Jr

This is so exciting! 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is, for those of you who don’t know an incredible woman who overcame discrimination to become an amazing activist for women’s rights, and then one of the most influential people in US politics.

She enrolled in Harvard Law School in 1956, 1 of 9 women in her class of 500.

She then transferred to Columbia Law School where she tied for 1st in her class.

She co-founded the

Women’s Rights Law Reporter

, the first law journal in the U.S. that focussed exclusively on women’s rights and co-authored the 1st law school casebook on sex discrimination.

She was a co-founder of the Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and argued many landmark cases that made many forms of legal discrimination on the basis of sex illegal. 

She went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, the highest position in the American Judicial system.

This is also an amazing opportunity for Hollywood to feature a protagonist that is a three-dimensional depiction of an amazing, resilient, jewish woman who is smart, opinionated and progressive.

Marielle Heller is in negotiations to direct the film which would be an important position seeing as only 5% of directors are women and the story is going to be about breaking into a field completely dominated by men.

Also RBG is being played by Natalie Portman who is also a Jew which hopefully means some much needed good representation of jewish women.

I’m so ready for this