Warren Court

Earl Warren's Supreme Court Decisions of Significance

The Warren Court's significance can be seen in the impact of its decisions in a range of cases that pushed forward the Civil Rights Movement and expanded civil liberties.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, commonly referred to as Brown v. Board, is the most famous of the Earl Warren Supreme Court decisions, handed down in 1954.

This decision effectively ended the doctrine of separate but equal, used to justify racial segregation in public schools. The decision argued that this doctrine in fact made schools that were separate, but not equal, and it overruled the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson.

Importantly, the decision was unanimous with the entire court siding 9-0 with the majority opinion deciding racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional and violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. It paved the way for the integration of schools.

Thurgood Marshall, later appointed to the Warren Court, was the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Fig 2 - Thurgdood Marshall, future member of the Warren Supreme Court, center, prepares for the Brown v Board case.

Cooper v. Aaron

The Brown decision was reaffirmed in the 1958 Cooper v. Aaron case. In this decision, also decided unanimously, the Warren Court rejected the notion that state officials did not have to comply with the decision in Brown.

In addition to further pushing along desegregation, this Warren Court decision also affirmed the power of the Supreme Court over state governments, expanding the power of the court.

Reynolds v. Sims

This 1964 decision dealt with the principle of one man, one vote. It concerned the formation of legislative districts, stating that every effort should be made to ensure they were equal in population. This composition would ensure that voting power was not diluted in urban areas where there were larger populations, giving more power to rural voters.

Expansion of Civil Liberties

There were three cases that show the importance of the Warren Court's case decisions related to civil liberties. Warren had been a former prosecutor, but he still remained concerned about abusive police practices.

Mapp v. Ohio

This 1961 case held that police could not use evidence they obtained illegally at trial. This strengthened the constitutional protection against improper search and seizure and right to due process.

Gideon v. Wainwright

In this 1963 decision, the Warren Court ruled that the right to due process and legal representation of the 6th Amendment meant that defendants who were unable to afford an attorney should have one provided to them free of charge. This decision required the creation of public defense attorneys and ensured any criminal defendant could be represented in court, regardless of their economic status.

Miranda v. Arizona

This 1966 decision is often considered the most important of Earl Warren's Supreme Court decisions related to civil liberties. It ruled that police must inform a person of and ensure they understand their rights, most notably their right to an attorney and the right not to incriminate themselves or remain silent.

Engel v. Vitale

In this 1962 decision, the Warren Supreme Court ruled that requiring students to participate in religious services or activities in public schools was unconstitutional. The court argued it violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, and the decision effectively outlawed mandatory prayer in schools.

Griswold v. Connecticut

In this 1965 case, the Warren Court ruled that personal privacy was an inherent constitutional right. The case dealt with a law restricting the prescription of birth control and was challenged with the argument that people had a right to privacy regarding their healthcare decisions and discussions with a doctor.

The right to personal privacy, besides the 4th Amendment's protection from unreasonably search and seizure, is not specifically established in the US Constitution. However, the court ruled in this case that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as portions of other amendments did, in fact, imply and establish a basis of a right to privacy.

Warren Court Significance

The Warren Court's significance was enormous. It had a broad impact on US politics and institutions. Learn more about the Warren Court's significance and controversy over its role as what some accuse of being an "activist" court in the sections that follow.

Importance of the Warren Court Cases

As noted above, the decision in Brown v. Board is often considered of the most significant regarding the importance of the Warren Court cases.

The decision effectively ended the legality of enforced segregation of schools. While the case did call for segregation to occur, it did not provide defined mechanisms of integration. Many hardline segregationist state legislators and governors in the south resisted integration for years to come. However, the decision, and the subsequent on in Cooper, was used as a basis for forcing integration.

The unanimity of the decision also indirectly encouraged Congress to act on broader desegregation initiatives such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ending discriminatory practices with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Therefore, the decision can be seen as a key moment in the Civil Rights Movement, providing a judicial repudiation of segregation.

The expansion of civil liberties under the Warren Court also changed the power dynamics between police and criminal defendants, ensuring due process for all US citizens. These decisions were sometimes criticized as weakening the power of police to stop crime, but they were also celebrated by others as important checks on potentially abusive behavior.

The importance of the Warren Court's case decisions can also be seen indirectly on the polarizing issue of abortion. The establishment of the right to privacy in Griswold was used as the basis to uphold the constitutionality of the right to an abortion in the later 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It was also cited as an important precedent in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that made same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

More recently, a 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization reversed Roe v. Wade while upholding Griswold. However, at least one justice argued in favor of reconsidering Griswold and other decision like Obergefell based on it.

Fig 3 - Photo of Earl Warren.

Earl Warren and Judicial Activism

Warren had been Governor of California before his appointment to the Supreme Court. He is remembered for being an effective consensus builder due to this time as a lead executive. However, his belief that the court should be a source of social change and justice has been criticized by some.

In addition to the debates over controversial issues like abortion that were indirectly impacted by the Griswold decision, the Warren Court was accused by critics of overstepping the judiciary's boundaries. Earl Warren and judicial activism are often linked, especially by conservative critics of the Warren Court's decisions.

Warren believed the ultimate purpose of the judiciary should be to promote justice and, when necessary and appropriate, favor the expansion of rights and liberties in line with the ideals of the US Constitution. He, in essence, believed the Supreme Court should right wrongs that the states and federal government had failed to right on their own.

This view of the court's responsibility contrasts with more conservative interpretations of the Supreme Court's role in US government. These views hold that judges should practice what they call self-restraint and defer to the states and federal government to the extent that their actions do not directly violate the US Constitution.

Criticism of what this interpretation considers Earl Warren's judicial activism became a bedrock of conservative political ideology in the post-Warren Court era. This is best represented by the Federalist Society, an influential organization that argues in favor of a strict reading of the US Constitution contrary to the Warren Court's more expansionary view.

The criticism of what was considered Earl Warren's judicial activism has been an important factor in Republican appointments to the court since. In fact, in 2022, 6 of the 9 justices on the court were members of the Federalist Society.

This conservative reaction on the one hand detracts from the Warren Court's significance by threatening the legacy of some of its decisions. On the other hand, it also marks the importance of the Warren Court's case decisions as an exceptional period in US history where the Supreme Court played an active role in the expansion of rights and liberties.