In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a 23 year old drifter with a criminal record, was arrested following reports that a young woman had been kidnapped and raped. After being identified by the victim, Miranda was interrogated for two hours by Arizona detectives. During the the interrogation Miranda confessed to the crimes, and signed a handwritten confession. At the top confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession had been made voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity, and that the Miranda knew his legal rights and that the statements could be used against him. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. Miranda appealed and the case reached the Supreme Court.

The issue the Supreme Court examined was whether the defendant's due process rights were violated. By narrow 5-4 majority, the court held that that Miranda's confession "was inadmissible because he was not in any way [informed] of his right to council nor was his privilege against self-incrimination effectively protected in any other manner."

As a result of the Miranda decision, prior to questioning, all persons must be given what is now known as a Miranda warning. A person must be told the following: 1) you have the right to remain silent; 2) that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; 3) that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and 4) that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney.

Supporters hail the decision as a victory for civil rights and a safeguard against police abuse. Critics argue that Miranda has made severely hampered law enforcement and helped put guilty criminals back on the streets.

In the 1963 case Gideon v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the felony conviction of Clarence Earl Gideon because he was denied his request for free counsel. The Supreme Court, held that the right to counsel, guaranteed in federal trials by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, is fundamental to a fair trial. The Court held that failure to provide counsel for a defendant charged with a felony violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1972, the holding was further expanded to require counsel for any defendant who would spend even one day in jail if found guilty.

Prior to 1973, nearly all states in country outlawed abortion, except in instances such as rape, incest, fetal anomalies, or to save the life of the mother. However, on January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, and effectively legalized abortion nationwide.

The Roe v. Wade case challenged a Texas statute which made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman's life was at stake. The case was filed by "Jane Roe", an unmarried woman who wanted to safely and legally terminate her pregnancy. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Roe and struck down the Texas law, stating that the constitutional right of privacy was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

The court, however, held that the right to terminate a pregnancy is not absolute, and that the government also has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn fetus. Thus, the court held that woman may not terminate a pregnancy once the fetus achieves viability ( i.e. once unborn child can survive outside the womb). The ruling raises sensitive issues such as when does life begin, and government's and courts' role in marriage, family, and procreation.

Roe v Wade had an tremendous influence on many Supreme Court decisions challenging various state laws limited access to abortion procedure. Moreover, Roe v Wade has divided the country socially and politically. More than 30 years later, passions still run high. Supporters, often called "pro choice" advocates, hail the decision as tremendous advance in women's rights, privacy, and other constitutional rights. Abortion opponents, often called "pro life" advocates, believe that abortion violates fundamental moral tenets and cheapens the value placed on life, with some abortion opponents likening abortion to murder. Moreover, Roe v Wade has also been a leading political issue in court appointments and presidential campaigns.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a surprise attack on the US naval base in Pearl harbor, destroying a large portion of the United State's Pacific fleet. The event marked the United State's entry into World War II.

On that February 19, 1942, after intense pressure from West Coast politicians, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. The order authorized the Secretary of War and designated military commanders to exclude and relocate approximately 125,000 Japanese Americans residing along 100 mile strip along the Pacific coast, stretching from the Canadian border through Washington, Oregon, and California, and down into Arizona. The relocation centers or "interment camps" were hastily built camps in remote, arid areas, such as Manzanar, California.

Nearly two-thirds of those relocated where American citizens born in the US. During the rellocation, Japanese Americans were instructed to bring only bedding and linen, toilet articles, clothing, eating utensils, and essential personal effects, thus forcing the Japanese Americans to give away, abandon, or sell on very short notice and at heavy financial loss, whatever they could not carry, including their vehicles and homes.

One Japanese American, a man named Korematsu, briefly avoided relocation, but was eventually discovered, prosecuted, and convicted for violating the order. The American Civil Liberties Union appealed Korematsu's case to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Korematsu's conviction, affirming the constitutionality of the relocation order. The Court expressed that the decision had nothing to with race, but rather it was strictly a necessary and reasonable wartime security measure. One Justice asserted that it was too dangerous to leave any Japanese American at liberty - despite the fact that there were no acts of sabotage or espionage by Japanese American citizens, and that German and Italian aliens were not sent to internment camps. Dissenters stated that the decision was "the legalization of racism."

Forty-two years later, Korematsu's conviction was overturned on the grounds that the government had withheld and fabricated evidence in his trial. In 1988 Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, which provided a formal apology and restitution in the amount of $20,000 to each survivor of the relocation camps.

The Korematsu case continues to hold great significance today, especially in light of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks and the War on Terrorism. Many observers, cite parallels between the Korematsu case and the United State's recent "war on terror" policies. Civil rights activist have questioned the legality of the US detention of many Arab Americans, and the legality of anti-terror legislation, arguing they violate due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution. Supporters of such policies argue that such drastic steps are necessary to avoid further terrorist attacks.

Linda Brown, a little girl rode a bus five miles to school each day, despite the fact that a public school was located only few blocks from her home. There was plenty of space at the nearby school and Brown satisfied all the requirements. The sole reason Brown was denied attendance at the nearby school was because she was black. Her denial resulted in one the most famous and influential Supreme Court decisions in US history.

Prior to Brown v. Board of Education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" prevailed in many parts of the country. The "separate but equal" doctrine was upheld and given legal effect in Plessy v. Ferguson, a landmark decision in 1896, in which the Supreme court held that segregation (i.e. separation) of public facilities did not violate the constitution so long as they were equal. The Plessy decision upheld segregation prevalent in the South - resulting in separate schools, public restrooms, and other public facilities, for white and blacks.

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court overruled the Plessy case, in a unanimous decision holding that the "separate but equal" doctrine was unconstitutional because it violated the children's 14th Amendment rights by separating them solely on the classification of the color of their skin. Responding to legal and sociological arguments presented by NAACP lawyers, the court stressed that the badge of inferiority stamped on minority children by segregation hindered their development no matter how equal physical facilities might be. In his opinion, Justice Earl Warren stated that "segregated schools are not equal and cannot be made equal, and hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws."

The Brown decision spurred the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and helped hasten integration across the South. Despite the great achievement of Brown v. Board, more subtle forms of segregation tied to social, rather than legal forces, such as residential housing patterns and other conditions continue challenge lawmakers and the courts. Solutions such as busing have been offered but have come under legal challenges of their own.

In 1973, and again in 1974, Allan Bakke applied to the medical school at the University of California at Davis, and was rejected both times. The University ran a special admissions program, which reserved sixteen percent of the entering class for minorities students. Minorities entering through this special admissions program were processed and interviewed separately. Additionally, the grade point averages and standardized test score averages required for admission were significantly lower for minority, special admissions applicants, than they were for the regular entrants.

Bakke, who had a higher test score average and grade point average than the special program entrants, sued the University, arguing he was a victim of reverse discrimination. Bakke's case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Four of the nine Justices found for Bakke, and four found against Bakke, with Justice Thomas Powell split. Because of the split, Bakke was admitted to the medical school. Despite Bakke's admission, affirmative action was upheld - at least in part.

The Bakke decision put an end to racial quotas in the admissions process at public universities. However, the Court also held that race could be considered as long as other factors such as economic disadvantage were considered as well. Because the Courts narrow and indecisive split, state courts, governments, and public institutions, continue struggle with the issue of affirmative action, especially in public universities.

Recently, California passed Proposition 209 which, prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Since its passage, California universities have moved to a stricter admissions process that has resulted in dramatically fewer admissions of African American and Hispanic applicants. Opponents of the proposition argue that the proposition deprives Univeristies of a diverse student body that enriches the learning experience of all students.

In 1960, the New York Times ran a fundraising advertisement signed by civil-rights leaders which criticized, among other things, certain actions of the Montgomery, Ala., police department. Some of the facts in the advertisement were incorrect. In response, L. B. Sullivan, Montgomery's police commissioner, sued the Times for libel and won $500,000 in an Alabama court. The newspaper appealed and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. In its 1964 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that First Amendment protection of free speech is not dependent on the truth, popularity, or usefulness of the expressed ideas. The Court held that debate on public issues would be inhibited if public officials could recover for honest error that produced false defamatory statements about their official conduct. Furthermore, the court limited the right of recovery to public officials who could prove actual malice (i.e., that the newspaper knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth).