What did the Court actually decide?
A narrow ruling may answer only one question. Winning a case does not mean every argument the winner made became law.
USA Simple Civics · The courts
Supreme Court decisions that changed everyday life
A ruling can change who may marry, how elections work, what police must do, or how far a president’s power reaches. Some decisions expand rights. Others limit them. Some are later overturned.
34 selected decisions · 1803–2026 · Reviewed October 17, 2026
Three things to check before sharing a headline
Which opinion are you reading?
The majority explains the Court’s ruling. A concurrence agrees with the result but may use different reasons. A dissent disagrees; it is not the rule the Court adopted.
What happened afterward?
A later case or constitutional amendment can replace an old rule. Congress can also change a law the Court interpreted, within constitutional limits.
A vote count needs context. Justices sometimes split differently on different questions. A 6–3 ruling is not a public vote or a vote in Congress. Fewer than nine justices may participate.
How can the same Constitution lead to different rulings?
It can be confusing when a right protected for decades is no longer protected in the same way. The Constitution’s words may stay the same while the Court’s interpretation changes.
Earlier rulings matter—but can be overturned
A previous decision is called a precedent. Following precedent helps people know what rules to expect. But the Supreme Court can overturn its own decisions in a later case. Justices consider the earlier reasoning, whether the rule works in practice, changes in related law, and how people have relied on it. They can disagree about how much those factors matter.
Changing a constitutional interpretation does not require amending the Constitution. New justices can change which view has a majority, but each ruling must come through a case and give legal reasons.
Example: abortion and public gun carrying
In June 2022, the Court gave states more room to restrict abortion while limiting a state’s power to restrict public handgun carrying. The majorities treated them as different constitutional questions.
| Question | Dobbs: abortion | Bruen: public handgun carrying |
|---|---|---|
| What did the majority say? | The Constitution did not protect an abortion right under its reading of liberty, history and tradition. Roe and Casey were wrongly decided. | The Second Amendment protected public carrying for self-defense. New York’s special-need requirement did not fit the historical tradition of firearm regulation. |
| What did the dissent challenge? | Removing a long-established protection undermined liberty, equality and people’s ability to rely on the law. Historical limits on women’s rights should not set the reach of liberty today. | The history-based test did not adequately account for modern gun violence or lawmakers’ public-safety judgments. |
| What changed? | The Court overturned its abortion precedents. It did not itself enact a nationwide abortion ban. | The Court struck down a state restriction while building on earlier gun-rights decisions. It did not abolish all gun regulation. |
“Let states decide” is not a rule for every issue. When the Court finds a federal constitutional right, states must respect it. When it finds no such right, lawmakers generally have more room to act, subject to other legal limits. The disagreement is often about which rights the Constitution protects and how judges should identify them.
This explains the distinction the majorities drew. Readers can still question whether those methods are convincing or applied consistently. Explaining a ruling is different from agreeing with it.
Sources: Dobbs: majority, concurrence and dissent · Bruen: majority, concurrences and dissent. See the case cards for vote counts and later developments.
Explore the decisions
Start with a topic or search for a case, issue or phrase. Newest decisions appear first.
Showing all 34 decisions.
What do the status labels mean?
- Still used: The core rule remains a precedent; the note explains important limits.
- Changed later: A later decision or law changed a part of the rule or its effect. This does not always mean the case was overturned.
- Overturned / replaced: The central rule shown here is no longer current law.
- Case-specific: Read the ruling’s express limits before applying it elsewhere.
These are brief reading guides, not a complete list of every later case. The labels reflect this page’s review date.
Louisiana v. Callais
The question: Did the Voting Rights Act justify Louisiana’s use of race in its new congressional map?
What changed: The Court held that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. It tightened the test for Section 2 vote-dilution claims, requiring evidence supporting a strong inference of intentional racial discrimination.
The vote: 6–3
Still used
What to know now: Section 2 remains law. The Court changed how these redistricting claims are tested, including how challengers must separate race from party politics. This affects the legal framework, not just one map.
Trump v. CASA
The question: Could lower courts block a federal policy for everyone, including people outside the lawsuit?
What changed: The Court narrowed universal injunctions—orders that protect people beyond the parties—under the authority Congress gave federal courts. Relief must not exceed what is needed to fully protect the plaintiffs.
The vote: 6–3
Still used
What to know now: This ruling addressed the scope of court orders. It did not decide whether the birthright-citizenship executive order was constitutional. Class actions and other kinds of relief raise separate questions.
United States v. Skrmetti
The question: Did Tennessee’s restrictions on certain treatments for transgender minors violate equal protection?
What changed: The Court upheld the challenged restrictions on puberty blockers and hormones under a deferential legal test called rational-basis review.
The vote: 6–3 on the result.
Still used
What to know now: This was a constitutional ruling about Tennessee’s law, not a nationwide medical-treatment ban. The Court did not decide which treatment policy was best or resolve every possible legal challenge.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The question: Must courts accept a reasonable agency interpretation just because a law is unclear?
What changed: No. Courts must use their own judgment on legal meaning. The Court overruled Chevron’s rule of deference to agencies on ambiguous statutes.
The vote: Loper Bright: 6–2; companion Relentless: 6–3. Jackson did not participate in Loper Bright.
Still used
What to know now: Agencies still have powers Congress lawfully gives them. The decision did not automatically undo every older ruling or regulation based on Chevron.
Trump v. United States
The question: When can a former president face criminal prosecution for acts while in office?
What changed: The Court recognized absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, at least presumed immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.
The vote: 6–3 on the result; Barrett did not join one part about evidence.
Still used
What to know now: It did not give presidents immunity for every action or decide guilt. Courts must distinguish official conduct from private conduct and apply the relevant rule.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / UNC
The question: Could Harvard and UNC keep their race-conscious admissions systems?
What changed: The Court rejected those systems under federal civil-rights law for Harvard and the Constitution’s equal-protection rule for UNC. It sharply restricted considering race itself in college admissions.
The vote: Harvard: 6–2; UNC: 6–3. Jackson did not participate in Harvard.
Still used
What to know now: Schools may consider an applicant’s account of how race affected their life, tied to individual qualities and experiences. They cannot use essays to recreate the rejected system.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
The question: Could Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban stand, and should Roe and Casey remain?
What changed: The Court upheld the law and overturned Roe and Casey. It held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.
The vote: 6–3 on upholding the Mississippi law; 5–4 on overturning Roe and Casey.
Still used
What to know now: Dobbs did not itself impose a nationwide abortion ban. Laws and state constitutional protections vary. Roberts would have upheld the law without fully overturning the earlier precedents.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
The question: Could a public school punish a coach for the prayer at issue after games?
What changed: The majority treated the prayer as personal religious expression protected by free speech and free exercise. It replaced the older Lemon approach with a test based on history and tradition.
The vote: 6–3
Still used
What to know now: This did not authorize school-directed worship. The dissent disputed the majority’s account of the facts and emphasized pressure on students. Private expression and government coercion remain distinct questions.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
The question: Could New York require a special need to carry a handgun publicly?
What changed: The Court struck down the special-need rule. It said covered gun restrictions must fit the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The vote: 6–3
Changed later
What to know now: Rahimi (2024) clarified that history does not require an exact old-law twin. It upheld temporary disarmament under the domestic-violence restraining-order law at issue. Bruen did not erase all licensing rules.
Read the opinion (Justia) · Oyez explanation · Rahimi opinion
Bostock v. Clayton County
The question: Does federal workplace law protect employees from being fired for being gay or transgender?
What changed: Yes. The Court read Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination to include firing someone merely for being gay or transgender.
The vote: 6–3
Still used
What to know now: This ruling interpreted a workplace law. It did not decide every question about bathrooms, sports, religious defenses or other laws.
Rucho v. Common Cause
The question: Can federal courts decide that a map is too biased toward a political party under the federal Constitution?
What changed: The Court held that these partisan-gerrymandering claims present political questions federal courts cannot resolve. The cases involved Republican-drawn North Carolina and Democratic-drawn Maryland maps.
The vote: 5–4
Still used
What to know now: This did not approve every map. State-law remedies and other federal claims, including racial-gerrymandering claims, are different.
Janus v. AFSCME
The question: Can a public-sector union require nonmembers to pay agency fees?
What changed: The Court held that taking these fees from nonconsenting public employees violates the First Amendment. It overturned Abood’s rule permitting such fees.
The vote: 5–4
Still used
What to know now: This ruling concerns public-sector workers. It did not ban unions or prevent workers from choosing to join and pay dues.
Obergefell v. Hodges
The question: Must states license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex?
What changed: Yes. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects that right on the same terms as marriages between opposite-sex couples.
The vote: 5–4
Still used
What to know now: The ruling governs civil marriage. It does not require religious groups to change their religious teachings.
Shelby County v. Holder
The question: Could an old coverage formula still decide which places needed advance federal approval for voting changes?
What changed: The Court struck down Section 4(b)’s formula. That stopped the ordinary Section 5 preclearance system from operating through that formula.
The vote: 5–4
Still used
What to know now: It did not strike down the entire Voting Rights Act or Section 5 itself. Congress could adopt a new valid formula. Other voting protections involve different legal rules.
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius
The question: Could major parts of the Affordable Care Act remain in effect?
What changed: The Court upheld the individual insurance mandate’s payment as a tax. It also prevented the federal government from withdrawing existing Medicaid funding from states that rejected the expansion.
The vote: 5–4 on the tax basis; 7–2 found the Medicaid funding threat coercive.
Changed later
What to know now: The ruling made Medicaid expansion a state choice. Congress later reduced the federal individual-mandate payment to $0 starting in 2019. That change was legislation, not this decision.
Read the opinion (Justia) · Oyez explanation · IRS: mandate payment reduced to zero
Citizens United v. FEC
The question: Could government ban corporate independent spending on election messages?
What changed: The Court rejected restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. Independent means not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
The vote: 5–4 on independent spending; 8–1 on the disclosure and disclaimer provisions at issue.
Still used
What to know now: This did not authorize unlimited corporate donations directly to candidates. It also did not strike down the disclosure rules considered in this case.
District of Columbia v. Heller
The question: Does the Second Amendment protect an individual’s handgun for self-defense at home?
What changed: The Court recognized an individual right and struck down D.C.’s handgun ban and its requirement that lawful guns in the home be kept unusable for immediate self-defense.
The vote: 5–4
Still used
What to know now: The opinion said the right is not unlimited. It did not invalidate all gun regulation. Bruen later addressed public carry and the test courts use.
Lawrence v. Texas
The question: Could Texas criminalize private, consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex?
What changed: The Court struck down the law and overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. The Constitution protects adults’ liberty in this private conduct.
The vote: 6–3 on the result; five joined the due-process reasoning.
Still used
What to know now: The case concerns private, consensual adult conduct. It did not itself establish a right to same-sex marriage; Obergefell addressed marriage later.
Bush v. Gore
The question: Could Florida continue its presidential recount under the procedures being used?
What changed: The Court found unequal treatment of ballots and stopped the recount. This left the certified Florida result in place in the close 2000 election.
The vote: 5–4 on ending the recount; seven justices found constitutional problems with the recount procedures.
Case-specific
What to know now: The opinion expressly limited its equal-protection analysis to the circumstances presented. It is not a general rule that recounts are unconstitutional.
Buckley v. Valeo
The question: Could federal law limit campaign contributions and spending?
What changed: The Court upheld limits on contributions to candidates but struck down several spending limits, including limits on independent spending and candidates’ use of their own money.
The vote: Multiple votes by issue; no single vote describes the whole case.
Changed later
What to know now: The distinction between giving money to candidates and spending independently remains important. Later decisions, including Citizens United, changed parts of campaign-finance law.
United States v. Nixon
The question: Could President Nixon withhold White House tapes needed in a criminal case?
What changed: A general claim of presidential confidentiality did not outweigh the demonstrated need for evidence in a criminal trial. Nixon had to produce the subpoenaed materials.
The vote: 8–0; Rehnquist did not participate.
Still used
What to know now: Executive privilege exists but is not absolute. This evidence dispute is different from the criminal-immunity question in Trump v. United States.
Roe v. Wade
The question: Did the Constitution protect a decision to have an abortion?
What changed: The Court recognized a constitutional abortion right and limited how states could restrict it during pregnancy.
The vote: 7–2
Overturned / replaced
What to know now: Planned Parenthood v. Casey changed Roe’s framework in 1992. Dobbs overturned both abortion precedents in 2022. Roe no longer supplies a federal constitutional right to abortion.
Read the opinion (Justia) · Oyez explanation · Dobbs opinion
Tinker v. Des Moines
The question: Could a public school punish students for wearing black armbands to protest a war?
What changed: The Court protected the students’ peaceful expression. Schools need more than discomfort with an unpopular view to prohibit it.
The vote: 7–2
Still used
What to know now: Schools may address speech that seriously disrupts school or invades others’ rights. The case does not mean every kind of student speech is protected in every setting.
Loving v. Virginia
The question: Could states prohibit marriage between people of different races?
What changed: No. The Court struck down racial restrictions on marriage under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
The vote: 9–0
Still used
What to know now: States cannot prohibit interracial marriage. This case concerns government marriage restrictions, not a requirement that religious groups perform ceremonies.
Miranda v. Arizona
The question: What safeguards apply when police question someone in custody?
What changed: Police generally must explain the rights to silence and a lawyer before custodial questioning if they want to use the answers in the prosecution’s case.
The vote: 5–4
Changed later
What to know now: The warning rule still applies, with exceptions shaped by later cases. In Vega v. Tekoh (2022), the Court held that a Miranda violation alone does not support a federal civil-rights damages claim under Section 1983.
Griswold v. Connecticut
The question: Could a state ban married couples from using contraception?
What changed: The Court struck down Connecticut’s ban and recognized constitutional protection for privacy within marriage.
The vote: 7–2
Still used
What to know now: Dobbs overturned the abortion precedents, not this contraception ruling. The Dobbs majority said its decision concerned abortion; a separate Thomas opinion urged reconsidering other privacy cases. A separate opinion is not a Court ruling.
Read the opinion (Justia) · Oyez explanation · Dobbs opinion and separate opinions
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
The question: When can a public official win damages over a false statement about official conduct?
What changed: The official must show that the speaker knew the statement was false or recklessly ignored whether it was true. This protects debate about government from many defamation lawsuits.
The vote: 9–0
Still used
What to know now: The rule does not make all false statements lawful. “Actual malice” here means knowing or reckless falsehood—not simply anger or dislike.
Reynolds v. Sims
The question: Can state legislative districts have sharply unequal populations?
What changed: Both chambers of a state legislature must use districts based substantially on equal population. A growing city’s voters cannot be given much less representation simply because old boundaries stayed in place.
The vote: 8–1
Still used
What to know now: This is the “one person, one vote” rule for state legislatures. It does not change the U.S. Constitution’s rule of two U.S. senators per state.
Gideon v. Wainwright
The question: Must a state provide a lawyer to a person who cannot afford one in a felony trial?
What changed: Yes. The right to a defense lawyer applies in state felony prosecutions, not just federal ones. States must appoint counsel for qualifying defendants who cannot afford counsel.
The vote: 9–0
Still used
What to know now: This is about criminal defense. It does not create a general right to a free lawyer in every civil dispute. Other cases set rules for less serious criminal charges.
Engel v. Vitale
The question: Could public schools use a government-written prayer?
What changed: The Court rejected a state-sponsored school prayer, even though students could opt out. Government may not organize this kind of religious exercise.
The vote: 6–1; two justices did not participate.
Still used
What to know now: This does not ban students from praying privately. Government-sponsored worship and a person’s own religious expression are different questions. See Kennedy below.
Brown v. Board of Education
The question: Could public schools separate children by race?
What changed: The Court held that state-required racial segregation in public schools violates equal protection. Separate schools are not equal just because buildings or supplies appear similar.
The vote: 9–0
Still used
What to know now: The rule remains a foundation of civil rights law. The decision did not instantly integrate every school; enforcing it took further court orders and public action.
Plessy v. Ferguson
The question: Could a state require separate railroad cars by race?
What changed: The Court upheld racial segregation under the idea of “separate but equal.” This helped sustain legally required segregation.
The vote: 7–1; one justice did not participate.
Overturned / replaced
What to know now: Brown rejected this rule for public schools in 1954. Later decisions rejected legally required segregation in other public settings. Plessy is not a valid defense of racial segregation today.
Read the opinion (Justia) · Oyez explanation · Brown opinion · Later history in the 2023 admissions opinion
Dred Scott v. Sandford
The question: Could Dred Scott claim freedom and sue as a U.S. citizen?
What changed: The Court denied citizenship to Black people descended from people brought to America and enslaved. It also rejected Congress’s power to prohibit slavery in federal territories.
The vote: 7–2
Overturned / replaced
What to know now: This is not current law. The 13th Amendment ended slavery, except as punishment for crime; the 14th Amendment displaced the ruling’s citizenship rule.
Read the opinion (Justia) · Oyez explanation · Reconstruction amendments
Marbury v. Madison
The question: Can the Court reject a federal law that conflicts with the Constitution?
What changed: The Court refused to use a power Congress had given it because that power went beyond the Constitution. This became a foundation of judicial review: courts can find laws unconstitutional.
The vote: 4–0; two justices did not participate.
Still used
What to know now: Judicial review remains a basic part of the court system. The Court did not order that Marbury receive his commission.
No decisions match those filters. Try a shorter search or reset the filters.
Can a Supreme Court ruling change?
The Court can change course
Earlier decisions are called precedents. The Court usually considers them when deciding later cases, but can limit or overturn them. Brown and Dobbs show that this can happen in very different areas of law.
Congress can change a statute
If a case interprets a federal law, Congress can rewrite that law, as long as the new law is constitutional. It cannot erase a constitutional ruling just by passing the same rule again.
An amendment can change the Constitution
Amendments can replace a constitutional rule. The Reconstruction amendments displaced Dred Scott’s rules about slavery and citizenship.
Who is responsible? Presidents nominate justices and the Senate confirms them. Justices then decide cases. A president in office when a decision comes out did not necessarily appoint its majority or direct its outcome.
Sources and selection
This is a selected guide, not every important case or every decision from the latest term. Cases were chosen for their effects on rights, elections, government power and daily life. Dates are decision years, not the Court term when arguments began.
Each card links to the opinion and an explanation. Older opinions are available through Justia; recent official PDFs are linked where used. Oyez supplies case histories and vote information. Later rulings and laws are linked when needed to explain changes.
Read the opinion itself for the ruling; a syllabus is a summary, and a dissent describes a different view. Older website commentary may predate later cases, so check the “What to know now” note as well.
Supreme Court opinions · Oyez case archive · Congress: Constitution Annotated
Related: Redistricting · Media laws · How laws are made · How we check information