Q: What's the most important Supreme Court case no one's ever heard of?
Alan M. Dershowitz, professor, Harvard Law School
The 1919 Schenck v. United States decision contains the most famous sentence ever penned by a Supreme Court justice—and one of the most dangerous. Affirming the conviction of socialists who urged draftees to resist fighting in World War I, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” This was a flawed analogy—shouting “Fire!” in a theater incites action, whereas circulating ideas and arguments incites thought that might then lead to action—but one that has since been used as a justification for all manner of censorship.
Alex Kozinski, chief judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn—a 1942 case about a farmer who grew more wheat than the law allowed—led to a vast expansion of federal power, and was heavily relied on by those arguing last year that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional.
Linda Greenhouse, former New York Times Supreme Court correspondent
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) was the first case to officially grant corporations the First Amendment right to spend money in politics. Thirty-two years later, the majority ruling in Citizens United cited this case as precedent for the right of corporations to spend unlimited amounts on behalf of candidates, not just issues.
Scott Turow, attorney, author
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) struck down limits on campaign expenditures, which Congress had set in the wake of Watergate. The Court reasoned that campaign spending is not expressive conduct that can be regulated (like burning a draft card), but free speech protected by the First Amendment. Buckley created a permanent advantage for rich candidates, who could now spend all they wanted on their campaigns. Far more important, by treating expenditures as free speech, it set us on course to the justly lamented Citizens United decision of 2010.
Harold Hongju Koh, professor, Yale Law School
The Supreme Court turns away thousands of cases every year, but letting these decisions stand means they could continue to generate bad precedent. In 1950’s United States v. Munsingwear (a k a “the underwear case”), the Court articulated its power to strike lower-court decisions if they have become moot by the time they reach the justices’ desks—a means of supervising and cleaning up our legal system.
Elizabeth Wurtzel, J.D., memoirist
The 1989 case Michael H. v. Gerald D. tells us what would happen if Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a Harlequin romance. We have a California model, her New York City husband, her boyfriend next door, her boyfriend down the road—and the daughter they all love. Scalia led the majority in siding with California law, which generally presumes a woman’s husband to be the father of her children, regardless of anyone else’s claims—because having a stable family matters more than biology.
Theodore B. Olson, former solicitor general
I’d go with a case the Supreme Court didn’t take. In 1793, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson asked the Court for an advisory opinion on whether the French minister could commission privateers in the U.S., despite President Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality. Chief Justice John Jay declined to issue one, on separation-of-powers grounds. This established the still-followed precedent for the judiciary to render decisions only on actual cases.
Kathleen M. Sullivan, former dean, Stanford Law School
Everyone has heard of Brown v. Board of Education, which held that segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment. But that applies only to the states. It was Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), about segregation in D.C. schools, that found discrimination by the federal government to be a violation of the Bill of Rights. Any federal discrimination suit—for example, this year’s case about the Defense of Marriage Act—descends from Bolling.
Andrew Cohen, Atlantic contributing editor