In no particular order...

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857):
2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!"
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans
4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal"
6. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): This decision upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute
7. Lochner v. New York (1905): they're not all civil rights cases!
8. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): Court ruled that Congress could not ban child labor
9. Kelo v. City of New London (2005): Taking land from one private party to give to another
10. Roe v. Wade (1973)

United States vs. Wong Kim Ark should be high up there too.

You forgot US vs Miller

Wickard v. Filburn

Chevron v NRDC

Won't be a popular take on this board but...

You forgot Martinez-Fuerte v The United States

El_Zorro said:

---

United States vs. Wong Kim Ark should be high up there too.

---

The issue here lies more with the 14th amendment and English common law.

New York Times v Sullivan

Marbury v. Madison

Just waiting for someone to say Loving vs Virginia

The Dirty Dozen, How Twelve Supreme Court cases radically expanded government and eroded freedom (Levy & Mellor, 2009) lists the following: (Roe v. Wade listed, but not in the dozen based on the criteria they used)
Helvering v. Davis (1937) Promoting the general welfare
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) Regulating interstate commerce
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) Rescinding private contracts
Whitman v. American Trucking Association, Inc. (2001) Lawmaking by administrative agencies
McConnel v. Federal Election Commission (2003) Campaign finance reform/free speech
United State v. Miller (1939) Gun owners' rights
Korematsu v. United States (1944) - Civil liberties vs. National Security
Bennis v. Michigan (1996) Asset forfeiture without due process
Kelo v. City of New London (2005) Eminent Domain for private use
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York (1978) Earning an honest living
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) - Equal protection and racial preferences

Demosthenes81 said:

---

New York Times v Sullivan

---

You won't like the long-term result of Sullivan is completely overturned.

HTownAg98 said:

---

El_Zorro said:

---

United States vs. Wong Kim Ark should be high up there too.

---

The issue here lies more with the 14th amendment and English common law.

---

Yeah, the UK stopped birthright citizenship in 1983 and so should the US. English common ale apparently wasn't much of an impediment.

With MSM devolving into platforms for one ideology or party, revisiting New York Times vs Sullivan may have to happen, at the very least some modifications to protect politicians who find themselves unjustly targeted by overreaching MSM. The consequences are to damaging to a healthy democracy.

Kramer v. Kramer.

dg77ag said:

---

With MSM devolving into platforms for one ideology or party, revisiting New York Times vs Sullivan may have to happen, at the very least some modifications to protect politicians who find themselves unjustly targeted by overreaching MSM. The consequences are to damaging to a healthy democracy.

---

Sometimes I miss the Fairness Doctrine, but if we still had it we probably wouldn't have gotten Rush Limbaugh.

The frustrating part is that the commentary on Fox News gets labelled as hate, but no one ever calls out the blatant bias on the alphabet "news".

HTownAg98 said:

---

Demosthenes81 said:

---

New York Times v Sullivan

---

You won't like the long-term result of Sullivan is completely overturned.

---

Probably doesn't need to be overturned but it does need to be curtailed.

dg77ag said:

---

With MSM devolving into platforms for one ideology or party, revisiting New York Times vs Sullivan may have to happen, at the very least some modifications to protect politicians who find themselves unjustly targeted by overreaching MSM. The consequences are to damaging to a healthy democracy.

---

Those same politicians and powerful figures will turn it back on people when they try to sue people for defamation. Sullivan tends to keep most of that type of stuff (except Devin Nunes) at bay.

doubledog said:

---

In no particular order...

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857):
2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!"
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans
4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal"
6. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): This decision upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute
7. Lochner v. New York (1905): they're not all civil rights cases!
8. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): Court ruled that Congress could not ban child labor
9. Kelo v. City of New London (2005): Taking land from one private party to give to another
10. Roe v. Wade (1973)

---

You left out the decision to sit idly by during the 2020 election fraud

Obergefell? Is that one?

I disagree with 1. The Dred Scott ruling was correct, it just doesn't fit in with our modern point of view (or even half the countries view at that time, hence the the civil war).

An amendment was made to the constitution that made the ruling moot which is the correct way to handle things like this. The SC should never pass judgements based on societal factors, it should be based on the constitution, as written, and with intent at the time.

This list has many cases that were the result of gradual Chinese whispers / state decisis of previous rulings or interpretation which sound stupid. Separate but equal for example - it's easy for us to say it's absurd, but at that time it was not particularly crazy.

Roe is a different animal. It was the greatest case of making **** up and legislating from the bench, and I'm not sure it has a close runner up.

Agreed, Plessy v. Ferguson is another where I believe the ruling was correct based on the wording of the 14th amendment. It again, just doesn't fit modern perspective so most people can't even comprehend it.