List of landmark court decisions in the United States

In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court. United States courts of appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity

• One, Inc. v. Olesen, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume355) U.S. 371 (1958) Pro-homosexual writing is not per se obscene. This was the first Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. • Bowers v. Hardwick, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume478) U.S. 186 (1986) A Georgia law that criminalizes certain acts of private sexual conduct between homosexual persons does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. (Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas (2003)) • Romer v. Evans, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume517) U.S. 620 (1996) A Colorado state constitutional amendment that prevents homosexuals and bisexuals from being able to obtain protections under the law is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. • Lawrence v. Texas, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume539) U.S. 558 (2003) A Texas law that criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct furthers no legitimate state interest and violates homosexuals' right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidates all of the remaining sodomy laws in the United States. • Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) The denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality and is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This was the first state court) decision in which same-sex couples won the right to marry. • United States v. Windsor, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume570) U.S. 744 (2013) Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. § 7), which defines—for federal law purposes—the terms "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to marriages between one man and one woman, is a deprivation of the equal liberty of the person protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states. The legal provision of the Defense of Marriage Act which was the issue in this case was eventually repealed by section 3 of the Respect for Marriage Act and replaced by section 5 of the Respect for Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. § 7). • SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014) The Equal Protection Clause prohibits peremptory strikes to dismiss jurors based on their sexual orientation. This was the first holding by a federal appeals court that classifications based on sexual orientation must be subjected to heightened scrutiny. • Obergefell v. Hodges, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume576) U.S. 644 (2015) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. • Bostock v. Clayton County, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume590) U.S. 644 (2020), R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume590) U.S. 644 (2020), and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume590) U.S. 644 (2020), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Supreme Court ruled under Bostock but the ruling covered all three cases.

Immunity from civil rights violations

• Monroe v. Pape, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume365) U.S. 167 (1961) While municipalities can not be liable under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, individuals acting "under color of law" can be sued for damages for denying the constitutional rights of individuals. (Partially overruled in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)) • Pierson v. Ray, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume386) U.S. 547 (1967) Police officers are protected from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983 by the doctrine of qualified immunity. • Stump v. Sparkman, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume435) U.S. 349 (1978) A judge will not be deprived of judicial immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority. He will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. • Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume436) U.S. 658 (1978) Municipalities can be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. §1983 claims against municipal entities must be based on implementation of a policy or custom. • Harris v. Harvey), 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979) The Seventh Circuit established that a judge engaging in acts of public defamation inspired by racial prejudice is not protected by judicial immunity and therefore a civil lawsuit against a judge can be brought under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983). • Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, (/wiki/ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume491) U.S. 58 (1989) Neither States nor state officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when being sued for monetary damages.

List of landmark court decisions in the United States