1. Describe the Warren Court and the expansion of individual rights as seen in the Miranda decision COURT CASES INFOGRAPHIC
        1. What years was Earl Warren Chief Justice, what “type” of court did he have
        2. What was each case about,  the decision and on what constitutional/legal ground
          1. Brown v. Board of Education
          2. Gideon v. Wainwright
          3. Reynolds v. Sims
          4. Griswold v. Connecticut
          5. Miranda v. Arizona

Chief Justice Earl Warren joined the Supreme court on January 4th, 1943. He made the court more liberal by making more decisions more democratic. It was a different attitude in the court because of him.

Court Cases:

  • Brown v. Board of Education:

In this case, the Supreme Court was deciding on if “separate, but equal” was actually fair. The unanimous decision was that it was not right to have schools be segregated because it was not only unfair to black students since it went against the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, but it also affected their learning.

  • Gideon v. Wainwright

In this case, Gideon was arrested and unfortunately, could not afford a lawyer. The state of Florida, however, refused to appoint him an attorney. Because of this, he decided to take this case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to reference a case, Betts v. Brady, and in an unanimous decision, they decided that he is required to be appointed a lawyer to help him.

  • Reynolds v. Sims

In this case, some people in rural areas’s votes were accounted more than the ones in major cities. This means that those in rural areas get more of a voice in states due to lower amounts of population. This caused major issues and was taken to the Supreme Court. The fact that some votes were being accounted more than others means that the 14th amendment was being violated. The government is suppose to have equal representation of everyone’s voice and that was not what was happened. The court ruled that legislative districts in the states must be divided equally and have roughly the same amount of population, so everyone’s votes is accounted the same.

  • Griswold v Connecticut

This case was about whether or not contraceptive pills and devices should be legal and sold. Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, which was under the control of Estelle Griswold, was working towards preventing unwanted pregnancies and STIs. Griswold fought for women’s rights and believed that women have the choice on what they can or cannot do to their bodies. This is not a government’s decision. She eventually won the case because the 9th amendment clearly states that the government cannot take away certain rights from the citizens that exceed the government’s powers.

  • Miranda v. Arizona

Police arrested Miranda in his home and was taken into questioning. Before any of this happened, Miranda was not told his rights and was forced to write a confession without counsel present. He has not finished his 9th grade in school and was mentally ill and had no one there to help with him with the case. He was soon put into jail due to his confession that the police recorded. Miranda argued that all of this went against the constitution and the fact that he was never told his rights was unlawful. He soon took it to the Supreme Court and the court ruled that the prosecution could not use his confession in trail because it did violate his rights. It is now required that police officers must recite the Miranda Rights as they are arresting someone. This way they know their rights.


All of these cases have a huge affect in today’s society and nation. For example, I may not have all the friends I have today if segregation was still places into schools. When I am old enough to vote, I know that my vote is equal compared to everyone else no matter where I live. I am able to decide what I want to do with my body and not have to worry about the government controlling my body. All of these rights are important and necessary and it definitely protects my rights in the constitution. Without Chief Justice Earl Warren, the liberal view that he added into the Supreme Court would have been gone and that would mean a loss of some rights.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s