Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

The Court held that economic strikers who remain employees and whose jobs become available are entitled to reinstatement preference, even if no jobs existed when they first applied after the strike.

The Court, through Justice Stewart, held that electronically listening to and recording Katz's telephone-booth conversations constituted a Fourth Amendment search despite the absence of physical penetration.

The Court held that economic strikers retain employee status and their reinstatement rights do not expire merely because no job was available when they first applied after the strike.

The Court held that the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 does not make its listed remedies exclusive and therefore permits the United States to obtain declaratory relief and recover removal expenses from parties whose negligence caused a vessel to sink in navigable waters.

The Court held that the Rivers and Harbors Act does not make its expressly specified remedies exclusive, permitting the United States to obtain declaratory relief and recover the costs of removing vessels negligently sunk in navigable waters.

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief, holding that a voluntariness hearing may be conducted in the presence of the jury when the defendant’s counsel does not object and the trial judge finds the statement voluntary, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition.

The Court held that a voluntariness hearing conducted in the presence of the jury does not violate the Constitution when trial counsel consents and the judge finds the confession voluntary, and therefore reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief.

Chief Justice Warren's opinion held that Virginia's prohibition of interracial marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court reversed the Lovings' convictions.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Fortas, affirmed the dismissal of Prima Paint's appeal from an order staying its rescission action pending arbitration. The consulting agreement involved interstate commerce and therefore fell within the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Court affirmed the libel judgment against Curtis Publishing in Butts and reversed and remanded the judgment against the Associated Press in Walker. Justice Harlan's plurality, joined by Justices Clark, Stewart, and Fortas, rejected waiver of Curtis's constitutional defense and proposed allowing public figures to…

Chief Justice Warren's opinion held that the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment and protects the right to present relevant, material defense testimony, not merely to secure a witness's attendance.

The Court held that officials may not compel a nonconsensual inspection of the nonpublic portions of commercial premises without a suitable warrant procedure, and reversed See’s conviction for refusing a warrantless inspection of his locked warehouse.

Justice Clark's opinion held that federal authorities determining estate tax liability are not conclusively bound by a state trial court's determination of property rights when the United States was not a party.

Justice Black's majority opinion held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects United States citizens against congressional deprivation of citizenship without their voluntary relinquishment.

Justice Brennan's majority opinion held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search for an armed robber and weapons, and rejected the Fourth Amendment distinction between mere evidence and instrumentalities, fruits, or contraband.

Justice Harlan’s opinion held that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not preclude pre-enforcement review of the Commissioner’s prescription-drug labeling regulations and that the manufacturers’ challenge was ripe.

The Court held that Michigan's method of selecting a county school board through delegates from local school boards did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the county board performed essentially administrative rather than legislative functions and was selected through an appointive process rather than an…

Justice Clark's opinion held that California's procedure allowing appointed appellate counsel to submit a bare no-merit letter left an indigent defendant without the active advocacy and fair appellate process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court held that the distribution of the challenged publications is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, so the states could not constitutionally suppress them; consequently the convictions and injunctions were reversed.

The Court held that state statutes cannot suppress the distribution of the challenged publications because such suppression is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the judgments in Redrup v. New York, Austin v. Kentucky, and Gent v. Arkansas were reversed.

Chief Justice Warren's opinion held that judges retain immunity from damages under § 1983 for acts within their judicial jurisdiction, that police officers may assert a defense of good faith and probable cause to a § 1983 action for unconstitutional arrest, and that peacefully exercising constitutional rights while…

Justice Fortas, writing for the Court, held that statutory interpleader requires only minimal diversity among adverse claimants and that this jurisdictional basis is constitutional.

Chief Justice Warren's opinion held that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is fundamental and applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. North Carolina violated that right by indefinitely suspending prosecution without justification over Klopfer's objection while leaving his indictment pending…

The Court held that federal labor law governs an employee's fair-representation claim against his union, but NLRB jurisdiction does not preempt judicial consideration of that claim.

Justice Black's opinion held that federal law governs whether violations of federal constitutional rights in state criminal trials are harmless. Some constitutional errors may be harmless, but the beneficiary of the error must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to the verdict.

The Court affirmed Osborn's conviction, holding that a recording made by a government informant was admissible because federal judges had authorized the recording in advance based on a detailed affidavit alleging a specific offense, with the authorization narrowly limited to determining the affidavit's truth.

The Supreme Court affirmed Osborn’s conviction, holding that the secretly recorded conversation was admissible because it was obtained under a narrowly tailored judicial authorization consistent with Lopez, that the entrapment defense did not apply, and that the statute criminalizes any corrupt endeavor regardless of…