The Warren Court and Individual Rights

The Warren Court

Unique within American history, the period in which Earl Warren served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953 to 1969) witnessed an aggressive court unafraid to tackle controversial issues.  An activist court that did much to expand the rights of the individual and the power of the federal government to enforce civil rights legislation, it changed the way Americans today perceive their relationship with their government.  Not since then has the Supreme Court wielded so much power in shaping American culture, and Earl Warren is remembered as one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices in American history.

Due Process

One of the many areas in which the Warren court expanded civil rights was in guaranteeing due process of the law to all citizens.  Prior to handing down such rulings as Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), indigent or minority accused persons often found themselves with no legal counsel to defend them in court and in many cases were uninformed regarding their rights.  Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that states must provide attorneys at state expense for accused persons unable to procure their own legal defense.  Similarly, Miranda v. Arizona expanded the rights of the accused by mandating that they must be informed of their rights upon arrest.  Both of these decisions came at a time when it had become clear that minorities were often left at a disadvantage in the legal system due to ignorance and poverty.  These rulings were intended to right these wrongs. Play “Match the Supreme Court Decision” to test your knowledge of the most important decisions of the period.

One Man, One Vote

Other outstanding rulings of the Warren Court era dealt with the “one man, one vote” principle.  Rulings such as Baker v. Carr (1962), Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) attacked political inequities.  These three cases established the idea that the legislative districts of both the House of Representatives and both houses for state legislatures must be of equal and proportional size regarding population.  The Reynolds ruling read, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."  These cases were intended to enforce relatively equal representation for both urban and rural constituents.  The effect of these rulings was to trickle down to impact even city districting as well.

Freedom of Religion

Another individual right expanded by the Supreme Court during this period was that of freedom of religion.  In 1963, Sherbert v. Verner dealt with a woman who had been fired from her long-standing job because it conflicted with her religious beliefs.  She was denied unemployment compensation as a result and took her case to court.  The court ruled that under the First Amendment, if an employee can prove their religious conflicts, they are protected by law in cases of discrimination.  Religious freedom was also put to the test in the case of free exercise in the public schools.  Engel v. Vitale (1962) ruled that it was illegal for the states to require official school prayers to be recited by the students.  Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963) declared that school-sponsored Bible readings were unconstitutional. 

Overall, the Warren court did much to expand the civil liberties Americans enjoy and exercise today, in part because no court had ever pushed the issues of racial discrimination, the rights of the accused, or religious freedom so forcefully to the forefront of American society.  Although President Johnson’s Great Society agenda did much in the way of pushing civil rights legislation into law, it was the Warren Court that set the tone for the decade in terms of the government’s role in Americans’ lives.  It provided muscle to back up Johnson’s talk by providing cause for the government to step in with force if necessary in the name of protecting individual rights.