1965
Griswold v. Connecticut
No. The ban violated a right of marital privacy implied by several guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
Source: Opinion of the Court
The Twenty-sixth Amendment. Voting age of eighteen
The right of citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of age.
VotingProposed 1971Ratified July 1, 1971
- What it does
- The right of citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of age.
- Decision it answered
- Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970). No, though it could for federal elections. The split result led directly to the Twenty-sixth Amendment.
- Time to ratify
- Ratified the same year Congress proposed it.
- Era
- Civil rights and Vietnam (1960–1974)
Around 1971. What else was in the record.
Decisions and events within six years of ratification.
1965
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Bans literacy tests and other devices used to deny the vote on account of race, and requires covered jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before changing voting rules.
Source: National Archives
1965
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
Ends the national-origin quota system and replaces it with preferences based on family ties and skills.
Source: Public Law 89-236, 79 Stat. 911
1966
Miranda v. Arizona
Yes. Statements from custodial interrogation are admissible only if the suspect was warned of the right to remain silent and to have counsel.
Source: Opinion of the Court
1967
Loving v. Virginia
No. Such bans violate both equal protection and due process; marriage is a fundamental freedom.
Source: Opinion of the Court
1967
Katz v. United States
Yes. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Source: Opinion of the Court
1968
Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act)
Signed a week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing.
1969
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
No. Students do not shed their constitutional rights “at the schoolhouse gate”; the protest caused no substantial disruption.
Source: Opinion of the Court