Marbury v. Madison was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the doctrine of judicial review. In a nutshell, judicial review is the idea that the courts can examine the actions of the legislature and the executive, and in some cases even invalidate those actions. This case has been lauded for cementing in place the checks and balances for which the U.S. government is so well known. Of course, nobody is perfect, not even the 9 members that make up the Supreme Court. In light of the recent case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the court decided that corporate funding of political elections could not be limited, I thought we should examine other historical examples of the Supreme Court getting it wrong.

• Korematsu v. United States (1944): Fred Korematsu was a natural born U.S. citizen of Japanese descent who lived in California, and willfully chose to disobey the order to report to an internment camp during World War II. He was subsequently arrested and convicted for this violation, though questions of his loyalty were never raised. The Supreme Court ruled against Korematsu, stating that national security was more important than individual rights. At the same time, it affirmed that racist policies could be used in order to violate said rights (remember, Korematsu's loyalty was never called into question, the problem was simply that he was Japanese). In a passionate dissent, Justice Frank Murphy stated:

  I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must, accordingly, be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment, and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

• Schenck v. United States (1919): Charles Schenk was the Secretary of the Socialist Party, and was responsible for mailing anti-war pamphlets to young men eligible for the draft during World War I. The problem, though, was that the Espionage Act of 1917 had made such actions illegal. Schenk was convicted under the Espionage act, but he appealed, arguing that it violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Schenk's writings presented a clear and present danger to the armed forces by hampering their recruitment efforts. In his decision, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes essentially said that the First Amendment takes a backseat during times of war, stating "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
• Roth v. United States (1957): This landmark case redefined obscenity in the 20th century. Up until this point, the definition of obscenity was so broad that it was used to ban literary works that today are considered classics. So, when Samuel Roth was convicted of violating federal law by sending nude pictures and erotic stories to his customers, he naturally took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, saying that the law violated his First Amendment right to free speech. In a 6-3 decision, the court redefined obscenity (which many conservatives believe led to the "free love" of the 1960s), but it still concluded that obscenity is not protected under the Constitution. Recognizing the potential danger in the decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in his concurrence, "broad language used here may eventually be applied to the arts and sciences and freedom of communication generally."
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): Dred Scott was a slave who first sued for his freedom in 1846. Essentially, Scott argued that since his owner had taken him to free territories of the U.S., Scott should be free, an argument based on legal precedent. However, the Court decided that people of African descent were not citizens of the United States, thus he had no legal standing to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court. The court also rendered the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, and held that the Fifth Amendment prohibited the federal government from freeing slaves who entered free territories. In their decision, the Supreme Court stated that the Founding Fathers thought blacks were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." This decision shook the entire country to its core, rendering years of legislation unconstitutional and paving the way for the expansion of slavery. On top of that, many felt that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in delivering any ruling at all, rather than simply dismissing Scott's case when they determined he wasn't a citizen. The case was so controversial that Justice Benjamin Curtis, one of two dissenters resigned. To this day, Curtis is the only Supreme Court Justice in history to resign as a matter of principle.
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): In the years following Reconstruction, former Confederate states began passing Jim Crow laws, under the guise of keeping blacks and white separate, but equal. In Louisiana, one of these laws called for the segregation of railroad cars, and a group of concerned citizens rallied together to challenge what was known as the separate-car law. In a brilliant move, they got Homer Plessy, who resembled a white male, yet had a black great-grandmother and was thus labelled "colored" under Louisiana law, to board the train then announce that he had a black ancestor. When train officials requested he move, he declined, and was arrested. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7-1 decision that the state of Louisiana did not violate Plessy's rights, and that since the separate-car law dictated that the facilities be equal, it did not violate federal law. In his dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan correctly predicted that Plessy v. Ferguson would become as infamous and well-known as the Dred Scott decision. Unfortunately, Plessy v. Ferguson affirmed the notion of racial segregation, which would take almost another 75 years to overturn.
• United States v. Miller (1939): In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which required certain types of firearms to be registered, and a $200 tax to be paid on them ($200 in 1934 was like a trillion dollars today). Enter Jack Miller, an individual who made his way in the world through nefarious means such as moonshining and bank robbing, and therefore felt the need to carry a sawed-off shotgun with him for protection. Of course, Miller did not register this weapon, and unfortunately for old Jack, he was caught crossing state lines in possession of said weapon. He was convicted under the National Firearms Act, but he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. What's strange about this case, though, is how it proceeded. Although the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, neither Miller nor his lawyers presented arguments to the court. Thus, the court only heard arguments from the plaintiffs. Kind of a weird situation to render a decision having only heard one side of an argument, don't you think?
• Kelo v. City of New London (2005): Susette Kelo was a homeowner in a depressed neighborhood of New London, Connecticut, where urban renewal developers came up with an idea to build an upscale "village" in her neighborhood. Unfortunately, Kelo and her neighbors were not included in the plan for this development, as it was meant to attract employees of the local Pfizer facility, so she refused to give up her property. As a result, the city of New London used the principle of eminent domain to take her property from her and give it to the developers. Of course, Kelo sued and the case reached the Supreme Court, where she would surely get a sympathetic ear; after all, what right does the government have to take private property from one person to give to another? Surprisingly, the Supreme Court decided that the government does in fact have that right if the new development has a public purpose. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas lamented the decision stating:

  Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

These are just a few examples of the Supreme Court showing its imperfection. We can only hope that the justices were doing their best to uphold the law, and interpret to the best of their abilities given the era in which each decision takes place. If nothing else, Supreme Court decisions of this type often lead to legislation or Constitutional amendments, which ultimately "right the ship". For that reason, we should always remember that the final decision does not belong to the courts, but to the people.