The Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce has been challenged consistently and often throughout American history. As new technology emerges that allows commerce to be conducted in different ways it is pretty much guaranteed that a court ruling will become necessary to reaffirm Congress’ sole right to regulate interstate commerce. Such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) after the invention of the steamboat required a ruling on Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce along a river.

South Dakota would not receive highway funds if they did not raise the legal drinking age from 19 to 21. Is it permissible for the federal government to place conditions or "strings" on federal funds? In South Dakota v. Dole, it was concluded that yes, the Congressional power to spend money allows Congress to set the rules and place conditions on federal grants.

When Dollree Mapp was suspected of criminal activities, the police searched her home. During their search, they found obscene photos and subsequently arrested Mapp. Though she was sent to prison, Mapp appealed her case with the claim that the police violated her fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court ruled in Mapp's favor, stating that evidence obtained when the police violated her fourth amendment rights was invalid. This is known as the exclusionary rule.

While the Supreme Court takes any claim of discrimination quite seriously, it applies its strictest standards, most rigorous reviews, and most often rules against acts of racial and/or ethnic discrimination. When the Court accepts any case which alleges discrimination, the justices first apply standards of review, or a tiered system of evaluation, to assess both the possible presence and severity of the alleged discriminatory activity. In most instances, the Court upholds only those alleged acts of discrimination which can be proven to be “reasonable” – this means that as long as the defendant is able to show that the restriction in question has a logical and necessary purpose, then no qualified discriminatory act was therefore committed. For example, perhaps a worker in their seventies is fired and so sues their employer for age discrimination. If the employer can show that the job which s/he manages requires physical and mental fitness (or other priorities which diminish with age), then the Court will most likely rule that no age discrimination was committed and the elderly worker will have lost their case. However, the Court pays special attention to alleged instances of racial and/or ethnic discrimination, which it views with automatic skepticism and therefore evaluates with the strictest possible standards in mind. An employer who is accused of racial bias, for example, must prove before the Court that s/he is innocent; the Court does not take into consideration the so-called logic of the restrictive action (as with age and/or gender discrimination) and most often finds the defendant guilty.

The Supreme Court case, Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), held that the law requiring only men to register for the draft and for military service was constitutionally sound and could stand. The issue arose after President Carter reinstituted the draft in 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and recommended that women be included as possible draftees.

The Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), centered around several school children from the Tinker family who wore black wristbands to school to show solidarity for the end of the Vietnam War. Those students were suspended by the school, and their case eventually came before the Supreme Court of The United States. The Court ruled that schools could not violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression of students in public schools unless those rights constituted an overt distraction from educational pursuits.

The Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas (2003), established that states have no right to make laws regarding the legality of same-sex relationships. It essentially legalized all forms of same-sex relationships across the nation in one-stroke and perhaps paved the way to the current marriage equality reform that is sweeping across the United States.

The Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was a very important court ruling of the Nineteenth Century. It not only established that Congress could not ban slavery in the territory it also ruled that African-Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and therefore did not even have the right to bring a case before the Supreme Court. It was the intention of the Court, led by Chief Justice Taney, to end the question of slavery expansion into the territories that threatened to divide the United States in two. Ultimately the court case provoked such a vehement reaction in the North, especially among the Republican party, that the differences between the two sides were only further entrenched.

Plessy v. Ferguson established the "separate but equal" doctrine in 1896. The court case established the practice of racial segregation in public facilities, which would be "separate, but equal." This doctrine was finally overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

In the Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), reaffirmed that affirmative action was constitutional, particularly as it applies to college admissions, although the court did also rule that setting aside a specific quota for minority students was not permissible. It helped define what exactly constitutes legal affirmative action and what does not.