supreme court case study 9

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Supreme Court Cases By Topic

Since its first decision in August 1791, the Supreme Court has heard and resolved thousands of cases spanning virtually every aspect of American life. The Court is not only the highest judicial authority in the United States but also the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, the founding document of our democracy. Many of its decisions rest on constitutional principles, although the Court also has interpreted federal statutes, administrative regulations, treaties, and other sources of law in cases that may affect millions of people.

While each Supreme Court decision carries great weight, some decisions have resonated with particular force. Justia has selected landmark cases in the following areas:

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table

Supreme Court Cases Library

• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment.

The National Constitution Center’s Supreme Court Cases Library includes materials on the most influential Supreme Court cases in American history. To ensure nonpartisan rigor and ideological diversity, we enlisted a pair of leading scholars from diverse constitutional perspectives—Caroline Fredrickson and Ilan Wurman—to help choose the landmark cases included in the Supreme Court Cases Library . The Supreme Court Cases Library also includes landmark cases curated by the National Constitution Center team.

Constitutional Topics

Kennedy v. bremerton school district.

597 U.S. __ (2022)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

597 U.S. ___ (2022)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo

592 U. S. __ (2020)

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

591 U.S. __ (2020)

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue

Carpenter v. united states.

585 U.S. ___ (2018)

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

584 U.S.__ (2018)

Obergefell v. Hodges

576 U.S. ___ (2015)

Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Town of greece v. galloway.

572 U.S. 565 (2014)

Shelby County v. Holder

570 U.S. 529 (2013)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

567 U.S. 519 (2012)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

558 U.S. 310 (2010)

District of Columbia v. Heller

554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Lawrence v. Texas

539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Bush v. Gore

531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Printz v. United States

521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Washington v. Glucksberg

521 U.S. 702 (1997)

United States v. Virginia

518 U.S. 515 (1996)

United States v. Lopez

514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Employment Division v. Smith

494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Texas v. Johnson

491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Morrison v. Olson

487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

484 U.S. 260 (1988)

South Dakota v. Dole

483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Lynch v. Donnelly

465 U.S. 668 (1984)

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

457 U.S. 800 (1982)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

438 U.S. 265 (1978)

United States v. Nixon (The Tapes Case)

418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Frontiero v. Richardson

411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Roe v. Wade

410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Wisconsin v. Yoder

406 U.S. 205 (1972)

New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case)

403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Brandenburg v. Ohio

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Terry v. Ohio

392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Katz v. United States

389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Loving v. Virginia

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Griswold v. Connecticut

381 U.S. 479 (1965)

United States v. Seeger

380 U.S. 163 (1965)

Reynolds v. Sims

377 U.S. 533 (1964)

New York Times Company v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Sherbert v. Verner

374 U.S. 398 (1963)

Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Engel v. Vitale

370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Mapp v. Ohio

367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Sweezy v. New Hampshire

354 U.S. 234 (1957)

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case)

343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Terminiello v. Chicago

337 U.S. 1 (1949)

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township

330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Korematsu v. United States

323 U.S. 214 (1944)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Wickard v. Filburn

317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Thornhill v. Alabama

310 U.S. 88 (1940)

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

304 U.S. 64 (1938)

United States v. Carolene Products Co.

304 U.S. 144 (1938)

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

300 U.S. 379 (1937)

Crowell v. Benson

285 U.S. 22 (1932)

Stromberg v. California

283 U.S. 359 (1931)

Olmstead v. United States

277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Whitney v. California

274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Gitlow v. New York

268 U.S. 652 (1925)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Abrams v. United States

250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Schenck v. United States

249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Lochner v. New York

198 U.S. 45 (1905)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Plessy v. Ferguson

163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Chinese Exclusion Case—Chae Chan Ping v. United States

130 U.S. 581 (1889)

The Civil Rights Cases

109 U.S. 3 (1883)

Strauder v. West Virginia

100 U.S. 303 (1880)

Reynolds v. United States

98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Minor v. Happersett

88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Bradwell v. The State of Illinois

83 U.S. 130 (1873)

The Slaughter-House Cases

83 U.S. 36 (1873)

Dred Scott v. Sandford

60 U.S. 393 (1857)

McCulloch v. Maryland

17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Marbury v. Madison

5 U.S. 137 (1803)

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.

• Miranda v. Arizona : Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
• Vignera v. New York: Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior. He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad, where he orally admitted the robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.
• Westover v. United States: Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California. These statements were introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• California v. Stewart : In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Steward was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewart’s wife and three other people who were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant to hurt her. At that time, police released the four other people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the crime. At trial, Stewart’s statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.

Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.

Supreme Court holding

The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

The Court further held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda , reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera , reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover , and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart .

Argued: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966

Decided: June 13, 1966

Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren and joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas.

Dissenting opinion written by Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White.

Dissenting in part opinion written by Justice Clark.

Miranda v. Arizona : After Miranda’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda’s confession was not introduced into evidence. Miranda was once again convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

• Name Search
• Browse Legal Issues
• Browse Law Firms

U.S. Supreme Court Recent Cases

Welcome to FindLaw's searchable database of U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 1760. Supreme Court opinions are browsable by year and U.S. Reports volume number, and are searchable by party name, case title, citation, full text and docket number. FindLaw maintains an archive of Supreme Court opinion summaries from September 2000 to the present. Summarized cases are browsable by date and searchable by docket number, case title, and full text.

Party Name Search

Free Text Search

Search by Docket Number

Browse by Court

Federal courts.

• United States Supreme Court
• 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
• 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
• 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
• 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
• 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
• 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
• 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
• 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
• 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
• 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
• 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
• D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
• D.C. Court of Appeals
• Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

State Courts

• California Supreme Court
• Court of Appeals of New York
• Supreme Court of Texas
• Supreme Court of Florida
• Supreme Court of Illinois
• Supreme Court of Delaware
• Supreme Court of New Jersey
• Supreme Court of Ohio
• Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Supreme Court of Colorado

Browse by Recent Decisions

Browse opinions by calendar year »

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Why Are There Nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was established by Congress in 1789 and acts as the head of the U.S.’s federal court system. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort, and most of its significance arises from its being an appellate body—that is, a body that has the power to review and change the decisions of lower courts—since it does not hear many cases each year. How did the U.S. decide that nine was the magic number of justices to sit on its most-powerful judicial bench?

Basically, the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to determine how many justices sit on SCOTUS. This number has ranged between 5 and 10, but since 1869 the number has been set at 9. And the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been politically manipulated over the years.

Take Congress’s beef with President Andrew Johnson . (He was Abraham Lincoln ’s vice president and successor.) Congress wasn’t too fond of Johnson, since its members thought that he had abused his presidential power by removing the respected secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton , from office. Congress wanted to limit Johnson’s power as much as it could. It passed legislation in 1866 decreasing the number of judges from 10 to 7 so that Johnson wouldn’t be able to appoint a new justice. Congress’s decision was short-lived, however; SCOTUS shrank only to eight justices before the 1869 decision to set the number to nine. Not coincidentally, this was the same year that Andrew Johnson ceased to be president.

Congress wasn’t the only branch of government to attempt to alter the power structure. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a reorganization bill to Congress that would allow the president to appoint a new justice for each one who was at least 70 years old. Congress did not oblige, of course: this was seen as a court-packing scheme that would have given Roosevelt too much power. Roosevelt’s motives were to push through his New Deal , which SCOTUS had continually worked against during the president’s first term.

So is the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices significant? Maybe not. But we can certainly trace some cool political history to see how it got there.

Ninth Amendment Supreme Court Cases

The Often Overlooked Amendment

• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Legal System
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• Ph.D., Religion and Society, Edith Cowan University
• M.A., Humanities, California State University - Dominguez Hills
• B.A., Liberal Arts, Excelsior College

The Ninth Amendment ensures that you don't lose certain rights just because they're not specifically granted to you or mentioned elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution .

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

By necessity, the amendment is a little vague. The Supreme Court hasn't explored its territory in depth. The court hasn't been asked to decide the amendment's merit or interpret it as it relates to a given case. 

When it's incorporated into the 14th Amendment's broad due process and equal protection mandates, however, these unspecified rights can be interpreted as a general endorsement of civil liberties. The court is obligated to protect them, even if they're not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution .​

Nevertheless, despite more than two centuries of judicial precedent, the Ninth Amendment has yet to be the sole basis of a Supreme Court ruling. Even when it has been used as a direct appeal in prominent cases, it ends up being paired with other amendments.

Some argue this is because the Ninth Amendment doesn't actually grant specific rights, but instead lays out how a myriad of rights that are not covered in the Constitution still exist. This makes the amendment harder to pin down in a judicial ruling by itself.

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe argues,

"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."

At least two Supreme Court cases attempted to use the Ninth Amendment in their rulings, though they were ultimately forced to pair them with other amendments.

U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)

The Mitchell case involved a group of federal employees accused of violating the then-recently passed Hatch Act, which prohibits most employees of the executive branch of the federal government from engaging certain political activities.

The court ruled that only one of the employees had violated the act. That man, George P. Poole, argued, to no avail, that he had only acted as a poll worker on election day and as a paymaster for other poll workers for his political party. None of his actions were partisan, his lawyers argued to the court. The Hatch Act violated the Ninth and 10th amendments, he said.

At first glance, the 1947  Mitchell ruling as given by Justice Stanley Reed sounds sensible enough:

The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.

But there's a problem with this: It has absolutely nothing to do with rights . This jurisdictional approach, focused as it was on the states' rights to challenge federal authority, doesn't acknowledge that people are not jurisdictions.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Concurring Opinion

The Griswold ruling effectively legalized birth control ​ in 1965.

It relied heavily on an individual's right to privacy, a right that is implicit but not explicitly stated in the language of the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons," nor in the 14th Amendment's doctrine of equal protection.

Does its status as an implicit right that can be protected depend in part on the Ninth Amendment's protection of unspecified implicit rights? Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that it does in his concurrence:

I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment … I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding … This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that the Fourteenth Amendment absorbs and applies to the States those specifics of the first eight amendments which express fundamental personal rights. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments … It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights, and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected … The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution may be regarded by some as a recent discovery, and may be forgotten by others, but, since 1791, it has been a basic part of the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment, and to give it no effect whatsoever.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Dissenting Opinion

In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart disagreed:

…to say that the Ninth Amendment has anything to do with this case is to turn somersaults with history. The Ninth Amendment, like its companion, the Tenth … was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today, no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annul a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder.

2 Centuries Later

Although the implicit right to privacy has survived for over half a century, Justice Goldberg's direct appeal to the Ninth Amendment has not survived with it. More than two centuries after its ratification, the Ninth Amendment has yet to constitute the primary basis of a single Supreme Court ruling.

• The Ninth Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• 14th Amendment Summary
• Do Undocumented Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights?
• The Sixth Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• Criminal Justice and Your Constitutional Rights
• The Third Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• 5 Ways to Change the US Constitution Without the Amendment Process
• The Fifth Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• The Bill of Rights
• Basic Structure of the US Government
• U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8
• The 16th Amendment: Establishing Federal Income Tax
• The Seventh Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• Understanding States' Rights and the 10th Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• Constitutional Law: Definition and Function

Available exclusively as an online publication through HeinOnline

Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases

An online version of Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases that provides comprehensive expert analysis of all cases argued before the Supreme Court prior to the arguments. 

About Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases

The American Bar Association’s  Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases  is a publication that provides comprehensive expert analysis of all cases granted certiorari before the Supreme Court prior to the arguments. A subscription to this online publication includes eight issues annually. Issues 1-7 summarize the Court’s seven argument sessions from October through April. Issue 8, which is published subsequent to the close of the Court’s term at the end of June, reviews the entire term using statistics, charts, essays, and case summaries.

Title List: KBART (TXT) | CSV | HTML

Features of ABA Supreme Court Preview in HeinOnline

Since the American Bar Association’s  Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases  has been added to HeinOnline, subscribers now have a substantial advantage when accessing this publication online. HeinOnline allows users the ability to view the most current issue and archives in a fully searchable database. All PDFs of the publication are available in full color.

Other Benefits:

• Full coverage available from inception to current
• Electronic Table of Contents (eTOC) alerts when new issues are added
• Links to Amicus and Merit Briefs
• Additional case indexing and links to oral arguments and transcripts of each case
• HeinOnline’s ScholarCheck analysis on Preview articles & Supreme Court cases

Using Preview in the Classroom

Each month, the American Bar Association features a current case before the Court along with a modified case study and focus questions for classroom use. Access these ready-to-use resources through the American Bar Association.

Background of the Issue

Each case study provides key definitions relating to the case, as well as the case at a glance and the facts of the case.

Argument Summaries

The issue that is brought before the court is defined and includes argument summaries from both sides of the case.

Focus Questions

Insight focus questions are provided to promote and provoke dialogue regarding different aspects of the case.

Database Tools & Features

Case locator tool.

Quickly retrieve any case covered in Preview by name, docket number, term, subject, and more!

Inline Hyperlinks

Inline hyperlinks connect users to other cited articles and cases in HeinOnline. Click the blue hyperlinks to be directed to that citaiton.

Review Scholarly Works

Review other scholarly works written by Preview authors available in HeinOnline via their author profile page.

Using the Database

Knowledge base, customer training session.

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Sign up for the HNN Newsletter

Why the supreme court ended up with nine justices—and how that could change.

NINE JUSTICES MAKE up the U.S. Supreme Court: one chief justice and eight associate justices. But it hasn’t always been this way. For the first 80 years of its existence, the Supreme Court fluctuated in size from as few as five to as many as 10 before settling at the current number in 1869. Here’s how the court ended up with nine justices—and how that could change.

Constitutional foundations

When the Founding Fathers set out to establish the U.S. Supreme Court at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they kept the details vague. There are no constitutional requirements for age, experience, or citizenship of Supreme Court justices, nor did the Constitution establish how many justices would make up the court. Instead, it left many of the details up to Congress and the president. 

Two years later, the first Congress passed the  Judiciary Act of 1789 —signed into law by George Washington on September 24, 1789—which established a court of six justices responsible for ensuring the constitutionality of laws enacted by the executive and legislative branches.

The law placed the Supreme Court at the top of  a three-tier federal court system . At the lowest level, each state would have a federal judge presiding over district courts hearing minor cases related to federal laws as well as maritime cases. Those districts were then organized into three geographical regions with circuit courts that would both serve as trial courts and hear appeals.

Rather than create judgeships for each circuit court, though, Congress  stipulated  that two Supreme Court justices and one local district court judge would sit on circuit court panels. Each of the six justices was assigned a geographical circuit and  required  to preside over their circuit courts twice a year, meaning they were  on the road  for much of the year.

Partisan squabbles

It didn’t take long for the make-up of the courts to become a partisan issue. In 1801, Federalist party members in Congress sought to expand federal jurisdiction over the states by reorganizing the court system. Congress passed the  Judiciary Act of 1801 , creating new judgeships to serve six judicial circuits and reducing the Supreme Court from six seats to five. In so doing, the law also eliminated the practice of “riding circuit,” the cross-country travel   which the Supreme Court justices  detested .

Federalist John Adams, the second president of the United States, signed the bill into law on February 13, 1801. But the signing came just after he had lost his reelection campaign to political rival Thomas Jefferson, and the move  was seen  as an attempt to limit his successor’s appointments to the court. Jefferson quickly repealed the bill when he took office before any changes to the court’s composition could take effect. Since Supreme Court seats are lifetime appointments, the law had not removed any justices from the court but simply stipulated that the next vacant seat would not be replaced.

With the repeal, the six Supreme Court justices resumed their circuit riding duties. This time, rather than assign the justices to circuits, Jeffersonian Republicans  instructed  the six Supreme Court justices to allot themselves to the circuits “as they shall think fit.”

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Supreme Court keeps new rules about sex discrimination in education on hold in half the country

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen at sundown in Washington, Nov. 6, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday kept on hold in roughly half the country new regulations about sex discrimination in education, rejecting a Biden administration request.

The court voted 5-4, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three liberal justices in dissent.

At issue were protections for pregnant students and students who are parents, and the procedures schools must use in responding to sexual misconduct complaints.

The most noteworthy of the new regulations, involving protections for transgender students, were not part of the administration’s plea to the high court. They too remain blocked in 25 states and hundreds of individual colleges and schools across the country because of lower court orders.

The cases will continue in those courts.

The rules took effect elsewhere in U.S. schools and colleges on Aug. 1.

The rights of transgender people — and especially young people — have become a major political battleground in recent years as trans visibility has increased. Most Republican-controlled states have banned gender-affirming health care for transgender minors, and several have adopted policies limiting which school bathrooms trans people can use and barring trans girls from some sports competitions.

In April, President Joe Biden’s administration sought to settle some of the contention with a regulation to safeguard rights of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX , the 1972 law against sex discrimination in schools that receive federal money. The rule was two years in the making and drew 240,000 responses — a record for the Education Department.

The rule declares that it’s unlawful discrimination to treat transgender students differently from their classmates, including by restricting bathroom access. It does not explicitly address sports participation , a particularly contentious topic.

Title IX enforcement remains highly unsettled. In a series of rulings , federal courts have declared that the rule cannot be enforced in most of the Republican states that sued while the litigation continues.

In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority wrote that it was declining to question the lower court rulings that concluded that “the new definition of sex discrimination is intertwined with and affects many other provisions of the new rule.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the lower-court orders are too broad in that they “bar the Government from enforcing the entire rule — including provisions that bear no apparent relationship to respondents’ alleged injuries.”

Breaking News

Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

Holding : The admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Judgment : Reversed , 6-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 29, 2023. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions (Amy Howe, June 29, 2023)
• Affirmative action appears in jeopardy after marathon arguments (Amy Howe, October 31, 2022)
• The court is poised to set jurisprudence on race for generations — and not just in affirmative action (James Romoser, October 30, 2022)
• A guide to the amicus briefs in the affirmative-action cases (Ellena Erskine, Angie Gou, and Elisabeth Snyder, October 29, 2022)
• The court should relegate racial discrimination in higher education to the dustbin of history (Zach West and Bryan Cleveland, October 28, 2022)
• Being race-conscious is a necessary and effective tool to address racism and discrimination — including for Asian Americans (Bethany Li, October 28, 2022)
• On being original: Racial classifications and the fallacy of a certain strain of “progressive originalism” (Devon Westhill, October 28, 2022)
• A business perspective: Diversity in university admissions is a compelling interest (Michael R. Dreeben, Natalie Camastra, and Kelly Kambourelis, October 27, 2022)
• In higher education and beyond, race-based policies stifle individualism and ultimately harm everyone (Wen Fa, October 27, 2022)
• The history of anti-Black discrimination in higher education and the myth of a color-blind Constitution (Danielle R. Holley, October 26, 2022)
• Diversity by diktat: An obscure 1977 OMB memo forms the basis for today’s affirmative-action programs (David Bernstein, October 26, 2022)
• In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America (Amy Howe, October 26, 2022)
• Affirmative action cases up first in November argument calendar (Amy Howe, August 3, 2022)
• Court will hear affirmative-action challenges separately, allowing Jackson to participate in UNC case (Amy Howe, July 22, 2022)
• The rise of certiorari before judgment (Steve Vladeck, January 25, 2022)
• Court will hear challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and University of North Carolina (Amy Howe, January 24, 2022)
• Revenge of the rescheduled cases: Congressional proxy voting, the ministerial exception, and more (John Elwood, January 20, 2022)
• Court will take up five new cases, including lawsuit from football coach who wanted to pray on the field (Amy Howe, January 14, 2022)
• Blockbuster watch: Affirmative action, same-sex weddings, and other big relists (John Elwood, January 12, 2022)
• Justices add new cases on bankruptcy, workers’ comp, and relief from final judgments (Amy Howe, January 10, 2022)
• Justices request government’s views on Harvard affirmative-action dispute (Amy Howe, June 14, 2021)
• Affirmative action at Harvard, border searches and pedestrian safety (Andrew Hamm, February 26, 2021)

Privacy Overview

MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS

• Law.com Pro
• Law.com Pro Mid-Market
• Global Leaders In Law
• Global Leaders In Law Advisers
• Private Client Global Elite

MEDIA BRANDS

• Law.com Radar
• American Lawyer
• Corporate Counsel

National Law Journal

• Legal Tech News

New York Law Journal

• The Legal Intelligencer
• The Recorder
• Connecticut Law Tribune
• Daily Business Review
• Daily Report
• Delaware Business Court Insider
• Delaware Law Weekly
• New Jersey Law Journal
• Texas Lawyer
• Supreme Court Brief
• Litigation Daily
• Deals & Transactions
• Law Firm Management
• Legal Practice Management
• Legal Technology
• Intellectual Property
• Cybersecurity
• Law Journal Newsletters
• Analyst Reports
• Diversity Scorecard
• Kirkland & Ellis
• Latham & Watkins
• Baker McKenzie
• Verdict Search
• Law.com Compass
• China Law & Practice
• Insurance Coverage Law Center
• Law Journal Press
• Lean Adviser Legal
• Legal Dictionary
• Law Catalog
• Expert Witness Search
• Recruiters Directory
• Editorial Calendar

Legal Newswire

• Lawyer Pages
• Law Schools
• Women in Influence (WIPL)
• GC Profiles
• How I Made It
• Instant Insights
• Special Reports
• Resource Center
• LMA Member Benefits
• Legal Leaders
• Trailblazers
• Expert Perspectives
• Lawjobs.com
• Book Center
• Professional Announcements
• Asset & Logo Licensing

Content Source

Content Type

About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Site Map

Advertise  |  Customer Service  |  Terms of Service

FAQ  |  Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 ALM Global, LLC.

All Rights Reserved.

• Federal Litigation & Regulatory Courts & Litigation Expert Columns Latest Stories Events
• NLJ 500 (current)
• Special Reports (current)
• Supreme Court Brief (current)
• Best Of (current)

Keep an Eye on These 5th Circuit Cases for Potential Supreme Court Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit continues to set the stage for likely Supreme Court decisions on administrative law.

August 20, 2024 at 12:46 PM

5 minute read

Civil Appeals

Avalon Zoppo

Share with email, thank you for sharing.

Some of the most consequential cases that the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed last term had something in common: They first were heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit set the stage for major issues–-often dealing with administrative law–-that went before the justices, including the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative authority to issue financial penalties (which the Supreme Court struck down in SEC v. Jarkesy ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure (which the justices upheld in  CFPB  v. Community Financial Services Association Ltd.).

Want to continue reading? Become an ALM Digital Reader for Free!

Benefits of a digital membership.

• Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
• Access to the entire ALM network of websites
• Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
• Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
• Search by a wide range of topics

Register Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

*May exclude premium content

You Might Like

9th Circuit Split Over 'Loper Bright' Impact on Challenge to Sentencing Guideline in Gun Case

By Avalon Zoppo

Schools Face Patchwork Implementation of New Title IX Rules as Academic Year Begins

By Colleen Murphy

Supreme Court Leaves Order Blocking Biden's Latest Debt Plan

By Jimmy Hoover

5th Circuit to Weigh Dueling Readings of Supreme Court's Recently Clarified Gun Test

Trending stories.

Sidley Offers Associates 'Managing' Titles. Why Isn't It Catching On?

The American Lawyer

SEC, Richard Heart Clash in Dueling Motions Over $1 Billion Unregistered Securities Litigation

Clifford Chance Amsterdam Partner Bas Boris Visser Dies Unexpectedly

International Edition

Gibson Dunn Restructuring Partner Exits for Latham After 16 Months

As Associates Watch for Summer Bonuses, Timing Expectations Pushed Back

• 25 Years of the Am Law 200: Is Size as a Strategy a Winning Formula?
• People, Places & Profits, Part III: Are Law Firm Financial Metrics Keeping Pace With Inflationary Growth?
• The A-List, Innovation, and Professional Development: How Market Trends Are Impacting What it Takes to Be a Well-Rounded Firm

Featured Firms

Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates P.C. 75 Ponce De Leon Ave NE Ste 101 Atlanta , GA 30308 (470) 294-1674 www.garymartinhays.com

Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone 2 Oliver St #608 Boston , MA 02109 (857) 444-6468 www.marksalomone.com

Smith & Hassler 1225 N Loop W #525 Houston , TX 77008 (713) 739-1250 www.smithandhassler.com

Presented by BigVoodoo

More From ALM

• Events & Webcasts

The National Law Journal honors attorneys & judges who've made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in the D.C. area.

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.

The African Legal Awards recognise exceptional achievement within Africa s legal community during a period of rapid change.

NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY Invites applications for the position of:Attorney Real Estate The New York City School Const...

Shipman & Goodwin LLP is seeking an associate to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates must have four to eight years...

Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the West Palm Beach, FL office for an associate in our Labor & Employment Department. The ...

Professional Announcement

Subscribe to National Law Journal

Don't miss the crucial news and insights you need to make informed legal decisions. Join National Law Journal now!

Already have an account? Sign In

Breaking news and trends for law firm and legal departments about the evolving federal regulations in a volatile political climate.

Federal Legal News

• Courts & Litigation
• Expert Columns
• Latest Stories

Special Coverage

• Special Supplements

Surveys & Rankings

• The NLJ 500
• Current Issue

NewsMatch Challenge: Support investigative reporting from LPM, and your gift is doubled.

U.S. Supreme Court agrees to continue blocking new Title IX changes affecting Kentucky

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to continue blocking the Biden administration’s Title IX rule in 10 states, including Kentucky, which would extend the civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ students.

Five U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed to continue a stay on the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX changes reaffirming a lower court's decision. The rule expanded the landmark 1972 civil rights protection to include LGBTQ+ students.

The dispute between the justices — just as within the appellate court — doesn’t appear to be over whether to block the most contentious parts of the rules. Those would have expanded the definition of sex discrimination to include general identity and sexual orientation.

“Importantly,” the majority wrote, “all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination.”

The Supreme Court ordered the stay for 10 states, including Kentucky, combining two different lawsuits to do so. The rule, which was initially supposed to go into effect on August 1 before the start of the school year, won’t be implemented in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho as the case progresses.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, granted an expedited hearing for the case and oral arguments are scheduled for October.

In a statement, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said that public and private schools across the state received $1.1 billion in federal education department funding last year. Schools risk losing their federal funding if they violate Title IX rules.

“We went to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend equal opportunities for Kentucky’s women and young girls. At its core, this is a fight for common sense itself. And we’ve won at every level of our judicial system,” said Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman.

Kentucky Sen. Robby Mills from Henderson said the ruling “condemns the woke ideology” he says the Biden administration has promoted.

"Wokeism and gender ideology must never trump Kentucky values and the U.S. Constitution," Mills said.

Four of the nine justices dissented against the opinion however, with former President Donald Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three liberal-leaning justices. The dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the stay was overly broad and shouldn’t apply to the whole of the new rule.

Along with expanding protections for LGBTQ+ students, the rule change would have also further shielded pregnant students from discrimination. It would have rolled back changes put in place by the Trump administration that narrowly defined sexual harassment and allowed people accused of sexual harassment or assault to cross-examine their accusers in live hearings.

“By blocking the Government from enforcing scores of regulations that respondents never challenged and that bear no apparent relationship to respondents’ alleged injuries, the lower courts went beyond their authority to remedy the discrete harms alleged here,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

But the majority of justices decided that the new definition of sex discrimination in particular was too overarching and therefore was impossible to disentangle from the rest of the rule.

State government and politics reporting is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Can we count on your support?

Louisville Public Media depends on donations from members – generous people like you – for the majority of our funding. You can help make the next story possible with a donation of $10 or $20. We'll put your gift to work providing news and music for our diverse community.

• HT Newsletters
• Weather Today
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Print Ad Rates
• Code of Ethics
• Subscription - Terms of Use
• Latest News

• Entertainment
• Bengal Bandh Live Updates
• Kolkata Rape Case Live Updates
• Web Stories
• Mumbai News
• Bengaluru News
• Daily Digest

Kolkata doctor rape-murder case highlights: Bengal govt to deploy retired policemen for hospital security

Kolkata doctor rape-murder case highlights: Amid nationwide protests against the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar hospital in Kolkata, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is hearing a suo motu case related to the RG Kar hospital incident. Meanwhile, West Bengal governor CV Ananda Bose has arrived in Delhi to address the issue with President Droupadi Murmu and national leaders. ...Read More

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Bengal govt to employ retired policemen for hospital security

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The West Bengal government has decided to employ retired police and defence personnel to oversee security at state health facilities.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Governor Bose hopes for justice

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose expressed hope that the Supreme Court will deliver justice in the Kolkata doctor rape-murder case. He believes that with time, wrongs will be righted and peace will return.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: BJP slams Rahul Gandhi over RG Kar case

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla said in a post on X, “When asked about RG Kar medical case and SC slamming Bengal government and police, Rahul Gandhi shamelessly says: I won’t be distracted”. He also posted on X a video clip of Gandhi’s response to media persons’ queries in Uttar Pradesh and asked, “Is Nyay for Beti (justice for daughter) a distraction?”.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: YWCA joins protests at Jantar Mantar

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Following the rape and murder at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) of India has joined the protests at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, the organisation announced on Tuesday.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: SC grills West Bengal Police over delays

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the West Bengal Police over several concerns, including the delay in filing the FIR, the delayed handover of the victim's body to the family, and the alleged failure to protect women and doctors during the mob attack at RG Kar Medical College.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: IMA hails SC's move on doctors' safety

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The IMA on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's intervention to halt attacks on medical professionals and announced that it will collaborate with the committee appointed by the court on issues related to safety and security. The IMA also emphasised that a “central Act on violence is non-negotiable.”

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: SC orders removal of victim’s details from social media

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the removal of the name, photos, and videos of a trainee doctor who was raped and murdered at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital from all social media platforms. The IMA also emphasised that a “central Act on violence is non-negotiable.”

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Congress leader stresses women’s safety in West Bengal

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury hailed the Supreme Court's decision to take suo motu cognisance of the rape and murder of a doctor at RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata, calling it a very positive step. He said the apex court will make a revolutionary decision and emphasised the need to ensure women's safety in West Bengal and across the nation.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Delhi minister urges Centre to pass strict laws for doctors' safety

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Delhi minister Saurabh Bharadwaj on Tuesday said that doctors nationwide are on strike, calling on the Central government to enact legislation for their security. He said that the frequent mistreatment of doctors often goes unpunished under existing laws and stressed the need for stricter regulations. Bharadwaj urged the Centre to swiftly introduce such laws.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Scuffle breaks out between ABVP activists and police

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Police on Tuesday restored to “lathi-charge” and arrested over 20 ABVP activists following a scuffle during their march to the West Bengal health department headquarters. The protest was against the alleged rape and murder of a medic from RG Kar Hospital.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: AAP leader slams BJP for ‘politicising’ women’s issues

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: AAP chief national spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar said that the Supreme Court is the custodian of all rights and liberties and it would be inappropriate to analyse its actions. She said that the incident is just one of 87 cases reported daily according to NCRB data and expressed doubt that there will be improvement while the BJP government remains in power, accusing them of politicising women's issues.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: PM Modi should act on women’s safety, says Congress leader

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Telangana Mahila Congress chief Sunitha Rao Mogili said that children are in danger and criticised the BJP for not addressing the issue or introducing any special amendments. She said that Modi government should not to use women merely as a vote bank, but to take meaningful action for their protection.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Accused Sanjoy Roy's associate flees to CBI Office

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Accused Sanjoy Roy's close associate flees and arrives at the CBI Special Crime Branch office in Kolkata.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Resident doctors in Goa's GMCH withdraw protest

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Junior and resident doctors in Goa protesting against the Kolkata rape-murder case on Tuesday called off their five-day-long stir following an assurance from the state government. Association of Resident Doctors (GARD) called off the protest after state health minister Vishwajit Rane assured to look into their demands.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Congress leader urges doctors to end protest, citing public hardship

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Congress leader Tariq Anwar said that doctors should return to work, saying that their protest is causing difficulties for the general public.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: RML Hospital RDA ends strike

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The Resident Doctors’ Association (RDA) of RML Hospital has ended its strike, saying the decision follows the government's acceptance of all critical demands presented by residents across India.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: ‘Every Sinner has a future’, says West Bengal Governor on SC ruling

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose expressed relief on behalf of the nation following the Supreme Court's directives on the Kolkata doctor rape-murder case. He reflected on the situation, saying that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Solicitor general says perpetrator had animal-like instinct

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Solicitor general Tushar Mehta while referring to the rape and murder of a trainee doctor, said the perpetrator was not only sexually perverted but had displayed an animal-like instinct in the gruesome crime.

The court also referred to the crime as “horrific” and "horrendous, saying that such gender based violence, denied women equality, due to lack of safety in workplaces.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Court urges state counsel to share all information with CBI

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court asked state counsel to supply the CBI with all information provided during a hearing of a case related to the RG Kar incident.

The CBI has been asked to submit a report on the rape and murder of a trainee doctor as well as the mob vandalism which followed a few days later at RG Kar hospital in Kolkata.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Doctors' federation welcomes supreme court intervention

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The Federation of Resident Doctors' Association (FODRA) welcomed the supreme court's intervention into the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar hospital in Kolkata.

“We welcome the exhaustive session by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and trust their intervention in the larger interest of our fraternity. We will consult with all our stakeholders before making a decision,” they said in an official statement.

The supreme court had reassured doctors' that they would protect their interests and also urged them to end their strike.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Supreme court calls for better facilities for doctors in hospitals

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: During a hearing on the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar hospital, the court noted the lack of proper facilities for doctors.

The CBI observed that doctors lacked a place of resting, no basic hygiene is maintained for them; lack of security in medical healthcare units; doctors are left to handle unruly patients; only one common toilet is there for medical professionals in the hospital; professionals have to travel distances for washrooms accessibility.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Supreme court lists next hearing for August 22

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: After a hearing on the RG Kar incident where the supreme court put together a national task force to ensure doctors' safety, the court listed its next hearing for August 22, when the CBI is expected to submit a report on the investigation and the mob vandalism.

The west Bengal government is also expected to submit a report explaining the circumstances of the mob violence at RG Kar hospital.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Top court orders CISF to provide added security to RG Kar hospital after mob vandalism

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court ordered the CISF to provided enhanced security to RG Kar hospital, the site of the horrific rape and murder of a woman doctor.

The hospital was also vandalised by a mob on August 14, due to which the court has asked for added security, especially since many residents have emptied the buildings.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: ‘Nation cannot wait for another rape for things to change on ground’ says CJI

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: During a hearing regarding the RG Kar incident, where a woman doctor was raped and murdered, the CJI said that, “The nation cannot wait for another rape for things to change on ground.”

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud noted that medical professions have become vulnerable to violence due to patriarchal biases causing women to become targets more often. He also observed that existing laws do not adequately address the institutional safety standards for doctors and medical workers.

He said, “As more and more women join the work force.....the nation cannot wait another rape for things to change on the ground.”

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: 50 FIRS filed in vandalism case, SG Tushar Mehta says recipe for not investigating

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: During a supreme court hearing on the RG Kar incident, Kapil Sibal pointed out that 37 people had been arrested and 50 FIRs had been filed in the case of mob vandalism on August 14.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, said that filing 50 FIRs was more of a recipe for ‘not’ investigating.

The West Bengal government has been ordered to submit a report on the mob vandalism at RG Kar hospital on August 22.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Sibal says matters escalated on social media

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Kapil Sibal told the supreme court that social media had escalated the situation, while discussing the role of the former principal Sandip Ghosh in the RG Kar incident.

When the CJI asked if the principal had been suspended and questioned his quick appointment to another hospital, Sibal said that an SIT was investigating the matter and he had been placed on leave by the high court.

Sibal added, “What happens is that this goes to them, the social media takes action and will escalate the situation. It is only to inform my lords that what is happening on social media is not correct and what is happening is contrary to the record, for example- they said its a suicide, it's not a suicide, not recorded.”

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: CJI asks states to collect data on hospitals, submit report in a month

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: CJI Dy Chandrachud asked all states to collect data on the number security personnel employed at each hospital; total resting rooms etc in the hospital; information of whether all areas of hospital are accessible to the general public and other relevant questions.

The states are supposed to submit a report in one month. The CBI is also expected to submit an interim report by August 22. The state of West Bengal is also supposed to submit a report by August 22 on the vandalism which took place at RG Kar hospital.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: NTF to submit first report in 3 weeks, final report in 2 months

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The national task force set up by the supreme court is expected to submit an interim report in 3 weeks with suggestions on ensuring doctors' safety and acting on the guidelines set by the court. They are also supposed to submit a final report in 3 months time.

The 10-member NTF has been tasked with looking into ways to prevent gender based violence against all medical professionals.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Supreme court asks taskforce to focus on enforcement of POSH act for all medical professionals

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court formed a 10-member task force to ensure doctors' safety and asked them to ensure that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the Workplace Act was followed in hospitals, nursing homes and private healthcare facilities.

The court also said that the act not only applied to doctors but also students undergoing internship, junior residents doctors, senior resident doctors as well as nurses.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Supreme court outlines objectives for national task force

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court ordered the newly formed national task force to take action on two fronts, while hearing a case on the rape and murder of a woman doctor.

The court said that the NTF needed to look into preventing violence including gender based violence against medical professionals as well as providing an enforceable national protocol for dignified and safe working conditions for interns, residents, senior residents, doctors etc.

The court added that in order to prevent gender based violence against doctors, the following measures were required - ensuring safety in the hospital; infrastructural development; employment of social welfare workers trained in grief and crisis counselling; workshops on handling grief and crisis.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Top court announces members of national taskforce for doctor' safety

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court in a hearing on the RG Kar incident, formed a national taskforce to ensure the safety of doctors in the country.

They announced the following members of the task force: Surgeon Vice Admiral RK Sarian; Dr Reddy, Managing Director Asian Institute of National Gastrology; Dr M Srivas, Director AIIMS, Delhi; Dr Prathima Moorthy, NIMHANS, Bangalore; Dr Puri, Director, AIIMs, Jodhpur; Dr Ravat, Managing member of Gangaram Hospital; Prof Anita Saxena, VC of Pandit BD Sharma College; Dr Pallavi and Dr Padma Srivastav.

The taskforce will also include ex-officio members - the cabinet secretary, the home secretary, secretary of ministry of family welfare, chairperson of the National Medical commission and (e) President of the National Board of Examiners.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Supreme court raises concern over West Bengal government silencing protestors

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: During a hearing of a case related to the RG Kar incident, the supreme court noted that the West Bengal government had been using its powers to stifle protests.

The court also criticised the government for the filing of an FIR three hours after the body was found and for disturbances to the crime scene linked to the government.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Court asks CBI for status report on Thursday

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court asked the CBI for a status report on Thursday, regarding their investigation into the rape and murder of a doctor at RG Kar hospital on August 9.

The CBI were also asked to submit an explanation on the mob vandalism and violence that took place at RG Kar hospital on August 14.

The CBI, who took over the investigation from the Kolkata police, were given permission to conduct a polygraph test on the accused, Sanjoy Roy, today.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Top court appeals to doctors, asks them to end strike

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court while hearing a case on the rape and murder of a doctor at RG Kar hospital, asked doctors across India to end their strike as health services suffered.

The court added, "We want them to trust us. Their safety and protection is a matter of highest national concern."

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Solicitor general alleges Kolkata police were aiding mob in RG Kar attack

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The solicitor general Tushar Mehta said in court that a mob of 7,000 people could not have entered RG Kar medical college without the knowledge of the Kolkata police.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Solicitor general says complete failure of law and order in West Bengal

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: During a hearing in the supreme court on the RG Kar incident, the solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, stated that the government of West Bengal should not be in denial about the complete failure of law and order in the state.

The court also pulled up the government over the delays in filing an FIR and tampering of crime scene.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Top court proposes national task force for safety of doctors

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court proposed setting up a national task force to frame guidelines for ensuring safety and protection of medical professionals across the country.

The CJI noted that hospitals are open throughout day and night, doctors work round the clock and often face abuse from patients and their families as well and need protection.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Supreme court calls crime “horrific”, pulls up Bengal government

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court called the incident at RG Kar, “horrific” and “horrendous”, while hearing a case about the rape and murder of a woman doctor.

The court also criticised the West Bengal government for the delay in registration of the FIR and destruction of the crime scene.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Court says lack of safety at work is denying women equality

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court, while hearing a case about the rape and murder of a woman doctor at RG Kar hospital during her shift, said that the lack of work safety was denying women equality.

The court also expressed the need for a national protocol to ensure workplaces were safe, particularly for doctors who often work 36 hour shifts.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: SC expresses deep concerns over victims name published in media

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court expressed deep concerns over the name of the victim who was raped and murdered, being published in media.

The court said, “We are deeply concerned of the fact that the name of the victim has been all over the media, the photographs and videos are all over the media, this is extremely concerning… Is this the way we provide dignity to the young doctor who has lost her life?”

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: CJI calls for national protocol to ensure work safety

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The Chief Justice of India during a hearing on the case related to the RG Kar incident noted the need for a national protocol ensuring the safety of workers.

CJI DY Chandrachud said, “We know they are all intern, resident doctors and most importantly woman doctors....most of the young doctors are putting in 36 hours ....we must evolve a national protocol to ensure safe conditions of work are provided.”

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: CJI questions principal and police for mishandling case

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud during the hearing of a case related to the RG Kar incident questioned the principal and the police for issues in the handling of the sensitive matter.

He said, “What was the principal doing? FIR was not filed; body was handed late to parents; what is the police doing? A serious offence has taken place, the crime scene has taken in hospital...what are they doing?Allowing vandalists to enter the hospital?”

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: CJI says not just about one case but systemic issue of doctors safety across India

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud during the hearing of a case related to the RG Kar incident said this was not just about one case but the systemic issue of doctors safety in the nation.

The supreme court took suo moto cognizance of the rape and murder of a postgraduate trainee doctor on August 9 which has led to widespread protests in the country.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Supreme court begins hearing on RG Kar incident

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The supreme court has begun its hearing on the RG Kar incident, where a woman doctor was raped and murdered on August 9 during her shift.

The bench is headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: TMC leader says drama by BJP and Left turning case to another direction

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: TMC leader Kunal Ghosh criticised political parties, including the BJP and the Left for attempting to redirect it in another direction for their benefit, at a press conference on Monday.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Midnight candle march in Shimla against RG Kar incident

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: A midnight silent candle march was carried out in Shimla, protesting the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar hospital, Kolkata.

Under the banner of ‘Shimla collectives’, protestors called for swift justice and capital punishment for the perpetrators.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Junior doctors continue protest in Bengal, health services hit

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Junior doctors continue to protest against the rape and murder of a woman doctor at RG Kar hospital, Kolkata, as health services in the state face issues.

The protests have entered their 12th day as long queues of patients were seen at several government-run hospitals in the state where senior doctors and assistant professors attended them at OPDs.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Protesting doctors offer free OPD services outside health ministry

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Protesting doctors offered free OPD services outside the union health ministry, as there has been no breakthrough in ending the indefinite strike launched after the rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata.

Resident doctors' associations are awaiting the supreme court's hearing to decide whether the strikes will end. Apart from e mergency services, doctors across the nation are on strike, leading to problems for patients as well.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Bengal govt forms SIT to probe financial irregularities at RG Kar hospital

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: The West Bengal government has formed a special investigation team to look into alleged financial irregularities at RG Kar medical college and hospital, where a trainee doctor was raped and murdered on August 9.

The CBI has also been questioning the former principal of the college regarding his involvement in the shocking murder that has shaken the nation.

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Assam CM blames Mamata, says justice would be immediate in his state

Kolkata murder case LIVE updates: Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, criticised West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee for the delay in justice in the rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata.

He also added that if such a case happened in his state, justice would be ensured swiftly.

He said, “If such a heinous crime had occurred in Assam, our government would have delivered justice immediately. The opposition in the state criticizes my policy, but I don't care. There will be no compromise in protecting our daughters.”

• Mamata Banerjee
• Supreme Court
• Kolkata Police
• Terms of use
• Privacy policy
• Subscription

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

The Republican Plan to Challenge a Harris Victory

How a right-wing takeover of an obscure, unelected board in georgia could swing the election..

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Nick Corasaniti

Produced by Olivia Natt Asthaa Chaturvedi and Eric Krupke

Edited by Patricia Willens

With Lexie Diao and Michael Benoist

Original music by Dan Powell Corey Schreppel Rowan Niemisto and Diane Wong

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow ‘The Daily’ Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadio

At the Democratic National Convention, party officials are celebrating polls showing that Kamala Harris is now competitive with Donald Trump in every major swing state across the country.

But in one of those swing states, Republicans have laid the groundwork to challenge a potential Harris victory this fall, by taking over an obscure, unelected board.

Nick Corasaniti, a Times reporter who focuses on voting and elections, explains.

On today’s episode

Nick Corasaniti , a reporter covering national politics for The New York Times.

Background reading

The unelected body that shapes voting rules in Georgia has a new conservative majority, whose members question the state’s 2020 results. They now have new power to influence the results in 2024 .

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are in close races across Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina , crucial swing states that Mr. Trump had seemed poised to run away with.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Fact-checking by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Nick Corasaniti is a Times reporter covering national politics, with a focus on voting and elections. More about Nick Corasaniti

Advertisement

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Slovenščina
• Science & Tech
• Russian Kitchen

Why was Novgorod a unique city in medieval Russia?

As the most prominent and powerful city of northwestern Rus in the Middle Ages, and being very popular with European merchants, Novgorod was unlike any other settlement in the lands of the Eastern Slavs during that era.

Traditionally, medieval Russian cities grew around the main fortress, which was the political and religious heart of the community. Novgorod, however, emerged from a union of three settlements inhabited by different Slavic tribes. For them, it became a “new city” – this is how “Novgorod” is literally translated from Russian ( Novy – “new”, and gorod – “city”).

In the 14th and 15th centuries, during its heyday as a commercial and political power, the city of Novgorod was officially known as Gospodin Velikiy Novgorod – literally “The Great Master Novgorod”. The city was almost an empire, controlling vast lands from the Baltic Sea in the west to the Ural Mountains in the east, and from the White Sea in the north to the upper Volga in the south. After Kiev, it was the second most powerful city in medieval Rus.

Commerce: Making Novgorod great

Novgorod market in the 17th century

International commerce was the foundation of Novgorod's prosperity, which truly made it great and powerful. The local craftsmen – weavers and tanners, jewelers and glass blowers, potters and foundry workers, gunsmiths and locksmiths – were famous throughout the Russian lands. But Novgorod also did a brisk trade with Western Europe via the Baltic Sea trade routes.

By the end of the 13th century, merchants from the Hanseatic League developed strong trade relations with Novgorod. The Hanseatic League was the largest trade association of merchants from major German cities situated along the Baltic and North seas, but it also maintained four representative offices outside of the German-speaking world – in Novgorod, Bruges, Bergen and London.

Guests from over the sea, Nikolai Rerikh, 1901

The German merchants came to Novgorod to make wholesale purchases, and deals were concluded at the Hanseatic League's representative office. However, a merchant from any other Russian city couldn't enter the office's territory and make deals there.

European merchants were eager to come to Novgorod to sell prized luxury goods such as wine, expensive fabrics, ornamental stones, and precious metals. In return, Novgorod sold fine and precious furs such as squirrel, weasel, and sable. Novgorod also massively exported honey, leather, wax (which Europe needed to make church candles), and walrus ivory.

Boyar republic

Velikiy Novgorod

Novgorod’s political system was unique among the myriad of city-states and principalities of medieval Rus; it was ruled by a small circle of boyar families that owned huge fiefdoms both near the city and in remote northern lands. The title of boyar in Novgorod was hereditary, a fact that distinguished the city from the rest of Russia, where the title of boyar usually was bestowed upon military commanders who were close to the Rurikid princes. The fact that Novgorod was ruled solely by locally-born aristocracy was actually a prominent feature in the principality’s unique form of republican government.

READ MORE: Who were the Russian boyars?

Unlike the boyars in the rest of the Russian lands, the boyars of Novgorod weren’t military commanders. Rather, they were locally-born landowners and high-profile international traders who also were proficient in politics. The supreme authority in Novgorod was the Veche , a kind of parliament that included the wealthiest and most influential men in the city. The upper part of the Veche included at least 300 boyars – 14th century German sources report that the main assembly in Novgorod was called the "300 golden belts".

The Veche met in public on the square near the central market, and its convocation was announced by the famous Veche bell, a symbol of Novgorod’s freedom and independence. The veche was not unique to Novgorod, however, and it was also a feature of the political system in other cities of medieval Rus until the time when Moscow began to solidify control over the other principalities to form a centralized Russian state. Only in Novgorod did the Veche exist up to the 15th century.

The Veche was so powerful that it elected and could even expel the prince; it also issued laws, declared war and made peace, established taxes and duties. Also, the members of the Veche chose a posadnik , who was the managerial head of the city. He monitored whether the prince fulfilled the terms of the agreement with the city, as well as managed Novgorod’s possessions and was responsible for law enforcement, the courts, and even signed diplomatic treaties. The prince of Novgorod had to represent the city to the other Russian lands and was responsible for the city’s defense.

The political life of Novgorodians, however, was not limited to the central Veche; ordinary Novgorodians also had the chance to participate in the city’s local street and district veches. The boyars used these meetings to promote their interests and fight against their opponents.

The city’s religious authorities enjoyed great freedom ever since the people of Novgorod were able to secure autonomy for their archbishop. From the beginning of the 12th century, the Kiev bishop (known as a “metropolitan”) basically rubber stamped whatever candidate was proposed by the Novgorodians for this position. The archbishop had his own regiment for protection, participated in diplomatic negotiations and put his official seal on international agreements.

Liberty in princes

Yaroslav the Wise, Nikolai Rerikh, 1941-1942

Restriction of the rights of the princes began in Novgorod during the lifetime of Yaroslav the Wise (978 – 1054), who agreed to give special privileges to the Novgorod boyars vis-a-vis the prince in exchange for support in the struggle for control of Kiev. Novgorod did not develop a separate princely dynasty after the death of Yaroslav, because the city was at the source of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks” and was closely connected with Kiev. When he died in 1054, Yaroslav the Wise bequeathed Kiev and Novgorod to his eldest son. As a result, the princely line that ruled Kiev usually chose a prince to rule in Novgorod, or Novgorod had the same prince as Kiev did.

In 1136, a rebellion in Novgorod led to the expulsion of the prince. From then on, the Novgorodians invited princes themselves and concluded a temporary agreement with them, according to which they could not interfere in the affairs of city management, change the highest officials and acquire lands on the outskirts of the Novgorod republic. In case of any violation of the agreement, the prince was expelled from the city, and the Veche selected a new candidate. Such changes more than once had a serious impact on the life of all the principalities of Rus.

Despite such treatment of the princes, all the major figures of Kievan Rus, who were the builders of the future united Russian state – from Vladimir the Great to Vladimir Monomakh – reigned in Novgorod before ascending the throne in Kiev. Symbolically, Novgorod was also the first place where Rurik reigned in Russia.

The most literate city in Russia

Birch bark letter #1

On July 26, 1951, archaeological excavations in Novgorod found the first letter written on birch bark, with a discernible text carved on the surface. In total, more than 1100 such letters were found in Novgorod and about 100 in other cities of medieval Russia.

The analysis of Novgorod’s birch-bark letters allowed scholars to reconstruct the everyday life of the city and its inhabitants over the course of the 11th to the 15th centuries, which was the golden era of the Novgorod Republic.

The texts on birch bark testify to widespread literacy among the people of Novgorod who wrote to each other often and on a variety of matters, where they discussed household affairs, commercial transactions, as well as court decisions and simply the local gossip. Both men and women were literate, which was unheard of for Western Europe at this time.

READ MORE: How did single women survive in Tsarist Russia?

The birch-barks showed that the position of women in Novgorod society was quite prominent, and they conducted their own affairs, concluded commercial transactions, dispatched their husbands orders, as well as appeared in court, including on financial issues; and in general were actively engaged in economic activity.

Among the letters there were also touching declarations of love, such as the famous letter written by an unknown young woman in the 12th century: "I sent to you three times. What evil do you have against me that you did not come to me?" Another birch-bark letter contains one of the first records of Russian cursing.

Novgorod's heroes, its tragic fall and legacy today

Sadko, Ilya Repin, 1876

Novgorod’s political structure and the nature of its economy created special cultural and real heroes. Unlike the characters of the Russian bylinas who spend their time lying on the stove and waiting for an opportunity to stand up for the fatherland, Novgorod's main hero, Sadko, who is a handsome man, as well as gusli player and merchant, is relentless in his pursuit of money and fame. He successfully swindles the sea tsar and wraps him around his finger, and once he is rich, he swears to buy up all Novgorod’s goods. In some versions of the legend he even succeeds.

Another atypical Novgorod hero, one not from a bylina but rather someone from real history, was the leader of the local resistance against Moscow. Marfa Boretskaya (or Marfa Posadnitsa because Marfa's second husband was a posadnik) came from an influential boyar family and owned vast tracts of land that were already in her family’s possession, as well as those lands that she inherited after the death of her first husband.

The taking away of the Novgorod Veche bell. Marfa Posadnitsa. 1889

When in the 15th century the Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan III, began to unite the Russian lands by conquering other cities, Marfa entered into negotiations with the Lithuanian Grand Duke to propose a merger with Novgorod on the condition that it maintains its rights of autonomy.

READ MORE: How Russians executed... bells

Having learned about the negotiations, Ivan III declared war on Novgorod, and in 1478 the republic ceased to exist. As a sign of the abolition of Novgorod’s Veche, the famous bell was taken to Moscow, and the most promised townspeople were repressed. Marfa's lands were confiscated, and she herself soon died.

Nevertheless, while Novgorod has long disappeared from the map as an independent political entity, its legacy resonates today in the modern era. At the dawn of Russian history Novogorod accepted Rurik to reign, thereby laying the foundation of Russian statehood. Also, the city and its republican form of government showed that the path to rigid centralization and the absolute power of the Grand Prince was not the only possible political path for Russia.

If using any of Russia Beyond's content, partly or in full, always provide an active hyperlink to the original material.

to our newsletter!

Get the week's best stories straight to your inbox

• Veliky Novgorod Region: Why you need to see the jewel in Russia’s ‘Silver Necklace’
• Exploring the St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod: Prototype for medieval shrines

This website uses cookies. Click here to find out more.