Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines
This page provides a list of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, the subject matter of the doctrine, and the cases which created it.
| # | Title | Subject matter | Case(s) | Notes |
| 1 | GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION | |||
| 1.1 | Major Questions Doctrine | Separation of powers | Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) | Lawmaking involving major public impacts cannot be vaguely delegated to an administrative agency. Delegation must be very specific and concrete. Click here |
| 1.2 | Qualified Immunity Doctrine | Government sovereignty | Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) | Under what circumstances may the public sue state actors personally who have injured their rights? Click here |
| 1.3 | Non-Delegation Doctrine | Separation of Powers | J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928) | Under what circumstances may a major branch of government delegate its powers to another branch? Click here |
| 1.4 | Clearfield Doctrine | Government status in the commercial marketplace | Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) | Under what circumstances may a government be treated as an ordinary commercial entity within the commercial marketplace? Click here |
| 2 | BILL OF RIGHTS | |||
| 2.1 | Strict Scrutiny Standard | Bill of Rights, judicial review | United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) | Click here |
| 2.2 | Unconstitutional conditions | Bill of Rights | Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583 (1925) Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958) Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) Leftkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) | Under what circumstances can the government compel surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for privileges? See Form #05.030, Section 2. Click here |
| 2.3 | Glucksberg Test | Bill of Rights | Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 720, 719-722, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 117 S.Ct. 2302, 138 L.2Ed.2d. 722 (1997) | Supreme Court method to recognize rights not expressly in the constitution. See Form #10.002, Section 6. |
| 2.4 | Public Rights Doctrine | Fifth Amendment | Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856) Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438, 451 (1929) Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929) | Criteria for deciding whether a case is heard under statutes or the Constitution. Click here |
| 2.5 | Establishment Doctrine | First Amendment | Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) | Criteria for determining when government is violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Also called the Lemon Test. Click here. |
| 2.6 | Prior Restraint Doctrine | First Amendment | Near v. Minnesota ex re. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931) Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963) | Under what circumstances government may make a prior restraint on speech. In other words, exactly what types of speech are protected by the First Amendment? Click here |
| 2.7 | Public Purpose Doctrine | Fifth Amendment, eminent domain | Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403 (1896) Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U.S. 55, 57 S.Ct. 364 (1937) Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington v. Washington, 13 P.3d 183 (Wash. 2000) Southwestern Illinois Development Authority v. National City Environmental, L.L.C., 768 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2002) County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 NW.2d 765 (Mich. 2004), and Bailey v. Myers, 206 Ariz. 224, 76 P.3d 898 (2003) | Under what circumstances may private land be taken for public use in accordance with the Fifth Amendment? Click here |
| 2.8 | Castle Doctrine | Fourth Amendment | When may the government invade a person’s home to violate the security of their papers and effects? Person may use force to repel invaders. Click here | |
| 2.9 | Public Forum Doctrine | Fifth Amendment | Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) Christian Legal Soc. Chapter v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) | Click here |
| 2.10 | Parental Rights Doctrine | Family rights | Troxel v. Granville | What rights to parents have? Click here |
| 3 | STATES RIGHTS | |||
| 3.1 | State Action Doctrine | Fourteenth Amendment | Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880) | Criteria for deciding when someone is acting as an officer of the state. Invented to determine when Fourteenth Amendment equal protections cases can be brought against state but not federal actors. Click here |
| 3.2 | Incorporation Doctrine | Fourteenth Amendment | Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873) Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925) Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931) Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1931) State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1903 (1947) Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288 | Doctrine for deciding that the first eight amendments to the federal Bill of Rights can be enforced against states of the Union. Click here |
| 4 | TAXATION | |||
| 4.1 | Relation Back Doctrine | Taxation | Miranda v. United States, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966) Duncan v. Kahanamoku, Sheriff, (1946) 327 U.S. 304; 66 S. Ct. 606; 90 L. Ed. 688 United States v. Lovett (1946), 328 U.S. 303; 66 S. Ct. 1073; 90 L.Ed. 1252 | Click here |
| 4.2 | Full Payment Rule | Taxation, Refund Claims | Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958) | “Taxpayers” must pay full amount due before judicially challenging it. Click here. |
| 5 | PATENTS | |||
| 5.1 | Doctrine of Equivalents | Patents | Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997) | Allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. Click here |
This is a work in progress, because we have never seen an all-inclusive catalog of this kind in all our years studying the law. You can find a more complete version of this list in the following document on this site:
Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf