{{Short description|List of infamous U.S. Supreme Court decisions}} The '''anticanon''' in U.S. constitutional law is a small set of U.S. Supreme Court judgments that have subsequently become widely considered to have been grievously mistaken for their poor legal reasoning and negative consequences.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2011/12/the-anticanon/|title=The Anticanon|last=Greene|first=Jamal|date=December 20, 2011|work=Harvard Law Review|access-date=18 February 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/what-we-can-learn-fred-korematsu-75-years-after-supreme-n972016|title=What we can learn from Fred Korematsu, 75 years after the Supreme Court ruled against him|last=Lam|first=Charles|date=February 17, 2019|work=NBC News|access-date=18 February 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Amar |first1=Akhil |title=Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon |journal=Pepperdine Law Review |date=2011 |volume=39 |issue=1 |pages=75–90 |url=https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol39/iss1/4/ |hdl=20.500.13051/3125}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Graber |first1=Mark A. |title=Hollow Hopes and Exaggerated Fears: the Canon/Anticanon in Context |journal=Harvard Law Review Forum |volume=125 |issue=2 |date=2011 |url=https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/1165/}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Levinson |first1=Sanford |title=Is Dred Scott Really the Worst Opinion of All Time? Why Prigg Is Worse Than Dred Scott (But Is Likely to Stay Out of the "Anticanon") |journal=Harvard Law Review Forum |volume=125 |issue=2 |date=2011|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2012/01/is-dred-scott-really-the-worst-opinion-of-all-time-why-prigg-is-worse-than-dred-scott-but-is-likely-to-stay-out-of-the-aeoeanticanonae%c2%9d/}}</ref> Many have never been formally overturned, though the Supreme Court has usually limited their later effects, rhetorically repudiated them, and refused to cite them in subsequent cases.

One Harvard Law Review article defines the cases of the anticanon as:<ref name=":0" />

*''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' (1857): held that the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Chemerinsky |first=Erwin |title=Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies |publisher=Wolters Kluwer |year=2019 |isbn=978-1454895749 |edition=6th |location=New York |pages=722}}</ref> Described by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes as the Supreme Court’s “greatest self-inflicted wound”<ref>{{cite book |author=Bernard Schwartz |url=https://archive.org/details/bookoflegallists0000schw |title=A Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Law |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1997 |isbn=978-0198026945 |page=[https://archive.org/details/bookoflegallists0000schw/page/70 70] |url-access=registration}}</ref>, the case was later abrogated, after the Civil War, by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as to penal labor, the Fourteenth Amendment, which confers citizenship to "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits the denial or abridgment of suffrage by the federal or state governments' on account of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." *''Plessy v. Ferguson'' (1896): established the doctrine of separate but equal by holding that racial segregation does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as facilities are equal in quality.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Schauer |first=Frederick |date=1997 |title=Generality and Equality |url=http://www.crossref.org/deleted_DOI.html |journal=Law and Philosophy |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=279–97 |doi=10.2307/3504874|jstor=3504874 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Superseded and overruled (''de facto'') by ''Brown v. Board of Education'' (1954) and ''Bolling v. Sharpe'' (1954), which held racial segregation in federal or state public schools unconstitutional.<ref name=":1" /> ''Runyon v. McCrary'' (1976) later held that racial segregation in private schools violates federal law.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lewis|first=Thomas|date=2022|title=Runyon v. McCrary|url=https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/runyon-v-mccrary|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251214125346/https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/runyon-v-mccrary|archive-date=December 14, 2025|access-date=May 22, 2026|website=EBSCO|language=en}}</ref> The Congressional Research Service considers ''Bob Jones University v. United States'' (1983), which held "racial discrimination in education violates a most fundamental national public policy", to have overruled the case ''de jure.''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ |access-date=2026-05-22 |website=constitution.congress.gov |publisher=Congressional Research Service |language=en |via=Library of Congress}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|461|574|name=Bob Jones University v. United States|pin=593|year=1983}}</ref> *''Lochner v. New York'' (1905): held that a New York statute prescribing maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment.<ref>''Lochner v. New York'', 198 U.S. [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/ 45] (1905). ''This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.''</ref> ''Lochner'' is part of the ''Lochner'' era in constitutional law, wherein the Supreme Court struck down many state economic regulations under the doctrine of substantive due process.<ref name=Jacobs2004>{{cite book | last=Jacobs | first=Harvey Martin | title=Private property in the 21st century : the future of an American ideal | publisher=Edward Elgar | publication-place=Cheltenham, UK | date=2004 | isbn=1-84376-327-3 | oclc=52547683 }}</ref>{{rp|page=36}} The ''Lochner'' era ended in the late 1930s, usually attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing threat that resulted in "the switch in time that saved nine" with ''West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish'' (1937), a case which bucked ''Lochner'' precedents.<ref name=Jacobs2004 />{{rp|page=47}} *''Korematsu v. United States'' (1944): upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II, permitting the removal of Japanese Americans to internment camps. Decided on the same day as ''Ex parte Endo'', which held that loyal citizens could not be detained without a hearing. ''Ex parte Endo'' effectively ended Japanese American internment. Overturned by ''Trump v. Hawaii'' (2018).<ref name="SFFA">“We have since overruled ''Korematsu,'' recognizing that it was ‘gravely wrong the day it was decided.’” {{ussc|name=Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard |600|page=181|year=2023|slip=207, n. 3}}</ref><ref name="Trump">“''Korematsu'' was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—‘has no place in law under the Constitution.’” {{ussc|name=Trump v. Hawaii|585|667|pin=710|year=2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Locker |first=Ray |title=Supreme Court overrules Korematsu case that upheld World War II Japanese American incarceration |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-overrules-korematsu-case-hated-civil-libertarians/734630002/ |access-date=2026-05-22 |website=USA TODAY |language=en-US}}</ref>

==References== {{Reflist}}

Category:American legal terminology Category:Supreme Court of the United States Category:Judicial legal terminology Category:Legal interpretation