# Anticanon

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Anticanon
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Anticanon.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticanon
> Source revision: 1355598324
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

{{Short description|List of infamous U.S. Supreme Court decisions}}
The '''anticanon''' in U.S. [constitutional law](/source/constitutional_law) is a small set of [U.S. Supreme Court](/source/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](/source/Harvard_Law_Review) article defines the cases of the anticanon as:<ref name=":0" />

*''[Dred Scott v. Sandford](/source/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)'' (1857): held that the [U.S. Constitution](/source/Constitution_of_the_United_States) did not extend [American citizenship](/source/Citizenship_of_the_United_States) to people of [black African descent](/source/African_Americans), and thus they could not enjoy the rights and [privileges](/source/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause) 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](/source/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States) [Charles Evans Hughes](/source/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](/source/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](/source/American_Civil_War), by the [Thirteenth Amendment](/source/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), which [abolished slavery](/source/Abolitionism) and [involuntary servitude](/source/involuntary_servitude), except as to [penal labor](/source/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States), the [Fourteenth Amendment](/source/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), which confers citizenship to "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and the [Fifteenth Amendment](/source/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), which prohibits the denial or abridgment of [suffrage](/source/suffrage) by the federal or state governments' on account of "[race](/source/Race_(human_classification)), [color](/source/Colored), or [previous condition of servitude](/source/Freedman)."
*''[Plessy v. Ferguson](/source/Plessy_v._Ferguson)'' (1896): established the doctrine of [separate but equal](/source/separate_but_equal) by holding that [racial segregation](/source/racial_segregation) does not violate the [Fourteenth Amendment](/source/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) 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](/source/Brown_v._Board_of_Education)'' (1954) and ''[Bolling v. Sharpe](/source/Bolling_v._Sharpe)'' (1954), which held racial segregation in federal or state public schools unconstitutional.<ref name=":1" /> ''[Runyon v. McCrary](/source/Runyon_v._McCrary)'' (1976) later held that [racial segregation in private schools](/source/Segregation_academy) 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](/source/EBSCO_Information_Services)|language=en}}</ref> The [Congressional Research Service](/source/Congressional_Research_Service) considers ''[Bob Jones University v. United States](/source/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](/source/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](/source/constitution.congress.gov) |publisher=[Congressional Research Service](/source/Congressional_Research_Service) |language=en |via=[Library of Congress](/source/Library_of_Congress)}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|461|574|name=Bob Jones University v. United States|pin=593|year=1983}}</ref>
*''[Lochner v. New York](/source/Lochner_v._New_York)'' (1905): held that a [New York](/source/New_York_(state)) statute prescribing maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to [freedom of contract](/source/freedom_of_contract) under the [Fourteenth Amendment.](/source/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)<ref>''Lochner v. New York'', [198](/source/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_198) [U.S.](/source/United_States_Reports) [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/ 45] (1905). ''This article incorporates [public domain material from this U.S government document](/source/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States).''</ref> ''Lochner'' is part of the [''Lochner'' era](/source/Lochner_era) in constitutional law, wherein the [Supreme Court](/source/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) struck down many state economic regulations under the doctrine of [substantive due process](/source/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](/source/Franklin_D._Roosevelt)'s court-packing threat that resulted in "[the switch in time that saved nine](/source/the_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine)" with ''[West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish](/source/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish)'' (1937), a case which bucked ''Lochner'' precedents.<ref name=Jacobs2004 />{{rp|page=47}}
*''[Korematsu v. United States](/source/Korematsu_v._United_States)'' (1944): upheld the exclusion of [Japanese Americans](/source/Japanese_Americans) from the West Coast Military Area during [World War II](/source/World_War_II), permitting the removal of Japanese Americans to [internment camps](/source/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans). Decided on the same day as ''[Ex parte Endo](/source/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](/source/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

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Anticanon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticanon) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticanon?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.