The 10 Worst Supreme Court Decisions in U.S. History

Why hello there, patriotic Americans and citizens of the world. My name is Mr. Beat, founder, board member, CEO, CFO, and COO Of Supreme Court Briefs? I've now made 88 episodes of this series over a period of nearly 10 years now, believe it or not. I've given my opinions about Supreme Court justices. I've written a book about the history of the Supreme Court, and in that book, I go over 100 essential cases. Heck, I'm even in a new podcast with... So my mind nearly exploded the other week when I realized I have yet to make videos going over the best Supreme Court decisions in US history and the worst Supreme Court decisions in US history. Like it's almost unbelievable that I haven't made these videos yet. What kind of universe even is this? In this video, we'll start with the bad. The absolute worst Supreme Court decisions ever...uh...decisioned. Wait, that's not a word. And when I say worst, I'm talking about the ones that did the most damage to the most people, okay? Some of these decisions caused enormous suffering. Others weakened democracy or gave the government dangerous new powers. And some managed to do all of the above. In this particular video, I'm counting down what I consider to be the 10 worst Supreme Court decisions in US history. What, you thought I was going to count down the 11 worst Supreme Court decisions in American history? You know odd numbers don't do so well with algorithms. Come on, buddy. Okay, so imagine that you've got a really, really close presidential election. It's so close that it's come down to just one state. And then the Supreme Court comes in and effectively decides who will be the next president. That's basically what happened in Bush v. Gore. The presidential election of 2000 between the Republican George W. Bush and the Democrat Al Gore indeed came down to Florida, separated by a razor-thin margin of just a few hundred votes. After the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount, George W. Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to stop that recount, and in a 5-4 decision split along ideological The court held that the recount went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment since Florida didn't have a statewide standard for recounting votes, so effectively it sided with Bush, leading to him getting all of Florida's electoral votes and, yes, the presidency. In my opinion, this decision sucked. I mean, the court kinda seemed to pick the President of the United States there. Didn't it? Worse, the majority said their Equal Protection Clause rationale was limited to the specific circumstances of this particular election, knowing darn well this was legally inconsistent dadgummit. Simply put, Bush v. Gore caused tens of millions of Americans to lose trust in the Supreme Court. They no longer saw the Supreme Court as a neutral institution. Imagine you're having a medical emergency, and instead of being taken to the, I don't know, emergency room, the police handcuff you, slam you to the hood of a car, and break your foot? And then the Supreme Court later says it was legal for the police to do that? That's basically what happened, allegedly, in Graham v. Connor. On November 12, 1984, in Charlotte, North Carolina, a dude named DeThorne Graham, who was an African American and had diabetes, experienced an insulin reaction and urgently needed something sugary to eat. He went into a convenience store, but the line was too long. He quickly left and asked his friend to drive him somewhere else. A nearby police officer became suspicious of his behavior and stopped the car. Despite Graham's medical emergency, officers The officers detained him, Graham cuffed him and, allegedly, used enough force against him to bruise him, cut him, and even break his foot. Well, Graham sued, arguing that the officers had violated his constitutional rights, and the case reached the Supreme Court in 1989. The court unanimously ruled against Graham, saying that, considering the circumstances at the time, it was reasonable for the police to act the way they did. In my opinion, this decision was whack. It made it much more difficult to hold police officers accountable for abusing their power. In fact, I argue, it lowered the standard for accountability for police officers so much that holding them legally liable for excessive and fatal force has become nearly impossible ever since. Imagine you and your friends are just hanging out on the street, and a police officer comes up to you, questions you, and then reaches into your pocket, even though you apparently have done nothing wrong? That's basically what happened in Terry v. Ohio. On Halloween 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, a detective named Martin McFadden observed three men, including a man named John Terry, repeatedly walking past a jewelry store window and meeting up with each other. McFadden suspected they were planning a robbery. He approached the men, questioned them, and patted down their outer clothing. During the search, he discovered a gun on Terry. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. He challenged the search, ...arguing that the officer had violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case reached the Supreme Court in 1967, and in an 8 to 1 decision, the court held that the police can briefly stop someone when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be occurring. If an officer reasonably suspects that the person is armed and dangerous, the officer An officer may also conduct a limited pat-down for weapons. We now call this practice stop and frisk. In my opinion, this decision was stupid. I mean, come on, man. The Fourth Amendment explicitly requires probable cause for searches and seizures, and Terry v. Ohio basically lowered that bar to be a more vague and subjective reasonable suspicion, and this opened Pandora's box. Stop and frisk. Policing skyrocketed after this, and wouldn't you know it, police often disproportionately targeted African Americans and Latino Americans doing it. Simply put, it gave the police more opportunities to abuse their power. Imagine you are a formerly enslaved person living in the American South in the 1870s. You have lived through so much progress. The 13th Amendment, ending slavery. The 14th Amendment, giving you citizenship and equality under the law. The 15th Amendment, giving you the right to vote. And to top it all off, Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which gets rid of racial discrimination in public places. But then the Supreme Court's like... Nah, we're gonna take all that away. Enter the civil rights cases. In 1883, the Supreme Court heard arguments for five separate cases in which several African Americans sued businesses across the country for discrimination. In every case, a black person was denied the same accommodations as a white person. Well, long story short, in an 8 to 1 decision, the Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Ruling that the 14th Amendment only prohibits discrimination by... State governments, not private individuals or businesses. Oof. In my opinion, this decision was extremely heartbreaking. It completely undermined the whole freaking point of the 14th Amendment, and by declaring that the federal government had no power to stop private business and public commerce, the Court dismantled much of the progress that African Americans had made during Reconstruction. Private businesses now had the green light to treat African Americans as second class citizens, and it'd be this way for another 81 years. Until Congress finally fixed this travesty with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Oops, I'm sorry to interrupt this video. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to give corporations our data, and due to that, we always get spam. Spam calls, spam emails. That's because often these giant corporations are straight up sharing your personal data with other companies, like data brokers. And then data brokers are turning around and selling your personal data to anyone. Stuff like your address, your phone number, even your political beliefs and income level. One way to fight back? Delete me. Delete.me proactively removes our home address, phone numbers, and family details from the internet. What I like about Delete.me is that it sends you these personalized privacy reports showing what they found, where they found it, and what they deleted. I've been using it for several years now, and it's done a really good job scrubbing my personal information from all kinds of messed up sites out there. Protect your personal information and your family's personal information by trying Delete.me, and get 20% off Delete.me consumer plans when you When you go to join, delete me.com slash MrBeast, or scan this QR code next to me. Once again, the website is joindeleteme.com slash MrBeast. Thanks to Delete Me for once again sponsoring a video of mine. Proceed! Imagine rich people spending more than $11 billion trying to get people elected in a midterm election. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine that, because it's literally happening right now as I record this video. Rich people have spent more than $11 billion trying to get people elected in the 2026 midterms, and it's perfectly legal due to Citizens United v. FEC. In 2007, a conservative nonprofit corporation called Citizens United tried to release a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton right before the 2008 presidential primaries. However, this would be a direct violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Act, which prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to broadcast anything specifically brought up a candidate running for federal office within 30 days of a primary. Well, Citizens United knew what it was doing, and it preemptively sued the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, to say the McCain-Feingold Act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court heard arguments in 2009 and, in a split 5-4 decision, sided with Citizens United, holding that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment Oh, and the court also said the government can't restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, or associations at all. In my opinion, this decision was poopy. Citizens United v. FEC opened the floodgates Look, technically the Supreme Court decided correctly in Citizens United, but that just means we need to amend the Constitution to get rid of corporate personhood, and to clarify That money is not... Speech. Oh, would you look at that? Somebody's already drawn up that amendment, and it has 82 co-sponsors. Imagine you escape slavery, but then a professional slave catcher captures you and your children, who are living as free people, and forcibly enslave you. And what if you fight this in court because your state says it's illegal for this to happen? But then the Supreme Court says, nope, sorry, that state law is no good, and you and your children have to be enslaved again. That's basically what happened in Prigg v. Pennsylvania. On April 1, 1837, Edward Prigg, a professional slave catcher, crossed from Maryland into Pennsylvania to capture Margaret Morgan and her children, who, yes, were living as free people, and forcibly returned them to enslavement. However, Pennsylvania had a Personal Liberty Law designed to protect free African American residents from kidnapping by requiring state court review before anyone could be removed. Therefore, Prigg was convicted of kidnapping in Pennsylvania. But he appealed to the High Court. The Supreme Court ended up hearing arguments in 1842, siding with Prigg, the kidnapper, and striking down Pennsylvania's law, ruling that the Federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 overruled all state laws when it came to runaway slaves. It was 8 to 1. This decision makes me want to barf. It completely eliminated legal shields for free black Americans living in northern states, and by stripping away state-level procedural protections, it made it so that any free African Americans were easy targets. Slave catchers could then haul anyone to the South with zero evidence or judicial oversight. It showed that the Supreme Court was perfectly fine with trampling all over states' rights, ...whenever it served upholding the institution of slavery. Imagine you were born and raised in the United States, but because your country is at war with another country that just so happens to be where your ancestors are from, you are targeted by the government. After the government wants to force you into a concentration camp, you escape. But eventually are caught. You then fight for your freedom in court, only for the Supreme Court later to say that those concentration camps were justified. That you being thrown into a concentration camp, despite having nothing to do with helping the enemy during a war, was perfectly constitutional. That's basically what happened in Korematsu v. The United States. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, ordering more than 120,000 people of Japanese descent, around two-thirds of whom were American citizens, into concentration camps. Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old American citizen born in Oakland, California, Long story short, refused to comply and authorities arrested him. He fought for his freedom, and the freedom of all Americans of Japanese descent who were forced into camps, in court. And the Supreme Court heard arguments in October 1944. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld. Held Executive Order 9066, arguing that the concentration camps for Japanese Americans in this particular case was justified during wartime due to the threat of espionage. In my opinion, this decision was repulsive. There was zero evidence of disloyalty or espionage by Japanese Americans. In fact, the military hid evidence disproving those claims. Man, the court sanctioned the indefinite detention and concentration of over 100,000 people based solely on ethnic background and ancestral origin, throwing the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause straight into the trash can. And hey, you know who else thought the... The court later condemned the decision, saying it had no place in constitutional law, and this came after the federal government formally apologized and authorized reparations for surviving Japanese Americans who were in the camps. Okay, imagine it's the 1890s, and you look like a white guy, I mean, I guess like me, I suppose, and you get on a whites-only train car, but then the police immediately arrest you for that. You fight the state government in response, and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, only for them to say that the state law that established racial segregation for train cars was legal. That's basically what happened. Plessy v. Ferguson On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy bought a first-class ticket and boarded a train in Louisiana. He sat in a vacant seat in a whites-only train car. Even though he looked white, the train conductor knew he was one-eighth black and had a detective arrest him. After his arrest, Plessy filed a petition against the state, saying the law went against both the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Supreme The court heard arguments in 1896 and, in a 7-1 decision, sided with Louisiana. The court ruled that mandatory racial segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause as long as the facilities were separate but equal. The facilities were never equal, of course, and the court knew this. Plessy v. Ferguson legitimized Jim Crow segregation across the South for nearly 60 years. The decision treated racial hierarchy as ordinary legislative power. Brown v. Board of Education finally overturned the doctrine in 1954, but only after generations lived under the horrible system Plessy protected. Imagine you are a woman who is sterilized without your consent due to a state law that mandates it for folks who are intellectually disabled. You fight this disgusting law all the way up to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upholds it, saying, yep, states can basically pass eugenics laws. Well, you don't have to imagine it, Justin Timberlake, because it basically happened in And Buck v. Bell. In 1924, Virginia passed a law authorizing the involuntary sterilization of institutionalized persons deemed to be genetically quote unfit or quote feeble-minded. Doctors chose Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old woman who had been institutionalized after being Yeah, that's a weird, unexpected In an 8-1 ruling, the court sided with Virginia, concluding that, in this instance, public welfare was more important than the welfare of one person's body. In my opinion, this decision was one of the most disappointing and disturbing legal actions ever. Carrie Buck was not feebleminded. She was just poor and pregnant due to messed up circumstances. And due to this horrible decision, tens of thousands of Americans, most of them poor, disabled, and people of color, got sterilized against their will. Pretty freaking messed up. It was so horrific, That Nazi defense attorneys at the Nuremberg trials literally cited Buck v. Bell in defense of their own eugenics programs. And what's even more messed up? Buck v. Bell has never technically been overruled by the Supreme Court, so it still technically stands. Oofness. Imagine being told that despite you being freed, you're going to have to stay being a slave, but you're also not even a citizen or even a human being, really. Yeah, that's basically what happened in the worst Supreme Court decision of all time, Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the 1830s, Dred Scott, an enslaved black man, was taken by his enslaver from the slave state of Missouri into the Free State of Illinois and the Free Territory of Wisconsin, where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise. Well, after returning to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that his residence in Free Territory made him a free man under the common law doctrine of once free, always free. Against seemingly all odds, the Supreme Court heard arguments finally in 1856. The Court cited against Dred Scott, denying his freedom and even saying that his case shouldn't have been heard in the first place since he wasn't a citizen. In fact, the Court ruled that ALL black people, enslaved or free, were never intended to be citizens under the Constitution. Gasp. In my opinion, this decision was just dreadful. Get it? Oh, Mr. Beat, that was really bad. Oh, I guess I wasn't so witty after all. And it's not just me. Many historians consider the Dred Scott decision to be the worst, most morally bankrupt, ever handed down by the court. The court thought it was permanently resolving the slavery question in favor of the South. Instead, it obliterated decades of political compromise, denied the fundamental humanity of millions of African Americans, and accelerated the country headfirst into the American Civil War. It took four years Years of bloodshed in the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to wipe this decision off the books. It's pretty crazy that a Supreme Court decision was literally a major cause of the bloodiest war in American history. So that's it. Those are the 10 worst Supreme Court decisions in American history, in my opinion, and if you want to learn more about these cases, I've made videos about all of them. Well, except Prigg, haven't gotten around to making that one yet, sorry. I'm just so disappointed in you. The United States Supreme Court is supposed to protect our constitutional rights, defend the rule of law, and make sure the government follows the Constitution. But in all of these decisions, the Supreme Court got it spectacularly wrong, whether it was defending slavery, approving forced sterilization, upholding racial segregation, or weakening protections against police abuse. These ten cases show us that the Supreme Court The highest court in the land can make mistakes. Big mistakes. After all, it's an institution made up of biased humans. Humans who often have the same prejudices and moral failings as the rest of us. Sad to say, sometimes the Constitution is only as good as those interpreting it. Thanks for interpreting this video. This isn't the actual Constitution, it's just a replica. Don't worry, I'm not Nicolas Cage. So do you not agree with my list? Well, two things. First of all, how dare you? And second of all, let me know which Supreme Court decisions should have made this worst 10 list. And I wasn't playing for real at the beginning of the video when I mentioned that I'm in a new podcast with the ACLU that looks at different Supreme Court decisions throughout American history. It's true. It's called Let the Record Show. It's available everywhere you get your podcasts. Just listen to that podcast. Forget all the other podcasts you normally listen to. Those are lame anyway. Well, in case I offended you. Your favorite podcasts are not lame, but you should still listen to my podcast. Thanks for staying curious.