What do you think?
Rate this book
An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know
This multimedia platform combines a book and video series that will change the way you study constitutional law.
An Introduction to Constitutional Law
teaches the narrative of constitutional law as it has developed over the past two centuries. All students--even those unfamiliar with American history--will learn the essential background information to grasp how this body of law has come to be what it is today. An online library of sixty-three videos (access codes provided with purchase of the book) brings the Supreme Court's one hundred most important decisions to life. These videos are enriched by photographs, maps, and even audio from the Supreme Court. The book and videos are accessible for all levels: law school, college, high school, home school, and independent study. Students can read and watch these materials before class to prepare for lectures or study after class to fill in any gaps in their notes. And, come exam time, students can watch the entire canon of constitutional law in about twelve hours.
369 pages, Paperback
Published September 13, 2019
313 people are currently reading
643 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
January 20, 2020
Absolutely an essential read for all, including non law students! Even if you have trouble understanding some parts of some cases, your overall understanding of Supreme Court proceedings will greatly increase. This is so important, as this book informs and educates the population at large, which is essential to the informed participation of the population as a whole. Well-written, not overly wordy or dull. I actually felt that each case was condensed well with the essentials in understandable language. This entire book certainly opened my eyes quite a bit about the Judicial branch of our government!
July 30, 2020
This is a very interesting read if you want to learn more about landmark Supreme Court cases and the evolution of Constitutional Law. If anything, it could have been much longer, as each of the 100 cases only gets three or four pages (sometimes less than a page).
Many of the rights we believe were enshrined in the constitution were not protected by the Supreme Court for long periods of time. (Speaking out against the government, for instance, led to prison sentences. It wasn't until 1931 that a state restriction on free speech was deemed unconstitutional. And even later, in 1965, a federal restriction on free speech was finally struck down.)
This is written as a law school text with the intention of being succinct enough for someone simply interested in the topic. However, this is a dense read if you're looking for the type of one-liners people throw around about the Constitution on TV. This is what makes it compelling. The authors are not trying to oversimplify the decisions. They outline the specific facts and theories on which the Justices weighed their opinions. The cases are not viewed in siloes. They are organized to show the patterns, reversals, and expansions of legal interpretations over the years.
The authors don't manage to present everything without bias, particularly the more recent decisions. There is an obvious admiration of Scalia. At one point they say, "More than two decades after Justice Scalia's solo dissent. . .politicians on both sides of the aisle came to see the wisdom and foresight of his analysis."
Mostly their bias is more veiled and does not interfere with the case summaries. But there is one reference late in the book that blatantly states, "Justice Alito added, 'There are prominent scholars today who continue to hold that view.' Professors Barnett and Blackman [the authors] hold that view." This was a bizarre statement to throw in after not once referencing their own opinions for more than 300 pages, lol.
There is an accompanying online tutorial, but it's just the authors reading the chapters aloud and showing some bland images, so it's not worth viewing unless you don't plan to read the text.
Many of the rights we believe were enshrined in the constitution were not protected by the Supreme Court for long periods of time. (Speaking out against the government, for instance, led to prison sentences. It wasn't until 1931 that a state restriction on free speech was deemed unconstitutional. And even later, in 1965, a federal restriction on free speech was finally struck down.)
This is written as a law school text with the intention of being succinct enough for someone simply interested in the topic. However, this is a dense read if you're looking for the type of one-liners people throw around about the Constitution on TV. This is what makes it compelling. The authors are not trying to oversimplify the decisions. They outline the specific facts and theories on which the Justices weighed their opinions. The cases are not viewed in siloes. They are organized to show the patterns, reversals, and expansions of legal interpretations over the years.
The authors don't manage to present everything without bias, particularly the more recent decisions. There is an obvious admiration of Scalia. At one point they say, "More than two decades after Justice Scalia's solo dissent. . .politicians on both sides of the aisle came to see the wisdom and foresight of his analysis."
Mostly their bias is more veiled and does not interfere with the case summaries. But there is one reference late in the book that blatantly states, "Justice Alito added, 'There are prominent scholars today who continue to hold that view.' Professors Barnett and Blackman [the authors] hold that view." This was a bizarre statement to throw in after not once referencing their own opinions for more than 300 pages, lol.
There is an accompanying online tutorial, but it's just the authors reading the chapters aloud and showing some bland images, so it's not worth viewing unless you don't plan to read the text.
March 25, 2025
Excellent survey and analysis. Would have liked more quotes from majority opinions.
May 28, 2024
Non-fiction.
I comprehended about 80% of what the authors explained,
depending on the chapters and cases reviewed. I will refer
to the US Supreme Court as SCOTUS. Gave this 4 stars.
"Originalist" Supreme Court Justices want to reflect the
intent & actions of the framers of the US Constitution.
Justices such as Clarence Thomas & the late Antonin Scalia
believed this. But the framers could not have envisioned big
business, big pharma, AK-47s, war on terror, & various
forms of discrimination etc. Also a SCOTUS decision can
cancel a previous one IE Brown v the Bd. of Education
(1954) thankfully canceled the "separate but equal" clause
established in Plessy v Ferguson (1896), which justified
racial discrimination. Black Americans faced discrimination
on buses, trains, planes, & in eateries, hotels/motels and
inns, & theatres. And this treating people shabbily, unequally
in the South and sometimes in the North, contributed to
the need for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 & 1965.
I especially enjoyed reading about SCOTUS cases related
to the First and Second Amendments. And also eminent
domain.
1st Amendment.
Authors discussed 'conduct speech' IE burning: a draft
card, flag and cross, starting @ 65% mark. The last
one was R.A.V. v City of St. Paul (1992). A juvenile &
several other teens taped together chair legs to form a
cross, & lit it on fire inside the fenced yard of an African-
American family! The St. Paul city atty argued the police
were justified in charging/ convicting the teens w/ bias-
motivated crime. And that certain symbols will "arouse
anger, alarm or resentment." The majority SCOTUS
opinion declared the St. Paul law unconstitutional. And
suggested, the cross-burning was "reprehensible" but
St. Paul police should've charged R.A.V and friends with
trespassing! How could SCOTUS conclude a terrorist act
against the family deserved a lesser charge ??!!!
2nd Amendment.
1) District of Columbia v Heller (2008)
Protected the right to keep & bear arms for self-defense.
The minority opinion held that this amendment gave
the right to keep/ bear arms only to members of the
militia, now called the National Guard.
2) McDonald v the City of Chicago (2010)
The court held that the Second Amendment's "right to
keep and bear arms" limited state gun-control laws by
virtue of the 14th Amendment.
Right to privacy.
Justices argued for/ against did the Constitution provide a
"right to privacy?" Roe v Wade (1973) decided 7-2 per
SCOTUS, codified abortion in the US. Justice Blackmun
wrote the majority opinion, using the rationale "right to
privacy" which he saw in the 14th and 9th Amendments.
@ 56% mark.
Ground-breaking decisions.
1) Griswold v Conn. (1965)
Declared the state law criminalizing birth control use by
married couples, unconstitutional.
2) Loving v Virginia (1967).
Gave mixed-race couples the right to marry.
3) Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Gave same-sex couples the right to marry.
"Packing the court" of SCOTUS?
President FDR served for 12 yrs. total, the only President
to do so. (The law was later changed to allow a US Pres.
only two 4-year terms total). FDR was accused by some
of wanting to "pack" the Supreme Court by adding to the
# of justices, when deciding the total # of Justices was the
job of Congress. Per the author, IIRC, FDR reportedly said
if a Justice retired at age 70 for his pension, FDR would
nominate another Justice in his place.
Separation of church and state.
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) SCOTUS prohibited state
"entanglement" with religion.
Marsh v Chambers (1983) SCOTUS prohibited state
"endorsement" of religion.
revised 11/14/23.
I comprehended about 80% of what the authors explained,
depending on the chapters and cases reviewed. I will refer
to the US Supreme Court as SCOTUS. Gave this 4 stars.
"Originalist" Supreme Court Justices want to reflect the
intent & actions of the framers of the US Constitution.
Justices such as Clarence Thomas & the late Antonin Scalia
believed this. But the framers could not have envisioned big
business, big pharma, AK-47s, war on terror, & various
forms of discrimination etc. Also a SCOTUS decision can
cancel a previous one IE Brown v the Bd. of Education
(1954) thankfully canceled the "separate but equal" clause
established in Plessy v Ferguson (1896), which justified
racial discrimination. Black Americans faced discrimination
on buses, trains, planes, & in eateries, hotels/motels and
inns, & theatres. And this treating people shabbily, unequally
in the South and sometimes in the North, contributed to
the need for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 & 1965.
I especially enjoyed reading about SCOTUS cases related
to the First and Second Amendments. And also eminent
domain.
1st Amendment.
Authors discussed 'conduct speech' IE burning: a draft
card, flag and cross, starting @ 65% mark. The last
one was R.A.V. v City of St. Paul (1992). A juvenile &
several other teens taped together chair legs to form a
cross, & lit it on fire inside the fenced yard of an African-
American family! The St. Paul city atty argued the police
were justified in charging/ convicting the teens w/ bias-
motivated crime. And that certain symbols will "arouse
anger, alarm or resentment." The majority SCOTUS
opinion declared the St. Paul law unconstitutional. And
suggested, the cross-burning was "reprehensible" but
St. Paul police should've charged R.A.V and friends with
trespassing! How could SCOTUS conclude a terrorist act
against the family deserved a lesser charge ??!!!
2nd Amendment.
1) District of Columbia v Heller (2008)
Protected the right to keep & bear arms for self-defense.
The minority opinion held that this amendment gave
the right to keep/ bear arms only to members of the
militia, now called the National Guard.
2) McDonald v the City of Chicago (2010)
The court held that the Second Amendment's "right to
keep and bear arms" limited state gun-control laws by
virtue of the 14th Amendment.
Right to privacy.
Justices argued for/ against did the Constitution provide a
"right to privacy?" Roe v Wade (1973) decided 7-2 per
SCOTUS, codified abortion in the US. Justice Blackmun
wrote the majority opinion, using the rationale "right to
privacy" which he saw in the 14th and 9th Amendments.
@ 56% mark.
Ground-breaking decisions.
1) Griswold v Conn. (1965)
Declared the state law criminalizing birth control use by
married couples, unconstitutional.
2) Loving v Virginia (1967).
Gave mixed-race couples the right to marry.
3) Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Gave same-sex couples the right to marry.
"Packing the court" of SCOTUS?
President FDR served for 12 yrs. total, the only President
to do so. (The law was later changed to allow a US Pres.
only two 4-year terms total). FDR was accused by some
of wanting to "pack" the Supreme Court by adding to the
# of justices, when deciding the total # of Justices was the
job of Congress. Per the author, IIRC, FDR reportedly said
if a Justice retired at age 70 for his pension, FDR would
nominate another Justice in his place.
Separation of church and state.
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) SCOTUS prohibited state
"entanglement" with religion.
Marsh v Chambers (1983) SCOTUS prohibited state
"endorsement" of religion.
revised 11/14/23.
May 30, 2021
I did NOT want to like this one. It was the top search result on Amazon even when I was searching for my own book by its full title and it’s one of the closest in stated purpose to what I was going for with “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. In short, I wanted to be able to say how much it sucks or how badly it fails at being what it claims without actually coming right out and suggesting you buy my book instead.
Only it doesn’t suck. It’s actually a very well put together volume (although not nearly as pithy or engaging as my own efforts). Cases are arranged thematically – “Enumerated Powers,” “Federalism Limits on Congressional Power,” “Expanding the Scope of the Due Process Clause,” etc. Most cases get a page or two at most – some up to three – so they get right to the gist of the case and the significance of the decision, then move on. There are no extended quotes from written opinions, but neither are they missed. The regular “Study Guide” questions throughout are reasonably though-provoking while helping the reader zero in on key points without being overbearing about it. It’s an easy book to read straight through, read by topic, or use as an easy reference while focused on other things.
It does tend to assume the reader has some pre-existing knowledge of the basics of constitutional law, so while it’s quite readable, it doesn’t necessarily lay the sort of groundwork you might expect if starting completely from scratch.
Only it doesn’t suck. It’s actually a very well put together volume (although not nearly as pithy or engaging as my own efforts). Cases are arranged thematically – “Enumerated Powers,” “Federalism Limits on Congressional Power,” “Expanding the Scope of the Due Process Clause,” etc. Most cases get a page or two at most – some up to three – so they get right to the gist of the case and the significance of the decision, then move on. There are no extended quotes from written opinions, but neither are they missed. The regular “Study Guide” questions throughout are reasonably though-provoking while helping the reader zero in on key points without being overbearing about it. It’s an easy book to read straight through, read by topic, or use as an easy reference while focused on other things.
It does tend to assume the reader has some pre-existing knowledge of the basics of constitutional law, so while it’s quite readable, it doesn’t necessarily lay the sort of groundwork you might expect if starting completely from scratch.
August 23, 2022
so, it really doesn't have to be this actual book but reading through the history, story, and theory behind a bunch of major cases is incredibly enlightening. the vantage point is this deeply intellectual and long historical approach the supreme court takes to deciding on cases. the depth and breath of their thinking is typically pretty amazing. gave me a new understanding and appreciation for the supreme court ... and probably helped me understand why they make some of the decisions they make.
it also reminded me we are a country of self governed people - those in power do their best to obscure this, but we are.
I'll probably reread this or another one in a couple years.
it also reminded me we are a country of self governed people - those in power do their best to obscure this, but we are.
I'll probably reread this or another one in a couple years.
January 1, 2020
Comprehensive and Readable
I recommend this book to lay people and even those with a background in this area. Blackmun and Barnett hit pretty much every case the average student will hit in an ordinary ConLaw class in a format that is both readable and informative.
I recommend this book to lay people and even those with a background in this area. Blackmun and Barnett hit pretty much every case the average student will hit in an ordinary ConLaw class in a format that is both readable and informative.
November 16, 2020
Informative overview of US supreme court cases that are of particular relevance to 21st century Americans.
I get the impression that since Roe v. Wade the supreme court has taken up an increasingly legislative quality that I didn’t see in earlier cases (aside from ones that are clearly partisan). And this goes for both liberal and conservatives.
Aside from that, the most shocking thing to me were a series of cases from the late 19th century: The Slaughterhouse Cases, Bradwell v. Illinois, and United States v. Cruikshank. These cases effectively amended the constitution to allow states to deny individuals their rights.
The 14th Amendment, section 1 states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
And section 5 states:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The consequence of these three decisions was to effectively remove the line “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” from the Constitution. In other words congress cannot pass legislation to protect Americans’ Constitutional rights. This was, at the time, a transparent attack on minorities and women to deny them equal rights. And yet, to this day, these decisions are “good law”.
The decisions in Bradwell, and Cruikshank are particularly odious and should be thrown out. They are Dred Scott bad.
Yet as recently as 2010, when lawyers argued that the 14th Amendment protected the privileges and immunities of Americans, both conservative and liberal Judges mocked the argument because precedent has been set for the past 150 years and they weren’t interested in addressing such an entrenched set of decisions.
So if congress can’t pass laws to protect people’s privileges and immunities under the constitution, how are civil rights laws passed? The Supreme Court in the 20th century has had to expand the meaning of the following clauses about “due process” and “equal protection” in order to do so.
I get the impression that since Roe v. Wade the supreme court has taken up an increasingly legislative quality that I didn’t see in earlier cases (aside from ones that are clearly partisan). And this goes for both liberal and conservatives.
Aside from that, the most shocking thing to me were a series of cases from the late 19th century: The Slaughterhouse Cases, Bradwell v. Illinois, and United States v. Cruikshank. These cases effectively amended the constitution to allow states to deny individuals their rights.
The 14th Amendment, section 1 states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
And section 5 states:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The consequence of these three decisions was to effectively remove the line “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” from the Constitution. In other words congress cannot pass legislation to protect Americans’ Constitutional rights. This was, at the time, a transparent attack on minorities and women to deny them equal rights. And yet, to this day, these decisions are “good law”.
The decisions in Bradwell, and Cruikshank are particularly odious and should be thrown out. They are Dred Scott bad.
Yet as recently as 2010, when lawyers argued that the 14th Amendment protected the privileges and immunities of Americans, both conservative and liberal Judges mocked the argument because precedent has been set for the past 150 years and they weren’t interested in addressing such an entrenched set of decisions.
So if congress can’t pass laws to protect people’s privileges and immunities under the constitution, how are civil rights laws passed? The Supreme Court in the 20th century has had to expand the meaning of the following clauses about “due process” and “equal protection” in order to do so.
September 22, 2023
Blech
On the back a Yale Law School professor said that this makes the learning as "painless and fun as possible." We definitely have a different definition of painless and fun. I got this book as part of a class I was taking. It was only through sheer grit and determination that I finished it. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person, but the I found legal mumbo jumbo something I had to concentrate too hard on to really get much out of it. I felt like a student in Charlie Brown listening to the teacher go "wah-wah-wah".
So glad it's finally done.
On the back a Yale Law School professor said that this makes the learning as "painless and fun as possible." We definitely have a different definition of painless and fun. I got this book as part of a class I was taking. It was only through sheer grit and determination that I finished it. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person, but the I found legal mumbo jumbo something I had to concentrate too hard on to really get much out of it. I felt like a student in Charlie Brown listening to the teacher go "wah-wah-wah".
So glad it's finally done.
December 27, 2021
A very important work that should be part of every citizens education
I'm an engineer by training and, for me this was a difficult read. It took me months to work through. I could not access the supplemental information on cases, so a lot of internet time was needed to understand each case. It was worth the time and effort. If a majority of voters read and understood the work, we would be a much better country.
I'm an engineer by training and, for me this was a difficult read. It took me months to work through. I could not access the supplemental information on cases, so a lot of internet time was needed to understand each case. It was worth the time and effort. If a majority of voters read and understood the work, we would be a much better country.
June 12, 2025
20+ years after I was on law school, this book presents a great update of the many cases decided since then and reinterpretation of past cases. The authors don't try too hard to hide their prejudices, but then other con law casebooks aren't nonpartisan either, even if they claim to be. My biggest complaint is including the Hobby Lobby case, which is a statutory interpretation, with flimsy excuse tacked on to the end of the chapter.
December 21, 2020
I read this book over the course of a few weeks. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning about constitutional law. The book is an easy read in my opinion and the individual cases dating back to the 1700s are fascinating. This book has revealed to me that the supreme court indeed has the most power of any branch of government.
February 5, 2021
This book is very well written and the cases are briefly explained without apparent bias. That being said, it is utterly depressing to learn how precedent in prior cases is frequently more important than the actual text of the Constitution, except for when precedent is tossed out. So many cases have been poorly decided, it's no wonder the peoples' rights are trampled on a daily basis. Ugh.
February 5, 2022
This book is a great primer or refresher on American constitutional law. The writing style is simple and clear, making it easy to think through some challenging concepts. For a few of the bigger landmark cases, the authors include contextual information beyond the justices' opinions, offering details that likely had a practical effect on the outcomes.
July 20, 2024
A good read! I think I might have liked it a little more if it had delved more into each case, rather than just providing a 3-4 page summary, but everything that's here is explained in a way that makes sense and you can understand the arguments of the justices and why they voted the way they did.
August 20, 2020
Clear, concise and informative
March 29, 2022
Very educational. Recommend for anyone interested in law.
Easy to understand even for non-legal minds.
Easy to understand even for non-legal minds.
June 7, 2022
Excellent critical primer on the Supreme Court's development of constitutional doctrine over the centuries.
February 5, 2024
A little too deep for me, but many interesting cases and historical progressions.
April 7, 2024
somehow both too much and too little
July 24, 2025
Great but now it’s kind of outdated
August 7, 2025
great book on constitutional case law
May 19, 2025
Ever wonder why some displays of the 10 commandments are constitutional and others are not? Why and how the federal government can regulate businesses that operate only in one state? How the 13th and 14th amendments had to be argued and debated to assure civil rights? How our rights incorporated in the constitution have been expanded, limited, or changes throughout time?
This book gives answers to those questions and is a great introduction to constitutional law. It helps explain the rational behind the cases and how they have built on each other to form case law today. A must read for anyone who wants to learn more about the how our democracy works in practice and how these cases have shaped it.
This book gives answers to those questions and is a great introduction to constitutional law. It helps explain the rational behind the cases and how they have built on each other to form case law today. A must read for anyone who wants to learn more about the how our democracy works in practice and how these cases have shaped it.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews