| Palko v. Connecticut | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 12, 1937 Decided December 6, 1937 | |
| Full case name | Palko v. State of Connecticut |
| Citations | 302 U.S. 319 (more) 58 S. Ct. 149; 82 L. Ed. 288; 1937 U.S. LEXIS 549 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | State v. Palko, 122 Conn. 529, 191 A. 320 (1937); probable jurisdiction noted, 58 S. Ct. 20 (1937). |
| Holding | |
| The Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Cardozo, joined by McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Stone, Roberts, Black |
| Dissent | Butler |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V, U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Overruled by | |
| Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) | |
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.[1]
Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for the majority, explained that some Constitutional protections that would apply against the federal government would not be incorporated to apply against the states unless the guarantee was "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty".[2] Incorporation of the Bill of Rights was selective, not a general rule, and in this case the Court declined to incorporate the protection from double jeopardy against the states, even though the protection would most certainly have been upheld against the federal government.[3]
- ^ Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
- ^ "immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states".
- ^ Konvitz Milton R. 2001. Fundamental Rights : History of a Constitutional Doctrine. New Brunswick N.J: Transaction Publishers/Rutgers University.