Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2616b6e5ddfeee6

Jump to content

Anticanon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[1][2][3][4][5] 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:[1]

References

[edit]
  1. 1 2 Greene, Jamal (December 20, 2011). "The Anticanon". Harvard Law Review. Retrieved 18 February 2019.
  2. Lam, Charles (February 17, 2019). "What we can learn from Fred Korematsu, 75 years after the Supreme Court ruled against him". NBC News. Retrieved 18 February 2019.
  3. Amar, Akhil (2011). "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon". Pepperdine Law Review. 39 (1): 75–90. hdl:20.500.13051/3125.
  4. Graber, Mark A. (2011). "Hollow Hopes and Exaggerated Fears: the Canon/Anticanon in Context". Harvard Law Review Forum. 125 (2).
  5. Levinson, Sanford (2011). "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")". Harvard Law Review Forum. 125 (2).
  6. Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. p. 722. ISBN 978-1454895749.
  7. Bernard Schwartz (1997). A Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Law. Oxford University Press. p. 70. ISBN 978-0198026945.
  8. 1 2 Schauer, Frederick (1997). "Generality and Equality". Law and Philosophy. 16 (3): 279–97. doi:10.2307/3504874. JSTOR 3504874.
  9. Lewis, Thomas (2022). "Runyon v. McCrary". EBSCO. Archived from the original on December 14, 2025. Retrieved May 22, 2026.
  10. "Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions". constitution.congress.gov. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 2026-05-22 via Library of Congress.
  11. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 593 (1983)
  12. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  13. 1 2 Jacobs, Harvey Martin (2004). Private property in the 21st century : the future of an American ideal. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. ISBN 1-84376-327-3. OCLC 52547683.
  14. “We have since overruled Korematsu, recognizing that it was ‘gravely wrong the day it was decided.’” Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181, slip op. at 207, n. 3 (2023)
  15. 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.’” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 710 (2018)
  16. Locker, Ray. "Supreme Court overrules Korematsu case that upheld World War II Japanese American incarceration". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2026-05-22.