Editing Earl Warren (section)

====Bill of Rights====
The 1960s marked a major shift in constitutional interpretation, as the Warren Court continued the process of the [[incorporation of the Bill of Rights]] in which the provisions of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution were applied to the states.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=530–531}}{{efn|The original Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, but the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, contains the [[Due Process Clause]], which applies to state governments and has been used by the Court to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Some, including Douglas, favored the total incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but the Court has selectively incorporated various provisions of the Bill of Rights across numerous cases. The first major incorporation case was ''[[Gitlow v. New York]]'' (1925).{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=373–375, 405, 530}}}} Warren saw the Bill of Rights as a codification of "the natural rights of man" against the government and believed that incorporation would bring the law "into harmony with moral principles."{{Sfn|White|1981|pp=469–470}} When Warren took office, most of the provisions of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] already applied to the states, but the vast majority of the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The Warren Court saw the incorporation of the remaining provisions of the First Amendment as well as all or part of the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth]], [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth]], [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth]], and [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth]] Amendments. The Warren Court also handed down numerous other important decisions regarding the Bill of Rights, especially in the field of criminal procedure.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=530–531}}

In ''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'', the Supreme Court reversed a libel conviction of the publisher of the ''New York Times''. In the majority opinion, Brennan articulated the [[actual malice]] standard for libel against public officials, which has become an enduring part of constitutional law.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=438–440}} In ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District]]'', the Court reversed the suspension of an eighth-grade student who wore a black armband in protest of the [[Vietnam War]]. Fortas's majority opinion noted that students did not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=490–491}} The Court's holding in ''[[United States v. Seeger]]'' expanded those who could be classified as [[conscientious objectors]] under the [[Selective Service System]] by allowing nonreligious individuals with ethical objections to claim conscientious objector status.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=481–483}} Another case, ''[[United States v. O'Brien]]'', saw the Court uphold a prohibition against [[draft-card burning|burning draft-cards]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=485–487}} Warren dissented in ''[[Street v. New York]]'' in which the Court struck down a state law that prohibited the desecration of the [[American flag]]. When his law clerks asked why he dissented in the case, Warren stated, "Boys, it's the American flag. I'm just not going to vote in favor of burning the American flag."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=491–492}} In the 1969 case of ''[[Brandenburg v. Ohio]]'', the Court held that governments cannot punish speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing [[imminent lawless action]] and is likely to incite or produce such action."{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=502–503}}

[[File:Impeach Warren.png|thumb|right|An "Impeach Earl Warren sign", posted in San Francisco in October 1958]]

In 1962, ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' held that the [[Establishment Clause]] prohibits mandatory prayer in public school.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=386–387}} The ruling sparked a strong backlash from many political and religious leaders, some of whom called for the impeachment of Warren. Warren became a favored target of right-wing groups, such as the [[John Birch Society]], as well as the [[1964 United States presidential election|1964 Republican presidential nominee]], [[Barry Goldwater]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=387–391, 435}} ''Engel'', the criminal procedure cases, and the persistent criticism of conservative politicians like Goldwater and Nixon contributed to a decline in the Court's popularity in the mid- and the late 1960s.{{Sfn|Cray|1997|p=498}} ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' had the Court strike down a state law designed to restrict access to [[contraception]], and it established a constitutional [[right to privacy]]. ''Griswold'' later provided an important precedent for the case of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', which disallowed many laws designed to restrict access to [[abortion in the United States|abortion]].{{Sfn|Cray|1997|pp=447–449}}