Good for the U.S. Supreme Court, which for the second straight year ruled that an element of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights also applies to the states.

The justices ruled 6-3 last week that the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of unanimous jury verdicts in a federal criminal trial is the law in all the states. In doing this, the court overturned a 2016 Louisiana verdict in which a jury voted 10-2 to convict a man in a homicide. The defendant presumably will get a new trial.

Oregon was the only other state that allowed nonunanimous guilty verdicts in criminal trials. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that Louisiana’s former law — voters there changed it in 2019 to require unanimous verdicts — was a remnant of Jim Crow segregation efforts, while racial and religious bigotry led Oregon to adopt its law in the 1930s.

A year ago, the court ruled that an Indiana law that allowed the seizure of an expensive vehicle in a relatively minor drug case violated the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines — applying that section of the Bill of Rights to the states for the first time.

Last week’s ruling did the same thing for the Sixth Amendment’s criminal conviction requirement, and properly so. But to do it, the justices had to overturn a 1972 ruling, in which the court decided that nothing in the Constitution barred states from allowing nonunanimous convictions.

What was interesting about the ruling is that the court separated from its standard conservative vs. liberal split. Besides Gorsuch, conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn the Louisiana conviction, as did liberals Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts, fellow conservative Samuel Alito and liberal Elena Kagan were the three dissenters.

This may have occurred because ruling in favor of the defendant required the court to say that its predecessors got it wrong 48 years ago. Historically, the state’s highest court has been reluctant to overturn past rulings, worried that frequent reversals of existing case law would wind up undermining the court’s authority as the final arbiter. But Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, said the 1972 ruling was “egregiously wrong,” and he is correct.

The Bill of Rights dates back more than 230 years, but it is rightly prized as both a monument to individual liberty and as a groundbreaking, farsighted set of laws that apply specific restrictions on the power of government. Every single one of the rights in these 10 amendments ought to apply to all Americans without exception.

(1) comment



I am largely in agreement with your comments on the Ramos decision, but I think the issues surrounding the application of the Bill of Rights are more complex than you suggest. I am very hesitant to endorse the last paragraph of the editorial. I have always thought that Apodaca V. Oregon was improperly decided. the idea that unanimous decisions are a requirement of justice in Federal, but not state courts, was difficult to comprehend. It did serve as a valid precedent from 1972 till 2020. Only Louisiana and Oregon allowed verdicts that were not unanimous.

The Bill of Rights has never applied directly to the States. Most of its provisions have been selectively incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.the Court has used what is known as the "Palko Doctrine," which argues that the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the state if they are necessary for "fundamental fairness and ordered liberty." No one argues that the 7th Amendment should be incorporated. The grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment does not apply to states, many of which use "presentment" by prosecutors to bring charges. I am not among those & the Supreme Court should apply it..

As for the Ramos decision, the requirement of unanimity is NOT mentioned in the 6th Amendment. It is an interpretation of the fundamental requirement for a fair trial, not the mechanical application of a provision. A more serious analysis of "incorporation" would focus on the "Excessive bails and fines" provision of the 8th Amendment, which are weakly incorporated. Our cash bail system is a disgrace that should receive serious constitutional scrutiny.

The big takeaway from the Ramos case has nothing to do with its constitutional significance.It signals a big fight over stare decisis -- the doctrine that courts should follow precedent until they are tested and shown to be unreliable. (There was 58 years of case law between Plessy V. Ferguson & Brown v.Board of Education.) What Ramos may signal is a fresh willingness of the newer members of the Court to dispatch with longstanding cases they believe were wrongly decided.

Dr. Larry W. Chappell, Professor of Political Science

Mississippi Valley State University

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.