The Supreme Court’s 1986 landmark cases reshaped American law across jury selection, workplace harassment, privacy, free speech, affirmative action, and the separation of powers, and they arrived in the same year that Warren E. Burger stepped down as Chief Justice and William H. Rehnquist took his place alongside new Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. The headline decisions include Batson v. Kentucky, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, Bowers v. Hardwick, Bethel School District v. Fraser, Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, Bowsher v. Synar, and Davis v. Bandemer. Several still govern their fields; one was later overruled.
Batson v. Kentucky: Race and Peremptory Strikes
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), rewrote the rules on racial discrimination in jury selection. Writing for a 7–2 majority, Justice Powell held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors solely because of their race.1U.S. Courts. Facts and Case Summary – Batson v. Kentucky
The decision replaced an older standard from Swain v. Alabama (1965) that had required defendants to prove a pattern of discrimination across multiple cases, a burden nearly impossible to meet in practice. In its place, the Court installed a three-step framework. A defendant may now make a preliminary showing of discrimination based on the prosecutor’s strikes in a single trial. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecution to offer a race-neutral explanation for each challenged strike. Racially motivated strikes, the Court said, “undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.”2Justia. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist dissented.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson: Sexual Harassment as Sex Discrimination
In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), the Court unanimously held for the first time that sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment is sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.3Oyez. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson Then-Justice Rehnquist wrote that Title VII is “not limited to ‘economic’ or ‘tangible’ discrimination” and that Congress meant to reach “the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women” at work.
The opinion also clarified what plaintiffs must show. The question is not whether the employee’s participation in sexual conduct was “voluntary” in the sense of being unforced, but whether the advances were “unwelcome.” The Court declined to impose automatic employer liability for supervisory harassment, instead directing lower courts to develop standards under common-law agency principles.4Cornell Law Institute. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson Meritor remains the foundation of workplace sexual harassment law in the United States.
Bowers v. Hardwick: Privacy and the Georgia Sodomy Statute
The term’s most controversial ruling was Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, decided on June 30, 1986. Michael Hardwick had been charged under a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy after police discovered him with another adult man in his own bedroom. The district attorney declined to pursue the case, but Hardwick, backed by the ACLU, challenged the law.5Georgia Encyclopedia. Bowers v. Hardwick
By a 5–4 vote, Justice White’s majority opinion held that the Constitution “does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” The Court refused to extend the privacy rights recognized in earlier marriage, family, and contraception cases to consensual homosexual activity. It called the claim that such conduct was “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” “at best, facetious,” and said laws may rest on the moral beliefs of the majority.6Library of Congress. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 Justice Blackmun’s dissent argued the case was really about the right to be left alone in the privacy of one’s home.
Justice Lewis Powell, who cast the decisive fifth vote, later said in retirement, “I think I probably made a mistake in that one.” The ruling stood for seventeen years before Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that Bowers “was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled.” That decision invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen states.5Georgia Encyclopedia. Bowers v. Hardwick
Bethel School District v. Fraser: Student Speech at School Events
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, refined student speech doctrine. By a 7–2 vote, the Court held that public schools may discipline students for vulgar or sexually explicit speech at school events, even when the speech falls short of legal obscenity.7Oyez. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser Matthew Fraser, a high school student, had been suspended after using elaborate sexual metaphors in a nominating speech before roughly 600 students, many of them fourteen years old.8Cornell Law Institute. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
Chief Justice Burger’s opinion distinguished Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which had protected passive political expression such as protest armbands. Schools have a legitimate interest in teaching civility and in shielding younger students from vulgar language, the Court held, and the constitutional rights of students in public schools “are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.”9Justia. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675
Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps: Who Must Prove Truth in a Libel Case
In Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986), the Court decided who bears the burden of proof when a private citizen sues a media outlet over speech on a matter of public concern. The case grew out of a series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer linking a businessman to organized crime. Justice O’Connor’s 5–4 majority held that the First Amendment requires the plaintiff, not the defendant, to prove the challenged statements are false.10Justia. Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 That overturned the traditional common-law presumption that defamatory speech is presumed false. When the truth or falsity of a statement on a public matter sits “in an uncertain balance,” the Court said, the Constitution tips the scales toward protecting speech.
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education: Affirmative Action and Layoffs
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986), drew a sharp line around race-conscious employment remedies. A 5–4 majority struck down a Michigan school board’s layoff provision that protected minority teachers from being let go ahead of white teachers with more seniority. Justice Powell’s plurality opinion held that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because the record did not show the school board itself had engaged in prior discrimination. The Court rejected the “role model” theory, which argued that minority students needed minority teachers as role models, as too “amorphous” a justification for race-based layoffs.11Justia. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267
The opinion distinguished hiring goals from layoffs. Hiring preferences spread a diffuse burden across many applicants, the Court reasoned, while layoffs strip identified individuals of jobs and seniority, “a valuable capital asset” that employers may not redistribute by race without narrowly tailored justification rooted in the specific employer’s own past conduct.12Cornell Law Institute. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
Bowsher v. Synar: Striking Down Part of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Separation of powers got its own landmark in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), which invalidated a key enforcement mechanism of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced-budget law. The act had assigned the Comptroller General, an officer subject to removal by Congress, the authority to determine where automatic budget cuts would fall. Chief Justice Burger’s opinion held that Congress cannot retain the power to remove an officer charged with executing the laws. “By placing the responsibility for execution of the Act in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress, in effect, has retained control over the Act’s execution,” Burger wrote, “and has unconstitutionally intruded into the executive function.”13Justia. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714
Davis v. Bandemer: Opening the Door to Gerrymandering Suits
Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), held that political gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, meaning federal courts may hear challenges to partisan redistricting. Six justices agreed on that threshold point. The case arose from Indiana’s 1981 legislative reapportionment, drawn by a Republican-controlled legislature. In the 1982 elections, Democratic House candidates won 51.9% of the statewide vote but only 43 of 100 seats.14Justia. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109
Opening the courthouse door did not make winning easy. Justice White’s opinion required plaintiffs to show that the electoral system was arranged to “consistently degrade a voter’s or a group of voters’ influence on the political process as a whole,” something more than disproportionate results in a single election.14Justia. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Burger concurred in the judgment but argued political gerrymandering claims should be considered nonjusticiable.15Constitution Annotated – Congress.gov. Political Gerrymandering Justiciability A plurality in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) voted to overturn Bandemer, but no majority formed.
Two More Decisions Worth Knowing
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986). By a 6–3 vote, the Court held that the Constitution permits prosecutors to remove prospective jurors who say they could never vote for the death penalty, even during the guilt phase of a capital trial. Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion rejected the argument that “death-qualifying” a jury in this way violates the Sixth Amendment’s fair-cross-section requirement or the right to an impartial jury, holding that such jurors are not a “distinctive group” because their exclusion is based on an inability to follow the applicable law.16Justia. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 The Court also found the social science evidence suggesting death-qualified juries are more “conviction-prone” methodologically insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.17FindLaw. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986). By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not require the military to accommodate the wearing of religious apparel that conflicts with uniform regulations. Captain S. Simcha Goldman, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and Air Force clinical psychologist, had been ordered to stop wearing his yarmulke indoors. Justice Rehnquist’s opinion said courts must give “great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities” on matters of uniformity and discipline. Congress effectively overrode the ruling the following year by passing the Religious Apparel Amendment, which allows service members to wear “neat and conservative” religious items in uniform, provided the items do not interfere with military duties.18First Amendment Encyclopedia – MTSU. Goldman v. Weinberger
The Court Itself: Burger Out, Rehnquist In, Scalia Arrives
On May 27, 1986, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger told President Ronald Reagan he intended to step down to chair the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution full time. Burger said he had “never felt better” and denied health concerns, but explained that juggling his judicial work and the bicentennial had recently pushed him to a 105-hour work week. Asked whether he would have retired without the commission assignment, he said no.19UC Santa Barbara – The American Presidency Project. Remarks on the Resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and the Nominations His retirement took effect July 10, 1986.
On June 17, 1986, Reagan announced two nominations at once: Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist to be Chief Justice, and federal appeals court judge Antonin Scalia to fill Rehnquist’s seat.19UC Santa Barbara – The American Presidency Project. Remarks on the Resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and the Nominations20Supreme Court Historical Society. William Rehnquist, 1986-200521The New York Times. The Memo That Rehnquist Wrote and Had to Disown Rehnquist said the memo was a “rough draft of a statement of Justice Jackson’s tentative views” prepared at Jackson’s request, not his own view. On September 17, 1986, the Senate confirmed him 65 to 33, the most dissenting votes recorded against a successful Chief Justice nominee at the time.22GovTrack. Senate Vote on Rehnquist Confirmation
Scalia’s path was starkly different. The Senate confirmed him the same day, 98 to 0, after the Rehnquist fight had consumed Senate Democrats’ attention.23Voteview. Senate Vote 648, 99th Congress24National Constitution Center. Ronald Reagan’s Big Impact on the Supreme Court Both men were sworn in at the White House on September 26, 1986.25University of Arizona – James E. Rogers College of Law. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
For the October 1986 term, the Court comprised Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell Jr., John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Antonin Scalia.26Oyez. Supreme Court – All Courts Rehnquist, Scalia, O’Connor, and Powell generally anchored the conservative wing; Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens formed the liberal bloc; White voted pragmatically. Powell, who would retire the following year, frequently cast the decisive fifth vote. As an Associate Justice, Rehnquist had dissented so often that colleagues nicknamed him the “Lone Ranger.”27Justia – Supreme Court. The Rehnquist Court With Scalia on the bench and O’Connor frequently in the conservative camp, that was no longer the case.