The 1970s Supreme Court
Activist Overreach in Mimms and Roe
The 1970s were a strange time for the U.S. Supreme Court—a period when judicial restraint seemed to take a backseat to activism, leaving lasting scars on our constitutional fabric. Two cases from that era, Roe v. Wade (1973) and Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977), stand out as glaring examples of justices bending the Constitution to fit their agendas rather than upholding its plain meaning. While Roe conjured a right to abortion from the ether of “penumbras,” Mimms chipped away at the Fourth Amendment’s shield against unreasonable searches and seizures. It’s high time we revisit Mimms and restore the sanctity of personal liberty it casually discarded.
Take Pennsylvania v. Mimms, decided 6-3 by the Court on December 5, 1977. Philadelphia police stopped Harry Mimms for an expired license plate—a minor traffic violation. An officer ordered him out of his car to show his license and registration. When Mimms stepped out, the officer spotted a bulge under his jacket, frisked him, and found a loaded .38-caliber revolver. Mimms was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, but he argued the order to exit violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, tossing his conviction because the officer had no specific reason to suspect danger beyond the expired tag. Enter SCOTUS, which flipped that sensible ruling on its head.
The majority held that police can order a driver out of a lawfully stopped vehicle, no suspicion required, calling it a “de minimis” intrusion outweighed by the “legitimate and weighty” need for officer safety. Once Mimms was out and the bulge appeared, the frisk—greenlit by Terry v. Ohio (1968)—was fair game. The gun stayed in evidence, and Mimms stayed convicted. The dissent, led by Justices Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall, saw through the flimsy logic. They called it a “casual” gutting of the Fourth Amendment’s core: no police action without specific, individualized justification. They were right.
This isn’t just about Mimms—it’s about us. Most states, including my home state of Florida, treat a person’s home and its curtilage as sacred, constitutionally protected from warrantless intrusions. Many extend that logic to cars, recognizing them as extensions of personal space. If police knock on my door for a “talk,” they can’t order me out to chat unless they’ve got a warrant or a damn good reason. Yet Mimms says they can do just that with my car during a traffic stop—no cause, no questions, just because they feel like it. That’s not a “minimal” intrusion; it’s a power grab, and it’s as unprincipled as Roe inventing a right from whole cloth.
The 1970s Court had a habit of this—stretching constitutional text beyond recognition. Roe ignored the absence of abortion in the Constitution’s enumerated rights, leaning on vague “privacy” notions to override state laws. Mimms dismissed the Fourth Amendment’s demand for reasonableness, handing police a blank check for traffic stops based on “safety” vibes rather than evidence. Both rulings reflect a Court more interested in shaping policy than interpreting law—a textbook activist streak.
Mimms has haunted us ever since, turning routine stops into fishing expeditions. Cops can now order you out, eyeball you for “bulges,” and escalate at will—all without a shred of suspicion beyond a busted taillight. That’s not the Fourth Amendment our Founders wrote; it’s a judicial rewrite. The dissent nailed it: this was a “dangerous” erosion of liberty, and we’re still living with the fallout.
It’s time to overturn Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The 1970s SCOTUS overreached, and we don’t have to keep swallowing their activist pills. States like Florida prove we can protect both personal space and public safety without shredding the Constitution. Let’s demand a Court that reads the text as it is—not as it wishes it to be—and restore the Fourth Amendment to its rightful strength. Mimms deserves a second look, and our liberty deserves a second chance.