The best take I have read is that in both cases they were promoting elimination of local decisionmaking and norms in favor of centralized control over "Civil Liberties" (which obviously would benefit organizations like the ACLU as they would become more powerful). When considered from that standpoint they were enormously successful at doing that in the 60s and 70s and continue to fight for that today.
A consequence of these court decisions is that we now have the Feds using Civil Rights law to prevent states from banning local governments from mandating masks in schools. Which could be seen as the Feds enforcing localism over a (slightly less) central State government's dictates, but given that we know how eagerly the Feds will trample over local governments to enforce their will we know that obviously isn't the case.
The best take I have read is that in both cases they were promoting elimination of local decisionmaking and norms in favor of centralized control over "Civil Liberties" (which obviously would benefit organizations like the ACLU as they would become more powerful). When considered from that standpoint they were enormously successful at doing that in the 60s and 70s and continue to fight for that today.
A consequence of these court decisions is that we now have the Feds using Civil Rights law to prevent states from banning local governments from mandating masks in schools. Which could be seen as the Feds enforcing localism over a (slightly less) central State government's dictates, but given that we know how eagerly the Feds will trample over local governments to enforce their will we know that obviously isn't the case.