The Warren Court ended segregation in schools and transformed numerous aspects of US law, especially with regard to the rights of the accused, ended public school prayer, and demanded the adoption of electoral proportionality rules of the type "one man, one vote".
It made the Court a more balanced center of power in front of the Congress and the Presidency, especially through four sentences in paradigmatic cases: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
With all these measures, the Warren Court was setting a precedent, by changing the way of understanding and interpreting the Constitution. Until then, the Supreme Court had always considered that its duty to ensure the Constitution consisted exclusively of maintaining the sacrosanct separation of powers, preventing the executive power, mainly, from exceeding its functions. This position, in many cases, meant preventing the approval of legislation of a social nature, as happened during the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, on the grounds that it escaped the competence of the presidency. But, after Warren's mandate, the Court went on to read the Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights not as a mere regulation designed to protect the separation of powers and limit federal authority, but as the guarantee of rights and freedoms of the American citizens. This interpretation continues to be the majority today.
