Issues specific to the court of Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953 to 1969) should be examined within the context of country when he took over the Court. Rather than select one of the 4 options offered I would suggest that the focus of this court was primarily on segregation.
Subsequent to World War I there had been a major population shift from the agrarian areas to the urban and this included a significant segment of the black population. With this shift these people gain voting power which was evident in the black populations which helped them gain political power they not existing previously. This was enhanced by the New Deal of the 30s and accelerated by World War II.
The Roosevelt administration moved (slowly) toward a policy of increased integration (with such as an executive order for Federal Fair Employment Practices Commission) which built on efforts of the Hoover Administration (the first to begin desegregation of the White House).
The Warren Court (to some extent) was consistent with preceding Fred Vinson Court in the condemnation of legalized segregation while having major differences on issues such as communist political activity, legislative apportionment, birth control, obscene literature, and separation of church and state. However, Cases decided in the Vinson Court provided a foundation of continuing evolution for the Warren Court to address segregation in the North as much as in the South.
A few of the cases (interesting reading in detail) which standout during the term of the Warren Court include such as:
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 
Bolling v. Sharpe 
Cooper v. Aaron 
Faubus v. Aaron 
Turner v. Memphis 
Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville 
Griffin v. County Board of Prince Edward County 
McLaughlin v. Florida 
Loving et ux. V. Virginia 
Green v. County Board of New Kent County 
Alexander v. Holmes 
In one of Warren’s opinions he found that segregation was not “reasonably related to any proper government objective” and that it amounted to an improper restriction of “liberty under law,” in violation of the due process clause of the fifth Amendment. This opinion (when read in detail) because it could be construed to a judicial legislation.