cases for political science

Printz v. United States (1997) issue

Can Congress compel state executive officers to administer a federal regulatory program?

Printz v. United States (1997) dissent

Stevens; commerce clause + necessary and proper= congress can do this

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) issue

Does the Commerce Clause or Taxing Power allow Congress to require individuals to buy health insurance? Also, is the Medicaid expansion coercive?

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) dissent

would have struck down the entire ACA — no mandate under any power

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) memory aid 1- Commerce clause

(struck down) Cannot compel inactivity

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) memory aid 1- Medicaid expansion

(coercive) Threat to take all funding

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) issue

Does the 14th Amendment require states to license and recognize same-sex marriages?

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) reasoning 1

Individual autonomy

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) reasoning 2

Marriage is a fundamental right

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) reasoning 3

Protects children and families

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) reasoning 4

Keystone of social order

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) dissent 1

Left to democratic processes, voters and legislatures not courts

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) dissent 2

Scalia (orginalist)- the constitution says nothing about same sex maraige. inventing a right that doesn’t exist in the text

States that were sued in Obergefell V. Hodges

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennesseecas

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) issue

Does the Commerce Clause give Congress authority to prohibit local, non-commercial marijuana cultivation and use when state law permits it for medical purposes?

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) reasoning

The Court applied the aggregate effects test from Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) concurrence

Agreed but used Necessary and Proper Clause local regulation is "necessary" to make the broader interstate scheme effective (Scclia)

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) dissent

This is a bridge too far. If Congress can regulate this, there are no limits on the Commerce Clause. States should be laboratories of democracy. (O'Connor). The activity is non-commercial and local — the Commerce Clause was never meant to reach this far. (Thomas)

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) fact 1

She grew her own marijuana entirely within California, where state law permitted medical use

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) fact 2

used medical marijuana prescribed by her doctor for serious medical conditions

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) fact 3

Federal agents seized and destroyed her plants under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — a federal law that criminalizes all marijuana possession

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) fact 4

Raich sued, arguing the CSA violated the Commerce Clause because her marijuana was non-commercial, local, and state-legal

Printz v. United States holding

5-4 1

NFIB v. Sebelius (Commerce) holding

5-4 2

NFIB v. Sebelius (Taxing) holding

5-4 3

NFIB v. Sebelius (Medicaid) holding

7-2

Obergefell v. Hodges holding

5-4 4

Caperton v. AT Massey Coal holding

5-4 5

Gonzales v. Raich holding

6-3 1

Trump v. Hawaii (2018) holding

5-4 6

Trump v. United States (2024) holding

6-3

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) holding

7-0

Trump v. Hawaii (2018) issuse

Does President have authority under immigration law? Does it violate Establishment Clause?

Trump V. Hawaii (2018) reasoning

Broad deference to President on immigration and national security; Court declined to "look behind" stated reasons to consider Trump's anti-Muslim campaign statements

Trump V. Hawaii (2018) dissent

The majority ignored evidence of anti-Muslim animus

Trump v. United States (2024) issue

Does a former president have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts?

Trump v. United States (2024) reasoning

Without immunity, presidents would be paralyzed by fear of future prosecution; separation of powers requires protection for executive

Trump v. United States (2024) tier one

Absolute immunity for core constitutional powers;

Trump v. United States (2024) tier two

Presumptive immunity for other official acts

Trump v. United States (2024) tier three

No immunity for unofficial/private acts

Trump v. United States (2024) dissent

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe he would be immune from criminal prosecution. With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) issue

Does Iowa's statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman violate the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause?

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) reasoning

Applied intermediate scrutiny to sexual orientation Exclusion of same-sex couples does not substantially further any important governmental objective.

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) reasoning from judge 1

quasi-suspect classification based on history of discrimination,

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) reasoning from judge 2

immutability

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) reasoning from judge 3

political powerlessnes

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) backlash

Three of the seven justices lost their retention election in 2010 as a result

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) state arguments 1

Tradition

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) state arguments 2

Procreation

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) state arguments 3

Optimal child-rearing

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa, 2009) state arguments 4

Preserving resources