Constitutional Law Final

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936)

Unnecessary to determine
The whole aim of the resolution is to affect a situation entirely external from the United States
Falls under foreign affairs

Medellin v. Texas (2008)

Because the Vienna Convention was a non-self-executing treaty that lacked Congressional action, it, as well as the President's memorandum forcing states to comply with the treaty, had no binding authority on state courts.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

2004 court case;on appeal, a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, finding that the separation of powers required federal courts to practice restraint during wartime because "the executive and legislative branches are organized to supervise the conduct of overseas conflict in a way that the judiciary simply is not." The panel therefore found that it should defer to the Executive Branch's "enemy combatant" determination.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

The Supreme Court upheld broad congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's broad interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers.

United States v. E. C. Knight Company (1895)

ruled that the government could not dissolve a sugar refining monopoly because the Constitution only gave Congress the power to regulate trade and not manufacturing

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

The Supreme Court declared the Keating-Owen Child Labor
Law unconstitutional. Keating-Owen had prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of products made with child labor.

United States v. Butler (1936)

Found particular federal regulations on agricultural production to be unconstitutional, but proclaimed that Congress has wide power to tax and spend for whatever it deems to be for the "general welfare"

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Sustained the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
Three major issues
Commerce power
Can Congress compel people to purchase something they wouldn't ordinarily buy
Wickard v. Filburn set the precedent, that the government can restrain you from doing something
Unhealthy people are a drain on the economy
But everyone eventually goes to a medical facility and will need healthcare
Taxing Power
Is this law a tax?
Exuberant taxes are unconstitutional
This does not fall under that
You have a choice, pay the tax or buy insurance
Punishments exist to persuade us to follow the law
Spending Power
Can Congress compel the states to expand Medicaid if they lose Medicare funds?
The court says no under the commerce clause, but it is a tax
Also a political issue
Support over opposition of this law helped define party lines
Held 5 - 4 to uphold the law
Accessible language, wants the general public to be able to understand

Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935)

Ruled the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional, emphasizing the nondelegation doctrine and the limits of congressional power.

Mistretta v. United States (1989)

Upheld the constitutionality of the Sentencing Commission, affirming Congress's ability to delegate certain powers while maintaining the separation of powers.

Myers v. United States (1926)

a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body

Morrison v. Olson (1988)

Congress can, through statute, vest the power of appointment of inferior officers (here, the independent counsel) to heads of departments (here, the attorney general

The War Powers Resolution - 1973

a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001)

President can go after anyone who aided, planned, authorized, or committed a terrorist attack (Prez can use military wherever he sees fit/expanded his power a lot)

Missouri v. Holland (1920)

Congress has the power to enter into treaties. Even if an activity is not within Congressional control, it will still be valid as a necessary and proper means of exercising the treaty power, so long as it falls within the scope of an otherwise valid treaty.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Article II of the Constitution grants the U.S. president the exclusive authority to formally recognize a foreign sovereign through executive power that Congress may not contradict via statute.

Garcia v. SAMTA (1985)

• Question: May Congress, under its commerce power, regulate the labor market of state employees?
• Holding: Yes.
• Reasoning: Rules based on "integral" or "traditional" governmental functions provide no guidance in determining boundaries of state and federal power. Electoral process will check Congress.

Printz v. United States (1997)

United States In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Brady Act provision was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He stated that early federal statutes did not suggest that Congress thought it had the power to direct the actions of State executive officials. Also, the overall structure of the Constitution implies that Congress may not direct State officials

Murphy v. NCAA (2018)

MDF win, narrows ICC
SC struck down PASPA, a 1992 fed law that banned most states from legalizing sports betting.
- The court ruled that PASPA violated the 10th Am (powers not given to the fed govt are reserved for states) by commandeering / forcing states to follow fed rules about gambling
- decision gave states power to decide whether or not to legalize sports betting

Arizona v. United States (2012)

Only the federal government may regulate immigration laws and enforcement

Alden v. Maine (2012)

Are these sovereign immunity pleas consistent with the Garcia v. SAMTA decision?
No, this is a broader understanding of immunity
Did Maine have immunity
Yes, they did not consent

Bush v. Gore (2000)

The court ruled that manual recounts of presidential ballots in the Nov. 2000 election could not proceed because inconsistent evaluation standards in different counties violated the equal protection clause. In effect, the ruling meant Bush would win the election.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952)

Declared President Truman's seizure of steel mills unconstitutional, reinforcing limits on executive power.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII does not violate 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (gets strict scrutiny but national security is a good enough reason to justify the racial discrimination).

Humphrey's Executor vs. United States

The Court ruled in favor of Humphrey's Executor (the executor of his estate) by a 9-0 vote. The Court held that Humphrey could not be removed without cause, as the FTC was an independent agency created by Congress, and its commissioners were intended to serve fixed terms.

The Prize Cases (1863)

President, as Commander-in-Chief, could order a naval blockade without a congressional
declaration of war

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

Ruled that a civilian cannot be tried in military courts while civil courts are available.

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

-Trump issued an executive order saying people from certain countries cannot enter the country. Sumpreme Court ruled in favor of Trump saying it was an issue of national security.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

(A single decision on a group of cases with similar legal problems). Legalized segregation with regard to private property.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states' drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the Twenty-first Amendment's limitations on spending power were not prohibitions on congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly. The five percent loss of highway funds was not unduly coercive.