Federalism and Separations of Powers: Holdings

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer

6-3 decision for Youngstown Sheet and tube— The President lacks constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills

United States v Nixon

The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents.

INS v. Chadha

The Court held that the particular section of the Act. in question did violate the Constitution. It was concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the “explicit constitutional standards” regarding lawmaking and congressional authority

NFIB v Sebelius

(long one edit later)

Trump v. United States

Former U.S. Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their conclusive/preclusive constiutional authority, at least presumptive immunity for all official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Learning Resources, Inc v. Trump

The IEEPA doesn't authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Constitution vests the power to lay/collect taxes in Congress, not the Executive. Therefore, presidential power to impose tariffs must come from clear congressional delegation. While the IEEPA allows the President to "regulate" the "importation" of goods, this doesn't extend to taxing power, and Congress would explicitly mention duties if they were delegating that power.

West Virginia v. EPA

The EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act can't create emissions caps. Under the "major questions doctrine", there are "extraordinary cases" where the historical scope of an agency's power calls into question the exercise of other powers. The EPA would need "clear congressional authorization" to regulate emissions, which it can't prove it has.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Courts should not defer to agency interpretations of laws; they should use their own judgment to interpret laws.

Therefore, Chevron, which required courts to defer to agency interpretations, should be overruled.