Constitutional Law I Cases

Morrison v. Olson - Majority

Rehnquist: The independent counsel is constitutional, so the subpoena cannot be stopped. Olson is an inferior officer instead of a principle officer, so the President cannot remove him through the Take Care Clause.

Morrison v. Olson - Dissent

Scalia: The Court’s ruling and the independent council violate the Article II Vesting Clause because the clause vests all executive power in the President. 

Gravel v. United States - Majority

White: The Speech and Debate Clause protects both legislators and their aids. However, these protections do not apply in Gravel’s case because the protections only extend to legislative functions, and his actions did not further a legislative function. 

Gravel v. United States - Dissent

Brennan: Court applies the Speech and Debate Clause narrowly; the Senator was performing his legislative function of informing the public

US Term Limits v. Thornton - Majority

Stevens: States cannot add representative qualifications because that is inconsistent with the Framers’ intentions. Also, that power is not reserved to the states. A ballot access restriction limits one’s ability to win, and therefore acts as a qualification.

US Term Limits v. Thornton - Dissent

Thomas: When the Constitution is silent on an issue, the state can perform the power through their police powers. States can add qualifications as long as they do not altar the original qualifications.

Powell v. McCormack - Majority

Warren: Not all legislative action is protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, so the Court can review the case. Powell cannot be vacated from Congress, but he can be removed after he has taken the oath. 

Zivotofsky v. Kerry - Majority

Kennedy: Both the Reception Clause and history show that the President’s recognition power cannot be limited by Congress. The President is a single policy of legitimacy that handles foreign relations. The recognition power cannot be limited by Congress, but can act within Congress’ bounds.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry - Concurrence

Thomas: The President holds residual foreign relations power and passports are only internal documents, not methods of recognizing foreign countries.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry - Dissent #1

Roberts: The President can exercise these powers, but only with concurrently with Congress. 

Zivotofsky v. Kerry - Dissent #2

Scalia: These recognition powers are to be exercised concurrently with Congress; passports are not vehicles to recognize foreign powers as they are only internal documents.

West Virginia v. EPA - Majority

Roberts: The EPA’s methods of regulation are so broad that they fall into the category of the Major Questions Doctrine. Congress could not have meant to underhaul the power plant industry to the extent that the EPA’s regulations do,

West Virginia v. EPA - Concurrence

Gorsuch: The Major Questions Doctrine is crucial to protecting federalism and the separation of powers.

West Virginia v. EPA - Dissent

Kagan - Biden is implementing a new law on the matter, so the whole issue is moot.

INS v. Chadha - Majority

Burger: The use of a legislative veto for efficiency and convenience does not pass a rational basis level of review. A legislative veto negates the Presentment Clause (President does not get a final review of congressional action) and the bicameralism structure of government (only one house has to veto the AG’s decision to overturn). 

INS v. Chadha - Dissent

White: The legislative veto is required in the modern congressional era. Also, the legislative veto ensures that Congress is still involved when delegating powers under the Necessary + Proper Clause. 

Trump v. Hawaii - Majority

Roberts: Congress has authorized the President to restrict alien entrance if deemed detrimental. The Immigration + Nationality Act does not violate the Establishment Clause because the law meets a rational basis level of review. The political branches handle entry into the United States, so the legitimacy of the law is a political question. Also, Korematsu is overturned.

Trump v. Hawaii - Dissent

Sotomayor: The Order is not religiously neutral, which is evidenced by Trump’s claims as a candidate. Also, the Order fails the rational basis test because its only purpose is to restrict Muslim entrance.

Myers v. United States - Majority

Taft: The President bears sole removal power to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Bureaucrats are appendages of the President and, therefore, he must be able to remove them as soon as he loses confidence to ensure the Government runs smoothly.

Myers v. United States - Dissent

Holmes: Congress is wholly involved in the Executive Branch and should be able to determine who gets removed.

Myers v. United States - Dissent #2

Brandeis: The Constitution has not denied Congress the power to control removals, so it is not a full executive power. 

Eakin v. Raub - Dissent

Gibson: Only the American people ought to be responsible for correcting legislative wrongs. A core of American democracy is the people’s competency to govern themselves.

Ex parte McCardle - Majority

Chase: The Court has lost jurisdiction of the case since the law (providing the Court with appellate jurisdiction of the issue) has been repealed. Congress can change the Court’s appellate jurisdiction at any time and the Court cannot question its motives.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife - Majority

Scalia: Plaintiff’s fail to prove that they have standing to bring suit. There are three elements to standing: 

1. Injury in fact (concrete/particularized and actual/imminent): the plaintiffs do not have travel plans, so they have not suffered an injury in fact

2. Causal connection: may have a connection, but can’t guarantee that the animals will be there by including them in the law

   1. Likely redress by favorable decision: no because the law won’t make them be there

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife - Dissent

Blackmun: Plaintiffs had an injury in fact, and they also delegated power from Congress to the Executive

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation - Majority

Alito: The Flast ruling cannot be extended from legislative actions to executive actions because taxpayers fund the entirety of the Executive Branch. Allowing general taxpayer standing for Establishment Clause cases would bring a plethora of suits; Congress can handle if the executive is tyrannical

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation - Concurrence

Scalia: Ruling is correct but Flast should be overturned

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation - Dissent

Souter: Flast should be kept and extended to the Executive Branch

Luther v. Borden - Majority

Taney: Congress must decide which government is legitimate. The Court cannot decide the case because it presents a political question and the Court does not have the necessary criteria to determine a question of degree.

Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States - Majority

Hughes: The Act’s delegation power is unconstitutional because the Act created independent agencies to form the regulations and then allows the President to implement them with Executive Order, effectively forming law. Congress can only transfer partial lawmaking power to the President, not full power. The delegation is a whole power because the charter does not contain guidelines for the legislation.

Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States - Concurrence

Cardozo: the Charter would be acceptable if it had tighter guidelines

Mistretta v. United States - Majority

Blackmun: Congress can delegate an appropriate level of power to the Sentencing Commission because it is a labor intensive task. Allowing the agency to be housed in the Judiciary is acceptable because it is not performing a judicial function

Mistretta v. United States - Dissent

Scalia: The independent committee is unconstitutional because no entity aside from Congress can make laws.

US v. Nixon - Majority

Burger: The Executive’s interest in the Take Care Clause does not outweigh the Article II interest in justice. Also, Executive privilege does not protect the President outside his executive functions. 

Clinton v. Jones - Majority

Stevens: Presidential immunity does not extend beyond the scope of actions taken within official presidential capacities, including personal issues. The cases will not distract from his fulfilling executive duties.

Clinton v. Jones - Concurrence

Breyer: If the President’s ability to function is impeded, the proceedings may be suspended.

Trump v. Casa - Majority

Barrett: Universal injuctions exceed the authority of district courts provided by Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789. Plaintiffs can be afforded complete relief without a universal injunction.

Trump v. Casa - Concurrence

Kavanaugh: Universal injunctions may inadvertently be created through class actions that are carefully crafted of parties throughout the US

Trump v. Casa - Dissent #1

Sotomayor: Universal injunctions are a part of history and are especially important given present day issues.

Trump v. Casa - Dissent #2 

Jackson: Universal injunctions protect against tyranny. Also the merits of the Executive Order are questionable. 

McCulloch v. Maryland - Majority

Marshall: The power of the federal government is limited, but supreme when exercised. Congress may incorporate a bank through the necessary and proper clause, and the banks cannot be taxed by states.

Marbury v. Madison - Opinion

Marshall: The section adding a writ of mandamus is unconstitutional because Congress cannot altar the original jurisdiction presented by the Constitution. If a law is contrary to the Constitution, the law cannot stand. The ruling creates judicial review by the court’s determining a law to be unconstitutional.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer - Majority

Black: The President does not have seizure power through explicit authority from Congress or constitutional power. Only Congress can create domestic laws. You

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer - Concurrence #1

Frankfurter: The President does not have authority to act because Congress specifically chose against deciding this decision.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer - Concurrence #2

Jackson: Presidential powers fluctuate and can be put into three categories: Presidential constitutional power + congressional delegation, presidential constitutional power (zone of twilight), no presidential powers + against congress

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer - Dissent

Vinson: The Court must be aware of the realities of war

The Prize Cases - Majority

Grier: The President must act on behalf of the citizens when the representatives are unable to do so. The Constitution gives the power to the president to decide when war is occurring and how to appropriately respond.

The Prize Cases - Dissent

Nelson: There is a difference between legal and moral war. Legal war did not exist until Congress passed a declaration of war.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation - Majority

Sutherland: Sovereign powers are divided into national and state governments. The power to make foreign policy determinations transferred from the Crown to the collective United States, so the President is the full representative of foreign power. 

McGrain v. Daugherty - Majority

Van DeVanter: The Senate may compel a private individual to testify in order to further legislative functioning. The power to compel testimony is an implied part of the legislative principle.

Watkins v. United States - Majority

Warren: Congress can compel experts while making legislation, but the questions asked must relate to the lawmaking process. The testifier has a right to know how the questions relate to the charter of the committee. Also the range of power depends on the ambiguity of the charter.

Ex parte Milligan - Majority

Davis: A private citizen cannot be tried by a military commission if he or she is not in a theater or war and/or martial law is not declared. Also, a military commission does not have power to conduct trials. 

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Majority

O’Connor: US citizens can be enemy combatants. The Court recognizes the private and public interest, so citizens have partial due process, requiring:

1. notice of classification with evidence and chance to rebut the classification

2. trial tailored to alleviate the burden on the Executive

3. favor of Government evidence

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Concurrence

Souter: the prisoner cannot be held indefinitely without a statute or martial law

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Dissent #1

Scalia: Citizens have full rights unless habeas corpus is suspended

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Dissent #2

Thomas: The case issue constitutes a political question because the Commander-in-Chief is the sole power for foreign issues

DeShaney v. Winnebago County of Social Services - Majority

Rehnquist: Substantive Due Process does not apply to private individual actions; only protects from state actions 

DeShaney v. Winnebago County of Social Services - Dissent #1

Brennan: state inaction makes the state responsible for the occurrence because the state knew of the posed threatDeSha

DeShaney v. Winnebago County of Social Services - Dissent #2

Blackmun: The Court should read the Due Process clause sympathetically and apply the appropriate legal norms (substantive due process was applied in the past)

In re Neagle

Miller: the duties imposed upon Neagle bore the weight of law because they were duties in the general scope of the AG’s duties and could be fairly and properly inferred from the instrument. Also, the AG is an extension of the president, so he or she can give orders bearing the weight of law. 

Korematsu v. United States - Majority

Black: Only the President can determine proper military force, but the Court must apply strict scrutiny because the Order relates to a discrete and insular minority

Korematsu v. United States - Concurrence

Frankfurter: War creates a new set of powers for the President; the Court is incapable of judging the motives of the actions

Korematsu v. US - Dissent #1

Murphy: The Order is racist and the Court knows 

Korematsu v. United States - Dissent #2

Jackson: The Executive prioritizes the military while the Court prioritizes constitutionality, and sometimes those interests conflict

Cooper v. Aaron - Majority

All Justices: The ruling of Brown v. Board requires the states to implement the plans as soon as possible. Court rulings are bound to the states, and legislators/school board members are state actors

Cooper v. Aaron - Concurrence 

Frankfurter: State compliance with Court rulings is required to avoid anarchy; the Constitution is a presupposition of democracy

Baker v. Carr - Majority

Brennan: The plaintiffs have standing under the 14th EPC claim, allowing the Court to solve the issue despite a political question. Tennessee has no compelling interest to postpone reapportionment, so disfavored counties must be included.

Baker v. Carr - Concurrence

Clark: The Court must solve the issue because the people who would solve the issue through democracy do not have adequate power.

Baker v. Carr - Dissent

Frankfurter: The Court cannot solve every legally related question. The people are not being denied the right to vote, they only want their vote to carry more power

Cohens v. Virginia - Majority

Marshall: Virginia may prohibit the ticket sales because the issue of the sales is local in nature. The Supreme Court may consider the issue (has jurisidiction over the issue) due to the character of the cause (treaties/US laws) or character of the parties (ambassadors/states). Also, the supremacy clause allows the Court to exercise jurisdiction.

Coyle v. Smith - Majority

Lurton: The provision that the state capital remain in Guthrie is an unconstitutional limitation on state power because it makes the states unequal to each other. The legislature must operate under the notion that all states have the same power as the original states upon their entrance to the Union. Congress can only require initial conditions.

Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission - Majority

Blackmun: The Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV includes positive rights, while the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause includes only negative rights. The Privileges and Immunities clause does not include the right to elk hunting because it is not a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are held in the social contract. 

Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission - Dissent

Brennan: Elk hunting is not a fundamental right, but the state law has no rational basis because there is not a cost issue, claim over the wildlife protection, or an endangerment issue.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Majority

Taney: Scott has no standing ebcause he is not an American citizen. State citizenship and national citizenship are different (and exclusive) from each other. The Founders did not include black people in the ‘all men’ portion of the founding documents. The Congress cannot require no slaves in the Missouri Compromise territory because that would deprive people of their right to property without their due process rights under the 5th Amendment.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Dissent #1

McLean: Mexico and Florida include nonwhite citizens. The government does not have power to reinforce slavery in the territories because it does not have jurisidiction there.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Dissent #2

State citizenship is the same as national citizenship and they are not exclusive (basis of the 14th Amendment).

New York v. United States - Majority

O’Connor: Congress cannot force the states to take title of nuclear waste because the Article I Sec. 8 power does not allow Congress to force states to adopt a law or policy. Congress cannot operate national objectives through the states. Congressional power under Article I Sec 8 precludes the states from having that power under the 10th Amendment. Congress could pass a law to solve this issue nationally through the supremacy clause. 

New York v. United States - Dissent

White: the Court is refusing to recognize that the states have consented to federal government rule, which could be realized in viewing history and the growth of federal power. 

Printz v. United States - Majority

Scalia: The law has rendered local officers de facto national officers. He addresses text, history, and tradition. History is neutral because the evidence includes the federal government forcing states in some instances. The text, the Congressional Act of 1789, shows a preference that the federal government ask the state. Tradition vests all the Article II executive enforcement power to the president, so when local officers are used, it leaves the presidency. 

Printz v. United States - Concurrence

Thomas: the Law is invalid because it is vested in the commerce clause

Printz v. United States - Dissent

The federal government may enact laws under the Necessary and Proper Clause

The Civil Rights Cases - Majority

Bradley: the 14th EPC only applies to state actors, but private individuals are at fault here, so the law does not apply and cannot prevent private discrimination. The laws do not have to be equal across races, but they do have to be applied neutrally to everyone. the 13th Amendment only protects against literal slavery, not vestiges of slavery. Congress cannot regulate how people behave in private matters, so the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.

The Civil Rights Cases - Dissent

Harlan: The 13th Amendment provides substantive protetions and the Constitution is colorblind, not allowing vestiges of slavery. The 13th Amendment provided civil freedom, not only freedom from bondage. 

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company - Majority

Stewart: The 13th Amendment applies to state and private/individual actors to prevent private discrimination. The 13th allows Congress to determine the incidents and badges of slavery, which may be transferred into effective law. the Civil Rights Act of 1866 requires the Constitution to be colorblind.

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company - Dissent

Harlan: the 13th may incidentally violate the 14th Amendment, and the 1866 Civil Rights Act only applied to state actors.

Johnson v. McIntosh - Majority

Marshall: The tribes may possess and reside on the land, but that does not give them the right to sell the land. Therefore, the title conveyed by the tribes is not acknowledged by the legal system. the United States hold the ‘title’ to the land under the Principle of Discovery, which upholds the Court’s or Government’s legitimacy and gives the conqueror sovereignty. 

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia - Majority

Marshall: Native tribes do not have standing in the Supreme Court to sue as a federal nation because the tribes are domestic dependent nations. Tribes have a warden-like relationship to the United States because they rely on the United States to address international and (some) domestic affairs. They also do not hold the title to their land. They were not foreign nations in the eyes of the Founders because they are included separately in the Commerce clause. 

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia - Dissent

A state is a nation and tribes fulfill Vattel’s definition of a nation. Also Justice Story finds that Georgia ought to handle the issue and the tribe is sovereign.

Worchester v. Georgia - Majority

Marshall: The Georgia law allowing the state to grant licenses to settlers to remain on the land is unconstitutional. Only the federal government can control the territoty and tribes did not relinquish their power. The tribe maintains its right to govern its own land and, since they allowed Worchester to reside there, the government must accept that and recognize their power.

Gibbons v. Ogden - Majority

Marshall: Since the state licenses attempt to regulate commerce on a federal scale, the licenses are void. Commerce includes navigation and intercourse among the states. Congress can regulate a matter even if the matter infiltrates the state’s interior. States can also regulate commerce, but not in the way that the federal government can do so. The Necessary and Proper Clause serves as a catch-all for federal power. among: intermingling with

Gibbons v. Ogden - Concurrence

Johnson: Congress’ laws are superior to conflicting state law through the Supremacy Clause

United States v. EC Knight Company - Majority

Fuller: The Act regulates the production (manufacture) of sugar, not the sale. Just because an article is sent to another state does not mean that it can be regulated through interstate commerce. Police power includes the exclusive state power to regulate production.

Hammer v. Dagenhart - Majority

Day: The congressional act delaying shipments of goods produced by companies employing child laborers is unconstitutional because Congress is attempting to police morals, a local issue, through the Commerce Clause. Congress cannot regulate the manufacturing of a product, and must consider whether the good is metaphysically tainted. The delay holds a coercive factor, which creates unfair competition.

Hammer v. Dagenhart - Dissent

Holmes: Congress can pass any law and the states may need to be forced to adopt a national attitude if the states are acting wrong. Products outside of the state allow for national regulation.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation - Majority

Hughes: The Act seems to invade on one’s police power, but it is narrowly-tailored to the extent of commerce. Employees have a fundamental right to collective bargaining, so the Act is constitutional. Congress can regulate anything with a direct burden on the free flow of interstate commerce, or a substantial relationship that is essential and appropriate. The steel industry is national in scope, so the law applies.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation - Dissent

McReynolds: The action here, firing ten workers out of ten thousand, has only a minimal effect on interstate commerce. also, the board cannot regulate local matters.

Wickard v. Filburn - Majority

Jackson: Congress can regulate market prices and behaviors that affect those prices. Congress can limit one’s production because, if everyone engaged in this behavior, there would be a substantial aggregate affect on the market. The law is regulating the most invariable factor, consumption. No direct or indirect affect is required. 

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Majority

Clark: The Civil Rights Act only barred state enforced actors, not private actors, so the actions of a private company cannot be regulated under the 14th EPC. Since the customers are crossing state lines, the Commerce Clause can be used to regulate morals because not requiring the hotels to serve all races has a substantive, aggregate affect on the economy.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Concurrence

Douglas: The Commerce Clause is too broad to be used, but the judgment is correct.

United States v. Lopez - Majority

Rehnquist: Gibbons is the controlling precedent and the law must reach a rational basis level of review. Congress can regulate channels and instrumentalities of commerce as well as any activity with a substantial relation to commerce. The Act is void because it does not regulate any of these instances and there is no aggregate affect, despite the government’s claim. Wickard is the outer limit and no aggregate effect is required.