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