Constitutional Law Unit 4 Cases Review

Ex parte Merryman (1861) Facts

During the Civil War, President Lincoln allowed the military to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in places where the Union faced rebellion. John Merryman, a Maryland militia officer accused of helping the Confederacy by destroying railroad bridges, was arrested by the army and held at Fort McHenry. Chief Justice Roger Taney, acting as a circuit judge, ordered the military to bring Merryman to court, but the army refused. Taney argued that Lincoln had no legal authority to suspend habeas corpus on his own.

Ex parte Merryman (1861) Issue

Can the President suspend the writ of habeas corpus during a national emergency, or is that power only for Congress?

Ex parte Merryman (1861) Ruling/Impact

Taney ruled that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus because the Suspension Clause is in Article I of the Constitution. Lincoln ignored the ruling and continued his policy, arguing that he had to act quickly to save the Union. The case showed how executive power can expand during emergencies and revealed a major conflict between the branches of government. The Supreme Court never officially adopted Taney's reasoning, but the case is still used today when debating limits on presidential power.

Youngstown Sheet v. Swayer (1952) Facts

During the Korean War, steelworkers were planning to strike, and President Truman worried the strike would hurt the war effort because steel was needed for weapons. Instead of using the legal options Congress had created, he issued an executive order to seize the steel mills and keep them running. The steel companies sued, arguing the President didn't have the power to take private property without Congress.

Youngstown Sheet v. Swayer (1952) Issue

Did President Truman have constitutional authority to seize and operate private steel mills without Congress giving him that power?

Youngstown Sheet v. Swayer (1952) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled that Truman's seizure was unconstitutional because the President cannot act without either constitutional or congressional authorization. The decision limited presidential power and strengthened the idea that the President is not above the law. Justice Jackson's "three zones" test became one of the most important tools for judging presidential power in future cases.

Korematsu v. US (1942) Facts

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government ordered all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to leave their homes and move to internment camps. Fred Korematsu refused to go and was arrested, arguing that the order violated his constitutional rights.

Korematsu v. US (1942) Issue

Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by taking away the rights of Japanese-Americans based only on their ancestry?

Korematsu v. US (1942) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the U.S., saying the exclusion was allowed because of wartime "military necessity." The decision later became seen as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, and although Korematsu's conviction was overturned decades later, the case is now viewed as a warning about how fear and racism can lead to unjust government actions.

NLRB v Canning (2014) Facts

The NLRB, which enforces labor laws, didn't have enough members to operate because Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's appointments. To fix this, Obama made three "recess appointments" while the Senate was holding short pro-forma sessions every few days. Noel Canning, a company in Washington, argued that the NLRB couldn't make rulings because the appointments weren't valid.

NLRB v Canning (2014) Issue

Could President Obama make recess appointments when the Senate wasn't in a long break, and whether those appointments could fill vacancies that existed before the recess.

NLRB v Canning (2014) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Obama's appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate wasn't actually in recess. The case clarified that "recess of the Senate" means formal breaks long enough for the President to make appointments, limiting when recess appointments can be used.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1852) Facts

Dred Scott was an enslaved man who had lived in free states and territories, so he argued that this made him a free person. He sued for his freedom but lost in Missouri and eventually took his case to the Supreme Court.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1852) Issue

Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave, and did he have the right to sue in federal court?

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1852) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Dred Scott was still a slave and that Black people, free or enslaved, could not be U.S. citizens. The Court also said Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. This decision made slavery legal in all territories, angered the North, and pushed the country closer to the Civil War. It was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Facts

In New Orleans, waste from butcher shops was polluting the city's water and causing disease outbreaks. The state of Louisiana gave one company control of all slaughterhouses to clean up the problem, which upset local butchers who said it created a monopoly and hurt their right to work.

Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Issue

Did Louisiana's slaughterhouse monopoly violate the 13th and 14th Amendments?

Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the monopoly did not violate the 13th or 14th Amendments. The Court said those amendments were mainly meant to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people, not all citizens. This limited the power of the 14th Amendment by saying it only protected national rights, not state ones. The decision weakened the protections for civil rights and made it harder to use the 14th Amendment to fight unfair state laws.

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) Facts

Myra Bradwell wanted to become a lawyer in Illinois after meeting all the requirements, but the state denied her license because she was a married woman. She argued that the 14th Amendment's "Privileges and Immunities" Clause gave her the right to practice law.

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) Issue

Did the 14th Amendment guarantee Myra Bradwell the right to practice law as a U.S. citizen?

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Bradwell, saying the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to practice law. The justices claimed that women were naturally suited for different roles than men and should not work as attorneys. This decision reinforced gender inequality and limited how far the 14th Amendment could go in protecting equal rights. It also showed how women still lacked basic professional opportunities during that time.

US v. Cruikshank (1875) Facts

After a violent clash in Louisiana known as the Colfax Massacre, where over 100 Black men were killed by a white mob, William Cruikshank and others were charged in federal court for violating the victims' rights. The government argued that their actions took away the victims' rights to assemble and bear arms.

US v. Cruikshank (1875) Issue

Did the federal government have the power to punish individuals for violating the civil rights of others under the 14th and 15th Amendments?

US v. Cruikshank (1875) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Bill of Rights only limited the federal government, not the states or private citizens. This meant the federal government couldn't punish people like Cruikshank for attacking Black citizens. The decision weakened the 14th Amendment and allowed white supremacist violence in the South to go mostly unpunished. It made it much harder for the federal government to protect the rights of newly freed African Americans during Reconstruction.

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) Facts

Taylor Strauder, a Black man, was convicted of murder in West Virginia by an all-white jury because state law only allowed white men to serve as jurors. He argued this violated his rights under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) Issue

Did West Virginia's law banning Black citizens from jury service violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that excluding Black people from juries just because of their race was unconstitutional. The Court said this violated the Equal Protection rights of Black defendants, who deserved a fair trial. However, the Court allowed states to keep other limits on jurors, like gender or property requirements. This case was an early win for civil rights and helped protect Black defendants' right to equal treatment in court.

Civil Rights Cases (1883) Facts

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 said that businesses like hotels, theaters, and trains couldn't discriminate against people because of their race. Some business owners ignored this law, and the federal government tried to punish them.

Civil Rights Cases (1883) Issue

Did the Civil Rights Act of 1875 go beyond Congress's power by trying to stop private businesses from discriminating?

Civil Rights Cases (1883) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the 14th Amendment only stops states from discriminating, not private individuals. This meant Congress couldn't punish businesses for segregation, and the law was mostly useless. Justice Harlan dissented, saying segregation was like a "badge of slavery" and violated the spirit of the Constitution. This decision made it much harder to fight private racial discrimination and let segregation continue, especially in public places.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Facts

Chinese immigrants were often owners of laundromats in San Francisco. San Francisco enforces a new law that prevents laundromats from being run in wooden buildings, unless the government grants them a permit. Almost every single Chinese citizen who applied for the permit was denied, one of which being Yick Lee, owner of Yick Wo laundromat. Lee continues his laundromat operations despite not having a permit, and when he gets fined, he files suit.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Issue

Is a race-neutral law that is enforced in a prejudiced manner an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment?

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Ruling/Impact

9-0 ruling in favor of Yick Wo, deciding that a law that is enforced in a prejudiced manner, even if not prejudice at face value, is still a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The law was decided to be too arbitrary, allowing for there to be possible racial enforcement and therefore making it unconstitutional. This case was a major win for racial equality, as it was one of the few cases at the time that had such a strong lean towards a progressive protection of minority citizens. This decision made it so that laws were written with specific language to prevent a prejudiced interpretation and ensured that laws enforced in a prejudiced manner were unconstitutional.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Facts

Homer Plessy, who was legally considered Black even though he was mostly white, sat in a whites-only train car in Louisiana to challenge the state's segregation law. He was arrested after refusing to move, and his case argued that the law violated the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Issue

Did Louisiana's Separate Car Act violate the 13th Amendment (ending slavery) or the 14th Amendment (equal protection of the laws)?

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Ruling/Impact

The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that the law was constitutional and created the "separate but equal" doctrine, which allowed segregation. This decision made racial segregation legal for decades and weakened the 14th Amendment, leading to widespread Jim Crow laws that treated Black Americans as inferior in almost every part of life.