Constitutional Law

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v Sawyer

Facts: during korean war, preisdent wanted to take ocntrol of the steel mills and keep them running during a workers strike

Main rule: president should not be doing lawmaking and should not act in opposition to congress.

Black: Pres can seize steel mills if authorized by (1) the constitution or (2) a statute

Jackson: the categories. (1) congress approves, (2) congress is silent, (3) congress disapproves

Frankfurter: history route, “has congress authorized this before?”

Vinson: President can do it in an emergency (especially if it involves foreign affairs)

Dames & Moore v Regan

Facts: pres suspends all US pending claims against iran

Rule: The president has the power to suspend claims by US citizens against foreign gov

(there is no obvious constituional authority and no statute directtly on point.)

Zivotofsky v Kerry

Facts: congress passed a law that peolpe born in jerusalem could list Israel as their birthplace even though the pres refused to recognize any nation as sovereign over Israel

Rule: The law infringes on the presidents power to recognize foreign states

PS: this case is where the congress and president disagree (cat 3) but the president wins because it is an exclusive power.

Hamdi v Rumsfeld

Facts: US citizen was detained as an enemy combatant for fighting with the taliban

Rule: The president has the power to detain enemy combatant captured on the battlefield who are US Citizens

PS: there was two conflicting statutes the AUMF and the Non-detention Act

US v Curtiss Wright (is always right)

Facts: a joint resolution of congress and a proclamation issued by pres banned US weapons manufacturers from aiding with side of the war.

Rule: The president has broad power over foreign affairs.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld

Facts: prisoner was scheduled for a hearing on conspiracy charges before a military comission and petitioned for hebeas corpus

Rule:The president does not have the power to authroize trias by military comission

(the exclusive power wasnt in the constitution)

What cases are about Immunity?

Trump v US

Nixon v Fitzgerald

Clinton v Jones

What cases are about Privilege

US v Nixon

What are important factors in support for immunity?

• we dont want the pres to be distrac ted from his duties

• implied by the separation o fpowers

• no big deal

• the pres is very important

Factors against presidential immunity?

makes the president a king

Trump v US

Facts: pres trump was indicited on several counts relating to the Jan 6th insurrection

Rule:

Former presidents do have absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for their official acts while in office

Presumption immunity: for all offical acts

Absolute Immunity: for offical acts+ exclusive power

What is a presidential offfical act?

anything with an offical flavor

Nixon v Fitzgerald

Facts: Civil suit against pres nixon for wrongful termination

Rule: The president is immune from civil liability for his official acts

The president cannot be sued for their official acts

Clinton v Jones

Facts: President Clinton wanted to postpone a civil suit until after he left office

Rule: The president can be sued for his unofficial acts while in office.

court uses a balancing test that results in a bright line rule

US v Nixon

Facts: pres nixon refused to turn over tape recordings and docs which were subpoenaed during watergate investigation

Rule: Balancing test to determing the presidents privacy interest v interest in disclousre

Can you sue a president for unofficial acts?

YES! (clinton v jones)

Can you sue a president for official acts?

NO! (fitzgerald)

Can you prosecute for officials acts?

NOOOO!! (trump (ew))

How do you determine whats privilege?

a balancing test

presidents interest v interest in disclosure

What is Article 1

the legislative powers shall be vested in a congress which consist of a senate and house of reps.

bicameralism and presentment art 1 § 7

appointments clause art 2 § 2

INS v Chadha

Facts: house passed a resolution overrding the Attorney general decision to allow chadha to remain in the US

Rule: for an act of congress to have the force of law, it must go through art 1 § 7 process (must pass through both houses and be presented to the president)

What is Article 1 § 7?

bicameralism: must go through both houses

presentment: must be presented to the president

Clinton v New York

Facts: Congress passed a statute providing that for future spending matter the president can cancel certainitems in a spending bill and accept others.

Rule: Congress cannot pass a statute that changes the art 1 § 7 process for passing laws

This statute does comply with the Chadha rule.

Whitman v American Trucking Association

Facts: congress passed a statute requiring the EPA to make air quality standards

Rule: Congress can task an executive branch to make rules as long as its an intelligible principal

intelligible principal: unclear; more than just “do whatever you think is best”

Gorsuch in Gundy

(dissent)

gorsuch thinks delegation is scary because it seems like a workaround of the seperations of powers and the art 1 § 7 lawmaking procedure.

Trump v Hawaii

Facts: congress passed a statyte saying the president could exclude non-citizens from the US if they thought the non citizen were a threat to national security.

Rule: Congress can delegate this power to the president

(this is a case application)

what is the general rule of Delegation?

Congress is pretty free to delegate as long as they

(1) provide an intelligible principal (Whitman) AND

(2) they are clear about it — major question doctrine (West Virginia v EPA)

What cases are used for delegation?

whitman

gundy

WV v EPA

Trump v Hawaii

What is Article 2 § 2

Appointments

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

What is the rule for presidents in regards to appointments in the constitution?

president gets to appoint officers with the advice and consent of the senate

What is the execptions of the rule for presidents in regards to appointments in the constitution?

congress can pass a statute that allows (1) the president, (2) the courts, or (3) the heads of departments to appoint inferior officers

what does this mean in plain terms?

• the appointments clause only applies to officers (anyone can appoint employees)

what case decide what an “officer” is?

Lucia v SEC

what case determins what is an inferior officer?

morrision v olson

lucia v sec

facts: statute allows administrative law judges be appointed by SEC staff members.

first question to ask: are ALJ officers.

Rule: someone is an officer if they exercise significant authority.

TAKEAWAY: appointments clause applies ot officers not employees.

Morrison v Olson

Facts: congress passed a statute which provided fo ran independant counsel, appointed by the jjudicial branch to investigate and prosecute crimes by certain government officials

Rule: an appointment is valid when it is determined that the officer is not a superior officer.

gives us elements to determine superior officers:

(1) limited duties;

(2) subject to removal by a higher executive official;

(3) authority is limited in jurisdiction;

(4) limited tenure

who can appoint superior officers?

the president & the advice and consent of the senate (default rule)

who can appoint inferior officers?

use the default rule OR the president, courts, or head of departments with statutory authority

who can appoint employees?

ANYONE

Removal (from what the constitution tells us)

impeachment (thats it, ik crazy)

Bowsher v Synar

Facts: a balanced budget law passed by congress required conclusions about the budget to be made by the comptroller general who was removable by congress.

Rule: Congress does not have the power to remove executive officers.

Myers v US

Facts: postaster was removed without the advice and consent of the senate contrary to wha tthe statute provided which required the advice and consent of the senate

Rule: Congress cannot require the president to receive the senates advice and consent to remove an executive officer

TAKEAWAY: requiring the senates advice and consent to remove an executive officers impermissibly limits the pres power.

Humohrey’s executor v US

facts: pres roosevelt fired humphrey (FTC commissioner) because of his policy positions. the FTC act only allowed a president to remove a commissioner for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”

Rule: for-cause limitations on the president’s removal of board/agencies is permissible

Selia Law v CFPB

Facts: seila law argues that the consumer finacial protection bureau was unconstitutional because it is an independant agency headed by a single director who exercises substantial executive power but can be removed by the president only for cause

Rule: congress cannot place a for cuase limit on removal of superior officers/heads of boards

What CAN congress do for removals?

(1) place a for-cause limt on inferior officers

(2) place a for-cause limit on board/agencies

What CANNOT congress do for removals

(1) remove executive officers

(2) require advice and consent of senate to remove executive officers

(3) place a for-cause limit on removal of superior officerss/head of boards

what questions should you ask when determining removal

(1) are they an executive officer

(2) what kind of removal limitation is imposed

(3) are they an inferior or superior officer

(4) are they a board member or individual

what cases are removal cases

bowsher v synar

morrision v olson (part 2)

meyers v US

humphrey’s executor v US

seila law v CFPB

what is article 3

Judicial Power

“power of the US shall be vested in ONE supreme court”

Marbury v Madison

Facts: marbury didnt get his comission. marbury wants his commission

Takeaway: the supreme court gets to say what the law is (JUDICIAL REVIEW)

Marbury question 1: is marbury entitled to his comission?

yes, under art 2 § 3 commissioning officers is a duty of the president and marbury was appointed

Marbury question 2: does marbury have a remedy?

yes, the writ of mandamus could provide marbury the remedy he wants BUT he court is worried that president thomas jefferson wont listen

Marbury question 3: can the supreme court issue the writ of mandamus?

Yes, the judiciary act give SCOTUS original jurisdicition to certain kinds of cases

what is the ussye with the supreme court issue of a writ of mandamus?

the judiciary act is unconstitutional because SCOTUS doesnt have original jurisdiction over these types of cases

Martin v hunter’s leesee

Facts: virginia didnt want to follow the supreme court ruling and argued that it was unconstituional for SCOTUS to have appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions

Rule: the SCOTUS can hear appeals from state court

Cooper v Aaron

Facts: arkansas state officials challenged the application of a federal integration decision to their legisilative schemes

Rule: what teh supreme court says about the constitution is LAW and is binding on the lower courts

(differs from marbury)

what is judicial review

SCOTUS says what the law is (marbury)

Does SCOTUS have appellate jurisdiction over court decisions?

Yes (hunters lessee)

Are states bound by supreme court decision?

yes! (cooper)

Cases for art 3 powers

marbury v madison

martin v hunter leesee

cooper v aaron

what are the limits on judicial power?

(1) courts have limited jurisdiction (diversity and federal question) (art 3 § 2)

(2) congress can limit the courts jurisdiction (art 1 § 1)

(3) court can only decide cases or controversies

• no advisory opinions

• no political questions

• parties must have standing

3 part test for standing?

MUST HAVE:

(1) injury in fact, actual, or imminent

(2) Causation

(3) repressibility

Plaintiff must show this

(Lujan)

Lujan v defenders of wildlife

Facts: defenders of wildlife have the endangered species act (ESA) interpreted to cover government agencies activites in foreign countries

Rule: there is a 3 part test to determine standing:

• injury inf act, actual or imminent

• causation

• redressability

what was the plaintiffs argument for standing in Lujan?

(1) injury: the animals will die and we wont be able to see/study them

(2) causation: gov caused them to die by not applying the ESA overseas

(3) redressability: the court can remedy the injury caused by the animal dying by ordering the harmful project not to be funded anymore

What was the defendants argument against standing in Lujan?

(1) injury: they dont have plans to study/see the animals (speculative)

(2) causation/redressability: even if they stop funding th eprojects, the animals will die anyways

Massachusetts v EPA (D and P’s arguments)

Facts: MA and others brought suit against teh EPA for not doing its job under the clean air act by failing to regulate emission of greenhouse gasses

P side:

(1) injury: coastal erosion of the shoreline cause dby rising sea levels is an actual injury

(2) causation: risiing sea levels are caused by greenshouse gas emissions

(3) redressability: coastal erosion will be reduced if the court requires the EPA to enforce the clean air act and regulate greenhouse gas emissions

D Side:

(1) other contributing factors to the rising sea levels so we dont know if that actually casued the injury.

(2) the epa may not be able to do anything about the sea level rising because of other contributors

what are the cases for standing?

lujan v defenders of wildlife

massachusetts v EPA

What are the 2 political questions?

1) textually deostrable commitment by the constitution to another branch of government (the issue needs to be solve by a different group of people)

2) lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards (if the court doesnt know much about the topic to draw a distinct line)

what is the difference between ripeness & mootness

Mootness: A case is moot if it was once active but the controversy has resolved, rendering it too late for judicial intervention. (TOO OLD)

Ripeness: A case is not ripe if it is premature, as the facts have not developed into a concrete, actual dispute , they have to wait till the situation actually starts (TOO PREMATURE)

What are the exceptions of mootness?

1) capable of repetition yet evading review (not enough time to have the suit before its resolved i.e. roe v wade)

2) voluntary cessation (challenges the govs conduct adn the gov stops it to avoid the suit)

if you sue for damages will standing be an issue?

NOPE — standing is only an issue for injunctions

what is enumerated powers (Federalism)

how we know what the federal government gets to do and what is left for the states

what are some examples of enumerated powers

^

what happened in McCulloch v Maryland

Facts: federal gov created a bank of the US and a branch was opened in maryland. McCulloch worked at the maryland branch and refused to pay maryland taxes.

What was the 2 main issues in McCulloch v Maryland

1) Does the federal government have the power to create a bank?

2) If so, can a state tax a federal bank?

what was the holding of the two issues of McCulloch v Maryland?

1) even though banks arent an enumerated power it is necessary and proper for congress to carry out itsother enumerted powers

2) States cannot tax a federal bank—>the power to tax is the power to destory

what is a key takeaway for McCulloch v Maryland?

the constitution creates a hierarchy where the federal government is above the states

the necessary and proper clause alows congress to pass laws that are helpful to carry out its other enumerated powers

the court will defer to what congress says is helpful (means) as long as the ends are constituitonal

Gibbons v Ogden (facts & holding)

facts: state v federal steamboat license

Holding: congress can override state law under the supremacy clause (Art 6). If a state law conflicts with a federal law, the state law only wins if the federal is unconstitutional.

What was the federal argument for Gibbons v Ogden

Federal: the federal gov has power over interstate commerce according to art 1 § 8. steamboat navigation is under interstate commerce. So, the federal law is constitutional and should win out because of the supremacy clause.

What was the state argument for Gibbons v Ogden

the federal law is unconstitutional because steamboat navigation is not interstate commerce because it doesnt involve buying and selling stuff

J Marshall: navigation is part of interstate commerce, therefore, the federal law us constitutional and wins out over the conflciting state law

McCullah Summary

confirms that federal > states and reads the powers broadly to encompass a lot of things that aren’t on the fact of the constitution

Gibbons Summary

confims this and expands the commerce power to include buying & selling and commercial navigation

what is the Commerce Clause

congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes

Pre-New Deal Shift (commerce clause)

• United States v. E.C. Knight: Congress can’t regulate sugar manufacturing

• Hammer v. Dagenhart: Congress can’t regulate child labor

• Champion v. Ames: Congress can regulate transportation of lottery tickets

• Shreveport Rate Case: Congress can regulate local and interstate railroad rates

• Carter v. Carter Coal Co.: Congress can’t regulate coal mining wages and hours

• A.L.A Schechter Poultry Corp v. U.S.: Congress can’t regulate codes of fair competition in the poultry industry

The court takes a very narrow interpretation of the commerce power

New Deal Shift (commerce clause)

NLRB v Jones & Laughlin: congress CAN regulate manufacturing of steel

United states v Darby: congress CAN regulate minimum wage for lumber industry

the court is now looking at things thta have a substaintial effect on interstate commerce

Wickard v Filburn (facts, issue, holding)

facts: farmer Filburn was growing wheat for his personal use

Issue: could congress regulate the personal growth of wheat?

Holding: YES

Filburn: the wheat is literally not leaving the state and is only being used for his personal use so how would this have a substantial effect on interstate commerce

Court: when we aggregate all the farmer Filburns, it would have a substantial effect on the wheat market

heart of atlanta motel v US (facts, issue, holding)

Facts: statute forbade racial discrimination. the heart of atlanta motel refused room to black people (racist ass motherf*ckers)

Issue: can congress regulate the activity of the otel through this statute?

Holding: Yesssss

people travel through interstate commerce

aggregate all motels to get a substantial effect on interstate commerce

Katzenbach v McClung (Facts, Issue, Holding)

Facts: statute forbade racial discrimination. the McClungs owned a barbeque resturant in alabama. approximately half of the food they purchased was sold and traveled ininterstate commerce.

Issue: Can congress regulate the activitiy of the resturant through this statute

Holding: yessss

the food traveled interstate commerce

aggregate all resturants to get a substaintial effect on interstate commerce

US v Lopez (facts, issue, holding)

Facts: congress wanted to pass a statute that would regulate possession of guns around school

Issue: Can congress regulaate the possession of guns around schools?

Holding: NOPE (bruh wtf)

not really an economic activity, possession guns in certain areas

speculative effect on interstate commerce, yes you can buy and sell them but that s a long way of possessing them by schools

would make congress’s power unlimited

no deference to congress

US v Morrison (facts, issue, holding)

Facts: con gress wanted to pass the violence against women act

Issue: can congress regulate violence against women under the commerce power?

Holding: HAHA NOOOOO

• not an economic activity—> violence against women isnt buy and selling stuff

• speculative effect on interstate commerce

• would make congresses’s commerce power unlimited

• no deference to congress

Gonzales v Raich (Facts, Issue, Holding)

Facts: congress tried to regulate the personal growth of marijuana for medical purposes. state law allowed medical marijuana while the federal law made it illegal.

Issue: can congress regulate the personal growth of medical marijuana through this statute?

HOLDING: YESSS 420 un-blaze it :(

What was the states argument for Gonzalez v Raich?

• no commerce is taking place because nothing is being bought or sold

• too speculative effect on commerce

• not economic=don’t defer to congress

• this would make congress’s power limitless

• DISTINGUISH: Wickard

what was the federal governments argument in Gonzalez v Raich?

• both cases deal with growing goods for personal use and their impact on the market

• connection to commerce is less speculative

• economic=defer to congress

• aggregation for substantial effect

• distinguish: lopez & morrison

NFIB v Sebelius (PART1) (facts, issue, holding)

Facts: individual mandate required people to purchase health insurance

issue: can congress order peole to participate in commerce?

Holding: NOOOOOOPPPPEEEE

• not buying something is not a commercial activity

• not economic = no deference to congress

• would give congress unlimited power

What is the governments argument for NFIB Part 1?

cases they use: wickard, raich, heart of atlanta, McClung

1) congress can regulate things with a substantial effect interstate commerce even if they are not themselves interstate commerce

2) even if the individual conduct would not gave a substainital effect we aggregate

3) this activity is economic in nature

4) the regulation is part of a larger economic regulation

5) this is a situation where we should give deference to congress

what is the state argument in NFIB Part 1?

Cases: lopez, morrision, sebulius (kinda)

1) the connection between the regulation and interstate commerce is speculative

2) this activity is not economic in nature

3) the activity is in a traditional area of state regulation

4) this would make the commerce power unlimited

5) this is a situation where we should give less deference to congress

what is the taxing power (congress)

congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes

T/F: Congress can use taxes as a means of regulation?

FALSE

what are the elements to determine if the tax is actually a penalty?

whether:

1) imposes an exceedingly heavy burden that leaves little reasonable choice

2) hasa. scienter requirement

3) is collected by the IRS or someone else

NFIB v Sebelius (facts, issue, holding)

Facts: Individual mandate required people to buy health insurance or make a payment to the IRS with their taxes. 

Issue: Could Congress do this under its taxing power?

Holding: Yes. 

• Main question: is this a tax or a penalty?

  1. Exceedingly heavy burden**

  2. No scienter requirement

  3. Payment collected by the IRS or someone else

• This is a tax because:

  1. Payment was close to the price of getting insurance

  2. No scienter requirement

  3. Collected by the IRS 

NFIB Scalia’s Dissent

the individual mandate created criteria for wrongfoing and imposed a monetary penalty for not following hte criteria, so this is a penalty (the staute legit calls is a penalty)