Studied by 41 people
Rehnquist beliefs
change over time on the court
goes from writing a memo opposing Brown v Board “lone ranger“ → Chief
new deal revolution lead to
counter revolution of federalism
new deal- expanded federal power commerce clause
Federalism- expands state regulation of commerce, ensuring the power balance stays equal
Rehnquist Revolution
supporters and who opposed it
Supporters: Originalist
text based focused on the original intent of the founding fathers
Anti: Living Constitutionalist or Purpotsist
intention based, believes in updating the text into modern day issues
Federalism
the division of power between a central gov and state gov
federal powers are enumerated
states have general police powers which are reserved
the judiciary should protect the role of the states w/in the fed system and enforce textual limits on powers of congress
Commerce Clause interpretation
narrow
SC protects the rights of states to legislate in ares of traditional state concern
why is federalism, separation of powers important
without limits one could obliterate the distinction between national and local government
Lopez v. US (1995)
what law was struck down?
Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990: Congress made it federal crime for anyone to possess a firearm within 1000 ft of a school zone
Congress said this was in their power given in the Commerce Clause
“regulate commerce among several states“
Lopez v. US (1995)
tenth amendment
powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution are reserved to the States
→ claims that this crime is a state issue not a fed government issue
Lopez v. US (1995)
why was it struck down?
Rehnquist quotes Fed no.45 (originalism, intent of the founding fathers)
congress may not regulate intrastate activity that substantially affects commerce unless it is economic in nature
Lopez v. US (1995)
Lopez’s argument
commerce is buying and selling, which is not what he did w/ the gun
Lopez v. US (1995)
result
Strikes down 1990 act → new amended act which requires the gov to prove the firearm has moved in or affected interstate commerce
Congress may regulate the channels (roads, train tracks) and instrumentalities (cars, trains)
US v. Morrison (2000)
what law was struck down?
violence against woman act of 1944
federal cause of action so victims of gender-motivated violence could sue in federal court
claimed that violence against women had extensive economic impacts
Rehnquist four factor tests to see if something affects interstate commerce
is the statue in Q a criminal law with relation to commerce or economic enterprise
does the law contain a “jurisdictional element“ that limits its self
are there congressional findings that detail the affect of regulated activity on interstate commerce
is the link between the activity and it’s effect on interstate commerce remote
US v. Morrison (2000)
why it was struck down
commerce clause does not permit Congress to regulate non economic intrastate (one state) activities in an area of traditional state control (police duties) → even if it substantially affects commerce
Background Provision: tenth amendment, powers not given to the fed belong to the states
do lopez and morrison promote new federalism
yes because the cases consider what regulations should be in fed or state hands
Controlled Substances Act 1970 (CSA)
repealed past drug legislation and attempted to codify (collecting and restating law, creation of legal code) the existing legislation into one cohesive act
set the five groups (schedule 1-5) for rating drugs which banned the cultivation, possession, distribution of marijuana
CSA allowed what for states
each state to have it’s own laws governing drug use and allocating resources for enforcement
tenth amendment: state gets power of enforcement (police powers)
California’s Compassionate Use Act 1996
permits both patients and caregivers to possess or cultivate marijuana for personal medical reasons, and exempts them from sanctions under other provisions in California criminal code
seen as a conflicting law bc it allowed for use of marijuana for medical use
Background provisions for Gonzales v Raich (2005)
Supremacy Clause: Constitution is supreme law of the land
Tenth Amendment: any power not delegated to the Fed is given to the States
CSA: banned marijuana on fed level but allows states to create their own laws regarding drugs and enforcement
Cali Compassionate Use Act: allowed legal marijuana use for medical care
Gonzales v Raich (2005)
who is who
gonzales: attorney general/ petitioner
Clement Solicitor General argued for US
Raich: raich and monson were medical users of marijuana, never purchased it
Gonzales v Raich (2005)
issue
does the commerce clause give congress power to prohibit the cultivation and use of marijuana in local markets?
considers the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause
Gonzales v Raich (2005)
Clement’s argument
due to Wickard v. Filburn ( congress can regulate intrastate activities under the commerce clause, as long as individual activity had an impact on interstate commerce)
marijuana grown at home can be an “economic activity” bc it substituted marijuana that could have purchased on the interstate market
just like Filburn’s at home extra wheat
Gonzales v Raich (2005)
Raich’s argument
Filburn was different bc the act of farming was a commercial activity and raich were not apart of this activity
Gonzales v Raich (2005)
holding
Stevens’s opinion: congress can regulate “class activities“ that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce
economic activity: includes the production, distribution and consumption of commodities
Congress has the power to regulate economic activities when it a part of a larger regulatory scheme (CSA)
Gonzales v Raich (2005)
dissent
Rehnquist, O’Connor
threatens to sweep all productive human activity into federal regulatory reacher
the real problem is drawing the line between national and local issues
Thomas
abandon post new deal jurisprudence; the court abandons any attempt to enforce Constitutional limits on federal power
not consistent with congress’s enumerated powers to buy sell barter or transport across state lines
Standing Akimbo (2021)
denial of cert → what was the case
tax code which allow business to calculate their taxable income by subtracting gross revenue, cost of goods sold and other ordinary and necessary business expenses (rent and salaries)
petitioners who own a dispensary: are only allowed to subtract their cost of goods sold and not ordinary and necessary business expenses
→ meaning they owe more in federal tax income than other businesses
Standing Akimbo (2021)
statement of Justice Thomas
case is a prime example of the inconsistencies between federal and state marijuana enforcement
contradicts and unstable statue which strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary
the government’s action, allowing state legislation, is inconsistent to Raich, and may no longer have the power to intrude on State police powers
more about Justice Thomas’ statment
is a shadow docket bc it was not issued after full briefing and argument on the merits
federal polices since Gonzales v. Raich consistently prevent states from implementing medical marijuana laws
fed government has the power to pass Controlled Substance Act
whats the impact of the Rehnquist revolution
new limits on Congressional powers
commerce clause legislation
the tenth amendment is a limit on Congressional powers
feds can not compel state legislative action
Note 
Flashcard (31)