POLS Identify Exam 2

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

1. This case involved New York trying to grant a monopoly on waterborne trade between New York and New Jersey. Commerce clause is designed to prevent protectionist measures. Does this clearly violate this principle?

2. Judge Marshal, of the Supreme Court, sternly reminded the state of New York that the Constitution gives Congress alone the control of interstate commerce.

3. No real limits on commerce clause other than those prescribed in the constitution

4. Marshal's decision, in 1824, was a major blow on states' rights and a broad reading of the commerce clause and supremacy clause

U.S. v. E.C. Knight (1895)

1. Can congress use their commerce clause power to regulate the production of goods? Specifically: congress tried to sue the American Sugar Refinery under the Sherman Antitrust act for being a monopoly. Do they have this power?

2. Opinion: Congress cannot regulate production using the Sherman Antitrust act

3. manufacture comes before commerce; regulating production is regulating manufacturing, which should be left to the states. Production has only an indirect effect on interstate commerce.

4. Sets up direct/indirect test; sets up distinction between production and transportation; marks the beginning of a dual federalist era that goes all the way up to 1937

E.C. Knight Harlan Dissent

Free trade of states cannot exist with monopolies; therefore, it is within Congress's authority to apply the Sherman Antitrust act here.

Stafford v. Wallace (1922)

1. Cattle shipped to a stockyard across state lines. Can congress regulate these stockyards? Argument: stockyard is part of a "stream of commerce"

2. Because stockyards are basically part of transportation, Congress can regulate them

3. creates the "stream of commerce" doctrine

Champion v. Ames (1903)

1. At the time of this case, selling lottery tickets was very controversial. This case deals with the question of whether Congress can use its commerce clause power to try to stop the shipment of lottery tickets across state lines

2. 5-4, Congress can do this

3. Congress has the power to stop the shipment of dangerous goods

4. Congress begins using this power liberally

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

1. At first glance, this case looks a lot like champion v. ames. Congress wants to regulate child labor and say that goods made by underage children cannot be shipped across state lines

2. This time, the court says no

3. Congress can't regulate the shipment of goods based on manufacturing decisions. This is trying to regulate production in a roundabout way. There is a difference between protecting consumers and manufacturers. The danger in this instance does not come after the good crosses the state line

4. Court embracing dual federalism to protect businesses from government regulation

Holmes dissent in Hammer v. Dagenhart

All congress is doing is regulating interstate commerce. This is within Congress's power because products are travelling across state lines.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

1. Not a commerce clause case Involves a New York law limiting the number of hours Baker's could work (a state exercising its police power)

2. Justice Peckham: The law is struck down under the "liberty of contract" ie, right to work.

3. This is case is the first to use substantive due process, which comes from the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments. Substantive due process, as opposed to procedural due process, does not deal with procedures. Rather, it deals with the substance of a law. It emphasizes the word "liberty." The court finds the right to work as one of these "liberties" protected by the due process clauses, even though this is not explicitly stated in the constitution

4. First use of Substantive Due Process, this opinion, though in the court's dual federalist era, does not seem truly consistent with dual federalism.

Lochner v. New York dissent Oliver Wendell Holmes

This case was decided based on an economic theory (laissez-faire economics) which parts of the country do not subscribe to. The rest of the court was looking for a reason to strike down this law. Holmes also disagrees with substantive due process.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

1. A law in the state of Virginia which allows the forced sterilization of "unfit" people. Did the Virginia statute which authorized sterilization deny Buck the right to due process of the law and the equal protection of the laws as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. This law is not struck down

3. Justice Holmes made clear that Buck's challenge was not upon the medical procedure involved but on the process of the substantive law. Since sterilization could not occur until a proper hearing had occurred (at which the patient and a guardian could be present) and after the Circuit Court of the County and the Supreme Court of Appeals had reviewed the case, if so requested by the patient. Only after "months of observation" could the operation take place. That was enough to satisfy the Court that there was no Constitutional violation.

4. Is this law not restricting liberty? Inconsistency. Although Holmes clearly is in the wrong morally in this decision, he is the only justice who is at least consistent with his opinion in Lochner

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

1. Oregon enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. The owner of a laundry business, Curt Muller, was fined $10 when he violated the law. Muller appealed the conviction. The state supreme court upheld the law's constitutionality. Does an Oregon law limiting the hours women are allowed to work violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Unanimous Decision for Oregon, upholding the regulation

3. The Court unanimously upheld the Oregon regulation. The Court distinguished Lochner v. New York, which invalidated a similar law restricting the hours of bakers, on the basis of the "difference between the sexes." The Court reasoned that the child-bearing nature and social role of women provided a strong state interest in reducing their working hours.

4. This seems inconsistent with both Lochner and Adkins.

Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)

1. In 1918, Congress enacted a law guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. D.C.'s Children's Hospital, which employed many women, sought an injunction against enforcing the law. Did the minimum wage law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

2. Court strikes down this law

3. The Court relied on Lochner v. New York, which struck down a law limiting bakers' working hours under the Due Process Clause, which they believed contained a right of "freedom to contract." In Adkins, the Court reasoned that the same reasoning extended to a minimum wage law.

4. Reversed many of the gains that had been achieved through the groundbreaking decision in Muller v. Oregon.

Dissent in Adkins v. Children's Hospital

Justices William Howard Taft, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and Edward T. Sanford argued that Congress had the policing power to correct recognizable evils. This position was later adopted in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish (1937), when the Court ruled that some government intervention in contracts between employers and employees can be constitutional.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)

1. Under Washington state law, the Industrial Welfare Committee and Supervisor of Women in Industry set a minimum wage of $14.50 for each work week of 48 hours. Elsie Parrish, an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, received an amount less than this wage. Parrish brought a suit to recover the difference between the wages paid to her and the minimum wage fixed by state law. Does a minimum wage law for women violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Adkins decision was wrong, concludes Adkins v. Children's hospital is overruled.

3. the majority ruled that the state may use its police power to restrict the individual freedom to contract. The decision overruled Adkins and marked the Court's departure from the expansive view of the freedom to contract. (Roberts switches sides in this case; part of the switch in time)

4. Marked the end of Lochner and economic substantive due process.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Dissent Sutherland

In dissent, Justice George Sutherland implicitly criticized Roberts for changing sides and argued that politics and public opinion should not impact the Court's understanding of the Constitution.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

1. Dealing with a law that made it a crime to use birth control devices

2. Majority Opinion (Douglas): Strikes down this law

3. Douglas was a very strong critic of Lochner and economic due process. This law, however, did no sit well with him. But what is it violating if not one of the "liberties" of the due process clause? Douglas tries to argue that this case is very different from Lochner and that the Bill of Rights suggests a zone of privacy

4. Created a privacy right out of something other than the due process clause. This is used in Roe.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

1. Obviously this case is about the right to an abortion.

2. Opinion written by justice Harry Blackmun, which surprised many at the time given the fact that he was a republican conservative appointed by Nixon. Creates a trimester framework which outlines the limits to regulating abortion.

3. Starts with the assumption that there is either a privacy right (Griswold v. Connecticut) or a liberty right (substantive due process). Because of this, the court uses the strict scrutiny test when reviewing laws regulating abortion. The court recognizes that the state does have a compelling interest to restrict abortion at certain points in the pregnancy. From this comes the trimester framework. First trimester: no regulation allowed. Second trimester: regulation allowed only to protect the health of the mother. Third trimester (viability) the state now has a compelling interest to protect the life of the child, so full bans are allowed.

4. Very controversial case. Where exactly is the right to privacy found??

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

1. Another abortion case,

Schecter Poultry Corp v. U.S.

1. Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, Congress allowed the President to regulate certain industries by distributing authority to develop codes of conduct among business groups and boards in those industries.

2. Court overrules this act

3. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Hughes, the unanimous Court held that the Act was "without precedent" and was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The law did not establish rules or standards to evaluate industrial activity, meaning Congress failed to provide the necessary guidelines for the implementation of this functionally legislative process.

Carter v. Carter Coal (1936)

back to commerce clause

1. Congress tried to use the Commerce clause to regulate things like hours and wages for coal miners. Owner of a coal company sued and said congress cannot do this

2. 5-4 the court strikes down this legislation

3. Direct-indirect test from E.C. Knight. Wall of separation between production and transportation.

4. IN this case, Roberts joins the majority and Hughes dissents. Roberts is a more conservative justice, however, he becomes concerned about the legitimacy of the court. Afraid that court packing really would happen. After this case, in 1937, Roberts switches sides, "the switch in time that saved 9."

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)

1. With the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, Congress determined that labor-management disputes were directly related to the flow of interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated by the national government. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charged Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. the country's fourth largest steel producer, with discriminating against employees who were union members. Was this consistent with the commerce clause?

2. Court upheld the act

3. Rejected the wall of separation argument of direct-indirect test. After this case, the court uses more flexible standards in deciding commerce clause cases. It just needs to be "direct enough". (notably, justice Roberts joins this opinion)

4. Marks the switch from dual federalism to cooperative.

US v. Darby (1941)

1. 1938, Congress passes the fair labor standards act using the commerce clause to regulate many aspects of employment, including minimum wages, maximum weekly hours, and child labor. When a lumber manufacturer, Darby, shipped lumber out of state, he was arrested for violating the FLSA. His charges were dismissed because the federal district court found that FLSA was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the FLSA's potential effects on intrastate activities violated the Commerce Clause

2. Court unanimously allows the legislation to continue

3. The majority opinion quotes Gibbons v. Ogden. The court acknowledges that Hammer v. Dagenhart has not been followed and is now overturned. The 10th amendment is merely a truism and itt does not have "teeth."

4. Rejects dual federalism and overturns Hammer v. Dagenhart

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

1. Comes out of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which allowed secretary of Agriculture to establish production limits for various grains. Filburn was given an allotment of grain he could produce: 11.1 acres. He did not obey the law, and planted 23 acres, with the excess to be used for "home consumption." He was fined and refused to pay the fine, appealing to the supreme court. Legal question: how can congress use the commerce clause to regulate something that will never become commerce?

2. Court 9-0 upholds the act

3. Filburn's extra wheat will mess with the equilibrium the government has calculated

4. Congress can now regulate things which will never be bought or sold, as long as they have a substantial effect on commerce. Direct-indirect test officially goes away

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

1. Atlanta motel discriminating against black people. Congress claims this affects interstate commerce. Black business people need to travel, and discrimination is placing an undue burden on them. They claim that this is stream of commerce, and also say they can regulate restaurants and cafeterias.

2. Court upholds congress's regulation of the Heart of Atlanta Motel, unanimously

3. Agree with the reasoning of commerce

4. More cooperative federalist commerce clause rulings.

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

1. Ollie's BBQ case. Similar to Heart of Atlanta, this time a restaurant.

2. Court Unanimously upholds title II (law forcing Ollie's not to discriminate based on race)

3. Ollie's claims they don't really serve interstate travellers, but their inputs come from out of state

4. All of a sudden, there is very little that congress cannot regulate under the commerce clause

Daniel v. Paul (1969)

1. Case involved the Lake Nixon Club in Little Rock, AR/ Racially discriminatory. At the time, several black residents challenged this policy. Denying them opportunity to use the services

2. Court concludes similar to Atlanta and Katzenbach

3.Although this club does not really serve interstate travellers and does not get any of its food from out of state that it serves, court concludes that congress can regulate it because the club has a jukebox that they got from out of state and it rents paddles from oklahoma.

4. Further stretches Congress's commerce clause power

Daniel v. Paul Hugo Black dissent

the only dissenter in this case, he also disagreed with the preclearance clause in the Voting Rights Act. Similar to that case, Black thinks this regulation went too far.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

1. 1990: Gun-free school zones act, passed in the wake of Columbine. Congress claims that the commerce clause gives them this power. Lopez arrested for bringing a gun to school and was convicted. Attorney's appealed and claimed that congress did not have the power to pass this.

2. Majority (Written by Rehnquist): This case is different from Wickard v. Filburn, strikes down law (5-4)

3. The gun-free school zones act is not regulating economic activity as past cases were. Also different because gun-free school zone act is a criminal statute.

4. Acts passed under the commerce clause must regulate economic activity.

U.S. v. Lopez dissent

4 justices: Congress clearly has the authority to pass teh gun-free school zones act

US v. Morrison (2000)

1. Dealing with the violence against women act. Christy Brzonkala raped by 2 football players. They were first suspended by Virginia Tech, but appealed and their charge was overturned. Brzonkala filed suit in court against Morrison under the violence against women Act

2. Majority (Rehnquist): Strikes down Violence Against Women Act

3. Congress overstepped its bounds in passing this act. Again, this act does not regulate the economy.

4. Acts passed under the commerce clause must regulate the economy.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

1. Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?

2. The court does not overturn the Controlled Substances Act

3. No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

4. Cooperative federalist win.

Shreveport Rate Case (1914)

1. The Houston, East and West Texas Railroad and the Texas and Pacific Railway were railroad companies operating rail lines between Shreveport, Louisiana and points in Texas. The Texas Railroad Commission mandated that they charge higher rates on freight travelling between Louisiana and Texas than on freight travelling solely within Texas. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) found that the interstate rates were unreasonable and illegally discriminated against freight traffic originating in Shreveport. The ICC established maximum rates and ordered the railroads to fix their intrastate rate schedules. The railroads challenged the order in United States Commerce Court, alleging that the ICC did not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. The Commerce Court upheld the ICC order. The railroads then appealed to the Supreme Court. Legal question: did the ICC have the power to regulate the railroad's intrastate rates?

2. Court upholds ICC order 7-2

3. Congress was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, which it chose to do through the ICC. This power extended to "matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority. Since the price discrimination adversely affected interstate commerce, "it is immaterial...that the discrimination arises from intrastate rates as compared with interstate rates."

Dual Federalism

(States rights) View the constitution as a contract among the states. They interpret the constitution very limitedly, as a document of expressed powers only. They view the 10th Amendment as "having teeth," meaning it should truly be used to limit congress. They believe that both National Government and State Government are sovereign in their own sphere, but that states maintain "police powers" (power to protect health, safety, and public welfare). They also view the supreme court as a neutral and unbiased umpire between state and federal government.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

McCray v. U.S. (1904)

(Compare to Champion v. Ames)

1. Early 20th century, margarine manufacturers put food coloring in their product to make it look like butter, "deceiving customers into thinkings its butter." Congress placed a higher tax on margarine that has food coloring in it. Is this a legitimate use of congress's taxing power?

2. Slim majority says yes, Congress can do this

3. Congress has the authority to impose excise taxes, and protecting the consumer falls under the general welfare.

4. Congress can impose taxes to protect the general welfare

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922)

(Compare to Hammer v. Dagenhart)

1. H v. D struck down a law that would limit child labor, so Congress passes a different law to tax companies who hired child labor.

2. The court strikes down this law.

3. They claim that this does not overrule McCray, because in one instance the tax is protecting the consumer, and in another the tax is protecting the manufacturer.

4. Congress can only imposes taxes to protect consumers, not manufacturers.

US v. Butler (1936)

(Compare to Carter v. Carter Coal and Wickard v. Filburn)

1. Came from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, government subsidizing farmers to pay them not to plant wheat. Is the tax to raise this revenue unconstitutional?

2. Court says this tax is unconstitutional

3. Court says it interferes with state. police powers and that you cannot use power to tax to regulate production. But what about the general welfare clause? Does that not cover this?

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

(Compare to NRLB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel) (Switch in time (Roberts))

1. Social security tax. Tax to raise money for the general welfare

2. Court upholds this tax

3. This is case is different from Butler bc it doesn't just benefit farmers like the one in Butler, it eventually benefits everyone and therefore is for the general welfare.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

1. Congress conditioning a portion of their funds on the drinking age in a state being 21. Threatened to withhold funding for highway repairs.

2. Court upholds this act

3. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the Twenty-first Amendment's limitations on spending power were not prohibitions on congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)

1. A Massachusetts law allowed cities to require residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. Cambridge adopted such an ordinance, with some exceptions. Jacobson refused to comply with the requirement and was fined five dollars.

2. Court upheld the law

3. The Court held that the law was a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens.

Mayor of New York v. Miln (1837)

1. A state law required all vessels docking in New York City to provide a list of passengers and to post security against the passengers from becoming public charges. Miln, the master of the ship "Emily," refused to comply with the law. The city sought to collect a penalty for Miln's failure to file the report. Does the New York law violate the Commerce Clause which vests all power over interstate and foreign commerce in Congress?

2. Court upholds thet law

3. The justices ducked the Commerce Clause issue and invoked what was to become the state "police power" -- the right of a sovereign to take all necessary steps to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. According to Barbour, who wrote the majority opinion, a state is as competent "to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possible convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence, which may arise from unsound and infectious articles imported." The Court reversed Miln in 1941. (See Edwards v. California)

Edwards v. California (1941)

1. Outgrowth of the depression years. During the dust bowl, people from the midwest began to travel to relocate. These so-called "Okies" often traveled to California. California became overwhelmed, and passed a law which made it illegal for and "indigent" of another state to come to California, and made it illegal for residents to aid indigents. A resident of California was arrested for violating this law, and sued

2. Unanimous Decision: Law overturned

3. The majority of the court did this using the commerce clause, however, Hugo Black had an issue with this. Commerce clause power is granted to Congress, not the Supreme Court. The court, according to Black, shouldn't use this law. Instead, Black and others relied on a clause in article IV; the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of the several states.

Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia. (1852)

1. Before the Dormant Commerce clause was created in the court. Is there some room, when Congress is silent, for states to pass laws that affect interstate commerce using police powers? This particular law required pilots from the city on ships to navigate Philadelphia ports. This is done ostensibly on safety grounds. However, this could easily be seen as a protectionist measure.

2. Court upholds the law

3. Valid exercise of the state's police power. However, congress passed legislation which authorized states to regulate pilots.

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways

1. Iowa passed a law limiting the length of trucks on the highway. This was (maybe?) and exercise of state police powers to protect citizens, but it is pretty obvious how this would affect interstate commerce.

2. Opinion for the Court: Powell; Overturns the law

3. Shorter trucks are not really safer than longer trucks. Powell embraces the dormant commerce clause and uses a balancing test. Iowa is trying to protect the safety of its citizens. This burdens interstate commerce, and evidence shows that the law is not really protecting safety.

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Concurring Opinion

William Brennan: This law was not passed to promote safety, it is a good-old-fashioned protectionist measure. The motive was all about protecting the state. Proof of this: local farmers were exempt under this law. This is exactly what the commerce clause is designed to prevent.

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Dissent

Rehnquist: Dislikes the dormant commerce clause. Commerce clause is a grant of authority to congress. Judicial restraintist; rational basis test. This law is certainly rational, rejects dormant commerce clause.

City of Philadelphia v. State of New Jersey

1. New Jersey prohibits out of state waste. Philadelphia is upset because they had contracts with landfills in the state of New Jersey. Dormant Commerce Clause: What commerce is involved? There were contracts and so the waste had some value, money was being exchanged.

2. Majority Opinion: Overturns the law

3. The law is a protectionist measure, as New Jersey is trying to preserve landfills for their own use as long as possible. This law poses a burden on interstate commerce, and is the type of protectionist measure that the commerce clause is supposed to prevent.

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey Dissent

Rehnquist Dissent: State of New Jersey has a rational basis to pass this law.

South Dakota v. Dole Dissent

Sandra Day O'Connor and Brennan: "The transportation of alcohol into states with laws against it is illegal." Argument: States exclusively have the power to regulate all things involving drinking.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: Individual Mandate

1. This section of the Obamacare Act required people to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Can Congress do this? Difference between this and other cases: this law is being used to regulate economic inactivity.

2. 5-4 Majority, court upholds mandate.

3. They do not use the commerce clause. The court says that Congress does not have this power under the commerce clause. The opinion clearly reflects a dual-federalist perspective. Congress is limited to their enumerated powers, the state legislature is not so limited. Scalia: could the commerce clause compel me to buy brocoli?

Dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: Individual Mandate

Ginsburg: Commerce clause does allow for individual mandate. Everybody inevitably participates in health care, and this clearly has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Ask only whether congress has a rational basis.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: Penalty Tax

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that the Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority. The payment is not so severe as to be coercive, is not limited to willful violations like fines for unlawful acts, and is collected by the Internal Revenue Service by normal means.

As part of a jointly written dissenting opinion, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito disagreed, arguing that because Congress characterized the payment as a penalty, to instead characterize it as a tax would amount to rewriting the Act.