Constitutional Law

Marbury (v. Madison)

Established judicial review (Congress is held to the constitution by the courts) (Judge appointments)

McCullough (v. Maryland)

Implied powers (Congress has power to legislate in pursuance of enumerated powers) (National Bank) (Judiciary is the arbiter of the gov's implied powers)

Marbury (v. Madison)

Established judicial review (Congress is held to the constitution by the courts) (Judge appointments)

McCullough (v. Maryland)

Implied powers (Congress has power to legislate in pursuance of enumerated powers) (National Bank) (Judiciary is the arbiter of the gov's implied powers)

Gibbons (v. Ogden) (1824)

Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce (platonic ideal case--NY trying to give monopoly on boat travel between NY and New Jersey= not allowed)

(Hammer v.) Daghenhart (1918)

Production is not commerce (Child labor act prevented interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor)

(US v.) EC Knight (1895)

Manufacturing is not commerce (Congress can't suppress a monopoly in the manufacture of goods)

Houston East and West (Texas railway v. US) (Shreveport case) (1914)

Regulation of intrastate commerce is allowed when it directly affects interstate commerce (Inconsistent intra/interstate freight shipping rates disadvantaging interstate commerce)

(ALA) Schechter (Poultry corp v. US) (1935) (sick chicken)

Need direct affects (Schechter's chickens were sold in-state--only had indirect affects on interstate commerce) (regulation about health of chickens sold, etc--unconstitutional)

(Carter v.) Carter Coal (Co.) (1936)

Production is not commerce (tax refunds for following regulation of prices, min wage, min hours, and "fair practices--unconstitutional) (commodity intended to be sold interstate is not a part of interstate commerce before the commencement of its movement from the state) (wanting to prevent federal overreach, but at this point the court's solidarity against the expansion of federal power is starting to fracture--Great Depression era)

Champion (v. Ames) (1903)

Independent interstate carriers may be regulated under commerce clause (Defendants convicted for illegally sending lottery tickets across state lines)(lottery tickets were subjects of traffic)

Wickard (v. Filburn) (1942)

local activity can be regulated if it has a substantial aggregate effect (on interstate commerce)(Wheat farmers growing wheat for personal use had substantial indirect effects--bc it competes with wheat being sold in interstate commerce) (broadest standard for commerce clause)

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

Aggregate effects ("It is the effect upon commerce, not the source of the injury." (Labor relations act--right to organize, bargain collectively has substantial aggregate effects on interstate commerce)

(US v.) Darby (1941)

Aggregate effects (Fair labor standards act constitutional for lumber being shipped out of state)

Heart of Atlanta Motel (v. US) (1964)

(Reconstruction amendments-gov has wide latitude) overwhelming evidence of the disruptive effect that racial discrimination has had on commercial intercourse

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Discrimination in restaurants had a direct and restrictive effect upon interstate travel by black people (and therefore interstate commerce)

(US v.) Lopez (1995)

must be related to commerce (substantial effect on interstate commerce) (guns in schools aren't sufficiently related to commerce/economics) (Shift toward narrowing commerce clause scope)

Gonzalez (v. Reich)(2005)

Class of activities with a substantial effect (on interstate commerce) (local use of marijuana was sufficiently related to economic activity--unlike Lopez and Morrison) (aggregation principal can be used to achieve non-economic goals within limits)

(US v. )Morrison (2000)

VAWA was too unrelated to economic activity (gender-based violence) (despite the mountain of evidence indicating otherwise)

(NFIB v.) Sebelius (2012)

Congress doesn't have the power to create commerce (can only regulate existing commerce--Universal mandate was unconstitutional under commerce clause)

Taxing Power

Must raise revenue

Not operating as a shadow punitive measure

(US v. ) Doremus (1919)

Taxing can be done to accomplish another purpose as long as it is raising revenue

(Bailey v.) Drexel Furniture (1922)

Provisions of an act must be naturally and reasonably adapted to the collection of a tax and not solely to the achievement of some other purpose plainly within state power

Sebelius Taxing Power

3 Characteristics

1. Does it look like a penalty

2. Does it operate with a scienter (knowledge of wrongdoing requirement that looks punitive/focused on changing behavior)

3. Is it focused toward revenue collection

(Universal mandate doesn't actually mandate people to purchase insurance, it just taxes you if you don't--like buying gas, earning income)

Spending Power

Serves general welfare

Does not operate as a coercive measure (provides states with clear and meaningful choice)

(Us v. ) Butler (1936)

Taxing or Spending can't be used to infringe on power reserved to states (can't be used to accomplish ends Congress wouldn't otherwise be allowed to pursue)

(South Dakota v. ) Dole (1987)

Non-coercive, reasonable action in the pursuit of general welfare (withholding 5% of federal highway funds if states did not adopt a 21 year old minimum drinking age) (Spending)

Dole Factors

1. For the general welfare

2. Unambiguous (states can knowingly exercise their choice, cognizant of the consequences of their participation)

Steward Machine (v. Davis)(1937)

Benefit general welfare, not coercive (Soc security act--tax on employers of eight or more employees to fund unemployment comp.--if state had an improved compensation plan, taxpayer could credit up to 90% of tax)

Sebelius Spending

State must knowingly and voluntarily accept terms of contract

Problematic use of spending power

Undue influence, compulsive pressure (gun to the head--Sebelius dissent), Congressional overreach (dipping into power reserved to states)

Reconstruction amendments

13th-slavery, 14th-due process and equal protection, 15th-voting rights (enforcement clauses) (Very wide latitude)

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

Full remedial powers under reconstruction amendments (legitimate response to insidious and pervasive evil which denied black people the right to vote)(prohibited literacy tests to deny voting rights)

Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)

Rational basis test (Congress has significant discretion in deciding the nature of a reconstruction amendment remedy--Court only needs to see that congress has a rational basis)

Ratchet theory (Katzenbach v. Morgan)

Congress can ratchet up civil rights beyond what courts have recognized, but cannot ratchet down judicially recognized rights

City of Boerne (v. Flores) (1997)

Congress doesn't have the power to create new constitutional rights or change the substance of 14th amendment (Congruent and Proportional test--to the wrong being addressed)(Religious freedom restoration act--not congruent with the relatively rare constitutional violations congress identified) (Must be remedial)

Shelby county (v. Holder)(2013)

Coverage formula unconstitutional because it differentiated between states (VRA pre clearance requirement for some states to change voting laws--states decided by coverage formula)(Reasoning--nation is no longer divided along those lines)

Sovereign Immunity

11th Amendment: Citizen of one state (or foreign citizen) can't sue another state (in federal court)

Relationship between sovereign immunity and reconstruction amendments

Section 5 (enforcement clause) of the 14th amendment can displace sovereign immunity (bc the purpose of 14th amendment is to protect equal protection rights from the states)

Hans v. Lousiana (1890)

Citizens can't sue their own state (Reasoning: somehow so obvious that they didn't think to put it in the constitution)

Federalism

Balance between state and federal authority (Fed limited to enumerate and implied powers of the constitution) (States have general police powers--do whatever they want with specific exceptions)

Separation of powers

Balance of power between branches of the federal government

Constitutional source of implied powers

Necessary and proper clause

Justifications for federalism

Structural efficiency (difference solutions to specific problems are appropriate in different areas)

Collective liberty (protects against majority factions)

individual liberty (friction in gov provides more freedom to individuals)

Lochner era

Supreme Court significantly limited governmental authority to intervene in economic affairs (Lochner v. NY--1905)

1920s Commerce Clause

available for regulating modalities of transport with an interstate hook (Shreveport) or clear instances of regulated movement between states (Champion)

Great Depression Commerce Clause

Expansion of commerce clause powers (aggregate effects--Wickard, etc) (around the 1930s)

Alden v. Maine (1999)

Congress can't force states to be sued in state courts (emphasis on state court) Must be consent

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (200)

State officials can't be sued for damages (only injunctive relief)

Exceptions to state sovereign immunity

Consent

14th amendment enforcement

Exceptions to state official sovereign immunity

Can be sued for injunctive relief

actions outside of representative capacity (unofficial actions)

Private Action Doctrine

13th amendment unequivocally applies to private action

Seminole Tribe of Florida (v. Florida)(1996)

Congress can't force states to be sued in federal court

Board of trustees v. Garrett (2001)

No recovery of monetary damages against state/state officials unless there is a clear pattern of 14th amendment violations(remedy must be proportional to the violations)

Does 11th amendment matter?

Many states have statutes consenting to a wide variety of suits and in most cases where action against a state is barred, suit against a state official is permitted

Nevada Dep't of human resources v. Gibbs (2003)

Monetary damages exception against states if court is acting prophylactically against 14th amendment violations

3 Article I powers that allow congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity

Bankruptcy clause

Eminent domain

Power to raise and support armies (allowed bc the states consented to these exceptions at the founding)

Can 14th amendment violations be brought against private parties?

No private action doctrine for 14th amendment ("No state shall [deny] to any person equal protection of the laws")

10th Amendment

powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution (nor prohibited by it to that states) are reserved to the states (or to the people)