Constitutional Law #2

speech or debate clause

found in article 1 section 6 clause 1 of the Constitution and protects members of Congress deem arrest and civil lawsuits for their official legislative acts and for any speech or debate in Congress. Grants immunity for core legislative acts like voting and debate but does not cover political or external actions

powell v mccormack (1969)

powell was excluded from his representative seat due to allegations of corruption despite meeting all constitutional qualifications for office

ruling - court ruled that congress can’t exclude a duly elected member who satisfies constitutional qualifications

decisions emphasized that congress can’t add qualifications beyond the constitution since that would undermine the will of the people

speech and debate came in with powell couldnt sue members of congress because their official actions, speech in congress are protected by speech and debate clause. Could sue SGT in arms who physically got rid of him

US term limits INC v thornton (1995)

arkansas passed a state amendment that prohibited candidates from being on the ballot after already serving a certain amount of time in the US congress; claiming the 10th amendment allowed this power to the states 

ruling - court ruled states cannot impose additional qualifications for office than those already in the constitution 

congress serves the will of the people, not an individual state. the framers vision on age, citizenship and residence are fixed and exclusive

hutchinson v proxmire (1979)

senator proxmire made public statements about wasteful government spending on research for Hutchinsons experiments. hutchinson sued for defamation, while proxmire claimed protection under the speech or debate clause

ruling - court ruled that proxmire did not have immunity because his statements were made outside of formal legislative acts in newsletters and press releases which the clause did not cover

gibson v florida legislative investigative committee (1963)

committee ordered the NAACP president gibson to release membership lists so communist infiltration could be investigated. gibson said this was a 1st amendment freedom of association violation 

ruling - court ruled this was a violation and that the states could not demonstrate a compelling interest or real evidence of communist ties

strict scrutiny test was not passed and this case ensured that investigative bodies cannot use broad claims of subversion to undermine associational privacy 

walter l nixon v US (1993)

nixon was a judge convicted of perjury who refused to resign from office. he argued that the senates use of a committee to gather evidence during his trial violated the constitutional requirement that the senate “try” all impeachments

ruling - court unanimously decided that this was a nonjusticiable political question and that judicial interference in impeachment proceedings would undermine separation of powers - the senate has full discretion in these trials 

commerce clause

provision in article 1 section 8 of the constitution that grants congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states and with indian tribes - key source of federal regulatory power. allows congress to pass laws that affect a range of economic and non economic activities that impact interstate commerce

police powers

authority of state governments to enact laws and regulations to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their citizens - derived from the 10th amendment, but this power is limited within the US Constitution and federal law

McCullough v maryland (1819)

maryland tried to tax the 2nd bank of the US and challenged congress; authority to create the bank. questions surrounded the constitutionality of the bank and marylands power to tax a federal institution

ruling - court ruled that Congress had implied power to create the bank under the necessary and proper clause and that maryland couldn’t tax the bank since it would undermine federal authority and supremacy clause 

this case confirmed the doctrine of implied powers and established federal supremacy over the states 

implied powers

authorities that the government has that are not explicitly written in the constitution, but considered necessary to carry out its listed/enumerated powers

necessary and proper clause

article 1 section 8 gives congress the power to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its other, more specific powers. in this case justice marshall redefined necessary to mean “appropriate and legitimate” giving congress authority to enact laws that are logically connected to its constitutional duties

supremacy clause

article 6 paragraph 2 establishes that the constitution, federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land - federal prevails over state when conflict arises

gibbons v ogden (1824)

gibbons held a federal license to operate steamboats between NY and NJ which challenged ogdens monopoly water navigation within NY state - he held an exclusive state license to operate the steamboats. ogden sued to stop gibbons from operating in NY waters without state permission 

ruling - court ruled unanimously in favor of gibbons holding that congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce is supreme over state laws that conflict with the federal regulation 

US v EC knight CO (1895)

the EC knight CO had a monopoly over the sugar refining business and the federal government sought to break the monopoly under the sherman anti-trust act of 1890, arguing that it restrained interstate commerce. the company argued tat their actions -monopoly involved manufacturing, not commerce

ruling - court ruled that the sherman act didnt apply, and that manufacturing was a local activity, not interstate commerce. therefore this would reach beyond congress’ power under the commerce clause 

this case narrowed congress’ commerce power and limited federal regulation of the economy

hammer v dagenhart (1918)

congress’ child labor actor 1916 prohibited the interstate shipping of goods made by child labor. dagenhart, a father, challenged the law saying this wa s power reserved to the states

ruling - court ruled the act was invalid because congress couldn't not regulate production since it was a local (10th amendment) matter, not interstate commerce. production was not commerce so it was outside Congress’ power. the court also said that local labor conditions fell within the police power of the states, not the federal government 

national labor relations board v jones & laughlin steel corp (1937)

the steel corp had fired employees for union activity, while the nation labor relations act (NRLA) protected workers right to organize. the board charged the company for violating the act while the company said the act was unconstitutional since its local labor relations were not under congress’ commerce clause authority

ruling - court ruled the act was constitutional because labor relations had a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce. since labor disputes could affect commerce, the regulation applied and marked a turn towards broader federal authority over the economy

US v darby lumber co (1941)

the lumber co was charged with violating the fair labor standard act (FSLA) which prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced under poor labor conditions. the company argued that the act exceeded congress’ regulation of commerce power and states control over local manufacturing 

ruling - court ruled that congress could regulate local activities that could impact interstate commerce

this overturned hammer v dagenhart (1918), holding that congress’ authority may reach local activity if it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and fair competition

wicked v filbert (1941)

Wilburn grew more wheat than his quota under the agricultural adjustment act, claiming the excess was for personal use, not interstate commerce. he was fined and challenged the penalty, saying the act exceeded congress’ commerce clause power since his wheat never entered interstate commerce

ruling - court ruled that congress could still regulate this and could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce other farmers did the same by impacting market demand 

this expanded congress’ power underr the commerce clause through the cumulative effects doctrine, allowing them to regulate private, local acts if they collectively impacted interstate commerce

cumulative effects doctrine

congress may regulate, small, local activities under the commerce clause, if when combined with similar actions by others, has a substantial and growing effect on interstate commerce

heart of atlanta hotel v US & katzenbach v mcclung (1964)

both cases involved racial discrimination in public spaced affecting interstate commerce in relation to the civil rights act. the hotel refused to rent to blacks, saying congress exceeded its commerce power since they were a local business. in katzenbach, a local restaurant refused to serve blacks, claiming its operations were purely local 

ruling - court ruled that this discrimination placed a substantial burden on interstate commerce since the hotel and restaurant served travelers moving interstate, the court also used the rational basis test to show this relation interfered with interstate commerce

the state action doctrine also applied, and these cases confirmed congress’ broad authroity under the commerce clause to combat racial discrimination in private businesses affecting interstate commerce

state action doctrine

says that the constitutions protections apply only to the actions by the government which is the state and not to purely private individuals or businesses - in this case congress used its commerce clause power to address private discrimination instead

US v lopez (1995)

lopez was a student charged under the gun-free school zones act and he argued the law exceeded congress’ authority under the commerce clause 

ruling - court ruled that congress had exceeded its power since carrying a gun in a school zone was not an economic activity substantially affecting interstate commerce. court said regulating this noneconomic conduct would erase the ine between national and local authority and would grant congress a police power belonging to the states. 

justice rehnquist outlined the 3 categories under which congress may regulate under the commerce clause. the law failed test by regulating local, noneconomic conduct

3 categories of regulating under commerce clause

1. channels of commerce

2. instrumentalities of commerce (or persons/things in interstate commerce)

3. activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce 

renvo v condon (2000)

the drivers privacy protection act (DPPA) restricted states from selling or disclosing personal information from drivers license records. south carolina challenged this, saying it violated the 10th amendment.

ruling - court ruled that the DPPA was a valid exercise of congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, since the data collected and sold by states was interstate commerce. no federal coercion was found either, since the act regulated states as owners of databases not as sovereign governments 

city of boerne v flores (1997)

a texas archbishop was denied an expansion permit in a historic district and claimed the denial violated the religious freedom restoration act (RFRA)

ruling - court ruled that RFRA was unconstitutional since it imposed an overly strict standard for evaluating laws burdening religious exercise

the 14th amendments enforcement power allows congress to enact laws that prevent violations not redefining rights or expanding their scope

this case limited congress’ power to expand constitutional rights through legislation 

US v morrison (2000)

a virginia tech student alleged she was raped by football players and sued them under the violence against women act (VAWA). the defense argued that congress didnt have the authority under the commerce clause or the 14th amendment to enact this law

ruling - court ruled that congress exceeded its authority in this act because gender based crimes are non-economic activities and should be handled by the states. they said allowing these cases under federal law would erase limits on federal power

justice rehnquist referred back to his 3 categories of regulation under the commerce clause and this case didnt fit into any of these. this case reaffirmed limits on congress’ commerce clause power saying that not all social issues with economic consequences fall under federal authority 

gonzales v raich (2005)

raich used homegrown marijuana for medical treatment and her supply was destroyed under the controlled substances act (CSA) which prohibited marijuana possession and manufacture nationwide. she sued, saying her activities were non-commercial and intrastate, which would make the act an exceeding of congress’ commerce clause power 

ruling - court ruled that although the homegrown marijuana was noncommercial and local it could have a substantial effect on the national illegal drug market if it expanded (similar to wicked) - court also determined that congress had a rational basis for regulating local drug use due to its high demand in the interstate market 

this marked a significant limit on sate autonomy under the 10th amendment 

steward machine co v davis (1937)

the social security act of 1935 required employers to pay a federal unemployment tax and the steward machine co sued, claiming the tax violated the 10th and 5th amendment due process clause 

ruling - court upheld the act saying it was a valid exercise of congress’ power to tax and spend. the court said the law did not coerce states, but rather encouraged them to create their own systems (coercion v inducement) to provide unemployment benefits. the tax credit offered was an inducement so the act created a cooperative federal system, not an unconstitutional coercive scheme 

coercion vs inducement

coercion → occurs if the government made conditions so demanding that the states had no option but to comply 

inducement → occurs when the government offers incentives to encourage states to take certain actions, while still having a genuine choice 

south dakota v dole (1987)

congress passed a law which withheld funds from states that didnt raise the drinking age to 21. south dakota challenged the law arguing it violated the 10th and 21st amendment and exceeded congress’ spending power

ruling - court ruled the law was valid under congress’ spending power which allowed it to attach conditions to funding if it promoted the general welfare, and was not coercion but rather inducement. 

justice rehnquist also explained 4 conditions for congressional spending to be valid

1. must be for general welfare 

2. conditions must be unambiguous (clearly states so states know the agreement)

3. must be related to a particular national interest 

4. no independent constitutional bar (condition cannot violate other constitutional provisions)

taxing and spending clause

“general welfare clause” gives congress the power to levy taxes to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the US

conditions for valid spending

1. must be for general welfare 

2. conditions must be unambiguous (clearly states so states know the agreement)

3. must be related to a particular national interest 

4. no independent constitutional bar (condition cannot violate other constitutional provisions)

national federation of independent business v Sibelius (2012)

the affordable care act (ACA) required most americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty (the individual mandate) and expanded medicaid to require states to cover more low-income people or lose all federal Medicaidd funding. several states and organizations challenged this law, saying congress exceeded its powers under the commerce clause and the taxing and spending clause 

ruling - court ruled that congress couldn't not impose the individual mandate under the commerce clause, since it regulated people not engaged in commerce. BUT it would be constitutional under congress’ taxing power since the penalty functioned as a tax encouraging people to get insurance. court also ruled on the medicaid expansion, saying that this was coercive by threatening a loss of funding without compliance

this decision upheld most of the ACA while reinforcing constitutional limits on congressional authority and limiting Congress’ ability to use financial threats to control state policy

dormant commerce clause

where congress has not regulated the court may assess state regulations of commerce - can bar state or local regulations even when there is non relevant congressional legislation, implied restriction on the states 

cooley v board of wardens (1852)

pennsylvania passed a law requiring ships in Philadelphia to hire a local pilot or pay a fine. cooley regused to comply saying the law violated the commerce clause by interfering with congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

ruling - court held that the rule was constitutional since pilot restrictions were considered a local matter suitable for state control unless congress chose to act otherwise 

this case established the selective exclusiveness doctrine, and recognized that states could regulate local commercial matters in the absence of federal action

selective exclusiveness doctrine

holds that the power to regulate interstate commerce is exclusive to congress only in areas that require national uniformity. but shared with the states in matters that are local and best handled at the state level - the judiciary defines who gets to regulate what

southern pacific v arizona (1945)

arizona passed a law limiting the length of trains in the state to which the southern pacific company challenged saying it unreasonable burdened interstate commerce

ruling - court struck down the law saying it did burden interstate commerce. although states can regulate matters of local concern, it cannot seriously burden the free flow of commerce

the court serves as the ultimate decision maker in balancing national and state interests

maine v taylor (1986)

maine passed a law prohibiting baitfish important from other states for environmental concerns. taylor violated the ban and challenged the law as a commerce clause violating for restricting interstate trade. 

ruling - court upheld maines law because it served a legitimate local purpose that couldn’t be achieved through nondiscriminatory means. maine was justified under its police powers to protect local interests, and that the dormant commerce clause allowed flexibility

pennsylvania v nelson (1956)

nelson was a communist convicted of violating pennsylvanias sedition act, which was implemented before congress’ adoption of the smith act which prohibited the same conduct as pennsylvanias law. nelson argued that the federal law took precedence and the PAs law couldn’tbe enforced since the federal government had full authority over sedition 

ruling - court ruled that the federal government had “occupied the field” of sedition laws with the smith act, so the PA law was invalid. because federal law was dominant the state law conflicted with it and was therefore preempted under the supremacy clause. 

court applied 3 tests of supersession to determine whether the state law was prompted which is part of the doctrine of federal preemption

3 tests of supersession

1. is the federal regulation pervasive? 

   1. meaning whether congress had legislated to extensivelyy that no room was left to the states → smith act was considered pervasive

2. is the federal interest dominant? 

   1. meaning whether the national government had overriding authority → combating subversive threats was indeed national not local 

3. would state enforcement create a danger of conflict 

   1. meaning if state laws contradicting federal policy, they’re invalid → allowing states to prosecute sedition could conflict with federal enforcement

doctrine of federal preemption

originates from supremacy clause - means that federal law overrides state law when they conflict

garcia v san antonio metropolitano transit authority (1985)

the SAMTA claimed that it was exempt from the fair labor standards act (FSLA) arguing the 10th amendment.

ruling - court ruled that congress can apply the FLSA to state and local government employees under the commerce clause. since SAMTA was a government authority, its activities could fall under congress authority to regulate interstate commerce. decision held that the commerce clause gives congress broad authority to regulation even traditional state activities, reinforcing that the protection of state sovereignty lies in the political process, not judicially enforced boundaries

new york v US (1992)

congress passed the low level radioactive waste policy amendment act requiring states to dispose of radioactive waste within their borders and included incentives and a “take title” provision that forced states to take ownership of waste if their failed to comply

ruling - court ruled that while congress may encourage states through monetary incentives or conditional spending, it cannot commandeer state legislatures to carry out federal incentives. the “take title” provision was ruled constitutional as being coercive 

printz v US (1997)

brady hangun violence prevention act required state and local law enforcement to conduct background checks on prospective handgun buys, local sheriffs argued congress couldn’t compel them to carry out federal regulations 

ruling - court ruled that congress cannot compel state officials to enforce federal programs as it violates dual sovereignty and the 10th amendment. 

court affirmed their decision rooted in NY v US and the anti-commandeering doctrine and strengthening state sovereignty 

seminole tribe of florida v florida (1996)

the seminole tribe sued ford under the indian gaming regulatory at (IGRA) for not negotiating gaming conduct, Florida argued that the 11th amendment protected them from the suit 

ruling - court held that the 11th did provide immunity to florida. congress cannot take away the states sovereign immunity through the IGRA.

expanded state sovereign immunity limiting congress’ ability to subject states other than private lawsuits under the commerce clause 

alden v maine (1999)

a group of probation officers sued maine, climbing they were owed overtime pay while maine claimed immunity under the 11th amendment.

ruling - court held that even though congress had authrorized such lawsuits, the states were protected and retain their immunity from private suits unless they explicitly allow it.

this case extended state sovereign immunity to state courts, not just federal ones

nevada department of HR v Hibbs (1972)

Gibbs requested leave to care for his sick wife and was fired after being out for 12 weeks, so he sued the state claiming his termination violated the FMLA.

ruling - court ruled that since the FMLA targeted gender discrimination in leave policies (14th amendment section 5), congress could override a state sovereign immunity to hold states accountable for violations of federal civil rights laws aimed at remedying unconstitutional discrimination

martin v hunters lessee (1816)

virginia courts refused to grant land to a british loyalist even after the court had ruled on protecting british property rights after the revolutionary war, virginia courts argued the supreme court had no authority over state court decisions

ruling - court ruled that the supreme court has appellate authority over state courts in cases involving federal questions 

this ruling ensured uniform interpretation of federal law across all states and the supreme courts supremacy in constitutional interpretation over state courts and national unity

cooper v aaron (1958)

after segregation was declared unconstitutional, arkansas resisted by delaying integration, claiming they were not bound to the courts Brown b BOE ruling

ruling - court held that state officials and legislators rebound by the supreme courts decisions and must comply with its ruling 

this case reaffirmed judicial supremacy as the judicarys’s constitutional interpretations prevail over conflicting actions by other branches or levels of government 

younger v harris (1971)

harris sought an injunction to stop his proescution under a law prohibiting advocation for violence to achieve political reform, which he said violated his 1st and 14th amendment rights

ruling - court ruled that an injunction was improper because harris already had an adequate remedy in the state courts and had not shown irreparable injury. court held that federal courts could not interfere with pending state criminal prosecutions. this helped balance federalism and respect for state judicial authority

stone v powell (1976)

powell was convicted of murder and filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the search for the murder weapon was unlawful and should’ve been inadmissible at trial 

ruling - that state prisoners cannot seek habeas corpus relief after they had full opportunity to do so in state court 

michigan v long (1983)

long was stopped b police and found to have marijuana and he claimed the search violated the 4th amendment and that the MI constitution provided more protection against searches than federal 

ruling - court he’d that it could review a state courts decision since it wasn’t based on a clear state ground. this case made the plain statement rule, ensuring the supreme court only reviews state decisions if it clearly rests on federal law 

plain statement rule

the supreme court assumes jurisdiction unless the state court clearly says its decision is based only on state law - without a “plain statement” the supreme court can assume the ruling was based on federal law and therefore has authority to review it

people v PJ video inc (1986)

police had a warrant to search PJ video for obscene films, to which they said the search violated the NY state constitution since it provided more protections than the US Constitution. 

ruling - NY court of appeals ruled the search warrant was valid. although the state constitution provided broader protections, the court chose not to require stricter standards here

this case ensured NY courts would not automatically extend greater protections under the state constitution unless there was clear justification 

fair probability test

probable cause exists when there is a reasonable likelihood that evidence of a crime will be found → in this case, enough outside evidence was present for proof that there was obscene films