Court Cases

POS 4606

Powell v. McCormack (1969)

FACTS: House excluded Powell despite his election and qualifications. REASONING: Congress cannot add qualifications beyond those in the Constitution. DECISION: Exclusion was unconstitutional.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

FACTS: Arkansas tried to limit congressional terms. REASONING: States cannot add qualifications for members of Congress. DECISION: State-imposed term limits were unconstitutional.

Gravel v. United States (1972)

FACTS: Senator Gravel introduced the Pentagon Papers into the Senate record; aides were subpoenaed. REASONING: The Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts, including aides’ assistance. DECISION: Legislative activities were protected, but unrelated private conduct was not.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

FACTS: Maryland taxed the federal Bank of the United States. REASONING: Congress has implied powers, and federal law overrides conflicting state law. DECISION: The bank was constitutional; Maryland could not tax it.

McGrain v. Daugherty (1927)

FACTS: A Senate committee investigating the Justice Department subpoenaed Daugherty’s brother. REASONING: Congress has implied power to investigate matters related to legislation. DECISION: Congress could compel testimony.

Watkins v. United States (1957)

FACTS: Watkins refused congressional questions about alleged Communist affiliations. REASONING: Witnesses must understand the investigation’s subject and the relevance of questions. DECISION: His contempt conviction was overturned.

Barenblatt v. United States (1959)

FACTS: Barenblatt refused questions about Communist Party membership. REASONING: The congressional investigation’s interests outweighed his First Amendment claims in this case. DECISION: His contempt conviction was upheld.

Trump v. Mazars (2020)

FACTS: Congressional committees subpoenaed Trump’s financial records. REASONING: Courts must balance Congress’s legislative needs against separation-of-powers concerns. DECISION: The cases were returned for further review under a balancing test.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

FACTS: South Carolina challenged the Voting Rights Act of 1965. REASONING: Congress could enforce the Fifteenth Amendment against racial discrimination in voting. DECISION: Key provisions of the Act were upheld.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

FACTS: Florida used inconsistent standards to evaluate ballots during a presidential recount. REASONING: Different recount standards violated equal protection. DECISION: The recount was stopped, effectively giving Florida’s electoral votes to Bush.

In re Neagle (1890)

FACTS: A federal marshal protecting Justice Field was arrested after killing a man who threatened the justice. REASONING: Federal officers may take necessary actions to perform lawful federal duties. DECISION: Neagle was protected by federal authority and released.

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

FACTS: President Clinton canceled provisions of enacted laws under the Line Item Veto Act. REASONING: The Constitution does not allow the president to unilaterally cancel parts of laws. DECISION: The Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional.

Morrison v. Olson (1988)

FACTS: A federal law created an independent counsel to investigate executive officials. REASONING: The arrangement did not impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional duties. DECISION: The independent counsel law was upheld.

Myers v. United States (1926)

FACTS: President Wilson removed a postmaster without Senate approval. REASONING: The president has authority to remove executive officers. DECISION: The removal restriction was unconstitutional.

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)

FACTS: President Roosevelt removed an FTC commissioner before his term ended. REASONING: Congress could limit presidential removal of certain independent agency commissioners. DECISION: The removal restriction was upheld.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

FACTS: Nixon refused to release Oval Office recordings subpoenaed for a criminal trial. REASONING: Executive privilege is not absolute and must yield to demonstrated criminal-trial needs. DECISION: Nixon had to turn over the recordings.

Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)

FACTS: Mississippi asked the Court to stop President Johnson from enforcing Reconstruction laws. REASONING: Courts cannot enjoin the president’s discretionary official duties. DECISION: The Court refused the injunction.

Clinton v. Jones (1997)

FACTS: Paula Jones sued Clinton over alleged conduct before his presidency. REASONING: A sitting president has no immunity from civil lawsuits concerning unofficial, pre-presidential conduct. DECISION: The lawsuit could proceed.

Trump v. Vance (2020)

FACTS: A New York prosecutor subpoenaed Trump’s financial records for a criminal investigation. REASONING: A sitting president is not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas. DECISION: The subpoena could proceed, subject to ordinary legal protections.

Trump v. United States (2024)

FACTS: Trump claimed immunity from prosecution over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. REASONING: Presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. DECISION: The case was returned to determine which alleged acts were official.

Ex parte Grossman (1925)

FACTS: President Coolidge pardoned Grossman for criminal contempt of federal court. REASONING: The presidential pardon power extends to criminal contempt. DECISION: The pardon was valid.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

FACTS: Marbury sued after Madison withheld his judicial commission. REASONING: Courts can review laws for constitutionality. DECISION: Established judicial review; the Court could not grant the requested remedy.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)

FACTS: Virginia courts refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling involving treaty rights to land. REASONING: The Supreme Court has appellate authority over state-court decisions involving federal law. DECISION: Supreme Court review of state-court federal-law decisions was upheld.

Eakin v. Raub (1825)

FACTS: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether courts could invalidate unconstitutional laws. REASONING: The majority rejected judicial review as a general judicial power. DECISION: The state court upheld the challenged law.

Ex parte McCardle (1869)

FACTS: McCardle challenged his detention and appealed under a federal habeas statute. REASONING: Congress can make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. DECISION: The Court dismissed the appeal after Congress repealed the relevant jurisdictional law.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

FACTS: Tennessee had not redrawn legislative districts despite population changes. REASONING: Equal-protection challenges to legislative apportionment can be decided by courts. DECISION: The case could proceed; it was not automatically a political question.

Nixon v. United States (1993)

FACTS: Judge Walter Nixon challenged the Senate’s procedure for trying his impeachment. REASONING: Impeachment trials are constitutionally committed to the Senate. DECISION: The challenge was nonjusticiable under the political-question doctrine.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

FACTS: Environmental groups challenged a federal regulation affecting projects abroad. REASONING: Standing requires concrete injury, causation, and likely redressability. DECISION: The groups lacked standing.