ConLaw Exam 2 (Short Essay)

Habeas corpus

The legal procedure that allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention and required authorities to justify imprisonment before a court

Rasul v Bush

1. The Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees can file habeas petitions in federal courts

2. Rejected the government’s claim that geography placed detainees beyond judicial reach

Hamdi v Rumsfeld

1. Habeas corpus must be meaningful, not merely symbolic

2. Even for enemy combatants, a US citizen must be given notice of reasons for detention and opportunity to challenge that detention

Boumediene v Bush

1. Made habeas corpus a constitutional guarantee under the Suspension Clause

2. The Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have constitutional right by striking down parts of Military Commissions Act of 2006

3 cases demonstrate evolution of habeas by

Granting detainees access to courts, requiring meaningful judicial review, and firmly protecting habeas corpus as a fundamental constitutional right

Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

Prevents the federal government from forcing states or their officials to implement or enforce federal laws, preserving state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment

New York v United States

1. Court first established Anti-Comandeering Doctrine by holding that Congress cannot force states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program

2. The take title provision was struck down because it compelled states to govern according to federal instructions, violating the 10th Amendment

Printz v United States

1. Court ruled that Congress cannot compel state executive officials to implement federal law

2. By invalidating provisions of the Brady act that required local law enforcement to conduct background checks, the Court reinforced that state legislatures and executives are protected from federal commandeering

Reno v Condon

1. The limits of this doctrine were clarified when it was discovered that not all federal laws affecting states are unconstitutional, only those that commandeer state governments

2. Court upheld a federal law restricting how states could share drivers’ personal data, reasoning that it applied generally and did not require states to enforce a federal program

3 cases demonstrate evolution of anti-commandeering by

Showing the doctrine’s creation, expansion, and refinement

Commerce Clause

Granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes

Gibbons v Ogden

1. Court established a broad interpretation of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce

2. Defined commerce to include not just the exchange of goods, but also navigation and other commercial activities

Wickard v Filburn

1. The Court upheld the federal regulation of wheat grown for personal consumption

2. The Court reasoned that even local, non-communal activity could be regulated if it had substantial effect on interstate commerce

3. This marked the high point of Commerce Clause expansion, allowing Congress to reach deeply into economic life

United States v Lopez

1. Court imposed limits for the first time in decades by striking down a federal law banning guns near schools

2. It held that the activity being regulated was not economic and did not substantially affect interstate commerce

3 cases demonstrate evolution of Commerce Clause by showing cases with

Broad national power, near-total expansion, and then reintroduction of judicially enforced limits on congressional authority

Habeas corpus cases

Rasul v Bush, Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Boumediene v Bush

Anti-commandeering cases

New York v United States, Printz v United States, Reno v Condon

Commerce Clause cases

Gibbons v Ogden, Wickard v Filburn, United States v Lopez