Constitutional Law

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Facts: Adams appointed Marbury as justice of peace in DC; commission wasn't delivered before Jefferson took office; Madison refused to deliver it. Holding: Couldn't issue mandamus because Judiciary Act unconstitutionally expanded Court's original jurisdiction beyond Article III limits. Rule: Courts have power to review and invalidate unconstitutional acts of Congress (judicial review).

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)

Facts: Virginia courts refused to comply with Supreme Court decisions on land claims, claiming Court lacked jurisdiction over state courts. Holding: Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law questions. Rule: Under Article III and Supremacy Clause, Court has jurisdiction over state decisions on federal law to ensure uniform interpretation.

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

Facts: Cohens convicted in Virginia for selling DC lottery tickets; Virginia argued Court lacked jurisdiction over state criminal cases. Holding: Court has jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law questions. Rule: Appellate jurisdiction extends to all constitutional questions, including state criminal cases, regardless of state party status.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Facts: After Brown, Little Rock School Board sought to delay desegregation when Gov. Faubus used National Guard to block Black students. Holding: States cannot nullify federal decisions or delay compliance; all state officials bound by Court interpretations. Rule: Court interpretations of Constitution are "supreme law of the land"; officials bound by oath to support Constitution as interpreted.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Facts: Dick Heller challenged D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawful firearms be kept inoperable at home. Holding: Struck down D.C.'s handgun ban and interoperability requirement as violating Second Amendment rights. Rule: Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including home self-defense.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)

Facts: Challenged New York's "proper cause" requirement for concealed carry permits outside the home. Holding: Struck down "proper cause" requirement as unconstitutional under Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rule: Second Amendment challenges evaluated by text and historical tradition, not interest-balancing tests.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)

Facts: Fishing companies challenged rule requiring them to pay for observers based on agency's interpretation of ambiguous statute. Holding: Overruled Chevron deference, courts should independently interpret statutes without deferring to agencies. Rule: Courts must exercise independent judgment to determine best reading of law rather than defer to agency interpretations.

Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)

Facts: During Dorr Rebellion, competing governments claimed legitimacy in Rhode Island; plaintiff's home was searched by militia under charter government. Holding: Declined to decide which government was legitimate; political question best left to political branches. Rule: Courts cannot decide political questions like legitimacy of state governments; Guarantee Clause claims are nonjusticiable.

Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946)

Facts: Illinois voters challenged congressional district map with vast population disparities. Holding: Declined to intervene in Illinois' redistricting; courts should avoid "political thicket" of redistricting. Rule: Apportionment challenges present political questions beyond judicial competence.

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)

Facts: House excluded elected Representative Adam Clayton Powell Jr. for alleged misuse of funds despite meeting constitutional qualifications. Holding: House can't exclude members who meet constitutional qualifications; can only judge if qualifications are met. Rule: Article I's "judge qualifications" clause limits House to judging age, citizenship, and residency requirements.

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)

Facts: Parents of Black children challenged IRS tax exemptions for discriminatory private schools. Holding: Plaintiffs lacked standing; alleged injury of impaired desegregation too abstract and not traceable to IRS actions. Rule: Standing requires concrete injury fairly traceable to challenged conduct and likely redressable by favorable decision.

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

Facts: Impeached federal judge challenged Senate's use of committee to hear evidence rather than full Senate trial. Holding: Senate has sole discretion to determine impeachment trial procedures. Rule: Constitution's grant of "sole power to try impeachments" to Senate makes impeachment procedure questions nonjusticiable.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

Facts: States and environmental groups petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gases; EPA refused, claiming lack of authority. Holding: States had standing; EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants. Rule: States entitled to "special solicitude" in standing analysis; Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)

Facts: Voters challenged North Carolina and Maryland congressional districts as extreme partisan gerrymanders. Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions. Rule: No judicially manageable standards for evaluating partisan gerrymandering; remedy lies with Congress and state reforms.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1961)

Facts: Tennessee voters challenged state's failure to reapportion legislative districts since 1901 despite population shifts. Holding: Apportionment challenges justiciable under Equal Protection Clause; not barred by political question doctrine. Rule: Courts can review malapportionment claims; established six-factor test for identifying nonjusticiable political questions.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)

Facts: Alabama voters challenged state legislative districts with population disparities up to 41-to-1. Holding: Both houses of state legislatures must be apportioned on population basis. Rule: "One person, one vote" principle requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Facts: Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recount of presidential ballots using varying standards across counties. Holding: Recount order violated Equal Protection Clause; no constitutional recount possible before safe harbor deadline. Rule: Equal Protection requires uniform standards in vote counting; decision "limited to present circumstances."

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023)

Facts: North Carolina legislators challenged state court's rejection of gerrymandered congressional map, claiming "independent state legislature theory." Holding: Rejected independent state legislature theory; state courts can review state legislatures' federal election regulations. Rule: Elections Clause doesn't insulate state legislatures from state constitutional constraints when regulating federal elections.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Facts: Maryland imposed tax on all banks not chartered by state; cashier McCulloch of Second Bank of United States refused to pay. Holding: National bank constitutional under Necessary and Proper Clause; states cannot tax federal instrumentalities. Rule: Federal government possesses implied powers reasonably adapted to legitimate ends; state action cannot impede valid federal laws.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

Facts: Agricultural Adjustment Act imposed processing tax on agricultural commodities to fund payments to farmers who reduced production. Holding: AAA exceeded congressional authority; agricultural production regulation reserved to states. Rule: Taxing and spending power separate from other enumerated powers but cannot coerce state action in areas reserved to states.

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Facts: Federal law withheld 5% of highway funds from states with drinking age below 21; South Dakota (allowing 19-year-olds) challenged. Holding: Spending condition constitutional; modest financial inducement not coercive. Rule: Congress may attach conditions on federal funds if: clearly stated, related to federal interest, not barred by other provisions, not coercive.

Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004)

Facts: Real estate developer charged with bribing city councilor; challenged federal bribery statute requiring only that organization received federal funds. Holding: Bribery statute constitutional; no need to prove connection between bribe and federal funds. Rule: Congress may criminalize conduct threatening federal funds integrity; no need for case-by-case connection between criminal conduct and federal dollars.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

Facts: New York granted Ogden exclusive steamboat operation rights; Gibbons operated competing ferry with federal license. Holding: Federal navigation license preempted state-granted monopoly; Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority. Rule: Commerce power extends to all commercial intercourse among states; state laws yielding to valid federal legislation.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)

Facts: Congress imposed tax on products of child labor after Hammer invalidated direct prohibition. Holding: Tax unconstitutional; penalty disguised as tax to regulate child labor. Rule: Congress cannot use taxing power to regulate matters reserved to states; courts will examine regulatory nature of "taxes."

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937)

Facts: Steel company challenged NLRB jurisdiction over unfair labor practices at manufacturing facilities. Holding: NLRA constitutional; labor relations have substantial effects on interstate commerce. Rule: Commerce power extends to intrastate activities substantially affecting interstate commerce; abandoned direct/indirect distinction.

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941)

Facts: Lumber manufacturer challenged Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and maximum hour provisions. Holding: FLSA constitutional; explicitly overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart. Rule: Commerce power includes regulation of intrastate activities with substantial interstate effects; production conditions legitimate concerns.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Facts: Farmer challenged wheat production quotas applied to wheat grown for personal consumption. Holding: Regulation of wheat grown for personal use constitutional; aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Rule: Activities with trivial impact individually may be regulated if aggregate class effect substantially impacts interstate commerce.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)

Facts: Motel refusing to accommodate Black guests challenged Civil Rights Act public accommodations provisions. Holding: Commerce Clause authorized prohibition of racial discrimination in accommodations serving interstate travelers. Rule: Commerce power extends to local activities substantially affecting interstate commerce, regardless of Congress's moral motives.

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)

Facts: Restaurant refusing service to Black customers challenged Civil Rights Act's application to local restaurant. Holding: Commerce Clause authorized regulation of restaurant purchasing substantial interstate supplies. Rule: Restaurant's discriminatory practices affected interstate commerce by restricting market for interstate goods.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)

Facts: Municipal transit authority challenged application of federal minimum wage laws. Holding: Fair Labor Standards Act constitutionally applied to state and local governments; overturned National League of Cities. Rule: States' interests protected through political process, not judicially enforced immunity from generally applicable laws.

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

Facts: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act required states to provide disposal sites or "take title" to radioactive waste; New York challenged provisions. Holding: "Take title" provision unconstitutional; Congress cannot compel states to implement federal regulatory programs. Rule: Federal government may incentivize state action through spending or preemption but cannot "commandeer" state legislative processes.

Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997)

Facts: Local sheriffs challenged Brady Act provision requiring them to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. Holding: Provision unconstitutional; federal government cannot commandeer state executive officials. Rule: Federal government cannot compel state officials to administer federal regulatory programs; violates dual sovereignty principles.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Facts: High school student challenged Gun-Free School Zones Act criminalizing firearm possession within 1,000 feet of schools. Holding: Act exceeded Commerce Clause authority; possession of guns near schools not economic activity substantially affecting interstate commerce. Rule: Commerce power limited to: (1) channels of interstate commerce; (2) instrumentalities/persons/things in commerce; (3) activities substantially affecting commerce.

Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141

Facts - SC challenged Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) prohibiting states from disclosing drivers' personal info without consent; claimed law violated 10th Amend. Holding - Act constitutional; doesn't violate federalism principles. Rule - Federal law regulating state databases valid when regulating interstate commerce in information, not commanding state regulatory apparatus.

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)

Facts - Woman sued attackers under Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) providing federal civil remedy for gender-motivated violence; defendants challenged constitutionality. Holding - VAWA exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority. Rule - Gender-motivated violence not economic activity; aggregate impact insufficient for Commerce Clause regulation; cannot regulate non-economic violent criminal conduct based solely on effects on interstate commerce.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

Facts - California residents legally growing marijuana for medical use under state law; DEA seized and destroyed plants; growers sued claiming federal CSA unconstitutional as applied. Holding - CSA constitutional as applied; Congress can regulate intrastate marijuana cultivation. Rule - Congress may regulate purely local activities if part of comprehensive regulation of economic activity substantially affecting interstate commerce, even if activity itself intrastate and non-commercial.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. 453 (2018)

Facts - NJ challenged Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) prohibiting states from authorizing sports gambling. Holding - PASPA's prohibition unconstitutional; violates anti-commandeering principle. Rule - Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures; prohibition on authorizing activity = unconstitutional commandeering of state regulatory power.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)

Facts - Congress passed Affordable Care Act requiring individuals maintain health insurance or pay penalty; expanded Medicaid, threatened to withhold existing funding from non-participating states. Holding - Individual mandate constitutional under taxing power, not Commerce Clause; Medicaid expansion's funding threat unconstitutionally coercive. Rule - Congress cannot regulate inactivity under Commerce Clause; taxing power permits penalties despite regulatory purpose; withholding existing funds to force state program expansion exceeds spending power.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

Facts - NY granted steamboat monopoly to Ogden; Gibbons operated competing ferry with federal license; Ogden sued to enforce monopoly. Holding - Federal navigation license preempted state monopoly grant; NY law invalid. Rule - Commerce power extends to all commercial intercourse between states; valid federal legislation in commerce area preempts conflicting state laws.

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963)

Facts - CA law excluded FL avocados not meeting CA oil content standard despite meeting federal maturity standards; FL growers challenged law as preempted. Holding - CA law not preempted by federal regulations; both could coexist. Rule - Federal law preempts state law only when compliance with both is physically impossible or state law obstructs congressional objectives.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983)

Facts - CA imposed moratorium on new nuclear plants pending waste storage solution; utilities challenged as preempted by Atomic Energy Act. Holding - State law not preempted; economic concerns within state authority. Rule - Federal preemption doesn't extend to state laws regulating nuclear power for economic rather than safety reasons; states retain traditional authority over economic questions.

Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)

Facts - MA restricted tobacco advertising near schools/playgrounds; effectively banned ads in 90% of urban areas; tobacco companies challenged. Holding - State regulations preempted by Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Rule - Federal law expressly preempts state regulation of cigarette advertising; comprehensive federal scheme occupies field of tobacco promotion regulation.

Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1851)

Facts - PA law required ships entering/leaving Philadelphia harbor to use local pilot or pay fee to support retired pilots; challenged as violating Commerce Clause. Holding - PA pilotage law constitutional; states may regulate local aspects of interstate commerce. Rule - States may regulate matters of local concern affecting interstate commerce where uniform national regulation not required; "selective exclusiveness" doctrine.

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978)

Facts - NJ law prohibited importing waste from other states; Philadelphia and private landfill operators challenged. Holding - NJ law violated dormant Commerce Clause; discriminatory against interstate commerce. Rule - States cannot discriminate against interstate commerce by blocking imports unless serving legitimate local purpose that cannot be served by non-discriminatory alternatives.

Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, 588 U.S. 504 (2019)

Facts - TN required 2-year residency for retail liquor store license; out-of-state retailers challenged as violating dormant Commerce Clause. Holding - Residency requirement unconstitutional; violates dormant Commerce Clause. Rule - 21st Amendment doesn't shield state alcohol laws from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny; protectionist alcohol regulations invalid unless advancing legitimate local purpose.

Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951)

Facts - Madison ordinance required milk sold in city be pasteurized within 5 miles of city center; out-of-state milk processor challenged as discriminatory. Holding - Ordinance violated Commerce Clause; unjustifiable local discrimination against interstate commerce. Rule - Even non-discriminatory health measures invalid if reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives available; local health concerns cannot justify economic protectionism.

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)

Facts - NC law required all apple containers sold/shipped in state display only USDA grade or no grade; Washington used superior state grading system. Holding - NC law discriminated against Washington apple industry; violated Commerce Clause. Rule - State laws burdening interstate commerce by raising costs for out-of-state businesses while giving advantage to in-state competitors violate Commerce Clause.

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (1978)

Facts - MD law prohibited petroleum producers/refiners from operating retail gas stations in state; primarily affected out-of-state companies. Holding - Law constitutional; didn't discriminate against interstate commerce despite disproportionate impact. Rule - Laws affecting out-of-state businesses more than in-state businesses permissible if treating all similarly situated businesses equally; no facial discrimination or protectionist purpose.

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981)

Facts - MN banned retail sale of milk in plastic nonreturnable containers but allowed paper ones; dairy industry challenged. Holding - Law upheld; legitimate environmental purpose, not disguised economic protectionism. Rule - Facially neutral laws with legitimate local purpose valid despite incidental interstate commerce burdens unless burden clearly exceeds local benefits.

Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986)

Facts - ME banned importation of live baitfish from out-of-state; baitfish shipper challenged law. Holding - Ban constitutional despite discrimination; legitimate environmental purpose with no less restrictive alternatives. Rule - States may restrict interstate commerce through discriminatory means only where showing legitimate local purpose cannot be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives.

West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994)

Facts - MA imposed tax on all milk sold to retailers but distributed proceeds as subsidy only to in-state dairy farmers. Holding - Tax-subsidy scheme unconstitutional; discriminatory against interstate commerce. Rule - Facially neutral taxes combined with subsidies benefiting only in-state businesses constitute discriminatory trade barriers; violate Commerce Clause principles.

Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970)

Facts - AZ law required in-state packaging of cantaloupes before interstate shipment; company shipped unpackaged cantaloupes to CA packing facility. Holding - AZ law unconstitutional; state interest in identifying AZ-grown cantaloupes insufficient to justify burden. Rule - When state law regulates evenhandedly with legitimate local purpose, courts balance burden on interstate commerce against putative local benefits.

Reeves Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980)

Facts - SD state-owned cement plant restricted sales to SD residents during shortage; out-of-state buyer challenged policy. Holding - Policy constitutional; market participant exception applies. Rule - States acting as market participants rather than market regulators exempt from dormant Commerce Clause restrictions.

South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984)

Facts - AK required purchasers of state-owned timber to process it in-state before export; timber company challenged restriction. Holding - Restriction unconstitutional; exceeds market participant exception. Rule - Market participant exception limited to immediate market; state cannot impose downstream restrictions beyond its market participation.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023)

Facts - CA law banned sale of pork from breeding pigs confined in crates; primarily affected out-of-state producers. Holding - Law upheld; doesn't violate dormant Commerce Clause despite extraterritorial effects. Rule - State law with indirect upstream effects on out-of-state production methods constitutional absent discrimination or protectionist purpose.

Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948)

Facts - SC imposed $25 license fee for residents, $2,500 for non-residents to shrimp commercially in coastal waters; non-resident fishermen challenged. Holding - Law violated Privileges and Immunities Clause; discriminatory fee structure unconstitutional. Rule - States cannot discriminate against non-residents unless non-residents constitute peculiar source of evil law addresses; commercial fishing protected by Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)

Facts - MT charged substantially higher elk hunting license fees for non-residents ($225) than residents ($4); non-resident hunters challenged. Holding - Fee differential constitutional; recreational hunting not fundamental right protected by Privileges and Immunities Clause. Rule - Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only fundamental rights essential to national unity; recreational activity distinctions permissible.

United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984)

Facts - Camden ordinance required 40% of employees on city construction projects be Camden residents; labor organization challenged. Holding - Ordinance subject to Privileges and Immunities Clause scrutiny despite being municipal not state law. Rule - Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to municipal ordinances; opportunity to work for private contractors on public projects protected by Clause.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)

Facts - NH required state residency for bar admission; attorney living 400 yards from NH border in VT challenged after passing NH bar exam. Holding - Residency requirement violated Privileges and Immunities Clause; state failed to show substantial reason for discrimination. Rule - Practice of law protected by Privileges and Immunities Clause; state concerns about non-resident attorneys' ethical conduct, familiarity with local rules insufficient justification.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)

Facts - Poultry Corp. challenged convictions under "Live Poultry Code" promulgated under National Industrial Recovery Act, which delegated code-making authority to President. Holding - NIRA unconstitutional; impermissible delegation of legislative power to President. Rule - Congress cannot delegate legislative power without setting clear standards; vague directives like "fair competition" insufficient to guide executive discretion.

Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128 (2019)

Facts - Sex offender challenged Attorney General's authority under SORNA to determine registration requirements' applicability to pre-Act offenders. Holding - Delegation constitutional; statute provided sufficient standards to guide discretion. Rule - Congress may delegate implementation details if providing "intelligible principle" to guide executive discretion; statute must be interpreted to avoid delegation concerns.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

Facts - Alien's deportation suspended by Attorney General; House of Representatives vetoed suspension using one-house veto provision in Immigration Act. Holding - One-house legislative veto unconstitutional; violates bicameralism and presentment requirements. Rule - Legislative actions require passage by both houses of Congress and presentment to President; Congress cannot reserve power to veto executive actions without following constitutional procedures.

Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023)

Facts - States challenged Education Department's student loan forgiveness program implemented under HEROES Act authority. Holding - Loan forgiveness program exceeded statutory authority; major questions doctrine applied. Rule - Executive agencies cannot implement policies of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization; courts skeptical of agency claims to discover dormant authority in long-existing statutes.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)

Facts - Cherokee Nation seeking injunction against Georgia laws divesting Cherokee of land rights; claimed jurisdiction under Article III provision for cases between state and foreign state. Holding - Court lacked jurisdiction; Cherokee Nation not a foreign state under Constitution. Rule - Indian tribes are "domestic dependent nations"; relationship to US resembles ward to guardian, not foreign nations.

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832)

Facts - Missionary convicted under Georgia law requiring non-Indians obtain license to reside on Cherokee territory; claimed Georgia law violated federal treaties. Holding - Georgia law unconstitutional; Cherokee Nation sovereign, state law preempted by federal authority. Rule - Federal government holds exclusive authority over relations with Indian tribes; states cannot extend laws over Indian territory.

Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000)

Facts - DC residents sued claiming denial of congressional representation violated Constitution; sought declaration that DC entitled to representation. Holding - Claim rejected; Constitution limits congressional representation to "States." Rule - Article I's reference to "States" excludes District of Columbia; constitutional structure demonstrates framers' intent to deny representation to federal district.

Igartua De La Rosa v. United States, 229 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2000)

Facts - Puerto Rico residents sued claiming right to vote in presidential elections; challenged constitutionality of excluding territories. Holding - No constitutional right to presidential vote for Puerto Rico residents; only states appoint electors. Rule - Only residents of states have right to vote for presidential electors; Constitution does not guarantee territories electoral representation without statehood.

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Facts - Japanese-American citizen convicted for remaining in designated military area contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order requiring relocation of all persons of Japanese ancestry; challenged order's constitutionality. Holding - Exclusion order upheld; military necessity during wartime justified racial classification. Rule - Racial classifications subject to strict scrutiny but may be justified by pressing public necessity; war and national security can constitute such necessity.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Facts - President Truman ordered seizure of steel mills during labor dispute to prevent strike disrupting Korean War materials production; mill owners challenged constitutionality. Holding - Seizure unconstitutional; exceeded presidential power absent specific statutory or constitutional authorization. Rule - Presidential power at lowest ebb when acting contrary to congressional will; executive action must stem from constitutional provision or statute.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Facts - US citizen captured in Afghanistan designated "enemy combatant" and detained without formal charges or proceedings; father filed habeas petition challenging detention. Holding - Citizen-detainees entitled to notice of factual basis for classification and opportunity to rebut before neutral decisionmaker. Rule - Due process requires balancing individual's liberty interest against government's asserted interest; war powers do not give President blank check regarding rights of citizens.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)

Facts - Non-citizen Guantanamo detainees challenged constitutionality of Military Commissions Act denying federal courts jurisdiction over habeas petitions. Holding - MCA unconstitutional; detainees entitled to habeas corpus rights; Guantanamo under de facto US sovereignty. Rule - Constitution's extraterritorial application depends on practical considerations, not formal sovereignty; Suspension Clause applies where US exercises control.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Facts - Ethics in Government Act created independent counsel appointed by court, removable by Attorney General only for "good cause"; challenged as violating separation of powers. Holding - Independent counsel provisions constitutional; no violation of separation of powers. Rule - Limited "good cause" restriction on President's removal power permissible for inferior officers with limited jurisdiction and tenure.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010)

Facts - Sarbanes-Oxley created PCAOB with members removable by SEC only for good cause; SEC commissioners themselves removable by President only for good cause. Holding - Dual for-cause removal protection unconstitutional; violated separation of powers. Rule - Double layer of tenure protection unconstitutionally restricts presidential control; President must have ability to hold those executing laws accountable.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014)

Facts - Company challenged NLRB ruling arguing Board lacked quorum because Obama's recess appointments occurred during Senate's pro forma sessions. Holding - Appointments invalid; Recess Appointments Clause only applies during significant Senate breaks. Rule - President may make recess appointments during breaks of sufficient length; pro forma sessions where Senate technically meets prevent recess appointments.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020)

Facts - CFPB structure had single Director removable by President only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance; challenged as unconstitutional. Holding - Removal restriction unconstitutional for single director; severable from rest of statute. Rule - For-cause removal restrictions permissible only for multi-member bodies and inferior officers with limited duties; unconstitutional for single-director agencies.

Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021)

Facts - Federal Housing Finance Agency had single Director removable only for cause; shareholders challenged agency actions and structure's constitutionality. Holding - Removal restriction unconstitutional; similar to Seila Law case. Rule - Presidential removal power extends to heads of single-director agencies regardless of agency's market participation or lack of regulatory authority.

United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021)

Facts - Administrative Patent Judges issued final decisions unreviewable by Director; patent owner challenged as violating Appointments Clause. Holding - Structure unconstitutional; inferior officers cannot issue final decisions without principal officer review. Rule - Unreviewable authority to issue final decisions incompatible with inferior officer status; principal officer must have review authority over inferior officers.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Facts - Special prosecutor subpoenaed Nixon's Oval Office tapes during Watergate investigation; Nixon claimed executive privilege to withhold materials. Holding - Executive privilege exists but is not absolute; must yield to judicial needs in criminal case. Rule - President's generalized confidentiality interest yields to specific need for evidence in criminal proceedings; courts can review executive privilege claims.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Facts - Air Force analyst fired after testifying to Congress about cost overruns; sued President Nixon for role in dismissal. Holding - President has absolute immunity from civil damages for official acts while in office. Rule - Presidents absolutely immune from civil damages liability for official acts; immunity rooted in constitutional separation of powers.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)

Facts - Paula Jones filed civil suit against President Clinton for alleged sexual harassment occurring before presidency. Holding - No temporary immunity from suit for unofficial acts occurring before presidency. Rule - President subject to civil suits for unofficial conduct predating presidency; litigation may proceed while President in office.

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786 (2020)

Facts - NY District Attorney subpoenaed Trump's tax records as part of criminal investigation; Trump claimed absolute immunity. Holding - President not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoena process. Rule - Article II and Supremacy Clause don't categorically preclude state criminal subpoenas; President may raise specific privilege claims against specific subpoenas.

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)

Facts - Trump indicted for actions related to 2020 election, including spreading false fraud claims to obstruct election certification; Trump claimed presidential immunity. Holding - Presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for official acts; no immunity for unofficial acts. Rule - President has presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibility; government must show applying criminal prohibition poses no danger to executive branch.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

Facts - Slave catcher Prigg seized escaped slave in PA; convicted under PA law requiring judicial approval before removing alleged fugitive slaves; challenged PA law as unconstitutional. Holding - PA law unconstitutional; federal government has exclusive power over fugitive slave rendition. Rule - Fugitive Slave Clause grants exclusive federal power; states cannot legislate procedures for return of escaped slaves; federal law preempts state law in this area.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Facts - Slave Scott sued for freedom after living in free territory with master; claimed residence in free state/territory made him free. Holding - Blacks not citizens, cannot sue in federal courts; residence in free territory doesn't confer freedom; Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Rule - Constitution affords no rights to blacks, enslaved or free; Congress cannot bar slavery in territories; slaves are property protected by 5th Amendment due process, cannot be taken without compensation.

The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

Facts - Five consolidated cases challenging 1875 Civil Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations; private businesses refused service to Black customers. Holding - Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional; 14th Amendment prohibits only state action, not private discrimination. Rule - 14th Amendment prohibits only discriminatory state action, not private conduct; Congress lacks power under 14th Amendment to regulate private discrimination.

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)

Facts - Woman sued attackers under Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) providing federal civil remedy for gender-motivated violence; defendants challenged constitutionality. Holding - VAWA exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority; 14th Amendment enforcement powers limited to state action. Rule - 14th Amendment enforcement power limited to remedying state action; Congress cannot regulate private violence against women through Commerce Clause or 14th Amendment.

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)

Facts - Black family purchased home subject to racially restrictive covenant; white neighbors sued to enforce covenant and prevent occupancy. Holding - Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constitutes state action, violates 14th Amendment. Rule - Court enforcement of private discriminatory agreements constitutes state action subject to 14th Amendment limitations; state cannot enforce private racial discrimination.

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)

Facts - Restaurant leasing space in public parking garage refused service to Black customer; restaurant claimed private business status exempted it from 14th Amendment. Holding - Restaurant's discrimination constitutes state action due to symbiotic relationship with government agency. Rule - State action exists when government and private entity maintain interdependent, mutually beneficial relationship; state cannot become passive participant in private discrimination.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001)

Facts - Private athletic association regulating public school sports sanctioned private school; school claimed association's actions constituted state action. Holding - Athletic association's actions constituted state action due to "entwinement" with state. Rule - Private entity's actions constitute state action when "entwined" with government; relevant factors include public official participation, public school majority membership, state recognition of entity's authority.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1945)

Facts - Jehovah's Witness arrested for distributing religious literature in company-owned town without permit; town functioned like any municipality but was wholly owned by Gulf Shipbuilding Corp. Holding - Private company town subject to First Amendment constraints; conviction reversed. Rule - Private entity performing public function (operating entire town) subject to constitutional limitations; public interest in free communication outweighs property rights.

Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953)

Facts - Private Democratic association (Jaybird Party) held pre-primary elections excluding Black voters; winners invariably won official primary and general election. Holding - Private political organization's exclusionary primary violates 15th Amendment; constitutes unconstitutional state action. Rule - Private organization functioning as integral part of electoral process performs state function; exclusion of voters based on race unconstitutional regardless of formal "private" status.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)

Facts - Privately owned utility terminated customer's service without hearing; customer claimed utility performed public function requiring due process. Holding - Utility's termination procedures not state action despite regulation and partial monopoly. Rule - Heavily regulated business with partial monopoly not performing "public function" unless traditionally exclusive state prerogative; state regulation alone insufficient for state action.

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (2019)

Facts - Nonprofit operating public access cable channels suspended producers; producers claimed First Amendment violation, arguing nonprofit performed public function. Holding - Nonprofit's operation of public access channels not state action; First Amendment claims dismissed. Rule - Private entity not state actor absent government coercion, control, or when performing traditional, exclusive government function; merely hosting speech forum insufficient for state action.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972)

Facts - Private club with state liquor license refused service to Black guest; guest claimed license created sufficient state involvement to trigger 14th Amendment. Holding - Private club's discrimination not state action; mere licensure insufficient to create state action. Rule - State's grant of benefit/license to private entity insufficient to convert private discrimination into state action absent showing that state encouraged/enforced discriminatory policy.

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991)

Facts - Civil litigant used peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race; defendant claimed private litigants in civil cases not bound by Equal Protection restrictions. Holding - Race-based peremptory challenges by private civil litigants constitute state action; violate equal protection. Rule - Private entities using government facilities (courts) to perform traditional government function (jury selection) with substantial state involvement constitutes state action.