con law cases

Marbury v. Madison

establishes judicial review; scramble for commission of judges and Marbury didn’t get his in time, Madison wouldn’t deliver; the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional because it gave judiciary OG jurisdiction over writ of mandamus, which Art III does not.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

state court decisions; land dispute where VA sct refused to follow SCOTUS judgment; SCOTUS can review state court cases involving federal law.

Cooper v. Aaron

judicial review of non-parties; board wanted to pause desegregation after previous SCOTUS decision; SCOTUS interpretation is supreme law of land even for non-parties.

Baker v. Carr

Political question factors; TN voters claimed apportionment of state legis violated their rights under EP clause; not a PQ because

Nixon v. US (judge)

Political question; this was a political question because text says “the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments” and no manageable standards because

Allen v. Wright

standing; no standing because

• sending aid to discrim schools is not a concrete/particularized injury (just showing violation of laws or stigmatic injury suffered by whole race)

• tax exemptions preventing desegregation of schools is an injury, but is not fairly traceable to IRS

  • also not likely to be redressed, if we punish IRS probably won’t change what schools are doing.

Lujan

No standing because

• injury not particularized, conjecture about seeing wild animals in the future not enough.

• not redressable: our funding is only a small slice, these activities would continue without US funding.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Necessary means “plainly adapted.” The framers knew how to say “absolutely necessary” and didn’t. The bank is plainly adapted to carry out enumerated powers (such as…). Since the power to tax is power to destroy, MD can’t tax.

Gibbons v. Ogden

navigation as part of commerce; NY cannot give Ogden an exclusive license that conflicts with Gibbon’s federal license because navigation is a part of commerce. Applies to interior because commerce is intermingled with trade.

US v. EC Knight

direct effects test; the monopoly on sugar happened within the state and refining only happens within the state, no direct effect on interstate commerce. Price here is too far on the chain of causation.

Shreveport Rate Case

instrumentalities of IC; TX charged LA trains higher rates, ICC ordered lowering of rates. Constitutional because intrastate rail rates are an instrumentality of interstate commerce.

Champion v. Ames

regulation can mean prohibition; congress could prevent transport of lottery tickets across state lines because the tickets have entered interstate traffic and commerce.

Hammer v. Dagenhart

no prohibiting “harmful production:” Child labor act cannot prohibit interstate shipment of goods made with child labor because things are simply made in a harmful way (creation-specific, not good-specific)

• the creation was purely intrastate

Carter v. Carter Coal

direct effects test; Congress couldn’t regulate prices, wages, and hours of coal industry because production and manufacturing was purely local.

• no direct effect BECAUSE

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel

close and substantial; NLRA constitutionally required ability to unionize because steel production has a “close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce”

• steel is different than coal; business operations are themselves part of state commerce

US v. Darby

“so affects” test OVERRULES HAMMER; fair labor standards act forces employers to pay a minimum wage for goods to enter state commerce, magnitude of activity on state commerce matters now instead of proximity.

Wickard v. Filburn

so affects + aggregation; congress could regulate wheat for personal use because of the aggregate economic impact of all farmers growing their own wheat. Congress can regulate prices, and this regulation was rationally related to the goal.

• don’t need data, just the court coming up with a rational basis

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

local commercial activity; congress can forbid discrimination in places of public accommodation under the commerce clause because it has a significant effect on interstate commerce, impacting travel and trade across state lines.

• uncertainty disincentivizes travel = huge aggregate impact.

Katzenbach v. McClung

Even more local activity;

Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer

President did not have power to take possession of steel mills to keep them running. Jackson framework

1. congressional authorization of presidential action

2. congressional silence

3. congressional disapproval (court must choose one or the other)

Dames and Moore v. Regan

Implied congressional approval; President has the authority to suspend US litigation because of implied congressional approval (freezing iranian litigation)

US v. Curtiss Wright

Delegation of foreign affairs; congress gave president authority to determine whether selling arms in south america is a crime, constitutional delegation because president handles foreign affairs.

Goldwater v. Carter

unilateral executive action + PQ; Carter unilaterally ended a treaty with taiwan, PQ because in his authority to conduct foreign relations, Baker 1 (no judicially manageable standards)

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi was detained in US without process; the Supreme Court held that U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants, but are entitled to habeas corpus rights.

US v. Nixon 1974

no absolute immunity from judicial process; balancing test for handing over evidence (executive privilege) because Nixon’s interest was general (confidentiality) and court needs the evidence for this specific case.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

immunity from civil actions during office; Fitzgerald sues Nixon for firing him, but balancing turns into a categorical rule against civil suit for official actions taken in office because civil litigation would cause

1. chilling effect

2. diversion of energies

Clinton v. Jones

no absolute immunity from civil suits for actions BEFORE presidency; Clinton sued for being sexual creepo

unofficial action, also

1. no chilling effect (not president at time and not an official action)

2. little diversion of energies; presidents haven’t been sued left and right, district court can accomodate

Trump v. United States

Criminal case,

1. core constitutional duties: absolute immunity

2. official conduct: presumptive immunity, gov must show executive function won’t be impeded

3. unofficial: no immunity

Whitman v. Am Trucking

intelligible principle test; EPA requisite for public health is not a delegation because intelligible

Mistretta v. US

sentencing delegation; delegation to Sentencing Commission is constitutional because congress gave so many guidelines. Scalia thinks it is JV congress because they don’t enforce but give rules to judges.

INS v. Chadha

legislative veto; Chadha overstays his visa and per statute immigration judge says he can stay, but Congress snuck in a veto and said he must leave. Unconstitutional because finely wrought system of bicameralism and presentment not used.

Clinton v. NY

line item veto; for spending provisions, also unconstitutional because it gives president unilateral ability to change the law

Lucia v. SEC

who is an officer?: Lucia’s fraud scheme busted by ALJ who was employed by SEC staff, not appointed. Unconstitutional because ALJ is an officer, he had to be appointed.

Myers v. US

strong unitary executive; postmaster could only be removed by senate and pres, unconstitutional because congress cannot reserve a hand in removal to itself.

Humphrey’s executor

for cause removal; FDR removed Humph, for cause was ok because FTC is quasi legis/judicial

Bowsher v. Synar

congress can’t reserve a hand in removal; comptroller was only removable by congress, unconstitutional because Congress cannot retain removal power over an official who executes the laws except by impeachment.

Morrison v. Olson

functional “undue interference”/inferior officer; its constitutional that special prosecutor was not removable by president because exec power not unduly impeded.

PCAOB

2 layers of for cause removal is not constitutional

Seila Law v. CFPB

Single director could not be for-cause removal, new framework:

assume unconstitutional unless

1. multimember body of principal officers, insulated because expert

2. morrison: inferior officer with narrowly defined duties.

Barron v. Baltimore

Bill of rights for fed gov only; maryland state gov diverted streams and made Barron’s wharf unusable, no clear statement that BoR applied to states.

Slaughterhouse cases

P+I in 14A refers to Fed Gov rights (lame list); slaughterhouse monopoly violated right to exercise labor how butchers wanted to but this is not a fed priv and immun

Katzenbach v. Morgan

congress can pass reasonably adapted laws to enforce 14A; even though no violation of EqP, it increased the protection of minority voting rights.

City of Boerne v. Flores

RFRA goes beyond enforcement into creating new rights; laws have to be congruent and proportional (is a neutral zoning law religious discrimination?)