Judicial Power, Executive Prerogatives, and Separation of Powers

Vocabulary flashcards covering core concepts, landmark Supreme Court cases, doctrines, and constitutional law principles from lecture notes.

Federalist No. 78

Foundational text addressing the scope of judicial power and the rationale for judicial review.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Landmark decision establishing the principle of judicial review in the United States.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Supreme Court case affirming the federal judiciary's authority to review state criminal proceedings under judicial review.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)

Supreme Court case establishing the supremacy of federal courts over state courts on federal statutory and constitutional questions.

Eakin v. Raub (1825): Gibson’s Dissent

Notable Pennsylvania state court dissent by Justice Gibson arguing against the legitimacy of judicial review.

Ashwander v. TVA (1936)

Decision setting forth the Brandeis Rules to avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings on threshold cases and controversies questions.

Bellotti v. Baird (1979)

Case concerning an abortion statute addressing the threshold issue of courts rendering advisory opinions.

Frothingham v. Mellon (1923)

Denied federal taxpayer standing to challenge expenditures as takings violations, ruling that taking property through tax dollars does not confer standing.

Flast v. Cohen (1968)

Established the Flast Test, granting taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending allocated to religious schools under the Establishment Clause.

United States v. Richardson (1974)

Denied taxpayer standing to challenge CIA spending; held that while part 1 of the Flast logical link was met, no sufficient nexus existed.

Allen v. Wright (1984)

Denied taxpayer standing in a desegregation challenge against the IRS because the causal connection was too attenuated.

DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974)

Dismissed a law school admissions challenge on the threshold question of mootness because the plaintiff was about to graduate.

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

Dismissed a constitutional challenge to Connecticut Comstock Laws regarding contraceptives on ripeness grounds because the parties had not yet been prosecuted.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Established legal standards for identifying nonjusticiable political questions; determined that reapportionment challenges do not present a political question and accepted jurisdiction.

Nixon v. United States (1973)

Held that a federal judge's challenge to the Senate's use of a committee of senators to hear evidence in an impeachment trial is a nonjusticiable political question.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

Upheld a presidential arms embargo against non-delegation challenges, declaring the President to be the sole organ of the federal government in international relations.

Zivitovsky v. Kerry (2015)

Held that the President has exclusive foreign recognition power under the Article II, Section 3 Reception Clause regarding passport designations of Israel.

Haig v. Agee (1981)

Upheld the executive's authority to revoke the passport of an individual exposing the CIA, holding that Congressional silence does not equate to Congressional disapproval in foreign affairs and national security.

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

Upheld presidential entry restrictions (the 'muslim ban'), ruling that the President possesses broad statutory authority under the INA to screen foreigners and restrict entry.

The Prize Cases (1863)

Held that Lincoln's civil war naval blockade was valid under Commander in Chief powers; because the Civil War was never formally declared, no prior Congressional declaration was necessary.

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

Held that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus for a civilian without meaningful opportunity if civilian courts and civil government remain open and functioning.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Upheld FDR's military internment orders by deferring to Congress and the military on matters of national security.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952)

Held Truman's seizure of steel mills unconstitutional because presidential authority must derive from the Constitution or an act of Congress; established Justice Jackson's three-bucket framework.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Held that the government cannot impose prior restraint on news publications under the First Amendment, even amidst national security claims.

Goldwater v. Carter (1979)

Treated the question of whether the President can unilaterally terminate a treaty with Taiwan as a nonjusticiable political question.

Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)

Upheld executive agreements terminating domestic litigation pursuant to foreign policy negotiations with Iran, recognizing narrow presidential authority in foreign affairs and national security.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Ruled that a detained U.S. citizen classified as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay is entitled to the factual basis for classification, a fair opportunity to rebut, a neutral third-party decisionmaker, and legal counsel.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

Held that conspiracy is not a recognized war crime under statutory authorization, ruled military commission evidentiary rules improper, and established that Geneva Convention protections for POWs are enforceable in federal courts.

Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

Held that every detainee at Guantanamo Bay possesses the constitutional right to a habeas corpus hearing and struck down the Military Commissions Act (MCA) as unconstitutional for stripping court jurisdiction.

Dellums v. Bush (1990)

D.C. District Court ruling that the executive cannot define war through semantics (Congress decides), but finding the challenge not ripe due to the absence of formal Congressional action.

Campbell v. Clinton (2000)

D.C. Circuit decision finding that members of Congress lacked standing to challenge Clinton deploying troops to Bosnia, holding the issue nonjusticiable and consistent with war powers and Commander in Chief authority.

Bowsher v. Synar (1986)

Struck down provisions of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act authorizing the Comptroller General to mandate budget cuts as a violation of separation of powers, holding that an executive official cannot be accountable to Congress.

Morrison v. Olson (1988)

Upheld the 1978 Ethics in Government Act's independent counsel provision against Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2), Article III, and separation of powers challenges, ruling the independent counsel is an inferior officer.

Inferior Officer (Morrison v. Olson Standard)

An officer characterized by removability by a higher executive official (the Attorney General), a limited scope of duties, and restricted statutory jurisdiction and tenure.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Held that the method of appointing members to the Federal Election Commission violated the Appointments Clause because Congress cannot confer upon itself the power to appoint officials performing executive functions.

NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014)

Held that the Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 Recess Appointments Clause applies to inter-session and intra-session recesses of at least 10 days, but Senate pro forma sessions count as active sessions under the Senate's own rules.

Myers v. United States (1926)

Affirmed that Article II grants the President exclusive at-will removal power over executive officials, such as postmasters, without requiring Senate advice and consent.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)

Limited the presidential removal rule in Myers by holding that Congress can restrict presidential removal to for-cause standards for commissioners of nonpartisan, quasi-judicial, and quasi-legislative independent agencies like the FTC.

Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010)

Held that dual-level for-cause removal limitations insulating the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board from the President violate the Article II Vesting Clause.

Hampton & Co. v. United States (1928)

Upheld statutory delegation allowing the President to adjust tariffs, ruling that delegation is valid if Congress provides an intelligible principle.

Schechter Corp. v. United States (1935)

Struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act, holding that Congress cannot abdicate legislative authority to private industry groups and that the intelligible principle doctrine does not cover private third parties.

West Virginia v. EPA (2022)

Applied the major questions doctrine to hold that administrative agencies must possess clear and explicit Congressional delegation when regulating issues of vast economic and political significance.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)

Overturned Chevron deference, establishing that courts must exercise independent judgment when interpreting ambiguous statutory text rather than deferring to administrative agency constructions.

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

Struck down the Line Item Veto Act under the Presentment Clause because the President lacks constitutional authority to unilaterally enact, amend, or repeal statutory text.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983)

Held the one-house legislative veto unconstitutional for violating bicameralism and presentment, but ruled the provision severable from the remainder of the statute.

Watkins v. United States (1957)

Held that HUAC questioning must be pertinent to legitimate legislative inquiry, ruling that Congress possesses no constitutional power to expose private affairs solely for exposure's sake.

Barenblatt v. United States (1959)

Distinguished from Watkins and upheld a contempt conviction because the specific inquiries pursued by HUAC were relevant to a valid legislative purpose.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Rejected claims of an absolute, unqualified presidential executive privilege from judicial subpoenas in a criminal proceeding, reaffirming judicial review under Marbury and executive limits under Youngstown.

The AT&T Cases (1976-77)

D.C. Circuit decisions holding that constitutional disputes over information between the executive and legislative branches should be resolved through compromise rather than judicial intervention.

Clinton v. Jones (1997)

Held that the President does not possess presidential immunity from civil litigation in federal court for unofficial conduct occurring prior to taking office.

Trump v. United States (2024)

Established that a former President possesses absolute criminal immunity for core constitutional actions, presumptive immunity for official actions, and no immunity for unofficial actions.