plsc 385 court cases 1

Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.

Held that the term "employees" in Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is ambiguous and must be interpreted in light of the statute’s overall structure and purpose to protect both current and former employees from post-employment retaliation.

United States v. Lopez

Reasserted constitutional limits on federal power under the Commerce Clause by ruling that Congress cannot regulate purely local, non-economic activity unless it substantially affects interstate commerce or contains a jurisdictional tie to commerce.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Established that Congress possesses implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to create federal instrumentalities like a national bank, and held under the Supremacy Clause that states cannot tax or interfere with the lawful operations of the federal government.

Wickard v. Filburn

Expanded Congress’s Commerce Clause power via the aggregation principle, holding that federal regulation can reach purely local, non-marketed activity (like growing wheat for home consumption) if such activity in the aggregate exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Nixon v. United States

Established that challenges to Senate impeachment trial procedures present nonjusticiable political questions because the Constitution textually commits the impeachment power to the Senate alone and provides no judicially manageable standards for review.

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Affirmed that a case becomes moot under Article III when a plaintiff no longer faces an actual, concrete injury that judicial relief can remedy—and that neither the "voluntary cessation" nor "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exceptions apply when the specific plaintiff will never again be subject to the challenged policy.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Formalized the constitutional requirements for Article III standing—requiring a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury in fact—and held that Congress cannot confer standing via a citizen-suit provision to vindicate pure "procedural" or generalized grievances absent individual harm.

Marbury v. Madison

Established the principle of judicial review—that federal courts have the authority to declare unconstitutional statutes void—and held that Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the specific categories enumerated in Article III.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Held that the President cannot seize private property or exercise lawmaking power without constitutional or congressional authorization, and established Justice Jackson’s three-category framework for evaluating presidential power based on whether Congress has authorized, been silent on, or opposed the President’s action.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States

Established that Congress cannot delegate its essential legislative power to the President without meaningful standards, holding that the National Industrial Recovery Act gave the President virtually unlimited authority to create industry regulations and therefore violated the nondelegation doctrine; also limited Congress’s Commerce Clause power over purely intrastate activity with only an indirect effect on interstate commerce.

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm

Established that agencies must provide a reasoned, evidence-based explanation for their decisions under the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard, holding that an agency cannot rescind a regulation without adequately considering important alternatives and explaining the change in policy.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Overruled Chevron deference and held that courts must exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes, rather than deferring to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute; agencies’ expertise may still inform courts but does not control the legal interpretation.

State of Illinois v. Trump

Held that presidential determinations under 10 U.S.C. §12406 are judicially reviewable, allowing courts to independently interpret the statute and determine whether its required conditions are satisfied while giving substantial deference to the President’s factual assessments; the court found the administration had not shown the statutory requirements for deploying the National Guard were met.