Constitutional Law I Cases & Rules

Marbury v. Madison

established judicial review

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

SC can review state court decisions to enforce uniformity of federal law

McCulloch v. Maryland

Congress has broad implied powers to supplement enumerated ones

We the People, not We the States (federal law > state law)

Comstock

Necessary and Proper is not an independent power, it is used to carry Constitutional provisions into execution

sexually dangerous prisoner case

Ex Parte McCardle

Congress cannot strip jurisdictional authority of something currently under appeal

habeas corpus case

US v. Klein

Congress cannot pass a law which influences or controls the court’s decision as that is a judicial function

Presidential pardon and rebellion case

What does standing require (irreducible minima)?

concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent

chain of causation

redressability (remedy would fix the injury at issue)

What does organizational standing require?

an organization can claim it suffered an injury in its own rights

OR assert standing solely as a representative of its members (must demonstrate members have standing to sue in their own right, interests it seeks to protect are relevant to the organization’s purpose, neither the claim/relief requires individual members to participate in the lawsuit)

Lyons v. City of LA

no standing because cannot show cops would do it again (not actual or imminent)

LA chokehold case

Allen v. Wright

no standing because chain of causation was too speculative

tax-exempt racially discriminatory school case

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky

no standing because chain of causation is too speculative

revoke hospital’s tax exemption because they didn’t provide care to poor people case

Linda R. S.

no standing because chain of causation was too speculative

no child support because the statute excluded fathers case

TransUnion

if something doesn’t amount to a satisfactory injury in fact, then you’re done

made prudential standing obsolete

What are the standing elements for prudential principles?

must assert own right’s, not a third party’s (same as injury in fact)

zone of interest (this has been rendered meaningless through case law)

abstract questions of wide public significance which amount to generalized grievances (nothing differentiates Ps’ from general public; ie. tax)

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United?

no standing, which proved that zone of interests was meaningless if there is enough injury to satisfy the Constitution

military hospital into religious institution case

Baker v. Carr?

legislative district misapportionment case

it is not a political question but there is a political right being violated

six factors to determine whether something is a non-justiciable PQ

What are the six factors from Baker v. Carr

textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department OR an issue that the Constitution clearly designates that one branch CANNOT hear

lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for issue resolution

Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion

Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without express lack of the respect due to coordinate government branches

Usual need for unquestioning adherence to a PQ already made

Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by departments on one question

Gibbons v. Ogden?

origin for dormant commerce clause (if Congress did not impose a regulation, it was by choice)

NY waters steamboat monopoly case

US v. EC Knight Co.?

Congress cannot use Commerce Clause to regulate something wholly within the State

sugar monopoly case

Champions v. Ames?

Congress can supplement state action through regulatory Acts

interstate lottery ticket transportation case

Shreveport?

Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate operations to keep the channels free

interstate RR case cost more than intrastate RR line case

Stafford v. Wallace?

Commerce Clause allows Congress to remove obstacles from the free flow of trade

livestock yard regulation case

ALA Schechter Poultry Corp v. US?

an indirect effect on interstate commerce is not enough for the Commerce Clause to apply

sick chicken case

Carter v. Carter Coal Co?

production (starting point in stream of commerce) does not have a direct effect on interstate commerce

Coal Act case (fixed wages/hours of coal miners; fixed an increased coal price in interstate commerce)

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp?

Congress may regulate labor relations to protect commerce from burdens or obstructions which occur in the middle of the stream of Commerce

Wagner Act case (regulated labor relations)

Substantial Economic effect?

activity which exerts substantial economic effect on interstate commerce

Commerce Clause

Aggregation Principle?

when aggregating a lot of small amounts, it becomes a substantial amount which directly impacts interstate commerce

Commerce Clause

Protective Principle?

can control intrastate transactions that are so co-mingled with interstate because all must be regulated to make interstate regulation effective

Wickard v. Filburn?

Congress may regulate local activity if that activity exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce

aggregation principle

wheat farm case

US v. Darby?

Congress may regulate labor standards involved in the manufacture of goods for interstate commerce, and may exclude any goods produced under substandard labor condition

protective principle

overruled Hammer

Fair Labor Standards Act case

Rational Basis Test?

once Congress has determined that an activity affects interstate commerce, the courts need to only inquire into whether the finding is rational

Heart of Atlanta Motel

Katzenbach

Perez v. US

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US?

Congress’ ability to promote interstate commerce includes the power to regulate local State activities that may substantially harm interstate commerce

Civil Rights Act and motel refusing to rent room to African Americans case

Katzenbach v. McClung (Ollie’s BBQ)?

Congress can regulate things which have a connection to interstate commerce, including discrimination

Civil Rights Act and local restaurant case

Perez v. US?

Congress can regulate a local intrastate practice which they have a rational basis to believe has a sufficient effect on interstate commerce

loan shark case

US v. Lopez?

Commerce Clause is inapplicable to non-commercial activities which do not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce

Gun-Free School Zones Act case

US v. Morrison?

non-commercial acts are to be regulated by states

this decision is a blip in the Commerce Clause doctrine

Violence Against Women Act case

Gonzales v. Raich?

it is necessary for Congress to regulate activities which affect commercial markets to make effective federal market regulation (aggregation principle)

cancer and marijuana plants case

in Scalia’s concurrence, he says it is commercial so it is not within the commerce clause but N&P allows it (logically inconsistent with Darby because N&P won’t help if commerce clause isn’t relevant)

Taxing Power

imposes a charge and regulates something that is not commerce

Permitted tax or forbidden regulation?

statute’s intent

regulatory detail in statute (more detail = more likely a regulation)

whether regulatory effect is due to statute’s structure and if the structure is plausibly revenue-related (if regulatory effect is due to structure, more likely a tax; ex. estate tax rate is 4x higher to people under 30 so no one leaves estates to people under 30)

amount of revenue raised (a negligible amount raised doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t a tax)

Spending Power?

statute spends money and there is a condition on it to ensure the expenditure does what it is supposed to do

a power to tax + a power to pay debts (spend money)

both for the general welfare (Congress can tax/spend for any purpose believed to constitutionally serve the general welfare)

US v. Butler?

an Act imposed a tax, and the proceeds subsidized farmers who agreed to a restriction on production (exceeded spending power)

three part spending power test

Spending Power Test (permitted expenditure vs forbidden command)?

whether the payment is for the general welfare (assumed to be)

whether the challenged condition is inducement or coercion (inducement is a little bump, coercion is basically a command; robust common sense)

whether the challenge condition is related to the general welfare purpose the money is being spent on (implied that if you spend money, you do so effectively)

South Dakota v. Dole?

Statute stated that if a State did not have a 21-year-old drinking age, they’d lose 5% of highway funding

statute was upheld as it was for general welfare, not coercive, and was related to safe interstate travel (EMF disagrees because no drunk driving)

War Power?

important as a separation of powers between Congress and the President

certain powers cannot be delegated

rarely used an independent basis for Congressional authority as Congress’ war powers are narrowly limited, so need to look at statute to see if there is any basis for it under another power

Treaty Power?

with advice and consent of the Senate, the President has the authority to make treaties

Missouri v. Holland

if the Commerce Clause won’t authorize it, Congress may have power to execute it as N&P to execute the treaty power

Migratory Bird Act case

Treaty Power Limitations

we cannot execute a treaty with a foreign country that violates a specific constitutional right (Bill of Rights) (Reid v. Covert)

if there is no Bill of Rights violation, then we must consider whether the subject matter is appropriate for internal action

the treaty must concern something which deals with foreign relations and international agreement (not just a pretext for Congress to do something it otherwise wouldn’t)

Types of Treaties

self executing treaties that don’t require further congressional action

treaties that require parties to do something to execute further congressional action (Congress has power to execute it as N&P)

treaties that are unclear as to what the parties shall/shall not do