Poli Midterm 2 Court Cases

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources

Judges must now use their own independent judgment about what the law means.

The consequence

Agency expertise counts for less in court. Discretion shifts from bureaucrats to judges, and Congress has to write more precise laws.

Judges must independently interpret statutes rather than letting administrative agencies define the legal limits of their own power

Chevron v. Natural Resources

Overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the "Chevron doctrine," ruling that courts must defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. However, the Supreme Court officially overruled the Chevron precedent in June 2024

Fire-alarm oversight

Administrative Procedures Act established guidelines

• Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure of information

• Sunshine Act requires open meetings

Police-patrol oversight

Congress routinely inspects agencies

Trump v. Slaughter

The old rule

Humphrey's Executor v. US (1935) let Congress protect commissioners at agencies like the FTC from being fired at will.

The ruling

The Court overruled it. Agency heads are "envoys of the President, not his equals."

03 What is left

The Federal Reserve may still be protected. For most independent agencies,

independence now depends on the president.

Article III of the constitution

establishes Supreme Court and jurisdiction

Federalist 78

• “Least dangerous branch”

Judiciary Act of 1789

Created lower courts

District courts are the lowest level

• Circuit courts of appeal above them

Amendments expanded this structure

• 94 federal district courts

• Organized into 13 circuits

• Each circuit has a court of appeal

Writ of Mandamus

From judiciary act of 1789

Officials can be ordered to do their job

Marbury v. Madison

Arose from the "midnight appointments" of the outgoing Adams administration, when William Marbury asked the Court for a writ of mandamus to get his commission. Marshall's clever opinion held that Marbury was entitled to it but that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting the Court that power was unconstitutional. It is significant because it established judicial review, the Court's power to declare laws unconstitutional, while avoiding a direct clash with President Jefferson.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Held that a state cannot tax the national bank and that Congress has implied powers to create one. It established the supremacy of federal law over state law and a broad reading of national power. (Your slide lists 1813, but the decision was 1819. See the note below.)

– Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Congress can regulate interstate commerce

Held that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, including navigation, over conflicting state-granted monopolies. Together with McCulloch, it affirmed federal supremacy under Marshall. It laid the groundwork for the broad federal commerce power that later grew with the New Deal.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Controversial butterfly ballot led to Bush’s election despite unsure counting in Florida. This case eroded public perception of the Supreme Court

Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision.

One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity

of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the

Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

Halted the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election, effectively deciding the winner. It is the example of the Court resolving a political conflict between candidates and parties. Justice Stevens's dissent warned that the real loser was the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

NFIB v Rebellious

Congress ruled all states cannot be forced to adopt medical which placed constitutional limits on congress’s commerce clause and spending clause powers

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely

be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that

the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do

whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Two challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The Court upheld the individual mandate (as a tax) in NFIB, and in King upheld insurance subsidies on federal exchanges. They matter because the Court saved a major piece of legislation, and Scalia's dissent ("SCOTUScare") argued the Court favors some laws over others, which fuels the debate over whether it is above politics.

King v. Burwell

• King v. Burwell (2015) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that examined whether federal health insurance tax credits were available to low- and middle-income buyers in states with federally run marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

• Plaintiffs argued that a strict reading of the statute limited subsidies exclusively to an “Exchange established by the State,” thereby excluding roughly 34 states that used federal exchanges.

• In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Obama Administration, holding that tax credits remain available on both state-run and federally-facilitated exchanges.

  • Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that reading the phrase in the context of the entire act was necessary to prevent a market-wide death spiral and fulfill Congress's goal of broader healthcare access.

Obergefull v. Hodges

Southern states did not recognize gay marriage in other Staes. Federal court said the this was unconstitutional and that it must be recognized in all states.

The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in

the Constitution or this Court's precedent….Just who do we think we are?

Learning Resources v. Trump

Can IEEPA be used to impose tariffs?

Case lost

Business challenged tariffstrmp passed using IEEPA

The court ruled against trump limiting the presidents ability to use broad powers to change economic policy. Only congress can control taxation and tarrifs

Trump v. Barbara

Can an executive order end birthright citizenship?
Trump tried to pass an executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

The court rejected under the q4th amendment citizenship clause

Presidential actions cannot overturn the constitution.

Trump v. Cook

Can the president fire a federal governor at will?
When trump tried to fire Lisa Cook, she argued that she had not been provided with legally sufficient cause. The Supreme Court allowed her position to be reinstated. However, after winning Trump v. Slaughter, the case is likely to be appealed.

Trump v. Slaughter

Trmp tired the FTC commissioner without identifying the statute for removal. The Supreme Court ruled that the FTC’s statuatory protection against removal violated separation of powers. This strengthened presidential control over agencies and contrasted with trump v cook.

Snyder v. Phelps

Involved the Westboro Baptist Church protesting near a military funeral with offensive signs. The Court held the protest was protected speech, so the family could not win damages. It is the slide deck's example of a civil liberty, meaning freedom from government interference, even when the speech is deeply offensive. Demonstrates that you have to protect all speech in order to have free speech.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Held that African Americans were not citizens and so could not sue in federal court. It also struck down the Missouri Compromise's limits on slavery in the territories. It is significant because it removed the possibility of a compromise on slavery and helped fuel the election of Lincoln in 1860 and the road to the Civil War. The Civil War Amendments, especially the 14th, later overturned its citizenship holding.

Plessy v. Ferguson

Upheld a Louisiana law requiring segregated railway cars under the doctrine of "separate but equal." It gave constitutional cover to Jim Crow segregation across the South for more than half a century. It was the central precedent the NAACP's litigation strategy had to dismantle.

Smith v. Allwright

Held that the "white primary," which excluded Black voters from party primaries, was unconstitutional. It was an early win for the NAACP's litigation strategy and opened a path to the ballot box in the South. In practice, though, states still had other tools like poll taxes and literacy tests to limit voting.

Sweatt v. Painter

Held that a hastily created Black law school in Texas could not provide an education equal to the University of Texas Law School. It suggested that "separate but equal" could be unconstitutional in practice because of intangible factors like reputation and networks. It was a key stepping stone toward Brown.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

A unanimous 9-0 decision holding that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, which overturned Plessy in public education. It is significant as the landmark case of the civil rights era. It also shows the limits of the Court, because the "all deliberate speed" implementation standard let resistance drag on, and the Court lacks enforcement power of its own.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Shelby county argued that the Civil Rights act was outdated. Struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the formula determining which jurisdictions needed federal approval before changing election rules. Without a coverage formula, Section 5 preclearance was effectively disabled. It matters because the VRA's strongest enforcement tool was lost, and states with histories of discrimination could change voting rules without advance federal review.

Louisiana v. Callais

Decided April 29, 2026 (6-3, Alito writing), this case struck down Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district as a racial gerrymander. Challengers must now offer a race-blind map that still meets the state's own goals and show racial bloc voting that party does not explain. It is significant because it narrows Section 2 of the VRA and opens districts drawn to comply with it to challenge, with some states moving to redraw before the 2026 elections.

You cannot consider race when drawing district lines even if it is to benefit minority voters.

– Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Upheld a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy, finding no constitutional right to private consensual same-sex conduct. It set back the argument that the constitutional right to privacy covers sexual orientation. It stood until Lawrence overturned it. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Overturned Bowers and struck down a Texas sodomy law, grounding the decision in the right to privacy. It matters because it decriminalized private same-sex intimacy nationwide and laid legal groundwork for later marriage cases.

United States v. Windsor (2013)

Held that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, which required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages that states had legalized. It was a major step between Lawrence and Obergefell. It did not yet require states to allow same-sex marriage.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, so all states must license and recognize those marriages. Southern states would not recognize a gay marriage in another state prior. It is a landmark of expanded civil rights and a prime example of the Court resolving a contested political conflict. Chief Justice Roberts's dissent called the decision "an act of will, not legal judgment" (a quote from your Judiciary slides).

INS v. Chadha (1983)

Decided June 23, 1983 (7-2). Congress had delegated broadly but kept a "legislative veto" so one or both chambers could block executive action without the president's signature. The Court held that anything changing legal rights must pass both chambers and go to the president, so the one-house veto is unconstitutional. The delegations survived but Congress lost its leash, so taking power back now requires a law the president can veto.

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided Feb. 20, 2026, 6-3

Decided Feb. 20, 2026 (6-3). The administration read IEEPA, which lets the president regulate importation in an emergency, to cover tariffs on any country at any rate. The Court held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs because the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay duties and Congress never clearly delegated it. It is a check on the president, though the administration turned to other trade statutes like Sections 122, 232, and 301.

Trump v. Slaughter (2026)

Decided June 29, 2026 (6-3, Roberts writing), this case overruled Humphrey's Executor and held that FTC commissioners serve at the president's pleasure because they exercise executive power. The majority signaled that the Federal Reserve may still be protected. It is significant because for most independent agencies, independence now depends on the president, which is a major gain in presidential control over the bureaucracy. It also appears in the judiciary and presidency decks as an example of the Court expanding the removal power.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),

The slide shows Justice Blackmun's notes about the coalition forming to uphold Roe v. Wade, which became the Casey decision. Casey reaffirmed the core of Roe's right to abortion while allowing more state regulation. It is the deck's illustration of the strategic model, in which justices bargain and coordinate to reach their policy goals.