Judicial Review & Court Power

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Facts: Adams appointed Marbury as justice of peace in DC; commission wasn't delivered before Jefferson took office; Madison refused to deliver it.

Holding: Couldn't issue mandamus because Judiciary Act unconstitutionally expanded Court's original jurisdiction beyond Article III limits.

Rule: Courts have power to review and invalidate unconstitutional acts of Congress (judicial review).

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)

Facts: Virginia courts refused to comply with Supreme Court decisions on land claims, claiming Court lacked jurisdiction over state courts.

Rule: Article III and Supremacy Clause, Court has jurisdiction over state decisions on federal law to ensure uniform interpretation.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Facts: D convicted in Virginia for selling DC lottery tickets; Virginia argued Court lacked jurisdiction over state criminal cases.

Holding: Court has jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law questions.

Rule: Appellate jurisdiction extends to all constitutional questions, including state criminal cases, regardless of state party status.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Facts: After Brown, Little Rock School Board sought to delay desegregation when Gov. Faubus used National Guard to block Black students.

Holding: States cannot nullify federal decisions or delay compliance; all state officials bound by Court interpretations.

Rule: Court interpretations of Constitution are "supreme law of the land"; officials bound by oath to support Constitution as interpreted.

Luther v. Borden (1849)

Facts: During Dorr Rebellion, competing governments claimed legitimacy in Rhode Island; plaintiff's home was searched by militia under charter government.

Holding: Declined to decide which government was legitimate; political question best left to political branches.

Rule: Courts cannot decide political questions like legitimacy of state governments; Guarantee Clause claims are nonjusticiable.

Colegrove v. Green (1946)

Apportionment challenges present political questions beyond judicial competence.

Powell v. McCormack (1969)

Facts: House excluded elected Rep for fraud despite meeting constitutional qualifications.

Holding: House can't exclude.

Rule: Article I's "judge qualifications" clause limits House to judging age, citizenship, and residency requirements.

Allen v. Wright (1984)

Facts: Parents of Black children challenged IRS tax exemptions for discriminatory private schools.

Holding: Plaintiffs lacked standing; alleged injury of impaired desegregation too abstract and not traceable to IRS actions.

Rule: Standing requires concrete injury fairly traceable to challenged conduct and likely redressable by favorable decision.

Nixon v. United States (1993)

Facts: Impeached fed judge challenged Senate's use of committee to hear evidence rather than full Senate trial.

Holding: Senate has sole discretion to determine impeachment trial procedures.

Rule: Constitution's grant of "sole power to try impeachments" to Senate makes impeachment procedure questions nonjusticiable.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

Facts: EPA says states don’t have standing to sue on environmental issue.

Holding: States had standing

Rule: States entitled to "special solicitude" in standing analysis

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions.

Rule: No judicially manageable standards for evaluating partisan gerrymandering; remedy lies with Congress and state reforms.

Baker v. Carr (1961)

Super bad state apportionment.

Apportionment challenges justiciable under Equal Protection Clause; not barred by political question doctrine.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

"One person, one vote" principle requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Facts: Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recount of presidential ballots using varying standards across counties.

Holding: Recount order violated Equal Protection Clause; no constitutional recount possible before safe harbor deadline.

Rule: Equal Protection requires uniform standards in vote counting; decision "limited to present circumstances."

Moore v. Harper (2023)

State Legislatures still subject to state constitutions when regulating federal electiosn. Elections Clause

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

P challenged D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawful firearms be kept inoperable at home.

Struck down.

Rule: Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including home self-defense.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)

Second Amendment challenges evaluated by text and historical tradition, not interest-balancing tests.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)

Facts: Fishing companies challenged executory regulation.

Holding: Overruled Chevron deference, courts should independently interpret statutes without deferring to agencies.

Rule: Courts must exercise independent judgment to determine best reading of law rather than defer to agency interpretations.