CASE LAW TEST

CASES I HAVE TO KNOW

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Precedent:
Ruled that the judicial branch of government can rule on matters of legislative apportionment. Established the principle of "one person, one vote."

Background:
• Tennessee ignored a law requiring reapportioning election districts
• Populations between districts were drastically unequal

Constitutional Question:
• Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over legislative apportionment?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - apportionment is an issue the Supreme Court may intervene in - the 14th Amendment ensures equal protections that justify this

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Precedent:
The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)

Precedent:
Ruled that racially segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background:
• Plessy v. Ferguson justified "separate but equal" doctrine and segregation policies
• Brown wanted his daughter to attend a closer & better school instead of a segregated
black school
• The board of education turned down his enrollment request

Constitutional Question:
• Do separate but equal facilities violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - unanimous decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson - the impact of segregation created a feeling of inferiority unlikely to be undone & violated the equal protection clause

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)

Precedent:
Supreme Court embraced in its first desegregation decision and urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Precedent:
Campaign spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, subject to restrictions on campaign contributions by individuals.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Precedent:
Court ruled that manual recounts of presidential ballots in the 2000 election could not proceed because inconsistent evaluation standards in different counties violated the equal protection clause.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Precedent:
Ruling that tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

Background:
• Citizens United created "Hillary: The Movie" which expressed opinions about whether she would make a good president
• The BCRA regulates electioneering communications & prohibited the movie because it constituted express advocacy

Constitutional Questions (4 of them):
• Did McConnell v. FEC answer all questions regarding the BCRA? Are the BCRA's disclosure requirements an unconstitutional burden? If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for/against a candidate can the BCRA still regulate it? Should a feature length documentary about a candidate fall under the BCRA?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• No, No, Yes, Yes - because not all questions regarding McConnell v. FEC had been answered - do corporations & unions have freedom of speech? Yes - corporations & unions can make unlimited contributions to independent political & election broadcasts

DC v. Heller (2008)

Precedent: :
Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Precedent:
Ruled that African-Americans were not citizens and therefore could not petition the Supreme Court.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Precedent:
School sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause.

Background:
• School had a nondenominational prayer read over the intercom during the school day

Constitutional Question:
• Does this violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - students are required to be in school & even though it is nondenominational it
gives preference to a religion

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Precedent:
Guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent.

Background:
• Earl Gideon was arrested for stealing a pint of wine & some change
• FL law only allowed public defenders in capital cases
• Gideon requested representation, was denied, defended himself, and was convicted

Constitutional Question:
• Does the 6th Amendment's right to an attorney extend to all felony cases?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - the 14th Amendment applies the 6th Amendment to all criminal cases - one cannot be assured a fair trial without an attorney, lawyers are considered necessities in court, & it ensures all defendants stand equally in the eyes of the law.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Precedent:
Established precedent for the doctrine of selective incorporation, thus extending most of the requirements of the Bill of Rights to the states.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Precedent:
Ruled that a state law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

Precedent:
Case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Korematsu v. US (1944)

Precedent:
Upheld the constitutionality of the relocation of Japanese Americans as a wartime necessity.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Precedent:
The Court held that a state statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Precedent:
Ruled that state aid to church-related schools must be clearly secular, the government's action must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and the government action must not foster an "excessive entanglement" between government and religion.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Precedent:
Ruled that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by the Fourth Amendment, inadmissible in a state court.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Precedent:
Established the principle of judicial review. Strengthened the power of the judicial branch by giving the Supreme Court the authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

Background:
• The Judiciary Act of 1801 created more judgeships just before Jefferson took office
• They were not valid until delivered, & Marbury's was not
• Marbury & 3 others petitioned for a writ of mandamus demanding their appointments be delivered

Constitutional Questions (3):
• Did the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? Can they sue in court for them? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order their delivery?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Refusing to deliver the appointments was illegal, the Court did not order Madison to hand over the appointments, the writ of mandamus was the proper route to go about this, but the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional & SCOTUS did not have the power to issue this writ - this established judicial review (power to declare laws unconstitutional)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Precedent:
Established supremacy of the US Constitution and federal laws over state laws.

Background:
• Congress creates 2nd Bank of the US
• Maryland imposes taxes on the 2nd Bank of the US
• Bank cashier McCulloch refused to pay the tax

Constitutional Questions:
• Did Congress have the authority to establish a bank?
• Did Maryland interfere with Congressional powers?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes, Yes - Congress has implied powers through the necessary and proper clause & MD violated the supremacy clause by interfering with legitimate Congressional actions

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Precedent:
Supreme court found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

Background:
• In DC v. Heller bans on handguns were ruled unconstitutional
• Chicago & Oak Park had handgun bans

Constitutional Question:
• Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the states?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - the right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states, the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd, & the Heller decision could be applied to the handgun bans in question.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Precedent:
Ruled that the police must inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning suspects after arrest.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Precedent:
4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but schools can perform these searches; girl has drugs in her purse, school searches it and finds it, she tries to claim its unconstitutional, Supreme Court says search is reasonable because of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

New York Times Co. v. US (1971)

Precedent:
Bolstered the freedom of the press, establishing a "heavy presumption against prior restraint" even in cases involving national security.

Background:
• NYT reporter was given classified papers from the Pentagon showing the reasons the government provided the public for entering the Vietnam war were untrue
• The government tried to prevent this on grounds of national security

Constitutional Question:
• Did restricting the printing of the Pentagon Papers story violate the 1st Amendment's freedom of the press?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - this was prior restraint and there are only extreme cases when it was allowed - this story did not fail the imminent danger test as no lives were put in jeopardy and it dealt with past decisions so the story was allowed.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Precedent:
Court ruled that states must both recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and provide licenses within the state.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Precedent:
Court ruled a Pennsylvania law that would have required a woman to notify her husband before getting an abortion was thrown out, but laws calling for parental consent and the imposition of a 24-hour waiting period were upheld. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an "undue burden" upon. women

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Precedent:
Upheld Jim Crow segregation by approving "separate but equal" public facilities for African-Americans.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Precedent:
Ruled that race could be used as one factor among others in the competition for available places.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Precedent:
Ruled that the decision to obtain an abortion is protected by the right to privacy implied by the Bill of Rights.

Background:
• An unmarried pregnant woman in TX was denied an abortion
• TX law only allowed them when the doctor determined it necessary to protect the life of the mother

Constitutional Question:
• Did the right to have an abortion fall under an individual's right to privacy?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - the right to privacy extends to marriage, procreation, & contraception - a fetus is not a person under the 14th Amendment, yet protecting the life of the woman & the potentiality of life must be considered (allowed states to regulate abortion after 1st trimester)

Schenck v. US (1919)

Precedent:
Ruled that free speech could be limited when it presents a "clear and present danger".

Background:
• Schenck distributed pamphlets urging people to resist the draft during WWI
• He was charged with conspiracy for violating the Espionage Act & obstructing military recruitment

Constitutional Question:
• Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act violate his freedom of speech?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• No - unanimous decision stating the government has greater authority during wartime, his actions could have disrupted the conscription process, & established the "clear and present danger test"

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Precedent:
Court ruled that racial gerrymandering-invalidated the district because boundaries were neither contiguous nor compact and were drawn with the intent to discriminate using racial gerrymandering. The court ruled that any racial gerrymandering by the state required a compelling state interest

Background:
• NC created 2 black minority-majority districts
• Part of one district was only as wide as the interstate

Constitutional Question:
• Did the districts as drawn create a racial gerrymander & violate the 14th Amendment equal protections of the white residents?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - while neutral on the surface the shapes of districts were bizarre enough to suggest maps were drawn to separate people based on race, while the plan had noble intentions violated the equal protection clause.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Precedent:
Ruled that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Schools (1969)

Precedent:
Protected some forms of symbolic speech. Ruled that students do not " shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Background:
• Students wore black armbands with white peace signs on them to protest US actions in Vietnam
• Students were suspended for wearing them
• Administration argued that they could disrupt the educational setting
• Constitutional Question:
• Did suspending students for wearing their armbands violate their 1st Amendment freedom of expression/speech?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - free speech is not surrendered at the school door - while it can be limited to maintain the learning environment, this act of expression did not disrupt it

US v. Lopez (1995)

Precedent:
Congress may not use the commerce clause to make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime.

Background:
• Congress passed the Gun Free School Zone Act
• Lopez carried a gun on school grounds and was caught
• He was charged locally & then federally under the GFSZA & local charges dropped

Constitutional Question:
• Is the Gun Free School Zone Act an unconstitutional violation of the commerce clause?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - possessing a gun in a school zone is a criminal act and not an act of commerce - criminal laws are specifically reserved for the states

US v. Nixon (1974)

Precedent:
Ruled that there is no constitutional guarantee of non-qualified executive privilege.

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Precedent:
Court ruled that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. Justices argued that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Precedent:
Compelling Amish students to attend school past the eight grade violates the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

Background:
• Wisconsin law required students to attend school until age 16
• Amish communities argued their children did not need to attend beyond 8th grade

Constitutional Question:
• Does requiring Amish children to attend school until age 16 violate the free exercise clause?

Ruling & Reasoning:
• Yes - the freedoms of the individual outweighed the interest of the state because the values & programs of the school were in sharp conflict with the group's religious beliefs

Baron v. Baltimore(1833)

• \

  • Year: 1833
  • Court: US Supreme Court
  • Key issue: Does the Fifth Amendment's takings clause apply to state governments?
  • Ruling: No, it does not.
  • Significance: Established dual sovereignty, meaning state and federal governments are separate and Bill of Rights only applies to federal government. Baron v. Baltimore is a landmark case that was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1833. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Fifth Amendment's takings clause applied to state governments. The takings clause states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

  The case was brought by John Baron, a landowner in Baltimore, who claimed that the city had taken his property without just compensation. Baron argued that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to state governments as well as the federal government. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that the takings clause only applied to the federal government.

  This ruling was significant because it established the concept of dual sovereignty, which means that state and federal governments are separate and distinct. The Bill of Rights, which includes the Fifth Amendment, only applies to the federal government and not to state governments. This ruling has had a lasting impact on the relationship between federal and state governments and the interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

• Issue: Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Holding: Yes, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII.
• Vote: 6-3 in favor of Bostock.
• Opinion: Authored by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberal justices.
• Impact: Provides federal employment protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and sets a precedent for similar cases in other areas of law.

City of Greece v. Galloway (2014)

• Issue: Whether the practice of opening town hall meetings with prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
• Ruling: The practice of opening town hall meetings with prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
• Reasoning: The Court held that the town's practice of opening meetings with prayer did not coerce participation or discriminate against minority faiths, and that the historical tradition of legislative prayer supported the constitutionality of the practice.
• Impact: The decision clarified the constitutionality of legislative prayer and provided guidance for local governments on how to conduct such prayers in a constitutional manner.

Colegrove v. Green (1946)

• Issue: Whether the federal court has jurisdiction over a challenge to the constitutionality of an apportionment law.
• Ruling: The federal court lacks jurisdiction over such a challenge, as it is a political question that should be resolved by the political branches of government.
• Reasoning: The Constitution grants the power to regulate elections and apportionment to the political branches, not the judiciary. Additionally, there are no judicially manageable standards for determining the constitutionality of apportionment laws.
• Impact: The decision limited the ability of federal courts to intervene in state redistricting and apportionment decisions, leaving such matters largely in the hands of state legislatures. It also established the political question doctrine as a means of limiting judicial review of certain political issues.

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

• \
  • Issue: The constitutionality of the death penalty as applied in this case.
  • Holding: The death penalty as applied in this case was unconstitutional due to its arbitrary and discriminatory nature.
  • Impact: Resulted in a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty until states reformed their laws to address the issues raised in the case.
  • Key quote: "These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual." In the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue at hand was whether the death penalty, as applied in this particular case, was in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Court ultimately held that the death penalty in this case was unconstitutional due to its arbitrary and discriminatory nature.

The Court's decision was based on the fact that the death penalty was being applied in an inconsistent manner across the country. The Court found that there was no clear standard for determining who should receive the death penalty and who should not. This lack of consistency led to the arbitrary and discriminatory application of the death penalty.

The Court's decision had a significant impact on the use of the death penalty in the United States. Following the decision, there was a nationwide moratorium on the use of the death penalty until states reformed their laws to address the issues raised in the case. Many states took this opportunity to revise their death penalty laws, and the use of the death penalty slowly resumed.

One of the most memorable quotes from the Court's decision was, "These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual." This quote highlights the Court's view that the death penalty, as applied in this case, was not only unconstitutional but also inhumane.

Overall, Furman v. Georgia was a landmark case that had a significant impact on the use of the death penalty in the United States. The Court's decision highlighted the need for consistency and fairness in the application of the death penalty and led to reforms in many states.

Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960)

• Key Issue: Whether the redistricting plan of the city of Tuskegee, Alabama, violated the Fifteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Key Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the redistricting plan was unconstitutional because it had the effect of disenfranchising black voters and was designed to do so.
• Key Reasoning: The Court found that the redistricting plan was a clear attempt to dilute the voting strength of black citizens by removing them from the city limits of Tuskegee. The Court held that this violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying equal protection of the laws to any person within their jurisdiction.
• Key Impact: The decision was an important victory for the civil rights movement, as it established that redistricting plans that have the effect of disenfranchising minority voters are unconstitutional. The decision also helped pave the way for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which further strengthened protections for minority voters.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

• Issue: Does the imposition of the death penalty violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
• Ruling: The imposition of the death penalty is not inherently cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore constitutional.
• Reasoning: The death penalty serves as a legitimate deterrent and is an appropriate punishment for the most serious crimes.
• Impact: This case reinstated the use of the death penalty in the United States and paved the way for other states to adopt similar statutes.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

• Issue: Whether a high school football coach's post-game prayers on the field violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving in place a lower court ruling that the coach's prayers were not protected by the First Amendment and that the school district was justified in placing him on leave for violating school policy.
• Key Players: Joseph Kennedy (football coach), Bremerton School District (employer), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (representing the plaintiffs)
• Legal Precedent: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which established a three-part test for determining whether government action violates the Establishment Clause. In the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), the central issue at hand was whether a high school football coach's post-game prayers on the field violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Joseph Kennedy, the football coach in question, had been leading his team in prayer on the field after each game for several years. However, the school district had received complaints from parents and students who felt that this practice was inappropriate and unconstitutional.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court, where the key players were Joseph Kennedy, the Bremerton School District (his employer), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who were representing the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the case, leaving in place a lower court ruling that the coach's prayers were not protected by the First Amendment and that the school district was justified in placing him on leave for violating school policy.

This ruling was based on the legal precedent set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which established a three-part test for determining whether government action violates the Establishment Clause. The Lemon test requires that any government action must have a secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion.

In this case, the lower court found that Coach Kennedy's prayers on the field did not meet the requirements of the Lemon test. While Kennedy argued that his prayers were a personal expression of his faith and did not constitute government endorsement of religion, the court determined that his position as a public school coach made his actions subject to the Establishment Clause.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means that the lower court ruling stands, and Coach Kennedy will not be allowed to lead prayers on the field after games. This case serves as an important reminder of the separation of church and state in public schools, and the need for government officials to uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens.

Mahonoy Area School District v. B.L (2021)

• Issue: Whether a public school can discipline a student for off-campus speech made on social media.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student, stating that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus speech.
• Reasoning: Off-campus speech does not disrupt the school environment and students have a right to free speech outside of school.
• Impact: This case sets a precedent for how schools can regulate student speech on social media and off-campus.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

• Issue: Does the First Amendment protect students' right to display a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event?
• Holding: No, the school officials did not violate the student's First Amendment rights by confiscating the banner.
• Reasoning: The school officials could reasonably interpret the banner as promoting illegal drug use, which is inconsistent with the school's educational mission to discourage drug use.
• Impact: This case clarified that schools have the authority to regulate student speech that promotes illegal drug use, even if the speech occurs off-campus and outside of school hours.

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

Facts of the case

The state of New York requires a person to show a special need for self-protection to receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defence violate the Second Amendment?

Ruling

Yes. It prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defence from exercising their second amendment right. The right to carry a gun is rooted in history and no constitution has ever required there be a “special need” for having one. Gun restriction laws are only constitutional if there is a history of them.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

• Issue: Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
• Outcome: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was struck down as unconstitutional
• Reasoning: The coverage formula used to determine which states and jurisdictions were subject to preclearance under Section 5 was outdated and did not reflect current conditions of discrimination in voting
• Impact: States and jurisdictions previously covered by Section 5 no longer required to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws or procedures In the Shelby County v. Holder case of 2013, the issue at hand was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This section required certain states and jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Section 5 was unconstitutional and struck it down.

The reasoning behind this decision was that the coverage formula used to determine which states and jurisdictions were subject to preclearance under Section 5 was outdated and did not reflect current conditions of discrimination in voting. The formula was based on data from the 1960s and 1970s, and the Court found that it did not accurately reflect the current state of voting discrimination in the covered jurisdictions.

As a result of this decision, states and jurisdictions previously covered by Section 5 no longer required federal approval before changing their voting laws or procedures. This impacted many areas of the country, particularly in the South, where there had been a history of racial discrimination in voting. Some argued that this decision would lead to a rollback of voting rights protections and could result in increased discrimination at the polls.

Overall, the Shelby County v. Holder case was a significant moment in the ongoing struggle for voting rights in the United States. While Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may no longer be in effect, efforts to protect voting rights and combat discrimination continue to be a crucial issue in American politics.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)

• Issue: Whether the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by promulgating regulations that require states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
• Background: The EPA issued the Clean Power Plan in 2015, which set emissions reduction targets for each state. West Virginia and other states challenged the plan in court, and the Supreme Court stayed its implementation in 2016. The EPA then proposed a replacement rule, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which West Virginia also challenged.
• Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Clean Energy rule, finding that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate emissions from power plants, but that the agency must take into account the costs and benefits of its regulations.
• Impact: The ruling is a victory for the EPA and environmental groups, as it allows the agency to continue regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. However, it also sets limits on the agency's authority and requires it to consider the economic impact of its regulations.