Required Cases

US v. Lopez

Facts: A student in Texas brought an unloaded gun to school and was charged with violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned intentionally carrying a gun in a school zone (Commerce Clause: Congress can regulate anything affecting interstate commerce)

Issue: Did the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 unconstitutionally exceed Congress’s authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Holding: The Gun-Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional

Reasoning: Possession is a gun in a school zine does not substantially affect interstate commerce; The commerce Clause does not grant Congress endless powers

Big Picture: Some powers are reserved to the states via the 10th Amendment; Does not change broad interpretation of the commerce clause and Congress can still regulate anything affecting interstate commerce, but establishes the fact that not everything affects interstate commerce; Congress passed a new version of the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which is an example of how Congress can limit the impact of court rulings

Mculloch v. Maryland

Facts: Several states, including Maryland, passed laws to tax the Bank of the United States

Issue: Did Congress have the power to establish a national bank? Can a state tax the federal government?

Holding: Congress may establish a national bank; States may not tax the federal government

Reasoning: As a result of the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has implied powers and is not limited to its expressed powers (Necessary and Proper Clause: Congress can make laws “necessary and Proper” for carrying out the enumerated powers; the supremacy Clause asserts that the federal government is superiors to state governments when the two conflict, therefore states cannot tax the federal government

Big Picture: Expansion of federal power

Baker v. Carr

Facts: Tennessee residents alleged that state congressional redistricting didn’t take into account population shifts, therefore one person’s vote wasn’t necessarily equal to another person’s vote

Issue: Does the federal judiciary have jurisdiction over questions of redistricting? (Jurisdiction: legal authority to hear a case)

Holding: Redistricting claims raise non-political questions that therefore are justiciable (able to be heard) in federal court

Reasoning: People have a right to challenge unequal apportionment and redistricting that may violate the Equal Protection Clause

Big Picture: Holding overturns earlier precedent saying apportionment is a political issue; Led to “one person, one vote” principle of voting Equality in house elections and the ban on malapportionment (congressional districts of very unequal populations)

Dissenting Opinion: Federal courts cannot hear political cases and apportionment is political, therefore federal courts cannot hear this case; Arguing in favor of judicial restraint

Marbury v. Madison

Facts: William Marbury was appointed as Justice of the peace in D.C. by Adams, but didn't receive his commission, so he petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver his commission

Issue: Does Marbury have the right to his commission? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of the commission?

Holding: Marbury was entitled to his commission, however the court was not able to grant it because the relevant portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowing Marbury to sue conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore null and void

Reasoning: Congress couldn’t pass legislation that supersedes the Constitution because the Supremacy Clause places the Constitution above laws

Big Picture

Shaw v. Reno