Conlaw Midterm Cases

Maurbury v Madison

Judicial review

Judiciary Act of 1789 - writ of mandamus qualifies for original jurisdiction

Opinion: Marbury was appointed, there is a remedy, but the SC cannot give the remedy

Significance: First case where SC utilized judicial review of Congressional act

Martin v Hunter’s Lessee

Judicial Supremacy

Opinion: State SC have to listen to SC because of Supremacy clause and Judiciary Act of 1789; Judiciary Act of 1789 gave SC appellate jurisdiction on federal questions

Significance: established judicial supremacy over the entire judiciary

Cooper v Aaron

Judicial Supremacy

Facts: wanted to post pone desegregation, can we postpone desegregation for public unrest?

Opinion: No. Everybody has to obey the SC, they always have. Affirmed Brown v Board of Education

Significance: Judicial Supremacy is not binding but socially accepted

US V. Sineneng-Smith

Judicial Supremacy

Facts: Immigration lawyer pocketing money

Opinion: Sineneng-Smith’s speech was not protected by the Constitution.

Significance: Overbreadth doctrine

Sheldon v Still

Appellate Jurisdiction, Judicial Restraint

Facts: MI couple had MI mortgage, NY resident buys mortgage

Opinion: Judiciary Act of 1789 says diversity cases can’t be decided by federal courts case and they must go to where paper was issued (MI Supreme Court).

Significance: strong Congressional power to decide what the Court hears

Ex parte McCardle

Appellate Jurisdiction, Judicial Restraint

Facts: Habeas corpus to get out of jail, Congress changed the exceptions in the middle of the appeal.

Significance: strong Congressional power to decide what the Court hears

Frothingham v Mellon

Standing

Facts: Maternity Act created a tax burden. Individual taxpayer claimed 5th Amendment violations under the Takings Clause and state petitioner claimed 10th Amendment violations of state prerogatives.

Opinion: Massachusetts has no standing because it’s a political question and they suffer no injury. Frothingham has no standing based on her status as a taxpayer

Significance: No US taxpayer has the power to challenge an expenditure

Flast v Cohen

Flast v Cohen

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Article III

Facts: Re-interpretation of Endangered Species Act angered petitioners

Opinion: Petitioners have no standing because they proved no injury in fact and no redressability

Significance: Transformed three-part standing test

Carney v Adams

Article III

Facts: DE requires courts have only bare majority of one party. State law limits judicial service to members of only democratic and republican parties

Opinion: No standing because petitioner did not prove a concrete or imminent injury in fact

Significance: Enforced three-part test

California v Texas

Article III

Facts: ACA mandate to buy health insurance changed from $690 to $0

Opinion: No standing because the petitioners did not prove an injury or causal connection

Significance: Enforced three-part test

Uzuegbuman v Preczewski

Article III

Facts: Speaking about religion and was prohibited so petitioner claimed a violation of 1st and 14th Amendment rights.

Opinion: Has standing because the plaintiff proved 1. they suffered injury in fact 2. the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct 3. remedy sought redresses injury

Significance: Enforced three-part test, nominal damages count as injury

Baker v Carr

Justiciability

Facts: Legislative map failed to account for population growth during reapportionment. Alleged a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause violation

Opinion: State redistricting is not a political question and it is justiciable

Significance: 6 requirements for a political question to be non-justiciable: 1. textual commitment to a coordinate branch 2. lack of judicially discoverable standard for resolving a question 3. policy determination 4. lack of respect 5. adhering to an already made political decision 6. potential for embarrassment

(Walter) Nixon v US

Justiciability

facts: Federal judge challenged Senate standard of “trying” impeachment claiming the whole Senate needs to be there, not just a committee.

Opinion: Constitution grants Senate “sole” power to determine how impeachment looks. Sole power is textual commitment which makes it a political question and therefore non-justiciable.

Significance: Enforced 6 requirements from Baker

Rucho v Common Cause

Article III

Facts: Challenged two congressional maps on the basis of partisan gerrymandering.

Opinion: Partisan gerrymandering is a non-justiciable political question because proportional representation is a policy determination.

Significance: Enforced 6 requirements from Baker

Powell v McCormack

Congressional Powers I

Facts: House Rep. took bribes so the House tried to exclude him, despite his reelection. Standards for exclusion and expulsion are different.

Opinion: Not a political question. Congress can only exclude a member for not meeting Constitutional qualifications, but they can be expel for any reason. Vote to exclude was unconstitutional.

Significance: Expulsions are political questions

Trump v Mazars

Congressional Powers I

Facts: House committee issued a legislative subpoena to President, and he claimed that couldn’t do that.

Opinion: Separation of Powers concerns. Four factors to subpoena the President 1. Detailed and substantial evidence for the subpoena 2. Consideration of burdens imposed on the President 3. Appropriately narrow 4. Confirmation that legislation requires Presidential papers. Significance: Established a Balancing Test

Gibbons v Ogden

Early Commerce Clause

Facts: Navigation between New York and New Jersey, one steamship operator had the monopoly. Is navigation commerce?

Opinion: Commerce is intercourse, and ocean navigation has been included under commerce since the Founding. No monopoly allowed.

Significance: Interstate can apply to a state’s interior

US v EC Knight

Early Commerce Clause

Facts: Sugar monopoly buys up more refining plants in Philadelphia. Sherman Anti-Trust Act could apply.

Opinion: Interstate commerce does not apply to manufacturing because the effects are indirect. Stock doesn’t move in interstate commerce.

Significance: Indirect effects on interstate commerce

Hammer v Dagenhart

Early Commerce Clause

facts: Congress outlawed child labor and prevented goods in interstate commerce from factories that violate child labor rules. Dad wants sons to work

Opinion: The law is a labor regulation, which falls under the state police power.

Significance: Production is not commerce, so Congress can’t regulate it

Schechter Poultry v US

Transition of Commerce Clause

Facts: National Industrial Recovery Act delegates regulatory power to president. Was this delegation okay under Separation of Powers and were the commerce issues okay?

Opinion: Delegation to the President violates Separation of Powers. Does not fall under interstate commerce because there is an indirect effect. No stream of commerce here.

Significance: Difference between direct and indirect effects

NLRB v Jones and Laughlin Steel

Congressional Powers II

Facts: National Labor Regulation Act sets National Labor Regulation Board under interstate commerce. NLRB fines steel mill for firing union workers. Steel mill says its fine because workers are production, not commerce.

Opinion: Disputes between labor and management has an effect on interstate commerce. Steel has the potential to substantially burden interstate commerce because iron comes from out of state

Significance: effects are now measured in degrees

Wickard v Filburn

Modern Commerce Clause

Facts: Filburn exceeds his wheat quota and argues its for personal use so there’s no effect on interstate commerce

Opinion: Personal use doesn’t matter and size doesn’t matter. Industry prices are included in commerce and the Act was meant to regulate these prices. Substantial economic effects fall under interstate commerce

Significance: eliminates all tests, expanded commerce to local, not commerce actions

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

Modern Commerce Clause

Facts: 1964 Civil Rights Act bars race discrimination that affects interstate commerce. Motel doesn’t allow white patrons.

Opinion: Motel discrimination substantially affects interstate commerce because it burdens out-of-state travelers.

Significance: Motels are commerce

US v Lopez

Modern Commerce Clause

Facts: High school student brings fun to school, violating the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. Facial challenge (any application is unconstitutional)

Opinion: A gun in school is not an economic activity so there is no effect on interstate commerce

Significance: Regulatable actions that substantially affect interstate commerce are unclear

US v Morrison

Modern Commerce Clause

Facts: College student alleged sexual assault against two classmates under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and sued for civil damages. Facial challenge

Opinion: Gender-based violence has no effect on interstate commerce because sexual assault is not an economic activity.

Significance: uses Lopez as a precedent

Gonzalez v Raich

Modern Commerce Clause

Fact: California legalized medical marijuana, which counteracted the federal Controlled Substances Act. As applied challenge (only unconstitutional when applied to a situation)

Opinion: Medical marijuana affects the national market because it is an economic activity, therefore commerce clause applies.

Significance: Wickard on drugs

McCray v US

Taxing Power

Facts: Statute imposed tax on artificially colored margarine. Margarine producer did not pay tax and challenged the statute.

Opinion: Congress can do what it wants when it comes to taxing. Court doesn’t care about motive

Significance: expands Congress’s taxing power

Bailey v Drexel Furniture

Taxing Power

Facts: 10% of revenue per year imposed on employers who knowingly employ children.

Opinion: Tax is unconstitutional because it was clearly a penalty and not a tax. Congress tried to regulate child labor, which is a state power.

Significance: Differentiates between a tax and a penalty

Steward Machine Co. V Davis

Taxing Power

Facts: Social Security tax requires unemployment compensation. Employers are required to pay less if the state has an unemployment fund.

Opinion: Tax is okay, permissable under the Constitution.

Significance: Differentiates between tax and coercion

South Dakota v Dole

Spending Power

Facts: Withhold 5% of highway funds if drinking age < 21.

Opinion: Court creates a list of when to refer to congress: 1. general welfare 2. unambiguous 3. spending → purpose reasonableness 4. can’t violate constitution/constitutional values 5. coercion. Legislation passes all five so it’s in bounds of the Spending clause

Significance: Creates list of 5 requirements

NFIB v Sebelius

Spending Power

Facts: Individual mandate of ACA. Asks whether it’s a tax, whether the commerce clause can uphold it, whether the whole ACA is a tax, and whether the Spending Clause is okay to uphold Medicaid.

Opinion: Not a tax but a penalty. Not okay under Commerce Clause. Sort of a tax. Not okay under Spending Clause.

Significance: state regulates for health, safety, public morals, general welfare etc.

Cooley v Board of Wardens

Federalism: Dormant Commerce Clause

Facts: Local pilots navigate the Delaware river. If there’s no pilot, you pay a fine. Navigation falls under

Opinion: Navigation falls under Commerce Clause, but Congress passed a congressional pilotage law in 1789 that allowed for pilot laws in states.

Significance: Exception because of interstate commerce

Southern Pacific Co. V Arizona

Federalism: Dormant Commerce Clause

Facts: Arizona law imposed a penalty on railroad companies operating trains of over 14 passenger cars or 70 freight trains. Does this fall under commerce clause

Opinion: The law imposed a burden on interstate commerce and there were insufficient effects on citizens’ health and safety

Significance: If there are no rules, it is left up to the states

Bibb v Navajo Freight Lines

Federalism: Dormant Commerce Clause

Facts: Illinois required contoured mudguards while Arkansas required straight mudguards. Argued diverse state laws burdened interstate commerce.

Opinion: The difference in mudguards is “slight or problematical” and have no demonstrated benefits one way or another. The diverse laws imposed a burden on interstate commerce.

Significance: strikes down federal legislation

Tennessee Wine and Spirits v Thomas

Federalism: Dormant Commerce Clause

Facts: Tennessee passed laws for applying for a liquor license that were challenged under the commerce clause.

Opinion: Dormant Commerce Clause forbids a state from regulating liquor sales by granting licenses only to individuals or entities that have met state residency requirements.

Significance: strikes down federal legislation

Pennsylvania v Nelson

Federalism: Preemption

Fact: Pennsylvania Sedition Act was implemented prior to Congress’s adoption of the Smith Act of 1940. Both acts deal with the same thing, but Nelson was convicted under the Pennsylvania Act.

Opinion: Smith Act preempts Pennsylvania law because communism is an issue of primary importance to the federal government.

Significance: General rules applied to resolve potential conflicts: 1. scheme of federal regulation 2. federal interest dominant in the field 3. conflict with federal administration.

New York v US

Federalism: Anti-commandeering

Facts: Congress’s Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Act required states to dispose of waste within their borders. NY challenged the act.

Opinion: 1. congress can’t commandeer, government can only bind people not states. 2. congress has options to get states to do things

Significance: Influence don’t commandeer.

Printz v US

Federalism: Anti-commandeering

facts: Brady Act required state sheriffs to do background checks for gun purchases. One sheriff objected.

Opinion: 1. no historical practice of requiring state executive officials to do stuff 2. Hamilton said this wasn’t allowed 3. The Act impedes on federalism and SoP.

Significance: applies New York v. US

Murphy v NCAA

Federalism: Anti-commandeering

Facts: PASPA said states couldn’t legalize sports gambling but NJ tried to.

Opinion: Repealing is authorization. Does not qualify as preemption because it pertains to states, not individuals. This is commandeering, not preemption.

Significance: Differentiates between preemption and commandeering

In Re Neagle

Presidency I: The Domestic Presidency: Unenumerated Presidential Powers

Facts: A U.S. Marshall was appointed to be a bodyguard for a SC Justice and killed someone who appeared threatening. Was arrested in California and filed a writ of habeas (challenge one’s incarceration)

Opinion: Bodyguard was ensuring the nation’s laws were faithfully executed and his actions were consistent with congressional law that granted U.S. Marshalls the same powers as sheriffs.

Significance: President has the Constitutional power to ensure laws are faithfully executed

Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer

Presidency I: The Domestic Presidency: Unenumerated Presidential Powers

Facts: Truman seized steel companies to prevent strikes during Korean War using an Executive Order and his Commander in Chief powers

Opinion: President did not have this authority from Congress or the Constitution. Jackson establishes three levels of power in a concurring opinion.

Significance: when Presidents act in their own authority, this is the case they reference

Dames & Moore v Regan

Presidency I: The Domestic Presidency: Unenumerated Presidential Powers

Facts: Carter invokes IEEPA to freeze assets and court claims during Iranian hostage crisis. Dames & Moore want their money from Iran but executive agreement nullifies claims

Opinion: Uses Jackson levels of power 1. congressional authorization 2. no yay or nay 3. against congressional authority.

Significance: solidifies Jackson’s views on Presidential power

Myers v US

Presidency I: Removal power

Facts: Post-master was an inferior official with purely executive powers and required Senate approval to remove.

Opinion: President should have “at will” removal power for this type of officer. If you can’t remove, you can’t control, and you can't take care of duties

Significance: Executive must be able to remove subordinates

Eakin v Raub

Judicial Review

thought of as a dissent to Marbury; anti-judicial review

Opinion: constitutionality should be deferred to the legislature, shouldn’t rule on the substance of the law but should rule on the form of the law

Katzenbach v. McClung

Modern Commerce Clause

Facts: 1964 Civil Rights Act bars race discrimination that affects interstate commerce. Ollie’s BBQ is whites only.

Opinion: Ollie’s BBQ is commerce because it purchases a substantial portion of food out of state.

Significance: Restaurants are regulated if a substantial portion of food is moved in interstate commerce.

Humphrey’s Executor v. US

Presidency I: Removal power

Facts: An FTC Commissioner with a 7-year term, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers, and 5 people in the office

Opinion: Removal is okay because it’s different from Myers

Significance: term, powers, and number of people matter

Morrison v. Olson

Presidency I: Removal Power

Facts: Ethics in Government Act established independent counsel to investigate officials.

Opinion: Upholds the act because the independent counsel doesn’t interfere with Presidential powers and they’re not appointed by the President

Significance: exception to removal power

Seila Law v. CFPB

Presidency I: Removal power

CFPB tried to enforce law firm to comply with an investigation and the firm argued the CFPB was unconstitutional under SoP

Opinion: Upholds Myers, President should have the power to remove

Significance: Humphreys and Olson are exceptions

US v. Curtiss-Wright Exportation Company

Presidency II: Executive Power in War and Foreign Affairs: War Powers

Facts: Statute prohibits arms sale during war in South America

Opinion: Constitutional powers are greater in foreign affairs. This is a state matter, and the state is the president in foreign affairs. Long acquiescence to Presidential power Congress can do this sort of delegation

Significance: expansive view of Presidential power

Korematsu v. US

Presidency II: Executive Power in War and Foreign Affairs: War Powers

Facts: Japanese internment Executive Order said either report to jail or stay in place

Opinion: Executive Orders for fear of espionage and sabotage are okay.

Significance: war powers to promote the survival and security of US are okay

Zivitovsky v. Kerry

Presidency II: Executive Power in War and Foreign Affairs: Recognition Power

Facts: Individual born in Jerusalem wanted the city on his passport as place of birth, but President and Congress conflict on their acknowledgement of Jerusalem.

Opinion: Jackson’s three tiers of power. President “wins” because of the recognition power from the reception clause of the Constitution.

Significance: President has the power to decide who they recognize

Shaughnessy v. Mezei

Presidency II: Executive Power in War and Foreign Affairs: Immigration

Facts: Individual born abroad but lived in Buffalo, left for 25 years and was stranded on Ellis Island

Opinion: Not a violation because this is an exclusion of an alien not already on US soil.

Significance: Attorney General has the authority to exclude

Fiallo v. Bell

Presidency II: Executive Power in War and Foreign Affairs: Immigration

Facts: Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1952 creates classifications that deal with citizenship preference. Fathers are discriminated against

Opinion: Act is okay because it deals with entry. Rational basis applies

Significance: Fortiori argument

Trump v. Hawaii

Presidency II: Executive Power in War and Foreign Affairs: Immigration

Facts: President wants to impose entry restrictions and orders a Proclamation based on INA that blocks people from seven countries.

Opinion: INA grants President power to do this

Significance: President has broad authority to make determinations