Conlaw Midterm Cases
5.0(3)
Studied by 13 people
Learn
Practice Test
Spaced Repetition
Match
FlashcardsCard Sorting
1/55
Earn XP
Description and Tags
Study Analytics
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
|---|
No study sessions yet.
56 Terms
1
New cards
\
Maurbury v Madison
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
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
2
New cards
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
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
3
New cards
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
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
4
New cards
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
Facts: Immigration lawyer pocketing money
Opinion: Sineneng-Smith’s speech was not protected by the Constitution.
Significance: Overbreadth doctrine
5
New cards
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
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
6
New cards
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
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
7
New cards
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
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
8
New cards
Flast v Cohen
Flast v Cohen
9
New cards
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
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
10
New cards
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
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
11
New cards
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
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
12
New cards
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
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
13
New cards
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
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
14
New cards
(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
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
15
New cards
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
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
16
New cards
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
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
17
New cards
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
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
18
New cards
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
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
19
New cards
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
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
20
New cards
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
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
21
New cards
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
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
22
New cards
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
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
23
New cards
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
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
24
New cards
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
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
25
New cards
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
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
26
New cards
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
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
27
New cards
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
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
28
New cards
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
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
29
New cards
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
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
30
New cards
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
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
31
New cards
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
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
32
New cards
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.
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.
33
New cards
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
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
34
New cards
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
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
35
New cards
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
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
36
New cards
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
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
37
New cards
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.
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.
38
New cards
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.**
\
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.**
\
39
New cards
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
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
40
New cards
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
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
41
New cards
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
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
42
New cards
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
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
43
New cards
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
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
44
New cards
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
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
45
New cards
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
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
46
New cards
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.
\
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.
\
47
New cards
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
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
48
New cards
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
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
49
New cards
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
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
50
New cards
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
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
51
New cards
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
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
52
New cards
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
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
53
New cards
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
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
54
New cards
\
Fiallo v. Bell
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
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
55
New cards
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
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
56
New cards