Con Law 1 Test 1

Marbury v Madison facts and issue

Adams loses to Jefferson & on his way out appoints Marbury as a judge….but Marbury doesn’t receive his commission when Jefferson takes office. Jefferson refuses to let Marbury take office, so Marbury seeks a writ of mandamus from the Court.

Issue:

1. Did Marbury have a right to his commission and has this right been violated?

2. If so, does this violation need a remedy?/ Can they sue?

3. Is a writ of mandamus (forcing a lower court/government entity to do something - sec 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789) issued by the court the appropriate remedy?

Marbury v Madison Ruling

• Marbury had a right to his commission. By withholding the commission, Madison violated Marbury's rights. Legitimate commission - signed, sealed, just never delivered. Delivery does NOT make it authoritative.

•  the Court asserted its power of judicial review—the authority to declare laws unconstitutional

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) facts and issue

 VA law prohibits “enemies” from inheriting state land. Treaty of Paris restores confiscated property to loyalists.  Denny Martin inherits land from loyalist uncle, but VA voids his claim and distributes it to Hunter (and others).  Case goes to Court and VA Supreme Court rules in favor of Hunter. When the US Supreme Court disagrees, VA  Supreme Court  claims SCOTUS  lacks jurisdiction over the case. 

Issue: Did Congress unconstitutionally expand the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction  in section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789?

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) ruling

Unanimous decision for Martin. Article VI of the US Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), combined with the grant of appellate jurisdiction in Article III, gives federal courts the power to review state court decisions that interpret federal law or the Constitution.  The Court rejected the claim that Virginia and the national government were equal sovereigns. 

FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024) facts and issue

Facts: FDA regulates abortion-inducing drugs. Between 2000 and 2021, it changed the regulations to make the drug easier to get/administer. An association and group of ER doctors file suit.

Issue: Do the petitioners have Article 3 standing?

• Did the FDA exceed its authority given to it by the Administrative Procedure Act when it modified its regulations?

• (association and a few doctors)

FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024) ruling

• There is “associational standing” - the plaintiff did not have it and it could not be used as an advocacy piece 

Ruling: Unanimous decision for FDA. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and other plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding mifepristone. . Rather, they have legal, moral, ideological, and policy concerns about abortion. The concerns are legitimate, they do not suffice on their own to confer Article III standing to sue in federal court.

Flast v Cohen, 1968 facts and issue

Facts: Congress passes a law providing grants to states to buy instructional materials for public & private schools. A group of taxpayers file suit alleging this goes against the 1st Amendment.

Issue: Do taxpayers have standing to sue the federal government over an alleged constitutional violation?

• Did congress exceed its authority to do Article 3, section 8

• Can someone have standing simply as a taxpayer?

• Can taxpayers sue the Federal Government:

Flast v Cohen, 1968 ruling

Ruling: 8-1 decision for Flast. The Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power. The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test.

Ex Parte Grossman 1925 facts and issue

Prohibition Act. He violated a federal court injunction by continuing to sell alcoholic beverages. He was found guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentenced to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge issued a pardon that reduced Grossman's sentence to payment of the fine.

Issue: Did the president have the constitutional authority to commute a sentence for criminal contempt of court?

• Did the President of the United States unconstitutionally exercise the power of pardon given to it by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution by pardoning a criminal contempt of court conviction?

Ex parte grossman 1925 ruling

Holding: unanimous decision, the Court found that a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence was within the powers of the executive. The president's pardon authority includes offenses that violate the dignity or authority of the federal courts violate the law of the United States, making these contempts offenses against the United States. The president's powers are to act as checks against undue prejudice or needless severity in such sentencing by the judicial branch.

Morrison v Olson , 1988 facts and issue

Facts: The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created a special court and empowered the Attorney General to recommend to that court the appointment of an "independent counsel" to investigate, and, if necessary, prosecute government officials for certain violations of federal criminal laws. EPA Asst AG, who was under investigation by the Counsel, challenged the constitutionality of the position and law.  

Issue: Did the Act violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers? /// Did Congress have the authority to create the position of  independent counsel in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978?

Morrison v Olson, 1988 ruling

Holding: Near-unanimous Court held that the means of selecting the independent counsel did not violate the Appointments Clause (Congress DID have the authority to do this); the powers allocated to the special court did not violate Article III; and the Act was not offensive to the separation of powers doctrine since it did not impermissibly interfere with the functions of the Executive Branch. 

Myers v US 1926 facts and issue

Facts: Woodrow Wilson appointed Frank Myers to be first-class postmaster of Portland.  Under suspicion of fraud, Myers was asked to resign. When he refused, he was fired. Myers filed suit claiming his removal violated an 1876 fed law requiring Senate involvement/consent  in postmaster removal. 

Issue: Did the President (Wilson) have the constitutional authority to fire an executive official (Myers) without Senate involvement?

• Did the President of the United States unconstitutionally exercise the power of removal by dismissing a postmaster without the Senate’s consent, contrary to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution?

Myers v US 1926 ruling

Holding: Yes, the president has the constitutional authority to do so. Congress does NOT have the authority to require the President to have their consent. After tracing legislative debate of the First Congress in 1789 which dealt with the interpretation of the President's appointment power, Chief Justice Taft concluded that the power to remove appointed officers is vested in the President alone. 

Clinton v City of New York, 1998 facts and issue

Facts: Two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"):

• Line Item Veto Act: Passed in 1996, this act allowed the President of the United States to approve the law and THEN veto specific parts of appropriations bills (line items) without vetoing the entire bill.

• President Bill Clinton: Used this power to cancel certain spending provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

• Challengers: Members of congress were denied standing because the president had not used this power yet (there was an overreach. They did not have a particular standing. The City of New York (hospital association were affected by the spending over the president in his vetoing of this bill), along with a group of farmers' cooperatives, challenged the constitutionality of the act. They argued that the cancellations caused them direct harm.
  Issue: Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

• (Did congress exceed their authority when passing the Line Item Veto Act which gave the president the authority to cancel spending certain provisions of laws? ) This was a possible issue but NOT what they chose.

• Did the executive have the authority to cancel specific spending provisions in past law?  

Clinton v City of New York 1998 ruling

Holding: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional.

Reasoning: The Court held that the Act violated the Presentment Clause, which outlines the process of how a bill becomes law. According to the Constitution, after a bill is passed by both houses of Congress, it must either be approved or rejected in its entirety by the President. The Line Item Veto Act effectively allowed the President to amend or repeal parts of laws, which the Court found to be an overreach of executive power.

Biden v Nebraska, 2023 facts and issue

Facts:

• Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: In 2022, President Biden announced a plan to forgive a significant amount of federal student loan debt for borrowers. The plan aimed to cancel up to $10,000 in debt for most borrowers and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.

• Plaintiffs: Six states, led by Nebraska, sued the Biden administration, arguing that the plan was an overreach of executive authority and would harm state finances, particularly by affecting the revenue of state-run loan servicers.

• Legal Basis for the Plan: The Biden administration justified the plan under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003, which allows the Secretary of Education to “modify or waive” provisions of student aid programs during national emergencies (in this case, the COVID-19 pandemic).

  Issue:

• Legality of the Loan Forgiveness Plan: Does the HEROES Act authorize the President and the Department of Education to unilaterally cancel student loan debt on a large scale?

• Did the President of the United States unconstitutionally exercise executive power under the HEROES Act, as interpreted under Article II of the Constitution, to forgive federal student loans without explicit congressional authorization?

Biden v Nebraska, 2023 ruling

Conclusion:

• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan exceeded the authority granted under the HEROES Act.

  Reasoning: The Court found that the HEROES Act did not provide clear congressional authorization for such a broad cancellation of student loan debt. The Act was intended to allow targeted relief for specific groups affected by national emergencies, not a wide-scale cancellation of debt.

• Major Questions Doctrine: The Court applied the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions with significant economic and political consequences. The Court concluded that the HEROES Act did not provide such clear authorization for mass debt cancellation.

US v Nixon 1974 facts and issue

Facts:

• In the early 1970s, a break-in occurred at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., which led to an investigation into President Richard Nixon's administration.

• During the investigation, a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the Watergate scandal, Archibald Cox, subpoenaed tape recordings of conversations held in the Oval Office.

• President Nixon refused to release the tapes, claiming executive privilege, which he argued gave him the right to withhold confidential communications to protect national security and the confidentiality of high-level discussions.

  Issue: The central issue was whether the President of the United States could use executive privilege as an absolute defense against a judicial subpoena in a criminal investigation.

• Did the executive exceed its authority when it's used Executive Privilege as an absolute right?

US v Nixon 1974, ruling

• The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision (8-0), held that President Nixon must turn over the tapes. The Court concluded that while executive privilege is a legitimate power, it is not absolute. The privilege must be balanced against the demands of the judicial process and the fair administration of justice.

• The Court ruled that in the face of a criminal investigation, the need for evidence outweighs the president's generalized interest in confidentiality.

  Precedents/Tests Established:

• The decision established the principle that no person, not even the President, is above the law, and that the president cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence in a criminal investigation if that evidence is demonstrably relevant and necessary for the administration of justice.

• The ruling also clarified the limits of executive privilege, asserting that it cannot be used to obstruct the judicial process, especially in cases where there is a demonstrated need for evidence in a criminal trial

Clinton v Jones,, 1997, facts and issue

• In 1994, Paula Jones filed a civil lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, alleging that he had made unwanted sexual advances toward her while he was the Governor of Arkansas in 1991.

• President Clinton sought to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of presidential immunity, arguing that a sitting president should not be subject to civil litigation for actions taken before his presidency.

• Alternatively, Clinton requested that the lawsuit be postponed until after he left office, claiming that the demands of the presidency would make it difficult to participate in legal proceedings.

Issue: Is a President immune from civil suit for private actions done prior to taking office? 

• Did the President exceed their executive power in asking for absolute immunity from civil litigation for personal conduct that occurred before taking office? (contrary to the powers granted under Article II of the Constitution?)

Clinton v Jones 1997 holding

• The Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) ruled against President Clinton, holding that the Constitution does not grant a sitting president immunity from civil litigation for actions that occurred before the president took office and that are unrelated to official duties.

• Separation of Powers Doctrine, no writing or precedent supporting Absolute Immunity

• The Court also rejected the argument to delay the case, stating that the judiciary has the authority to handle civil litigation involving a sitting president in a manner that minimizes interference with the president's duties.

• reinforced the principle that the president is not above the law and can be held accountable for private actions, even while in office.

• The ruling clarified that the separation of powers doctrine does not prevent the judiciary from hearing civil lawsuits against a sitting president for actions taken before the president assumed office.

• The Court's decision also established that federal courts could manage such cases in a way that respects the president's responsibilities, ensuring that the legal process does not unduly interfere with the president's official duties.

• defining the limits of presidential immunity and the accountability of the president for private conduct.

US v Trump, 2024 facts and issue

In 2024, former President Donald Trump was indicted for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including allegations that he pressured state officials and sought to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to reject the certification of electoral votes. Trump argued that his actions were protected by presidential immunity, as they were taken while he was in office.Issue:The key issue was whether a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken during their time in office, particularly when those actions are criminal and related to official duties like election oversight and executive branch management.

Issue:

• Did the former President of the United States exceed his authority in invoking Absolute Authority with criminal charges with things alleged that he did during his tenure as president?

• To what extent can an executive invoke immunity for criminal prosecution for acts done during their tenure as president?

US v Trump 2024 ruling

A former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts (), and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Prize Cases 1863, facts and issue

• Facts: During the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports before Congress officially declared war. Several ships were seized for violating the blockade, and their owners challenged the legality of Lincoln's actions.

  Legal Issue: Did President Lincoln have the constitutional authority to order a blockade of Southern ports without a formal declaration of war from Congress?

Prize Cases 1863, ruling

• Supreme Court Holding: The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the government, holding that the president had the authority to act in times of rebellion and could order a blockade without a formal declaration of war. Though neither Congress nor the President can declare war against a state of the Union, when states waged war against the United States government, the President was "bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself,without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name."

• What the Case Established: The president has the authority to take military action in response to rebellion or invasion without waiting for Congress to declare war. This case expanded executive wartime powers.

Ex Parte Milligan (1866) Facts and Issue

• Facts: Lambdin Milligan, a civilian, was arrested in Indiana during the Civil War and sentenced to death by a military tribunal for allegedly plotting against the government. He argued that he should have been tried in a civilian court.

• Legal Issue: Can the government try civilians in military courts when civilian courts are still operational?

Ex Parte Milligan (1866) Ruling

• Supreme Court Holding: The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Milligan, holding that civilians cannot be tried by military tribunals when civilian courts are available.

  What the Case Established: This case reinforced the principle that martial law cannot apply to civilians when civilian courts are open. It strengthened civil liberties and limited the reach of military jurisdiction over civilians.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Facts and Issue

• Facts: President Truman ordered the seizure of steel mills during the Korean War to prevent a labor strike that could affect the war effort. The steel companies challenged the legality of this seizure.

• Legal Issue: Did the president have the constitutional authority to seize private property (steel mills) without Congressional approval?

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Ruling

• Supreme Court Holding: The Court ruled 6-3 against Truman, holding that the president does not have the authority to seize private property without explicit congressional authorization.

  What the Case Established: The case set a significant precedent in limiting executive power, particularly in domestic affairs, and defined the separation of powers between Congress and the president. It introduced Justice Jackson’s framework for evaluating presidential power in relation to Congress.

 Korematsu v. United States (1944) facts and issue

• Facts: During World War II, Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated to internment camps under an executive order. Fred Korematsu defied the order and was arrested.

• Legal Issue: Did the government’s internment of Japanese Americans violate Korematsu's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment?

 Korematsu v. United States (1944) ruling

• Supreme Court Holding: The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the U.S. government, holding that the internment was justified by national security concerns during wartime.

• What the Case Established: This case allowed the government to take extreme measures in the name of national security, even when such measures infringe on individual civil rights. Although discredited today, it upheld the government's broad wartime powers.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) facts and issue

• Facts: Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured in Afghanistan by U.S. forces and detained as an enemy combatant. The government argued that it could hold him indefinitely without formal charges or a trial, claiming that wartime powers justified his detention.

• Legal Issue: Whether a U.S. citizen designated as an enemy combatant has the right to challenge their detention and whether due process applies to such cases.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) ruling

• Supreme Court Holding:

  • The Court ruled that while the government has the authority to detain enemy combatants during times of war, including U.S. citizens, those citizens still retain due process rights under the Constitution.

  • A citizen detained as an enemy combatant must be given a "meaningful opportunity" to challenge their detention before a neutral decision-maker.

  • the government’s war powers are not absolute and must be balanced against constitutional rights, even in matters of national security.

What Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Established:

1. Due Process for Enemy Combatants: The case established that even during wartime, U.S. citizens detained as enemy combatants have the right to due process. Specifically, they must be able to challenge the factual basis for their detention in court.

2. Judicial Oversight of Executive Action: It underscored the importance of judicial review, rejecting the notion that the executive branch can act without checks when national security is at stake.

3. Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties: The decision created a framework for balancing the government’s interest in national security with an individual’s constitutional rights, particularly due process under the Fifth Amendment.

How many cases are heard in the Supreme Court under Original jurisdiction?

1-2%

article 3 - judiciary branch facts (4)

• Primarily focuses on the selection of justices (with advice + consent of Senate)
  

• and scope of the Court’s jurisdiction
  (original & appellate)
  

• Provides for lifetime tenure if judges sustain “good behavior”
  

• No discussion of court size,
  schedule, or the overall structure
  of the federal judiciary

Cert Petition Process (8)

1. Petitions reviewed via cert pool

2. Discuss list compiled

3. Justices vote 

4. Cases announced & scheduled

5. Briefs & amicus curiae filed

6. Oral arguments held

7. Closed conference held

8. Opinions drafted and circulated

Methods of Interpretation (6)

• Originalism - framers intent

• Textualism - constitution as a modern doc

• Structuralism - in between the lines of the Constitution (not in text)

• Stare Decisis - looking at past cases precedents

• Pragmatism - if/then

• Polling Jurisdictions - looking to the states

Judiciary act of 1789

• Established “inferior courts”

• Expanded Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (sec. 13)

• Clarified Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction (sec. 25)

4 things Trump was indicted For

1. Ordering DOJ to investigate electoral fraud

   • Conclusive and preclusive powers - immune for using the DOJ

2. Ordering VP Mike Pence persuasion to not certify alternate election results 

   • Presumptively immune but not absolutely immune

3. Persuasion of State officials to change electoral votes

   • Unofficial acts, not Immune 

4. “Inciting language” used on January 6

   • Unofficial acts - not immune

nickname for Supreme Court

court of last resort

Enumerated Executive DOMESTIC Powers

• Grant pardons 

• Sign/Veto Bills

• Faithfully execute laws

• Appoint judges/high-level officials

Enumerated Executive FOREIGN Powers

• Command military 

• Appoint ambassadors

• Receive ambassadors

• Negotiate Treaties

Federalism

division of powers between the national and state government

appellate jurisdiction

goes through other courts 1st

Pragmatism/ Consequentialism

if - then

structuralism

in between the lines of the constitution, not exactly in text (checks and balances)

polling jurisdiction

looking at the states and seeing what they are doing/have done (often applied with the 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment)

writ of certarori

REQUESTS for Supreme Court to hear their case

Nonjusticiability

potential exit ramps for cases

advisory opinions

( precedent set by Marshall )opinion issued by a court on a matter that does not involve a justiciable case or controversy between adverse parties;

Collusion

2 parties colluding together in front of a court so that the court can see them colluding together to get the court to weigh in in a certain way

political question

a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one.

mootness

controversy is no longer ACTIVE when it gets to the court (pregnancy exception)

Ripeness

seeking redress through courts, haven’t been injured YET (too early)

standing requirements

• Personal injury: They suffered (or will suffer) a concrete injury.

• Causation: The alleged injury is "fairly traceable to the challenged conduct."

• Redressability: The court can redress the alleged injury if it grants the plaintiff's requested relief. (RELIEF YOU ARE REQUESTING

he President’s authority is at its MAXIMUM when

when congress authorizes his action

The President’s authority is UNCERTAIN or in a “twilight zone”

when congress is silent

he President’s authority is at its LOWEST EBB

when congress expressly or implicitly disapproves - needs constitutional authority