Constitutional Law Midterm

Marbury v Madison

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over actions of the executive and Congress

Cooper v Aaron

Rulings of the Supreme Court are “laws made pursuant to the Constitution” therefore Supreme Court rulings are the supreme law of the land

Martin v Hunter’s Lessee

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over the state courts

Fletcher v Peck

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over state legislatures and governors

Muskrat v United States

The Supreme Court only has jurisdictions in actual cases and controversies brought by two adverse litigants (no advisory opinions)

Baker v Carr

The Supreme Court will not answer political questions

POLITICAL QUESTION IF:

1. there is a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate political branch

2. lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving issue

3. impossibility of deciding case without an initial policy determination

4. undertaking resolution without due respect to coordinate branches

5. unusual adherence to a political determination already made

6. potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments

Powell v McCormack

An exclusion is not the same as an expulsion and because an exclusion is NOT in the Constitution, it does not violate the demonstrable commitment rule and may be reviewed by the court

To answer political questions, the Supreme Court must interpret the Constitution

Nixon v United States

The Senate has the “sole” power of impeachment, and so the Court may not review impeachment proceedings conducted by Congress

There IS a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate political branch

International Longshoreman v Boyd

The Supreme Court will not take cases that are not ripe

Ex Parte McCardle

Congress has the power to make any changes to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

DeFunis v Odegaard

The Supreme Court will not take cases that are no longer current cases or controversies, i.e. cases that are moot

Exception: cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review (ex. Roe v Wade)

Frothingham v Mellon

No taxpayer standing

Cannot invalidate the Constitution with another part of the Constitution

Flast v Cohen

For a taxpayer to have standing, must pass Nexus test:

1. establish your connection as a taxpayer to the type of legislation

2. taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations

Duke Power

To have standing, must show particularized injury in fact and that the requested relief would likely relieve the injury (causal connection to complained conduct)

Sierra Club v Morton

Generalized grievances do not qualify standing

US v SCRAP

To have standing, groups must claim personal injury

Singleton v Wulff

No third-party standing

Exceptions:

1. the relationship between the litigant and the injured is such that the third party is just as an effective advocate (symbiotic)

2. there is some genuine obstacle that stops the party affected from litigating on their own behalf

Raines v Byrd

No congressional standing

Warth v Seldin

Litigants must demonstrate a personal injury, not one experienced by members of their group

McCulloch v Maryland

So long as it is otherwise constitutional, Congress can make all laws necessary and proper to effect their enumerated powers (implied powers doctrine)

Gibbons v Ogden

Congress has the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce