Legal

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Facts: William Marbury sued to compel delivery of his judicial commission after President Adams’ term ended and Jefferson’s Secretary of State refused to deliver it.

• Issue: Can the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus? Does the Court have the authority to review acts of Congress?

• Holding: The Court cannot issue the writ because the law granting that power was unconstitutional.

• Significance: Established judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)

• Facts: Virginia’s highest court refused to follow a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving land ownership under a treaty.

• Issue: Does the Supreme Court have appellate authority over state courts on federal issues?

• Holding: Yes. Article III allows the Supreme Court to review state court decisions on federal law.

• Significance: Strengthened federal supremacy and established that state courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions.

Eakin v. Raub (1825)

• Facts: In a dissent to a state case, Justice Gibson challenged Marbury.

• Issue: Should courts have the power to strike down laws?

• Holding (Dissent): Judicial review isn’t explicitly in the Constitution; legislatures should resolve unconstitutional laws.

• Significance: Offers a strong critique of judicial review, highlighting separation of powers concerns.

Ex parte McCardle (1869)

Ex parte McCardle (1869)

• Facts: McCardle, a newspaper editor, was detained during Reconstruction and sought habeas corpus review.

• Issue: Can Congress remove Supreme Court jurisdiction over certain cases?

• Holding: Yes. Congress has the power to make exceptions to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

• Significance: Demonstrates congressional control over the Court’s jurisdiction.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

• Facts: Tennessee mayor sued over outdated legislative districts, arguing unequal representation.

• Issue: Are redistricting issues justiciable or political questions?

• Holding: They are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause.

• Significance: Opened the door to judicial review of redistricting and established criteria for identifying political questions.

Nixon v. United States (1993)

• Facts: A federal judge challenged the Senate’s procedure in his impeachment trial.

• Issue: Can courts review Senate impeachment proceedings?

• Holding: No. Impeachment trials are “nonjusticiable” political questions committed solely to the Senate.

• Significance: Reinforces separation of powers and limits judicial review of impeachment.

Flast v. Cohen (1968)

• Facts: Taxpayers challenged federal spending on religious schools as violating the Establishment Clause.

• Issue: Do taxpayers have standing to sue over government spending?

• Holding: Yes, if they show a direct link between their status and a constitutional violation.

• Significance: Created a narrow exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing.

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

• Facts: A church challenged local zoning laws under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

• Issue: Can Congress redefine constitutional rights beyond Supreme Court interpretations?

• Holding: No. Congress can enforce rights but not expand them.

• Significance: Reinforces the Court’s supremacy in constitutional interpretation.

INS v. Chadha (1983)

• Facts: Congress used a “legislative veto” to block the suspension of a deportation.

• Issue: Does the legislative veto violate separation of powers?

• Holding: Yes. All legislative actions must follow bicameralism and presentment.

• Significance: Limited Congress’s ability to retain control over executive actions.

Powell v. McCormack (1969)

• Facts: Congress refused to seat Adam Clayton Powell despite his reelection.

• Issue: Can Congress exclude a member who meets constitutional qualifications?

• Holding: No. Congress can only judge the qualifications explicitly listed in the Constitution.

• Significance: Protects voters’ rights and limits congressional discretion.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)

• Facts: Arkansas imposed term limits for members of Congress.

• Issue: Can states add qualifications for federal office?

• Holding: No. Qualifications for federal office are fixed in the Constitution.

• Significance: Preserves federal supremacy over election qualifications.

Gravel v. United States (1972)

• Facts: Senator Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the record and faced a subpoena.

• Issue: Does the Speech or Debate Clause protect legislative acts?

• Holding: Yes, but it does not protect activities beyond the legislative sphere.

• Significance: Clarified the scope of legislative immunity.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Facts: Maryland taxed the Second Bank of the United States.

• Issue: Can Congress create a national bank? Can a state tax it?

• Holding: Yes, Congress has implied powers under necessary and proper clasue; no, states cannot tax federal institutions.

• Significance: Strengthened federal power and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

McGrain v. Daugherty (1927)

• Facts: Congress investigated the Attorney General and subpoenaed his brother.

• Issue: Does Congress have investigative power?

• Holding: Yes, as part of its legislative function.

• Significance: Established broad congressional power to compel testimony.

Watkins v. United States (1957)

• Facts: Watkins refused to answer questions in a congressional investigation into communism.

• Issue: Must congressional investigations have a legislative purpose?

• Holding: Yes, vague or overly broad inquiries violate due process.

• Significance: Set limits on congressional investigations.

Barenblatt v. United States (1959)

• Facts: Barenblatt refused to testify before HUAC about communist activities.

• Issue: Did the investigation violate his First Amendment rights?

• Holding: No. The government’s interest in investigating outweighed his rights.

• Significance: Broadened congressional investigative power.