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• Facts: Tennessee mayor sued over outdated legislative districts, arguing unequal representation.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

U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

Facts: Congress authorized the President to prohibit arms sales to certain countries during the Chaco War. Curtiss-Wright was indicted for violating the embargo and argued it was an unconstitutional delegation of power.
Issue: Does Congress’s delegation of foreign affairs power to the President violate the separation of powers?
Holding: No. The President has broad, inherent powers in foreign affairs that do not depend on congressional delegation.
Significance: Expanded presidential authority in foreign relations and established the President as the “sole organ” in external affairs.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

Facts: South Carolina challenged the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that prohibited states from literacy test.
Issue: Did Congress exceed its enforcement powers under the Fifteenth Amendment by enacting the Voting Rights Act and violate states rights?
Holding: No. Congress can use “appropriate” means to enforce voting rights and prevent racial discrimination.
Significance: Affirmed broad congressional power to enforce constitutional amendments and protect voting rights.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Facts: Shelby County challenged the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance formula as unconstitutional.
Issue: Is Section 4(b)’s preclearance formula constitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment?
Holding: No. The coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on outdated data.
Significance: Limited Congress’s enforcement powers and shifted voting law oversight back to states.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Facts: The 2000 presidential election recount in Florida was contested.
Issue: Did the Florida Supreme Court’s recount procedures violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Holding: Yes. Different recount standards violated equal protection.
Significance: Ended the Florida recount, effectively deciding the presidential election and demonstrating the Court’s role in electoral disputes.

In re Neagle (1890)

Facts: A U.S. Marshal killed a man while protecting a Supreme Court Justice and was charged with murder by California.
Issue: Can the President authorize executive officers to act without specific statutory authorization to protect federal interests?
Holding: Yes. The President’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” justified Neagle’s actions.
Significance: Expanded implied executive powers to act in defense of federal authority and interests.

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

Facts: Congress gave the President a line-item veto, which Clinton used to cancel certain budget items.
Issue: Does the line-item veto violate the Presentment Clause and separation of powers?
Holding: Yes. It allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal statutes.
Significance: Reinforced that the legislative process cannot be altered and limited executive power over spending.

Morrison v. Olson (1988)

Facts: The Ethics in Government Act allowed for an independent counsel removable only for cause.
Issue: Does restricting the President’s removal power over an independent counsel violate separation of powers?
Holding: No. The independent counsel was an “inferior officer” and could be appointment by someone other than President, did not violate separation of powers did not interfere with President’s ability to perform constitutional duties, counsel itself was a legitimate check on executive power
Significance: Allowed congressional checks on executive power for accountability.

Myers v. United States (1926)

Facts: A law required Senate approval for the removal of postmasters. Wilson removed one without approval.
Issue: Can Congress limit the President’s power to remove executive officers?
Holding: No. The President has exclusive power to remove purely executive officials.
Significance: Strengthened executive control over the executive branch.

Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935)

Facts: Roosevelt removed an FTC commissioner before the end of his term.
Issue: Can the President remove members of independent regulatory agencies at will?
Holding: No. Congress can limit removal of officials in quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, violated separation of powers
Significance: Distinguished between executive officers (removable at will) and independent officers (protected), proteced independant agencies

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Facts: Nixon refused to release Watergate tapes, citing executive privilege.
Issue: Is executive privilege absolute in the face of a judicial subpoena?
Holding: No. Executive privilege is limited and must yield to the demands of due process.
Significance: Reinforced that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)

Facts: Mississippi tried to stop President Johnson from enforcing Reconstruction Acts.
Issue: Can the judiciary enjoin the President from performing executive duties?
Holding: No. violated separation of powers to interfere with executive discretion, ministerial v. executive duties
Significance: Reinforced separation of powers, limited judicial control over the executive branch, presidential immunity in official acts

Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)

Facts: Air Force analyst terminated by Nixon after testifying about cost overruns, claims retaliation
Issue: Does the President have immunity from civil suits for official acts?
Holding: Yes. The President is absolutely immune from civil liability for official actions.
Significance: Strengthened executive immunity and protected presidential decision-making, absolute v qualified immunity 

Clinton v. Jones (1997)

Facts: Paula Jones sued President Clinton for conduct before he became president.
Issue: Does presidential immunity extend to civil suits for unofficial conduct before taking office?
Holding: No. Presidents are not immune from civil suits for unofficial acts.
Significance: Limited presidential immunity and affirmed that the President is subject to judicial process.

Ex parte Grossman (1925)

Facts: Grossman violated federal injunction during Prohibition, pardoned by Coolidge, but a judge challenged the pardon’s validity.
Issue: Does the President’s pardon power extend to criminal contempt of court?
Holding: Yes. The pardon power includes criminal contempt.
Significance: Expanded the scope of the presidential pardon power.

Murphy v. Ford (1975)

Facts: President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before any charges were filed.
Issue: Can the President pardon someone before they are indicted or convicted?
Holding: Yes. The pardon power extends to pre-indictment offenses.
Significance: preemptive pardons are constitutional, courts can decide whether pardon is constitutionally permitted but cannot tule on motives behind pardon (nonjudiciable)

Mistretta v. United States (1989)

Facts: Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission to set federal sentencing guidelines. A defendant challenged it as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Issue: Did Congress violate the nondelegation doctrine by giving legislative power to the Sentencing Commission?
Holding: No. The Court held that Congress can delegate power if it provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the agency.
Significance: Affirmed broad delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies, recognizing the need for expertise and flexibility in modern governance.

Bowsher v. Synar (1986)

Facts: The Balanced budget and emergency deficit control Act gave the Comptroller General (a legislative officer) authority to enforce budget cuts.
Issue: Does assigning executive powers to an officer controlled by Congress violate separation of powers?
Holding: Yes. The Comptroller General is part of the legislative branch and cannot exercise executive power.
Significance: Reinforced the separation of powers — Congress cannot retain control over execution of the laws.

Prize Cases (1863)

Facts: Lincoln ordered a naval blockade of Southern ports before Congress formally declared war. Ship owners sued, arguing the blockade was unconstitutional without a declaration.
Issue: Could the President act unilaterally to suppress the rebellion?
Holding: Yes. The Court ruled that a state of war existed, and the President could respond without a formal declaration.
Significance: Expanded presidential war powers — the President can act to repel hostilities and protect the nation even without prior congressional approval.

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

Facts: Milligan, a civilian, was tried by a military tribunal during the Civil War in Indiana, where civilian courts were open.
Issue: Can civilians be tried by military tribunals when civilian courts are available?
Holding: No. The Court ruled that trying civilians by military courts violates constitutional rights if civilian courts are functioning.
Significance: Strong protection of civil liberties — martial law cannot replace civil law when courts are open.

Ex parte Quirin (1942)

Facts: German saboteurs, including a U.S. citizen, were captured during WWII and tried by a military commission, actions violated laws of war
Issue: Could unlawful enemy combatants, including a U.S. citizen, be tried by a military tribunal?
Holding: Yes. The Court upheld the President’s authority to use military tribunals for ppl acting under enemy direction
Significance: Clarified the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants and affirmed executive power in wartime.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Facts: Fred Korematsu challenged the constitutionality of Japanese American internment during WWII.
Issue: Did the internment order violate the Constitution?
Holding: No. The Court upheld the internment as a “military necessity” during wartime.
Significance: Highly controversial — upheld broad wartime powers but is now widely discredited; later formally repudiated (Trump v. Hawaii, 2018).

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

Facts: During the Korean War, President Truman seized steel mills to prevent a labor strike that might disrupt war production.
Issue: Did the President have the power to seize private property without congressional authorization?
Holding: No. The President’s power must stem from the Constitution or an act of Congress.
Significance: Landmark limit on executive power; Justice Jackson’s concurrence established the famous three-tier framework for presidential authority.

Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)

Facts: President Carter froze Iranian assets and President Reagan implemented a settlement agreement resolving U.S. claims against Iran without congressional approval.
Issue: Could the President suspend legal claims and settle disputes without explicit congressional authorization?
Holding: Yes. The Court upheld the action, citing Congress’s implicit approval and a history of acquiescence.
Significance: Expanded executive power in foreign affairs, especially where Congress has historically supported such actions.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Facts: Congress passed a law allowing U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list “Israel” as their place of birth on passports. State department refused to uphold. originally dismissed bc nonjudicable and no injury
Issue: Does Congress have the power to require the State Department to list “Israel” as the place of birth for U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem, or does that infringe on the President’s exclusive power to recognize foreign states?
Holding: Yes. The Court ruled that the recognition power belongs solely to the President bc article 2 reception clause and foerign affairs powers
Significance: Strengthened presidential authority in foreign affairs and clarified the limits of congressional power in diplomacy.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Facts: Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan, was detained as an “enemy combatant” without trial and lawyer, requested writ of habeas corpus
Issue: Can the government detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely without due process?
Holding: No. The Court ruled that while the government can detain enemy combatants, U.S. citizens must be given notice and a fair opportunity to challenge their detention.
Significance: Balanced national security powers with due process protections, even in wartime.