Constitutional Law Final

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee Holding

Est. constitutional basis for Supreme Court to review state decisions.

Cohen v. Virginia Holding

Reaffirmed authority of Court to review state court judgments.

What prohibits advisory opionions?

The Case or Controversy Clause

2 Criteria for Justiciability (Advisory Opinions)

1. Actual dispute; 2. Likelihood court can provide remedy.

3 Requirements of Standing

(1) Personal Injury (2) Causation (3) Redressability

Lujan Rule

A plaintiff raising only a general grievance about the g'ment that raises a harm suffered by all citizens rather than a personal injury doesn't have standing.

Clapper v. Amnesty International Rule

An injury must be IMPENDING and not based on a highly speculative chain of possibilities.

Allen v. Wright Rule

To show causation for standing, the injury must be fairly traceable to the perpetrator.

Massachusetts v. EPA Rule

States have special solitude to obtain standing to sue federal agencies.

Rule of Generalized Grievances

Plaintiffs can't sue solely as a "taxpayer" or "citizen" interested in having the government follow the law.

Flast v. Cohen Rule

Exception to generalized grievances; taxpayers can challenge gov. spending as violating the Establishment Clause against Religion.

Pre-Enforcement Rule

A party may not seek anticipatory review of a statute or regulation.

Federal Declaratory Judgment Act

Permits federal courts to issue declaratory judgments telling parties what their rights and obligations are BUT ONLY IF the case is ripe.

Mootness General Rule

An actual controversy must exist at all stages of federal proceedings.

Exceptions to Mootness

Cases that are capable of repitition but evade review.

Baker v. Carr Rule

Questions of apportionment (voting districts) aren't political questions.

Luther Rule

Cases alleging a Guarantee Clause violation are non-justiciable questions.

Coleman v. Miller Rule

Issues pertaining to the amendment process are non-judicialable political questions.

Nixon v. U.S. (1993) Rule

Constitutionality of Senate impeachment proceedings is a nonjusticiable political question.

E.C. Knight Co (Sugar Trust Case) Rule

Activities that have a direct effect on interstate commerce can be regulated, but those with an indirect effect cannot.

Shreveport Rate Case Rule

When intrastate commerce has a substantial effect on interestate commerce, Congress can regulate it.

Swift & Co. v. U.S. Rule

Local business practices that are within the stream of commerce can be regulated by Congress.

Champion v. Ames Rule

Articles of value sent across state lines by independent carriers consitute independent commerce that Congress can regulate.

Hoke v. United States Rule

Congress has the "police force" power to regulate transportation across several states.

Child Labor Case (Hammer) Rule

The 10th Amendment is a restraint on congressional authority to regulate a purely local matter.

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. Rule

Congress can't regulate a purely local act under its Commerce Clause Power.

NLRB v. Jones Steel Rule

Congress can regulate commercial activities that share a close and substantial connection with interestate commerce.

U.S. v. Darby Rule

Congress can control production by regulating goods shipped in interestate commerce.

Substantial Effects Test Standard of Review

Congress may choose the means reasonably adopted to the attainment of the permitted end.

Which case did Darby overrule?

Hammer (child labor case).

Wickard v. Filburn Rule

Congress can regulate non-economic local activities as long as those activities, taken in the aggregate, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Lopez rule for single-state, non-economic activity

For a law to be upheld, Congress must show there is a real, factual basis for the conclusion that a single-state, non-economic activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Lopez 3 Catergories

1. Channels of interstate commerce; 2. Instrumentalities of interstate commerce; 3. Activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Gonazles v. Raich Rule

Congress has the power to regulate purely local activities that are a part of an economic class of activities having a substantial effect on interestate commerce.

National League of Cities v. Usery Rule

Congress can't displace the state's freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional government function.

Garcia v. SAMTA Rule

Congress has the authority to regulate labor relations under the commerce clause.

Which case did Garcia v. SAMTA overrule?

NLC v. Usery, because the court found the traditional state funtion approach unworkable.

NY v. U.S Rule

The federal government can't compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program (commandeering).

Printz v. U.S. Rule

Congress can't command a state's officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.

Reno v. Condon Rule

Congress can regulate a state's behavior, so long as they're not seeking to control the manner in which a State regulates private parties.

South Dakota v. Dole Rule

Congress can attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds and may do so to further braod policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal money on compliance.

President Nixon v. United States Rule

Qualified Executive Privilege: Presidential presumptive privileges doesn't bar compliance with a subpoena issued from a criminal court.

Trump v. Mazar Rul

Congressional subpoenas must serve a valid legislative effort and can't be intended for law enforcement efforts.

Nixon v Fitzgerald Rule

Both a sitting and ex president are entitled to absolute immunity from money damages based on his official acts.

Trump v. Vance Rule

The president isn't entitled to absolute immunity or a heightened standard when it comes to resisting a state criminal subpoena.