pols 1500 flash cards

What case established the principle of judicial review?

Marbury v. Madison (1803): This landmark case arose from a political conflict surrounding the transition from President John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. In the last hours of his presidency, Adams appointed several "Midnight Judges." When Jefferson took office, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver one of the commissions. William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission but that the Court could not issue the writ since the provision of the Judiciary Act giving the Court that power was unconstitutional. This case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.

What case affirmed the Supreme Court’s national supremacy over state court

This case arose from a land dispute in Virginia regarding whether federal treaties and laws could override state laws. The Supreme Court ruled that it had the authority to review state court decisions, asserting the supremacy of federal law. This landmark decision reinforced the federal judiciary's role and solidified the principle that federal law takes precedence over state laws.

What is the political question doctrine?

A doctrine that prevents courts from deciding issues that should be resolved by the executive or legislative branches, as established in Baker v. Carr (1962). This case highlighted the notion that certain political matters, such as legislative apportionment, are beyond judicial reach, establishing limits to judicial involvement in political issues.

What case set the test for the political question doctrine?

Baker v. Carr (1962): This case revolved around legislative apportionment in Tennessee. The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could intervene in state redistricting issues. This challenged the previous belief that such matters were purely political and non-justiciable. The ruling allowed for judicial review in politically charged cases, thus expanding the role of the judiciary in ensuring equitable representation.

What case upheld Congress’s broad powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause?

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): This case arose when Maryland attempted to tax the Second Bank of the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to establish the bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause and that Maryland could not tax it, as doing so would undermine federal authority. This decision affirmed the broad interpretation of federal powers and established the supremacy of federal legislation over state legislation

What is jurisdiction stripping, and which case is associated with it?

Congress's power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, exemplified in Ex Parte McCardle (1869). McCardle was detained under Reconstruction laws and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court. However, Congress passed legislation that stripped the Court of its appellate jurisdiction over such cases. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have the authority to hear McCardle's case due to this jurisdiction limitation. This case illustrated Congress's significant power over the judiciary's jurisdiction.

What is preemption in constitutional law?

The doctrine that federal law overrides conflicting state laws, illustrated in Arizona v. US (2012). The Supreme Court ruled that specific provisions of an Arizona immigration law were preempted by federal immigration law, asserting that states cannot enact conflicting laws in areas where the federal government has primary authority. This case underscored the principle of federal supremacy and the limitations on state legislative power.

How did NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Filburn impact commerce clause interpretation?

These two cases established a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937), the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act, finding that labor relations significantly affect interstate commerce. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court ruled that even personal wheat production could be regulated by Congress because it affected market supply. Together, these rulings expanded the federal government's regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

What case placed new limits on Congress’s commerce power by striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act?

US v. Lopez (1995): The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not regulate gun possession in school zones under the Commerce Clause. The Court found that possessing a gun in such areas did not substantially affect interstate commerce, marking a critical limitation on federal commerce power and reinforcing the need for a more concrete connection between regulated activities and interstate commerce.

What case established the anti-commandeering doctrine?

Printz v. US (1997): This case involved a challenge to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required state officials to perform background checks on gun purchasers. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not compel state officials to enforce federal regulations, thereby establishing the anti-commandeering doctrine. This decision reinforced the principle of state sovereignty and the limits on federal authority to control state actions.

What is the Dole test, and which case established it?

The Dole test, established in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), determines the conditions under which Congress can attach requirements to federal funding. The Court ruled that Congress could condition federal highway funds on states raising the legal drinking age, provided the condition served a legitimate federal interest and was related to the funding purpose. This case clarified the scope of Congressional power in influencing state policy through fiscal conditions.

Why was the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act not justified under the commerce clause?

In NFIB v. Sibelius (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance could not be justified under the Commerce Clause because it regulated inactivity (not purchasing insurance). However, the Court upheld the mandate under Congress's taxing power, which emphasized the limits of congressional authority in regulating commerce in relation to health care mandates.

What are the key doctrines of justiciability?

Justiciability doctrines include standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine. They determine when federal courts can hear a case, ensuring that courts engage only with appropriate cases suitable for judicial resolution. Standing assesses whether a party can seek legal recourse, ripeness evaluates whether a matter is ready for litigation, mootness checks if there is an active controversy, and the political question doctrine prevents courts from intervening in issues assigned to the political branches.

What is the difference between formalism and functionalism in constitutional interpretation?

Formalism emphasizes strict adherence to the text of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers, advocating for a more restrained judicial role. Functionalism, on the other hand, considers broader governmental purposes and practical consequences in legal interpretations, arguing for flexibility in applying constitutional principles to address contemporary issues. This debate significantly influences judicial philosophy in the interpretation and application of constitutional law.