Knowt
Note
Studied by 8 peopleNoteStudied by 14 peopleNoteStudied by 23 peopleNoteStudied by 32 peopleNoteStudied by 11 peopleNoteStudied by 24 people
Midterm Notes
Big Picture: Role of the Supreme Court
Class Seven "Case or Controversy Issues" Baker v. Carr
Article III. Sec. 2. , Cl. 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to teh all Cases [or] Controversies" The MUST be cases or controversies thy cannot be advisory.
Marbury . Madison.: The Supreme Court is the final word on the constitution because it is a court deciding cases.
There are five issues regarding case or controversy
Advisory Opinions: The Supreme Court will not hear advisory opinions. When the executive, legislative, or non-adversarial suits are brought to the courts to try and see what the outcome might be. The court will not hear advisory opinions.
Why will the court not hear advisory opinions?:
Because SCOTUS is the court of last resort and so they do not want every don, rick, and harry to bring a question without legal basis as well as but to submit legislative proposals to the judicial judgment instead of the deliberate decision of the legislature, is to submit legislative doubts instead of legislative convictions.
Adversarial proceeding will ensure fully developed facts & issues.
Judicial restraint (limited enforcement powers, respect for checks and balances)
Constitutional Issues only if necessary.
Non-adversarial cases: Cases will not decide cases in a friendly, non-adversarial proceeding between two parties.
Standing: When the court will decide whether or not the parties have the ability to bring a case to the court Whether a particular plaintiff may bring a case against that defendant:
Elements:
Injury in fact: Concrete (an actual harm that is identifiable) and particularized (individualized suit against the person suing not on behalf of someone else), actual or imminent (hae to be immediately in danger or you're pretty sure its gonna happen) (not conjectural/hypothetical)
Causally connected to the defendant's action: Injury must be fairly traceable to defendant's action. Not result of independent action of third party.
Likelihood of redressability: The court must be able to provide a resolution, remedy to injury must be likely, not speculative.
When the court is hearing an opinion decide what test the court is going to use first
Mootness: Mootness Requires that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, ande there is no longer an issue because it has been reviewed/
Ripeness: Ripeness is when it is not ready for the court ot decide the issue.
Political Question: It is called a political question because it is not supposed to be decided by the court but by other branches of government. If the issue is prudentially a policy issue not a question of law. For the court to hear the case, the issue must not be
1. Constitutionally committed to the unreviewable discretion of another branch, nor
One that prudentially should be left to another branch.
The very first question to file or not to file: Is there a case or controversy
Can that case be brought into the federal courts?
Does the court have the authority to or should the court hear this case? Before you even get to the merits of the case you have to decide if you can even bring the case to the court in the first place.
U.S. v. Windsor
Injury= Concrete, persisting, and unredressed
(but would be redressable)
Adversarial presentation of the issues assured
A Constitutional issue at stake
Prudential considerations (countless law suits if the constitutional issues are not resolved).
Lujan. V. Defenders of Wildlife
Lujan is the secretary of interior.
Plaintiff: Environmental Organization
Defendant: Secretary of the Interior.
Legal Issues: Whether plaintiffs have standing to seek judicial reivew of a rule interpreting the Endangered Species Act to apply only to actions in the U.S. or on the high seas, but NOT U.S. actions in other countries ONLY ISSUE ADDRESSED.
Whether the government followed the procedural requirements in the ESA
Procedural History:
Dist. Ct. Found for Pl on the standing and merits.
Circuit Court Affirmed.
Holding:
There was no standing in this case because the plaintiff had not demonstrated an injury in fact or redressability.
Why no redressability:
Procedural inury: Where the plaintiffs do not have an injury in fact, they cannot have a claim a procedural injury. This leaves the gate open for plaintiffs that DO have an injury in fact then the plaintiffs CAN bring a claim against procedural injury.
In other words, plaintiffs who have no injury in fact cannot bring a claim.
Massachusetts v. EPA:
The Issue: Whether plaintiffs have standing to seek JR of EPAs alleged failture to enforce the CAA?
Distinctions?:
Plaintiffs: Sovereign states (as opposed to only private parties). That the states have a special role visa ve to make sure that the federal government was doing what it was supposed to.
Injury: Landowner rights; although small and incremental, the increase in global warming is contributing to an actual and concrete injury (loss of coastal property of the states and other landowners).
Causation: EPA's failture to comply with CAA (to issue regulations regarding greenouse gases) contributes to plaintiff's injury
Redressability/ Remedy was different.
Injury in Face- Procedural Right: The redressability would be in the procedural rights granted.
Holding: The plaintiffs have standing to sue.
Transunion v. Ramirez: The risk of future harm is not sufficient to get damages. You cannot sue for compensatory or punitive damages for the risk of future harm in terms of injury in fact. BUT you can request an injunctive relief.
Causal Connection:
Causation too attenuated=no standing.
Congress removed individual mandate penalty (CA. V. TX).
Prudential Standing Doctrines;
Third party standing: A person cannot bring a suit on behalf of another person (no injury to the plaintiff)
Exceptions: where the P is so also injured or the plaintiff's interests are so closely tied with the injured party that interests are aligned.
Generalized Grievances: A person cannot bring a case against gov't for injury affecting public generally no "taxpayer" standing.
Very limited excetpsion allowing taxpayers to challenge a federal statute granting to religious schools under the Establishment Clause.
Zone of interest: Courts used to apply a zone of interest test ot determine whether a cliam brought by a P is outside of law's zone of interests
Congressional Conferral of Standing: Citizen Suites or private attorneys general provisions. Congress can authorize voters to challenge FEC
Legislator Standing?: Legislators generally lack standing to challenge a statute they opposed. Line Item Veto Act.
Supreme Court's Authority and Role
Big Picture:
Next class Preview:
Will be about Vertical Separation of Powers (Federalism)
Methods of Constitutional Interpretation.
John Marshall was one of justices who were key to the practice of constitutional interpretation.
Interpretation of the Constitution can be used for many different areas of legal interpretation. such as wills, and trusts,
Try to identify as many methodologies as you can when reading McColloch v. Maryland ("HW").
Text (The words and structure of the Constitution, Textualism)
Intent of the drafter and ratifiers (intentionalism)
Originalism: Original meaning of words at time of drafting/ratification
The purpose of the Constitution (Purposivism)
Nature of A constitution (versus statutes or other instruments) How does the nature of the const. Determine how you would interpret it.
Context (Economic, political, social)
Precedent
Structure of the government
Cannons of construction
Effect of the Preamble of the constitution
Practical or public policy arguments.
Public Sentiment. Does it have an impact? SHOULD it have an impact? Etc.
This class:
The FIRST QUESTION that you should ask: Does this court have the authority to or SHOULD the court hear this case?
Art. III, Sec. 2., Cl. 1: " The judicial Power shall extend to all cases . . . or Controversies. . . "
Marbury v. Madison: SCOTUS final word on the Const. Because it is a court deciding cases.
Issues:
If you see issues in the case or controversy you need to IRAC but only if they are relevant in the case! (Exam structure?).
Advisory Opinions: Opinions that are meant for the purposes of providing a preemptive opinion about whether something is constitutional or not. At the FEDERAL level they court will not provide advisory opinions.
There are two ways in which an advisory opinion might arise
Proposed legislative or executive actions.
Non adversarial cases between parties with no actual dispute. If there is no actual dispute here.
Standing:
Standing: When the court will decide whether or not the parties have the ability to bring a case to the court Whether a particular plaintiff may bring a case against that defendant:
Elements:
Injury in fact: Concrete (an actual harm that is identifiable) and particularized (individualized suit against the person suing not on behalf of someone else), actual or imminent (hae to be immediately in danger or you're pretty sure its gonna happen) (not conjectural/hypothetical)
Causally connected to the defendant's action (Causation): Injury must be fairly traceable to defendant's action. Not result of independent action of third party.
Likelihood of redressability (Redressability): The court must be able to provide a resolution, remedy to injury must be likely, not speculative.
When the court is hearing an opinion decide what test the court is going to use first
Mootness:
Litigants who previously had standing to sue at the outset of litigation no longer have a concrete stake in the outcome due to changes in the facts or law after the lawsuit was initiated.
Moot can be to practice as well as having the meaning of irrelevancy (make sure to understand the context of the way the word is being used)
The case must not arise too late
Not equal to case or controversy b/c
Controversy has been resolved.
When litigants who clearly had standing to sue at the outset of the litigation are deprived of a concrete take in the outcome by changes in the fact or in the law occurring after the lawsuit has gotten under way.
Exceptions
An exception to the mootness doctrine are cases that are "capable of repetition yet evading review."Ex. Roe v. Wade: Roe's suit against Texas was decided long after the pregnancy had come to term, but the court did not view this as moot because the usual appellate process takes longer than the human gestation period.
Voluntary cessation, but could reasonably be expected to recur: When the Defendant continuously volunteers to stop behavior and then after the case is dropped the Defendant will do the same thing again and again and again.
Ripeness:
A case cannot arise too soon before the facts are set quite yet because there are inadequate facts and therefore no case or controversy. Seeks to prevent premature adjudication; it involves situations where the dispute is insufficiently developed and is instead too remote or speculative to warrant judicial action. A case is not ripe when it is brought too soon, when the party have not yet reached a concrete confrontation
A case is not ripe when there is a request for anticipatory relief, if the case arises too soon, is too remote or speculative, too hypothetical, so no real dispute and no real harm. (e.g. plaintiff is worried about being prosecuted)
Examples:
An "attack on the political expediency" of the law
No one had been charged under the Hatch Act, so ther was not yet any controversy (United Public Workers v. Mitchell).
Similar to an advisory opinion or a generalized grievance.
Speculative apprehension about some future harm
U.S. Army surveillance of lawful political activity by citizens, no "specific present objective harm"
Similar to no injury in fact element of standing.
MAKE NOTE: If you have a ripeness issue then you may also have a standing issue because it is similar to no injury in fact element to standing. Argue this every time you have a ripeness issue.
Also similar to advisory opinions, but with plaintiff & adversarial.
Similar to a generalized grievance, but in future may be particularized.
Political Questions: Questions that are meant to be decided by the political branches of government not by the court. This does not mean that the court cannot deal with political issues, but rather that there are issues that meant to be decided by the elected branches.
Two Prongs to the Political Question Doctrine:
The Constitutional:
The decision rests with the legis. Or exec. Branch not a case or controversy because the AUTHORITY to decide BELONGS to another branch. With a PQ the power belongs to the exec. Or legis. Not the judicial branch therefore it is not a case or controversy.
Baker v. Carr:
Voters in TN claimed that the apportionment of the TN General Assembly violated their equal protection rights "by virtue of the debasement of their vote"
Political Questions under Baker v. Carr
U.S. Constitution:
Guaranty Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 4)
Equal Protection Clause (14th Amdt.)
Legal Issue: Is the apportionment challenge a non-justiciable "Political Question"
What is the difference between Baker and Luther? Why does the guaranty clause "work" here.
Holding: No. A challenge to an apportionment is a justiciable issue.
Reasoning: State voter dilution, 14th Amendment
Justiciable
Coleman v. Miller
Constitutional Amendment Process
Political Question/ Not justiciable
Luther v. Border
Guarantee of republican form of government
Political Question.
Pacific States v. Oregon
Initiative and referendum negate republican form of government
Political Question
Powell v. McCormack
Adding to Constitutional qualification, wrongful exclusion.
Goldwater v. Carter
Treaty obrogation/ withdrawal
Political Question.
Nixon v. U.S.
Impeachment proceeding of judge
Political Question
Bush V. Gore:
Gore challenge the methods of recounting the votes in Florida for the Presidential Election. State Presidential election process therefore the courts could intervene.
5-4 decision.
Justiciable
Not a political Question
Zivotofsky v. Clinton
Judiciable because there is no textual commitment to the court.
This is a question of determining the constitutionality of a statute. Therefore Judiciable.
Rucho v. Common Cause
Partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts, no legal standards
Justiciable.
Political Question Factors: Factors are not the same as elements because all elements have to be met. Factors are not always relevant to a particular case but if there are other factors that are then those are the ones that can be taken into consideration.
Baker v. Carr: The Supreme Court will consider whether (p.64)
Constitutional: A textual commitment to political branches. There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment standards
Prudential: Standards
Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards
Policy Decision
Institutional Issues
Finality: Need of a financial decision.
One voice: Need to speak with one voice
Comity (respect to co-equal branches)
Legitimacy. If the Courts opinion is undermined in the public opinion is anyone likely to take it seriously?
Types of Non-Justiciable Political Questions
Constitutional Amendment process
Guarantee of republican form of government
Initiative and referendum negate republican form of gvmt
Treaty abrogation
(There's two more)
kj
Types of JUSTICIABLE questions:
State voter dilution
Adding congressional qualifications
State presidential election process.
Statute recognizing foreign soverigns.
Prudential Reasons the court is not going to answer these questions. There are no judicially mandated standards.
Big Picture:
Where we Are
Federalism: Vertical Separation of Powers
Nations & States in the Federal System: History and Principles
Where we're going:
Commerce Power and It's Limits
Other National Powers
Federal Limits on state Regulations of Interstate Commerce.
Federalism: History and Principles
Eumerated Powers; Limits of the Necessary and Proper Clause
Location of Sovereignty in the Federal System; Values Served by Federalism
Two fundamental Questions:
What is the appropriate divide between federal and state Power?
Who should determine the divide between federal and state power?
There are many arguments for both a strong state government system and a federal governmet.
State Power:
10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.
Things that are not explicitly delegated to the federal government nor something that is prohibited by the federal government belongs to the states.
Articles of Confederation:
Each State retained "every Power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States"
Only powers delegated by the Constitution "enumerated"
Example, according to Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have the power to:
17 powers specifically
18th power it "To make all law which shall be necessary and propert for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Power vested in this bConstitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.
MuCulloch v. Maryland
Legal Issues:
Does Congress have power to create a national bank?
Underlying Question: Does sovereignty rest with the people therefore the federal government is supreme within its spehere or with the states
Underlying question: Does Congress have the Implied powers that enable it to implements the power that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution?plied powers that enable it to implements the power that are expres
Does the necessary and Propert Clause limit or supplement the power enumerated in the Constitution?
If Congress has the power to create a national bank can a state impose a tax on the national bank?
Yes, Congress has the power to create a national bank.
Soverignty lies with the people therefore the federal government is supreme within its sphere.
Congress has implied powers.
Location of FEderal Soverignty:
Is the US Constitution an agreement by the people or a compact by the states?
This is an agreement by the people
The Necessary and Proper Clause & Implied Powers:Intergovernmental Tax Immunities:
A Power to create implies a power to preserve.
A Power to destroy through taxation if wielded by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with these powers to create and to preserve.
Where this repugnancy exists that authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which it is supreme.
Therefore, states may not tax federal entities.
Based on the structure of the Constitution this is not possible.
Implications of McCulloch:
The Constitution derives the ultimate sovereignty of the United States from the people of the nation, not the state gov'ts.
Therefore, in areas where federal gov't has power, state govt's are subordinate and federal government has supremacy over state governemnts
The court adopts broad interpretation of the NPC
Congress has discretion to choose apropriate means to achieve a legitimate end
Therfore congress can create a national bank.
The state government cannot take actions that would threaten the soverignty of the United States.
Necessary and Proper Clause:
United States v. Comstock
Considerations: Power of congress
Congress's implied power under the NEcessary and Proper clause must be rationally related (standard of review to determine if something is constitutionality of government action) to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power
Congress's act is a modest addition to longstanding statutes
Congress's act regarding federal custody
Standards of Review regarding the Constitutionality of government action:
Rational basis test:
Most legislation e.g., economic statutes.
It must have legitimate government interests.
Strict Scrutiny Test:
More stringent test that the government will have to meet for their legislation to be passed
Suspect classifications (e.g. race, national origin, religion)
If the federal government cannot fulfill this then the law may be struck down.
Fundamental right (violations of the bill of rights, 14th amendment etc.)
Narrowly tailored to address a compelling gov't interest.
Intermediate Scrutiny test:
This came after the SST,
Quasi-suspect classifications (e.g. gender "exceedingly persuasive justification," U.S. v. Virginia).
Not quite as extracting as Strict Scrutiny.
Can be a little looser than the SST.
Substantially related to an important government interest.
United States v. Comstock
Dissent:
Which Enumerated Power?
Federal Police Power?
Two Fundamental Questions:
What is the appropriate divide between federal and state power?
What are the pros and cons of a weaker, decentralized federal government and stronger state governments?
Federal Power:
Federal Power comes from the constitution
Only powers delegated by the Constitution: "enumerated"
18th Power to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers and all
State Powers is granted by the 10th amendment. If the power is delegated to the United States Government and it is not denied to the states then it is up to the rest of the power is not reserved to the states.
Why does the location of sovereignty matter: This is how the constitution created a checks and balance of people's rights and liberties.
If the state wants to make an amendment or interpret the constitution differently then the question becomes whether or not the states have the power to do such a thing.
If the states could just amend the constitution based on one state's interpretation then it makes a difference about how the ability of the supreme court as the interpreter of the law makes a difference on whether or not state supreme courts have to comply with the federal supreme court.
Makes a difference as to whether or not a state can change or add additional provisions that aren't there in the first place.
Sovereignty: The ultimate authority
The supremacy clause only within its purview but within those powers it is supreme because the people give the federal government that power.
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton
Facts: Arkansas amended the state constitution to limit the terms of its representatives in Congress.
Issue: Does a state have the power to change the qualifications of members of Congress as set forth by the U.S. Constitution?
Constitutional Provisions:
Qualifications Clauses.
Holding: No, a state cannot add additional qualifications to the U.S. constitution
National legislature
Amendment Process.
No pre-existing state rights
The U.S Constitution does not allow it
Reasoning:
The 10th amendment: States could oly reserve that which existed before the U..S. Constitution.
Pros of Strong State Governments:
Pros of a Strong National Government:
Regulation of interstate commerce.
Dealing with interstate conflict.
Strong federal government can provide national defense (strong military) (national security) .
Speaking with one voice.
Equality of rights for all citizens. (Protections that the national government can give that the states cannot give respectively).
Provide federal aid and social security programs.
Food management? (Ensure an adequate supply of food to the country) Provide farmers insurance.
Only one interpretation of the constitution. Rather than 50 different patchwork laws. One set of uniform laws throughout the country.
Tragedy of the Commons: There is limited resources in an open space but they acquire more than they should. People will not restrain themselves when gathering resources so there is not an opportunity for everyone to gather the same resources.
Impositions on negative externalities
Protection of individual rights from tyranny of local majorities
Prevent a "race to the bottom"
Encourages allegiance to the United States as opposed to Affiairs and Powers.
Commerce Power and its federalism based limits
The commerce Power Before, During and After the New Deal
Contemporary Commerce Power
The 10th amendment and 11th amendment.
The Commerce Clause:
Article I Sec. 8 Clause 3
The Congress shall have Power
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes.
Interstate commerce is commerce that goes between the states
INTRAstate commerce is commerce that is purely within one state.
Adam Smith: Wrote the Wealth of Nations
Wealth of Nations: Wanted free flow of commerce. To Maximize the goods
Ebb and Flow of the Commerce Power:
Before New Deal:
Broad interpretation with gradual limits.
This includes navigation and transportation of goods back and forth between the states. Money changing hands and whatnot.
Leading up to & Start of New Deal
Narrower interpretation, new tests, more limits.
The switch in time that saved nine
After the New Deal:
Broader interpretation, more permissive.
Recently (1995-Present).
Stopped upholding all of congress's commerce clause power.
Gibbons v. Ogden
What does "commerce " mean? What does it include
What does "among the several states" mean?
Which law prevails when a state la conflicts with a valid federal law?
Commerce DOES include navigation.
Includes transportation and regulating the means of transportation.
It does not mean that congress can regulate purely intrastate activities.
Developing Tests for the Commerce Power
Direct v. indirect effects test:
US v EC Knight Co. (Sugar trust case 1895)
Congress did not have the power to regulate manufacturing and the Sherman Act was not within Congress's power.
Commerce = Direct Effects OR Transporting across state lines. BUT Pure Manufacturing itself according to the court at the time did not allow manufacturing to be a part of interstate commerce.
Manufacturing = Indirect Effects
Therefore, Manufacturing is NOT Commerce
NOTE THIS IS NO LONGER GOOD LAW.
This is not allowable because this does in fact impact interstate commerce because it effects the prices of the good.
Substantial economic effects test
The Shreveport Rate Case (1914).
Barriers to interstate commerce is not something that the courts wanted to have.
Ever. NOT EVER. Ever.
Congress CAN effect purely intrastate commerce if there is a significant economic effect on interstate commerce. '
"Extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the rights . . . "
Swift & Co. V. U.S..
Campion v. Ames (Lottery, 1903)
If you can regulate that means you can put restrictions on the free flow or you can cut it off entirely
Hipolite Egg Co. V. US (tainted eggs, 1911).
Hoke v. U.S. (Mann Act: Sex trafficking, 1913).
The US Supreme Court upheld these laws.
NOTE; Noramlly "police powers" are reserved to the states. How did the Supreme Court distinguish these cases and allow the federal government to have "police powers' in certain circumstances.?
WHY Can Congress Regulate this in this circumstances?:
BECAUSE IT INVOLVES MONEY
Stream of Commerce test
National Police Regulation
LIMITING Congress's Commerce Power:
Striking Down New Deal Legislation:
Initially the courts struck down numerous New Deal Laws.
Railroad Retirement Act.
Railroad Retirment Board v. Alton (1935).
Schechter Poultry Corp v. U.S. = Sick Chicken Case (1935).
Wage Hour unfair trade practices
Bituminous Coal Conservation Act
Carter v. Cater Coa; Co.
Wage and hour regulations
Production is purely local activity.
Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan
Up to 15 Supreme Court Justices
Upholding Congres's Commerce Power:
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937).
Acts which directly burden or obstruct interstate or foreign commerce, or its free flow, are within the reach of congressional power.
Acts having that effect are NOT rendered immune because they grow out of labor disputes.
It is the effect upon commerce not the source of the injury which is the criteron.
U.S. V. Darby:
Legal Issues:
Whether Congress has the power to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of lumber manufactured by employers whose wages and hours violate standards.
Yes.
Whether Congress has the power to prohibit employment of laborers in producing of goods for interstate commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn
The Appelle's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here his contribution . . . .
Aggregation approach.
After New Deal
Broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause, more permissive . . .
6 Decades.
Ollies Barbeque Case Katzenbach
Perez v. US.
Federal prohibition of "extortionate credit transactions" (Loansharking)
For next class, modern commerce clause.
Be able to articulate the tests that the court uses.
Commerce Clause Part II:
Art. I Section 8, Clause 3
The Congress shall have the Power
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes.
In these difficult cases, this is not about SCOTUS not caring about the issues presented, but rather that it is up to the states to regulate those problems!
Race to the bottom: Have as few regulations as possible that way others will want to work and live in that state with the least amount of regulations.
This becomes a question of whether or not these are to be a state issue or should they be regulated by the federal government?
Before the New Deal:
Broad interpretation with gradual limits.
Leading up to the New Deal:
Starts to strike down some cases saying that the issues should be in the purview of the states.
Th switch in time that saved nine:
Saying that the commerce power should be interpreted more broadly.
After the New Deal:
Broader interpretation, more permissive
Recently (1995 to Present)
Out boundearies of the commerce clause were reached.
United States v. Lopez (1995).
The Guns in Schools Case.
The courts struck down Congress's exercise of the commerce. Issue: Whether congress exceeded their commerce power.
Gun Free School Zones Act
Made it a federal crime: for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone.
Made this a police power
Facts: Congress passed an act prohibiting people to be in possession of a gun within a school zone. Alfonzo Lopez brought a gun to school.
Holding:
Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
Reasoning:
Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.
This act is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise.
Nothing in the statute containts a jurisdictional element.
There
Government's cost of cime argument could lead vto regulation of all violent crime.
Government's national roductivity argument could lead to regulation of all activity that would affect productivity for individuals.
Kennedy Concurring:
Congress can regulate in the commercial sphere on the assumption that we have a single market and a unified purpose to build a stable national economy.
He emphasized the importance of federalism.
The theory that two governments accord more liberty than one requires for it realization two distinct and discernable lines of political accountability and fedearl government and the state governments.
Justice Thomas (Concurring):
When asked at oral argument if there were any limits to teh Commerce Clause, the Government was at a loss for words. Which is why Thomas concurred.
Bryer (dissenting):
The corect question is not whether the regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce, but rather, whether Congress could have had a rational basis for so concluding.
Souter (dissenting);
The court's practice of deferring to Congress "is a paradigm of judicial restraint."
Stevens (dissenting):
"Guns are both articles of commerce and articles that can be used to restrain commerce."
Set up the modern test for Interstate Commerce. :
1: May regulate the channels (canals) of interstate commerce:
The ways in which commerce is moved. Highways, railroad, waterways, navigable waters.
2(a): Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
The trains, the planes, the airlines the trucks, ferries, things the vehicles in which the things move.
2(b): What is actually being transported:
You can regulate the people, the goods even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.
A lot of times people forget that part. Ex. There can be seatbelts mandated in cars.
3: Those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce ("substantially affect").
U.S. v. Morrison (2000).
VAWA
NO. Struck it down
A student filed charges against two football players at V-Tech.
Defendants:
Two college students charged with rape under the federal VAWA
Legal Issue: Whether Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to enact a law providing that A person who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender shall be liable to the party injured in an action for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages.
Holding: No
Reasoning:
The commerce clause allows regulation of intrastate activity that is economic in nature.
Gender based violence is not a neconomic activity.
The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.
Justice Thomas (concurring):
Again questioend the "substantial economic effects test"
I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a substantial . . . .
Justice Souter (dissent):
Congress is in a better position than the courts to determine economic impact
Politics, not judicial review, should mediate between state and national interests.
Attorneys General from 38 states urged Congress to enact this provision of VAWA and the National Association of Attorneys General supported VAWA unanimously.
The staets will be forced to enjoy the new federalism whether they wanted it or not.
Gonzales v. Reich:
Marijuana
Yes.
Used the aggregation theory
Federal: Controlled Substances Act bans posession, obtaining or manufacturing marijuana.
Californai:
Compassionate Use Act exempted from criminal prosecution, physicians, patients, and primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana.
Legal Issue: Whether the CC includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in ocmpliance with California law.
Holding: YES!
Scalia (concurring:
Reads CC in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause re: possession
O'Connor (dissenting):
One purpose of federalism is to encourage "States as laboratories [to] try novel social and economic experiments."
Thomas (dissenting):
Refutes the assertion that this regulation is permissible under the CC as a slippery slope.
If we have a substantial economic effects test then this will never ever end.
No evidence from the founding.
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012).
Affordable Care Act
Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause
This was held not to be within Congress's purview under the commerce clause.
Individual Mandates individuals who are not exempt and who do not purchase health insurance from a private insurer in order to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage on pain of a penalty to be paid to the IRS.
External Limits on the Commerce Power:
Federalism and the 10 Amendment and 11th Amendment (Next Class).
Congress has the power to tax, raise revenue and try to get people to do something or get them to refrain others to do something.
Congress can use the spending power.
Nothing in the Constitution means Nothing (Double Negative) but important.
The switch in time that saved nine: Which means that for about 6 decades SCOTUS upheld all of the acts that Congress passed without very much fight.
Never say always or never. It can always go the other way.
Contemporary Commerce Power:
US. V. Lopez (1995).
Guns, Unconstitutional
US v. Morrison
VAWA Unconstitutional.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
Marijuana, constitutional.
NFIB v. Sebelius:
Affordable Care Act, unconstitutional (respect to the Commerce Power).
Congress did not have the power under the Commerce Clause to enact the ACA.
Plaintiff:
NFIB et al.
Defendant:
Cathleen Sebelius
Legal Issue:
Whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to enact the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
The individual mandate for the first time required insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. But in order to do that, you needed to mandate that everyone purchased insurance or to pay a penalty along with their taxes.
Can Congress do this?
Holding:
Chief Justice Roberts: No power under Commerce Clause to enact the individual mandate.
BUT under the taxing clause, Congress is able enact the ACA. (obamacare).
Because Congress can regulate ACTIVITY, but Congress cannot regulate nothing. So if people are not entering commerce how can you regulate it?
Congress cannot force people to enter into commerce because that would go outside the definition of regulation.
The individual mandate does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to enter into congress.
IT NEVER EXISTED. There is no justification under the ICC.
Dissenting in part but concurred in part:
Note: Although they dissent from Robert's decision that the individual mandate is permissible under Congress' taxing power they concur with his decision that the individual mandate is impermissible under Congress' commerce power.
Limiting or forbidding activity is not the same as requiring commercial activity.
Forcing people to buy health insurance is NOT the same as regulating activity that is already happening.
Dissent: Ginsburg, Bryer, Sotomayor, Kagan.
Those with health insurance subsidize the medical care of those without it, the uninsured "free ride" on those who pay for health insurance.
States cannot resolve the problem of the uninsured on their own. An influx of unhealthy individuals into a State with universal health care would result in an increased spending on medical services
Congress could have taken over the heal-insurance market by establishing a tax-and-spend federal program like Social Security."
This is pure dicta, and this might have persuasive value, but it doesn't necessarily have precedential power.
Modern Commerce Clause:
Channels (internet)
Instrumentalities (internet could be considered an instrumentality) and persons or things
Economic activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce "Substantially affects"
Congress may regulate these activities.
BUT
What happens when Congress tries to regulate state governments.
10th Amendment
Powers reserved to the states
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Plenary power.
States Constitutions limit the power of the states.
But otherwise they have plenary power over anyone else.
10 A: State immunity from Federal Regulation
State Immunity from Federal Regulation of Core State Functions:
Coyle v. Oklahoma
No State Immunity from Economic Regulation:
U.S. v.. Calif. (State owned RR violated federal safety act, 1936).
New York v. U.S. (federal tax on sale of state owned bottled water, 1946).
State Immunity rom Economic Regulation (temporarily):
Nat'l Leauge of Cities v. Usery (FLSA Cannot apply to states, 1976).
No state immunity from Economic Regulation
Garcia v. San Antonio MTA (FLSA can apply to the states 1985).
South Carolina v. Baker (federal tax on state issued bonds 1988).
State Immunity: No commandeering of State Government:
NY v. US (state legislature-radioactive waste disposal, 1992)
Prints v. US.
No state Immunity from Direct Federal Regulation of State Government:
Congress can regulate states directly, but they cannot tell the state how to regulate their own people.
State Immunity from Congressional Prohibitions on Legislative Action:
Murphy v. National Collegiate.The 11th Amendment States: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or subjects of any Foreign States.
Meaning that you cannot sue the government.
What is this called?
Sovereign Immunity.
To what extent can Congress breach that sovereign immunity? Can what extent can Congress allow the States to be sued.
A State can give consent to be sued.
11th Amendment: State Sovereign Immunity
Hans v. Louisiana (1890).
Eleventh Amendment applies not only to cases involving federal diversity jurisdictions, but also to cases involving federal question jurisdiction brought by its own residents.
11th Amd. State Sovereign Immunity:
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996).
Congress may regulate the interactions with the indian nations under Article I Sec. 8
Indian Gaming Regulatory act.
Congress may not abrogate a state's sovereign immunity via the Commerce Clause without the states consent.
11th Amd. State Sovereign immunity Alden v. Maine (1999).
Supreme Court extended state sovereign immunity to actions brough under federal laws in state courts.
Federal Government has the power to sue the state governments to enforce its own laws.
Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002).
State Sovereign immunity extends to federal administrative adjudications.
Central VA Community College v. Katz (2006).
State sovereign immunity does NOT bar Congress's powers under the Bankruptcy Clause providing that Congress shall have the power to establish "uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."
Exceptions to State Sovereign Immunity:
Federal law bind states, even though private lawsuits cannot enforce them, the federal government can sue
Congress can condition federal speding on states' agreement to waive soverign immunity (states can consent to be sued in federal court).
Congress can enact federal statutes allowing private parties. .. . .
To sue officers acting beyond their constitutional authority for prospective injunctive relief.
To sue states for retrospective damages pursuant to its enforcement power of section five of the 14th amendment if it follows the clear statement rule.
Under the bankruptcy laws
A state may allow plaintiffs to sue the state in state courts this section is only dealing with federalism and U.S. laws.
The Taxing Clause: Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1.
Clearly indicates that Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.
BUT to what extent does Congress's power have to use the taxing power as a regulatory device?
Baily v. Drexel Furniture:
Legal Issue:
Whether the Child labor Tax law is a valid exercise of the taxing power or an impermissible regulations of an activity that is exclusively within the power of the states under the 10th Amendment?
Holding: Unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
The Child labor tax is really a regulation of the employment of child labor in the States which is an exclusively state function under the constitution and within the reservations of the 10th amendment (under Hammer v. Dagenhart) (1918).
If they couldn't regulate it directly then they were going to tax it out of existence.
Tax as a penalty (Unconstitutional, if Congress would not otherwise have the power to penalize that activity).
Taxing Power as a Regulatory Device
Chief Justice Roberts:
"Tax is a penalty because:
Exceedingly heavy burden
Only on those who knowingly employed underage laborers
Enforced by the Department of Labor.
Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869).
10% tax on private and state bank notes = Constitutional
McCray v. US (1904).
10 cent tax on yellow margarine yet only a 0.25 cent tax on white margarine= Constitutional.
United States v. Doremus (1919).
Tax on opium or coca leaves and requirement to register with IRS collector = Constitutional.
U.S. v. Constantine (1935).
$1000 tax on retail dealers in malt liquor if acting contrary to state law.
Why? Unconstitutional invasion of state police power, since it exacts a penalty for breaking state law.
Sonzinsky v. US (1937).
Holding: Constitutional, since raised revenues and not a penalty (not attended by offensive regulation).
U.S. v. Kahriger (1953).
Legal issue:
Is a federal occupational tax on gamblin a penalty on illegal activity and tehrefore an unconsctitutional infringement on the police power of the states under the pretense of a tax.
No: Constitutional
Reasoning:
A tax is not invalid because it discourages or deters the activities that are taxed (unless there are penalty provisions extraneous to any tax.)
Registration makes the tax easier to collect.
Even if they choose to not register it is still easier to collect.
NFIB V. Sibelius:
The relatively small amount of money
No scienter requirement
Don't have to verify it.
Not: Although they concur with robers' decision that the individual mandate is impermissible under Congress' commerce power they dissent from his decision that the individual mandate is permissible under Congress' taxing power.
To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interprethe statute but to rewrite it Make sure you spend time consolidating your notes and start to draft your outline during Spring Break!
Federal Spending Power:
The Federal Spending Power Art. I Sec. 8 Clause I: The clause thought to authorize the [Act] Confers upon the Congress power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Spending as a regulatory Device:
Unconstitutional:
U.S. v. Butler (Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1936).
Constitutional:
Charles Steward Machine v. Davis (SSA, unemployment 1937).
The switch in time that saved 9.
Helvering v. Davis (SSA, old age benefits, 1937).
South Dakota v. Dole (Nat'l Min Age Drinking Act, 1987).
Unconstitutional:
NFIB v. Sebelius (ACA- Medicaid Expansion 2012).
Always be thinking about how all the cases go together so that it all makes sense.
U.S. v. Butler (1936).
Legal Issue: Whether the taxing and spending provisions under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, where revenue from the processing tax was spent by the U.S. government in fulfilling contracts with farmers to reduce agricultural production, regulated a subject reserved to the states?
Holding: Unconstitutional. The court claims that it agrees with the Hamiltonian view, BUT ruled to limit congressional powers.
Reasoning: The tax on agricultural processing and spending to fulfill contracts with farmers were part of a program to regulate agricultural productions which was solely within the province of the states.
Madisonian interpretation of the spending clause: Went back and forth on whether or not to have a strong federal government.
Hamiltonian interpretation of the spending clause: Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
The attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the exertion of powers which are granted.
Trying to be protective of the states' rights.
The Argument: If Congress cannot regulate it through their own power, then they should not be able to use the federal spending power to regulate it through a work about way.
Charles Steward Machine v. Davis.
Legal Issue: Whether the unemployment compensation program in the SSA is constitutional where the federal govt. Taxed employers but gave a 90% tax credit if the state had a valid unemployment program.
Holding: constitutional.
Context: Unemployment was a severe national problem causing "need"
Helvering v. Davis:
Under the SSA (Social Security; old age benefits) The program was different and it was a state-federal partnership. In this case Congress was setting up this program directly. Directly taxing the individuals and the employers and paying out when people reach a certain age.
Legal Issue: Whether the old age benefit provisions of the SSA are constitutional, where the federal govt. Taxed employers and employees and used the spending clause to provide federal old age benefits directly.
Holding: Constitutional.
Line between general and local welfare?
Problem is national in area (geographically) and dimensions (economically)
Laws of separate states cannot deal with the problem effectively (they would place themselves at economic disadvantage and be a magnet for people who are indigent).
South Dakota v. Dole (1987).
Legal Issue: SD challenged the National Minimum Age Drinking Act that conditioned 5% of highway funds to states on the states' agreement to raise the drinking age.
Holding: Constitutional
Incident to the spending power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds to further policy objectives.
Dissent: Sandra Day O'Connor was concerned about the relatedness.
Establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose.
Practice Pointer: Do NOT take what the judges say in their opinion at face value.
Good lawyer find things in the words that help articulate the parameter or powers that Congress may have (read between the lines essentially).
Five Limitations on Conditional Spending:
Is the purpose to serve the general welfare
Has Congress made a clear statement of the funding conditions and consequences for noncompliance
Are the conditions related to the spending program?
Do other constitutional provisions provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.
Is the financial inducement so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion?
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012).
Legal Issue: Whether Congress has the power under the spending clause regulate the Medicaid expansion through limiting all Medicaid funding?
Chief Justice Roberts: This is a "contract" that the states entered into and modifying this "contract" is far outside the reach of their scope.
The legitimacy of Congress's exercise of the spending power "thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the contract
In this case the financial inducement congress has chosen is much more that reltively mild encouragement it is a gun to the head.
Remedy: Justice Roberts said that states can opt out.
Ginsburg:
State participation in Medicaid is voluntary
States do not have to participate at all.
States had notice that Medicaid may change:
Original Medicaid statute provided express warning that requirements upon States might change
Congress has this power independent of Spending Clause:
The ACA relates solely to the federally funded Medicaid program. Congress could regulate directly in this field.
Congress could have repealed Medicated and re-enacted it with the expansion, which would be constitutional.
Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas
The Medicaid expansion exceeds Congress' spending power and cannot be implemented.
Essay Answer: Think about the form as well as the substance
Form:
Format
Organization (grammar, punctuation, etc.)
Substance:
Issue Spotting (only Con Law I issues).
Exam is small, but very dense. So make sure to think about ALL issues.
Rule: relevant legal standards: Constitution First! Then Case law rules on how it has
interpreted the constitution. (don't need to know the names of the cases just the rules).
Ex. Under the case or controversy provision we have an issue of standing, those elements are. . . etc.
Analysis/ Application of the law to the fact.
Therefore under this rule etc. .. . .
Need to make sure that you are applying the rule in your fact pattern.
Think about writing the test towards a judge instead of a law professor or a bar examiner.
Need to articulate specifically how the law applies to the facts!
Conclusion/ Prediction:
The court may, the court probably, or the court could do this. . .
NoteStudied by 8 peopleNoteStudied by 14 peopleNoteStudied by 23 peopleNoteStudied by 32 peopleNoteStudied by 11 peopleNoteStudied by 24 people