You are on page 1of 2

Introduction and Judicial Review Judicial Review Marbury v Madison (3-10): SCOTUS has power implied from Art

V,2 to review acts of Congress and declare them void if found repugnant to the Constitution Dickerson v US (28-9): Congress may not overrule SCOTUS interpretation of Constitutionality by statute [Miranda rights] Cooper v Aaron (26-7): SCOTUS interpretations become supreme law of land and bound state officials not a party to the dispute (Blocked school desegregation) Martin v Hunters Lessee (71-2): SCOTUS review extends to State Ct decisions since it is the case and not the court that confers jurisdiction Ex Parte McCardle (77-9): Congress has the power to limit and remove SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction in areas it designates (such exceptions as Congress shall make) US v Klein (81-2): Statutes may not prescribe how a court should decide an issue Congresss Power under the Commerce Clause and Spending Power Federal Limits on State Power McCulloch v Maryland (90-9): Necessary and Proper clause gives Congress implied discretion to choose and enact means to perform duties imposed on it; State laws may not impose restrictions/burdens on those means (ie. state tax on fed banks) US Term Limits v Thornton (111-8): States cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those in the Constitution Commerce Clause Power NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel (142-4): Under Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate any activity, even intrastate production, if the activity has an appreciable effect, either direct or indirect, on interstate commerce Wickard v Filburn (Notes): Acts of many similarly situated which has a cumulative effect may be regulated [local consumption of agriculture has cumulative effect] US v Darby (144-6): Congress can regulate hours/wages of workers engaged in production of goods destined for interstate commerce Heart of Atlanta Motel v US: (Notes): Can regulate markets such as hotels which affect or restricts the ability of people to cross state lines US v Lopez (153-66): Mere possession of a gun is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce; Statute not limited to interstate guns US v Morrison (173-8): Violence Against Women Act had only an attenuated and not a substantial effect on commerce. Aggregation principle does not apply since economic effects of crimes against women are indirect Gonzales v Raich (BB): Commerce power may regulate purely local activities that are part of a class of activities with a substantial effect on interstate commerce; local use of marijuana affects national marijuana market and is necessary to make those interstate regulation measures effective and not undercut them Garcia v San Antonia MTA (182-5): Commerce Clause regulation does not exempt state authorities performing traditional state functions [Fed Govt may subject SA MTA to min wage/OT rqmts of the Fair Labor Standards Act] Spending Power New York v US (187-93): Take title provision is unconstitutional attempt to commandeer the state govts by directly compelling participation in fed reg program Printz v US (193-202): Congress cannot conscript State law enforcement officers to conduct background checks under Brady Bill thereby circumventing prohibition on compelling States to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs

US v Butler (222-6): Congress may not, under the pretext of exercising the taxing power, accomplish prohibited ends, such as regulation of matters of purely state concern and clearly beyond its national powers. Steward Machine v Davis (Notes): Inducement or persuasion does not go beyond the bounds of power when a tax will be abated upon the doing of an act that will satisfy fiscal need, the tax and the alternative being approximate equivalents South Dakota v Dole (230-4): Congress may attempt to regulate through conditional funding as long as condition is not coercive [21 drinking age] Separation of Powers Executive Encroachment Youngstown Sheet v Sawyer (344-52): President cannot usurp lawmaking power of Congress by directly taking private property when not in a theatre of war Dames & Moore v Regan (355-9): The President may settle agreements relating to international action in the absence of explicit Congressional disapproval and previous acts of Congress which indicate implicit approval of executive action Ex Part Quirin (367-70): The president has authority to subject unlawful combatants to trial and punishment by military tribunals Rasul v Bush (CP): US Courts have jurisdiction over foreign nationals held Guantanamo Bay Hamdi v Rumsfeld (CB): US citizens detained as enemy combatants have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge Legislative Encroachment INS v Chadha (387-94): Congress may not grant itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive as it is a violation of Bicameralism and Presentment [one house veto to allow deportable alien to remain in the US] Clinton v NY (396-402): Presidential Line-Item Veto is unconstitutional because the President is not authorized to enact law which both houses have not yet approved Bowsher v Synar (404-8): Congress cannot delegate executive power to an agent under its control who Congress can remove by a process other than impeachment Buckley v Valeo (Notes): Congress may not appoint federal officers who perform tasks which are executory in nature Morrison v Olson (410-6): Congress may designate an independent counsel to investigate the executive as it does not increase the power of the judiciary or legislative branch at the expense of the executive Humphreys Executor v US (Notes): Congress may limit or completely block Presidents right to remove a purely executive officer, so long as the removal restrictions dont impede Presidents ability to perform his constitutional duty Judicial Encroachment Minstretta v US (416-9): Judiciary may be on a sentencing commission appointed by the President as long as Congress lays down an intelligible principle to guide their decision-making and the federal judges are acting not wearing their judicial hat Nixon v Fitzgerald (Notes): President is absolutely immune from civil liability for his official acts US v Nixon (420-4): Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, an absolute, unqualified privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances does not exist Clinton v Jones (427-33): President has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for facts unrelated to his office, having occurred before he took office

Political Question and Standing Baker v Carr (33-9): The fact that a suit seeks protection of a political right, such as reapportionment, does not mean it necessarily presents a political question Luther v Borden (in Baker v Carr): Non justiciable when no judicially manageable standards [deciding which is the lawful govt of RI] Nixon v US (41-7): Senate impeachments are not justiciable since they have been explicitly committed to the Senate by the Constitution Powell v McCormack (Notes): Partial commitment to another branch (commitment to Congress only to judge qualifications) does not prevent Court from reviewing decision when manageable standards exist [refusal to seat Rep for diverting funds] Goldwater v Carter (Notes): Inter-branch disputes are nonjusticiable [Presidential authority to terminate a treaty w/o Senate participation] Warth v Seldin (51-6): s not directly injured by or who only assert a generalized grievance shared by a large class of citizens lack standing [housing affordability] Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (56-62): Threat must be imminent to and be able to be redressed to have standing [threat of species extinction does not establish individual and nonspeculative private injury] Frothingham v Mellon (Notes): Merely a general interest of a federal taxpayer in how money should be spent is a generalized grievance and lacks standing Raines v Byrd (Notes): Legislators have no standing to bring suits based on the claim that their future votes will be less effective than before due to passed bills Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges and Immunities and Fundamental Rights Barron v Baltimore (446-8): Amendments, such as 5th Amend Takings, are limitations only on power of US govt and not applicable to the state legislation Slaughterhouse Cases (449-57): The 14th Amend protects rights only from Fed Govt and does not protect individual rights from state abridgement. Bill of Rights cant be enforced upon the states as privileges and immunities of national citizenship Palko v Connecticut (Notes): Only those rights which liberty and justice would be impossible w/o are incorporated [double jeopardy not one of these rights] Duncan v Louisiana (475-80): Fundamental rights, such as trial by jury, will be selectively incorporated by the 14th Amend and protected from state abridgement Substantive Due Process Economic Liberties Lochner v New York (492-7): Right to free contract is implicit in liberty protected by Due Process and states may police such only if act has a direct relation, as a means to an end, to an appropriate and legitimate state objective US v Carolene Products (Notes): Court should not challenge rational basis of economic legislation [Fed prohibition of interstate shipment of filled milk] Ferguson v Skrupa (Notes): Court doesnt sit as superlegislature weighing the wisdom of legislation [Prohibition on debt adjusting biz except incident to lawyers] Williamson v Lee Optical (509-11): State economic/business laws will only be subject to rational basis review under Due Process and it is not for the court to determine the consistency or rationality of economic legislation Home Building & Loan v Blaisdell (536-8): A state may regulate contracts in case of an emergency if legislation is addressed to a legitimate end, is not unreasonable, and is temporary and where vital public interests would otherwise suffer

Substantive Due Process Privacy Rights Griswold v Connecticut (546-55): Right to marital privacy is a penumbra formed by certain other explicit guarantees. Strict scrutiny is applied to state laws affecting social areas and privacy rights. [CT law criminalizing the use of contraceptives] Roe v Wade (558-64): Laws against abortion violate fundamental right to privacy found in 14th Amends concept of personal liberty and are subject to strict scrutiny Planned Parenthood v Casey (574-87): State laws invading privacy right in abortion may not create an undue burden (ie. spousal notification) but were ok if no undue burden (24hr waiting period, informed consent, parental notification) Harris v McRae (Notes): States may refuse public funding for abortions where the mothers health (but not life) is in jeopardy Rust v Sullivan (Notes): Govt may insist as a condition for funding that family planning clinics dont recommend abortions Stenberg v Carhart (Notes): State may ban particular types of abortion if alternative methods are allowed and equally safe Washington v Glucksberg (618-27): Right to assisted suicide not fundamental right protected by Due Process; its not deeply rooted and doesnt outweigh state interest Cruzan v MO Dept of Health (Notes): Competent person has a constitutionally protected interest in refusing unwanted med treatment but state may require clear and convincing evidence that a now-incompetent patient would have voluntarily declined life-sustaining measures Lawrence v Texas (602-10): Sodomy law violates privacy and liberty protected by Due Process to engage in private intimate conduct; no legitimate state interest Equal Protection and Race Railway Express Agency v NY (647-9): EP does not require that a statute eradicate all evils of the same type or none at all; deference to legislature on means used might relate rationally to a plausible end [advertising trucks] US RR Retirment Bd v Fritz (655-9): Social and economic legislation enacted by Congress will be upheld under EP if rationally related to a permissible govt objective; where there are plausible reasons for Congress action, inquiry is at an end Brown v Board of Education (673-6): Separate but equal violates EP because intangible factors, such as detrimental effect of denoting blacks as inferior, make it unequal; separate facilities are inherently unequal Richmond v JA Cronson Co (739-48): Local govts may enact affirmative action programs only where specific evidence of past discrimination exists and where the programs are aimed at rectifying such past discrimination Grutter v Bollinger (718-27): Student body diversity is a compelling state interest justifying use of race in university admissions if narrowly tailored by individually considering applicants so that race is not the defining feature and nonminorities are not unduly burdened. Gratz v Bollinger (727-31): Admissions policy may not use race in a mechanical way by automatically adding points w/o individualized consideration.