Case Law Flashcards
Review and Learn the proceedings and importance of different case laws from U.S. Supreme Court rulings and their affects on the Constitution. -Background & Issues -Holdings
South Dakota v. Dole (1987) Background and issues?
Background: Congress used its spending power to attach the condition of a 21 year drinking age to receive federal funded highway projects. Issues: Can Congress place conditions on its expenditure of funds to accomplish objectives or ends that are unrelated to its enumerated powers?
South Dakota v. Dole (1987) Holdings?
Holding: Yes, Congress can attach this condition to federal highway funds because the withheld dollars is only a small percentage, not enough to be termed coersion of the States by Congress. The Court argued that the condition must be unambiguous, the spending must promote “the general welfare,” and the condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs”; and the condition must conform to the Tenth Amendment reservation of powers to the states. Only under these four reasons may Congress attach such a condition.
Dissenting: Yes, Congress may attach conditions to how the money is spent, but this condition of a federal drinking age is unrelated and seeks to regulate more than how the money is spent. Therefore it unlawful because it will determine who can and can’t drink rather than how to spend the money.
United States v. Lopez (1995) Background and issues?
Background: Under the Commerce Clause, Congress enacted a Gun Free School Zone law that restricted the possession of fire arms in and around school zones. Lopez, a high school senior was arrested for carrying a .38 caliber pistol onto school property. Issues: Has Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause? What is the definition of Commerce?
United States v. Lopez (1995) Holdings?
Holding: This act’s object falls within criminal justice and not commerce, therefore, it is unconstitutional. The States traditionally handle matters of criminal justice. Commerce is measured by its economic impact and there is not sufficient evidence to show that gun possession will affect commerce among the several states. Concurring: Yes, however, though used over the past 60 years, economic impact is not reason or measure enough to regulate such activities as commerce. Original documents specifically define commerce as trade and transaction. This act doesn’t aim to regulate trade among the several states. Dissenting: Gun possession in and around school zones can impact economics through poorer education and can be regulated by Congress.
United States v. Morrison (2000) Background and issues?
Background: A female, Virginia Tech student was allegedly raped by two male football players at the college. 6 months later she spoke to school authorities, not the police, who determined to punish only one of the men with suspension. However, the administration blocked the suspension considering it to be severe punishment. A State Grand Jury heard the case and found no evidence to convict the two men. The girl then appealed to a district court claiming her rights were violated under the Violence Against Women’s Act. Issues: Is the VAWA legal under the 14th Amendment or the Commerce Clause?
United States v. Morrison (2000) Holdings?
Holdings: No, this act is unconstitutional and applies to criminal justice which is reserved to the states. This has no “substantial effect” on economics. Concurring: The application of “substantial effect” should be removed from this court because it will allow for any argument to be made economic when the original intent of the Commerce Clause is trade and transaction. Dissenting: Yes, the danger or safety of a woman against violent crimes can have significant economic impact and can be legally regulated by Congress.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) Background and issues?
Background: A Californian resident was permitted by her state to grow and use medicinal marijuana under a doctor’s supervision. Congress had enacted a controlled substance law that conflicted. The Drug Enforcement Agency took possession of the woman’s marijuana plants and destroyed them at her home. She and a group of other marijuana advocates took them to court saying that they were not participating in commerce and were in accordance with California Law. Issues: Does the Controlled Substances Act exceed Congress’ power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) Holdings?
Holdings: Marijuana falls under a group of classified and controlled substances that can be regulated regardless of State and Local Law due to their “substantial effect” on the national supply and demand. Dissenting: The marijuana was never bought or sold, or crossed state lines. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, it can regulate virtually everything. This is a violation of Federalism and State Rights.
Board of Trustees of U of Alabama v. Garret (2001) Background and issues?
Background: Two state employees felt they were discriminated against after losing their jobs at the University of Alabama when their health required them to make adjustments in their schedules. They had claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Issues:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) Background and issues?
Background: A U.S. citizen was taken prisoner in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and held in a federal prison in Virginia as an enemy combatant. He had been found in a war zone wielding an assault rifle. Detained in Federal Prison in Virginia. Issues: Whether the detention of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant is legal under the Authorized Use of Military Force during conflict? Is this citizen entitled to due process by the 5th and 14th Amendments? Can the court take part in these matters?
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) Holdings?
Holding: Yes this detention was authorized. And this citizen legally has a right to some system to determine his classification as an enemy combatant. Also, the court will not grant the executive a blank check in war tribunals. The courts can take part in individual cases to determine their legality as a check against the executive.
Hamden v. Rumsfeld (2004) Background and issues?
Background: Osama Bin Laden’s chauffeur was captured and detained at Guantanamo Bay. He filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus and a writ of Mandamus. This request was granted and he pleaded his case that he could not be tried by a military tribunal due to his commission and specific crime of conspiracy. Issues: Can Federal Courts enforce Geneva Convention Rights?
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Background and issues?
Background: During the Korean War (Conflict), steel mill union workers went on strike. Due to the U.S.’ demand for steel in order to continue in the war, President Truman authorized the secretary of commerce to seize control of the steel industry and keep it running. Issues: Does the President have authority to take such actions under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution?
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Holdings?
Holding: No, neither implicitly or explicitly are such powers given to the President. Congress, under the Commerce Clause, did not give legislation upon which to act with authority either. This was time of peace though hostilities did exist but because the war is not declare, he has not all the powers associated with it. Dissenting: Many past Presidents, specifically Lincoln have taken similar actions during time of war
Ex Parte McCardle (1869) Background and issues?
Background: After the Civil War, McCardle, a former confederate army sergeant was jailed by a military commander under the Military Reconstruction Act for publishing rebellious articles against the new reconstruction laws put in place by the Republican Congress. After a hearing before a Circuit Court he was jailed once more. He appealed to the Supreme Court and Congress blocked the appeal and denied him habeas corpus. Issues: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear this case? Was McCardle’s imprisonment in violation of his 5th Amendment Rights?
Ex Parte McCardle (1869) Holdings?
Holding: Article III, Section 2 allows Congress to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court therefore the case was dismissed and the second issue not addressed.
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co. (1936) Background and issues?
Background: Curtiss-Wright Co. was indicted for violating an embargo declared by the President at the time on the sale of fire arms and ammunitions in South America because of the Chaco War. Issues: Did Congress delegate unconstitutionally too much power to the President who declared the Embargo without due process of law?
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co. (1936) Holdings?
Holding: No, Congress did not delegate too much power and the Embargo proclaimed by President Roosevelt was Constitutional because the Executive is the sole international representative of the U.S. in Foreign affairs.
Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) Background and issues?
German soldiers were detained in China after German Surrender and tried for violation of that surrender treaty. They were transported back to American occupied Germany and put in custody of the Army. These German soldiers argued that their detention and trial were in violation of Articles I and II as well as the 5th Amendment. They filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Issues: Does the Constitution apply to enemy, non-resident aliens? During times of War?
Johnson v Eisentrager (1950) Holdings?
Holding: A non-resident, enemy alien does not have right to Habeas Corpus in our courts during time of war. Only if person resides in the U.S. do they have claim to our judiciary system, otherwise they will be held before a military tribunal for their war crimes.
Ex Parte Merryman (1861) Background and issues?
Background: President Lincoln, at the imminent invasion of the Confederacy and the loss of Maryland, suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imposed martial law. Merryman was a lieutenant for the union who threatened to join the confederates so he was detained. Court issued a writ of attachment-issue to a law enforcement officer to go and bring the body before the court. Issues: Can the President suspend the writ of habeas corpus or must Congress?
Ex Parte Merryman (1861) Holdings?
Holding: Because it was a state of emergency and Congress could not convene, though the president’s actions were later ratified, only Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Separation of Powers.
The Prize Cases (1863) Background and issues?
Background: President Lincoln enacted an embargo on the Southern States without the consent of Congress. Congress later ratified his actions and all seized vessels were granted as prizes. Issues: Who has the power to declare war?
