Cases

Question 1

TVA v. Hill

Answer 1

Snail darter

Literalist reading of the text (plain language) to have an absurd result

Question 2

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

Answer 2

Can be within the letter of a statute and not within the spirit (purpose trumps)

Consider:

1) National values
2) Social history
3) Legislative history

Question 3

Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group

Answer 3

You can use legislative history to understand a text

Question 4

Blanchard v. Bergeron

Answer 4

Looks to three district court cases that the House Committee Report cites.

Scalia concurrence:

The fact that we would point to this shows just how high the level of unreality that our unrestrained use of legislative history has obtained

Question 5

Continental Can Company v. Chicago Truck Drivers

Answer 5

What does “substantially all” mean for retirement contributions? Senator who enacted it said he meant it to mean 50%

Privately held meanings shouldn’t influence our interpretation. The text is law and legislative intent is merely a clue to the meaning of the text, rather than the text being a clue to legislative intent

WE WILL LOOK AT THE TEXT, INCLUDING ACROSS VARIOUS STATUTES

Question 6

United States v. Locke

Answer 6

“Prior to Dec. 31” means not including Dec. 31

Deadlines are inherently arbitrary, we can’t just change it

Dissent: We can’t read this literally because there are so many problems with the statute (it’s written poorly)

Question 7

West Virginia University Hospitals v. Casey

Answer 7

Does attorney’s fees include expert witnesses?

If statute is unambiguous then we will not permit it to be contracted or expanded based on the words of legislators (strict textualism)

Dissent: We should not ignore persuasive evidence of Congress’ actual intent and ask them to revisit it

Question 8

United States v. Marshall

Answer 8

Acid dosing and containers

Legislators simply need a “rationale basis” for the laws they enact

Dissent:

Posner VERY IMPORTANT

1) the severely positivistic view that the content of law is exhausted in clear, explicit, and definite enactments by express delegation from legislatures or 2) that the practice of interpretation authorizes judges to enrich positive law with the moral values and practical concerns of civilized society

Question 9

United States v. Kirby

Answer 9

Obstructing a postal employee

General terms can be limited so they’re not absurd; even textualists accept this

Question 10

King v. Burwell

Answer 10

Trying to gut the ACA with “established by states”

Everybody pretends to be a textualist - no more Holy Trinity

Read words in their context, construe statutes not isolated sections

Dissent:

Words no longer have meaning; context only matters if the text isn’t clear

Question 11

Babbitt v. Sweet Home of Oregon

Answer 11

How to define “take” in the ESA

Many cannons:

1) Reluctance to treat words as surplusage
2) Words must have a character of their own
3) Amendments have real and substantial effects

Dissent:
1) If several items in a list have attributes

Question 12

United States v. Bass

Answer 12

Does “in commerce” apply to the whole statute?

Rule of lenity= ambiguous statute + criminal prosecution
Last antecedent rule: final clause only applies to final antecedent

Question 13

Zadvydas v. Davis

Answer 13

Detention of illegal aliens

Constitutional avoidance: always try to avoid a GRAVE constitutional concern

Dissent: constitutional avoidance only allows constructions that are fairly possible

Question 14

Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

Answer 14

Civil service merit system positions only open to citizens

Civil service commission can’t be the one to make this decision (a way to do constitutional avoidance)

Question 15

Bostock v. Clayton County

Answer 15

Gay softball league and Title VII protections

It’s necessarily discriminating based on sex

THIS SHOWS HOW STRONG TEXTUALISM HAS BECOME

Dissent:

This is the Court “updating” old statutes, Kavanaugh says this boils down to “who decides”

Question 16

J.W. Hampton v. United States

Answer 16

President increasing taxes by 2 cents per pound

“Intelligible principles”:

1) limited domain of power
2) clears rules and values that guide decisions

Question 17

Schechter Poultry v. United States

Answer 17

Selling sick chickens against “codes of fair competition”

This is a roving commission to find evils and correct them

1) There is a broad scope of discretion
2) Few rules or standards
3) No procedural protections

Question 18

Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute

Answer 18

BENZENE CASE

Combo of constitutional avoidance and non-delegation

“IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR MANDATE IN THE ACT, IT IS UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE THE SECRETARY THE UNPRECEDENTED POWER OVER AMERICAN INDUSTRY THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE GOVERNMENT’S VIEW”

Dissent:

Specific regulations necessarily swallow up the general language in the statute

Question 19

Gundy v. United States

Answer 19

AG can decide if sex offender registry applies to previously convicted

Read to be more narrow to avoid delegation question (i.e., can decide how quickly they must register, not if they register)

Alito says he will wait to consider separation of powers question, Gorsuch says we can’t wait

Question 20

INS v. Chadha

Answer 20

AG can suspend deportation, either House or Senate, independently, can pass resolution disfavoring that

END OF LEGISLATIVE VETO (we need bicameralism)

Congress is using legislative power but with only one house

Concurrence: Congress has to make general rules, they are acting as a court here

Dissent:

YOU CAN’T HAVE DELEGATION WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE VETO

Under the Court’s analysis, the Executive Branch may make rules with the effect of law but Congress may not exercise a veto which precludes such rules form having operative force

Question 21

Myers v. United States

Answer 21

President resignation of postmaster first class, this specifically required WACOS to remove

Any law that requires senate advice and consent for removal violates the Constitution (UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY) (Take Care Clause)

Dissent:

Necessary and Proper Gives Congress Broad authority to accomplish what they want

Question 22

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States

Answer 22

FTC board members can be removed for “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance”

Character of the office matters, the Presidents exclusive power is confined to PURELY executive officers

Contradictions to Myers

Question 23

Morrison v. Olson

Answer 23

Independent counsel

AG investigates, asks Court to establish IC, IC can only be fired “for good cause”

Two questions: Inferior or principal officer? Violates separation of powers?

Inferior officer if: 1) inferior in rank, 2) limited duties, 3) limited jurisdiction, 4) limited tenure

IMPEDES THE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE LAWS (UNDULY TRAMMLES)

Dissent (Scalia):

Officials creates Unitary Executive idea, IC is not even subordinate to the president