Cases Flashcards
TVA v. Hill
Snail darter
Literalist reading of the text (plain language) to have an absurd result
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
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
Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group
You can use legislative history to understand a text
Blanchard v. Bergeron
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
Continental Can Company v. Chicago Truck Drivers
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
United States v. Locke
“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)
West Virginia University Hospitals v. Casey
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
United States v. Marshall
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
United States v. Kirby
Obstructing a postal employee
General terms can be limited so they’re not absurd; even textualists accept this
King v. Burwell
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
Babbitt v. Sweet Home of Oregon
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
United States v. Bass
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
Zadvydas v. Davis
Detention of illegal aliens
Constitutional avoidance: always try to avoid a GRAVE constitutional concern
Dissent: constitutional avoidance only allows constructions that are fairly possible
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong
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)
Bostock v. Clayton County
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”
J.W. Hampton v. United States
President increasing taxes by 2 cents per pound
“Intelligible principles”:
1) limited domain of power
2) clears rules and values that guide decisions
Schechter Poultry v. United States
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
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
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
Gundy v. United States
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
INS v. Chadha
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
Myers v. United States
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
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States
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
Morrison v. Olson
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
