Cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 1

FACTS: John Adams judicial appointments were not delivered to judges (Marbury was 1)

RULE: (Marshall) Supreme Court has authority of judicial review to deem laws & legislative acts unconstitutional.

Question 2

Martin v. Hunters Lessee (1816)

Answer 2

RULE: Supreme Court has appellate power to review state court decisions about federal law or the Constitution.

Question 3

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 3

FACTS: Pregnant woman who wanted to get an abortion in Texas, Federal Court allowed to hear the case because it was a controversy likely to repeat itself (even tho pregnancy had ended and State argued it was Moot).

RULE: (Blackmun) The constitutional right to privacy under 14th A. protects a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

Question 4

United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)

Answer 4

RULE: The case needs to be “ripe” - if the injury has not yet occurred the court may issue is not ripe for review.

Question 5

Allen v. Wright (1984)

Answer 5

FACTS: Parents of black children sue the IRS for its lax policies in allowing tax exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. No Standing - suit against the Revenue Collector, not the discriminator.

RULE: (O’Connor) To have standing to bring a lawsuit, plaintiffs must have personally suffered a distinct injury, and the chain of causation linking that injury to the actions of a defendant must not be attenuated.

Question 6

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Answer 6

FACTS: Tennessee stopped reapportioning voter districts. Paved the way for the one person, one vote standard that would become the foundation of the American representative democracy.

RULE: A challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures brought under the Equal Protection Clause is not a political question and is thus justiciable.

Question 7

Laufer v. Acheson Hotel LLC

Answer 7

FACTS: Women sued hotels for lack of disability info on websites.

Was dismissed for Moot, but Clarence Thomas wanted dismissal on lack of Standing for “tester cases” a person sues for a general wrong/ statute not being followed, w/out specific injury/causation.

Question 8

Massachussetts v. EPA (2007)

Answer 8

FACTS: EPA declined to regulate new cars for emissions. MA and other states sued. MA Wins, 5-4,Close!

(Stevens)
(1) For standing to be appropriate, an actual case or controversy must be present, which is characterized by a truly adversarial relationship.

(2) The Clean Air Act provides the EPA statutory authority to regulate new motor-vehicle-emissions greenhouse gases as an “air pollutant.”

Question 9

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

Answer 9

FACTS: Trying to save endangered species and stop US aided construction projects to save Nile Croc in Egypt and Elephants in Sri Lanka. Famous cases on citizen standing.

*It greatly limited ability of plaintiffs to bring suit against the government for generalized grievances.

RULE: (Scalia) Article III says NO standing to litigate generalized grievances against gov. if no personal injury other than the harm suffered by all citizens.

Question 10

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Answer 10

Partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question. Majority suggests that Congress & States should fix it through statute.

Question 11

Goldwater v. Carter (1979)

Answer 11

Senator Goldwater wanted to take President Carter to court for ending a treaty w/ Taiwan. The court said “political qs” and therefore non justiciable.

Brennan dissented saying it was a legal qs, wanted to test the merits”.

Question 12

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

Answer 12

“One person, one vote”. The Equal Protection Clause requires the seats in a bicameral state legislature to be apportioned on a population basis.

Not a Political Question!

Question 13

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 13

The Constitution specifically delegates to Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and to make such other laws as it deems necessary and proper to carry out this enumerated power. Additionally, federal laws are supreme and states may not make laws that interfere with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers.

Question 14

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Answer 14

FACTS: Boat license issue passing by NY waters.

1st big interpretation of Congress’ powers with the Commerce Clause. Federal govt is in charge of international & intrastate commerce including Navigation.

RULE: Commerce Clause Reference to the 10th Amendment: purely internal commerce and issues are up to the States

Question 15

Wickard v. Filburn

Answer 15

Penalties to prevent Farmers from inflating market w/wheat. “The Aggregate Test” = if it exerts a substantial economic effect on the interstate commerce

Expands the Commerce Clause ability, goes beyond “indirect” or “direct” or protected categories (mining, production, manufacturing).

“The commerce power extends to intrastate activities that affect interstate commerce.”

1st Commerce Clause -Aggregate Test- later replaced by Lopez’s 3 part test.

Question 16

Zivotofysky v. Clinton (2012)

Answer 16

FACTS: Passport to indicate place of birth as “City, Israel” or Jerusalem.

RULE: Seems like a political qs. but Court heard it.

Question 17

Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)

Answer 17

No standard for gerrymandering, Scalia held it was non-justiciable (joined by O’Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas , Kennedy)

Question 18

South Dakota v. Dole

Answer 18

FACTS: Highway funds where ppl under 21 can buy alcohol.

Spending Clause Test: Congress may condition the receipt of federal $$ by 4 limitations:

1) for “general welfare;”

2) conditions unambiguous;

3) related to federal interest in a particular nat’l project or program;

4) don’t violate constitution or 10th A.

Question 19

CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America
(2023)

Answer 19

Pending Case: Does the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve, violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution?

Question 20

U.S. v. Lopez (Commerce 3-Part Test)

Answer 20

Commerce Clause, 3-Part Test precedent: Congress can regulate:

1) channels of interstate commerce

2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce

3) if activity substantially affects interstate

Question 21

Bizness v. Sebelius (2012)

Answer 21

Commerce Clause/ Taxing
(1) The individual mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a valid use of Congress’s power to tax.

Spending Clause & Medicaid
(2) If state doesn’t adopt adopt ACA, Medicaid funding taken away. Expansion provision is unconstitutional use of Congress’s spending powers.

Question 22

California v. Texas

Answer 22

FACTS: Individual mandate, penalty became $0. Texas and 17 other states sued fed govt saying Congress couldn’t tax.

RULE: No injury therefore no standing.

Question 23

Youngstown Steel Seizure (1952)

Answer 23

Jackson’s Test For Presidential Power: Constitution or Congress.

Max - Neutral - Lowest Ebb

Truman can’t seize the unionized steel mills during unoffical Korean war w/ emergency powers. Against Congress’s Taft-Hartley Act

Question 24

Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004)

Answer 24

US citizen held in as enemy combatant has due-process rights to challenge factual basis for his detention before a neutral decision-maker.

AUMF

Question 25

Boumediene v. Bush

Answer 25

The Suspension Clause states that the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended only in cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it.

Courts must provide a writ of habeas corpus to challenge detention, or adequate substitute

Question 25

Trump v. Hawaii

Answer 25

Muslim travel ban upheld.

Roberts majority: Rational basis review of the Establishment Clause (1st Amend.)

Overturns Korematsu.

A presidential proclamation placing entry restrictions on foreign nationals of particular countries is sufficiently justified by national-security concerns to survive rational-basis review.

Question 25

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

Answer 25

Unanimous Court: A presidential claim of privilege asserting only a generalized interest in confidentiality is not sufficient to overcome the judicial interest in producing all relevant evidence in a criminal case.

When the communications do not concern military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, that presumption may be rebutted due to the constitutional need to produce all relevant evidence in a criminal case.

Question 26

Clinton v. Jones (1997)

Answer 26

RULE: Constitution doesnt grant Prez immunity from civil litigation involving actions committed before entering office.

Question 26

INS v Chadha (1983)

Answer 26

RULE: Legislation providing Congress with a one-house veto over an action of the executive branch is unconstitutional because it does not meet the constitutional requirements of presentment and bicameralism.

Question 27

Morrison v. Olsen (1988)

Answer 27

RULE: Law can give judiciary power to appoint inferior executive officer and prohibit Attorney General from removing them without good cause. Doesn’t violate separation-of-powers principles.

Question 28

NLRB v. Noel Canning

Answer 28

Under Recess Appointments Clause, Prez. may fill a vacancy during a Senate recess of its at least 10 days long or very unusual circumstances exist.

The phrase “the Recess of the Senate” may be interpreted to apply to both the annual inter-session break between formal congressional sessions, as well as the various shorter intra-session breaks, based on (1) the ordinary meaning of the words, (2) the purpose of permitting the president to keep the government running when Congress is not available, and (3) historical use.

Question 29

Seila Law (2020)

Answer 29

It is a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine for an administrative agency to be headed by a single director not removable by the president at will.

Roberts majority strikes down the CFPB director removal restrictions (making it fireable at will) and uses severability doctrine to allow it to continue. Loves severability: Seila, Sebelius

Thomas disagrees with severability. Would have made a smaller ruling. Not set huge precedent.

Question 30

Trump v. Anderson

Answer 30

Colorado erred in ordering former President Trump excluded from ballot. Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to holdstateoffice but States have no power to enforce Section 3 against federal offices, especially the Presidency.

Question 31

Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority (1985)

Answer 31

Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the wages and hours of state employees under the Commerce Clause.

Question 32

New York v. United States

Answer 32

FACTS: radioactive waste policy compelling states with 3 incentives.

RULE: Congress may not pass regulations that have the effect of “commandeering” states’ legislative processes.
2 Ways Congress can urge a state to adopt a legislative program

(1) as part of its spending powers, Congress attaches conditions on states’ receipt of federal funds, or

(2) where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause, Congress may offer states the choice of regulating that same activity according to federal regulations or having state law preempted by federal regulations.

Question 33

Printz v. United States

Answer 33

FACTS: Brady Handgun prevention act- compelled CLEOs to administer fed. program.

RULE: Congress may not compel state officials to participate in the administration of federal programs.

*Memorable for narrow interpretation of federal power and its staunch protection of state autonomy.

Question 34

Haaland v. Brackeen

Answer 34

FACTS: Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law enacted in 1978, restricts the removal of Native American children from their families

RULE: (Barrett majority 7-2) rules that ICWA is consistent with Congress’s Article I authority & doesn’t violate anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment

“Plenary and exclusive” power of Congress to legislate with respect to Indian tribes.

Thomas and Alito dissented.

Question 35

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)

Answer 35

FACTS: NJ passed a law that stopped other states from dumping their waste in NJ sites. radioactive A state may not discriminate against other states’ articles of commerce on the basis of origin.

RULE: NJ law violated commerce clause.

Question 36

Dean Milk Co. City of Madison WI

Answer 36

RULE: A state statute that discriminates against interstate commerce will be held invalid if there are other less-discriminatory means by which the state legislature can accomplish its objective.

Question 37

Pike v. Bruce Church

Answer 37

FACTS: AZ fruits problem with CA packaging. AZ passed law prevented companies from shipping cantaloup. Creates a Balancing Test!

BALANCING TEST: Weighs the State Statute’s Burden to the Putative Local Benefits.

Question 38

Timber Dev. Inc v. Natural Resources of Alaska

Answer 38

RULE: A state may impose burdens on commercial transactions within the market in which it is a participant, but may not go further and impose conditions that have a substantial regulatory effect outside of that particular market.

Question 39

Natl Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)

Answer 39

FACTS: CA passed Proposition 12, banning instate sale of pork raised in cruel conditions.

RULE: (Gorsuch) Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, a state may generally ban the in-state sale of certain consumer products if the state lacks discriminatory intent.

Proposition 12 not passed as economic protectionism. Burdens in and out of state producers equally.

(Barrett - can’t use the Pike Balancing Test because the two sides are not comparable, apples and oranges to compare economic losses with animal humanity benefits.)

Roberts and Kavanaugh dissented. Roberts is big economic conservative and would want the porkers to keep shipping.

Question 40

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Answer 40

Incorporated the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to the states invalidating a Chicago law banning handguns.

Alito majority. Thomas concurs but believe incorporation through the Privileges and Immunities Clause

Question 41

Timbs v. Indiana

Answer 41

Incorporates the 8th amendment.

Question 42

Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)

Answer 42

Incorporation of the 6th amendment right to a unanimous jury.

Overules Apodaca

Roberts, Kagan, Alito dissent.

Kavanaughs Stare Decisis Test

Question 43

Saenz v. Roe

Answer 43

: Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause violated by limiting welfare benefits based on a person’s status as a new resident. The Constitution gives unconditional personal right to travel between states. The right to travel encompasses three components:
1. Right to move freely between states
2. Right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily in a state, protected by P&I Clause of Article IV, which prohibits state governments from discriminating against out-of-state residents without sufficient justification and
3. Right to be treated like other citizens of a state upon choosing to become a permanent resident of that state

Question 44

Slaughterhouse Cases

Answer 44

Largely limits P&I Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment (which is largely geared towards the protections of emancipated slaves and African Americans) only protects rights guaranteed by the United States and not individual states.

Question 45

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper

Answer 45

States may discriminate against rights of out-of-state residents as long as there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objective.

Question 46

Lochner v. NY (1905)

Answer 46

Ruled that 14th amendment prevented State of NY from regulating the working hours of bakers. Prohibited due to freedom to contract, a right for employees/employers. Limited state power to regulate

Question 47

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)

Answer 47

Rejects Lochner and calls for a “rational basis scrutiny” for economic legislation instead of “strict scrutiny”.

Court became increasingly deferential to lawmakers on matters of procedure, like statute of limitations, economic, doctrine became a dead letter — until recently

Held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment shouldnt strike down legislation. Equal Protection clause

Question 48

City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc (1985)

Answer 48

RULE: The mentally disabled are not a quasi-suspect class thus any legislative regulations affecting their rights are subject to rational basis review and not intermediate scrutiny. However in this case, bc theres no rational basis for precluding mentally disabled from living in the Featherstone House, it’s invalid under the Equal Protection Clause.

Stevens Opinion: He doesn’t see a need for rational base, heightened scrutiny, or strict scrutiny for these qs. Just must ask 3 q for all Equal Protection Cases:
1. What class is harmed by the legislation?

2. What is the public purpose that is being served by the law?
3. What is the characteristic of the disadvantaged class that justifies disparate treatment?

Question 49

Oregon v. Smith

Answer 49

FACTS: Is a native person take peyote as part of their religion protected under Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment

Scalia’s Majority Test held that: gov’t policies that incidentally burden religion are kept free from strict scrutiny if the law is “neutral and generally applicable”

O’Connor and dissenters would have wanted “compelling state interest test”

Question 50

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)

Answer 50

FACTS: Catholic Charities would not pass gay couples for foster care parenting.

RULE: The government’s creation of a formal mechanism allowing it to grant exceptions to a policy based on discretion renders the policy unneutral. And therefore it is subject to strict scrutiny.

Question 51

Groff v. DeJoy

Answer 51

RULE: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires an employer to reasonably accommodate a religious practice unless doing so will result in increased costs that are substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business.

Question 52

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Answer 52

FACTS: Church in TX unable to build for zoning, sues under RFRA.

Congress can remedy and prevent constitutional violations but not define a constitutional right under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s the Court’s job. Strikes down RFRA law as unconstitutional.