Cases Flashcards
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
The Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law requiring smallpox vaccinations, ruling that states have the authority to mandate vaccinations to protect public health and safety. The Court emphasized that individual liberty may be limited when necessary to prevent harm to others. This case became a foundational precedent for public health policies, especially regarding mandatory vaccinations.
Muller v. Oregon
The Court upheld an Oregon law that limited women’s work hours to 10 per day, ruling that the state could regulate labor conditions to protect women’s health. The decision relied on the notion that women required special protection due to their societal role as mothers, reinforcing gender stereotypes. Although it expanded labor protections, the ruling also set back gender equality efforts by justifying discrimination.
City of Newark v. J.S.
Issue was whether Newark had statutory authority to involuntarily commit a person w/ TB to a hospital and whether the procedures and standard used for such commitment complied with due process. J.S.’s case was highly contagious, and his erratic behavior posed a risk (met and established ill + danger requirements)
Greene v. Edwards
Virginia Supreme Court ruled that individuals involuntarily confined under state’s Tuberculosis Control Act must receive same due process protections as those in mental health commitments, including the right to counsel, notice, and the ability to confront witnesses. Court found Greene’s confinement was procedurally flawed since his attorney was appointed only after the hearing began, limiting effective defense preparation. Greene was granted habeas corpus relief, with the court ordering a new hearing within 30 days under proper legal standards.
U.S. v. Lopez
Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which banned firearm possession in school zones. The Court held that regulating guns in local schools was not an economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, limiting Congress’s power. This decision marked a significant shift by reaffirming the importance of state sovereignty and setting boundaries on federal authority under the Commerce Clause.
Gonzales v. Raich
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could regulate locally grown marijuana under the Commerce Clause because even non-commercial, intrastate cultivation could impact the interstate market for marijuana. The case reaffirmed federal authority over drug laws, overriding California’s medical marijuana regulations. This decision emphasized the broad scope of the Commerce Clause, even when regulating personal activities that indirectly affect interstate commerce.
Hodel
The Supreme Court upheld the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, ruling that Congress had the authority to regulate mining under the Commerce Clause to protect environmental and economic interests. The Court rejected arguments that the law infringed on state sovereignty, finding the regulation necessary to address national environmental concerns. Case affirmed Congress can impose environmental standards even on intrastate activities if they impact interstate commerce.
NFIB v. Sebelius [individual mandate]
The Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, requiring people to buy health insurance or face a penalty, could not be justified under the Commerce Clause. However, the Court upheld the mandate by interpreting the penalty as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. This ruling preserved the ACA but limited Congress’s ability to compel economic activity under the Commerce Clause.
South Dakota v. Dole
The Court upheld a federal law withholding highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21, finding that Congress could use spending powers to encourage states to comply with national policies. The decision established that federal conditions on funding are constitutional if they are related to a legitimate government interest and not coercive. This ruling clarified the balance between federal influence and state sovereignty in policy decisions.
NFIB v. Sebelius [Medicaid Expansion]
The Supreme Court ruled that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which threatened states with the loss of existing Medicaid funding if they did not comply, was unconstitutionally coercive. While the expansion itself was allowed, the Court held that states must have the option to opt out without losing pre-existing funding. This decision limited the federal government’s ability to use financial incentives to compel state action.
Estelle v. Gamble
Supreme Court ruled that deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. However, it clarified that negligence or medical malpractice alone does not violate the Constitution. This case set the precedent for prisoners’ rights to adequate healthcare in correctional facilities.
Meyer v. NE
The Court struck down a Nebraska law that prohibited the teaching of foreign languages to young children, holding it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The decision emphasized individual liberties, including the right of parents and teachers to direct children’s education. It marked a significant expansion of substantive due process protections.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Supreme Court invalidated an Oregon law that required all children to attend public schools, ruling it infringed on parents’ rights to choose private education. The decision emphasized the role of liberty in parental control over children’s upbringing (14th amendment). This case reinforced the constitutional protection of educational choice.
Loving v. Virginia
Court unanimously struck down Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage, ruling it violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision affirmed that marriage is a fundamental right, and race-based restrictions on it are unconstitutional. This landmark case was pivotal in advancing civil rights and equality.
City of Cleburne
Supreme Court ruled that a city’s denial of a zoning permit for a group home for intellectually disabled people violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found the city’s actions were based on irrational prejudice, lacking legitimate justification (rational basis with teeth).
