Cases

Question 1

Marbury v Madison

Answer 1

Adams court packing, writ of mandamus filed. Established judicial review. Principals:
(1) Congress cannot increase the jurisdiction of federal courts
(2) Court may review executive conduct to determine its constitutionality
(3) Court may review legislative actions for their constitutionality
(4) Court has the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution

Question 2

Nixon v. US

Answer 2

Challenges to impeachment and removal process. A federal judge convicted of taking bribes, goes to jail, but does not resign so he is still collecting his salary.

Question 3

Rucho v. Common Cause

Answer 3

Gerrymandering is allowed because it is a political question. Redrew districts with the acknowledgment that it was only to have the republicans win the election instead of Democrats

Question 4

Powell v. McCormack

Answer 4

House cannot exclude any member that has been duly elected by his constituents who have met all other requirements. This is not a political question because the Constitution lays out in Art. 1 S 2 the requirements.

Question 5

Flast v. Cohen

Answer 5

There was standing! Challenges the direct expenditure of federal funds to purchase textbooks for religious schools under the Establishment clause of the first amendment. Overruled Frothingham

Question 6

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation

Answer 6

No standing! Challenged expenditures which were made by the executive branch to religious organizations. Congress gave President the budge and the President was the one dedicating the money, so Congress was not directly spending money.

Question 7

City of LA v. Lyons

Answer 7

Lyons requested injunctive relief so that cops would stop using chokeholds, but the Court held that there no standing because he could not show that he personally would be stopped by the police in the future and put in a chokehold again.

Question 8

Warth v. Seldin

Answer 8

Challenging zoning ordinances that in practice exclude low-income people from living in the city of Penfield. No standing because the particular P did not actually suffer an injury themselves, the allegations were too indirect and unproven.

Question 9

Craig v. Boren

Answer 9

Overcame the general rule against third party standing because the vendor must either refrain from selling beet to boys aged 18-21, thereby reducing sales and violating the constitutional rights of the boy or violate the criminal law. So, vendor was able to assert the rights of the boys

Question 10

Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer

Answer 10

President can only act where he has been expressly authorized by the constitution or implicitly authorized by Congress. President tried to seize control of the nations steel mills because of the risk of impending strikes which might harm war efforts.

Question 11

US v. Nixon

Answer 11

No privilege for president’s subpoenaed recordings/documents related to an indictment for conspiracy. Criminal justice outweighs confidentiality → outweighs the presumptive privilege for presidential communications
However, a claim of privilege can prevail when it is needed to “protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security needs.”

Question 12

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Answer 12

Fitzgerald sued Nixon for firing him for political reasons. President is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages predicated on his official acts as president
Because of the importance of the president’s duty, diversion of his energy to be concern about private lawsuits would raise risks to the effective functioning of government and visibility of his position would make him an easy target for civil suits

Question 13

Clinton v. Jones

Answer 13

Jones filed lawsuit against Clinton alleging that he sexually harassed her and prosecutor found evidence that Clinton obstructed justice by encouraging Monica Lewinsky to lie.
President is NOT entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages predicated on unlawful acts committed “outside the scope of his office” as president. Not limited to acts before presidency (can be during presidency as well)

Question 14

Trump v. US

Answer 14

A former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution:
(1) for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority
(2) at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, AND
(3) no immunity for unofficial acts

Question 15

McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 15

McCulloch is a cashier of bank branch in Baltimore, refused to pay a tax on the notes of the Bank and Maryland sued. Court held that the Congress had the power to incorporate a national bank, and it was unconstitutional to tax the national bank

Question 16

Gibbon v. Odeon

Answer 16

1st Era 19th Century: Ogden sued Gibbons alleging that Gibbons was operating two steamboats in violation of his monopoly privilege; Gibbons asserted that his boats were licensed to conduct the coasting trade pursuant to an act of Congress

Question 17

Carter v. Carter Coal Co.

Answer 17

Coal Conservation Act attempted to create max house and minimum wage for coal industry. Court held that congress does not have the power to enact because manufacturing is not within the definition of commerce and should be regulated by states.

Question 18

Houston, East, & West Texas Railway Co. v. US

Answer 18

“Among the states”; Congress regulating intrastate railroads, setting rate of railroads operating entirely in Texas. Court held Congress can regulate intrastate railroads because intrastate railroads could undersell interstate railroads, which would harm interstate commerce. Congress can regulate entirely intrastate commerce to protect interstate commerce.

Question 19

Hammer v. Dagenhart

Answer 19

10th Amendment Role; Congress passed law that prevents interstate commerce in the products of child labor. Court held Congress could not regulate child labor because production is a purely local matter not within the definition of commerce, so the 10th amendment reserves this regulation for the states. Congress can regulate interstate commerce/shipping, not how things are produced within a state

Question 20

US v. Darby

Answer 20

New Deal Era; aggregate substantial economic effect. Darby charged with employing workmen at wages less than the prescribed minimum wage. Court held Congress has the power to enact a mandatory minimum wage because minimum wage has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Question 21

Wickard v. Filburn

Answer 21

Farmer grows wheat for his own personal consumption, charged with violating act restricting wheat growth. Court held that Congress has the power to regulate this wheat, because home-grown wheat competes with wheat in commerce so it, in aggregate, has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce

Question 22

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. US

Answer 22

Motel in Atlanta refused to integrate following Civil Rights Act of 1964. Commerce clause legislation only needs to pass rational basis review. Discrimination = decrease interstate travel = decrease interstate commerce = substantial effect on interstate commerce

Question 23

Katzenbach v. McClung

Answer 23

Ollie’s BBQ refused to integrate after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rational basis again. Not letting black travels eat out makes it hard for them to travel and buy food out of state.

Question 24

National League of Cities v. Usery

Answer 24

Considered a 10th Amendment blip, and overruled by Garcia. FLSA amended to apply to states, Court held it was unconstitutional for Congress to force states to pay the minimum wage in FLSA. Violated state sovereignty because ET decisions are in “zone of activity”

Question 25

Garcia v. San Antonio

Answer 25

10th Amendment does NOT reserve a zone of activities for the states (though it doesn’t explicitly state this). Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the wages and hours of state employees under the Commerce Clause

Question 26

NFIB v. Sebelius (Commerce Clause)

Answer 26

Affordable Care Act of 2010 individual mandate requirement required every citizen to have a minimum coverage plan or pay penalty. Court held individual mandate requirement was an invalid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Power → those being compelled to purchase insurance are not participants in the insurance market and Congress cannot force them into that market

Question 27

South Dakota v. Dole

Answer 27

upheld law that made federal highway funding contingent upon raising the legal drinking age to 21. Less than 5% of funding lost if states do not comply = NOT coercive. Money withheld directly related to highway safety (general welfare) and only a very small portion of money provided by federal government was withheld

Question 28

NFIB v. Sebelius

Answer 28

struck down Medicaid expansion provision of Affordable Care Act. 100% of federal funding lost if states do not comply = COERCIVE. Act permitted Congress to withhold 100% of Medicaid funds from states that did not adopt an entirely independent legislative program from previous Medicaid

Question 29

Alden v. Maine

Answer 29

Individual citizens are prohibited from suing (fed causes of action for monetary damages) their own states in state court without the state’s express consent. “We hold that the powers delegated to Congress under Art. 1 do not include the power to subject nonconsenting states to private suits for damages in state courts.”

Question 30

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Riley

Answer 30

Mass promulgated laws regulating tobacco ads and sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds. Argued this was an infringement of First Amendment rights. Federal act preempted Mass’ regulations and displaced the state’s ability to regulate cigarette advertising

Question 31

Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v. Paul

Answer 31

CA law prohibits transportation or sale of avocados with oil content less than 8%. Federal law does not gauge maturity by oil content, so not impossible to comply with both laws because the federal law was a minimum. Absence of unambiguous statement of preemption by Congress

Question 32

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Commissioner

Answer 32

CA law conditioned building nuclear plants on findings that adequate storage facilities and means of disposal are available for nuclear waste. No field preemption because Congress intended the federal government to regulate safety, but left states to retain their traditional responsibility in the field of regulating questions of need, reliability, cost, and economic concerns. But states cannot impose additional safety standards

Question 33

Hines v. Davidowitz

Answer 33

PA law required alliances to register once a year and carry an ID card at all times, but federal law required registration once and not require them to carry an ID. Court holds that federal law has supremacy over the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation.

Question 34

United Haulers Assn. Inc v. Oneida Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority

Answer 34

County owned waste management facility. City enacted an ordinance that required all garbage collected to be processed by the county-owned facility. Court upheld ordinance because all private businesses were treated the same, only the local government was favored which is constitutional.

Question 35

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery

Answer 35

Statute banning sale of milk in plastic, which was helping their in-state pulpwood industry. Court held no discriminatory purpose because there was a valid purpose to help the environment. But, an environmental law that is actually a protectionist law would be invalid

Question 36

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

Answer 36

NC adopted statute that required apple containers to include the USDA grade, or no grade at all. WA had its own grading system with higher standards than the USDA, which raised costs for WA apple producers to sell in NC. Compare local interest w interstate commerce

Question 37

Reeves, Inc. v. Stake

Answer 37

South Dakota Cement Commission created its own cement plant intended for only in-state customers, but exceeded production expectations and sold out of state. Eventually, production was limited at the plant so the plant renewed its commitment to supplying in-state customers. SD was acting as a market participant.

Question 38

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman

Answer 38

Woman wanted to be admitted to Virginia bar, but she was living in Maryland and there was a residency requirement. Residency cannot be a bar to bar admission since it is her livelihood.