Cases Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
SCOTUS has the power of judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional. Marbury can be interpreted in 2 ways: (1) Judicial supremacy (Cooper) (2) Departmentalism
Note on Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
States bound to judicial interpretation of C. Departmentalism can’t have been the case because that would render the Supreme Court toothless before the other branches. A Supreme Court decision would have no apparent consequence, and would render them as purely advisory.
Luther v. Borden (1849)
Taney, CJ: Rhode Island rebellion. Luther claimed trespass because officer of state not recognized when arrested. Claimed the old government was not Republican under the Guarantee clause Art. IV Sec. IV. Non-justiciable political question for Congress to decide.
Note on Baker v. Carr (1962)
Brennan: Apportionment statute in Tennessee was challenged because it wasn’t equal population by district. Judicially reviewable. Argued that there was a 14th amendment issue. Political questions doesn’t necessarily mean “political,” but political is a term of art for the purposes of Constitutional law.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Marshall, CJ: Supremacy of the fed govt, states can’t burden federal laws. If a power of Congress is not enumerated in the C, then it’s up to Congress to decide whether the power is “necessary and proper.”
United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895)
Manufacturing precedes commerce, therefore it is outside the reach of the CC and antitrust law cannot reach it
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
“The Child Labor Case”: Congress can’t regulate child labor (local matter) due to illegitimate purpose, look at intent of Congress
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922)
Taft, CJ: Child Labor tax. Penalties posing as a tax are not okay. Lots of cues that this is a penalty – mental state, any violation leads to the same penalty, etc.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Poultry Code struck down based on insufficient effect on interstate commerce, Schechter’s activities have only indirect effects on interstate commerce—bought chicken from out of state, but offending conduct (selling sick chickens) was confined to NY. Direct v. indirect effects: though the sale of poultry was an interstate industry, the Court found that the “stream of interstate commerce” had stopped in this case bc Schechter’s chickens were sold exclusively to intrastate buyers, leading only to indirect effects on interstate commerce
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)
The fed regulatory power ceases when interstate commerce ends, and does not attach again until interstate commercial intercourse begins
United States v. Butler (1936)
No limits on the tax and spending power except that it must be used to provide for the general welfare and cannot violate other C-al provisions
United States v. Darby (1941)
Overruled Dagenhart; Congress may regulate the manufacture of goods intended for interstate commerce; 10th Am. is a truism (saying it has no effect but has 2 possible uses: (1) power that is unprovided for (by means/end under § 8) goes to states and people; (2) other branches of govt might use the 10th Am to remind us of our limits
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity so long as it affects interstate commerce (Wickard is judicially restrained, but leaves the line drawing up to Congress)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Clark: Civil Rights Act prohibits public accommodations from discrimination on the basis of race, constitutional. Commerce power is acceptable – makes travel difficult for many people; clear blockages in channel of interstate commerce.
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) Ollie’s BBQ
Restaurant discriminated on the basis of race; most of food from other states. Congress had rational basis for deciding substantial effect. Doesn’t completely eliminate the possibility of a purely local restaurant.
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
Articulates 2-part test: (1) purpose (2) effects-balancing test of burden vs. local benefit
Note 5 on Maine v. Taylor (1986)
Permissible discrimination: discriminatory law is C-al if it’s necessary to serve an important purpose. Rule: burden is on the states to show that the statute served a legitimate local purpose and that the purpose could not be served as well by an available nondiscriminatory means.
West Lynn Creamery v. Healy (1994)
Nondiscriminatory tax on all milk in Massachusetts, both produced in and out of the state. The tax money goes to a subsidy for local milk producers. Each component is constitutional, but when put together is unconstitutional
Note on National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)
If employee is fulfilling a traditional government function, then commerce clause can’t reach it. (Overruled by Garcia)
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
Blackmun: FLSA regulation of government employees C-al Overrules National League of Cities. The political process will protect federalism! (Effect of Garcia: reduces judges’ decisions on state v fed and hands it to Congress)
Note 2 on South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
Rehnquist, CJ: highway money conditional on drinking age, constitutional. Conditional spending is constitutional.
New York v. United States (1992)
O’Connor: Disposing of nuclear waste. States may either regulate in a particular way or take title to the waste. Can’t commandeer the states because the principle of the 10th amendment is that there are two levels of government.
Printz v. United States (1997)
Scalia: Brady Act unC-al bc it commandeers the state executive officials. Required chief law enforcement officers to make reasonable efforts to make sure a gun sale is legal. Mostly the same reasoning as NY.
Reno v. Condon (2000)
Rehnquist: Congress may regulate the state executive if they are applying laws of general applicability
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Three categories for Commerce Clause regulation; Substantial Effects Test covers only economic activity, or activity that is an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity which requires regulation of the intrastate activity
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Congress can’t regulate noneconomic activity based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Remedy runs against private citizens not state actors. Can’t do that pursuant to the 14th Am. Distinguished from Katzenbach (about conduct), whereas this is about the wrong actor. Breyer (dissenting): the state acted by omission. This is a remedy to that omission!
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Congress under the CC may criminalize the production and use of home-grown marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes; “economic” activity doesn’t mean commercial
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Roberts, CJ: 1. Medicaid expansion requirement struck down. Looks exactly like Dole. Coercive because it was too big of an expansion. Not related under the Dole requirements. 2. Upheld ACA individual mandate under the taxing power after striking it down under the commerce power. Taxing just like Drexel Furniture. Liberal justices think that it is acceptable under commerce and taxing power. Conservative justices think that it is acceptable under neither. Roberts thinks that is acceptable under the taxing, but not the commerce power.
