Cases- Congress Flashcards
Baker v. Carr (1962) -
Legal Question: Does SCOTUS have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
The Court created the political question doctrine. Laid out that any of the following conditions cannot be met for the Supreme Court to find a case justiciable: a) commitment of the issue to a branch of government other than the judiciary; (b) lack of standards for resolving the issue; (c) impossibility of the judiciary to resolve the issue without first making a policy determination; (d) a judicial decision of that matter as a lack of respect for other branches of government; (e) a political decision has already been made; or (f) the potential for multiple pronouncements by various branches on one question.
Powell v. McCormack (1969)
Legal Question: Can the House exclude elected members who meet all requirements listed in the Constitution?
Powell was asking for back salary, which is viable and not considered moot.The house can only exclude someone who does not meet the qualifications, but Powell did meet those qualifications. The House has other tools that they could have used to punish their members, meaning that the house did not have the discretional ability to exclude a member at will.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
Legal Question: Can states independently alter constitutional qualifications for the U.S. Congress seats?
States do not have the power to enact term limits because it would undermine the framer’s vision of a uniform congress. Congress represents the people of the United states, not the states themselves. State imposed limits would restrict the people’s ability to elect the member they want.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (concepts, not case)
Legal Question: Does Congress have power to incorporate a bank (i.e. is that a necessary and proper item for Congress to charter a bank and execute its enumerated powers)?
McCulloch demands that any implied power must follow plainly from, and not simply be vaguely related to, an enumerated end. Under their interpretation, federal legislation is a valid exercise of Congress’ authority under the [Necessary and Proper] Clause if it satisfies a two-part test: First, the law must be directed toward a “legitimate” end, which McCulloch defines as one “within the scope of the Constitution”—that is, the powers expressly delegated to the Federal Government by some provision in the Constitution. Second, there must be a necessary and proper fit between the “means” (the federal law) and the “end” (the enumerated power or powers) it is designed to serve.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)
Use of word rational in government’s legal texts to say that this is what was presumed to be the best course of action.
Legal question: Did Congress properly exercise the 15th Amendment powers? Does the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violate state powers?
Congress may use rational means to give effect to the 15th amendment that supersedes contrary exertions of exertions of state power. States cannot use their reserved power to undermine a federally protected right.
Justice Black’s Dissenting Opinion in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act preclearance was unconstitutional. Congress can exercise implied powers as long as they don’t violate constitutional limits (section 5 undermined constitutional structure).
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Legal Question: Are the 4th and 5th provisions of the Voting Rights Act regarding preclearance and its formula still constitutional if the law no longer reflects the state of the union?
Conditions in the covered jurisdictions no longer reflect the conditions that gave rise to the VRA, meaning that the harm prevented/remedied is no longer proportional to the “extreme departures” of section 4 and 5. Section 4 is unconstitutional and cannot be used to provide preclearance with section 5.
Trump v. Mazars (2020)
Legal Question: Do House subpoenas for the President’s personal papers exceed the authority of the House under the Constitution?
There are no limits on congress’ subpoena power over a president and because the president is the sole person of the executive branch, there is no clean line between his personal/official affairs. The court must balance congress’ interests with the “unique” position of the president. In order to do so, Congress must decide whether their purpose warrants the involvement of the president, their subpoena cannot be broad, they must establish a valid legislative purpose and explain why the president’s information is necessary, and lastly they must assess the burden placed on the president.
Trump v. Vance (2020)
Article II and the Supremacy Clause neither categorically preclude, nor require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. All nine justices agreed that a President does not have absolute immunity from the issuance of a state criminal subpoena
