Con Cases

Question 1

City of LA v. Lyons

Answer 1

couldn’t show a likelihood of future harm to seek an injunction of chokeholds by the police

Question 2

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Answer 2

saying that all citizens suffered harm is too general and speculative and does not show a personal injury.

Question 3

Mass v. EPA

Answer 3

the greenhouse gas emissions which Congress wasn’t regulating was shown to have a connection with the environmental damages caused by global warming so there’s causation

Question 4

Allen v. Wright

Answer 4

the tax exemption leading to the injury of discrimination was too distant because it involved the actions of a third party (the school) needing to take place for there to be an injury

Question 5

Abbott Labs v. Gardner

Answer 5

new rule for stating general drug name on packaging. case was ripe because there was a specific and present injury of either facing fines or paying for new packaging. No point in waiting for the injury to actually occur

Question 6

Martin v Hunter’s Lessee

Answer 6

nature of this case involved a federal treaty so the supreme court had appellate jurisdiction under the express terms of the constitution.

Question 7

Alden v. Maine

Answer 7

state and federal suits against a state by any individual or entity other than the federal government or another state is prohibited by the eleventh amendment

Question 8

McCulloch

Answer 8

Congress has the power to charter banks since the power is necessary and proper to executing Congress’s enumerated powers to tax, borrow money, and regulate commerce

Question 9

Geier

Answer 9

The state law requiring airbags conflicts with the federal law that is gradually phasing out airbag technology

Question 10

Arizona v. US

Answer 10

state laws on immigration are preempted by conflict and field preemption.

Question 11

US Term Limits v. Thornton

Answer 11

state-imposed term limits are invalid because the qualifications clause is exclusive and cannot be altered

Question 12

Printz

Answer 12

Congress couldn’t compel state officials to participate in the administration of federal programs such as conducting background checks of prospective firearm purchases

Question 13

Klein

Answer 13

congress cannot violate the separation of powers by creating new law to control the courts while a case is pending

Question 14

NCAA

Answer 14

Cannot tell states what to do with sports gambling and how to legislate

Question 15

Lopez

Answer 15

carrying a gun does not affect interstate commerce like buying and selling one

Question 16

Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer 16

congress can regulate waterways of trade because it’s a channel of commerce

Question 17

Heart of Atlanta Motel

Answer 17

racial discrimination in hotels has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Hotels are also arguably an instrumentality of commerce.

Question 18

Wickard

Answer 18

personal wheat growth has a substantial, negative effect on the price and sale of wheat which affects interstate commerce

Question 19

Raich

Answer 19

Home-grown marijuana for medicinal use could have substantial effect on commerce because there is an illegal, interstate market

Question 20

Morrison

Answer 20

sexual violence is not commercial and saying it affects education, women living in certain places and healthcare is too attenuated.

Question 21

Sebelius (for commerce)

Answer 21

cannot force citizens to engage in commerce by requiring them to get health insurance

Question 22

Reno v. Condon

Answer 22

Congress CAN prohibit harmful commercial activity by the states like prohibiting the sale of DMV lists with personal info

Question 23

Philly v. NJ

Answer 23

cannot discriminate against letting out of state waste into landfills

Question 24

Clinton v. Jones

Answer 24

the president is not immune from suits resulting from unofficial conduct like sexual harassment

Question 25

West Lynn Creamery v. Healy

Answer 25

a tax on out-of-state dealers discriminates against them.

Question 26

Exxon Corp v. Governor of Maryland

Answer 26

there was no discrimination because there were no in-state oil producers or refineries.

Question 27

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

Answer 27

facially neutral discrimination because all in state and out of state producers were required to use the same USDA labels. However, the locals benefitted because in state growers already used the labels and it would burden out of state growers by having to pay and change their labels to comply.

Question 28

Dean Milk v. Madison

Answer 28

excludes milk from out of state which is discriminatory. There were less burdensome alternatives like enacting stricter inspection methods.

Question 29

Southern Pacific v Arizona

Answer 29

Doesn’t discriminate on its face but is unduly burdensome for out of staters because not all states had this law so they would have to either avoid the state or disassemble their trains to comply with the car limit before entering

Question 30

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways

Answer 30

state law limiting the truck size only marginally furthered state safety while overly burdening interstate commerce by not allowing certain trucks to pass through the state.

Question 31

Curtis-Wright

Answer 31

president has greater powers in foreign affairs

Question 32

South Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke

Answer 32

Cannot act outside of their role as a market participant and start regulating.

Question 33

Maine v. Taylor

Answer 33

upheld law finding there was no satisfactory way of screening for parasites in another way. (This is the furthers a legit state interest and no reasonable alternative example)

Question 34

Sebelius (tax)

Answer 34

the individual mandate for not having health insurance was collected the same way a tax is collected and is paid to the IRS.

Question 35

United building & CTC of Camden v. Camden

Answer 35

an ordinance required that at least 40% of employees of contractors and subcontractors working on city construction projects be city residents interfered with out of staters’ pursuit of employment.

Question 36

Missouri v. Holland

Answer 36

act created by congress was necessary and proper ti carry out the treaty even if it interfered with right reserved to the states

Question 37

INS v. Chadha

Answer 37

legislative veto provision was unconstitutional because it allowed congress to act without presentment

Question 38

United States v. Nixon

Answer 38

subpoenaed tapes and documents and a generalized claim of privilege was not sufficient to overcome the need to produce all relevant evidence in a case.

Question 39

Nixon v. Fitz

gerald

Answer 39

immune from civil liability for discharging an employee because it was a official act

Question 40

Clinton v. NY

Answer 40

line item veto is not allowed

Question 41

Dole

Answer 41

Loss of 5% from the federal highway fund if the state allowed persons under 21 to buy alcohol is not coercive

Question 42

Dames & Moore

Answer 42

released American hostages with an agreement to refer all cases with Iran to a tribunal for settlement. Worked with congress based off their act so zone one

Question 43

zivotofsky

Answer 43

statute was unconstitutional so the president’s action in zone 3 was constitutional

Question 44

Trump v. Hawaii

Answer 44

restricting of entry of foreign nationals survived rational basis review because it was a facially legitimate policy to support national security. He was working with congress based on their act in zone one event though some tried to argue that it was in zone three and contradicting laws to not discriminate against immigrants based on their nationality.

Question 45

Hamdi

Answer 45

American citizens are afforded due process rights

Question 46

Hamdan

Answer 46

President can establish military commissions (tribunals) with congressional authorization

Question 47

Boumediene

Answer 47

individuals must always have a way to challenge their detention whether through right to petition for habeas corpus or an adequate alternative

Question 48

Morrison v. Olson

Answer 48

independent counsel is an inferior officer because the AG can remove them, powers are limited to specific investigation, jurisdiction is limited, and there are two year term limits

Question 49

Humphrey

Answer 49

Couldn’t remove FTC commissioners because they also work under the exec. and leg. branches