Con Law Cases

Question 1

Luther v. Borden (US 1849)

Answer 1

The creation of a republican form of govt and the control of domestic violence are political Qs to be decided by Congress

Question 2

Cases on the New Deal and the Taxing Power
U.S. v. Constantine (1935)
Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937)
U.S. v. Kahriger (1953)

Answer 2

SCOTUS struck down federal legislation as:
• Beyond the commerce power (Schechter Poultry and Carter Coal)
• Beyond the spending power (Butler)
• Beyond the taxing power

U.S. v. Constantine (1935): SCOTUS struck down a statute that imposed tax on illegal sale of liquor (the taxed acitivty was also punishable by criminal law, indicating obvious leg intent to prohibit the activity)

Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937): upheld §2 of the Nat’l Firearms Act as a valid exercise of taxing power

U.S. v. Kahriger (1953): upheld provision of the Gamblers’ Occupational Tax

Question 3

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922)

Answer 3

Congress may not use its Taxing Power to regulate behavior by imposing penalties

Question 4

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Answer 4

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)

Question 5

Maine v. Taylor (XXXX)

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Printz v. U.S. (1997)

Answer 6

Anti-commandeering principle also applies to the state executive branch

Question 7

US v. Lopez (1995)

Answer 7

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

Question 8

U.S. v. Morrison (2000)

Answer 8

Congress can’t regulate noneconomic activity based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce

Question 9

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Answer 9

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

Question 10

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Answer 10

Congress can’t force individuals to buy health care insurance under CC, but it can impose a tax on those individuals as a means to encourage them to do so

Question 11

Formalist vs. realist views of holdings

Answer 11

Formalist: A holding is the narrowest proposition on which the majority argued to dispense a case.
Realist: A holding is the reasoning later courts cite for deciding later cases

Question 12

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 12

SCOTUS has the power of judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional

Marbury can be interpreted in 2 ways:
• Judicial supremacy (Cooper)
• Departmentalism view

Question 13

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Answer 13

States bound to judicial interpretation of C

Question 14

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 14

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”

Question 15

U.S. v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)

Answer 15

Manufacturing precedes commerce, therefore it is outside the reach of the CC and antitrust law cannot reach it

Question 16

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Answer 16

“The Child Labor Case”: Congress can’t regulate child labor (local matter) due to illegitimate purpose, look at intent of Congress

Question 17

A.L.A. Schecter Poultry v. U.S. (1935)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

Answer 18

The fed regulatory power ceases when interstate commerce ends, and does not attach again until interstate commercial intercourse begins

Question 19

U.S. v. Butler (1936)

Answer 19

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

Question 20

United States v. Darby (1941)

Answer 20

Overruled Dagenhart; Congress may regulate the manufacture of goods intended for interstate commerce; 10th Am. is a truism

Question 21

U.S. v. Constantine (1935)

Answer 21

SCOTUS struck down a statute that imposed tax on illegal sale of liquor

Statute: any person who sold illegally would be required to pay the tax as well as being subject to whatever criminal penalties

Question 22

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Answer 22

Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity so long as it affects interstate commerce

Question 23

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

Answer 23

Upheld Title II of Civil Rights Act under Commerce power Congress can regulate racial discrimination bc it substantially affects interstate commerce

Question 24

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Answer 24

Rational Basis Test (companion case to Heart of ATL Motel)

So long as Congress has a rational basis for deciding something affects interstate commerce, that’s good enough

Question 25

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)

Answer 25

NC statute unconstitutional

Question 26

West Lynn Creamery v. Healy (1994)

Answer 26

A tax scheme that raises revenue and benefits local producers by burdening their out-of-state competitors is a violation of the dormant CC.

Question 27

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Answer 27

3 categories for CC regulation, Substantial Effects Test only covers economic activity, or activity that is an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity which requires regulation of the intrastate activity

Question 28

U.S. v. Morrison (2000)

Answer 28

Congress can’t regulate noneconomic activity based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce

Question 29

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)

Answer 29

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 just mean commercial

Question 30

National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) Overruled by Garcia

Answer 30

Congress can regulate private endeavors, but not “traditional gov’t functions” of the states (can’t regulate “states as states” such as to displace the states’ freedom to structure their integral operations in areas of traditional gov’t functions)

Question 31

Garcia v. San Antonio Metro Transit Authority (1985)

Answer 31

Protection of states rights left primarily to the political process. Can’t use “traditional govt functions” test to invalidate generally applicable federal laws that regulate states as states

Question 32

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Answer 32

Valid use of congressional spending power; no 10th Am violation because Congress just exercised its right to control its spending

Question 33

New York v. United States (1992)

Answer 33

Anticommandeering Principle: Federal gov’t cannot commandeer the state legislature

Question 34

Printz v. US (1997)

Answer 34

Congress cannot commandeer the state executive branch (later limited by Reno v. Condon (2000))

Question 35

Reno v. Condon (2000)

Answer 35

Limits Printz v. US (1997), Driver’s Privacy Protection Act authorized under CC

DPPA regulates the states as the owners of data bases (market participants) and doesn’t regulate states in their sovereign capacity

Question 36

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Law at issue: ACA Medicaid Expansion Provision

Answer 36

Expansion requirement of Affordable Care Act is coercive & unconstitutional

Question 37

US v. Lopez (1995)

Answer 37

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

Question 38

US v. Morrison (2000)

Answer 38

Congress can’t regulate noneconomic activity based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce

Question 39

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Answer 39

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 just mean commercial, it just refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities”

Question 40

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Law at issue: ACA’s Individual Mandate

Answer 40

Congress can’t force individuals to buy health care insurance under the CC, but it can impose a tax on individuals as a means to encourage them to do so

Question 41

Missouri v. Holland (1920)

Answer 41

No internal limits on Treaty Power; N&P Clause gives Congress the power to execute the means of a ratified treaty

Question 42

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Steel Seizure Case

Answer 42

Seizure of steel mills unC-al bc “there is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here” and “it is not claimed that express C-al language grants this power to the President”

Concurrence (Jackson): 3 Zones of Presidential Power
Zone 1: Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
Zone 2: Twilight Zone—Congressional Silence or
Zone 3: Against Congress

Question 43

Calder v. Bull (1798)

Answer 43

state law at issue did not fall within C-al provision

Question 44

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Answer 44

Takeaway: Ams 8-10 only impose limits on the federal govt, not the states
Held: 5th Am. only runs against the federal govt, doesn’t limit the states. MA does not have to pay Barron for filling in his harbor.

Question 45

Scott v. Sandford (1856)

Answer 45

SCOTUS did not have jxn over a slave’s assault action against his owner bc the slave was of African descent, and not permitted citizenship under the laws of the United States or of any individual state.

Question 46

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Answer 46

No violation of butchers’ rights, 14th Am does not restrict the police powers of the state; 14th Am’s PI Clause affected only rights of federal citizenship and not state citizenship

Question 47

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 47

Repudiated Brown v. Board (1952), but never overruled

state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities are C-al under the doctrine of “separate but equal”

Question 48

Lochner v. New York (1905)—Substantive Due Process Clause

Answer 48

NY state is unC-al—unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract

Question 49

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

Answer 49

Ct invalidated a state law prohibiting the teaching of any modern language other than English

Question 50

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

Answer 50

Ct invalidated a state statute requiring students to attend public rather than private schools

Question 51

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)—think Darby

Answer 51

Court upheld state law establishing a minimum wage for women

C does not speak of freedom to K, it speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Here, women have weak bargaining power and by burdening when we burden society bc they will be poor and need welfare.

Question 52

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)

Answer 52

Court upheld law that required optician to get a prescription. Decision was the pinnacle of deference to the leg.

Question 53

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Answer 53

C protects the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives.

Though the C does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the BoR create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Ams create a new C-al right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is t/f null and void.