Con Law Cases Flashcards
Luther v. Borden (US 1849)
The creation of a republican form of govt and the control of domestic violence are political Qs to be decided by Congress
Cases on the New Deal and the Taxing Power
U.S. v. Constantine (1935)
Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937)
U.S. v. Kahriger (1953)
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
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922)
Congress may not use its Taxing Power to regulate behavior by imposing penalties
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)
Maine v. Taylor (XXXX)
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.
Printz v. U.S. (1997)
Anti-commandeering principle also applies to the state executive branch
US 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
U.S. v. Morrison (2000)
Congress can’t regulate noneconomic activity based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce
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)
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
Formalist vs. realist views of holdings
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
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
SCOTUS has the power of judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional
Marbury can be interpreted in 2 ways:
• Judicial supremacy (Cooper)
• Departmentalism view
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
States bound to judicial interpretation of C
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
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”
U.S. 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
A.L.A. Schecter Poultry v. U.S. (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
U.S. 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
U.S. v. Constantine (1935)
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
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity so long as it affects interstate commerce
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Upheld Title II of Civil Rights Act under Commerce power Congress can regulate racial discrimination bc it substantially affects interstate commerce
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
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
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
NC statute unconstitutional
West Lynn Creamery v. Healy (1994)
A tax scheme that raises revenue and benefits local producers by burdening their out-of-state competitors is a violation of the dormant CC.
U.S. v. Lopez (1995)
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
U.S. v. Morrison (2000)
Congress can’t regulate noneconomic activity based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce
Gonzalez 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 just mean commercial
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) Overruled by Garcia
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)
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro Transit Authority (1985)
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
South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
Valid use of congressional spending power; no 10th Am violation because Congress just exercised its right to control its spending
New York v. United States (1992)
Anticommandeering Principle: Federal gov’t cannot commandeer the state legislature
Printz v. US (1997)
Congress cannot commandeer the state executive branch (later limited by Reno v. Condon (2000))
Reno v. Condon (2000)
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
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Law at issue: ACA Medicaid Expansion Provision
Expansion requirement of Affordable Care Act is coercive & unconstitutional
US 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
US v. Morrison (2000)
Congress can’t regulate noneconomic activity based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce
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 just mean commercial, it just refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities”
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Law at issue: ACA’s Individual Mandate
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
Missouri v. Holland (1920)
No internal limits on Treaty Power; N&P Clause gives Congress the power to execute the means of a ratified treaty
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Steel Seizure Case
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
Calder v. Bull (1798)
state law at issue did not fall within C-al provision
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
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.
Scott v. Sandford (1856)
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.
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
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
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
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”
Lochner v. New York (1905)—Substantive Due Process Clause
NY state is unC-al—unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Ct invalidated a state law prohibiting the teaching of any modern language other than English
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
Ct invalidated a state statute requiring students to attend public rather than private schools
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)—think Darby
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.
Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)
Court upheld law that required optician to get a prescription. Decision was the pinnacle of deference to the leg.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
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.
