Con Law Cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison

Answer 1

Marbury was refused his judicial appointment.

The Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction, was unconstitutional because Article III specifically states the types of cases the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over and these cannot be expanded by Congress.

Question 2

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

Answer 2

Virginia state courts did not respect the ruling of the United States Supreme Court.

Under Article III, the Supreme Court has authority to exercise appellate review of state court decisions.

Question 3

Cooper v. Aaron

Answer 3

The Governor of Arkansas blocked African American students from attending a segregated school by calling in the National Guard.

State officials and state legislatures must comply with orders of the United States Supreme Court based on its interpretation of the United States Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.”

Question 4

Baker v. Carr

Answer 4

Baker brought suit for equal protection after Tennessee did not redraw their legislative districts. Tennessee argued that this was a political question.

Baker is an individual person suing a state government (therefore no SoP issue).

1. There must be a SoP concern.
2. It must fit within 1 of the six factors.

Question 5

Nixon v. United States

Answer 5

Nixon (a former federal district court judge) was being impeached. Nixon argued that the Senate violated the Constitution by creating a special committee to hear the case.

This case is non-justiciable because it is a political question.

1. SoP issue between Congress and Court
2. Textually-demonstrable commitment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution gives sole power to the Senate to try all impeachments.

Question 6

Muskrat v. United States

Answer 6

Congress passed an act allowing Native Americans to bring suit against the United States to determine the constitutionality of land acts.

The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to review cases and controversies between adverse parties, and not to deliver advisory opinions.

Question 7

Allen v. Wright

Answer 7

Wright sued the IRS. They argued that the failure of the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to racially-segregated private schools caused injury to their children.

1. creating a climate of stigma against their children (not a sufficient injury)
2. the IRS’s failure to remove private schools’ tax-exempt status effectively encouraged the continued segregation of schools (chain of causation is too attenuated) (There is no evidence that if the IRS actually withheld tax-exempt status from these schools that the segregating policies would change.)

Question 8

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Answer 8

Defenders of Wildlife sued the Secretary of the Interior for violating the Endangered Species Act by not consulting in foreign nations.

The plaintiffs argued they were injured because a lack of consultation for governmental activities abroad increases the rate of extinction of endangered species.

The plaintiffs failed to show that threats to endangered species cause them imminent injury.

Even if injury, the plaintiffs also failed to show how a favorable outcome would redress their alleged injury.

Question 9

Ex Parte McCardle

Answer 9

McCardle sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, Congress passed a new law repealing the courts appellate review of writs of habeas corpus.

Congress exercised its constitutional right to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction and the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to consider McCardle’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Question 10

McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 10

Congress incorporated the Bank of the United States. The Bank opened a branch in the state of Maryland.

Maryland state legislature tried to impose a tax on the bank.

1. Congress has the constitutional power to charter the Bank of the United States. This power is ultimately derived from the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the general power to “tax and spend” for the general welfare.
2. The Bank was created by federal statute. Maryland may not tax the Bank as a federal institution because federal laws are supreme to state laws.

Question 11

United States v. Comstock

Answer 11

A federal law allows a district court to civilly detain a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the end of her sentence.

Congress has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact a statute permitting civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

Question 12

Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer 12

Ogden received a license under New York state law to operate commercial steamboats on New York waters. Gibbons was also given permission from the United States Congress to operate steamboats in those same waters.

The federal regulation trumps the state regulation (Supremacy) because Congress is granted the power to regulate interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Question 13

Shreveport Rate Case

Answer 13

The railway charged significantly higher rates for the transportation of goods from Shreveport to Texas cities than from Dallas and Houston to those same Texas cities.

Congress fixed a maximum price that could be charged by the railway on its interstate routes.

May Congress use its Commerce Clause powers to regulate activities occurring fully within a state?

Yes, when those activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Question 14

Champion v. Ames

Answer 14

Congress enacted the Federal Lottery Act of 1895 (FLA) which prohibited the buying and selling of lottery tickets across state lines.

Champion was shipping Paraguayan lottery tickets from Texas to California.

Does the trafficking of lottery tickets across state lines constitute interstate commerce that Congress may prohibit under the Commerce Clause?

Congress alone can regulate all aspects of interstate commerce and can do so in whatever manner it deems appropriate.

Question 15

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Answer 15

After Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. fired ten employees that attempted to unionize at one of its Pennsylvania plants, the NLRB sanctioned the company for engaging in discriminatory employment practices in violation of federal standards.

May Congress regulate labor relations under its Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce?

Yes. The stoppage of operations due to industrial strife between employers and employees could have a significant detrimental impact on interstate commerce.

Question 16

United States v. Darby

Answer 16

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) barred interstate shipment of goods made by individuals who were not paid min. wage or who worked too many hours.

The United States Government sued Darby Lumber Company for failing to meet the regulation.

May Congress prohibit the shipment of goods in interstate commerce made by workers in unfair employment conditions and the employment of such workers in manufacturing goods for interstate commerce?

Yes. While manufacturing is not itself interstate commerce, the shipment of manufactured goods between states falls within the definition of commerce and is thus capable of regulation by Congress under its plenary Commerce Clause powers.

Question 17

Wickard v. Filburn

Answer 17

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production in an effort to stabilize the national price of wheat.

Filburn was penalized for production wheat in excess of the Act. Filburn argued that the excess wheat was produced for his own private consumption and never intended to enter the stream of commerce.

May Congress regulate, under the Commerce Clause, the production of wheat designed wholly for individual consumption and not for sale in commerce, interstate or otherwise?

Yes. Congress may regulate local activity if that activity exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

When taken together with all the other farmers similarly situated, Filburn’s activity has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Question 18

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Answer 18

In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which forbids racial discrimination by places of public accommodation such as hotels and restaurants.

Heart of Atlanta Motel practices a policy of refusing to rent rooms to African Americans.

May Congress enact the Civil Rights Act as a measure to regulate interstate commerce?

Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to remove obstructions and restraints to interstate commerce.

The unavailability to African Americans of adequate accommodations interferes significantly with interstate travel.

Question 19

Katzenbach v. McClung

Answer 19

In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which forbids racial discrimination by places of public accommodation such as hotels and restaurants.

The McClungs, own and operate Ollie’s Barbecue in Birmingham, Alabama and refuse to serve African American customers.

1. Approximately half of the food served by the restaurant has moved in interstate commerce.
2. Racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce.

Question 20

United States v. Lopez

Answer 20

In 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), making it a federal offense “for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm in a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”

Lopez was charged with violating the GFSZA.

The mere carrying of handguns (not the buying or selling) in a school zone in no way affects commerce, either substantially or otherwise.

The United States argues that the presence of guns in school zones affects commerce because crime in schools affects education, which in turn affects job prospects and productivity. If this argument were accepted, Congress could regulate virtually any activity.

Question 21

United States v. Morrison

Answer 21

In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which contained a provision for a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence, even when victims did not file criminal charges.

The United States argues violence against women affects the travelling, engaging of business, and employment in interstate commerce of women as a group.

Congress cannot regulate non-economic, violent criminal conduct, based solely on the aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

Question 22

Gonzalez v. Raich

Answer 22

In 1996, California enacted the Compassionate Use Act that allowed the use of medical marijuana within the state by persons needing it for legitimate medical purposes.

Raich was a CA resident who legally used marijuana to treat legitimate medical issues. Federal agents seized and destroyed Raich’s marijuana plants.

Raich’s addition of homegrown marijuana to the national scheme, when taken in the aggregate with others similarly situated, has a significant effect on Congress’s ability to eliminate the national illegal marijuana market. (substantial effect on interstate commerce in the aggregate)

Question 23

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Commerce Clause)

Answer 23

Congress may not compel individuals to participate in commercial activity under this provision. The individual mandate does not regulate existing commercial activity. Instead, the mandate compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. The mere possibility that individuals will participate in commercial activity at some point in the future is not enough to justify regulation under the commerce power. Validating the individual mandate on this ground would open the door to all sorts of regulation not contemplated by the Framers.

Question 24

Child Labor Tax Case

Answer 24

In 1919, Congress passed the Child Labor Tax Law which constituted a ten percent tax on the profits of any company using child labor.

The Child Labor Tax is not actually a “tax,” as the sole purpose for taxes is to generate revenue for the government.

Congress’ actual motive behind this tax is to impose monetary penalties upon businesses employing children for the purpose of regulating child labor use among the states.

Question 25

United States v. Kahriger

Answer 25

Federal statute required gambling bookies to pay taxes on their operations, and to register with the IRS.

Supreme Court will uphold federal tax statutes unless they are “extraneous to any tax need” (uphold unless the tax effectively serves no revenue-raising purpose.)

Question 26

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Taxing Power)

Answer 26

The individual mandate required U.S. citizens to pay a penalty if they did not purchase a health insurance policy.

The penalty is paid to the IRS when individuals file their tax returns, the amount is dependent upon household income, and revenue is generated for the government. It is reasonable to construe the individual mandate as increasing taxes on those who have a certain income, but choose to go without health insurance. Thus, the individual mandate is within Congress’s power to tax.

Question 27

United States v. Butler

Answer 27

?

Question 28

South Dakota v. Dole

Answer 28

In 1984, Congress passed a statute which directed the Secretary of Transportation to withhold up to five percent of federal highway funds otherwise available to states in which state laws permitted persons under the age of twenty-one to purchase alcohol.

Congress has specific constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States.

Conditions on the receipt of federal funds are subject to limitations:
ALL must be satisfied:
1. Pursuant to general welfare
2. Unambiguous condition on state
3. Conditions must be germane – rational relation between conditions and the purposes for which Congress grants funds
4. Conditions cannot be used to induce state to violate constitution
5. Conditions cannot be coercive

Question 29

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Spending Power)

Answer 29

The Medicaid expansion provision required the states to greatly expand the pool or risk losing their existing federal funds (10% of states total budget).

States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The states are given no such choice here; they must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding. (coercive)

Question 30

National League of Cities v. Usery

Answer 30

OVERRULED***

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) amended to extend min. wage and max. hours provisions to states and cities.

May Congress regulate STATE employers through the Fair Labor Standards Act as an exercise of its Commerce Clause power?

The Tenth Amendment reserves control of intrastate functions to the states.

States would lose all discretion in structuring employer-employee relationships in all aspects of public services traditionally left under the complete control of state governments.
(traditional government functions)

Question 31

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA)

Answer 31

SAMTA had previously paid its state employees according to the federal standards established in the FLSA, but ceased doing so after the Supreme Court’s decision in National League of Cities.

In 1979, the Wage and Hour Administration of the United States Department of Labor ruled that SAMTA could be regulated by the FLSA because its actions were not a “traditional government function” reserved for the states under National League of Cities.

May Congress apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to govern the employment actions of a state municipal transit authority?

Systems to protect state sovereignty are already built into the structure of the federal government itself.

Question 32

New York v. United States

Answer 32

In 1985, Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (the Act) to help address issues of low-level radioactive waste disposal among the states. The Act encouraged states to adopt programs to dispose of their own waste.

May Congress compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program?

No. Congress may not pass regulations that have the effect of “commandeering” states’ legislative processes.

Either have to follow federal regulation or take title to waste. This is commandeering.

Question 33

Printz v. United States

Answer 33

The Brady Act was a federal gun-control provision that required the United States attorney general to implement a nationwide handgun background check system.

While moving towards a national system, in the interim, state and local officials were required to conduct background checks of prospective firearm purchasers.

May Congress compel state officials to participate in the administration of federal programs?

Congress may not require states to legislate according to federal standards because doing so constitutes a commandeering of traditional state policy making functions.

Question 34

Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

Answer 34

Silkwood was contaminated at Kerr-McGee Corp. The jury awarded $10,000,000 for punitive damages.

Is the award of punitive damages for nuclear incidents preempted by federal law?

Congress has prohibited states from regulating nuclear safety, but they have not prohibited judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct.

1. Not field preemption
2. Not conflict preemption

Question 35

Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisc.

Answer 35

The City of Madison, Wisconsin passed an ordinance making it unlawful to sell milk as pasteurized unless it had been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant within five miles of Madison’s central square.

The practical effect of the statute is the exclusion of milk pasteurized in Illinois from the Madison, Wisconsin market, which burdens interstate commerce and benefits local milk producers.

Less discriminatory alternatives exist that would allow Madison to achieve its same health and safety goals relating to the quality of milk sold within its borders.

The statute is invalid because the statute burdens interstate commerce and less discriminatory alternatives exist.

Question 36

Hughes v. Oklahoma

Answer 36

Oklahoma passed a statute that prohibited the transportation or shipment of natural minnows procured within the state for sale outside the state.

Hughes was charged under the statute as he engaged in the interstate commerce of Oklahoma minnows to customers in his Texas-based enterprise.

The state must rebut the presumption of discrimination by showing that, under strict scrutiny, it passed the statute for a legitimate local purpose and there were no nondiscriminatory options available for reaching that purpose.

OK does have a legitimate local purpose HOWEVER OK did not search for nondiscriminatory alternatives to conserving its wildlife.

Question 37

Southern Pacific Co. v. State of Arizona

Answer 37

In 1912, Arizona passed the Arizona Train Limit Law, which made it unlawful for any person or corporation to operate a train of more than fourteen passenger or seventy freight cars in Arizona, and authorized the state to collect a monetary fee from anyone that violated this provision.

Southern Pacific argues that it would face significant financial hardship by complying with the regulations, whereas Arizona claims a safety interest in avoiding “slack accidents” caused by longer trains running through its borders. The unlikely risk of accidents makes Arizona’s interest in the case far less significant than the economic impact on Southern Pacific.

Question 38

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

Answer 38

An Iowa state law prohibited the use of most trucks longer than fifty-five feet within the state’s borders.

The Iowa state law limiting truck size only marginally furthers a state safety purpose while overly burdening interstate commerce.

Under the principle of the Dormant Commerce Clause, a state law must further a health and safety purpose if it heavily burdens interstate commerce to be constitutional.

Question 39

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey

Answer 39

In 1974, New Jersey passed a law that prohibited other states from shipping their waste across its borders and depositing the waste in New Jersey landfills.

New Jersey’s refusal to let waste into its landfills simply because the waste originated from outside New Jersey violates the Commerce Clause.

Question 40

United Haulers Ass’n. Inc. v. Oneida

Answer 40

A country ordinance required all solid waste generated within the county to be delivered to government processing facilities, even though such waste could otherwise be processes (less expensively) at competing private facilities.

This ordinance did not violate the anti-discrimination test.
Self-Favoritism is still subject to excessive burdens test.

The benefit of increasing the local government’s ability to provide for the waste disposal needs of its citizens outweighs the burdens placed on out-of-state waste disposal plants.

Question 41

Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana

Answer 41

The State of Montana operated a hunting licensing scheme which permitted Montana residents to purchase single-animal hunting licenses for very low fees, but required out-of-state residents to purchase combination licenses for significantly more money, regardless of what animals they wished to hunt in the state.

Hunting big game by nonresidents in Montana is not a basic right of these nonresidents and does not impact their livelihoods.

Question 42

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper

Answer 42

The Rules of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire limit bar admission to state residents.

The practice of law is a “privilege” and is necessary for the provisions of justice.

States may discriminate against rights of out-of-state residents as long as there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objective.

Question 43

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Answer 43

The President issued Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce, to take control of and continue operating most of the nation’s steel mills.

The President’s power to issue executive orders must come from either an act of Congress or the Constitution.

Question 44

Dames & Moore v. Regan

Answer 44

In 1979, American embassy in Iran was seized and Americans were taken hostage. President Carter declared a national emergency and put a hold on Iranian assets in the United States.

Part of the agreement required that all pending litigation between U.S. and Iranian nationals would be taken out of court, and arbitrated by a special tribunal.

This interfered with the final judgment between Dames & Moore and the government of Iran and the Atomic Energy Organization.

This holding is narrow and does not mean that the President has plenary power to settle all claims. The President has authority to settle such claims where, as here, Congress acquiesces to the President’s action.

Question 45

United States v. Curtiss Wright Export Corporation

Answer 45

Congress passed a joint resolution which delegated to the President the power to declare that exporting arms to certain countries would be a crime. Under the authority granted, the President proclaimed that exporting arms to Bolivia or Paraguay would be a crime.

Curtiss Wright illegally sold arms to Bolivia.

Any exercise of power by the President must be exercised within the constitutional parameters granted to him, but the scope of the President’s powers in international affairs is broad.

Question 46

Goldwater v. Carter

Answer 46

In 1949, the United States entered into a mutual defense treaty with the nationalist party (Taiwan). 1n 1979, President Carter terminated the mutual defense treat with nationalist party (Taiwan) and entered into a new treaty with the communist party.

Senator Goldwater filed a constitutional challenge against this action, arguing that the President exceeded his bounds because the Senate must be involved in rescinding a treaty, just as a two-thirds vote by the Senate is required to make a treaty.

The issue is a non-justiciable political question.

Question 47

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations

Answer 47

Clean Air Act required the EPA to promulgate “ambient air quality standards” for certain pollutants (that Congress designated).

When Congress confers decision making authority to agencies, it must set forth in a legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform.

“the attainment and maintenance of which are requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety.”

Question 48

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha

Answer 48

Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing one house of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate an executive determination that allowed Chadha to remain in the United States.

Legislative Veto = Unconstitutional

Article I of the Constitution requires that all legislation be presented to the President before becoming law.

Question 49

Clinton v. New York

Answer 49

Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act which gave the President power to cancel certain provisions in a bill rather than vetoing the entire bill.

Is the Line Item Veto Act constitutional?

No. If the President does not approve the bill, he shall return it to the house where it originated.

Question 50

Chevron

Answer 50

.

Question 51

Zuni v. Doe

Answer 51

.

Question 52

Industrial Union Dept. v. Hodgson

Answer 52

.

Question 53

State Farm

Answer 53

.