Con Law Cases

Question 1

Judicial Review

Answer 1

The constitution is silent about judicial review regarding the constitutionality of federal, state and local laws and executive acts

Question 2

Marbury v. Madison

Answer 2

A law that is not aligned with the constitution is void and all courts & departments are bound by the constitution - Federal courts can strike down federal legislation and executive actions that are not constitutional

Question 3

Authority Supreme Court has the authority to decide on (3)

Answer 3

1. Federal constitution question
2. Federal law question
3. Authority to make rules for federal courts

Question 4

What does the “restrictions & exceptions” clause in Article III mean?

Answer 4

There is no definite answer - says the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction with exceptions under this clause

Question 5

Ex Parte McCardle

Answer 5

1868

• newspaper editor was arrested for writing critical articles of reconstruction and military rule in the South after the Civil War
• Primary case interpreting the Exceptions and Regulations Clause
• Takeaway: Although the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is deprived from the Constitution, Congress has the power to make exceptions and regulations to this jurisdiction

Question 6

Standing Definition & 3 Constitutional Requirements

Answer 6

Standing is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter in court

• 3 Requirements:
  1. Plaintiff must allege injury
  2. Plaintiff must allege the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct
  3. Plaintiff must allege that a favorable federal court decision will likely redress the injury

Question 7

2 Prudential Principles of Standing

Answer 7

• these can be modified or eliminated through statute*
  1. party must generally assert only their rights and cannot raise the rights of third parties
  2. plaintiff may not sue a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers

Question 8

Allen v. Wright (1984)

Answer 8

• Facts: During the time of desegregation in schools - parents of black public school children sued the IRS in nation-wide class action suit because they believed the IRS did not adopt sufficient standards to deny tax exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools
• Holding: The parent said not have standing to bring suit
• Takeaway: Standing requires a plaintiff to allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief

Question 9

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)

Answer 9

1. Facts: Lyons filed complaint for damages, injunction & DJ against LA & 4 police officers for applying chokehold while getting stopped for traffic violation
2. Holding: Lyons not entitled to injunctive relief, his suit for damages can continue
3. Takeaway: In order to establish a valid case for injunctive relief he would have had to asserted: he would have another encounter with police and all police officers always choke those who they encounter

Question 10

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

Answer 10

1. Facts: Plaintiffs claim injury caused by lack of funding to activities abroad that are increasing the risk of endangered species
2. Holding: The plaintiffs do not have standing
3. Reasoning:
   i. Although the plaintiffs had interest in species abroad they had to show they had a direct interest being affected
   ii. If the plaintiffs had worked directly with the animals in that country that would have shown harm
   iii. Redressability is also an issue – the agencies are not bound by the Secretary’s orders

Question 11

Warth v. Selden

Answer 11

1. Plaintiffs alleged zoning requirements prohibited them from living in a specific town because they could not build multifamily dwelling or low-income housing there
2. Holding: Plaintiffs lacked standing b/c they couldn’t prove the housing would be built absent the zoning requirements

Question 12

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org

Answer 12

1. Plaintiffs alleged they were denied medical care by tax-exempt hospitals so challenged an IRS revision of the Revenue Ruling saying it was the reason they didn’t receive care
2. Holding: Plaintiffs lacked standing b/c there was no proof the Revenue Ruling was the reason for the denial of medical care & no proof victory in the suit would secure treatment

Question 13

Singelton v. Wulf (1976) - prohibition of 3rd party standing

Answer 13

i. Facts: Plaintiffs were physicians who perform nonmedically indicated abortions, complaint alleged the unconstitutionality of a Missouri statute excluding abortions that are not medically indicated from receiving Medicaid benefits
ii. Holding: Physicians have standing to advocate for the rights of women patients against government interference
iii. Takeaway: Persons may sue to protect third party’s right only when (1) the relationship between the parties is such that the person suing may advocate effectively for the right and (2) there are genuine obstacles to the third party asserting the right in court

Question 14

United States v. Richardson (1974) - prohibition against generalized grievances

Answer 14

i. Issue: Does the respondent have standing to bring action as a federal taxpayer alleging certain provisions concerning public reporting of expenditures under the CIA
ii. Holding: No standing – falls short of two-prong test and does not meet the holding characteristics of Frothingham
1. Although the taxpayer has an interest in knowing where the funds are being spent he does not allege a specific injury
iii. Takeaway: Taxpayer status is not sufficient to confer standing to challenge the constitutionality of federal action unless the taxpayer alleges direct injury from the practice and not generalized grievances common to all members of the public

Question 15

Prohibition of 3rd party standing

Answer 15

Plaintiff cannot rest their legal rights and interests on another - can only assert injuries they have suffered, some exceptions exist

Question 16

Prohibition of generalized grievances

Answer 16

prevents individuals rom suing if their injury is as a citizen or taxpayer concerned with having the government follow the law

Question 17

Ripeness

Answer 17

Determines when judicial review is appropriate
- seeks to separate cases that are premature and about potential injury from those that are appropriate for federal court action

Question 18

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

Answer 18

1. Issue: Constitutionality (under the 14th amendment) of CT statutes that prohibit the use of contraceptive devices and giving of medical advice about these devices
2. Facts case 1: Paul & Polina Poe had 3 pregnancies with infants that died shortly after birth – this has caused extreme emotional stress but the doctor has not been able to provide knowledge about contraception preventing methods due to the CT law
3. Two other cases of mothers that seek information about contraceptive devices
4. Holding: Because CT has not chosen to press enforcement of the statute the cases lack immediacy which is required, ruling the law unconstitutional when it has not caused them direct injury is premature
   i. The doctor could bring action when he is prosecuted for giving advice about contraceptive devices
   ii. The law has been in effect since the 1800s and there has been no prosecution thus far
5. Takeaway: The declaratory judgement of a state court upholding a statute on the books does not make the issue of that statute’s constitutionality ripe for federal court determination when the state has not and likely will not prosecute under the statute
   i. This case addresses ripeness but does not give clear guidelines

Question 19

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)

Answer 19

1. Facts: Congress amended the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers of prescription drugs to put the established name largely on the label
   i. Aim of congress was to provide cheaper options by informing people there are many versions of the same drug
2. Holding: There is ripeness
   i. Reasoning: the commissioner has taken the action, the action will go into effect and so the manufacturers are forced to either comply or get prosecuted for not complying
   ii. The companies would have to invest in rebranding, reprinting etc.
3. Takeaway: A case is considered ripe for federal court resolution when:
   i. The issue(s) presented are appropriate for a judicial decision and
   ii. The parties would face hardship if the court declined to hear the case

Question 20

Mootness

Answer 20

A plaintiff must have a live controversy - if something happens that ends the injury the case is moot

Question 21

3 Exceptions to Mootness

Answer 21

1. Capable of repetition
2. Voluntary cessation: A case cannot be dismissed as moot if the defendant ceases to perform the allegedly improper behavior
3. Class action suits: a case can continue even if the named plaintiff’s claims are moot

Question 22

Moore v. Ogilvie

Answer 22

i. Plaintiffs filed suit because they were denied from putting their names on the ballot for the general election b/c they didn’t have enough signatures from each county
ii. The case was over by the time the Supreme Court heard the case
iii. Holding: He was injured by not being allowed to run for election / put his name on the ballot – even if the election was over the situation had the possibility of repeating itself in future elections

Question 23

Roe v. Wade

Answer 23

i. Roe = Texas woman seeking DJ that Texas law prohibiting abortion was unconstitutional and injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the law
ii. At the time the Supreme Court heard the case she was no longer pregnant
iii. Holding: Meets the requirements of standing – even though she was no longer pregnant at the time she was able to become pregnant again, capable of repetition

Question 24

United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty (1980)

Answer 24

i. Issue: Federal prisoner brought suit challenging validity of the US Parole Commission’s Parole Release Guidelines after being denied parole twice
ii. Trial court denied his request to make this a class action suit for all federal prisoners eligible for parole
iii. Prisoner released during appeal
iv. Holding: Prisoner’s individual stake in the case ceased but the SC said it was not moot because there are other prisoners still had a live controversy
v. Takeaway: Appeal of a lower court’s denial of class certification does not become moot due to the mootness of the named plaintiff’s case

Question 25

Political Question Doctrine

Answer 25

Allegations of constitution violations that federal court will not adjudicate and the SC deems to inappropriate for judicial review

Question 26

3 Reasons for Political Question Doctrine

Answer 26

1. There is a provision of the Constitution that answers the question that the topic is not for the courts to decide on that provision
2. Courts do not believe that there are meaningful standards they can establish and apply
3. Some matters should be spoken about with one voice and not multiple (foreign affairs etc.)

Question 27

Barker v. Carr (1962)

Answer 27

• Most famous case that addresses the criteria for determining what is a political question*
  1. Issue: Is the issue presented (apportionment under the equal protection clause) nonjusticiable on the basis that it is a political question?
  2. Facts: Baker alleged a malapportionment of the votes in TN based on boundaries devised in 1901
  i. Due to boundaries rural areas had a greater value of votes than the urban areas
  2. Rule: Claims that rest on the Guarantee Clause (Article 4 Section 4) are not justiciable because they are political question
  3. Holding: The case can be tried
  4. Reasoning: Basis of the issue was not on the guarantee clause – case does not present any of the indicating elements that are a political question
  5. Takeaway: Courts will not interfere with the following cases –
  i. Guarantee Clause
  ii. Foreign Affairs (not absolute)
  iii. Impeachment

Question 28

Powell v. Mccormack

Answer 28

1. Facts: Powell was elected to 90th Congress but was not allowed to take his seat
   i. He filed suit stating the House could only exclude him from seat if he did not meet Constitutional requirements
2. Issue: Is this a political question that should be barred from adjudication?
3. Holding: This is not a political question
4. Reasoning: The case was determined by interpreting the Constitution
5. Takeaway: The political question doctrine does not bar the federal courts from deciding a case concerning Congress’ powers to determine its membership when the text of the Constitution does not specifically commit the issue in the case to Congressional resolution

Question 29

Goldwater v. Carter (1969)

Answer 29

1. Pres. Jimmy Carter rescinded US treaty with Taiwan as part of recognizing the People’s Republic of China
2. Senator Goldwater brought suit saying Senate needs to rescind a treaty as they have to ratify one
3. Holding: This is a political question
4. Takeaway: The senate’s role in the termination of treaties in a nonjusticiable political question

Question 30

Nixon v. United States (1993)

Answer 30

1. Issue: Is the case of deciding whether the Senate Rule XI on impeachments a political question such that it is not justiciable
2. Facts: Nixon = former Chief judge in Mississippi convicted of making false statements before a grand jury
   i. Nixon brought suit that the trial was void bc of the Senate Rule XI bc his trial was heard before a committee of senators before being heard by a senate as a whole
3. Holding: Claim cannot be heard in court – political question
4. Takeaway: The judiciary may not review the Senate’s trial of an impeached official

Question 31

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 31

i. Historical background: Bank of US was highly contested by eventually created by George Washington during his presidency
1. Many blamed the bank for the country’s economic depression
2. State governments were among the angriest because the bank called in loans owned the by state
ii. Maryland sued McCulloch arguing (1) establishment of the bank is unconstitutional (2) the bank may be forced to pay state taxes
iii. Takeaway: The necessary and proper clause allows for a federal bank which is immune from state controls
1. Congress can enact legislation so long as its ends are legitimate under the Constitution and the legislation is appropriate and plainly adapted to those ends

Question 32

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. (2012)

Answer 32

i. Issue: Does Congress have the power to enact two provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010?
1. Individual Mandate: Requires all Americans to maintain a minimum amt of health insurance coverage – those who do not receive through their employer will need to purchase through a private company
a. Those who didn’t comply paid a penalty
b. Government’s argument for their power to enact: Commerce Clause and Necessary & Proper Clause - Rejected
i. Commerce Clause: Allows Congress to regulate commerce but does not mean they have the power to create some sort of commercial activity
ii. The mandate does not regulate commerce but requires individuals to engage in it
c. Government’s argument: Has power under enumerated power to lay and collect taxes - Accepted
i. Not having health insurance triggers a tax (penalty for not having it)
ii. The payment is not direct tax that must be apportioned among the states
iii. The Constitution permits this tax, thus the courts cannot forbid it
2. Medicaid Expansion: Increases the # of individuals the states must cover, increases federal funding to cover the states’ costs but states will also cover their own and if states do not comply they will lose all federal Medicaid funds
a. State’s argument: Exceeds Congress’ authority under the spending clause (coercive like Dole)
b. Violates basic principle that government cannot compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program
ii. Holding: Individual Mandate is constitutional, Medicaid expansion is not constitutional – Medicaid portion of the act is struck down
iii. Takeaway: The legitimacy of Spending Clause regulation depends on whether a state voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs and when Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the states to accept a program, this runs counter to the nation’s system of federalism.

Question 33

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Answer 33

i. Issue: Can Congress use its spending power to regulate activities in areas reserved to the States?
ii. Holding: Yes – constitutional
iii. South Dakota permitted people 19+ YO to purchase 3.2% alcohol beer
iv. 1984: Congress enacted act that withholds a percentage of fed highway funds from states that allow purchase or public possession of alcoholic beverages to those under 21
1. Federal government did not raise the drinking age to 21, they basically offered money to induce states to raise it on their own
v. The spending power is not unlimited – restrictions exist: exercise of spending must be to serve the general welfare
vi. A conditional grant is not unconstitutional just because it is successful in achieving the congressional objective
vii. Takeaway Rule: Valid use of spending power is subject to 3 requirements:
1. It must be used for the general welfare
2. Any conditions on receipt of funds must be unambiguous
3. Any conditions must be related to the federal interest in the particular national projects or programs being funded

Question 34

What part of the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate Commerce?

Answer 34

Article I §8

Question 35

Evolution of Commerce Clause Jurisprudence

Answer 35

i. Early American History – 1890s: Commerce power was broadly defined but minimally used
ii. 1890s – 1937: Court narrowly defined the scope of Congress’ commerce power and used the 10th amendment as a limit
iii. 1937 – 1990s: The Court expansively defined the scope of the commerce power and did not apply the 10th amendment limit
iv. 1990+: Court again narrowed the scope of commerce power and revived the 10th amendment as a limit on federal actions

Question 36

Main questions considered regarding the commerce clause?

Answer 36

i. What is commerce? Is it one stage of business or does it include all aspects of business in the US?
ii. What does “among the several states” mean?
iii. Does the 10th amendment limit Congress?

Question 37

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Answer 37

i. Issue: May a state legislate in the area of interstate commerce in a way that conflicts with federal law?
ii. Holding: No - The federal commerce power extends to all commerce among and between the states and foreign nations, with only commerce having connections solely within a state being unreachable under the commerce power
iii. Ogden (D) operated a ferry boat service between New York and New Jersey under an exclusive license granted by the New York legislature
iv. Gibbons (P), holding a similar license granted by Congress, began competing with Ogden (D)
v. Ogden (D) sought and received an injunction against Gibbons’ (P) competing ferry service. Gibbons (P) appeals to the Supreme Court
vi. Takeaway Rule: Regulating commerce is a concurrent power but if there is a conflict between a state law and federal law the federal law prevails because of the Supremacy Clause

Question 38

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Answer 38

initial articulation of the state action doctrine

i. Private citizens were criminally indicted and found civilly liable for violating a federal civil rights statute when excluding African Americans from hotels, theaters and railroads
ii. Takeaway: Congress cannot prohibit individual acts of racial discrimination by private citizens – only by state action

Question 39

1890’s - 1937 Commerce Clause Era

Answer 39

This was a limited federal commerce power - commerce began using the commerce clause much more extensively to regulate business - congress used judicial review to invalidate many state and federal laws

Question 40

United States v. EC (1895)

Answer 40

Court held the Sherman Antitrust Act could not be used to stop a monopoly in the sugar refining industry because Constitution did not allow Congress to regulate manufacturing

1. The federal law could not be applied because the monopoly was in the production of sugar – not commerce
2. Declared it would be too far reaching for Congress to act “whenever interstate or international commerce may be ultimately affected”
3. Indirect effects are outside the scope of federal power
4. Overall takeaway: Manufacturing is not commerce and outside Congress’ control

Question 41

Lochner v. US (1905)

Answer 41

1. Employer was arrested for violating a state law which prohibited bakers from working more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week – challenged on due process grounds
2. Said law was an unconstitutional interference with the freedom of contract and not allowable for the state
3. Takeaway: A law that infringes on freedom in the marketplace and freedom of contract is unconstitutional if it does not bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate government purpose

Question 42

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

Answer 42

1. Declared the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 unconstitutional
2. Law provided that local coal boards be established to determine prices for coal and to determine wages and hours for employees
3. Said commerce is equivalent to the phrase: intercourse for the purposes of trade
4. Takeaway: Narrowly defined commerce – the incidents leading up to and culminating in the mining of coal do not constitute intercourse

Question 43

Shreveport Rate Cases (1914)

Answer 43

Defined what “among the states” is

1. Court upheld the ability of the Interstate Commerce Commission to set intrastate railroad rates because of their direct impact on interstate commerce
2. Takeaway: Upheld federal regulation and held Congress may prevent the common instrumentalities of interstate and intrastate commercial intercourse from being used in their interstate operations to the injury of interstate commerce
   a. Said all interstate transactions of interstate carriers can be controlled by federal government

Question 44

ALA Schechter Poultry Corp. V. US

Answer 44

1. Declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional because it had an insufficient effect on interstate commerce
2. Law prevented sellers from requiring buyers to purchase the entire coop of chickens that included sick ones
3. Takeaway: Held there was a distinction between direct and indirect effects and the federal government has the power to regulate when there are direct effects on commerce – indirect effects remain within the domain of the state

Question 45

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Answer 45

Most significant case that used the 19th amendment o restrict mining, manufacturing and production to the states

1. Declared a federal law that prohibited shipment of good interstate produced in factories that employed children under 14 or 14-16 YO for more than 8 hours per day or 6 days a week
2. Takeaway: Held the Commerce clause was meant to give Congress the power over interstate commerce and not the ability to control the State’s exercise of police power over local trade and manufacture

Question 46

1930s - 1990 Commerce Clause Era

Answer 46

Broad Federal Commerce Power - Congress can regulate both interstate and intrastate commerce

Question 47

NLRB v. Jones & Laughton Steel Corp (1937)

Answer 47

1. Steel corporation who had operations all over US was sued by the government for violating the National Labor Relations Act by committing unfair labor practices
2. Steel company’s argument: Industrial activities (manufacturing) are not subject to federal regulation i.e. are not commerce
3. Takeaway: Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce extends to regulating intrastate activities that may burden or obstruct interstate commerce
   a. This decision was protecting commerce by ensuring employees stay employed, do not strike, continue production and do not stop due to unfair labor conditions

Question 48

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)

Answer 48

Upheld a state law that required minimum wage for women

Question 49

United States v. Carolene Products Co (1938)

Answer 49

1. Held the Filled Milk Act does not infringe upon the 5th Amendment
2. Appellee was indicted in Illinois for an interstate shipment of packages of Milnut
3. Holding & Reasoning: Act does not violate the 5th amendment – precedent held state law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of a product like this did not infringe upon the 14th amendment and the court did not think they should departure from this precedent for purposes of the 5th amendment
   a. It was up to Congress to decide if filled milk can be regulated or not – a judicial decision should not be substituted fro Congress’ decision
4. Takeaway: if there is a violation of a constitutional provision then the legislation is not within Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause

Question 50

United States v. Darby (1941)

Answer 50

1. Darby = a lumber company that was indicted for violation of the federal labor standards and challenged the statute as beyond Congress’ commerce power
2. Holding: The regulation of the act is constitutional and within Congress’ power under the commerce clause
3. Takeaway: The motive and purpose of congressional regulation of commerce are matters for judgement of the Legislature and the Court cannot prescribe limits on the exercise of its power – upholds minimum wage, maximum hours and overtime are all within Congress’ power
   a. Congress can exclude articles from commerce that may be injurious to public health, morals or welfare even if the state does not regulate their use
   b. Even though the regulation seeks to control intrastate commerce the activities effect interstate commerce so the regulation is possible

Question 51

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Answer 51

WHEAT CASE

1. Issue: Did Congress have the power under the Commerce Clause to exercise control over the amount of wheat grown by a farmer who used his entire production on his own farm?
2. Appellee was fined after harvesting too much wheat one summer
3. Takeaway: Federal commerce power extends to even home-grown and home-consumed products because the use of them has an eventual impact on the amount of product otherwise produced and sold and thereby affects interstate commerce
   a. If you take all the people in the country in the same position as the plaintiff then it will have effects on the market
   b. Although this specific Appellee’s contribution to the total wheat supply is small it does not remove him from the scope of federal regulation