deck_818488 Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison (2 Take Aways)
Judicial Review of nondiscretionary acts and legislative acts Congress cannot expand the juridiction of the courts
Cohens v. Virginia
Federal judicial power also encompasses the power to review state court decisions involving state law that include a question of federal or constitutional law as a matter of course
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
a hypothetical threat is not enough for ripeness
True or False A settlement moots a case
True A settlement will provide the assurance, through a breach of contract, that the defendant will stop the offending behavior
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
New Application of Standing: Plaintiff must show injury, causation and redressability at the level of relief they seek Relief must correspond with the injury or potential for injury in terms of an injunction
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Cause of action does not create standing Standing vs. Cause-Of-Action: Both required, but different Cause-of-Action - Congress can create define injuries and articulate changes of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before Unless congress makes it a cause-of-action, the court will unlikely listen to citizens suing for the improper administration of laws Statutes may create obligations but do not give individuals the right to sue to enforce the obligations, even if an individual has been harmed Injury without cause-of-action, no standing A procedural right to sue is not enough for standing, a personal injury is required Cause-of-action without injury, no standing When congress has authorized a right to sue, a sanding inquiry must still be performed
McCulloch v. Maryland
Necessary & Proper Clause authorizes Congress powers incidental to enumerated powers, therefore the power to create a bank is incidental to the enumerated power of coining money Determining an implied power: Drafter’s Intent Plain Language Structural (Placement among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers)
Wickard v. Filburn
Court determines if the whole group sought to be regulated has an interstate effect, if so any individual or entity within that class can be regulated Requires a rational basis for concluding there is an aggregate effect Where the class of activities has been regulated, the court will not pluck an individual out of the class
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Congress can use moral motives to regulate commerce when there is a connection to commerce
Perez v. U.S.
o Even when the regulations appear criminal, they may have an effect on commerce
United States v. Lopez
Change in the Commerce Clause Jurisprudence Effect → Must Be A Substantial Effect Activity must be economic and have an economic effect
United States v. Morrison
Cannot satisfy category #3 of the areas Congress may regulate through the Commerce Clause power because Congress used the aggregation of a non-economic activity
Gonzales v. Raich
Court held it is not necessary determine whether the activities taken in aggregate substantially effect interstate commerce. But only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding”
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
End of Traditional Function vs. Non-Traditional Function established as the test (Unworkable) Institutional Competency Argument – Electoral process better protects the States than the traditional/non-traditional jurisprudence, the political process is better for protecting state sovereignty
New York v. United States
Courts are less likely to find a 10th Amendment violation unless the law targets states as states
Printz v. United States
Categorical rule that Congress may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program
NFIB v. Sebelius
Commerce clause powers do not apply to inactivity and compelling individuals to engage in commerce (New Emerging Principle - lacks a majority holding) Analyzing taxes - look to substance over form (Found the penalty to be a tax)
U.S. v. Butler
Hamilton’s view is the rule adopted by the majority Hamilton: Clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated and is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them. Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. National need is insufficient reasoning because this could easily and quickly become a go-to answer to ignore constitutional requirements
South Dakota v. Dole
Taxing & Spending Power is Subject to 5 Limitations: (Deference to Congress) 1. Must be in pursuit of the general welfare 2. Must state conditions clearly and explicitly (unambiguous) 3. Must be related to federal interests in programs / projects– Germaneness Requirement 4. Must be no other constitutional bar 5. Must comply with the 10th amendment’s anti-commandeering principle
United States v. Morrison
§ 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is subject to the state action doctrine
City of Boerne v. Flores
Supreme Court back pedals to the narrow view allowing only remedial measures to pass muster where there is congruence and proportionality between the means used and the ends to be achieved. (Must be corrective, remedial, or preventative, but not definitional)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
When doing a preemption analysis look to the legislation as a whole In this case, the court found the legislation had a goal of national uniformity and that it intended express preemption
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission
Demonstrates how important framing the issue can be (Framed as a economic interest vs. safety)
Aaron B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
“Selective Exclusiveness Test” States have the power to regulate the areas of commerce which did not require uniform national regulation by Congress and that are local nature without placing an undue burden on interstate commerce.
