Economic Rights and Incorporation

Question 1

DC v. Heller (2008)

Answer 1

DC passed law banning firearm ownership except under special circumstances. Was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL as 2ND AM guarantees INDIVIDUAL right to gun ownership

Prob: no scrutiny used, RBR + principles of FEDERALISM allows for state policy experimentation

Question 2

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Answer 2

Chicago banned all firearms, was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL under DP of 14th: right to self defense is “fundamental to preservation of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in history or tradition”

Made regulation almost impossible

Question 3

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Answer 3

Yazoo land scandal- govt took land, sold it, those people sold it to third party. Contracts invalidated by State, 3rd party lost land and sues.

Georgia’s invalidation of contracts UNCONSTITUTIONAL (9-0) b/c right to contract is a VESTED right. Also, if state can take away contracts in this case, they can do it any time.

Question 4

Calder v. Bull (1798)

Answer 4

Law passed that put limit on when appeals for wills can be claimed, Bulls missed deadline and will left to them was not approved in court. Thought law was ex-post-facto.

NOT ex-post-facto (9-0), but REAL point was “govt. cannot heavily restrict natural rights. If they do, court should be empowered to overturn those laws”

Question 5

Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)

Answer 5

PA statute prohibiting “posse behavior” in tracking down of ex-slaves. Prigg and posse kidnapped family of ex-slaves (mother was basically freed by old owner). PA convicts Prigg.

Found that statute CONFLICTS with FED. FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT of 1793 (which they had power to pass under fugitive slave clause in const., nec+prop, and Supremacy)
Also found that PA denying PROPERTY RIGHTS, which are so FUNDAMENTAL that no reg. can oppose it.

Slaves= people, DP
Slaves ≠ citizens, P+I

FREE STATES CAN LIBERATE SLAVES, “NATURAL RIGHTS” (fund rights and DP- strict scrutiny needed)

Question 6

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Answer 6

Dred Scott taken to free state w/ owner, married wife, had kids. Then moved back to slave state and in order to prevent family from being separated, went to court to argue freedom. Could bring case b/c considered PERSON (DP)

7-2 for Sanford. Determined that “descendants of African Slaves” could NEVER be citizens of US.
Why?: [text] framers did not write in slaves as full citizens, considered mainly property (right to import until 1808, FSC), [history] slavery existed in all 13 colonies @ time of ratification, marriage was not allowed anywhere, no education allowed, etc… [other] comity (P+I) couldn’t have applied to slaves b/c they would have run away

PROPERTY RIGHTS SO FUNDAMENTAL, CANNOT BE CONTROLLED AT ALL BY STATE OR FED.

Question 7

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Answer 7

Butchers made to work in 1 factory b/c before water supplies of city being contaminated. Argued unconst. under 13th and 14th (DP and PI)

CONSTITUTIONAL: 13th applies only to ex-slaves, POLICE POWER–can infringe on indiv. lib. (DP) for public good, P/I basically invalidated (just guarantees rights already est. (COMITY) AND if it did infringe fed would get to overturn st. statute (FEDERALISM))

SUBST. DP: not how right is taken away, but q of should it be/why is it being taken away

Question 8

Munn v. IL (1877)

Answer 8

IL private-owned grain warehouse regulated by state for how much they can charge to store/transport grain (for benefit of farmers)

DP and EP of 14th am NOT VIOLATED, states can reg. use of private property when for public good (PP).

BUT! PROB: b/c companies don’t have DP rights we cannot know what govt. can/can’t do.

OVERRULED eventually (unimportant)

Question 9

Railroad Commission Cases (1886)

Answer 9

State regulation of railroad tariffs UPHELD b/c of POLICE PWR (prevent monopolies from having too much pwr)

Power to regulate ≠ power to destroy
Limitation ≠ confiscation
This dicta implies DP can apply to Corporations

Question 10

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)

Answer 10

Corporations became people under 14th DP and EP

Question 11

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Answer 11

NY statute limited work hrs to 60/week, 10hrs/day for bakers

Violates DP of 14TH AM.
PP argument not accepted: if st. can regulate this, what can’t they regulate?
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT (Allgeyer precedent)
SUBST. DP USED: Bakers don’t need state to regulate on their behalf

Question 12

Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)

Answer 12

Louisiana limited where ppl/companies could buy insurance for fear that they would be duped by dishonest companies- used POLICE PWR.

14th am DP and Lib. of contract violated

est. tie between ECONOMIC LIBERTY and DUE PROCESS

Question 13

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934)

Answer 13

To ensure rates of homelessness and bank ownership of houses don’t spike majorly during depression, MN passed Mortgage Moratorium Law (2-year extension)

NOT a violation of LIB TO CONTRACT or DP of 14TH b/c emergency (depression) requires broader reading of const.

POLICE PWR has to be applied to ECON RELATIONSHIPS (Lochner) for STABILIZATION- “all reasonable means”: low bar

Question 14

West Coast Hotel v. Parish (1937)

Answer 14

OVERTURNS ADKINS and MOREHEAD

Min wage for women upheld. Need to protect from becoming “fallen” or “wards of the state,” have to be mothers and wives (PUBLIC WELFARE and SOCIAL ORGANIZATION)

Lib to contract not REALLY in const, subject to SOME restraints (no “absolute liberty” can be regulated)

Switch in time that saved the 9

Question 15

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)

Answer 15

DC min wage/max hrs for women+children ruled VIOLATION of 5TH AM DP

If min wage can be set, why can’t max?

To regulate this is to extend PP too far.

Women = to men (19th from 15th, 15th from 14th, 19th and 14th related)

Different from Muller/Lochner: about payment, not just contract

Question 16

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

Answer 16

Oregon law limiting women’s working hrs to 10 – POLICE POWER

Does NOT violate DP and LIB OF CONTRACT b/c women need state intervention + special protection so they can reproduce

Question 17

US v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)

Answer 17

Filled milk deemed injurious to pub health, not allowed to ship under COMMERCE. Company sues b/c they feel they’re being targeted.

UPHELD b/c no evidence of specific scrutiny

FOOTNOTE 4: introduces tiered scrutiny (“Insular and discrete minorities” = not deferential)

Question 18

Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955)

Answer 18

“Laws that we review need not be logically consistence with problem”

Ignores Lochner, deferential to STATE legis.

Question 19

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Answer 19

Individual mandate: not “penalty” b/c can’t be passed under COMMERCE (b/c you can’t create a market to regulate), and Nec + Proper cannot be used b/c “end” is not explicit (need “means to end,” like bank in McCulloch)

As a TAX it’s ok b/c not so severe as to be COERCIVE (against principles of FEDERALISM) and collected legitimately by IRS.

RBR used: no fundamental right involved

Fed govt. cannot use POLICE POWER

Question 20

Civil Rights Cases of 1883

Answer 20

SC ruled 8-1 (Harlan dissented) that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which prohibited racial disc. in places of pub. accom.) was unconstitutional, as the 13th and 14th amendments apply only to governmental actions, not individual ones

Question 21

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Answer 21

CRA of 1964 used COMMERCE clause to assert right of banning discrimination in public accommodations

UPHELD 8-1 as discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on “the interstate flow of food and upon the movement on products generally” and restricted blacks traveling across state lines.

Question 22

Daniel v. Paul (1969)

Answer 22

“Private” club denied admission to black people, claimed CRA didn’t apply.

BUT b/c food in club was from other states, could be regulated w/ commerce

Question 23

Steward Machine v. Davis/Collector of Internal Revenue (1937)

Answer 23

Social Security Act: employers paid a tax to the federal government but could deduct the same tax if they made a contribution to a state employment fund

does NOT violate right to CONTRACT or federalism, as tax was uniform throughout the states and did not coerce the states.

CRISIS of unemployment.

Question 24

Sonzinsky v. US ( 1937)

Answer 24

Tax on firearm dealers

Ct upheld law as cong. fully able to choose who gets taxed and who doesn’t and courts cannot intervene.

Question 25

US v. Morrison (2000)

Answer 25

Violence Against Women Act of 1994 STRUCK DOWN under COMMERCE as the Act did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state”

Question 26

Dartmouth v. Woodward (1819)

Answer 26

New Hampshire cannot recharter w/o consent of other party (charter=contract)

Const. needs to be read flexibly- related to McCulloch

Question 27

Minnesota Rate Cases (1890)

Answer 27

Laws establishing rates to fight against monopolistic pwr growth.

Violates DP OF 14TH

Court’s responsibility to review PROCESS and FAIRNESS or rates (are they reasonable?)
SUBSTANTIVE, not PROCEDURAL (what butchers in Slaughterhouse wanted)

Question 28

Nebbia v. NY (1934)

Answer 28

Milk being sold below fed. assigned price

Does NOT violate DP of 14TH or CONTRACT
Only would be if law is “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious” (not a high bar), needs “adequate reason” to link industry to pub good (Lochner, Slaughterhouse).

Question 29

Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964)

Answer 29

CRA does not exceed COMMERCE CLAUSE b/c related to interstate

Question 30

Helvering v. Davis (1937)

Answer 30

Social Security Act compelled companies to make payments and deductions, court was very DEFERENTIAL to congress in their decision that this supported “general welfare”