Facts and Rules Flashcards
Marsh v. Alabama
Gulf Shipping Corp. owned Chickasaw, AL, a suburb that looked like any other government-run suburb. Appellant distributed religious literature after being warned not to and was arrested for trespass. Appellant said the town was infringing on her 1st and 14th Amendment rights. Alabama argued that because the town was owned by Gulf, it had the right to abridge freedoms.
Marsh v. Alabama
States cannot let companies that owned towns to institute rules that curtail people’s Constitutional rights.
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc.
A union wanted to picket an employer in a plaza. The Court applied Marsh to rule that the shopping center was a state actor and thus had to allow a union to picket its employer
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner
People wanted to picket against the Vietnam War. The court ruled that the shopping center was not a state actor. In Logan Valley, the picketing had to be done on private property to be effective. Here, the picketing was not related to the mall’s functions.
Hudgens v. NLRB
The facts were similar to Logan Valley, but Lloyd overruled that case so the shopping center was not a state actor.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
MNN operated TW’s public channels. Two people made a film about MNN’s neglect of some service errors and MNN suspended them. They sued under the 1st Amendment, claiming that MNN exercises a traditional, exclusive public action.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
A private company becomes a state entity only when it performs a traditional, exclusive, public functions.
United States v. Butler
The spending power is not confined to Congress’s enumerated in Article I Section 8 and therefore “not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.” Dole limits this.
Sonzinsky v. United States
The National Firearms Act placed a $200 yearly tax on gun dealers, a $500 yearly tax on importers and manufacturers, and a $200 on each $200 tax on each transfer of firearm. Petitioner claimed it was a penalty for dealing in certain guns
Sonzinsky v. United States
An Act by Congress that is on its face a tax is constitutional even if it results in a burden on the thing taxed
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Tax
The ACA’s taxing people who refused to buy insurance as a “shared responsibility payment” was constitutional under the taxing power because it would be less expensive than buying insurance, it didn’t require people to intentionally not buy insurance, and the payment was collected by the IRS like any tax. It didn’t matter that Congress was trying to influence behavior
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota allowed people 19 years old or older to buy beer. When Congress passed 23 U.S.C. § 158, South Dakota sued saying the law went past the limits of the spending power and violated the 21st Amendment, which gave states the power to regulate alcohol.
South Dakota v. Dole
Congress may condition the receipt of federal funds if
- the condition relates to the general welfare,
- is clear,
- is related to a federal project or program,
- and does not violate other parts of the Constitution.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Expanded Medicaid Eligibility
The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility and offered more money to states that agreed to the expansion but conditioned ALL Medicaid funding on adopting the expansion.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Congress may not coerce states into accepting federal law.
Commandeering
The federal government using states government to enforce federal law
Maryland v. Wirtz
Plaintiffs wanted the court to enjoin the defendant from enforcing the federal minimum wage in schools and hospitals.
Maryland v. Wirtz
The scope of the Commerce Clause extends to significant economic state-run enterprises such as hospitals and schools.
National League of Cities v. Usery
Plaintiffs challenged Congress’s amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act that would make the law apply to state government employers. The Tenth Amendment gives states the power to control intrastate functions. Allowing Congress to control government employers would increase labor expenses, force them to cut back on training and other programs to comply with the FLSA’s wages, and would take away the states’ discretion in many areas of government employment.
National League of Cities v. Usery
The Fair Labor Standards Act as applied to state employers is unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. This overturned Wirtz.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
The Wage and Hour Administration of the United States Department of Labor said SAMTA could be regulated by the FLSA because it didn’t perform a traditional government function.
Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the wages and hours of state employees under the Commerce Clause. States “retain a significant measure of sovereign authority…only to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred those powers to the Federal Government.” (pg. 686)
New York v. United States
Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which required states to create facilities to dispose of the radioactive waste generated in the states and provided incentives for states to do so:
- Congress let states with disposal sites charge a surcharge to process waste from states without a disposal system, part of which is collected by the Secretary of Energy and disbursed to states that develop waste disposal sites,
- allowing states that had disposal sites to charge “progressively higher fees to process” waste from states without a disposal system and eventually stop allowing states without disposal sites from using theirs, and
- a take title provision which required states, if asked, to take title of waste generators made and pay damages to the generators for any harm resulting from the state not taking title.
Petitioners sued under the Guarantee Clause and the Tenth Amendment saying Congress couldn’t direct state regulation of radioactive waste disposal.
New York v. United States
Congress may not compel states enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.
Printz v. United States
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required everyone who wanted to buy a gun to have a background check and required state police to do them until a federal system was set up
Congress may not compel state officials to participate in the administration of federal programs.
Reno v. Condon
Congress may regulate states’ activities, using its Commerce Clause powers, provided that the regulation does not require the state to enact any laws or regulations and does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals. Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act to prevent DMVs and private entities from selling people’s personal information. Plaintiffs sued saying the act violated the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. The Court said personal information was an article of interstate commerce and so within Congress’s Commerce Clause Power.
Testa v. Katt
A state court may not refuse to enforce federal law. A section of the Emergency Price Control Act said a suit under it could be brought under any court. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island said it couldn’t award damages because it was a “foreign” “penal” law. SCOTUS said when Congress passes a law, it applies to all states and people. This comes from the Supremacy Clause rather than commandeering.
Two-Step Analysis of Interstate Privileges and Immunities
- The court asks whether a state discriminated against out-of-staters with regard to “‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.”
- If it has, the court then asks whether the state has a good reason for the discrimination, and whether the discrimination closely fits the asserted justification.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
Piper lived near the Vermont/ New Hampshire border. She qualified for, took and passed the NH bar exam with the intention of becoming a New Hampshire resident, but then found becoming a resident would be difficult because of personal matters. Her petition to waive the residency rule was denied.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
States must have a substantial reason for discriminating against noncitizens and the discrimination must have a substantial relationship to the state’s objective.
Examples of Rights Protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause
- The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise
- To claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus
- To institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state
- To take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal.
Express Preemption
The statute states that the federal law preempts the state law.
Implied Field Preemption
The federal law is so pervasive that Congress left no room for state legislation. [“congressional intent to occupy an entire field”] Gade dissent (pg. 671)
Implied Conflict Preemption
There’s no physical way to comply with both the federal and state law, or the state law is an obstacle to the full accomplishment of the federal law.
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association
The National Solid Wastes Management Association sought to enjoin IL from enforcing the licensing acts claiming that OSHA preempted them. The OSH Act’s goal was to protect workers and the licensing acts were meant to protect workers and the general public
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association
State law regulating occupational health and safety issues that are not approved by the Secretary of Labor are preempted by the OSA Act, even if they serve more than one purpose.
United States v. Lopez
Congress made a law making it illegal to carry guns on school grounds. Defendant challenged the law, saying it exceeded the power of the Commerce Clause.
It was unconstitutional for Congress to enact the Gun-Free School Zone under the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Morrison
Congress passed a law giving gender-abuse victims a federal cause of action. It found that this type of violence affected interstate commerce by raising insurance costs and discouraging migration into areas known for this kind of violence
United States v. Morrison
Even if Congress finds a non-economic law would affect interstate commerce, Congress does not have authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-economic activity
Gonzales v. Raich
Two people wanted to use medical marijuana as prescribed by their doctor. One grew her own; the other got it from a third party for free. Respondents argue that the Controlled Substance Act went beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause by banning intrastate manufacturing and possession of medical marijuana
Gonzales v. Raich
The Commerce Clause allows Congress to prohibit the growth and use of marijuana because, as a whole, it’s a substantial economic activity.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Commerce Clause
The Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because Congress can’t compel people to enter the market and under the Necessary and Proper Clause because it was not related to an enumerated power. (A tax law made it constitutional.)
Commerce Clause Analysis
- Authorities
- The Commerce Clause (Article I, § 8, cl. 3)
- Gibbins v. Ogden
- United States v. Lopez
- Other Cases
- Analogize/distinguish facts
- Use rational basis to interpret the “substantial effects” test
- Understand the relative significance of the different facts and legal elements
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.
Jones fired employees for trying to unionize. The NLRB charged respondent with discrimination and coercion and ordered it to stop because it was affecting interstate commerce. Jones was a huge company that operated across state lines
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.
Congress can regulate labor relations because they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
United States v. Darby
The Fair Labor Standards Act set a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour and a max 44 hour work week, allowing overtime with more pay, for employees who worked in interstate commerce or produced goods for it. The act also required employers to keep records of this data. Appellee was charged with violating this.
United States v. Darby
Congress has the power to regulate working standards that affect interstate commerce and to exclude any article that was made by employers violating those standards from interstate commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn
The Agriculture Adjustment Act limited the areas on which farmers could grow wheat in an effort to stabilize the national price of wheat. The appellee grew too much wheat, refused to pay the fine and challenged the constitutionality of the law.
Wickard v. Filburn
Congress may regulate the intrastate activity if the activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce
Heart of Atl**anta Motel v. United States
Congress used the Commerce Clause to uphold Title II of the Civil Rights Act. The motel was near a busy highway and the Court found that discrimination greatly harmed interstate commerce. Since African Americans often couldn’t find reasonable places to stay, they didn’t travel and were excluded from interstate commerce.
Heart of Atl**anta Motel v. United States
Congress may use the Commerce Clause to stop racial discrimination in hotels.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Discrimination by a small family-owned restaurant affected interstate commerce. Discrimination caused African Americans to spend and travel less and that greatly impaired interstate commerce.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Congress may use the Commerce Clause to stop racial discrimination in small restaurants.
Perez v. United States
Congress could pass a federal law against loan-sharking because it affected interstate commerce by supporting organized crime.
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association
Congress could pass federal standards in surface mining to prevent competition between the states from undermining the ability to improve safety standards
Gibbins v. Ogden
Two individuals gave Ogden license to operate a ferry between NYC and NJ. Congress gave Gibbons license to operate two steamboats in the same waters. Ogden got an injunction stopping Gibbons from using the waters.
Gibbins v. Ogden
Under the authority of the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, a state law governing interstate commerce may not govern when it conflicts with a law enacted by Congress.
Kidd v. Pearson
Iowa law severely restricting how liquor was made, and a manufacturer who intended to sell his goods challenged the law saying it affected interstate commerce.
Kidd v. Pearson
Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to the manufacturing of goods.
United States v. E.C. Knight
A sugar refinery company gained four other companies in Philadelphia. Congress tried to sue to break up the monopoly.
United States v. E.C. Knight
Congress may not use the Commerce Clause to regulate manufacturing.
Swift & Co v. US
Congress sued many meat processors from different states for working together to control the price of meat.
Swift & Co v. US
Conduct must have a direct effect on interstate commerce to be regulated by the Commerce Clause
The Shreveport Rate Cases
The Interstate Commerce Commission could set the prices for rail freight in Texas because its low rates were undercutting interstate rates, which affected interstate commerce.
Carter v. Carter Coal
Congress enacted a law to regulate working conditions in coal mines and provided tax rebates to encourage companies to comply. Carter sued his company to stop it from receiving the rebates.
Carter v. Carter Coal
Congress may not use the Commerce Clause to regulate purely local acts, like manufacturing and production.
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 2)
Maryland taxed all banks not chartered by the state and the Bank of the United States refused to pay. Maryland argued that the states have power over the federal government and state law trumps the Constitution
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 2)
Congress may create the means to perform its constitutional duties and the states may not interfere with them.
United States v. Comstock
Congress passed a law to confine sexually dangerous prisoners to beyond their release date.
The Necessary and Proper Clauses gives Congress the right to confine sexually dangerous prisoners to beyond their release date. The court looked at five factors.
- The Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress broad powers to create laws.
- The stature was a “modest addition” to existing laws about mental health care in prisons.
- Congress acted reasonably by enacting the law.
- The statute honored state interests by requiring the Attorney General to encourage the prisoners’ home states to take custody of them.
- The link between the law and the Article I power was “not too attenuated.’
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Martin claimed he inherited land from a British subject and Hunter claimed he owned it through state law. SCOTUS heard the case because the state ruled against a federal law in Martin’s favor but Virginia didn’t comply because it said SCOTUS didn’t have the power to overrule a state court decision.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Article III gives SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction over cases decided in state courts
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 1)
Maryland taxed all banks not chartered by the state and the Bank of the United States refused to pay.
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 1)
It is unconstitutional for a state to impose laws on federal government operations
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
Arkansas amended its Constitution to limit the qualifications for its citizens to become members of Congress
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
States may not adopt their own qualifications for congressional service when the qualifications would be inconsistent with the federal Constitution. Qualifications can only be changed through an amendment.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
The president put an embargo on goods from Paraguay and Bolivia per a joint resolution with Congress.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
The president’s powers must be interpreted differently regarding foreign affairs and domestic issues. The president’s powers are broader regarding foreign affairs.
This is still good law but also criticized and avoided.
Dames & Moore v. Regan
Carter blocked the Iranians from their assets on American property and stopped legal claims against Iran in America after Iran took Americans hostage. The plaintiffs challenged the president’s constitutional and legal authority to do that.
Dames & Moore v. Regan
The president may settle judicial claims when it’s necessary to resolve a major foreign policy dispute between America and a foreign nation and Congress accepts it without protest.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry
Congress passed a law allowing American citizens born in Jerusalem to list their birthplace on their passports as Israel. The president says it should be advisory, not mandatory, because it infringed on his authority to decide how America recognized foreign nations. Embassy officials refused to list the place of birth as Israel on a baby’s birth passport because the law conflicted with the president’s policy not to recognize that any country had power over Jerusalem
Zivotofsky v. Kerry
Congress may not pass a law that intrudes on the president’s authority recognize foreign states.
United States. v. Nixon
Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator for defrauding the United States. The special prosecutor subpoenaed documents, recordings, etc. related to the case but the president refused to produce them claiming executive privilege
United States. v. Nixon
A claim of executive privilege cannot prevail when the claim does not concern military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, is general in nature and the court needs them to decide a specific criminal issue.
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services
The Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which allowed the Administrator of the General Services Administration to review and maintain presidential records, does not violate the separation of powers or executive privilege. The act did not violate the separation of powers because the documents were reviewed by people in the Executive Branch. The former president can claim privilege for the same scope as in United States v. Nixon but not from the executive branch. The court balanced the limited intrusion against the substantial public interest to know what happened and the public interest outweighed privilege.
Clinton v. Jones
Executive privilege does not extend to a president’s actions before he was president. Civil litigation does not have to be postpone until the president serves his term. However, if a president demonstrates that the litigation is interfering with his ability to perform his duties, the judiciary must take that into account when scheduling it
Trump v. Vance
A grand jury issued a subpoena for Trump’s tax records.
Trump v. Vance
Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not prevent a subpoena for a president’s records or require a heightened showing of need because it doesn’t represent an unconstitutional interference with his duties.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
The House of Representatives has the power to subpoena a president’s records if it specifically states why the records are needed.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Truman ordered the government to take over most steel mills because he was afraid an upcoming strike would endanger the country’s national defense. The steel mills argued that the president was order was lawmaking, overstepping the executive’s role. Based on the Vested Clause (Art. I, § 1, cl. 1), Take Care Clause (Art. I, § 3) and the Commander in Chief Clause (Art. I, § 2, Cl. 1), the government argued that his actions were necessary to protect the nation from catastrophe and therefore action within his Constitutional powers as Commander in Chief.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
The president’s power must stem from the Constitution or an act of Congress
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Jackson Concurrence
There are three types of presential power:
- The president most powerful when he acts with express or implied authorization of Congress
- He has less when he acts within his own power without Congress’s approval or disapproval. Statutes are silent on presidential power. This is a case-specific analysis.
- The president is least powerful when he acts contrary to Congress and can only invoke the powers the Constitution gives him
The president’s actions were in the last category because Congress had shown that it believed the president shouldn’t have the power to seize. The Constitution doesn’t give him that power, and the power to execute laws is not the power to make them.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Frankfurter Concurrence
Congress has given the president the power to seize in the past but only temporarily in times of war or national crisis. That was not the case here. Plus, when passing a law about labor relations, Congress specifically decided not to give the president that power.
Two Basic Questions for Ripeness
Is the matter currently fit for judicial review, or conversely, will it be better presented for a judicial decision in the context of a particular set of facts that sharpen the issues to be decided?
To what degree will delaying the issue impose hardship on the plaintiff?
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
The Hatch Act prohibited federal executive-branch officers and employees from participating in political activities. Except for Poole, none of the appellants had participated in political acts, but they want a declaration of the legally permissible limits of regulation.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
A court cannot issue declaratory judgement of the constitutionality of a law when a law has the potential to violate people’s rights if they violate the law
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act required manufacturers of prescription drugs to print the established name of the drug prominently and in type at least half as large as that used thereon for any proprietary name or designation for such drug. The Commissioner issued regulations saying companies must do this every time the names were printing on anything. Drug companies sued saying the Commissioner exceeded his authority.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
In determining whether a conflict is ripe, the court must decide whether the issue is fit for judicial decision and the hardship on the parties if adjudication is delayed.
Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner
A regulation authorized the Commissioner of the FDA (Commissioner) to suspend statutorily mandated FDA services to the TGA if the TGA refused to grant the FDA free access to TGA facilities. Although this was similar to Abbot Laboratories, the court distinguished it from that case because there was no imminent harm. In fact, the harm was uncertain because legal obligations would only occur if the FDA decided to inspect a facility.
General Rules for Mootness
- A case is mute when it’s presented too late to be adjudicated.
- A defendant’s voluntary cessation of the activity will not moot a case if nothing would prevent the defendant from starting again after the case is dismissed
- A case will not be moot if the activity is capable of repetition but is expected to evade review (e.g. pregnancy)
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Plaintiff challenged the University of Washington Law School’s admission proceed, claiming that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The trial court agreed with him and issued an injunction forcing the school to admit him. By the time this got to SCOTUS, Plaintiff was a 3L.
DeFunis v. Odegaard
An issue is moot when the outcome would no longer affect the parties
Requirements for Standing
- The plaintiff has an injury that is concrete and exists or will exist imminently. Article III requires invasion of a legally-protected right to have standing
- The defendant caused the injury
- The court has the power to remedy the issue.
Singleton v. Wulff
Medicaid issued a rule that it would not pay for non-medically necessary abortions. Plaintiff was a doctor suing Medicaid on behalf of his poor patients.
Singleton v. Wulff
Litigants have standing to represent third parties when they are an integral part of the case and the third party can’t or won’t represent herself.
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman
A blank person, Coles, tried to rent an apartment from defendant and was told there were no vacancies. Testers from Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) went to the apartment manager and asked about vacancies. The white tester, Willis, was told there were and the black one, Coleman, was told they weren’t, so HOME found that defendant discriminated against blacks.
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman
A statute creating actual or threatened harm can establish a legal right for standing.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service issued regulations saying section 7 of the ESA applied to foreign nations but then reversed their regulations. The reversal would increase the extinction of endangered species. Respondents wanted the courts to reverse this. Their arguments were that 2 of their members suffered harm because they planned to visit places where endangered species lived someday, and section 7(a)(2) of the ESA established right for anyone to sue any person or entity that violated the act.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
To have standing under Article III, plaintiffs must show concrete and personal injury that is actual or imminent. There must be a causal connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s actions. And the injury must be one the court can redress. Plaintiffs can’t bring suits that claim to harm everyone’s interests.
Spokeo LLC v. Robins
Plaintiff found out that Spokeo gave a third party inaccurate information about him in violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.
Spokeo LLC v. Robins
To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must have a “concrete and particularized” injury
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
Plaintiff alleged defendant did not ensure the accuracy of his credit files. TransUnion used a screening program that flagged names of drug trafficker, terrorists and other criminals but didn’t distinguish between people with the same name. Plaintiff could not buy a car because his credit report said he was a terrorist or drug trafficker. Sued individually and as a class of 8,185 plaintiffs.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
To have Article III standing, plaintiffs must have concrete harm. A key way to assess this is to compare Plaintiffs’ harm to a traditional basis for a lawsuit
Federal Election Commission v. Akins
Injury that is widely shared and abstract and indefinite but concrete can justify standing. Here, the Federal Election Commission decided that a lobbying group didn’t have to disclose information about its members. Voters sued and SCOTUS said there was concrete harm because the FEC deprived them of information that would inform their vote.
Friends of the Earth
Residents sued a company for polluting a river more than the Clean water Act allowed under a statute that allowed civil penalties paid to the government.
Friends of the Earth
Penalties paid to the government can redress plaintiffs’ injury because they discourage defendants from ignoring the law. Therefore, defendants no longer harm plaintiffs
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Massachusetts sued the EPA to compel it to regulate gas emissions that contributed to global warming. The global warming already caused the state to lose land due to flooding. This was redressable because regulating gas emissions would slow future damage.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
States have standing as quasi-sovereigns.
Constitutional Checks on the Judicial Power
Article I
- Federal judges may be impeached by the house and senate
- Congress may amend statutes
Article II
- The president nominates federal judges
- Federal judges are confirmed by the senate
Article V – the Constitution may be amended by congress or state legislature
Ex Parte McCardle
In 1867, Congress gave SCOTUS the right to hear appeals from habeas corpus cases but repealed the law in 1868. McCardle sought certiorari after Congress gave SCOTUS the right but the case didn’t come before SCOTUS until Congress divested SCOTUS of that jurisdiction.
Ex Parte McCardle
The Exceptions Clause in Article III gives Congress the right to limit SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction.
Ex Parte Yerger
The military imprisoned Yerger for murder. The government argued SCOTUS didn’t have jurisdiction.
Ex Parte Yerger
SCOTUS has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases of people held by federal officials.
Baker v. Carr
Baker sued Tennessee under the Equal Protection Clause for not changing its voting districts in 60 years, causing some votes to carry more weight than others. The district court found this to be a political question and thus not justiciable
Baker v. Carr
A challenge of misapportionment under the Equal Protection Clause is justiciable
United States v. Klein
Wilson issued a full pardon to people who promised to support the Union. The state seized petitioner’s property after he died and his estate sued. The state lost in the Court of Claims and appealed. Congress passed as law saying having a pardon was proof of treason and that proof negated SCOTUS’s jurisdiction.
United States v. Klein
Congress can’t issue laws that limit the power of the other branches
Powell v. McCormack
Powel was elected to the House but denied his seat because of alleged misconduct. The House thought it had the power to do this because the Constitution says the House alone had the power to decide who is qualified. SCOTUS said it had that power to decide who was qualified and no more. Since the House found that Powel qualified, the seat was his.
Powell v. McCormack
A challenge against Senate membership is a judiciable issue.
Nixon v. United States
Nixon was a former chief judge imprisoned for making false statements. He refused to resign so the Senate formed a committee to impeach him. Nixon claimed the committee violated Article 1, § 3, cl. 6 because he interpreted as saying the whole Senate had to hear his case.
Nixon v. United States
The Senate’s control over impeachment proceedings is a nonjusticiable issue.
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The Environmental Protection Agency defined “stationary sources” of pollution as entire complexes rather than each part that contributed to pollution and the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged that definition.
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
When the agency assigned to regulate a law defines a term in that law, the courts can’t interpret the term differently unless “they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.”
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury wanted SCOTUS to issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver Marbury’s valid commission to be a federal judge.
Marbury v. Madison
The Constitution is the law of the land and SCOTUS has the right to overturn laws that are not constitutional. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Cooper v. Aaron
The governor of Arkansas wanted to keep schools segregated after Brown v. Board.
Cooper v. Aaron
State officials and the legislature are bound by SCOTUS rulings
