Federalist Cases

Question 1

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Answer 1

“Gun Free School Zones Act” passed under Commerce Clause found UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it is too broad: if commerce can regulate this, what can’t it regulate?

Dissents: Incorrect level of scrutiny used (“rational basis standard” just made up)

Question 2

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Answer 2

Fed. incentivized States to comply w/ fed. drinking age using highway funds. Challenged as violation of 10th, but UPHELD: spending pwr justified law.

Ashwander used: 4 Prong Test (general welfare, unambiguous, related to fed. interest in national project/program, not unconstitutional, not over-coercive)

Question 3

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel (1937)

Answer 3

NLR Act of 1935 UPHELD under Commerce Clause b/c labor disputes had effect on interstate commerce.

Q: What is “commerce”? Is it just shipment of goods?

Question 4

NLRB v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co. (1937)

Answer 4

Similar to NLRB v. Jones: NLR Act of 1935 upheld under Commerce when wrkrs went on strike b/c clothes in factory came from other states.

Question 5

Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)

Answer 5

Fair Labor Standards Act required 1) min wage and max hrs for anyone involved in PRODUCTION of commerce, 2) same rights for any worker in enterprise ENGAGED in commerce (hospitals, schools, state govt. subdivisions). Challenged under COMMERCE and 10TH AM.

Upheld: substandard labor conditions lead to strike, affects commerce. Not telling people HOW to do jobs, but ensuring they get paid (10th not violated).

Overruled by Ntl League of Cities v. Usery (1976)

Question 6

US v. Darby (1941)

Answer 6

Fair Labor Standards Act required min wage and max hrs, THIS MAN did not comply b/c Georgia didn’t have those laws and company was INTRA-STATE ONLY. Act CHALLENGED as overstepping Commerce and 10th.

UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD: anything that has subst. effect on production can effect Commerce b/c products MAY be shipped over State lines.
RACE TO BOTTOM needs to be prevented.

Overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart (1917)

Question 7

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1917)

Answer 7

Act prohibiting interstate dist. of products produced by children OVERTURNED. Production could not be regulated, just commerce: 10th am.

Overruled by Darby

Question 8

National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)

Answer 8

FLSA of 1935 previously upheld in Wirtz STRUCK DOWN b/c violated 10th Am States rights TOO much (Commerce clause needs limits).

Overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Question 9

Coyle v. Smith/Oklahoma (1911)

Answer 9

New state of Oklahoma moved capital from Federally declared capital. UPHELD under 10th am.

Question 10

Garcia v. San Antonio MTA (1985)

Answer 10

Overruling Ntl League of Cities, FLSA was UPHELD as NOT violating federalism (MTA didn’t want to comply) b/c:
1) regulation doesn’t destroy State sov. when applied to state activity, and 2) didn’t violate constitution otherwise

Question 11

Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991)

Answer 11

Missouri constitutional am requiring judges to retire @ 70 UPHELD after being challenged as violating 14th am’s EP.

10th am allows states to make own decisions, RBR used (age=mental capacity decrease potential)

Question 12

New York v. United States (1992)

Answer 12

Low Level Radioactive Waste Act incentivized states/regional compacts (which must be approved by Fed) to dispose of waste in those areas (avoid NIMBYism). Challenged as violating principles of federalism (coercion).

UPHELD: Fed can use power of purse to incentivize, but cannot force states to “take title” (ownership) over waste (coercion)

Question 13

Printz v. US (1997)

Answer 13

Handgun Violence Prevention Act required “CLEOS” (local chief law enforcement officers) to create system to do background checks for those wishing to buy handguns until USA AG creates fed. system. Two Sheriffs challenged use of Nec. and Proper clause to enforce act.

OVERTURNED: can’t have state officer do federal work

Question 14

US Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

Answer 14

Arkansas law limiting terms of all representatives (state and fed) STRUCK DOWN b/c rules are ALREADY in const (against “more perfect union”)

Question 15

US v. Butler (1936)

Answer 15

Agricultural Adjustment Act 1933 (tax+spending), which taxed farmers for overproducing and subsidized farmers who limited production of [cotton], was ruled 8-1 UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it violated principles of federalism: states cntrl. ag. prod., and tax+spend reserved for “general welfare of people”

Question 16

Mulford v. Smith (1939)

Answer 16

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, amended from Butler, UPHELD under COMMERCE

Question 17

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Answer 17

Farmer grew more wheat than allotted by AAA of 1938, but only for himself: argued it wouldn’t effect interstate commerce.
DISMISSED b/c Act reviewed w/ RBR (choice of farmer still effects interstate commerce).

After this, was widely understood that 10TH AM is “truism”: doesn’t add any state rights, just est. relationship

Question 18

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Answer 18

The legalization of marijuana in CO was struck down, WICKARD used as precedent as no guarantee pot wouldn’t cross state lines (fungible)

NEC and PROP authority to regulate commerce.

Question 19

DC v. Heller (2008)

Answer 19

DC’s firearm ban/license requirement was challenged as violation of 2ND AM, ban STRUCK DOWN as “individual right” guaranteed in 2nd cannot be infringed upon (5TH AM DP)

Dissent: no scrutiny used… also FEDERALISM should allow for policy experimentation

Question 20

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Answer 20

Heller but for States (not DC)- same ruling but with 14th am DP (right to self defense is “fundamental to preservation of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in history or tradition”).
Made regulation of guns basically impossible

Question 21

Barron v. Mayer and City of Baltimore (1833)

Answer 21

Wharf of THIS MAN made unprofitable by state action (boats couldn’t access). Wanted to use Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) in 5TH AM to get compensation.
Court ruled for BALTIMORE b/c const. applies to FED not STATE govts.

Question 22

US v. Cruikshank (1875)

Answer 22

The INDIVIDUAL (not GROUP) right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not found in 2nd am.
TOTAL INCORP OF BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH 14TH TURNED DOWN

Question 23

Slaughterhouse Cases (1975)

Answer 23

Louisiana statute monopolized butcher industry b/c of meat contaminating water supply- butchers required to use, argued it was UNCONST under 13TH and 14TH ams.
1)Involuntary servitude, 2)Denial of fund. rights

13th am argument struck down b/c clearly about slaves.

Act justified under STATE POLICE POWER: infringes on indiv. liberty for public good.

As for P+I: det. that it ADDS NOTHING, just guarantees rights already est. (COMITY) AND if it did infringe fed govt. would get to overturn st. statute (violates princip of FEDERALISM)

SUBST DP USED: not abt HOW right is taken away, but Q of SHOULD IT or WHY IS IT being taken away

Question 24

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Answer 24

Freedom of speech+ other 1ST AM RIGHTS are equally guaranteed by states as it is by fed govt (Fund right)– 14TH AM “no state shall” and DP (INCORPORATION)

Question 25

Chicago Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897)

Answer 25

Chicago took land from private company- gave them $1 compensation. Challenged as violating 14th am DP.

Chicago’s actions CONSTITUTIONAL b/c no DP was violated! State gave “just compensation: EMINENT DOMAIN INCORPORATED INTO 14TH (1st incorp case)