Final Exam Cases

Question 1

Marbury v Madison

Answer 1

Incumbent President John Adams lost election to Thomas Jefferson.
Adams pending commissions were about to be delivered and received, then-president Thomas Jefferson ordered then-Secretary of State James Madison to withhold nominations → Included Marbury

Marbury sued Madison directly to SCOTUS to compel to accept commission via Writ of Mandamus (Original Jurisdiction)

• Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? > Yes
• If he has a right, and the right has been violated, do United States Laws afford a remedy? > Yes
• If they do, is the remedy a mandamus from the Supreme Court? > No, not within the powers of the court
  – Judiciary Act of 1789 granted SCOTUS “Original Jurisdiction” over matters of Writ of Mandamus
  – Act re-defines what is original jurisdiction > Unconstitutional - Article 3 > Supremacy Clause

Question 2

South Dakota v Dole

Answer 2

Commerce Clause Case
- State Legal Drinking Age = 19
- Congress gave “conditions” in grant
– Drinking age = 21 > w/h 5% of transportation funds if non-compliant
- Ruled against State

• Congress may “lay, collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises…”
  – Can attach conditions → has historically used grants to “further broaden policy objections by conditioning receipt of fed. monies upon compliance by recipient
  – Developed Test on spending
  — General Welfare
  — Conditioning of funds =
  unambiguously
  — Grant must relate to Federal
  interest → Roads/Alcohol consumption/Commerce Clause
  — Other Constitutional Restrictions
  — Non-coercive → 5% not coercive - no standard set

Question 3

Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer 3

• Appellant had license, State Law, for exclusive rights to use steamboats in State Waters
  – Appellee got a similar license, but from Fed. Gov’t → used to compete with Appellant in the same state
  — sues to enjoin from operating steamboats → Appellee claimed he was operating under a license granted by Congress, and Congress has exclusive power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 to regulate inter-state commerce
• Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce → Steamboat traffic is commerce
  – Steamboat traffic between states is INTERSTATE COMMERCE
  – Congress can regulate

Question 4

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp

Answer 4

• National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 → Cong. determined that labor-management disputes related to the flow of interstate commerce
  – could be regulated
  — NLRB Board charged Jones & Laughlin Stool Co. (JLS) with discriminating against employees trying to unionize
  —- JLS owns multiple distribution methods, such as tow-boats, railroads that span many states, and mines.

JLS imports from many states → exports to many states → Company employs over 400K employees → interstate commerce
– NLRB, charged with matters affecting commerce, can persecute JLS → Commerce clause allows Gov’t to regulate

** Companies cannot discriminate against employees for exercising their right to unionize.
** Gov’t can regulate businesses with inter-state impacts

Question 5

United States v. Darby

Answer 5

Commerce
- Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 (FLSA)
– regulated wage, overtime, min wage, etc
– Lumber company shipped lumber out of state → violated FLSA
— imported and operated on only one state → Congress cannot regulate
– District Court dismissed → Lumber company is operating within one State

SCOTUS ruled FLSA Section 15 prohibits certain labor-related acts
– Lumber company produces lumber for many states
— this is interstate commerce

** Gov’t can regulate via FLSA businesses that are Intra-State but export to multiple States (inter-state) are within Commerce Clause purview

Question 6

Wickard v. Filburn

Answer 6

Commerce
- Farmer running a small farm → grows wheat
- Agricultural Act of 1938 → set limits to wheat grown
– allotted 11.1 acres & 20.1 Bushels
— farmer sowed 23 acres and 239 bushels → traded with neighbor for eggs, and other foods

• Behavior is intra-state → no commerce as a business → can’t regulate
• if behavior is aggregated across the nation, this has INTER-state impacts
  – Aggregation rule
  – Commerce Clause allows Gov’t to regulate, and thus fine farmer

** Gov’t can regulate an individual behavior intra-state if behavior is aggregated and behavior has inter-state impacts

Question 7

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Answer 7

Commerce
- Cong. passed Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA 1964)
- Motel in central city → sued stating CRA unconstitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause → discriminates against blacks

• Motel is central location
  – advertises all around State → Adds in magazines nation-wide
  – 75% guests are out-of-state → INTER-state commerce →
  — if behavior is aggregated, affecting the black population from travel, affecting inter-state commerce

** Gov’t can regulate motels pursuant to Commerce Clause with regard to CRA 1964

Question 8

Katzenbach v. McClung, Sr. & McClung, Jr

Answer 8

BBQ Restaurant in Alabama → seats 220 → not in central location
- offers seating to white → Take-out only to black
- Restaurant spends $70K (46%) of meat from out-of state
– imports from out of state

• Similar to Heart of Atl.CRA 1964, Gov’t can regulate motels → extended to Restaurants and Retail
  – Discrimination on acc. of race affects business from other inter-state businesses

** Racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce

Question 9

Perez v. United States

Answer 9

Commerce
- Gov’t passed Consumer Credit Protection Act → Commerce Clause
- Appellant is a Loan Shark
– organized crime
– Extortionate Credit Transactions

• Technically it’s not commerce, it’s crime
• organized crime provides over $350 million/yr

Question 10

Perez v. United States

Answer 10

Commerce
- Gov’t passed Consumer Credit Protection Act → Commerce Clause
- Appellant is a Loan Shark
– organized crime
– Extortionate Credit Transactions

• Technically it’s not commerce, it’s crime
• organized crime provides over $350 million/yr
  – syphons funds out from businesses
  – Loan Sharking is still commerce
  – behavior aggregated has national impacts

Gov’t can prosecute Appellant →inter-state commerce

Question 11

United States v. Lopez

Answer 11

Commerce
- Cong. passed Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZ)
– Fed. offense for any “for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm” in school zones
– no commercial activity noted in this bill
- 12 year old student brings gun to school
– arrested under Texas law → dismissed, charged by Feds under GFSZ

• Commerce clause regulates a lot → GFSZ has no mention of commerce or inter-state affairs
  – Gov’t: Possession of guns in schools → violent crime → violent schools impact learning, and future commerce
  — then all crime would be regulated under commerce clause
  — not economic activity → GFSZ exceeds Gov’t power

** Possession of guns in school grounds is not a commercial activity, nor any inter-state activity.
** Cannot be regulated by the U.S. Gov’t. Gun-Free School Zones Act pursuant to Commerce Clause.

Question 12

United States v. Morrison

Answer 12

Commerce Clause
- Student attended Virginia Tech
– raped by Uni. Football students (Athlete)
- athlete appeals → changed ruling from “sexual assault” to “using abusive language” → no explanation

• Student cited Violence Against Women Act → Congress can regulate Commerce → and crimes under Comm. Clause

** SCOTUS ruled that gender motivated crimes of violence are not economic activity - non-economic, criminal conduct cannot be regulated → even if aggregated
** Case dismissed

Question 13

Gonzalez v. Raich

Answer 13

Commerce
- California passed the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) → Legalizing Marijuana (MJ) for medical use
– conflicts with Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
– attempts to regulate met with suit → claim that Gov’t cannot regulate intra-state activity when related to Medical purposes

• CSA purpose to regulate a commodity → MJ, medical or not, is a commodity
  – applies to MJ → aggregate rule → cultivation and use of MJ can have inter-state effects

** Gov’t can regulate MJ, pursuant to CSA, because of Commerce Clause powers
** MJ is a commodity that can impact interstate commerce

Question 14

Printz v. United States

Answer 14

Commerce
- Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)
- amended GCA → Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill)
– requiring “local chief law enforcement officers” (CLEOs) → perform background-checks until the A.G. establishes a federal system for this purpose.

• Constitution does not explicitly permit Cong. to issue directives to states to enforce a fed. program
• historically some cases may have happened, but within judicial process, not legislative or executive
• 10th amendment, power not specified to Fed. Gov’t → granted to states

** Congress may not direct states to participate in a federally enacted regulatory scheme

Question 15

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer

Answer 15

Fed. Exec
- Korean war (1950 - 1953)
- Dispute between Steel companies and United Steelworkers of America
– concern that strike would impact Steel Production
– POTUS signed Exec. Order (EO) 1034 → took possession of steel mill → POTUS notified Congress in writing one day after
- Order issued without Cong. approval → Cong. took no action (Acquiesced)

• No statute prohibits POTUS from possession of private property → not implied by Cong.
  – Steelworkers had a right to strike
  – no Gong. enactment passed to authorize
  – POTUS claimed wartime rules → denied
  — POTUS actions are in 3 stages
  —- 1. with Constitutional and Cong. authority
  —- 2. without Cong. authority but Constitutional backing → Cong. acquiescence is “approval”
  —- 3. POTUS action incompatible with Cong. approval → Congress previously made policies about seizing private property

** POTUS cannot seize private property without Congressional consent

Question 16

United States v. Nixon

Answer 16

Fed Exec
- POTUS ordered to hand over tapes and recordings related to Watergate
- Refused → Exec. Privilege

• Marb. v Madison → SCOTUS must interpret Law, not POTUS → Checks and balances
• there are limits to Presidential immunity
  – when no dangers to nation, transparency outweighs Presidential Privacy
  — unlimited privilege would nullify checks-and-balances
  – There must be a specific need to keep Presidential information safe to prevent it from being shared

** POTUS cannot claim exec. privilege due to
** checks and balances
** confidentiality, unless safety of nation depends on it

Question 17

Gundy v. United States

Answer 17

Fed Excec power
- Appellant convicted of violating the Sex Offender Reg. and Notification Act (SORNA)
- appellant argued that SORNA was unconstitutional → delegated legislative power to A.G.

• delegation to A.G. satisfies “intelligible principle” requirement → requires A.G. applies SORNA requirements to “all sex offenders uniformly”

** Cong. may delegate authority to a Gov’t department if non-delegation doctrine is satisfied by a sufficient “intelligible principle”

Question 18

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha

Answer 18

Exec Power
- immigrant (appellant) overstayed visa → faced deportation proceedings
– Cong. passed resolution (under legislative veto provision) suspending appellant deportation

• SCOTUS ruled legislative veto violated separation-of-powers
• Cong. passes laws, Exec. enforces them
• Cong. was exercising executive power

** Congress may not unilaterally veto Exec. action without due process.

Question 19

Morrison v. Olson

Answer 19

Exec Power
- Cong. passed Independent Counsel Act of 1978 (ICA)
- defendant challenged → claiming violation of sep-of-powers
– grants exec. powers to officer outside of POTUS control

• ICA sets a temporary role with one function
  – reports to A.G. → can be removed by A.G. → controlled by POTUS
  – ICA doesn’t impermissibly intrude on SCOTUS role → Counsel is an exec. officer, not a judge

** Designation of independent counsel, which reports to A.G., and is terminated upon completion or with good cause is permissible

Question 20

NLRB v. Canning

Answer 20

Exec Power
- NLRB held Soft drink bottling company subject to appear in board meeting for adjudication
- Soft drink bottling company challenged in court → NLRB board lacked appropriate appointments
– appointments happened in “pro-forma” sessions

• POTUS may appoint members of cabinet with Cong. approval, barring recess and when vacancies happen
• Recess
  – Main recess (Major recess)
  – Pro Forma
• when vacancies happen
  – Vacancy during session
  – Vacancy out of session
  – Vacancy prior to end of session → addressed next session
• SCOTUS ruled length of time w/o session must be more than 10 days

** POTUS cannot appoint (and approve) during pro-forma session w/o Cong. Approval

Question 21

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

Answer 21

Fed. Exec Powers
- Export company indicted → violated a joint resolution of Cong. → prohibiting sale of arms to countries in conflict in S. America

• SCOTUS ruled POTUS has “broad powers in foreign affairs”
  – negotiating treaties and imposing embargoes
  – Cong. can regulate foreign commerce → can delegate some foreign affairs to POTUS
• States do not have international powers, that is for POTUS and Cong.
  – POTUS represents the nation

** POTUS can enforce this joint authorization by powers vested in office of POTUS to regulate foreign affairs

Question 22

Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Answer 22

Fed Exec. Power
- 1948: POTUS formally recognized Israel in a signed statement of recognition
- over last 60 years, various claims of ownership over “Jerusalem”
- Cong. passed Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FAM)
– subsection allows citizens born in “Jerusalem” to list in passport “Jerusalem, Israel”
- Petitioner born in Jerusalem to U.S. Citizens → requested passport to list place of birth “Jerusalem, Israel”

• based on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
  – 3 stages to presidential power
  — this is the 1st stage
  — power of recognition of foreign nations is “central” and “exclusive” to POTUS
  — Cong. Act telling POTUS how to recognize a foreign nation is a violation of sep-of-powers
  — foreign relations is only a power of Exec → Cong. cannot send diplomats w/o POTUS approval

** Cong. cannot exercise power of recognition on behalf of POTUS
** FAM section 214(d) infringes this power

Question 23

Dames & Moore v. Regan

Answer 23

Fed. Exec Power
- Nov. 4, 1979 → American Embassy in Tehran seized → diplomatic personnel captured
- Negotiations between nations occurred → Agreement signed
– terminate all litigation as between the Government of each party and the nationals…” → settlement and termination of all such claims through arbitration.”
- April 1981 → Dames & Moore sued claiming declaratory and injunctive relief to stop agreement → $3 Million debt from Iran

• SCOTUS ruled Congress implicitly approves practice of claim settlement
  – Enacted to Int’l Settlement Act of 1949
  – Over years Cong. updated and amended Act → Continuous acceptance
• POTUS here has power to settle foreign relation disputes

** Cong. implicitly supported POTUS action
** POTUS has foreign relations powers to settle foreign disputed

Question 24

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Answer 24

Fed. Exec. Power
- Sept. 11, 2001 → al Qaeda attacked Twin Towers
- Congress passed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
– prevent future attacks
– Subdue al Qaeda
- Appellant → U.S. Citizen moved to Saudi Arabia as child → living in Afghanistan by 2001 → apprehended by Northern Alliance → turned over to U.S. Military → Transferred to Guantanamo Bay
– When learning he is a U.S. Citizen → transferred to Charleston, S. Carolina
- Father pressed charges → appellant being held without due process indefinitely without formal charges

• POTUS action needs no approval → granted by AUMF
• Detention of enemy combatants important → prevents return to enemy forces by combatants
• appellant claims AUMF doesn’t authorize indefinite detention
  – applied Matthew v Eldridge test
  — decided on Some Evidence standard for citizen detainee to have some due process under AUMF
  — burden on proof shifted to accused

** Executive doesn’t have the authority to detain citizen “enemy combatants” indefinitely w/o trial

Question 25

Boumedine v. Bush

Answer 25

Fed. Exec. Power
- petitioners are “Enemy Combatants”
– detained in Guantanamo Bay
– Under AUMF → POTUS authorized to use all necessary force… against terrorism
- Per Hamdi v. Rumsfeld → Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) established
– During appeals, Congress passed Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) 2005
– no court shall have jurisdiction application for writ of Habeas Corpus
— only D.C. Court shall have jurisdiction

• Petitioners can request Habeas Corpus (H.B.) → except in times of war
  – petitoners are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
  — has court, is island, officers live there with families, fortress, safe space to review hearings
• Sovereignty of Guantanamo Bay
  – US has De facto jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay → Cuba has not disputed territory
  – is this is U.S. Jurisdiction, then the laws of the land apply
  — unlike in Eisentrager Court, US has de facto sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay
• US Gov’t cannot suspend Writ of H.C. unless extraordinary circumstances (Suspension Clause)
• Assessing CSRT proceedings
  – hardly any due process
  – DTA not good enough replacement for H.C.
  — because at times of war, POTUS powers must be held in check → H.C. applies in land where legal US reach applies → proceedings can happen in Guantanamo Bay → Writs of H.C. Essential as defense against tyrannical gov’t

** DTA violates the Suspension Clause
** CSRT doesn’t provide adequate substitution for Writ of H.C.
** petitioners do not need to exhaust review under DTA before seeking H.C.

Question 26

Trump v. Hawaii

Answer 26

Fed. Exec. Power
- Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) → vetting process necessary for foreign nationals seekign to enter the U.S.
– POTUS claims necessary to impose entry restrictions on nationals of countries that
— Do not share adequate information for an informed entry determination or…
— That otherwise present national security risks.

• POTUS signed EO-1 → to protect US from terrorist nations
  – placed Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen in list banned from entry
  – stayed by District Court
  — EO-1 revoked → signed EO-2 → added Chad, North Korea and Venezuela
• Plaintiff claims that no person shall be discriminated against on account of race, sex, nationality, etc…
  – EO-2 discriminates against muslims
  – rallies and presidential campaigns, called muslim ban
  — TV interviews
  — POTUS tweeted 3 anti-multim propaganda video links
• SCOTUS ruled
  – Foreign nationals do not have a right to entry
  – text of EO says nothing about religion
  – Nations in list have been in the list of monitored nations by Congress for years prior to EO
  – Nations banned constitute only 8% of Muslim population
  – OE is not at all related to Korematsu v United States

** OE is valid and constitutional
** Entry policy doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment

Question 27

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Answer 27

Fed Exec Power
- Nov. 1968 → respondent appeared before committee
– testified that C-5A transport plane costs far more than expected
- January 1970 - respondent lost job → POTUS admitted it and justified it on National TV
– internal memorandum recommending to fire respondent
– next day, White House announced a redaction of statement
- sued for damages during presidency

• Historically, POTUS has been protected from civil suits during service
  – unique office requires immunity
  – diversion of energies is counter-productive to running the nation
  – easily identifiable target for civil suits
• Alternative mechanisms for keeping POTUS in check exist

** POTUS endowed with absolute immunity

Question 28

Clinton v. Jones

Answer 28

Fed Exec. Power
- POTUS elected in 1992 → re-elected in 1996 → term expires in 2001
- Respondent was an employee when POTUS was governor
– then Governor invited respondent to hotel and made sexual advances → declined by respondent → mistreated afterwards
— sued for actual damages of $75K and punitive damages of $100K
- then-Gov-now-POTUS claims dismissal on grounds of Presidential Immunity

• SCOTUS ruled POTUS is not immune from civil suits of events that happened “before” his terms
  – hearings will accommodate POTUS busy schedule

** a sitting president is not absolutely immune from actions taken before assuming the office of the Executive.