Holdings to Cases

Question 1

Jefferson’s Secretary of State, Madison, refused to deliver a commission granted to Marbury by former President Adams.

The Supreme Court has the power, implied from Article VI §2 to review acts of Congress, and if they are found repugnant to the Constitution, to declare them void.

Answer 1

Marbury v. Madison

Question 2

Competing claims for the same tract of land.

Article Three of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction and authority over state courts on matters involving federal law.

Answer 2

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

Question 3

Two brothers were convicted in Virginia state court of selling District of Columbia lottery tickets in violation of Virginia law.

State laws in opposition to national laws are void. The U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction for any U.S. case and final say.

Answer 3

Cohens v. Virginia

Question 4

Appeal from ruling that D.C.’s gun control laws were unconstitutional.

The D.C. gun laws violate rights of individuals under the Second Amendment, which permits individuals to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes, even though they are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.

Answer 4

District of Columbia v. Heller

Question 5

McCardle appealed from a denial of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court, but Congress passed an act forbidding the Court jurisdiction.

Although the Supreme Court derives its appellate jurisdiction from the Constitution, the Constitution gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction.

Answer 5

Ex Parte McCardle

Question 6

Citizen was awarded compensation for property destroyed by the Union army. He challenged a congressional enactment that directed federal courts to find that a pardon was proof of disloyalty and denying the court jurisdiction over the claim.

A statute violates the separation of powers by commanding a court to draw a conclusion from evidence before it, and by directing the court to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction when it encounters such evidence.

Answer 6

United States v. Klein

Question 7

New congressional act expressly noted two pending cases. The Supreme Court held that Congress had changed the law itself and did not direct findings or results under the old law.

Klein applies in a situation where Congress directs the judiciary as to decision making under an existing law and does not apply when Congress adopts a new law.

Answer 7

Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society

Question 8

After Congress amended the Securities Exchange Act, mandating reinstatement of cases dismissed as time barred, the district court denied Plaut’s motion to reinstate the final judgment in his case on the ground that the amendment was unconstitutional.

Congress may not retroactively command the federal courts to reopen final judgments without violating the separation of powers doctrine.

Answer 8

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm

Question 9

A company sought a declaratory judgment that a tax was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

A case is justiciable “so long as the case retains the essentials of an adversary proceeding, involving a real, not a hypothetical, controversy.”

Answer 9

Nashville v. Wallace

Question 10

Black parents of public school children failed the standing requirement to bring a suit against the IRS since there was no personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.

Answer 10

Allen v. Wright

Question 11

A state and several other parties challenged the EPA’s failure to enforce the Clean Air Act against motor-vehicle emissions.

A plaintiff has standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the defendant and redressable by judicial relief.

Answer 11

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

Question 12

Citizen, subjected to a chokehold after being stopped for a traffic violation, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the department’s chokehold policy.

A plaintiff must show a sufficiently plausible threat of future injury to possess standing to sue.

Answer 12

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons

Question 13

Group of environmental organizations challenged regulations regarding the geographic area to which a section of the Endangered Species Act applied.

Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit under the Endangered Species Act, because the threat of a species’ extinction alone did not establish an individual and nonspeculative private injury.

Answer 13

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Question 14

Redistricting challenged by voters as being racially discriminatory gerrymandering, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of the voters lived in the district.

To have standing, a litigant is required to have a concrete and particularized injury as opposed to a generalized grievance.

Answer 14

United States v. Hays

Question 15

Suit challenging a decision made by an organization not subject to regulation and reporting requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

An individual has standing to sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

Answer 15

Federal Election Commission v. Akins

Question 16

Mother sought to enjoin the local district attorney from refraining to prosecute the father of her child for not providing child support.

A private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.

Answer 16

Linda R.S. v. Richard D.

Question 17

Action against members of the Zoning, Planning, and Town Boards of Penfield, alleging that certain ordinances intentionally excluded low and moderate income persons from living there.

As none of the plaintiffs could demonstrate any injury actually done to them, the plaintiffs were third parties to the issue and had no standing to sue.

Answer 17

Warth v. Seldin

Question 18

Plaintiffs challenged an IRS revenue ruling limiting the amount of free medical care that hospitals receiving tax-exempt status were required to provide.

It was “purely speculative” whether the revenue ruling was responsible for the denial of medical services to the plaintiffs. “The complaint suggests no substantial likelihood that victory in this suit would result in respondents’ receiving the hospital treatment they desire.”

Answer 18

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org.

Question 19

Challenge to the constitutionality of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of utility companies in the event of a nuclear reactor accident.

Standing existed because the construction of a nuclear reactor in the plaintiffs’ area subjected them to many injuries, including exposure to radiation, thermal pollution, and fear of a major nuclear accident.

Answer 19

Duke Power v. Carolina Environmental Study Group

Question 20

Physicians brought suit on behalf of welfare patients, challenging a statute that excluded abortions that were not “medically indicated” from the purposes for which Medicaid benefits were available.

A litigant has standing to bring suit where the litigant’s relationship with a third party whose rights he wishes to assert is very close and where there are genuine obstacles to the third party’s suing on its own behalf.

Answer 20

Singleton v. Wulff

Question 21

A white person who had signed a racially restrictive covenant, was sued for breach of contract for allowing nonwhites to occupy the property.

It would be difficult if not impossible for the persons whose rights are asserted to present their grievance before any court. Because blacks were not parties to the covenant, they had no legal basis for participating in the breach of contract suit.

Answer 21

Barrows v. Jackson

Question 22

Bartender challenged alcohol law on behalf of male customers. The bartender suffered economic loss from the law, thus fulfilling the injury requirement.

Vendors and those in like positions are permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates for the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.

Answer 22

Craig v. Boren

Question 23

Defendant sentenced to death but chose not to pursue habeas corpus relief in federal court. His mother sued for a stay of execution on his behalf.

The Court refused to hear the case. The Court’s per curiam opinion said that the defendant had waived his rights by not pursuing them.

Answer 23

Gilmore v. Utah

Question 24

Richardson brought suit as a taxpayer seeking a declaration that the CIA Act was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the public accounting clause of Article I §9.

A taxpayer does not have standing to bring a generalized grievance challenging a statute regulating a federal agency’s accounting and reporting procedures.

Answer 24

United States v. Richardson

Question 25

Flast and other federal taxpayers claimed that the appropriation of funds that were being used to support instruction in religious schools was unconstitutional.

Federal taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures that are claimed to violate the Establishment Clause.

Answer 25

Flast v. Cohen

Question 26

Plaintiffs could not receive medical advice on the use of contraceptives because of Connecticut statutes prohibiting the use of and dispensation of medical advice about contraceptives. Plaintiffs challenged the statutes’ constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Criminal statutes that are not enforced are not ripe for constitutional adjudication.

Answer 26

Poe v. Ullman

Question 27

Pharmaceutical companies’ challenge of a law requiring them to disclose generic drug names on all labels or advertisements was ripe for review because the issues presented were appropriate for judicial decision and the parties would face direct and immediate hardship if the court declined to hear their case.

Answer 27

Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner

Question 28

Lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of act which prevented federal employees from taking “any active part in political management or political campaigns.”

A hypothetical threat is not enough. The Court could only speculate as to the kinds of political activity they desired to engage in.

Answer 28

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Question 29

Aliens sued to ensure that they would be able to return to the United States after leaving to go to Alaska.

Because the case arose before Alaska became a state, their suit was not ripe. The situation was “hypothetical” and a determination in advance of its immediate adverse effect involves too remote and abstract an inquiry.

Answer 29

International Longshoremen’s Union v. Boyd

Question 30

Eight major railroads brought a lawsuit challenging the conveyance of their property to Conrail.

Where the inevitability of the operation of a statute against certain individuals is patent, it is irrelevant that there will be a time delay before the disputed provisions will come into effect.

Answer 30

Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases

Question 31

Challenge to a state law prohibiting discharge of sewage from boats.

The suit was ripe because it was inevitable that the law would be enforced and that as a result the boat owners had to begin installing new facilities on their boats in anticipation of the time when the law was implemented.

Answer 31

Lake Carriers Association v. MacMullan

Question 32

Illinois law required signatures by at least 25,000 qualified voters to nominate candidates for a new political party. Plaintiffs filed suit, but the election was over by the time the Supreme Court heard the case.

While the election is over, the burden allowed to be placed on the nomination of candidates remains and controls future elections. The problem is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’

Answer 32

Moore v. Ogilvie

Question 33

Pregnant woman filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that law prohibiting abortion was unconstitutional. Defendant moved to dismiss on mootness grounds.

If termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation would seldom survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. It is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’

Answer 33

Roe v. Wade

Question 34

Student, who had been denied admission to law school, had been provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case.

This was not a question that was “capable of repetition, yet evading review” because the plaintiff would never again face this situation, and others who might raise the same complaint in the future might be able to receive full review in the courts.

Answer 34

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Question 35

Plaintiff environmentalists sued the defendant corporation in a citizen suit on grounds that the corporation was violating the mercury-discharge limits of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

Voluntary compliance moots a case only if the improper behavior is not capable of being repeated.

Answer 35

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Question 36

Geraghty brought suit challenging the validity of the U.S. Parole Release Guidelines on behalf of all federal prisoners eligible for parole. Class certification was denied and Geraghty was released from prison while his appeal was pending.

An action brought on behalf of a class does not become moot upon expiration of the named plaintiff’s substantive claim, even though class certification has been denied.

Answer 36

United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty

Question 37

Baker alleged that because of population changes since 1901, the 1901 State Apportionment Act was obsolete and unconstitutional, and that the state legislature refused to reapportion itself.

The fact that a suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean it necessarily presents a political question.

Answer 37

Baker v. Carr

Question 38

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania drew redistricting maps in such a way that favored the majority Republican Party. Vieth, a Democrat, challenged the redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering.

Political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable.

Answer 38

Vieth v. Jubelirer

Question 39

Congress denied Representative Powell his seat on the ground that he had made improper use of government funds.

The House of Representatives may not deny a duly elected official his seat so long as the official meets the standing constitutional requirements for a representative.

Answer 39

Powell v. McCormack

Question 40

Goldwater and other members of Congress claimed that President Carter had no constitutional power unilaterally to terminate a treaty with Taiwan.

The Supreme Court will not decide nonjusticiable political questions or those not ripe for judicial review.

Answer 40

Goldwater v. Carter

Question 41

Nixon, former judge, alleged that a Senate impeachment rule pursuant to which he was impeached was unconstitutional because it prohibited the full Senate from taking part in the impeachment evidentiary hearings.

An action is nonjusticiable where there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate branch of government or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.

Answer 41

United States v. Nixon

Question 42

McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the U.S. Bank, issued bank notes in violation of a Maryland statute providing that no bank, could issue bank notes except on stamped paper issued by the state.

(1) Certain federal powers, giving Congress the discretion and power to choose and enact the means to perform the duties imposed upon it, are to be implied from the Necessary and Proper Clause.
(2) The federal Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are supreme and control the constitutions and the laws of the states.

Answer 42

McCulloch v. Maryland

Question 43

A coalition of plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

(1) The “individual mandate” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
(2) The “Medicaid expansion” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power.

Answer 43

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Question 44

Congress authorized the federal government to civilly commit “sexually dangerous persons” beyond the date it lawfully could hold them on a charge or conviction for a federal crime. Several prisoners challenged the statute as beyond Congress’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Congress has power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to authorize the federal government to civilly commit “sexually dangerous persons” beyond the date it lawfully could hold them on a charge or conviction for a federal crime.

Answer 44

United States v. Comstock

Question 45

Ogden, after acquiring a monopoly right from the State of New York to operate ships between New York City and New Jersey, sought to enjoin Gibbons from operating his ships, licensed by the federal government, between the same points.

If a state law conflicts with a congressional act regulating commerce, the congressional act is controlling.

Answer 45

Gibbons v. Ogden

Question 46

Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., was charged with an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Jones and Laughlin claimed an unconstitutional attempt to regulate intrastate production.

Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate any activity, even intrastate production, if the activity has an appreciable effect, either direct or indirect, on interstate commerce.

Answer 46

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.

Question 47

Darby was indicted for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but claimed that as an intrastate producer he was not subject to federal regulation.

Congress has the power to regulate workers who are engaged in the production of goods destined for interstate commerce and can prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of goods manufactured in violation of federal regulations.

Answer 47

United States v. Darby

Question 48

Filburn was ordered to pay a penalty for producing wheat in excess of his assigned quota. He argued that the federal regulations could not be applied to his crops because part of his crop was intended for his own consumption, not for interstate commerce.

Farm production that is intended for consumption on the farm is subject to Congress’s commerce power, since it may have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Answer 48

Wickard v. Filburn

Question 49

The applicability of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to a business local in scope was challenged as unconstitutional.

Congress, under the Commerce Clause, may regulate businesses local in scope, if their business activities have some impact on interstate commerce.

Answer 49

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Question 50

Ollie’s Barbeque refused sit-down service to blacks. The lower court found that a substantial portion of the food served in the restaurant had moved in interstate commerce.

Although an activity is local and may not be regarded as commerce, it may still be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Answer 50

Katzenbach v. McClung

Question 51

Federal law regulated strip mining and required reclamation of strip-mined land.

A court may invalidate legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause only if it is clear that there is no rational basis for a finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, or that there is no reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends.

Answer 51

Hodel v. Indiana

Question 52

Loan shark was convicted under the Consumer Credit Protection Act which prohibited extortionate credit transactions.

Congress’s enactment of the Consumer Credit Protection Act is a valid use of Commerce Clause power because Congress had a rational basis to believe that the conduct they were seeking to prohibit had an effect on interstate commerce.

Answer 52

Perez v. United States

Question 53

Garcia appealed from a decision holding that municipal ownership and operation of a mass transit system is a traditional governmental function and thus, its system was immune from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The test for determining state immunity from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause is not whether the state activity sought to be regulated is a traditional state function, but rather whether the regulation as applied to the state activity is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision.

Answer 53

Garcia v. San Antonio MTA

Question 54

Lopez was convicted under the 1990 federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, which prohibited guns near schools.

The 1990 federal Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause regulatory powers.

Answer 54

United States v. Lopez

Question 55

Brzonkala brought suit against two football-playing male students and Virginia Polytechnic University under the Violence Against Women Act.

Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity may be upheld only where the activity regulated is economic in nature.

Answer 55

United States v. Morrison

Question 56

Two sufferers of serious physical ailments sought to grow and use marijuana for medicinal purposes as permitted by California law.

The Commerce Clause permits Congress to criminalize local cultivation and medicinal use of marijuana even if those uses otherwise comply with a state’s laws.

Answer 56

Gonzales v. Raich

Question 57

New York sought a declaration that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was unconstitutional.

The federal government may not order a state government to enact particular legislation.

Answer 57

New York v. United States

Question 58

Two police officers filed actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act, which required that they perform background checks on prospective gun purchasers.

The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states’ officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.

Answer 58

Printz v. United States

Question 59

A federal statute regulated the disclosure of private information contained in state motor vehicle department records.

Congress may regulate the states’ activities where the regulation does not require the states in their sovereign capacity to regulate their citizens.

Answer 59

Reno v. Condon

Question 60

The Agricultural Adjustment Act stated that there was a national economic emergency, and to remedy this situation, a tax would be collected from processors of an agricultural product.

Congress may not, under the pretext of exercising the taxing power, accomplish prohibited ends, such as the regulation of matters of purely state concern and clearly beyond its national powers.

Answer 60

United States v. Butler

Question 61

Challenge to Act that established a national taxing structure designed to induce states to adopt laws for funding and payment of unemployment compensation.

The excise tax is not void due to any coercion of the States in contravention of the Tenth Amendment or of restrictions implicit in our federal form of government.

Answer 61

Chas. C. Steward Mach. v. Davis

Question 62

Developer offered bribes to a city councilman to ease his real estate building plans. He was convicted for violating the federal antibribery statute, which he now challenges as unconstitutional.

The absence of a nexus between federal funding and prohibited conduct does not result in a statute’s presumed unconstitutionality.

Answer 62

Sabri v. United States

Question 63

Congress passed a law withholding federal highway funds to states with a minimum drinking age of less than 21 years.

Congress may withhold federal highway funds to states with a minimum drinking age of less than 21 years.

Answer 63

South Dakota v. Dole

Question 64

Defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a freshman student at a Virginia university and the victim sued the defendant for civil damages under the Violence Against Women Act.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not support the enforcement of the civil damages remedy of the Violence Against Women Act.

Answer 64

United States v. Morrison

Question 65

Congress prohibited restrictions on the right to register to vote because of the applicant’s inability to read and write English. New York had a statutory requirement of an ability to read and write English as a prerequisite to voter registration.

A federal statute enacted pursuant to the Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment supersedes any state constitutional or statutory provision that is in conflict with the federal law.

Answer 65

Katzenbach v. Morgan and Morgan

Question 66

After the city of Boerne denied Flores a building permit to expand a church, he argued that the permit denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutionally exceeds Congress’s enforcement power under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 66

City of Boerne v. Flores

Question 67

Male state employees brought a class action alleging that the state’s retirement-benefit plan discriminated against them because of their sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Congress may use its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity and to permit private suits against the states in federal court.

Answer 67

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

Question 68

Florida claimed it was immune from a suit under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act although Congress had expressly provided federal courts with jurisdiction.

Congress may not abrogate the states’ immunity from suits.

Answer 68

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida

Question 69

Suit against state agency for infringing its finance methodology, for which it had obtained patent protection. State agency alleged that it was protected from suit by state sovereign immunity.

Congress can only abrogate sovereign immunity pursuant to its powers under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and not Article I.

Answer 69

Florida Prepaid Secondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United States

Question 70

Suit against a state employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Respondents argued that the act did not effectively abrogate their sovereign immunity.

Due to the lack of evidence of widespread and unconstitutional age discrimination by the states, the act is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 70

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents

Question 71

Suit to determine if Title I of the ADA expressly and constitutionally abrogated the sovereign immunity of the states.

In order to authorize private individuals to recover money damages against states, there must be a pattern of discrimination by the states which violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the remedy imposed by Congress must be congruent and proportional to the targeted violation.

Answer 71

Board of Trustees, University of Alabama v. Garrett

Question 72

The FMLA validly abrogated state sovereign immunity because it is congruent and proportional to its remedial object, and can “be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.”

Answer 72

Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs

Question 73

Plaintiffs alleged state was denying them public services because of their disabilities, in violation of Title II of the ADA.

The disabled were being denied fundamental rights protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, among those rights being the right to access a court. The remedy was congruent and proportional, because the solution was not unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the harm.

Answer 73

Tennessee v. Lane

Question 74

Paraplegic prisoner sued the state prison for discrimination. The state claimed it was immune from such suits.

1. Title II of the ADA abolished state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities claiming discrimination by state prisons.
2. Title II was a proper exercise of Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the administration of prison systems.

Answer 74

United States v. Georgia

Question 75

State employees sued their employer, the State, claiming it had violated overtime provisions of a federal labor statute.

Congress’s Article I power does not authorize it to abrogate the states’ immunity from suit on federal claims in their own courts.

Answer 75

Alden v. Maine

Question 76

President ordered governmental seizure of the steel companies to prevent a strike. The companies challenged his power to take such action as being without constitutional authority or prior congressional approval.

The President is bound to enforce the laws within the limits of the authority expressly granted to him by the Constitution, and he cannot usurp the lawmaking power of Congress by an assertion of an unspecified aggregation of his specified powers.

Answer 76

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Question 77

Nixon challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of tapes and documents for use in a criminal prosecution.

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances does not exist.

Answer 77

United States v. Richard M. Nixon

Question 78

The Line Item Veto Act allowed the president to cancel provisions that have been signed into law.

The cancellation provisions authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not constitutional.

Answer 78

Clinton v. City of New York

Question 79

A corporation was indicted for alleged conspiracy and violations of a code that prescribed labor standards and other regulations for industry. The code, was challenged as the product of an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to the President.

Answer 79

A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States

Question 80

A business subject to federal industry regulations issued by the President sought to enjoin the regulations on the ground that they were an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative power.

Congress cannot delegate its powers to the President or his agencies without providing policy standards and guidance for the delegated powers.

Answer 80

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan

Question 81

The EPA was to review and revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Plaintiff trucking company objected to review and revisions as unconstitutional.

1. Providing agencies some level of discretion in setting regulations is not an unconstitutional delegation of law.
2. Financial impacts are not to be taken into consideration when environmental regulations are promulgated.

Answer 81

Whitman v. American Trucking Association

Question 82

Challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute that authorized one House of Congress to invalidate the decision of the Attorney General to allow a deportable illegal immigrant to remain in the U.S.

As an exercise of legislative power subject to bicameralism requirements of Article I of the Constitution, the federal statute authorizing a one-house veto of the Attorney General’s decision to allow a deportable alien to remain in the U.S. is unconstitutional.

Answer 82

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha

Question 83

Morrison appealed from a decision upholding the constitutionality of the independent-counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, contending in part that those provisions were not violative of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

The independent-counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act are not violative of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

Answer 83

Alexia Morrison v. Theodore B. Olson

Question 84

Postmaster removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. A federal law provided that Postmasters may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials.

Answer 84

Myers v. United States

Question 85

The FTC Act permitted the President to dismiss an FTC member only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” President’s decision to dismiss FTC member was based solely on political differences rather than job performance or alleged acts of malfeasance.

The President may not remove any appointee to an independent regulatory agency except for reasons Congress has provided by law.

Answer 85

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States

Question 86

Suit for back pay, based on petitioner’s alleged illegal removal as a member of the War Claims Commission.

The President cannot remove appointees confirmed by the Senate at will.

Answer 86

Wiener v. United States

Question 87

Challenge to a law that empowered Congress to terminate the United States Comptroller General for certain specified reasons, including “inefficiency, ‘neglect of duty,’ or ‘malfeasance.’”

Congress cannot reserve removal power over executive officers to itself, except for impeachment.

Answer 87

Bowsher v. Synar

Question 88

Challenge to Independent Counsel Act, on a claim that it took executive powers away from the executive branch and created a hybrid “fourth branch” of government.

The Independent Counsel Act is constitutional, as it does not increase the power of the judiciary or legislative branches at the expense of the executive.

Answer 88

Morrison v. Olson

Question 89

Under Sarbanes-Oxley, PCAOB officers could be removed only “for good cause shown” by officers of the SEC, who in turn could only be removed by the President for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

The dual-layer protection from removal is contrary to Article II’s vesting of the executive power in the President.

Answer 89

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

Question 90

Curtiss-Wright challenged a resolution from Congress authorizing the President to prohibit the sale of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

The constitutional powers of the federal government regarding foreign affairs are more expansive than those regarding domestic affairs.

Answer 90

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

Question 91

Dames and Moore filed suit to recover funds owed on a contract with the government of Iran, but the order of attachment was voided by an executive agreement.

The president lacks the plenary power to settle claims against foreign governments through an executive agreement; however, where Congress at least acquiesces in the president’s actions, the president can settle such claims.

Answer 91

Dames and Moore v. Regan

Question 92

Hamdi was charged as an enemy combatant and detained by the U.S. military. He challenged his status and the constitutionality of holding him without formal charges or proceedings.

A U.S. citizen designated and detained as an enemy combatant has a due process right to challenge the underlying factual support for that designation before a neutral arbitrator.

Answer 92

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Question 93

Boumediene and other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus.

1. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 strips federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
2. Detainees are not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause simply because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay.
3. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution.

Answer 93

Boumediene v. Bush

Question 94

Challenge to jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of eight German saboteurs in the United States.

Any unlawful combatant against the United States is permitted to be tried by a military tribunal.

Answer 94

Ex Parte Quirin

Question 95

Fitzgerald was fired from his job in the Air Force. Allegedly, he was terminated by the President in retaliation for revealing to Congress information that was embarrassing to the Department of Defense.

The President has absolute immunity from civil damages liability for all official actions taken while in office.

Answer 95

Richard Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Question 96

Clinton was sued by Jones following an alleged incident that occurred in 1991 before his election to the office of President. Clinton sought to have all litigation on the matter suspended until after his term concluded.

The doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.

Answer 96

Clinton v. Jones

Question 97

Lorillard Tobacco Co. sued to invalidate new Massachusetts tobacco regulations, arguing in part that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act expressly preempted the state regulations of outdoor and point-of-sale advertising of cigarettes.

The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act expressly preempts state regulation of outdoor and point-of-sale cigarette advertising by unequivocally prohibiting such regulation by the states.

Answer 97

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

Question 98

Producers of avocados in Florida sued to enjoin enforcement of a California statute that prohibited transportation or sale in California of avocados based on oil content. They argued that federal marketing regulations that gauged the maturity of avocados without reference to oil content preempted the California statute.

A federal law that sets a minimum standard does not preempt a stricter state law.

Answer 98

Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v. Paul, Director, Department of Agriculture of California

Question 99

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. maintained that certain provisions of California’s Warren-Alquist Act were invalid because it was preempted by Congress’s passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

In passing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Congress preempted state regulation of the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of nuclear plants but intended for the states to retain their traditional responsibility in the field of regulating electrical utilities for determining questions of need, reliability, cost, and other related state concerns.

Answer 99

Pacific Gas and Electric v. State Energy Resources

Question 100

The U.S. sought to enjoin, on preemption grounds, several provisions of an Arizona statute, which made failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor, made it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the state, authorized state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person believed to have committed any public offense that made the person removable from the U.S., and required officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

A state law will be preempted by federal law where, even though the state law does not directly conflict with federal law, the state law complements, or is an obstacle to, the regulatory system chosen by Congress in a field completely occupied by Congress.

Answer 100

Arizona v. United States

Question 101

H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. obtained milk from New York. Hood was denied a license to establish a receiving depot per a statute denying licenses that would be destructive of competition in a market already “adequately served.”

Restrictions imposed for the avowed purpose and with the practical effect of curtailing the volume of interstate commerce to aid local economic interests will not be sustained.

Answer 101

H.P. Hood and Sons v. Du Mond

Question 102

Cooley violated a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships using the port of Philadelphia to engage a local pilot.

The states may regulate those areas of interstate commerce that are local in nature and do not demand one national system of regulation by Congress.

Answer 102

Aaron B. Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia

Question 103

A South Carolina law prohibited trucks exceeding a certain width and weight from using the state’s highways. Interstate truckers challenged the law as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

A state law regulating the weight and width of trucks using its highways does not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.

Answer 103

South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros.

Question 104

The Arizona Train Limit Law prohibited the operation within the state of passenger trains more than 14 cars long and freight trains more than 70 cars long.

In deciding whether a state law places an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the Court must balance the nature and extent of the burden which would be imposed by the statute against the merits and purposes to be derived from the state regulation.

Answer 104

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan

Question 105

The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law prohibiting the importation of waste originating in another state into New Jersey on the basis that it protected a legitimate health interest of the State of New Jersey.

State laws that are basically protectionist in nature unduly burden interstate commerce and thus are unconstitutional.

Answer 105

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey

Question 106

Hughes was convicted under an Oklahoma statute forbidding the transportation for sale outside the state of minnows seined or procured from Oklahoma waters.

It constitutes a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution for a state to statutorily provide that no person can ship for sale out-of-state fish or wildlife procured within that state.

Answer 106

Hughes v. Oklahoma

Question 107

North Carolina law required specific grading for apples sold or shipped into the state. The State of Washington had a different and more stringent system for grading its apples. The Washington apple industry, sought to have the regulation enjoined and declared unconstitutionally discriminatory against out-of-state commerce.

A facially neutral law is discriminatory if it has discriminatory effects.

Answer 107

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

Question 108

A Maryland law prohibited oil companies from operating a retail service station within the state. Virtually all oil companies were located outside of Maryland. The oil companies argued that, therefore, the law had a discriminatory effect on the out-of-state oil companies and impermissibly burdened interstate commerce.

A facially neutral law that burdens some interstate companies with disparate impact is not discriminatory merely because it imposes such burdens.

Answer 108

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland

Question 109

A law assessing a fee on all milk sold in Massachusetts, the funds of which were disbursed solely to local producers, was challenged as unconstitutional.

An assessment scheme that levies a tax on all distribution of a good but disburses its assets to local producers only is unconstitutional.

Answer 109

West Lynn Creamery v. Healy

Question 110

Minnesota prohibited the sale of dairy products in disposable plastic containers but permitted such sales in disposable paperboard containers. Clover challenged the statute as violative of the Equal Protection and Commerce Clauses.

A state statute prohibiting sales within the state of products packed in certain kinds of disposable containers for environmental reasons does not unduly burden interstate commerce nor violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 110

State of Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery

Question 111

A Madison ordinance made it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it had been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant located within five miles of the city.

A locality may not discriminate against interstate commerce, even to protect the health and safety of its people if reasonable alternatives exist, which do not discriminate and are adequate to conserve legitimate local interests.

Answer 111

Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin

Question 112

Taylor imported live baitfish into Maine. He was indicted under a federal statute that made it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law. Taylor challenged the Maine statute as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

A facially discriminatory law is constitutional where less discriminatory alternatives are unavailable.

Answer 112

Maine v. Taylor

Question 113

Arizona required that all cantaloupes grown in Arizona be packed there. Bruce Church, Inc. filed suit to enjoin the law as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

A nondiscriminatory law that places burdens on interstate commerce that clearly exceed the local benefits is unconstitutional.

Answer 113

Loren J. Pike v. Bruce Church

Question 114

Illinois required all trucks passing through the state to use a contoured mudguard. No other state required such mudguards, and one state even made the use of such mudguards illegal. An interstate motor carrier challenged the law as an undue burden on interstate commerce.

A nondiscriminatory local safety measure that places burdens on interstate commerce that clearly exceed the local benefits is unconstitutional.

Answer 114

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines

Question 115

Consolidated Freightways Corp. challenged the constitutionality of an Iowa statute that prohibited the use of certain large trucks within the state boundaries.

A state safety regulation will be unconstitutional if its asserted safety purpose is outweighed by its degree of interference with interstate commerce.

Answer 115

Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Raymond Kassel

Question 116

Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. was subject to a tax in California on out-of-state insurers, and challenged it on the ground that it was discriminatory and impermissibly burdened interstate commerce.

A discriminatory and retaliatory law is constitutional where the law is in an area that Congress has authorized the states to regulate.

Answer 116

Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. v. State Board of Equalization of California

Question 117

During a shortage, South Dakota promulgated a plan to confine the sale of the cement it produced in its plant to South Dakota residents.

In the absence of congressional action, nothing in the Commerce Clause prohibits a state from being a market participant and acting in that capacity to favor its own citizens over others.

Answer 117

Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake

Question 118

Boston issued an executive order requiring all construction projects funded by city funds should be performed by a work force consisting of at least half Boston residents.

The executive order did not violate the Commerce Clause, as the city expended its own funds in entering into construction contracts for public projects, it was a market participant, and it was entitled to be treated as such.

Answer 118

White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers

Question 119

Alaska offered to sell large amounts of state-owned timber if the buyers agreed to process it within state boundaries. South-Central Timber wanted to buy the timber and ship it to Japan for processing.

If a state imposes burdens on commerce within a market in which it is a participant, but the burdens have a substantial regulatory effect outside of that particular market, they are per se invalid under the federal Commerce Clause.

Answer 119

South-Central Timber Development v. Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska

Question 120

South Carolina required payment of a fishing license fee for out-of-staters that was much higher than the fee imposed on in-staters. Out-of-state fishermen challenged the statutes imposing the fees as unconstitutional violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

A law that discriminates against out-of-staters violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause where there is no substantial reason for differential treatment.

Answer 120

Toomer v. Witsell

Question 121

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a municipal ordinance, which required that 40 percent of all workers on city construction projects be residents of the city, was not covered by the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to municipal ordinances that discriminate on the basis of municipal residence.

Answer 121

United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County v. Mayor and City Council of the City of Camden

Question 122

Montana imposed a much higher license fee for elk hunting on nonresidents than on residents. Nonresident hunters challenged the licensing scheme as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

A discriminatory law regulating recreational activity does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Answer 122

Lester Baldin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana

Question 123

Piper, who lived in Vermont, passed the New Hampshire bar examination, but was not admitted because New Hampshire made residency a prerequisite to admission. She challenged this requirement as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

A residency requirement for the practice of law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Answer 123

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Kathryn A. Piper

Question 124

Barron claimed that the City made his wharf useless by diverting the streams during its construction work.

The amendments to the Constitution were intended as limitations solely on the exercise of power by the U.S. government and are not applicable to the legislation of the states.

Answer 124

Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Question 125

Louisiana created a 25-year slaughterhouse monopoly to which several butchers who were not included objected.

The Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges and immunities of national, not state, citizenship, and neither the Equal Protection, Due Process, nor Privileges and Immunities Clauses of that amendment may be used to interfere with state control of the privileges and immunities of state citizenship.

Answer 125

The Slaughter-House Cases

Question 126

When California discriminated against citizens who had resided in the state for less than one year in distributing welfare benefits, the state statute was challenged and held to be unconstitutional.

Durational residency requirements violate the fundamental right to travel by denying a newly arrived citizen the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens in the same state, and are therefore subject to strict liability.

Answer 126

Saenz v. Roe

Question 127

State prosecutors obtained a first-degree murder charge in a second hearing. Defendant claimed Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

The Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states.

Answer 127

Palko v. Connecticut

Question 128

Prosecutor argued that defendant’s refusal to testify could be seen as an admission of guilt. Defendant argued that his freedom against self-incrimination had been violated.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts.

Answer 128

Adamson v. California

Question 129

Louisiana’s constitution granted jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be granted.

The right to a jury trial in serious criminal cases punishable by at least two years in prison is a fundamental right that must be recognized by the states as part of their obligation to extend due process of law to all persons within their jurisdiction.

Answer 129

Duncan v. Louisiana

Question 130

Plaintiffs challenged a ban on handguns in Chicago, contending that the ban was unconstitutional because the Second Amendment applies to the states.

The Second Amendment applies to the states by incorporation through the Due Process Clause.

Answer 130

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Question 131

In the 1875 Civil Rights Act, Congress sought to prohibit private discrimination under the Fourteenth and Thirteenth Amendments.

Civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals unless such acts are sanctioned or authorized by the state.

Answer 131

The Civil Rights Cases: United States v. Stanley

Question 132

Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of criminal trespass in a company town for distributing literature without permission of the town’s management. She appealed the conviction on First Amendment grounds.

A state violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing criminal liability on a person who distributes religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town without permission of the town’s management.

Answer 132

Marsh v. Alabama

Question 133

Jackson claimed that utility company’s action in terminating service to her for nonpayment without notice or an opportunity to pay, constituted state action and violated due process.

A heavily regulated private utility, electing to terminate service in a manner found by the state public-utilities commission to be permissible under state law does not demonstrate a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the utility’s action to make that action state action.

Answer 133

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Question 134

Black voters brought a class action to enjoin the a whites-only Texas political organization under the Fifteenth Amendment.

A political organization’s exclusion of voters solely on the basis of race violates the Fifteenth Amendment where that organization’s primary determines who will be elected in general elections.

Answer 134

Terry v. Adams

Question 135

Land was devised to a city for use as a park for whites only. A state court appointed a private trustee to exclude blacks from the park. Black intervenors challenged the racial restriction as violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

A private park that is municipal in character and that excludes people on the basis of color and race violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 135

Evans v. Newton

Question 136

Union members picketed a non-union store located in a privately owned shopping center. A court enjoined the picketing as protecting the shopping center’s property rights. Union members challenged the injunction on First Amendment grounds.

The First Amendment protects labor picketing of a store in a privately owned shopping center.

Answer 136

Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza

Question 137

Vietnam War protestors distributed handbills in a private shopping center and were threatened with arrest for trespassing. They challenged the shopping center’s no-handbilling policy as violative of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

A shopping center does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments when it prohibits handbilling that is unrelated to the shopping center’s operations.

Answer 137

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner

Question 138

Striking union members picketed their employer’s retail store in a shopping center. The shopping center threatened them with arrest for trespass and they left. NLRB issued a cease-and-desist order to the shopping center.

There is no First Amendment right to picket a store in a privately owned shopping center.

Answer 138

Hudgens v. NLRB

Question 139

Kraemer sought to void a sale of real property to Shelley from a Mr. Fitzgerald, relying on a racially restrictive covenant.

Judicial enforcement of a private racially restrictive covenant is considered state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.

Answer 139

Shelley v. Kraemer

Question 140

Lugar was indebted to Edmondson Oil Co. Edmondson sued on the debt, and had Lugar’s property attached. At a later hearing, the attachment was dismissed, and Lugar sued Edmondson as a state actor for having deprived him of due process of law.

Constitutional requirements of due process apply to prejudgment attachment procedures whenever state officers act jointly with a private creditor in securing the property in dispute.

Answer 140

Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co.

Question 141

Wilmington Parking Authority leased space in a parking facility to Eagle Coffee Shoppe for use as a restaurant, and it refused to serve Burton, a black person.

Racial discrimination by a business that is located in and constitutes part of a state-owned public facility is considered to be state action and is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 141

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

Question 142

The Moose Lodge refused to serve Irvis, the black guest of a member, solely on the basis of his race.

Merely granting a liquor license to a private club that engages in discriminatory practices is not sufficient state action to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 142

Moose Lodge v. Irvis

Question 143

Parents of schoolchildren in Mississippi sought to enjoin a textbook lending program because some of the private schools excluded children on the basis of race. The parents alleged, the program thus provided direct state aid to racially segregated education.

State-funded financial aid to private schools that discriminate on the basis of race supports discrimination and thereby violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 143

Norwood v. Harrison

Question 144

A private school, supported and heavily regulated by the state, fired a teacher because of her speech activities. The teacher brought suit, on a theory that the school was a state actor.

A private school is not a state actor, even though it is funded and heavily regulated by the state, where it is not exercising the exclusive prerogatives of the state.

Answer 144

Randell-Baker v. Kohn

Question 145

Private nursing homes transferred or discharged Medicaid patients without a hearing. The patients claimed a violation of their rights to due process.

A private nursing home’s decision to transfer or discharge Medicaid-eligible patients without a hearing is not state action that violates due process.

Answer 145

Blum v. Yaretsky

Question 146

Landlord refused to rent the Mulkeys an apartment on account of their race.

The abandonment of a positive nondiscrimination policy by a state in favor of a neutral stance that would allow discrimination to occur in the sale and rental of private housing constitutes state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 146

Reitman v. Mulkey

Question 147

The nongovernmental Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association penalized a private school for violating rules on recruiting athletes. The school sued the TSSAA, arguing that the penalties constituted state action under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

A nongovernmental statewide association’s actions constitute state action if state officials are pervasively entwined in the structure of the association.

Answer 147

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association

Question 148

Allgeyer purchased insurance for his property in Louisiana, and was convicted of violating a Louisiana law that prohibited insuring Louisiana property except through an insurer licensed to do business in Louisiana.

A state law that prohibits insuring property in the state except through an insurer licensed to do business in that state violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 148

Allgeyer v. Louisiana

Question 149

A state labor law prohibited employment in bakeries for more than 60 hours a week or more than 10 hours a day. Lochner permitted an employee in his bakery to work over 60 hours in one week.

To be a fair, reasonable, and appropriate use of a state’s police power, an act must have a direct relation, as a means to an end, to an appropriate and legitimate state objective.

Answer 149

Lochner v. New York

Question 150

Muller was convicted of violating a state law that prohibited employers from requiring women to work more than ten hours a day.

A state law that prohibits employers from requiring women to work more than ten hours a day does not violate the freedom to contract guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 150

Muller v. Oregon

Question 151

Congress enacted a law that prescribed minimum wages for women working in the District of Columbia. Children’s Hospital challenged the law on the ground that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

A law that prescribes minimum wages for women violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Answer 151

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital

Question 152

A Pennsylvania law prohibited the use of rags and debris bedding. Palmer Bros. Co. used rags and debris in the bedding it sold in Pennsylvania, and sued to enjoin enforcement of the law on the ground that it violated due process.

A state law that prohibits the use of a certain fill material in bedding violates the Due Process Clause.

Answer 152

Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.

Question 153

The state’s Milk Board fixed nine cents as the price to be charged for a quart of milk. Nebbia sold two quarts of milk and a loaf of bread for eighteen cents.

Upon proper occasion and by appropriate measures, a state may regulate a business in any of its aspects, including fixing prices.

Answer 153

Nebbia v. New York

Question 154

Washington state set the minimum wage for women. A woman employed by West Coast Hotel Co. brought suit to recover the difference between the wages paid to her and the minimum wages set by the state. West Coast Hotel Co. challenged the minimum wage law as violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

A state minimum wage law for women does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

Answer 154

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

Question 155

Attempt to have the “Filled Milk Act” declared unconstitutional.

In cases challenging the constitutionality of legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions, the Supreme Court will apply the rational basis test, which means that the person challenging the legislation has the burden of showing that a rational basis does not exist.

Answer 155

United States v. Carolene Products

Question 156

A state law prohibited any person from fitting or duplicating lenses without a prescription from an ophthalmologist or optometrist.

The Due Process Clause will no longer be used to strike down state laws regulating business and industrial conditions because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.

Answer 156

Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma

Question 157

Car had been repainted before being sold for the full price of a new car, but the repainting was not disclosed to the buyer. Buyer sued and won $2 million punitive damages on only $4,000 actual damages.

A $2 million punitive damages award for nondisclosure of presale repairs to a car is grossly excessive and violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where actual damages were only $4,000.

Answer 157

BMW of North America v. Gore

Question 158

Suit against insurance provider, for its conduct during a wrongful death and tort action following a highway accident caused by the insured. The jury awarded the insured $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages.

A punitive damages award 145 times greater than the supporting compensatory damages award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer 158

State Farm v. Campbell

Question 159

A smoker’s widow sued cigarette manufacturer for allegedly deceptive marketing campaigns, and the jury’s punitive damages award was based in part on the desire to punish the company for its actions against smokers who were not parties to the lawsuit.

The U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause does not allow a jury to base a punitive damages award in part on its desire to punish a defendant for harming persons who are not before the court.

Answer 159

Philip Morris USA v. Williams

Question 160

During the Great Depression, Minnesota authorized county courts to extend the redemption period from foreclosure sales.

The reservation of the reasonable exercise of the state’s protective power is read into all contracts. A state may affect the obligations between two contracting parties so long as: (1) an emergency exists; (2) the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end; (3) the relief afforded and justified by the emergency could only be of a character appropriate to that emergency; (4) the conditions upon which relief is granted do not appear to be unreasonable; and (5) the legislation is temporary in operation.

Answer 160

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell

Question 161

Utility entered into a contract for natural gas that provided that the price to be paid would be increased if governmental regulators fixed a price higher than the price specified in the contract. Kansas enacted a law that barred such price increases.

A state law that interferes with an existing contract does not violate the Contracts Clause where the law does not substantially impair a party’s contractual rights, the state’s interests are significant and legitimate, and the law is reasonably related to achieving its goals.

Answer 161

Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co.

Question 162

New York and New Jersey enacted covenants to protect the interests of its bondholders.

A state cannot refuse to meet its obligations merely because it would rather spend its funds on more important programs.

Answer 162

United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey

Question 163

New York law provided that landlords had to permit cable television operators to install cable facilities on their property. Landlord whose apartment building was burdened by a forced cable installation, sued on the ground that the installation was an uncompensated taking of her property.

A permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by the government constitutes a taking of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Answer 163

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

Question 164

A Pennsylvania statute forbade the mining of coal in a way that caused the subsidence of any structure used as a human habitation.

A taking under the Fifth Amendment will be found if the regulation results in a severe diminution of value. At a certain magnitude, there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the regulatory act. While considerable deference is to be given the legislature’s judgment, each case will turn upon its particular facts.

Answer 164

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon

Question 165

Virginia mandated the uncompensated destruction of red cedar trees to prevent the spread of a tree disease. Tree owners who were ordered to cut down their red cedars claimed the order was an uncompensated taking.

The government does not effect a taking when it decides to destroy one class of property in order to preserve another class of property that it deems of greater value to the public.

Answer 165

Miller v. Schoene

Question 166

Penn Central Transportation Co. was denied a permit to erect a skyscraper over Grand Central Station, a designated landmark.

A city may, as part of a comprehensive landmark preservation scheme, place restrictions on development affecting the landmark without paying “just compensation.”

Answer 166

Penn Central v. New York City

Question 167

The Coastal Council prevented Lucas from building homes on his beachfront property.

Where regulation prohibits all economically beneficial use of land, and the proscribed use could not have been prohibited under state nuisance law, the regulation is a “taking” that requires “just compensation” to be paid to the landowner.

Answer 167

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission

Question 168

Government had conditioned a permit for the development of beachfront property on the owners’ granting the public an easement to cross the property for beach access.

Unless a permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as a development ban, a building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but an out-and-out plan of extortion.

Answer 168

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Question 169

The City of Tigard granted Dolan’s permit to expand her store, conditioned on her dedicating a portion of her property to provide a flood plain and a bike path.

Exactions imposed by a municipality’s permit conditions must be roughly proportionate to the impact of the proposed development.

Answer 169

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Question 170

Multiple petitions were filed for permission to develop landowner’s coastline property. The Council denied his request each time. Landowner sued, arguing that the Council’s action denied him all use of his property, without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause.

1. A property owner who takes title after a government regulation restricts the property’s use can assert a takings claim for the property.
2. A regulatory restriction that allows a property to retain 6 percent of its total development value, where the permitted use is a substantial residence, does not constitute a total taking of the property.

Answer 170

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

Question 171

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed a 32-month moratorium on development in the Lake Tahoe area. California enjoined development for another three years. Landowners filed suit, claiming that TRPA’s actions constituted a taking of their property.

A moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land-use plan does not constitute a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause.

Answer 171

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Question 172

Hawaii enacted legislation to break the oligopoly of land ownership by creating a Housing Authority to effectively transfer title from landlords to tenants. Landlords challenged the law on the ground that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use requirement.

The forced, compensated transfer by a state of title to land from landlords to tenants to reduce the concentration of fee ownership in the state is a taking related to a public use.

Answer 172

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Question 173

New London condemned private residences in order to use their property as part of a planned economic development.

Governmental economic development constitutes a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment’s eminent domain.

Answer 173

Kelo v. City of New London

Question 174

Attorney deposited client funds into a lawyer trust account. All interest on client funds in the account was required to be used in the state supreme court’s program. Client sued the to recover the interest earned on his funds.

An attorney’s client is not entitled to just compensation when a state appropriates interest earned on funds of the client’s that the attorney deposits into a trust account.

Answer 174

Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington

Question 175

A Colorado constitutional amendment, which struck down local antidiscrimination laws based on sexual orientation, was challenged for being violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

Colorado’s Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it singles out a class of citizens, homosexuals, for disfavored legal status.

Answer 175

Romer v. Evans

Question 176

New York had a regulation prohibiting advertising on vehicles but allowed advertising on business vehicles so long as the vehicles are engaged in their owner’s usual work and are not used mainly for advertising.

The Equal Protection Clause does not require that a statute eradicate all evils of the same type or none at all.

Answer 176

Railway Express Agency v. New York

Question 177

The New York City Transit Authority had a policy of excluding all methadone users from employment. Current and prospective TA employees who were methadone users challenged the policy on the ground that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

A transit authority’s policy of excluding all methadone users from employment does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 177

New York Transit Authority v. Beazer

Question 178

Low-income individuals who were members of households where not all members were related to each other challenged food stamp law as violating the Equal Protection Clause.

A federal law that denies food stamps to any household containing an individual unrelated to any other member of the household violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 178

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Question 179

Cleburne Living Center, Inc. contended that laws impacting the mentally retarded should be given heightened constitutional scrutiny.

Laws impacting the mentally retarded are not to be given heightened constitutional scrutiny.

Answer 179

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Question 180

Since they are not “citizens” in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution, blacks who were slaves in this country, or who are the descendents of such slaves, cannot bring suit in federal court.

Answer 180

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Question 181

Apprehension by the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent danger to the public safety can justify the curtailment of the civil rights of a single racial group.

Answer 181

Korematsu v. United States

Question 182

A white man and a black woman, both Virginia residents, were indicted for violating the state’s ban on interracial marriage.

A state law restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classification violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 182

Loving v. Virginia

Question 183

The trial court divested mother of custody of her child due to her marriage to a man of a different race.

Custody cannot be denied based solely on racial considerations.

Answer 183

Palmore v. Sidoti

Question 184

Plessy was arrested for trying to sit in a railroad car that was designated “for whites only.”

Segregation of the races is reasonable if based upon the established custom, usage, and traditions of the people in the state.

Answer 184

Plessy v. Ferguson

Question 185

Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children.

The “separate but equal” doctrine has no application in the field of education, and the segregation of children in public schools based solely on their race violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 185

Brown v. Board of Education

Question 186

California prisoner alleged in federal district court that the California Department of Corrections used race to assign temporary cell mates for new prisoners in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for an equal protection challenge to a department of corrections unwritten policy of racially segregating prisoners each time they enter a new correctional facility.

Answer 186

Johnson v. California

Question 187

A qualifying test for positions as police officers in the District of Columbia was failed by a disproportionately high number of black applicants.

A law or official governmental practice must have a “discriminatory purpose,” not merely a disproportionate effect on one race, in order to constitute “invidious discrimination” under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 187

Washington v. Davis

Question 188

Prisoner contended he was denied equal protection when sentenced to death because blacks were statistically more likely to be so sentenced, and such was racially based.

Capital cases require an evaluation of the motivations of individual jurors in sentencing; thus raw abstract statistical data are not dispositive of a lack of equal protection.

Answer 188

McClesky v. Kemp

Question 189

The City of Mobile had an at-large system of municipal elections. Black voters challenged the electoral system on the ground that it violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

A municipal at-large electoral system that has discriminatory effect but does not have discriminatory purpose does not violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Answer 189

City of Mobile v. Bolden

Question 190

Jackson, Mississippi, closed its swimming pools after a federal court ordered them to be desegregated. Black citizens challenged the closings as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

A city’s facially neutral decision to not operate desegregated facilities does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 190

Palmer v. Thompson

Question 191

Massachusetts provided that veterans were to be preferred for civil service jobs over other applicants. A female employee, challenged the preference on equal protection grounds, asserting that the preference discriminated against women.

A state’s absolute employment preference for veterans does not discriminate against women in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 191

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney

Question 192

Application for a rezoning of land from single-family to multi-family to permit construction of low-income housing. City refused, resulting in allegation that the refusal was racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

A denial of a rezoning request does not violate the Equal Protection Clause where there is no proof that the denial was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

Answer 192

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

Question 193

School district refused to adopt a reasonable plan for desegregation of its school system, and a federal district court ordered imposition of its own desegregation plan.

When school authorities deliberately maintain a racially segregated school system, the federal district courts have broad equitable powers to use any remedies that are reasonably necessary to desegregate that school system.

Answer 193

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Question 194

The district court found de jure segregation in the city of Detroit’s public schools and ordered an inter-district remedy.

Before the boundaries of separate and autonomous school districts may be set aside for remedial purposes, it must first be shown that racially discriminatory acts of the state or local school districts have been a substantial cause of inter-district segregation.

Answer 194

Milliken v. Bradley

Question 195

As the result of actions taken by the city’s Board of Education, parents of black students moved to reopen a desegregation case, but the district court denied their motion.

A federal school desegregation order can be terminated without offending the Equal Protection Clause when the order had been complied with in good faith and the vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable.

Answer 195

Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell

Question 196

Two metropolitan school districts sought to assign students to schools to achieve racial balance.

Racial balance between local high-school districts is not a compelling government interest under the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 196

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District

Question 197

The sole bidder on a city construction contract was denied the contract on the basis of a minority-owned business requirement program and sued, alleging that the program was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

A program that requires general contractors on city construction projects to subcontract at least 30 percent of the contract amount to minority-owned businesses violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 197

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Question 198

A white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the law school at the University of Michigan. Under its race-conscious admissions policy, the law school ultimately declined to admit her.

Student-body diversity is a compelling state interest sufficient to justify using a race-conscious university admissions policy consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, and enrolling an unspecified critical mass of minority students under such a policy is a narrowly tailored way to advance that interest.

Answer 198

Grutter v. Bollinger

Question 199

Two white high school students were denied admission to an undergraduate program at the University of Michigan. African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students were effectively guaranteed admission to the University.

A public university’s undergraduate admissions policy that automatically awards 20 percent of the minimum points required for admission to some students based solely on race violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 199

Gratz v. Bollinger

Question 200

Evidence that fails to show alternative, more racially balanced boundaries for voting districts cannot support a finding that race motivated a legislative redistricting plan in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Answer 200

Easley v. Cromartie

Question 201

Suit to enforce California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage opponents did not have standing to intervene as they could not demonstrate that they were harmed by the decision.

Answer 201

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Question 202

Surviving partner sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA.

Definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause’s guarantee of equal protection. The federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states.

Answer 202

United States v. Windsor

Question 203

Challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which contains a formula for determining which jurisdictions are subject to pre-clearance requirements based on their histories of discrimination in voting.

§4(b) is unconstitutional because it is based on old data, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.

Answer 203

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder

Question 204

The President cannot use his authority under the Recess Appointment Clause unless the Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business.

For purposes of the Recess Appointment Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is if, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact business.

Answer 204

NLRB v. Noel Canning

Question 205

Challenge to act authorizing surveillance without a showing of probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power.

Respondents cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.

Answer 205

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA