Impact on Public Policy Flashcards
NFIB v Sebelius (2012)
Ruled Obamacare was constitutional as congress has the right to collect taxes.
Shows Political Restraint (5-4) ruling with 4 liberal judges (+ Robert’s)
Upheld Policy that has been passed by the CON court and upheld congressional law.
Trump v Hawaii (2018)
Upheld EO: Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban
Shows Political Restraint as they deferred back to the elected branch
This upholds Policy as the court decided to rule in favour of the President Trump and expanded the offices power.
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt 2016
Upheld previous SC decision: SC struck down a Texas law that limited abortion
5-3 Swing towards liberals.
Political Activism as SCOTUS rules 5-3 with swing vote to Liberals
This clearly limits state rights and erodes at states rights
This removed policy passed by Texas and eroded federalism.
US v Texas 2016
Obama passsed DAPA to allow certain illegal immigrants to be granted indefinite stay in the US
Showed Political Activism as SCOTUS ruled 4-4 in upholding appeal court in repealing the policy
Shows clear limit on presidents powers and successful in limiting the presidents power
Remove the executive order of the president and further hindered president domestic ability
Citizens United v FEC 2010 and McCutchen v FEC 2014
Corporations and Interest Groups are protected by the 1st amendment and made way for super PACs in campaign finance.
McCutchen removed the limit to the number of donations.
This shows the court is activist in their decision as the final rule was 5-4 conservatives.
Limited the wishes of the president and struck down federal law
Removed federal law passed by a elected congress and ruled against the presidents wishes, exercising judicial review.
US v Windsor 2013
Struck down federal law as it denied federal benefits to married same sex couples creating marriage equality (not same sex marriage)
Political Activism as the ruling was 5-4
Limit on congress power as SCOTUS upheld constitution
Removed policy as it struck down elements of federal law (Judicial Review)
Obergefell v Hodges 2015
Established same sex marriage through 14th amendment, an example of quasi legislative body.
It shows political activism as the 5-4 ruling with swing vote loose constructionism
Yes to a limited extent it could be argued to erode state rights
This created new policy and allow same sex marriage.
DC v Heller 2008
The second amendment guarantees an individuals right to possess firearms in a state militia. Case over the wording over ‘the people.’
Activism as there was a 5-4 ruling
Did not limit state/federal/presiding power.
This upheld the constitution and its interpretation.
Carpenter v US 2018
Provided clarity around the 4th amendment and the right to privacy and obtaining phone data.
No limitation on rights as all it did was provided legal clarity.
This created new policy to ensure clarity was met
Trump’s Tax Return
House Ways Means Committee v Trump
This case brought by Trump to block the house committee over her tax returns and decided in favour of congress forcing Trump to release his tax returns.
Followed restraint as they upheld the house committee in congress.
Limits the ability of the president to block legislation while upholding congress ability to help scrutinise the government.
This upheld the committee in congress and ensures checks and balances are upheld.
Planned Parenthood Arkansas v Jegley 2018
Arkansas law wanted to provide strict limits on abortion, where the SC refused to hear the case.
By refusing to hear the case they showed political restraint by following lower court judgement and not hearing the case.
No checks and balance as case wasn’t heard and nothing was heard as the case didn’t hear the case.
Biden v Nebraska 2023
Biden wanted to use the HEROS Act to cancel student debt and wanted to cancel $430 billion through the Sec of education.
The 6-3 ruling showed political activism.
This limited the power of the president and the executive so the constitution was upheld.
SC removed the policy of Biden and blocked it.
US v Texas 2023
Homeland security issued guidelines in 2021 to allocate funds to remove dangerous non citizens. Texas wanted to spend more.
This showed restraint as the SC ruled 8-1 and it was well in the president power to do this (Article 2)
No limit on the power
Upholding Homeland security policy and eroding state rights regarding federalism.
