Important Case Law Take Aways & Rules Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison
- Federal judicial power that can never be expanded
- Judicial Review: The court may review nondiscretionary & legislative acts
Cohens v. Virginia
federal judicial power also encompasses the power to review state court decisions involving state law that include a question of federal or constitutional law
Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway v. Wallace
• Declaratory Judgment’s are justiciable so long as the requirements are met
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
hypothetical threats are not enough for ripeness
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
Plaintiff must show injury, causation and redressability at the level of relief they seek
Relief must correspond with the injury or potential for injury in terms of an injunction
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
ESA does not create any substantive rights that private individuals enjoy, just provides a procedural mechanism to sue
Standing vs. Cause-Of-Action: Both required, but different
Cause-of-Action - Congress can create and define injuries and articulate changes of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before
- Unless congress makes it a cause-of-action, the court will unlikely listen to citizens suing for the improper administration of laws
Statutes may create obligations but do not give individuals the right to sue to enforce the obligations, even if an individual has been harmed
- Injury without cause-of-action, no standing
A procedural right to sue is not enough for standing, a personal injury is required
- Cause-of-action without injury, no standing
- When congress has authorized a right to sue, a standing inquiry must still be performed
McCulloch v. Maryland
Necessary and Proper Clause: Congress has the power to choose the appropriate means to accomplish its enumerated powers
Wickard v. Filburn
Court allows the aggregation of all factors of the same economic activity to determine if there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce
Court requires a rational basis for concluding there is an aggregate effect
Hodel v. Indiana
Rational Basis Review is applied to commerce clause cases
United States v. Lopez
- Effect on interstate commerce must be substantial
- Activity must be economic and have an economic effect
NFIB v. Sebelius
Commerce clause powers do not apply to inactivity and compelling individuals to engage in commerce
South Dakota v. Dole
Taxing & Spending Power is Subject to 5 Limitations: (Deference to Congress)
- Must be in pursuit of the general welfare
- Must state conditions clearly and explicitly (unambiguous)
- Must be related to federal interests in programs / projects– Germaneness Requirement
- Must be no other constitutional bar
- Must comply with the 10th amendment’s anti-commandeering principle
U.S. v. Butler
Court adopts hamilton’s view of the taxing and spending power
Clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated and is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them. Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
City of Boerne v. Flores
Supreme Court back pedals to the narrow view allowing only remedial measures to pass muster where there is congruence and proportionality between the means used and the ends to be achieved. (Must be corrective, remedial, or preventative, but not definitional)
United States v. Morrison
state action doctrine applies to regulations under § 5
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
Court looks to drafting history to determine congressional intent concerning the scope of the express preemption
Here congress had a goal of national uniformity demonstrating an intent to preempt state law
Aaron B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
“Selective Exclusiveness Test” for judicial review of state regulation of commerce
states have the power to regulate the areas of commerce which did not require uniform national regulation by Congress and that were local nature without placing an undue burden on interstate commerce.
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
Facially Discriminatory & Discriminatory Impact = Per Se Invalid Economic Protectionism
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland
Statutes permissibly can cause incidental burdens and favor certain classes over, just not based on residency
Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake
Sough What You Reap Rationale: Allow in-state citizens to have preferential access for the taxes they pay, and this preference is constitutional
United States v. Virginia
The territory we accept as real distinctions between the genders is shrinking
Foley v. Connelie
Test for Self-Government Exception:
Does the position involve discretionary decision-making or execution of policy, which substantially affects members of the political community?
- The police power is an extension of the political life of the community
- Police authority is inherently discretionary
Clark v. Jeter
Establishes Intermediate Scrutiny for discriminations based on illegitimacy
- Unfair to penalize children because their parents were not married
- Burdens should be related to individual responsibility or wrongdoing
- Immutable characteristic
- History of Discrimination
- Bears no relation to functioning in society
- Not strict scrutiny because:
- Does not bear an obvious badge
- Never a pervasive or severe historical discrimination
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
Rational Basis Review established as the appropriate level of scrutiny
- Discrimination against the poor does not warrant heightened scrutiny
- Lack of distinguishing characteristics
Lawrence v. Texas
Unconstitutional to discriminate against private sexual conduct based on animus
- Aviel believes the appropriate level of scrutiny is a more open question than the author because the laws that have been struck would fail rational basis review and the higher tiers of scrutiny did not need to be explored
