IMPORTANT STUFF TO MEMORIZE

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 1

The US Supreme Court has the authority to review laws and legislative acts to determine whether they comply with the US Constitution (judicial review).

Question 2

Standing Doctrine

Answer 2

1) injury-in-fact (concrete, actual, imminent harm to a legally protected interest)
2) traceability
3) redressability

Question 3

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

Answer 3

Under Article III of the Constitution, a party does not have standing to litigate a generalized grievance against the government in federal court if she suffered no personal injury other than the harm suffered by all citizens.

Question 4

Political Question Test

Answer 4

1) Is there a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to another branch of government?
2) Are there judicially manageable standards in apply in deciding the case?

Question 5

Nixon v. United States (1993)

Answer 5

The constitutionality of Senate impeachment proceedings is a non-justiciable political question incapable of judicial adjudication.

Question 6

Raines v. Byrd

Answer 6

Members of Congress do not have standing to bring suit challenging the constitutionality of federal legislation when the alleged harm sought to be redressed constitutes an institutional injury as opposed to a personal injury.

Question 7

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 7

The Constitution specifically delegates to Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and to make such other laws as it deems necessary and proper to carry out this enumerated power. Additionally, federal laws are supreme and states may not make laws that interfere with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers.

Question 8

US v. Comstock (2010)

Answer 8

Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has the authority to enact a law that allows civil commitment of mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal inmates beyond the end of the prisoners’ criminal sentences. This law (means) was rationally related to enumerated powers (ends).

Question 9

Rational Basis Test

Answer 9

Was the use of the N&P Clause appropriate? Is the enumerated power and the proposed law rationally related? Do the means meet the ends? Were they going too far beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution? (toothless test)

Question 10

N&P Considerations

Answer 10

1) breadth of the N&P Clause (McCulloch v. Maryland)
2) long history of federal involvement in this area
3) reasonableness
4) statute’s accommodation of state interests
5) statute’s narrow scope

Question 11

Eras of the Commerce Clause

Answer 11

1. Prior to 1900s: blind deference to Congress
2. Early 1900s: courts skeptical of gov
3. 1930s: increased federal power to accomplish the “switch in time that saved 9” to avoid FDR’s court-packing plan (functionalist approach, rational basis test)
4. 1995: Lopez - SCOTUS no longer lets the federal government do whatever it wants with the Commerce Clause (formalistic limitations)

Question 12

Categories Regulated Through the Commerce Clause

Answer 12

1) channels of interstate commerce (ex: planes)
2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce (ex: airways)
3) activities that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce (ex: passenger flights)

Question 13

Substantial Effects Test

Answer 13

1) jurisdictional limits
2) congressional evidential findings on relation between the activity and commerce
3) economic transaction/activities
4) police power

Question 14

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Answer 14

Congress may not, pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers, pass a law that prohibits the possession of a gun near a school.

Question 15

United States v. Morrison (2000)

Answer 15

Congress does not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate violence against women because it is not an economic activity.

Question 16

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Answer 16

Congress may regulate the use and production of home-grown marijuana as this activity, taken in the aggregate, could rationally be seen as having a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Question 17

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

Answer 17

• rejects distinction between “traditional” vs “integral” governmental functions infringing on state governments
• concluded judicial intervention was not the proper method to protect state interest

Question 18

South Carolina v. Baker

Answer 18

States cannot bring substantive challenges to federal laws under the Tenth Amendment but may only allege that a statute contains process defects.

Question 19

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Answer 19

A federal law (VRA preclearance requirement) that departs from the fundamental principles of federalism must be justified by current needs (“current burdens must match current needs”)

Question 20

Brnovich Factors (VRA Section 2)

Answer 20

1) Size of burden imposed by a challenged voting rule
2) Degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice when Section 2 was amended in 1982
3) Size of disparities in a rule’s impacts
4) Other opportunities to vote in state’s system
5) Strength of state interests served by a challenged voting rule

Question 21

Spending Power Test (Dole Test)

Answer 21

Congress may condition the receipt of federal funds by states subject to the following 4 limitations:

1. must be used for “general welfare”
2. conditions to receive funds must be unambiguous
3. conditions to receive funds must be related to a federal interest in a particular national project or program
4. conditions must not violate any other constitutional provisions
5. can’t be too coercive so as to be commandeering

Question 22

Youngstown Jackson Concurrence Frameworks

Answer 22

1. When the President acts under an express or implied grant of power, he can rely on both his own powers and Congress’ powers (highest authority)
2. When the President acts without an express grant or denial of Congress’ powers, he acts under the aggregate of his own independent powers, both express and implied. Courts agree Pres. has inherent authority in the context of foreign affairs and emergencies. (twilight zone)
3. When the President acts in a way that is incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, he may rely only on the powers expressly granted to him by the Constitution minus any Congressional power (lowest authority)

Question 23

Nondelegation Doctrine

Answer 23

A restriction saying Congress may not constitutionally delegate its legislative power to another branch of government.
-Exception: If Congress lays down an “intelligible principle” by legislative act, it can authorize a person or body to make policy that conforms to that principle.

Question 24

Bicameral Passage + Presentment

Answer 24

The House and Senate must both pass a law then present it to the President for either approval or veto.

Question 25

Inferior Officer Factors

Answer 25

Factors used to decide whether the role is an inferior officer:

1. Whether subject to removal
2. Limited duties
3. Limited in jurisdiction
4. Limited in tenure

Question 26

Appointment Process + Assigning Power

Answer 26

Appointment Process:

1. President nominates
2. Senate confirms
3. President appoints by giving commission

Exception: Congress can ASSIGN APPOINTMENT POWER for inferior officers in:

1. Heads of Departments
2. The President
3. Courts of Law (as long as it’s not incongruent)

Question 27

Incongruity Test

Answer 27

A test addressing separations of powers concerns with regards to appointments. It is “incongruous” for a branch to do something outside its normal bounds.

Question 28

Edmond Test

Answer 28

If one is an officer with a “superior” other than the President, that makes them inferior.

Question 29

Dormant Commerce Clause

Answer 29

States are unable to regulate interstate commerce
-Exception: If the state is acting as a market-participant (i.e., they are purchasing goods) then the Dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to their acts, as states are free to spend their money however they wish.

Question 30

Dormant Commerce Clause Test

Answer 30

1) State laws facially discriminate
2) State laws facially neutral but impermissible protectionist purpose or effect
3) State laws facially neutral but disproportionate adverse effect