Major Cases Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Bedrock case of the judiciary, established judicial review of statutes (i.e., the ability to declare them unconstitutional), and declared that while the legislature has the power to create the law, it is the province of the Courts to interpret it. It further held that the constitution cannot be amended by regular legislation.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection (2022)
Facts: EPA sought to use a section of the Clean Air Act in a way that had arguably never been done before.
Holding: The Court heard the case, bypassing the standing issue, because the Biden administration “vigorously defends” the approach that the Obama EPA took with the CPP. In other words, the Court believed that the EPA was going to try again, so why not rule.
The case establishes the “major questions” doctrine. The “major-questions” doctrine is the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance,” it must say so clearly.
The major-questions doctrine requires federal agencies to have “clear congressional authorization” when they address important issues.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
Facts: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act prohibited a person from intentionally or knowingly performing or inducing an abortion after a gestational age of 15 weeks, except in the case of a severe fetal abnormality or a medical emergency.
Holding: Abortion was not protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment, because it was not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions nor necessary for ordered liberty.
The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Rational basis review (legitimate/rational) is the standard of review on state imposed restrictions.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Facts: DC law banned handgun possession, among other fire arm restrictions. A special police officer sought a permit, but was denied, and filed suit.
Held: There is an individual right to keep and bear arms in an individual’s home under the 2nd amendment. The holding was based on an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it was understood at the time of ratification. The court didn’t apply any of the traditional notions of scrutiny, finding that DC’s law would have failed under any analysis.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Facts: Chicago ordinance banned handguns and placed other restrictions.
Held: The 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arm’s is fully applicable to the states by way of the 14th amendment. The Court held that the right was fundamental.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)
Facts: NY outlawed unlicensed firearms, but to get a licenses for carry outside the home, individuals had to show “proper cause” (i.e., a special need for self-protection as distinguished from the general public).
Held: NYC’s law violated the 14th amendment by preventing citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment right keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and no other constitutional right requires a showing of “special need” to exercise it.
Gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.
No distinction in carrying inside or outside the home in the historical tradition. No specific standard with respect to scrutiny anymore– plain text/history and tradition analysis. Left intact prohibited persons and sensitive places.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)
The Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate violated the religious freedom of privately held, for-profit corporations.
The opinion turned on the Court reading the RFRA to include corporations as “individuals,” since a corporation is composed of individuals who use the corporation for their ends.
The Court found the mandate created a substantial burden (i.e., fund what they believe to abortion, which goes against religious beliefs or be fined) on the exercise of religion that was not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government’s interests since exemptions were available for non-profit corporations.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
Facts: Cake baker refused to bake cake for gay couple’s wedding because of his religious objections. CO Human Right’s commission ruled against baker and showed outright hostility to his beliefs during administrative hearings.
Held: The court did not reach the core constitutional questions involved in the Colorado law or Phillips’ refusal. Instead, the Court concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the state’s duty under the first amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.
This point alone required reversal.
United States v. State of Washington (Boldt Decision)
The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government.
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC (2012)
Facts: Teacher filed EEOC complaint against Church and School alleging disability discrimination.
Held: The ministerial exception, which prohibits most employment-related lawsuits against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions, applies to a teacher at a religious elementary school.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020)
Facts: Teacher brought ADEA (Age) Claim against a religious school.
Held: “Ministerial exception” articulated in Hosanna Tabor applied to prevent employment lawsuits brought by religion teachers against catholic schools. There is no bright line test, however, for determining who is a minister.
The key inquiry is what the employee does. Educating young people in their faith, which was the responsibility of the plaintiffs in these two cases, is at the very core of a private religious school’s mission, and as such, Morrissey-Berru and Biel qualify for the exception recognized in Hosanna-Tabor.
Tandon v. Newsom (2021)
Facts: California issued COVID-19 restrictions that applied to at-home religious worship, among other things.
Held: “Government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” Doesn’t matter if other secular activities are also treated poorly.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
Facts: Teacher sues schools district for violating his free exercise and Title VII accommodation rights.
Held: Neither the free exercise clause nor the establishment clause barred a high school football coach from engaging in quiet prayer after a football game at a public school.
For his free exercise claim, Gorsuch explained, there was no dispute that Kennedy’s desire to pray was sincere, and the district’s prohibition on prayer targeted Kennedy’s religious conduct, rather than applying a neutral rule. Court applied strict scrutiny.
And for his free speech claim, Gorsuch continued, Kennedy’s prayers were not part of his duties as a coach. Rather, Gorsuch observed, Kennedy’s prayers occurred “during a period in which the District has acknowledged that its coaching staff was free to engage in all manner of private speech.”
Noted Lemon test for establishment clause claim was “long ago abandoned”– now courts should determine whether a law or practice violates the establishment clause by looking at history and the understanding of the drafters of the Constitution – which the court of appeals failed to do.
Carson v. Makin (2022)
Maine violated the Constitution when it refused to make public funding available for students to attend schools that provide religious instruction. When state and local governments choose to subsidize private schools, they must allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious schools.
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
