SCOTUS Cases

Question 1

Marbury v Madison

Answer 1

• 1803
• This ruling saw the supreme court grant itself the power of judicial review over federal issues.
• The court attempted to reverse the appointment of William Marbury as he did not recieve official confirmation from John Adams before Thomas Jefferson became president
• The Judiciary act (1789) meant the court didnt have juristiction in these area, this led to the court declaring the offending part of the act was unconstiutional.
• The power of judicial review is not written in the consitution, the court effectively found this power.

Question 2

Fletcher v Peck

Answer 2

• 1810
• Extended the power of judicial review to state law and not just federal law.
• Georgia state law was unconstitutional under Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the Contract Clause) of the United States Constitution.
• Background of the case not relavent, consitutional signifcance more important.

Question 3

Judicial Review definition

Answer 3

• This is a power of the supreme court to declare legislation and executive actions as unconsitutional.
• The court has ruled 176 Acts of Congress unconsitutional.

Question 4

Gun rights cases (2nd amendment)

Answer 4

District of colombia v Heller (2008)
McDonald v City of Chicago (2010)
New York v Bruen (2022)
Prinz v US (1997) TECHNICALY
US v Lopez 1995

Question 5

District of colombia v Heller

Answer 5

• 2008
• Does the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns, prohibit the registration of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfuctional violate the 2nd amendment?
• 5-4 decision
• The word ‘militia’ should not be confined to those serving in a militia, and is a individual right.
• The above violates the 2nd amendment.

Question 6

McDonald v City of Chicago

Answer 6

• 2010
• 5-4 decision
• The court expanded on the ruling in DC v Heller.
• that found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms”, as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states.

Question 7

n

Answer 7

n

Question 8

Free speech cases (1st amendment)

Answer 8

Morse v Frederick (2007)
Snyder v Phelps (2011)
Tinker v Des Moines independant community school (1969)

Question 9

Morse v Frederick

Answer 9

• 2007
• Joseph Frederick was a 18 year old student when he unveiled a paper sign reading ‘BONG HITS 4 JESUS’ outside his Alaskan high school during the 2002 winter olympics torch relay.
• He was suspended on grounds of anti-drug policy.
• 6-3 decision
• The first Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at or across the street from a school-supervised event.
• ‘School speech’

Question 10

Snyder v Phelps

Answer 10

• 2011
• Family of deceased marine Lance Cpl filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro baptist church. The family accused the curch of defamation and envasion of privacy.
• ‘Thank god for dead soldiers’ and ‘fag troops’ were desplayed at Snyders funeral.
• 9-1 decision
• The first amendment ruled that speech on a matter of public concerns, on a public street, causing emotional distress is protected even if interpreted as ‘offensive’ or ‘outrageous’.

Question 11

Tinker v Des Moines independant community school

Answer 11

• 1969
• Group of students in Des Moines decided to wear balck armbands showing their support of a truce in Vietnam.
• They were sent home and suspended by Des Moins school.
• 7-2 decision
• The prohobition against wearing of armbands in public schools, as a form of protest, violates the freedom of speech protections garunteed by the first amendment.
  -School officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school.

Question 12

Freedom of religion (1st amendment)

Answer 12

Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002)
Town of Greece v Galloway (2014)
Burwell v Hobby Lobby stores inc. (2014)
Sante Fe independant school district v Doe (2000)
Masterpiece Bakery v Colorado Civil rights commission (2018)

Question 13

Zelman v Simmons-Harris

Answer 13

• 2002
• The court upheld a programme in Ohio giving financial aid to parents to allow them to send their children to religious or private schools.
• 5-4 decision
• The ‘School voucher’ programe did not violate the esablishment clause.

Question 14

Establishment Clause

Answer 14

The Establishment Clause guarantees freedom of religion and strictly prohibits the government from passing any legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another; it thus enforces the “separation of church and state.”

Question 15

Burwell v Hobby Lobby stores Inc.

Answer 15

• 2014
• Hobby Lobby a chain of arts and crafts stores, believed that certain methods of contraception included in the health insurance coverage were against their religious principles.
• 5-4 decision
• ACA 2010 violated the Religious Freedom Resoration Act of 1993. This act was declared as consitutional under the 1st amendment in 2006.
• The provision that family-owned corporations pay for health insurance coverage for contraception violated the RFRA.
• Corporations are ‘people’ and have the same consitutional rights as individuals.

Question 16

Campaign finance (1st amendment)

Answer 16

Citizens United v Federal election commission (2010)
District McConnell v Federal election commission (2004)
McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission (2014)

Question 17

Citizens United v Federal election commission

Answer 17

• 2010
• Conservative non-profit organisation, Citizens United, sought to air a film critical of candidate Hillary CLinton shorty before the 2008 Democratic Primaries.
• The supreme court struck down provisions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign reform.
• 5-4 decision
• Overturned District McConnell v Federal election commission 2004.
• Free speech clause of the 1st amendment prohibits the government from restricting independant expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including non-profit corporations and labour unions.

Question 18

District McConnell v Federal election commission

Answer 18

• 2004
• Upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
• Doesnt violate the 1st amendment, restricting on free speech is minimal and was justified becasue of the govt. legitimate interest in preventing the corruption of large financial contributions.

Question 19

Bipartisan Campaign reform act 2002

Answer 19

Regulates the financing of political campaigns
- The prohibitation of issue advocacy ads, by defining broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election as “electioneering communications”.
- Prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits

Question 20

McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission

Answer 20

• 2014
• The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to all national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.

Question 21

t

Answer 21

t

Question 22

Abortion cases

Answer 22

Roe v Wade (1973)
Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
Dobbes v Jackson Womens Health Organization (2022)
Whole Womans Health v Hellerstedt (2016)

Question 23

Roe v Wade

Answer 23

• 1973
• 7-2 decision
• Landmark decision in which the court ruled that the consitution of the United States protects a pregnant womans liberty to choose to have a abortion.
• Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment provides a ‘right to privacy’ that protects a pregnant womens rights to choose whether to have a abortion.

Question 24

Due Process Clause

Answer 24

Found in the 14th amendment of the constitution, prohibiting the deprivation of ‘life, liberty or property’ by the federal and state governments, without the due process of law.

Question 25

Planned Parenthood v Casey

Answer 25

• 1992
• 5-4 decision
• The court upheld the right to have a abortion as established by the ‘essential holding’ of Roe v Wade.
• The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden”.

Question 26

Dobbes v Jackson Womens Health Organization (2022)

Answer 26

• Landmark decision of the US supreme constitution does not confer the right to a abortion.
• Overuled previous precedant of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.
• The consitution does not confer a right to abortion, it is not a essential component of ‘liberty’.
• Therefore as it is not explicitly a constitutional right, individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion under the 10th amendment.

Question 27

Whole Womans Health v Hellerstedt

Answer 27

• 2016
• 5-3 decision
• Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create undue burden for women seeking an abortion.

Question 28

LGBTQ+ rights

Answer 28

Lawrence v Texas (2003)
US v Windsor (2013)
Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Masterpiece Bakery v Colorado Civil rights commission (2018)
Bostock v Clayton County (2020)

Question 29

Lawrence v Texas

Answer 29

• 2003
• The supreme court struck down a Texas Sodomy Law in a 6-3 decision.
• By extension he invalidated Sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual acitivty legal in every US state.
• Violates the ‘due process claue’ of the 14th amendment, right to liberty gives them full right to engage in their conduct without intervention from the government.

Question 30

US v Windsor

Answer 30

• 2013
• Landmark decision concerning same-sex marriage.
• The court held that section 3 of the Defense against marriage act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sexmarriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause under the 5th Amendment.

Question 31

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Answer 31

-1996
- It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

Question 32

Obergefell v Hodges

Answer 32

• 2015
• 5-4 decision
• RUled that the fundemental right to marry is guaranteed to same sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
• Required all 50 states to perform and recognise marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions of opposite-sex couples.

Question 33

Equal Protection Clause

Answer 33

Part of the 14th amendment, ‘nor shall any state deny to any person within its juristiction the equal protection of the laws’
- It mandates that individuals in similiar situations be treated equally by law.

Question 34

Masterpiece Bakery v Colorado Civil rights commission

Answer 34

• 2018
• Masterpiece cakeshop in Colarado refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on religious beliefs.
• 7-2 decision
• The court ruled in favour of the free exercise clause, in the 1st amendment. The states anti discrimination law didnt allow the baker ‘free exercise of religion’ under the Free Exercise Clause.
• Sided with freedom of religion but against LGBTQ rights.

Question 35

Bostock v Clayton County

Answer 35

• 2020
• 6-3 decision
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Question 36

Immigration reform

Answer 36

Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California (2020)
Kansas v Garcia (2020)
Korematsu v US (1974)
Texas v US (2016)
Trump v Hawaii (2018)

Question 37

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Answer 37

• 1946
• Governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations and it grants U.S. federal courts oversight over all agency actions.

Question 38

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Answer 38

• Executive Branch Memorandum 2012 by Obama
• United States immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S.

Question 39

Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California

Answer 39

• 2020
• The US Department of Homeland Security order to rescind DACA immigration program was ‘arbitrary and capricious’ under the Administrative Procedure Act and the order was reversed by the court.
• 5-4 decision
• It was not a dicision on whether DACA was a ‘sound’ policy, but it did not provide reasonable explanation for its actions.

Question 40

Healthcare cases

Answer 40

NFIB v Sebelius 2012

Question 41

Kansas v Garcia

Answer 41

• 2020
• 5-4 decision
• The case concerned whether it was lawful for a State to enforce laws criminalizing the making of fraudulent representations by aliens who were not authorized to work in connection with obtaining a job; the Court held that it was.

Question 42

NFIB v Sebelius

Answer 42

• 2012
• Landmark decision in which the Court enacted most provisions of the ACA including a requirment for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance.
• 5-4 decision
• The mandate to recieve health insurance was consitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause (grants the federal government the power of taxation).

Question 43

ACA (Obamacare)

Answer 43

• Affordable Care Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2010. It was a significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage.
• The act contains provisions such as a requirment for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance.

Question 44

Commerce Clause

Answer 44

• Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
• United States Congress shall have power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.

Question 45

Executive Power Cases

Answer 45

Korematsu v US (1974)
Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004)
Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006)
Boumediene v Bush (2008)
NRLB v Canning (2014)
Texas v US (2016)
Trump v Hawaii (2018)
Trump v Vance (2020)
Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California (2020)
US v Nixon (1974)

Question 46

Korematsu v US

Answer 46

• 1944
• Landmark decision by SCOTUS to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military area during World War 2. In the aftermath of the Japanese attack on pearl harbour.
• President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 in 1942, authorizing the U.S. War Department to create military areas from which Americans might be excluded. Subsequently, the Western Defense Command, a U.S. Army military command charged with coordinating the defense of the West Coast of the United States, ordered “all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens” to relocate to internment camps.
• The order was challanged on the grounds of the 5th amendment. This was dismissed as he was not excluded because of Race, but because they were at war with Japan and there is a need for security measures.

Question 47

Hamdi v Rumsfeld

Answer 47

• 2004
• American citizen who moved to Afghanistan to be a reliefe worker, he was detained by the US military and was detained and interrogated in Guantanamo Bay.
• 6-3 decision
• The court ruled that the executive branch does not have the power to hold a US citizen indefinitely without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.

Question 48

Hamdan v Rumsfeld

Answer 48

• 2006
• The court held that military comissions ( Established by President Bush to try certain non-citizen terroism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Prison) Bush Administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Conventions ratified by the US.

Question 49

Boumediene v Bush

Answer 49

• 2008
• Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed in response to Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision in 2006.
• The Supreme Court held that Section 7 of the law was unconstitutional because of its restrictions of detainee rights under the Suspension Clause. It determined that detainees had the right to petition federal courts for challenges to the legal recourse of habeas corpus.
• The suspension clause protects liberty by protecting habeas corpus.

Question 50

NLRB v Canning

Answer 50

• 2014
• Pepsi distributer Noel Canning was found violating federal law by the National Labor Relations Board, when he was fired Canning claimed 3 members on the board were invalidly appointed and therefore he could not be prosecuted.
• The Recess appointment clause, article 2, allows the presidents to make appointments when the Senate is in recess, and therefore cannot provide confirmation.
• The question was, was the senate in ‘recess’ under the RAC when Obama appointed these people.
• Hamiltons paper Federalist 67 stated that ‘recess’ is a ‘substantial length’.
• The court unanimously ruled that the President cannot use his authority under the recess Appointment clause of the US consitution to appoint public officials unless the US Senate is in recess.
• Breyer argued the 3 day break is not a signifcant interruption of legislative buisness, and therefore cannot justify exercise of the clause.
• Scalia argued the RAC was only meant to cover breaks between congressional sessions and not breaks between them.

Question 51

Texas v US

Answer 51

• 2016
• US supreme court case regarding the consitutionality of the Obama executive order putting in place the Deferred Action For Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.
• The court was equally divided due to the death of Scalia, and therefore affirmed the lower-court injunction blocking the presidents program.
• The lower courts decided that the program violated the APA, as it was a new law that had not recieved public comment, and ‘arbitrary and capricious.

Question 52

Trump v Hawaii

Answer 52

• 2018
• EO 13780 was signed into Law by Donald Trump in 2017, requiring signficant additional scrutiny on travelers from Yemen, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Sudan before arrival in the US and banned new Visas for these countries for 90 days.
• EO was removed by a US court of appeals as it ‘exceeded the scope of his delegated authority’.
• The two main questions on the consitutionality of the EO were…
• Does the Proclamation violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment.
• Does it violate the Immigration and Nationality Act
• The court ruled that religion wasnt specificaly being targeted in this case ad the policy only covers 8% of the worlds muslim population, therefore doesnt violate the Establishment Clause.
• Language and Text of the Establishment Clause gives the President broad authority when suspending the entry of non-citizens into the country.
• 5-4 decision for Trump

Question 53

Trump v Vance

Answer 53

• 2020
• SCOTUS ruled in a 7-2 decision that Trump must comply with the Subpoena involving the Criminal investigation into the Stormy Daniels Scandal.
• They affirmed that the president is not granted absolute ammunity by Article 2 of the consitution and executive privilige.

Question 54

US v Nixon

Answer 54

• 1974
• Unanimous decision against president Nixon ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other Subpoenad maerials to a federal district court.
• Nixon attempted to argue that he was immune from the subpoena, claiming ‘executive privilage’
• The court ruled that this ‘executive privilage’ nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, can sustain the absolute unqualified, presidential privilage.
• They gave preference to ‘the fundemental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice’

Question 55

Executive Priviege

Answer 55

• The court had previously used Article 2 and Article 1 to argue that executive privilige is a consequence of seperation of powers.
• It is the right to withold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the National interest.

Question 56

Clinton v NY

Answer 56

• 1998
• The Supreme court ruled that the lie-item veto as granted in the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 (giving the president power to veto particular sections of a bill) violated the Presentment Clause of the US consitution.
• 6-3 split
• The Presentment clause gives the president no authority to amend or repeal a bill after it has passed both the House and Senate.
• SCOTUS removed the power of a Line-item veto.

Question 57

Federalism/States Rights

Answer 57

Shelby Counter v Holder (2013)
Printz v US (1997)

Question 58

Shelby County v Holder (2013)

Answer 58

• Landmark decision of the Supreme court of the US regarding the consitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• Importantly section 5, which requires certain states and local governemnts to obtain federal clearence before implementing any changes to the voting laws or practises.
• Section 4b contains coverage formulas that determines juristictions are subject to preclearance based on histories of discrimination.
• The court ruled by a 5-4 decision that section 4b was unconstitutional because the data was outdated and therefore placed a burden on the consitutional principle of federalism and equal sovreignity of the states.
• This renders section 5 inoperable unless congress makes new coverage formulas.

Question 59

Printz v US

Answer 59

• 1997
• The Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• Mandated federal background checks on firearms

Question 60

Current composition and balance of the supreme court

Answer 60

John Roberts - Bush 2005
Clarence Thomas - Bush senior 1991
Samuel Alito - Bush 2006
Sotomayor - Obama 2009
Elena Kagan - Obama 2010
Neil Gorsuch - Trump 2017
Brett Kavanugh - Trump 2018
Amy coney barrett - Trump 2020
Ketanji Brown Jackson - Biden 2022

Question 61

Judicial activism

Answer 61

Sees the court as equal to the other branches and aims to make change in society
- Tend to be accociated with loose and strict constructionists.
ACCORDING to Van Geel 2008 it can be understood as a attitude like ‘im in charge, and i will seek to be a player equal to the other branches in shaping policy.

ESSAY E.G
Brown v Board 1954 (outlawed racial segregation in public schools)
Roe v Wade 1973
Obergefell v Hodges 2015

ACTIVISM CAN ALSO BE CONSERVATIVE
Bush v Gore (2000)
Citizens United v FEC (2010)
DC v Heller (2008)

Question 62

Judicial restraint

Answer 62

Describes the court as more inclined to accept the views and actions of elected officals. Hesitant to strike down laws that are not obviously unconstitutional. More inclined to agree with what has gone before them and leave things as they are.

• Judges do not have authority to act as policy markers and ‘legislate from the bench’.
• Deferential to legislative and executive, no mandate, no voters.

ESSAY E.G
- Liberal judicial restraint, Whole Womens Health v Hellerstedt 2016, defence of Roe v Wade.
- Continuous defence of the 8th amendment and execution/death penalty.
Bucklew v Precythe 2019
Glossip v Gross 2016
Baze v Rees 2008

Question 63

Bucklew v Precythe

Answer 63

• 2019
• Ruled prisoners should be executed
• Gorsurch wrote majority opinion that whilst 8th amendment forbids ‘cruel and unusual’ methods of capital punishment, it does not garantee a prisoner a painless death.
• In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that when a convict sentenced to death challenges the State’s method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the convict must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one.

Question 64

Glossip v Gloss

Answer 64

• 2015
• Allows continue use of lethal injection, responsibility of the prisoner to demonstrate that the method caused severe pain and not responsibilty of the state.
  Therefore they must provide a alternative method.

Question 65

Criticisms of judicial restraint

Answer 65

• Narrow focus on the orginal text alone limits the meaning and interpretations of a document written well over two centuries ago.
• Orginial meaning is often unclear E.G does the right to bear arms only in reference to belonging to a state militia?
• Some supporters of judicial restraint such as Thomas was happy to create new rights in regard to Citizens v FEC 2010.

Question 66

Criticisms of judicial activism

Answer 66

• Allowing justices too much leeway in their interpretations effectively makes them law makers
• Reflects the justices personal views on what the constitution should look like.
• Activism involves extending rights into areas completely unconsidered by the founding fathers such as aboriton and LGBTQ rights. Such issues should be decided in congress.
• It is the road to progressive reform that would not happen otherwise.

Question 67

Strict constructionists

Answer 67

• Inerpret the consitution in a literal way, thye look at the original intent.
• ORGININALISTS
• Focus on the text of the constituion.
• Principles are fixed and not evolving.
• Conservative, stressing as much state power as possible.

Question 68

Loose constructionists

Answer 68

• Interpret the constitution in a liberal or losse way.
• Living constituion, contemporary views should be taken into account when interpreting the constitution.
• Context, language is only a starting point.
• Greater equality, rights, less power for states and more federal.

Question 69

Textualism

Answer 69

Interpretation that focuses on the plain meanng of a legal document.

Question 70

Original meaning

Answer 70

They consider the meaning of the document as understood at the time of founding, not just looking soley at the text.

Question 71

Pragamtism

Answer 71

Weighing or balancing the probable and practical consequences of one interpretation of the consitution against another.
Weighing up the future costs and benefits for society.

Question 72

NYC V Bruen

Answer 72

• 2022
• A New York State law requiring applicants for a license to carry a concealed pistol on their person to show “proper cause”, or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application is unconsitiutional.

Question 73

Roper v Simmons 2005

Answer 73

2005
This was a landmark decision that held it was uncostitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. This is because of the 8th amendment protection of cruel unsual punishement.

Question 74

Atkins v Virginia

Answer 74

2002
The court ruled that the execution of mentally retarded criminals infringed on the 8th amendment but it did not state what contributed to mental retardation.

Question 75

Affirmative action cases

Answer 75

Grutter v Bollinger 2003
Fischer v Texas 2013 and 2016

Question 76

Grutter v Bollinger

Answer 76

2003
This was a landmark concerning affirmative action in student admissions, the court held that a student admissions process that favours ‘unrepresented minority groups’ does not violate the 14th amendment of equal protection clause.

This is because the Uni of michigan law school uses a more ‘individualised’ approach then Gratz v Bollinger.

Question 77

Fisher v university of texas

Answer 77

2013 and 2016

In 2013 SCOTUS ruled in favour of the university of texas, holding the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter v Bollinger 2003 to its admissions program.

This is a SCOTUS case that rule the university of Texas undergraduate emissions policy suruved strcit scrutiny, and upheld the universities race-conscious admissions policy.

Question 78

Allen v Milligan

Answer 78

2023
The Supreme court issued a 5-4 ruling in favour of black voters in a congressional redistricting case, ordering the creation of a second district with a large black population.

There was a violation of the Voting Rights Act 1965 in a Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven congressional districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black.

Question 79

Gratz v Bollinger

Answer 79

2003
The court ruled that the university of michigans affirmative action based admissions programme for undergraduate students was uncositutional because it was to ‘mechanistic’.

A points system that awarded 20 points to unrepresented minorities was unconsitutional as it means diversity contributions from applicants cannot be individualy assessed.

Question 80

Parents involved in community schools v Seattle school district

Answer 80

2007
It is unconstitutional to assign students to public schools solely for the purpose of achieving racial balance.

Question 81

Gonzales v Raich

Answer 81

2005
The court ruled that under the commerce clause of the US constitution congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

Californian law allowed for homegrown medical marihuana, but federal law did not, the court ruled that the federal law superceded state law as it was within the powers given by them through the commerce clause.

Controlled substances act was upheld.

Question 82

US v Lopez

Answer 82

1997
The Gun-free school zones act 1990 banned the possession of handguns within 1,000 feet of a school.

However the US supreme court that ruled that ‘commerce’ means the federal government cannot enforce the regulation of handguns in this case as it is not a economic activity and outside the scope of the commerce clause.

Question 83

Baze v Rees 2008

Answer 83

Here the court decided that lethal injection, the method used by the federal government and 35 states to execute criminals did not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.

Question 84

Death penalty cases

Answer 84

Bucklew v Precythe 2019
Glossip v Gross 2016
Baze v Rees 2008

Question 85

Trump V Sierra Club 2019

Answer 85

Judge Gilliam issued a preliminary injunction in the Sierra Club case on May 24, 2019, blocking the use of the targeted funds for border wall construction.

Gilliam asserted that the re-appropriation of funds by Trump violated the separation of powers. Gilliam also stated that Trump’s claim of being able to reallocate funds under the National Emergency Act for “unforeseen” events was belied since he had been asking for funding since 2018.

Appropriations clause

The administration petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the injunction, and in a 5–4 ruling issued July 26, 2019, put a stay on the injunction as litigation continued, on the basis that the plaintiffs in the case may not have standing to challenge Trump’s order.

The stay allowed the spending to continue, however biden abadoned the National emergency that Trump ordered and promised not to use funds to build a wall, the case ended in 2021.