Structure of Government: Judicial Power Flashcards
Facts: Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams’s presidency, but these last-minute appointments were never fully finalized.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
- *Issue:** Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
- *Rule:** Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
- *Holding:** (1) Establishes Judicial review - court has authority to declare unconstitutional an act of congress (2) Congress could not expand the scope of the Supreme Courts Original jurisdiction beyond what was specified in article 3 (3) Constitutional limits to power are absolute
Facts: left the land to his nephew, Denny Martin, who was a British subject. The following year, the Virginia legislature voided the original land grant and transferred the land back to Virginia. Virginia granted a portion of this land to David Hunter. The Jay Treaty seemed to make clear that Lord Fairfax was entitled to the property. The Supreme Court declared that Fairfax was so entitled, but the Virginia courts, where the suit arose, refused to follow the Supreme Court’s decision
_Martin v. Hunters Lessee (1816)
Issue:_Does the appellate power of the Supreme Court extend to the Virginia courts?
Rule: US Const. Art. 3
Holding: The Court rejected the claim that Virginia and the national government were equal sovereigns. Reasoning from the Constitution, Justice Story affirmed the Court’s power to override state courts to secure a uniform system of law and to fulfill the mandate of the Supremacy Clause. Supremacy clause court has judicial review over state supreme courts
Facts: In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
_McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Issue:_ Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Rule: US Const. Art 1, Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18
Holding: Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. while the states retained the power of taxation, “the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.”
Facts: On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The “Term Limitation Amendment,” provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the US House of Representatives or two or more terms in US Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas.
_U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)
Issue:_ Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Rule: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1
Holding: No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a ‘more perfect Union.’ States have no powers respecting the federal government unless the constitution expressly delegates them
Facts: William McCardle was arrested by federal authorities for writing and publishing a series of editorials. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were unconstitutional. McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court under an 1867 congressional statute that conferred jurisdiction on appeal to the High Court. After hearing arguments in the case, but prior to announcing a decision, the Congress withdrew its 1867 act conferring jurisdiction.
_Ex parte McCurdle (1868)
Issue:_May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction has been given?
Rule: Article 3 section 2
Holding: congress can contract the supreme courts appellate jurisdiction - with relation to specific laws or possibly even specific issues. But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction “does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised.”
Facts: An Act of Congress in 1902 alloted land to Cherokee Indians, including David Muskrat and Henry Dick. Congress passed acts in 1904 and 1906 that limited the rights that Indians on the land could exercise over it. Some Cherokees already on the land contended that this act had the potential to unconstitutionally deprive them of their property. Congress passed an act in 1907 granting federal courts the jurisdiction to hear cases from Indians contesting the constitutionality of the 1904 and 1906 acts. Under this act, Muskrat and Dick filed suit in the Court of Claims and appealed to the Supreme Court.
_Muskrat v. United States (1910)
Issue:_ Can Congress authorize matters for judicial review that are not “cases” or “controversies”?
Rule: Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1
Holding: No. The Court ruled that Congress could not create jurisdiction for judicial review of a specific matter by way of legislation. Must be a case or controversy. The Constitution granted the judiciary the power to decide “cases” and “controversies,” but did not grant a “general veto power…upon the legislation of Congress.”
Facts:
Rescue Army
Facts: In 1921, Congress enacted The Maternity Act. The Act provided grants to states that agreed to establish programs aimed at protecting the health and welfare of infants and mothers. Frothingham brought suit as a Massashusetts taxpayer, claiming the Act would result in “taxation for illegal purposes.” This case was decided together with Frothingham v. Mellon.
_Massachusetts v. Mellon (1922)
Issue:_ Did the expenditure of funds under the Maternity Act of 1921 violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Rule: Standing
Holding: Matter of public concern. Standing is based on (1) injury (2) taceability (3) redressability. Without an actual injury 1) state does not have standing against he federal government 2) a state does not have standing on behalf of its citizens 3) tax payer do not have standing based solely on taxes
Facts: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state’s General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker’s suit detailed how Tennessee’s reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.
_Baker v. Carr (1960)
Issue:_ Did the SC have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
Rule: 14 amendment, section 1
Holding: Yes. Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative apportionment. The factors to determining whether a case presents a political question are:
(1) Is there a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (i.e. foreign affairs or executive war powers)? (a)Foreign Relations - often turn on standards that defy judicial application, or involve the exercise of discretion commited to another branch (b)Duration of hostilities - emergency’s nature demands “a prompt and unhesitating obedience”
(2) Is there a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue?
(3) The impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. - make a decision that should be left to congress
(4) The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.
(5) Is there an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
(6) Would attempting to resolve the matter create the possibility of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question?
Facts: In an effort to curb racially discriminatory practices in private schools, the IRS denies tax-exempt status to schools which promote such practices. The Code also prohibits individuals from making tax-deductible donations to private schools which racially discriminate. Inez Wright and others filed a nationwide class action suit arguing that the IRS had not fulfilled its obligations in enforcing these provisions of the Code, and thus, that government was subsidizing and encouraging the expansion of segregated education in private schools. This case was decided together with Reagan v. Wright.
_Allen v. Wright (1983)
Rule:_ Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1
Issue: What is requried for standing? Seperation of powers issue up to executive to enforce.
Holding: No standing. No actual injury on behalf of all black people. If it was an injury were not “fairly traceable to the assertedly unlawful conduct of the IRS.” other alternatives to why it was happening. No redressability even if there were
Facts: DeFunis was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School despite test scores that were higher than some of the minorities admitted. DeFunis then successfully asked a trial court to require the school to admit him. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed, upholding the school’s decision to deny DeFunis admission. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case as DeFunis was entering his final year of school.
_Defunis v. Odegaard (1973)
Issue:_Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review?
Rule: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1
Holding: The case had become moot - He was in his third year and had already been assured he would be allowed to finish his final semester without regard to the outcome.The controversy between parties had thus “clearly ceased to be ‘definite and concrete’ and no longer ‘touch[ed] the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.’”
Facts: Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman’s life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe’s attorney – Sarah Weddington – could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent – Jay Floyd – misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent – Robert Flowers – came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
_Roe v. Wade (1971)
Issue:_ Does the Constitution embrace a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Rule: 14 amendment, section 1
Holding: Upholds the exception to mootness, “capable of repetition but evading review”. The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.
