Structure of Government: Judicial Power Flashcards
Madison v. Marbury
Facts: Marbury, an end-of-term appointee of Adams to a justice of the peace position in DC, brought suit against Jefferson’s Secretary of State, Madison, seeking delivery of his commission.
Holding: SC has constitutional authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. SC has limited jurisdiction, the bounds of which are set by the Constitution, which may not be enlarged by the Congress.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Facts: Virginia granted the same tract of land to Hunter that a federal treaty give to Martin. The SC declared that Martin was so entitled, but the Virginia Court of Appeals, to which the case was remanded, refused to carryout the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Holding: The Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.
McCullogh v. Maryland
Facts: Maryland enacted a tax that would force the United States Bank in Maryland to pay taxes to the state. McCulloch, a cashier for the Baltimore, Maryland Bank, was sued for not complying with the Maryland state tax.
Holding: Congress may enact laws that are necessary and proper to carry out their enumerated powers. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and state laws cannot interfere with federal laws enacted within the scope of the Constitution.
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton Commerce Clause
Facts: The Arkansas State Constitution contained an amendment limiting the number of terms federal Congressional and Senatorial candidates from Arkansas could serve. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the amendment was unconstitutional.
Holding: Affirmed. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution does not reserve rights for the States that were not within the original powers of the States.
Ex Parte McCurdle
Facts: McCardle, a newspaper editor arrested for writing articles critical of Reconstruction, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. McCardle argued the Military Reconstruction Act and his prosecution were unconstitutional.
Holding: Congress, by repealing the SC’s appellate review of writs of habeas corpus, effectively took jurisdiction over McCardle’s case away from the SC.
Court validated congress’ withdrawal of the jurisdiction it had previously given to the court, due to Exceptions Clause Art. III, sect. 2.
Muskrat v. United States
Facts: A 1902 Act alloted land to Cherokee Indians. 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 SC.
Holding: The Court ruled that Congress could not create jurisdiction for judicial review of a specific matter by way of legislation.
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court
Facts: Appellants challenged statute regarding solicitations for charity, arguing trial court should not have jurisdiction as it deprived them of religious freedoms.
Holding: Constitutional issues affecting legislation will not be determined in friendly, non-adversary proceedings, limits judicial review by establishing prudential considerations governing the Court’s willingness or unwillingness to exercise jurisdiction.
Massachusetts v. Mellon
Facts: In 1921, Congress enacted The Maternity Act, providing grants to states that agreed to establish programs aimed at protecting the health and welfare of infants and mothers. Brought suit as a Massashusetts taxpayer, claiming the Act would result in “taxation for illegal purposes.”
Holding: Court held that the administration of federal statutes “likely to produce addition taxation to be imposed upon a vast number of taxpayers” was essentially a matter of public and not of individual concern. The Court emphasized that it had no power to review or annul acts of Congress without showing that an individual had sustained or was in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute.
Baker v. Carr
Facts: Appellants brought suit, challenging malapportionment of state legislatures under the EP Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Holding: An apportionment case may be reviewed on 14th Amendment grounds, so long as these grounds are independent from political question elements.
Allen v. Wright
Facts: Parents of black public school children brought suit against the IRS, alleging that insufficient denial of tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools interferes with their children’s ability to receive an education in public schools.
Holding: Article III standing requires that a plaintiff allege a harm directly traceable to specific action on the part of the defendant.
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Facts: DeFunis applied for admission as a first-year student at the UW Law School, a state-operated institution. When he was denied admission, he brought suit in a Washington trial court claiming that the admissions committee procedures were racially discriminatory.
Holding: In federal cases before the SC, there must be an actual case and controversy which exists at the stages of appellate or certiorari review, and not simply at the date the action is initiated.
Roe v. Wade
Facts: Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all woman similarly situated in an effort to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother.
Holding: Statutes that make criminal all abortions except when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the mother are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
