SUPREME COURT

Question 1

marbury v madison 1803 and fletcher v peck 1810

Answer 1

marbury v madison: established the given right to the judiciary to have the power of judicial review

fletcher v peck: supreme court ruled state law to be unconstitutional - again, upholding the idea of judicial review

Question 2

dobbs v jackson
*was it activist or restraint

Answer 2

2022
claimed the constitution does not confer the right to an abortion and gave states a right to monitor abortion
- jackson claimed the prevention of abortions after 15 weeks violates the due process clause
- 5-4 majority which limited abortion rights

activist example:
- departed from 50 years worth of precedent
- activist despite a conservative court

Question 3

griswold v connecticut
*was it activist or restraint

Answer 3

1965
- established the right to privacy, thereby alluding to giving women abortion rights
- struck down law in connecticut which banned the sale of contraceptive devices
- protected marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception
- 7-2 decision in favour of Griswold and finding a right to privacy

activist example:
- found the right to an abortion in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th amendment

Question 4

masterpiece cake shop v colorado civil rights commission
*was it activist or restraint

Answer 4

2018
claimed that religious and philosophical objections are also protected under the first amendment, because they are also forms of expression
- 7-2 decision (Kagan agreed with many conservative judges, despite 2 other liberal judges disagreeing)

activist ruling:
- activist in its interpretation
- restraint in that it clearly set out that it did not establish a precedent

Question 5

DC v Heller
*was it activist or restraint

Answer 5

2008
the ban on handguns and their requirement to keep them away violated the second amendment
- claimed that the second amendment could not only be applied to the military
- 5-4 decision in favour of conservative judges

Question 6

obergefell v hodges
*was it activist or restraint

Answer 6

2015
- upheld the right to having a same sex marriage
- 5-4 decision in favour of liberal judges
- states would be required to provide marriage licenses to same sex couples

*6th circuit banned same sex marriage which contradicted other courts - SC provided clarity

Question 7

georgia v randolph

Answer 7

2006
authorities have no constitutional right to search a house when one resident consents to the search and the other resident objects
5-3 decision - more liberal judges won

*judicial restraint
- relied on 3 sets of precedents: including matlock, rodriguez and olson cases to make an informed decision

Question 8

rucho v common cause

Answer 8

2019
5-4 decision in favour of conservative judges
- claimed that partisan gerrymandering was beyond the authority of federal courts to decide, and that it is a power which state legislatures should decide
- courts claimed they can rule on racial gerrymandering

*upholds state rights

Question 9

roe v wade

Answer 9

1973
- upheld that it is a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy and obtain an abortion
- this is supported by the due process clause of the 14th amendment which upholds a right to privacy
- court ruled that making an abortion illegal except for if it endangered a mother’s life was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment
- limitations violated the due process clause
- 7-2 decision in favour of Roe

*activist ruling - added to the idea of “politicians in robes”
- setting new precedent, and the supreme court was legislating on the ideas of abortion
- this precedent only exists by a loose constructionist view and by elastic interpretations, because it is not explicitly said in the constitution

Question 10

NFIB v Sebelius

Answer 10

2012
- forced people to buy health insurance and imposed the individual mandate

• arguements about the fact that the tax was creating commerce, not regulating it, and therefore the case succeeded and was justified under the tax and spending clause
• the case would force states to spend on Medicaid, or they would lose federal grants
• claimed medicaid expansions were constitutionally coercive
• court upheld that medicaid expansion was unconstitutional

Question 11

US v texas

Answer 11

2023
- 8-1 decision
- claimed that Texas and Louisiana lack the article III standing to challenge immigration, because no harm / damage has been done

Question 12

planned parenthood v casey

Answer 12

1992
5-4 decision
- upheld the precedent established in Roe
- established the concept of an “undue burden” on states, and if regulations on abortion would constitute an “undue burden”
- discussed the husband notification requirement, which failed the undue burden test

Question 13

citizens united v FEC

Answer 13

2010
5-4 decision
- claimed that corporates apply and are categorised under the 1st amendment, and are therefore entitled to free speech
- money was recognised as free speech
- overturned parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (which were bipartisan)
*was under key ideological lines - voted in a way which favoured conservatives

*acting in an activist manner
- overturned some precedents and statements from mcconnel v FEC and austin v michigan chamber of commerce
- going against laws passed by the legislature

Question 14

speechnow.org v FEC

Answer 14

2010
- also led to the establishment of SUPERPACS, which gave unrestricted influence to political and financial bodies attempting to influence elections

Question 15

burwell v hobby lobby

Answer 15

2014
5-4 decision - again under purely ideological lines
- allowed for the removal of contraception access under obamacare packages of businesses which are established for religious purposes
- deny employees contraceptive access on the basis of the religious views of the owner

Question 16

mcconnel v FEC

Answer 16

2003
- upheld the constitutionality of the bipartisan campaign reform act and the 1st amendment limitations placed on businesses and corporations
- ruled that limitations placed on campaign advertisements and contributions don’t violate the first amendment right to free speech

*acting in a restraint manner
- not going beyond its powers, supporting the legislature and checking its laws for constitutionality - do not overturn

Question 17

shelby county v holder

Answer 17

2013
5-4 decision in favour of conservative judges
- claimed section 4 of the VRA is unconstitutional, thereby removing prclearance requirements for states with an engrained history of racial discrimination and disenfranchisement
- claimed that section 4 imposed burdens on states with this history, which were outdated

*activist
- going against the advice of the legislature

Question 18

mcdonnel v fraser

Answer 18

• upheld DC v Heller ruling by extending DC v Heller to state law (acting in a legislative manner)

Question 19

students for fair admissions v harvard

Answer 19

2023
6-2 decision (jackson could not vote)
- claimed harvard’s admissions process and quotas violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment
- the court supported that the students for fair admissions organisation had standing, given injury had been caused to their admissions process
- overturned fisher v texas

Question 20

fisher v texas

Answer 20

2016
7-1 decision
- upheld affirmative actions programmes and the use / consideration of race in admissions programmes
- university admissions must be reviewed under a strict standard of scrutiny to see if they serve in government interest
- only if they serve in government interest can race be used as a considering factor in admissions programmes

Question 21

bush v gore

Answer 21

2000
7-2 opinion - in favour of conservative judges
- the florida supreme court’s scheme for recounting ballots is unconstitutional because standards were different from ballot to ballot
- acting in political favour of Bush, Bush urged the supreme court to halt the counting because it could damage legitimacy
- The court ruled that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause due to inconsistent vote-counting standards.

*acting in a restrained manner
- did not want to establish precedent

Question 22

glossip v gross

Answer 22

2015
5-4 decision in favour of conservative judges
- the use of midazolam in injections for the death penalty do not violate the 8th amendment against cruel and unusual punishment
- claimed the 8th amendment does not require a constitutional method of execution to be free of any risk of pain

Question 23

baze v rees

Answer 23

2008
7-2 decision in favour of conservative judges
- the lethal injection scheme of Kentucky did not violate the 8th amendment for cruel and unusual punishment
- however, a state may violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment if it continues to use cruel methods of the death penalty, despite numerous and alternative procedures avaliable

Question 24

gonzales v carhart

Answer 24

2007
5-4 decision
- ruled that the ban on partial birth abortion was not unconstitutionally vague, and did not impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion
- the partial-birth abortion ban act is not an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty protected by the 5th amendment

Question 25

gonzales v raich

Answer 25

2005 (don't put in a robert's court essay) 6-3 opinion - commerce clause gave congress the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite conflicting state law - claimed the commerce clause gave congress strict power to regulate this *9th circuit ruled she could grow marijuana for personal consumption, but the supreme court placed a federal ban on marijuana

Question 26

new york rifle and pistol association v bruen

Answer 26

2022 6-3 decision favouring conservative judges - the proper cause requirement of new york violates the 14th amendment, and prevents citizens from exercising their second amendment rights in public for self defence - needed to show that to carry a rifle, your need for self defence was greater than the public good

Question 27

list all the relevant cases on abortion

Answer 27

- roe v wade 1973 - planned parenthood v casey 1992 - griswold v connecticut 1965 - gonzales v carhart 2007 - dobbs v jackson 2022

Question 28

list all the relevant cases on healthcare

Answer 28

- NFIB v sebelius 2012

Question 29

list all the relevant cases on states rights

Answer 29

- arizona v US - 2012 (the court struck down arizona immigration law, ruling that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility) - printz v united states 1997 - shelby county v holder 2013 (preserve federalism) - gonzales v Oregon 2006 (federal government cannot interfere with physician assisted suicide)

Question 30

list all the relevant cases on gun rights

Answer 30

- DC v Heller 2008 - mcconnel v fraser - mcdonald v chicago 2010 - new york rifle and pistol association v bruen 2022

Question 31

list all the relevant cases on civil rights

Answer 31

- shelby county v holder 2013 - rucho v common cause 2019 - obergefell v hodges 2015

Question 32

list all the relevant cases on individual rights

Answer 32

- masterpiece cake shop v colorado civil rights commission - snyder v phelps 2010 - obergefell v hodges 2015

Question 33

list all the relevant cases on elections

Answer 33

- mcconnel v FEC 2003 - citizens united v FEC 2010 - speechnow.org. v FEC 2010 - bush v gore 2000

Question 34

list all the relevant cases on affirmative action

Answer 34

- regents of the university of california v bakke 1977 - students for fair admissions v harvard 2023 - fisher v texas 2013 + 2010 - gratz v bollinger

Question 35

list all the relevant cases on religious freedom

Answer 35

- burwell v hobby lobby 2015 - kennedy v bremerton school - masterpiece cake stop v colorado civil rights commission

Question 36

list all the relevant cases on executive power

Answer 36

- Trump v United States 2024 - Clinton v Jones 1997 - Trump v Hawaii 2018 - NFIB v OSHA 2022

Question 37

printz v US

Answer 37

1997 5-4 decision in favour of conservative judges - the federal government cannot force states to implement any federal programmes on background checks and gun purchases *acting with restraint - reliant on precedent to establish this decision that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction

Question 38

trump v United States (immunity)

Answer 38

2024 6-3 conservative decision - presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president - court refused to rule on the scope of immunity for some acts

Question 39

mcdonald v chicago

Answer 39

2010 5-4 decision in favour of conservative judges - the individual right to bear arms under the second amendment (for the purpose of self defence) is also incorporated into the 14th amendment, and can be enforced against states

Question 40

snyder v phelps

Answer 40

2010 8-1 decision - the first amendment shields people who have staged a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability

Question 41

trump v hawaii

Answer 41

5-4 decision 2018 - ruled on the travel ban of trump, limiting people from the majority of muslim countries from entering the US - the court ruled in favour of trump, claiming that the president has power over immigration and national security, and they are immune from judicial control - claimed the executive order is lawful and does not violate the Establishment Cause *acting with restraint

Question 42

US v morrison

Answer 42

2000 5-4 decision favouring more conservative judges - congress lack the authority to enact statute under the commerce clause and 14th amendment, because the statute does not regulate interstate commerce

Question 43

clinton v jones

Answer 43

UNANIMOUS DECISION 1997 - a sitting president is not entitled to absolute immunity for matters and events which transpired previous to his time in office - constitution does not grant a sitting president immunity from civil litigation, unless under unusual circumstances

Question 44

hamdan v rumsfeld

Answer 44

- declared that the bush torture programme was unconstitutional - 5-3 decision that the torture programme was undermining the Geneva Convention - 2006 (also look at boumedine v bush 2008)

Question 45

national labour relations board v noel canning

Answer 45

2014 UNANIMOUS DECISION*** - appointments by obama to the national labour relations board were unconstitutional, because the appointments lacked senate confirmation (because the senate was in recess) - when the senate is in recess, the president cannot unilaterally declare it to be

Question 46

what is the current composition of the supreme court, and how does this impact the decisions made by the court

Answer 46

liberal justices: - kagan - jackson - sotomayor conservative justices: - kavanaugh - roberts - thomas - barrett - alito - gorsuch ideological balance: - polarizing and gridlock stance, giving more power to an individual swing justice (ie kavanaugh and roberts) - such tension in ideological stances means the court is very binary and divided, and recently lacks unity over key decisions - it means a swing justice now makes a more pivotal vote, and is NOT the median justice - the ideological upset means that the court will be an 'ECHO CHAMBER' of presidential demands

Question 47

importance of the swing justice

Answer 47

- the swing justice reinforces just how divided the court is, because there is obviously no unanimous opinion - gives them unprecedented weighting in making federal decisions, based on one justice - 50% of judges dislike a policy, but the vote of one judge forces it through - displays there is no large margin and majority on either side (ideologically)

Question 48

describe the factors a president may take into account when nominating a justice to the supreme court (give examples for each of the 5 factors being taken into account)

Answer 48

1. judicial philosophy - how likely are they to pursue what you want them to 2. experience - jackson -- served at all 3 levels of the judiciary (district, circuit, federal) - jackson had more combined experience than barrett, kagan, thomas (when he was appointed) and roberts - jackson has more trial experience than any sitting supreme court justice 3. ideological stance - ie trump appointed barrett, gorsuch and kavanaugh to overturn roe - trump only nominated justices from the lists drawn up by the heritage foundation and federalist society - est pattern of ruling + consistency 4. demographic (age, ethnicity, gender) - ie jackson by biden - young (stay on court for longer), would contrast the gender balance of the court etc - promote consistency - are they descriptively representative 5. how likely is the senate to approve them - ie merrick garland - was nominated on the basis that it would be easy for him to be nominated (this didn't happen) - ie jackson - even republican senators such as murkowski and collins supported her appointment due to her judicial experience

Question 49

strengths of the nomination process to the supreme court

Answer 49

1. check by legislature - appointments must go through a senate hearing to test their experience and capabilities - this allows the senate to understand individual judicial philosophies

Question 50

weaknesses of the nomination process to the supreme court

Answer 50

1. politicisation - politicisation distracts from scandals (ie thomas and anita hill) - barett + gorsuch only appointed to overturn roe

Question 51

define stare decisis

Answer 51

a foundational concept which is the principle that courts adhere to previous judgements and use precedent to inform their decisions - the importance of this is to achieve judicial consistency and act as a check on the court - it means that ideological balance should not majorly influence decisions, it should be precedent and previous legal standing

Question 52

what is the NATURE and ROLE of the supreme court

Answer 52

nature: - 'independent' body - separate from exec and leg --- life tenure on court - no political pressure and potential for being removed --- fixed wage - no influence --- highest appellate court --- stare decisis - obide by precedent role: - act as the highest judicial arbiter and provide clarity to points of ambiguity and ensure legal consistency - check and balance role -- decides on the constitutionality of laws and legislative actions - role of enforcing judicial review -- role to ensure actions of the executive are constitutional - protect individual and collective / constitutional rights from abuse by other branches of government - ensures fundamental ideas of the american public remain consistent, despite changing majorities etc

Question 53

what did the constitution say about the supreme court

Answer 53

- judicial power (article III) to be vested in one supreme court (congress to organise the court) - article III section II talks about jurisdiction of the cases (original and appellatte jurisdiction) - meaning appealing law or cases around states etc - did not establish the power of judicial review, but it allows the courts to declare unconstitutional the actions or laws of the executive or legislature

Question 54

boumedine v bush

Answer 54

- declared that the bush administration could not limit habeus corpus rights for detainees in guantanamo bay

Question 55

california v texas

Answer 55

2021 - the court ruled against texas and other southern states who were challenging the affordable care act - declared the states lacked standing because they had not endured enough 'injury' from the individual mandate to sue

Question 56

define judicial restraint

Answer 56

- giving power back to elected branches of government to change policy - actively limiting individual branch power / their own power - adherence to precedent and to other branches of government - deference to state legislatures

Question 57

define judicial activism

Answer 57

- actively going against and undermining other branches of government - overturning precedent and setting a new precedent - giving power back to states

Question 58

define standing

Answer 58

- the requirement that a plaintiff shows that they have suffered injury, of which the injury is traceable to actions of the defendant, and the injusry can be addressed by a favourable decision - standing is needed to establish jurisdiction (ie appellatte) - if a court wants the merits of a case = standing is relaxed - if a court wants to shut a category cases out of court, standing is tightened

Question 59

massachusetts v EPA

Answer 59

2007 5-4 - massachusetts had standing to challenge the EPA's refusal to regulated CO2 and greenhouse gases - this was causing injury to citizens because the agency failed to limit emissions, injury including rising sea levels

Question 60

hein v freedom from religion foundation

Answer 60

2007 5-4 - court found that the freedom of religion foundation lacked standing to challenge white house programmes on faith based initiatives - injury for taxpayers would only be on congressionally funded programmes, not the executive branch

Question 61

what are advisory opinions

Answer 61

- a non-legally binding decision - when another branch of government asks the court to enlighten them as to what to decide and the constitutionally of their action

Question 62

define mootness, and what case was an exception to the mootness rule

Answer 62

- when something is no longer relevant - when a federal court is prevented from deciding on a question which previously impacted rights, but no longer does (ie legality of war when ended etc exception: - roe v wade - the court considered roe's challenge to a texas abortion law after her pregnancy had ended, because the denial of that right would continue

Question 63

what is ripeness and give an example

Answer 63

ripeness = if there is no prosecution needed - readiness of a case for judicial review, meaning it involves an actual or imminent threat of injury that is not hypothetical example: - griswold v connecticut

Question 64

define textualism + example

Answer 64

- focusing on the plain meaning of text - focus on how people at the time would understand this text - do not look into intent of those writing example: - thomas in gonzales v raich 2005 - fed gov law doesn't apply bc it isn't traded across state lines - DC v heller

Question 65

define original meaning + example

Answer 65

- meaning of the constitution as understood by at least one segment of the population - want to construct the originsl meaning example: - DC v heller - dobbs v jackson

Question 66

define judicial pragmatism + example

Answer 66

- the court weighs up probable and practical consequences of one interpretation instead of another, ie the costs or benefits to society - also link to if the court plays a constructive role in deciding questions of the law example: - trump v anderson

Question 67

define structuralism + example

Answer 67

- link to the design of the constitution and therefore links to separation of powers, federalism (ie state and fed gov relationship) and relationship between gov and people example: - US v nixon - executive privilege

Question 68

define loose and strict constructionist

Answer 68

loose constructionist: - something else feeds into your interpretation strict constructionist: - a judicial philosophy of purely focusing on the constitution and no other factor in your decision

Question 69

what is national identity

Answer 69

- a method of judicial reasoning which relies on a national ethos to draw on a national identity

Question 70

themes of SC cases

Answer 70

- rights protection - judicial activism / restraint - checks and balances - ideology (ie liberal v conservative) - states rights / federalism - civil rights

Question 71

what is appellate and original jurisdiction

Answer 71

appellate = when decisions go through lower courts before being decided original = the case will go straight to the court

Question 72

independence of the SC

Answer 72

1. vesting clause - power purely with court 2. security of tenure - for life (withiut impeachment) 3. security of salary

Question 73

limitations on court power

Answer 73

*system of checks and balances - amendments can be passed - some rulings may only apply on a federal level - potential of impeachment

Question 74

certiori

Answer 74

a written request to ask the court to hear a case and resolve the facts of the case

Question 75

evidence of the supreme court being too powerful

Answer 75

1. policy making role - ie roe, griswold, dobbs, planned parenthood - able todo what they want 2. undermining federalism - imposing federal regulations on states vs not - ie gonzales v raich, NFIB etc 3. composition can impact decisions - new justices = power to influence decisions and change precedent (ie roe) 4. power over other branches of government

Question 76

points for a political supreme court

Answer 76

1. judicial philosophy and alignment - scalia = interpretation of gonzales was liberal bc it banned recreational drugs - political ideological thinking takes over 2. appointments - appointments for ginsberg and scalia = wast majority, vs appointments for gorsuch, barrett etc = more slim - marrick garland - would become a lib majority court + blocked by mcconnel

Question 77

points for the supreme court not being too political

Answer 77

1. voting behaviour of judges - don't always vote in favour of who appointed them (ie powell ruling on nixon) - eisenhower nominating warren and being a swing, or kennedy was a swing - 59% cases from 2005-2016 = unanimous = consensus 2. security of salary and tenure - obergefell = not accountable to public - feel able to go against other branches of government (ie executive actions) 3. acting in judicial restraint?

Question 78

5-4 split in robert's court

Answer 78

5-4 split - this ruling is 22% more of the time than any other court - political polarization + partisanship - power to swing justice

Question 79

appointment process to SC are effective

Answer 79

1. hearings - expose knowledge or lack of (ie harriet miers) - criteria + threshold for experience is high - done by senate judiciary committee - expose their judicial philosophy and ideas - if they are a suitable fit - understand law, neutral, ideological? 2. scrutiny is effective - harris on reproductive laws for the male body - ie clarence thomas and anita hill - ie kavanaugh + mueller invest + on sexual assault in 1980s - questioned on gun laws given assassination attempt - ask on scandals 3. understand judicial philosophy - ie barett claimed that climate change was 'debatable' - republican insight - refusing to discuss same sex marriage, LGBTQ rights etc - asked barett on if roe v wade has been wrongly decided - it baretts textualist and originalist approaches - focuses on immigrant rights - scalia - not living constitution + originalist menNING

Question 80

appointment process to SC are ineffective

Answer 80

1. hearings - party point scoring - republicans = lenient w questions - reliance on fillibusters to block - partisan - becomes too heated and divided, dilute quality of questioning + erode credability of senate - questioning is biased + partisan - all reps voted barret, all dems voted no - ie chuck grassley on sotomayor 2. attempted scrutiny is ineffective - ie asking brown jackson about criminal child pornography cases - dwell on past actions - idea of "soft on crime" which isn't relevant - ie asking on guantanamo bay - barett focused too much on addressing the american people, not the senate (reputation) - focused on brown jackson's uncle being imprisoned, not her policy 3. don't understand judicial philosophy - kavanaugh was never actually asked about his judicial ideas / values - barret was focused on too much when it came to LGBTQ rights, same sex marriage etc - roberts refusing to preview his decision in the VRA / evasive + cautious

Question 81

how many law professors claimed that kavanaugh lacked impartiality

Answer 81

2400

Question 82

current composition of the SC

Answer 82

9 justices, 1 chief justice, 8 associate justices - Sotomayor, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Brown Jackson 6-3 conservative-liberal split