Constitution of the United States, Federal Courts, and Judicial Review

District of Columbia v. Heller

2008 Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. F: law in DC that bans possession of handguns - P brings suit - wants gun for self-defense in home I: whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Does the 2nd amendment allow individuals the right to bear arms? (yes) R: individuals have the right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, but there are limitations to this (not any gun and in any manner) Scalia: Original public meaning; look to dictionaries and state constitutions, not drafting versions Stevens: Original Intent; look to drafting versions. Breyer: Non-originalism; look to precedent dissenting Justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter) believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.

Originalism

A view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intentions or original meaning of the Framers. Many conservatives support this view. The constitutional approach taken by Scalia in D.C. v. Heller, which focuses on the original meaning given judicial decisions and other circumstances at the time

Ex Parte McCardle

Allowed Congress to change (limit) the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Facts: McCardle was restrained and going in front of military tribunal. Filed a writ of habeus corpus which was denied. Congress repealed part of Judiciary Act that granted SC appellate jurisdiction over writs. Rule: Congress has plenary power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS, as long as it does not violate some other provision in the Constitution Holding: Congress can restrict appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS Opinion by Justice Chase

Judicial Review

Allows the court to determine the constitutionality of laws

US v. Klein

Although Congress has power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts, it may not use this power to effectively prescribe a rule for the decision of cases before the courts. Congress may not pass a law that reverses a decision of the Supreme Court and directs the result of a case, but it can create exceptions and regulations of SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction. Facts: Congress said pardons were inadmissible. Removed jurisdiction of the case and said the court should dismiss Rule: Congress cannot prescribe rules of decision that would force the SC to rule in a certain way Holding: Improper exercise of Congressional power to change appellate jurisdiction Opinion by Justice Chase

Living Document / Non originalism

Constitutional approach taken by Breyer in D.C. v. Heller; goes beyond text and four corners of the Constitution to adapt to modern times

Strict Originalism

Constitutional approach taken by Stevens in D.C. v. Heller; the text of the Constitution is the only basis for interpretation

Article I

Establishes the Legislative Branch

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen 2020

Facts: challenging a law passed by the city of New York that restricted the transport of firearms outside of one's home. The gun owners argued that the law's prohibition against transporting a firearm to an out-of-city residence or shooting range violated the Second Amendment, and they moved for relief, which the district court denied Issue: Should an appellate court reviewing a case that has become moot during the appeals process because of a change in the law vacate the judgment of the lower court and remand the case for further proceedings?

McCulloch v. Maryland

Federal power comes from the people.N&P gives Congress wide scope to implement enumerated powers.Because the state law interferes with the exercise of federal powers, it is invalidi. Also, this argument brings about the idea of implied powers (necessary and proper clause of the constitution)ii. Additionally, states can't tax federal entities (second part of Marshall's opinion)The Constitution specifically delegates to Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and to make such other laws as it deems necessary and proper to carry out this enumerated power. Additionally, federal laws are supreme and states may not make laws that interfere with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers.a state may not tax the a federal institution because federal laws are supreme to state laws. A federally-created institution may not be inhibited by a state law.

Necessary and Proper Clause application

Necessary and Proper Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 provides that Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the U.S., or in any Department or Officer thereof."Test: What is a necessary means? Let the end be legitimate, and the means plainly adapted to the ends.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

The Supreme Court can review the decisions of the highest state courts if they involve a federal law or the federal Constitution authority for judicial review of state court decisions Facts: land dispute in which the Virginia Court of Appeals held for Hunter. The US supreme court reversed the ruled, however the Virginia state courts did not respect it. Rule: SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments Holding: SCOTUS can review state courts decisions only if they hold AGAINST federal law, not if they hold in FAVOR of federal law Justice Joseph Story wrote the opinion for the Court. Chief Justice John Marshall did not participate because he and his brother had contracted to purchase a large part of the Fairfax estate that was at issue in the litigation. Justice Story argued that the structure of the Constitution presumes that the Supreme Court may review state court decisions. Story argued that the Constitution creates a Supreme Court and gives Congress discretion whether to create lower federal courts.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

This case creates authority of Judicial Review of executive actions; establishes that Article III is the ceiling of federal court jurisdiction; establishes the authority for judicial review of legislative acts. stablishes judicial review and the power of SCOTUS to review the constitutionality of federal executive action and federal statutes.The unconstitutional law that the M v M decision over-ruled was one to expand the supreme court's original jurisdiction(Jx). The constitution gives the supreme court Appellate Jx i. The federal US supreme court has the power to judge whether a law passed by another branch of government is in agreement with the limits on power set forth in the constitution. a. MvM used the Supremacy Clause in the reasoning to show they should review whether a law is constitutional. Rule: Court can review acts of Executive and Legislative branches Opinion by Chief Justice Marshall Holding: Judiciary Act §13 providing original jurisdiction to SCOTUS is unconstitutional because Art. III, §2 does not provide SCOTUS original jurisdiction. Congress cannot expand original jurisdiction

Article III of the Constitution

establishes the judicial branch of the federal government creates the Supreme Court but allows Congress to establish lower courts.