POL-403 final

Federalist 74 (Hamilton)

focuses on the powers of the President in matters related to the military and the pardoning power. Here are the key points discussed in Federalist No. 74: Military Authority: Hamilton emphasizes the need for a strong and unified executive authority in matters of military command. He argues that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, should possess the power to make quick and decisive decisions, especially in times of war or emergency. The paper discusses the dangers of having multiple commanders or a decentralized military authority, which could lead to confusion, delays, and inefficiencies. Hamilton argues that a single executive ensures a more effective and coordinated response to military challenges. Power of Pardon: Hamilton defends the President's power to grant pardons and reprieves. He asserts that this authority is a necessary component of the executive's role and contributes to the stability of government. The paper argues that the power of pardon allows the President to show mercy, correct judicial errors, and promote national healing. Hamilton suggests that the President's ability to grant pardons is a check against the potential harshness of the legal system.

Korematsu v. United States (1944) power to seize persons

fred Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, refused to comply with the evacuation order and was arrested. He challenged the constitutionality of the internment policy, leading to this legal battle. Key Issues: Constitutionality of Executive Order 9066: The primary issue was whether the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans, as authorized by Executive Order 9066, violated the constitutional rights of American citizens, particularly their rights under the Fifth Amendment. Court's Decision: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment policy. The majority opinion was written by Justice Hugo Black. Key Points from the Majority Opinion: Military Necessity: The majority held that the need for national security and military necessity outweighed the individual rights of Japanese Americans. The Court accepted the government's argument that the internment policy was a wartime necessity to prevent espionage and sabotage. Race as a Basis for Classification: The Court acknowledged that the internment policy was based on race, targeting individuals of Japanese descent, but it upheld the classification. The decision relied on the presumption that military authorities had made a reasonable judgment in the interest of national security. Compelling Government Interest: The majority asserted that, during times of war, the government's interest in protecting the country could justify actions that might be unconstitutional during peacetime. Dissenting Opinions: Justice Owen Roberts, Justice Frank Murphy, and Justice Robert Jackson dissented from the majority opinion. The dissenting justices argued that the internment policy was based on racial prejudice rather than military necessity and violated the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Bradley C.S Watson

strict construction

J Clifford Wallace

strict construction, original meaning, intent, classical interp, rejects progressives

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)

Union Activities and Employee Discharge: In 1935, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) began an aggressive campaign to unionize steelworkers, which included employees of the Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation in Pennsylvania. The company, in response, fired several workers for their involvement in union activities.National Labor Relations Act: The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, was passed by Congress to protect workers' rights to engage in union activities, collective bargaining, and to prevent employers from engaging in unfair labor practices. The NLRA created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to enforce these rights.NLRB Involvement: The NLRB filed a complaint against Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, arguing that the employees had been unfairly dismissed because of their union activities. The NLRB sought to have the employees reinstated and compensated.Legal Issue:The central issue in the case was whether the NLRA and the actions taken by the NLRB to protect workers' rights were constitutional, particularly in relation to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states.Supreme Court Decision:In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the NLRA and the actions of the NLRB. The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Charles Evans Hughes, argued that the labor dispute at Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation had a significant impact on interstate commerce. The Court found that labor disputes could disrupt the flow of commerce, and therefore, the federal government had a legitimate interest in regulating and mediating such disputes. This decision expanded the interpretation of the Commerce Clause and affirmed the federal government's authority

War Powers resolution 1973

a U.S. federal law passed by Congress in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto. The resolution was intended to address concerns about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches with regard to the initiation of military actions and the commitment of U.S. forces abroad. The key provisions of the War Powers Resolution are as follows: Consultation Requirement: The President is required to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. The term "hostilities" is broadly defined to include armed conflict, deployment of troops into areas of potential hostilities, and other situations where U.S. forces may become involved in military actions. Reporting to Congress: The President must submit a written report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. The report must include the circumstances necessitating the introduction of forces, the constitutional and legislative authority for the action, and the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities. Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): The resolution authorizes the President to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent without prior congressional approval only in cases of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its armed forces. 60-Day Limit on Military Involvement: If the President introduces U.S. forces into hostilities without congressional authorization, the involvement must be terminated within 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension, unless Congress authorizes the use of force or declares war.

Presidential powers

are derived from the Constitution, particularly Article II, which outlines the executive branch's responsibilities. The powers and duties of the President encompass a broad range of areas, including foreign affairs, the military, law enforcement, and the administration of federal laws. Here is a brief summary of key presidential powers: Commander-in-Chief: The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, granting authority over military operations. However, Congress has the power to declare war, and the President's role is often subject to legislative oversight. Executive Orders: The President can issue executive orders, directives that have the force of law, to manage the operations of the federal government. Executive orders are subject to legal and judicial review. Appointment and Removal Powers: The President has the authority to appoint federal officials, subject to Senate confirmation. Additionally, the President can remove certain officials, though this power may be subject to restrictions set by Congress. Pardoning Power: The President can grant pardons and reprieves for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment. This power is a constitutional check on the judiciary and is often used for clemency. Veto Power: The President has the power to veto legislation passed by Congress. However, Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Diplomacy and Foreign Relations: The President is the chief diplomat, conducting foreign affairs, negotiating treaties (subject to Senate ratification), and appointing ambassadors. The President also has the authority to recognize foreign governments. The President can enter into executive agreements with foreign nations, which have the force of law but do not require Senate ratification.

Powell v. McCormack (1969)

Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was a prominent African American congressman from New York who was elected to represent the 18th congressional district in Harlem. He was re-elected to the 90th Congress (1967-1969) but faced legal and ethical issues during his time in office. In response to allegations of misconduct, the House of Representatives, controlled by the Democratic Party, sought to exclude him from his seat.Events Leading to the Case:Powell faced legal troubles, including a lawsuit alleging defamation and the misuse of committee funds, as well as allegations of unethical behavior and absenteeism in the House of Representatives.In January 1967, the House voted to exclude Powell from his seat due to the allegations against him. The Democratic Party leadership, which controlled the House, used its authority to expel him.Legal Question:The key legal question in the case was whether the House of Representatives had the constitutional authority to exclude a duly elected member of Congress who met the qualifications specified in the Constitution.Supreme Court Decision:In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adam Clayton Powell Jr. and held that the House of Representatives had acted unconstitutionally by excluding him from his seat. The Court's key findings were:Qualifications Clause: The Court interpreted the Qualifications Clause of the Constitution, which sets out the requirements for serving in Congress. It found that the House cannot add additional qualifications beyond those listed in the Constitution.Sole Qualifications: The Court determined that Powell met the constitutional qualifications for serving in Congress (age, citizenship, and residency), and the House's attempt to exclude him based on other considerations was unconstitutional. Separation of powers

The fourth branch of government

Administrative Agencies: The fourth branch often refers to various federal agencies and regulatory bodies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These agencies are tasked with implementing and enforcing laws, making rules and regulations, and adjudicating disputes. Rulemaking and Enforcement: Administrative agencies have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations that have the force of law. They interpret and apply statutes passed by Congress, and they are responsible for enforcing compliance with these regulations. Independence: While these agencies fall under the executive branch, they often operate with a degree of independence from direct presidential control. This independence is intended to insulate regulatory decision-making from political pressures. Expertise: The fourth branch is often characterized by its specialized knowledge and expertise in specific policy areas. This expertise allows these agencies to handle complex issues and develop regulations that align with their respective missions. Concerns about Power: The concept of the fourth branch has generated debate and concerns about the concentration of power in unelected officials. Critics argue that these agencies may wield significant authority without the same level of democratic accountability as elected branches of government.

federalist 75

Appointment Power of the President: Hamilton argues that vesting the power of appointing federal officers, including judges, in the president is a necessary and wise constitutional provision. He contends that the president, being a single executive with a fixed term, is well-suited for this responsibility. Presidential Accountability: Hamilton emphasizes that the president's power to appoint federal officers, subject to the Senate's advice and consent, ensures accountability. If the president makes poor appointments, he can be held responsible for those decisions during the next election. Avoidance of Factionalism: Hamilton argues that entrusting the appointment power to a single executive minimizes the risk of factionalism and cabals that might arise if multiple individuals were involved in the decision-making process. Experience and Expertise: Hamilton expresses confidence in the president's ability to make informed and judicious appointments due to the executive's likely experience, knowledge, and careful consideration in the selection process. Balance of Power: While advocating for presidential authority in appointments, Hamilton also acknowledges the role of the Senate in providing a check on the president's choices. The requirement of Senate confirmation is seen as a necessary balance to prevent the abuse of power.

appointment and removal powers

Appointment: Advice and Consent: The Constitution grants the president the authority to nominate individuals to certain federal positions, including federal judges, ambassadors, and members of the Cabinet. However, these nominations are subject to the Senate's advice and consent. The Senate must approve the president's nominees by a simple majority vote. Recess Appointments: In certain situations, when the Senate is in recess and unavailable to provide advice and consent, the president has the power to make temporary appointments, known as recess appointments. These appointments expire at the end of the Senate's next session. Appointment of Inferior Officers: While the president appoints principal officers with the Senate's consent, he also has the power to appoint inferior officers without Senate approval, as long as Congress has delegated such authority to the president. Removal: executive Branch Officials: The president has the authority to remove most executive branch officials, including members of the Cabinet and heads of executive agencies, without seeking the approval of Congress. This power is grounded in the president's role as the chief executive. Limitations on Removal: While the president generally has the power to remove executive branch officials, there are certain limitations. For example, the Tenure of Office Act, passed in 1867, sought to limit the president's ability to remove certain officeholders without Senate approval. However, the Supreme Court later ruled aspects of this act unconstitutional. Independent Agencies: Heads of independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Reserve, are often appointed for fixed terms and can only be removed by the president for cause, ensuring some degree of independence.

Prize Cases (1863) war powers

At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, President Lincoln ordered a naval blockade of Southern ports as part of the Union's strategy to weaken the Confederate states. The blockade aimed to prevent the Confederacy from trading and receiving supplies from foreign nations. Subsequently, several vessels attempting to break the blockade were seized by Union forces, leading to legal challenges. Key Legal Issues: Presidential Power: The central question was whether President Lincoln had the constitutional authority to impose a blockade without a formal declaration of war by Congress. International Law: Another critical issue was whether the blockade was consistent with international law, which governed the conduct of naval blockades during armed conflicts. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court delivered its decision on March 10, 1863, in a consolidated set of cases known as the Prize Cases. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of the government and upheld the legality of President Lincoln's blockade. Justice Robert Grier delivered the majority opinion. Key Points from the Majority Opinion: Presidential Authority: The majority argued that the President, as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the authority to take actions to defend the country even without a formal declaration of war by Congress. The Court acknowledged the president's power to act in the face of imminent threat to national security. Congressional Role: The Court maintained that while only Congress can formally declare war, the President has the inherent power to take defensive measures, including a blockade, without waiting for congressional authorization.

Gibbons v Ogden (1824)

Background: In the early 19th century, New York State granted a monopoly to Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston to operate steamboats on waters within the state. Thomas Gibbons, who operated steamboats between New York and New Jersey, challenged this monopoly.Conflict: Aaron Ogden, who held a license from Fulton and Livingston to operate steamboats in New York waters, sued Thomas Gibbons for operating steamboats in violation of the state monopoly. Gibbons, in response, argued that he was licensed under federal law to operate vessels in coastal waters and, therefore, was engaged in interstate commerce.Legal Question: The main issue was whether the New York law granting a monopoly on steamboat operation within its waters conflicted with the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, as granted in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Decision: In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of Gibbons. The Court held that the New York monopoly was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. Marshall's decision emphasized the broad authority of Congress to regulate commerce between the states and effectively limited the ability of individual states to interfere with interstate trade.Significance: "Gibbons v. Ogden" established the principle that federal power over interstate commerce is supreme and that state laws cannot unduly interfere with it. This decision has had a lasting impact on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause and has played a crucial role in defining the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Bush v. Gore (2000) selection

Background: The 2000 presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore came down to the state of Florida. The margin of victory was extremely close, and issues with ballot counting and recounts led to legal challenges. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of undervotes and dimpled chads (incompletely punched holes on punch-card ballots). The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. Key Issues: Whether the Florida Supreme Court's recount procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether the recount process ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was consistent with the Constitution's Electors Clause, which grants state legislatures the power to determine the manner of appointing electors. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion (a unanimous decision issued collectively by the Court), held that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court effectively halted the recount, leading to George W. Bush's victory in Florida and, consequently, the presidency. Rationale: Equal Protection Violation: The Court's majority argued that the Florida recount process lacked uniform standards for determining voter intent, leading to arbitrary and inconsistent treatment of ballots across different counties. This, the Court held, violated the Equal Protection Clause because it resulted in different standards for accepting or rejecting votes. Lack of Standards: The Court pointed out that the lack of specific standards for counting disputed ballots provided no adequate method for recounting and evaluating votes consistently. The absence of uniform rules across the state raised concerns about the fairness of the process.

Presidential war powers

Commander-in-Chief Authority: Constitutional Basis: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution designates the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. This grants the President authority over military operations and strategy. War Powers Resolution (1973): Background: In response to concerns about the executive branch's ability to commit U.S. forces without congressional approval, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (WPR) in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto. Key Provisions:The WPR requires the President to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities.The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing U.S. forces, and the involvement must be terminated within 60 days unless Congress authorizes an extension or declares war.The resolution was intended to check the President's power to initiate military actions without congressional approval. Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): Legal Basis: While the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, in practice, Presidents have often sought congressional authorization or AUMFs to use military force. Examples: Notable examples include the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) during the Vietnam War, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (2002), and the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001) in response to the 9/11 attacks. Executive Agreements and Treaties: International Commitments: The President has the authority to enter into executive agreements and treaties with foreign nations, potentially involving military cooperation or the commitment of U.S. forces. Senate Ratification: While treaties require Senate ratification, executive agreements do not and can be entered into solely by the President.

INS v. Chadha (1983)

Deportation Case: Jagdish Rai Chadha, a Kenyan national of Indian descent, came to the United States on a student visa in 1966. However, he overstayed his visa, which led to his deportation proceedings initiated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).Suspension of Deportation: While his deportation case was pending, Chadha married a U.S. citizen, which made him eligible for suspension of deportation under U.S. immigration law. The INS allowed Chadha to remain in the U.S. under this provision.Legislative Veto: In 1976, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) amendments, which included a provision that allowed either house of Congress to veto individual suspension of deportation decisions made by the INS. In Chadha's case, the House of Representatives exercised this legislative veto and ordered his deportation.Legal Issue:The central issue in the case was whether the legislative veto provision in the INA, which allowed one house of Congress to overturn executive branch decisions, was consistent with the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers.Supreme Court Decision:In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the legislative veto provision in the INA was unconstitutional. The majority's key arguments and reasoning included:Separation of Powers: The Court determined that the legislative veto violated the separation of powers doctrine. It argued that the Constitution vested legislative authority solely in Congress, and the veto provision allowed Congress to exercise a legislative power without following the proper procedures.Bicameralism and Presentment: The Court emphasized that the legislative process requires bicameralism (both houses of Congress) and presentment (the President's approval or veto). The legislative veto provision bypassed these requirements, undermining the Constitution'

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Drinking Age Legislation: In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA), which required all states to raise their minimum drinking age to 21 years. The Act was passed in response to concerns about traffic safety and the high rate of alcohol-related accidents among young drivers.Federal Funding and Conditions: As part of the NMDAA, Congress included a provision that states that did not comply with the new minimum drinking age would face a reduction in their federal highway funds. South Dakota, one of the states that allowed 19-year-olds to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages, refused to raise its drinking age to 21.South Dakota's Challenge: South Dakota challenged the constitutionality of the NMDAA, arguing that it amounted to unconstitutional coercion by the federal government. South Dakota contended that the withholding of federal funds was unduly coercive and exceeded the federal government's authority.Legal Issue:The central issue in the case was whether the federal government had the authority to attach conditions to federal funding that might be seen as coercive to the states and, if so, whether such conditions violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.Supreme Court Decision:In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the NMDAA and the conditions attached to federal highway funds. The majority's key arguments and reasoning included:Spending Power: The Court held that Congress, under its spending power, had the authority to attach conditions to federal funds that it provided to the states. This was seen as a legitimate exercise of congressional authority to encourage states to adopt particular policies or regulations.Coercion: The majority argued that the financial inducement offered to th

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936) Power to execute laws

During the 1930s, in the midst of growing tensions in South America, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the president to impose an arms embargo. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, acting under this authorization, issued an executive order prohibiting the sale of arms to certain countries involved in the Chaco War. Curtiss-Wright Corporation was indicted for violating the embargo, challenging the constitutionality of the delegation of authority to the president. Key Issues: Whether Congress can delegate legislative powers to the president in matters of foreign affairs. Whether the president, when acting pursuant to a delegation of authority from Congress, possesses powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice George Sutherland, upheld the delegation of authority to the president. The decision rested on the idea that in matters of foreign affairs, the president possesses broad and inherent powers that are not dependent on specific grants in the Constitution. The Court argued that the president's foreign affairs powers are largely exclusive and plenary. Rationale: Inherent Presidential Powers: The Court emphasized that the president's powers in foreign affairs are inherent and derive from his role as the sole organ of the federal government in external relations. It cited historical practices and the Constitution's structure to support the notion that the president has unique and exclusive authority in foreign affairs. Congressional Delegation: The Court rejected the argument that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers. In this case, it held that Congress could delegate authority to the president, especially in matters involving foreign affairs, where a unity of purpose and action was necessary.

Justice Ginsburg constitutional interpretation

Equal Protection and Gender Equality: Ginsburg was a staunch advocate for gender equality and played a key role in advancing the legal rights of women. She frequently relied on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender, arguing that the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection applied to both men and women. Living Constitution: Justice Ginsburg supported a dynamic and evolving interpretation of the Constitution, often referred to as a "living constitution" approach. She believed that the Constitution's principles should be interpreted in a way that reflects contemporary societal norms and values. Incremental Change: Ginsburg often favored incremental changes in the law rather than sweeping decisions. She believed in making gradual progress toward equality and justice, recognizing that the Court's decisions could shape the law over time. Judicial Activism: While Ginsburg was an advocate for gender equality, she did not fit neatly into a category of strict judicial activism. While she believed in the Court's role in protecting individual liberties and promoting equality, she was also cautious about the potential consequences of rapid and dramatic legal changes.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

Heart of Atlanta Motel: The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large motel in Atlanta, Georgia, located near major highways. It provided lodging to interstate travelers and was a significant part of the city's hospitality industry.Civil Rights Act of 1964: In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which was a landmark piece of legislation aimed at ending racial segregation and discrimination in public accommodations and facilities. Title II of the act, in particular, addressed the issue of racial discrimination in places of public accommodation that were engaged in interstate commerce.Motel's Refusal to Serve Black Customers: The owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Moreton Rolleston Jr., had a longstanding policy of refusing service to Black patrons. In response to the Civil Rights Act, which prohibited such discrimination, Rolleston filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the act.Legal Issue:The central issue in the case was whether Congress had the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the Heart of Atlanta Motel's discriminatory practices, given its involvement in interstate commerce.Supreme Court Decision:In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its application to the Heart of Atlanta Motel. The Court held that the Commerce Clause granted Congress the authority to regulate the motel's discriminatory practices because the motel was considered to be engaged in interstate commerce. The Court noted that the motel's significant reliance on out-of-state customers, the use of goods and services in interstate commerce, and its proximity to interstate highways all justified federal intervention to combat racial discrimination.The case is significant for several reasons:Expansion of Federal Authority: The decision reaffirm

removal of president

Impeachment: Impeachment is the formal process of charging a President with "high crimes and misdemeanors," as stated in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 4). Impeachment can be initiated by the House of Representatives. House of Representatives: The process begins in the House of Representatives, where articles of impeachment are drafted and voted on by members. A simple majority is required for the articles to be approved. Impeachment Inquiry: Before drafting articles, the House may conduct an impeachment inquiry to investigate the alleged wrongdoing. This can involve hearings, testimony from witnesses, and the collection of evidence. Articles of Impeachment: If the House determines that impeachment is warranted, it drafts articles of impeachment, which are specific charges against the President. The articles are then debated and voted on by the House. Majority Vote: If a simple majority of the House votes in favor of any article of impeachment, the President is impeached. However, impeachment alone does not remove the President from office. Senate Trial: After impeachment in the House, the case is sent to the Senate for trial. Senate Proceedings: The Senate conducts a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. The House appoints managers to present the case against the President, and the President is represented by defense counsel. Conviction Requires Two-Thirds Majority: To convict the President and remove them from office, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required. If less than two-thirds of the Senate votes in favor of conviction, the President remains in office.

Mcullough v Maryland, 1819 Necessary and proper

In 1816, the U.S. Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States, which was opposed by some states, including Maryland. Maryland attempted to impose a tax on the bank's operations within the state, viewing it as a way to assert state authority and limit the power of the federal government. Legal Issues: Constitutionality of the Bank: The first issue was whether Congress had the authority to establish a national bank. Opponents argued that the Constitution did not explicitly grant Congress the power to create a national bank. State Tax on the Bank: The second issue was whether Maryland had the right to tax the operations of the Bank within its borders, which was seen as a way to obstruct or regulate the Bank's activities. Ruling and Significance: In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, held that the creation of a national bank was within the implied powers of Congress, based on the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), often referred to as the Elastic Clause. Necessary and Proper Clause: The Necessary and Proper Clause states that Congress has the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." In other words, it grants Congress the authority to enact laws that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but are necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall argued that the creation of a national bank was a means to an end, and it was a necessary and proper way for Congress to carry out its enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate commerce and coin money. Marshall's interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause broadened the scope of federal power and established the principle that Congress cou

Harry V. Jaffa, Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution (1994)

Jaffa contends that it is impossible to interpret the intent of the 14th Amendment without understanding the conflict between the principles and the compromises of the antebellum Constitution. This conflict came to a head in 1857 in the case of Dred Scott. Professor Jaffa shows that Rehnquist, Bork, and Meese have completely misunderstood that case, attributing to "substantive due process" or "judicial usurpation" what was in fact a failure on the part of the Court to understand that in a federal territory the black man's human nature gave him constitutional standing, slavery in the states to the contrary notwithstanding. Jaffa also shows that in their determined effort to avoid recourse to the Declaration in their interpretation of Dred Scott, Rehnquist, Bork, and Meese are heirs, not of the Founding Fathers but of the father of the Confederacy, John C. Calhoun. Present-day conservative jurisprudence, in its positivist rejection of the Declaration, the Framers, and Lincoln is descended from Calhoun, not the Framers. Jaffa shows in Original Intent that this jurisprudence is no more principled than its liberal opposition; it merely seeks different results.

Clinton impeachment 1998 removal

In January 1998, news of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky surfaced, leading to investigations by the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Starr's report, submitted to Congress in September 1998, detailed possible grounds for impeachment, including perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Articles of Impeachment: The House of Representatives, led by Republicans, initiated impeachment proceedings. On December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton: Perjury: Alleging that Clinton perjured himself during a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit by denying a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Obstruction of Justice: Accusing Clinton of obstructing justice by attempting to influence the testimony of potential witnesses and concealing evidence. House Proceedings: The articles of impeachment passed largely along party lines, with no Democrats supporting them. The House Judiciary Committee conducted hearings, during which legal experts and witnesses provided testimony. The committee voted along party lines to send the articles to the full House. Senate Trial: The Senate trial commenced in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. The Senate required a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the president from office. The trial involved presentations from House prosecutors (House Managers) and the president's defense team. Senate Acquittal: On February 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both articles of impeachment. The perjury charge received 55 "not guilty" votes, and the obstruction of justice charge received 50 "not guilty" votes. No Democrat voted for conviction on either charge.

Jonathan Turley, "Canceling the Constitution" (2021)

In its 5-4 decision in Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, the Supreme Court kept the CDC moratorium in place but left no question that a majority of justices ultimately view the CDC order as unconstitutional. On the minority side of the vote, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett wanted to suspend the eviction moratorium as unconstitutional. Yet the CDC's original order was about to expire anyway, so — in a somewhat baffling concurrence — Justice Brett Kavanaugh supplied the fifth vote in favor of the CDC to allow the law to simply expire and thereby enable an "additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance." Thus, Kavanaugh voted with the majority in this case — but also indicated that he agreed with his conservative colleagues on the larger point that the CDC never had the authority to issue the nationwide eviction moratorium in the first place without a congressional act. Biden acknowledged the obvious — that any new order to extend the moratorium would be unconstitutional. Indeed, he admitted that legal experts overwhelmingly told him so: "The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it's not likely to pass constitutional muster." Yet he added that he was able to find "several key scholars who think that it may and it's worth the effort."

Federalist 78 (Hamilton)

Independence of the Judiciary: Hamilton argues for the independence of the judiciary as a crucial element in ensuring the protection of individual rights and the rule of law. He emphasizes the necessity of judges having security in their positions through life tenure and undiminished compensation to shield them from political pressures. Judicial Review: Hamilton introduces the concept of judicial review, stating that the judiciary has the authority to review and potentially invalidate legislative acts that are inconsistent with the Constitution. This power, he argues, is essential to prevent the legislative branch from overstepping its constitutional bounds. Limited Powers of the Judiciary: While advocating for an independent judiciary, Hamilton also asserts that the judiciary is the "least dangerous" branch because it does not have the power of the purse (appropriations) or the sword (executive force). Instead, the judiciary relies on the executive branch (through enforcement) and the legislative branch (through funding) for the implementation of its decisions. Protection of Individual Rights: Hamilton contends that the judiciary serves as a safeguard against legislative or executive encroachments on individual rights. The courts, by interpreting the Constitution, can act as a check on the other branches, ensuring that their actions adhere to the constitutional limits set by the framers.

Justice Souter constitutional interpretation

Judicial Restraint: Souter was a proponent of judicial restraint, emphasizing the importance of the judiciary showing deference to the elected branches of government. He believed that the Court should avoid overreach and refrain from making decisions better left to the democratic process. Respect for Precedent: Justice Souter placed a significant emphasis on the principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent. He believed in the importance of maintaining stability and consistency in the law, and he was generally cautious about overturning established decisions. Textualism and Originalism: While Souter did not adhere strictly to any particular judicial philosophy, he often considered the text and history of the Constitution in his decisions. While not a strict originalist, he acknowledged the importance of understanding the framers' intent and the original meaning of constitutional provisions. Pragmatism: Souter's approach was often pragmatic, seeking practical and workable solutions to legal problems. He was less concerned with advancing a particular ideology and more focused on resolving cases in a manner that made sense in the context of the law and society.

City of Arlington v. FCC (2013)

Key Issues: Jurisdictional Deference: The central issue was whether courts should apply Chevron deference to an agency's interpretation of its own jurisdiction, particularly when the agency is determining the scope of its regulatory authority. Application of Chevron Deference: The case raised questions about the application of the Chevron doctrine, which generally requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Factual Background: The City of Arlington, Texas, and cable companies challenged an FCC order interpreting the scope of the agency's authority under the Communications Act. The FCC claimed that it had exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from agreements between local governments and cable companies regarding the use of public rights-of-way for cable television services. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on May 20, 2013, in a 6-3 ruling. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Key Points from the Decision: Chevron Deference Applies to Jurisdictional Determinations: The majority held that the Chevron doctrine applies to an agency's interpretation of its own jurisdiction. If a statute is ambiguous on the question of an agency's jurisdiction, and the agency's interpretation is reasonable, courts should defer to that interpretation. Presumption of Deference: The Court rejected the argument that jurisdictional determinations should not be entitled to Chevron deference. It stated that there is no "deep-seated traditional legal principle" against according deference to agencies on questions of their own jurisdiction.

Marshall Interpretation of the Constitution

Living Constitution: Marshall endorsed a "living constitution" approach, suggesting that the Constitution's meaning could evolve over time to address contemporary issues. He believed that the document's principles should be applied in a way that adapts to the changing needs and values of society. Equal Protection: A significant aspect of Marshall's jurisprudence was his commitment to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He played a pivotal role in several landmark decisions aimed at dismantling racial segregation and promoting equal rights, including Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Anti-Discrimination: Marshall was a strong advocate against discrimination based on race, gender, and other characteristics. He believed that the Constitution demanded equal treatment under the law and sought to eradicate systemic discrimination in various areas, including education, employment, and criminal justice. Individual Liberties: While Marshall was known for his focus on civil rights, he also worked to protect individual liberties. He was often a proponent of broad interpretations of the Bill of Rights to ensure that individuals were shielded from government overreach. Judicial Activism: Marshall was not afraid of judicial activism when he believed it was necessary to correct constitutional injustices. He argued that the judiciary had a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of individuals and minorities, even if it required an assertive interpretation of constitutional principles.

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Living, breathing constitution

Schecter Poultry corp v us 1935

National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA): The NIRA was a key component of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program during the Great Depression. It aimed to address economic issues, including labor relations, industrial production, and price control. Under the NIRA, industry codes were established to regulate various aspects of business, including wages, hours, and production. The goal was to stabilize the economy by promoting fair competition and labor standards.Schecter Poultry Corp.: Schecter Poultry Corporation, a family-owned business in Brooklyn, New York, was indicted for violating the live poultry code established under the NIRA. The company was accused of selling sick chickens and engaging in other violations of the code.Constitutional Challenge: Schecter Poultry Corp. challenged the NIRA's constitutionality, arguing that it was an overreach of federal power. The company contended that the NIRA's regulations extended into areas that should be governed by the states and that it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.Legal Issue:The central issue in the case was whether the NIRA exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause and whether it violated the Tenth Amendment by regulating local poultry transactions.Supreme Court Decision:In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schecter Poultry Corp. and held the NIRA unconstitutional. The majority's key arguments and reasoning included:Overreach of Commerce Clause: The Court found that the NIRA's provisions regulating the sale and production of chickens, even if they had some indirect impact on interstate commerce, went beyond Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The Court argued that the regulation of local poultry transactions was not a legitimate exerc

Thomas interpretation

Originalism: Like Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas is a proponent of originalism. He believes that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was drafted and ratified. Thomas looks to the intent of the framers and the understanding of the people who adopted the Constitution. Textualism: Justice Thomas places a strong emphasis on the actual text of the Constitution. He believes that the words themselves, as understood by the framers, should guide judicial interpretation. This approach rejects reading into the Constitution broader societal values or principles not explicitly stated in the text. Limited Judicial Role: Justice Thomas generally advocates for a limited role of the judiciary. He is skeptical of judicial activism and believes that judges should exercise restraint, leaving policymaking to the elected branches of government. Thomas argues that the Constitution does not grant the judiciary a broad license to create new rights. Stare Decisis: While Thomas respects precedent, he has been willing to overturn decisions that he believes are inconsistent with the original understanding of the Constitution. He does not view adherence to precedent as an absolute rule and is willing to revisit past decisions if he sees them as departing from constitutional principles.

Scalia 'Interpretation'

Originalism: Scalia believed in interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning at the time it was written. Originalism asserts that the Constitution should be understood based on the intent of the framers and the language they used. This means looking at the text, structure, and historical context to discern the original understanding of the provisions. Textualism: Scalia also championed textualism, emphasizing the actual text of the Constitution and laws. He argued that judges should focus on the plain language of the document and not read into it any unexpressed intentions or broader societal values. This approach opposes a more flexible or evolving interpretation of constitutional principles. Limited Judicial Activism: Scalia was critical of what he viewed as judicial activism, where judges might inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation. He believed that judges should not create new rights or expand the Constitution beyond its original meaning, leaving such changes to the democratic process through legislation. Deference to Legislative Intent: Scalia generally advocated for judicial restraint and emphasized the importance of deferring to the intent of the legislature when interpreting statutes. He believed that judges should not substitute their policy preferences for the decisions made by elected representatives. Critique of Living Constitution: Scalia was skeptical of the "living constitution" concept, which suggests that the Constitution's meaning evolves with societal changes. He argued that the Constitution should be amended if changes are needed, rather than having judges reinterpret its meaning over time.

Clinton v. Jones (1997) Presidential privileges

Presidential Immunity: The primary issue in the case was whether a sitting president could be sued in civil court for actions taken before assuming the presidency. Separation of Powers: The case raised questions about the balance between the constitutional separation of powers and the need to ensure that public officials, including the president, are held accountable for their actions. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court rendered its decision on May 27, 1997, unanimously ruling against President Clinton. The opinion was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens. Key Points from the Decision: Presidential Immunity: The Court rejected Clinton's argument that, as sitting president, he was immune from civil lawsuits for actions taken before he assumed the presidency. The Court held that the Constitution does not grant the president absolute immunity from civil litigation. Clinton v. Jones reaffirmed the principle that a sitting president is not immune from civil lawsuits related to actions taken before assuming the presidency. It underscored the importance of holding public officials accountable for their private conduct.

Baker v Carr

Prior to the "Baker v. Carr" case, many states in the United States had legislative districts that were drawn in a way that led to significant disparities in population representation. As a result, rural areas often had disproportionate political influence compared to urban areas, as legislative districts were not being redrawn to account for population changes. This practice, known as malapportionment, had persisted for decades, causing urban areas to be underrepresented in state legislatures.Plaintiffs: Charles Baker, a Tennessee resident, and several other plaintiffs from various Tennessee counties, filed a lawsuit against Joe Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, in federal court. They claimed that the state's reapportionment efforts had not kept pace with the population shifts, resulting in their votes being diluted, and they were being denied the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Issue: The central issue in "Baker v. Carr" was whether federal courts had the jurisdiction to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of state legislative district apportionment. In other words, the case revolved around the question of whether this was a justiciable, or legal, matter that the federal courts could address.Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision (with one justice recused), ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The majority opinion, authored by Justice William J. Brennan, held that apportionment challenges were indeed justiciable and could be reviewed by federal courts. The Court's key points were: Political Questions Doctrine: The Court rejected the idea that this was a non-justiciable political question that could not be reviewed by the judiciary. The Court held that not all reapportionment issues fell under the political quest

Legislative Powers in the Administrative State

Rulemaking Authority: Administrative agencies are often tasked with formulating rules and regulations to implement and enforce statutes enacted by the legislature. This rulemaking authority allows agencies to provide detailed guidance on how laws should be applied in practice. Delegation of Authority: Congress, through legislation, delegates broad authority to administrative agencies to develop and implement specific policies within the framework of statutory laws. This delegation grants agencies considerable discretion in crafting rules that address complex and technical issues. Interpretation of Statutes: Administrative agencies are not only responsible for implementing statutes but also for interpreting them. They play a role in defining the meaning of statutory language, often through rulemaking or adjudication. Quasi-Legislative Functions: The administrative state's legislative powers are considered "quasi-legislative" because agencies exercise powers that share similarities with those of the legislature. While agencies do not pass statutes, their rules and regulations can have the force of law, affecting individuals and businesses. Concerns about Overreach: Critics argue that extensive legislative powers granted to administrative agencies may lead to regulatory overreach, as agencies can potentially shape policy and affect the rights of individuals without direct accountability to the electorate. Checks and Balances: The administrative state's legislative powers raise questions about the traditional system of checks and balances. While administrative agencies are part of the executive branch, they exercise functions that traditionally belong to the legislative branch, creating challenges in maintaining a clear separation of powers.

Term limits inc v Thorton 1995

Several states, including Arkansas, had passed laws that imposed term limits on their representatives in the U.S. Congress. These laws prevented individuals from being placed on the ballot if they had already served a specified number of terms in Congress.Ray Thornton, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Arkansas, had already served three terms in Congress and sought re-election. However, Arkansas's term limits law prevented him from appearing on the ballot as a candidate for the House of Representatives.Legal Question:The central legal question in this case was whether states had the authority to impose term limits on members of Congress, or whether this power was reserved exclusively to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution.Supreme Court Decision:In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the constitutionality of state-imposed term limits on members of Congress. The Court's key findings included:Qualifications Clause: The Court held that the Qualifications Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which sets out the qualifications for members of Congress, does not grant states the authority to add additional qualifications or restrictions beyond those specified in the Constitution. The Constitution establishes age, citizenship, and residency requirements, but it does not allow states to impose term limits.Supremacy Clause: The Court also pointed to the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws. State-imposed term limits were found to be in direct conflict with the federal qualifications established by the Constitution, and therefore, they were unconstitutional.

Printz v Us 1997

The Brady Act: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, enacted in 1993, required background checks for individuals seeking to purchase handguns from licensed firearms dealers. Part of the Act, known as the "Brady Bill," also required state and local law enforcement officers to perform these background checks.Sheriff Jay Printz and Sheriff Richard Mack: Jay Printz, the Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana, and Richard Mack, the former Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, were local law enforcement officers responsible for performing the background checks mandated by the Brady Act.Legal Challenge: Both Printz and Mack, along with other law enforcement officials, challenged the Brady Act on the grounds that it violated the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They argued that the federal government could not compel state and local law enforcement officers to perform background checks because it violated principles of federalism and the separation of powers.The Supreme Court Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Printz and Mack. The Court held that the Brady Act's provisions requiring state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers were unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the federal government could not commandeer state and local officials to carry out federal regulatory programs.

Us v Lopez 1995

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 made it a federal offense to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, brought a handgun to school in violation of the Act.Lopez was arrested and charged under the federal law. He was subsequently indicted on federal firearms charges.Events Leading to the Case:Lopez's legal challenge focused on the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act. His lawyers argued that the Act exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.The case went to trial in the U.S. District Court, where Lopez was found guilty and convicted of violating the federal law. He was sentenced to six months in prison.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld Lopez's conviction, finding that the Act was a valid exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause.Legal Question:The central legal question in "United States v. Lopez" was whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which made it a federal offense to possess a firearm in a school zone, was a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Supreme Court Decision:In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alfonzo Lopez, holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The Court's key findings included:Commerce Clause Limitation: The Court ruled that the Act, which criminalized the possession of firearms in school zones, did not have a sufficient connection to interstate commerce to justify federal regulation. The Court noted that the possession of a firearm near a school did not inherently involve interstate commerce.Expanding Federal Authority: The Court expressed concern

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

The Social Security Act: The Social Security Act of 1935 was a landmark piece of New Deal legislation. Among its provisions was the imposition of a payroll tax on employers to fund the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program, which would provide financial assistance to eligible retirees and survivors.Challenge by Steward Machine Co.: The Steward Machine Company, a manufacturer based in Alabama, challenged the constitutionality of the Social Security Act. They argued that the Act's taxing provisions, which imposed taxes on employers, violated the Tenth Amendment and the reserved powers of the states.Legal Issue: The central legal issue in this case was whether the federal government could constitutionally impose taxes on employers to fund a program like Social Security. The case raised questions about the balance of power between the federal government and the states.The Supreme Court Decision: In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and its taxing provisions. The Court held that the federal government had the authority to levy payroll taxes on employers for the purpose of funding the OASI program. The decision emphasized the federal government's power to promote the general welfare and provide for the economic security of the nation's citizens.Significance: Steward Machine Co. v. Davis is notable because it validated the federal government's authority to levy taxes to support social welfare programs, like Social Security, and clarified the limits of state sovereignty in the face of federal economic regulation. This decision played a pivotal role in the expansion of the federal government's role in social welfare and its ability to raise revenue for such programs.The case established an important precedent in favor of federal authority to enact and f

Nixon impeachment 1974 removal

The Watergate scandal originated with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in June 1972. Subsequent investigations revealed that individuals associated with the Nixon administration had orchestrated the break-in and engaged in a cover-up of their involvement. Cover-up Efforts: President Nixon and his aides, including Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and Counsel John Ehrlichman, were implicated in efforts to obstruct the FBI and the Watergate investigation. This involved destroying evidence, paying hush money to the burglars, and using government agencies to interfere with the inquiry. White House Tapes: The existence of secret Oval Office recordings became known during the investigation. These tapes provided crucial evidence of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up. Saturday Night Massacre: In October 1973, Nixon ordered the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, leading to the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. The event further intensified calls for Nixon's impeachment. Impeachment Proceedings: The House Judiciary Committee initiated formal impeachment proceedings in May 1974. The articles of impeachment included charges of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. The committee conducted extensive hearings, and the evidence, including the White House tapes, strongly suggested Nixon's involvement in the cover-up. Key Legal and Constitutional Issues: Executive Privilege: Nixon asserted executive privilege, arguing that the tapes were protected from disclosure. However, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Nixon (1974), ruled unanimously that executive privilege was not absolute and ordered the release of the tapes.

Missouri v. Holland (1920) Power to make treaties and executive agreements

The case arose from a dispute between the federal government and the state of Missouri over the regulation of migratory bird hunting. Key Issues: Treaty-Making Powers: The primary issue in the case was the extent of the federal government's treaty-making powers and whether a treaty could empower the federal government to regulate matters traditionally reserved to the states. Federalism and State Sovereignty: The case delved into the constitutional balance between federal and state authority, particularly in areas where the Constitution is silent or ambiguous. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court rendered its decision on April 19, 1920. The opinion was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and the Court ruled in favor of the federal government. Key Points from the Decision: Treaty-Making Powers: The Court held that the federal government's power to make treaties, as outlined in the Constitution, is extensive and includes the authority to enter into agreements on matters that might otherwise fall within the domain of state authority. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: At the heart of the case was the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a federal law implementing a treaty between the United States and Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada). The treaty aimed to protect migratory birds by regulating hunting. Missouri challenged the Act, arguing that it encroached upon the state's traditional authority to regulate hunting within its borders.

Medellin v. Texas (2008) power to make treaties

The case arose from the convictions of several Mexican nationals, including Jose Medellin, for rape and murder in Texas. The central issue was whether the United States was obligated to implement a decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Key Issues: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: The primary issue was the United States' compliance with its international obligations under the Vienna Convention, which grants foreign nationals the right to contact their consulate when arrested. Enforceability of ICJ Decisions: The case raised questions about the enforceability of decisions of the International Court of Justice in U.S. domestic courts and the authority of the President to direct state courts to comply with such decisions. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on March 25, 2008. The Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled against Medellin, holding that the President's memorandum directing state courts to comply with the ICJ decision did not have the force of law without implementing legislation from Congress. Key Points from the Decision: Enforceability of ICJ Decisions: The Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not self-executing and cannot be directly enforced in U.S. domestic courts without implementing legislation from Congress. Presidential Authority: The Court rejected the argument that the President had the authority to unilaterally enforce an ICJ decision through a memorandum. The Court emphasized the separation of powers and the need for congressional action to give effect to international commitments.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) judicial power; standing

The case focused on a regulatory provision that required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that their actions did not jeopardize the existence of endangered or threatened species. Key Issues: Standing: The central issue was whether the plaintiffs, environmental organizations and their members, had standing to sue. Standing requires the presence of injury, causation, and redressability. Endangered Species Act (ESA): The case involved the interpretation and application of a provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to avoid actions that might jeopardize the existence of endangered or threatened species. Factual Background: The plaintiffs, Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental organizations, challenged a regulatory provision issued by the Secretary of the Interior that limited the application of the ESA to actions within the United States or on the high seas. The plaintiffs argued that this limitation adversely affected their members' ability to observe and study endangered species abroad. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 12, 1992. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Key Points from the Decision: Injury-in-Fact Requirement: The Court emphasized the requirement of injury-in-fact, stating that to establish standing, the plaintiffs must show that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Causation: The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the causation element of standing. The alleged injury, in this case, depended on the actions of third parties—foreign governments and individuals—not the challenged regulatory provision itself.

Zivotovsky v. Kerry (2015) presidential power

The case involves a long-standing diplomatic dispute between the United States and Israel over the status of Jerusalem. Congress passed a law allowing U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list "Israel" as their place of birth on their passports. However, successive administrations, including that of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, maintained a policy of not recognizing any country's sovereignty over Jerusalem and refusing to enforce the law. The case arose when the parents of Menachem Zivotovsky, an American citizen born in Jerusalem, sought to enforce the law and have "Israel" listed as his place of birth on his passport. Key Issues: Whether the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns and determine the content of passports, or if Congress can legislate on the matter. Whether the law allowing citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their place of birth unconstitutionally infringes on the president's power in foreign affairs. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the president has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereigns and determine the content of passports. The law enacted by Congress, in this case, unconstitutionally encroached upon the president's powers. Rationale: Exclusive Presidential Power in Recognition: The Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle that the president has the exclusive authority to recognize foreign governments and determine the content of official government documents related to foreign policy, including passports. This power is derived from the Constitution's vesting of foreign affairs powers in the executive branch.

Wickard v Filburn (1941)

The case is particularly significant for its impact on the scope of federal authority in regulating activities that may not, at first glance, seem directly related to interstate commerce. Here are the key facts of the case:Background: During the Great Depression, the U.S. government implemented various agricultural policies to control and stabilize the agricultural market, including the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The Act imposed production quotas on wheat to support wheat prices.Filburn's Farming Activities: Roscoe Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who grew wheat for both personal consumption and for sale in interstate commerce. To comply with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, he was given a wheat acreage allotment but exceeded it by growing more wheat than permitted.Legal Action: The U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered Filburn to pay a penalty for exceeding his wheat allotment. Filburn challenged this action, arguing that the wheat he had grown in excess of his allotment was solely for his family's consumption and had not entered the interstate market. Therefore, he believed it was beyond the reach of federal regulation.Legal Issue: The main issue in this case was whether Congress could regulate wheat production that was never intended for sale or trade in interstate commerce, but for personal consumption on a family farm.Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Filburn and in favor of the government. The Court held that Filburn's excess wheat production for personal consumption still had a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, as it reduced the amount of wheat he would purchase in the open market. The Court concluded that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate and control this activity because of its cumulative impact on the national economy.Sig

Hutchinson v Proxmire 1979

William Proxmire, a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, was known for his opposition to government waste and overspending. He initiated the "Golden Fleece Award," which he presented to government programs he deemed wasteful or frivolous.Proxmire was critical of various federally funded research projects, one of which was a grant awarded to Dr. Robert L. Hutchinson, a professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh. Hutchinson's research focused on the effects of the psychological stress of life as a political figure.Events Leading to the Case:Proxmire made a series of speeches and issued press releases criticizing the grant awarded to Dr. Hutchinson, labeling it as wasteful and frivolous. He used the "Golden Fleece Award" to highlight this grant.Hutchinson filed a lawsuit against Proxmire, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Hutchinson claimed that Proxmire's statements were damaging to his reputation and career.Legal Question:The central legal question in this case was whether Proxmire's statements and use of the "Golden Fleece Award" were protected under the First Amendment's right to free speech, or if they constituted defamation and invasion of privacy.Supreme Court Decision:The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled in favor of Dr. Hutchinson. The Court found that Proxmire's statements and the use of the "Golden Fleece Award" were not protected under the First Amendment and constituted defamation.The key findings and reasoning in the Court's decision included: Proxmire's statements were false, and he knew or should have known they were false when he made them. The First Amendment does not protect false statements made with knowledge of their falsity and with the intent to harm an individual's reputation.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Power to seize property

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, commonly known as the Steel Seizure Case, was a landmark Supreme Court decision that arose during the Korean War. In response to a labor dispute in the steel industry, President Harry S. Truman, on April 8, 1952, issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce, Charles Sawyer, to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills. Truman justified the order as a necessary measure to avert a nationwide strike that could jeopardize the production of steel crucial for the war effort. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. and other steel companies challenged the constitutionality of Truman's executive order, asserting that it exceeded the president's powers under the Constitution. Key Legal Issues: Presidential Power During Wartime: The central issue was the scope of the President's inherent authority, especially in matters related to national security and wartime, and the limits imposed by the Constitution. Separation of Powers: The case raised questions about the separation of powers among the three branches of government, particularly the president's ability to act without explicit authorization from Congress. Justice Hugo Black's Majority Opinion: Justice Black, writing for the majority, held that Truman's seizure of the steel mills was unconstitutional. The opinion stated that the president's power is not unlimited and that his authority must stem from either an act of Congress or the Constitution itself. Justice Black rejected the argument that the president could act based on inherent or implied powers during emergencies. He emphasized that only Congress could authorize such actions.

Ex Parte Milligan (1866) power to establish special domestic courts

addressed the constitutionality of the trial by military commission of a civilian, Lambdin P. Milligan, during the American Civil War. The case raised fundamental questions about the constitutional limits on the suspension of habeas corpus and the jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians. Key Issues: Habeas Corpus and Civil Liberties: The primary issue was whether the military trial of a civilian, who was not a member of the military, outside the theater of war, was constitutional, especially when civil courts were functioning. Constitutional Limits on Presidential Power: The case also delved into the scope of presidential power during wartime, particularly concerning the suspension of habeas corpus, and whether the Constitution allowed the military to exercise judicial authority over civilians in areas where civil courts were still operating. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court rendered its decision on April 3, 1866, and it was delivered by Justice David Davis. The Court ruled in favor of Lambdin P. Milligan, holding that the military trial of a civilian in a state not under rebellion and where the civil courts were open was unconstitutional. Preservation of Civil Liberties: Ex Parte Milligan is a crucial decision in the protection of civil liberties during wartime. It established that the Constitution does not allow for the imposition of martial law and military trials on civilians when civil courts are open and functioning. Limits on Presidential Power: The case set a precedent that the executive branch's authority is subject to constitutional limits, even during times of war. It emphasized the importance of the judiciary in checking and balancing executive power.

Mass. v. EPA (2007) the fourth branch of government

case that addressed the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The case had significant implications for environmental law, climate change policy, and the interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Key Issues: Standing to Sue: The central issue was whether the petitioners, including the state of Massachusetts, had standing to bring a lawsuit against the EPA for its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Factual Background: In 1999, several organizations and states, including Massachusetts, petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA denied the petition, asserting that it lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate such emissions. The petitioners filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA's denial. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on April 2, 2007, in a 5-4 ruling. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. Key Points from the Decision: Standing to Sue: The Court held that the petitioners, including Massachusetts, had standing to sue the EPA. It concluded that Massachusetts had demonstrated a concrete and particularized injury, as rising sea levels caused by global warming could harm its coastal areas. Textual Interpretation of the Clean Air Act: The Court emphasized that Congress intended the Clean Air Act to be a flexible tool for addressing new environmental challenges. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a dissenting opinion. The dissent argued that the majority's interpretation of the Clean Air Act was overly broad and that the EPA had the discretion to decline to regulate based on policy considerations.

Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Nationwide injunctions

case that addressed the constitutionality of Executive Order 13780, commonly known as the "travel ban." The executive order, signed by President Donald Trump in 2017, sought to restrict entry into the United States for nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries. The case involved complex issues related to presidential authority, immigration policy, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Key Issues: Presidential Authority: The central issue was whether the President of the United States had the authority, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), to issue the travel ban as a means of protecting national security. Religious Discrimination: The case also raised questions about whether the travel ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by discriminating against individuals based on their religion. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 26, 2018. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the third version of the travel ban, known as Presidential Proclamation 9645. Key Points from the Decision: Statutory Authority: The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the President had broad authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States if he determined that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the country. National Security Justification: The Court found that the travel ban was rooted in a legitimate national security justification. The proclamation identified specific concerns about the vetting procedures of certain countries and outlined a comprehensive review process for evaluating their compliance with U.S. security standards

Flast v. Cohen (1968) Judicial power; standing

case that addressed the issue of taxpayer standing to challenge the constitutionality of government expenditures. The case originated from a challenge to federal spending on religious activities in parochial schools, and it raised important questions about the limits of standing to bring constitutional claims. Taxpayer Standing: The central issue was whether individual taxpayers had standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of government expenditures, particularly those involving the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Establishment Clause's application to federal spending on religious activities in parochial schools and whether taxpayers had the right to challenge such expenditures. Factual Background: The plaintiffs, led by Alton Lemon and Vashti McCollum, were individual taxpayers challenging federal funding provided to religiously affiliated schools under Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The plaintiffs argued that this federal spending violated the Establishment Clause by providing financial support to religious institutions. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 10, 1968. In a 8-1 ruling, the Court held that taxpayers had standing to challenge the constitutionality of government expenditures that allegedly violated the Establishment Clause. Key Points from the Decision: Direct and Personal Injury: The Court held that the plaintiffs had suffered a direct and personal injury because the federal expenditures they challenged involved an alleged violation of the Establishment Clause, a constitutional provision designed to protect individual rights. Establishment Clause as a Limitation: The decision emphasized the Establishment Clause's unique role as a limitation on the spending power of Congress

Calder v. Bull (1798) judicial review

case that dealt with issues related to the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. The case originated in Connecticut and centered around a state legislative act that retroactively nullified a will and redistributed the property of a deceased man. Key Issues: Ex Post Facto Clause: The central issue was whether the Connecticut state law, which retroactively invalidated a will and altered the distribution of the deceased's property, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits the passage of laws that retroactively criminalize an action or increase the punishment for a past offense. Contracts Clause: The case also raised questions about whether the state law violated the Contracts Clause, which prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on February 20, 1798. Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth delivered the opinion of the Court, which was unanimous in its judgment but included separate concurring opinions from several justices. Key Points from the Decision: Ex Post Facto Clause: The Court held that the Ex Post Facto Clause applied only to criminal matters and did not extend to civil cases such as the one involving the distribution of the deceased's property. The Court emphasized the specific language and historical context of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Contracts Clause: The Court ruled that the state law did not violate the Contracts Clause. The reasoning was that the law, while affecting the distribution of property, did not impair the obligation of contracts in a manner that was prohibited by the Constitution.

Morrison v. Olson (1988) appointments and removal power

case that dealt with the constitutionality of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, specifically the provision creating the independent counsel office. The case arose in the context of the investigation into alleged wrongdoing by Theodore Olson, an official in the Department of Justice, and raised questions about the separation of powers and the appointment and removal of executive branch officials. Key Issues: Independent Counsel's Authority: The central issue was whether the appointment and removal provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, which established an independent counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute certain high-ranking government officials, violated the constitutional separation of powers. Executive Branch Control: The case raised questions about the balance between the executive branch's authority to control and supervise its officers and the need for independent investigations of executive branch officials to ensure accountability. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 29, 1988. In a 7-1 decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. Key Points from the Decision: Limited Jurisdiction: The Court noted that the independent counsel had limited jurisdiction, focused on specific matters and individuals, and operated within the framework of existing laws. The appointment did not create a separate and unchecked executive branch. Executive Branch Oversight: The Court acknowledged that the appointment of the independent counsel did limit the President's control over the investigation and prosecution of certain executive branch officials. However, it concluded that this limitation was constitutionally permissible in light of the Act's narrow focus and the need for independent oversight.

Baker v. Carr (1962) Justice Brennan opinion political questions doctrine

case that dealt with the issue of political gerrymandering and the justiciability of such claims. The case originated from Tennessee, where the plaintiffs challenged the state's legislative apportionment, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice William J. Brennan wrote the majority opinion for the Court. Key Issues: Equal Protection Clause: The central issue was whether the malapportionment of Tennessee's legislative districts, which resulted in a significant disparity in voter representation, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justiciability: The case raised questions about whether the issue of political gerrymandering was justiciable—that is, whether it was a matter that the federal courts could and should decide. Justice Brennan's Majority Opinion: Justice Brennan's majority opinion, delivered on March 26, 1962, addressed both the constitutional merits of the case and the justiciability of claims involving legislative apportionment. Equal Protection Clause: One Person, One Vote: Justice Brennan's opinion held that the malapportionment of legislative districts, which resulted in unequal representation, violated the principle of "one person, one vote." He argued that each citizen's vote should carry equal weight, and disparities in district populations diluted the voting power of some citizens while enhancing that of others.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) appointments and removal power

case that dealt with the removal of a commissioner from an independent regulatory agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the constitutional limits on the President's power to remove officials from such agencies. Key Issues: Presidential Removal Power: The central issue in the case was whether the President had the constitutional authority to remove a commissioner from an independent regulatory agency without cause. Independence of Regulatory Agencies: The case raised questions about the independence of regulatory bodies and the extent to which the President could exercise control over officials appointed to these agencies. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on May 27, 1935. The Court ruled against President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to remove William E. Humphrey, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Key Points from the Decision: Independence of Regulatory Agencies: The Court recognized that certain agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission, were created to be independent and insulated from direct executive control. These agencies were designed to perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. For-Cause Removal Restrictions: The Court held that the statute establishing the Federal Trade Commission, which provided for removal only for cause, limited the President's power to remove commissioners. The for-cause removal provision meant that commissioners could only be removed for specific reasons, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Preservation of Independence: The decision emphasized that the independence of certain agencies was essential for them to function effectively. The for-cause removal provision protected commissioners from arbitrary removal and allowed them to perform their duties without fear of political reprisal.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) The Fourth branch of government

case that established a framework for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes. The case dealt with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act. Key Issues: Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretations: The central issue was the level of deference that courts should give to administrative agencies when interpreting ambiguous statutory language. Clean Air Act Interpretation: The case involved the interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act that dealt with the regulation of "stationary sources" of air pollution, specifically whether the EPA's interpretation of this provision was entitled to judicial deference. Factual Background: Under the Clean Air Act, states were required to develop implementation plans to achieve and maintain air quality standards. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 25, 1984, in a 6-2 ruling. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. Key Points from the Decision: Chevron Two-Step Framework: The Court established a two-step framework for reviewing agency interpretations of statutes: Step One: The court must determine whether the statute is clear or ambiguous. If the statute is clear, the court must give effect to the plain meaning of the text. If the statute is ambiguous, the court proceeds to step two. Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, the court must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous provision. Deference to Agency Expertise: The Court emphasized the expertise of administrative agencies in interpreting complex statutory schemes within their areas of responsibility. It argued that agencies are better equipped to make policy choices and fill gaps in statutory language. Reasonable Agency Interpretation

Marbury v. Madison (1803) judicial review

case that established the principle of judicial review, empowering the federal courts to review the constitutionality of government actions and strike down laws that violate the Constitution. The case arose from a political dispute during the transition between the administrations of outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson. Key Issues: Midnight Appointments: The central issue was the legality of last-minute judicial appointments made by President Adams in the final days of his presidency, commonly referred to as the "midnight appointments." Delivery of Commissions: The case also involved the failure to deliver commissions to some of the appointees, including William Marbury, before the new administration took office. Court's Decision: Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court on February 24, 1803. While the Court ruled in favor of Marbury on the issue of entitlement to his commission, it ultimately held that it lacked the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The decision rested on the interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and, more significantly, on the broader constitutional question of the Court's power of judicial review. Key Points from the Decision: Entitlement to Commission: The Court held that Marbury was legally entitled to his commission as a justice of the peace, as his appointment had been signed and sealed by President Adams. Judicial Review: The critical aspect of the decision was Chief Justice Marshall's assertion that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional. Marshall argued that this provision exceeded the Court's original jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. In doing so, he asserted the Court's power of judicial review.

Goldwater v. Carter (1979) / Justice Brennan dissent power to make treaties

case that involved a challenge to the constitutional authority of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally terminate a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate. The case raised questions about the balance of power between the President and Congress in matters related to treaty termination. Key Issues: Presidential Power to Terminate Treaties: The primary issue was whether the President has the constitutional authority to unilaterally terminate a mutual defense treaty without obtaining the consent of the Senate. Separation of Powers: The case delved into the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the allocation of authority between the executive and legislative branches concerning treaty-making and termination. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court did not reach a decision on the merits of the case due to a lack of justiciability. The Court, in a per curiam (unsigned) opinion, held that the case presented a political question that was not suitable for judicial resolution. The Court found that the issues raised were nonjusticiable. Brennan dissent Justiciability: Brennan disagreed with the majority's characterization of the issues as nonjusticiable political questions. He believed that there were judicially manageable standards to assess whether the President exceeded his constitutional authority in terminating the treaty. Role of the Judiciary: Brennan asserted that the Court had a responsibility to interpret the Constitution and decide cases within its jurisdiction. Judicial Review: Brennan argued that the case did not involve a wholesale intrusion into the realm of foreign affairs, as the Court was not being asked to pass judgment on the wisdom or prudence of the President's foreign policy decisions.

United States v. Pink (1942) Power to make treaties and executive agreements

dealt with the constitutionality of an executive agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union regarding the disposition of assets of American-owned companies in the Soviet Union. The case involved questions about the treaty power of the President, the extent of congressional authority, and the separation of powers. Key Issues: Executive Agreement vs. Treaty: The primary issue in the case was whether an executive agreement made by the President, without Senate ratification, could have the same legal force and effect as a treaty. Treaty Power and Separation of Powers: The case raised broader questions about the allocation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, particularly regarding the making of international agreements and treaties. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court rendered its decision on May 4, 1942. The opinion was written by Justice Felix Frankfurter, and the Court ruled in favor of the United States. Key Points from the Decision: Treaty Power and Executive Agreements: The Court held that the President had the constitutional authority to make executive agreements without seeking Senate ratification, provided that the subject matter of the agreement fell within the President's foreign affairs powers and did not intrude upon areas exclusively reserved for Congress. Congressional Consent: The Court rejected the argument that congressional consent was required for the agreements to be effective. It emphasized that, while the President could not make treaties without Senate ratification in matters exclusively within Congress's domain, the agreements in question did not fall into such a category. Foreign Affairs Powers: The Court recognized the President's foreign affairs power

Bowsher v. Synar (1986) appointments and removal power

dealt with the constitutionality of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985. This legislation aimed to reduce the federal budget deficit by establishing specific deficit targets and automatic spending cuts if those targets were not met. The case involved the separation of powers and the constitutionality of the Comptroller General's role in the enforcement of budgetary measures. Key Issues: Separation of Powers: The primary issue was whether the assignment of certain functions to the Comptroller General, a legislative officer, violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers by blurring the lines between the executive and legislative branches. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 27, 1986. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that the powers granted to the Comptroller General under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act violated the Constitution's separation of powers. Key Points from the Decision: Legislative Officer Issue: The Court held that the Comptroller General, who is an officer of Congress, could not be assigned executive functions that involve enforcement and execution of laws. Such a blending of legislative and executive powers was deemed incompatible with the separation of powers. Control Over Executive Branch: The Court emphasized that the Constitution vests the President with the power to execute laws and that Congress cannot reserve for itself or its officers the power to execute the law and control the executive branch. Non-Removal Provision: The Court highlighted a provision in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act that made the Comptroller General unremovable by the President except for specific reasons, which further interfered with the President's control over the executive branch.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958) judicial power: nullification

efforts to resist the desegregation of public schools following the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The case addressed the authority of federal courts and the obligation of state officials to comply with the Court's rulings. Key Issues: Desegregation and Little Rock Crisis: The central issue was the resistance to the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, following the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The case specifically dealt with the events surrounding the integration of Central High School in Little Rock. Authority of Federal Courts: The case raised questions about the authority of federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to enforce its decisions and the duty of state officials to comply with those decisions. Factual Background: In 1954, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. However, in Little Rock, Arkansas, efforts to implement desegregation were met with strong resistance. The state government, led by Governor Orval Faubus, opposed the integration of Central High School, leading to the infamous "Little Rock Crisis." Court's Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on September 29, 1958. The decision was unanimous, with all nine justices joining the opinion. Key Points from the Decision: Authority of Federal Courts: It affirmed that federal courts had the final authority to interpret the Constitution, and their decisions were binding on state officials. Rule of Law and Judicial Supremacy: The opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, emphasized the importance of the rule of law and the principle of judicial supremacy. Obligation to Comply with Court Decisions, including governor

Administrative Procedures Act (1946)

governs the procedures agencies must follow when making regulations, conducting adjudications, and engaging in rulemaking. The APA aims to ensure transparency, fairness, and public participation in the rulemaking and administrative processes. Here are key aspects of the Administrative Procedures Act: Rulemaking Procedures: The APA sets forth the procedures that federal agencies must follow when making regulations. It requires agencies to provide notice of proposed rulemaking, solicit public comments, and consider these comments before finalizing rules. This process enhances public input and ensures that regulations are informed by diverse perspectives. Adjudication Procedures: The APA establishes procedures for agency adjudications, ensuring fairness in administrative hearings and decision-making. It guarantees parties involved in agency proceedings the right to a hearing, representation, and the opportunity to present evidence. Publication and Recordkeeping: The APA requires agencies to publish their rules, decisions, and other significant documents in the Federal Register. This ensures that the public has access to information about agency actions. Additionally, agencies are mandated to maintain a public record of their proceedings. Informal Rulemaking: The APA outlines the process for informal rulemaking, where agencies can issue rules without a formal trial-like proceeding. This process is less formal and more flexible, allowing for greater efficiency in rulemaking. Formal Rulemaking: In cases where statutes require formal rulemaking, the APA provides for a more formal process, including a trial-like hearing with cross-examination. Formal rulemaking is less common and is typically reserved for specific statutory requirements.

Madison const view

original intent of the document. originalist

Justice Brennan constitutional interpretation

pragmatism Living Constitution: Similar to Justice Marshall, Brennan believed in a "living constitution." He argued that the Constitution's provisions should be interpreted in a way that adapts to the evolving values and needs of society. This perspective allowed for a more flexible and dynamic approach to constitutional interpretation. Expansive View of Individual Rights: Brennan was a staunch defender of individual rights and liberties. He advocated for an expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions to protect a wide range of individual freedoms, including freedom of speech, privacy, and equal protection under the law. Equal Protection: Justice Brennan played a significant role in shaping the Court's jurisprudence on equal protection. He was a key figure in decisions such as Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which dealt with issues of political representation and the principle of "one person, one vote." Judicial Activism: Brennan was not hesitant to embrace judicial activism when he believed it was necessary to protect constitutional rights and principles. He saw the judiciary as a crucial institution for safeguarding individual liberties and believed in an active role for the Court in addressing social injustices.