POLI 410 Exam 3

Arizona v. United States

*Arizona passed legislation that wanted to prevent against illegal aliens *Arizona argued that they were just using state resources to enforce existing federal rules *US argued that the national government had the plenary authority to admit aliens, and the state cannot claim the right to punish aliens *Court decided that state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

*Bartlett reacted adversely to a generic drug *under the federal law, once a drug is approved, they cannot change the ingredients or the labeling *under NH law, the pharmaceutical company could only avoid liability by changing the ingredients or labeling *conflict preemption *Court concludes that the federal law preempts the state law even though there is no express provision in the law

Gonzales v. Raich

*California allowed medical marijuana, federal law prevented it *Court ruled that Congress does have the right to regulate the possession of medical marijuana even if it is entirely local and not sold in interstate commerce *Congress can regulate something that is entirely local because even the personal local use of an item is still subject to control by Congress (Wickard v. Filburn) *production and distribution of commodities for which there is an intrastate market - rational means of regulating commerce in that product

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

*Child Labor Tax Law imposed excise taxes on companies that used child labor, DFC sued for a refund on their taxes because they had been taxed for employing a boy under the age of 14 *Court decided that the Child Labor Tax Law was in violation of the Constitution, it intruded on the jurisdiction of states to adopt and enforce child labor codes - Taft stated that this was a regulatory tax in a realm over which Congress had no jurisdiction

United States v. United States Shoe Corp

*Congress imposed a tax (HMT) that was a uniform charge on shipments of commercial cargo through the nation's ports *Shoe corp paid the HMT for articles it exported, USSC alleged that the HMT violates the export clause (states that no tax shall be laid on articles exported) *Court ruled that the HMT does violate the export clause, the payment was not a user fee and was a tax on exports so it was not allowed

Berman v. Parker

*Congress passed a law known as the DC redevelopment act, was designed to deal with poverty and decay in SW DC *owners of one of the buildings claimed that their property was being taken unconstitutionally for their project, argued that it was not for public use and the government just wanted the whole area to look uniform *the Court decided that Congress has authority over Washington, it can take whatever steps it feels are appropriate for legislating (includes taking private property for the purposes of redevelopment even if redevelopment means subsequent sale)

Maine v. Taylor

*Maine prohibited the importation of live fish to be used as bait in inland waters(to prevent invasive species, etc.), Taylor did just that and claimed that the ban on interstate shipment of baitfish was a direct violation of the commerce clause because the states were regulating something that involved interstate commerce *Court held that the limitation imposed by the commerce clause on state regulatory power was not absolute and that the states had authority under police powers to regulate matters of legitimate local concern

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

*Congress passed the ACA with the goal of increasing the amount of Americans covered by health insurance *power of the purse - challengers of the ACA argued that Congress exceeded its commerce clause powers by compelling individuals to purchase insurance when they may not wish to do so -> the court ruled that the minimum coverage provision was not a valid use of commerce clause (commerce clause cannot compel individuals to participate in commerce) *even if the ACA is not legitimate under the commerce clause, it can be sustained under the taxing clause -> used the ACA as a regulatory tool to encourage purchasing health insurance (if the states did not expand medicaid coverage, they would receive less federal funding)

South Carolina v. Baker

*Congress passed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which removed the federal income tax exemption for interest earned on publicly offered long term bonds unless they were issued in registered form *Court decided that subsequent decisions had overruled Pollock so that state bond interest is not immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax -> therefore, owners of state bonds have no authority to exempt taxes on earned income *continued trend towards eroding the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis

*Congress passed the social security act, imposed an excise tax on employers who hired more than 8 workers based on total amounts of wages paid *Steward Machine Co claimed that the SSA violated the constitution, especially the 10th amendment *Court held that this tax was constitutional, it would benefit the general welfare of the people as well as both the states and the federal government (rational basis test based on the high rate of unemployment and poorly performing economy)

Daniel v. Paul

*Court is generally allowed to put anything in interstate commerce, but some justices think there is a limit and that the limit is reached here *if something was deemed to be a part of interstate commerce, it was considered public and therefore segregation was illegal *small private recreational area that was racially discriminatory *Court determined that this was not private, Congress can bring anything under the umbrella of interstate commerce *interstate commerce because of the snack bar, paddle boats and juke box had been shipped from out of state

Fletcher v. Peck

*Georgia legislature decided to sell off much of the public Yazoo land at an extremely low price *voters voted everyone out of the legislature and new legislature wanted to rescind the corrupt sale *Chief Justice Marshall ruled that as far as regular legislation is concerned, a legislature can always reverse the laws enacted by a previous legislature, but this is not what happened here (instead, it was nullifying a contract) *Marshall = a succeeding property cannot undo the past contracts - the property is now legally owned by someone else, and Georgia cannot pass a law declaring otherwise

Penn Central Transportation v. New York

*Grand Central Depot wanted to look for ways to enhance their buildings, submitted designs to the city of NY *NY had exercised their police powers to preserve important cultural heritage *courts determined that this was a land use restriction and not a taking - the government can create laws that adversely effect the economy of a business without it being a taking *zoning laws always impact some businesses more than others, this is how it always happens

US v. Lopez

*Gun Free School Zones Act made it a federal crime to have a firearm close to a school *this act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession is connected to interstate commerce, thus Congress has regulated something that they do not get to regulate *Congress cannot claim that it is regulating the instrumentalities of interstate commerce because neither Lopez nor his weapon are connected to interstate commerce (purely local activity, states can regulate schools)

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

*Hawaiian legislature realized that most of the land of Hawaii was owned by a few private landowners, so they enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967, adopted redistributions *Midkiff was a landholder who challenged the act *Court held that the public use clause did not preclude Hawaii from taking title in real property, with just compensation, for the purpose of reducing the concentration of ownership *Hawaii's statute was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose

Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal

*Implicit preemption - if Congress regulates so comprehensively that it occupies the field, it would implicitly preempt any state laws *ordinance in Burbank California tried to limit the noise associated with airplanes *FAA has the authority to make regulations associated with noise, they are responsible for flow control (there is a necessity for a national scheme of authority over the airspace) *Court ruled that the local regulation is invalid because the federal government has implicitly preempted state regulation by comprehensive policy- Congress has not left anything else for the states to regulate

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council

*Massachusetts barred state entities from buying from Burma, Congress later passed sanctions on Burma *NFTC were affected by the state act, they argued that to allow state action here would put foreign policy at risk, commerce clause is jeopardized by discriminating against businesses who interact with Burma *Court ruled that the state act is unconstitutional under the supremacy clause, the state law created an obstacle for the president's discretion to control economic foreign policy

Granholm v. Heald

*Michigan and New York - in state wineries could ship their products directly to consumers and out of state wineries could not *laws were challenged due to the dormant commerce clause - Congress is not involved but they said it was still harming interstate commerce *court ruled that state laws that discriminate against interstate commerce violate the interstate commerce clause, people in these states should have the same right as anyone else to order wine in interstate commerce

Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury

*Michigan's revenue code said that retirement benefits were exempt from state income tax as long as they were from the state *Davis believed that the state's policy of taxing federal retirement benefits but not state benefits violated a federal statute *Court decided that this was a violation of federal law, intergovernmental tax immunity works to keep operations of government separate - the Michigan tax was distinguishing between employees solely on the source of the pay, which is unconstitutional

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

*NC Board of Agriculture required apple containers to display USDA grade or nothing at all, purpose was consistency and straightforwardness - only state with this regulation *Washington challenged the regulations, it has higher standards than the USDA *Court ruled that the NC regulation was an unconstitutional exercise of the state's power over interstate commerce - had a discriminatory impact on Washington growers

Kelo v. City of New London

*New London was a CT city that suffered economic decline, they decided to build a Pfizer drug research facility to bring jobs and new tax revenues to the city, city had to acquire 115 pieces of privately owned land for this *the property of Kelo was not in poor condition, it was only condemned because it was in the path of the redevelopment project *court ruled that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a public use within the takings clause, it was following an economic development plan rather than trying to benefit a certain group of private individuals

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

*Nollan owned a beachfront lot in California, needed a permit to replace their house with a new structure, they got the permit but the CCC said they had to leave a strip of their property for public use to walk between two beaches *Court decided that the CCC could only pace conditions on the permit when the conditions substantially furthered government interests that would justify denial of the permit entirely *Court ruled that this was a regulatory taking without compensation as the Nolan's desire to rebuild their home did not further the government's interest in overcoming a barrier to using the beach

Katzenbach v. McClung

*Ollie's BBQ in Birmingham would not serve black people inside, it did not present itself as an interstate business *Court concluded that Congress had a rational basis to decide that a restaurant is included in the interstate commerce clause

Cooley v. Board of Wardens

*PA law regulated port traffic on waterways, said that ships entering or leaving were obliged to take on a pilot (someone who can guide the ships in an out of port) *doctrine of selective exclusiveness - in some areas of commerce, Congress has exclusive power, in other areas of commerce states may regulate if Congress does not *Court used the reasoning that localized elements of commerce like selection of pilots could be appropriately delegated to the states

Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust

*Pollock held stock in FLTC, filed suit to block the company from paying the national income tax on the ground that the tax was unconstitutional *FLTC argued that a tax on income is not a direct tax *the Constitution gives states the power to impose direct taxation, federal government can only impose direct taxes if they are apportioned among the states in proportion to their Congressional representation *Court ruled that the income tax act violated the Constitution because it was a direct taxation scheme, not apportioned properly among the states

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

*Raisin Administrative Committee imposes a reserve requirement obliging growers to set aside a certain percentage of their crop for the government's use free of charge *Horne was a raisin farmer, they took legal action against the reserve requirement *Court decided that the takings clause applies to personal property, so the reserve requirement is a taking - returning the net proceeds of the sale of the raisins to the owners does not exempt the government from paying just compensation for the taking itself

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

*Rolleston argued that Congress did not have the power to outlaw private racial discrimination *the motel did have a substantial interstate business *Congress had investigated and concluded that racial discrimination had an adverse effect on interstate commerce *even though Congress was thinking like it was exercising police power, this did not matter because they were still regulating interstate commerce

Sveen v Melin

*Sveen and Melin were married, Sveen purchased a life insurance policy with Melin as the primary beneficiary and the children as contingent beneficiaries, Sveen died and Seven's children and Melin cross claimed for the proceeds *Court decided that the retroactive application of Minnesota's revocation upon divorce statute (which automatically nullifies an ex spouses beneficiary designation on a life insurance policy or other will substitute) does not violate the contracts clause

Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona

*The Arizona legislature passed a train limit law, SPC acknowledged operating trains in excess of this limit, SPC argued that the law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the commerce clause *under the dormant commerce Clause, there is no room for state legislation that is hostile to national commerce *Court ruled that the law imposed a great burden on interstate commerce, there was insufficient benefit to Arizona's legitimate health and safety interests to justify so great a commerce burden

State of Missouri v. Holland

*US and GB created a treaty that had the intention of protecting certain birds, US used this treaty as justification to pass a federal act to accomplish the same goal, Missouri challenged this act to prevent it from being enforced *Missouri argued that the law infringed on states' rights whether it was made by treaty or law *Court decided that when Congress acts in the area of foreign affairs, it does so exclusively even if its actions touch on areas over which states have some authority, the supremacy clause defines the treaty as the supreme law of the land

US v. Morrison

*VT student was raped by two football players, sued based on the Violence Against Women Act *Congress: this has a substantial relation to interstate commerce, if women do not feel protected they will not utilize interstate commerce *Court: this provision exceed's Congress's power, they are regulating sexual assault and not interstate commerce *Court: if we accept the government's argument, we will accept any argument - Congress has a lot of power but it is not unlimited

Allied Structural Steel v. Spannaus

*a new law required private employers who maintained pension plans to pay pension benefits to 10 year employees (retroactive for ten years prior) *this violates the contracts clause because it alters the terms of the contract, the state was not doing it to benefit the public welfare

McCray v. US

*asks whether Congress can use their taxing power for encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors *Congress placed a tax on any yellow margarine, responding to pressure from the dairy industry lobby (trying to avoid margarine companies labeling their product as butter) *Court ruled that Congress has absolute discretion in deciding what it is going to tax and what rate - it is not the business of the court to question the motives of Congress

US v. Causby

*chicken farm beside the Greensboro airport *Court ruled that the government had in fact taken the Cause's chicken farm and the planes were invading the Causby's property so they should be entitled to compensation under the takings clause *the intrusion is so immediate and direct that it is a regulatory taking

Perez v. US

*dealt with loan sharking *for every loan that someone is seeking illegitimately, there is a legitimate bank that is not seeing that business ~ loan sharking has an adverse effect on interstate commerce *Congress can regulate loan sharking, the commerce power extends to those intrastate activities that impact interstate commerce *Congress can criminalize certain types of activities through the commerce power

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways

*dormant commerce clause - even when Congress does nothing, states can still be on the wrong side of the commerce clause - by Congress having the commerce power, states do not *Iowa restricted the length of vehicles traveling on its highways, they were concerned about double tractor trailers (justified as use of police power) *Court - Iowa law is invalid because it burdens interstate commerce through the dormant commerce clause

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

*explicit preemption *Congress enacted a law to protect the public from tobacco advertising, Massachusetts imposed a similar state law *Court decided that the state could not impose these regulations because they were specifically preempted by federal law, Congress said that they did not want competing regulations by states *states can exercise their police powers when it comes to tobacco, they just cannot impede on the advertisements based on preemption

Dartmouth College v. Woodward

*in 1816, the state of NH decided that Dartmouth would be more useful if it were converted from a private to a public school *the contract still existed between the king and the original trustees, it was the same as it was in 1769 *court ruled that NH had violated the contracts clause, it could not enact a law that made Dartmouth public because that would not honor the contract that still existed

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

*is it possible for a land use regulation to be so restrictive that it constitutes a taking *Lucas was forbidden from building homes on his land in Isle of Palms due to the Beachfront Management Act * Court determined that this is not a land use regulation, the Congress restrictions renders the property as basically worthless *this is a regulatory action that requires compensation, the state is taking away all value and not restricting

South Dakota v. Dole

*lack of uniformity in drinking ages across state lines *Congress was going to allocate funds in the states to encourage them to keep their drinking age the same *Court determined that Congress is entitled to decide how much it is going to spend to encourage a type of behavior, it is not compelling the states to do anything *Congress does not have the power to legislate the general welfare, but they can spend as much as they want to protect it *laid out three conditions that must be met to evaluate the spending power - spending to promote the general welfare, Congress must explain the connections of conditions to program objectives, and spending cannot violate the constitution

US v. Butler

*prices for farm products dropped, the cost of production was higher than the income from crop sales *Congress passed the AAA which combined the taxing and spending powers to combat the crisis by renting a percentage of the nation's farmland and leaving it unplanted, to enact the AAA an excise tax was imposed *Butler claimed that the AAA exceeded the taxing and spending powers *Court determined that the AAA was unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate agricultural production, an arena reserved to the states *spending power can only be used for the general welfare of the people, but this was means for an unconstitutional end (Congress used the spending power to control activity that was completely within the authority of the states)

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge

*state legislature authorized the construction of the Charles River Bridge (used tolls), legislature created a business corporation and sought investors to fund the bridge, the company paid Harvard for their loss of usage of the ferry *state decided to build Warren Bridge that would operate without tolls *Charles River Bridge had been guaranteed exclusivity because they had paid off Harvard *Chief Justice Taney was a Jacksonian Democrat, believed government should operate to benefit the citizens *Court - states need to be free to do what was best for citizens, if the public interest requires a second bridge then the government should build it, even if this changes a previously established contract

Home Building & Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell

*states passed laws to extend homeowners' time to repay their mortgages after the Great Depression (MMMA) *HBLA argued that the MMMA interfered with the contracts that Blaisdell had signed *the contracts clause is not an absolute bar to the state enacting reasonable legislation to promote the public welfare, the Great Depression was an emergency that made this law for a legitimate ends *promoting the general welfare is a legitimate goal of state government, the rational basis test determines that this legislation is a rational method of pursuing this goal *balance between fully honoring the contracts clause and fully honoring the public interest

Stone v. Mississippi

*the Mississippi agricultural, educational, and manufacturing aid society was invoked to operate a lottery, a few years later a new state constitution was written that contained provisions explicitly outlawing lotteries *Stone argued that the MAEMAS had a valid contract to operate lotteries *court would no longer be sympathetic to contract clause attacks on state regulatory statutes *court found that Mississippi classification of lotteries as outlawed was valid, the state legislature does not have the power to bind the decisions of the people and future legislatures

US v. Kahriger

*there are various state laws on gambling due to varying opinions on morality *Congress placed an occupational tax on gambling - they were making the action more costly in order to discourage it *Court concluded that Congress has the discretion to utilize its taxing power as a means of discouraging whatever activity it wants *taxes can be an indirect regulatory device - tax does not have to produce impactful revenues

Champion v. Ames

*whether Congress can utilize its interstate commerce power to prohibit something from being a part of interstate commerce *lottery tickets are clearly items of interstate traffic and the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce may be exerted to exclude specific items from commerce *rational basis test - if Congress concludes that suppressing the sale of lottery tickets will be helpful to the public welfare, then it can use its power to that ends