POSC340 - Case Briefs

How to write a legal brief

Facts of the Case: Holdings: Reasoning: Other Opinions: Rule of Law:

Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)

*Reinquest was a Reagan nominee which would allow more power for the President Facts: -In reaction to the seizure of the U.S. embassy and American nationals in Iran, President Jimmy Carter invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and froze Iranian assets in the United States -Wanted Carter to look back and gave all the credit of hostage release to Raegan -IEEPA was a peace of legislation that allowed for the President to do away with any current judgements (NOT FUTURE JUDGEMENTS) -Carter relied on his executive powers → did he have the authority to enter into a negotiated agreement? -When the hostages were released in 1981, Treasury Secretary Donald Regan affirmed the agreements made the Carter administration that terminated all legal proceedings against the Iranian government and created an independent Claims Tribunal -Dames & Moore attempted to recover over $3 million owed to it by the Iranian government and claimed the executive orders were beyond the scope of presidential power -Challenge that Carter had no authority Holdings: Did the President have the authority to transfer Iranian funds and to nullify legal claims against Iran? Rational/Reasoning: -Any judicial findings that was currently held against Iran would be disposed of Implicit Approval (congress did not object) of the President's actions so they ultimately upheld it -Whether the President can settle the claims of United States citizens against a foreign government through executive order -Congress has implicitly approved this practice of claim settlement by executive agreement through its history of acquiescence and its enactment of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (ICSA). The ICSA provides for a tribunal to handle settlements between United States citizens and the government of Yugoslavia. Congress has frequently amended the ICSA to address particular problems stemming from settlement agreements with other nations, evidencing Congress's continued approval of the President's claim settlement authority. Other Opinions: -The United States, along with other countries, has historically exercised its right to settle the claims of its nationals against foreign governments for the purpose of keeping peace with those governments. While international treaties often accomplish these actions, the President historically used executive orders, without the consent of the Senate, to settle claims. Rule of Law: The President has authority to settle claims through executive orders where the settlement of claims is necessary for the resolution of a major policy dispute between the United States and another country and where Congress acquiesces to the President's action.

Goldwater v. Carter (1979)

Facts: -President Carter ended a defense treaty with Taiwan without congressional approval. He rescinded the treaty because they wanted to start a new treaty with China (president's authority to recognize foreign countries) -If Congress decides not to hold the President accountable, it is not up to the Courts -The Senate considered a resolution that would require the President to get Senate approval before any mutual defense treaty could be terminated, but there was no final vote on the resolution Holdings: -Did Congress have a constitutional role to play in the termination of the treaty? -Is this issue of whether a President can terminate a treaty without Congressional approval a non-justiciable political question? Rational/Reasoning: -Per Curiam opinion -Without oral argument, the divided justices found that the case was not justiciable -Rehnquist led a group of four others who believed that the issue involved a political question --> Even though the Court cannot review political questions, the court has the power to review whether or not a particular branch of government has exclusive decision-making power over an issue (Can determine if the interpretation of the Constitution is correct_ -How will the President and Congress conduct the nation's foreign affairs? -Justice Powell did not find the case ripe for judicial review -Since Congress had not formally challenged Carter's authority, TECHNICALLY there was no conflict for the Court to resolve --> Whether or not a President can terminate a treaty closely involves his foreign relations authority and therefore is not reviewable by the Supreme Court Other Opinions: -In the arena of foreign affairs, the Court has held issues to be political questions even though many Justices believe these issues relate to the interpretation of the Constitution, and are therefore reviewable. -The Court places a great emphasis on establishing a single, unified voice for the nation on foreign affairs is -Concurring: This issue was not ripe because the Senate never tried to invoke a resolution against it. If it were ripe, the issue would be justiciable because it would require an interpretation of the Constitution Rule of Law: This is a political question and not justiciable

Rasul v. Bush (2004)

Facts of the Case: -After the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the use of force against the terrorists. Rasul and others (Defendants) were captured abroad during the ensuing military campaign. They were held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [the base is in Cuban territory, but the lease gives the United States jurisdiction] -Defendants' relatives challenged the detentions claiming the Defendants are innocent but have not been charged, allowed to talk to an attorney, or access courts. -The United States District Court for the District of Columbia deemed the filings habeas corpus petitions and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Holdings: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions by foreign nationals held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. -Do United States courts have jurisdiction to consider legal appeals filed on behalf of foreign citizens held by the United States military in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba? Reasoning: -In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the degree of control exercised by the United States over the Guantanamo Bay base was sufficient to trigger the application of habeas corpus rights. -Stevens, using a list of precedents stretching back to mid-17th Century English Common Law cases, found that the right to habeas corpus can be exercised in "all ... dominions under the sovereign's control." Because the United States exercised "complete jurisdiction and control" over the base, the fact that ultimate sovereignty remained with Cuba was irrelevant. Other Opinions: Dissent: -The Court's grant of the right to habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to aliens captured and held by the United States military outside United States territorial jurisdiction is plainly contradictory to the clear rule set out in Eisentrager. -Federal courts "within their...jurisdictions," may hear habeas corpus petitions by anyone claiming to be illegally incarcerated under U.S. law. Historically, courts have been authorized to hear habeas petitions by aliens during wartime. The issue is whether the habeas statute authorizes review of the executive detention of an alien in an area where the United States has exclusive jurisdiction but not total sovereignty. Rule of Law: Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions by foreign nationals held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The right to habeas corpus is not dependent on citizenship status

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)

Facts of the Case: -During the American Revolution, Virginia created laws allowing the state to seize property of Loyalists -In 1781, Denny Martin (a British subject) inherited land from his uncle (who was a loyalists). He then contended that his rights were secured under the Treat of Peace with Great Britain in 1783 -The Virginia legislature voided the land grant and transferred the land back to Virginia --> a portion of this land was granted to David Hunter Holdings: -Did Virginia's law trump the federal treaty? Was Section 25 of the Act Constitutional? Reasoning: -Unanimous decision for Martin. Majority opinion by Joseph Story -The Supremacy Clause gives federal courts the power to review state court decisions that interpret federal interpretations of federal law that should supersede state interpretations. There should be uniform and predictable outcomes across all states --> this calls for Federal courts to have appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions -The Court rejected the claim that Virginia and the national government were equal sovereigns. Other Opinions: -This case pertains to the power of the FEDERAL COURTS TO REVIEW DECISIONS BY STATE COURTS Rule of Law: The United States Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.

Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

Facts of the Case: -In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. -The U.S. government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is located on land that the U.S. leases from Cuba. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution's Due Process Clause, various statutes and treaties, the common law, and international law. -The District Court judge granted the government's motion to have all of the claims dismissed on the ground that Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas military base, had no right to a habeas petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal but the Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v. Bush, which held that the habeas statute extends to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo. -In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The Act eliminates federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas applications from detainees who have been designated (according to procedures established in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) as enemy combatants. -When the case was appealed to the D.C. Circuit for the second time, the detainees argued that the MCA did not apply to their petitions, and that if it did, it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause reads: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." -It cited language in the MCA applying the law to "all cases, without exception" that pertain to aspects of detention. One of the purposes of the MCA, according to the Circuit Court, was to overrule the Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which had allowed petitions like Boumediene's to go forward. Holdings: 1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? 2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution? 3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions? 4. Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review? Reasoning: -5 justice majority answered YES to each of these questions --> Opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy -if the MCA is considered valid its legislative history requires that the detainees' cases be dismissed -However, the Court went on to state that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. Other Opinions: -The D.C. Circuit held that the Suspension Clause only protects the writ of habeas corpus as it existed in 1789, and that the writ would not have been understood in 1789 to apply to an overseas military base leased from a foreign government. Constitutional rights do not apply to aliens outside of the United States, the court held, and the leased military base in Cuba does not qualify as inside the geographic borders of the U.S. In a rare reversal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari after initially denying review three months earlier. Rule of Law:

US v. Korematsu (1944)

Facts of the Case: -In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security -President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor. -A Japanese-American man living in San Leandro, Fred Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order to relocate. Korematsu was arrested and convicted of violating the order. He responded by arguing that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment. -The Ninth Circuit affirmed Korematsu's conviction. Holdings: Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? -Is it a legitimate threat? Reasoning: -In an opinion written by Justice Black, the Court ruled that the evacuation order violated by Korematsu was valid. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion. -he Court relied heavily on a 1943 decision, Hirabayashi v. U.S., which addressed similar issues. Black argued that the validation of the military's decision by Congress merited even more deference. Other Opinions: Dissent: -Justice Jackson dissented, arguing that the exclusion order legitimized racism that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rule of Law:

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

Facts of the Case: -Osama Bin Laden's former chauffeur (Salim Ahmed Hamdan) was captured by Afghan forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay -He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention (he received a hearing from a military tribunal, which designated him an enemy combatant) -The District court granted Hamdan's habeas petition a few months later, ruling that he must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention before he could be tried by a military commission -The circuit court of appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision finding's that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and therefore were not unconsitutional Holdings: -May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? -Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President? Reasoning: -YES AND NO?? -Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 5-3 majority opinion which held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. -Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. -Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Other Opinions: Rule of Law:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Facts of the Case: -Petitioner was an American citizen captured and accused of fighting for the Taliban against the U.S. and declared an "enemy combatant" by the United States Government. He was placed into indefinite confinement at Guantanamo Bay. -Hamdi filed a federal writ of habeas corpus and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found his detention legally authorized and determined that Petitioner was not entitled to further opportunities to challenge his "enemy combatant" designation. Petitioner petitioned and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. -The district court granted Hamdi's petition, and appointed the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia, Frank Dunham, Jr., as counsel for the petitioners. He argued that the government had violated Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely and not giving him access to an attorney or a trial Holdings: -Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"? -Does the Constitution grant an American citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the due process right to challenge the factual basis for his detention before an impartial decisionmaker? Reasoning: -The Constitution grants citizens held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to a meaningful opportunity to challenge the factual basis for his detention before an impartial decisionmaker. Even in times of war, the country must retain its values and the privileges of citizenship. However, the exigencies of ongoing military conflict do allow, aside from certain fundamental elements, proceedings for enemy combatant citizens to be tailored to avoid extraordinary burdens on the Executive Branch. -Both parties agree that individual citizens initially captured on the battlefield are not entitled to their full constitutional rights at that time. This decision acknowledges the military's authority to prosecute war and grants wide discretion in the exercise of this authority, but also realizes that the courts must exercise their own constitutionally required roles in reviewing and resolving claims such as these. Other Opinions: **In these cases, the Court attempts to balance two competing interests—respect for the separation of powers and the executive branch's efforts to protect the nation during a time of war, and the constitutional protections due all citizens. Rule of Law: The Constitution grants citizens held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to a meaningful opportunity to challenge the factual basis for his detention before an impartial decisionmaker.

Ex Parte Merryman (1861)

Facts of the Case: -President Lincoln authorized his military Commanding General to suspend the writ of habeas corpus -When Merryman was arrested, his lawyer filed for a writ of have as corpus. This filing was ignored and the attorney argued that the president had acted outside of his constitutional authority Holdings: May a president suspend the writ of habeas corpus, or delegate the authority to do so? Reasoning: -Chief Taney = The constitution does not give the President the authority to suspend, or authorize the suspension of, the writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus may only be suspended by Congress -The constitutional clause allowing such suspension is found in Article I, which details legislative powers. If the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus were meant to be given to the executive, it would be found in the second article -The President may not take it upon himself to exercise a power reserved to Congress, even in times of emergency, tumult, or danger Other Opinions: -Shortly after this decision, Congress passed legislation that retroactively approved all of President Lincoln's acts, proclamations, and orders. This included his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus -In 1863, Congress passed a habeas corpus act that granted the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War whenever he felt It necessary for public safety Rule of Law: The Constitution does not give the president the authority to suspend, or authorize the suspension of, the writ of habeas corpus.

Valley Forge v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (1982)

Facts of the Case: -The Secretary of Defense closed the Valley Forge General Hospital in an effort to reduce the number of military installations in the country -Congressional agency -Wanted to transfer [surplus property] the rights that the land was built on to a Christian college -In accordance with a congressional statute regulating the dispersal of surplus government property, part of the hospital's land was given, free-of-charge, to the Valley Forge Christian College -Under the property clause, Art. IV, Sec 3, Congress may dispose of and regulate property belonging to the United States Holdings: -Did the transfer of property violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? -Does the Respondent have standing as a taxpayer to bring this suit? Reasoning: -Because Respondents sue on an administrative action authorized under the property clause of the, they fail the first prong of the standing test developed in Flast v. Cohen, requiring Congressional action under the taxing and spending clause Other Opinions: -Regardless of the dissent's moral and fair play arguments, the majority holding in this case is a straightforward application of the rule developed in Flast v. Cohen, which has yet t o be overturned Rule of Law: -Taxpayer standing is appropriate when the plaintiff challenges enactment under the taxing and spending clause and the enactment exceeds specific constitution limitations on taxing and spending

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)

Facts of the Case: -1972 - files a lawsuit against the Secretary of Interior alleging that government officials failed to follow certain laws with regard to building permits **At the time, Disney corporation was planning on building a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada mountains that would require construction of a new highway and massive high voltage power lines. The Sierra Club hoped to stop the project to protect the underdeveloped land. -The Sierra club filed preliminary and permanent injections against federal officials to prevent them from granting permits for this development, which was then granted by the district courts Holdings: Does the Sierra Club have an established standing in order to pursue a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act? Reasoning: -Justice Potter Stewart wrote the opinion for the 4-3 majority --> the court heath that in order to have standing to sue under the APA, the plaintiffs must demonstrate they had DIRECTLY suffered an injury as a result of the actions that led to the suit -U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injections on the grounds that the Sierra Club did not show that it would be directly affected by the actions of Walt Disney co. and did not have standing. They also had not made an ADEQUATE SHOWING OF IRREPARABLE INJURY or likelihood of success on the merits of the case Rule of Law:

Flast v. Cohen (1968)

Facts of the Case: -Florence Flast and a group of taxpayers challenged federal legislation that financed the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools -Flast argued that this use of tax money violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The only claim to standing provided was that all Appellants were taxpayers -A district court held that the federal courts should defer when confronted with taxpayer suits directed against federal spending programs -In order to have standing: money needs to be spent by Article 1 Sec. 8 (general spending by congress). Spending impacts a constitutional limitation (must protect constitutional rights) Holdings: -Did Flast, a taxpayer, have standing to sue the government's spending program? -Have the Appellants established standing to bring suit in an Article III court? Rational/Reasoning: -8-1 decision for Flast -Majority opinion by Earl Warren -The Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal state" in such cases, taxpayers had to: -Establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked -Show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power -The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test Other Opinions: -Must be a protected constitution limitation (ex: right to bear arms, right to free speech) -It is the Court's job to protect the constitution → can step in and allow standing to take place -The Supreme Court establishes a two-ring test that allows taxpayer standing without opening the federal courts to generalized grievances -**A taxpayer must not only challenge a policy on the basis of the Establishment Clause, but also bring the challenge against a congressional expenditure Rule of Law: Taxpayer standing is appropriate when the plaintiff challenges an enactment under the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution and the enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations on taxing and spending.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Facts of the Case: -The Governor and the legislature of Arkansas openly resisted the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education --> They wanted legislature to make it legal to segregate children based on race -Five months after the integration crisis with the Little Rock Nine, members of the school board filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, urging the suspension of its plan of desegregation -The relief the plaintiffs requested was for the African American children to be returned to segregated schools and for the implementation of the desegregation plan to be postponed for two and a half years -The District court granted the school board's requested, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit was reversed Holdings: -Are states bound by all Supreme Court Decisions? -Where Arkansas officials bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation? Reasoning: -Uniamous per curiam opinion - The Court held that the Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders that reseted on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education -Equal Protection Clause: Made it constitutionally impermissible to maintain law and order by depriving black students of their equal rights under the law -Every state is bound not only by the Constitution, but all cases decided by the US Supreme Court. While each state has its own sovereignty, it is granted by the Constitution. -14th Amendment does not allow States to discriminate based on race --> states may not wage war against the federal government Other Opinions: -A state through its legislature MAY NOT use evasive schemes to achieve segregation -Concurring opinion written by Justice Frankfurter Rule of Law: The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; Supreme Court Cases are binding upon all the States. (SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE VI)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Facts of the Case: -Marbury was commissioned to be on the Supreme Court, but Madison refused to deliver it (not valid until it was delivered) -Adams wanted to appoint all the Federalists to the court before Jefferson [anti-federalist] was inaugurated (but Jefferson requested not to deliver the remaining commissions) -Judiciary Act of 1801, Congress understood that they lost the presidency and attempted to pack the courts -Only court cases that involve a state or foreign entity can bypass all the lower courts and go straight to the supreme court -Marbury petitioned a writ of mandamus for Madison to hand over the commission [a higher court tells lower court to act in a particular way OR a court can instruct another branch of government to act in a particular way] Holdings: -Does Marbury have the right to the commission under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789? The court was concerned with its own legitimacy if they ordered Madison to deliver the commission and Jefferson refused -Under US Laws, is he entitled a remedy? -Is there a law that gave courts authority? Reasoning: -Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission but it was unconstitutional because it lacked original jurisdiction [this was because the case went straight to Supreme Court] -If a court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus, it must be because the law is unconstitutional Other Opinions: -This court stabilized the principle of judicial review which gave courts the power to rule a law unconstitutional --> This case COULD HAVE been dismissed, but Marshall's overall goal was to expand the power of the courts -The President shall faithfully execute the law -At issue was the federal court's power to review an act by another branch of the federal government Rule of Law: The Supreme Court of the United States has constitutional authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, the bounds of which are set by the United States Constitution, which MAY NOT BE ENLARGED by Congress.

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007)

Facts: -Challenge against President Bush who issued an executive order [authority vested to increase presidential powers] to create an office of faith based community -Create a religious based organization to attempt increase funding (Bush is a conversative) -Freedom from Religion believe that this is a violation -The District Court ruled that the Foundation lacked standing to sue -The court held that the exceptions only covered challenges to specific congressional expenditures, not executive-branch actions funded by the general funds allotted to the executive departments -The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed, ruling that any taxpayer has standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge against an executive-branch program, whether funded by a specific congressional grant or by a discretionary use of a general appropriation Holdings: -Do taxpayers have standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge against Executive Branch actions funded by general appropriations rather than by any specific congressional grant? Rational/Reasoning: -Lower courts say Freedom from Religion doesn't have standing and cannot test the executive order [citizens do not have standing as taxpayers to bring Establishment Clause challenges against Executive Branch programs that are funded by appropriations for general administrative expenses -Opinion written by Justice Samuel Elito (one of the most conservative justices) It is not an example of Article 8 Sec 1 spending, it was done through an executive order -Bush administration knew that this would not pass through legislative process -No standing = no lawsuit!!!!! -Since no specific congressional appropriation was implicated in the suit, the Court ruled that there was no "Case or Controversy" under the Flast exception Other Opinions: -Concurring: Justice Scalia alley the distinction "utterly meaningless" and argued that Flast should be overruled Dissent: Justice Souter argued that 'When executive agencies spend identifiable sums of tax money for religious purposes, no less than when Congress authorizes the same thing, taxpayers suffer injury." Rule of Law:

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer

Facts: -A labor dispute arose between the US steel companies and their employees and the unions threatened a nationwide strike -In 1952, after the employees of steel companies threatened to strike, the US President (Harry Truman) ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nation's steel companies because he feared that a work stoppage would jeopardize our national defense → they then sued -The steel companies brought suit in District Court, issuing a temporary restraining order against the government (the Court of Appeals stayed) Holdings: -Did President Truman have the authority to order the seizure of the steel mills? Rational/Reasoning: -Ultimately concludes that the President does not have congressional authority according to Article II → this is a confiscation -The President's powers, if any, to issue an order must stem from an act of Congress or the United States Constitution --> There are no provisions of the Constitution, or combination of provisions thereof, which gave the President the authority to take possession of property as he did Other Opinions: -This case deals with Private Property. It also calls into question the extent and the source(s) of the emergency powers of the President, if any, under the Constitution Dissent: -Chief Justice Fred Vinson (J. Vinson) argued that we must consider the context in which the President's powers were exercised - a national exigency. The President's power to seize the steel mills derives from his duty to executive legislative programs the success of which depends upon the continued production of steel. Concurrence: -Justice Felix Frankfurter (J. Frankfurter) stated that Congress could not have more emphatically expressed its will that the executive seizure was not authorized than it did in the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. -When the President takes actions inconsistent with the will of Congress, his powers are at their lowest level. Then, he can only rely on his own constitutional powers minus any powers given to Congress on the same matter. Rule of Law: The President's power, if any, to issue an order must stem from an act of Congress or the United States Constitution (Constitution).

Haig v. Agee (1981)

Facts: -Agee was an American citizen who worked for the CIA -When he finished, he wanted to disclose the identities of CIA operatives through a series of articles and press conferences and started to follow through with many of his threats -After Agee's disclosure led to attacks on CIA operatives, the Jimmy Carter administration ordered the revocation of Agee's passport, making it illegal for him to travel abroad -He sued in federal district court alleging that the revocation exceeded the scope of the Secretary's congressionally delegated authority and that the revocation violated various constitutional rights. Holdings: -Did the executive branch have the authority to revoke Agee's passport? -Whether an executive agency's interpretation of agency authority under its own regulations or policies will be deemed to have been implicitly authorized by the legislature when the interpretation of authority has been substantially and consistently applied. Rational/Reasoning: -Agee's conduct was clearly negatively affected US's foreign policy → It is in fact executive authority to revoke Agee's passport -An executive agency's interpretation of agency authority under its own regulations or policies will be deemed to have been implicitly authorized by the legislature when the interpretation of authority has been substantially and consistently applied -Is this a domestic or foreign issue? Other Opinions: -The executive branch has the ability to revoke passport usage for the benefit of the nation at large. National security represents one of the most compelling interests of the federal government. -Plaintiff argues that the revocation of his passport without a hearing violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights, that the revocation violates his liberty interest in the right to travel conferred by the Fifth Amendment, and that it infringes upon his First Amendment right to speak out against government policies. -Court acknowledges agency regulations in Kent v Dulles (1958) where executive agency decisions to deny passports to persons engaged in illegal activities -Zemel v. Rusk (1965) --> executive prohibition against travel to Cuba during Cuban missile crisis. The courts concluded that the travel restrictions were justified by the gravity of concerns over national security. **Issues implicating national security are seldom appropriate subjects for judicial intervention Rule of Law: An executive agency's interpretation of agency authority under its own regulations or policies will be deemed to have been implicitly authorized by the legislature when the interpretation of authority has been substantially and consistently applied.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Facts: -In 2002, In 2002, Manachem Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem to parents who are United States citizens. Manachem's parents requested that the U.S. State Department record his place of birth on his passport as "Israel" -According to Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Athorization Act of 2003, if a person is born in the state of Jerusalem, you can put on your passport that they are born on Israel --> The State Department refused and issued Manachem a passport that listed "Jerusalem" as his place of birth. His parents sued the Secretary of State on his behalf and sought the enforcement of Section 214(d). -Does the US recognize Israel? Or Jerusalem (no nation has stated that Jerusalem is a part of Israel? -The Discrict court held that section 214(d) 'impermissibly interferes' with the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign states Holdings: -Does a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State to record the birthplace an American citizen born in Jerusalem as "Israel," if requested to do so, impermissibly infringe on the President's power to recognize foreign states? Rational/Reasoning: **Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority holding that the federal statute unconstitutionally usurped the President's power to recognize foreign nations as it relates to passports -Justice Kennedy → if the President has made a decision and the court does not agree then they are undermining the decision of the President (Court has no such power to initiate international diplomacy without involving the President) -Does the President have the SOLE AUTHORITY? -Congress can't not require the President to retract their decision of recognizing a state? -The Court also held that precedent and history support the view that the formal recognition power belongs exclusively to the President. Because the Executive branch has maintained a neutral position by not recognizing any nation's sovereignty over Jerusalem, the federal statute in question unconstitutionally infringes on the President's recognition power. Other Opinions: -Dissent: Chief Justice Roberts argued in order for the President to constitutionally ignore the express will of Congress, the President must be exercising a power that the Constitution "conclusively and preclusively" granted to the Executive branch -Dissent by Justice Scalia: to the extent that the Constitution grants the President the power to recognize foreign states, the power is not exclusive. The Constitution grants Congress such a power in the form of its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Rule of Law:

Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)

Facts: -Involved Proposition 8 which requested California voters change the language of the laws that state that marriage is between a man and a woman -Change in the language violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause -Case first goes into District Court and is assigned to Judge Von Walker (closeted gay man) -Case dismissed and goes to the 9th Circuit -When a state proposition is shut down, they need to appeal -AG Jerry Brown and Arnold Sch. supported Gay marriage → allowed 3rd party Holdings: -Does Proposition 8 violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process? -Do the petitioners have standing under Article III of the Constitution to argue this case? -Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the state of California from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Rational/Reasoning: -5-4 Majority opinion given by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. -The 9th circuit made an error when it allowed the 3rd party to let the case take an appeal because only the governor's office can (but they didn't - also did not have jurisdiction to reach a decision on the case) -Because the petitioners had only a generalized grievance in the form of a desire to defend Proposition 8, they did not have standing under Article III. Petitioners could not invoke the standing of the state to appeal because a litigant must assert his/her own rights and cannot claim relief through the intervention of a third party -Supreme Court had been dodging same-sex marriage cases for YEARS Other Opinions: -Dissent: Justice Kennedy argued that the Supreme Court should defer to states' rights in defining what parties may have standing. Because California law allows a third party to assert the state's interest when state officials decline to do so, the California Supreme Court's decision regarding the petitioners' standing is binding -Article III does not interfere with a state's rights to allow such proponents to support an initiative in court Rule of Law: Best way to get rid of cases you don't want to handle → Justiciability!! *3 party standing case

Medellin v. Texas (2008)

Facts: -Jose Medellin appealed after Texas convicted him of rape and murder on the group that the plaintiff failed to inform him of his right to have consular personnel notified of his detention by the state (Vienna Convention) -A case decided by the international Court of Justice -suggested that his conviction must be reconsidered to comply with it -If you are a foreign national charged with a crime in a -foreign country, you have to able to consult with your consultant office -Requirement under the Vienna -Reconsideration their conviction and sentences ICoJ - International Court of Justice Civil court for international laws -State courts are not required under the U.S. Constitution to honor a treaty obligation of the United States by enforcing a decision of the International -Court of Justice Holdings: 1. Are state courts required under the U.S. Constitution to honor a treaty obligation of the United States by enforcing a decision of the International Court of Justice? 2. Are states courts required by the U.S. Constitution to provide review and reconsideration of a conviction without regard to state procedural default rules as required by a memorandum by the President? Rational/Reasoning: -Chief Justice Roberts write the opinion for the 6-3 majority -The court held that the signed Protocol of the Vienna Convention did not make the treaty self-executing and therefore, the treaty is not binding upon state courts until it is enacted into law by Congress -The US was not obligated to comply to relations States courts are not required under the U.S. Constitution to honor a treaty obligation of the United States by enforcing a decision of the International Court of Justice Other Opinions: -Bush supports the Defendant → case makes it to the Supreme Court -Non-self executing treaties doesn't compel domestic states to follow treaty provisions (congress has to pass a piece of ratification) Rule of Law: -States courts are not required under the U.S. Constitution to honor a treaty obligation of the United States by enforcing a decision of the International Court of Justice -State courts are not required by the U.S. Constitution to provide review and reconsideration of a conviction without regard to state procedural default rules as required by a Memorandum by the President

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

Facts: -Michael Newdow challenges the Establishment Clause for children who have to do the pledge of allegiance -"One Nation, Under God" → Political ploy by US government to show that Russians don't follow God (even though there should be a separation -Newdow's wife has primary custody of their child -The Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge and the school district policy requiring it be recited both violated the First Amendment's establishment clause Holdings: -Does Michael Newdow have standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? -Does a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Rational/Reasoning: -Federal District dismissed the court immediately because Newdow had no standing -9th Circuit court of appeals wanted to ultimately address the claim and it goes up to the Supreme Court -Supreme Court rules that Newdow does not have prudential standing because he did not have sufficient custody over his daughter (can't act in favor of his daughter) Other Opinions: -'When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law' --> Because Newdow did not have standing, the Court failed to reach the constitutional question Rule of Law:

Missouri v. Holland (1920)

Facts: -Missouri wanted to prevent US game warden Holland from enforcing Migratory Bird Treat Act of 1918. It claimed the Treaty infringed on Missouri's 10th Amendment right against federal intrusion and that Missouri has a pecuniary interest as owners of the birds within its borders. The District Court dismissed the suit and the state appealed. -In 1916, the US and Great Britain signed a treaty protecting migratory birds that were important as a source of food and in controlling harmful insects. The birds traveled through Canada and parts of the US but were in danger of extermination. -The Migratory Bird Act was passed to carry out the terms of the treaty. Missouri objected because an earlier act of Congress that attempted, by itself and not in pursuance of a treaty, to regulate killing migratory birds within the states was held unconstitutional in district court. Holdings: Can Congress pass legislation to enforce a treaty which it could not pass without the treaty? Reasoning: -Justice Holmes = Yes -The state's claim of sovereign power over possessions is not stronger than the authority a treaty is granted under the Constitution. The birds are not in the possession of anyone and possession is the beginning of ownership. -Under Article 6, treaties, the Constitution, and laws of the US made in pursuance thereof are the supreme laws of the land. If the treaty is valid then there is no dispute about the validity of the statute that is to execute the treaty. -The national interest is keeping migratory birds is high because they are a food supply and also protect forests and corps. The birds are only transitory within Missouri and have no permanent habitat there. Other Opinions: -Missouri let Congress bypass the 10th amendment --> Protecting birds would be in the public's interest whereas restricting freedom of speech would be contrary to that interest Rule of Law: Treaties take precedence over any conflicting state law (regardless of whether the treaty came before or after the enactment of the state law). A federal law can trump an earlier rule in treaty if it is clear that it is meant to do so, or the provisions cannot be fairly reconciled. If the treaty comes later it can trump federal law even if federal law is inconsistent. The last will of the sovereign controls.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936)

Facts: -The Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, a weapons manufacturer, sold fighter planes and bombers to Bolivia during the Chaco War -Paraguay and Bolivia contested control of a semi-arid region -Roosevelt issues an executive order that places an embargo (banning U.S, weapons manufacturers from aiding either side of the war) -Curtiss-Wright violates this embargo (Joint Resolution of Congress) and sells 50 machine guns to Bolivia -They are found guilty and charged -Argued that Congress had violated the non-delegation doctrine in allowing the executive branch to make decisions that were properly left to the legislature Holdings: -In the Joint Resolution, did Congress unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President? Rational/Reasoning: -7-1 Decision for United States, majority opinion by George Sutherland -Why should the President have the authority over foreign affairs? They are the representative of the nation -The President is the sole organ Other Opinions: Rule of Law:

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

Facts: -The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with DOI who will evaluate if projects may threaten or endanger species (This applied for domestic and international issues) -In 1986, Raegan administration revokes this Act where agencies will no longer need to consult with DOI for international projects -Defenders of Wildlife are an NGO and are concerned with projects in Egypt and Sri Lanka. They file a lawsuit that makes its way up to the US Supreme Court Holdings: -Do the Defenders of Wildlife have legal standing? -Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Secretary's interpretation of the ESA under either traditional rules of standing or the individual cause of action created within the ESA? Rational/Reasoning: Article III creates three minimal elements in order to have standing -'Injury in Fact' -Causal connection between injury and conduct complained of -Must be likely that this injury will be redressed by a favorable decision -The Plaintiff's claim that they suffered a "procedural injury" established by a citizen-suit provision within the ESA is also without merit. To permit standing based on this Congressional Act would usurp the power of the Executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully execute" Other Opinions: -Congress's citizen-suit provision in the ESA was unconstitutional because it created a law where federal courts would be forced to recognize suits where no real world harm had occurred Rule of Law: Congress cannot create standing when an injury in fact, a causal connection, and redressability are not present

United States v. Pink (1942)

Facts: -The United States attempted to assist the Soviet Union in recovering assets of the First Russian Insurance Company which the New York Superintendent of Insurance refused to release -In 1919, the newly created Russian government nationalized Russian insurance companies, including FRIC, and canceled all company debts and shareholder rights -They are trying to bribe the United States to recognize the Soviet Union as its own state!!! -Pink is the New York Superintendent of Insurance -The federal government sought to recover the assets and Pink said NO!! So they sued Pink for not turning over the assets Holdings: Whether the President's actions have supremacy over state law with respect to foreign relations Rational/Reasoning: -The Court said New York has to recover the assets → there is a limitation on the sovereignty of the United States -The court of appeals' ruling is reversed and the case is remanded. The President's actions have supremacy over state law with respect to foreign relations Other Opinions: -The President is the "sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations." The federal government has complete power over international affairs and cannot be subject to interference from the states. -State laws and policies do not apply to international affairs. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a treaty such as the Litvinov Assignment is a "law of the land." The funds in question were vested in the Russian government as successor to FRIC, and that right was assigned to the United States under the Litvinov Assignment. Therefore, the United States is entitled to the funds, and said entitlement trumps all other claims. Rule of Law: The President's actions have supremacy over state law with respect to foreign relations

New York Times Co. v. United States - The Pentagon Papers Case (1971)

Facts: -The United States sought to enjoin the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing contents of a confidential study about the Government's decision making with regards to Vietnam policy -The District Court in the New York Times case and the District Court and the Court of Appeals in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met the requisite burden justifying such a prior restraint Holdings: -Whether the United States met the heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a restraint on the New York Times and Washington Post to enjoy them from publishing contents of a classified study? Rational/Reasoning: -Judgements of the lower courts affirmed -The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the District Court. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The mandates shall issue forthwith Other Opinions: **The Government CAN NOT restrict Freedom of Speech Dissent: -The scope of the judicial function in passing upon activities of the Executive Branch in the field of foreign affairs is very narrowly restricted. This view is dictated by the doctrine of Separation of Powers. The doctrine prohibiting prior restraints does not prevent the courts from maintaining status quo long enough to act responsibly. The First Amendment is only part of the Constitution. The cases should be remanded to be developed expeditiously. Concurrence: -To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment of the United States Constitution [Constitution]. The First Amendment of the Constitution leaves no room for governmental restraint on the press. There is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by the press of the material that the Times and Post seek to publish. ***The First Amendment of the Constitution tolerates no prior judicial restraints of the press predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences may result. Thus, only governmental allegation and proof that publication must inevitably, directly and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea can support the issuance of an interim restraining order Rule of Law: Any system of prior restraints on expression comes to the Supreme Court bearing a heavy presumption against its invalidity. The Government "thus creates a heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a restraint." The Executive must have the large duty to determine and preserve the degree of internal security necessary to exercise its power effectively

Trump c. IRAP [International Refugee Assistance Project (2017)

Facts: -Trump signs an executive order that suspended entry for 90 days from seven [Muslim] countries identified by Congress or the Executive as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks --> this affected the US refugee programs -The order is immediately challenge in federal district court, and the judge entered a nationwide temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of several of its provisions -Trump drops first executive order and issues another one two months later (removes IRAQ as a banned country), citing a need for time to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. -Section 6(a) directs that applications for refugee status and travel of refugees into the United States under the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) be suspended for 120 days from the effective date "to review the adequacy of USRAP application and adjudication procedures." Section 6(b) suspends the entry of any individual under USRAP once 50,000 refugees have entered the United States in fiscal year 2017. Holdings: 1. Are respondents' challenges to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 justiciable? 2. Does Section 2(c)'s temporary suspension of entry violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? 3. Is the global injunction, which was the relief granted based on alleged injury to an individual plaintiff, impermissibly overbroad? Rational/Reasoning: -A blanket ban is unconstitutional -If they do not have a "valid reason" then they can be prohibited from coming in -If countries begin to screen their citizens appropriately → extending Presidential powers by creating standards for other countries -The state of Hawaii issued a stay on the executive order -The Court said foreign nationals who had ties with citizens or entities -The case is dismissed as moot Other Opinions: -The case before the Court represents two consolidated cases. In the first, federal district court in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the government from enforcing Section 2(c) against any foreign national seeking entry to the United States -In a per curiam opinion issued simultaneously with an order granting certiorari, the Court granted the government's applications for a stay of the preliminary injunction with respect to Sections 6(a) and (b) of Executive Order 13,780 (EO-2), thereby allowing enforcement of those provisions. Under the Court's ruling, the government may enforce Section 6(a) except as to any "individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," nor may such an individual be excluded under Section 6(b) Rule of Law:

Doe v. Bush (2003) - First Circuit Case

Facts: -In 2003, a large group of plaintiffs that included military personnel, their parents, and Democratic Congressmen filed suit in a federal district court in Massachusetts.-Sought an injunction against president George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Runsfeld to prevent them taking military action in Iraq -This case wasn't ripe for judicial resolution and was ultimately dismissed Holdings: Does President Bush have the constitutional authority to go to war with Iraq? Rational/Reasoning: -**Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is denied and defendants motion to dismiss is allowed -The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order -The President has NOT irrevocably committed our armed forces to military conflict in Iraq -The political question doctrine imposes upon the court the limited role of determining whether, either expressly or impliedly, Congress has ratified the President's undeclared war activity Other Opinions: Rule of Law:

Eakin v. Raub (1825 Pa)

Majority Opinion: Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated state law by using the power of judicial review -Does the power of judicial review create a superior branch? -Courts are never gonna get enforcement power and they are limited in terms of their authority. Giving the courts judicial review will compensate for their lack of authority. Dissenting Opinions to Marbury v. Madison -Any powers not explicitly granted in the constitution are RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE (who are the ultimate sovereigns in a democratic regime) -Law of constitution doesn't only lie on the hands of the judicial branch, the legislature must act knowing upon the law that the constitution provides. An act of congress should never pass if it will ever be voided because of the conflicting laws it has relative to the constitution The supreme court is acting in a manner too powerful, judicial review is judicial activism, and not proper -The interpretation of the construction of the Constitution is something that lies solely within congress -Judicial review is only possible because the other branches GIVE THE COURT RESPECT and the ability to do so -Sovereignty and legislation are the same thing and any law that goes against the Constitution is not a usurpation of power, but will of the people. If it is problematic it should be battled out in the political arena

Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

The Civil War is currently taking place and the Lincoln administration is still worried about South sympathizers. He gives orders to arrest anyone that is suspicious of terrorist activity Facts of the Case: -Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indian during the Civil War for engaging in acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court Holdings: Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal? Reasoning: -Justice David Davis held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Specifically, it is unconstitutional to try civilians by military tribunals unless there is no civilian court available. -The military commission therefore did not have jurisdiction to try and sentence Milligan, and he was entitled to discharge. Other Opinions: Rule of Law:

The Prize Cases of The Civil War (1863)

Union ships pursuant to President Lincoln's April 1861 Order declared a blockade of southern ports seized ships carrying goods to the Confederate States. It is the Congress prerogative "to declare war" under Article, Section: 8, Clause 11. However, the President has the ability to take action when attacked Facts: -In April 1861, President Lincoln declared a blockade of southern ports -Pursuant to this blockade in May and July 1861, Union ships seized Confederate merchant vessels and cargoes of foreign neutrals and residents of the southern states -The ships were condemned by federal court order The owners of the ships and cargo appealed Holdings: Did Lincoln act within his presidential powers defined by Article II when he ordered the seizures absent a declaration of war? Rational/Reasoning: Justice Grier -By the Acts of Congress of 1795 and 1807, the President is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a state or of the United States -The President has Article II power to issue the blockade -Even if it was necessary to get Congressional sanction for the existence of war, Congress did approve of the President's actions by the Acts they passed in 1861, which allowed the government to prosecute the war with vigor and efficiency -1861 - Congress approved, legalized and made valid all acts, proclamations and orders of the President as if they had been done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress -Even if he needed Congress to ratify his actions, they did so and therefore cured any defect -The majority opinion held that the President could resist an attack by a foreign nation. The fact that the attack in this case came from an internal part of the Union rather than from a foreign power does not eliminate the President's power to take action. Other Opinions: Dissent - Nelson, Catron, Clifford, and Taney The ACts of 1795 and 1807 did not and could not confer on the President the power of declaring war against a state When Congress declares war, ordinary citizens convert into public enemies are treated Until Congress declares war, then no citizen of the State can be punished in his person or property unless he has committed some offense against a law of Congress passed before the act was committed which made his act a crime Rule of Law: It is the Congressional prerogative "to declare war" under Article , Section: 8, Clause 11. However, the President has the ability to take action when attacked.