Con Law

the five steps of Dormant commerce clause

1. Has congress preempted the states police power? 2. What is the nature of the statute? Is it pure protectionism? 3. Given a legimate police power, is there some other regulation that can be adopted that would be less harmful to interstate commerce? 4. Balancing how much the statute accomplishes v. the degree or burden on the federal interest on the freeflow of interstate commerce. 5. If the balance is close then generally the court should rule in favor of the states.

Griswold

Brief Fact Summary. A Connecticut statute prohibited the use of contraceptives both by married and unmarried persons. The statute also prohibited anyone from helping couples obtain contraceptives. Griswold provided information as to the means of preventing conception and was fined as an accessory under the statute. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The rights governed by the Due Process clause are those related to privacy. It is really the right people have to make decisions about highly personal matters. These rights derive indirectly from several Bill of Rights guarantees, which collectively create a "penumbra" or "zone" of privacy. Here, the person's interest in using birth control is fundamental and the state cannot impair that interest without satisfying strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny says that if a state or federal regulation is impairing a fundamental right, the court strictly scrutinizes the regulation. The objective pursued by the state must be compelling, and the means chosen must be necessary (nothing that would be less restrictive is available).

New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer

Brief Fact Summary. A New York City Transit Authority rule barred the employment of persons who use narcotics. The Transit Authority applied the rule to all persons taking methadone - a drug widely used in the treatment of heroine addiction. Synopsis of Rule of Law. State legislation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution) merely because the classifications that it makes are imperfect. MS without teeth SC finds that recovering drug addicts are not a discreet and insular minority, historitically politically unpopular and socially powerless.

Sugarman v. Dougall

Brief Fact Summary. A New York statute excluded aliens from all government civil service jobs filled by competitive examination. It did not apply to higher office positions, however. The Appellees, Dougall and others (Appellees), challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Justice Harry Blackmun (J. Blackmun) stated that a flat ban on the employment of aliens in positions that have little or no relationship to the State's legitimate interest cannot withstand close judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Appellant, the state of New York's (Appellant), justifications prove too much and too little. The State's prohibition applies to jobs, e.g., sanitation workers, typists, where loyalty to the State isn't essential. On the other hand, the statute does not apply to jobs for which loyalty to the State is indispensable. Aliens are a discrete insular minority, therefore, a classification based on alienage commands a closer means to ends fit then the New York statute provides. Dissent. Justice William Rehnquist (J. Rehnquist) stated the principal purpose of those who drafted and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution) was to prohibit the States from invidiously discriminating on the basis of race. There is no evidence to suggest that it was the intent of the Framers to render alienage a suspect classification.

Mathews v. Eldridge

Brief Fact Summary. A State agency terminated Eldridge's disability benefits prior to affording him a hearing on his continued eligibility for benefits. Eldridge challenged the constitutionality of the government's termination procedures as not sufficiently protecting his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Due process is a flexible legal rule and calls for such procedural protections as a particular situation demands. Prior cases indicate, the requirements of due process can be determined by weighing three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such an interest through the procedures the government uses, and the probable value, if any of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the fiscal and administrative burdens to the government associated with the additional procedural requirements. Thus, in this case, considering (1) that the government provided elaborate procedures to prevent errors in making decisions; (2) that the recipient's benefits were not based on need; (3) that the costs of increased hearings and of providing benefits to ineligible recipients would be high, etc., the Court concluded that the procedural safeguards provided by the government were appropriate. Dissent. Justice Brennan: The Supreme Court of the United States' consideration that a discontinuance of disability benefits may cause the recipient to suffer only a limited deprivation is speculative. Indeed, in this case, because benefits were terminated, Eldridge's house and furniture were repossessed.

Roe v. Wade

Brief Fact Summary. A Texas law criminalizing abortion except where the procedure is necessary to "save the life of the mother" and without regard to the state of pregnancy was found by the Supreme Court of the United States to violate due process. The right of a woman to determine whether or not to terminate her pregnancy is a fundamental right of privacy founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty. The detriment the State would impose upon a woman by denying her this choice is clear: direct medical harm, psychological injury, stigma, etc. As such, any effort by the State to absolutely regulate a woman's right to an abortion must be able to withstand the strict scrutiny standard of review, which this statute cannot. In addition, a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore, is not entitled to the protections of that Amendment. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States does not accept the Appellee's, the State, argument that life (for a person) begins at conception, nor is it willing to speculate, amid all of the medical uncertainty, when life begins. Answer: The State. I just inserted this information in the body of this subsection. It is reasonable, however, for a State to conclude at some stage of a pregnancy that the interest in a potential human life is compelling: (1) for the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the judgment of the woman's physician; (2) during the second trimester the State may choose to regulate abortions in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health; (3) during the third trimester, a State may regulate or proscribe abortions, except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Because the Texas statute would permit the State to prohibit a woman to have an abortion during all three stages of a woman's pregnancy, without advancing a compelling government interest and providing narrow tailoring in so doing, the statute sweeps too broadly and is therefore unconstitutional. Dissent. Justice White: The Supreme Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right in this case. Nothing in the language or history of the United States Constitution supports the Supreme Court's judgment. Justice Rehnquist: The right of privacy is not involved in this case. A transaction resulting in an operation is not "private" in the ordinary usage of the word. Moreover, the fact that a majority of the states have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication that the right to an abortion is not so deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people to be regarded fundamental. Concurrence. Justice Stewart: Though the asserted state interests are legitimate ones, they cannot constitutionally support the broad abridgment of personal liberty the Texas statute entails. Justice Douglas: While childbirth can endanger the lives in health of some women, abortions at any time would impinge on a rightful concern of society in the welfare of potential life. These concerns justify the State in treating abortions as medical procedures.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Brief Fact Summary. A cost-management expert for the Air Force was fired after he testified in front of Congress about cost overruns in certain military projects. The Defendant, the President of the United States Richard Nixon (Defendant), claimed that he made the firing decision. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The President of the United States (President) is shielded by absolute immunity from civil damages for acts done in his official capacity as President.

Adarand v. Pena

Brief Fact Summary. A federal policy offered contractors working for the government extra compensation for hiring minority businesses. A construction company awarded a subcontract to a minority owned business, despite the fact that a non-minority owned business offered to do the work for less money. Held. Strict Scrutiny and maybe. The case is remanded to the lower courts for determination of whether the program passes the test of strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny of all governmental racial classifications is necessary because (1) it may not always be clear whether a so-called benign classification is in fact benign; (2) the courts should take a skeptical view of all racial classifications and (3) there should be consistency of treatment regardless of the race of the person burdened or benefited. "Strict in theory" does not necessarily imply "fatal in fact". When race-based action is necessary to further a compelling interest, such action is constitutional when it satisfies the narrow tailoring requirement. Dissent. Justice John Paul Stevens (J. Stevens) states the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) assumes there is no difference between a decision by the majority to impose a burden on the minority and a decision by the majority to provide a benefit to the minority notwithstanding the incidental burden certain members of the majority will incur. The Supreme Court would disregard the difference between a "No Trespassing" sign and a welcome mat. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (J. Ginsburg) stated that given this Country's racial history and its consequences, Congress should be able to carefully design remedial programs to help us finally realize the "equal protection of the laws" the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution) has promised since 1868. Concurrence. Justice Antonin Scalia (J. Scalia) stated that the government could never have a compelling interest for discriminating on the basis of race in order to "make up" for past discrimination. There is no such thing under the Constitution of the United States as a debtor or creditor race. Justice Clarence Thomas (J. Thomas) stated government programs based on benign racial classifications are just as noxious as those inspired by malicious prejudice.

E.C. Knight

Brief Fact Summary. American Sugar Refining Company (American) purchased four refineries in Philadelphia, effectively monopolizing sugar refining in the United States. The company was subsequently sued by the federal government for engaging in combinations in restraint of trade. Summury of Law: illustrated the formalistic approach, distinguishing between manufacture and commerce, indirect and direct effects, and local and national activities. Congress could regulate commerce but not manufacture activities which affected commerce directly but not indirectly, and national activities but not local ones. The monopoly of sugar production at issue in the case was on the manufacture, indirect and local side of the line. Is there a direct effect on commerce? Nope, so we can go home now. Harlin dessented in this opinion.

Williamson v. Lee Optical

Brief Fact Summary. An Oklahoma law that prevented persons who were not licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists from fitting lenses for eyeglasses was unsuccessfully challenged under the Due Process Clause because it prevented opticians (artisans qualified to grind lenses, fill prescriptions and fit frames) from doing much of the work that they used to do. The law also banned advertising eyeglasses frames. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Court will no longer use the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions because they may be unwise, improvident or out of harmony with a particular school of thought. For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts. The district court also held unconstitutional the provision in the act, which stated a person operating a retail store that serves the general public, could not rent, or lease space in that store to a person purporting to do eye examination or visual care. This is a violation of due process.

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Brief Fact Summary. An amendment to the Food Stamp Act prevented households made up of unrelated individuals from participating in the program. A class action suit was brought, and the District Court found a Due Process violation. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The amendment was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, therefore it violated the Due Process Clause. MS WITH Teeth SC believes Congress is trying to hurt an unpopular group with only pretext arguments. This is a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group.

United States v. Butler

Brief Fact Summary. Congress used its taxing and spending powers to regulate local agricultural production. The regulation was challenged as being outside the scope of Congress's powers. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress does not have an independent power to provide for the general welfare, separate from its power to tax and spend

Darby

Brief Fact Summary. Darby was charged with violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (the Act) by failing to comply with minimum wage and hour requirements for employees. He challenged the violation, claiming the regulation on intrastate wages and hours did not fall within the commerce powers of Congress. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If the regulated intrastate activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may regulate the activity regardless of Congress's motive.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant, James McCulloch (Defendant), cashier of a branch of the Bank of the United States, (the Bank) refused to pay a tax imposed upon the Bank by the legislature of the state of Maryland. Synopsis of Rule of Law. (1.) The Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to make laws pursuant to the unenumerated powers of the United States Constitution (Constitution) so long as such laws are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly vested in the federal government by the Constitution. (2.) The Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are supreme and control the constitution and the laws of the states and cannot be controlled by them.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Brief Fact Summary. In 1952, after the employees of steel companies threatened to strike, the President of the United States Harry Truman (President Truman) ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize the Nation's steel companies. The steel companies sued. Synopsis of 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).

Kelo

Brief Fact Summary. In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas." The city purchased property and seeks to enforce eminent domain to acquire the remaining parcels from unwilling owners. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court had previously held in the Midkiff case that such economic development qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and State Constitutions. The court has to meet two burdens for eminent domain- (1) that the takings of the particular properties at issue were "reasonably necessary" to achieve the City's intended public use and (2) that the takings were for "reasonably foreseeable needs."

Ex Parte McCardle

Brief Fact Summary. McCardle was held in military custody for trial before a military commission. A statute in force provided that judicial courts of the United States had the power to grant writs of habeas corpus. The statute also stated that a person could appeal to the circuit court, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. This statute was later repealed. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The appellate jurisdiction of the U. S. Supreme Court is not derived from Congressional acts, but instead is conferred by the Constitution. However, it is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.

McCleskey v. Kemp

Brief Fact Summary. McCleskey (Defendant) was sentenced to death for his role in an armed robbery, which resulted in the murder of a police officer. He challenged his sentence on the ground that it was imposed because he was black. Defendant provided statistical evidence that blacks disproportionately received death sentences when the murder victim was white. The Baldus Study provided by defendant does not demonstrate that racial discrimination was a factor in defendant, himself, receiving the death penalty. The study does not support an inference that the jury, in his own case, acted with purposeful racial discrimination - a threshold showing for proof of an Equal Protection violation. No. The Baldus Study does not demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial discrimination effecting a jury's decision to impose the death penalty. Discretion in the criminal justice system is not in and of itself an Eight Amendment violation, particularly in light of the fact that in many instances discretion works to the benefit of the criminal defendant. Moreover, insomuch as the Eighth Amendment applies to all punishments, if defendant prevailed on these grounds, courts would soon be faced with similar claims for every other type of penalty. The disproportionate sentencing alleged with respect to race could also be expanded to discrepancies in sentencing in relation to other minority groups, or gender, or facial characteristics. The basis on which defendant challenges his sentence, statistical comparisons, lacks any limiting principle.

Hunt v. Washington State Apple

Brief Fact Summary. North Carolina adopted a statute requiring all containers of apples shipped into the state display "no grade other than the applicable U.S. grade or standard." Washington state apple growers challenged the statute as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. HOLDING: Although facially neutral, the statute had the effect of not only burdening interstate sales of Washington apples, but also discriminating against them. For example, the statute raised the costs of doing business in North Carolina for Washington growers, while leaving the costs for North Carolina growers unaffected. In addition, by prohibiting Washington growers from marketing their apples under their state's more stringent grading system label, the statute has a "leveling effect" which operated to benefit local growers. Moreover, non-discriminatory alternatives to the statute could have been used to accomplish the State's local objectives. North Carolina could have permitted out-of-state growers to display their state labels only if they also used the USDA label.

Gibbons v. Ogden

Brief Fact Summary. Ogden was given an exclusive license, pursuant to a New York statute, to run a ferry between New York and New Jersey. Gibbons obtained a license, pursuant to federal law, to run a ferry in New York waters, thus, running in interference with Ogden's license. Ogden sought an injunction against Gibbons. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce does not stop at the external boundary line of a State. Congress' power to regulate within its sphere is exclusive

Craig v. Boren

Brief Fact Summary. Oklahoma State maintained different drinking ages between men and women for the consumption of 3.2% alcohol beer. The Appellant, Craig (Appellant), now alleges that this difference violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution). Held. Craig's claim was rendered moot because he turned 21 during the action. Whitener, on the other hand, had a viable action as a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, and could rely on an equal protection challenge. Whitener suffered "injury in fact" as the challenged statutory provisions are addressed to vendors like her who either must obey the statutory provisions and incur economic injury or disobey the statute and suffer sanctions. In such a situation, Whitener may resist efforts to restrict her operations as a vendor by advocating the rights of third parties seeking access to her liquor market. The Court then set the standard for determining whether a statute violated the Equal Protection Clause in a gender context. The Court stated, "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives." Oklahoma argued that 18 to 20 year old males drove drunk more often then females in the same age range based on statistics. The Court determined this was insufficient to meet the standard because only a small portion of these males were charged with drunk driving. Even if they did drive drunk more often then females, the statute was targeted at 3.2% beer, which was considered non-intoxicating by the Oklahoma legislature. Additionally, the statute only covered selling beer and not drinking it. Thus, the relationship between the means used by the Oklahoma legislature banning the sale of 3.2% beer, to the end of promoting traffic safety was too attenuated to meet the "substantial relation" requirement. Dissent. Justice William Rehnquist (J. Rehnquist) argued the Court should use a "mere rationality" standard as it had in past gender classification cases, instead of the more difficult "substantial relation" standard. He argued the drunk driving males should be viewed in proportion to drunk driving females. The statistics showing that more males drive drunk was sufficient evidence to demonstrate the statute promoted traffic safety.

Katzenbach v. McClung

Brief Fact Summary. Ollie's Barbecue, a family-run business in Alabama did not serve blacks in the restaurant, which was in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act). Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congressional power to regulate commerce can reach seemingly local activities if there is a connection to interstate commerce. No longer need a direct effect on commerce just a substantial one.

Lawrence v. Texas

Brief Fact Summary. Police found two men engaged in sexual conduct, in their home, and they were arrested under a Texas statute that prohibited such conduct between two men. Synopsis of Rule of Law. While homosexual conduct is not a fundamental right, intimate sexual relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chadha

Brief Fact Summary. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), which authorized either House of Congress to invalidate and suspend deportation rulings of the United States Attorney General (Attorney General), the House of Representatives (the House) suspended an immigration judge's deportation ruling regarding Chadha. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The one-house veto is unconstitutional because a law must be approved by a majority of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, pursuant to the principles of bicameralism. Then the law must be introduced to the President who will then approve or veto the law pursuant to the Presentment Clause. There is no such thing as a congressional veto. This is congress trying to recover some of the power given to the president.

City of Boerne v. Flores

Brief Fact Summary. St. Peter's Church, located in Boerne, Texas had outgrown its structure, and wished to expand. The City of Boerne (Appellant) passed an ordinance protecting the structure of historic buildings, and historic districts. St. Peter's Church, through the Archbishop of San Antonio, was denied a permit because the Church is located in a historic district. The Church sued in federal court to get an injunction to force the City to grant a building permit to the Church. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress' power to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment is not absolute, and by enacting RFRA Congress has exceeded its powers under the Constitution by using powers normally reserved for the judiciary. Furthermore, Congress may not legislatively supersede the decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting and applying the Constitution.

Garcia v. San Antonio

Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Garcia (Appellant), brought suit against his employer the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (Appellee), arguing that its function as a transit authority was a "non-traditional" function of state government. Thus, it was bound by the standards of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Synopsis of Rule of Law. The division between Congressional regulatory power under the commerce clause and state sovereignty is defined by political action, not judicial review

Railway Express Agency v. New York

Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Railway Express Agency (Appellant), brought suit against the Appellee, the State of New York (Appellee). The Appellant argued that a statute prohibiting advertising on vehicles, except for notices upon business delivery vehicles engaged in the regular work of the owner, are unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution). Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Equal Protection Clause does not seek to protect so called discrimination in determining whether allowing advertising on vehicles and not allowing advertising on other vehicles is unconstitutional. MS without teeth Government is allowed to attack one aspect of a problem at a time. It doesn't have to be sweeping giant law.

Wickard v. Filburn

Brief Fact Summary. The Appellee, Filburn (Appellee), produced wheat only for personal and local consumption. He was penalized for growing wheat in excess of his allotment allowed by the Department of Agriculture. Filburn argues he is not in interstate commerce and so beyond the control of the interstate commerce clause. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may regulate the activities of entities totally apart from interstate commerce, if those activities affect interstate commerce. We are all in this together. We are not going to make an exception for you or else we will have to make an exception for everyone.

U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright

Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Curtiss-Wright (Defendant), a weapons manufacturer, was convicted of selling arms to warring nations in South America in violation of an Executive Order that was made pursuant to a Joint Resolution of Congress. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The non-delegation doctrine does not bar Congress from delegating great authority and discretion to the President of the United States (the President) in the conduct of foreign affairs.

City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, City of Cleburne (Petitioner), denied a special use permit to the Respondent, Cleburne Living Center (Respondent), for the establishment of a group home for the mentally retarded in the community. The Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit determined that this group is a "quasi-suspect" class and that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution). Synopsis of Rule of Law. Legislation that distinguishes between the mentally retarded and others must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. This is a state level case Your arguments of 500 year flood plain and in the same neighborhood as a Jr High doesn't hide the fact that you don't like the Mentally Handicapped Home. Justice Marshall wants to do away with the 3 levels of scrutiny and have a sliding scale instead.

Washington v. Davis

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, Washington (Petitioner), a black man failed the written test to become a Washington, D.C. police recruit. A higher percentage of black applicants than white applicants failed the written test administered by the District of Columbia Police Department. Some of the unsuccessful black applicants claimed these effects constituted unconstitutional discrimination against them. Justice Byron White (J. White) said our cases have not embraced the proposition that a law can be a violation of equal protection on the basis of its effect, without regard for governmental intent. Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it alone does not trigger the rule that racial classifications are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review. The police force's efforts to recruit black police officers are evidence that the police department did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. The exam is rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of ensuring that police officers have acquired a particular level of verbal skill. Concurrence. Justice John Paul Stevens (J. Steven) said that frequently the most probative evidence of intent will be a showing of what actually happened. A Constitutional issue does not arise, however, every time some disproportionate impact is shown.

Bolling v. Sharpe

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioners, Negro minors (Petitioners), allege the segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia deprives them of Due Process of law under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution). Synopsis of Rule of Law. Racial segregation in public schools is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. There are certain things that are so radically unfair that it violates Due Process. This is a companion case to Brown v. Board.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, the state of Arizona (Plaintiff), created a law limiting the number of railroad cars per trains as a safety measure. The Defendant, the Southern Pacific Co. (Defendant) asserted that the law violated the United States Constitution's (Constitution) Commerce Clause. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In deciding whether a state law - created for its safety measures - violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) will balance the benefit of the law against the burden it imposes on interstate commerce. They are suspesious of the states motivation. We doubt there is any safety benefits at all. If you go around AZ then there are more miles and more miles equals more accidents. Breaking down cars causes a lot of accidents.

Clinton v. Jones

Brief Fact Summary. The Respondent, Paula Jones Corbin (Respondent), filed a complaint containing four counts against the Petitioner, President Clinton (Petitioner), alleging the Petitioner made unwanted sexual advances towards her when he was the Governor of Arkansas. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The United States Constitution (Constitution) does not automatically grant the President of the United States immunity from civil lawsuits based upon his private conduct unrelated to his official duties as President

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Brief Fact Summary. The Secretary of the Interior adopted a new interpretation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which required consultation only for actions taken in the United States or the high seas. The wildlife groups/supporters filed for a declaratory judgment that the initial interpretation should be reinstated. The initial interpretation also required consultation for actions taken in foreign countries. Synopsis of Rule of Law. There must be an actual cause in fact injury ("but for" the actions complained of, the party would not have suffered the injury) and a substantial or reasonable probability that a decision by the Court will address said injury.

Morrison/Viloence against women act

Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held that the Commerce Clause does not provide Congress with the authority to enact 42 U.S.C. Section:13981, which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. The Court also held that the section's civil remedy was beyond the Section:5 of the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers of Congress. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution) place certain limitations on the manner in which Congress may attack discriminatory conduct. These limitations are necessary to prevent the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution from obliterating the Framers' carefully crafted balance of power between the states and the National Government. SC says good job finding a nexus, but it's not enough. Gender violence is not commerce. It's not about economics. Congress trying to regulate something other than commerce through the commerce clause. Limits Congress's commerce clause power.

Bowsher v. Synar

Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' assignment of certain functions under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to the Comptroller General of the United States violated the doctrine of separation of powers because by its assignment of such functions, Congress was reserving the removal power of an officer charged with execution of the laws. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with execution of the laws except by impeachment.

Morrison v. Olson

Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, which granted independent counsel "full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers" of the Justice Department does not violate the Appointments Clause of Article III, nor do the provisions violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Synopsis of Rule of Law. An independent counsel is an inferior officer; therefore, Congress may by law vest the Appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper: in the President, in the courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis

Brief Fact Summary. The federal unemployment system provided a scheme whereby employers paid a tax to the federal government, but they could deduct the same tax if they made a contribution to a state employment fund. Synopsis of Rule of Law. For a tax and credit scheme to be unconstitutional as against the Fifth Amendment or of principles of federalism, there must be a showing that the tax and credit used together are coercive and/or that they impair the autonomy of the States.

Houston, E.W. Texas Ry.

Brief Fact Summary. The government brought suit against railway companies in Texas, who were maintaining vastly different rate structures for shipments from Shreveport than from similar points within Texas. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may affect intrastate commerce, where the transactions of intrastate and interstate commerce are so related that the preservation of interstate commerce must involve intrastate instrumentalities as well. To be able to effectively regulate interstate law, they have to have some power to regulate the power in the state.

Heart of Atlanta

Brief Fact Summary. The owners of a motel refused to rent rooms to Negroes and wanted to continue to do so. The motel was situated between many interstates in Atlanta and 75% of its patronage was from out-of-town. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a business activity deals with or affects interstate commerce, it is subject to the reach of the Commerce Clause.

United States v. Nixon

Brief Fact Summary. The special prosecutor, investigating a break-in of the Watergate Hotel, demanded audiotapes of conversations recorded by President of the United States Richard Nixon (President Nixon) in the Oval Office. President Nixon asserted that he was immune from such a demand on the grounds of "executive privilege." Synopsis of Rule of Law. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege of immunity from the judicial process

Hunter v. Martin

Brief Fact Summary. The state of Virginia granted the same tract of land to the Appellee, Hunter (Appellee), that a federal treaty give to the Appellant, Martin (Appellant). The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) declared that Appellant was so entitled, but the Virginia Court of Appeals, to which the case was remanded, refused to carryout the Supreme Court's judgment. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Establishes the supremacy clause. The United States Constitution (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. Although we want to distribute power it makes sense to have one voice interpret the C so there isn't every state interpreting the C to favor themselves. It would break the fed government.

Exxon v. Governor of Maryland

Brief Fact Summary. There is a rationing of gas and exxon franchises feels like exxon is favoring the company owned stores. The state of Maryland enacted a statute prohibiting producers or refiners of petroleum products from operating any retail service stations within the state. You can be a refiner, a producer or a retailer, but you can't be all three. Some refiners challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In the absence of a relevant congressional declaration of policy, or a showing of a specific discrimination against, or burdening of, interstate commerce, the States may regulate commerce. Maryland is changing the composition of the out of state competitors. They are, in effect, locking out the major players and the low ballers to give in state competition more of a chance. In addition to the refiners and low ballers losing, consumers lose in this deal also.

Skinner

Brief Fact Summary. Under Oklahoma law, a person convicted a third time of certain specified crimes involving "moral turpitude" received the punishment of sterilization. Persons convicted a third time of other similar crimes were not. The constitutionality of this distinction was brought into question. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the law concerning those who have committed intrinsically the same type of offense punishes one, but not the other by depriving the one of a fundamental right, an invidious discrimination has been made.

U.S. v. Virginia/VMI

Brief Fact Summary. Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was the only single-sexed school in Virginia. VMI used a highly adversarial method to train (male) leaders of the future. There was no equal educational opportunity to that of VMI in the State for women Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (J. Ginsburg) stated that Virginia has shown no "exceedingly persuasive justification" for excluding all women. "Benign" justifications offered in defense of absolute exclusions will not be accepted automatically. The notion that admitting women would downgrade VMI's stature and destroy the school's adversity system was hardly proved. Generalizations about the way women are or what is appropriate for them will no longer serve to justify denying opportunity to those whose talents and capabilities make them exceptions to the average description. Moreover, VWIL does not qualify as VMI's substitute. VWI's student body, faculty, course offerings and facilities do not match VMI's. Dissent. Justice Antonin Scalia (J. Scalia) said the virtue of a democratic system is that it enables people over time to be persuaded that the things they took for granted are not so and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if such types of decisions are removed from the democratic process and written into our United States Constitution (Constitution). Concurrence. Chief Justice William Rehnquist (J. Rehnquist) argued that while he agreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion, he disagreed with its analysis. The Supreme Court says here for the first time the state must show an "exceedingly persuasive" justification for gender-based classifications, thereby introducing uncertainty regarding the appropriate test. In addition, VWIL only fails as a remedy because it is of inferior quality to VMI.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Brief Fact Summary. Washington instituted a state wage minimum for women and minors. The Appellant, West Coast Hotel (Appellant), paid the Appellee, Parrish (Appellee), less than this minimum. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Wage and hour laws generally do not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution).

Glucksberg

Brief Fact Summary. Washington law made it criminal for any person to knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide. The constitutionality of the statute was brought into question. A state's ban on assisted suicide does not violate the constitution. Assisted suicide is not a liberty interest protected by the United States Constitution (Constitution). This defense cannot be allowed to justify acts taken to foreclose speculative and uncertain dangers.

Marbury v. Madison

Brief Fact Summary. William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of President John Adams (President Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the District of Columbia, brought suit against President Thomas Jefferson's (President Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery of his commission. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Establishes judicial review. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) 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 (Constitution), which may not be enlarged by the Congress. Article 3 doesn't allow us to hear this case. Congress says statute gives SC trial court power Malbury brings case to SC as a trial court SC says that the statute is not an amendment to the C. so therefore it's unconstitutional.

MN v. Clover Leaf Creamery (EP)

Classic case of MS without teeth. We have bigger fish to fry. We don't care about the boring technical arguments each side has. So case is over.

Champion v. Ames

Facts of the Case The defendants in the case were arrested and convicted under an Act of Congress of 1895 that made it illegal to send or conspire to send lottery tickets across state lines. Conclusion In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that lottery tickets were indeed "subjects of traffic," and that independent carriers may be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Court emphasized the broad discretion Congress enjoys in regulating commerce, noting that this power "is plenary, is complete in itself, and is subject to no limitations except such as may be found in the Constitution." The Court argued that Congress was merely assisting those states that wished to protect public morals by prohibiting lotteries within their borders.

Shapiro v. Thompson

Facts. Appellants, certain states and the District of Columbia, enacted statutes denying welfare assistance to residents who had not lived resided their jurisdictions for at least one year immediately preceding such residents' requests for assistance. The primary purpose for the waiting periods was to preserve the fiscal integrity of the Appellants' public assistance programs (additional purposes are listed were relevant in the reasoning section below). Thus, the programs were targeted at keeping needy newcomers out on the theory that such persons were more likely to become continuing burdens on State welfare programs. Held. Yes. The lower court is affirmed. The effect of the waiting period is to create two classes of people from a group of similarly situated residents on the basis of whether a resident has lived in a State for a least one year. This type of distinction, absent a compelling governmental interest, constitutes an unconstitutional lack of equal protection of the laws which the Fourteenth Amendment forbids. Moreover, the objective of the waiting period, deterring the in-migration of indigents into states, is patently unconstitutional. The nature of our federal union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty coalesce to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout our land uninhibited by laws that restrict this type of movement. The states cannot justify the policy on the grounds that it keeps indigents out who would otherwise move to a state solely to obtain benefits. Such a person is no less deserving of the right to move than is a mother who moves solely for the sake of securing better educational facilities for her children. The policy cannot be justified on the grounds that it distinguishes between new and old residents based on the local tax contributions each has made to their community. Otherwise, the same reasoning could be used to deny newcomers of schools, parks, firemen and police services, which would be clearly unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The justification that the waiting periods promote administrative efficiency cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, because (1) saving governmental resources is not a compelling governmental interest, and (2) less drastic means could have been employed to prevent the fraudulent receipt of benefits. Dissent. Chief Justice Warren: Congress has authorized the States to impose residence requirements. Therefore, the question before us should have been framed in terms of whether Congress may create minimal residence requirements, not whether the states acting alone, may do so. Certainly, Congress, through the states, may impose these residence requirements pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers. Justice Harlan: It's the Due Process Clause that's implicated by an imposition on the right to travel, not the Equal Protection Clause. Since the governmental interests outweigh the burden imposed in this case with regard to the residence requirements, I believe that the waiting periods are constitutional. Concurrence. Justice Stewart: The Supreme Court of the United States here simply recognizes an established constitutional right and gives to that right no less protection than the United States Constitution demands.

Brown v. Board

Facts: Several black children (through their legal representatives, Ps) sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation based on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Holding: • No. The race-based segregation of children into "separate but equal" public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional.

Carter Coal

Name a way you can fail at the commerce clause and it's here. Race to the bottom question, but the court doesn't recongize it. This is the last of the narrowing cases. It in the middle of the Great Depression. HOLDINGS 1. No. The tax imposed by the Act is not a tax, but a penalty to coerce submission, and cannot be upheld as an expression of the taxing power. 2. No. The provisions of the Act regarding collective bargaining, the control of wages, hours, and working conditions of coal miners are not within the authority of Congress and are therefore unconstitutional. The provisions of the Act related to labor are beyond the powers of Congress, because: 1. the Constitution grants to Congress no general power to regulate for the promotion of the general welfare 2. the power expressly granted Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to control the conditions in which coal is produced before it becomes an article of commerce 3. the effect of labor conditions in the production of coal on interstate commerce, including disputes and strikes over wages, is an indirect effect

Allen v. Wright

Parents of black school children filed an action to compel the IRS to deny tax exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools, in conformity with the law. One does not have standing to sue in federal court unless he can allege the violation of a right personal to him.

Jones & Laughlin

Rosevelt threatens SC to add more justices if they don't start allowing New Deal laws pass. You can regulate activities in state as long as those activities have a CLOSE AND IMITATE RELATIONSHIP with interstate commerce. If it's interstate commerce that feels the pinch, then it does not matter how local the operation that applies the squeeze. Brief Fact Summary. This case challenges the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the Act) when the Act regulates activity that occurs solely within the boundaries of one state.

Schechter Poultry

The sick chicken case Brief Fact Summary. Congress delegated authority to an executive agency to regulate various industries. In turn, the President of the United States (the President) redelegated that power to business groups and boards of various industries, to create industry wide codes of conduct. The Defendant, A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation (Defendant), was indicted for violating the "Live Poultry Code," which regulated the poultry industry by requiring collective bargaining, a 40 hour work week, and a minimum wage, among other provisions. If you select a coup of chickens and there is a sick one in there IT"S YOUR CHICKEN. Conclusion SC is in restrictive mode. Congress trying to regulate commerce AFTER it has stopped. The Court held that Section 3 was "without precedent" and violated the Constitution. The law did not establish rules or standards to evaluate industrial activity. In other words, it did not make codes, but simply empowered the President to do so. A unanimous Court found this to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

lopez

Three part test if congress can regulate: 1. Person on thing in interstate commerce. If it crosses state lines then you can regulate it. 2. Channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Railroads, interstate trucks, delivery services. 3. Activities within states that have substanital effect on interstate commerce. You can add up a lot of little things which has a big effect. Brief Fact Summary. The Gun-Free School Zones Act (the Act) of 1990 made possessing a gun within a school zone a federal offense. A 12th grade student (Lopez) was convicted of violating the Act when he brought a handgun to his high school. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The power of Congress to regulate activities extends only to those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Act neither regulates commercial activity, nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. This is the stopping point for the expansion of Congress's commerce clause power. This is too far. This act isn't worded right. It's not about selling guns, it's about possessing guns.

Lochner

strict scrutiny with teeth. Brief Fact Summary. A law that sought to protect the health of bakers by limiting their employment to ten hours a day (sixty hours a week) was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a violation of the Due Process Clause because it was "an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference" with the right of the individual to enter into contracts in relation to labor. Held. Yes. Judgment reversed. There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of a person or the right of free contract by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker. A law such as the one presented in this case involves neither the safety, nor the morals nor the welfare of the public. The interest of the public is not in the slightest degree affected by this act. Thus, this is not a health law but an illegal interference with the rights of individuals, both employers and employees, to make contracts regarding labor. Dissent: Holmes delivers one of the greatest dissents of all time. What NY has done here is reasonable to some reasonable people and that is enough to make it constituational. The constitution should uphold all principles that will not violate fundemental principles pursuant to our history and traditions. Not just popular economic theories of the day. "general principles do not decide concrete cases." The difference between a liberal justice and a conservitive justice is the tests they adopt.