CON LAW POST MIDTERM REVIEW

Panama Refining Co. V. Ryan (1935) - Facts

"The Hot Oil Case" - Sec 9(c) of National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA) president issues executive order prohibiting transport of petroleum and petroleum products in interstate and foreign commerce. - a second executive order was then issued which gave the secretary of the interior all powers vested in POTUS for enforcing this section of NIRA -Panama Refining Co. sued to block secretary orders arguing that the delegation of legislative powers was unconstitutional

Schechter Poultry v. US (1935) - Rationale

(1) NIRA presented a major separation of powers problem because congress delegated too much legislative discretion to the President. compounded by the fact that private interest groups played a central role in developing NIRA codes - violation of the (non)delegation doctrine (2) NIRA violated the commerce clause on the grounds that it allowed for federal regulation of intrastate commerce - even though SCOTUS would adopt a more broad view allowing federal regulation of intrastate commerce NIRA is still invalid because of separation of powers problems

Schechter Poultry v. US (1935) - Issues and Holding

(1) Whether the delegation of powers provided in the NIRA violated article I (and the separation of powers) ? (2) Whether the NIRA was unconstitutional because the federal government had no right to regulate intrastate commerce? HOLDING: The supreme court struck down NIRA as unconstitutional

In the Absence of a conflicting federal law regulating an aspect of interstate commerce is unconstitutional if:

(1) it imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce; or (2) it unreasonably discriminate against interstate commerce

Spending Powers of Congress Restrictions

(1) must be used for general welfare (2) conditions must be unambiguous allowing for the states to make a knowing choice and be aware of consequences (3) conditions must be related to federal interest

3 Categories of Activities that can be regulated under the commerce clause

(1) the power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce (2) the power to regulate instrumentalities of interstate commerce (3) the power to regulate local activities that have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce

Carter v. Carter Coal co. 1936

*another example of the supreme courts narrow view of congressional power pursuant to commerce clause* It held that activities such as mining and manufacturing were inherently local in nature, and working conditions in mines and factories were not "commerce" per se; and as such, these activities and working conditions were outside the power of Congress to regulate pursuant to the interstate commerce clause

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - NYS Constitutional Arguments

- "strict construction" - interstate commerce means only buying/selling (trade) carried out among or more states (not navigation) - power "to regulate" means only to specify conditions but not to license

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Marshall's Interpretation

- Broad Scope of Congressional Power pursuant to the commerce clause - NYS steamboar monopoly law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with a federal statute enacted pursuant to the commerce clause - not because it regulated an aspect of interstate commerce and that therefor it conflicted with the commerce clause

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) - Dissent

- Justice Holmes voted YES - regulating all aspects of interstate commerce is the exclusive right of congress,. it is improper for the judiciary to make judgement on congress. - congress was not making any specific ruling on how states should govern internal commerce or child labor policies under the keating-owen act

Gibbons v. Ogden (1894) - Why is John Marshall's decision is in this case sometimes referred to as the emancipation proclamation of American commerce?

- Marshall Courts broad reading gave the commerce clause elasticity for the future - sometimes called the emancipation proclamation of American commerce because it made opportunities for cost-efficient interstate commerce through the rivers and particularly the west - crucial to guarantee that interstate rail, telephone, and telegraph, oil and gas - when a monopoly is established it impedes the expansion of congress

Taxing Power for the Purpose of Regulation:

- early 20th century ~ federal government attempted to use stick of taxes and carrot of spending to incentivize states to comply with federal programs. - but it is the states prerogative whether or not to regulate in an area where congress does not have authority

Southern Pacific Railroad v. Arizona (1945)

- may a state limit the number of cars that can be a part of a train within its borders? NO - the state has gone to far its regulation of train lengths passes what is plainly essential for safety as it does not appear it would lessen rather than increase the danger of the accident

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)

- does the north carolina statue violate the commerce clause because it prohibited the display of WA state grades on closed containers of apples shipped into the state? YES - not every exercise of state authority imposing some burden on free flow of commerce is invalid powers are left to the state besides interstate commerce to justify it in terms of local benefits from the statute and the lack of alternatives to effectuate the outcome

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) - Facts and Issue

- struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting the transportation across state lines of goods from any place that used child labor. Issue: Whether the commerce clause grants the power to regulate the transportation in interstate commerce of goods that have been produced using child labor? NOTE: was explicitly overruled in United States v. Darby (1941), wherein the Court unanimously upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Darby decision rejected the former ruling's narrow interpretation of congressional power pursuant to the Commerce Clause, as well as its reliance on the Tenth Amendment.

State and Local regulation of interstate commerce

- such regulation is constitutional if: (1) it expressly discriminates against interstate commerce (2) it unduly burdens interstate commerce (3) imposes an incidental burden on commerce but burden is excessive in relation to local benefits (4) legitimate local purposes could be adequately served by reasonable non discriminatory alternatives

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) - Courts Rationale

1) manufacture of goods is not commerce. the fact that the goods are intended for interstate commerce does not make their production part subject to congressional control 2) manufacturing is an intrastate activity internal to a single state 3) regulation of interstate commerce is reserved to the states under the 10th amendment.

U.S. V. Lopez (1995)

5-4 Decision ruled that congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the commerce clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones overturning Lopez's conviction - the act does not meet any of the three categories of commerce laid out by the court except maybe the third but it still does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce - rehnquist says if this was constitutional court would be hard pressed to post any activity by an individual that congress cant regulate

Lochner v. New York (1905)

A New York State law fixing maximum working hours for bakers was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held the law exceeded the police powers of the state and interfered with the individual's right to freedom of contract under Amendment 14. The SCOTUS majority held that the law was an abridgment to the liberty of contract and a violation of due process. The right to purchase or sell labor is part of that liberty protected. In effect, the doctrine of substantive due process is applied here to invalidate the NYS law.

Lochner Era

A period from 1905 to 1937, when the Supreme Court struck down both federal and state laws (like worker protection or minimum wage) that were thought to infringe on economic liberty or the right to contract.

Cooley Rule

A state can regulate an aspect of interstate or foreign commerce if: (1) uniform national rule is not necessary nor desirable (2) the subject of regulation is "local" in nature (even though it involves foreign or interstate commerce) (3) congress has not passed a law in conflict with the state law

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

A state trial court found that this prohibition rendered the landowner's parcels valueless. The landowner asserted the effect of the Act on the value of the lots accomplished a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. • Issue. Does a regulation that inhibits an owner from building on private property constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the SC Coastal Council via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause)? • Held. Yes. 6‐3 vote. Majority opinion by Scalia. • Rationale. The argument that land title is held subject to the "implied limitation" that the State may eliminate all economically valuable use is inconsistent with the historical compact in the Takings Clause.

Nebbia v. New York (1934)

Does the New York statute that sets minimum and maximum prices for milk violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment? Holding. No. 5‐4 vote The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment conditions the exertion of regulatory power by requiring that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent with due process, that the regulation shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.

Taxing and Spending Powers

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 ‐ The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) - Chief Justice Roberts holding

Chief Justice Roberts looked at the "tax" and used the "substance and application" test to determine whether it met the parameters necessary to fall under the taxing and spending clause. He ruled that it did meet such a definition, mainly because the fine on uninsured persons is imposed by the IRS and levied on individual taxpayers through their income taxes. Moreover, the fine is collected by the Treasury and produces revenue for the government.

Contract Clause

Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10) originally intended to prohibit state governments from modifying contracts made between individuals; for a while interpreted as prohibiting state governments from taking actions that adversely affect property rights; no longer interpreted so broadly and no longer constrains state governments from exercising their police powers. The Contract Clause only applies to State legislation, not to court decisions. • MODERN VIEW. Contracts can be nullified is when they are ruled in violation of public health and welfare.

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Congress gave the new agency the power of eminent domain - the ability to seize private property with just compensation. Berman and the other appellants owned a department store in one blighted area targeted by the commission, and they objected to the seizing of their property solely for beautification of the area Whether the seizing of Berman and the other appellants' property for the purpose of beautification and redevelopment of the community violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Held. No. 8‐0 vote. Majority opinion by Douglas. Rationale. The concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive. Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. Here the eminent domain power had been used to redevelop slum areas and for the possible sale or lease of the condemned lands for private interest.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Concurrent Powers Definition

Courts: broad view NYS Definition: as a sovereign state NY could regulate business within their boundaries (narrow view)

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Commerce Definition

Courts: includes traffic intercourse and navigation as well as commodities associated with interstate travel NYS Definition: only trade (ie buying and selling between two or more states)

Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge (1837)

Does the Act of the Massachusetts Legislature, to build a second bridge between Boston and Charlestown, violate the Contract Clause of the constitution? Holding. No. By a vote of 5‐2, the Court ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge Company. Majority opinion by Taney. Rationale. There was no exclusive privilege given to the Charles River Bridge company over the waters of Charles River. As such, the proprietors had no right to erect another bridge themselves or to prevent others from erecting one. If any of these are rights in the contract, they must be explicit rather than inferred.q

Maine v. Taylor (1986)

DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE does the maine law that bans the importation of bait fish into the state violate the commerce clause? NO Holding: Statute is permissible because, even though it is facially discriminatory, it is necessary to achieve the legitimate state interest with no non-discriminatory alternatives. Protecting Maine fragile fish ecology from the parasites that out of state fish carries is a legitimate local purpose.

Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon

DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE struck down as unconstitutional an Oregon state surcharge placed on the importation of out-of-state waste. the surcharge favored in‐state economic interests over out-of-state counterparts. The surcharge was discriminatory to outside states because it imposed a fee three times greater than that imposed on in‐state waste. In order for such a surcharge to be valid, it would have to be justified as compensatory, in that it makes out‐of‐state shippers pay their fair share of the disposal costs. In a 7 - 2 decision, the Court had little difficulty reaching the conclusion that the surcharge discriminated against interstate commerce.

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Eminent domain case: Local governments may force the sale of private property and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public. . May a state or local government use its power of eminent domain in the public interest to procure property that will be used for economic revitalization in the city? Yes! (5 - 4 decision) New London wins; Kelo and other property owners lose. Rationale: The city's proposed disposition of petitioners' property qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause. The city's determination that the area at issue was distressed was sufficient to justify a program of economic rejuvenation. Although the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals"

US v. Morrison (2000)

Facts: The violence Against women act included a provision for civil remedies in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, as well as any other relief court, deems fit. Students at Virginia Tech raped and sought civil damages against rapists and school Issue: Can the federal government regulate noneconomic violent criminal conduct within the states? - Was VAWA provisions were a valid exercise of congressional power pursuant to the commerce clause? NO Rationale: constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. The regulation and punishment of intrastate violence that is not directed at the instrumentalities, channels or goods involved in interstate commerce has always been the providence of the states

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

HELD: The Social Security Act was constitutional. RATIONALE: The US Supreme Court found that the tax was uniform throughout the States and wasn't a violation of the 10th Amendment because it didn't really coerce States to enact laws, it just provided some encouragement. The Court felt that the States still retained autonomy. The Court found that Congress was within its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause to enact the tax, even if Congress had an ulterior motive. The decision, in this case, was a shift in how the Supreme Court interpreted Congressional power to influence state laws. It was basically a reversal of United States v. Butler (1936), which had been decided only a year before.

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) - Holding and Rationale

HOLDING: The La monopoly law did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the (post Civil war) 14th Amendment: 1) Privileges & Immunities Clause? The butchers were not denied any privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States." the 14th Amendment P & I Clause does not protect against any such abuse of state government power. 2) Equal Protection Clause? The Equal Protection Clause is mainly intended to prohibit discrimination against blacks 3) Due Process Clause? The Supreme Court said that restraint on trade is not a deprivation of liberty or property. such that a state law may violate the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause if it is arbitrary and capricious. However, in this case, the Supreme Court found that the state law was reasonable exercise of state police power; and as such, it was constitutional.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Supreme Court examined a law passed by Congress that withheld a portion (5%) of federal highway money from states whose legal drinking age was below 21. Holding this law to be constitutional

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

Is the contract that established Dartmouth protected by the constitution? Was the contract impaired by the acts of the state legislature? Holding. Yes. By a vote of 5‐1, the Court ruled in favor of Dartmouth. Majority opinion by Marshall Held that the Constitution protects private charters the constitution now imposes an additional limitation—that a state may not pass laws that will impair the obligation of contracts. This is plainly a contract to which the donors, the trustees, and the crown were original parties. This, then, is a contract that cannot be impaired without violating the U.S. constitution.

Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)

In this court case, the Supreme Court reversed its own reasoning in Muller v. Oregon, on the grounds that women were now the legal equals of men (after the Nineteenth Amendment). May the government impose minimum wage requirements for women and children (without violating the due process clause)? As in other cases, the question was one of balancing the police power of Congress to regulate working and living conditions with the right of individuals to conduct their own affairs without legislative interference. Holding. No. (5‐3 vote). The majority rule in favor of the hospital. Here, the statute is simply and exclusively a price-fixing law. The problem is that this Act makes the employer pay an arbitrary amount determined by the board as to what living wages would be.

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

Issue: Does the Oregon law regulating the number of hours women work per day violate the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause? No. 9‐0 vote. While the general right to contract is protected by the 14th Amendment, liberty is not absolute. A state may, without conflicting with the provisions of this Amendment, restrict in many respects the individual's power of contract. -one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Progressive Era. It upheld an Oregon law limiting the workday for female wage earners to ten hours. established a precedent to expand the reach of state activity into the realm of protective labor legislation. The court concurred on the grounds that society had an interest in protecting the bodies of potential mothers, whom the majority opinion referred to as "bearers of the race," opening the door for expanded state power to regulate the workplace on the basis of sex differences.

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) - Facts and Issue

LOUISIANA granted to a single corporation the right to conduct all slaughterhouse business in New Orleans. Members of the Butchers' Benevolent Association, sought an injunction against the monopoly on the grounds that they were prevented from practicing their occupation unless they worked at the monopolist corporation and paid its fees. ISSUE: Whether the La monopoly law violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the (post Civil war) 14th Amendment: (1) Privileges & Immunities Clause? (2) Equal Protection Clause? (3) Due Process Clause?

Lochner v. New York (1905) - Contracts Clause

Lochner, referencing the Contracts Clause, stated that the State did not have the right to undermine a contract established between two parties. In addition, Lochner stated that the New York Bakeshop Act was in direct violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, stating that the Act was infringing on 'Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness', or more specifically that the Act violated substantive due process. As a result, and per the Contracts Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Supreme Court voted in favor of Lochner, explaining that the nature of the contract established between Lochner and his employees were legal and binding, thus disallowing the State of New York to negate them in any way.

Sturgis v. Crowninshield (1819)

NYS Legislature enacted a bankruptcy law which discharged a debtor from all liability for any debt contracted previous to his discharge, on his surrendering of property in the manner prescribed by the parties' contract. 1) Whether the NYS law was unconstitutional because the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to enact bankruptcy laws. 2) Whether the NYS law violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution, to the extent that it was applied to a contractual debt incurred prior to enactment of the statute? Held. 1) No. 2) Yes.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Did the majority opinion hold that Congress had exclusive power to regulate all commerce "among the several states"?

No, Congress can only regulate commerce activity involving more than one state but cannot regulate activity that is exclusively interval to one state.

Why does the constitution have contain TWO due process clauses?

One clause, Amendment V, applies to the federal government and the other Amendment XIV, applies to state or local governments

Explain the difference between procedural due process and substantive due process.

Procedural: How laws are enforced; the process must be fair. Substantive: Whether the substance of the law or decision is fair.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

RULE: A taking must be upheld as consistent with the Public Use Clause as long as it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. The public use clause of the Fifth Amendment does not disallow the exercise of eminent domain power when it is reasonably related to a conceivable public purpose even when it is for private land redistribution. A court may review what a public use is but it must give deference to the legislature's public use determination until it is shown to involve an impossibility. The redistribution of land in an oligopoly is a rational exercise of the eminent domain power. The takings purpose and not the mechanics must pass scrutiny under the Public Use Clause. Land did not have to be put into actual public use in order to use eminent domain. It is the taking's purpose, and not its mechanics that were important. Here, eminent domain was used to provide an overall market benefit to the wider populace The Court held that the takings to correct concentrated property ownership was a legitimate public purpose.

Schechter Poultry v. US (1935) compared to Curtiss-Whright Export Co. V US

Schechter was DOMESTIC Trade Curtiss Wright was FOREIGN trade and president has the right to be the sole representative to foreign nations allowing for him to make orders involving trade

Panama Refining Co. V. Ryan (1935) - Rationale

Sec 9(c) of the NIRA did not control production of petroleum within the US nor did it require that particular rules be followed - in order words it lacked standards = did not direct the POTUS to act in a particular way at a particular time

What was the switch in time that saved nine?

Started with the decision in west coast hotel v. Parrish perpetuated by NRLB v. Jones and Laughlin, US v. Darby, and, Wickard v. Fillburn where justice Owen Roberts was the deciding vote in 5-4 decisions. A strategic politically motivated shift to "save nine" or diffuse Roosevelts drive to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to above 9

Munn vs. Illinois (1877)

Substantive due process, as a limitation on state governmental power, is rejected (that is, the doctrine is not applied) in this case Issue. Can the general assembly of Illinois, under the limitations upon the legislative power of the states imposed by the U.S Constitution, fix by law the maximum of charges for the storage of grain in warehouses in Chicago and other places in the state? Held. Yes. 7‐2 vote. Rationale. When private property affects the public interest it is therefore subject to public regulation. • Dissent. Forcing a business to obtain a license, regulating business practices, and setting rates were clear intrusions upon property rights without due process of law. These intrusions could not be upheld under the Fourteenth Amendment, the justices argued.

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) - Summary

Substantive due process, as a limitation on state governmental power, is rejected (that is, the doctrine is not applied) in this case Question. 1) May a state create a monopolistic industry and force businesses to use specific facilities and pay for the privilege of doing so? 2) Does this violate the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause? 3) Does this violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Privileges and Immunity Clause? Holding. 1)Yes. 2) No. 3) No. (5‐4 decision). Rationale. The restraint imposed by the state of Louisiana upon the exercise of their trade by butchers of New Orleans cannot be held to be a deprivation of property within the meaning of the Due Process Clause (nor the Equal Protection Clause nor the Privileges and Immunities Clause).

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Supreme Court case that established the Court's power to invalidate state laws contrary to the Constitution; in this case, the Court prevented Georgia from rescinding a land grant even though it was fraudulently made.

1937 - Four Horsemen of the Supreme Court

Sutherland, Van Devante, McReynolds, Butler - strike down new deal measures as unconstitutional - Schechter Poultry - Carter v. Carter Coal - US v. Butler

United States v. Causby (1946)

The Court found a taking when low-flying jets at an airbase made farming impossible on nearby land even though the government never actually claimed the land itself. Has the government taken the Causby's property without just compensation because planes fly over it, thus making the property useless as a chicken farm? Held. Yes. 5‐2 vote. Majority opinion by Douglas. Rationale. We have said that airspace is a public highway. Yet, it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.

Explain why the framers inserted the CONTRACT CLAUSE in the Constitution.

The Framers of the Constitution added this clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation—that of granting "private relief." Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts The Contract Clause does not prohibit the federal government from modifying or abrogating contracts. Indeed, the Framers expressly empowered Congress to enact bankruptcy laws.

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

The Nollans appealed a decision of the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that the California Coastal Commission could condition its grant of permission to rebuild their house on the transfer to the public of an easement across their beachfront property. Issue. Does the requirement of adding an easement to beachfront property constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the California commission via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause) ? • Held. Yes. 5‐4 vote. Majority opinion by Scalia. Rationale. The commission's imposition of the permit condition cannot be treated as an exercise of its land use power for any of the purposes it cites. Thus, if it wants to put an easement across the Nollans' property, it must pay for it.

Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)

The Supreme Court Invalidated a state law prohibiting the importation of most solid and liquid waste materials from other states. The Court saw this attempt to bar out-of-state access to New Jersey's privately owned landfill sites, while leaving them open to in-state users, as simply another example of parochial legislation tending to promote state economic protectionism at the expense of national interests. The problem of preserving adequate landfill space was by no means unique to New Jersey. And yet, in the Court's view, the state was attempting through this legislation "to isolate itself from a problem common to many by erecting a barrier against the movement of interstate trade." State laws that discriminate against interstate commerce face 'a virtually per se rule of invalidity."

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) - Severability Doctrine

The federal government may not withhold all federal Medicaid funds from states that decline to expand their Medicaid programs. However, the Court ruled that this one unconstitutional provision is severable. As such, the remainder of the act is upheld as constitutional, including the individual mandate, penalties for employers (with at least 50 employees) who do not provide group insurance coverage for employees, additional funding for states that expand Medicaid coverage to meet new ACA standards, regulations to prevent health insurers from denying coverage due to preexisting medical conditions, and the creation of the insurance exchanges where persons can obtain affordable health insurance coverage, and constitutional.

emminent domain

The judicial process by which government can take private property for public use by providing fair (just) compensation • Takings Clause‐the 5th Amendment prohibition against government taking private property without just compensation • Takings for public use: transportation, schools, sewers, economic development

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)

The state minimum wage law is constitutional. It does not violate substantive due process. The principle that must control is the due process clause as in each case the violation alleges that a minimum wage deprives the freedom of contract. But the freedom of contract is not in the Constitution. Rather, it speaks of liberty, and the constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty is subject to restraints of due process and regulation, which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community due process In dealing with the relation of the employer and the employed, the state legislature has a wide discretion in order that there may be suitable protection of health and safety. West Coast Hotel's position on economic regulations remains settled law today.

Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York (1978)

Then, in 1968 Penn Central signed an agreement to build a multistory office building above the terminal. One of the plans proposed a change in the existing façade of the building and construction of a 53‐story office tower above it. - Whether the restriction against Penn Central constituted a "taking" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Held. No. The Court held that the restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from ever constructing above the terminal in the future. Preventing the construction of a 50‐plus story addition above the station was a reasonable restriction substantially related to the general welfare of the city 1. In instances where a state tribunal concluded that the health, safety, morals, or general welfare would be promoted by prohibiting particular uses of land, we have upheld land use regulations that destroyed or adversely affected real property interests. Zoning laws are the classic example of this. do not contest New York's objective of preserving structures and areas with special historic significance as an entirely permissible governmental goal. 2. a taking here is untenable. In deciding whether a particular government action is a taking, we focus on the character of the action and the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a whole. 3. The property owners argue that the only way to ensure that selected owners are not singled out to endure financial hardship is to declare any restriction a taking. This contention overlooks the fact that the New York law applies to vast numbers of structures in the city. 4. The law here does not interfere with any the present uses of the terminal in question, which means that it does not interfere with the primary expectation concerning the use of the parcel. Thus, the landmark law has not affected a taking of property

Panama Refining Co. V. Ryan (1935) - Issues and Holding

Was sec. 9(c) of NIRA a constitutional delegation to the the president (and therefore the secretary of the interior) ? NO

United States v. Butler (1936)

Whether the AAA exceeded Congress's constitutional power to tax and spend? YES Whether the AAA was a valid exercise of the power to spend for the general welfare? NO - the court held that the taxing and spending power was to be exercised although not unrestricted, subject to limitations found in the General Welfare Clause itself, rather than in other enumerated powers. 1. This wasn't a tax and spending measure for the "general welfare" of the United States. It was a tax on one business sector to provide spending solely for another business sector 2. Farming - like mining and manufacturing - is a local (intrastate) activity, which is reserved to state regulation under the Tenth Amendment. [Pre-1937 Congress has no power to regulate production, therefore it cannot indirectly accomplish regulation through taxing and spending.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US - Constitutional Argument of Losing Side

Whether the refusal of the motel to serve African‐American patrons violated Title II of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964? (Whether the act was constitutional?) This ruling should be based upon Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, not solely on the Commerce Clause. Resting on the 14th Amendment gets rid of the uncertainty of whether certain businesses act in interstate commerce.

Explain the modern view about the Contract Clause as a limitation on state police power

While the Contracts Clause remains a part of our written Constitution, not every state law affecting preexisting contracts violates the Constitution. Instead, the Court has applied a two‐part test to determine whether a law unconstitutionally impairs a contractual obligation. • First, the state law must operate as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship. • Second, if substantial impairment has occurred, the Court then turns to the means and ends of the legislation to determine if it violates the Contracts Clause. Specifically, the Court has asked whether the state law is drawn in an appropriate and reasonable way to advance a significant and legitimate public purpose. if the Contract Clause is to retain any meaning at all, it must be understood to impose some limits upon the power of a State to abridge existing contractual relationships, even in the exercise of its otherwise legitimate police power.

Dormant Commerce Clause

aka negative commerce clause - implied restriction on states commerce power intended to promote unrestricted interstate commerce

State laws which promote and protect intrastate commerce by unreasonably discriminating against or erecting barriers against interstate commerce...

are generally prohibited by the commerce clause

Alexander Hamiltons view on taxation and spending clause

argued for a broad interpretation - spending was an enumerated power in congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

case which exemplifies the modern (post-New Deal) view on congressional power pursuant to the Commerce Clause this case concerned a farmer who had raised a wheat crop in excess of the federally prescribed allotment, not for sale or distribution in interstate commerce but for his own consumption. these "offensive bushels of wheat" constituted a quintessential example of a local/interstate activity

James Madison view on taxation and spending clause

clause authorized to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the constitution not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

Schechter Poultry v. US (1935) - Facts

congress passed the National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA) which called for creation of codes of fair competition for businesses (trade practices, wages, hours etc) groups could recommend but if not, it was up to POTUS discretion - Schechter challenged poultry codes and ignored them. he was then fined for not meeting regulations and selling chicken unfit for human consumption

congressional power to enact legislation pursuant to the commerce clause

is NOT unlimitied

Even if a state or local law satisfies the three-fold requirements of the Cooley Rule,

it still may be unconstitutional if it imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce or it unreasonably discriminates against interstate commerce (in order to protect local markets or local producers, etc.) in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Steamboat Case

landmark decision by Ch. J. John Marshall interpreting congressional power pursuant to the Commerce Clause; invalidated the odious NYS steamboat monopoly law which, the court held, conflicted with a constitutional act of Congress. This case was important because of its seminal interpretation of the commerce clause and also because of its implications for American federalism.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)

marks the beginning of the "new era" in Supreme Court construction of congressional power pursuant to the Commerce clause. Areas such as labor-management relations, agriculture, social insurance, and national resource development became focal points of national policy—and the Commerce Clause figured prominently as a constitutional source for most of the New Deal legislation. Beginning with this decision upholding the National Labor Relations Act, the reoriented Supreme Court swept away distinctions between commerce and manufacturing, between direct and indirect burdens on commerce, and between activities that directly or indirectly affected commerce. The NLRB case exemplified the Supreme Court's modern interpretation of interstate commerce, which provides the constitutional foundation for a dramatic expansion of federal government regulation, power, programs and agencies.

Commerce Clause today

provides constitutional authority for the passage of many congressional acts, including environmental protection statutes and criminal laws, which regulate the conduct of persons and companies in the United States. Pursuant to the commerce clause, congress has the power to: • Regulate activites (such as buying and selling of goods) in the stream of interstate commerce • Regulate instrumentalities of interstate commerce (such as airports, ports, interstate highways) and also trucks, trains, boats and planes (moving in interstate commerce) • Regulate local (intrastate) activities which have a substantial affect on interstate commerce. • Regulate local (intrastate) activities which in the aggregate have a substantial affect on interstate commerce

Wickard v. Filburn (1942 - Rationale

pursuant to the commerce clause (augmented by the necessary and proper clause) congress can regulate trivial local intrastate activities in which in the aggregate have a substantial effect on intrastate commerce, even if the effect is indirect - marked beginning of the SCOTUS deference to Congress' claims of commerce clause powers (deference lasts until the 1990's)

Affectation Doctrine

pursuant to the commerce clause (in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause) congress using a rational basis may regulate any activity (including an intrastate activity) which has substantial economic affect on interstate commerce - the tenth amendment is not a limitation on the power of congress under the commerce clause to regulate intrastate activity if the activity has a substantial affect of interstate commerce

Taxing Power for purposes of revenue generation

raises money for government expenditures

California Medical Marijuana Case

relying on Wickard, held that Congress may criminalize the possession and medicinal use of marijuana, even home-grown pot intended for medicinal consumption.

Due Process

requires that the government treat all persons with a minimum amount of fairness when taking life, liberty or property. The essence of due process is fairness.

Granholm v. Heald (2005)

state law regulating out of state wine shipments is unconstitutional because it places a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce

South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018)

states may charge sales tax on online purchases made from out-of-state sellers even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the state Note: The Court overruled a previous decision which held that a state law requiring retailers to collect and remit sales taxes, as applied to out-of-state sellers who did not maintain a physical presence in the state, violated the Commerce Clause.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

suggests that despite the Rehnquist Court's decisions in Lopez and Morrison, Congress retains authority under the Commerce Clause (in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause) to deal with social problems of national scope.

Severability Doctrine

the notion that a court may excise an unconstitutional part of a statute while leaving valid portions intact — forms a core tenet of American constitutional law.

In the absence of conflicting legislation by congress...

there is a residuum of power in the state to make laws governing matters of local concern

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955).

today courts seldom invalidate economic regulations on the basis of substantive due process. Does the law forbidding anyone but an ophthalmologist from fitting glasses violate the due process clause? No. 8‐0 vote. The law here may exact a needless, wasteful requirement in many cases. However, it is for the legislature, not the courts, to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new requirement.

Understand the Takings Clause.

• No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise, infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Explain the three main legal issues that often arise in EMINENT DOMAIN cases.

• Was there a taking of private property by government? • Was the taking for a legitimate public use? • How much money is just compensation?