POLS 341 Midterm

Per curiam opinion

"By the court." Term referring to an opinion attributed to a court collectively, usually not identified with the name of any particular member of the court

Amicus curiae

"Friend of the court"; an individual or organization (third party) allowed to take part in a judicial proceeding, not as one of the adversaries, but as a party interested in the outcome. Usually an amicus curiae files a brief in support of one side or the other but occasionally takes a more active part in the argument of the case

Obter dicta

"Something said in passing"; An assertion made in an opinion of a court which is not pertinent to the decision made in the case

Eleventh Amendment

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Bars citizens from suing a state government in a federal court without the state's consent Sovereign immunity

Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nearly disappeared in 1937, came back in 1976 in National League of Cities vs. Usery where the Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act could not constitutionally be applied to the states Issues of state sovereignty

Three questions asked by judges on case law

1. Is it constitutional or valid? 2. Can it be applied or interpreted clearly? 3. Did the accused violate the law?

States can tax interstate commerce by means of:

1. service of state is provided - highway patrol, road gas taxes 2. License and business fees and tax 3. Property taxes 4. Sales taxes 5. Tolls

Marbury v. Madison

1803, ruled 4-0; most significant opinion in American constitutional law; Chief Justice John Marshall asserts the power of the federal judiciary to invalidate acts of Congress that are determined to be unconstitutional

Dartmouth v. Woodward

1819, ruled 6-1; Dartmouth College was originally chartered by King George III in 1769. Under the royal charter, the trustees of the College were "forever" granted the right to govern the institution as they saw fit. However, in 1816, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to take control of the college, believing its royal charter was no longer valid. A landmark decision from the United States Supreme Court dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the college to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor of New Hampshire. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the college, which pre-dated the creation of the State. The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the American free enterprise system. It is in this case in which the Supreme Court first recognized corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons.

McCulloch v. Maryland

1819, ruled 7-0; In 1818, Maryland legislature imposed a tax on all banks not chartered by the state, including the Bank of the United States. The court ruled that this was unconstitutional. A landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution. This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

Gibbons v. Ogden

1824, ruled 6-0; Aaron Ogden held an exclusive right to navigate steamboats in New York waters, a monopoly granted by the New York state legislature. Gibbons held a "coasting license" from the federal government. When Gibbons began operating a steamboat ferry service between New York and New Jersey, Ogden obtained an injunction in the New York courts. The court ruled that the federal commerce clause outranked state law that had granted the monopoly, which was revolutionary because before this case, it was thought that the federal government could only regulate interstate commerce - extended the definition of interstate commerce and cemented the power of the federal government over the states when laws conflicted.

Barron v. Baltimore

1833, ruled 7-0; The city of Baltimore diverted certain streams, causing silt to be deposited in front of John Barron's wharf, making it unusable. Barron brought suit in state court, claiming that since the City's action amounted to a taking of private property, he was entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The trial court awarded him $4500, but this ruling was reversed by a state appellate court. Barron appealed to the Supreme Court on a writ of error and the court established a precedent that the United States Bill of Rights could not be applied to state governments.

Cooley v. Board of Wardens

1852, ruled 7-2; Aaron Cooley violated a Pennsylvania law by first failing to hire local pilots and then refusing to pay the pilotage fees on two of his ships at the port of Philadelphia. The Court held that these laws did not violate the Commerce Clause. "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states"

Dred Scott v. Sandford

1857, ruled 7-2; Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom as he had been taken into territories in which slavery was forbidden due to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and argued that his temporary residence in a free state should render him free. A landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.

The Prize Cases of the Civil War

1863, ruled 5-4; A few days after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter but before Congress had formally recognized the existence of the civil war, President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports. Owners of ships seized by the blockade brought suit in federal court challenging the legality of the president's order. The Supreme Court's decision declared constitutional the blockade of the Southern ports ordered by President Abraham Lincoln.

Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States

1935, ruled 9-0; Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. The Court considers two issues: whether the act constitutes an impermissible delegation of power from Congress to the executive, and whether the act is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress' power under the commerce clause. This was a unanimous decision that rendered the National Industrial Recovery Act, a main component of President Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional.

U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export Corporation

1936, ruled 7-1; Congress, acting by joint resolution, had authorized the President to place an embargo on arms shipments to South American countries engaged in the Chaco War. Acting pursuant to the resolution, President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed such an embargo. When Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was indicted for violating the embargo through the sale of bombers and fighter planes to Bolivia, it defended itself on the grounds that the embargo and the proclamation were void because Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the executive branch by leaving what was essentially a legislative determination to the President's "unfettered discretion." A United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. The Supreme Court concluded not only that foreign affairs power was vested in the national government as a whole but also that the President of the United States had "plenary" powers in the foreign affairs field that was not dependent upon congressional delegation.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

1937, ruled 5-4; In May 1935, Elsie Parrish was discharged from her job as a chambermaid at the Cascadian Hotel in Wenatchee, Washington. She had originally been employed in the late summer of 1933 at a wage rate of 22 cents per hour, still well below the $14.50 weekly minimum set by the Industrial Welfare Committee pursuant to a state minimum wage law passed in 1913. Elsie Parrish and her husband, Ernest, promptly sued the West Coast Hotel Company for $216.19, the amount by which the minimum wage exceeded her actual earnings during the period of her employment. Although the Parrishes lost at the trial level, they appealed to the state supreme court, which sustained the Washington minimum wage statute. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review their case and ruled in favor of Elsie Parrish. Overturned Adkins v. Children's Hospital

U.S. v. Darby

1941, ruled 8-0; The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established minimum wages and maximum working hours for employees of industries whose products were shipped in interstate commerce. Fred Darby, owner of the Darby Lumber Company in Statesboro, Georgia, was indicted for violating the statute. Darby demurred to the indictment on the ground that in passing the law Congress had exceed its powers under the Commerce Clause and had infringed on the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The unanimous Court affirmed the right of Congress to exercise "to its utmost extent" the powers reserved for it in the Commerce Clause. Precedent - Gibbons vs. Ogden

Watkins v. United States

1957, ruled 6-1; Similar to Barenblatt; John Watkins was subpoenaed to testify before the House committee on Un-American Activities and refused to say whether certain individuals were members of the Communist Party; was convicted of contempt of Congress

Barenblatt v. United States

1959, ruled 5-4; As part of its investigation into Communist infiltration into the education system, the House of Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Lloyd Barenblatt, who refused to answer the committee's questions. He based his refusal on not the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, but the First Amendment protections of political speech and association. Barenblatt was convicted of contempt of Congress. The Court held that the congressional committee had authority to compel a college professor to answer questions about his Communist Party membership.

Baker v. Carr

1962, ruled 6-2; issue of redistricting in Tennessee; a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.

Reynolds v. Sims

1964, ruled 8-1; a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama, but the decision affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population. Precedented by Baker v. Carr

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

1964, ruled 9-0; In adopting Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Congress sought to prohibit racial discrimination by hotels, restaurants, and other public facilities by invoking its broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. In the case, the owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel filed suit in federal district court seeking an injunction against the enforcement of Title II. The suit claimed that in enacting Title II, Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause. The owner claimed that his hotel business was a local activity beyond the reach of federal power over interstate commerce. A landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Wesberry v. Sanders

1964; required each state to draw U.S. Congressional districts to be approximately equal in population; reduced representation of rural population In reaching this landmark decision, the Supreme Court asserted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."

U.S. v. Nixon

1974, ruled 8-0; Nixon used executive privilege to refuse to comply with a subpoena ordering the release of certain tapes and papers. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Nixon resigned sixteen days later, on August 9, 1974.

Kelo v. New London

2005, ruled 5-4; New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

2006, ruled 5-3; President Bush issued an executive order authorizing the use of military tribunals to try foreign nationals apprehended in the war on terrorism. Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni national and Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, detained at the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, brought suit to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the military tribunal before which he was to be tried, and claimed that Bush had "claimed unilateral authority to try suspected terrorists wholly outside the traditional civilian and military judicial systems, for crimes defined by the President alone, under procedures lacking basic protections, before judges who are his chosen subordinates" - argued that the actions reached beyond his power; Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention

U.S. v. Windsor (DOMA)

2013, ruled 5-4; A landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Hollingsworth v. Perry

2013; Refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California. The case began in 2009 under the name Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Walker ruled that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned the ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After two governors of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, refused to defend Proposition 8, same-sex marriage opponents appealed to the Supreme Court. It reached the United States Supreme Court as Hollingsworth v. Perry, who held that in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so. The salient effect of the ruling was that same-sex marriage in California resumed, as the district court trial decision from 2010.

King v. Burwell (ACA)

2015; King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, Pruitt v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS are a set of related lawsuits challenging U.S. Treasury regulation, 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1), issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The challengers argue that the text of the ACA only allows for subsidies on state-run exchanges, and that the regulation as implemented by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), providing for subsidies on state-run exchanges as well as federal exchanges, exceeded the authority Congress granted to it. A decision is expected in June or July of 2015.

Common law

A body of law that develops primarily through judicial decisions, rather than legislative enactments. Not a fixed system but an ever-changing body of rules and principles articulated by judges and applied to changing needs and circumstances. Right to marry, right to have children and raise them as you see fit (within reason), right to self defense (for life, not for property)

Writ

A formal order from a court enjoining an individual or organization to do or to refrain from some specified action

Advisory opinion

A judicial opinion, not involving adverse parties in a "case or controversy," that is given at the request of the legislature or the executive. It has been a long standing policy of the US Supreme Court not to render advisory opinions.

National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA)

A law passed by the United States Congress in 1933 to authorize the President to regulate industry in an attempt to raise prices after severe deflation and stimulate economic recovery - granted FDR power to exclude oil produced in violation of state regulation from interstate commerce Ruled unconstitutional Provisions struck down by Panama Refining Company v. Ryan (1935), Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935 - struck down provision that allowed executive branch to promulgate codes of fair competition for broad range industries), and Panama v. Ryan

Respondent

A person asked to respond to a lawsuit or writ

Defendant

A person charged with a crime or against whom a civil action is brought

Petitioner

A person who brings a petition before a court of law

Appellant

A person who takes an appeal to a higher court

Moot

A point that no longer has any practical significance; academic

Unitary government

A political system in which all power is vested in one central government

Federal government

A political system in which sovereignty is shared by national and regional governments

Certiorari

A request from the losing party in a case that the decision be reviewed by a higher court

Tort

A willful or negligent injury to a plaintiff's person, property, or reputation

Injunction

A writ prohibiting an individual or organization from performing some specified action

Habeas corpus

A writ to an official having custody of another ordering him to produce the prisoner for the purpose of allowing the court to ascertain the legality of the prisoner's detention

Writ of certiorari

Acceptance of certiorari resulting in an order to transfer the case from the lower court to the higher court

Privilege

An activity in which a person may engage without interference; rights extended to persons by virtue of law

Writ of prohibition

An appellate court order preventing a lower court from exercising its jurisdiction in a particular case

Prior restraint

An official act preventing publication of a particular work

Writ of mandamus

An order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion

Executive authority on foreign affairs

Broad; can make treaties, counterattack if attacked, and limit/restrict passports

Substantive due process

Doctrine that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require legislation to be fair and reasonable in content as well as application

Selective incorporation

Doctrine under which selected provisions comprising most of the Bill of Rights are deemed applicable to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment

1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.

Home port doctrine

Establishes that no state or local government can impose a property tax on commerce having its home port in another country as no taxable situs exists

Immunity

Exemption from civil suit or prosecution

Executive authority on domestic affairs

Extremely limited

Plenary power

Full, complete; often used with reference to the nature and extent of the governmental powers enumerated in the federal Constitution

Implied powers

Governmental powers not stated in but implied by the Constitution Doctrine - Congress is not limited to exercising those powers specifically enumerated in Article I but rather may exercise powers reasonably related to the fulfillment of its broad constitutional powers and responsibilities

Appellate court

Judicial tribunals that review decisions from lower tribunals

Doctrine of exhaustion

Legal principle that, in general, a plaintiff must exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.

Shepardizing

Method used to update cases and statues and reference them

U.S. Constitution in regards to military tribunals

Military duties always prevail and if you do not respond to them, you can be court martialed

Doctrine of nexus and taxable situs

Nexus - if you take possession of the item there, you pay the tax of that state Situs - if there is an outlet of the store in the state in which you live, they can charge you the tax from your state (i.e. if you buy something from Apple in Maine and ship it to California, they can charge you the California tax rate because there are Apple stores here)

Public duty doctrine

One can become liable for injury or damage by not disclosing a danger to public or private safety If a hazard exists and you are informed of it but take no action to mitigate it and injury results, you are liable for 100% of costs even if it was only 1% your fault

Commerce clause

Power to regulate interstate commerce - "Congress shall have the Power... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" Everyone is commerce

Delegated power

Powers given to an administrative or regulatory agency to promulgate rules and regulations having the force of law

Enumerated powers

Powers specified in the text of the federal and state constitutions

Fourteenth Amendment

Prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws If you travel between states, you have the same rights as citizens of that state

Contract clause

Provision of Article I, Section 10, forbidding states from impairing the obligations of contracts Contract = written agreement between two persons or groups that is legally binding; can be legally signed by all persons over age of 18

Supremacy Clause

Provision of Article VI of the Constitution making that document, and all federal legislation consistent with it, the "supreme Law of the Land"

Procedural due process

Set of procedures designed to ensure fairness in a judicial or administrative proceeding

Necessary and proper

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Assault

The attempt or threat to inflict bodily injury upon another person

Reciprocal tax immunity

The doctrine that federal and state governments may not levy taxes on each other

Doctrine of original intent

The doctrine that the Constitution is to be understood in terms of the intentions of the Framers

Severability

The doctrine under which courts will declare invalid only the offending provision of a statute and allow the other provisions to remain in effect

Appellee

The party against whom a case is appealed to a higher court

Plaintiff

The party initiating legal action; the complaining party

Police power

The power of government to legislate to protect public health, safety, welfare and morality

Inherent executive power

The powers of the president that flow from the nature of the office rather than from specific provisions of Article II

Doctrine of preferred position

The preferred position doctrine, also called the preferred freedoms doctrine, is an interpretative rule created through the judiciary branch that analyzes and ranks constitutional rights in order of perceived significance. The preferred position doctrine gives the federal government the right to put certain constitutional rights before others. **First Amendment**

Executive privilege

The right of a president to withhold information from Congress and the courts - protected because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution

Standing

The right to initiate a legal action or challenge based on the fact that one has suffered or is likely to suffer a real and substantial injury

Libel

The tort of defamation through published material

Slander

The tort of defaming someone's character through verbal statements

Battery

The unlawful use of force against another person, entailing some injury or offensive touching

Stare decisis

To stand on what has been decided; to adhere to the decision of previous cases. It is a rule, sometimes departed from, that a point settled in a previous case becomes a precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases decided by the same court

Original jurisdiction

the authority of a court of law to hear a case in the first instance

Appellate jurisdiction

the legal authority of a court of law to hear an appeal from or otherwise review a decision by a lower court

Doctrine of sovereign immunity

when certain conditions are satisfied, foreign nations are immune from US jurisdictions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Exceptions are made a) when a foreign state has "waived its immunity either explicitly or implication" or b) when the action is taken "in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the US by foreign state. State cannot commit legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution