Ap Unit1 Federalism Court Cases

Front 1

Marbury v. Madison

Back 1

Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of checks and balances created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. The document shown here bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898. A Law repugnant to the is void. With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

Front 2

Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1917

Back 2

• The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart's father had sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his fourteen year old son to work in a textile mill. Day spoke for the Court majority and found two grounds to invalidate the law. Production was not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate. And the regulation of production was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states. Day wrote that "the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved" to the states and to the people. In his wording, Day revised the Constitution slightly and changed the intent of the framers: The Tenth Amendment does not say "expressly." The framers purposely left the word expressly out of the amendment because they believed they could not possibly specify every power that might be needed in the future to run the government.

Front 3

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee 14 U.S. 304 (1816

Back 3

• Lord Fairfax held land in Virginia. He was a Loyalist and fled to England during the Revolution. He died in 1781 and left the land to his nephew, Denny Martin, who was a British subject. The following year, the Virginia legislature voided the original land grant and transferred the land back to Virginia. Virginia granted a portion of this land to David Hunter. The Jay Treaty seemed to make clear that Lord Fairfax was entitled to the property. The Supreme Court declared that Fairfax was so entitled, but the Virginia courts, where the suit arose, refused to follow the Supreme Court's decision. The Court rejected the claim that Virginia and the national government were equal sovereigns. Reasoning from the Constitution, Justice Story affirmed the Court's power to override state courts to secure a uniform system of law and to fulfill the mandate of the Supremacy Clause.

Front 4

United States v. Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974

Back 4

• Prosecution of former government officials and presidential campaign officials for conspiracy to defraud United States and to obstruct justice, and for other offenses, wherein special prosecutor caused third-party subpoena duces tecum to be issued directing the President to produce tape recordings and documents relating to conversations with aides and advisors. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the President's motion to quash subpoena, 377 F.Supp. 1326, and an appeal was taken. Certiorari before judgment was granted to bring matter before Supreme Court before disposition by Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, Mr. Chief Justice Burger, held that dispute was justiciable; that District Court was not shown to have erred in determining that special prosecutor's showing of relevancy, admissibility, and specificity was sufficient to warrant issuance of order; and that President's generalized interest in confidentiality, unsupported by claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, could not prevail against special prosecutor's demonstrated, specific need for the tape recordings and documents.

Front 5

Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 (1962

Back 5

• Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them subsequently notwithstanding substantial growth and redistribution of the State's population, they suffer a "debasement of their votes," and were thereby denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the 1901 statute is unconstitutional and an injunction restraining certain state officers from conducting any further elections under it. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that no claim was stated upon which relief could be granted. Held: 1. The District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the federal constitutional claim asserted in the complaint. Pp. 198-204. 2. Appellants had standing to maintain this suit. Pp. 204-208. 3. The complaint's allegations of a denial of equal protection presented a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision. Pp. 208-37.

Front 6

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Back 6

First time national government deemed a state law unconstitutional; over sale of land in former Georgia/current Mississippi in exchange for bribe money.

Front 7

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Back 7

Landmark Supreme Court decision over taxes/debts in the Second Bank of the United States. Maryland attempted to impose a tax on notes from banks not in Maryland, created debate over whether the US could create a national bank; "necessary-and-proper" clause brought up.

Front 8

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Back 8

A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. The law was deemed invalid via the Supremacy Clause.

Front 9

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

Back 9

Congress decided that labor management issues were part of interstate commerce; government became involved in businesses' discrimination. Regulation of industrial activities and such had effect on interstate commerce.

Front 10

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Back 10

Legal battle over government paying farmers to restrict their farming acreage and its constitutionality; Expanded definition of commerce and interstate commerce.

Front 11

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

Back 11

Supreme Court decision that Congress could use the Commerce Clause to fight decision; affected the future of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Front 12

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Back 12

Withholding federal highway funds from states that did not create a uniform drinking age of 21; essentially forced states in to adopting the law.

Front 13

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Back 13

Alfonzo Lopez carried concealed weapon to school. Charged under Texas law with firearm possession law; state charges dismissed and charges were brought under federal criminal statue. However, 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act was deemed unconstitutional by appeal. Gave Texas right to charge boy under their law.

Front 14

Printz v. United States (1997)

Back 14

Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional for Congress to use necessary-and-proper cause to regulate handgun purchases. Brady Bill was federal bill to require law enforcement to perform background checks for handgun purchases until Attorney General created law. Took power away from national government.

Front 15

United States v. Morrison (2000)

Back 15

Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment? Answer was no. Deemed Violence Against Women Act of 1994 unconsitutional.

Front 16

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Back 16

California passed Compassionate Use Act of 1996, legalizing medical marijuana. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act, can Congress invalidate Compassionate Use Act? Answer was no, couldn't be done under commerce clause.