Banner Con Law Cases

Front 1

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, p.318:

Back 1

Rule: President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem from either an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.

Jackson’s Concurrence – established levels of Presidential power:

1. When President acts pursuant to express or implied authorization of Congress

2. When president acts in absence/in Congressional Silence and upon his own independent powers, must look to history to determine if within president’s power

3. When president takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of congress (Here, presidential actions are subject to the closest scrutiny)

Front 2

Clinton v. City of NY

Back 2

The cancellation provisions authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not constitutional.

Front 3

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export:

Back 3

The constitutional powers of the federal government regarding foreign affairs are more expansive than those regarding domestic affairs.

Front 4

Dames & Moore v. Regan, Sec. of the Treasury, p. 375

Back 4

The president lacks the plenary power to settle claims against foreign governments through an executive agreement; however, where Congress at least agrees in the president’s actions, the president can settle such claims. This was upheld because there was a long standing practice, Congress had acquiesced to this practice by the president, and precedent.

Front 5

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, p.382

Back 5

A U.S. citizen designated and detained as an enemy combatant has a due process right to challenge the underlying factual support for that designation before a neutral arbitrator. However a full criminal trial is not need just a fair opportunity to rebut the government tailored so not to overburden the government.

Front 6

Boumediene v. Bush, p.393

Back 6

(1) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 strips federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions (Challenge Detainment) filed by foreign citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay. (2)Detainees are not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause simply because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. (3) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution.

Front 7

Marbury v. Madison

Back 7

The Supreme Court has the power, to review acts of Congress and if they are found repugnant to the Constitution, to declare them void. Necessary = Convenient *Interpret Law*

Front 8

Plaut v. Spendthrift

Back 8

Congress cannot make the court change final decisions/final judgments.

Front 9

Ex Parte McCardle

Back 9

Although the S.C. derives its appellate jurisdiction from the Constitution, the Constitution also gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction.

Front 10

U.S. v. Klein

Back 10

Congress was trying to change laws were cases were pending. Court said this was interfering with their powers. Court said that Congress can change laws, but they cannot interfere with pending cases.

Front 11

Massachusetts v. EPA

Back 11

Third Party Standing - A plaintiff has standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the defendant and redressable by judicial relief. SC said the Case was justiciable because it was a state rather than an individual that was suing. However, you can sue on behalf of the public at large.

Front 12

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation

Back 12

Courts generally do not allow taxpayers to challenge U.S. laws simply because someone is a taxpayer. Exception: where there is a particular type of tax that affects a group of individuals – may have standing

Front 13

McCulloch v. Maryland

Back 13

(1) giving congress the discretion and power to choose and enact the means to perform the duties imposed upon it, are to be implied from the necessary and Proper Clause. (2) The federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are supreme and control the constitutions and the laws of the states.

Federal Gov’t – (1) External Issues (2) Referee of states interests (3) Group of people not individual sovereigns

Front 14

Gibbons v. Ogden, p. 142

Back 14

Congress’s power is plenary; absolute once it has the power, then it has complete power over that subject. Once Congress acts, if there is a state law that conflicts, the congressional act is controlling (because of the supremacy clause). Commerce is the intercourse of commercial activity. Court says Congress cannot deal with intrastate activities, but once it deals with multiple states, Congress has the power to regulate.

Front 15

United States v. E.C. Knight Co, p. 146

Back 15

The commerce clause does not empower congress to regulate manufacturing. SC limited the federal power and commerce clause power while it increased the state’s powers. States are to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the states.

Front 16

Lottery Case, p. 157

Back 16

Federal government has powers over products with some evil associated with them, like gambling. Don’t want the evil products in interstate commerce, so protected by the commerce clause.

Front 17

Heart of Atlanta Motel

Back 17

Congress, under the CC, may regulate business local in scope, if their business activities have some impact on interstate commerce. Discrimination is under Federal so they found a way! Court here says that the discrimination discourages minority travelers which would have a harmful effect on interstate travel/commerce. “Within the channels of commerce” using the Rational basis test used – is there a rational basis.

Front 18

U.S. v. Lopez

Back 18

“Gun in Schools” Congress can regulate these 3 categories of activities:
o (1) channels of interstate commerce (transporting) by not allowing child labor products into the market and by keeping bad or evil products out of the market.;
o (2) instrumentalities of commerce (rails) protecting the means by which interstate activities occur like trucking, railroads, people;
o (3) activities that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce - the most broad category; anything that Congress has a rational basis for concluding that the activity substantially effects interstate commerce.
o Here, the regulated activity of carrying a gun to school did not fall within one of these categories, therefore it exceeded Congress’s CC power to regulate.

Front 19

U. S. v. Morrison, p. 196

Back 19

Commerce clause regulation of intrastate activity may be upheld only where the activity being regulated is economic in nature. Violence against women is not a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Front 20

Printz v. United States

Back 20

The Federal Gov. may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.

Front 21

U.S. v. Butler, p. 239

Back 21

Congress may not, under the pretext of exercising the taxing power, accomplish prohibited ends, such as the regulation of matters of purely state concern and clearly beyond its national powers.Court here considered the meaning of the phrase “to lay taxes”;

two views – Madison’s (the power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated powers);

Hamilton’s (power to tax and spend was a broad grant of power – to provide for the general welfare – not limited to the enumerated powers)

Court took Hamilton’s view. They did not think the framer’s meant for one enumerated power to be subject to limitation by another enumerated power without further clarification.

Front 22

Sabri v. U.S., p.242

Back 22

The absence of a nexus between federal funding and prohibited conduct does not result in a statute’s presumed unconstitutionality. Nothing requires such a connection so long as the federal government is acting within its legitimate authority under the Necessary and Proper clause.

Front 23

South Dakota v. Dole, p.245

Back 23

Congress may withhold federal highway funds to states with a minimum drinking age of less than 21 years. 4 limits on the spending power:
1. Must be in pursuit of the general welfare
2. States must knowingly choose to participate or opt out
3. Condition related to some federal interest
4. No conflicting constitutional provision
5. 10th Amendment (Pressure cannot turn into compultion)

Front 24

U.S. v. Morrison

Back 24

The 14th Amendment does not support the enforcement of the civil damages remedy of the Violence Against Women Act. Congress cannot dilute power but can expand

Front 25

City of Boerne v. Flores

Back 25

The RFRA unconstitutionally exceeds congress’s enforcement power under the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Congress can enact legislation like this but the legislation must be remedial to correct substantive constitutional violations, not to create/change/enhance substantive rights.

Here, the statute enhanced constitutional rights, so it was too broad.

1. If the object of the law is to restrict free exercise of religion – apply strict scrutiny
2. If the object of the law is not to restrict free exercise of religion – then only must pass rational basis.
3. Strict scrutiny is to be applied to laws when effected by religious freedom.

Front 26

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, p.266

Back 26

Congress may use its enforcement power under the 14th to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity and to permit private suits against the states in federal court.

Front 27

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, p.268

Back 27

Congress may not abrogate the states’ immunity from suits. This case deals with the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. I § 8, cl. 3. Court overruled Union Gas. (which allows Congress to abrogate states immunity under the CC)
o Court said that congress could not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity under the CC or any other provision except the 14th. Two part test for validity of abrogation:
1. Did Congress unequivocally express intent to abrogate immunity?
2. Did Congress act pursuant to a valid exercise of powers?

Front 28

Board of Trustees, University of Alabama v. Garrett, p. 282:

Back 28

11th amendment raised; used the 2 part test from Seminole. Congress can enforce remedies that address constitutional issues ONLY. (Cannot sweep too broadly.)

Front 29

United States v. Georgia

Back 29

(1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 abolished state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities claiming discrimination by state prisons. (2) Title II was a proper exercise of congress’s power under § 5 of the 14th, as applied to the administration of prison systems.

Front 30

Alden v. Maine

Back 30

Congress’s Article I power does not authorize it to abrogate the states’ immunity from suit on federal claims in their own courts.
o Court said that states’ immunity was fundamental – that it existed before the Constitution and was not taken away by the constitution. Congress cannot authorize suits against state governments in state court. State governments may not be sued in state court, even on federal claims, without their consent.

Front 31

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

Back 31

The FCLAA expressly preempts state regulation of outdoor and point-of-sale cigarette advertising by unequivocally prohibiting such regulation by the states.

Front 32

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, Director, Dept. of Ag. of California, p.443

Back 32

A federal law that sets a minimum standard does not preempt a stricter state law. However, it was not impossible to comply with both laws, so therefore there is no conflict between the two laws. An actual conflict occurs when it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law or the state law stands in the way of giving effect to the federal law, obstacle preemption.

Front 33

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development

Back 33

In passing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Congress preempted state regulation of the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of nuclear plants but intended for the states to retain their traditional responsibility in the field of regulating electrical utilities for determining questions of need, reliability, cost, and other related state concerns.

Front 34

Hines, Sec. of Labor & Industry of Pennsylvania v. Davidowitz

Back 34

A fed law regulating alien registration preempts all similar state laws. This case exemplifies the concept of field preemption whereby Congress preempts an entire field, even though it has not expressly preempted the state law and the state law does not actually conflict with the federal law. Immigration & foreign affairs are areas long held are the exclusive province of Congress.

Front 35

Wyeth v. Levine (2009):

Back 35

Wyeth makes 2 preemption arguments: impossibility and obstacle.
o Court held that this was not a case of either type of conflict preemption. It was not impossible to comply with both the federal and the state law as the federal law was just a minimum standard, that the state law could always be stricter. And had Congress thought the state law conflicted with the federal law, it would have expressly preempted the state law sometime in the FDCA’s 70 year history.