Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
55 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Marbury v. Madison
|
SC does not have Consittuional pwoer to exercise original jurisdiction. Constitution controls in case of conflict with federal law.
|
|
|
Ex Parte McCardle
|
McCardle was arrested and imprisoned w/o a trial because of editorial. Congress removes SC power of appellate review of habeous corpus issues. Congress is allowed to take away SC's appellate jurisdiction. SC can't ask why.
|
|
|
Muskrat v. United States
|
Congress passed Acts allowing individual ownship of and then redistribution and restriction of Cherokee Lands. Then passed an act allowing those affect to sue to see if original act was unconstituional. Can't do this cause courts can't give ADVISORY OPINIONS - must be an actual case/controversy.
|
|
|
Nixon v. United States
|
Nixon (judge) charged by House for false testimony. Impeached by House and then had Senate committee hearing. NIxon questions whether Senate can "try" him. Court holds it is a "non-justiciable" political question.
|
|
|
McCullogh v. Maryland
|
Congress makes a bank - then MD passes a tax on bank notes. US bank refuses to pay. MD claims bank is unconstitutional. Court holds that it is constitutional under the N&P clause.
|
|
|
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee
|
Silkwood was contaminated w/ radiation from Kerr-McGee. KM violated Federal radiation safety regulations. Jury awarded 10m in state punitive damages. KM claims that since feds are involved nuclear safety regulations - the state can't impose tort penalties. Court said there is no Fed preemption in nuclear accident cases.
|
|
|
Gibbons v. Ogden
|
NYS gave inventors of steamboat an exclusive license to operate steambats in NY to Ogden. NJ & CT passed retaliatory laws against NY steamboat operators. Gibbons ooperated a competing service in NY, but Ogden obtained an injunction against him in NY state court. Court holds that FED LAW PREEMPTS NYS LAW RE:STEAMBOATS. Federal law on point - did not reach conclusion that Congress has exclusive power to regulate IC.
|
|
|
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
|
Port of Philly has reules requiring employment of local guide into port. Cooley brought ship into his port w/o a guide. Challenged the fine saying local law was in conflict w/ fed power to regulate IC. Court upholds PA law - because there was no necessity for a UNIFORM NATIONAL STANDARD. So state power is concurrent w/ fed power to regulate IC.
|
|
|
Wabash ST. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois
|
ILlinois statute regulated rates RR could charge for carrying goods, whether wholly w/in illinois or on interstate transit. Court holds REgulation of RR rates requires a UNIFORM NATIONAL STANDARD or else there is a BURDEN on IC. Differs from colby cause the RR were going between states.
|
|
|
S. Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., Inc.
|
S.C. statue prohibits big trucks on highways. Court hold there is a LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST and NO DISCRIMINATION
|
|
|
Southern Pacific Co v. Arizona
|
Arizona had a train limit law prohibitingb trains from having more than a certain amount of cars. Court found there was a SERIOUS BURDEN ON IC because the local interest (safety) was shit.
|
|
|
Dean Milk v. City of Madison
|
Madison had statute requiring milk sold w/in city limits to be pasteurized w/in 5 mi radius of Madison. Dean Milk challenges statute as unconstituional burden on IC. HOLDING: Statute discriminates against interstate milk - there is a disparate impact on interstate milk. there were non-discriminatory ways to protect madison's health.
|
|
|
Hughes v. Oklahoma
|
Hughes was TX minnow dealer. Challenged statute which prohibited shipiping minnows for sale outside of the state which were made w/in the waters of the state. HOLDING: OK statute was unconstitutionl. Discriminates IC on its face.
|
|
|
Baldwin v Fish & Game Commission
|
Out of state residents had to pay 25x the in state fee for license to elk hunt in Montanta. HOLDING: not a violation of basic right that would affend the P&I clause.
|
|
|
US v. Darby
|
Darby runs lumber mill and doesn't pay minimum wage. Argues that his mill operates wholly in state not interstate commerce. HOLDING: some of his lumber is shipped interstate. Enough of an effect on interstate commerce. MOTIVIATION not important - just needs JURISDICTIONAL HOOK to tie in to IC to make the law legitimate.
|
|
|
Wickard v. Filburn
|
Wickard was a wheat farmer who grew too much. Just used it on his farm. HOLDING: Court will not consider the ACTUAL AFFECTS on IC or the widsom workability or fairness of the legislation. held that it could be regulated.
|
|
|
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
|
Motel Operator filed declaratory judmgent to invalidate Title II of the CRA of 1964 saying that it exceeds Congress' ability to regulate commerce. HOLDING: 1964 has a JURISDICTIONAL HOOK. Applies to local businesses that affect IC. 1. Rational Basis for finding effect on IC; 2. Rxbly adapted to meet congress' legitimate goals
|
|
|
Katzenbach v. McClung
|
Family owned business far off of interstate highway didn't serve non-whites. HOLDING: case-by-case determination of whether restaruant's activities affect IC are not necessary. Court won't look further than to determine that Congress had a rational basis for finding an effect on IC.
|
|
|
United States v. Lopez
|
Lopez convicted of violating the federal GunFree schools act. No jurisdicitional hook in the act. HOLDING: the act was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Amended act then had findings that link guns in school to economy and a jurisdictional hook
|
|
|
Gonzales v. Raich
|
lady grew pot. HOLDING: Application of the Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Congress has a "rational basis" for belief that home-grown pot will affect the IC.
|
|
|
The Child Labor Case
|
Drexel Furniture employed child laborers. 10% tax on its profits was issued pursuant to the Child Labor Tax Law. Pre-Darby attempt by Congress to regulate Child Labor. HOLDING: law was UCONSTITUTIONAL attempt to regulate where SC had struck down regulation (Hammer v. Dagnehart). Regulatory purpose and affects of this law are clear; the Court should not shut its eyes to this streatch of congressional power.
|
|
|
US v. Kahriger
|
SC upheld tax on gambling that required bookies to register w/ the IRS. Regardless of its regulatory effect, the tax produces revenue. Unless there are provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power. DOCTRINE OF OBJECT CONSTIUTIONAILITY.
|
|
|
US v. Butler
|
Agriculture act permitted the govt to pay farmers not to raise crops, and to pay for this act, a tax was levied on the first processing of the crops. Power of Congress to spend is NOT limited to the areas in which its given express grants of power. HOWEVER congress CANNOT regaulate agricultural production so the act is UNCONSTIUTIONAL. OLD LAW.
|
|
|
South Dakota v. Dole
|
Upheld Congress's use of spending power to entice states to raise drinking age to 21yrs. There was a penalty reduction of 5% of highway funds until a state raised its drinking age. Met the general welfare critera.
|
|
|
Garcia v. San Antonia Metro Transit Authority
|
San Antonia MTA didn't pay workers overtime - offered crop time instead. This is a violation of the FLSA. ISSUE: is the MTA immune from the Fed regulations governing labor standards because its a state institution? HOLDING: FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IS PLENARY. State is NOT immune from regulation as long as a fed regulation applies to nonstate entities equally.
|
|
|
NY V. US
|
Congress had a problem with disposal of radioactive waste: only 3 states had facilities and while the state can't discriminate against IC by blocking outside waste from coming in or charging a discriminatory fee, the state could shut down its disposal faciliites altogheter. Passed act to encourage states to set up faciliites w/ other states to handle disposal. If State did not have a plan by 1996, the FEd courd force the State to take title to all of the radioactive waste generated w/in its borders. HOLDING: FEd CANNOT force states to adopt legislation or carry out a fed program.
|
|
|
Printz v. US
|
Followed NY v. US to invalidate part of the Brady Handgun Control Act that would force state police officials to conduct background checks on gun purchasers pursuant to a federal policy. Confimred that it is an unconstitutional violation of State sovereinty to direct state officials to administer Fed programs just as its unconstituiotnal for the fed to force a state to adopt legislation.
|
|
|
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer
|
Pres ordered Secretary of Commerce to seize steel mills and keep them running during Korean War. HOLDING: Seizure was not authorized by statute. not allowed.
|
|
|
Whitney v. Robertson
|
P merchants imported sugar from San Domingo and were charged an unexpected tariff because a new ACt superseded an older treaty that charged no tariff. HOLDING: courts will not review changes to treaties: this is for the Legislative and Executive branches to decide. Statutes are on equal footing w/ treaties becuase they are passed in like manner. A statute can declare exit from Treaty.
|
|
|
US v. Curtiss-Wright
|
Joint Resolution by Congress (singed by pres) to cease all arms sales to boths ides of conflict btwn Paraguay and Bolivia over the Chaco whenver the pres says. Curtis Wright says that the Resolution is an unocstiutional delegation of Congress' lawmaking power to the Pres (violtaes the non-delegation doctrine) HOLDING: Pres has discretion in exercising foreign affair powers.
|
|
|
Goldwater v. Carter
|
Pres unilaterally declared termination of treaty w/ Tiawan. Several senators and house members sued for declaratory relief claiming tha thte Pres cannot unilaterally exit a treaty. HOLDING: this is a non-justicaible political question. NO MAJORITY OPINION.
|
|
|
United States v. Nixon
|
Nixon asserted executivve privilege to avoid producing White House tapes for use in Watergate trial. HOLDING: This is NOT a non-justiciable political issue: 1) special prosecutor's terms of appointment make him independent of the Pres; and 2) whether evidence can be used at trial is definately a legal question.
|
|
|
INS V. Chada
|
House used it's "legislative veto" to prevent permanent citizenship from being extended to Chadha and then decided w/o resolution or debate to deport him. HOLDING: Unconstitution because this was a legislative veto was used to do what required legislation. Didn't adhere to bicameralism or presentment.
|
|
|
Clinton v. City of NY
|
Clinton exercised his power under the Line Item Veto Act to cancel spending planned in the Balanced Budget act. HOLDING: Pres must comply w/ the Presentment clause when ENACTING LAWS nad when REPEALING LAWS. Cannot line item veto - can return an entire bill.
|
|
|
Bowsher v. Synar
|
Under the Gramm Rudman Hollings Act Congress vested the Comptroller w/ the power to determine amount by which annual budget exceeds expected income, and then the pres. orders the agencies to reduce their anual budgets by an amount stated in CGs report. HOLDING: 1. Congress cannot retain removal power over any officer charged w/ the execution of the laws; 2. here CG is executing the laws bc he's interpreting how Acts provisions apply and determining how to adjust bugdet accordingly
|
|
|
Morrison v. Olson
|
Morrison was Ind Counsel to investiage alleged perjury by Olson. IC is given all powers of AG w/in her jursidction and substantial independence. HOLDING: IC is an inferior oficer - therefore Congress can appoint. Congress can empower branches other than the Executive to appoint inferoior executive officers.
|
|
|
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton
|
Arkansas passed law that no Senator who'd served 2 terms and no REp who'd served 3 terms could have their name on the ballot for future elections. HOLDING: Congress cannot add to or alter the qualifications for membership set out in the Constitution. Legislation had express intent of causing turnover, and is not for purpose of holding "orderly elections" therefore not under STates power to legislate the "manner" of election
|
|
|
NIxon v. Admin. of General Services
|
Congress passed "Presedential REcordsing and Materials Preservation Act" to prevent NIxon from destroying White House tapes and journals. HOLDING: NOT a bill of attainder. NOT punishment.
|
|
|
Home building & Loan v. Blaisdell
|
Minnesota passed 1933 Mortgage Moratorium Law, providing that during the emergency foeclosures were postponed and redemption periods extended. Bank looses its right to immediate possession. HOLDING: 1. no substanital impariment; 2. THE RESERVATION OF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOVERIGN POWER ARE READ INTO Ks"
|
|
|
ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL V. SPANNAUS
|
MN law required employers fund pensions for any employee who had been at the company for 10 years, at the time that the compmany leaves the state/closes and office. Allied's pension plan had not envsioned vesting unless the person retired from the company at age 65+. HOLDING: Act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Act significantly altered allied's respoinsibility. No significant emergency. ONly applied to MN employers who already had pension plans.
|
|
|
US v. Causby
|
Planes flew over chicken farm. HOLDING: owner owns enough of the space above his land to afford him FULL USE AND ENJOYMENT of the property. Gov't physically invaded the property - therefore it had taken some of the property .
|
|
|
Yee v. City of Escondidio
|
Yee owned mobile home park. Argued rent control plus CA law requiring mobile home park owners to rent land to whoever purchases existing mobile home from current renter effects a possessory taking by effectively telling hte Yees they have to allow whomever onto their property. HOLDING: NO POSSESSORY TAKING. Yees volutnarily rented their land, no one is preventing them from ceasing that use.
|
|
|
Kelo v. City of New Londo
|
New London's development committe wants to take non-blighted homes and turn them into a private develompent completmenatry to a new Pfizer Complex. This was a "public use" govt has braod discretion to determine what's in the public interest and as long as there's a planned scheme that doesn't benefit just one private party , the govt's judgment will prevail.
|
|
|
PA coal co v. Mahon
|
If regulatory taking goes "too far" then it is a possessory taking
|
|
|
Andrus v. Allard
|
Law makes it illegal to sell anything containing Eagle featerhs. Appellee is a dealer in Indian artificats which contain eagle feathers. Argues its a per se taking bc he's been deprived of all economic use o the artificates now. HOLDING; Not a per se takingZ: appellee has all property rights in the artifacts except sale: could gift them, display them, possess & transport them
|
|
|
Lucas v. So. Carolina Coastal Council
|
Lucas bought beachfront property and planned to build 2 houses. S.C. then passed law prohibiting any furhter development of beachfront property. HOLDING: this is a PER SE taking bc it deprives lucas of All economic value of his property.
|
|
|
The Civil Rights Cases
|
1875 congress passes full civil rights act. Black patrons when to hotels and restaurants and brought criminal charges after being denied service. HOLDING: not constiutional 14th amendment only prohibits STATE BACKED racial discrimination. 13th amendment cannot be argued because this is social discrimineation - not legal discrimination and argument would be argued into the ground
|
|
|
Marsh v. Alabama
|
Jehova's witness arrested for trespassing on "private property" distrubting religious writings. Private property was a streetcorner in a shopping district of the company town of Chickasaw, Alabama. HOLDING: If a private actor is doing all of the functions expected of a gov't it will be deemed to be a state actor.
|
|
|
Hudgens v. NLRB
|
Labor union members picketing inside a mall were jected by the mall owner under threat of criminal prosecution for trespassing. HOLDING: a mall does not qualifty as a STATE ACTOR because it doesn't perform ALL the functions of a town.
|
|
|
Shelley v. Kramer
|
Fitzgeraled willingly sold his home to the Shelleys, a black couple. Neighbors sought to enforce racially-restrictive covenant to bar shelleys from moving in. HOLDING: there is state action when the courts enforce a racially restrictive covenant. You can deprive someone of equal protection through your inactions as well asyour actions.
|
|
|
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co
|
Finds state action where a Virigina statute allows pre-judgment writ of attachment to be secured ex parte - w/o notice to the opposing party. State statute permits the seizure, and the sheriff executies the confiscation - the Government is backing the private actor, such that here is joint participation under the statute.
|
|
|
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority
|
Eagle Coffee Shop renting space in City-owned parking garage discriminates against blacks. HOLDING: Eagle is a state actor because it has a close & independent financial relationship with the city such that htere effectively is joint participation of the city and eagle in discrimination.
|
|
|
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete
|
Holds that jury selection process is state action - proceeds pursuant to court authority. It's not permissible to discriminate against jurorus on the basis of race during the voir dire process
|
|
|
Dennis v. Sparks
|
Private company bribed a Texas state judge to issue an injunction prohibiting Dennis from producing oil on his property. The SC held that Corp. could be sued under section 1982 even though it is not a state agent and did not issue the injunmction; the Cor. conspired with a state official to deprive Dennis of due process.
|
|
|
NCAA v. Tarkanian
|
UNLVs basketball coach was fired because the NCAA imposed sanctions on the school essentially requiring them to fire Coach. UNLV submited to the NCAA. Coach sued UNLV and NCAA for denying him due process. HOLDING: UNLV is unquestionabily a state actor. NCAA is NOT a state actor becaus there was no conspiracy/ joint participation because the NCAA and UNLV had opposing interest.
|
