Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/132

Click to flip

132 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Marbury v. Madison
sets up judicial review
SC is the final say on the C
SC can tell exec and legislative branches what to do
Cooper v. Aaron
states are bound by the SC's decisions
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
state courts are final say on state law issues
SC is final say on fed court issues
Cohens v. Virginia
SC can strike down a state law that conflicts with a federal law
Michigan v. Long
The adequate and independent state grounds doctrine
Calder v. Bull
Interpretivists vs. non-interpretivists
Chisholm v. Georgia
states have no SI from fed courts
Hans v. Louisiana
states have SI from fed courts
limits:
-states may voluntarily waive
-Congress under 14.5 IF
unmistakably clear
AND
proportional and congruent
Nevada v. Hibbs
Congress can abrogate states' SI
-Congress under 14.5 IF
unmistakably clear
AND
proportional and congruent
Lincoln Co. v. Lening
SI does not apply to local government entities
Ex Parte Young
stripping doctrine for officials
Hafer v. Melo
official may be sued for money damages as long as does not effect the state
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
-Congress under 14.5 IF
unmistakably clear
AND
proportional and congruent
Seminole Tribes
Congress no abrogate SI under Article I.8
Alden v. Maine
Congress no abrogate SI under Article I.8
City of Borne
remedies under 14.5 must be proportional and congruent
McCullough v. Maryland
N&P allows Congress to make laws with purpose of achieving enumerated powers
SC defers to Congress
Printz v. United States
Congress cannot use N&P to make state's legislature do things
-violates 10th amendment
Term Limits v. Thornton
10th amendment
had to have the right before the C was formed
Gibbons v. Ogden
commerce is all commercial intercourse (buying, selling, transporting)
United States v. EC Knight Co.
manufacturing is not commerce
Houston East & West Tex Railway v. US
intrastate commerce can be regulated to protect interstate commerce
protective principal
Wickard v. Filburn
aggregation principal
Congress can regulate price and quantities even if never hits the market (CC)
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp
to determine if it is commerce, see if it 'affects interstate commerce'
United States v. Darby
Congress can use CC to prohibit objects made under substandard working conditions
Congress can regulate as long as the goal is to affect IC
Katzenbach v. McClung
racism effects interstate commerce
United States v. Lopez
TEST for 'commerce'
must me
-channel of IC
OR
-instrument, person, or thing in IC
OR
commercial activity with effect on IC
AND
that effect is substantial
United States v. Morrison
'cost of crimes' is too broad to regulate under the CC
Gibbons v. Ogden
states retain some power to regulate commerce
-inspection and quarantine laws
Wilson v. Blackbird Creek
state reg of commerce okay if
-regulation does not conflict with federal law
AND
-reg is designed to improve health, welfare, safety, or morals
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
states may regulate commerce where federal law expressly authorizes state regulation
Philadelphia v. NJ
per se invalidity rule
-if openly discriminatory
THEN
-law is invalid
UNLESS
-state proves it has a legit interest
AND
-that objective cannot be accomplished by a less discriminatory alternative
Pike
Pike balancing test
-regulation is not openly discriminatory
AND
-incidentally affects commerce
THEN
valid
UNLESS
burden of interstate commerce outweighs local benefits
Southern Pacific Railroad v. Arizona
huge burden on IC, little to no benefit locally = invalid
Kassel v. Consolidated Freeways
huge burden on IC, little to no benefit locally = invalid
Dean Milk Co. v. Madison
effect on IC huge, law not necessary to achieve desired result = invalid
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland
no discriminatory effect found although outwardly discriminatory = still valid
HP Hood & Sons v. DuMond
economic protectionism = invalid
West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy
sneaky subsidy and tax based economic protectionism = still invalid
Reeves v. Stake
market participation doctrine
-no DCC for the state if it is a participant in that market
White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employees
broad definition of market
South Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke
narrow definition of market
Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp
if you create commerce, you are participating
-if you just regulate commerce, you are not
United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Canden
must be a substantial reason for the different treatment
Canadian Northern Railway
PI says no deny access to courts
Blake v. McClung
PI says no deny right to own property
Doe v. Bolton
PI says no deny right to obtain abortions
Kanapaux v. Ellisor
PI says you CAN prohibit out of stater from voting or holding office
Toomer v. Witsell
PI says no charge in state people a lower fee for shrimp fishing
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
PI says state cannot limit bar membership to state residents
Baldwin v. Fish and Game
PI says you CAN charge higher fee to out of state people for recreation elk hunting
United States v. Butler
cannot use the spending clause to do what otherwise cannot do
cannot use tax and spend to violate the 10th amendment
South Dakota v. Dole
TEST
1. spending is for the general welfare
AND
2. condition for giving money is clear
AND
3. must be a rational relationship between restrictions and a federal program
AND
4. cannot be any other Constitutional prohibitions
AND
5. cannot be coercive
Missouri v. Holland
Congress can go beyond the scope of the enumerated powers and the limits of the 10th amendment to carry out a treaty
Reid v. Convert
Congress cannot abrogate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to carry out a treaty
Goldwater v. Carter
President can unilaterally rescind a treaty
Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller
war powers do not necessarily end with the cessation of hostilities
Zschernig v. Miller
when a state's foreign policy and federal foreign policy clash, federal foreign policy is supreme
Civil Rights Cases
-Congress can only act in the public state actions that violate the 14th (not private)
-Congress must wait for specific violation of due process to act
-no 'cover all' laws
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Congress can ratchet up civil rights beyond what the SC had recognized as minimum rights, but cannot ratchet down judicially recognized rights
City of Boerne v. Florez
congruent and proportional test
-there must be a similar likeness and a balanced parallel between the injury to be prevented and the means adopted
-incorporation doctrine
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
Congress can abolish the immunity of the states but only if
-there is a pattern of discriminations
AND
-the remedy is congruent and proportional to the targeted violations
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
show a pattern of discrimination
AND
the remedy is congruent and proportional to the targeted violation
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
President's power stems from act of Congress or C itself only
Morrison v. Olsen
principal vs. inferior officers
Meyers v. United States
-old
-SC struck down law requiring the advise and consent of Senate
Humphrey's Executor v. United States
Congress can impose restrictions on Presidential removal power on quasi-judicial officers
Wiener v. United States
President could not remove judicial officer without consent of the Senate
Bowsher v. Synar
retention by Congress of power of removal is an impermissible intrusion on exec power
United States v. Curtiss Wright Export Co.
Congress can delegate its embargo power to the President
Dames & Moore v. Reagan
President did not have power to end all pending cases against Iran
-congress implicitly approved through inaction
The Prize Cases
if we are attacked, President has to respond in kind without waiting for Congress
The War Powers Resolution
President say is not valid, do not ignore intirely
Rasul v. Bush
habeas corpus applies to those in Guantanamo
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
judicial branch does not have to defer to the executive branch that a citizen is an 'enemy combatant'
Mistretta v. United States
congress cannot delegate policy decision
-can delegate if include an 'intelligible principal' to which agency must adhere
Morrison v. Olsen
aggrandizement - when Congress unreasonably enlarges a single branch's powers at the expense of another branch
encroachment - when Congress enacts a law that undermines the authority and independence of any branch
INS v. Chadna
Congress cannot exert power over what they delegate away
Clinton v. New York
line item veto is unconstitutional
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Presidential immunity extends to the President's chief of staff
Clinton v. Jones
Presidential immunity only extends to the scope of any action taken in official capacity
United States v. Nixon
justice outweighs exec privilege
Mathews v. Eldridge
balancing test
-nature of P's interest
-risk of error of current procedures and probability value of additional procedural safeguards to prevent erroneous decision
-nature and burden of gov's interest
goldberg v. kelly
statute about welfare creates property right
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
once a benefit is conferred, it cannot be taken away without due process
Regents v. Roth
must be a legitimate expectation that property rights existed to trigger DP
Perry v. Sindermann
if there is a legit expectation that property rights existed, you need DP to take away
Paul v. Davis
reputation alone is not enough to trigger DP
Wisconsin v. Constantineau
reputation plus a tangible interest is enough to trigger DP
Vitek v. Jones
move from prison to mental facility requires DP
Greenholtz v. Inmates
person must have a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' to require DP
Meachum v. Fano
move from medium security prison to max security prison needs no DP
Barron v. Baltimore
5th amendment due process clause does not apply to states
Slaughterhouse cases
use 14th amendment 'privileges and immunities' clause to allow Congress to protect due process over states
Nebbia v. New York
state legislature can regulate business in the public interest
West Coast Hotel
minimum wage laws are constutional
United States v. Carolene Products
legislation regulating commercial transactions is presumed to be Constitutional
Williamson v. Lee Optical
SC upholds optical guy banned from making lenses without prescription
Ferguson v. Skrumpa
uphold law a state law making it unlawful for any person to engage in debt adjusting
Skinner v. Oklahoma
substantive right of procreation
Meyers v. Nebraska
substantive right to acquire knowledge
Griswold v. Connecticut
substantive right to contraceptives
Eisenstadt v. Baird
overturn law banning sale of contraceptives to married persons
Carey v. Population service
overturn law banning anyone other than pharmacists from selling contraceptives
Roe v Wade
right of privacy broad enough to encompass a woman's right to an abortion
-trimester set up
1st - state has no compelling reason to regulate abortion
2nd - stat may regulate abortion
3rd - state can prohibit abortion except when necessary to preserve life of mother
Webster v. Reproductive Health
state's interest in potential life justified regulation to protect that life during 2nd trimester
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
abortion no longer fundamental right - now a liberty interest
-before viability out of womb, women has right to be free from undue burdens
-after viability, state has interest in potential life
cool with
-informed consent and 24 hour waiting period
-husband notification
-parental consent with judicial by-pass
Gonzalez v. Carhart
upholds ban on partial birth abortions
Bowers v. Hardwick
state sodomy law is upheld
narrow view of activity
Lawrence v taylor
state law banning sodomy banned
broad view - right to privacy
belle torre
uphold ordinance how many people can live in one house
Moore v. Cleveland
overturned law limiting occupancy to single family of children and parents
Troxel v. Granville
the decision of deciding what is best for your child is a fundamental right
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
can illegitimate father see his child?
-narrow vs. broad
Stanley
struck down law preventing unmarried father from having custody after mom dies
Quilloin
unwed biological father had no right to stop mothers new husband from adopting
Parham
upheld GA law allowing parents to commit their child to a mental institution
Pierce v. Society of sisters
parental right to educate children under their control
loving v. virginia
struck down state law prohibiting inter-racial marriage
boddie v. connecticut
struck down law requiring indigents to pay filing fee and costs for divorce
zablocki v. redhail
struck down state law prohibiting those who owe child support from marrying
cruzan v. department of health
if surrogate, without prior consent, wants to end life support, SC will balance the state interest of keeping alive vs. the interest of the surrogate
washington v. gluckberg
suicide, or assisted suicide, is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition
hawaii v. midkiff
SC is deferential to 'purpose' in takings clause
Penn. Coal Co v. Mahon
statute prohibiting coal that caused sinking was a taking because it destroyed the right to mine coal
DeBenedictis
exact same as Penn Coal but different outcome
Miller v. Schoene
state law destroying ornamental trees upheld cause apple trees more valuable to society
lucas v. south carolina coastal commission
ruining the economic value of land is a taking
Penn Central v. NYC
refusing to allow skyscraper on top of Grand Central Station was not a taking
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation council
ban building on Lake Tahoe not a taking
Nollan v. California coastal commission
the condition was not substantially related to state's objective in restricting development
Dolan v. City of Tigard
burden on government to show that condition would achieve the desired result and that it is necessary