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;
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
|