• 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

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/43

Click to flip

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;

43 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Marbury v. Madison:
Judicial Review by SCOTUS and Ability to Strike Down Unconstitutional Laws

FACTS
• The lame duck Federalist administration of John Adams appointed several justices of the peace before the
new Republican administration of Jefferson and Republican Congress assumed power; P/Marbury was one of the nominations confirmed by the Federalist Senate. His commission was signed and sealed, but not delivered. The new Secretary of State, D/Madison, refused to deliver the commission to Marbury.
• Marbury applied for a writ of mandamus to SCOTUS to compel Madison to deliver the commission. Marbury was able to go directly to SCOTUS because section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave SCOTUS original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.
HOLDING
• Yes, Marbury was duly appointed to be justice of the peace, giving him a vested legal or property right in the
commission.
• Yes, a property right is a protected individual right, not a political matter dealt with by the legislature, and mandamus from a court would be the proper remedy.
• No, the Court has no jurisdiction because Congress unconstitutionally assigned original jurisdiction to the
Court in §13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 because original jurisdiction of the Court specifically enumerated in
Article III cannot be expanded.
Marbury v. Madison:
Judicial Review by SCOTUS and Ability to Strike Down Unconstitutional Laws

Facts
• The lame duck Federalist administration of John Adams appointed several justices of the peace before the
new Republican administration of Jefferson and Republican Congress assumed power; P/Marbury was one of the nominations confirmed by the Federalist Senate. His commission was signed and sealed, but not delivered. The new Secretary of State, D/Madison, refused to deliver the commission to Marbury.
• Marbury applied for a writ of mandamus to SCOTUS to compel Madison to deliver the commission. Marbury was able to go directly to SCOTUS because section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave SCOTUS original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.
Issue
• Whether Marbury has a right to the commission, whether the law affords him a remedy, and is mandamus from SCOTUS that remedy? OR
• Does SCOTUS have the authority to order another branch of government to perform an act?
Holding
• Yes, Marbury was duly appointed to be justice of the peace, giving him a vested legal or property right in the
commission.
• Yes, a property right is a protected individual right, not a political matter dealt with by the legislature, and mandamus from a court would be the proper remedy.
• No, the Court has no jurisdiction because Congress unconstitutionally assigned original jurisdiction to the
Court in §13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 because original jurisdiction of the Court specifically enumerated in
Article III cannot be expanded.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee:
SCOTUS Has Appellate Review of State Decisions Involving Federal Law

FACTS
• Lord Fairfax was granted tracts of land in Virginia by English kings. In 1781, Fairfax devised his lands to D/Denny Martin. However, the state of Virginia subsequently declared the land titles of all Loyalists null and void. Denny Martin’s land was conveyed by the Virginia governor to David Hunter, who leased it to P/Hunter’s Lessee.
• P/Lessee sued D/Martin in an ejectment action. The trial court found for D/Martin. P/Lessee appealed to Virginia Court of Appeals, which found that a treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain confirming land titles (after the Virginia law voiding them) did not affect Virginia law and reversed for the Lessee.
• D/Martin appealed to SCOTUS, which reversed on grounds of superiority of U.S. treaties over state law
(Supremacy Clause, Article VI)
• On remand, Virginia Court of Appeals refused to comply and argued that SCOTUS didn’t have jurisdiction over cases originating in state court. Virginia argued that the Constitution does not allow appellate jurisdiction of state decisions of federal law, and §25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act granting such appellate jurisdiction is unconstitutional. D/Martin appealed again to SCOTUS.
HOLDING
• Yes, SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law.
• SCOTUS has appellate power in Article III to hear “all” cases, and Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes
federal law and treaties superior, but state courts have the ability to initially interpret the Constitution out of necessity
Ex Parte McCardle:
Traditional View that Congress Has Plenary Power to Limit Jurisdiction Completely

FACTS
• 1789 version of HC writ said you had to be in custody of federal government
• Congress in 1867 passed Reconstruction legislation that allowed the Southern states to subject to military command and a person could file a writ of HC if held under federal or state authority.
• McCardle, a Southern newspaper editor, was arrested by state authorities for inciting insurrection. McCardle files HC writ in federal court. It was denied and he appealed to SCOTUS. After oral arguments, but before the written decision, Congress repealed SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction for the writ
HOLDING
• No, Congress may remove SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction under the Article III’s Exceptions Clause.
Boumediene v. Bush:
Congress Unable to Take Away Core Parts of SCOTUS’ Jurisdiction & Ability to
Interpret What the Constitution Means

FACTS
• After 9/11, President Bush ordered enemy combatants held without with remedy or court proceedings.
SCOTUS said this didn’t include statutory habeas for Guantanamo detainees.
• Congress passes the Military Commissions Act, saying that federal courts have no jurisdiction over pending
and future cases everywhere for enemy combatants, except for limited appeal to D.C. circuit following a military determination in a special tribunal.
HOLDING
• No, SCOTUS gets to decide HC writs if US has sovereign control over a detainee based on power of the Suspension Clause.
Textualism
focuses on the actual words, as opposed to other things; a subset of originalism (along with intentionalism)
Originalism
look at the intent of the Framers; start by looking at words, then the records of the drafters and other documents of the time; the meaning of the Constitution is fixed in time in 1789 or when one of the Amendments was ratified; words and intent are key
Purposivism
what was the value behind the text and how does it work in a changing society? For example, a blind person walks across a no-walking park and is cited for bringing in a dog. A purposivist would say that was not the intent of the law
(regular dogs were the intent). This allows an interpretation that moves away from original intent; things that the Framers didn’t anticipate. This is a living Constitution.
Natural Law
there are certain laws and principles that statutory or man-made law cannot override; these laws existed prior to ratification; but who says what that “law” is? Mechanically, you can go about this by looking at moral principles and a higher law
compared to what is written; we assume that the Framers wrote the law to be in line this
Precedent
defer to caselaw except in rare circumstances; generally speaking, Con interpretation is a CL process; a whole body of law that is created and that people come to rely on in their everyday life
Foreign Law
look to foreign jurisdictions and see if a consensus has developed in their interpretation of the law; Supremacy Clause says that Law of Nations is law of U.S. and this includes treaties; people get upset when words in Constitution get interpreted by looking at foreign law
District of Columbia v. Heller:
Textualism, Originalism, and Purposivism used to
Justify and Disprove an Individual Right to Bear Arms

FACTS
• Respondent is prohibited from keeping a loaded handgun in his home, registering his gun, or keeping a gun that is loaded or doesn’t have a trigger lock.
• Respondent filed action in D.C. district court when D.C. police refused his application for handgun registration.
HOLDING
• Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, to use firearms for self-defense and other traditional non-military purposes, subject to reasonable regulation.
Advisory Opinions
An opinion rendered in the absence of a case or controversy; technically, these don’t exist because they aren’t
allowed
Cases or controversies
An actual injury between parties and a court is capable of providing relief; the benefit of this judicial efficiency, judicial legitimacy, and real accomplishment.
Standing
• Does the person initiating an action have a stake in the outcome? It means you are a proper party to be in front of a court. Was there:
a) Injury in fact? (particularized and concrete? Actual or imminent?)
b) Causation?
c) Redressability?
• For organizational standing, a group must have a related interest in the dispute and one of its members must meet the standing requirements
• Taxpayer standing (a generalized grievance) usually not allowed, except if
Ripeness
Is injury contingent upon a future injury? If so, how probable? Must it develop further?
Mootness
Is there standing through time? Two exceptions are voluntary cessation of a party or the probability of
reoccurrence.
Political Questions
Does the Constitution, either expressly or through implication, commit an issue to the other two branches? Is it
a separation of powers issue?
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental:
Standing and Mootnesses as Methods for SCOTUS to
Police Itself & Vehicles to Accomplish Policy Objectives

FACTS
• Under Clean Water Act, pollution suits may be brought by interested or affected citizens, as long as notice
is given of the violation and pending suit so the violator can remedy and make the citizen suit unnecessary.
Suit also can be barred if an agency prosecutes. Remedies for the citizen suits include civil penalties and injunctions.
• Laidlaw bought incinerator and wastewater treatment plant and started to pollute. FOE notified Laidlaw of
intention to file suit and before 60 deadline, Laidlaw settled with government to pay a civil penalty.
• FOE still filed lawsuit under CWA seeking injunction and civil penalties. Laidlaw moved summary judgment because there was no injury in fact and so no standing. FOE filed affidavits and testimony of people who lived near the plant and believed that recreational areas were polluted
• District court found standing and imposed civil penalty only; the injunction was unnecessary because Laidlaw
now complied with law
• Court of Appeals found the case moot because civil penalties would not redress FOE injury. Finally, before
granting cert, Laidlaw shut down the whole operation.
HOLDING
• Yes, FOE suffered an injury in fact through its individual members.
• Yes, civil penalties serve as deterrence so are a proper remedy for private harm of FOE
• No, there is genuine question if a dispute still exists and must be remanded
REASONING
• Laidlaw says no injury to any member was demonstrated, but Court says there is injury to FOE members who could take advantage of recreational area they believed was polluted
• Aesthetic beauty is basis for standing in environmental suit; this is distinguishable from wishful, someday intentions in Lujan. Here, Laidlaw was polluting at time of suit
• Laidlaw attacks lack of redressability in civil penalties that go to government. Court disagrees because they
have a deterrent effect that helps citizen plaintiffs
• The outer limits of the deterrence effect don’t need to be explored – what matters here is that civil penalties
will stop current violations and likely prevent new ones
Baker v. Carr:
Brennan’s Six Characteristics of Political Questions

FACTS
• Legislative representation in Tennessee was apportioned according to 1900 census. However, no reapportionment had been conducted since 1901 and so more populated urban areas were underrepresented.
HOLDING
• No, there is a six factor test for determining the presence of political questions:
Does the Con textually commit the question to another branch?
1) Does the Con textually commit the question to another branch?
2) Are there judicially manageable standards?
3) Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind?
4) Is it impossible for a court to intervene and respect the other branches?
5) An unusual need to adhere to political judgment of another branch?
6) Any potential for embarrassment?
Vieth v. Jubelierer:
No Judicially Manageable Standards for Gerrymandered Districts

FACTS
• Penn Legislature and Governor, all Republicans, redistricted after 2000 census.
• Dem voters filed injunction to prevent enforcement of new map claiming it’s gerrymandered and violates EPC
HOLDING
• Scalia thinks that the six factors of Brennan are listed in terms of importance. One of the most important is
judicially manageable standard. Scalia can’t find one in gerrymandering cases, so it’s a political question.
Formalist
• An interpretation that tends to draw a bright line between the three branches of the
federal government.
• Constitution says your branch does not have this power, so you don’t have it, end of story. Very textual.
Functionalist
• A more practical-oriented interpretation—the branches of the federal government
have more freedom to exercise power than the black and white dictates of the
Constitution might suggest, so long as they are not trampling on another branch.
• What matters is “Are you doing something that diminishes the authority of another branch of the federal government?”
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:
A Formalist View of Separation of Powers

FACTS
• Steel companies and workers duke it out. Steel workers want to strike. Wage board tried to intervene and reconcile. Strike went on, but Truman was fearful of steel shortage during Korean War. Truman ordered Secretary of Commerce to seize the mills.
• President informed Congress, but it took no action.
• Youngstown Steel Company sued Secretary, arguing the seizure was not authorized by
act of Congress or Con.
HOLDING
• No, such authority can only come from an act of Congress or the Constitution (taking a
very formalist approach)
Clinton v. City of New York:
Line Item Veto Unconstitutional from Formalist Perspective of Presentment
Clause

FACTS
• The Line Item Veto Act gives the President the power to cancel in whole three types of provisions that have
been signed into law:
(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority;
(2) any item of new direct spending; or
(3) any limited tax benefit
HOLDING
• Yes, Presentment Clause conflicts with Line Item Veto Act. Constitution doesn’t give president power to cancel only certain provisions of a bill.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright:
In Foreign Affairs, President is Supreme Because He Has All the Sovereignty (?)

FACTS
• Congress authorized President to embargo arms to countries at war in Chaco in South America. President
subsequently declared embargo.
• Exporter Curtiss-Wright shipped arms anyways. When they were charged with violating the embargo, they
claimed that Congress had granted too much power to the executive.
HOLDING
• No, normally Congress and the President cannot expand beyond their specifically enumerated powers in the
Constitution, except in foreign affairs where the President enjoys greater powers.
Dames & Moore v. Regan:
Congressional Acquiescence in Foreign Executive Agreements is Good Enough
Using Functionalist Approach

FACTS
• Iran seizes US embassy. Carter freezes all Iranian assets in US. Dames & Moore files suit that its subsidiary was owed $3 million in services by Iran. District court ordered the attachment of Iranian property
• Agreement between US and Iran frees the hostages, in exchange for terminating claims and pending litigation
of US nationals in the courts. Tribunal would take over all claims. This was done through executive order.
HOLDING
• No, in light of Congressional legislation and the history of congressional deference to executive claims settlements, the President was authorized to act.
INS v. Chadha:
Domestic Formalism Says Congress Must Follow Bicameralism & Presentment Clause

FACTS
• Chadha applied for suspension of deportation. Judge found he met requirements of good character and hardship if deported. AG concurred and per Immigration Act the AG forwarded his finding to Congress.
• Only the House vetoed the suspension without debate or recorded vote. Senate and President took no action.
HOLDING
• No, because it contradicts the Presentment Clause and Bicameralism requirement. Any act of Congress that
modifies that rights of an individual, and so is legislative in character, must be follow this process
Bowsher v. Synar:
Formalism Again Says Congress Can Have No Direct Role in Execution of Laws

FACTS
• GRH meant to eliminate federal deficit over 5 year period. If budget exceeds specified amount then across the board cuts are required.
• OMB and CBO each calculate that budget exceeds targeted deficit amount, then same entities come up with
cuts in programs and report it to the Comptroller General. He reports to the President, who sequesters the cash.
HOLDING
• Yes, Constitution gives Congress no direct role in the execution of the laws, and giving policy determinations
to Comptroller General aggrandizes Congress at the expense of the President.
Morrison v. Olson:
A Functionalist Outlier Case Upholding Appointments of Independent Counsel

FACTS
• Ethics Act allows for independent counsel to prosecute high-ranking executive branch officials
• AG gets info, determines if independent counsel is needed. He reports to Special Division (a court) for purpose of appoint the counsel. If reasonable grounds for counsel, AG applies and gets to help shape the jurisdiction.
• Two ways to remove independent counsel: either by AG for good cause and with report to Congress even
though counsel can judicially appeal OR independent counsel can terminate itself or by the Special Division
HOLDING
• Independent Counsel is an inferior officer, thus, can be appointed by someone other than the President. If
Independent Counsel was a superior officer at the top level, the Independent Counsel would have to get their job by being appointed by the President (Art. 2, § 2, paragraph 2).
McCulloch v. Maryland:
The People Instead of the States Are Sovereign, and Congress May Exercise
Powers Necessary & Proper to Carry Out its Enumerated Powers

FACTS
• Second Bank of US chartered in 1816. It set up a branch in Baltimore. Maryland legislature passed a tax on
operations of banks not chartered in the state. McCulloch of the Bank refused to pay the tax.
HOLDING
• Yes, the necessary and property clause gives Congress the power to pass laws to carry out its enumerated powers in Article
• No, the states do not have the power to destroy (tax) what Congress has the power to build up (banks). The
federal government is supreme within its sphere of action.
Method of Analyzing Commerce Clause Issues
1) Gibbons states that Congress has plenary power to regulate commerce that substantially affects several states

2) Lopez’s three categories of activities that Congress may regulate under Commerce Clause:
a) Channels of interstate commerce
b) Instruments and persons in interstate commerce
c) Those activities that have a substantial relation upon interstate commerce

3) Wickard’s aggregate effects theory allows for regulation of even intrastate activity if it has substantial effect

4) Heart of Atlanta Motel allows for regulation if activity has substantial relation upon national interest

5) Morrison requires an economic component and congressional findings, and looks to traditional role of states

6) Gonzales defines economics in terms of commodities and includes consumption
Gibbons v. Ogden:
Foundation of Commerce Clause Power & Substantial Effect Doctrine

FACTS
• NY State law which gives Ogden a monopoly, while a federal law says anyone with a federal license is allowed to navigate the waters of the United States.
HOLDING
• Yes, the Commerce Clause should be interpreted liberally
a) “commerce” means any commercial intercourse where money changes hands
b) “among the states” means any activity that has an effect on more than one state, even if intrastate
• Once this is determined, Congress’ power is plenary
Modern Commerce Clause Basics from Gibbons
1. Commerce among the states should be defined expansively so long as the trade or commerce is commerce that concerns more states than one. Only wholly intrastate commerce is outside of Congress’ reach.
2. Once we conclude that commerce among the states, Congress’s power now is plenary. Once we conclude
Congress is playing in their own playground, what Congress does on that “playground” is up to Congress as long as they abide by the Constitution.
3. A substantial effect on commerce is all that is needed
Wickard v. Filburn:
The Aggregate Substantially Affects Commerce & Getting Rid of Labels

FACTS
• Farmer has dairy and poultry on a small farm. He raises small winter wheat crop to sell, feed his animals, and
consume.
• Ag Act limited how much farmer could grow (11 acres) but he grew more (23 acres).
• The Ag Act seeks to control wheat volume in interstate commerce to avoid price swings and cycles. Ag Sec.
sets standards subjects to referendum of farmers.
HOLDING
• Yes, indirect and intrastate activity can be regulated through the Commerce Clause if it has a substantial
economic effect on interstate commerce on an aggregation theory.
• Jackson refuses to get bogged down in artificial distinctions of direct versus indirect, commercial versus
noncommercial
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States:
Commerce Power Can Regulate Private Discriminatory Practices
Because of Substantial Relation to National Interest & Stream of Commerce Concept Pulls in the Backwaters

FACTS
• Motel in Atlanta is on interstate, solicits in and out of state, but wouldn’t let blacks stay.
• Civil rights bill called for eliminating discrimination in public accommodations through the commerce power.
HOLDING
• Yes, the determinative test is simply whether the activity sought to be regulated is “Commerce which concerns
more States than one” and has a real and substantial relation to the national interest.
United States v. Lopez:
Three Broad Categories of Activities that Congress Can Regulate Under Commerce Clause, Are We Going Back to Labels, & the New Need for Congressional “Findings”

FACTS
• Gun Free School Zones Act made it illegal to have firearm within school zone.
• Student brought gun to school and later charged under federal law.
HOLDING
• No, a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that is subject to Congressional regulation because is it does not fall within three broad categories of activities that Congress may regulate under Commerce Power:
1) Channels of interstate commerce
2) Regulation of instrumentalities and persons in interstate commerce
3) Substantial relation upon interstate commerce (yet still an economic activity)
United States v. Morrison:
Commerce Power Not Really Plenary & Court Will Decide What is Economic

FACTS
• Student at Virginia Tech raped by other students
• Student sued attackers under Violence Against Women Act. Act says all persons have right to be free from crimes against gender and attackers can be held civilly liable.
HOLDING
• No, Rehnquist seems to be saying there are limits on what Congress can do under the Commerce Clause; not
really plenary - Supreme Court will tell Congress what is or is not economic.
Gonzales v. Raich:
A Step Back From Morrison & Back to Substantial Effect on Broadly Defined Economics

FACTS
• California lets people use medical pot under state law. However, federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits
the same thing.
HOLDING
• Yes, if there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce, that is enough. Even if purely local.
• Economic activity is read broadly here to include consumption
South Dakota v. Dole:
The Spending Power is Another Way to Pass Laws with “Mild Encouragement”

FACTS
• South Dakota lets 19 year olds drink. Congress passed law directing DOT Sec to withhold 5% of transportation aids from states that do not raise their drinking ages to 21.
HOLDING
• Yes, spending condition must be related to a national concern and there can’t be an inducement to accept money in violation of the Constitution
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro Transit
10th Amendment is NOT a Brake on the Commerce Clause

FACTS
• The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets minimum wage and overtime standards, and eventually applied to
employees of state and local governments.
• In 1979, the Federal Department of Labor took the position that SAMTA's operations were covered by the
FLSA because they were not a traditional governmental function.
• In National League of Cities, Court said Congress has the power to set minimum wage and overtime requirements under commerce clause. (It substantially affects more than one state. It involves labor costs, which are passed down. A channel is involved). Congress’ power should be plenary. SAMTA says no, because of 10th Amendment barrier around state and local governments. Cities held this and immunized the locals if they were performing a traditional governmental function.
HOLDING
• No, state immunity should not turn on judicial appraisal of what is a traditional governmental function.
Instead, this should be a policy determination of a popularly-elected Congress
New York v. United States
Federal Government CANNOT Commandeer the States to do Anything

FACTS
• Congress passed a law that held states responsible for low-level radioactive waste generated within their
borders. States could form regional compacts to deal with the problem; they would only accept waste from within their borders.
• Congress later amended for incentives to comply with the disposal requirement:
1) Money incentives
2) States that don’t comply would face a higher surcharge or no access
3) States that don’t dispose of waste take title to the waste and are liable
HOLDING
• Yes, federal government may not compel a state to enact or administer a federal regulatory scheme.
• Does NOT overrule Garcia
Printz v. United States
Feds Can’t Commandeer State Government Employees Either

FACTS
• Gun Control legislation (Brady Bill), until instant national background check can be implemented AG gave
duties to state officials, namely the police
• Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLE) do preliminary background check and give OK or no go
• Printz is a CLEO suing stating it was unconstitutional – the interim provisions that grant them power
HOLDING
• No, Congress cannot conscript state officers directly to get around the New York prohibition on Congress
directing the states