Con Law Cases

Front 1

Gibbins V. Ogden

Back 1

CC gives congress power to regulate navigation between 2 states

Front 2

Darby

Back 2

Congress may estblish wage and hour standards for the manufacture of interstate goods

Front 3

Wickard V. Filburn

Back 3

Congress may regulate individual home production of agriculture based on the substantial effect on IC of the aggregate

Front 4

Heart of Atlanta

Back 4

Congress may prohibit racial discrimin. by private motels that accept out of state business

Front 5

Katzenbach V. McClung

Back 5

Congress may forbid racial disc. in a restaurant just because some of the food it serves comes from out of state.

Front 6

Lopez

Back 6

Congress may regulate: channels, instrumentalities, activities with a subst. relation to I.C.

Front 7

Morrison

Back 7

Substantial effect means
1) economic
2) Jurisd. Nexus
3) show formal findings
4) not 2 attenuated

Front 8

Nat. League of Cities

Back 8

Congress cannot infringe state Autonomy through the commerce power (over ruled in Garcia)

Front 9

NY V. US

Back 9

congress may not direct states to regulate in a particular field or a particular way even if the subject matter is with in interstate commerce

Front 10

Printz V. Cordon

Back 10

personal information may be a "thing in interstate commerce" which may be handled by state authorities

Front 11

Seminole tribe

Back 11

the commerce power cannot waive sovereign I

Front 12

Kimel V. Florida

Back 12

congress cannot subject state employers to litigation brought by private individuals even under 14:5

Front 13

US V. Butler

Back 13

congress may not coercively spend to operate programs that regulate subjects rescued to the states

Front 14

Steward Machine

Back 14

congress may reduce private employers tax obligations by crediting payments made to federally approved state unemployment plans

Front 15

South Dakota V. Dole

Back 15

congress may conition Federal funds on compliance with national programs

Front 16

Philidelphia V. New Jersey

Back 16

states cannot prohibit importation of environmentally distructive substances just based on origin

Front 17

Chemical waste management V. Hunt

Back 17

Facially discriminatory fees and taxes violate the DCC

Front 18

Hunt V. Washington

Back 18

state has burden of showing actual local benefits and unavoidability of nondiscrinitory alternatives

Front 19

Pike V. Bruce Church

Back 19

if state has legitimate local purpose and the I. Commerce effects are merely incidental teh regulation will be upheld unless the burden clearly exceeds the local benefits

Front 20

Kassel

Back 20

courts may look at evidence to determine whether a state's safety interest is real and substantial enough to burden I.C.

Front 21

South Central Timber

Back 21

A state can be a market participant

Front 22

Camden

Back 22

PIC applies to municipalitites and peculiar evils must be shown with formal findings

Front 23

Piper

Back 23

state must have substantial reason for discrimination and the conduct must have a substantial relationship to that reason

Front 24

Youngstown

Back 24

Jacksons 3 categories

Front 25

Dames and Moore

Back 25

high defenence where president acts puruant to statute

Front 26

War Powers Resolution 1973

Back 26

if president deploys troops without congressional declaration he must 1) formally report to congress 2) in the absence of congressional action he must withdraw within 60 days --this may not be constitutional --congress has never taken any formal action

Front 27

Quirin

Back 27

enemy combatants may be tried without the right to a jury, unlawful combatants are not POWs and may be tried by military tribunals

Front 28

Hamdi

Back 28

1) president does not have authority to detain citizens indefinately with no opportunity for an impartial hearing 2) where the writ of HC is not suspended, detainees may seek a habcas determination to determine whether they are in the category subject to detertion

Front 29

Lochner

Back 29

individual liberty to contract is a fundamental right incorporated by the 14th ammendment

Front 30

Nebbia

Back 30

a state may control retail prices without offending DP

Front 31

Carolene Products

Back 31

footnote 4: congress has plenary power over economic legislation. Scrutiny will only increase where legislation threatens a discreet and insular minority

Front 32

Williamson V. Lee Optical

Back 32

state business regulation need not be essential or directly related to a harm.

Front 33

Berman

Back 33

re-developing a DC slum is public benefit

Front 34

Hawaii Housing

Back 34

Takings clause has rational basis test

Front 35

Blaisdell

Back 35

states may alter contractual obligations temporarily in emergencies

Front 36

Meyer V. Nebraska

Back 36

right to marry and raise children a fundamental

Front 37

Pierce

Back 37

parental right to oversee childs education is fundamental

Front 38

Skinner

Back 38

right ot procreate is fundamental

Front 39

Griswold

Back 39

use of contraceptives is within right to privacy

Front 40

Roe V. Wade

Back 40

right to terminate pregnancy before viability is fundamental under privacy

Front 41

3 holdings of Roe (articulated in Casey)

Back 41

1) woman's right to abort before viability without undue state interference 2) states power to restrict abortions after viability as long as there are exceptions to protect woman's life or health 3) states legitimate interest in protecting health of the woman and life of fetus.

Front 42

Lawrence

Back 42

sexual relations are part of the fundamental right to personal autonomy (overruling Bowers)

Front 43

planned parenthood

Back 43

womans decision to terminate pregnancy cannot be made subject to parental or spousal consent

Front 44

Akron

Back 44

state cannont say abortion has to be in a hospital or prescribe waiting periods

Front 45

Maher

Back 45

state may financially favor child birth over obortion

Front 46

Casey

Back 46

state may impose certain notification and consent requirments consistant with the 3 "essential" holdings of Roe--still no spousal consent, and only parental consent where there is a judicial bypass

Front 47

Zablocki

Back 47

state may not deny a marriage license to someone for not paying child support

Front 48

Moore

Back 48

restricting family living arrangments gets strict scrutiny

Front 49

Michael H.

Back 49

upholds state presumption of legitimate child because SDP rights follow tradition

Front 50

Bowers

Back 50

homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right

Front 51

Romer

Back 51

class-based legislation aimed at harming homosexuals violates EPC. Animus is never a legitmate state interest

Front 52

Korematsu

Back 52

suspect classifications may survive strict scrutiny during war times

Front 53

Plessy V. Ferguson

Back 53

separate but equal doctrine

Front 54

Brown V. Board of Education

Back 54

separate but equal is inherantly unequal

Front 55

Loving V. Virginia

Back 55

racial classifications subject to most rigid scrutiny (miscegenation case)

Front 56

Palmore

Back 56

court may not divest natural mother's custody because o her marriage to man of another race

Front 57

Yick Wo

Back 57

discriminatory application of an apparently neutral statute denies EP

Front 58

Palmer

Back 58

swimming pools: motivation isn't enough alone

Front 59

Washington V. Davis

Back 59

effects alone are not enough for EP

Front 60

Arlington Heights

Back 60

effects alone are not enough for EP

Front 61

Bakke

Back 61

there is no "benign" racial preference. program may consider race as one of many factors contributing to diversity, but not fixed #

Front 62

Grutter

Back 62

diversity in education is a compelling state interest

Front 63

Gratz

Back 63

may not confer 1/5 points based on race

Front 64

Fullilove

Back 64

congress gets deference to act remedially and may require a minimum minority participation in city contracts as a condition for federal funds

Front 65

Richmond

Back 65

city cannot have a "set-aside" program for minority contractors where there is not evidence of past discrimination at the governement level

Front 66

Adarand

Back 66

government use of race-based classification is awarding city contracts fails under strict scrutiny--even for affirmative action

Front 67

Frontiero

Back 67

military may not require service women (but not service men) to show spousal dependancy before claiming them as dependents

Front 68

Craig V. Boren

Back 68

gender classifications must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to those objectives

Front 69

Mississippi V. Hogan

Back 69

state may not exclude males from state supported nursing school

Front 70

VMI

Back 70

state may not sponsor a single-sex school without sponsoring another one for women

Front 71

Geduldig

Back 71

state may exclude pregnancy from disability insurance although it only effects women

Front 72

Michael M.

Back 72

state may have statuatory rape law that only prosecutes men--legislation may classify if it realistically reflects that men and women are not similarly situated in certain circumstances.