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;
134 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Virginia Plan |
Strong national government with authority to regulate individuals. |
|
|
New Jersey Plan |
Weaker national government operating through the states, no lower federal courts. |
|
|
Marbury v. Madison
Judicial Branch |
Facts: Failure to deliver commissions for justice of the peace.
Holding: (1)established judicial review of execution activity. (2)Congress cannot expand the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. (3)The court could not issue a remedy because they lacked jurisdiction. |
|
|
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
Judicial Branch |
Holding: SCOTUS may review the decisions of the state supreme court in a civil action. |
|
|
Cohens v. Virginia
Judicial Branch |
Holding: Provides SCOTUS the ability to review state court decisions in criminal matters. |
|
|
Cooper v. Aaron
Judidical Branch |
Facts: Little rock school desegregation case.
Holding: Provides judicial review over state legislative enactments and the actions of state officials. |
|
|
Martins v. Hunter's Lessee
Cohens v. Virginia
Cooper v. Aaron |
1). extended judicial review to states. 2), Review over state leg. enactments. 3). jurisdiction over state supreme court holdings.
Provides uniformity in con interpretation and enforcement and prevents state specific prejudices/favoritism. |
|
|
Ex Parte McCardle
Limits on Judicial Power |
Facts: McCardle was arrested fro writing critical articles on reconstruction. Filed for writ of habeas corpus. Congress repealed the law which gave SCOTUS jurisdiction over habeas corpus.
Holding: Court had no jurisdiction, cannot decide the case. |
|
|
Ex Parte Klien
Limits on Judicial Power |
Facts: individuals whose property was seized during the Civil War could get it back with proof that they had not offered aid or comfort to the enemy. SCOTUS said that a presidential pardon was good evidence of this. Congress said no.
Holding: Congress cannot direct the results in a particular case by changing the statute for that purpose. |
|
|
Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society
Limits on Judicial Power |
Facts: Congress noted 2 pending cases and provided for a legislative rule regarding the cases.
Holding: Congress changed the law itself and was not directing the outcome of pending litigation. |
|
|
Limitation #1- Prohibition against advisory opinions |
Federal Courts cannot issue advisory opinions.
Court can only hear a case if: There is an actual dispute between adverse litigants. There is a substantial likelihood that a federal court decision in favor of the claimant will bring about some change or have some effect. |
|
|
Hayburn's Case
Limitation 1 of judicial powers |
Congress adopted a law for revolutionary war pensioners to file claims in the lower federal courts. The judges were to send a report of how much the pensioner was entitled to, which, would then be reviewed by someone responsible for administering the program. This was unconstitutional because it raised separation of powers concerns. |
|
|
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm
limitation 1 of judicial powers |
Statute held unconstitutional to the extent that it required federal courts to reopen finial judgments entered before it is enactment. |
|
|
Nashville C. & St. L. RY. v. Wallace
Limitation 1 of judicial powers |
Facts: Courts emphasized substance over form in implementing the prohibition against advisory opinions.
Cases or controversy requirement will be satisfied so long as the case retains the essentials of an adversary proceeding involving a real not a hypothetical controversy. |
|
|
Limitation #2- Standing (Injury) |
Injuries to common law, constitutional, statutory rights are sufficient for standing.
Must be real and immediate harm, not hypothetical
Party may only assert his own rights not a third parties. |
|
|
Allen v. Wright
Limitation 2- Standing |
Facts: Black parents sued IRS for not denying tax exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. Claimed IRS harms them directly and that the policies interfere with their children's rights.
Holding: Standing requires a plaintiff to allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendants allegedly unlawful conduct which is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. |
|
|
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Limitation 2- Standing |
Facts: Citizens bring challenge to a rule promulgated by the secretary of interior which interpreted a section of the endangered species act. Under the rule the fed gov would comply with the act only for actions taken in the US, but not in foreign lands.
Holding: Congressional statutes cannot confer standing to plaintiffs who have suffered no injury in fact. |
|
|
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
Limitation 2- Standing |
Facts: Lyons was stopped by an LA police officer for a traffic violation, the officer put him in a chokehold.
Holding: Court found that Lyons lacked standing because he failed to show a case or controversy. |
|
|
Massachusetts v. EPA
Limitation 2- Standing |
Facts: Groups of state govs., local govs, and private organizations allege that the EPA breached its responsibility under the clean air act to regulate the emission of 4 green house gasses. Massachusetts claims it will impact their coastline.
Holding: SCOTUS said Mass. had standing because the EPA's refusal to regulate poses an imminent threat to their coastline. |
|
|
Bond v. United States
Limitation 2- Standing |
Facts: Bond was indicted for a violation of fed statute which regulate chemical weapons. Claimed it was a violation of her 10th amendment right.
Holding: 10th amendment arguments are like all other legal arguments and a person who has standing to raise any other kind of legal argument can also raise a 10th amendment claim. She had standing. |
|
|
Exception to Prohibition of 3rd Party Standing |
Close relationship between the plaintiff and the third party. |
|
|
Singleton v. Wulff
Limitation 2- Standing |
Facts: Dr. brought action against a Missouri law regarding Medicaid payments for abortion.
Holding: The physician-patient relationship fits the exception to the prohibition against third party standing. |
|
|
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: Ohio law prohibits false statements during the court of a political campaign. SBA List issued a press release alleging Driehaus voted for the Affordable Care Act. Driehaus said they lacked injury.
Holding: An actual arrest, prosecution, etc. is not a prereq. to challenging the law. |
|
|
Craig v. Boren
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: OK statute prohibited the sale of non-alcoholic beers to males under the age of 21 and females under the age of 18. Craig was a bartender and under 21 and sued challenging the validity of the statute.
Holding: Bartender has standing to assert the rights. |
|
|
Elk Grove Unified School v. Newdow
Limitation #2- standing |
Facts: Father brought suit on daughter's behalf challenging the Pledge of Allegiance's use of "Under God." He claimed it violated the Establishment Clause.
Holding: No standing, noncustodial parents who do not make educational or religious decisions cannot bring suit on child's behalf. |
|
|
Borrows v. Jackson
Limitation #2- Standing |
3rd party standing by Whites for Blacks in racially restrictive covenant because Blacks were not parties to the covenant and thus had no legal basis for participating in the lawsuit. |
|
|
Duke Power Co. Carolina Enviorn. Study Group
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: Plaintiff challenged act limiting liability of nuclear power company as violating due process because it allowed injuries without compensation.
Holding: Court found sanding because the construction of a nuclear reactor near the plaintiffs subjected them to many injuries.
But-for the act the reactor would not be build. This satisfied causation and redressability. |
|
|
Clapper v. Amnesty Trail
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: Act permitted surveillance of non-us persons to acquire intelligence information. Brought suit as US citizens claiming it is facially unconstitutional and since they communicate with people they are likely to be targets.
Holding: Lacked standing because their injury is too speculative as to whether the government will target their communication. |
|
|
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: Cali passed Prop 8 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Same-sex couple brought suit.
Holding: No standing, Perry has no stake in defending the law's enforcement. |
|
|
Prohibition against generalized grievances |
Prevents individuals from suing if their only injury is as a right of a citizen or a taxpayer concerned with having the government follow the law.
Prevents standing when asserted harm is a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens. |
|
|
Taxpayer Standing |
When you think the government is going something with your tax dollars that you think is unconstitutional, the courts don't touch it. Your injury is not specific to you, but is general to all taxpayers. |
|
|
United States v. Richardson
Generalized grievances |
Facts: Richardson was a taxpayer who claimed the CIA wasn't reporting its expenditures under Art. I which required their statements to be published.
Holding: No Standing. Taxpayers cannot use the federal court system to air a generalized grievance. Injury was shared to all taxpayers . No allegation of specific injury. |
|
|
Flast v. Cohen
3rd Party Standing |
Facts: taxpayers brought a challenge to a federal statute which provided federal funding for private religious schools.
Holding: 2 part test: (1)Taxpayer is challenging an action taken by congress under its taxing and pending power. (2) Taxpayer alleges that the challenged levies violate specific constitutional limits in gov. power. |
|
|
Flast Exception |
Tax payer standing is permitted to challenge the govt expenditures as violating the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, the provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. |
|
|
Flast's Limitations |
Taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures as violating the establishment clause. |
|
|
Establishment Clause |
Congress shall not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion. |
|
|
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: Government gave land to a private christian college and petitioners brought suit.
Holding: Taxpayers lacked standing and only had standing to challenge expenditures under the establishment clause. |
|
|
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: president and secretary of education both gave speeches with religious imagery and donated money to faith based programs (from their own personal budgets).
Holding: there is no link between a congressional action and the purported constitutional violation in this case. There is no standing. |
|
|
Arizona Christian School v. Winn
Limitation #2- Standing |
Facts: Taxpayer challenged the constitutionality of AZ's tuition tax credit claiming it violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
Holding: No standing. State residents do not have the right to challenge a state tax credit. Taxpayer is not compelled to make the donation entitling him to a tax credit. |
|
|
Limitation #3- Ripeness |
The ripeness doctrine seeks to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and never may occur from those cases which are appropriate for federal court action.
Plaintiff must show that review is not premature and harm has occurred or imminently will occur.
"sufficient threat of injury yet?" |
|
|
Poe v. Ullman
Limitation #3- Ripeness |
Facts: Poe challenged a statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives and prohibited medical personnel from giving advice relating to contraceptives.
Holding: Court held the case was not yet ripe because the state had not chosen to enforce the statute (so no harm). |
|
|
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Limitation #3- Ripeness |
Facts: Drug manufacturer challenged congressional statute which required DM's to include generic name on all labels and advertisements containing the drug's name.
Holding: The case was ripe, 2 factor test: (1) the issue presented are appropriate for judicial decision. (2) the parties would face hardship if court declined to hear the case. |
|
|
Linda R. S. v. Richard D
Limitation #3- Ripeness |
Facts: Unwed mother challenged TX statute which prosecuted fathers of legit. children , but not illegit children, for not paying child support. Mother wants father prosecuted.
Holding: Ct. said the remedy would be imprisonment, not child support so redressability is only speculative. |
|
|
Limitation #4- Mootness |
Live controversy at all stages of litigation.
Exceptions: 1). Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review. 2). Voluntary cessation. 3). Class action lawsuits. |
|
|
Mootness exception: Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review |
A case is not dismissed, even though it is moot, if there is an injury likely to recur in the future and it is possible that it could happen to plaintiff again and it is of such a short duration that it is likely will always evade review.
Moore v. Ogilvie Roe v. Wade Defunis v. Odegaard |
|
|
Moore v. Ogilvie
Limitation #4- Mootness (exception 1) |
challenge to Illinois election law. Election was over by the time the supreme court heard the case.
Holding: SCOTUS allowed the case to stand because it was capable of repetition, yet evading review. |
|
|
Roe v. Wade
Limitation #4- Mootness (exception 1) |
Facts: pregnant woman challenged a Texas abortion law, but by the time the Supreme Court considered it she was no longer pregnant.
Holding: met mootness exception. "capable of repetition yet evading review." |
|
|
Defunis v. Odegaard
Limitation #4- Mootness (exception 1) |
Facts: White male was denied admission into the University of Washington's law school because of Affirmative action. He was 36 by the time his case was heard and school said he would not be allowed to finish law school no matter what.
Holding: case was moot. Not a case capable of repetition, yet evading review. |
|
|
Exception to mootness: voluntary cessation |
A case is not dismissed as moot if the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at any time. |
|
|
Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
Limiation #4- Mootness (exception 2) |
Defendant's voluntary cessation of actions that are subject of a complaint does not make the suit moot unless there is a reasonable chance that the defendant can return to those actions. |
|
|
Mootness exception #3: class actions |
Supreme court held that a properly certified class action may continue even if the named plaintiff claims are rendered moot. |
|
|
US Parole Commn. v. Geraghty
Limitation #4- Mootness (exception 3) |
A class action once certified does not become moot simply because the named plaintiff in the case's claim becomes moot. |
|
|
Limitation #5- The Political Question Doctrine |
A question involving the use of discretionary authority by Congress or the executive branch. |
|
|
Political Question Doctrine 6 Question Test |
1. Whether there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department. 2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards. 3. Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non judicial discretion. 4. Impossibility of a court's undertaking. 5. Need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made. 6. The potential embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. |
|
|
Baker v. Carr
Limitation #5- Political Question Doctrine |
Facts: TN voter sought reappointment of state assembly districts that haven't been reapportioned since 1901, basing claim on denial of equal protection.
Holding: The court may hear the claim because plaintiff brought it under the equal protection clause and is justiciable. |
|
|
Goldwater v. Carter
Limitaton #5- Political Question Doctrine |
Facts: Pres. Carter terminated a US treaty with Taiwan. Senate revolution never came to vote and Goldwater (member of Congress) sued arguing that recession of treaty required 2/3 Senate vote.
Holding: This is a non-justiciable issue. The Supreme Court will not get involved in the Senate's role in the termination of treaties. |
|
|
Powell v. McCormack
Limitation #5- Political Question Doctrine |
Facts: The house refused to seat Plaintiff even though he was elected by the people of his district.
Holding: The political question doctrine did not prevent the court from deciding whether congress has the power to refuse to seat a member-elect. |
|
|
United States v. Nixon
Limiation #5- Political Question Doctrine |
Facts: Judge Nixon was convicted of crimes and refused to give up his judgeship while in prison So congress impeached him. Senate assigned the impeachment to a subcommittee and Nixon claimed it was an improper impeachment hearing.
Holding: Federal courts are not authorized to review impeachments because it relates to the internal working of a coordinate branch of government. |
|
|
Supremacy Clause Article VI Clause 2 |
"This constitution and the law of the US which shall be made in the pursuance thereof; and all treatise made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." |
|
|
Commerce Clause
Article I Section 8 Clause 3 |
"Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." |
|
|
Stage 1 of the Commerce Clause
CJ Marshall |
Under Stage 1 the Commerce power is construed broadly.
Important cases: McCulloch v. Maryland Gibbons v. Ogden |
|
|
McCulloch v. Maryland
Stage 1- Commerce Clause (CJ Marshall) |
Facts: Congress passed leg. to create a national bank. President signed such leg. which then made it the law of the land. Maryland chose to tax the bank, which the bank refused to pay. Maryland sued.
Holding: Federal government has the power to charter a bank under the Commerce Clause. |
|
|
Gibbons v. Ogden
Stage 1- Commerce Clause (CJ Marshall) |
Facts: NY leg. granted a monopoly of operating steamboats in NY waters to Fulton & Livingston who then licensed to Ogden. Ogden operated in the same waters as Gibbons, a competitor. Gibbons argued that he had a right to operate because he was licensed under federal law as a vessel in coasting trade.
Holding: Congress has the authority to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause and their authority is supreme. |
|
|
Stage 2- Commerce Clause (1890-1937) |
Court began to more narrowly interpret the scope of the commerce power.
Applied 3 doctrines: 1. Narrowly defined commerce 2. Applied restrictive conception of what is "among the states." 3. Held that Congress violates the 10th Amendment when it regulates matters left to the state governments. |
|
|
United States v. E.C. Knight Co (1895)
Stage 2- Commerce Clause (1890-1937) |
Facts: Sugar refinery bought another which owned nearly all the manufacturing capacity of refined sugar in the United States. US charged that it violated the Sherman Act constituting a monopoly and restraint on trade.
Holding: The government may not regulate manufacturing, it is a thing separate and apart from commerce. They may regulate once the product enters the stream of commerce. |
|
|
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)
Stage 2- Commerce Clause (1890-1937) |
Facts: As a part of the New Deal, Congress enacted a coal act, which had the purpose of stabilizing the bituminous coal mining industry and promote the interstate commerce (set prices).
Holding: Congress does not have the power to regulate labor and employment at a local level. Congress is powerless to regulate anything which is not commerce under the Commerce Clause. |
|
|
A.L.A.Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States (1935)
Stage 2- Commerce Clause (1890-1937) |
Facts: New Deal Leg. specified regulations from the buying and selling of live chickens as well as regulations of labor and employment in the live chicken realm. Plaintiff was convicted for violating the code.
Holding: The Commerce Power does not extend to goods moved in interstate commerce after they have arrived and been sold in their final destinations. |
|
|
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Stage 2- Commerce Clause (1890-1937) |
OVERRULED BY U.S. v. DARBY Facts: Congress passed regulations which substantially regulated the employment of minors. Regulation included provisions that forbid the interstate transport of foods which were produced contrary to the regulations.
Holding: The mere fact that they were intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power. |
|
|
Champion v. Ames (1903)
Stage 2- Commerce Clause (1890-1937) |
Facts: Congress passed a statute prohibiting the interstate shipment of lottery tickets.
Holding: Lottery tickets are subjects of traffic and therefore are subjects to commerce, and the regulation of the carriage of such tickets from state to state at least by independent carriers is a regulation of commerce among the several states. |
|
|
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
Broad Federal Commerce Power- Anything Goes
Test: Could congress rationally believe that the regulated activity in the aggregate substantially/significantly affects interstate commerce.
No SCOTUS cases invalidated the congressional act under this standard. Big 3: NLRB v. James & Laughlin, United States v. Darby, Wickard v. Filburn |
|
|
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
Facts: Challenge to the NLRA. Case argued that congress was attempting to regulate production and regulation in a field reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.
Holding: Congress may exercise its commerce power in the labor-management relations area. Court held that although activities may be intrastate in character, when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that Congress's control is appropriate. |
|
|
United States v. Darby (1941)
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
OVERRULED HAMMER v DAGENHART Facts: FLSA prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce for goods made by employees who were paid less than the prescribed min. wage. Darby was indicated due to violations of the act.
Holding: Congress had the power to prohibit the shipment of good in interstate commerce produced in violation of the FLSA. Congress's powers is complete in itself may be exercised to the utmost extent and acknowledges no limits other than prescribed in the constitution. |
|
|
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
Facts: Filburn owned a diary farm that he used mostly for home consumption and grew wheat. He grew more that he was allowed and was fined. He argued that any overage was for home consumption and never entered into interstate commerce.
Holding: Congress's powers of interstate commerce extends to all activities having a substantial effect on in testate commerce, including those that do not have a substantial impact in an individual capacity but only viewed in the aggregate. |
|
|
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
Facts: After Congress passed the CRA, hotel filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the act to prevent them from refusing to rent rooms to Negros. Billboards advertising the hotel were posted along the interstate.
Holding: Congress may exercise the commerce power to combat private racial discrimination in public accommodations. Congress has the power to regulate local activities that could reasonably be seen as extorting a substantial and harmful effect on interstate commerce. |
|
|
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
Facts: Ollie's BBQ was a small BBQ restaurant that would not serve blacks in their restaurant. About 64% of their meat was purchased out of state.
Holding: The court found that Congress had rational basis to conclude that discrimination by restaurants cumulatively had an impact on interstate commerce. Power of congress is broad and sweeping. |
|
|
Hodel v. Indiana (1981)
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
Facts: The court upheld a federal law that regulated strip mining and required reclamation of strip-mined land.
Holding: A court may invalidate legislation enacted under the commerce clause only if it is clear that there is no rational basis for a congressional finding that regulated activity affects interstate commerce. |
|
|
Perez v. United States (1971)
Stage 3- Commerce Clause (1937-1994) |
Facts: Congress passed consumer credit protection act and parts of it was designed to combat loan sharking. Perez was accused of being a loan shark and challenged the act claiming he had no conducted interstate commerce.
Holding: Court held that it was rational for congress to believe that even intrastate loan sharking directly affects interstate and foreign commerce. |
|
|
Stage 4- Commerce Clause (1995- Present) |
"finding a limit"
Still uses stage 3 test (substantially affects interstate commerce)
Argues for a more restrictive commerce power
United States v. Lopez |
|
|
United States v. Lopez
Stage 4- Commerce Clause (1995-Present) |
Facts: An act that made it a federal offense for any individual to knowingly possess a firearm at a place the individual knows or has reason to know is a school zone was illegal.
Holding: Court held that the act was unconstitutional because it was not substantially related to interstate commerce. |
|
|
United States v. Morrison
Stage 4- Commerce Clause (1995-Present) |
Facts: Virginia tech woman, who was allegedly raped, brought suit under the Violence against women act for civil damages.
Holding: Court reaffirmed Lopez. Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and person or things in interstate commerce, and activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. |
|
|
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
Stage 4- Commerce Power (1995-present) |
Facts: Obama care required all citizens to either acquire health insurance or pay a penalty to the government. 2nd provision was a medicade expansion.
Holding: The mandated use for obama care was not a constitutional use of the commerce power by Congress. Here Congress was creating the Commerce that it was attempting to regulate. |
|
|
10th Amendment |
"The Powers not delegated to the United State by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the state are reserved to the state respectively, or to the people." |
|
|
Modern Analysis under the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment |
A. Does the federal regulation reach private as well as state conduct? - Yes, federal reg probably doesn't violate 10th amendment. -No, go to part B. B. Does the regulation compel state legislation to act or merely encourage the state to act? - Compels- the reg violates the 10th amendment. - Encourages- the reg doesn't violate the 10th amendment, Congress may encourage states to comply with federal plan by conditioning grants. |
|
|
New York v. United States
10th Amendment |
Facts: Congress enacted a waste act that "required" states to regulate a low-level radioactive waste policy.
Holding: Not constitutional. Congress can not command the legislative process of the States in order to force them to adopt a regulatory program. |
|
|
Printz v. United States
10th Amendment |
Facts: Brady Act required the US Atty General to create a system to conduct prospective gun owners background check. Act required chief law enforcement officers to do the checks.
Holding: Court held that Congress may not commandeer the state executive branch to administer its federal programs. |
|
|
Reno v. Condon
10th Amendment |
Facts: a South Carolina law conflicted with the Driver's Protection Act of 1994. the State challenged the law as violating the 10th Amendment.
Holding: States are required to comply with constitutionally valid legislation regulating states even when compliance means incurring additional costs to be borne by the states. |
|
|
NFIB v. Sebelius
10th Amendment |
Facts: 2nd part of the Affordable care act gave the states the choice of accepting the expansion and its additional costs or giving up almost all of its medicaid funding.
Holding: Unconstitutional. This is coercion. The states could not refuse because it would have been a form of budget suicide. |
|
|
Taxing and Spending Power
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 |
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniformed throughout the united states." |
|
|
United States v. Butler
Taxing and Spending |
Facts: Congress passed an Agricultural Act seeking for farmers to limit their crop production for subsidies. Money was paid to farmers from an account funded by taxes imposed on farmers exceeding their production limit.
Holding: Not Constitutional. 10th amendment reserved Agriculture to the states. Congress may not use the taxing and spending clause to force compliance in an area where the constitution doesn't give Congress the independent power to regulate. |
|
|
Chas Steward Mach Co. v. Davis
Taxing and Spending |
Facts: Plaintiff challenged the validity of a tax imposed by the social security act. Established a federal payroll tax but if employees paid taxes to state unemployment comp. fund they were allowed to credit those payments towed the federal tax.
Holding: The court held this constitutional. |
|
|
South Dakota v. Dole
taxing and spending |
Facts: SD brought a challenge to a federal law withholding 5% of fed why funds from any state with a drinking age limit less than 21.
Holding: Incident to the spending clause, Congress may achieve its broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds upon compliance by the recipient with federal objectives. |
|
|
Restrictions to the Spending Clause provided in South Dakota v. Dole |
1. It must be for the use of the general welfare 2. Any conditions on receipt of funds must be unambiguous 3. Any conditions must be related to the federal interest in the particular national project or program to be funded. |
|
|
Sabri v. United States
Taxing and Spending Clause |
Facts: Congress passed an antibribary statute which applied to state, local, and tribal officers or entities that receive at least $10,000 in federal funds. Sabri tried to bribe a city councilman, federal prosecutors brought charges.
Holding: Constitutional, under the taxing and spending clause Congress is authorized to appropriate federal funds for the general welfare; therefore, it may use all rational means necessary and proper to ensure federal expenditures are used for the general welfare. |
|
|
13th Amendment |
Prohibition of Slavery
Gave Congress the power to enforce the Amendment |
|
|
14th Amendment |
Section 1- Equal Protection clause. Section 5- Power to enforce the Amendment. |
|
|
The Civil Right's Cases
14th Amendment |
Facts: Supreme Court invalidated Acts that broadly prohibited private racial discrimination by hotels, restaurants, transpiration, and other public accommodations.
Holding: State action is a prerequisite for a violation of the 14th Amendment. There was no state action here, therefore, Congress could not reach private discrimination under section 5 of the 14th Amendment. |
|
|
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment |
Narrow: Congress has the power to prevent or provide remedies for violations of rights recognized by the court: - Congress cannot expand the scope of rights or provide new ones. - Congress isn't enforcing if it is creating new rights. -Congress's role is limited in enacting laws to prevent and remedy violations. Broad: Affords Congress authority to interpret the 14th Amendment to expand the scope of rights set forth and create new ones; however, they cannot go below the min. the court has set. |
|
|
City of Boerne v. Flores
14th Amendment |
Facts: City passed an ordinance prohibiting the destruction or significant alteration of landmarks, as a result the church was denied a permit to expand. Church sued under the RFRA.
Holding: Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact laws that prevent or are a remedial measure to prevent constitutional violations. There must be congruence and proportionality between the court and Congress's interpretation. Congress cannot add or subtract from the rights given by the court. |
|
|
11th Amendment |
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the untied states by a citizen of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." |
|
|
Strict Scrutiny Test |
Test: Narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.
(alienage, national origin, race, or religion)
You CAN pierce state sovereign immunity. |
|
|
Intermediary Scrutiny Test |
Test: substantially related to achieve a substantial government purpose.
(gender, non-marital children) |
|
|
Rational Basis Test |
Is the action rationally related to a legitimate government reason offered as its justification.
Cannot pierce sovereign immunity. |
|
|
Piercing Sovereign Immunity |
Rule: If Congress can pass a law on the subject based on section 5 of the 14th Amendment, then they can pierce sovereign immunity. If not, then they cannot pierce sovereign immunity. |
|
|
Chisohlm v. Georgia
11th Amendment |
Facts: South Carolina Citizen was allowed to sue the state of Georgia for a debt in federal court.
Holding: Reversed. SCOTUS relief on the language of Article 3 allowing federal courts jurisdiction over suits between a state and citizens of a noter. The 11th Amendment undid this result. |
|
|
Hans v. Louisiana
11th Amendment |
Facts: Hans, a citizen of LA, owned bonds from the state and was concerned that recent changes to the constitution would render them invalid. Filed suit in District Court asserting that LA was impairing the obligations of a contract.
Holding: SCOTUS held that the 11th Amendment also bars suits against a state by its own citizens. |
|
|
Ex Parte Young
11th Amendment |
State officers may be sued in Federal Court, even when state governments cannot be. State officers can be sued for injunctive relief. |
|
|
Fitzpatrick v. Blitzer
11th Amendment |
Facts: Congress amended title VII to allow federal courts to award $ damages to private individuals against a state that engaged in employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin. Challenged on 11th Amendment.
Holding: Congress may use its enforcement powers under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to provide a federal cause of action against a state official or government in spite of the 11th Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity. |
|
|
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
11th Amendment |
Facts: Suit challenged gaming reg act passed under the indian commerce clause, which required states to negotiate in good faith with the indian tribes as it related to gaming facilities and provided for suits against the states who failed to do so.
Holding: Congress may not authorize federal lawsuits against the states in abrogation of the 11th amendment guarantee of state of immunity suit. |
|
|
Two part test for piercing sovereign immunity |
1. whether Congress was unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity. 2. Whether such abrogation is allowed by an affirmative grant of congressional authority. |
|
|
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank
11th Amendment
|
Facts: Congress passed Patent and Plant variety protection act, amending the patent laws and expressly abrogating the states sovereign immunity from claims of patent infringement. The act stated that states shall not be immune from federal patent infringement suits.
Holding: An action for patent infringement is not proper under the 14th Amendment, the patent power is an Article I power which does not pierce state sovereign immunity. |
|
|
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
11th Amendment |
Facts: State employees sued their employers under the AEDA. Congress extended the AEDA substantive requirements to the states. AEDA provides for a private action in federal court to enforce its provisions.
Holding: Congress has no power to broadly restrict agree discrimination by state employers. In order for it to abrogate state sovereignty pursuant to section 5 of the 14th Amendment its substantive requirements must be congruent and proportionate to the unconstitutional actions of the states. |
|
|
University of Alabama v. Garrett
11th Amendment |
Facts: Plaintiff was a nursing director at UAB and was undergoing chemo, her supervisor required her to surrender her high level position in exchange for a lower paying one. She sued under the ADA.
Holding: A state may not be held liable for civil damages for violating the ADA as it relates to employment discrimination. Disability is not a suspect class. |
|
|
Alden v. Maine
11th Amendment |
State sovereign immunity applied to lawsuits for $ damages in state court. Congress may not authorize suits against states for money damages in state court. Therefore, a lawsuit by state employees against a state for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act in regard to overtime compensation is barred in state court. |
|
|
Federal maritime Commission v. South Carolina Port Authority
11th Amendment |
State sovereign immunity applied to an administrative proceeding. Specifically preventing the federal maritime commission from adjudicating a private party's federal statutory claim against a state-run port. |
|
|
Nevada DHR v. Gibbs
11th Amendment |
Facts: Plaintiff sued Nevada DHR for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act when he was fired while taking care of his sick wife. FMLA required provision for employees for unpaid leave for family and medical care.
Holding: Constitutional, the states participation in the gender-based discrimination is sufficient to warrant congress's exercise of its section 5 powers. Required heightened scrutiny |
|
|
Tennessee v. Lane
11th Amendment |
Facts: two paraplegics sued Tennessee under title II of the ADA when they could not access the courtroom because the courthouse lacked elevators or any alternative means by which an individual could access the courtroom.
Holding: Access to court is fundamental right. Fundamental rights reserve strict scrutiny review. |
|
|
Hamilton View of Inherent Presidential Powers |
President has the authority that is not specifically enumerated in Article II because Article II does not limit the executive power to those "herein granted." |
|
|
Madison View of Inherent Presidential Powers |
President's powers are enumerated in Article II any powers outside those specifically enumerated would run counter to the idea of a limited government |
|
|
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Presidential Powers |
Facts: Steelworkers union announced a nationwide strike. Pres. Truman issued an executive order which directed the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of mills and keep them running. President reported the action to congress.
Holding: the taking of land by the president was unconstitutional. |
|
|
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Justice Jackson's Concurring Opinion |
Spectrum View: 1. President acting with Congress: President power is greatest when they act pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress. 2. Twilight Zone: Absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority area zone of congressional silence. 3. President Action without Congress: Presidential power is at its lowest ebb when he takes measure incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress. |
|
|
4 Approaches to Inherent Power from Youngstown |
1. There is no inherent Presidential Power. President may act only if there is express constitutional or statutory authority. 2. President has inherent authority unless President interferes with the functioning of another branch of government or usurps the powers of another branch. 3. President may exercise powers not mentioned in the constitution so long as he does not violate the constitution. 4. President has inherent powers that may not be restricted by congress and he may act unless the constitution is violated. |
|
|
United States v. Nixon
Executive Powers |
Facts: A federal district court issued a subpoena ordering the president to produce the take recordings of some of his conversations relating to the watergate cover-up for use as evidence in a criminal procedure. Claimed executive priv.
Holding: There is an implied presidential prig for confidential presidential communications, but this priv is not absolute. Must weigh the importance of the general priv. of the presidential communications against the fair administration of criminal justice. |
|
|
Cheney v. US District Court for the District of Columbia
Executive Powers |
records were subpoenaed in a civil suit. Cheney claimed executive priv. The court upheld Cheney's contention differentiating this case from United States v. Nixon because this case is a civil suit rather than a criminal case. In a civil case many of the "rule of law" issues that are implicated in criminal cases are not implicated. |
|
|
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Executive Power |
Facts: A former DoD employee sought civil damages against former President Nixon based on a firing, which the employee alleged was in retaliation for the employee revealing cost overruns at the DoD.
HoldingThere is an absolute immunity for damages liability predicted on the official acts of a president. This only applied to cases regarding money damages. injunctive relief may still be sought. |
|
|
Clinton v. City of New York
Executive Powers |
Facts: In an attempt to ease the budget deficit, Congress gave the power of the line item veto.
Holding: Congress may not grant the presidential authority to cancel portions of legislation after it has been enacted. line-item veto is unconstitutional. Congress may not enlarge the authority of the president beyond that which is in the constitution. |
|
|
Non-delegation Doctrine |
States that Congress cannot simply delegate its lawmaking power to the executive branch or other bodies. |
|
|
Ins v. Chadha
non-delegation doctrine |
The legislative veto is unconstitutional. If is a leg. act that violates the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the constitution.
|
|
|
The Appointment Power |
"The President shall nominate with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law but Congress by law vest the Appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, to the Courts of Law, or the Heads of Departments. " |
|
|
Morrison v. Olsen
The Appointment Power |
Facts: Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act allied for the appointment of an independent counsel by a specialty created court, to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing by high-level federal government officials. Could only be removed by the Attorney General for "good cause."
Holding: The president is not granted sole and exclusive control over the appointment of all executive officers. Congress can also restrict the executive's authority to remove the Executive Branch officials by placing a "for good cause" termination requirement. |
|
|
The Removal Power |
In general, the President may remove executive officials unless removal is limited by statute. |
|
|
Dames & Moore v. Regan
Executive Powers |
Pursuant to an executive agreement, the President transferred all of the litigation concerning frozen Iranian asses to a special Iran-United States claimed tribunal. This was upheld as constitutional |
|
|
Hamdi v. Rumsfield (plurality opinion)
Executive Powers |
Big Holding: The privilege of habeas corpus may not be suspended without an adequate substitute remedy. |
|
|
Ex Parte Quirin
Executive Powers |
Upheld the President's use of a military commission to try German citizens, and one purported US citizen, detained in the US during WWII. |
|
|
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Executive Powers |
Facts: Hamdan was a Yemeni national captured by militia in Afghanistan during hostilities between the US and the Taliban. He was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses triable by military commissions.
Holding: |
