Const Law Final

Front 1

Hylton v. United States Facts

Back 1

--Method to compute taxes
1. indirect—uniform rate
2. direct—census and state representation
--Tax on each carriage owned through Congress. $16 per carriage. Hylton owned 125 carriages—cases had to have a value of $2,000 to be heard by the Supreme Court. This is an indirect tax.

Front 2

Hylton v. United States Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 2

--Justice Chase says the only direct taxes are a poll tax and a land tax—upholding the law
--“I am inclined to think but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession or any other circumstance; and a tax, by a general assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax.”

Front 3

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company Facts

Back 3

--In 1894, Congress imposed a tax of 2 percent on income above $4,000 derived from various classes of property, as well as that resulting from personal services.
--Income tax negatively affected the rich.
--The question is whether this income tax should be indirect (2%) or direct (calculated by a formula)?
--Wealth during that time period came from land

Front 4

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company Majority Arguments

Back 4

--Fuller does not believe this should be a uniform tax. He believed in a laissez-faire economy.
--It’s a tax on land, not just income.
--Some people have a lot of land, not a lot of money and vice-versa

Front 5

Veazie (Bank of Maine) v. Fenno (IRS)

Back 5

--1% tax on state bank notes could go up to 10% was classified as destructive
--cut down on state banking
--Supreme Court says 7-2 saying Congress can pass a destructive or regulatory tax on a state bank as long as it is supported by another amendment.

Front 6

McCray v. United States Facts

Back 6

--Oleomargarine Act levied a tax of one quarter cent per pound on uncolored oleomargarine and 10 cents per pound on yellow oleomargarine
--Congress is trying to discourage production of colored oleomargarine
--McCray a dealer refused to pay the tax
--BOOST IN TAXING AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS THROUGH COURT RESTRAINT.

Front 7

McCray v. United States Majority Arguments

Back 7

--Justice White previously opposed a destructive tax on Sugar, but now he supports it
--The Court is not going to look at Congress’ motives, but solely on its authority. Court is restrained when looking at Congress.
--White rules that Congress’ right to tax is unrestrained.

Front 8

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture

Back 8

--Revenue Act of 1919—Congress imposed a tax on mine and quarry employees of children under 16, factory employees of children under 14, or employers who permitted 14-16 year olds to work more than 8 hours a day, 6 days a week.
--Officials from the Department of Treasury and Labor would place these penalties
--Congress is imposing a penalty
--Supreme Court rules against Congress. Taft says that Congress is blatantly trying to regulate. They were not trying to raise revenue, but regulate commerce through tax.
--A RESTRAINT PLACED ON CONGRESS
--Court could not justify this kind of social intrusion.
--Similar to healthcare case. Statute could not be saved under commerce clause, but government may regulate using taxing power.

Front 9

United States v. Butler Facts

Back 9

--prior to the NLRB case
--AAA of 1933 raised commodity prices and assured farmers to not grow certain things. Farmers got hundreds of thousands of dollars under this program.
--May Congress spend money to lay taxes for the general welfare?

Front 10

United States v. Butler Majority Arguments

Back 10

--Roberts says there are competing interests:
1. Madison’s view—power to tax and spend must be related to the enumerated powers in Section 8
2. Hamilton’s view—Congress’ power is an independent power that goes beyond the enumerated power. Expanded Congressional powers
--Roberts sides with Hamilton’s view first, yet he says this act is Congress’ attempt to regulate agricultural production and that power belongs to the states. Says that no power is granted to Congress to regulate agriculture—Madisonian view

Front 11

South Dakota v. Dole Facts

Back 11

--1984—National Minimum Drinking Age Amendment—Congress limited funds to a state’s transportation fund if they did not have a drinking age of 21. NOT MANDATORY.
--Five percent of federal money, Congress wanted to lower drunk driving deaths.
--NO REAL LIMITS AS TO WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO. CONGRESS CAN USE SPENDING POWER TO REGULATE.

Front 12

South Dakota v. Dole Majority Arguments

Back 12

--Rehnquist questions whether or not the 21st Amendment constitutes an independent constitutional bar to federal funds? No—Congress may use its spending power to regulate. Court agrees with Congress.

Front 13

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR)

Back 13

--Based on Solomon Amendment
--Law school was opposing military recruiters to their career fair
--FAIR believed the Solomon Amendment violated the 1st Amendment rights. Law school got penalties/funding taken away by denying recruiters
--Law school claimed military was not welcome because they did not accept gays
--Supreme Court rules Solomon Act is constitutional.
Law faculty and students could simply not go to the table or they could protest
--Solomon Act did not limit the students 1st Amendment rights of expression and association
--Federally funded schools must allow military recruits.
--CONGRESS MAY USE SPENDING AS A REGULATORY TOOL

Front 14

Calder v. Bell Facts

Back 14

--contested will suit
--Bells allowed 18 months to expire before filing appeals
--Connecticut private law grants a new hearing—this hearing rules in favor of the Bells (They have pull in Connecticut legislature)
--Calder says this law violates the ex post facto clause and the case goes to the Supreme Court

Front 15

Calder v. Bell Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 15

--Justice Chase believes ex post facto only applies to criminal matters, not civil matters. Will is a civil case, does not help the Calders.
--“I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.”

Front 16

Fletcher v. Peck

Back 16

--Georgia legislature decided to sell 35,000 acres of land—present day Alabama and Mississippi—for 1 and a half cents an acre—1795
--Legislators were bought out by land speculators and they all lost their job—new legislative got land back, overturning law
--Peck sold land, Fletcher bought it—collusive case
--John Marshall says Georgia had a moral obligation not to renege on contract they had with purchasers.
--protected property rights and original contract
--rules repeal act of 1796—unconstitutional

Front 17

Dartmouth College v. Woolward Facts

Back 17

--Dartmouth College, private, created by King George III
--to school native Americans in New England
--Legislature in New Hampshire—Federalist/Constitutionalists and Republicans/Presbyterians—trustees were Republicans and Federalists wanted to regain control over the school

Front 18

Dartmouth College v. Woolward Arguments and Quotes

Back 18

--Not necessarily a contract but Marshall says so.
--Important part of contract is consideration
--both sides giving up something to gain something
--Marshall upholds rights of original group (Federalists) and gives them control to decide what to do with the college—keep it private
--Says school is corporation and the charter protects it from becoming public. Honors original ideals.
--Says framers intended for school to be protects
--Competing views say Marshalls views of private property the government protects—original matters
--“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence.”
--“The trustees alone complain, and the trustees have no beneficial interest to be protected.”
--“But in this respect their descendants are not their representatives. They are represented by the corporation is the assignee of their rights, stands in their place, and distributes their bounty, as they would themselves have distributed it had they been immortal.”
--“All such gifts are made in the pleasing, perhaps delusive hope, that the charity will flow forever in the channel which the givers have marked out for it. If every man finds in his own bosom strong evidence of the universality of this sentiment, there can be but little reason to imagine, that the framers of our constitution were strangers to it.”

Front 19

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Facts

Back 19

--In 1785, the Massachusetts legislature granted to the Charles River Bridge co. the right to construct a bridge between Charlestown and Boston, with the power to collect tolls for 40 years (later extended to 70 years).
--In 1828, some Charlestown merchants received a legislative charter for construction of the Warren Bridge, with the power to collect tolls until they had been reimbursed. At that point, title to the Warren Bridge would pass to the state, and passage would become free. Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge, who would be deprived of their anticipated tolls because the new bridge was to be built close to the old one, unsuccessfully sought an injunction and other relief in state court.
--much controversy and division on the Court

Front 20

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 20

--Taney says government protects the right of the people
--says there is no exclusive privilege for the Charles River Bridge for the river in the original charter
--when the legislature created this contract, there was no exclusive privilege
--says that exclusivity will halt progress—subsequent matters
--“A state ought never to be presumed to surrender this power, because, like the taxing power, the whole community has an interest in preserving it undiminished.”
--“In short, all the franchises and rights of property, enumerated in the charter, and there mentioned to have been granted to it, remain unimpaired.”
-- “And what would be the fruits of this doctrine of implied contracts on the part of the states and of property in a line of travel by a corporation if it would now be sanctioned by this Court? To what results would it lead us?... Let it once be understood that such charters carry with them these implied contracts, and give this unknown and undefined property in a line of traveling, and you will soon find the old turnpike corporations awakening from their sleep, and calling upon this Court to put down the improvements which have taken their place.”

Front 21

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell Facts

Back 21

--The Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Law of 1933 was designed to prevent the foreclosure of mortgages during the Depression by extending the redemption period of mortgages under conditions set by a court. The act was to remain in effect “only during the continuance of the emergency and in no event beyond May 1, 1935”

Front 22

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 22

--Hughes says the Court is aware of the Depression and what the government is trying to do
--State legislatures had been forgiving debtors, hurting contracts
--Hughes says that the Minnesota law is constitutional, despite the fact it abridges state law.
--This time period was full of the Court striking down statutes—specifically the New Deal Acts
--“When the provisions of the Constitution, in grant or restriction, are specific, so particularized as not to admit of construction, no question is presented…But, where constitutional grants and limitations of power are set forth in general clauses, which afford a broad outline, the process of construction is essential to fill in the details. That is true of the contract clause.”

Front 23

Slaughterhouse Cases Facts

Back 23

--In 1869, the Louisiana legislature granted a monopoly to a slaughterhouse company for the sheltering and butchering of animals within three parishes, including the city of New Orleans. All other butchers were required to use the slaughterhouse company’s facilities, upon payment of a fee. By one account, more than a thousand butchers and their employees were adversely affected by the law. Various butchers then unsuccessfully sought an injunction against the monopoly in state courts. The three cases which went to the U.S. Supreme Court are collectively known as the Slaughterhouse Cases.
--Butchers had to pay a fee now.
--Louisiana wanted sanitation ensured for products, meat production was not safe during this time.

Front 24

Slaughterhouse Cases Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 24

--Miller’s arguments include the 13th and 14th Amendments
--13th Amendment—involuntary servitude—FAILS
--14th Amendment
--privileges and immunity—state can’t do anything to impact national citizens—FAILS
--due process—they are not deprived to work –FAILS
--equal protection—FAILS
-- “But lest it should be said that no such privileges and immunities are to be found if those we have been considering are excluded, we venture to suggest some which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.
One of these is well described in the case of Crandall v. Nevada. It is said to be the right of the citizen of this great country, protected by implied guarantees of its Constitution, "to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports, through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the subtreasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States."
--“ But it is useless to pursue this branch of the inquiry, since we are of opinion that the rights claimed by these plaintiffs in error, if they have any existence, are not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the clause of the fourteenth amendment under consideration....”
--“ And it is sufficient to say that under no construction of that provision that we have ever seen, or any that we deem admissible, can the restraint imposed by the State of Louisiana upon the exercise of their trade by the butchers of New Orleans be held to be a deprivation of property within the meaning of that provision.”
-- “We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision. It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other.”

Front 25

Munn v. Illinois Facts

Back 25

--Article XIII of the Constitution of Illinois, adopted in 1870, declared grain warehouses to be “public warehouses” and gave to the General Assembly the power of passing laws relating to the storage of grain. An act of 1871 fixed the rates warehouse owners might charge, required licenses, and made other regulations governing the conduct of warehouse owners.
--focused on grain elevators in Chicago specifically
--Grange movement got this passed

Front 26

Munn v. Illinois Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 26

--Waite says operators take advantage of people, and Illinois made a law for public good, that is the way it is legal
--“looking, then to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects, we find that when private property is “affected with a public interest it ceases to be private right only.”
--“Property does become clothed with a public interest, when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large.”
--“They stand, to use again the language of their counsel, in the very “gateway” of commerce, and take toll from all who pass…Certainly, if any business can be clothed with a public interest and cease to be of private right only, this has been.”

Front 27

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad

Back 27

--Minnesota set rates from transport of milk, much lower than the railroad would have charged
--Claims businesses have same rights as people in protecting private property rights
--Turning point in Substantive Due Process

Front 28

Lochner v. New York Facts

Back 28

--Joseph Lochner, a bakery owner in Utica, New York, was convicted of violating a state law that limited the hours of employment in bakeries and confectionery establishments to 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week
--New York law protected workers for health concerns

Front 29

Lochner v. New York Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 29

--Peckham says substance of state law has deprived Lochner of liberty of his contract.
--recognizes state has police power, but the bakery business is much safer than many jobs
--the law interferes with them writing a contract
--looking at the substance of the law, it should be up to the owner and the baker
--“We do not believe in the soundness of the views which uphold the law…The act is not, within any fair meaning of the term, a health law, but is an illegal interference with the rights of individuals, both employers and employees, to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may think best, or which they may agree upon with the other parties to such contracts…”

Front 30

Muller v. Oregon

Back 30

--Oregon passed law protecting women in workplace and limiting number of hours they work
--Muller argues that with Lochner, this is interference by government in contract
--Brandeis produces statistics that support reasoning behind Oregon law—100 pg. of statistical analysis
--Supreme Court unanimously upholds Oregon law

Front 31

Adkins v. New York

Back 31

--Federal law regulating number of hours women and children can work
--Supreme Court goes back to decision in Lochner—liberty of contract

Front 32

Nebbia v. New York Facts

Back 32

--To combat some of the effects of the economic depression on the milk industry, the legislature of New York in 1933 adopted a milk control law under which minimum prices could be set. The board established by the law set a minimum price for the retail sale of milk, which Leo Nebbia, a grocer in Rochester, violated.

Front 33

Nebbia v. New York Arguments and Quotes

Back 33

--Roberts law says that if it is clothed with a public interest he state government can interfere then—Munn
--expanding the power of states
--do what is necessary for public welfare
--the Court doesn’t have power to be making decisions like this, states and their legislatures do—they have authority
--“ Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm.”
--“ So far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitutional restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied.”

Front 34

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish Facts

Back 34

--A Washington State act of 1913 authorized the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors by an administrative board.
--supportive of economic recovery and protection of workers—majority

Front 35

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish Majority Arguments and Quotes

Back 35

--Hughes says freedom of contract adds words to the Constitution
--Liberty of contract is gone
--There is not a defensible argument in support of liberty of contract—Women and children were treated poorly
--Adkins is overruled.
--“ In each case, the violation alleged by those attacking minimum wage regulation for women is deprivation of freedom of contract. What is this freedom? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract.”
-- We think that the views thus expressed are sound, and that the decision in the Adkins case was a departure from the true application of the principles governing the regulation by the State of the relation of employer and employed.”

Front 36

Kelo v. City of New London

Back 36

--5th Amendment—government taking private property
--eminent domain—taking for public use
--Is New London actually taking land for public use?—selling Pfizer, private company, land to build a plant
--people lived in the area for a long time
--Does taking private land for private use and an increased revenue, leading to more money for public good. This was supported by the Supreme Court and the Constitution

Front 37

Hylton v. United States Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 37

-Justice Iredell brings in numbers, shows how unfair a direct tax would be. It’s absurd—very unequal, we need a uniform rate.
--“If any state had no carriages, there could be no apportionment at all. This mode is too manifestly absurd to be supported, and has not even been attempted in debate.”

Front 38

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company Dissent Arguments

Back 38

--Harlan says this limits the amount government can bring in. Calls for an amendment—ultimately the 16th Amendment, an indirect tax

Front 39

McCray v. United States Dissent Arguments

Back 39

--Chief Justice Brown and Peckham dissent claiming that there is no other enumerated power to allow this type of regulation. Supreme Court is expanding enormously the power of Congress, taxing power is enough.

Front 40

United States v. Butler Dissent Arguments

Back 40

--Some dissents, focusing on the restraint of the Court. He believes Hamilton is correct. Congress has the authority to spend for general welfare. States are unwilling to do this

Front 41

South Dakota v. Dole Dissent Arguments

Back 41

--O’Connor dissents: 2 Flaws
1. Overinclusive—it stops teenagers from drinking, even if they don’t plan on driving
2. Underinclusive—not all drunk drivers are underage, only a fraction of the problem

Front 42

Calder v. Bell Majority Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 42

--Justice Iredell says they may have lost unjustly, but because they are interpreting and bound by the Constitution, they are doing the job right
--“It is true, that some speculative jurists have held, that a legislative act against natural justice must, in itself, be void; but I cannot think that, under such a government any court of justice would possess a power to declare it so…”
-- “If, on the other hand, the Legislature of the Union, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the Court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the Legislature (possessed of an equal right of opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice.”

Front 43

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 43

--Story says that private property rights should be protected
--“For my own part, I can conceive of no surer plan to arrest all public improvements, founded on private capital and enterprise, than to make the outlay of that capital uncertain, and questionable both as to security, and as to productiveness. No man will hazard his capital in any enterprise, in which, if there be a loss, it must be borne exclusively by himself; and if there be success, he has not the slightest security of enjoying the rewards of that success for a single moment.”

Front 44

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 44

--Sutherland says government interference here keeps the people who need the money from getting it
--Contract clause says states may not impair contracts.
--During times of emergency, powers can be expanded, but questions why restrictions are ignored.
--This is a state law, if it was a federal law, it would have been struck down.
--“I can only interpret what is said on that subject as meaning that while an emergency does not diminish a restriction upon power it furnishes an occasion for diminishing it; and this, as it seems to me, is merely to say the same thing by the use of another set of words, with the effect of affirming that which has just been denied.”

Front 45

Slaughterhouse Cases Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 45

--Field argues that the law was written to protect citizens from state actions, which is clearly happening here
--“The privileges and immunities designated are those which of right belong to the citizens of all free governments. Clearly among these must be placed the right to pursue a lawful employment in a lawful manner, without other restraint than such as equally affects all persons…”

Front 46

Munn v. Illinois Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 46

--Field says that this is a slippery slope and could lead to no property rights

Front 47

Lochner v. New York Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 47

--Dissent says why step in, this has been happening for decades
--Holmes says that the Court has settled this for years in favor of state legislatures.
--This decision embodies Laissez-faire economy theory, harming the application of law.
--There is a reason why law has been approached this way for so long. State governments are trusted to make right choices
--Liberty of contract does not necessarily come from the 14th Amendment—You can’t apply liberty to everything
--“General propositions do not decide concrete cases.”

Front 48

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish Dissent Arguments and Quotes

Back 48

--Sutherland says that they are making a judgement of the reasonableness of the law, that is not necessary
-- “Under our form of government, where the written Constitution, by its own terms, is the supreme law, some agency, of necessity, must have the power to say the final word as to the validity of a statute assailed as unconstitutional.”
--“The judicial function is that of interpretation; it does not include the power of amendment under the guise of interpretation. To miss the point of difference between the two is to miss all that the phrase supreme law of the land stands for and to convert what was intended as inescapable and enduring mandates into mere moral reflections.”