Constitutional Law Cases

Front 1

Marbury v. Madison

Back 1

March 2, 1801

The justices held, through Marshall's forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." In other words, when the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.

Front 2

Cohens v. Virginia

Back 2

1821

Did the Supreme Court have the power under the Constitution to review the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases. Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were "absolutely void." After establishing the Court's jurisdiction, Marshall declared the lottery ordinance a local matter and concluded that the Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens brothers for violating Virginia law.

Front 3

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

Back 3

1816

Does the appellate power of the Supreme Court extend to the Virginia courts?

The Court rejected the claim that Virginia and the national government were equal sovereigns. Reasoning from the Constitution, Justice Story affirmed the Court's power to override state courts to secure a uniform system of law and to fulfill the mandate of the Supremacy Clause.

Front 4

Eakin v. Raub

Back 4

1825- PA Supreme Court, dissent

Is Justice Marshall’s concept of judicial review proper?

Supreme Court should not have the power of judicial review, or at least not the sole power. The will of the people should be expressed through the ballot box.

Front 5

Ashwander v. TVA

Back 5

1935

Did Congress exceed its power in implementing and administering the TVA?

No. The Court held that Congress did not abuse its power with the TVA. Justice Hughes argued that the Wilson Dam, the location where the TVA was in the business of generating electricity, had been built originally in the interest of national defense: it produced materials involved in munitions manufacture. The government could sell excess electricity to consumers without violating the Constitution. This case is especially important for the concept of judicial review as expressed in Justice Brandeis's concurrence

Front 6

Bellotti v. Baird

Back 6

1975

Massachusetts law required parental notification for abortions. The federal District Court struck down the law before the Massachusetts Supreme Court had an opportunity to rule.

Should the federal District Court have abstained from rendering a judgment until a decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts?

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that the District Court should have abstained and vacated the judgment. There was ambiguity in whether the Massachusetts statute created a "parental veto," which under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth affected the constitutionality of the statute. Since the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling would have resolved the ambiguity, the District Court should have abstained.

Front 7

Frothingham v. Mellon

Back 7

1923

The court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm. Suffering "in some indefinite way in common with people generally" was not an adequate basis for judicial review.

Front 8

Flast v. Cohen

Back 8

1967

Did Flast, as a taxpayer, have standing to sue the government's spending?

The Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power.

Front 9

US v. Richardson

Back 9

1973

Does a federal taxpayer have standing to force the government to disclose expenditures of the CIA?

The COurt held that Richardson did not have standing to sue. Using the two-pronged standing test of Flast v. Cohen, Chief Justice Burger found that there was no "logical nexus between the status asserted by Richardson as a taxpayer and the claim sought to be adjudicated." It was clear to Burger that Richardson was not "a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power" on this issue.

Front 10

Allen v. Wright

Back 10

1983

Did the IRS shirk its enforcement duties and encourage private schools to racially discriminate, thus, harming desegregation efforts in the nation's public schools?

The Court found that the circumstances involved in this case did not warrant federal-court adjudication. Justice O'Connor's opinion argued that the Court could not act since the injuries that the suit identified were not "judicially cognizable" and because they were not "fairly traceable to the assertedly unlawful conduct of the IRS." Citing past precedents, O'Connor found that, by itself, an assertion that the government is not acting in the bounds of the law is not enough to bring a suit to a federal court.

Front 11

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Back 11

1974

DeFunis was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School despite test scores that were higher than some of the minorities admitted. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the case as DeFunis was entering his final year of school.

Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review?

The Court held that because the University of Washington Law School had agreed to allow DeFunis to enroll and to earn a diploma, the case in question was moot. DeFunis would be able to complete his legal studies irrespective of any Supreme Court decision. The controversy between parties had thus "clearly ceased to be 'definite and concrete'

Front 12

Poe v. Ullman

Back 12

An old Connecticut law prohibited the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice in the use of those devices. The Connecticut Attorney General threatened to enforce the law against three individuals in this case including Jane Doe. Jane Doe challenged the CT law since it criminalized her use of contraceptives

1961

Did the CT law violate liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court chose to dismiss the case because it involved the threatened and not actual application of the CT law.

Front 13

Baker v. Carr

Back 13

1962

Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored.

Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.

Front 14

Nixon v. United States

Back 14

1973

***CHECK IN BOOK*** pp 95-112

Front 15

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation

Back 15

1936

Did Congress in its Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President?

The Court agreed taht the President was allowed much room to operate in executing the Joint Resolution; it found no constitutional violation. Making important distinctions between internal foreign affairs, Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discresion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.

Front 16

Haig v. Agee

Back 16

1981

Agee vowed to "fight the US CIA wherever it is operating," and in response Secretary of State Alexander Haig revoked Agee's passport.

Did the President, acting through the Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to revoke the passport?

The Court held that the Passport Act of 1926 and other congressional statutes implicitly granted the Secretary of State the power to revoke passports. Because there was a likelihood of "serious damage" to foreign policy, Agee's claims concerning the First Amendment and the right to travel were "without merit."

Front 17

The Prize Cases

Back 17

1863

Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of southern ports in April 1861. Congress authorized him to declare a state of insurrection by the Act of July 13, 1861.

Did Lincoln act within his presidential powers defined by Article II when he ordered the seizures absent a declaration of war?

The Court ruled that the President had the power to act. A state of civil war existed de facto after the firing on Fort Sumter. When states waged war against the United States government, the president was "bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name."

Front 18

Ex parte Milligan

Back 18

1866

Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War; he had engaged in acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court.

Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal?

The Court held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating.

Front 19

Korematsu v. United States

Back 19

1945

Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?

The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights.

Front 20

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Back 20

1951

The Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue an order to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief did not extend to labor disputes.

Front 21

New York Times v. United States

Back 21

1971

Court ruled that the New York Times was allowed to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship of punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the rights of the New York Times to print the materials, and Nixon's claim to executive privilege was invalid.

Front 22

Goldwater v. Carter

Back 22

1979

President jimmy Carter acted without Congressional approval in ending a defense treaty with Taiwan?

Does Congress have a constitutional role to play in the termination of the treaty?

The Court ruled 8-1 that the issue was non-justiciable. Rehnquist led a group that found that the issue involved a political question, namely, how should the President and Congress conduct the nations foreign affairs.

Front 23

Dames & Moore v. Regan

Back 23

1981

In reaction to the Iranian hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter froze all Iranian assets in the US. Dames & Moore attempted to recover over $3 million owed to it by the Iranian government and claimed the executive orders were beyond the scope of presidential power.

Did the president have the authority to transfer Iranian funds and to nullify legal claims against Iran?

The Court held that the IEEPA constituted a specific congressional authorization for the President to order the transfer of Iranian assets. It ruled that Congress had implicitly approved of executive control of claim settlement. The Court made sure to issue a very narrow ruling that applied specifically to the facts of the case.

Front 24

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Back 24

2001

Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, was arrested by the United States military in Afghanistan. He was accused of fighting for the Taliban against the U.S., declared an "enemy combatant," and transfered to a military prison in Virginia.

Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States?

In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that althought Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decision-maker.

Front 25

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Back 25

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, was captured by Afghani forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a military tribunal, which designated him an enemy combatant.

May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions?

The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Conventions.

Front 26

Boumediene v. Bush

Back 26

Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay?

Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?

The majority opinion stated that the Detainee Treatment Act is not an adequate sustitue for the habeas writ, and so the Military Commissions Act operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The Court thus found in favor of the detainees.

Front 27

Dellums v. Bush

Back 27

1990

DC Federal District Court Decision denying members of Congress and injunction against President George HW Bush to stop implementation of his orders directing the US military to fight in Iraq without first obtaining a declaration of war from the Congress.

The Court held that since less than a majority of Congress participated in the action, and Bush had not yet begun initiating "war-like actions" against Iraq, the issue was not ripe for adjudication.

Front 28

Clinton v. Jones

Back 28

1996

Clinton sought to invoke presidential immunity to completely dismiss the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against him.

Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?

No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. Neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from the judicial process. This is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the Chief Executive.

Front 29

READ FISHER PP 282-308

Back 29

That is all.

Front 30

Bowsher v. Synar

Back 30

1985

Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act of 1985 to combat rising government deficits. If maximum allowable deficit amounts were exceeded, automatic cuts, as requested by the Comptroller General, would go into effect.

Did the functions assigned by Congress to the Comptroller General of the US under the Deficit Control Act violate the doctrine of separation of powers?

The Court found that the duties which Congress delegated to the Comptroller General did violate the doctrine of separation of powers and were unconstitutional for two reasons:

1) Based on the wording of the statute, it was clear that the Comptroller General was subservient to the legislative branch.
2) The Comptroller General was being asked to execute the laws, and was thus intruding on the prerogatives of the executive branch.

Front 31

Morrison v. Olson

Back 31

1988

Does the creation of an independent counsel violate the principle of the separation of powers?

The Court voted 8-1 to uphold the law. The Court ruled that the powers allocated to the special court did not violate Article III; and the Act was not offensive to the separation of powers doctrine since it did not impermissibly interfere with the functions of the Executive Branch.

Front 32

Buckley v. Valeo

Back 32

1976

***REFER BACK TO FISHER PAGES 190-205***

Front 33

Myers v. United States

Back 33

1924

An 1876 law required the "advice and consent" of the Senate before postmasters of the first, second, and third classes could be removed. President Wilson removed a postmaster first class without seeking Senatorial approval.

Did the act unconstitutionally restrict the President's power to remove appointed officials?

Yes, Chief Justice Taft concluded that the power to remove appointed officers is vested in the President alone. To deny the President this power would not allow him to fulfill his duty "that the laws be faithfully executed"

Front 34

Humphrey's Executor v. United States

Back 34

Humphrey was a FTC commissioner. President Roosevelt asked for Humphrey's resignation since he was opposed to many of the administration's New Deal policies. Humphrey refused, and Roosevelt fired him, even though the FTC act only allowed him to be removed for cases of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

Did section 1 of the FTC Act unconstitutionally interfere with the executive power of the president?

The Court unanimously held that the act was constitutional, and the President's action was unjustified. They reasoned that the court never gave the president "illimitable powers of removal." Since the FTC was a body created by Congress to perform quasi-legislative and judicial functions, the Myers precedent did not apply.

Front 35

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

Back 35

2010

Does Sarbanes-Oxley violate the separation of powers by preventing the President from having the power to appoint or remove board members?

The Supreme Court held that the "for-cause" limitation on the removal of Board members is uncontitutional because it contravenes the Constitution's separation of powers. THe Act protects Board members from removal except for good cause, but denies the President any ability to decide if good cause exists. It ruled that the Board could continue to function as before, but its members must be able to be removed by the Commission at will.

Front 36

Hampton and Co. v. United States

Back 36

1928

The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise.

Did the Tariff Act's delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?

The Court unanimously decided that Congress could vest discression in executive officers within "defined limits," and the same principle that allowed Congress to fix rates in interstate commerce also allowed it to remit that power to a body under the Executive branch.

Front 37

Schechter Corp. v. United States

Back 37

1935

Did Congress unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President?

Held that the law did not establish rules or standards to evaluate industrial activity. In simply empowered the President to make codes, and it found this to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Front 38

Clinton v. City of New York

Back 38

Is the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of a bill under the Line Item Veto Act violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

Yes. Under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved or rejected by the President. The Act allowed him to effectively "amend" bills that were in front of him.

Front 39

INS v. Chadha

Back 39

Did the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allowed for a one-House veto of executive actions, violate the separation of powers doctrine?

Chief Justice Burger concluded that even thought the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the "explicit constitutional standards" regarding lawmaking and congressional authority.

Front 40

US v. Nixon

Back 40

***REVIEW IN BOOK PAGE 213***

Front 41

The AT&T Cases

Back 41

***REVIEW IN BOOK PAGE 213***

Front 42

Campbell v. Clinton

Back 42

Held that members of Congress could not sue President Clinton for his alleged violations of the War Powers Resolution in his handling of the war in Yugoslavia.

Front 43

McCulloch v. Maryland

Back 43

1819

Did Congress have the authority to establish a national bank? Did a Maryland tax on the bank constitute an unconstitutional overstepping of Congressional powers?

The Court unanimously decided that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government.

Front 44

Gibbons v. Ogden

Back 44

A NY state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on the waters within the state jurisdiction. A steamboat owner who did business between NY and NJ challenged the monopoly.

Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely the regulation of interstate commerce?

The Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause declared the state law invalid, because it conflicted with a national law. Justice Marshall developed a clear definition of the word "commerce" which included navigation on interstate waterways. Thus, regulation of steamboat navigation between the several states was reserved exclusively to Congress.

Front 45

Cooley v. Board of Wardens

Back 45

A PA law required that all ships entering or leaving the Philadelphia port had to hire a local pilot, and ships that failed to do so would have to pay a fine.

Does this law violate the commerce clause of the Constitution?

The pilotage law did NOT violate the Constitution. Thought the subject to be regulated was commerce, the interesting twist here was whether the Commerce Power was exclusive. While the Court ruled that some subjects demand a single uniform rule, they declared that others, like pilotage, could have local rules to cope with varying local conditions.

Front 46

Bush v. Gore

Back 46

Did the Florida Supreme Court violate the US Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?

The Court held 7-2 that the FL Supreme Court's recount scheme was unconstitutional. The Court then held, 5-4, that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining. Thus, the recount was halted and Bush won Florida and the 2000 election.

Front 47

Champion v. Ames

Back 47

1903

The defendants were arrested and convicted under an Act of Congress that made it illegal to send or conspire to send lottery tickets across state lines.

Did the transport of lottery tickets by independent carriers constitute "commerce" that could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause?

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that tickets were "subjects of traffic," and that independent carriers may be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Court noted the broad power that Congress has under the clause, and it has "no limitations except such as may be found in the Constitution."

Front 48

Hammer v. Dagenhart

Back 48

1918

Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor.

Does the congressional act violate the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment?

The Court found two grounds to invalidate the law:
1) Production is not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate.
2) Regulation of production was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states.

Front 49

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

Back 49

1922

Companies employing children under fourteen years of age would be assessed ten percent of their annual profits. Drexel Furniture Co. was found in violation of the act.

Did Congress violate the Constitution in adopting the Child Labor Tax Law and attempting to regulate the employment of children, a power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment?

Yes, the Court found that the Child Labor Tax Law was in violation of the Constitution as it intruded on the jurisdiction of states to adopt and enforce child labor codes.

Front 50

United States v. Darby Lumber

Back 50

1941

Was the Fair Labor Standards Act a legitimate exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce?

The unanimous Court affirmed the right of Congress to exercise "to its utmost extent" the powers reserved for it in the Commerce Clause. The Court relied heavily on their decision in Gibbons v. Ogden, and they overturned the ruling of Hammer v. Dagenhart.

Front 51

Carter v. Carter Coal Company

Back 51

1935

In 1935, Congress enacted the Guffey Coal Act, regulating prices, minimum wages, maximum hours, and "fair practices" of the coal industry.

Did the Guffey Coal Act exceed congressional powers under the Commerce Clause?

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Act overstepped the bounds of congressional power, and it ruled that "commerce" is plainly distinct from "production." Justice Sutherland argued that "everything which moves in interstate commerce has had a local origin. Without local production somewhere, interstate commerce...would practically disappear."

Front 52

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation

Back 52

1937

The NLRB charged the Jones and Laughlin Steel Co. with discriminating against employees who were union members.

Was the Act consistent with the Commerce Clause?

The court held that the Act was narrowly constructed so as to regulate industrial activities which had the potential to restrict interstate commerce. The justices abandoned their claim that labor relations only had an indirect effect on commerce. The national government was justified in penalizing corporations that "refuse to confer and negotiate" with their workers.

Front 53

Wickard v. Filburn

Back 53

1942

Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate the activities of Filburn growing wheat for consumption on his own farm?

The Court ruled 8-0 that Filburn was still subject to the penalty. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even a local activity "may still, in whatever nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce," regardless of whether the effect is direct or indirect.

Front 54

National League of Cities v. Usery

Back 54

1976

in 1974, Congress passed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act for regulate minimum wage and overtime pay for state and local government employees.

May Congress, actin under its commerce power, regulate the labor market of state employees?

The Court ruled that Congress may not regulate the labor market for state employees. the 19th Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting legislation which operates to "directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional government functions." In this case, the exercise of the commerce power ran afoul of the 10th Amendment which protects the states' traditional activities.

Front 55

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Back 55

1983

Did the principles of federalism make the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority immune from the Fair Labor Standards Act?

The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the guiding principles of National League were unworkable, and that SAMTA was subject to Congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause. The rules based on "traditional" government functions provided little or no guidance in determining the boundaries of federal and state power.

Front 56

US v. Lopez

Back 56

1995

Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it oversteps the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Yes, the Court ruled that the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal stature that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.

Front 57

US v. Morrison

Back 57

Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment?

No. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce

Front 58

Granholm v. Heald

Back 58

2005

Does a state law that allows in-state wineries to directly ship alcohol to consumers, but restricts the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so, violate the dormant commerce clause?

The Court held that both states' laws violated the commerce clause by favoring in-state wineries, and it did so without the authorization of the 21st Amendment. State authority to engage in such economic discrimination was not the purpose of the 21st Amendment.

Front 59

Gonzales v. Raich

Back 59

2005

Does the Controlled Substances Act exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?

No, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Congress can regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Front 60

Gonzalez v. Oregon

Back 60

Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide?

No, the Court held that Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice.

Front 61

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis

Back 61

1937

Did the Social Security Act arbitrarily impose taxes in violation of the Fifth Amendment or subvert principles of federalism?

No, the Court held that the tax was a constitutional exercise of congressional power. It was uniform throughout the states, and it did not coerce the states in contravention of the 10th Amendment.

Front 62

South Dakota v. Dole

Back 62

1987

Did Congress exceed its spending powers, or violate the 21st Amendment, by passing legislation conditioning the award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform minimum drinking age?

No, the Court held that Congress was acting within its bounds by indirectly encouraging uniformity in states' drinking ages. The legislation was in pursuit of the "general welfare" and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable.

Front 63

PA v. Nelson

Back 63

1956

Did the Smith Act supersede enforcement of PA's sedition law?

Yes, the Court held that PA's law was unenforceable and superseded by the federal law. The federal act dealt with an issue of primary importance for the national government, which made enforcement of similar state laws potentially harmful to the functioning of national statutes.

Front 64

Lochner v. NY

Back 64

1904

Does the NY law violate the liberty protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?

The Court invalidated the NY law by maintaining that the statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the 14th Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee.

Front 65

Adkins v. Children's Hospital

Back 65

1923

Did a guaranteed minimum wage law interfere with the ability of employers and employees to enter into contracts with each other without assuring due process of law?

The Court found that upholding the statute would dangerously extend the police power of the state, and thus found it unconstitutional. The statute's implementation procedures were overly vague and did not act to regulate the character or method of wage payments. Congress simply enacted a price-fixing law.

Front 66

West Coast Hospital v. Parrish

Back 66

1936

Did the minimum wage law violate the liberty of contract as construed under the 5th Amendment and applied under the 14th?

The Court held that it was not a violation of the 5th Amendment by noting that the Constitution did not speak of the freedom of contract and that liberty was subject to the restraints of due process. It explicitly overruled Adkins v. Children's Hospital.

Front 67

Ferguson v. Skrupa

Back 67

1962

Did the Kansas regulation of debt adjusting violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?

No, because the question of whether or not the law was "wise" was a legislative and not a judicial question. The Court no longer used the vagueness of the 14th Amendment to strike down laws that it found economically unwise. As long as state regulations do not offend a "specific federal constitutional prohibition," they are legitimate.