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;
77 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Barron v Baltimore 1833 |
-established that Bill of Rights could not be applied to the state governments |
|
|
Marbury v Madison 1803 |
-formed basis of judicial review
-Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it gave the Court jurisdictional powers it did not have -Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission |
|
|
Griswold v Connecticut 1965 |
-Constitution protects rights to privacy
-law prohibiting a person from using contraceptive drugs violates the "right to marital privacy" |
|
|
US v Johnson 1943 |
-tenant brought suit against landlord
-court dismissed case because parties were not true -collusive and no case or contreversy |
|
|
Muskrat v US 1911 |
-court will not rule when cases aren't actual controversy
-advisory opinion will be decision if ruling in case |
|
|
Hayburn's Case 1792 |
-case in which Court was invited to give opinion on whether or not certain non-judicial duties could be assigned by Congress to the federal circuit courts
-Court considered whether it had power to give decisions in cases that weren't binding but never ruled in the case |
|
|
C & S Airlines v Waterman Steamship Co. 1948 |
-Court would not review decisions of Civil Aeronautics Board because president could change judicial ruling if he wanted (within executive powers)
-to review/revise administrative decisions would make this advisory opinion and would weaken the court -giving advice but allowing discretion of president |
|
|
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v Hayworth 1937 |
-upheld constitutionality of federal courts issuing declaratory judgements
-cannot tell parties to do something -must be an actual dispute |
|
|
Warth v Seldon 1975 |
-if plaintiffs lacked standing they could not maintain a case
-but no definitive test for standing |
|
|
Valley Forge Christian College v Americans United for Separation of Church & State 1982 |
-courts may manipulate rules to hear or not hear particular cases -did not expand Flast v Cohen exception of taxpayer standing rule -limits who can sue in federal courts |
|
|
Singleton v Wulff 1976 |
-courts should not rule unnecessarily -genuine impediment |
|
|
Flast v Cohen 1968 |
-group of taxpayers challenged federal legislation that financed purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools -do taxpayers have standing to sue? -in order to have standing the taxpayer must 1) establish a logical link between themselves and tax 2) show that tax exceeds specific constitutional limits -Flast met both parts of test |
|
|
Lujan v National Wildlife Federation 1990 |
-Court held that NWF did not have standing -could not show that they had been affected by decisions of Bureau of Land Management land designations |
|
|
City of LA v Lyons 1983 |
-Lyons stopped for a traffic violation and was put in chokehold, he sought inunction against the city barring chokeholds -Court ruled that federal courts could not issue injunction because this was not within jurisdiction -in order for there to be actual controversy he would have to prove that all officers always choked citizens they encountered or that the City authorized them to act like this -must prove that it was likely this would happen again |
|
|
Sierra Club v Morton 1971 |
-Club tried to prevent construction of a ski resort -Administrative Procedures Act allowed anyone affected by administrative agency to get judicial review -Court said that club did not intend to use Mineral Valley -If members used park they would have standing |
|
|
US v SCRAP 1973 |
-Students Challenging Regulatory Procedures sought review of Interstate Comm. Commission that increased freight shipment rates
-said because of this higher rates meant less shipment of recycled goods ----> more consumption of resources = pollution -suffered harm and were given standing |
|
|
US v Hays 1995 |
-only a person residing in an election district can claim lines are drawn unconstitutionally
|
|
|
Hollingsowrth v Perry 2013 |
- Prop. 22 overturned to include same-sex marriages in state constitution of CA
-Prop. 8 overturned this by voters -determined petitioners do not have standing because their grievance was too general |
|
|
Clapper v Amnesty International USA 2013 |
-groups challenge provision of VISA Act (foreign surveillance act) -violated amendment because they would have to take costly measures to ensure communication -did not have standing because they could not prove that they were subject to servailance -no injury occurred |
|
|
Trafficante v Metropolitan Life Insurance 1972 |
-granted right to sue because discrimination
|
|
|
Federal Election Committee v Akins 1998 |
-can voters challenge FEC decisions regarding political committees? -yes. because voters seeking information and being withheld is injury - |
|
|
Allen v Wright 1984 |
-determined there are separate requirements for causation and redressability
-challenges failure of IRS to refuse to deny tax exemption from racially discriminatory schools -court says injury is too abstract -person must be personally discriminated against ---> intentional -usure of causation |
|
|
Warth v Seldin 1975 |
-challenged zoning practices of a company -argued that zoning prevents low income housing -do not have standing because they cannot prove that construction would have taken place without the zoning laws |
|
|
Duke Power Co v Carolina Environmental Study Group Inc. 1978 |
-challenged Price Anderson Act that limited liability of power companies if nuclear accident
-defendants claim this violates the due process clause -Have standing because they have injury = radiation, thermal pollution -met causation and redressability because plants would not have been built without this -Price Anderson is constitutional |
|
|
Regents of University of California v Bakke 1977 |
-denied admission to medical school and challenged affirmative action -injury = denial of admission -Court decided his injury was inability to equally compete for a spot -quotas are unconsittional |
|
|
Powers v Ohio 1991 |
-court held that for the first time that a juror is denied equal protection if excluded
-can assert rights of a perspective juror because they are unlikely to represent themselves -not aware of dismissal and no incentive to challenge on own |
|
|
NAACP v Alabama 1958 |
- organization allowed standing because members are not likely to come forward individually to challenge
|
|
|
Hunt v Washington State Apple Advertising Company 1977 |
-NC adopted regulation requiring apples shipped into the state to display USDA grade or nothing at all, Washington growers had higher standards
-Court ruled that regulation was unconstitutional because it was a disadvantage and discriminatory to growers in WA -removed the competitive advantage they had |
|
|
Bond v US 2011 |
-does criminal defendant, convicted under federal statute, have standing to challenge conviction claiming it is beyond federal government enumerated powers and inconsistent with 10th amendment? -Yes. Bond has standing to sue a federal statue on grounds that measures interfere with powers reserved to states |
|
|
Frothingham v Melon 1923 |
-plaintiff sued wanting to prevent tax expenditures from congressional act that provided grants to states if they reduced infant mortality
-violated 10th amendment -her interest is minute and indeterminable -cannot determine how taxes would be different -common suffering of all -cannot question expenditures |
|
|
Schliesinger v Reservist Committee to Stop the War 1974 |
-decided citizens do not have the right to challenge constitutionality of members of Congress holding reserve commissions in the armed forces -interest of common members of public is not valid -no injury |
|
|
Arizona Christian School Tuition Org v Winn 2011 |
-court rejects taxpayer standing -allowed taxpayers to receive $1 for $1 tax credit to Student Tuition Org. -provided money to religious schools -government expenditures different from tax credits |
|
|
Abbot Laboratories v Garder 1967 |
-case that held that drug companies were not prohibited by ripeness from challenging FDA regulation requiring prescription drug name to appear on printed materials -hardship will result without review -case was not ripe because regulation had yet to be enforced -if denied review they would have to spend substantial amount of money |
|
|
Toliet Goods Association v Gartner 1967 |
-FDA was given access to manufacturing process -if they denied access -minimal hardship would result in violation of law -controversy was not ripe for adjudication |
|
|
Missouri v Holland 1920 |
-held that protection of a State's quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a State to enjoin enforcement of an unconstitutional federal regulation, but that the federal government's implementation of the treaty at issue was constitutional, trumping state concerns about enumerated powers or abrogation of states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. |
|
|
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995 |
-ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution |
|
|
McCulloch v Maryland 1819 |
-enumerated powers give right to create a national bank -necessary and proper powers can be convenient not absolute -states do not have power to impede workings of federal government -supremacy clause |
|
|
US v Comstock 2010 |
-state authority does not limit federal government authority
-issue of prisoners under federal act |
|
|
US v Kebodeaux 2013 |
-The Court also held that the Necessary and Proper Clause granted Congress the power to create federal crimes and regulate their punishment, so SONRA did not represent Congress overstepping its bounds. |
|
|
Wickard v Fillaburn 1942 |
-extended Congress power to regulate the economy -substantial effect on the economy was within commerce clause -limited amount of wheat produced |
|
|
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v US 1964 |
-regulate private entities
-interstate customers |
|
|
US v Morrison 2000 |
-Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional because they exceeded Congressional power under commerce clause
-statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce |
|
|
Katzenbach v McClung 1964 |
-resturant posed burdens on interstate commerce because food and products were involved in interstate commerce -discrimination affected those traveling from state to state |
|
|
US v Lopez 1995 |
-could not criminalize carrying of weapons under commerce
-does not involve economic activity |
|
|
Gonzalez v Raich 2005 |
-under commerce clause Congress could regulate home grown marijuana
-it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market -affected supply and demand in market |
|
|
National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius 2012 |
-Anti-Injunction Act prohibits any federal court from issuing an injunction against proceedings in any state court ---> did not bar this suit -mandate was a tax and followed IRS normal taxing means -Congress could regulate commerce by inactivity -individuals who fail to purchase insurance nonetheless frequently participate in the healthcare marketplace, substantially impacting healthcare commerce, and may therefore be regulated by Congress |
|
|
Nebbia v New York 1933 |
-determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers. -since the price controls were not "arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant" to the policy adopted by the legislature to promote the general welfare, it was consistent with the Constitution |
|
|
Lochner v New York 1905 |
-held that "liberty of contract" was implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -limited the number of hours that a bakery employee could work each day to ten, and each week to 60 -rejected the argument that the law was necessary to protect the health of bakers, deciding it was a labor law attempting to regulate the terms of employment, and calling it an "unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract" |
|
|
Gitlow v New York 1925 |
-Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force - ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states |
|
|
District of Columbia v Heller 2008 |
-District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns -Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - |
|
|
McDonald v City of Chicago 2010 |
-held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment |
|
|
Ex parte McCardle 1869 |
-May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction has been given? -validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2. But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised." |
|
|
Gratz v Bollinger 2003 |
-Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? -se of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI -the Court reasoned that the automatic distribution of 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race was not narrowly tailored and did not provide the individualized consideration Justice Powell contemplated in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke |
|
|
Hamden v Rumsfeld 2006 |
-May rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? And was the military able to try Hamdan for alleged crimes in the War on Terror authorized by Congress or inherent powers of the President?
-Determined that act of Congress or Executive authorized this sort of military commission -Had to comply with ordinary laws of US and war -Geneva Convention could be enforced by Court |
|
|
Gibbons v Ogden 1824 |
-Did NY have authority to regulate interstate commerce?
-Licensing requirement for out of state operators was inconsistent with congressional act regulating coasting trade -John Marshall developed definition of the word commerce = "among several states" |
|
|
Hammer v Dagenhart (The Child Labor Case) 1918 |
-Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor
-Dagenhart's father sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his child to work in a textile mill -Does the act violate the Commerce Clause, 10th Amendment or 5th Amendment? -Production is not commerce, and cannot be regulated (reserved to states) - |
|
|
Wickard v Fillaburn 1942 |
-Filaburn grew over his allotment of wheat -Congress set quotas for wheat production in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies -Harmful to US economy -Claimed he was using this on his farm -Exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce -so it can be regulated |
|
|
US v EC Knight Co1894 |
-Sherman Anti Trust Act targeted to limit growth of giant businesses
-Outlawed contracts that restrained trade -EC Knight Company controlled most of the sugar refining business in the US -Determined manufacturing was a local activity and could not be regulated by interstate commerce |
|
|
Champion v Ames (The Lottery Case) 1903 |
-Federal Lottery Act prohibited selling lottery tickets across state lines -Power to regulate is power to prohibit? -Held that the trafficking lottery tickets constituted interstate commerce and could be regulated |
|
|
Swift & Co v US 1905 |
-"meat trust" developed in Chicago where major dealers of meat agreed not to bid against one another to control prices
-Could Congress regulate under Sherman Anti-Trust Act? -Yes. Because the effect of the trust was not accidental and a direct attempt to monopolize commerce -manufacturing monopolises have indirect effect -sale monopolies have direct and intended effects |
|
|
City of Philadelphia v New Jersey 1978 |
-New Jersey prohibited importation of waste which was collected outside of territory of state
-This violates the commerce clause because it discriminates against out of state waste and waste of the state -NJ did not determine legitimate reason for distinguishing against the two |
|
|
Arizona v US 2010 |
-Arizona created state law crime for being unlawfully present in US and for working when not authorized
-Required state and local officers to verify citizenship and authorized warranties arrests of aliens -Do federal immigration laws preclude Arizona laws? -Yes. Obstacles to carry out federal immigration laws |
|
|
New York v US 1992 |
-required states to dispose of radioactive waste within borders -residents resisted
-Does act violate guarantee clause of Constitution? -Congress had authority to use financial rewards as incentives |
|
|
INS v Chadha 1832 |
-Congress authorized House to invalidate and suspend deportation of Attorney General, Chadha
-Allowed a one House veto of executive action -This violates Constitution by separation of powers |
|
|
US v Nixon 1974 |
-Audio tapes of Nixon during Watergate scandal
-Nixon claims he is immune because of "executive privilege" -right to withhold information -No. Court says there isn't absolute presidential privilege |
|
|
Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004 |
-Hamdi, a US citizen, is arrested by US in Afghanistan accused of fighting for Taliban
-"enemy combatant" and sent to military prison and no access to attorney -Congress authorized detention -Due process give citizen held in US right to contest detention -Seperation of powers does not prevent judiciary from hearing case |
|
|
Slaughter House Cases 1873 |
-Louisiana created monopoly of slaughtering business and gave it to one company
-Did creation of monopoly violate 13th and 14th amendments? -No. Does not prevent police powers of state -affected only rights of United States citizenship and not state citizenship |
|
|
City of Mobile v Bolden 1980 |
-held that electoral districts must be drawn without racial discriminatory intent
|
|
|
Roe v Wade 1973 |
-Texas law prohibits abortions except to save women's life
-Abortion falls under privacy |
|
|
Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v Casey 1992 |
-Penn legislature amended abortion control law requiring informed consent and 24 hour waiting period before procedure
-minor seeking abortion required permission of parent -married woman must notify husband -Did state regulation impose "undue burden"? -Under this test only husband notification requirement was unconstitutional |
|
|
Gonzales v Carheart 2007 |
-Partial Birth Abortion Ban defined partial birth as "the entire fetal head or any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother"
-physicians sued as this would ban late term abortions -Determined this was not an "undue burden" and applies to a narrow form of abortion |
|
|
Bowers v Hardwick 1986 |
-Arrested Harwick for homosexual sodomy in home
-This was unconstitutional -states could not outlaw sodomy |
|
|
Lawrence v Texas 2003 |
-Private consensual act in home is arrested in TX
-Sexual conduct violated due process clause -no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual |
|
|
Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health 1990 |
-court approval needed to end life support by parents -Court held that individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment under due process but incompetent person is not excursive rights -"clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desires treatment to be withdrawn |
|
|
Moore v City of East Cleveland 1977 |
-East Cleveland's housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. Part of the ordinance was a strict definition of "family" which excluded Mrs. Inez Moore who lived with her son and two grandsons
-Ordinance violated Moore's rights -"Intrusive regulation of the family" without tangible interest -constituted a taking of property without just compensation |
|
|
Obergheld v Hodges 2015 |
-Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages
-Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples |
|
|
Kennedy v Louisiana (Shreveport Rape Case) 2008 |
- Louisiana law allows the district attorney to seek the death penalty for defendants found guilty of raping children under the age of twelve -Do states violate the Eight Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment by imposing the death sentence for the crime of child rape? -bars states from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the child's death -Applying the death penalty in such a case would be an exercise of "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of a national consensus on the issue |
