• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/144

Click to flip

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;

144 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
What are the general features of Article 3?
"1) Creates the supreme court 2) allows congress to create inferior courts 3) terms are for life ""or good behavior"" 4) gives the courts 9 areas of JN 5) allows congress to reduce appellate power"
Define the power of judicial review.
The power of the courts to declare acts of the government and governmental actors void or invalid according to the court’s interpretation of what the Constitution means and requires
Holding from Marbury v. Madison
The court held that the judiciary act that gave Marbury the power to bring his case directly to the SC (on original JN) was unconstitutional. Significant because it was the first time an act of Congress had been invalidated by the SC. Established judicial review.
What are some arguments from Marbury v. Madison regarding why the judiciary should posess the power of judicial review?
We Should Follow Josh Edlow on Command - "Written Constitution – could only succeed if treated as a fundamental law, Supremacy Clause, Framework to be interpreted, Judicial independence, Extends to all cases arising under the constitution (It would be meaningless if SC’s JX didn’t extend to Congress), Judicial Oath to uphold the constitution, Common Law Tradition of Judicial Review, , "
Arguments against Judicial Review
"Undemocratic – allows unelected judges to overrule elected officials, Potential for abuse of power, Why not another branch?"
Cooper v. Aaron
"SC announces that in a case properly before it, the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the Con, both procedurally and substantively and that the Pres + Congress should think about how the SC would interpret the Con "
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Affirms the power of the SC to review state court decisions in federal question cases.
Why should the SC have judicial review over state court decisions in federal question cases?
"Supremacy Clause, Textual Authority in Constitution (A3 gives JN in cases under federal law), Contemporaneous understanding of the constitution (Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for SC review of state judgments of federal law), Uniformity, Enforcement (If no review, state courts can choose not to enforce the constitution)"
Cohens v. Virginia
Fed courts can review state court decisions even in criminal cases and even where the state is a party to the action
What are the five sources of Constituonal interpretation?
"The Supreme Court has Precedent" "Text, Structure of Constitution, Core Principles of the constitution, History surrounding adoption Structure of Con as a whole, Judicial Precedent"
McCulloch v. Maryland
1) The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution’s express powers in order to create a functional national government (necessary and proper clause) 2) State action may not impede a valid constitutional exercise of power by the Federal government (Supremacy Clause)
"According to McCulloch v. Maryland, what does necessary and proper mean?"
"Not absolute necessity - (they didn't mean that b/c they used that language elsewhere) Useful or convenient to achieve a legitimate end as long as the means are appropriate, plainly adapted to that end, within the scope of the constitution and not prohibited. Rational basis for review."
What are the 9 JN heads on Federal Court jurisdiction?
Original 1) Ambassadors + Foreign Powers 2) State v. State – Appellate 1) Laws of the US + Treaties 2) All cases of admiralty and maritime 3) Where the US is a party 4) Between a state and a citizen of another state 5) Citizens of diff states 6) Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of diff states 7) Between a US state or citizen + foreign state or citizen
What are the statutory & judicial precedent limitations on Federal Judicial Power?
"1) A3 doesn’t require lower fed courts, only a Sup Crt 2) Courts have interpreted A3 as requiring Congress to affirmatively confer JX on a court through enacting a statute 3) Diversity of Citizenship cases require monetary limit 4) In the Constitution, it states that Congress can determine housekeeping matters, i.e. number of justices, hours of court"
What are the limitations on judicial power? (constitional, statutory, case law, etc.)
1) Impeachment 2) Power to appoint 3) power to amend the constitution 4) A3 doesn’t require lower fed courts, only a Sup Crt 5) Article 3 requires Congress to affirmatively confer JX on a court through enacting a statute 6) Diversity of Citizenship cases require monetary limit 7) Congress can determine housekeeping matters, i.e. number of justices, hours of court
Should the constitution be easy to amend?
Yes: 1) one generation should not be able to bind future generations. 2) No reason to give deference to past decisions. 3) Check on judicial review 4) Other nations make it easy to amend NO: 1) Violent struggle between the parties 2) Constitution is sufficiently broad and flexible 3) Frequent amendments erase the advantage of having an insulated body to decide constitutional issues.
Exceptions Clause
Article 3 §2 - Congress can limit the appellate JN of the SC and limit the appellate review powers of the SC.
Implied Congressional Use of the Exceptions Clause
The failure of Congress to grant the SC a category of appellate JN is taken by implication to be an affirmative exercise of the exceptions and regulations power.
Ex Parte McCardle
"Congress removes McCardle’s ability to bring a habeas appeal to the S.C. Two ways to understand McCardle 1) Court suggested that the exceptions power was very broad 2) At end of opinion, court suggested that this was narrow b/c McCardle had another avenue via appellate JX"
Three ways that Congress cannot use the exceptions clause
"1) Cannot violate other individual liberties like equal protection 2) Cannot use it in a way that would violate separation of powers (whole class of cases, not individual issues/ppl) 3) Cannot undermine the Special Function of the Sup Crt to decide Con questions"
Arguments for Exceptions Clause use
1) language of article 3 allowing it 2) McCardle 3) exceptions power is part of checks and balances that forces judicial restraint
Arguments for restraint on Congress’ use of exceptions clause
"1) Look closely at the statute and consider whether it knocks out all opportunities for review, emphasize limited nature of McCardle – only involved one avenue of access to SC 2) look at 9 JN in Article 3, can’t remove those 3) Can’t violate other Con provisions 4) Too much power in Congress would destroy SC, 5) Hart’s theory – you can’t allow the exception to swallow the rule"
Klein v. U.S.
"Congress attempted to tell the courts that a presidential pardon is evidence that a person had participated in the rebellion. HELD: Congress cannot tell the Court how to decide cases pending before the court, such an act would be inconsistent with separation of powers."
What is the doctrine of justiciability?
"Federal courts can only hear cases that constitute a real fight between adverse parties where resolution of that controversy is appropriate for that court, Must have a particular legal grievance, Court Cannot give advisory opinions"
Why do we have the doctrine of justiciability?
"1) create a boundary between law and politics, to prevent courts from deciding issues that belong in the legislature, promotes judicial restraint, Promotes sound constitutional decisions – 2) cases will only be resolved in the context of concrete disputes rather than in response to hypothetical or abstract problems."
Name the different parts of the standing test and who bears the burden of showing standing?
"1) injury in fact and 2) a nexus, which includes a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct and the injury must be likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The party invoking federal JN bears the burden of establishing standing."
"What is injury in fact, and what cases can be used to illustrate the principle?"
"An injury in fact is a personal injury to the plaintiff – use Allen v. Wright, Lujan v. Defenders & General Contractors v. Jacksonville"
Allen v. Wright
"Parents of black school children wanted to sue IRS for giving tax exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools against the rules of the IRS. No injury in fact, children were not denied admission, must be personally denied equal treatment. The injury must be distinct and palpable not abstract, conjectural or hypothetical. An asserted right to have the government act in accordance with the law is not sufficient to confer standing."
Lujan v. Defenders
"Ps were wildlife conservationists who sued sec'y of interior regarding US funding construction in foreign location that endangered species. Ps failed to show that they were personally harmed by the agency’s failure to regulate overseas harm to endangered species, it was merely speculative that they may return to the location someday. The injury complained of must be IMMINENT"
General Contractors v. Jacksonville
"City ordinance required 10% of money spent on city Ks set aside for minority business enterprises, non-minority contractors sued claiming equal protection violation. To establish injury in fact, a party challenging a set-aside program need only demonstrate that it is able and ready to bid on Ks and that a discriminatory policy prevents it from doing so on an equal basis."
Special Interest/ Ideological Standing
"Two cases 1) Sierra Club –challenged construction of recreation area in pristine wilderness, but were denied standing b/c there was no personal injury, Ps did not show they used the site 2) SCRAP – Ps challenged ICCs rates b/c it would reduce incentives to recycle which would lead to increased garbage in the park where they hiked/camped, they were given standing b/c they showed they actually used the park"
Cases that deal with threat of Injury
1) City of LA v. Lyons - Ps sued regarding use of chokeholds by LAPD seeking injunctive relief. (Have to show that it is extremely likely to happen again). 2) Duke Power Co. - The construction of a nuclear reactor in Ps area subjected them to a sufficient threat of a real and immediate future injury.
Name Three Cases Regarding Causal Connections:
"Allen v. Wright, Lujan v. Defenders, EKWRO"
Allen v. Wright (causation)
"Claim that children were stigmatized by IRS tax exemption to private school was too attenuated. The injury is not fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct. Results from independent action of a third party. In this case, the white students who go to the private schools as opposed to the public schools, IRS did not cause white kids to go to private school."
Lujan v. Defenders (Causation)
Ps were wildlife conservationists who sued sec'y of interior regarding US funding construction in foreign location that endangered species. Causation issues because the independent action of the 3rd parties building the project are not before the court.
EKWRO (Causation)
"Indigents sued IRS ruling granting favorable tax treatment to nonprofit hospitals that granted limited aid to indigents to emergency room service. Injury claimed – Ps would have less access to med services. Ps allegation that new IRS ruling discouraged limitation of med services to indigents was inadequate, too speculative. The hospitals can make their own choices."
What line of cases address redressibilty?
"Laidlaw, Steel Company, Lujan, Linda RS, EKWRO and Bakke"
Laidlaw
Ps granted standing b/c they showed D’s toxic river dump was ongoing and therefore still redressible by the court.
Bakke
"Student challenged UC policy of affirmative action. Characterizes injury NOT as a denial of admission, but as an inability to compete for available spots based on race – which can be redressed by enjoining the school from setting aside spots based on race, whereas the court cannot compel the school to grant admission."
Lujan v. Defenders
"Ps were wildlife conservationists who sued sec'y of interior regarding US funding construction in foreign location that endangered species. Redressability is too speculative, only 10% of the funding for the project from the U.S."
Linda R.S.
Ps challenge of child support penalty for non-payment by the father – denied redressibility b/c relief would only jail the father. Private citizens cannot criminal penalties.
Steel Company v. Citizens
"P denied standing b/c D had already complied with permit dump limits, so P could not show civil penalties would benefit P. Injury is no longer redressable since the company is already handling it."
Not in Zone of interests
"Who did Congress mean to protect by the statute? The SC cannot confer standing on someone to enforce a statute where that someone was completely unaffected by the operation of the statute. Despite language saying that “any person may sue”, A3 IIF must be satisfied."
Taxpayer Standing
"Usually Not Recognized 1) Flast v. Cohen – 2 part test Congress must be specifically using the spending power and it must violate a specific constitutional limitation (here money for religious schools violate establishment clause) 2) Valley Forge – Failed first prong of Flast - dealt w/ property transfer, not an expenditure of funds, therefore no TP standing 3) Richardson - taxpayer tried challenge secrecy of CIA expenses. Court held this was generalized grievance common to all members of the public, also - no concrete injury."
Voter Standing
Fed Elections Committee v. Akins - Standing upheld for large class of people. You can have a large class of people that share the injury. Congress used broad language in Fed Election Campaign Act reflecting its intent to include those voters. It was within the Zone of interest protected by the statute.
Citizen Standing
"Schlesinger – citizens lacked standing to sue to prevent members of Congress from serving in the military reserves, Ps grievance was generalized, interest was common to all"
Generalization Allowed
"Mass v. EPA: Ps wanted EPA to regulate carbon dioxide output, EPA had determined it didn’t have authority to do this and if it did it wouldn’t. Ps were able to show causal connection between what EPA was doing and the increase in global warming, therefore had standing to enforce EPA"
Prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights
EGUSD v. Newdow: Used prudential standing test to hold that a noncustodial parent lacked standing to challenge ‘god’ in school pledge on his daughter’s behalf. Improper for court to hear claim by P whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute.
Nixon v. US
"Former fed judge was convicted of bribery, senate impeached him, he argued that the senate used improper methods, the court said this is a political question b/c: Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to another department."
Powell v. McCormack
"Powell misused House funds so they forbade him from taking his seat, he sued seeking declaration that exclusion was uncon, the court determined that there is not a political question b/c: Under the “Textually demonstrable” doctrine A1§5 gives House duty to judge qualification of its members. This includes age/citizenship/residency, and not criteria about misbehavior, the court could decide the issue."
INS v. Chadha (regarding political question doctrine)
"The presence of constitutional issues (legislative veto, etc) with significant political overtones does not automatically invoke the political question doctrine."
Luther v. Borden
Congress guarantees the republican form of government. Power is given to Congress and not to the Courts.
Goldwater v. Carter
Speaking with one voice in international affairs. President Carter invalidates a treaty with Taiwan. Senators sue. Supreme Court held that this is a political question because it involves the authority of the President in the conduct of our country’s foreign relations and the extent to which the senate or the Congress is authorized to negate the actions of the president.
Goldwater
Powell’s concurring opinion – Congress’ challenge of Presidents termination of treaty was not ripe b/c they had not used all their power to challenge the action.
Laird v. Tatum
"P accuses Army of alleged surveillance of lawful citizen political activity. Ps claim is based on fear that Army might cause with information in the future. No present threat, claim is too speculative, issue is not ripe."
Lyons v. Los Angeles (ripeness)
" (Chokehold case) Damage claim is not Ripe because future harm has not occurred. However, it is also moot because the damages that occurred are already being compensated."
Roe v. Wade
"Exception to mootness - She was no longer pregnant when the case reached the SC, however, it is a case that is capable of repetition, yet evading review"
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw
"D in enviro case sought to have case dismissed for mootness b/c it had rectified all violations. Court rejected this argument, such a case becomes moot only if D bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior cannot be repeated/recur."
Gibbons v. Ogden
"Foundation Case for Commerce Clause power. Fed statute preempted NY’s creation of a monopoly on licensing steamboat operators. NY law conflicted with federal law, so the NY was invalid under the Commerce clause."
"Under Gibbons, Does state sovereignty and the 10th Amendment limit Congress’s powers?"
Congress has the complete authority to regulate all commerce amongst the state.
What three criteria does Marshall suggest in Gibbons that would be out of the reach of the commerce clause?
1) Complete internal to the state 2) Does not affect other states 3) That which is unnecessary for the federal gov’t to regulate
The Shreveport Rate Cases
ICC set maximum rates for shipments both within state borders and beyond. Congress has the ability to set intrastate railroad rates because of their direct impact on interstate commerce. Congress may prevent the “common instrumentalities”of interstate and intrastate commercial intercourse from being used in their intrastate operations to the injury of interstate commerce. Congress has the power to protect interstate commerce.
Champion v. Ames
"Prohibition on the interstates sale of foreign lottery tickets. If you cross state lines with something, Congress has the power to regulate it. "
Coranado Coal v. United Mine Workers
US applied Sherman act to strike of mine workers b/c intent of workers was to control the supply in interstate commerce
EC Knight
"Sherman Antitrust Act could not stop a monopoly in the sugar refining industry b/c the Con did not allow Congress to regulate manufacturing. Manufacturing is preserved for the states, to allow Congress to regulate it would be far reaching. There is only an indirect effect on commerce. "
Carter v. Carter Coal
Congress attempted to set up coal boards to regulate labor conditions. Court invalidates law saying this is local in nature and mines are ath te beginning of the stream of commerce.
Hammer v. Dagenhart
"(overruled by Darby) - Struck down law prohibiting shipment of goods between states that were made by child labor, regulation of child labor hours is state authority."
Modern Commerce Clause Analysis
CIAS - 1) Channels Test: Did Congress attempt to regulate the channels of interstate commerce? 2) Instrumentalities: Did Congress attempt to regulate the intstrumentalities of commerce? 3) Did Congress attempt to regulate articles moving in interstate commerce? 4 Substantial effect: Did Congress Attempt to regulate activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce?
What are channels of interstate commerce? What case?
Channels of interstate commerce include roadways, waterways, and airways. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate activity in these areas even when the activity itself is solely within a particular state. "Gibbons
Darby
"Overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart, 10th amendment doesn’t limit Congress’ power under the commerce clause. Case challenge fair labor standards act prohibiting interstate shipment of goods made by employees who were paid less than minimum wage. Congress can control PRODUCTION! Manufacture may not be interstate commerce, but shipment is interstate. Thus prohibition of such shipment is interstate commerce."
Heart of Atlanta
Motel that refused accommodations to blacks. Racial Discrimination had a disruptive effect on interstate commerce. It didn’t matter that the hotel was of a local character b/c they can regulate when activities might have a substantial and harmful effect on upon interstate commerce. (Hotels are instrumentalities that serve the channels)
Katzenbach v. McClung
Upheld application of the Civil Rights act to BBQ restaurant based on interstate activities of the restaurant and the notion that discrimination by restaurants cumulatively had an impact on interstate commerce
What are the instrumentalities of commerce? What line of cases?
The “instrumentalities of interstate commerce” category includes people as well as vehicles, machines, and places etc., which are employed or used in the carrying out of commerce. Congress has authority to regulate these instrumentalities. "Shreveport rate case, Heart of Atlanta, Katzenbach v. McClung, Stafford v. Wallace
Stafford v. Wallace
Secretary of commerce to regulate stockyards where livestock were kept for sale or shipment in interstate commerce. Replaces EC Knight by recognizing stream of commerce. “Stockyards are a throat through which current flows.”
Attack sequence and cases regarding: Does Congress attempt to regulate activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce?
"1) Is the conduct economic in nature? Can you use the aggrication principle? (Wickard and Perez) 2) Is it intra-state commerce that is non-economic in nature? (Lopez and Morrison) If so, is it part of a regulatory scheme designed to prevent certain types of commerce (Gonzales v. Raich). Factors encouraging use of Lopez/Morrison: single subject statute, traditional domain of states, Congressional finding attenuated. Is there a rational basis for Congress' decision? (Perez)
Wickard v. Filburn
"Wheat grown and consumed by Filburn. Court holds that Filburn's wheat competed with wheat sold in interstate commerce. Congress had to the power regulate supply and demand. This case gives us the concept of Aggregation: Congress can regulate intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."
U.S. v. Lopez
"Substantial effects test requires analysis of whether the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce. The presence of a gun near a school did not substantially affect interstate commerce, fed law was unconstitutional. Education and crime are both traditional concerns of the state."
U.S. v. Morrision
"Struck down fed violence against women act b/c it did not involve instrumentalities, channels, or activities having sub effect on commerce. Cited that no case had extended the substantail affects test to an activity that was non-economic in nature."
Perez
"Regulation of loan sharking was upheld as within CC, rational for Congress to believe that even intrastate loan sharking activities had sufficient effects on interstate commerce, sufficient for Congress to have rational belief even if there were no particularized findings"
Gonzales v. Raich
"Regulation of home grown marijuana was upheld as within commerce clause - concluded that marijuana, looked at cumulatively had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself commercial - if it concludes that failure to regulate the class of activity would undercut a “national regulatory scheme” to prevent the production and purchase of marijuana. (HOW FAR WILL THEY TAKE THIS?)"
Rational Basis Test for Commerce Clause Analysis
"Did Congress have a rational basis for finding that the activity regulated affects commerce, and (2) if so, “are the means it selected to eliminate that evil are reasonable and appropriate?”"
What is the constituional basis for the negative commerce clause?
"10th amendment gives reserved powers to the states. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. A potential conflict arises when a state acting under it's 10th amendment powers discriminates against out-of-staters or unreasonably burdens insterstate commerce."
What is the general rule regarding negative commerce?
States can’t discriminate against other states in terms of interstate commerce or unreasonably burden interstate commerce.
Attack sequence for Negative Commerce Clause
"1) Make sure Congress has not acted in this field within their powers. If so, the analysis ends there because it is a supremacy clause issue. However, if Congress has not taken action in the field, the negative commerce clause may be invoked. 2) Is the state legislating to discriminate against or unreasonably burden insterstate commerce? 3) Can the state meet the appropriate burden to allow the legislation to continue 4) Do any of the exceptions to the negative commerce clause apply?"
Three Types of Statutes that invoke analysis under the Negative Commerce Clause
1) Facially Discriminatory 2) Facially Neutral but in effect discriminates 3) Non discriminatory but unreasonably burdens interstate commerce.
Examining whether or not Congress has already acted in the field
"1) Express preemption: statute contains specific language referring to preemption 2) Field premtpion: not express, but the federal laws are so pervasive the states have no room to legislate or 3) Conflict prempiton: compliance with both state and federal laws is impossible."
Two types of discriminatory statutes
"Facially discriminatory: statute expressly draws a dinstinction between in-staters and out-of-staters. AND Facially neutral: treats in staters and out of staters alike, but are discriminatory based on purpose or effect."
Balancing test for discriminatory statutes
Hunt test: 1) The statute must serve a legitimate local purpose 2) there must be no other reasonable non discriminatory alternatives. Statutes that are protectionist and promote economic isolation are virtually per se invalid as this is not a legitimate purpose.
Philadelphia v. New Jersey
Statute prohibited the importation of out of state waste. Discriminatory laws motivated by simple economic protectionism are subject to a virtually per se rule of invalidity.
Maine v. Taylor
Permissible discrimination - Prohibition on importation of live baitfish because of contamination of local fish and no method for testing imported fish for disease.
Exxon Corp v. Governor of Maryland
"Staute prohibiting producers of petroleum products from operating retail service stations wihin the state. Court holds this doesn't discriminate against out of state poducts or favor in state producers. It does not burden interstate commerce, it just burdens Maryland."
Hunt v. Washinton State Apple
"Facially Neutral Case: Regulation in NC required apple producers to only use USDA apple grading. Washington had a better grading system. Put a burden on Washington because it made them ""double grade"" and also made their applies to be labeled the same as inferior applies."
Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce
"Nondiscriminatory, Facially Neutral Statutes can still impose an unjustifable burden on interstae commerce. When this happens they are subject to the Pike Test: 1) Must legislate evenhandedly 2) Must be to effectuate a legitimate logal interest 3) effects on interstate commerce mubt be indidental. Court will uphold the law unless the burden imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in reatlion to the alleged local benefits."
Kassel
"Iowa State prohibiting double trucks from using their highways. Seems to be nondiscriminatory, but implcates interstate commerce. Court applies Pike balancing test and find that the burden imposed on interstate commerce was clearly excessive in realtion to the putative benefits."
What are the potential exceptions to the Negative Commerce Clause
1) Market participant rule 2) Congressional consent or authorization
Is the state acting as a market participant?
"When a state’s actions resemble those of any private actor such as buying and selling items on the market, discriminatory action may be okay under negative commerce clause. Cases: Reeves and Wunnicke"
Reeves
"When states act in the marketplace, they resemble private businesses and should be free to exercise similar discretion to choose the parties with whom they deal."
Wunnicke:
"Alaska included a requirement that purchasers of state owned timber process it within the state before it is shipped out of the state. The court struck this law down. The market participation doctrine allows a state to impose burdens on commerce within the market in which it is a participant, but to go no further. The state may not impose conditions that have a substantial regulatory effect outside that particular market."
"If the state is acting as a market participant, did the state violate the Privileges and immunities Clause?"
Citizens of each state are entitled to all Priv/Im of citizens of other states A restriction that discriminates against non residents is invalid unless: 1) Substantial reason for different treatment 2) Discrimination practiced against non residents has substantial relationship to state’s objective. Camden case
Camden
City contractors were required to use subcontractors with 40% employees from local community. The purpose of the law is to protect the citizens of the community. Discriminatory statutes are acceptable where there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment.
"If the state is acting as a market participant, did the state violate the Equal Protection Clause?"
A discriminatory statute is always subject to the equal protection analysis. Ask: is there a legitimate state purpose? Is the statute a rtional means to accomplish that state purchase?
Ward case
"Alabama taxed proceeds of insurance companies. Out of state companies had to pay 3-4%, but could reduce this tax burden by investing in Alabama. To qualify for Equal Protection analysion, there must be a legitimate state purpose and a rational means to accomplish that purpose. Court held that promotion of state industries Is not always a legitimate state purpose under equal protection."
Congressional Consent Exception to Negative Commerce
Can authroize states to pass legistlation that would otherwise violate the dormant commerce clause.
The Spending Power
Congress can spend in any way it believes would serve the general welfare so long as it does not violate another constitutional provision
Spending Clause Test
U.S. v. Dole: 1) The exercise of spending power must be in pursuit of the general welfare. (deference to judgment of Congress) 2) Clear rule statement to the states (if they are conditioning the use of funds they must do so unambiguously) 3) Conditions must relate to the federal interest in the particular national program (conditions are illegitimate if they are unrelated. Must be a link between funding and interest the gov’t seeks. 4) Spending power cannot be used to induce the states to engage in unconstitutional activities 5) Practice must not amount to coercion. (look and funding and link).
U.S. v. Dole
"Statute authorized sec'y of transportation to withhold fed highway funds from states that did not raise the drinking age limit to 21, the condition was upheld b/c it was directly related to one of the main purposes behind fed highway money, creating safe interstate travel. Statute was not coercive b/c only 5% of fed highway funds at stake "
Butler
"Congress has broad power to tax and spend for the gen welfare so long as it does not violate other Con provisions, i.e. a racially discriminatory tax is not allowed"
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Upheld RULIPA which provides all programs that receive Federal assistance shall not impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution.
Nat'l League of Cities v. Usery
Only one case where a fed law was struck down as violating 10th A. Regarding the rules on minimum wage & overtime for state employees. The commerce clause did not empower the federal government to enforce the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the fair labor standards act against the states in areas of traditional governmental functions.
Garcia v. San Antonio
The protection of state prerogatives should be through the political process, not from the judiciary. States retain sovereign authority only to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred them to the federal government."
Alden v. Maine
Congress cannot require state courts to entertain suits by individuals seeking damages for violation of a fed statute.
South Carolina v. Baker
"Federal tax on state bonds are upheld. States must find their protection from congressional interference in the political process, not through the courts."
US Term Limits v. Thornton
States cannot exercise powers that the constitution expressly grants to the federal government. States cannot exercise powers they do not posess.
Gregory v. Ashcroft
"Missouri Constitution set mandatory retirement for judges at 70, possible conflict with congressional anti age discrimination act. Rule – A fed law that imposes a substantial burden on a state gov will be applied only if Congress clearly indicated that it wanted the law to apply"
New York v. U.S.
"Congress violated the anti-commandeering principle by ordering NY to deal with nuclear waste by a certain date. Even if you have a compelling reason for commandeering state government, it is not allowed."
Printz v. US
Federal Act that required state and local gun dealers to perform background checks on prospective gun buyers violated the 10th amendment. Congress was impermissibly commandeering state executive officials to implement a fed mandate.
Reno v. Condon
Law that restricts a state’s ability to disclose certain info from driver’s licenses is upheld. The law prohibited conduct as opposed to requiring affirmative steps. The 10th amendment does not prohibit fed gov from prohibiting conduct, it only prevents them from requiring states to do things that are within the state’s sovereign control."
Missouri v. Holland
"Treaty w/ Great Britain regarding Migratory Birds. Congress can do some things under the treaty power that it couldn’t do under other power, ultimately enhances the fed gov power. Rejects 10th amendment limit on treaty power."
Gonzalez v. Oregon
"Challenge to Attny Gen’s interpretation of Oregon’s assisted suicide act, Sup Crt upheld the act despite Attny Gen disapproval. Relied on traditional role of the states in regulating medical practices and overseeing board certification."
Hans v. Louisiana
"Held that the 11th A also barred suits by citizens against their own state, states immunity from suit was a presupposition of the constitutional order"
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FL
Sovereign immunity cannot be displaced by Congressional power.
" 14A, §5"
Additonal powers given to congress to enforce the provisons of the 14th amendment
Youngstown (Steel Seizure)
"During Korean War, threat of strike at steel plants prompted president to take control of the steel industry, the court struck this down. Justice Jackson’s Concurrence – 3 realms of pres. Power 1) Pres acts pursuant to express or implied authorization of Congress 2) Pres acts in the absence of Congressional grant or denial of authority “zone of twilight” 3) Pres action is incompatible with the express or implied powers of congress"
U.S. v. Curtiss Wright
Congress gave President power to prohibit sale of arms. President did so to South America. Curtiss-Wright charge with selling arms. SC said president has power to conduct foreign affairs - he is "sole organ" and there was Congressional authorization as well.
Dames + Moore
Iran hostage scantal. To free hostages, Preisdent terminated legal proceedings against Iranian government and transfered "frozen" money to independent claims tribunal. Court held that for the transfer of money, there was a stuatute authorizing this (Category 1). However, the statute didn't authorize the suspension of legal claims. Could be category 2.... also could argue the Congress "implicity approved" from previous acts.
Medellin
Category 3? Plaintiff wasn’t given consular notification. Vienna convention required notification. Bush issued memo saying TX courts will give consular notification. Court held that TX courts didn’t have to b/c Vienna convention was not a self executing treaty. President cannot transfer a non-self executing treaty into law – that is the job of Congress.
The Prize Cases
"Regarding lawfulness of Lincoln’s proclamation est. a blockade of southern ports after secession of southern states. Court upheld it b/c a state of open rebellion war existed between the north and south even though the civil war was never officially proclaimed. Commonly understood that the pres can repel immediate attacks, but he cannot initiate war without consent of congress."
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Hamdi was a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban. AUMF authorizes President to detain Hamdi. However, you cannot hold him indefinately without without due process protections. This is category 1 authorization, but a broad interpretation of AUMF.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Supreme court held that the President did not have the authority to set up the special military commissions. The military commission system was illegal b/c it violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. It violated the Geneval Conventions because it wasn't a "regularly constituted court."
Garamendi
Executive Agreements may preempt State Laws even though they are not formal treaties (they are not senate ratified.)
Boumediene v. Bush
Detainees at Gitmo have a habeas corpus right. Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The procedures for review (of the status of enemy combatants) were not adequate to meet the requirements of habeas. (These procedures were set out in the Detainee Treatment Act).
Congressional Control Over Treaties
President enters into treaties with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate. Treaties are supreme under the supremacy clause.
United States v. Nixon
"Nixon wanted to prevent release of secret tapes RULE – Absent a claim of need to protect military, domestic or sensitive nat'l security secrets, court is unlikely to accept pres’ argument that it is very important to keep priv"
Mississippi v. Johnson
Courts cannot issue injunctions against the pres
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
The pres is immune from actions for damages
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Pres immunity does not extend to the presidential aides
Clinton v. Jones
"Where the claim against the pres is unrelated to his service in office, nothing prevents it from being brought. In order for immunity to attach, the pres must be acting within the official scope of his office"
Cheney v. US Dist Court
Sup Crt held that the need for info for use in civil cases does not share the urgency or significance of the criminal subpoena requests in Nixon. Crim process has ways of filtering frivolous claims that the civil process does not have
Legislative Authority in Domestic Affairs
"Non-Delegation Doctrine, Legislative Veto, Congressional Control over Agencies, Appointment, Removal"
Appointment Procedures
"Appointment Procedure differ for Principal vs. Inferior Officer. Principal officers require executive appointment and senate confirmation. Inferior officers (per the constitution) can be appointed by the preisdent, the court or a department head according to the legislation passed by congress. Congress can never appoint an officer (Buckley)!!
Buckley
"Challenge to Fed Elec Campaign Act, which allowed members of Congress to select 2/3 of the commission heads, struck down. Holding: Any appointee exercising significant authority is an officer of the United States and therefore must be appointed in the manner prescribed by the appointments clause."
Myers
"No congressional power over removal of officer. Statute said that postmasters would be removed by Pres by/with consent of senate. Power to remove is incidental to the power to appt, so pres has unlimited power to remove all officers he appt'd "
Bowsher
there is no congressional power over removal of purely executive officials. Senate tried to make removal of the comptroller general by impeachment or joint resolution where the officer was appt’d by the pres w/senate confirmation.
Humphrey’s Executor
Quasi-Legislative and Quasi-Judicial positions in the executive branch can only be removed in manner consistent with the statutory provisions (Attempted FTC removal by Roosevelt)