Con Law Cases

Front 1

Marbury v. Madison
(writ jdx from congress)

Back 1

Marshall establishes Judicial Review by declining jdx beyond Art III limits (also political ?)

"duty of jud dept to say what the law is"

Front 2

Cooper v. Aaron
(AK rejected Brown decision)

Back 2

"the court's interpretation of the constitution itself becomes the constitution"

Front 3

Ex Parte McCardle
(Congress can strip appl jdx)

Back 3

Court acknowledges congressional power to strip appellate jdx as plenary
"the only function remaining to the court is dismissing the case"

Front 4

Luhan v. Defenders of Wildlife
(EPA for policy changes)

Back 4

General public interest is not an individual right, i.e. no case or controversy

'irreducible minimums of standing"

Front 5

Mass v. EPA
(MA land loss, EPA not doing job)

Back 5

Procedural right + Special Solicitude = Standing w/ relaxed redressibility standard 'somewhat' likely

Front 6

Summers v. Earth Institute
(Forest Dept exemptions)

Back 6

Procedural Right in vacuo is insufficient for standing

"would be tantamount to eliminating the requirement of concrete, particularized injury in facts

Front 7

Baker v. Carr
(voting apportionment)

Back 7

STATE apportionment is NOT a political question bc no sep of powers issue

"such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the ct so largely depends for illumination"

Front 8

Powell v. McCormack
(House judge qualifications)

Back 8

"Art 1 Sec 5 is at most a textually demonstrative commitment... expressly set forth in constitution"

Front 9

Nixon v. US
(senate impeachment)

Back 9

Senate 'try' impeachment in NOT a political question bc process w/in spirit of Art I

"no explanation why it would show disrespect or cause disruption or embarressment to review the action of the senate" (v. legislation)

Front 10

Hans v. Louisiana
(LA citizen sues LA)

Back 10

State sovereignty: immunity implied by 11th amendment so states must consent to lawsuit (Hanz = LA citizen)

"suppose that congress when proposing the 11th amend..."

Front 11

Seminole Tribe v. Florida
(GF negotiations from Gaming Act)

Back 11

Congress does not have power under comm cl to allow states to be sued by tribes bc against spirit of 11th amend

"11th prevents congressional authorization of suits by private parties against unconsenting states"

Front 12

McCulloch v. Maryland
(MD tax fed bank)

Back 12

Necessary and Proper: constitution is a framework, not a code so "let the ends be legitimate... w/in the scope of constitution... all means appropriate"

"the power to tax is the power to destroy"

necessary v absolutely necessary (convenient, useful, essential to another)

Front 13

US v. Comstock
(prolonged civil detention)

Back 13

expands McCulloch's ends/means test: "rationally related" and "narrowly tailored" "modest addition" to "extend longstanding policy"

Front 14

Gibbons v. Ogden
(NY steamships, channels)

Back 14

Broadly defines commerce as "every species of commercial intercourse" and introduces political process as ultimate check on congress commerce clause power

Front 15

Daniel Ball
(MI steamship, instrumentalities)

Back 15

Congress can regulate ship w/in a single state if goods destined for another state

"public property of nation and subject to all requisite legislation"

Front 16

US v. EC Knight
(sugar manufacturing monopoly)

Back 16

Congress can NOT regulate manufacturing bc w/in control of state

(direct/indirect test overruled by US v. Darby)

"commercial power...police power... essential to preservation of autonomy ... dual form of gov't"

Front 17

Champion v. Ames
(lottery tickets)

Back 17

Congress can regulate interstate transfer of lottery tickets

"possible abuse of pwr is not an argument against its existence"

"congress discretion not controlled by cts"

Front 18

Hammer v. Dagenhart
(child labor)

Back 18

Congress can NOT regulate child labor bc production is not commerce
(overuled by US v. Darby)

"to regulate comm... not to exercise police pwr over local trade/manufacturing"

Front 19

US v. Darby
(labor practices)

Back 19

Congress can regulate in-state manufacturing bc 'substantial effect' on interstate commerce

overruled Dagenhart (new test, overruled old direct/indirect test)

Front 20

Wickard v. Filburn
(private wheat production)

Back 20

"even if activity be local and may not be commerce...regulated by congress if sub econ effect on IC" (w/ aggregate)

"stimulation of commerce = regulatory function like prohibition"

"effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than judicial power"

Front 21

US v. Lopez
(gun possession near schools)

Back 21

Congress can't regulate guns bc possession is a non-economic activity and "not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, that could be undercut unless intrastate activity were regulated"

"pile inference upon inference"

possession of guns a "creative expansion of phrase" econ activity

Front 22

Gonzalez v. Reich
(personal marijuana)

Back 22

Congress can regulate local use/cultivation of marijuana bc activity has a substantial effect and would undermine larger regulatory scheme

"my understanding of doctrinal foundation, if not inconsistent, at least more nuanced" --derrives from N&P ends/means

"economic activities: production, distribution, consumption of commodities"

Front 23

South Dakota v. Dole
(Hwy Funds + Fed Drinking Age)

Back 23

"Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of fed funds... to further broader policy objectives." hwy $ on state compliance w/ fed drinking age

1) pursuant to gen welfare 2) unambiguous, so states can refuse 3) $ related to fed interests 4) no constitutional bar and 5) potential limit -- must not be coercive

"relatively mild encouragement" v. "gun to the head" NFIB

Front 24

Missouri v. Holland
(treaty protects birds)

Back 24

Congress can enforce treaty under nec/prop cl "treaties supreme law of land when made under authority of US"

Front 25

NFIB v Sebelius
(universal healthcare)

Back 25

Congress can NOT compel economic activity under comm pwr -- might be necessary, but not proper -- can NOT coerce under spending pwr -- but CAN penalize under taxing pwr

Front 26

New York v. US
(fed radioactive waste policy)

Back 26

"constitution does not confer upon congress the ability to compel states" by mandating that they enforce fed law

"the ultimate irony"

Front 27

Civil Rights Cases
(semi-public racism, CRA)

Back 27

14th "provide modes of relief against state actions" only, not private individuals

Harlan (great dissenter) decision not in "substance and spirit of const" and blacks hardly "special favorite of the laws"

Front 28

Jones v Alfred Mayer Co.
(property k racism)

Back 28

"congress power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing badges/incidents of slavery"

Front 29

US v. Morrison
(domestic violence, VAWA)

Back 29

Congress does not have authority to provide private fed civ remedy for individual gender-based violence (VAWA) via comm clause or 14th
(i.e. not against state actors remedy doesn't correct state action)

Front 30

City of Boerne v. Fores
(religious protections, RFRA)

Back 30

Congress does not have authority to enact religious freedom act (RFRA) bc expands "reach and scope" 14th amend rights

RFRA fails congruent and proportional test

Front 31

U of Alabama v. Garrett
(cancer forced demotion, ADA)

Back 31

Congress cannot authorize individual suit for money (ADA) against a state bc granting new rights "somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by amend's text"

congruent/proportional test estab

Front 32

Nevada HR v. Hibbs
(sick-leave, FLMA)

Back 32

State may be sued for FMLA damages bc intermediate scrutiny met
"congress reasoned that mutually reinforced stereotrype lead to subtle discrimination that may be diff to detect on a case-by-case basis"

Front 33

Gibbons v. Oden
(dorm comm cl)

Back 33

State laws might be unconstitutional even w/o fed legislation if state law regulated commerce and not a police power

Front 34

Philadelphia v. NJ
(out of state trash prohibited)

Back 34

state protectionism "isolating state from nat'l economy" violates dorm comm cl, which "emerged gradually in the decisions of this ct"

facially discriminatory invalid per se

Front 35

Dean Milk v. Madison
(5mi pasteurization limit)

Back 35

in-state discrimination is "immaterial" still facially discriminatory law bc "errecting an economic barrier protecting major local industry against competition"

Front 36

Carbone v. Clarkstown
(private flow control)

Back 36

states cannot use regulatory powers to favor private local enterprises
(flow control, sim to united hauler)

"laws that excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures const. designed to prevent."

Front 37

Hunt v. Washington
(NC apple stamping)

Back 37

despite statute's facially neutrality, bc of practical effect.

suggested that discriminatory impact not unintended

Front 38

United Hauler v. Oneida
(public flow control)

Back 38

state flow control law not discriminatory bc state owned + traditional gov't function (market participant)

"so-called negative comm cl is an unjustified, judicial invention, not to be expanded beyond its existing domain." -scalia

Front 39

New Hampshire v. Piper
(P&I's fundamental rights)

Back 39

states can not discriminate against non-staters re: their fundamental rights (i.e. economic/civil not recreation) w/o "substantial reason/relationship"

Front 40

US v. Curtiss-Wright
(Bolivia gun trading)

Back 40

congress can delegate law-making authority to president re: foreign affairs, bolivia gun trading

president 'sole organ' foreign affairs

enumerated internal affairs only, external power not from const

Front 41

Youngstown v. Sawyer
(steel mill seizure)

Back 41

Predisent did not have power to seize steel mill bc not from congress or const
(JACKSON'S congress+president ebb)

"a military prerogative, w/o support of law, to seize property"

Front 42

The Prize Case
(civil war ship)

Back 42

president has plenary power in reacting to a rebellion as 'war'

beligerent status "a question to be decided by him"

Front 43

Ex Parte Quirin
(DE spies)

Back 43

president power to order detention, military trial from art of war and const (actual spies)

"citizenship of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences" "enter this country bent on hostile acts"

Front 44

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
(citizen captured in afghan)

Back 44

"indefinite detention--duration of relevant conflict"

"no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as enemy combatant" if able to "dispute enemy combatant status"

"habeus corpus remains available to every individual detained w/in US"

Front 45

Myers v. US
(Wilson fired postmaster)

Back 45

president has plenary "power to remove" (purely exec) bc "incidental to appt" power, not subject to congressional advice/consent

Front 46

Humphrey's v. US
(Roosevelt fired FTC comm'r)

Back 46

"duties are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative"

"coercive influence threatens the independence of commission" "wholly disconnected from the exec. dept."

Front 47

Morrison v. Olson
(indep counsel removal for cause)

Back 47

congerss may restrict removal power of purely exec 'for cause' unless...

"so central to functioning of exec...impede pres ability to perform const duty"

Front 48

Free Enterprise v. Pub County...
(PCOB for cause plus removal)

Back 48

"multilevel protection from removal is contrary to art ii's vesting of exec pwr in president"

Front 49

INS v. Chada
(leg veto)

Back 49

one-house leg veto unconstitutional

"framers were actually conscious that the bicameral requirement and presentment clause would serve essential constructional functions"

Front 50

Clinton v. New York
(pres veto)

Back 50

line item veto "construing constitution's silence as express prohibition"

Front 51

US v. Nixon
(pres p&i)

Back 51

president "due great respect" has deference from ct re: exec privilege, but must give way if needed for criminal proceedings