Constitutional Law Cases

Front 1

Issues in McCulloch v. Maryland - 1819

Back 1

Congress has the power to charter a bank. Congress has the power to charter any corporation in order to implement their power. Congress has the power/authority to use any means that isn’t expressly prohibited in the Constitution to carry out their express powers. A state does not have the power to tax a Bank of the U.S. "Necessary" means convenient, not essential, allowing Congress to do pretty much whatever they want.

Front 2

What does McCulloch v. Maryland do?

Back 2

1) makes feceral authority flexible
2) gives federal authority over states
3) admits there are implied powers
4) solidifies a broad interpretation rather than a strict one.

Front 3

Issues in Gibbons v. Ogden - 1824

Back 3

A state does not have the power to restrict any movement on interstate waterways or between states for purposes of interstate commerce. Moreover, Congress' laws overrule state laws. Congress has the power. “No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.”

Front 4

What does Gibbons v. Ogden do?

Back 4

Brings in broad interpretations of federal powers: Congress has the right to go into each state and obviously has to be able to regulate between and among states. Congress can regulate anything that “affects” commerce – Including local activity if they affect interstate commerce. The only limit: wisdom of congress. It also teaches us that Congressional law trumps state law.

Front 5

Issues in Wickard v. Filburn - 1942

Back 5

Congress has the right to regulate activity that is local and if it affects the open market/commerce. e. What test does the court use for when Congress can regulate local activity? SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECT
i. “But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect of interstate commerce.”

Front 6

What does Wickard v. Filburn do?

Back 6

Gives Congress the power to regulate anything that has a "substantial affect" on interstate commerce. HUGE power.

Front 7

Issues in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Back 7

Congress, through the 1964 Civil RIghts Act, could regulate hotels because they affected interstate commerce and, as such, Congress could force hotel owners to let people of color stay there. This power came straight from Wickard v. Filburn.

Front 8

Issues in Katzenbach v. McClung

Back 8

Congress, through the 1964 Civil RIghts Act, could regulate restaurants that either 1) served out of state customers or 2) got their products from out of state because they affected interstate commerce and, as such, Congress could force hotel owners to let people of color stay there. This power came straight from Wickard v. Filburn.

Front 9

Issues in United States v. Lopez - 1995

Back 9

Introduces three tests for determining if Congress can regulate 1)“In” commerce – this law doesn’t have anything to do with “in commerce” (that is, they can regulate the CHANNELS of interstate commerce). 2) Instrumentalities – this is merely about bare possession, so this doesn’t matter. (that is, they can regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce) 3) Bare “affects” test – that is, does this have a substantial relation to interstate commerce? (no because it doesn’t have anything to do with “economic activity.” no because it doesn’t have anything to do with a “commercial transaction”)

Front 10

What did United States v. Lopez do?

Back 10

This was the first time since the New Deal where Congressional act was struck down under Article I.

That is, it showed a shift happening in the court to limit congressional power.

Front 11

Issues in United States v. Morrison - 2000

Back 11

In this case, there was a huge national problem and the states actually wanted this act, but the court said that it didn’t adequately affect “economic activity” or “commercial transaction”. We don’t allow the aggregation principle unless it affects those things. Violence against women, according to Rehnquist is not an economic activity. This case followed up Lopez, but is different from Lopez in that this was actually a decent law.

It seems to me that under the civil rights cases, it would be hard to strike this one down, but I understand.

Front 12

Issues in Gonzales v. Raich - 2005

Back 12

Supreme Court holds that Congress DOES have the authority under the Constitution to control the substance and it doesn’t matter that these people are growing it and smoking it on their own property. It is the multiplier effect. In order to make the regulation of dope effective nationwide, then simple possession needs to be part of the scheme.

Front 13

What should we know about Gonzales v. Raich?

Back 13

There is certainly a disconnect here!

Bach in Morrison and Lopez, the court went the other way.

Rehnquist and O'Connor at least had the balls to uphold the ability of people to smoke medicinal marijuana (something they didn't support from a policy standpoint) because this was an unconstitutional use of Congressional power.

Who changed? Kennedy and Souter. Kennedy openly admitted it was over the policy issue.

Front 14

New York v. United States - 1992

Back 14

CONGRESS MAY ENCOURAGE, BUT MAY NOT COMPEL states to act if they aren't also regulating private entities.

Her arguments:
i. Argument based on “Generally Applicable Laws” – generally applicable to the private sector and the government. THESE ARE OKAY. The problem here was that the law ONLY hurt the state government and it had little to do with the private sector. Is state sovereignty less offended because both the state and the private sector are regulated?
ii.Argument based on accountability - the feds passed the law, but they don’t have to actually take the heat and pick the waste site.

Front 15

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

Back 15

State can’t impose term limits on federal officials.
b. Majority by Stevens: There were no federal office holders at the time of the Constitution, so there is no way that the framers intended the states to be able to hold that power.
c. Dissent by Thomas: this would be ridiculous. Where the constitution doesn’t speak, the states have it.

Front 16

Printz v. United States

Back 16

This is about Congress trying to force local law enforcement to enforce their gun law. Court holds the structure of the Constitution was violated because it was not proper and that it is an unfair attempt to enlist state officials to run a federal program.

Front 17

Reno v. Condon

Back 17

Unanimous court, written by Rehnquist: “Driver’s Privacy Protection act does not require the States in their soverign capacity to regulate their own citizens. The DPPA regulates the States as the owners of databases. It does not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, and it does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.”

Front 18

XXXVIII. City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey

Back 18

b. This was obviously found discriminatory on its face… that means:
i. New Jersey must prove:
1. legitimate local concerns (easily proven in this case)
2. least restrictive (ie, non-discriminatory) means
a. can’t be proven in this case
b. if they regulated New Jersey people, too, it would make it super expensive to get rid of New Jersey’s waste.

Front 19

XXXIX. Maine v. Taylor – 1986

Back 19

b. This was obviously found discriminatory on its face… that means:
i. Maine must prove:
1. legitimate local concerns (yes, the fisheries in MN may be contaminated)
2. least restrictive (ie, non-discriminatory) means
a. Yes because this problem is never found in in-state fish and is common in out-of-state fish. There is no way to test this problem, as well. As such, this is the best they can do.

Front 20

XL. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown - 1994

Back 20

c. This was obviously found discriminatory on face… that means:
i. New York must prove:
1. legitimate local concerns (easily proven in this case)
2. least restrictive (ie, non-discriminatory) means
a. can’t be proven in this case
b. they force everyone to use one processor
c. they prohibit out-of-state people from processing New York’s waste.
d. They prohibit in-state people from being able to use out-of-state processors
e. The big problem was forcing everyone to use the same processor.