Supreme Court Cases

Front 1

McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819)

Back 1

established the the right of congress to pass laws that are "necessary and proper" (clause that gives congress the most general and non- specific powers) to conduct the business of the US government

this case upheld congress' power to create a national bank

Front 2

Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824)

Back 2

when a federal and state law are in conflict, the federal law is supreme

congress and new york had both passed laws regulating the steam boat industry. Gibbons had a federal permit for a steamboat business; Ogden had a state permit for the same waters. Siding with gibbons, the court said, in matters of interstate commerce, the "supermacy clause" tilts the balance of power to the federal govern.

Front 3

Fletcher vs. Peck (1810)

Back 3

It was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. The case grew out of the 1795 Georgia state legislature's sale of land in the Yazoo River country (in what is now Mississippi) to private speculators in return for bribes. Voters rejected most of the incumbents in the next election, and the next legislature, reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law and voided transactions made under it.

John Peck had purchased land that had previously been sold under the 1795 act. Peck sold this land to Robert Fletcher and in 1803, Fletcher brought suit against Peck, claiming that he did not have clear title to the land when he sold it. The case reached the Supreme Court, which in a unanimous decision ruled that the state legislature's repeal of the law was unconstitutional. The opinion, written by John Marshall, argued that the sale was a binding contract, which according to Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the Contract Clause) of the Constitution cannot be invalidated, even if illegally secured.

Front 4

National Labor relations board vs. jaones & laughlin steel (1937)

Back 4

declared that the National Labor Relations Act (commonly known as the Wagner Act) was constitutional. It greatly increased Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

National Labor Relations Act: protects the rights of most workers in the private sector to organize labor unions

Jones & Laughlin was the nation's fourth largest steel producer and the charges brought against it were that the company discriminated against workers who wanted to join a labor union. The company had fired ten employees at its plant in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania after they moved to unionize. The NLRB ruled against the company and ordered the workers be rehired and given back pay, but Jones & Laughlin refused to comply on the grounds that they believed the act was unconstitutional. (lower courts agreed with steel, but sumpreme court didn't)

Front 5

wickard vs. filburn (1942)

Back 5

during the great depression

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial.

decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce… among the several States."

Front 6

Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (1964)

Back 6

tested civil rights act

affected commerce clause (blacks kept out of the hotel weren't participating in interstate commerce)

Front 7

South dakota v. dole (1987)

Back 7

established conditions for restrictions on grants in general welfare, unambiguous, related to federal interests, doesn't violate the constitution

for states to get $$$, they had to raise the drinking age to 21

allowed the federal government to grant laws like the one above because it fit the conditions for restrictions

Front 8

United states v. lopez (1995)

Back 8

set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution

Alfonso Lopez Jr. carried a handgun and cartridges into his high school, Edison High, San Antonio, Texas. He was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

Lopez's legal defense held that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in school zones, and argued that the federal law under which Lopez was convicted was unconstitutional.

The Federal Government's main point during this case was the possession of a firearm in an educational district and environment would most likely lead to a situation involving a violent crime, which would affect the general economic condition by limiting travel in the area.

The Supreme Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it was not unlimited, and did not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.

Front 9

Printz vs. US (1997)

Back 9

established the unconstitutionality of certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the CLEOs for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law.

In 1993, Congress amended the GCA by enacting the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national instant background check system by November 30, 1998 to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."

interim provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional

Front 10

US vs. Morrison (2000)

Back 10

held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Front 11

Gonzales vs. Raich (2005)

Back 11

california

medical marijuana

is it unconstitutional to have a controlled substance act? commerce clause

the fact that she had marijuana in her house affect trade (commerce)so they are allowed to have that act and to take away the drugs (even though it was medical)

supremacy clause

Front 12

Gonzales vs. Oregon (2006)

Back 12

the United States Attorney General could not enforce the Controlled Substances Act against physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law.

Oregon Death with Dignity Act: The Act legalized physician-assisted suicide. The law permits physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient agreed by two doctors to be within six months of dying from an incurable condition. On November 9, 2001, Attorney General issued an Interpretive Rule that assisted-physician suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, and that any physician administering federally controlled drugs for that purpose would be in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. The State of Oregon, joined by a physician, a pharmacist, and a group of terminally ill patients, all from Oregon, filed a challenge to the Attorney General's rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.The court ruled for Oregon and issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Interpretive Rule.

The sumpreme court did not dispute the power of the federal government to regulate drugs, but disagreed that the statute in place empowered the U.S. Attorney General to overrule state laws determining what constituted the appropriate use of medications that were not themselves prohibited. The court cited Linder v. United States to limit federal power to regulate medical practice.

Front 13

marbury vs. madison (1803)

Back 13

established judiciary review

cases then when you sued went straight to the sumpreme courts (orginial jurisdiction)