Federalism Court Cases
Order by
22 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Fletcher v. Peck | establishes supremacy of constitution over state laws |
| Fletcher v. Peck | (1810) the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. In the Yazoo Land Fraud Georgia claimed a bunch of land from the Louisiana Purchase that it had no right to claim. Georgia then sold the land to speculators who sold it to farmers. The Federal government stepped in and takes back the land and tells Georgia to give back the money but the money will just end up with the speculators and not the farmers. The Federal government says that the farmers must be paid. This was asserting federal power over state power. |
| Wickard v. Filburn | A small farmer, Filburn, in Ohio, was given a certain acreage by the department of agriculture, which set quotas, to harvest wheat; he harvested more than he was supposed to, claiming he was going to use it for himself and saying Congress couldn't infringe because this was unrelated to commerce |
| Wickard v. Filburn | The question was whether Congress could use commerce law to control an issue that was local in nature. The ruling was yes, Congress could use it because even though it was local, it had a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US | Places of public commodities had no right to pick and choose their own customers. The 1964 Civil Rights Act Title II was specifically targeting and severely limited to businesses with a direct relation to interstate commerce so it is constitutional. Congress could regulate local commerce. |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US | Civil Rights act 1964 could be used to force a hotel to accommodate blacks - BROAD interpretation of commerce clause cited as justification for allowing hotels to fall under civ rights act legislation |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US | The issue was whether the Civil Rights Act exceeded the Commerce Clause by not allowing certain visitors to stay at the hotel. The ruling was that the Act exceeded the Clause, as a hotel couldn't do this unconstitutional act. |
| South Dakota v. Dole | Federal government allowed to use spending power to influence state policy for the public wefare (drinking age went up in the states in order to get federal funding) |
| South Dakota v. Dole | Rehinquist -- upheld law dealing with highways saying "Congress can spend for the general welfare, which in this case was to combat young people drinking and driving." |
| US v. Lopez | The Court held that Congress had exceeded its commerce clause power by prohibiting guns in a school zone. |
| US v. Lopez | The first United States Supreme Court case since the Great Depression to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution |
| Printz v. US | Invalidated a federal law that required local police to conduct background checks on all gun purchasers because it violated the 10th amendment by making state governments carry out a federal regulatory program; upheld dual federalism, declaring the federal government forcing the state government to have background checks for guns unconstitutional under the necessary-and-proper clause |
| US v. Morrison | Attacks against women are not, and do not substantially affect, interstate commerce, and hence Congress cannot constitutionally pass such a law; strengthened states' power and weakened federal power under the Commerce Clause |
| Gonzalez v. Raich | In 1996, CA passed the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use; it conflicted with the federal law, Controlled Substances Act, which banned the possession of marijuana; DEA seized Gonzalez's marijuana and arrested him for possession |
| Gonzalez v. Raich | The issue was whether the CSA exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medicinal use; The Court found that the federal government was not exceeding its power, placing federal law above state law |
| Gonzalez v. Oregon | In 1994, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which was the first state law to authorize physicians to proscribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients; this violated the Controlled Substances Act and Attorney General Ashcroft threatened to revoke the license of any physician who did this; Oregon was angered and sued Ashcroft |
| Gonzalez v. Oregon | The issue was whether the CSA could authorize the attorney general to ban the use of controlled substances for physician assisted suicide; The answer was no; Oregon, thus, had the right to maintain this law: Death with Dignity Act |
| Webster v. Reproductive Health Services | allowed states to ban abortions from public hospitals and permitted doctors to test to see if fetuses were viable |
| Webster v. Reproductive Health Services | The Missouri legislature enacted a statute dealing with unborn children and abortions. The statute's preamble stated that life begins at conception and that this constituted an interest that must be protected by the state. Other statutory provisions required doctors to perform tests on women more than 20 weeks pregnant to ascertain the viability of the fetus before performing an abortion. Public hospitals and public employees were further prohibited from performing nontherapeutic abortions and from providing abortion counseling. The court gave the states more power to regulate abortions, but did not overturn Roe v Wade the Court in Webster reaffirmed the broader constitutional concept of the right of privacy. |
| Planned Parenthood v. Casey | 1992; Reaffirmed Roe v Wade but upheld certain limits on its use |
| Planned Parenthood v. Casey | Pennsylvania statute required a woman to notify her husband before getting an abortion. The Supreme Court overturned the law, but laws calling for parental consent for minors and the imposition of a 24 hour waiting period were upheld. The state can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an "undue burden" upon women. |
| Planned Parenthood v. Casey | Plurality opinion that upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion but lowered the standard for analyzing restrictions of that right, invalidating one regulation but upholding the others. |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.