51 terms

Con Law cases Ch 4-6

STUDY
PLAY

Terms in this set (...)

McCulloch vs Maryland
Supreme Court ruling: states had no right to interfere with federal institutions within their borders; 1819. Established the principles that the Constitution grants Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's expressed powers, and that state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government. Established the "necessary-and-proper clause".
Powell vs McCormack
house chooses it own speakers and officers, but cant deny anyone if they meet the qualifications and are lawfully elected
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton
States lack the power to add to the exclusive qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency found in the Constitution. Due to the fact the this power is not within the original powers of the states and even if it was the Qualification Clause makes it so that other requirements cannot be added.
Cook v. Gralike
Court held that on election ballots states may not identify congressional candidates who do not support term limits.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
The court held that the federal minimum wage and overtime provisions of the fair labor standards act applies to employees of state or municipality owned mass transit system and is a valid exercise of the federal commerce power that does not violate the 10th Amendment.

Note: Garcia overruled National League of Cities v. Usery that said the FLSA does not apply to state owned businesses.
Gibbons v. Odgen
(1824) The issue in this case was whether or not the state of New York could grant a monopoly to Robert Fulton's steamboat company to operate an exclusive service between New York and New Jersey. Aaron Odgen had secured his license from Fulton's company, while Thomas Gibbons had secured a competing license from the U.S. government. The Court argued that Gibbons could not be kept from competing because New York did not have the power to grant this particular monopoly due to the commerce clause in the Constitution that gave the federal government the power to regulate interstate commmerce, which the Court defined thru this case. This case proved the "interstate commerce" was a source of power for the national government as long as Congress sought to improve commerce through subsidies, services, and land grants. This case also enforced the nationalistic interpretation of the Constitution that reigned during this time
Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co.
Dormant Commerce Clause; If Congress has not enacted a contrary law, a state or local government may regulate local aspects of interstate commerce, but it must not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce.
The License Cases
1840's. North decides to put a tax on their liquor. Roger Taney decides that CONGRESS HAS POWER TO REGULATE. BUT STATES HAVE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE ALSO as long as the law does not conflict laws given by Congress or the Constitution.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
• "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the states of power to regulate pilots and that although congress has legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states.
United States v. Lopez
1995 - The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to prohibit mere possession of a gun near a school, because gun possession by itself is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce even indirectly.
United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
1895- When the American Sugar Refining Company gained control of E.C. Knight sugar company, and accordingly, 98% of the sugar market in America, President Cleveland sued the Knight Company and its sudden monopoly. But Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller ruled, against the government, that the manufacturing of a product was "local" trade and, thus, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act didn't apply to Knight Company's newly acquired monopoly on the production of sugar.
Lottery Case
lottery tickets are subjects of traffic and therefore are subjects of commerce and that the prohibition of commerce lay within the regulatory power of Congress
Hammer v. Dagenhart
(Edward Douglass White, 5-4, 1918) The Keating-Own Act prohibited the interstate sale of goods produced by child labor leading Roland Dagenhart to sue U.S. attorney Hammer in Charlotte since his two sons would be put out of work. The court ruled that the federal government did not have the right to regulate child labor; Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a notable dissent focusing on the lack of proper state regulation. The case was overturned by the 1941 U.S. v. Darby Lumber Company case upholding the Fair Labor Standards Act.
United States v. Darby
The Tenth Amendment is a constitutional truism, a mere assertion that the states have independent powers of their own- not a declaration that the state powers are superior to those of the national government,

Facts: Darby charged with violating Fair Labor Standards Act; challenged violation
Rule: If regulated intrastate activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress can regulate regardless of its motive
Issue: Do wages/hours of local workers have such a substantial impact on interstate commerce as to allow Congress to constitutionally regulate them
Holding: Yes
Rationale: Doesn't matter the movie as long as it is related to commerce unless it violates some part of the Constitution
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States
Conclusion- The court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no right to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation "Carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people..."
Katzenbach v. McClung
(1964),[2] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.
United States v. Morrison
(2000) The Court held that the power to regulate interstate commerce did not provide Congress with authority to enact the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which provided a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.
Lopez Test
1.Congress can "regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce"
2."to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce"
3. regulate those activities having substantial relation to int. commerce"
*affirmed in Morrison
Wickard v. Filburn
(1942) The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce. The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" Could be in the aggregate
Gonzales v. Raich
(2005) The regulation (ban on homegrown medical marajuana) is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat (Wickard) or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.,

Issue- California passed the Compassionate Use Act which legalized medical marijuana. Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act banned possession of marijuana (and removed the drug from users' houses)

Question-Does the CSA exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?

Answer- No, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary

+Commerce Clause
Pierce County v. Guillen
Guillen, whose wife had died in an accident at a known dangerous intersection, challenged the Hazard Elimination Program that protected disclosure of information regarding what highways were dangerous. This statute was a valid exercise of Commerce power because it will improve the safety of our nation's highways, which are channels of interstate commerce. (limited)
Reno v. Condon
South Carolina sued Attorney General Reno, arguing that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (law regulating the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments) violated the Tenth and eleventh Amendments and was incompatible with principles of federalism.
Holding: in a unanimous opinion, the Court upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
Significant Opinion (Rehnquist): The DPPA is a proper exercise of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. Personal and identifying information is a "thing in interstate commerce." Any sale or release of that information is a proper subject of congressional regulation.
Sonzinsky v. United States
the tax is constitutional and Congress has this power under the taxing power granted to it in the Constitution. The tax did produce some revenue, and the Court will not analyze Congressional motives for imposing it. Further, the tax was within the national taxing power. Congress, the Court reasoned, could determine the subjects of taxation, and could choose some while omitting others. The Court also explained that the tax in question was not a penalty imposed for the purpose of enforcing regulations, which would be beyond the scope of the taxing power.
Congress has the power to impose taxes reasonably related to its taxing power. More importantly, if Congress acts pursuant to a power granted to it by the Constitution, the Court will not analyze the motives behind the regulation.
United States v. Ptasynski
At issue was whether the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax was a violation of the uniformity clause. The court found the the tax to be constitutional because there was a distinction in "exempt Alaskan oil" which should allow it to be treated favorably.
United States v. Butler
The Agri Adjust Act remedied low agriculture prices by imposing a tax, collected from processors of an agricultural product. The revenue raised would be paid to farmers who curtailed their production of that product.

Congress may not, under the pretext of exercising the taxing power, accomplish prohibited ends, such as the regulation of matters of purely state concern and clearly beyond its national powers.
Buckley v. Valeo
..., a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.
South Dakota v. Dole
Facts: Federal law withheld federal highway funds from states with a drinking age of less than 21 years
Restrictions of spending power: (1) pursuant to general welfare; (2) Congress's conditioning of States' receipt of federal funds must be unambiguous; (3) conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if unrelated to federal interest in particular national programs/projects; (4) other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds
Issue: May Congress regulate activities traditionally reserved to states by using its spending power?
Holding: Yes
Dissent: national minimum drinking age is not sufficiently related to interstate highways to justify the conditions of the legislation.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
A 1936 Supreme Court case between the Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., who argued that the government embargoes placed on Bolivia and Paraguay were unconstitutional, and the U.S. government. The Court ruled that Congress can delegate broad legislative powers to the president in the case of foreign affairs, upholding the constitutionality of the government's actions. The case broadened the scope of the President's inherent powers by allowing Congress to delegate authority to the executive in regards to foreign affairs.
Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co.
War Powers Clause. War power does not necessarily end with cessation of hostilities.

Dealt with the war powers resolution where congress limited President's war power to where there is specific authorization or national emergency created by attack.
Missouri v. Holland
Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 to facilitate enforcement of a treaty made with the UK.
-Missouri challenged the treaty after it was enforced within its state lines.
-Did the treaty infringe upon rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?
-No. The court found that the national interest in protecting the wildlife could be protected only by national action. The court noted that the birds the government sought to protect had no permanent habitats within any individual states.
Reid v. Covert
woman killed her army husband on a military base in the UK, treaty agreement said that she would be tried in UK in a US military court; supreme court determined her citizen's rights would be violates because a lot of amendments don't apply in military court
Kleppe v. New Mexico
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRH & BA) conflicted with New Mexico Estray law but Act trumpted state law; the Act did not exceed Congress' s power to regulate under the Property Clause
New York v. United States (1992)
The Court issued the decision that the "take-title" qualification of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 were unconstitutional, violating the Tenth Amendment. Said Sandra Day O'Connor in the Court's opinion, "Either type of federal action would 'commandeer' state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments."
Printz v. United States
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. In both cases District Courts found the background-checks unconstitutional, but ruled that since this requirement was severable from the rest of the Brady Bill a voluntary background-check system could remain. The supreme court granted certiorari and decided this with Mack v. United States. Question: Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background checks? FOUND: No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. must be based on voluntarily.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
Legal Provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment . The Seminole Tribe brought suit against the State of Florida for violating the good faith negotiations requirement of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Florida moved to dismiss the Tribe's action, alleging that the lawsuit violated Florida's sovereign immunity. On appeal from the District Court's denial of Florida's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Eleventh Amendment shielded Florida from federal suit and that under Ex Parte Young, the Tribe may not enforce its right to good faith negotiations by naming Florida's governor as a party to the suit. Question:Does the Eleventh Amendment provide Florida with immunity from the Tribe lawsuit? FOUND: Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, The Court held that Congress did intend to abrogate states' sovereign immunity under the IGRA but that the Indian Commerce Clause (and by implication the Commerce Clause) did not give Congress that power. Under the Eleventh Amendment, all states are regarded as sovereign entities. Such sovereignty inherently implies that states may not be sued by parties without their consent, even if they are given authority to regulate those parties' activities through receipt of federal funds. Finally, Ex Parte Young's ruling does not justify the Tribe's suit against Florida's governor in light of certain IGRA provisions which specifically prohibit such an action.
Buck v. Kuykendall
States do not have the power require licenses or certifications from interstate carriers.
United States v. Comstock
The federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his sentence.

5 considerations
We base this conclusion on five considerations, taken together." The five considerations are as follows. First, the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad power to enact laws that are "rationally related" and "reasonably adapted" to executing the other enumerated powers. Second, the statute at issue "constitutes a modest addition" to related statutes that have existed for many decades. Third, the statute in question reasonably extends longstanding policy. Fourth, the statute properly accounts for state interests, by ending the federal government's role "with respect to an individual covered by the statute" whenever a state requests. Fifth, the statute is narrowly tailored to only address the legitimate federal interest.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Upheld individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress' commerce clause powers, but they did not join in a single opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the act, a significant expansion of Medicaid was not a valid exercise of Congress' spending power as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
Arizona banned operation of trains more than 14 passenger cars of 70 freight cars long. The Arizona law was unconstitutional because it imposed a stiff burden on the railroad, which had to operate 30 percent more trains in the state and had to break up and remake trains passing through the state. The total cost was several million dollars a year. Moreover, more trains would produce more accidents and the state's safety argument was empirically weak. The innovation in this decision was Stone's use of an "interest-balancing" standard of review, which proved more demanding than the earlier "rational basis" test.
Dean Milk Co. v City of Madison, Wis
Madison wrote an ordinance making it illegal to sell milk as pasteurized unless it had been bottled at an approved site less than five miles from the central square or store milk in Madison unless it was from a supplier with a permit from Madison. The court found the ordinance unconstitutional because it put an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.
Minnesota Legislature enacted a statute which prohibited all milk retailers from selling their products in plastic. Law banning plastic milk containers is not a clearly excessive burden on out-of-state interests.
West Lynn Creamery v. Healy
ISSUE: Whether the monthly premium on dealers selling milk in Massachusetts violated the commerce clause?

ANSWER: Even though the premium was paid by both in and out-of-state dealers, the premium was distributed to only in state dairy farmers. Therefore, the statute acted as a tariff and was thus unconstitutional under the commerce clause.
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc
power of states to pass laws interfering with interstate commerce is limited when the law poses an undue burden on businesses.
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia
States cannot pass laws that prevents, obstructs, or burdens transmission of a resource from one state to another becuase that is a violation of interstate commerce
Philadelphia v. New Jersey
The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law prohibiting the importation of waste originating in another state into New Jersey on the basis that is protected a legitimate health interest of the state of New Jersey.

State laws that are basically protectionist in nature unduly burden interstate commerce and thus are unconstitutional.
Hughes v. Oklahoma
State law prohibited transportation of minnows for sale outside of the state. This state law is invalid b/c it facially discriminates against interstate commerce, and the state cannot show that the statute serves a legitimate local purpose. [wasn't to conserve] And there was no showing that nondiscriminatory alternatives had been attempted and failed.
Maine v. Taylor
1985
In order to protect its fisheries from parasites and non-native species, the state of Maine prohibited the importation of live baitfish. Robert J. Taylor, the owner of a bait business, violated the law and was prosecuted by Maine authorities.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the limitation imposed by the Commerce Clause on state regulatory power was not absolute and that the States "retain[ed] authority under their general police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern.'" The Court found that Maine's ban on the importation of live bait fish served a legitimate local purpose that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives. The Court argued that the ban was not a simple case of "arbitrary discrimination against interstate commerce."
South Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke
held unconstitutional Alaska's inclusion of a requirement that purchasers of state-owned timber process it within state before it was shipped out of state. According to a plurality opinion by Justice White, Alaska could not impose "downstream" conditions in the timber-processing market as a result of its ownership of the timber itself. The opinion summarized "[the] limit of the market-participant doctrine" as "[allowing 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 of that particular market."
United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden
a city can pressure private employers to hire city residents, but the same exercise of power to bias private contractors against out-of-state residents may be called into account under the Privileges and Immunities Clause
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association
The state licensing acts are pre-empted by the OSH Act to the extent that they establish occupational safety and health standards for training those who work with hazardous wastes
United States v. Pink
-5th Amendment
* Established that Foreign Relations Policy is over state law
Government had agreement with Russians to send money to Russian insurance company (executive agreement)
New York didn't follow through so U.S. sued
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...