Constitutional Law

Exam #2 - Monday, April 18th, 2016
STUDY
PLAY

Terms in this set (...)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
1st National Bank is opposed by the State of ______ and she attempts to tax it away. Marshall's Supreme Court uses Supremacy Clause and the necessary and proper clause to say "States may not tax the Feds".

Provides Congress with the latitude to achieve necessary & proper ends, by other means (taxing/spending/other powers).
Dredd Scott v. Sandford (1857)
No diversity jx claim because not a citizen.
(Legal difference between being a state and US citizen).

A slave is brought to a non-slave state and his owner dies. He sues for his freedom. Taney's court says that black people of African descent are not citizens and therefore ineligible to bring suit....also, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

Slave sues for his freedom after owner dies. SCOTUS rejects his claim (not on substance), because he came to federal court as a matter of diversity jx. No diversity, because he was not a citizen of the US, thus unable to sue for his freedom.
14th Amendment talks about state citizenship: there is a legal difference between being a citizen of the US and the state. (Later used in Slaughterhouse Cases).
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
X

FCLA violates the 10th Amendment
The Federal Child Labor Act of 1915 prohibits the employment of an employee's sons. White's court cites the tenth amendment in striking down the law.

Production of good is NOT commerce. Child labor is a matter for states to deal with using their police power.
U.S. v. Darby Lumber (1941)

Hammer v. Dagenhart Overruled.

10th Amendment is just a truism.

Court rules in favor of U.S.
The owner of a lumber mill cites Hammer v. Dagenhart to challenge the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to avoid paying the required minimum wage. Stone's court unanimously upholds the law and overturns Hammer v. Dagenhart.

Minimum wage & maximum working hours federal regulation.

10th Amendment (state sovereignty) is just a truism, and thus not an argument against the exercise of Commerce Authority for the regulation of production. CAN regulate INTRAstate activity that has a substantial effect on INTERstate commerce.
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)
X
An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act extends the wage and hour requirements to state employees. Burger's court affirms congressional authority to do so but strikes down the law citing improper regulation of states.
Garcia v. SAMTA (1985)

Overrules Nat'l League of Cities "traditional governmental functions"
Fair Labor Standards were extended even further. An employee sues for overtime pay. Burger's court says that rules for proper state regulation were not established and overturns National League of Cities v. Usery. "States should look to the political process, not the court to protect their interests as long as congress is constitutionally exercising its power.

Congress's regulation of states is safeguarded by the political process; Amendment X issues up to the political process, and are NOT judicially enforceable.

Congress can regulate states (impose national minimum wage standards on all employers here -- state and non-state).
New York v. U.S. (1992)
Congress does not have the power to force states to implement federal regulations.

Anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment.
Have to offer states a choice to follow federal rules or take another action.

Low-Level Raidoactive Waste Policy Amendments. ^(1) Monetary incentive that had surcharges for dumping waste exiting disposal sites (offered choice). ^(2) Access incentive that would allow states cut off disposal from other states (offered choice).
X(3) Take title incentive: told states to follow federal rules to set up disposal sites, or own low-level waste within borders. (didn't offer states a choice -- had to comply with gov or unwillingly take title to waste).

Congress cannot require states to implement a policy (take an action -- e.g. use a pesticide). Need to offer states a real choice in order to comply with anti-commandeering principles (accountability issues).
Printz v. U.S. (1997)
Anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment.

States are not merely administrative units of the federal government.

Congress may not compel state officials to participate in the administration of federal programs.


Brady Handgun Act. A sheriff disagrees with new federal requirements regarding background checks for gun purchases. Rehnquist's court strikes down the law, stating that "states are not merely administrative units of the federal government".
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Congress can regulate channels.

A steamboat operator possesses a state license to operate in the waters of New York. A colleague possesses a federal license to operate up and down the coast. Marshall's court declares that under the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) and the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), federal licenses are superior.
U.S. v. E.C. Knight (1895)
(Sugar Trust Case)
X
Production is not commerce. Narrow interpretation of commerce authority.

The federal government claims that the acquisition of 4 small sugar manufacturing companies proposed by American Sugar violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Fuller's court rejects the claim because the act does not apply to manufacturing.
Swift and Co. v. U.S. (1905)
Shreveport Rate Case

Sherman Anti-Trust Act applies to stockyards
Authority to regulate intrastate shipping, having a CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP to interstate commerce.

Congress can regulate things that are being weaponized to interfere with interstate commerce.


Intrastate commerce commissions set rate from Dallas to Marshall in addition to Shreve Rate.
Panama Refining Co. v. U.S. (1935)
Non-delegation doctrine.

Congress can decide that it wants to regulate and decide how to, but cannot give that power to the executive branch. Permitting President to prohibit petroleum in certain conditions is impermissible delegation.

Under the National Industry recovery Act (NIRA) the congress grants nearly all its discretionary commercial authority to the executive branch. Stone's court strikes down the law and deals a blow to the New Deal. (1st rejection of law based on improper delegation of power)
Schecter Poultry Corp v. U.S. (1935)
Sick Chicken Case
X
Stream of Commerce Doctrine rejected

Distinction between direct/indirect commerce. Getting chickens from out of state did not constitute interstate commerce. Once flow of commerce stops, Congress can no longer regulate it (e.g. in state workers/production).

Schecter is in violation of National Industry Recovery Act standards but challenges their constitutionality based on a delegation of power from legislative to executive branches by allowing the president to draft legal code when unable to procure legal code from industry officials.
Congress trying to regulate wage/hours of workers.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)
1937
1937.

Strikes down all precedent about limits on regulating production/manufacturing involving workers. Close and intimate relation with interstate commerce.

Stream of Commerce broadened.
Close and intimate relation with interstate commerce.


The Wagner Act enables collective bargaining and establishes the National Labor Relations Board to enforce compliance. A manufacturing company engages in unfair labor practices and the NLRB orders them to reinstate 10 workers who were wrongfully terminated.
Steel manufacturer discrimination against unions.
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Outer limit of the commerce clause/most far-reaching example. One farmer exceeding commercial quota for personal use is an issue in the AGGREGATE, thus Congress can reach individual production like this via commerce clause.

The 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act limits the amount of home grown wheat a person may grow, pursuant to increased wheat prices. A farmer is legally allowed 200 bushels but he harvests over 400. He refuses to pay the fine of $117.11 and challenges the law. Justice Jackson decides that home-grown wheat competes with wheat in commerce. The law stands.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964)
Commerce Clause.

Discriminating against African Americans impacts interstate activity, because they may not be able to ravel as easily, and thus not contribute to interstate commerce in this way.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in lodging facilities of 5 rooms or more. By serving the traveling public they are involved with interstate commerce. Morton Rolleston Jr. sues but Justice Clark declares that the law was sound.
U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Gun-Free School Zones Act does not demonstrate the effect of gun violence at schools on commerce
Congress can regulate (1) channels of interstate commerce (2) instrumentalities, people and things moving through interstate commerce, and (3) intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Intrastate activities need (1) jx element; (2) sufficient congressional findings; (3) not be too attenuated;and (4) be economic.

Here, carrying guns in schools is not economic activity.

A student violates the Gun-Free School Zones Act by bringing a gun to school. The government argued that gun-violence in schools affects interstate commerce. Justice Rehnquist disagreed and the court sided with the student
Raich v. Gonzales (2005)
Aggregate. Medical v. commercial weed, fungible commodities.

So long as Congress has the authority to regulate the larger market, it can sweep in individual cases. Woman tried to make similar "just me" Wickard argument that her medical marijuana should not be regulated. Court is worried about the aggregate effect, and found medical and illegal marijuana to be fungible commodities.

Kind of incentivizes Congress to make broad sweeping laws.

A medical marijuana patient depends on 2 caregivers to grow/supply her with marijuana. The DEA raids the apartment of one of the caregivers and destroyed the patient's plants. Justice Stevens affirmed congressional authority in this case.
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
Spending Clause of the Medicaid expansion crossed the line by refusing states a choice because they would lose such significant amounts of funding. Fed would take away ALL Medicaid, which served no other purpose than to coerce unwilling states to sign up ("economic dragooning").

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is challenged by the National Federation of Independent Businesses along with 26 states on the grounds that the "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. Anyone without insurance after a specified period of time would be subject to a penalty. The constitutionality of this penalty was called into question. Robert's court ruled that congress could not impose a mandate but it could levy a tax. The law stands.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922)
X

Cannot use tax power to change behavior; can't have a tax that primarily regulates (overruled by Kahriger).

A federal tax on profits from child labor exceeds congressional authority
The court strikes down a tax on profits of any company that hires child labor. Taft saw the tax as "penalty to coerce the people of a state to act as congress wishes...in a matter completely the business of a state government"
South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
Congress must use its spending power to preserve the general welfare. A valid use of the spending power must (1) be UNAMBIGUOUS to enable states to exercise their choice knowingly; (2) have a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP between the conditions and purpose of the spending program; and (3) cannot be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

At some point, it may become unconstitutionally coercive by not giving states a choice (see Sebelius). [Not coercive here -- only 5% of highway funds].

Congress passes a statute withholding federal highway funds from states that have minimum drinking ages under the age of 21. The 21st amendment granted all regulation of alcohol to the states. The court sides against the plaintiff state and affirms congressional authority to place conditions upon federal funding. The spending must be, however, pursuant to the general welfare.
Slaughterhouse Cases (1872)
Substantive Due Process introduced and rejected.

The 14th Amendment protects your rights as a national citizen, NOT as a state citizen. National rights include seaports and abroad, but not the right to pursue one's livelihood.

Plaintiffs lose because they were asserting a state right, but would have lost if they were asserting a national right, which does not cover what they wanted covered.

(*Reason we need incorporation).
Lochner v. N.Y. (1905)
X
Substantive Due Process gains judicial support.

14th Amendment protects the substantive right of economic liberty.

Regulation on employers of maximum working hours for bakers interfered with an economic relationship, a fundamental right of freedom to contract, and triggered strict scrutiny.

New York passes restrictions on hours and wages for all bakeries in the state. A bakery owner was found to be in violation of the law but decided to challenge its constitutionality. The court sides with the bakery owner and affirms his substantive due process claim. The Holden case dealt with mining and federal involvement was justified due to the inherent danger in the mining industry. In this case, they court felt that bakers could take care of themselves without federal involvement.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)

Court assumes rational basis for legislation in government and rejects Substantive Due Process.

Court rules in favor of Parrish
An employee sues for the $216.19 she would have been had the minimum wage law been abided by. The court sides with the employee and the principle of "substantive due process" was rejected once more.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
The Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments) only applies directly to the FEDERAL gov't to protect civil liberties from FEDERAL interference. (Does not apply directly to the states).


Barron lost wharf due to flooding by the state. If it had been a federal act, would have been covered by 5th Amendment.

A dock owner who challenges a municipal decision that results in an alteration of water levels in the harbor, rendering the owner incapable of accommodating larger ships. The owner asserts that this action amounts to a taking under the 5th Amendment's definition. Marshall states that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the states.
Myers v. US (1926)
Removal Power

The President can fire an executive branch official "at will."
(because the President is in the best position to do so/know if they are the right person for the job).

President fired postmaster of Oregon for politically-motivated reasons.
Humphrey's Executor v. US (1935)
Removal Power

Congress can place "for cause" restrictions on some positions, such as administrative agency heads (as they did for the Federal Trade Commission). (As long as it does not interfere with the President's core Art. II duties - Morrison v. Olson -- SC did not in that case).
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Appointment Power

Congress cannot give itself the appointment power.
Morrison v. Olson (1988)
Appointment Power

Congress can vest the appointment power of inferior executive offices in someone other than the president (attorney general, judiciary).

As long as it does not interfere with the President's core Article II duties.
(Special Counsel did not impede this -- consider the nature of the office, but not necessarily exact reasoning of Humphrey's Executor).

*SCOTUS says Special Counsel is an INFERIOR officer because they can be hired by a higher official (AG), and are limited to the scope of their investigation. Thus, appointment by judiciary is allowed. Also could be subject to "for cause" restrictions on office (independent).

Olson, who was withholding documents, was subpoenaed by the Special Counsel, who could only be removed by the AG.
Argument that principal officer because there is no limit to who they can investigate, as long as it is tied to their investigation.
Bowsher v. Synar (1986)
Removal Power

Congress cannot give itself the removal power over someone deemed an executive branch official.

Can't have conflict of authorities.

Comptroller General was determined to be controlled by/removable by Congress, but had executive functions. Thus Congress not permitted to remove. (Can't be removable by Congress & retain executive functions -- conflict of authorities).
Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010)

Removal Power
There cannot be two layers of limitations on Presidential removal powers.

(Scope may not extend to employees within an agency -- be careful in application).

PCAOB was under the jx of the Securities and Exchange Commission. PCAOB could only be fired "for cause," SEC could only be fired "for cause." Accounting firm challenged this layout when the SEC was investigating them.
(Board's protection from removal was a violation of the Presidents Art II powers).
Noel Canning (2014)

Appointment Power
Recess Appointment Power.

Congress decides when it is formally on recess for purposes of the Recess Appointment Power.

Recesses of 3-10 days are presumably TOO SHORT for recess appointment.

Obama appointed people to the NLRB, which could only function if it had a certain number of members, during congressional recess because they were not confirming anyone he was attempting to appoint.
Nixon v. Administrator General SVCS (1977)

Bills of Attainder
A bill of attainder exists if (1) it is targeted against a specific group/person, and (2) involves things historically deemed to be punishment, and (3) has anything in the legislative history indicating a sole purpose to punish a specific person.

Here, Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act did NOT violate Bill of Attainder Clause.
Adamson v. CA (1947)
Frankfurter (majority): Selective incorporation, viewing due process as separate from the Bill of Rights.

Black (dissent) called for total incorporation, viewing 14th Amendment as tool to make Bill of Rights Applicable to all states.
West Coast Hotel (1937)
1937. End of Lochner Era.

Overrules Adkins, and allows minimum wage regulation (in recognition of abuse by employers).

A state may regulate minimum wage paid to female employees when that regulation is for hte purpose of promoting employees' health, safety, and general welfare.
Nebbia v. NY (1934)
Transition away from economic due process.

The 14th Amendment does NOT prevent states from enacting economic policies such as price regulations, as long as they are not unreasonable or arbitrary.
*Property and contract rights are not absolute. (Move away from Lochner era).

Milk price regulation upheld.
Lawrence v. TX (2003)
Evolving understandings of legal claims/generalizing rights.

The private self is protected by the liberty interest of the due process clause. SCOTUS characterizes this right differently than in Bowers, by referring to the home and autonomy of personal relationships, rather than sexual behavior.

Also took into account RECENT history and foreign trends.

Seems like a non-issue because the law was not really enforced, but Kennedy refers to the existence of the law itself as creating a stigma that is unacceptable and cannot be allowed.

Dissenting Scalia & morals v. stigma. TX had no legitimate governmental purpose in regulating sodomy. (Sounds like rational basis).
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
X
SCOTUS says plaintiff was attempting to assert a new right, characterized as the right to sodomy, rather than the general privacy right.

No history or tradition of a right to sodomy.
Fundamental rights are only those "deeply rooted in history."

Narrow interpretation.
Based on moral beliefs. Allows laws based on moral beliefs, as long as they pass rational basis review.
Eisentadt v. Baird (1972)
The right to privacy in the "marital bedroom" extends to everybody, including unmarried couples.

Doctor arrested for giving unmarried woman contraceptives.
Griswold v. CT (1965)
An implied "right to privacy" exists within the Bill of Rights that prohibits a state from preventing married couples from using contraception. Beginnings of the 14th Amendment Due Process cases.

Intrusive into the right of privacy of the marital relationship.

Overturned a law that made it unconstitutional for everyone to get contraceptives (even married people).
Obergefell v. Hodges (2005)
Under the 14th Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses and recognize lawful out-of-state marriages for same-sex couples.

Characterized the right as marriage, rather than focusing on sexual relationship aspect.
Constitution provides some sphere of personal autonomy, free from excessive gov't interference.

Precedent: Really no difference from Loving.

History/Traditions: The right to marry involves (1) individual autonomy; (2) special recognition of legal marriage that is not quite like anything else; (3) protects children and families; (4) is a keystone of our social order.
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Doesn't make sense to differentiate between rights-privileges (such as welfare). Once you start receiving it, you kind of have a reliance interest on it.

Gov't cannot arbitrarily take away privileges.
Perry v. Sniderman (1972)
If reliance interest is created (based on a reasonable reason to rely on it), then there is a property interest, and entitled to PDP.

Different from Roth case, involved a repeatedly renewed on year contract for a teacher who had been employed there for 10 years. No formal 10 year tenure system, but it was treated as such. Thus REASONABLE to think he would be rehired, thus he did have a property interest and therefore could not be fired without PDP.
Board of Regents v. Roth (1972)
One year contract did not impose an obligation on the gov't to rehire, thus not afforded procedural due process rights.

Knew in theory it wouldn't be renewed, so no reliance interest, so lack of property interest, so no PDP required.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985)
Courts decide what procedures are afforded as a matter of procedural due process and states are NOT left to themselves to decide.

PDP affords: (1) NOTICE of why the gov't is taking property; (2) opportunity for a MEANINGFUL HEARING, but not necessarily with a court/judge; and (3) an IMPARTIAL DECISION-MAKER who presumably has the authority to determine the person is being treated unfairly, such as in Hamdi.

Here, court determined, pre-termination review was required in this case.
Matthews v. Eldrige (1976)
Procedural Due Process

To determine if an administrative procedure satisfies PDP, consider: (1) the PRIVATE INTEREST/individual affected; (2) the GOV'T INTEREST which is always the adversary to the individual; and (3) the VALUE to the individual v. the COST to the gov't OF ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS.

Balance to prevent overly burdening the gov't or alternatively creating likelihood of error that disfavors individual.
U.S. v. Butler (1936)
Spending power is not limited to the necessary & proper clause.

Spending power is an independent power to spend on any national issue (can provide for the general welfare).

Part where Congress cannot give money with conditions because it changes behavior is struck down by Steward Machine.
Missouri v. Holland 1920
Broad view of treaty power.

A treaty may infringe on the 10th Amendment, as long as it does not violate other provisions of the Constitution.

No limits on the topic of treaties; treaties are federal law/the supreme law of the land.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act limited hunting of migratory birds.
Reid v. Covert
Treaties and executive agreements must comply with the provisions of the Constitution.


Treaty that allowed refusal of jury trial violated the 6th Amendment.
Woods v. Cloyd Miller
Scope of Congress's war power in terms of passing legislation.

May address conditions that are the direct and immediate cause of war (may not end with the cessation of hostilities).
Prize Cases
During times of war, the President is not only permitted but bound to respond to force with force.
Seminole Tribe (1996)
Congress cannot allow abrogation/suit against a state under the Commerce Clause. (Can only abrogate under Section 5 power after this case).



Case against gov't for failing to comply with part of the Indian Gaming Act was thrown out for lack of jx (seeking abrogation under the commerce clause). Didn't invalidate the entire law but effectively defanged the Indian Gaming Act.
Florida Prepaid (1999)
Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity under its Section 5 Power. Still need to pass Boerne congruent & proportional test and show a consistent pattern/history of violations.
Ex parte Young (1908)
Permits an entity to file a lawsuit against state officials, who are stripped of their 11th Amendment immunity for purposes of the suit. Allows for prospective injunctive relief, but NOT retroactive damages.


Do not implicate 11th Amendment: suits by federal gov't, another state, against local gov'ts, or bankruptcy suits.
Board of Trustees v. Garrett (2001)
Abrogation.

Disability discrimination cases only get rational basis review. Thus, Congress far exceeded its Section 5 Power by allowing suit against state employers for hiring discrimination.
Hibbs (2003)
Abrogation.

Gender discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny (heightened scrutiny), which makes it easier for plaintiffs to challenge the state law.

Family Medical Leave Act was a response to gender discrimination, even though this suit was brought by a man.
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)
Abrogation.

6th Amendment right to access courts is a core constitutional right, so given strict scrutiny, and thus Congress has more latitude to abrogate here.

Disabled man couldn't go up the steps to court. (Really about 6th Amendment access to courts violation, than the original disability claim).
US v. Georgia (2006)
Abrogation.

Disabled prisoner forced to sit in own fecal matter.

Really about a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, rather than disability -- so strict scrutiny, rather than rational basis.
Alden v. Maine (1999)
Abrogation.

States remain immune from private suits in their OWN courts. Thus, state employees can't sue anywhere.

SCOTUS says we have to trust the States to comply with the law.
Foster Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel (1928)
DCC (on its face).

Court will look closely when there is a facially discriminatory law.

Louisiana shrimp embargo, to favor/keep shrimp for own citizens.
Gear v. Connecticut (1896)
X
DCC (on its face)

Overruled by Hughes.

SCOTUS allowed state to prevent wild game birds from being taken, because state owns them before they are captured.
Huges v. Oklahoma (1979)
DCC (on its face)

Strict scrutiny is applied when a law is explicitly discriminating against out-of-staters.
The law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling gov't interest.

(Overruled Gear v. Connecticut)

Not allowing minnows to leave the state is NOT the least restrictive means of protecting them.
Maine v. Taylor (1986)
DCC (on its face)

Very RARE outcome.

SCOTUS allowed Maine to prevent the import of bate fish for the purpose of protecting native fish, because they needed more time to find another method. (How quarantines work --> think mutant pig hypo).
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising (1977)
DCC (in purpose or effect)

A facially neutral statute still violates the commerce clause if it discriminates against interstate commerce IN PRACTICE.

Complicated Washington Apple labeling requirements had the EFFECT of privileging in-state farmers, because it stripped other states of their competitive advantage, who had to re-label millions of apples.
West Lynn Creamery v. Healy (1994)
DCC (in purpose or effect)

A regulation violates the commerce clause if the combination of a tax and a subsidy discriminates against interstate commerce, even if each component would be constitutional separately
Bibb v. Navajo Freight (1959)
DCC (neutral)

A neutral statute is still invalid if it does not satisfy the balancing test, where the burden on interstate commerce substantially outweighs the local benefits.

Outlier curved mudflap requirement for safety did not satisfy the balancing test.
Kassel
...