117 terms

Con Law Cases

STUDY
PLAY
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury was appointed as justice of peace by president but his commission was not delivered before the presidency changed over. The president refused to honor the commission. Marbury sought a writ of mandamus Supreme court has implied power from Art. IV §2, to review acts of Congress and declare them void if repugnant to the constitution. Political Acts are not amendable to judicial review. It is a discretionary power
Roe v. Wade
Roes wanted an abortion, the Texas statute stated that an abortion was criminal unless it was to save a mother's life Right to privacy is found in the 14th amendment under personal liberty. Liberty includes and interest of privacy and under privacy is the right to control your reproduction. Statute is unconstitutional because the right to bear children belongs to a woman.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
Dispute over the ownership of land. Hunter was granted title by Virginia who confiscated land owned by British subjects. Martin claims the confiscation was ineffective because of the treaty between the US and Britain the SC found for Martin, but VA refused to enter judgment in his favor Constitution grants the power to the SC to adjudicate cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the US and cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers, admiralty and maritime and over all issues of federal claims in state court; over decisions of the state courts in criminal cases and where the state is a party
McCulloch v. Maryland
US (fed) opened a bank branch in MD. Maryland wanted to tax banks not chartered in MD. McCulloch (bank cashier) issued bank notes in violation of MD statute which required authority from the state and stamped on paper issued by the state Constitution does not have a provision that gives the gov't authority to charter a bank. However they do have implied power under the necessary and proper clause. [First statement of living constitution notion] Power to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare and conduct war is under the necessary and proper clause. A bank is necessary to conduct activities under notion of implied powers. It is the means to accomplish what the framers wanted NECESSARY implies flexibility (not indispensability) and MEANS cannot be enumerated for all times
Ex parte McCardle
McCardle was responsible for writing articles during reconstruction; he was jailed as a result. McCardle filed for a writ of habeas corpus and was denied. He appealed but Congress passed an act forbidding the SC's jurisdiction The Constitution gives congress the express power to make exceptions under the exception clause to the SC's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can restrict appellate jurisdiction under art. III §2 but cannot alter original jurisdiction Congress has plenary power over the SC in this respect. Framer's did not want SC deciding their own jurisdiction Compare McCardle with Klein - both cases was an interference by Congress while a case was still pending. In Klein congress was deciding on an issue that the fact finder should whereas in McCardle they were using their right as it pertains to jurisdiction. Facts: Presidential pardon to any person who had supported or fought for the Confederate Army with full restoration of property rights. Congress passed law that said that acceptance of such a pardon was evidence that the person provided support to the South and was ineligible to recover sale proceeds.
Allen v. Wright
parents of black children files action to compel IRS to deny tax benefits to racially discriminatory private schools according to the law. The children went to public school that may undergo desegregation One does not have standing to sue in federal court unless he can allege the violation of the right personally affected him. A litigant cannot raise someone else's rights. Injuries must be traceable to challenged action. In order to have standing, there must be DIRECT INJURY, TRACEABLE TO DEFENDANT'S ACTION, and REDRESSABLE. The allegation that private schools receiving gov't funding affects public school desegregation is lacks causation.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Defenders of wildlife sought judgment to extend application of endangered species act to government action taken in foreign nations. Defenders say the have travelled and will travel abroad to visit the habitats of the species. Injury: increase in extinction Although the might be a nexus between the plaintiffs and the endangered species, the injury is too uncertain or too remote to have standing. Plaintiffs lack specific information about their future plans which means the harm to them is not sufficiently concrete or imminent. Majority also ruled that congress cannot pass a law that gives private citizens a right to make legislation obey the law - in essence it gives individuals executive powers. Concurring felt that congress could do this but it needs to the protected class. Dissent disagrees stating majority is inviting executive lawlessness
Massachusetts v. EPA
Massachusetts argued that the agency was required under a congressional statute to issue regulations that would limit automobile emissions of carbon dioxide. The agency did not want to issue the regulations arguing that the state lacked standing (no injury or causation) Massachusetts met standing because the injury was the danger of the rising sea levels have on its coastal areas. The fact that Mass was a sovereign representing its citizens justified the relaxation. There was injury fact because the sea levels had already began to rise and would grow worst over the next century and there was causation because the slowing reduction of emission, although small, would slow the pace of emission increases.
Raines v. Byrd
6 members of Congress challenged Line Item Veto Act which they believed separation No standing - personal injury was not established. If there was sufficient votes and the bill was still defeated, then there would be an injury. Here there was none of that. Non justiciable because it is a political question.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
Non-custodial father filing on behalf of his daughter contending that the pledge (under God) violates his daughters rights Court refused standing. Court makes distinction between Art. III standing (case and controversy) and prudential standing (self-imposed limits). Prudential Standing exists when there is undeniable injury in fact, caused by the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling but the court declines to hear it from that particular plaintiff for non-constitutional discretionary reasons implemented by the SC
Baker v. Carr
Voters sued in order change an old Tennessee apportionment system was attacked as being obsolete because it diluted votes. With the population growth, the population was adequately represented when voting the constitutionality of legislative apportionment schemes is not a political question. This case paved the way for one person, one vote. An issue is a non-justiciable political question if there is a commitment to another branch, lack of standards, unsuitable policy determination, lack of respect for other branches, political decisions already made and multiple pronouncements
Nixon v. United States
Nixon, a former judge, sought judicial review for his removal from office by impeachment. He claimed that senate failed to try him within the meaning of Art. I § 3, cl 6. - Impeachment clause Nixon's challenge raised a non-justiciable political question. Therefore, the S. Ct. could not hear the issue. Textualist approach: the Constitution provided review of impeachment solely to the Senate; "solely" precludes judicial review
Goldwater v. Carter
At the end of the Chinese revolution, US signed a treaty with Republic of China that was approved by the Senate. Art. X provided for indefinite enforcement with a one year notice exception. The President and Congress passed an act stating there should be consultation between Congress and the executive branch pertaining to the Chinese treaty. The president later announced the termination of the treaty at the end of the one year required notice. The question is a political one and is nonjusticiable because it involves the authority of the president in the conduct of foreign affairs. The constitution is silent as to the abrogation of a treaty. There was no majority in agreement on why the case was non-justiciable
Vieth v. Jubelirer
Citizens of PA challenge a map drawn by the PA general assembly establishing districts for election of congressional reps; believe the districting constituted political gerrymandering - dividing into voting districts to achieve an unfair advantage. felt is was unconstitutional No Opinion of the court. Judgment found gerrymandering to be a non-justiciable issue. It is for state law to determine Art I § 4. No provision in the Constitution provides a judicial enforcement limit on the political considerations that states and congress may take into account when districting. Found Gerrymandering to be a political question
Gibbons v. Ogden
A ferry boat operator was given an exclusive license by the state of NY to run a ferry from NYC to NJ who conveyed this right to Ogden. Gibbons was given a similar license in 1793 by Congress. Ogden brings an injunctive relief case against Gibbons. If state law conflicts with congressional acts regulating commerce, the congressional act controls. Commerce Clause Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate commerce when it effects more than one state. It also places a limit on state power. If internal state rules affect other states in regards to commerce, Congress can regulate it. However Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has no limits except those prescribed by the constitution.
United States v. E.C. Knight Co.
A company through acquisition, acquired 98% of the sugar industry and had virtually a monopoly over the manufacture of refined sugar in the US. The US invoked the Sherman Act to set aside the acquisition of 4 competing refineries which left only 1 company producing 2% of the sugar refined in the country. Manufacturing is not part of commerce (sugar refining is not manufacturing) Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. The mere fact that some of it may go to another state is not commerce. Commerce succeeds manufacturing and is not a part of it.
Hammer v. Dagenhart
Congress passed a law (Federal Child Labor Act) prohibiting the shipment through interstate commerce any products produced in mill, mines or factories which employed children. 2 children were employed in a cotton mill in NC. Father secured an injunction against the enforcement of the act Making of goods and the mining of coal are not commercial. Does not constitute commerce because the children were employed in manufacturing and manufacturing is not commerce. Even if it does qualify as commerce, it is not interstate commerce because the activity take place wholly within the state and there is no proof that the goods will leave the state. (not good law, go to Darby)
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, the federal government adopted the Live Poultry Code that imposed certain business standards on the live poultry industry in NY (such as minimum wage and max houses). A Brooklyn slaughter house, that purchased most of its meat outside of NY - but had local customers- violated these rules by purchasing poultry that moved interstate, slaughtered it and sold it locally Congress had exceeded its power because Schechter was engaged in distribution not commerce. Can only regulate direct effects on commerce. The meat was no longer in the current flow of interstate commerce once it reached NY. The activity was local and not national and it has an indirect effect on commerce.
Carter v. Carter Coal Co.
Direct/Indirect test: Coal mined in one state but sold to another. Unconstitutional, act taken to undermined the powers of the local government. the national government cannot adopt uniform law, but if states voluntarily adopt the policies then it would be Okay. The activity in itself was not commerce because it was an internal process. (different from Darby, which is a substantial effects case)
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin
the National Labor relations Act established a comprehensive system for regulating labor/management relations. It established the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively. Jones & Laughlin (manufacturing company with subsidiaries in several states and nationwide sales) was charged with an unfair labor practice (firing employees because the employees sought to organize a union) under the National Labor Relations Act. Signified a change. Manufacturing is not automatically beyond Congress's control. Under the Commerce clause, Congress has the power to regulate any activity, even intrastate commerce, if the activity has a substantial effect (Direct or indirect) on interstate commerce
Wickard v. Filburn
Filburn, an Ohio farmer, sued the Secretary of Agriculture to stop enforcement of a penalty imposed under the Agricultural Adjustment Act which place a quota on how much wheat farmers could grow in order to control volume of wheat passing through the stream of commerce. Filburn grew twice as much wheat and used everything above his quote for private consumption. Court held that congress could reach the home consumed crop and upheld the legislation. The concern is not just one farmer, but a multitude of farmers doing the same thing. Farm production which is intended for consumption on the farm is subject to congress' commerce power, since it may have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce based on the cumulative effect
United States v. Darby
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which prohibited shipment in interstate commerce of goods manufactured by workers paid less than minimum wage, or who worked more prescribed max hours. Defendant was charged with violating the act Overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart. Congress can control intrastate activities if they substantially affect interstate commerce. Manufacturing is not commerce but the shipment of those good is commerce. When a company manufactures a good, they know it will be consumed either instate or out of state.
Perez v. United States
Act was passed that made loan sharking enforced by threats of violence a crime because of its effect on interstate commerce. Court upheld federal criminal statue prohibiting loan sharking. Although occurring at a local level, there is an effect on interstate commerce. Court relied on Darby. Perez gives maximum deference to Congress in terms of the commerce clause
Heart of Atlanta v. United States
Hotel located near interstate highway in downtown Atlanta advertised in magazines and billboards outside GA. 75% of guests were out of state. The hotel would not rent to blacks prior to the passage of Title II and wanted to continue after its enactment. Title II prohibits discrimination of accommodation - hotels, motels, restaurants Court upheld the act. The hotel's actions burdened interstate commerce by discouraging travel. Blacks are left with no accommodation and are less likely to travel, thus spending less money. Court did not explore the moral aspect of discrimination.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Ollie's barbecue had a takeout service for blacks but not a place where they could sit down and eat. The restaurant was located on the state highway. half of the food served was obtained from out of state. The restaurant challenged the constitutionality of Title II. The court states that the refusal to serve means less business, less purchasers which affects the market and the flow of goods. Discrimination of blacks would result in less people traveling because they cannot purchase food. The court employs a rational basis test - if there's any conceivable basis to justify upholding the legislation, the court will uphold the legislation. This is a deference standard.
National League of Cities v. Usery
The federal government attempted to broaden the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to include employees of state and local governments, beyond just private sector economic activity. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the act was unconstitutional. the Commerce Clause does not empower congress to enforce minimum wage in overtime provision of the FLSA against the states in areas of traditional government function. The Court ruled that this would force states to incur increased cost, and this is a decision that has to be taken at a local level. Congress cannot regulate the activities of state governments or instrumentalities of the state.
Tenth Amendment as a Federal Based Limit
...
Garcia v. SAMTA
San Antonio MTA received substantial federal funding. Congress amended its minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to extend to mass-transit employees. However in National League of Cities; they found that Congress's power was exceeded under the Commerce Clause. SAMTA did not want to enforce changes. Garcia sued SAMTA for overtime pay Overruled National League of Cities v. Usery. SAMTA was not immune from FLSA and the application of FLSA does not destroy state sovereignty. Congress has full authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the traditional or core functions of state and local governments, notwithstanding the 10th Amendment. Necessary governmental services are services that would be provided inadequately or not at all unless the government provides them. It is too hard to determine what a traditional government function is; there are not traditional government functions that are especially immune from federal regulation
United States v. Lopez
Lopez, a student, was arrested for carrying a handgun in school in violation of state and federal laws [Gun Free Zone Act]. The Act made it a federal offense to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce Congress has power to regulate 3 broad categories of commerce. 1. Use of channels [hotels & Inns] of interstate commerce, 2.instrumentalities [cars and trains etc] of interstate commerce and 3. substantial effect on interstate commerce. Private sector economic activity [channels & instrumentalities] are evaluated by rational basis. effects on interstate commerce not evaluated under rational basis; effects must be substantial. The Act exceeds the authority of Congress "to regulate Commerce...among the several States." the possession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity, that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.
United States v. Morrison
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 provided a damage remedy for the victim against any person "who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender." Allows women to sue attacks in federal courts for monetary damages. Morrison is a female that is raped by two members of the football team Congress may not regulate local activity solely on the basis that it has substantial effect on interstate commerce when viewed in the nationwide aggregate. Congress went beyond it commerce power. The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. Congress lacked the authority to enact the statute under the Commerce clause because it did not involve economic activity or interstate commerce. Act was also outside of Congress' remedial power under 14th amendment. Crime is a local matter.
New York v. United States
Radioactive Act authorized any state that had a nuclear waste disposal facility to impose a surcharge for accepting waste from out of state, until 1992, after which they could exclude outside waste. The Act was to give states 3 incentives to develop local facilities. If a state did not provide for disposal of waste generated within its border by 1996, the statue provided that the state had to "take title" to the waste. No the "take title" provision of the Act is unconstitutional. Federal government may not order a state government to enact particular legislation. 10th Amendment
Printz v. United States
The Brady Act required the Attorney General to establish a national instant background check system in November 1988. Until then gun dealers had to send a form to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of prospective purchaser's residence. CLEO had to see whether receipt or possession would be in violation of the law. Two CLEOs from Montana and Arizona challenged the Brady Act Court held that Congress does not have the authority to compel states to enact, enforce or administer federal regulatory programs, and cannot circumvent this prohibition by conscripting state officials directly. The act was unconstitutional because it made state officers execute federal law. The Act violated dual sovereignty by compelling states to administer federal regulatory schemes. It also violated the separation of powers because the responsibility for administration of laws enacted by Congress belonged to the President, not CLEOs
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
Child labor Act allowed government to tax 10% on the net profits of a company who employed children. The "tax" was imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limit prescribed. It is prohibitory and regulatory. The act was ruled unconstitutional because Congress cannot use taxing power to regulate. To give such magic to the word tax would be to break down constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States. The provisions of the act must be naturally and reasonably adapted to the collection of tax and not solely to the achievement of some other purpose plainly within state power
United States v. Butler
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was designed to stabilize production in agriculture by assuring farmers that their products would be sold at a fair price. So Congress imposed a tax on processors of agricultural commodities, such as cotton, and proceeds went to the subsidy for farmers who agreed to restrict their production The power to spend is linked to the power to tax; money may be raised by taxation. Congress may tax and spend for general welfare but may not regulate in a particular area because it is providing for general welfare. Giving money not to grow crops is coercion; it violates the rights of the states. Conditions cannot be coercive. no longer good law but can be used for General Welfare of the spending analysis.
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
The unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 establish a tax imposed on employers. The taxpayer is allowed to credit up to 90% of the federal tax paid to the state unemployment fund Not coercion. Court believed it to be an incentive but recognizes that coercion may come out of inducement. Cannot be related to non-fiscal need, only a national end. An important issue in a tax not being coercive is that the conduct to be encouraged or induced accomplish a national end (general welfare) and be related to the tax itself
South Dakota v. Dole
Federal statute directed at withholding federal highway funds from states that did not prohibit the purchase of alcohol by people under 21 → used highway funds via the "spending power" to impact policy on the minimum drinking age. (condition for receiving federal funds). Dole framework. Constitutional. power to spend is not unlimited, but should be left up to the Congress to determine (differential standard)
Katzenbach v. Morgan
A NY law required that in order to vote you must be literate in English. Congress then passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits states from conditioning voting rights on a person's ability to read, write, and understand the English language as long as they have completed the sixth grade. The practical effect of it was to prohibit New York from denying the right to vote to large segments. Constitutional → A remedy may occur before a constitutional violation. Section 5 allows Congress to look at the law then decide if it needs to act. Here, remedy for discrimination
City of Boerne v. Flores
The parishioners of a Catholic church sought a building permit from the city. The city denied the permit because the church is a historic landmark that cannot be altered. Flores sued Boerne under the various state laws and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). RFRA was passed by Congress in response to Smith which upheld the denial of benefits to Native Americans that used peyote. Congress cannot change the Courts constitutional interpretation which is what it tried to do by passing the RFRA. Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause since it is not "enforcing" the clause. There is a fine line between remedial measures and those that make a substantive change. Cannot through an ordinary act of Congress, reverse a decision of a Supreme Court
Alden v. Maine
Probation officers wanted to sue state for overtime pay. HELD: states cannot be sued in federal court without their consent (sovereign immunity). wants to protect the dignity of the state courts.
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
ADEA prevented discrimination based on age Concluded that §5 of the 14th Amendment is too broad. Requirements were disproportionate to any unconstitutional conduct. States may treat workers differently based on age if it was rational - need only survive rational basis of review because age was not a discrete and insular minority. Individual employees could not constitutionally be permitted to recover damages for ADEA violation against state of local employers.
Board of Trustees v. Garrett
Garrett suffered from cancer; he was demoted Congress did not have the §5 power to bar the states from discriminating against employees with disabilities. Since the disabled are not suspect or semi suspect, the only discrimination against them that would be a violation is if it was irrational. the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of the ADA law failed the congruence and proportionality test even though there was a hardship exception to the accommodation requirement.
Nevada Dept of Human Resources v. Hibbs
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave annually for several reasons, including the birth of a child or the "serious health condition" of the employee's spouse, child, or parent. Hibbs requested leave from the Department under the FMLA in order to care for his wife, who had been in a car accident and undergone neck surgery. He was fired after he failed to return when employer requested he do so. Court held that the congruent and proportional standard was met. The court noted that FMLA was intended to combat gender based discrimination in the workplace. To redress this type of discrimination, it is subjected to heightened scrutiny. Additionally it is easier for congress to show a pattern of state constitutional violations, which Congress did find.
Tennessee v. Lane
Paraplegic wheel chair bound man, Lane, was criminally charged. When he reported for his first appearance, he had to climb the stairs because the courthouse did not have an elevator. On he next visit, Lane refused to attend court because he did not was to climb the stairs again or be carried. Lane alleged that he was denied access to the court system. He was arrested and jailed for failure to appear. Court held Congress had power to permit federal court suits against the states for money damages under Title II of ADA at least for activities relating to access to court. The right of access to courts is subject to more searching judicial review than the rational relation review used in disability discrimination in employment cases like Garrett. Strict scrutiny because fundamental right is at issue.
Missouri v. Holland
Congress passed legislation in 1913 regulating the hunting of migratory birds. The legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 provided for specified close hunting seasons, to protect endangered birds during migration, and agreed that the two powers would propose the necessary measures for carrying the treaty out to their law making bodies. Court held treaty is an independent source of power given to Congress and the supreme law of the land. National interest can be protected by national action and cannot infringe onto the States rights. Treaty and 10th amendment issue
Medellin v. Texas
Medellin, a Mexican national who lived in the US was charged and convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Medellin was not informed of his rights under the Vienna Convention (treaty) to notify the Mexican consulate of his detention. HELD that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; President's authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from: (1) an act of Congress or (2) the Constitution itself.
Cooley v. Board of Port Wardens
Pennsylvania state law required all ships that entering/leaving its ports must use a local pilot or pay a fine into the fund to support retired pilots. This case considered the extent of state power over commerce in the face of congressional silence. Law was challenged on the grounds that Congress has exclusive authority to regulate commerce. Congressional power to regulate commerce is not exclusive of all state powers to regulate commerce. The regulation of pilots was a regulation of interstate commerce. Statute upheld. An area pertaining to commerce where congress is silent (has not articulated views) and states step in and speak on matter, then courts step in to evaluate the legitimacy of the states legislation and try to infer what congress would have held had they ruled. [dormant commerce clause]. Diverse subjects are regulated under commerce and facts should be evaluated on a per case basis [whether issue is of a national nature or whether it is required diversity to meet local necessity
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
NJ enacts law that prohibits waste from importing solid or liquid waste. Challenged by private landfill. NJ states that it is trying to promote health, safety and protect its environment. Law was protectionist and discriminatory on its face and not a law directed to a legitimate local concern. State laws that regulate commercial activity may not, on their face or in effect, favor in-state interests over out-of-state interest. A law that is discriminatory on its face or in its purpose is subject to a virtually per se rule of invalidity. It is review under a strict standard of review. Protectionism: protecting the interest of individual states against outside competition or trying to get an economic advantage by protecting against interstate commerce. under Preemption, Congress has the authority to pass legislation that supersedes state law under the Commerce Clause.
Maine v. Taylor
The Maine statute prohibited the importation of live bait fish from other states. Maine claimed bait fish in Maine did not have parasites, whereas outside fish had parasites and there was not adequate way of testing for them. Statute was upheld. Although the statute is discriminatory on its face, Maine was able to show a legitimate interest that could not be serve by non-discriminatory means. A stat may not discriminate against interstate commerce [per se invalid]. A facially discriminatory state can still be upheld - employ 3 part test: 1. is it facially discriminatory; 2. is there a legitimate state purpose; 3. are there non -discriminatory alternatives?
C&A Carbone Inc. v. Clarkstown
Clarkston enacted a flow control ordinance which required that any trash generated in the town be taken to a particular waste transfer station Court struck down the ordinance. Held that it discriminated against all other facilities by requiring residents to use one facility. It deprived out of state firms the opportunity to do the processing.
West Lynn Creamery Inc. V. Healy
Department of Food and Agriculture issued a pricing order that taxed all the raw milk sold by milk dealers to Massachusetts retailers and dispersed the revenue as a subsidy to Massachusetts dairy farmers. approximately two-thirds of such milk was produced outside Massachusetts, the entire fund was distributed monthly to Massachusetts dairy farmers according to each farmer's proportionate contribution to the state's total production of raw milk. held invalid. Tax breaks are not constitutional. It is protectionist in nature. they discriminated against interstate commerce by burdening out-of-state competitors to the benefit of in-state businesses
Hunt v. Washington
North Carolina statute required that apples sold in a closed container into the state must display the US grades or no grades at all. Washington had a system that was superior to the US grades. Washington challenged the statute. The statute was unconstitutional; it burdened interstate commerce. It is not facially discriminatory, but the effect are - application leaves disparate impact. It discriminated against Washington apple growers by taking away their competitive advantage (have good apples) - which made the local growers have an advantage, and increase their cost to have to repackage apples. A facially neutral state law is unconstitutional and violated the CC if it has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. 3 part test for effects - 1. Does statute have discriminatory effects; 2. is it justified by local interest. 3. Are there reasonable alternatives
Deans Milk Co. v. Madison
Wisconsin made it unlawful to sell any milk that had not bee processed and bottled within five miles or the city regulation unduly burdened interstate commerce. Reasonable non-discriminatory alternative, which would have protected the local interest, could have been implemented [inspection, compare standards]
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Line
Illinois law requiring trucks in the state use curved mudguards [to prevent spatter and promote safety]. At least 45 states require straight mud guards including states that border Illinois. Thus a truck could not be operated in both Illinois and the neighboring state without changing mud flaps The statute violated the DCC. Local safety measure burdens interstate commerce. Safety interest is too little compared to the burden that is place on truck drivers driving state to state. 7. The commerce authority is a hybrid variety. The state has legitimate concerns so they cannot be prevented from legislating at all, but they cannot legislate too much.- Congress can always come along and rule contrary to what court has done.
Exxon v. Governor of Maryland
Maryland passed a law prohibiting oil producers or refiners from operating retail gas stations in Maryland. No gas was produced or refined in Maryland so the rule against vertical integration affected our of state companies exclusively. Court upheld the statute. A statue which is evenhanded on its face may be disproportionately burdensome to out of state businesses. Where impact is truly accidental, and does not directly derive from protectionist reasons, the Court normally upholds the statute.
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightway Corp.
An Iowa statute restricted most truck combinations to 55 feet in length. The statute did provide for some exceptions: doubles, mobile homes, and trucks which carried livestock or certain types of farm equipment were permitted to be 60 feet, and cities which abutted the state line were permitted to adopt the length limitations of the adjacent State. less deference to the legislative judgment is due where the local regulation bears disproportionate burden on out of state residents and business. Cooley standard - State legislation with valid reason for law are generally upheld; facially neutral but discriminatory underneath, employ balancing test; facially discriminatory - per se invalidity.
United Building and Construction Trade Council v. Camden
Camdon ordinance requires that 40% of the workforce be state residents. The ordinance was enacted to reduce the number of unemployed construction workers in the state who were forced to emigrate because of unemployment. Out-of-state construction workers denied jobs on the project challenged the statute based on Art. IV, §2 PI clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to municipal ordinances because a municipality is really a subdivision of a state. If a municipality discriminates, it is the same as a state discriminating. Privileges and Immunities Clause is not available to in-state residents but is a mechanism for protecting out-of-state residents. Court states that in terms of the clause, employment is a fundamental right under the Privleges and Immunities clause, and Camden can be held accountable under the clause and fundamental right in terms of 14th Amendment, Commerce Clause, Bill of Rights, etc. There an exception for the state as a market participant; however, the state may still prevail if it proves that protecting jobs is a substantial state purpose and that the ordinance is a reasonable means of obtaining this goal. Market Participant Doctrine - State acts as market participant (buyer or seller of goods) as opposed to a regulator. Where state acts as a market participator it may discriminate in favor of local businesses and the court will not look at this as discriminatory.
Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation Commission
The federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954 regulates the Nuclear power industry. California's Warren-Alquist Act conditions the construction of nuclear plants that adequate storage facilities and means of disposal are available for nuclear waste. Two statutes, both of which touch nuclear energy California's regulation is valid. The federal system was set up solely to deal with safety issues and with the construction and operation of nuclear plants. Court held that since California's statute was aimed at the economic problems of storing and disposing of waste and not safety, the the statute does not come within the area preempted by Congress.
Youngstown v. Sawyer
During the Korean War, President Truman ordered the seizure of the steel mills that went on a national strike so that they could operate under federal rule. He siezed without Congress's approval. The steel companies sought an injunction. The President does not have the inherent authority to order the involuntary surrender or private property to the government. By seizing private property it constitutes a taking without compensation the President is making law, which he cannot do. He has the power to enforce not make law. President has the right to exercise war but he cannot use domestic labor disputes as war. During times of emergency, the President may exercise his power, but Congress or Constitution must also authorize him to act. JACKSON concurrence: 1) when the President acts in pursuant to an expressed or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, and 2) when President acts in absence, his actions will be upheld, and 3) denial authority, he has little authority and his action will be invalid.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
Congress passed a joint resolution giving the president authority to prohibit the sale of arms in Bolivia if he found that such a prohibition would contribute to establishment of peace in the region This is constitutional because deference has been given to the president. This is a matter of foreign affairs. The non-delegation doctrine does not bar Congress from delegating great authority and discretion to the president in regards to foreign affairs. Congress must give the President the discretion to avoid US embarrassment because he knows more about foreign affairs than congress.
Dames and Moore v. Reagan
US and govt. of Iran entered into an agreement prior to release of US hostages, that prior to the settlement of legal claims, that all future legal claims between US and Iranians will be decided through arbitration. All Iranian assets held in US were to be unfrozen. President Carter signed just before he left office . Regan entered office and signed the agreement again. Core- provision that provides for nullification for all future claims for us courts- Iran can't sue u.s. party in domestic court in Iran and vice versa President has the power to settle claims by US citizens against foreign governments, even without consent of the U.S. citizen whose claims are compromised. The Court held the president's act was constitutional. While Congress is silent on this matter the court viewed this as implicit authority since Congress has given the president deference in the past concerning foreign matters.
Dellums v. Bush
Iraq invaded Kuwait and President Bush Sr. sent US military forces to the Persian Gulf to deter Iraqi aggression. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Congress brought action to prevent Bush from initiating attack w/o first securing a declaration of war or other explicit congressional authorization Congress has not rendered a final decision on what they will decide regarding the Gulf war. The president has not declared war yet. This case should also be looked at as a political question. Relied on implied congressional aquiescence. BUSH DOCTRINE- if there is ever a threat to American security we reserve the right to take action to remove that threat.
The Prize Cases
President Lincoln declared a blockade of southern ports in 1861. Pursuant to this blockade Union ships seized merchant vessels and their cargoes of foreign neutrals and residents of the southern states. The ships were condemned by federal court order. The President is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a state or of the United States. Congress did approve of the President's actions by the Acts they passed in 1861, which allowed the government to prosecute the war with vigor and efficiency. Congress approvedproclamations and orders of the President as if they had been done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress. Therefore even if he needed Congress to ratify his actions, they did so and therefore cured any defect.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Hamdi, an America citizen was captured in Afghanistan by a colitian fighting alongside U.S. troops to oust the Taliban. The coalition turned Hamdi over to the U.S. which labeled him an enemy combatant. The Bush administration asserted that by the distinction of Hamdi as an enemy combatant, the executive branch has the power to home him in confinement indefinitely without formal charges Court ruled that the U.S. did not have that power. O'Connor in a judgment held that Hamdi had the right to due process at least with respect to pursuing his claim that he was not in fact an enemy combatant. He was entitled to the balancing test of Mathew's v. Eldridge which balanced the government's interest in the nation's security against Hamdi's interes in not being deprived of liberty without due process. A citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decision-maker.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hamdan was captured as a Taliban, sent to Guantanamo Bay, and then tried for war crimes by a military commission that had been created by an Executive Order. Citing Jackson in Youngstown, the Court held that the military commission could not proceed, because the order authorizing the commission went beyond the limitations that Congress has placed on the President. The could found that the Executive Order was authorized by an act of Congress that was interpreted as limiting the Presidents power to convene commissions to those that comply with the Constitution, law, and rules of war, and that the commission here violated the laws and rules of war.
United States v. Nixon
Employees of the reelection committee for Nixon broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. A committee was set up 1 year later to investigate the break-in and the question of White House involvement. Nixon appointed a special prosecutor. He was implicated. Nixon challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of tapes and documents for use in a criminal prosecution. Nixon proclaimed: 1- a) He is immune to judicial arguments and if he did anything he is subject only to impeachment; 2. b) He can absolutely determine the scope of privilege; 3. c) The facts are of a sufficient level where the court should defer to the president's judgment. Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments; non-justiciable political question. The courts will refuse to decide a case on political-question grounds if the case raises an issue the determination of which is clearly committed by the Constitution to another branch of the federal government. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances does not exist. There is absolute executive privilege for the 3 categories listed above. Under other circumstances, the President must convince the court that it qualifies. The facts of this case does not.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald brought an action against President Nixon on the ground that he had been discharged from a government position because he had exercised his right to freedom of speech. The case was brought after the President's term of office President is immune from an action for damages based on his official acts. Such interference would distract Pres from his duties and personal liability would interfere with his decision making. The misconduct allege must occur while in office.
Cheney v. United States District Court
Arose from efforts of 2 public interest organizations to gain disclosure ot the activities of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Plaintiffs relied on Federal Advisory Committee Act which imposes disclosure requirements on committees and boards established by the President unless the committee is composed wholly of government employees. The president appointed only federal employees to the task force but the plaintiffs alleged that private lobbyist regularly attend meetings and were de facto members. Appellate Court relied on Nixon requiring that a particularized claim of executive privilege be made if they wish to resist the disclosure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the need for information for use in civil cases, while far from negligible, does not share the urgency or significance of criminal subpeona request in Nixon.
INS v. Chadha
Chadha was lawfully admitted to the US on a student visa but overstayed his time. After a hearing an immigration judge suspended Chadha's deportation since he met the requirements of the relevant statute. The Attorney General's suspension recommendation was conveyed to Congress. Congress then had the power to veto under the statute. A resolution opposing the granting of permanent residence in the US was passed without debate or recorded vote. The resolution was not submitted to the Senate or presented to the President. Chadha was subsequently ordered deported Because it constitutes an exercise of legislative power and is thus subject to the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Art. I of the Con, the fed statute "authorizing" a one-house veto of the Attorney General's decision is unconstitutional. The resolution altered rights and duties of person. It altered Chadha's status and the actions have consequences - his deportation. The house is acting in a way that alters the rights, duties, and legal responsibilities of parties including executive branch officials and Chadha, all outside the legislative branch. the resolution was meant to overrule the attorney general's decision.
United States Senate v. FTC
Commission adopted a regulation for sellers of used cars to disclose any defect and both houses of congress veto the regulation. Constitutionality of the veto is challenged. Banning unfair practices- required to pass information FTC would still be struck down because even though there is a general statute and the bicameralism requirement is met, the presentment is lacking. Policy reason: Adhoc particularist decision aris if Congress is able to delegate its law making to agencies and then veto the situations that it does not like - leads for decisions to be made by large interest group pressure Distinction between Chadha and FTC FTC required bicameralism and involved a general statute that affected ALL used car sellers. Chadha was one person and bicameralism was not met
Myers v. United States
Involved a statute that postmasters shall be appointed and may be removed by the president and with the advice and consent of the senate. President Wilson attempted to remove Myers, a postmaster appointed for a 4yr term, before the expiration of his term The Court held the statute unconstitutional because it's the excutive's duty to remove the postman, not congress. The President must make sure the laws be faithfully executed and this power lies in the President, not the Senate. The statute attempted limitation on the President's removal power was unconstitutional under article II. Congress cannot by statute divest the President of the power to remove an officer in the Executive branch whom the president appointed or involve itself in removal of such officers.
Humphrey's Executor
Statute provided that members of FTC could be "removed by the Pres for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The court unanimously stated that the president did not have the authority to remove administrative officials created by Congress that do not perform executive duties. [this case narrowed the wide presidential removal power given in Myers.] The Court recognized Congress's right to create administrative agencies which are free from president's control and free from partisan political control with some level of political tenure.
Buckley v. Valeo
The Federal Election Campaign Act created an 8-member Federal election Commission. 2 members were appointed by the Senate, 2 by the House, and 2 by the President. The Commission was authorized to investigate, maintain records, make rules governing federal elections and impose sanctions on violators of their rules and the Act. The Appointment Clause does not give Congress the power to appoint officials. President has sole power to point higher ranking executive officials and Congress has the power to delegate who will appoint inferior Officers. Congress had delegated the power to themselves. Officer of the US is a person who exercises significant authority pursuant to the laws of the US. Congress attempted to be involved in 6 of the 8 people who would enforce election laws.
Bowsher v. Synar
Balanced Budget Act: gave the comptroller the power to investigate matters relating to the receipt and disbursement of public funds. The Act provided for his removal by congress only. The act gave the comptroller power give the president directive of budget cuts and the President must comply with the Comptroller's directive. The Comptroller is Congress's agent (appointed and can only be fired by Congress) Congress cannot authorize an inferior representative to execute executive functions. This violates the separation of powers. An administative act is mechanical - no discretion necessary.
Clinton v. City of New York
Line Item Veto Act was a statute which attempted to give the President authority cancel in whole any items of new spending or any limited tax benefit in the bill. In identifying items for cancellation, the President was directed to consider the legislative history, purposes, and other relevant info about the cancelled items. In addition, before canceling an item, the statute required the President to find that the cancellation will reduce the budget deficit, not impair essential government functions, and not harm the national interest The act was found unconstitutional. There was no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, amend, or to repeal statutes. The president must accept statutes in their entirety or not at all because the president would be changing the law
Morrison v. Olson
Act allows for appointment of an independent counsel to investigate and if appropriate, prosecute certain high ranking government officials for violations of federal criminal Laws. The special investigator can be removed by Attorney General for good cause. The independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act are constitutional. The statute takes the power of appointing prosecutors away from the president and vests it with the attorney general. You can vest appointment of an inferior officer with someone other than the president. Tenure of the special prosecutor, limited duration of the process, limited duties and removal.
Mistretta v. United States
The sentencing commission had 7 members appointed by the President of whom 3 must be federal (Art. III) judges. The commission was independent within the judicial branch of government. They were to develop sentencing guidelines to prescribe the outline of sentences for various offenses and if judge departed from guidelines he must give reasons for the deviation and sentence was subject to review by the commission. There was a challenge to the 3 judges making rules: delegation of authority; seperation of powers (judges making laws) There were sufficient guidelines despite the broad grant of power and the Supreme Court upheld the legislation was appropriate for delegation. Although courts may not generally exercise executive and administrative duties of a nonjudicial nature, some forms of judicial rulemaking are permissible. Consistent with separation of powers, Congress may delegate nonadjudicatory functions that do not trench upon the prerogatives of another branch and that are appropriate to the central mission of the judiciary
Washington Metro Airport Authority v. Citizens of Abatement of Aircraft Noise
When Congress transferred operation of Washington, DC airports from the federal government to a new airport authority, it conditioned the transfer on the creation of a board of review with power to veto major decisions made by the authority. The board of review consisted of 9 members of congress to be chosen by the authority's board of directors from lists provided by the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate Statute held unconstitutional. Statute violated separation of powers because power given to the board of review was executive. The separation of powers precludes an agency of Congress, such as a board comprised of its members from exercising such power. Article I, §6 is the ineligibility clause which prohibits members of congress from holding any office under the US or the claim that it violated the appointments clause of Article II, §2, c.2. Review and veto is an executive function not to be handled by Congress
Slaughter House Cases
Louisiana legislature passes an Act granting one company, crescent city livestock, a 25yr monopoly on slaughtering of animals in the city and surrounding areas. Anyone that wanted to slaughter animals was required to bring the animals to that slaughter house and pay for the use of the house. The law was in response to a cholera epidemic to prevent pollution. Private butchers challenged the law arguing they are being deprived of their livelihood by this legislation and they challenge the act on the Privilges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment because as a citizen of the US they have the right to pursue his employment. The court took the narrow reading of the Privileges and immunities clause and used the framer intent to do so. They claimed that the 13-15th Amendments were enacted to give equal protection to slaves and also stop other from being enslaved. The Privileges and Immunities clause says "No State shall make or enforce law which shall abridge the Privileges or Immunities of citizens in the US was not meant to protect citizens of states against own state legislature". There are two basis of citizenship: state citizenship and federal citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities clause only covers federal citizenship.
Barron v. Baltimore
Barron maintained action against city for ruining his wharf because a municipal street construction had diverted the flow of streams so that they deposited silt in front of his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. He claimed the 5th amendment, which provides that private property not be taken for public use without just compensation was violated. Provisions of the 5th amendment were intended solely as a limitation on exercise of the government of the US and was not applicable to legislation of the states. The suit was under the 5th amendment and Marshall makes observation that nowhere in Bill of Rights is there a limitation upon state action. The first 10 amendments of constitution regulate action of the federal government and does not cover states.
Palko v. Connecticut
Palko found not guilty of second degree murder. State appeals to state supreme court. Connecticut Supreme Court sets aside verdict and orders a new trial. Palko was tried and convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Court they find no necessary relation between the 14th and Bill of Rights. The 14th are not identical to the 5th because they must protect traditional notions of due process implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Double jeopardy is not a violation of free rights so not incorporated in 14th Amendment. Double Jeopardy is not a traditional right through "ordered liberty" and therefore is not covered under the 14th Amendment. In order for a right under the Bill of Rights to be a "fundamental right" subject ot the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause it must be: 1. Of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty 2. The hardship must be so acute and shocking that the gov't cannot enforce it 3. It violates the "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions
Adamson v. California
Defendant failed to testify at his own trial. Prosecutor was allowed to argue that not testifying was a sign of guilt. Adamson was found guilty. 5-4 decision, finding the 14th Amendment does not cover self incrimination rights. Focus on Dissent: Black, J. rejects natural law in relation to the 5th amendment and calls for total incorporation. Whatever limitations and understanding the court gives to the 5th amendment should be construed in an identical fashion. 14th amendment was intended simply and exclusively to extend to all the people the protection of the Bill of Rights. This interpretation would avoid the subjectivity inherent in the fundamental rights approach. Total incorporation has never commanded a majority on the courts and we have continued to rely on the fundamental rights approach. By 1960 move from fundamental fairness approach to selective incorporation.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan was arrested and ultimately charged with simple battery. As it is punishable by no more than two years, simple battery is a misdemeanor under Louisiana law and therefore not subject to trial by jury. Duncan was convicted and received a 60 day prison sentence and a fine of $150. The Court will look at whether the right in question was fundamental to the American scheme of justice. fundmental fairness approach gives discretion to judges - asks whether the value was sufficiently important [A less strict standard] In adopting this approach, over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has virtually incorporated almost all the Bill of Rights of the 14th Amendment.
Ogden v. Saunders
The main issue of the case was whether or not the New York law violated the Obligation of Contracts Clause of the Constitution. It hinged on whether Congress had exclusive power to pass bankruptcy laws, which itself depended on what was meant by the clause prohibiting states from passing laws impairing the "obligations of contracts. Court found that the clause prevented states from passing only laws affecting contracts already signed; laws that affected future contracts were construed to become part of the contracts themselves. Marshall's Dissent: regards right to contract as right of nature and should be both retroactive and prospective. held that the Contract Clause gave the federal legislature the exclusive power over bankruptcy laws, rejecting the argument that state laws became part of contracts signed within the state thereafter.
Manigualt v. Springs
Land owner contrated not to build dam; statute was enacted giving the landowner right to build a dam on the creek. Party argues state in impeding on right to contract. State is acting under police power (sovereign right to protect general welfare. (police power exception)
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell
in response to a large number of home foreclosures, Minnesota, extended the time available for mortgagors to redeem their mortgages from foreclosure. The extension had the effect of enlarging the mortgagor's estate contrary to the terms of the contract. Supreme Court upheld the statute, reasoning that the emergency conditions created by the Great Depression "may justify the exercise of [the State's] continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts." - applies only in limited instances of economic emergency [1930s the emergency exception doctrine had expanded dramatically.] Majority further held that the change in times require change in constitutional interpretation and Police Power applies where there is a legitimate end and the measures are appropriate. The court defers to legislature and does not inquire into what was done to address the mortgage problem. - this decision vastly increases state power [very little power left in contract power between two private parties.
United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey
A trustee and holder of New York and New Jersey Port Authority bonds instituted an action against the State of New Jersey for declaratory relief, contending that the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution was violated by a New Jersey statute which, together with a concurrent and parallel New York statute, repealed a statutory covenant made by the two states in 1962 that had limited the ability of the Port Authority to subsidize rail passenger transportation from revenues and reserves. No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts " Art. I, s 10, cl. 1. The Contract Clause does not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential attributes of its sovereignty. The State is held to a higher standard than private citizens. Necessary is determined by 1 - whether measures are essential to purpose; and 2 - whether alternative means would accomplish goal. Despite the customary deference courts give to state laws directed to social and economic problems, " legislation adjusting the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties must be upon reasonable conditions and of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying its adoption."
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
State of Hawaii sought to redistribute land concentrated in hands of a few families to the population in general. There was feudal land tenure system, people couldn't freely buy/sell because owners could exact huge price. Midkiff and other landowners sued, contending the Land Reform Act promoted unconstitutional taking because land was taken for private and not public use. "Court upheld the statute, saying that Act has public purpose: redistribution of land and dealing with problem of imperfect market conditions created by land oligopoly. Redistribution of land is good for the public. Court gives great deference to legislature. When legislature says there's public purpose, there's public purpose. Legislature is a representative body, and as such is representative of the public good. RULE: The Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not proscribe the exercise of eminent domain power where such is reasonably related to a conceivable public purpose.
Kelo v. City of New London
The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. Phfizer was to build a facility that would include a hotel, office complexes, and a marina, a riverwalk that would draw business to the area. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Majority held that Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public. The Fifth Amendment was interpreted the same way as in Midkiff.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
Started the doctrine of regulatory taking, the Pennsylvania Coal Co. granted to H.J. Mahon the surface rights to a parcel of land, but retained the mining rights to the land,. The Kohler Act prohibited the mining of anthracite coal in such way as to cause the subsidence of, among other things, any structure used as a human habitation. Pennsylvania Coal provided notice to Mahon that it planned to mine for coal under the Mahon's habitation and Mahon brought suit to prevent Pennsylvania Coal from mining under his land pursuant to the Kohler Act. The Court ruled that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property. The damage done by the activity prohibited by the act is a private, not a public nuisance; there is no public safety justification for the statute, as notice before mining would suffice to protect public safety. he statute, in general, purports to extinguish the mining rights to valuable properties under surfaces owned by the public and the government. The statute makes prohibitively expensive the mining of coal in these areas, and thereby effectively destroys the right, after all owning coal is not worth anything if the coal cannot be mined.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. Debenedictis
the Subsidence Act was designed to prevent the harmful effects that underground mining can have on the surface above. Some examples of coal mine subsidence damage include cracked foundations, sinkholes, and groundwater loss. Plaintiffs argued that Sections 4 and 6 of the Subsidence Act effected a taking of petitioners' private property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment. The Court distinguished the facts of this case from the facts of Pennsylania Coal Co. and held that there was not a taking. the Court held that a land use regulation will be deemed a taking if it 1) does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, or 2) denies an owner economically viable use of his land. the Court found that the petitioners didn't meet their burden of proof in order to establish a taking. the Subsidence Act was a legitimate exercise of the State's police power because it was meant to protect the public interest in health, the environment, and the fiscal integrity of the area. To be a legitimate exercise of the State's police power, "the nature of the State's action" must protect the general well-being of the community. The mining being regulated in this case was compared to a public nuisance. Court also held that because you cannot mine all over property does not constitute a taking because the economic value was not eviserated.
Miller v. Schoene
The State entomologist in Virginia acting under the Cedar Rust Act of Virginia ordered the plaintiffs' ornamental red cedar trees growing on the plaintiffs' property to be removed to prevent the spread of rust disease to nearby apple orchards. The plaintiffs appealed the order to the circuit court of Shenandoah county, which affirmed the order, but allowed the plaintiffs to recover $100 to remove the trees. A unanimous decision found that the statute and the order to remove Miller's cedar trees did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court recognized the State's interest in preventing the cedar rust from damaging nearby apple orchards as they were the "principal agriculture pursuit" in the state. The Court held that the destruction of Miller's trees would be a taking of his property; however, the State did not exceed its constitutional powers by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the judgment of the legislature, is of greater value to the public.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
New York City Landmark Preservation Commission repeatedly rejected Penn Central's proposals for new use of the Grand Central Terminal. In the suit they claimed the city's enactment of the Landmark Preservation Law was a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Because Penn Central felt the City had taken their land and air rights away, they were looking to receive just compensation for the City's actions. The Court found that found that the city's restrictions on land use for Grand Central Terminal was not a taking and therefore did not require just compensation. The court held that they did not recognize the value of airspace under the dividion of a parcel into discrete segments - property is analyzed as a whole. The Court employed a 3 part test. 1. the economic impact, 2. extent of interference with distinct investment backed expectations and 3. character of governmental action. The law does not prevent Penn Central from it's current use and the reasonable return it is already recieving from the property's current use. Penn Central repudiated Mahon - requiring government to leave a baseline benefit it the property.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhatten CATV Corp
Law required certain property owners to permit installation and maintenance of certain cable television wires on their property. Loretto, on behalf of all property owners so situated, sued Manhattan Teleprompter for trespass and—insofar as Teleprompter relied on § 828—a taking without just compensation, and requested damages and injunctive relief. held that when the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, the government actions effects regulatory taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner. In doing so, it established the permanent physical presence test for regulatory takings. There is a per se physical taking where there is a an invasion of property space, no matter how small.
FCC v. Florida Power Corp.
The Pole Attachments Act (Act) empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in the absence of parallel state regulation, to determine "just and reasonable" rates that utility companies may charge cable television systems for using utility poles as the physical medium for stringing television cable. hree cable operators alleging that the yearly per-pole attachment rentals charged them by the FCC were unreasonable The Act does not authorize a taking of property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Since the Act clearly contemplates voluntary commercial leases, rather than forced governmental licensing, it merely regulates the economic relations of utility company landlords and cable company tenants, which regulation is not a per se taking under Loretto. The FCC order did not effect a taking under traditional Fifth Amendment standards, which permit governmental regulation of rates chargeable on the use of private property devoted to public purposes so long as the rates set are not confiscatory.
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins
Statute allowed Shopping Center to allow protesters to protest on landowner's property. Court held that the statute was not unconstitutional. The protesting or the statute does not impair the value of the property. free speech can co-inside with value of property.
Hodel v. Irving
Statute provided that No undivided fractional interest in any tract of trust or restricted land within a tribe's reservation shall descedent by intestacy or devise but shall escheat to that tribe if such interest represents 2 per centum or less of the total acreage in such tract and has earned to its owner less than $100 in the preceding year before it is due to escheat. Heirs or devisees of deceased tribe members. Irving lost two escheatable interests worth approximately $100, Pumpkin Seed lost 13 escheatable interests worth $1,816, and Bissonette lost $2,700 on the 26 escheatable interests in she was devised. held that a statute ordering the escheat of fractional interests in real property which had been bequeathed to members of the Oglala Sioux tribe was an unconstitutional taking which required just compensation. The statute infringed on the right to pass land from generation to generation
Andrus v. Allard
The Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act were conservation statutes designed to prevent the destruction of certain species of birds. Challenged in this case was the validity of regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior that prohibit commercial transactions in parts of birds legally killed before the birds came under the protection of the statutes. The Court upheld the regulations. Regulations that bar trade in certain goods have been upheld against claims of unconstitutional taking. No physical invasion or decreasion of value occurred. This was a restrictioni not a taking. The fact that a strand (ability to sell) is destroyed does not constitute a taking. Ruling went against Penn Central which refused to break down the strands of property.
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
Embler developed a zoning ordinance [changed land from industrial to residential] that divided a particular lot into three use classes, which hindered Ambler Realty from developing the land for industry. Ambler Realty sued the village, arguing that the zoning ordinance had substantially reduced the value of the land by limiting its use, amounting to a deprivation of Ambler's liberty and property without due process The Court held that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional. The Court also found that Ambler Realty had offered no evidence that the ordinance had in fact had any effect on the value of the property in question, but based their assertions of depreciation on speculation only. The court ruled that speculation was not a valid basis for a claim of takings.
Kaiser Aetna v. United States
In 1967, Defendant Bishop Estate leased 6,000 acres of land to Defendant Kaiser Aetna to develop the area, now known as Hawaii Kai. Kaiser Aetna built housing and created the Hawaii Kai Marina ("the Marina") by dredging and filling Kuapa Pond (an ancient Hawaiian fishpond), erecting retaining walls, and building bridges. Kaiser Aetna also dredged an eight-foot channel under the Kalanianaole Highway bridge to allow boats to travel between the Marina and Maunalua Bay ("the Bay"), the gateway to the Pacific Ocean. Gov't sought to creat a public right of access for their use and the use of others Court held that it was a taking. It was private property initialy and under property rights is ther right to exclude. There was a physical invasion to interfered with this right to exclude. This was forced physical invasion that would constitute a taking because owners had invested in developing marina with the expectation that they would continue to control access to it. There would be interference w/their reasonable, investment backed expectations.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
Couple sought building permit to increase size of house. State agency agreed to issue permit on condition that they grant public easement to the state to allow people to walk on their property to access the beachfront. Court held there was taking because the State forced owners to grant easement to public, thereby effectuating permanent, physical invasion of their property one that they should be compensated for.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Plaintiff bought 2 parcels of land for $975,000 near ocean with intention to build houses. The Beachfront Management Act effectively deprived Petitioner Lucas of his ability to erect homes on his properties. "Court remands to see if there was a "total taking". Court rejects previous distinctions between regulations that prevent harmful use of property and regulations that extract a benefit to the public because they are subjective. Whether something is characterized as one or the other is a distinction that is "in the eye of the beholder".
The Court then adopts new objective rule which holds that where regulations that take away ALL economic value of land affect a taking requiring just compensation, unless the land use is already unlawful under existing property and nuisance laws. If there is still economic value in land, there is no taking.
...
Palazzo v. Rhode Island
Regulations promulgated by the council protected coastal salt marshes as "coastal wetlands,'" on which construction was severely limited. Palazzolo and business associates, operating under the name Shore Gardens, Inc. purchased three undeveloped parcels on the Rhode Island coast. Palazzolo eventually became sole owner of company and began efforts to develop the land by submitting parcelling plans to the town. Palazzolo submitted applications for permits from the Division of Harbors and Rivers, which were denied. In 1983, Palazzolo personally owned the property and again attempted to develop the land, submitting several permits, all of which were rejected. statutue was passed between first attempt and second attempt. The Court ruled that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged. The argument that a claimant who acquires property after the enactment of a regulation waives the right to challenge such regulation as an unconstitutional regulatory taking fails because (1) such a principle would make the constitutionality of a regulation a matter of the passage of time, thereby creating a "[statute of limitations]" on a constitutional right; (2) such a principle also prejudices owners at the time of regulation, whose ability to transfer the land has become seriously impaired; and (3) such a principle would create different and unequal rights between different classes of owners (old owners and new owners).
Lochner v. New York
Owner of a bakery challenged a NY statute that limited bakers' hours to no more than 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. Lochner permitted an employee to work over 60hrs in one week. Lochner claimed that this statute interfered with his right to contract and purchase and sell labor under the 14th Amendment To be fair, reasonable, and appropriate use of a state's police power, an act must have a direct relation, as a means to an end, to appropriate a legitimate state objective. Held: statute is unconstitutional NY had unreasonably and arbitrarily interfered with the freedom of its citizens to contract with each other for employment. There were no valid health or safety reasons to justify the law; therefore it violated the 14th Amendment due process clause. Fearing invasive legislation into all aspects of private life, the court used substantive due process to prevent legislatures from enacting laws that drew lines, with respect to individual's freedom, that the court considered arbitrary.
Nebbia v. New York
grocery store owner was convicted of selling milk below the price established by the NY Milk Control Board. The court upheld the statute. Found that law maker is free to adopt whatever policy it thinks is best for the public interest. Courts do not have authority to declare or override states economic policies, legislature is the judge of such enactments. NOTE: Marked a shift of a more deferential review of economic legislation. This is the beginning of a disavowing of substantial due process in economic realm. This case is a departure from Lochner because court now says a state is free to make whatever economic policy it desires and property and contract rights are not absolute and have to yield to the public need.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Statute established a minimum wage for women Court held that the statute was constitutional. The legislature has the freedom to protect groups in society that they think are vulnerable. Low wages paid to women is an undue burden on the community and taxpayers. Legitimate state interest in protecting women from exploitation by unconscionable employers
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma
In Williamson there was a statute that said you could not dispense eye-glasses unless you were an ophthalmologist or optometrist. The effect was that certain individuals [opticians] were put out of business The court said it was a statutory choice and it was not their job to oversee such matters. Court will no longer use due process to strike down laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought. Court should not be sitting as a super-legislature because it is up to the legislature to make these particular decisions. law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.
Ferguson v. Skrupa
A Kansas statute declared it unlawful for any person to engage in the business of debt adjusting except as incident to "the lawful practice of law." The statute defined "debt adjusting" as the making of a contract with a debtor whereby the debtor pays money periodically to the adjuster who then distributes it to the debtor's creditors in accordance with an agreed-on plan. Skrupa, a debt adjustor who was put out of business by the statute, sued. Court held the statute constitutional. It is now settled that the states have power to legislate against what are found to be injurious practices in their internal commercial and business affairs, so long as their laws do not run afoul of some specific federal constitutional prohibition. "It behooves the judiciary to stay out of theses economic matters"
United States v. Carolene Products Co.
Based on findings by 2 congressional committees, Congress enacted the Filled Milk Act of 1923 which declared that "filled milk" [condensed milk] is an "adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health," and that "its sale constitutes a fraud upon the public." The act prohibited any person to ship filled milk in interstate commerce Court believes legislature had a rational basis for adopting this piece of legislation. Court asked: Is there a deprivation of the rights of filled milk producers? Maybe.Court finds there is some rational basis for this finding. What do we mean by rational basis? Any conceivable basis. If it's debatable, give deference to the legislature. It's debatable if Congress says it is. You have to go to the political process. Footnote 4:whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry [strict scrutiniy]
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Skinner was classified as a habitual criminal and under Oklahoma statute he was ordered to be sterilized. OK had a rule that stated anyone who committed a felony 3 or more times would be sterilized a statute which arbitrarily excludes a class from its scope/limits violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment where fundamental rights are involved. Procreation is essential to human kind and is rooted in natural rights. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence of the surviving race. The law is unequal because similarly situated people are being targeted in terms of a felon v. a white collar crime there is a race and class impact. Substantive looks at the nature of the right and individual rights; i.e. is it a fundamental right protected under the constitution on its own? Court says its not that you can't sterilize someone but you must have a compelling reason for treating those in same situation differently. Court focuses on (1) fundamental importance and (2) depriving something of fundamental importance to different people.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Doctor and another person were prosecuted for advising married persons of the means of preventing conception. Individuals' interest in using birth control is "fundamental." So whether a person is married or single, he or she has a fundamental interest in contraception, and the state cannot impair that interest without satisfying strict scrutiny. The Bill of Rights gives meaning to the substance of the Amendments. Various clauses create zones of privacy. An individuals interest in using birth control is a fundamental right. There exists a constitutional right to privacy implied from the Bill of Rights, that cannot be invaded by government action absent a showing that the government action at issue is necessary to accomplish a compelling governmental interest.
Roe v. Wade
Roes wanted an abortion, the Texas statute stated that an abortion was criminal unless it was to save a mother's life Right to privacy traced to libery in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Broad enough for women to terminate pregnancies. The court extending the right to abortion to involve autonomy and not necessarily privacy. Majority focuses on sexuality, procreation etc. as rooted in tradition and because of this a woman has the ability to control her body. Court held state interest vest when fetud is viable (can survive outside of the womb). Court says the state cannot choose for a woman in interest of autonomy but the state has interest in child after viability. Categorical balancing - grants state right to regulate but limited
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
5 provisions of the PA Abortion Control Act challenged as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. The "informed consent" (doctors to provide women with information about the health risks and possible complications of having an abortion ); "spousal notification" (women to give prior notice to their husbands); "parental consent" (minors to receive consent from a parent or guardian prior to an abortion); A 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion; Imposition of certain reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services. Upheld Roe v. Wade. Right to autonomy. Court relies on living constitution and stare decisis. Judgment rejuects trimenster approach (finds it misconcieves the nature of the pregnant woman's interest and undervalues the states interest) and employs unde burden approach to give the state a little more leeway with the statute
Political Question Standards
Baker v. Carr
1. Commitment to another branch: textually demonstrable commitment of an issue to a coordinate political department
2. Lack of standard: lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
3. Unsuitable policy determination: the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion
4. Lack of respect for other branches: a courts inability to resolve an issue without expressing disrespect for a coordinate branch
5. Political decision already made: an unusual need to defer to a prior political decision
6. Multiple pronouncements: potential of embarrassment from varied pronouncements by different departments on one question
Powell v. McCormack
Members of the House of representative tried to prevent Powell from taking his seat in the House of Representatives because he had wrongfully diverted house funds. Political question. Article I §6 states that each House shall be the Judge of the qualifications of its own members
Dole Spending Power Framework
1. exercise of spending power must be in pursuit of general welfare (with deference given to congress)
2. if congress desires to condition the states receipt of federal funds, it must be done unambiguously
3. federal grants must be unrelated to the federal interest
4. constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of the federal funds.
Selibus (commerce clause)
the Individual Mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate commerce. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate existing commercial activity, but not to compel individuals to participate in commerce. This would open a new realm of Congressional authority.