Court Cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison

Answer 1

-Judicial Powers, Jurisdiction Case-
Facts: Marbury appointed to JoP, Jefferson told Madison not to deliver commission, Marbury sues - they do not have og juris

Rule: Establishes judicial review

Question 2

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

Answer 2

-Judicial Powers, Jurisdiction Case-
Facts: Dispute over tract of land (VA gave same land to Hunter that federal treaty gave to Martin)

Rule: Appellate review of the US SC extends to state/lower court decisions

Question 3

Baker v. Carr

Answer 3

-Judicial Powers, Political Q Case-
Facts: TN has not redrawn districts since 1901

Rule: Establishes PQ doctrine

*Political Q Doctrine: foreign questions, ongoing hostility, CON amendments, impeachment (Nixon), treaty (Goldwater)

Question 4

Goldwater v. Carter

Answer 4

-Judicial Powers, Political Q & Ripeness Case-
Facts: Senators sued Carter for unilaterally withdrawing from treaty

Rule: Disputes bw exec and leg branches of govt results in a political question which the court decides
Rule: Ripeness (can he repeal? no, it hasn’t happened yet)

Question 5

Nixon v. United States

Answer 5

-Judicial Powers, Political Q Case-
Facts: Nixon is judge, Senate convicts him for impeachment through smaller committee

Rule: Could not resolve this - impeachment is a political question

Question 6

Ex Parte McCardle

Answer 6

-Judicial Powers, Jurisdiction Case-
Facts: McCardle was detained - but here it was said SCOTUS cannot hear cases where people were detained

Rule: Congress can grant and remove appellate juris at any time during a case including when it is being actively heard by the board

*What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh (aka jurisdiction)

Question 7

Muskrat v. United States

Answer 7

-Judicial Powers, Case/Controversy Case-
Facts: Indian claims act - law was passed that stated someone could bring lawsuit

Rule: Established you need a case/controversy.
*Acts passed by Congress granting court ability to determine the validity of the law does not constitute a case or controversy required by the court

Question 8

Rescue Army v. Municipal Court

Answer 8

Strict necessity is developed - they have open ended discretion not to review an issue
(Sets out basic rules for con adjudication (when courts will hear things)

Question 9

Standing Requirements

Answer 9

CON: concrete injury, traceability, redressability
Prudential: no third party standing, no taxpayer standing, party must raise a claim within the zone of interest protected by the statute in question

Question 10

Massachusetts v. Mellon/Frothingham v. Mellon

Answer 10

-Judicial Powers, Case/Contr, Standing Case-
Facts: MA was trying to sue on behalf of citizens - they cannot do that (if they want to protect their citizens, they can pass laws) & Frothingham sued stating she did not like what they were doing w her tax dollars - taxing is a public concern

Rule: No third party/taxpayer standing

Question 11

Allen v. Wright

Answer 11

-Judicial Powers, Case/Contr, Standing Case-
F: Parents saying IRS was giving money to racist schools

Rule: No standing because no concrete injury and injury is not traceable to the wrong.
*No concrete injury, did not enroll students in school - cannot do this (no standing); No traceability (could not say potential injuries were fault of IRS)

Question 12

Defunis v. Odegard

Answer 12

-Judicial Powers, Case/Contr, Mootness Case-
Facts: Denied from law school for AA

Rule: If P has received remedy they requested, such that there is no longer a controversy - moot

Question 13

Roe v. Wade

Answer 13

-Judicial Powers, Case/Contr, Mootness Case-

Rule: Established exception for mootness - Capable of repetition yet evading review - then they can hear it (not moot)

Question 14

McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 14

Facts: US gov opened branch of bank in MD - tried to tax

R1: Just bc something is not an enumerated power in the CON, it does not mean the fed gov does not have that power - they can pass leg that is necessary and proper
R2: States cannot tax the operation of the fed gov bc if they did allow it they could tax heavily and eliminate the federal program

Question 15

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Answer 15

-Judicial Powers, Case/Contr, Standing Case-
Facts: challenge to endangered species act on applicable US/high seas

H: No standing for either - neither had booked flights + no redressability
R1: Rejected an ecosystem nexus for basis of injury
R2: When claiming an injury there must be concrete, imminent plans that have been disturbed by the law directly in order for the injury to occur, cannot be speculative
R3: Court does not have power to redress the issue if they are trying to enforce the judgment on a non-party or other parties who were barely impacted acting anyways

Question 16

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Answer 16

-Judicial Powers, Case/Contr, Standing Case-
Facts: Living by river, company was polluting

Rule: Standing bc they were living by river so there was injury + it was traceable to who was polluting + redressable bc court can pass an injunction to make them stop/pay

Question 17

Raines v. Byrd & Clinton v. NY

Answer 17

Vetoes are governed by the CON, line-item veto does not exist anymore

Question 18

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons

Answer 18

• Judicial Powers, Case/Contr, Standing Case-
  F: chokehold
  H: lacked standing since low chance he would be in this position again

Question 19

McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 19

• Legislative Intent -
  F: MD trying to tax fed bank
  H: broadened congressional power by granting non-enumerated rights. taxing the fed bank is unconstitutional since the power to tax could end up eliminating the bank + states cannot eliminate actions of fed gov

Question 20

South Dakota v. Dole

Answer 20

F: Congress withheld 5% of highway funding for states who did no maintain 21 years drinking age
H: Spending power is not unlimited

Question 21

Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer 21

• Commerce Clause, expands -
  F: Gibbons had fed license to operate bw NJ/NY waters and Ogden had a state license
  R1: “among states” does not stop at state lines
  R2: no limit to fed power if they’re acting within power granted by commerce clause
  R3: interstate commerce includes navigation

**expands Congress’ power

Question 22

Champion v. Ames

Answer 22

• Commerce Clause, expands -
  F: Guy arrested for taking lottery ticket across state lines
  R1: Congress has power to regulate things that are bot lawful and unlawful
  R2: Wisdom of the laws is for Congress to decide, not the court
  R3: Carrying something state to state = commerce so Congress has power to regulate

Question 23

Hammer v. Dagenhart

Answer 23

• Commerce Clause, contraction -
  BAD LAW
  Facts: Child labor
  R: Production of articles does not constitute as commerce

Question 24

United States v. Darby

Answer 24

• Commerce Clause, expansion -
  Overrules Hammer
  Facts: Did not comply with wage/hour requirements
  R: Affectation Doctrine - Congress can regulate what affects commerce interstate even if production is intrastate

Question 25

Wickard v. Filburn

Answer 25

- Commerce Clause, expands - Facts: Law restricted how much wheat farmer could produce/keep R: Created aggregation doctrine - evaluate if small thing was done by many people and its effect on interstate commerce

Question 26

Heart of ATL Motel v. United States

Answer 26

- Commerce Clause - Facts: Motel discriminated, Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricted it R: Racial discrimination has a disruptive effect on interstate commerce and commercial intercourse

Question 27

Katzenbach v. McClung

Answer 27

- Commerce Clause - Facts: BBQ restaurant that discriminated R: Racial discrimination has a direct and adverse effect on free flow of interstate commerce

Question 28

New York v. United States

Answer 28

``` - Commerce Clause - Facts: Radioactive waste and states R: Two ways states can regulate under CC 1 - Monetary incentives 2 - Fed can gives state choice between regulating themselves or being regulated by fed law ```

Question 29

Printz v. United States

Answer 29

F: Violates Act that requires background check for handguns R: Fed gov cannot require states to address particular problems/force their state officer to enforce

Question 30

United States v. Lopez

Answer 30

F: Kid brings gun to school which violates Act R: Contracts CC power; Congress does not have power to enforce this; Three things they CAN enforce: 1 - Regulate channels of commerce 2 - Instrumentalities of interstate commerce of persons/things in interstate commerce 3 - Activities that have a substantial relation to commerce

Question 31

United States v. Morrison

Answer 31

F: Violence against women act R: Contracts Congress' power under CC; This is not under Congress' power (cannot regulate non-economic activity)

Question 32

Gonzales v. Raich

Answer 32

F: medical marijuana CA R: Expands; this is fine under CC; applies aggregation doctrine - Rational basis review is brought here too (if Congress had rational basis to think marijuana affects commerce, Court will respect that)

Question 33

National Federation of Ind. Bus. v. Sebelius

Answer 33

Two Issues: 1 - Indv Mandate - Can pass this under taxing and spending (seen as penalty) - Not valid under CC; you cannot require that people enter a market R: Congress may tax something when it cannot outright regulate it 2 - Medicaid - Required states to expand and imposed penalty if they did not H: Not upheld R: Spending conditions that affect 20% of a state's budget are coercive (contrasted against Dole where .5% was not coercive) Severability: if part of law is uncon = strike it (to see if you can look to intent of Congress and see if they would want the law to move forwards without that provision)

Question 34

Dormant Commerce Clause

Answer 34

Applies when fed gov has not taken action under the CC but they could have