deck_818488 Flashcards Preview

Con Law > deck_818488 > Flashcards

Flashcards in deck_818488 Deck (62):
2

Marbury v. Madison  (2 Take Aways)

Judicial Review of nondiscretionary acts and legislative acts Congress cannot expand the juridiction of the courts

3

Cohens v. Virginia 

Federal judicial power also encompasses the power to review state court decisions involving state law that include a question of federal or constitutional law as a matter of course

4

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

a hypothetical threat is not enough for ripeness

5

True or False A settlement moots a case

True A settlement will provide the assurance, through a breach of contract, that the defendant will stop the offending behavior

6

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 

New Application of Standing: Plaintiff must show injury, causation and redressability at the level of relief they seek Relief must correspond with the injury or potential for injury in terms of an injunction

7

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 

Cause of action does not create standing Standing vs. Cause-Of-Action: Both required, but different Cause-of-Action - Congress can create define injuries and articulate changes of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before Unless congress makes it a cause-of-action, the court will unlikely listen to citizens suing for the improper administration of laws Statutes may create obligations but do not give individuals the right to sue to enforce the obligations, even if an individual has been harmed Injury without cause-of-action, no standing A procedural right to sue is not enough for standing, a personal injury is required Cause-of-action without injury, no standing When congress has authorized a right to sue, a sanding inquiry must still be performed

8

McCulloch v. Maryland 

Necessary & Proper Clause authorizes Congress powers incidental to enumerated powers, therefore the power to create a bank is incidental to the enumerated power of coining money Determining an implied power: Drafter’s Intent Plain Language Structural (Placement among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers)

9

Wickard v. Filburn 

Court determines if the whole group sought to be regulated has an interstate effect, if so any individual or entity within that class can be regulated Requires a rational basis for concluding there is an aggregate effect Where the class of activities has been regulated, the court will not pluck an individual out of the class

10

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States 

Congress can use moral motives to regulate commerce when there is a connection to commerce

11

 Perez v. U.S. 

o Even when the regulations appear criminal, they may have an effect on commerce

12

United States v. Lopez

Change in the Commerce Clause Jurisprudence Effect → Must Be A Substantial Effect  Activity must be economic and have an economic effect 

13

United States v. Morrison 

Cannot satisfy category #3 of the areas Congress may regulate through the Commerce Clause power because Congress used the aggregation of a non-economic activity 

14

Gonzales v. Raich 

Court held it is not necessary determine whether the activities taken in aggregate substantially effect interstate commerce. But only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding” 

15

 Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 

End of Traditional Function vs. Non-Traditional Function established as the test (Unworkable) Institutional Competency Argument – Electoral process better protects the States than the traditional/non-traditional jurisprudence, the political process is better for protecting state sovereignty  

16

New York v. United States 

Courts are less likely to find a 10th Amendment violation unless the law targets states as states 

17

Printz v. United States 

Categorical rule that Congress may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program

18

 NFIB v. Sebelius 

Commerce clause powers do not apply to inactivity and compelling individuals to engage in commerce (New Emerging Principle - lacks a majority holding)   Analyzing taxes - look to substance over form (Found the penalty to be a tax)

19

U.S. v. Butler 

Hamilton’s view is the rule adopted by the majority Hamilton: Clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated and is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them. Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. National need is insufficient reasoning because this could easily and quickly become a go-to answer to ignore constitutional requirements

20

South Dakota v. Dole 

Taxing & Spending Power is Subject to 5 Limitations: (Deference to Congress) 1. Must be in pursuit of the general welfare 2. Must state conditions clearly and explicitly  (unambiguous) 3. Must be related to federal interests in programs / projects– Germaneness Requirement 4. Must be no other constitutional bar 5. Must comply with the 10th amendment’s anti-commandeering principle

21

United States v. Morrison 

§ 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is subject to the state action doctrine

22

City of Boerne v. Flores 

Supreme Court back pedals to the narrow view allowing only remedial measures to pass muster where there is congruence and proportionality between the means used and the ends to be achieved. (Must be corrective, remedial, or preventative, but not definitional)

23

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly 

When doing a preemption analysis look to the legislation as a whole In this case, the court found the legislation had a goal of national uniformity and that it intended express preemption

24

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission

Demonstrates how important framing the issue can be (Framed as a economic interest vs. safety)

25

 Aaron B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia

“Selective Exclusiveness Test” States have the power to regulate the areas of commerce which did not require uniform national regulation by Congress and that are local nature without placing an undue burden on interstate commerce.     

26

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland 

Statutes permissibly can cause incidental burdens and favor certain classes over, just not based on residency 

27

Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake 

Sough What You Reap Rationale: Allow in-state citizens to have preferential access for the taxes they pay, and this preference is constitutional 

28

South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska 

Market Participant Exception is Limited: Narrowly defined market States are not free to impose regulations that would have an effect out of the precise market in which they are participating

29

Toomer v. Witsell 

Privileges and Immunities Clause is not absolute: There are situations where there are perfectly valid independent reasons for discrimination against out-of-staters

30

United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County v. Mayor & Council of the City of Camden

Privileges & Immunities Clause covers Municipal / Local Ordinances as well as State laws

31

Lester Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commn. Of Montana 

For a Nation composed of individual states are some distinctions are permitted when they do not hinder the formation, the purpose, or the development of a single Union of those states 

32

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 

In determining whether the executive has authority, there are three general circumstances: 1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, the President’s authority is at its greatest. Task for the court is to determine whether the action is within the scope of the authorization and if the authorization is constitutional Strong presumption of validity Presidential Power is at its strongest 2. When the President acts in the absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority.  When this is the case, the test depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law. Zone of Twilight (Concurrent Authority): Case-by-case assessment is necessary (Diverging point between Majority & Concurrence) 3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, the authority of the President is at its lowest and subject to judicial review. Only if the following are true, is the authorization valid if the there is (1) presidential constitutional authority in the area and (2) congress must not have constitutional authority 

33

Bowsher v. Synar 

Congress cannot place the removal power in themselves Court looks beyond the express statement of Congress to determine the Comptroller General was not purely an office of the Legislative Branch and found that the office was “the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law.”  The Court concluded, “Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the executive function.”

34

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 

Matthews v. Eldridge Balancing Test to evaluate the government’s infringement of a constitutional right:    Factors:   1.  Private Interest At Stake 2. Government Interest At Stake 3. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation of the Private Interest 4. The Probable Value of Additional Procedural Safeguards

35

Marsh v. Alabama

Public Function Exception: A private entity that acts like a governmental body and performs a public function is subject to the United States Constitution (Constitution).  The more an owner for his advantage open his property for public use, the more rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it

36

Shelley v. Kraemer 

  Entanglement Exception: A state acts between its judicial and legislative departments therefore judicial enforcement is state action (Affirmative state action entangled with private conduct) Post-Shelly courts have limited the influence of this holding mostly to areas involving racial discrimination

37

Railway Express Agency v. New York 

Practically, any police power regulation, which furthers a health, safety or welfare purpose will be considered legitimate. With the rational relationship and legitimate reasons, the statute is upheld despite its underinclusiveness (“it is not a requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all”)

38

New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer 

“Relevant difference” requirement holds that treating people differently can only be justified on the basis of differences between people relevant to the purpose of a rule.

39

 Romer v. Evans 

Romer Rational Basis Review: Seems a little more strict type of rational basis review suggesting there are some instances where the court may use a heightened standard  Breadth Rational: So broad such that no purpose could extend to all of the applicable contexts 

40

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno 

Court looks beyond the “declaration of policy”    The equal protection clause does not allow a majoritarian desire to harm a politically unpopular group to constitute a legitimate governmental interest

41

Korematsu v. United States 

Pressing public necessity may sometimes satisfy a compelling interest but there must be no less restrictive alternatives.

42

 Brown v. Board of Education 

Separating citizens solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. 

43

 Washington v. Davis 

Racial impact alone is not enough to invalidate legislation there must also demonstrate a discriminatory purpose.   A rule that is neutral on its face and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest is constitutional even though it may impact a race disproportionately, though operative effect is more important than purpose. 

44

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney 

Discriminatory Purpose – Implies more than intent as a violation or intent awareness of consequences, such that purpose must be in part “because of” not just “in spite of”

45

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company 

All classifications based on race must be supported by a compelling government interest and withstand strict-scrutiny. (Even for affirmative action)

46

Grutter v. Bollinger 

When race-based action is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest (i.e., diversity in schools), such action does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection so long as the narrow-tailoring requirement is also satisfied   Schools may consider race as a part of the admissions process as long as it is only one factor in an individualized process such that the process is narrowly tailored to pass muster

47

Fronteiro v. Richardson 

“Administrative convenience” is not a compelling purpose. 

48

United States v. Virginia 

The territory we accept as real distinctions between the genders is shrinking

49

Graham v. Richardson 

 A “person” for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses both resident aliens and citizens, thereby affording legal aliens equal protection of the laws. 


50

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia

Rational basis review for age classifications

51

Lawrence v. Texas 

Aviel believes the appropriate level of scrutiny is a more open question than the author because the laws that have been struck would fail rational basis review and the higher tiers of scrutiny did not need to be explored

52

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish 

 Laws regulating business and employment practices will be upheld when rationally and reasonably related in objective to a legitimate government purpose (End of Locher)

53

United States v. Carolene Products Co. 

Footnote Four: Established that heightened scrutiny is appropriate for certain government action concerning “discrete and insular” minorities and personal rights (Not economic rights)

54

Skinner v. Oklahoma 

The right to have offspring is a fundamental right, requiring a compelling state interest to interfere with it. 

55

Griswold v. Connecticut 

the right to privacy in marriage is not specifically protected in either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but it is a right so firmly rooted in tradition that its protection is mandated.

56

Eisenstadt v. Baird 

Equal protection case that piggybacks onto the holding of Griswold to confirm that the fundamental right of access to contraceptives extends to both married and unmarried couples 

57

Roe v. Wade 

 Fundamental right to have an abortion is protected by the right to privacy, such that infringement is subject to strict scrutiny The State has increasingly compelling interests: Health and safety of the mother Protecting the unborn fetus Court holds that there may be no interference in the 1st trimester and that the state’s interest increases throughout the pregnancy There is a profound disagreement of what is the point of viability and when there is “Potentiality of Human Life”  (Changes as science develops)

58

Planned Parenthood v. Casey  (2 Take Aways)

Undue Burden: Does the law have a purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion? Stare Decisis – When it is permissible to abandon precedent? (1) Unworkable rule, (2) Reliance interests being unsettled, and (3) Factual changes 

59

Loving v. Virginia

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital right essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men

60

Lawrence v. Texas 

Unclear Holding By Not Announcing a Fundamental Right:  Either Private sexual conduct is not a fundamental right and rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrutiny, or Private sexual conduct is a fundamental right but it was unnecessary to apply strict scrutiny when the statute would fail rational basis review and strict scrutiny is the appropriate level of scrutiny 

61

Meyer v. Nebraska 

o It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life

62

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

The 14th Amendment provides a liberty interest in a parent’s or guardian’s right to decide the mode in which their children are educated. 

63

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

The State must advance a compelling interest to infringe upon the choice of relatives of a close degree of kinship to live together finding the decision to live in a family arrangement is a fundamental right