Holdings to Cases Flashcards
(205 cards)
1
Q
Jefferson’s Secretary of State, Madison, refused to deliver a commission granted to Marbury by former President Adams.
The Supreme Court has the power, implied from Article VI §2 to review acts of Congress, and if they are found repugnant to the Constitution, to declare them void.
A
Marbury v. Madison
2
Q
Competing claims for the same tract of land.
Article Three of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction and authority over state courts on matters involving federal law.
A
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
3
Q
Two brothers were convicted in Virginia state court of selling District of Columbia lottery tickets in violation of Virginia law.
State laws in opposition to national laws are void. The U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction for any U.S. case and final say.
A
Cohens v. Virginia
4
Q
Appeal from ruling that D.C.’s gun control laws were unconstitutional.
The D.C. gun laws violate rights of individuals under the Second Amendment, which permits individuals to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes, even though they are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.
A
District of Columbia v. Heller
5
Q
McCardle appealed from a denial of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court, but Congress passed an act forbidding the Court jurisdiction.
Although the Supreme Court derives its appellate jurisdiction from the Constitution, the Constitution gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction.
A
Ex Parte McCardle
6
Q
Citizen was awarded compensation for property destroyed by the Union army. He challenged a congressional enactment that directed federal courts to find that a pardon was proof of disloyalty and denying the court jurisdiction over the claim.
A statute violates the separation of powers by commanding a court to draw a conclusion from evidence before it, and by directing the court to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction when it encounters such evidence.
A
United States v. Klein
7
Q
New congressional act expressly noted two pending cases. The Supreme Court held that Congress had changed the law itself and did not direct findings or results under the old law.
Klein applies in a situation where Congress directs the judiciary as to decision making under an existing law and does not apply when Congress adopts a new law.
A
Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society
8
Q
After Congress amended the Securities Exchange Act, mandating reinstatement of cases dismissed as time barred, the district court denied Plaut’s motion to reinstate the final judgment in his case on the ground that the amendment was unconstitutional.
Congress may not retroactively command the federal courts to reopen final judgments without violating the separation of powers doctrine.
A
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm
9
Q
A company sought a declaratory judgment that a tax was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
A case is justiciable “so long as the case retains the essentials of an adversary proceeding, involving a real, not a hypothetical, controversy.”
A
Nashville v. Wallace
10
Q
Black parents of public school children failed the standing requirement to bring a suit against the IRS since there was no personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.
A
Allen v. Wright
11
Q
A state and several other parties challenged the EPA’s failure to enforce the Clean Air Act against motor-vehicle emissions.
A plaintiff has standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the defendant and redressable by judicial relief.
A
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
12
Q
Citizen, subjected to a chokehold after being stopped for a traffic violation, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the department’s chokehold policy.
A plaintiff must show a sufficiently plausible threat of future injury to possess standing to sue.
A
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
13
Q
Group of environmental organizations challenged regulations regarding the geographic area to which a section of the Endangered Species Act applied.
Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit under the Endangered Species Act, because the threat of a species’ extinction alone did not establish an individual and nonspeculative private injury.
A
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
14
Q
Redistricting challenged by voters as being racially discriminatory gerrymandering, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of the voters lived in the district.
To have standing, a litigant is required to have a concrete and particularized injury as opposed to a generalized grievance.
A
United States v. Hays
15
Q
Suit challenging a decision made by an organization not subject to regulation and reporting requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
An individual has standing to sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by Congress which created a general right to access certain information.
A
Federal Election Commission v. Akins
16
Q
Mother sought to enjoin the local district attorney from refraining to prosecute the father of her child for not providing child support.
A private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.
A
Linda R.S. v. Richard D.
17
Q
Action against members of the Zoning, Planning, and Town Boards of Penfield, alleging that certain ordinances intentionally excluded low and moderate income persons from living there.
As none of the plaintiffs could demonstrate any injury actually done to them, the plaintiffs were third parties to the issue and had no standing to sue.
A
Warth v. Seldin
18
Q
Plaintiffs challenged an IRS revenue ruling limiting the amount of free medical care that hospitals receiving tax-exempt status were required to provide.
It was “purely speculative” whether the revenue ruling was responsible for the denial of medical services to the plaintiffs. “The complaint suggests no substantial likelihood that victory in this suit would result in respondents’ receiving the hospital treatment they desire.”
A
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org.
19
Q
Challenge to the constitutionality of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of utility companies in the event of a nuclear reactor accident.
Standing existed because the construction of a nuclear reactor in the plaintiffs’ area subjected them to many injuries, including exposure to radiation, thermal pollution, and fear of a major nuclear accident.
A
Duke Power v. Carolina Environmental Study Group
20
Q
Physicians brought suit on behalf of welfare patients, challenging a statute that excluded abortions that were not “medically indicated” from the purposes for which Medicaid benefits were available.
A litigant has standing to bring suit where the litigant’s relationship with a third party whose rights he wishes to assert is very close and where there are genuine obstacles to the third party’s suing on its own behalf.
A
Singleton v. Wulff
21
Q
A white person who had signed a racially restrictive covenant, was sued for breach of contract for allowing nonwhites to occupy the property.
It would be difficult if not impossible for the persons whose rights are asserted to present their grievance before any court. Because blacks were not parties to the covenant, they had no legal basis for participating in the breach of contract suit.
A
Barrows v. Jackson
22
Q
Bartender challenged alcohol law on behalf of male customers. The bartender suffered economic loss from the law, thus fulfilling the injury requirement.
Vendors and those in like positions are permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates for the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.
A
Craig v. Boren
23
Q
Defendant sentenced to death but chose not to pursue habeas corpus relief in federal court. His mother sued for a stay of execution on his behalf.
The Court refused to hear the case. The Court’s per curiam opinion said that the defendant had waived his rights by not pursuing them.
A
Gilmore v. Utah
24
Q
Richardson brought suit as a taxpayer seeking a declaration that the CIA Act was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the public accounting clause of Article I §9.
A taxpayer does not have standing to bring a generalized grievance challenging a statute regulating a federal agency’s accounting and reporting procedures.
A
United States v. Richardson
25
Flast and other federal taxpayers claimed that the appropriation of funds that were being used to support instruction in religious schools was unconstitutional.
Federal taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures that are claimed to violate the Establishment Clause.
Flast v. Cohen
26
Plaintiffs could not receive medical advice on the use of contraceptives because of Connecticut statutes prohibiting the use of and dispensation of medical advice about contraceptives. Plaintiffs challenged the statutes' constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Criminal statutes that are not enforced are not ripe for constitutional adjudication.
Poe v. Ullman
27
Pharmaceutical companies' challenge of a law requiring them to disclose generic drug names on all labels or advertisements was ripe for review because the issues presented were appropriate for judicial decision and the parties would face direct and immediate hardship if the court declined to hear their case.
Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner
28
Lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of act which prevented federal employees from taking “any active part in political management or political campaigns.”
A hypothetical threat is not enough. The Court could only speculate as to the kinds of political activity they desired to engage in.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
29
Aliens sued to ensure that they would be able to return to the United States after leaving to go to Alaska.
Because the case arose before Alaska became a state, their suit was not ripe. The situation was “hypothetical” and a determination in advance of its immediate adverse effect involves too remote and abstract an inquiry.
International Longshoremen's Union v. Boyd
30
Eight major railroads brought a lawsuit challenging the conveyance of their property to Conrail.
Where the inevitability of the operation of a statute against certain individuals is patent, it is irrelevant that there will be a time delay before the disputed provisions will come into effect.
Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases
31
Challenge to a state law prohibiting discharge of sewage from boats.
The suit was ripe because it was inevitable that the law would be enforced and that as a result the boat owners had to begin installing new facilities on their boats in anticipation of the time when the law was implemented.
Lake Carriers Association v. MacMullan
32
Illinois law required signatures by at least 25,000 qualified voters to nominate candidates for a new political party. Plaintiffs filed suit, but the election was over by the time the Supreme Court heard the case.
While the election is over, the burden allowed to be placed on the nomination of candidates remains and controls future elections. The problem is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’
Moore v. Ogilvie
33
Pregnant woman filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that law prohibiting abortion was unconstitutional. Defendant moved to dismiss on mootness grounds.
If termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation would seldom survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. It is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’
Roe v. Wade
34
Student, who had been denied admission to law school, had been provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case.
This was not a question that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review" because the plaintiff would never again face this situation, and others who might raise the same complaint in the future might be able to receive full review in the courts.
DeFunis v. Odegaard
35
Plaintiff environmentalists sued the defendant corporation in a citizen suit on grounds that the corporation was violating the mercury-discharge limits of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
Voluntary compliance moots a case only if the improper behavior is not capable of being repeated.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
36
Geraghty brought suit challenging the validity of the U.S. Parole Release Guidelines on behalf of all federal prisoners eligible for parole. Class certification was denied and Geraghty was released from prison while his appeal was pending.
An action brought on behalf of a class does not become moot upon expiration of the named plaintiff's substantive claim, even though class certification has been denied.
United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty
37
Baker alleged that because of population changes since 1901, the 1901 State Apportionment Act was obsolete and unconstitutional, and that the state legislature refused to reapportion itself.
The fact that a suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean it necessarily presents a political question.
Baker v. Carr
38
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania drew redistricting maps in such a way that favored the majority Republican Party. Vieth, a Democrat, challenged the redistricting as unconstitutional political gerrymandering.
Political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable.
Vieth v. Jubelirer
39
Congress denied Representative Powell his seat on the ground that he had made improper use of government funds.
The House of Representatives may not deny a duly elected official his seat so long as the official meets the standing constitutional requirements for a representative.
Powell v. McCormack
40
Goldwater and other members of Congress claimed that President Carter had no constitutional power unilaterally to terminate a treaty with Taiwan.
The Supreme Court will not decide nonjusticiable political questions or those not ripe for judicial review.
Goldwater v. Carter
41
Nixon, former judge, alleged that a Senate impeachment rule pursuant to which he was impeached was unconstitutional because it prohibited the full Senate from taking part in the impeachment evidentiary hearings.
An action is nonjusticiable where there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate branch of government or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.
United States v. Nixon
42
McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the U.S. Bank, issued bank notes in violation of a Maryland statute providing that no bank, could issue bank notes except on stamped paper issued by the state.
(1) Certain federal powers, giving Congress the discretion and power to choose and enact the means to perform the duties imposed upon it, are to be implied from the Necessary and Proper Clause.
(2) The federal Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are supreme and control the constitutions and the laws of the states.
McCulloch v. Maryland
43
A coalition of plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
(1) The “individual mandate” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.
(2) The “Medicaid expansion” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
44
Congress authorized the federal government to civilly commit “sexually dangerous persons” beyond the date it lawfully could hold them on a charge or conviction for a federal crime. Several prisoners challenged the statute as beyond Congress's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Congress has power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to authorize the federal government to civilly commit “sexually dangerous persons” beyond the date it lawfully could hold them on a charge or conviction for a federal crime.
United States v. Comstock
45
Ogden, after acquiring a monopoly right from the State of New York to operate ships between New York City and New Jersey, sought to enjoin Gibbons from operating his ships, licensed by the federal government, between the same points.
If a state law conflicts with a congressional act regulating commerce, the congressional act is controlling.
Gibbons v. Ogden
46
Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., was charged with an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Jones and Laughlin claimed an unconstitutional attempt to regulate intrastate production.
Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate any activity, even intrastate production, if the activity has an appreciable effect, either direct or indirect, on interstate commerce.
NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.
47
Darby was indicted for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but claimed that as an intrastate producer he was not subject to federal regulation.
Congress has the power to regulate workers who are engaged in the production of goods destined for interstate commerce and can prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of goods manufactured in violation of federal regulations.
United States v. Darby
48
Filburn was ordered to pay a penalty for producing wheat in excess of his assigned quota. He argued that the federal regulations could not be applied to his crops because part of his crop was intended for his own consumption, not for interstate commerce.
Farm production that is intended for consumption on the farm is subject to Congress's commerce power, since it may have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn
49
The applicability of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to a business local in scope was challenged as unconstitutional.
Congress, under the Commerce Clause, may regulate businesses local in scope, if their business activities have some impact on interstate commerce.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
50
Ollie's Barbeque refused sit-down service to blacks. The lower court found that a substantial portion of the food served in the restaurant had moved in interstate commerce.
Although an activity is local and may not be regarded as commerce, it may still be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
Katzenbach v. McClung
51
Federal law regulated strip mining and required reclamation of strip-mined land.
A court may invalidate legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause only if it is clear that there is no rational basis for a finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, or that there is no reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends.
Hodel v. Indiana
52
Loan shark was convicted under the Consumer Credit Protection Act which prohibited extortionate credit transactions.
Congress's enactment of the Consumer Credit Protection Act is a valid use of Commerce Clause power because Congress had a rational basis to believe that the conduct they were seeking to prohibit had an effect on interstate commerce.
Perez v. United States
53
Garcia appealed from a decision holding that municipal ownership and operation of a mass transit system is a traditional governmental function and thus, its system was immune from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The test for determining state immunity from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause is not whether the state activity sought to be regulated is a traditional state function, but rather whether the regulation as applied to the state activity is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision.
Garcia v. San Antonio MTA
54
Lopez was convicted under the 1990 federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, which prohibited guns near schools.
The 1990 federal Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause regulatory powers.
United States v. Lopez
55
Brzonkala brought suit against two football-playing male students and Virginia Polytechnic University under the Violence Against Women Act.
Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity may be upheld only where the activity regulated is economic in nature.
United States v. Morrison
56
Two sufferers of serious physical ailments sought to grow and use marijuana for medicinal purposes as permitted by California law.
The Commerce Clause permits Congress to criminalize local cultivation and medicinal use of marijuana even if those uses otherwise comply with a state's laws.
Gonzales v. Raich
57
New York sought a declaration that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was unconstitutional.
The federal government may not order a state government to enact particular legislation.
New York v. United States
58
Two police officers filed actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act, which required that they perform background checks on prospective gun purchasers.
The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.
Printz v. United States
59
A federal statute regulated the disclosure of private information contained in state motor vehicle department records.
Congress may regulate the states' activities where the regulation does not require the states in their sovereign capacity to regulate their citizens.
Reno v. Condon
60
The Agricultural Adjustment Act stated that there was a national economic emergency, and to remedy this situation, a tax would be collected from processors of an agricultural product.
Congress may not, under the pretext of exercising the taxing power, accomplish prohibited ends, such as the regulation of matters of purely state concern and clearly beyond its national powers.
United States v. Butler
61
Challenge to Act that established a national taxing structure designed to induce states to adopt laws for funding and payment of unemployment compensation.
The excise tax is not void due to any coercion of the States in contravention of the Tenth Amendment or of restrictions implicit in our federal form of government.
Chas. C. Steward Mach. v. Davis
62
Developer offered bribes to a city councilman to ease his real estate building plans. He was convicted for violating the federal antibribery statute, which he now challenges as unconstitutional.
The absence of a nexus between federal funding and prohibited conduct does not result in a statute's presumed unconstitutionality.
Sabri v. United States
63
Congress passed a law withholding federal highway funds to states with a minimum drinking age of less than 21 years.
Congress may withhold federal highway funds to states with a minimum drinking age of less than 21 years.
South Dakota v. Dole
64
Defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a freshman student at a Virginia university and the victim sued the defendant for civil damages under the Violence Against Women Act.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not support the enforcement of the civil damages remedy of the Violence Against Women Act.
United States v. Morrison
65
Congress prohibited restrictions on the right to register to vote because of the applicant's inability to read and write English. New York had a statutory requirement of an ability to read and write English as a prerequisite to voter registration.
A federal statute enacted pursuant to the Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment supersedes any state constitutional or statutory provision that is in conflict with the federal law.
Katzenbach v. Morgan and Morgan
66
After the city of Boerne denied Flores a building permit to expand a church, he argued that the permit denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutionally exceeds Congress's enforcement power under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
City of Boerne v. Flores
67
Male state employees brought a class action alleging that the state's retirement-benefit plan discriminated against them because of their sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Congress may use its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity and to permit private suits against the states in federal court.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
68
Florida claimed it was immune from a suit under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act although Congress had expressly provided federal courts with jurisdiction.
Congress may not abrogate the states' immunity from suits.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
69
Suit against state agency for infringing its finance methodology, for which it had obtained patent protection. State agency alleged that it was protected from suit by state sovereign immunity.
Congress can only abrogate sovereign immunity pursuant to its powers under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and not Article I.
Florida Prepaid Secondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United States
70
Suit against a state employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Respondents argued that the act did not effectively abrogate their sovereign immunity.
Due to the lack of evidence of widespread and unconstitutional age discrimination by the states, the act is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
71
Suit to determine if Title I of the ADA expressly and constitutionally abrogated the sovereign immunity of the states.
In order to authorize private individuals to recover money damages against states, there must be a pattern of discrimination by the states which violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the remedy imposed by Congress must be congruent and proportional to the targeted violation.
Board of Trustees, University of Alabama v. Garrett
72
The FMLA validly abrogated state sovereign immunity because it is congruent and proportional to its remedial object, and can “be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.”
Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs
73
Plaintiffs alleged state was denying them public services because of their disabilities, in violation of Title II of the ADA.
The disabled were being denied fundamental rights protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, among those rights being the right to access a court. The remedy was congruent and proportional, because the solution was not unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the harm.
Tennessee v. Lane
74
Paraplegic prisoner sued the state prison for discrimination. The state claimed it was immune from such suits.
1. Title II of the ADA abolished state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities claiming discrimination by state prisons.
2. Title II was a proper exercise of Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the administration of prison systems.
United States v. Georgia
75
State employees sued their employer, the State, claiming it had violated overtime provisions of a federal labor statute.
Congress's Article I power does not authorize it to abrogate the states' immunity from suit on federal claims in their own courts.
Alden v. Maine
76
President ordered governmental seizure of the steel companies to prevent a strike. The companies challenged his power to take such action as being without constitutional authority or prior congressional approval.
The President is bound to enforce the laws within the limits of the authority expressly granted to him by the Constitution, and he cannot usurp the lawmaking power of Congress by an assertion of an unspecified aggregation of his specified powers.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer
77
Nixon challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of tapes and documents for use in a criminal prosecution.
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.
United States v. Richard M. Nixon
78
The Line Item Veto Act allowed the president to cancel provisions that have been signed into law.
The cancellation provisions authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not constitutional.
Clinton v. City of New York
79
A corporation was indicted for alleged conspiracy and violations of a code that prescribed labor standards and other regulations for industry. The code, was challenged as the product of an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to the President.
A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States
80
A business subject to federal industry regulations issued by the President sought to enjoin the regulations on the ground that they were an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's legislative power.
Congress cannot delegate its powers to the President or his agencies without providing policy standards and guidance for the delegated powers.
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
81
The EPA was to review and revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Plaintiff trucking company objected to review and revisions as unconstitutional.
1. Providing agencies some level of discretion in setting regulations is not an unconstitutional delegation of law.
2. Financial impacts are not to be taken into consideration when environmental regulations are promulgated.
Whitman v. American Trucking Association
82
Challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute that authorized one House of Congress to invalidate the decision of the Attorney General to allow a deportable illegal immigrant to remain in the U.S.
As an exercise of legislative power subject to bicameralism requirements of Article I of the Constitution, the federal statute authorizing a one-house veto of the Attorney General's decision to allow a deportable alien to remain in the U.S. is unconstitutional.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha
83
Morrison appealed from a decision upholding the constitutionality of the independent-counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, contending in part that those provisions were not violative of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
The independent-counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act are not violative of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Alexia Morrison v. Theodore B. Olson
84
Postmaster removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. A federal law provided that Postmasters may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials.
Myers v. United States
85
The FTC Act permitted the President to dismiss an FTC member only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." President's decision to dismiss FTC member was based solely on political differences rather than job performance or alleged acts of malfeasance.
The President may not remove any appointee to an independent regulatory agency except for reasons Congress has provided by law.
Humphrey's Executor v. United States
86
Suit for back pay, based on petitioner’s alleged illegal removal as a member of the War Claims Commission.
The President cannot remove appointees confirmed by the Senate at will.
Wiener v. United States
87
Challenge to a law that empowered Congress to terminate the United States Comptroller General for certain specified reasons, including "inefficiency, 'neglect of duty,' or 'malfeasance.'"
Congress cannot reserve removal power over executive officers to itself, except for impeachment.
Bowsher v. Synar
88
Challenge to Independent Counsel Act, on a claim that it took executive powers away from the executive branch and created a hybrid "fourth branch" of government.
The Independent Counsel Act is constitutional, as it does not increase the power of the judiciary or legislative branches at the expense of the executive.
Morrison v. Olson
89
Under Sarbanes-Oxley, PCAOB officers could be removed only "for good cause shown" by officers of the SEC, who in turn could only be removed by the President for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
The dual-layer protection from removal is contrary to Article II’s vesting of the executive power in the President.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
90
Curtiss-Wright challenged a resolution from Congress authorizing the President to prohibit the sale of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
The constitutional powers of the federal government regarding foreign affairs are more expansive than those regarding domestic affairs.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
91
Dames and Moore filed suit to recover funds owed on a contract with the government of Iran, but the order of attachment was voided by an executive agreement.
The president lacks the plenary power to settle claims against foreign governments through an executive agreement; however, where Congress at least acquiesces in the president's actions, the president can settle such claims.
Dames and Moore v. Regan
92
Hamdi was charged as an enemy combatant and detained by the U.S. military. He challenged his status and the constitutionality of holding him without formal charges or proceedings.
A U.S. citizen designated and detained as an enemy combatant has a due process right to challenge the underlying factual support for that designation before a neutral arbitrator.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
93
Boumediene and other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus.
1. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 strips federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
2. Detainees are not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause simply because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay.
3. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution.
Boumediene v. Bush
94
Challenge to jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of eight German saboteurs in the United States.
Any unlawful combatant against the United States is permitted to be tried by a military tribunal.
Ex Parte Quirin
95
Fitzgerald was fired from his job in the Air Force. Allegedly, he was terminated by the President in retaliation for revealing to Congress information that was embarrassing to the Department of Defense.
The President has absolute immunity from civil damages liability for all official actions taken while in office.
Richard Nixon v. Fitzgerald
96
Clinton was sued by Jones following an alleged incident that occurred in 1991 before his election to the office of President. Clinton sought to have all litigation on the matter suspended until after his term concluded.
The doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.
Clinton v. Jones
97
Lorillard Tobacco Co. sued to invalidate new Massachusetts tobacco regulations, arguing in part that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act expressly preempted the state regulations of outdoor and point-of-sale advertising of cigarettes.
The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act expressly preempts state regulation of outdoor and point-of-sale cigarette advertising by unequivocally prohibiting such regulation by the states.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
98
Producers of avocados in Florida sued to enjoin enforcement of a California statute that prohibited transportation or sale in California of avocados based on oil content. They argued that federal marketing regulations that gauged the maturity of avocados without reference to oil content preempted the California statute.
A federal law that sets a minimum standard does not preempt a stricter state law.
Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v. Paul, Director, Department of Agriculture of California
99
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. maintained that certain provisions of California's Warren-Alquist Act were invalid because it was preempted by Congress's passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
In passing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Congress preempted state regulation of the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of nuclear plants but intended for the states to retain their traditional responsibility in the field of regulating electrical utilities for determining questions of need, reliability, cost, and other related state concerns.
Pacific Gas and Electric v. State Energy Resources
100
The U.S. sought to enjoin, on preemption grounds, several provisions of an Arizona statute, which made failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor, made it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the state, authorized state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person believed to have committed any public offense that made the person removable from the U.S., and required officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts to verify the person's immigration status with the federal government.
A state law will be preempted by federal law where, even though the state law does not directly conflict with federal law, the state law complements, or is an obstacle to, the regulatory system chosen by Congress in a field completely occupied by Congress.
Arizona v. United States
101
H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. obtained milk from New York. Hood was denied a license to establish a receiving depot per a statute denying licenses that would be destructive of competition in a market already “adequately served.”
Restrictions imposed for the avowed purpose and with the practical effect of curtailing the volume of interstate commerce to aid local economic interests will not be sustained.
H.P. Hood and Sons v. Du Mond
102
Cooley violated a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships using the port of Philadelphia to engage a local pilot.
The states may regulate those areas of interstate commerce that are local in nature and do not demand one national system of regulation by Congress.
Aaron B. Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
103
A South Carolina law prohibited trucks exceeding a certain width and weight from using the state's highways. Interstate truckers challenged the law as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
A state law regulating the weight and width of trucks using its highways does not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros.
104
The Arizona Train Limit Law prohibited the operation within the state of passenger trains more than 14 cars long and freight trains more than 70 cars long.
In deciding whether a state law places an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the Court must balance the nature and extent of the burden which would be imposed by the statute against the merits and purposes to be derived from the state regulation.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan
105
The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law prohibiting the importation of waste originating in another state into New Jersey on the basis that it protected a legitimate health interest of the State of New Jersey.
State laws that are basically protectionist in nature unduly burden interstate commerce and thus are unconstitutional.
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
106
Hughes was convicted under an Oklahoma statute forbidding the transportation for sale outside the state of minnows seined or procured from Oklahoma waters.
It constitutes a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution for a state to statutorily provide that no person can ship for sale out-of-state fish or wildlife procured within that state.
Hughes v. Oklahoma
107
North Carolina law required specific grading for apples sold or shipped into the state. The State of Washington had a different and more stringent system for grading its apples. The Washington apple industry, sought to have the regulation enjoined and declared unconstitutionally discriminatory against out-of-state commerce.
A facially neutral law is discriminatory if it has discriminatory effects.
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
108
A Maryland law prohibited oil companies from operating a retail service station within the state. Virtually all oil companies were located outside of Maryland. The oil companies argued that, therefore, the law had a discriminatory effect on the out-of-state oil companies and impermissibly burdened interstate commerce.
A facially neutral law that burdens some interstate companies with disparate impact is not discriminatory merely because it imposes such burdens.
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland
109
A law assessing a fee on all milk sold in Massachusetts, the funds of which were disbursed solely to local producers, was challenged as unconstitutional.
An assessment scheme that levies a tax on all distribution of a good but disburses its assets to local producers only is unconstitutional.
West Lynn Creamery v. Healy
110
Minnesota prohibited the sale of dairy products in disposable plastic containers but permitted such sales in disposable paperboard containers. Clover challenged the statute as violative of the Equal Protection and Commerce Clauses.
A state statute prohibiting sales within the state of products packed in certain kinds of disposable containers for environmental reasons does not unduly burden interstate commerce nor violate the Equal Protection Clause.
State of Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery
111
A Madison ordinance made it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it had been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant located within five miles of the city.
A locality may not discriminate against interstate commerce, even to protect the health and safety of its people if reasonable alternatives exist, which do not discriminate and are adequate to conserve legitimate local interests.
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin
112
Taylor imported live baitfish into Maine. He was indicted under a federal statute that made it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law. Taylor challenged the Maine statute as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
A facially discriminatory law is constitutional where less discriminatory alternatives are unavailable.
Maine v. Taylor
113
Arizona required that all cantaloupes grown in Arizona be packed there. Bruce Church, Inc. filed suit to enjoin the law as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
A nondiscriminatory law that places burdens on interstate commerce that clearly exceed the local benefits is unconstitutional.
Loren J. Pike v. Bruce Church
114
Illinois required all trucks passing through the state to use a contoured mudguard. No other state required such mudguards, and one state even made the use of such mudguards illegal. An interstate motor carrier challenged the law as an undue burden on interstate commerce.
A nondiscriminatory local safety measure that places burdens on interstate commerce that clearly exceed the local benefits is unconstitutional.
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines
115
Consolidated Freightways Corp. challenged the constitutionality of an Iowa statute that prohibited the use of certain large trucks within the state boundaries.
A state safety regulation will be unconstitutional if its asserted safety purpose is outweighed by its degree of interference with interstate commerce.
Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Raymond Kassel
116
Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. was subject to a tax in California on out-of-state insurers, and challenged it on the ground that it was discriminatory and impermissibly burdened interstate commerce.
A discriminatory and retaliatory law is constitutional where the law is in an area that Congress has authorized the states to regulate.
Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. v. State Board of Equalization of California
117
During a shortage, South Dakota promulgated a plan to confine the sale of the cement it produced in its plant to South Dakota residents.
In the absence of congressional action, nothing in the Commerce Clause prohibits a state from being a market participant and acting in that capacity to favor its own citizens over others.
Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake
118
Boston issued an executive order requiring all construction projects funded by city funds should be performed by a work force consisting of at least half Boston residents.
The executive order did not violate the Commerce Clause, as the city expended its own funds in entering into construction contracts for public projects, it was a market participant, and it was entitled to be treated as such.
White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers
119
Alaska offered to sell large amounts of state-owned timber if the buyers agreed to process it within state boundaries. South-Central Timber wanted to buy the timber and ship it to Japan for processing.
If a state imposes burdens on commerce within a market in which it is a participant, but the burdens have a substantial regulatory effect outside of that particular market, they are per se invalid under the federal Commerce Clause.
South-Central Timber Development v. Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska
120
South Carolina required payment of a fishing license fee for out-of-staters that was much higher than the fee imposed on in-staters. Out-of-state fishermen challenged the statutes imposing the fees as unconstitutional violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
A law that discriminates against out-of-staters violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause where there is no substantial reason for differential treatment.
Toomer v. Witsell
121
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a municipal ordinance, which required that 40 percent of all workers on city construction projects be residents of the city, was not covered by the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to municipal ordinances that discriminate on the basis of municipal residence.
United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County v. Mayor and City Council of the City of Camden
122
Montana imposed a much higher license fee for elk hunting on nonresidents than on residents. Nonresident hunters challenged the licensing scheme as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
A discriminatory law regulating recreational activity does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Lester Baldin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana
123
Piper, who lived in Vermont, passed the New Hampshire bar examination, but was not admitted because New Hampshire made residency a prerequisite to admission. She challenged this requirement as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
A residency requirement for the practice of law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Kathryn A. Piper
124
Barron claimed that the City made his wharf useless by diverting the streams during its construction work.
The amendments to the Constitution were intended as limitations solely on the exercise of power by the U.S. government and are not applicable to the legislation of the states.
Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
125
Louisiana created a 25-year slaughterhouse monopoly to which several butchers who were not included objected.
The Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges and immunities of national, not state, citizenship, and neither the Equal Protection, Due Process, nor Privileges and Immunities Clauses of that amendment may be used to interfere with state control of the privileges and immunities of state citizenship.
The Slaughter-House Cases
126
When California discriminated against citizens who had resided in the state for less than one year in distributing welfare benefits, the state statute was challenged and held to be unconstitutional.
Durational residency requirements violate the fundamental right to travel by denying a newly arrived citizen the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens in the same state, and are therefore subject to strict liability.
Saenz v. Roe
127
State prosecutors obtained a first-degree murder charge in a second hearing. Defendant claimed Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
The Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states.
Palko v. Connecticut
128
Prosecutor argued that defendant's refusal to testify could be seen as an admission of guilt. Defendant argued that his freedom against self-incrimination had been violated.
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts.
Adamson v. California
129
Louisiana's constitution granted jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be granted.
The right to a jury trial in serious criminal cases punishable by at least two years in prison is a fundamental right that must be recognized by the states as part of their obligation to extend due process of law to all persons within their jurisdiction.
Duncan v. Louisiana
130
Plaintiffs challenged a ban on handguns in Chicago, contending that the ban was unconstitutional because the Second Amendment applies to the states.
The Second Amendment applies to the states by incorporation through the Due Process Clause.
McDonald v. City of Chicago
131
In the 1875 Civil Rights Act, Congress sought to prohibit private discrimination under the Fourteenth and Thirteenth Amendments.
Civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals unless such acts are sanctioned or authorized by the state.
The Civil Rights Cases: United States v. Stanley
132
Jehovah's Witness, was convicted of criminal trespass in a company town for distributing literature without permission of the town's management. She appealed the conviction on First Amendment grounds.
A state violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing criminal liability on a person who distributes religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town without permission of the town's management.
Marsh v. Alabama
133
Jackson claimed that utility company's action in terminating service to her for nonpayment without notice or an opportunity to pay, constituted state action and violated due process.
A heavily regulated private utility, electing to terminate service in a manner found by the state public-utilities commission to be permissible under state law does not demonstrate a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the utility's action to make that action state action.
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
134
Black voters brought a class action to enjoin the a whites-only Texas political organization under the Fifteenth Amendment.
A political organization's exclusion of voters solely on the basis of race violates the Fifteenth Amendment where that organization's primary determines who will be elected in general elections.
Terry v. Adams
135
Land was devised to a city for use as a park for whites only. A state court appointed a private trustee to exclude blacks from the park. Black intervenors challenged the racial restriction as violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
A private park that is municipal in character and that excludes people on the basis of color and race violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Evans v. Newton
136
Union members picketed a non-union store located in a privately owned shopping center. A court enjoined the picketing as protecting the shopping center's property rights. Union members challenged the injunction on First Amendment grounds.
The First Amendment protects labor picketing of a store in a privately owned shopping center.
Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza
137
Vietnam War protestors distributed handbills in a private shopping center and were threatened with arrest for trespassing. They challenged the shopping center's no-handbilling policy as violative of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
A shopping center does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments when it prohibits handbilling that is unrelated to the shopping center's operations.
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner
138
Striking union members picketed their employer's retail store in a shopping center. The shopping center threatened them with arrest for trespass and they left. NLRB issued a cease-and-desist order to the shopping center.
There is no First Amendment right to picket a store in a privately owned shopping center.
Hudgens v. NLRB
139
Kraemer sought to void a sale of real property to Shelley from a Mr. Fitzgerald, relying on a racially restrictive covenant.
Judicial enforcement of a private racially restrictive covenant is considered state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.
Shelley v. Kraemer
140
Lugar was indebted to Edmondson Oil Co. Edmondson sued on the debt, and had Lugar's property attached. At a later hearing, the attachment was dismissed, and Lugar sued Edmondson as a state actor for having deprived him of due process of law.
Constitutional requirements of due process apply to prejudgment attachment procedures whenever state officers act jointly with a private creditor in securing the property in dispute.
Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co.
141
Wilmington Parking Authority leased space in a parking facility to Eagle Coffee Shoppe for use as a restaurant, and it refused to serve Burton, a black person.
Racial discrimination by a business that is located in and constitutes part of a state-owned public facility is considered to be state action and is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority
142
The Moose Lodge refused to serve Irvis, the black guest of a member, solely on the basis of his race.
Merely granting a liquor license to a private club that engages in discriminatory practices is not sufficient state action to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment.
Moose Lodge v. Irvis
143
Parents of schoolchildren in Mississippi sought to enjoin a textbook lending program because some of the private schools excluded children on the basis of race. The parents alleged, the program thus provided direct state aid to racially segregated education.
State-funded financial aid to private schools that discriminate on the basis of race supports discrimination and thereby violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Norwood v. Harrison
144
A private school, supported and heavily regulated by the state, fired a teacher because of her speech activities. The teacher brought suit, on a theory that the school was a state actor.
A private school is not a state actor, even though it is funded and heavily regulated by the state, where it is not exercising the exclusive prerogatives of the state.
Randell-Baker v. Kohn
145
Private nursing homes transferred or discharged Medicaid patients without a hearing. The patients claimed a violation of their rights to due process.
A private nursing home's decision to transfer or discharge Medicaid-eligible patients without a hearing is not state action that violates due process.
Blum v. Yaretsky
146
Landlord refused to rent the Mulkeys an apartment on account of their race.
The abandonment of a positive nondiscrimination policy by a state in favor of a neutral stance that would allow discrimination to occur in the sale and rental of private housing constitutes state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reitman v. Mulkey
147
The nongovernmental Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association penalized a private school for violating rules on recruiting athletes. The school sued the TSSAA, arguing that the penalties constituted state action under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
A nongovernmental statewide association's actions constitute state action if state officials are pervasively entwined in the structure of the association.
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
148
Allgeyer purchased insurance for his property in Louisiana, and was convicted of violating a Louisiana law that prohibited insuring Louisiana property except through an insurer licensed to do business in Louisiana.
A state law that prohibits insuring property in the state except through an insurer licensed to do business in that state violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
149
A state labor law prohibited employment in bakeries for more than 60 hours a week or more than 10 hours a day. Lochner permitted an employee in his bakery to work over 60 hours in one week.
To be a 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 an appropriate and legitimate state objective.
Lochner v. New York
150
Muller was convicted of violating a state law that prohibited employers from requiring women to work more than ten hours a day.
A state law that prohibits employers from requiring women to work more than ten hours a day does not violate the freedom to contract guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Muller v. Oregon
151
Congress enacted a law that prescribed minimum wages for women working in the District of Columbia. Children's Hospital challenged the law on the ground that it violated the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantees.
A law that prescribes minimum wages for women violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
152
A Pennsylvania law prohibited the use of rags and debris bedding. Palmer Bros. Co. used rags and debris in the bedding it sold in Pennsylvania, and sued to enjoin enforcement of the law on the ground that it violated due process.
A state law that prohibits the use of a certain fill material in bedding violates the Due Process Clause.
Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.
153
The state's Milk Board fixed nine cents as the price to be charged for a quart of milk. Nebbia sold two quarts of milk and a loaf of bread for eighteen cents.
Upon proper occasion and by appropriate measures, a state may regulate a business in any of its aspects, including fixing prices.
Nebbia v. New York
154
Washington state set the minimum wage for women. A woman employed by West Coast Hotel Co. brought suit to recover the difference between the wages paid to her and the minimum wages set by the state. West Coast Hotel Co. challenged the minimum wage law as violating the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantees.
A state minimum wage law for women does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantees.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
155
Attempt to have the “Filled Milk Act” declared unconstitutional.
In cases challenging the constitutionality of legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions, the Supreme Court will apply the rational basis test, which means that the person challenging the legislation has the burden of showing that a rational basis does not exist.
United States v. Carolene Products
156
A state law prohibited any person from fitting or duplicating lenses without a prescription from an ophthalmologist or optometrist.
The Due Process Clause will no longer be used to strike down state laws regulating business and industrial conditions because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma
157
Car had been repainted before being sold for the full price of a new car, but the repainting was not disclosed to the buyer. Buyer sued and won $2 million punitive damages on only $4,000 actual damages.
A $2 million punitive damages award for nondisclosure of presale repairs to a car is grossly excessive and violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where actual damages were only $4,000.
BMW of North America v. Gore
158
Suit against insurance provider, for its conduct during a wrongful death and tort action following a highway accident caused by the insured. The jury awarded the insured $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages.
A punitive damages award 145 times greater than the supporting compensatory damages award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
State Farm v. Campbell
159
A smoker's widow sued cigarette manufacturer for allegedly deceptive marketing campaigns, and the jury's punitive damages award was based in part on the desire to punish the company for its actions against smokers who were not parties to the lawsuit.
The U.S. Constitution's Due Process Clause does not allow a jury to base a punitive damages award in part on its desire to punish a defendant for harming persons who are not before the court.
Philip Morris USA v. Williams
160
During the Great Depression, Minnesota authorized county courts to extend the redemption period from foreclosure sales.
The reservation of the reasonable exercise of the state's protective power is read into all contracts. A state may affect the obligations between two contracting parties so long as: (1) an emergency exists; (2) the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end; (3) the relief afforded and justified by the emergency could only be of a character appropriate to that emergency; (4) the conditions upon which relief is granted do not appear to be unreasonable; and (5) the legislation is temporary in operation.
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell
161
Utility entered into a contract for natural gas that provided that the price to be paid would be increased if governmental regulators fixed a price higher than the price specified in the contract. Kansas enacted a law that barred such price increases.
A state law that interferes with an existing contract does not violate the Contracts Clause where the law does not substantially impair a party's contractual rights, the state's interests are significant and legitimate, and the law is reasonably related to achieving its goals.
Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
162
New York and New Jersey enacted covenants to protect the interests of its bondholders.
A state cannot refuse to meet its obligations merely because it would rather spend its funds on more important programs.
United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey
163
New York law provided that landlords had to permit cable television operators to install cable facilities on their property. Landlord whose apartment building was burdened by a forced cable installation, sued on the ground that the installation was an uncompensated taking of her property.
A permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by the government constitutes a taking of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
164
A Pennsylvania statute forbade the mining of coal in a way that caused the subsidence of any structure used as a human habitation.
A taking under the Fifth Amendment will be found if the regulation results in a severe diminution of value. At a certain magnitude, there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the regulatory act. While considerable deference is to be given the legislature's judgment, each case will turn upon its particular facts.
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon
165
Virginia mandated the uncompensated destruction of red cedar trees to prevent the spread of a tree disease. Tree owners who were ordered to cut down their red cedars claimed the order was an uncompensated taking.
The government does not effect a taking when it decides to destroy one class of property in order to preserve another class of property that it deems of greater value to the public.
Miller v. Schoene
166
Penn Central Transportation Co. was denied a permit to erect a skyscraper over Grand Central Station, a designated landmark.
A city may, as part of a comprehensive landmark preservation scheme, place restrictions on development affecting the landmark without paying “just compensation.”
Penn Central v. New York City
167
The Coastal Council prevented Lucas from building homes on his beachfront property.
Where regulation prohibits all economically beneficial use of land, and the proscribed use could not have been prohibited under state nuisance law, the regulation is a “taking” that requires “just compensation” to be paid to the landowner.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission
168
Government had conditioned a permit for the development of beachfront property on the owners’ granting the public an easement to cross the property for beach access.
Unless a permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as a development ban, a building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but an out-and-out plan of extortion.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
169
The City of Tigard granted Dolan's permit to expand her store, conditioned on her dedicating a portion of her property to provide a flood plain and a bike path.
Exactions imposed by a municipality's permit conditions must be roughly proportionate to the impact of the proposed development.
Dolan v. City of Tigard
170
Multiple petitions were filed for permission to develop landowner's coastline property. The Council denied his request each time. Landowner sued, arguing that the Council's action denied him all use of his property, without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause.
1. A property owner who takes title after a government regulation restricts the property's use can assert a takings claim for the property.
2. A regulatory restriction that allows a property to retain 6 percent of its total development value, where the permitted use is a substantial residence, does not constitute a total taking of the property.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
171
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed a 32-month moratorium on development in the Lake Tahoe area. California enjoined development for another three years. Landowners filed suit, claiming that TRPA's actions constituted a taking of their property.
A moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land-use plan does not constitute a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
172
Hawaii enacted legislation to break the oligopoly of land ownership by creating a Housing Authority to effectively transfer title from landlords to tenants. Landlords challenged the law on the ground that it violated the Fifth Amendment's Public Use requirement.
The forced, compensated transfer by a state of title to land from landlords to tenants to reduce the concentration of fee ownership in the state is a taking related to a public use.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
173
New London condemned private residences in order to use their property as part of a planned economic development.
Governmental economic development constitutes a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment's eminent domain.
Kelo v. City of New London
174
Attorney deposited client funds into a lawyer trust account. All interest on client funds in the account was required to be used in the state supreme court's program. Client sued the to recover the interest earned on his funds.
An attorney's client is not entitled to just compensation when a state appropriates interest earned on funds of the client's that the attorney deposits into a trust account.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington
175
A Colorado constitutional amendment, which struck down local antidiscrimination laws based on sexual orientation, was challenged for being violative of the Equal Protection Clause.
Colorado's Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it singles out a class of citizens, homosexuals, for disfavored legal status.
Romer v. Evans
176
New York had a regulation prohibiting advertising on vehicles but allowed advertising on business vehicles so long as the vehicles are engaged in their owner's usual work and are not used mainly for advertising.
The Equal Protection Clause does not require that a statute eradicate all evils of the same type or none at all.
Railway Express Agency v. New York
177
The New York City Transit Authority had a policy of excluding all methadone users from employment. Current and prospective TA employees who were methadone users challenged the policy on the ground that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
A transit authority's policy of excluding all methadone users from employment does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
New York Transit Authority v. Beazer
178
Low-income individuals who were members of households where not all members were related to each other challenged food stamp law as violating the Equal Protection Clause.
A federal law that denies food stamps to any household containing an individual unrelated to any other member of the household violates the Equal Protection Clause.
U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno
179
Cleburne Living Center, Inc. contended that laws impacting the mentally retarded should be given heightened constitutional scrutiny.
Laws impacting the mentally retarded are not to be given heightened constitutional scrutiny.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
180
Since they are not “citizens” in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution, blacks who were slaves in this country, or who are the descendents of such slaves, cannot bring suit in federal court.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
181
Apprehension by the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent danger to the public safety can justify the curtailment of the civil rights of a single racial group.
Korematsu v. United States
182
A white man and a black woman, both Virginia residents, were indicted for violating the state's ban on interracial marriage.
A state law restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classification violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Loving v. Virginia
183
The trial court divested mother of custody of her child due to her marriage to a man of a different race.
Custody cannot be denied based solely on racial considerations.
Palmore v. Sidoti
184
Plessy was arrested for trying to sit in a railroad car that was designated “for whites only.”
Segregation of the races is reasonable if based upon the established custom, usage, and traditions of the people in the state.
Plessy v. Ferguson
185
Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children.
The “separate but equal” doctrine has no application in the field of education, and the segregation of children in public schools based solely on their race violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Brown v. Board of Education
186
California prisoner alleged in federal district court that the California Department of Corrections used race to assign temporary cell mates for new prisoners in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
Strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for an equal protection challenge to a department of corrections unwritten policy of racially segregating prisoners each time they enter a new correctional facility.
Johnson v. California
187
A qualifying test for positions as police officers in the District of Columbia was failed by a disproportionately high number of black applicants.
A law or official governmental practice must have a “discriminatory purpose,” not merely a disproportionate effect on one race, in order to constitute “invidious discrimination” under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Washington v. Davis
188
Prisoner contended he was denied equal protection when sentenced to death because blacks were statistically more likely to be so sentenced, and such was racially based.
Capital cases require an evaluation of the motivations of individual jurors in sentencing; thus raw abstract statistical data are not dispositive of a lack of equal protection.
McClesky v. Kemp
189
The City of Mobile had an at-large system of municipal elections. Black voters challenged the electoral system on the ground that it violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
A municipal at-large electoral system that has discriminatory effect but does not have discriminatory purpose does not violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
City of Mobile v. Bolden
190
Jackson, Mississippi, closed its swimming pools after a federal court ordered them to be desegregated. Black citizens challenged the closings as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
A city's facially neutral decision to not operate desegregated facilities does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Palmer v. Thompson
191
Massachusetts provided that veterans were to be preferred for civil service jobs over other applicants. A female employee, challenged the preference on equal protection grounds, asserting that the preference discriminated against women.
A state's absolute employment preference for veterans does not discriminate against women in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
192
Application for a rezoning of land from single-family to multi-family to permit construction of low-income housing. City refused, resulting in allegation that the refusal was racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
A denial of a rezoning request does not violate the Equal Protection Clause where there is no proof that the denial was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
193
School district refused to adopt a reasonable plan for desegregation of its school system, and a federal district court ordered imposition of its own desegregation plan.
When school authorities deliberately maintain a racially segregated school system, the federal district courts have broad equitable powers to use any remedies that are reasonably necessary to desegregate that school system.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
194
The district court found de jure segregation in the city of Detroit's public schools and ordered an inter-district remedy.
Before the boundaries of separate and autonomous school districts may be set aside for remedial purposes, it must first be shown that racially discriminatory acts of the state or local school districts have been a substantial cause of inter-district segregation.
Milliken v. Bradley
195
As the result of actions taken by the city's Board of Education, parents of black students moved to reopen a desegregation case, but the district court denied their motion.
A federal school desegregation order can be terminated without offending the Equal Protection Clause when the order had been complied with in good faith and the vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable.
Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell
196
Two metropolitan school districts sought to assign students to schools to achieve racial balance.
Racial balance between local high-school districts is not a compelling government interest under the Equal Protection Clause.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
197
The sole bidder on a city construction contract was denied the contract on the basis of a minority-owned business requirement program and sued, alleging that the program was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
A program that requires general contractors on city construction projects to subcontract at least 30 percent of the contract amount to minority-owned businesses violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
198
A white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the law school at the University of Michigan. Under its race-conscious admissions policy, the law school ultimately declined to admit her.
Student-body diversity is a compelling state interest sufficient to justify using a race-conscious university admissions policy consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, and enrolling an unspecified critical mass of minority students under such a policy is a narrowly tailored way to advance that interest.
Grutter v. Bollinger
199
Two white high school students were denied admission to an undergraduate program at the University of Michigan. African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students were effectively guaranteed admission to the University.
A public university's undergraduate admissions policy that automatically awards 20 percent of the minimum points required for admission to some students based solely on race violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Gratz v. Bollinger
200
Evidence that fails to show alternative, more racially balanced boundaries for voting districts cannot support a finding that race motivated a legislative redistricting plan in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Easley v. Cromartie
201
Suit to enforce California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage opponents did not have standing to intervene as they could not demonstrate that they were harmed by the decision.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
202
Surviving partner sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA.
Definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause's guarantee of equal protection. The federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states.
United States v. Windsor
203
Challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which contains a formula for determining which jurisdictions are subject to pre-clearance requirements based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
§4(b) is unconstitutional because it is based on old data, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder
204
The President cannot use his authority under the Recess Appointment Clause unless the Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business.
For purposes of the Recess Appointment Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is if, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact business.
NLRB v. Noel Canning
205
Challenge to act authorizing surveillance without a showing of probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power.
Respondents cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
