Constitutional Law Outline

10th Amendment/Commerce Clause A. 10th Amendment: the Constitutions principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people B. Gibbons v. Ogden (1) 10TH AMENDMENT/COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: The New York law was found invalid because the Commerce Clause designated power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce and that the broad definition of commerce included navigation C. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (2) 10th AMENDMENT/COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to a municipal mass transit system operated by a governmental entity 2. States didnt have to observe the overtime/minimum wage law, so Congress passed the FLSA which told states they had to observe these laws D. New York v. United States (2) 10TH AMENDMENT/COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: New York 1. Holding: The Take Title provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act violates the 10th Amendment and exceeds Congress power under the Commerce Clause 2. Congress makes states follow specific hazardous waste laws, if state doesnt take care of it they will take title to the waste 3. States hated this because it costs them money to dispose of the waste 4. Congress law was very coercive to get states to comply E. Printz v. United States (3) 10TH AMENDMENT Winner: Printz 1. Holding: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Acts interim provision commanding the chief law enforcement officer of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks is unconstitutional 2. Brady Bill was forms the government must have you fill out to purchase a handgun, which was a lot of additional work put on the states 3. Congress is not allowed to circumvent situations where theyre not allowed to legislate, by going around the issue to get the same result, as they tried here 4. Congress cant make state officials do federal work F. New York and Printz say that you cant make state officials do federal work I. II. 11th Amendment/Commerce Clause 1

A. B.

C.

in its D. the other, E.

court so statute of F.

11th Amendment: state sovereign immunity (adopted to overrule Chisholm v. Georgia) provides that states may not be sued in federal court (unless they consent) Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (4) 11TH AMENDMENT/COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Florida 1. Holding: Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to abrogate the sovereign immunity afforded to states under the 11th Amendment 2. Federal laws allowed casinos by tribes on Indian land, not subject to state law, which creates complexities for the states 3. If the states and tribes had a deal that all disputes could be resolved in federal court, it wouldnt have been an 11th Amendment issue Alden v. Maine (4) 11TH AMENDMENT Winner: Maine 1. Holding: Article I of the Constitution does not provide Congress with the ability to subject non-consenting states to private suits for damages own courts 2. Someone is trying to sue Maine in its own state court, Congress cant force this Testa v. Katt (4) 1. If sovereign immunity is waived for state claims, then sovereign immunity cant be claimed for federal claims. State cant waive one and not court says no way Jinks v. Richland County (5) 11th AMENDMENT Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Its ok for Congress to say that state statute of limitations (in certain cases) will be tolled while case is being litigated in federal that it can be brought in state court (without worrying that limitations has run) 2. This is procedural and not substantive, so Congress gets away with it Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority (5) 11th AMENDMENT Winner: South Carolina 1. Holding: South Carolina can not be compelled by Congress to be required to allow casino boats to use its harbors 2. Is this Congress getting in the way of states as states?

III.

Federalisms Limits on the States A. Contracts Clause: Art. I, Sec. 10 prohibits states from passing any law that would impair private contractual obligations (however, Supreme Court usually says states can regulate private contractual obligations if the regulation is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose) 2

B.

but no

interests C.

federal (Basic rule: IV.

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blasdell (7) CONTRACTS CLAUSE Winner: Minnesota 1. Holding: Minnesotas suspension of creditors remedies was not in violation of the Constitution, Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act upheld 2. Reserved Power: political power not enumerated or prohibited by the Constitution for a specified political authority, such as a state government (Emergency > triggered > Reserved Power, such thing as an Emergency Power) 3. Minnesotas police power used in this case 4. Balancing Test: individual rights vs. public interest (although impossible, try as hard as you can to please both sides) 5. Emergency existed in Minnesota which furnished a proper occasion for the exercise of the reserved power of the state to protect the vital of the community U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (8) CONTRACTS CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: States cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those in the Constitution 2. Weve been covering cases where states are being protected by the Constitution from federal government intrusion, but this case can be seen as the opposite, it is a constitutional protection for the government from the states encroaching their power mutual non-interference) 3. The Constitution doesnt expressly prohibit states from setting term limits

Supremacy Clause - Federal Preemption of State Law A. Geiger v. American Honda Motor Company (9) SUPREMACY CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: The federal standards for motor vehicles pre-empts tort lawsuits made under stricter state legislations 2. Federal law passed that required cars to have passive restraints while Washington D.C. law said airbags B. American Insurance Association v. Garamond (10) SUPREMACY CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: California law that required any insurance wishing to do business in the state to publish information regarding insurance policies held by persons in Europe from 1920-1945 is unconstitutional 2. It is the federal governments job to deal with foreign relations, states should stay out 3. In response to Holocaust, California law required disclosure of all insurance policies sold from 1920-1945, while federal law 3

established a insurance claim V.

foundation to pay people who otherwise would have an

Judicial Protection of Interstate Commerce A. Wilson v. The Black Bird Creek Marsh Company (11) 10th AMENDMENT/COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Delaware 1. Holding: Where Congress didnt legislate, the Commerce Clause doesnt come into play 2. A state law is valid if it has a legitimate purpose, that purpose is consistent with the police power to regulate, and it does not violate a federal law on the subject 3. State authorizes a dam that impairs a creek in Delaware, its dammed to increase habitable property and value (Advantages: development, economic value, more habitable property, no more mosquito diseases, etc.) 4. Constitutional problem: this is a waterway where the tide ebbs and flows, so interstate commerce may be effected 5. Strangely ignores Gibbons v. Ogden with no justification, maybe: (1) not as big of a loss on interstate commerce, (2) Huge economic gain by state due to dam VI. Dormant Commerce Clause - Discrimination Against and Burdens on Commerce A. City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (12) DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Fed. Govt 1. Holding: States may not discriminate against another states articles of commerce 2. New Jersey law prohibits people from bringing garbage from another state to a New Jersey landfill to dump it there 3. New Jersey residents who ran trash dumps would be unfairly prejudiced against if other states were blocked, so this is interstate commerce 4. Court must look to the sincerity of the states reasoning, was New Jersey trying to find a way to isolate themselves, or was the health concern legitimate? 5. Rule: economic isolation for economic gain (i.e. ripping off your neighbor) is unconstitutional and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause 6. Principle: the economic unit is the nation, not the individual state 7. Congress can authorize states to discriminate against interstate commerce, but they cant do so on their own B. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways (13) DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Fed. Govt 1. Holding: Iowas truck length limitation violated the Dormant Commerce Clause 2. Balancing Test: State Interest (Iowas safety) vs. Federal Interest 4

C.

(burden to interstate commerce) 3. Iowa passed law that would only let certain length trailers on their highways Granholm v. Heald (14) DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Fed. Govt 1. Holding: Laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers, but prohibited out of state wineries from doing the same are unconstitutional 2. States can make their own liquor laws, but how far can they take this? It could effect interstate commerce if taken too far 3. Use a Kassel balancing test

VII.

Market Participation Exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause A. If state is acting as a market participant, theres no limitation on their regulation (Dormant Commerce does not apply), but if theyre just a market regulator, Dormant Commerce Clause applied as normal B. South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (14) DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Fed. Govt 1. Holding: Alaskas inclusion of a requirement that purchasers of stateowned timber process it within state before it was shipped out of state held unconstitutional 2. Alaska could not impose downstream conditions in the timber processing market as a result of its ownership of the timber itself C. United Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer Sold Waste Management Authority (15) DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Local Govt 1. Holding: Not a violation of the Commerce Clause, because in-state private business interests are discriminated against the same as out of state by this law 2. Local government takes over waste management (making this a Market Participant case) 3. Balancing test between state environmental and economic benefits (state interest) vs. burden to interstate commerce (federal interest) VIII. State Privileges and Immunities A. United Building and Construction Trades Council v. City of Camden (15) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE Winner: Fed. Govt 1. Holding: A city can pressure private employers to hire residents, but the same exercise of power to bias private contractors against out of state residents may be called into account under the Privileges and Immunities Clause 2. The Dormant Commerce Clauses Market Participant exception may allow cities to make laws like this, but the Privileges and 5

Immunities which was the 3. 4. residents out of state may IX.

Clause comes into play if it biases those in other states, problem in this case Privileges and Immunities clause protects out of state residents from discrimination by a state, but doesnt protect the residents within the state from being discriminated against Law said that 40% of workforce for Camden construction projects had to be Camden residents, which is allowed, however NOT if it biases of other states (those within the state have remedies, those not without this protection)

Privileges and Immunities Clause A. You go from Florida to Texas, you get all the privileges and immunities of people who are residents of Texas, even if you live in another state, however, each states residents dont share the same privileges and immunities as other states 1. Issue is which rights are considered fundamental and thus cant be abridged? B. Dred Scott v. Sanford (19) DUE PROCESS Winner: Fed. Govt 1. Holding: Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution, so plaintiff is without standing to file suit (OVERRULED) 2. Scott goes from Missouri to Illinois (where he was emancipated), and returns to Missouri a freeman, claims to no longer be a slave X. Federalism A. Federalism: the legal relationship and distribution of power between the national and regional governments within a federal system of government B. Two types of Federalism 1. Art. I, Sec. 8 (Commerce Clause) 2. 14th Amendment Federalism (states=people of the states) C. Texas v. White (20) 1. Holding: Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States. Treasury bond sales by Texas during the war were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war state 2. Key: sought a system of federalism that didnt see the states as governments of the states, but instead as the people of the states D. Slaughter-House Cases (21) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES Winner: Slaughterhouses 1. Holding: Privileges and immunities of citizenship of the United States were to be protected by the 14th Amendment, not privileges and 6

state law states police power 2. Louisiana law that provides for a slaughterhouse monopoly: if you wanted to slaughter animals for meat, you couldnt do it anywhere but a statesanctioned slaughterhouse 3. State could overlook and ensure public health and safety (good), but many lost their businesses and other got rich off of this (bad) th 4. 14 Amendment: primary provisions effectively apply the Bill of Rights to the states by prohibiting states from denying due process and equal protection and from abridging the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship 5. After this case, differentiating between rights and privileges became an important distinction E. United States v. Cruikshank (22) 1. Holding: The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government F. Civil Right Cases (22) EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Winner: Private citizens (those discriminating) 1. Holding: The Equal Protection Clause applies only to state action, not segregation by privately owned businesses 2. Theres no such thing as a personal violation of civil rights 3. Congress can only correct state action to bring it in line with the Constitution, they cant regulate further (thus the Civil Rights Act of 1875, an attempt by Congress to tell private businesses that they cant discriminate, was held unconstitutional) 4. 14th Amendment only prohibits discrimination by the state XI. State Action Doctrine A. Individuals discriminating against each other for race or any other purpose is not a 14th Amendment issue, however, state enforcement of this discrimination (such as a judge enforcing a racially discriminatory covenant) is an example of when it may cross from individual to state enforcement B. Theres no bright line rule as to when it becomes enough state action to be considered state action C. Shelley v. Kraemer (23) 14TH AMENDMENT Winner: Party discriminated against 1. Holding: The 14th Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing restrictive covenants that would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property based on race or color 2. A racially restrictive covenant in place where a group of whites will only sell property to other whites, and it included an ability to go to court 7

immunities of citizenship of a state (slaughterhouses are privileges) and slaughterhouses were within the

and take them

own arguably be D.

E. F.

when not abuse. the becomes

G.

get a transaction nullified if covenant is broken, and some blacks to court 3. The covenant was private but the courts enforcement of it makes it state action 4. Constitution protects against racial discrimination, the issue here. The fact that the contract is unfair, like many contracts are, wouldnt on its make this state action, otherwise every private contract would state action Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (24) 14TH AMENDMENT Winner: Black construction worker discriminated against 1. Holding: Race based use of peremptory challenges (selecting a jury) violates due process 2. A jury is considered a government institution 3. A private lawyer may be treated as a public actor in some situations (such as in this case, selecting a jury) These cases suggest that if one needs to use the government to enforce something, it is considered state action Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (26) 14TH AMENDMENT Winner: State Govt 1. Holding: A state or county agency does not have an obligation under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to prevent child abuse the child is (1) in parental, not agency custody, and (2) the state did create the danger of abuse or increase the childs vulnerability to Failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate childs right to liberty for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. 2. Joshua is beat by his father and the state continues to do relatively nothing after knowing of the situation, and eventually he is beat so bad he profoundly retarded 3. If you can show that the state is contributing to the risk, it may be a constitutional violation 4. If the government (1) restricts someones movement, or (2) creates the risk, then the government may be liable through inaction 5. The action that caused the harm is done by Joshuas father, not by the state 6. The Constitution does not require the state to protect every citizen 7. State inaction alone does not make this state action because someone was injured Saenz v. Roe (27) 14TH AMENDMENT Winner: California residents 1. Holding: This law unconstitutionally discriminated against new residents of California, in contravention of their right to travel 2. California law proposed to limit any residents welfare who had just moved there (for their first year) 3. This is a 14th Amendment citizenship case (1st sentence of the 14th 8

4. 5.

Amendment): a. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. b. These people are all residents regardless of when they moved to the state Fundamental interest cases will very likely get a strict scrutiny standard of review, the argument here is whether or not the right to travel is a fundamental right This case leaves a loophole, allowing for different definitions of residence of a state for different purposes (i.e. state universities, residency for welfare, etc.), which allows the states to play games

XII.

but

14th

Bill of Rights A. First 10 Amendments to the Constitution 1. Initially, it limited the federal government (and did not limit the states in any way) 2. Privileges AND Immunities of State Citizenship: will come from state laws 3. Privileges OR Immunities of National Citizenship: will come from federal laws 4. 14th Amendment: incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states 5. Incorporated by the Constitution, then by the Supreme Court, and finally by federal judges deciding on federal habeus corpus cases 6. States may have their own constitutions, which can: a. not be less restrictive on the government than the U.S. Constitution b. be more restrictive on the government than the U.S. Constitution in other words, state constitutions must give citizens at least as much protection as the U.S. Constitution. Can give them more protections, can not give them less B. McDonald v. City of Chicago (29) 2ND AMENDMENT (THROUGH THE 14TH AMENDMENT) Winner: Fed. Govt 1. Holding: The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in ones home is fully applicable to the states through the Amendment 2. Chicago enacted a law banning handguns and other gun laws regulating rifles and shotguns 3. Selective Incorporation: used because right to bear arms is a fundamental right

XIII. The Power to Enforce the Reconstruction Amendments A. Congress, when acting under its Sec. 5 power under the 14th Amendment, may abrogate state sovereign immunity and allow states to be sued for money damages (not literally, but for equitable relief) B. Katzenbach v. Morgan (printout) EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (14TH AMENDMENT) 9

the prohibiting

C.

Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Congress may enact laws stemming from its 14th Amendment enforcement power that increase the rights of citizens beyond what judiciary has recognized 2. New York law said Puerto Ricans educated exclusively in Spanish were prohibited from voting in New York, so Congress passed a law states from making laws like this 3. Congress passed this law under Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment 4. Ratchet Theory: Congress could ratchet up civil rights beyond what the Court had recognized, but Congress could not ratchet down judicially recognized rights City of Boerne v. Flores (printout) EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (14TH AMENDMENT) Winner: Citizens 1. Holding: Congress enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Art. 5 of the 14th 2.

Amendment Seems to go against Katzenbach, but Katzenbach was very narrow, it applied only to a very few people, but Boerne was a very broad law that applied to a lot of people D. University of Alabama v. Garrett (30) EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (14TH AMENDMENT) Winner: Citizens 1. Holding: Congress enforcement powers under the 14th Amendment did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the th 11 Amendment where the discrimination complained of was rationally based on a disability 2. Issue was whether Congress could abrogate the immunity of the states under its 14th Amendment power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause, which they cant in this case 3. Disability discrimination will get rational basis scrutiny, so state laws discriminating against those with disabilities are more likely to be held valid than those that discriminate against race or sex (see next case) E. Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (31) EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (14TH AMENDMENT) Winner: Congress 1. Holding: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 validly abrogated state sovereign immunity 2. The law, allowing up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of children/family impacts men much more than women because women traditionally take care of the home, men may be discriminated against when they request leave under the FMLA 3. Gender discrimination will get heightened scrutiny (similar to race discrimination) 4. Why not Commerce Clause? Because it involves money/suing the state, so sovereign immunity is at issue 10

If supreme court takes the problem seriously (strict scrutiny), its easier for Congress to exercise its 14th Amendment Sec. 5 power F. McCulloch v. Maryland (32) NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE (ART. I, SEC. 8) Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Although the Constitution doesnt specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the banks operation by taxing it 2. Maryland is trying to tax the bank notes from a national bank that is located in Maryland. Congress argues the supremacy clause prohibits this. Maryland says the U.S. didnt have the power to create this bank in the first place 3. Necessary and Proper Clause: Art. I, Sec. 8 Congress has the power to do whatever is necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers 4. The Constitution is not meant to cover every possible situation that may arise (not like a civil code) 5. Necessary and Proper Clause is used as long as its addressing an issue that the Constitution is to address (in Art. I, Sec. 8) 6. Does not by itself give Congress power, must look to the Constitution for power Congress may be given. Must match it up with something in the Constitution (i.e. Art. I, Sec. 8) 7. Nothing in the Constitution specifically deals with a national bank, but Marshall explains you must expound upon the Constitution, read it with an imagination, and youll see that the Constitution does in fact address this in the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8) IX. Commerce Clause (Revisited) A. Wickard v. Filburn (33) COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act were constitutionally applied to agricultural production that was consumed purely intrastate, because its effect upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause 2. Filburns farm in Ohio is growing wheat and feeding his cows with it, how is this interstate commerce? 3. In essence, Congress is regulating the industry to protect farmers 4. 3 factors to consider: a. Aggregation: if everyone was allowed to grow their own wheat it would have a substantial impact on interstate 11

5.

commerce B.

which

travel C.

guns near sort of relating argument)

(even though one person doing it would not) b. He wishes to NOT be an active interstate commerce participant c. He was an economic actor Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (33) COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Congress did not unconstitutionally exceed its powers under the Commerce Clause by enacting Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations 2. Hotel doesnt allow blacks, can Congress regulate (i.e. prevent hotel from discriminating) under the Commerce Clause? 3. Easy to justify: people using motels are likely in travel, so black people would be less likely to travel. Other people will be less likely to because they dont want to be in segregated places either, etc. 4. Economic impact clear in this case United States v. Lopez (34) COMMERCE CLAUSE Winner: Citizens 1. Holding: Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any economic activity 2. Congress made it a federal offense to have a gun within a certain distance from a school, tried to justify through the Commerce Clause by guns to economic consequences of using guns (see notes for 3. Court said that carrying handguns didnt relate to any sort of commercial or economic activity 4. A line must be drawn somewhere, otherwise Congress would be able to justify any law they wish through a remote economic impact United States v. Morrison (35) COMMERCE CLAUSE/14TH AMENDMENT Winner: Citizens 1. Holding: The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 is unconstitutional as exceeding congressional power under the Commerce Clause and Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment 2. Federal law provides a civil remedy for the victims of gender related violence after a Virginia Tech woman was allegedly beat and raped some football players 3. Congress tried to regulate non-economic, violent crime due to the aggregate effect it has on interstate commerce, aggregation rejected in this case (see Wickard) Gonzales v. Raich (35) COMMERCE CLAUSE/NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states 12

D.

under by

E.

passed a

scheme of

were the F.

for the

this 5% of

approve its use for medicinal purposes 2. California has a law that allows for marijuana for medical use, and allows people to grow for personal use if prescribed, but, Congress has federal law that does not allow growing at home 3. Governments worry: home growers may be tempted to use that which they would be allowed to grow to sell on the regular market 4. Necessary and Proper Clause in play here, where Congress must regulate local (intrastate) commerce if it affects the grand things in interstate commerce 5. Court says this is ok because Congress is regulating economic activity, unlike in Morrison and Lopez which involved noneconomic activity 6. Court thinks aggregation is appropriate in this case, similar to in Wickard, in which the sum of people growing marijuana (if this law allowed) would have a significant impact on supply and demand in national market for that commodity South Dakota v. Dole (36) 10th AMENDMENT Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds disbursed to the states without running afoul of the 10th Amendment 2. Congress passed law in which states will lose 5% of their federal tax money for highways if the drinking age of the state is below 21 3. The money is being withheld, not taken (and its a small portion) 4. This is ok because the states made a choice to set the drink age at whatever it is, there was no extortion or coercion to follow Congress law (like in New York where the take title provision to the trash was so bad state it was like coercion to follow Congress law, which was ruled unconstitutional) 5. Congress rationale is highway safety, saying that keeping teens off the roads drunk is the goal, so theyll reward states who help to achieve goal 6. The Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a pressure on the states, not a compulsion to do so since its only withholding the highway funds st 7. The 21 Amendment gives states authority over laws relating to the consumption of alcohol

XIV.

President/Executive Powers A. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (37) ART. II Winner: Steel mill 1. Holding: The president did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Art. II of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress 2. During war, President seized steel mill and had the federal government run 13

it 3. Jacksons 1-2-3 Test (1) Congress agrees, Presidents power is at its max (Can act? Yes) (2) Congress is silent, President is likely ok (Can act? Maybe) (3) Congress opposes President, President is trumped (Can act? No) 4. Concurrency view: the idea is that the Constitution wants Congress and the President to both act (be on the same page) 5. Art. II Take Care Clause: the President shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, but can he take care by making law? a. Must find the power where it exists (in the Constitution), cant make the United States a dictatorship b. Must juxtapose the Take Care Clause and Due Process 6. The President may only act where the Constitution has given him the power or through an act of Congress B. Dames and Moore v. Regan (38) ART. II Winner: President 1. Holding: Executive orders dissolving and suspending pending civil claims against Iranian government were constitutional 2. Iranians at embassy hold Americans hostage, under Carter and early Regan presidency 3. President Regan agreed with Iran to terminate legal proceedings in U.S. courts involving claims by U.S. nationals against Iran, to nullify attachments against Iranian property entered by U.S. courts to secure any judgments against Iran, and to transfer such claims to U.S. courts to a newly created arbitration tribunal 4. Very strange here: Executive-made law justified by well established international law, Rhenquist said this is the standard in international law, thus giving the President authority 5. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPEA) authorized the Presidents actions (Art. I and Art. II in agreement) C. Medellin v. Texas (39) ART. II Winner: Texas 1. Holding: Neither of the two judgments constitute enforceable federal law that preempts state limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions 2. When foreign national is arrested in the United States they are entitled to contact consulate and allow someone from consulate to visit, and a guy in Texas was charged with murder and this right was ignored 3. President Bush wrote a letter to Texas, saying as federal law, theyre obligated to do what the International Court of Justice says (citing the Supremacy Clause) 4. The relevant treaty in this case is not self-executing so President Bush wrote a letter to try to substitute the treaty, since it wouldnt bind the states, but the court said his letter counted for nothing 14

5. substitute D.

legal to previously

just

wouldnt upon) E.

Constitution says what Bushs letter tried to do can only be done by a Congressional statute (and a letter from the President cant a statute) Clinton v. City of New York (40) ART. I Winner: Citizens 1. Holding: The Presidents unilateral striking of portions of legislation passed by Congress pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act was without force, because the U.S. Constitution did not authorize the President enact federal law of which both houses of congress had not approved the text 2. Congress passed a statute authorizing the President the power to line-item veto 3. Constitutional silence is interpreted to get the legislative intent: to allow for vetoing a bill but not line-item vetoes, so Congress cant add this power a. Allowing this could let the President and Congress give each other too much power 4. Allowing the President to edit legislation would destroy democracy (imagine if litigants could edit contracts after theyre made, it make sense as it would no longer be the contract agreed Clinton v. Jones (40) ART. II Winner: Jones 1. Holding: The Constitution does not protect the President from civil litigation involving actions committed before he entered office 2. Jones worked for Clinton when he was the Governor of Arkansas and he sexually harassed her, and she brought suit when he was the 3. Constitutional problem: President was making a unilateral directive (that he cant be sued), which may be what upset the supreme court 4. Separation of Powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office 5. This led to trial in the senate, acquittal in senate, impeachment, big sex scandal, etc., so maybe it did end up disrupting government. Did the supreme court make a grotesque mistake? Some say yes Ex Parte Quirin (41) ART. II vs. ART. III Winner: President 1. Holding: The court upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the United 2. U.S. citizens went back to their home country when Hitler was in power (Germany) and were trained in sabotage, and took submarines back 15

President

F.

States

to the

3. 4. 5. captured), War G.

United States. When they got back they took off their uniforms and blended in with the population. One was caught by the FBI a. They came to the U.S. to fight, shouldnt they be treated as enemies? b. President said theyll be tried by military tribunal, not Art. III court c. They seek habeus corpus, saying its unconstitutional not to give them a regular trial This is Art. II vs. Art. III By the time the opinion came out, 6 of them had already been executed Offenses were against the laws of war (they were unlawful combatants, not the same as lawful combatants who are this decision is drawing on the International Laws of

Munaf v. Geren (42) ART. II vs. ART. III Winner: Govt 1. Holding: Habeas Corpus statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command, even where those forces are acting as part of a multinational coalition, however, petitioners state no claim in their habeas petitions for which relief can be granted 2. American citizens were being held in Iraq by MNF-I by U.S. forces, but the U.S. is getting ready to turn them over to the Iraqis a. Theyll be transferred to Iraqis without a hearing b. Theyre worried theyll be tortured by the Iraqis 3. Art. II vs. Art. III 4. They went to Iraq on their own and violated Iraqs laws within Iraqs territory, this is not extradition (similar to the Germans in Quirin) 5. Habeus corpus does not require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice system of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them H. Boumediene v. Bush (43) ART. I & ART. II SAYING NO TO ART. III Winner: Petitioners 1. Holding: Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in U.S. courts 2. Prisoners detained at Guantanamo Bay are seeking Art. III review on habeus corpus (aliens designated as enemy combatants) 3. Art. I and Art. II (saying no to) Art. III 4. Congress and the President are saying no a. Military Commissions Act of 2006 was at issue here, and held unconstitutional 5. Reason they get a hearing: Art. III court can accommodate Art. II concerns, BUT Art. II cant necessarily accommodate Art. III concerns (specifically speaking: due process) 16

Miller v. French (43) ART. I vs. ART. III Winner: Congress 1. Holding: Congress clearly intended to make operation of the PLRA's automatic stay provision mandatory, precluding courts from exercising their equitable power to enjoin the stay and that the PLRA does not violate separation of powers principles. Thus, Congress lawfully imposed deadlines for federal judges to review state officials' motions to discontinue court monitoring and supervision of state prison conditions. 2. "[t]he PLRA does not deprive courts of their adjudicatory role, but merely provides a new legal standard for relief and encourages courts to apply that standard promptly." 3. Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which sets a standard for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions a. The PLRA provides that a motion to terminate such relief "shall operate as a stay" of that relief beginning 30 days after the motion is filed and ending when the court rules on the motion b. The prisoners of Pendleton moved to enjoin the operation of the automatic stay, arguing that the automatic stay provision of the PLRA violated due process and the separation of powers doctrine 4. Article III courts exercising jurisdiction over state prisons (alleged 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment violations) XV. Case or Controversy A. Art. III power extends to certain cases or controversies (i.e. admiralty, diversity, federal question, etc.) B. Tells us the limits of judicial power C. With law and equity merged, it can be unclear what makes a case or controversy 1. Plaintiff needs an injury in fact 2. Case must be live 3. Case must be ripe 4. Case can not be moot 5. Plaintiff must have standing 6. No advisory opinions 7. No political questions D. Vieth v. Jubelirer (44) 1. Holding: Gerrymandering claims present a non-judiciable question, as there are no judicially manageable standards available to resolve gerrymandering questions 2. If the court can get at the merits constitutionally, then its not a political question E. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlow Environmental Services, Inc. (44) 17

I.

1. various Extra Notes:

Holding: Plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolinas North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter against whom deterrent civil penalties were being pursued

14th Amendment: - Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled Dred Scott v. Sanford in which blacks could not be citizens of the United States - Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as recognize substantive and procedural rights - Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction Commerce Clause: Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes Dormant Commerce Clause: also known as the Negative Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause of Art. 1, and is an idea that the grant of power implies a negative converse, a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against commerce. The restriction is selfexecuting and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute. Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. - This covers a persons rights as a citizen of the United States Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Sec. 2, Clause 1): The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. - This covers a persons rights as a citizen of a particular state

18