Con law exam 2

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object

copy deck

Power to regulate production: a
United States v. E. C. Knight Company: Asked whether the Sherman Antitrust Act could extend to production; establishment of the direct/indirect test, a strict test that limits Congress' ability to regulate commerce in areas like production that might be wholly intrastate
The Commerce Clause: "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce...among the several states"; "commercial intercourse," a term Marshall uses to cover all manners of trade, traffic, etc.; Marshall interprets "among" as "more than one" state
Hein v. Freedom from Religion, Inc. (2007): The flast test which allowed for taxpayer lawsuits is not applied because it was executive branch expenditures, not legislative; more importantly, the Flast precedent is deemed an exception
Gonzales v. Raich (2005): A federal law that conflicts with a state law; is that federal law constitutional? Even illegal commerce can affect interstate commerce.
Recusal problems: Since many justices have pension and retirement plans that invest in a variety of companies, justices are having to recuse themselves more often than they would like
Passing on cases: Justices often pass on cases that are granted full review; the Court tries to avoid issues of constitutionality; "rules of judicial self restraint"; sometimes the Court wants to wait to see what Congress or other courts will do with a case before they rule; avoiding "nonjusticiable" cases, spelled out in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Standing: The parties in a suit must be directly involved and affected; different tests in different areas of law; in taxpayer lawsuits the precedents are Frothingham, Flast, and Hein, respectively, no standing, standing, again no standing & Flast=exception
Goldwater v. Carter (1979): The Court asserted its right to interpret the domains of the three branches of government, although it holds that the case itself is not ripe until it has come to a vote in congress; representative of a loosening of restrictions on poltiical questions after Baker v. Carr opened the doors
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936): Does the National Industrial Recovery Act exceed Congress' power? "Stream of commerce," congress cannot regulate products which have not "entered the stream"
Flast v. Cohen (1968): The Flast nexus test: 1) Issue must emanate out of spending from Art1.8 tax and spend powers 2) there must be a specific constitutional violation
Reno v. Condon (2000): Drivers' Privacy Protection Act of 1994 used interstate commerce clause to regulate sale of driver information by states; Rehnquist writes that this is within congressional power, states are not immune
Political Questions: Questions that should be dealt with by political bodies and are thus non-justiciable; includes most electoral questions and especially redistricting
Tenth amendment: a
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdis the legal "next friend"; all Justices agree that "under god" in the pledge of allegiance dow (2004): Plaintiff Newdow does not have legal custody of his child, but argues that he is the legal "next friend"; Newdow is not granted standing due to his lack of legal custody; all Justices agree that "under god" in the pledge of allegiance does not violate the establishment clause
Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002): Majority ruled that these administrative proceedings were a violation of state sovereign immunity as granted by the 11th amendment; Are administrative law proceedings the same as a lawsuit?; Thomas argues that the proceedings "walks, talks, and squalks very much like a lawsuit," yet recognized that it is not a lawsuit
Case or controversy requirement: one of the rules of judicial self restraint; the Court does "not do hypotheticals," only real controversies including real, adverse parties; no advisory opinions; no friendly lawsuits
Garcia v. San Antonio Transit (1985): Court held that state employers are no different than private employees and thus may be regulated by the federal government; Garcia overturned Usery, a case of extremely similar facts yet Blackmun, the switch vote, felt that Usery made an unworkable and confusing doctrine of "traditional state and local government functions"
Coequal branches of government: a
US v. SCRAP: Five law students who formed a group and challenged the government in court for its decision to have a surcharge of freight rates because it made it more expensive to recycle, and thus less would be recycled and more trash would be thrown away. Their goal was to gain standing, which they did, in a period during which environmental issues were having difficulty getting into court.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992): Does the ESA include American projects abroad? Scalia writes in the majority that there is no standing due to non-redressibility and non-harm; novel theories of standing, ecosystem nexus, animal nexus, vocational nexus
Friendly lawsuits: When both parties want the same outcome, e.g., Carter v. Carter Coal Co.; this requirement is sometimes overlooked
Rational basis test: Established in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), that the Court said that as long as the Congress can make a rational claim that there is some effect on interstate commerce, that is all Congress has to justify; this is the lowest hurdle the interstate commerce clause has reached
Certiorari Pool: Seven of the justices divide up their cases among their clerks to read and summarize, rather than each justice's clerks reading all of them
United States v. Morrision (2000): The Court concludes that violence against women does not substantially affect interstate commerce; The Court finds that the 14th Amendment only prohibits state action, while the woman in this case was victimized by two private actors; another refutation of cumulative effects
Baker v. Carr (1962): A reapportionment case, the TN legislature had refused for decades to reapportion itself; deemed "not a political question" by the court as the "coequal branches of government" concept applies to the federal government
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin (1937): The day of infamy for small government people; Expanded on the concept of the "stream of commerce," implemented the "close and substantial" test to replace the direct/indirect test, much more tolerant of regulatory; specifically, this case allowed for congress to regulate labor relations
United States v. Darby (1941): Dagenhart is explicitly overturned, the 10th amendment is relegated to a "truism," a self-evident and essentially non-important amendment
United States v. Lopez (1995): The Court begins to limit the expansive "reasonableness" test established in Katzenbach, Rehnquist writes that the regulated activity must "substantially affect" interstate commerce; a return to the NLRB "close and substantial" test? Court holds cumulative effects are too expansive
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003): held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."; the 14th amendment can trump the 11th; Gender becomes a semi-suspect class; "important" government goals and a "close" connection between the law and the achievement of that goal are necessary
Mootness: The particulars of a case have been made irrelevant, perhaps by the passage of time; Roe: If she's not still pregnant, is there a controversy? Court ruled yes
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001): Discrimination against persons with a disability requires a rational basis test, unlike gender and racial discrimination. The 14th amendment overrules the 11th, but in cases of disabilities, this does not matter
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): The Indian Gambling Regulatory Act sought to compel states to negotiate fairly with indian tribes that wanted to introduce gambling on indian lands; usage of the indian commerce clause; Court majority argued that sovereign immunity ie 11th amendment protected states from such lawsuits; watershed case that reverted understanding of 11th to Hans precedent, and ends the doctrine of ex parte young which allowed for suits against state officials despire state sovereign immunity
Wickard v. Filburn (1942): unanimously upholds the fine by the AAA, holding that his actions affect the entire economy in the sense that if all farmers grew extra, even if only for personal use, it would affect the economy; cumulative effects, an expansion of the "close and substantial relation" test
Cue theory: Three things will get a case full review; Federal govt. as a participant, division on the case in lower courts, and a large number of amicus curiae briefs
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Establishes interstate commerce, "commercial intercourse" involving "more than one" state, as the domain of the federal government; for decades Congress did little with this power; rapid industrialization in the late 1800s led Congress to become more active
Direct/indirect test exceptions: Three exceptions: 1) Evil and harmful products, like lottery tickets 2) railroad cases 3) meatpacking cases and other harmful food cases; Congress could regulate in these areas
Printz v. United States (1997): Does Congress have the power to require state/local officials to carry out federal law--does the 10th amendment serve as a block? Notion of dual sovereignty, an originalist interpretation of the constitution that holds that the federal government cannot compel the states to carry out its orders
Eleventh amendment: Established to prevent federal lawsuits against states; Hans precedent states that even the residents of a state cannot sue their own state, in addition to suing other states in federal courts; Hans was quickly overridden by Ex parte Young, which held that state officials could be sued in federal court, and in addition congressional statutes were being designed to allow for federal lawsuits; Seminole begins to reassert the power of the 11th, reverting to the Hans precedent
Ripeness: Has the case moved from the theoretical to the real? Has damage been done? Griswold: no one had actually been charged under the law that restricted sale of contraceptives, i.e., it was not enforced
Rule of four: Four votes are necessary for a case to receive full review
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): Court held that Congress was really trying to regulate labor, specifically by children, intruding on states' rights as granted by the 10th amendment, and failing the direct/indirect test; expansion of the 10th amendment using the word "expressly," perhaps the 10th's high point

Start Studying!

Deck Info

Number of cards 42