Constitutional Law Long Outline

I.INTRODUCTION

A.HISTORICAL SETTING AND ORGANIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

II.JUDICIAL POWER

A.JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUDICIAL SUPREMACY

Marbury v. Madison(Established Court’s authority for judicial review of federal legislation and executive ends)

Martin v. Hunter’s Lease(SC has constitutional authority to review constitutionality of state court decisions: since federal law supreme: that means review question of federal law. Also applies to state legislative and executive action; criminal and civil)

Cooper v. Aaaron(when SC interprets the constitution, that interpretation is supreme law of the land and binding on everyone)

B.Limits on Judicial Power: Political Questions

Political Question: question one branch can decide without interference from judiciary

Baker v. Carr(1 of 6 factors must be present for question to be non-justiciable political one. Equal protection claims on state assembly apportionments are justiciable (1 person 1 vote), don’t violate any of factors)

Powell v. McCormack(the textual commitment of house being judge of members doesn’t preclude court from hearing issues about not seating congressmen, only means house judges the three requirements of constitution, and cannot add more: (ceiling not a floor))

Nixon v. United States(senate has sole power to try impeachments, the courts cannot review impeachment proceedings)

C.Limits on Judicial Power: Case or Controversy and Standing

Requirements for justiciability

Muskrat v. United States(Court will not issue advisory opinions: need a case or controversy)

Allen v. Wright(tax breaks segregated school case: to bring suit, P must have real and individualized injury (not as member of class) that is traceable to the action challenged and can be redressed by the relief sought: purely ideological Ps will not have standing)

D.Congressional Control of Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Ex Parte McCardle(Congress may make exceptions and regulations regarding the SC’s appellate jurisdiction. Does not say congress may strip federal courts in their entirety of right to issue habeas corpus relief)

III.FEDERALISM

A.The Scope of Federal Power

McCulloch v. Maryland Part I(Where the ends is legitimate and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means are appropriate which are plainly adapted (rationally related) to that end which are not expressly prohibited)

McCulloch v. Maryland Part II (states cannot tax federal government)

United States v. Comstock (Congress doesn’t have to say what enumerated power an act is necessary for, just some legitimate interest: rational basis review for laws)

B.The Commerce Power: The Early Years

Gibbons v. Ogden (ferry case: broad interpretation of commerce and the clause: can regulate all commercial matters that affect more than one state, as long as regulation does not violate constitution)

Shreveport Rate Case(R.R. rates case: congress can regulate intrastate rates of common carrier that have substantial effect on interstate commerce) (1914)

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (Sugar monopoly: commerce power does not include power over everything that implicates interstate commerce (manufacture)) (1895)

Carter v. Carter Coal Co.(coal worker hrs: commerce power does not include power to regulate activity just because it effects commerce) (1936)

Champion v. Ames(lottery: congress can regulate the transportation of goods in interstate commerce (lottery tickets)) (1903)

Hammer v. Dagenhart (child labor: commerce power does not include regulation of interstate goods that affect local activities (production)) (1918) (overturned by Darby)

C.The Commerce Power: The Middle Years

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.(steal unions: Substantial Effects Test: congress may regulate local activity if that activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce)

Commerce to police power: the ends are not important…

United States v. Darby(labor standards in shipment: overturning Hammer: effect on local activity doesn’t matter) (commerce power extends to intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce)

Wickard v. Filburn(home wheat: if activity, in the aggregate, has substantial economic affect on interstate commerce, then it’s under the commerce clause: no need for activity to be commercial)

Civil Rights application. 14th amendment only applied to fed, and states.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States(discrimination affects interstate commerce, so within commerce power)

Katzenbach v. McClung(BBQ case) (congress can compel non-discrimination on commerce grounds when food provided traveled through interstate commerce)

D.The Commerce Power: Recent Cases

United States v. Lopez(guns free school act: Three categories of commerce power: 1. Channels. 2. Instrumentalities. 3. Activities having substantial affect) (split category 3: economic can be aggregated, non economic cannot)

United States v. Morrison(violence against women: congress cannot regulate local non-economic activity if causal chain to substantial effect on commerce is too attenuated. Findings element gone: probably apply to criminal laws)

Gonzales v. Raich(weed growth case: congress can regulate intrastate production and possession of economic activity that has a substantial impact on interstate commerce: BC part of a comprehensive scheme that’s within congress’ power. Don’t accept as applied challenges)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius I(ACA under commerce clause: congress cannot compel individuals to become active in a market, on the ground that failure to do so affects commerce)

Roadmap for dealing with Commerce Clause Questions

E.The Taxing and Spending Powers

Child Labor Tax Case(can tax as long as primary purpose is to raise revenue, not to regulate through taxation)

Unites States v. Kahriger(Gambling tax case: without penalty provisions for breach of activity under regulation of state, court will not invalidate a tax.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius II(ACA is a tax: Child labor tax case problems do not apply to here: complies with tax rules: it’s a tax)

Spending Power:

United States v. Butler(Hamiltonian view of spending power for the general welfare; but limited by 10th amendment to not regulate what’s in states power (10th amendment part no longer followed)

South Dakota v. Dole(drinking age case: Congress can regulate beyond commerce power through conditioned grant of money)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius III(ACA Medicaid: can condition money so states will take certain action, but can’t regulate through tax. Applies Dole but coercive.)

F.State Autonomy and Congressional Power to Regulate States

National League of Cities v. Usery(no fed min wage on state employees, overruled by Garcia)

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority(fed min. wage. Overruled Usery: the limitations on federal powers is in having enumerated power, the other limit is federalist (poltical)).

New York v. United States(Toxic Waste Case: Fed can’t compel states/local legislators to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program)

After NY v. Unites states: Federal Government can’t regulate what it otherwise could (concurrent interest): if the means is to leave state officials without meaningful choice to follow regulation

Printz v. United States(cannot compel state/local executive officers to enforce federal regulatory program)

G.Federal Limits on State Power

U.S. Term Limits, Inc v. Thornton(states have no power respecting the federal government that the constitution does not grant)

Preemption

Silkwood v. Kerr McGee Corp.

H.Federal Limits on State Power: The Dormant Commerce Clause

Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison(milk case: cannot regulate, even if protecting legitimate local interest, if there are reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives)

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey(state laws that discriminate on their face are presumptively unconstitutional)

Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison(Maine Camp Case: Same definition of commerce applies to DCC as to affirmative commerce power)

South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. (regulation on S. Car. Roads for trucks was okay bc it did not discriminate)

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware(iowa trucking: Safety measure barely furthered, substantial burden on interstate commerce great=strike down. Most deferential for safety concerns)

Southern Pacific Co. v. State of Arizona(RR LENGTH: INVALIDATED STATUTE BECAUSE IT IMPOSED A SERIOUS BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE: APPLYING PIKE TEST)

Exceptions to DCC: Market Participant

South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke(Alaska timber: when state is acting as a regulator (imposing conditions beyond their participation) and not just a participant in a market, the market participant to DCC does not apply)

Exceptions to DCC: Congressional Consent

Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin(insurance tax case: when congress has acted affirmatively to allow non-uniform treatment: DCC does not apply)

Decision Tree for Federalism Based Concern

IV.SEPARATION OF POWERS

A.Executive Power: Domestic Affairs

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer(Steel seizure case: Maj: prez power from congress or const. presidential assertions of authority in domestic affairs is limited; Jackson’s concurrence: three catagories of Prez’s power)

B.Executive Power: Foreign Affairs

Dames & Moore v. Regan(Iran cases to admin: history of congressional acquiescence on similar matters and congressional silence can show implied grant to presidential power. Foreign affairs)

C.Executive Power: The War on Terror

Ex Parte Milligan(if detained without writ being suspended: citizen have right to normal trial even if writ has subsequently been suspended)

Ex Parte Quiran(unlawful enemy combatants can be denied jury trial and be subject to military tribunals)

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld(President can indefinitely detain citizen enemy combatants without charging them (with congressional approval of military force). But have right to review of if they’re actually enemy combatants)

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(president cannot try non-citizens by military commission (against Uniform code of military justice) absent congressional approval)

D.Executive Privilege and Immunity

United States v. Nixon(criminal privilege: president enjoys a qualified executive privilege in criminal proceedings: better claim if national security type ething)

Presidential Immunity

Nixon v. Fitzgerald(president has absolute immunity from civil suit in official act)

Clinton v. Jones(the president is not immune from suit for actions done before he was in office)

E.Congressional Control: The Legislative Process

Non-Delegation Doctrine: congress, which the constitution grants the legislative power, cannot delegate that power

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations(EPA standards case: Congress does not impermissibly delegate legislative power if it provides an intelligible principle to guide the executive delegee)

Legislative Veto:

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha(immigration case: legislative veto is unconstitutional because it violates presentment: here: violates bicameralism as well. All legislative action must comply with procedure)

Clinton v. New York(line item veto case: it’s unconstitutional because it violates bicameralism/presentment)

F.Congressional Control: Executive Officers

Appointmentsclause: article II sec. 2:

Myers v. United States(congress cannot reserve role in power to remove officers (completely unfettered part ruled out))

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States(FTC officer case: beginning of indi agencies: congress can place limits on presidential removal of quasi legislative or quasi judicial agency officers. Myers restricted to purely executive officers)

Bowsher v. Synar(comptroller budget case: congress cannot reserve power over officer doing executive role)

Marrison v. Olson(essentially overrules Myers) (special prosecutor case: 1. Can’t be incongruity between functions performed by delegating authority and performance of duty they appoint. 2. Limitation on presidential removal is okay as long as it won’t substantially interfere with his ability to execute the laws)

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(multi level protection: not allowed to have two layers of tenure: bc prez cut out of decision)

Breakdown (Tree): of removal Power

I.INTRODUCTION

Roadmap of Powers

  • Federalism: the federal and state governments co-exist
  • Limited, Enumerated Powers: powers of federal government are limited to those enumerated in the constitution
  • States have police power
  • Separation of powers: each branch has own enumerated powers
  • One branch may not take action reserved b the constitution to one of the other branches
  • Congress Commerce Power: congress has power to regulate commerce
  • Dormant Commerce Clause: federal commerce power restricts the states from discriminating against, or unduly burdening, interstate commerce

Standards of Review

  • 1. Mere Rationalist Standard (easiest connection to satisfy)
  • Court holds up governmental action so long as 2 requirements are met:
  • 1. Government must be pursuing a “legitimate” state objective
  • 2. There has to be a “minimally reational relation” between the means chosen by the government and the state objective
  • if government not perusing a legitimate state end and rational relation between the means chosen and the objective: then court will strike down state action: almost always uphold action under this test
  • main problem arise: when a state is violating dormant commerce clause
  • 2. Strict Scrutiny Standard (hardest to satisfy)
  • must meet two requirements
  • 1. The objective being pursued by the government must be “compelling”
  • 2. The means chosen by the government must be “necessary” to achieve that compelling end
  • tight fit between means and ends
  • necessary: there must not be any less restrictive means that would accomplish the government’s objective just as well
  • government action will almost always be struck down
  • 3. Middle-Level Standard (exactly what it sounds like): both requirements between above two)
  • 1. The governmental objective has to be “important”
  • 2. The means chosen by the government must be “substantially related”

A.HISTORICAL SETTING AND ORGANIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

History

  • America Before the Constitution (Articles of Confederation)
  • No Federal Executive or central government
  • Congress was powerless
  • States fought, minted own currencies, negotiated trade agreements with foreign nations, taxed products from other states
  • Economy was poor/colonies in debt
  • Philadelphia Convention
  • Small states feared loss of influence/would be outvoted
  • States worried that constitution would make the centralized government too powerful
  • So enumerated powers: too prevent trampling on rights (plus bill of rights)

Structure

  • Article I: defines power of congress
  • Article II: defines power of President/Executive Branch
  • Article III: defines the power of Federal Courts

Why not Amend Constitution?

  • Retain clean broad principles
  • Politically difficult
  • Some parts not amendable
  • But dead hand problem: bound by old values: undemocratic
  • So keep constitution: for principles to stand on, nationalism, self imposed paternalism (don’t want to be reactionary)
  • Binding: bc it was parties of a contract: we’re the parties
  • But some old principles: we don’t like: kind of just ignore them (segregation, flogging, etc)
  • So we interpret constitution to reflect our current vales:
  • More the values differ: the less respect we give it: interest in being bound

II.JUDICIAL POWER

A.JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUDICIAL SUPREMACY

Overview of Supreme Court’s Authority

  • Supreme Court Review
  • Supreme court: and not Congress, which has the authority and duty to review the constitutionalist of statutes passed by Congress, and to invalidate the statute if it violates the constitution
  • Review of State Court Decisions
  • Supreme court may only review state court decisions to the extent that the decisions was based on federal law
  • Federal Judicial Power
  • The federal judicial power is set forth in Article III, Section 2 of the constitution
  • Includes: (1): cases arising under the constitution or federal statutes (2) cases of admiralty (3) cases between two or more states (4) cases between citizens of different states (5) cases between a state or its citizens and a foreign country or foreign citizens
  • Congressional Control of Federal Judicial Power
  • Control of Supreme Court Docket
  • Congress has the general power to decide what types of cases the Supreme Court may hear, so long as it doesn’t expand the Court’s jurisdiction beyond the federal judicial power
  • Lower Courts
  • Congress may also decide what lower federal courts there should be, and what cases they may here

Marbury v. Madison(Established Court’s authority for judicial review of federal legislation and executive ends)

  • Facts: Adams was president, appointed Marbury (P) justice of the peace, incoming prez, Jefferson, chose to ignore them by instructing Madison (secretary of state) (D), not to deliver charters. P sought writ of mandamus in Supreme Court: to order D to deliver commission.
  • Three questions here
  • 1. Does Marbury have legal right to job? Yes: signed and sealed, just not delivered, still had job
  • 2. If so, does law afford a remedy? Yes: civil liberty gives protection of legal rights, so has remedy. Law would be meaningless without remedy
  • 3. If so, is the court authorized to grant that? No (some questions are left to congress/prez: political questions): basically comes down to: is there executive discretion? NO… but
  • In answer: SC just didn’t have jurisdiction (could only order writs when acting as appellate court according to judiciary act: but SC didn’t read it this way, read to give them original Jurisdiction beyond that of constitution)
  • Current idea on this: if one reading is unconstitutional and the other reading is not, then read it as constitutional
  • Issue: P had legal right to commission, but Judiciary Act of 1789 and the constitution conflicted as to whether the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to issue of writs of mandamus.
  • Judiciary Act: authorized S.C. to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or person holding office, under the authority of the US. (gave original jurisdiction for this in courts reading)
  • Article III of Constitution: “in all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the SC shall have original jurisdiction (nothing about writs of mandamus): in all other cases before mentioned, the SC shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make.
  • Basically turns on what shall means.