Cases and Tests:
Judicial Review:
Marbury v. Madison (7):
Since act was ministerial (rather than discretionary), Madison obliged to deliver papers. However, Judicial Act extended jurisdiction where it should not have. Supreme Court ruled Congressional Act unconstitutional, and thus decided they had no right to review case (but was responsible for meaning of laws).
Standing:
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Sep. of Church & State (72):
Donation of old military hospital to use for Christian college. Challengers (AUSCS) had no standing to challenge use, since taxpayer status not sufficient to meet standing requirements.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (74):
Rule of Endangered Species Act that was repealed challenged by environmentalist group. Court held they had no standing.
TEST:
1. Injury in fact
a. Concrete and particularized
b. Actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical
2. Causal connection: injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action,” and not some 3rd party; and,
3. Injury likely (not merely speculatively) to be redressed by a favorable decision.
RULES:
· Taxpayer not sufficient
· Race sufficient
· Number of victims irrelevant, so long as injury is “personal.”
· Asserting that something didn’t happen is often lacks proof of causation
· Redressability does not mean merely ability of court to issue an order, but to actually assuage injury suffered.
· See pgs. 85-6 for organizational/3rd party standing
· See pgs. 86-7 for Ripeness/Mootness
Political Question:
Baker v. Carr (89):
Reapportionment of districts required by TN statute had not happened in 61 years, resulting in political misrepresentation. Court ruled it was a nonjusticiable PQ.
Nixon v. United States (97):
Sleazy incarcerated judge wished to challenge the trial procedures used by Congress to impeach him. Court found his challenge a nonjusticiable PQ.
Bush v. Gore (108):
Dissent in this case held that Supreme Court’s intrusion into national politics in deciding presidential election was involvement in a PQ and unwise.
TEST:
SEE HANDOUT FROM PROFESSOR!
Abstention
Younger v. Harris (111): (Younger Abstention)
Supreme Court would not enjoin state court from criminal proceedings if there is a chance that the party may receive justice in state court—nonintervention principle.
Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Pullman Co. (112): (Pullman Abstention)
Court ruled to suspend proceedings until state court had decided case—suspension principle. If you can show that definitive ruling of state courts cannot render issue constitutional, then this abstention may be waived.
Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18):
McCulloch v. Maryland (126):
Maryland charged excessive taxes on National Bank (but not on local/state banks). Court held that the Bank was necessary and proper to the execution of Congress’ duties, and Maryland’s imposition on Bank could render it powerless. As such, it had no power to tax.
TEST:
MeansàEnds (which must be an enumerated power)
· You must identify the means and the ends on your test.
§ Ends = enumerated power
§ Means = Lots of different possibilities
§ Court tends to focus on ends, not means particularly much (deference).
· Not prohibited
§ Principle prohibitions are going to be violations of individual rights.
· Useful or convenient to reach the legitimate end
§ Doesn’t have to be the tightest fit—great deference to Congress.
· Not a pretext—if Congress did something that was merely a pretext to do something that rightly resided with state sovereignty. This is an escape hatch, but it has NEVER BEEN USED.
§ Start with presumption you’re wrong! You must indisputably convince yourself it’s true.
RULES:
· Standard of Review for Necessary and Proper clause: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of
ruck down a statute that created a civil cause of action against a person who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender. Chain of reasoning was too long and activity was not in any sense economic (see four factors first elucidated in this case below).
Gonzales v. Raich (Supp. 6):
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) used to confiscate marijuana prescribed for medical use (legalized under CA’s Compassionate Use Act). Court noted absence of particularized findings does not undercut statute—Congress only needs to show rational basis exists for thinking statute will have interstate commerce effect (no effect in fact must be shown). Legal medicinal use was not a valid exception—a state statute cannot supercede fed. reg. (Supremacy Clause). Dissent argues rational basis and very general description of issue create slippery slope that will allow Congress to violate state sovereignty of police power (& regulate anything).
TEST:
I. “What’s the basis of regulating?” (TEST)
a. Channel of Interstate Commerce
b. Instrumentality of Interstate Commerce (or people or thing in Interstate Commerce—review Darby v. US)
i. a. and b. are subject to rationality review
c. Substantially affect Interstate Commerce—Lopez, Morrison and Raich cases fall under this analysis. Two ways we can analyze whether Congress was correct or correct enough in thinking that an activity affects Interstate Commerce (yes to either one, then it’s likely an acceptable exercise of the commerce clause, but do both analyses):
Lopez approach (Bottom-up) (SUB-TE
