I. Judicial Review
· Judicial Review of Federal Statutes
i. Marbury v. Madison: Supreme Court CAN review Federal statutes to determine whether or not they are Constitutional
1. Art. III, Sec. 2 (Cases & Controversies)
· Judicial Review of State Court Decisions
i. Art. III, Sec. 2, “Cases or Controversies” “Arising Under”
ii. Art. VI., cl. 2 Supremacy Clause: Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Federal Law is the Supreme Law. If there is a conflict between federal law and state law, federal law wins out.
iii. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
1. Issue:
2. Key Facts:
3. Holding: When a state court is dealing with a case that is mostly state law but a Constitutional right is violated, then the Supreme Court can overrule the state court decision
iv. Cooper v. Aaron
1. Issue:
2. Key Facts: AK Governor fighting over whether they had to enforce desegregation.
3. Holding: State courts and officials are required to enforce federal court rulings
· “Case or Controversy” Requirements: Constitution says that Fed. Cts. Have jurisdiction over “cases and controversies” arising under Fed. Law. (Art III, Sec. 2).
i. Advisory Opinions
1. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 gives jurisdiction over cases & controversies; the court does not have the power to advice the executive or legislative branches on the legality of their actions unless it involves an actual case.
ii. Standing: Whether the controversy is enough related for you to brin the case. Must have some kind of personal injury in the present or near future.
1. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife p. 32
a. Issue:
b. Key Facts:
c. Holding: Lujan wasn’t allowed to bring the case because it was a “theoretical” injury instead of a present or imminent injury. Also, there was no redressability. Court couldn’t really affect or “redress” the injury even if they had one.
2. Massachusetts v. EPA
a. Issue:
b. Key Facts:
c. Holding:
3. Basic Requirements for Standing
a. Plaintiff must show that they have suffered a concrete and particular injury that is has actually occurred or is imminently about to occur (personal injury),
b. The injury occurred or will occur as a result of the defendant’s actions (causation), AND
c. It must be likely that a favorable decision will remedy the situation (redressability).
iii. Mootness & Ripeness
1. Mootness
a. The controversy involved in the case must exist at all stages of litigation, not just when the case is filed. If subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the alleged wrongful behavior could not reasonably recur, then the point is moot and the court will not hear the case.
2. Ripeness
a. There must be some kind of actual injury that has either occurred or is almost certain to occur in order for the case to be heard. You can’t bring suit because you might theoretically be injured.
iv. Political Questions
1. Baker v. Carr
a. Issue: Can we force
b. Key Facts:
c. Holding: Court says this was not a political question because it was an equal protection issue. Equal Protection Clause provides equal voting power for everybody.
2. Nixon v. US
a. Issue:
b. Key Facts: Fed. Ct. judge was impeached by the Senate. He was pissed because it wasn’t the entire senate that voted to impeach him; it was by committee.
c. Holding: Was considered a political question because the Senate is in charge of impeachment as stated in the Constitution. Courts wont touch this question because the Constitution specifically gives the Legislative branch this responsibility. In this situation, the court did not want to review it.
II. The Commerce Power of Congress
· Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3 (Commerce Clause)
· Art. VI, Sec. 2 (Supremacy Clause)
i. McCulloch v. Maryland
1. Issue: State wanted to fax the federal bank.
2. Key Facts: State argues that the gov’t shouldn’t be allowed to establish a bank because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
3. Holding: Court decides that even though its not specifically in the constitution, they’re allowed to establish the bank because it is an “implied power.” They have a power to coin money, regulate commerce and “do anything necessary and proper” to do any of their other clauses. Necessary and Proper Clause becomes a situation where they say “how are we going to accomplish this enumerated power without some sorts of implied powers.” Basically saying that the “ends justify the means.”
ii. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
1. Issue:
2. Key Facts: AK wanted to cap the number of terms that a Congressman can serve. Constitution does not say there is a term limit, just says age and other specific restrictions.
3. Holding: Court says you cant add to the qualifications enumerated in the Constitution.
III.The Commerce Power of Congress
· Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3 (Commerce Clause) Gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, or with Indian tribes.
· Art. VI, Sec. 2 (Supremacy Clause) When a federal statute conflicts with a state statute, the federal statue wins out.
i. McCulloch v. Maryland
1. Issue:
2. Key Facts:
3. Holding:
ii. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
1. Issue:
2. Key Facts:
3. Holding:
· The Commerce Power Before the New Deal
i. Gibbons v. Ogden–
1. Issue:
2. Key Facts: NY issued exclusive license to Ogden to operate ferry in NY waters. Gibbons was operating ferry between NY and NJ based on federal statute.
3. Holding: Since Ogden is operating between 2 states, Congress has the power to regulate his activity. When a state law conflicts with a Federal law, the federal prevails. As long as it affects more than one state and is a convenient part of interstate comme
Congress over interstate commerce extends to activities intrastate which have a substantial effect on the commerce or the exercise of the Congressional power over it.
3. Holding:
· Judicial Deference Toward Exercise of the Commerce Power
i. “In-Commerce” Rationale p. 101
1. Congressional power to regulate shipment of goods state lines is plenary – it is only limited by other Constitutional provisions.
ii. “Substantially Affecting Commerce” Rationale
1. Wickard v. Filburn p. 102 – Biggest expansion of Congressional power and the substantial economic effects test.
a. Issue:
b. Key Facts: Farmer growing wheat on his own farm for his own family. Not for sale whatsoever.
c. Holding: Congress still allowed to regulate the amount of wheat he could grow because it would drive down prices. Reasoning was that he’s still affecting the prices because by growing X amount, that’s wheat that he’s not buying.
This is still good law, but it’s hard for Congress to prove whether or not you’re actually affecting Commerce. Very broad meaning of the Commerce Clause. Gives Congress power to regulate a lot of things and still call it “commerce”
iii. Commerce power & civil rights
1. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. USp. 103
a. Issue:
b. Key Facts: Civil rights case.
c. Holding: Local hotels cant discriminate because people who travel across state lines need to be able to sleep somewhere. If you cant sleep somewhere then you cant participate in the interstate commerce of traveling across state lines.
2. Katzenbach v. McClung p. 104
a. Issue:
b. Key Facts: Restaurant case. Has seats for whites, take out counter for blacks.
c. Holding: When people travel they have to have places to eat. If blacks don’t have the right to sit down and eat somewhere then this also has an affect on interstate commerce.
iv. Commerce power & crime
1. Perez v. US p. 106
a. Issue: Congress passing criminal statutes under the Commerce clause.
b. Key Facts:
c. Holding:
· Revival of Internal Limits on the Commerce Power
i. US v Lopez
1. Issue:
2. Key Facts: Gun free school zone Act. Attorney argues this is not really “commerce” so it can’t be regulated by the federal government. Gov’t responds that if guns are permitted on school property then it will affect commerce down the road.
