Case
Challenge
Issue
Source of Power
Alleged Limitation
Standard of Review / Notes
Holding/ Implication
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
[Marshall]
1st important use of NP clause to justify fed action
Marshall: “In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.”
MD statute imposing annual tax of $15k on all banks or branches not chartered by state legislature, only U.S. Bank falls under.
Does Congress have the power to incorporate a bank?
Bank: Art. I- enumerates Congress’ powers; bank nor corporation expressly listed.
Art. I, § 8- N&P
Arg: 1) NP implies gov’t has choice in way to act; 2) Necessary = convenient, not absolutely necessary
MD: 10th A- powers “not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people”
Arg: 1) power of fed gov’t are subordinate to states 2) NP clause to make laws. Not sanction specific activities like chartering a bank 3) cannot adopt reading of constitution which results in a fed gov’t w/ unltd powers.
Compact federalism-
– Is the end legitimate? If so à NP clause prob ok
It is constitutional for the US to create a Federal Bank
McCulloch v. Maryland II
(1819) [Marshall]
Use of supremacy clause to subordinate states to fed govt
US bank challenged MD’s ability to tax it.
Is it constitutional for MD to tax the Bank of the US?
Bank: Art VI, Supremacy Clause
(Art 6 para. 2)
Arg: 1) Power to create a bank is a power to preserve it 2)taxation of states is subordinate to and controlled by constitution 3) State right to tax bank never existed prior to constitution – therefore not reserved to states 4) power to create bank comes from ppl, not states.
MD: 10th amendment: police powers reserved to the states
Arg: 1) Government required to trust states to act in the best interests of the people (Compact Federalism: states/people ratified constitution)
– MD tax unconstitutional
– Rejected compact federalism
– SCOTUS expansively defined scope of congressional powers
– limited States’ abilities to interfere w/ federal activities
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Court claimed power of judicial review.
Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 Marbury received commission as justice of the peace, seeks writ of mandamus to compel Sec. of State Madison to deliver it.
Case filed in 1801, not heard until 1803 b/c Congress abolished by statute June & Dec. 1802 terms of SCOTUS.
Can SCOTUS declare laws unconstitutional?
1)Does Marbury have right to his commission?
2) Does the law supply legal remedy to this right? Can SCOTUS lawfully issue writ of mandamus to Madison?
Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13 :
SCOTUS shall also have appellate jurisdiction from circuit cts & cts of several states,; and shall have power to issue ..and writs of mandamus […] to any cts appointed, or persons holding office, under US.
Arg for Judicial Review: 1) written limitations on congressional power meaningless w/o judicial review; 2) “It is emphatically the provice and duty of judicial dept to say what the law is; 3) Arising under jurisdiction; 4) under oath; 5) Sup Clause
Art. III §2: Cases w/ Ambassadors, public Ministers and Consuls, & those where State a Party, SCOTUS = original Jurisdiction. other Cases before mentioned .. SCOTUS = appellate Jurisd., both as to Law & Fact, with such Exceptions under such Regulations as Congress makes.
Coan’s Arg: 1) other branches capable of interpreting constitution; 2) courts not empowered to overturn both other branches.
2 clauses contradict; Judiciary Act unconstitutional bc expands jurisdiction of SCOTUS.
FIDELITY TO ROLE
– threatened to bring SCOTUS into conflict w/ new administration- Whether Ct could give Marbury a remedy against exec. Branch.
-Court had no jx to hear the case. (only appellate jx)
-Statute authorized jx, but unconstitutional b/c Congress cannot expand jx beyond those enumerated.
*** Established constitutionality of review of federal executive actions & statutes***
-Where exec. has legal duty to act or refrain from acting, judiciary can provide remedy including writ of mandamus.
-Brilliant decision; poorly reasoned. Marshall gave poor reading of C to ensure power of judicial review and preserve courts legitimacy.
Cooper v. Aaron (1958) [Warren]
Court claimed power of judicial review.
Governor and AK legislature stated that they weren’t bound by the SC decision to desegregate; insisted that they weren’t bound by Brown b/c they weren’t parties in the case.
Under Constitution, were Arkansas officials bound by SCOTUS’ decision in Brown, or were they entitled to resist order to desegregate schools?
AK: argues state constitution relieved children of mandatory attendance at desegregated schools.
Arg: 1) Jefferson: each branch independent; 2) Lincoln: People will cease to be their own rulers; 3) Roosevelt: The people should decide between the division of power between gov’t institutions.
14th A: No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article VI: Supremacy Clause
Arg: 1) many pub officials corrupt/disobedient 2) need to ensure judicial decisions are followed.
“If Legislatures of several states, at will, annul judgments cts/ destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” US v. Peters (Marshall)
-Relates to Brown v. Board of Ed: decision result of schools not desegregating.
-Takes Marbury v. Madison one step further along the spectrum of judicial power.
– AK must follow decision in Brown and desegregate schools
– Ct says even b/f case was brought, state legis. should have conceived they were bound by interpretation of Constitution by SCOTUS in Brown.
-Today: Ct supreme interpreter of C; decisions binding.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
[Taney]
Blacks denied right to US citizenship.
Sxott, a slave, lived in free state for 10 years, and argued that once entering a free territory, he was entitled to his freedom and all accompanying rights, including the right to sue.
Was Scott considered Free or a Slave under the Constitution?
-Can children of slaves be U.S. citizens? If not, then can’t bring suit in fed. court.
Article III, § 2, of the U.S. Constitution “the judicial Power shall extend… to Controversies… between Citizens of different States…” (Scott contended citizen of IL)
——
Arg: Curtis: 1) despite racism, blacks allowed to vote @ time of C’s drafting; 2) some states allowed blacks to vote; 3) Militia Act distinguished between black and white CITIZENS
Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the US could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship; states lack power to make blacks citizens.
5thA: DP (cant deny slaveholder of property)
——
Arg: Taney: 1) Art 3.2…when C written, blacks not under stood to ever be entitled to citizenship; 2) Art 4.3…if you’re not a citizen of your own state, you have no US citizenship; 3) if a state can free a slave,they are creating a burden on remaining stated.
** overturned by Slaughterhouse Cases/14th Am- “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
**Art. I. § 2(3/5thcl.), Art. I, § 9, Art. IV § 2- Taney makes originalist arg.- language of C show slaves not intended to be of “the people”
* Taney trying to please W states
* Taney said Congress couldn’t ban slavery in territories; violate 5th stripping ppl of property rights.
1. African descent not citizens under the Cà can’t sue.
2. The Prop.Clause (Art IV is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). Congress can’t ban slavery in fed territories. Miss. Comp. un-C’l
3. DP prohibits the freeing slaves brought into federal territories.
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) (14th Limited)
[Miller, majority
Field, dissent]
A narrow reading of 14th P/I clause to give states deference.
LA enacted statute incorporating Slaughter-House Co. & Crescent City Live-Stock Landing authorizing construction of slaughterhouse available to any butcher upon payment of reasonable compensation, but prohibiting any other abattoirs.
Did the creation of the monopoly violate the 13thA and 14thA?
badge of slavery, not strong enough to activate the powers of the 13th; 2) legislation can only be made against states, not private citizens.
** Key Point: only state actors can violate the 14th Amendment, but the Court has never come up with a satisfactory account of how much state involvement required.
– Congress doesn’t have power under 13th (meant to end slavery, not to eliminate discrimination)
– Congress can only regulate gov’t conduct not private under 14th; Congress can enact legislation to correct effects of prohibited State laws, but no state action identified here.
Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) (14th & Race)
P sued for being denied a jury of his (black) peers while on trial for murder.
Did WV’s policy excluding African Americans from juries violate the Equal Protection Clause of 14th A?
WV: 10th Amendment
Arg: Field : Reductio ad absurdum: 15yo’s can’t get a jury of their ‘peers.’ 2) flaw to assume that all-white jury won’t be just; 3) b;acks only get civil rights (property, K’ing, going before court) not political rights determined by state (serving on jury).
14th A: Categorical exclusion of African Americans only on basis of race violates EPC.
Arg: Strong: 1) Original intent of framers was to save blacks from discriminationl 2) jury of peers = same legal status in society as D (neighbors, fellows, etc)
**Strong held states could still confine voting rights to: males, to freeholders, to citizens, ppl of certain ages, or to ppl having educational qualifications (i.e. no women)
– Exclusion of individuals from juries solely because of their race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
[Brown]
Separate but Equal upheld.
LA statute: RR have “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races”; legal obligation to train officers to “assign each passenger to the coach … use for the race to which such passenger belongs.”
Can states constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities?
LA:
13th applies only to slavery/ involuntarily servitude
14th: Would be unreasonable if statute was made to subjugate one race at the expense of another; blacks not allowed in white cars, and vise versa. EQUAL.
Arg: Brown: 1) 14th never intended to enforce social equality; 2)laws tht separate do not necessarily imply inferiority – blacks choose to give that construction; 3) state promoting public good (peace, comfort, order.)
Plessy:
13th : Involuntary servitude
14th: EPC entitled by virtue of this clause to do the same things that white people are allowed to do +
DP: denied of his ‘property’ right to be white; conductor was one with power to determine his race
Arg: Harlan: 1) deprivation of status as white man – DP violation; 2) badge of slavery; 3) court should increase scrutiny on discriminatory legislation.
Dissent: Harlan in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”
(one of cts first proced. DP claims
The “separate but equal” provision of public accommodations by state governments is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
**Furthermore, segregation has always been considered a valid exercise of police power **
** Distinguishable from strauder where political equality upheld. Here, social equality is not.
