Ernst
ConLaw1
Fall 2011
I. The Supreme Court’s Authority and Role
a. The Power of Judicial Review
i. Marbury v. Madison: Marbury appointed to be commissioned as a federal judge but appointments not delivered in time before the change of administration.
1. Court determined that the statute (§ 13 of the Judiciary Act = right of court to issue writ of mandamus) was in direct conflict with Art III.2.2 of the US Constitution
2. Judicial Review develops. If Constitution conflicts w/ act of the Congress = act not valid.
3. SCOTUS took a federally enacted law and declared it unconstitutional; making it void
b. Supreme Court Authority to Review State Court Judgments
i. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee: § 25 Judiciary Act = Supreme Court review of final decisions of the state’s highest courts. Land grant in Virginia by prior owner + then seized by Virginia during the Revolutionary War.
1. Art III § 2 cl. 2 – Judicial power (including appellate) shall extend to all cases.
2. State law seizure of land violates U.S. federal treaties and is void.
3. Sets precedent of Supreme Court overturning state actions/law based making SCOTUS sole arbitrator of constitutional interpretation (uniformity).
ii. Further Clashes Between Supreme Court and State Court Authority
1. Cohens v. Virginia – Brothers selling lottery DC lottery tickets in Virginia – SC ruled against them, but held that SC had jurisdiction to hear the case. State was a party SC had jurisdiction under Art III § 2 cl. 1.
c. Judicial Exclusivity in Constitutional Interpretation
i. Cooper v. Aaron (Little Rock Nine) – Ark. Governor refused SC order to end racial segregation in schools. Once forced by federal troops, the school board sought postponement of desegregation. SC:
1. State officials must obey federal court orders based upon Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
2. Art VI makes Constitution supreme law of the land, with Marbury v. Madison establishing the SC as the determiner of what the law is/says.
3. Possible new precedent = SC is exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution.
ii. The Authoritativeness of Supreme Court Decisions
1. Dickerson v. United States (Miranda case) – Congress cannot overrule SC constitutional interpretation (in this case) via statute. Constitution is SUPREME.
2. SC authority against the Executive: history of Presidents ignoring SC ruling.
a. Jefferson – issued pardons against the court’s convictions.
b. Jackson – vetoed Bank of U.S. bill even though SC held constitutional.
c. Lincoln – disagreed with the Dred Scott decision.
d. Roosevelt – pushed New Deal legislation continuously struck down by SC.
iii. Political Restraints on the Supreme Court
1. Requires Presidential nomination/Senate approval to be on the SC. (Art. II § 2 cl. 2).
2. Impeachment: SC justices can be removed (Art III § 1 = life tenure, Art II § 4 = removal for conviction of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors).
3. Court Packing: Congressional control over size of SC and its budget. (Art III, § 2 ensures no reduction in Justice salary).
4. Court Stripping: Art. III § 2 grants Congress the power to exclude appellate jurisdiction of the SC.
a. Ex Parte McCardle – SC held it lacked jurisdiction on a case that Congress specifically passed a legislative act to exclude from appellate jurisdiction during Reconstruction.
5. Constitutional Amendment (Art. V).
d. Constitutional and Prudential Limits on Constitutional Adjudication: The “Case or Controversy” Requirements.
1. Why Limit? stops the “floodgates” from opening, provides judicial restraint, depoliticizes the SC’s role, ensures both parties have personal stake=zealous advocacy
ii. Advisory Opinions
1. SC does not grant advisory opinion (George Wash. asked for opinion on treaties)
2. SC has limited resources for enforcement
3. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of L.A. – SC states need standing to bring an issue.
iii. Standing
1. Personal injury – must have an injury in fact. Not a hypothetical.
2. Causation – Must have a connection between the injury and the conduct challenged against the defendant.
3. Redressability – Court must be able to address the issue in court.
iv. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife – Set forth the standard for standing. Plaintiff did not prove a sufficient “injury of fact” by not being able to see a future endangered species. No casual connection between defendant and action (would happen anyway), and no redressability as project would move forward without U.S. involvement.
v. Massachusetts v. EPA – Suit on global warming. Able to prove injury in fact (coastal erosion), Connection between emissions and increased global warming, and regulation the only way to address the issue (even if it can’t solve).
vi. Prudential Standing doctrines: Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
1. Third party standing – Must usually have one’s own legal rights at stake in a case.
a. Exception = Craig v. Boren: Seller of beer was permitted to challenge sex discrimination law imposing higher age threshold on males than females due to economic interest.
2. Generalized grievances (Frothingham v. Mellon) – Court does not hear constitutional claims at the behest of a plaintiff who is merely one of millions. (Taxpayers, Citizens).
a. Exception = Flast v. Cohen: Taxpayer standing to challenge on Establishment Clause grounds a federal statute granting aid to religious schools.
3. Suits outside a law’s zone of interest. – SC determines from a statute if a claim can be valid (Bennett v. Spear – ESA private right of action upheld).
4. Additional Standing via Congress – The SC has upheld Congress’s ability to confer standing via statute (private rights of action, concrete harms across wide populace)
vii. Mootness and Ripeness
1. Mootness – An actual controversy must exist at ALL stages of review. (Art. III case or controversy requirement). Exception = Roe v. Wade – was heard even though the child was born.
2. Ripeness – The case must not be “anticipatory” but must involve actual facts that have occurred. United Public Workers v. Mitchell: Hatch Act violation however no rule had yet been violated (running for office).
viii. Political Questions (Traditional)
1. Some matters are committed to the unreviewable discretion of the political branches.
2. Some legal questions are left to the other branches as a matter of prudence.
ix. Baker v. Carr – Equal protection challenge to legislatures elected by districts with unequal populations. SC did involve itself due to violation of equal protection clause.
1. Powell v. McCormack – Court can not decide congressional qualifications (Art I, § 2, cl. 2) as that right is given to the House and Senate (Art I. § 5).
2. Treaty termination (Goldwater v. Carter) – court held that it cannot consider the constitutionality of the executive terminating a treaty without Senate approval.
3. Nixon v. U.S. – impeached federal judge had no claim with the Supreme Court as political question.
II. The Nation and the States in the Federal System
a. Constitution established to specifically strengthen the federal system. Art. I § 8 Enumerated powers of Congress.
i. Power to levy taxes
ii. Power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce
iii. Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I § 8 cl. 18).
b. Limitation of power via 10th Amendment – powers not delegated to the U.S. nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (omitted expressly).
c. States reserve police power.
i. Express limitation of State power (Art. 1 § 10 expressly bars treaties, coining money, nobility titles, duties, interstate compacts or engage in war without Congressional approval).
d. McCulloch v. Maryland – state imposed tax on all banks that aren’t chartered by the state; national bank didn’t comply with the tax- they were chartered by the Fed. Government.
i. SC held that Congress has the authority to establish the bank as it executes powers enumerated in the Constitution and its creation falls in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
ii. State law is invalid as it taxes the bank (taxation is the power to destroy) and is superseded by the federal power exercised.
iii. Congress must have a goal that falls within its enumerated powers to have a valid execution under the Necessary and Proper Clause. (Not as Jefferson would say, “The House that Jack Built”)
e. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton – Arkansas imposed term limits on House of Representative members. Court held that Art. I § 2, cl. 2 and Art I § 3 cl. 3 (Age, Citizenship and Residency) are the only requirements that can be imposed. Only other authority is the House itself (Art. I § 5).
f. Term Limits and McCulloch
i. Majority holds that states only have those powers over the federal government delegated to them. Dissent held that states reserve powers not prohibited (Art I, § 9) or by implication (McCulloch).
III. The Commerce Power and Its Federalism – Based Limits
a. Art I, § 8, cl 3. = Congress has power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
b. The Commerce Power Before the New Deal
i. Gibbons v. Ogden – Steamboat monopoly licensed by the state of NY with plaintiff being granted a charter by the federal government to operate a competing service.
1. Marshall Court held that commerce includes traffic and navigation of goods.
2. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce between states including from one state into the interior of another.
3. States reserve the authority to regulate completely internal commerce among its citizens.
ii. Judicial Limits on Commerce Power
1. Direct vs. Indirect Effects Test
a. United States v. E.C. Knight (Sugar Trust Case) – Court affirmed the dismissal of a gover
ommerce (due to lack of travel of minorities), thus Congress can regulate.
b. The “Determinative Test” is whether the exercise of Congress under the Commerce Clause regulates commerce which concerns the States and has real and substantial relation to the national interest.
e. The Rehnquist Court’s Revival of Internal Limits on the Commerce Power
i. United States v. Lopez – Gun-Free School Zones Act prohibiting guns from being within a school zone. Struck down by the court as the law exceeded the authority of Congress under the commerce power.
1. Congress can regulate
a. The channels of interstate commerce
b. Can regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, even if it comes from intrastate activities
c. Can regulate activities having a “substantial relation” to interstate commerce.
2. The third test applies, and the law regulates criminal activity, not commerce. (Economic vs. Non-Economic Test)
3. Congress established no findings to relate the law to commerce.
4. The government’s arguments perceives no limitation on federal power and is invalid.
ii. Commerce Clause Review after Lopez
1. Under Lopez, court determined that formal findings aren’t necessary, but that their absence has bearing on whether the law is constitutional (inconsistent).
2. Katzenbach v. McClung – SC established that formal findings are not necessary.
3. Lopez rejected commerce claim as there was no “jurisdictional nexus” test on the law to determine if a firearm affects interstate commerce.
4. SC distinguished Lopez from Wickard as not having substantial economic activity.
iii. United States v. Morrison – Virginia Tech female student brought suit against accused rapists under the Violence Against Women Act. Court rejected the government’s ability to regulate the activity under the commerce clause.
1. The activity (gender-motivated crime) is non-economic in nature.
2. Law fails to establish a “jurisdictional nexus” to determine the federal cause of action is in pursuance of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
3. Established federal findings in the law, but insufficient to uphold the statute.
4. Allowing the government argument to succeed opens the door for unlimited federal criminal power against any activity so long as it has substantial effects on commerce.
iv. The Limits of Lopez and Morrison
1. SC established the aggregation principle in Wickard that was now limited in Lopez and Morrison. When regulating a non-economic function, the lack of aggregated incidents (gun violence, gender violence) prevents it from being regulated.
v. Gonzales v. Raich – SC upholds federal narcotics law against state-authorized homegrown medical marijuana.
1. Based off Wickard, Congress similarly has the authority to regulate home-grown and consumed marijuana as individually, it has no substantial effect on interstate commerce, but in the aggregate, it has an impact in the illicit trade.
2. Does not matter if the economic activity is illegal, it is still economic activity that the Controlled Substances Act is regulating.
vi. Commerce Clause Review After Raich
1. Economic vs. Non-Economic Test: Raich upheld as it dealt with the “production, distribution and consumption of a commodity” but allows non-economic activity (gun possession) to not be considered in the aggregate.
2. No distinction between shared federal/state goals (gender violence) or opposed goals (state authorized marijuana).
f. External Limits on the Commerce Power: Federalism and the 10th and 11th Amendments.
i. 10th Amendment – Powers not delegated to the U.S. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
ii. 11th Amendment – The judicial power of the U.S. shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state (state immunity).
