Aug 26, 2010
MISTRETTA, v. UNITED STATES (1989)
v Prisoners challenged constitutionality of Sentencing Commission.
v Sentencing commission created by legislature in 1984 to created guidelines for judges to follow and ensure less variance in sentencing
v Case started after D who was convicted drug dealer attacked the laws created by the Commission
v US District Court determined sentencing guidelines were constitutional.
v Case granted certiorari by Supreme Ct before judgment in the Ct of Appeals,
ISSUE – Are sentencing guidelines which were created by a Commission formed by Congress which the ct MUST follow in violative of the Constitution?
HOLDING (Supreme Court, Justice Blackmun) – AFFIRMED; No, sentencing guidelines were Constitutional.
v Why? B/c guidelines created by Executive amount to neither 1) excessive delegation of legislative power nor 2) violation of separation of powers principle.
WHITMAN v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS (2001)
v Various petitions for review were filed with respect to final rules issued pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), revising national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM).
v The District Ct vacated in part and remanded.
v Ct of Appeals, denied EPA’s petition for rehearing en banc.
HOLDING (Supreme Ct, Justice Scalia) – Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
(1) CAA bars EPA from considering implementation costs in setting NAAQS;
(2) CAA’s delegation of authority to EPA to set NAAQS at level “requisite to protect public health” was not unconstitutional delegation of legislative power;
– Only 2 instances where the CT has struck down Congressional action because of Non-Delegation doctrine
(3) EPA’s implementation policy for revised ozone NAAQS in “nonattainment” areas was final agency action subject to judicial review;
(4) issue of lawfulness of NAAQS implementation policy was ripe;
(5) 1990 amendments to CAA regarding ozone in nonattainment areas were ambiguous as to long-term applicability, requiring deference to EPA’s reasonable interpretation; but
(6) EPA could not enforce its revised ozone NAAQS in such a way as to render ozone-specific CAA amendment nugatory.
Aug 30, 2010
Aug 31, 2010
2 components of Non-delegation doctrine
Ultra vires (ensuring action was within the confines of statutes as written by legislature)
– What does statute provide?
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. William T. SCHOR (1986)
v Schor (futures customers) filed reparations complaints with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in which broker filed counterclaim to recover debit balance of accounts.
v What is CFTC
o Congress set up CFTC, an independent regulatory commission, administrative proceedings to avoid overburdening the courts
v First suit was brought by Conti in federal district ct to recover debt Schor owed him
v Schor intiated suit in CFTC because claimed Conti violated CEA
v Conti then voluntarily dismissed his suit to counterclaim to bring his claims in administrative proceeding
v The CFTC found for the broker, and customers sought judicial review.
v Ct of Appeals for the District of Columbia, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
v Supreme Ct vacated and remanded.
v On remand, the Ct of Appeals, reinstated prior judgment. Certiorari was granted.
ISSUE – May the CFTC (agency set up by Congress) preside over case where counterclaims by D do not fall within ambit of agency’s power?
HOLDING (The Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor) – Yes. Reversed and remanded
(1) Commodity Exchange Act empowers the CFTC to entertain state law counterclaims in reparations proceedings, and
(2) agency’s assumption of jurisdiction over common-law counterclaims does not violate Article III.
Decision’s by courts in administrative agency allowable because:
– Final decision still reviewable by Art. III courts
– Judicial branch did not have authority stripped; ct’s still have authority to try this type of case, this new agency created just to aid courts by lessening burdens
Sept 2, 2010
Agency created ct’s are overseen by the appeal’s process which takes case to normal ct (as established by Art III)
Atlas Roofing Co, Inc. v OSHA (1977) – in creating new ‘public rights,’ Congress could assign their adjudication to an administrative agency with which a jury trial would be incompatible, without violating the Seventh Amendment’s injunction that jury trial is to be ‘preserved’ in ‘suits at common law.’
– Public rights did not exist at common law; must be created by Congress
When are public rights being litigated?
1) cases in which the government sues in its sovereign capacity
2) suit to enforce public rights created by statutes within the power of Congress to enact
MYERS v.UNITED STATES (1926).
v Suit by the estate of Frank S. Myers, against the United States.
o Myers was an offficer of the executive (Post-master general), who Pres. Wilson wished to have removed from his post
o Myers did not wish to leave his post
v Statute provides the Executive with the power to appoint executive officers with the consent of the Senate
v No mention of what process must be taken to remove an executive officer
Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
ISSUE – Under the Constitution does the President have the exclusive power to remove executive officers of the US whom he has appointed by and with the consent of the Senate
HOLDING (Supreme Ct, Justice Taft) – Affirmed.
v Presidential role of the chief executive branch (allows the president to UNILATERALLY remove inferior executive officers, because he is stationed as the leader of the executive)
v Relative expertise (because President worked along side executive officer has higher level of expertise as to quality of his work than the Congress)
v Also inferred because given the power to appt (to ensure faithful execution of the laws) so Ct made logical leap that should also be allowed to remove
Sept 7, 2010
HUMPHREY’S EXECUTOR v. UNITED STATES. (1935)
v Suit by Samuel F. Rathbun, as executor of the estate of William E. Humphrey, deceased, against the United States, in which the Court of Claims certified questions to the United States Supreme Court.
v Humphrey was a commissioner on Federal Trade Commission Act
o Created by Congress
§ Executive – carry into effect legislative policies and to perform other specified duties as a
§ Legislative – make investigations and reports for Congress
§ Judicial – have an administrative court where the FTCA acts as master in chancery
o FTCA has 5 member, non partisan in nature
o Appointment process – Commissioners are to be appointed by the President by a
ermining the level of spending is a Legislative function, so why is their a problem a provision that forces the Comptroller General to report to the Congress? *
Sept 13, 2010
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Appellant v. Jagdish Rai CHADHA (1983)
v Alien whose suspension of deportation had been vetoed by one House of Congress sought review of order of deportation.
o Was of Indian descent, but born in Kenya.
§ Not a citizen of either state (not India because not born there, and not Kenya because they were trying to remove Indian residents)
o Taken into custody by INS after continued living in US after student visa expired
o Applied for and received humanitarian and hardship exemption under Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1974
o INS granted hardship exemption
o House of Reps vetoed hardship exemption after Representative Eilsberg made a statement that Chadha and 5 others in situations like him did not meet statutory requirements and should not be allowed to stay; [House of Reps voted w/o debate or recorded vote] o Issue never went to Senate or the Prez.
The Court of Appeals, held the section of Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing one-House veto unconstitutional, and certiorari was granted.
ISSUE – Is the Section of Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing one House of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate decision of Executive Branch to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the United States is constitutional?
HOLDING (Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger) – AFFIRMED; Section of Act unconstitutional and therefore House of Reps violated constitution by vetoing hardship exemption
v Legislative acts by Congress are subject to
1. The constitutional requirements of passage (which require passage by a majority of both Houses [not just 1 house]) and
2. Presentation to the President (no presentation
v If both requirements were not settled here Act is unconstitutional
Sept. 14, 2010
William J. CLINTON, President of the United States v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al (1998)
v City, health care providers, and unions, and farmers’ cooperative and individual member, commenced separate actions challenging constitutionality of Line Item Veto Act.
v Why? President exercised his authority under Act to cancel provisions of Balanced Budget Act and Taxpayer Relief Act.
o Clinton wants to strike 2 provision;
1. A provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relieved NY of $2.6 bil obligation; and
2. A portion of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which gives advantageous tax treatment to farmers
v Line item veto allowed Pres to strike provision of statutes that:
any dollar amt of discretionar