Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Constitutional Law
Important Cases From Select Areas of Constitutional Law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 | Exercise of the Supremacy Clause. Marshall Court, expansive federal power. |
| Scott v. Sandford, 1857 | African Americans may never be U.S. citizens. Overturns Missouri Compromise |
| Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918 | Court strikes down a law barring shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced by child labor. Law intrudes upon police power of states, later overturned by U.S. v. Darby Lumber in 1941. |
| U.S. v. Darby Lumber, 1941 | Court upholds a law banning interstate shipment of goods produced by workers making less than 25 cents/hr. Reverses Hammer. |
| National League of Cities v. Usery, 1976 | Congress may not regulate the wages of state employees via the Commerce Clause via the FLSA (intrusion upon right of state to set wages). Overruled by Garcia v. SAMTA. |
| Garcia v. San Antonio MTA, 1985 | Federal government may impose Fair Labor Standards Act on a city's transit authority, extending the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements to state and local gov'ts. Overturns NLC v. Usery. |
| New York v. United States, 1992 | Federal gov't may not constitutionally command states to abide by a radioactive waste policy. Congress may not commandeer the state legislative process. |
| Printz v. United States, 1997 | The Brady Bill, commanding local law enforcement to conduct background checks, is unconstitutional. This is another example of commandeering. |
| Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 | Supremacy Clause. Navigation is interstate commerce . |
| U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co., 1895 | Congress does not have the power to regulate manufacture of goods under interstate commerce, because production precedes commerce. |
| Champion v. Ames, 1903 | Congress may bar interstate shipment of lottery tickets, because power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to bar items from entering interstate commerce in the first place. |
| Stafford v. Wallace, 1922 | Congress may regulate meat-packing industry's stockyards under interstate commerce. |
| Schecter Poultry v. United States, 1935 | Congress may not grant POTUS the power to draft/enforce codes that regulate industries because these codes are not covered by interstate commerce. |
| Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 1936 | Congress can't pass a law placing wage, hour and labor standards on the coal mining industry and tax noncompliers, because mining precedes commerce and labor relations are a state matter. |
| NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, 1937 | Congress may pass a law allowing workers to unionize, because it has the power to regulate anything that is so closely related to interstate commerce that its regulation is essential to protect commerce from burdens. |
| Wickard v. Filburn, 1942 | Secretary of Agriculture may place quotas on grain production, because even activities purely local in nature may have an effect upon interstate commerce. |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 1964 | A provision prohibiting discrimination in any public accommodation that operates in interstate commerce is valid, in this case a hotel. Interstate travel may be regulated. |
| U.S. v. Lopez, 1995 | Congress may not regulate firearms in school jurisdiction under the commerce clause, because this statute covers non-economic activity and the effect on interstate commerce is not substantial. |
| U.S. v. Morrison, 2000 | The civil remedy of the Violence Against Women Act does not fall within Congress' commerce power, it is non-economic activity. The provision allowing victims to sue their attackers in federal court was repealed, as Congress lacked commerce clause authorit |
| Gonzales v. Raich, 2005 | Congress may prohibit personal use/cultivation of marijuana under commerce clause because "Wickard" established its authority to regulate purely local activities with effects on interstate commerce. |
| NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012 (Commerce Clause question) | The individual mandate of ObamaCare is not valid under the commerce clause, because it regulates commercial inactivity, therefore is not a regulation of interstate commerce. |
| Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co, 1895 | The tax established by the act in question, a tax on income from real and personal property is a direct tax. The entire law is unconstitutional. |
| U.S. v. U.S. Shoe Corporation, 1998 | The Harbor Maintenance Tax, a tax on exports, is unconstitutional. No Tax or Duty shall be placed on Articles exported [from states] |
| McCray v. U.S., 1904 | A tax on margarine that is regulatory as opposed to revenue-raising is still valid, as long as there is still some revenue-raising motivation behind it |
| Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co, 1922 | A tax on goods produced by child labor is an impermissible regulatory tax. This is more of a penalty than a revenue-raising tax, and the power to regulate the employment of children is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. |
| U.S. v. Butler, 1936 | A tax on agricultural processors, to pay for the broad regulatory scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, is not a valid exercise of taxing power, but it is only invalid because production is reserved to the states. |
| Steward Machine v. Davis, 1938 | A Social Security Act tax is "encouraging" states to establish unemployment programs, and employers to contribute to the programs. This tax is valid. |
| South Dakota v. Dole, 1987 | Congress may attach a minimum drinking age requirement for any state that takes federal highway funds, this is permissible under the general welfare clause. |
| NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012 (Tax question) | The individual mandate is a valid exercise of the taxing power, it is a true tax. It is not a heavy burden, no scienter requirement, and is enforced by the IRS. |
| NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012 (Medicaid question) | Medicaid expansion violates the taxing and spending clause, because by threatening existing funds, Congress gives the states no real choice other than to comply. This is coercion, not encouragement as seen in Dole. |
| Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873 | A state may create a monopolistic industry and force businesses to use specific facilities as well as pay for this privilege. No deprivation of property is present. |
| Munn v. Illinois, 1877 | Illinois can set maximum rates for grain storage, because the warehouses (private property) are "affected with public interest" and may therefore be controlled. However, under some circumstances, regulating businesses can violate due process. |
| Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 1897 | A state may not restrict its citizens from doing business with an out-of-state company if that company is not licensed by the state, because the law interferes with the freedom of contract. |
| Lochner v. New York, 1905 | New York may not set a maximum hours law to ensure workers' health and sanitary bread. Freedom of contract is implicit under due process. |
| Muller v. Oregon, 1908 | Oregon may set maximum hours laws for women, it is a valid exercise of the state's police power to regulate citizens' health. |
| Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 1923 | Federal government may not set a minimum wage of 35 cents/hr for women working in hospitals, it interferes with freedom of contract and there is no valid police power purpose. Later overturned by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. |
| Nebbia v. New York, 1934 | New York can set milk prices. |
| West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937 | The state may set a minimum wage, the contract right is not fundametal. Overturns Adkins. |
| Williamson v. Lee Optical, 1955 | A law requiring a prescription from an ophthalmologist before an optician may replace lenses is valid, because the Court can conceive of some legitimate purpose. |
| BMW of North America v. Gore, 1996 | $2,000,000 in damages awarded by a state jury is so excessive that it violates the substantive due process rights of BMW. |
| Capteron v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, Inc., 2009 | Substantive due process requires that a judge who receives contributions from a party before the court recuse himself. Due process requires this if a reasonable observer would determine that there is a serious risk of bias. |
Created by:
colbyc22
Popular American Government sets