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
Con Law
con law cases and holdings
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| US v Miller (1939) | sawed-off shotguns not covered in the purpose of 2nd amendment bc they have nothing to do with keeping a well-regulated militia (showed purposive interp of 2nd amendment) |
| DC v Heller (2008) | Originalism+textualism says individuals have a right to keep and bear arms for self defense, no handgun ban allowed |
| Marbury v Madison | Judicial Review, US Congress does not have police power like UK, instead must stick to but is supreme within its enumerated powers, SCOTUS can interpret where enumerated power borders are |
| Counter majoritarian view | when SCOTUS acts against congress (and even executive) its to stop policies ostensibly created by majorities, this creates tension when scotus declares stuff unconstitutional |
| Departmentalism | 3 views of how controlling SCOTUS is, interpretive supremacy, judgment supremacy, and pure departmentalism |
| interpretive supremacy | other branches of government must follow SCOTUS guidelines in all cases |
| judgment supremacy | other branches of government must follow the judgment of SCOTUS (can do their own thing in future/other instances) |
| pure departmentalism | other branches of government interpret their constitutional powers on their own terms |
| McCulloch v Maryland | state can't tax bank, N+P with supremacy clause means federal power reigns over state power when its within its enumerated zone. N+P clause really means convenient, useful or essential to another |
| Chae Chan Ping; Fong Yue Ting (1889, 1893) | two cases establishing immigration as a sovereignty power which the fed gov has despite nothing about it in the constitution (kind of a thrown in N+P power) |
| Gibbons v Ogden (1824) | Boat from NJ to NY, movement across state borders as core commerce clause regulatable thing, CHANNELS and INSTRUMENTALITIES CAN BE REGULATED. the power to regulate is the power to prescribe the rule by which the commerce is regulated |
| EC Knight | Antitrust in PA was not commerce clause worthy because affects on nthe interstate market were too attenuated! Effect distance analysis begins from the point of regulation. |
| Shreveport Rate | Intrastate regulations on an interstate network is a direct affects of IC situation. |
| Stafford v Wallace | Chicago meatpacking regulatory scheme, even thouhg it is entirely in Illinois, is in the stream of meatpacking commerce, and thus can be regulated directly. |
| Champion v Ames | An illicit article (lottery tickets) can be counted as an article of commerce. some acceptance for non-commercial purpose in this close 5-4 decision... |
| Hammer v Dagenhart | labor market competition between states is too attenuated from a child labor ban, creates/envisions a purpose test where the point of the regulation shouldn't be to police a power held by the states |
| A.L.A. Schechter Poultry v. United States | NYC Poultry regulations were at the end of, not in, the stream of commerce and did not dsirectly affect interstate commerce, |
| Carter v. Carter Coal | Manufacturing and mining are "pre-commerce activities", not in the stream of commerce and the nature of the affect is not direct enough (in spite of great size) last of the pre switch cases! |
| NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin; | FIRST POST SWITCH CASE: labor relation regulations have a huge effect, size of effect matters here... National corp is treated as one interstate entity |
| United States v. Darby; | attenuated affect of competitive dynamics between states are accepted (in contrast to hammer v dagenhart). Darby is fine with prohibiting technique for commerce and gets rid of purpose suspicion from Hammer v Dagenhart! |
| Wickard v. Filburn | You can aggregate the effects of the regulation across every application of it . Completely personal consumption of goods (for farm animals in this case) can be regulated because of the affect it will have on you buying goods from a market. |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States | hotel discrimination ban due to travel effects (effect on persons in IC), banned activity is denying black guests at the hotel... |
| Katzenbach v. McClung | effect is the food suppliers from out of state and how discrimination would reduce the amount of food they would sell to the restaurant, plus deters movement there and travel |
| U.S. v. Lopez | no guns in school zones reg, Rehnquist revolution: channels, instrumentalities, persons and things in IC, jurisdictional hook, and substantial effect on IC, which in itself must be an economic activity or be an essential part of a regulatory scheme |
| Gonzales v. Raich | Banning personal marijuana plants is necessary to interstate marijuana regulation scheme, N+P clause, or economic activity is really broad |
| U.S. v. Doremus | Taxing opium, purpose of the tax outside revenue is ok as long as some revenue collected... Tax forms can be required under N+P |
| Bailey v. Drexel Furniture | purpose of destroying child labor not in taxing power, basket of factors to see if tax is actually penalty: raise rev, proportional to act, IRS enforce, not too big, no scienter, if fails then penalty, allowed if in commerce clause power |
| United States v. Kahriger | gambling tax, seems to swing back to having a purpose outside revenue collection is absolutely fine (overrules bailey on that particular front?) |
| United States v. Butler | SPENDING POWER: pre switch, police power purposes of spending grants are suspect, then w/ switch, it is not unfair to spend on certain people for the general welfare (Helvering v Davis) |
| Steward Machine Co v. Davis | Social security, despite being for the elderly, does count as an expense for the general welfare |
| South Dakota v. Dole | dr4unk driving side condition Spending test: serve general welfare, clearly stated, germaneness/nexus, independent constitutional bars, and encouragement, not coercion... |
| City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey | DCC, Garbage is a thing in commerce: discriminatory purpose, per se unconstitutional, facially discriminatory mechanism, uncon unless certain to achieve goal, discrim effect, must benefit state and not place excessive IC burden... |
| Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. | trucks case. Employ pike balancing test on a facially neutral statute to see if beenfit to state is greater or hinderance to IC. Also prudential means congress can override and let or block state statutes... DCC applies when Cong is silent |
| Wirtz; | old doctrine from 60s, if state engages in econ activity validly regulated by gov, states have to follow general regulation |
| Usery | "states as states" have some sovereignty, retain control of traditional gov function |
| Garcia v. SAMTA | federal statutes that apply to everyone do not violate the 10th amendment, states retain vague traditional sovereignty... You need a plain statement that regs apply to states |
| Hodel | Comandeering doctrine, can't force states to uphold a regulatory scheme, but the feds can come in and manage themselves |
| New York | You cannot order states to legislate (take title of nuclear waste) but you can grant states money who comply w/ regs and Congress can waive DCC to get states to punish states who don't follow regulations |
| Printz v. United States | (Brady gun background check challenege) You cannot order a state employee to enforce a federal regulatory program |
| NFIB v. Sebelius (Commerce) | Compelling a purchase (of health insurance) is not a valid CC regulation. Congress can regulate economic (can mean a lot, see raich) activity, not inactivity |
| NFIB v. Sebelius (Taxing) | The provision is a tax, not a penalty (Roberts controlling, not majority, opinion) (Scalia dissent says it is a penalty and fails CC analysis). Drexel factors used, some statutory interp as well, Sclaia wants to say penalty because its called penalty |
| NFIB v. Sebelius (Spending) | Roberts rejects, says expansion of medicaid is a side condition then fails dole test, clear statement and coercion... |
| Youngstown Steel & Tube v. Sawyer | Jackson test: Congressional silence= zone analysis, then if in 2 or 3, 1=maximum, 2= zone of twilight, 3=lowest ebb, Frankfurter: do historical gloss of prez power, continuous and unbroken exercise of the power |
| Dames & Moore v. Regan | Zone 1 because they think congress intended for the prez to withhold claims, just failed to anticipate this issue |
| Trump v. Vance | privileges and immunities, president does not have absolute immunity from judicial subpoenas |
| Trump v. Mazars USA | Congressional subpoena power is not a necessary and proper power the president must respect... |
| United States v. Nixon | privilege: shielding evidence, immunity= shielded from a case Creates balancing test for privileging prez communications, integrity of justice vs sensitivity of comms, lets judges review in camera |
| Trump v. United States | Immunity for prosecuting a former prez... personal capacity can be charged, for official acts, core powers immune, outer perimeter, assumed to be immune... offic acts are ones not manifestly beyond authority... |
| Plessy v. Ferguson | train segregation, test: law must be reasonable (includes animus), and purpose can't explicitly be subordination of a race... Treatment should be equal (McCabe, no train 1st class car for black people violates separate but equal) |
| Brown v. Board; Baltimore v. Dawson, Loving v. Virginia | Segregation inherently oppressive, racial segregation gets strict scrutiny treatment |
| Railway express Agency | trucks w/ ads case, shows law doesn't have to make much sense to pass rational basis, legit purpose, rationally related means and hypothetical evidence |
| Williamson v Lee Optical | optrician v optometrist state regulation also subject to rational basis review, over under broad analysis for rational relation |
| City of Cleburne v Cleburne living center | mentally disabled living center banned bc of illegit prupose (animus), Heightened rational basis review. LYNG FACTORS here: |
| Korematsu v United States | strict scrutiny case: compelling purpose, narrowly tailored/least restrictive means, harsh review of actual facts... |
| Lee v Williamson | |
| US v Virginia | VMI academy, sex discrim gets intermediate scrutiny, purpose: important, means: substantially related, evidence: exceedingly persuasive. |
| Washington v Davis | Facially neutral thing with only disparate racial effects (no other evidence of racial motive/bias) is slotted into rational basis... Targeting must be because, not in spite of |
| Hunter v Underwood | legislative history of bill that disenfranchised certain kinds of crimes was explicitly white supremicist. facially neutral w/ effects slotted into strict scrutiny... |
| Wick Yo v Hopkins | administration of the facially neutral law was clearly targeted against Chinese People |
| Gomillion v Lightfoot | facially neutral town redistricting, res ipsa based on race, actual targeting of black people was proven... |
| Bakke | quotas face strict scrutiny, but diversity in higher ed is a compelling purpose (Powell concurrence that had influence) |
| Gutter | affirmative action remains in strict scrutiny, but michigan law has a holistic scheme court accepts |
| Gratz | umich undergrad needs to be altered to match law school set up |
| Parents Involved | assigning by race in public school system slotted into strict scrutiny and did not meet strict scrutiny test |
| Croson | redressing past societal effects of discrimination with affirmative action is viewed with strict scrutiny |
| SFFA v Harvard | diversity in higher ed no longer a compelling purpose, must be a colorblind standard, Jackson dissent cites stuff like freedmen's bureau as evidence that 14th amendment allows for redressing racial disparity... |
| Lochner | SDP, right to contract, purpose and fit test: no redistribution, close fit, skeptical scrutiny of contracts |
| Ferguson v Skrupa | overrules SDP right to contract: redistribution ok, loose fit, rational basis |
| Griswold v Connecticut | Creates SDP right to privacy (penumbra+amendments forming right) (marital privacy here), 1,3,4,5,9 amendments. Slotting of heightened review is key! |
| Roe v Wade | 3 trimester framework balancing between unborn life and mother's rights, abortion under privacy right |
| Casey v Planned Parenthood | no undue burden on pre-viable fetus abortions, stare decisis factors introduced... nature of error, reasoning quality, workability, disruptive effects, reliance, public pressure |
| Lawrence v texas | Sodomy laws banned bc SDP right to privacy... Private autonomy according to majority, history and tradition according to Scalia dissent... |
| Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health | Roe/casey overturned, stare decisis factors met: nature of error, reasoning quality, workability, disruptive effects, reliance (public pressure removed) DEEPLY ROOTED IN TRADITION TEST, , diff between allowed to and right |
| Substantive Due Process | Everyone agrees that unenumerated rights exist, but they disagree about what those unenumerated rights are |
Created by:
user-2007768