Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Authority and Role Judicial Review o Constitution superior to state law o SC says what constitution means and decides what law is unconstitutional o Not explicit in constitution Authority to Review State Court Judgment o Hunter v. Martins Lessee If a federal question arises in State Courts the court has the authority to render final decisions on constitutional issues found that it was clear from history and the preamble of the Constitution that the Federal power was given directly by the people and not by the States Thus, because it was established that the States had the power to rule on Federal issues it must be true that the Supreme Court can review the decision or the Supreme Court would not have appellate jurisdiction in "all other cases." Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause declares that the Federal interpretation will trump the State's interpretation. Uniformity in Federal Law- both state and SC are capable of hearing Constitutional issues. It is the issue that makes the difference it is the case, not the court, that gives jurisdiction. o Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states were bound by the Court's decisions, and could not choose to ignore them. More importantly, the Court held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land, and because Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review,[1] then the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land, and is therefore binding on all the states, regardless of any state laws contradicting it. The Court therefore rejected the contention that the Arkansas legislature and Governor were not bound by the Brown decision. Rejected Nullification (the states have the power to nullify federal laws or court rulings that they believe to be unconstitutional) Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is".

Meese accused the Court of taking too much power for itself by setting itself up as the sole institution responsible for the interpretation of the Constitution Article 4: Constitution supreme law of the landbinding effect on the states o Ex Parte McCardle: Two issues were raised by this case: Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and if so, whether McCardle's imprisonment violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the second question was not answered. Because Congress withdrew jurisdiction to hear the case, McCardle had no legal recourse to challenge his imprisonment in federal court. Constitutional Interpretation o Any body may interpret. Supreme Courts interpretation is final Case or Controversy Requirement: Judicial power shall extend to a list of enumerated cases and controversies o Case/ Controversy: matter must be concrete and non-hypothetical o Standing: must involve parties claiming an actual injury that is personal and concrete to them First: the P must have suffered an injury in fact an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent not conjecture or hyphothetical. Second: there must be a casual connection between the injury and the conduct complained of- the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of some third party not before the court. Third: it must be likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law must have a valid reason to bring suit- must have something to lose. Mass v. EPA

That a litigant must demonstrate that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the Def, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury Petitioners have standing because the risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real. That risk would be reduced to some extent if the petitioners received the relief they seek. o Ripeness & Mootness Political Question: Justiciability: is the court the appropriate forum? Whenever one of the branches is acting there is a possibility it is a political question. Is there a clash between the branches? Baker v. Carr: o Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of the court as ultimate interpreter of the constitution o The mere fact that the suit seeks protection of a political rights does not mean it present a political question. o Political question doctrine: essentially a function of the separation of powers. o TEST The appropriateness of our system to give finality to the acts of the political dept Lack of satisfactory solutions (legal remedy) o Factors: Several formulations may describe a political questions political in nature Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it Impossibility of deciding w/o initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion

Impossibility of a courts undertaking independent resolution w/o expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of gov. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made Potential of embarrassment by a multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Third Party Standing Nation & States Retained v. Expressly delegated Necessary & Proper 10th: the powers not delegated to the US by constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Constitution leaves intact numerous and indefinite powers to the States. McCulloch v. Maryland o Supremacy clause

Commerce Clause Lopez Morrison o Intrastate: existing or occurring within a state o Interstate: Existing or carried on between states Gonzales v. Raich o Wickard: held that the gov may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops due to the effect of that consumption on interstate commerce, however minute it may be. Rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices Liklihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market aggregation o Lopez & Morrison o Gov contends that consuming ones locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence the Fed gov may regulate and prohibit such consumption o Permissible way of preventing or limiting access to marijuana for other uses

o Homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transaction in the interstate o Substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for the commodity. o Economic v. non economic Congress may regulate activities that channels of interstate commerce, instrumentality, or potentially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce. o Four Factors: whether the activity was non-econmic as opposed to economic activity the jx element, whether the regulated activity moved terough interstate commerce, whether there had been congressional findings of an economic link between the activity, how attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce New York v. US o Does Congress have the authority to force a state to adopt a federal regulatory program? o Commandeering Printz: Comandeering state executive branch o NY was directed towards legislative o We held that in NY that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce regulatory program- cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States officers directly. The Fed Gov may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State officers to administer or enforce a fed regulatory program. States: Citizens cannot sue a state in Federal Ct because 11th amendment denies- unless state permits or the EX Parte Young in which sue for an injunction for civil rights

TENTH

Eleventh

Taxing Spending: U.S v. Butler: Processing Tax under the Agriculture Act of 1933 was unconstitutional o Issue: ascertain the scope of the phrase general welfare of the United States or determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it. Child Labor Tax Case (Bailey v. Drexel)

 South Dakota v. Dole War/ Treaties/ Foreign Affairs Takings: Public use= public purpose 5th applies only to Fed gov. does not apply to states grant of power that permits the fed gov to take private property for public use- must pay just compensation condemnation and title regulatory o restriction or regulation on land o go so far that it is like or equivilent to a taking o Penn Coal: state regulation that goes too far, can be a taking. Dissent is more like the law today o Penn Central: Main Test for Reg Taking Economic impact of the regulation on the claimant Arbitrary singling out? Or comprehensive plan? extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment backed expectations the character of the governmental action characterized as a physical invasion by gov than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote common good Woods v. Cloyd Missouri v. Holland