con law comprehensive notes and case briefs

8/3/2019 Con Law Comprehensive Notes and Case Briefs

1/42

1

y Marbury v. Madison:o Issues:

Ct looksat:iftheydont givehimtheappointment,doesit violatehisright Right givetheremedy? Doesthe ct. havetheauthoritytoforcetheexecutivebranch to givethe

appointment

Doesthe ct. havethe jurisdictiontohearthis case?o Supreme court winsthis casebecausea lotoftheseissuesarenotreallyaboutthe

individualsinvolved,theyareaboutthepowerofthe court

o Toolsandargumentsusedto justifythedecision Starts withreading the constitution Interpretthemeaning Looktotheintentoftheframers why wouldthey writea constitutionthat

theyintendedtobe changedeasilyortonottrump legislation?

o Couldhavedecidedthiseasierby justsaying theydonthave jurisdictionoverthe caseratherthan going throughadetailed constitutional analysis

y Mainprinciple lessonsfromMarbury:o Constitutionisnotinthetextalone (silentabout judicial review)o Constitutionisregulatory (canbe judiciallyendorses) not justaspirational (notmerelya

setofgoalsorideas)

o Violationofrightsrequirearemedy?o Congress cannotrestrictorincreasethe courtsoriginal jurisdictiono Courtmayreview executiveactionthatisministerial (non-discretionary)o Courtmayreview legislationfor constitutionality

y Therearetimes whenthe courts will defertotheexecutivebranch/administrativeagenciesy Martin v. HuntersLessee

o CanVAsay wearent going tofollow whattheSupremeCourtinterpretedtheconstitutiontomean?

They gettointerpret whatthe constitutionmeanstothem.o Reaffirming theSupremeCtspoweroverstate courtson constitutional issueso Policyargument it would causea lotofconfusionandproblemsifyouallow eachstate

tointerpretthe constitutionthe waythey want.

y Problem Pg. 11o AreSCinterpretationsofConst. floorsor ceilings?o

Canstate givemorerightsorfewerrights? Generallymorerights (ie:righttoeducation) State candecidethattheirown const. givesmorerightsthanthefed. Const.

o Canstates choosetofollow otherstatesmoreexpansivereadingsoftheirownConst.provisions?yes


2/42

2

y Cooper v. Aaron:o CantheSCtell thestates whattodo?yes

y Restraints on judicial authority:o Practical restraints

Kindsofcasestheyhavetohear almostnone,basedmainlyontheirdecisions(writofcertiorari); usuallyhearthingsabout when circuitsaresplit,statesare

violating

4ofthe judgeshavetosaythatthey wanttohearthe case,notall

o Should wehaveaSCandaConstitutional court? Possiblybecausetherearea lotofcasesthatarenot constitutional casesbeing

heardbytheSC

y ExParteMcCardleo Soughta writofhabeus corpus deniedo Ct wantstoknow whytheyhavethispersono First casethatactuallydiscussesprecedential caseso Jurisdictionissue

y Klien case:o Jurisdictionissuebutalsoinvolvedinterfering withtheSCsabilitytodecidethe caseon

themerits (article 3 separationofpowers)

Political Question Doctrine:

y Baker v. Carr (pg. 23-25):o Factorsusedto considerbutnohardandfastrule:

Appropriatenessunderoursystemofgovtofattributing finalitytotheactionofthepolitical departments

The lackofsatisfactory criteriafora judicial determinationaredominantconsiderations

Whetheritrelatestoforeignrelationsy Dontreally wanttoembarrassa coequal branchofgovt

o Brennan gives 6 Factors,at leastoneofwhichmust be present inordertomakeanissueanon-justiciablepolitical question:

1. Commitmenttoanotherbranch: A textuallydemonstrableconstitutional commitmentoftheissuetoa coordinatepoliticalquestion (i.e. foreignaffairsorexecutive warpowers)?

2. Lack of standards: A lackofjudiciallydiscoverableandmanageablestandards forresolvingtheissue

3. Unsuitable policy determination: The impossibilityofdeciding [theissue] withoutaninitial policy determination ofakind clearlyfornon-

judicial discretion


3/42

3

4. Lack of respect for other branches: The impossibilityofa courtsundertaking independentresolution withoutexpressing lack of the

respect due co-ordinate branches of government. 5. Political decisions already made: An unusual needforunquestioning

adherencetoapolitical decision already made. 6. Multiple pronouncements: Thepotential for embarrassmentfrom

multifarious pronouncements by variousdepartmentsononequestiono A lotoftheproblemsinthisarea comefrompoliticiansre-drawing thedistrict linesto

bettertheir chancesofre-election

Case or Controversy Requirement (Pg. 28):

y Mustbeanactual disputebetweentwopartiesthathas legal groundsy ProhibitionofAdvisoryopinions:

o Notreallythe courts jobto giveadvisoryopinionso Hardertomakethosekindofdecisionsbecausetheyarehypothetical situationso Thanksfortheadvice,but were going todosomething elseanyway

y DeclaratoryJudgments:o Theydothemnow,butnotbacktheno Tellsyou whatthe law isonthematteranditstill requirestwoadversarial partiesthat

require judicial involvementandthe judgmentactuallyresolvesthematter

o Typicallyproperty,intellectual propertyissues,etc.Ripeness (pg. 30)

y UnitedPublicWorkers v. Mitchell:o Notripe,nothearing the case

doyour job,shutup,notengageinpolitical activityo Dissent (Douglas) thinksthattheissue wasripe

y AbbotLabs v. Gardner:o Requiredthedrug companiestoprintthe generic namealong withthebrandnamefor

thedrug onthesamepackaging

o Noonehasbeenprosecutedfornot complyingo Ripebecauseit was going to costa lotofmoneyforadvertising,re-printing,etc.o Ctdecidedit wasripeandtohearthe caseo Thisplacesmorerequirementsonthe company,not justtelling themto continuedoing

their jobandnotinvolvethemselvesinpolitical issues likeintheUnitedPublicWorkerscase


4/42

4

Mootness:

y DeFunis v. Odegaard:o Ctdeclaredthe casemootbecausehe wasalreadyinhis 3rdyearbythetimethe case

gottotheSC,healreadyhadhisremedyandthere wasnoreal reasonforthe courtto

decidethe caseo Dissent:doesntthinkthatitis completelymoot,it wouldbemoot whenheactually

graduatedandsincehestill hadsometime left

o Jurisdictional/prudential issue? Ctmaynotbeableto constitutionallyhearthe case (donthavethe

authorization)

Prudential guyisprobably going to graduate,notreally worththeirtimetohearthe case

y Mootness plaintiffspecific,notreallydefendantspecificS

tanding:

y Plaintiffbearstheburdenofestablishing thattheydohavestandingy 3 constitutional requirements:

o Injury actual orimminentinvasionofa legallyprotectedinterestoftheplaintiffthatisconcreteandparticularized

o Causation causedbythe conductofthedefendanto Redressability canberedressedbyadecisionoftheCourt

y Daimler-Chrysler v. Cunoo Corporate welfare (taxbreaksforthe company)o Taxpayersbroughtthesuitbecausethey werehaving tobeartheburdenduetothe

corp. notpaying asmuchintax,reducedamountoffundstothe city/state

o Courtstatesthatthereistoomuchspeculativeissues withtheplaintiffs case,theydontreally wantto givethemstanding onspeculativeissues (theydontseemtobe

concrete,thereisnoactual injury)

o Issueofmunicipality Ifataxbreakis giventoa companyinasmall community,itmaybemore clear wherethe causeis coming fromand whytheinjuryisoccurring and what

theinjuryactuallyoccurs.

y Taxpayersalwayshavestanding to challengethe validityofataxthatthey will beforcedtopayo Youmaynotbeableto challengetheexpenditureafterpaidorthatsomeoneis

receiving ataxbreak probablynot going tohavestandingy Legislatorstanding:

o Raines v. Byrd minoritythat wantedthe law tonotbepasseddidnothavestandingbecausethemajorityactually votedonit

o Coleman v. Miller didhavestanding becausethemajority votedonanissueandthegovernortreateditasifthe votehad gonetheother wayandacknowledgedthe

alternativeto whatthemajority votedonas law.


5/42

5

y Hein v. FreedomfromReligionFoundation:o Pg.41-42insupp. book

Notes 8/30 9/1:

Standing Causation (Supp. Pg. 43)

y Whohasmorestanding:o Soldierbeing sentofftothe war

y Lujan v. DefendersofWildlife:o Case withtheruleforstanding Pg. 64and 65o 3 elements for standing:

Plaintiffmusthavesuffered aninjuryinfact aninvasionofa legallyprotectedinterestthatis:

y (a) concreteandparticularized,andy (b) actual orimminent,not conjectural orhypothetical

Theremustbea causal connectionbetweentheinjuryandthe conductcomplainedof

y Injuryhastobefairlytraceabletothe challengedactionofthedefendant,andnottheresultoftheindependentactionofsomethird

partynotbeforethe court

Itmustbe likely,asopposedtomerelyspeculative,thattheinjury will beredressedbyafavorabledecision

o Casefailsbecausethere wasnotadefiniteinjurytotheplaintiffsandthere wasnoredressabilityreallyavailabletotheplaintiffs,evenifthere wasinjurydone

o Isthisa legallyprotectedissue? Thistendstobemoreofa global problemratherthanjustaUSissue.

y SierraClub v. Morton:o Lackedstandingo Injuryinfacttestrequiresmorethananinjurytoa cognizableinterest. Itrequiresthe

partyseeking review beamong theinjuredthemselves,theimpactoftheproposedroad

wouldnotfall indiscriminatelyuponevery citizen

o SierraClubfailedtoallegethatitoritsmembers wouldbeaffectedinanyoftheiractivitiesorpastimesbythedevelopment.

o Dissent:itshouldhavebeen givenstanding becauseit wasanestablishedorganizationthat wastrying toprotecttherightsofa largernumberofpeoplethatmaynothavetheabilitytobring suchasuit theyrepresentthoseindividuals whoareinjuredbythese

decisions

y SCRAPandArticleIIIsStanding requirements:o Doeshavestandingo Ct claimsthatbecausetheirharmismorespeculativeandtheremedyand causationis

all equallyspeculative


6/42

6

o Casedoesntreallymakeanysense!y Tax-exemptdiscriminatoryschools Allen v. Wright:

o Nota clearenough causal linkbetweenreceiving taxexemptionsandnotallowingstudentsofdifferentracestobeadmittedtotheschool

y Genderdiscrimination Heckler v. Mathewso Malefiledthathe wasntreceiving someequal treatmentthat womenareawarded

undertheSocial SecurityAct

o Doeshavestanding,noreal redressbecauseeitherfuturemen would getsomethingandhe wouldnot,or women getthebenefittakenaway thereisnoreal redressfor

him

y LyonsCaseo Yes,hasstanding because:

Hehasactual damagesfromtheincidentthathe wasadirectpartytoo No,doesnthavestanding:

Wantsaninjunctionforfutureuseofchoke-holdsbutthis wouldapplytofutureandthereisnotstanding becausethereisno certaintyestablishedthatit will

happentohimagaininthefuture

Hastobeshownthattheindividual themselves will be certainlyaffectedinthefuture (Roe v. Wade,similar conceptthat woman who cannothave children

wouldnothavestanding fororagainstabortion)

o What wouldbetheharmoftheinjunctionagainst choke-holds: Maybebecause certainthingssuchastaser gunsdidnotexistatthetime

y Testers - gooutandtesttomakesurethat certainorganizationsarebeing systematicallydiscriminatorytowardsothers

o Thesepeoplehavestandingy Massachusetts v. Environmental ProtectionAgency:

o Thereisstanding inthis case (usuallytheruleinthesesituationsdoesnotexist)o Majority enoughtohelpeliminatethe 6% oftheemissionsthataffectthetotal; thisis

enoughtoallow themtohavestanding

o Robertsdissent there wasnotdefiniteenoughinjury,it wasnotimminentenough Redressabilityisevenmoreproblematic

o A littlebitofapolitical question,thereisa lotofoverlapherey Congressionally authorized standing:

o Congress can give standing when:

(1) InjuryinFact (actual orimminent) (2) hastobethekindthat congressintendedto givethattypeofpersoninthat

situation (zoneofinterest)

y provisionsthat givepersontherighttobring the claim,havetoshowtheyare withintheparametersofthatstatuteanditsrequirementsas

totheirabilitytobring theaction

Prudential scenario


7/42

7

At leastsatisfyArticleIIIy Procedural harm:

o Procedurehastobeonethatissupposedto leadtosomethingo Therehastobeanactual harmduetotheprocedurenotbeing followedproperlyo Procedural rightsare connectedtothe concreteharmthat givesyoutherighttosue

Almost likeaprocedural dueprocessharmo The test changes when congress authorizes suit to enforce procedural rights:

Injury Causation Somepossibilityofredressability

y Summers v. EarthIslandInstitute:o Donthavestanding becausethere werenoaffidavitspresentedthatanyoftheir

membersweredirectlyinjured (noone canshow thattheyhaddefinite,immediate

plansto gothereinthefuture)

o ProblemisthattheMassachusetts case wasnotevenmentionedinthe case (5-4decision) onlyafew yearsbefore

y MonsantoCo. v. GeerstonSeedFarms:o Stricterstandardforstanding:

Injurybe concrete,particularized,andactual orimminent (and/ormaynotmakeanydifferenceforexampurposesdistinguish)

Fairlytraceabletothe challengedaction Redressablebyafavorableruling

y 3rd party standing (Supp. Pg 47, 51)o Sometimesyou canbring asuitonbehalfofsomeoneelseo Usuallyyou cant,exceptionstoallow 3rdpartystanding:

(1) when2ndparty cannotsueorit wouldbe verydifficultandunlikelythatthe2ndparty will sue

y Courtbelievesthe 3rdparty will effectivelyrepresentthe claim (wellsuited) and

y It wouldbedifficultforthe 3rdpartytoraisethe claim (hindrance) (2) wherethereisaspecial relationshipbetweenthe claimantandthe 3rdparty

(including association),AND

y Basednotmerelyonthe closenessoftherelationshipbutalsoontherelevanceoftherelationshiptothesuit

(3) in 1st

amendment cases, whereastatuteissooverlybroadthatit chillstheexpressionof3rdparties

y Ifthestatuteissubstantiallyoverbroadinitsregulationofexpression,aclaimant whohassatisfiedtheother constitutional requirementsfor

standing mayraisethe claimsof3rdparties whoareormaybeengaged

inexpressionthatis constitutionallyprotectedbut whomaybeaffected

bytheoverlybroadstatute


8/42

8

y Ifthe law issubstantiallyoverbroad,thenthe claimantmayraisetheseclaims,evenifthestatute wouldrightlyregulatetheirownexpression.

y Thus,apersonmay challengethestatuteintheengagedin conductthatwasnotprotectedbythe 1stAmendment. insucha case wouldnotbe

engaging in constitutionallyprotectedspeechbut wouldbeableto

bring whatis calledafacial challengetothestatute, which,ifsuccessful,

wouldresultintheentirestatutebeing struckdown

o Organizations canbring claims onbehalfoftheirmemberswithoutinstituting a classactioniftheysatisfytherequirements:

(1) membersneedtootherwisehavestanding toraisethe claimsintheirownright

(2) organizations claimsmustbe germanetotheorganizationspurpose (3) participationbytheorganizationsmembersthemselvesisnotrequired

o Inordertoraisestanding forathirdparty youhavetohavestanding yourself Some cant claimtherightforthemselves,remedybasedonrightsofthatother

personbeing vindicated

Still hastobeaninjuryonthe 1stparty,andthoseinsome wayeffectthe 3rdpartypersonbringing the case (ie:special relationshipb/w doctorandpatient,

couldbehardfor womento comeforward)

Ex:abortiondoctor (male) maynothavestanding totherightofabortionbuthecanhavestanding basedonhispatients (women whodohavearightto choose)

andheisthe waythatthosepeople canbe vindicated 3rdpartyalso vindicated

throughtheremedy

Notes 9/6 9/8:

y National Legislative Power:o Art. 1,Sec. 1o Congress getstodo whatthe constitutionsaysit cando enumerated, whatsnot

enumeratedfor congresstodoisheldforthestatesandthepeople

o Art. 1.,Sec. 8 powersofcongress (whatthey gettodo) Can congress legislateforthe general welfare? No They cantaxandspendforthe commondefenseand general welfarebutthat

doesnt givethemtoregulate/pass lawsforthe general welfare

o Isour constitution constitutional? notreallybecausetheydidnotfollow theprocessthat was laidoutintheoriginal ArticlesofConfederationthat werere-drawnastheconstitutionbutnotintheprocess laidoutinArticle 13 oftheArticlesofConfederation

y 2 limits on congressional power (CB 108)o Itsnotonthe list

Butitsnecessaryorproper Strict v. looseinterpretations (ie: water v. iphone)

o It violatesaright


9/42

9

o Section 10 alsoplacessome limitations (?)y McCulloch v. Maryland:

o Issues: Wheredoesthe constitution comefrom?

y MDthinksthepowerderivesfromthestates giving uptheirpowerstogivethefederal governmentthepower

y NO Itis wethepeople,not wethestatesbecausethepeoplearevoting,notthestates

Does congresshavethepowertoincorporateabank?y Isitnecessary/proper?

o Isthissomething thatyouneedinordertofulfill other goals(thingsontheenumerated list)

o Test (CB bottomof112): Legitimatefederal ends withinthescopeofthe

Constitution

Byappropriatemeans clearlyadaptedtothatend Notexpresslyprohibited InthespiritoftheConstitution

CanMDtaxthebank? (mainissue)y Nobecausestate law cannottrumpfederal law

y Pg 116 RulefornecessaryandproperfromtheUS v. Comstock caseo Rational basistesto Itdoesnthavetobethereasonthat congresshadforpassing the law,it canbe

something thatsimplyhasa legitimate governmentinteresttopassthetest

o Scaliaand

Thomasarerig

ht(theyare

thedissen

t)

Notes 9/8/11:

The Commerce Clause:

y Interstate Commerce:o Whydo wehaveit?

You wantafreemarketandthestates weredoing thingsthat wereinterferingwithfreemarket

o How hasitbeeninterpretedovertime?

Expansiveinterpretationsofthe clausesinceitsinception Founding to 1890s

y Interpretedmore loosely 1890s 1937

y Survival ofthefittest, completelyfreemarketandthe governmentshouldntinterfere

y Tendencytowardshugemonopolies,declineinthesmallerbusinesses


10/42

10

y Large growthintheindustrial world, largefactories,etc 1938 1990s

y Stockmarket crashes,basicallyifCongresssaysitis withintheconstraintsoftheClause,thentheyare going todoit

1990s presenty Returnbacktothe 1890sera

y Gibbons v. Ogdon:o Notes:

Insurancepolicies not commerceinthepast,todaythey wouldprobablyconsiderit commerce (especiallyifitisinterstate)

Internal Commerce Iowadecidestostopmaking liquoranditisastateissue,the government cant getinvolved

y Manufacturing isnot commerce,itsonlyonceyousell whatyoumakethatitbecomes commerce

IntrastateSteamers instrumentalities (boats,planes,trains,etc) and channels(rivers,railroad,airways,etc)ofinterstate commerce canalwaysberegulatedby

congressbecausetheyaretransporting thingsfromoutsidethestate withinthe

state

y Champion v. Ames (5-4decision) (Supp. 85)o Regressivetaxand was consideredevil,especiallyatthetime,becauseit wasmarketed

towardsthepoorpeople whopurchasedticketsinhopesofwinning money,richpeople

donttendtoplaythe lottery

o States canallow a lotterytotakeplaceintheirstatebut congresshasthepowertoregulatethetransportationofthe lotteryticketacrossstate lines

o Dissen

t:majori

tyholding conflic

ts wi

ththe 10

th

A

mendment

thisisas

tatepower

that

the governmentshouldntbe getting involved with (regulating forthemoralsand

general welfareofthe citizensofthosestates)

o Thing itself(lotteryticket) isevil (inherentlyevil)y Hammer v. Dagenhart (Supp. 85)

o Thing itselfisnotevil,itsmadeinanevil way (notinherentlyevil)o Nottelling themthey canthave child labor,theproduct cant leavethestate ifitstays

inthatstate,thatsok (ct. shotdownthatargument) ?????

o Dissent-Notes 9/13/11:

y Carter v. CarterCoal Co. (Supp. 84-85)o Thisismore likeSchechter (sick chicken case) coal hasnotbegunits journeyso cant

regulateityetbecauseithasnotstartedprocessing throughinterstate commerce, cant

regulate chickensafterithasprocessedthroughinterstate commerce

o Congress canonlyregulatethosethingsthathaveadirecteffectoninterstatecommerce mining not consideredinterstate commerce


11/42

11

wanttoavoidaslipperyslopeofregulating everythingy NLRB v. JonesLaughlinSteel Corp. (Supp. 89):

o Closertothestock-yard case (Swift case) Bottle-neck withthe cattle coming in,being distributedouttodifferent

locations

o Steel co. isthisheartreceiving thingsinfrominterstate commerceandshipping themoutforinterstate commerce (clearlyinterstate commerceandtheyareaninterstate

companyinvolved withthingsthatareessential toournational economy)

o Thishassucha closeandsubstantial relationshipto commercethatitshouldbeallowedtoberegulated directeffectontheeconomy/commerceifthereareissues (ie

workers goonstrike,etc.)

y US v. Darby (Supp. 90)o Similartothe child labor case (hammer v. dagenhart)o Overturnhammer case unconstitutionalo Citethe gibbons case gobacktothebroadinterpretationofthe commerce clauseand

all theother cases were wrong/misinterpreted

o Substantial effectoninterstate commercey Wickard v. Filburn (Supp. 91)

o Regulating wheatproduction usedforhispersonal usetofeedhisfamilyand livestocko Ctdeterminedthatit couldberegulatedasinterstate commercebecausethere wasa

largeamountofwheatinvolvedininterstate commerceand controlling thepriceand

amountofwheat wasimportanttothenational economy

o homegrown wheat wasthemost variablefactorinthe wheatsupply,andhispersonalconsumptiondidhaveaneffectontheprice

o Didnotdirectlyhaveasubstantial impact,butthe cumulativeeffectofregulating orfailing toregulatetheentire classofwheatproducershadasubstantial impacton

interstate commerce

o Something like20% fluctuationforotheruse de-stabilizesthemarketa lotmoresubstantially (especiallysinceit wasbeing usedtosustaintheirfarming business which

isapartofinterstate commerce)

y 1944 US v. South-EasternUnderwritersAssoc. overturnedPaul caseanddeterminedthatinsurance wasinterstate commerce

y HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc v. US (Supp. 92)o Refusedtorentroomstoblackpeople,75% ofcustomers werefromoutofstateand

theyadvertisednationallyo Wasinterstate commercebecauseit washaving aneffecton commercebecauseblack

people werenottraveling duetoracial discrimination

o Fundamental righttotravel impacted whenyouhavenomotelsthatyouareabletostayatnight,restaurantsyou caneatat

o justbecausethereasoning couldinvolveeliminating racial discrimination,doesntexcludethemfromdoing itthroughthe commerce clause (couldhavedoneitthrough


12/42

12

the 13-15thamendments,equal protection; it wasdifficulttoapplythoseamendments

becauseofthesubjectmattersoit waseasiertodoitthroughthe commerce clauseand

avoidtheissue)

o Pinchesandsqueezetestforinterstate commerce (93)y Katzenbach v. McClung:

o Eventhoughit wasa local place,they werebuying suppliesfrominterstatesoit canberegulatedasinterstate commerce

y Perez v. US:o Loansharking afederal crime (ConsumerCreditProtectionAct) linked largelyto

organized crimeandhadimpactoninterstate commerce

o Evenifthemoney wasusedonly withinthatstate,themoney wasusedtofinancenational operationsandshouldberegulated

y US v. Lopez (Supp. 94-97o 3 avenuesforCongresstoexert legitimate commerce clausepower (hadtorelateto):

Channelsofinterstate commerce (highways, waterways,etc) Instrumentalitiesofinterstate commerce (trucks,ships,etc) Activitiesthathaveasubstantial effectoninterstate commerce

o Dissent wantsto leaveittothestatestosee what worksand whatdoesnt (ie:onestateimplementsa gunfreepolicyintheschoolsanditresultsinhigherSATscores/higher

graduationrates)

Underminesqualityofeducationinnations classroomso Thomas (concurring) substantial test/stricterinterpretationofthe commerce clause

Notes 9/20/11:

Taxing and Spending Powers:

y US v. Butler:o Betterfortheeconomytopaythefarmers (seems likespending forthe general welfare)o Thisallowsthepricestoberegulated/productiontobemore controlledo Original view ontaxing andspending wasdebatedonbetween

Madison (taxing/spending for general welfaremeansthethingsthatarealreadyenumeratedintheenumeratedpowers)

Hamilton (general welfaremeanssomething inadditiontotheenumeratedpowers)

o This courttakes Hamiltons view (butnotreally) general welfaremeans generalwelfareandthisisforthe general welfarebutthey cantdoitbecausetheyareforcing

thefarmers; 1935 10thamendmentisnotatruism,therearethingsthatare local and

therearethingsforthestatestodo

o Taxing and spending for the general welfare is ok this is local welfare and should beleft to the states to handle

o Dissent thinksthisisforthe general welfare


13/42

13

y SouthDakota v. Dole:o Inorderforthemtoreceivehighwaymoney,theyhavetoraisetheirdrinking ageo Similartoother casebecauseitseemsasiftheyaretaking thepowersawayfromthe

states

o Test for conditional spending: Mustbefor commondefense/welfare Mustbestatedunambiguously (clearifthereisa conditionand whatthat

conditionis)

Relationbetweenthepurposeoftheexpenditureandthepurposeofthecondition

y Iftheyrespending moneyforstatehighways,the condition (raising thedrinking age) hastoberelatedtotheunderlying purposeforthe

spending

y Theydont wantthe conditiontobeapunishmentoranattemptatregulating (needstobemorenecessaryandproperthatthe condition

exist)

Cant violatethe constitution cantforcethestatestodosomethingunconstitutional

y Congressmayinducethestatesto comply cant coercethemo Dissent (OConnor) thinkstheyare going toofarbyallowing this conditionforthe

funding; shedoesagree withthe4-parttestbutthinksitfailsthetestbecauseitisnot

reasonablyrelatedtohighwaysafetyandhighwayspending becauseitistooover-

inclusiveandunder-inclusive not closelytailored; thinksthisismoreofaregulationof

drinking ratherthanhighwaysafety

War and Treaty Power (pg. 199):

y Woods v. CloydW. MillerCo.o War causedthehousing crisisandtheyregulatedrent control until theshortage was

over

o Allowedthe warpowerstoregulaterent controlo Thingsthattendtohappenunderthe warpowers Congresstendstothrow the

constitutionoutthe window givesthepresidentmorepowersthatthey werenever

intendedtohave

TreatyP

ower (pg. 203,S

upp. 109)

y 2/3 voteoftheSenateisrequiredforratification (whatthe constitutionsays,butmostofourtreatiesarenotdonethis waynow)

y Missouri v. Holland (pg. 203,Supp. 112)o Prior casesthatregulatedmigratorybirdsthatinterferedwithstatesrightso Treatypowerisdifferentbecauseitisinternational soitistypically considereda

national interest,allowing thefederal governmenttoregulateit


14/42

14

o Ctthinksthatthepoweroftreaty wasneverheldbythestates,it wasonlyforfederaly Treatiestrumpstate law becausetheyarenational (law ofthe land)y Whitney v. Robertson (pg. 206)

o Mostfavorednations clause I getthesamedeal thatthe country withthebestdealthatyoudeal with gets

o Treatyis consideredthesameasfederal statutes (depending on whichone waspassedmostrecentlytrumpstheother)

o Sometreatiesmustbeapprovedby legislationbeforetheyare giveneffectand will nottrumpafederal statuteuntil itisincorporatedbythe legislationunderfederal law

Notall treatiesareself-executingNotes 9/22/11:

y Civil RightsCases (1883 pg. 213):o Fallsinbetweentheindividual regulationallowedunderthe 13thamendment

(individuals) andtheregulationstates 14th

amendment (slavery/involuntaryservitudeinthestates)

y OlliesBBQ afterthis case?o Notifitisthesame location cantreallydoanything until CRAinthe 60s

y US v. Guest:o Notes case 216o Section5of14thamendmentauthorizedCongresstomakeita crimefor white

supremaciststo conspiretodepriveblacksoftheir civil rights

o Allowsthe 14thamendmenttobeappliedtoindividualssomewhaty US v. Morrison:

o 14thamendment you cantuseitto getattheindividualsy Jones v. Alfred H. MayerCo.

o Supp. 117y Katzenbach v. Morgan:

o Voting RightsActof1965upheldo Federal law writtenallowing therightto vote NYstate law notallowing people whodo

notread/writeEnglishto vote

o appropriate lawtofurthertheaimsofthe 14thamendment (viathe5thsectionoftheconstitutiontoallow themthepowertodothis)

y Oregon v. Mitchell:o Changedthe voting agefrom21 to 18 o LimitationsuponCongresspowertoenforcethe guaranteesoftheCivil War

amendments (219)

(1) Congressmaynotby legislationrepeal otherprovisionsoftheConstitution (2) power grantedtoCongress wasnotintendedtostripthestatesoftheir

powerto governthemselvesorto convertournational governmentof


15/42

15

enumeratedpowersintoa central governmentofunrestrainedauthorityover

everyinchofthe wholenation

(3) Congressmayonlyenforcetheprovisionsoftheamendmentsandmaydosoonlyby appropriate legislation. Congresshasnopowerunderthe

enforcementsectionstoundercuttheamendments guaranteesofpersonal

equalityandfreedomfromdiscrimination,ortounderminethoseprotectionsof

theBill ofRights whichthe 14thAmendmentmakesthoseapplicabletothe

states

y CityofBoerne v. ArchbishopofSanAntonio & USo Ctthinksthis will placetoo largeofaburdenonthestatesthatisunfair;o Onlyneedstopasstherational basistest; RFRArequiredittopassaheightenedscrutiny

test (wouldneedtobeenactedfora compelling stateinterest)

o Ctdefinestheright (anddecideshow itistobeprotected you canonlyprotect whatwe wouldprotect) andCongress createsaremedy (congruentandproportional tothe

harm)

y Under 13, 14, 15amendments you cansuethestateunderthose (asopposedtothe 11thamendment giving thestatessovereignimmunityfrombeing sued)

Federal Executive Powers

y ArticleIIy ImpliedPresidential Powers (pg. 236)

o Thereisnonecessaryandproper clauseforthepresidential powersy YoungstownSheet & TubeCo. v. Sawyer (main caseforpresidential powers)

o Supp. 141o Trumanhas warpowersbecauseheispresident buthe canttake control ofthesteel

millsbecausehedoesnthavetheimpliedpowerstodothis (nota law-maker,hehasto

faithfullyexecuteinthisarea)

o Constitutionsaysthat congressmaintainstheNavyandmilitaryfolks,notthepresident(butCongress wasntreallydoing anything still doesnt givethepresidenttherightto

dosomething anyway Congresshad considereditbutdecidedtoapproachthings

another way)

o Rule:presidentspowersarentfixed,theyfluctuateo J

ustice

Jackson

Pg. 1

42(S

upp.) 3 zonesofexecutiveau

thori

ty

(1) whenthepresidentactspursuanttoanexpressorimpliedauthorizationsofCongress.

y Whenthepresidentsauthorityisatitsmaximum (2) whenthepresidentactsinabsenceofeithera congressional grantordenial

ofauthority


16/42

16

y President canonlyrelyuponhisownindependentpowers,butthereisazoneoftwilightin whichheandCongressmayhave concurrent

authority,orin whichitsdistributionisuncertain.

y President cannot violateother constitutional provisions. (3) whenthepresidenttakesmeasuresincompatible withtheexpressedor

implied will ofCongress

y Presidentspowerisatits lowestebb,forthenhe canrelyonlyuponhisown constitutional powersminusany constitutional powersofCongress

overthematter.

Notes 9/27/11:

y President constitutionally lowerthetariffson vegetablesbelow thefloorfortariffssetbycongressinearlier law?

o Ifitsanarea where congresshasauthorityto legislateandtheyhave legislated president cant just comeinandpassatreatytohavethe lastintime(hastohaveeither2/3 passagebyCongressorpre-authorizationof51% involving tradeagreements)

o Executiveagreement will trumpstate law even withoutthepre-authorizationor2/3y PresidentsMemorandum:

o Self-executing v. nonself-executing?o BeforetheFoster v. Neilson case,treaties werebelievedtobeself-executingo Afterthat case,majorityofthe courtsrequiredthatitbeputinthetreatyforittobe

self-executing

y Nondelegationofpowersdoctrine:o MistrettaCase (Pg. 251 CB,modernruleonnondelegation) intelligible guiding

principleinordertomakethoseruleso **Pg. 251 Congressshall laydownby legislativeactan intelligibleprinciplet which

thepersonorbodyauthorizedtoexercisethedelegatedauthorityisdirectedto

conform,such legislativeactionisnotaforbiddendelegationoflegislativepower.

o intelligibleprincipletestfor congressional delegationsVeto Power

y Pg. 147 Supp.y LegislativeVeto:

o ImmigrationandNaturalizationService v. Chadha (pg. 254) Thinks congresshasover-steppedbounds Unconstitutional becauseitistaking powersofthe courts, violating separation

ofpowers (notallowing themtoactasa court)

y Bill ofattainder stops congressfrombeing abletopass criminal lawsforonepersony Needboth:bicameralismandpresentmenty LineItemVeto (257)

o Cant just veto certain linesofabill,youhaveto vetothe wholething


17/42

17

o Clinton v. NY (pg.258,Supp. 147): LineItemVetoAct unconstitutional,inorderforittobe constitutional,itmust

bepassedthroughanamendmenttothe constitution,notthrough legislation

Presidentdoesnothavetheauthority/unilateral powertorepeal oramendstatutesenactedbyCongress

Concurring wouldallow thepresidenttorewardone groupandpunishanother, givetoomuchpowertothepresidentbecausethey wouldbeableto

pickand choosebasedontheirpersonal beliefs/partyinfluence

Dissent Constitutiondoesntsayno lineitem vetoes; nodifferentfromthecasesaying thepresident candecidenottospend; doesntoffendthe

separationofpowers;

y Signing Statements:o Pg. 263 (CB)o Thepresident canpassthebill butstatethattheydonotplantofollow itexactlyo ***PowerPoint***

y Foreign Affairs Powers Pg. 283o Presidentsauthority:notthesamedomesticallyasitisinternationally (someone who

canspeak withone voice moreauthority whendealing withinternational things)

o Whentheexecutiveisacting inregardstoforeignrelations thereisno 10thamendmentissuebecausestatesneverhadinternational relationspowers (waythe

courtsaw itinthe 1930sandisstill followedtothisday)

y Thereisafundamental righttotravel withintheUS thereisnotafundamental righttointernational travel, canberegulatedbythe government

y War and Commander-in-ChiefPowero Sendinthetroops

Probablynot const. tosendtroopspriortoobtaining congressionalapproval/authorization

o Nonukes Presidentneedtoobtain congressional consentbeforeauthorizing nuclear

weapons

Problemisthatpresident canauthorizeabombbesetona location,butitistypicallythoughtofthattheuseofbombsindicates war (whichisCongresss

jobs)

Largeproblemisthatthese casesarent going tobebrought dontreallyhavestanding whois going tobring it?

o Nofirststrikes

Week 7 Briefs (Pg. 293-313):


18/42

18

Presidents power to fight terrorism (Pg. 288 CB)

y CreationofGuantanamoBay (lawsofwar,US constitutional law,etc. doesnotapplytothislocation thereisnothing thatregulatesit)

o Blackhole,no legal regimey Presidents power to detain:

o Enemy combatant Legal termintheUSbutdoesntexistininternational law

o Whatdueprocessrights wereremovedfromenemy combatants Dont getregular judicial process (getamilitaryprocess) No counsel No cross-examinationofwitnesses (iftheyevenknow whotheyare) Hearsayevidence comesin Indefinitedetention

Detention ofUS

citizens as alleged terrorists:

y AreUS citizendetaineesprotectedtoa greaterextentbytheConstitutionthanforeignnationaldetainees? Shouldtheybe?

y ExParteQuirin:o War crimetodressinappropriatelyduring a war (properinsignia, gunontheoutsideo Givehimamilitary commission likea wartribunal withspecial rulesdesignedto

ensure conviction (notafull dueprocess) couldhavetriedhimby courtmartial but

these wereprovided withmoredueprocessthanamilitarytribunal

o Executed withinthe weeky Notes (pg. 292)

o Non-DetentionAct (Supp. 157): Prohibitsimprisoning US citizensunlessauthorizedbyCongress (havetohave

thisauthorization)

enactedtoavoidthe creationofinternment campsfor citizens Limitedthepowerofthepresidenttodetain civilians (didthis withthe

Japanese, createdprison camps,similarto whattheNazisdid)

Writofhabeas corpus wasnotenough wantedtoavoidarepeatoftheconcentration campsofcivilians

Hamdi v. Rumsfield:

y Facts:o Yaser Hasam HamdiborninUS, grew upinSaudiArabiao LatertraveledtoAfghanistan wherehe wasdetainedbyAmericanforcesand labeledan

enemy combatant

o Firstheldat GuantanamoBay,Cubaandthentransferredto continental US (whentheydiscoveredhe wasaUS citizen), withoutformal chargesoraccessto counsel


19/42

19

o Hisfatherfileda HabeasCorpuspetitiononbehalfofhisson challenging theUSgovernmentsabilitytohold Hamdiindefinitely

o Governmentoffersthe MobbsDeclaration containing evidenceofwhyheisconsideredanenemy combatant.

y Procedural History:o DC appointedhimafederal public defenderforthepetitionersandorderedthat

counsel be givenaccessto Hamdi

o USCt. ofAppealsbelievedthathehad losttherightto counsel andreversedy Issues:

o PrimaryIssue:Whether Hamdimustbeaffordeddueprocessoflaw? Heretainedhisrighttohabeas corpusandtobeheardinafederal court or

something (someneutral decisionmaker) canbeamilitarytribunal

y Theredoesnothavetobeapresumptionofinnocence (there canbeapresumptionofguilt)

Hemustbe giventheopportunitytoofferrebutting evidence/respondtothegovernmentsallegationsagainsthimandtotherightto counsel

Suspensionofthe writhasnotoccurredinthis case onlysuspendedbyCongressinrare cases

o WhethertheUS governmenthastheauthoritytodetainaUS citizenapprehendedinaforeign countryasanenemy combatant?

TheAUMFauthorizedthepresidenttouse all necessaryandappropriateforceagainstnations,organizations,orpersonsassociated withthe9/11 terrorist

attacks

Nobartothisnationsholding oneofitsown citizensasanenemy combatanty Rule:

o someevidencestandardofferedbythe governmentisnot goodenough therehastobeahigherstandard

o Mechanismusedtodetermine whatproceduresarenecessarytoensurethata citizenisnotdeprivedoftheirrighttodueprocess:testfromMathews v. Eldridge case

Processdueinany giveninstanceisdeterminedby weighingy theprivateinterestthat will beaffectedbytheofficial actionagainst

the governmentsassertedinterest,

y including thefunctioninvolvedandthey burdensthe government wouldfaceinproviding greaterprocess

Judiciousbalancing ofthese concerns,throughananalysisoftheriskofanerroneousdeprivationoftheprivateinterestiftheprocess werereducedandtheprobable value,ifany,ofadditional orsubstitutesafe-guards

y Holding:o Reversed

y Concurring/Dissent (Souter):o Actthatyou cantdetainAmericans withoutauthorizationbyCongress


20/42

20

o ButtheAUMFdoesntmentiondetentionso Doesntthinkthatdetaining peopleduring thetimeofwarisnot considerednecessary

andproper executivepowers

POWsarenotsupposedtobeinterrogatedy Dissent (ScaliaandStevens):

o Arguesthat Hamdishouldnothavebeenheldasaprisonerofwarandshouldhavebeentriedina criminal contextfortreason.

o FeltthatthereisadifferenceinaUS citizenbeing arrestedfora crimeagainsttheUSasopposedtoan alienbeing capturedforthesamereasons

o Feltthe Hamdi waseitherentitledtoasuspensionofthe writbyCongressor criminalproceedingstobebrought

y Dissent (Thomas):o Thisdetentionfallssquarely withinthefederal governments warpowers,and we lack

theexpertiseand capacitytosecond-guessthatdecision.

o Separationofpowers thisisfortheexecutivebranchtodecide,notthe judicialbranchsresponsibility

Boumediene v. Bush:

y Facts:o Petitionersarealiensdesignatedenemy combatantsanddetainedin GuantanamoBayo Someofthepetitionershadbeendetainedthereforupto 6 years withnodefinitive

judicial determinationastothe legalityofthatdetention.

y Procedural History:o Ct. ofApp. petitionersnotentitledtotheprivilegeofthe writofhabeas corpusorto

theprotectionsoftheSuspensionClausey Issues:

o Whetherpetitionersarebarredfromseeking the writorinvoking theprotectionsoftheSuspensionClauseeitherbecauseoftheirstatus (enemy combatants) ortheirphysical

location (in GuantanamoBay, whereConstitutionhasnottypicallyhadeffectthere at

least when concerning non-citizens)

Areaisunder completeandtotal control ofour governmentandtheConstitutionhasfull effectin GuantanamoBay

o Section7oftheMCA seemstobeasuspensionofthe writofhabeas corpus,butdoesntdefinitivelystatethat

o Const. statesyou cansuspenditonlyininstancesofrebellionorinvasionsothatthepublic safetymayrequireit

y Holding:o Petitionersdohavethehabeas corpusprivilegeto challengethe legalityoftheir

detention; sometimes


21/42

21

o Theydontreally layoutanactual process leavesittotheDCtodetermineand letthem comeup withhow todoitandanyissues canbeappealeduptodeterminethe

validity/efficiencyoftheprocessthey choose

y Dissent:o Disagrees withthemajorityinapplying US constitutional rightstoalienenemies

detainedabroadbyourmilitary.

Suspension clausehasnoapplication writofhabeas corpusdoesnotandneverhasruninfavorofenemyaliensabroad

Deferencetotheexecutive theyshouldhavetheauthoritytodeterminehowthe warisplayedoutandthis couldhaveadrastic impactonmilitaryoperations

o TextandhistoryoftheSuspensionClauseprovidesnobasisforour jurisdictiony Real reasonbehindthesuspensionofthe writ was we wereinastateofemergencysothat we

cantfunctionproperlyifweallow the writ suspenditbecauseyouareunableto giveproper

dueprocess (orsuspenditbecauseyou wanttodenysomeonedueprocess)

Week 7 Briefs (Pg. 314-333)

The Treaty Power

y Asbetweentreatiesand congressional acts, generallythe lastintimeis considered validMissouri v. Holland

y Facts:o Bill inequitybroughtbythestateofMO topreventafame wardenoftheUSfrom

attempting toenforcetheMigratoryBirdTreatyActandtheregulationsmadebythe

SecretaryofAgricultureinpursuanceofthesame

o Treatysignedb/w USand GreatBritain (forCanada) regulating the closedseasonsandprotectionofcertainspeciesofbirds

o Previously stateshadtherighttothemigratorybirds,etc. They ownthem.y Rule:

o Treaties cannotbe validittheyinfringeonthe constitution Thereare limitstothetreaty-making power:

y Whatanactofcongress couldnotdounaided,inderogationofthepowersreserved

tothes

tates

,a

trea

ty canno

tdo

o ActsofCongressarethesupreme law ofthe landonly whenmadeinpursuanceoftheConstitution, whiletreatiesaredeclaredtobeso whenmadeundertheauthorityofUS

y Issues:o Whetherthetreaty violatestheConstitution,specificallyunderthe 10thAmendment.

Treatydoesnot violateanyprohibitory wordsfoundintheConstitution


22/42

22

Thereisanational interestthat canonlybeprotectedbyanational actionanditisnotsufficienttorelyonthestates.

o Distinguishablebecauseitinvolvesinternational distinguishablefromprevious casesy Holding:

o Treatyisupheld,affirmedo Treatiestrump (notreallyeversomething thatthestates wereallowedtodoanyway)

y Postthis case theConstitutiontrumpsy Medellin v. Texas

o Mexicannational convictedofmurderinTX filed writofHabeasCorpusseekingprotectioninatreatyenteredintobytheUS

o Deniedhimreliefunderthetreaty Didnot createbinding federal law thatdisplacedexisting state law

o General frameworkofthetreatiesthathaveaneffectinternationallyandthosethatalsoextendtheirreachtodomestic matters:

Treaties canbeself-executing andautomaticallybinding domestically,ornotself-executing andrequiring implementationstatutesbyCongress

Theyarenotdomestic law unlessCongresshaseitherenactedimplementingstatutesorthetreatyitselfconveysanintentionthatitbeself-executing andis

ratifiedontheseterms

Executive Agreements:

y Agreementsnegotiatedbythepresident withother countriesthathave constitutional statusdespitethe lackofexpress congressional assent.

y Someofthemareneverevenrecorded theyaresecretexecutiveagreementsDames &Moore v. Regan

y Facts:o Nov. 4, 1979 AmericanstakenhostageintheUSEmbassybyIranianstudentso PresidentCarterissuedanexecutiveagreement:

CalledfortheestablishmentofanIran-USClaimsTribunal which wouldarbitrateany claimsnotsettled within 6 months. AnyawardsoftheClaimsTribunal are

tobefinal andbinding andenforceableinthe courtsofanynationin

accordance withits laws.o Feb24, 1981 Reganissuedanexecutiveorderthatsuspendedall claims whichmaybe

presentedtotheTribunal andprovidedsuch claimsshall haveno legal effectinany

actionnow pending inany courtintheUS

o Plaintiffs would losepending judgmentsand claimedtheagreementtobeunconstitutional andaninvalidexerciseofexecutivepower

Plaintiffs were contractedtobuildnuclearplants


23/42

23

Tookawaytheirabilityto collect/suey Rule:

o PresidentspowertoissueanexecutiveordermuststemeitherfromanactofCongressorfromtheConstitutionitself

y Issues:o Government contendsthattheactsofnullifying theattachmentsandordering the

transferofthefrozenassetsarespecificallyauthorizedbytheplain languageofthe

statute.

o Petitioner contendedtheplain languageshouldbeignoredandthatthestatute wasnotintendedto givethepresidentsuchextensivepowerovertheassetsofaforeignstate

during timesofnational emergency

o Congressimplicitlyauthorizesthepresidenttoissueexecutiveordersthroughfederalstatutesandtheypreemptanystateissues (supremacy clause)

Theyhavealwaysbeenanecessaryuseofexecutivepowerto carryoutforeigndiplomacythroughspeedandefficiency, whichisnotavailablethroughtreaties

whicharerequiredtoberatified.

y Holding:o President wasauthorizedtosuspendthepending claims

Executive Privilege and Immunity fromSuit

Executive Privilege:

US v. Nixon:

y Facts:o PresidentNixonandpolitical affiliates/advisors wereindictedforobstructionofjustice

fortheirallegedinvolvementintheWatergateScandal

o DCissuedasubpoenaordering thepresidenttoturnoverrecordingsofconversationsandotherdocuments

o Herefused claiming executiveprivilege (inherentandabsoluteexecutiveprivilegeexists)

y Issues:o Claimedthesubpoenashouldbequashedfortworeasons:

Separationofpowersdoctrineprecludesa judicial review ofaPresidents claimofprivilege

Ifthepresident cannotprevail ofthe claimofabsoluteprivilege,the courtshouldholdasamatterofconstitutional law thattheprivilegeprevailsoverthe

subpoena


24/42

24

o CourtrejectedanabsoluteprivilegebutrecognizedthereisaneedforthePresidenttobeabletospeak candidly withhisrepresentativesandadvisorsthat callsfor great

deferencebythe courts

o President wouldonlybeableto withholdthisinformationinsituationsinvolving theprotectionofsensitiveinformationregarding military,diplomatic,ornational security

o Toallow theprivilegeto withholdevidencethatisdemonstrablyrelevantina criminaltrial would cutdeeplyintothe guaranteeofdueprocessand gravelyimpairthebasic

functionofthe courts

y Holding:o Affirm

Immunity fromSuit:

Clinton v. Jones:

y Facts:o PaulaJonesfileda civil suitagainstPresidentClintono Clintonattemptedto getitdismissedbasedonpresidential immunity

y Issues:o Anofficialsabsoluteimmunityshouldextendonlytoactsinperformanceofparticular

functionsofoffice. Itdoesntextendtoactionperformedinapurelyadministrative

capacitypriortoobtaining thatposition.

y Holding:o Heissubjecttotheproceedingso Caseshouldnotbescheduledatatimethat wouldseverelyinterfere withhis

presidential duties

Notes 10/11/11:

Relationship between the States and Federal Government:

State Power to Tax the Federal Government (Supp. 121- )

y McCulloch v. MD (Pg. 335)o Caseinvolving thestatebankandtaxing offederal governmento State government canttaxthefederal government verydifficultto justify

Federal power to tax the states:

y Massachusetts v. USo Nottrying totargetthestate withthistax appliestoeveryoneusing federal airspaceo Stateisnothaving topayanything morethana registrationfee -federal government

regulatestheairspaceinfederal zones


25/42

25

y NY v. USo Stateisengaging ina privatefunction providing mineral waterisnottypically

consideredastatefunction (similartotheregulationofalcohol)

o Dissent thinksthisismoreofanexerciseofthepowertodestroy thinksthestatesshouldbeallowedtoprovidespecific servicestothemembersofthatstate

Local governmentdoesnotexistforitself shouldnotbeplacedinthesameclassandbusinessenterprises

State immunity from federal regulation (Pg. 343)

y **DotheCALILesson**y 11thamendment:

o Cantsuestatesinfederal courtfor claimsin law andequityagainstoneoftheUSbycitizensofanotherstate

CitizenofAL cantsueALinafederal ct.

Cit. ofTX

cantsueAL

infederal ct. Cit. ofanother country cantsueALinfederal ct.

o Cantsuestatesinfederal courtorstate courtsfor violationsoffederal lawo Ex: 14thamendment cansueindividual officersfromastateas long asyouaresuing

themforstopping themfromdoing something (cantsuethemforsomething inorderto

receivedamages)

y Garcia v. SanAntonioMTAo Attempting toregulatethe wagesoftheemployeeso TestfromtheUseryCase-Canttaxthestateforatraditional statefunction this

provedtoodifficultand caused greatturmoil inthe lower courts

o Traditional statefunctions difficulttodeterminebecausepeoplehavedifferent viewson whatshouldbe considered governmental functions

y TheoryisthatyourstateisrepresentedandprotectedinCongressbythestatesrepresentativeswhoaresupposedtobeacting intheinterestofthe citizensoftheirstate (majoritysopinion)

o Dissent representativesarenotfocusing asmuchontheinterestsoftheirindividualstatesbuttothenational interest (Powell)

o OConnor contrarytoFramersintentthatstatesretainasovereignsphere Underminesthefederal system Congress cannot chooseunconstitutional meanstoobtain legitimateendsand

the judiciaryshouldnothandoveritsrole tosay whatthe law is


26/42

26

Con Law Briefs (Pg. 379 403)

State Power to Regulate Commerce

Gibbons v. Ogden:

y Facts:o NYstatute gaveLivingstonandFultontheexclusiverighttonavigatesteamboatsin

certainstate waters

o Theyassignedtherouteto Ogdeno Gibbonssoughttooperateshipsonthesameroute,undera license grantedby

Congress, Ogdensoughtinjunctivereliefonthebasisthatthefederal license wasinvalid

y Procedural History:o Federal license was validand courtstruckdownNYsexclusive licenseonSupremacy

Clause grounds

y Holding/Analysis:o Thingsnotsurrenderedtothefederal governmentandexercisedbythestates:

Inspection laws,quarantine laws,health laws, lawsregulating internalcommercesuchasturnpikeroads,ferries,etc.

Nodirect general powerovertheseobjectsis grantedtoCongressandremainsubjecttostate legislation

o Ifthe legislativepoweroftheUnion canreachthem,itmustbefornational purposes Wherethepowerisexpressly givenforaspecial purposeoris clearlyincidental

tosomepower whichisexpressly given

o Whenactionistakenunderthestateexercisedpowers,irrelevantthatthestate lawmightimpactinterstate commerce problemisthat local laws couldpotentiallyimpede

national economic progress (timeoftheindustrial revolution)

Cooley v. BoardofWardens:

y Facts:o PA law requiredall ships withertouse local pilots whennavigating DelawareRiverorto

payapenalty

o Plaintiffpaidthepenaltythensuedforrestitution claiming the law violatedCongresspowertoregulate commerce

o PAdefendedbasedona 1789federal law that gavestatestheauthoritytoenact localpilot laws

y Issue:o Whetherthe grantofcommercial powertoCongress,didpersedeprivethestatesofall

powertoregulatepilots

y Procedural History:o Sup. Ct. ofPA law is validandunderthestatespowerstoregulatepilots

y Holding/Analysis:


27/42

27

o Actof1789 containsa clearandauthoritativedeclarationbythefirst congress,thatthenatureofthissubjectisthatuntil Congressshouldfinditnecessarytoexertitspower,it

shouldbe lefttothestates

Itis local andnotnational Likelytobethebestprovidedforbythe legislativediscretionofthestatesto

deemapplicablethe local peculiaritiesoftheports withintheir limits

o Stateshavebeenacting onthisformorethan 60 yearso Notinany conflict withany law ofCongressanddoesnotinterfere withanysystem

which congresshasestablished

o Law is valid, judgmentaffirmedGranholm v. Heald: [facial discrimination]

y Facts:o MIandNY lawsregulating thesaleandimportationofalcoholic beverageso R

equirementsfromeac

hof

thes

tatesinregards

toou

t-of-s

tate wineriesand

the

limitationsplaceonthedirectsaleto consumers

y Issue:o Whetherthe lawsofMIandNY constitutediscriminationbetweenstatesinvolving

interstate commerce

y Procedural History:o MI DCsustainedtheMIscheme

Ct. ofApp. for 6th circuitreversed Ct. rejectedtheargumentthatthe21stamendmentimmunizesall state liquor

lawsfromthestricturesofthe commerce clause

o NY DC grantedsummary judgmenttotheplaintiffs (wineries) Ct. ofApp. for2nd circuitreversed

y Holding/Analysis:o Differential treatmentbetweenin-stateandout-of-state wineries constitutesexplicit

discriminationagainstinterstate commerce

o Statesdonotneedtoandmaynotattempttonegotiate withotherstatesregardingtheirmutual economic interests.

o Rivalriesamong thestatesarethuskepttoaminimum,andaproliferationoftradezonesisprevented

o Lawsofthisnaturedeprive citizensoftheirrighttohaveaccesstomarketsofotherstatesonequal terms

o MI/NY contendtheyareprotectedbythe21stamendment Didnotauthorizestatestopassnon-uniform lawsinordertodiscriminate

againstout-of-state goods

Statepoliciesunderthe21stamendmentareprotected whentheyaretreatedthesameforin-stateorout-of-state liquorregulation

o MI/NY claiminterestinpreventing thepurchaseofalcohol byminors


28/42

28

Studieshaveshownthatminorsaremore likelyto consumebeerand liquorover winesandthoseminors who wishtodisobey laws will havemoredirect

meansofdoing sothanordering winefromout-of-state wineries theyalsoare

less likelytoorderfromout-of-statebecauseofthe lackofinstant gratification

o MI/NY claimtax-collections will suffer Federal remedies when combines withstate licensing regimes,adequately

protectstatesfrom losttaxrevenue

o CommerceClause casesrequiremorethanamerespeculationtosupportdiscriminationagainstout-of-state goods. Burdenisonthestatetoshow thatthediscriminationis

demonstrably justified.

o MI Affirmedo NY Reversed

y Dissent:o Stevens, OConnor

Sincethe lawsregulateinterstate commerceofalcohol,theyareexemptfromtheCommerceClausescrutiny

o Thomas,ChiefJustice,Stevens, OConnor 21stamendmentfreedstatesfromnegativeComm. Cl. restraintson

discriminatoryregulation

NotesCases:

y Baldwin v. GAFSeelig,Inc.o MilkdealerpurchasedVermontmilk challengedNYMilkControl Actthatestablished

minimumpricestobepaidbydealerstomilkproducers.

Dealer couldfindmilkat lowerpricesfromtheVTdistributorandNYrefusedtolicensehisbusinessuntil he complied withtheActo Ct. struckdowntheact discriminationundertheCommerceClauseo Astatemayregulatetheimportationofunhealthy livestockordecayed/noxiousfood

butthere werenosuchindicationsasthisinvolving theVTmilk

y Licensing Requirements Welton v. Missourio MO law thatprovidedthatpeddlers whosoldproductsthat werenotthe growth,

produce,ormanufactureofMO mustfirstobtaina license,butthose whosoldproducts

fromthestate werenotrequiredtoobtaina license

o Struckdownthe law becausethein-statesellers werenotrequiredtobe licensed,sotheout-of-statesellersrequirementtoobtaina license was creating discriminationundertheCommerceClause

y Protecting Local InterestsandNeeds o PA v. WV

WV law prohibitedtheinterstateshipmentofnatural gasunlessanduntil thestatesownneedfornatural gashadbeenmet

Struckdownthe law -discriminationundertheCommerceClause


29/42

29

Astate law, whetherofthestate wherethe gasisproducedorthat whereitistobesold, whichbyitsnecessaryoperationprevents,obstructsorburdenssuch

transmissionisaregulationofinterstate commerce aprohibitedinterference

o Hughes v. OK: OK law prohibiting thetransportorshipmentofminnow salesoutsidethestate

wherethey wereseinedorprocuredinthe watersofthestate

State claimedaninterestinmaintaining ecological balanceinstate waters Sincethestateplacedno limitationonthesaleofminnows withinthestate,

discriminating againstthesaleofminnowsoutsidethestate

Iftheyhada legitimateinterestinpreserving theecological balance,therewouldhavebeensimilarrestrictionsplacedonintrastateminnow sales

Assessing Neutrality

y Kassel v. ConsolidatedFreightwaysCorp.o I

owastatutethatpro

hibi

tedmos

tusesof6

5-fttruckson

Iowa

high

ways claimingthe

limitation wasforsafetyreasons

o Substantial interference withinterstate commerce (notasmuchaboutthesafety)CityofPhiladelphia v. NJetal.

y Facts:o NJ law prohibitedtheimportationofmostsolidor liquid wastethatoriginatedor was

collectedoutsidetheterritorial limitsofthestate

o Operatorsofprivate landfillsinNJandafew surrounding citiesinotherstatesthatcontractedfor wastedisposal

y Issue:o Whetherthestatutoryprohibition violatesthe commerce clause

y Holding/Analysis:o NJ claimstheyareprotecting thehealthandenvironmentofthestateforits citizensdue

totheamountofwastethat wasbeing broughtintobedisposedofwithinNJ,especially

sinceseveral ofthe landfill sites withinthestatehad closeddownand would create

even greaterthreat

o Thisisanattemptbyonestatetoisolateitselffromaproblem commontomanybyerecting abarrieragainstthemovementofinterstatetrade

o Quarantine lawshavebeenallowedtointerfere withinterstate commerce buttheprohibitionofwastedisposal doesnotfall underthis category

o CommerceClause will protectNJinthefuturefromsurrounding statesthatattempttoisolateitselfinthestreamofcommerce,asitisattempting todonow

y Dissent:o Rehnquist,ChiefJustice

ThefactthatNJhastodisposeofitsown wasteshouldnotmeantheyhavetodisposeofotherstates waste


30/42

30

NJshouldbefreetoprohibittheimportationofsolid wastebecauseofhealthandsafetyproblemsthatsuch wasteposestoits citizens

Con Law Notes 10/25 10/27:

Nondiscriminatory Burdens on Interstate Commerce:

y Modern cases have used the S. Pacific balancing test rather than the Barnwell testy Impact on interstate commerce clearly and excessively outweigh the benefits locally (in-state)y WestLynnCreameryInc. v. Healy (422,supp-201)

o General subsidiesareokbecausethey comefromthe general fundand goestoaspecific group makesitdemocratic

o Clearlyprotectionism protecting thesmall farmers who couldbeharmedbecausetheyaresmall-time

o Scalia (4situations): Clearlyunfairtax (differentforin-state,outofstate) faciallydiscriminatory Givenon-discriminatorytaxand giveanexceptionto local people (basically

same)

Non-discriminatorytaxupontheindustry,therevenuesfrom whichareplacedintoasegregatedfund, whichfundisdisbursedas rebatesor subsidiestoin-

statemembersoftheindustry -maybenotthinkitisok

Comesfrom general revenues-oko Dissent consumersarent going tobeagainstthisbecauseitis going to causepricesto

goup; dealersarent going to likethisbecausetheyarebeing taxedonbothdomestic

andimportedstuff democracything doesntnecessarilysavethis case;

Seemtodoubtthe wholeunderlying purposeoftheCommerceClause (dontnecessarilybelieveinthefreemarket,states shouldbeabletoprotect)

o NotesInfo: BendixAutoliteCorp. v. Midwesco ACo. comesintoyourstatetodobusiness

anddoessomekindofharmtothe citizensofthatstate,then leave ifyou

donthavearepresentative/officeinthatstatetoservethem SOLnevertolls,

you canalwaysbring (substantial burdenofthethreatoflitigationforever,not

muchbenefittothein-statepeoplebecausetheystill couldhavesuedthe

companiesunderthe long-armstatute there wasamechanismforrecovery)

y IndefiniteSOLis veryunfairy S

caliadissentsbecause

hedoesn

tlikebalancing

tes

ts,

courtsareno

t

that greatatbalancing tests


31/42

31

State as a Market Participant:

y Reeves,Inc. v. Stake (432,Supp-194)o Concreteisnotanatural resource more likeAlexandriaScrap case kindoflikea

directsubsidyofferedbythestate; thentheyshouldbeableto jointhemarketand give

themselvesasubsidyo LimitationsimposedbythedormantCommerceClause were confinedtoinstances when

thestate waseitherregulating ortaxing inamannerthatimpededinterstate commerce

o No constitutional planto limitthefreedomofthestatetofavorits citizens whenthestate wasparticipating inthemarket. Whenacting asaprivateactorinthemarket,the

statehadthesamefreedomofcontractasothermarketparticipants.

o Ifthestateis going toactinthemarket,thentheyshouldbeallowedtoactasotherprivateactorsinthemarket

o Dissent marketparticipantexceptionshouldonlyapplytothestate whenitisinvolvedin integral governmentoperationsinanareaoftraditional governmental function

becausetheexceptionisbasedontherightofastatetoprovideforitsownneeds Statesshouldnotbeacting asa companyunlesstheyaredoing traditional state

stuff police,education,utilities,etc. notprivate constructionfavoritism

y South-Central TimberDevelopment v. Wunnicke (436,Supp-195)o RestrictionsinthemarketbythestateofAlaskao Alaskasold largequantitiesoftimberasamarketparticipant,butitrequiredthatthe

purchasersagreetoprocessthetimber withinthestatebeforeexporting it.

o Ctheld additional requirementamountedtoaregulationand wasnot coveredbythemarketparticipationexception.

o ThoughAlaska coulddiscriminateamong buyers withinthemarketitisparticipating in(selling timbermarket)

o 3 reasonsdistinguishfromReeves: Treesarenatural resources,raw materials (not concrete likeReeves) Restraining foreignsales (potential customersinRussia,etc.) You could comeinandbuythenatural resources

o Majority wantstokeepAlaskapoorInterstate Privileges and Immunities Clause:

y Yourstate cannotdiscriminateagainstpeoplefromoutofstateo Corporations cantsueunderthis clausebecausetheyarent considered citizenso Alienshereon GreenCards cantsueunderthiso Marketparticipantdoctrinedoesntapplyo Congressional authorizationdoesnotapplybecausethisisactuallyinthe constitution

andisa limitationonstatepowers (commerce clause gives congresstheauthority)

Cant violatethisandtryto justifyunderthe commerce clausebecausetheconstitutionspecificallyforbidsit

o Testisdifferentunderthis clause


32/42

32

y Baldwin v. Fishand GameCommissionofMontana:o CourtrefusedtoapplythePrivilegesandImmunityClausetoadiscriminatoryMontana

hunting licensefeescheme (outofstate getting chargedasmuchas7timestheamount

asthoseinstate)

o Hunting notaprivilegeorimmunitybearing onthe vitalityofthenationasasingleentityandthestate coulddiscriminateinfavorofits citizens

o Ifstateisdenying youyourfundamental rights they couldapply Hastobeaprivilegethatbearsuponthe vitalityofthenationasasingleentity

o Dissent seemssimilartoother casesthatifyouretrying toprotectyourelkfrombeinghuntedbythoseoutofstate,youshouldregulatethein-statehunting ofelktooseems

todiscriminateanddoesntappeartobeall thatdifferentfromtheminnow case

y Toomer v. Witsell:o Fee wasinexcessofwhat couldbe consideredreasonableandthere wasnoapparent

reasontohavethefeetobegin with

o This wasnotrecreational shrimpingit waspeople working andtrying tomakea living(making ita violationoftheirrights)

y Hicklin v. Orbecko Denying peopletheprivilegeofworking inthestateofAlaskaiftheyarent citizensof

thatstate

o Theproblemisthatthere werenotenoughpeopleinAlaskathathavetheskills/trainingtotakethe jobs statutestatedyouhadtohirequalifiedresidents

Preemption (Supp. Pg. 166):

y Occurs whenCongressregulates conductina givenareaandastate law conflicts withthefederal regulation

y In any case of apparent conflict between a state and federal law, the court has 2 options:o (1) it canholdthatthe validfederal law conflicts withstate law andpreemptsthestate

law,striking thestate law down

o (2) it canholdthatthefederal law andstate law donot conflictand can co-exist,upholding both lawsas constitutional

o Becomesanissueofstatutoryinterpretation court generallydecidesbetweenthetwooptionsbydetermining whetherCongressintendedforthefederal law topreemptthe

state law.

y 2 Types:o Express

Occurs whenCongressexpressesitsintenttopreemptthestate law with clearlanguage (canalsoexpressintenttonotpreemptstate law)

EvenIfCongressexpressesintent,theCourtmuststill decidethescopeofthestateandfederal lawstodetermineifthereisanoverlapandthus,a conflict


33/42

33

o Implied Occurs whenthereisa clear congressional intenttopreemptstate law,or when

itisimplicitinthestructureorpurposeofthefederal law.

Court will consider whetherimpliedpreemptionisappropriate,basedonwhetheritisanareathat:

y (1) requiresnational uniformity, versusonethatismoreappropriatetolocal regulationandexperimentation

y (2) istraditionallyregulatedbythestatesy (3) cannotbeharmoniouslyregulatedbyboththefederal andstate

governments (continuous conflicts will likelyoccur)

y Pacific Gas & Electric v. StateEnergyResourceso Supp. Pg. 174

y Gade v. National SolidWastesManagementAssoc.o Yes preemptedo Supp. 167o ImpliedConflictPreemption

Chapter 6, State Action (Pg. 465, Supp. 207)

Notes 11/3/11:

y 2 main ways the state (for constitutional purposes) can be involved in private action that doesnot meet the public function test

o (1) jointactorso (2) symbiotic relationship

y Burton v. WilmingtonParking Authority (491,Supp. 218)o City wasalsoresponsiblebecausethebuilding wasowned,rented,andmaintainedby

the city.

o Mutual Benefits-City wasbasically complicit withthediscriminating activityattherestaurantbecausetheparking garage wasbeing usedmoreduetotherestaurants

locationandtherestaurant was getting morebusinessbecauseoftheavailabilityof

goodparking

y MooseLodge v. Irvis (494,Supp. 219,224)o Level ofinvolvementbythestate (liquor licenseprovidedbythestateinthis casedid

notrisetothe level ofthesymbiotic relationshipfoundinBurton case.

o Argument liquor licenseisheavilyregulated,state gets lotsofmoney symbioticrelationship Notenough likethe Greenville case (lunch-counterrefusal toserveblackman,

there wasa law/cityordinancethatrestaurants weretoremainsegregated)

o Statehad law stating iftheestablishmenthadbylawsthentheorganizationistofollowthosebylaws


34/42

34

o Notastateactionbecausethis wasmoreofaprivateactorissue withthe lodgeratherthanastateaction statedoesnothavea law stating thatpeople cantservealcohol to

aparticular group,etc.

y Reitman v. Mulkey (497,Supp. 222-224)o Proposition 14 preventedenactmentofstate lawstoprohibitracial discriminationin

renting orselling propertyin violationofthe 14th Amendment

o Courtfoundthatthe designandeffectoftheamendment wasnotonlytoauthorizebutto significantlyencourageracial discriminationbyoverturning existing fairhousing

lawsthatprohibitedracial discriminationinselling andrenting property

o Courtisreally constitutionalizing thisissue referendum wasnotneutral and wasdesignedto violatethoserights

Judicial Involvement (500)

y Shelley v. Kreamer (500,Supp. 222)o

Courtfoundstateaction stateenforcementofraciallydiscriminatorydeedbetweenprivateparties (forbidthesaletoblackpeople)

o Whiteowner wantedtosell toblackbuyersandtheotherownersnearby wantedthecourttoputits coercivepowerbehindthemtostopthesale

There wouldnotbestateactionifwhiteownersprivatelydiscriminatedagainstblackbuyersandonlysoldto whitebuyers (state wouldnotbeinvolved)

o Sup. Ct. heldthatsuch judicial enforcement would constitutestateactionand wouldbeunconstitutional

o Broadestreading ofthisdecision: Any judicial holding infavorofaprivatediscriminatoryactisstateaction

o Narrowestreading ofthisdecision: Thestateacts whenitforcesunwilling partiestodiscriminatebystopping willing

ownersfromselling toblackbuyers.

y Lugar v. EdmonsonOil Co. (508,Supp. 221,225,227)o Courtfoundstateaction where creditorhadthesheriffshelpinexecuting a writthat

the creditorobtainedinanexpartehearing in violationofthe sdueprocess

o Modern formulation of the state action rule (Supp. 221) (1) deprivationmustbe causedbytheexerciseofsomerightorprivilege created

bythestateorbyapersonfrom whomthestateisresponsible

(2) party charged withthedeprivationmustbeaperson whomayfairlybesaidtobeastateactor

Secondrequirement canbefulfilledby:y (1) personis stateofficialy (2) person actedtogether with,orhasobtainedsignificantaidfrom

stateofficials

(3) becausethepersons conductisotherwise chargeabletothestate


35/42

35

y Edmonson v. LeesvilleConcreteCompany (512,Supp. 225)o Striking black jurors; blackplaintiffo Extentto whichtheactorrelieson governmentassistanceandbenefits, whetherthe

actor wasperforming atraditional governmental functionand whethertheinjury

causedisaggravatedinaunique waybytheincidentsofgovernmentauthority.

o There wasanovertsignificantassistancebystateofficialsthroughouttheentirepreemptory challengeprocess,resulting inthe judgedismissing thepotential juror

o Statehadelectedtoplaceitspower,propertyandprestigebehindtheallegeddiscrimination

Notes 11/8/11:

y Lebron v. National RRPassengerCorp. (520)o Governmentappointsmostofthem,partofthe governmentforpurposesofthe 1st

Amendment

o Subsidizedandrunbythe government doesntmeanthattheyarenotpartofthe

government (Scalia makesthisa governmentagency)

o Evenifitdoesnt look likea governmentagency,theyarebasicallyoperating assuchandshouldbe considereda governmentagency (making all theemployees, government

employees)

Procedural Due Process (527):

y State action means either state or federal governmenty Bi-Metallic InvestmentCo. v. StateBoardofEqualization (528)

o Wasnotaffecting thempersonally,it wasaffecting everyoneequallyo Ifitappliestoeveryone,youareonlyentitledtothedemocratic processesavailable

(talktorepresentative, voteinnextelection,etc.)

y Londoner v. CityofDenver (529)o Involvedaffecting thosepeopleindividuallyo Majorityofpeopleonstreet wantedtheimprovement,soyouhavetobeaffected

Whentheyattempttoapplydifferent levelsoffinancial contributions,thatiswhenyourrightkicksin

o Whentheymaketherulesatthe legislative level nodueprocesstotheindividualso Dueprocessrightskickin whenyouhavetoactuallyspendmoneyforthis adjudicative

stuff(ie:taxes youhavetopaythemthenyou can challengeandyou can getahearing

after)

y Goldberg v. Kelly (532,Supp. 270)o Rulepriortothis case nopre-terminationhearingsfortaking away government

benefits (welfare,etc.)

o Privileges canbe given/takenaway v. rights (inherenttotheperson)o Once governmentbestowstherighttoreceive welfare,apropertyrightarisesinthat

recipientandtheirreceiptofwelfare cannotbeterminated withoutdueprocess


36/42

36

o Stakesaresimplytoohighforthe welfarerecipient,andthepossibilityforhonesterrororirritablemisjudgmenttoo great,toallow terminationofaid without giving the

recipienta chance,iftheysodesire,tobefullyinformedofthe caseagainstthemso

theymay contestitsbasisandproduceevidenceinrebuttal.

o Theydont getafull-scaletrial,buttheyareentitledtoanadministrativehearing andgetnoticepriortoterminationas well. Theyalso getto cross-examineany witnesses

againstthem.

Givesthesepeopleabetter chancethanremoving thefunds withoutthehearing

o DissentbyBlack: welfareismoreofa charity themoneyspentonthesehearings couldgotoothersfor welfaremoney

Thereisnorightto welfareinthe constitution,shouldnotrequiredueprocess You canbeniceand givethis charitytoindividualsanditshouldbetakenaway

easilyiftheyfeel necessary

y DueProcessforContractProfessors (536)o BoardofRegents v. Roth (Supp. 271)

Expresslydeclaredthe woodendistinctionbetween rightsand privilegestobe fullyandfinallyrejected

Propertyinterestismorethanadesireoraneedforthepropertyintheabstract. Itrequiresthepersontohavea legitimate claimofentitlementtoit.

Courtequatedapropertyright withanentitlement Court defined entitlement in two different ways (making this problematic)

y (1) entitlementasthat whichpeoplerelyonintheirdaily lives,reliancethatmustnotbearbitrarilyundermined

o Subjectivedefinition as long asapersonhasasufficientrelianceontheinterestinhisorherdaily life,it wouldbean

entitlement

y (2) entitlementsarenot createdbytheConstitution,butbyexistingrulesorunderstandingsderivedfromindependentsourcesthatsecure

certainbenefitsandthatsupport claimsofentitlementtothosebenefits

o Objectivedefinition as long asapersonreasonablyexpectstoreceivethebenefitinthefuture,theinterestisanentitlement

o Liberty interests Libertyinterestsencompassmorethanthemerefreedomfrombodilyrestraint E

ncompassesthoseprivileges long recognizedasessen

tial

totheorderlypursui

t

ofhappinessbyfreemen (includedrighttoK,engageinoccupation,education,

marry,establishahome,raise children, worshipaccording toonesreligionof

choice

y If the government has decided to give you a right or entitlement then they cant decide whatprocess will be used (this is dictated by the Constitution due process, decided by the courts

and not the legislature)


37/42

37

o Iftheyare giving aright/entitlementthroughastatute,itmust comply withconstitutional rightsastotheprocess

y Paul v. Davis (538,Supp. 295):o Foundno violationofprivacyinthepublicationofthenameofaperson whohadbeen

arrestedforshoplifting but whohadnotyetbeentriedforthe crime (andeventually

wasdismissed)

o No libertyinterestinyourreputation DissentbyBrennan righttoyourreputation/dignity; donthavetherightto

changesomeonesstatus likethis

y Mathews v. Eldridge (542,Supp. 297):o DisabilityBenefitstakenaway o Balancing Test to determine what procedures are sufficient to meet the Constitutions

requirement for an opportunity to be heard.

(1) privateinterestaffectedby governmentaction (2) degreeofriskthattheprocedureused will resultinerroneousdeprivationof

privateinterest coupled withtherelative valueofotheradditional orsubstitute

safeguardstoreducethatrisk

(3) strengthofgovernmentsinterest (including the governmental functioninvolved,andtheburdensthatadditional orothersubstitutesafeguards would

impose)

o Nopre-terminationhearing for losing hisdisabilitybenefitso Distinguishesfromthe Goldberg caseinthatremoving disabilitybenefitsasopposedto

welfarebenefitsinnotasextreme,assumptionthat welfarerecipientsarenot going to

beas well offassomeonereceiving disabilitybenefits

y Goss v. Lopez (549,Supp. 299)o Rightsinschools/educational institutionso Ohiostatutepermittedpublic school administratorstonot giveanyprocedural due

processtostudents whensuspensions/expulsionstookplace

unconstitutionalo Expelling/suspending a childfromschool requiresdueprocesstothestudentso Dueprocessoweddependedontheseverityoftheinterference (thisismoreofa liberty

interest reputation)

Shortsuspension sufficienttoprovidenoticeofallegationsandpermitthechildtoexplainthesituation (havetotell you whatyouare getting introublefor

and whattheexpec

tedpunis

hmen

tis going

tobe

,then

the c

hildisallowed

to

explainthemselves)

Longersuspensions/expulsions require greaterandmoreformal proceedings(sameasbeforebutmayinvolvebringing otherpeopleintodiscovermore

information)

o DidnotusetheMathewstest (beforeMathews)


38/42

38

y 14thamendment states giveyoutherightstosomething,theydontthen gettotakethoseawayorremovethoserightsbyusing theprocessthedesire (ornotusing dueprocessthatis

laidoutbythe constitution),thosearedeterminedbythe courts ifyou givethemtherights,

youmust givethemdueprocessinordertoinfringeonthoserights

y BoardofCuratorsofUniv. ofMO v. Horowitz (555)o Shouldbefollowing Matthewsbalancing testo Differentfrom Goss casebecauseshe wasdismissedforacademic reasonsand Goss was

involving disciplinaryreasons

Academic issuesaremorehardandfastbecausetherearestandardsthataresetupandarenotassubjectiveasthedisciplinarybehaviorresulting in

suspensionorexpulsion (notreallysusceptibleto judicial proceedings)

y Ex:FCSLnotastateactorsoyoudontnecessarily getdueprocess you get whattheysayyouget; youreallyonlyhaveaprivateremedy

Ch. 8 Substantive Protection of Economic Rights (563, Supp. 229):

y Substantive Due Process:o Whatyou getforyour libertyinterests,rights,fundamental rights (getstrictscrutiny if

youre going tomess withthese,therehastobea legitimate governmentinterest)

o Notafundamental right (libertyinterests,propertyrights,thingsstates giveyou)procedural dueprocess,butyoumightnot getsubstantivedueprocess

y Due Process Clause (Supp. 230)o Substantive due process

Protectsfundamental rights Requires governmenttoprovideasufficient justificationforanyinfringementof

thoserights

o Procedural due process Righttoafair legal process Entailstherighttoreceivenoticeand/orahearing insome circumstances

o Fundamental rights life, liberty, property, right to marry (certain circumstances) Liberty freedomtoK (nothavetheminterfered with),raise children, vote,

travel,procreate, vote,interstatetravel

RightsenumeratedinBill ofRights,non-enumeratedrightsofthe9thAmendment,thoseprotectedby conceptofliberty

o Level of justification required turns on whether the right receives rational basis,intermediate, or strict scrutiny by the courts:

Rational Basis ScrutinyTest:y Governmentneedonlyshow thattheregulation limiting therightis

rationallyrelatedtoserving a legitimatestateinterest


39/42

39

Intermediate ScrutinyTest (heightened scrutiny)y This level ofscrutiny generallyrequiresthe governmenttoshow that

theregulationservesanimportantstateinterest,for whichthe

regulationissubstantiallyrelatedtoserving thatinterest

Strict ScrutinyTesty Requiresthatthe governmentshow thattheregulationservesa

compelling stateinterestandisnecessarytoserve thatinterest

y Theremustnotbeanyothermeansor waytoachievethepurposethatis lessrestrictiveoftherightinquestion

y Lochner v. NY (568,Supp. 232)o Lochner convictedofviolating statestatute limited working hoursforbakery workers

tosixtyhoursper weekandtenhoursperday

o Statearguedthatthestatute wasforthesafetyandhealthofbakerso Courtfounditunconstitutional becausethestate lackedanyreasonable groundfor

interfering withthebakersrightstoenterintoKtosupportthemselves/family

o Law wasnot necessaryorappropriateasahealth law tosafeguardthepublic health,orthehealthoftheindividuals whoarefollowing thetradeofabaker.

o Rational basisscrutinytesto Dissent bakersexperiencepoorairquality (white lung disease) andthe law was within

thepowersofthestatetoprotectthehealthandsafetyofthepublic

Thisis withinthestatespowersandifthereisanissue,itshouldbehandledthrough legislationandnotthroughthe courts

This wasforaspecific purposeandthestatute wasnarrowlytailoredtomeetthatpurpose metthestandards

y Nebbia v. NY (574,Supp. 234)o Statutethatsetaminimumandmaximumpriceforretail saleofmilko Nebbia (grocerystore) soldmilk/bread combothatbroughtthepriceofmilkbelow that

minimumpricerequiredbythestatute

o Purposeofstatute wastoprotectthe livelihoodoffarmers inturn,protectthesafeguardsthatpreventedbacterial growth (safeguardsincreasedthe costsofdairy

production)

o Heldstatute wasrationallyrelatedtoa legitimatestatepurpose (protecting thehealth,safety,and welfareofthepublic)

o Thisisforthe legislaturetodecideifitisnecessary notthe courtso

Majoritythinksyou caninterfere withthe righttofreedomofKtoprotectthefarmers livelihood -ifthefarmers gounder,thebuyersrightsarenotreally going to

mattersincethere will benowheretopurchasetheproduct

o Dissent dontreallythinkthisapproachis going tosolvetheproblemtheyaretrying tosolve.


40/42

40

ThinksthereisarighttofreedomofK (focusesmoreonthebuyersabilitytoKtopurchase goodsata cheaperpriceifabuyeris going tosell itatthat cheaper

price,ratherthanthefarmersrighttoK/livelihood)

Takings Clause (579, Supp. 241)

y eminentdomain prohibitsthe governmentfromtaking privateproperty forpublic purposewithoutproviding just compensation

o Twotypesoftaking: (1) possessorytaking governmentphysicallytakesoroccupiestheproperty (2) regulatorytakings taking occursduetoa governmentregulationthat

interferes withthe citizensuseofproperty

o Twomajorissuesunderthis clause: (1) somequestion whethertheirpropertyisbeing takenfora public purpose

andarguethatthetaking isimpermissible

(2

)At

times

,therearedispu

tesabou

twhether

thereisa

takinga

tall

CaroleneProducts footnote4 (pg. 578 Note 3):

y Maybeanarrowerscopeforoperationofthepresumptionofconstitutionality when legislationappearsonitsfacetobe withinaspecific prohibitionoftheConstitution

y Substantivedueprocessinregardstoeconomic rights nomorestrictscrutinyo Exceptions

maybetimes where weshouldmore closelyscrutinize whatCongressdoes(enumeratedrights)

Ifweseepolitical processhasfailed stepina closelyscrutinize what govtisdoing

Dealing withdiscreteandinsularminorities (noneor very little voting power)y Majority will sometimeshurtminorities whethertheymeantoornot

becausetheydontfitinthepolitical processas well,nottreatedthat

well historically,etc

Contracts Clause (630)

y HomeBuilding & LoanAssociation v. Blaisdell (631,Supp. 250-51)o State law thatpreventedmortgageholdersfromforeclosing onmortgagesfortwo

years.

o Ct. upheld didnot violatetheContractsClausebecausethestatehada legitimate goaltouseitspowerstotemporarilyprotecthomeownersduring theDepression

o Imposedreasonable conditionsonthemortgages: Hadtopaysomekindofrent Intereststill accruedon loans Lenders couldstill forecloseafterthat2yearperiod


41/42

41

o Limitationbut wasnotahuge limitation justatemporaryinterference withtheKinresponsetoanational emergency

o Reasonable law that is reasonably adapted to legitimate state interest (not reallyrational basis but very similar could have had a stricter test and it likely would have

still satisfied because of the situation)

o Additional reasons courtallowsstatetointerfere withobligationsinK (contracts clause) Notabsolute constitutionisnotreallyabsolute (moreflexibleapproach) Equityatsomepoint still hadtopaytherent,still upforforeclosureat2yrs.

o Notes wouldsomething likethispasstoday? Probablyyes withthehousing crisisthathasbeen going onfora while.

Govt Interference with Public K

y Should govtbescrutinizedmorestrictly wheninterfering withprivateKorthe contractbetweenthe govtandstate (self-interest)

oGovernmen

tinvolvedina

K

with

anothers

tateac

tor

/gov

t(they

haveaselfin

teres

tin

theoutcomeandbenefiting themselvestothedetrimenttootherpeople) needstobe

stricter

y State interference with public K (where the govt is a party to K) court will use heightenedscrutiny to examine the regulation to ensure the state is not regulating simply to protect its

own interests.

o Court applies 3 part test: (1) legitimateexpectationsofthepartiestotheK (2) whetherthereisanimportantpublic purpose,AND (3) whethertheinterferenceisreasonableANDnecessary (bothessential and

the leastrestrictivemeans) toachievethatpurpose.y Ex:Financial ReformLaw

o Canthestatespassa law restricting Wall Streetexecutivesfromawarding/receivingbonusesofmorethan 10%? YesandNo

Onlyastate legislature wouldbeabletodosomething likethis Iffed. Govt wantedtodothis,it wouldhavetobeunderatheoryofeffecting

interstate commerce

o NointhattheyCANNOTinterfere withexisting Kobligationsalreadyenteredintoo CANsaythatfromthisdateforward,restrictionsbeplacedonthefutureK (doesnot

interfere withtheobligationsofKthatarepre-determinedandalreadyenteredinto)


42/42

Govt Interference with Private K

y AlliedStructural Steel Co. v. Spannaus (636,Supp. 252)o Alliedofferedemployeesapensionoptionafter working withthe companyfor 15yearso Minnesotapasseda law that changedthe vesting periodforpensionsto 10 yearsand

would chargeafeeto companiesthat closedbeforepensions were vested/couldntpayo Unconstitutional

This wasonlyapplying to companies who chosetoofferpensionsanddidntapplytoall companieswithinthestate (somewhatdiscriminatory)

o When the state/government interferes with a private K (one in which the governmentis NOTa party) a 3-partTest is applied (similar to the rational basis test):

(1) mustshow substantial impairmentofcontractual relationship (2) govtmustshow significant and legitimate public purposeforthe

interference,AND

(3) themeansto carryoutthatpurposemustbereasonably relatedtothat goalo Dissent:

ShouldntbeaproblemunderK clause this was justanadditional obligationandtrying tomakethismoreequitable

Allied wouldhavetopaythe $185kfine butthey likelymademoremoneybydoing thisthanevenhaving topaythefine (closing thefactoryandtaking all of

th

con law comprehensive notes and case briefs

Documents