constitutional law class 29 economic substantive due process part ii march 19, 2008

13
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Upload: alexina-short

Post on 03-Jan-2016

217 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29

Economic Substantive Due Process Part II

March 19, 2008

Page 2: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital

• Majority by: SutherlandJoined by: McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds, ButlerDissent by: TaftJoined by: SanfordDissent by: Holmes

• Brandeis did not participate

Page 3: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. (1926) [C p. 527] One

• Majority opinion by Butler

• (joined by the other 3 Horsemen: Sutherland, McReynolds, Van Devanter as well as Sanford)

• Dissent by Holmes, joined by Brandeis and Stone

Page 4: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Justices Born on St. Paddy’s Day

• Roger Brooke Taney

• Pierce Butler

• Near misses: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (3/15), Antonin Scalia (3/11), Earl Warren (3/19), Sandra Day O’Connor (3/26)

Page 5: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Nebbia v. New York (1934) [C p. 539]

Majority by: RobertsJoined by: Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, CardozoDissent by: McReynoldsJoined by: Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler(the 4 Horsemen)

Page 6: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) [C . 541]

• Majority by: HughesJoined by: Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, CardozoDissent by: SutherlandJoined by: Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler (the 4 Horsemen)

Page 7: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) [C p. 543]

• Majority by: StoneJoined by: Hughes, Brandeis, Roberts, Black (except the part designated "Third")Concurrence by: ButlerDissent by: McReynoldsReed, Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Page 8: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955) [C p. 545]

• Unanimous• Opinion by Douglas

(joined by Warren, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, Minton, Harlan)

Page 9: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Ferguson v. Skrupa (1963) C p. 546]

• Unanimous • Opinion of the Court

by Black• Separate

Concurrence by Harlan

Page 10: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

BMW of North America v. Gore (1996) [C p. 547]

• Majority by: StevensJoined by: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, BreyerConcurrence by: BreyerJoined by: O'Connor, SouterDissent by: ScaliaJoined by: ThomasDissent by: GinsburgJoined by: Rehnquist

Page 11: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) [C p. 551]

• 6-3• Majority opinion by

Kennedy joined by Rehnquist, Souter, O’Connor, Stevens, Breyer

• Dissents by Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg

Page 12: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) [Supp. 83]

• Opinion of the Court by Breyer joined by Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Souter

• Dissent by Stevens• Dissent by Thomas• Dissent by Ginsburg,

joined by Scalia and Thomas

Page 13: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

• Oral argument: February 27, 2008 (granted expanded oral argument of 45 minutes per side – ie. an extra 15 minutes each)

• Decision expected by summer

• The issue is not the constitutionality under due process, rather under maritime law