McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): expanding congressional power through elastic clause - federalism

• Does Congress have the power to establish a national bank? - yes

• Congress established a bank in MD, MD passed a law saying that banks had to be charted by the state itself or they had to pay a tax

• Constitutional connections: article I section 8 (explicit powers and elastic clause), supremacy clause

• Arguments

  • Maryland: it was unconstitutional

    • Power to create banks is not in article I, section 8

  • McCulloch (bank representative): it was constitutional

    • Article I, section 8 has necessary and proper clause (gives Congress implied powers)

• Ruling

  • In favor of McCulloch (unanimous)

  • If it’s not prohibited and the law upholds spirit of Constitution, then it’s constitutional

  • Established supremacy of national laws over state ones

• Government connections/why it matters: federalism (in favor of national government)

  • Expanded federal power and limited state power

United States v. Lopez (1995): limiting national power using commerce clause - federalism

• Can Congress pass a law restricting guns on school zones as a result of relation to interstate commerce? - no

• Congress passed GFSZA, Lopez carried a gun to school and got caught and questioned GFSZA’s constitutionality

• Constitutional connections: commerce clause and a little bit of elastic clause

• Arguments

  • US: it was constitutional

    • Elastic clause, part of regulating interstate commerce

  • Lopez: it was unconstitutional

    • GFSZA has nothing to do with interstate commerce

    • Schools and gun regulations on school property are part of state jurisdiction

• Result

  • In favor of Lopez (5-4)

  • Ruling in favor of US would allow federal government to have way too much power because guns on school property don’t relate to commerce

• Government connections/why it matters: federalism (in favor of the states)

  • Marked the start of new era of devolution (returning of power to the states)

Baker v. Carr (1962): states have to redistrict to avoid voter power imbalance (urban vs rural voters) based on equal protection clause - one person, one vote

• Is it constitutional for rural voters to have more power than urban voters due to not redistricting? - no

• TN hadn’t redrawn it’s legislative districts in 60+ years, urban populations grew in that time but rural populations didn’t (as much), rural voters had more congressional voting power than urban voters as a result

• Constitutional connections: 14 amendment’s equal protection clause

• Arguments

  • Carr (TN state representative): TN didn’t redistrict because cases of redistricting were not justiciable (court couldn’t rule on it)

  • Baker (urban citizen): it was unconstitutional that rural voters had more power than urban ones so all citizens weren’t equally protected (violated 14 amendment) so it is justiciable

• Result

  • In favor of Baker (6-2), very stressful decision though

  • Issues of reapportionment were justiciable

• Government connections/why it matters: one person, one vote doctrine

  • One person, one vote: states had to apportion representatives so that all people were represented equally and some voters didn’t have more power than others

  • Changed political representation: multiple states had to redraw districts so rural weren’t more powerful than urban

  • SCOTUS got involved in political questions/cases: new set of questions that can be taken to Supreme Court now that they did a case on redistricting

    • Don’t look at all political cases though, they have a long process to see if a case is purely political (don’t hear it) or actually justiciable (can hear it)

Shaw v. Reno (1993): equal protection clause forbids racial gerrymandering, even if there are noble intentions - got rid of racial gerrymandering

• Is racial gerrymandering constitutional? - no

• NC had no black representatives but 20% black population, made 2 majority black districts that were very weirdly shaped (gerrymandered) and sent them to the justice department for approval

  • Gerrymandering: when congressional districts are drawn to favor one group over another

    • Partisan gerrymandering: district favors one political party over another

    • Racial gerrymandering: district favors one race over another

• Constitutional connections: 14 amendment’s equal protection clause

• Arguments

  • Shaw: equal protection clause was violated because the districts were drawn while only considering race

    • Constitution is colorblind: it’s wrong to draw districts while only considering race just to get black people elected to Congress

  • Reno (justice department): equal protection clause wasn’t violated because the districts were drawn with the intention of helping black voters

    • Justice department says that although they were drawn to favor one district over another, it’s ok because it’s to help marginalized voters

    • Constitution should not be colorblind and we should favor the marginalized

• Result

  • In favor of Shaw (5-4)

  • Although they were drawn with good and noble intentions, it’s unconstitutional to have districts drawn based on race alone because it would set a dangerous precedent

  • Equal protection clause was violated

• Government connections/why it matters: racial gerrymandering is illegal

Marbury v. Madison (1803): SCOTUS has limited original jurisdiction so judiciary act of 1789 is unconstitutional - judicial review

• Does Marbury have the right to his commission? - yes (didn’t get it though); If yes, is the writ of mandamus the proper way to get the commission? - yes; If yes, does the Court have the authority to grant a writ of mandamus? - no

• Federalist John Adams lost election to Democratic-Republican (DR) Thomas Jefferson so Adams appointed a lot of federalist judges to the federal courts to maintain federalist presence in the government, Jefferson told his secretary of state (Madison) to leave the few undelivered commissions as undelivered, Marbury (one of the appointed judges who didn’t get his commission yet) sued Madison for a writ of mandamus so that Madison would deliver commission

  • Writ of mandamus: court order for an official to do what they’re legally required to do

• Constitutional connections: jurisdiction clauses of Article III (SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction in cases involving states or foreign ambassadors/consul)

• Arguments

  • Marbury: has a right to his commission

  • Madison: doesn’t have a right to his commission

• Result

  • In favor of Marbury (unanimous) but the court couldn’t grant him his commission because the judiciary act conflicted with article III

  • Marbury does have right to his commission because Adams did his constitutional duty and some being undelivered was just a technicality

  • Court doesn’t have right to order writ of mandamus because the power isn’t given to the courts in Article III

    • Marbury thought they could though because of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Article 13: SCOTUS can issue writs of mandamus in cases of original jurisdiction)

    • Justice Marshall said that article 13 of the act was unconstitutional (although this case was being heard for first time in SCOTUS (original jurisdiction like the act said) the two parties aren’t states or ambassadors which goes against the Constitution) and therefore null and void)

• Government connections/why it matters: established judicial review (strike down or uphold laws based on constitutionality)

Engel v. Vitale (1962): school prayer violates the establishment clause - favor civil liberties

• Is prayer in public school constitutional (even if non-sectarian and voluntary)? - no

• NY had a law where you say a prayer (very vague) that was voluntary, Engel (and other parents) challenged the practice

• Constitutional connections: establishment clause of 1st amendment

• Arguments

  • Engel: establishment clause was incorporated to states through 14th amendment so NY can’t pass a law for school prayer

  • Vitale: prayer was non-sectarian and voluntary

• Result

  • In favor of Engel (6-1)

  • Government can’t control or sway the type of prayer that people say

  • Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state is important

• Government connections/why it matters: ruling in favor of civil liberties

  • Court ruled in favor of civil liberties over government influence

  • Groundwork for cases regarding religion in school (important precedent)

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): state interests don’t trump free exercise clause - favor civil liberties

• Is the government allowed to mandate Amish children to stay in school (even when it goes against religious beliefs)? - no

• Some Amish families took kids out of school after 8th grade (religious belief) so they could get vocational training, families worried that other religious ideas that conflicted with Amish would influence children, WI had a law requiring children to get an education until age 16

• Constitutional connections: free exercise clause of 1st amendment

• Arguments

  • Wisconsin: state had compelling interest in educating children, that interest trumped Amish free exercise of religion

  • Yoder: the law violated the free exercise clause (which was applied to states via 14th amendment)

• Result

  • In favor of Yoder (unanimous)

  • State’s interest in education does not trump free exercise of religion for the Amish

  • Forcing Amish families to send their kids to school would threaten their way of life

• Government connections/why it matters: in favor of civil liberties

  • Set tone for future cases between state interest and free exercise of religion

  • Free exercise is more important than state interests

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): symbolic speech at school is protected by the first amendment - favor civil liberties

• Is symbolic speech on school property protected? - yes

• Senator called for Christmas truce for Vietnam War, Tinker family wanted to support him so 4 of their kids (plus 1 friend) made a plan to wear black armbands to school to support Christmas truce, school heard about the plan so they made a policy saying that people wearing armbands of protest would have to remove it or be suspended, children wore armbands to school and got suspended

• Constitutional connections: 1st amendment (protection of free speech)

• Arguments

  • Tinker (family of kids wearing armband): students should be allowed to wear the armbands to school because the policy infringes upon free speech

  • Des Moines: the policy is allowed because it is to maintain peace on campus regarding a controversial issue

• Result

  • In favor of Tinker (7-2)

  • Policy was violation to free speech

  • There are reasons to restrict student speech sometimes but not this time

  • Substantial disruption test (to see if school can restrict student speech)

    • Administrators have to be able to show that the speech would interfere with requirements of appropriate discipline at school (materially and substantially)

• Government connections/why it matters: free speech at school

  • In favor of civil liberties/student rights

  • Set parameters for freedom of speech at school campus

  • Subsequent cases that have refined what students can and can’t say at school

    • Ex: vulgar speech is not allowed

Schenck v. United States (1919): free speech in times of war - favor social order, clear and present danger

• Are you protected to distribute pamphlets discouraging the draft during times of war? - no

• Espionage act outlawed hinderances to military recruit (during WW1), Schenck didn’t like the idea of the draft so he made and distributed pamphlets that encouraged people to resist the draft, arrested for breaking espionage act

• Constitutional connections: 1st amendment (freedom of speech)

• Arguments

  • Schenck: Espionage act violated first amendment right to free speech and that section was unconstitutional

  • United States: Espionage act was there to help the war effort

• Result

  • In favor of US (unanimous)

  • 1st amendment rights weren’t violated because he was encouraging avoiding the draft (not just protesting against it, encouraging people to avoid it is not protected speech)

  • You can’t say stuff if it causes clear and present danger

  • Government can infringe on free speech in wartime

• Government connections/why it matters: clear and present danger test (no longer used, now use Brandenburg test which makes it even harder to infringe on free speech)

  • Clear and present danger test: clear standard for silencing speech

  • In favor of social order

New York Times v. United States (1971): freedom of the press in times of war - favor civil liberties, high standards for prior restraint

• Can the government order prior restraint on the press for classified documents in times of war? - no

• The public didn’t really support the Vietnam war (undeclared war, geopolitical, not able to make much progress despite all the people sent there), Pentagon Papers were leaked to NY Times and Washington Post, Nixon tried to invoke prior restraint to protect national security

  • Pentagon Papers: Nixon was lying to the people and Congress, Nixon said that we had almost won but the papers showed that he was lying

• Constitutional connections: 1st amendment (freedom of the press)

• Arguments

  • New York Times: Nixon invoking prior restraint violated first amendment rights of newspapers

  • United States: prior restraint was justified because publishing the papers would threaten national security (not really about national security, more about Nixon’s reputation)

• Result

  • In favor of New York Times (6-3)

  • Nixon administration’s restraining order was unconstitutional

  • Allowed the continued printing of the Pentagon Papers

  • High bar for prior restraint but can be used if it’s actually national security (Nixon’s was more about not ruining reputation)

• Government connections/why it matters: prior restraint standards are really high

  • Victory for free press against censorship (in favor of civil liberties)

McDonald v. Chicago (2010): incorporated second amendment to the states - favor civil liberties, selective incorporation

• Are Chicago’s highly restrictive gun laws legal? - no

• In DC v. Heller the court ruled that DC’s restrictive gun ownership laws were unconstitutional, McDonald (and some others) wanted to apply that decision to the states (not just federal district), McDonald had a lot of big guns for hunting but wanted a handgun for midnight attacks but Chicago had really restrictive handgun laws

• Constitutional connections: 2nd amendment (citizen’s right to bear arms), 14th amendment for incorporating it to the states

• Arguments

  • McDonald: Chicago handgun laws were unconstitutional because they infringed upon their rights to own guns (especially after Heller case)

  • Chicago: the restrictive handgun laws protect public safety and order so they were necessary

• Result

  • In favor of McDonald (5-4)

  • Chicago’s gun laws violated second amendment rights

  • Founders thought the right to bear arms was essential which is why they incorporated it to the state level

• Government connections/why it matters: selective incorporation of the 2nd amendment

  • Applied ruling of the Heller case to the states

    • Selective incorporation

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): incorporated sixth amendment to the states - favor civil liberties, selective incorporation

• Do the accused have the right to a lawyer in state cases? - yes

• Gideon broke into pool hall to steal coins from cigarette machine and stole money from cash register, arrested and sent to trial, FL law said that the court only has to provide lawyer for capital cases so Gideon had to act as his own lawyer and got convicted

• Constitutional connections: 6th amendment, little bit of 14th amendment due process clause (applies bill of rights to the states)

• Arguments

  • Gideon: had right to lawyer because 14th amendment incorporated it

  • Wainwright: don’t need to provide lawyer

• Result

  • In favor of Gideon (unanimous)

  • Sixth amendment’s provision for providing a lawyer applies to states

  • Having a lawyer in a trial is important in US so the poor can still be defended

• Government connections/why it matters: incorporated sixth amendment to the states

  • Required states to fund and train defense lawyers to defend people that can’t afford

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): racial segregation in public facilities is unequal based on the equal protection clause - no more “separate but equal”

• Is racial segregation in schools legal/constitutional? - no

• Series of cases consolidated into one, Jim Crow laws made separate but “equal” schools for blacks and whites (justified by Plessy v. Ferguson which established separate but equal), black family tried to enroll daughter into (nearby) white school but they were denied so they had to send her to a (far away) black school

  • Separate but equal doctrine: separate facilities for race in public facilities was constitutional as long as the facilities were equal

• Constitutional connections: 14th amendment’s equal protection clause

• Arguments

  • Brown: racially segregated schools violated equal protection clause, the fact that facilities (no matter how equal in funding and other stuff) were separate makes them unequal (makes black children feel inferior)

  • Board of education: racially segregated schools are ok because of the Plessy decision

• Result

  • In favor of Brown (unanimous)

  • Separate public facilities violated equal protection clause

  • Overturned the precedent set by the Plessy decision

  • Separating black children from others solely based on race makes them feel inferior to other children in regards to community status which can’t be undone

  • Separate but equal has no place in educational facilities because they’re unequal

• Government connections/why it matters: huge victory for the civil rights movement (overturned Plessy precedent that separate but equal is ok)

  • Southerners stalled integrating schools though

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): freedom of speech of corporations - corporations can spend unlimited money on elections (not working directly with candidate)

• Since money is speech in politics, is it fair that those with the most money have the loudest voices? - yes

• BCRA made it illegal for corporations or non-profits to buy advertisements for/against candidates 60 days before election and 30 days before primary, Citizens United made a film with accusations against Clinton (running against Obama for presidency) but it was only ready to be released in the forbidden period

• Constitutional connections: freedom of speech (1st amendment)

• Arguments

  • Citizens United: BCRA’s prohibition against electioneering communications violated free speech

  • FEC: BCRA is constitutional, corporations aren’t people (?)

• Result

  • In favor of Citizens United (5-4)

  • Limitations on when corporations could run ads and communications is the same as the government censoring individual free speech

    • Stuck down that part of BCRA

• Government connections/why it matters: constitutional to have the wealthiest people have the loudest voices in politics

  • Corporations can spend as much money as they want (as long as they don’t directly work with candidate) on political communication up to election day

  • Just because a group is spending a lot of money for a candidate doesn’t mean that they owe the candidate favors

OLD case notes (for practice SCOTUS essay)

United States v. Lopez

• main question: can congress prohibit guns on school property?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: commerce clause (article I, section 8)

• decision: congress can’t make laws about schools under the commerce clause because power to control schools is reserved to the states

• government connections: federalism (in favor of state gov, devolution)

McCulloch v. Maryland

• main question: can congress create a national bank?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is yes

• constitutional connections: article I, section 8 (explicit powers and elastic clause); supremacy clause

• decision: creating bank was constitutional use of elastic clause (if law isn’t prohibited and stands with spirit of constitution then it’s legal), ruled federal law wins out over state laws

• government connection: federalism (in favor of national gov)

Citizens United v. FEC

• main question: is limiting campaign contributions of PACs within a specific time frame legal?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: freedom of speech (first amendment)

• decision: corporations are basically people, limiting their speech before an election is like censoring people’s free speech (struck down bcra), more money = louder voice

• government connection: campaign finance laws

Baker v. Carr

• main question: is not redistricting for years despite demographic/location changes legal?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: equal protection clause (14th amendment)

• decision: have to redistrict so that everyone has an equal voice

• government connection: redistricting?

Shaw v. Reno

• main question: is racial gerrymandering legal?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: equal protection clause (14th amendment)

• decision: you can’t be racist when drawing district lines, there has to be another common reason to make those borders other than race

• government connection: redistricting?

Brown v. Board of Education

• main question: is segregation in public schools legal?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: equal protection clause (14th amendment)

• decision: you have to be equal to whites and blacks in schools

• government connection: civil rights

Engel v. Vitale

• main question: are schools allowed to require daily morning prayer?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: establishment clause (freedom of religion, first amendment)

• decision: can’t force people to practice a certain religion

• government connection: civil liberties

Gideon v. Wainwright

• main question: is it legal to refuse to provide attorneys for non capital cases?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: due process clause (14th amendment); sixth amendment

• decision: incorporated sixth amendment to states, you have to provide attorneys for people who can’t afford them even if its not a capital case

• government connections: civil liberties, incorporation

McDonald v. Chicago

• main question: are state/local governments allowed to pass laws restricting gun purchases?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: due process clause (14th amendment); second amendment

• decision: incorporated second amendment to states, can’t restrict people frfom buying guns

• government connections: incorporation, civil liberties

Tinker v. Des Moines

• main question: are students allowed to wear armbands in school?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is yes

• constitutional connections: freedom of speech/expression (first amendment)

• decision: incorporated first amedment to states, wearing armband isn’t distracting and is just symbolic speech so it’s protected

• government connections: civil liberties, incorporation, strict scrutiny

Wisconsin v. Yoder

• main question: can schools force students to attend when religion contradicts?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constituional connections: free exercise clause (freedom of religion, first amendment)

• decision: freedom of religion is under strict scrutiny, can’t limit it even though there’s a good reason because it’s not good enough, have the right to exercise amish religion

• government connections: civil liberties, incorporation?, strict scrutiny

NY Times v. US

• main question: can the government use prior restraint on the press/censor the press in times of war?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is no

• constitutional connections: freedom of press (first amendment)

• decision: it’s important that the press is able to publish anything especially in wartime, freedom of press is under strict scrutiny?

• government connections: civil liberties in wartime

Schenk v. US

• main question: can government restrict free speech (passing out anti-draft pamphlets) in times of war?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is yes

• constituional connections: freedom of speech (first amendment)

• decision: passing out anti-draft pamphlets could put the country in clear and imminent danger

• government connections: civil liberties in wartime

Marbury v. Madison

• main question: is it legal for the secretary of state to “hold” commissions for federal judges?

  • spoiler alert, the answer is yes

• constitutional connections: article III (powers of judiciary), supremacy clause (article IV)

• decision: gave scotus power of judicial review, told marbury he wasn’t guaranteed commission, gave scotus power to review constitutionality of laws

• government connections: judicial review