con law special cases

Carter v. Carter Coal - Majority

Local activites, no matter how great the effect on interstate commerce, are inherently secondary and indirect to it.

Carter v. Carter Coal - Dissent

"The power is as broad as the need that evokes it"

US v. Lopez - Majority

The activity being regulated is not substantially related to interstate commerce.

US v. Lopez - Concurrence

If the regulation is going towards an activity traditionally seen as under state control, Congress should be more restricted. Fed/state balance must be respected.

US v. Lopez - Concurrence

Substantial effects test is too broad and we should be using the original meaning of commerce.

US v. Lopez - Dissent

Guns are articles of commerce that the government has a substantial interest in regulating.

US v. Lopez - Dissent

Rational basis test should be used because Congress deserves deference. Creating a distinction between economic/noneconomic reverts the court back to the direct/indirect conflict.

US v. Lopez - Dissent

Use rational basis test because Congress deserves leeway. Using rational basis, there is clearly a rational relationship between gun violence in schools and interstate commerce.

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways - Plurality

Balancing test between the state interest and the burden on interstate commerce

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways - Concurrence

The actual purpose behind the statute is protectionist and should therefore be impermissible.

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways - Dissent

Balancing test does not allow for nuance. Must look at whether the asserted justification is pretext for discrimination. If it isn't, there should be a rational basis test applied.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Majority

Clear lines on what each branch of the government has the power to do.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Concurrence

Look to history! History is the gloss with which life has written on the Constitution.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Concurrence

Creates the three ebbs of Presidential power

Youngstown Sheet and Tube - Dissent

The immediacy and threat of the danger must be considered. POTUS should be able to take these actions because Congress does not act fast enough.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Plurality

POTUS can detain citizens and some DP is required. Cites Youngstown saying we cannot give POTUS unlimited powers during war.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Concurrence

AUMF does not give the power to detain.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Dissent

Habeas Corpus has not been suspended, so Hamdi should get a full trial. Narrow ruling.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Dissent

Federal government is acting within the bounds of its war powers and should get deference.

US v. Nixon - Majority

It is the court's duty to say what the law is. If there is no claim of a need to protect military, diplomatic, or national security interests, there cannot be absolute, unqualified POTUS immunity.

Morrison v. Olson - Majority

The statute does not take power from the Executive and give it to Congress. It simply limits the Executive's power which is not a SOP issue.

Morrison v. Olson - Dissent

This is a purely executive power and the statute is depriving POTUS of exclusive control. So, the act is definitely unconstitutional.

Dred Scott v. Sanford - Majority

Black people were not included in the "citizens" described in the Constitution, so they can't be citizens. Federal law cannot deprive someone of their property without due process so the LT law was unconstitutional.

Brown v. Board of Ed - Majority

Intangible factors must be considered when determining if things are equal. One intangible factor is the psychological toll that segregation causes, so schools can never be separate but equal. Schools must desegregate with "all deliberate speed".

McClesky v. Kemp - Majority

Must prove discriminatory intent, discriminatory impact is not enough.

McClesky v. Kemp - Dissent

Statistical evidence is not enough on its own, but Georgia's racist history should also be taken into consideration. Majority fears "too much justice".

Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Plurality

There are only two compelling interest for race-based decision-making in education and neither are present here. EPC protects people not groups.

Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Concurrence

Racial imbalance is not segregation. Constitution is color-blind.

Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Concurrence

Plurality is simplifying the issue. Schools should use race-conscious decision-making like where to build schools or allocate funds, not based on individual children.

Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Dissent

Court is reading Brown in a color-blind way that goes against what it stands for.

Parents Involved v. Seattle School District - Dissent

Schools should be able to adopt race-conscious measures if they are inclusionary. This is narrowly tailored and there are more than 2 compelling interests.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Majority

The right to privacy is within the penumbra of the BOR within amendments 1,3,4,5, and 9.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Concurrence

The 9th amendment provides for implied rights and the right of privacy within the marriage is a long held belief.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Concurrence

DP and the BOR do not need to be interconnected. The BOR can stand on its own by judging if something violates the basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Concurrence

The state's stated interest for the law does not logically follow from the restriction.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Dissent

A right to privacy is not in the constitution and we should not read the constitution as a living document.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Dissent

The law is silly but that does not make it unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade - Majority

The right to an abortion fits under the right to privacy. Creates a trimester framework to illustrate when states can impose restrictions.

Roe v. Wade - Dissent

Misuse of judicial review

Roe v. Wade - Dissent

Abortions aren't private in a way that would include them in the quasi-right to privacy.

Lawrence v. Texas - Majority

Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds and includes an autonomy of self. Look at history and societal views in America and abroad.

Lawrence v. Texas - Concurrence

This is an EPC issue, not DP. Morality is not sufficient to pass rational basis+ test.

Lawrence v. Texas - Dissent

Morality is a legitimate government interest. This should be decided democratically.

Lawrence v. Texas - Dissent

The law is silly but not unconstitutional. Just like Stewart in Griswold.

McCulloch v. Maryland - Majority

The Constitution is a living document that gives implied powers to Congress under the necessary and proper clause. The sovereignty of the state is subordinate to the constitution.

Marbury v. Madison - Majority

Constitution is the supreme law of the land. SCOTUS can review laws and deem them unconstitutional.

Sebelius - Plurality

Individual mandate goes against the CC because Congress cannot force someone to operate in an economic activity.

Sebelius - Concurrence

This is not inactivity because everyone will interact with the healthcare system at some point.

Sebelius - Dissent

This is inactivity and cannot be regulated. The whole of ACA should be struck down.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Social Services - Majority

The purpose of the DP clause is to protect people from the state, not to protect private individuals from each other. The state has no affirmative duty to protect except for those whose freedom they limit (prisoners).

DeShaney v. Winnebago Social Services - Dissent

The state DID take action. They documented Josh's injuries and took steps that made other bystanders believe they did not need to help anymore.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Social Services - Dissent

A natural level of sympathy should be applied to the case and this level of strict formalism goes against the 14A.