Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Does t e const. make federal !ower exclusive or as Congress ex!licitly !rohi+ited state regulation?
Hierarchy of Law
Constitution Did Congress occu!y the field? Field Pree !tion Gade v Natl Waste Mgmt
Self Executing Treaties Does state law indirectly or directly conflict wit federal law? Conflict Pree !tion Gade v Natl Waste Mgmt
&ederal Law sets a floor !elow w ic state law cannot go !ut does not set a ceiling.
Legislative 'eto
,NS v Chadha Congress may not veto action of t e e'ecutive !ranc inconsistent wit t e principles of !icameral and t e presentment clause.
Federal Law
Executive Orders
Federalis
State Law "ne unerated Powers Look to Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, etc . . . for Constitutional justification
Non-delegation &octrine
Congress may not delegate legislative powers to ot er !ranc es unless it specifies intelligi+le !rinci!les to guide suc delegation.
Su!re acy Clause #Pree !tion$ % Non-&elegation &octrine % Legislative 'eto % State Police Power #( end )*$
Standing
Is t ere causation?
Is t ere redressa+ility?
Is it a third-!arty?
Is it a !olitical 1uestion?
2a3er v Carr *+, as t e Constitution as assigned decision making to anot er !ranc ? *%, is t e matter is in erently not one t e judiciary can decide? Is it a generali4ed in/ury?
No standing
No /urisdiction
Does t e case affect a +assadors. !u+lic inister and consuls, and t ose w ere a state is a !arty?
&irect (!!eal
Certiorari
Standing % -urisdiction
Is It in federal court?
Is it a state official?
Is it state law?
2arred
Not 2arred
&or Federal law actions a citi.en cannot sue their own state in its own courts wit out t e states consent/ owever, t ey may !ring suit in another state against their own state.
" state cannot !e sued !y its own citi4ens, or citi4ens of another state, or foreign country
Not 2arred
Ti eliness
Is it a -udicial officer?
0udges ave a!solute immunity from civil lia+ility resulting from judicial acts.
5i!e
Is it a Executive officer?
Ti ely 6cCulloch v 6& 1 e states ave no !ower to regulate or tax t e federal government/ owever, t ey may impose generally a!!lica+le indirect taxes so long as t ey do not unreasona+ly +urden t e federal government.
Clinton v -ones 1 e president may not !e sued for civil damages for acts performed as part of t e presidents official res!onsi+ilities !ut may !e for for actions +efore they too3 office7
Is it a class action?
Is it a Legislative officer? -as t ere voluntary cessation wit a reasona+le ex!ectation of re!eata+ility?
Co andeering &octrine Printz v US & N v US Congress cannot command states to enact specific legislation or administer a federal regulatory program
S!eech or &e+ate Clause Art 1, Sec 6 2em!ers of Congress are immune from civil and cri inal lia!ility for statements and conduct made in the regular course of the legislative !rocess.
6oot
Ti eliness % ,
Is it econo ic activity?
8on4ales v 5aich "567 as long as t ere is a rational +asis for concluding t at t e aggregate su!stantially affects interstate commerce.
"S v Lo!e4 *+, Congressional findings *%, Link to interstate commerce *(, 0urisdictional element *w et er t e gun ad moved in interstate commerce,
Is it una +iguous9
Is it not coercive9
,nvalid Nonresident citi.ens are protected against discrimination wit respect to funda ental rights or essential activities unless/ *+, t e non5resident is part of t e pro!lem t e state is attempting to solve/ and *%, 1 ere are no less restrictive means to solve t e pro!lem 6cCulloch v 6& Congress can pass legislation rationally related to its enumerated powers as long as it is/ *+, a legitimate end *%, wit in t e scope of t e constitution *(, !y appropriate means *8, and plainly adapted to t at end
2rown v 6& 1 e states are !rohi+ited, without the consent of Congress, from imposing any ta' on imported or e'ported good.
Co
erce
Is it an ene y co +atant?
2ou ediene v 2ush 9nemy com!atants are entitled to eaningful o!!ortunities to +e heard !y neutral decision makers/ owever, t e e'ecutive aut ority may reduce +urdens !roug t on !y military conflict.
6oore v East Cleveland Cessation of parental rig ts as a eig tened !urden of proof re:uiring clear and convincing cvidence
&C v7 Heller : 6c&onald v Chicago 1 e %nd amendment guarantees an individual@s right to !ossess a firear / owever, it Is not unli ited and regulations imposing condition on t e sale of arms as wells as pro i!itions on/ *+, concealed weapons, *%, possession !y felons and mentally ill, and *(, carrying in sensitive places are presumed to !e legitimate.
Cleveland 2d7 Of Educ7 ' Louder ill " formal earing is not re:uired, as long as t ere is a !reter ination notice, an o!!ortunity to res!ond, and a !ost-ter ination evidentiary hearing.
Strict Scrutiny 1 e law must !e t e least restrictive means to ac ieve a co !elling govern ent interest.
If a funda ental right is infringed upon for all !ersons t en it is a su+stantive due !rocess issue. If infringed upon for a class of !ersons t en it is an e1ual !rotections issue.
6athews v Eldridge In determining t e amount of process due t e court considers/ *+, 1 e interest of t e individual *%, 1 e risk of error t roug procedure *(, 1 e cost and administrative !urden of additional process
5ational 2asis 1 e law must !e rationally related to a legiti ate state interest7
Is t e fetus via+le?
1 e state)s interest in protecting fetal life may su!ersede a wo an;s right to choose/ owever, t ere must !e an exce!tion for the wo an;s health
"S v >illia s If a statute fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence wit fair notice of what is !rohi+ited it is void for vagueness.
Planned Parenthood v Casey "n undue +urden e'ists w en t e purpose or effect of a state law places su+stantial o+stacles in t e way of an a!ortion.
&or ant Co
erce Clause % &ue Process #Procedural. Su+stantive. 'agueness. 5ight to Possess a Firear
S3inner v OG If a fundamental rig t is infringed upon for a class of !ersons t e issue calls for strict scrutiny7
Strict Scrutiny 1 e law must !e t e least restrictive means to ac ieve a co !elling govern ent interest.
&iscri inatory ,ntent 2ust !e s own on t e part of t e government as eit er/ *+, &acial *%, "pplied *(, 2otive
If a funda ental right is infringed upon for all !ersons t en it is a su+stantive due !rocess issue. If infringed upon for a class of !ersons t en it is an e1ual !rotections issue.
,nter ediate Scrutiny 1 e law must !e su+stantially related to an i !ortant govern ent interest.
Slaughterhouse Cases 1 e !ill of rig ts are not privileges and immunities of national citi.ens ip wit in t e conte't of t e +8t amendment.
5ational 2asis 1 e law must !e rationally related to a legiti ate state interest.
5o er v Evans Cases involving gay rights ave t e additional re:uirement of @+ite,A meaning a s owing of discri inatory intent.
City of 2oerne v Flores 1 ere must !e a congruence and !ro!ortionality !etween t e injury to !e prevented and t e means adopted to ac ieve t at end.
-ones v (lfred H 6ayer Co Congress may adopt legislation rational related to +adges or incidents of slavery. 1 is includes regulating !ot !rivate and govern ent action.
&ic3erson v "S 6nce a civil right is esta!lis ed under t e constitution Congress cannot degrade t at rig t, !ut can increase t e stringency.
1 e +;t "mendment pro i!its t e state and federal government from denying citi.ens t e right to vote !ased on race, color, or previous condition of servitude
8riswold v CT =sed t e <t as justification for t e rig t to privacy under t e )Eth a end ent;s due !rocess clause.
5e edial Theory
City of 2oerne v Flores >emedial t eory, limits Congress?s ( end )E Sec D aut ority to enforcing only t ose rig ts recogni.ed !y t e $upreme Court.
2an on Slavery #( end )0$ % E1ual Protections #( end )E$ % 5ight to 'ote #( end )D$ % "nenu erated 5ights #( end F$
(ssisted Suicide Was*ingt%n v Gl)c's8erg P ysician assisted suicide is not a fundamental rig t under t e due process clause.
Is t ere a legiti ate clai of entitle ent via statute, employment contract or custom?
Funda ental Li+erty ,nterests % Non-funda ental Li+erty ,nterests % Pro!erty ,nterests
Executive Privilege
"S v Nixon Presidential communications must !e made availa!le in a criminal case if t e prosecution demonstrates a need for t e information
Twilight Hone 1 e action is invalid if it interferes wit t e operation or power of anot er !ranc .
Is it a civil case?
Cheney v "S &ist7 Ct In civil cases t e e'ecutive !ranc es decision will !e given greater deference !ecause t e need for information is weig tier in criminal cases
Clinton v City of NI 1 e president cannot refuse !art of a +ill and approve t e rest !ecause it violates t e Presentment Clause/ owever, t ey can veto the entire +ill.
&a es : 6oore v 5egan 1 e president as t e aut ority to settle claims against foreign powers
"S v Curtis->right 1 e nationa government as a w ole and president as plenary foreign affairs powers.
Poc3et 'eto
Historical (rgu ents &ramer)s Intent, 1radition, Contemplated Balues and Natural Law
Policy
Executive Orders % Executive Privilege % Present ent Clause #'eto Power$ % Treaty Power % Foreign (ffairs Power