-the history of this clause was to prohibit the gov?t from building a U.S. church.
-the tax-payer has standing if he can allege the money is being spent for something that is forbidden in the constitution.
-the question is how strict will the ct. be in limiting the tax-payer?s ground?
VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE v. AMERICANS FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
-the only people who can object to federal spending are the people not receiving the money because they suffer the injury.
-the gov?t was giving property (not money) to the seminary.
-plaintiffs claim violation of Establishment Clause. Use the two prong test from Flast.
-the plaintiff is objecting to the spending of the tax revenue.
-have to allege a violation of constitution.
-ct. says the tax-payer has no standing.
-it is not a Congressional Act, it is an executive agency that is giving them the property
-it has nothing to do with spending authority. It is distribution of property under the Property Clause.
-It is not the same thing as pure spending which would violate the Establishment Clause.
U.S. v. HAYES
-plaintiff claims redistricting is a violation of the equal protection law. If you live in that district, you are adversely affected.
*a person can go into federal ct. and get a declaratory judgement that an abortional act is unconstitutional, if the case is ripe enough.
-an organization wanting an injunction against a spy following it at public meetings is an unripe case, no case or controversy present, only a threat of an unspecified harm.
Mootness: a genuine case or controversy can turn into a moot case, when the remedy has no affect on the litigant. Ex. Roe v. Wade.
-A moot case in prudential power will not take.
-The mootness doctrine is mitigated if:
1. The case is capable of repetition but evading review or
2. The same litigants are present but it is evading review to the same litigants.
The federal courts do not have the power to hear a case just because it is in Article III. Affirmative congressional action and enumeration in Article are needed to grant federal courts jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is limited to case or controversy w/ standing and injury.
=JUSTICIABILITY
The doctrine of capable of repetition but evading review, allows the court to rule on Roe v. Wade.
This is all within the prudential discretion of the supreme court.
Doctrine: Adequate and independent state ground for the state?s decision, then there?s no ground for the Supreme ct. to take the case other than for a federal question.
Ex. Gun seizure violates the 4th Amend. Of N.Y. Const. & U.S. const.
The State court can interpret its own constitution to give greater weight than that of the U.S. const, prosecutor still loses on N.Y. cons.
-Sup. Ct. cannot say the Ct. of Appeals interpretted the N.Y. const. wrong, unless it?s interpretation violates the U.S. constitution. Ct. of appeals can grant more rights, not less.
-11th Amend. Took away fed. Cts power to have jurisdiction of state v. state, cit. Of state v. other state, etc.
-This was changed by article III in EX PARTE v. YOUNG
EX PARTE v. YOUNG
-R.R. v. the state in fed. Ct. This is not an action against the state of Minnesota, the atty. General of Minnesota.
-therefore it may proceed in federal ct. w/an injunction for violation of 14th amend. ?no state shall deny?, not atty. General. Supreme ct. doesn?t care.
-As long as the individual is named and not the state ( hence state agency), you will get into federal ct, as long as the remedy you seek is an INJUCTION!!!!
Enabling clause of the 14th Amend. ? grants authority to Congress to legislate under the Equal Protection Clause. It tells the states not to discriminate on the basis of gender.
-it was ratified by the states. Its OK to sue in fed. Ct. for an action under the 14th amend. For money.
-Congress passes overtime law to states. States claim that the 11th am. Was passed before the Commerce clause Art. 1 ? 8, therefore the clause is limited by the 11th Amendment.
PENNSYLVANIA v. UNION GAS – as long as Congress?s intent makes it clear that the state court is to bring its claim in federal ct. in the legislation.
SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA – now Congress says no, overrules Penn v. Union Gas.
-Congress?s commerce clause is stopped by the 11th amend. for suing in fed. Ct. for money.
-Pass a federal statute that under the commerce clause an injured citizen can sue the state in state ct.
-States have sovereign immunity, states cannot be sued without their consent . This doctrine pre-existed the Constitution.
ALDEN v. MAINE – for the state sovereign immunity.
Political question cases- political process and voting, political remedy.
-a fed ct. cannot take political question cases.
NIXON v. U.S. – federal judges have tenure for life, they have to be impeached to be removed.
-Nixon charged with false statements under oath. Went to prison and still collected his salary.
-Congress appointed a committee, not the whole senate to investigate.
-Art. I- Senate shall have the sole power to impeach.
- Sup. Ct. said it?s a politcal question, and cannot get involved.
- Policy ? cts. Should not get involved if judges get impeached.
POWEL v. McCORMACK – there is a textual commitment in the const. to another branch in Art. I
-Political question, Art. 1 ?5 , the House shall judge the qualifications of its members Art. I ?2 re: age,
citizenship, and residency.
-Political question = 1. Textual commitment shown in none of the business of fed. ct. ?
2.Baker v. Carr- underepresentation of the legislative districts with differing population
violates the equal protection law.
Remedy – is that the districts have to be redrawn.
- it was for the legislature and not the judge to redraw
- no judicially mangeable standards ( ultimately the ct. can manage this)
- issue an order to legislature to redistrict
- not a political question. 1 person 1 vote. Same number of people in each district.
Political Question: 1. the time the amendment was passed.
3. can the pres. decide that a treaty is no longer in effect. Recognition power of the
president to recognize a foreign country.
4. The training of the National guard, power of Congress textually committed.
5. Power of Congress in deciding the jurisdiction of the fed. cts. Congress can take away
appellate jurisdiction from the sup. ct. Art. III with such exceptions as Congress may make.
EXPARTE v. McCARDLE (1869) ? McCardle is a writer. Pass a law removing military cases from the jurisdiction of sup. ct. or federal ct.
-Lower fed. cts were never given appellate jurisdiction by Congress in regards to Criminal cases.
- Congress can take away and/or grant to the lower fed. cts. (districts & circuit cts.), because they were not necessary, but created by Congress under Art. III.
-Certioriari is limited to two attempts.
- In cases between two states, the sup. ct. gives the case to a special master in a trial with original jurisdiction.
***Can congress take away all appellate jurisdiction? The ct. will say it would be unconstitutional. Congress can seek help from the Pres. to take away a judges salary.
-Sup. ct. first met in N.Y. in 1719.
-In 1920 Certioriari was created. Gave sup. ct. the right to choose whether they wanted to hear. Exception, they had to hear all appellate cases.
-1988, now they decide what they want to hear.
1. When the decision has a consequence of general significance, not only affects one individual.
2. When there is a split in the federal circuits for the need of uniformity.
-The rule of 4: If four justices think a case is important enough to be heard, it will be heard. But the other five can revoke as improvidently granted and not hear the case.
B.Struggle between Federal v. State
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: Senate and the House of Representatives
-states feared losing sovereignty.
-congress can regulate for the general welfare.
-can?t do anything that would violate the const. of N.Y.S.
*What if the state const. violated the U.S. const.?
-fed. gov?t ?s power is enumerated in a list-confines/limits its power.
-the states can violate the U.S. const. by only one way.
-congress can violate the const. in two ways:
1. violate the express provisions in const.
2. passing a law which is not forbidden in const. but is beyond its enumerated powers.
-Art. I (1) & I (8)-Congress? power to tax and spend for the general welfare, not REGULATE.
-all other powers must be found in the enumeration.
-Bill of Rights- limit Congress? powers, list of things Congress can?t do to the states.
-the 9th and 10th amend. reserve power to the states.
McCULLOUGH v. MARYLAND
-Congress charters a federal bank of the U.S. run by private individuals, which lends money to state banks.
- state legislatures decide to tax the bank $15,000.00 a year. McCullough was the cashier.
- holding: state cound not tax bank of the U.S. ( a federal bank)
- The supremacy clause Art. VI (2), federal laws are supreme, superior to state laws.
- the state claimed that it has to be a constitutional law of the U.S. not an enumerated authority.
- Marshall says ?necessary and proper? clause Art. I (18)
- state says that is a limitation on federal power, since ?necessary?= absolutely necessary.
- Marshall defines ?necessary? as convenient, useful. Also, ?absolutely necessary is found elsewhere in the constitution, therefore, necessary=necessary, helpful.
- Was it const. to create a bank of U.S. ? Yes.
- must be able to link a federal law to an enumrated power.
Commerce Clause: a clear grant of enumerated power, under Art. I ?8 (d) 3
GIBBONS v. ODGEN ? Odgen, an assignee of Fulton?s right to navigate.
-N.Y. state law gave Fulton monopoly over the seas, control of trade.
- Gibbons tried to sail from N.Y. to N.J.
- engaged in interstate commerce.
- state gov?t can?t control interstate commerce, only the fed. gov?t can regulate int. comm.
- N.Y. was infringing upon fed. power, under Art. I ?8.
- commerce does not only mean buying and selling of goods. It also means intercourse between two states.
1. The mere grant of power to Congress over commerce means that the state is deprived of any power to regulate.
2. Gibbons had a federal license for interstate waters. State law does not supercede fed. law under supremacy clause.
*Suppose there was no federal law or license, then is N.Y. state free to stop Gibbons?
-ct says no. The commerce clause pre-empts any N.Y. law, even though congress has taken no
action to enact it. The mere existence of c.c. deprives the states of that power.
- The dormant commerce clause and state power over interstate commerce.
- states have always had the right to pass inspection laws for diseases. This is not motivated by money, but by the protection of the general welfare.
*if manufacturing is local, then there is no fed. regulation. (ex. mining, no fed . regulation.)
Lottery Cases:CHAMPION v. AMES
-federal law that prohibits the shipment of lottery tickets from state to state=interstate commerce
-Is Congress? power to prohibit w/in regulation of interstate commerce?
-ct. says yes, it is the same thing. Regulations all include prohibitions.
-trying to stop people from gambling (pestulance), corrupting the morals of the people.
Public Policy: gambling has a bad moral purpose.
HOUSTON, EAST & WEST TEXAS v. U.S.
-congress fixed the rates of interstate railroads.
- common market for U.S., no barriers
- the state R.R. co.?s were competing with interstate R.R.?s
- Congress told the state R.R. to raise their rates.
- local activity affects interstate R.R.
- substantial economic effect on interstate R.R.
*Congress can?t pass a law that violates the const. or exceeds the power delegated to it. If there is no enumerated power, Congress can?t do it.
-The commerce claus is an enumerated power.
-regulation includes prohibition.
- the interstate transport has to substantially affect interstate commerce, because congress cannot regulate for the general welfare.
*Can congress regulate for the general welfare within the states through the commerce clause?
-Congress can form public policy if it has an enumerated authority (ex. lottery cases & moral effect of gambling.)
HAMMER v. DAGENHART
-child labor & immoral and unfair competition among the states.
-Congress was exceeding its power under the commerce clause.
- in the lottery cases, the tickets were evil in themselves, these goods are harmless clothing.
- Hammer is the U.S. attorney trying to enforce anti-child labor laws.
- Dagenhart was the father of one of the children workers.
- Justice Holmes dissented- the power given to Congress is plenary, regardless of whether the goods are harmless or not.
- the power of commerce is total, even to enforce morality, unless it violates a provision in the constitution.
CARTER v. CARTER COAL
- wages and hours fixed by Congress in the mining industry.
- states claim congress has no authority.
- congress claims wages paid to coal miners has a direct affect on interstate commerce due to labor strikes.
- labor v. employer is w/in local authority
- cause-and-effect not present, no chain of causation
- commodities before interstate commerce has begun, power does not attach.
NLRB v. J & L STEEL
- employer would fire union organizer.
- employer had markets in other states, affecting interstate commerce.
- substantial relationship (effect) on interstate commerce (direct effect not required)
- effect has to be 1. substantial and 2. economic.
In NLRB v. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING- the court looks at the industry, even though the company accounts for less than 1% of mens clothing.
U.S. v. DERBY
- local lumber mill, wages & hours, Federal Labor Standards Act.
- subject to the act if 1. you have employees working on goods intended for interstate commerce, and 2. if you keep those goods out of interstate commerce, if they violate the act.
- the ct. cites Holmes, congress has total power to keep the goods out of interstate commerce, even for a moral reason.
- overruled DAGENHART and CARTER COAL
- can regulate local activities if there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
*can congress pass a law without having the enumerated authority?
-states claim the10th Amend. ? if the powers are reserved to the states, then congress does not have that power.
- the fixing of wages is part of exercising the commerce clause.
- mere fact that the state has the authority, does not mean congress does not.
WICKARD v. FILHEIM
- agricultural adjustment act re: wheat. Gov?t limited the amount of wheat produced.
- if a farmer produced a surplus, there?s a penalty.
- the ct. upheld the act, wheat prices drop due to the surplus.
- limiting the amount of wheat increases the market price.
- farmer?s surplus not intended for interstate commerce, for family and animal use.
- farmer not buying any wheat, not a purchaser.
- non-purchase substantially affects interstate commerce.
- he is a member of a class of farmers who have a surplus.
*Congress has fixed rent control after the war.
RICO case-based on commerce clause. Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations=federal offense.
PEREZ v. U.S.
- loan shark racket ? ?extortionate extension of credit?, method of collection=violence
- unlawfully high interest rates.
- states have the power to regulate
- congress used the commerce clause, organized crime has an effect on commerce.
- loan sharks as a class.
*Food and Drug Acts passed through the commerce clause. Mislabeling of drugs.
-druggist misbranding.
- once in interstate commerce, congress?s power attaches, even if it?s movement has rested in one state.
- furthest possible reaches of authority under the commerce clause.
Discrimination
-states with no discriminatory laws.
-Congress? primary motive is morality
-enumerated authority is the commerce clause.
HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S.
-motel discriminated against blacks
-no law in Georgia that requires motel owners to let blacks in.
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 & the Enabling Clause of the 14th Amendment.
- 14th Amendment says ?no state shall deny?, not motel owner, doesn?t help.
- then use the commerce clause, activity affects interstate commerce.
- Location of motel, advertisements, out-of-state travelers affected.
- Black people won?t travel, interstate commerce affected.
KATZENBECH v. McLEUNG
- Ollies Barbeque didn?t seat black people, only through the takeout window.
- Restaurant purchased food from out-of-state
- Class argument, the class is substantial therefore there is a substantial affect.