Go on. Explore!

lvl 0 • 0 xp

lvl 1

Home Market Decks Interests

Law

memorize.ai (lvl 286)

(0)

42 cards

()

Section 1

Preview this deck

Case Brief (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)

Front

1 / 42

Government Law Politics

0.0

0 reviews

5			0
4			0
3			0
2			0
1			0

Active users

All-time users

Favorites

Last updated

6 years ago

Date created

Mar 14, 2020

Cards (42)

Section 1

(42 cards)

Case Brief (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)

Front

Court held that a Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th amendment. Liberty protects the person from unwarranted gov't intrusions. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

Back

(Gonzales v. Raich) *IRAC

Front

I:Can Congress create a law that disallows a person to grow marijuana for strictly personal personal medicinal use? R: Commerce Clause (Article 1, Sec. 8) A: Even local actions which cause any type of effect on commerce that could be seen as national are reachable by the Congress and its laws. Though the growing of personal marijuana may seem harmless, there is a market nationally for medicinal marijuana and his personal growth of it affects the market that he is no longer drawing from and thus causing a loss of business. C: Congress' law is upheld and Gonzales cannot grow his own personal marijuana because it affects the national market for medicinal marijuana

Back

Trial Courts

Front

Make factual determination based on the presentation of evidence and apply est. legal principles to resolve disputes

Back

Writ of habeas corpus

Front

Common law device that people can use to challenge the legality of arrest or imprisonment

Back

Two basic components of American Constitutional law

Front

-Institutional dimension: issues of presidential, congressional, judicial power, questions of state vs. national authority, problems of interstate relations -Civil rights/civil liberties: claims of personal freedom and legal and political equality

Back

Stewardship theory

Front

Do anything that the needs of the nation demands unless such action is forbidden by the constitution or the laws

Back

Case Brief (Adderely v. Florida, 1966)

Front

Court held that the sheriff had the power to direct petitioners off the ground bc a jail facility is not a public forum therefore the state may regulate the use of its property. The constitution does not forbid a state to control the use of its own property for its own non-discriminatory purposes.

Back

Powers of Congress

Front

-Enumerated: written out powers in Art. 1 sec. 8 and Art. 3 -Implied powers: necessary and proper clause

Back

Case Brief (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824)

Front

Ogden brought lawsuit seeking an injunction to restrain Gibbons from operating steam ships on NY waters in violation of exclusive privilege. Supreme Court held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by commerce clause.

Back

United States v. Lopez *IRAC

Front

First Supreme Court Decision to squander the power of the Commerce Clause since the New Era -Law based on the fact that guns in schools deters children from attending school which creates dumber citizens which hurts the economy and commerce • Issues at hand ○ Commerce Clause § Congress has the power to regulate ___ of/to interstate commerce under the commerce clause 1) Channels a) Stock Market, free market, etc. 2) Instrumentalities a) Person's wages, salaries, lunch breaks... etc. b) Things, goods, materials used, etc. 3) Substantial Relation/Effect a) Direct economic impacts based on actions, views, practices ○ Federal Law - no guns in school. ○ Lopez (12th grade student) brings a handgun to school with 5 bullets § Arrested and charged against Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. ○ United States' Congress Stance § This gun law is protected by the commerce clause in zone 3, Substantial Relation/Effect ○ Lopez' stance § No its not. • Courts Response/Decision ○ In the third zone of the commerce clause... § The Substantial Relation/Effect must be Economic. § Guns in Schools is not an Economic issue! § Therefore, Congress cannot defend this law upon the base of the commerce clause.

Back

Mechanisms for which supreme court reviews cases (3)

Front

-Certification (federal appeals court formally asks supreme court to certify part of law) -Appeal by right (court must rule on the merits of appeal) -Writ of certiorari (file a petition of certiorari)

Back

Appellate courts

Front

Exist to correct legal errors made by trail courts and to settle controversies about disputed legal principles

Back

Case Brief (Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 1937)

Front

Charles Steward Machine Company brought suit to challenge the requirement that firms with 8 or more employees pay a 1% payroll tax as partial funding for social security. Supreme Court upheld the unemployment compensation provisions of the Social security act of 1935. Act est. a national taxing structure designed to induce states to adopt laws for funding and payment of unemployment compensation. Signaled the Court's acceptance of a broad interpretation of Congressional power to influence state laws.

Back

Constitutional theory

Front

Exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonable traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied

Back

New York Times v United States (1971)

Front

• Pentagon employee, Dan Ellsberg, leeks documents about US decision making about Vietnam to the New York Times and the Times publishes the documents • The United States asks the Times to stop publishing and surrender the classified documents • Because the issue was about freedom of press and speech against the content the trial was tried under STRICT SCRUTINY • the Supreme Court agreed with the two lower courts, which had originally decided that the government had not met its "heavy burden" of showing a justification for a prior restraint • Majority opinions included different degrees of support for the clear superiority of the First Amendment and no Justice fully supported the government's case Case Brief (New York Times v. US, 1971): supreme court held that the gov't failed to meet the burden of proof needed to justify a prior restraint of expression when attempting to enjoin the NYT and Washington Post from publishing contents of a classified study. Gov't must show that publication would cause a "grave and irreparable" danger. • I: Can the Supreme Court issue an order to cease publishing of Top Secret Documents when Congress has already refused to do so? • R: 1st Amendment free speech and expression • A: If it were a time of war the act of this form of expression were to cause great damage to the nation as a whole then the free expression of an individual would be seen as less important than the damage done to the whole. However, as Congress has chosen not to stop this speech (which is within its powers) then the Supreme Court will not stop this form of expression. • C: The papers are allowed to continue publishing the papers as they wish • Papers were leaked in '71, after Vietnam was already over. The papers were still classified, however. Serious political ramifications - there were rogue units and killings that were never investigated.

Back

Marbury v. Madison (1803) *IRAC

Front

Facts: -*Gave the Supreme Court the Power to strike down law passed by Congress -Following the change of power in the elections of 1800 from Federalist to Jeffersonian Republican the lame duck Congress and Adams passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 to create more positions for Federalist judges -One of these federalist judges failed to receive his commission in time for inauguration and never received his seat at the bench -This resulted in suit filed against James Madison asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus -In the opinion John Marshall, the Chief Justice, ruled that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and the action taken by the Jefferson Administration was wrong to deny him -BUT he ruled that the court could not issue a writ of mandamus because the provision added to Section 13 of the Constitution was unconstitutional, because it expanded their jurisdiction Issue: A Federalist judge failed to receive his commission this resulted in suit filed against James Madison asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus Rule of Law: Supreme Court can issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted to the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding the office Analysis: The court must demonstrate that they have original jurisdiction in this trial and that the par Conclusion: The rule is discharged on the basis that original jurisdiction with a writ of mandamus is unconstitutional Marshall's Opinion: "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited and that those limits many not be mistaken or forgotten the Constitution is written" "The constitution is wither a superior paramount law, unchangeable bt ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative act, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it" "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"

Back

Case brief (Employment Division v. Smith, 1990)

Front

Court held that the free exercise clause permits the state to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus deny employment benefits to person discharged for such use. Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the free exercise clause of 1st amendment.

Back

Case Brief (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819)

Front

Maryland put tax on all banks not chartered by state. McCulloch sued. Congress does have the power to incorporate the bank of the US in pursuance of the Constitution due to the necessary and proper clause (elastic clause) which is an implied power. The state cannot tax the Bank of the US because states do not have the power by taxiation or otherwise to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the US gov't to execute its powers under the Constitution (federal supremacy clause).

Back

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) *IRAC

Front

Facts: -Ogden has a monopoly of steamboat trade in NY and had his buisness impeded on by Gibbon's ferry company between NJ and NY -Ogden files for an injunction against Gibbons in NYS court and WINS -Gibbons takes the case to the federal court system and takes it to the Supreme Court Issue: Defining Commerce as defined by the Commerce clause, Does it include traffic, buying and selling, interchange of commodities, and possibly navigation Rule of Law: "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes" Analysis: Explores the principle of Federalism and the supremacy clause mentioned in Article 6, Section 2 and the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8. Navigation must be defined as a part of commerce as mentioned in the commerce clause Conclusion: Court ruled with Gibbons that NY cannot control the commerce between states and that the law of the constitution trumps the law of the state Marshall's Opinion: "Commerce ins undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more; it is intercourse" - In order for the government to regulate international trade it must be able to control navigation, therefore this power over navigation extends to interstate trade "If this be the admitted meaning of the word, in its application onto foreign nations, it must carry the same meaning throughout the sentence and remain unit"

Back

Case Brief (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 2000)+

Front

Court held that pre-game prayer forces audiences to participate in religion. It violates the est. clause of 1st amendment. Pre-game invocations are not private speech bc they are authorized by the gov't policy and take place on gov't property at a gov't sponsored event. •Application of the Lemon Test to Santa Fe v. Doe: oPrayer at the beginning of the game; fails to be non-religious oAdvances religion oSanta Fe school district provided the venue for the prayer to occur. Spend government money to support religion, prayer had to be turned in advance and approved by the principal, ran the election of student chaplain, used school time, recognized it as an official position, gave the student chaplain a desk in the school religious endorsement oTeams can't leave, cheerleaders, concessions workers, etc. - captive audience

Back

Case Brief (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012)

Front

Obamacare. Law requires citizens not covered by a corporate plan or have insurance to buy into a federally approved plan or face a penalty imposed by federal gov't. The provision that violates the 10th amendment is the part that the federal gov't withdraws all Medicad funding unless state admeres to the parameters of the Act's Medicaid expansion program. The taxing penalty is constitutional based on the taxing powers of congress and that taxing "inactivity" is a legit power of congress.

Back

Lemon Test

Front

"Lemon Test" Establishment Analysis: 1. The law must have a legitimate secular (non-religious) purpose. 2. The law's principle effects neither advance nor inhibit religion. 3. The law must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." If YES to all: Law is valid If NO to any: Law is invalid

Back

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 IRAC

Front

I: Is separate actually equal? R: Plessy v. Fergusson and 14th Amendment A: Separate is inherently unequal. The past decision that schools could be separated by race is seen as invalid as by creating separate schools, even if the facilities were equal in all aspects, the separation creates and inherent feeling of inequality between the separated. C: All schools must become integrated between all races and genders

Back

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Penn. V. Casey, 1992 IRAC

Front

I: Can the state require a woman seeking an abortion to notify certain persons about the abortion? R: Right to privacy A: A person's body is their own personal interest and should be allowed privacy. The act of abortion is already covered in Roe v Wade and seen as constitutional. All the statutes are constitutional as they have substantial safety concerns behind them, except for the spousal notification, which is struck down as unnecessary invasion of privacy. C: All statutes except spousal notification are upheld and Roe v. Wade is reaffirmed oCasey regulations that passed as constitutional: waiting period, parental consent, informed consent (see doctor), reported (federal record); spousal notification did not pass

Back

Limits access to judicial review (6)

Front

-Standing -Moot -Ripeness -Exhaustion -Doctrine -Political Question

Back

Case Brief (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003)

Front

Court held that the law school admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain minority did not violate the 14th amendment bc it was determined that race was only one of many factors considered to determine the applicant's eligibility. Schools have a compelling interest in having diverse student bodies.

Back

Smith Test

Front

"Smith Test" (free exercise): - General applicable law (neutral with religion) - Legit secular purpose (does not target religion) - If one fails then apply strict scrutiny; If YES to both: Law is valid; If NO to both: Law is invalid

Back

5 Fundamental Principles of Constitution

Front

-Rule of law -Separation of powers -System of checks and balances -Federalism (division of power btw national and state gov't) -Individual rights

Back

Koramatsu v. United States (1944) *IRAC

Front

Facts: -following Pearl Harbor FDR issued an executive order relocating Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to the interior -2,400+ killed at Pearl Harbor -War declared against Japan day after Pearl Harbor on 8 DEC 1941 -specific individuals focused on located near strategic points (naval, army, air force bases) Issue: Is the order to relocate the Japanese citizens unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Rule of Law: Any legal restrictions which curtail civil rights of single ration groups are immediately suspect (strict scrutiny review) Analysis: Government must conclusively demonstrate a compelling state interest to pass strict scrutiny review. Compulsory exclusion, through constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril" Conclusion: Relocation order is not unconstitutional because government had a compelling reason for order (military necessity- protect against espionage)

Back

Case Brief (Korematsu v. United States, 1944)

Front

The exclusion order, that Korematsu violated admittedly and knowingly, was based on the fact that a military commander had reasonable military grounds for promulgating the orders so they are constitutional and that means they are law and court is required to enforce them. However the outcome was reversed in 1983 but the Supreme Court ruling still stands and would need a similar case to arise to overrule previous ruling. Court ruling remains significant bc the court applied strict scrutiny to the case bc it dealt with racial discrimination by the gov't.

Back

NFIB v Sebelius *IRAC

Front

• Issues at hand ○ Individual mandate - penalty ○ Medicaid Expansion § Provided by state governments § 100+50million a year per state ○ Clauses 1) Necessary and Proper 2) Commerce □ You must buy insurance, that becomes a commercial interaction - Here's your interstate commerce 3) Taxing Power • Courts Decision ○ Necessary and Proper -- Reverse (5,4) § Not a means to an end ○ Commerce -- Reverse (5,4) § Cannot support the individual mandate □ Congress cannot use the commerce clause to force people into interstate commerce then attempt to regulate it. ○ Taxing Power -- Affirm (4,5) § Individual mandate was a penalty. § Court -re-labeled it as a tax Now that it is a tax, it is within congressional power

Back

Steward Machine Company v. Davis *IRAC

Front

• Issues at hand ○ Social Security ○ Unemployment Compensation ○ 10th Amendment § Because SS is not an enumerated power, it lies under state sovereignty. • Players ○ Machine Company § Sued to recover payment for taxes paid on the Social Security Act. § Argued that Unemployment compensation does not fall under General Welfare ○ Davis • Court's Decision ○ Unemployment compensation allows for people experiencing cyclical or frictional unemployment to stay afloat in between jobs.

Back

Case Brief (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954)

Front

Court held that "separate but equal" violates the equal protection clause of 14th amendment and is unconstitutional bc separate facilities are inherently unequal. Education in public schools is a right which must be available to all on equal terms.

Back

Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 IRAC

Front

I: Can a state make consensual, homosexual conduct in private illegal? R: Privacy and Bowers v. Hardwick A: A person has the right to privacy in their personal affairs as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. When performing consensual homosexual acts with another consenting person in private, the state has no compelling reason to restrict such an act. C: Law is struck down as unconstitutional and Bowers v. Hardwick is overturned. oThe law cannot dictate with whom/when/how you have sex

Back

Case Brief (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011)

Front

Court held that Phelps and his followers were "speaking" on matters of public concern on public property and thus, were entitled to protection under 1st Amendment. Speech on public issues is entitled to special protection under the 1st amendment bc it serves "the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

Back

Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 IRAC

Front

I: Can Michigan Law create an affirmative action protocol to increase diversity in its school? R: 14th Amendment equal protection A: The school's goal to create more diverse campus and to break down social and racial barriers is seen as substantial reason to create the affirmative action program it has. It is not discriminating against white applicants. C: The program is allowed to continue

Back

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) *IRAC

Front

Facts: -A Bank of the United States was created in1791 and then reestablished in 1816 forming the Second Bank of the United States -Political controversy surrounded the bank resulting in states taking measures to limit its involvement within their borders -Maryland specifically imposed a $15,000 tax on any unchartered bank, which turned out only to be the Bank of the United States -James W. McCulloch, of the Baltimore branch of the national bank, refused to pay this tax and was prosecuted -The trial was sent to the Maryland Court of Appeals and upheld the states tax on the grounds that Congress had no constitutional warrant to charter a nation bank Issue: A State government can tax a federal government organization and if the national bank is constitutional Rule of Law: The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) Analysis: Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause has implied powers that allow them to carry out its legitimate objectives. It must be proven that the national bank is a necessary tool for Congress to fulfill its power to tax, coin and borrow money, and regulate commerce "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional" Conclusion: -The national bank is a necessary tool for Congress to fulfill its power to tax, coin and borrow money, and regulate commerce. The federal government is supreme and control their respective states an not vice versa. Therefore such a tax is unconstitutional Marshall's Opinion -The constitution is not long enough to include all the methods that Congress is allowed to carry out its duties as the commander of the sword and purse -The necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to make law not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to carry out its role in government "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter ad the spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional" "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution; or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land. But where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity, would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department, and to tread on legislative ground. This court disclaims all pretensions to such a power." "The Constitution and the laws make in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them"

Back

Case brief (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Penn. V. Casey, 1992)

Front

Court held that a Penn. Law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the 14th amendment bc it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Other 3 req. were valid

Back

Reasons Congress Taxes

Front

Raise Funds Influencing behavior/policy

Back

Ex Parte McCardle (1869) *IRAC

Front

Facts: -Following the Civil War the Union choose military rule as a primary means for reconstructing the South -William H. McCardle criticized the Reconstruction in the Vicksburg Times and was consequently arrested for interfering with the program -McCardle filed a habeas corpus, Congress passed a law allowing circuit courts to rule on habeas corpus but also deny them, which they subsequently did -McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court then Congress took away the Supreme Courts' appellate jurisdiction for habeas corpus Issue: Congress' ability to try civilians who interfere with the Reconstruction effort, specifically with the use of press Rule of Law: a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was preferred for the unlawful restraint by military force Analysis: The Supreme Court must have jurisdiction in order to try this trial. Because there has been legislation that has been passed that no longer gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction in appealed habeas corpus they cannot continue. Conclusion: The appeal of McCardle is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Back

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Front

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler. The Court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment protected non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction.

Back

Case Brief (US v. Lopez, 1995)

Front

Lopez was arrested for bringing a gun into school zone due to the Gun-Free school zone act of 1990, which made it illegal to bring guns into school zones, and state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged him. But the act exceed Congress commerce clause authority bc the gun in school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might affect interstate commerce. First US supreme court ruling to set limits to congress power under commerce clause.

Back