Article III Section 2: Judicial Review

• Article III Section 2 of the Constitution grants judicial power to federal courts for cases and controversies arising under the Constitution.
• Government action by a federal entity is valid only if authorized by the Constitution.
• Article III authorizes a federal court system with judicial power over "cases and controversies."
• A plaintiff must establish three elements to have standing in federal court: injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
• Ripeness requires a claim to be fully developed before a federal court considers it.
• Mootness requires an actual controversy at all stages of review.

Judicial Review

• Marbury v. Madison established that laws passed by Congress cannot override the Constitution.
• Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, granting the Supreme Court and lower courts the power to declare laws and actions of the executive and legislative branches unconstitutional.
• US government must be based upon the rule of law, with SCOTUS adhering to Article III even when it impacts jurisdiction.
• The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
• Congress cannot pass laws conflicting with the Constitution.
• The judiciary holds the power of judicial review.
• SCOTUS may review laws passed by Congress to determine if the law is consistent with the Constitution.
• Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee establishes that the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to review decisions by state courts that interpret federal law or the Constitution.
• Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts.
• Dartmouth College v. Woodward established that the U.S. Constitution protects private contracts from state interference, thereby limiting state legislatures power over private contracts and corporate charters.
• Charles River Bridge Case ruled that a state's charter to a company for a bridge didn't automatically grant an exclusive right to operate that route, allowing the state to authorize a competing bridge.
• Charles River Bridge Case limited the Contract Clause to restrict state legislative power and paved the way for a more flexible interpretation of contracts with public entities, favoring public interest over private rights.

Federal Legislative Power

• The Constitution grants Congress specific powers, many of which are enumerated in Article I, Section 8, and auxiliary power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
• The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers.
• Article 1 Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress.
• McCulloch v. Maryland established that Congress has the power to charter banks.
• McCulloch v. Maryland established Congress’s implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing it to create a national bank, and states cannot tax federal institutions.
• Priggs v. Pennsylvania established federal law is superior to state law, but states are not required to enforce federal law.
• Priggs v. Pennsylvania involved the Federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes.
• Congress regulates the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and any activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
• Under the Aggregation Doctrine, regulations will be upheld if the court can conceive of a rational basis on which Congress could conclude that the activity in aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce.
• If the regulated intrastate activity is noncommercial & noneconomic, the court generally won’t aggregate its effects.
• Gibbons v. Ogden defined commerce as "every species of commercial intercourse... which concerns more states than one."
• Gibbons v. Ogden established the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce, specifically navigation, by ruling that a state-granted monopoly on steamboat navigation in New York waters was invalid under the Commerce Clause.

Early Judicial Interpretation of Commerce: Rise and Fall

• United States v. E.C. Knight Co. held that the Sherman Antitrust Act could not be used to regulate manufacturing.
• Manufacturing isn’t interstate commerce, so it is outside Congress’s regulatory power under the Commerce Clause.
• Swift & Co. v. United States ruled that the federal government can regulate intrastate activities if they are part of the “stream of commerce” that affects interstate trade.
• Stream of Commerce Doctrine establishes if a local activity is part of a larger flow of goods that moves between states, it can be federally regulated.
• Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States (The Shreveport Rate Cases) held that the federal government can regulate intrastate commerce if it has a "close and substantial relation" to interstate commerce and if regulation is necessary to protect interstate trade.
• Congress (through the ICC) can regulate intrastate railroad rates when necessary to prevent harm to interstate commerce.

Modern Era (Great Depression to the 1990’s)

• A.L.A Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ruled that the federal government could not regulate purely intrastate business under the Commerce Clause if the effect on interstate commerce was indirect.
• NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. held that the federal government can regulate intrastate activities if they have a "close and substantial relation" to interstate commerce, and their regulation is essential to protect that commerce.
• The "close and substantial effects" test became key in Commerce Clause analysis.
• United States v. Darby stated that Congress can regulate wages, hours, and labor conditions under the Commerce Clause, even for companies operating within one state, if their goods enter interstate commerce.
• United States v. Darby overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart and clarified that the 10th Amendment does not limit properly exercised Congressional power.
• Wickard v. Filburn established that Congress can regulate personal, intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause if the activity, in the aggregate, affects interstate commerce.
• Aggregate Effects Doctrine states that Congress can regulate an activity if everyone doing the same thing would have a big economic impact.
• The Aggregate Effects Doctrine broadened the interpretation of the commerce clause.

Prohibiting Interstate Commerce

• Champion v. Ames (The Lottery Case) held that Congress can prohibit the interstate transportation of lottery tickets under the Commerce Clause because they are items of commerce.
• Established that the Commerce Clause allows prohibitory regulation, not just economic or transactional regulation.
• Hammer v. Dagenhart ruled that Congress cannot prohibit the interstate shipment of goods made with child labor because production is not commerce, and regulation of labor is a state power. OVERTURNED by US v. Darby.

Civil Rights and the Commerce Clause

• Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US held that Congress can ban racial discrimination in public accommodations.
• Established that discrimination in lodging affects interstate travel and commerce.
• Katzenbach v. McClung held that Congress can ban discrimination in small local restaurants if they buy goods from out of state.
• Katzenbach v. McClung reinforces aggregate effects test and expands Civil Rights Act enforcement to small local businesses.

The Re-Emergence and Retreat of Commerce Clause Limitations

• Perez v. United States permitted Congress to regulate loan sharking under the Commerce Clause.
• United States v. Lopez ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
• Morrison v. United States ruled that gender-motivated violence is not an economic activity and thus cannot be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
• Gonzales v. Raich held that Congress can regulate homegrown medical marijuana under the Commerce Clause.
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruled that Congress can’t force people to engage in commerce to regulate them.

Other Congressional Powers

• Congress can tax, and most taxes will be upheld if they bear some reasonable relationship to revenue production.
• Congress cannot tax in a way that infringes on constitutional rights.
• Congress can spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare.
• Congress can condition federal funding to indirectly regulate.
• NFIB v. Sebelius - Congress cannot require individuals to engage in commerce via the Commerce Clause.
• NFIB v. Sebelius - The penalty for not buying insurance is a valid tax
• NFIB v. Sebelius - Congress cannot coerce states into expanding Medicaid by threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding.
• Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922) (Child Labor Tax Case) ruled a federal tax on companies employing child labor was unconstitutional because it was a penalty, not a true tax.
• Limited Congress’s ability to use the taxing power as a backdoor to regulate areas it otherwise couldn’t.
• United States v. Butler (1936) ruled that the Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional.
• Court decided that Congress can’t use spending to regulate matters reserved to the states.
• Missouri v. Holland (1920) stated Congress can pass legislation to implement valid international treaties.
• Strengthens federal power under the Treaty Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Dormant Commerce Clause & State Regulations of Commerce

• The Dormant Commerce Clause states that states can’t pass laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce, even if Congress hasn’t acted.
• Wilson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co. ruled Delaware’s authorization of a dam did not violate the Commerce Clause
• A state law is valid unless it conflicts with federal law or unduly burdens interstate commerce.
• Cooley v. Board of Wardens states may regulate certain aspects of interstate commerce like pilotage if the subject allows for diverse local regulation and Congress has not acted to preempt.
• Subjects either require national uniformity or are handled at the local/state level.
• City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey ruled New Jersey law banning the importation of out-of-state waste violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.
• A state can’t discriminate against interstate commerce, even if the motive is good.
• Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n held a facially neutral law that eliminates a competitive advantage of out-of-state businesses violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.
• South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros ruled state law limiting truck size/weight on highways is valid.
• Even if it affects interstate commerce, a state law is okay if it’s genuinely about safety and not about discriminating or protecting in-state interests.
• Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. found that Iowa’s law banning most 650foot trucks violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.
• Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. applied the Pike Balancing Test: Small local benefit < heavy burden on interstate commerce.
• Granholm v. Heald held that State laws discriminated between in state and out of state wineries.

Intro to Federalism: The Supremacy Clause & Preemption

• Exclusive Federal Powers are defined under federalism.
• 10th Amendment outlines Exclusive State Powers.
• Congress may regulate the states as long as it's exercising an enumerated power but can't compel the states to most specific legislation.
• The Supremacy Clause states federal law is the supreme law of the land.
• Express Preemption: Federal law expressly prevents state law when it expressly prohibits state regulation in the same area.
• Implied Preemption: Federal law implicitly prevents state law when Congress intended for the federal law to occupy the entire field.

Separation of Powers

• Article II, Section I of the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the President
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established the implied powers of the President with a 3 tiered framework.
• Presidential action where Congress is silent: Courts will evaluate
• When the president’s actions are against the express or implied will of Congress: action is likely invalid

President’s Enumerated Powers – Domestic Powers

• Pardon Power: The POTUS has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the US. Only federal crimes, not state crimes.
• Veto Power: The POTUS can veto any bill presented to him by Congress, using normal veto or pocket veto
• Pocket Veto: the POTUS does nothing; after 10 days, if Congress is in session, it automatically becomes a bill; if not, it's vetoed.
• Line Item Veto: Can’t veto some parts of the bill, all or nothing
• Appointment Power: The POTUS appoints ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, and all offices of the US with the advice and consent of the Senate.
• Removal Power: The POTUS can remove executive officers without cause and congressional approval.

President’s Foreign Powers:

• Commander in Chief: The POTUS can take certain military powers
• Treaty Power: The POTUS has the power to negotiate treaties
• Executive Agreements: The POTUS has the power to enter into executive agreements with foreign nations without congressional power.

Presidential Accountability:

• Impeachment: Under Article II, Section 4, the POTUS, VP, and all civil officers of the US shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes, and misdemeanors.
• Doesn’t have to be criminal; it can be an abuse of power.
• Civil Officers are high-ranking presidential appointees.
• The House of Rep. may impeach an officer by a MAJORITY vote, and the Senate tries the officer, and 2⁄3 vote is needed for conviction.
• Executive Privilege: Can POTUS be compelled to disclose information he deems confidential and contrary to the public interest?
• In criminal proceedings, absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the POTUS’s generalized interest in preserving the confidentiality of his communications is outweighed by the court’s need for evidence in a criminal case (US v. Nixon).
• Executive privilege survives the POTUS’s term of office
• POTUS has absolute immunity in civil suits for damages caused by official acts
• POTUS has NO immunity in civil suits for damages caused by unofficial acts
• POTUS is not above the law and cannot use executive privilege to block a criminal investigation or prosecution without compelling justification.
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) held that the President cannot seize private property without Congressional authorization, even during wartime.
• The President cannot make law, only execute it.
• United States v. Nixon (1974) found that the president's claim of executive privilege must yield to the demands of due process in a criminal investigation.
• The president has a qualified privilege to keep certain communications confidential, especially in national security or diplomatic matters.
• That privilege must yield to the demands of due process and the rule of law, especially in a criminal investigation.

Presidential Immunities

• Trump v. United States (2024) - Former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers.
• Presumptive immunity for other official acts, which can be rebutted under certain circumstances and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Separation of Powers and Foreign Policy

• United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) The President has broad, inherent powers in foreign affairs.

Individual Rights, Incorporation, and the State Action Doctrine

• The 1st Amendment is applied to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause through the Incorporation Doctrine.
• The Equal Protection Clause, which applies to the states, is applied to the federal government through the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause.
• Incorporation Doctrine: Legal doctrine through which the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause makes most of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
• Done through selective incorporation, meaning rights are applied one by one based on whether they are fundamental to liberty or justice.
• The Incorporation Doctrine is the legal principle that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment makes (or “incorporates”) most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
• The test: Is the right “fundamental to the American scheme of justice”?
• Barron v. Baltimore (1833) ruled that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, not to state or local governments.
• Overruled in effect by the 14th Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine.
• Baronn is why the incorporation doctrine exists: the Court eventually reversed this idea by using the 14th Amendment to apply rights to the states.
• Whitney v. California (1927) upheld California’s law criminalizing association with groups advocating violence and speech that has a bad tendency can be restricted.
• Judge Brandeis said - “Only an emergency can justify repression. Only the serious threat of imminent harm can excuse the suppression of free speech.”

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment

• Section 1 of the 14th Amendment - No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”
• The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only limited rights of national citizenship, not broader civil rights or economic liberties.
• The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) said this clause protects only a small set of rights that come from being a U.S. citizen.
• It doesn’t protect fundamental civil rights, like the right to work, own property, or due process. Those were considered state-level rights.
• The Privileges or Immunities Clause only protects a narrow category of rights tied to national citizenship, not broad civil or economic liberties.
• The right to work as a butcher was state-regulated, not a federally protected one.

Substantive Due Process and Fundamental Rights

• Lochner v. New York (1905) found that New York law limiting bakery workers’ hours violated the “liberty of contract” protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
• Frank v. Mangum (1915) ruled that a conviction obtained in a mob-influenced trial did not violate due process if the defendant had access to state legal remedies.
• Moore v. Dempsey (1923) determined that mob influence and lack of a fair trial violated due process, and federal courts could intervene in such state convictions via habeas corpus.
• State criminal convictions obtained in mob-dominated trials violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
• Gitlow v. NY (1925) addressed 1st Amendment protection from state infringement.
• Gitlow v. NY (1925) resulted in the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause applying to the states through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
• Issue: Does the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech apply to the states through the 14th Amendment?
• Selective Incorporation begins: This was the first time the S. Ct. explicitly said that the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause applies to the states.

Modern Substantive Due Process ‘Economic and Social Welfare Legislation’

• Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson (1942) resulted in Oklahoma’s sterilization law being found to have violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating similarly situated people unequally and infringing on a fundamental right.
• Justice Douglas noted – “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man… There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches.”
• Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955) determined that a state law regulating the optical industry did not violate the 14th Amendment.
• Rational Basis Test: The law will be upheld as long as it serves any conceivable legitimate purpose.
• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) found that a law banning contraception use by married couples violated the constitutional right to privacy.
• Justice Douglas explained that various amendments (1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, & 9th) create “penumbras”—or zones of privacy—that together protect marital privacy from state interference.
• Unlike Lochner, which focused on liberty of contract, Griswold introduced a personal liberty grounded in individual autonomy and dignity.
• Loving v. Virginia (1967) states that bans on interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
• The law explicitly classified citizens based on race, which triggers strict scrutiny.
• The court found no legitimate purpose for the law other than racial discrimination.

Due Process

• Substantive Due Process is a legal doctrine that says the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments protect certain fundamental rights, not just fair procedures.
• Under Substantive Due Process, courts ask, “Is the law itself fair, just, and constitutional, even if passed through proper procedures?”
• The right must be fundamental, deeply rooted in history and tradition and essential to liberty.
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) stated that Congress could not ban slavery in U.S. territories.
• West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) found that Washington’s minimum wage law for women did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Fundamental Rights

• Stromberg v. California (1931) found that a California law banning red flags as symbols of opposition to government violated the 1st Amendment.
• Powell v. Alabama (1932) says right to counsel in capital cases; due process.
• Norris & Patterson (1935) determined that the exclusion of Black jurors violates equal protection.
• Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) clarified that the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
• Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) involved public schools requiring students to salute the flag, even if it conflicts with religious beliefs.
• The Court emphasized the importance of fostering patriotism, especially with global tensions rising before WWII.
• West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) states the 1st Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
• “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion…”.
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) says The 6th Amendment right to counsel is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.
• Reynolds v. United States (1879) involved federal ban on polygamy did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.
• Timbs v. Indiana (2019) resulted in an 8th Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause being incorporated through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
• It limits states' power to impose civil asset forfeitures and grossly disproportionate financial punishments.

The Takings Clause

• Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) decided that a regulation that destroys a property right or severely limits its use may qualify as a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
• The Takings Clause 5th Amendment: “...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
• A regulation that goes “too far” in diminishing the use or value of property constitutes a taking and requires just compensation.
• “While property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.”

Free Exercise Clause

• Sherbert v. Verner (1963) found that Denying unemployment benefits to a woman who refused to work on her Sabbath violated the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) determined that requiring Amish children to attend school past 8th grade violated the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.
• Employment Division v. Smith (1990) decided that the Free Exercise Clause does not require exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws, even if they burden religious practices.
• The Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions from neutral laws and generally applicable.