83023.pdf

8/30/23 1791: One justice (John Rutledge) resigned to take a state judgeship. 1792: Chief Justice Jay ran for the job of governor of New York while on the bench (he lost). It was hard to find someone to initially take the job. 1793: Chisholm v Georgia Background: Alexander Chisholm's property was co...

8/30/23 1791: One justice (John Rutledge) resigned to take a state judgeship. 1792: Chief Justice Jay ran for the job of governor of New York while on the bench (he lost). It was hard to find someone to initially take the job. 1793: Chisholm v Georgia Background: Alexander Chisholm's property was confiscated by Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Chisholm sought compensation and sued Georgia. 1. Issue: Can a citizen sue a state? Georgia's stance: Sovereign states can't be sued without consent. 2. Relevance: Focus on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Clause: Federal courts can hear disputes "between a state and citizens of another state." 3. Decision: Supreme Court: Citizens can sue states based on Article III, Section 2. Counter: 11th Amendment (ratified 5 years later) - U.S. judicial power doesn't extend to suits against states by citizens of another state, overruling the decision. There were other cases related to it. 1798: 11th amendment 1794: Chief Justice Jay was appointed as special ambassador to England and did not return to his seat. Two methods to appoint Chief Justice: 1. Elevate a sitting justice. 2. Select an outsider. 1796: Ware v Hylton Background: Post-Revolutionary War, U.S. and England owed each other money. Treaty of Paris (1783) set for debt repayments. Virginia law later prohibited repayments to England, viewing it as paying an enemy. 1. Issue: Which prevails: Treaty of Paris (national law) or Virginia's prohibition (state law)? 2. Relevance: Focus on national supremacy principle. Conflict between treaties and state laws, referencing Article VI of the Constitution. 3. Decision: Court favored national supremacy. Federal treaties, like the Treaty of Paris, override state laws. Election of 1796 Two factions written in the constitution: Federalists (Nationalists) Alexander Hamilton Wanted a strong national government Democratic-Republicans (state rights) Thomas Jefferson States rights They ran into an issue with the president and vice president being from different parties: People voted for Adams as president and Jefferson as vice president. Article II states that you have to vote for two persons. For the Court: The major case during the Adams administration was Calder v. Bull. The Court didn't have a lot of respect or precedent yet. Calder v. Bull Background: Morrison's will named the Bulls as beneficiaries. Probate court initially denied the Bulls their inheritance. Connecticut law had an 18-month appeal window, which the Bulls missed. Bulls lobbied to retroactively extend the appeal window and won their inheritance on appeal. Calder challenged the retroactive law change as an ex post facto law. Issue: Was the retroactively changed law an ex post facto law? Was the extended appeal window for the Bulls valid? Relevance: Focus on Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, prohibiting ex post facto laws. Question of whether the Connecticut law change violated this clause. Decision: Ex post facto laws apply only to criminal cases, not civil. Connecticut's law change did not violate Article I, Section 9. August 1800 term: the last held in Philadelphia Only 3 justices attended. CJ Ellsworth was named ambassador to France in 1799. The Court was criticized for strong nationalist opinions and for the roles of John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth as ambassadors. The Court was being accused of acting as agents of a Federalist administration. Election of 1800: Federalists: John Adams Charles Pinckney Democratic Republicans: Thomas Jefferson Aaron Burr The vote in the electoral college: 73 votes each for TJ and AB After 36 ballots, TJ was declared the winner on February 11-17, 1801. AH helped swing Federalists to TJ. The "lesser of two evils." February 4 1801 February 11-17 1801 time period it took the m to do that 36 ballots voted March 4 1801 president sworn in took one month for JF to become president Federalist plan to limit hte influence of jeffersonians (aka the DR) Planned to use the lame duck period CJ Ellsworth resigned in 1800- JA named John jay as CJ "no thanks his health & circuit duties Adams named john marshall as chief justice jan 20 1801 Marshall formerly was sec of state senate conirmed marshall jan 27 1801 Point is to show you how fast this all happened, he was sworn in during this one month marshall sworn in before final vote on feb Signifiance? When jefferson is sworn in marshall will still be chief justice Congress passed new legislation Judiciary act of 1801 Background: Federalists, losing power to Democratic-Republicans, aimed to retain influence in the judiciary. Passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 to restructure federal courts and appoint Federalist judges. Key Provisions: Created 42 Justice of the Peace (JP) positions in Washington, D.C. Established 18 federal judgeships, mainly at the district level. Relevance: Seen as a Federalist move to "pack" courts with their judges. Aimed to keep judiciary under Federalist control despite losing other powers. Outcome: Act was short-lived due to counteractions by Jefferson's administration. Highlighted political tactics in judiciary appointments and structure. The Act: Reduced sc from 6 to 5 effective at the next vacancey created 6 new circuit courts, no more circuit riding changed terms june & dec 18 new federal judges, appointed by federalists (for the new 6 courts) 42 new JP positions in DC Mar 2 Appointed to be judge here Mar 3 Didn't get paperwork by midnight Mar 4 1801 they said nope, this is ultimately the cause of marbury v madison Marbury V Madison Background: In John Adams' final days as president, he made "midnight appointments" to secure Federalist influence in the judiciary. William Marbury was appointed justice of the peace but didn't receive his commission before Adams' term ended. Jefferson, the incoming president, told Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commissions. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court, citing Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. 1. Issue: Did Marbury have a right to his commission? Could the court compel Madison to deliver it? 2. Relevance: Focus on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, defining federal courts' jurisdiction. Scrutiny of Judiciary Act's Section 13, allowing certain cases direct access to the Supreme Court. 3. Decision: Marbury deserved his commission. Supreme Court couldn't enforce delivery due to Section 13 of the Judiciary Act being unconstitutional. Established the principle of judicial review. Judicial review 1. Was Marbury entitled to the job? Yes 2. Did the Supreme Court have the authority to issue an order to require it? No Fletcher v. Peck (1810) Background: Land taken by the state due to bribes to regulators. Georgia law later altered the terms of this land acquisition. Issue: Can states rescind contracts? Focus on the land deal and Georgia law's changes. Relevance: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution: "no state shall... impair the obligation of contracts." Known as the Contract Clause. Decision: States cannot rescind contracts. Upheld the Contract Clause in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. Issue: Contract law Article 1 section 10 Decision: GA can't rescind "A contract is a contract" Signifance: The court excercised power to declare a state law unconstitutional the state is not an unconnected soverign but parto f the union Trustees of Dartmouth college v. woodward (1819) Background: 1760s: King's charter established Dartmouth College as a private religious school. 1816: New Hampshire tried to change Dartmouth from private to public, altering the charter to let the governor select trustees. Issue: Could the state modify the 1760s charter, turning Dartmouth from a private to a public institution? Relevance: Case centered on the principle of contracts; the charter was seen as a contract. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution: states can't infringe upon contracts. Decision: Court favored Dartmouth, viewing the charter as a contract. State's charter alteration violated Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. Established that the contract clause applies to both private and public entities. McCulloch v. Maryland Background: 1790s: Hamilton established the first U.S. bank with a 20-year charter. 1816: A second bank was introduced after the first's expiration. 1. Issue: Maryland taxed the national bank; McCulloch (cashier) refused to pay. Was the bank constitutional and could a state tax it? 2. Relevance: Focus on national supremacy principle in Article VI of the Constitution. National law takes precedence over conflicting state law. 3. Decision: Court affirmed the bank's constitutionality, citing Congress's implied powers. States can't tax the federal government, upholding national law's supremacy. Gibbons v. Ogden Background: New York granted a steamship monopoly between New York and New Jersey. Both Gibbons and Ogden had licenses, but Ogden dominated. 1. Gibbons' Argument: Challenged the monopoly as unconstitutional. Cited Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: Congress's power to regulate commerce. 2. Significance: Interpretation of Article 1, Section 8. Focus on Congress's authority over interstate commerce. 3. Decision: Court favored Gibbons. Stressed Congress's sole right to regulate interstate commerce per Article 1, Section 8. Federal law takes precedence in commerce matters. 1828 - Andrew Jackson elected Different views than previous presidents leads to many constitutional questions Worcester v. Georgia Background: Georgia required non-Native Americans to have a state license to live in Cherokee territory. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, defied this and was arrested. Issue: Could Georgia enforce its laws within Cherokee territory, considering the Cherokee Nation's sovereignty? Relevance: Tension between state laws and Native American nations' rights. Conflict between state laws and federal treaties (Article VI of the Constitution). Decision: Supreme Court recognized Cherokee Nation's sovereignty, invalidating Georgia's laws within Cherokee land. Federal treaties take precedence over conflicting state laws. Not enforced by President Jackson, leading to the "Trail of Tears." John Marshall died in 1835 President Jackson named Roger B Taney as Chief Justice Began term in 1836 Taney was towards states rights while Marshall was more nationalistic Stare Decisis Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Background: 1785: Charles River Bridge Company chartered to build a toll bridge over the Charles River. 1828: State allowed another company to construct the nearby Warren Bridge, which would become toll-free after some years. 1. Issue: Did the Charles River Bridge Company's charter imply a bridge traffic monopoly over the river? Was Warren Bridge's charter violating the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) of the Constitution? 2. Relevance: Balance between public good and private property rights. Interpretation of contracts/charters: implied vs. explicit rights. 3. Decision: Supreme Court favored Warren Bridge. Original charter didn't grant an explicit monopoly to Charles River Bridge Company. States can act for public good unless clear restrictions exist. Marshall & Feds. for larger business Taney & Dems. for smaller Vocab: Litigation, Litigants, Plaintiff, Defendant, Conference , Writ of Certiorari (Cert), Docket, Rule of Four, Oral Arguement New York v. Miln (1837) Background: 1830s: New York law required ship captains to report details of passengers entering the state. Aimed to identify potential public charges to avoid state support for destitute immigrants. Issue: Was New York's law an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce, conflicting with the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8)? Relevance: Balance between state police powers and federal control over interstate commerce. How far can states regulate areas seemingly under federal jurisdiction? Decision: Supreme Court upheld New York's law as a valid state police power exercise. Law focused on state citizens' welfare and didn't directly control interstate commerce. Taney - more states rights; widened "concurrent jurisdiction" Taney Court - ruled for NY state had legitmate interests Briscoe v. Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Background: Kentucky allowed a state bank to issue bank notes as currency. Briscoe contended this was against the Constitution's ban on states emitting bills of credit. Issue: Did Kentucky's bank note issuance violate the Constitution's prohibition on states emitting bills of credit (Article I, Section 10)? Relevance: Interpretation of "bill of credit" and state limitations on currency issuance. Balance between state autonomy and constitutional limits. Decision: Supreme Court sided with the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Bank notes weren't "bills of credit" as banned by the Constitution. States have some financial leeway unless directly contravening constitutional terms. The Court ruled in favor of the STATE.... THE BANK bank did so on their own credit Through Taney's term the court addresssed the issue of the allocation of govt. authority NATIONAL VS STATE 1839-1840s THe Taney courts ruled on issues regarding the rights of corporations in the U.S. Made decisions on corporate activity in the states states forbid out of state companies to do business in their borders BUT without clear intent to USE THAT POWER it was assumed that a state consented to corporate The License Cases: were argued TOGETHER but with different COUNSEL Some justices treated them as one some saw them separately Cooley v, Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia Background: Pennsylvania law mandated ships entering/exiting the port of Philadelphia to employ a local pilot. Cooley, a ship owner, didn't hire a local pilot and contested the subsequent fine. 1. Issue: Did Pennsylvania's pilot requirement breach the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to oversee interstate commerce? 2. Relevance: Key in defining state vs. federal power balance in commerce regulation. Introduced "dormant" commerce clause jurisprudence: which commerce aspects can states regulate vs. federal government? 3. Decision: Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania's law. While Congress regulates interstate commerce, states can manage local issues unless the federal government intervenes. Some matters are local (needing local expertise), others are national (requiring a consistent rule). States rights issues by the early Taney Era were tied to the issue of slavery The word "slavery" is not in the constitution Northern state began to pass personal liberty laws to assist free black people trial by jury article 6 question Taney Court Decision against state personal liberty laws in Prigg v. Pennsylvania Background: Pennsylvania law criminalized taking a Black person out of the state for enslavement. Edward Prigg, from Maryland, tried returning a formerly enslaved woman and her child to Maryland and faced prosecution. Prigg contended Pennsylvania's law clashed with the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Issue: Did Pennsylvania's law conflict with the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2) of the Constitution and the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793? Relevance: Tensions between state and federal power over slavery, especially regarding escaped enslaved individuals. Balance between state laws protecting Black residents and federal laws safeguarding slaveholder rights. Decision: Supreme Court sided with Prigg. Federal Fugitive Slave Act took precedence over Pennsylvania's law. Federal government held exclusive power over capturing and returning escaped enslaved individuals, making state laws on the subject void. Recall Missouri Comrpomise - 1820 Dredd Scott Case Background: Dred Scott, an enslaved African American born around 1799 in Virginia, lived in territories where slavery was banned, including Illinois and Wisconsin Territory. After moving back to Missouri, a slave state, Scott sued for freedom, claiming his stay in free territories made him free. 1. Issue: Could Dred Scott, as an African American, sue in federal court? Did living in free territories grant him freedom? Was the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in certain territories (Article IV, Section 3), constitutional? 2. Relevance: Infamous case deepening U.S. divisions over slavery. Addressed African Americans' status and federal authority over slavery in territories. 3. Decision: Supreme Court declared Dred Scott wasn't a citizen, so couldn't sue in federal court. Missouri Compromise deemed unconstitutional. Enslaved individuals seen as property, protected by the Fifth Amendment. Dredd scott was a slave and could not be a citizen He had no standing , court has no jurisdiction Case dismissed on procedure should be decided under state law Slaves were property under the 5th amendment you had missouri compromise which said no slavery above line, but 5th amendment says you can take your property wherever, you can't tell people not to bring their property where they please. Last Major prewar ruling: Ableman v. Booth can states order federal judges to release someone, writ of habeus corpus asserted supremacy of federal law A Nation in TUrmoil Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860 Secession Southerners said if Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 they would leave the union Dec. 20, 1860 - SC Ordinance of Secession When Lincoln was sworn in (March 1861) The confederacy Existed Civil war started in April 1861 Lincoln had 3 SC seats to fill when he was sworn in They served 19 years, 28 years, and 14 years respectively - but why? showed that people started seeing the courts as a place to start a career, worth it One was David Davis Election of 1876 - fradulent? Congress added a 10th seat on the SC 1863 Stephen Field - CJ Calif. SC 35 years An Early question for Lincoln - what is the legal status of the war? Southerners: said it was a "war between the states" a true war rules etc of war North: said it was a "rebellion or insurrection" rebels have fewer rights article 4 sec 4 Conflict had elements of war and rebellion April 1861 - Ft. Sumter Congress in recess, so Lincoln acted on his own Increased size of regular army issued a proclamation of blockade suspended habeas corpus (A1, S9) people argue he can't do that allowed military trails of civilians Lincoln felt conflict would be short He wanted to save the Union and the Constitution There were challenges to Lincoln's actions Powers of congress also increased when congress returned passed a conscription act (draft) some said it was unconstitutional A1 S8 Expressed powers others cited A1, S8 expressed powers N & P Clause There was much opposition riots payments to get out END MIDTERM Article 1: Established the Legislative Branch 10 sections Article 2: Executive Branch 4 sections Article 3: Judicial Branch 3 or so sections Article 4: State/National Relationship Article 5: Amendment Document Provided 4 ways to amend the Constitution Article 6: National Supremacy When there is a conflict between national law and state law, national law is supreme. This is an example of federalism. Article 7: Ratification When 9 states ratify the document, it's done?