Term
|
Definition
| US Atty Gen E. Randolph brought a motion for mandamus ex officio to compel the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania to hear the petition of American Revolution veteran William Hayburn, who had applied for a pension, in accordance with 1792 Congressional legislation requiring U.S. Circuit Courts to hear such claims. The Court held that the duties assigned to them were administrative and not judicial in nature. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Can a state in any instance be sued? The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Did Congress violate the Constitution and go beyond its taxing and spending powers in implementing the tax on carriages? The Court held that the tax was legitimate. Justice Chase argued that an apportioned tax on carriages would lead to inequalities in the tax burden between states. Furthermore, he interpreted the terms "tax" and "duty" in Article I, Section 8 broadly, and concluded that the carriage tax was an indirect tax. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Mr. and Mrs. Caleb Bull, the stated beneficiaries of the will of Norman Morrison, were denied an inheritance by a Connecticut probate court. When the Bulls attempted to appeal the decision more than a year and a half later, they found that a state law prohibited appeals not made within 18 months of the original ruling. The Bulls persuaded the Connecticut legislature to change the restriction, which enabled them to successfully appeal the case. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the legislation was not an ex post facto law. The Court drew a distinction between criminal rights and "private rights," arguing that restrictions against ex post facto laws were not designed to protect citizens' contract rights. Justice Chase noted that while all ex post facto laws are retrospective, all retrospective laws are not necessarily ex post facto. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests? Yes; yes; and it depends. The justices held, through Marshall's forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." In other words, when the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Does a state statute imposing a new period of limitations in which to bring a claim, as applied to bar plaintiff's claim, violate the state constitution, and did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had the power to declare the statute void? Is Justice Marshall’s concept of judicial review proper? The state supreme court has the power to review legislative acts and, if contrary to the state constitution, declare such acts void. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In 1841, Rhode Island was still operating under an archaic system of government established by a royal charter of 1663. The charter strictly limited suffrage and made no provision for amendment. Dissident groups, protesting the charter, held a popular convention to draft a new constitution and to elect a governor. The old charter government declared martial law and put down the rebellion, although no federal troops were sent. One of the insurgents, Martin Luther, brought suit claiming the old government was not "a republican form of government" and all its acts were thereby invalid. The Court held that "the power of determining that a state government has been lawfully established" did not belong to federal courts, and that it was not the function of such courts to prescribe the qualifications for voting in the States. The Court held that the creation of republican forms of government and the control of domestic violence were matters of an essentially political nature committed by the Constitution to the other branches of government. Hence, the Court should defer to Congress and the President when confronted with such issues. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Kenneth W. Colegrove, a citizen of Illinois and a Northwestern University political scientist, brought suit against Illinois officials to enjoin them from holding an upcoming election. Colegrove argued that the congressional districts "lacked compactness of territory and approximate equality of population." The Court held that the Illinois districts were constitutional, largely because existing laws imposed no requirements "as to the compactness, contiguity and equality in population of districts." In a plurality opinion, Frankfurter declined to involve the Court in the districting process, arguing that the political nature of apportionment precluded judicial intervention. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. |
|
|
Term
| Pac States Tel & Tel Co v. Oregon |
|
Definition
| In 1902, Oregon enacted the initiative and referendum, devices that gave citizens the opportunity to directly propose and/or vote on the laws that would govern them. In 1906, Oregonians proposed and passed a tax of 2 percent on the gross revenues of telephone and telegraph companies in the state. Deprived of its lobbying strength in the legislature, one such company refused to pay the tax and was sued by the state. The company argued that the Constitution's guarantee to the states of a republican government meant that lawmaking was the exclusive responsibility of the legislature. The justices denied jurisdiction, saying that the matter was political and not judicial. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When NY Representative Adam Clayton Powell failed to heed civil proceedings against him in New York, a judge held him in criminal contempt. He won reelection in 1966 but the House of Representatives voted to exclude him. May the House of Representatives exclude a duly elected member if the member has satisfied the standing requirements? No. The Court noted that the proceedings against Powell were intended to exclude and not expel him from the chamber. That is an important distinction to recognize since the House does have the power under Article I, Section 5 to expel members. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| President Jimmy Carter acted without congressional approval in ending a defense treaty with Taiwan. Did Congress have a constitutional role to play in the termination of the treaty? The divided justices found that the case was not justiciable. Some believed that the issue involved a political question, namely, how the President and Congress would conduct the nation's foreign affairs. Justice Powell did not find the case ripe for judicial review. He reasoned that since Congress had not formally challenged Carter's authority, technically there was no conflict for the Court to resolve. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false statements to a grand jury. In accordance with Senate Rule XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged Senate Rule XI on the ground that the rule violated the impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| in a private Tennessee power company sued to prevent the TVA from acquiring over half of the company's property and equipment. Did Congress exceed its power in implementing and administering the TVA? No. The Court held that Congress did not abuse its power with the TVA. Justice Hughes argued that the Wilson Dam, the location where the TVA was in the business of generating electricity, had been built originally in the interest of national defense. This case is especially important for the concept of judicial review as expressed in Justice Brandeis's concurrence.. Brandeis articulated a set of "rules" governing the appropriateness of judicial review. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were unconstitutional. McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court under an 1867 congressional statute that conferred jurisdiction on appeal to the High Court. After hearing arguments in the case, but prior to announcing a decision, the Congress withdrew its 1867 act conferring jurisdiction. May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction has been given? The Court, speaking through Chase, validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Congress passed a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suits against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands, and providing that Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the United States Treasury. David Muskrat brought suit, opposing the partition of Indian lands. The United States Supreme Court refused to allow the case to be heard, maintaining that, though the United States was named as a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy: rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation, and the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion; therefore, it dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy", as required by Article III of the United States Constitution. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| DeFunis was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School despite test scores that were higher than some of the minorities admitted. DeFunis then successfully asked a trial court to require the school to admit him. Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review? The Court held that because the University of Washington Law School had agreed to allow DeFunis to enroll and to earn a diploma, the case in question was moot. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In 1921, Congress enacted The Maternity Act. The Act provided grants to states that agreed to establish programs aimed at protecting the health and welfare of infants and mothers. Frothingham brought suit as a Massashusetts taxpayer, claiming the Act would result in "taxation for illegal purposes." This case was decided together with Frothingham v. Mellon. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the administration of federal statutes "likely to produce addition taxation to be imposed upon a vast number of taxpayers" was essentially a matter of public and not of individual concern. The Court emphasized that it had no power to review or annul acts of Congress without showing that an individual had sustained or was in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute. Suffering "in some indefinite way in common with people generally" was not an adequate basis for judicial review. |
|
|
Term
| Valley Forge CC v. Americans United |
|
Definition
| The Secretary of Defense closed the Valley Forge General Hospital in an effort to reduce the number of military installations in the country. In accordance with a congressional statute regulating the dispersal of surplus government property, part of the hospital's land was given, free-of-charge, to the Valley Forge Christian College. Did the transfer of property violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The Court held that Americans United for Separation of Church and State did not have standing to sue. Justice Rehnquist argued that the group did not pass the first prong of the Court's test for taxpayer standing. Since the source of the group's complaint was not a congressional statute but the decision of a government agency to dispose of a parcel of property, and because the transaction did not involve the taxing and spending power, the group had no standing to sue. |
|
|
Term
| NE Florida Chapter v Jacksonville |
|
Definition
| The city of Jacksonville passed an ordinance that at least 10% of the city's contracts had to go to minority contractors (African American, women, etc.). The NE Chapter believed this law to be in violation of the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment. Jacksonville then repealed the law in question but passed a similar one (African American and Women's Enterprise Participation) still granting preferential treatment to minorities. Jacksonville then argued the case was moot since the original law was no longer viable. On the issue of mootness, the court ruled that the case was indeed still valid. The majority claimed that the new ordinance differs little in substance to the previous one and the NE Chapter can still incur the same adverse effects. The majority affirmatively believed that the NE Chapter had standing. When considering the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment; the “injury in fact” to grant standing is the barrier that has been erected by the city of Jacksonville. The NE Chapter does not need to show that it would have received the contracts from the city simply that it was disadvantaged in the process. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Wyoming, a major coal-producing State, does not sell coal, but does impose a severance tax on those who extract it. From 1981 to 1986, Wyoming provided virtually 100% of the coal purchased by four Oklahoma electric utilities, including the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), a state agency. However, after the Oklahoma Legislature passed an Act requiring coal-fired electric utilities to burn a mixture containing at least 10% Oklahoma-mined coal, the utilities reduced their purchases of Wyoming coal in favor of Oklahoma coal, and Wyoming's severance tax revenues declined. Wyoming sought leave to file a complaint under this Court's original jurisdiction, seeking a declaration that the Act violates the Commerce Clause and an injunction permanently enjoining the Act's enforcement. The motion was granted over Oklahoma's objections that Wyoming lacked standing to bring the action. The Special Master filed a Report recommending that this Court hold that Wyoming has standing to sue, that this case is appropriate to original jurisdiction, and that the Act violates the Commerce Clause. |
|
|
Term
| Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife |
|
Definition
| The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (S7(a)(2)) required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any authorized actions did not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or critically destroy natural habitats. A 1986 amendment to the act limited it scope to actions in the United States or on the high seas. Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the new amendment erred by providing for a geographic limit on the original law. Do the respondents have standing to sue? Even if the Court were to assume that the agency-funded projects at issue threatened listed species, there was no proof that these actions would produce "actual or imminent" injuries to particular respondents who might some day wish to visit the foreign countries in question. The Court disregarded the proposed theory of "ecosystem nexus" which claimed that any person who used any part of of a "contiguous ecosystem" adversed affected by a funded activity had standing to sue. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Florence Flast and a group of taxpayers challenged federal legislation that financed the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious schools. Flast argued that such use of tax money violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power. |
|
|
Term
| Elk Grove Unified SD v Newdow |
|
Definition
| Michael Newdow's daughter attended public school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California. Elk Grove teachers began school days by leading students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God" added by a 1954 Congressional act. Newdow sued in federal district court in California, arguing that making students listen - even if they choose not to participate - to the words "under God" violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Does Michael Newdow have standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Supreme Court found that Newdow did not have standing to bring suit because he did not have sufficient custody over his daugther |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The suit arose when the United States Forest Service permitted development of Mineral King near Sequoia National Park. The key issue in the case was whether the permitted development would cause the Sierra Club sufficient injury to give them standing to sue to block the permit. The Supreme Court held that the Sierra Club, in its corporate capacity, lacked standing, but that it may sue on behalf of any of its members who had individual standing because the government action affected their aesthetic or recreational interests. |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Richardson |
|
Definition
| Richardson, a taxpayer interested in activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, sued the government to provide records detailing the CIA's expenditures. Does a federal taxpayer have standing to force the government to disclose expenditures of the CIA? The Court held that Richardson did not have standing to sue. Using the two-pronged standing test of Flast v. Cohen (1968), Chief Justice Burger found that there was no "logical nexus between the status asserted [by Richardson as a taxpayer] and the claim sought to be adjudicated." It was clear to Burger that Richardson was not "a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power" on this issue. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Petitioners were comprised of various individuals wanting the rezoning of an area within the confines of the City of Penfield NY. Penfield is and exclusive area catering to the moderately wealthy. Petitioner’s claim that the zoning law, by its terms and as enforced by the defendant board members, excludes people of low to moderate income levels. The petitioners must allege specific, “concrete,” facts demonstrating that the challenged practices harm him. They have not. The attempted third party intervener failed to show that the enforcement of the ordinance against the third party intervener would violate the third partys’ rights. The petitioner’s in this action failed to allege an injury resulting from the respondent’s actions. |
|
|
Term
| Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development |
|
Definition
| The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) contracted with the Village of Arlington Heights ("Arlington") to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing. When MHDC applied for the necessary zoning permits, authorizing a switch from a single- to a multiple-family classification, Arlington's planning commission denied the request. Acting on behalf of itself and several minority members, MHDC challenged Arlington's denial as racially discriminatory. After finding that MHDC had proper federal standing, since it acted on behalf of black plaintiffs who stood to suffer direct and measurable injuries from Arlington's denial, the Court held that it failed to establish Arlington's racially discriminatory intent or purpose. While indicating that Arlington's zoning denial may result in a racially disproportionate impact, the evidence did not show that this was Arlington's deliberate intention. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Victor Linkletter was convicted in state court on evidence illegally obtained by police prior to the Supreme Court decision concerning the Fourth Amendment in Mapp v. Ohio. Mapp applied the exclusionary rule to state criminal proceedings, denying the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial. Linkletter argued for a retrial based on the Mapp decision. Did the exclusionary rule established in Mapp v. Ohio apply retroactively? the Court held that the Constitution neither prohibited nor required "an absolute rule of retroaction." Only a case-by-case examination of the rules in question was required. The Court also argued that applying the Mapp decision retroactively to all cases would threaten the "delicate state-federal relationship" and would "tax the administration of justice to the utmost." Only cases on direct review at the time of the Mapp ruling or later cases would be subject to retroactive consideration. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This case concerned the retrospective application of judge-made rules. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, combined with his call to the jury clerk, violated the black petitioner's right to an impartial jury. Could retroactive Supreme Court decisions be applied selectively to cases pending direct review or not yet final? The Court held that after a new rule had been decided in a particular case, "the integrity of judicial review requires that we apply that rule to all similar cases pending on direct review." The Court reasoned that selective application of new rules violated the principle of treating similarly situated defendants on an equal basis. |
|
|
