Term
|
Definition
Facts: Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust act in order to stop the massive corporations from controlling transportation, industry, and commerce. Basically tried to get the wealth out of the hands of a few and stop monopolies. EC Knight was a sugar factory.
Question: Did congress exceed it's consitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the sherman anti trust act?
Decision(Fuller): The Sherman anti trust act was constitutional, but did not apply to manufacturing. Manufacturing had nothing to do with transportation across state lines, therefore not interstate commerce. And also this monopoly did not effect interstate commerce. The Sherman anti trust act was not aimed at stopping monopolies, but aimed at stopping monopolies from controlling commerce.
Dissenting(Harlan): Said we must protect the American people from having basic food prices all fucked up. He believed this sugar trust did constitute a retraint of free trade. Company admitted they were going to be selling nationwide therefore should be subject to nationwide laws. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Keating Owen child labor act forbidded the shipment of goods due to child labor. Dagenhart's dad sued on his behalf saying his son should be able to work at the age of 14.
Question: Does the congressional act violate the commerce clause, fifth ammendment, or tenth ammendment?
Decision(Day):First, production was not commerce therefore outside the power of congress, and the regulation of production is left to the states according to the tenth amendment. Said the powers not delegated in the constitution are expressly left to the states. Says the commerce act tries to stop transportation of harmful goods, the goods produced by the children are not harmful.
Dissent(Holmes): Said that it doesn't matter if the harm procedes of follows the transportation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Texas rail road commission ordered that the railroads charge a higher rate for shit going to Louisiana than interstae. Interstate Commerce Comission said this was a load of BS. ICC instated a maximum rate saying the ICC could not regulate interstate commerce.
Question: Could the ICC regulate interstate rail road rates?
Decision(Hughes): Yes, the court upheld the Commerce Clause and the ICC. Congress is allowed to regulate interstate commerce which it chose to do through the ICC. Even that which has a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce. It adversely effected interstate commerce. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Seeling Inc was going to sell milk inside of New York state that had been purchased outside the state at a lower price. This went against the minimum price that was to be payed in New York. And if they tried to sell for less, they would have their license taken away.
Question: Enforced the commerce clause and stopped states from exluding products from coming in outside the states to protect their own industries.
Decision(Cardozo): Basically said this violated the constitution, was just as bad as any tariff a nation would impose on another. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause," gives power over interstate commerce to Congress, not the states. To address the idea that New York should be in control of the milk market for the sake of health of it's citizens, Cardozo said it was a BS smokescreen. Futhermore even if this exception were to be made for health's sake, it would pave the way for more exceptions which cannot happen. |
|
|
Term
| Schecter Poultry Corp v US |
|
Definition
Facts: The NIRA had provisions that allowed for the president to regulate weekly hours, wages, and minimum ages of employees. This would be seen as a penal statute.
Question: Did the Congress unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the president?
Decision: Indeed it did violate the Constitution. The law did not establish rules or standards to regulate industrial activity. So it did not make the codes, just allowed the Pres to make them, therefore unconsititional. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Bituminous Coal Conservation Act regulated max hours, min wages, prices, and fair practices of the coal industry. Compliance was not madatory and tax refunds would be used as an incentive. Carter, a stock holder in the company, sued to make the company not pay the tax for non compliance.
Question: Did the BCCA exceed congressional power under the commerce clause?
Decision(Sutherland): Indeed it did overstep it's bounds. Cited that production is not interstate commerce. And that every product has on origin, to regulate these origins would stop interstate commerce altogether. This would be the last time that the court would use the Tenth amendment to over ride the commerce clause. Southerland avoided addressing the shit conditions of the coal industry. Stated once again the idea that states hold whatever power Constitution does not give Feds. Again the idea that production is not interstate commerce was brought up. Roosevelt got mad pissed and thought about starting the court packing plan. |
|
|
Term
| NLRB Jones v Laughlin Steel Corp |
|
Definition
Facts: NLRA sought to regulate labor management disputes as they directly related to interstate commerce. The national labor relations board charged Laughlin with discriminating against union members.
Question: Was the act consititent with the Commerce Clause
Decision: Yes. Congress had the power to regulate anything which might lead to a restriction in interstate commerce. Bargaining with employers is a vital to industrial peace, those who refused to work with their employers were to be punished. This signified the supreme courts abondoment of the freedom of contracts idea. Also evidence that the court packing plan influenced CJ Huges and Roberts to let the new deal shit slide. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Packers and Stockyards act in an attempt to regulate activities that were unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive and encourage monopolies. Stafford tried to follow and injunction for this act, then sought review for his denial.
Quesiton: Did congress have under authority of the commerce clause to pass and enforce the Packers and Stockyards act of 1921?
Decision(Taft): In a 7-1 decision, the court found that the activities that act regulated burdened interstate commerce and fell within regulatory jurisdiction. The court did not have to wait for a monopoly to pop up before it began regulation. The business done in Stockyards was important and thus fell under interstate commerce. Expanded the whole “stream of comerce” idea. Throat of which interstate commerce flows. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: The Fair Labor Standards act seeked to regulate wages, weekly hours, and child labor. Any state involved in interstate commerce would be punished for violating this.
Question: Was the act legitimate in Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce?
Decision(Stone): Congress has the right to exercise it's power “to the utmost extent” the powers reserved in the Commerce Clause. Basically Stone submits how they regulate commerce is not up to the courts, it is more up to the legistlature. This is the old McColloch standard. Congress was also fine to regulate sub standard labor conditions as it had much to do with internstate commerce. Overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart. Did not specify if child labor applied to only those in production of goods involved in interstate commerce or just in commerce. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Filburn was alloted a certain amound of what for production of wheat on his farm, this wheat was to be sold. He produced that along with about twelve acres more of wheat that he was to use for himself. This wasn't allowed and he was penalized.
Question: Is this a violation of Congress's power, seeing as though they have no power to regulate local activities?
Decision(Jackson): No, for the very reason that the wheat he produces would normally be bought at a regular market. It may still have a substantial effect on commerce wethere it be direct or indirect. Basically this instance alone isn't a big deal, but if everyone does it wheat market is fucked. A great example of the courts expansion of Commerce Clause power. This is a bit of a reversal on the courts attitude about regulating production under the Commerce Clause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Lopez brought a gun to school and was found in violation of a Texas law. Soon the Feds got involved and said no this falls under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990. it was put under the commerce clause due to the fact the guns are often a part of interstate commerce.
Question: Did the Gun Free School Zone Act over step Congress's authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
Decision(Rehnquist): Yes, the posession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that might have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In fact, it has nothing to do with commerce.
Dissent(Breyer): Said that such violence "significantly undermines the quality of education thatis critical to economic prosperity" and that teaching and learning are linked to commerce, which is threatened by the presence of guns in schools. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Brady Handgun violence act made CLEOs do background checks on hand gun purchasers while a Federal system was implemented. Printz said fuck that i'm not doing it, took it to court. In the district courts background checks were ruled unconstitutional but a voluntary one could be done.
Question: Using the necessary and proper clause, can congress require states to temporarily conduct background checks for hand gun purchases?
Decision(Scalia): No. State legislatures are no subject to federal direction. Also, could not require CLEOs to deal with any of the rejection paper work related to the approval process. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Compassionate Act allowed for the use of medical marijuana in california, obviously against the policy of the federal government. Feds seized the medical marijuana, weed smokers sued the DEA. Argued that the Controlled Substance Act, legislated under the Commerce Clause, overstepped Congress's power.
Question: Did the Controlled Substance Act violate congresses power under the commerce clause to locally regulate cultivation and use of medical marijuana?
Decision(Stevens): No. Said that it has been firmly established that Congress could regulate purely local activites which are part of a class of activities with substantial effect on interstate congress, that being the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making regulating locally essential to regulating the national market. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Illinois regulated the grain and warehouse elevator rates by setting a maximum rate.
Question: Did this deny them equal protection and due process under the 14th amendment?
Decision: No, it did not. So long as Congress had not put in place any law effecting this, the state could impose state regulations. Prices of storage are related to public interest. Laws made for such a purpose may go without court interference. A state could regulate operations that were interely state. Also showed that 14th Amendment could protect businesses. |
|
|
Term
| Milwaukee Chicago and St. Paul Railway Company v. the State of Minnesota |
|
Definition
Facts: Minnesota law gave Warehouse & Railroad Commission too much power to regulate rates on behalf of freight carriers.
Question: Does the Minnesota law violate the due process clause of the 14th Ammentment.
Decision: Indeed it did. The states may regulate rates as they see fit, but the problem here was that no one who had any stake in the matter was able to say anything as they were not present during the commission. |
|
|
Term
| Adkins v. Children's Hospital |
|
Definition
Facts: Congress established a law setting a minimum wage for children and women.
Question: Did this law interfere with the ability for employees and employers to enter into contracts, granted by the 5th Amendment?
Decision: Yes it did. Says it would extend the police power of the state too far. Freedom to make contracts is not absolute and may be curtailed under exceptional circumstances. However, this law was completely vague and was only a price fixing law. Stopped efforts to make equal pay between men and women. It is not possible to define living wages, and employer has no responsibility to do so. Wages are the heart of contracts.
Taft dissented saying employees and workers do not have equal footing in making contracts therefore it is not fair. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: New York passed a law that limited bakers to work 10 hours per day and a max of 60 hours per week called the Bakeshop Act.
Question: Does NY law violate liberty by due process of 14th Amendment?
Decision: The New York law violated it. This law interfered with the ability for employee and employer to make contracts. Completely goes against the well being of the workers in the interest of the court. Kind of upheld the doctrine of laissez faire. This began a more substantive due process interpretation.
In dissenting, Harlan agreed that there are substantive properties of the 14th and 5th, but in this case so long as the power of the law does not supercede and federal power, courts must uphold laws the promote general welfare.
Similar cases: Muller v Oregon which limited women doing mechanical shit for more than 10 hrs. |
|
|
Term
| Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell |
|
Definition
Facts: 1933 Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium law, intended to avert mortgage foreclosures violated the contract clause of Article I stating that no state shall impair obligations of contracts. Allowed courts to exempt owners from foreclosure.
Question: Did Minnesota law violate article 1 section 10 and due process of equal protection?
Decision: It was found that it did not. Justice Hughe's said "While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion forexercise of power." Cited that it wasn't necessary to follow all the time especially in order to secure the structure which all good depends. Basically went against the laissez-faire policy that had seemed to overcome the court in previous years. Act did not prohibit anything, it simply asked for an extension of time. Principal and interest are still paid.
In dissenting justice southerland said that by allowing for a non literal interpretation of the commerce clause, one would be allowing for future corruptions of the contract clause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: New York set a milk control law which set a minimum price for milk. Nebbia violated this law.
Question: Did the regulation violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Ammendment?
Decision: No. Price controls were not “arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant” says Roberts to the policy adopted by the legislature to promote general welfare. Theres nothing special about prices which protects them from regulation. Gave the whole idea that if you don't like the idea take it to the legislature. Courts cannot deal with the wisdom of law. In this case the principles of Munn v. Illionois have been followed yet Lochner and Adkins had not been over ruled.
Four horsemen said they must continue to act as an economic review boards, then cited that supply and demand will regulate. Dissenting opinion by Justice Stephens was the beginning of the doctrine of substantive due process which stated that the constitution protects certain rights, such as the right to property, from all legislative interference. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Parrish, a worker of the West Coast Hotel company was receiving sub minimum wages at her job. She sued to get the difference between her actual salary and the state declared minimum wages. This case was identical to Moorsehead and Adkins. Washington state court upheld the minimum wage act, cited nebbia and blaisdell.
Question: Did the minimum wage law violate the liberty of contracts as contrued by the 5th and 14th ammendment?
Decision: The court upheld the establishment of a minimum wage law for women. It was found that liberty is subject to due process so long as it furthers the greater good. Also, the contract process isn't exactly free as the workers are held by economic and practical realities, especially with women. Explicitly over ruled Adkins v Children's Hospital. This case marked the end of the constitutional revolution and was an end to substantive due process, the basis for the freedom of contract doctrine. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Leaders of the communist party were arrested for violating the Smith Act. The Smith Acts made it illegal to facilitate or encourage the overthrowing of the government. Also couldn't be apart of any group trying to do so. Claim was that this was a violation of the First Ammendment.
Question: Did the Smith Acts provisions restrict speech and violated the first Ammendment?
Decision: Court upheld the law, saying that it did not inherently violate the first ammendment. Apparently there is a distinction between teaching those ideas and actually advoating them. Court said that there was a “clear and present danger.” The success or probability of success distinction did not matter enough to limit constitutional powers. No majority opinion just a plurality opinion.
Frankfurter advocated using the balancing test, said that we must see what it more important, the rights of citizens or the governments interest. The legislature must do this balancing test.
Dissent(Black,Douglas): Basically said no matter how you slice it this is a violation of rights. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: 14 people arrested for being part of a communist party under the Smith Act. Basically Yates said fuck off you can only nab me under the Smith Act if I am engaged in an active role to overthrow the government, which she was not.
Question: Did the Smith Act violate the 1st Amendment?
Decision(Harlan): None of the 14 could be convicted, 3 year statute of limitation had run out. They all needed retrials. US had switched it's position on appeal, and cannot be punished unless she clearly insights concrete acts on how to overthrow. Otherwise someone can be punished just for being communist. Dennis was weak as a precedent therefore it didn't matter. Now required specific intent to over throw now guilt by association stuff. Did not over rule the Dennis case.
Dissent(Harlan, Black): Argued that this Smith Act should definitely go ahead and be thrown out due to the fact that it violates the First Amendment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Watkins went to a HCUAA meeting, snitched on everyone besides those who had left the party. Said it was not in the authority of the committee to ask such things, not relevant and exposure for exposure sake.
Questions: Did the HUAAC actions constitute an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power?
Decision(Warren): Because Watkins was not told how important the questions he was being asked were, he didn't know if it was within his rights to answer. He did commit contempt because there was no way to know if the questions were important. Warren points out that hes not even sure what the HUAAC does or what they want to do, and comes very close to calling it unconstitutional. He need not answer any questions due to the fact that they were of a private matter, and they had not told him why he must tell them. |
|
|
Term
| Barenblatt v United States |
|
Definition
Facts: Barenblatt was in front of the HUAC refused to talk about his political and religious beliefs, found in contempt of court.
Question: Did the committees investigation into Barenblatt's affiliations transgress his first Ammnt protections which limit congressional inquiries?
Decision(Harlan): No it did not. Harlan noted that the first amendment did not protect from all lines of questioning. As long as those questions are asked to aid the legislative process and protect government interest, huacc was in the clear. Congress was getting pissed therefore the court saw this as an opportunity to back off of the UAC. Because Barenblatt claimed that it was his fifth ammendment right instead of his first to not answer the questions, he got fucked. After this the whole red scare basically cooled down, taking power away from the UAC.
Dissent(Harlan,Douglas): Says balancing test cannot be justified when rights are being taken away. The real question is can the government preserve itself by taking away the right of minorities. They will always be discriminated against in times of high emotional stress. This is the very reason for the first Ammnt. Must avoid combatting communism by using communistic methods. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Brandenburg was the leader of the Klu Klux Klan and got arrested for a speech he had made under an Ohio syndicalism law. Law made it illegal to advocate “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism to accomplish political reform.” Also assembling with any group that wants to do this is illegal.
Question: Did this law violate his right to free speech?
Decision: Indeed it did. The only way speech can be stopped is it if it is trying to incite imminent lawless action and also if it is likely to do so. The law did not take this into account and was therefore BS. Failure to do this made the law overly broad. Set a new precedent for clear and present danger. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Baker said that laws reapportioning seats had been ignored. It ignored significant economic growth and population shifts in Tennessee.
Question: Did the SC have jurisdiction over legislative reapportionment.
Decision(Brennan): Discussed what exactly a political question is, and said that this question was justiciable. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues merited judicial evaluation. Said the cannot simply say there is no standing to sue when there is obvious controversey here. Over turned Colegrove v. Green. Sent back down to the lower courts.
Dissent(Frankfurter): Called it a massive reputiation, was super pissed and made the argument that relief must come from a popular consience. Of course, this is not possible due to the fact that the majority does not have equal representation.
Colegrove v Green- 3 voters in Chicago wanted to stop congressional votes. Reapportionment hadn't been done in forever.
Luther v Borden- Dorr rebellion. Set up a rival government. Luther arrest Borden said you cant do that. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Wesberry filed suit against Saunders, georgia governor, over the apportionment scheme. Wesburry's district had 2 to 3 times population of other districts in the states.
Question: Did Georgia's congressional districts violate 14th Ammendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?
Decision(Black): Indeed it did. Because a Congressmen must represent two times the voters in one districts as compared to another, it diluted their right to vote, while expanding the value of others. Justice Black put a heavy emphasis on the importance of voting. Article 1 section 2, one man's vote is to worth anothers.
Dissent(Harlan): Put the seats of HoR in jeopardy, declares this unconstitutional and argues that black's opinion is unsound. Makes the argument that no one says how these people will be voted WIThIN the states.
3/5th compromise evidence that they werent concerned with apportionment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Few guys challanged the apportionment in Alabama. Apparently the Constitution said there was to be as atleast one representative per county and there was to be as many senatorial districts as there were senators. Population variance rose to 41 to 1 in the senate.
Question: Did this Const violate the Equal Protection clause by requiring one representative per county along with two senatorial districts?
Decision(Warren): Indeed it did. Warren argued that Equal Protection Clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens...." which the constitution did not allow for. Also it interfered with the very idea of bicameralism, saying that population must be equally represented. States need to make an honest and good faith efford to try to give everyone equal representation. Because the previous scheme had been done by geographic location and not by population, warren came up with the whole elected by people, not trees. |
|
|
