Legislative Branch
Sources of Power? (4)
Limits on Power? (5)
(1) Necessary and Proper Clause, (2) Commerce Clause, (3) Taxing and Spending Power, (4)Post-Civil War Amendments
(1) Anti-commandeering (10th Amendment), (2)Individual Rights (1st Amendment), (3)Economic Liberties, (4)Equal Protection, (5)Fundamental Rights
Sources of Power (2)
Violation of Powers (2)
Limits on Power (5)
(1) The president is taking overpowers of another branch of government (2) The president is interfering with another branch of government to carry out its powers
(1) Anti-commandeering (10th Amendment), (2)Individual Rights (1st Amendment), (3)Economic Liberties, (4)Equal Protection, (5)Fundamental Rights
Source of Power?
Limits on Power (3)
The Power of Judicial Review
(1) Interpretative Limits, (2) Congressional Limits, (3) Justiciability Limits
Source of Power?
Limits on Power (Hint:7)
Police Power
Limits of Power include
(1)Pre-emption, (2)Dormant Commerce Clause, (3)Privileges and Immunities, (4)Procedural Due process, (5)Substantive Due Process, (6)Equal Protection, (7)Fundamental Rights
What is the private actors source of power?
What are the three exceptions to when the constitution applies to private actors?
Private actors do not have to point to a power because the constitution does not apply to private actors.
13th Amendment
Public Functions Exception
Entanglement Exception
Bonus: Explain the three exceptions.
Congress passed a statute that created quotas for corn production by American farmers. An Iowa subsistence farmer, who grew corn only for his own consumption, challenged the law on the grounds that his personal production of corn was a local activity beyond the scope of the commerce clause.
Which of the following facts, if true, would most clearly undermine the farmer’s argument according to Supreme Court precedent?
Answer option D is correct. Congress acts within its powers under the commerce clause when it regulates conduct that, in the aggregate, has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. While the farmer’s individual consumption of corn may by itself be trivial, the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of farmers producing their own corn rather than purchasing it on the open market will substantially affect interstate commerce. This was the finding of the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), which held that under the aggregation principle, homegrown wheat was rationally related to the interstate wheat market.
The President pardoned all individuals sentenced under federal law for possession of marijuana. In opposition to the President, Congress passed a bill prohibiting the President from granting a pardon to any person sentence for a marijuana offense if the person has not served six months in prison. The president vetoed the bill, but Congress voted to override the veto by two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Is this bill Constitutional?
No, because the President has exclusive power to grant pardons.
Youngstown Framework is applied to the validity of presidential actions.When the President does not share an Article II power with Congress over a particular area, the President can exercise exclusive power without adhering to congressional directives.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that states could not unduly burden a woman’s right to choose to abort a nonviable fetus. The Court concluded that allowing a government to unduly burden a woman’s right to choose abortion would violate her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. After the five justices in the Casey majority were no longer on the Court, Congress considered legislation that would overrule Casey.
May Congress overrule Casey by passing a law banning abortion in all cases, regardless of viability?
No, because the Court’s decision in Casey was based on interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution.
Congress cannot pass a federal statute that overrules the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution in Casey. Supreme Court constitutional interpretations can be undone through only one of two mechanisms: (1) a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision overruling the earlier interpretation or (2) a constitutional amendment.
A state charged nonresidents twice as much as residents for recreational fishing licenses. The state also charged nonresidents twice as much as residents to obtain the state occupational license required to work as a seasonal fishing guide in the state.
Are the nonresident fees constitutional under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV?
C. Only the recreational license fee is constitutional.
D. Both the fees are constitutional.
The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV has been interpreted to protect out-of-state workers from economic discrimination in forms like increased occupational fees for nonresidents. However, the phrase “privileges and immunities” has not been interpreted broadly enough to include the right to enjoy another state’s natural resources for recreation.
Explain the Public Functions Exception
Explain the Entanglement Clause
A private entity must comply with the Constitution if it is performing a task that has been traditionally, exclusively done by the government
CLOSE NEXUS
If the government has authorized, encouraged, or facilitated the unconstitutional. conduct, the Constitution applies
Ex. if racial discrimination the court is likely to apply entanglement
Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, please give rule? Can N&PC be used as an independent source of power?
The Congress shall have Power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Cons. in the Government of the U.S., or in any Department or Officer thereof
Congress must still point to an express or implied power, but the N&PC means they can do whatever is convenient to that power.
Explain the Jackson Tripartite Test and when is it applied
The Pres. of the US may not engage in lawmaking activity absent Congressional authority or text of the constitution
(1) When the president acts pursuant to an express/implied authorization of Congress
MAX
(2) When the president acts absence of either a congressional grant/denial of authority
Zone of Twilight
(3)When the presidents actions are in conflict with/ the expressed/ implied will of Congress
Lowest Ebb
After the most recent census, a state was required to decrease the number of its congressional representatives by two. In redistricting to reflect this change, the state General Assembly, which was predominately Republican at that time, enacted a redistricting plan that was pro-Republican. The plan was ultimately passed by the state governor, who was also a Republican. A registered Democrat sued the state official in charge of the new plan, alleging that the General Assembly had engaged in unconstitutional political gerrymandering when it established the new congressional districts. The state official, who was also a Republican, moved to have the action dismissed, arguing that it was a nonjusticiable political question.
Does the action present a nonjusticiable political question?
Here, the dispute is a claim that the redistricting was unconstitutional political gerrymandering. Because there is a lack of judicially discoverable standards to determine whether political districts were drawn constitutionally or not, the second factor weighs in favor of finding that the dispute presents a nonjusticiable political question and should be dismissed.
Explain Substantive Due Process v. Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process and substantive due process are concepts from the Fifth Amendment. They both protect individual rights, but they do so in different ways. Substantive due process primarily focuses on what government actors can do. Procedural due process focuses on how they do it.
A private country club excludes women. A woman sues under the Equal Protection Clause. Will she win?
A. Yes, because discrimination by any organization violates equal protection.
B. Yes, because the club receives tax benefits.
C. No, because the club is a private actor and the Constitution doesn't apply.
D. Only if the club performs a public function.
C. No, because the club is a private actors and the Constitution does not apply.
Congress passes a federal law making it a crime to possess a firearm within 500 feet of a school, citing the Commerce Clause. A defendant challenges the law as unconstitutional.
Does Congress have Commerce Clause authority?
Likely no. Possession of a gun in a school zone is non-economic activity, and Congress may not regulate non-economic conduct based solely on its attenuated effect on interstate commerce. This is the same issue as United States v. Lopez. Because the law does not regulate channels, instrumentalities, or economic activity with a substantial effect, it exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
What is the framework for analyzing fundamental rights
1. Is there a fundamental right?
2. If there is a fundamental right, has the govt infringed the right?
3. If the govt has infringed on right, does it have a compelling purpose to justify the infringement (is "end" compelling?)
4. Could the government achieve its goal through means that were less restrictive of the right?
PAGE 30-31 OF OUTLINE
A taxpayer sues, claiming the federal government is wasting money on a space museum.
Does the taxpayer have standing?
No. A generalized grievance about government spending is not a concrete, particularized injury. Taxpayer standing is extremely limited and applies only to Establishment Clause challenges to congressional spending, which is not the case here. Thus, there is no Article III standing.
A corporation incorporated in New Jersey wants to challenge a Delaware law under the Privileges and Immunities Clause for favoring Delaware businesses.
Can the corporation sue under Article IV?
No. The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects natural persons, not corporations or artificial entities.
The corporation must rely on other constitutional provisions, such as the Dormant Commerce Clause.
A private school that receives federal funding expels a student for speech. The parent sues under the First Amendment, arguing the school is entwined with government because of regulations and funding.
Is there state action under entanglement?
No. Funding and regulation alone do not make private schools state actors. Without coercion, delegation, or joint participation, the entanglement doctrine is not satisfied.
A state law gives extra points in contracting bids only to applicants of one specific racial group. A contractor challenges the law.
What standard applies, and is the law valid?
Strict scrutiny applies because the law uses a race-based classification. The state must show a compelling interest and that the policy is narrowly tailored. Such laws almost always fail because racial preferences must be extremely limited and justified.
Classifications and the type of Scrutiny they get? Also, who has burden of proving?
Strict Scrutiny
Intermediate Scrutiny
Rational Basis
SS: Race, national origin, and state discrimination against aliens (GOVT)
IS: Gender or Nonmarital children (GOVT)
RB: All other classifications that are not subject to strict/intermediate scrutiny (CHALLENGER)
Expand on the Justiciability Limits
Name all 5--> what they are
(1)Prohibition of Advisory Opinion: "cases and controversies"
There must be an actual dispute
(2)Ripeness: Is the case premature?
(3)Mootness: Is there still a live controversy?
Exceptions: Capable of Repetition yet evading review, Voluntary Cessation, Class Action
(4)Standing: Is this the proper party?
Three Constitutional Requirements
Injury, Causation, Redressability
Major Prudential Requirements
Prohibition of Third Party Standing, Prohibition of Generalized Grievances
(5)Political Question Doctrine:
Factors (how does the Court decide if an issue is a political question?--> Constitutional commitment to another branch, lack of judicial manageable standard, impossibility of deciding without initial policy, a lack of respect for other branches, unusual or potential need for unquestioning adherence of a political question already decided
A coastal state passes a law requiring all fish caught within three miles of its shoreline to be processed in-state before being sold anywhere. The law applies to all fishermen equally, regardless of residency.
At the same time, the state also begins operating its own fish-processing facility and offers discounted rates only to in-state fishermen.
You must identify:
(1) which part of the scheme violates the Dormant Commerce Clause,
(2) which part is exempt and under which doctrine.
The in-state processing requirement is facially discriminatory and per se invalid under the Dormant Commerce Clause, but the state-run processing facility’s preference for residents is permissible under the market participant exception
It explicitly favors in-state economic activity.
A law is facially discriminatory when its text gives a benefit to in-state businesses or burdens out-of-state businesses because of location.
Requiring all fish to be processed in-state means:
In-state processors get all the business
Out-of-state processors are completely cut out of the market
This is economic protectionism.
A private apartment complex (Sunset Gardens) adopts a political-speech ban after a City ordinance permits private complexes to create such rules. SG’s private security force detains Maria for 20 minutes, confiscates her political signs, and states they are “authorized by the City.” They later turn her over to city police for arrest.
Maria sues the complex and SG Security under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Are they state actors?
Sunset Gardens is likely not a state actor because the City merely permitted the political-speech ban, and permission alone doesn’t create state action. But SG Security likely is a state actor because detaining Maria, seizing her signs, and handing her to police is a policing function, a traditional exclusive public function. Their statement that they were “authorized by the City” also supports joint action / delegation. Therefore, the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply to SG Security’s conduct, and Maria likely has a valid constitutional claim.