Transcript Slide 1

Historical Periods of the Court
PSC 446: Constitutional Law
Chief Justices of the United States
1. John Jay: 1789-1795
2. John Rutledge: 1795
3. Oliver Ellsworth: 1796-1800
4. John Marshall: 1801-1835
5. Roger B. Taney: 1836-1864
6. Salmon P. Chase: 1864-1873
7. Morrison R. Waite: 1874-1888
8. Melville Fuller: 1888-1910
Chief Justices of the United States
9. Edward Douglass White: 1910-1921
10. William Howard Taft: 1921-1930
11. Charles Evans Hughes: 1930-1941
12. Harlan Fiske Stone: 1941-1946
13. Fred M. Vinson: 1946-1953
14. Earl Warren: 1953-1969
15. Warren E. Burger: 1969-1986
Chief Justices of the United States
16. William H. Rehnquist: 1986-2005
17. John Roberts: 2005-Present
I. Early Years: 1790 - 1800
• John Jay is Chief Justice of the U.S.
• 1793 - Chisholm v. Georgia
– Citizens of one state have the right to bring
actions to federal court against another state.
• 1796 - Ware v. Hylton
– Federal treaty provisions have supremacy
over state laws.
I. Early Years: 1790 - 1800
• 1796 – Hylton v. United States
– “Direct taxes” are only those on land and
individuals.
• 1798 – Calder v. Bull
– The Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws
does not forbid a state to nullify a man’s title
to property.
I. Early Years: 1790 - 1800
• Justices had to ride circuits to hear
appeals
• Court is not a major political actor
• Opinions read seriatim
II.
Establishment of Power:
1801-1835
• John Marshall is Chief Justice of the U.S.
• 1803 - Marbury v. Madison
– Establishes the Court’s power of judicial
review
• 1810 – Fletcher v. Peck
– States cannot impair the obligation of
contract.
II. Establishment of Power:
1801-1835
• 1816 - Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
– Section 25 of the Judiciary Act gives the Court
the power to review cases in which state
courts have rejected challenges to a state law
or action.
• McCulloch v. Maryland
– Congress has the power to make laws that
are “necessary and proper”; and, federal
entities cannot be taxed by states.
II. Establishment of Power:
1801-1835
• 1821 – Cohens v. Virginia
– Under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
the Court has the power to review state court
rulings that deny federal claims.
• 1824 – Gibbons v. Ogden
– Commerce is intercourse, including navigation
and other modes of transportation, as well as
commercial transactions. Interstate
commerce is between or among the states.
Foundations of Judicial Review
• The power of judicial review has it
foundations in the following three cases:
– Marbury v. Madison
– Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
– Cohens v. Virginia
II. Establishment of Power:
1801-1835
• 1827 – Martin v. Mott
– A presidential decision to call out the militia is
not subject to judicial review and is binding on
state authorities
• 1832 – Worcester v. Georgia
– Federal jurisdiction over Indians is exclusive,
allowing no room for state authority.
II. Establishment of Power:
1801-1835
• 1833 – Barron v. Baltimore
– The Bill of Rights only applies to the citizens
of the United States
III. States and Slavery
1836 - 1860
• 1837 – New York v. Miln
– A state law can be a valid exercise of state police
power to protect public welfare against an influx of
paupers. This is a function of state sovereignty.
• 1837 – Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
– Charters granted by a state should never be assumed
to limit the state’s power of eminent domain.
• 1842 – Prigg v. Pennsylvania
– The Court struck down a Pennsylvania law
concerning the procedures for the return of fugitive
slaves.
III. States and Slavery
1836 - 1860
• 1849 - Luther v. Borden
– The guarantee clause is enforceable only
through the political branches
• 1851 – Cooley v. Board of Wardens
– The “selective exclusiveness” doctrine
adopted by the Court in interstate commerce.
• 1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
– Blacks were not and could not be citizens of
the United States
III. States and Slavery
1836 - 1860
• 1859 – Ableman v. Booth
– State courts lack the power to issue writs of
habeas corpus to federal courts or to federal
officers to release prisoners
III.
War and Recovery
1861 - 1872
• 1861 - Ex parte Merryman
– Only Congress can declare emergency power to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus
• 1863 – The Prize Cases
– The Court sustained the president’s power to proclaim
a blockade without a congressional declaration of war
• 1867 – Mississippi v. Johnson
– The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the political
acts of the president.
III. War and Recovery
1861 - 1872
• 1866 - Ex parte Milligan
– The president lacks the power to authorize
military tribunals to try civilians in areas where
civil courts are still functioning.
III. War and Recovery
1861 - 1872
• 1869 - Ex parte McCardle
– Congress can make exceptions to the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
• 1869 – Texas v. White
– States lack the power to secede from the
Union.
• 1870 – Hepburn v. Griswold
– Acts of Congress substituting paper money
for gold are unconstitutional.
IV. Balance of Power
1873-1888
• 1873 – Slaughterhouse Cases
– The 14th Amendment was not violated when
Louisiana granted a monopoly to one
slaughterhouse.
• 1973 - Bradwell v. Illinois
– The 14th Amendment was not violated when
Illinois refused to grant a license to practice
law on the basis of gender.
IV. Balance of Power
1873-1888
• 1875 – Minor v. Happersett
– The 14th Amendment does not guarantee women the
right to vote.
• 1877 – Munn v. Illinois
– The state police power includes the power of states to
regulate private businesses.
• 1888 – Civil Rights Cases
– Neither the 13th nor 14th Amendment empowers
Congress to bar discrimination in privately owned
public accommodations.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1881 – Kilbourn v. Thompson
– The power of Congress is not unlimited, nor is
its power to punish those who refuse to
cooperate in their investigations.
• 1886 – Yick Wo v. Hopkins
– The 14th Amendment protects persons, not
just citizens.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1886 – Santa Clara County v. So. Pacific
Railroad Co.
– Corporations can be considereed “persons”
within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1890 – Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
RR. v. Minnesota (Minnesota Rate Cases)
– A state deprives a company of due process
and the power to charge reasonable rates
when is fails to provide judicial review of those
rate limitations.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
– Separate but equal accommodations are
constitutional.
• 1904 – Northern Securities v. U.S.
– A holding company formed solely to eliminate
competition between two companies is a
combination in restraint of trade and a
violation of the federal antitrust act.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1898 – Smyth v. Ames
– Corporations are persons within the protection
of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of
due process (see Santa Clara Santa Clara
County v. So. Pacific Railroad Co.)
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1905 – Swift & Co. v. U.S.
– Congress can regulate local commerce that is
part of an interstate current of commerce.
• 1905 – Lochner v. New York
– Laws limiting working hours for bakers is a
denial of due process, infringing the freedom
of contract.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1908 – Adair v. U.S.
– A federal law prohibiting contracts that
required an employee to promise not to join a
labor union as a condition of employment
exceeded federal authority to regulate
interstate commerce and violated the
“freedom of contract.”
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1907 - Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.
– A state can ask a federal judge to order a
company in another state to cease polluting
the air shared by the two states.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1908 - Loewe v. Lawler (Danbury Hatters
Case)
– Union boycotts can be ruled as restraints of
trade and therefore unlawful.
– A union attempting to organize workers in a
factory in one state by boycotting stores that
sell its products elsewhere is a combination in
restraint of trade and in violation of the federal
antitrust law.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1908 - Ex parte Young
– Federal courts may properly enjoin,
temporarily, the enforcement of a state law
challenged as unconstitutional.
• 1908 – Muller v. Oregon
– The Court upheld Oregon’s law setting
maximum hours for women working in
laundries.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1911 – Standard Oil v. U.S.
– Only unreasonable combinations and undue
restraints of trade are illegal under the federal
antitrust act.
• 1914 – Shreveport Rate Cases
– Congress may regulate intrastate railroad
rates if they are so intertwined with interstate
rail rates that it is impossible to regulate the
one without regulating the other.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1917 – Bunting v. Oregon
– The Court upheld an Oregon law setting ten
hours as the maximum permissible workday
for all.
• 1918 - Hammer v. Dagenhart
– The Court struck down a federal statute that
prohibited the shipment in interstate
commerce of any goods produced by child
labor.
V. The Conservative Court
1889-1919
• 1918 - Selective Draft Law Cases
– Congress is authorized to institute a
compulsory draft of persons into the armed
forces under its power to raise armies and the
necessary and proper clause.
VI. New Times, Old Court
1920-1937
• 1920 – Missouri v. Holland
– In order to implement a treaty, Congress may
enact legislation that otherwise might be an
unconstitutional invasion of state sovereignty.
• 1922 – Bailey v. Drexel Furniture
– The Court invalidated a federal law that
imposed a 10% tax on the net profits of any
company that employed children under a
certain age.
VI. New Times, Old Court
1920-1937
• 1923 – Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
– The Court struck down an act of Congress
setting a minimum wage for women and
children workers in the District of Columbia.
• 1927 – Buck v. Bell
– Virginia did not violate the 14th Amendment
what is sterilized, without her consent, what is
classified as a mentally defective mother.
Quiz #1
• 1. What is the name of the case that can be considered
the first environmental law decision at the Supreme
Court level?
• 2. What did the Court hold in Myers v. United States?
• 3. What is the name of the case in which the Supreme
Court held that Virginia did not violate the 14th
Amendment’s due process guarantee when it sterilized
what it called a “mentally defective mother”?
• 4. In 1923, what did the Court hold in Adkins v.
Children’s Hospital?
• 5. In this case, the Court held that Congress may enact
legislation that otherwise might be an unconstitutional
invasion of state sovereignty. What is the name of the
case?
VI. New Times, Old Court
1920-1937
• 1926 - Myers v. U.S.
– The Court upheld the president’s power to
remove certain postmasters from office
without advice and consent from the Senate.
• 1928 – J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. U.S.
– Imposition of protective tariffs is a permissible
exercise of the power to tax.
VI. New Times, Old Court
1920-1937
• 1934 – Home Building & Loan Assn. v.
Blaisdell
– In the face of a Contract Clause argument,
the Court upheld an emergency state placing
a moratorium on foreclosure of mortgages.
• 1935 – Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S.
– The Court denied the president the power to
remove members of independent regulatory
agencies.
VI. New Times, Old Court
1920-1937
• 1936 - United States v. Butler
– The Court held that Congress could not
combine the power to spend for the general
welfare with the power to tax in order to
regulate agricultural products.
• 1937 – West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
– The Court upheld the State of Washington’s
law setting minimum wages for women and
children workers.
VI. New Times, Old Court
1920-1937
• 1937 – Helvering v. Davis
– The Court sustained the constitutionality of
the Social Security Act of 1935. This case
effectively overturned its Butler decision.
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1938 – U.S. v. Carolene Products
– The Court upheld a federal law barring the
interstate transportation of certain milk
products (“The Filled Mild Case”).
– “Carolene Footnote” – Justice Stone:
• “There may be a narrower scope for operation of
the presumption of constitutionality when
legislation appears on its face to be within a
specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as
those of the first ten amendments.”
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1938 – Schechter Poultry Co. v. U.S.
– Congress exceed its authority when it
delegated legislative authority to regulate
interstate commerce.
• 1941 – United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
– Congress has the authority to prohibit the
shipment in interstate commerce of any goods
manufactured in violation of the federally
established minimum wage and hours laws.
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1942 – Wickard v. Filburn
– The federal power to prevent burdens on
interstate commerce permits the federal
government to regulate matters that are
neither interstate nor commerce.
• 1943 - Ex parte Quirin
– Instead of requiring a civilian jury, the Court
upheld the conviction of seven Nazi saboteurs
by a presidentially established military
commission
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1943 – Hirabayashi v. U.S.
– The Court upheld the wartime curfew law
placed on Japanese-Americans living on the
West Coast.
• 1944 – Korematsu v. U.S.
– The Court upheld the removal of JapaneseAmericans to relocation centers at inland
camps away from the West Coast.
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1947 - United States v. California
– The federal government, not the states, owns
the tidelands immediately adjacent to the
states and the oil therein.
• 1952 – Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
Sawyer
– President Truman exceeded his authority in
seizing the nation’s steel mills to prevent a
strike during the Korean Conflict.
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1953 – Rosenberg v. United States
– The Court, after meeting in special session,
lifted the stay of execution for Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg. They were executed for
espionage.
• 1957 – Watkins v. United States
– Congressional investigations may be
undertaken only in aid of legislation. “[T]here
is no congressional power to expose for the
sake of exposure.”
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1958 - Weiner v. United States
– Where the duties of the office included quasijudicial functions, the president lacks the
power to remove an incumbent simply to
replace him. (Justice Frankfurter)
• Barenblatt v. United States
– The First Amendment rights of witnesses in
congressional investigations may be limited
when the public interest outweighs a private
interest.
VII. The Court, Civil Rights &
Society 1938 - 1968
• 1964 - Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United
States
– The commerce power may be used to prohibit
racial discrimination in privately owned public
accommodations.
• 1968 – Flast v. Cohen
– To challenge taxation, taxpayers must
establish a “double nexus.”
VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986
• 1969 - Powell v. McCormack
– Congress does not have the authority to
exclude a member who meets the
constitutional qualifications of age, residence
and citizenship.
• 1971 – Younger v. Harris
– Federal judges should not normally issue
orders to state officials to halt enforcement of
a state law or ongoing state proceedings.
VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986
• 1974 - Edelman v. Jordan
– The 11th Amendment protects a state from a
federal court order directing it to spend money
to remedy past abuses.
• 1974 – United States v. Nixon
– Neither the separation of powers nor
“executive privilege” can justify a claim of
immunity for the president in the face of
judicial demands in a criminal proceeding.
VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986
• 1975 – Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
– Lawyers are not immune from the provisions
of federal antitrust laws.
• 1976 – Natl. League of Cities v. Usery
– Congress exceeded its power to regulate
commerce when it extended federal minimum
employment standards to cover state and
local government employees.
VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986
• 1976 – Stone v. Powell
– A state prisoner’s claim that illegally obtained
evidence was used to convict him cannot
support a writ of habeas corpus release.
• 1976 – Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages
– The export-import clause does not bar a state
from imposing a tax on imported goods as
long as the tax is not discriminatory.
VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986
• 1978 – Monell v. Dept. of Social Services
– Municipal authorities are not immune from
civil rights damage suits filed under the Civil
Rights Act of 1871.
• 1978 – Butz v. Economous
– Federal officials are not completely immune
from damage suits arising from conduct of
duties.
VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986
• 1979 – Hutchinson v. Proxmire
– The “Speech and Debate” clause does not
protect a senator from being sued for libel as
a results of statements in press releases or
newsletters.
• 1982 – Nixon v. Proxmire
– Presidents are absolutely immune from civil
damage suits.
VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986
• 1983 – INS v. Chadha
– The “one house veto” is unconstitutional.
• 1985 – Garcia v. San Antonio Metro.
Transit Authority
– The Constitution does not limit Congress from
regulating commerce when it imposes
minimum employment standards on state and
local employees.
Quiz #3
•
•
•
•
What is the Carolene Footnote?
What did Hirabayashi v. U.S. hold?
What did Korematsu v. U.S. hold?
What happened to Julius and Ethel
Rosenburg?
• Why is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United
States such an important case?