POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Facts of the Case: William Marbury was appointed justice of the peace in John Adams' last days as president, but the appointments were not finalized by the end of Adams' term. Marbury and a few other appointees sued for their jobs.

Constitutional Question: Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? Is the Supreme Court the place to get his request? Judicial review

Decision: Yes, yes, yes the Supreme Court said that the Constitution is the highest law and if any legislation conflicts with it then the legislation is invalid because the court established its role as the sole arbiter of the constitutionality of federal laws.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Facts of the Case: Georgia claimed the Yazoo Lands, west of its own territory (today Alabama and Mississippi). Georgia legislature divided land into four tracts and sold them to four separate land development companies in Yazoo Land Act of 1795. It was revealed the Yazoo Land Act was passes due to bribes, and most incumbents lost the following election. New legislature repealed the Yazoo Land Act. John Peck purchased some of the land previously sold under Yazoo Land Act, later sold it to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher brought suit against Peck, claiming Peck did not have legal title to the land and the sale was illegal, due to repeal of the Yazoo Land Act.

Constitutional Question: Did Peck legally own the land, originally sold under the Yazoo Land Act which was repealed, or was he guilty of a breach of covenant? Does the Supreme Court have the power to invalidate state laws that are in conflict with the Constitution?

Decision: The sale was legal, the repeal of the Yazoo Land Act was void because it was unconstitutional; the sale was a binding contracts, and even though it was the result of bribery, it could not be repealed due to the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. The Court thus asserted its right to declare state laws unconstitutional.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Facts of the Case: In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.

Constitutional Question: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

Decision: The Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws (NATIONAL SUPREMACY).  Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed. "The power to tax is the power to destroy;" confirmed the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.   

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Facts of the Case: A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. This law was duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require out-of-state boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly that New York had granted, which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters.

Constitutional Question:  Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce?

Decision: The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. Chief Justice Marshall developed a clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Facts of the case: John Barron was the co-owner of a profitable wharf in Baltimore. As the city expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbors which took away the deep waters that were essential to Barron's business. He sued the city for his financial losses.

Question: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner?

Decision: The Court made its unanimous decision withour even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. They agreed the Fifth Amendment was intended to limit the power of the national government. Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole) was not applicable to the states.

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

Facts of the Case: Illinois put regulations on grain warehouses and elevators by putting a limit on how high the rates can go for each.

Question: Do these regulations deny owners of the warehouses and elevators the equal protection and due process offered under the 14th Amendment?

Decision: The court ruled for Illinois saying the states can make such regulations on private property when it is done for the good of the general population.

Swift v. United States (1905)

Facts of the Case: As a result of the increasing government action in regulating "big business," this case was brought on by the U.S. Government against monopolizing trusts. The case involved a series of meat companies from Chicago who had entered into an agreement known as the "meat trust" in which they would not big against each other's prices in order to regulate the prices. In addition, the railroads had been pressured to supply shipping services for low prices.

Constitutional Question: Did the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which passed in 1890 as a regulation that requires the U.S. government to investigate trusts and other companies who violated the terms of the Act, extend to this "meat trust" and did Congress have the authority to regulate it?

Decision: The "Court held that congressional power under the Commerce Clause justified regulations of the meat trust." Meaning, yes, the powers of Congress could regulate and or break these trusts because it monopolized industry and commerce. (Unanimous Supreme Court ruling) This decision showed that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act could extend to businesses, federal and local, that were involved in selling a product.

Schechter v. U. S. (1935)

Facts of the Case: Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, the president could implement (and to some degree enforce) industrial codes. These codes were much needed to regulate minimum age of workers, weekly hours, salaries. "The Sick Chicken Case"

Constitutional Question: Under this act, did Congress designate the president with legislative power, thereby violating the powers stated in Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution?

Decision: By having legislative powers, the president executed authority under the N.I.R.A. and this was clearly an "unconsititutional delegation of legislative authority". (Unanimous Supreme Court ruling)

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Facts of the Case: After the start of WWII, an executive order granted the military the authority to set curfews on or keep certain people from certain areas during war.

Constitutional Question: Was this discriminatory and therefore violating a person's freedom?

Decision: The rule held and the court ruled that certain restrictions can be placed on minorities when we are at war with the country of their nationality.

Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)

Facts of the Case: Japanese Americans were sent to camps during WWII after Pearl Harbor by an executive order. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR issued 2 executive orders, one declaring certain parts of the country military areas that certain Americans could be barred from and another that established the War Relocation Authority, which had the power to remove, maintain, and supervise those barred from the military areas. Gordon Hirabayshi, a student at the University of Washington, was convicted of violating a curfew and relocation order.

Constitutional Question: Did the president's executive orders and the powers granted to the military allow discrimination toward Japanese-Americans and resident aliens in violation of the Fifth Amendment?

Decision: The order held as the court sided with the executive order. This was allowed in order to protect (protective measure) the country. The governmental actions were viewed as a necessary  of wartime. 

United States v. Nixon (1974) 

Facts of the Case: Nixon claimed he was immune from subpoenas requiring he present tapes containing evidence, citing executive privilege.

Constitutional Question: Is it the president's right to safeguard information immune from judicial review?

Decision: The court ruled that his privilege did not protect him and he must surrender the tapes.

Clinton v. Jones (1996)

Facts of the case: Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton for making sexual advances on her while he was Governer of Arkansas. Jones claimed that she was punished by her state supervisors because she rejected Clinton. Clinton sought to invoke his presidential immunity to dismiss the suit.

Constitutional Question: Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?

Decision: The decision was unanimous; the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances.

Clinton v. New York City (1998)

Facts of the Case: Hospitals were challenged Clinton's cancellation of a provision in the Balance Budget Act of 1997which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. He was also being challenged by the Snake River's farmer's cooperative. They challenged his cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.

Constitutional Question: Did the president's ability to delete portions of a bill under the Line Item Veto Act violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

Decision: The conclusion? Yes! The courts explained that legislation that passes both houses must either be ENTIRELY approved or ENTIRELY rejected. there is no pick and choose once it is passed. The president having the ability to "edit," then meant he was amending them. This violated legislative procedures of Article I.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Facts of the Case: In the Court case, Bush v. Gore, it ruled that the Florida's Supreme Court method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida.

Decision: Hospitals were challenged Clinton's cancellation of a provision in the Balance Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's

Conclusion: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case.