Summary [1 of 4] of Cases Analyzed in Treatise, ‘The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed’

001The cases in this table (and in a second, third, and fourth blogs published consecutively) are those supreme court decisions cited in The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed (Vols. 1-4). In reading the table, one should understand that: (1) A few of the cases have been overruled; (2) Most of the cases are either wrong in result, wrong in reasoning, or both (3) The case headings I have given are intended as descriptive only and are not a substitute for reading the cases themselves; and (4) The headings given are from the perspective of the court on the subjects it treated—and not as implying or indicating the correctness the result or reasoning employed or even the ultimate appropriateness of the headings.

For the detail of my analysis of the “merits” (or mostly demerits) of the decisions, readers must consult the Treatise itself. Information on obtaining Volumes 1-3 is available on this blog under the title “The Real Constitution: How the Supreme Court Has Tortured It

For the detail of my analysis of the “merits” (or mostly demerits) of the decisions, readers must consult the Treatise itself. Information on obtaining Volumes 1-3 is available on this blog under the title “The Real Constitution: How the Supreme Court Has Tortured It

Constitutional Provisions.→ = incorporated into Am. 14, §1 Classification
Am. 1→Am. 14, §1 Assembly-Petition—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 8 Bail—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 1-10 Bill of Rights—Generally—
Art. 1, §10 Bills of Attainder—
Art. 1, §10 Bills of Credit—Prohibition vs. States’ Issuance—
Am. 14, §5 Citizenship—
Am. 14 Civil Rights—Congressional Power—
Am. 5→Am. 14, §1 Collateral Estoppel—Substantive Due Process—
Art. 1, §8, Cl. 3. Commerce Power
Am. 6→Am. 14, §1 Compulsory Process—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 6→Am. 14, §1 Confrontation—Substantive Due Process—
Constitution Generally—
Art. 1, §10 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—
Am. 6→Am. 14, §1 Counsel—Substantive Due Process
Am. 8→Am. 14, §1 Cruel and Unusual Punishment—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 5→Am. 14, §1 Double jeopardy—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 14, §1 Due Process—
Am. 14, §1 Equal Protection—
Am. 5 Equal Protection—Fifth Amendment “Component”—
Am. 14, §1 Equal Protection—Political Questions—
Am. 14, §1 Equal Protection—Reapportionment—
Art. 1, §10 Ex Post Facto—
Art. 1, §10 Export/Import Taxes—Prohibition vs. States—
Art. 3 Federal Judicial Power—
Am. 10 + passim, Federalism—
Am. 1→Am. 14, §1 Free Exercise—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 1→Am. 14, §1 Freedom of Speech—Substantive Due Process—
Art. 4, §1 Full Faith & Credit—
Art. 1, §1 General Welfare—
Am. 5 Grand Jury Indictment—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 6→Am. 14, §1 Impartial Jury—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 7 Jury Trial in Civil Cases—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 6→Am. 14, §1 Jury Trial—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 5→Am. 14, §1 Just Compensation—Substantive Due Process—
Art. 1, §14 Military Rules Power—
Art. 1, §1, Cl. 18 Necessary & Proper—
Passim Nullification—
Am. 1→Am. 14, §1 Press—Substantive Due Process—
Art. 4, §2,  Am. 14, §1 Privileges & Immunities—
Am. 6 Public Trial—Notice of Charges—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 1→Am. 14, §1 Religion—Establishment—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 1→Am. 14, §1 Religion—Free Exercise—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 2→Am. 14, §1 Right to Keep and Bear Arms—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 9 + Preamble Rights, Unenumerated—
Am. 4→Am. 14, §1 Search and Seizure—Substantive Due Process—
Am. 5→Am. 14, §1 Self-incrimination—Substantive Due Process—
Arts. 1, §1, Art. 2, §1, Art. 3, §1; Am. 10; passim Separation of Powers—
Arts. 1, §1, Art. 2, §2 Separation of Powers—Appointments and Removals—
Separation of Powers—Presidential Power—
Art. 4, §3 Slavery—Fugitive Slaves—
Am. 13, §1 Slavery-Involuntary Servitude—
Am. 11 Sovereign Immunity—
Am. 6→Am. 14, §1 Speedy Trial—Substantive Due Process—
Substantive Due Process—
Am. 14, §1 Substantive Due Process  (Federal)—
Am. 5→Am. 14, §1 Substantive Due Process —Abortion­—
Am. 5→Am. 14, §1 Substantive Due Process—Contraception Rights—
Am. 5 Takings—
Art. 1, §1 Taxing Power—
Art. 1, §10 Taxing Power—Exports/Imports—
Art. 1 Taxing Power—Uniformity Requirement
Art. 3, §2 Treaty Power—
Voting “Rights”—
Art. 1, §8, Cl. 11 War Power—
Name Yr. Subject(s)
DeJonge v. Oregon 1937 Assembly-Petition—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Hague v. CIO 1939 Assembly-Petition—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Schilb v. Kuebel 1971 Bail—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Barron v. Baltimore 1833 Bill of Rights—Generally—Not binding on state governments
United States v. Brown 1965 Bills of Attainder—Respondent was convicted under §504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments.Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder, and is therefore unconstitutional
Craig v. Missouri 1830 Bills of Credit—Prohibition vs. States’ Issuance—Marshall: Such a medium has been always liable to considerable fluctuation. Its value is continually changing; and these changes, often great and sudden, expose individuals to immense loss, are the sources of ruinous speculations, and destroy all confidence between man and man. To cut up this mischief by the roots, a mischief which was felt through the United States, and which deeply affected the interest and prosperity of all, the people declared in their Constitution that no State should emit bills of credit.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

1856

Citizenship—Black slaves were not citizens

Bank of United States v. Deveaux 1809 Citizenship—Corporation an ‘invisible, intangible, and artificial being’ and ‘certainly not a citizen.’
Hertz Corp. v. Friend 2010 Citizenship—Corporations said to be citizens of state of principal place of business
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 1971 Civil Rights—Congressional Power—Civil Rights Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation
Boerne v. Flores 1997

Civil Rights—Congressional Power—Congress’s Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), which expressly forbade control of religious use of land by local governments. Congress lacked power to enact RFRA under section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Section 5 permits Congress to enact only remedial measures enforcing constitutional rights, not to create new substantive rights inconsistent with a previous Supreme Court interpretation. In Boerne, the Supreme Court continued to exalt its powers at the expense of congressional authority.

North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann 1971 Civil Rights—Congressional Power—North Carolina’s Anti-Busing Law, which flatly forbids assignment of any student on account of race or for the purpose of creating a racial balance or ratio in the schools and which prohibits busing for such purposes, held invalid as preventing implementation of desegregation plans required by the Fourteenth Amendment
Ashe v. Swenson 1970 Collateral Estoppel—Substantive Due Process— Announced

Head Money Cases

1884

Commerce Power—

Taxing Power—

Shippers challenged the constitutionality of the federal head tax, principally on the grounds that it was not applied uniformly throughout the United States nor did it raise revenue for the common defense and general welfare of the country. The Supreme Court rejected such arguments, reiterating its earlier holdings that immigration was a form of foreign commerce over which Congress had plenary power. The head tax was a mere incident of the regulation of commerce not an exercise of the taxing power. The money collected was closely related to the government’s legitimate interest in regulating immigration. The Head Money Cases helped to consolidate federal control over immigration and also helped to broaden congressional power to impose taxes in carrying out other constitutional powers

United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. 1942 Commerce PowerAgriculture = Commerce
Mitchell v. Lublin McGaughy & Associates 1959 Commerce PowerArchitectural employees = commerce
American Power & Light v. SEC 1946 Commerce Power—As broad as the economic needs of the nation required
Howell Chevrolet Co. v. NLRB 1953 Commerce PowerAuto dealers = commerce
United States v. International Boxing Club 1955 Commerce PowerBoxing = commerce
Kirschbaum v. Walling 1942 Commerce PowerBuilding Maintence Services = Commerce
Associated Press v. United States 1945 Commerce Power—commerce news gathering and transmission
Veazie Bank v. Fenno 1869 Commerce PowerCongress may restrain the circulation of notes not issued under its own authority. To this end it may impose a prohibitive tax upon the circulation of the notes of state banks
Champion v. Ames 1903 Commerce Power—Congress may use its power to regulate commerce to outlaw the interstate sale and shipment of lottery tickets
Cleveland v. United States 1946 Commerce Power—Criminalized transportation of plural wives by Mormons
Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Company 1989 Commerce PowerDeclared that regulations under the commerce power overrode any 11th Amendment limits
New York v. Miln 1837 Commerce Power—Does not apply to movement of people, only goods
United States v. Sullivan 1948 Commerce PowerDrug stores = commerce
Mulford v. Smith 1939 Commerce PowerEstablish quotas for agricultural production = commerce
National League of Cities v. Usery 1976 Commerce Power—Establishing  wage and hour standards for state and local government employees ≠ commerce
Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad 1935 Commerce PowerEstablishing pension system for railroad workers  ≠ commerce
Katzenbach v. Morgan 1966 Commerce PowerExtended the reach of the commerce power to validate legislation designed to ban racial discrimination
United States v. Lopez 1995 Commerce PowerFederal law banning individuals from carrying a gun near a school ≠ commerce
NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp. 1963 Commerce PowerFuel oil dealers = commerce
Wabash St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois 1886 Commerce PowerIf a railroad was a part of an interstate network, a state might not regulate rates even for the part of the line that lay within its borders
Munn v. Illinois 1876 Commerce Power—In the absence of federal legislation state legislatures could regulate interstate railroads
Armour & Co. v. Wantock 1944 Commerce Power—Includes activities of standby auxiliary firefighters
Shreveport Rate Cases 1914 Commerce PowerInterstate and intrastate railroad rates = commerce
Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union 1877 Commerce PowerInvalidated a state law conflicting with congressional regulations of the new electric telegraph industry
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona 1945 Commerce PowerInvalidated an Arizona law prohibiting the operation within its borders of a railroad train of more than fourteen passenger or seventy freight cars
Passenger Cases 1849

Commerce PowerInvalidated New York’s and Massachusetts’s taxes on incoming passengers, including immigrants

Perez v. United States 1971 Commerce PowerLoan-sharkers = interstate commerce
Camps Newfound/Owatonna Inc. v. Town of Harrison 1997 Commerce Power—Maine’s charitable property tax exemption law that applied to non‐profit firms performing benevolent and charitable functions, but excluded entities serving primarily non‐Maine residents, was unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause.
United States v. E .C. Knight Co. 1895 Commerce PowerManufacture for export to another state ≠ commerce
Kidd v. Pearson 1888 Commerce PowerManufacturing ≠ commerce
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp 1937 Commerce PowerManufacuring = commerce
Swift and Co. v. United States 1905 Commerce PowerMeatpacking = commerce
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins 1940 Commerce PowerMining = commerce
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. 1936 Commerce Power—Mining is not commerce and does not affect commerce directly. Thus, Congress may not regulate labor relations in the coal mining industry
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 1964 Commerce PowerMotels = commerce
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin 1954 Commerce PowerNatural gas production = commerce
Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 Commerce Power—Navigation = commerce
Philadelphia v. New Jersey 1978 Commerce PowerNew Jersey law prohibiting the importation of liquid or solid waste overtly blocked the flow of interstate commerce and thus was invalid under the dormant commerce clause
Walton v. Southern Package Corp 1944 Commerce PowerNight watchmen = commerce

United States v. Lopez

1995

Commerce PowerOverturned a federal law banning individuals from carrying a gun near a school. According to a 5–4 majority of the Court, the statute extended beyond the constitutional power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce

Gooch v. United States 1936 Commerce PowerPermits federal kidnapping law
United States v. Morrison 2000 Commerce PowerPortions of Violence vs. Women Act ≠ commerceCivil Rights—Congressional Power—Power doesn’t sustain act
Hammer v. Dagenhart 1918 Commerce Power—Products manufactured in part with child labor law ≠ commerce
Radovich v. National Football League 1957 Commerce PowerProfessional football = Commerce
United States v. Darby Lumber Co. 1941 Commerce PowerProhibition of goods made under substandard labor conditions = commerce regulation
New York N.H. & H.R. Co. v. Nothnagle 1953 Commerce PowerRed cap service = commerce
Katzenbach v. McClung 1964 Commerce PowerRestaurants = commerce
McCray v. United States 1904 Commerce PowerSale of Oleomargarine = commerce
Daniel v. Paul 1969 Commerce PowerSnack bars = interstate commerce

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown

1994 Commerce Power—Struck down a local law granting monopoly privileges to a single waste processing center on the ground that the law discriminated against interstate commerce by preventing out-of-state waste processors from entering a local market
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines Inc 1995 Commerce PowerSustained Oklahoma’s unapportioned sales tax on a bus ticket for travel that originates in Oklahoma, but terminates in another state
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 1937 Commerce Power—Sustained the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, a law that guaranteed collective bargaining to all employees engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce
Douglas v. Alabama 1965 Commerce PowerThe power of the state to impose restraints and burdens on persons and property in conservation and promotion of the public health, good order, and prosperity is a power originally and always belonging to the states, not surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive, and the suppression of lotteries as a harmful business falls within this power, commonly called, of police
United States v. Shubert 1955 Commerce PowerTheatrical productions = commerce
Hoke v. United States 1913 Commerce PowerTransportation of females for prostitution = commerce
United States v. Simpson 1920 Commerce PowerTransportation of five quarts of whiskey for personal consumption = commerce
Russell v. United States 1985 Commerce PowerTwo-unit apartment buildings = commerce
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros. 1938 Commerce PowerUpheld a state law that prohibited trucks with loads in excess of twenty thousand pounds and widths over ninety inches from using the state highways
Brooks v. United States 1925 Commerce Power—Upheld Automobile Theft Act of 1915, which made it a federal offense knowingly to drive a stolen automobile across a state line
Caminetti v. United States 1917 Commerce Power—Upheld congress’s power to ciminalize transportation of females for noncommercial sexual purposes
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs 2003 Commerce Power—Upheld congressional act mandating that employers provide leave time for family purposes
Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. 1829 Commerce Power—Upheld Delaware statute which permitted a company to erect a dam across a minor navigable stream to drain a swamp; and announced dormant commerce power
Reno v. Condon 1999 Commerce PowerUpheld federal law barring states from releasing personal information about licensed motor vehicle drivers without their consent. Driver’s information = commerce
South Carolina v. Baker 1988 Commerce PowerUpheld state highway safety regulations against commerce clause challenge
United States v. South‐Eastern Underwriters Association 1944 Commerce Power—Upheld state regulation of insurance companies
Reeves Inc. v. Stake 1980 Commerce PowerUpheld statute that gave priority to state residents to purchase products of a state-owned cement manufacturing plant
In re Debs 1895 Commerce Power—Upheld use of injunctions against striking labor unions
Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority 1985 Commerce PowerUpheld wage and hour standards for state and local government employees = commerce
Cooley v. Port Wardens of Philadelphia 1851 Commerce Power—Upholding a state regulation of harbor pilots Some subjects of regulatory authority in commerce, the Court declared in Cooley, demanded a single uniform rule, but others as imperatively demanded that diversity, which alone can meet the local necessities of navigation
Wickard v. Filburn 1942 Commerce PowerWheat grown for home consumption = commerce
Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co. 1946 Commerce PowerWindow washers = commerce
Washington v. Texas 1967 Compulsory Process—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Pointer v. Texas 1965 Confrontation—Substantive Due Process—Announced

Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. May

1904

Constitution Generally—Allows for play in the joints (Holmes)

Norton v. Shelby County 1886 Constitution Generally—An unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed (Field)
Carolene Products Co. v. United States 1944 Constitution Generally—Created a presumption of constitutionality that upholds government action unless it violates an identifiable fundamental right.
Poe v. Ullman 1961 Constitution Generally—Determined that the controversy was not ripe because the plaintiff had not been prosecuted
Northern Securities Co. v. United States 1904 Constitution Generally—Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. (Holmes)

Pennington v. Coxe

1804

Constitution Generally—Marshall on rules of interpretation

United States v. Morton Salt Co 1950 Constitution Generally—Non-existent power cannot be prescripted by an unchallenged exercise
United States Trust v. New Jersey 1977 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—A 1962 statutory covenant between New Jersey and New York limited the ability of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to subsidize rail passenger transportation from revenues and reserves pledged as security for consolidated bonds issued by the Port Authority. A 1974 New Jersey statute, together with a concurrent and parallel New York statute, retroactively repealed the 1962 covenant. Held: The Contract Clause prohibits the retroactive repeal of the 1962 covenant
Stone v. Mississippi 1880 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Abandoned the contracts clause
Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1819 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Corporate franchises protected by contracts clause
West River Bridge Co. v. Dix 1848 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Court established that the exercise of eminent domain power to extinguish a franchise did not violate the Contract Clause
Mills v. St. Clair County 1850 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Framers of the Constitution never intended that the legislative and judicial powers of the general government should extend to municipal regulations necessary to the wellbeing and existence of the states. The contracts clause, at least in so far as contracts to which states were parties, was entombed in a vault of silence
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis 1987 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—It is well‐settled that the prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts is not to be read literally
Maynard v. Hill 1888 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Marriage contract was not protected from dissolution by the state: Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority. Legislation, therefore, affecting this institution and annulling the relation between the parties is not within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States against the impairment of contracts by state legislation.

Sturges v. Crowninshield

1819

Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Rejected social‐welfare arguments in favor of abrogating contracts in order to discharge the debts of insolvent debtors in bankruptcy

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge

1837

ContractProhibition vs. States’ Impairment—state governments enjoyed wide discretionary authority to advance and protect rights of the public as against the claims of corporations . No charter should be given a broad construction, and thereby afforded sweeping protection under the Contracts Clause against regulation or new competition, the Court declared. The Court sought to assure that the states would retain in robust form a police power based upon ‘the rights reserved to them’ by the Constitution—that is, ‘the power over their own internal policy and improvement, which is so necessary to their well being and prosperity’

Ogden v. Saunders 1827 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—States could discharge debts, provided they did not impair contracts made before the statute was enacted

Fletcher v. Peck

1810 Contract—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Sustained Public Land Grants as Unimpairable Contracts
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 1934 Contracts—Prohibition vs. States’ Impairment—Upheld a state moratorium on payments of mortgages
Powell v. Alabama 1932 Counsel—Substantive Due Process— Announced
Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 Counsel—Substantive Due Process— Announced
Robinson v. California 1962 Cruel and Unusual Punishment—Substantive Due Process—A California statute makes it a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for any person to be addicted to the use of narcotics, and, in sustaining petitioner’s conviction thereunder, the California courts construed the statute as making the status of narcotic addiction a criminal offense for which the offender may be prosecuted at any time before he reforms, even though he has never used or possessed any narcotics within the State and has not been guilty of any antisocial behavior there. Held: As so construed and applied, the statute inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber 1947 Cruel and Unusual Punishment—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Ingraham v. Wright 1977 Cruel and Unusual Punishment—Substantive Due Process—Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to disciplinary corporal punishment in public schools
Emmund v. Florida 1982 Cruel and Unusual Punishment—Substantive Due Process—Court may review felony murder sentences.
Benton v. Maryland 1969 Double jeopardy—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Palko v. Connecticut 1937 Double jeopardy—Substantive Due Process—Rejected Incorporation is required only when a particular provision of the Bill of Rights was implicit in the concept of ordered liberty
Arnett v. Kennedy 1974 Due Process—Act conferring upon nonprobationary federal employees right not to be discharged except for cause and at the same time conditioning the grant of that right by procedural limitations, Act did not create and the Due Process Clause does not require any additional expectancy of job retention.
Booth v. Maryland 1987 Due Process—Asserts 14th amendment veto power over state victim impact statement laws
Caritatovo v. California 1958 Due Process—Audi alteram partem—hear the other side!—is a command, spoken with the voice of the due process clause (dissenting)
Bell v. Burson 1971 Due Process—Before Georgia, whose statutory scheme significantly involves the issue of liability, may deprive an individual of his license and registration, it must provide a procedure for determining the question whether there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as a result of the accident.
Bi‐Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization 1915 Due Process—Colorado tax assessment increasing Denver property taxes by 40% did not violate procedural due process.
Londoner v. Denver 1908 Due Process—Distinguished from Substantive Due Process
Morgan v. United States 1938 Due Process—Due process also embraces a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them. Just as due process requires one be allowed to present all his claims, so it also requires that there be an opportunity to present every available defense or rebuttal
Board of Regents v. Roth 1972 Due Process—Expectation of continued employment as a tenured professor held not a property interest subject to due process
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt 1900 Due Process—Fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard
Grannis v. Ordean 1914 Due Process—Fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard
Mathews v. Eldridge 1976 Due Process—Held a post‐termination evidentiary hearing to be sufficient due process in a disability‐benefit termination case
Lindsey v. Normet 1972 Due Process—Just as due process requires one be allowed to present all his claims, so it also requires that there be an opportunity to present every available defense
Twining v. New Jersey 1908 Due Process—Requires not only notice, but also a fair opportunity to be heard in response to the notice
Saunders v. Shaw 1917 Due Process—Requires opportunity for rebuttal
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill 1985 Due Process—Separated the issue of whether due process is triggered from the question of how much process is due. A court is to weigh the extent of an individual’s interest in additional procedure, as well as its value and cost. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) held a post‐termination evidentiary hearing to be sufficient due process in a disability‐benefit termination case. Mathews gives courts much leeway. Sometimes, a fairly full, trial‐type hearing is required. At other times, a court simply requires basic notice and opportunity to speak.
Simon v. Craft 1901 Due Process—The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard
Roberts v. United States Jaycees 1984 Due Process—The principle that a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law. The requirement of clarity reduces the danger of caprice and discrimination in the administration of laws and enables individuals to conform their conduct to the requirements of law
Moyer v. Peabody 1909 Due Process—What is due process of law depends on circumstances and varies with the subject-matter and the necessities of the situation. (Holmes)
Civil Rights Cases 1883 Equal Protction—Declared unconstitutional provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that prohibited racial discrimination in inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement
Mass. Personnel Administrator v. Feeney 1979 Equal Protection—A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an extraordinary justification
Eisenstadt v. Baird 1972 Equal protection—By providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarly situated, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. 1886 Equal Protection—Corporations would be protected against invasions of their rights by state legislatures
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez 1973 Equal Protection—Education is not a fundamental right
Ward’s Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio 1989 Equal Protection—Employee has the initial burden of proving that a facially-neutral employment practice has a discriminatory effect
Brown v. Board of Education 1954 Equal Protection—Equal protection prohibits public school segregation
Bolling v. Sharpe 1954 Equal Protection—Fifth Amendment Component—One of the desegregation cases that involved the District of Columbia schools, held that discrimination by Congress could violate the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the due process clause of the 5th Amendment implicitly forbade most racial discrimination by the federal government just as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment restricts states.
Califano v. Goldfarb 1977 Equal Protection—Fifth Amendment Component—Struck down alleged discrimination in social security benefits for women
Morey v. Doud 1957 Equal Protection—Illinois Community Currency Exchanges Act provides for the licensing, inspection, bonding and regulation of currency exchanges engaged in the business of issuing or selling money orders. It forbids them to do business on the premises of any other business; but it exempts from all of its provisions money orders sold or issued by the American Express Co., an old, established, world-wide enterprise of unquestioned solvency and high financial standing, which sells money orders through local drug and grocery stores. Appellees, a currency exchange issuing and selling money orders and its agent selling them in his own drugstore, sued to enjoin enforcement of the Act against them, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. Held: Application of the Act to appellees denies them the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
Moore v. Ogilvie 1969 Equal Protection—Illinois statute, which is an integral part of the election process, applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely settled counties and populous counties alike, and thus discriminates against the residents of the populous counties in the exercise of their political rights in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Romer v. Evans 1996 Equal Protection—Invalidated a Colorado initiative that denied homosexuals and lesbians the ability to secure protected status under state antidiscrimination rules, invoking rational‐basis review and refraining from holding that sexual orientation was a suspect classification
Skinner v. Oklahoma 1942 Equal Protection—Invalidated a statute requiring the sterilization of violent recidivists, but not recidivists in white‐collar crime, on the ground that classifications affecting fundamental interests had to be strictly scrutinized
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan 1982 Equal Protection—Invalidated gender segregation in nursing schools
Loving v. Virginia 1967 Equal Protection—Invalidated the law as an invidious racial classification prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Warren held that under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State
United States v. Virginia 1996 Equal Protection—Invalidated Virginia’s operation of a military college to train only men with a distinctive curriculum
Shapiro v. Thompson 1969 Equal Protection—Invalidating a requirement that recipients of public assistance reside in a state for a year before they became eligible for assistance, suggested that the Court was about to treat poverty as a classification that entailed strict scrutiny
Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 Equal Protection—Invoked strict scrutiny but nonetheless upheld an affirmative action program. The Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisionsto further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, or § 1981
Baker v. Carr 1962 Equal Protection—Political Questions—Courts can hear disputes involving reapportionment and redistricting
Colegrove v. Green 1946 Equal Protection—Political Questions—justices branded apportionment a political question
Tate v. Short 1971 Equal Protection—Prevents automatic jailing of indigents when others can pay a fine and avoid jail
Reynolds v. Sims 1964 Equal Protection—Reapportionment—See Reapportionment Cases
Reapportionment Cases 1964 Equal Protection—Reapportionment—State legislative districts must be drawn so as to have equal population
Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 Equal Protection—Separate but equal is constitutional
Craig v. Boren 1976 Equal Protection—Sex classifications must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives
Nixon v. Herndon Equal Protection—State statute barring negroes from participation in Democratic Party primary elections held in the State for the nomination of candidates for senator and representatives in Congress, and state and other offices, violates the Fourteenth Amendment
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center 1985 Equal Protection—Struck down city’s attempt to bar group home for mentally-retarded.
Shapiro v. University for Women v. Hogan 1982 Equal Protection—Struck down gender segregation in schools
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 1972 Equal protection—Struck down state’s illegitimacy laws
Phyler v. Doe 1982 Equal Protection—Struck down statute barring children of illegal aliens from public schools
Strauder v. West Virginia 1880 Equal Protection—Struck down statutes explicitly denying African‐Americans the right to sit on juries
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 1886 Equal Protection—Struck down unequal administration of law
United States v. Carolene Products 1938 Equal Protection—Suggested that it would apply the Constitution with special care in cases involving disabilities imposed on discrete and insular minorities
Rostker v. Goldberg 1981 Equal Protection—Upheld a requirement that only men register for the draft, at least when women are not eligible by statute for combat duty
Zablocki v. Redhail 1978 Equal Protection—Wisconsin statute providing that any resident of that State having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment may not marry without a court approval order, which cannot be granted absent a showing that the support obligation has been met and that children covered by the support order are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges, held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e. g., Loving v. Virginia, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, critical examination of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia

Calder v. Bull

1798 Ex Post Facto—Provision doesn’t apply to civil statutes
Gilbert v. California 1967 Federal Judicial Power—14th Amendment—Asserted jurisdiction over police lineups
Furman v. Georgia 1972

Federal Judicial Power—14th Amendment—Asserted jurisdiction over Georgia capital punishment laws

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents 2000 Federal Judicial Power—14th Amendment—Congress lacked the authority to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation under terms of the 14th Amendment. The ultimate determination of the 14th Amendments substantive meaning remains the province of the Judicial Branch

Cooper v. Aaron

1958

Federal Judicial Power—Court announced its infallibility and judicial supremacy, an exclusive supremacy greater than the Constitution itself, a supremacy that holds that the text is subordinate to the justices’ views of the text

United States v. Hudson & Goodwin 1812 Federal Judicial Power—Did not have a common law jurisdiction over crimes; its jurisdiction in the criminal area was restricted according to statutory mandate

Marbury v. Madison

1803

Federal Judicial Power—Established Judicial review of constitutionality of federal statutes

Pennoyer v. Neff

1878 Federal Judicial Power—For court to have jurisdiction over defendant, defendant must be served in state
Black & White Cab v. Brown & Yellow Cab 1928 Federal Judicial Power—If I am right the fallacy has resulted in an unconstitutional assumption of powers by the Courts of the United States which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make us hesitate to correct (Holmes)
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson 1993 Federal Judicial Power—It is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising his authority shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Liability to answer to everyone who might feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge, would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful
Green v. Biddle 1823 Federal Judicial Power—Kentucky ignored authority of supreme court
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reynolds 1981 Federal Judicial Power—Plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
International Association of Machinists v. Street 1961 Federal Judicial Power—Presumption of constitutionality of legislation
Martin v. Hunter 1816 Federal Judicial Powers—Held state court decisions reviewable by supreme court

Brown v. Allen

1953

Federal Judicial Power—Statement of abuse of

Levy v. Louisiana 1968 Federalism—Equal Protection—A statute as construed to deny a right of recovery by illegitimate children creates an invidious discrimination contravening the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since legitimacy or illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong allegedly inflicted on the mother.
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n 1988 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over attorney direct mail advertising
Santosky v. Kramer 1982 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over burden of proof in parental rights cases
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over discipline in high schools
Papish v. Board of Curators 1973 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over discipline in state universities
Terminiello v. Chicago 1949 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over disturbing the peace laws
Schneider v. City of Irvington 1939 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over door-to-door solicitation laws
Pickering v. Board of Education 1968 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over state civil service laws
Rosado v. Wyman 1970 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over state computation of welfare benefits
Stanley v. Illinois 1972 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over state custody laws
Williams v. Rhodes 1968 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over state election laws
Larkin v. Grendel’s Den 1982 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over state liquor laws
Pickett v. Brown 1983 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over state paternity suit statutes of limitation
Rhodes v. Chapman 1981 Federalism—Asserted jurisdiction over state prisons
New York v. United States 1992 Federalism—Congress could not constitutionally commandeer state government officials by compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program
Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps 1986 Federalism—Court asserted juridiction over burden of proof in state defamation cases
Elmendorf v. Taylor 1825 Federalism—Handed down rulings that assured the state courts of their unquestioned authority to construe their own state constitutions and statutes, as well as to perpetuate many important rules of common law in regard to estates, property, trespass, and torts
Printz v. United States 1997 Federalism—In Printz v. United States (1997), the Court reinforced this new anti‐commandeering prohibition, ruling that Congress’s requiring local officials to conduct background checks on gun purchasers was fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty
Tarble’s Case 1872 Federalism—States have no authority to question the validity of U.S. military enlistments—in such matters the U.S. has supremacy over the states
Employment Division v. Smith 1990 Federalism—States may prohibit religion-related drug use
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation 1999 Federalism—Sustained a robust First Amendment right for political speech and activities that a state had sought to abridge. The decision overturned a Colorado statute seeking to regulate the petitioning process and to limit out‐of‐state citizens from participation in the state’s initiative and referendum processes
Erie R.R. v. Tomkins 1938 Federalism—Swift unconstitutional, presumably as an intrusion on rights reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.  No federal common law.
Swift v. Tyson 1842 Federalism—There is federal common law
South Carolina v. Katzenbach 1966 Federalism—Upheld the 1965 Voting Act’s devolution of wide discretion on the U.S. Attorney General intended to root out the blight of racial discrimination in voting.
Prince v. Massachusetts 1944 Free Exercise—Substantive Due Process— Equal Protection—A state statute provides that no minor (boy under 12 or girl under 18) shall sell, or offer for sale, upon the streets or in other public places, any newspapers, magazines, periodicals, or other articles of merchandise. The statute makes it unlawful for any person to furnish to a minor any article which he knows the minor intends to sell in violation of the law, and for any parent or guardian to permit a minor to work in violation of the law. As applied to a guardian who furnished a minor ward with religious literature and permitted the minor to distribute the same on the streets, although the guardian accompanied the minor and both were — acting in accord with their religious beliefs — not violative of freedom of religion, nor a denial of the equal protection of the laws, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution
Reynolds v. United States 1878 Free Exercise—Substantive Due Process—A state need not make an exception from otherwise valid, generally applicable laws for conduct motivated by religious belief
Cohen v. California 1971 Freedom of Speech—Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense
Advertisements
Published in: on October 22, 2013 at 8:22 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/summary-1-of-2-of-cases-analyzed-in-treatise-the-kiss-of-judice-the-constitution-betrayed/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: