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

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha 1983 Separation of Powers—Held invalid a one‐house veto of a deportation exemption granted (pursuant to delegated authority) by the INS
Mistretta v. United States 1989 Separation of Powers—No improper delegation and no separation of powers problems in an act of Congress that gave an independent agency within the judicial branch the power to promulgate mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal courts
United States v. Belmont 1937 Separation of Powers—Presidential Power—Affirmed the Litvinov Agreement rested in part on the express power of the president to recognize foreign nations
Schechter Poultry Corp. United States 1935 Separation of Powers—Struck down statute giving the president, authority to draft regulations covering the entire economic life of the country. ‘This,’ said Mr. J. Cardozo, ‘is delegation run riot’
J. W. Hampton v. United States 1928 Separation of powers—Upheld law giving the president authority to raise or lower tariffs within prescribed limits when he found such revision necessary to equalize the costs of production in the United States and other nations
Goldwater v. Carter 1979 Separation of Powers—Upheld presidential authority to terminate treaties unilaterally
Ableman v. Booth 1859 Slavery-Involuntary Servitude—Upheld Fugitive Slave Act
Chisholm v. Georgia 1793 Sovereign Immunity—Abrogated in federal diversity case. Case led to adoption of 11th
Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon 1985 Sovereign Immunity—Bringing federally-aided California programs within a Rehabilitation Act’s opening of federal courts to handicapped persons experiencing discrimination required unmistakable language in the statute itself
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida 1995 Sovereign Immunity—Congress cannot use its Article I powers to abrogate sovereign immunity
Lincoln County v. Luning 1890 Sovereign Immunity—Counties did not enjoy sovereign immunity
Cohens v. Virginia 1821 Sovereign Immunity—Denied state sovereign immunity and upheld federal court intervention in state criminal cases
Hans v. Louisiana 1890 Sovereign Immunity—Established a general sovereign immunity beyond 11th
Ex Parte Young 1908 Sovereign immunity—Not applicable when state was acting unconstitutionally
New Hampshire v. LouisianaNew York v. Louisiana 1883 Sovereign Immunity—Prohibits the court from entertaining jurisdiction of a cause in which one state seeks relief against another state on behalf of its citizens in a matter in which the state prosecuting has no interest of its own. One state cannot create a controversy with another state, within the meaning of that term as used in the judicial clauses of the Constitution, by assuming the prosecution of debts owing by the other state to its citizens
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett 2001 Sovereign Immunity—Suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages by reason of the State’s failure to comply with Title I of the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Wyman v. Bowens 1970 Sovereign Immunity—Summarily affirmed a decision of a lower federal court which ordered the payment of retroactive awards and in which the jurisdictional statement filed in this Court raised the Eleventh Amendment defense
Parden v. Terminal Railway 1964 Sovereign Immunity—Upheld the Federal Employers Liability Act’s general declaration that employees could bring federal court suits for work‐related injury and that that provision overrode any conflicting Alabama sovereign immunity provision with respect to employees of a state‐owned railroad
Alden v. Maine 1999 Sovereign Immunity—Voided part of federal Fair Labor Standards Act that authorized private suits by state employees in state’s own courts when overtime‐pay provisions of Act violated.
Stromberg v. California 1931 Speech—Substantive Due Process Substantive Due Process—Announced
Klopfer v. North Carolina 1967 Speedy Trial—Substantive Due Process
Paramino Co. v. Marshall 1940 Substantive Due Process (Federal)—A private Act of Congress which, after an award of compensation for disability made by a deputy commissioner under the Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act had become final by expiration of the time for review, authorized and directed the Employees’ Compensation Commission to review the order and issue a new one, whereupon there was awarded additional compensation for disability continuing beyond the date as of which by the prior order it was deemed to have terminated, held, as to the employer and insurance carrier, not violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment
Hepburn v. Griswold 1869 Substantive Due Process (Federal)—Held invalid the Legal Tender Act which permitted greenback (paper) dollars.

Windsor v. United States

2013 Substantive Due Process (Federal)—Striking provision of DOMA denying federal benefits for same sex couples
Farrington v. Tokushige 1927 Substantive Due Process (Federal)—The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment affords the same protection to fundamental rights of private school owners, parents, and children against invasion by the Federal government and its agencies (such as a territorial legislature) as it has been held the Fourteenth Amendment afford against action by a state
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 1908 Substantive Due Process (Federal)—Voided federal (D.C.) minimum wage law as violation of liberty of contract said to be guaranteed by 5th’s Due Process Clause.
Adair v. United States 1908 Substantive Due Process (Federal)—Voided federal law barring dismissal of certain union workersCommerce PowerLabor relations ≠ commerce
In re Gault 1967 Substantive Due Process (State)—Extended many (but not all) of the rights of adult criminal defendants, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to those juveniles subject to a deprivation of liberty upon adjudication of delinquency. Included were adequate and timely notice of charges and hearings, notice of the right to counsel at adjudication, the right to confront and cross‐examine witnesses, and the protection against self‐incrimination
Meyer v. Nebraska 1923 Substantive Due Process (State)—Recognized the right of citizens to conduct their own lives, when it struck down a Nebraska law prohibiting the teaching of modern languages other than English to children who had not passed the eighth grade
Holden v. Hardy 1898 Substantive Due Process (State)—Upheld as valid exercise of state police power an eight‐hour day for workers in mines and smelters
Goldberg v. Kelly 1970 Substantive Due Process (States)— Welfare benefits held property right
Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health 1983 Substantive Due Process —Abortion—Invalidated a number of restrictions imposed by the city of Akron, Ohio, on abortion: a ban on performing second‐trimester abortions in clinics rather than hospitals, a requirement that physicians provide detailed information about abortions to women before they signed consent forms, and a twenty‐four‐hour waiting period between giving consent and having an abortion

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

1992 Substantive Due Process —Abortion—Reaffirmed Roe v. Wade
Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 Substantive Due Process— Contraception Rights—The new social substantive due process rested on the recently articulated freedom of personal choice and privacy that the justices found in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights and imposed upon the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota 1890 Substantive Due Process— If the company is deprived of the power of charging reasonable rates for the use of its property, and such deprivation takes place in the absence of an investigation by judicial machinery, it is deprived of the lawful use of its property, and thus, in substance and effect, of the property itself, without due process of law, and in violaton of the constitution of the United States; and, in so far as it is thus deprived, while other persons are permitted to receive reasonable profits upon their invested capital, the company is deprived of the equal protection of the laws.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1925 Substantive Due Process —Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska an Oregon initiative unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the education and upbringing of their children and that this interference with the schools threatened the destruction of the plaintiffs’ businesses and property
Gonzales v. Carhart 2007 Substantive Due Process—Abortion—Narrowed Stenburg v. Carhart
Thornburgh v. Amer. Coll. of Obstetricians 1986 Substantive Due Process—Abortion­—States are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Act that the Court of Appeals invalidated wholly subordinated constitutional privacy interests and concerns with maternal health to the effort to deter a woman from making a decision that, with her physician, is hers to make

Roe v. Wade

1973 Substantive Due Process—Abortion—Struck down state abortion laws
Stenberg v. Carhart 2000 Substantive Due Process—Abortion—Struck down statute prohibiting partial-birth abortion
Webster v. Reproductive Health Svcs. 1989 Substantive Due Process—Abortion­—Upheld various restrictions on the availability of abortion
Moore v. City of East Cleveland 1977 Substantive Due Process—Appellant lives in her East Cleveland, Ohio, home with her son and two grandsons (who are first cousins). An East Cleveland housing ordinance limits occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family, but defines family in such a way that appellant’s household does not qualify. Appellant was convicted of a criminal violation of the ordinance. Her conviction was upheld on appeal over her claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Conviction reversed
Brooks v. Tennessee 1972 Substantive Due Process—Claimed 14th covers order of testimony in state criminal cases
Tileston v. Ullman 1943 Substantive Due Process—Contraception Rights—Connecticut statue of 1879 made it a crime for any person to use any drug, article, or instrument to prevent conception. This statute had been challenged twice before, in 1943. Plaintiff lacked standing
Synder v. Massachusetts 1934 Substantive Due Process—Incorporation is necessary when a state procedure offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental
Coppage v. Kansas 1915 Substantive Due Process—Invalidated a state law barring yellow dog contracts
Lochner v. New York 1905 Substantive Due Process—Maximum‐hours statute unconstitutional
Nebbia v. New York 1934 Substantive Due Process—New York statute establishing a commission to fix milk prices was a reasonable health and welfare measure
Carey v. Population Services International 1977 Substantive Due Process—Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services 1981 Substantive Due Process—Parental status held liberty interest
Bartels v. Iowa 1923 Substantive Due Process—Reaffirmed Meyers v. Nebraska
Lawrence v. Texas 2000 Substantive Due Process—Sodomy legalized
Wieman v. Updegraff 1952 Substantive Due Process—The Due Process Clause does not permit a state, in attempting to bar disloyal persons from its employment on the basis of organizational membership, to classify innocent with knowing association
Morrissey v. Brewer 1972 Substantive Due Process—Though parole revocation does not call for the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding, a parolee’s liberty involves significant values within the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and termination of that liberty requires an informal hearing to give assurance that the finding of a parole violation is based on verified facts to support the revocation
Muller v. Oregon 1908 Substantive Due Process—Upheld a state’s work‐day limit for women
Peik v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. 1877 Substantive Due Process—Upheld a Wisconsin law fixing rates on common carriers operating within the state
Bunting v. Oregon 1917 Substantive Due Process—Upheld state’s 10 hour limit on work day
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 1937 Substantive Due Process—Validated a Washington State minimum wage law for women
Allgeyer v. Louisiana 1897 Substantive Due Process—Voided Louisiana law requiring corporations doing business with Louisiana residents to pay fees to the state
Bowers v. Hardwick 1986 Substantive Due Process—Voided state anti-sodomy law
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 1922 Takings—State statute prohibited an owner from engaging in underground mining if the mining caused structural subsidence. The Court in Mahon struck down this statute as a taking because the statute served private interests and denied the mining company all economically viable use of the underlying coal
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York 1978 Takings—States don’t always have to pay just compensation
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 1984 Takings—Takings power extends to any taking that is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose
Berman v. Parker 1954 Takings—Upheld condemnation of blighted areas for public housing
Flast v. Cohen 1968 Taxing Power—Religion—Establishment—Substantive Due Process—The taxpayer appellants here have standing consistent with Art. III to invoke federal judicial power, since they have alleged that tax money is being spent in violation of a specific constitutional protection against the abuse of legislative power, i.e., the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
South Dakota v. Dole 1987 Taxing Power—Congress is reasonably free to place noncoercive restrictions on its expenditures of funds, including requirements that recipients of federal moneys act or refrain from acting in certain ways
Brown v. Maryland 1827 Taxing Power—Exports/Imports—Includes exports and imports among states.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. 1922 Taxing Power—Invalidated federal child labor tax
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. 1895 Taxing Power—Invalidating the entire income tax law because it was a direct tax that had to be apportioned among the states according to their populations

United States v. Ptansynski

1983

Taxing Power—Reaffirmed the judicial invention of geographic uniformity

Frothingham v. Mellon 1923 Taxing Power—Refused to enjoin government from spending money under Maternity Act
Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., Inc. 1962 Taxing Power—Respondent, which is in the business of providing fishing trawlers to commercial fishermen, sued in a Federal District Court to enjoin the collection of social security and unemployment taxes claimed by petitioner to be past due. Although petitioner adduced evidence in support of his claim that there was an employment relationship, the District Court found that such taxes were not, in fact, payable and that their collection would destroy respondent’s business; and it permanently enjoined their collection. Held: the suit for injunction was barred by § 7421(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and a judgment sustaining the injunction is reversed.
Springer v. United States 1881 Taxing Power—Sustained the temporary Civil War income tax, holding that an income tax was not a direct tax

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co

1916

Taxing Power—Uniformity Requirement

LaBelle Iron Works v. United States

1921

Taxing Power—Uniformity Requirement

Hylton v. United States

1796

Taxing Power—Upheld Carriage Tax

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 1937 Taxing Power—Upheld tax provisions of Social Security Act
Cherokee Cases 1831 Treaty Power—Collective name of two companion cases of the 1830s: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia. The Cherokee Cases evolved out of attempts by Georgia to assert jurisdiction over Cherokee lands within the state that were protected by treaty. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear a Cherokee request to enjoin Georgia’s effort. He defined the Cherokee people as a domestic, dependent nation, rather than a sovereign nation for Article III purposes, and as wards of the federal government (p. 2).The Court modified Cherokee Nation one year later in Worcester v. Georgia. A Congregational missionary had been convicted of failure to secure a license Georgia required to live in Cherokee country. The Court held the Georgia laws void because they violated treaties, the contract and commerce clauses of the Constitution, and the sovereign authority of the Cherokee Nation. Georgia refused to acknowledge the proceeding.Marshall no longer considered the Cherokee Nation case controlling, although he did not overrule it. Instead, he emphasized the concept of nation, as opposed to domestic or dependent. He held that Indian nations were a distinct people with the right to retain independent political communities. President Andrew Jackson, however, refused to enforce the Court’s ruling and supported the removal of the Cherokees to Indian Territory. Many Cherokees perished during their exodus, known as the Trail of Tears.
B. Altman & Co. v. United States 1912 Treaty Power—Jurisdictional statute reference to ‘treaty’ encompassed an executive agreement
United States v. Pink 1942 Treaty Power—Upheld Executive Agreement of 1933 to recover the assets of the New York branch of a Russian insurance company
Dames & Moore v. Regan 1981 Treaty Power—Upheld President Jimmy Carter’s executive agreement with Iran concerning the American hostages and private claims against Iranian assets in this country
Coker v. Georgia 1977 Trial Procedure—Cruel & Unusual Punishment—Victim impact statement laws. introduction of a VIS at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial violates the Eighth Amendment, and therefore the Maryland statute is invalid to the extent it requires consideration of this information. Such information is irrelevant to a capital sentencing decision, and its admission creates a constitutionally unacceptable risk that the jury may impose the death penalty in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Minor v. Happersett 1875 Voting Rights— Women have no ‘right’ to vote
United States v. Reese et al 1875 Voting Rights—Fifteenth amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is, exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
Bush v. Gore 2000 Voting Rights—No constitutional right to vote in presidential elections
Nixon v. Condon 1932 Voting Rights—The power to determine Democratic Party membership qualifications rested with the annual state party convention, which had never delegated its authority to the executive committee; instead, the committee’s authority was vested by the state statute
Bas v. Tingy 1800 War Power—Congress can authorize limited hostile engagements without a congressional declaration of war
Korematsu v. United States 1944 War Power—Japanese relocation measures upheld
Sloan Shipyards v. United States Fleet Corp. 1922 War Power—Merchant vessels are incidental to the war power

American Insurance Co. v. Canter

1828

War Power—Right of conquest announced

Prize Cases 1863 War Power—Upheld President Lincoln’s blockade of southern ports at the start of the Civil War
Advertisements
Published in: on October 22, 2013 at 9:36 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/summary-4-of-4/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: