Top 100 Cases in Constitutional Law: Legal Briefs

THE TOP 100 CASES IN ONSTITUTIONAL AW

I. Introduction

The Constitution is about power who has it, who gets to use it, and who gets to have the last say on certain topics. This lecture will explore the role of power and how the judiciary decided how to mete it out based on their interpretation of this ‘living document.’ The first section will cover Federalism and the formative years, including some Constitutional crises. These cases can be dense they were after all written in the late 1700s or early 1800s but they are fundamental cases to how the American justice system works.

Chapter three will offer a better mix over time but focuses on the separation of powers and checks and balances that is uniquely part of the U.S. government. Then, the meat of Constitutional law individual rights, including civil rights, race, gender discrimination, and miscellaneous rights, such as abortion, and rights pertaining to homosexuals and same sex couples.

The First Amendment will be explored next, covering everything from freedom of speech and the rights of newspapers and private citizens alike. Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state must be examined next, before moving on to the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

Covered heavily in the criminal law lectures, due process, equal protection and the 14th amendment will be discussed next, but mostly in the civil law context, to offer a different perspective.

The relationship between the federal government, states and the Native Americans who were here long before has been strained and dictated by the Constitution and its interpretation. The lecture will discuss the role of Native Americans under the law in this country.

Finally, before concluding, there will be a smattering of miscellanea, where the issues that arise cannot be slotted into any particular category. There will be several cases involving presidents (and candidates), and foreign law and aliens. All throughout, the thread that will bind everything together is the concept of power.

II. Federalism and the Formative Years

1. Chisholm v Georgia

The first case to be discussed is Chisholm v Georgia, decided in 1793. It is considered to be the first SCOTUS case of significance, although it was subsequently superseded by the Eleventh Amendment two years later.

Facts: Mr. Chisholm of South Carolina was the executor of Mr. Robert Farquhar’s estate. He attempted to sue the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over past due payments owed for goods supplied by Mr. Farquhar to Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Georgia refused to appear, arguing that because it is a sovereign state, it could not be sued without its consent.

Issue: Can a state be sued by a private citizen in federal court without its consent?

Held: Yes for now.

Rationale: Article III, Section 2’s grant of federal jurisdiction over suits between a state and citizens of another state abrogates the sovereign immunity of States. Federal courts do have the power to hear disputes between private citizens and the States. Back then, there were no majority opinions, just opinions given individually and in order of seniority. Four justices agreed with the Plaintiff, but the dissenting justice felt that States were in fact sovereign, and so could not be sued without consent. The states, being surprised by this result, joined forces and called for the 11th Amendment, which prevents states being sued in Federal Court without the State’s consent. Of course, the 14th Amendment curtails this limitation, as will be discussed later in the lecture.

2. Hylton v United States

Four years later, the Supreme Court discussed the taxation provisions of the Constitution in Hylton v United States.

Facts: Congress passed a law which assessed a sixteen dollar tax for any individual or business who owned a carriage. Mr. Hylton believed this law was a direct tax, in violation of the constitutional requirement that taxes must be apportioned if passed by Congress. Alexander Hamilton argued this case on behalf of the government.

Issue: Did Congress violate the Constitution by exceeding its taxing and spending powers by instituting a carriage tax?

Held: No

Rationale: An apportioned tax on carriages would result in inequality in the tax burden between states, and ‘tax’ and ‘duty’ should be interpreted broadly as stated in Article I, Section 8. A carriage tax was thus, an indirect tax. Additionally, the tax could be not be apportioned if a state had no carriages, then it cannot implement the tax. Therefore, if a tax cannot be apportioned, it is not a direct tax under the Constitution. Notably, this decision was relied upon by Chief Justice John Roberts in the case before him regarding the individual mandate for health insurance, finding it constitutional as a tax.

3. Ware v Hylton

The next case, Ware v. Hylton, dealt with the Treaty of Paris, regarding debts derived from the American Revolution. It’s also sometimes called the British Debt Case.

Facts: Mr. Jones brought the action originally. He died pendente lite, so his administrator carried on. He was a British citizen, suing Daniel Hylton, et.al, citizens of Virginia, on a bond which was executed between the two parties prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Hylton, et.al argued that as of July 4, 1776, they became citizens of the State of Virginia. A Virginia law had nullified any debts owing to British citizens; however, a provision in the Treaty of Paris provided that creditors on either side should meet no impediment when recovering bona fide debts.

Issue: Did the Treaty of Paris take precedence over a state law concerning contractual debts owed between parties of different, and warring, nations?

Held: Yes

Rationale: The Treaty of Paris was executed between the United States and Great Britain. An individual citizen of one state cannot violate a public treaty to avoid an obligation arising under the treaty. The power to devoid a treaty or provisions thereof void rests solely with the government (contracting party).

4. New York v Connecticut

The next case, dealing with controversies between two U.S. states, is New York v Connecticut, heard in 1799.

Facts: In Connecticut claimed jurisdiction over a bit of land on New York’s western border with Pennsylvania, and granted it to two private individuals in exchange for their building a statehouse in Hartford. New York granted parcels within the same bit of land to other individuals. The successors in title of the Connecticut individuals filed an ejectment in a federal Connecticut court. The defendants argued they were residents of New York, and the land was also in New York, so only state or federal courts in New York could exercise jurisdiction. Eventually, New York asked for an injunction to stay the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Issue: Was jurisdiction appropriate in Connecticut court and did New York have standing to file an injunction in the Supreme Court?

Held: Jurisdiction was appropriate, but New York did not have standing.

Rationale: The state of New York was not an actual party to the action it was seeking to enjoin, and had no interest at stake and did not participate in the lower court therefore, New York lacked standing. Therefore, the dispute was not actually between the two states after all, so there was no need to invoke Supreme Court jurisdiction.

5. Marbury v Madison

Marbury v Madison is a constitutional case that most law students spend several class periods studying. It forms the basis for the exercise of judicial review and confirms the separation of powers. It is a bear of a case, but crucial for students to learn.

Facts: President John Adams made multiple federal appointments at the end of his term. He appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia within the final hours of his administration. But Thomas Jefferson, the new President, refused to recognize Marbury’s appointment vis a vis his Secretary of State, James Madison. He was supposed to

deliver a commission, or notice, of appointment for it to remain valid, in accordance with section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, but refused to do so, following Jefferson’s orders. Marbury then petitioned the court in a writ of mandamus asking them to force President Jefferson to appoint him.

Issue: Is the provision allowing a writ of mandamus to enforce the Judiciary Act of 1789 constitutionally valid?

Held: No

Rationale: John Marshall wrote the opinion on behalf of a unanimous court, denying the petition. While he agreed in principle that the petitioners were entitled to their commission, the Constitution did not allow for one branch to force or act on behalf of another therefore that section of the act was invalid. This became the case to solidify the role of the Supreme Court to say what the law is and it is the final arbiter on the constitutionality of congressional legislation. Whenever Congress and the Constitution appear to be in conflict, then the Supreme Court shall be the one to determine who is correct.

6. Hammer v Dagenhart

Jumping forward an entire century, Hammer v Dagenhart illustrates how important Marbury v Madison was when it reviewed the legality of a Congressional Act relating to child labor laws.

Facts: The turn of the century was the Progressive Era, where people began turning against the use of child labor. Many states sought the imposition of laws restricting child labor, most of them being ineffective, and facing arguments from manufacturers who argued that by placing regulations on some states, but not others, they were at a competitive disadvantage. Congress thus sought to restrict child labor, invoking the interstate commerce clause. The Keating Owen Act prohibited interstate sales of merchandise made by children. Dagenhart, who worked in a cotton mill with his two children, argued the law was unconstitutional.

Issue: Can Congress use the Commerce Clause to regulate labor conditions?

Held: No

Rationale: The Court held that the issue did not concern the power to keep certain immoral products out of the stream of commerce such as narcotics or prostitution but the issue, in this case, was the manufacture of cotton into clothing a good whose use is inherently not immoral. Manufacturing also did not in itself constitute interstate commerce, to be regulated by Congress.

7. McCulloch v Maryland

McCulloch v Maryland is one of the earliest cases of the Constitution and created the notion of supremacy.

Facts: The Second Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress, with several branches established across the very young country. In Maryland, the state legislature adopted an act which applied prohibitive taxes on all banks not chartered by the state.

Issue: Can Congress establish a Bank of the U.S?

Held: Yes

Rationale: Maryland’s argument that the Constitution was enacted by independent states, so it should be subordinate to the states. The court held that the states ratified the Constitution by a 2/3 vote of their citizens, not the state legislatures and therefore, the Constitution is supreme in its laws over the states. While there is no explicit power allowing Congress to create a bank,

Congress does have the power “necessary and proper” for carrying into execution its powers. Necessary was held to mean any means with a legitimate end that is Constitutional. Because the Constitution is supreme, the states cannot apply taxes, and therefore, the state tax on the U.S. bank was held to be unconstitutional.

8. Corfield v Coryell

The next case covers the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, in Corfield v Coryell.

Facts: Corfield, of Delaware, rented his boat to another who sailed into New Jersey waters to fish for oysters. Under New Jersey law, fishing for oysters was illegal, and so his boat was seized. Corfield sued New Jersey, claiming that the statute which claimed that it is not lawful for any person who is not at the time an actual inhabitant and resident to take oyster's from the state's waters was unconstitutional.

Issue: Did the New Jersey statute violate the privileges and immunities of fisherman from other states when they did not allow them to catch oysters off New Jersey’s coast?

Held: No

Rationale: Judge Washington held that the privileges and immunities clause included fundamental rights that citizens of one state were entitled to whenever they visited another state. The rights of citizens should be to pass through or reside in another state for trade or professional pursuits, and privileges, but the Clause should be reserved only for fundamental rights. The law here did not violate a fundamental right that a non citizen of New Jersey should have, and to suggest otherwise would be absurd.

9. Gibbons v Ogden

The next case also dealt with the Commerce Clause, including the power to regulate navigation, in Gibbons v Ogden.

Facts: New York granted to two men at the turn of the 1800’s exclusive navigation privileges of all waters within the jurisdiction of that state for a term of 30 years. The two gentlemen subsequently began petitioning other states for similar monopolies, hoping to get a national network of steamboat lines. Competitors challenged the two, arguing that the federal government’s commerce power superseded state law. New Jersey government Aaron Ogden purchased a license from the two men and entered into business with Gibbons, from Georgia, but the partnership broke down eventually. Ogden filed a complaint in New York, asking that Gibbons been enjoined from operating on New York waters. He argued that states often passed interstate matters and should have fully concurrent power with Congress. Gibbons said Congress had exclusive national power under the Commerce Clause.

Issue: Was the New York law invalid, and did the Commerce clause include issues of interstate navigation?

Held: Yes and yes

Rationale: Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, which is more than mere traffic rather, it is the trade of commodities, which would include navigation. This case established the fact that Congress could supersede states when it came to interstate trade no matter how it was conceived.

10. Ex parte Young

About a century later, the Court discussed State sovereign immunity in Ex Parte Young.

Facts: Minnesota state passed a law which limited which railroads could charge in that state. Violators were subject to severe penalties including jail time. Shareholders of a major railway filed a lawsuit, arguing the laws were unconstitutional and violated the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Attorney General, Young was also sued so he could not enforce the law. Young argued that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits states from being sued by citizens of another, so the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Issues: Did the statutes violate due process and the commerce clause, and could a state official be sued for an injunction?

Held: Yes

Rationale: A lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state official did not violate state sovereign immunity because the state official is not acting on behalf of the state if he is seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. If a state official does something that is unconstitutional, the official cannot possibly be doing it in the name of the state, because the Supremacy Clause means the Constitution overrides any invalid state law. The official who attempts to enforce such a law is stripped of his official character and becomes merely another citizen.

11. NLRB v Jones, and Laughlin Steel Company

The next case, NLRB v Jones, and Laughlin Steel Company greatly expanded Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

Facts: Jones and Laughlin was a major steel producer. It was charged with discriminating against workers who had been wanting to unionize under the Steel Workers Organizing Committee. The company fired employees after they requested to Unionize. The NLRB, the administrative agency dealing with labor laws, ruled against the company and ordered that the workers be rehired and given back pay. Jones refused, believing the Wagner Act, which allowed collective bargaining, was unconstitutional.

Issue: Can Congress, under the Commerce Clause, regulate labor relations?

Held: Yes

Rationale: Activities that are intrastate in character when separately considered may nevertheless have such a close and substantial relationship with interstate commerce that their regulation is essential to protect said commerce from burden and obstructions. Congress must be able to exercise that control.

12. Reid v Covert

The Reid v Covert matter dealt with U.S. civilians outside the territory of the United States and military tribunals.

Facts: Clarice Covert who had been convicted by a military tribunal of murdering her husband. At the time of the murder, an agreement between the U.S. and the U.K. which allowed military courts to have exclusive jurisdiction over any offenses by U.S. servicemen or their dependents. Covert argued that she had the right to an actual hearing under the Constitution, rather than a military tribunal.

Issue: Is the agreement allowing exclusive jurisdiction for military members in a tribunal constitutional?

Held: No

Rationale: U.S. civilians abroad have the right to constitutional protections. They are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights, even if they commit crimes on foreign soil. This is an interesting case because initially, the court denied the petition, and the lawyer famously made a petition for rehearing. This is the only time SCOTUS has changed its mind as the result of a petition for rehearing. Practitioners take note. Get it right the first time, because chances are, you won’t get a second chance.

13. Baker v Carr

The Baker v Carr case dealt with how a question was characterized, in determining whether or not the federal courts had jurisdiction over the matter.

Facts: Baker, a Republican in Tennessee, complained that the state had not been redistricted to reflect the change in population since 1901 (about 60 years past at the time of the case. The state constitution required districts to be redrawn every ten years in response to the federal census in order to ensure districts of a substantially equal population. His complaint rested primarily on the fact that rural citizens were overrepresented as compared to those in more urban areas. The state of Tennessee, represented by Carr, argued that this was basically a political question not a judicial one and therefore, the federal courts had no jurisdiction.

Issue: Is the redistricting of federal courts a political question and not justiciable?

Held: The redistricting is not a political question.

Rationale: After a lengthy period of consideration and re hearing, the Court decided, 6 to 2, that Baker’s case was justiciable and not a political question. This case reformed the ‘political question’ doctrine, providing six facts in deciding which questions were inherently political and not justiciable. If the constitution committed the issue to another department, there was a lack of discoverable and manageable standards in resolving the matter, if the matter could not be decided without an initial policy determination, if the court had to undertake an independent resolution without respecting coordinate branches of government, if there was a need to adhere to a political decision already made, or if there was the potential for embarrassment of multiple pronouncements by various departments on one question the matter was a political question.

14. Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins

The next case was probably deeply discussed in your first civil procedure class Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins.

Facts: This was a personal injury complaint in diversity jurisdiction. Tompkins was a resident of PA and was walking next to the railroad when he was knocked to the ground by a protruding object from a passing train. He lost his arm as a result. The train was owned by a New York Corporation. The federal district court applied neither state's law, but instead used federal common law, which used an ‘ordinary negligence' standard.

Issue: Which law must the court apply, and is there a general, federal common law?

Held: The court must apply the law of the states in which it sits, provided it does not conflict with federal law. There is no general federal common law.

Rationale: Previously, forum shopping became a problem, and allowing federal courts to make up their own judge made law compounded the problem. This case overruled the previous case

law Swift characterizing it as an unconstitutional extension of the judicial power. Swift took powers implied to those of the states, in violation of the tenth amendment.

15. United States v Lopez

United States v Lopez is a fairly recent case, from 1995, which actually started limiting Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

Facts: Lopez was a senior at a high school in Texas. He carried a gun, with five cartridges, into his school. The gun was not loaded, and Lopez intended only to deliver the weapon to a classmate in exchange for $44. School authorities stopped Lopez after an anonymous tip. Lopez was charged with violating the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. He moved to dismiss the charges, stating it was unconstitutional and beyond the power of Congress to legislate public schools. He was convicted, and the Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari. To sustain the act, the government had to show that the law was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause.

Issue: Was the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 a valid exercise of the Constitutional Commerce Clause? Held: No.

Rationale: Possessing a handgun near a school is not an economic activity that has any substantial effect on interstate commerce. This is a criminal statute and is not related to commerce. If Congress were allowed to regulate something so far removed from commerce simply because of the chance that crime could impact education then Congress would be justified to regulate anything, which goes against the principles of the Constitution.

Abstention Doctrines

16. Railroad Commission v Pullman Co

The Railroad Commission v Pullman Co. case developed one of the first the abstention doctrines, or the Pullman doctrine when the federal courts determine that they will not act until the state court remedies are exhausted.

Facts: The Railroad Commission of Texas issued an order which required sleeping cars to be staffed by white conductors, instead of black porters. The railroad and Pullman company alleged a violation of equal protection.

Issue: The court actually decided to take the opportunity to determine whether it was appropriate for a Federal court to grant relief when it could be have been brought in a Texas state court. Held: The federal court should not have heard this matter.

Rationale: Federal courts can be asked to interpret the law of a state, but if they do, they would be speculating on the conclusions a state court would have when given the same question. So, although there was a substantial constitutional issue in this case, federal courts should not get into a sensitive state policy issue unless they have to. Later decisions clarified the ‘Pullman abstention' doctrine, requiring that the case must present both state and federal constitutional grounds for relief; the proper resolution of the state ground for the decision is unclear, and the disposition of the state ground could obviate adjudication of the federal constitutional ground. Today, federal courts should stay the court until the state court can reach its decision.

17. Younger v Harris

Another abstention case, with a different doctrine, is fairly recent. The Younger v Harris decision was determined in the 1970s.

Facts: In California, a law prohibited advocating unlawful acts of violence in order to effect political change. Harris was charged with a violation of the statute, and he sued under 42 USC s. 1983 in order to get an injunction against the District Attorney from enforcing the law. He argued it was a violation of free speech.

Issue: Are the potential unconstitutional grounds of a state statute sufficient for a federal court to enjoin state court criminal proceedings brought under that statute?

Held: No

Rationale: Federal courts cannot hear a case until the defendant is convicted or found not guilty unless the defendant will suffer a great and immediate harm that is also irreparable. There are three exceptions that have been developed: if the prosecution is part of a pattern and practice of harassment against the individual; if the prosecution is acting in bad faith; or if the law being enforced is utterly and obviously unconstitutional.

18. Burford et al v. Sun Oil Company

The next case in the abstention doctrine series is Burford v. Sun Oil Co.

Facts: Again, in Texas, the Railroad Commission granted Burford an order which gave him the rights to drill four oil wells in an East Texas oil field. Sun Oil Co. sued him in federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The Commissions administered oil and gas regulations, including quotas for each field. Because of the complex surface rights for owners, and associated litigation, Texas had developed a special system of judicial review. The Travis County court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matters.

Issue: Can a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction abstain from hearing a case if the state courts have better expertise in a complex and unclear area of state law which is significant to the state, where there is a significant administrative regulatory procedure and where any federal issues can't be decided without affecting state law?

Held: Yes.

Rationale: Because the issue was a matter of state law interpretation, it should be handled by the state court system. Additionally, the Supreme Court could still hear the matter at some point upon certiorari from the Texas State Supreme Court. Federal courts should encourage independent review on state issues before wading into the matter.

19. Colorado River Water Conservation District v United States.

The final case handling abstention by federal courts is Colorado River Water Conservation District v United States.

Facts: Water scarcity is a major issue in the Western United States. The federal government reserves water rights on federal lands, including those within the state of Colorado. The users of Colorado filed a lawsuit in federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction and original jurisdiction when the U.S. is a plaintiff. The government sued for declaratory judgment asserting its rights and those of several Native American tribes. Shortly after, a defendant filed an

application in state court to join the U.S. as a party in a state court proceeding, whereby defendants in the federal court moved to dismiss.

Issue: May a federal court abstain out of deference to state court proceedings to avoid duplicative or piecemeal litigation?

Held: No

Rationale: The pendency of an action in state court is not necessarily a bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in federal courts with jurisdiction and that the situation at hand did not fit neatly into the abstention doctrines already established. However, the court held that the court should dismiss the federal suit because the government was already participating in the state court proceedings, and there were over 1,000 defendants already involved. The circumstances were unusual and exceptional and therefore, the federal courts abstained.