DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Cases SUPREME COURT CASES Marbury v. Madison (1803) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) NY Times v. United States (1971) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Furman v Georgia (1972) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Roe v. Wade (1973) Schenck v. United States (1919) United States v. Nixon (1974) Korematsu v. United States (1944) Gregg v Georgia (1976) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Regents of the University of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) California v. Bakke (1978) Engel v. Vitale (1962) New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Bethel School District v Fraser (1986) Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Hazelwood School District v. Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Kuhlmeier (1988) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Texas v. Johnson (1989) Marbury v Madison (1803) Issue: Separation of Power Court Case: Marbury sued Madison because he did not receive commission to be a justice of the peace. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue an order to force Madison to give him his commission. Court Ruling: Against Marbury. Ruled a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. 1st act of Congress to be declared unconstitutional. Precedent: established judicial review – power of the court to decide whether actions of Congress are constitutional. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Issue: Federalism (State v. Federal Government) Court Case: McCulloch was a branch manager for the Bank of the United States. Refused to pay a tax to the state of Maryland and was arrested. He appealed conviction on the grounds that a state could not tax the federal government. Court Ruling: In favor of McCulloch. Precedent: States cannot tax the federal government. Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) Issue: 5th Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise of 1820 Court Case: Dred Scott sued his owner Sanford because he had been taken into free territory. Scott thought that due to the Missouri Compromise Line which made slavery illegal in certain areas of the country, he had become free. Court Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Sanford. 1) Slaves were considered property, thus did not have the right to sue in court. 2) Would deprive owner of 5th Amendment due process rights if he were stripped of property. Precedent: Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional, slaves could not sue for freedom. Plessy v Ferguson (1896) Issue: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) Court Case: Herman Plessy, 1/8 black, challenged a Louisiana law that mandated separate railroad cars for blacks and whites. Plessy sat on a car designated to whites and was arrested. Court Decision: In favor of Louisiana law. Was not ruled a violation of the 14th Amendment, equal protection clause. Precedent: Separate but equal constitutional. Led to an increase of segregation particularly in southern states. Schenck v US (1919) Issue: 1st Amendment – Times of War Court Case: Schenck circulated a flyer during World War I urging people to dodge the draft. Citing the draft as a violation of the 13th Amendment (involuntary servitude). Schenck was arrested under terms of the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck appealed conviction on grounds that his 1st Amendment right had been violated. Court Ruling: In favor of the United States. Urging citizens to break the law, and posed a threat to security of the nation if successful (clear and present danger). Precedent: 1st Amendment rights, as well as others can be limited during times of war. Korematsu v US (1944) Issue: 5th & 14th Amendment – Times of War Court Case: During World War II, the US military issued an order to place Japanese Americans in internment camps. Korematsu sued the US government on the grounds that it was a violation of 5th Amendment due process, and the 14th Amendment. Court Ruling: In favor of the United States government. Precedent: During times of war, certain group’s rights can be limited. (Clear & Present Danger Rule) Brown v Board of Education (1954) Issue: 14th Amendment – Equal Protection (Separate but Equal) Court Case: Brown sued the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas because his daughter had to walk seven blocks to catch a bus to a segregated school when there was a school within six blocks of her house. This was part of a class action suit against the Board of Education. Court Ruling: The court ruled separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. The ruling in this case led to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and began the end of segregation. Overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Precedent: Separate but Equal is unconstitutional. Mapp v Ohio (1961) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Issue: 4th Amendment (Search & Seizure) Court Case: Police in Cleveland, Ohio believed a fugitive was being kept by Mapp in her home. The police came to her house demanding entrance, Mapp refused because they did not have a warrant. Later police came back, broke into her home, and produced a fake warrant. They did not find the fugitive, but did find pornographic materials. She was arrested and convicted. Mapp appealed the decision as a violation of the 4th Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Mapp. Precedent: Illegal evidence cannot be used in court. Engel v Vitale (1962) Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of Religion/Separation of Church and State Court Case: Students in New York State were reciting a prayer to begin the school day. Even though students were not required to recite the prayer, parents felt this was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled that this was a violation of the establishment clause because it was a prayer, and it was being recited in a public school. Precedent: School prayer is unconstitutional. Gideon v Wainwright (1963) Issue: 6th Amendment, 14th Amendment Court Case: Gideon was arrested for burglary of a Florida pool hall. He appeared in court and asked that an attorney be appointed to him. The court denied the request on the grounds that under Florida law, only a person accused of a capital crime received a court appointed attorney. Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of Gideon, stating that Florida had violated the 6th Amendment and 14th Amendment, equal protection clause. Precedent: Indigent defendants (cannot afford an attorney) must be provided counsel in all felony cases. Escobedo v Illinois (1964) Issue: 5th & 6th Amendment Court Case: Escobedo and another man, Benedict DiGerlando were interrogated by police in connection with a murder. DiGerlando told police that Escobedo committed the murder. During the interrogation, Escobedo asked to have an attorney, and his attorney asked to speak with Escobedo, the police denied both claims. Eventually Escobedo was able to confront DiGerlando, and told police that it was DiGerlando who committed the murder, by doing so he admitted to being an accomplice and was convicted. He appealed the conviction because he was denied the right to speak with his attorney. Court Ruling: In favor of Escobedo. Precedent: Illegal confessions cannot be used in court. Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Issue: 5th Amendment, Interstate Commerce, & Segregation Court Case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel sued the US government over the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Heart of Atlanta Motel wanted to continue not allowing Blacks to stay at the Motel. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the US and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the interstate commerce clause allowed the US to ban the motel’s discriminatory practice due to the fact that more than ½ of the motel’s business came from out of state. Precedent: Allowed the Federal Government to stop discrimination through use of the interstate commerce clause. Miranda v Arizona (1966) Issue: 5th & 6th Amendment Court Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Miranda confessed to the crime, but was not told of his Constitutional rights prior to the interrogation. Miranda appealed the conviction on the grounds that the police had violated his rights by not informing him. Court Ruling: In favor of Miranda. The police had violated his rights. Police are required to read the “Miranda Warnings”. Tell suspects of their right to remain silent, to have an attorney, etc… Precedent: Police must inform suspects of their 5th & 6th Amendment rights prior to questioning. Tinker v Des Moines (1969) Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of Speech/Expression Court Case: Three students wore armbands with a peace sign on them to school as a form of protest against the escalating violence in Vietnam. The students were told to remove the armbands, they refused, and were suspended from school until they returned without the armbands. The parents filed a lawsuit against the school system for this action stating that it violated the 1st Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the students. The court stated that schools could establish dress codes, but neede3d to show that a reasonable disruption is being caused to the learning environment to ban items. In this case, the school could not show this. Precedent: Schools must show a reasonable disruption to learning environment. Upheld 1st Amendment rights of students. NY Times v US (1971) Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Court Case: During US involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon put together a paper which outlined US decision-making in Vietnam. This classified document was leaked to the NY Times and the Washington Post. The NY Times began publishing the findings, but the government filed an injunction to stop the paper from printing. The NY Times sued on the grounds that it violated the 1st Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the NY Times. The court state that it was the right of the paper to print this material because they had received the information legally.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS of the COMMERCE CLAUSE* Jom B
    THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE* Jom B. SHoLLEYt ON MARCH 4, 1935, the United States Supreme Court held in Baldwin v. Seelig, that the state of New York had no power to protect its milk Producers against underselling by the producers of other states even though the former were by law forbidden to sell below prescribed prices,2 and the resulting competition would go far to wreck the whole statutory system. The particular statute condemned forbade in effect the sale of imported milk in New York unless its producers had been paid the equivalent of the New York standard price. The gist of the opin- ion of Mr. Justice Cardozo is contained in the following excerpts: If New York, in order to promote the economic welfare of her farmers, may guard them against competition with the cheaper prices of Vermont, the door has been opened to rivalries and reprisals that were meant to be averted by subjecting commerce be- tween the states to the power of the nation.3 What is ultimate is the principle that one state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolation. Formulas and catchwords are subor- dinate to this overmastering requirement. Neither the power to tax nor the police power may be used by the state of destination with the aim and effect of establishing an economic barrieragainst competition with the products of another state or the labor of its residents. Restrictions so contrived are an unreasonable clog upon the mobility of commerce. They set up what is equivalent to a rampart of customs duties designed to neutralize advantages belonging to the place of origin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception
    Michigan Law Review Volume 93 Issue 8 1995 The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception Benjamin C. Bair University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Commercial Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Government Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin C. Bair, The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2408 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol93/iss8/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception Benjamin C. Bair INTRODUCTION You are a state legislator. Your state's highway construction in­ dustry has seen better days, and unemployment is rising. Neverthe­ less, cities and counties in your state are hiring nonresident construction workers and buying cement and gravel from nonresi­ dent suppliers. Your constituents are upset that their tax dollars are going to outsiders, so you decide to draft a bill requiring all local governments1 in your state to fill at least half of their highway con­ struction positions with state residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejecting Origination Clause Challenges Merely Embody “Two Exceptions” to the General “Presumpt[Ion]” That “[A]Ll Taxes” Are Subject to the Clause
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 8, 2014 Decided July 29, 2014 No. 13-5202 MATT SISSEL, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:10-cv-01263) Timothy M. Sandefur argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Paul J. Beard II and Daniel A. Himebaugh. Theodore Hadzi-Antich entered an appearance. John C. Eastman and Anthony T. Caso were on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of appellant. Lawrence J. Joseph was on the brief for amicus curiae Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in support of appellant. Joseph E. Schmitz and Paul D. Kamenar were on the brief 2 for amici curiae U.S. Representatives Trent Franks, et al. in support of appellant. Alisa B. Klein, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Mark B. Stern, Attorney. Before: ROGERS, PILLARD and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Section 5000A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A, mandates that as of January 2014, non-exempt individuals maintain minimum health care coverage or, with limited exceptions, pay a penalty. Matt Sissel, who is an artist and small-business owner who serves from time to time on active duty with the National Guard, appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Precedents Activity—Answer Key
    Applying Precedents Activity Applying Precedents Activity—Answer Key Comparison case: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Precedent case: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) What you need to know before you begin: When the Supreme Court decides a case, it clarifies the law and serves as guidance for how future cases should be decided. Before the Supreme Court makes a decision, it always looks to precedents—past Supreme Court decisions about the same topic—to help make the decision. A principle called stare decisis (literally “let the decision stand”) requires that the precedent be followed. If the case being decided is legally identical to a past decision, then the precedent is considered binding and the Supreme Court must decide the matter the same way. However, cases that make it to the Supreme Court are typically not completely identical to past cases, and justices must consider the similarities and differences when deciding a case. The process of comparing past decisions to new cases is called applying precedent. Lawyers often argue for their side by showing how previous decisions would support the Supreme Court deciding in their favor. This might mean showing how a previous decision that supports their side is analogous (similar) to the case at hand. It can also involve showing that a previous decision that does not support their side is distinguishable (different) from the case they are arguing. How it’s done: In this exercise, you will analyze a precedent and compare it to Gibbons v. Ogden. You have been provided with information about two cases: 1) the background, facts, issue, and constitutional provisions/precedents of the comparison case (Gibbons v.
    [Show full text]
  • State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1986 State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A. Farber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A., "State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause." (1986). Constitutional Commentary. 173. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/173 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE REGULATION AND THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Daniel A. Farber* The commerce clause empowers Congress to "regulate Com­ merce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."I Although it speaks only of congressional power, the clause has been interpreted to empower the federal courts to enjoin state laws that interfere unduly with interstate commerce.z Since the Marshall Court, the Supreme Court has continually modified its definition of the judicial role in overseeing state regula­ tion.3 The Court's current view of the so-called "dormant" com­ merce clause, in a nutshell, is as follows.4 State regulations having a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce are subject to stringent judicial scrutiny even if the discrimination was inadvertent.S On the other hand, regulations that burden interstate commerce without discriminating against it are subject to a less rigorous balancing test:6 a state law that burdens local and interstate commerce equally will be upheld if the law's local benefits outweigh the burden * Professor of Law, University of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Legitimacy of the Dormant Commerce Clause
    FRIEDMAN&DEACON_BOOK_UPDATED 11/24/2011 8:10 AM A COURSE UNBROKEN: THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Barry Friedman and Daniel T. Deacon* INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1877 I. THE FOUNDERS’ FEARS ............................................................. 1884 A. The Threat ............................................................................ 1884 B. Were the Framers Wrong? (Does It Matter?) ................... 1886 C. A Constitution for the Future ............................................. 1894 II. THE REJECTION OF THE “NEGATIVE” AND THE ADOPTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ............................................. 1896 III. THE JUSTICIABLE COMMERCE CLAUSE .................................. 1903 A. The Argument for Commerce Clause Exclusivity............ 1905 B. Though Exclusive, States Retained the Police Power ...... 1914 1. The State’s Power of Police .......................................... 1917 2. Shifting Lines................................................................. 1920 C. The Longstanding Acceptance of the Dormant Commerce Power ................................................................ 1928 1. The Absence of Support for Full Concurrence........... 1929 2. Avoiding the Issue by Dissembling.............................. 1932 INTRODUCTION HO is the better originalist, Justice Thomas or Justice Ste- W vens? More attuned to constitutional history, Justice Scalia or Justice Brennan? In one area, at least, the answers
    [Show full text]
  • The Line Item Veto Case and the Separation of Powers
    The Line Item Veto Case and the Separation of Powers Matthew Thomas Klinet In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act because it upset the finely wrought law-making process provided for in the Constitution's Presentment Clause. This Comment argues that the Court reached the right result in Clinton, but for the wrong reason. The Act gave the President the power to cancel certain budgetary items, thus vesting more law-execution power in the executive. Properly understood, the Act did not expand or alter the President's limited law- making veto power, as it is defined in the Presentment Clause. This Comment argues that the Act's reshuffling of power did, however, violate the separation-of-powersprinciple-one of the core political tenets upon which our government of limited powers rests. This Comment further con- tends that the Court should not have relied upon even an expansive inter- pretation of the Presentment Clause to strike down the Act, because as case law and history teach, the clause is directedat curbing the expansion of Congress'spower, not that of the President.Rather, the Court should have examined in their full light the fundamental separation-of-powers issues at play. After determining whether the shift in power presented the several indicia of a separation-of-powersviolation, the Court should have struck down the Line Item Veto Act on explicit separation-of-powers grounds, thus vindicating the long-term liberty interest that the principle centrally serves to safeguard. INTRODUCTION Dissents often help create a Supreme Court Justice's reputation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of the Lanham Act: a Retrospective of Section 43(A)
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 7, Issue 1 1996 Article 6 VOLUME VII BOOK 1 Fifty Years of the Lanham Act: A Retrospective of Section 43(a) Ethan Horwitz∗ Benjamin Leviy ∗Darby & Darby, P.C. yDarby & Darby, P.C. Copyright c 1996 by the authors. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Fifty Years of the Lanham Act: A Retrospective of Section 43(a) Ethan Horwitz* Benjamin Levi** INTRODUCTION The Trademark Act of 19461 (“Lanham Act”) marks its fifti- eth anniversary2 with a much broader scope than originally envisioned by Congress. The expanded reach of the Lanham Act rests, in part, upon the growing prominence of its section 43(a) (“section 43(a)”).3 Section 43(a) was initially interpreted as forbidding only “passing-off,”4 or the infringement or unau- *Member, Darby & Darby, P.C., New York, NY. Polytechnic Institute of New York, B.S. 1972; Courant Institute, New York University, M.S. 1974; St. John’s University, J.D. 1976. ** Associate, Darby & Darby, P.C., New York, NY. Boston University, B.S. 1988; Northeastern University, J.D. 1996. 1. Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”), ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051-1127 (West Supp. 1996)). 2. The Lanham Act—named for Texas Congressman Fritz G. Lanham—was signed into law on July 5, 1946, and became effective exactly one year later. Id. 3. Section 43(a) states, in relevant part: Any person who, on or in connection
    [Show full text]
  • Unconstitutional Incontestability? the Intersection of the Intellectual Property and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution: Beyond a Critique of Shakespeare Co
    Unconstitutional Incontestability? The Intersection of the Intellectual Property and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution: Beyond A Critique of Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp. Malla Pollack* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................. 260 II. The Triggering Case: Shakespeare v. Silstar ........ 261 III. Background Statutory and Common Law ........... 262 A. Mere Descriptiveness ...................... 263 B. Functionality .. .......................... 264 C. Incontestably-Registered Trademarks .......... 266 IV. Congress May Not By Pass the "Limited Times" Provision in the Intellectual Property Clause Through the Commerce Clause . ....................... 270 A. Other Clauses as Limits on the Commerce Clause 270 B. The Meaning of "Limited Times" in the Intellectual Property Clause ................. 274 C. Intellectual Property Clause Limits on the Commerce Clause ......................... 288 1. Equivalent Rights-A Thesis ............. 289 2. Court Statements . ..................... 297 3. Congress' Actions .................... 298 V. Constitutional Limits On The States? Suggesting Constitutional/Statutory Preemption ............. 300 VI. Conclusion .................................. 326 V II. C oda ................................... 327 * Assoc. Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, I1.; Adjunct Prof. liT-Chicago-Kent School of Law. Many thanks to those who offered suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper including Louis Altman, David P. Currie, Kenneth W. Dam, Richard A. Epstein, Dennis J. Hutchinson, Paul Garcia, William
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Commerce Clause Analysis David Loudon
    University of Massachusetts Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 2 Article 3 January 2015 When Do the Ends Justify the Means?: The Role of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Commerce Clause Analysis David Loudon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/umlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Loudon, David (2015) "When Do the Ends Justify the Means?: The Role of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Commerce Clause Analysis," University of Massachusetts aL w Review: Vol. 10: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/umlr/vol10/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository @ University of Massachusetts chooS l of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Massachusetts Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository @ University of Massachusetts chooS l of Law. When Do The Ends Justify The Means?: The Role of The Necessary And Proper Clause In The Commerce Clause Analysis David Loudon 10 U. MASS. L. REV. 294 ABSTRACT This Article discusses the interplay between the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause, particularly in light of the landmark decision of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. First, this Article reviews the historical interaction between the two clauses, discussing the instances in which the two may have been considered together, and introducing the Supreme Court jurisprudence of each clause, setting the legal landscape for the NFIB v. Sebelius decision. Next, this Article details the three opinions from the NFIB v.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Commerce Clause Eclipse the Export Clause: Making Sense of United States V
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1999 Does the Commerce Clause Eclipse the Export Clause: Making Sense of United States v. United States Shoe Corp. Claire R. Kelly Daniela Amzel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kelly, Claire R. and Amzel, Daniela, "Does the Commerce Clause Eclipse the Export Clause: Making Sense of United States v. United States Shoe Corp." (1999). Minnesota Law Review. 1046. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1046 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Does the Commerce Clause Eclipse the Export Clause?: Making Sense of United States v. United States Shoe Corp. Claire R. Kellyt and Daniela Amzeltt Introduction ............................................................................. 130 I. The Supreme Court's Vacillating Export Clause A nalysis ......................................................................... 134 A. The IBM Approach ................................................... 135 B. The U.S. Shoe Approach .......................................... 138 II. Policy Issues Underlying the Export Clause and the Commerce Clause Debate ............................................. 143 A. The Values Supported by the Export Clause .........
    [Show full text]
  • Gonzales Et Al V. Raich Et Al
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. RAICH ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 03–1454. Argued November 29, 2004—Decided June 6, 2005 California’s Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are Califor- nia residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for seri- ous medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administra- tion (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and de- claratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would vio- late the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunc- tion, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demon- strated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law.
    [Show full text]