1. Historical Periods of the Court PSC 446: Constitutional Law

2. Chief Justices of the United States 1. John Jay: 1789-1795 2. John Rutledge: 1795 3. Oliver Ellsworth: 1796-1800 4. John Marshall: 1801-1835 5. Roger B. Taney: 1836-1864 6. Salmon P. Chase: 1864-1873 7. Morrison R. Waite: 1874-1888 8. Melville Fuller: 1888-1910

3. Chief Justices of the United States 9. Edward Douglass White: 1910-1921 10. William Howard Taft: 1921-1930 11. Charles Evans Hughes: 1930-1941 12. Harlan Fiske Stone: 1941-1946 13. Fred M. Vinson: 1946-1953 14. Earl Warren: 1953-1969 15. Warren E. Burger: 1969-1986

4. Chief Justices of the United States 16. William H. Rehnquist: 1986-2005 17. John Roberts: 2005-Present

5. I. Early Years: 1790 - 1800 John Jay is Chief Justice of the U.S. 1793 - Chisholm v. Georgia –Citizens of one state have the right to bring actions to federal court against another state. 1796 - Ware v. Hylton –Federal treaty provisions have supremacy over state laws.

6. I. Early Years: 1790 - 1800 1796 – Hylton v. United States –“Direct taxes” are only those on land and individuals. 1798 – Calder v. Bull –The Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws does not forbid a state to nullify a man’s title to property.

7. I. Early Years: 1790 - 1800 Justices had to ride circuits to hear appeals Court is not a major political actor Opinions read seriatim

8. II.Establishment of Power: 1801-1835 John Marshall is Chief Justice of the U.S. 1803 - Marbury v. Madison –Establishes the Court’s power of judicial review 1810 – Fletcher v. Peck –States cannot impair the obligation of contract.

9. II. Establishment of Power: 1801-1835 1816 - Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee –Section 25 of the Judiciary Act gives the Court the power to review cases in which state courts have rejected challenges to a state law or action. McCulloch v. Maryland –Congress has the power to make laws that are “necessary and proper”; and, federal entities cannot be taxed by states.

10. II. Establishment of Power: 1801-1835 1821 – Cohens v. Virginia –Under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 the Court has the power to review state court rulings that deny federal claims. 1824 – Gibbons v. Ogden –Commerce is intercourse, including navigation and other modes of transportation, as well as commercial transactions. Interstate commerce is between or among the states.

11. Foundations of Judicial Review The power of judicial review has it foundations in the following three cases: –Marbury v. Madison –Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee –Cohens v. Virginia

12. II. Establishment of Power: 1801-1835 1827 – Martin v. Mott –A presidential decision to call out the militia is not subject to judicial review and is binding on state authorities 1832 – Worcester v. Georgia –Federal jurisdiction over Indians is exclusive, allowing no room for state authority.

13. II. Establishment of Power: 1801-1835 1833 – Barron v. Baltimore –The Bill of Rights only applies to the citizens of the United States

14. III.States and Slavery 1836 - 1860 1837 – New York v. Miln –A state law can be a valid exercise of state police power to protect public welfare against an influx of paupers. This is a function of state sovereignty. 1837 – Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge –Charters granted by a state should never be assumed to limit the state’s power of eminent domain. 1842 – Prigg v. Pennsylvania –The Court struck down a Pennsylvania law concerning the procedures for the return of fugitive slaves.

15. III. States and Slavery 1836 - 1860 1849 - Luther v. Borden –The guarantee clause is enforceable only through the political branches 1851 – Cooley v. Board of Wardens –The “selective exclusiveness” doctrine adopted by the Court in interstate commerce. 1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford –Blacks were not and could not be citizens of the United States

16. III. States and Slavery 1836 - 1860 1859 – Ableman v. Booth –State courts lack the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts or to federal officers to release prisoners

17. III.War and Recovery 1861 - 1872 1861 - Ex parte Merryman –Only Congress can declare emergency power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus 1863 – The Prize Cases –The Court sustained the president’s power to proclaim a blockade without a congressional declaration of war 1867 – Mississippi v. Johnson –The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the political acts of the president.

18. III. War and Recovery 1861 - 1872 1866 - Ex parte Milligan –The president lacks the power to authorize military tribunals to try civilians in areas where civil courts are still functioning.

19. III. War and Recovery 1861 - 1872 1869 - Ex parte McCardle –Congress can make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 1869 – Texas v. White –States lack the power to secede from the Union. 1870 – Hepburn v. Griswold –Acts of Congress substituting paper money for gold are unconstitutional.

20. IV. Balance of Power 1873-1888 1873 – Slaughterhouse Cases –The 14 th Amendment was not violated when Louisiana granted a monopoly to one slaughterhouse. 1973 - Bradwell v. Illinois –The 14 th Amendment was not violated when Illinois refused to grant a license to practice law on the basis of gender.

21. IV. Balance of Power 1873-1888 1875 – Minor v. Happersett –The 14 th Amendment does not guarantee women the right to vote. 1877 – Munn v. Illinois –The state police power includes the power of states to regulate private businesses. 1888 – Civil Rights Cases –Neither the 13 th nor 14 th Amendment empowers Congress to bar discrimination in privately owned public accommodations.

22. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1881 – Kilbourn v. Thompson –The power of Congress is not unlimited, nor is its power to punish those who refuse to cooperate in their investigations. 1886 – Yick Wo v. Hopkins –The 14 th Amendment protects persons, not just citizens.

23. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1886 – Santa Clara County v. So. Pacific Railroad Co. –Corporations can be considereed “persons” within the meaning of the 14 th Amendment.

24. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1890 – Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul RR. v. Minnesota (Minnesota Rate Cases) –A state deprives a company of due process and the power to charge reasonable rates when is fails to provide judicial review of those rate limitations.

25. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson –Separate but equal accommodations are constitutional. 1904 – Northern Securities v. U.S. –A holding company formed solely to eliminate competition between two companies is a combination in restraint of trade and a violation of the federal antitrust act.

26. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1898 – Smyth v. Ames –Corporations are persons within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process (see Santa Clara Santa Clara County v. So. Pacific Railroad Co.)

27. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1905 – Swift & Co. v. U.S. –Congress can regulate local commerce that is part of an interstate current of commerce. 1905 – Lochner v. New York –Laws limiting working hours for bakers is a denial of due process, infringing the freedom of contract.

28. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1908 – Adair v. U.S. –A federal law prohibiting contracts that required an employee to promise not to join a labor union as a condition of employment exceeded federal authority to regulate interstate commerce and violated the “freedom of contract.”

29. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1907 - Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. –A state can ask a federal judge to order a company in another state to cease polluting the air shared by the two states.

30. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1908 - Loewe v. Lawler (Danbury Hatters Case) –Union boycotts can be ruled as restraints of trade and therefore unlawful. –A union attempting to organize workers in a factory in one state by boycotting stores that sell its products elsewhere is a combination in restraint of trade and in violation of the federal antitrust law.

31. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1908 - Ex parte Young –Federal courts may properly enjoin, temporarily, the enforcement of a state law challenged as unconstitutional. 1908 – Muller v. Oregon –The Court upheld Oregon’s law setting maximum hours for women working in laundries.

32. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1911 – Standard Oil v. U.S. –Only unreasonable combinations and undue restraints of trade are illegal under the federal antitrust act. 1914 – Shreveport Rate Cases –Congress may regulate intrastate railroad rates if they are so intertwined with interstate rail rates that it is impossible to regulate the one without regulating the other.

33. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1917 – Bunting v. Oregon –The Court upheld an Oregon law setting ten hours as the maximum permissible workday for all. 1918 - Hammer v. Dagenhart –The Court struck down a federal statute that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of any goods produced by child labor.

34. V. The Conservative Court 1889-1919 1918 - Selective Draft Law Cases –Congress is authorized to institute a compulsory draft of persons into the armed forces under its power to raise armies and the necessary and proper clause.

35. VI. New Times, Old Court 1920-1937 1920 – Missouri v. Holland –In order to implement a treaty, Congress may enact legislation that otherwise might be an unconstitutional invasion of state sovereignty. 1922 – Bailey v. Drexel Furniture –The Court invalidated a federal law that imposed a 10% tax on the net profits of any company that employed children under a certain age.

36. VI. New Times, Old Court 1920-1937 1923 – Adkins v. Children’s Hospital –The Court struck down an act of Congress setting a minimum wage for women and children workers in the District of Columbia. 1927 – Buck v. Bell –Virginia did not violate the 14 th Amendment what is sterilized, without her consent, what is classified as a mentally defective mother.

37. Quiz #1 1. What is the name of the case that can be considered the first environmental law decision at the Supreme Court level? 2. What did the Court hold in Myers v. United States? 3. What is the name of the case in which the Supreme Court held that Virginia did not violate the 14th Amendment’s due process guarantee when it sterilized what it called a “mentally defective mother”? 4. In 1923, what did the Court hold in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital? 5. In this case, the Court held that Congress may enact legislation that otherwise might be an unconstitutional invasion of state sovereignty. What is the name of the case?

38. VI. New Times, Old Court 1920-1937 1926 - Myers v. U.S. –The Court upheld the president’s power to remove certain postmasters from office without advice and consent from the Senate. 1928 – J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. U.S. –Imposition of protective tariffs is a permissible exercise of the power to tax.

39. VI. New Times, Old Court 1920-1937 1934 – Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell –In the face of a Contract Clause argument, the Court upheld an emergency state placing a moratorium on foreclosure of mortgages. 1935 – Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. –The Court denied the president the power to remove members of independent regulatory agencies.

40. VI. New Times, Old Court 1920-1937 1936 - United States v. Butler –The Court held that Congress could not combine the power to spend for the general welfare with the power to tax in order to regulate agricultural products. 1937 – West Coast Hotel v. Parrish –The Court upheld the State of Washington’s law setting minimum wages for women and children workers.

41. VI. New Times, Old Court 1920-1937 1937 – Helvering v. Davis –The Court sustained the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935. This case effectively overturned its Butler decision.

42. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1938 – U.S. v. Carolene Products –The Court upheld a federal law barring the interstate transportation of certain milk products (“The Filled Mild Case”). –“Carolene Footnote” – Justice Stone: “There may be a narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments.”

43. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1938 – Schechter Poultry Co. v. U.S. –Congress exceed its authority when it delegated legislative authority to regulate interstate commerce. 1941 – United States v. Darby Lumber Co. –Congress has the authority to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of any goods manufactured in violation of the federally established minimum wage and hours laws.

44. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1942 – Wickard v. Filburn –The federal power to prevent burdens on interstate commerce permits the federal government to regulate matters that are neither interstate nor commerce. 1943 - Ex parte Quirin –Instead of requiring a civilian jury, the Court upheld the conviction of seven Nazi saboteurs by a presidentially established military commission

45. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1943 – Hirabayashi v. U.S. –The Court upheld the wartime curfew law placed on Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast. 1944 – Korematsu v. U.S. –The Court upheld the removal of Japanese- Americans to relocation centers at inland camps away from the West Coast.

46. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1947 - United States v. California –The federal government, not the states, owns the tidelands immediately adjacent to the states and the oil therein. 1952 – Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer –President Truman exceeded his authority in seizing the nation’s steel mills to prevent a strike during the Korean Conflict.

47. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1953 – Rosenberg v. United States –The Court, after meeting in special session, lifted the stay of execution for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They were executed for espionage. 1957 – Watkins v. United States –Congressional investigations may be undertaken only in aid of legislation. “[T]here is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.”

48. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1958 - Weiner v. United States –Where the duties of the office included quasi- judicial functions, the president lacks the power to remove an incumbent simply to replace him. (Justice Frankfurter) Barenblatt v. United States –The First Amendment rights of witnesses in congressional investigations may be limited when the public interest outweighs a private interest.

49. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 1964 - Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States –The commerce power may be used to prohibit racial discrimination in privately owned public accommodations. 1968 – Flast v. Cohen –To challenge taxation, taxpayers must establish a “double nexus.”

50. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986 1969 - Powell v. McCormack –Congress does not have the authority to exclude a member who meets the constitutional qualifications of age, residence and citizenship. 1971 – Younger v. Harris –Federal judges should not normally issue orders to state officials to halt enforcement of a state law or ongoing state proceedings.

51. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986 1974 - Edelman v. Jordan –The 11th Amendment protects a state from a federal court order directing it to spend money to remedy past abuses. 1974 – United States v. Nixon –Neither the separation of powers nor “executive privilege” can justify a claim of immunity for the president in the face of judicial demands in a criminal proceeding.

52. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986 1975 – Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar –Lawyers are not immune from the provisions of federal antitrust laws. 1976 – Natl. League of Cities v. Usery –Congress exceeded its power to regulate commerce when it extended federal minimum employment standards to cover state and local government employees.

53. 1976 – Stone v. Powell –A state prisoner’s claim that illegally obtained evidence was used to convict him cannot support a writ of habeas corpus release. 1976 – Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages –The export-import clause does not bar a state from imposing a tax on imported goods as long as the tax is not discriminatory. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986

54. 1978 – Monell v. Dept. of Social Services –Municipal authorities are not immune from civil rights damage suits filed under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 1978 – Butz v. Economous –Federal officials are not completely immune from damage suits arising from conduct of duties. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986

55. 1979 – Hutchinson v. Proxmire –The “Speech and Debate” clause does not protect a senator from being sued for libel as a results of statements in press releases or newsletters. 1982 – Nixon v. Proxmire –Presidents are absolutely immune from civil damage suits. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986

56. 1983 – INS v. Chadha –The “one house veto” is unconstitutional. 1985 – Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority –The Constitution does not limit Congress from regulating commerce when it imposes minimum employment standards on state and local employees. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986

57. What is the Carolene Footnote? What did Hirabayashi v. U.S. hold? What did Korematsu v. U.S. hold? What happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenburg? Why is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States such an important case? Quiz #3