1 / 57

Historical Periods of the Court

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

whistler
Download Presentation

Historical Periods of the Court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

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

  10. States and Slavery1836 - 1860 • 1837 – New York v. Miln • State law can be a valid exercise of state police power to protect public welfare against an influx of paupers. • 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.

  11. III. States and Slavery1836 - 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

  12. III. States and Slavery1836 - 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

  13. War and Recovery1861 - 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.

  14. III. War and Recovery1861 - 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.

  15. III. War and Recovery1861 - 1872 • 1869 - Ex parte McCardle • Congress can make exceptions to the 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.

  16. IV. Balance of Power1873-1888 • 1873 – Slaughterhouse Cases • The 14th Amendment was not violated when Louisiana granted a monopoly to one slaughterhouse. • 1973 - Bradwell v. Illinois • The 14th Amendment was not violated when Illinois refused to grant a license to practice law on the basis of gender.

  17. IV. Balance of Power1873-1888 • 1875 – Minor v. Happersett • The 14th 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 13th nor 14th Amendment empowers Congress to bar discrimination in privately owned public accommodations.

  18. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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 14th Amendment protects persons, not just citizens.

  19. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 1886 – Santa Clara County v. So. Pacific Railroad Co. • For the purposes of the 14th Amendment, corporations can be considered persons.

  20. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 1890 – Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul RR. v. Minnesota (Minnesota Rate Cases) • A state deprives a company of the power to charge reasonable rates without providing judicial review of those rate limitations.

  21. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson • Separate but equal is 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.

  22. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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.)

  23. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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.

  24. 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

  25. 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 12. Fred M. Vinson: 1946-1953 13. Earl Warren: 1953-1969 14. Warren E. Burger: 1969-1986

  26. Chief Justices of the United States • William H. Rehnquist: 1986-2005 • John Roberts: 2005-Present

  27. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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.”

  28. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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.

  29. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 1908 - Loewe v. Lawler (Danbury Hatters Case) • A union attempting to organize workers in a factory in one state by boycotting stores elsewhere that sell its products is a combination in restraint of trade and in violation of the federal antitrust law.

  30. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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.

  31. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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 rail rates if they are so intertwined with interstate rail rates that it is impossible to regulate the one without regulating the other.

  32. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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.

  33. V. The Conservative Court1889-1919 • 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.

  34. VI. New Times, Old Court1920-1937 • 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.

  35. VI. New Times, Old Court1920-1937 • 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 • In , with he consent, a mentally defective mother.

  36. 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?

  37. VI. New Times, Old Court1920-1937 • 1926 - Myers v. U.S. • The Court upheld the president’s power to remove certain postmasters from office without congressional consent. • 1928 – J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. U.S. • Imposition of protective tariffs is a permissible exercise of the power to tax.

  38. VI. New Times, Old Court1920-1937 • 1934 – Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell • The Court upheld an emergency state mortgage moratorium law. • 1935 – Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. • The Court denied the president the power to remove members of independent regulatory agencies.

  39. VI. New Times, Old Court1920-1937 • 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 (AAA). • 1937 – West Coast Hotel v. Parrish • The Court upheld Washington State’s law setting minimum wages for women and children workers.

  40. VI. New Times, Old Court1920-1937 • 1937 – Helvering v. Davis • The Court sustained the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935. This effectively overturned its Butler decision.

  41. 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.”

  42. 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 porhibit the shipment in interstate commerce of any goods manufactured in violation of the federally established minimum wage and hours laws.

  43. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 • 1942 – Wickard v. Filburn • The federal power to prevent burdens on insterstate commerce permits the federal government to regulate matters that are neither interstate or commerce. • 1943 - Ex parte Quirin • The Court upheld the conviction of seven Nazi saboteurs by a presidentially established military commission instead of a civilian jury.

  44. VII. The Court, Civil Rights & Society 1938 - 1968 • 1943 – Hirabayashi v. U.S. • The Court upheld the wartime curfew law palced 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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. • 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.”

  47. 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 the private interest.

  48. 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.”

  49. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986 • 1969 - Powell v. McCormack • Congress does not that 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.

  50. VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986 • 1974 - Edelman v. Jordan • The Eleventh 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.

More Related