Case Sect|on Iust|ce Iacts Art|c|e(s) Doctr||ne no|d|ng Concur]D|ssent Comments

1
G|deon v
Wa|nwr|ght
1963 (pr|nt out)
Common
Law
8lack
Cldeon flled peLlLlon Lo lL SC
aLLacklng hls convlcLlon and
senLence on Lhe ground LhaL
Lrlals courLs refusal Lo
appolnL counsel for hlm
rlghLs guaranLeed by Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon and 8lll of 8lghLs
Amendment 6 k|ghts
of the accused ln all
crlmlnal prosecuLlons
Lhe accused shal en[oy
Lhe rlghL Lo a speedy
publlc Lrlal by
lmparLlal [ury of Lhe
SLaLe and dlsLrlcL
whereln Lhe crlme shall
have been
commlLed Lo be
confronLed wlLh Lhe
wlLnesses agalnsL hlm
and have Lhe
AsslsLance of Counsel
for hls defense
Amendment 14
C|t|zens of Un|ted
States All persons
born or naLurallzed ln
Lhe unlLed SLaLes and
sub[ecL Lo Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon Lhereof are
clLlzens of Lhe unlLed
SLaLes and of Lhe SLaLe
whereln Lhey reslde
no sLaLe shall make or
8lghL Lo Counsel
uue rocess and
Lqual roLecLlon
Clause
8lghL of one who
charged wlLh wlLh crlme
Lo counsel ls a
fundamenLal rlghL
! uouglas Concurred Lhe
14Lh amendmenL
requlres due process of
law for Lhe deprlval of
llberLy [usL as for
deprlval of llfe and
Lhere cannoL
consLlLuLlonally be a
dlfference ln Lhe quallLy
of Lhe process based
merely upon a supposed
dlfference ln sancLlon
lnvolved
revlous declglon ln 8redds v
8rady (speclal clrcumsLances)
was overruled
2
Dom|nos |zza v
McDona|d 2006
(page 4 case
book)
Common
Law
Scalla
lndlvldual plalnLlff who owns
a corporaLlon wanLs Lo sue for
harm done Lo Lhe corporaLlon
ln vlolaLlon of 42 uSC 1981
AmendmenL 14 Lqual
roLecLlon Clause
AmendmenL 14
Lqual roLecLlon
Clause
1he shareholder and
conLracLlng offlcer of a
corporaLlon has no
rlghLs and ls exposed Lo
no llablllLy under Lhe
corporaLlons conLracLs
42 uSC 1981 was adopLed by
Congress Lo solve problems
remalnlng afLer Amerlcan Clvlal
War (18611863) esp raclal
dlscrlmlnaLlon agalnsL afrlcan
amerlcan ln maklng conLracLs
conLracLs for employmenL
INTRO TO US LAW: CASE OVERVIEW
3
re|ser v
kodr|guez 1973
(page 13)
Iedera| v
State
Iur|sd|ct|on
Lschaust|on
doctr|ne
SLewarL
SLaLe prlsoners ln new ?ork
sued Lhelr [allors demandlng
resLoraLlon of credlLs LhaL had
been Laken away Lhrough
procedures clalmed Lo vlolaLe
Lhe federal ConsLlLuLlon
1he Clvll 8lghLs AcL of
1871 42 uSC 1983
applles Lo all sLaLe
offlclals who commlL
vlolaLlons Pabeas
Corpus sLaLuLe 28 uSC
2234 provldes remedy
Lo any person held ln
cusLody ln vlolaLlon of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
Pabeas Corpus
sLaLuLe requlres
LhaL plalnLlffs flrsL
seek Lhelr release
ln sLaLe courL and
proceed Lo federal
courL only lf sLaLe
courLs deny rellef
exhausLlon
docLrlne
1983 acLlon ls a proper
remedy for a sLaLe
prlsoner CnL? when
maklng consLlLuLlonal
challenge Lo Lhe
condlLlons of hls prlson
llfe buL noL Lo Lhe facL
or lenLh of hls cusLody
Pabeus Corpus should
be used
8renan dlssenL
4
kepub||can arty
of M|nessota v
Wh|te (page 98)
Iedera| v
State
Iur|sd|ct|on
Lschaust|on
doctr|ne
Scalla
MlnnesoLa s announce
clause MlnnesoLa concedes
LhaL Lhe plalnLlff who run for
[udlclal offlce and was
forbldden Lo sLaLe hls
opposlLlon Lo recenL [udlclal
declglons on crlme welfare
aborLlon has a general rlghL
under Lhe llrsL AmendmenL Lo
free speech durlng an
elecLlon 1he sLaLe asserLs
LhaL lL has an overrldlng
lnLeresL ln malnLalnlng Lhe
lmparLlallLy of Lhe elecLed
[udlclary
Art|c|e IIISect|on 1
1he [ud|c|a| power |n
the US should be
vesLed ln one Supreme
CourL and ln such
lnferlor CourLs as Lhe
Congress may from
Llme Lo Llme ordaln and
esLabllsh
lLuL8AL v S1A1L
!u8lSulC1lCn
llrsL AmendmenL
lreedom of
Speech
lourLeenLh
AmendmenL uue
process
AccepLlng a llmlLaLlon
on speech by [udlclal
candldaLes would ln
essence nulllfy Lhe value
of elecLlng [udges
CConnor concurred
Clnsberg and 3 oLhers
dlssenLed (elecLed or
appolnLed [udges
perform a funcLlon
fundamenLally dlfferenL
from LhaL of Lhe peoples
elecLed represenLaLlves)
lederal Sub[ecL MaLLer
!urlsdlcLlon (llmlLed)
(1) lederal quesLlon aL lssue
uSC 1331
(2) ulverslLy should be
compleLe dlverslLy of all parLles
uSC 1332
lederal SupplemenLal (Anclllary)
!urlsdlcLlon
(1) SLaLe lssues So 8elaLed" Lo
Lhe federal clalm aL dlscusslon
uSC 1367
(2) ulverslLy cases can noL have
federal supplemenLal
[urlsdlcLlon over sLaLe clalms
uSC 1367 (b)
long arm sLaLuLe" allows Lo
serve process on Lhe defendanL
of dlfferenL sLaLe
!udlclal selecLlon (federal)
- AppolnLed by Lhe resldenL
(ArLlcle 2 Sec2 Clause 2)
- Conflrmed by SenaLe
S
1ennesse v
Garner 198S
(page 30)
Iedera| v
State
Iur|sd|ct|on
Lschaust|on
doctr|ne
WhlLe
laLher sued pollce offlcer ln
federal courL alleglng LhaL
Lhe shooLlng vlolaLed Lhe
lorLh AmendmenLs
prohlblLlon on
unreasonable searches and
selzures 1he courL of appeals
ruled ln favor of Lhe faLher
14Lh AmendmenL
lLuL8AL v S1A1L
!u8lSulC1lCn
uue rocess
Afflrmed 1he deadly
force may noL be used
Lo prevenL escape of an
unarmed suspecLed
felon unless lL ls
necessary Lo prevenL
escape and Lhe offlcer
has probable cause Lo
belleve LhaL Lhe suspecL
poses a slgnlflcanL
LhreaL of deaLh or
serlous physlcal ln[ury
Lo Lhe offlcer or oLhers
CConnor dlssenLed l
do noL belleve Lhey
exceeded ln a case ln
whlch a pollce offlcer has
probable cause Lo arresL
a suspecL aL Lhe scene of
a resldenLlal burglary
orders Lo suspecL Lo hulL
and Lhen flres hls weapon
as a lasL resorL Lo prevenL
Lhe suspecLs escape
6
Co|||ns v C|ty of
narker ne|ghts
1992 (page 33)
SLevens
eLlLloner (wldow) makes
allegaLlon LhaL Lhe clLy
deprlved her husband of llfe
and llberLy by falllng Lo
provlde a reasonably safe
envlromenL for hlm
14Lh AmendmenL uue rocess
uue rocess Clause
doesn'L lmpose an
lndependenL federal
obllgaLlon upon
munlclpallLles Lo
provlde cerLaln mlnlmal
levels of safeLy and
securlLy ln Lhe
workplace and Lhe clLys
alleged fallure Lo Lraln
or Lo warn lLs sanlLaLlon
deparLmenL employees
was noL arblLrary ln a
consLlLuLlonal sense
7
Marbury v
Mad|son 1803
(page 138)
Iud|c|a|
kev|ew
Marshall
Marbury sued SecreLary of
sLaLe !Madlson ln Lhe SC for a
wrlL of mandamus (orders
publlc offlclal Lo perform a
duLy under Lhe law) Marbury
conLends (1) Lhe CourL has Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon Lo rule on such a
maLLer (2) Madlson vlolaLed
federal sLaLuLory and
consLlLuLlonal rules by
wlLhholdlng Lhe comlsslon
and (3) Lhe mandamus was an
approprlaLe remedy
!udlclal 8evlew
unlque polnLs abouL Lhls case
- LsLabllshed [udlclal revlew
- !8 ls a rlghL of uSA SC
- ldenLlfles whaL ls !8
8
Mart|n v
nunters Lessee
1816 (page 1S0)
Iedera|
Iur|sd|ct|on
SC USA
SLory
lederal LreaLy v vlrglnlas
sLaLe properLy law vlrglnla
hlghesL courL sLaLed LhaL uS
SC lacked appellaLe
[urlsdlcLlon over Lhe courLs ln
vlrglnla
ArLlcle lll Cave
Supreme CourL
appelaLe [urlsdlcLlon
over broad caLegorles
of cases noL over
slmply lnferlor federal
courLs
unlformlLy
1 necesslLy of
unlformlLy of declslons
LhroughouL Lhe whole
unlLed SLaLes upon all
sub[ecLs wlLhln Lhe
prevlew of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon lf Lhere ls
no revlslng auLhorlLy Lo
conLrol Lhese dlscordanL
[adgmenLs and
harmonlze Lhem lnLo
unlformlLy Lhe law Lhe
LreaLles and Lhe
consLlLuLlon of uS would
be dlfferenL ln defferenL
SLaLes 2 PlsLorlcal facL
abouL exLendlng sLaLes
appleaLe power Lo
federal courL
ConsLlLuLlon ls made by people
ConsLlLuLlon llmlLs rlghLs of Lhe
sLaLes ln lLs provlslons
unlformlLy
PlsLorlcally accepLed by sLaLes
llmlLaLlons by federal gov
lmporLance of Lhls case SC
esLabllshed lLs [urlsdlcLlon over
sLaLe courLs
9
narper v V|rg|n|a
State 8oard of
L|ect|ons 1966
(page 1S4)
Iedera|
Iur|sd|ct|on
uouglas
1hls case ls abouL conslderlng
wheLher vlrglnlas poll Lax
($13 per voLer) ls
unconsLlLuLlonal
ArLlcle 1 (2) expllclLly
sLaLe rlghL Lo voLe ln
federal elecLlons 1he
rlghL Lo voLe ln sLaLe
elecLlon ls lmpllclL by
Lhe reason of Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL and LhaL lL
may noL
consLlLuLlonally be
condlLloned upon Lhe
paymenL of Lax or a
fee
Lqual roLecLlon
Clause 14Lh
amendm
ArLlcle 1 (2) expllclLly
sLaLe rlghL Lo voLe ln
federal elecLlons 1he
rlghL Lo voLe ln sLaLe
elecLlon ls lmpllclL by
Lhe reason of Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL and LhaL lL
may noL consLlLuLlonally
be condlLloned upon Lhe
paymenL of Lax or a fee
!8lack dlssenL CourL
uslng Lhe old naLurallaw
dueprocessformula Lo
[usLlfy sLrlklng down sLaLe
laws as vlolaLlons of Lhe
equal roLecLlon Clause
! Parlan lL ls wrong for
courL Lo adopL Lhe
pollLlcal docLrlnes
popularly accepLed aL a
parLlcular momenL of our
hlsLory
ArLlcle 3 CourLs" !udlclary AcL
of 1789
lederal sysLem uS Supreme
CourL
ClrculL CourLs
SLaLe ulsLrlcL CourL Supreme
AppellaLe
1rlal CourLs
Mln 73k Lo brlng federal clalm
lederal Sub[ecL MaLLer
!urlsdlcLlon (llmlLed)
(1) lederal quesLlon aL lssue
uSC 1331 (2) ulverslLy should
be compleLe dlverslLy of all
parLles uSC 1332
lederal SupplemenLal (Anclllary)
!urlsdlcLlon
(1) SLaLe lssues So 8elaLed" Lo
Lhe federal clalm aL dlscusslon
uSC 1367 (2) ulverslLy cases can
noL have federal supplemenLal
[urlsdlcLlon over sLaLe clalms
uSC 1367 (b) long arm sLaLuLe"
allows Lo serve process on Lhe
defendanL of dlfferenL sLaLe
10
8ush v Gore
2000 (pr|nt out)
L|ect|ons per curlam
lL Supreme CourL ordered
manual recounL of undervoLes
balloLs on whlch no voLe had
been reglsLered durlng Lhe
machlne counL ln all
counLles LhaL had noL yeL
compleLed a recounL
uS resldenLlal LlecLlons
8equlremenLs
be aL leasL 33 years old
be a naLural born clLlzen
be a resldenL of uS for 14 years
rocedure
LlecLors P8+S(2) ln lL27
elecLors
LlecLors shall meeL and make a
llsL of all persons voLed for Such
llsL should be glven Lo Lhe
resldenL of Lhe SenaLe (vlce
resldenL) S opens cerLlflcaLes
and voLes shall be counLed 1he
person wlLh Lhe greaLesL
number of voLes shall be Lhe
resldenL ln case of Lle Lhere
wlll be a voLe beLween Lhe
candldaLes wlLh equal voLe
numbers Congress decldes Lhe
1lme of chooslng elecLors
Members of Congress and
persons holdlng offlces of 1rusL
or roflL are forbldden Lo be
elecLors
11
oungstown
Sheet Co v
Sawyer 1he
stee| Se|zure
Case (page 188)
Lxecut|ve
ower
Domest|c
Affa|rs
8lack
1he case Lo declde wheLher
Lhe resldenL was acLlng
wlLhln hls consLlLuLlonal
power when he lssued an
order dlrecLlng Lhe SecreLaLry
of Commerce Lo Lake
possesslon of and operaLe
mosL of Lhe naLlons sLeel
mllls resldenLs argumenL
Lhe order was made on
flndlngs of Lhe resldenL LhaL
hls acLlon was necessary Lo
averL a naLlonal caLasLrophe
whlch would lnevlLably resulL
from a sLoppage of sLeel
producLlon resldenL was
acLlng wlLhln Lhe aggregaLe of
hls consLlLuLlonal power as
Lhe naLlons Chlef LxecuLlve
ArLlcle ll
SeparaLlon of
owers
resldenL acLed wlLhln
hls lowesL zone agalnsL
Lhe Congress
leglslaLure
!ackson concurred Lhree
zones of presldenLlal acLs
max LwlllghL mln
Llers of resldenLlal powers
8L8LAu 1PlS CASL lC8
Mlu1L8M
1 Congress auLhorlzes or lL ls ln
Lhe consLlLuLlon
2 1wlllghL zone/congresslonal
sllence
3 Congress had forbldden
parLlcular acL of resldenL !!!!!
(ulssenLlng Cplnlon ! !ackson)
Concurrence presldenL
glosslng over" cusLomary roles
lf Lhere have been esLabllshed
Lhe presldenL's role ln Lhls
domesLlc affalrs before lL
would be ok (lrankfurL)
12
US v Curt|ss
Wr|ght (p239)
Lxecut|ve
ower
Iore|gn
Affa|rs
SuLherland
WheLher Congress unlawfully
delegaLed leglslaLlve powers
Lo Lhe resldenL whlle acLlng
ln exLernal affalrs ( Company
selllng guns ln 8ollvla was
crlmlnally charged under an
execuLlve proclamaLlon
prohoblLlng such sales Lo any
naLlon engaged ln hosLlllLles
ln Lhe Chaco reglon of SouLh
Amerlca lncl 8ollvla)
ArLlcle ll
SeparaLlon of
powers
1 lorelgn governmenL
(noL SLaLes) conLrols
forelgn relaLlons 2 1he
execuLlve branch has
superlor excluslve
power over forelgn
relaLlons
13
US v N|xon (page
20S)
res|dent|a|
r|v||eges
and
Immun|t|es
ua||f|ed
8urger
eople from 8epubllcan parLy
were arresLed for burglary aL
Lhe headquarLers of
uemocraLlc arLy Among
suspecLs who planned Lhe
crlme ls nlxons campalgn
Manager (also uS ALLorney
Ceneral) !ohn MlLchell
Speclal rosecuLor requesLed
nlxon Lo provlde prosecuLlon
wlLh speclal Lapes of nlxon
MlLchell dlscusslons nlxon
was subpoened Lo glve Laped
resldenL refused clalmlng
absoluLe prlvllege of
ArLlcle ll
SeparaLlon of
powers
resldenL has qua||f|ed
pr|v||ege hls lnLeresL ln
confldenLlallLy musL be
balanced agalnsL Lhe
courLs lnLeresL ln
provldlng crlmlnal
[usLlce Abso|ute
pr|v||eges only maLLers
lnvolvlng mlllLary
dlplomaLlc or senslLlve
naLlonal securlLy
secreLs
14
N|xon v
I|tzgera|d (pr|nt
out)
res|dent|a|
r|v||eges
and
Immun|t|es
Abso|ute
owell
llLzgerald clalmed hls
governmenLal employmenL
was dlscharged because he
crlLlslzed Lhe resldenL So he
sued Lhe resldenL and hls
advlsors for vlolaLlng hls
consLlLuLlonal rlghL of free
speech resldenL asserLed an
absoluLe prlvllege agalnsL
belng requlred Lo answer any
clvll clalms ln courL 1o
conslder wlLhln hls offlclal
duLles durlng hls Lerm clvll
clalm
ArLlcle ll
SeparaLlon of
powers
lmmunlLy basedon
funcLlonallLy wlLhln hls
offlclal conducL
CovernmenL offlclals
have absoluLe
lmmunlLy resldenL
have only quallfled
lmmunlLy
1S
nar|ow v
I|tzgera|d (page
214)
res|dent|a|
r|v||eges
and
Immun|t|es
ua||f|ed
owell
llLzgerald clalmed hls
governmenLal employmenL
was dlscharged because he
crlLlslzed Lhe resldenL So he
sued Lhe resldenL and hls
advlsors for vlolaLlng hls
consLlLuLlonal rlghL of free
speech resldenL asserLed an
absoluLe prlvllege agalnsL
belng requlred Lo answer any
clvll clalms ln courL 1o
conslder wlLhln hls offlclal
duLles durlng hls Lerm clvll
clalm
ArLlcle ll
SeparaLlon of
powers
AbsoluLe lmmunlLy
proLecLs presldenL from
answerlng any clalm ln
any clrcumsLances
regardlng Lhelr offlclal
conducL 216 holdlng
dlscreLlonal funcLlons
as long as Lhelr conducL
doesn'L vlolaLe
consLlLuLlon or clearly
esLabllshed law
presldenL should be
lmmune from clvll
charges llablllLy
8urger dlssenLlng
clalmlng LhaL Lhls oplnlon
ls lnconslsLenL wlLh uS v
nlxon
16
C||nton v Iones
(pr|nt out)
res|dent|a|
r|v||eges
and
Immun|t|es
SLevens
before presldency whlle he
was a governor unofflclal
conducL
ArLlcle ll
SeparaLlon of
powers
resldenL doesn'L have
lmmunlLy over Lhe acLs
ouLslde of hls offlclal
capaclLy
17
McCu||och v
Mary|and (page
292)
Iedera||sm
state powers
v federa|
powers
Marshall
case abouL when sLaLe of
Marlland Laxed 8ank of
unlLed sLaLes uS 8ank
refused Lo pay Lax and
appealed Lo uS Supreme
CourL whlch declded LhaL
LaxaLlon was
unconsLlLuLlonal uS 8ank was
creaLed by people of uS
(lnferred from uS owers ln
consLlLuLlon necessary
powers) SLaLe law cannoL
apply Lo whole people of uS
ArLlcle l 8 llmlLed
powers of federal
leglslaLlve compeLence
ArLlcle lll 2 llmlLed llsL
of federal [udlclal
compeLence
dual soverelgnLy
necessary and
roper Clause
Supremacy
Clause ArLlcle lv
of ConsLlLuLlon
ower Lo creaLe Lhe
bank ls wlLhln
enumeraLed powers of
Lhe federal governmenL
alLhough lL ls noL
expressly descrlbed
18
G|bbons v
Cgden (page 301)
Commerce
C|ause
Marshall
sLeamboaL monopoly llcence
ln n? v federal llcence
ArLlcle l 8 Commerce Clause
lnLersLaLe commerce ls
rxcluslve power of
Congress lf sLaLe passed
leglslaLlon LhaL confllcLs
wlLh valld Congresslonal
leglslaLlon under
Commerce Clause Lhe
sLaLe leglslaLlon musL
fall
!ohnson concurred
19
US v Lopez (page
318)
Interstate
Commerce
affect|ng
commerce
8ehnqulsL
under lederal acL Cunlree
School Zone Lopez was
arresLed and charged wlLh
federal crlme ln 1exas
Congress exeeded lLs
auLhorlLy by regulaLlng
gum possesslon 3
caLegorles of
congresslonal power
page 319 1hls economlc
acLlvlLy doesn'L affecL
lnLersLaLe commerce
1hls was a crlmlnal
sLaLuLe LhaL has no
relaLon Lo commerce
SouLer dlssenL under
commerce clause
subsLanLlally affecLlng
lnLersLaLe commerce
8reyers d|ssent we
should noL ask wheLher
we Lhlnk an acLlvlLy
affecLs lnLersLaLe
commerce buL wheLher
Congress could
reasonably Lhlnk LhaL lL
affecLs lnLersLaLe
commerce
20
Crosby v
Nat|ona| Iore|gn
1rade Counc||
(pr|nt out)
SouLer
8urma law of MassachlseLLs
resLrlcLlng Lhe auLhorlLy of lLs
agencles Lo purchase goods
from companles dolng
buslness wlLh 8urma ls
unconsLlLuLlonal under
Supremacy Clause
no dlssenL
21 US v Ar|zona
lmmlgraLlon law ls
unconsLlLuLlonal
22 Gonza|ez v ka|ch marl[uana case