Law Outlines Constitutional Law Outlines
This outline covers a first year course in constitutional law taught by Prof. Schauer at UVA Law. Included is an attack outline as well as a longer and more detailed major outline. Topics include judicial review, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the 10th Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause and preemption, Taxing and Spending powers, Substantive Due Process (Lochner and beyond), Equal Protection, Due Process and sexual orientation, State Action, and Presidential Powers (vs....
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Constitutional Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Constitutional Law
Attack Outline
Spring 2015 – UVA Law
Judicial Review
Marbury (1803): Court has power to review laws in light of the constitution (cannot expand Article 3) and is binding on other branches
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816): This is also binding on the states.
Limit: state supreme courts on state constitutional issues, needs federal question
U.S. v. Klein (1972): congress cannot use appellate jurisdiction control to change outcome of one case
Cooper v. Aaron (1958): Death of departmentalism; SCOTUS is supreme interpreter of constitution (Eisenhower enforced opinion he disagreed with)
Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): exception, state officials are not bound to defend laws in court against constitutional challenges
Walter Nixon v. U.S. (1993): non-justicible question, textually demonstrative commitment to coordinate branch (constitution doesn’t say anything about it) – different from passing laws in general
See also standing
Commerce Clause (see also Necessary & Proper)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Includes regulation of goods in movement, also implicitly preempts state regulation.
Champion v. Ames (Lottery Case): OK to use moral reasons to regulate instrumentalities of commerce that cross state lines
Houston East & West Texas RR (Shreveport Rate Case, 1914): OK to regulate intrastate commerce that affects interstate commerce (through instrumentalities of commerce).
Hammer v. Dagenhart, (1918) Overruled: Pre-New Deal, based on morality + intrastate commerce that merely affected interstate commerce could be too attenuated.
Refusal to combine Champion v. Ames moral reasons with Shreveport Rate Case intrastate regulations
Carter Coal (1936): Overruled, Labor law struck down for being too attenuated, no “direct effect”
Schecter Poultry (1935): Wage and hour law struck down for being too attenuated
NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel (1937): E.g. vertically integrated activities cannot be done except through interstate commerce, so Congress may regulate
Darby (1941): Intrastate activities with moral reasons that have an interstate effect may be regulated. New Deal. Sawmill case. Overrules Dagenhart. 10th Amendment = truism
Allows Champion v. Ames and Shreveport Rate Case to be combined. Moral reasons with interstate effect/presence
Wickard (1942): Fungible goods may be aggregated to find interstate commerce even if the individual person regulated acts purely intrastate. (Kansas wheat farmer)
Heart of Atlanta (1964): Channels of interstate commerce, e.g. hotels on an interstate highway, may be regulated for moral reasons. These are also taken in aggregation
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964): Aggregation of businesses may restrict blacks’ willingness to travel which will affect interstate commerce. Based on data, defer to congress
Must have rational basis for regulating the industry
Perez (1971): Broadest possible interpretation. Moral reasons with tenuous interstate effect--aggregate of intrastate loan sharks may affect interstate commerce. Deference to the judgment of the legislature. Part of class that impacts interstate commerce even if some don’t, not an aggregate case
Morton v. Bloom (1973): Beginning of limits. Individual factual circumstances (one-man mine) can put you outside of the interstate commerce Congress intended to regulate.
Lopez and Morrison (1995, 2000): Four factor test walking back the line from Darby and eliminating full legislative deference: now questions the findings of Congress
Current Indicators: (1) Intention of Congress--economic/business related?; (2) jurisdictional hook; (3) requirement and evaluation of Congressional findings; (4) Attenuation of link to commerce/substantiality of relation w/o deference to congress.
Still in existence: (1) channels of interstate commerce (highways, Heart of Atlanta, Champion), (2) instrumentalities (e.g. vehicles, things in IC like goods) of interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect commerce
But see Gonzales (2005): marijuana may still be regulated because it is part of an interstate market.
See Comstock for prong (4)?
Bigger concern for things normally left to the states
NFIB v. Sebelius (ACA Case, 2012): no majority, but not constitutional under commerce clause
Roberts: inactivity vs. activity
Scalia +: unconstitutional per Morrison
Necessary and Proper
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Necessary means facilitative or useful in achieving an enumerated power (does not need to be absolutely necessary)
Comstock (2010): Need links in the chain; post-release prison detention center OK because it’s connected to prisons which are needed to enforce laws made in pursuance of enumerated powers. Necessary and proper doesn’t stand alone
Kebodeaux (2013): Necessary and proper is not its own source of power, must be attached to an enumerated power, allows long chain.
Tenth Amendment
National League of Cities: States may use 10th amendment to set lower minimum wages than federal government. Overruled
Garcia (1985): Overruled National League of Cities and strips 10th amendment of its power
Printz (1997): Lone exception: federal government may not commandeer state workers to do work that federal law enforcement should be doing.
Dormant Commerce Clause
Preemption: Look for it first
Explicit Preemption: congress says states can’t act
Implicit Preemption: conflicts with existing law
Occupation of the Field: so much federal regulation that it’s apparent that Congress intended to keep the states out
Note: state subsidies, spending, are different. But taxing is not
Explicit Protectionism and Discrimination: Always Unconstitutional
Bacchus Imports v. Dias: Hawaii can’t tax other wine to favor its own wine
Baldwin v. JAF Seelig: Safety reasons are not enough to save protectionist regulations on fungible goods (prices for milk to oust out of staters)
Dean Milk v. Madison: Cannot draw geographic lines (even if they aren’t state lines) to restrict sales of fungible goods
No need...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law Outlines.
This outline covers a first year course in constitutional law taught by Prof. Schauer at UVA Law. Included is an attack outline as well as a longer and more detailed major outline. Topics include judicial review, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the 10th Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause and preemption, Taxing and Spending powers, Substantive Due Process (Lochner and beyond), Equal Protection, Due Process and sexual orientation, State Action, and Presidential Powers (vs....
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started