Get these flashcards, study & pass exams. For free! Even on iPhone/Android!

Judicial Review
SCOTUS Review of States
Justiciability (Standing, Mootness, Ripeness, Political Question)
Scope of Nat’l Power
Commerce Clause
Taxing
Spending
Property
War & Treaty
State Sovereignty
11th Am
Dormant Commerce Clause
Privilege & Immunities
Preemption
Presidential Power
Presidential Immunities
Incorporation

I WED 2Js, 4Ss, 5Ps in CT

Slaughterhouse
Duncan v. LA
McDonald v. Chicago

Woods
Missouri

Pennhurst
Seminole Tribe

Complete Auto Transit
New Energy Co. of IN
Transportation cases
Cattle Cases
Milk Cases (Deans, Clover Leaf, West Lynn)
Philly v. NJ
Reeves v. Stake (market participant)
White v. Mass.
Alaska Timber
Lewis v. BT
CTS Corp

Standing
Warth v. Selden
Locomotive Engineers
Lujan
Craig v. Boren
Taxpayer Standing
Raines v. Byrd
Linda R.S.
Political Question
Powell
Judge Nixon
Goldwater v. Carter
Mootness
DeFunis
Ripeness
Mitchell
Poe v. Ullman
City of LA v. Lyons

Heller
Marbury
McCardle (Klein)

Hunter's lessee
Michigan v. Long

Nat'l League of Cities
Garcia
NY v. US
Printz
Reno v. Condon

Butler
Steward Machine
South Dakota v. Dole

McCulloch
Gibbons
Cooley

Kleppe

City of Camden
VA bar exam
Virgin Islands
Hawaii Liquor

Gade (OSHA)

Youngstown Steel
Prize Cases (Lincoln)
Hamdi & Boumediene
Chadha

Nixon
Clinton

Ht of Atlanta
Katzenbach
Lopez
Morrizon
Gonzales

Sonzinsky (the firearm tax case)
Ptasynski (Alaska Crude Oil)

i.Ambiguity (lots of meanings) v. vagueness (drawing the line)
ii.Living K’stalist construction of meaning (filling in vague blanks) vs. originalist fixation/constraint (K has meaning fixed in time, if can’t figure out what it is, constrained by what you DO know)
iii.Compatiblism – using Living K’stalism for vague spots, using originalism for ambiguity

adequate and independent state grounds

Case or Controversy
Standing
(1) injury (2) causation (3) redressability
Mootness (capable of repetition yet evading review)
Ripeness
Political Question

Uniform Law Required?
Local better suited?
Case by Case Review, no list
ALSO
(1) Channels (2) Instrumentalities (3) Subst. Relation – for noneconomic, this also requires (a) protect i-s-c, (b) rat’l rel that regulated act has subst. affect on i-s-c, (c) rat’l basis that Congress’s regulation substantially affects i-s-c, (d) doesn’t obliterate fed and local distinction

Conditional funding = general welfare, unambiguous, related to fed interest
Gen Welfare not limited by enumerated powers

States as states, indisputably state, impairs trad’l govt fxns
Severability

ex parte Young
Edelman

silent corollary of I(8) + I(10) + Supremacy
Text, Purpose, Effects
If effects – balance?  Other alternatives?
Market Participant
Strict Scrutiny

can have burden on o-s-c and corresponding burden on i-s-c, thus no discrimination

basic to livelihood of nation
won’t invalidate if closely related to substantial state interest
21st Am.
middle scale of scrutiny

Express or Implied
Field
Direct Conflict
Nuanced

Jackson concurrence ZONES:
1 - united front
2 - zone of twilight
3 - butting heads

Fox guard headhouse

1.Think of Marbury + Chadha – judicial limits itself in Marbury, judicial limits legis in Chadha
2.Think of McCardle + Klein + Boumediene – same thing happens – as something works its way through system, Congress is working to strip ct of jdxn