Federalism &
Supreme Court!
Chapter 3
McCulloch V. Maryland (1819)
 Background of case: 2nd BUS was created in 1816, state of
Maryland tried to tax it out of existence in 1818, chief of the bank
refused to pay tax (McCulloch)
 2 Constitutional Questions:
 Congress have authority to set up bank?
 Maryland law unconstitutionally interfering with Congressional
Powers (A1, sec. 8 clauses 1 & 18)?
 Decision:
 7-0 in favor of McCulloch!
 Why? the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank
and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government
employed in the execution of constitutional powers
 Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the
Constitution; while the states retained the power of taxation
 "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. .
.they control the constitution and laws of the respective states
 Constitutional Principle/law:
 Legitimized the Implied Powers (A1 S8 C1 & 18) , and Supremacy
Clause (A6)!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iIlVrzvCH8
Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)
 Background of case: NY State law gave two people exclusive
rights to operate steamboat, Gibbons from NJ protested law
requiring a hefty tax to operate steamboat across state lines from
NJ to NY due to law!
 Constitutional Question:
 Did NY encroach on power reserved for Congress, the
Regulation of Interstate Commerce?
 Decision:
 6-0 in favor of Gibbons!
 Why? New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators
was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting
trade
 the New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause
 a clear definition of the word commerce included navigation on
interstate waterways, a power reserved to and exercised by the
Congress
 Constitutional Principle/Law:
 Expressed power of Commerce (Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 3),
Supremacy Clause (A6)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysiFr1oLw7o
Williams V. North Carolina (1945)
 Background of case: two separate married couples residents of
NC leave their spouses, go to Nevada get divorced, get married to
each other, come back to NC to live, are arrested and convicted for
polygamy
 Constitutional Question:
 Can state of NC disregard full faith & credit clause of article
IV?
 Decision:
 A writ of Certiorari ordering lower court to do it again!
 Why? The Supreme Court ruled that, “The Nevada divorces were
valid, and must be given full faith and credit by North Carolina, if the
travelers really were residents in Nevada when they received their
divorces
 all 50 states (as of 1985) now permit the dissolution of marriage on
at least one ‘no fault’ ground, It is unlikely that a state would go to
such great lengths to preserve a marriage against the will of one
spouse
 Constitutional Principle/Law:
 Full faith and credit clause must be extended if done properly
meeting state requirements of residency!
Loving v. Virginia 1962
 Background:
 In 1958, two residents of Virginia, a black woman, and a white man,
were married in DC. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly
thereafter. The were charged w/violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The
Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial
judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave
Virginia and not return for 25 years).
 Issue: Did Virginia's ant-miscegenation law violate the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
 Decision: 9 votes for Loving, 0 vote(s) against
 Constitutional Principle/law: (unanimous decision)
 the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were
generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most
rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law
was purely based on prejudice.
 Also, violation of Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the
freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides
with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM5A8kiNA6o
Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United
States (1964)

Background of case: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade
racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their
operations affected commerce, The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta,
Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with
violating Title II

Constitutional Question:
 Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its
Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta,
of the right to choose their own customers?

Decision:
 9-0 for US Government!
 Why? the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of
commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster
 the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to enterprises having a direct
and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people, places of
public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from
governmental regulation

Constitutional Principle/Law:
 Reinforcement of Commerce Clause (A1 S8 C3), Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXGbebNMzkQ
South Dakota V. Dole (1987)

Background of case: In 1984, Congress enacted legislation ordering
the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of federal
highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum
drinking age. South Dakota, a state that permitted persons 19 years of
age to purchase alcohol, challenged the law.

Constitutional Question:
 Did Congress exceed its spending powers?
 violate the Twenty-first Amendment, by passing legislation conditioning the
award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform minimum
drinking age?

Decision:
 7-2 for Dole!
 Why? the Court held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in
states' drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds, the legislation was in
pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were
reasonable
 the Twenty-first Amendment's limitations on spending power were not
prohibitions on congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly.
The five percent loss of highway funds was not unduly coercive!

Constitutional Principle/Law:
 It upheld Congress’s power of spending in the area of “General Welfare” and did
not see it as abusing since 5% not coercive!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNqfW3StnGM
Puerto Rico V. Brandstad (1987)
 Background of case: Ronald Calder was a native of Iowa working
in Puerto Rico, He was charged with first degree murder and
attempted murder. After posting bail, he fled to his home state.
Puerto Rico submitted a petition to Branstad, Iowa's governor at the
time, to extradite Calder for court proceedings. Branstad refused.
 Constitutional Question:
 Do federal courts have the power to order governors to fulfill
obligations under the Constitution's Extradition Clause in
Article IV, Section 2?
 Decision:
 9-0 for Puerto Rico!
 Why? The Court overturned its decision in Kentucky v. Dennison
(1861) which had rendered federal courts powerless to enforce the
Extradition Clause (Article IV).
 The unanimous Court concluded that the precedent in Kentucky was
"the product of another age" and "fundamentally incompatible with
more than a century of constitutional development.“
 Constitutional Principle/Law:
 It upheld Article IV Extradition Clause!
United States V. Lopez (1995)
Background of case: a high school student, carried a concealed weapon
into his San Antonio, Texas high school, charged under Texas law with
firearm federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal
statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any
individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a
school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to
six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.
 Constitutional Question:
 Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from
knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it
exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce
Clause?
 Decision:
 5-4 for Lopez!
 Why? The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an
economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal
statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of
economic activity.
 Constitutional Principle/Law: It reversed the increase of
congressional power under the Commerce clause

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78aE9SlyEOA
Gonzalez V. Raich (2005)
 Background of case:
California CUA act, legalizing marijuana for medical use
conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession
of marijuana; medical marijuana users argued the CSA - which Congress passed
using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - exceeded Congress'
commerce clause power. The district court ruled against the group; the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to
intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use; the Ninth Circuit ruled using
medical marijuana did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce and therefore
could not be regulated by Congress.
 Constitutional Question:
 Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power
under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and
possession of marijuana for medical use?
 Decision:
 6-3 for Gonzalez!
 Why? the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local
cultivation and use of marijuana, the Court's precedent "firmly established"
Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part
of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce;
Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of
activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand
in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use
"essential" to regulating the drug's national market
 Constitutional Principle/Law:
 Reestablished congressional power of Commerce if part of national market!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUBeWz8wDGw
Gonzalez V. Oregon (2006)
 Background of case: Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, authorizing
physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill
patients. Attorney General of US declared in 2001 that physician-assisted
suicide violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) & threatened to
revoke the medical licenses of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon
sued Ashcroft in federal district court. That court and, later the Ninth Circuit,
held Ashcroft's directive illegal. The courts held that the CSA did not authorize
the attorney general to regulate physician-assisted suicide, which was the sort
of medical matter historically entrusted to the states.
 Constitutional Question:
 Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use
of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon?
 Decision:
 6-3 for Oregon!
 Why? No. Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in
illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice.
Moreover, the CSA did not authorize Attorney General John Ashcroft to declare a
medical practice authorized under state law to be illegitimate.
 Constitutional Principle/Law:
 It pushed back against the expansion of Federal powers in areas under article IV
& 10th amendment reserved for the states to practice!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F-525sCzhE
Windsor V. United States (2013)

Background of case: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defined marriage
on federal level between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor the widow
and sole executor of the estate of her late spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, who died
in 2009. The two were married in Toronto, Canada, in 2007, and their
marriage was recognized by New York state law. Thea Syper left her estate to
her spouse, and because their marriage was not recognized by federal law, the
government imposed $363,000 in taxes. Had their marriage been recognized,
the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would
have been imposed; On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court
seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional;
President & AG refused to defend DOMA, however, House of Representative
decided to do it and field motion to dismiss case.

Constitutional Question: Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines
the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and
one woman” deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state
laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?

Decision: 5-4 for Windsor!


Under article IV states have the authority to define marital relationships and that
DOMA goes against legislative and historical precedent by undermining that authority;
effect of DOMA is to impose a “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on
same-sex couples in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection
Constitutional Principle/Law: Under federalism DOMA infringes on rights
reserved for state to decide !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7b6W6OLGJ0