historical periods of the court psc 446: constitutional law

Historical Periods of the Court

PSC 446: Constitutional Law

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


9. Edward Douglass White: 1910-1921

10. William Howard Taft: 1921-1930

11. Charles Evans Hughes: 1930-1941

12. Harlan Fiske Stone: 1941-1946

13. Fred M. Vinson: 1946-1953

14. Earl Warren: 1953-1969

15. Warren E. Burger: 1969-1986


16. William H. Rehnquist: 1986-2005

17. John Roberts: 2005-Present

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.


• 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.


• Justices had to ride circuits to hear appeals

• Court is not a major political actor

• Opinions read seriatim

II. 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.


• 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.


• 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.

Foundations of Judicial Review

• The power of judicial review has it foundations in the following three cases:

– Marbury v. Madison– Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee– Cohens v. Virginia


• 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.


• 1833 – Barron v. Baltimore– The Bill of Rights only applies to the citizens

of the United States

III. States and Slavery1836 - 1860

• 1837 – New York v. Miln– A state law can be a valid exercise of state police

power to protect public welfare against an influx of paupers. This is a function of state sovereignty.

• 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.


• 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


• 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

III. 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.


• 1866 - Ex parte Milligan– The president lacks the power to authorize

military tribunals to try civilians in areas where civil courts are still functioning.


• 1869 - Ex parte McCardle– Congress can make exceptions to the

appellate 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.

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.

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.

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.


• 1886 – Santa Clara County v. So. Pacific Railroad Co.– Corporations can be considereed “persons”

within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


• 1890 – Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul RR. v. Minnesota (Minnesota Rate Cases)– A state deprives a company of due process

and the power to charge reasonable rates when is fails to provide judicial review of those rate limitations.


• 1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson– Separate but equal accommodations are

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.


• 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.)


• 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.


• 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.”


• 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.


• 1908 - Loewe v. Lawler (Danbury Hatters Case)– Union boycotts can be ruled as restraints of

trade and therefore unlawful.– A union attempting to organize workers in a

factory in one state by boycotting stores that sell its products elsewhere is a combination in restraint of trade and in violation of the federal antitrust law.


• 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.


• 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 railroad

rates if they are so intertwined with interstate rail rates that it is impossible to regulate the one without regulating the other.


• 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.


• 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.

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.


• 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– Virginia did not violate the 14th Amendment

what is sterilized, without her consent, what is classified as a mentally defective mother.

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?


• 1926 - Myers v. U.S.– The Court upheld the president’s power to

remove certain postmasters from office without advice and consent from the Senate.

• 1928 – J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. U.S.– Imposition of protective tariffs is a permissible

exercise of the power to tax.


• 1934 – Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell– In the face of a Contract Clause argument, the

Court upheld an emergency state placing a moratorium on foreclosure of mortgages.

• 1935 – Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S.– The Court denied the president the power to

remove members of independent regulatory agencies.


• 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 agricultural products.

• 1937 – West Coast Hotel v. Parrish– The Court upheld the State of Washington’s

law setting minimum wages for women and children workers.


• 1937 – Helvering v. Davis– The Court sustained the constitutionality of

the Social Security Act of 1935. This case effectively overturned its Butler decision.

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.”


• 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 prohibit the

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


• 1942 – Wickard v. Filburn– The federal power to prevent burdens on

interstate commerce permits the federal government to regulate matters that are neither interstate nor commerce.

• 1943 - Ex parte Quirin – Instead of requiring a civilian jury, the Court

upheld the conviction of seven Nazi saboteurs by a presidentially established military commission


• 1943 – Hirabayashi v. U.S. – The Court upheld the wartime curfew law

placed 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.


• 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 during the Korean Conflict.


• 1953 – Rosenberg v. United States– The Court, after meeting in special session,

lifted the stay of execution for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They were executed for espionage.

• 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.”


• 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 a private interest.


• 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.”

VIII. The Burger Court, 1969 - 1986

• 1969 - Powell v. McCormack– Congress does not have 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.


• 1974 - Edelman v. Jordan– The 11th 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.


• 1975 – Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar– Lawyers are not immune from the provisions

of federal antitrust laws.

• 1976 – Natl. League of Cities v. Usery– Congress exceeded its power to regulate

commerce when it extended federal minimum employment standards to cover state and local government employees.

• 1976 – Stone v. Powell– A state prisoner’s claim that illegally obtained

evidence was used to convict him cannot support a writ of habeas corpus release.

• 1976 – Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages– The export-import clause does not bar a state

from imposing a tax on imported goods as long as the tax is not discriminatory.


• 1978 – Monell v. Dept. of Social Services– Municipal authorities are not immune from

civil rights damage suits filed under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

• 1978 – Butz v. Economous– Federal officials are not completely immune

from damage suits arising from conduct of duties.


• 1979 – Hutchinson v. Proxmire– The “Speech and Debate” clause does not

protect a senator from being sued for libel as a results of statements in press releases or newsletters.

• 1982 – Nixon v. Proxmire– Presidents are absolutely immune from civil

damage suits.


• 1983 – INS v. Chadha– The “one house veto” is unconstitutional.

• 1985 – Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority– The Constitution does not limit Congress from

regulating commerce when it imposes minimum employment standards on state and local employees.


• What is the Carolene Footnote?

• What did Hirabayashi v. U.S. hold?

• What did Korematsu v. U.S. hold?

• What happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenburg?

• Why is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States such an important case?

Quiz #3

historical periods of the court psc 446: constitutional law

Documents

establishment of power

virginia slide

state laws

present slide

state courts

state authorities

state authority

state court rulings