Citation473 U.S. 432,105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313, 1985 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States used a minimum rationality review standard to strike down a law that discriminated against mentally retarded people that was based primarily on fear rather than safety. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Mentally retarded people are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Thus, when reviewing a discriminatory classification involving mentally retarded people, the standard of review is minimum rationality. Where, as here, the basis of the discrimination is fear of mentally retarde ...
Search Results
Brown v. Board of Education (I)
Citation347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, 1954 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States invoked the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down laws that permitted racial segregation in public schools. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Segregated public schools are not “equal” and cannot be made “equal,” therefore, the doctrine of “separate but equal” in public schools is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ...
Brown v. Board of Education (II)
Citation349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083, 1955 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. This case was decided in order to define the manner in which relief, as held in Brown I, is to be accorded. Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is up to the courts to decide whether the action of the school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles. ...
Railway Express Agency v. New York
Citation336 U.S. 106, 69 S. Ct. 463, 93 L. Ed. 533, 1949 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States found that a law that forbids general advertising on vehicles where such ads benefit businesses other than that of the vehicle’s owner, is a valid social and economic regulation. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Unequal treatment on the basis of advertisements of products sold by the owner of the truck and general advertisements is not a violation of equal protection, but rather a valid social and economic regulation. ...
U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz
Citation449 U.S. 166, 101 S. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 2d 368, 1980 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. In order to prevent the railroad retirement system from falling into bankruptcy, Congress passed, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld, a law ending windfall benefits that drew a distinction between employees who could continue to receive dual benefits and employees who were denied dual benefits. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Depriving one set of unretired workers of dual benefits while continuing to give dual benefits to those who satisfied certain criteria did not violate equal protection. ...
Washington v. Glucksberg
Citation521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that a law that prohibits anyone (including physicians) from aiding or causing another to commit suicide is constitutional Synopsis of Rule of Law. The “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not include the right to assist suicide. ...
Bowers v. Hardwick
Citation478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1986) Brief Fact Summary. A Georgia law criminalizing sodomy was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States despite its effect of outlawing consensual homosexual sexual conduct in private residences. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The federal Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. ...
Roe v. Wade
Citation410 U.S. 959; 93 S. Ct. 1409;35 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1973 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. A Texas law criminalizing abortion except where the procedure is necessary to “save the life of the mother” and without regard to the state of pregnancy was found by the Supreme Court of the United States to violate due process. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The right of privacy protects a married or unmarried woman’s liberty to choose an abortion, but this right must be considered against important state interests in regulation such as the stage of the pregnancy. ...
Home Building Ass’n v. Blaisdell
Citation290 U.S. 398, 54 S. Ct. 231,78 L. Ed. 413, 1934 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Minnesota’s Mortgage Moratorium Law, which was passed in order to grant relief to those with mortgages during the Depression, was upheld as an emergency measure despite its interference with private contracts between mortgagors and mortgagees. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The protective power of the state, the police power, may be exercised in directly preventing the immediate and literal enforcement of contractual obligations by a temporary and conditional restraint where vital public interests would otherw ...
Griswold v. Connecticut
Citation381 U.S. 479,85 S. Ct. 1678,14 L. Ed. 2d 510,1965 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. A Connecticut provision outlawing the counseling of others to use contraception, as well as the use of contraception, was found unconstitutional under strict scrutiny because it violated the Due Process Clause. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The right of marital privacy lies within the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is a fundamental right and strict scrutiny is the standard of judicial review. ...
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
Citation260 U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. 322 (1922) Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down a prohibition against mining coal when a private contract had expressly reserved such a right. Synopsis of Rule of Law. While property may be regulated by the government to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking. ...
Nebbia v. New York
Citation291 U.S. 502,54 S. Ct. 505,78 L. Ed. 940,1934 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. New York’s Milk Control Board’s price control regulation survived a Constitutional attack because it was not found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy adopted by the legislature. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Price controls that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policies of the legislature, are unconstitutional because they are unnecessary and unwarranted interferences with individual liberty. ...
Williamson v. Lee Optical Co
Citation348 U.S. 483, 75 S. Ct. 461, 99 L. Ed. 563, 1955 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. An Oklahoma law that prevented persons who were not licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists from fitting lenses for eyeglasses was unsuccessfully challenged under the Due Process Clause because it prevented opticians (artisans qualified to grind lenses, fill prescriptions and fit frames) from doing much of the work that they used to do. The law also banned advertising eyeglasses frames. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A state law must be reasonably and rationally related to the health and welfare of the public to ...
Lochner v. New York
Citation198 U.S. 45,25 S. Ct. 539,49 L. Ed. 937; 1905 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. A law that sought to protect the health of bakers by limiting their employment to ten hours a day (sixty hours a week) was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a violation of the Due Process Clause because it was “an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference” with the right of the individual to enter into contracts in relation to labor. Synopsis of Rule of Law. An act which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contra ...
Saenz v. Roe
Citation526 U.S. 489,119 S. Ct. 1518,143 L. Ed. 2d 689,1999 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. A statute limiting the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived citizens was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to violate the right to travel implicit in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A newly arrived citizen of a state has the same privileges and immunities (including welfare benefits) enjoyed by other citizens of the same state. ...
Duncan v. Louisiana
Citation536 U.S. 907; 122 S. Ct. 2362;153 L. Ed. 2d 183; 2002 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Appellant, Gary Duncan, sought trial by jury after being charged with a misdemeanor. Trial by jury was denied. Subsequently, Appellant successfully challenged the denial of trial by jury claiming that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments secure the right to trial by jury in state criminal prosecutions where a sentence as long as two years may be imposed, as here. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Because trial by jury in a criminal case is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amen ...
Slaughter-House Cases
Citation83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873) Brief Fact Summary. A Louisiana statute granting a monopoly over the butchering trade in three areas of the state was unsuccessfully challenged by Plaintiffs, butchers not included in the monopoly, under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Thirteenth Amendment does not empower individuals when their rights are taken, but rather is limited only to slavery. The purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment is to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment. The Privileges and Immunities clause only protects United States citiz ...
Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Citation32 U.S. 243,8 L. Ed. 672,1833 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, a wharf owner in the Baltimore harbor, unsuccessfully claimed that the Defendant’s, City of Baltimore, action of ruining the use of his wharf violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because the Bill of Rights is inapplicable to the states. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the exercise of power of the federal government and is inapplicable to state legislation. ...
Morrison v. Olson
Citation22 Ill.487 U.S. 654, 108 S. Ct. 2597, 101 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1988) Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, which granted independent counsel “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers” of the Justice Department does not violate the Appointments Clause of Article III, nor do the provisions violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Synopsis of Rule of Law. An independent counsel is an inferior officer; therefore, ...
Clinton v. City of New York
Citation22 Ill.524 U.S. 417, 118 S. Ct. 2091, 141 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1998) Brief Fact Summary. President Clinton’s exercise of power under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to make cancellations in a Congressional Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States because the President must either veto the entire law or approve the entire law. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The provisions allowing cancellations in the Line Item Veto Act are unconstitutional because it gives the President unilateral authority to change the text of duly enacted statutes, and thus violates Artic ...
Bowsher v. Synar
Citation22 Ill.478 U.S. 714, 106 S. Ct. 3181, 92 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1986) Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress’ assignment of certain functions under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to the Comptroller General of the United States violated the doctrine of separation of powers because by its assignment of such functions, Congress was reserving the removal power of an officer charged with execution of the laws. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with execution of the laws except by imp ...
Dames & Moore v. Regan
Citation1544 F. Supp. 94 (C.D. Cal. 1982) Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the President may nullify attachments and order the transfer of frozen Iranian assets pursuant to Section 1702(a)(1) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). Based on the Court’s inferences from legislation passed by Congress (IEEPA and the Hostage Act) regarding the President’s authority to deal with international crises and from the history of congressional acquiescence in executive claims settlement, the President may also suspe ...
INS v. Chadha
Citation22 Ill.462 U.S. 919, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 77 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1983) Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to allow one house of Congress to unilaterally veto a decision of the executive branch. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The one-house veto is unconstitutional because a law must be approved by a majority of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, pursuant to the principles of bicameralism. Then the law must be introduced to the President who will then approve or veto the law pursuant to the Presentment Clause. ...
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Citation103 F. Supp. 569, 30 LRRM 2001 (D.D.C. 1952) Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that a President may not issue executive orders allowing the seizure of domestic private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A President may not use executive authority as a source of power without Congressional approval, to solve problems regarding work stoppages resulting from labor disputes. ...
United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden
Citation465 U.S. 208,104 S. Ct. 1020,79 L. Ed. 2d 249,1984 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. A Camden, New Jersey ordinance requiring preferential hiring of city employees was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be subject to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Privileges and Immunities Clause does not preclude discrimination against citizens of other states where there is a “substantial reason” for the difference in treatment. The inquiry in each case must be concerned with whether such reasons do exist and whether the degree of discriminatio ...