Facts- Mr and Mrs. Bull were beneficiaries of a will and so was Calder.  Connecticut probate court denied Bull the inheritance.  Bulls tried to appeal the ruling 18 months after, which was against the appeal process.  The bulls go to Connecticut congress to change the law and they do.  Calder  takes case to supreme court.

  Issue – Was Connecticut violating article 1 section 10 of constitution, which prohibits ex post facto laws?

Holding – No, Reversed State Law, Struck down

expofacto-is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law

Facts
§  Congress enacted a law “an Act to lay upon carriages for the conveyance of persons.”  A 16 dollar tax. Hylton argued that the tax was a direct tax and not excused fairly.

  Issue
§  Did congress go above and beyond it taxing and spending power?

o   Holding
§  No, it did not.  Affirmed judgment of Virginia circuit court.Upheld

Justice chase - 1. apportioned tax on carriages would lead to inequalities in the tax between states.

2. "tax" and"duty" are broad, its indirect tax

Justice Iredell - "absurd" not indirect tax "in the sense of the constitution"

Facts
§  President Adams appoints new justices towards the end of his term for the reason that Jefferson would not.  The commissions were signed and sealed but not delivered, so Jefferson refused to honor them. Marbury later applies for a writ of mandamus to the court.

Issue
§  Is marbury’s point valid? 1
§  Can the Supreme court issue a writ of mandamus? 2
§  Whether the supreme court has Judicial Review power?
§  Is writ of mandamus appropriate for the court?

holding - yes,yes,yes,and yes

struckdown legislative policy

Marshall established judicial review

Justice Marshall - "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."

Facts Article 3 section 3 of the constitution

o   Issue
§  Is Justice Marshal’s concept of judicial review proper?

o   Holding
§  No because it took power away from the legislative branches

Facts
§  Congress charted a 2nd bank of the US in 1816, then in 1818 Maryland passed legislative to impose taxes on the bank.  McCulloch the cashier of the regional bank refused to pay. John James filed a lawsuit. The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals where the state of Maryland argued that the constitution is silent on the subject of Banks. The Court upheld Maryland. McCulloch appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

o   Issue
§  Does Congress have the power under the constitution to incorporate a bank? The power is not mentioned in the constitution.
§  Does Maryland have the right to tax a federal entity that is created by congress?

o   Holding
§  Yes Congress has the power to incorporate a bank. Necessary and Proper Clause.
§  No. The state of Maryland doesn’t have the power to tax an institution created by congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution

STRUCKDOWN state policy - main issue

upheld federal

justice marshall -“the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. They control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

Facts
§  Georgia purchases needed supplies from an South Carolina business man. GA receives supplies but does not pay in full. Chisholm takes the case to court to collect.  Case goes direct to Supreme Court, due to original jurisdiction.

o   Issue
§  Is a state suable by individual citizens of another state?
§  Was the state of Georgia subject to the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Federal Government?

o   Holding - Strikes down state law

Facts- Hunter gains land by a confiscation act. Martin (descendent of lord Fairfax) says he own the lands by a US British agreement. Jay Treaty states that Martin is rightful owner of land. The Supreme Court declared that Martin owned the land, but the Virginia court refused to recognize this.  Case originates in Virginia courts

o   Issue
§  Does the US Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law.

o   Holding - Strikes down state law

Facts: An act of Congress authorized the operation of a lottery in the District of Columbia. The Cohen brothers proceeded to sell D.C. lottery tickets in the state of Virginia, violating state law. State authorities tried and convicted the Cohens, and then declared themselves to be the final arbiters of disputes between the states and the national government.

o   Issue: Did the Supreme Court have the power under the Constitution to review the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling?

o   Holding: Yes, Struck down state decision to not let Supreme court to hear it, Upheld State decision on Cohen brothers

court - The Court stated: "There is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our Constitution was formed, nothing in the history of the times, which would justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the States was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legitimate measures of the Union.

Facts: In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a land grant awarding territory to four companies. The following year, however, the legislature voided the law and declared all rights and claims under it to be invalid. In 1800, John Peck acquired land that was part of the original legislative grant. He then sold the land to Robert Fletcher three years later, claiming that past sales of the land had been legitimate. Fletcher argued that since the original sale of the land had been declared invalid, Peck had no legal right to sell the land and thus committed a breach of contract.

o   Issue: Could the contract between Fletcher and Peck be invalidated by an act of the Georgia legislature?

o   Holding: No, Struck down state, Art. 1 sect. 10

quote - “No State shall … pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

Facts: In 1816, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to change Dartmouth College-- a privately funded institution--into a state university. The legislature changed the school's corporate charter by transferring the control of trustee appointments to the governor. In an attempt to regain authority over the resources of Dartmouth College, the old trustees filed suit against William H. Woodward, who sided with the new appointees.

o   Issue: Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionally interfere with Dartmouth College's rights under the Contract Clause?

o   Holding: Yes, Struck down State, Art. 1 sect. 10

Facts: A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly that New York had granted, which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters.

o   Issue: Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce?

o   Holding: No, Struck down state, Art. 1 sect. 8 Commerce clause

quote - "If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States."

Facts: Maryland had a law that said if you were to sell any good you first must obtain a license to do so, and under penalty your goods could be confiscate and you could be fined. Brown sold dry goods without obtaining this license and was convicted. He now challenges this law.

o   Issue: Whether the legislature of a state can constitutionally require the importer of foreign articles to take out a license from the state, before he shall be permitted to sell a bale or package so imported.

o   Holding: it Struckdown state law

the license fee does violate the importation clause, and it does violate federal power IRC

Facts: John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.

o   Issue: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner?

o   Holding: No, Left it to states, Art. 1 Sect. 9 & 10   UPHELD state law

marshall - "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."

Facts: A state law required all vessels docking in New York City to provide a list of passengers and to post security against the passengers from becoming public charges. Miln, the master of the ship "Emily," refused to comply with the law. The city sought to collect a penalty for Miln's failure to file the report.

o   Issues: Does the New York law violate the Commerce Clause which vests all power over interstate and foreign commerce in Congress?

o   Holding: No... it Upheld State law, Policing Powers

justice barbour - "to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possible convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence, which may arise from unsound and infectious articles imported."

Facts: In 1785, the Massachusetts legislature incorporated the Charles River Bridge Company to construct a bridge and collect tolls. In 1828, the legislature established the Warren Bridge Company to build a free bridge nearby. Unsurprisingly, the new bridge deprived the old one of traffic and tolls. The Charles River Bridge Company filed suit, claiming the legislature had defaulted on its initial contract.

o   Issues: Did the legislature enter into an economic contract with the Charles River Bridge Company that was impaired by the second charter in violation of Article I Section 10 of the Constitution?

o   Holding: No, Upheld State, Art. 1 Sect. 10

Facts: The Pennsylvania legislature passed laws in 1788 and 1826 prohibiting the removal of Negroes out of the state for the purpose of enslaving them. In 1832, a black woman named Margaret Morgan moved from Maryland to Pennsylvania. Although she was never formally emancipated, her owner John Ashmore granted her virtually full freedom. Ashmore's heirs wanted her returned as a slave and sent Edward Prigg to capture her in Pennsylvania. After returning Morgan to Maryland, Prigg was convicted in a Pennsylvania court for violating the 1826 law. Prigg unsuccessfully argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that both the 1788 and 1826 laws violated the constitutional guarantee of extradition among states and the federal government's Fugitive Slave Law of 1793.

o   Issues: Did Pennsylvania's law prohibiting the extradition of Negroes to other states for the purpose of slavery violate Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution? Did the law violate the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 as applied by the Supremacy Clause?

o   Holding: Yes and Yes, struck down state

Facts of the Case
A Pennsylvania law required that all ships entering or leaving the port of Philadelphia hire a local pilot. Ships that fail to do so would be subject to a fine, which would go to a fund for retire pilots and their dependents. This fund was administered by the Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia. Cooley was a ship owner. He refused to hire a local pilot and he also refused to pay the fine.

Question
Does the law violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

Holding
NO. commerce Power extends to laws related to pilotage. States' laws related to commerce powers can be valid so long as Congress is silent on the matter.upheld state law

Justice curtis - "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states,"

Facts of the Case
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. .

Issue
Was Dred Scott free or slave?

Holding - UPHELD state law
he was a slave. Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
1. Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is withoutstanding to file a suit.
2. TheProperty Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories.Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.

3.Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.

Facts of the Case
Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of southern ports in April 1861. Congress authorized him to declare a state of insurrection by the Act of July 13, 1861. By the Act of August 6, 1861, Congress retroactively ratified all Lincoln's military action. These cases involved the seizure of vessels bound for Confederate ports prior to July 13, 1861.

Issue
Did Lincoln act within his presidential powers defined by Article II when he ordered the seizures absent a declaration of war?

Holding
yes. The President did have the authority to order a blockade and impound ships, even without a formal declaration of war. UPHELD federal law

quote - "bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself,without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name."

Facts of the Case
Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War; he had engaged in acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court.

Issue
Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal? (right to a trial)

Holding
no. Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is constitutional only when there is no power left but the military, and the military may validly try criminals only as long as is absolutely necessary.

it UPHELD

Facts of the Case
William McCardle was arrested by federal authorities in 1867 for writing and publishing a series of editorials in his Mississippi newspaper. The editorials were sharply critical of Reconstruction. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were unconstitutional.

issue

1. Does Congress have the power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in cases in which it has already granted jurisdiction?
2. Must the Court always first determine if it is has jurisdiction to review a case?

Holding

1. Yes. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, but it gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction.
2. Yes. The Court must always determine first if it is has jurisdiction to review a case.
3. UPHELD

justice chase - repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised."

Facts of the Case
In 1851, Congress authorized the transfer of $10 million worth of United States bonds to the state of Texas. The bonds were payable to the state or bearer and were to be redeemable in 1864. In 1862, during the war of rebellion, an insurgent Texas legislature authorized the use of the bonds to purchase war supplies. Four years later, the reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds.

Issue
Was Texas a state in the union eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court? Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?

Holding
yes. Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.
Treasury bond sales by Texas during the war were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war state.
Texas doesn’t have to pay, cuz they were illegally sold.

UPHELD state law

Facts of the Case
In 1867, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts. Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Acts, Congress overrode the veto. In an attempt to delay or prevent Reconstruction, the state of Mississippi appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Mississippi asked the Court for an injunction preventing the President from enforcing the Acts on the ground that they were unconstitutional.

Issue
Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President?

Holding
No, In the course of his enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, President Johnson was necessarily exercising discretion and so could not be sued. UPHELD

quote -
The Court held that the duties of the President as required by the Reconstruction Acts were "in no sense ministerial," and that a judicial attempt to interfere with the performance of such duties would be "an absurd and excessive extravagance."

Facts of the Case
In 1864, Congress created a tax on incomes over $1,000. The Congress maintained the tax for the next three years. J.M. Day, a state judge in Massachusetts, protested the tax and filed suit against the revenue service.

Issue
Did Congress have the power to impose taxes on state officials?

Holding
no. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Day stating that Congress did not have the right within their powers to impose a tax on state officials. STRUCKDOWN

court - the states and the "general government" were two distinct entities, and that the states' right to establish judicial departments could not be infringed. The national government could not tax the "means and instrumentalities" of state self-preservation.

Chilsom v georgia
martin v hunter
cohens v  virgina

mcculloch v maryland

 fletcher v peck

chilsomv georgia

martin v hunter
charles bridge v warren bridge

darthmouth v woodward

- precedent to dartmouth is fletcher