The Supreme Court and Judicial Review – Due in 6 hours
Attached the PDF for cases: Choose specific supreme court case.
Identify the constitutional powers of judicial branch.
- How does the Supreme Court act as a check against executive authority?
- How does the Supreme Court act as a check against legislative authority?
- Select a specific Supreme Court case from one of the following fields:
Economic policy
Education policy
Environmental policy
Healthcare policy - Identify the historical circumstances of the Supreme Court case.
Speculate as to why the Supreme Court justices decided to hear this case.
- Explain the Supreme Court’s decision.
Explain how this Supreme Court case discussed the U.S. Constitution and/or subsequent federal and state laws, and/or lower court judicial decisions.
How did this Supreme Court case affect the legislative, executive, and/or judicial branch? - Evaluate the resulting impact of the Supreme Court case on U.S. society.
Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court decision?
- Evaluate the resulting impact of the Supreme Court case on you.
Why did this Supreme Court case interest you?
How did this case affect you and society?
1
Economic Policy [For example, U.S. allocation of federal grants]
Notable Supreme Court Cases Description
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) “In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland
passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore
branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was
unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal
government to charter a bank.” (Oyez, n.d.)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) “A New York state law gave Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton a 20-year monopoly over
navigation on waters within state jurisdiction. Aaron Ogden and other competitors tried to forestall
the monopoly, but Livingston and Fulton largely succeeded in selling franchise or buying competitors’
boats. Thomas Gibbons — a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey
under a federal coastal license – formed a partnership with Ogden, which fell apart after three years
when Gibbons operated another steamboat on a New York route belonging to Ogden. Ogden filed suit
against Gibbons in New York state court, and received a permanent injunction. The New York state
court rejected Gibbons’ argument asserting that U.S. Congress controlled interstate commerce.” (Oyez,
n.d.)
United States v. E.C. Knight Co.
(1895)
“The Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 as a response to the public concern in the
growth of giant corporations controlling transportation, industry, and commerce. The Act aimed to
stop the concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of the few. It outlawed “every
contract, combination…or conspiracy, in restraint of trade” or interstate commerce, and it declared
every attempt to monopolize any part of trade or commerce to be illegal. The E.C. Knight Company
was such a combination controlling over 98 percent of the sugar-refining business in the United
States.” (Oyez, n.d.)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/156us1
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/156us1
2
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
(1991)
“In 1986, Lucas bought two residential lots on the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. He
intended to build single-family homes as on the adjacent lots. In 1988, the state legislature enacted a
law which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land. The law aimed to
protect erosion and destruction of barrier islands. Lucas sued and won a large monetary judgment. The
state appealed.” (Oyez, n.d.)
“Michigan and New York laws allowed in-state wineries to directly ship alcohol to consumers but
restricted the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so. In separate cases groups sued the states and
argued the laws violated the U.S. Constitution’s “dormant” commerce clause. The dormant commerce
clause prohibited states from passing laws affecting interstate commerce, particularly laws favoring in-
state business over out-of-state business. The states argued the laws were valid exercises of state
power under the 21st Amendment, which ended federal Prohibition and allowed states to regulate
alcohol importation. A federal district court ruled for Michigan. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed and ruled the Michigan law violated the dormant commerce clause and did not advance the
core concerns of the 21st Amendment (such as temperance). A separate federal district court ruled
against New York. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the 21st Amendment
allowed New York’s law.” (Oyez, n.d.)
Tennessee Wine and Spirits
Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
“To sell liquor in the state of Tennessee, one must have a license from the Tennessee Alcoholic
Beverage Commission (TABC). Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 57-3-204(b)(2)(A), an individual
must have “been a bona fide resident of [Tennessee] during the two-year period immediately
preceding the date upon which application is made to the commission,” and there is a ten-year
residency requirement to renew a liquor license. The state imposes similar requirements on entities
seeking a license. Two entities did not satisfy the residency requirement when they applied for applied
for a license with the TABC, so TABC deferred voting on their applications. The Tennessee Wine and
Spirits Retailers Association, which represents Tennessee business owners and represented the two
entities here, informed TABC that litigation was likely. In response, the state attorney general filed an
action in state court seeking declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the durational-
residency requirements. The Association removed the action to federal district court. The district court
determined that the durational-residency requirements are facially discriminatory, in violation of the
dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.” (Oyez, n.d.)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-453
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-453
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1116
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-96
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-96
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal (1991)
Granholm v. Heald (2004)