Federalism+Supreme+Court+Thing

3. SOUTH DAKOTA V. DOLE 1987 (pre-Clarence)

· Facts South Dakota challenged the Government legislation that required the minimum drinking age to be 21 by withholding federal grants. · Issue- Did the federal Government have the right to withhold the grants inorder to make a universal drinking age? In a 7-2 vote the Supreme court decided the legislation was constitutional stating the government could make any restrictions to their grants because of the broad framework of the 21st amendment

4. Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992 (Hello Clarene) Facts- Pennsylvania attempted to put restrictions on how a woman is able to get an abortion by requiring minors to have consent from a parent and for there to be a 24 hr waiting period before the abortion occurs as well as requiring the mother to tell the father about the abortion. Issue-did the state have the right to limit the woman’s right to get an abortion through these limitations. In a 5-4 decision the Court decided it was constitutional and stated that it is ok to limit these rights without “undue burden”. Only the husband notification was classified as such.  5. United States v Lopez 1995

In 1995, grade 12 student Alfonso Lopez brought a gun to a high school in San Antonio. Alfonso was confronted by school officials and admitted to possessing a gun. As a result he was charged under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Lopez argued that the Federal Government could not implement such a law under the Commerce Clause. In a 5 to 4 vote the Supreme Court stated that Congress could not pass a law about handgun carrying restrictions under the commerce clause.

6. U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton 1995

The government of Arkansas added a new amendment that put term limits on the terms of congressmen in Little Rock and Washington DC. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states could not impose qualifications for representatives in Washington DC that were stricter than those of the Constitution.  7. Printz v. United States 1997  · The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers. Local Sheriffs challenged the constitutionality of this law. · Issues: Could Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by the Brady Bill? · NO (5 to 4), because state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. So, the federal government could not force state officials to do federal tasks. · States’ rights over National Government’s

8. U.S. v. Morrison 2000  · In 1994, Antonio Morrison allegedly raped Christy Bzronkala. Christy then sued Antonio on the grounds that he violated the Violence Agains Women Act of 1994. · Issues: Did Congress have the right to enact the Act under either the commerce clause or the 14th amendment · NO (5 to 4), because the law did not affect interstate commerce, nor did it redress harm caused by the state – so the 14th amendment does not apply · Again, States rights over National Government’s

9. Gonzales v. Raich 2005  Facts-The state of California had a Compassionate Use Act that legalized medical marijuana. Then the substance was confiscated from a user by the DEA and the person supported by group of medical marijuana activists sued the DEA. Issues-does the Controlled Substance Act violates the states right to exclusive power over intra-state commerce. Holding- The CSA was upheld and the compassionate use act was nullified. Reasoning- The economic supply and demand of intra-state marijuana affects the national inter-state market and thus needs to be controlled as per CSA. Upheld because it was an economic action.

10. Gonzalez v. Carhat

Facts-Doctors and abortionists attempted to declare the partial birth abortion ban act unconstitutional by stressing that the act would be applied to the common D&E approach in addition to the bill’s target, D&X. Also they thought that the bill was an undue burden on the freedom of abortion. Issues-Whether or not the PBAB act was constitutional and if it was a violation of human freedom. Holding-held that it was constitutional or rather not unconstitutional Reasoning-that the D&X path was a specific medical procedure and as such was not broad or invasive or unduly unethical as it covers the basic anatomical landmarks. Also the court ruled that the legislation of congress does not have to live up to uncertainties within the medical field. They did leave the case partially open by making the statement that when a woman is physically saved by procedure D&X then it can be again taken into question.

11. District of Columbia v. Heller 2008

Fact: Handgun ban Issue: Only militia are allowed to the second amendment Conclusion: Firearms allowed to the general public for non-militia reasons, so long as it is used in a lawful way.

12. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Fact: Handgun ban Issue: Does the second amendment apply to the states Conclusion: The second amendment is applicable to the states SOUTH DAKOTA V. DOLE 1987(pre-Clarence)