Cases
Case Court Date Type of opinion Procedural Posture Facts Applicable tests/rules Holding Rationale Why
(plurality; majority; (analo
dissent; etc.
Dept. of Housing v. S.Ct. March 26, 2002 Reversed and Housing project residents Canon of (Ct. Ap
Rucker (HSE) remanded. evicted for drug activity. constitutional 10—av
avoidance applies used to
only when a statute is ambigu
ambiguous. Dept. of
Housing v. Rucker,
535 U.S. 125, 134
(2002), citing United
States v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers’
Cooperative, 532 U.S.
483, 494, 121 S.Ct.
1711, 149 L.Ed.2d
722 (2001).
Gregory v. Ashcroft S.Ct. June 20, 1991 Affirmed. Mandatory retirement of When the ―usual (Dist. C
(LB) judges at age 70. constitutional that if C
balance‖ between state to alter
and federal betwee
governments is federal
altered, the must d
Congressional stateme
statement of such
intention must be
―unmistakably clear in
the language of the
statute.‖ Gregory v.
Ashcroft, 501 U.S.
452, 460-461, 111
S.Ct. 2395 (1991),
quoting Atascadero
State Hospital v.
Scanlon, 473 U.S.
234, 242 (1985).
US v. Enmons S.Ct. Feb. 22, 1973 Affirmed. Indictment under Hobbs Congress must (Dist. C
Act—federal crime to explicitly convey its Jentsen
obstruct federal commerce purpose for the would
through robbery or extortion. balance between state relation
and federal and fed
governments to shift jurisdic
it. United States v.
Enmons, 410 U.S.
396, 411-412, 93 S.Ct.
1007, 1015-1016
(1973).
DeBartolo v. Florida S.Ct. April 20, 1988 Affirmed. NLRB ordered union If there are two (Dist. C
Gulf Coast (RR) workers to stop distributing constructions of a 5) (Ct.
handbills outside mall. statute, one of which 9)
raises constitutional
infirmities and the
other does not, the
court will avoid the
former unless it goes
against the intent of
Congress. DeBartolo
v. Florida Gulf Coast,
485 U.S. 568, 575,
108 S.Ct. 1392
(1988).
―The courts will…not
lightly assume that
Congress intended to
infringe
constitutionally
protected liberties or
usurp power
constitutionally
forbidden it.‖
DeBartolo v. Florida
Gulf Coast, 485 U.S.
568, 575, 108 S.Ct.
1392 (1988), citing
Grenada County
Supervisors v.
Brogden, 112 U.S.
261, 269, 5 S.Ct. 125,
129, 28 L. Ed. 704
(1884).
Johnson v. Governor of 11th April 12, 2005 Affirmed. Challenge to Florida’s felon 11th Ci
Florida (HSE) Circuit disenfranchisement statute. applica
FD stat
opinion
Constit
discreti
disenfr
(Ct. Ap
canon e
conclud
encomp
Muntiqim v. Coombe 2nd April 23, 2004 Alteration of balance 2nd Circ
(HSE) Circuit between state and applica
federal government— FD stat
states get to monitor opinion
time, place, manner of believa
federal elections. would
VRA to
statutes
opinion
stateme
conclud
not enc
statutes
vague,
ambigu
Farrakhan v. WA 9th July 25, 2003 Affirmed in part, Challenge to WA’s FD Considering racial 9th Circ
(HSE) reversed in part, and statute brought by 6 felons. bias in criminal justice applica
remanded. system in its totality FD stat
of circumstances opinion
determination, the 9th opinion
Circuit found that that 19
Washington’s felon unamb
disenfranchisement encomp
statute was not only statutes
within the purview of
Section 2 of the VRA,
but was in violation of
it.
City of Mobile v. S.Ct. April 22, 1980 Plurality – 4 justices Bench trial jdgmt for City of Mobile’s at large VRA has same scope Disproportionat 15th Am. Doesn’t 1982 a
Bolden (JJS) plaintiffs aff’d by ct electoral system – no African as 15th Amend. e effects alone guarantee right to have VRA w
app American ever elected to city are insufficient ones preferred candidates respons
commission to establish a elected or to have
S.Ct. reversed and claim of proportional representation
remanded unconstitutional
racial vote
dilution
Richardson v. Ramirez S.Ct. June 24, 1974 Majority 6-3 Reversed and Provisions of CA const. & EPC does not require § 2 of 14th Am. Can’t have intended to ban (Dist. C
(JJS) remanded. statutory implementation states to offer a Affirmatively outright in § 1 that which affirma
disenfranchise felons – equal compelling interest sanctions felon was expressly exempted FD stat
protection challenge before enacting felon disenfranchisem from lesser sanction in § 2 14th Am
disenfranchisement ent by states
laws. 14th A Sec. 2
allows for FD.
Hunter v. Underwood S.Ct. April 16, 1985 Majority 8-0 (Powell 11th Cir rev’d trial Alabama constitution Under EPC, the Court §2 14th Am. ―10th Am cannot save Resp: J
(JJS) took no part in ct, directed it to issue prohibited felons convicted found that there was ―not designed to legislation prohibited by 14A ca
decision) injunction ordering for CMTs from voting. – in discriminatory permit the subsequently enacted 14th legislat
registration of this case, ―presenting a legislative intent, so purposeful racial Am‖ at 233 subseq
plaintiffs – aff’d worthless check‖ the statute violated discrimination... 15A //
EPC. which otherwise Pet: FD
violates § 1 of by VRA
the 14th Am.‖ when r
At 233
Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. S.Ct. Feb. 21, 2001 Majority, 5-4 11th Cir rev’d S/J for State employees sued their Record of historical Suits for $ Sovereign immunity not Uses K
of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 ∆ state employers for violation of const’l violations by damages barred validly abrogated b/c title I VRA a
U.S. 356(JJS) S.Ct rev’d title I & II of Americans with states; congruent & by 11th Am. of ADA not valid exercise historic
Disabilities Act – suit for proportional of 14th Am enforcement require
money damages power - no pattern of prophy
discrimination and not lack of
congruent and proportional discrim
disable
mechan
City of Boerne v. S.Ct. June 25, 1997 Majority, 6-3 (except 5th Cir rev’d dist ct Local zoning authorities Establishes RFRA exceeds Not designed to identify & Contra
Flores, 521 U.S. pt III-A) & found RFRA denied building permit to congruence & scope of counteract state laws likely for con
507(JJS) const’l church b/c historical proportionality test at Congress’ to be unconst’l b/c of their proport
S.Ct. reverses preservation – church 519-20 power under treatment of religion – at
challenged under Religious 14th Am § 5 534-35
Freedom Restoration Act
US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. S.Ct. 1995 (Dist. C
549(JJS) have pr
for defi
enforci
Casazza v. Kiser, 313 8th 2002 (Ct. Ap
F.3d 414 of revie
opinion
Thornburg v. Gingles, S.Ct. 1986 (Ct. Ap
478 U.S. 30, 45-47
(RR)
Pa Dept. of Corr. v. S.Ct. 1998 (Ct. Ap
Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206,
209 (LB)
Major v. Treen, 574 E.D. September 23,
F.Supp. 325 (JJS) Louisia 1983
na
Mixon v. Ohio, 193 6th September 30,
F.3d 389 1999
Wesley v. Collins, 791 6th 1986 (Ct. Ap
F.2d 1255 (LB) withou
1973 e
statutes
Chisom v. Roemer S.Ct.
(LB)
South Carolina v. S.Ct. Mar. 7, 1966 Warren maj., Black Orig jurisd in S.Ct. S. Carolina filed bill of ―must be judged w/ Preclearance ―On the rare occasions Compa
Katzenback (JJS) dissenting Bill of complaint complaint, seeking reference to the sections of VRA when the ct has found an & VRA
dismissed declaration that pre-clearance historical experience are appropriate unconst’l exercise of these compre
provision of VRA unconst’l which it reflects‖ at means for powers, in its opinion
308 carrying out Cong had attacked evils
McCulloch v. Md – Cong’s const’l not comprehended by
end legitimate, w/in responsibilities 15A‖ at 326
scope of const, & all & are consonant
means appropriate, w/ all other Cong had learned that
plainly adapted to that provisions of the widespread & persistent
end, not prohibited, Const. at 308 disc in voting during recent
but consist w/ letter & yrs has typically entailed
spirit of const. 4 the misuse of tests &
L.Ed. 579 devices, & this was the evil
Ex Parte Virginia – for which the new
whatever tends to remedies were specifically
enforce submission to designed.‖ At 331
the prohibitions they
contain and to secure
to all persons the
enjoyment of perfect
equality of civil rights
and the EP of the laws
against state denial or
invitation, if not
prohibited...100 US at
345-46
City f Rome v. U.S.
Baker v. Pataki (RR)
NRLB v. Catholic
Bishop (RR)
Nev. Dept. of Human S.Ct. May 27, 2003 Maj. 9th circuit rev’d s/j State employees sued for Applied congruence & FMLA is Aim: sex discrim in emp’t ―narrow
Res. v. Hibbs (JJS) for ∆ damages & injunctive relief proportionality from congruent & Evid of state laws limiting the fau
S.Ct aff’d for violations of Family & City of Boerne proportional, women’s emp’t & gender work a
Medical Leave Act designed to gap in family leave &
prevent/remedy pervasive but subtle sex
unconst’l discrim in emp’t
behavior Remedy justified even
where some states have gd
leave policies
Mutually reinforcing
stereotypes difficult to
detect on case by case
basis
Kimel v. Fla. Bd. Of S.Ct. Jan. 11, 2000 Plurality – only 4 Aff’d ct of appeals, State employees sue for Clear statement to ADEA doesn’t
Regents justices join opinion dismisssed declaratory & injunctive abrogate 11A? validly abrogate
on enforcement relief & monetary damages Exceeds scope of 14A sovereign
power for violation of Age enforcement power? immunity
Discrimination in
Employment Act
Tennessee v. Lane
U.S v. Mississippi
Oregon v. Mitchell S.Ct. Dec. 21, 1970 unanimous as to S.Ct. orig jurisd OR & TX seek to enjoin Nationwide Rationale is Black’s only Congre
upholding literacy enforcement of 1970 literacy test ban specific
test ban amendments to VRA upheld
U.S. v. Board of
Commissioners