CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

13
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008

Transcript of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Page 1: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29

Economic Substantive Due Process Part II

March 19, 2008

Page 2: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital

• Majority by: SutherlandJoined by: McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds, ButlerDissent by: TaftJoined by: SanfordDissent by: Holmes

• Brandeis did not participate

Page 3: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. (1926) [C p. 527] One

• Majority opinion by Butler

• (joined by the other 3 Horsemen: Sutherland, McReynolds, Van Devanter as well as Sanford)

• Dissent by Holmes, joined by Brandeis and Stone

Page 4: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Justices Born on St. Paddy’s Day

• Roger Brooke Taney

• Pierce Butler

• Near misses: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (3/15), Antonin Scalia (3/11), Earl Warren (3/19), Sandra Day O’Connor (3/26)

Page 5: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Nebbia v. New York (1934) [C p. 539]

Majority by: RobertsJoined by: Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, CardozoDissent by: McReynoldsJoined by: Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler(the 4 Horsemen)

Page 6: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) [C . 541]

• Majority by: HughesJoined by: Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, CardozoDissent by: SutherlandJoined by: Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler (the 4 Horsemen)

Page 7: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) [C p. 543]

• Majority by: StoneJoined by: Hughes, Brandeis, Roberts, Black (except the part designated "Third")Concurrence by: ButlerDissent by: McReynoldsReed, Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Page 8: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955) [C p. 545]

• Unanimous• Opinion by Douglas

(joined by Warren, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, Minton, Harlan)

Page 9: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Ferguson v. Skrupa (1963) C p. 546]

• Unanimous • Opinion of the Court

by Black• Separate

Concurrence by Harlan

Page 10: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

BMW of North America v. Gore (1996) [C p. 547]

• Majority by: StevensJoined by: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, BreyerConcurrence by: BreyerJoined by: O'Connor, SouterDissent by: ScaliaJoined by: ThomasDissent by: GinsburgJoined by: Rehnquist

Page 11: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) [C p. 551]

• 6-3• Majority opinion by

Kennedy joined by Rehnquist, Souter, O’Connor, Stevens, Breyer

• Dissents by Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg

Page 12: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) [Supp. 83]

• Opinion of the Court by Breyer joined by Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Souter

• Dissent by Stevens• Dissent by Thomas• Dissent by Ginsburg,

joined by Scalia and Thomas

Page 13: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

• Oral argument: February 27, 2008 (granted expanded oral argument of 45 minutes per side – ie. an extra 15 minutes each)

• Decision expected by summer

• The issue is not the constitutionality under due process, rather under maritime law