U.S. Supreme Court Cases from in- class discussion.

1. The outcomes of the 3 cases studied
Decisions information provided by oyez.org

2. The Case: Court Decision:
• Decision: 6 votes for Youngstown Sheet &
Does the President Tube Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Art. II
have the power, as • In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the
President did not have the authority to
commander in issue such an order. The Court found that
chief to the armed there was no congressional statute that
authorized the President to take possession
forces, to seize of private property. The Court also held that
the President's military power as
control of an Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
did not extend to labor disputes. The Court
industry during argued that "the President's power to see
wartime? that the laws are faithfully executed refutes
the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."

3. The Case: Court Decision:
• Decision: 6 votes for Gonzales, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 801
Does Congress’s • No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul
Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave
power to make Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and
use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary.
laws and regulate Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly
established" Congress' commerce clause power to
commerce allow regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class
of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate
the federal commerce. The majority argued that Congress could
ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a
government to "class of activities": the national marijuana market.
Local use affected supply and demand in the national
prohibit activities marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate
use "essential" to regulating the drug's national
that are in market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez
and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-
compliance with economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress'
commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to
state law? strike down a particular application of a valid statutory
scheme.

4. Court Decision:
The Case:
• Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process
• Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice
Does the executive plurality and partly joined by two additional justices,
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although
branch have the Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth
Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held
power to suspend in the United States as an enemy combatant the right
to contest that detention before a neutral
decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's
a citizen’s civil argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the
judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David
rights during times H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right
of war? to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant.
Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the
plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's
detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined
by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas
dissented separately.