The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court
Judicial review
Early in its history, in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the judicial power granted to it by Article III of the United States Constitution included the power of judicial review, to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a State or Federal law.Marbury V. Madison. Ed. U.S. 5 Vol. 137, 1803. Print.Fletcher V. Peck. Ed. U.S. 10 Vol. 87, 1810. Print. The holding in these cases empowered the Supreme Court to strike down enacted laws that were contrary to the Constitution.Jr., Dean. "Marbury V. Madison". American Governance. Ed. Stephen Schechter. New York City, New York, US: Macmillan US, 2016. Web. In this role, for example, the Court has struck down state laws for failing to conform to the Contract Clause (see, e.g., Dartmouth College v. Woodward), the Equal Protection Clause (see, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education), or the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (see, e.g., United States v. Lopez).Reifman, Alan, and Brian L. Cutler. "U.S. Supreme Court". Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, 2008. Web.Patten, Van, and James J. Van Patten. "Trustees of Dartmouth College V. Woodward". Encyclopedia of Law and Higher Education. Ed. Charles J. Russo. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, 2009. Web."Brown V. Board of Education". Great American Court Cases, Gale. Eds. L. Mpho Mabunda, Allison McClintic Marion, and Mark F. Mikula. Farmington, MI, US: Gale, 1999. Web.Anderson, Jon, and Charles J. Russo. "United States V. Lopez". Encyclopedia of Education Law. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, 2008. Web.
Scope and effect
The Supreme Court's interpretations of constitutional law are binding on the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, on the lower courts in the federal system, and on all state courts.Hirsch, E. D., Joseph F. Kett, and James S. Trefil. "Supreme Court". The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Houghton Mifflin. Boston, MA, US: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Web. This system of binding interpretations or precedents evolved from the common law system (called "stare decisis"), where courts are bound by their own prior decisions and by the decisions of higher courts.Scott, Kyle, et al. "Common Law". The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Washington, DC, US: CQ Press, 2011. Web. Neither English common law courts nor continental civil law courts had the power to declare legislation unconstitutional, the United States Supreme Court has long held the power to declare federal or state legislation unconstitutional.Gupta, Asha, et al. "Judicial Review". The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Washington, DC, US: CQ Press, 2011. Web.
Justiciability Federal courts consider other doctrines before allowing a lawsuit to go forward:
Actual dispute – the lawsuit concerns a "case or controversy" under the meaning of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution"Civil Procedure". Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Ed. Gale. Farmington, MI, US: Gale, 2013. Web. Standing – the party bringing the suit must have (1) a particularized and concrete injury, (2) a causal connection between the complained-of conduct and that injury, and (3) a likelihood that a favorable court decision will redress the injuryRouth, Stephen, Genovese, Michael A. and Han, and Lori Cox,. "Writ of Certiorari". Encyclopedia of American Government and Civics. New York, NY, US: Facts On File, 2017. Web. Ripeness – a party will lack standing where his/her case raises abstract, hypothetical or conjectural questions. Mootness – a party is seeking redress over a case that no longer has a basis for dispute, though there are limited exceptionsGraber, Mark. "Mootness". American Governance. Ed. Stephen Schechter. New York City, New York, US: Macmillan US, 2016. Web. Political question – the issues raised in the suit are unreviewable because the Constitution relegates it to another branch of government.
The Supreme Court prohibits itself from issuing advisory opinions where there is no actual case or controversy before them.(See Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911)).Rossum, Ralph A., and G. Alan Tarr. "The Judicial Power". American Constitutional Law: The Structure of Government. New York, NY, US: Westview Press, 2013. Web.
Differing views on the role of the Court There are a number of ways that commentators and Justices of the Supreme Court have defined the Court's role, and its jurisprudential method:
Originalism is a family of similar theories that hold that the Constitution has a fixed meaning from an authority contemporaneous with its ratification, and that it should be construed in light of that authority.Schlag, Pierre, and David S. Clark. "Interpretation and Reasoning, Legal". Encyclopedia of Law and Society. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, 2007. Web. Generally, originalism stands for the principle that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning in the late 18th century. Prominent adherents include Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Purposivism is "an approach that places more emphasis on statutory purpose and congressional intent," practiced notably by Stephen Breyer. Judicial restraint is the idea that the Supreme Court should decide as few cases as possible and on the narrowest possible grounds in order to allow the democratic process to play out without judicial interference wherever possible. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Felix Frankfurter are often associated this approach. Instrumentalism is the approach that society and the law complement and ought to reflect each other, generally leading to the law shifting with public opinion.Nielsen, Laura, and David S. Clark. "Public Opinion and Legal Consciousness". Encyclopedia of Law and Society. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, 2007. Web. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a notable jurist who utilized this philosophy.
Federalism Political power in the United States is divided under a scheme of federalism, in which multiple units of government exercise jurisdiction over the same geographical area. This manner of distributing political power was a compromise between two extremes feared by the framers: the efficiency of tyranny when power is overly centralized, as under the British monarchy, on one end of the spectrum, and the ineffectiveness of an overly decentralized government, as under the Articles of Confederation, on the other.Gerston at 40. Supporters of federalism believed that a division of power between federal and state governments would decrease the likelihood of tyranny. The framers felt the states were in the best position to restrict such movements.Andrzej Rapczynski, From Sovereignty to Process: The Jurisprudence of Federalism After Garcia, 1985 Sup. Ct. Rev. 380 Another value of federalism is that the states are much closer to the people, so that they can be more responsive to and effective in resolving the localized concerns of the public.Id. at 391. Federalism represented a middle ground by dividing power between the governments of the individual states and the centralized federal government.Gerston at 5–6.
The Constitution assigns the powers of the federal government to the legislative (Article I), executive (Article II), and judicial (Article III) branches, and the Tenth Amendment provides that those powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved by the States or the people.Gerston at 40–45.
Legislative powers committed to the U.S. Congress (Article I) Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution contains the enumerated powers of Congress.Faber, Michael. "Enumerated Powers". American Governance. Ed. Stephen Schechter. New York City, New York, US: Macmillan US, 2016. Web.
The federal commerce power Congress is authorized to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
Important early cases include United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895) which held that the federal Sherman Act could not be applied to manufacture of sugar because the authority of the commerce clause was insufficient to affect the manufacture of goods."US V. E C Knight Co." The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide. Ed. Helicon. Abington, UK: Helicon, 2018. Web."United States V. E. C. Knight". Great American Court Cases, Gale. Eds. L. Mpho Mabunda, Allison McClintic Marion, and Mark F. Mikula. Farmington, MI, US: Gale, 1999. Web. Further limitation continued in cases such as Schecter Poultry v. United States, in which the Court invalidated a federal statute seeking to enforce labor conditions at a slaughterhouse for chickens; the Court held the relationship between labor conditions and chickens was too indirect – that chickens come to rest upon arrival at the slaughterhouse (thereby ending the stream of commerce), so whatever happened in the slaughterhouse was not Congress's business."A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation V. United States". Great American Court Cases, Gale. Eds. L. Mpho Mabunda, Allison McClintic Marion, and Mark F. Mikula. Farmington, MI, US: Gale, 1999. Web.
In Stafford v. Wallace, the Court articulated a "stream of commerce" test; if a transaction affected commerce in a transition that was local, but supported interstate commerce, then Congress could regulate those transactions under the commerce clause."Stafford V. Wallace." Great American Court Cases, Gale. Eds. L. Mpho Mabunda, Allison McClintic Marion, and Mark F. Mikula. Farmington, MI, US: Gale, 1999. Web. The judgement in Stafford began the Court's increased deference to Congress in matters regarding interpretation of its powers."Wickard V. Filburn". Great American Court Cases, Gale. Eds. L. Mpho Mabunda, Allison McClintic Marion, and Mark F. Mikula. Farmington, MI, US: Gale, 1999. Web. Further expansion of Congress's commerce clause power continued with Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 involving a farmer's refusal to comply with a federal quota. Wickard articulated the aggregation principle: that effects of the entire class matter rather than composites of the class, so even if the single farmer did not substantially affect interstate commerce, all farmers – the class to which he belonged – do – they compete with the national market.Watts, Duncan. "Wickard V. Filburn (1942)." Dictionary of American Government and Politics. Edinburg, Scotland, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2010. Web. This case largely ended challenges to laws based upon the extent of power bestowed by the commerce clause until United States v. Lopez (1995).
In 1995, the Court held that the Crime Control Act of 1990, which the Gun-Free School Zones Act was a part of, was unconstitutional because it was an "impermissible extension of congressional power under the Commerce Clause."Watts, Duncan. "United States V. Lopez (1995) and United States V. Morrison (2000)." Dictionary of American Government and Politics. Edinburg, Scotland, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2010a. Web. Lopez remains the central case regarding the authority of Congress under the commerce power.Anderson, Jon, and Charles J. Russo. "United States V. Lopez." Encyclopedia of Education Law. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, 2022. Web
The spending power