Oregon Constitutional Law

Marbury v. Madison is the foundational case establishing the power of judicial review, enabling federal courts to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. It transformed the judiciary from the weakest branch into a co-equal partner in governance. The decision remains the single most important case in American constitutional law.

McCulloch v. Maryland established two foundational principles of constitutional law: that Congress possesses implied powers beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and that federal law is supreme over state law under the Supremacy Clause. The case broadly construed congressional power and remains the leading authority on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Gibbons v. Ogden was the first major Commerce Clause case and established that the federal commerce power extends to all commercial intercourse among the states, including navigation. The decision broadly defined commerce and set the stage for expansive federal regulatory authority. It also established that federal law preempts conflicting state regulation of interstate commerce.

Wickard v. Filburn represents the high-water mark of Commerce Clause power, holding that Congress can regulate purely local activity if, when aggregated across all similarly situated actors, it substantially affects interstate commerce. The aggregation principle dramatically expanded federal regulatory reach and remained the dominant framework for over fifty years.

Heart of Atlanta Motel upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the Commerce Clause, establishing that Congress could prohibit racial discrimination by private businesses that serve interstate travelers. The case demonstrated the Commerce Clause's power as a tool for civil rights enforcement and confirmed that Congress could regulate moral wrongs through its commerce power.

United States v. Lopez was the first case in nearly sixty years in which the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute as exceeding Congress's Commerce Clause power. The decision reestablished that the Commerce Clause has judicially enforceable limits and articulated a three-category framework for analyzing commerce power that remains the governing test today.

Morrison extended Lopez by striking down the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act, holding that gender-motivated violence is not economic activity subject to Commerce Clause regulation despite extensive congressional findings of its economic impact. The case also held that Congress cannot use Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to regulate purely private conduct.

Gonzales v. Raich reaffirmed the broad reach of the Commerce Clause by holding that Congress can regulate the local cultivation and use of marijuana even where state law permits it, because marijuana is a fungible commodity traded in interstate markets. The case reconciled the expansive Wickard precedent with the limiting principles of Lopez and Morrison.

NFIB v. Sebelius upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a valid exercise of the taxing power while holding it exceeded the Commerce Clause because Congress cannot compel individuals to engage in commerce. The case also established that Congress cannot use the spending power to coerce states by threatening to withdraw all existing Medicaid funding.

Lochner v. New York is one of the most criticized cases in Supreme Court history, striking down a maximum working hours law for bakers as violating a substantive due process right to freedom of contract. The case gave its name to the 'Lochner era,' during which the Court aggressively struck down economic regulations, and it remains a cautionary example of judicial overreach in constitutional law courses.