4021summariesmidterm

4021summariesmidterm - CONSTITUTION COURTS AND LAW...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CONSTITUTION, COURTS, AND LAW Ex parte McCardle Docket: None Citation: 74 U.S. 506 (1869) Petitioner: Ex parte McCardle Abstract Oral Argument: Tuesday, March 2, 1869 Decision: Monday, April 12, 1869 Categories: congress, federal courts, habeas corpus, jurisdiction, political questions, separation of powers Facts of the Case William McCardle was arrested by federal authorities in 1867 for writing and publishing a series of editorials in his Mississippi newspaper. The editorials were sharply critical of Reconstruction. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were unconstitutional. McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court under an
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1867 congressional statute that conferred jurisdiction on appeal to the High Court. After hearing arguments in the case, but prior to announcing a decision, the Congress withdrew its 1867 act conferring jurisdiction. Question May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction has been given? Conclusion The Court, speaking through Chase, validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2. But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised." Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Docket: 06-157 Citation: 551 U.S. ___ (2007) Petitioner: Jay F. Hein, Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, et al. Respondent: Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., et al. Abstract
Background image of page 2
Granted: Friday, December 1, 2006 Oral Argument: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Decision: Monday, June 25, 2007 Facts of the Case Shortly after taking office, President Bush created by executive order the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, a program aimed at allowing religious charitable organizations to compete alongside non-religious ones for federal funding. Another executive order instructed various executive departments to hold conferences promoting the Faith-Based Initiative. The Freedom from Religion Foundation sued, alleging that the conferences favored religious organizations over non-religious ones and thereby violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The government argued that there was no "Case or Controversy" as required by Article III of the Constitution. According to the government, the Foundation had no standing to sue, because the Foundation had not been harmed in any way by the conferences. The fact that an individual pays taxes to the federal government is not normally enough to give the individual standing to challenge a federal program, but the Foundation noted that exceptions have been made for Establishment Clause challenges (see Flast v. Cohen and Bowen v. Kendrick ). The District Court ruled that the Foundation lacked standing to sue. The court held that the exceptions only covered challenges to
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 86

4021summariesmidterm - CONSTITUTION COURTS AND LAW...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online