# data[].attributes.body
Petitioner was not allowed to marry their same-sex partner because it was illegal in their state. Many other states also refused to legally recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states (for purposes of insurance, beneficiaries, etc.).  Petitioner sued, suggesting that state governments were violating the Equal Protection & Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment. Respondent said sexual preference not covered in 14th amendment.
Did states have the right to deny same-sex couples the right to marry?

# data[].attributes.body
5-4 for the Petitioner

# data[].attributes.headline
This was a violation of the 14th amendment. Because there is no legal difference between unions of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, to discriminate against one violates the 14th Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
This was a violation of the 14th amendment. Because there is no legal difference between unions of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, to discriminate against one violates the 14th Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Congress chartered a national bank. Respondent imposed tax on said bank. Petitioner refused to pay tax. Respondent said Congress had no authority to establish national bank.

Congress said “See the Necessary and Proper Clause, please.”

Does Congress have the power to establish a national bank under the Necessary & Proper Clause?

Unanimous for petitioner

Necessary and Proper Clause allows the government to establish institutions not specifically written in the Constitution.

THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL SUPREMACY.

Shift of power toward     federal government

# data[].attributes.body
Respondent brought a concealed weapon (handgun) to school. Charged with firearm possession by state.  Petitioner took case over and charged respondent with violation of Gun Free School Zone Act.  Respondent argued that GFSZA was an overreach of the Commerce Clause.




Did Congress have the right to enact the GFSZA under the parameters of regulating interstate commerce? 

# data[].attributes.body
A federal license was held by petitioner to run ferryboats between New York and New Jersey. Respondent had a state license to run just between ports in New York.  Respondent wanted to use route between NY and NJ.
Petitioner argued that the federal government owned right to regulate interstate waters.

Does the Commerce Clause give authority to Congress over interstate navigation of waters?

Unanimous for petitioner

Interstate Commerce includes interstate navigation and that is regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Shift of power toward      federal government

# data[].attributes.body
Petitioner enacted a law through their state legislature that allowed 1) deportation of unlawfully present citizens, 2) made it a crime to work or seek work while residing illegally in the U.S., (3) required law enforcement officials to verify citizenship of detainees, and (4) authorized warrantless arrests for those believed to be here illegally. Respondent said Petitioner, as a state, could not make immigration law.

# data[].attributes.body
Petitioner refused to serve black Americans, stating it was within their rights to decide on their own who they want as customers.  Also, that Civil Rights Act of 1964 exceeded Commerce Clause powers because regulating who could stay at a hotel did not fall under “interstate commerce”.

Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an overreach of the Commerce Clause in regulation of “interstate commerce”?

Unanimous for Respondent

The Commerce Clause can be used as justification to outlaw discrimination in places of public accommodation, particularly in this instance where so much of their business came from out of state.

Shift of power toward federal government

# data[].attributes.body
Medical marijuana was legal in California, but not federally.  The DEA seized doctor-prescribed medical marijuana from respondent using the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) as justification. Respondent sued, saying CSA was an overreach of the Commerce Clause because it wasn’t “interstate” commerce. 

# data[].attributes.body
Respondent’s construction harmed petitioner’s privately owned wharf with excessive deposits, making boating/docking difficult. Petitioner lost a lot of business and sued, said the respondent’s construction violated the Eminent Domain clause of 5th Amendment because it “took” (ruined) private land (wharf) for public use (construction) without just compensation.

Did the city violate the Eminent Domain Clause of the 5th Amendment?

At that time, infringements of the Bill of Rights and provisions within in did not extend beyond the federal government.

Shift of power away from federal government

# data[].attributes.body
5-3 for the Respondent on 3 counts, for the Petitioner on 1 count.

# data[].attributes.body
Congress passed a law ordering respondent to withhold 5% of federal highway funds from states who didn’t raise their minimum drinking age to 21. Petitioner sued, said Congress exceeded their spending powers with this law.

# data[].attributes.headline
There are a lot of reasons here, but they all fall under the umbrella of the fact that Congress establishes naturalization laws and is therefore responsible for immigration laws in the states.

# data[].attributes.subject
There are a lot of reasons here, but they all fall under the umbrella of the fact that Congress establishes naturalization laws and is therefore responsible for immigration laws in the states.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shifts Power Towards the Federal Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Shifts Power Towards the Federal Government

# data[].attributes.body
Medical marijuana was legal in California, but not federally.  The DEA seized doctor-prescribed medical marijuana from respondent using the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) as justification. Respondent sued, saying CSA was an overreach of the Commerce Clause because it wasn’t “interstate” commerce.

Did the CSA exceed Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause due to the intrastate nature of marijuana?

# data[].attributes.body
7-2 for the Respondent

Funds could be tied to in general or withheld specifically by the federal government for the purpose of promoting the general welfare.

Shift of power toward      federal government

# data[].attributes.body
5-4 for the Respondent

The law in question does not have “economic activity” enough to justify use of the Commerce Clause.

Shift of power away from federal government