Constitutional law in a nutshell / Jerome A. Barron (Harold H. Greene Professor of Law Emeritus George Washington University Law School), C. Thomas Dienes (Late Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law Emeritus George Washington University Law School).
Judicial review and its limits -- National legislative powers -- State power in American federalism -- Congress and the executive power -- Due process of law -- Equal protection -- Freedom of expression -- Freedom of religion -- State action -- Congressional legislation in aid of civil rights and liberties.
Summary:
"This 11th edition of constitutional law in a nutshell summarizes constitutional law from Marbury v. Madison (1803), to the present. The goal has been to discuss the Supreme Court's cases in enough detail to be helpful but not to be verbose in doing so. This edition includes over thirty new cases. Among the decisions featured in this edition are two highly controversial departures from the Court's precedents. One such case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), discussed in Chapter 5, where the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). The Court held in Dobbs that no right to abortion is implicit in any provision of the Constitution including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented and protested that Roe and Casey had 'protected the liberty and equality of women' for half a century. Another controversial decision where the Court departed from precedent was Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. University of North Carolina, 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023), discussed in Chapter 6. The SFFA cases sought to terminate affirmative action in higher education. Chief Justice Roberts held for the Court that the admissions systems used by the two institutions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The multiple interests advanced by the universities to justify their race-based programs were not sufficiently measurable to be susceptible to judicial review. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented and objected that the majority decision entrenched 'racial inequality in education.' In this edition as in past editions, where there is a particularly sharp division among the justices, the position of the dissenters is briefly described. In this edition as in previous ones, discussion of the cases is concise yet sufficiently ample to be meaningful" -- Provided by the publisher.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.