Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Court decided that the law was a valid exercise of Congress's enforcement power under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it was aimed at remedying state-sponsored discrimination, despite an earlier court finding that a literacy test was not in and of itself a violation of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court in Train v. City of New York (1975) [2] ruled that the impoundment power cannot be used to frustrate the will of Congress under such circumstances. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed as Congress felt that President Nixon was abusing his authority to impound the funding of programs he opposed. The Act effectively ...
President Harry Truman's Executive Order 10340 placed all the country's steel mills under federal control, which was found invalid in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952), because it attempted to make law, rather than to clarify or to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since that decision ...
The Supreme Court affirmed in Watkins v.United States (1957) that "[the] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "[it] is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.
(The Center Square) – Within one month of each other, two federal judges ruled that a law passed by Congress is “likely unconstitutional” and ruled in favor of small businesses. At issue is ...
In the long term Loper Bright's most significant impact may be on Congress. To some degree, the expansion of executive power that Chevron enabled came at the expense of the legislative branch.
The Congress may enact federal law that supersedes or preempts state law. The distinction between commandeering and preemption was at issue in Murphy v. NCAA, a case involving sports betting. [6] [7] In the case of marijuana legalization, federal law preempts laws in those states that have authorized its use. The federal government has chosen ...
In ruling for Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court specified that anything Congress does must be specifically tailored to address Section 3, an implicit warning that broad legislation could be struck down.