Constitutional Law
Constitutional law is typically considered the most revered body of American law due to its authority in interpreting the Constitution. This section includes five significant cases that date to the early history of the United States. One English case, Entick v. Carrington (1765), offers an introduction to the historical importance of English common law precedents in American courts. Four of the classic cases are American and represent fundamental interpretations of law for their time. Marbury and McCulloch, of course, form part of the essential basis for the study of constitutional law today.
Entick v. Carrington (1765)
Entick v. Carrington held that the state is subject to the same laws of trespass as an individual – without permission from the owner or a law allowing entry, they cannot enter another's property.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review, enabling a court to rule on the constitutionality of laws.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
McCulloch v. Maryland stands for the proposition that (1) the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and (2) the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so the ability of the states to interfere with the federal government is limited.
Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge (1837)
In interpreting the Constitution’s Contract Clause, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge stands for a narrow and literal interpretation of contracts between private entities and the state legislature. Any contractual rights must be explicitly granted by the legislature, and any ambiguities favor the legislature, with the body acting in the public interest.
The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
The Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to privileges and immunities guaranteed by the federal, not the state, government.
The Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery and involuntary servitude in different forms, but it does not guarantee economic freedom or equal economic opportunities, as argued by the plaintiffs in response to a Louisiana law that restricted their trade and created a monopoly. [1]
1) The Slaughter House court explained that the inclusion of “servitude” was to ensure that the prohibition would not be circumvented by giving it a different “class or name.” As examples, the court stated that Mexican peonage, the “Chinese coolie trade,” or other forms of compulsory service “for the mere benefit or pleasure of others” would be the equivalent of antebellum African-American slavery.