Court Cases Michelle Nguyen February 23, 2012 Period 4 AP Government

McCulloch v. Maryland Facts Maryland issued a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. It said that all banks were prohibited from issuing bank notes except upon stamped paper issued by the state. It set forth the fees to be paid for the paper and established penalties for violations. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, issued bank notes without complying with the Maryland law. Maryland sued McCulloch for failing to pay the taxes due under the Maryland statute and McCulloch contested the constitutionality of that act. The state court found for Maryland and McCulloch appealed.

McCulloch v. Maryland Issues 1. Does Congress have the power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank, even though that power is not specifically enumerated within the Constitution? 2. Does the State of Maryland have the power to tax an institution created by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution?

McCulloch v. Maryland Holding and Rule Congress has power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause. Congress has power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause. The State of Maryland does not have the power to tax an institution created by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution. The State of Maryland does not have the power to tax an institution created by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution.

Holding and Rule The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate and plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may be employed to carry it into effect pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause. The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate and plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may be employed to carry it into effect pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause.

Holding and Rule The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. It may be exercised whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance. The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. It may be exercised whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

Holding and Rule The Bank of the United States has a right to establish its branches within any state. The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution. This principle does not extend to property taxes on the property of the Bank of the United States, nor to taxes on the proprietary interest which the citizens of that State may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State. The Bank of the United States has a right to establish its branches within any state. The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution. This principle does not extend to property taxes on the property of the Bank of the United States, nor to taxes on the proprietary interest which the citizens of that State may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State.

Who won? McCulloch

Gratz v. Bollinger Facts Gratz v. Bollinger was a case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmation action admissions policy. In a 6–3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, the Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.

Gratz v. Bollinger Facts The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics an automatic 20- point bonus on this scale, while a perfect SAT score was worth only 12 points.

Gratz v. Bollinger Issue Does a policy awarding minority students a decisive amount of points on the admissions acceptance scale violate the Equal Protection clause? Does a policy awarding minority students a decisive amount of points on the admissions acceptance scale violate the Equal Protection clause?

Gratz v. Bollinger Holding and Rule Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white residents of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. Gratz applied for admission in the fall of 1995 and Hamacher in the fall of Both were subsequently denied admission to the university. Gratz and Hamacher were contacted by the Center of Individual Rights, which filed a lawsuit on their behalf in October 1997.

Holding and Rule The case was filed against the University of Michigan, the LSA, James Duderstadt, and Lee Bollinger. Duderstadt was president of the university, who reviewed Gratz's application while Bollinger reviewed Hamacher's application. Their class-action lawsuit alleged "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the 14 th amendment and for racial discrimination."

Holding and Rule The Court's majority found that Gratz and Hamacher had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court's majority found that Gratz and Hamacher had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Who won? Gratz Gratz

Works Cited maryland.html maryland.html maryland.html maryland.html 54-Gratz-v.-Bollinger 54-Gratz-v.-Bollinger 54-Gratz-v.-Bollinger 54-Gratz-v.-Bollinger