United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 57 S. Ct. 216, 81 L. Ed. 255 (1936)

Facts

Proceedings by the U.S. against the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation and others, under indictment charging a conspiracy to sell arms of war to a foreign government in violation of a joint resolution of Congress.

From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the government appeals.

Holdings

Reversed, and cause remanded.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS dissenting.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct. 863, 96 L. Ed. 1153 (1952)

Facts

The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company and other steel companies named in a list attached to Executive Order No. 10340, promulgated April 8, 1952, directing seizure of the plants of such companies, brought actions against Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, praying for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief.

The U.S. District Court for the D.C. granted plaintiffs' motions for temporary injunctions.

Certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court after the D.C. Circuit had issued stay orders.

Holding

Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court holding that the seizure order was not within the constitutional power of the President.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton dissented.

The Federalist Papers : No. 47

- Advocacy of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
- As to criticisms that the Constitution did not create a sufficient separation of powers among the executive, judiciary, and legislature, the three branches intertwined but the blending did not violate the principle of separation of powers.
- According to Montesquieu, tyranny results when one branch of government simultaneously holds the powers of another branch. However, Montesquieu did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.

- a system of checks and balances
- checks and balances the former thirteen colonies had created in their state constitutions.
- There is not a single instance in which the several departments of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct.
- e.g., The New Hampshire Constitution allowed its senate to serve as a judicial tribunal for impeachments. The U.S. Constitution similarly granted the powers of impeachment to the legislature.
- If the states did not think their constitutions violated the separation of powers, the new national Constitution did not violate of the separation of powers either.

- Although each branch has its distinctive powers, it cannot stand alone w/out the check and balance system of the other two branches.
- The separation of power as essential because without it only one power would rule the country, which could easily lead to abusive ruling.

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (U.S.N.C. 1977)

Facts

The Washington State Apple Advertising Commission brought action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina statute which in effect prohibits the display of Washington State apple grades on closed containers shipped into the state.

A Three-Judge District Court, granted the requested relief, and defendants appealed.

Holdings

The Supreme Court held that:

1. the Commission's status as a state agency, rather than a traditional voluntary membership organization, did not preclude it from asserting, in a representational capacity, claims of Washington apple growers and dealers who formed its constituency, notwithstanding that “membership” was “compelled” in the form of mandatory assessments; 
2. record, including sales volume and compliance costs among other matters, precluded conclusion “to a legal certainty” that such losses and expenses would not, if they had not done so already, amount to the requisite $10,000 for at least some of individual growers and dealers and thus jurisdictional requirement of $10,000 in controversy was met, and 
3. challenged statute violates commerce clause insofar as it prohibits the display of Washington State grades even if enacted for the declared purpose of protecting consumers from deception and fraud in the market place.

Affirmed.

S.-Cent. Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82, 104 S. Ct. 2237, 81 L. Ed. 2d 71 (1984)

Facts

Alaskan timber purchaser and shipper brought action challenging Alaska's requirement that timber taken from state lands be processed within the state prior to export. 

The U.S. District Court found the requirement violative of the commerce clause, and Alaska appealed. 

The Court of Appeals reversed. Certiorari was granted. 

Holdings

The Supreme Court held that the requirement was not authorized by Congress' policy with respect to timber taken from federal land where application of that policy to state lands was not expressly stated.

Reversed and remanded.

W. Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 114 S. Ct. 2205, 129 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1994)

Facts

Massachusetts milk dealers brought suit challenging milk pricing order as violating commerce clause, and their licenses were revoked by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture based on their failure to comply with provisions of the order.

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, and certiorari was granted.

Holdings

The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts milk pricing order, which subjected all fluid milk sold by dealers to Massachusetts retailers to assessment, with entire assessment distributed to Massachusetts dairy farmers, violated commerce clause.

Reversed.