US v. Brewster (1972) Burger F M allow federal prosecution of official to move forward Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) Brennan F M Congress’ view that sex based classifications are wrong is valued Doe et al v. McMillan (1973) F M Speech and debate clause grants members of Congress immunity; quotes Brewster Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (1974) Marshall S M quotes Frontiero that Congressional pronouncements have US v. Richardson (1974) Powell F C Simple reference to Frothingham rule (Powell dislikes Flast test) Schlesinger v. Reservists (1974) Douglas F D quotes Frothingham but only to dismiss it as controlling US v. Nixon (1974) Burger F M dismisses executive privilege claim in this instance Buckley v. Valeo (1976) Per curiam F M Quote amici, dismissing their claim about Congress and appointments US v. Donavan (1977) Burger F C deference to Congress, as it is not violating the 4th Amendment Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) Brennan Powell Burger F M C D Quotes Jackson concurrence in Youngstown; branches share powers Dismissive of claim that statute should fall b/c presidency is coequal three references to coequal; Congress and courts not treating pres. as Davis v. Passman (1979) Burger F D courts can’t a member of coequal branch to employ someone US v. Helstoski (1979) Burger F M speech/debate clause designed to preserve coequality Goldwater v. Carter (1979) Rehnquist F C deciding the issue is moot is better than using political questions b/c it disrupts coequality less US v. Gillock (1980) Burger S M Speech/debate clause does not protect state leg. officials Owen v. City of Independence (1980) Brennan S M wrongful termination suit can proceed; deference to Congress’ judgment that city has no immunity Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) Burger F M deference to Congress’ determination that minorities require remedy to promote the general welfare US v. Will (1980) Burger F M Congress may cancel pay raises scheduled to take effect
Williams v. Taylor (2000) Stevens (O’Connor) F M (C) the judiciary’s coequal is to interpret federal law (2) coequality doesn’t mean full deference to states, contra Thomas (2) Miller v. French (2000) w/ US v. French O’Connor S/F M if Congress were to annul a final judgment of coequal federal judiciary it would be unconst., but that’s not the case here Vieth et al. v. Jubelirer (2004) Stevens S D Stevens objects to Scalia opinion that gerrymandering cases are political questions; quotes Baker v. Carr Tennessee v. Lane (2004) Scalia F D Scalia says the “congruence and proportionality” test will bring the court into constant conflict w/ coequal branch Cheney v. US District Court (2004) Kennedy F M Court must normally defer to coequal president’s confidentiality; need not be an exec. privilege claim (3) Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) w/ Bustillo v. Johnson Roberts F M courts get to say what the law is and what treaties mean independent of the coequal branches Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (2007) Alito F M Quotes Frothingham to dismiss a claim of taxpayer standing against Office of Faith Based Initiatives Boumedienne v. Bush (2008) w/ Odah v. Bush Scalia F D Court has no business invalidating law of coequals not on non-sovereign territory and invent habeas right there NW Austin Utility District v. Holder (2009) Roberts L/S M quotes from Rostker as deference flourish before dismissing claim Citizens United v. FEC (2010) Stevens F D accuses Court of moving standards on Congress in campaign finance law; disrespect for coequal branch Zivotofsky v. Clinton (2012) Sotomayor F C cites good faith presumption outlined in Field v. Clark