Also known as: acts of Congress · congressional act
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statute formally passed by both houses of Congress and presented to the President for signature or enacted over a veto in accordance with Article I of the Constitution.
Congress enacts a statute creating an executive board with power to sanction investment firms and declaring its actions unreviewable. Horizon Capital, a sanctioned firm, sues in federal court. The court must decide whether the statute itself conforms to constitutional limits on legislative power.
Alice Atkins sues Artemis Logistics in state court under a federal consumer statute. Artemis files a notice of removal to the district court for the district where the action is pending. The removal is permitted because no contrary act of Congress bars it.
A state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages performed under a federal recognition statute. Same-sex couples sue state officials. The court must determine whether the act of Congress validly requires recognition by the states.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseA state statute prohibits married couples from using contraceptives. A physician challenges the law as conflicting with a federal privacy statute. The court assesses whether the act of Congress preempts the state prohibition.
Estelle Griswold served as Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Dr. C. Lee Buxton served as the League's Medical Director and was a professor at Yale Medical School. Together they opened and operated a center in New Haven that was open from November 1 to November 10, 1961. At the center they gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free. The statutes involved were sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). Section 53-32 made it a crime to use any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. Section 54-196 punished accessories as principals. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut affirmed that judgment in State v. Griswold, 151 Conn. 544, 200 A. 2d 479. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The appellants asserted standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. A criminal conviction for serving married couples removes doubts about case or controversy. The rights of husband and wife would be diluted unless considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.
View caseA juvenile faces delinquency charges in federal court. The government seeks to prove the offense by a preponderance of the evidence under an existing statute. The court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt because an act of Congress cannot lower the constitutional standard.
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseAn individual receives a signed commission but the Secretary of State withholds delivery under a later statute. The appointee sues for mandamus. The court must decide whether the act of Congress can override the constitutional appointment process.
In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State. During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out. James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.
View caseA bill becomes an act of Congress after passage by majority vote in both the House and Senate, followed by presentment to the President for signature or enactment over a veto.
No. Courts retain authority to determine whether any act of Congress itself complies with the Constitution, even when the statute attempts to bar review of agency actions taken under it.
An act of Congress may permit removal when the case falls within original federal jurisdiction, but the statute expressly allows removal unless another act of Congress provides otherwise.
An act of Congress cannot authorize the President to withhold funds that the statute itself mandates be spent, because the Take Care Clause requires faithful execution of legislative commands.
…former capacity he is compellable by mandamus to do his duty; in the latter he is not. This distinction is pointed out by two acts of Congress upon this subject. The first act, passed 27 July 1789, established an executive department denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs and appointed a principal officer to perform duties…