Also known as: U.S. Constitution · US Constitution · United States Const. · U.S. Const. · US Const. · Federal Constitution
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The supreme law of the land establishing the structure of the federal government, allocating powers among its branches, and protecting individual rights against government infringement. It binds state and federal actors alike and supplies the standard for resolving conflicts between federal and state authority.
Umar Usmani, a voter in a heavily redrawn district, sued state officials in federal court alleging the map was drawn to favor one party. The court dismissed the suit without reaching the merits. The dismissal rested on the determination that the claim presented a nonjusticiable political question.
Ulysses Ulrich filed a federal civil rights action against a state agency. He added a related state-law tort claim arising from the same incident. The district court exercised jurisdiction over the state claim because it formed part of the same case or controversy.
Ursula Upton offered a witness statement obtained through an unlawful search. The court excluded the statement even though it was relevant to a material fact. Exclusion followed because the United States Constitution barred its admission.
Uriah Urban sought to withhold a document under a claimed privilege in a federal civil case. The court applied federal common law but noted that the United States Constitution could override that law if it supplied a different rule. No constitutional provision displaced the common-law analysis.
Una Unger lived with her grandson and great-grandson in a single-family zone. City officials cited her for violating the ordinance's narrow definition of family. The court invalidated the ordinance because it infringed protected family rights under the Constitution.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
View caseUrsula Ung and her spouse were convicted under a state law banning use of contraceptives. They challenged the convictions in federal court. The court held the statute unconstitutional as an invasion of protected privacy interests.
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 caseThe Constitution supplies the supreme law that federal courts must apply when state rules conflict with federal authority. It also limits the reach of state law through provisions such as the Supremacy Clause and due process requirements.
Supporting sources
Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 501 expressly provide that the Constitution can override otherwise applicable evidence or privilege rules. A court must therefore check whether any constitutional provision forbids admission or recognition of the evidence or privilege before applying the federal rule.
Supporting sources
The Constitution limits federal judicial power to cases and controversies. Claims that present political questions, such as certain partisan gerrymandering challenges, fall outside Article III and are therefore nonjusticiable.
Supporting sources
…that issue from the political process? Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today): “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that…