Williams v. Taylor (2000) Stevens F M the judiciary’s coequal is to interpret federal law (2) (O’Connor) (C) coequality doesn’t mean full deference to states, contra Thomas (2) Miller v. French (2000) O’Connor S/F M if Congress were to annul a final w/ US v. French judgment of coequal federal judiciary it would be unconst., but that’s not the case here Vieth et al. v. Jubelirer Stevens S D Stevens objects to Scalia opinion that (2004) gerrymandering cases are political questions; quotes Baker v. Carr Tennessee v. Lane (2004) Scalia F D Scalia says the and “congruence proportionality” test will bring the court into constant conflict w/ coequal branch Cheney v. US District Kennedy F M Court must normally defer to coequal Court (2004) president’s confidentiality; need not be an exec. privilege claim (3) Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon Roberts F M courts get to say what the law is and (2006) w/ Bustillo v. what treaties mean independent of the Johnson coequal branches Hein v. Freedom from Alito F M Quotes Frothingham to dismiss a Religion Foundation claim of taxpayer standing against (2007) Office of Faith Based Initiatives Boumedienne v. Bush Scalia F D Court has no business invalidating law (2008) w/ Odah v. Bush of coequals not on non-sovereign territory and invent habeas right there NW Austin Utility District Roberts L/S M quotes from Rostker as deference v. Holder (2009) flourish before dismissing claim Citizens United v. FEC Stevens F D accuses Court of moving standards on (2010) Congress in campaign finance law; disrespect for coequal branch Zivotofsky v. Clinton Sotomayor F C cites good faith presumption outlined (2012) in Field v. Clark
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
Courts%20and%20Coequality%20WPSA%202013.docx