Marbury v. Madison (1803)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
William Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver Marbury’s judicial commission. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Marbury had a right to the commission, but the statute giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue the writ went beyond Article III. Because that part of the statute conflicted with the Constitution, it was void.

Glass–Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (12 U.S.C. §§ 24, 78, 377, 378)

2) Why It Was Done
Enacted during the Great Depression, the Act aimed to restore trust in the financial system by separating commercial and investment banking and creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before this Act, banks could engage in both deposit-taking and speculative investment, contributing to the 1929 stock market crash. The Act imposed structural restrictions on banks but did not directly override constitutional rights.

War Powers Resolution (1973)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
Passed over President Nixon’s veto, the Resolution sought to reassert congressional authority over decisions to commit U.S. forces to hostilities, following the Vietnam War and decades of expanding presidential war powers.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between Congress (declare war, raise armies) and the President (Commander-in-Chief). Presidents increasingly bypassed Congress with military actions, leading to this legislative check.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
During the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon claimed executive privilege to withhold Oval Office tapes subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that while executive privilege exists, it is not absolute and cannot override the demands of due process and the fair administration of justice.

National Emergencies Act (NEA) (1976)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The NEA was enacted to limit presidential emergency powers by requiring declarations of national emergency to be formally proclaimed, published, and subject to congressional oversight and renewal.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before 1976, hundreds of emergency statutes had been invoked without clear limits or sunset provisions. The Act was part of post-Watergate reforms to reassert congressional authority.

INS v. Chadha (1983)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Congress had given itself a one-house legislative veto over the Attorney General’s decision to suspend Chadha’s deportation. The Supreme Court struck that mechanism down, holding that legislative actions must comply with bicameralism and presentment (pass both houses and be presented to the President).

3) Why It Mattered
It invalidated hundreds of statutory provisions using legislative vetoes, reshaping how Congress oversees executive agencies and reinforcing constitutional lawmaking procedures.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Arkansas amended its state constitution to impose term limits on its U.S. Senators and Representatives. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, holding that states cannot add to the qualifications for Congress set in the U.S. Constitution.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision confirmed that only the Constitution itself can define qualifications for federal office, ensuring uniformity across all states.

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, allowing the President to cancel specific spending items after signing a bill into law. President Clinton used the power to cancel certain budget items. The Supreme Court struck down the Act, holding that it violated the Presentment Clause because it effectively let the President amend or repeal laws unilaterally.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, was detained at Guantanamo Bay and slated for trial by a military commission created by President Bush. The Supreme Court ruled that the commissions lacked authorization from Congress and violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions.

3) Why It Mattered
This case was a major check on executive power during the War on Terror, reaffirming that the President cannot unilaterally create courts outside constitutional and statutory limits.

West Virginia v. EPA (2022)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Several states challenged the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to shift electricity generation from coal to cleaner sources. The Supreme Court held 6–3 that the EPA lacked authority to implement such sweeping changes under the Clean Air Act without clear congressional authorization. The Court invoked the major questions doctrine, which requires explicit congressional approval for agencies to decide issues of vast economic and political significance.

Biden v. Nebraska (2023)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
The Biden administration announced a plan to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt per borrower, citing authority under the HEROES Act of 2003. Six states challenged the program. The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, struck it down, holding that the administration lacked clear congressional authorization for such a sweeping policy under the major questions doctrine.

Trump v. United States (2024)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
The case asked whether a former President is immune from federal criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. The Supreme Court held that a President has absolute immunity from prosecution for core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. The Court remanded the case to determine which of Trump’s alleged actions fell into each category.