Case Brief: Constitutional Law Analysis of Two Supreme Court Cases

This assignment presents case briefs for two landmark Supreme Court cases: Clinton v. City of New York (1998) and Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co. (1919). The Clinton case challenges the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, focusing on the presentment clause and the separation of powers. The Supreme Court ruled the Act unconstitutional, arguing it allowed the president to amend legislation. The Hamilton case concerns the War-Time Prohibition Act and its validity, addressing issues of implied powers, the Eighteenth Amendment, and the Act's expiration. The Court upheld the Act's validity, reversing the lower court's decision. The briefs summarize the facts, issues, arguments, and holdings of each case, offering a comprehensive understanding of their legal significance and constitutional principles. This assignment fulfills the requirement to brief two cases cited in Week 1 of a Constitutional Law course, focusing on the core subject matter presented in the provided materials.

Running head: CASE BRIEF 1
Case Brief
Name
Institution

CASE BRIEF 2
Case Brief
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
This was an appeal before the Supreme Court. It emanated from a judgment in favor of
Respondents by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which consolidated two
suits filed by Snake River Potato Growers incorporated and City of New York. The Plaintiffs
challenged the Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 which granted the president
the power to cancel certain provisions of Appropriation Bills. President Clinton had pursuant to
powers bestowed on him under Line Item Veto Act cancelled certain provisions of Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 which eliminated certain liabilities that health related organizations were to
incur, and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which granted tax benefits with an aim of
incentivizing farmer's cooperatives in purchasing potato processing facilities.
The Supreme Court held that Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional for the reason that
it was contrary to presentment clause of the Constitution being that it granted the president
power to amend or repeal parts of legally enacted legislations. The court relied on written records
of the ratification of the Constitution (Federalist Papers) in attempts to interpret presentment
clause. The Supreme Court found that as per historical records, statutes have to be enacted or
legislated according to clearly set out procedure under the Constitution. Where a statute is passed
in a manner that is not in accord with clear prescription of the constitution it is unconstitutional.

CASE BRIEF 3
Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U.S. 146 (1919)
Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Company, the owner of distillery warehouses and of whisky
commenced a suit challenging validity of War-Time Prohibition Act (40 Stat. 1045, 1046, c.
212). War-Time Prohibition Act was enacted purposely to prohibit sale of distilled spirits except
for exportation. The Plaintiff also sought to enjoin Hamilton, collector of internal revenue for
Western District of Kentucky in the case. The plaintiff alleged that the impugned Act was void
or had become inoperative. The District Court of the United States for the Western District of
Kentucky granted the prayers by the Plaintiff and an appeal to the Supreme Court was lodged
pursuant to section 238 of the Judicial Code.
Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination, whether: the Act was void when
enacted because it violated the Fifth Amendment; it became void this suit commenced; it was
repealed by the Eighteenth Amendment; it expired before the commencement this suit.
The Supreme Court made finding on four contentions argued before it. First, it held that Article
1, § 8, cl. 18 granted Congress an implied power to regulate sale of liquor. Second, the condition
provided by the Act being in subsistence, the Act had not become inoperative. Third, the
Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution did not repeal the Act. Lastly, the prohibition
imposed by the act had not expired at the commencement of this suit. In the upshot, the held that
the Act was valid and the holding of the District Court was reversed.

CASE BRIEF 4
References
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U.S. 146 (1919)