You are to select one of the Supreme Court cases listed in Section XIX/XX of the Lecture Hall or in the Case Summaries folder and type a Brief on it. A former student's Brief is included as a sample Brief for you to follow. This sample brief is located under the "Sample Assignment sheets" linkon the course page. Please follow the format of this Brief when composing your assignment.

AutoSave O A . CG PAD ... OYEZ - Cohens v_ Virginia - Saved Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Comments Editing Share Arial V 8 A" A Aa Ap 24 T AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDc AaBbCcDdEE Paste BIUvab x x|A DAY IEV Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Styles Dictate Editor Create PDF Request pane and share link Signatures Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates Search: Everything Cases Courts Justices Advocates Media OYEZ CASES / JUSTICES / ADVOCATES / BENEFACTORS / HELP SCOTUS Blog / Justia / Appellate.Net / On the Docket Home>> Decades>> 1792-1850> 1821> Cohens v. Virginia Cohens v. Virginia Case Media Docket: None No media files currently Citation: 19 U.S. 264 (1821) available Petitioner: Cohens Written Opinion (Courtesy of Respondent: Virginia Justia ) Abstract Advocates Oral Tuesday, February 13, 1821 Not available Argument Decision: Saturday, March 3, 1821 Categories: criminal, eleventh amendment, federalism, federal courts, judicial review Facts of the Case An act of Congress authorized the operation of a lottery in the District of Columbia. The Cohen brothers proceeded to sell D.C. lottery tickets in the state of Virginia, violating state law. State authorities tried and convicted the Cohens, and then declared themselves to be the final arbiters of disputes between the states and the national government. Question Did the Supreme Court have the power under the Constitution to review the Virginia Supreme Court's rulit Conclusion In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases. Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were "absolutely void." After actablichina the courtle juriediction Marchall declared the lottone ordinance . local motto Page 1 of 2 302 words English (United States) Focus E + 126%AutoSave O A . CG PAD ... OYEZ - Cohens v_ Virginia - Saved Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Comments Editing Share Arial V 8 A" A Aa Ap EV EVEVEE 24 T AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDc AaBbCcDdEE Paste BIUvab x x|A DAY Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Styles Dictate Editor Create PDF Request pane and share link Signatures x Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates Conclusion In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases. Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were "absolutely void." After establishing the Court's jurisdiction, Marshall declared the lottery ordinance a local matter and concluded that the Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens brothers for violating Virginia law. Cite this page The OYEZ Project, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), available at: (last visited ). CASES / JUSTICES / ADVOCATES / BENEFACTORS / HELP / DONATE SCOTUS Blog / Justia / Appellate.Net / On the Docket W3C 1.0 SOME RIGHTS RESERVED Page 1 of 2 302 words English (United States) Focus E + 126%Autosave D () = B 5 - B Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470 - Compatibility Mode Saved to my Mac v QP Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat Q Tell me () Comments fEditing v 28 Oy - o A ' v TimesNew.. v 11 v A" A" Aav Ao AaBbCcD | AaBbCeDE: | AaBbCcDAE: AaBbCeD , | \\Q/ f @7 &W Heading 4 Normal No Spacing Heading 1 Styles Dictate Editor Create PDF Request = Pane and share link Signatures Paste -~ BARE U v &5 x, X 2 v A~ 0 Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470. L KELOetal v. CITY OF NEW LONDON etal, II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) 1. FACTS: The city of New London, Connecticut, after the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads \"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic development a \"public use\" under the Fifth Amendment? V. COURT DECISION: In a5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were in majority with Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. VI. OPINION AND REASONING OF THE COURT: (by Justice Stevens) The majority opinion and decision of the court was delivered by Justice Stevens. The majority opinion was primarily based on two previous court rulings, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Berman v. Parker, 346 U.S. 26 (1954). In both cases the local government took property through emminent domain and redistributed it to private entitites for development and urban renewal. The majority opinion held that the New London land in question is part of a \"carefully considered\" development plan. The opinion conceded that, \"The sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation.\" However, because the taking is part of a development plan and not just an arbitrary re-distribution of property, this Page 10of 3 1566 words [J# English (United States) 3 Focus - c t 126% g\\l Iji! Il AutoSave O A . CG PAD ... Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470 - Compatibility Mode - Saved to my Mac Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Comments Editing Share Times New... v 11 ~ A A Aav A EVENEV 24 T AaBbCcD AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDdE Aa BbCCD Paste BIUvab X X ADVA v Heading 4 Norma No Spacing Heading Styles Dictate Editor Create PDF Request pane and share link Signatures x Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates The majority opinion held that the New London land in question is part of a "carefully considered" development plan. The opinion conceded that, "The sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation." However, because the taking is part of a development plan and not just an arbitrary re-distribution of property, this makes it acceptable. The lower courts had found that there was no evidence of illegitimate purpose in this case, that the taking of the property was not for the sole benefit of one person. And while the land is no freely accessible to all, the New London project sufficiently satisfies the "public use" requirement of the emminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment. The duty of the court is to determine if the "public use" requirement is being met. The majority quoted Justice Douglas in the Berman v. Parker case, stating, 'We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive." The duty of the court is not to look at each individual building, but at the project as a whole and determine if it meets the "public use" guideline. Individual property is the concern of the local legislature which is in a better position to review each property and its relation to the project as a whole. N VII. CONCURRING OPINION (delivered by Justice Kennedy) Justice Kennedy called for a rational-basis review eminent domain cases to determine if one particular. party will benefit greatly over others. Such a review was outlined in both the Hawaii Housing Authority and Berman cases. However, in the New London case, the majority of the parties were unknown and no one party could unfairly benefit from the transaction. Pfizer was not benefitting from the development as the project was already conceived and being executed when Pfizer expressed an interest in locating there. The land transfers were part of a comprehensive plan that was already in the works, and no one group was favored in the transaction. VIII. DISSENTING OPINION (delivered by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia) Justice O'Connor gave a very strong dissent. Referring to the words of Justice Chase in 1798 who wrote: " An call it lower) a Page 1 of 3 1566 words x English (United States) Focus E + 126%AutoSave () @ @ F) 8 - - Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470 - Compatibility Mode Saved to my Mac v Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat Q Tell me o > Y iEl TimesNew.. v 11 v A" A" Aav Ao AaBbCcD | AaBbCeDAE: | AaBbCDAE AaBbCCD , | Paste BER U x 2v Av Heading 4 Normal No Spacing Heading 1 Styles Y iEl TimesNew.. v 11 v A" A" Aav Ao AaBbCcD | AaBbCeDAE: | AaBbCDAE AaBbCCD , | Paste BER U x 2v Av Heading 4 Normal No Spacing Heading 1 Styles