Power Divided
Why it Matters
A law can be sensible, popular, and void anyway, because the wrong branch or the wrong government enacted it. Structure settles that question before anyone reaches the merits, which is why this course studies Structure and Function alongside Rights. The Constitution divides power twice over: between the national government and the states, which is federalism, and among Congress, the President, and the courts, which is separation of powers. Each branch also holds tools to push back on the others, the system of checks and balances. Structure on paper is half the story, and the cases below are the other half.
Current Context
On February 20, 2026, the Court held 6-3 in Learning Resources v. Trump (opens in a new tab) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the government’s reading would work a transformative expansion of presidential authority over tariff policy. Four months later the same Court enlarged presidential control in another direction, overruling Humphrey’s Executor in Trump v. Slaughter. It left a Federal Reserve governor protected in Trump v. Cook, and the National Constitution Center’s term review (opens in a new tab) lays the term out case by case. One term checked a claimed power, enlarged a second, and preserved a third, and sorting out which structural principle governed each outcome is the analysis this activity builds.
Key Concepts
Federalism
The division of power between the national government and the states. Its boundaries are contested in every generation, from McCulloch through NFIB v. Sebelius.
Separation of Powers
The allocation of distinct powers to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent concentration of authority. Cases in this area ask which branch may do what, and what happens when one branch borrows another’s tools.
Checks and Balances
The tools each branch holds to limit the powers of the others. Judicial review, the veto, impeachment, and confirmation are all checks; the cases test how far each one reaches.
Commerce Clause
The constitutional provision granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes. More of the federalism cases below turn on it than on any other clause.
Necessary and Proper Clause
The clause empowering Congress to make all laws which are “necessary and proper” for executing its enumerated powers. It is the basis for implied powers, and it did the heavy lifting in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Judicial Review
The power of courts to review acts of the legislative and executive branches and to strike down those that violate the Constitution. It is the check that makes the other structural limits enforceable in court.
Supremacy Clause
The clause establishing that the Constitution, federal laws, and U.S. treaties are the supreme law of the land, overriding any conflicting state law. Preemption cases like Arizona v. United States run directly through it.
Resources
- US Constitution (Constitution Annotated) (opens in a new tab) (The primary text; every case below interprets a provision you can locate here.)
- Antonin Scalia, Foreword: The Importance of Structure in Constitutional Interpretation, 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1417 (2008) (opens in a new tab) (A short, forceful argument that structure, not the rights provisions, is what actually protects liberty; the framing essay for this activity.)
- Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Book XI, Chapter VI (1748) (opens in a new tab) (The philosophical source the framers drew on for separation of powers.)
Federalism cases (all links open the full opinion on Google Scholar):
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (opens in a new tab) (The cornerstone of federal power; establishes implied powers through a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause and affirms federal supremacy over conflicting state law.)
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824) (opens in a new tab) (Affirms broad federal authority to regulate interstate commerce and strengthens national power over the economy under the Supremacy Clause.)
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (opens in a new tab) (The high-water mark of Commerce Clause authority; Congress may regulate purely local activity that, in aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.)
- South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (opens in a new tab) (Upholds federal conditions on highway funding as a valid use of the Spending Clause.)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (opens in a new tab) (Establishes the anti-commandeering doctrine: the federal government cannot force states to enact or enforce federal policies.)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (opens in a new tab) (The first case in nearly 60 years to strike down a federal law for exceeding the Commerce Clause, opening the modern era of limits on national power.)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (opens in a new tab) (Extends anti-commandeering: the federal government cannot compel state or local executive officers to enforce federal law. Two county sheriffs sued rather than run the background checks the Brady Act assigned them, the state-federal enforcement line in its rawest form.)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (opens in a new tab) (Shows the reach of the Commerce Clause in regulating local activity.)
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (opens in a new tab) (Limits the Commerce Clause by holding it cannot compel economic activity, and curbs the spending power by deeming the threatened loss of all Medicaid funds unconstitutionally coercive.)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (opens in a new tab) (Strikes down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law as preempted, reinforcing exclusive federal authority over immigration; the Supremacy Clause drawing the line between state and federal enforcement policy.)
Separation of Powers cases:
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) (opens in a new tab) (Broadly affirms the President’s exclusive power to remove executive branch officials without Senate approval.)
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (opens in a new tab) (Narrows the removal power; Congress can create independent agencies and protect their officials from removal except for cause. Overruled in June 2026 by Trump v. Slaughter, which makes it a live study in how structural doctrine moves.)
- A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (opens in a new tab) (The classic nondelegation case, striking down part of the New Deal as an overreach.)
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) (opens in a new tab) (Affirms broad presidential authority in foreign affairs as inherent to national sovereignty.)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (opens in a new tab) (Limits presidential power in domestic affairs; Justice Jackson’s concurrence proposes the influential three-part framework for analyzing executive power.)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (opens in a new tab) (Declares the one-house legislative veto unconstitutional, reinforcing bicameralism and presentment as the required method for lawmaking.)
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) (opens in a new tab) (Upholds the independent counsel statute as not unduly interfering with the executive function, though later cases have narrowed it.)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (opens in a new tab) (Upholds the Sentencing Guidelines against a nondelegation challenge; Congress may delegate if it supplies an “intelligible principle.”)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018) (opens in a new tab) (Upholds broad presidential discretion in immigration and foreign affairs.)
- Seila L. LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) (opens in a new tab) (Finds for-cause removal protection for the CFPB’s single director violates the separation of powers, reinforcing presidential control of the executive branch.)
- West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) (opens in a new tab) (Applies the major questions doctrine to limit agency power, reshaping judicial deference.)
Checks and Balances cases:
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (opens in a new tab) (Establishes judicial review, empowering the Court to declare acts of the other branches unconstitutional.)
- Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816) (opens in a new tab) (Affirms the Supreme Court’s authority to review state court decisions on federal law.)
- Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) (opens in a new tab) (A judicial check on executive power: civilians cannot be tried by military tribunal where civilian courts are open.)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (opens in a new tab) (Limits executive privilege; a generalized claim of confidentiality cannot override the judiciary’s need for evidence in a criminal proceeding.)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (opens in a new tab) (Clarifies Article III standing: plaintiffs must show concrete injury, causation, and redressability.)
- Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (opens in a new tab) (Strikes down the Line Item Veto Act as violating the Presentment Clause.)
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (opens in a new tab) (The executive lacked authority to establish military commissions without congressional approval; even in wartime the President acts within legal constraints.)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (opens in a new tab) (Courts can force agencies to act when the law requires it; standing and judicial review in action.)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (opens in a new tab) (Foreign nationals held at Guantanamo have a constitutional right to habeas corpus to challenge their detention.)
- Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (opens in a new tab) (Addresses the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, a foundational question of executive accountability.)
What to Do
Use AI as your research assistant to work out how the Constitution divides power and how the courts have policed the divisions. This activity builds your grasp of the Key Concepts and trains you to evaluate AI-generated legal analysis rather than accept it.
Part 1: Analyze Two Landmark Cases in Each Category
Pick two cases from each grouping in the Resources (Federalism, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances), six in all. Use the Case Analyzer with your selected AI model to generate a detailed analysis of each. Treat the output as a rough draft: open the opinion at the Google Scholar link and check the reasoning against what the Court actually wrote. For at least two of your six cases, run the Claim Auditor in a fresh chat first, so you know which claims are worth verifying before you open the opinion.
Part 2: Go Deep on One Modern Connection
Choose one of your six cases and use the Modern Connection Finder to tie it to a recent legal or political event. Confirm on your own that the event happened and that it connects. One current application, examined closely, beats three summarized headlines.
Part 3: Write Your Post
Write a 400–600 word post with three components. Summary: which cases you chose and what you found, highlighting your current-event connection. Snippets: a short excerpt from the AI output for each prompt, with a note on why it stood out. Evaluation: how well the AI performed, where it was accurate and helpful, and where it missed.
Part 4: Share Chat Link
Include one AI chat link with a 1–2 sentence explanation of what the conversation shows and why you chose to share it.
Suggested AI Prompts
Use these prompts as a starting point, then adjust them to fit your goal. Strong prompting develops through trial, revision, and testing. It’s a foundational skill that grows into more advanced AI work such as context engineering and agent-based workflows.
The Case Analyzer
You are to act as an expert guide in U.S. Constitutional Law, and your purpose is to help me deeply understand the structural significance of landmark Supreme Court cases. The level of detail and language you use should be appropriate for a college student, providing a thorough but accessible analysis. Please begin our interaction by asking me to provide the name of a case you can help me with. Once I give you the case name, your response must follow a specific, detailed structure. First, identify which core constitutional principle the case primarily addresses, explaining whether it’s a matter of Federalism, Separation of Powers, or Checks and Balances, and briefly state how the case facts raise this issue. Following that, walk me step by step through the legal reasoning of the majority opinion, clarifying the central question and the test the Court applied to reach its holding. You must also detail the arguments from any significant concurring or dissenting opinions, highlighting their fundamental disagreements with the majority’s logic. After breaking down the opinions, zoom out to explain the case’s big-picture significance, detailing its lasting impact on the trajectory of constitutional law and how it concretely shifted the balance of power. If the case has since been narrowed or overruled, say so and name the later decision. To conclude your analysis, formally invite me to ask any follow-up questions I may have. Now, please begin by asking me for a case.
Role assignment and a mandated output structure work together here: the model has to cover principle, majority reasoning, separate opinions, and significance in that order instead of running with whatever it finds most interesting. A fixed template also makes a gap or an error easier to spot when you check the analysis against the opinion.
The Modern Connection Finder
You are an AI legal research assistant designed to connect foundational Supreme Court precedents to contemporary legal and political issues. Your primary task is to help me explore the modern relevance of a landmark case by identifying recent events that are shaped by its legacy. The analysis you provide should be in clear, narrative form, suitable for a university student who has a foundational understanding of U.S. government. Please begin our interaction by asking me to provide the name of a United States Supreme Court case. Once I provide the case name, use your web search tool to find accurate and current information from the last two years. Based on your search, identify at least one significant recent event (such as a new court case, a proposed piece of legislation, an executive action, or a major public debate) that is directly related to the precedent of the case I provided. Then structure your explanation in three parts. First, clearly identify the recent development. Second, provide a detailed narrative explaining the direct connection: does the new event apply the original ruling, challenge it, seek to overturn it, or expand upon its logic in a new context? Finally, conclude with a “Big Picture Significance” analysis that explains the broader constitutional theme linking the historical case with the modern event, such as the ongoing tension between national security and individual liberty, the evolving definition of federal power, or the persistent struggle over the separation of powers. Cite the sources you relied on so I can check them. Now, please begin by asking me for the name of the case.
Requiring tool use and citations grounds the model in live sources instead of memory, which is where it is most likely to be wrong about a recent event. The three-part structure keeps the factual finding apart from the analytical connection, so you can verify each one on its own.
The Claim Auditor
You are a skeptical legal editor reviewing an AI-generated analysis of a Supreme Court case for publication. I will paste the analysis below. Your job is not to praise it but to audit it. Identify the five specific claims in the analysis that are most likely to be wrong, imprecise, or hallucinated, prioritizing holdings stated too broadly, tests attributed to the wrong case, vote counts, authorship of opinions, characterizations of dissents, and claims that a case remains good law when it may have been narrowed or overruled. For each claim, state exactly what I should look for in the actual opinion to confirm or refute it, and rate your own confidence that the claim is accurate as high, medium, or low. Do not rewrite the analysis; produce only the audit list.
Red-teaming asks the model to attack its own output rather than review it, which cuts against the default pull toward validation, and the confidence ratings put the doubt where it belongs. The audit list then becomes your checklist when you open the real opinion, so verification is built into the work instead of left to trust.