Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hodel Vs. Indiana

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 15, 1981

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

53 entries 6 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Wickard Vs. Filburn US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 1942
  2. CurrIn Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1939
  3. Ferguson Vs. Skrupa US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1963
  4. Stafford Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · May 01, 1922
  5. National League of Cities Vs. Usery US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  6. Vance Vs. Bradley US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1979
  7. U.S. 314 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Hodel v. Indiana
    Search
  8. U.S. 314 (1981) Hodel v. Indiana
    Search
  9. Page 452 U. S. 317 JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal, like Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  10. and permanently enjoined their enforcement. 501 F.Supp. 452 (1980). We noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Andrus v. Indiana
    Search
  11. and we now reverse. I A The basic structure of the Surface Mining Act is described in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  12. Usery v. Turner
    Search
  13. Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1 , 428 U. S. 15 (1976). See also Duke Power Co. v. Carolina
    Search
  14. or that there is no reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends. Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  15. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United
    Search
  16. rational basis test is the volume of commerce actually affected by the regulated activity. T his Court held in NLRB v. Fainblatt
    Search
  17. rationally conclude that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce. See Page 452 U. S. 325 Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  18. Perez v. United
    Search
  19. U. S. 111 , 317 U. S. 127 -129 (1942). Cf. Polish National Alliance v. NLRB
    Search
  20. coal mining on prime farmland affects interstate commerce in agricultural products. As we explained in Stafford v. Wallace
    Search
  21. court incorrectly assumed that the Act's goals are limited to preventing air and water pollution. As we noted in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  22. H.R.Rep. No. 95-218, supra, at 57-60. Moreover, as noted in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  23. Surface Mining, relied for its Tenth Amendment analysis on this Court's decision in National League of Cities v. Usery
    Search
  24. U. S. 833 (1976). For the reasons stated in our opinion in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  25. prime farmland and few or no steep slope or mountaintop mining operations. Relying on this Court's decision in Hampton v. Mow
    Search
  26. protection attack when the legislative means are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Schweiker v. Wilson
    Search
  27. United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz
    Search
  28. U. S. 332 that can only be overcome by a clear showing of arbitrariness and irrationality. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina
    Search
  29. Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. at 428 U. S. 15 . As the Court explained in Vance v. Bradley
    Search
  30. A claim of arbitrariness cannot rest solely on a statute's lack of uniform geographic impact. Secretary of Agriculture v. Central
    Search
  31. on the wisdom of congressional policy determinations. In so doing, the court exceeded its proper role. See New Orleans v. Dukes
    Search
  32. Page 452 U. S. 335 an unconstitutional taking of private property. For the reasons discussed more fully in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  33. requirement applicable generally to surface mining operations. Appellees in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  34. of the Act and the Secretary's response to those submissions is described in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  35. and that the regulatory scheme, when considered as a whole, satisfies this test. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United
    Search
  36. U. S. 294 , 379 U. S. 303 -304 (1964). Cf. Perez v. United
    Search
  37. Id. at 460. However, in Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  38. In these circumstances, there is no justiciable case or controversy concerning these sections of the Act. See Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  39. U.S. Supreme Court Hodel v. Indiana
    Search
  40. Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  41. Andrus v. Indiana
    Search
  42. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina
    Search
  43. NLRB v. Fainblatt
    Search
  44. Cf. Polish National Alliance v. NLRB
    Search
  45. Hampton v. Mow
    Search
  46. Schweiker v. Wilson
    Search
  47. Secretary of Agriculture v. Central
    Search
  48. See New Orleans v. Dukes
    Search
  49. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United
    Search
  50. Cf. Perez v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial