Title: 09-01pp.316
1. The Contract Clause _______.
2. In Fletcher v. Peck (1810; Yazoo land case) the Supreme Court _______.
3. Daniel Webster was one of the most influential legal minds of the nineteenth century. He had
a particularly important role in influencing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Contract
Clause. Which of the following best describes Webster’s Contract Clause beliefs and activities?
4. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837) was _______.
5. Stone v. Mississippi _______.
6. Prior to the twentieth Century the Contract Clause _______.
7. For the framers the right to contract was _______.
8. In Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) the Supreme Court upheld the
Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act against a challenge that the law was a violation of the
Contract Clause. What were the basic provisions of the act? What reasons did the Court give for
upholding the act?
9. Why did the framers draft the contract clause on states rather than on the federal government?
10. How did Marshall’s view of the contract clause parallel his views of federal authority in
other areas of the law?
11. How did the Taney Court differ from the Marshall Court in its interpretation of the Contract
Clause? How did its interpretation stay the same?
12. How did the Court’s conceptualization of the Contract Clause change when John Marshall
left the Court and Roger Taney took it over? Was this it a major change, or was the analysis
forwarded by Taney simply a more nuanced view of the role of the Contract Clause?
13. In 2005 the issue of steroid use s issue in Major League Baseball came to a head with the
suspension of first baseman Rafael Palmeiro. Congress finally took action and forced baseball to
come up with a new policy for drug testing, as well as a stringent policy for suspensions. The
first part of the law mandated drug testing for every major and minor league player at the
beginning of each season, during the all-star break, and prior to any participation in post-season
play. The law also called for a 50 fifty-game suspension for the first positive test, suspension for
a full season on the second positive test, and a lifetime ban upon a third violation. While the
Baseball Players Association and Major League Baseball agreed to the policy, the requirements
were forced on the sport by Congress, which said that it would pass a law mandating these
requirements if the two sides did not agree on the basic outline.
Several players have sued Major League Baseball, claiming that the contracts they signed under
the prior agreement—which called for punishments for drug use of ten-game suspension, thirty-
game suspension, and lifetime bans, respectively—were impaired by this new contract. They
argued that Congress cannot force (by coercion) parties to a private contract to change the terms
of that contract. The lower courts disagreed and ruled in favor of Major League Baseball. The
case is now before the Supreme Court.
If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, how would you rule in this case? Be sure to justify
your answers with reference to the precedents you think support your argument.