Additions To Con Law 8

Front 1

Additions to Con Law 8

Front 2

What did this case say about the right to Assisted Suicide ? Vacco v Quill (1997, Rehnquist) – NY law prohibits physician assisted suicide

Back 2

(i) Does this violate EP under 14th amendment? (premised on idea that refusing treatment and taking palliative drugs are similar to suicide victims) 1. reaffirm Glucksberg: suicide is an active purpose of taking one’s life a. Withdrawal of medication and palliative drugs serve person of easing pain

Front 3

[MAIN ruling in Roe v. Wade?] What did Roe v Wade (1973, Blackmun) say about the right to abortion?– TX law denies abortion except in cases to save the life of the mother

Back 3

(a) Main ruling: ct will recognize women’s fundamental right to abortion (i) This is dissimilar from Griswold, in that Blackmun applies right to abortion directly under DP (Griswold linked contraceptives to right to privacy under 3rd amendment) (ii) Primary reasoning: pregnancy is a very individualized process involving the mother

Front 4

What was the trimester system decided in Roe v. Wade?

Back 4

(a) However, court maintains that at some point, other rights supercede right to abortion (based on compelling interest theory) (i) Court upholds trimester system (current medical knowledge sets end of the first trimester as the compelling point) 1. From this point, states can judge compelling point accordingly (ii) Isn’t the court somehow addressing viability with this system? 1. Court argues that since this is based on current medical knowledge, the court itself even making a viability distinction

Front 5

What was the specific legal rule decided in Roe v. Wade?

Back 5

(a) LEGAL RULE: states don’t have a compelling interest to restrict abortions, unless the fetus has a legit change of survival outside the womb (viability)

Front 6

What is the application of the State interest and the fit with law from the 4 part test for Roe v. Wade?

Back 6

(a) Applying the 4 part test: (i) What are the state’s interests? 1. Protection of potential life 2. Protection of mother 3. Protection of med field in general (ii) Is the fit b/w law and interests sufficient? 1. Rather than an outright ban, maybe address penalties along the trimester system

Front 7

What are the 13th amendment and Federalism considerations in Roe v. Wade?

Back 7

(a) 13th amendment involuntary servitude violation (b) Federalism: court determines when viability begins and states make their own laws based on that

Front 8

What if there was no fundamental right to abortion, could the court actually force abortion?

Back 8

(a) Similar to Skinner v. OK: just b/c a fundamental right to pro create exists doesn’t mean a fundamental right not to does

Front 9

How does someone show Deprivation for Mikos 3 step process for procedural DP analysis?

Back 9

(1) Show Deprivation (a) More than simply suffering loss (i) Daniels v Williams (1986, Rehnquist) – inmate suffers injury form pillow left on stairs of jail. Argues lack of recovery (sovereign immunity) violates DP 1. RULE: DP clause does NOT apply to deprivations as a result of mere negligence lacking due care a. Requires intent and deliberation 2. Tort recovery compensation is not constitutionally required

Front 10

How do emergency situations affect Mikos 3 step process for procedural DP analysis?

Back 10

(a) Emergency situations (i) County of Sacramento v Lewis (1998 Souter) Police hits speeding motorcyclist while going after him in a high speed chase 1. RULE: deprivations must satisfy the “shocks the conscience” test a. Extension of Daniels requirement for deliberation and intent b. “deliberate indifference” cannot apply during emergencies, when authorities don’t have time to think

Front 11

What does Deprivation of life, liberty, and property not include in Mikos 3 step process for procedural DP analysis?

Back 11

(a) Does NOT include affirmative duties (i) DeShaney v Winnebago County (1989, Rehnquist) DSS investigates possible child abuse, but doesn’t take action; father beats child causing permanent injury 1. Ct: State isn’t required to actively protect against life, liberty, and property against private actors 2. Dissent: induced reliance, DSS set itself up as the handler of child abuse cases a. Reliance + inaction = deprivation

Front 12

Suppose CA passes a law that bans abortion, period. At the same time Congress passes a statute that lower federal courts shall not have jdx to hear state law regulating abortion; and Supreme Court does not have appellate. HOW WOULD YOU CHALLENGE THIS? PROBLEMS WITH THIS APPROACH? What if this now applied to the abortion hypo? The lower federal courts have to uphold the Roe v. Wade law, existing precedent. The danger w/ jdx stripping bills is that Congress can limit the Court’s power of judicial review. 1. Can Congress do this? It certainly would not have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade, but this stripping has a similar effect—b/c maybe there would be room for interpreting Roe narrowly that a state court would uphold the state law regulating abortion as not in violation of Roe.[THERE IS A REASON FOR WHY CONGRESS WOULD LIMIT JR OR CHECK THE COURT].

Back 12

What you can do is challenge the state law in state court—they hear federal issues, including the violation of a federal constitutional provision. What is the problem w/ this approach? State courts may not be as willing to uphold federal law. This was a concern for the founders. State court can read the constitution very narrowly; tend to favor what their states do. Some federal statutes only strip the Supreme Court of appellate jdx, but not lower courts.