Con Law 2: Coenen

Front 1

Argued branches of gov. can be connected while remaining "separate and distinct".
Offered reasons why legislative overreaching is like a "representative republic"

Back 1

Federalist 48

Front 2

Presented idea that Bill of Rights was necessary idea for US Const.

Back 2

Federalist 84

Front 3

Case saying Due Process only applies to Fed. Gov., limits of the gov. articulated in 5th amendment specifically apply to national gov.

Back 3

Barron v. Baltimore

Front 4

Justice Taney said only Congress can confer national citizenship, also held Missouri Compromise unconst. Made these arguments under Art. 3 & 4

Back 4

Dred Scott

Front 5

Abolished slavery, defined citizenship, privileges and immunities, equal protection, due process, and gave right to vote to former slaves

Back 5

13th-15th Amendments

Front 6

- Eradicated privilege and immunities clause
- Cases which follow completely got rid of P&I
- Interpreted P&I to apply to national citizenship, not state citizenship

Back 6

Slaughterhouse Case

Front 7

Case which stated double jeopardy of 5th Amendment is not applied to states through 14th amendment
"do not have to incorp. a right if it is not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty, and if its abolishment would not violate principal of just..." (embraced selective incorporation)

Back 7

Palo v. Connecticut

Front 8

5th Am. privilege against self-incrimination not part of rt to fair trial protected by due process of 14th am.
- Embraced selective incorporation, but the holding was later overturned

Back 8

Adamson v. California

Front 9

6th amendment rt to jury trial applied to states via incorporation through 14th am.
- Test: "whether a right is among those ‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civial and political institutions,’ whether it ‘basic in our system of jurisprudence,’ and whether it is ‘a fundamental right, essential to a fair trail.’”

Back 9

Duncan v. LA

Front 10

2nd amendment protects indv. right to possess a firearm unconnected w/service in militia
- Scalia authored opinion

Back 10

DC v. Heller

Front 11

14th am makes 2nd am right to keep and bear arms for purpose of self-defense applicable through states. Relied on holding in Heller to extend this right to states.

Back 11

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Front 12

Various guarantees within the Bill of Rights creates penumbras that establish a right to privacy. Together, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th am. create a right to privacy in marital relations.

Back 12

Griswold v. Connecticut

Front 13

Law's distinction btw single and married individuals failed to satisfy "rational basis test" of 14th amendment.
Right of Privacy- "right the indv. has to be free from unwarranted gov. intrusion...decision to bear a child"

Back 13

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Front 14

Prohibitions on distribution of contraceptives to minors violated due process of 14th Am.
- minors entitled to same const. protections as adults
- privacy right

Back 14

Carey v. Population Services

Front 15

Woman's right to Abortion fell within right to Privacy. Gave women total autonomy over pregnancy and set up a trimester framework, defining different levels of state interest in 2nd and 3rd trimester.

Back 15

Roe v. Wade

Front 16

limiting state Medicaid benefits to those that were "medically necessary" was not an obstacle to abortion.
- Did not "impinge upon fundamental rt recognized in Roe"
- rationally related to legitimate state interest

Back 16

Maher v. Roe

Front 17

State participating in Medicaid program not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions.
- Freedom of choice didnt carry with it a "const. entitlement to financial resources to avail herself of full range of choices"
- EP clause not source of substantive rights

Back 17

Harris v. McRae

Front 18

Intent of Congress was ambiguous w/regard to abortion counseling.
- Public health facilities that counsel or advocate having an abortion, then all fed. funds with be withheld. Upheld this by saying there is no affirmative right to governmental aid.

Back 18

Rust v. Sullivan

Front 19

upheld state provisions that did not allow state hospitals to perform abortions

Back 19

Webster

Front 20

-Reaffirmed Roe, created a new standard:
Does state abortion regulation have purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden" which is a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

Back 20

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Front 21

Upheld const. of partial-birth abortion ban. Not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on right to abortion. This applied to the intact D&E and not the more common D&E.

Back 21

Gonzales v. Carhart

Front 22

Antimiscegenation law violated EP clause of 14th amendment.
- Distinctions drawn by race were "odious to a free people" and subject to strict scrutiny

Back 22

Loving v. Virginia

Front 23

Ordinance violated right by instrusively regulating the family w/o accruing some tangible state interest.
- Strict definition of family, didnt allow grandmother to share housing with grandchildren

Back 23

Moore v. East Cleveland

Front 24

Narrow def. of family, prevented unrelated college students from living together.
- involved no fundamental right, did not violate EQ and is reasonable rational relationship to state objective. (quiet neighborhood)

Back 24

Belle Terre v. Boraas

Front 25

Law upheld which denied possible biological father chance to est. paternity after two years.
- relied on common-law traditions, showed an aversion to declaring children illegitimate

Back 25

Michael H. v. Gerald D.

Front 26

Did not confer fundamental right to engage in sodomy.
- White feared this would lead to "judge-made const. law" and send the ct. down the road of illegitimacy

Back 26

Bowers v. Hardwick

Front 27

Free to engage in private conduct in exercise of Due Process.
- Held Texas statute had no legitimate state interest which could justify the intrusion into private life.
- Overruled Bowers

Back 27

Lawrence v. Texas

Front 28

While individuals have rt to refuse med. treatment, incompetent persons cant exercise these rights.
- Would need "clear and convincing" evidence of the persons desire to have treatment withdrawn.
- Ct. upheld state's evidentiary requirement

Back 28

Cruzan v. Director of Mo. Dep. of Health

Front 29

Ban on physician assisted-suicide did not violate 14th's Due process clause. Focused on protection of our nation's objective fundamental rights and liberties and cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. Rational basis easily met

Back 29

Washington v. Glucksberg

Front 30

NY's ban against competent people having physician assisted suicide was rational. Distinguished btw refusal of lifesaving treatment and assisted suicide, the latter involves criminal elements.
- Survived Rational Basis

Back 30

Vacco v. Quill

Front 31

Upheld separate but equal/railroad cars

Back 31

Plessy

Front 32

Not allowing Black student into law school violated EP. Forced him to go out of state for education, greater burden

Back 32

Gaines v. Florida

Front 33

White and Black law school- struck down; unequal education opportunities. Higher quality instructors and networking opportunities at white school.

Back 33

Sweat v. Painter

Front 34

Within law school, whites walled off blacks. Put student at severe disadvantage

Back 34

McLauren v. Regents

Front 35

Two cases, finally overturned sep. but equal.
- Warren famously proclaimed: “separate institutions divided by race are inherently unequal.” Perpetuate notions of racial inferiority amongst blacks
- how to enforce this holding was announced in 2nd decision of same case

Back 35

Brown v. Board of Educ.

Front 36

Washington D.C. must also desegregate...

Back 36

Bowling Case

Front 37

Private biases (racial) were not permissible for removal of an infant child from custody of mother.
"Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Unconst. denial of rights under 14th

Back 37

Palmore v. Sidoti

Front 38

Prison racial-segregation policy upheld under strict scrutiny. Didn't buy "neutral" law bc prisoners were "equally" segregated.

Back 38

Johnson v. California

Front 39

Ct sided w/gov. in restricting rights of Japanese Americans. Black argued that this was justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril"
- Black left the ct. with a black eye on this one...

Back 39

Korematsu v. US

Front 40

Non-facially racial law, results are disproportionate but no discriminatory purpose was found.
- No intent and racially neutral measures of employment qualification were upheld.

Back 40

Washington v. Davis

Front 41

Denied zoning request necessary for creation of low and moderate income housing. Intention was lacking although a racially disproportionate impact was likely to happen.

Back 41

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp

Front 42

Preferential hiring treatment to Vets
Applied rational basis and ct held the law did not discriminate based on sex.
Veteran status was not uniquely male, placed many non-veteran males at disadvantage as well.

Back 42

Personnel Admin v. Feeney

Front 43

Racial quota system supported by Civil Rights Act, but deciding vote said rigid use of racial quotas violated EP. Can't treat race dispositively
- However, allowed race as a criterion in higher education admissions decisions (used SS)

Back 43

Regents of Cal. v. Bakke

Front 44

Collective bargaining agreement for race-based layoffs violated EP clause.
- Racial preference needs to be based on prior discrimination, layoffs incorrectly addressed prior discrimination.

Back 44

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Educ.

Front 45

Minority set aside program for local public works was legitimate exercise of congressional power.
- Congress did not have to act "in a wholly 'color-blind' fashion"

Back 45

Fullilove v. Klutznick

Front 46

Subcontracts to 30% of business to minorities.
- "generalized assertions" of past racial discrim. could not justify "rigid" racial quotas for awarding of public contracts.
"The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs."

Back 46

Richmond v. J.A. Croson

Front 47

Racial preference in student admissions at law school does not violate EP.
- Recognized compelling interest in diverse student body and no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on basis such as race. (similar to program in Bakke)

Back 47

Grutter v. Bollinger

Front 48

Use of racial preference in undergrad admissions violates EP clause. Automatic distribution of 20 points or 1/5th necessary to gain admissions.
- Not narrowly tailored.

Back 48

Gratz v. Bollinger

Front 49

- Second most important factor in school admission was race
- Racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under EP.
- Goal of preventing racial imbalance didnt meet standard for const. use of race.
- "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Back 49

Parents involved v. Seattle School

Front 50

EP does permit consideration of race for undergrad under strict scrutiny
- Sent back to lower level to apply proper standard
- Texas policy needed to be verified that it furthered interest and no race-neutral alternative would provide same benefits

Back 50

Fisher v. Texas