Con Law 2 Kang

Front 1

What is the Equal Protection Clause

Back 1

no state or local government shall deny any person the equal protection of the law

Front 2

EPC - Strict Scrutiny

Back 2

Over 90% chance the law will be struck down

1. compelling government interest
2. least restrict means necessary

used for race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and alienage

Front 3

EPC - Intermediate Review

Back 3

50% chance of the law being rejected

1. Important government interest
2. substantially related means

used for Gender and illegitimacy

Front 4

EPC - Rational Review

Back 4

90% chance the law is upheld

1. Legitimate government interest
2. rationally related means

Used for everything else.

Front 5

Railway Express v. New York

Back 5

Cite for Vanilla Rational Review
Facts: law passed using 10th amendment forbidding advertising on vehicles when the advertisement were not related to the business of the vehicle
1. LGI: reduce distraction on the streets - safety
2. Rationally Related: yes, all there needs to be is some basis for trying to prevent traffic accidents

Front 6

New York City Trans v. Beazner

Back 6

Cite for Vanilla Rational Review
Facts: law passed placing a ban on hiring anyone who was or is using methadone - concerned with junkies
1.LGI: yes safety from junkies driving public transportation
2.RRM: yes 25% revert back to harion not question of fairness

used on the exam to uphold corky crazy statues

Front 7

Romer v. Evans

Back 7

Cite for Rational Review with Bite
Facts: Colorado law removes protection given to homosexuals in any circumstance. sexual orientation is not gender
LGI: No, no state has the right to legislate hate on another group.

Front 8

Romer v. Evans 3 factor list?

Back 8

1. Single out one group
2. LAw is so sweeping in what it prohibits
3. discrimination vast, and incompensive

Front 9

Us Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno

Back 9

Cite for Rational Review with Bite
New law comes out and says if your not related you cannot get food stamps but the law is rewritten to make it more towards hate towards the hippies.
1. LGI: prevent welfare fruad
Court says congress is hating on hippies, cannot pass a bill designed to purposely harm a politically unpopular group regardless of reasoning

Front 10

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne living

Back 10

Facts: city denied cleburne living a permit for housing because its a business for mentally retarded
1. Government gave phony reasoning for why they denied the permit was at its hating on the mentally retarded

Front 11

Cases to Cite for Vanilla Ration Review

Back 11

1. Railways Express
2. Beazner

Front 12

Case to cite for Rational Review with Bite

Back 12

1. Romer - factors
2. Cleborne - phoney reasons
3. Moreno - cant harm unpopular group - improper reasons

Front 13

Korematsu v. United States

Back 13

Cite for Race for Strict Security
Facts: after pearl harbor the USA wants all Japanese americans put into concentration camps
1. Compelling Govt : protect the US, national security is always a compelling government interest
2. Means least Restrictive: yes, highly complicated security issue

Front 14

Loving v. Virginia

Back 14

Racial Classification: Strict Scrutiny
Facts: Statue prevents no mixed race marriages in virgina unless your a non white person. A black women and a white get married and are arrested when they return in virginia.
1. Compelling Gov't interest: No, fueled by preservation the integrity of the white race

Front 15

Palmore v. Sidoti

Back 15

Racial Classification - Strict Scrutiny
Facts: a state court granted custody of a child to one white parent over another white parent because one parent had a relationship with a black man
1. Compelling Government interest: No, prejudice is never a government interest

Front 16

Brown v. Board of Education

Back 16

Racial Classification - equal but seperate is not equal - Strict Scrutiny
Facts: schools were segregated by race, Petitoner and the rest of the class sought to enter the schools attend by whites because they contend that the black schools were not equal, and cannot be made equal
compelling Gov int: None, generates a feeling of inferiority, and effects education opportunities.

Front 17

Disparate Impact

Back 17

To show an impact of discrimination 2 elements are required to get Strict Scrutiny
1. Particular group is disproportionately affected - lok for numbers
2. the main reasons is to keep that race out - look for a crazy test makes no sense - prejudice speech - implauseable #

Front 18

Washington v. Davis

Back 18

Cite this for Disparate Impact
Facts: A black man failed the written test to become a Washington DC police recruit. He claims that the test was racially biased and cited the relatively low number of black cops on the force as evidence.

Front 19

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Back 19

Start of Disparate Impact
Facts: city passes a law anyone who operates a commercial laundry in a wooden building must pass a safety inspection before given a license. Only people who own wooden laundires are Chinese immigrants. They are all denied, but all the white people get approved.

Government had no way to explain why all the white people got theirs but not the chinese expect racism

Front 20

Personal Admin of Mass. V. Feeney

Back 20

Disparate Impact applied to Gender
Facts: claims that having a hiriing preference for veterans over non-veterans for civil service positions, the petitioner is discriminating against women. If your a veteran member of the US miliatary you'll be awarded extra pts on your civil service exam

1. Can Prove disproportion effect: only men in the army
2. Is it prevent women for getting jobs? To reward military is ok, we want people with self discipline, give prefence to veterans of either sex does not discrim.

Front 21

Richmond v. Croson Construction Company

Back 21

Affirmative Action
City Council approves a plan to make which required 30% of the dollar amount of a prime contract be subcontracted to minority business enterprises.
Law treats people differently by race - strict scrutiny applies
1. compelling gov int: reverse discrim that minority's have exp in the past
2 Means chose least restrictive: No, half the pop are black, more voting power than white.

Front 22

Affirmative Action Bads/Goods

Back 22

Good: no pt system/quta, goal is to further diversity, or reverse discrim
Bad: quta system

Front 23

Grutter v. Bollinger

Back 23

Law student does not get in, minorirites less qualified got in. Extra admission pts were given to minorities, but it was only one factor when looking for someone
Strict Scrutiny: 1. Compelling Govt Int: diverse entering class. 2. MEans least restrictive: yes, law school may look at race for 1 factor, as long as its only one factor.

Front 24

Gratz v. Bollinger

Back 24

UMass has adopted a point system to judge applicants. 20 pts are given automatically for being a minoirty. thats 1/5 of the pts need for admissions more like a quta system
Cant use quta systems this is bad - fails

Front 25

Craig v. Boren

Back 25

Cite for Gender Discrim - Intermediate Review
Facts: Oklahoma prohibited the sale of 3.2 alcohol beer to men under the age of 21, and women under the age of 18.
1. Important gov. Int: rational traffic safety, morem en then women getting arrested for DUI
2. Means Chosen Substantially related: No, percentages were two small between the men and women getting DUI

Front 26

Intermediate Review with Bite

Back 26

1. Is their an important govt interest
2. is there exceeding persuasive justification for the substantially related means

this is used most often when a law rational is based on a traditional gender stereotype

Front 27

United States v. Virginia Military Institute (VMI)

Back 27

VMI was the only single sex college institution run by the state of Virgina. Wanted only men because they thought women would not be bale to handle the drill sergeants because they are weak
1. Importent Gov't Int: girls weaker than boys, frail and not courageous not as tough as men -
2. IS there exceeding persuasive justification for the substantially related means: the justificaction for the law is the sterotype fails thrown out!

Front 28

MUW v. Hogan

Back 28

Cite for Intermediate Review with Bite
Facts: MUW is the only single sex collegiate institution ran by mississippi, The respondent was otherwise qualified for admission to the schools nursing program, but he was denied admission on the basic of being male
1. Important Gov Int: None, Women did not lack the opportunity to become nurses. The reasoning to get more women into the field is not an important government interest

Front 29

Geduldig v. Aiello

Back 29

EPC and Funding
Facts: California offered a disability insurance system that supplemented by workers compensations. However califorina was not going to pay for pregency, thus suit filed to challenege the system was uncon gender based

Court: it discrims against people who are pregnant not women but pregnant people.
Subject to Rational Review
1. LGI: running out of money
2. Rationally Related Means: yes, cost too much

Front 30

Graham v. Richardson

Back 30

EPC + Aliens and money
Facts: Arizona required state resident to be us citizen or resident of the US for 15 years to be eligable for welfare benefits
Discrims on Alienage - Strict Scrutiny
1. Compelling Gov Int: allocation of funds, dont have enough money
2/ Means Chosen Least Restricitve: no could give everyone less money, or rise taxes to give more money, but everyone must be treated the same.

Front 31

Foley v. Connelie

Back 31

When Discrim against Aliens is subject to Rational Review
Facts: new york law prohibited non-citizens from becoming state police officers.
Court: dont want to give away special rights of citizen, policy lots of responsibility becoming a cop, has to determine if your con rights are violated.

Front 32

Ambach v. Norwick

Back 32

When Discrim against Aliens is subject to Rational Review
Facts: New York education statue forbids the certifcaction of any perspective teacher who a non citizen.
For jobs of education only subject to Rational Review, we want our grade school teaches to to brain wash our kids to respect the government

Front 33

Plyer v. Doe

Back 33

Special Test- Only used in certain circumstaces
Facts: texas law denied the right of undocumented children to attend public schools that were free to US and legal aliens
New Test:
1. Must be a complete deprivation of a very important right
2. Must be a highly vulnerable group - immutability, stigma, History of Discrim, Discrete and insular minoirity

Front 34

14th Due Process Clause

Back 34

No state or local government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Front 35

Fundamental Rights

Back 35

Marriage: Zablocki
Rise kids as you see fir: Meyers, Pierce
Familial association: Moore
Procreate/bodily autonomy : Skinner
Contraceptive: Griswold and Eisenstadt
Refuse treatment: Cruzan
Sex in home: lawrence
interstate tracel: saenz
Abortion: Roev. Wade/Cassey

Front 36

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Back 36

Cite for Non FR rational Review
Facts: washington has a state minimum wage for women and minors. Hotel paid the people less than the minium.
Court rules no right to contract
No FR: Rational Review
1. Legitmate Gov. Int: protect works who are economically vulnerable
2. Means Rationally Related: Yes - reasonable gain equality with employers

Front 37

Lee Optical

Back 37

No FR Contract - Lossens Rationally Related almost anything is ok as long as its Con.
No right to contract, LAw need not be logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional only has to be rationally related to a legitmate gov in.
1. Legitmate gov int: health welfare of people
2. MEans rationally realted: yes

Front 38

Zablocki v. Redhail

Back 38

FR To Marriage
Facts: Dead beat dad, doesnt want to pay child support. Wants to get married but is denied on grounds he did not procure a court order granting permission to marriage because he had not paid his child support.
FR - Yes Infringing Strict Scrutiny
1. Compelling Gov Int: trying to own up pay child support
2. MEans Least Restrictive: No, too restrictive of FR, other means available