Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
63 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Slaughterhouse Cases
|
-New Orleans law creating butchers monopoly is constitutional
-14th Amend. only applies to national citizenship, not state rights -Dissent creates economic due process |
|
|
Lochner v New York
|
-NY law limiting bakers to working 60 hours/week is unconstitutional
-Law violated "liberty of contract" under due process -"Lochner Era" of economic SDP created |
|
|
West Coast Hotel v Parrish
|
-Washington min. wage law for women is constitutional
-State has legitimate interest in promoting well-being of women, thus min. wage does not violate due process -"Liberty of Contract" not a SDP right |
|
|
Buck v Bell
|
-VA. law requiring sterilization of "mentally defective" citizens is constitutional
-State justified in protecting public interest, safety -No SDP right to reproduce |
|
|
Skinner v Oklahoma
|
-Okla. law requiring sterilization as punishment for certain felonies is unconstitutional
-Violates Eq. Protection- punishment from some felonies, but not others -Established SDP right to procreate |
|
|
Loving v Virginia
|
-Virg. law banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional
-Violates Eq Protection and due process (unfairly treats some, marriage is fundamental right) |
|
|
US v Windsor
|
-Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional
-Cannot restrict economic rights of same-sex couples -Fed gov. must recognize state-approved same sex marriages |
|
|
Griswold v Connecticut
|
-CT law banning use of contraceptives is uncon.
-Right of privacy established in "penumbras" of 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th Amends. -Rights left to citizens under 9th Amend -Sanctity of marriage a fund. right |
|
|
Roe v Wade
|
-TX law outlawing abortions uncon.
-Violation of due process right to privacy -Not protecting "citizen" (citizen is born or naturalized, fetus is neither) -Est. Trimester Test |
|
|
Maher v Roe
|
-CT law limiting state Medicaid benefits to "medically necessary" 1st trimester abortions is con.
-Law does not impinge upon fund. right protected in Roe -Direct state interference vs. "encouragement of alternate activity" -Financial need alone not a protected class |
|
|
Rust v Sullivan
|
-Dept of Health and Human Services removing funds from "Title X" family planning programs that advocate abortion is con.
-Use of public funds to support one viewpoint over another not discriminatory -Title X ambiguous, defer to expertise of administrative agency |
|
|
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey
|
-PA law requiring spousal consent for abortion is uncon.
-Creates "undue burden" on woman -24 hour waiting period, informed consent, parental consent if minor all okay -Gets rid of trimester test |
|
|
Stenberg v Carhart
|
-Neb. law criminalizing partial-birth abortions is uncon.
-Law has no exception for health of mother -Imposes undue burden on woman's ability to choose abortion |
|
|
Gonzales v Carhart
|
-Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is con.
-Carhart et al. failed to prove Congress lacks authority to regulate PBA -State has interest in preserving fetal life- "ethical and moral" -Ban fits interest w/o creating undue burden -Does not prohibit vast majority of abortions -Not having woman's health exception OK b/c no medial consensus |
|
|
Cruzan by Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health
|
-Upheld MO Supreme Court's ruling that Cruzans could not pull feeding tube on comatose daughter
-State has right to require "clear and convincing" evidence that daughter would have wanted tube removed -State interest in "preserving human life" under abortion law -Cruzans do not have constitutional right of privacy to make decision w/o clear and convincing evidence (no "right to die") |
|
|
Washington v Glucksberg, Vacco v Quill
|
-Wash. and NY laws banning physician assisted suicide are con.
-No SDP "right to die" -Not same thing as refusing life support- doctor has "intent" to kill patient |
|
|
Troxel v Granville
|
-Wash state law allowing grandparents to visit grandkids against wishes of parents uncon.
-Infringes on parents fund. right of care, custody, control of kids -No evidence of mother as unfit parent, presumption that parents act in kids' best interest |
|
|
Lawrence v Texas
|
-TX antisodomy law uncon. (and by extension laws in 13 other states)
-State cannot make private sexual conduct a crime -Violation of privacy |
|
|
Dred Scott v Sanford
|
-Scott does not have standing to sue for freedom as a slave, not a citizen
-States do not have power to grant citizenship -MO Compromise is uncon. |
|
|
Civil Rights Cases
|
-Struck down Civil Rights Act of 1875 (making it a federal crime to deny public accommodation based on race/religion)
-No authority to do so in 13th or 14th -Intrusion on states 10th amend. rights -14th only bars discrimination backed by state action |
|
|
Plessy v Ferguson
|
-Upholds "separate but equal" in La. rail cars
-14th- separation of races doesn't imply inequality |
|
|
Shelley v Kraemer
|
-Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive housing covenants uncon.
|
|
|
Batson v Kentucky
|
-Peremptory challenges on basis of race uncon.
|
|
|
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, KS
|
-Racial segregation of public schools violates Eq. Protection
-Separate facilities inherently unequal -Overturns Plessy |
|
|
Bolling v Sharpe
|
-Applied Brown I decision to Washington DC via 5th Amend. due process (14th only applicable to states)
|
|
|
Brown II
|
Implementation of Brown I left to District Courts "with all deliberate speed"
|
|
|
Cooper v Aaron
|
-Little Rock school board bound by Court's decision to integrate, cannot delay integration or ignore it
|
|
|
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education
|
-Busing plan to promote desegregation upheld by Court
|
|
|
Milliken v Bradley
|
-Overturned interdistrict busing desegregation
-Detroit school districts not responsible for desegregation across district lines unless deliberate policy of segregation |
|
|
Freeman v Pitts
|
-Allowed for "incremental approach" to desegregation, loosening of Dist. Court control over DeKalb School District
|
|
|
Missouri v Kalima Jenkins
|
Dist. Court's remedial approach of across the board salary increases and funding for inner city schools uncon.
-Beyond Dist Court's remedial authority |
|
|
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1
|
-Cannot use race as sole factor in student school assignment
-Not narrowly tailored, no compelling interest |
|
|
Griggs v Duke Power Company
|
-IQ test used in hiring uncon.
-Broad aptitude tests that disparately impact minorities must be reasonably related to job -Discriminated against black employees, even if not intention |
|
|
Regents of the University of California v Bakke
|
-Upheld Aff. Action for college admission
-Rigid racial quotas uncon |
|
|
Gratz v Bollinger
|
-Univ of Michigan's use of racial preferences in admission uncon.
-Automatic admission of "underrepresented minorities" does not fit standards of Bakke -Must be narrowly tailored and individualized |
|
|
Grutter v Bollinger
|
-Univ of Michigan Law School's racial preferences admissions policy con.
-Narrowly tailored, individualized -Supports compelling interest in diversity |
|
|
Fisher v University of Texas
|
-Overturns Circuit Court's decision, rules TX admissions policy must face strict scrutiny, further consideration
|
|
|
City of Richmond v JA Croson
|
-Overturns city policy requiring companies with city construction contracts subcontract 30% of business to minority-owned businesses
-"Generalized assertions" of past discrimination cannot justify rigid racial quotas |
|
|
Wards Cove Packing Co. v Antonio
|
-Hiring more minorities for unskilled than skilled jobs is con.
-Even w/evidence of "racial disparity," employer does not have to justify practice -Only one job class, could reflect entire labor market |
|
|
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v City of Jacksonville, Florida
|
-NE Florida Contractors have standing to sue against J'ville law setting aside 10% of city contracts to minority businesses
-Don't have to prove that members would have received contract, but rather that members did or would suffer injury (lack of fair opportunity) |
|
|
Adarand Constructors Inc v Pena
|
-USDoT policy granting additional compensation for companies that subcontract minority business is uncon
-All racial classifications must pass strict scrutiny -Race not a sufficient condition for presumption of disadvantage |
|
|
Bradwell v Illinois
|
-Upheld Illinois decision to bar women from law license
-Privileges and Immunities Clause does not include right to practice profession |
|
|
Reed v Reed
|
-Idaho code favoring males in appointing admin. of estates in uncon
-Eq. Protection violation- differential treatment on basis of sexd |
|
|
Frontiero v Richardson
|
US Air Force policy restricting spousal benefits for females is uncon., violates Eq Protection
|
|
|
Craig v Boren
|
-Okla. law allowing sale of 3.2% "nonintoxicating" beer to 21 yr old males and 18 yr old females is uncon
-First implementation of intermediate scrutiny- law not substantially related to important gov interest |
|
|
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v Feeney
|
-Mass law giving hiring preference to veterans is con
-Does not discriminate against women (very few female veterans) -Language of law gender neutral, serves "legitimate and worthy purpose" |
|
|
Michael M v Superior Court of Sonoma County
|
-Upheld law making only males criminally liable for statutory rape
-Females have burden of pregnancy, not same thing, so no Eq Protection) -State interest in preventing illegitimate pregnancy |
|
|
Mississippi University for Women v Hogan
|
-State statute preventing men from enrolling in MUW is uncon
-State did not provide "exceedingly pervasive justification" for gender discrim. -Aff Action favoring females not necessary in field of nursing |
|
|
JEB v Alabama ex rel
|
Use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely on basis of gender is uncon
|
|
|
US v Virginia
|
-VMI's all-male admissions policy is uncon
-All-female institute not satisfactory remedy, couldn't offer same benefits -State did not show that all-male policy furthered diversity |
|
|
Romer v Evans
|
-Colorado Amendment banning any gov. action protecting homosexuals from discrim. is uncon.
-No legitimate gov interest, imposes broad disability on homosexuals |
|
|
Shapiro v Thompson
|
-Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program requiring 1 year residency in state is uncon
-Infringes upon right of interstate travel, no compelling state interest |
|
|
San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez
|
-TX public education financing system based on local property taxes is con.
-No fund. right to education in Constitution -Difference in funding between rich and poor districts not "invidiously discriminatory" Common in other states -Eq. Protection does not require absolute equality |
|
|
Saenz v Roe
|
-Calif. law restricting TANF benefits for new (less than 1 year) residents to levels of their previous state is uncon.
-Right to travel (move freely between states, treated equally in all states, new citizens treated like long time citizens of state) |
|
|
Plyler v Doe
|
-TX law allowing state to withhold funds from school districts educating children of illegal aliens is uncon.
-Severely disadvantaged children by denying education, no compelling state interest |
|
|
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia
|
-Mass law forcing state police retirement at 50 is con
-Not a fund. right -Applied rational basis, said Mass. justified in ensuring "physical preparedness of police" -Imperfections of law not enough to violate 14th Amend |
|
|
Gregory v Ashcroft
|
-MO mandate requiring retirement of state judges at 70 is con.
-Doesn't violate Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or Eq Protection -MO has 10th Amend right to define qualification for state office -ADEA does not apply to 'policymaking' appointees -Rational basis- connection between age and mental capacity |
|
|
Kimel v Florida Board of Regents
|
-ADEA does not abrogate states' 11th Amend rights
-Shows intent of Congress to do so, but Congress does not have authority to do so -States can discriminate on age if rationally related to legitimate state interest |
|
|
Gross v FBL Financial Services
|
-Plaintiff does not need to submit direct evidence of age discrim. in ADEA suit in order to shift burden to defendant
-Must prove by preponderance of evidence that age was "but-for" cause (w/o action, result wouldn't have happened) |
|
|
Heller v Doe
|
-Kentucky's involuntary commitment for retarded people does not violate Eq Protection
-Retardation not a protected class, only requires rational basis -State met burden- rationally related to legit. gov purpose |
|
|
Sutton v United Air Lines
|
-Poor vision not a "substantially limiting impairment" under ADA
-ADA takes into account ability to mitigate impairment (wear glasses) |
|
|
PGA Tour Inc v Casey Martin
|
-Martin's use of golf cart during tournaments a reasonable accommodation in public place
-Does not "fundamentally alter nature" of game |
|
|
Chevron USA Inc v Echazabal
|
-EEOC regulation allowing firing of employee if disability poses threat to their health is con.
-Chevron can fire Echazabal (who has Hep C), dangerous to work in refineries |
