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;
80 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
|
Justice Year: Marshall 1833
city gravel deposits rendered wharf useless Local government took property without paying him Holding: Bill of Rights applies only as a limit on the federal government (5th Amendment does not apply to the states) Federal pawers are enumerated, if Bill of Rights was applied to states they would have expressly said so |
|
|
Beauharnais v. Illinois
|
Frankfurter 1952
P convicted under statute that made it a crime to portray a race such that they are subject to contempt, derision constituting a breach of the peace (objected to black people moving into the neighborhood) Holding: Libel is not protected speech; “Group libel” is a form of libel; Therefore, group libel is not protected speech If speech not protected, only receives rational basis scrutiny |
|
|
Belle Terre
|
1974
Zoning ordinance restricted one-family dwellings to single family, which was defined as “[o]ne or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, or a maximum of two people who were not related by blood or marriage Court Upheld Living together not family--> not fundamental |
|
|
Black Codes
|
Black Codes passed in aftermath of Civil War that immediately stripped blacks of rights again prompted the 14th A passage
Codes reinstituted slavery by denying blacks freedom to manage their own affairs Banned by the civil Rights Act of 1866 If states were passing these laws to deprive citizens of rights, then the 14th A was intended to address states by incorporating rights |
|
|
Bolling v. Sharpe
|
1954
School segregation and discrimination in DC violates substantive due process 14th A not apply to DC |
|
|
Bowers v. Hardwick
|
White 1986
Homosexual activity that took place in private home Right of privacy does not extend to sodomy Too far from paradigm of privacy--not recognized as a fundamental right State has legitimate interest in morality Blackmun dissent: fundamental right to privacy |
|
|
Brandenburg v. Ohio
|
1969
KKK rally filmed -- showed cross burning, racial slurs Struck down Ohio Statute that punished this, saying it was preventing assembly Brandenburg Test (Current Test) A state may not forbid the advocacy of the use of force of violation of the law except where the advocacy: a. Such advocacy is directed b. to inciting or producing c. imment d. lawless action AND e. is likely to incite or produce such action |
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education
|
Warren 1954
Segregation of schools struck down on facial challenge Segregation leaves a feeling of inferiority in the community court also invalidates segregation under 5th amendment as violating due process "Separate but Equal" is not really equal Public eduation now is very different than it used to be (in Plessy era) Courts decision is unanimous |
|
|
Buck v. Bell
|
Holmes 1927
Carrie Buck is 18 and pregnant State claims she is mentally defecting (say her mother is to, as well as child) Steralized so that she would not continue to procreate Claimed statute violated 14th amendment due process/equal protection Justice Holmes upholds the state rights to sterilize same concept as compulsory immunization three generations are enough to justify sterilization |
|
|
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
|
Murphy 1942
"Fighting Words" P convicted under statute prohibiting offensive or annoying words to another Statute saved by construction of state court to include only fighting words Can only punish where speech that has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed |
|
|
City of Boerne v. Flores
|
1997
Church in Texas was prevented from constructing a new facility b/c its building was classified a historic landmark Supreme Court delcared the RFRA unconstitional as exceeding Congress's section 5 powers (said Congress cannot "grow" 14th amendment, just enforce rights that Supreme Court has already recognized) Narrow tailoring There must be a congruence and proprotionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end Not consistent with Employment v. Smith |
|
|
City of LA v. Alameda Books
|
O'Connor 2002
State statute aimed at eliminating criminal element by forbidding adult entertainment areas being close together Challenged as facial violation of 1st A Holding: Ban b/c of secondary effects (ex. crime in neighborhood) is permissible w/ rational basis scrutiny (so some incidental effects on speech are acceptable); ban due to primary effects (effect on viewer of material, or content-based regulation) would require heightened scrutiny Content neutral --> Time, Place, Manner analysis |
|
|
Civil Rights Cases
|
Bradley 1883
Supreme court limited congress' power to regulate private conduct Civil Rights Act of 1875: Broadly prohibted private racial discrimination by public accommodations Holding: Congress' authority was only over state and local governments and thier officials, not over private conduct Supreme Court held that CRA of 1875 was unconstitutional: this is still the law today to the extent that Congress can reach private conduct under the 13th Amendment Acknowledged that the 13th amendment applied to private conduct, but only in that it prohibited owning slaves Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed under the Commerce Clause, which can reach private conduct |
|
|
Cohen v. California
|
Harlan 1971
Man charged with disturbing the peace for wearing shirt that said F--- the draft Statue overbroad b/c it banned "offensive conduct" disturbing "any neighborhood or person" --shirt was not obscene To punish, must have a captive audience Clear and Present Danger test |
|
|
Craig v. Boren
|
1976
different beer purchasing ages for men and women Holding: Equal Protection applies to men as well Gender classifications require substantial relation to important gov’t objectives; Modern formulation of Intermediate Scrutiny |
|
|
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
|
Rehnquist 1990 and 1997
Facts Nancy Cruzan was involved in a car accident, --> “persistent vegetative state.” Parents requested that the hospital terminate the life-support procedures the hospital was providing. The hospital and subsequently the State court refused to comply. Issue: is civil standard for a person w/o a will to be able to refuse treatment (refuse food and water) Holding Competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing medical treatment under the Due Process Clause. But incompetent persons do not enjoy the same rights, because they cannot make voluntary and informed decisions. State has legitimate interest in preventing choice through imposition of higher standard Liberty Interest--heightened scrutiny Ad hoc balancing |
|
|
Dred Scott v. Sandford
MORE INFO |
Taney 1857
Facts: P lived in free state, tried to sue for freedom "Citizen" in Constitution means not blacks Citizenship in a state does not mean that person is a US citizen even free blacks can't be citizens--> no constitutional rights or privileges When the Constitution was written, they did not intend for blacks to have rights under Constitution, whether they were free or not Missouri Compromise violated the due process of the 14th amendment Dissent uses P&I to give Scott freedom Attack on Dred Scott History |
|
|
Edwards v. S.C.
|
Stewart 1963
Blacks arrested for breach of peace for gathering with no evidence of hostile audience With no threat of violence, could not be arrested |
|
|
Eisenstadt v. Baird
|
1972
Use contraceptiaves to prevent pregancy, and then hands out condoms to university study Griswold (prior case): contraceptive limited to marriage Breaks the line between sexual privacy and marriage marital couple is not an entity of itself, but an association of two people right to privacy applies to married and non-married couples fundamental affecting a person as the decison wheter to bear or beget a child Made Roe v. Wade possible |
|
|
Employment Division v. Smith
|
1990 Scalia
Gets fired from job b/c of peyote use -->is he entitled to unemployment compensation? Native Americans --> peyote consumption Holding: Law prohibiting peyote consumtpion did not violate the free exercise clause even though it was required by some Native American religions. Law against peyote applied to everyone and did not punish conduct soley because it was religiously motivated Changed the law of free exercise clause significantly No matter how much a law burdens religious practices, it is constituional under Smith so long as it does not single out religious behavor for punishment and was not motivaed by a desire to interfere with religion. |
|
|
Finer v. NY
|
1951
radical speaker to mixed crowd Police (and Court) fear that speaker’s words will begin a melee in the audience of blacks and whites Holding: Speaker may be arrested for the reaction speech engenders, even though cannot for making or content of speech Dissent (Black): Court’s opinion permits a “Heckler’s Veto” on speech Police should protect speaker in his speech, not arrest him to satiate the crowd |
|
|
Griffin v. Illinois
|
Black 1956
Griffin has been accused of armed robbery, unable to pay for record of trial needed for appeal Holding: Appeals are only privileges, not rights; but once granted, must follow EP (i) Cannot close the opportunity for a fair hearing to those who cannot afford (ii) Today, right to appeal is at least guaranteed by statute (though not in the Constitution) Dissent (Harlan): Difference b/w state imposing disabilities on a class and being required to remove “natural” disabilities |
|
|
Griswold v. Conn
|
Douglas 1965
Dr. Griswold opens a planned parenthood clinic, convicted of aiding in the sale of contraceptives to a married couple Connecticut Statue If we allow birth control for married couples they will go out and have affairs Holding: Penumbras of the BoR includes other less textually-explicit rights, including right to privacy Marriage is a fundamental right which must receive strict scrutiny Concurring: use 9A as authority for less textual rights – states that explicit rights do not mean that other rights are excluded (directly opposes the canon: expression of one is the exclusion of others) – does not think first 8 amendments are incorporated – still finds that the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic |
|
|
Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan
|
(1982)
male challenged exclusion from all-female nursing program Holding: Gender stereotyping leads to higher scrutiny – requires an exceedingly persuasive justification for classifications on gender bases |
|
|
Hustler v. Falwell
|
1988
Facts Hustler Magazine published an advertisement, depicting Jerry Falwell as having his “first time” in an outhouse with his mother, t Faldwell brought suit based on invasion of privacy, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Holding Public officials and public figures were held unable to recover in emotional distress, when they could not prove that the publication was made knowingly, with actual malice. (apply NY Times Test) A parody, while admittedly in bad taste, is not considered malicious. |
|
|
Katzenbach v. Morgan
|
Brennan 1966
Facts: statute did not allow Puerto Ricans to vote unless had a 6th grade education NY literacy test in English violated Congress passed Voting Rights Act, providing that failing a literacy test could not bar a person from voting (w/ 6th grade education in PR) Holding: Two possible tests, both requiring only rational basis review of Congress Remedial Theory: Congress may enact a law meant to remedy real discrimination in practice, even if the discrimination is the result of laws that are not Court-declared violations of § 1 in letter Court has not explicitly overruled this view, but it has constricted its meaning “One-Way Ratchet” Theory: Congress can "grow" the 14th amendment, but not shrink it Case implied that Congress had the authority to define the meaning of the 14th amendment no facial challenge: if you had 6th grade education, you could vote As applied challenge b/c it limited Puerto Ricans from voting |
|
|
Kentucky v. Wasson
|
KY state court 1992
Facts: undercover (male) cop tries to get guys to solicit sex Holding: You can't be guilty of soliciting a crime if what you are soliciting isn't a crime Adequate and independent state ground rule - State constitution may grant greater protection to rights, so long as not violate federal Constitution/statute State court recognized right to privacy in the State Constitution purely state matter --> can't be appealed to US Courts State Bill of Rights safety and security of pursuing happiness do not infringe on liberties of other people |
|
|
Korematsu v. United States
|
Black 1944
WWII Japanese camps case (after Pearl Harbor) US citing arrest and later interred with other Japs Classification based on national origin Holding: Classification must survive strict scrutiny with narrow tailoring Applies rational basis, legitimate b/c of fear of invasion Murphy dissent: Test should be whether the deprivation of constitutional rights on a military plea of necessity is if a public danger is so (immediate, imminent and impending" Over-inclusive, should apply strict scrutiny A bit of a jump from Equal Protection this is a Federal order, but 14th amendment applies to the States Procedural due process violation -- huge deprovation of liberty Substantive liberty violation -- freedom & not to be locked up Eventually declared a mistake |
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas
|
Kennedy 2003
Facts: Homosexuals having anal sex State has no legitimate interest Holding: court overturns Bowers, individual decisions by consenting adults are protected under the due process clause of the 14th amendment Test: is this hurting other people? Tradition can evolve Cites right to privacy cases (Griswold, Roe, Casey, etc) --> precedent O'Connor Concurrence: Only an equal protection issue |
|
|
Lee v. Weisman
|
Kennedy 1992
School had invocation and benediction at middle school Violates Lemon test: in good faith no excuse both coercive and endorsing religion |
|
|
Lochner v. New York
|
Peckam 1905
Facts: NY state enacted law limiting the workday of bakers to 60 hours a week State justification for Statute: health issues Holding Baking hour limit interferes with the “Liberty of Contract” guaranteed by SDP, and court applies heightened scrutiny (but calls it rational basis) Interfering with contract right violated constitution economic rights given high scrutiny Dissent (Holmes): Legislatures should be given more deference Dissent (Harlan): Rational basis w/ bite analysis, and this law has supporting data, and is for a legitimate interest |
|
|
Loving v. Virginia
|
Warren 1967
Facts: Interracial couple goes to DC to get married, then goes back to VA where interracial marriage is banned Holding: Illegitimate State goals: preserving racial integrity, preventing corruption of the blood, avoiding a mixed class of citizens, maintaining racial pride Constituionally impermissible end -- white supremacy Violates equal protection and due process clauses of 14th amendment Evolving tradition was moving away from banning interrational marriages |
|
|
Marbury v. Madison
|
Marshall 1803
Supreme Court articulates the principle of judicial review, by which the Supreme Court passes on the constitutionality of acts of Congress. The court declares a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional |
|
|
McDonald v. Chicago
|
Alito 2010
Facts: Gun rights case Holding An individual right to bear arms is incorporated as a limit on the states. * Right to self-protection * People in violent areas 5 features of incorpration through the years, ending up with Duncan test * Means that rights that are fundamental system of liberty Bad precedent (Cruikshank,etc) how does he deal? * Distinguishing these cases: saying they are from an earlier era |
|
|
Meyer v. Nebraska
|
McReynolds 1923
Facts: P convicted of teaching a foreign language (German)to a student before high school Believe English should be the main language in the US Those speaking German might be disloyal Crucial early case leading to privacy right Reasoning: Goes againt liberty of parent and teacher Best time to learn a language is when you are young Seriously underinclusive if can teach classic language Holding: 14th amemndment * Right to acquire knowledge of * Quotes Slaugter-House case * more highened scrutiny in this case * basic liberties in Slaughter House * What Slauther house definded federal rights are now becoming state rights Scrutiny: Suspect ends leads to heighten scrutiny |
|
|
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
|
Scalia 1989
Facts prohibition of biological father from visiting his daughter born through affair w/ mother court allows state statute to stand that forbids biological father from visitation rights to his child where the mother was married to another man at conception P established parental relationship with daughter prior to termination of relationship Holding Liberty interests, if not textually explicit, may be found and given heightened scrutiny if they are both “fundamental” and “traditionally protected/historical” --- and must use most specific tradition possible (dot approach) Other members of the Court permit traditions at broader levels of generality (whole picture approach) Footnote 6: the right should be specifically defined rather than broadly scope of due process can be determined from textural analysis alone Dissent (Brennan): Scalia’s method protects only majoritarian views, not minorities (which is the point of SDP) |
|
|
Miller v. California
|
Burger 1973
Facts: Unsolicited pornographic brochures were sent through the mail, P charged under criminal obscenity statue Modern test for obscenity --- Take material in its entirety AND requires all 3 elements (1) Work appeals to a prurient interest (community standards) (2) Work depicts/describes sexual conduct (defined by state law) in patently offensive way (community standards) (3) Work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (objective standard) |
|
|
MLB v. SLJ
|
Ginsburg 1996
MS charged for appeal after parental rights were terminated and children taken away Civil (not criminal) case Holding: Family relationship fundamental right Poor family issues receive heightened scrutiny Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among right of basic importance in our society Generally access fees only have to meet rational basis review, but that there is an exception in that access to judicial processess in cases criminal or "quasi-criminal in nature may not turn on the ablity to pay. both equal protection and due process concern due process -- oppportunity to be heard equal protection: rich v. poor |
|
|
Moore v. East Cleaveland
|
1977
grandmother and grandson living together after kid's parents' death Right of families to live together (even non-nuclear ones) is fundamental Strict Scrutiny Much stronger right than living with non-related people |
|
|
NY Times v. Sullivan
|
1964
Ad printed against police during Civil Rights Movement, included many false statements Holding: Modern test - Libel of public officials requires actual malice (intentional falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) Must protect speech that is critical of gov’t, as that is the core of free speech |
|
|
U.S. v.O'Brien
|
1968
Burning draft cards in opposition to Vietnam – gov’t prohibition upheld, due to effect on draft system Modern test for symbolic speech --- Gov’t regulation of non-speech can justify incidental limitations on 1st A speech if: a. W/n the constitutional power of gov’t b. If the regulation furthers an important or substantial gov’t interest c. If the gov’t interest is unrelated to suppression of free expression, AND d. If the incidental restrictions on alleged 1st A freedoms are not greater than what is essential for the furtherance of the stated interest |
|
|
Patterson v. Colorado
LOOK FOR MORE |
Holmes 1907
political cartoon by sitting Senator against Republican machinations Holding (Holmes): Freedom of speech is only a restriction against prior restraint Can't criticize Courts pending Cases Dissent (Harlan): Claims freedom of speech is an incorporated right, and freedom of speech means greater protection BAD TENDANCY |
|
|
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
|
1925
Right of parents to raise children as they see fit and for children to have right to education Act that required parents and guardians to send their children to public school. Holding The Act violates the 14th Amendment because it interferes with protected liberty interests and has no reasonable relationship to any purpose within the competency of the state. |
|
|
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
|
O'Connor 1992
Majority rule Abortion reduced to a liberty interest Get rid of first trimester rule from Roe v. Wade, replace with viability scrutiny: undue burden (not fundimental right) --> liberty interest Undue burden: having to inform husband 24 hour waiting period does not unduly burden State interest: health of the woman, health of a viable fetus, and integrity of potential life Dissents Dissent (Rehnquist) again suggests only rational basis review; (Scalia) not a right in Constitution, or in long tradition |
|
|
Plessy v. Ferguson
|
1896
Majority: court upholds a LA staute requiring racially segregated railway cars "Separate but Equal" Applied low level rational basis Harlan dissent: civil rights are the same to all, the Constitution does not permit a caste system, mandatory segregation is a badge of slavery |
|
|
RAV v. St. Paul
|
Scalia 1992
Facts: Defendant convicted of violating statue that specifically outlawed burning crosses and swastikas Teenagers burned a cross in yard of black family, breaking ordinance: "knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouse anger, alarm, resentment on the basis of race, color creed, religion…." Holding Even speech that is not protected by the 1st amendment cannot be regulated in a manner that reflects content or viewpoint discrimination Ordinance held unconstitutional based on content-based distinctions -->This law only prohibited actions offensive to partiular groups, not any group Scrutiny Content-based distinctions within a category of unprotected speech will have to meet strict scrutiny,subject to two exceptions: 1)content based distinction is permissible if it directly advances the reason why the category of speech is unprotected AND 2) is justified without respect to content |
|
|
Roe v. Wade
|
Blackmun 1973
Texas penal code-->abortion illegal unless mother's health in danger Roe is pregnant (already has two kids) --> raped, wants abortion Blackmun Opinion: Governmental interests in legalizing abortion 1) preserve health of women (1st trimester abortion safer than childbirth) 2) preserving the potential of life (not viable until after 1st trimester) Blackman Test funtamental rights must be scurtinzed by the strictest sense broad right to privacy subject to strict scrutiny Final result ostensibly no regulation of ban of abortion during first trimester Regulation in furtherance of healthy of the mother after first trimester Regulation of BAN in furtherance of the interest in protecting the unborn life only after VIABILITY Renquinst Dissent: says this is ordinary social legislation (Lochner) – should be rational basis level of scrutiny: whether the statute has a rational relation to a valid state objective This is about convenience and economics for pregnant women – the people should decide Also points out that abortion was outlawed when the 14th Amendment was ratified |
|
|
Skinner v. Oklahoma
|
Douglas 1942
Facts: OK statue called for sterilization of habitual criminals, defined as persons convicted more than once of felonies involving moral turpitude white collar crimes no, but blue collar crimes 3 times and sterilized Holding: When equal protection classification impinges on a fundamental right, classification receives strict scrutiny |
|
|
Slaughterhouse Cases
|
1873
Facts: City creates a state-of-the-art slaughterhouse that butchers can use if they pay a fee Cannot have private slaughterhouse anymore Butchers file a suit under 13th and 14th amendments Holding: narrowly construes P&I Clause of 14th Amendment Holds that guarantees of the Bill of Rights do no limit the states Almost all basic civil liberties are established and protected, if at all, by state law Rationale of Slaughterhouse: Court emphasizes that there are 2 citizenships: US and State privileges and immunities for each What are privileges and immunities that apply to State citizenship? * broad categories/fundamental |
|
|
Spence v. Washington
|
1974:
Fact A college student added a peace sign onto the body of the American Flag, using removable tape in dorm room Statute:illegal to post a flag with any marks whatsoever or lack of symbols already made into the flag. Holding Statute Unconsitutional Since the flag was personal property, posted on private property, no disruption of the peace was made with such posting and the act was a form of communication The state interest in imposing the statute was for the sole benefit of keeping the peace, the Court sees no such disruption. |
|
|
United States v. Carolene Products
|
1938
Facts: Under-inclusive statute preventing sale of evaporated milk Court rejects heightened scrutiny for economic regulation, now low level rational basis Footnote 4: Heightened scrutiny will apply to (i) textual rights found in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights (and as incorporated through 14th A), (ii) statutes restricting the political process, and (iii) statutes involving religious, national, or racial minorities (protection of minorities) |
|
|
United States v. Cruikshank
|
1876
Klan coming to take over courthouse with a cannon --La Colfax massacre of blacks and Republicans Black people have shotguns Blacks surrender, but all get massacred Rights in Bill of Rights applys to the Federal government, not to the States government |
|
|
United States v. Morrison
|
Rehnquist 2000
Facts: Morrison and friend (students at Va Tech) accused of sexual assult/rape Violence Against Women Act: "all persons within the US shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender" * targets based on gender * reaches private persons Two theories: 1) Commerce Clause: gender violence is very expensive 2) 14th amedment theory: gender discrimination: intermdiate scrutiny 14th amendment prohibits only state action * no shield against private conduct, however discrimiatory or wrongful * Law not directed at state or state actor --> rapists not state actors Limits Commerce Clause Power: must be an economic or commercial transaction Not congruanant and proprotional * covers whole country, but only a problem in 21 states |
|
|
United v. Federal Election Commission
|
Kennedy 2010
Facts: Citizens United released an unflattering documentary on Hillary Clinton when she was running for President in 2008 -->wanted to run ads for movie on broadcast and cable TV Holding: Said BCFRA was unconstitional as applied to Hillary Considers 3 points 1. anticorruption interest rationale: prevent corporations from obtaining an unfair advantage in the political marketplace by using resources ammassed in the economic marketplace 2. shareholder-protection interest can be limited b/c of interest in protecting dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate political speech. This would allow gov't to ban the polical speech een in media corporations 3. 441b is not limited to corpriatons or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders Laws that burden politial speech are subject to strict scrutiny which requires the govenment to prove that the restrciton "further a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest" Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content. Held that restrictions on independent expenditures violated the first amendment Corporations can use unlimited independant funds to run ads for political candidates |
|
|
Virginia v. Black
|
O'Connor 2003
Facts: VA law prhibited cross burning "with an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons" Defendant convicted for violating cross burning statutes, one on private property the other in the lawn of a black family cross burning cannot be banned if the intense it not to intimidate--threat must be focused Holding: 1. the govenment cannot prohibit all cross burning (cannot ban symbols just because they are powerful and offensive) 2. Cross burning that constituties a "true threat" is not protected by the First Amendment true threat = statments when the speaker means t communicate a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence whether or not they actually intend to carry out that threat. 3. The court must prove in each individual case that the speech was a true threat. |
|
|
Washington v. Glucksberg
|
1997
physician-assisted suicide case Holding: liberty interest not a fundamental right Assisted-suicide is not even a liberty interest, so LLRB is appropriate Law banning assisted suicide is constitutional |
|
|
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette
|
Jackson 1943
Facts: Students compelled to say pledge in traditional fascist salute style Holding: States do not have power to compel speech --> Don't have the power to make someone express something they don't believe national unity is not an acceptable end to require acts Scrutiny: High Scrutiny Incorpoartion of 14th amendment --> higher scrutiny Test: Clear and Present danger test of action |
|
|
Feeny v. Personal Administors of Mass.
|
1979
Facts: Massachusetts veterans preference statute for civil jobs -- inevitably operates to exclude women Holding disproportional impact not enough to be gender based TEST: "because of, not merely "in spite of" not enough to know that it will have a disproptional impact, but had to be intentional Marshall dissent: natural and intended consequences |
|
|
Duncan v. Louisiana
|
1968
Facts: An altercation between Duncan, an African-American youth, and some white boys who were engaged in a conversation with his cousins. Duncan slapped one of the white boys on the elbow. Issue: right to a jury trial Holding: Due Process includes any right “fundamental to the American scheme of justice” – Modern test Right to a jury trial is incorporated into 14th amendment b/c it if fundamental tot eh American scheme of justice |
|
|
D.C. v. Heller
|
2008
Facts: The District of Columbia has a ban on handguns, and in addition prohibits them from being in the home unless they are disabled. Heller claims violates the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Holding A complete ban on handgun possession in the home violates the 2nd Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home inoperable for the purpose of immediate self defense. |
|
|
Gulf, CO, & Santa Fe RW Co. v. Ellis
|
1897
Facts: Fees in small claims in suits vs. railroads Tx law permitting lawyer’s fees, only against railroad corporations Holding: Corporations are people, and law denies EP arbitrarily – only against RR corporations (higher scrutiny) Reasoning Classes created: Classificaiton: people who have to pay atty fees v. those who don't Railways have to pay, other companies don't Not reasaonble grounds, so unconstituional |
|
|
NY Transit Authority v. Beazer
|
1979
Subway will not hire methadone users (used to kick her ion) Justification: Claim it is a safety issue, although many jobs that don't invove safety Holding: Legislative classifications are valid unless they bear no rational relationship to the State’s objectives; Law does not violate EP merely b/c the classifications it makes are imperfect So long as there is no restriction of a class of persons characterized by an unpopular trait or affiliation, there is no reflection of bias this is a personell decision, City can do what they want |
|
|
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
|
1985
Facts: group home for mentally retarded have to get special liscence City uses flood plain location, number of people in home, school across the street as justification to deny permit Issues: Is the mentally retarded part of a “quasi-suspect” class subject to a higher scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause? Holding Court uses rational basis w/ bite to strike down discrimination for retarded Court claims that retarded as not a “quasi-suspect” Scrutiny rejected and why: LLRB -- would come out in favor of City Scrutiny embraces: Rational Basis with Bite -- no "real" legitimate interest Concurrence (Stevens): Argues that the same results would be achieved, w/o need for categories of classifications Concurrence (Marshall): Court should admit heightened scrutiny; level of scrutiny in EP cases should be fluid, changing based on the importance of the interest and the invidiousness of the classification |
|
|
Gonzales v. Carhardt
|
Kennedy 2007
Second trimester abortion case that I couldn't read Holding: The Act doesn’t place an undue burden on women, because it only prohibits one procedure, and is thus not overly broad. The act furthers the legitimate state interest in protecting women from having to deal with the gruesome reality surrounding this brutal procedures. Court ignores that health exceptions are for the exceptional cases --- and does not require one State goal of limiting the brutality of the procedure outweighs woman’s liberty interest |
|
|
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
|
Roberts 2007
Facts: Schools used race as one factor in assigning students to schools to achieve greater racial diversity. Holding Diversity in classrooms is not a sufficient interest to meet strict scrutiny * Racial balance cannot in and of itself be the goal. * Failed to show that race neutral means cannot achieve desegregation * Declared unconstitutional Scrutiny must meet strict scrutiny (actions must be necessary to achieve a compelling purpose) even if it is using race to to achieve school desegregation Breyer Dissent The last half of the century has witnessed great strides toward racial equality, but we have not yet realized the promise of Brown. The plurality's opinion, would break that promise. This is a decision the court and the Nation will come to regret. |
|
|
Palko v. CONN
|
1937
double jeopardy law Holding: Double Jeopardy not incorporated 14th due process includes 1)“rights that are part of the essence of the scheme of ordered liberty” – “Ordered Liberty” test 2) so fundamental that no scheme of ordered liberty could survive w/o them Selective incorporation model |
|
|
United States v. Virginia
|
(1996)
[VMI admission of women] Holding: School fails to meet intermediate scrutiny and to show an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for excluding women Proposed remedy of separate schools fails on all the tangible and intangible grounds from VMI |
|
|
Washington v. Davis
|
1976
disproportionate impact of test for police recruits on blacks Holding: Discriminatory impact without discriminatory purpose does not render a law unconstitutional Standing alone, disproportionate impact does not trigger strict scrutiny of EP racial classifications; but it can be a factor in finding an invidious discriminatory purpose Court requires motive/purpose for race/gender disproportionate impact problems b/c of the number of programs (Title VII, welfare, etc) that have disproportionate impact |
|
|
Whitney v. California
|
(1927)
female Communist member convicted for association (attended meeting in Oakland) Court upheld conviction Clear and Present Danger Test: Danger must be clear, truly serious, and immediate (likely to occur so quickly that counter-speech could not oppose it) Most speech deterrence should come from education and prosecutions of violators, not restrictions of speech |
|
|
Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition
|
2002
virtual child porn case -->Concerning statute banning computer-generated child pornography, or adults portraying children Holding: Distinguishes Ferber where harm flows from production of child porn, not the content Law is significantly overbroad, as it reaches much that is valuable (Greek vases, etc) (fails Miller) Moreover, law aimed at stemming “bad tendency” of pedophiles – effect on viewer; not child exploitation (fails Ferber) |
|
|
Lemon v. Kurtzman
|
1971
Holding: “Lemon test” for establishment statute must (i) have secular purpose, (ii) primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and (iii) must not foster ‘an excessive gov’t entanglement w/ religion’ |
|
|
Twining v. New Jersey
|
1908
Defendant did not testify and the prosecution highlighted this fact as evidence of his guilt – issue was whether the privilege against self-incrimination applied to the states Court does not allow 5A to apply the states but does say that there are fundamental rights that are included in the concept of due process Test for due process: It is a fundamental principle of liberty and justice which inheres in the very idea of free government and is the inalienable right of a citizen of such government Due process applies to all persons |
|
|
Adamson v. Californina
|
1947
similar to Twining – burglar does not testify and the judge tells the jury this infers guilt on the defendant – held – that protection against self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship Frankfurter – argued that the legislative intent of 14A is irrelevant and that it would be unfair to allow the 14A to have such broad power to change the system because the people would never have suspected that effect – some parts of the Bill of Rights are valuable and some are archaic |
|
|
Williamson v. Lee Optical
|
1955
Law prohibited an optician from fitting glasses without a prescription – the law applied even to duplicate lenses Statute was over-inclusive (not all needed to go to the doctor) & under-inclusive (not all who needed to go to the doctor would go as a result of this law), but state had a rational reason – encouraging people to go to the doctor Test: The economic regulation must have a rational relationship to the state’s objective This is the modern approach to most due process challenges to economic legislation |
|
|
Gitlow v. NY
|
1925
Gitlow convicted for publishing the "Left Wing Manifesto", violates statute to overthrow the government Court assumes the rights to free speech and free press limit the states First case that indicated that the 1st amendment applied to the states through its incorporation into the due process clause of the 14th amendment Holmes dissent: should use clear and present danger |
|
|
Dennis v. US
|
1951
Communist “conspiracy” w/o any acts is sufficient for prosecution – timing key Holding: CPD = Gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability to decide if invasion of free speech to avoid the danger is justified --- decided by independent judicial review Facial challenge to the Smith Act – provides that it is unlawful to advocate overthrow of the government by force or violence Rule: Whether the gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability justifies such invasion of free speech is as necessary to avoid danger Test: there must be a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent Scrutiny: rational – defer to the legislature (this is unprotected speech) There is a right to rebellion – advocating peaceful and orderly change – but not to overthrow by violence Black dissents: This test gives the issue to the judge and not the jury – plan has not yet happened Douglas dissent: Also wants punishment for overt acts |
|
|
Memoirs v. Massachusetts
|
1966:
Obscenity: (i) Dominant theme appeals to prurient interest; (ii) patently offensive for affronting national community standards; (iii) proved to be utterly w/o redeeming social value (Miller says too ambiguous) |
|
|
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
|
1973
placement of adult theater – had to be 21 to view the movies – entrance to the theater had nothing obscene. Holding: If not protected speech and not in privacy zone (Court refuses to equate Stanley privacy in the home w/ a “zone” of “privacy” following obscene material; no privacy right in public place), side effects of regulation inhibiting speech are irrelevant – LLRB Level of scrutiny: low level rational basis: legislature could reasonably determine that a connection does or might exist –even though there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material Dissent (Douglas): Obscenity should be protected speech; it is merely an expression of offensive ideas, and censorship is wrong |
|
|
Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell
|
1991
seeking to end court decreed desegregation plan Holding: Districts may request lifting of desegregation decrees if they act in good faith; then if re-segregation occurs b/c of private decision-making (like housing patterns), there is no change to the ruling Competing values of neighborhood schools, access to quality of education, value of diversity, federalism values, tension b/w legal and social/economic causes of segregation, and alternative means of achieving integration Dissent (Marshall): Courts should try to follow the intent of Brown; cannot afford to return to de facto or de jure segregation |
|
|
Grutter v. Bollinger
|
2003
[Mi law school] Holding: Diversity in the student body is a compelling state interest narrowly tailored to survive scrutiny Cannot use a fixed quota of a particular race – “critical mass” is OK – not a hard number All racial classifications imposed by government must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny Gives some deference to the educational institution – look at context – in the educational context, this is OK to promote diversity |
