Con Law Chapt 7

Front 1

When do courts apply strict scrutiny to equal protection cases? What must the gove. prove?

Back 1

a)Cases based on Race or Alienage
b) the gove. carries the burnden of proving that the class. was necess. to acheive a compelling state interest

Front 2

When do courts apply intermediate scrutiny to equal protection cases? What must the gove. prove?

Back 2

a) cases based on gender of illegitimacy
b) substantially related to an important government interest.

Front 3

When do courts apply rational basis review for equal protection cases? What must the gove. prove?

Back 3

a) all cases which are neither based on race, alienage, gender, nor legitmacy.
b) presumption that a statute or action is rationally related to a legitamate goven. interest

Front 4

T or F; The court has held under rational basis test any legislative purpose proffered by the government will act to uphold the challenefed law, regardless of wherther that indeed was the purpose behind the law.
If true what case?

Back 4

True, US railroad retirement board v fritz

Front 5

What were the justifications given in Korematsu v US for using strict scrutiny for sujecting racial classifications?

Back 5

1) Racials classifications are more likely to be born of prejudice raher than government interest
2) Racial and ethnic groups are the type of discrete and insulr minority brandies wrote of in his famious footnote4 in carolene products
3)Race and national origins are immutable traits

Front 6

Romer v Evans (1996)

Back 6

Kennedy decision- the amenment which was struck down withdraws from homosecuals specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discriminations and it forbids government action banning such discrim.
Scalia dissent- nothing more than an attempt to protect sexual mores so it is ok

Front 7

Railway Express Agency V NY (1949)

Back 7

Douglas- Where the gove. chooses to regulate a particular activity, the regulation will not be held invalid simply because it is not applicable to every form of that activity

Front 8

NY City Transit Auth. v Beazer (1979)

Back 8

Stevens- An exclusionary scheme which is not directed against any individual or category of person but rather represents a policy choice made by government is not unconstitutional so long as it does not circumscribe a class of persons charactereized by somne unpopular trait of affiliation.
Methodone case

Front 9

US dept. of Agriculture v Moreno (1973)

Back 9

Brennan- Since the purpose of the food program is in no way related to how many unrelated people live together so the statute is invalid

Front 10

City of Cleburne v Cleuburne living center (1985)

Back 10

white- mental retardation classifications are neither suspect nor quasi suspect their validity therefore should be determinded pursuant to a rational basis test

Front 11

Dred Scott v Sandford (1856)

Back 11

Taney- word citizen does not include slave in constit. so a mere congressional act cant make slaves members of the class of citizens

Front 12

Korematsu v US (1944)

Back 12

Black- military ncessity and national security may justify placing legal resatrictions on a single racial group