Con Law Ii

Front 1

Plessy v. Ferguson

Back 1

Separate but Equal

Front 2

Brown v. Board of Edu. I + II

Back 2

Racial segregation, whether imposed by the state or not, is unconstitutional. It is unlawful for any institution receiving federal funding to discriminate on the basis of race.

Front 3

Parents Involved (PICS)

Back 3

Plurality opinion, significantly constrains school district's authority to assign individual students based on race, however there are 5 votes for voluntary integration policies that generally use race.

Front 4

Civil Rights Cases

Back 4

14th Amendment only reaches STATE action, not private conduct

Front 5

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

Back 5

Any involvement in privately owned businesses by the state, they are subject to 14th amendment requirements. It is a matter of degree (connection between the private actor and the state). In this case, the 20 year lease was enough.

Front 6

Moose Lodge v. Irvis

Back 6

A liquor license given by the state was not enough to overcome the fact that the lodge was a private establishment, by invitation only.

Front 7

DeShaney v. Winnebago

Back 7

Mere knowledge of the abuse is NOT enough! You MUST show that the state has exercised a significant amount of control.

Front 8

Flagg Brothers v. Brooks

Back 8

State law's mere authorization of the private self-help remedy is not enough on its own to create state action.

Front 9

Shelley v. Kraemer

Back 9

SC finds that JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT of the covenant (whites not allowing blacks to move-in) constitutes state action for purposes of the EPC, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. *High water mark of state action doctrine.

Front 10

Loving v. Virginia

Back 10

Early strict scrutiny case, ANY distinction based on race is going to trigger heightened scrutiny by the court. Found there was an invidious purpose (white supremacy).

Front 11

Arlington Heights

Back 11

Disproportionate impact alone is not sufficient for purposes of establishing a constitutional violation under the EPC, but it is a starting point. *Not necessary to show that racially discriminatory purpose was dominant or primary as long as it was a motivating factor.

Front 12

McCleskey v. Kemp

Back 12

Death Penalty case, whether general awareness of the problem is enough to trigger the protections of the EPC? No. Not enough for the actions to have forseeable consequences, the state actions must be taken PRECISELY because of those consequences.

Front 13

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Back 13

To be considered "remedial" there must be some showing that the city discriminated in the past. City must show that there is a prima facie case of const. or statutory violation (unconstitutional discrimination)

Front 14

Adarand Constructors v. Pena

Back 14

Strict scrutiny applies, but under the Equal Protection Principal in the due process clause of the 5th Amndt. Found unconstitutional, even though it was benefitting minorities.

Front 15

Grutter v. Bollinger

Back 15

Diversity IS a compelling interest, but it must be tied to the school's educational interest (narrowly tailored, sunset provision, and race-neutral alternatives considered first). Court deferred to the university, thus this might be considered Strict Scrutiny "Lite".

Front 16

NY City Transit Auth. v. Beazer

Back 16

Rational Basis Review - "Catch-all" class (methadone users, mentally disabled, LGBT). The policy is upheld because its a matter of personnel policy, and the court is not going to apply strict scrutiny unless they are concerned with legislation that is aimed at an unpopular group, but it has to be based on some immutable trait. Just because something is a widespread problem, the court is worried about classifications that burden individuals because of some immutable trait.

Front 17

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Back 17

The Court held that the denial of the special use permit to Cleburne Living Centers, Inc. was premised on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, and hence unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court declined to grant the mentally retarded the status of a "quasi-suspect class," it nevertheless found that the "rational relation" test for legislative action provided sufficient protection against invidious discrimination.

Front 18

Romer v. Evans

Back 18

Court finds that an amendment which prohibited LGBT from being a protected class was unconstitutional under the EPC. Court is saying that under Rational Basis the statute in question MUST bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate state end, and you can't discriminate against a specific group based on a desire to harm.

Front 19

Frontiero v. Richardson

Back 19

The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded "dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated," violating the Due Process Clause. Applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification, the Court found that the government's interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices.

Front 20

Craig v. Boren

Back 20

Struck down the statute under a heightened standard of scrutiny (Has to serve an important governmental objective, and it has to be related to that objective). The Court held that the statistics relied on by the state of Oklahoma were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety.

Front 21

Heightened Scrutiny

Back 21

Must satisfy an IMPORTANT governmental interest and must be SUBSTANTIALLY related to that interest

Front 22

Califano v. Webster

Back 22

Court upholds a statute to allow female wage earners to exclude more of the lower earning years in calculating their benefits because it is a remedial effort to compensate women who had been discriminated against as a group. Lower standard of scrutiny.

Front 23

United States v. Virginia

Back 23

"VMI Case" - Justice Ginsburg couldn't have gotten five opinions with strict scrutiny, so she applies a different standard: Requiring that "all gender-based classifications today" be evaluated with "heightened scrutiny." The Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

Front 24

Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Services

Back 24

The Court held that "[section 1409(a)] is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection" because it is based on "real" gender-differences. But noted that "[n]o one should mistake the majority's analysis for a careful application of this Court's equal protection jurisprudence concerning sex-based classifications."

Front 25

Harper v. VA State Bd. of Elections

Back 25

Court says that wealth classifications (the paying of a poll tax) has no relationship to voting, and "the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be burdened or conditioned (fundamental right?).

Front 26

San Antonio Ind. School District v. Rodriguez

Back 26

Wealth is NOT a suspect class, and thus this statute is subject to a rational basis review. How does the court get around Harper? (No child is being denied an education, they just aren't getting the same resources).

Front 27

Plyler v. Doe

Back 27

Court strikes down the policy of children of illegal immigrants having to pay a fee in order to attend public school. Court was concerned that the children had no control over their status. Not a suspect class, but applies a heightened level of scrutiny.

Front 28

Lochner v. New York

Back 28

The Court invalidated the New York law. The majority (through Peckham) maintained that the statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee. Bad law for almost 70 years.

Front 29

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Back 29

The Court held that the establishment of minimum wages for women was constitutionally legitimate. The Court noted that the Constitution did not speak of the freedom of contract and that liberty was subject to the restraints of due process.

Front 30

Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma

Back 30

Court held that while the law may have been "needless" and "wasteful," it was the duty of the legislature, not the courts, "to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new requirement."

Front 31

Griswold v. CT

Back 31

The court stuck down a statute that prohibited counseling married couples on the use of contraceptives. Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.

Front 32

Roe v. Wade

Back 32

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.

Front 33

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Back 33

Upheld Roe, but abandons the strict scrutiny framework. Substitutes the "Undue Burden" test for the trimester framework set out in Roe.

Front 34

Lawrence v. Texas

Back 34

Right of everyone to decide for themselves about consensual private sexual intimacy. Rational Basis test - statute furthers no legitimate state interest. Result after Lawerence?- State has a legitimate interest of protecting the institution of marriage.

Front 35

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Back 35

City ordinance limiting occupancy of any dwelling to members of the same "family." It narrowly defined "family" as only including a few categories of related individuals. Ordinance struck down under Substantive Due Process grounds because there is no suspect class. Fundamental right to choose family associations.

Front 36

Zablocki v. Redhail

Back 36

Court strikes down a law that prohibits people who owe child support from marrying on Equal Protection grounds. They avoid SDP so as not to make "the right to marry" a fundamental right.

Front 37

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health

Back 37

The Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional.

Front 38

Washington v. Glucksberg

Back 38

Court upholds a statute prohibiting against "causing or aiding" a suicide. Assisted suicide is NOT a fundamental right (not deeply rooted enough in our history and tradition). *Note: DPC specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.

Front 39

Goldberg v. Kelly

Back 39

The Court held that states must afford public aid recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing before discontinuing their aid. Noting that welfare benefits are statutory entitlements, rather than "privileges," the Court weighed welfare recipients' need for procedural due process against the competing considerations of the possible harm they might suffer from discontinuation and the government's interest in summary adjudication.

Front 40

Matthews v. Eldridge

Back 40

Social security benefits are different from Welfare benefits.
The Court held that the initial termination of Eldridge's benefits without a hearing did not violate due process. The Court noted that due process was "flexible" and called for "such procedural protections as the particular situation demands."

Front 41

Board of Regents v. Roth

Back 41

Hired on a year-to-year contract, so thus there is no due process right after termination. Court rules that it would be construing the concept of liberty too broadly, and he was never "entitled" to a benefit so he didn't lose anything. Claimant needs to show more than a "bare desire" or unilateral expectation.

Front 42

Cleveland Bd. of Edu. v. Loudermill

Back 42

The Ohio statute clearly grants civil servants property rights to their employment. Accordingly, the significant interests of the employees to retain their jobs outweighed the interests of the state to remove employees quickly.

Front 43

Perry v. Snidermann

Back 43

Expectation of a benefit - a factual question: The Court recognized the possibility of a college having an "unwritten 'common law'" "in practice" that would grant "the equivalent of tenure." Given the policies of Odessa College, Sindermann was entitled to a hearing before the Board of Regents as well.

Front 44

Matthews v. Eldridge Balancing Test

Back 44

1) What is the private interest that is being affected? (the degree of potential deprivation)
2) What is the risk that the challenged procedures will lead to an erroneous deprivation?
3) What is the probable value, if any, of additional or diff procedural protections? 4)What is the burden to the govt (fiscal and administrative) of additional procedures?

Front 45

The Slaughterhouse Cases

Back 45

The Court devoted most of its opinion to a narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause, which was interpreted to apply to national citizenship, not state citizenship.

Front 46

Duncan v. Louisiana

Back 46

Because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, the Court held that the 14th amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which—were they to be tried in a fed court—would come within the 6th amendment’s guarantee.

Front 47

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Back 47

To have a prop interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire and more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. The Court concluded, therefore, that the plaintiff did not, for purposes of the due process clause, have a prop interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

Front 48

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Back 48

The Court should reaffirm that the 2nd amendment does not bind state and local govts. Neither the Court’s selective incorporation doctrine under the DP Clause, nor the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a basis for imposing the 2nd amendment on the States and establishing a national rule limiting arms regulation.

Front 49

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Back 49

The Court held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Front 50

Planned Parenthood v. ACLA

Back 50

Wanted posters depicting doctors who provided abortions. Court ruled that that the posters incite violence and it is not protected speech. "Likely Test"

Front 51

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Back 51

The state may constitutionally punish "fighting words" that have no place in the exchange of ideas. Very subjective.

Front 52

Cohen v. California

Back 52

"Fuck the Draft" on a drafted was not directed at anyone or targeted at anyone. The Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. Harlan recognized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Front 53

Erznoznik v. Jacksonsville

Back 53

Drive-in theater nudity - Since the "offended viewer readily can avert his eyes" from the films shown, Jacksonville’s distinction between films with nudity and films without nudity was unconstitutional.

Front 54

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation

Back 54

The Court held that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a radio broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and execration. The words need not be obscene to warrant sanctions. Audience, medium, time of day, and method of transmission are relevant factors in determining whether to invoke sanctions.

Front 55

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

Back 55

Burning a cross on a Black Family's lawn in violation of St. Paul's statute that makes it which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Court finds that the ordinance is unconstitutional under the first amendment. Too close to viewpoint discrimination.

Front 56

Virginia v. Black

Back 56

The Court held that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, in which four other justices joined, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form, in which three other justices joined.

Front 57

Schneider v. State

Back 57

The First Amendment right to free speech was fundamental and substantially impaired by the bans against distributing pamphlets. The burden on cities of upholding First Amendment free speech outweighed the burdens of cleaning up litter caused by hand-to-hand pamphleteering.

Front 58

Martin v. City of Struthers

Back 58

Activities like Martin's were "so clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved." The ordinance was overly restrictive on door-to-door distributors, and therefore unconstitutional.

Front 59

Kovacs v. Cooper

Back 59

"Sound Truck" Case - Since the ordinance furthered Trenton's interest in maintaining "the quiet and tranquility so desirable for city dwellers," the ordinance did not violate the Free Speech Clause.

Front 60

City of Ladue v. Gilleo

Back 60

Although acknowledging Ladue's police power to minimize visual clutter associated with signs, the Court ruled that the law "almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important." The Court held a "special respect" for an individual's right to convey messages from her home.

Front 61

Bd. of Edu, Island Trees v. Pico

Back 61

Although school boards have a vested interest in promoting respect for social, moral, and political community values, their discretionary power is secondary to the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that as centers for voluntary inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas, school libraries enjoy a special affinity with the rights of free speech and press. Therefore, the Board could not restrict the availability of books in its libraries simply because its members disagreed with their idea content.

Front 62

Rust v. Sullivan

Back 62

The court upholds the regulation because they say its not a complete ban on the discussion of abortion, but the GOVERNMENT IS THE SPEAKER and because it is the speaker it can choose whether to fund certain kinds of speech. Should government subsidize one protected right (family planning), as it does in this case, it does not follow that government must subsidize analogous counterpart rights (abortion services).

Front 63

Rosenberger v. Rector

Back 63

The court invalidated a UVA policy authorizing payment from the Student Activities Fund for the printing costs of a Christian org but prohibiting payment for any student publication that "primarily promotes or manifests a particular believe in or about a deity or an ultimate reality."

Front 64

Strict Scrutiny

Back 64

To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

Front 65

Rational Basis Review

Back 65

Classification or statute must have a legitimate government objection, with a rational relation between the classification and the objective.