Con Law Mbe

Front 1

Injunctive relief in federal courts - w/ regard to state criminal statutes or prosecutions

Back 1

a party seeking to enjoin such statutes or prosecutions must show irreparable injury or exceptional circumstances (i.e., a showing of significant harm that could not be avoided by statute adjudication and appellate review of the proceedings).

Front 2

Substantive due process

Back 2

Tests the reasonableness of a statute. It prohibits arbitrary state action.

Under SDP, the government must prove the action is necessary to promote a compelling interest. If a fund. right is not involved, the challenger must prove the act is not rationally related to any legitimate government interest.

Front 3

Executive privilege

Back 3

is an inherent privilege necessary to protect confidentiality of presidential communications.

Presidential docuements and conversations are *presumtively privileged* but this privilege must yield to a demonstrated need for such materials as evidence in a criminal case in which they are relevant and otherwise admissible.

Front 4

Taking without just compensation

Back 4

Where there is a physical appropriation of property, there is a per se taking.

Even where the amount of property taken is small and might not have much value, the *physical appropriation* here still amounts to a taking.

Front 5

Congress may not eliminate all venues for Supreme Court review of issues vested w/t the judicial power of the federal courts

[Congress' has authority to adopt laws modifying *appellate* jx; modification of Court's orig jx would require a const amendment; congress does not have authority]

Back 5

Ex parte McCardle gives Congress broad power to regulate the SC's appellate jx, it has been suggested that Congress may not eliminate all avenues for SC review of issues vested in federal judicial power

Front 6

Reasonable time-place- and manner restrictions

Back 6

To be valid, a regulation must:
-content neutral,
-narrowly tailored,
-and leave open alternative channels of communication.

Front 7

Obscenity (unprotected speech)

Back 7

depiction of sexual conduct that taken as a whole by the average person using contemporary comm standards:
[First two are local comm standards; and second two are national]

-(1) appeals to the prurient interest in sex
-(2) portrays sex in patently offensive way
-(3)reasonable rational person standard - does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Front 8

Intergovernmental immunities

Back 8

The states have no power to regulate the activities of fed govt unless Congress consents to the regulation. (instrumentalities and agents of the fed govt are immune from state regulations that interfere with their federal functions)

Front 9

Congress admirality powers

Back 9

Can regulate all navigable waterways

Here, Great Lakes

Front 10

Free Exercise Clause

Back 10

Clause prevents government conduct merely because it is religious and from regulating conduct for the purpose of interfering with religion

However, the Clause does not prohibit government from regulating general conduct, even if the regulation happens to interfere with a person's ability to conform conduct to sincerely held religious beliefs.

Front 11

Due process clause of 5th - a person has a liberty interest in the exercise of specific rights provided by Const., including freedom of speech.

Back 11

Therefore, if a government employer seeks to fire an employee for speech-related conduct when the speech involved a matter of -public concern- the courts must carefully balance the employee's rights as a citizen to comment on a matter of pbulic concern agianst the govt's interest as an employer in efficient performance of public service.

Front 12

Situation where firing did not violate free speech rights

Back 12

SCOTUS has held that a govt employer may punish a govt employee's speech whenever the speech is made pursuant to the employee's official duties, and this is true even if the speech touches on a matter of public concern.

Here, the counselor's official duties required her to disseminate info from the family planning agency. Thus her refusal to speak was not entiteld to 1st Am protection

Front 13

First Am may be violated if a college restricts use of its classrooms based on the content of a student group's speech.

Subject to -->

Back 13

SS

The government must show that the regulation is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest that cannot be satisfied by a less restrictive means.

Front 14

Intergovernmental immunities principal

[TERM]

Back 14

The States have no power to regulate the activities of the federal government unless Congress consents to the regulation

Front 15

Property Clause

Back 15

Gives Congress power to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the US"

Permits Congress to acquire and dispose of all kinds of property, and to protect its property with a law (here, fed law making it illegal to remove plants animals or minerals from fed land)

Front 16

Establishment Clause

Back 16

if there is no 'sect' preference, govt action generally will be upheld if the action serves secular purpose, its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not excessively entangle government with religion

There is no sect preference under the school board's corporal punishment rule here, the rule has a secular purpose of maintaining order in the classroom (the fact that this coincides with the tenets of a local religion does not change that conclusion)

Front 17

Contract clause

Back 17

Contract Clause does not limit federal power, only state power - and because the state would be acting *pursuant to a federal law* here, there would be no Contract clause violation.

Front 18

Exception from the SS standard where a state or local govt discriminates against aliens when hiring persons for jobs involving "self-government" process

Back 18

the job here (emergency communications for a police dpt) is a technical position and probably would not be found to be related to the self-govt process

Front 19

EPC - "One person, one vote" - exception: at-large ssytem

Back 19

EPC prohibits state dilution of the right to vote, so that when a governmental body establishes voting districts for the election of representatives, the number of persons in each district may not vary significantly.

However, the principle of one person one vote - one vote generally is inapplicable where there is an *at-large* system of election (except for where system adopted for discrim purpose).

Front 20

Residency requirements (here, residency required to vote in school board elections - 1 yr)

Back 20

Residency requirements subject to SS (not intermediate!)

Front 21

Like other federal law, a treaty is supreme law of the land

Back 21

consequently, any state action or law that conflicts with a US treaty is invalid.

Some treaties are:
-express
-impliedly self-executing (has supremacy status over any conflicting state law)

Front 22

HYPO

Statute provides free education for all children who are bona fide residents of that state. (Only persons living w/ their parents who are bona fide residents of the state shall be entitled free public ed; all others...may do so...but must pay 3K) It uniformly furthers the state interest in assuring that services provided for its residents are enjoyed only by its resients

Back 22

A bona fide requirement such as this statute, that is not based on a suspect classification and does not limit the exercise of fundamental right, is judged by the rational basis test.

This statute does not impair the right of interestate travel. This person is free to move to the state and establish residence there; it does not deter people from moving into the state.

Front 23

Commerce clause generally prohibits states from discriminating against out of state businesses to benefit local economic interests

--> market participant exception

Back 23

The commerce clause does not prevent a state from preferring its own citizens when the state is acting as a market participant (buying or selling goods, hiring labor, giving subsidies)