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;
39 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Rational Basis
|
The law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose
|
|
|
Intermediate Scrutiny
|
The law will be upheld if it is substantially related to an important government purpose
|
|
|
Strict Scrutiny
|
A law will be upheld if it is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose
-The law must be the least restrictive and least discriminatory alternative -Must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest |
|
|
SDP Analysis
|
• Is there a fundamental right?
• Is the right infringed? • Is the government’s action justified by a sufficient purpose? • Are the means sufficiently related to the goal sought? |
|
|
Fundamental Right
|
Liberties which are deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and are implicit in ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed
|
|
|
Griswold
|
Established the fundamental right to privacy, found through the penumbras.
-This intruded on the right as it required the government to enter into the bedrooms to enfoce -Overturned crim law for using contraceptives |
|
|
Michael H
|
Challenge to the presumption of the paternity to a child to be the in wedlock father
-Denied a fundamental right to a father outside of a marriage to see child -Found that there was a right in protecting family interest |
|
|
Troxel
|
Invalidated a broad statute that forced a mother to give visitation rights by court order
-Affirmed the liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of children as fundamental |
|
|
Roe v. Wade
|
-Recognizes the right to abortion as fundamental under the right to privacy
Compelling state interests recognized: The right to protect maternal health -The right to protect potential life at the point of viability |
|
|
Casey
|
-A state regulation will be unconstitutional if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to decide whether to abort a non-viable fetus
-States have a compelling interest at the point of viability -States have an important and legitimate interest throughout the pregnancy in potential life -This interest in life of the mother and potential life becomes compelling at the point of viability -Undue burden=spousal consent -Not undue=informing options |
|
|
Gonzales v. Carhart
|
-Upholds a law banning intact D&E abortions
-Says it is not an undue burden per casey as it will never be required to have to protect the health of a mother -Purpose was not an undue burden, but to maintain the state's interest in medical ethics |
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas
|
Invalidated a law banning homosexual conduct
-didn't make the right to such conduct fundamental, but alluded to it in the right to privacy... -not explicitly strict scrutiny, but definitely greater than rational basis as TX asserted that advancing moral judgment, something that would meet rational basis review, was not sufficient |
|
|
Washington v.Glucksberg
|
Upheld law banning physician assisted suicide
-Recognized the fundamental right to deny life sustaining treatment -"just because the rights and liberties protected by the DPC are rooted in personal autonomy does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that all intimate personal decisions are protected" -State interest that was legitimate:preservation of life, protecting the integrity of ethics in the medical profession, protecting vulnerable groups, and stopping the path to the voluntary and involuntary euthanasia • Leaves open an as applied challenge in concurrences—“possibly in a mentally competent individual experiencing great suffering” |
|
|
Ultimate Question in protecting fundamental right
|
should this be regarded as one of the most important aspects of personhood and autonomy?
|
|
|
14th amendment language
|
-No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
-No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws • Section 5—gives congress power to enforce this by legislation |
|
|
Classification
|
-Can have a facially classifying law
-Can have a facially neutral lwas with a discriminatory impact, but in such a case need to demonstrate purpose -Can be neutral but applied in a discriminatory manner |
|
|
What the court has looked at in determining the level of scrutiny?
|
Immutable characteristice: Race, national origin, gender, marital status of one's parents
-Adequacy of protection through the political process -History of discrimination--likely reflects prejudice as opposed to legitimate government purpose |
|
|
FCC v. Beach
|
Economic and Social Legislation...
-Greatest deference to the legislature • Any conceivable legislative purpose is sufficient and those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to negate every conceivable basis which might support it • The motive cited does not have to be the actual motive for the legislation |
|
|
Suspect Classification (Race)
|
All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect and are subject to the most rigid scrutiny
• Goes to all races not just white and black o Hernandez v. Texas: Community prejudices are not static…differences in the community norm may define what groups need protection |
|
|
Loving v. Virginia
|
-Invalidated a statute forbidding marriages between blacks and whites
-Racial strict scrutiny -Race treated blacks and whites the same, but different from other races • Also look, while groups are being treated the same individuals within the group are bing treated differently o Both whites wishing to marry are being treated differently: one can’t marry and the other cannot |
|
|
Palmore v. Sidoti
|
Invalidated a ruling that took away custody from a mother of her child because of an interracial relationship
• While private biases exist, the law cannot give them effect (relative to argument that the kid would have a harder life being part of an interracial family) |
|
|
Japanese Internment Cases
|
Korematsu--strict scrutiny met for drawing internment along racial lines even though it was extremely over and under inclusive, however, the court drew the line in Ex Parte Mitsuye Endo when the regulation included those that were proven loyal
|
|
|
Craig v. Boren (Test for gender discrimination)
|
-Invalidated law so chics could get beer first
to withstand constitutional challenge, classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to those objectives -Traffic safety is important and but not substantially related |
|
|
Michael M (test met)
|
-Made statutory rape laws only applicable to dudes
• Interest: to prevent teenage pregnancies • The means are related to the ends based upon physical attributes o Pregnancy falls more heavily on the female than the male |
|
|
Rostker
|
: allowed for a man only draft…deference to the interest in military and national security, also based on physical attributes
|
|
|
US v. Virginia
|
Invalidated a provision allowing only men into VMI, despite the fact that they made a comparable school for women
• Applied an intermediate scrutiny • The government interest cannot be based on overbroad generalizations about the talents, capacities and preferences of both men and women o Tried to assert that women don’t want this education o That women would ruin it o That there is a history of wanting diverse options in education • Tried to remedy it with chic VMI, but needed to substantially equal in their opportunities… |
|
|
Washington v. Davis
|
that that blacks failed much more often than whites…
• Proof of discriminatory impact is insufficient by itself to show the existence of a racial classification |
|
|
How do you show proof of discriminatory purpose
|
• Need to show that the government desired to discriminate, not that the government took action with knowledge that it would have discriminatory consequences
o Need to show that they enacted the law BECAUSE of the discriminatory purpose, not in spite of -Once proven the burden shifts to the government to show that it would have enacted the law irrespective of the racial motivation |
|
|
Village of Arlington Heights
|
zoning out of low income housing challenged as not equal protection against blacks
• Ways to prove it: • The impact of a law may be so clearly discriminatory as to allow no other explanation that that if it was adopted for impermissible means o A clear pattern unexplainable with anything other than race o 200 chinese people getting deniesd a laundary o Statistical pattern that can only be explained by a discriminatory purpose (rare) • The historical background of the decision can demonstrate a discriminatory purpose if it reveals a series of actions taken for invidious purposes • Look at the legislative or administrative history of the law |
|
|
Califano v. Webster
|
allowed a preferential treatment of women for social security benefits, this was not based on stereo types, but instead the goal of redressing our societies longstanding disparate treatment of women
|
|
|
Orr v. Orr
|
invalidated a law that did not require women to pay alimony
• Did not withstand intermediate scrutiny, the group that it benefitted are not the ones who need protection….the trait and the mischief do not match…. o Trying to help the women who have been discriminated against |
|
|
Mississippi University for Women
|
• The court invalidated an all women’s nursing school based on intermediate scrutiny
• The government interest was claimed to compensate for discrimination against women o Ends are not sufficiently related to the means…women have always been okay in the nursing fiesl o In fact perpetuates stereo tyypoes |
|
|
Seattle...
|
Compelling interests recognized:
-Eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination -Interest of Diversity in Higher Education -Unsettled, racial diversity, but it can be to reflect the popualation...need a specific mix -Kennedy concurrence: there is a compelling interest in avoiding racial isolation |
|
|
City of Cleburne
|
Rational Basis With Bite
• The mentally retarded as a class are subject to the rational basis test o However, this did not meet the test…their justification were based on prejudices against the mentally disabled and that indulging such private biases is not a legitimate government purpose • Possible explanations for the bite: o Extreme under inclusiveness o Drawing distinction between homes for the mentally disabled based on prejudices o Do not want to give prejudices effect….if upholding the ordinance it would protect them from “harassment”—don’t want to give such harassment effect o Arbitrary |
|
|
Romer v. Evans
|
Invalidated a state statute that repealed laws banning discrimination on homosexuals and forbidding any laws giving them preferential treatment
• Lacked a rational relationship to legitimate state interests • Link between classification and objective • Rationale the state offers (note, not searching for any rationale): other peoples rights to have objections to homosexuality and freedom of association o No legitimate purpose in singling out a particular group and precluding it from the political process o Both under and over inclusive People may have freedom of associations issues beyond homosexuality Not everyone has freedom of association issues with homosexuality |
|
|
Aliens
|
• immutable characteristics
• Carved out a numer of exceptions for aliens…. o hiring…can discrimante some hiring, but not others o Depends on relationship to the political process o Fed govt…since Q gives congress the right to regulate to immigration and nationalization…no strict scrutiny o Only state law |
|
|
3 Rights to travel
|
o Right of a citizen of one state to enter to leave another state
o The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state (Privileges and immunity Article IV Sec. 2) o The right to be treated like other citizens of the state if becoming a permanent resident (Privileges and immunities of the 14th amendment) |
|
|
Shapiro
|
In order to get welfare, you had to be a resident for a year, inhibiting a class of indigent from moving in.
• Not compelling interests: o Preventing the in migration of indigents o Preventing those who wish to migrate for larger benefits o Distinguishing between new and old residents….can’t apportion all public goods o Facilitating the planning of the welfare budget o Providing an objective test of residency o Minimizing fraud for payments from multiple jurisdictions Less drastic means coordination among welfare offices o Encouraging early engry into the work force You would need to require it of new residents to….no rational basis for doing this |
|
|
Sosna
|
Iowa law requiring one year of residence before dissolving another’s state’s marriage
o Prior cases of Dunn and Shapiro were insufficiently justified under budgetary concerns o State has a compelling interest in avoiding officious intermeddling in matters in which another state has a paramount interest and avoiding collateral attack on its own divorce decrees o There are more parties involved than the state and a potential grantor |
