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;
304 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
The Commerce Clause of Article I grants Congress the authority to.... |
Enact legislation over interstate commerce by means of regulating the instrumentalities, commercial channels, interstate articles, and economic activities that substantially affect it. |
|
|
Any Congressional regulation of interstate commerce is... |
Subject to rational basis review, under which the legislation must rationally relate to a legitimate federal purpose. |
|
|
The regulation of commerce that does not involve interstate factors is... |
To be put under the authority of the individual states. |
|
|
National commerce power aimed... |
To end hostile state restrictions and to serve as a central basis for asserting national regulatory authority. |
|
|
In determining whether a case involves interstate commerce and would be subject to congressional authority, a court considers 3 questions: |
1)What is commerce? 2) What does "among the several states" mean? 3) What limitations are created by the 10th amendment? |
|
|
Modern 3 prong approach to CC- US v. Lopez- Congress may regulate 3 categories of activity (substantial effects test) |
1) The use of the channels of IC 2) The instrumentalities of interstate commerce, persons, or things in IC 3) Activities having a substantial effect on IC |
|
|
Under CC historical development, between 1887 and 1933 (particularly during the depression), SCOTUS.... |
Struck down new deal laws as unconstitutional. |
|
|
In 1937, SC shifted and.... |
Began to support new deal legislation. |
|
|
from 1937-1995, not a single congressional exercise under ICC was... |
Struck down due to national and international economy. |
|
|
From 1937-1995, the court replaced the indirect/direct test with.... |
Substantial effect test combined with aggregate effect test, court granting greater deference to congress. |
|
|
1995-Present- court rejected... |
Aggregate approach and started to interpret federal laws narrowly. Partial return to judicial intervention. |
|
|
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)- Expansive view that congressional authority over commerce has no limits. Court held... |
Fed law trumps state law. IC is when commerce affects/concerns 2 or more states. Navigation is commerce. Early example of judicial restraint and deference to congress. |
|
|
Commerce is.... |
Buying/selling/interchange of commodities and navigation/transportation. |
|
|
"Among the several states" is... |
Commerce within states that affects other states or the execution of national govt general power. Everything but exclusively internal commerce of a state. |
|
|
Evolution of congress authority over IC regulation: |
Plenary Authority->Direct Effect Test (limited authority->New deal court crisis (more limited)->change in court and great expansion of authority(substantial effect test; aggregate effects test)->Lopez (limits authority again)->Gonzales (expands authority again) |
|
|
Direct/Indirect Test (overruled by subst. effects) Pre-new deal- Congress had authority... |
When the regulated activity has a direct (immediate/proximate) effect on interstate commerce. Degree or magnitude of effect is irrelevant. Activities are either st or fed but not both. |
|
|
Sugar Trust Case (1895)- invalidated goat's attempt to... |
Use Sherman antitrust act to stop acquisitions/monopoly of sugar refineries. Indirect effect b/c manufacturing precedes commerce. Congress doesn't have authority to regulate- st does. |
|
|
Carter v. Coal (1935)- Invalidated code regulating employment relationship of coal minors b/c... |
Coal productions is a local matter, not part of IC. Proximate effect = indirect. To be regulated, must directly precede effect. |
|
|
Substantial Effects Test- Post new deal: |
Focused on magnitude of effect. Emphasized instead the practical physical or economic effects of the regulated intrastate activities on IC. Congress has power to foster/protect IC, and take all necessary measures to do so even when intrastate transactions may be regulated in process. Either aggregate or rational basis test. |
|
|
Houston E & W T RY. Co. v. US (1914)- Upheld congressional authority to.... |
Regulate intrastate rail rates that discriminated against interstate rail traffic. Congress has authority when the activities of intrastate and interstate transactions are so related that controlling one involves controlling the other. |
|
|
NLRB v. J&L Steel Corp.- Upheld NLRB order against J&L for... |
Engaging in unfair labor practices- discriminating by discharging employees for union activity. Congress has authority of local employment practices in companies whose business affects IC- close & substantial affect. |
|
|
US v. Darby (1941)- to prevent goods made by employees that are underpaid and overworked... |
Congress can regulate labor requirements in industries using IC as a means of competition. SC very deferential to Congress as to what affects IC. Overruled Carter v. Dagenhart. Substantial/Aggregate effects. |
|
|
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)- upheld law making quota for wheat bushels under that... |
Aggregately, even wheat grown for personal consumption will have an effect on price/demand/etc. Must consider cumulative effect of many single acts. |
|
|
Stream of Commerce Test- |
Congress allowed to regulate local activity b/c of an integral role in the course of commerce. Used sparingly. |
|
|
Swift & Co. v. US (1904)- held congress could regulate meat dealers b/c... |
Cattle being sold among the states were in the stream of commerce. Congress can regulate intrastate business if it's foreseeable that interstate commerce will be effected.
|
|
|
Limiting of congressional authority immediately in reaction to new deal: |
Government under FDR tried to justify new deal legis, like railroad retirement act of 1934 and national industrial recovery act of 1933, under CC and failed (tried to regulate trade practices, wages, hours, etc.) |
|
|
Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US (1934)- Held NIRA of 1933 unconst b/c... |
The company sold only to local retailers and thus was not subject to fed control. None of the 3 tests fit- no direct effect on IC. |
|
|
National Police Regulation: Regulation of problems of morality and criminality. Such legis aimed primarily at... |
Moral concerns rather than economic concerns that were the purpose of CC. Justification: Congress has respons. to protect safe/free trade and flow of commerce, and can prohibit commerce for reasons of health/morality as sts can. |
|
|
The Lottery Case (1900)- held that tickets entered IC by.... |
Crossing state lines. Lottery was moral evil, not in const0 but fed and st authority should be equal, and sts could regulate such moral issues. Once something is part of IC, congress can regulate any aspect. |
|
|
Hammer v. Dagenhart (Child Labor Case- 1917)- fed law prohibiting shipment of goods made by child labor held unconst b/c... |
Child labor is a local evil, not an interstate evil. Can't regulate production of goods intended for commerce if the goods themselves are harmless. |
|
|
Title II of Civil Rights Act 1964- prohibited racial discrim in public areas- attempted to use commerce power on... |
Any establishment who's operations affect IC (interstate travelers, food moved through IC, etc.) |
|
|
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)- Motel subject to fed reg under CC b/c of... |
Discrim against AA b/c AA less likely to travel in areas where it would be difficult to stay. Fact that it is a moral wrong doesn't take away from economic effect created. |
|
|
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)- even though restaurant only did $70,000 in business a year, it was under CC b/c of... |
Aggregate or cumulative depressing effect on IC caused by discrim. Cumulatively, discrim has subst. effect on IC. If intrastate business gets a lot of its products from IC, congress can regulate. |
|
|
For noneconomic legis, fed regulation on instrastate acivitivity is not... |
Upheld unless a subst. economic effect is show. Deferential/rationality review. |
|
|
Perez v. US (1971)- upheld const of fed prohibition of extortionate credit transactions on grounds that... |
It directly affects IC even though transactions are purely intrastate. Aggregate effect of all local loansharking provides much $ for interstate organized crime. |
|
|
US v. Lopez- Invalidated gun school zone act b/c saying IC was affected by... |
Guns being brought to school zones b/c of its threatening the learning environment and producing less productive citizenry was too overreaching for CC authority. Limits power to modern 3 prong approach for purely criminal activity.
|
|
|
US v. Morrison (2000)- invalidated Violence Against Women act b/c congress can't regulate... |
Noneconomic violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on IC. CC can only be applied if it pertains to something economic in nature. Must be economic in nature and have a subst effect on IC.
|
|
|
After Wickard set standard to let congress regulate activities that have an aggregate effect on IC.... |
Lopez and Morrison seem to limit aggregation scheme to economic policies. |
|
|
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)- held power to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with CA law b/c... |
Failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut regulation of interstate market in that commodity, even if meant for personal use. Fed law trumps st. |
|
|
NFIB v. Sibelius (2011)- held all of ACA is const under CC except individual mandate... |
Which was const under tax clause, but then penalty was unconst. Commerce power only reaches economic activity. |
|
|
Modern Rule- Congress has authority to regulate: |
1) use of highway/railroad/water channels of IC 2) Instrumentalities of IC- car, train, conductor 3) If the activities have a subst. relationship to IC |
|
|
Dormant Commerce clause- st and local laws are unconst if they.... |
Place undue burden on IC. DCC arises when a st enacts a law that attempts to regulate IC in a manner that is a hindrance to the free flow of goods and services across st lines. |
|
|
Under the DCC, if statute is discrim against out of state parties, facially or by impact, it is... |
Subject to strict scrutiny analysis. |
|
|
Under the DCC, if state is nondiscrim in pursuit of a legit st interest, it is.... |
subject to the pike balancing test and will only be struck down if the burden imposed on IC is excessive in light of benefits. |
|
|
Wilson v. Blackbird (1829)- held act allowing dam improved health of local citizens.... |
A power within the realm of the sts to regulate over navigable stream where there is a sloop under fed navig. laws. If congress has not acted and there is a st police interest, st act can be upheld. |
|
|
Modern Approach to DCC- state laws that are facially discrim against out of state commerce are... |
Almost always struck down under a virtually per se invalidity, only upheld if deemed to be necessary to achieve an important govt purpose.
|
|
|
Modern Approach to DCC- state laws that are facially neutral to in state vs out of state interests... |
If they have an impermissibly protectionist purpose or effect, are invalid on the grounds that they protect local interest at the expense of out of st competitors. |
|
|
Modern Approach to DCC- state laws that are facially neutral but place an undue burden on IC.... |
May also be struck down under the Pike Balancing Test. If burden imposed on IC is clearly excessive to local benefits, it can be struck down. |
|
|
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)- upheld PA law requirng local pilots for... |
Ships entering and leaving port. Statute saying all pilots in waterways of US are regulated by st laws until further legis by congress. Local regulation makes sense- local pilots best suited to navig local waters. |
|
|
Market-Participant: If the state is a participant in the market... |
They can regulate it. St's can favor it's residents with govt owned businesses and with receiving benefits from govt programs when st acts as a participant in market w/o violating DCC. Also can do so with congressional approval. |
|
|
Facially Discriminatory: (use strict scrutiny)- Court will usually.... |
Strike down as virtually per se invalid laws that discriminate against out of state commerce and facially neutral laws that a protectionist purpose. |
|
|
Philadelphia v. New Jersey- Invalidated NJ's environmental regu. A st may not... |
In an attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to all sts, create a barrier blocking IC. Purpose cannot be accomplished by discrim against articles of commerce from outside st w/o reason. |
|
|
Maine v. Taylor- ME law banning importation of out of st baitfish ruled const b/c.... |
Had a legit environmental purpose stemming from uncertainty about possible ecological effects. Exception to the rule. |
|
|
Hughes v. Oklahoma- invalidated OK's law forbidding transport/shipping... |
Outside of OK of minnows, used as articles of commerce (selfish resources). Natural resources cannot be preserved solely for members of one st to the exclusion of nonres, even w/ the mentality of conserving enviro resources. |
|
|
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Dept. Of Environmental Quality- Invalidated Oregon law imposing greater surcharge on... |
Out of st waste. Facially discrim taxes are unconst. |
|
|
West Lynn Creamery Inc. v. Healy (1994)- Facially discrim subsidies- invalidated MA law imposing an assessment on all sales of milk to retailers, but.... |
Rebated all proceeds from assessments to MA dairy farmers. Violation of principle that a st may not benefit its own econ interests by burdening OOS competitors. |
|
|
Home Processing- The court has repeatedly invalidated... |
St requirements that products be inspected, processed, or treated inside the st before they may be sold in the st. |
|
|
Dean Milk Co. v. Madison- Law subject to strict scrutiny analysis b/c of the means. Invalidated discrim WI law requiring all milk sold in Madison to.... |
Be processed w/in 5 miles of city, which prevented OOS milk producers hoping to sell their supply in Madison from processing the milk in facilities of their choosing. Although health and safety are compelling st interest, law was not narrowly tailored enough b/c nondiscrim means could accomplish same result. |
|
|
C&A Carbone v. Clarkstown- ordinance passed that rewired all waste w/in st to go to a particular local station w/ no option for cheaper OOS facilities invalidated b/c... |
It took business away from OOS competitors- facially discrim and protectionist effect. Mere generation of revenue is not justification for discrim means. Just b/c discrim against in and OOS competitors doesn't mean it's okay. |
|
|
United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste- upheld flow control ordinance requiring haulers to bring waste to facilities owned and operated by.... |
A st-created public benefit corp- it benefitted a public facility and treated all private facil the same, so no discrim against IC. St is vested w/ interest to protect health/safety/welfare so it's disting. from laws that favor private industry. |
|
|
Facially Neutral Laws w/ Protectionist Purpose/Effect- consider... |
Legislative motive, purpose of law itself, and effect of law- but almost alway invalid (strict scrutiny)- ct treats as per se invalid some laws that do not explicitly discrim against outside commerce. |
|
|
Baldwin v. Gaf Seelig- NY statute fixing $ of milk found to be... |
Unconst barrier to trad. Statute prohibited sale of milk from OOS if it was purchased below milk price in NY. St can't place itself in position of econ isolation in dealings w/ other sts. Even if purpose was for health, effects were subst. econ. Effects > Purpose. |
|
|
H.P. Hood & Sons v. Dumond- held unconst an NY law that prevented companies from constructing additional depots for receiving milk unless.... |
NY commision satisfied that it wouldn't create destructive competition in their market- effect to keep more milk for in-staters at expense of MA citizens, where getting supply of milk from Boston supplier denied a new depot. |
|
|
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising- NC law invalidated b/c of discrim impact- required closed containers of apples must... |
Abide by fed grade standard. Neutral on face, but had a discrim impact against Wash apple growers in favor of local counterparts- requiring WA producers to change market practices to sell in NC, lowering competitive edge, while WA used equivalent or superior grade standard. |
|
|
Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias- invalidated HI statute that.... |
Exempted brandy made from locally grown plant from a 20% tax. Undisputed purpose to aid HI industry- clear discrim effect. |
|
|
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of MD- upheld MD act prohibiting OOS producers and refiners of petro from.... |
Operating retail service stations in MD. No disparate treatment since there is no intrastate production or refining of petro. Interstate dealers not affected b/c they do not produce or refine petro. |
|
|
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery- Upheld MN law banning sale of milk products in nonreturnable plastic containers, but not.... |
Pulpwood containers (heavily found in MN). Facially neutral law upheld b/c a nondiscrim regulation serving subst. st purposes is not invalid b/c it causes some business to shift from predominately OOS industry to predominately in-state. Not protectionist b/c not based on location of seller. |
|
|
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.- invalidated requirement for AZ cantaloupe growers to package their products in AZ b/c... |
Law not enacted to protect safety or consumer health. Created Pike Balancing Test- analysis when a st law is non-discrim- like minimal scrutiny with bite.
|
|
|
Pike Balancing Test: Where statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate legit local public interest.... |
And its effects on IC are only incidental, it will be upheld, unless burden imposed on IC is clearly excessive to local benefits. If legit local purpose is found, Q becomes 1 of degree. Extent of the burden will be tolerated will depend on nature of local interest involved and if it could be promoted w/ less impact on interstate activities. |
|
|
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways (1981)- Balance local benefit (unproven) against interstate harm- ct held unconst Iowa law banning 65 ft double trucks on hgwys. Ct weighted... |
St asserted safety purpose against degree of interference w/ IC. Held that st failed to show any persuasive evidence that ft doubles are less safe than 55 singles. Subst. burden on IC by forcing trucks to avoid Iowa or detach trailers. Interest protectionist and impermissible. |
|
|
South Carolina St Hgwy Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. (1938)- upheld SC law regulating size/weight of trucks allowed on hgwy. Law imposed... |
Subst. burden on IC, but ct emphasized the need for judicial deference to st hgwy regu. due to very local nature. St. said weight and size limits wrote roads and enhance safety. As long as st doesn't discrim, exercise of legis authority is const. |
|
|
Court evaluates st laws restricting truck size on... |
Case-by-case basis considering specific evidence as to the safety benefits of the laws compared to their burden on IC. Consider whether statute affects 1) traffic safety, and 2) free flow of IC, and how. |
|
|
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona- invalidated AZ train limit law restricting trains to... |
No more than 14 passenger or 70 freight cars. National railways system depends on statutory and regulatory uniformity- law goes beyond what is essential for safety. |
|
|
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.- invalidated IL law requiring... |
Contoured mud flaps on trucks- directly conflicted w/ 45 other sts. Local, non-discrim safety measures place a subst. burden on IC. Passes permissible limits of safety regulations. |
|
|
Lewis v. BT Investment Managers Inc.- Struck down FL prohibiting.... |
St banks from owning local investment advisory business. Overtly prevented foreign enterprises from competing in local markets. |
|
|
Edgar v. Mite Corp.- ct invalidated IL Business Take-Over Act- |
Act imposed a subst. burden on IC, which outweighed local benefits. |
|
|
CTS Corp v. Dynamics Corp of America- Upheld IN law in face of... |
CC challenge- IN statute did not discrim against IC, act applied only to corps w/ a subst. number of shareholders in IN. |
|
|
Post-Civil War Amendments- Fundamental Rights & Incorporation Dispute: To determine where a right is fundamental.... |
It has to be so rooted in customs of our tradition/nation. PCW amendments represent increase in national concern for protection of individual rights from st action. |
|
|
Individual rights before civil war: |
Major concern of const was govt structure, very few explicit references to individual rights. |
|
|
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833)- Ct held that BoR only restricted fed govt, not sts. Barron sued Baltimore for taking his property w/o just compensation, arguing... |
5th amendment rights were violated. Contended city's construction project ruined use of his wharf in harbor. Issue was whether 5th am. applied to city. Ct held BoR didn't apply to st b/c framers and ppl were concerned about fed abusive power, not st abusive power, so BoR was to restrict fed govt. |
|
|
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833)- if founders wanted BoR to apply to sts, would've said so. Ct dismissed case b/c... |
SC didn't have juris b/c 5th amendment didn't apply to city or st. Sts are free to impinge on individual rights, but sts have adopted own consts protecting those rights. Now when case involves st violation of BoR, involves provision applied to sts through DP clause. |
|
|
Dred Scott v. Sandford- perhaps worst decision handed down by court. Said... |
AA's were not citizens nd therefore couldn't sue in fed ct. Const applied to residents of sts who formed union and their descendants. |
|
|
13th Amendment: |
Const sanction of Emancipation Proclamation |
|
|
14th Amendment: |
No st shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge privileges or immunities, due process, equal protection of any person (no mention of only slaves or on the basis of race) |
|
|
15th Amendment: |
Addressed racial discrim in voting. |
|
|
Slaughter-House Cases (1873)- Ct gave narrow reading to 14th am. emphasizing civil war am. not meant to... |
Expand radically power of SC to regulate relationship of sts to their own citizens. Ct said 13+14th am.'s only intended to apply to ex-slaves and to ppl's rights as citizens of US (not their st). |
|
|
Right to Travel (held to be fundamental right in Saenz v. Roe)- protects right of a citizen of 1 st to... |
Enter and leave another st, right to be treated as welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in 2nd st, and for travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that st. Any classification subject to strict scrutiny. |
|
|
Saenz v. Roe (1999)- 1st time SC used P&I clause of 14th am to.... |
Invalidate st law limiting welfare benefits to new st residents for less than 12 months, unconst b/c need for welfare benefits doesn't align w/ one's length of time as a resident, b/c such benefits are not a readily portable benefit like college edu. or divorce. Nondiscrim means to save money. |
|
|
Edwards v. California (1941)- Invalidated a law making it a misdemeanor to.... |
Bring in any indigent non-resident. Justified invalidation as a protection under P&I clause. |
|
|
Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)- Invalidated law that barred residents living in st for... |
Less than one year from any welfare benefits. Sts can limit education and divorce access by means of residence duration requirements, but not essential necessities to life, including vote or medical essentials (under EP clause). |
|
|
The Incorporation of the BoR through the DP clause: |
Possible that some rights protected against national action are also protected against st action b/c they entail a concept of DP of law. |
|
|
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)- Palko convicted of 2nd degree murder, appealed by st and.... |
Subsequently convicted of first degree murder- Double Jeopardy. Ct held protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right, and upheld 2nd conviction. For 14th am. to absorb rights, liberty and just must be impossible w/o such rights. |
|
|
Adamson v. California (1947)- Claimed that murder conviction violation 14 am. b/c... |
Prosecution had been permitted to comment on his failure to take the stand. Held that such a comment would violate 5th am, but 14th only protects a fair trial. Not all BoR guarantees are protected by 14th am. |
|
|
Both Adamson and Palko overruled eventually, and court.... |
Incorporated most of BoR by deciding fundamental fairness based on rights set out in BoR combined Cardozo's and Black's opinion on a case-by-case basis to incorporate each right indvidually. |
|
|
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)- Convicted of battery in LA, sought trial by jury and was denied under LA const, which only grants jury trials to cases w/ capital punishment potential. Appealed- argued that.... |
6th and 14th am. guarantee right to jury trial in st criminal proceedings where a sentence as long as 2 years may be imposed. Ct held denial of jury trial was unconst. 14th am grants right to jury trial in all crim cases that would come w/in 6th am guarantees. |
|
|
Almost all of BoR has been incorporated by sts now, except... |
5th indictment by grand jury, excessive bail (unclear), 3rd prohibition against quartering of soldiers in home (never brought before SC) and 7th am right to jury trial in civil cases. |
|
|
US v. Cruikshank (1876)- ct held that 2nd am. only.... |
Applied to actions of the fed govt. |
|
|
US v. Miller (1939)- ct held that regulated weapons lacked.... |
Any reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well-regulated militia. |
|
|
DC v. Heller (2008)- Invalidated DC law banning possession of handguns. Enforced 2nd am as... |
An individual right- doesn't apply only to military grade weaponry. Preservation of st right to militia is necessarily accomplished by retention of individual right to bear arms. Maintains right to regulate handguns, but can't completely prohibit them. |
|
|
McDonald v. Chicago- 2nd am. incorporated under DP clause, applied... |
To the sts. No need to reconsider slaughter house cases, b/c there is a real long term precedent of using DP to incorporate. Reasoning same as Heller. |
|
|
Under the EP clause, economic regulations must pass the minimum rationality review: |
The st in enacting the regulation must have a legit interest and the regulation in Q must be rationally related to achieving the interest. Ct allows st legis to act under-inclusively or one step at a time. |
|
|
Railway Express Agency v. NY- Trucks can only advertise their own product w/o selling space on their vehicles to promote other products. St contended a legit interest in.... |
Traffic safety and although prohibition doesn't seem to relate well to the interest, ct held that it's not a function to evaluate wisdom of legis. Ruled that there is no requirement of EP that all evils of same genus be eradicated at once or not at all. St may take step by step approach. Much deference to legis. |
|
|
Kotch v. Board- Upheld nepotisitc pilotage laws granting... |
St certificates only to relatives and friends of incumbents. |
|
|
Williamson v. Lee Optical- upheld OK scheme for regulating... |
Opticians. Evils in same field may be of different dimensions or proportions requiring different remedies. Legis may reform a problem 1 step at a time as a facet of minimal scrutiny. |
|
|
Morey v. Doud- struck down law under MS that... |
Exempted AmEx from certain requirements, was later overruled in New Orleans v. Dukes. |
|
|
US Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno- Struck down a provision of fed food stamp program limiting assistance to... |
Households defined as groups of related persons. Held that the exclusion was irrelevant to purpose of raising levels of nutrition among low-income households and wholly w/o rational basis. Legis history showed intent was to prevent hippies from getting food stamps. |
|
|
NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer- Ct upheld exclusion of methadone users from... |
Employment- legit inference that as a treatment program continues, there is still a degree of uncertainty. |
|
|
Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal v. Webster County- Invalidated aspects of st property tax system that resulted in properties w/ identical values having widely divergent assessments. Although deference is usually given to economic legis.... |
Ct held law unconst b/c the relative undervaluation of comparable property over time denied petitioners EP of law due to fact that const of the st mandated a tax based on market value- uniformity. No legit st interest b/c it's precluded under st const. |
|
|
Nordlinger v. Hahn- Upheld a similar to Allegheny Coal CA law concluding law rationally related to st purposes such as encouraging stable neighborhoods. Under law, property tax was imposed based on... |
Price of property at time of acquisition- prejudiced against new property owners who had much higher tax b/c of prices of property rising over time. Difference to Allegheny, objection was to admin practices of county tax assessor- not law itself. Ct unwilling to review tax laws that must draw distinctions. |
|
|
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech- Ct struck down a law requring... |
A woman to have a longer easement than the rest of the village to get to the water supply, reasoning Village's discrim actions were completely irrational. |
|
|
US Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz- Upheld congress structured railroad retirement plan to eliminate future benefits but include a grandfather system preserving benefits for specific classes of railroad employees. Held the congressional distinction between 2 groups is... |
Const- there are plausible reasons for Congress' actions. Challenge was on depriving one set of unretired workers dual benefits while continuing them for another denied EP. B/c it is permissible for congress to rescind all benefits, it's ok for them to rescind benefits from 1 subgroup. |
|
|
Should rationality review be stricter?- Heightened scrutiny for all that are politically disadvantaged, legis should be justified on... |
Public values, not naked preferences, ct should review more strictly in order to discipline legis. May stricter scrutiny apply to minorities not a party of a suspect class? Ct depends on the idea that econ gains and losses even out over time. |
|
|
Legislatures are not to respond to private pressure, but to... |
Select public values through deliberation and debate. Rationality review would be used to ensure justification beyond naked preferences. Rationality can gain force by considering means of legis and not just ends. Ct would assess means based on actuality, not conjecture. |
|
|
If a challenged law grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies it to others, ct must... |
Determine whether conclusions are necessary to promote a compelling st interest and whether the law is narrowly tailored to achieving that end. |
|
|
Harper v. Virginia St Board of Elections- SS- st violates EP when it makes... |
The affluence of voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Wealth is a suspect classification, and right to vote in a st election is a fundamental right. |
|
|
Kramer v. Union Free School District- Any unjustified discrim in determining who may participate in political affairs or the selection of public officials undermines... |
Legitimacy of representative govt. Here, you could only vote in school board elections if you owned/rented taxable property in district or a parent to kid in district. When a challenged law grants right to vote to some but not others, ct applies SS. |
|
|
Cipriano v. Houma- ct invalidated LA law permitting... |
Only property owners to vote in elections regarding issuance of municipal utility bonds, b/c residents and non-residents alike use utilities. |
|
|
Phoenix v. Kolodziejski- Differences between interests of property owners and non property owners were not.... |
Sufficiently subst. to justify excluding latter from voting. Held that restriction of the franchise to property owners was no more valid in elections on general obligation bonds than in elections on revenue. |
|
|
Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District- Case was ruled against prior voting line of cases in sustaining... |
An election scheme for water storage district under which only landowners were permitted to vote and in which votes were proportioned according to assessed valuation of land. The thing being regulated here affects only property owners. |
|
|
Richardson v. Ramirez- Ct found exception to usual EP standard for... |
Disenfranchisement of felons. The exclusions of felons from the right to vote was an affirmative sanction not present in other restrictions on franchising. |
|
|
Crawford v. Marion Co. Election Board- Upheld law requiring govt issued ID at polling place. Declined to apply SS b/c of... |
Desire to deter voter fraud. Not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but it could determine outcome of close election. The impositions in obtaining an ID are not subst. enough to warrant stricter scrutiny.
|
|
|
Reynolds v. Sims (legislation represents people, not trees)- Under EP, diluting weight of votes b/c of any consideration besides population is not.... |
Justifiable. St must make a good faith effort to equalize population in its districts if possible. Population may not be submerged as the controlling consideration if other factors are to be considered. |
|
|
Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly- An individual's const protected right to vote cannot be... |
Denied by st's majority. St had a system based on fed system, but ct held that both houses needed to be apportioned by population, even if majority votes against that. |
|
|
Gaffney v. Cummings- Gerrymandering for political purposes is... |
Permissible. Political gerrymandering is properly justiciable under EPC and a threshold showing of discrim vote dilution is required for EP violation. |
|
|
Davis v. Bandemer- P's were required to prove both intentional discrim against an identifiable political group and an actual discrim effect on that group. IN legis provided for state senate and house districts of... |
Subst. equal population. Dem's claimed voting strength had been diluted via gerrymandering which led to a difference between actual percentage of vote and percentage of people in office. Gerrymandering claim was const. Const doesn't require proportional representation and reapportionment to allocate seats to parties in proportion to voting numbers. |
|
|
Vieth v. Jubelierer- Challenge to Pa redistricting scheme drawn that "unfairly advantaged Republicans." Discrim must rest on... |
Conclusion that classifications were applied in invidious manner or in a way unrelated to legit legis goal- none present here, scheme upheld. |
|
|
Griffin v. IL- held that a st must give trial transcript or equivalent to an indigent criminal defendant appealing.... |
Conviction on nonfederal grounds. The ability to pay costs in advance bears no rational relationship to D's guilt or innocence and couldn't be used as excuse to deprive D of a fair trial. St cannot condition access to appeal in a way that denies EP of laws. |
|
|
Douglas v. CA- st must appoint counsel for the D's... |
First appeal. Extends Griffin, granted a matter of statutory right, from criminal conviction. |
|
|
Halbert v. MI- Ct held unconst MI's practice of denying... |
Appointed appellate counsel to indigent convicted by guilty pleas. Appellate process w/o lawyer's assistance is a perilous one. |
|
|
Ross v. Moffiti- D is entitle do trial but no right to appeal. EP's do not require... |
Absolute equality but merely assurance that indigents have adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly w/in adversarial system. |
|
|
Rationality review is utilized for fee requirements. Although a it's need for revenue to offset costs satisfies rationality requirement, 2 exceptions to this test exist: |
1) When basic right to participate in political processes as voters and candidates can't be limited to those who can pay for license and 2) when access to judicial processes in crime cases or quasi-crim turn on ability to pay. |
|
|
Boddie v. CN- Ruled that indigent welfare recipients who were unable to pay required court fees to dissolve marriage were.... |
Deprived of DP, b/c DP requires at minimum, that absent countervailing st interest or overriding significance, persons forced to settle their claims of a fundamental right and duty through judicial process must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. If st has monopoly, must have equal access. |
|
|
MLB v. SLJ- MLB's parental rights to her 2 minor children were terminated and she could not afford appeal. Although fed const guarantees no right to appellate review... |
Once a st affords that right, Griffin held, st may not bolt the door to equal justice. The EP concern relates to legitimacy of fencing out would-be appellants based solely on their inability to pay court costs. DP concern homes in on essential fairness of st ordered proceedings to adverse st action. |
|
|
US v. Kras/Ortwein v. Schwab- Upheld $50 filing fee for bankruptcy proceedings. Body obviously stopped short of... |
Unlimited rule that indigent at all times and in all cases have right to relief w/o payment of fees. Bankruptcy proceedings and interest in welfare benefits not fundamentally protected. |
|
|
Little v. Streater- Held that SP entitled indigent D to a... |
Subsidized blood test for paternity. Paternity proceedings have quasi-criminal overtones. Evidentiary burden that st imposes deprives of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. |
|
|
Strader v. West Virginia- Strikes down law declaring only... |
White people can be on juries. Ct qualifies that the reason is simply racial discrim- not that st shouldn't be able to pick specific qualities in jurors (i.e. males). |
|
|
Plessy v. Ferguson- Upheld law for railroad customers to ride in...
|
Segregated cars- decided wasn't discrim. Ct assumes something it is accustomed to is the natural st of affairs. Can't (won't) come to the conclusion here that EP bans segregation. |
|
|
Gaines v. Canada- Instead of admitting a black student to a st law school, Missouri was... |
Willing to pay for student to attend school in another st. Ct ruled sts providing in-state educational opportunities to white suddenness had to make them available to black students as well. |
|
|
Sweatt v. Painter- Separate black law school was... |
Struck down under view that they could never be equal in any real, meaningful way. |
|
|
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents- School had provided separate accommodations for...
|
Black student in grad school, including desk outside classroom door, etc- held unconst. |
|
|
Brown v. Board of Ed- Ct unanimously overruled Plessy and got rid of separate but equal doctrine. Led to larger argument on interpretation of amendments- |
What was meant when they were enacted vs what they should mean today. Brown II- school authorities weren't putting in good faith effort to institute integration ASAP, ct ordered them to do so. |
|
|
Bolling v. Sharpe- Specifically stated race is... |
A SS subject that is automatically suspect to the court and inherently unequal. |
|
|
Green v. County School Board- Stating Brown II officially.... |
Called for end to dual race school system. |
|
|
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed- Established that...
|
Once system has been found unconst, cts have broad power to remedy it. |
|
|
Keyes v. School District- A district wide remedy is... |
Proper if there is a showing of unconst segregation in a subst. part of it. |
|
|
Milliken v. Bradley- Overturned lower court's multi-district remedy when... |
Suburban schools had not been found guilty of segregation, only one in the city had. |
|
|
Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell- Overturned lower court's order to reinstitute... |
Integration plan after it had been discontinued for fulfilling its purpose, b/c it was supposedly coming back as a result of residential patterns. Ct ruled if there's no evidence of intent, it is not needed. |
|
|
McLaughlin v. Florida- Struck down a criminal adultery and fornication statute banning... |
Cohabitation by interracial unmarried couples. Under SS, a means must be necessary to achieve desired ends, while in MS it just needs to be rationally related. |
|
|
Palmore v. Sidoti- Custody taken from mother after she married interracially- SC... |
Overturned unanimously. Society's prejusice cannot be the basis for judicial and legal decisions. If ct gives effect to private biases, makes biases its own, and has then engaged in racial discrim. |
|
|
Johnson v. California- Prison policy that keeps prisoners segregated for up to 60 days whenever they enter a new facility. St argues... |
It's racially neutral b/c it affects all races, but ct has previously rejected this argument and does so again. Remands to lower ct for them to submit to SS, as they had not previously. |
|
|
Korematsu v. US- Man of Japanese descent convicted for violating law banning Japanese descendants from occupying certain... |
West coast areas- banning them from all areas not internment camps. Majority upheld exec order to keep camps, saying it's justified by compelling st interest of stopping espionage nd disloyalty can't immediately separate the loyal from the disloyal. In time of war, ct must play confidence in military opinions and decisions for what's necessary. |
|
|
Chae Chan Ping v. US- Ct upheld express discrim on the basis of race, not allowing... |
Chinese workers to immigrate for a period of 10 years. Ct said govt has right to exclude aliens for any reason. Not really judged under SS. |
|
|
Yick Wo v. Hopkins- Struck down law that required launderers to get a license if they worked in wooden buildings- legit safety purpose, applied in a... |
Discrim way- all but 1 white applicants were granted permits while 0 Chinese applicants were. First time a non-facially discrim law w/ a discrim effect was struck down. |
|
|
Gomillion v. Lightfoot- Overturned plan to... |
Change city boundaries to exclude black voters. |
|
|
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County- Struck down law closing public schools and... |
Providing vouchers for private schools that only accepted white students. |
|
|
Palmer v. Thompson- Upheld law for city to close public swimming pools after... |
Being ordered to make them integrated. They had thought too have issue whether they could operate safely. |
|
|
Washington v. Davis- Upheld challenge to test given for applying to police dept that... |
Failed more black than whites that also had no apparent correlation to job performance. Ct said disproportionate impact is not by itself enough to trigger SS- the intent to discrim must be present, here it is not. |
|
|
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.- Upheld village blocking construction of subsidized housing, accused of racism as it would exclude many black ppl from very white suburb. Four factors of making judgments on such laws: |
1) Impact of law- degree of disparity 2) Is there a non-discrim reason for law? 3) Does history leading up to law reveal intent to discrim? 4) Legislative record of discrim intent |
|
|
Rogers v. Lodge- Struck down an at large voting system for... |
Discrim purpose. No black person had ever been elected to the commission, despite making up a large portion of the population. Past practices show an intent to discrim. |
|
|
Hunter v. Underwood- Ct struck down section of Alabama const. barring people from... |
Voting if convicted of a crime involving "moral turpitude." Had disproportionate impact on black ppl, const history showed blatant desire to cause white supremacy. |
|
|
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke- Struck down admissions process to med school that set aside 16 spots out of 105 for minority students, using a separate application and evaluation process, admitting several minority students w/ significantly lower scores that white plaintiff who... |
Was denied admission. No majority opinion, 4-1-4, 1 writes opinion with 3 issues: 1) P's rejection violated EPC, 2) Special admissions program violated EPC, 3) UC Davis shouldn't be prohibited from considering race in any way in their admissions process. Argued for type of scrutiny, between strict and intermediate. |
|
|
The 4 interested listed by UC Davis in Bakke are: |
1) Reduce deficit of minorities in med field, 2) Counter societal effects of discrim (usually accepted, but here was too amorphous and undefined), 3) Increase number of physicians serving underserved communities (would be compelling, but no evidence program would help), 4) Obtain education benefits that flow from diverse student body (fails b/c diversity is more than race. |
|
|
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Ed.- Struck down teacher AA program to... |
Lay off majority teachers before minority ones. Can't be a remedy unless there is a specific finding of discrim. Must be designed to specifically fix issue. |
|
|
Fullilove v. Klutznick- Upheld Congress psending program that offers.... |
Grant if at least 10% of work will go toward minorities. Uses justification of subst. info of govt. ignoring minority businesses in the past. |
|
|
Rcihmond v. J.A. Croson Co.- Struck down similar scheme to Fullilove, but on a st level- |
First time entire ct agreed to apply SS to AA program. Said st is open to more harsh examinations b/c 14th am. |
|
|
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena- Struck down fed program saying gen con has to give... |
10% of business to a socioecon disadvantaged individual (basically minorities). P has submitted a bit that was reject i favor of higher bid of a company owned by a minority. Holds to have all fed AA programs under SS as well. 3 concepts- skepticism, consistency, congruence. |
|
|
Gruter v. Bollinger- Upheld AA program for UMich's law school, saying it was... |
Narrowly tailored enough to compelling st interests. Doesn't limit type of diversity, but specially committed to enrolling a critical mass of minority students- goals over quotas, critical mass over racial balancing. |
|
|
Gratz v. Bollinger- Companion case to Grutter, but instead struck down AA program on UMich's undergrad. All minorities were... |
Automatically given 20 out of the 100 points necessary for admission. Passes ends for diversity, but not means. Ct says system is mechanical, not evaluating students on individualized level, but highlighting race while only offering other means of diversity very few points. |
|
|
Fisher v. University of Texas- Upheld AA program, but remanded to be reviewed under SS. Lower court had incorrectly assumed... |
Bakke was bad law, and that race wasn't allowed at all in public school admissions until Grutter was handed down- then D had incorporated race into admissions process. Lower ct upheld program. |
|
|
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District- two cases- one in Seattle- let 9th graders pick a high school, and used series of... |
Tie-breakers, including racial balancing. Struck down under EPC. Diversity couldn't be justified under means as they were more balancing, having schools reflect overall racial makeup of district. |
|
|
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District- two cases- one in Kentucky- had past segregation issues and had integration decree until 2001 when it was removed. Then adopted a... |
Voluntary assignment program to try to not return to segregation. Broke district into clusters- could apply to any school w/in cluster. Struck down under EPC. Diversity couldn't be justified under means that were more balancing, having schools reflect overall racial makeup of district. |
|
|
Under EPC, party seeking to uphold a statute that classifies individuals on the basis of gender must... |
Carry burden of showing an exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification. The burden is met only by showing that classification serves important governmental objectives and that discrim means employed are subst. related to achievement of those objectives w/o reliance on false stereotypes. |
|
|
Skeptical and careful scrutiny (intermediate). St must show exceedingly persuasive justification. Test is: |
Burden on st, must show that challenged classification serves important govt interests, means employed must be subst. related to the ends, justification must be real, must not rely upon overgeneralization and stereotypes of males/females. |
|
|
Several factors for determining if a classification is suspect: |
Discrete and insular minority, immutable trait w/ little if any relationship to a person's capacity to contribute to society individually- const irrelevant trait, class that is saddled w/ such disabilities or suffers a history of unequal treatment, or lack of political power, classification based on stereotypical thinking- often based on prejudice or bias, overgeneralizations. |
|
|
Many early cases upheld various forms of sexual discrim b/c it was const- |
Male supremacy was part of const b/c women were not mentioned there and thus not protected. Minor v. Happersett- P&I not right to vote, Mueller v. Oregon- upheld maximum hour law for women during Lochner era, 19th amendment- right to vote but nothing more. |
|
|
Goesaert v. Cleary- Ct upheld st law that prevented women from obtaining... |
Bartender's license unless she was a wife or daughter of the bar owner. Const didn't require legis to keep up with sociological advancement. Minimal scrutiny used. (example of law based on gender stereotypes. |
|
|
Bradwell v. State- Ct denied that fed P&I clause included the right of... |
A woman to practice law in IL. Men should be women's protector, too delicate and timid to be fit for other jobs in society. Should only fulfill offices of wife and mother- it's the "divine order." |
|
|
Reed v. Reed- Held it was a violation of EPC for st to give preference to men in appointment of... |
Administrators of estates. St interest in reducing case load/back log was legit but the means weren't a reasonably rational way to accomplish goal. Applied only rational basis review, not entirely minimal, but was first case in developing new level or scrutiny for gender discrim cases. |
|
|
For Strict Scrutiny, the ends must be.... |
Compelling, and the means necessary. |
|
|
For Intermediate Scrutiny, the ends must be... |
Intermediate, and the means substantial. |
|
|
For Minimal Scrutiny, the ends must be.... |
Valid, legit, and the means must be reasonable, rational. |
|
|
Frontiero v. Richardson- Under close judicial scrutiny, ct ruled any statutory scheme that draws a line between sexes solely for purpose of achieving admin connivence violates EPC. Law involved automatic allowance for... |
Wives of males in armed forced but required husbands of women in armed forces to prove their dependency in order to receive the allowance. Starting to look like SS here. Sex is an immutable characteristic, there was no consideration for the capabilities of individual members of the class. |
|
|
Craig v. Boren- First time IS is articulated in an EP case. Gender classifications must serve important govt objectives and be subst. related to achievement of those objectives. Ct struck down st law that... |
Allowed women to buy low alcohol (3.2%) beer at age 18, but men couldn't buy it until 21. St interest was traffic safety, and that's important, but the gender classification was not subst. related to it. Difference between m/f doesn't warrant the age difference in statute. |
|
|
Mississippi Univ for Women v. Hogan- Involved a st nursing school for women, males went to another school in diff part of st. A males student wanted to go to women's school b/c it was more convenient for him location-wise. St may establish a compensatory justification only if... |
Members of gender benefitted by classification actually suffer a disadvantage related to classification. St failed to show that women were disadvantaged in nursing field and policy reinforced stereotype of nursing as a women's profession. Applied Craig standard- st must show exceedingly persuasive justification that classification serves important govt objectives. |
|
|
JEB v. Alabama- Jury selection case. Held that... |
Pre-emptory challenges to jurors on basis of gender was unconst. Gender based classifications require an exceedingly persuasive justification. No evidence that gender alone is an accurate predictor of juror's attitudes. |
|
|
United States v. Virginia- VMI was school financed by st exclusively for men with mission to produce citizen soldiers using adversative method of education for physical and mental discipline. VMI's exclusion of women violates EP. Only appropriate remedy would deb to... |
Mandate VMI admit women. Applied IS because of immutability, discrim must not occur in legal, social, or econ spheres. No history shows pursuit of diversity through single-sex offerings. It is just as likely that some men wouldn't benefit from VMI's methods and that some women would thrive under them. |
|
|
United States v. Virginia- VWIL was not VMI's equal. Nothing else like VMI. If it's limited to men, deprives women of singular opportunity. Must have real purposes, not... |
Made-up hypothetical purposes. Here alleged purpose of educational diversity is a pretense- no evidence that it was actual purpose it its creation or maintenance. |
|
|
Geduldig v. Aiello- Ct held that it wasn't a denial of EP for a it's disability insurance system to exclude pregnancy-related disabilities, but include disabilities only affecting men. Here, ct applied... |
Deferential standard of review b/c classification was not based on gender as much as on physical condition. Group one included pregnant women, group two included non pregnant persons- women and men. |
|
|
Michael M v. Superior Court- Ct upheld a CA law punishing the male and not female participant in sex when the female wasn't yet 18. EP doesn't require things that are... |
Different in fact to be treated as the same under the law. St interest- concern w/ teen pregnancy. Reasoning- must punish the one who incurs no burden. Gender neutral laws wouldn't be as effective, women would be afraid to report to authorities if they could be punished. |
|
|
Rostker v. Goldberg- Upheld male-only draft b/c women at the time weren't eligible for combat. Congress is owed... |
Deference in area of defense and military affairs. moot now b/c we don't have a draft anymore and women are now eligible for combat. |
|
|
Caban v. Mohammed- Invalidated NY law granting mother but not father of illegit child right to block child's adoption by withholding consent. No showing had been made that... |
Distinction bears a subst. relationship to proclaimed interests of st in promoting adoption of illegit children. This is an overlord generalization- there are exceptions, it is over and under inclusive. May be unwed fathers who have a relationship w/ children fully comparable to that of a mother. |
|
|
Nguyen v. INS- Upheld law that treated children born out of wedlock to one citizen parent and one non-citizen party differently depending on whether it was the mother or father who was a citizen. Children with citizen mother were... |
Automatically citizens at birth, but children with citizen fathers must meet 3 conditions- establishment of a blood relationship by clear and convincing evidence, father's written promise of financial support, and fulfillment before child's 18th birthday or one of 3 formal recognitions. |
|
|
When a statue that is gender neutral on its face is challenged on grounds that its effect upon women are disproportionately adverse, a two-fold inquiry is appropriate: |
1) Whether statutory classification is neutral, and 2) if it is not covertly or overtly gender based, whether the adverse effect reflects invidious gender discrim. If impact can't be explain on a neutral ground, it's purposeful discrim. |
|
|
Ct held that the adverse effect of the law doesn't automatically support... |
An inference that the purpose was to discrim against women. Gender classifications benefitting women will be allowed when they are designed to remedy past discrim or differences in opportunity. All sex classifications (including those that advantage women) are subject to IS. |
|
|
Kahn v. Shevin & Califano v. Webster- Used deferential review to uphold st property tax exemption for widows and not widowers, concluding that the distinction rested upon... |
"some ground of difference having a fair and subst. relation to the subject of the legis." Law served to reduce econ disparity that existed between men and women. |
|
|
Califano v. Webster- Upheld a provision Social Securities Act that calculated benefits for women in a more advantageous way than was used for men. Ct said difference in formula wasn't.... |
Based on stereotypes, but operated to compensate women for past econ discrim. Extremely deferential scrutiny here for 3 reasons- lots of precedent, case involved benign discrim, cts experience w/ gender classifications was still in early stages, still not sure where it wants to go with these kind of classifications. |
|
|
ORR v. ORR- Struck down law that authorized AL cts to impose alimony obligations on husbands but not wives. Ct stated that.... |
Helping needy spouses and compensating women for past discrim during marriage were legit and important, but means part of test failed as they weren't subst. related to compensating women. Over-inclusive b/c it allowed wealthy women who hadn't been subject to econ discrim to get out of paying alimony as well. |
|
|
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld- Ct struck down provision of social security act that provided... |
Death benefits to widows and children of wage earning deceased husband/father but not to widower. Premised on old stereotype that men are usually breadwinners. |
|
|
Wengler v. Druggist Mutual Ins.- Ct struck down MO worker's comp law providing that... |
Widows qualified for death benefits w/o have to prove actual dependence on husband's earnings, but widowers can only attain death benefits if he proved dependence or inability to earn money. Discrim was not benign. |
|
|
Califano v. Goldfarb- Ct set aside a gender-based distinction in a fed benefits program- benefits only given to widower....
|
If he could prove that he was receiving at least half of his support from his wife. |
|
|
Schlesinger v. Ballard- Ct upheld sex distinctions in... |
the Navy's promotion system. Majority applied deferential rationality review. |
|
|
B/c sex is an immutable characteristic, imposition of special disabilities upon... |
Members of particular sex b/c of their sex violates basic concepts of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to the individual's own capabilities. |
|
|
Under EPC, if st law disproportionately burdens a certain class of people based on the suspect classification of alienage, the ct must... |
Utilize SS on any law that is discrim either facially or in its purpose or effect. Classifications based on alienage warrant strict scrutiny b/c classifications involve an insular minority, history of discrim, and no political power. |
|
|
The public function exception allowed sts to exclude aliens from occupations intimately related to the process of... |
Democratic self-government or involving broad discretionary power w/in a govt function, such as teachers or st troopers. If this exception occurs, only minimal rationality review is required. |
|
|
A final exception to SS for alienage classifications is where the discrim is a result of fed law. SC has ruled that the fed govt's plenary power to control immigration requires... |
Judicial deference and that therefore only rational basis review is used if Congress has created that alienage classification or if it's the result of a presidential order. SS except voting and political participation. |
|
|
Graham v. Richardson- ct held that sts couldn't deny welfare benefits to noncitizen, b/c... |
Noncitizen (aliens) are a discrete, insular minority and are suspect classifications. |
|
|
In Re Griffiths- Invalidated exclusion of... |
Aliens from law practice. |
|
|
Sugarman v. Dougall- ct invalidated NY law providing only US citizens might hold...
|
Permanent positions in the competitive classified civil service stating that there was little relationship to st's subst. interest in having an employee of undivided loyalty. However, this was the public function exception. |
|
|
Foley v. Connelie- Ct used rational basis test to uphold st law that barred aliens from being employed as st troopers, reasoning that... |
Police officers are integral to self-govt, they enforce the laws that are the product of the democratic process and have almost infinite discretionary powers. |
|
|
Ambach v. Norwick- Ct applied public function exception to hold that st may refuse to employ as elementary and secondary teachers aliens who... |
Are eligible for citizenship but refuse naturalization. Teachers have opportunity to influence attitudes of students towards govt, political process, and citizen's social responsibilities. Public school teachers fall w/in the govt principle recognized in Foley/Dougall. |
|
|
Bernal v. Fainter- Held that govt function exception didn't apply... |
The bar on aliens becoming notaries public, as the duties in Q were essentially clerical. Ruled that the exception must be narrowly tailored. |
|
|
Toll v. Moreno- Struck down U of MD's preferential "in-state" tuition, non-immigrant aliens were not...
|
Eligible even if domiciled in MD. Congress didn't intent for a st to deny st benefits solely on immigration status when congress has allowed them to acquire domicile. |
|
|
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong- Invalidated civil service commission bar on aliens from employment in fed competitive civil service. Identical requirements for... |
Fed service justifying a citizen requirement may not be enforced by the sts. For a st to adopt a rule under a national interest, it must be shown that the fed rule was meant to further that interest. |
|
|
Mathews v. Diaz- Held that congress may condition eligibility for... |
Medicare on admission for permanent residence and continuous residence in the US for at least 5 years. Disparate treatment in this case didn't represent invidiousness. |
|
|
Disability, age, poverty, sexuality: |
Rational basis review (minimal scrutiny) b/c not suspect classifications. |
|
|
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.- Invalidated a city ordinance requiring a special permit for operation of a group home for mentally disabled, when no permit was needed for other similarly crafted housing arrangements. Heightened scrutiny is not... |
Applicable in this case, but even under lessened scrutiny, the ordinance doesn't pass equal protection. Potential negative attitudes of nearby residents not legit basis for treating home for the mentally disabled differently from other multiple dwellings. |
|
|
A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group is... |
NOT a legit state interest. |
|
|
MA Bd of Retirement v. Murgia- Ct applied rationality review and sustained a... |
mandatory retirement law for st police officers- there is no historical discrim based on age. |
|
|
James v. Valtierra- Upheld CA const requirement that no low rent housing project shall... |
Be developed by any st public body w/out prior approval in a local referendum. Said this didn't involve race. Classification based on wealth will not be strictly scrutinized. |
|
|
Romer v. Evans- Minimal scrutiny "with a bite"- same as used in Cleburne- used for badly motivated laws that make classifications based on classes that aren't necessarily suspect. Ppl of CO adopted an am. to st const that prohibited st from enacting any law designed to protect... |
Homosexual persons from discrim. Ct struck down am, holding that it impermissibly discrim'ed based on sexual orientation. Held that law was too broad and far reaching to achieve narrow st interest of protecting landlords/employers who didn't want to hire gay ppl b/c of moral/religious beliefs. |
|
|
Romer v. Evans- const am. likened to bills of attainder- expressly prohibited by art. 1 of const- legit that names persons or groups of described persons for punishment, w/ 3 characteristics: |
1) legis rather than judicial interpretation of guilt 2) directed at status, not conduct
3) generally imposed ex post facto retroactively. Idea that this was a literal, per se violation of EPC. Am.'s purpose is discrim and therefore violated EP and is unconst. |
|
|
J Kennedy writes Lawrence opinion, invalidating law prohibiting sodomy under Sub DP liberty. Avoids EP analysis there- avoids again heightened EP scrutiny for laws targeting homosexuals (as he does in Romer, though he uses EP analysis there), maybe does so b/c.... |
A narrow decision under EP clause would have been inadequate in both cases (purports to use deferential standards while invalidating laws). |
|
|
Don't ask, don't tell- from 1993 to beginning of 2011, prohibited military personnel from discrim or harassing LGBT people, but still barred them from serving openly- don't tell anyone, you can still serve. Specified that service members who disclosed this or engaged in conduct would be... |
Discharged from military. Prior to 2010, it had been upheld by several lower courts, but in 2010 a fed list judge ruled it unconst, while decision was under appeal congress introduced legis to repeal it on the go ahead from military leaders that it wouldn't interfere w/ military readiness. |
|
|
B/c the ct doesn't recognize food, shelter, and education as fundamental rights under EPC, any legis pertaining to such regulation must... |
Only pass minimal rationality review in that a legit st interest must exist and the legis in Q must be rationally related to achieving that interest. |
|
|
Dandrige v. Williams- Held that const doesn't empower ct to second guess officials charged with... |
The difficult responsibility of allocating limited public welfare funds among a myriad of potential recipients. One step at a time approach rationale. |
|
|
Lindsey v. Normet- Held that the right to adequate housing is not... |
A fundamental right, especially if utilized to overcome a landlord's interest in regaining possession of his property after rent forfeiture. |
|
|
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez- Held that b/c wealth status is not suspect or quasi suspect classification, nor is the right to education a fundamental right.... |
The challenge against the distribution of funds to schools being based on property value was rejected, even though poorer neighborhoods garnered fewer funds than wealthier ones. |
|
|
Plyler v. Doe- Unlike minimal rationality review utilized for all other education-based legis, ct utilized IS to hold exclusion of undocumented children altogether from TX public schools violated equal protections. Ct held that.... |
Although public edu is not a right granted to individuals by const, neither is it merely some govt benefit indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare. Importance of edu in maintaining our basic institutions, and the lasting impact of its deprivation on a kid's life are mark too excessive an impact to subject merely to MS. |
|
|
DP of the 14th am- no st shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the... |
US, nor shall any st deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, w/o due process of law, nor deny to any person w/in its juris the EP of the laws. |
|
|
Calder v. Bull (1798)- Inclination to invalidate legis based on "natural justice" not explicit in const text. Legis can't take innocence to guilt, cannot... |
Create legis that is contrary to the great first principles of the social compact and republican principles. If any act of congress is outside of its const scope, it is void, if any act of congress is w/in const scope, ct may not make it void. Natural justice doesn't operate on fixed standard. |
|
|
If ct determines than an econ liberty is at stake, it must utilize MS to determine if st had a legit interest... |
Being furthered by violating this liberty, and whether the law is rationally related to achieving this interest. Substantive due process of econ liberties- concerns substance of legis, must be fair, rational. |
|
|
Munn v. Illinois (1877)- Upheld st law that set max rates for grain storage warehouse. Ct emphasized that police power included regulation of... |
Individual use of property that was affected w/ public interest, and found regulation of grain storage to fit that category b/c of risk of monopoly. In absence of public interest, econ can't be regulated. |
|
|
Railroad Commissions Cases (1886)- Upheld st law regulating railroad rates, but ct indicated that.... |
DP could be used to challenge such rates in the future. Cannot enact law that amounts to taking private property for public use w/o just compensation or w/o DP of law. |
|
|
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)- Upheld st law that prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages only b/c it was viewed as an exercise of police power. Subst. reasonableness- not every st law enacted for purpose of public morals, health or safety will be accepted. If law has no real or... |
Subst. relation to public interest, or it is an invasion of fundamental rights, it's duty of cts to determine this. Important that DP was a limit on govt's regulatory power, even though the ct ruled in favor of the govt. |
|
|
Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)- First time ct invalidated st law on subst. DP grounds. Law prohibited payments on marine insurance policies issued by.... |
OOS companies that weren't licensed or approved to do business in st. Ct concluded law interfered w/ freedom of contract and it thus violated DPC. |
|
|
Alleger v. Louisiana (1897)- Expressed key themes of econ subst. DP that would be followed for 40 years- liberty of contract under DP- right of citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways, to live or work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any... |
Livelihood or vocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carryout out the purposes aforementioned. Not just about right to procedural DP (not just freedom from physical restraint). Concept of liberty resulted in later cases. |
|
|
Lochner v. New York- Hard on legis, not deferential at all. Struck down NY limiting working hours of bakers to 10 hours/day or 60 hours/week. Declared law unconst as violating DPC b/c it interfered w/ freedom of contract and b/c it did not serve a valid police purpose. Court must weigh... |
St's police power to protect public interest w/ individual's right to his personal liberty or to enter into contracts in relation to his labor in order to support himself or his family, under 14th am, unless law is w/in st's police power by serving a public interest in a reasonable manner, st may not take away this liberty. Ct is going to evaluate subst. part of legis. |
|
|
Lochner v. New York- ct articulated 3 principles in declaring law unconst- (followed until 1937, now condemned as inappropriate use of judicial review/mistake) freedom of contract is basic right protected as liberty and property rights under DP. Govt could interfere w/ freedom of... |
Contract only to serve a valid police purpose- to protect public safety, health, & morals. This isn't a health law. It is the judicial role to carefully scrutinize legis interfering w/ freedom of contract to make sure it served a police purpose. Says not substituting their judgment for legis (but they really are). |
|
|
Liberty of Contract under Lochner- assumes there is equal bargaining power between employers and employees. In reality, the situation was very different. Vast majority of employees did not have equal bargaining power- |
No matter how long the hours, how low the wages, how bad the working conditions, employees had to work. Liberty of contract that resulted in oppression of workers, rather than their liberty. |
|
|
Lochnerism/Lochnerizing- abusing judicial review in economic situations- |
Inappropriate judicial intervention in legis process. |
|
|
Adair v. US- ct held as unconst a law prohibiting RR employers from requiring employees to.... |
Agree to not join unions. Employer and employee have equality of right, and legis that disturbs that equality is an arbitrary interference w/ liberty of contract. |
|
|
Coppage v. Kansas- held that a law, similar to Adair, violated DP. Interference with liberty of contract is... |
Arbitrary unless it's supportable by some reasonable exercise of st police power. |
|
|
New St Ice Co. v. Liebmann- Invalidated OK law that treated.... |
The manufacture of ice cream like a public utility, requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity. |
|
|
Muller v. Oregon- Upheld st law that provided max hours for women working, reasoning that... |
Healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well being of women becomes an object of public interest, inherent difference between the sexes justify differing legis- valid inference w/ freedom of contract. |
|
|
Adkins v. Children's Hospital- declared unconst a law that set a min wage for women concluding that this was.... |
Different from max hours law set for women- b/c this interfered w/ freedom of contract but didn't serve any valid police purpose. Stressed growing equality of women. Since Muller 19th am had been adopted and gave women voting rights- basically civil inferiority no longer existed. |
|
|
Lochnerism is activist review of economic regulation, and striking down econ regulation was... |
Part of it's deal during the new deal court crisis until J Roberts changes his mind and the court switches over. |
|
|
Nebbia v. New York- (turning point/change from Lochner)- Upheld NY law that set milk min and max retail prices. The law reasonably related to a proper purpose (public health/evils of price instability) and wasn't arbitrary, therefore const... |
Means must be properly associated with end. Expands "acceptable health measures" and allows the enactment of st laws for econ purposes. DP requirements fulfilled if st law is not unreasonable, arbitrary or discrim, and it has reasonable relation to proper legis purpose. |
|
|
Nebbia v. New York- liberty of contract may be a fundamental right, but so is right of legis. All businesses may be... |
Regulated for the public good. Here the law serves the economic prosperity of the public (desperate situation of milk necessitating state aid) and health of the public (producers, farmers cutting corners b/c not enough money creates health risk in product they put out). |
|
|
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish- Overruled Adkins- legis was right to protect women as an inferior class of workers. Exploitation of a class of workers is.... |
Not only detrimental to individual liberty, but to the community. Liberty of contract is not absolute and laws that restrict liberty of contract to serve the public interest comply w/ DP (here st interest was to protect health of women and their unequal bargaining power). |
|
|
Carolene Products- Upheld filled milk prohibition- minimum rationality review, gives deference to congress. Reaffirms West Coast Hotel and the new policy of judicial deference to govt econ regulations. Ct upheld.... |
Prohibition of interstate shipment of "filled milk" as an adulterated food that constituted fraud upon the public. Held that regulations should be upheld if they are supported by a conceivable rational basis, even if it can't be proven that it was legislature's actual intent. |
|
|
Caroline Products Footnote 4: Distinguished cases warranting deference to legis vs those where greater judicial scrutiny might be appropriate- became guidepost for future cases. Political process rationale: |
Greater judicial scrutiny may be appropriate where legis is facially w/in a specific category of prohibitions in Const- those of the 1st 10 am., restrictions on right to vote, on dissemination of info, on political organizations, on peaceable assembly, or directed at racial or religious minorities b/c political processes may not be able to protect such rights/groups. |
|
|
Minimum rational basis standard- continues to govern DP review... |
Of econ legis. If socioecon Q, ct gives deference to legis. |
|
|
Even though a law may be needless and wasteful, it's for the legis to decide how to balance advantages and disadvantages.... |
As long as ct can conceive some legit purpose and if law is reasonable, it will be upheld. St laws regulating business will only be subject to rational basis review, and ct doesn't need to contemplate all possible reasons for legis. |
|
|
Punitive Damages- one area in which ct revived heightened DP review in area of econ liberty involves limitations on.... |
Punitive damages awards. Punitive damages are often disproportionate to compensatory damages, so they have been challenged as violating DP. |
|
|
BMW of North America v. Gore- Invalidated award as grossly excessive due to procedural DP notions $2 million punitive for compensatory damages of only $4,000. Based partly on notions of procedural DP and... |
D's right to fair notice of potential liability. Guideposts- degree of reprehensibility, disparity between harm suffered and punitive damages award, difference between remedy and the penalties imposed in comparable cases.
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Auto v. Campbell (2003)- held that a punitive damages award against insurance company of $145 million when compensatory was $1 million, was excessive and violated DPC... |
Grossly excessive reward constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property. D should be punished for harm against P, not for being an unsavory individual or business. Award was neither reasonable nor proportionate. |
|
|
Phillip Morris USA v. Williams (2007)- invalidating an award to estate of deceased smoker of $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79,5 million in punitive damages against... |
A tobacco manufacturer on a claim for fraud for having knowingly and falsely led him to believe smoking was safe. |
|
|
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008)- held under fed maritime law that... |
Punitive damages could only be awarded to at most a 1:1 ratio to compensatory damages. |
|
|
Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974)- Upheld family-oriented zoning restriction excluding most unrelated groups from living together. Ordinance involved no fundamental rights, but w/ economic and social legis, and will not violate EP if law is reasonable and bears a rational relationship to a permissible st objective. It is permissible.... |
For the legis to draw lines which limit the number of unmarried people who can constitute a family. The ordinance doesn't ban association b/c a family w/in its guidelines may entertain whomever it likes. A quiet neighborhood is a permissible goal of a legis. Police power includes zoning an area to promote family values, youth values, and quiet seclusion. |
|
|
Troxley v. Granville (200)- Concluded st ct decision granting grandparents visiting rights to their grandchildren over objections of sole surviving mother, had violated mom's subst. DP rights. 14th am protects fundamental right of parents... |
To make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. So long as a parent adequately cares for their children, there will normally be no reason for st to inject itself into the private realm of the family to contradict a parent's decision concerning childrearing. |
|
|
Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)- plurality doesn't let man visit his daughter b/c he wasn't married to mother and she was married to someone else, even though he had 98% DNA match. Says.. |
DP hasn't been violated. Legal issue here is whether relationship between the persons in the situation of Michael and Victoria has been treated as a protected family unit under the historic practices of our society, or whether on any other basis it has been accorded special protection. |
|
|
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)- Involved facial challenge to GA law that made sodomy a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Upheld statute as applied to homosexual sodomy... |
Historical approach to const interpretation- ct refusing to recognize the right to engage in homosexual conduct. This right isn't deeply rooted in tradition and isn't implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. |
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)- Overruled Bowers 17 years later. Liberty protects person from unwarranted govt intrusion into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition st is not omnipresent in the home. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought... |
Belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions. Certain spaces where you should be left along, govt has no business intruding. Apologized for Bowers. |
|
|
Bottoms v. Bottoms (1995)- VA sup ct removed child from custody of his bio mom placing him in custody of maternal grandmother, in part b/c of mother's lesbian relationship. While.... |
Lesbian mothers are not unfit per se, for a child to live w/ lesbians say impose a burden by reasons of the social condemnation attached to the arrangement. |
|
|
Goodrich v. Dept of Public Health (2003)- gay marriage case. MA ct held that a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union w/ another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of... |
Membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible w/ the const principles of respect for individual autonomy under the law. |
|
|
Marriage- if ct determines that a fundamental right is at stake, in that the right is so deeply rooted in our nation's history and implicit in concept of ordered liberty, it... |
Must utilize SS to determine if the st had a compelling interest being furthered by violating this right and whether the law is narrowly tailored to reach this interest. Those right snot deemed fundamental are to be subject to minimum rationality review. |
|
|
Loving v. Virginia- ct held that under const, freedom to marry a person of one's choosing resides w/ individual and can't be infringed by st. Right to choose... |
The person one marries is a fundamental right that is under the protection of the DPC and any restriction to be imposed must be subject to the strictest of scrutiny (although it was in violation of EPC in this case). |
|
|
Zablocki v. Redhail- ct indicated that direct and subst. restraints may be placed on the right to marry, such as prohibitions against marriage to a child or close relative.... |
If the restraint is not meant to arbitrarily discrim against class of people (Turner v. Safley). Same use of EP but mentions DPC. Either way recognized marriage as fundamental right where SS must be used. |
|
|
Loving v. Virginia (1967)- Freedom to marry a person of another race resides w/ the individual and can't be infringed by st.... |
The right to choose who one marries is a fundamental right that is under DPC's protection, as a result, the anti-miscegenation law (base on interracial marriage) was subject to SS analysis and was deemed unconst. |
|
|
Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)- Deliberate discrim against the poor- prevented an individual from obtaining a marriage license w/o ct approval if.... |
The persons had a minor child not in their custody for whom there was a ct order to pay support. Ct could grant permission to marry only if there was proof that all child support payments were up to date. Compelling interest, but ends were unconst. Other means available. |
|
|
Turner v. Safley- Struck down regulation restricting prisoners from marrying.... |
barring a compelling reason. Decision to marry is fundamental right, many important facets of marriage remain, despite limitations of incarceration. |
|
|
Moore v. East Cleveland- ct held that choosing living arrangements, in which family members including extended family reside together under one household, is a fundamental right b/c... |
Institution of family is so deeply rooted in our nation's history and implicit in concept of ordered liberty. Violated DP b/c family living arrangements w/ nuclear and extended family are part of fundamental right, so SS required. Interest against overcrowding legit, but means not appropriate.
|
|
|
Euthanasia- a st may require a showing of clear and convincing evidence that... |
The individual would have wanted to stop the treatment in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person in a persistent vegetative state. |
|
|
Cruzan v. Director, Mo Dept. of Health (1990)- A st may properly decline to make judgments about quality of life that a particular individual may enjoy and simply assert an unqualified interest in preservation of human life to be weighed against const protected interests... |
Of individual. Held that discontinuation of life-sustaining procedures were not const required. Interest in protecting and preserving human life. Right to refuse lifesaving med treatment doesn't equally apply to an incompetent person. |
|
|
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)- Washington law made it a felony to commit or knowingly cause or aid a suicide- withdrawal of life sustaining treatment didn't constitute a suicide. 2 primary features of the Sub DP process analysis: |
Right must be deeply rooted in nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, careful description- you have to carefully describe the asserted right in Q. Passes minimal scrutiny in that the law is rationally related to legit govt interest. |
|
|
Vacco v. Quill (1996)- Ct held that there was no violation of EP in prohibiting assisted suicide, but allowing.... |
Refusal of treatment. Distinction between 2 was rational- when refusing treatment patient dies from the underlying disease or pathology. When assisted in suicide, patient dies via the lethal medication administered by doctor. Difference between letting patient die and making patient die. |
|
|
Privacy- has to do w/ some aspects of individual decision making considered too private to be regulated by st. Rights of privacy are... |
Rights to marry, establish a home, & bring children. SS b/c fundamental rights. Several const provisions protecting various aspects of privacy- privacy is value that underlies all of them.
|
|
|
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)- Invalidated OK's habitual criminal sterilization act (compulsory sterilization after 3rd conviction for felony involving moral turpitude). Violated... |
EPC b/c marriage and procreation are fundamental rights and such sterilizations would permanently deprive these criminals such a fundamental right. Any st law restricting fundamental rights requires SS. |
|
|
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)- 1st time ct held that there is a right to privacy/autonomy concerning family, life, marriage & children. NE law banned... |
Teaching of German to schoolchildren. Interfered with parents' right to control education of kids. Ct is adding to list of what liberty means- right of individual to.... |
|
|
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)- OR law requiring children to attend public schools interfered... |
W/ liberty of parents to direct upbringing and education of kids under their control. No general power of st to standardize children. |
|
|
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)- concluded CT law violated right to privacy in prohibiting married couples from using contraceptives. The utilization of contraceptives is one of... |
The many notions of privacy that surrounds all intimate relationships, not just married couples. "Penumbral" rights- not specifically stated in BoR, set forth by various guarantees- create zones of privacy that have been demonstrated. Marriage is one. |
|
|
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)- declared unconst a st law prohibiting distributing contraceptives to unmarried individuals and that only allowed physicians to... |
Distribute them to married persons. Ct found that law denied EP b/c it discrim against non-married individuals. Right to privacy specifically held to be individual- cannot be restricted on moral grounds. |
|
|
Carey v. Population Services, Int. (1977)- Struck down st law making it a crime to sell/distribute contraceptives to ppl under 16 years. Ct applied SS b/c decision of whether to beget or beard child is a... |
Fundamental one. St didn't show law contributed to deterrence of underage sex or that they should be able to discourage it by exposing teens to pregnancy and disease. |
|
|
The ct has chosen to utilize an "undue burden" test in matters pertaining to st regulation of pre-viability abortions. A statute that has the purpose or effect of placing a subst. obstacle in... |
Path of woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable baby is invalid b/c the means chosen by the st to further interest in potential life must be calculated to inform woman's free choice, not hinder it. Govt can't prohibit abortion pre-viability, but can after except when necessary to protect woman's life/health. |
|
|
Roe v. Wade (1973)- right to privacy under DP is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision about abortion. Invalidated TX abortion laws making it a crime to "procure an abortion" except "by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." Ct held that... |
Viability marks that earliest point at which the st's interest in fetal life is const. adequate to justify legis ban. Baby is not a "person" w/in language of 14th am. Right to abortion not absolute- at some point interest of unborn becomes compelling. |
|
|
Akron v. Akron (1983)- Struck down a law requiring abortions performed post-trimester must be in a hospital. Held it to be a... |
Significant obstacle in securing an abortion. Invalidated provision mandating detailed guidelines regarding information that a physician must give- supposedly aimed to dissuade women from having abortions. |
|
|
PP v. Danforth (1992)- Struck down a regulation requiring husband's consent during 1st 12 weeks of pregnancy. St can't delegate authority during 1st trimester since the woman is more directly... |
Affected by pregnancy. Right to abortion before viability is a fundamental right. Struck down a provision requiring parental consent for women under 18. Third party can't have absolute veto power, but not every minor may give effective consent. |
|
|
Ayotte v. PP- Parental consent requirement that... |
Didn't have exception for medical emergencies- instead of striking down law, ct remanded to see if there was an easier fix- raises idea that facial invalidity is not always the answer to abortion laws. |
|
|
PP v. Casey (1992)- PA statute requirements: woman must give informed consent, minors must have informed parental consent, married women must notify their husbands, hospitals must report abortion statistics, women only exempted from requirements by med emergency... |
Essentially holding Roe- should be maintained and affirmed. 24 hour rule not undue burden, spousal consent is, parental consent is not as long as judicial bypass is present. |
|
|
Under SPC, SS wasn't warranted for laws on public funding b/c unequal treatment of abortion and childbirth didn't interfere w/ fundamental right recognized in Roe, and upheld law... |
Under deferential rationality review, which generally gives govt wide latitude in choosing among competing demands for limited public funds. No fundamental right to govt aid. |
|
|
Maher v. Roe (1977)- Upheld law granting medicaid for childbirth, but not for medically unnecessary abortion. SS unnecessary b/c... |
Unequal treatment doesn't interfere with right to abortion. St not limited in its authority to make value judgments in favor of childbirth and allocating funds accordingly. St may have made childbirth more attractive, but hasn't imposed restriction on access to abortion. |
|
|
Harris v. McRae (1980)- Upheld fed funding limitations barring payments for even the most medically necessary abortions. Freedom of choice doesn't carry... |
Financial entitlement. Would obligate congress to subsidize medically necessary abortions even though it had not subsidized other necessary procedures. |
|
|
Rust v. Sullivan- Upheld restriction on abortion counseling by any project receiving federal funds- |
No affirmative govt obligation to subsidize an activity just b/c it is const protected. |
|
|
Webster v. Reproductive Services- Upheld provisions barring st employees from performing abortions and the use of... |
Public facilities for abortions. No affirmative right to govt aid. Leaves pregnant women w/ the same choices as if the st had chosen not to operate public hospitals at all. |
|
|
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)- Struck down partial birth abortion ban....
|
Violated Casey b/c its language could be used to ban activities other than D&X abortions. |
|
|
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)- Upheld ban on partial birth abortion- fed act banning procedure. 4 components to an unlawful abortion: |
1) person performing abortion vaginally delivers a living baby, 2) requires fetal delivery until the head is outside the mother's body, 3) doctor must perform overt act to kill baby, 4) physician must have deliberately delivered baby and delivery must've been done for purpose of killing. |
|
|
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)- Homosexual sodomy not a fundamental right. Upheld a law criminalizing sodomy contending that homosexual.... |
Activity has not established a connection between it and family, marriage, and procreation. Right isn't deeply rooted in tradition and isn't implicit in concept of ordered liberty. |
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)- Held that liberty under DPC granted subst. protection to adults in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to certain intimate conduct. To deprive... |
Homosexual couples of this autonomy would be to infringe on a const right that is deeply rooted in our nation's traditions and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Relied on Griswold, Einstadt, Casey, and overruled Bowers. |
|
|
US v. Windsor- Held DOMA unconst and the the fed govt can't refuse to recognize a marriage that is valid under st law. Only binding to those whose marriage is legal and binding in st. Those that don't allow gay marriage can continue to do so w/o violating const. Also held sts have... |
Authority to define marital relationships and DOMA goes against legis and historical precedent by undermining that authority. Purpose of DOMA was to impose stigma on gay couples in violation of 5th am. guarantee of EP. |
|
|
Goodridge v. Dept of Health (2003)- MA's law against gay marriage was struck down by MA sup ct as a violation of DPC and EPC, reasoning that the st interests of procreation and... |
Providing a suitable home for children were invalid, and that marriage is about personal relationships among individuals and numerous legal benefits. |
|
|
Lofton v. Secretary of DCFS (2004)- 11th circuit ct upheld FL law prohibiting gay couple from adopting child that had been in their foster care... |
Ct rejected both DP and EP challenges. Lawrence had not spoken to privacy rights in adoption context. Used rationality review. |
|
|
Cammermeyer v. Aspin- Fed ct ruled that disclosing one's homosexuality isn't evidence of... |
One's desire/propensity to engage in homosexual conduct. Ct ordered army to reinstate P after having discharged her for admitting under oath that she was a lesbian. |
|
|
Meinhold v. US Dept of Defense- Fed ct held that an inference of homosexual conduct couldn't be drawn from statements that...
|
The individual in question was gay, but the ct refused a nationwide injunction b/c statements by other members might show desire to engage in prohibited conduct. |
|
|
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)- Right to marry is fundamental, gay couples may not be denied that right. Has always been recognized as right for opposite sex couples and principles equally apply to same sex couples. 4 principles: |
1) individual autonomy, 2) Supports 2 person union unlike any other in importance to individuals. Fosters right to intimate association. 3) Protection of children and families and draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. 4) Ct cases in marriage tradition make it clear marriage is keystone of special order. |
