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;
163 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Marbury v. Madison
|
Fight over delivery of commission to be justice of the peace
|
|
|
Cooper v. Aaron
|
Desegregation of Little Rock schools ordered. Governor refused to obey.
|
|
|
McCulloch v. Maryland
|
Maryland tried to tax the Federal Bank. Issue is whether Congress had power to charter a bank
|
|
|
Gibbons v. Ogden
|
NY granted steamboat monopoly to Fulton and Livingston, who licensed Ogden. Gibbons opened up a competing business saying federal law allowed him to. SC said federal law trumped NY law.
|
|
|
Hammer v. Dagenhart
|
Child labor case. Law prohibited any products in interstate commerce made by violators of the child labor law. Unconstitutional because it violated the 10th Amendment
|
|
|
Wickard v. Filburn
|
Ohio farmer violates federal wheat quota. Act extends federal regulation to production, even for farmer's own consumption. The only significant checks on Congress’s commerce power are specific guarantees, such as those in the Bill of Rights.
|
|
|
US v. Lopez
|
Gun free schools act. Unconstitutional because the relationship to interstate commerce is too tangential and uncertain
|
|
|
US v. Morrison
|
SC held the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional. Provided a damage remedy for the victim against any person who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender. Gender motivated crimes are not economic activity.
|
|
|
US v. EC Knight
|
SC invalidated federal antitrust law (Sherman Act). Antitrust act could not be used to stop a monopoly in the sugar industry because the Constitution did not allow Congress to regulate manufacturing. Monopoly was in the production of sugar, not in its commerce.
|
|
|
Shreveport Rate Cases
|
SC upheld the ability of the Interstate Commerce Commission to set intrastate railroad rates because of their direct impact on interstate commerce. Set up Congress’s ability to regulate instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
|
|
|
Champion v. Ames
|
Upheld federal law prohibiting the interstate shipment of foreign lottery tickets. SC held it was within Congress’s commerce power to stop lottery tickets from being part of interstate commerce. Rejected argument that the law violated the 10th Amendment and intruded on state rights.
|
|
|
Schechter Poultry v. US
|
SC declared unconstitutional a regulation that prevented sellers from requiring buyers to purchase the entire coop of chickens, including sick ones - designed to assure quality poultry. Also regulated employment - no child labor, 40 hour work week, minimum wage. Court said it exceeded the scope of Congress’s commerce power. Hours and wages have no direct relation to interstate commerce. Last case before Lopez to be invalidated. Post-commerce
|
|
|
Carter v. Carter Coal
|
SC declared a federal law that provided for local coal boards to be determine prices for coal and wages was unconstitutional. Pre-commerce is outside the scope of Congress’s power under commerce clause.
|
|
|
NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel
|
SC upheld a law that created right of workers to bargain collectively, prohibited unfair labor practices such as discrimination against union members. Court described how the steel business was apart of the stream of commerce and how labor relations affected commerce. Threw out idea that Congress couldn’t regulate production used in earlier cases like Schechter and Carter Coal.
|
|
|
US v. Darby
|
SC upheld act that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by employees who were paid less than the minimum wage. Rejected view that production was left entirely to state regulation. Expressly overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart. Rejected view that production was left entirely to state regulation.
|
|
|
US v. Perez
|
Court upheld a federal law prohibiting loan-sharking. There “a class of activities was held properly regulated by Congress without proof that the particular intrastate activity against which a sanction was laid had an effect on commerce.”
|
|
|
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
|
Court upheld Civil Rights Act that prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation. Court said “the only questions are (1) whether Congress had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination by motels affected commerce and (2) if it had such a basis, whether the means it selected are reasonable and appropriate.
|
|
|
Katzenbach v. McClung
|
Ollies BBQ case. Court upheld application of the Civil Rights Act to a small business. Power of Congress under the commerce clause is broad and sweeping. As long as the particular activity is deemed to affect commerce and if the particular restaurant either serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or serves food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce.
|
|
|
Garcia v. SAMTA
|
Expressly overruled National League of Cities, which found a law violated the 10th Amendment. SAMTA claimed it was exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act because it was state run and not a private business. It provided a traditional government function. The Court found that rules based on the subjective determination of "integral" or "traditional" governmental functions provided little or no guidance in determining the boundaries of federal and state power. The Court argued that the structure of the federal system itself, rather than any "discrete limitations" on federal authority, protected state sovereignty.
|
|
|
New York v. US
|
Invalidated a federal law as violating the 10th Amendment. Law created a statutory duty for states to provide for the safe disposal of radioactive waste generated within their borders. Congress can regulate radioactive waste, but can’t commandeer the state legislature to do so.
|
|
|
Printz v. US
|
Can’t commandeer state executive officials. Can’t make local sheriffs do background checks for gun permits.
|
|
|
Reno v. Condon
|
Court upheld a federal law that regulates the disclosure of personal information in the records of state motor vehicles departments. Court said it wasn’t commandeering because it doesn’t require the states in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens. The law regulates the states as the owners of the databases.
|
|
|
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer
|
Declared seizure of steel mills unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Dames and Moore v. Regan
|
Upheld executive agreement to lift a freeze on Iranian assets.
|
|
|
State v. Post
|
SC of New Jersey rejected a claim that the state constitution abolished slavery because it talks about the freedom of men.
|
|
|
Dred Scott v. Sandford
|
SC declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and held that slaves were property, not citizens.
|
|
|
Plessy v. Ferguson
|
Upheld laws that mandated that blacks and whites use “separate but equal facilities.”
|
|
|
McCabe v. Atchison
|
Upheld OK law that required separation of the races on railroads, but ruled that if there was a dining car for whites, one also had to be available for blacks.
|
|
|
******* v. Board of Education
|
Black families challenged their tax assessment when those funds were used to operate a high school for whites. Upheld the government’s operation of a high school only for whites while none was available for blacks. Local authorities had discretion in allocating funds.
|
|
|
Berea College v. Kentucky
|
Affirmed conviction of a private college that had violated a Kentucky law that required separation of races in education because the college was a corporation and not afforded all the rights of individuals.
|
|
|
Missouri Ex Rel Gaines v. Canada
|
Held it was unconstitutional for Missouri to refuse to admit blacks to its law school, but instead to pay for blacks to attend out-of-state law schools. Doesn’t matter what facilities other states provide, but what opportunities Missouri furnishes for whites and denies to blacks solely because of color.
|
|
|
Sweatt v. Painter
|
SC for the first time ordered that a white university admit a black student. Court found the black and white law schools were not equal.
|
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education 1
|
Held that separate but equal doctrine is no good.
|
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education 2
|
Have to desegregate with all deliberate speed
|
|
|
Bolling v. Sharpe
|
Court held that school segregation in DC is unconstitutional. Since 14th Amendment applies only to the states, they could not use the Equal Protection Clause. Court held that discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
|
|
|
Keyes v. School District No. 1
|
Not a case where schools were segregated by statute, but nevertheless plaintiff proved that the school authorities have carried out a systematic program of segregation. When laws aren’t present, plaintiffs must prove intentional segregative acts affecting a substantial part of the school system. Drew a line between de jure segregation in the South and de facto segregation in the North. Need proof of discriminatory purpose in de facto.
|
|
|
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District
|
Addressed federal courts’ power to issue remedies in school desegregation cases. District Courts have broad authority.
|
|
|
City of Richmond v. Croson
|
City had a program in which prime contractors on city projects were required to subcontract at least 30% of the contract amount to minority businesses. States do have authority to eradicate the effects of private discrimination. Strict scrutiny is applied.
|
|
|
NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer
|
Upheld a city’s regulation that prevented those in methadone maintenance programs from holding positions with the Transit Authority. Overinclusive/underinclusive is usually tolerated in rational basis analysis. Rational basis - any alternative rule is likely to be less precise.
|
|
|
Railway Express v. NY
|
Upheld an ordinance that banned all advertising on sides of trucks unless ad was for business of truck’s owner. Was argued that distinction was irrational to achieve government’s purpose of decreasing distractions and promoting traffic safety. “It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all. Underinclusive.
|
|
|
Williamson v. Lee Optical
|
Upheld OK statute that prohibited an optician to fit or duplicate lenses without a prescription from an optometrist or an ophthalmologist. Stressed need for judicial deference to legislative choices. Shows that so long as the Court can conceive of some legitimate purpose and so long as the law is reasonable, it will be upheld.
|
|
|
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
|
Court used rational basis review to invalidate a zoning ordinance that prevented the operation of a home for the mentally disabled. Can’t use irrational prejudice as a basis for treating mentally disabled home differently from other group homes.
|
|
|
US Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno
|
Struck down law prohibiting access to food stamps if you lived with someone who you are not related to. Supposed government purpose was to raise levels of nutrition among low-income households. But this had no rational relation to this law. Legislative history suggested that Congress meant to prevent hippies from using the food stamp program. Congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot be considered a legitimate governmental interest.
|
|
|
Romer v. Evans
|
Voter initiative in Colorado that repealed laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and that precluded the adoption of new protections failed rational basis review. No legitimate purpose in singling out a particular group and precluding them from using the political process.
|
|
|
Strauder v. West Virginia
|
Declared unconstitutional a law that limited jury service to white males 21 and over who are citizens of Virginia.
|
|
|
Korematsu v. US
|
Last situation in which the Court expressly upheld racial classifications burdening minorities. Enormously overinclusive - Not all Japanese-Americans were disloyal. Needed compelling government interest and narrowly tailored means/ends fit. - Laid out strict scrutiny. Underinclusive as well - What about disloyal Germans and Italians?
|
|
|
Carolene Footnote
|
Court would defer to the government; uphold laws so long as they were reasonable. But this deference would not extend to laws interfering with fundamental rights or discriminating against discrete and insular minorities.
|
|
|
Palmore v. Sidoti
|
Custody battle between white divorced parents, when the mother remarried a black man. Court said that the law does not consider private biases that may hurt the child when looking at custody.
|
|
|
Washington v. Davis
|
Policy literacy test - more blacks failed, so it had a discriminatory impact. Statute was facially neutral. For facially neutral statute, you need proof of discriminatory purpose/intent. Otherwise, you use rational basis review.
|
|
|
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
|
Chinese laundromat case. Facts established discriminatory intent of the administrators, even though law was facially neutral. So strict scrutiny is applied.
|
|
|
Gomillion v. Lightfoot
|
Government redrew city boundaries in Tuskeegee to prevent blacks form participating in elections. Proved discriminatory purpose, so strict scrutiny applied.
|
|
|
Palmer v. Thompson
|
City council closed the municipal swimming pool rather than integrate it. Court held that closing it did not violate equal protection. Can’t invalidate just because of the motives of the lawmakers. Have to look at the effect as well.
|
|
|
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing
|
Request denied to build low-income housing in the village. Plaintiff couldn’t prove discriminatory purpose. Cautioned that cases like Yick Wo and Gomillion are rare - there’s usually not so obvious a pattern of discriminatory intent. Absent a stark pattern, look at historical background of the decision.
|
|
|
McCleskey v. Kemp
|
Plaintiff challenged death penalty, citing a study showing that blacks were more likely to receive the death penalty than whites and therefore it was racially discriminatory and a violation equal protection. Court held that proof of discriminatory impact is not enough, he needed to prove discriminatory intent of the legislature when enacting the law. Not even good enough if they thought it might be discriminatory or hoped that it would, that has to be their main goal in enacting the law.
|
|
|
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
|
Involved a challenge to Massachusetts law that gave preference in hiring for state jobs to veterans. Took a narrow definition of intent “more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the decision maker [selected] or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of not merely in spite of its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”
|
|
|
Loving v. Virginia
|
Unconst
Auth: EP and SPD Supreme court declared unconstitutional a state’s statute that made it a crime for a white person to marry outside the Caucasian race. |
|
|
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1
|
Declared unconstitutional a law adopted by initiative that prevented school boards from requiring students to attend schools not nearest or next nearest to their residence
Even though it doesn’t mention race, the law “removes the authority to address a racial problem-and only “racial problem from the existing decision making body, in such a way as to burden minority interests. |
|
|
Grutter v. Bollinger
|
Example 1 (valid): the univ of mich law school evaluates each applicant’s entire file, weighing such variables as undergraduate GPA, LSAT scores, and the contribution the applicant will make to diversity in the student body. The school treats as a major plus factor an applicant’s membership in one of three historically discriminated against groups, blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans. The school does do to create a critical mass of these minority students, so that they will participate without feeling isolated.
Held: this form of affirmative action is constitutional. The interest in a diverse student body is a compelling one, and the approach here- in that it relies on an individualized, non-mechanical evaluation of each applicant-is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. |
|
|
Gratz v. Bollinger
|
Example 2 (invalid): the univ of mich undergraduate college awards pre-measured points to applicants for various attributes (e.g. up to 5 points for being an outstanding artist or student leader). Every black or Hispanic applicant automatically gets 20 points for diversity. 100 points are needed for admission. The extra 20 points for minority group status has the effect that virtually every minimally qualified black or Hispanic applicant is admitted, whereas many well qualified non-minority applicants are rejected.
Held: this form of affirmative action is unconstitutional, because it is not narrowly tailored to the achievement of the compelling interest in student body diversity. The scheme here is a mechanical one that is equivalent to a quota, not an individualized evaluation scheme like the one approved in grutter. And the fact that near misses can be flagged for individualized review does not save the scheme. |
|
|
Regents of UC Davis v. Bakke
|
First affirmative action case. UC Davis Med School set aside 16 of 100 slots for minorities. Ratios not okay but affirmative action is.
|
|
|
Adarand Constructors v. Pena
|
All racial classifications must be analyzed using strict scrutiny. Must serve compelling govt. interests or must be narrowly tailored to further the interest. Federal highway project gave company additional compensation if they used certified minority subcontractors.
|
|
|
Bradwell v. Illinois
|
Upheld Illinois law that prohibited women from being licensed to practice law
|
|
|
Minor v. Happersett
|
Court acknowledged that women were persons and citizens within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, but held that the right to vote was not a privilege of US citizenship and therefore that women could be denied the franchise.
|
|
|
Muller v. Oregon
|
SC upheld an OR statute prohibiting the employment of women in factories for more than 10 hours per day. It distinguished the case from Lochner which had upheld the right to contract, saying there was an inherent difference between the 2 sexes.
|
|
|
Goesaert v. Cleary
|
Court held that a MI law prohibiting a woman from working as a bartender unless she was the wife or daughter of a male owner did not violate the equal protection clause.
|
|
|
Hoyt v. Florida
|
Court upheld as “rational” a jury selection system excluding women who did not affirmatively indicate a desire to serve.
|
|
|
Reed v. Reed
|
For the 1st time invalidated a gender classification. But used only rational basis review (at least it claimed to). Idaho law that specified hierarchy of those to be appointed administrators of an estate-male preferred over female. Gender had no rational relationship to ability to administer an estate. Really was more heightened scrutiny.
|
|
|
Frontiero v. Richardson
|
Fed law automatically allowed a man to claim his wife as a dependant thereby receiving a greater allowance for quarters and medical benefits but woman could not claim husband unless she proved her spouse was dependant on her for over half his support. Plurality suggested application of strict scrutiny to gender. Because of no majority - level of scrutiny for gender left unclear.
|
|
|
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
|
Court declared unconstitutional a school board regulation that required that pregnant women take maternity leave at a fixed point in their pregnancies. Said it created an impermissible irrebuttable presumption that women could not perform adequately after that point of their pregnancy.
|
|
|
Craig v. Boren
|
Supreme court finally agreed on intermediate scrutiny. Law with alcohol 3.2 beer.
Need important government interest and substantial relation. The most important single rule to remember in the entire area of middle-level scrutiny is that sex-based classifications get middle level review. So if government intentionally classifies on the basis of sex, it’s got to show that it’s pursuing an important objective, and that the sex-based classification scheme is substantially related to that objective. |
|
|
US v. Virginia
|
Exclusion of women was found unconstitutional because it was based entirely on gender stereotypes. Stereotypes: be on the lookout for stereotypes: if the legislature has made a sex-based classification that seems to reinforce stereotypes about the proper place of women it probably cannot survive middle level review. Virginia maintains Virginia Military Institute as an all-male college, because of the state’s view that only men can handle the school’s harsh, militaristic method of producing citizen soldiers. Held: this sex based scheme does not satisfy mid-level review because it stems from traditional ways of thinking about gender roles; there are clearly some women who are qualified for and would benefit from the VMI approach, and these women may not be deprived of the opportunity to attend VMI. Exceedingly persuasive justification: although the supreme court still gives gender based classifications only mid-level, not strict, scrutiny, the court now applies that scrutiny in a very tough way. The court now says that it will require an exceedingly persuasive justification for any gender based classification and will review it with skeptical scrutiny.
|
|
|
Lochner v. New York
|
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a NY law that set the max hours that bakers could work. Violated due process clause of 14th amendment because it interfered with freedom of contract and because it did not serve a valid police purpose: protect public safety, health or morals. A law that infringes on freedom in the marketplace and freedom of contract is unconstitutional if it does not bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. The general right to make a contract in relation to a person’s employment is an individual liberty protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
|
|
|
Nebbia v. New York
|
Upheld law that set prices for milk. Seems to question Lochner.
|
|
|
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
|
Upheld state law that required a minimum wage for women employees. Made it clear it was abandoning Lochner. Government not limited to regulating for public health, morals and safety - can regulate for any legitimate purpose.
|
|
|
Ferguson v. Skrupa
|
Upheld KS law that made it unlawful for a person to engage in the business of debt adjusting, except as incident to the lawful practice of law. Shows the court no longer interpreted the due process clause to protect a right to practice a trade or profession or even freedom of contract.
|
|
|
Griswold v. Connecticut
|
Unconst
Right to privacy - penumbra of BoR state law that prohibited the uses and distribution of contraceptives and also to assist, abet, or counsel such a violation. Right of privacy is a fundamental right. Right to privacy found in 1st,3rd,4th,and 5th amendments. Avoided addressing it as a due process issue but really is one since bill of rights is applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The state may prevail only upon showing a compelling interest and the law must be necessary to accomplish that interest. Connecticut has not met this strict test. |
|
|
Roe v. Wade
|
Unconst - upheld right to have an abortion. A pregnant woman has the constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, even when the abortion is not necessary to save the woman’s life. The right of privacy is fundamental stemming from the 14th amendment’s concept of personal liberty and is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against state interests in protecting prenatal life. State had a compelling interest in protecting maternal health for 1st trimester because then abortions more dangerous than childbirth. Compelling point for baby is at viability.
|
|
|
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
|
Reaffirmed that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. Overruled trimester distinctions in Roe. A woman has a constitutionally protected privacy interest in choosing to have an abortion before viability. However, the state has a somewhat countervailing interest in protecting potential life even before viability. This conflict seems to yield the following results:
a) no right to ban b) regulation: the state has a far greater ability to regulate the abortion process than it did before Casey. The state may regulate only if it does not place an undue burden on the woman’s right to choose a pre-viability abortion. A regulation will constitute an undue burden if the regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion. c) not a fundamental right that will be strictly scrutinized: apparently abortion is no longer a fundamental right and restrictions on it are no longer to be strictly scrutinized. |
|
|
Coronado Coal |
Commerce - Distinguish from E.C. Knight; violation of Sherman Act |
|
|
Alton Railroad |
Unconstitutional |
|
|
National League of Cities |
Unconstitutional |
|
|
Gregory v. Ashcroft |
Unconstitutional |
|
|
Gonzales v. Oregon |
Law does not include physician-assisted suicide, so court does not need to interpret it |
|
|
US v. Comstock |
Constitutional Fed Civil Commitment Act - allowed fed gov to commit people to mental institutions Authority: Necessary and Proper Clause (broad construction) |
|
|
NFIB v. Sebelius |
Individual Mandate |
|
|
McCray |
Constitutional Tax on yellow margarine Authority: power to tax |
|
|
Doremus |
Constitutional Narcotic seller records required Authority: power to tax |
|
|
Sonzinsky |
Constitutional Authority: power to tax federal tax on fire-arm dealers |
|
|
Kahringer |
Constitutional Authority: power to tax tax on bookmaking (gambling) |
|
|
US v. Butler |
Unconstitutional Authority: power to spend Ag. Adjustment Act - even if not coercive, simply outside Congress' commerce power |
|
|
Steward Machine v. Davis |
Constitutional Authority: power to spend Social security act - |
|
|
South Dakota v. Dole |
Constitutional States stand to lose 5% of fed highway funding if the drinking age is not raised to at least 21 5 part test a. must be in pursuit of general welfare (substantial deference to congress) b. must have unambiguous conditions c. germaneness (ex. drunk driving to highway funds) d. no inducement of other constitutional violations e. no coercion (distinguished from inducement) |
|
|
Sabri v. US |
Constitutional Authority: necessary and proper clause banned bribery of state or local officials |
|
|
Prize Cases |
Constitutional (w/President's Authority) Authority: Commander-In-Chief Prior to Congress announcing Civil War, Lincoln blockaded Southern ports and authorized seizure of ships |
|
|
Ex Parte Merryman |
Unconstitutional Authority: Due Process Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus |
|
|
Zivotofsky v. Kerry |
|
|
|
Chae Chan Ping |
Constitutional Unenumerated Plenary Power Doctrine P lived in SF for over 10 years, went to China, unable to return because of Chinese Exclusion Act of 1888 |
|
|
Ex Parte Quirin |
Constitutional American citizens who fought w/Germany in WWII were executed |
|
|
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld |
Constitutional American fighting with Taliban Matthews v. Eldridge Test - weight private interest, gov. interest, and value of more procedure War powers in war on terror |
|
|
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld |
Court can consider Gitmo detainee habeas corpus petition; Congress responds by enacting Military Commission Act - bars Geneva Convention for habeas corpus cases, retroactively changes War Crimes Act, no court has juris so no judicial protection |
|
|
Boumediene v. Bush |
Unconstitutional Gitmo detainee challenges Military Commission Act suspension of habeas corpus Habeas corpus suspension clause has full effect in Gitmo, Military Commission Act is not a legit suspension, so court can hear these cases (generally found detentions lawful) |
|
|
US RR Retirement Board v. Fritz |
Constitutional Auth: EP eliminated employees ability to double collect from RR and Social Security; Congress could plausibly think that equity req's allowing some to collect and others not (grandfathered in) |
|
|
Eisenstadt v. Baird |
Uncon Auth: EP, ostensibly applied RBR (had a bite given there is a relation between law and means, but the punishment/pregnancy/unwanted child was not adequate) MA law banned distribution of contraception to unmarrieds - condoms okay, diaphragms not; rights holders are individuals, not couples |
|
|
Civil Rights Laws |
Unconstitutional (no longer good law and dissent adopted) Auth: 13th Am. Dissent: given that slavery in US was race-based institution, discrimination on basis of race is a badge of slavery |
|
|
Hirabayashi v. US |
Const Auth: EP Compelling state interest, curfew for Japanese-Americans during WWII |
|
|
Pace v. Alabama |
Const Auth: EP fornication/adultery were illegal in AL and if were mixed race then greater punishment But, everyone punished equally for violation |
|
|
McLaughlin v. Florida |
Unconst
Auth: EP - SS Interracial cohabitation punished more than cohabitation between whites no evidence interracial cohabit's harmful Concurrence (Stewart/Douglas) - racial classifications = per se unconst; there should be no escape hatches via strict scrutiny |
|
|
Anderson v. Martin |
Unconst Auth: EP LA law req' candidates race on ballot; purely racial character/purpose (strict scrutiny); no legit purpose - state inciting private prejudice |
|
|
Lane v. Wilson |
Unconst Auth: EP Literacy test req'd to vote unless ancestors had been eligible prior to 1866, automatically registered if voted in 1914, otherwise had 12 days Historical background proves discrim purpose |
|
|
Fullilove v. Klutznick |
Const Auth: 5th Am Fed program req's fed funds used by state/local gov to build public facilities, 10% had to be used to procure from minority business enterprises; had waivers Plurality passes intermediate scrutiny; gov interest in remedying racial inequality and state has substantially related means; compelling state interest in eliminating effects of discrim |
|
|
Metro Broadcasting Inc v. FCC |
Const Auth: EP Intermediate scrutiny applied for fed. racial classifications FCC policy to give broadcasting licenses to minorities |
|
|
Fisher v. Univ. of Texas |
Const Auth: 5th Am (EP) O'Connor replaced by Alito TX top 10% admitted to UT, wants to add race back into considerations (after Grutter) Grutter gave deference on purpose but not on whether program narrowly tailored, argue whether court defers on workable race neutral alternatives |
|
|
Parents v. Seattle School District |
Unconst Auth: EP - Strict Scrutiny choice plan allowed students choose high school, oversubcribed and tie-breakers for siblings, race (if school's racial make-up was 10% diff than districts), distance, lottery No compelling state interest (history of discrim), no reason for broad-based diversity in lower edu; not narrowly tailored Concurrence (Kennedy) - no de facto segregation, diversity can be compelling in lower edu, but not narrowly tailored, individual classification must be last resort |
|
|
Schuette v. BAMN |
Const Auth: EP |
|
|
Geduldig |
Const Auth: EP - RBR CA disability scheme excluded pregnancy-related disabilities (sometimes mistaken for proposition that pregnancy discrim is never sex, majority says this is a very narrow holding) Pregnancy is a physical condition, not per se sex marker (there are females on both sides), program benefits men and women, no discrim purpose, no discrim impacts, courts stay out of policy - that is for legis. |
|
|
Michael M v. Superior Court of Sonoma County |
Const Auth: EP - RBR P had sex w/underage female after he hit her, CA law prohibits sex by males w/underage females. Purpose is deterring illegit teenage pregnancy, this roughly equalizes risks of intercourse, women already suffer consequences, sufficiently related, no indication of how tight it is Not rape - idea that once someone assents, it is irrevocable |
|
|
MU for Women v. Hogan |
Unconst Auth: EP - strict scrutiny (narrow holding) MI had nursing school only for women, man wanted to go and couldn't Field traditionally dominated by women, not narrowly tailored, no important interest, relies on stereotype of women as nurses |
|
|
Hegar v. Panetta
|
Ongoing Women banned from combat positions in military Inability to advance as quickly as men Intangible benefits - Sweatt |
|
|
Katzenbach v. Morgan
|
Const Auth: 5th Am EP Voting rights, if 6th grade edu in Puerto Rico, right to vote in NY (even if no English literacy) Reasonable means and legit ends (McCulloch); remedying past action vs. preventing future action |
|
|
City of Rome v. US |
Const Auth: 15th Am EP Voting Rights Act req'd states submit changes to DOJ first to avoid discrim purpose/effect |
|
|
Jones v. Alfred H Mayer |
Const Auth: 13 Am (DP) Statute - race discrim in retail/property sale/rental is prohibited Congress' power is broader than courts, may ban all "badges and incidents of slavery"; fundamental right to property denied is relic of slavery |
|
|
Fitzpatrick |
Const Auth: 14th postdates 11th, designed to change state-federal relations Extends employment discrim ban to states, challenge to constitutionality of money damages |
|
|
City of Boerne v. Flores |
Unconst Auth: Congress cannot define or interpret 14th Am rights, exceeds Congress S5 power Religious Freedom Restoration Act - cannot burden religious freedom unless law passes strict scrutiny (this case church cannot expand due to zoning laws) RULE: Congress bans actions by local/state gov that court wouldn't, aim must be to remedy/prevent unconstitutional actions the gov. (pattern of discrim) AND law Congress passes must be congruent and proportional to a pattern of const violations If Congress bans actions that Ct agrees are unconst, then Boerne analysis is not necessary |
|
|
Board of Trustees v. Garrett |
Unconst Auth: EP State employee sues under ADA, congress has to demonstrate a history and pattern of irrational disability discrim, remedy is not congruent/proportional |
|
|
NV v. Hibbs |
Const Auth: EP |
|
|
Chishold v. Georgia |
Const Auth: Art III S2 cl. 1; reaches states SC citizen sued GA in SCt over K violation; original juris Congress passes 11th Am |
|
|
Alden v. Maine |
Const Individuals cannot sue state for money damages, and Congress cannot authorize you do so (extends Seminole); Congress can abrogate state immunity under S5 14th Am Powers, but no other time (only bankruptcy) |
|
|
Barron v. Baltimore |
Provisions of the BoR apply only to the fed gov Challenged by Slaughterhouse Cases (PorI gutted, have to look elsewhere to apply BoR) |
|
|
Chicago Burlington & Quincy RR |
DP req's just compensation Chicago 'took' land owned by RR for easement signs of change |
|
|
Twining v. NJ |
DP and self-incrimination ban of 5th am are distinct |
|
|
Stromberg v. CA |
Unconst Auth: DP, protects freedom of speech |
|
|
Palko v. CT |
Const
Auth: DP - no violation, double jeopardy not an incorporated right, value/importance is not enough - how to determine fundamental rights? 1. essence of a scheme of ordered liberty? 2. so rooted in tradition/conscience of our people as to be fundamental? 3. Fair/enlightened system possible w/o it? 4. Neither liberty/justice would exist? |
|
|
Minnesota Rate Cases |
Unconst Auth: DP state law sets rates for RRs, have to allow for judicial review? no they don't. Procedural DP, rate must satisfy condition, but no investigation via judicial machinery, taking property w/o DP |
|
|
Buck v. Bell |
Const Auth: EP? VA authorized sterilization of institutionalized individuals - "3 gens or imbeciles are enough" |
|
|
Skinner v. OK |
Unconst Auth: EP - procreation is fundamental right, subject to strict scrutiny Habitual criminal sterilization act (3 crimes of moral turpitude) exemptions for crimes related to prohibitory laws Fails SS - legit line between person who embezzle and person who burglarize?; not well tailored |
|
|
Carey v. Population Services |
Unconst Auth: EP - strict scrutiny NY limited contraception distribution, only by pharmacists, only to people over 16; fundamental decision, no compelling state interest and not narrowly tailored - better ways |
|
|
Maher v. Roe |
Const Auth: not a suspect class under EP - RBR (poor women is not a class) CT granted medicaid benefits for childbirth, not for abortions encouraging childbirth is sufficient gov't purpose, don't have to fund abortion as well SDP: no burden on right protected in Roe, burden caused by poverty, not by the gov't Dissent (brennan) - coercive, gov't unequal spending - "makers her an offer she cannot refuse"; (Stevens) interest in fetal protection cannot trump womens health, state attaching more importance to unborn fetus than woman |
|
|
Poelker v. Doe |
Const St Louis ban on use of public hospitals for abortions |
|
|
Harris v. McRae |
Const Fed ban on use of fed money for abortion (unless death/incest/rape) |
|
|
Webster
|
Const MO ban on use of public facilities |
|
|
Stenberg v. Carhart |
Unconst NE criminal ban on partial birth abortions - two alternatives, one okay, one not No maternal health/life exception, imposed an undue burden |
|
|
Gonzales v. Carhart |
Const Alito replaced O'Connor Defer to Congress (fact finding, medical uncertainty, alternatives exist) Majority never expressly overrules Stenberg For law to be unconst, must be a showing that would be an undue burden for a 'large fraction of women' |
|
|
Zablocki v. Redhail |
Unconst Auth: SDP (right to marry) Strict Scrutiny if had minor child, not in your custody, had to prove child support up to date and show financial means to keep paying for child law 'significantly' or 'directly and substantially interferes w/ fundamental right to marry' - Griswold, Skinner, Maynard, Meyer, Loving (all fund'l rights); not narrowly tailored |
|
|
Turner v. Safley |
Unconst Auth: SDP - right to marry, but not strict scrutiny because prison admin MO DoC req' wardens permission for inmates to marry, needed compelling reason |
|
|
Stanley v. Illinois |
Unconst Auth: SPD unwed father had 3 children, mother dies, children become wards of state (unwed fathers are unfit parents) - cannot treat unmarried fathers as unfit unless actual finding as such |
|
|
Quilloin v. Walcott |
Const State rejects father's attempt to block adoption of his child by mothers new husband Father did not exercise custody for first 11 years, step-father already acting like father; in the best interests of the child |
|
|
Michael H v. Gerald D |
Const Auth: No SDP violation, RBR Wife has child, lists husband as father, tells lover he is father (confirmed by blood test), CA law - 2 years after child is born to married mother, we conclude the husband is the father and lover denied parental rights Protecting children is rational state interest, not fund'l right - look to legal tradition (Scalia says defined at narrowest level of generality - wants tradition to provide for predictable results/laws, not at fancy of the judge) |
|
|
Belle Terre v. Boraas |
Const
Auth: DP - not a fund'l right, passes RBR College students cannot room together (zoning reg); concerns for peace/quiet, family values, etc |
|
|
Moore v. City of East Cleveland |
Unconst
Auth: SPD - strict scrutiny Zoning restricts land use to single-family; grandma raising two grandsons from different parents in violation of ordinance Fund'l right of personal choice in marriage/family matters, history and tradition of extended families living together Dissent - no fund'l right, not expressive ass'n, not implicit in concept of ordered liberty, sharing living quarters is not same as right to marry/procreate |
|
|
Meyer v. Nebraska |
Unconst
Ban on teaching languages other than English in schools; Arbitrary law, no legit purpose; broad definition of liberty, cites Lochner/Slaughterhouse |
|
|
Pierce v. Society of Sisters |
Unconst
Auth: state does not have adequate SDP claim, test sounds like RBR Req'd students to attend public schools through eighth grade Violates liberty of parents to direct upbringing/edu of their children |
|
|
Jacobson v. MA |
Const
Compulsory vaccination compelling state interest suffices to justify infringement |
|
|
Prince v. MA |
Const Banned under-age children from selling mags/news State has sufficient justification for reg' minors this way; no violation of parental rights to direct upbringing of children, family itself is not beyond reg' in the public interest |
|
|
Troxel v. Granville |
Unconst Auth: DP - violated fund'l right of parents, unconst as applied (sweepingly broad) Grandparents petition for visitation, WA state law that anyone can petition for visitation rights and court may order visitation if in best interests of child No finding of parental unfitness, violated their fund'l rights (only W, H committed suicide) |
|
|
US v. Salerno |
Only facially void if there is no set of facts to which the law could constitutionally apply (states can choose their own standard) |
|
|
DeShaney v. Winnebago |
No const' right to medical care (unless special circum, like prison)
child suffers permanent brain damage after father beats him. Mother sues social services |
|
|
Cruzan v. MO Dept of Health |
Const Auth: SDP - liberty interest of competent adults to refuse med treatment (does not tell us if right to refuse med treatment is fund'l) P in perm vegetative state, no chance of recovery, parents want to pull the plug Family does not have to be able to decide on behalf of individual |
|
|
Washington v. Glucksberg |
Const Auth: SDP - RBR (facial SDP challenge) WA ban on causing/aiding suicide Different from Cruzan - that was refusing treatment, this is an affirmative action; not a fund'l right just because it's an important personal decision Fund'l right - look to history, legal tradition, practices |
|
|
Vacco v. Quill |
Const Auth: EPC - RBR NY allowed drs to aid by withdrawing life support, but not to assist in suicide Med profession and legal traditions recognized; conforms w/ notions of cause/intent; Cause - death via natural consequences vs direct cause(injection); Intent - allow patient to refuse treatment v. killing the patient |
|
|
Bowers v. Hardwick |
Const Auth: DP - RBR, defined right narrowly, not fund'l Challenge to GA anti-sodomy law Right at issue - privacy - defining right by who engages in it?; fund'l right of family, marriage, procreation does not extend to non-procreative sex; look to tradition, state's interest (White) - "Hardwicks claim is, at best facetious" Cites Blackstone (sodomy worse than rape) and judeo-christian values Dissent - affects both sexes equally, can't consider it in terms of homosexuality, changing trends, framing too narrowly |
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas |
Unconst
Auth: Majority - SPD, concurrence - EPC Challenge to TX anti-sodomy laws, explicitly limited to homosexual activity "Bower's was wrong on the day it was decided" Griswold etc not limiting fund'l right to procreative sex, Bowers framed too narrowly State/int'l law developments "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code" Never explicitly states/defines the fund'l right |
|
|
Hollingsworth v. Perry |
Challenge to CA's prop 8
Sponsors of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court and the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
|
|
Windsor v. US |
Unconst Auth: DP Challenge to DOMA held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." |
