Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/27

Click to flip

27 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Railway Express v. NY
1) Facts: NY reg prohibited general ads on vehicles, but allowed ads for products sold by vehicle owners.
2) Rule: EPC does not require all/nothing eradication of evils.
3) Reas: State has legit interest in fewer distractions to drivers.
4) Concur: Jackson- differential treatment must be based on the distinction. Douglass- 2 req's- possibility of state interest, and law might reasonably serve that state interest.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd v. Fritz
1) Holding: Law re: retirement benefits based on tenure of service does not violate EPC.
2) Rule: Social and economic leg by Congress will be upheld under the EPC if it is rationaly related to a permissible govtal objective.
Loving v. Virginia
1) Held: state law restricting freedom to marry solely b/c of racial classification violates EPC.
2) Reas: Superiority of white race b/c all minorities could mix.
3) -->Ct may allow for medical screening by race if everyone of that race has a condition.
Strauder v. WV
1) Held: Law banning non-whites from juries violates EPC b/c serving on a jury is a civil right protected by EPC.
2) Reas:
a) Ct more likely to see EPC violation when FR involved.
b) must be state cxn; not purely private action.
c) might've been ok if racially spearate juries, trials.
Plessy v. Ferguson
1) Held: Law requiring segregation of rail cars is CON, so long as separate but equal.
2) Reas: a) tradition/custom, b) not OK if bad leg motive
3) Dissent: CON is "color-blind."
Brown I
1) Held: segregating kids in public schools based solely on race violates EPC.
2) Cooper v. Aaron said Brown is the law of the land, not just the litigants.
Brown II
1) Held: States must desegregate w/all deliberate speed.
2) Lower cts establish the merits of different remedies.
Palmore
1) Race is an impermissible controlling factor in child custody.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
1) Facts: Law reg laundromat permits only impacts Asians.
2) Held: Despite facially neutral, discrimination can be on the enforcement side: "disparate impact."
3) Difficult std if facially neutral and no hidden discriminatory purpose.
Green
1) Bd gives parents freedom to choose schools.
2) Held: Bd has affirmative duty to take steps to integrate more fully.
3) Rule: Once bad faith discrim, burden's on govt to show ok.
4) Zoning: is a legit means.
Miliken
1) Detroit district, alleged interdistrict by district isolation.
2) Held: No interdistrict violation, so no interdistrict remedy.
Keyes
1) Denver de jure intradistrict discrimination, in 1 part of the district.
2) Held: Ct may enact district-wide remedies based on discrimination in 1 part of district.
Swann
1) Once discrimination, D.Ct broad powers to determine remedies- busing; so long as no harm to kid's education. Numerical tarkets are okay, too.
Adarand v. Pena
1) Fed programs awarding K's based on racial classification will be subject to SS.
Regents v. Bakke
1) Facts: medical school admission policy.
2) Held: race may not be the sole criterion for admission decision. SS, which needs CGI.
3) Racial quota violated EPC.
Richmond v. Croson
1) any affirmative action that classifices based on race faces SS. Must be "necessary" for a CGI.
2) CGI must be redressing past discrim. by the govt.
Craig v. Boren
1) Facts: Law re: alcohol sales b/w men and women.
2) Held: Laws establishing classifications by gender must
a) serve "important govtal objectives" and
b) must be "substantially related" to achievement of those objectives.
US v. VA
1) Held: public schools may not exclude women.
2) Scrutiny: Gender means less than SS, but greater than mid-level: "exceedingly persuasive justification."
3) -->I think: criteria should be objective- carrying the pack.
J.E.B.
1) Held: can't use preemptory challenges based on gender.
2) FR to jury duty.
Resident Legal Aliens
1) Rule: If state distinguishes b/w citizen and resident aliens, then SS.
2) EXCEPTION: "political fxn exception" (ex- civics teacher).
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong
1) Held: Ct more deferential to federal policy, like immigration.
2) Emphasis on fed preemption, not equal proteciton.
Non-Marital Children
1) Scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny (heightened)- must be "substantially related" to the govtal interest.
2) Lalli case: state interest in orderly disposition of property upon death.
Mental Disability
1) Scrutiny: quasi-suspect class, at most.
a) Rational relationship, "plus"; RR w/bite.
i) Need a "real purpose" and means need to effectuate LGI.
2) Cleburn: Held- Mentally retarded don't get heightened scrutiny.
Age
1) MA Bd of Retirement v. Murgia
2) Held: old age is not a discrete and insular group in need of extraordinary protection.
3) Scrutiny: Low-level, RR test.
Poverty/Wealth
1) Rule: economic class is NOT a suspect class.
2) EXCEPTIONS: poll tax, crim defense, etc. (me- CON text rights).
3) Scrutiny: Low-level, RR.
Sexual Orientation
1) Romer v. Evans
2) CO Con saying that homosexuals can't be a suspect class violates EPC because singling out homosexuals as a disfavored class.
3) Scrutiny: says RR, but probably more.
Changes to political process, especially when concerns desegregation measures
1) Rule: probably UNCON when Repeal "plus" something else
2) -perhaps changing/altering the political structure is some UNCON fashion.
-perhaps taking a local decision, but trumping it by saying they have to pass a second, higher hurdle at the state level.
-perhaps a Local Control issue.
-perhaps a racial motivation/discrimination, which is a suspect class (unlike wealth).

3) Kanter: some sort of emerging right to not frustrate the political process to the detriment of a certain group.
-voting, jury, education, etc.