Equal Protection Clause

Front 1

Railway Express v. NY

Back 1

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.

Front 2

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd v. Fritz

Back 2

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.

Front 3

Loving v. Virginia

Back 3

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.

Front 4

Strauder v. WV

Back 4

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.

Front 5

Plessy v. Ferguson

Back 5

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."

Front 6

Brown I

Back 6

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.

Front 7

Brown II

Back 7

1) Held: States must desegregate w/all deliberate speed.
2) Lower cts establish the merits of different remedies.

Front 8

Palmore

Back 8

1) Race is an impermissible controlling factor in child custody.

Front 9

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Back 9

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.

Front 10

Green

Back 10

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.

Front 11

Miliken

Back 11

1) Detroit district, alleged interdistrict by district isolation.
2) Held: No interdistrict violation, so no interdistrict remedy.

Front 12

Keyes

Back 12

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.

Front 13

Swann

Back 13

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.

Front 14

Adarand v. Pena

Back 14

1) Fed programs awarding K's based on racial classification will be subject to SS.

Front 15

Regents v. Bakke

Back 15

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.

Front 16

Richmond v. Croson

Back 16

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.

Front 17

Craig v. Boren

Back 17

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.

Front 18

US v. VA

Back 18

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.

Front 19

J.E.B.

Back 19

1) Held: can't use preemptory challenges based on gender.
2) FR to jury duty.

Front 20

Resident Legal Aliens

Back 20

1) Rule: If state distinguishes b/w citizen and resident aliens, then SS.
2) EXCEPTION: "political fxn exception" (ex- civics teacher).

Front 21

Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

Back 21

1) Held: Ct more deferential to federal policy, like immigration.
2) Emphasis on fed preemption, not equal proteciton.

Front 22

Non-Marital Children

Back 22

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.

Front 23

Mental Disability

Back 23

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.

Front 24

Age

Back 24

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.

Front 25

Poverty/Wealth

Back 25

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.

Front 26

Sexual Orientation

Back 26

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.

Front 27

Changes to political process, especially when concerns desegregation measures

Back 27

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.