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;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Strict Scrutiny |
Applies to: Race, National Origin, Facial Classifications, Intended Disparate Impact Govt purpose: compelling Means: necessary |
|
|
IS |
Applies to: Sex (no archaic stereotypes), Illigitimate Children Govt purpose: important Means: substantial relation IS+?: exceedingly persuasive justification (from Hogan - MI Univ for Women) |
|
|
RBR |
applies to: age, poverty, federal aliens (unless discussing access to government functions), and disparate impact only cases govt purpose: legitimate means: rationally related |
|
|
RBR w/ bite |
applies to: disability, sexual orientation govt purpose: reasonable means: substantial relation (same as IS) - cannot be underinclusive |
|
|
Frontiero Factors |
1. History of Discrim 2. Ideology of subordination/stereotype 3. Trait (immutible, apparent, not salient) 4. Representation reinforcement |
|
|
Lopez ISC Rules |
1. Interstate is regulated (commercial/economic channels, 2 AND/OR: instrumentalities, and persons/things) 3. Intrastate is regulated when an aggregation of goods that have a substantial effect (Wickard brought agg, and Rehnquist/Lopez brought back substantial. If commercial, follow the new deal cases: Darby, Wickard, Heart of Atl, Perez If non-commercial/economic, then no deference to congress. Morrison and Lopez. 3.a - jurisdictional element: must be explicitly stated as an element in the law. 3.b - explicit findings of fact: must be the RIGHT KIND OF FACTS (Morrison), and CANNOT INTRUDE UPON TRADITIONAL STATE AUTHORITY 4. part of a comprehensive federal regulation scheme that would otherwise be undercut. (Raich). Drugs, insurance, healthcare. |
|
|
Anti-Commandeering (Rehnquist) |
If fed gov tells states how to regulate their citizens (Printz) OR If fed gov uses state employees to implement their federal plan VALID if regulating states' internal operations (Reno v. Condon). |
|
|
Formalism, New Deal, Rehnquist Court |
New Deal includes NLRB v. Jones, Darby, Wickard, and Katzenbach Rehnquist starts with Lopez. |
|
|
1. ID the fundamental right: History/Tradition in Common Law |
Griswold (dissent) Bowers, Cruzan, Glucksberg 1. "Careful discription" of the right - focus on behavior claimed to be privileged (eg, gay sodomy) 2. Is it "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition as evidenced in history, traditions, and practices. 3. Is there a counter principle? Which is a better fit (lawrence) 4. Implicit in concept of ordered liberty (Palko) 5. Presumption against new unenumerated fundamental rights. |
|
|
1. ID the fundamental right: Living Liberty and Evolving Values |
Griswold, Loving, Casey, Lawrence contraception, anti-miscegenation, abortion, sodomy/intimate association) 1. Does law violate values "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" 2. US tradition of liberty is "a living thing" 3. Determining if valid, involves rational judicial inquiry (means/ends) |
|
|
2. ID the state's interest 3. Balance the state's interest against the individual right |
Non-fundamental right (social/economic): Heightened under Lochner (actual purpose review), now just RBR w/ deferrence to legislature (West Coast/Lee Optical) Fundamental: SS (Roe) Abortion: Undue Burden Effects (Carhart): alternatives, change in quality, easily applied to juries Intent of legislature and gov purpose If no undue burden then apply RBR |
|
|
SS |
Privacy Marital Privacy (Griswold) Abortion (Roe, Casey, Carhart) Intimate Associations (Eisenstadt, Population Services, Lawrence) Marriage (Loving) Right to Raise and Educate (Meyer) |
|
|
RBR (NOT FUNDAMENTAL) |
West Coast Lee Optical Glucksberg contract, divorce, health care, social economic rights, right to die |
|
|
Arlington Heights Factors for Invidious Purpose |
1. Effects of the action – did it have adisparate impact? 2. Have to look at comments made by people asthey were making the decision (historical background of legislation + eventsleading up to it being passed) 3. Have to look at history of similar action(is there any procedural irregularity?) |
