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;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Ø The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)space:aGlP|< |
o LAstatute forced all butchers to move to New Orleans under the oversight of oneslaughterhouse. Butchers claim violationof Privileges and Immunities Clause of 14th A.o Holding – Court upheld statute. Court held narrowing reading of the 14th A. as applying onlyto national citizenship, and not state citizenship./span"lP< |
|
|
Ø Palko v. Connecticut (1937) (selectiveincorporation; fundamental right = “very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty”)'glP\< |
o Holding – Double jeopardy (5th A.) is not among incorporatedrights. Double jeopardy is notessential to the “scheme of ordered liberty”. Court applies theory of selective incorporation. |
|
|
Ø Adamson v. California (1947)[lP`< |
o Holding – Rule against self-incrimination (5th A.) not amongincorporated rights.o Dissent (Black) – Argues for the “totalincorporation” of first 8 Amendments of Bill of Rights.ng lP)< |
|
|
Ø Lochner v. New York (1905)[Overruled by West Coast (1937)]VlPm< |
o NYlaw limited hours bakerscould work to 10 hours per day and 60 hrs per week.o Holding – Court struck down law as violation ofright to contract – fundamental right to earn a living. Lochner Test: 1) Define the right – right toenter into labor k, 2) Define the state interest – baker’s health, 3) Balance –Court applies heightened “actual purpose review” – fails, unjustifiedinterference in market – why just bakers?!--EndF7lP< |
|
|
Ø WestCoast Hotel Co. v.Parrish(1937) [Overturns Lochner]"WlPl< |
o Holding – Court applies RBR and upholds WA minimum wage law forwomen. Court is more deferential tostate legislature – state purpose to help guard against exploitation of womenin workforce.an stylllPW< |
|
|
Ø *Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955) [CurrentRBR test for economic state laws?]pur]lPf< |
o OKlaw prohibits opticians from fitting lenses without prescription from licensedoptometrist.o Holding – Upholds law, holds that state laws regulating businessonly subject to RBR. Does nothave to be actual legislative purpose, under/over inclusive does not matteres hei)lP< |
|
|
Ø Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) [NOTE:Lochner period]st:TlPo< |
o NElaw prohibited teaching modern foreign languages in school.o Holding –Strikes down law. DP clause protects rights of parents and teachers to educate theirchildren. Though state police powerpermits regulation of children’s education, the means here were too intrusive.:p> |
|
|
Ø Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)font-ZlPa< |
o CTlaw banned the use of contraceptionfor married couples (doesn’t apply to condoms)o Holding (Douglas) – Court strikes downlaw. The right to privacy is found in the “penumbras” of otherConstitutional protections (i.e. 1st A., 3rd A., 4th A., 5th A.). o Concurrence (Harlan) [Current Doctrine] – DP clausegives right to review any arbitrary infringement on liberty. Liberty is a “living thing” – not just isolated points pickedour of the Bill of Rights (rejects selective incorporation) |
|
|
Ø Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)l[lP`< |
o MAlaw banned distribution ofcontraceptives. D, sex educator,gave foam to unmarried female.o Holding – Strikes down law. Extends Griswold to unmarried couples – notjust a narrow right within marriage, but an INDIVIDUAL right to make decisions aboutreproduction.html> |
|
|
Ø Carey v. Population Services International (1977)t-TlPo< |
o Holding – Court strikes down NY law prohibitingsale and distribution of contraceptivesto minors.bodyZlPa< |
|
|
Ø Roev. Wade(1973) [transition from “right to privacy” to “right to autonomy”]/spanClPx< |
o TXlaw banned abortionso Holding (Blackmun) – Court strikes downabortion ban. 1) Liberty interest –women’s right to control reproduction, body; 2) State interest – woman’shealth, health of the fetus; 3) Strict Scrutiny – fails, not narrowlytailored. Court adopts trimester plan thatvaries on the level of compelling state interest in fetus (lowest in 1sttrimester, highest in 3rd trimester). |
|
|
**Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1192) [reaffirms core holding of Roe,but changes level of review – “undue burden test”]FmZD9ymlPVc; |
o 5 PA provisionsof Abortion Control Act challenged as unconstitutional under Roe: 1) InformedConsent, 2) 24 hour waiting period, 3) parental consent (waiver exception), 4) spousal consento Holding (O’Connor) – Reaffirms the essentialholding of Roe – the right to an abortion is grounded in the right to privacyand DP clause. Replaces trimester systemwith “undue burden test” – “purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstaclein the path of women seeking abortion”? Court upholds informed consent, 24 hour waiting period, parentalconsent; strikes down spousal consent requirement – undue burden; likelihood of abuse. Justices defer to stare decisis.sizlPU< |
|
|
Ø *Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) aDlP< |
o Congressbans partial birthabortions.o Holding (Kennedy) – Court upholds ban. Fails undue burden test: 1) Effects – banonly prevent one method of abortion, most prevalent method is left untouched;no chill on physicians – no penalty if procedure occurs accidentally; 2) Intent– no intent to create substantial obstacle to access to abortion. Court applies RBR – passes en:lP< |
|
|
Ø *Cruzan v. Director Missouri Health (1990)spFlP}< |
o Cruzanin persistent vegetativestate as per state law, family wants to “pull the plug”o Holding – Court upholds continuing mandatorytreatment. Though there is a traditionof fundamental right toreject medical treatment, here since no one knew what Cruzan actuallywanted, court defers to state.o:p><=lP< |
|
|
Ø *Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) !BlPy< |
o WAprohibits doctor assistedsuicideo Holding – Court upholds law. Tradition of prohibitionof suicide – most relevant legal tradition.o Concurrence(O’Connor) –Tradition of fundamental right to avoid unnecessary pain (Cruzan – death with dignity). O’Connor doesn't rule out a potentialsituation where doctor assisted suicide would be valid.nd:yelllP7< |
|
|
*Bowers v. Harwick (1986)[Overruled by Lawrence (2003)] |
o GAlaw prohibiting sodomy. (essentially applies only to men)o Holding – Upheld, no tradition protectingsodomy. No implicit concept of orderedlibertyejlP,< |
|
|
Ø Lawrence v. Texas (2003)[overrules Bowers; Kennedy– living/evolving tradition of liberty)s New RjlPQ< |
o TXlaw outlaws sodomybetween same sex persons.o Holding – Strikes down law; overturnsBowers. Bowers was wrong on tradition –history is disputed. 1) Liberty interest (intimate association, personalautonomy, right to privacy; 2) state interests – no valid state interest– merely asserting majority’s moral view; 3) Majority’s moral view cannot justify intrusion onpersonal liberty. Applies livingtheory. Court does not defer (stare decisis)tal rlPY< |
|
|
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) p. 450n |
1. Facts: P was convicted of battery, amisdemeanor, and sentenced to some prison time without ever getting a jurytrial because LA did not require it.2. Holding: P should have gotten a jury trial. Billof Rights/right to a jury trial extends in this case to the states.3. Dissent:a. The writers of the 14th Amendment didn’t intendit to expand all the other Amendments. b. The right to a jury trial is not a requisite ofdue process.(lPk< |
|
|
McDonaldv. City of Chicago (2010) p. 457 |
1. Facts: Chicago passed bans on guns that havebeen found to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment.2. Holding: Second Amendment is fully applicable tothe States. 3. Reasoning: the right to keep and bear arms is aright that goes way, way back and is very firmly rooted in our country’shistory, culture, and in the interest of self defense.4. “If our understanding of the right to ajury trial...were necessary attributes of any civilized country, it wouldfollow that the United States is the only civilized Nation in the world.” P.4585. Dissent: lookingat the historical context is the wrong approach. We should look at what thenation thinks now and determine if the right to keep and bear arms should becovered under the Due Process Clause, the 14th Amendment, and the guaranty of libertythat they provide.a. Firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationshipto liberty; they can be used to take as well as to protect. Violate liberty andprotect it.b. Owning one is not necessary to live a life ofautonomy or equality.c. Other countries do a good job without guns.d. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect statesfrom feds. Not individuals from states.e. States have a long history of regulatingfirearms. f. States know best how to deal with their own guncontrol problems. Federalism argument. |
|
|
Vaccov. Quill (1997) p. 560)lP; |
1. N.Y. made assisted suicide illegal, but allowedthe refusal of lifesaving equipment.2. Holding: same as above. The ban stands. a. There is a legal, medical, logical, and rationaldifference between assisted suicide and the refusal of lifesaving equipment. b. This is born out of the idea, not that peoplehave a right to die, but that they have a right to avoid unwanted touching.5lP< |
|
|
QUESTION |
Is Lawrence a simple application of Griswoldto a form of “non artificial” family planning? Or does it depend on a “right ofintimate association” or of “self definition/identity,” regardless of anintimate association |
