Ls - Con Law Ii Due Process, Fundamental Rights & Equal Protection

Front 1

Griswold v. Connecticut

Back 1

"Facts: Executive Director and Doctor of PP were convicted under a Connecticut statute that made it a crime distribute/counsel in the use of birth control. Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations."

Front 2

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Back 2

"Struck down statute using rational basis test prohibiting sale of contraceptives to non married persons because it violated EPC, it discriminated against married vs. unmarried ppl. Court found there was absolutely no legitimate government purpose. NO legit purpose: Not for preventing premarital sex, Not for serving the health needs, Not for moral grounds against contraceptives BUT the statue could have easily survived the traditional RB review (this is rational basis with teeth). Under Griswold there may be an Individual Privacy Right regarding autonomy in decisions about birth choices."

Front 3

Carey v. Population Services International

Back 3

The court invalidated a New York law prohibiting any person other than a licensed pharmacist from distributing contraceptives. The Constitution protects individual decisions in matters of childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the State. Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives clearly burden the freedom to make such decisions and therefore are subject to SS.

Front 4

Roe v. Wade

Back 4

"Strict Scrutiny, this is part of the zone of privacy. Trimester Framework - First – Medical judgment left to physician. Second –State may restrict abortions in ways that are related to maternal health. Third – The potentiality of the fetus is compelling enough for the state to regulate abortions unless it is necessary to save the mother."

Front 5

Abortion Funding Cases

Back 5

Maher v. Roe/ Harris v. McRae – No constitutional right to abortion. No required government funding to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if fetus was carried to term or if victim of rape/incest.

Front 6

"Under Casey, what portions of the act were not undue burdens and what portions were undue burdens?"

Back 6

"Not undue: Informed consent, 24 hour waiting period, minors have informed consent, requirements on facilities that provide abortions. Undue included: notification of husband."

Front 7

Stare decisis factors from Casey/Lawrence

Back 7

Decision to overrule must be based on these factors: 1) Test becomes unworkable 2) Can they be removed without serious inequity to people who have relied upon the test 3) Evolution of legal principles 4) Advances in science/medical technology. Scalia argues in Lawrence dissent that these factors are not present.

Front 8

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

Back 8

Rejects trimester framework and holds that the state’s interest in protecting the unborn child is only permissible after the point of viability (subject to mother’s health interest). A woman’s fundamental right to choose prior to viability will make any state law that imposes an undue burden or substantial obstacle unconstitutional. (How undue burden compares with persuasion is unclear)

Front 9

Bowers v. Hardwick Rationales

Back 9

(Sodomy case overruled by Lawrence) To find a fundamental right Look to whether 1) Right is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history. or 2) The right is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty

Front 10

Lawrence v. Texas

Back 10

"Overturns Bowers, state decides this case based on rational basis analysis. Fails RB b/c there is no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private (sexual) life of the individual. Moral disapproval is not a legit gov purpose. Lawrence doesn’t tell us what level of scrutiny applies. They seem to discuss fundamental rights, but don’t use a fundamental rights analysis. They merely conclude by deciding the statute can’t even pass rational basis review."

Front 11

What two propositions could Lawrence Stand for?

Back 11

1) Sexual liberty is a fundamental right requiring a compelling governmental interest. (SS) OR 2) The government can show no rational basis for intruding on the interest in sodomy. (Rational Basis)

Front 12

O'Connor's Concurrence from Lawrence.

Back 12

O'Connor concurrence argues use of EPC b/c law aims to harm a politically unpopular group.

Front 13

Reliable Consultants v. Earle (5th Cir. 2008)

Back 13

" Statue criminalizing Sex Toys. protection for intimate relationships extends to intimate choices made by unmarried as well as married persons. This statute does not meet rational basis: Public morality is not a legitimate government interest, Concern for children doesn’t justify this invasion."

Front 14

"Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dep’t Health"

Back 14

"Parents want to pull the plug on vegetable daughter. Court standard required proof by CCE of a vegetables wishes before they allow them to pull the plug. The court held that Competent adults have a constitutional right to refuse medical care under the DPC. Five justices expressly said this includes a right to refuse food and water to bring about death. CCE is okay b/c family members don’t have the right to make that choice for each other. Sup Crt upholds law, but it does not state that there is a fundamental right to die. Did not articulate a level of scrutiny, so use rational basis."

Front 15

Washington v. Glucksberg

Back 15

"Washington had ban on assisted suicide. Court rejects the claim that the Washington law prohibiting assisted suicide violates a fundamental right protected under the DPC. Court defines it as a “right to assistances in suicide”. Not fundamental liberty interest. Rule – Rational Basis, the state has a strong interest in preventing assisted suicide b/c of greedy relatives & manipulation or coercion."

Front 16

Gonzalez v. Oregon

Back 16

"Ashcroft overstepped his authority by trying to prosecute doctors who helped people die. The majority said this power belonged to the states. The ruling, however, leaves open the possibility that FDA laws could bar physicians from prescribing such medications."

Front 17

Equal protection attack outline

Back 17

"1)      Look for Laws that impose burdens or benefits on some classes of individuals but not on others (are similarly situated individuals being treated dissimilarly by the government based on irrelevant characteristics?) 2) Identify the class of people involved. It is possible to have a class of one, although generally we don’t. (Village of Willowbrook) 3) For suspect classes use strict scrutiny, for quasi-suspect classes use intermediate scrutiny for non-suspect classes use rational basis. 4) If it is a fundamental right it is subject to strict scrutiny, otherwise a law will be subject to rational basis review."

Front 18

Strict Scrutiny

Back 18

Compelling interest + narrowly tailored + necessary to serve that interest

Front 19

Intermediate Scrutiny

Back 19

Must be substantially related to an important interest. Important governmental purposes = exceedingly persuasive justification. (VMI)

Front 20

Rational Basis Analysis.

Back 20

"Must be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest. Under lenient standards, if there is any conceivable state of facts upon which a legitimate interest can be found, even if it is not the real reason they adopted the law, we still don’t question it. It is rare when the government cannot satisfy the rational basis standard. Rational basis with teeth? How deferential will the court be in applying the rational basis standard. “Legislative classifications are valid unless they bear no rational relationship to the State’s objectives.” "

Front 21

New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer

Back 21

"(Seminal Case Re: Rat'l basis review) Metahdone users denied employment b/c of public safety. Safety and efficiency of public transportation is a legitimate interest. Even if it is a dumb plan or inadvisable, the court will uphold the law as long as there is SOME legitimate, cognizable purpose behind what the leg is doing, extreme deference to the legislature, unless the law bears no rational relationship to the State’s objectives."

Front 22

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Back 22

Food Stamp Househoulds. A legislative classification must be sustained if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The classification is clearly irrelevant to the government’s purposes. Only legislative history suggests it was targeted at hippies - equal protection of the laws means that at the very least a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest

Front 23

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Back 23

No homes for addicts/retards. No rational basis when irrational prejudice against a specific group w/o justification for why the group was excluded

Front 24

Romer v. Evans

Back 24

CO initiative prohibiting local govs from enacting anti-discrimination laws that protect homosexuals. Moral disapproval is not a legitimate gov purpose. Violates EPC b/c it was based on a blatant gov purpose to spread animus towards homosexuals (harm a politically unpop. Group)

Front 25

Clover Leaf Creamery:

Back 25

No Actual purpose review. The court will uphold as long as there is some basis for the law.

Front 26

Means/Ends Nexus & applying it through Beazer case

Back 26

First identify the state interest and identify who it applies to. Beazer says that over and under inclusion will almost certainly not be fatal under rational basis review. Over-inclusive - Are there people who are subject to the law despite the fact that they were not part of the problem and/or their inclusion does not further the gov interest (Beazer methodone users could do non safety related jobs) Under-inclusive - Some ppl are not disadvantaged even though the failure to include them undermines the achievement of the interest. Beazer didn’t include alcoholics just methadone users

Front 27

Holder Memo Re: DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) – when to apply heightened scrutiny?

Back 27

"4 Part test: 1) Whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination 2) Whether individuals exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group 3) Whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless 4) Whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate police objectives or to an individual’s ability to perform or contribute to society"

Front 28

Scott v. Sandford

Back 28

Slave Scott sued for his freedom. Court holds a black person is not a citizen and that the Missouri compromise is unconstitutional.

Front 29

Plessy v. Ferguson

Back 29

Separate passenger cars for blacks and whites. Court upholds law under separate but equal doctrine. Harlan says constitution is colorblind.

Front 30

In Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada

Back 30

"Missouri’s practice of maintaining an all white state law school, while agreeing to pay black residents’ tuition in neighboring states, violated the Equal Protection clause."

Front 31

Sweatt v. Painter

Back 31

"The court ordered the admission of a black student into a white law school holding that a parallel black school was not in fact equal. Compared factors between the schools: Size of library, Number of full time faculty, Intangibles including (Reputation of faculty, Experience of administration, Position and influence of alumni, Standing in the community, Traditions and prestige)"

Front 32

McLaurin v. Oklahoma state regents

Back 32

"McLaurin was made to sit in a special seat and segregated in cafeteria and library. Restrictions were unconstitutional because they impaired and inhibited his ability to study, to engage in discussions, to exchange views with other students, and in general, to learn his profession."

Front 33

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I)

Back 33

"Minors brought suit b/c they were denied admission to white schools. RULE – Struck down separate but equal. Education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Relied on Sweatt/McLaurin, don’t want black kids to feel inferior, separate is inherently unequal."

Front 34

Brown II

Back 34

"Remand cases to original courts that heard these cases b/c of their proximity to local conditions and the need for further hearings RULE - must comply with this holding with all deliberate speed, Ds have burden of proving why they need additional time to comply."

Front 35

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed

Back 35

"school dist redrew dist lines based on race, court ordered busing for students in between schools. If future courts are going to remedy segregation issues there must exist three factors 1) the manipulation must be purposeful 2) the judicial power is limited by the constitutional violation and 3) once the schools achieve unitary status judicial intervention should cease."

Front 36

Keyes v. School Dist No. 1

Back 36

"Denver SD segregates via gerrymandering; 2 part Rule: The Ps bear the burden of establishing that there was intentional state segregation in a substantial portion of the system. Then, Ps are not required to show deliberate segregation for each school in the system."

Front 37

Milliken I:

Back 37

limits judicial power to remedy seg across SD boundaries; cannot punish innocent dist 1 for the wrongdoing of bad dist 2

Front 38

Milliken II:

Back 38

"remedial powers go beyond pupil assignment, can include ordering states to pay for remedial education as part of an effort to place victims of unconstitutional conduct in the position they would have been in but for the violation [sep but equal again?] Missouri v. Jenkins: Shot down Milliken II b/c it was too close to separate but equal"

Front 39

Gordon Hirabayashi v. United States

Back 39

"Gordon defies the military curfew. The Court found the curfew to be constitutional. Chief Justice Stone, writing for the unanimous Court, argued that racial discrimination was justified since ""in time of war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of a different ancestry."""

Front 40

Korematsu v. United States

Back 40

"Japanese-American that refused to evacuate. Establishes SS - All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect, and courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. That is not to say they are constitutionally impermissible, just that they are the most suspect. Black wrote opinion, upheld the law because it was not aimed at his race, it was aimed at the USA’s militaristic strategy and efforts. Korematsu is the sole case in which the court has upheld a law discriminating by race with the court applying so-called strict scrutiny."

Front 41

Loving v. Virginia

Back 41

"Ps convicted under VA statute making it a felony for blacks and whites to marry. Where a statute specifies a racial classification it should be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny, and if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of racial discrimination which it was the object of the 14th amendment to eliminate. Preserving racial integrity is not a legit gov purpose."

Front 42

Washington v. Davis

Back 42

"Black applicants to police force were able to show that a higher percentage of blacks failed the test than whites. A court confronted with a classification that disadvantages a racial minority must first determine whether it constitutes a racial classification. If it does, either because it is racial on its face or because it is motivated by a racial purpose, the court will use strict scrutiny and probably invalidate it. Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant; it can help demonstrate a discriminatory purpose which can be inferred from the totality of facts. If it is non race specific, then the court will use rational basis review despite the classification’s disproportionate impact on the minority group and probably uphold it. Disproportionate impact is not enough to apply Strict Scrutiny. Here, the court found that test was neutral."

Front 43

In Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney

Back 43

"Facts: Veterans got more weight in civil service jobs. This disproportionately favors men over women. A discriminatory purpose 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."

Front 44

Village of Arlington Heights

Back 44

Even if just one purpose is to discriminate against a race it will trigger strict scrutiny.

Front 45

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Back 45

"P convicted of violating local ordinance about operating laundry, claimed board of supervisors denied Chinese ppl licenses. Even where statute is passed for neutral reasons, if it is administrated discriminatorily, it violates EPC, no matter how low level the official who administers it may be. 14th A applies to nationals, aliens and non-citizens. “No state shall deny any person…” You don’t have to be a citizen to assert this."

Front 46

Hernandez v. New York

Back 46

"Prosecutor used preemptories to keep Hispanics off of the jury, claimed Spanish-speaking jurors would rely on Spanish testimony instead of its English translation. Affirmed prosecutor’s actions, this was disparate impact case and therefore governed by Washington v. Davis."

Front 47

University of California v. Bakke

Back 47

"Justices divided on UC Davis affirmative action program, ultimately struck it down (1/2 thought SS, ½ thought IS), Powell is the tie breaker who agrees it is SS applies. Uncon b/c it excluded applicants on the basis of race, i.e. the “quota system”"

Front 48

"Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena"

Back 48

"Adarand submits lowest bid but K is given to minority owned firm b/c of federal statutes providing bonus for firms controlled by economically and socially disadvantaged persons. Strict Scrutiny applies in affirmative action cases. Three propositions to governmental racial classifications: 1) Skepticism – racial classifications are inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny 2) Consistency – standard of review under EPC not dependent on race, all use of race/ethnicity is suspect 3) Congruence – EP analysis in the 5th amendment is the same as that under the 14th amendment. All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny."

Front 49

Grutter v. Bollinger

Back 49

"U of Mich law school board includes race and other factors when they did their entrance assessment. SS applies b/c it is explicitly using race. They find a compelling gov. purpose to have a racially diverse student body. It is narrowly tailored because they made a good faith consideration of race-neutral alternative to achieve diversity. No quotas system, but the goal of attaining a critical mass is different from a quota system. Court grants vast amount of deference to educators, almost the same amount of deference given to the government in Korematsu. In time, as social factors change, consideration of race may not be required in order to achieve diversity."

Front 50

Craig v. Boren

Back 50

"An OK statute had diff alcohol ages for men (21) and women (18), challenge was that it discriminated against males who were 18-20 yrs old. Court applies Intermediate Scrutiny. Struck down law b/c fit was not close enough, ordinance did not enhance traffic safety, which was the gov’s alleged purpose. Methodology was bad because women get driven home, so the numbers are skewed. Difference in percentage was also slight. The statute still allowed consumption, it only regulated purchase."

Front 51

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Back 51

"Court struck down the exclusion of males from the nursing school b/c it tends to perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as a woman’s job. A skeptical attitude toward gender classifications is designed to ensure that government action is “determined through reasoned analysis rather than through the mechanical application of tradition, often inaccurate assertion about the proper roles of men and women. Doesn’t mean that separate but equal doesn’t have a role in education for men and women."

Front 52

United States v. Virginia

Back 52

"Challenge to VMI’s male-only policy Rule – IS, Important governmental purposes = exceedingly persuasive justification. The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. It must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities or preferences of males & females."

Front 53

Skinner v. Oklahoma:

Back 53

"Ct declares procreation a FR under EPC, applies SS; strikes down prisoner sterilization. Struck down b/c the law arbitrarily distinguishes btw crimes of moral turpitude & white collar. When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same offense and sterilizes one but not the other, it has made an invidious discrimination."

Front 54

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Back 54

Poll Tax. SS under EPC because voting is a fundamental right

Front 55

Bush v. Gore

Back 55

"The failure of the Florida court to specify standards for determination which votes would count violated the EPC. Having granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another. "