Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
37 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Intermediate Scrutiny
|
Must be substantially related to an important interest. Important governmental purposes = exceedingly persuasive justification. (VMI)
|
|
|
Rational Basis Analysis.
|
"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.” "
|
|
|
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
|
"(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."
|
|
|
U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno
|
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
|
|
|
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
|
No homes for addicts/retards. No rational basis when irrational prejudice against a specific group w/o justification for why the group was excluded
|
|
|
Romer v. Evans
|
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)
|
|
|
Clover Leaf Creamery:
|
No Actual purpose review. The court will uphold as long as there is some basis for the law.
|
|
|
Means/Ends Nexus & applying it through Beazer case
|
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
|
|
|
Holder Memo Re: DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) – when to apply heightened scrutiny?
|
"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"
|
|
|
Scott v. Sandford
|
Slave Scott sued for his freedom. Court holds a black person is not a citizen and that the Missouri compromise is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Plessy v. Ferguson
|
Separate passenger cars for blacks and whites. Court upholds law under separate but equal doctrine. Harlan says constitution is colorblind.
|
|
|
In Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada
|
"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."
|
|
|
Sweatt v. Painter
|
"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)"
|
|
|
McLaurin v. Oklahoma state regents
|
"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."
|
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I)
|
"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."
|
|
|
Brown II
|
"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."
|
|
|
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed
|
"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."
|
|
|
Keyes v. School Dist No. 1
|
"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."
|
|
|
Milliken I:
|
limits judicial power to remedy seg across SD boundaries; cannot punish innocent dist 1 for the wrongdoing of bad dist 2
|
|
|
Milliken II:
|
"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"
|
|
|
Gordon Hirabayashi v. United States
|
"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."""
|
|
|
Korematsu v. United States
|
"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."
|
|
|
Loving v. Virginia
|
"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."
|
|
|
Washington v. Davis
|
"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."
|
|
|
In Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
|
"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."
|
|
|
Village of Arlington Heights
|
Even if just one purpose is to discriminate against a race it will trigger strict scrutiny.
|
|
|
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
|
"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."
|
|
|
Hernandez v. New York
|
"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."
|
|
|
University of California v. Bakke
|
"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”"
|
|
|
"Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena"
|
"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."
|
|
|
Grutter v. Bollinger
|
"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."
|
|
|
Craig v. Boren
|
"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."
|
|
|
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
|
"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."
|
|
|
United States v. Virginia
|
"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."
|
|
|
Skinner v. Oklahoma:
|
"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."
|
|
|
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
|
Poll Tax. SS under EPC because voting is a fundamental right
|
|
|
Bush v. Gore
|
"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. "
|
