Sdp And Pdp Full Set

Front 1

Procedural due process
14th Amendment
"nor shall any state...."

Back 1

Deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law

Front 2

Life, Liberty, Property = _____ DP
Process of Law = _______ DP

Back 2

Substantive Due Process
Procedural Due Process

Front 3

Liberty and Property Interests:
2 steps
1) is there....?
2) what DP....?

Back 3

Step 1: is there a liberty or property interest involved? (no balancing)
Step 2: what process is due?

Front 4

Zinermin v. Burch
3 facets of due process
1) clause incroporates many of the specific protections in the bill of rights.
2) Substantive arm:
3) Procedural protection:

Back 4

Justice Stevens
Substantive Arm: it contains a substantive component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful actions, regardless of the fairness of the procedure. No procedural question, just one of substance.
Procedural Protection: the guaranty of fair procedure; the existence of remedies in a special sense (substantive values-life, liberty, property) cannot be taken away w/o due process

Front 5

Goldberg v. Kelly

Back 5

1970
Began new era of civil side of DP

Front 6

Brd of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth

Back 6

1972
Roth was 1-yr term assistant at Wisconsin. Under state law, he did not have tenure. Roth did not have property or liberty interest, he was not entitled to DP.

Front 7

Definition of Liberty

Back 7

Freedom from bodily restraint! Besides that, it's the right of the individual to K, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up kids, to worship God, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Front 8

Definition of Property

Back 8

A legitimate claim of entitlement (as opposed to an abstract claim or need/desire of something). The C does not create property interest -it comes from federal law, regulations, understandings, state statutes, common law, contracts etc. The C protects the property rights that have been created.

Front 9

Perry v. Sindermann

Back 9

1972
Professor whose K was not renewed. Claim school had a de facto tenure program. Faculty guide state that despite absence of tenure it "wishes each faculty member to feel that he has permanent tenure so long as his teaching services are satisfactory and as long as he displays a cooperative attitude." Found property interest. Legitimate claim of entitlement to job tenure.

Front 10

Cleveland Brd of Edu v. Loudermill

Back 10

1979
Hired as security guard, stated he had never been convicted of a felony. Dismissed bc of dishonesty, not afforded opportunity to respond. P's federal C claim depends on property interest in continued employment. Was a "civil servant" under OH law. Loudermill entitled to admin review

Front 11

Paul v. Davis

Back 11

1970's
Changed liberty concept (made it more narrow)
You can't just show a burden, but you have to show that the state-fed entity altered the status of the individual. Reputation standing alone is not a constitutionally protected liberty, must show conjunction with some other injury.

Front 12

Matthews v. Eldridge

Back 12

1976
P had received disability. Ct concludes that an evidentiary hearing was not required prior to the termination of benefits and that the questionnaire, reports from physician, and given a statement of reasons and offered opportunity to submit a written response.

Front 13

Matthew's Test (Balancing/Cost-Benefit Analysis)

Back 13

1. The private interest that will be affected by the official action
2. The risk of error and the probable value of additional/substitute procedural safeguards
3. The government or public interest in taking the property away and the burden that the additional/substitute procedural requirement would entail

Front 14

Goss v. Lopez

Back 14

Student just had to be orally told (notice) and must be given an opportunity to be heard.
Liberty Interest-would go on his record
Property interest-Education
.Least procedure

Front 15

Tarrant County

Back 15

TX SC
Property- losing salary and losing jobs.
Population shifting brought about a result and Ct said process satisfied when they held the public hearing (not adversarial)

Front 16

Memphis Gas, Light & Water Co v. Kraft

Back 16

There was state action-cut off person's utilities for not paying bill. Property interest because of contract for utility. Had to ask in an informal means/way why they haven't paid

Front 17

Where do you find a right of privacy? (three cases)

Back 17

1) Griswold
2) Roe v Wade
3) Casey

Front 18

Griswold v Connecticut

Back 18

1965
Gave medical advice to married persons about preventing conception. Right to contraception is within the penumbra of rights in "right of privacy" concept. There are notions of privacy surround the marriage relationship. Need to show necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest. (concurring: look to tradition, "implicit in concept of ordered liberty")

Front 19

Roe v. Wade

Back 19

1973
Right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision on abortion. Fight C right with C right. Regulate b/c: (1) mother health; (2) potentiality of fetus life. Compelling interest at viability (trimester stuff). Texas failed to show a compelling state interest for the act. To argue within liberty concept: (1) show compelling state interest and means narrowly tailored; (2) how should we define a person (best argument in con law is when you can argue a fundamental right with a fundamental right; explicit beats implicit)

Front 20

Maher v. Roe

Back 20

Ct upheld regulation granting medicaid benefits for childbirth but not abortions. Regulation does not impinge upon fundamental right; what makes it difficult or impossible for some women to get an abortion is not created or affected by regulation. Rationally furthers state's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus

Front 21

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v Casey

Back 21

Women had to jump through hoops before abortion. Court affirmed Roe v Wade but struck down trimesters. Standard is changed to "undue burden analysis," exists when purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. Burden may be undue because: (1) too severe or (2) lacks a legitimate, rational justification. Today's law - state is allowed to regulate and even prohibit abortion after viability

Front 22

Summarize Abortion

Back 22

First 3 Months: decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician
Second Trimester: State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother may regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
Stage Subsequent to Viability: state may in promoting its interest in potential of human life may regulate and even ban abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Front 23

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Back 23

1977
SDP. Ct invalidated city ordinance that limited occupancy to members of the same "family." Intrusive regulation of the family and the goals of the statute were only marginally served.

Front 24

Zablocki v Redhail

Back 24

Ct invalidated statute saying parent who must pay child support can't marry unless he is for sure paying. Right to marry is a fundamental right. Statute interfering directly and substantially with right to marry. Reasonable reg may be imposed like laws prohibiting marriage to a child, close relative, person with VD)

Front 25

Michael H v Gerald D

Back 25

CA statute said a child born to a married woman living with her husband is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage; this presumption has consequences for visitation rights of genetic father. NO C right for genetic father (adulterer).

Front 26

Baby Richard Case

Back 26

Baby Richard-child was adopted and lived with parent for four years. Natural father came and couple had to give him back because it was in the best interest of the child. State Decision.

Front 27

Lawrence v Texas

Back 27

statute made sodomy a crime for same sex but not different sex couples. Right to sexual liberty is fundamental. DP case because liberty was deprived. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expressions, and certain intimate conduct. DP fundamental right stronger argument than eq pro because legislature can fix statute if eq pro.

Front 28

Kelly v Johnson

Back 28

Ct upheld regulation limiting the length of policeman's hiar. If your going to be presented to the public in your occupation, your employer can regulate. The Ct said this was C b/c not irrational

Front 29

Whalen v. Roe

Back 29

Computerized central bank; challenge was to the government storage of personal data. Rational basis test-since privacy interests hasn't been sufficiently raised just by virtue of storing the documents.

Front 30

Cruzan v. Director Missouri Department of Health

Back 30

Persistent vegetative state (no cognitive function). Cruzan had liberty interest to refuse but she can't consent, but can state or parents? No ct held that MO can place this safeguard on this decision b/c it has an interest in the protection and preservation of human life. Burden was not too high. State was protecting from abuse.

Front 31

Washington v Glucksberg

Back 31

Terminally ill brought action against state of Washington, thought statute banning assisted suicide violated DP. Not fundamental interest rooted in traditions, so test is if rationally related to govt interest? SC: (1) asserted right to assistance in committing suicide was not a fundamental liberty interest protected by DP, and (2) ban on assisted suicide was rationally related to legitimate government interests.