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;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Takings
|
Government impositions of regulations on person seeking to use or develop property
Lucas Test: [100% taking] (1) How far is too far? (2) What should the denominator be? (3) What difference does the public purpose make? Penn Central Test: [85%-90% Taking] (1) Economic Impact of regulation (2) Extent to which it interferes with investment-backed expectations (3) Character of government action |
|
|
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
|
(Justice Harlan)
-Forced closure of brewery due to prohibition is not a taking |
|
|
Miller v. Scoene (1928)
|
(Justice STONE)
-When forced to make choice about destruction of one class of property to save another, the state does not exceed constitutional powers |
|
|
Lucas v. South Carolina (1992)
|
(Justice SCALIA)
-There is taking when regulation deprives property of all economic value or use |
|
|
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
|
(Justice HOLMES)
-If regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking -Kohler Act unconstitutional --> House owners only had surface rights; can't get rights underneath *Violation of the takings clause by the gov't to give the house owners these rights *If regulation goes to far it will be recognized as a taking |
|
|
Lucas v. SC Coastal Council (1992)
|
(Justice SCALIA)
-Beachfront Management Act 1988 (a) How far is too far? -If the regulation denies all economic use, then is a regulatory taking (must be 100%) -Argue "no economic use" and "valueless" --> No economic use because can't build, and that is enough for a taking (b) What should denominator? -Total value of the lot --> 100% has been restricted (c) What difference does the public purpose make? -If government abating a nuisance or prohibition from common law, then should not pay -Public purpose --> Protect homeowners from hurricane effects by moving back the location for building homes -Police Power usually gives state ability to make laws for |
|
|
Penn Central Analysis
|
*Must be 85% or 90% taking by a regulation --> Distinct investment-backed expectations most important threshold
(1) Character of government action (2) Economic Impact on the claimant *Overlaps with 3rd factor (3) Distinct investment-backed expectations i. When the claimant purchased the land, what did he think he was going to be able to do with it ii. How does it really affect you AND how does it affect you in what you reasonably expected to do with the property |
|
|
Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (1926)
|
(Justice SUTHERLAND)
-Protecting health and safety of people in residential areas -Nuisance standard of use of police powers |
|
|
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
|
(Justice STEVENS)
-A city's taking does not violate when taken for economic purposes AND when there is a public use and improvement through economic changes -P was economically blighted so develops plan to help city boost -Permissible Taking under takings clause Reasonable Means + Legitimate Ends (RB) (O'CONNOR, Dissent) -Allows government to take land whenever it wants -As long as claim "public purpose" (THOMAS, Dissent) Courts shouldn't be so deferential to legislature --> Literal meaning of public use |
|
|
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel (1998)
|
(Justice O'CONNOR, Plurality)
-Eastern Enterprises payment into pension pool deemed a taking -Penn Central test applied in cases of economic regulation |
|
|
State Action
|
13th Amendment --> Private actors and State [O
14th Amendment --> State actors only |
|
|
United States v. Cruikshank (1875)
|
-Federal government cannot prosecute without state action --> 14th Amendment limited to where there is state action
|
|
|
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
|
(Justice BRADLEY)
-Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional because it prohibited private race discrimination [14th only applied to state actors] *Private action governed by state law -Limited enforcement of 13th to physical bondage (HARLAN, Dissent) 13th ---> Eradication of all burdens and disabilities suffered by black people because of race 14th --> Blacks were given citizenship; entitled them to exemption from race discrimination in respect of any civil right belonging to citizens of whit race |
|
|
Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)
|
(Justice BRENNAN)
-Overturning of Lassiter v. Northhampton of constitutionality of a literacy requirement -Overturning of New York statute by Congress through section 5 was appropriate [Voting Rights Act of 1965] (1) Right to vote would empower Puerto Ricans to eliminate discrimination (2) Congress could find that literacy test denied equal protect --> Ability to define |
|
|
Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)
|
(Justice BRENNAN) PLURALITY
-Statute that says 18-year-olds must vote in federal and state elections deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL -Katzenbach overruled --> Congress cannot expand section 1 of the 14th Amendment -Katzenbach still allows Congress to impose remedies to recognized § 1 violations, but cannot create Constitutional rights |
|
|
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
|
(Justice KENNEDY)
-RFRA rejected --> Congress provide remedy for discrimination under section 5 of 14th, but Court must decide whether rights are being violated -Congress only has the right to enforce Constitutional rights --> Must be a proportional and congruent to scope of the violation (level of scrutiny) |
|
|
University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
|
(Justice REHNQUIST)
-Discrimination based on disability only meets RB and accommodation through statute was significantly greater than Constitution required --> Not proportionate or congruent |
|
|
United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Scott (1983)
|
(Justice WHITE)
-Must be state action for federal cause of action in freedom of association in Union/Non-member conflict |
|
|
United States v Morrison (2000)
|
(Justice REHNQUIST)
-Civil damages under Violence Against Women Action deemed unconstitutional -->No state action, section 5 of 14th Amendment can only apply to government action |
|
|
13th Amendment and Action
|
-Slavery or racial discrimination as a badge or incident of slavery
-Can be applied to private --> No state action -LIMITED TO ISSUES OF RACE |
|
|
14th Amendment and [State] Action
|
2 categories:
(1) Private parties performing gov't functions --> Only involves exclusive government functions ex. Prisons, police, eminent domain, court, and taxation (2) Private parties who are entangled with the gov't through funding or regulation **MUST BE A NEXUS BETWEEN PRIV AND ST **Burger court restricted test in Moose Lodge** |
|
|
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972)
|
(Justice REHNQUIST)
-Creation of Nexus test (1) State must have significantly involved itself with invidious discrimination in order for the discriminatory action to fall within the ambit of the Constitutional (2) Close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that action will be treated as state action **Basically made state action in entanglement claim impossible** |
|
|
Jones v Alfred Mayer (1968) |
(Justice STEWART) -13th Amendment --> "Badges and Incidents of slavery" to invoke 13th Amendment -Did away with the physical requirement |
