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;
66 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Graham v. Richardson |
Claimant for welfare under the state's general assistance program would have been eligible if she was a citizen, but instead she was denied because she was an alien |
|
|
What did Graham v. Richardson assert |
-Invalidated special public interest doctrine because aliens as well as citizens are persons. a concern for fiscal integrity is not a compelling interest -Aliens are like citizens because they pay taxes and may be called in the armed forces |
|
|
Special Public interest doctrine |
States, in determining wha use shall be made of its own moneys, may legitimately consult the welfare of its own citizens, rather than that of aliens. |
|
|
Sugarman v. Dougall facts |
4 aliens were discharged from their jobs in accordance with NY statute, which said no person was eligible for appointment for any position in the competitive class unless he was a citizen of the US |
|
|
What did Sugarman v. Dougall assert |
Aliens may be denied employment on an individual basis, but a flat ban on the employment of aliens in positions that have little, if any relation to a state's legitimate interest, cannot withstand SS |
|
|
Reasoning behind Sugarman v. Dougall |
NY had an expempt class containing jobs of higher offices in the state legislature, teachers, and judges |
|
|
Bernal v. Fainter facts |
Resident alien applied to become a notary public. Application was denied because he was not a citizen of the US |
|
|
What was the problem in Fainter |
TX statute applied narrowly to only one category of persons, and notary publics hardly implicate responsibilities that go to the heart of representational government. |
|
|
Political function exception to SS of alienage classification |
Exemption for SS of state employment decisions for offices who participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy |
|
|
Test determining whether a restriction based on alienage falls within political function exception |
Cable two-part test 1. Specificity of classifications will be examined: Classifications substantially over inclusive or under inclusive tend to undercut the claim that the classification serves legitimate political ends 2. Even when the classification is narrowly-tailored, it may only apply to officers who perform functions that go to the heart of representative government. |
|
|
Examples of jobs that fall under the political function exception |
Police Officers Public School Teachers Probation Officers |
|
|
Mathews v. Diaz facts |
Diaz and others (Appellees), were denied enrollment into a federal insurance plan solely on the basis that they were not citizens of the United States |
|
|
What did Mathews v. Diaz assert |
The federal government may restrict aliens and the Fourteenth Amendment only concerns relationships between aliens and states, not between aliens and the federal government. |
|
|
What case established FederalGovernment exception to rule that alienage classifications will be strictlyscrutinized. |
Mathews v. Diaz |
|
|
Bowersv. Hardwick (1986) |
Hardwick wascharged with violating Georgia sodomy statute by committing that act withanother adult male in the bedroom of his own home. Hardwick challenged thestatute on the basis that it criminalized consensual sodomy, and the statue puthim in imminent danger of arrest. |
|
|
What scrutiny did the court apply in Bowers |
Rational Basis |
|
|
What the was the statue in Bowers grounded on |
moral grounds |
|
|
What did the Court decide in Bowers |
thatthe state’s criminalization of sodomy was rationally related to the state’slegitimate interest in promoting morality. |
|
|
Romer v. Evans |
Colorado adopted ordinances barringdiscrimination based on sexual orientation (Amendment 2). |
|
|
Scrutiny used in ROmer |
RB with Teeth |
|
|
What did the Court conclude in Romer |
-This amendment does no more than deprive gays ofspecial rights -Already had an extensive amount of traits thatcould not be the basis for discrimination -The breadth was too large for the objective ofprotecting freedom of association for landlords and employers. |
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) facts |
Petitionerswere inside Lawrence’s home and Police witnessed Lawrence and another manengaged in sexual activity. They were arrested for deviate sexual intercourse |
|
|
What case overruled Bowers |
Lawrence v. Texas -Previous cases were founded upon nonconsensual sodomy |
|
|
Scrutiny used in Lawrence |
RB |
|
|
What did the Court decide in Lawrence |
Thestate cannot make private sexual conduct a crime The statute furthers nolegitimate interest, which can justify its intrusion into the personal andprivate life of the individual Private consensual activity is protected |
|
|
San Antonio Independent Sch dist v. Rodriguez facts |
Low-incomeparents were residents of a school district that had a low property tax base, ahigh property tax rate, and low per pupil spending, which was compared with aneighboring district with high property tax base, low property tax rate andhigh per pupil spending. Alleged discrimination on the basis of wealth |
|
|
Scrutiny used in San antonio v. Rodriguez |
RB |
|
|
Reasoning of the in San antonio v. Rodriguez |
Wherewealth is involved, EPC does not require absolute equality or precisely equaladvantages. Everychild in every school district had an adequate education through ‘A MinimumFoundation Program of Education’ |
|
|
City of Cleburne v Cleburne living facility |
City requiring special permit mentally retardedhousing |
|
|
Are mentally retarded a suspect class |
No Based their conclusion on relevance, political power, and prejudice against a discreet and insular minority |
|
|
What did the interest in cleburne rely on |
irrational prejudice against mentally retarded. |
|
|
Mass Bd of Retirement v. Murgia |
Mandatory retirement for officers over the age of 50 |
|
|
What did Murgia and Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents assert |
Oldage does not define a discrete and insular minority because all persons, ifthey live out their normal life spans, will experience it. |
|
|
Facts of Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents |
Courtconsidered whether Congress’ power under Section 5 of the 14thamendment was sufficient to support the enactment of the Age Discrimination inEmployment Act |
|
|
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) |
InvolvedHabitual Criminal Sterilization Act that defined “habitual criminal” as aperson who had been convicted of three felonies involving moral turpitude.Those convicted of violating revenue acts or embezzlement were exempt.Petitioner as a minor was convicted of the theft of chickens, and then armedrobbery twice. |
|
|
Scrutiny used in Skinner |
Strict Scrutiny |
|
|
What was wrong with the classification in Skinner |
Thestatute did not sterilize all persons convicted of three felonies, white-collarcrimes were exempt. EPCrequires all thrice convicted criminals similarly by sterilizing all orsterilizing none. Since it sterilized some, and not all, it could not sterilizeany |
|
|
Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) facts |
Statute providedthat any person having minor issue not in his custody and whom he was underobligation to support was not permitted to marry without first obtaining acourt order granting permission to marry. Petitioner could not get license tomarry because he was not making child support payments. |
|
|
Fundamental right at issue in Zablocki v. Redhail |
The right to marry |
|
|
Interests asserted in Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) |
Thepermission-to-marry proceeding furnishes an opportunity to counsel theapplicant as to the necessity of fulfilling his prior support obligations Thewelfare of the out-of-custody children is protected |
|
|
Issue with the means in Zablocki v. Redhail |
Themeans selected by the State for achieving these interests unnecessarily impingeon the right to marry, the statute cannot be sustained |
|
|
Facts of Reynolds v. Sims (1964) |
Challenging the structure of the legislativerepresentatives. Each county would get one representatives, and theapportionment did not take into consideration population within counties. Ledto underrepresentation in urban counties and overrepresentation in rural areas. |
|
|
Is the right to vote a fundemental right? |
Yes |
|
|
Scrutiny used in Reynolds |
Strict |
|
|
What did the Court find wrong in Reynolds v. Sims |
Theweight of a citizen’s vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives Anindividual’s right to vote for the state legislators is unconstitutionallyimpaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared withvotes of citizens living on other parts of the state |
|
|
Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections (1966) facts |
A poll tax of1.50$ had to be paid by persons 21 and over 6 months prior to election in orderto vote. |
|
|
What did the Court find different in a poll tax compared to literacy test |
Differentthan literacy test because the ability to read and write has some relation tostandards designed to promote intelligent use of the ballot Statesviolate EPC whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any feean electoral standard |
|
|
What does the requirement of a poll tax create |
it creates an invidious discrimination |
|
|
facts of Kramer v. Union Free School Dist. No. 15 (1969) |
Residentsof certain school districts could vote in school district elections only ifthey owned or leased taxable real property in the school district, or if theyhad custody of a child attending the school. The petitioner was 31 living withhis parents and did not have a child attending the school district |
|
|
Why did the Court strike down Kramer |
Thestatue disenfranchises senior citizens and others living with children, clergyand military personal Thestate argues that it is necessary to limit franchise to those primarilyinterested in school affairs, however the classificationdemonstrates that they do not accomplish the purposes with sufficientprecision to justify denying applicant the franchise |
|
|
Williams v. Rhodes facts |
Ballot access restrictions are so severe, which require aminor party (one who did not receive 10% of votes in last gubernatorialelection) to meet three conditions. Need 15% of voter signature, conduction ofprimary elections, cannot have independent parties. |
|
|
What was interest asserted in Williams v. Rhodes |
attempting to see that the election winner bethe choice of a majority of its voters The interest cannot be justified by the severerestirctions on voting and associational rights |
|
|
Burdick v. Takushi |
Burdick is a registered voter in the city of Honolulu. Onlyone candidate filed papers to run. The states election law made no provisionfor writes in voting. Petitioner wanted to vote for candidate who did notappear on the ballot. |
|
|
Is the right to vote absolute |
NO, States may regulate their own elections Gov must play an active role in structuringelections |
|
|
Crawford v. Marion COunty Bd of Elections |
Indiana voting statue-requiring voters to have a voter IDwhen voting. Doesn’t apply to absentee ballots. If you don’t have an ID thevoter ballot is provisional and you have to present a photo ID within 10 daysof voting. |
|
|
What was the disagreement about in Crawford |
the test to be used for the classification |
|
|
Crawford plurality test |
Balancing test sliding scale approached that could accomadate different levels of importance in individual interests and different levels of importance of government interests |
|
|
Crawford concurrence test |
strict two-tiered test strict scrutiny or a deferential "important regulatory interests" standard |
|
|
Similarities between the tests in crawford |
under both tests, the more important the individual interest burdened, the more important must be the interest that the state is advancing |
|
|
Test used in Burdick |
Strict two-tiered test |
|
|
Clements v. Fashing |
2 provisions of tx constitution 1. prohibited certain elected officials from running for the legislature during their current term 2. automatic resignation if they announce candidacy |
|
|
Balancing test used in clements |
the nature of the interests that are affected and the extent of the burden these provisions place on candidacy |
|
|
Two tiered scrutiny for candidates what case was this in |
-When 1st and 14th amend rights are severely restricted, the regulation must be narrowly tailored to advance a the compelling interest -IF it imposes only a reasonable burden, the state's important interest are generally sufficient to justify restrictions. burdick v. tackushi |
|
|
Burdick v Takushi |
Statute regarding write in ballots. Only one canididate filed papers to run. |
|
|
What did the court say in burdick |
States may regulate their own elections gov must play an active role in structuring elections |
|
|
a |
a |
