Womens Constitutional Rights Test 2 (Bower@unlv)

Front 1

Taylor v Louisiana background pt1

Back 1

Same as hoyt but 14 years later w man. Lousiana las state that only includes women in jury if asks. Taylor has standing bc 6th amendment right trial by jury due process. Due process not equal protection bc Barron v Baltimore , 14th, and dunking v Louisiana

Front 2

Barron v Baltimore

Back 2

Background for taylor v louisiana- bill of rights not apply to states at all, bill of rights for national use only,

Front 3

14th amendment

Back 3

Background for taylor v Louisiana: some evidence privileges and immunities would make rights apply to states, but then slaughterhouse happened. Piece by piece almost all bill of rights applies to states. 14th absorbed bill of rights

Front 4

Exceptions to bill of rights applying to states

Back 4

Double check this bc may have missed one or two: 3rd, 7th, 5th- grand jury, excessive bails not apply

Front 5

Dunken v Louisiana

Back 5

Right to jury trial via sp applies to case as applied by 14th.

Front 6

Taylor v Louisiana white verdict

Back 6

8-1

Fair cross section rule requires women to be in jury pool because it gives public confidence in the legal system and prevents arbitrary treatment (holds judges and prosecutors in check by fair minded impartial jury)

Court used strict scrutiny bc fundamental right- BOP on gov- end must be compelling. Administrative convenience and womens traditional role not compelling. Administrative convenience only pass ordinary, womens role not pass ordinary. Footnote: majority of women in workforce

Front 7

Fair cross section rule

Back 7

Rule that requires the jury pool to have a fair cross section of the community- cannot exclude groups of people from jury pool. However, just bc pool must be fair doesnt always mean diverse jury

Front 8

Taylor v Louisiana Rehnquist opinion

Back 8

Lone dissent- taylor has no standing- is a man. Argues a lot of people exempt from juries: teachers, police, lawyers, etc. So not a fiat cross section anyway, excluding women not different.

Front 9

What makes taylor v Louisiana different from hoyt

Back 9

1. Enlarged portion of women in workforce

2. The abandonment of automatic jury exemptions for women by all state legislatures by 1975

3. The decision in Duncan v Louisiana that the right to trial by jury is a required part of due process

4. The frontier and reed decisions

5. Changed attitudes toward women on part of supreme court justices

Front 10

Additional details on taylor v louisiana

Back 10

Not an equal protections case. First time classification based on sex subject to strict scrutiny - fundamental due process right.

Included bc court rejects womens place is at home rational. Old notion womens place is at home is no longer acceptable or statistically accurate.

Front 11

Jury strikes

Back 11

When lawyer choose a jury can exclude certain people from being selected. Can eliminate jurors for cause or paremptiary

Front 12

With cause jury stike

Back 12

Unlimited number of strikes with cause, usually some relationship to case

Front 13

Paremptiary challenges

Back 13

Lawyers can pick somebody and eliminate them just bc they dont want them. Limited. Use carefully.

Front 14

Batson v kentucky

Back 14

Unconstitutional under equal protections to exclude people on juries bc of race. Defense can raise objections to paremptiary exclusion and have to give judge a reason that's not race for excluding person

Front 15

JES v Alabama

Back 15

Same rule as batson but for women.

Front 16

Smith Kline beacham Corp v aldoot laboratories

Back 16

9th circuit case: batson rule also applies to sexual orientation- lawyers in nevada cannot exclude lawyers based on parahemptory exclusion

Front 17

Fiallo v Bell (1977)

Back 17

Court upholds sex classification. Fiallo questioned preference of unwed mothers over unwed fathers for immigration reasons. Court upheld- deferred to Congress. Biological differences: know unwed mother is mother, dont know if unwed father is father.

Front 18

Rostker v goldberg (1981) background

Back 18

Issue: only men have to sign up for draft. Federal case: 5th amendment due process clause.

Front 19

Rostker v goldberg Rehnquist opinion

Back 19

Majority: us Gov argues court should use ordinary scrutiny bc military decision but uses intermediate. End: power to raise and support armies, article 1 of constitution. Means: classification between women and men. Means are substantially related because not made on old notions: women cannot serve in combat so Congress rationally only drafts combat troops, men. On non combat positions Says need flexible army (jobs for men between deployments), training would be needlessly burdened by women who can only do non combat roles, positions could be filled by volunteers. Passes intermediate scrutiny

Front 20

Rostker v goldberg white and brennan opinion

Back 20

Dissent. Dont challenge rule that women cant be in combat. Evidence: not enough women volunteers to fill 80,000 non combat roles, so should be able to draft women. No reason why not

Front 21

Rostker v goldberg Marshall opinion

Back 21

Dissent: dont challenge women not being able to be kn combat. No proof excluding women would make draft more convenient. Consider- make both genders apply for draft and only draft men when need combat troops, no need for difference when registering for draft.

Front 22

Women in military progress 2012

Back 22

Pentagon lifted restriction on 1400 military positions. women still inevitable for 20% of positions in military

Front 23

Women military progress January 2013

Back 23

Pentagon lifted combat exclusion policy- women can now serve in combat and front line positions. Told army, navy, marines, air force,coast guard, give till Jan 2016 to implement changes and then report any exemptions they would like to make ,

Front 24

Women military progress 2016

Back 24

Women can be in all positions in military. Still physical tests- if women can pass they can get in.

Front 25

Types of sex cases that are constitutional

Back 25

Past Discrimination compensation, biological differences, foreign relations.

Front 26

Foreign relation cases considered constitutional so far

Back 26

Rostker and fiallo

Front 27

National coalition for men v SSS (2019)

Back 27

Texas district court. Now under equal protection women can be in draft because women and men are similarly situated. Federal trial court in texas- selective service system not bound by this verdict but might be appealed to supreme court.