Constitutional Law II Outline
Procedural Due Process: the procedures the government must
follow when it takes away a persons life, liberty or property.
(Notice && right be heard)
Questions to ask for Analysis1. Whos doing the depriving?
(Looking for a state actor here)a. 10th Amendment: No state shall
deprive a citizen of their life, liberty, or property without due
process of law2. Is there a Deprivation? (Is a liberty (substantive
right) or property interest (NOT defined by the Constitution; look
to some independent source [K, statutory entitlement, etc] for
this) being taken away?) Social Security (disability---considered
property interest)3. How much process is due? (Finesse
Testsometimes you need a little, sometimes you need a lot; the
greater the interest, the greater the process; depends upon the
liberty or property interest is at stake) This is the balancing
test applied.
Substantive Due Process: whether the government has an adequate
reason for taking away a persons life, liberty or property. Just
taking about dry water.
Liberty: freedom right
Two due process clauses: 5th amendment (applies against the
federal government) 14th amendment (against states)
14th amendment adopted in 1868
Rational Basis: reasonably related and neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory (capricious, erratic) reasonable minds differ
Amendment 14 section 11. Citizenship born or naturalized 2. P
& I of national citizens a. Federal Government b. National
Character c. Constitutiond. Laws3. Due Process Clause (doesnt use
the word citizens, applies to persons which includes aliens) life,
liberty, or property4. Equal Protection
Lawrence v. Texas fundamentally protected liberty interest to
engage in consensual sexual relationship
Barron v. BaltimoreS.Ct. decided the first 10 amendments were
expressed in general terms and therefore would only apply to the
federal government States have their own constitutions Constitution
can only limit states when expressly stated Never overruled
Slaughterhouse casesFirst time the S.Ct. interpreted the Bill of
Rights and determined that it only protects the rights we have by
being a citizen of the U.S., not a citizen of states Bill of rights
are common law and therefore do not owe their existence to the
constitution Privileges and Immunities National Citizenship Test:
those that owe their existence to the federal government, its
national character, its constitution or its laws Never
overruled
Selective incorporation: incorporated nearly every right of the
Bill of Rights and up to the 14th amendment: Not incorporated: 3rd
amendment solider quartered in a home 5th amendment right to a
grand jury indictment 7th amendment right to a jury in a civil
trial 8th amendment excessive fines
LOCHNER ERA
Allgeyer v. LouisianaLouisiana attempts to stop out of state
companies from enjoying contracts with Louisiana residents. S.Ct.
determined unconstitutional because Liberty of Contract Decision
based on the freedom to contract
It is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with ones
LIBERTY to contract under the due process clause.The word liberty
in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment interpreted to
include economic liberties
Lochner v. New York (Judicial Deference to Legislative Choices
in this Era)NY attempted to limit the number of hours that bakers
could work. NY claims police powers for health and safety reasons
S.Ct. determined unconstitutional because of Liberty to
ContractBoth 5th and 14th Amendments Due Process Clause assume
Liberty to K.No legitimate Police power, unconstitutional as to
Liberty of K.Legitimate police power would allow for interference
with ones freedom to K. (Ct decision)
Coppage v. KansasKansas says it is illegal to require employees
to agree not to join a union as a condition of employment S.Ct.
determined this is not allowed because of the freedom to
contract
It is outside the scope of state police power to prohibit
employment contracts that bar workers from joining a union.
Muller v. OregonBrandeis brief attempted to set the maximum
hours that women could work. The State justified as a valid police
power. S.Ct. upholds the statute to protect womanValid police power
to protect women from overworking Adkins v. Childrens HospitalThis
case deals with an Act by Congress that set a minimum wage for
women and children to balance an unequal bargaining power. Ct
determines this is arbitrary because it has nothing to do with the
type of work or the persons skills Ct determines unconstitutional
Case brought under the 5th amendment Due Process Clause OVERRULED
by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.Shoddy material used and a statute
prohibits the use No evidence showing any health or safety hazard
Statute is arbitrary and unreasonable
Violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because
buyers should be free to choose what kind of materials they want to
purchase.
Any time the state tried to interfere with a K, presumption
against
Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights, the only acceptable
state claim was for safety, health, moral, or general welfare
Nebbia v. New YorkNY set a minimum and maximum for the price of
milk Ct determines that under the freedom of contract this is OK
This act prevents ruthless competition Milk is an essential part of
the diet Rational Basis: reasonable relationship and not arbitrary
or discriminatory
Stands for the proposition that it bears a Minimal Causal
Connection with the minimum and maximum of the sale of milk, thus
not arbitrary
SECTION RECAP: No exclusive definition for liberty in the 14th
Amendment Ideological interpretation of the substantive due process
The right you got was right to KThis substantive due process was
going to change The Ct changed w/ FDR and the New Deal
1937-Now
ECONOMIC SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
West Coast Hotel v. ParrishState of Washington set the minimum
wage for women. The state claimed that protecting women is in the
publics interest. Case brought under the 14th amendment due process
clause S.Ct. used rational basis to determine the minimum wage law
is constitutional As long as reasonable minds differ it will be
upheld Must show that its arbitrary and capricious and basically we
ALL agree for it not to be rational This case overruled Adkins
caseA state can set the minimum wage for women
Struck down Lochner3 NEW themes: 1. States can act to further
any purpose not forbidden by the Const. (10th Amend)2. States not
limited to using JUST police powers 3. States may use any way that
is reasonable to achieve their ends
United States v. Carolene Products Co. 1938Congress passed the
Filled Milk Act which prohibited milk being sold and shipped
through interstate commerce that was compounded with any fat or oil
other than milk fact. Congress relies on their commerce power
Footnote 4 is very importantsee page 627-628 of textbook Paves the
way for higher judicial scrutiny Ct uses rational basis to uphold
the legislation (any basis to uphold the legislation and it will be
upheld) Economic Liberties are not fundamental; receive Rational
Basis Review
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc.State law prohibited
any person from fitting or duplicating lenses unless a licensed
ophthalmologist. The day is gone when this Court uses the Due
Process Clause of the 14th amendment to strike down state laws,
regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may
be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school
of thought. People should resort to the polls, not to the courts
Ct. determines the law is OK and if people want change then they
should vote for change Ct used rational basis
State Action!!!
BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreGore sued over his BMW being
repainted before being sold for full price. Settlement of $4mil
punitive damages involving only $4,000 actual damages. The punitive
was reduced to $2mil. Issue is whether the punitive damages are
grossly excessive. Ct. used this test to determine punitive award
is grossly excessive: The degree of reprehensibility (HOW BAD WAS
IT?) The disparity between the harm or potential harm and the
punitive damage award (RATIO) The difference between the remedy and
the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases
(AWARD COMPARED TO CIVIL PENALTIES) Ratio of 500 to 1 raise a
suspicious judicial eyebrow Transcends the constitutional limit
A person can sue for punitive damages, but they must be limited
to the damages suffered.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. CampbellAward of
$145 Mil punitive and $1 Mil compensatory damages S.Ct. used BMW
guideposts to reach a decision 145 to 1 ratio Single digit
multipliers are more likely to comport with due process (1 to 9
max) Punishment must be reasonable and proportionate Grossly
excessive under the due process clause
Philip Morris U.S.A. v. WilliamsWilliams died after smoking for
most of his life; his widow sued. The jury awarded $79.5 Mil in
punitive damages designed to punish the company for its actions
against smokers who were not part of the suit. S.Ct. determined you
cant punish for others, only the plaintiff in the case Such an
award would amount to a taking without due process Single digit
award is constitutional, double maybe
The Contracts Clause: History: preventing states from passing
laws that could end obligations after Revolutionary war Limits
regulations on existing contracts, but not future contracts Level
of review: Rational Basis No Federal Contracts Clauseonly applies
to States State/Local Govt may interfere with private Ks, only if
actions are reasonably and narrowly tailored to serve legitimate
and important govt interest. Analysis: 1. Substantial Impairment2.
Sig end, legit public purpose3. Conditions reasonably related to
mtg public purpose
Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellMinnesota Mortgage
Moratorium Law allowed people more time/postpone foreclosure sales
during economic emergency times. State used a reserved power Ct.
determined that mortgages were not abolished but simply delayed
This is a temporary measure and the obligation remains therefore it
does not violate the Contracts Clause. Ct. determined that an
emergency existed, legislation was addressed to a legitimate end,
relief was justified, the length of time for relief was not
unreasonable and legislation was temporary. Degree of Impairment
was not considered substantial; delayed obligation, rather than
abolishing it; interest to society itself, individualized
protection; no benefit to the state, help to citizens
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co.Kansas
adopted a law that provided the price to be paid for natural gas
under a contract could not be increased because of the prices set
by federal authorities. The state law prevented the natural gas
producer from charging higher prices that it was entitled to under
the contract. In order to determine whether this law violates the
Contracts Clause, 3 step test: Does this amount to a substantial
impairment? Is there a significant and legitimate public purpose?
Are the conditions reasonably related to meeting the public
purpose? Ct. determines Kansas did not violate the Contracts Clause
Significant public interest, protecting consumers, no per say state
interest
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. SpannausMinnesota created a
pension law that interfered with Allieds pension structure. Ct.
determined that the state law operated as a substantial impairment
on the contractual relationship. Due to the severe impact, the
State law is unconstitutional under the Contracts Clause. K was in
place before the law was created, cannot come up with pension act
to force payment
United States Trust Co. v. New JerseyIn 1962 NY & NJ
prohibited toll revenues to subsidize the rail service for the
purpose of ensuring the tolls covered the bondholders. Once the
energy crisis hit, both NY & NJ repealed the laws to allow the
tolls to support the rail service. Ct. determined that the
Contracts Clause prohibits the repeal of the 1962 covenant If a
State could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to
spend the money for what it regarded as an important public
purpose, the Contracts Clause would provide no protection at all.
When the govt interferes with govt K, high standard (strict
scrutiny) Bondholders had expectations of the bonds and what was
expected of their K Difference: unlike the previous cases , no
PUBLIC interest at stake, only beneficiary is state, where
bondholders are jeopardized.
The Takings Clause (5th Amendment): Limitation on the federal
government 1st right incorporated from the Bill of Rights Private
property, taken, for public use, and has paid just
compensationPurpose is to provide assurance that the govt will not
take property from some to give to othersSpreading Loss to avoid
individuals having to bear the cost of particular public good,
which should be for everyone to bear.
Has a taking occurred? Requirements
1) Two types: Physical Taking: occurs when the government
confiscates or physically occupies property.Regulatory Taking:
occurs when the governments regulation leaves no reasonably
economically viable use of the property.2) For a Public Use or
Purpose
Analysis: Private property Taken (physical, occupying,
regulation)Public use (Public Purpose Requirement)Just compensation
(Reasonable Value for the property)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.NY law provided that
landlords had to allow cable television operators to install cable
on their property. NY believed cable to be important and it gave
tenants a choice. Ct. determined that the cable running on the
building is a taking because of the permanent physical attachment
and the government authorized it by creating a law requiring
landlords to allow the attachment. Regardless of the extent of the
occupation, just compensation must be paid
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonPA statute prevented the mining of
coal under a property in such a way as to remove the supports and
cause a subsidence of the surface of their house. State claims act
is designed to protect the safety and the surface of the property.
Ct. determines the general rule is that just because there is a
regulation does not amount to a taking, however if it goes too far
it will be recognized as a taking & the govt must pay just
compensation. Consider the extent of the taking
Miller v. SchoeneNOT a takingCedar Rust Act- allows the killing
of cedar trees in order to protect the apple trees. Apple orchards
were important to the economyPublic Interest involved in the trees
and Economy
Ct. determines this is the only practicable method to control
the disease, the choice is unavoidable and therefore not a taking
this does not go too far.
Ad Hoc Test: 1) economic impact of the regulation on the
claimant; 2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with
investment-backed expectations; and 3) the character of the
government action.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CityNY established
historic landmark law that is designed to preserve historical
landmarks. Case involved Grand Central Station, owners of Grand
Central wanted to build on top of the building, but the historic
landmark would not allow. The court applied the Ad Hoc Test. Ct.
determined that economic value is not effected, not a complete
prohibition and no physical invasion. Any regulation that amounts
to anywhere between no effect and total effect is subject to the
following factors: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the
claimant (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with
expectations(3) the character of the governmental action. Not a
taking
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilLucas bought beachfront
property with the intention of building on it. Two years after
purchase S.C. enacted the Beachfront Management act that barred
Lucas from building on the land. Ct. determined the act left Lucas
with no economically viable use, therefore it was a taking that
resulted in compensation. Taking = total deprivation of the
economic use of the property.The Govt does have a right to take
private property but the owner MUST be properly compensated Where
there is no economically viable use, it is a taking
Nollan v. California Coastal Commn. (ZONING ORDINANCE)CA limited
building on a beachfront on the owners granting the public an
easement to cross the property for beach access. Ct. determined
taking because of easement and the condition does not relate to the
government purpose. The land use regulation is extortion.The
condition MUST relate to the govt purpose.
*Strong presumptions in favor of zoning ordinances
Dolan v. City of Tigard (ZONING ORDINANCE)Dolan wanted to expand
her store and the city conditioned the expansion on dedicating a
portion of the property to provide adequate storm drainage and a
pedestrian and bike path. Cannot use the conditioning of the
property to obtain an easement Ct. determines Roughly Proportionate
is the proper test for the 5th amendment. The condition placed on
the development must relate to the development. Stricter than
rational basis There must be some proportionality between the
condition and the impact on the proposed development
Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandPalazzolo bought land under a
corporation name in 1959; he attempted to build on the land several
times and was prevented by the state. In 1978, the corporate
charter was revoked, transferring title solely to Palazzolo. Again
attempts were made to build on the land. In 1971, Rhode Island
enacted legislation calling Palazzolos land a coastal wetland.
Palazzolo sued for a taking because of the complete bar of building
on his land.Inverse condemnation proceedinggovt takes the property,
but fails to pay just compensation for the loss of value Time does
not lessen the burden of the taking and therefore even an owner who
takes title of the property after a government regulation can still
claim the taking. The property was not a total taking because it
retained 6% of its total development value and Palazzolo can still
build on the property.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District Conditions,
whether precedent or subsequent, are unconstitutionalWould have
been a taking, but nothing was ever seizedRemanded to the state
court to assess damages that may be availableNolan/Dolan
requirements should also be applied here.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional
Planning AgencyLake Tahoe imposed a 32 month moratorium on
development to formulate a comprehensive land use plan. Ct. weighs
the fairness and justice interests and determines the 32 month
moratorium is not a taking.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. MidkiffHawaii enacted legislation to
break the oligopoly of land ownership by creating the HHA which
enables the HHA to condemn and seize the properties. Ct. discusses
public use; calling it well-nigh conclusive (meaning all but) gives
deference to the legislature. Any conceivable justification and it
is permissible The act is constitutional because the landowners are
compensated and it is for public use.
Kelo v. City of New LondonNew London condemned private
residences in order to use their property as part of a planned
economic development. Ct. determines economic revival is public use
Any conceivable public use will be allowed Used Midkiff and Berman
to hold that a taking is for public use so long as the govt acts
out of a reasonable belief that the taking will benefit the
public.The court gives unlimited discretion as far as the
determination of eminent domain in finding there is a public
purpose.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of WashingtonInterest from client
funds in a lawyers trust account automatically became the property
of the Legal Foundation of Washington because the State enacted a
program for trust accounts. Ct determines that the money is not
payable to the client and therefore no taking and no compensation
is required. Just compensation is measured in terms of what the
owner has lost, not what the taker has gained
Equal Protection14th amendment: No state shall no explicit
statement for the federal government, but the S.Ct. has interpreted
the 5th amendment Due Process clause to apply EP to the federal
government
Due Process clause measures the constitutionality of Framework
for EP Analysis: General Issue: Can the govt ID an important
objective for its discrimination?
Questions to ask: 1) What is the governments classification? 1a)
Is it discriminatory on its face? 1b) Or is it neutral but has a
discriminatory effect? (Discriminatory impact is not enough, must
show a discriminatory purpose)
Race, national origin and sometimes alienage= suspect
classification= strict scrutiny Burden of proof is on the
government Strict Scrutiny: 1) compelling/overriding governmental
interest; 2) means chosen is narrowly tailored/least restrictive or
no other wayGender, non-marital children= intermediate scrutiny
Burden of proof is on the government Intermediate Scrutiny: 1)
important governmental interest; 2) substantially related to that
interestAll other classifications= rational basis Burden of proof
is on the party who is attacking Rational Basis: 1) no legitimate
governmental interest; 2) not rationally related Legitimate
governmental interest= any governmental interest If reasonable
minds can differ it will be constitutional Strong presumption in
favor of the government Unconstitutional if arbitrary &
capricious
Meaningful Rational Basis (falls between rational basis and
intermediate scrutiny): Rational Basis with a bite
Over-inclusive vs. under-inclusive (simply either is not enough
to render unconstitutional) Over-inclusive means it contains more
than necessary; Under-inclusive means it doesnt include everyone;
law does not apply to ALL individuals who are similar to those whom
the law applies
Colorado adopted an amendment to prevent discrimination statues
from protecting people on the basis of sexual orientation.
Immediate objective was to repeal existing statues, regulations,
etc. Amendment withdrew from homosexuals, no one else Nullified
specific legal protections for homosexuals in all transactions
Operated to repeal laws and policies that provided specific
protections for homosexuals Imposes special disability on this
class Had the peculiar property of imposing a broad and
undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional
and invalid form of legislation Sheer breadth so discontinuous with
its reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by
anything but animus toward the class it affects; it lacks a
rational relationship to legitimate state interests. Ct. determined
no rational reason other than harming homosexuals The only purpose
was to make them unequal Bowers v. Hardwick determined sexual
orientation to be rational basis level of review
United States Railroad Retirement Board v. FritzRetirement act
created different categories for retirement benefits, eliminating
some from receiving windfall benefits. class sought declaratory
judgment that the Act was unconstitutional under the Due Process
clause of the 5th amendment because it irrationally distinguished
between classes of beneficiaries. Sup. Ct. determined Congress had
a plausible reason for creating the categories and therefore under
rational basis, no violation.
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New YorkNY enacted an
advertising statute that prohibited advertising on vehicles unless
the vehicle was part of the company, i.e. no mobile billboards. NY
claimed this statute was to prevent distractions to drivers Ct.
determined that statute was constitutional under rational basis
because NY had a reason for creating the statute
New York City Transit Authority v. BeazerTA will not allow
anyone who uses methadone to work for the TA. This rule is a
blanket prohibition on any drug user, including methadone (designed
to get the person off drugs). Ct. used rational basis level of
review and even though it is overinclusive the TA has a reason to
exclude (high rate of relapse); therefore constitutional.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno 1964 Food stamp act excludes
people from the program who have an unrelated individual living in
the household. Amendment created to prevent hippies from
participating, stop people from abusing the system and prevent
unstable households. Not enough to be a legitimate interest and
therefore does not pass rational basis No relation to the policy
for food stamps
City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Texas has
a requirement for a special use permit in order to open a mental
retardation home. Cleburne was denied the permit. Ct. determines
mental retardation does not amount to a suspect class and therefore
rational basis level of review. Ct. says that this would open the
flood gates if this class was made to be a special class, everyone
would be suspect class. Ct. determines unconstitutional even under
rational basis because irrational prejudice no justified
reason.
Classifications based on race- suspect classifications
Dred Scott v. SanfordDred Scott was a slave that was taken from
a slave state to a free state. Scott sued for freedom. Ct. rules
that Dred Scott is not a citizen, property only and therefore not
entitled to sue. This case made the Missouri Compromise
unconstitutional. Under the constitution slavery is protected
property. Never expressly overruled, but overruled by the 14th
amendment
1865: 13th amendment freed slaves1868: 14th amendment created
EP, overruled Dred Scott
Classifications based on race are a suspect classification
regardless of benefit or disadvantage and therefore Strict Scrutiny
appliesDemonstration existence of a race or national origin
classification: On its face Discriminatory administration/impact
(also requires proof of discr. purpose)
Korematsu v. United StatesDuring WWII, exclusion order required
all persons of Japanese ancestry to leave the military area of the
Western U.S. Korematsu was convicted of violating the order. Ct.
upholds the law because it is impossible to separate and it was a
time of war. Ct. gives deference to the military to determine what
is best during a time of emergency/war. Compelling interest:
National Security Strict Scrutiny application articulated: All
legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single
racial group are immediately suspect. (pg 757) Dissent: Calls it
legalization of racism; says no racial discrimination is
justifiable; race, and not emergency alone led to the exclusion
order. Jackson Dissent: Supreme Court should not decide whether
military make reasonable judgment
Loving v. VirginiaVirginia statute made inter-racial marriages
between whites and blacks illegal. State claimed the purpose was to
keep racial integrity and prevent corruption of blood, the
obliteration of racial pride. Trial judge opinion: God created us
differently, and separated us; He did not intend for the races to
mix Ct. determines no overriding purpose Statute not neutrally
applied (applies only to whites & blacks) Under EP &
fundamental right to marry this violates the due process clause and
is therefore unconstitutional
Palmore v. SidotiWhite mother divorces white father, they had a
child together and the mother retained custody. The mother then
started dating a black man, he moved in. The father fights custody
because he doesnt want the child to live with a black man. S.Ct.
determines that custody cannot be denied based solely on private
biases and possible injuries based upon racial reasons. S.Ct.
determines the trial court used racial prejudice and therefore says
its unconstitutional.
Plessy v. FergusonLouisiana act provided for separate railway
cars for whites and colored races. Plessy, 7/8 white, 1/8 black
took a vacant seat in the white section of the train, He was
ordered to vacate the car, and upon his refusal, he was ejected by
a police officer and taken to jail. Charged with violation of this
act. Case is key as constitutionalizing separate but equal under
the 14th amendment State chose to separate for safety reasons Found
that this was within the states exercise of their police powers
Dissent: Called for color blind constitution; predicted that this
decision would be as infamous as the Dred Scott case;
Brown v. Board of EducationCase deals with segregated schools.
Five cases consolidated into this opinion Ct. determines separate
but equal has no place in the education system. Used social
sciences to make decision Unanimous Decision
Brown I 1954This involves cases from three states, African
Americans seeking public schools without segregation. Separate but
equal in school is unconstitutional under EP.
This case mandated the dismantling of segregated school system.
Shift from dual to unitary schools
1. Primary Responsibility of implementing Brown is with the
School Board2. Federal courts: Equitable Jurisdiction3. as soon as
practicable4. with all deliberate speed5. Objective is to eliminate
state imposed segregation
Brown II- 1955 (fully implemented in 1969)School authorities are
charged with complying with the mandate of this decision. Equitable
Remedies are available when legal damages will not make the party
whole. $ is not enough (legal damages) Ct. determines that school
authorities must make a prompt reasonable start, as soon as
practicable with all deliberate speed. School board has the B/P of
showing they are making a good faith effort. Ct. knows it will not
be an overnight change Ct. determines that a dual school system
violates the constitution and we must dismantle
Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of EducationBusing used as
a means to integrate with an objective to eliminate state supported
segregation. Ct. discusses de jure segregation (segregation by
operation of law) and de facto (segregation by practice) Ct. says
its powers will go as far as need be to correct the wrong, they
will and can do whatever is necessary to end segregation. Eliminate
all vestiges of segregation. Remedial Tools (problem areas) to
integrate: 1) racial quotas- starting point only, although not
favored 2) single-race schools- NOT per se unconstitutional, but
strong presumption against 3) altering attendance zones- this is ok
and non-discriminatory 4) busing transportation is ok
Proving de jure segregation: MUST show segregation w/in school
district resulted from deliberate decisions made by school
board
Milliken v. BradleyDetroit is racially segregated on its own.
The African Americans live in the city and the Whites live in the
suburbs. Detroit wanted to bus kids from the suburbs to the city
and kids from the city to the suburbs in order to break up the
segregation. Ct. determines that the city is de jure segregation
but the suburbs are de facto. You cant force a remedy on a district
that has never violated the constitution. Ct. says inter-district
relief is appropriate, cannot mix de jure and de facto. De jure can
be corrected by court because there is a constitutional violation.
De facto cannot be fixed or corrected by a court because there is
no constitutional violation.
Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. DowellCase
involves the finger plan, plan designed to end segregation. Dowell
Two Prong Test: 1) good faith compliance by school board to meet
desegregation decree and 2) the vestiges of past discrimination had
been eliminated to the extent practicable.
Freeman v. PittsFederal desegregation orders will end when its
complied with, even if other orders for desegregation remain in
place. Ct. held that once one aspect of desegregation is completed,
the court will no longer have the ability to control because it has
been complied with. This applies even if other aspects of
desegregation are still being attempted.
Missouri v. JenkinsKansas City was ordered to desegregate. The
court ruled the efforts made by Missouri for desegregating were
impermissible. The district court attempted to attract non-minority
students from outside the district to attend to decrease the
segregation. Ct. ruled this is impermissible because the students
outside of the district were not under the desegregation order.
S.Ct. ruled that the district court lacked authority to increase
the teacher salaries District Court believed an increase in
salaries would promote desegregation but S.Ct. determined not a
necessary remedy. Disparity in test scores was not enough to
continue a desegregation order. Ct. determined equal opportunity
does not mean equal results.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School
District. No. 1Seattle voluntarily adopted student assignment
plans. The school would choose where a student attended school
based solely on the students race. The parents of the students that
were denied admittance to a school based solely on race brought
suit. Ct. determined that once a school is no longer under a court
order the school will be treated as though there was never
desegregation. Ct. determined the plan is in violation of the
constitution under Strict Scrutiny.
Johnson v. CaliforniaThis case involved segregating prisoners
based on race. Ct. does not decide the EP issue but remands and
requires Strict Scrutiny be applied in determining.
Washington v. DavisThis case involved a written police exam that
had the effect of preventing a disproportionate amount of African
Americans from becoming members of the police force. Ct. states
that a law neutral on its face with discriminatory effects is not
enough, there must be discriminatory intent. Disproportionate
impact is relevant, but not enough to invoke the Strict Scrutiny
standard of review. Under rational basis you must show the purpose
of the rule if the statute is neutral on its face.
McCleskey v. KempThis case involved a challenge to the death
penalty statute of GA. The record showed that the death penalty was
disproportionately sought and applied to African Americans. Ct.
rules that you must show the decision maker continued to use the
statute because of not in spite of. Awareness is not enough
City of Mobile v. BoldenCity Commission of three members is
elected from the voters of the entire city at large. The city was
predominately white, which resulted in an all-white committee;
however 1/3 of the city is African American. Even though there has
never been an African American elected, it is not enough to show
discriminatory purpose. Ct. rules that a law neutral on its face
must have a discriminatory purpose to violate the constitution.
Rogers v. LodgeSimilar to Mobile v. Bolden. The court determined
that this was a violation because in 1982 the amendments to the
voting rights act eliminated the need to show a discriminatory
purpose when challenging an election system as being racially
discriminatory.
Palmer v. ThompsonJackson Mississippi responded to a
desegregation order by closing its public swimming pools rather
than desegregating them. There is not enough evidence to show that
Jacksons decision to close its public swimming pools was racially
motivated. The States decision is neutral on its face and therefore
no evidence of a violation of EP.
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. FeeneyThis case
involved a veterans preference statute. The problem is that 98% of
veterans are men so it has the effect of discriminating against
women. Ct. rules that the statute is neutral on its face and that
there is no intent to discriminate. Test: not in spite of but
because of Neutral on its face then must show they discriminate
because of
Village of Arlington Heights v. MetroPetitioner wanted to rezone
land to build low to moderate income housing but the request was
denied. Ct. determined that if it is neutral on its face but there
is a stark pattern and the only way to explain is through
discrimination. Ct. needs to look at other evidence: The historical
background of the decision Departures from normal procedural
sequence Substantive departures if the factors usually considered
important by the decision maker strongly favor a decision contrary
to the one reached The legislative or administrative history Ct.
still determines lack of evidence to show a discriminatory purpose
behind and therefore constitutional
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (pg.798)Chinese laundry case citys ordinance
required laundries to be located in brick or stone buildings unless
a wavier is obtained. The petitioner alleged that over 200
petitions by Chinese individuals seeking a waiver had been denied
but ONE requested by a non-Chinese individual was granted. Ct.
determined STARK PATTERN because the administration was so
exclusively directed against a particular class of persons as to
warrant and require the conclusion that whatever the intent of the
ordinance is so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical
denial by the state of the equal protection of the laws.
Gomillion v. LightfootThis case involved a citys drawing of the
voting districts to exclude blacks from participating in the citys
elections. The city drew the district to be a 28 sided figure and
all but 4-5 of the 400 blacks were drawn outside of the district
with no whites being excluded. Ct. determined that the conclusion
would be irresistible, tantamount for all practical purposes to a
mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely
concerned with segregating white and colored voters by fencing
negro citizens out of town to deprive them of their pre-existing
municipal vote.
Preemptory Challenges- given to parties to use at their
discretion Race or Gender cannot be the base of the challenge
Batson v. Kentucky three part test:1. Defendant establishes
prime facie case2. Burden shifts to prosecutor to provide neutral
reasons3. Judge determines whether the neutral reasons are
legitimate
In a criminal prosecution, equal protection clause prohibits
prosecutors from using race as a reason to exclude jurors In
Edmonson, the court held the race cannot be used in civil cases
Georgia v. McCollum held that criminal defendants cannot use race
as a basis for eliminating jurors J.E.B. v. Alabama held that
Gender cannot be used a basis on either side for juror
exclusion.
Affirmative ActionRegents of the University of California v.
Bakke***100 seats to enter medical school; 16 set aside for
minority seats which left 84 available for any competition. This
case represents racial classification on its face. In a 5-4
decision without a majority opinion ruled that race may be used as
one factor in admissions to benefit minorities and enhance
diversity. 4 justices: Stevens, Burger, Stewart and Rehnquist ruled
that race should never be a factor 1 justice: PowellEP= Strict
Scrutiny when involving Race 4 justices: Brennan, Marshall, White
and Blackmun are liberal ruling that EP= Intermediate Scrutiny
Within the confines of higher education, diversity is a compelling
governmental interest Bakke said: Race means race Strict Scrutiny
applies Compelling govtl interest Least restrictive/No Reasonable
Alternative Race can be a factor; not the SOLE factor (Race-neutral
alt must be included) Interests: correcting past discrimination
&& diversity
Fullilove v. KlutznickS.Ct. again considered affirmative action
but did not decide a majority opinion as to the level of
scrutiny
United States v. ParadisePlurality opinion ruled that Strict
Scrutiny was the level of review
Wygant v. Jackson Board of EducationThis case involved faculty
diversity of teachers. The school board was attempting to diversify
and was laying off white teachers even though they had more
seniority than some black teachers in order to prove diversity. Ct.
ruled this was an impermissible affirmative action plan Plurality
opinion: legitimate interests were not narrowly tailored
(intermediate level of review)
Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.Minority Business Utilization Plan
was designed to increase minority business. The plan required all
city construction projects must be subcontracted to at least 30%
minority businesses. Ct. ruled that racial preference must be for
remedial purposes and there is no evidence of past discrimination
in this case. Majority of the court even with plurality opinion
determined Strict Scrutiny is the level of review
Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications
CommissionCase decided a year after Croson in which the S.Ct. held
that a congressionally approved affirmative action plan only needs
to be Intermediate Scrutiny Overruled by Adardand
Adardand Constructors, Inc. v. PenaThis case overruled Metro
after a major change in S.Ct. In a majority opinion the court ruled
that all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state
or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court
under Strict Scrutiny. Racial classifications must serve a
compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to
further that interest.
Grutter v. BollingerUniversity of Michigan law school used a
race conscious admittance program. The admissions office considered
many factors but race is taken into account. Ct. ruled Strict
Scrutiny is the level of review. The compelling interest is
diversity (under Bakke this is a compelling interest). Race is not
the only factor in determining, it is just one factor. Ct. ruled
that there was no possibility for the motive for the classification
was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype. Ct. rules this
narrowly tailored use of racial classification was sufficient to
achieve the compelling governmental interest and therefore is
constitutional. ALL racial factors receive strict scrutiny Must not
unduly burden non-members Should be of a limited time; not
open-ended (logical end to taking race into consideration at
all)
Gratz v. BollingerThis case involved University of Michigans use
of racial preferences in the undergraduate admissions process. The
college assigned points to each factor considered, most factors are
worth 5 points but race is worth 20. School stated the interest was
diversity. Ct. ruled that race cannot be sole factor or a
predominant factor. Not a narrowly tailored approach and therefore
unconstitutional.
Fisher v. UT AustinFound that the lower court did not apply
strict scrutiny; remanded to the lower court for correct
application
Shaw v. RenoWhen race is used as a predominate factor to draw
district lines, strict scrutiny must be applied. One way to show
race is a predominate factor is if the district is a bizarre shape.
Ct. rules that if the only interest is complying with voting rights
that is not enough. Race must be the controlling factor
Easley v. CromartiePlaintiff must show a facially neutral law is
unexplainable on grounds other than race. To determine if race is a
predominate factor: The districts shape The splitting of towns and
counties High African American voting population
Gender Classifications Immutable characteristic (visible)
Reed v. ReedThis case was the first time the Supreme Court
invalidated a gender classification. This case involved estates
where a male was preferred over a female. Rational Basis review was
applied: a classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and
must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and
substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all
persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.
Frontiero v. RichardsonCase involving a female member of the
uniformed services to claim her male spouse as a dependent; such
benefits would automatically be given to a male, the female has a
burden to prove that her spouse is a dependent. Plurality opinion-
gender based should be suspect class Ct. used Strict Scrutiny to
rule this was unconstitutional
Stanton v. StantonCt declared unconstitutional a Utah law that
required parents to support their female children until age 18, but
their male children be supported until age 21. Ct declared the law
unconstitutional under any testcompelling state interest, or
rational basis or something in between.
Craig v. BorenOklahoma statute allowed females to purchase beer
at age 18, but required males to be 21. The state claimed the
interest was in safety. Ct. ruled that there must be an important
governmental interest and it must be substantially related to that
interest to classify on the basis of gender. Mid-level/Intermediate
level of review
United States v. VirginiaVirginia Military Institute is an
all-male school to produce citizen-soldiers; this case was brought
because women wanted to join VMI. Ct rules that Virginia has shown
no exceedingly persuasive justification for excluding all women
from VMI. Intermediate Scrutiny Unconstitutional
Geduldig v. AielloPregnancy or any disability related to
pregnancy was not covered by the disability insurance offered by
California. Ct. used Rational Basis review and finds no
discrimination because men cant get pregnant and state has a
legitimate interest in maintaining the insurance program. This is
an underinclusive program because not all disabilities are covered
Congress overruled the Ct by creating the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act. Ct. says there is no risk from which men are protected and
women are not and there is no risk from which women are protected
and men are not.
Orr v. OrrAlabama alimony statutes provide that husbands, but
not wives, may be required to pay alimony upon divorce. State used
a justification of helping needy women and to remediate past
discrimination. Ct used intermediate scrutiny and determined that
needy is an important governmental interest but it is not
substantially related because needy males could not get help. There
is no reason not to have a gender neutral statute
Mississippi University for Women v. HoganAll female nursing
school barred men from entering. University claims past
discrimination and this would disrupt the female students. Ct. said
no past discrimination because nursing is 90% women and men are
able to audit to therefore it would not disrupt women if they were
able to enroll. Ct. used intermediate scrutiny and defined
exceedingly persuasive justification: The burden is met only by
showing at least the classification serves important governmental
objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are
substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma CountyState statute makes
statutory rape only a crime for men. Statutory rape is sex with a
minor (consensual or not). The state claims the important interest
is to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies. Ct. rules this is
permissible because it is sufficiently related to equalize the
deterrents on the sexes. Ct says a gender neutral statute would
frustrate its purpose because females would not report the crime
for fear of criminal prosecution. Rational basis review because
women can get pregnant and men cannot.
Rostker v. GoldbergMilitary Selective Service Act only requires
males to register for the draft.Women are not permitted to
participate in combat and therefore should not have to register.
Ct. gives great weight to Congress and the Military in determining.
Purpose of the SS is to have combat ready and since Congress
determined women are prohibited from combat, they cannot be combat
ready and therefore only males can. Ct. rules that Congress acted
within the constitution and the SS act does not violate.
Califano v. WebsterThe Social Security Act allows women to get a
slightly higher monthly payment to remedy longstanding disparate
treatment of women. Women are economically disadvantaged by men.
Ct. uses intermediate scrutiny and finds this constitutional
because of the past disparity.
Nruyen v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceCourt allows a
difference in INS rules favoring mothers over fathers because of
the greater certainty as to the identity of the mother as compared
to the father and the greater opportunity that mothers have in
establishing a relationship with their children. Majority uses
intermediate scrutiny to find constitutional
Alienage Classifications1) Equal protection or 2) preemption
Questions to ask:1) Who is doing the classification? - Level of
review depends on federal or state2) Documented or undocumented
alien? (Documented are legally in the country)3) Does the
classification deal with social/welfare benefits, political
processes or the inherent right of citizens to be governed by
citizens?-Social welfare= strict scrutiny
Graham v. RichardsonState conditioned welfare benefits on
alienage (citizenship) Ct. ruled this violated the constitution and
used strict scrutiny because the injured were documented Under the
questions to ask: 1) state, 2) legal resident and 3) social welfare
Both over and under inclusion
Foley v. ConnelieNY State has a statute that does not allow
people on the police force unless they are a citizen. Ct used
rational basis turning to political process as a reason for the
statute State has the power to exclude aliens from participating in
democratic institutions Citizens have inherent rights that aliens
do not: Right to vote Right to seek office Jury service TEST:
Non-elective positions that formulate execution, formulation, or
review (interpretation) of broad public policy will be held to
RATIONAL BASIS Standard of Review!
Ambach v. NorwickNY education law forbids certification as a
public school teacher to any person who is not a US citizen, unless
that person has manifested an intention to apply for citizenship.
This case involves two people who do not want to become a U.S.
citizen but want to teach. Ct. used rational basis to determine the
NY statute is permissible. Teachers set examples for students, they
have influence over our children and we have an interest in
choosing who teaches our children.
Plyer v. DoeTexas denied undocumented school-age children from
free public education. Ct. used rational basis to determine that
this is impermissible. We cannot punish the children because of the
status of their parents
Independent Federal Admin Agency---no deference; Foley Test
applies; Strict ScrutinyExecutive and Legislative Govt
Branch---broad deference applied; No application here; Rational
Basis
Non-marital Children-intermediate scrutinyTypes: Age, Wealth,
Disability, Sexual OrientationClark v. JeterS.Ct. declared
unconstitutional a state law that required a non-martial child to
establish paternity within six years of birth in order to seek
support from his or her father. The Court ruled that intermediate
scrutiny is used for discriminatory classifications based on
illegitimacy. We do not punish the child
Levy v. LouisianaS.Ct. declared unconstitutional a state law
that prevented non-martial children from suing under a wrongful
death statute for losses because of a mothers death. Legitimacy or
Illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong
allegedly inflicted on the mother.
Lalli v. LalliS.Ct. upheld a state law that provided that a
non-martial child could inherit from his or her father only if
paternity was established during the fathers lifetime. State has an
important interest in preventing fraud and that requiring paternity
to be established during the lifetime was substantially related.
Intermediate Scrutiny
Other types of Discrimination: Rational Basis
ReviewMassachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaState law required
police officers to retire at age 50. Ct. uses rational basis to
determine this is valid There is no fundamental right to work for
the government No special class for aging/ everyone ages Legitimate
state interest in safety and it is rationally related to that
purpose This is overinclusive but it does not make it invalid
Discrimination based on Disability: Rational basis is used but
the American Disabilities Act broadly prohibits discrimination
Wealth Discrimination: Rational basis
Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation: See Romer v. Evans =
rational basis
Fundamental RightsDefined: a right that is deeply rooted in our
nations history and traditions-key to these rights is LIBERTY
Court determines fundamental rights:1) Traditionally
recognized2) History3) Deeply embedded moral consensus that exists
in society4) So rooted in our traditions and conscience of our
people as to be ranked as fundamental.
Zablocki v. RedhailStatute prevented marriage if back child
support is owed. The state asserted its interests were to have an
opportunity to counsel the applicant on fulfilling his obligations
and to ensure the welfare of the child. The Court determined the
State interests were legitimate but they were unrelated and not the
least restrictive means to fulfill the states purpose. Marriage is
a fundamental right and the state has other ways in place to meet
the States objectives without denying a fundamental right. The
Court used intermediate scrutiny to rule this statute
unconstitutional sufficiently important state interest that is
closely tailored
Stanley v. IllinoisUnwed fathers lost custody of their children
if the mother died. The children became wards of the state. Court
determined this is impermissible. There is a right to conceive and
raise ones children. The Ct. determines fathers have an interest.
States reason for this was a presumption that if the fathers did
not care enough to marry, they wouldnt care for the children.
Lehr v. RobinsonCase involved a non-martial father who had not
supported his two-year old child and had not registered his
parental interest in a state registry. The S. Ct. ruled that the
state could terminate his parental rights without notice or a
hearing. Distinguished Stanley because in that case the father was
active in the childs life. Here, a simple biological link does not
merit constitutional protection.
Michael H. v. Gerald D.California has a statute that provides a
conclusive presumption that if a child is born while the husband is
living with the wife and the husband is not sterile or impotent,
then the child is that of the husband. Ct determines this
presumption does not violate a fundamental right and is therefore
permissible. State may create an irrebuttable presumption that a
married womans husband is the father of her children
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, OhioOrdinance limits occupancy
of a home to members of a single family. In this case, the
grandmother lived with her son, grandson and another grandson from
another son. Ct rules this ordinance as violating the fundamental
right of family. The citys reasons for the ordinance may be
legitimate but they only marginally are met with this ordinance.
Constitution protects the sanctity of family because it is deeply
rooted in our history and tradition.Meyer v. NebraskaThis case
involved a teacher that unlawfully taught the German language to a
child 10 years of age. The Ct. determined that parents have a right
to raise their child and to choose how to educate them. However, a
statute that makes it a crime to teach a child any language other
than the English language violates the Due Process clause. Learning
a foreign language is not injurious to the health, morals or
understanding of the ordinary child.
Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus
& MaryOregon created an act that required children from 8 to 16
years of age to attend only a public school. It made it a crime for
a child to attend private school. Ct. stated that parents have
rights over their childrens care, custody and control and therefore
have the right to send them to private school if they choose.
Troxel v. GranvilleWashington enacted a code that permits any
person to petition the court for visitation rights at any time and
authorizes the court to grant the visitation whenever visitation is
in the best interest of the child. One of the oldest liberty
interests recognized by the court is a parents fundamental right in
the care, custody and control of their children. Court holds the
statute is much too broad and infringes on a parents rights and
therefore is unconstitutional.
Buck v. BellThis case involved the involuntary sterilization of
a mentally disabled woman. The court upheld the sterilization.
Justice Holmes said three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Overruled by Skinner v. Oklahoma
Skinner v. OklahomaOklahoma had a statute that would sterilize
habitual criminals. Court overruled Buck v. Bell and stated that
the right to procreate is a fundamental right. Court also says
Marriage is a fundamental right Court uses Strict Scrutiny for a
fundamental right Decided on the grounds of Equal Protection
Griswold v. ConnecticutStatute makes it a crime to provide birth
control and for anyone to use birth control. Court recognizes the
implicit right to privacy because of the intimate relationship
between husband and wife ONLY applies to marital relationships
Statute is unconstitutional Privacy is not specifically expressed
in the constitution Implied by the 4th amendment, first amendment
right of association, 3rd amendment and the 5th amendment. zone of
privacy is created by several fundamental rights Rights can be
regulated but not completely bannedEisenstadt v. BairdContraception
was given to unmarried students, the statute treated married and
single people differently. Court applies right to privacy to
individuals, married or single and declares this statute
unconstitutional. Rational basis
Carey v. Population Services InternationalNY made it a crime for
anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute
contraceptives to anyone over the age of 15, to distribute
contraceptives to a minor under the age of 16 or to advertise
contraceptives. Court used Strict Scrutiny and said compelling is
the key. Unduly restricted access to birth control and interfered
with the right to control procreation.
Roe v. WadeAbortion rights Court determines that the womans
right to choose stems from privacy interests but the state also has
an interest in safety. Court rules that abortion rights break down
by trimester: 1st trimester (0 to 3 months) it is up to the mother
and the doctor (ABSOLUTE) 2nd trimester (3-6 months) state may
regulate for mothers health (there IS a compelling interest here)
3rd trimester-Post Viability (6-9 months) state has an interest in
the life of the fetus except for the mothers life or safety.
Planned Parenthood v. CaseyDeals with abortion rights Court
reaffirmed Roes essential holding that a woman has the right to
choose but abandoned the trimester approach. Court changes to
viability/pre-viability reqt About 23 weeks or 5 months (viable)
State may not place an undue burden pre-viability Rules that unduly
burdensome is the rule (cannot provide a substantial obstacle in
the womans right to choose pre-viability) State has an interest in
the potential life of the fetus State has the power to restrict
abortions after the fetus is viable, unless the mothers life or
health is in danger State may regulate at ANY POINT but cannot
provide an undue burden State has a legitimate interest from the
beginning of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman
and the life of the fetus that may become a child. Reasoned
Judgment
Gonzales v. CarhartPartial birth abortion (at any time during
pregnancy) banned by Congress Court determines that the ban does
not place an undue burden.
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.This
case was decided before Casey, it involves a 24 hour waiting period
from the time a woman signs the consent form before the abortion
can be performed. The court ruled the 24 hour waiting period
unconstitutional HOWEVER, this issue was revisited in Casey and
determined not to be an undue burden. Casey also established that
informed consent is not an undue burden.
Maher v. RoeMedicaid limited paying for abortions unless they
are medically necessary. Medicaid will pay for childbirth. The
Court determined that this is a policy choice left to the
legislature. The right to choose is a fundamental right, but there
is no right to have the government pay for the abortion. Court
ruled that indigency is not a suspect class. Appropriate forum is
the legislature.Never required to use govt money for abortions!
Planned Parenthood v. DanforthMissouri law required that a
husband give his written consent for his spouse to obtain an
abortion. Court ruled that this would give the husband a complete
veto power. Woman has more with this decision because she is the
one carrying the child for the nine months and it is her body
therefore the court weighs the decision more in the womans favor.
Court declared the required consent of the husband
unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood v. DanforthStatute required that a married
woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement that she notified
her spouse. Court determines that this is an undue burden (places a
substantial obstacle in the way of the womans right to choose).
Bellotti v. BairdThis case was decided before Casey and deals
with a minors ability to obtain an abortion without parental
consent. This is a plurality opinion. Court determined that
childrens rights are not the same as adults: Children are
vulnerable Difficulty in making critical decisions Parental role in
child rearing State can require parental notice/consent but there
must exist an alternative Alternative is the judicial bypass (going
before a judge) Child goes before a judge and the court determines
if the child is mature enough to decide or if the abortion is in
the best interest of the child
Jacobson v. MassachusettsS.Ct. upheld a law that required
vaccinations because the government has a compelling interest in
stopping the spread of communicable diseases.
Washington v. HarperCt. determined that prisoners have a right
to be free from involuntary administered antipsychotic drugs.
However this right to be free is protected by providing notice and
a hearing to challenge the decision to administer the drugs.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of HealthThis case is similar
to Terry Shivo. A womans parents wanted to stop her artificial
feeding and hydration equipment because it was apparent that she
had virtually no chance of recovering her cognitive abilities.
Incompetent person is unable to make an informed choice. The burden
is on the family to prove by clear and convincing evidence of what
the patients wishes would be regarding her life sustaining
equipment.
Washington v. GlucksbergWashington law prohibits aiding or
causing a suicide. (Physician assisted suicide case) Court applied
the rational basis standard to determine that the ban on suicide
does not violate the constitution. Due Process (KNOW FOR EXAM)
Specifically protects those ll and liberties which are deeply
rooted in this Nations history and tradition, and implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice
would exist if they were sacrificed. We require in substantive-due
process cases a careful description of the asserted fundamental
liberty interest. Our Nations history, legal traditions, and
practices thus provide the crucial guideposts for responsible
decision making, that direct and restrain our exposition of the Due
Process Clause. Right to privacy DOES NOT include
physician-assisted death
Vacco v. QuillNY makes it a crime to commit or attempt suicide
but patients may refuse lifesaving treatment. Court determines that
NY has valid and important public interests that satisfy the
rational basis analysis. Everyone regardless of physical condition,
is entitled, if competent, to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical
treatment; no one is permitted to assist a suicide. doesnt
discriminate
\
Whalen v. RoeNY requires certain prescription drugs be written
on triplicate form in order to maintain a record of those drugs. NY
claims an interest in regulating controlled substances. Court
determines that NYs interest outweighs the privacy interest claimed
to be violated by the statute. Court validates the statute and
holds it constitutional.
Saenz v. RoeThis case involved CA attempting to limit the amount
of welfare benefits a new citizen receives. CA states that a
citizen who has not lived in CA for at least a year is entitled to
the welfare benefits that the person would have had in the state
they lived in prior to moving. Once the year is up, they are
entitled to the higher CA benefits. Court states that citizens have
a fundamental right to travel. Strict Scrutiny Shapiro v. Thompson:
struck down a residency requirement Court says the right to travel:
Protects the rights of a citizen of one state to enter and leave
another state The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather
than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second
state For those travelers who elect to become permanent residents,
to be treated like other citizens of that state. Right to travel
(Interstate, not International): Ingress/egress Inherent nature of
our federal system Articles of confederation Commerce Clause of the
Constitution (one nation) Welcome Visitor Article IV, sec 2
substantial/substantial test Intermediate scrutiny No
discrimination Right of new citizens to be treated like other
citizens 14th amendment citizenship clause Citizen of the U.S. is
also a citizen of the state in which they reside Court strikes down
CA residency requirement for the welfare benefits Court has upheld
residency requirements for in-state tuition and divorces No
fundamental right to international travel
Right to Vote Amendments: 15th (Denial on basis of RACE), 19th,
24th and 26th 14th amendment makes the right to vote a fundamental
right
Reapportionment by the legislature is NOT a political question
and therefore the Court can decide. Congressional Reapportionment
is HOR in Congress, legislative reapportionment is done by the
state legislature Reapportionment is always a state legislative
function
Harper v. Virginia State Board of ElectionsVirginia has a poll
tax requiring voters to pay a small fee to cast their vote. Ct.
says right to vote is fundamental so Strict Scrutiny is applied The
poll tax infringes on the right to vote and therefore is
unconstitutional
Reynolds v. Sims60 years since the last apportionment of the
Alabama legislature. Ct determines that mal-apportionment violates
equal protection. The Ct determines that districts should be
apportioned to the population 1 person = 1 vote Legislature must
make an honest, good faith effort to draw a district of equal
population as is practicable. Take the total # of votes and divide
by the # of districts Ex. 100 seats with a populations of 100,000
100,000/100 = 1,000 per district After lines are drawn, count the
population Determine the one that exceeds by the most and the one
that is under by the least Take the difference between the most and
the least and that gives the variation %/.
Wesberry v. Sanders1 person 1 vote applies to legislature,
congressional seats, local govt officials, special purpose govt
unit, Dilution/reapportionment 1 person, 1 vote applies to HOR
Equal or same population 5.9% for HOR is not close enough Only
those minute variations in the quest for absolute voter
equality
Who has the duty to reapportion the state legislature? Entire
state legislatureWho reapportions Congress (HOR)? State legislature
draws congressional districts Ct. determined that below 9.6% for
state legislature is honest/good faith effort and therefore
constitutional Above 16.4% is presumptively invalid
Kramer v. Union Free School DistrictStatue limiting the right to
vote unless a person owned property or are parents of a child
enrolled in the school. Statute is over-inclusive and
under-inclusive Ct. determines this statute violates the
fundamental right to vote even if it is a limited purpose
election.
Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basis Water Storage DistrictThis
case represents the EXCEPTION to the 1 person, 1 vote Special
purpose government unit that disproportionally affects some more
than others, then you can have voting on some other basis than the
1 person, 1 vote and it is constitutionally permissible.
Ball v. JamesArizona reclaimed water districts director are
elected by voters but limits voter eligibility to landowners and
apportions voting power according to the amount of land a voter
owns. Court rules the exception to the one person, one vote applies
Limited purpose local government unit that disproportionately
affects (exception)
Crawford v. Marion County Election BoardThis case was decided
3-3-3 plurality opinion. Marion County requires a photo ID to vote.
The state interests are to deter fraud, modernize the election and
to increase voter confidence. Ct determines that requiring a photo
ID is not a substantial burden on a persons fundamental right to
vote The photo ID is provided for free There are exceptions for
religious reasons, etc. to accommodate.
Bush v. Gore
Shelby County, Alabama v. HolderDissent--- the decision here is
the enumerated power of Congress (15th Amendment 6) to enact
legislation to enforce the provisions of Article 3
McCullough v. Maryland----end-means test
Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal
Protection Analysis1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show
that the challenged classification serves a compelling state
interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that
interest.): A. Suspect Classifications: 1. Race 2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis) 4.
Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized
"political community" exception, in which case only rational basis
scrutiny will be applied). B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental
Rights 1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote 2. Interstate Migration 3.
Access to the Courts 4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental 2.
MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged
classification serves an important state interest and that the
classification is at least substantially related to serving that
interest.): Quasi-Suspect Classifications: 1. Gender 2.
Illegitimacy 3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The
government need only show that the challenged classification is
rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.) Minimum
scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed
above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer
scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some
weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for
example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally
retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal
aliens.
1