CON LAW FINAL

United States v Virginia (1996)

Facts: The Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a state-funded military college, only admitted men. The United States government sued Virginia, arguing that the male-only admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Virginia created a separate program for women at another school, but the program was significantly different from VMI.

Issue: Does a state-supported school’s male-only admissions policy violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Holding: Yes. VMI’s exclusion of women was unconstitutional.

Reasoning: Gender-based classifications must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” Many women could meet VMI’s standards and that the separate women’s program was not equal in prestige, resources, or opportunities. The policy violated equal protection.

Vote: 7–1

Dissent: Arguing that the Constitution does not prohibit all single-sex education and that the majority improperly imposed modern social views rather than following historical constitutional understanding.

Significance: Strengthened protections against gender discrimination and established that governments face a very high burden when defending sex-based classifications.

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Facts: Police officers went to Mapp’s home looking for a suspect and evidence. They forced their way in without a valid warrant and found allegedly obscene materials, which were used to convict her. Mapp argued that the evidence was obtained illegally.

Issue: Can evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure be used in state courts?

Holding: No. The exclusionary rule applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reasoning: The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be enforced by excluding illegally obtained evidence. Without the exclusionary rule, constitutional protections would be meaningless. The Court incorporated this protection to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Vote: 6–3

Dissent: The dissenters argued that the exclusionary rule was not required by the Constitution and that states should be allowed to decide how to handle illegally obtained evidence. They believed the majority overstepped by imposing this rule on the states.

Significance: Established that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in state courts, strengthening Fourth Amendment protections nationwide.

Employment Division v Smith (1990)

Facts

Two members of the Native American Church were fired for ingesting peyote (a controlled substance) as part of a religious ceremony. They were denied unemployment benefits because their dismissal was for “misconduct.”

Legal Question(s)

Does a neutral, generally applicable law that incidentally burdens religious practice violate the Free Exercise Clause?

Holding

No. Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religious practices.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Scalia rejected the Sherbert strict scrutiny framework for most cases.

He held:

• The Free Exercise Clause protects against laws that target religion, but not against neutral, generally applicable laws.

• Allowing religious exemptions from such laws would make “each person a law unto himself,” undermining rule of law.

The Court distinguished Sherbert as a case involving individualized governmental decision-making (unemployment benefits), not a generally applicable criminal law.

Thus, strict scrutiny is not required unless:

• The law targets religion, or

• There is a system of individualized exemptions.

Significance

• Dramatically limits Free Exercise protections.

• Replaces strict scrutiny with a much more deferential standard for most laws.

• Sparks major political backlash, leading to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (1993), which restores strict scrutiny in many federal contexts.

• Establishes the modern rule:

Neutral + generally applicable law = constitutional, even if it burdens religion.

 

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado CRC (2018)

Facts: The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against Phillips. Phillips argued that the state violated his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

Issue: Did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violate the baker’s First Amendment rights by punishing him for refusing to create a cake for a same-sex wedding?

Holding: Yes. The Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause because it showed hostility toward the baker’s religious beliefs.

Reasoning: The Court focused narrowly on the conduct of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission rather than broadly deciding whether businesses can refuse service based on religious objections. The majority found that some commissioners made comments that were dismissive and hostile toward Phillips’s religious beliefs. Because the government must remain neutral toward religion, the Commission’s actions violated the First Amendment.

Vote: 7–2

Dissent: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. They argued that the baker’s refusal was discriminatory conduct prohibited by state law and that the majority placed too much emphasis on isolated comments by commissioners.

Significance: The decision reinforced the principle that governments must treat religious beliefs with neutrality and respect, while leaving unresolved the broader conflict between religious liberty and LGBTQ anti-discrimination protections.

Schuette v Coalition to Defend (BAMN) (2014)

Facts: Michigan voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning the use of race in public university admissions. Supporters of affirmative action challenged the amendment, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause by making it harder for minorities to advocate for favorable policies.

Issue: Does a state ban on affirmative action violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Holding: No. Voters can choose to prohibit affirmative action.

Reasoning: The Court held that the Constitution does not require states to allow race-based preferences. It emphasized that this case was about who decides—the voters or the courts—and concluded that voters have the authority to determine public policy on this issue.

Vote: 6–2 (Justice Kagan recused)

Dissent: Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg) dissented, arguing that the amendment restructured the political process in a way that disadvantaged minority groups and made it harder for them to pursue policies benefiting them.

Significance: Allowed states to ban affirmative action, emphasizing democratic control over the issue.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and interrogated by police without being informed of his rights. He confessed to a crime, and the confession was used against him in court.

Issue: Does the Fifth Amendment require police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation?

Holding: Yes. Suspects must be informed of their rights (Miranda warnings).

Reasoning: The Court held that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, which threatens the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. To protect this right, suspects must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present. Without these warnings, statements made during interrogation cannot be used in court.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: The dissent argued that the decision went too far and would hinder law enforcement. They believed the Constitution did not require such specific warnings and that voluntary confessions should still be admissible.

Significance: Created the Miranda warnings, a key protection for individuals during police interrogations.

Kennedy v Bremerton School District (2022)

Facts

Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach in Bremerton, Washington, prayed at midfield after games. Some players joined him. The school district suspended him, arguing that his public prayers could be interpreted as government endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause.

Kennedy sued, claiming violations of the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Legal Question(s)

Did the school district violate Kennedy’s rights under the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause by disciplining him for praying on the field after games?

Holding

Yes. The Court held that the school district violated Kennedy’s First Amendment rights.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

The Court held that Kennedy’s prayer was private religious expression, not government speech. Because he was acting as a private citizen during a moment of personal observance, the Constitution protects his right to pray.

The Court also explicitly rejected the Lemon Test, stating that Establishment Clause cases should instead be interpreted through historical practices and understandings.

The majority reasoned that suppressing Kennedy’s prayer out of fear of violating the Establishment Clause improperly burdened his free exercise and free speech rights.

Significance

• Formally abandons the Lemon Test in Establishment Clause analysis.

• Establishes a history-and-tradition approach for church–state cases.

• Strengthens protection for individual religious expression in public settings.

• Marks a major shift toward accommodation of religion in public institutions.

 

Lemon v kurtzman (1971)

Facts

Pennsylvania and Rhode Island passed laws providing state financial aid to church-related schools. The programs reimbursed private religious schools for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials used in teaching secular subjects. Taxpayers challenged the laws, arguing that the programs violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Question(s)

Do state laws providing financial support to religious schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Holding

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the statutes were unconstitutional because they violated the Establishment Clause.

Legal Reasoning

Chief Justice Burger created the Lemon Test, a three-part standard to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. A government action must:

1. Have a secular legislative purpose.

2. Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

3. Avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

The Court concluded that the programs would require ongoing state monitoring of religious schools to ensure funds were used only for secular purposes. This oversight would create excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Significance

• Establishes the Lemon Test, which became the dominant Establishment Clause framework for decades.

• Frequently used to evaluate government involvement with religion in schools and public institutions.

• In recent years the Court has moved away from the Lemon test, culminating in its rejection in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022).

 

Grutter v Bollinger (2003)

Facts: The University of Michigan Law School used a holistic admissions policy that considered race as one factor to achieve diversity. Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, challenged the policy after being denied admission.

Issue: Does considering race in a holistic admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Holding: No. The policy is constitutional.

Reasoning: The Court held that student body diversity is a compelling governmental interest. The law school’s policy was narrowly tailored because it did not use quotas and instead evaluated applicants individually. The Court emphasized that race-conscious admissions must be flexible and limited in scope.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: Dissents from William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. They argued the policy functioned like a quota in disguise and that the Constitution should be color-blind, prohibiting racial classifications.

Significance: Upheld affirmative action in higher education, reinforcing diversity as a compelling interest.

Bostock v Clayton County (2020)

Facts: Gerald Bostock was fired from his job with Clayton County, Georgia, after participating in a gay recreational softball league. Similar cases involving employees fired for being gay or transgender were combined with his case. The employees argued that their dismissals violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.”

Issue: Does Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex” include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity?

Holding: Yes. Discrimination against gay and transgender employees is discrimination because of sex and is prohibited under Title VII.

Reasoning: The Court, in an opinion written by Neil Gorsuch, used a textualist approach. The majority explained that if an employer fires a male employee for being attracted to men, but would not fire a female employee for the same behavior, sex is necessarily part of the decision. Therefore, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity inherently involves discrimination because of sex. The Court focused on the plain meaning of the statute rather than the original expectations of Congress in 1964.

Vote: 6–3

Dissent: Samuel Alito (joined by Clarence Thomas) and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. They argued that the Court was effectively rewriting the law because Congress in 1964 did not intend Title VII to cover sexual orientation or gender identity. They believed such changes should come from Congress, not the judiciary.

Significance: Expanded federal civil rights protections to LGBTQ employees nationwide and became one of the most significant modern interpretations of Title VII employment discrimination law.

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

Facts: Several same-sex couples challenged state laws that banned same-sex marriage or refused to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. One of the lead plaintiffs, James Obergefell, sued Ohio after the state refused to list him as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate. The couples argued that these bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require states to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex?

Holding: Yes. Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Reasoning: The Court held that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that denying same-sex couples this right also violates the Equal Protection Clause. The majority emphasized principles of individual dignity, liberty, autonomy, and equal treatment under the law. The Court stated that excluding same-sex couples from marriage demeans them and their families and denies them the legal benefits and recognition given to opposite-sex couples.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: Dissents were written by John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The dissenters argued that the Constitution does not mention same-sex marriage and that the issue should be decided democratically by the states rather than by the Court.

Significance: Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and became a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights and equal protection under the law.

Milliken v Bradley (1974)

Facts: After finding segregation in Detroit public schools, a federal district court ordered a desegregation plan that included busing students between Detroit and surrounding suburban school districts. The suburban districts argued they had not intentionally discriminated and should not be included in the remedy.

Issue: Can federal courts require inter-district busing remedies involving suburban school districts that were not proven to have intentionally segregated students?

Holding: No. Courts cannot impose inter-district desegregation plans without proof that multiple districts caused segregation.

Reasoning: The Court held that remedies for unconstitutional segregation must be limited to the districts where violations were actually proven. Since the suburban districts had not been shown to intentionally discriminate, forcing them into a regional busing plan violated principles of local control over education. The majority emphasized that school district boundaries could not simply be ignored without evidence of cross-district constitutional violations.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: Thurgood Marshall wrote a strong dissent, joined by William Brennan, William O. Douglas, and Byron White. The dissent argued that segregation in Detroit could not realistically be fixed without including the surrounding suburbs and warned that the decision would allow racial segregation in urban schools to continue.

Significance: The decision greatly limited the scope of school desegregation efforts and made large-scale metropolitan integration plans much more difficult to implement.

Citizens United v FEC (2010)

Facts: Citizens United, a nonprofit group, produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton and wanted to air it close to the 2008 election. Federal law (BCRA) prohibited corporations and unions from funding certain political communications close to elections.

Issue: Can the government limit independent political expenditures by corporations and unions?

Holding: No. These limits violate the First Amendment.

Reasoning: The Court ruled that political speech cannot be restricted based on the identity of the speaker, including corporations and unions. Independent expenditures were viewed as not directly causing corruption. Therefore, banning such spending was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The Court also overruled prior decisions that allowed these limits.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: A major dissent by John Paul Stevens, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. They argued corporations are not the same as individuals and that unlimited spending could distort elections and undermine democracy.

Significance: Greatly expanded the role of money in politics by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently in elections.

Bush v Gore (2000)

Facts: The 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore came down to Florida, where the vote was extremely close. A recount was ordered, but different counties used different standards for counting ballots, especially unclear or “undervote” ballots.

Issue: Did Florida’s recount process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding: Yes. The recount was unconstitutional, and the Court halted it.

Reasoning: The Court found that different standards across counties meant that similar ballots were treated differently, violating equal protection. Every vote must be counted under consistent standards. The Court also said there was not enough time to create a uniform recount process before the deadline.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: Strong dissents from John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. They argued the Court should not have intervened in a state election and that stopping the recount undermined democratic legitimacy. Some believed a proper recount should have continued.

Significance: Effectively decided the 2000 presidential election and remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings.

Trinity Luthern v Columbia (2017)

Facts

Missouri had a program that provided grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds using recycled tires. Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a grant to improve its preschool playground. The state denied the application solely because the applicant was a church, citing a state constitutional provision prohibiting public funding of religious institutions.

Legal Question(s)

Does denying a generally available public benefit to an organization solely because of its religious status violate the Free Exercise Clause?

Holding

Yes. Denying the grant solely because the applicant is a religious institution violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Legal Reasoning

Chief Justice Roberts held that the state imposed a penalty on the free exercise of religion by excluding the church from a neutral public benefit program based solely on its religious identity.

The Court emphasized:

• The program was neutral and generally available.

• The state’s policy required Trinity Lutheran to choose between participating in a public benefit and remaining a religious institution.

• This type of discrimination triggers strict scrutiny.

Missouri argued it had an interest in avoiding Establishment Clause violations, but the Court rejected this, stating that excluding religious entities from neutral programs is not required by the Constitution.

Significance

• Establishes that religious status discrimination is unconstitutional.

• Strengthens Free Exercise protections by requiring equal access to public benefits.

• Marks a shift away from strict separation of church and state.

• Begins a line of cases expanding protections for religious institutions in public funding contexts.

 

Kelo v City of New London (2005)

Facts: The city of New London, Connecticut approved a redevelopment plan intended to stimulate the local economy after economic decline. The city used eminent domain to take private homes, including Susette Kelo’s property, and transfer the land to private developers for economic development projects connected to a new research facility. The homeowners argued that taking private property for private development violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which allows property to be taken only for “public use.”

Issue: Does the government’s use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development qualify as a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment?

Holding: Yes. Economic development can qualify as a public use under the Fifth Amendment.

Reasoning: The Court held that promoting economic growth and increasing jobs and tax revenue served a valid public purpose. The majority reasoned that the city’s redevelopment plan was carefully designed to benefit the community as a whole, even though the land would ultimately be used by private developers. Therefore, the takings satisfied the “public use” requirement.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, arguing that the decision dangerously expanded government power and threatened all private property because almost any property could potentially be taken for a more profitable use. Clarence Thomas also dissented, arguing that “public use” should mean actual use by the public, not general economic benefit.

Significance: Expanded the scope of eminent domain and sparked major public backlash, leading many states to pass laws limiting the use of eminent domain for private economic development projects.

Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

Facts: Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, refused to join the public-sector union AFSCME but was still required to pay “agency fees” to cover collective bargaining costs. Janus argued that forcing non-union employees to pay these fees violated his First Amendment right to free speech because collective bargaining in the public sector involves political issues.

Issue: Does requiring public employees to pay union agency fees violate the First Amendment?

Holding: Yes. Mandatory agency fees for public-sector unions are unconstitutional.

Reasoning: The Court held that compelling non-union employees to financially support union speech violates the First Amendment. The majority reasoned that public-sector collective bargaining is inherently political because it involves government spending, wages, and workplace policies. Therefore, forcing employees to subsidize union activities amounts to compelled speech. The Court overturned its earlier decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which had allowed such fees.

Vote: 5–4

Dissent: Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The dissent argued that the majority improperly weaponized the First Amendment and ignored the importance of precedent and labor stability in the public sector.

Significance: The decision significantly weakened the financial power of public-sector unions and expanded First Amendment protections against compelled financial support of speech.

Dobbs v Jackson (2022)

Facts: Mississippi passed a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, directly challenging Roe and Casey. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sued to block the law.

Issue: Does the Constitution protect a right to abortion, and should Roe and Casey be overturned?

Holding: No. The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, and Roe and Casey were overturned.

Reasoning: The Court held that abortion rights are not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions and therefore are not protected under substantive due process. The majority argued that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the authority to regulate abortion should be returned to the states.

Vote: 6–3 (overturning Roe/Casey), with a 5–4 split on the scope of the reasoning

Dissent: Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. They argued that overturning Roe and Casey undermines precedent (stare decisis) and threatens other privacy-based rights, while significantly limiting women’s liberty and equality.

Significance: Eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned regulatory power to the states.