Constitutional Law Cases

Corfield v. Coryell (1823)

RULE: Art IV § 2 Privileges & Immunities is interpreted to prohibit laws that discriminate against out-of-staters, but no laws that limit rights of in-state residents + out-of-state residents alike

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

RULE: None of the guarantees of the federal bill of rights limited state or local governments

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

HOLDS: African descent are not US Citizens; 5A banned Congress from outlawing slavery in territories b/c deprivation of property; HELD: MO Compromise = Unconstitutional

SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES (1873)

RULE: 14th Amend. P&I clause prohibits states from infringing on rights of federal citizenship, not state citizenship. Slaughters P&I clause - now SCOTUS has to find new place to incorporate BOR.

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK (1876)

RULE: Dismissed federal indictments of “private murders” due to a lack of state action - prosecution of KKK was left in the hands of state courts.

Twining v. New Jersey (1908)

HELD: BOR specifically were not incorporated, but rights included in them may exist as part of “liberties” in due process of law

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

1st Amendment incorporated via “liberty” in Due Process Clause

Palko v. Connecticut (1933)

Incorporated those rights implicit in the concept of “ordered liberty”; weak selective incorporation

Adamson v. California (1947)

Black’s Dissent: Total Incorporation — All rights in the Bill of Rights using Positive Law
Murphy and Rutledge Dissent: Total Incorporation Plus — Incorporate Bill of Rights + SDP

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Incorporated all rights of American tradition plus SDP gray areas (strong selective plus — current standard)

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

Incorporated those rights that are among those fundamental principles of liberty and justice (strong selective)

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Liberty in 14th amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms (strong selective plus)

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

HELD: 2A protects right to keep and bear arms for purpose of self-defense under “liberty” in 5A

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

HELD: Liberty in 14A incorporates the 2A right to bear arms
Thomas Concurrence: Attempts to recognize right through the P/I clause of the 14A

Bolling v. Sharp (1954)

Reverse Incorporation = putting Equal Protection into 5A through “liberty”

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

RULE: CRA Unconstitutional = 13th Amendment Inapplicable - only applies to actual slavery

Jones v. Alfred Mayer (1968)

Held that 13th Amendment reaches “the badges and incidents of slavery” — including social discrimination.

Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)

RULE: any federal statute that is passed must be congruent with the prevailing Supreme Court interpretation of that area of the law; RULE: EPC is “positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining need for and nature of legislation to secure 14A guarantees”

Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)

RULE: Congress can regulate state elections if there is Equal Protection violation under § 5 of 14th which requires SCOTUS-recognized suspect or quasi-suspect class; Rejected One-Way Ratchet Theory

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

RULE: SCOTUS holds sole power to define the substantive rights guaranteed by the 14A — a definition to which Congress may not add and from which it may not subtract

United States v. Guest (1966)

HELD: Although the EPC only covers state action, need NOT be “exclusive or direct”

United States v. Morrison (2000)

While women are a protected class, § 5 of 14th Amendment requires state action

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

RULE: Judicial Enforcement = State Action

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)

Government entangled w/ restaurant: symbiotic relationship between 2 = state action

Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972)

Nexus between government + discriminatory act required for entanglement

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

HELD: Separate but equal treatment did not violate the equal protection clause

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

HELD: Race = Strict Scrutiny

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

HELD: Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

HELD: Race is the trigger to the interracial marriage ban = Strict Scrutiny

Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)

HELD: Societal discrimination can never justify governmental discrimination = Strict Scrutiny

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

4 Votes for Strict Scrutiny = No Stare Decisis

Craig v. Boren (1976)

HELD: Gender classifications must be SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED means that serve IMPORTANT governmental interests (intermediate scrutiny)

United States v. Virginia [VMI] (1996)

For stereotypical discrimination, justification for substantially related means must be EXCEEDINGLY PERSUASIVE

Nguyen v. INS (2001)

RULE: UPHELD statute under Intermediate Scrutiny; “Exceedingly Persuasive” = Important/Substantially Related

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000)

HELD: EPC protects a “class of one” - punishing a single person is never legitimate

Clark v. Jeter (1988)

RULE: Illegitimates receive intermediate scrutiny

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

HELD: mentally challenged are not suspect class, but the legislation distinguishing them from others must still pass rational basis requirement = Rational Basis with Bite

Romer v. Evans (1996)

HELD: Targeting homosexuals due to animus is unconstitutional = Rational Basis with Bite

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

HELD: Unconstitutional = marriage is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person, and under Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14A couples of same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Disparate impact must be accompanied by intent - discriminatory purpose is required

Personnel Administrator of MA v. Feeney (1979)

“Discriminatory Purpose” = statute enacted because of, not in spite of, adverse effects

Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (1991)

HELD: Policies that no longer remedy de jure constitutional violations can be lifted.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

RULE: “One Person, One Vote” is required - Equal protection clause requires BOTH houses of state legislature to be apportioned strictly on the basis of population

Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections (1966)

RULE: Poll taxes are not allowed as qualification for state elections = Strict Scrutiny

Griffin v. Illinois (1956)

RULE: State Appellate Court is not required under the Constitution - HOWEVER, if it exists, it cannot discriminate against some defendants on the basis of their poverty

Saenz v. Roe (1999)

HELD: Right to Travel falls under Privileges and Immunities of 14th Amendment

San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez (1973)

RULE: “Fundamental” is ONLY determined by whether it is explicitly or implicitly guaranteed in Con; thus, majority is attempting to get rid of 3rd leg of stool, i.e., Reason.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

HELD: Unconstitutional - Uses SS by finding a “Right to Freedom to Contract”

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)

HELD: UPHELD as constitutional - ending Lochner era

1. economic rights are no longer included in the Lochner loaf and have LLRB

United States v. Carolene Products (1938)

HELD: Economic Regulations = Rational Basis

Footnote 4: Presume rational basis, however openly recognizes heightened scrutiny for: (1) fundamental rights in BOR/14th and (2) discrimination against “discrete religious or racial minorities”

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)

Business regulation is autonomy interest - people must resort to the polls, not courts. HELD: Upheld under Rational Basis

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

RULE: “Liberty” in 14th Amendment DPC includes non-economic rights - substantive, fundamental rights that are subject to heightened judicial review

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

RULE: “Liberty” includes the rights of parents to decide how their children are educated

Rochin v. California (1952)

HELD: Unconstitutional under 14th Amendment DPC - “shocks the conscience” (compelled stomach pumping)

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

Harlan’s Dissent: Privacy of home is a fundamental aspect of liberty to which strict scrutiny should be applied [becomes the majority in Griswold]

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) [Marital, Heterosexual, NON-PROCREATIVE]

MAJORITY by Douglas [Text-Based Argument = 5 Votes]: Right to privacy found as a peripheral right in the penumbras of the of the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights

Harlan Concurrence [History/Tradition Analysis = 1 Vote]: Tradition is a living thing

Goldberg Concurrence [Reason Analysis = 3 Votes]: fact that no particular provision explicitly mentions traditional relation of the family not dispositive.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) [NON-MARITAL, Heterosexual, Non-Procreative]

RULE: Right to privacy = individual right (married or single) to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child

Roe v. Wade (1973)

HELD: The right of privacy founded in the 14th Amendment is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, which is not unqualified and must be considered against compelling state interests (which begins at fetus viability). [strict scrutiny]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Abortion is a “liberty interest”; JUDICIAL Protection @ “undue burden” test (intermediate scrutiny? RBwB?)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

“[P]rocuring an abortion is not a fundamental right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.” Abortion is now subject to low level rational basis review.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Upheld = Rational Basis - right to engage in homosexual sex is not a fundamental right

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

HELD: Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify intrusion into personal + private life of individual [overrules Bowers]; used SDP analysis

Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)

HELD: Upheld using Rational Basis = no history/tradition of granting paternal rights to the natural father conceived during an affair.

Cruzan v. Director, MO Department of Health (1990)

HELD: Upheld = Right to refuse treatment is a LIBERTY INTEREST, but not absolute and can be regulated = Rational Basis with Bite

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

UPHELD: Assisted Suicide is NOT a liberty interest = Rational Basis

1A

pp. 53