14th Amendment

(why)

Slaughterhouse Cases

Why Assigned: Defines P&I narrowly; shifts right litigation into DP/EP
Rule: P&I protects national rights only; no right to pursue a trade
Use for state: no fundamental right to economic liberty
Use for challenger: show how ealry court gutted P&I

Bradwell v. IL

Why assigned: Shows gender ideology; P&I doesn’t protect professional access.

Rule: Right to practice law is NOT a national privilege.

Use For State: Occupational restrictions OK.

Use For Challenger: Example of discredited sex stereotypes.

Minor v. Happersett

Why assigned: Illustrates P&I’s weakness; right to vote not protected.

Rule: Voting is NOT a P&I of citizenship.

Use: P&I basically dead as rights source.

Civil Rights Cases

Why assigned: State action requirement; §5 cannot regulate private conduct.

Rule: 14A applies to state actors only; 13A read narrowly.

Use For State: No 14A liability for private discrimination.

Use For Challenger: Harlan dissent for broader reading.

Plessy v. Ferguson

Why assigned: Anti-canon racial equality; structure of early EP.

Rule: “Separate but equal” upheld; segregation deemed non-stigmatic.

Use For State: Social separation not EP violation (historical).

Use For Challenger: Contrast with Brown; caste function.

Harlan Dissent (plessy)

Why assigned: Seeds “color-blind Constitution.”

Rule: Laws cannot create caste.

Use State: Use his racist footnotes against over-reliance.

Use Challenger: Color-blind argument for striking race-based classifications.

Brown v. Board (I & II)

Why assigned: Modern EP foundation; segregation inherently unequal.

Rule: Separate ≠ equal; “hearts and minds” language.

Use: Applicable to any racial segregation; equality as social meaning.

Carolene Products

Why assigned: Basis for suspect class doctrine.

Rule: Heightened scrutiny for discrete and insular minorities.

Use: Justify strict scrutiny for race; intermediate for sex.

Korematsu

Why assigned: Announces strict scrutiny for race; shows judiciary deference.

Rule: Racial classifications → SS, but Court upheld internment (now repudiated).

Use: SS is triggered for racial classifications.

Loving v. Virgina

Why assigned: Strict scrutiny for race; marriage fundamental.

Rule: Racial marriage bans unconstitutional.

Use: Marriage = fundamental right; race = SS.

Bakke

Why assigned: Limits quotas; recognizes diversity interest.

Rule: No rigid quotas; diversity can justify race use.

Use Challenger: Quotas invalid.

Use State: Diversity interest (pre-SFFA).

Grutter v. Bollinger

Why assigned: Holistic use of race allowed.

Rule: Race may be one factor; need narrow tailoring.

Use Challenger: Grutter too permissive (Parents Involved/SFFA).

Use State: Educational benefits of diversity.

Parents Involved

Why assigned: Limits K–12 racial assignment; color-blind reasoning.

Rule: No racial balancing; SS applies even to benign uses.

Use State: Argue that the program is not racial balancing.

Use Challenger: PI cuts Grutter down outside higher ed.S

SFFA v. Harvard/UNC

Why assigned: Modern doctrine ending most race-based admissions.

Rule: Race-conscious admissions unconstitutional.

Use: End of diversity rationale.

Reed v. Reed

Why assigned: First sex EP win; early RB+.

Rule: Arbitrary sex classifications violate EP.

Use: Start of sex EP; use to show suspicion of stereotypes.

Frontiero

Why assigned: Push toward strict scrutiny for sex (plurality).

Rule: Sex classifications inherently suspect (not adopted).

Use: Argue for higher scrutiny.

Craig v. Boren

Why assigned: Creates intermediate scrutiny.

Rule: Sex classifications → important interest + substantial means.

Use: Core standard for sex.

Geduldig v. Aiello

Why assigned: Pregnancy ≠ sex classification.

Rule: Pregnancy distinctions reviewed under RB.

Use State: Pregnancy neutrality.

Use Challenger: Critique in equality analysis; Dobbs resonance.

Michael M

Why assigned: Sex-specific statutory rape justifications.

Rule: Some sex distinctions valid due to real biological differences.

Use: Show intermediate scrutiny allows some sex-based tailoring.

Rostker v. Goldberg

Why assigned: Deference in military context.

Rule: Male-only draft upheld.

Use: Government power in sex cases.

Hogan

Why assigned: Bars sex-exclusive programs based on stereotype.

Rule: “Exceedingly persuasive justification.”

Use: Strict policing of sex-based classifications.

US v. Virginia

Why assigned: Peak sex EP scrutiny.

Rule: Sex classifications need “exceedingly persuasive justification”; no stereotypes.

Use: Strongest tool for striking sex-based classifications.

Bernal v. Fainter

Why assigned: Alienage usually strict scrutiny; PFE exception.

Rule: Noncitizens = suspect class unless job involves political function.

Use State: Job fits PFE.

Use Challenger: PFE is narrow.

Rodriguez

Why assigned: Poverty not suspect; no right to education.

Rule: RB for school funding disparities.

Use: Reject new suspect classes or new fundamental rights.

Murgia

Why assigned: Age → RB.

Rule: No heightened scrutiny.

Use: Supports RB for large, shifting groups.

Cleburne

Why assigned: RB+; animus invalid.

Rule: Law fails RB when rooted in prejudice.

Use: Both disability and animus analysis.

Romer

Why assigned: Animus doctrine for sexual orientation.

Rule: Bare desire to harm is not legitimate; RB+.

Use: Attack laws targeting LGBTQ+ groups.

Strauss

Why assigned: Difficulty proving discriminatory intent.

Rule: High bar to show purpose; disparate impact alone insufficient.

Use: Supports Feeney/Davis framework.

Washington v. Davis

Why assigned: Intent requirement.

Rule: Disparate impact ≠ EP violation absent purpose.

Use: State’s strongest shield.

Feeney

Why assigned: Clarifies intent standard.

Rule: Discriminatory purpose = “because of,” not “in spite of.”

Use: Extremely high bar for challengers.

Lochner

Why assigned: Anti-canon; economic DP era.

Rule: Invalidated labor regulation based on liberty of contract (rejected now).

Use Challenger: Lochner-like concern for judicial overreach.

Use State: Cite as what NOT to do.

Muller

Why assigned: Early protective labor law; gender stereotyping.

Rule: Women can be regulated differently based on stereotypes (rejected now).

Use: Demonstrates old DP framework.

Nebbia

Why assigned: Broad deference to economic regulation.

Rule: Reasonable regulations OK; non-Lochner.

Use: Supports RB for economic laws.

West Coast Hotel

Why assigned: Ends Lochner; upholds minimum wage.

Rule: Economic regulation gets deference.

Use: No fundamental economic rights.

Williamson v. Lee Optical

Why assigned: Classic RB; extreme deference.

Rule: Legislature can regulate irrationally.

Use: Strongest RB case.

Meyer

Why assigned: Early fundamental right; parental control.

Rule: SDP protects teaching/learning decisions.

Use: Anchor for family autonomy.

Pierce

Why assigned: Fundamental right to choose private education.

Rule: State cannot force public schooling exclusively.

Use: Family autonomy base.

Griswold

Why assigned: Foundation of modern privacy.

Rule: Marital privacy fundamental.

Use: Privacy → contraception → later cases.

Zablocki

Why assigned: Marriage fundamental; regulations get heightened review.

Rule: Cannot impose substantial obstacles to marriage.

Use: Marriage-right anchor.

Michael H

Why assigned: Narrow definition of rights; tradition test.

Rule: Define rights at the most specific level; history controls.

Use State: Narrow framing → no fundamental right.

Use Challenger: Argue broader framing.

Bowers

Why assigned: Narrow framing; morality-based regulation upheld.

Rule: No fundamental right to same-sex intimacy (overruled).

Use: Shows how Dobbs frames rights narrowly.

Lawrence v. Texas

Why assigned: Liberty + dignity; overrules Bowers.

Rule: State cannot criminalize same-sex intimacy.

Use Challenger: Broad liberty/autonomy.

Use State: Court did not use strict scrutiny → uncertain doctrinal tier.

Windsor

Why assigned: Dignity/equality reasoning; attacks improper purpose.

Rule: Federal refusal to recognize same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

Use: Improper animus-like purpose analysis.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Why assigned: Modern SDP; marriage equality.

Rule: Same-sex couples have fundamental right to marry.

Use: Multi-factor liberty test; not purely Glucksberg.

Roe v. Wade

Why assigned: Abortion framework; not strict scrutiny.

Rule: Pre-viability protection; trimester system.

Use: Historical context; Dobbs critique.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Why assigned: Reaffirms core of Roe; undue burden.

Rule: No substantial obstacles pre-viability.

Use: Reliance, legitimacy, equality themes.

Dobbs v. Jackson

Why assigned: Rejects abortion as a fundamental right; history-focused SDP.

Rule: Only rights deeply rooted in 1868 count; Roe/Casey overturned.

Use State: Narrow framing of rights.

Use Challenger: Critique historical approach.

City of Boerne v. Flores

Why assigned: Defines §5 limits.

Rule: Congruence & proportionality test; Congress may not redefine rights.

Use: Limit federal enforcement power.

US v. Morrison

Why assigned: Private conduct not regulable via §5.

Rule: §5 requires state action + evidence of violations.

Use: Major limit on Congress.

Nevada v. Hibbs

Why assigned: Example of valid §5 action.

Rule: FMLA family-care leave OK; sex discrimination evidence supports C&P.

Use: Prophylactic rules allowed for sex discrimination.

Coleman

Why assigned: Narrowing of Hibbs.

Rule: Self-care provision invalid; insufficient link to sex discrimination.

Use: Show limits of prophylaxis.

Heller

Why assigned: Individual 2A right.

Rule: Core = self-defense in home; some limits allowed.

Use: Identify burden on “core” right.

McDonald

Why assigned: Incorporation of 2A through 14A DP.

Rule: States bound by 2A.

Use: Incorporation step.

Bruen

Why assigned: Historical tradition test for 2A.

Rule: Gov must show historical analogues.

Use: Strict originalist framing.

US v. Rahimi

Why assigned: Rahimi softens Bruen; analogy allowed.

Rule: Relevantly similar historical regulations suffice.

Use: Apply flexible history test.