hdfs 3520 exam 2

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter

Full Faith and Credit Clause

The states must respect the legal judgments and decisions from other states

Underwriters Nat. Assurance Co. v. North Carolina 1982

a state is not required to afford full faith and credit to a judgment rendered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties

Milliken v Meyer

the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution precludes any inquiry into the merits of the cause of action, the logic or consistency of the decision, or the validity of the legal principles on which the judgment is based

V.L. vs E.L. Holding

a judgment that appears on its face to have been issued by a court with subject matter jurisdiction must be afforded full faith and credit

written law

1. created by the legislative branch (statutes); cannot violate US Constitution
2. created by the executive branch (regulation or policy); cannot violation constitution or statutes

administrative agencies

part of the executive branch; official governmental bodies empowered with the authority to direct and supervise the implementation of particular legislative acts

federal regulations

Written laws created by administrative agencies ; Codified in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)

codiefied

given a number

legal memo order

1. question presented
2. relevant law
3. legal analysis
4. conclusion

14th amendment and its clauses

created to end state sanctioned racism;
1. citizenship clause
2. privilege clause
3. due process clause
4. equal protection clause

Due Process Clause 14th Amendment

No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Equal Protection Clause

no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Lawton vs Steele

states may pass laws that restrict protected liberties, but the laws must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest

legitimate state interest

concern over which the state is legally entitled to govern

reasonably related

rules that seem like they further the legitimate state interest

-state can give reasons explaining the causal relationship

Meyer v Nebraska holding

Education and the acquisition of knowledge are liberties protected by the 14th amendment

Gitlow v. New York

pursuant to the 14th amendment, the states cannot unconstitutionally impinge upon the liberties protected by the bill of rights.

prince v massachusetts holding

the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults

constitutional muster

to pass constitutional muster means a law is constitutional

enjoin

an order by a court to do or refrain from doing an act

legal analysis from brown v. board of education

1. today education is perhaps the most important function of state and local gov.
2. compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society
3. education is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities
4. education is the very foundation of good citizenship
5. in these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education

Brown v. Board of Education Holding

separate facilities based on race are inherently unequal and thus violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment

US Constitutional Judicial Review 3 Tests

1. Rational basis test
2. intermediate scrutiny test
3. strict scrutiny test

when to use the strict scrutiny test:

1. due process clause: fundamental liberty is infringed upon
2. equal protection clause: discrimination based on suspect classification

suspect class

category or class, such as race, that triggers the highest standard of scrutiny from the Supreme Court

suspect class (san antonio ind. school district v. rodriguez)

any law that classifies people based on race, religion, national origin, or alien status is unconstitutional unless it can pass the strict scrutiny test

fundamental liberty

a right that is explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution (san ant ind. school district v rodriguez); any law that impinges on a fundamental liberty is unconstitutional unless it can pass the strict scrutiny test

explicit

stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt

strict scrutiny test

for a law to pass the strict scrutiny test, there must be a compelling government interest, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored, and it must be the least restrictive means available

compelling government interest

the law or policy must be necessary or crucial rather than preferred

narrowly tailored

the law or policy must not affect:

1. more people (equal protection clause) OR
2. more liberty (due process clause)

than it needs to in order to achieve the identified compelling government interest.

least restrictive

there is essentially no other way to achieve the identified compelling government interest

class action lawsuit

A lawsuit in which the named party represents all people who are a member of a defined set of people.
-The outcome of the lawsuit will impact all people in the defined "class."

invidious discrimination

Treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging.

san antonio independent school district v rodriguez findings:

1. wealth of a community is not a "suspect class" for purposes of constitutional review
2. education is a right protected by the 14th amendment's due process clause, but it is not within the limited category of fundamental rights recognized by the court and guaranteed by the constitution

san antonio v rodriguez holding

apply strict scrutiny test when a law or policy impinges on a fundamental right or discriminates based on a suspect class

prince v massachusetts

1. there is a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter
2. the family is not beyond regulation
3. it is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder

Moore v. City of East Cleveland holdings

1. the right to make choices concerning family living arrangements is a liberty protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment
2. when the gov intrudes on the right to make choices concerning family living arrangements, the law or policy must further an important government interest (use intermediate scrutiny test!)
3. biological relationships are not the exclusive determination of the existence of a family

intermediate review test

1. is there an important government interest?
2. does the challenged law further the important government interest?

standards of evidence

amount of evidence required by law to win a case; whether there is enough evidence for a ruling, depending on the kind of case, finders of fact require different burdens of proof.

3 standards of evidence

1. Beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of evidence

beyond a reasonable doubt

- used in criminal cases; highest standard of evidence, loss to. defendant is the most substantial.
- not necessarily 100% sure. enough evidence such that finders of fact must "better be darn sure"

clear and convincing evidence

- civil cases, middle standard
- used when loss to defendant is substantial
- evidence presented must be highly and substantially probable to be true than not
- the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality

preponderance of the evidence

- civil cases, lowest standard of evidence
- default; use in civil cases unless statute says to use another standard of evidence
- to prevail, must prove by the greater weight of evidence (more than 50%, more likely true than not)

constitutional vagueness

a statute is unconstitutional if it is written such that the average person cannot understand it. (Coates v Cincinnati, 1971)

constitutional vagueness test

a statute is unconstitutional if a reasonable person cannot determine:
1. who is regulated,
2. what is prohibited, or
3. what punishment might be. imposed.
(coates v cincinnati)

holdings from the matter of BK 1981

1. even though family integrity is a fundamental right, the state has both the right and the duty to protect minor children through judicial determinations of their best interest.

2. preponderance of the evidence standard in a neglect statute does not violate the due. process clause of the 14th amendment.

take away from the matter of BK

family integrity is a fundamental liberty (prince v massachusetts)

42 USC 1983

- Civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights; federal statute
- financial relief available when a person's constitutional rights are violated by an individual acting under state authority

DeShaney v. Winnebago

no constitutional violation for purposes of 42 USC 1983, when injured party is not harmed by government or government agent or in the custody of government or government agent

US Supreme Court Dissent

an opinion in a legal case written by. one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court.

findings from Smith v. The Organization. of Foster Families

1. "because the liberty interest in family privacy/integrity stems from our nation's history, it is a fundamental liberty."
2. foster parents have much less constitutional liberty than birth parents.
3. foster families are a contractual relationship with the state and thus does not have the same constitutional protection as does a tradition family or one created by choice.