Constitutional Law Final

Liberty provisions expressly contained in the constitution

Bill of rights, writ of habeas corpus, bill of attainder (uncon), ex post facto law (uncon), trial by jury required, only traitors punished and not their families, and no religious test for public office

Barron v Mayor of Baltimore

Ruled that the bill of rights did not apply to state/local governments; maintained faith in state constitutions and their interpretations of the constitution/Bill of Rights

Barron owned a wharf on the deepest water in Baltimore until the city diverted water and he claimed he was owed damages because of a violation of the 5th amenmdent.

Slaughter House Cases

Interpreted the privileges and immunities clause extremely narrowly, which precluded it’s use as a vehicle for applying the bill of rights.

How are the bill of rights applied to states?

They can be “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause through judicial decisions made. This decision made/discussed for the first time in Twinning v New Jersey

Saenz v Roe

First case to declare a law unconstitutional for violating the privileges and immunities clause in 130 years; overturned five years later

Total incorporationsist

Believe that all rights in the Bill of Rights should be included in due process

Selective incorporationists

Say that only some fundamental rights should be incorporated into due process, not all of BOR

Issues fueling the debate about incorporation

History, federalism, and appropriate judicial role

Rights not incorporated into due process

3rd (quartering soldiers), 5th (right to grand jury), and 7th (always have a jury in civil cases) amendments.

State action doctrine

Protection of individual liberties applies only to the government and not private conduct. Established in the Civil Rights Cases

Public Functions Exception

A private entity must comply with the constitution if it is performing a traditional government task.

Marsh v. Alabama (expansive def, used balancing test, is private prop. used for public purpose) and Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison co (narrow def., have to find private actors are performing gov. function: act traditionally done by fed gov.)

Entanglement exception

Private conduct must comply if the government has authorized, encouraged, or facilitated the unconstitutional conduct. Government must cease involvement with the private entity or the entity must comply with the constitution.

Shelly v Kramer and Moose Lodge v. Irvis

Procedural due process

Procedures a government must follow before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. You can’t take away someone’s rights without procedure and process. Not rigid/specific set of guidelines

Is there deprivation? Is it of LLP? Is it without due process? Not

Matthew v. Eldridge

Established a three part balancing test for deciding procedural due process cases: balance the importance of the interest involved, the degree to which the procedure would make a difference, and the cost to government.

Substantive due process

The law itself must make sense and not be arbitrary or violate a right. Is there adequate reason for takin away life, liberty or property? Relies on due process and protects fundamental liberty interests.

Function test

Balancing test of private property rights vs. constitutional rights. Since it is built to be operated to benefit the public, it is essentially a public function and is therefore subject to government regulation

McDonald v City of Chicago

Affirmed Heller and applied 2nd amendment to the states. Outlined that rights fundamental to liberty or deeply rooted in the history of tradition of the country can be applied through due process.

Strict scrutiny

Government can only use classifications if they prove it to be necessary for achieving a compelling government purpose. Race/national origin. Established in Korematsu v. US

Reasons for Strict Scrutiny

There’s really no good reason/legitimate purpose to discriminate based on race; blacks have a history of discrimination and it’s likely the law is motivated by hate; focuses on groups in the minority who haven’t had political power; race is an immutable characteristic

Rational Basis

Classification is rationally related to an legitimate government purpose. All laws besides race/national origin and gender

Classification on the face of the law

The law in its terms draws distinctions, is discriminatory in the wording. Classifications that disadvantage minorities, that burden both whites and minorities, or that require separation of the races

Discriminatory impact

When a classification is facially neutral, but disproportionately affects a certain people group. When discriminatory impact is present, must prove that the law that a discriminatory intent/purpose in order for it to violate EP

Outlined in Washington v. Davis (police department written test one)

Intermediate scrutiny

Law is upheld if it is substantially related to an important government purpose. Applies to class. of gender and children.

Reasons why intermediate scrutiny is used for women

1. The 14th amendment was only meant to outlaw race discrimination. 2. Biological differences between the sexes make it more likely that the classifications are justified. 3. Women are not a discrete/insular minority

Immutable characteristics

Innate characteristics one is born with that they do not have control over changing (race, gender). These warrant heightened scrutiny

Romer v Evans

Voter initiative in Colorado that repealed laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination and precluded the adoption of new protections failed the rational basis test. Most important rational basis failure

Underinclusive

Laws that don’t regulate all people who are similarly situated. Could target a particularly powerless group. Railway express agency v NY

Overinclusive

Regulates individuals who are not similarly situated. Unfair to those unnecessarily regulated. NY city transit authority v Beazer

Legitimate purpose

Virtually any goal not forbidden by the constitution

Plessy v. Ferguson

Key case where supreme court considered and upheld segregation. Established “separate but equal” doctrine

Brown v. Board of Education

Overturned Plessy. Held that separate but equal was impermissible in public education. Came after a year of debate on 5 cases that challenged this. Cited social science studies to say that separate could never be equal. Made segregation in all aspects of life illegal

Affirmative action

Racial classifications/programs that benefit minorities. What scrutiny should be used? What purpose for AA programs is sufficient to meet that scrutiny? What techniques are sufficient?

Richmond v. JA Croson co.

First time a majority of the court agreed on level of scrutiny for affirm. action; decided immediate scrutiny (later overruled and replaced by strict scrutiny)

Business required to subcontract 30% on construction contracts to minority businesses

I DON”T KNOW IF THIS IS RIGHT

Students for Fair admissions v. Harvard

Race based programs violated equal protection clause. Must used strict scrutiny to evaluate race based programs. Diversity no longer held as a compelling reason for classifications.

Dred Scott v Sandford

Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri, lived for ten years in free Illinois, sued Missouri for his freedom when he returned. Court ruled that slaves/decedents were not citizens and never intended to be. Having the rights of a state did not make a person a federal citizen. Overturned Missouri compromise and regarded slaves as property

Korematsu v. US

Upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps during WWII. Established strict scrutiny for racial classifications (compelling government purpose and important gov. objective)

Bradwell v. Illinois

First time sex discrimination addressed. Upheld a law that forbade women from practicing law, as practicing law was not a privilege of citizenship. Did not consider sex discrimination

Lochner Era

Era in which the supreme court upheld many laws that expressly discriminated based on sex. The freedom of contract was aggressively protected during this era and many regulatory laws were struck down as a result, except when they involved women.

Craig v. Boren

Supreme court agreed on intermediate scrutiny as the level of review of sex discrimination

When are laws benefiting women and disadvantaging men allowed?

These laws are not allowed when sex classifications are based on role stereotypes (Orr v Orr). However, they are allowed when classifications are designed to remedy past discrimination and differences in opportunity (Califano v Webster)

Alienage classification

Discrimination against non-citizens, regardless of what country they come from. Protected under 14th amendment that uses “person” and not “citizen” as the language

Graham v Richardson

State law denying welfare benefits to aliens was unconstitutional because it violated equal protection and also was preempted by federal control of immigration law. Established strict scrutiny basis for alienage classifications

Exception to SS from alienage classifications

Only rational basis needs to be used when an alienage classification is related to self government or the democratic process (i.e. political rights). Can deny aliens the right to vote, hold office, serve on juries (Foley v. Connelie, Ambach v Norwick)

Also rational basis required when discrimination is the result of a federal law, i.e. if congress has created the classification or if it is the result of a presidential order.

Plyler v. Doe

The major supreme court decision on equal protection for undocumented aliens

Fundamental rights

Rights that cannot be infringed upon and trigger strict scrutiny. Not expressly mentioned in the constitution. Protecting family autonomy, procreation, sexual activity, sexual orientation, and medical care decision making.

Questions outlined in the framework for determining fundamental/individual rights cases

1. Is there a fundamental right?

2. Is the constitutional right infringed?

3. Is there sufficient justification for the infringement

4. Is the means sufficiently related to the purpose?

Ninth amendment

Sometimes mentioned in fundamental rights cases. Not seen as the source of individual rights, merely a justification for the court to protect non-textual rights

Michael H v. Gerald D.

One of the most important cases limiting the rights of unmarried fathers and one of the most significant decisions concerning substantive due process

Roe v. Wade

Established abortion as a fund. right. Trimester and viability outlines. Later overturned by Dobbs

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center

Overturned Roe. Abortion not a fund. right. Not related to history/tradition, way of implementing Roe circumvented the governmental process