ConLaw

Commerce Clause – IRAC Summaries

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Issue: Can a state grant exclusive navigation rights that conflict with Congress’s commerce power?
Rule: The Commerce Clause gives Congress power over interstate commerce, including navigation.
Application: New York’s monopoly conflicted with federal law; interstate navigation falls under federal authority.
Conclusion: Congress’s commerce power is broad and supreme over conflicting state laws.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)

Issue: Can Congress regulate labor relations in manufacturing under the Commerce Clause?
Rule: Congress may regulate intrastate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Application: Labor disputes in a steel company could disrupt national commerce.
Conclusion: Upheld federal power to regulate labor relations under the Commerce Clause.

U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)

Issue: Could Congress ban filled milk under its commerce power?
Rule: Rational basis review applies to economic regulation under the Commerce Clause.
Application: Congress had a rational basis for banning filled milk as harmful.
Conclusion: Ban upheld; case famous for Footnote 4 (heightened scrutiny for certain rights/minorities).

U.S. v. Darby (1941)

Issue: Can Congress regulate labor standards (wages/hours) in manufacturing under the Commerce Clause?
Rule: Congress may regulate intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
Application: Labor conditions affect national competition in commerce.
Conclusion: Upheld Fair Labor Standards Act; rejected Tenth Amendment limits.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Issue: Can Congress regulate wheat grown for personal consumption?
Rule: Even local, noncommercial activity may be regulated if, in aggregate, it substantially affects interstate commerce.
Application: Homegrown wheat reduced demand in the interstate market.
Conclusion: Upheld regulation of private wheat use under Commerce Clause.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964)

Issue: Could Congress prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations?
Rule: Congress may regulate local activities if they have a substantial relation to interstate commerce.
Application: Discrimination in hotels burdened interstate travel.
Conclusion: Civil Rights Act upheld under Commerce Clause.

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Issue: Could Congress apply the Civil Rights Act to a small, local restaurant?
Rule: Commerce Clause power extends to local businesses with a cumulative impact on interstate commerce.
Application: Ollie’s Barbecue purchased supplies from interstate markets; discrimination burdened commerce.
Conclusion: Act upheld; Congress’s power is broad.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Issue: Can Congress ban guns in school zones under the Commerce Clause?
Rule: Commerce Clause covers (1) channels, (2) instrumentalities, and (3) activities with substantial economic effect.
Application: Gun possession near schools is non-economic, too attenuated from commerce.
Conclusion: Law struck down; first limit in decades on Commerce Clause.

U.S. v. Morrison (2000)

Issue: Could Congress enact the Violence Against Women Act under Commerce Clause?
Rule: Non-economic activity cannot be aggregated to justify federal regulation.
Application: Gender-motivated crimes are not commerce-related.
Conclusion: Struck down VAWA’s civil remedy provision.

Reno v. Condon (2000)

Issue: Could Congress regulate state DMVs’ sale of driver data under the Commerce Clause?
Rule: Congress may regulate states when acting as market participants.
Application: Driver data is an article of commerce in interstate trade.
Conclusion: Law upheld as valid commerce regulation.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Issue: Can Congress ban homegrown marijuana permitted by state law?
Rule: Congress may regulate intrastate activity if, in aggregate, it affects a national regulatory scheme.
Application: Home cultivation could undercut national drug laws.
Conclusion: Federal marijuana ban upheld under Commerce Clause.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) – Commerce Clause Aspect

Issue: Could Congress mandate individuals to buy health insurance under the Commerce Clause?
Rule: Congress may regulate existing economic activity, but not compel individuals to enter commerce.
Application: The mandate regulated inactivity (not buying insurance).
Conclusion: Not valid under Commerce Clause, but upheld under taxing power.

Taxing Clause – IRAC Summaries

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922)

Issue: Was the "Child Labor Tax" really a tax or an unconstitutional penalty?
Rule: Congress cannot use the Taxing Clause to regulate matters reserved to the states by disguising penalties as taxes.
Application: The tax imposed punitive sanctions on employers using child labor.
Conclusion: Struck down as a penalty, not a valid tax.

Carter v. Carter Coal (1936) (Partly Overruled)

Issue: Could Congress impose a tax to enforce coal industry wage/price regulations?
Rule: Taxing power cannot be used to regulate intrastate activities unrelated to commerce.
Application: The coal regulation was seen as controlling local production, not interstate commerce.
Conclusion: Invalidated; later narrowed by subsequent cases.

Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937)

Issue: Was the federal tax on firearm dealers a valid use of the taxing power?
Rule: A tax is valid so long as it raises revenue, even if it also regulates.
Application: Firearms tax produced revenue; regulatory effect did not invalidate it.
Conclusion: Upheld as a constitutional tax.

U.S. v. Kahriger (1953)

Issue: Was the federal tax on gambling businesses constitutional?
Rule: Taxes are valid if they raise revenue, even if they discourage or burden an activity.
Application: Gambling tax produced revenue; regulation was incidental.
Conclusion: Upheld as a valid tax.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) – Taxing Power Aspect

Issue: Was the individual mandate penalty under the ACA a valid tax?
Rule: A payment can be sustained as a tax if it raises revenue and functions like one.
Application: The mandate payment was collected by IRS and not punitive.
Conclusion: Upheld as constitutional under taxing power, even if invalid under Commerce Clause.

Spending Clause – IRAC Summaries

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Issue: Could Congress condition highway funds on states raising the drinking age to 21?
Rule: Congress may attach conditions to federal funds if (1) in pursuit of the general welfare, (2) clear, (3) related to the federal program, and (4) not coercive.
Application: The condition was related to safe interstate travel and modest in financial impact.
Conclusion: Spending condition upheld.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) – Spending Power Aspect

Issue: Could Congress require states to expand Medicaid or lose all funding?
Rule: Conditions on spending cannot be coercive.
Application: Threatening to withdraw existing Medicaid funds coerced states.
Conclusion: Medicaid expansion requirement struck down as unconstitutional coercion.

Necessary & Proper Clause – IRAC Summaries

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Issue: Could Congress create a national bank, and could Maryland tax it?
Rule: Congress has implied powers under the Necessary & Proper Clause to carry out enumerated powers; states cannot tax federal entities.
Application: Bank was a legitimate means to regulate commerce and finance.
Conclusion: Congress may create the bank; Maryland cannot tax it.

Printz v. U.S. (1997)

Issue: Could Congress compel state officials to enforce federal gun background checks?
Rule: Necessary & Proper power does not allow commandeering state officials.
Application: Requiring state sheriffs to administer federal law violated federalism.
Conclusion: Provision struck down.

U.S. v. Comstock (2010)

Issue: Could Congress authorize civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders after release?
Rule: Necessary & Proper power allows broad means to implement enumerated powers.
Application: Civil commitment related to federal criminal justice system and prison management.
Conclusion: Upheld as within Necessary & Proper authority.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) – Necessary & Proper Aspect

Issue: Did the mandate fall under Necessary & Proper power?
Rule: Necessary & Proper does not extend power to create fundamentally new federal authority.
Application: Mandate compelled individuals to act; not "proper".
Conclusion: Not justified under Necessary & Proper.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Issue: Could Congress require passports to list "Israel" for Jerusalem-born citizens?
Rule: Necessary & Proper cannot expand Congress’s power into exclusive presidential authority.
Application: Regulation of foreign affairs/passports belongs to the Executive.
Conclusion: Struck down; President has exclusive recognition power.

Civil Rights Enforcement Clauses – IRAC Summaries

Strauder v. West Virginia (1879)

Issue: Could a state bar Black men from jury service?
Rule: The 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection.
Application: Law explicitly excluded Black citizens from juries.
Conclusion: Struck down as unconstitutional.

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Issue: Could Congress ban private racial discrimination in public accommodations under the 14th Amendment?
Rule: 14th Amendment applies only to state action, not private conduct.
Application: Civil Rights Act of 1875 regulated private businesses.
Conclusion: Struck down; limited scope of enforcement power.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964)

Issue: Could Congress ban racial discrimination in hotels under Commerce Clause/Enforcement Clauses?
Rule: Congress may prohibit private discrimination through Commerce Clause power.
Application: Hotels serve interstate travelers.
Conclusion: Act upheld.

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Issue: Could Congress require states to apply strict scrutiny under RFRA?
Rule: Congress’s §5 enforcement power is remedial, not substantive; laws must be congruent and proportional.
Application: RFRA redefined religious liberty standards beyond Supreme Court precedent.
Conclusion: Struck down as exceeding Congress’s §5 power.

U.S. v. Morrison (2000)

Issue: Was the Violence Against Women Act’s civil remedy valid under §5?
Rule: §5 power extends only to state action, not private violence.
Application: Gender violence is not state action.
Conclusion: Struck down civil remedy.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Issue: Was the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula constitutional?
Rule: §5 enforcement must reflect current needs and conditions.
Application: Formula relied on outdated data.
Conclusion: Coverage formula invalidated; preclearance provision crippled.

Limits on Government Power: Structural Limitations

Supremacy Clause / Preemption

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Issue: Could Maryland tax the federal bank?
Rule: Federal law is supreme; states cannot tax or obstruct valid federal action.
Application: A state tax undermined federal authority.
Conclusion: Maryland’s tax struck down; federal power affirmed.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Issue: Can state-granted monopolies override federal commerce licenses?
Rule: Federal commerce regulations preempt conflicting state laws.
Application: New York monopoly conflicted with Congress’s navigation laws.
Conclusion: Federal law prevailed under Supremacy Clause.

Kansas v. Garcia (2020)

Issue: Does federal immigration law preempt state prosecution for identity theft using false Social Security numbers?
Rule: States retain authority unless federal law clearly preempts.
Application: State identity theft laws targeted fraud, not immigration status.
Conclusion: No preemption; state prosecution upheld.

Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)

Issue: Did North Carolina’s labeling rule discriminate against out-of-state apples?
Rule: States may not enact laws that discriminate against or burden interstate commerce.
Application: Rule stripped Washington apples of their grading advantage.
Conclusion: Struck down as protectionist.

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)

Issue: Could New Jersey ban out-of-state waste imports?
Rule: States cannot discriminate against interstate commerce to protect local interests.
Application: Ban blocked waste from other states, favoring locals.
Conclusion: Law unconstitutional under Dormant Commerce Clause.

Camps Newfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison (1997)

Issue: Could Maine give tax benefits only to camps serving in-state residents?
Rule: State tax schemes cannot discriminate against interstate participants.
Application: Benefit disadvantaged out-of-state campers and commerce.
Conclusion: Struck down as discriminatory.

Commandeering (Limits on Federal Government)

New York v. U.S. (1992)

Issue: Could Congress compel states to manage radioactive waste disposal?
Rule: Congress cannot commandeer state governments to implement federal programs.
Application: “Take title” provision forced states to accept liability.
Conclusion: Unconstitutional commandeering.

Printz v. U.S. (1997)

Issue: Could Congress require state officers to enforce federal gun background checks?
Rule: Federal government cannot command state executive officials.
Application: Sheriffs compelled to administer federal law.
Conclusion: Invalid under anti-commandeering principle.

Reno v. Condon (2000)

Issue: Was Congress’s restriction on state sale of driver data commandeering?
Rule: Laws regulating states as data sellers, not as regulators, are valid.
Application: Law applied generally, not forcing states to enforce federal law.
Conclusion: Upheld; no commandeering.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) – anti-coercion link

Issue: Did ACA Medicaid expansion coerce states?
Rule: Spending conditions cannot amount to coercion of state sovereignty.
Application: States risked losing all Medicaid funds if they refused expansion.
Conclusion: Expansion struck down as coercive.

Murphy v. NCAA (2018)

Issue: Could Congress prohibit states from legalizing sports gambling?
Rule: Federal law cannot dictate state legislatures’ choices.
Application: PASPA barred states from repealing bans.
Conclusion: Struck down as unconstitutional commandeering.

Tenth Amendment

U.S. v. Darby (1941)

Issue: Did the Fair Labor Standards Act exceed federal authority under the Tenth Amendment?
Rule: The Tenth Amendment is a truism, not a substantive limit on Congress’s enumerated powers.
Application: Wage/hour regulation was within Commerce Clause power.
Conclusion: Act upheld; Tenth Amendment did not block it.

Limits on Federal Government: Separation of Powers

Judicial and Legislative

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Issue: Does the Supreme Court have authority to review acts of Congress?
Rule: Courts have judicial review over unconstitutional laws.
Application: Judiciary Act provision conflicted with Constitution.
Conclusion: Established judicial review.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Issue: Are states bound by Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution?
Rule: Supreme Court decisions are binding on states.
Application: Arkansas officials resisted Brown v. Board.
Conclusion: States must comply with federal court rulings.

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Issue: Did RFRA exceed Congress’s power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Rule: Congress cannot change the meaning of constitutional rights through legislation.
Application: RFRA tried to expand religious freedom beyond Court precedent.
Conclusion: Struck down; separation of powers reaffirmed.

Legislative and Executive

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952)

Issue: Could the President seize steel mills during wartime without congressional approval?
Rule: Presidential power must derive from Constitution or statute; not inherent.
Application: No law authorized seizure; President acted alone.
Conclusion: Action unconstitutional; Congress, not President, controls lawmaking.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Issue: Can Congress force the Executive to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel?
Rule: President holds exclusive recognition power in foreign affairs.
Application: Law intruded on executive authority.
Conclusion: Statute struck down.

Executive and Judicial

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

Issue: Can the President claim absolute executive privilege to withhold evidence?
Rule: Executive privilege exists but is not absolute in judicial proceedings.
Application: Criminal trial required Nixon’s tapes.
Conclusion: Ordered release; limited privilege.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)

Issue: Is the President immune from civil damages for official acts?
Rule: Absolute immunity for official acts within presidential duties.
Application: Claim arose from personnel decision while in office.
Conclusion: Suit barred.

Clinton v. Jones (1997)

Issue: Is a sitting President immune from civil suits for unofficial conduct?
Rule: No immunity for acts before office or unrelated to official duties.
Application: Lawsuit concerned pre-presidency conduct.
Conclusion: Suit allowed to proceed.

Trump v. Vance (2020)

Issue: Is the President immune from state criminal subpoenas?
Rule: President has no absolute immunity from state criminal processes.
Application: Manhattan DA subpoenaed Trump’s tax records.
Conclusion: Subpoena permitted, subject to normal defenses.

Trump v. Mazars (2020)

Issue: Can Congress subpoena the President’s personal financial records?
Rule: Subpoenas must serve a valid legislative purpose and meet separation of powers concerns.
Application: Congressional subpoenas for Trump’s records required heightened scrutiny.
Conclusion: Case remanded with stricter standards.

Equality Rights – Equal Protection Clause

Strauder v. West Virginia (1879)

Issue: Could states bar Black men from juries?
Rule: The 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection.
Application: Law excluded Black men categorically.
Conclusion: Unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

Issue: Did neutral laundry ordinances violate Equal Protection when applied discriminatorily?
Rule: Unequal enforcement of neutral laws violates Equal Protection.
Application: Chinese applicants denied permits while whites approved.
Conclusion: Law unconstitutional as applied.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

Issue: Could states sterilize people deemed “unfit”?
Rule: Court deferred to states on eugenics laws.
Application: Sterilization law upheld under rational basis.
Conclusion: Permitted sterilization (never formally overruled).

U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)

Issue: Could Congress ban “filled milk” products?
Rule: Economic regulations get rational basis; Footnote 4 suggests higher scrutiny for discrete minorities and rights.
Application: Ban rationally related to health.
Conclusion: Law upheld; set up tiers of scrutiny framework.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

Issue: Could state sterilize certain criminals but not others?
Rule: Equal Protection forbids arbitrary distinctions in fundamental rights.
Application: Law treated similar crimes differently.
Conclusion: Struck down sterilization law.

Hirabayashi v. U.S. (1943)

Issue: Was curfew on Japanese Americans constitutional?
Rule: Racial classifications get strict scrutiny, but wartime necessity given weight.
Application: Government claimed national security need.
Conclusion: Upheld curfew.

Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)

Issue: Was Japanese internment lawful?
Rule: Racial classifications are suspect; still upheld if justified by “pressing public necessity.”
Application: Court deferred to military judgment.
Conclusion: Upheld internment; later discredited.

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Issue: Could courts enforce racially restrictive covenants?
Rule: Judicial enforcement is state action, subject to Equal Protection.
Application: Court enforcement perpetuated segregation.
Conclusion: Covenants unenforceable.

Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949)

Issue: Did billboard advertising rules violate Equal Protection?
Rule: Economic/social regulations get rational basis.
Application: Distinction between business and vehicle ads rational.
Conclusion: Law upheld.

Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)

Issue: Did segregated schools violate Equal Protection?
Rule: “Separate but equal” in education inherently unequal.
Application: Segregation harmed children’s education and development.
Conclusion: Segregated schools unconstitutional.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Issue: Did segregation in D.C. schools violate the Constitution?
Rule: Equal Protection principles applied to federal government via Due Process.
Application: Segregation unjustifiable under federal authority.
Conclusion: Struck down segregation in federal schools.

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)

Issue: How should desegregation be implemented?
Rule: Courts have equitable authority to enforce remedies.
Application: Required local action plans.
Conclusion: Ordered desegregation with “all deliberate speed.”

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)

Issue: Did law restricting opticians’ work violate Equal Protection?
Rule: Economic regulation only needs a rational basis.
Application: Even silly laws can be rational.
Conclusion: Upheld regulation.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Issue: Could Arkansas officials resist Brown?
Rule: States bound by Supreme Court interpretations.
Application: Defiance of desegregation orders unconstitutional.
Conclusion: Enforced supremacy of Court rulings.

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections (1966)

Issue: Was poll tax constitutional?
Rule: Voting is fundamental; wealth is not a permissible voter qualification.
Application: Poll tax burdened poor voters.
Conclusion: Struck down poll tax.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Issue: Did state ban on interracial marriage violate Equal Protection?
Rule: Racial classifications get strict scrutiny.
Application: Ban had no legitimate purpose beyond racial discrimination.
Conclusion: Struck down; marriage is a fundamental right.

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Issue: Could states prefer men over women as estate administrators?
Rule: Gender classifications must have rational basis.
Application: Automatic preference was arbitrary.
Conclusion: Struck down as irrational.

Palmer v. Thompson (1971)

Issue: Did closing public pools to avoid integration violate Equal Protection?
Rule: Discriminatory motive alone insufficient without discriminatory action.
Application: Pools closed for all, not only Black citizens.
Conclusion: No violation found.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

Issue: Could states bar contraceptives for unmarried persons?
Rule: Equal Protection protects individuals, not just married couples.
Application: Distinction lacked rational basis.
Conclusion: Struck down; privacy extended to unmarried people.

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

Issue: Was unequal school funding based on property taxes unconstitutional?
Rule: Wealth is not a suspect class; education not a fundamental right.
Application: Funding disparities not subject to strict scrutiny.
Conclusion: Law upheld.

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

Issue: Could military give different spousal benefits to male/female service members?
Rule: Gender classifications warrant heightened scrutiny.
Application: Rule disadvantaged women.
Conclusion: Struck down.

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973)

Issue: Could Congress deny food stamps to “hippie” households?
Rule: Laws motivated by animus fail even rational basis review.
Application: Classification targeted unpopular group.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)

Issue: Could disability insurance exclude pregnancy?
Rule: Pregnancy distinctions not sex discrimination under Equal Protection.
Application: Exclusion treated pregnancy as separate condition.
Conclusion: Upheld.

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Issue: Could states set different drinking ages for men and women?
Rule: Gender classifications require intermediate scrutiny.
Application: Statistics about male drunk driving insufficient.
Conclusion: Law unconstitutional.

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Issue: Does disparate racial impact alone violate Equal Protection?
Rule: Proof of discriminatory intent required.
Application: Police exam disproportionately affected Black applicants, but no intent shown.
Conclusion: No violation.

City of New Orleans v. Dukes (1976)

Issue: Could city favor older pushcart vendors over newer ones?
Rule: Economic regulations get rational basis review.
Application: Grandfathering rule rational for preserving tradition.
Conclusion: Upheld.

Village of Arlington Heights v. MHDC (1977)

Issue: Did zoning decision have discriminatory intent?
Rule: Proof of intent, not just impact, required.
Application: Circumstantial evidence considered.
Conclusion: No Equal Protection violation found.

Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978)

Issue: Was affirmative action with racial quotas constitutional?
Rule: Strict scrutiny applies; quotas unconstitutional, but race may be one factor.
Application: Rigid quota struck down, diversity rationale allowed.
Conclusion: Split ruling — quotas invalid, diversity permissible.

Personnel Administrator v. Feeney (1979)

Issue: Did veteran hiring preference discriminate against women?
Rule: Discriminatory purpose, not mere effect, required.
Application: Preference applied to all veterans, mostly male.
Conclusion: Upheld.

Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)

Issue: Could child custody be denied based on interracial marriage stigma?
Rule: Government cannot enforce private biases.
Application: Court cannot remove child due to societal prejudice.
Conclusion: Struck down custody ruling.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

Issue: Did denial of zoning permit for group home for intellectually disabled violate Equal Protection?
Rule: Mental disability not a suspect class, but animus fails rational basis.
Application: Permit denial based on prejudice.
Conclusion: Struck down.

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)

Issue: Was minority set-aside program for contractors constitutional?
Rule: Strict scrutiny applies to racial classifications by government.
Application: Plan lacked specific proof of past discrimination.
Conclusion: Struck down program.

City of Dallas v. Stanglin (1989)

Issue: Did teen dance hall age restrictions violate Equal Protection?
Rule: Social associations not fundamental rights; rational basis applies.
Application: Restrictions aimed at safety and age separation.
Conclusion: Law upheld.

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991)

Issue: Could private litigants use peremptory challenges based on race?
Rule: Jury selection is state action, subject to Equal Protection.
Application: Racial strikes undermined fairness.
Conclusion: Struck down.

U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

Issue: Could VMI exclude women?
Rule: Gender classifications require “exceedingly persuasive justification.”
Application: Separate women’s program inadequate.
Conclusion: Exclusion unconstitutional.

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Issue: Could Colorado ban local gay rights protections?
Rule: Laws motivated by animus fail rational basis review.
Application: Amendment singled out LGBTQ citizens.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Vacco v. Quill (1997)

Issue: Was assisted suicide ban unconstitutional discrimination?
Rule: Equal Protection permits distinguishing between withdrawal of treatment and assisted suicide.
Application: Different intent/outcome distinguished.
Conclusion: Ban upheld.

Nguyen v. INS (2001)

Issue: Could Congress impose stricter rules for citizenship through fathers than mothers?
Rule: Gender distinctions require intermediate scrutiny.
Application: Differences justified by proof of parentage.
Conclusion: Upheld.

Johnson v. California (2005)

Issue: Could prisons racially segregate inmates temporarily for safety?
Rule: Strict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications.
Application: Temporary policy required compelling justification.
Conclusion: Sent back for strict scrutiny review.

Parents Involved v. Seattle Schools (2007)

Issue: Could schools assign students by race to achieve diversity?
Rule: Strict scrutiny applies; racial balancing not a compelling interest.
Application: Plans used crude racial categories.
Conclusion: Struck down.

U.S. v. Windsor (2013)

Issue: Was DOMA’s federal definition of marriage unconstitutional?
Rule: Federal laws cannot demean state-recognized same-sex marriages.
Application: DOMA singled out same-sex couples.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Issue: Do states have to license and recognize same-sex marriages?
Rule: Equal Protection and Due Process protect right to marry.
Application: Exclusion demeaned dignity of same-sex couples.
Conclusion: States must license/recognize marriages.

Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2016)

Issue: Was UT’s race-conscious admissions policy constitutional?
Rule: Race may be considered if narrowly tailored to achieve diversity.
Application: Policy reviewed under strict scrutiny.
Conclusion: Upheld.

Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017)

Issue: Were gender-based citizenship rules unconstitutional?
Rule: Gender classifications get intermediate scrutiny.
Application: Law disadvantaged children of U.S. citizen fathers.
Conclusion: Struck down differential rule.

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

Issue: Did travel ban violate Equal Protection/Establishment Clause?
Rule: Court defers in immigration/national security; rational basis review applied.
Application: Government cited security justifications.
Conclusion: Travel ban upheld.

Fairness Rights: Procedural Due Process

Moore v. Dempsey (1923)

Issue: Did mob-dominated trials violate Due Process?
Rule: State trials must provide real, fair process.
Application: Proceedings were a sham dominated by mob threats.
Conclusion: Convictions overturned.

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)

Issue: Must welfare recipients get a hearing before termination of benefits?
Rule: Due Process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of entitlement.
Application: Benefits were crucial for subsistence; pre-termination hearing required.
Conclusion: Termination without hearing unconstitutional.

Board of Regents v. Roth (1972)

Issue: Did a professor without tenure have a property interest in reemployment?
Rule: Due Process protects only established property/liberty interests.
Application: No tenure or contract renewal guarantee.
Conclusion: No violation.

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)

Issue: Must disability benefits be continued until after hearing?
Rule: Procedural due process determined by balancing (private interest, risk of error, government interest).
Application: Disability hearings after termination were sufficient.
Conclusion: No violation.

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985)

Issue: Did a public employee have right to hearing before dismissal?
Rule: Due Process requires minimal pre-termination hearing for tenured employees.
Application: Employee had property interest in job.
Conclusion: Firing without hearing unconstitutional.

Daniels v. Williams (1986)

Issue: Do negligent government acts violate Due Process?
Rule: Due Process requires deliberate or intentional deprivation, not negligence.
Application: Inmate injured by officer’s negligence.
Conclusion: No violation.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)

Issue: Is the state liable for failing to protect child from abusive father?
Rule: No duty to protect against private violence absent custody/control.
Application: State knew of abuse but did not remove child.
Conclusion: No Due Process violation.

Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. (2009)

Issue: Did judge’s failure to recuse after receiving campaign contributions violate Due Process?
Rule: Due Process violated when high probability of bias exists.
Application: Judge received millions from litigant.
Conclusion: Recusal required.

Freedom Rights: Substantive Due Process

Buchanan v. Warley (1917)

Issue: Could city ban residential sales based on race?
Rule: Laws restricting property transfer based on race violate Due Process.
Application: Ordinance barred Black buyers in white neighborhoods.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

Issue: Could state ban teaching foreign languages to children?
Rule: Liberty includes right of parents/teachers to control education.
Application: Teacher prosecuted for teaching German.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

Issue: Could Oregon require public schooling only?
Rule: Parents have right to choose private/religious schooling.
Application: Law forced all children into public schools.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

Issue: Could state sterilize “unfit” persons under Due Process?
Rule: Court upheld broad deference to state eugenics laws.
Application: Inmate sterilization permitted.
Conclusion: Law upheld (never overturned, but discredited).

West Coast Hotels v. Parrish (1937)

Issue: Did minimum wage law violate “freedom of contract”?
Rule: Substantive Due Process no longer protects economic liberty strictly.
Application: Wage regulation upheld for worker protection.
Conclusion: Overturned Lochner era restrictions.

U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)

Issue: Could Congress regulate economic activity under Due Process?
Rule: Rational basis applies to economic regulation.
Application: Ban on filled milk upheld.
Conclusion: Valid regulation; famous for Footnote 4.

Railway Express v. New York (1949)

Issue: Did ad restrictions violate substantive rights?
Rule: Rational basis applies to economic/social laws.
Application: Regulation of ads upheld as reasonable.
Conclusion: Law valid.

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)

Issue: Did optician restrictions violate liberty of contract?
Rule: Economic regulations reviewed under rational basis.
Application: Even irrational-seeming laws upheld if conceivable rationale.
Conclusion: Law upheld.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Issue: Could state ban contraceptives for married couples?
Rule: Right of privacy is a fundamental liberty under Due Process.
Application: Ban intruded into marital privacy.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Issue: Did interracial marriage ban violate substantive Due Process?
Rule: Right to marry is fundamental.
Application: Ban denied liberty and equal dignity.
Conclusion: Law struck down.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Issue: Could city limit housing occupancy to nuclear families?
Rule: Family living arrangements protected under substantive Due Process.
Application: Grandmother barred from living with grandkids.
Conclusion: Struck down ordinance.

Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)

Issue: Could biological father assert rights against marital presumption of legitimacy?
Rule: Due Process protects rights traditionally recognized in history.
Application: Presumption of legitimacy outweighed biological father’s claim.
Conclusion: No substantive right found.

Cruzan v. Director (1990)

Issue: Did patients have right to refuse life-sustaining treatment?
Rule: Competent adults have right to refuse medical treatment.
Application: State may require clear evidence of patient’s wishes.
Conclusion: Missouri could require proof before withdrawal.

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Issue: Is assisted suicide a protected liberty interest?
Rule: Fundamental rights must be deeply rooted in history.
Application: Assisted suicide not historically protected.
Conclusion: Ban upheld.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Issue: Could state criminalize same-sex intimate conduct?
Rule: Liberty protects private, consensual adult relationships.
Application: Sodomy laws violated dignity and autonomy.
Conclusion: Struck down; Bowers overturned.

U.S. v. Windsor (2013)

Issue: Was DOMA’s marriage definition valid under Due Process?
Rule: Laws that demean same-sex marriages violate liberty and equality.
Application: DOMA invalidated federal recognition of same-sex couples.
Conclusion: Struck down DOMA.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Issue: Is same-sex marriage a fundamental right?
Rule: Liberty and equality protect right to marry.
Application: Denial denied dignity of couples.
Conclusion: Marriage equality guaranteed.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022)

Issue: Does Constitution protect right to abortion?
Rule: Only rights deeply rooted in history are fundamental.
Application: Court found abortion not historically protected.
Conclusion: Roe v. Wade overturned; abortion regulation returned to states.

Other Individual Rights Topics

Incorporation

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Issue: Do Bill of Rights limits apply to states?
Rule: Bill of Rights restricts only federal government.
Application: Property damage claim failed.
Conclusion: Rights not incorporated.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Issue: Does federal segregation violate rights?
Rule: Equal Protection principles apply to federal government via Due Process.
Application: Segregation in D.C. schools unconstitutional.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Exceptions to State Action Doctrine

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Issue: Could courts enforce private racial covenants?
Rule: Judicial enforcement is state action.
Application: Courts made private covenants legally binding.
Conclusion: Unconstitutional.

San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)

Issue: Was USOC’s exclusive control of “Olympic” state action?
Rule: Private entities not state actors absent government control.
Application: USOC acted independently.
Conclusion: No state action.

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991)

Issue: Do private peremptory strikes count as state action?
Rule: Jury selection is state action.
Application: Racial strikes unconstitutional.
Conclusion: Struck down.

Brentwood Academy v. TSSAA (2001)

Issue: Is high school athletic association state action?
Rule: Entwinement with public officials makes conduct state action.
Application: Association heavily intertwined with public schools.
Conclusion: Found state action.

Privileges or Immunities Clause

The Slaughterhouse Cases (1872)

Issue: Did butchers have right to work free of monopoly?
Rule: Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only national, not state, rights.
Application: Butchers’ claim rejected.
Conclusion: Narrow interpretation; clause gutted.

Bradwell v. Illinois (1872)

Issue: Could Illinois bar women from practicing law?
Rule: Right to practice law not a national privilege.
Application: State exclusion upheld.
Conclusion: No violation.

Minor v. Happersett (1872)

Issue: Did women have right to vote under Privileges or Immunities?
Rule: Voting not a privilege of U.S. citizenship.
Application: Women denied ballot access.
Conclusion: No right recognized.

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)

Issue: Could federal government prosecute private racial violence?
Rule: Privileges or Immunities protects only against state infringement.
Application: Private mob violence not covered.
Conclusion: Indictments dismissed.

Various Enumerated Rights

Calder v. Bull (1798)

Issue: Did state probate law violate Ex Post Facto Clause?
Rule: Clause applies only to criminal laws.
Application: Retroactive civil probate law allowed.
Conclusion: Law upheld.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Issue: Could schools compel flag salute/pledge?
Rule: First Amendment protects against compelled speech.
Application: Students had right to refuse.
Conclusion: Compulsion unconstitutional.

Ingraham v. Wright (1977)

Issue: Was corporal punishment in schools cruel and unusual?
Rule: Eighth Amendment applies only to criminal punishment.
Application: School paddling excluded.
Conclusion: Upheld practice.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Issue: Could state deny unemployment benefits for peyote use in religious rituals?
Rule: Neutral, generally applicable laws valid even if they burden religion.
Application: Drug laws applied neutrally.
Conclusion: Denial upheld.