Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law II Outline Chemerinsky PDF
Constitutional Law II Outline Chemerinsky PDF
Procedural Due Process: the procedures the government must follow when it takes away a
persons life, liberty or property. (Notice && right be heard)
Substantive Due Process: whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a
persons life, liberty or property. Just taking about dry water.
Rational Basis: reasonably related and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory (capricious,
erratic) reasonable minds differ
Amendment 14 section 1
1. Citizenship born or naturalized
2. P & I of national citizens
a. Federal Government
b. National Character
c. Constitution
d. Laws
3. Due Process Clause (doesnt use the word citizens, applies to persons which includes
aliens) life, liberty, or property
4. Equal Protection
Barron v. Baltimore
1
S.Ct. decided the first 10 amendments were expressed in general terms and therefore
would only apply to the federal government
o States have their own constitutions
o Constitution can only limit states when expressly stated
o Never overruled
Slaughterhouse cases
First time the S.Ct. interpreted the Bill of Rights and determined that it only protects the
rights we have by being a citizen of the U.S., not a citizen of states
o Bill of rights are common law and therefore do not owe their existence to the
constitution
o Privileges and Immunities National Citizenship Test: those that owe their
existence to the federal government, its national character, its constitution or its
laws
o Never overruled
Selective incorporation: incorporated nearly every right of the Bill of Rights and up to the 14th
amendment:
- Not incorporated:
o 3rd amendment solider quartered in a home
o 5th amendment right to a grand jury indictment
o 7th amendment right to a jury in a civil trial
o 8th amendment excessive fines
LOCHNER ERA
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
Louisiana attempts to stop out of state companies from enjoying contracts with Louisiana
residents.
o S.Ct. determined unconstitutional because Liberty of Contract
o Decision based on the freedom to contract
It is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with ones LIBERTY to contract under the
due process clause.
The word liberty in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment interpreted to include
economic liberties
2
Coppage v. Kansas
Kansas says it is illegal to require employees to agree not to join a union as a condition of
employment
o S.Ct. determined this is not allowed because of the freedom to contract
It is outside the scope of state police power to prohibit employment contracts that bar
workers from joining a union.
Muller v. Oregon
Brandeis brief attempted to set the maximum hours that women could work. The State
justified as a valid police power.
o S.Ct. upholds the statute to protect woman
Valid police power to protect women from overworking
Violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because buyers should be free to
choose what kind of materials they want to purchase.
Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights, the only acceptable state claim was for
safety, health, moral, or general welfare
Stands for the proposition that it bears a Minimal Causal Connection with the minimum and
maximum of the sale of milk, thus not arbitrary
3
SECTION RECAP:
No exclusive definition for liberty in the 14th Amendment
Ideological interpretation of the substantive due process
The right you got was right to K
This substantive due process was going to change
The Ct changed w/ FDR and the New Deal
1937-Now
4
o The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the 14th
amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial
conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a
particular school of thought.
o People should resort to the polls, not to the courts
o Ct. determines the law is OK and if people want change then they should vote for
change
o Ct used rational basis
State Action!!!
A person can sue for punitive damages, but they must be limited to the damages suffered.
5
- Limits regulations on existing contracts, but not future contracts
- Level of review: Rational Basis
- No Federal Contracts Clauseonly applies to States
- State/Local Govt may interfere with private Ks, only if actions are reasonably and
narrowly tailored to serve legitimate and important govt interest.
Analysis:
1. Substantial Impairment
2. Sig end, legit public purpose
3. Conditions reasonably related to mtg public purpose
6
In 1962 NY & NJ prohibited toll revenues to subsidize the rail service for the purpose of
ensuring the tolls covered the bondholders. Once the energy crisis hit, both NY & NJ
repealed the laws to allow the tolls to support the rail service.
o Ct. determined that the Contracts Clause prohibits the repeal of the 1962 covenant
o If a State could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the
money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the Contracts Clause
would provide no protection at all.
o When the govt interferes with govt K, high standard (strict scrutiny)
o Bondholders had expectations of the bonds and what was expected of their K
o Difference: unlike the previous cases , no PUBLIC interest at stake, only
beneficiary is state, where bondholders are jeopardized.
1) Two types:
Physical Taking: occurs when the government confiscates or physically occupies property.
Regulatory Taking: occurs when the governments regulation leaves no reasonably
economically viable use of the property.
2) For a Public Use or Purpose
Analysis:
Private property
Taken (physical, occupying, regulation)
Public use (Public Purpose Requirement)
Just compensation (Reasonable Value for the property)
7
o Ct. determines the general rule is that just because there is a regulation does not
amount to a taking, however if it goes too far it will be recognized as a taking &
the govt must pay just compensation.
o Consider the extent of the taking
Miller v. Schoene
NOT a taking
Cedar Rust Act- allows the killing of cedar trees in order to protect the apple trees.
Apple orchards were important to the economy
Public Interest involved in the trees and Economy
o Ct. determines this is the only practicable method to control the disease, the
choice is unavoidable and therefore not a taking this does not go too far.
Ad Hoc Test: 1) economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; 2) the extent to which the
regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and 3) the character of the
government action.
8
CA limited building on a beachfront on the owners granting the public an easement to
cross the property for beach access.
o Ct. determined taking because of easement and the condition does not relate to
the government purpose.
o The land use regulation is extortion.
The condition MUST relate to the govt purpose.
9
Hawaii enacted legislation to break the oligopoly of land ownership by creating the HHA
which enables the HHA to condemn and seize the properties.
o Ct. discusses public use; calling it well-nigh conclusive (meaning all but) gives
deference to the legislature.
o Any conceivable justification and it is permissible
o The act is constitutional because the landowners are compensated and it is for
public use.
Equal Protection
14th amendment: No state shall no explicit statement for the federal government, but the S.Ct.
has interpreted the 5th amendment Due Process clause to apply EP to the federal government
Questions to ask: 1) What is the governments classification? 1a) Is it discriminatory on its face?
1b) Or is it neutral but has a discriminatory effect? (Discriminatory impact is not enough, must
show a discriminatory purpose)
Race, national origin and sometimes alienage= suspect classification= strict scrutiny
- Burden of proof is on the government
- Strict Scrutiny: 1) compelling/overriding governmental interest; 2) means chosen is
narrowly tailored/least restrictive or no other way
Gender, non-marital children= intermediate scrutiny
- Burden of proof is on the government
10
- Intermediate Scrutiny: 1) important governmental interest; 2) substantially related to that
interest
All other classifications= rational basis
- Burden of proof is on the party who is attacking
- Rational Basis: 1) no legitimate governmental interest; 2) not rationally related
o Legitimate governmental interest= any governmental interest
o If reasonable minds can differ it will be constitutional
o Strong presumption in favor of the government
o Unconstitutional if arbitrary & capricious
Meaningful Rational Basis (falls between rational basis and intermediate scrutiny): Rational
Basis with a bite
11
NY enacted an advertising statute that prohibited advertising on vehicles unless the
vehicle was part of the company, i.e. no mobile billboards.
o NY claimed this statute was to prevent distractions to drivers
o Ct. determined that statute was constitutional under rational basis because NY had
a reason for creating the statute
12
Classifications based on race are a suspect classification regardless of benefit or disadvantage
and therefore Strict Scrutiny applies
Demonstration existence of a race or national origin classification:
o On its face
o Discriminatory administration/impact (also requires proof of discr. purpose)
Loving v. Virginia
Virginia statute made inter-racial marriages between whites and blacks illegal. State
claimed the purpose was to keep racial integrity and prevent corruption of blood, the
obliteration of racial pride.
o Trial judge opinion: God created us differently, and separated us; He did not
intend for the races to mix
o Ct. determines no overriding purpose
o Statute not neutrally applied (applies only to whites & blacks)
o Under EP & fundamental right to marry this violates the due process clause and is
therefore unconstitutional
Palmore v. Sidoti
White mother divorces white father, they had a child together and the mother retained
custody. The mother then started dating a black man, he moved in. The father fights
custody because he doesnt want the child to live with a black man.
o S.Ct. determines that custody cannot be denied based solely on private biases and
possible injuries based upon racial reasons.
o S.Ct. determines the trial court used racial prejudice and therefore says its
unconstitutional.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Louisiana act provided for separate railway cars for whites and colored races. Plessy, 7/8
white, 1/8 black took a vacant seat in the white section of the train, He was ordered to
13
vacate the car, and upon his refusal, he was ejected by a police officer and taken to jail.
Charged with violation of this act.
o Case is key as constitutionalizing separate but equal under the 14th amendment
o State chose to separate for safety reasons
o Found that this was within the states exercise of their police powers
o Dissent: Called for color blind constitution; predicted that this decision would
be as infamous as the Dred Scott case;
Brown I 1954
This involves cases from three states, African Americans seeking public schools without
segregation. Separate but equal in school is unconstitutional under EP.
14
o Ct. says its powers will go as far as need be to correct the wrong, they will and
can do whatever is necessary to end segregation. Eliminate all vestiges of
segregation.
o Remedial Tools (problem areas) to integrate:
1) racial quotas- starting point only, although not favored
2) single-race schools- NOT per se unconstitutional, but strong
presumption against
3) altering attendance zones- this is ok and non-discriminatory
4) busing transportation is ok
Proving de jure segregation: MUST show segregation w/in school district resulted from
deliberate decisions made by school board
Milliken v. Bradley
Detroit is racially segregated on its own. The African Americans live in the city and the
Whites live in the suburbs. Detroit wanted to bus kids from the suburbs to the city and
kids from the city to the suburbs in order to break up the segregation.
o Ct. determines that the city is de jure segregation but the suburbs are de facto.
o You cant force a remedy on a district that has never violated the constitution.
o Ct. says inter-district relief is appropriate, cannot mix de jure and de facto.
De jure can be corrected by court because there is a constitutional
violation.
De facto cannot be fixed or corrected by a court because there is no
constitutional violation.
Freeman v. Pitts
Federal desegregation orders will end when its complied with, even if other orders for
desegregation remain in place.
o Ct. held that once one aspect of desegregation is completed, the court will no
longer have the ability to control because it has been complied with. This applies
even if other aspects of desegregation are still being attempted.
Missouri v. Jenkins
Kansas City was ordered to desegregate. The court ruled the efforts made by Missouri for
desegregating were impermissible.
o The district court attempted to attract non-minority students from outside the
district to attend to decrease the segregation.
Ct. ruled this is impermissible because the students outside of the district
were not under the desegregation order.
o S.Ct. ruled that the district court lacked authority to increase the teacher salaries
15
District Court believed an increase in salaries would promote
desegregation but S.Ct. determined not a necessary remedy.
o Disparity in test scores was not enough to continue a desegregation order.
Ct. determined equal opportunity does not mean equal results.
Johnson v. California
This case involved segregating prisoners based on race.
o Ct. does not decide the EP issue but remands and requires Strict Scrutiny be
applied in determining.
Washington v. Davis
This case involved a written police exam that had the effect of preventing a
disproportionate amount of African Americans from becoming members of the police
force.
o Ct. states that a law neutral on its face with discriminatory effects is not enough,
there must be discriminatory intent.
o Disproportionate impact is relevant, but not enough to invoke the Strict Scrutiny
standard of review.
Under rational basis you must show the purpose of the rule if the statute is
neutral on its face.
McCleskey v. Kemp
This case involved a challenge to the death penalty statute of GA. The record showed that
the death penalty was disproportionately sought and applied to African Americans.
o Ct. rules that you must show the decision maker continued to use the statute
because of not in spite of.
Awareness is not enough
Rogers v. Lodge
16
Similar to Mobile v. Bolden. The court determined that this was a violation because in
1982 the amendments to the voting rights act eliminated the need to show a
discriminatory purpose when challenging an election system as being racially
discriminatory.
Palmer v. Thompson
Jackson Mississippi responded to a desegregation order by closing its public swimming
pools rather than desegregating them.
o There is not enough evidence to show that Jacksons decision to close its public
swimming pools was racially motivated.
o The States decision is neutral on its face and therefore no evidence of a violation
of EP.
17
Gomillion v. Lightfoot
This case involved a citys drawing of the voting districts to exclude blacks from participating
in the citys elections. The city drew the district to be a 28 sided figure and all but 4-5 of the
400 blacks were drawn outside of the district with no whites being excluded.
- Ct. determined that the conclusion would be irresistible, tantamount for all practical
purposes to a mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely concerned with
segregating white and colored voters by fencing negro citizens out of town to deprive
them of their pre-existing municipal vote.
In a criminal prosecution, equal protection clause prohibits prosecutors from using race as a
reason to exclude jurors
- In Edmonson, the court held the race cannot be used in civil cases
- Georgia v. McCollum held that criminal defendants cannot use race as a basis for
eliminating jurors
- J.E.B. v. Alabama held that Gender cannot be used a basis on either side for juror
exclusion.
Affirmative Action
18
o Interests: correcting past discrimination && diversity
Fullilove v. Klutznick
S.Ct. again considered affirmative action but did not decide a majority opinion as to the
level of scrutiny
Grutter v. Bollinger
University of Michigan law school used a race conscious admittance program. The
admissions office considered many factors but race is taken into account.
o Ct. ruled Strict Scrutiny is the level of review.
19
The compelling interest is diversity (under Bakke this is a compelling
interest).
Race is not the only factor in determining, it is just one factor.
o Ct. ruled that there was no possibility for the motive for the classification was
illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.
o Ct. rules this narrowly tailored use of racial classification was sufficient to
achieve the compelling governmental interest and therefore is constitutional.
o ALL racial factors receive strict scrutiny
o Must not unduly burden non-members
o Should be of a limited time; not open-ended (logical end to taking race into
consideration at all)
Gratz v. Bollinger
This case involved University of Michigans use of racial preferences in the
undergraduate admissions process. The college assigned points to each factor considered,
most factors are worth 5 points but race is worth 20. School stated the interest was
diversity.
o Ct. ruled that race cannot be sole factor or a predominant factor.
Not a narrowly tailored approach and therefore unconstitutional.
Fisher v. UT Austin
Found that the lower court did not apply strict scrutiny; remanded to the lower court for
correct application
Shaw v. Reno
When race is used as a predominate factor to draw district lines, strict scrutiny must be
applied.
o One way to show race is a predominate factor is if the district is a bizarre shape.
o Ct. rules that if the only interest is complying with voting rights that is not
enough.
Race must be the controlling factor
Easley v. Cromartie
Plaintiff must show a facially neutral law is unexplainable on grounds other than race.
o To determine if race is a predominate factor:
The districts shape
The splitting of towns and counties
High African American voting population
Gender Classifications
- Immutable characteristic (visible)
Reed v. Reed
This case was the first time the Supreme Court invalidated a gender classification. This
case involved estates where a male was preferred over a female.
20
o Rational Basis review was applied: a classification must be reasonable, not
arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and
substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Case involving a female member of the uniformed services to claim her male spouse as a
dependent; such benefits would automatically be given to a male, the female has a burden
to prove that her spouse is a dependent.
o Plurality opinion- gender based should be suspect class
o Ct. used Strict Scrutiny to rule this was unconstitutional
Stanton v. Stanton
Ct declared unconstitutional a Utah law that required parents to support their female
children until age 18, but their male children be supported until age 21. Ct declared the
law unconstitutional under any testcompelling state interest, or rational basis or
something in between.
Craig v. Boren
Oklahoma statute allowed females to purchase beer at age 18, but required males to be
21. The state claimed the interest was in safety.
o Ct. ruled that there must be an important governmental interest and it must be
substantially related to that interest to classify on the basis of gender.
Mid-level/Intermediate level of review
Geduldig v. Aiello
Pregnancy or any disability related to pregnancy was not covered by the disability
insurance offered by California.
o Ct. used Rational Basis review and finds no discrimination because men cant get
pregnant and state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the insurance program.
This is an underinclusive program because not all disabilities are covered
Congress overruled the Ct by creating the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
o Ct. says there is no risk from which men are protected and women are not and
there is no risk from which women are protected and men are not.
Orr v. Orr
21
Alabama alimony statutes provide that husbands, but not wives, may be required to pay
alimony upon divorce. State used a justification of helping needy women and to
remediate past discrimination.
o Ct used intermediate scrutiny and determined that needy is an important
governmental interest but it is not substantially related because needy males could
not get help.
There is no reason not to have a gender neutral statute
Rostker v. Goldberg
Military Selective Service Act only requires males to register for the draft.
Women are not permitted to participate in combat and therefore should not have to
register.
o Ct. gives great weight to Congress and the Military in determining.
Purpose of the SS is to have combat ready and since Congress determined
women are prohibited from combat, they cannot be combat ready and
therefore only males can.
o Ct. rules that Congress acted within the constitution and the SS act does not
violate.
Califano v. Webster
The Social Security Act allows women to get a slightly higher monthly payment to
remedy longstanding disparate treatment of women. Women are economically
disadvantaged by men.
o Ct. uses intermediate scrutiny and finds this constitutional because of the past
disparity.
22
Nruyen v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Court allows a difference in INS rules favoring mothers over fathers because of the
greater certainty as to the identity of the mother as compared to the father and the greater
opportunity that mothers have in establishing a relationship with their children.
o Majority uses intermediate scrutiny to find constitutional
Alienage Classifications
1) Equal protection or 2) preemption
Questions to ask:
1) Who is doing the classification? - Level of review depends on federal or state
2) Documented or undocumented alien? (Documented are legally in the country)
3) Does the classification deal with social/welfare benefits, political processes or the inherent
right of citizens to be governed by citizens?-Social welfare= strict scrutiny
Graham v. Richardson
State conditioned welfare benefits on alienage (citizenship)
o Ct. ruled this violated the constitution and used strict scrutiny because the injured
were documented
Under the questions to ask: 1) state, 2) legal resident and 3) social welfare
Both over and under inclusion
Foley v. Connelie
NY State has a statute that does not allow people on the police force unless they are a
citizen.
o Ct used rational basis turning to political process as a reason for the statute
o State has the power to exclude aliens from participating in democratic institutions
o Citizens have inherent rights that aliens do not:
Right to vote
Right to seek office
Jury service
TEST: Non-elective positions that formulate execution, formulation, or
review (interpretation) of broad public policy will be held to RATIONAL
BASIS Standard of Review!
Ambach v. Norwick
NY education law forbids certification as a public school teacher to any person who
is not a US citizen, unless that person has manifested an intention to apply for
citizenship. This case involves two people who do not want to become a U.S. citizen but
want to teach.
o Ct. used rational basis to determine the NY statute is permissible.
Teachers set examples for students, they have influence over our children
and we have an interest in choosing who teaches our children.
Plyer v. Doe
23
Texas denied undocumented school-age children from free public education.
o Ct. used rational basis to determine that this is impermissible.
We cannot punish the children because of the status of their parents
Independent Federal Admin Agency---no deference; Foley Test applies; Strict Scrutiny
Executive and Legislative Govt Branch---broad deference applied; No application here;
Rational Basis
Non-marital Children
-intermediate scrutiny
Types: Age, Wealth, Disability, Sexual Orientation
Clark v. Jeter
S.Ct. declared unconstitutional a state law that required a non-martial child to establish
paternity within six years of birth in order to seek support from his or her father.
o The Court ruled that intermediate scrutiny is used for discriminatory
classifications based on illegitimacy.
We do not punish the child
Levy v. Louisiana
S.Ct. declared unconstitutional a state law that prevented non-martial children from suing
under a wrongful death statute for losses because of a mothers death.
o Legitimacy or Illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong
allegedly inflicted on the mother.
Lalli v. Lalli
S.Ct. upheld a state law that provided that a non-martial child could inherit from his or
her father only if paternity was established during the fathers lifetime.
o State has an important interest in preventing fraud and that requiring paternity to
be established during the lifetime was substantially related.
Intermediate Scrutiny
Discrimination based on Disability: Rational basis is used but the American Disabilities Act
broadly prohibits discrimination
24
Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation: See Romer v. Evans = rational basis
Fundamental Rights
Defined: a right that is deeply rooted in our nations history and traditions
-key to these rights is LIBERTY
Zablocki v. Redhail
Statute prevented marriage if back child support is owed. The state asserted its interests
were to have an opportunity to counsel the applicant on fulfilling his obligations and to
ensure the welfare of the child.
o The Court determined the State interests were legitimate but they were unrelated
and not the least restrictive means to fulfill the states purpose.
o Marriage is a fundamental right and the state has other ways in place to meet the
States objectives without denying a fundamental right.
o The Court used intermediate scrutiny to rule this statute unconstitutional
sufficiently important state interest that is closely tailored
Stanley v. Illinois
Unwed fathers lost custody of their children if the mother died. The children became
wards of the state.
o Court determined this is impermissible. There is a right to conceive and raise
ones children.
The Ct. determines fathers have an interest.
States reason for this was a presumption that if the fathers did not care
enough to marry, they wouldnt care for the children.
Lehr v. Robinson
Case involved a non-martial father who had not supported his two-year old child and had
not registered his parental interest in a state registry.
o The S. Ct. ruled that the state could terminate his parental rights without notice or
a hearing.
Distinguished Stanley because in that case the father was active in the
childs life. Here, a simple biological link does not merit constitutional
protection.
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
California has a statute that provides a conclusive presumption that if a child is born
while the husband is living with the wife and the husband is not sterile or impotent, then
the child is that of the husband.
25
o Ct determines this presumption does not violate a fundamental right and is
therefore permissible.
o State may create an irrebuttable presumption that a married womans husband is
the father of her children
Meyer v. Nebraska
This case involved a teacher that unlawfully taught the German language to a child 10
years of age.
o The Ct. determined that parents have a right to raise their child and to choose how
to educate them. However, a statute that makes it a crime to teach a child any
language other than the English language violates the Due Process clause.
o Learning a foreign language is not injurious to the health, morals or understanding
of the ordinary child.
Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary
Oregon created an act that required children from 8 to 16 years of age to attend only a
public school. It made it a crime for a child to attend private school.
o Ct. stated that parents have rights over their childrens care, custody and control
and therefore have the right to send them to private school if they choose.
Troxel v. Granville
Washington enacted a code that permits any person to petition the court for visitation
rights at any time and authorizes the court to grant the visitation whenever visitation is
in the best interest of the child.
o One of the oldest liberty interests recognized by the court is a parents
fundamental right in the care, custody and control of their children.
o Court holds the statute is much too broad and infringes on a parents rights and
therefore is unconstitutional.
Buck v. Bell
This case involved the involuntary sterilization of a mentally disabled woman. The court
upheld the sterilization. Justice Holmes said three generations of imbeciles are enough.
o Overruled by Skinner v. Oklahoma
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Oklahoma had a statute that would sterilize habitual criminals.
26
o Court overruled Buck v. Bell and stated that the right to procreate is a
fundamental right.
Court also says Marriage is a fundamental right
Court uses Strict Scrutiny for a fundamental right
Decided on the grounds of Equal Protection
Griswold v. Connecticut
Statute makes it a crime to provide birth control and for anyone to use birth control.
o Court recognizes the implicit right to privacy because of the intimate relationship
between husband and wife
o ONLY applies to marital relationships
o Statute is unconstitutional
o Privacy is not specifically expressed in the constitution
Implied by the 4th amendment, first amendment right of association, 3rd
amendment and the 5th amendment.
zone of privacy is created by several fundamental rights
Rights can be regulated but not completely banned
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Contraception was given to unmarried students, the statute treated married and single
people differently.
o Court applies right to privacy to individuals, married or single and declares this
statute unconstitutional.
Rational basis
Roe v. Wade
Abortion rights
o Court determines that the womans right to choose stems from privacy interests
but the state also has an interest in safety.
o Court rules that abortion rights break down by trimester:
1st trimester (0 to 3 months) it is up to the mother and the doctor
(ABSOLUTE)
2nd trimester (3-6 months) state may regulate for mothers health (there IS
a compelling interest here)
3rd trimester-Post Viability (6-9 months) state has an interest in the life of
the fetus except for the mothers life or safety.
27
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Deals with abortion rights
o Court reaffirmed Roes essential holding that a woman has the right to choose but
abandoned the trimester approach.
Court changes to viability/pre-viability reqt
About 23 weeks or 5 months (viable)
State may not place an undue burden pre-viability
Rules that unduly burdensome is the rule (cannot provide a substantial
obstacle in the womans right to choose pre-viability)
State has an interest in the potential life of the fetus
State has the power to restrict abortions after the fetus is
viable, unless the mothers life or health is in danger
o State may regulate at ANY POINT but cannot provide an undue burden
State has a legitimate interest from the beginning of the pregnancy in
protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may
become a child.
Reasoned Judgment
Gonzales v. Carhart
Partial birth abortion (at any time during pregnancy) banned by Congress
o Court determines that the ban does not place an undue burden.
Maher v. Roe
Medicaid limited paying for abortions unless they are medically necessary. Medicaid will
pay for childbirth.
o The Court determined that this is a policy choice left to the legislature.
o The right to choose is a fundamental right, but there is no right to have the
government pay for the abortion.
Court ruled that indigency is not a suspect class.
Appropriate forum is the legislature.
Never required to use govt money for abortions!
28
o Court declared the required consent of the husband unconstitutional.
Bellotti v. Baird
This case was decided before Casey and deals with a minors ability to obtain an abortion
without parental consent. This is a plurality opinion.
o Court determined that childrens rights are not the same as adults:
Children are vulnerable
Difficulty in making critical decisions
Parental role in child rearing
o State can require parental notice/consent but there must exist an alternative
Alternative is the judicial bypass (going before a judge)
Child goes before a judge and the court determines if the child is
mature enough to decide or if the abortion is in the best interest of
the child
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
S.Ct. upheld a law that required vaccinations because the government has a compelling
interest in stopping the spread of communicable diseases.
Washington v. Harper
Ct. determined that prisoners have a right to be free from involuntary administered
antipsychotic drugs. However this right to be free is protected by providing notice and a
hearing to challenge the decision to administer the drugs.
Washington v. Glucksberg
Washington law prohibits aiding or causing a suicide. (Physician assisted suicide case)
o Court applied the rational basis standard to determine that the ban on suicide does
not violate the constitution.
o Due Process (KNOW FOR EXAM)
Specifically protects those ll and liberties which are deeply rooted in this
Nations history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered
29
liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were
sacrificed.
We require in substantive-due process cases a careful description of the
asserted fundamental liberty interest. Our Nations history, legal
traditions, and practices thus provide the crucial guideposts for
responsible decision making, that direct and restrain our exposition of the
Due Process Clause.
o Right to privacy DOES NOT include physician-assisted death
Vacco v. Quill
NY makes it a crime to commit or attempt suicide but patients may refuse lifesaving
treatment.
o Court determines that NY has valid and important public interests that satisfy the
rational basis analysis.
Everyone regardless of physical condition, is entitled, if competent, to
refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; no one is permitted to assist
a suicide. doesnt discriminate
- \
Whalen v. Roe
NY requires certain prescription drugs be written on triplicate form in order to maintain a
record of those drugs. NY claims an interest in regulating controlled substances.
o Court determines that NYs interest outweighs the privacy interest claimed to be
violated by the statute.
o Court validates the statute and holds it constitutional.
Saenz v. Roe
This case involved CA attempting to limit the amount of welfare benefits a new citizen
receives. CA states that a citizen who has not lived in CA for at least a year is entitled to
the welfare benefits that the person would have had in the state they lived in prior to
moving. Once the year is up, they are entitled to the higher CA benefits.
o Court states that citizens have a fundamental right to travel.
Strict Scrutiny
Shapiro v. Thompson: struck down a residency requirement
o Court says the right to travel:
Protects the rights of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state
The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien
when temporarily present in the second state
For those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, to be treated
like other citizens of that state.
o Right to travel (Interstate, not International):
Ingress/egress
Inherent nature of our federal system
Articles of confederation
Commerce Clause of the Constitution (one nation)
30
Welcome Visitor
Article IV, sec 2 substantial/substantial test
Intermediate scrutiny
No discrimination
Right of new citizens to be treated like other citizens
14th amendment citizenship clause
Citizen of the U.S. is also a citizen of the state in which they reside
o Court strikes down CA residency requirement for the welfare benefits
Court has upheld residency requirements for in-state tuition and divorces
No fundamental right to international travel
Right to Vote
- Amendments: 15th (Denial on basis of RACE), 19th, 24th and 26th
- 14th amendment makes the right to vote a fundamental right
Reapportionment by the legislature is NOT a political question and therefore the Court can
decide.
- Congressional Reapportionment is HOR in Congress, legislative reapportionment is done
by the state legislature
- Reapportionment is always a state legislative function
Reynolds v. Sims
60 years since the last apportionment of the Alabama legislature.
o Ct determines that mal-apportionment violates equal protection.
o The Ct determines that districts should be apportioned to the population 1 person
= 1 vote
o Legislature must make an honest, good faith effort to draw a district of
equal population as is practicable.
Take the total # of votes and divide by the # of districts
Ex. 100 seats with a populations of 100,000
100,000/100 = 1,000 per district
After lines are drawn, count the population
o Determine the one that exceeds by the most and the one
that is under by the least
Take the difference between the most and the
least and that gives the variation %/.
Wesberry v. Sanders
1 person 1 vote applies to legislature, congressional seats, local govt officials, special
purpose govt unit,
o Dilution/reapportionment 1 person, 1 vote applies to HOR
31
Equal or same population
5.9% for HOR is not close enough
Only those minute variations in the quest for absolute voter
equality
Who has the duty to reapportion the state legislature? Entire state legislature
Who reapportions Congress (HOR)? State legislature draws congressional districts
o Ct. determined that below 9.6% for state legislature is honest/good faith effort and
therefore constitutional
o Above 16.4% is presumptively invalid
Ball v. James
Arizona reclaimed water districts director are elected by voters but limits voter eligibility
to landowners and apportions voting power according to the amount of land a voter owns.
o Court rules the exception to the one person, one vote applies
o Limited purpose local government unit that disproportionately affects (exception)
Bush v. Gore
Dissent--- the decision here is the enumerated power of Congress (15th Amendment 6) to enact
legislation to enforce the provisions of Article 3
32
McCullough v. Maryland----end-means test
33