MC 378 Final Study Guide PDF

Preview

Summary

Study guide for MC 378

Includes all relevant cases that will be included on the final and brief descriptions. Also includes outlines of the situations on the final....

Description

MC 378 Final Study Guide Levels of scrutiny: Rational basis: legit state interest rationally related means Intermediate: gender, important interest substantially related means Strict: race, minority groups, etc compelling interest, narrowly tailored Precedent Case: Marbury v Madison – Judicial review U.S. v Carolene Products Co., Background: Congress banned the shipment of filled milk. Carolene products co., argued that this violated the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment because it had no rational basis. Issue: Is the restriction placed on filled milk constitutional? Holding: Yes; rational basis test – it was related to a governmental interest. Congress did research before restricting the sale. Footnote 4: Stone states that there can be narrower scopes for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution – implies there can be greater scrutiny. Lawrence v Texas: Background: Texas law banned sodomy only for people of the same sex. Issue: Is the Texas law constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause? Is Bowers v Hardwick over turned? Holding: yes to both Kennedy: Bowers was wrong because it asked the wrong question – this law is about dignity and ability to remain free. The court has a flawed history in ruling with this in mind. No legitimate state interest in having this law. There needs to be a consideration for what is and what is not a law under these cases. The right of liberty under the due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. O’Connor (c): Conclusion is based of 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause. Sodomy is only a crime if engaged by two members of the same sex. This makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the state, and illegal. Moral disapproval is not a legitimate state interest in this case because heterosexual sodomy is still protected. Scalia (d): Texas law does limit liberty, but so does recreational use of heroin. Homosexual sodomy is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions. Foreign nations and decriminalization of behavior in other states does not mean that it becomes a fundamental right. It passes scrutiny because they are regulating state morality. The Court takes a stand on a culture war. If you don’t like the law you should vote to have it removed. Thomas (d): No general right to privacy in the Constitution, but does think the law is silly. Brown v Board of Education: Background: Brown wanted to go to a white school then sued when she couldn’t. Issue: Is racial segregation of public schools constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? Holding: No

Warren: Little history of the 14th Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education. Separate but equal is not true in public education. Segregation has a poor effect on black children. It makes them feel inferior by separating them when they are of equal ability. Creates a feeling of inferiority and slows the educational process. Loving v Virginia: Background: Lovings got married in DC, one was black one was white. When they moved back to Virginia they said they could not legally be married. Issue: Is the Virginia statute, which bars interracial marriage, constitutional under the th 14 Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses? Holding: No Warren: Racial classifications still require heavy burden of judicial classification regardless if they are applied equally. Intention of 14th Amendment is to eliminate racial discrimination in the states. The statute relies on distinctions of race. If statues based on race are to be upheld, there has to be a more compelling interest than racial discrimination. Strict scrutiny. Regents of Univ. of Cali v Bakke: Background: UC Davis was using race based applications for their school. Issue: Is the UC Davis Admissions program, which made a certain number of enrollment spots dedicated to minorities, constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? Can race be a compelling state interest in university admissions? Holding: No, yes Powell: UC Davis is deriving educational benefits from a diverse student body which is a compelling state interest. Using this admissions policy to solve deficits in the work force or anything outside of school is not compelling. Race can be a plus factor, but it has to include a larger picture as well. Strict scrutiny because it still is a racial and ethnic distinction, regardless if students are white. Brennan: Thinks there should be intermediate scrutiny. Stevens: Both questions have to be answered in the same way. Blackmun: Wants people to stop discriminated and get mature. Stevens: Race as a compelling interest is not a question. Craig v Boren: Background: Different drinking ages for males and females. Issue: Is the Oklahoma state law, which allows females to buy certain alcoholic beverages at a younger age than males, constitutional under the 14th Amendments equal protection clause? Holding: No Brennan: Gender classification is intermediate scrutiny. Reed precedent for that. Traffic safety is fine, but the percent difference in drunk driving accidents is not enough. Prohibiting the sale of beer and not consumption is pretty not okay. Powell: Reed establishes gender classification scrutiny. Stats state provide don’t bear a fair and substantial relation to the objective of the law. Stevens: Legislates an accident at birth and is remnant of rejected tradition of discrimination against males in this age bracket. Minimal effect on actually gaining access to

beer so not valid law. Legislation is overly inclusive and unlikely law will deter those 2% from drinking. Rehnquist (d): men challenging gender-based classifications are subject to a different type of scrutiny. 14th Amendment intended to prevent historical discrimination and men aren’t historically discriminated against. No need for new scrutiny. United States v Virginia: Background: Virginia had a school that accepted men but not women. Issue: Us the VMI constitutional under the 14th Amendment? Is creating a separate school for women a good enough remedy? Holding: No Ginsburg: School gives men more advantages than women. Intermediate scrutiny substantially related to state objectives that are valid. Burden rests on the state. Not upholding diversity. The court does not examine tendencies or generalizations. Women school is not the same, not the same experience, not the same weight to the name, it’s a totally different style of school. Gave intermediate scrutiny least restrictive means. Scalia (d): Intermediate scrutiny never had least restrictive means. Romer v Evans: Background: Colorado constitution made it hard for bisexual and homosexual people to find legal help for discrimination. Issue: Is the amendment to the Colorado constitution legal under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? Holding: No Kennedy: Law deprives specific rights and imposes a disability on homosexuals from certain rights. Does not pass rational basis review. Harming a certain group does not serve a state interest. Scalia: Doesn’t harm homosexuals those pesky coloradians just want to uphold morals! It just looks to not adopt antidiscrimination laws for gays, lesbians, and bi people. Court Holdings and Key Points: Dredd Scott v Sandford: Black people did not have article III standing. Due Process clause only applies to citizens. Dissents focus a lot on Article III standing was the only thing that needed to be ruled on. McClean thinks that they should be able to be citizens because they can vote in five states. Lochner v NY Baker case. Economic liberty to contract is protected under the 14th Amendment’s Substantive Due Process clause. Policing powers of the states can regulate health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Holmes dissent argues that constitution doesn’t abide to an economic theory. Harlan dissent argues this was a valid use of state police power and protects employees from being taken advantage of. Bowers v Hardwick: Right of homosexual sodomy is not inherit in the Constitution under due process precedent. Court will only protect rights that are not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when the rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or when they are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. Burger concurrence focuses on Judeo-Christian morals.

Powell concurrence focuses on how this might be cruel and unusual punishment. Blackmun dissent focuses on this as being the right to be left alone and that individuals have the right to control their own relationships. Stevens dissent focuses on the fact that the law bans it only for homosexual couples and that’s a violate to Equal Protection. Hollingsworth v Perry: Article III standing there was no solidified grievance and a third party brought the claim, so the offended party was not asserting their own rights. Kennedy dissent says if CA gave them standing than they have standing. CA also allows proponents to stand in for the state. United States v Windsor: This case makes a distinction based off sexual orientation and has to pass strict scrutiny which it does not because it makes certain rights that are available to heterosexuals not available to homosexuals. Obergefell v Hodges: Due Process clause of the 14th amendment requires states to recognize gay marriages just as it recognizes opposite sex marriages. No moral arguments can be made for banning it really. Roberts dissent focuses on the Constitution not addressing gay marriage and it should be decided by state electors. Scalia’s dissent focuses on how the Court legislated. Thomas dissent argues the court stretched substantive due process too far. Railway Express Agency v NY: Rational basis test. If the law does not involve a certain type of discrimination, it is not meant to be ruled on under the 14th Amendment. Jackson concurrence focuses on rational basis. Strauder v West Virginia: Restricting a racial group, the ability and responsibilities of political life is not okay. 14th Amendment provides equal civil and political protection. Korematsu v United States: Is the EO that relocated U.S Citizens on the basis of race constitutional under the Art. III war powers and 5th Amendment Due Process? Yes Concentration camps for Japanese citizens is legal because it was impossible to see who the traitors were in America. Its not racial discrimination because it is a military necessity to prevent espionage. Murphy dissent focuses on the fact that you cannot take away human rights because the military wants you to and the EO does not pass strict scrutiny. Plessy v Ferguson: Is the LA statute which establishes separate but equal public accommodations legal under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? Yes Statute does not discriminate based off race. The 14th Amendment was not intended to abolish discrimination based off race. It all comes down to if the statute is reasonable. Harlan dissent focuses on the laws intention to separate people based off race; it doesn’t keep whites out of black cars. Yick Wo v Hopkins: Is the San Fran. Law, which prohibited the operation of laundry in wood buildings, constitutional under the 14th Amendment? No Law is facially neutral, but the administration is racial which makes it racist and unconstitutional in practice. Grutter v Bollinger: Is U of Ms Law School’s race-based admissions policy, which considers race as a factor for admittance, constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s EP? Yes

Strict scrutiny for racial classifications – narrowly tailored to further compelling government interest. Diversity is compelling Bakke says that. Critical mass does not equal a certain number of spots. Race is not the deciding factor which makes it okay. 25 years and this won’t be needed. Ginsburg concurrence focuses on unequal educational opprotunities for minority students. Scalia concurrence focuses on the different rulings in Gratz and Grutter and that future law suits will try to use both cases to support their side which confuses arguments. Thomas concurrence focuses on constitution bars classification based off race and that affirmative action creates demeaning attitudes towards the race and feelings of inferiority and this policy admits unprepared students. Gratz v Bollinger: Is U of Ms undergraduate admissions policy, which considers race as a factor in admittance, constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s EP? No The policy was not tailored enough to meet strict scrutiny because it accepted almost every minority student and did not just consider race as a plus factor. O’Connor concurrence focuses on how it was not enough to pass strict scrutiny because of the panel that reviewed only playing a small role in admissions. Thomas concurrence focuses on EP prohibiting an racial discrimination. Dissents focus on the fact that there is no proof of saving seats, so it is constitutional. Richmond v J.A. Carson Co: Is the Richmond law, which contracts 30% of its work to a minority frim, constitutional under 14th Amendment’s EP clause? No Past discrimination does not justify rigid quotas based of race today. O’Connor focuses on the quotas subverting constitutional values which are meant to hold everyone as equals. Adarand Constructors v Pena: Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Yes. All racial classifications must pass strict scrutiny. Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District: Is the Seattle school policy, which considers races as a factor in school assignment, constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s EP clause? Is racial diversity a compelling state interest in K-12 education? No then yes. Seattle never legally segregated schools. Analyzed under strict scrutiny. Goal is to create a racial balance in student body. Used Gratz and Grutter to show now Seattle process was to mechanical, but also higher academic schools differ from the public schools. Education benefits of diversity not narrowly tailored. Brown v Board says you cannot treat students different. Thomas focuses on racial imbalance is not a segregation tactic. Some people live @ a specific place to go to a specific school. Kennedy focuses on the fact that you can’t just stop racial discrimination. It is a compelling state interest. However, this whole system is just a little klutzy. If the tie breaker is so minimally used, they why do we have to use it. Makes children’s race a bargaining chip in schools. Stevens focuses on Roberts rewriting history. Breyer focuses on narrowly tailored programs before this one has been upheld so this one should be too. “fatal in fact” strict scrutiny. Fisher v Texas: Is the University of Texas’ admissions policy, which considers race as a factor in its subsection of admissions, constitutional under the EP clause of the 14th Amendment? Yes. University uses top 10% clause to admit 75% then uses personal achievement context, race is only a subset. Race is not considered unless the state has a compelling interest. The use

of race in admissions is constitutional if it meets strict scrutiny and diversity is the goal. Thomas focuses on how the educational benefits of diversity are not compelling and the decision departs from Gratz. Alito focuses on the fact that the state has good goals but you cannot measure the success of those goals. Racial balancing is going on with this and it is not okay. Policy disadvantages Asian Americans but not Hispanics or Blacks. Frontiero v Richardson: Was the federal law which required different criteria to be met by different sexs constitional under the 5th Amendment’s DP and EP? No. Brennan states classification based on sex must be based of strict scrutiny. Ther is a history of discrimination but no difference between the sexes. Powell argues that sex doesn’t need to be classified and the case should be ruled based off Reed. Sex classifications should fall under legislators. Stewart thinks the federal law violates the constitution. Rotsker v Goldberg: Did the MSSA's gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? No Men and women are differently suited for combat which is why women are not allowed in the draft. Marshall’s dissent focuses on how the court reinforces the idea of the role of women in society. There is no government interest being upheld by excluding women. Reynolds v Sims: Are the electoral districts in Alabama, which creates discrepancies in numbers of eligible voters, constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s EP? No Right to vote is fundamental in a free and democratic society. EP makes all citizens stand in the same relation regardless of where they live. Harlan focuses on the fact that the 14th Amendment was not passed with apportionment of votes in mind. San Antonio Indept. School Dist. V Rodriquez: Is the property tax funding for schools that Texas used constitutional under the 14th Amendment’s EP? Yes Not reviewed with strict scrutiny because there is no discrimination inherit within the case. Funding was not so irrational that it was discriminatory. Equal Protection does not require absolute equality. Plyer v Doe: Is the Texas law, which allows the state to withhold funds from schools that are teaching the children of illegal immigrants, constitutional under the 14th Amendment? No Though they are not citizens, they are people and are protected under the 14th Amendment. This disadvantaged the children and serves no compelling state interest. Outlines for Scenarios: Robert Walters v Perry: The MSSA requirement does violate the Equal Protection guarantee and Rotsker should be overturned. Cases: Craig v Boren: intermediate scrutiny through Reed – important interest with substantially related means. No compelling state interest does not pass United States v Virginia: Women are no different than men and if they want to be able to serve they should be able to. No compelling state interest because while physical ability is different, women are still able to hold their own.

Draft also involves many selective processes to see if you are healthy and active enough to even be included in the military – many jobs that you can fulfill within the military. Strauder v WV: political responsibility to be involved in the draft – not restricting women from enlisting, but forcing them not to be drafted, everyone should fulfill their civic duties US v Windsor: Protecting a specific group from the draft, a life changing event, not constitutional Brown v Board – saying that men can go and fight and are required to sign up to do so but not saying women should is creating and inferiority complex. Rotsker v Goldberg: Marshall dissent agrees with the fact that the case was based of notions of women’s place in the world. These reasons it should be over turned. They are violated. Article III Standing: does he really have a grievance if the schools are the same? Parents involved in Seattle Schools: Diversity can be a compelling interest in lower schools systems. US v Virginia: Intermediate scrutiny should be used and justification rests on the states. State provides good justification, but it is not enough really no reason for two different schools. Gender specific institutions do not further any diversity initiates Men might not want to be educated in that environment and women might not want to be educated in the other. Societal bias will most likely make the male only institute more prestigious than the female one. If the two schools are the same, why even create two separate ones? No diversity initative. Brown v Board of Education: separate but equal is hardly ever sperate and equal in the schooling sphere. Creation of inferiority between the two schools is inherit when you segregate which actually slows the educational process. Craig v Boren: Intermediate scrutiny -...