Con Law Cases

Deshaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services

"Poor Joshua case." Abused child sued govt for allowing his abusive father to retain custody of him despite notice of abuse. The Due Process Clause protects against deprivations of life, liberty, and property by arbitrary government action; Due Process Clause does not protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against deprivations by private actors. State inaction does not equal state action. The state government has no affirmative duty to act, unless they created the harm. Dissent argued that the state did act to create programs to protect children and should be accountable.

Bradwell v. Illinois

(1873)-Myra Bradwell applied for the Illinois state bar, but was denied admittance on the basis of her gender. The case ruled 8-1 that the right to practice a profession was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Applied only rational basis (same till 1970s). Also, there was a double standard here. Women were supposed to be happy in the home as wives and mothers, but black women were working the fields.

Wickard v. Filburn

(1942) The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce. The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" Could be in the aggregate. Though the one farmer wasn't going to effect commerce, if all farmers did this then it would be bad.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

(1966) Poll taxes were made illegal for state elections, as they violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Board of Trustees v. Garrett

(2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages. Violation of the 11th amendment. For damages, there must be a pattern of discrimination that violates the 14th and the remedy imposed by Congress must be congruent and proportional to the targeted violation. Concurrence stated that this must not be a big problem because the court should see suits for it.

Gonzales v. Raich

(2005) The regulation (ban on homegrown medical marajuana) is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat (Wickard) or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Gonzales v. Carhart

(2007) Upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Relying deferentially on Congress's findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman, Kennedy wrote that a health exception was therefore unnecessary. And, where medical testimony disputed Congress's findings, Congress is still entitled to regulate in an area where the medical community has not reached a "consensus." Distinguished from Stenburg which previously struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law. The Court held that the state statute at issue in Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in Carhart. Court applied rational basis. Dissent argued strict scrutiny.

Baker v. Carr

(LBJ) 1962 Baker v. Carr, case decided in 1962 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Tennessee had failed to reapportion the state legislature for 60 years despite population growth and redistribution. Charles Baker, a voter, brought suit against the state (Joe Carr was a state official in charge of elections) in federal district court, claiming that the dilution of his vote as a result of the state's failure to reapportion violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it could not decide a political question. Baker appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that a case raising a political issue would be heard. This landmark decision opened the way for numerous suits on legislative apportionment. Court was very cautious in dealing with a potential political question - defer to other branches.

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

- A coffee shop, located in a government owned parking garage, refused to serve the Appellant, Burton (Appellant), simply because he was black. - A private entity becomes a state actor when a "symbiotic" relationship exists between the state and the individual, each benefits and is interdependent upon the other. Violation of 14th EP. In this case, the coffee shop enjoyed tax exemption. Looks for mutual benefits. Court also said that to fashion a precise formula is impossible.

Doctrines of Justiciability

1. Ban on advisory opinions. 2. Ripeness (can be expedited when hardship calls). 3. Mootness two exceptions: Collateral consequences (Korematsu) and capable of repitetion, yet evading review (Roe). 4. Standing (requires injury, fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct, redressable by the Court, that meets prudential criteria. 5. Political Question

Prudential Criteria

1. Be arbuably within the done of interests protected or regulated by statutory or constitutional provision at issue. 2. Cannot bring too generalized of an action 3. Cannot bring suit on behalf of others (exceptions: Parent/child, Guardian/ward, and sometimes Doctor/patient).

Washington v. Glucksberg

14th amendment does allow a state to ban physician assisted suicide; supreme court split 5-4

Frontiero v. Richardson

14th amendment negates a federal law that allowed a woman in the armed forces to claim her husband as a dependant only if he depended on her for 50% + of his support, while a serviceman could claim dependent status for his wife regardless of actual dependency. Court applied strict scrutiny, but didn't clearly define (it was a plurality opinion) if women were a suspect class.

Civil Rights Cases

1883 - These state supreme court cases ruled that Constitutional amendments against discrimination applied only to the federal and state governments, not to individuals or private institutions. Thus the government could not order segregation, but restaurants, hotels, and railroads could. Gave legal sanction to Jim Crow laws. This case is still good law. Also, the 13th amendment can't be used because the enabling clause of that amendment limited its application to "badges and incidents of slavery." Discrimination is not slavery. Harlan dissented, saying that the majority failed to account for individuals and corporations that exercise a public function and weild the authority of the state.

Brown v. Board of Education

1954 - The Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, declared that racially segregated facilities are inherently unequal and ordered all public schools desegregated. The first case did not order integration, just desegration. The court found (through social science data, in part) that the segregation of children had a detrimental effect, regardless of if there are tangible differences. In 1955, the case came again (Brown II) and this time the Court ordered integration and delegated authority to lower courts to ensure desegration. The court stated that the desegragation/integration was to be executed with all deliberate speed.

Bolling v. Sharpe

1954; Racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington D.C. denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. This case read the equal protection clause of the 14th into the 5th.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

1971: Busing could be used to correct racial imbalances. Brown is not violated when children are compelled to attend one race schools in their neighborhood. Noted that every community doesn't need to be integrated. Set out 3 big guidelines for desegregation cases: 1. Constitutional violation resultong from purposeful manipulation of school's racial composition. 2. Scope of judicial power is limited by the scope of the constitutional violation. 3. Once a school district achieves unitary status, judicial intervention is no longer proper.

Milliken v. Bradley

1974 Supreme Court case that ruled that desegregation plans could not require students to move across school district lines, which was a victory for anti-busing proponents who felt that Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education was an injustice. For both de jure and de facto discrimination, courts should look for purpose or intent to discriminate. Then look at discriminatory treatment or effect.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

1995 - strict scrutiny must be applied when looking at race-based action by federal government. Dealt with practice by Congress that gave certain number of contracts to disadvantaged racial groups. Dissenters argued that this was the wrong level of review because this was not a discriminatory intent.

Romer v. Evans

1996 case where the Court found that a state amendment that prohibited passing laws that would forbid homosexual discrimination was a violation of equal protection. This was the case where the court applied rational basis "with a bite." First victory for homosexuals.

Parents Involved v. Seatle School Dist.

2007 case. Difficult to find any solid principles or rules because the Court was SO divided. This was a case involving diversity programs in K-12 education. Grutter wasn't controlling here, as it was limited to higher education. Plurality opinion was that the schools' plans to attack de facto segregation in primary school was not constitutional because not narrowly tailored. Cited Caroline Products fn 4 to apply strict scrutiny. Once unitary status is achieved (the effects associated with segregation are gone) then the court needs to step aside. Note: Kennedy's concurrence was the 5th vote.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

A 1978 Supreme Court decision holding that a state university could not admit less qualified individuals solely because of their race. Race could only be a factor for admission, no quotas. Court applied strict scrutiny and expanded the realm of who could bring an EPC claim.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

A Missouri slave sued for his freedom, claiming that his four year stay in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territory made free land by the Missouri Compromise had made him a free man. The U.S, Supreme Court decided he couldn't sue in federal court because he was property, not a citizen. Also, venturing to free territory wasn't enough to free him because he returned to slave territory. Invalidated the MO compromise because Congress couldn't deprive owners of property interest without due process. This was another judicial assertion of the power to overrule Congress.

McCulloch v. Maryland

A decision of the Supreme Court written by Chief justice John Marshall in 1819 which held that the power of the federal government flows from the people and should be generously construed so that any laws "necessary and proper" to the attainment of constitutional ends are permissible, and that federal law is supreme over state law even to the point that the state may not tax an enterprise (such as a bank) created by the federal government.

Shelley v. Kraemer

A landmark Supreme Court case which stated that courts could not enforce racial covenants on real estate properties. Though the case started as private action, the act of using the courts to enforce is state action. This applies to both injunctive and monetary relief.

TN v. Lane

A paraplegic went to his county courthouse & couldn't get up stairs after being told to comeback & refusing to crawl up stairs/get help jailed for not appearing in ct. RULE: Ct. found even tho disability wouldn't be subject to strict scrutiny review, there's a fundamental right in being able to get to the court thus strict scrutiny applies.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

A private utility company cut off customer's electricity and she argued that she can't be deprived of utilities w/o due process. Court held the actions of a private utility company are not state actions because operating a utility company has not traditionally/exclusively been performed by the govt, and the state is not so involved in the actions as to have authorized it; utility co not subject to Bill of Rights. Just because the state approved the termination practice isn't enough. Court stated that the monopoly argument was not persuasive because utility companies are natural monopolies, not monopolies made by the state. Dissent: state conferred a monopoly

Mistretta v. U.S.

Act doesn't prevent congress from receiving assistance from another branch. Judges can sit on committee to help Congress with sentencing guidelines.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeild

American citizen who was deemed an "enemy combatant" was held without charge or trial. The Court held (in a plurality) that detention was lawful, but that American citizens that are deemed enemy combatants are entitled to: (a) - notice of the factual basis in support of that designation, (b) - a fair opportunity to rebut the allegations, AND (c) - a neutral decisionmaker Aside from the core tenants, the executive power to wage war shouldn't be hindered. Some other shortcuts may be ok (use hearsay evidence to show enemy, for example). The dissents varried: Some felt the detention was not authorized under the authorization for use of Military force act. Others felt that, absent suspension of HC, military exigency not a reason to detain. Thomas was the lone dissenter who felt the detention was authorized because the President has inherent authority to detain those who attack our troops.

US v. Arizona

Arizona immigration law case. Focuses on preemption and the supremecy clause. Sets out a few points: 1 - states are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. 2 - state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Dissenters argue that the preemption analysis is flawed. Scalia argues that the sovreignty rights of the state (right to exclude) are being violated.

Allen v. Wright

Black parents had no standing to challenge IRS failure to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. Attempted to bring class action under EPC of 5th. However, this failed because: 1. the injuries in the suit were not judicially cognizable 2. the injuries were not fairly traceable to the asserdly unlawful conduct of the IRS. The general rule here is that racial discrimination is only a basis for standing to those who are personally denier equal treatment. BY ITSELF, the assertion that tax money contributes to discrimination isn't enough. Compare this with Heckler, where stigmatic injury is enough to get standing. Dissents argue that the standing was met because the injury was traceable and redressable.

Printz v. U.S.

Brady Law case. The act required the local CLEO to run background checks. Found that this was not ok. This forced the states to bear the risk and cost of the federal legislation. While the commerce clause did allow the regulation of guns, the necessary and proper clause would not allow the feds to direct the state government in complying. Exceptions where fed government can require state officers to do things: 1. state judges are subject to supremecy clause, power of judicial review, and enforce the laws of other states. 2. state statutes asking officials to enforce federal law. Dissent said that should be an appropriate use of power.

Sugarman v. Dougall

Brief Fact Summary. A New York statute excluded aliens from all government civil service jobs filled by competitive examination. It did not apply to higher office positions, however. The Appellees, Dougall and others (Appellees), challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Justice Harry Blackmun (J. Blackmun) stated that a flat ban on the employment of aliens in positions that have little or no relationship to the State's legitimate interest cannot withstand close judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Appellant, the state of New York's (Appellant), justifications prove too much and too little. The State's prohibition applies to jobs, e.g., sanitation workers, typists, where loyalty to the State isn't essential. On the other hand, the statute does not apply to jobs for which loyalty to the State is indispensable. Aliens are a discrete insular minority, therefore, a classification based on alienage commands a closer means to ends fit then the New York statute provides. Dissent. Justice William Rehnquist (J. Rehnquist) stated the principal purpose of those who drafted and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution) was to prohibit the States from invidiously discriminating on the basis of race. There is no evidence to suggest that it was the intent of the Framers to render alienage a suspect classification. Generally, statutes involving citizens v. legal aliens = strict scrutiny. Statutes involving citizens or legal aliens v. illegal aliens = rational basis

Gratz v. Bollinger

Case in which Supreme Court held that University of Michigan's undergraduate admission program was not sufficiently "narrowly tailored" to consider race as a factor in admission decisions in order to achieve goal of a diverse student body. Point system contra wholistic. Majority: violated equal protection because the 20 point bonus too much. Concurrence by Thomas: racial discrimination in higher education violates equal protection. Breyer Concurrence: differentiate policies of inclusion and policies of exclusion. Dissenters all had problems with standing - no injury in fact because petitioners were admitted to other schools.

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Case in which, individual obtained a restraining order protecting her and her 3 daughters from her ex husband. Kids were abducted by husband and later found dead; law enforcement refused to act on the order. Here the Court found no DP violation because the Colorado law gave no right of enforcement. The police used their own discretion in choosing not to act. The difference between this and Deshaney is that Deshaney was a SDP claim while this was a PDP claim about a property right. The court also said it was the job of the state legislature to fix this.

DA v. Osborne

Case where the Court held that a criminal defendant has no 14th amendment right to post-conviction access to evidence. The majority argued that a criminal defendant who has been tried and convicted does NOT have the same rights as an innocent man - the presumption of innocence is gone. The dissent argued that the evidence held by the state of Alaska could be conclusive in assuring justice, so it should be release. Alito concurred, stating that: 1) a prisoner must file a writ of habeas corpus to seek this relief, and 2) a defendant who doesn't perform DNA testing at trial has no right to access the material later.

Taylor v. Louisiana

Case which held that a LA article, under which women were excluded from a jury venire unless they filed a written declaration of a desire to serve on a jury lacked the fair cross-section requirement and the SC accepted the fair-cross-section requirement as fundamental to the jury trial guaranteed by the 6th Amendment and were convinced that the requirement has solid foundation. Overruled Hoyt v. Florida which held that excluding women as a class from jury duty did not deny due process or equal protection of the laws because there was a sufficiently rational basis for such an exemption.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Case which rejected a prior holding that mental retardation is a "quasi-suspect" classification calling for a more exacting judicial review and held that legislation discriminating against the mentally retarded must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. City ordinance that prevented construction of group home for mentally retarded was stricken. Court did say that protection of mentally retarded was up to the legislature.

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Chicago ban on hand guns. This case is significant because here the court is selectively incorporating a substantive right, the right to bear arms, into the due process clause of the 14th amendment. However, the court did not specify the level of review. How do we decide what rights to incorporate into the due process clause? The fundamentality of the right looking at the history and writing of the constitution. Also look at our way of life which makes the right fundamental. Our tradition includes the use of handguns to use for self-defense and hunting. Use of handguns is there a fundamental right to our society and therefore fits into the due process clause. If it is part of the due process clause then it restricts the state governments. Test: Does it fit within the Ordered liberty clause of the Due Process clause? For the right to fit it has to fit within our history and traditions of our society. Stevens and Breyer dissent - Breyer argues that the incorporation deprives states of power. Also, this regulation best left to the states. Scalia and Thomas concur -- Thomas felt this would be better decided under the privileges and immunities clause than the due process clause.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Chinese laundry case. The first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Congress has the power under the CC to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act (min wage and overtime pay) to state and local governments (here, a city's mass transit system). Under the CC, Congress can regulate traditional functions of state and local government that involve interstate commerce or transit. No violation of the 10th. Found little help in determining what was state and what was federal limits. Instead said the federal system had state protections.

Massachusetts v. EPA

Congress passed the Clean Air Act granting authority to the EPA to regulate any air pollutant that is harmful to health or general welfare. EPA refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts and Mass. brought suit saying if they don't regulate it the gases would lead to loss of coastal land. The EPA claims that they are not adversarial they were simply not authorized by the statute to regulate the emissions. SCOTUS says there is an adversarial relationship because greenhouse gas emissions lead to increased global warming which leads to loss in lands which is the injury that Mass seeks remedy for -- if the EPA has a reason then it should state the reason otherwise the elements are met and Massachusetts has standing. Roberts (dissent): The injury is not particularized because any injury would be felt by the state as a whole and not an individual. Scalia (dissent): There is a lack of redressability because the EPA says they can't eliminate greenhouse gases. (The majority argues that they could slow it down.)

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Court extended the right to privacy to unmarried persons as well as to married persons -- struck down a state law giving away of anti-contraceptive devices to unmarried persons saying that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

M.L.B. v. S.L.J.

Court held that a state cannot prevent poor people from appealing the termination of their parental rights simply because they lack the money to pay transcription costs. It was a violation of both the due process and equal protection clauses. In this case, the court applied strict scrutiny. Shows that court considers poor to be a suspect class in this narrow circumstance.

Medellin v. Texas

Court said that Texas courts were not required to give a new hearing to a Mexican on death row, despite a directive from the President and the finding of the World Court that the trial violated United States' treaty obligations because of the state's procedural rule barring multiple appeals. The treaty that was being sought to enforce was NOT self-executing. It wasn't binding to the states yet. Key to this case is that the president's foreign power is not unlimited. President cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.

Schlesinger v. Ballard

Court upheld a regulation which allowed a woman who was passed over twice for promotion in the Navy to stay in service thirteen years whereas a man passed over twice for promotion could only stay nine years. -- rationale was that men have a greater opportunity for promotion than women. Court found that women were not similarly situated to men.

Little v. Streator

DP requires that state pay for blood test in indigent paternity cases.

Lebron Case

Dealt with advertising and Amtrak, a federal corporation. The court found state action because the government was, essentially, transferring to corporate form.

Kelo v. City of New London

Dealt with eminent domain (5th through the 14th). The government can take property from one private enitity and give it to another if the taking is for a public use. The court applied rational basis. They feared that a heightened standard would interefere in project completion in ANY case. Economic development is in the realm of public purpose. The specific property doesn't need to be blighted to be taken for economic development. Look at the plan as a whole, not the specific property. The majority did not address the issue of taking property and giving to another to increase tax revenue because the issue wasn't ripe. This case does not restrict the power of a state to pass legislation to restrict the taking power. Only dealt with constitutionality of takings. Kennedy concurred, stating rational basis right; but stated that cases where there is a clear showing the taking was meant to benefit one at the expense of another should be struck. O'Connor dissented, stating strict scrutiny should have been applied. Justice Thomas cited Caroline Products fn. 4 and said the takings would fall disproportionally on "discrete and insular minorities."

Cooper v. Aaron

Dealt with the "Little Rock 9" kids. Also the case where President Eisenhower had to dispatch troops to enforce the federal law of desegregation. 1958; reaffirmed (9-0) Brown v Board. Outlawing the "Separate but equal" doctrine reasserted that the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" (Article VI, Section 2) declared a federal judge ruling could not be ignored/overruled by a Governor of a state.

New York v. United States

Dealt with the radioactive waste management act. New York sued, arguing that it could not be compelled by Congress to act. The Court found that Congress has substantial power to encourage states, but it cannot compel. The federal government is over the people, not the states (dual sovreignty). Though the Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce, they cannot regulate the way a state regulates interstate commerce. Note: difference is direct action vs action taken against state (proxy).

District of Columbia v. Heller

Declares that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to have a gun. (Federal Right Only) For the majority, Scalia argued that the operative clause of the second amendment was to be applied to the people generally. The prefatory "militia" clause was not controlling. However, the right is not unlimited. State can still: prohibit concealed carry, prohibit felons and mentally ill, and forbid carying in sensitive areas (schools). State can also impose conditions and qualifications on the sale of arms. Stevens dissent argued that the "individual right" application was going too far. In his dissent, Breyer argued that: 1) the law should stand rational basis and 2) the Court should adopt an "interest balancing approach" to the law (new standard of review?)

Slaughter-House Cases

Essentially reduced the Privileges and Immunities Clause to mean nothing more than travel and voting. Only rights protected are those rights "which owe their existence to the federal government, its national character, its constitution, or its laws. Dealt with challenge of LA laws that gave licensing monopoly to butchers. The Court held that the PAI clause did not protect against this. Suggested a 2 tier approach to the 14th, depending on if blacks are involved or not.

Califano v. Goldfarb

Fact: Widow/widower case Issue: Whether differential treatment violated EP Holding: Yes Concurrence: Discrimination against men is simply a byproduct of traditional way of thinking about women Dissent: Not invidious discrimination; no way perpetuates the economic discrimination, which forms the basis for our heightened scrutiny review of gender-based classification. The law made it where widows got benefits automatically, where widowers got benefits only if they could show more than 50% reliance on wife's income.

Morrison v. Olson

Facts: Act created of special court and empowered AG to recommend to that court appointment of independent counsel to investigate and prosecute government officials for certain violations Issue: Did Act violate constitutional principle of separation of powers Holding: No. No violation of Appointments Clause; not offensive to the separation of powers doctrine since it did not impermissibly interfere with the functions of the Executive branch. Rationale: Independent prosecutor is an "inferior officer" - okay that President doesn't have authority to remove Dissent: Scalia - Independent power is dangerous thing because that person may be sneaky and do the President dirty

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Facts: Appellant lived with her son and two grandsons Issue: Is the city ordinance that limited occupancy of any dwelling unit to members of the same "family" unconstitutional? Holding: Yes; ordinance violated DP of 14th Concurrence: Stevens: Ordinance constituted a taking of property without due process and without just compensation Dissent: To suggest that related persons have constitutional rights of association superior to those of unrelated person is to misunderstand the nature of the associational freedoms that the Constitution has been understood to protect Rationale: Court long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by DP. Applied heightened review.

Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak

Facts: Capital Transit Company was privately owned corporation providing bus and streetcar service under franchise from Congress Holding: Court held the radio broadcasts were constitutional, and that state action was present. So, the Court found state action, but there was no constitutional violation. State action was clear here because a public agency investigated the issue and found no problems before suit.

Palmer v. Thompson

Facts: City council close swimming pools following court-ordered integration Issue: Did this violate EP? Holding: No. Rationale: SCOTUS believed argument that pools were shut down for disrepair and didn't believe they were shut down to avoid desegregation; difficult to ascertain the purpose of the legislation and that striking the law on that reason would be ineffective. Taken with Washington v. Davis and Palmer, this suggests that a facially neutral law is only subject to strict scrutiny when there is: discriminatory purpose AND a disproportionate impact.

Palmore v. Sidoti

Facts: Custody original awarded to mother, but when she married black guy, it was deemed in child's best interest to go with white father Holding: SCOTUS reversed lower court; private biases may be outside the reach of law, but the law cannot directly, or indirectly, give them effect. Court refused to condone this kind of discrimination.

South Dakota v. Dole

Facts: Federal law withheld federal highway funds from states with a drinking age of less than 21 years Restrictions of spending power: (1) pursuant to general welfare; (2) Congress's conditioning of States' receipt of federal funds must be unambiguous; (3) conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if unrelated to federal interest in particular national programs/projects; (4) other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds Issue: May Congress regulate activities traditionally reserved to states by using its spending power? Holding: Yes Dissent: national minimum drinking age is not sufficiently related to interstate highways to justify the conditions of the legislation. Should limit spending power, just like limits commerce clause. Leading case on spending power. Congress may encourage, but may not coerce.

Hunter v. Underwood

Facts: Felony voting case Holding: Court believed Alabama was changing its voting laws depending on crimes racial minorities committed (basis was legislative history).You can disenfranchise on the basis of felonies, but cannot disenfranchise against individuals by discrimination.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis

Facts: Liquor license law limited number of licenses granted and required the licensees to follow their charter. Issue: Constitutional violation? Holding: No, private actor. There was no symbiotic relationship. Difference between this case and Pollack: Pollak had a lot more involvement in the privately owned business than in Moose Lodge Difference between this case and Shelley: There is no coercive power of government Dissenters point to the limitation of licenses granted as a compelling reason to find state action.

Ex parte McCardle

Facts: McCardle was MS editor - held in military custody Rule: Congress has the power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS Issue: Does Congress have the power to take away jurisdiction previously granted to the SCOTUS? Holding: Yes. Discussion: Congressional Act did not affect the SCOTUS' jurisdiction over original habeas corpus actions filed with it, but only repealed it's jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals from Circuit Court. Deals with the exceptions clause. Not sure how far this will go.

Katzenbach v. Morgan

Facts: NY statute says that in order to vote, you must be literate in English; Congress extended voting to person who completed 6th grade. Mainly sought to empower Puerto Ricans. Issue: Does Congress have the authority to overrule NY statute Rule: Holding: Yes. Test that Congressional enactment under § 5 of 14th if it is plainly adapted and consistent with letter and spirit of Constitution Dissent: Harlan: Believes Congress has overstepped its authority by regulating what is essentially a states' rights issues Two ways Reconstruction Amendments can be construed: Congress (1) only act when unconstitutional occurrence and trying to fix; (2) engage in affirmative actions to carry out goals of Reconstruction Amendments.

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn

Facts: Private school that received state funding (LOTS of state funding). Teachers fired for disagreeing with school policy and sought action. Rule: Funding alone does not make a private organization a state organization Holding: No symbiotic relationship - Court likened this to a government contractor situation. Dissent: State has delegated to the school its statutory duty to educate kids with special needs; the nexus between school and State is so substantial that the school's action must be considered state action

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Facts: Richmond adopted set-aside model from Fullilove requiring prime contractors on city projects to subcontract at least 30% to minorities; challenged on EP claim Issue: Sholuld strict scrutiny be used in this case? Holding: State and local affirmative action programs should be subject to strict scrutiny Rule: Affirmative action programs can only be maintained by a showing that the programs aim is to eliminate effects of past discrimination Dissent: Should have used intermediate level for preventative because otherwise it suggests racial discrimination no longer exists.

Johnson v. California

Facts: Separation of prisoners by race when they first arrive Issue:Was this unwritten policy constitutional? Holding: SCOTUS says you can't use rational basis; all race cases have to use strict scrutiny Dissent: Thomas and Scalia: This is about violence; needs to be rational basis because this is about keeping people safe

Califano v. Webster

Facts: Social Security Act case where women got a little more money than similarly situated men Holding: SCOTUS said constitutional because it was relying on past discrimination. Case dealt with situation where women could exclude lower pay years of employment when calculating benefits.

Plyler v. Doe

Facts: Texas denied free public education to children of undocumented aliens Issue: Whether the Texas statute discriminates against a suspect class, or whether education is a fundamental right? Holding: Mid-level scrutiny; Texas statute was unconstitutional Rationale: Not kids' fault that they were in the country illegally; If State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by showing it furthers some substantial state interest Dissent: Berger: Once it was established that illegal aliens are not a suspect class and that education is not a fundamental right, our analysis should have focused on whether the legislative classification bore a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose (rational basis).

Shapiro v. Thompson

Facts: Welfare assistance statute refused to give welfare to people who hadn't lived in DC for 1 year. Issue: Did statute violated EP? Holding: Yes. Strict scrutiny; state tried to use rational basis Rationale: Fundamental right because there is a fundamental right of freedom of travel Dissent: Warren - Congress does not have the power to act under one of its enumerated powers to impose minimal nationwide residency requirements or authorize the States to do so; Harlan - should not have been strict scrutiny; should've been rational basis.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Father of child challenged requiring child to say "under God" in pledge of allegiance. Court held no standing because father lacked legal custody of child. Decided to create a new prudential requirement that deffered to the state in matters of domestic relations. Dissent argued that standing was there and this was bs.

McLaughlin v. Florida

First case to apply strict scrutiny to laws based on race.

Duncan v. LA

First selective incorporation case. Incorporated the 6th amendment right to jury trial. The idea of SI is to incorporate fundamental rights. Justice Black articulated his idea of total incorporation in this case, though it wasn't accepted.

U.S. v. Carolene Products

Footnote 4. Fundamental freedoms, given by being a human. Discrete and insular minorities: people who lack political power and power in general to protect themselves should be protected by the government. Minorities deserve special protection. In short, laws effecting discrete and insular minorities should always be subject to strict scrutiny.

San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympics Committee

Gay Olympics case. USOC refused to let them use the word "olympics" when they had allowed other entities to ues it. Argued as an EP violation. Court said that, just because the USOC had a corporate charter granted by Congress, that wasn't enough to show state action. Dissent states that there was a substantial nexus between the government and the organization - they had privileges granted by Congress that no otherprivate actor enjoyed. Also argued public appearance. Also note O'Connor's dissent where she states that, when an entity is acting "under color of law" then that action is state action.

U.S. v. Lopez

Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. Identified 3 broad areas where congress can reach: 1. The use of channels of interstate commerce. 2. The instrumentalities of interstate commerce. 3. The activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Court says this (and Wickard) are outer limits of commerce clause.

Ex parte Virginia

If actor appears to be the state then there is state action.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

In 1937, the steel company argued that labor-management activities were not part of commerce and therefore not subject to federal regulation. The Supreme Court ruled that a company that uses any interstate products in its business allows the government to be involved in the company's entire operation. Intrastate activites can have such a close relation to commerce that they must be regulated as effecting commerce.

Craig v. Boren

In this 1976 ruling, the Supreme Court established the "medium scrutiny" standard for determining gender discrimination. Social science data not sufficient. Dissent states that this should have been a DP issue.

Bowers v. Hardwick

In this case, a gay man from Georgia charged with committing sodomy in his own home with a consenting adult. The court ruled that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the right for homosexuals to practice their lifestyle and that laws against sodomy were Constitutional. Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas

Maher v. Roe

Issue was whether under the equal protection clause a state must pay out of Medicaid for non therapeutic abortions if it pays out of Medicaid for childbirth - court said that it did not have to pay. Indigent women are not a suspect class (same with indigents generally). Though dealing with a fundamental right, the court used rational basis. Under rational basis, the statute survives. Key to this case is the fact that the statute doesn't unduly burden the RIGHT to an abortion. Because the state merely encouraging one course of action over another, it isn't interfering with the right to get an abortion. Dissenters argue that this statute only effects the poor and powerless. Also argues moral legislation.

Dames & Moore v. Regan

Issue: Did President have the authority to transfer Iranian funds and nullify legal claims against Iran as part of his role as C-i-C? (Broad authority?) Holding: Yes, under specific congressional authorization (Constitutional) Rationale: Narrow decision, did not decide that President possess plenary power to settle claims, even as against foreign governmental entities IEEPA. Defference to President in this as it is potential political question. Also helped make the country look united.

U.S. v. Darby

It does not matter whether something is called "production," "manufacturing," marketing," or anything else. The only issue is whether the activity exerts "an economic impact on commerce." Congressional motive doesn't matter unless it infringes on constitutional provision. Dealt with Fair Labor Standards Act.

Grutter v. Bollinger

Law school affirmitive action case from 2003 related to University of Michigan. The majority, written by O'Connor, held that there was a compelling interest in increasing a diverse student body so as to achieve "critical mass" of students of all races. Strict scrutiny was applied. The majority also felt there would be a 25 year time period where these programs were no longer needed at all. Race may be used as a "plus" factor that is part of the university's wholistic approach, as long as the racially based process is narrowly tailored. Still cannot have a quota system. The dissent argued that this was an underhanded attempt to achieve race balance. Reinquist argued that the system used WAS a quota system (the percentage of black applicants correlated with the percentage of blacks accepted). Thomas attacked the credibility of the school and said the 25 year goal was not ok. He argued that "diversity" programs hinder minorities.

Loving v. Virginia

Laws banning the marriage of blacks and whites are unconstitutional, 1967. Applied strict scrutiny. If the criminality of a law depends on the race of the actor, then the law can't be constitutional. (from concurrence).

U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Machine gun/Bolivia case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs; said that the president is delegated the power to conduct foreign affairs. Give general defference to President in foreign matters. Domestic matters are limited to enumerated powers.

MUW v. Hogan

Male wanted in women's university. Ladies didn't want him in and offerd to pay him to go elsewher. Was denied based on gender and this violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Did not provide "exceedingly persuasive justification".

Katzenbach v. McClung

Ollies barbecue family owned restaurant. Located near a restaurant, denies service to blacks. Prosecuted under interestate commerce act. Determined the racial discrimnination has a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce. Here, the court found that resturant discrimination posed a risk to commerce. Again, can look to aggregate effect of acts.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

PA legislature passed requirements for abortion. ISSUE: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? YES, the Court reaffirmed Roe but upheld most PA provisions. Key here is that the right in question isn't the RIGHT to an abortion. Rather, it is the right to have an abortion FREE from undue interference from the state. Regulations are OK as long as they don't put substantial obstacles in the way. Most of the statute was held under rational basis, but the mariage provision was raised to strict scrutiny and tossed. The trimester approach in Roe is tossed and replaced with a "viability" approach. This means the earliest possible time that the fetus could survive outside the mom. The Court addressed what it would take to overturn Roe (and answered NO to each question). 1) is the rule unworkable? 2) Has there been reliance and law based on Roe? 3) Has Roe's central law been discounted? 4) Have factual assumtions made Roe invalid? 5) Are Roe's underpinnings unweakened? Dissenters argued, mostly, political process. Also notes that the Court in Roe used strict scrutiny and said fundamental right. Now, however, the Court applies rational basis and says NOT a fundamental right.

Clinton v. Jones

President does not have immunity extending beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity. Court said there was no perceptible risk of infringing upon separation of powers.

Marsh v. Alabama

Privately owned town case. The Court outlined the public function test. The roads, buildings, and everything else was privately owned but not distinguishable from a public city. Also note that the person was distributing religious material, involving the 1st amendment.

Rice v. Cayetano

Rational basis is applied to statutes that seek to protect Indians.

Harris v. McRae

Rule: Although government may not place obstacles in the path of a woman's exercise of her freedom of choice, it need not remove those not of its own creation Rationale: It simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices Different from Maher because Maher involved a failure to fund nontherapeutic abortions, whereas Harris withholds funding of certain medically necessary abortions. Upheld the Hyde amendment that prohibited use of federal medicaid funds to get abortions unless mother's life is in danger or rape or incest.

U.S. v. Nixon

Ruled executive privilege (where president could withhold information) unconstitutional except in cases of secret foreign and military affairs. President isn't above law and privilege isn't absolute.

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org.

Standing case - the IRS was sued for giving tax breaks to hospitals that didn't give adequate indigent care. No standing.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association

State athletic associations can be sued for allegedly violating a members rights if the association is so closely connected with public school officials that it acts for the state. This case articulated the rule of pervasive intertwinement, even with no coersion or encouragement. The state was so intertwined with the association that it had an overlapping ID with the government. After this case, state action is very factual with no clear test.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

States may exclude accee to publice medical facilities or publicly paid employees for the purposes of abortion.

Cooper v. Aaron

States must obey rulings found by the U.S. Supreme Court and cannot ignore them. The constitution itself is enforcable source of law.

Korematsu v. U.S.

Supreme Court decision in 1944 that upheld the relocation of Japanese-Americans from the west coast to internment camps because they might be a threat. Shows racial prejudice also because the same was not done to German or Italian American. Court said they had to give defference to the military. It sounds like the Court applied strict scrutiny, but gave great defference to the governmental interest. Dissent stated that, absent martial law, the internment camps were outside constitutional protections. This is still good law.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

Supreme court Authority over state courts. Must be the final arbiter. The facts of this case dealt with land that, under state law, belonged to one party. However, a treaty (supreme law) said it belonged to someone else.

Roe v. Wade

The 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that a state ban on all abortions was unconstitutional. The decision forbade state control over abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, permitted states to limit abortions to protect the mother's health in the second trimester, and permitted states to protect the fetus during the third trimester.

McClesky v. Kemp

The 1987 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty against charges that it violated the 14th amendment because minority defendants were more likely to receive the death penalty than were White defendants. Petitioner looked to the Baldus study that demonstrated that the death penalty was more often applied in cases like his. He was a black male who murdered a white police officer. No strict scrutiny because: no discrimatory intent and states aren't required to eliminate racial disparities in their criminal justice system. Dissent states that this is too far. Some issues too important to leave to state labs. Might as well throw out the whole CJ system because it is diseased.

Boddie v. Connecticut

The Due Process Clause requires that all persons be afforded the right to access courts to obtain a divorce b/c the right to marriage is a fundamental right being affected. B/c a fundamental right is present, and being that the court was the only way to obtain a divorce, a filing fee must be waived for indigents.

Batson v. Kentucky

The Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude from a jury members of the defendant's race solely on racial grounds violates the equal protection rights of the defendant. (pg352)

Caperton

The state SC justice recusal case. Held that a judge who refuses to recuse in a case where a party contributed significant funds to his election campaign violates due process. The rule articulated by majority is an objective rule stating that a judge must recuse when a serious risk of bias. Again, look to objective standard. Dissent argues that this rule is hard to define and unworkable. Also argued that the monetary contribution (other than 1,000) was not in the judge's control.

Gibbons v. Ogden

This case involved New York trying to grant a monopoly on waterborne trade between New York and New Jersey. Judge Marshal, of the Supreme Court, sternly reminded the state of New York that the Constitution gives Congress alone the control of interstate commerce. Marshal's decision, in 1824, was a major blow on states' rights.

Ake v. Oklahoma

U.S Supreme Court ordered that indigent defendants must be provided psychiatric expertise at the point of sentencing in a capital case in which mental condition or dangerousness is at issue.

Oregon v. Mitchell

Upheld Congressional ban on literacy tests in voting.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Upheld Voting Rights Act of 1965 which required some states with histories of discrimination to get pre-clearance for voting laws for all types of elections

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

Upheld the 1964 Civil Rights Act; commerce clause of racial discrimination hurts U.S. business. As long as the activities are seen as regulating interstate commerce, then Congress may act. Only need rational basis. Essentially, commerce may allow Congress to regulate morality. Known as one of the outer limit cases.

City of Rome v. U.S.

Upholding preclearance provisions of the voting rights act.

US v. Virginia

VMI case where Court found that there was no compelling interst in maintaining all male school - applied heightened review. There was also no alternative school for women, though there was a proposed one that would have been unequal. The majority applied what seemed like a new level of review and said there was no exceedingly persuasive justification to maintain all male. Also noted that the 4th created their own standard of review, that was wrong. Dissent (Scalia) said that the Court should have used intermediate review. Said this "new" level of review blurred the lines between strict and intermediate. Argued correction through the political process.

Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co.

War Powers Clause. War power does not necessarily end with cessation of hostilities. Dealt with the war powers resolution where congress limited President's war power to where there is specific authorization or national emergency created by attack.

Cruzan v. Director

Where the DP clause protects 2 competing fundamental interests, it is not a constitutional violation for the state to require heightened evidentiary standards. In this case, MO law required clear and convincing evidence of individual intent before they would pull the plug on a vegetable Competing interests - (1) interest in life AND (2) the interest in refusing life-saving treatment. Also, family members cannot substitute their will for an individualized right. Appears that the Court used rational basis, but not stated in the case. Articulated right to die as a liberty interest, not a fundamental right. The dissenters argue that the state has no legit interest in supporting life that would outweigh the choice to end it. Also, the Stevens dissent states that the goal is to define life here.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Whether this Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), permit the University of Texas at Austin's use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. 5th circuit case applied strict scrutiny, but used a "good faith" requirement that, arguably, turns strict scrutiny into rational basis.

Plessy v. Ferguson

a 1896 Supreme Court decision which legalized state ordered segregation so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. Dealt with railroads. Also incorporated the one drop rule. Rational basis was used.

Bush v. Gore

a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative scheme could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature.[1]. The per curiam opinion was argued on the basis of Equal Protection.[2] The concurrence here argued that the FL SC made new election law and only the state can do that. This decision was limited to the current issue.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation enacted by the State of Washington; 5th amendment, 14th amendment (substantive due process) The switch in time that saved 9.

Washington v. Davis

a qualifying test for positions as police officers in DC was failed by a disproportionately high number of Negro applicants. A law or official governmental practice must have a discriminatory purpose, not merely a disproportiante effect on one race, in order to constitute invidious discrimination under the 5th amendment due process clause or the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Strict scrutiny is not applied in the absence of a discriminatory purpose. Concurrence states that objective evidence based on what actually happened is better test than subjective intent.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the United States Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The military power of the CIC doesn't extend to labor disputes. Most well known for a concurrence by Jackson outlining the 3 spheres of presidential power.

Evitts v. Lucey

effective assistance of counsel in first appeal of right in criminal cases must be given to poor.

Strauder v. West Virginia

eliminates the exclusion of jurors based on religion, race, or other cognizable groups. Black man convicted by all white jury (because law did not allow blacks to serve) was deprived equal protection.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

further defines executive privilege and states that Presidents cannot be sued for damages related to official decisions while in office.

United States v. Morrison

overturned the Violence Against Women Act of 1994; attacks against women are not interstate commerce, and hence Congress cannot constitutionally pass such a law. Dissent argued that the economic activity distinction was not valid.

Skinner v. Oklahoma

statute said if a person was convicted of two or more crimes of moral turpitude then you could be sterilized. SCOTUS said procreation is a fundamental right, which triggers strict scrutiny; therefore states cannot violate without showing a compelling government interest. Not like Buck v. Bell, where there was a chance to be heard, meeting PDP.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

the Supreme Court held that the procedures President Bush had approved for trying prisoners at Guantanamo Bay lacked congressional authorization and violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. President wasn't given a blank check.

Reed v. Reed

the landmark case in 1971 in which the supreme court for the first time upheld a claim of gender discrimination. Law was stricken under EPC. Failed rational basis because no rational relationship to states objective. This dealt with an Idaho law that said men were preffered over women to administer estates.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

there is no fundamental right to education guaranteed in the constitution - ruled against the defendent who stated that basing educational funding on property taxes was unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional. Applied rational basis.

Sweatt v. Painter

this case involved a black man who was refused admission to the University Of Texas Austin School Of Law. At the time there was no law school open only to blacks in Texas, according to the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" requirement. The case continued for six months, while a new school of law for blacks was created in Texas. However, the resulting school was in no way equal to the UT Austin Law School due to the lack of faculty and resources in the library. This case is significant because it does not overturn separate but equal factor and the Supreme Court rules that in the case of graduate education intangibles must be considered as being equal.

U.S. v. Comstock

upheld federal statute that says fed prisoners who are sex danger can be civilly committed and locked up longer. It's justified not by commerce clause but by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Applied rational basis. Majority held that the necessary and proper clause was the proper way to empower this legislation - not exceeding congressional authority. Dissent here by Thomas seems to become the law today. Thomas argued that there needed to be a 2 part test. First, the law needeed to be directed towards a legitimate end. Second, there must be an enumerated power to connect the means with the end.