Constitutional Law Spring 2023 Final

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

TX law had abortion provisions - in favor of Whole Woman's Health - undue burden under substantial burden test - provisions did not confer medical benefits or meet state interests

Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

Test Case; Plessy 7/8th WHite; seperate black and white train cars - in favor of Ferguson - "separate but equal" - segregation is not inherently discrimination and does not imply inferiority of Black persons

Arizona v Gant (2009)

limits Belton; police can search only when reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of crime for which arrest was made

Carroll v US (1925)

mobility merits low protection

Aftermath of Roe v Wade

- judgment of Roe: intensified divisions over abortion - effect of Roe on groups opposed to legalized abortion - Norma McCorvey (Roe) changed her mind about abortion later - pro-life is able to play offense

Privacy in Info Age

- technology surpasses law - Megan's law in every state - USA Patriot Act - government regulation of communication

Harris v McRae (1980)

"Hyde Amendments" limit use of Medicaid to reimburse for abortion funds - ruled in favor of Harris (Secretary of State) - woman's freedom did not provide "a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources..." - Equal Protection Clause not a source of substantive rights; poverty is not a suspect class entitled to 5th Amendment protections

5th Amendment and Self-Incrimination

- 4th and 5th: police procedures for evidence - self-incrimination clause of 5th - application of 5th - to invoke the 5th privilege - freedom to exercise 5th amend rights - right not to testify: protection by 5th

Race Discrimination & Foundations of Equal Protection

- Justice Thurgood Marshall= defective Constitution - Discrimination: difficult and persistent problem - Pre-Civil War: slavery and Scott v Sanford set the stage for Civil War

Privacy

- basic, fundamental right but not mentioned in Constitution - overlaps of 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments

State Action Requirement

- controversy of restrictive housing covenants - Constitutional challenges must fulfill state action requirement

Three Trimester Framework

1-3 Months: almost no regulation 4-6 Months: cannot prohibit but can regulate for maternal health 7-9 Months: may regulate (only when needed)

Cases that Incorporated 8th Amendment

1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Louisiana ex rel. Francis v Resweber 1947) 2. Excessive Bail (Schib v Kuebel 1971) 3. Excessive Fines (Timbs v Indiana 2019)

Cases that Incorporated 1st Amendment

1. Free Speech (Gitlow v. NY 1925) 2. Free Press (Near v. Minnesota 1931) 3. Free Assembly (DeJonge v. Oregon 1937) 4. Free Petition (Hague v. CIO 1939) 5. Free Exercise Religion (Cantwell v. Connecticut 1940) 6. Free Establishment Religion (Everson v. Board of Edu 1947)

Cases that Incorporated 5th Amendment

1. Just Compensation (Chicago Burlington Railroad v City of Chicago 1897) 2. Self-Incrimination (Malloy v Hogan 1964) 3. Double Jeopardy (Benton v Maryland 1969) 4. When Double Jeopardy Attaches (Crist v Bretz 1978)

Cases that Incorporated 6th Amendment

1. Public Trial (in re Oliver 1948) 2. Due Notice (Cole v. Arkansas 1948) 3. Right to Counsel for Felonies (Gideon v Wainwright 1963) 4. Confrontation & Cross-Examination of Adverse Witnesses (Pointer v Texas 1965) 5. Speedy Trial (Klopfer v North Carolina 1967) 6. Compulsory Process to Obtain Witnesses (Washington v Texas 1967) 7. Jury Trial in Criminal Cases (Duncan v Louisiana 1968) 8. Right to Counsel for Misdemeanors when Jail is Possible (Argersinger v Hamlin 1972) 9. Unanimous Jury Verdict (Ramos v Louisiana 2020)

Government Discrimination Tests

1. Rational Basis (government burden; economic and sex identity) 2. Intermediate Scrutiny (government substantial interest; gender) 3. Strict Scrutiny (narrowly tailored and compelling interest; assumed unconstitutional; "Suspect" classifications)

Attempts to Overturn Roe v Wade

1. Strict Scrutiny (suggested in Roe and Akron): abortion is fundamental so regulation requires least restrictive means 2. Undue Burden (O'Connor in Akron): laws placing undue burden on woman's decision subject to strict scrutiny (all others must past rational basis test) 3. Rational Basis (Rehnquist in Roe): no different from economic rights claimed in 14th; legitimate state interest

Cases that Incorporated 4th Amendment

1. Unreasonable Search & Seizure (Wolf v Colorado 1949) 2. Exclusionary Rule (Mapp v Ohio 1961) 3. Warrant Requirement (Aguilar v Texas 1964)

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

off-duty police officer sees "shady" teenagers, guns are found, no warrant - in favor of Ohio - "more than hunch" - officer safety and searches were limited in scope

Poe v Ullman (1961)

1800s Connecticut prohibited info on contraceptives to married and single couples - in favor for Ullman (against couple/women) - case was dismissed because the federal courts lack jurisdiction since there was no immediate injury - Dissent said should not have to die for case to be heard and privacy (Douglas and Harlan)

Post-Civil War

1870s: Republican Congress passed and started the first Civil Rights movement - Supreme Court read it as a state rights issue and went against Congress - allowed Southern leadership to reassert itself Reconstruction Era and Jim Crow Laws - occurring up until the 1870s - civil liberties: basic rights and freedoms, either explicitly written or inferred from interpretation/precedent in Constitution - civil rights: right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain characteristics

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

1879 Connecticut banned contraceptives; Griswold opened birth control clinic to test statute - in favor of Griswold - penumbra of cases implies right to marital privacy - Fundamental Right! - Stewart and Black dissent (right to privacy creates floodgate for other issues like drug usage)

Olmstead v US (1928)

Olmstead selling alcohol; wiretaps used to convict - ruled in favor of US - 5th was not violated because conversation not forced - 4th was not violated because wiretaps not search & seizure - Gateway for cases on morals and illegally obtained evidence - physical penetration doctrine

Gonzales v Oregon (2006)

Oregon's Death with Dignity Act and US had Controlled Substance Act - in favor of Oregon - CSA to prevent illicit drug activity - Ashcroft did not have authority to declare medical practice authorized by state law illegal

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

PA imposed abortion restrictions (minor parental consent and spousal consent) - in favor of Planned Parenthood - upheld abortion as "fundamental right" - canonized "undue burden standard" - rejects Trimester Framework

Brown v Mississippi (1936)

3 Black men arrested for murder of white men, prosecution witnesses testified following brutal beating - in favor of Brown - testimonies gained by force are not admissible

Undue Burden Standard

The Supreme Court's approach to abortion rights, established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which says government may pass laws intending to "inform a woman's free choice" about abortion at any stage of pregnancy so long as doing so does not "unduly burden" that free choice.

Carpenter v US (2018)

cell-site records is a search

US v Harris (1883)

Harris led mob to attack prisoners; US brought Force Act saying illegal to deprive person of equal protection - in favor of Harris - act was unconstitutional, 14th only applied to Congress and remedial action - 14th applies to state action, not individual action

Hester v US (1924)

Hester carrying moonshine, ran and dropped it; police used to convict - in favor of US - 4th protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" - Open Fields Doctrine

Procedural Due Process

having day in court

Spano v NY (1959)

Spano turned self in for bar fight resulting in murder; refused to answer and police used friendship to play psychologically - in favor of Spano - testimonies gained by coercive and manipulative means are not admissible

Board of Education of Pattawatomic County v Earls (2002)

drug testing for all student activities - in favor of Board of Education - general regulation of activities diminished privacy - government interest in protecting drug use

Scott v Sanford (1857)

Sued for freedom in Missouri because Scott lived as a free man in Illinois - in favor of Sanford - dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Scott did not have standing (was not a citizen) - Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional - judicially active (gave decision even though no jurisdiction)

Chandler v Miller (1997)

Supreme Court refused to allow Georgia to require all candidates for state office to pass a urinalysis drug test thirty days before qualifying for nomination or election (law violated search and seizure clause)

CA v Ciraolo (1986) & Dow Chemical v US (1986)

Aerial surveillance used to find week or footage for EPA violations - in favor of CA and US - nonintrusive and in public air space - does not violate reasonable expectation of privacy

Sweat v Painter (1950)

Sweat wanted Texas law school; state tried to make separate law school for black students - in favor of Sweat - UT's plan would have been "grossly unequal" - mere separation is harmful

Case that Incorporated 2nd Amendment

McDonald v. City of Chicago 2010

McLaurin v Oklahoma State Regents (1950)

McLaurin admitted to graduate school at Univ. of Oklahoma, segregated from students - in favor of McLaurin - violation of Equal Protection - Harmful for education

Bolling v Sharpe (1954)

DC Board of Education and integration - in favor of Bolling (Board of Edu) - 5th Amendment guarantee of liberty (DC does not have EPC cause it is federal and not 14th) - reverse incorporation

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda arrested and made written confession; did not know rights to an attorney - in favor of Miranda - police must inform arrestees of right to remain silent and have counsel - rights expanded to interrogation stage

Loving v Virginia (1967)

Black woman and white man married in DC; not recognized in Virginia - in favor of Lovings - rigid scrutiny for racial discrimination - law had no independent purpose

Bowers v Hardwick (1986)

Bowers saw two men having sex in Georgia - in favor of Bowers - no constitutional protections from sodomy under 4th - not 'deeply rooted' in Nation's history and tradition (Griswold) - not necessary for ordered liberty (Palko)

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Butchers must pay fees to dump in NOVA - in favor of all parties - Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to national and not state citizenship - Butchers were not deprived property

Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)

CA Prop 22 defined marriage between man and woman; 2008 said no; then Prop 8 said only hetero marriage recognized by state - no decision on merits - petitioners did not have standing since no injury - no jurisdiction to reach decision

Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990)

Car accident left brain dead; no will but family wants pull plug; state court says no "right to die" - in favor of Missouri Department Health - incompetent persons can't exercise 14th Due Process freedom to refuse treatment - Cruzan had to have 'clear and convincing' evidence that death was the will of the individual

Akron v Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)

City council had 17 laws around abortion - in favor of Akron Center for Reproductive Health - provisions designed to dissuade women from seeking abortions - vague and unnecessary - O'Connors "undue burden claim

Civil Rights Act Cases (1883)

Civil Rights Act of 1875 held equality in inns, theaters, private institutions, etc - ruled against act - Certain sections of the act were unconstitutional because of overextended Congressional power - can only moderate state and not individuals

Herring v US (2009)

Coffee County detained Herring and find warrant arrest for Dale County; found evidence leading to arrest but warrant was invalid because was supposed to be recalled - in favor of US - Good Faith Exception - shifts the burden of the exclusionary rule to the defense

In re Quinlan (1976) NJ Supreme Court

College girl overdosed, in vegetative states; family wanted to pull care but PP & hospital refused - decision for Quinlan - family choice; never went to Supreme Court

Romer v Evans (1996)

Colorado voters adopted amendment that prevented government action to protect LGBTQ+ person from discrimination - in favor of Evans (pro-LGBTQ+) - imposed broad disability on homosexual and bisexual persons by singling them out - advanced no government interest

Dickerson v US (2000)

Congress may not legislatively overturn Miranda

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

Contraceptions for unmarried banned; Baird gave single woman vaginal foam - in favor of Baird - no rational basis to discriminate against single persons; not based on privacy reasons

Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg (1971)

Counties had difficulties desegregating due to racial geography; tried busing - Unanimous in favor of Swann (against schools) - District Court only had jurisdiction when violations had previously occurred - remedies to be judged on effectiveness, close scrutiny for predominately Black schools, no rigid busing guidelines - Approved busing and redrawing district lines as ways of integrating public schools

Green v School Board of New Kent County (1968)

County 2 white school 1 black; gave parents "freedom of choice" plan - in favor of Green - not sufficient - may work in some situations - created 6 steps that court must oversee is happening

Freeman v Pitts (1992)

County wanted district court out as 4 out of 6 categories were achieved - in favor of Freeman - District Court only had to supervise categories county had not met the goals for yet - the incremental scheme is efficient and meets ultimate goals - Court rules that busing could end in districts that demonstrated school segregation was a result of shifting housing patterns

Escobedo v Illinois (1964)

Escobedo arrested for murder; was refused attorney; questioned 14.5 hours and gave statements - in favor of Escobedo - no informing of his rights - rights expanded to interrogation stage

US v Leon (1984)

Established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v Canada (1938)

Gaines wanted Missouri law school; offered to pay for him to go to different school - in favor of Gaines - state had history of providing public education for Black students - state failed in providing equal access to children

Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) & Gardner v Broderick (1968)

Government employees threatened to lose job if do not testify - in favor of employees - no ability to reach free and rational decision if threatened

Case that Incorporated 9th Amendment

Griswold v Connecticut (1965)

Brown v Board of Education (II) (1955)

In favor of Brown et al. - desegregation must occur "with all deliberate speed" - conferred authority on local institutions

Brown v Board of Education (1) (1954)

In favor of Brown et al. - overturned Plessy v Ferguson - separate is NOT equal - social science and fact over law

Wolf v Colorado (1949)

Incorporated 4th Amendment Wolf charged with conspiracy of abortions; evidence obtained illegally - in favor of Colorado - states are subject to 4th limitations on searches - illegally obtained evidence is not required to be dismissed (exclusionary rule not requirement)

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Incorporated Exclusionary Rule Police conducting illegal search for fugitive; found obscene material - in favor of Mapp - all evidence obtained in violation to the 4th is inadmissible in a state court

Korematsu v US (1944)

Internment camps during WWII; Korematsu stayed home Did they overextend their wartime powers? - in favor of US - did not show racial prejudice - security over liberty

Roe v Wade (1973)

Jane Roe wanted abortion; Texas only in life saving reasons - in favor of Roe - "inherent" right to privacy from Due Process - Not absolute; government interest in protecting female health and "potentiality of life" - Three Trimester Framework

Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v Dowell (1991)

Lessened busing; parents brought suit because schools were beginning to resegregate - in favor of the Board of Education - court supervision was designed to be temporary - was not removed under proper criteria however - residential patterns by parents is not grounds for regulation

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Locher wanted workers to work past Bakeshop Act hours - ruled in favor of Lochner - Law violated the right to contract - 14th Due Process violated - Substantive Due Process - Really emphasize "liberty" with due process

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003)

MA sued for no same-sex marriage - in favor of Goodridge - protections and benefits of civil marriage - state constitutions "dignity and equality to all individuals" - Massachusetts Supreme Court

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

MI Gestational Age Act all but eliminated abortions after 15 weeks; only licensed abortion clinic - US was amicus curiae respondent (had a stake in the decision) - in favor of Dobbs - Constitution does not guarantee right to abortion - not in national history or necessary to "ordered liberty" - overturned Roe and Casey

Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989)

MI law restrictions on abortions - in favor of Webster - none of the provisions were unconstitutional - no evidence measures used to restrict access - "Business of Abortion" and Due Process - Government interest in protecting potential life

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Physicians and terminally-ill; Washington ban on physician-assisted suicide - in favor of Washington - assisted suicide "offensive" to nation's history, tradition, and practices - law was rationally based in state' interest

US v. Jones (2012)

Police attached GPS monitor to car and arrested on drug possession - in favor of Jones - GPS is a search - government property was physically on Jones' property

Weeks v US (1914)

Police believed selling lottery tickets through mail; police search, seize, and arrest without warrant - in favor of Weeks - violated 4th Amendment rights - refusal to return property was also a violation - 1st application of Exclusionary Rule

City of Ontario CA v Quon (2010)

Police department has investigation in texts of a pager - in favor of City - no answer on whether or not city employees have reasonable text privacy when no specific text policy exists - reasonable search; motivated by work-related interests - rejected 9th circuit 'least intrusive' approach

Florida v. Jardines (2013)

Police dogs signaled narcotics which led to warrant - in favor of Jardines - reasonable expectation on curtilage of property - police entering porch is different than public

Hudson v Michigan (2006)

Police had warrant and did not follow "knock and announce" rule and broke door - in favor of Michigan - "knock and announce" violations do not automatically warrant evidence exclusion

Lawrence v Texas (2003)

Police saw Lawrence engaged in sodomy - in favor of Lawrence - 14th Due Process made sodomy laws illegal - state has no interest in regulating consensual bedroom activity between adults - moral interests v privacy

Katz v US (1967)

Police wiretapped phone booth without warrant to catch Katz - in favor of Katz - "people not places" and "reasonable expectation" - ethics do not negate evidence - overturns Olmstead

Discrimination

Political v social discrimination: Is government prohibiting from participation or is society discriminating against you?

4th Amendment

Protection against Unreasonable Search and Seizure (response to British writs of assistance)

Doe v. Reed (2010)

Public records of signing specific act (Preserve Marriage, Protect Children) - in favor of Reed - state law narrowly tailored and supported government interest - 1st Amend does not require strict scrutiny for disclosure of referendum petitions and the identifying info with them

June Medical Services v. Russo (2020)

Same circumstances as Whole Woman's Health - in favor of June Medical Services - district court had ample evidence of undue burden

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Same-sex couples not recognized by states continued to appeal - in favor of Obergefell - 14th Amendment guarantees fundamental right to marriage, applies to same-sex couple - judicial precedent on marriage same all couples - 1st Amendment protection to religious institutions

NJ v TLO (1985)

Schools do not need a search warrant or probable cause in order to search students at schools. Schools of the duty to protect all students thus only need a "reasonable suspicion" to search students

PICS v Seattle School District (2007)

Seattle had racial quota but never was segregated - in favor of PICS - districts "tiebreaker" plan unconstitutional - different than Grutter because no other individualized considerations

Kyllo v. US (2001)

Thermal scanning of growing marijuana; findings from images led to issue of warrant - in favor of Kyllo - government device found info that would not have otherwise been known

Griffin v Prince Edward County Schools (1964)

Wanted to NOT levy taxes in order to NOT build new schools - in favor of Griffin - closing of schools is not inherently unconstitutional - District Court given jurisdiction to order county to collect taxes and open schools

When is a search reasonable?

When a warrant is issued or valid exception to warrant requirement - warrant requires oath/affirmation and specificity

Grutter v Bollinger (2002)

White female denied admission to U Michigan Law School; race factor because of diversity (affirmative action) - in favor of Bollinger (affirmative action upheld) - narrowly tailored use to meet the compelling interest - race does not hurt non-minority students

Nix v Williams (1984)

Williams arrested for murder; requested not to be interrogated but police suggest help find body and he did; no attorney; Miranda rights read after - in favor of Nix - inevitable discovery doctrine - if evidence discovered as the result of an illegal search would have been found anyway; it can be used in Court

US v. Windsor (2013)

Windsor married in Canada; recognized by NY but not US; taxes on estate unless married - in favor of Windsor - states have authority to define marriage - overruled DOMA imposed "disadvantage, separate status, so a stigma" - Supreme Court had enough stake to have jurisdiction because outcome would result in refunded tax money

Substantive Due Process

a right to exist and seek procedural due process

NY v Belton (1981)

after police have made a lawful arrest, they may search within reach of the driver

Safford School District v Redding (2009)

reasonable not too intrusive (Strip search is intrusive)

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)

school athletics and random drug testing - in favor of school district - school interest in protecting students from injury - privacy interest compromised are negligible

Cooper v Aaron (1958)

states are bound by the Court's decision and must enforce them even if they do not agree (Little Rock High School case) violence will not be tolerated

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

young person blurted guilt; after Miranda he confessed - police station testimony permissible but at home pre-Miranda not permissible