Exam 3

Warren Court

(1953-1969); an activist court that expanded the rights of criminal defendants and racial and religious minorities

Burger Court

(1969- 1986) President Nixon appointed Warren E. Burger of Minnesota as chief justice to succeed the retiring Earl Warren. The Burger Court was more conservative than the Warren Court, but some of its decisions angered conservatives. (p. 629)

Rehnquist Court

(1986-2005) Conservative nominees composed clear majority; limited rather than reversed right established by liberal decisions

Regents v. Bakke (1978)

-Facts: A white medical school applicant was twice rejected from the Univ. of California Medical School, though he had better scores than minority candidates who were accepted. -Legal Issue: Was the school's special admissions program constitutional? No. Can race be considered a factor in the admissions process? Yes. -Court Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the school's affirmative action program violated Equal Protection, but that race could be considered in admissions decisions under a better tailored program. The Court also affirmed the decision to admit the student to the school. -Reasoning behind Ruling: First, classifications based on race call for a strict scrutiny analysis. The goal of achieving a diverse student body is compelling enough to allow race to be considered as a factor in admissions decisions. However, the special admissions program was not necessary to achieve that goal, because it foreclosed consideration to applicants like Bakke. Accordingly, the special admission program violated the Equal Protection Clause. Second, the school should be ordered to accept Bakke as a student, thereby affirming that part of the California Supreme Court's opinion. The school could not meet its burden to show that Bakke would not have been admitted absent the special admissions program. Therefore, Bakke should be admitted to the school. -Legal Rule: Creating a diverse classroom environment is a compelling state interest under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, affirmative action programs can take race into account as a factor in the college admissions process. However, it is improper to set racial quotas as part of an affirmative action admissions program. Significance: Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke was the landmark affirmative action case of its time, and subsequent decisions have clarified the Court's position always with this case in mind. In finding for Bakke, the Court was able to minimize opposition to affirmative action programs. Moreover, the opinion allows for the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions, which is a net gain for the cause of affirmative action. Strict Scrutiny

Brown v. Board II (1955)

1. Facts of the case: -After its decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I), which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced constitutional principle. The cases stemmed from many different regions of the United States with distinctive conditions and problems. 2. Legal Question: -What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I? 3. Conclusion: -The Brown I decision shall be implemented "with all deliberate speed." -The Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Chief Justice Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases. They were ordered to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision. Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed." 4. Significance: This landmark case was the one that 'forced' all school systems to begin desegregating by giving the federal courts system the power to 'fashion whatever remedies necessary to achieve desegregation".

San Antonio v. Rodriquez (1973)

1. Facts of the case: -In addition to being funded through a state-funded program designed to establish a minimum educational threshold in every school, Texas public elementary and secondary schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental revenue. Rodriguez, acting on behalf of students whose families reside in poor districts, challenged this funding scheme by arguing that it underprivileged such students because their schools lacked the vast property tax base that other districts utilized. The reliance on assessable property, the school districts claimed, caused severe inter-district disparities in per-pupil expenditures. 2. Legal Question: -Did Texas' public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts? 3. Conclusion: -No. The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas' system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not "so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory." Justice Powell argued that on the question of wealth and education, "the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages." 4. Significance: Applied Rational Basis Rational Basis

Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991)

1. Facts: -Missouri's constitution made it mandatory for state judges to retire at 70. Two state judges challenged the law on legislative and constitutional grounds 2. Legal Question: -Did the Missouri law violate the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the 14th amendment's equal protection clause? 3. Decision: -No. States have the 10th amendment right to define the qualifications of it's highest state officials. The ADEA does not apply to officials who regulate and make policies. Missouri had a reasonable goal of promoting competent state judges and there is a direct correlation between increasing age and declining mental and physical capacities. 4. Importance: Rational Basis

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

1. Facts: -Pennsylvania had a law that regulated abortions based on the womans willingness to 1. wait 24-48 hours after first visit 2. get consent if a minor 3. spousal notification and 4. clinic to keep records of abortions 2. Legal Question: -Can the state require these actions to be taken without violating their right to an abortion? 3. Decision: -No. The court reaffrimed Roe v. Wade while keeping the Pennsylvania reqquirment for minors to get consent. 4. Importance: -strikes down spousal notification -reaffrims viability -"Undue burden" test adopted

Roe v. Wade (1973)

1. Facts: -Roe became pregnant as a result of rape and could not get an abortion due to the Texas law banning abortions unless it's needed to save the mothers life. 2. Legal Question: -Does the constitution protect a woman's right to abortions? 3. Decision: -Yes. The constitution protects the woman's right to aboritions under the right of privacy in the 14th amendment. 4. Importance: -First trimester the woman has full privacy rights free from state regulations -Second trimester the state can regulate based on the mother's health -Third trimester state has the right to regulate to protect fetal life -Preservation of life after VIABILITY (able to live outside the womb) Strict Scrutiny

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

1. Facts: -Grisworld opened a clinic to challenge the Connecticut law banning the distribution of contraceptives (birth control) to married couples 2. Legal Question: -Does the Connecticut law infringe on the couple's constitutional right to marital privacy? 3. Decision: -Yes. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments together establish a right to marital privacy against state restrictions 4. Importance: -"Penumbras" -9th amendment is vague -Substantive due process= entitled to an outcome (clause of the 14th amendment) Strict Scrutiny

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

1. facts of the case: -A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child. 2. Legal question: -Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Conclusion: -Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law. 4. Significance: not suspect class & straight ideological split Rational Basis

14th Amendment v. 5th Amendment Equal Protection

Both the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provide all citizens with equal protection of their right to life, liberty and property. The main difference being the 5th Amendment provides it under the Due Process clause. 14th amendment equal protection clause is used when being discriminated by the state and 5th amendment equal protection used when being discriminated by the federal government.

Difference between Civil liberties and rights

Civil Rights: which means 'the basic right to be free from unequal treatment, based on certain characteristics which we deem important, like race, gender, and disability,' Civil Liberties: which are 'basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers.' For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the right to practice whatever religion they please. Government, then, cannot interfere in an individual's freedom of worship. Amendment I gives the individual "liberty" from the actions of the government. For most of us, then, when we talk about our 'rights,' we're really talking about our 'liberties.'

Facial Discrimination v. As Applied Discrimination

Facial Discrimination: A law that, by its very language, creates distinctions between classes of persons is discriminatory on its face and is always deemed as unconstitutional and void. (Race, gender) Example: Brown v. Board I As Applied Discrimination: A law that courts define as one "under which the plaintiff argues that a statute, even though generally constitutional, operates unconstitutionally as to him or her because of the plaintiff's particular circumstances. Example: Obergefell v. Hodges

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971)

Facts of the case: After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court. Question: Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation?: Conclusion: Unanimous for Swann. Yes. the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools. Legal Principle Applied: The federal courts have equitable powers that are flexible enough to find reasonable solutions to ending state-imposed segregation in school systems. Significance: the cases stand for the principle that federal courts can take common-sense, reasonable approaches to enforce the Court's landmark ruling, Brown v. Board of Education, in order to eradicate the evil of segregation in public schools. However, many people view these cases as "forced busing" cases in which the Court tried to micro-manage local school districts.

Romer v. Evans (19996)

Facts: - Amendment 2: Prevented the state from recognizing homosexuals and bisexuals as a protected class - Richard G. Evans sued Governor Roy Romer and Colorado on the basis that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment o Colorado Supreme Court struck down Amendment o Colorado appealed to SC Legal Question: - Does Amendment 2 violate the 14th Amendment? Ruling: - Yes - Affirmed Legal Rule: - Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. - Justice Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." - Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest - "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Rational Basis

Cruzan v. Director (1990)

Facts: Nancy Cruzan was in a car accident that resulted in her being in a constant vegetative state, needing artificial means to remain alive. The hospital refused to remove Cruzan's life support at the request of Cruzan's family without a court order. Legal Issue: Does a State law that requires a patient's family to prove the patient's wishes to remove artificial means to sustain life by clear and convincing evidence violate the Constitution? No. Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, holding that the State's interest in preserving life must be balanced against an incompetent patient's wishes, and that a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard does not violate the Constitution. Reasoning behind Ruling: The issue here is whether the Constitution prohibits Missouri from having a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard before removing life support for an incompetent patient. The due process right of refusal of treatment is different for incompetent patients, because it is unclear what an incompetent patient wants. Therefore, the State's interest in maintaining the life of the patient is a proper State interest justifying a procedural safeguard like a heightened standard of proof. Thus, the State Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution by finding that clear and convincing evidence did not exist here. Indeed, the judgment of close family members does not become a constitutional requirement. Legal Rule: A State may constitutionally require evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes by clear and convincing evidence before removing life support. Significance: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health is a landmark case because it gave strong deference to a State's interest in the preservation of life when balancing that interest against the wishes of an incompetent patient to remove life support.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

Facts: Texas' House Bill 2, enacted in 2013, included two provisions that were obviously designed to limit access to abortions in Texas. The first provision, the so-called "admitting-privileges requirement," required that abortion physicians had admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the physician was performing an abortion. The second provision, the so-called "surgical-center requirement," required that the minimum standards of an abortion clinic must match the minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers. Legal Issue: Do State law provisions that substantially restrict the number of abortion clinics that can legally operate in the State constitute an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion? Yes. Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed all of the Fifth Circuit's reasoning, holding that Texas' requirements were an undue burden on abortion access for Texas' citizens, and therefore they violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Reasoning behind Ruling:The - -Evidence Makes Clear that the 2 Requirements are Not Medically Necessary -Created a very high barrier to abortion for poor, rural, or disadvantaged women. -The Fifth Circuit's Legal Standard and Reasoning Were Fatally Flawed in Every Respect -1. the Fifth Circuit's attempt to say that res judicata barred the second lawsuit was incorrect. 2., the Fifth Circuit used the incorrect legal standard in evaluating abortion-related constitutional matters. 3.,The Fifth Circuit ignored clear factual evidence to adduced at the District Court to reverse the District Court's decision. Legal Rule: State law provisions that place a substantial obstacle in front of a woman's right to an abortion and offer no medical benefits sufficient to justify such obstacles violates the Constitution. Significance: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt is landmark case because it provides a good example of statutory provisions that do put up obstacles to access to a pre-viability abortion that violate the Constitution. It has been described as the most important abortion rights case since Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. It is important to note that Texas barely tried to justify the House Bill's two requirements on medical necessity grounds. There is virtually no question that the two requirements in the law were specifically designed to make abortion impossible for many women in Texas. "Undue Burden"

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Facts: The University of Michigan Law School denied Barbara Grutter's application to the School. Grutter, a white Michigan resident, then sued the Law School. Grutter claimed that the Law School's use of affirmative action in its admissions policy violated her Equal Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Legal Issue: Is a public university's goal of "student diversity" sufficiently compelling to justify a narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions? Yes. Court Ruling: The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the Law School's affirmative action policy was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Law School's goal of student diversity was a compelling interest. Also, the Court found that the Law School's individual review of each applicant (where race was only one of many factors) was narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. Reasoning behind Ruling: The Law School's admissions policy is constitutional because the manner in which it achieves a diverse student body passes strict scrutiny. All classifications based on race must be given strict scrutiny. That is, a racial classification is only constitutional if it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Here, the Law School's goal of diversity passes strict scrutiny. The Law School's admissions policy, therefore, is constitutional. First, the Court found that the Law School has a compelling interest in enrolling a diverse student body. The Court pointed to the fact that attaining a diverse student body leads to cross-racial understanding and prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce. Second, the Court found that the Law School's use of race was narrowly tailored. The Court noted that the Law School's policy does not amount to a racial quota. Rather, the Law School engages in an individualized, holistic review of each applicant. Race is one of many factors the Law School considers. In fact, the Law School gives weight to diversity factors other than race. Accordingly, the Law School's race-conscious admissions policy did not violate Grutter's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Legal Rule: Student diversity is an interest that is sufficiently compelling to justify the narrowly tailored use of race when a public university makes admissions decisions. Significance: Grutter v. Bollinger is an important milestone in the debate on affirmative action. The Court found the use of affirmative action in school admissions can be constitutional provided that (i) race is only one of many factors considered; (ii) the purpose is a diverse student body; and (iii) an applicant's race does not replace an individualized, holistic review of each applicant. Strict Scrutiny

U.S v. Virginia (1996)

Facts: - United States sued the Virginia Military Institute on the basis that their men-only admissions policy violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment o District court ruled in favor of VMI o Court of appeals reversed it - Virginia made Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership as a response Legal Question: - Is the creation of a women's-only academy satisfy the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Ruling: - No - Reversed and Remanded Legal Rule: - failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy. - Virginia failed to support its claim that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity because it did not show that VMI's male-only admissions policy was created or maintained in order to further educational diversity. - VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI offered men. - would not provide women with the same rigorous military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and connections - Court held that the Fourth Circuit's "substantive comparability" standard was a displacement of the Court's more exacting standard, requiring that "all gender-based classifications today" be evaluated with "heightened scrutiny." When evaluated with such "heightened scrutiny," Virginia's plan to create the VWIL would not provide women with the same opportunities as VMI provides its men and so it failed to meet requirements of the equal protection clause. Significance: - Struck down any law that denies equal opportunities to women Intermediate Scrutiny

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Facts: The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court. Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex." Rational Basis

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Facts: Petitioners, a number of same-sex couples, sued four states that denied marriage licenses to those couples because those states defined marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. Legal Issue: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Yes. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed and performed in another state that allows same-sex marriage? Yes. Ruling: The United States Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples under the Fourteenth Amendment. -Reasoning behind Ruling: -Same-Sex Marriage is a Right Under the Due Process Clause -Same-Sex Marriage is a Right Under Equal Protection -The Court sees immediate harm being inflicted upon the petitioners due to the laws at issue in the case. Therefore, it would be improper to wait any longer to remedy that harm, particularly when the laws at issue infringe upon the petitioners' fundamental right to marry. -Legal Rule: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license same-sex marriages, and to recognize same-sex marriages licensed and performed in other states. -Significance: The importance of Obergefell v. Hodges cannot be overstated. It is a landmark case for LGBTQ rights. It is the Supreme Court opinion that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the entire United States. This case settled, once and for all, the decades long debate about whether states could legalize same-sex marriage, and whether other states needed to recognize same-sex marriages. Rational Basis

PICS v. Seattle School District (2007)

Facts: The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. A non-profit group, Parents Involved in Community Schools (Parents), sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington state law. Question: 1) Do the decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger apply to public high school students? 2) Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools? 3) Does a school district that normally permits a student to attend the high school of her choice violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying the student admission to her chosen school because of her race in an effort to achieve a desired racial balance? Conclusion: No, no, and yes. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found the District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the plurality opinion that "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Legal Principle Applied: Because this is dealing with race, then strict scrutiny is necessary in determining the validity of the case. The school districts must demonstrate that the use of individual racial classifications is narrowly tailored and must have a compelling governmental interest. Significance:

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Facts: Lawrence and Garner were engaging in sexual activity when an officer entered the home of Lawrence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officer arrested both Lawrence and Garner and held each in overnight custody. The two men were later charged in Texas by a Justice of the Peace. Rule: The right of consenting adults to engage in sexual conduct in the privacy of their homes is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment's liberty interest. This right encompasses homosexual activities. Significance: Lawrence v. Texas was the landmark case that decriminalized homosexual conduct and "keeps the government out of our bedrooms" so to speak. The right of consenting adults both homo and heterosexual to engage in sexual conduct was recognized as a constitutional right protected under the right to privacy. Rational Basis/14th amendment Due Process clause

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Facts: Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy - who was seven-eighths Caucasian and 1/8th African blood - agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. He was solicited by the Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), a group of New Orleans residents who sought to repeal the Act. They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he refused and was arrested. Question: Is a state law providing for separate railway cars for African Americans and Caucasians valid without violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Yes. Legal Principle: Racial classifications do not violate the Equal Protection Clause as long as the public accommodations are "separate but equal." Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional because if the civil rights of each race are separate but equal, one race cannot be considered inferior on either a political or social level. Significance: The decision in Plessy v. Ferguson continued to permit public segregation under the guise of "separate but equal." It ultimately set back civil rights in the United States and resulted in many businesses defining themselves as "serving whites only." Plessy v. Ferguson was eventually overturned in 1954. (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)).

Brown v. Board I (1954)

Facts: Oliver Brown and other plaintiffs were denied admission into a public school attended by white children. This was permitted under laws which allowed segregation based on race. Brown claimed that the segregation deprived minority children of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Brown filed a class action, consolidating cases from Virginia, South Carolina, Delaware and Kansas against the Board of Education in a federal district court in Kansas. Rule: Separating educational facilities based on racial classifications is unequal in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Significance: Brown v. Board of Education was the landmark case which desegregated public schools in the United States. It abolished the idea of "separate but equal."

Sweat v. Painter (1950)

Facts: The petitioner, an African-American applicant to the University of Texas Law School was denied admission to the school because of his race. Following an initial court proceeding, the university offered petitioner enrollment in a new law school specifically for African-American law students. Petitioner refused that offer. Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the separate law school for African-Americans was inferior in a number of ways. Therefore, the Equal Protection Clause dictated that the applicant must be admitted to the University of Texas Law School. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause limits the power of a State to discriminate based on race in professional and graduate educational institutions Significance: Sweatt v. Painter is a landmark decision that began a robust use of the Equal Protection Clause to stop State governments from disadvantaging people based on race. While the Court did not expressly overrule the separate-but-equal doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, this case marked a start down that road towards eliminating that discriminatory doctrine.

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Facts:Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of no intoxicating beer to males under the age of 21 and females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig (a male between the ages of 18-21) and and Carolene Whitener ( a licensed vendor ) challenged it as discriminatory. Legal Question: Did the law violate the 14th amendments Equal Protection Clause by establishing different age limits for men and and women. Courts decision: The court held that the law made unconstitutional gender classifications. The statistics the the state of Oklahoma had for implementing the law were insufficient to show the correlation between law and traffic safety. In striking down the law the court a established a new standard for reviewing gender discrimination cases. Made it so that it is more demanding than the lowest status of review but less than strict scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny.

Government Discrimination vs. Private Discrimination

Government discrimination can be tested by the 3-tiered test (Strict, Intermediate or Rational) and is unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection clause in the 14th amendment Private discrimination is not illegal under the Equal Protection clause in the 14th amendment. The constitution has not been interpreted to include the private sector

Separate by Equal - What is meant by equal?

In a social context, separate but equal means that a person or group of people is treated differently, even though access to public places and services, opportunities, and legal rights are supposed to be the same for everyone. Plessy v. Ferguson Brown v. Board I and II Sweatt v. Painter

Appropriate level of scrutiny for gender discrimination

Intermediate Scrutiny

Affirmative Action - Quotas v. a Plus System

Quotas: Plus System: Regents v. Bakke: Setting racial quotas is unconstitutional but race can be a considering factor Grutter v. Bollinger:

Appropriate level of scrutiny for age discrimination

Rational Basis

Appropriate level of scrutiny for discrimination based on sexual orientation

Rational Basis

Appropriate level of scrutiny for other types of discrimination

Rational Basis

Social v. Political Rights

Social: Political: Plessy v. Ferguson: Riding in the cart is a social right where the 14th amendment law can't extend to since it only protects political rights

Level of Scrutiny

Strict Scrutiny: Used for race/national origin - requires least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest Intermediate Scrutiny: Used for gender ONLY - requires a reasonable measure to achieve an important government interest Rational Basis: Used for age/other discrimination - requires reasonable measure to achieve a legitimate interest

"Penumbras" Privacy

Unstated liberties on the fringes or in the shadow of more explicitly stated rights Griswold v. Connecticut: an implied right to privacy exists which prohibits the state from preventing married couples from using a form of contraception. The Court refers to these protected rights as "penumbras" that although they are not specifically enumerated, they represent varying "zones of privacy" where the government may not intrude