CONS MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE
rational basis
(economic regulations, non-suspect equal protection claims like age, poverty, etc) law must be a reasonable measure designed to achieve a legitimate government purpose
intermediate scrutiny
(gender discrimination) law must be substantially related to the achievement of an important government objective
Strict Scrutiny
(race based measures) law must be the least restrictive means available to achieve a compelling state interest
Due Process Clause
14th amendment clause stating that no state may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
Loving v. Virginia
2 virginia residents (1 black, 1 white) got married in DC and returned to virginia. Couple charged with violation of state's anti miscegenation statute. Found guilty and sentenced to 1 year in jail OR 25 year ban from virginia. Court ruled: 14th amen violation bc cannot discriminate on basis of race (equal protection violation). Bc it was brought up in federal court they cannot discriminate, if done privately they can
Substantive Due Process Clause
A prohibition against vague laws that protects against laws that arbitrarily and unfairly infringe on fundamental personal rights and liberties, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Are general rights that individuals possess and upon which the government may not infringe. Holds that substantive as well as procedural rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution. This argument is based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and reasons that these amendments guarantee that life, freedom and property cannot be infringed upon by the government without sufficient justification—regardless of the process by which they are infringed upon.
legal realism
A school of legal thought that holds that the law is only one factor to be considered when deciding cases and that social and economic circumstances should also be taken into account.
Milliken v. Bradley
A suit charging that the Detroit, Michigan public school system was racially segregated as a result of official policies was filed against Governor. After reviewing the case and concluding the system was segregated, a district court ordered the adoption of a desegregation plan that encompassed eighty-five outlying school districts. The lower court found that Detroit-only plans were inadequate. Did federal courts have the authority to impose a multi-district desegregation plan on schools outside the Detroit area? Court ruled: "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," the district court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that desegregation, "in the sense of dismantling a dual school system," did not require "any particular racial balance in each 'school, grade or classroom.'" The Court also emphasized the importance of local control over the operation of schools.
original intent
A view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the framers. Many conservatives support this view.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (2)
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. Court ruled: 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.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
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 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. Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation? Court ruled: 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.
Racial Discrimination - Education
Brown v Board of Education 1 & 2, Bolling v Sharpe, Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, Milliken v Bradley, Freeman v Pitts, Missouri v Kalima Jenkins (Jenkins III), Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1
Rights of Privacy - Reproduction and Abortion
Buck v Bell, Skinner v Oklahoma, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade, Maher v Roe, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, Gonzalez v Carhart
Equal Protection Clause
Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that forbids any state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. By interpretation, the Fifth Amendment imposes the same limitation on the national government. This clause is the major constitutional restraint on the power of governments to discriminate against persons because of race, national origin, or sex.
Maher v. Roe
Connecticut Welfare Department issued regulations limiting state Medicaid benefits for first-trimester abortions to those that were "medically necessary." An indigent woman challenged the regulations and sued Edward Maher, the Commissioner of Social Services in Connecticut. Did the Connecticut law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Court ruled: Connecticut law placed no obstacles in the pregnant woman's path to an abortion, and that it did not "impinge upon the fundamental right recognized in Roe." The Court noted that there was a distinction between direct state interference with a protected activity and "state encouragement of alternative activity consonant with legislative policy." Holding that financial need alone did not identify a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court found that the law was "rationally related" to a legitimate state interest and survived scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with defendant, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. Their plan was to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment before the Supreme Court. Court Ruled: A right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal.The Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void.
Washington v. Glucksberg
Dr. G, along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients who have since died, and a nonprofit organization that counsels individuals contemplating physician assisted-suicide -- brought this suit challenging the state of Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide. The State of Washington has historically criminalized the promotion of suicide attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." G alleged that Washington's ban was unconstitutional. Following a District Court ruling favoring G and his fellow petitioners, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court granted Washington certiorari. Did Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by denying competent terminally ill adults the liberty to choose death over life? Court ruled: No. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life.
racial discrimination - state action
Dred Scott v Sandford, The Civil Rights Cases, Plessy v Ferguson, Shelley v Kraemer, Batson v Kentucky
Obergefell v. Hodges
Groups of same-sex couples challenged constitutionality of states' bans on same-sex marriage or failure to recognize legal marriages filed in other states. Court ruled: Due process clause guarantees right to marriage and applies to same-sex couples. It is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy.
freeman v pitts
In 1969, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered the DeKalb County School System (DCSS) to eliminate its previously legal racial segregation and its inequitable byproducts under judicial control. However, in 1986, DCSS officials filed a motion, intending for the District Court to declare the DCSS officially desegregated and withdraw supervision. Green v. School Board of New Kent County, outlines 6 categories in which a school district should achieve desegregation, and the District Court found that the DCSS was successful in 4 of these categories. Consequently, the court decided to relinquish control over the DCSS in these 4 areas, while it maintained control and mandated further improvements in the areas in which segregation still existed. Both the respondents, black schoolchildren and their parents, and the petitioners, the DCSS officials, appealed the District Court's decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed it. The Court of Appeals argued that the District Court should have authority over the DCSS until it is fully desegregated in all 6 categories for several years. 1) Is a district court permitted to withdraw supervision of a school system that is under a court-ordered desegregation decree in the areas in which the school system complies with its decree if it does not comply in every area? 2) In the case of the DCSS, was the Court of Appeals correct in reversing the District Court's decision to withdraw supervision incrementally? Court ruled: Yes and No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court found that a district court must only maintain control over a school system in the categories in which it has failed to abide by its court-ordered desegregation plan. The Court argued that this incremental approach provides district courts with a systematic and orderly means to their ultimate goal: to fully withdraw supervision. In addition, it allows the district court to focus more attention and resources where they are needed most. In compliance with the Court's determination, it reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
In 1983, woman was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. When her parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's policy over parents' right to refuse treatment. Did the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter's behalf? Court ruled: while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that she desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.
substantive due process - liberty of contract
Lochner v. NY, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, The Slaughterhouse Cases
Plessy v. Ferguson
Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. Defendant was 7/8 white agreed to participate in a test to challenge the act. He was solicited to sit in the white zone of the bus and refused to move when asked to vacate. Was arrested and convicted Court ruled: state law was constitutional. 14th amen intended to establish absolute equality for the races before law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of african americans
Gonzales v. Carhart
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (any abortion that death of fetus occurs when the "entire fetal head...any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother." Doctors sued to stop act from passing claiming "undue burden" on the right to abortion. Also unconstitutional due to lack of exception due to health. Is act a 5th amen viol bc it lacks and exception? Court ruled: No; act not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose undue burden bc a specific type of abortion (not most common) and have guidelines on physical landmarks, not unconstitutionally vague.
the slaughterhouse cases
Louisiana passed a law that restricted slaughterhouse operations in New Orleans to a single corporation. Pursuant to the law, the Crescent City Live-stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company received a charter to run a slaughterhouse downstream from the city. No other areas around the city were permitted for slaughtering animals over the next 25 years, and existing slaughterhouses would be closed. A group of butchers argued that they would lose their right to practice their trade and earn a livelihood under the monopoly. Specifically, they argued the monopoly created involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and abridged privileges or immunities, denied equal protection of the laws, and deprived them of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Did the creation of the monopoly violate the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments? Court ruled: monopoly violated neither the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments, reasoning that these amendments were passed with the narrow intent to grant full equality to former slaves. Thus, to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment only banned the states from depriving blacks of equal rights; it did not guarantee that all citizens, regardless of race, should receive equal economic privileges by the state. Any rights guaranteed by the Privileges or Immunities Clause were limited to areas controlled by the federal government, such as access to ports and waterways, the right to run for federal office, and certain rights affecting safety on the seas. Moreover, the Court held that the butchers bringing suit were not deprived of their property without due process of law because they could still earn a legal living in the area by slaughtering on the Crescent City Company grounds. Thus, the Court concluded that the Louisiana law was constitutional.
Rights of Privacy - Marriage, Death, and Personal Autonomy
Loving v Virginia, Obergefell v Hodges, Cruz by Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health, Washington v Glucksburg, Troxel v Granville, Lawrence v Texas
Judicial Review - Establishing and Consenting the Power
Marbury v Madison
Lochner v. New York
New York enacted a statute known as the Bakeshop Act, which forbid bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. Defendant was accused of permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. The first charge resulted in a fine of $25, and a second charge a few years later resulted in a fine of $50. While defendant did not challenge his first conviction, he appealed the second, but was denied in state court. Before the Supreme Court, he argued that the Fourteenth Amendment should have been interpreted to contain the freedom to contract among the rights encompassed by substantive due process. Does the Bakeshop Act violate the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Court ruled: invalidated the New York law. The majority maintained that the statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee. The Court further held that the New York law failed the rational basis test for determining whether government action is constitutional. The majority reasoned that the Bakeshop Act had no rational basis because long working hours did not dramatically undermine the health of employees, and baking is not particularly dangerous. Broadly interpreting state authority to regulate under its police powers.
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Oklahoma's Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935 allowed the state to sterilize a person who had been convicted three or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." After his third conviction, defendant was determined to be a habitual offender and ordered to be sterilized. He argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Did the Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment? Court ruled: the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that certain crimes, such as embezzlement, were excluded from the Act's jurisdiction without explanation or reason. Moreover, the Court reasoned that because of the social and biological implications of reproduction and the irreversibility of sterilization operations, compulsory sterilization laws should be subject to strict scrutiny.
planned parenthood of southeastern pennsylvania v Casey
Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent. A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, if married, notify their husbands, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortion as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? Court ruled: reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Slave in Missouri from 1833-1843, he resided in illinois (free state). After returning to Missouri he filed a suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming his residence in free territory made him a free man. Court ruled: He was not free bc one, he is not considered a US citizen therefore he could not bring a suit in federal court, and 2, by 5th amen, slaves were property, and any law that would deprive a slave owner of their property would be unconstitutional.
Bolling v. Sharpe
The D.C. Board of Education denied a petition by a group of parents in Anacostia to racially integrate John Phillip Sousa Junior High School. The following year, in 1950, the parents sought admission to the all-white school for 11 African-American children. When the request was again denied by the Board, a Howard University law professor brought a lawsuit. The claim was dismissed by the trial court. Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Court ruled: The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" protected by due process also guaranteed racial equality in public education in the District of Columbia. The Court found that racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington, DC, denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court decided this case on the same day as Brown v. Board of Education, which overshadowed it. Its most important legacy is the concept of reverse incorporation and the application of the same anti-discrimination principles to state and federal governments.
Missouri v. Kalima Jenkins (Jenkins III)
The Kansas City, Missouri, School District (plaintiff) and a group of students sued Missouri (defendant) in 1977 for maintaining a segregated school system in violation of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The federal district court realigned the school district as a defendant in the case and held that the state and district had violated Brown. The court ordered the district to make every high school and middle school, as well as half of the elementary schools, magnet schools for specific topics, such as foreign language or math and sciences. The district was also ordered to spend $260 million on capital improvements, including closing certain schools, renovating others, and building new facilities. The court hoped that such changes would encourage white students to re-enter the public school system while providing minorities with a quality education. The U.S. Supreme Court initially concluded in Jenkins II, 495 U.S. 33 (1990), that the district court should have enjoined state tax laws that interfered with the district's compliance with Brown, rather than order an increase in local property taxes. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed two remedial issues. Court ruled: overturned a District Court ruling that required the state of Missouri to correct de facto racial inequality in schools by funding salary increases and remedial education programs.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
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. If the racial demographics of any school's student body deviated by more than a predetermined number of percentage points from those of Seattle's total student population (approximately 40% white and 60% non-white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal. A non-profit group,(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. A federal District Court dismissed the suit, upholding the tiebreaker. On appeal, a three-judge panel the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Under the Supreme Court's precedents on racial classification in higher education, race-based classifications must be directed toward a "compelling government interest" and must be "narrowly tailored" to that interest. Applying these precedents to K-12 education, the Circuit Court found that the tiebreaker scheme was not narrowly tailored. The District then petitioned for an "en banc" ruling by a panel of 11 Ninth Circuit judges. The en banc panel came to the opposite conclusion and upheld the tiebreaker. The majority ruled that the District had a compelling interest in maintaining racial diversity. Applying a test from Grutter, the Circuit Court also ruled that the tiebreaker plan was narrowly tailored, because 1) the District did not employ quotas, 2) the District had considered race-neutral alternatives, 3) the plan caused no undue harm to races, and 4) the plan had an ending point. 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? Court ruled: No, no, and yes. 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." The Court acknowledged that it had previously held that racial diversity can be a compelling government interest in university admissions, but it ruled that "[t]he present cases are not governed by Grutter." Unlike the cases pertaining to higher education, the District's plan involved no individualized consideration of students, and it employed a very limited notion of diversity ("white" and "non-white"). The District's goal of preventing racial imbalance did not meet the Court's standards for a constitutionally legitimate use of race: "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity.'" The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring that is necessary for race-conscious programs. The Court held that the District's tiebreaker plan was actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. The District also failed to show that its objectives could not have been met with non-race-conscious means.
Judicial Review
The power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional
Original Meaning
The view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the document.
Marbury v. Madison
This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review; Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established. Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws. In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1)
This case was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. (This was known as the "separate but equal" doctrine.) Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Court ruled: Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. Warren based much of his opinion on information from social science studies rather than court precedent. The decision also used language that was relatively accessible to non-lawyers because Warren felt it was necessary for all Americans to understand its logic.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Under Washington state law, the Industrial Welfare Committee and Supervisor of Women in Industry set a minimum wage of $14.50 for each work week of 48 hours. An employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, received an amount less than this wage. Brought a suit to recover the difference between the wages paid to her and the minimum wage fixed by state law. Does a minimum wage law for women violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment? Court ruled: the establishment of minimum wages for women was constitutional. Echoing Muller v. Oregon (1908), the majority ruled that the state may use its police power to restrict the individual freedom to contract. The decision overruled Adkins and marked the Court's departure from the expansive view of the freedom to contract. The decision is generally regarded as having ended the Lochner era, a period in American legal history in which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business.
interpretivism
an approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution that takes modern values and social consequences into account; also known as loose construction
Dejure Law
by law
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
civil rights of act of 1875 affirmed the equality of all persons in the enjoyment of transportation facilities, hotels, and in theaters and places of public amusement. Though privately owned, these businesses were like public utilities, exercising public functions for the benefit of the public regulation. 5 cases where black people were denied accommodations in violation of the 1875 act. Court ruled: 14th amen did not permit the federal govt to prohibit discriminatory behavior by private parties. 1+2 sections of act were unconstitutional bc they exceeded congress' authority by purporting to regulate the conduct of private individuals
Troxel v. Granville
couple had 2 daughters, dad commits suicide, father's parents want to visit kids, mother limits visitation, grandparents file suit under Washington's code that states that any person at anytime for petition for visitation right. Appealed, non-parents, lacked standing to sue. Court ruled: Washington statute violated the right of parents under due process clause.
Non-Interpretivism
courts might properly go beyond these sources, enforcing constitutional norms not readily discernible in the text or the Framers' intentions, narrowly conceived
Roe v. Wade
filed lawsuit against wade, the district attorney of Texas where she resided, challenged a Texas law making abortion illegal except by doctor's orders to save a life. Unconstitutionally vague. Court ruled: privacy right; Inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's choice whether to have an abortion. However, this right is balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting "the potentiality of human life." The Texas law challenged in this case violated this right. State can't regulate during 1st trimester, but can after the 2nd.
Shelley v. Kraemer
in 1911 a Missouri neighborhood enacted a racially restrictive covenant designed to prevent African-Americans and Asian-Americans from living in the area. An African-American family moved into the neighborhood. Brought suit to enforce the covenant and prevent the family from moving into their house. Both state supreme courts enforced the covenants because they were private rather than state action. Court Ruled: racially restrictive covenants do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Private parties may abide by the terms of such a covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, as that would be a state action. Thus, the enforcements of the racially restrictive covenants in state court violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
de facto law
it just is; there's no law
Batson v. Kentucky
on trial charged with second degree burglary and receipt of stolen good. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the 4 black people on the venire, resulting in a jury of all whites. Was convicted on both charges Court ruled: prosecutor's actions violated the 6th and 14th amen. Racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but also is devastating to the community at large bc it undermines public confidence in the fairness of law.
Lawrence v. Texas
police entered dudes house having sex with another male. Texas had an anti-homosexual law that makes it illegal. Claims 14th amen due process viol. Court of appeals says not unconstitutional. Court Ruled: it US unconstitutional; free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause.
Strict Constitution
the belief that the Constitution should be taken word for word
Penumbra
the implied rights provided in the U.S. constitution, or in a rule.
Buck v. Bell
was a "feeble minded woman" who was committed to a state mental institution. Her condition had been present in her family for the last three generations. A Virginia law allowed for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions to promote the "health of the patient and the welfare of society." Before the procedure could be performed, however, a hearing was required to determine whether or not the operation was a wise thing to do. Did the Virginia statute which authorized sterilization deny her the right to due process of the law and the equal protection of the laws as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? Court ruled: found that the statute did not violate the Constitution. Justice Holmes made clear that her challenge was not upon the medical procedure involved but on the process of the substantive law. Since sterilization could not occur until a proper hearing had occurred (at which the patient and a guardian could be present) and after the Circuit Court of the County and the Supreme Court of Appeals had reviewed the case, if so requested by the patient. Only after "months of observation" could the operation take place. That was enough to satisfy the Court that there was no Constitutional violation.
