Constitutional Law Test 3
Munn v. Illinois
Chicago became an important trading post for the grain market. As a result, grain storage developed as a lucrative industry in Chicago. Until grain was sold and shipped, companies stored it in warehouses known as grain elevators. Munn and Scott was a successful grain storage company that engaged in fraudulent business practices. In response to farmers' complaints, the state enacted a law that allowed boards to regulate the maximum amount grain elevators could charge. The question was whether or not his law violated equal protection or due process. The SC sided with Illinois. They said that when private property is devoted to public use, it is subject to public regulation. CJ Waite used this provision by saying that the grain elevator business played a crucial role in the distribution of foodstuffs to the nation; and because of this it was an industry that affected public interest and was subject to public regulation. If private businesses serve the public in a "yall come" manner, they are entitled to be regulated. There are certain forms of business that are common carries of public services and are therefore, under Munn v. Illinois, are all subject to public regulation. These businesses are very much like the places of public accommodations in the civil rights act.
Adkins v. Children's Hospital
In 1918 Congress enacted a law that established the Minimum Wage Board of D.C. and gave it authority to set minimum wages for women and children in D.C. Children's Hospital of D.C. refused to comply and sued the members of the Wage Board to enjoin enforcement of the regulations. They claimed the law violated the due process clause of the 5th amendment encompassing the liberty to enter into salary contracts with employees. The Supreme Court sided with the hospital. This decision represented the return of substantive due process. The SC ruled that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract as protected by Due Process. This case was different than previous ones because this one involved a minimum wage while the others involved a maximum wage. The latter allowed parties to still be able to negotiate freely, while the minimum wage restricted the employer's ability to negotiate. Any regulation of business is arbitrary because it violates the proposition of Wealth of Nations. Any interference with supply and demand is irrational.
Wickard v. Fillburn
In 1938 the Agricultural Adjustment Act allowed the secretary of agriculture to establish production limits for various grains. Roscoe Fillburn owned a farm in Ohio and exceeded his agricultural allotment. Because of this, he was issued a fine. Fillburn claimed the Congress exceeded its powers by regulating the planting by an individual of wheat on his own property. The Supreme Court sided with Wickard, who was the secretary of agriculture. The MEGACEPT of this case is the "Cumulative Economic Effect" idea. This is the idea that homegrown wheat competes with wheat in commerce. Megacept: his activity has a cumulative economic effect on the market for grain in the entire United States. The Court said that even if an act if local in character and not regarded as commerce, it may still be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. With this decision, the Court entered a new era of commerce clause interpretation. The power of Congress over interstate commerce extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce. The Court referred back to McCulloch, saying that for Congress to regulate the interstate activities, it must be "necessary and proper" for it to regulate the local activities. As long as the local activities are part of a class of activities that Congress decides have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may regulate.
What is Substantive Due Process?
It's a principle allowing courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference. It is grounded on the belief that certain actions of government may be irrational , inappropriate, and contrary to public interest. Strikes down regulatory laws because of the regulatory purpose of the laws that violate the principles of laissez faire capitalism.
U.S. v. Carolene Products Co.
Justice Stone's Footnote Four. When the court moved away from protecting the rights of property, 1938 justice stone wrote footnote four that said we will protect first amendment political freedoms and we will protect discrete and insular minorities, people who are not capable of protecting their own interests effectively. 1938-1980 the court decided to focus on personal freedoms. There may be narrower scope for operation when legislation appears to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution. The Court would no longer substitute its views on economic policy for the views of Congress. Justices announced they would henceforth defer to the legislature and give only minimal scrutiny to the reasonableness of economic regulations. They pledged to give more scrutiny to laws affecting civil liberties and minorities.
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
Louisiana enacted a law that barred its citizens and corporations from doing business with out of state insurance companies unless the companies complied with a specific set of requirements. Allgeyer and Company defied the law and entering into an agreement a New York insurance company to purchase marine insurance covering 100 bales of cotton being shipped from New Orleans to Europe. He argued that this law violates due process. The SC ruled that the statute denied Allgeyer and Company of its liberty without Due Process of the law. CJ Peckham issued a strong opinion, as he merged substantive due process with freedom of contract. He also read the term liberty to mean "economic liberty," encompassing the right to enter into all contracts. This position was one businesses had been pressing. Now their right to do business-to set their own rates, etc.- had the highest level of legal protection. This case mentioned for the first time that there might be some kind of liberty of contract.
Muller v. Oregon
National Consumers' League was at the forefront of the Progressive movement. Curt Muller was a German immigrant in the laundry business. He was charged with violating Oregon state law by requiring a woman to work more than 10 hours one day. This violated the state law establishing maximum working hours for women. Muller's attorneys believed this violated his right to enter into a contract with his workers. The Supreme Court affirmed the law and sided with Oregon. The Court found that Oregon's regulations, unlike New York's, were a reasonable use of the state's power. They stated that there are inherent differences in the two sexes. Physical and social differences between the sexes warranted a different rule respecting labor contracts. The Brandeis Brief used empirical evidence to protect the safety of women in the workplace. It was used to show there was peril and danger for women and therefore more reasonable to protect the wages and hours of women than men.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Parrish worked in a Washington state hotel for less than minimum wage. When she was discharged she asked management for a payment that equaled the amount she would have gotten if the hotel had abided by the Washington minimum wage. The Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of Parrish and the hotel sought review by the SC. The SC sided with Parrish. The establishment of minimum wages for women was constitutionally legitimate. Employees and Employers were not equally free in negotiating contracts. This was found to be especially true for women. They said that nothing can be closer to the public interest than the health of women and their protection from unscrupulous and overreaching employers. This case overruled the case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital. The legislation was enacted to reduce evils such as the exploiting of workers at low wages. Many states adopted similar requirements. Established the Rational Basis Test. This presumes the constitutionality of economic legislation and assigns responsibility to the law's challengers to show that no rational relationship exists between the law and a legitimate government function. This is one level of due process review. Expressly refused substantial due process.
Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co.
The Constitution says that all direct taxes must be apportioned among the states according to population. A Direct Tax was considered to include a tax levied on every individual (a capitation tax or a head tax) and taxes on land. After the Civil War, the government imposed the first tax on incomes. The income tax law in 1894 imposed a 2% tax on all corporate profits and on individual incomes. People with incomes of less than 4,000 paid no tax. This exemption was at a level much higher than what most people earned, so the burden fell on the wealthy. This case pitted the interests of the wealthy against those vying for social reform. The SC ruled that the tax violated the constitution because it was a direct tax and was not apportioned according to representation. It imposed taxes on personal income and personal property, this was a direct taxation scheme and was not apportioned properly among the states. Congress passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1909 to authorize a federal income tax. This became the 16th Amendment of the Constitution. Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. This amendment overturned a Supreme Court precedent. It gave Congress taxing authority to fund the federal government without having to resort to direct taxes. The Constitution now made all sources of income subject to Congress's taxing power and removed any requirement that a tax on income be apportioned on the basis of population. A progressive income tax came after this. This is the idea that as you go up each income level, the tax rate increases. A flat tax is a regressive tax because everyone pays the same rate, which means people at the lower end are paying more in taxes than those at the higher end.
Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873
The Mississippi River had become polluted because New Orleans butchers dumped discarded animal parts into it. To remedy this problem, the legislature created the Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughter House Company to receive and slaughter all city livestock for 25 years. Because Butchers were forced to use the company facilities and pay top dollar for the privilege, they sued the corporation and the state. They claimed the state's actions deprives the butchers of their privileges and immunities, denies them their property without due process of law, and fails to give them equal protection of the law. The SC ruled that the creation of the monopoly did not violate the 13th and 14th Amendment. They said that the privileges and immunities clause only refers to what is written in the Constitution, which doesn't include the special privileges the butchers claimed to have in Louisiana. They stated that their claim of a right to Equal Protection was made in error since that clause was made specifically to protect African Americans. They said that since the law in question was created through the state legislature, they were not denied Due Process of the Law. The Court applied a narrow reading of the constitution. This was the first interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Nebbia v. New York
The New York State legislature created the Milk Control Board, in which it vested the power to fix minimum and maximum prices that stores could charge consumers for milk. Leo Nebbia, the owner of a grocery store, exceeded the maximum amount for milk. He appealed his conviction on the ground that the milk regulations were unconstitutional. He invoked the due process clause. The SC upheld the law and sided with New York. The function of courts in the application of 5th and 14th amendments is to determine whether circumstances vindicated the challenged regulation as a reasonable exertion of government authority or condemn it as arbitrary or discriminatory. If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied. Prices are not sacred from government regulation. There are certain public safety exceptions that allow certain things to be subject to government regulation. The milk industry is a business that affects public interest. The production of safe milk is clearly within the public interest. Treated milk with as a special matter because it involved children and safety.
Lochner v. New York
The State of New York passed the Bakeshop Act, which prohibited employees of bakeries from working more than 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. Joseph Lochner violated the act by requiring an employee to work more than 60 hours a week. He asked the SC to reverse his conviction on the grounds that the Act violated the due process clause. The SC sided with Lochner. They said that the limitation of the hours of labor had no such direct relation to the health of the employee as to justify it as a health law. Many have called this the Court's strongest expression of substantive due process. The question was whether the law was a fair exercise of police power. By narrowing the definition of what constitutes reasonable state regulations, the Court moved away from a strict reasonableness approach to one that reflected Allgeyer: an employer's right to make a contract with employees is virtually sacred. Should the rights of property be protected in the same way as personal freedoms? With Lochner we get the idea of liberty of contract. They raised the idea that we have the liberty to use property as we see fit and any interference with this will be irrational.
What is Procedural Due Process?
The steps through which civil actions or criminal prosecutions may be brought. Most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights involve Procedural Due Process. It requires the government to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
What are the levels of Due Process Review?
• Rational Basis Test- This presumes the constitutionality of economic legislation and assigns responsibility to the law's challengers to show that no rational relationship exists between the law and a legitimate government function. • Heightened Scrutiny- Legislation must have an important objective and must be demonstrably related to the achievement of that objective. Applies to women and we are trying to get it to apply to transgender people today. • Strict Scrutiny- Legislation must have a compelling public interest or necessity and must be as narrowly tailored as possible toward the achievement of that objective. Any law with a racial component is immediately suspect and requires the government to demonstrate a compelling public interest or necessity.