CJL4050 Exam 1

Relationship of Juvenile Law to Legal System

- Unlike other areas of law. - Focus is on group/demographic and not on a subject area. -Juvenile law issues found in many areas of law. - No single cohesive body of juvenile law. Juvenile law informed by other areas of law -Constiutional Law -Family Law -Criminal Law

Features of Legal Culture

-Common Law Tradition Law grows from cases and controversies. -Judge-made law as important -Stare decisis norm -Adversarial model and role of legal specialists. Culture of legal specialists and that of public opinion -Socialization of judges, lawyers, police, social workers, and juvenile justice officials/workers. Public attitudes about children- are they "small adults" or are kids different? Judicial law and legal interpretation. -common law as law made through cases. -constitutional law as interpreting the 4000+ words in the supreme law of the land. -Original ism and the status of children in the late 1700's

3 components of any legal system

-Legal content (the rules) -Legal structure (the organization) - Legal culture (beliefs, values, and philosophical positions)

What speech is NOT protected by 1st amendment?

-Speech that is part of a crime. -e.g., fradulent claims, threats like "your money or your life" -Defamation is subject to tort liability and damages. -Defamation as making false claims to others that cause reputational damage to someone. 1. Either libel (written) or slander (oral) 2. Rules are different for those in public eye who have to show actual malice to prevail in defamation action. Actual malice must be proven in defamation action (tort return law suit) Incitements to violence that pose a clear and present (not future) danger. -Marx's call for armed revolution in the communist manifesto is not a clear and present danger and his tract is protected speech. -Calling on protesters at a large demonstration the capital steps to incite violence is not protected. Obscenity (narrower than porn) as defined by three-prong test of Miller v. California 1973. -Does average person applying community standards find that speech appeals to prurient interest? -AND does the speech depict/describe sex in a patently offensive way? -AND is the speech taken as a whole lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or social value?

Ferguson v Charleston

-Trying to protect babies from moms using drugs by Testing women's urine when they come in for free pre-natal health care o Urine samples were preserved so that the results could be used in future criminal proceedings o Policy added a threat of law enforcement involvement to make the program work o but Only do jail time if test positive twice—tell them this Or if they fail to meet with substance abuse counselors

scrutiny

1) strict scrutiny - the government must show that the challenge classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest. 2) middle - tier scrutiny - the government must show that the challenge classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest 3) minimum scrutiny - the government need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a leg. state case.

Juveniles are routinely treated differently from adults

1. contracts with minors 2. age of consent and sex and marriage. 3. drinking age Why is this not differential treatment considered to be a violation of equal protection.

Equal Protection Clause

14th amend. clause specifically addresses state governments: no state shall deny a person of equal protection of the laws. No equivalent language for federal government but extended as a substantive due process right. Bolling v. Sharpe: DC school segregation 4th amendment due process fairness. "But as this court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.

Haley v Ohio

1948 The Supreme Court ruled that neither an adult nor a child can be interrogated without counsel present or the requirements of the due process of the law fulfilled. importance of the totality of circumstances in the facts. Young age, hours of interrogation, no benefit of counsel or mother/friend during interrogation to secure confession flouted constitutional standards of due process.

Due process in public school- basic approach

3 factors to determine what due process requires: 1. The private interest that will be affected by the state of action. 2. Risk of erroneous deprivation of any constitutionally protected interest and the value of additional or different procedural safeguards; and 3. The state's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burden that different procedural requirements would entail.

Search and Seizure Generally

4th amendment protections (incorporated through 14th amendment to states) -Right to be secure in person, houses, papers, and effects. -From unreasonable searches and seizures -Warrant clause requiring probable cause and oath or affirmation (implying the need for a neutral judge to issue) -Particularly describing the place to be searched and what there is probably cause to be looking for. "Reasonable expectation of privacy"

Due Process Clauses and Constitution

5th amendment clause and federal government. (federal government and due process to it's citizens) 14th amendment clause specifically addresses state governments. (state due process)

Webers Def of Law

An order will be called law if it is externally guaranteed by the probability that coercion (physical or psychological), to bring about conformity or avenge violation, will be applied by a staff of people holding themselves specially ready for that purpose.

Substantive due process concerns

Are there matters and interests that should be protected from government interference that are part of the basic notion of liberty? The focus is on primary or substantive rules rather than how the rules are applied or enforced. e.g. there is no equal protection clause in the constitution to address race discrimination at the federal level, so it was implied as part of the substance of the 5th amendment due process to require the integration of DC public schools.

Bohannon Tension and Fit

Bohannon argues that law is "out of sync" - No unifying subject or area but many. -Changing and conflicting conceptions of "juvenile" -Different juvenile laws from place to place and time to time. Bohannon argues that being out of sync is a source of change in law.

Bethel School District V. Fraser 1986

Class assembly and student made a sexual metaphor in delivery to class. Because this was not political speech but rather a crude, sexual metaphor to get attention S.C. said it was ok to discipline this kind of speech and that this kind of conduct could disrupt school.

Religion and Public Schools

Congress used legislation re-erect the compelling state interest requirement- not a constitutional standard. So student sin public schools have free exercise rights unless the schools can show a compelling reason to regulate the activity. -private religious actions (like an individual prayer before a test) are protected. -Group activities implicate the non-establishment clause if organized and sanctioned by the public school.

First amendment Free Speech Generally

Constitutional priority to free speech b/c of its centrality to liberty. Theories for conceptualizing free speech 1. Market place of ideas- competition among ideas allows the best to win out. 2. Affirming human dignity- self expression as central.

DC v Hutchins

Curfew - statute limited rights of juvies 16 and under to be outside after 11pm - a lot of exceptions to the rule Claims brought - 1 4, 5 amendments violated - due process - parents due process rights to raise children - possible discrimination can occur Holding - statute stands - survives heightened scruitny (court wrongly believes this because children are not a suspect class - thus intermediate scruitny should be applied) - court rationale -- court says that the law actually helps parental control because the state is on their side - so paren't due process not violated -- court says the exceptions allow it to surivve.

Contextualizing Juve Law in the larger legal system of considering

Def of law Functions of law Lessons of legal realism Components of legal systems.

Drug Testing in Public Schools

Drug tests as searches and seizures -What rules apply? -Are there special needs cases? - Do the T.L.O. standards apply? TLO replaced probable cause with individualized suspicion and no warrant was required. Can standards be relaxed further? e.g. randomized drug testing obviates individualized suspicion.

Moore et al. V. Frederick (2007)

Field trip students could go see Olympic torch. A few students unfurled banner that said "bong hits for Jesus." No strong political component. Students said its a public forum and I have free speech rights and they are not at school. School said any kind of advocacy of any kind of drug use in school has no tolerance. Since this is a school sponsored trip the school interest in students health and message that drugs are not acceptable outweighs the free speech of the students. Supreme Court decided with school since this was in a school context and was a school sponsored trip.

Court approaches to interpreting due process

Fundamental fairness and both clauses. Selective incorporation to the states via the 14th amendment of other specific constitutional rights.

Due process and disciplinary proceedings

Goss v. Lopez 1975- Property interest. Due process for suspending or expelling. Both property and liberty interest since 10 days of missed school can be detrimental. Outcome was that there should be due process and the ability to fight charges. Yes, legitimate due process interests but to protect them we need limited due process protection but not a full adversarial hearing. Students must be notified and can contest with a justification for charges given to them and opportunity to be heard and refute charges. No lawyers or hearing needed. Graham V. Wright 1977- Fairness due process argument. Selective incorporation of cruel and unusual punishment argument. Neither prevailed in circumstances of this case. -allegations included that the beatings were severe. Students should be free from infliction of pain and if we are going to inflict there better reason and procedures to do so. Processes and guidelines for use. Court issued that there is a due process issue but schools must maintain order. Can be used in school so long as not unusually brutal and done through procedures.

Judicial Overlay and the Constitution

Hierarchy of law: Supremacy clause of US constitution. Some constitutional foundations apply to juvenile law. Federalism: Federal enumerated power do not directly address juvenile matters. Most juvenile matters covered by power reserved to states. Separation of Powers: Judicial powers and the power of judicial review.

Mincy v Arizona

Homicide scene where police searched without a warrant for four days but the information was gathered without warrant and consent and was not permitted. Emergency Searches: no delay if lives are in danger.

Free exercise generally

Individuals and religious groups can think and espouse virtually anything they want and be protected. Acting on those beliefs is not so widely protected. Historically government needed a compelling reason to be able to regulate religious actions- see Sherbert V. Verner 1963 S. Court began to back away from this position -Prison could use general security reasons to deny Friday prayer services to Moslen inmates (o'Lone v. Estate of Shabass 1987) -State could fire native American drug counselor for using Peyote as part of religious ceremony without showing compelling reason (employment division v. Smith 1990)

Functions of Law

Instrumental vs. symbolic/expressive functions. Instrumental functions: social control dispute resolution/conflict settlement social engineering social maintenance and predictability. Symbolic/Expwressive Functions Tyler's research- procedural justice (expressive) improves conformity (instrumental).

Lessons from legal realism

Law as experience rather than logic Law in action versus law on the books (black-letter law) Expect a gap between law in the books and law in action.

Appeals

Litigants who do not prevail on some important issue can appeal. 1. Most appeals concern matters of law. 2. appeals courts give deference to the version of facts that support the judgement at trial. 3. Different rules apply to different court levels. -Often an appeal to the intermediate court of appeals is a matter of right -generally appeals to the highest courts are discretionary (e.g. US Supreme Court's rule of 4 for granting certiorari) The losing litigant at trial asks for a reconsideration so the requested remedy or relief on appeal will vary from those requested in the original case. 1. May request a new trial or hearing 2. May request an adjustment in the remedy 3. May request that the judgement be vacated 4. May request for a different interpretation of the law- so appeals are a source of new law (because of stare decisis, the new rulings are important). If appeal is of a criminal/delinquency case, the defendant is asking for a reconsideration, so double jeopardy will not bar another trial.

Federalism and the state vs federal court structures

Most juvenile cases begin in state courts Trial court like a state district court or maybe a family court Most states have an intermediate court of appeals Highest court like the state supreme court If US constitutional issue, can try to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court. Federal court structure: Trial court (usually federal district court) Intermediate court (federal circuit court of appeals Highest court- US Supreme Court.

Civil Procedure

Most juvenile matters (except for delinquency cases that are transferred to adult court) are in civil courts rather than criminal courts. 1. Civil procedure has one major difference: the standard of proof is usually the preponderance of evidence. Captures the rules that structure how one party asserts her/his legal interest against another party 1. government can be a party. 2. litigation is a formal mechanism for asserting claims and resolving disputes. 3. It is an adversarial process in the U.S. BUT - most disputes are settled before going to court. - The filing of the lawsuit may encourage informal resolutions. Historically juvenile matters have been handled with more informality even in court. -Some of the adversarial edge has been de-emphasized. -often this is done (or claimed to be done) to protect the child.

Causes of Action (Civil Suit)

Plaintiff must 1. Initiate the civil law suit and carry the burden of proof (usually preponderance of evidence standard). 2. State a cause of action that the law recognizes (e.g. a violation of due process) 3. Allege a factual basis to support the legal claim or the suit will be dismissed. Disputes over the facts are decided by the trier of fact at trial. Disputes over which law should apply are determined by the judge. Plantiff's claims and requests for remedy may be found in various areas of civil law: family law tort law contract law property law constitutional law Several ways in which plaintiffs can raise causes of actions for violation of their rights. 1. habeus corpus violation of cons. rights.

Free Speech

Preferred position of free speech limits power of government to regulate speech. -free speech protections cover state as well as federal government. -No prior restraints except for commercial speech (advertising) and obscene speech. No regulation of speech because of content- government must remain neutral about content. -Symbolic speech- conveying messages through actions rather than pure speech (e.g. picketing, burning flag, armbands) 1. Can regulate actions but not because of message or content. 2. Political speech especially given leeway. Public forums (street corners, parks, city hall steps) cannot be closed entirely to speech. If a forum is opened to one it has to be open to all. Government can regulate time, place, manner of speech but 1. Must show compelling reason. 2. And no less restrictive way of achieving that goal. Even then regulation must not be 1. Overly broad to "chill" speech 2. Or so vague that people do not know how to comply.

Parham v JR

Pro-family. To admit a child to the mental hospital, parent and doctor need approval, no hearing is needed. Periodic reviews during initial stay needed to see if further treatment necessary. Due process clause of the 14th amendment compromised. Fundamental fairness applied to juvenile cases. 1979 and commitment to mental health. Terms of art: Parens patriae: parent of the country: a doctrine whereby state oversees the welfare of youth- dates back a long time in the common law. In loco parentis: in place of the parent: so for children who are wards o the state the government assumes parental rights, duties, and responsibilities for them. 3 factors to determine what due process requires: 1. The private interest that will be affected by the state action. 2. The risk of an erroneous deprivation of any constitutionally protected interest and the value of additional or different procedural safeguards and 3. the state's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burden that different procedural requirements would entail. Children have a important liberty interest; the risk of error is small and other procedures would not make much difference; the state has important administrative/efficiency interests. Process that is due is a review by a neutral fact-finder, which can be served by the existing review of medical experts in the hospitals; it need not involve an adversarial hearing by courts.

Vernonia V. Acton 1995

Random drug tests of athletes ok using careful procedures bc drug use was especially dangerous for athletes and because problem with athletes had been established. Extra risks for those students health. i.e. taking drugs and then exerting health on field major health problems could arise. Parents agreed with policy so school enacted random drug testing of athletes. Procedures in place at school district to draw names at random. urine sample collected by same sex monitor. steps taken to monitor temperature and ensure no tampering. specimens were sent to lab for confirmation. positives were always given a second test to ensure first test was not faulty. If positive students could withdraw from athletics or take drug counseling. No information was given to law. Parents of a positive drug tester appealed the practice to S.C. S.C. said that privacy is fine since they are already used to getting undressed by someone and urine v blood is not privacy. This was a reasonable search and seizure under 4th amendment. Oconnor dissented since we should not get rid of individualized suspicion.

Bd of Education Ind. School District of Pottawatomie v. Earls 2002

S.C. ruling Random drug tests for all extra-curricular activities is ok even without finding a problem for all and even if there are no special dangers for some (e.g. chess club). There was no evidence of major drug problems- so this was preventative only not to help with suspected problem. There was true randomization and privacy in policy. Was not shared with law enforcement or prosecutors. Only people with access to results were need to know. S.C. applied vernonia balancing looking at school needs and intrusions. majority said that you don't have to wait for there to be a problem, you could prevent a problem and randomize drug tests for all extracurricular activities. Ginsberg dissents b/c risks are present for all children doesn't mean blanket need for all children.

Funding inequality in public education

San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez 1973 -Difference by class/sex were not invidious; class is not a suspect classification. - Interest in public education is not the kind of fundamental right that gives rise to strict scrutiny. -Therefore, rational basis review and differential funding of Texas public schools was upheld.

Student newspaper and Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier 1988

School authorities wanted to see newspaper prior to publishing. There were two articles, pregnancy of students and parenting of divorced students, and school wanted to censor these articles. Students said that the censorship of speech violated their first amendment. newspaper was part of a course/credit rather than an independent newspaper. because of this school interest becomes important as to what is and is not appropriate. The school could censor paper b/c it was part of curriculum. Class had to teach what was and was not good reporting.

TLO v NJ 1985

Special needs exception. Student suspected of smoking in bathroom and identified student and went to school authorities. Student confronted woman and searched purse, found cigarettes, which was against school rules. Teacher decided to continue searching and found rolling papers, names, etc. so did full blown search. Evidence was used to convict student of delinquency in court. Student fought case as evidence collected went against 4th amendment rights. Court ordered that there were constitutional rights that you don't abandon when you walk in a building but are the rights as extensive?Recognized school challenge to maintain safety. S.C. ruled that there are special needs for school and that this search and seizure was to maintain discipline of school and those special needs allow us to relax 4th amendment rights in school. No probable cause needed to search. Individualized suspicion is enough since this is a special needs context and not law enforcement context.

Marbury v Madison

The 1803 case in which Chief Justice John Marshall and his associates first asserted the right of the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The decision established the Court's power of JUDICIAL REVIEW over acts of Congress, (the Judiciary Act of 1789). Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison: Courts as arbiters of what the law says. S. Court has power to declare acts of congress unconstitutional. Extended to review of executive branch actions and state government actions. Court opinions as important sources of law even for juvenile matters- 1. Casebook approach to learning about juvenile law. 2. Use the marbury case to learn about briefing court opinions.

Powell v Alabama

The Supreme Court ruled here that the right to counsel was required by law in death penalty trials. Totality of circumstances and procedural problems made the trial fundamentally unfair: they violated the "fundamental principles of liberty and justice that lie at the base of all our political and civil institutions" Although issues surrounding representation were important, note the holding did not incorporate the right to counsel to the states.

Craig v Boren

The Supreme Court ruling that established the "medium scrutiny" standard for determining gender discrimination.

Civil Remedies

The initial cause of action must request a remedy. Remedies for the original case are different from those requested if the case is appealed. In civil jurisdiction, punishment is not he primary sanction (although there may be punitive santions as a secondary remedy) that is requested when the original case is filed. The plaintiff must propose a remedy that the court can give if the course of action is proven (eg money damages for restitution, injunction, or restraining order, declaration of law) If plaintiff prevails at trial, the court will determine the remedy. 1. Sometimes this includes jury decisions (e.g. the amount of damages the plaintiff suffered) 2. Other times it involves judicial decisions (an injunction).

San Antonio v Rodr

The lawsuit was brought by members of the Edgewood Concerned Parent Association representing their children and similarly situated students. The suit was filed on June 30, 1968 in the District Court for the Western District of Texas. In the initial complaint, the parents sued San Antonio ISD, Alamo Heights ISD, and five other school districts; the Bexar County School Trustees; and the State of Texas. They contended that the "Texas method of school financing violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution." The lawsuit alleged that education was a fundamental right and that wealth-based discrimination in the provision of education (such as a fundamental right), created in the poor, or those of lesser wealth, a constitutionally suspect class, who were to be protected from the discrimination. Did Texas' public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts? 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."

Ferguson v City of Charleston 2001

The limits of the special needs doctrine. Crack epidemic scare city of Charleston had a lot of low income pregnant woman abusing drugs. During prenatal appointments doctors would seize blood to do drug tests. Program set up in conjunction with prosecutor and law enforcement so that prosecution and arrest could be made of these women. Medical team teamed up with law enforcement and prosecution to have a traditional law enforcement. Drug testing was seized without consent to drug testing. Court said tie b/w doctor and leo that we cannot call this a special needs case and more like traditional law enforcement so traditional standard of warrants and probable cause need to apply.

Santosky v Kramer

The preponderance of the evidence standard violates due process in parental rights termination proceedi/ngs. Policy: The private interests of the parents in the custody of their children is significant, the risk of error from using the lower preponderance standard is substantial, and the countervailing governmental interest favoring the preponderance standard is slight. As such, a stricter standard or proof is consistent with the state's interest in child welfare and fiscal burdens.** Before states can sever permanently and irrevocably the rights of parents and their natural child, due process requires that the state support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. -Even though termination occurs in civil court where the preponderance of evidence standard is customary, the weighing of parental interest, the chance of error, and the interest of the state dictates this higher level of proof.

The Wall of Separation

The wall of separation (non-establishment) Government cannot support religion over on-religion or one religion over another. -Historically that wall of separation was maintained by looking at the extend of entanglements bw government and the religious activity- too many entanglements would violate the 1st amendment. -Rosenberger v. UVA 1995- key is an open forum- if one group is given support or a forum then all groups can use it, religious or not. Student funding cannot be given to religious groups. Went to S.C. Engel v. Vitale 1962- non denominational prayer- parents fought for separation of church and state- 1st amendment. NY court stated it was ok so long as participation was not mandatory. SC disagreed and said that the prayer was composed by government programs and disadvantaged those who were not religious. Wall of separation is not there and is unconstitutional. Abbington school district v Schempp 1963- Unitarian family. Schools required bible reading or lords prayers. lower courts struck it down as violation, intermediate court ok, supreme court stated it was a violation of the non-establishment clause. Majoritarian rights do not count more than bill of rights that protect all of us against tyranny of majority. To organize and require was violation of on-establishment clause of first amendment. Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe 2000- Prayer before football game in Texas. non denominational prayer so school argued that this was secular. S.C. rejected this and said it was on secular and had been tradition. Because students had the right to attend and was open forum the students with other beliefs could not speak their belief or saying their prayers. Since some students were required to go there was an non-establishment clause.

Brown v Board

Topeka board of education denied Linda Brown admittance to an all white school close to her house. Thurgood Marshall argued that a separate but equal violated equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Warren decided separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. Separate but equal public schools for blacks and whites are inherently unequal. -De jure vs de facto segregation - eventually court decided it could not remedy school desegregation by busing out of school district- will not reach de facto segregation due to social problems. Race is a suspect classification Strict Scrutiny review of de jure segregation of public schools by race. "white flight" Supreme court reivewed

Religion and public schools

Two religion clauses in first amendment: 1. free exercise 2. non-establishment and the wall of separation. First amendment extends to states. Tension between the two clauses- at what point does facilitating free exercise create an establishment and when does the wall of separation make it more difficult to freely exercise religion?

14th Amendment

Under federalism, 14th amendment clauses become foundational fur juvenile law. 14th amendment due process clause- nor shall any state deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 14th amendment equal protection clause- no state shall deny someone equal protection of th laws.

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

Vietnam war protest. Group of students insisted on protesting by wearing black arm bands to school. District policy against black arm bands and students faced disciplinary action if they did not remove. Case went to S.C. S.C. said students have free speech at school but in order to whether or how it can be regulated you need to look at the school context to see how it plays out. In this interest the schools issue was maintaining order and that the black arm bands could cause people to react negatively since other people supported the war. How do you balance this? Court stated that the armbands were all message and no action. This is a quiet protest and symbol that they are wearing. Govt cannot stifle political views. In this instance, free speech interest outweigh concern with disciplinary interest.

Mincey V Arizona 1978 Part 1

Warrantless search of crime scene after an officer was killed yielded evidence to convict Mincey. Court upheld traditional standard of needing warrants issued by neutral magistrate based on probably cause to conduct the search. Independent force searched for four days without a warrant. Because it violated the warrant preference and was unconstitutional State of Arizona gave up on murder conviction and tried to do drugs conviction instead.

Procedural Due Process Concerns

When people are dealing with government, are the procedures being used fair? The focus is on the secondary or procedural rules. Does someone have the right to notice and hearings when government makes decisions that affect them?

Rational basis review

all other claims of differential treatment are given rational basis review. The state only has to show that it has a legitimate interest or goal and that the differential treatment is rationally related to that goal so state usually prevails. 1. This can usually be done for differential treatment from juveniles to adults. 2. or even 21 year old drinking age laws where different levels of adults are treated differently.

Habeas Corpus

an old common law writ that can be filed to get a court to review the legality of someones detention. It is constitutionally protected. But congress can put some restrictions on it (e.g. exhaust other remedies before filing it). Detained juveniles can use it (e.g. if their detention or commitment violated due process)

Strict Scrutiny

applies on 2 different grounds: 1. suspect or invidious classifications (race, religion, ethnicity). 2. Constitutional interests that are basic and fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty (e.g. voting). 5Hard for government to prevail and justify the differential treatment. 1. Must show a compelling government interest AND 2. Must show that this is the best way to achieve that goal- if there is a less burdensome way that protects against differential treatment, the alternative has to be used.

3 levels of scrutiny

basics of equal protection law 3 levels of scrutiny or review when differential treatment is claimed. 1. strict scrutiny 2. intermediate or rational basis plus 3. rational basis

Civil Rights Actions under section 1983

congress passed a civil rights law during reconstruction Citizens can file a civil rights action if they can allege that someone acting "under color of state law" has deprived them of one of their rights. 1. Usually a constitutional right but may be some statutory rights that are also protected. 2. The deprivation has to result of intentional behavior- negligence will not support a civil right claim. States themselves are immune from law suit. Persons acting under color of state law have several defenses:' 1. Deny that they did it or that they intentionally did it. 2. Assert qualified immunity by showing that they were acting in good faith. (eg police officers who may have unintentionally violated someone's right against self incrimination) 3. Assert absolute immunity in some situations (eg judge or prosecutor for actions taken during a trial). Companion section 1988 allows the plaintiff to collect attorney's fees from the government if the plaintiff wins on any important issue. Remedies can be: 1. Compensatory (and punitive) damages 2. Injunctions 3. Declaratory judgments Bivens case created a cause of action for civil rights violations against those operating under federal law.

Bivens

constitutional tort actions A civil suit, based on the case Bivens v Six Unknown Federal Agents, brought against federal government officials for denying the constitutional rights to others. lawsuits against individual federal law enforcement officers.

Due Process Protection

no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Note how ambiguous the clauses are. Note that constitutional rights involve our relationship to government and its actions- not to private actions. Court interpretations define due process through judicial review. Juveniles are persons, but do they have the same level of protection as adults?

Breed v Jones 1975

prosecution of a juvenile as an adult in California, after an adjudicatory finding in Juvenile Court that he had violate a criminal statue and a subsequent finding that he was unfit for treatment as a juvenile violated the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment, as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment.

Intermediate Scrutiny

us supreme court has used this for sex discrimination after it refused to classify treatment by sex/gender as suspect. See Craig V. Boren where different beer laws for males and females were struck down bc there wasn't a substantial enough relationship between the sex difference and the important state interest in safety. In craig, the statistical correlation in alcohol-related safety problems for males was not enough. Some have interpreted an earlier case prohibiting state laws that treated illegitimate children differently from legitimate ones in inheritance as another example of intermediate scrutiny. Lower courts have applied intermediate scrutiny to other issues- including juvenile cases involving what would be fundamental interests for adults. (See D.C. v Hutchins 1999 curfew case).

Selective incorporation

using the 14th amendment due process clause to force compliance from states with basic constitutional rights established in the bill of rights. - recall that the bill of rights was enacted primarily to protect citizens from FEDERAL government interference.