14th Amendment

McDonald v. City of Chicago

(NRA v Chicago) 2nd Amendment right to individual gun ownership is incorporated against the states by the DP clause of the 14th Amendment; self-defense is a basic right and deeply rooted in nation's history and traditions

San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez

-Texas public elementary and secondary schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental revenue. The School District challenged this funding scheme by arguing that it underprivileged such students because their schools lacked the vast property tax base that other districts utilized. If you live in an area with high property taxes, it's a wealthy area and therefore, schools and education will be nicer. ● Rule: Public education is not a fundamental right granted to individuals by the Constitution. Education, though an important governmental objective (see Brown), is not a fundamental right ● Rule: Equal protection does not require absolute equality

Martinez v. Regents of University of California

1. Denied certiorari by SCOTUS 2. Issue: Whether illegal aliens can get resident college tuition or not if they graduated from a CA high school and had applied for legal status. a. A federal statute said you cannot give a postsecondary education benefit to an illegal alien unless the same benefit is available to a U.S. citizen that is not a state resident. 3. California Court said the P+I clause has rarely been used to strike down a state statute.

Griswold v. CT

1. Facts: couple operated a planned parenthood center for 10 days and prosecuted for providing contraceptives to married women. Statute prohibited use of contraceptives or advising to use contraceptives. 2. Held: law violated the fundamental right to privacy. 3. Reasoning: Douglas: Right to privacy is found in the penumbra of the bill of rights.

Shelley v. Kraemer

14th Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing a restrictive racial covenant. i. Court said it wasn't prohibiting racial covenants, just the State's ability to enforce it. ii. Government can reach private actions in a roundabout way

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

A state abortion regulation places an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion and is invalid if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.'' Still a right to abortion Trimester is gone Undue burden possible Probhiting abortions at 20 weeks Admitting privileges Abortion clinics standards for surgical facilities Grand theology of stare decisis

Roe v. Wade

Abortions are protected under the 14th Amendment substantive DP privacy right; right to privacy is extended to decisions about personal autonomy, and decision to have an abortion. However, right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against other considerations, such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life"; strict scrutiny would be used in striking the balance because right to abortion a fundamental right. The 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that a state ban on all abortions was unconstitutional. The decision forbade state control over abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, permitted states to limit abortions to protect the mother's health in the second trimester, and permitted states to protect the fetus during the third trimester.

U.S. v Carolene Products

Case dealt with the federal law that prohibited filled milk be distriibuted through interstate commerce. Defendent ruled this was violating the Commerce Clause and due process grounds. Footnote 4: Applied minimal scrutiny to the economic regulation in this case, but proposed a new level of review for certain other types of cases. ▪ "rational basis" standard introduced - continues to govern economic DP challenges. Uphold econ laws as long as supported by a 'conceivable rat basis' even if can't prove actual leg intent. ▪ Stone's 'footnote 4' - strict scrutiny - where law is in violation of constitutional prohibition (BoR), restricts 'political processes which would normally bring about repeal of undesirable leg', or particular racial, religious groups or "discrete & insular minorities" who might not be protected by normal pol processes.

Plyler v Doe

Case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to illegal immigrant children and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each illegal immigrant student to compensate for the lost state funding

Cruzan v Director MO Dept. of Health

Competent adults have a right to refuse treatment under the liberty of the due process clause, but liberty must be balanced with the state's interest in safeguarding action of the surrogate to withdraw life support and preserving life ▪ Right to die is recognized, but no level of scrutiny nor use of label as "fundamental right" mentioned ▪ State may prevent someone other than the individual from making the decision to end life, and can safeguard the personal elements of this choice by requiring heightened evidence of person's desire to terminate treatment (they can insist on requiring a higher standard of proof showing that the patient wanted to refuse treatment). 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.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Court extended the right to privacy to unmarried persons as well as to married persons -- struck down a state law giving away of anti-contraceptive devices to unmarried persons saying that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.

Court gives crazy deference to Oklahoma legislature in allowing them to prevent opticians from supplying new lenses without a prescription while at the same time exempting sellers of ready-to-wear glasses. Legislature is free to tackle a problem one step at a time without violating the EPC. Deferential Review. RULE: Economic regulations will be upheld when challenged under the due process clause so long as they are rationally related to serve a legitimate government purpose. Rule: Any conceivable purpose is sufficient. The law only need seem to be a reasonable way of attaining the end; it does not have to be narrowly tailored to achieving the goal

Moore v East Cleveland

Court held that a zoning ordinance limiting occupancy of single-family dwellings to the nuclear family was unconstitutional because it violates the right to live with family, which requires a heightened scrutiny, not strict scrutiny. Court said the state did not meet this burden and cannot decide that anything but a nuclear family is not a family. This case is distinguishable from Village of Belle Terre because that provision said "related" people and this provision excluded extended family and the person in violation of the law here was a grandson. Rule: Laws cannot forbid relatives outside of nuclear family from living together. The Court has recognized a right to keep the family together that includes the extended family.

- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n (2001)

Entwinement between state actor and private group - Association for high school interscholastic athletics. There was formal recognition by the state and the state board education board appointed non-voting members to the Associations committees. And most of public schools performed functions alongside Association

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company

Finding that private company subject to extensive state regulation because it held a certificate public convenience from the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PPUC) is not acting on behalf of the state (limits to public functions exception); mere fact that business is subject to state regulation is not by itself state action for the purposes of 14th Amendment. Rule: A private company that does not have specific authorization by the state to act, is not acting on behalf of the state o Dissent: The state's involvement with the utility company was sufficient enough to satisfy state action

Barron v Baltimore

Holding: Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government, not the states. Facts: Wharf owner sued city because construction debris made his wharf unusable by ships. Claimed right to compensation under 5th Amendment. Reasoning: 1. If founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, they would have written it to match the other clauses that did apply to the states. 2. Bill of Rights was supposed to protect people from the Federal government, not the states.

Dredd Scott v. Sanford

Issue: did P gain citizenship and freedom by being in a free state? ii. Taney suggested that blacks have no rights as human beings. iii. Free blacks could not be citizens iv. Naturalization laws did not apply to blacks either. v. Overturned the Missouri compromise

Lochner v. NY

New York law prohibited employees of bakeries from working more than 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. NY treated it as a police power to control work conditions, and protect consumers and workers from bad health and sickness. Bakery owner, challenged the law Rule: The 14th Amendment implies a liberty to contract. A state can impinge on a right to contract only if the end is legitimate, and the means to the end is reasonable.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Oregon had passed a compulsory public school education act requiring children between the ages of 8 and 16 to attend public schools. P sued the state.

West Coast Hotel v Parrish

Overruling Lochner Era Regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process (Court upheld a state law that required a minimum wage employees → expressly overruled Adkins) ▪ Hughes: " What is this freedom of contract? The Constitution does not speak of freedom to contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law" ▪ Rule: Government can now regulate to equalize bargaining power o Court unequivocally declared that it no longer would protect freedom of contract as a fundamental right, that government could regulate to serve any legitimate purpose (not just health, safety, morals), and the judiciary would defer to the legislature's choices so long as they are reasonable

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

P was born to Chinese parents, both of whom could not become citizens. ii. Child had left the U.S. temporarily and returned and was denied entry because wasn't a citizen. iii. SCOTUS held that ∆ had acquired citizenship at birth by the 14th Amendment. iv. Policy: SCOTUS had to uphold process because to do otherwise would have taken away citizenship from people of European descent as well. v. Dissent: seemed to exclude those born to aliens saying they could not become citizens themselves. (some argue they meant only diplomats.)

Slaughterhouse Cases

P's brought suit challenging state grant of monopoly, claiming their rights violated to practice free trade as guaranteed by the P&I (as well as EP and DP). Holding → BIG RULE: P or I was not meant to protect individuals from state government actions and not meant to be a basis for federal courts to invalidate state laws. Purpose of the 14th Amendment was solely to protect former slaves.

Lawrence v. Texas

Policemen, entering a private home to follow through with a weapon tip, discovered two men engaging in consensual sex. According to the Homosexual Conduct law, the two men were placed under arrest for engaging in homosexual relations. Result: The Texas law violates both of the men's 14th A. rights to engage in private conduct without intervention from the government. - violates the 14th and 4th A. - no legit state interest. Holding: adults engaged in private and consensual conduct are protected under the due process clause and the right of privacy enshrined in the liberty interest of the clause. (not limited to somody)

Brown v. Board of Education

RULE: Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Majority emphasizes that the schools involved are tangibly equal to make it clear that they were overruling separate but equal. o Intent of 14th inconclusive (diff opinions + no public schools back then), so must consider public education in light of its full development and American life today ▪ Education of paramount importance today Segregation itself, even if 'equal' deprives kids of equal educational opportunities

Washington v Glucksberg

Rejecting the claim that the law prohibiting assisted suicide violated a fundamental right protected under the due process clause. Right is not fundamental, and state regulation need only show a rational relation to legitimate government interests

Loving v Virginia

Restricting the freedom to marry solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. 14th amendment equal protection clause allows "freedom to marry" ends 17 state racial restrictions; U.S. supreme court declares "the freedom to marry... one of the basic civil rights of man" Rule: right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the DP Clause, but this is grounded in Equal Protection.

Bolling v. Sharpe

Reverse incorporated the 5th Amendment's equal protection clause. Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington D.C. denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. Noting the legal peculiarities of the District of Columbia, Chief Justice Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District) did not contain an equal protection clause while the Fourteenth Amendment (which was used as the standard for outlawing school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education) did. Lacking an equal protection standard to invalidate the District's segregation, Warren creatively relied on the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" to find the segregation of the Washington D.C. schools unconstitutional.

Plessy v Ferguson

Rule (overturned by Brown): A law, which authorizes or requires the separation of the two races on public conveyances, is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution unless the law is unreasonable Nature of 14th wasn't to 'abolish distinctions' or enforce 'social equality'. Laws requiring separation don't necessarily imply inferiority of either race/ w.i. police powers (badge of inferiority); commingling should be a result of natural affinities and voluntary consent of individuals. Legislatures have discretion as long as law is 'reasonable'

Saenz v. Roe

SC used P&I of the 14th Amendment for the first time to invalidate state law. CA limited welfare benefits for new residents in the states to the level of the state they moved from. Right to travel is fundamental, and aspect of this right includes equal treatment as in-state residents ➢ Three components of right to travel under Constitution ▪ Transit: Citizen of one state to enter/leave another state (see Edwards v. California) ▪ Welcome visitor: Right to be treated as welcome visitor while temporarily visiting another state (Art IV, §2) ▪ Permanent Residence: Right to become perm resident of another state and be treated like other citizens of such state (14th - "...and of the state wherein they reside" & P&I) (this case)

Corfield v. Coryell

Seminal Article IV, § 2 case 2. Upheld a NJ law to allow NJ citizens to exclusively gather clams and oysters. 3. Gather oysters in Jersey is a state right, not a fundamental national interest worthy of privileges and immunities.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972)

State liquor licensing to a club that discriminated a black guest held not to be a state action. Rule: to find unconstitutional state action where the impetus for the discrimination is private (private club), the State must have significantly involved itself with invidious discriminations → symbiotic relationship

Doe v. Bolton

Stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health, striking down Georgia restrictions of physician approvals and residency requirements Same day as roe, Georgia law allowed abortion only in the case of the mother's life at danger. Thus case overturned the abortion law in Georgia. Health of the mother in jeopardy included all aspects of health now. Health is "all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the well-being of the patient."

United States v. Stanley (The Civil Rights Cases - 1883)

The constitution's protections on individual liberties and its requirement for equal protection apply only to the government. Private conduct generally does not have to comply with the constitution. RULE: Private conduct does not have to comply with the 14th amendment

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

There is significant state involvement to permit an action under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution when a state is so interdependent with a private enterprise, that the enterprise cannot be considered purely "private" o State leases public property to a private actor who then discriminates against nonwhites; state inaction to prohibit discrimination from a mutually benefiting private partner is state action (Symbiotic Relationship) (Entanglement)

Meyer v. Nebraska

This state, in consequence of WWI and the many people of German origin there, passed a law banning the teaching of any language in the elementary schools other than English, and English was to be the language of instruction for all subjects. The Court struck down the statute as taking away liberty without due process, the liberty of parents to send their children to the school of their choice (since all schools were forced to ban teaching languages). The Court also thought it took away the property of teachers who would be without jobs.

Romer v. Evans

Voided a state constitutional amendment that denied homosexuals protection against discrimination

Bowers v. Hardwick

decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adult when applied to homosexuals. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional.

Troxel v Granville

grandparents rights v. parental rights / grandparents wanted the rights over the child because they don't think the child's parents were doing a good job / court says the parents (biological and legal) have rights over the grandparents. Constitutional right to rear children without state interference. O'Connor - substantive D.P. violated when state court grants grandparents visitation w/ kids over fit mother's objection; right to parent. Stevens dissent - should consider child as well

Brown II

▫ Required local solutions & this the job for local school board, supervised by D.Cts. - "All deliberate speed"