§5 of the 14th Amendment - Case Take Aways

Question 1

United States v. Morrison

Answer 1

United States v. Morrison - Virginia Tech Rape Case

• Congress does not have authority to enact 42 U.S.C § 13981 based on § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause
• Legislation was not aimed at proscribing discrimination by officials and was directed at individuals who have committed individual acts (i.e., State Action Doctrine: Congress can only regulate acts done by states, not to acts done by private individuals)

Question 2

Katzenback v. Morgan & Morgan

Answer 2

Katzenback v. Morgan & Morgan - Voting Rights Act of 1965 & English Literacy Requirement

Court adopts the broad view that §5 is a positive grant of legislative power and legislation is not subject to heightened scrutiny

• The Act is an appropriate measure (plainly adapted to further aims of the equal protection clause) to prevent the denial voting rights to large portions of the Puerto Rican population and deference was given to Congress to consider the literacy test as discriminatory

Court relies on the reasoning in McCulloch (Declaring protection to Congress’s enumerated powers) to provide protection to Congress’s §5 powers

Question 3

City of Boerne v. Flores

Answer 3

City of Boerne v. Flores - Church expansion blocked by ordinance preserving historical district

Supreme Court back pedals to the narrow view allowing only remedial measures to pass muster where there is congruence and proportionality between the means used and the ends to be achieved. (Must be corrective, remedial, or preventative, but not definitional)

Effect: RFRA cannot survive as a remedial measure

• It attempts a substantive change in constitutional protections (by requiring strict scrutiny for RFRA) and it is not plainly adapted to the wrong it seeks to protect