Basic Structure of Individual Liberties Flashcards
Slaughter-House Case (1872, LA)
Lousiana Butchers. Decided that the 14th Am. should be construed narrowly and precluded its use as a vehicle to INCORPORATE the Bill of Rights as a State requirement. 4 years post 1868 ratification
Brown v. Board of Education (1953, AL)
Infamous case determining that the federal rules should be applied to the States and their function, b/c if rights aren’t guaranteed by the GOV as a whole, are they guaranteed at all. Overruled “separate but equal”.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961, OH)
Decided that the court should enforce express constitutional limits against the police. Changed EVERYTHING to the Selective Incorporation Approach: Not case by case, but right by right. Once a decision is made, past present and future decisions are included in the right as well, and must be respected by the states.
Hurtado v. California (1884, CA)
First Incorporation case. Grand Jury is not a fundamental right, so does not have to be guaranteed by the States.
Chicago, Burlington, Quincy RR Co. v. City of Chicago (1897, IL)
5th Am. Takings clause. DPC case prohibiting States from taking property without “just compensation”. Not incorporation, but “due process of law” for deprivation.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833, MA)
The Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Gov. and not State Gov. The Constitution was created by the people for themselves, not for State governments; that’s why they have Constitutions too.
Twining v. New Jersey (1908, NJ)
Based around 5th Am. Right against self-incrimination is FED ONLY. Not full incorporation yet, but “incorporate the Bill of Rights that are within the Due Process of Law” of the 14th Am. The question: is it fundamental and does it pertain to process? Later REVERSED
Malloy v. Hogan (1965)
Solved the Twining problem, saying that the right against self-incrimination is a right incorporated by the 14th Am.
Gitlow v. New York (1925, NY)
First TRUE INCORPORATION CASE. Based on 1st Am. Freedom of Speech, court decided it was a substantive right “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, deeply rooted in the conscience of the American People”. 14th Am. : “LIBERTY” encompasses substantive rights while “Due Process” encompasses procedural rights.
Powell v. Alabama (1932, AL)
Scottsboro Boys rape case. The Right to legal counsel is a fundamental process based right. Mixed the boundary b/w “liberty” and “due process” under the 14th Am.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819, MA)
C.J. Marshall said he has no advantage over any other human in interpreting the Constitution. You don’t have to be sure, reasonable persons disagree. Understand the title, the front of the box, and take its ingredients.
Saenz v. Roe (1999)
SCOTUS used the Privileges and Immunities clause to invalidate a state law for the first time. The right to travel under the 14th is protected, states cannot besmirch that.
Fiske v. Kansas (1927)
First time Court found that a state law regulating speech violated the DPC.
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Court took the SUPER selective approach (fundamentalist, Case by Case), and said the state did not have to incorporate the 5th Am. double jeopardy clause.
Adamson v. California (1947)
The 14th Am. DPC does NOT include the right against self incrimination because it is not fundamental (Super Selective approach). About the State’s “right” to comment on a D’s failure to testify. OVERRULED later.
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Held the 6th Am. right to trial by a jury of your peers applies to the States thru incorporation. “Those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions”.
Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
State police officers must respect a citizen’s 4th Am. rights, with the remedy being the EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE Rule for the Federal Gov. but not the states.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Concerned the 6th Am. right to counsel and its incorporation.
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
Concerned the 6th Am. Right to a speedy trial and its incorporation.
In re Oliver (1948)
Incorporated (under super selective) the 6th Am. right to a public trial.
Pointer v. Texas (1965)
Incorporated the 6th Am. right to confront opposing witnesses
Washington v. Texas (1967)
Incorporation of the 6th Am. Right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Does the 2nd Am. apply to state and local governments as a fundamental right? Court held yes (close) and used DPC incorporation. Justice Thomas and his wacky P and I clause interpretation.
Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)
Federal Constitutional Rights are binding on the states; trial by jury means a jury must come to a unanimous conclusion of proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
The 14th Am. DPC incorporates to the states those Constitutional protections fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty deeply rooted in American history and tradition.
U.S. v. Stanley (1883)
State Action doctrine. Hotel and Theaters denying African American patronage. Court held that Congress lacks the power under the 14th Am. to legislate the behavior of private parties. Find another way.
Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
State action doctrine. Company town case. PUBLIC FUNCTION EXCEPTION. Act like the Gov. be regulated like the Gov.
Evans v. Newton (1966)
Municipal norms like parks are a public function -> acting like the Gov. -> treated like the Gov. and regulated by the Constitution.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)
State Action doctrine. Symbiotic/entanglement. The EPC applies to private parties working with the Gov. or with their omissive approval to discriminate. Public property leased to private entity effectuating discrimination contrary to EPC. Joint participation in racial exclusion.
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974)
State Action doctrine. Public Function exception. “is it traditionally (ALMOST added later) exclusively reserved to the state?” Not every state regulated action can be considered a public service worthy of Constitutional regulation. Must be a sufficient Nexus.
Terry v. Adams (1953)
State Action doctrine. Public Function exception. Elections are public functions Gov’d by the 15th Am.
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972)
State Action doctrine. Public Function exception. Shopping mall denying 1st Am. right to people protesting Vietnam War. Court said that the Mall could prohibit protesters. Dissent said that it was similar to Marsh (Co. Town) and Logan where the mall had become a central public focus.
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
State Action doctrine. Entanglement exception. Racially motivated covenant has to be enforced with the courts, therefore State Action required and entangled. Key that racists brought the suit, requesting State Action to enforce unconstitutionality.
Lugar v. Edmonson Oil (1982)
State Action doctrine. Entanglement exception. Truck stop owner has property frozen by court ex parte. Supplier used State law to take his property, state helped, entanglement.
Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972)
State Action doctrine. Entanglement exception. Frat given liquor license by the state, but offers no public function, not in a public place, and on private land. State did not benefit, private discrimination, and not governed by the Constitution.
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Equal Protection clause. Companion case to Brown v. Board. EPC is implicit Right, limiting the Fed. Segregation of public schools is a deprivation of Liberty. Same as the States.
Strict Scrutiny
Necessary… Compelling. Race, Ethnicity, Religion, Political Stance, Alienage. Did not choose, cannot change, history of discrimination, and inability to politically protect oneself.
Intermediate Scrutiny
Substantially related… Important. Gender, legitimacy.
Rational Basis Review
Rationally related… legitimate. Law is upheld if it is possible to conceive any legitimate purpose for the law, even if it was not the intended purpose.
Underinclusive law
Line is thin between people with the same nature/circumstance
Overinclusive Law
Applies to those who need not be included in effectuating a Gov. purpose.
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Equal Protection clause. Underinclusive internment of Japanese when Wops and Nazis were in the U.S. as well. Overinclusive b/c not every Japanese person interned was a threat.
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
EPC. Fundamental right of procreation infringed on by law attempting to sterilize felons of moral turpitude.
New Orleans v. Dukes (1976)
EPC. RBR. Junior street vendors denied access to popular tourist area. The line drawn is not the best, but there is a legitimate Gov. interest in doing so.
Romer v. Evans (1996)
EPC. RBR. Famous failure of the Gov. to meet RBR. Made it so that homosexuals cannot be protected under State law unless they amend the CO State constitution. Removed gays from the political process, almost implicating Strict Scrutiny. “Any conceivable legitimate purpose” standard for deference.
Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949)
EPC. RBR. Forbode advertisements on vehicles. One step at a time argument for underinclusiveness.
NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)
EPC. RBR. Transit authority will not hire methadone users. Want for individualized scrutiny, but RBR takes it. Not the best line, but rationally drawn for a legitimate interest.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973)
EPC. RBR. Landmark denial of Gov. “legitimate” interest. Food Stamp Act availability should not be based on households with unrelated persons living there. Anti-Hippie but overinclusive, could have been done in any other way.
Cleburne v. Cleburne (1985)
EPC. RBR. Does not add special needs to “highly suspect” Strict Scrutiny list. Court still strikes it down under RBR because there is no rational relation to a legit Gov. interest. Underinclusive.
U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)
EPC. RBR. Application of a heightened RBR may be required where the legislature has prejudice against a discrete and insular minority.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
EPC. Wrongly decided case where slaves were not decided to be “persons” even though previous legislation like 3/5ths referred to them as such. “must be a citizen before diversity of citizenship”. Overruled by 14th Am. born in the U.S. citizenship.
Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)
EPC. Early case for Federal power under the Constitution. No force or violence in returning “persons” to slavery. Struck down later.
State v. Post (1845)
EPC. Decided a State constitution did not abolish slavery, and master’s right to property is not affected by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Later overturned.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
EPC. Strict Scrutiny. Law banning interracial marriage is necessarily a race based classification, and the Gov. has no compelling interest.
Pace v. Alabama (1882)
EPC. State upheld harsher penalties for interracial adultery/fornication. Court said “black and white are being punished equally”.
McLaughlin v. Florida (1964)
EPC. The Court strikes down law prohibiting interracial couples living together.
Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)
EPC. Court stated it is unconstitutional to deny custody based on white woman’s subsequent remarriage to someone who isn’t white. “society will be mean to the child”. Ratifying social prejudice.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
EPC. SCOTUS upholds “separate but equal” which will last for half a century. Justice Harlan dissent says Constitution is color blind.
Missouri ex rel. Gaines (1938)
EPC. Court says that STATES must provide equal education opportunities to all, Missouri must provide equal law school education.
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
EPC. Tangible and Intangible factors are considered for separate but equal education. Forced UT to admit blacks.
Johnson v. California (2005)
EPC. Reaffirmed Strict Scrutiny for racial classifications. Segregated prisoners briefly based on race, unconstitutional.
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)
Affirmative Action. Said Federal racial classifications don’t get Strict Scrutiny b/c they lack history of discrimination, but the States do. Later flipped. Racial quota for public construction contracts does not meet Strict Scrutiny test.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Affirmative Action. Cannot have a racial based classification in education that is a QUOTA. Not sufficiently “narrowly tailored” and therefore unconstitutional.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Affirmative Action. Michigan Undergrad. Said no “dual-track” system of racial discrimination; all races must be compared to each other. 150 points with 20 being given for diversity was unconstitutional.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Affirmative Action. Michigan Law School. Consideration of race as individualized plus factor in admissions is a compelling state interest when remedying past discrimination, and does not violate EPC.
Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980)
Affirmative Action. Court upheld federal law that required percentage of public works monies given to local governments goes to minority businesses. No word on appropriate level of scrutiny.
U.S. v. Paradise (1987)
Affirmative Action. Court upheld federal court order designed to remedy intentional discrimination in AL. One qualified black hired for every qualified white hired. No statement about scrutiny.
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986)
Affirmative Action. A city’s attempt to achieve faculty diversity does not meet compelling purpose standard when firing tenured white teachers.
Metro Broadcasting v. FCC (1990)
Affirmative Action. Held that congressionally approved AA programs only have to meet Intermediate Scrutiny where they are benign race based measures. Later changed.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)
Affirmative Action. Stated that all racial classifications by any level of Gov. must be analyzed under Strict Scrutiny. Construction subcontracts going to socially and economically besmirched groups.
Bradwell v. Illinois (1995)
Gender Classifications. Intermediate Scrutiny. Stated the P and I clause did not guarantee women the ability to work same professions as men, specifically practicing law here.
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Gender Classifications. Court held it was constitutional for a State to only allow men to vote. Reversed by 19th Am. in 1920 allowing women to vote.
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Gender classifications. Declared a maximum hours law for women unconstitutional. 14th Am. protects the freedom to contract for women.
Muller v. Oregon (1907)
Gender Classifications. Court upheld a maximum hours law for women employed in factories. RBR, justified as a health interest for the weaker sex.
Radice v. New York (1924)
Gender Classifications. Court upheld a state law prohibiting women from being employed in restaurants overnight. RBR, found justifiable as a health measure.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Gender Classifications. Court said physical differences must be recognized, but women of mature age should not be restricted in their liberty to contract. Overruled by West Coast Hotel.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Gender classifications. Court upheld a minimum wage law for women, declaring it close to the public interest to protect women.
Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)
Gender Classifications. Court upheld Michigan law preventing woman bartenders. Court seemingly applied RBR.
Hoyt v. Florida (1961)
Gender classifications. Court upheld state law making men eligible for jury service and women automatically were exempted unless they expressed desire to do it. Seemingly RBR.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Gender classifications. RBG argument that gender should be under Strict Scrutiny. Instead, the court states Intermediate Scrutiny for a man being a woman’s dependent could work.
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Gender Classifications. RBG played a little trick and got the court to determine Intermediate Scrutiny for gender classifications was necessary to strike down a law preventing access to beer for young boys when women could drink it.
United States v. Virginia (1996)
Gender Classifications. VMI excludes women without a substantially important Gov. interest, which violates the EPC. Could have gone the other way if there was a “separate but equal” women’s institute.
Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)
Gender Classifications. Pregnancy discrimination was not labeled “purposeful” discrimination by the Court, only had discriminatory impact, thereby being under RBR. Effectively overruled by Congress prohibiting pregnancy discrimination later.
Califano v. Webster (1977)
Gender Discrimination. Affirmative Action. Court determined intermediate scrutiny for both malign and benign gender discrimination. Government entity trying to remedy discrimination in the past had to be a part of such discrimination, not just societal.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Non Citizens. Court held that aliens are protected by the EPC’s “person” standard as opposed to the P and I’s “citizen” standard. Strict Scrutiny to go against this.
Grahm v. Richardson (1971)
Alienage. Arizona case denying benefits to aliens that have been there less than 15 years struck down as Unconstitutional, discrimination for discrimination’s sake.
Foley v. Connelie (1978)
Alienage. Court upheld New York law restricting jobs in the police force to citizens under the “self-Government” exception changing it from Strict Scrutiny to RBR. Permitted denial of aliens, not required.
Ambach v. Norwick (1979)
Alienage. States allowed under self Gov. RBR exception to have distaste for aliens as public schoolteachers. Congress and the Pres get RBR when making alienage distinctions because the Constitution wills it in their power.
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
Alienage. RBR granted where the distinction is drawn between lawful aliens and unlawful aliens, because Strict Scrutiny would mean there is no difference. Still STRUCK DOWN under RBR with a bite.
SAISD v. Rodriguez (1973)
Wealth Discrimination. Determined to be RBR, no fundamental right to education, and wealth is not an immutable characteristic.
Romer v. Evans (1996)
Sexual Orientation Discrimination. Infamous attempt by Colorado to prevent homosexual protection ordinances, decided under RBR (close to strict scrutiny) but either way fails to have a rational purpose.
Zablocki v. Redhail
SDP. Court decides it is an arbitrary punishment to prevent marriage if behind on child support. Unenumerated fundamental right, therefore Strict Scrutiny.
Califano v. Jobst (1977)
SDP. Law somewhat deterring marriage for handicapped children, but determined to be RBR because it is not a sufficient/direct/substantial burden on the right.
U.S. v. Windsor (2013)
SDP. Court decided a Federal law denying benefits to married same sex couples under State law violates the DPC. Somewhere b/w RBR and Strict Scrutiny, but Justice Kennedy says this burden of a fundamental right may not even pass RBR, struck down.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
SDP. No express scrutiny, but essentially Strict Scrutiny. Fundamental right to marry within one’s gender.
Stanley v. Illinois (1972)
SDP. Substantive right to custody of one’s biological children even where not married. Laws that break up families with no showing of unfitness fail Strict Scrutiny.
Lehr v. Robertson (1983)
SDP. Difference from Stanley in that the biological father made no effort to raise the children. Court says that the biological link alone does not create the fundamental right.
Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)
SDP. Biological link and commitment do not create a superior right over an established family unit into which the child is born and raised. Court sides with the right of marriage over the right to parent one’s own children here.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)
SDP. Right of family members to live together is fundamental even when the family members are not a part of the traditional nuclear family.
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
SDP. Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of one’s children.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
SDP. There is a fundamental right to direct upbringing and education of one’s children, including the choice to send them to private school.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
SDP. Fundamental right to direct one’s children according to their culture with religious implications (Amish) so state has to jump Strict Scrutiny which failed.
Troxel v. Granville (2000)
SDP. Not a grandparent’s rights case. Right of parents to determine a child’s contacts, including denying Grandparent visitation. State must clear Strict Scrutiny to give the grandparents that right.
Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)
SDP. Parents are not unlimited in what they can do in directing their children’s upbringing. Possible to survive Strict Scrutiny when burdening this right.
Buck v. Bell (1927)
Right to Procreate. During Eugenics movement, Court upheld the sterilization of Carey Buck. Implicitly overruled in Skinner.
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
Right to Procreate. Court struck down OK’s habitual criminal sterilization act. Determined fundamental and therefore Strict Scrutiny.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Right to NOT Procreate. Doctor going against law that prevented people from providing contraception. Law determined unconstitutional. Criticized as leading to Roe v. Wade. Penumbras, Zones of Privacy, Natural rights theory.
Einstat v. Baird
Right to Contraception. Court strikes down law forbidding distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. Married people could get a prescription, but unmarried people were only allowed condoms.
Roe v. Wade
Big Mama. The right to choose not to bear children even though already pregnant is a fundamental right. Required Strict Scrutiny to infringe on it. Trimester approach.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Reaffirmed the essence of Roe. Changed the understanding from the trimester approach to the viability approach.
Helderstet Case
Application of the new Casey Rule, State was trying to burden the woman’s right to abortion pre-viability.
Gonzales v. Carhart
State must prove the act is constitutional and that all possible applications are allowed. Procedure allowed if there is a threat to the mother’s life. RBG dissent sees no difference in either procedure.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)
Fundamental right to medical decisions. Court upholds mandatory Government vaccination as a compelling interest, thereby Strict Scrutiny, thereby it is a fundamental right.
Washington v. Harper (1993)
Fundamental right to Medical Decisions. Prisoners have a fundamental right to be free from involuntary administration of Anti-psychotic drugs. Strict Scrutiny.
Crusanne Case
SDP. Too much procedure, cant exercise a substantive liberty interest. Compelling interest for the state to have such a high Burden of Proof, because it is life at hand. Denial of food and water must be presented by the individual.
Washington v. Glucksberg
Right to physician assisted death. Court upholds the criminal prohibition of assisting suicide, decided it is NOT a fundamental right. Cannot ask someone else to get involved, so narrow interpretation.
Bowers v. Hardwick
Court rejected the fundamental Right to participate in private homosexuality.
Lawrence v. Texas
Reconsidered Bowers v. Hardwick. Due Process because there is a fundamental right to consensual sex in the home. Broader interpretation.
Scherbert v. Verner
Free Exercise Clause. Woman fired for being 7th day adventist. State had to meet Strict Scrutiny to deny the lady her sincere religious beliefs and place substantial burdens on it. Must deny specifically HER rights, case by case, compellingly.
Oregon v. Smith
Neutral Laws of General Applicability. Dropped the substantial burden standard and case by case style from Verner.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialia
This is where it wasn’t a neutral law of general app. Specifically targeted people who practice Santeria. This is because their law allowed jews to do it.
Boerne v. Flores
Court strikes down the Federal RFRA meant to combat Oregon v. Smith and neutral laws of general app standard.
Betenbaugh v. Needville Indep. School Dist.
Hair length TX case that would lose under Oregon v. Smith but TX RFRA makes it so the Gov must present a compelling interest to specifically deny the kid’s religious beliefs and practices.
Hosanna Tabor Case
Court upheld the firing of a private schoolteacher based on disability under the Ministerial Exception. The motive for firing/hiring needs no religious basis, but Gov cannot decide who leads in a church.
Lee v. Weisman
Coercion Test for Establishment Clause: is the government coercing individuals to participate in religious activity?
The Lemon Test
If the law has a secular purpose, the primary effect cannot be to advance or inhibit religion, and the gov must avoid entanglement.
Endorsement Test
If a reasonable observer, being familiar with the context, would conclude that the law was passed to promote religion then the law violates the Establishment clause.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Government composed prayer in a public school was unconstitutional under the Establishment clause.
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
Violation of the Establishment clause where school district starts the day with bible verse.
Wallace v. Jaffree
Unconstitutional under Lemon Test. Cannot have a moment of silence for prayer, as it is seen as encouraging such. Would be decided differently today.
Lee v. Weisman
Inviting clergy to offer benediction prayers for kids graduating can be seen as coercion by a reasonable observer. Concern that the principal, a government employee, directed the whole thing.
Santa Fe ISD
Violates Establishment Clause to have Government placing one religion over any other, even when the kids at the school are requesting it.
Edwards v. Aguilar
Creation theory in Schools, struck down under the Lemon test as violating the establishment clause.
