Case Law Flashcards
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
did not disclose that he has been charged with a felony on his application. When the company found out, they fired him. He was not given the opportunity to respond to the charges and claimed that he thought his chargers were misdemeanors and not felonies.
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez
a person who obtained a restraining order under state law does not have a constitutionally protected interest in having police enforce their order.
Bi-Metallic Investment Corp. v. State Board
If one does not like what a legislature is doing to all people, then challenge it in the democratic election. In this instance, all the affected people (landowners) were able to vote and could vote out decisions they did not like.
Paul v. Davis
reputation alone is neither a liberty nor property to alone require due process
Wisconsin v. Constantineau
depriving an individual of their right to obtain liquor like every other citizen is a deprivation of liberty
Meachum v. Fano
no liberty interest is at stake when transferring a prisoner to a higher security prison
Vitek v. Jones
before transferring from a prison to a mental hospital, a prisoner is entitled to procedural due process
Greenholtz v. Inmates
absent statutory entitlement, there is no constitutional liberty interest in the denial of parole
Mathews v. Eldridge
(1) The private interest was the uninterrupted receipt of benefits pending the final determination of whether he could continue receiving benefits. (2) The procedure used – the medical assessment – is straightforward, easily documented, and premised on narrow information. (3) An evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of his benefits would be high in administrative and societal costs. For example, there could be a financial impact on the increase of hearings and extending benefits for people until their hearings. (Holding) Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is not required.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.
Marsh v. Alabama
ehovah’s witnesses violated a law by handing out literature in a town that was privately owned by a shipping company. The town was open to the public and was used for public purposes. First Amendment and 14th amendment protection of speech and religion still apply to individuals when operating in a town if it functions the same as any other public town.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority
When a state leases public property to a private entity and forms a relationship of interdependence with that entity, the private lessee must comply with the 14th amendment prohibition of discriminatory conduct. The parking authority was created by statute and paid for by public funds so their failure to stop the restaurant from discriminating made them part of the problem.
Smith v. Alright
denying membership by a political party is considered state action. Party membership is essential to voting under the 15th amendment and Texas limits its elections to candidates selected by major parties.
Shelley v. Kraemer
There was a covenant that restricted blacks from purchasing property in a neighborhood. When a black family bought a home, the whites that signed the agreement sought to enjoin. The covenant itself was not state action, but the court enforcement of it is.
Barron v. Baltimore
the Bill of rights applies only to the federal government, not state government conduct.
Palko v. Connecticut
Palko was convicted of 2nd degree murder and then re-convicted of 1st degree murder. Palko claims this violated the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment. The Court ruled that the 14th amendment’s due process clause incorporates parts of the bill or rights “fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty” (but double jeopardy is not one of them in 1937 . . . it is by 1969 in Benton v. Maryland).
Timbs v. Indiana
The eighth amendment excessive fines provision is incorporated to states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
Society of the Sisters
tried to force all children to go to public schools but the court said that would eliminate the constitutional right to use private, religious schools.
Skinner
law trying to require sterilization of certain criminals is unconstitutional.
Buck v. Bell
forcibly sterilizing those deemed mentally incompetent. Involuntary sterilization law does not violate the constitution. (If this were to come back to the Supreme Court, would likely be a different result)
Meyer
forbid language education before 8th grade, which is unconstitutional. There is a right to knowledge.
Griswold
Court found an implied right of privacy within the Bill of Rights that prohibit states from preventing married couples from using contraception.
Loving
right to interracial marriage based on it being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness and a “basic civil right of man”
Zablocki
could not require court order to marry for all residents required to pay child support
Turner
cannot permit inmates to marry only when the warden found compelling reasons for marriage
Obergefell
The state argued that it has an interest in child raising and keeping traditional families. Marriage is a fundamental right because it promotes autonomy and commitment; helps children; and it is the keystone of order. Refusing same-sex marriage takes away other rights including taxes, insurance, child custody and support, and spousal evidentiary privilege. Under due process and equal protection, States must issue same-sex marriage and recognize out-of-state licenses.
Pavan
Arkansas could not deny same-sex couples the right to have both of their names on a birth certificate
Roe
Established fundamental right to an abortion
Casey
Affirm Roe holding but establish new test.
A state abortion regulation places an undue burden on a women’s right to an abortion and is invalid if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. State can ban abortion after viability due to their interest. Before viability, they still have an interest, but the burdens they place cannot be undue or substantial.
Whole Women’s Health
Requiring abortion take place in a surgical center and the physician have admitting privilege in hospital within 30 miles is an undue burden with no health benefits. would result in closure of clinics.
Dobbs
Current case waiting on decision. Think about stare decisis and undue burden.
Lawrence v. Texas
Police dispatched for weapon disturbance, enter home, and find two men engaging in same-sex sexual acts, which was illegal. There is a liberty interest in certain intimate conduct. Overrules Bowers and holds that there is no a legitimate state interest furthered to justify intrusion on a private and consensual act.
Kelley v. Johnson
recognized that the public at large has a liberty interest in personal appearance, but appearance of police posed no interference with a fundamental liberty
Railway Express v. NY
New York has a law prohibiting ads on vehicles except if the ad related to the business of the owner of the trucks. The state’s objective is to resolve distraction to drivers and pedestrians. This law is under-inclusive because it does not affect all advertising. State laws that are substantially under-inclusive do not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause because the state may rationally decide to address a public problem in phases. The law has a rational relation to its purpose.
Romer v. Evans
A law prohibiting anti-discrimination protection for the gay community violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This targets and bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest. It singles out one group and precludes them from protection through the political process.
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
Mentally disabled people are not a quasi-suspect class and are thus reviewed under a rational review basis.
Plyler v. Doe
law permits local school districts to deny enrollment of undocumented immigrant children in local schools. This law affects undocumented children. The undocumented is not something that a person is born with, it is a voluntary action. Children do not choose to come here or choose education. They will likely become lawful citizens. Texas says they’re trying to stop illegal immigration to the state and increase the quality of education. The Court strikes this down and says that there is no evidence that the law will further state goals.
Strauder v. West Virginia
black man convicted of murder by jury limited by law to white males is facially discriminatory.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
no laundromat in wooden building to prevent fire, but then only arrested Chinese people violating the law. This is a neutral classification applied in a discriminatory fashion
Godmillion v. Lightfoot
redrew boundaries of city to segregate out 99% of black voters and no white voters. This is an example of a neutral classification motivated by discrimination that produces a discriminatory effect.
Brown v. Board of Education
the separate but equal doctrine has no place in education. Education provides good citizenship, cultural values, preparation for professional training, and helps in adjusting to an environment. District Courts are to take actions with school boards to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis.
Green v. County School Board
schools have an affirmative duty to eliminate root and branch all past segregation. Freedom of Choice plans are not sufficient to enforce Brown v. Board of Education
Regents of Univ. v. Bakke
university implemented a policy where 16/100 spots were given to minorities. The Court declared this unconstitutional because the quota policy is not narrowly tailored. There is no evidence supporting minorities will work in underserved areas and the EPC and 14A are not group rights of minorities, but rather for a person’s individual rights
Grutter v. Bollinger
an unofficial policy gave weight to race for law school admissions. Considering race as a factor does not violate the EPC. Supporting student diversity is a compelling state interest. The school must show that it previously made serious, good-faith consideration of race-neutral alternatives. Means here are narrowly tailored because there is no quota system.
Gratz v. Bollinger
point-based system and gave points to anyone in certain racial groups. Every single underrepresented minority group getting 20 points is not narrowly tailored
Fisher v. University of Texas
the school tried race-neutral diversity methods, which failed. Race cannot be viewed as a defining feature of an application, but it can be a factor.
Parents Involved in Comm. Schools
public schools cannot assign kids with the purpose of racial integration. There was no evidence that this plan was beneficial. Narrowly-tailored, race-conscious objectives to achieve general diversity are okay
Washington v. David
here was a test for police to measure their verbal, vocab, and reading comprehension. There was a discriminatory impact because blacks were 4x more likely to fail. Showing discriminatory intent or purpose is necessary to gain strict scrutiny.
Wygant v. Jackson
layoffs of non-minority teachers simply to keep diversity in staff violates the EPC
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
A plan required for contractors to subcontract 30% of the dollar value to contract to minority business enterprises. However, this 30% did not apply to contractors controlled by minority groups. There was no evidence of past discrimination, so the law was unconstitutional for not accomplishing a compelling state interest.
Adarand constructions v. Pena
federal program gave bonuses to any contractors who hired subcontractors controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. All racial classifications by any government (federal, state, or local) must be reviewed with strict scrutiny.
Sugarman v. Dougall
NY Statute prohibited aliens from being employed as civil servants. The state has a broad power to define its political community and an interest in limiting participation in government to people within the community but doing so through discrimination is unconstitutional.
Reed v. Reed
men were preferred to women in administering wills. It is not rational to assume men are better at finances and administration than women.
Craig v. Boren
statute prohibited sale of non-intoxicating beer to males under 21 but permitting it to females over 18. The statistical difference in drinking and driving that led to this law is not enough
Michael M. v. Sonoma
statutory rape was by a male and done to a female. This does not violate the EPC because it deters males from engaging in sexual behavior that might lead to illegitimate pregnancies.
Rostker v. Goldberg
congressional act that does not require women to register for military draft does not violate the constitutional because women cannot statutorily participate in combat and are not similarly situated
J.E.B v. Alabama
peremptory challenges of jurors on the basis of sex is unconstitutional
U.S. v. Virginia
there was no exceedingly persuasive justification for admitting only men to public higher education. There are physical difference between man and woman but we cannot use that to make one more inferior
Frontiero v. Richardson
denial of spousal benefits to female officers but not male officers violates the EPC of the laws
Univ. of Women v. Hogan
cannot admit only women into the nursing program
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
the right to vote is fundamental and regulations on the right are subject to the strictest scrutiny. Poll taxes are unconstitutional.
Kramer v. Union Free School District
state claims a compelling interest in only having those who are primarily interested in school affairs participate in the school elections. However, it is not sufficiently tailored.
Williams v. Rhodes
applied strict scrutiny to a law that places unequal burdens on minority groups and favoring republican and democrat parties. The state had no compelling interest in creating a de facto two-party monopoly
Dunn v. Blumstein
strict scrutiny is applied to the durational residency requirement
Richardson v. Ramierz
minimal scrutiny should apply to laws barring convicted criminals from voting. Minimal scrutiny also applies to denial of absentee ballots for prisoners awaiting trial.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
State statute required photo ID as a prerequisite to vote. Their interests were to deter and detect voter fraud, stopping dead people from voting, and safeguarding voter confidence and election integrity. This is constitutional when the benefits and the burdens are weighed. Federal statutes indicate that photo id for voters can be beneficial.
Reynolds v. Sims
the electoral districts of the state legislative chambers must be equal to the population of the area to stick with the one person, one vote principle. Otherwise, lower populated areas would have an equal vote to highly populated areas. This is just as offensive to the constitution as allowing a person to vote more than once.
Bush v. Gore
the EPC requires that a state doing a manual recount of the vote in that state have uniform rules that govern the recount that give equal weight to each vote. The recount procedures are arbitrary and disparate by valuing one person’s vote over another based on the way the voter card was punched.
