Cases Flashcards
Establishment Clause Tests
what are they and cases
Three different tests:
(1) The Lemon Test
(2) Coercion Test
- J. Kennedy
- Lee v. Weisman
(3) Endorsement Analysis
Lemon Test
Law is allowed if:
(1) Gov. adopted it with a secular purpose (very subjective; not often used by courts)
(2) If statute’s primary effect is one that neither inhibits nor advances religion; AND
(3) Law must not result in the government’s excessive entanglement with religion
Coercion Test
-Looks at if the government is coercing individuals to participate in religious activities
Endorsement Analysis
O’Connor pushed this one through. “If a reasonable observer would conclude that the law was passed to promote a religion or religion generally, then the law violates the establishment clause
Types of Government Owned Forums
(1) Traditional Public Forum
(2) Designated Public Forum
(3) Limited Public Forum
(4) Non-Public Forum
Traditional Public Forum
Traditional place where marketplace of ideas is
- Content based regulations get strict scrutiny
- non-content based regulations get less than strict scrutiny — somewhere between RBR and IS: think of “rational with a bite”
Designated Public Forum
Forum the government has created for speech of citizens (stage, convention center, etc.)
Same restrictions as traditional public forum (content based: SS . Non-content based: between RBR/IS
Limited Public Forum
Same as designated public forum, except only some can use it (think of an opera house or a meeting for parents only at a school)
- Reasonable and viewpoint neutral restrictions allowed (RBR/T)
- Christian Legal Society Case
Non-public Forum
Although still government owned, not a place that people would normally speak
Equal Protection Steps (basic overview)
(1) Is there a government classification that implicates significant EP concerns?
(2) What level of scrutiny does the classification get?
(3) Does the classification meet the level of scrutiny being applied?
Rational Basis Review/Test
Under RBR/T, laws are presumed constitutional. This category is for classifications that are neither highly suspect nor quasi suspect (so neither SS nor IS). Under RBR/T the purpose of the law must be to further a legitimate government interest or objective and the classification must reasonably relate to that governmental interest.
Strict Scrutiny
Under SS, the classification must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest or objective. SS is applied to highly suspect classes: race and national origin. To determine whether such classes exist in the law, you must look to see if either:
(1) the law discriminates on its face; or
(2) the law has a discriminatory impact and a discriminatory purpose
Intermediate Scrutiny
For quasi-suspect classes —such as gender. Government classification must substantially advance (related to) an important government objective or interest. (must be the proposed one). Government has burden.
inclusivity
Under inclusivity: classification doesn’t include people who do not further the interest of the government. (didn’t get them!)
Over inclusivity: classification includes those more than necessary (did get them but didn’t need to to accomplish goal)
Palmore v. Sedotti
Child taken away from mother due to new husband’s race
Sweat v. Painter
UT Black man case (separate, but not equal)
Johnson v. California
prison separation based on race
Regents of California v. Bakai
“spot” reservation AfAc case
Gruter case
Dual track system case
Grats case
GPA Case based on points (20 points for minority)
Fullove Case
Gov. passed mandate that 10% of all public works money must go to minority businesses
U.S. v. Paradise
Government required every time a white was hired or promoted, so must be a black person
Fronterro v. Richardson
Wife in military wanted husband as dependent
U.S. v. Virginia
All-male military school, girl told no. This is where intermediate scrutiny originated
Gonzalez v. Carhartt
Court said that congress could ban a certain type of partial-birth abortion (not an undue burden because other methods exist)
Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt
Court found abortion regulation in state to be an undue burden BECAUSE (only certain doctors could do it and surgery centers only) the court found the restrictions arbitrary (nothing to do with a doctor’s quality) and regulation made multiple abortion centers absolute (doctors didn’t have admitting privileges)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Case reaffirmed essence of Roe, but abandoned trimester approach (instead chose viability): pre-viability women have right to terminate. Post viability state can ban abortion completely
Griswold v. Connecticut
if the opposite exists (which it does) then the right to NOT procreate must exist. Contraceptives were allowed to married couples—the state should not interfere because the only way to enforce is to be break privacy
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Extended the right to contraceptives to all, not just married
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
the state had a mandatory vax law. Gov. had a compelling interest, so the court upheld it
Washington v. Harper
Prison forcibly gave inmates antipsychotic drugs. Gov. lacked compelling interest in this case (failed SS)
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
Right to refuse medical treatment exists
Right to Physician Assisted Suicide
doesn’t exist…lol
Bowers v. Hardwick
Court said right of privacy did not protect ANAL AND ORAL SEX
Lawrence v. Texas
Court overruled Bowers
Sherbert v. Verner Rule
Saturday worker case. Court said if gov. creates rule that regulates conduct generally, but you have an exception due to religion, the government must grant it to you. if they do not grant it, they must meet SS
Oregon v. Smith
Law that you couldn’t use drugs. *NA Peyote. Court ruled that i. Neutral laws of general applicability are not free to exercise violations; therefore, Native American lost. There are three exceptions
Three Exceptions to Oregon v. Smith
(1) If the law is not a neutral law of general applicability (targets religion generally or a specific religion or religious practice), Gov. must grant exemption or meet strict scrutiny
(2) Ministerial exemption: if the law interferes with how church chooses leaders or ministers, they get an exemption (such as EP)
(3) State Relgious Freedom Restoration Act: explicitly adopted the Sherbert rule
RFRA
Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
Must prove, under RFRA:
(1) A substantial burden on a sincere religious belief
