Con Law Flashcards
Dormant Commerce Clause - Discrimination Against Out-of-State Commerce
A state or local regulation discriminates against out-of-state commerce if it protects local economic interests at the expense of out-of-state competitors.
Dormant Commerce Clause - Necessary to Important Government Interest
If a state regulation is facially discriminatory, then the regulation may be upheld if the state can establish that an important local interest is being served, and that no other nondiscriminatory means are available to achieve that purpose.
Dormant Commerce Clause - Undue Burden on Interstate Commerce
A state regulation that is not discriminatory may still be struck down as unconstitutional if it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce. The courts will balance the objective and purpose of the state law against the burden on interstate commerce and evaluate whether there are less restrictive alternatives. If the benefits of the state law are grossly outweighed by the burdens on interstate commerce, then even nondiscriminatory regulation may be struck down.
Procedural Due Process
The concept of fundamental fairness lies at the heart of this right, and includes an individual’s right to be notified of charges or proceedings against him and the opportunity to be heard at those proceedings. Due process also entitles a person to a fair decision maker and that the process address injury that results from an intentional governmental act. When one’s liberty or property interests are adversely affected by governmental action, two questions are asked: (i) is the threatened interest a protected one? (ii) if so, what process is due?
Dormant Commerce Clause
If Congress has not enacted legislation in a particular area of interstate commerce, then the states are free to regulate, so long as the state law does not discriminate against out-of-state commerce, unduly burden interstate commerce, or regulate out-of-state activity.
State Action
The Constitution generally protects against wrongful conduct by the government, not private parties. In other words, state action is a necessary prerequisite to triggering constitutional protections.
Standing
Article III, Section 2 restricts federal judicial power to “cases” and “controversies.” A federal court cannot decide a case unless the plaintiff has standing, or a concrete interest in the outcome, to bring it. To have standing, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing three elements: (i) injury in fact; (ii) causation (the injury must be caused by the defendant’s violation of a constitutional or other federal right); and (iii) redressability (the relief requested must prevent or redress the injury).
Interstate Commerce
Congress has the power to regulate (i) the channels (highways, waterways, airways, etc.) and (ii) the instrumentalities (cars, trucks, ships, airplanes, etc.) of interstate commerce, as well as (iii) any activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, provided that the regulation does not infringe upon any other constitutional right.
Delegation of Legislative Powers
Because Congress is vested by Article I with “all legislative powers,” it may not delegate that power to any other branch of government. This principle is known as the “non-delegation doctrine.” However, delegation of some of Congress’s authority to the executive branch has consistently been held constitutional, so long as Congress specifies an “intelligible principle” to guide the delegate. Almost any legislative delegation passes the “intelligible standards” requirement, so even broadly phrased standards have been upheld.
Commandeering
Congress cannot “commandeer” state legislatures by commanding them to enact specific legislation or administer a federal regulatory program, and it may not circumvent that restriction by conscripting a state executive officer directly. However, through the use of the taxing and spending powers, Congress may encourage state action that it cannot directly compel.
Equal Protection
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause applies only to states and localities. Although there is no federal equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause includes the rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause, thereby making discrimination by the federal government subject to review under the same standards as discrimination by the states. When reviewing government action under equal protection theories, the Court applies one of three levels of review, depending on the classification of persons or the type of right concerned.
Strict Scrutiny Test
The strict scrutiny test is applied if a fundamental right or a suspect classification is involved. The suspect classifications are race, ethnicity, national origin, and, if the classification is by state law, alienage. To satisfy strict scrutiny, the law must be the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. The burden is on the government to prove that the law is necessary. Because the strict scrutiny test is a very difficult one to pass, the government rarely meets its burden, and most laws subjected to this standard of review are struck down.
Intermediate Scrutiny Test
Intermediate scrutiny is used when a classification is based on gender or status as a non-marital child. To be constitutional, the law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Note that in gender cases, there must be an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the classification, which may bring the standard in such cases closer to strict scrutiny. Although the Court has not clearly stated the rule, the burden appears generally to be on the government to prove that the law in question passes intermediate scrutiny. As with strict scrutiny (and unlike rational basis review), the government must defend the interest(s) it stated when the law was enacted, not just some conceivable legitimate interest.
Rational Basis Test
The rational basis standard is used in all cases that one of the higher standards (intermediate or strict scrutiny) does not apply. Thus, rational basis review applies to laws drawing distinctions based on age, wealth, weight, or most other classifications, as well as to any distinctions drawn for business or economic reasons. A law passes the rational basis standard of review if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This is a test of minimal scrutiny. Laws are presumed valid under this standard, so the burden is on the challenger to overcome this presumption by establishing that the law is arbitrary or irrational.
Takings Clause
The power of the government to take private property for public purposes is known as “eminent domain.” The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment acts as a check on this power. It provides that private property may not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause makes the Takings Clause applicable to the states. Generally, a governmental regulation that adversely affects a person’s property interest is not a taking, but it is possible for a regulation to rise to the level of a taking. In determining whether a regulation creates a taking, the following factors are considered: (i) the economic impact of the regulation on the property owner; (ii) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the owner’s reasonable, investment-backed expectations regarding use of the property; and (iii) the character of the regulation, including the degree to which it will benefit society, how the regulation distributes the burdens and benefits among property owners, and whether the regulation violates any of the owner’s essential attributes of property ownership, such as the right to exclude others from the property.
