Con Law Final Exam Flashcards
Footnote 4 factors for qualifying for Strict Scrutiny
- History of discrimination
- Immutable characteristic
- Ability
- does this P have the ability to do what the other party does?
- Political powerlessness
Gender based discrimination
- Intermediate level scrutiny:
- Substantially related to a an important government interest
- There must be a gender-based classification on the face of the statute; OR
- an intent to discriminate on the part of the govt actor
- otherwise, if it is just disparate impact it is rational basis review
Affirmative Action
Women
- Intermediate level scrutiny
- Substantially related to a an important government interest
Affirmative Action
Race
- Strict Scrutiny
- compelling government interest, means narrowly tailored to the ends
Single-sex schools
- Although racially separate schools are never considered equal, single-sex schools are potentially equal and, therefore, potentially constitutional.
- intermediate scrutiny
laws classified based on race
all laws that classify based on race are subject to strict scrutiny, including affirmative-action programs meant to benefit historically disadvantaged minorities.
Inter-district school busing
School districts are not required to engage in inter-district busing unless the government intentionally drew the school districts in a discriminatory manner. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
laws that are neutral on their face (race)
If a law is neutral on its face, strict scrutiny will not apply, even if the law has a disparate impact, unless discriminatory intent can be proven. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)
Selective enforcement of a law on the basis of race
To prevail, one must:
(1) prove the law has a discriminatory effect,
(2) prove the law had a discriminatory purpose, and
(3) make at least “a credible showing of different treatment of similarly situated persons” of other races.
more stringent standard
even if a law is facially neutral, it is invalid if it has both:
(race)
(1) a disparate impact on certain racial or ethnic groups and
(2) a discriminatory intent.
Affirmative action
to uphold the law:
- hard quotas are not okay
- promoting diversity in schools is a compelling govt interest
- increasing minority presence and achieving racial balance in settings other than schools are not, by themselves, compelling government interests.
If a city’s affirmative-action program attempts to achieve minority representation equal to the percentage of minorities in the city…..
….that is a factor that undermines—not supports—the constitutionality of the affirmative-action program. Race-based affirmative-action programs may not use quota systems to try to remedy discrimination.
Affirmative Action (race)
- Programs are more likely to be upheld if there is a showing of a history of discrimination and current underrepresentation.
- However, even with such a showing, affirmative-action programs will fail strict scrutiny if they set specific quotas, numerical targets, or give extra points to minority students solely based on their race.
Suspect classes:
Strict Scrutiny
- Race
- National Origin
- Alienage
- exceptions: (rational basis)
- Federal laws
- state laws: political function
- exceptions: (rational basis)
- (religion)
Lochner Era
Fundamental rights that require strict scrutiny
- voting
- running for political office,
- accessing the courts
- accessing justice
- migrating to a different state, and
- the right to marry, procreate, and live with your family
- (there is not a fundamental right to education or necessities)
Is access to the court system a fundamental right?
Yes. Therefore, requiring all defendants to pay a fee to have access to the appellate courts is an unconstitutional denial of that fundamental right on the basis of someone’s ability to pay. However, note that it is not necessarily unconstitutional to charge court fees; the fee would be permissible if indigent defendants could obtain a fee waiver.
Is the right to travel fundamental?
Yes. The right to travel is fundamental and includes “the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State.”
Levels of scrutiny for laws that draw a distinction based on ALIENAGE
- Rational Basis
- all federal laws
- state laws related to performance of political functions
- Strict Scrutiny
- all other state laws
Is wealth or lack of wealth a suspect class?
The U.S. Supreme Court has applied strict scrutiny to invalidate many laws that required the payment of certain fees or taxes—but only because the fee or tax impaired some other fundamental right, like the right to vote or access the courts, not because it drew a wealth-based distinction.
Poll taxes
Under strict-scrutiny review, making the payment of a fee necessary to vote (i.e., imposing a poll tax) will always fail.
Is there an equal protection violation?
- Is there…
- state action,
- does not bind private citizens
- a classification
- a facial or
- applied challenge
- the law is being administered in an unconstitutional way, even though its actual text appears neutral
- state action,
Quasi-Suspect Classes
Intermediate scrutiny
- Gender
- legitimacy of birth
- sexual orientation?
Non Suspect Classes
Rational basis applied to discriminatory statutes targeting these:
- age,
- disability,
- wealth,
- political preference,
- political affiliation, or
- felons.
Restrictions of a fundamental right, regardless of the group
Strict scrutiny is applied to restrictions of any fundamental right, regardless of the group involved.
Scrutiny chart
- Strict Scrutiny
- suspect class
- race, national origin, alienage, (religion)
- fundamental rights
- suspect class
- Intermediate Scrutiny
- quasi-suspect class
- gender, illegitimacy, education for undocumented minors
- quasi-suspect class
- Low level scrutiny with a bite
- sexual orientation
- Rational Basis
- everything else
Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry?
Same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry protected by a convergence of both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Are classifications based on mental illness or disability suspect?
No…….and therefore subject only to deferential rational basis review. However, courts have often applied what has been called “rational basis plus bite” review, a somewhat less deferential version of rational basis review.
Can a govt regulate who runs for office?
- The government has the right to make rules about who is eligible to run for office and to reasonably limit who may be placed on the ballot.
- However, laws that are unduly burdensome to third parties, independent candidates, or indigent candidates are reviewed under strict scrutiny.
What is the burden of proof applied under rational-basis review?
The person challenging the law must prove that the law was not rationally related to promoting any legitimate government objective.
Scrutiny for “the right to education”
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is no fundamental right to education. Therefore, any system of funding education will be evaluated under rational-basis review.
Under rational-basis review, legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is: (1) rationally related (2) to a legitimate state interest.
Who has the burden of proof under strict scrutiny?
The government
They must persuade the court that they have a compelling purpose, and there was no less discriminatory alternative.
Substantive due process
fundamental vs non-fundamental right
- fundamental: strict scrutiny
- non-fundamental: rational basis