Constitutional Law Flashcards
Equal Protection Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language as applying not only to the states themselves but also to private parties whose actions constitute “state action.”
When can Actions of Private Parties considered state action
Actions of private parties are not typically considered state action, but the actions of otherwise “private” parties can constitute state action in certain exceptional cases. For instance, private parties have been held to be state actors where (1) they 41
Constitutional Law Analysis have performed a traditional public function, Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352–53 (1974), (2) there is the enforcement of certain private contracts, (3) there is joint action or “entanglement” between a state and private actor, or (4) there is state encouragement of private discrimination, Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (“A State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.”).
Standard of Review for Gender Discrimination
the U.S. Supreme Court held that state laws that make classifications on the basis of gender are unconstitutional unless the state can establish an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the classification. An “exceedingly persuasive justification” is one that serves “important governmental objectives” and which does not rely upon outdated or overbroad generalizations and stereotypes about differences between men and women. The burden of justification is demanding and rests entirely on the state. The state must at least show that the “[challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.”
When can the government treat men and women differently?
the state must bear the burden of (1) demonstrating the “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the separate treatment, and (2) demonstrating that the separate facilities are substantially equivalent.
Commerce Clause
Congress may enact three types of regulations under the Commerce Clause. First, Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, which are the pathways through which interstate travel and communications pass. Examples of the channels include interstate highways and phone lines. Second, Congress may regulate the people and instrumentalities that work and travel in the channels of interstate commerce. Examples include people such as airline pilots and flight attendants, as well as the airplanes on which they travel. Third, Congress may regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
Satisfying the Substantial Effects Requirement in the Commerce Clause
The key to satisfying the substantial effects requirement is the threshold determination of whether the regulated activity is economic or commercial in nature. When Congress regulates an economic or commercial activity, the Court will uphold the regulation if Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the class of activities subject to regulation, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Aggregation on a national scale typically makes this an easy standard to meet. On the other hand, if the regulated activity is not economic or commercial in nature, the Court will not aggregate to find a substantial effect, and the standard becomes extremely difficult to meet.
May Congress Regulate Public and Private Actors on the same terms?
Yes. e.g. minimum wage and max hour laws
11th Amendment
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
Generally grants States sovereign immunity except for a few exceptions
How can a federal statute validly abrogate (remove) 11th Amendment Immunity?
if, first, the statute unambiguously asserts that it does so, and second, Congress enacted the statute under a power that may abrogate Eleventh Amendment state immunity. i.e. if the Amendment is AFTER the 11th Amendment like the 13th 14th and 15th
Dormant Commerce Clause
States generally have the power to regulate interstate commerce if the area of law is not preempted by Federal Law. However, the Commerce clause, which permits Congress to regulated the channels, instrumentalities, and articles of interstate commerce (or which has a substantial effect on interstate commerce in the aggregate) also applies to the States via the Dormant Commerce Clause. While not expressly stated, courts have found that the Commerce Clause applies to states by restricting states from discriminating against out-of-state residents and from unduly burdening interstate commerce.
A law is discriminatory against out-of-state residents when it is deemed facially discriminatory or the law has a discriminatory impact by favoring in-state commerce over out-of-state commerce. If a law is found to be discriminatory against out-of-state commerce, it will be held unconstitutional unless the law is narrowly tailored to advance a legitimate non-protectionist state goal. For a law to be narrowly tailored, there must be no less discriminatory alternatives available.
If a law will also violate the Dormant Commerce Clause if it is found to unduly burden interstate commerce. This is determined by weighting the non-protectionist state interest against the burden on interstate commerce. There are a few exceptions to this rule when the state is acting as a market participant or performing a traditional government function.
Anti-Commandeering
Under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, all powers not granted to the
federal government are reserved to the states. The Tenth Amendment precludes the federal
government from commandeering states to enact laws or participate in federal regulatory
programs. For this reason, Congress runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment when they enact
legislation that targets states in their sovereign capacity as law-makers or law-enforcers.
However, when Congressional legislation merely is of general applicability or targets states in
non-sovereign capacities, such as employers, then there are no judicially enforceable limits on
Congress’ power under the Tenth Amendment.
Article I Taxing and Spending Power and Elements of a valid condition to a spending bill
Under its Constitutional Article I Taxing and Spending Power, Congress may appropriate
monies and spend them if such spending is in the interest of the general welfare. While
Congress cannot commandeer states to act to enact laws or enforce federal regulatory
programs, it can induce states to act through attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds
disbursed pursuant to its Taxing and Spending Clause. Such attachment of conditions is
Constitutional under the Tenth Amendment if the conditions are: (i) unambiguously disclosed;
(ii) not unduly coercive such that it would represent a “gun to the states’” head, in the words of
the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius; (iii) the condition must be rationally related to the
purpose of the funds; and (iv) the condition cannot abridge a Constitutional right, such as
compelling speech in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Regulatory Taking
Bright Line: When regulation leaves no economically viable use the regulation will constitute a taking.
If for public use, rational basis standard
Balancing Test:
1. Economic impact of Regulation
2. Interference with investment-backed expectations
Character of Government Action
Extraction
An exaction is a requirement to add or do something to private property in order to get a permit to build or add on to that property from the city. (Quid pro quo) An exaction will not be an unconstitutional taking if it has a legitimate purpose based on a public health or safety interest and the exaction is reasonable to alleviate a public health or safety concern which would be caused by the reason for the permit.
