Constitutional Law Flashcards
When a neutral law of general applicability impacts a religious practice, the law is subject to:
rational basis review (law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest)
Intermediate Scrutiny
The law is substantially related to an important state interest.
Strict Scrutiny
The law is necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
When a non-discriminatory state regulation affects interstate commerce (and is not otherwise authorized by federal law), it must satisfy these elements to avoid violating the DCC:
(i) the regulation must pursue a legit state end; (ii) the regulation must be rationally related to that legit state end; and (iii) the state’s interest in enforcing its regulation must outweigh the regulatory burden imposed by the state on IC.
A discriminatory state or local law may still be valid if:
(i) it furthers an important, non-economic state interest (e.g. health or safety); and (ii) there are no reasonable alternatives available.
Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
prohibits discrimination by a state in favor of its own citizens. Applies only when citizens of other states are denied, without substantial justification, basic rights or the pursuit of essential activities.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against
action by the federal government. Although not expressly stated, this clause also provides an equal protection guarantee against federal action that generally applies to a similar extent that the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies to the states.
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable
only to states and not to the federal government
discrimination based on federal law must be analyzed under substantive Due Process
When a limited or nonpublic forum is involved, government regulations designed to reserve the forum for its intended use will be upheld if they are
(i) viewpoint neutral, and (ii) reasonably related to the intended purpose of the nonpublic forum (which must be a legitimate government purpose).
The 11th Amendment
prohibits federal courts from hearing most private actions against state governments. This prohibition includes actions in which the state is named as a party or in which the state will have to pay retroactive damages.
There is an exception if the state explicitly consents to waive protection or if the lawsuit pertains only to federal laws adopted under Sec 5 of the 14th Amendment [which vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment].
The 11A does NOT apply to local govts, state v. state, or fed govt v. state.
Can a private party sue a state official to enjoin enforcement of an unconstitutional state law?
Although the 11A prohibits most private actions against state govts, private parties may bring actions to enjoin an officer from future conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law. This exception includes enjoining an appropriate state official from enforcing an unconstitutional state law.
Does the statute discriminate against interstate commerce?
State or local regulations that discriminate against Interstate commerce to protect local economic interests are almost always invalid as violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
For a regulation to discriminate against Interstate commerce it must treat economic interests from within the state differently from economic interests outside of the state.
Does the burden of the statute outweigh the promotion of a legitimate local interest?
If a state law that treats local and out-of-state interests alike nonetheless burdens Interstate commerce, it will be valid unless the burden outweighs the promotion of a legitimate local interest.
The fact that a state was encouraged to adopt the statute by state business that stood to profit from the law is relevant but it is not dispositive.
If the cost of compliance is higher then the cost of not doing business in the state, the burden likely outweighs the benefit.
Govt imposed conditions on the development of a property constitute a taking unless
the conditions are rationally related to preventing harms caused by the new development.
