Constitutional Law Flashcards
MED
*STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (11th AMENDMENT)
The 11th Amendment is a jurisdictional bar that prohibits:
- The citizens of one state or a foreign country from suing another state in federal court for money damages or equitable relief; AND
- Suits in federal court against state officials for violating state law.
MED
*11TH AMENDMENT EXCEPTIONS (4)
The following are exceptions to the application of the 11th Amendment:
- Consent. A state may consent to a suit by waiving its protection.
- Injunctive Relief. When a state official, rather than the state itself, is named as the defendant in an action brought in federal court, the state official may be enjoined from enforcing a state law that violates federal law or may be compelled to act in accord with federal law despite state law to the contrary.
- Individual Damages. An action for damages against a state official is not prohibited so long as the official himself will have to pay.
- Congressional Authorization. Congress may abrogate state immunity from liability it is clearly and expressly acting to enforce rights created by the 14th Amendment.
MED
*COMMERCE POWER
Congress has the power to regulate all foreign and interstate commerce. To be within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, a federal law regulating interstate commerce must either regulate the:
- Channels of interstate commerce;
- Instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce; OR
- Activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
When Congress attempts to regulate intrastate activity under the third prong, the Court will uphold the regulation if:
- The regulation is of economic or commercial activity (e.g., growing wheat or medicinal marijuana even for personal consumption); AND
- The court can conceive of a rational basis on which Congress could conclude that the activity in aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce.
However, if the regulated intrastate activity is noneconomic and noncommercial (e.g., possessing a gun in a school zone or gender-motivated violence), the Court generally will not aggregate the effects and the regulation will be upheld only if Congress can show a direct substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, which it generally will not be able to do.
MED
*EXCLUSIVE STATE POWERS
The 10th Amendment provides that all powers not assigned by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people.
MED
*FEDERAL REGULATION OF STATES
The federal government has virtually unlimited power to regulate the states. Generally, Congress may regulate the states so long as it is exercising an enumerated power.
While Congress cannot command state legislatures to enact specific legislation, it may encourage state action through the use of its taxing and spending powers. (e.g., Congress can condition federal highway funds on the state’s requiring a minimum drinking age of 21).
MED
*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 or local action does not:
- Discriminate against out-of-state commerce;
- Unduly burden interstate commerce; OR
- Regulate wholly out-of-state activity.
Legislation that violates any of the above requirements is generally deemed unconstitutional unless:
- The state is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator;
- The legislation favors state or local government entities that are performing a traditional government function; OR
- Congress explicitly permits the legislation.
HIGH
**STATE ACTION REQUIREMENT
Generally, the Constitution protects against wrongful conduct by the government, not private parties (there is an exception for the prohibition of slavery, which applies to the government and private parties).
Thus, state action is required to trigger an individual’s constitutional protections.
State action may exist in cases of private parties when:
- A private person carries on activities that are traditionally performed exclusively by the state; OR
- There are sufficient mutual contacts between the conduct of a private party and the government (this is a question of the degree of state involvement).
lowest
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
STRICT SCRUTINY
The government must prove that the regulation is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest (very difficult to prove).
lowest
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
The government must prove that the regulation is substantially related to an important government interest.
lowest
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
RATIONAL BASIS
The challenger must prove that the regulation is not rationally related to any legitimate government interest (very difficult to prove).
MED
*EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (3)
When the government makes laws that classify people into groups, the constitutionality of the law will be evaluated according to the type of classification made:
- If a suspect classification is involved, the strict scrutiny standard applies. Classifications are suspect if they are based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or alienage (alienage is only suspect if the classification is made by state law).
- If a quasi-suspect classification is involved, the intermediate scrutiny standard applies. Classifications are quasi-suspect if they are based on gender or legitimacy (non-marital children).
- For all other classifications (e.g., age, disability, and wealth classifications), the rational basis standard applies.
MED
*GOVERNMENTAL INTENT
IN EQUAL PROTECTION
(3ex)
For strict or intermediate scrutiny to be applied in an equal protection analysis, there must be intent on the part of the government to discriminate.
A discriminatory effect or disparate impact toward a group of people alone is not enough to show governmental intent.
Governmental intent may be shown by:
- A law that is discriminatory on its face;
- A discriminatory application of a facially neutral law; OR
- A discriminatory motive behind a facially neutral law.
LOW
REGULATORY TAKINGS (3)
Generally, a governmental regulation that adversely affects a person’s property interest is not a taking; however, it is possible for a regulation to rise to level of a taking (requiring just compensation).
In determining whether a regulation constitutes a taking, the following factors are considered:
- The economic impact of the regulation on the property owner;
- The extent to which the regulation interferes with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations regarding the use of the property; AND
- 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).
MED
*CONTENT-BASED SPEECH REGULATIONS
Speech regulations are content-based if they prohibit communication of specific ideas.
It is presumptively unconstitutional to place burdens on speech because of its content, except for certain categories of unprotected speech (e.g., obscenity, defamation, etc.).
MED
*CONTENT-NEUTRAL SPEECH REGULATIONS
Content-neutral speech regulations generally must:
- Advance important interests unrelated to the suppression of speech; AND
- Not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.
