Constitutional Law II Flashcards
Right to travel
i. Right to interstate travel
1. Source: implicit to constitution
2. Test: strict scrutiny
a. Case
i. Saenz v. Roe
1. Limits on welfare benefits
Right to enter state (dormant commerce clause)
ii. Right to enter state
1. Source: dormant commerce clause
2. Test: legitimate local purpose
a. Case
i. Edwards v. California
1. Indigent persons
Right to visit another state temporarily (privileges and immunities)
- Source: Art. IV P&I
- Test: substantial justification
a. Case
i. Saenz v. Roe - Limits on welfare benefits
Right to move to a new state
- Source: 14A P&I; 14A EP
- Test: strict scrutiny
a. Case
i. Saenz v. Roe - Limits on welfare benefits
ii. Shapiro v. Thompson - One-year residency requirement
International travel
- No fundamental right
- Test: rational basis
Right to vote
- Source: 15A, 19A, 24A, 26A
- Test: generally strict but sliding scale for restrictions
a. Case
i. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections - Poll taxes
Literacy tests
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: allowed by Court; outlawed by statute
a. Cases
i. Guinn v. United States - Goodbye grandfather clauses
ii. Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections - Literacy tests
Prisoners (right to vote)
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: allowed to deny prisoners right to vote for felony; not allowed to deny prisoners right to vote for crime of moral turpitude
a. Cases
i. Richardson v. Ramirez - Disenfranchised felons and ex-felons
ii. Hunter v. Underwood - Crimes of moral turpitude
Voter ID (right to vote)
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: more voter suppression technique burdens voters, more scrutiny court applies (sliding scale)
- Note: Use this test for new types of voter suppression
a. Case
i. Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board - Voter ID requirements
Poll tax
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: strict scrutiny
a. Case
i. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections - Poll taxes
Property ownership requirements
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: strict scrutiny
a. Case
i. Kramer v. Union Free School District - Either overinclusive or underinclusive
b. Exception
I. Water districts
Water districts (right to vote)
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: allowed to restrict by property ownership
a. Cases
i. Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. - Living in a water district
ii. Ball v. James - “One acre, one vote”
Partisan gerrymandering
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: non-justiciable
a. Case
i. Reynolds v. Sims - Reapportionment gone wrong
Access to the courts (criminal procedure)
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: generally strict scrutiny
a. Cases
i. Gideon v. Wainwright - Right to attorney
ii. Griffin v. Illinois - Right to appeal (when made available)
iii. Douglas v. California - Attorney on appeal
iv. Ross v. Moffitt - No right to attorney on appeal to highest state court or USSC
Fee waiver (divorce or termination of parental rights)
- Source: 14A DP; EP
- Test: generally strict scrutiny
a. Cases
i. Boddie v. Connecticut - Divorce proceedings
ii. M.L.B. v. S.L.J. - Termination of parental rights
- Note: Court does not formally apply “strict scrutiny” until this case
Fee waiver (bankruptcy or welfare)
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: rational basis
a. Cases
i. United States v. Kras - Bankruptcy proceedings
ii. Ortwein v. Schwab - Welfare decisions
Prisoners (access to courts)
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: strict scrutiny
a. Case
i. Bounds v. Smith - Right to access courts
Prisoners (law libraries)
- Source: 14A EP
- Test: rational basis
a. Case
i. Lewis v. Casey - No right to law libraries
Right to education
i. Source: 14A EP
ii. Test: rational basis
1. Case
a. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
i. Inequality in Texas school system
Procedural due process
i. (1) Deprivation
1. Usually by intentional action;
2. Non-emergency decision shows deliberate indifference; or
3. Emergency action that is reckless or shocks the conscience
a. Cases
i. Daniels v. Williams
1. Prison fall
ii. County of Sacramento v. Lewis
1. High-speed police chase
iii. Deshaney v. Winnebago County
1. Child abuse
iv. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
1.
ii. (2) Life, liberty, property
1. Life
a. Death penalty or police chase
2. Liberty and property
a. Court will consider (1) whether legitimate claim or reasonable expectation of entitlement based on some independent source of law and/or (2) importance of interest
i. Cases
1. Goldberg v. Kelly
a. New York State financial aid
2. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
a. Wisconsin’s tenure track
3. Goss v. Lopez
a. Suspended from high school in Ohio
4. Paul v. Davis
a. “Active shoplifters” flyer
iii. (3) What process is due?
1. Whether process is due
a. (1) Private interest
b. (2) Risk of error using current procedures compared to probable value of more procedure
c. (3) Government interest
i. Case
1. Mathews v. Eldridge
a. Disability benefits
2. Amount of process due
a. (1) Notice
b. (2) Right to be heard
c. (3) In meaningful time and manner
i. Cases
1. Goldberg v. Kelly
a. New York State financial aid
2. Mathews v. Eldridge
a. Disability benefits
Substantive due process
i. (1) Identify fundamental right
1. Glucksberg and Dobbs
a. Deeply rooted in nation’s history and tradition AND
b. Implicit in concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were denied AND
c. Carefully described
2. Lawrence and Obergefell
a. Deeply rooted in nation’s history and tradition OR
b. Implicit in concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were denied AND
c. Broadly described
ii. (2) Has the right been infringed?
1. Fact-dependent
2. “Direct, substantial” infringement
a. Cases
i. Marriage penalty
1. Califano v. Jobst
2. Bowen v. Owens
iii. (3) Determine level of scrutiny
1. Requires:
a. Sufficient ends
b. Sufficient fit of means to ends
Economic interest (substantive due process)
- Fundamental right during Lochner era
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: heightened scrutiny
i. Case - Lochner v. New York
a. Limiting the hours of bakers - Not a fundamental right New Deal era-present
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: deferential rational basis
i. Cases - West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
a. Minimum wage for women - United States v. Caroline Products Co.
a. “Filled milk” - Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
a. Completive optometry
Economic interest (Contracts Clause)
- Not a fundamental right
a. Test: rational basis for federal interference; strict scrutiny for state interference
b. Source: Contracts clause
i. Cases - Allgeyer v. Louisiana
a. Out-of-state insurance contracts
Economic interest (Takings Clause)
- (1) Was there a taking of property?
a. Physical
i. Real and personal property - Cases
a. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
i. New York cable boxes
b. Horne v. Department of Agriculture
i. Raisin growers
ii. Physical confiscation and appropriation - Case
a. Cedar Point
i. Farm worker organizing
b. Regulatory
i. Total - Not “too far”
- Unless restricted by “background principles” of existing law
a. Case
i. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
ii. Partial - Economic impact
- Investment-backed expectations
- Character of government action
a. Case
i. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
iii. Post-enactment - Post-enactment owner is restricted by pre-existing reasonable regulations, not unreasonable regulations
a. Case
i. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
iv. Nexus test - Requires nexus between harm and condition government is trying to impose
a. Case
i. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission - (2) If so, was it for public use?
a. Rational basis that taking is for a “public purpose”
i. Case - Kelo v. City of New London
a. Connecticut land development - (3) What compensation is just?
a. Market value at time of taking (even if temporary taking)
b. Invalidation of ordinance is not enough
i. Case - Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington
a. “Robin hood” case
Privacy interest (marriage)
- Fundamental right
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: strict scrutiny
i. Cases - Fundamental right
a. Loving v. Virginia
i. Interracial marriage
b. Zablocki v. Redhail
i. Fathers who owe child support
c. Turner v. Safley
i. Inmates - No fundamental right
a. Obergefell v. Hodges
i. Same sex marriage
ii. Note: Fundamental right to marriage defined generally, not “same sex” marriage
iii. Court refused to give same sex couples a suspect class
Privacy interest (parents and family)
- Fundamental right
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: strict scrutiny
i. Cases - Substantive due process
a. Stanley v. Illinois
i. Unwed fathers with no other father in the picture
b. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio
i. Extended family
c. Meyer v. Nebraska
i. Child’s education
d. Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary
i. State control over child’s education - Procedural due process
a. Troxel v. Granville
i. Visitation rights
Privacy interest (procreation)
- Fundamental right
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: strict scrutiny
i. Cases - Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson
a. Forced sterilization
Privacy interest (contraception)
- Fundamental right
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: strict scrutiny
i. Cases - Griswold v. Connecticut
a. Married people - Eisenstadt v. Baird
a. Unmarried people - Carrey v. Population Services International
a. Minors
Privacy interest (abortion)
- Not a fundamental right
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: rational basis
i. Cases - Roe v. Wade
a. Fundamental right
b. Strict scrutiny - Planned Parenthood v. Casey
a. Fundamental right
b. Undue burden - Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
a. Fundamental right
b. Rational basis
Privacy interest (medical treatment)
- Refuse live saving treatment
a. Fundamental right
i. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
ii. Test: strict scrutiny - Case
a. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
i. Terminating life support after car accident - Physical assisted suicide
a. Not a fundamental right
i. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
ii. Test: rational basis - Case
a. Washington v. Glucksberg
i. Terminal patients with persistent suffocation sensation
Privacy interest (sexual orientation and activity)
- No fundamental right
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: rational basis
i. Case - Lawrence v. Texas
a. Same sex sodomy
Privacy interest (information)
- No fundamental right
a. Source: 5A, 14A SDP
b. Test: rational basis
i. Case - Whalen v. Roe
a. Prescription drug information
Freedom of speech
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
Cardinal rule
Government may not regulate the content or viewpoint of speech unless an exception applies
Speech and conduct
a. If speech is integral to criminal conduct, then analyze as conduct
b. Mixed speech and conduct becomes communicative conduct if
i. Intent
ii. Likelihood to be understood
c. Expressive association
i. Intent
ii. Likelihood to be understood
iii. “inherently expressive”
Content-based restriction
Restriction on subject of speech
Viewpoint restriction
Restriction on perspective or viewpoint on that subject
Content discrimination
a. Strict scrutiny
i. Unless
1. Secondary effects
a. Safety
b. Traffic
c. Aesthetics
Secondary effects
a. Safety
b. Traffic
c. Aesthetics
Sexual exceptions to rule against content discrimination
- Sexual content
a. Nude dancing
b. Indecent art
c. Adult films
d. Library materials
Viewpoint discrimination
Strict scrutiny (presumptively invalid)
Test for government speech
No scrutiny
What is government speech
a. Holistic inquiry based on context considering
i. History of expression at issue
ii. Public’s likely perception as to who is speaking
iii. Extent to which government actively shaped or controlled speech
3. Cases
a. Government speech
i. Permanent monument
1. Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum
ii. Confederate flag on specialty license plates
1. Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
b. Not government speech
i. Trademark
1. Matal v. Tam
ii. Flag
1. Shurtleff v. City of Boston
Vagueness
a. Restriction cannot be unduly vague
i. Vague
1. Law is vague if a reasonable person cannot tell what is prohibited and what is permitted
2. Cases
a. Coates v. City of Cincinnati
i. Prohibiting persons from assembling on sidewalks in “annoying” manner is too vague
b. Baggett v. Bullitt
i. Prohibiting state employment of “subversive” persons is too vague
Overbreadth
a. Restriction must not be substantially overbroad
i. “Substantial overbreadth”
1. Significant number of situations where law could applied to prohibit constitutionally protected speech, judged in relation to law’s plainly legitimate sweep
2. If law could be unconstitutionally applied to some, even if law could be constitutionally applied to the plaintiff challenging the law
a. Exception to third party standing
Overbreadth and commercial speech
Overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech
Examples of prior restraints
a. Licensing or permit requirements
b. Court injunction
c. Government seizures
Standard for prior restraints
Strict scrutiny (presumptively invalid)
Licensing requirements (exception to prior restraints)
Licensing requirements may be allowed if:
a. Important reasons
b. Clear standards
i. Narrow
ii. Objective
iii. Definite standards leaving almost no discretion
c. Procedural safeguards
i. Full and fair hearing before speech is restricted
ii. Prompt decision by government
iii. Prompt judicial review (based on availability)
d. Note
i. Applies to government orders that operate like licensing systems
Collateral bar rule
a. Person violating an unconstitutional law may not be punished
b. However, person violating an unconstitutional prior restraint may be punished
c. If prior restraint is disobeyed, person loses constitutional challenge
Compelled speech
Government may not directly compel speech
Unconstitutional conditions (free speech)
a. Government may not use funding conditions to coerce people to speak or not speak a particular message
b. However, government may choose which messages to subsidize
Time, place, and manner restrictions (intermediate scrutiny)
a. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions allowed if
i. Content neutral
ii. Narrowly tailored to important or significant government interest and
iii. Leave open adequate alternative channel of communication
1. Does not have to be least restrictive alternative
Exceptions to the rule against content discrimination
a. Certain types of speech have so little value that they are unprotected or less protected
i. Incitements
ii. Fighting words
iii. True threats
iv. Obscenity
viii. Actual child porn
ix. Commercial speech
x. Defamation
xi. IIED
Incitement
a. Incitement of violence occurs if:
i. Individual acts with intent to cause imminent harm
ii. That is likely to occur
Fighting words
i. Fighting words are words that by their very utterance provoke violence
1. Provoking violence extends to:
a. Incitements
b. Disrupting the peace
Limitations on fighting words category
i. Court tends to invalidate broad restrictions of fighting words
1. Where they are not directed at particular person (e.g., burning flag and opposing draft)
2. Where they are vague and overbroad (e.g., opprobrious or abusive words)
3. Where they are based on content or viewpoint
4. Where no danger of unrest exists, so long as police provide sufficient protection for speaker facing hostile audience
True threats
a. True threat occurs when:
i. Speaker means to communicate serious expressive act of unlawful violence to individual or group of individuals
ii. Speaker need not intend to carry out the threat
iii. Intimidation is type of true threat