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