Constitutional Law - Individual Rights - TAKINGS CLAUSE, Contracts Clause, Ex Post Facto Flashcards
Substantive Due Process as applies to “economic liberties”
strange piece of info for him to slide into lecture notes here, may have been a mistake
constitution provides only minimal protection for economic liberties. Only RATIONAL BASIS test is used for laws affecting ECONOMIC RIGHTS
e.g. company claims minimum wage law is infringing on its economic liberties - govt is going to win
(tried to make sense of the beginning of p.33 in con law lecture notes)
The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment
The Fifth Amendment prohibits government takings of private property for PUBLIC USE without JUST COMPENSATION. This prohibition is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
“Public Use” is VERY LIBERALLY CONSTRUED - a use will be “public” as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate govt purpose (ie rational basis) - e.g. health, welfare, safety, moral, social, economic, political, or aesthetic ends
What is the Test for determining whether a TAKING has occurred under the 5th Amendment?
THE TEST to determine if there is a TAKING
(1) PHYSICAL INVASION - a taking will almost always be found if there is an actual appropriation or destruction of property, or PERMANENT PHYSICAL INVASION by govt or by authorization of law
- -e.g. ordinance requiring Landlord to allow installation of cable in rental units, requirement that public be given free access to a privately developed waterway
(2) REGULATORY TAKING - govt regulation is a taking if it leaves no REASONABLY ECONOMICALLY VIABLE use of the property
e. g. Penn Central - co. wanted to build structure on top of grand central but it had been deemed “historic landmark” - found NOT a taking bc regulation did not deprive grand central of ALL ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE
Rules on limiting conditions on development of property in TAKINGS context
(a) Govt conditions on the development of property must be justified by a benefit that is ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE to the burden imposed, otherwise it is a taking
(b) A property owner may bring a takings challenge to regulations that existed at the time the property was acquired
(c) Temporarily denying an owner of use of property (developing property) is NOT a TAKING so long as govt’s action is reasonable
e. g. Lake Tahoe case - govt put 3-yr moratorium on development so it could conduct environmental study - held no taking bc govt action was reasonable and moratorium was temporary
Is the TAKING for PUBLIC USE?
“Public Use” is VERY LIBERALLY CONSTRUED - a use will be “public” as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate govt purpose (ie rational basis) - e.g. health, welfare, safety, moral, social, economic, political, or aesthetic ends
IE if there is a REASONABLE BELIEF that the taking will benefit the public it will constitute a valid “public use”
What is “JUST COMPENSATION” under the 5th amendment?
Owner is entitled to REASONABLE VALUE of her property AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING
-ie Fair Market Value
The test is the “loss to the owner” not the “gain to the taker” - gain to govt is IRRELEVANT
-e.g. guy owns property with FMV of $100k, govt is going to develop and get $10 Mill in benefits- govt just has to pay $100K
The “Contracts Clause”
The Contracts Clause is found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. It says “No State Shall Impair the obligations of contracts
To whom does the “Contract Clause” apply?
The Contract Clause applies only to STATE and LOCAL interference with ALREADY EXISTING Contracts
What level of scrutiny is applied to the interference by state and local governments of existing Private Contracts and What is the language of the test used by courts?
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
Does the legislation SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR a party’s rights under an existing contract
If So, is the law a REASONABLY AND NARROWLY TAILORED means of promoting an IMPORTANT and LEGITIMATE public interest?
What level of scrutiny is applied to State and Local interference with GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS?
State and Local interference with government contracts must meet STRICT SCRUTINY
Rule regarding EX POST FACTO Laws
Constitution says that neither the Fed or state governments can adopt EX POST FACTO laws -
Ex Post Facto clause DOES NOT apply to CIVIL CASES, only to CRIMINAL CASES
In other words, laws that apply retroactively are not ok in criminal cases, meaning
(1) govt CANNOT pass laws that CRIMINALLY PUNISH conduct that was lawful when it was done OR
(2) that INCREASES punishment for a crime after it was committed
