Due Process Flashcards
Board of Regents v. Roth
Roth was a professor on a one year contract at public university and his contract was not renewed, but Roth wanted some type of reason and opportunity to challenge the decision not to rehire
To have a property interest in a benefit, a person must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. There must also be more than a unilateral expectation of it. Instead, there must be a legitimate claim of entitlement.
(Castle Rock v. Gonzales)
Mother had TRO. Father took the children. Language on the back of the TRO suggested that the police had to use every reasonable means to enforce the order and shall arrest or seek a warrant if arrest was not practical. After Mother called several times about the missing children, and the police refusing, Father showed up to police station and shot at police. Father died and so did children, who were dead in the car.
A benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny the entitlement at their discretion.
Bi-Metallic v. Colorado
People wanted an opportunity to be heard before Colorado raised property taxes by 40%
If the government order affects a large number of people, the Constitution DOES NOT require that all persons be given an ability to be heard on the issue.
Goldberg v. Kelly
Facts: Residents of New York received federal welfare benefits. These benefits were discontinued before a hearing took place.
the interest of the recipient in uninterrupted receipt welfare, clearly outweighs the State’s need to prevent an increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens
Mathews v. Eldridge
Eldridge received disability benefits that were terminated after a re-evaluation of his medical condition.
(Matthew Balancing Test):
The nature of the private interest that is affected
The risk of deprivation of that interest through the current procedures used and the value that would be added by requiring a hearing.
The government’s interest and the administrative burdens (ex. Costs + time of holding hearings for everyone affected)
Cleveland Board v. Lourdermill
He worked as a school security guard and school found out he lied about not having a felony and fired him without giving him opportunity to respond.
Since he worked for the school he was a public employee, and statute says he can only be terminated for-cause.
Public employees are entitled to a pretermination hearing to respond and post-termination procedures when there is for-cause termination.
Lochner v. NY
Facts: Defendant unlawfully permitted an employee to work more than 60 hours/week at his bakery.
The general right to K in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. State can regulate if there is legitimate interest to protect health, welfare, and safety.
But here, it is arbitrary only applies to bakeries.
RATIONAL BASIS
Nebbia v. NY
Facts: An NY grocer was selling bread and milk in a bundle that was below the statutorily fixed maximum and minimum retail prices.
Issue: Whether the Constitution prohibits fixing the price of milk.
This is not arbitrary or unreasonable because for public health reasons.
RATIONAL BASIS
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
State minimum wage interfering with Hotel’s right to contract with maids.
State can regulate minimum wage when there is a reasonable relation to a legislative purpose such as general welfare.
RATIONAL BASIS
U.S v. Carolene Products
Law prohibited shipment of mixed milk products.
Congress had reasonable goal: health
Laws that regulate the interstate transportation of commercial products are analyzed under the rational basis test.
RATIONAL BASIS
Williamson v. Lee Optical
a law that an optician could not fit lenses without a prescription even if it was to fit duplicate lenses.
A law does not need to be logically consistent with its aims to be Constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.
RATIONAL BASIS
(Loving v. Virginia)
Wife and husband were an interracial couple, which was against Virginia law. The law required they either be arrested or leave the state and not come back for 25 years.
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
STRICT SCRUTINY
(Obergefell v. Hodges)
Petitioners are fighting the definition of marriage.
Issue: Whether same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Marriage is a fundamental right that extends to same-sex couples.
STRICT SCRUTINY
Meyer v. Nebraska
Prohibited teaching any other language than English
The right to teach and the right of parents to engage teachers to teach their children are within the liberty of the 14th Amendment
STRICT SCRUTINY
Stanley v. Illinois
Denied widowed unwed father a hearing for his fitness
The Due Process Clause requires that unwed biological father be accorded a hearing as to their fitness as a parent before the children are declared wards of the state court.
STRICT SCRUTINY
