Equal Protection/Early Rights - Case Take Aways Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Plessy v. Ferguson

A

Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

Plessy v. Ferguson - Plessy who is 1/8 black sits in an all-white railway carriage car

The states can constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities without denying equal protection.

  • These laws were considered as part of the State’s police power and claimed they did not imply inferiority of the black race, if so the Black’s have construed it as such.
  • Majority viewed the 14th Amendment as establishing citizenship and equality before the law, not integration and social equality. (Not concerned about social rights, just political / civil)
  • Harlan dissent: 1) colorblind constitution 2) creating a caste system
  • Rational Basis Review: Such laws were not considered suspect and did not trigger heightened scrutiny
    • Court never looked into whether facilities were actually “equal”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Craig v. Boren

A

Gender Classifications

Craig v. Boren - No 3.2% alcohol beer to men under the age of 21 & women under the age of 18

Why does it matter: First application of HS to gender

Fails Intermediate Scrutiny: Court is not persuaded by the statistics that the statute closely serves the stated legitimate safety objective (Studies concerned arrests which constitute only 2% of the population in question)

  • Court back pedals to intermediate scrutiny and carves out the 3rd tier in this case
  • Finds that gender differs from race such that it is (1) not a “discrete & insular” minority, (2) traditional differences exist, and (3) the real biological differences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Washington v. Davis

A

Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration

Washington v. Davis - Police Certification Test is found not to be discriminatory

Racial impact alone is not enough to invalidate legislation there must also demonstrate a discriminatory purpose.

  • In the absence of a discriminatory purpose, court uses rational basis review
  • A rule that is neutral on its face and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest is constitutional even though it may impact a race disproportionately, though operative effect is more important than purpose.
    • Passes Rational Basis Review: The test is administered generally to all applicants and is used to determine the level of verbal skills the candidate has.
      • Disproportionate impact is not the sole indicator of invidious racial discrimination.
      • Legitimate purpose (not a device to discriminate) to try to advance the police force with increased verbal skills
        • Testing verbal skills as a measure of initial competence is rationally related to trying to advance the police force
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

A

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. - Special permit denied for mentally retarded home

Court uses the four factors for a suspect class finding the mentally retarded are not a suspect class because they constitute a group that has political clout and has not suffered from prejudice in the past (Satisfaction of some of the factors doesn’t demonstrate a suspect class)

Fails Rational Basis Review: There is no legitimate reason for requiring this particular group home to have a permit when other similar arrangements are not required to do so.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

A

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno - Attempt to prevent hippies from receiving food stamps

Court looks beyond the “declaration of policy” finding the legislative history that exists suggests it is intended to prevent hippies and hippie communes from participating in the food stamp program.

  • The equal protection clause does not allow a majoritarian desire to harm a politically unpopular group to constitute a legitimate governmental interest

Prohibition preventing someone living with unrelated persons to collect food stamps originally intended to prevent hippies, etc. from collecting; original intent 1) doesn’t apply in this as-applied case and 2) was clearly motivated by animus, therefore court applies RBR+ and finds that this is not a legitimate govt interest. “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot be a leg. Gov’t interest…”

Why does it matter: facially neutral but find animus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Korematsu v. United States

A

Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

Korematsu v. United States - Japanese Interment Camps)

Passes Strict Scrutiny: Legal restrictions that curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are subject to the most rigid scrutiny. But, pressing public necessity may sometimes justify such restrictions and there must be no less restrictive alternatives.

  • The exclusion order imposed hardships on many citizens (overinclusive), but hardships are part of war and it was impossible to distinguish those who were loyal and disloyal. Extreme deference is granted to the judgment of the military.

Dissent: Argued the order was underinclusive by not covering Germans and Italians

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Lawrence v. Texas

A

Sexual Orientation Classifications

Lawrence v. Texas - Texas Anti-Sodomy Statute

Fails Rational Basis Review: Unconstitutional to discriminate against private sexual conduct based on animus

Aviel believes the appropriate level of scrutiny is a more open question than the author because the laws that have been struck would fail rational basis review and the higher tiers of scrutiny did not need to be explored

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Romer v. Evans

A

Romer v. Evans - Colorado Amendment 2 –Homosexuality can never be a protected minority

Fails Rational Basis Review: A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

  • Court is unpersuaded that this is not a classification and just a prevention of receiving a special status
  • A law making it more difficult for one group of citizens to seek assistance from the government than another is a denial of the Equal Protection of the laws in the most literal sense and Amendment Two makes a classification for its own sake

Romer Rational Basis Review: Seems a little more strict type of rational basis review suggesting there are some instances where the court may use a heightened standard

  • Breadth Rational: So broad such that no purpose could extend to all of the applicable contexts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

A

Wealth Classification

Establishes rational basis review as the appropriate level of scrutiny

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Loving v. Virginia

A

Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

Loving v. Virginia - No Interracial Marriage in Virginia – Burdens Whites & Minorities Equally

Fails Strict Scrutiny: Court uses the test of a “permissible” state reason (as compared to “compelling”)

  • Virginia argues the law does not deny equal protection because it regulates all races even-handedly and serves the interest of preserving “racial integrity” but the Court doesn’t see anything other than miscegenation statute with a racial discrimination being the reason
  • The miscegenation statutes are improper because they make the legal consequences of an action turn on the races of the persons participating in it.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney

A

Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney – State hiring practice prefers Veterans

Discriminatory Purpose – Implies more than intent as a violation or intent awareness of consequences, such that purpose must be in part “because of” not just “in spite of”

  • Purpose could not be established “in spite of” veterans being 1% women, because “veteran” is a gender neutral classification
  • Passes Rational Basis Review: Legitimate purpose of benefiting veterans is rationally related to the hiring preference
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

United States v. Virginia (VMI)

A

Gender Classifications

United States v. Virginia - VMI – All male school to produce “citizen soldiers” through the adversarial method

Fails Intermediate Scrutiny: Court is not persuaded that Virginia has shown any “exceedingly persuasive justifications” for excluding all women.

  • Generalizations about the way women are or what is appropriate for them will no longer serve to justify denying opportunity to those whose talents and capabilities make them exceptions to the average description. 

  • Take Away: The territory we accept as real distinctions between the genders is shrinking
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Brown v. Board of Education

A

Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

Brown v. Board of Education - Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware Elementary Schools

Landmark case viewed as the culmination of a brilliant legal strategy involving 2 prongs:

  • NAACP brings cases in a strategic starting with the most obvious inequality (i.e., University of MD law school doesn’t admit blacks at all failing separate but equal)
  • Cases involves schools going down the educational pyramid rather than up (i.e. higher education, then secondary, then primary)

Brown was the second round of being in front of the Supreme Court where court asked the parties to brief the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment

  • Court cannot ascertain the original meaning and intent as to education because there was no public education at the time of drafting, therefore in consideration of the education system being one of the most important modern government functions the issue will be analyzed the light of the role of public education in American life today.
  • Court finds separate but equal has no place in education for denying to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal.
    • Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Grutter v. Bollinger

A

Benign Racial Classifications

Grutter v. Bollinger - University of Michigan Law School’s goal of achieving “critical mass”

When race-based action is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest (i.e., diversity in schools), such action does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection so long as the narrow-tailoring requirement is also satisfied

  • Schools may consider race as a part of the admissions process as long as it is only one factor in an individualized process. (Process must be flexible in order to consider all aspects of a student against all applicants)

Passes Strict Scrutiny: Schools have a compelling interest in having diverse student bodies & it was narrowly tailored such that the program does not have quotas, does not unduly burden minorities, is flexible like the Harvard plan, and has termination measures

Compelling state interest in diversity in higher ed., defer to the university in this (this is unusual?) Find that it is narrowly tailored – no quota, limited timing, individualized

Why does it matter: Contrast to Gratz; AA can pass SS; EP concerned with individuals, not classes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Railway Express Agency v. New York

A

Railway Express Agency v. New York - No advertising on the sides of trucks

The N.Y. advertising ban is under inclusive in the sense that not all advertisements on the side of trucks will be illegal under the statute

The State offers the legitimate reasons of safety and reducing traffic congestion

  • Practically, any police power regulation, which furthers a health, safety or welfare purpose will be considered legitimate.
  • With the rational relationship and legitimate reasons, the statute is upheld despite its underinclusiveness (“it is not a requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all”)
  • Concurrence: Points out the dividing line of for hire and self-promotion does effectively distinguish two degrees of harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company

A

Benign Racial Classifications

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company - 30% of sub-contracts must go to MBE’s in Richmond, Virginia

All classifications based on race must be supported by a compelling government interest and withstand strict-scrutiny. (Majority Achieved Approving Strict Scrutiny Regardless of Beneficial Effects)

Arguments For:

  • Racial classifications are suspect, that means simple legislative assurance of good intention cannot suffice
  • Race conscious government action is inherently suspect & has lasting effects
  • Discrete & Insular Minority (U.S. v. Carolene Products Company, Footnote 4)

Arguments Against:

  • Political Process Argument: The dominate racial group is burdening themselves to help a historically disadvantage minority through its own devices & before the court gets involved

Fails Strict Scrutiny: Without evidence that the race-based initiative was created to remedy past racial discrimination supporting a compelling governmental interest, the race-based initiative is unconstitutional.

  • The 30% quota allowed by the Plan was not “narrowly tailored to any goal, except perhaps outright racial balancing.”
 (Alternatives Exist)
  • The race-based measure of Richmond, Virginia’s construction set-aside program makes only a “generalized assertion that there has been past discrimination in . . . [the construction industry and] provides no guidance for a legislative body to determine the precise scope of the injury it seeks to remedy.”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Palmer v. Thompson

A

Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration

Palmer v. Thompson - Closing pools instead of desegregating is found not to be discriminatory

An official governmental action that denies access to public facilities to all citizens does not violate the Equal Protections Clause of the United States Constitution.

  • Improper motive alone does not trigger strict scrutiny and is not sufficient to treat the state action as a racial classification
  • Court says racial motivation may have existed but motivation is extremely difficult to ascertain because there may be different motivations too intricately interwoven
    • Evidence existed that economic concerns were a consideration
    • Holding does suggest the operative effect of a law is an important factor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

City of Cleburne, Texas v Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

A

Disability Classifications

City of Cleburne, Texas v Cleburne Living Center, Inc. - Special permit denied for mentally retarded home)

Ordinance preventing mental disabled home where other multi-person facilities would be permitted is unconstitutional

  • Confirmed rational basis review

Denying permits to rehab facilities, home for mentally ill etc. was found to be “irrational prejudice” = animus and therefore violated EPC. Does this give court too much discretion? Decline to find mentally ill a suspect class.

Why does it matter: facially neutral but find animus, RBR+

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

A

Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. - Rezoning denied

Court weighs the Cleburne Factors to establish a discriminatory motivation through the pattern of impact (discriminatory impact is undisputed) shifting the burden to the government to show that absent the impermissible motivations the result would be the same.

  • Government meets their burden demonstrating that the decision to deny rezoning was based on a desire to maintain the area as single-family housing, and not for discriminatory motives. 

    • The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff to prove that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the decision.
    • Case remanded.
20
Q

Fronteiro v. Richardson

A

Gender Classifications

Fronteiro v. Richardson - Service woman had to go through procedural hoops to claim husband as dependent

Fails Strict Scrutiny: The government offered no concrete evidence suggesting that there is any actual administrative time or cost saving by this classification. “Administrative convenience” is not a compelling purpose.

  • Court based the use of strict scrutiny on the holding in Reed v. Reed which noted the (1) immutable characteristics of gender, (2) the history of discrimination, (3) historic exclusion from the political process, (4) stereotypes, and (5) immediately visible characteristics that do not pertain to functioning in society warrant heightened scrutiny
21
Q

Calder v. Bull

A

Early Rights Cases

Prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to criminal, not civil cases. All retrospective laws are not necessarily ex post facto. Chase (for natural law); Iredell (positivist, formalist)

Why does it matter: Discussion on natural law and the authority of justices to strike down laws.

22
Q

Barron v. Baltimore

A

Early Rights Cases

Wanted to enforce 5th against the state, Marshall held that BoR existed solely as a check on Federal power.

Why does it matter: now, BoR is almost entirely incorporated against states, so Barron has been circumvented

23
Q

Dred Scott v. Sandford

A

Early Rights Cases

A slave wanted to sue in court to get his freedom back, said he does not have standing to sue and there is also therefore no question of his due process rights. Holding is very broad, both procedural and substantive DP are denied.

Why does it matter: First instance of SDP; anti-canon; helped spark Civil War; first use of judicial review since Marbury

24
Q

The Slaughterhouse Cases

A

Early Rights Cases

Holding is focused on privs and immunities; LA butchers felt that the monopoly was infringing on their privs/immunities, court held that PI only applies to your federal rights (‘national’ citizen/citizen of US), not your state rights, could not be brought under the others either bc not related to race.

Why does it matter: PI read incredibly narrow, eventually DP/EPC were relied on to incorporate BoR against states

25
Q

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

A

Early Rights Cases

Chinese applicants were being denied permits to open laundries – even though law was facially neutral, it was clearly being applied in a discrim way, violating EPC.

Why does it matter:Application of a law in a clearly discriminatory way can be EPC violation

26
Q

Strauder v. West Virginia

A

Early Rights Cases

Requiring all white juries is a 14A violation. Court rejects the discrimination, at least for a political rights context of trial by jury. Limited application of 14A to race.

27
Q

Bolling v. Sharpe

A

Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

Companion case to Brown, incorporated 14th against fed govt using 5th DP clause (violates liberty due process). No legitimate govt objective served by segregating schools

Why does it matter: Read 14th into the 5th (reverse incorp.)

28
Q

Shelley v. Kraemer

A

Classifications Based on Race/National Origin

Shelleys wanted to move into neighborhood with (private) restrictive covenant not allowing blacks; covenant in and of itself was fine, but when state enforced it through an injunction, this became state action/EPC violated under 14th.

Shelley v. Kraemer (Racially motivated residential restrictive covenant enforced by Missouri Court)

Entanglement Exception: A state acts between its judicial and legislative departments therefore judicial enforcement is state action (Affirmative state action entangled with private conduct)

Post-Shelly courts have limited the influence of this holding mostly to areas involving racial discrimination

Why does it matter: state action is what violates EPC; court injunction = state action; high water mark for state action; 14A isn’t about making things fair, it’s about getting rid of discrimination; there is state action where the government’s intent is to infringe on people’s rights or where the state facilitates private discrimination

29
Q

Jones v. Mayer

A

Classifications Based on Race/National Origin

Black man is refused a home by real estate agency, this is found to be a “badge or incident of slavery” (being denied right to acquire property) under 13th.

Why does it matter: Example of Reconstruction amendment being applied to private actor; high water mark of 13A; Congress can use 13A to abolish badges and incidents of slavery

30
Q

Brown II

A

Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

Now instruct actors to move with “all deliberate speed”. Why didn’t they do more? Fear of wide-scale protests, separation of powers concern, didn’t want to give too much guidance or instruction.

Why does it matter: Shows the issues with carrying out Brown

31
Q

Palmer v. Thompson

A

Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

Rejected claim that closing pools instead of integrating was an EPC violation.

Why does it matter: Enforcement/remedy problems; concern about making gov’t assert positive rights; facially neutral + operatively neutral -> motive not enough to make unconst.

32
Q

Hunter v. Underwood

A

Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Purpose

Alabama added a provision to their Const. in 1901 to disenfranchise those convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude.” Facially neutral, but disparate impact on African-Americans. Relied on expert testimony by historians to determine intent of legislators. Also intended to disenfranchise poor whites, but multiple purposes didn’t preclude EPC claim.

Why does it matter: Expert testimony for intent; multiple purposes doesn’t preclude EPC claim

33
Q

Reed v. Reed

A

Gender Classifications

Men given preference over women in administering estates in Idaho, this is found to be arbitrary discrimination. Didn’t use SS, but failed RBR. (14A EPC)

Why does it matter: First case to invalidate gender distinction

34
Q

Nguyen v. INS

A

Gender Classifications

This difference, although resulting in different treatment for men and women (men must show some relationship to child before being able to pass on US citizenship if child is born outside US) is 1) sufficiently tied to a govt objective (relationships between parent and child) that we think is important. Based on biological differences (vs generalization)

Why does it matter: Passes HS for gender discrim

35
Q

Sessions v. Morales

A

Gender Classifications

This is distinguished from Nguyen by saying that the govt objective – making sure that citizens have ‘American’ values – isn’t advanced by the objective of making it harder for unmarried fathers to pass on citizenship.

Why does it matter: distinguishes Nguyen, doesn’t pass HS

36
Q

University of California v. Bakke

A

Affirmative Action

Quota program at UC Davis med – controlling opinion is Powell, SS. 1) accepting diversity – acceptable end, but means are unacceptable, 2) correct past wrongs – not acceptable, no data to show that discrim has occurred at Davis in particular

Why does it matter: SS applied, quotas not allowed

37
Q

Fullilove v. Klutznick

A

Affirmative Action

This survived because it was 1) narrowly tailored, 2) of limited duration, 3) no injury to other contractors. This was a federal program.

Why does it matter: Should have used SS, but different theories applied for result; eventually overruled by Adarand

38
Q

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

A

Affirmative Action

set-aside program in Richmond not ok

Similar to Fullilove, but fails. Different when a state government does this, felt need to apply SS because of stigmatic harm. Remedying past societal harms is not a compelling interest (plurality), and not narrowly tailored – doesn’t think they considered race neutral means.

Why does it matter: First majority application of SS

39
Q

Adarand v. Pena

A

Affirmative Action

federal program incentivizes hiring subcontractors controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals”

Want this case to be decided under Croson, not HS as lower courts did. Why SS for race? 1) skepticism (race-based matters, previous decisions court had said it’s important to be wary), 2) consistency (shouldn’t matter your race), 3) congruency (5th and 14th application should always be the same).

Why does it matter: Established that SS must always be applied to evaluate racial classifications; government actor only has compelling interest to remedy their own discrim.

40
Q

Johnson v. California

A

Classifications by Race and National Origin

Even if prison classifications were being applied “equally to all races”, the fact that race was the standard being used meant that it needed to be evaluated using SS.

Why does it matter: Recent application of SS to race

41
Q

Gratz v. Bollinger

A

Benign Racial Classifications

Point system here is essentially dispositive; not individualized

Why does it matter: Contrast to Grutter

42
Q

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

A

Affirmative Action

Decline to extend higher education rulings to K-12, no compelling state interest and felt that program using race as tiebreaker was not narrowly tailored/did not consider alternatives.

Why does it matter: Limits on use of AA

43
Q

Fisher

A

Affirmative Action

Texas strategy is ok under EPC, but still subject to SS.

Why does it matter: Most recent case

44
Q

Bowers v. Hardwick

A

Sexuality

No constitutional protection for this act, looked to history etc.

Why does it matter: Overturned by Romer

45
Q

U.S. v. Windsor

A

DOMA

Adopt O’Connor approach with EPC, say that unusual discrimination requires careful look, we usually accept state definitions of marriage, but this one is resulting in people being deprived of their rights. RBR+ because of animus.

Why does it matter: Adpots O’Connor approach

46
Q

Obergefell v. Hodges

A

Sexuality

Challenge to statutes prohibiting gay marraige. Written by Kennedy, states must license same sex marriages and recognize out of state ones. Very emotional opinion, says this is about all the derivative rights you get from marriage, court has a role to play in protecting these individual liberties. 14A “includes fundamental liberties which extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” including “intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs”. Held under both DPC and EPC. Fund. Liberty of personal autonomy

Why does it matter: most current state of the law. Fundamental right to marry (extended to homosexual couples)

47
Q

Civil Rights Cases

A

The Civil Rights Cases: United States v. Stanley - 14th Amendment, §5 & Private Individuals

Supreme Court holds the Civil Rights Act of 1875 as unconstitutional

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate private rights. (Origin of the State Action Doctrine)

Dissent would find state action in sustaining private discrimination because state action is the “backstop” upon which private individuals discriminate and therefore should be a relevant consideration