Exam 1 Flashcards
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt ( Majority)
Two provisions of a Texas House Bill are being looked at under Planned Parenthood v Casey to see if they violate a woman’s right to a previable abortion
Medical provisions are not sufficient enough to justify the burdens; 30 miles and ambulatory center requirements caused clinics to shut down and created an UNDUE BURDEN
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt (concurring)
Other procedures related to pregnancy and childbirth are not subjected to ambulatory regulations
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt (Dissent)
There are different rules for different rights; undue burden test is re-written in three ways….
o requires courts to consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access all together with the benefits those laws confer,
o when law’s justification is uncertain, they need not to defer to legislature but must assess medical justifications for abortion restriction by scrutinizing the record themselves
o even if a law poses no substantial obstacle, the law must have more than reasonable relation to a legitimate state interests.
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization( Majority)
A Mississippi law prohibited abortions after 15 weeks even though this is well before the point of viability.
There is no reference to the right to an abortion in the constitution nor is it deeply rooted in the nation’s history. The Casey plurality went beyond the court’s role in the constitution; the STATES should determine how abortions are handled; also privacy is linked to abortion which both aren’t in the constitution
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (concurring)
There is no constitutional right to abortion, and due process only guarantees the process and not certain rights, so the government can infringe on certain rights–> Obergaphell, Griswald, Lawrence, Bowers any cases that have right to privacy the courts will have to look at again
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dissent)
The constitution is a living document and should change, as mentioned by Chief Justice John Marshall; men who ratified the amendment did not have concern of reproductive rights; there’s no reason to change the rulings of Casey and Roe, only the courts change
Reed v Reed (majority): An Idaho statue is challenged by a mother whose child died. The statute claims that when a person dies intestate, a male is preferred over a female, to take over the estate of said person. Equal Protection
The probate judge considered himself bound by statute; he did not take the time to consider the mothers capabilities
The courts were attempting to reduce their workload and hearings which is an arbitrary legislative choice
Frontiero v. Richardson (Majority): The court is looking at a federal military statute in which a man can claim his wife as a dependent for increased federal benefits. The appellant is attempting to claim her husband as a dependent, but it has been deemed that she needs proof of the husband’s dependency on her.
Sex characteristics do not determine one’s ability to perform or contribute to society
Civil rights act of 1964 declared that no employer, labor union, or other organization shall discriminate against any individual on the bases of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”
Congress may have reasonably concluded that it is cheaper and easier to say that women are financially dependent on their husbands
“The constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency”
Frontiero v. Richardson (concurring)
Reed v Reed did not ass sex to the narrowly limited group of classifications which are inherently suspect
The Equal Rights Amendment has been sent out to ratification of the states, and by making this decision it is interrupting the legislative process
Frontiero v. Richardson (dissenting)
Written by William H. Rehnquist, and he affirmed the lower courts decision
Craig v. Boren (Majority)
Appellant Craig appealed the district court when the three judges sustained the constitutionality of the statutory differential and dismissed the action. He claims that the statute discriminates against men between the ages of 18 and 20.
Various studies have shown that men are more likely to drink and drive; they also proved that men are overrepresented among those killed or injured in traffic incidents this is weak evidence as only 2% of males have this issue
Sex is not a legitimate proxy for the regulation of drinking and driving
Craig v. Boren (concurring)
Difficult to believe that the statute was created to cope with the problem of traffic safety does not actually prohibit consumption
This data claims that 18–20-year-old men are inferior to women
Craig v. Boren (dissenting)
“rational basis” under the equal protection analysis
Males are in no way disadvantaged or facing systematic discrimination
3.2% beer is not fundamental in the constitution to invoke strict scrutiny
How does the court determine what objectives are important?
Waterhouse v Hopkins (Majority)
Ann Hopkins was a senior manager in the office of Price Waterhouse and was denied partnership which led her to sue Price Waterhouse under title VII.
Hopkins played a major role in securing the 25-million-dollar contract; she was also aggressive at times with her coworkers
Hopkins was put on hold to improve on walking more femininely, talk more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry
Agreed with district court except it held that even if a plaintiff proves that discrimination played a role in an employment decision, the defendant will not be liable if it proves that it would have made the same decision in the absence of discrimination
Waterhouse v Hopkins (Dissenting)
Title VII creates no independent cause of action for sex stereotyping
The question is whether discrimination caused the Plaintiff’s harm?
“Neither do they create the duty to sensitize”
