Federal and State Powers Flashcards
Ex pose facto clauses
Ex post facto clauses: (applies to federal (art. 1, § 9) & state (art. 1, § 10) governments)
Under Article I, Sections 9 and 10, a federal or state statute will be struck down as being ex post facto if it:
1) criminalize previously legal conduct
2) impose greater punishment than previously prescribed
3) eliminate previously available defenses
4) decrease prosecution’s previous burden of proof
The ex post facto clauses prohibit federal and state governments from enacting criminal laws that have a retroactive punitive effect.
As a result, this clause generally does not apply to civil lawsbecause their purpose is nonpunitive.
- However, a civil law will be deemed to be an ex post facto law when its retroactive effect is so punitive that it clearly overrides its nonpunitive purpose.
Ex post facto laws
what factors do courts weigh to determine whether the punitive effect of a retroactive civil law clearly overrides its nonpunitive purpose?
Courts weigh several factors to determine whether the punitive effect of a retroactive civil law clearly overrides its nonpunitive purpose.
These include whether the law:
1) imposes an affirmative disability or restraint (e.g., imprisonment)
2) has historically been regarded as punishment (e.g., public shaming)
3) promotes the traditional aims of punishment (e.g., retribution)
4) is rationally related to its nonpunitive purpose*
* *Although no one factor is dispositive, the factor weighed most heavily by courts is whether the law is rationally related to its nonpunitive purpose.
The Article IV Supremacy Clause
The federal government and states can regulate the same subject matter.
But the Article VI supremacy clauserenders a state law void when a federal law expressly or impliedly preempts it.
The Article IV Supremacy Clause
Implied Preemption
Implied preemption occurs through:
1) field preemption – when Congress intended to completely occupy a particular field by legislating so thoroughly that it left no room for supplementary state regulations
* example: there is no field preemption when a federal statute that only establishes minimum safety and testing standards because it leaves room for states to establish more rigorous standards.
2) direct conflict preemption – when it is impossible or nearly impossible to comply with both federal and state law or
* example: There is no direct conflict preemption if the person/entity can comply with both the federal and state statute.
3) indirect conflict preemption – when the state law frustrates the purpose of the federal law.
* example: There is no indirect conflict preemption when a state law furthers the federal statute’s purpose
The Article IV Supremacy Clause
Express & implied preemption rule statement
Express preemption occurs when the Constitution or federal law explicitly bars state regulation.
Implied preemption occurs when there is no room for state regulation (field), it is nearly impossible to comply with both laws (direct conflict), or the state law frustrates the federal law’s purpose (indirect conflict).
Can race be the predominant factor used to draw boundary lines for state or federal legislative districts?
NO.
Article I of the Constitution grants states the power to draw state and federal legislative districts.
However, when exercising this power, states must comply with other constitutional provisions.
This includes the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause, which requires that race not be the predominant factor used to draw boundary lines for state or federal legislative districts.
- If it is, then the boundary lines will be subject to strict scrutiny review and likely deemed unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 4 Elections Clause
The Article I, section 4 elections clause grants state legislatures the power to enact laws that regulate the time, place, and manner of congressional elections (e.g., by establishing voting sites).
But the clause also grants Congress the power to override those state laws by supplanting them with federal law.
State-election restrictions
- Ordinary (nondiscriminatory)
- Voter registration
- Photo-ID requirement
- Disallowing write-in voting
Rational basis: challenger must show restriction lacks rational relationship to legitimate state interest
- Severe (discriminatory)
- Poll tax
- Disallowing third-party candidacies
- Property-ownership requirement
Strict Scrutiny: state must show restriction is necessary to achieve compelling state interest.
States may regulate their own elections by requiring voters and candidates to abide by certain requirements. But these regulations must comply with the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause, which together secure an individual’s right to vote and freely associate—e.g., the right to access the ballot.
What standard is used for evaluating a challenge to an electoral regulation?
If an electoral regulation is challenged under either constitutional provision, the standard for evaluating that regulation depends on the severity of the burden imposed.
A court will apply either:
1) rational basis review – applies to reasonable, nondiscriminatory burdens and requires the challenger to prove that the regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest OR
2) strict scrutiny – applies to severe or discriminatory burdens and requires the state to prove that its regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.
Will a state’s nonpartisan blaket primary election system that requires candidates for state office to be identified on the official election ballot by their self-designated “party preference” withstand a constitutional challenge?
YES, as long as it can pass rational basis review.
In Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, the U.S. Supreme Court held this party-preference requirement is subject to rational basis review because it is an ordinary burden on associational rights.
Can a state prohibit all use of public facilities and public employees in performing abortions?
YES.
A state may prohibit all use of public facilities and public employees in performing abortions.
Although a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion, the state is not constitutionally required to permit abortions at a state owned or operated facility.
Is there a constitutional right to have the government provide indignent women with funding for an abortion or for medical care related to an abortion?
NO.
This is true even if the government does provide indigent funding for medical care at childbirth.
When does a state’s law create an undue burden to a woman’s right to an abortion?
An undue burden exists when the purpose or effect of a state law places substantial obstacles in the way of a woman’s right to seek an abortion before the fetus attains viability.
An undue burden has been found when a state requires a woman to notify her spouse before having an abortion, even when there are exceptions to the notice requirement.
The following requirements have been held not to impose an undue burden on abortion:
i) A requirement that only a licensed physician may perform an abortion;
ii) A requirement that the physician must provide the woman with truthful information about the nature of the abortion procedure, the associated health risks, and the probable gestational age of the fetus;
iii) A requirement that a woman must wait 24 hours after giving informed consent before the abortion is performed;
iv) A requirement that a minor obtain her parents’ consent, or if consent is not required, provide the parents with notice of the abortion.
* However, this consent requirement has been found to be an undue burden unless, at least for mature minors, the consent requirement can be judicially bypassed. Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City Missouri Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983).
v) A ban on a particular uncommon abortion technique, Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
* The Court found that the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others if it has a rational basis to act and it does not impose an undue burden.
Classifications based on Alienage
- Federal Classification
Classifications based on status as a lawful resident of the United States (as opposed to a citizen) are subject to a variety of different standards, depending on the level of government and the nature of the classification.
