final Flashcards
US v Virginia Majority: VMI is a state funded school that has only allowed men to apply and join. Women have applied and have been denied which led to the United States suing the commonwealth of Virginia for violating the Equal Protection clause.
Given by Justice Ginsburg
Sex classifications can be used to compensate women but not to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women inherent differences
Virginia has shown no “exceedingly persuasive justification” for excluding women
“Benign” justifications will not be accepted
Use Reed v Reed to encourage lower courts to take a hard look at tendencies or generalizations
VWIL is not VMI’s equal as it does not provide the equal environment/ training
US v Virginia Dissent: VMI is a state funded school that has only allowed men to apply and join. Women have applied and have been denied which led to the United States suing the commonwealth of Virginia for violating the Equal Protection clause.
Delivered by Justice Scalia
The majority rejects the factual findings the lower courts, the Court’s precedents, and the history of the people
The constitution takes no sides in the educational debate
The court is creating laws into the constitution; all men schools is deeply rooted within history
Strict scrutiny cannot be applied to sex- based classifications
Substantial government interests to exceedingly persuasive justification
American Booksellers Association Inc v Hudnut Majority: Indianapolis enacted an ordinance defining pornography as a practice that discriminates against women.
- Written by circuit Judge Easterbrook
- The ordinance does not match obscenity which was defined by the Supreme Court
- Some say that pornography leads to unacceptable attitudes and discrimination in the workplace while others say that feminist literature depicts women in ways forbidden by the ordinance
- The restriction of speech in the Ordinance goes against the Constitutional right of speech
- Under the first Amendment, the people are allowed to evaluate ideas
- The constitution does not make the dominance of truth a necessary condition of freedom
- Pornography is not a low value of speech
- IN defined pornography as “subordination of women”; didn’t do anything with the slaps test and the law could not stand as it was written
In Re Baby M Majority: William Stern and Mary Beth Whitehead entered into a surrogacy contract. After Mrs. Whitehead gave birth to the child, she decided that her connection with Baby M was stronger than anticipated which led her to taking the baby for 4 months. Mr. Stern filed an order requiring Mrs. Whitehead to hand over her baby
Laws prohibiting the use of money in connection with adoptions, laws requiring proof of paternal unfitness or abandonment before termination of parental rights is ordered or an adoption is granted, and laws that make surrender of custody and consent to adoption revocable in private placement adoptions
Depending on a woman’s financial status. Her decision to be a surrogate may be less voluntary
The purpose of the contract was to give the father the exclusive right to the child by destroying the rights of the mother
The surrogate mother was not counseled or evaluated
The right to procreation does not extend to surrogacy contracts
Remand the issue of visitation to the trial court
Custody was given to the sterns as they were financially stable custody can be given
Ferguson v City of Charleston Majority:Medical University of South Carolina noticed that there was an increase in pregnant women who were using cocaine. In order to combat this, they made an agreement with law enforcement to stop the use of cocaine
Given by Justice Stevens
27 weeks or less= simple possession charge; 28 weeks of more= possession and distribution, while delivering= unlawful neglect of a child
Hospital tests are not to be shared with nonmedical personnel without her consent
under special needs doctrine by defining the search solely in terms of its ultimate, rather than immediate purpose inconsistent with 4th amendment special needs is too broad
Ferguson v City of Charleston Dissent
Given by Justice Scalia
The constitution leaves debate and the democratic process to the citizens. Of Charleston through elected representatives
Cocaine test started in April 1989, neither at police suggestion nor with police involvement they were an additional medical benefit predicting the needed postnatal treatment
The tests had an immediate not merely an ultimate purpose of improving maternal and infant health
It is not the function of this court to weigh petitioners’ privacy interest against the state’s interests in meeting the crisis of crack babies
Program proves that no no- good deed goes unpunished
Ex Parte Devine Majority: The Devine’s have two children who have been granted custody to the mother under the tender years presumption
Given By Justice Maddox
To rebut this presumption the father must present clears and convincing evidence of the mother’s positive unfitness
The tender years presumption affects the resolution of child custody disputes on both a procedural (imposes an evidentiary burden on the father to prove the positive unfitness of the mother) and substantial ( requires the court to award custody of young children to the mother when the parties, as in the present case, are equally fit parents) level
Any statutory scheme which imposes obligations on husbands and not wives establishes a classification based upon sex which is subject to scrutiny under the 14th amendment
Use Reed, Orr, and Frontiero
The sex and Age of the children are important, but a court must go farther and look at emotional, moral, educational, psychological, etc. factors
Ex Parte Devine Dissent: The Devine’s have two children who have been granted custody to the mother under the tender years presumption
Written by Chief Justice Torbert
Decision goes too far and the doctrine is a factor to be considered in deciding custody
The cases cited by the majority have nothing to do with child custody
Custody is not a prize but a responsibility imposed by the court under certain conditions
Cohen v. Brown Majority
-Given by Justice Bowens
-fails to pass part 3 of 3 prong test
-Brown failed to show a history and continuing practice of expansion for opportunities for women
-women’s lower rate of participation reflects historical lack of opportunities in sports
-Brown’s men athletes will not be negatively effected by increasing women benefits
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County Majority: Whether California’s statutory rape law violated the 14th amendment EPA as it claims having sex with a women under 18 unlawful
-Given by Justice Rehnquist
-women face more consequences when dealing with pregnancy
-statute is sufficiently related to the state’s objective to lower teen pregnancy
-the statute equalizes the deterrents of sexes
-if the statute was gender-neutral, it would be hard to enforce as women would be scared to come forward
State v. Jones: Jones sexually assaulted AS
-given by Justice Jones
-all that is required is to prove sexual intercourse without a victim’s consent; verbal resistance is enough
-extrinsic force- force used to overcome resistance- is used to justify count 1
-Count 2 cannot be charged as there was not verbal resistance and AS just froze
Lawrence v. Texas Majority
Written by Justice Kennedy
State cannot and should not be omnipresent in homes
DPC gives them the right to engage in their conduct without intervention of government
Obergefell v. Hodges Majority: John Arthur and James Obergefell married one another after Arthur fell ill. They got married in Maryland- a state that allows same-sex marriage- however they lived in Ohio which does not recognize same-sex marriage. When Arthur died, Ohio law did not allow Obergefell to be listed as a surviving spouse on his death certificate. Also, there was a case in which a couple was not allowed to adopt under state law.
Written by Justice Kennedy
The petitioners are worried about the importance of marriage
DPC extends liberties to certain personal choices and autonomy
Constitution contemplates democracy as an appropriate process for change
-Gay couples provide loving homes, can raise children, have the right to marry whoever, and marriage is a keystone to social order
Stevenson v Stevenson majority: On November 6th, 1997, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant with numerous violations of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The violations arose from violent, sadistic, and prolonged attacks on the plaintiff, but after reconsidering her relationship, the plaintiff asked to dissolve the restraining order
It is public policy of the state of New Jersey that victims of domestic violence must be assured the maximum protection from abuse law can provide
The language of the statute makes the act discretionary not absolute
The plaintiff is consistent with “battered woman’s syndrome” 3 stages: loving and peaceful, tension-building, and acute battering incident
It is important to consider the victim’s fear of the defendant
Even in cases of reconciliation, the court must still make an independent finding that continued protection is unnecessary before vacating a restraining order
Will revisit the case in 3 months
Romer v Evans Majority: There is a Colorado Amendment that sets forth a catalog of traits which cannot be the basis of discrimination, specifically sexual orientation. It was proposed on the Colorado ballot
Written by Justice Kennedy
The amendment deprives gays and lesbians even of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings
“If a law burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, the court will uphold the classification so long as it bears rational relation to some legitimate end”
The amendment lacks rational relationship to state interests, and it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake
The amendment simply makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else
Romer v Evans dissent
Written by Chief Justice and Justice Thomas
The amendment is a modest attempt by the people of Colorado to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority
The constitution does not have anything about the subject so it should be left to the states
“ any group is denied equal protection when, to obtain advantage, it must have recourse to a more general hence more difficult level of political decision making than others
The constitution does not prohibit virtually all the states had done from the founding- homosexual conduct a crime
The “singling out’ of the sexual practices of a single group for statewide, democratic vote, has received the explicit approval of the US congress
Amendment 2 does not disfavor homosexuals in any substantiative sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment
United States v Windsor Majority:Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act which defines the terms marriage and spouse. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married, and Windsor did not qualify for marital exemption from the federal tax. Windsor requested a refund which was denied by the Internal Revenue Service
Written by Justice Kennedy
DOMA creates a disadvantage, a separate status, and a stigma on same-sex couples
DOMA makes same-sex marriage recognized only on the state level and not on the federal level
United states v Windsor dissent:Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act which defines the terms marriage and spouse. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married, and Windsor did not qualify for marital exemption from the federal tax. Windsor requested a refund which was denied by the Internal Revenue Service
Written by Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and The Chief Justice
The court has no power to invalidate the democratically adopted legislation
Just because they declared homosexual sodomy does not mean the court has anything to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any homosexual relationship”
Lawrence v Texas Concurring
Case raises different question than Bowers
Point of statute was more about disapproval than stopping the behavior
Under rational basis, legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest
Lawrence v Texas dissent
Written by Justice Scalia and Thomas
States can regulate morality, this is up to the state
States took part in a culture war
No right to liberty in the Due Process Clause nor is the Texas Law to the standard of review that would be appropriate if it were fundamental (strict scrutiny)
Not deeply rooted in Nation’s history
Cannot find general right to priavcy
Obergefell v. Hodges Dissent: John Arthur and James Obergefell married one another after Arthur fell ill. They got married in Maryland- a state that allows same-sex marriage- however they lived in Ohio which does not recognize same-sex marriage. When Arthur died, Ohio law did not allow Obergefell to be listed as a surviving spouse on his death certificate. Also, there was a case in which a couple was not allowed to adopt under state law.
Written by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas
States previously held that marriage is between a man and a woman
The majority is creating liberties not mentioned in the constitution
Allowing 9 lawyers to make decisions is not a democracy
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County Concurring: Whether California’s statutory rape law violated the 14th amendment EPA as it claims having sex with a women under 18 unlawful
-Given by Justice Blackmun
-Sharon and the petitioner were both consenting in the initial stages of intimacy and therefore should not be tried as a felony
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County dissent
-Given by Justice Brennan, White, and Marshall
-California has to prove that there are less teenage pregnancies with gender-based statute in comparison to gender-neutral one
-other states have the prosecution of both women and men, and the state has changed other laws to be gender-neutral
Bostock v Clayton County Georgia: Majority: Deals with three cases that sum up to: An employer fired a long-time employee shortly after the employee revealed that he or she is homosexual or transgender- 3 allegedly for no reason other than the employee’s homosexuality or transgender status
But for causation” test; would they have been fired otherwise
-they were treated differently bc of their sex; Title VII gives leway; “because of their genders, who they were involved with was the problem”
-use of textualism in Title VII
Bostock v Clayton County Georgia Dissent
Kavanaugh and Alito
-textualism v. society
-Kavanaugh: those who wrote Title VII could not have predicted the current climate and societal understanding of gender and sexuality
-Alito: thinks the court is using textualism to push societies agenda rather than actually applying the laws
