FINAL civil terms Flashcards
1
Q
constitutional principle that protects certain fundamental rights from government interference - even if procedures are fair. it comes from the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments
- the government cannot infringe on certain deeply rooted rights - even with fair procedures - unless it has a compelling reason
A
Substantive Due Process
2
Q
- conneticuit has a law banning use of contraceptives - even by married couples
- Griswold was convicted for providing contraceptive advice
- the court struck down the law, holding it violated a constitutional “right to privacy”
- majority agreed the law was unconstitutional, but disagreed on where the right to privacy comes from on the constitution
A
Fundamental Right to Privacy (Varying reasons for recognition of right in Griswold)
3
Q
the Supreme Court created a trimester-based framework to balance a women’s right to privacy with the state’s interest in protecting maternal health and potential life
A
Three part analysis (1st trimester; 2nd trimester; viability)
4
Q
“all well regulated Militia, being necessary to the scrutiny of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
- originally tied to the idea of militia protecting the states
- over time, debates developed about whether it protects a collective right (lined to militias) or an individual right (personal gun ownership)
- District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): first major ruling to recognize an individual right to possess firearms for
A
Second Amendment
5
Q
- 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed shortly after the civil war to end slavery and establish civil rights protections for newly free African Americans
A
Civil War amendments
5
Q
- period after the civil war when the United States focused on
- rebuilding the south
- reintegrating the southern states back into the Union
- extending civil and political rights to newly freed African Americans
- unify the nation after the civil war
- protect the rights of freed slaves, through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments
A
Reconstruction
6
Q
- state and local laws in the southern United States that enforced racial segregation from the late 1800s to mid-1900s
- named after a racist minstrel character, these laws legally separated Black and white Americans in public and private life
- schools, transportation, public facilities, housing and marriage laws
- upheld by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal”
- Brown v. board of ed, civil rights act of 1964, Voting rights act of 1965
A
Jim Crow laws
7
Q
- justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenter in the 7-1 decision that upheld racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine
- “our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows now tolerates classes among citizens”
- he believed segregation laws violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
- segregation creates inferiority
- warning of future harm
- equality before the law
A
Plessy v. Ferguson – dissent
8
Q
- Brown v. Board of Ed II (1955)
- after ruling that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in Brown I, the Supreme Court in Brow II addressed how desegregation should happen
- the court ordered that public schools must desegregate “with all deliberate speed”. schools were required to move promptly toward integration, but not immediately.
- this led to the Southern schools/states to delay desegregation and weakened the enforcement of Brown II
A
“with all deliberate speed”
9
Q
- ruled that racial segregation in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
- the court in Brown II did not set a strict deadline for ending segregation - it ordered desegregation to proceed “with all deliberate speed”
- true progress toward integrated schools took decades and required additional laws, court cases, and federal action.
A
Implementation of the Brown decision
10
Q
- racial separation that happens by fact or custom, not by law
- occurs naturally, often through housing patterns, economic inequalities, and social practices, rather than being legally mandated.
- not caused by explicit laws
- courts have treated de facto segregation different than de jure
- courts require remedies only if the government caused the segregation
- if segregation occurred naturally, there’s less obligation to intervene
A
Defacto segregation
11
Q
- racial separation enforced by law or official government policy
- it happens when laws, ordinances, or government actions intentionally require segregation of people by race
- mandated by law, not by choice or custom
- Jim Crow laws
- state laws
- explicit zoning laws
A
Dejure segregation
12
Q
- policies and practices designed to address past discrimination by providing advantages or opportunities to historically marginalized groups, especially in education and employment
- affirmative action policies based on race had to meet strict scrutiny because race is a suspect classification
- regents of university of California v. Bakke: race can be considered, but racial quotas are unconstitutional
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): upheld the limited use of race to achieve a diverse student body at the university of Michigan law school
- fisher v. University of Texas (2013 & 2016): reaffirmed that strict scrutiny applies but allowed narrowly tailored race-conscious admissions policies
- SSFA v. Harvard , race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional
A
Affirmative Action (standard, current case)
13
Q
- public school districts in Seattle and Louisville used students’ race as a tiebreaker to determine school assignments
- their goal was to achieve racial diversity and avoid racial isloation
- Supreme Court struck down these plans as unconstitutional
- rules that racial balancing is not a compelling government interest under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
- the majority said the plans were not narrowly tailored and used race too mechanically
- Justice Breyer: preventing resegregation and promoting integration are compelling government interests. the plans used race modestly and flexibly not rigid quotas. the majority’s decision ignored history, especially the court’s role in enforcing desegregation after Brown v. Board of Ed
A
Racial balancing (Parents of Seattle & dissent)
14
Q
- diversity, especially in education, became a central justification for affirmative action programs
- instead of focusing only on remedying past discrimination, schools and employers argued that achieving a diverse student body or workforce is itself a compelling government interest
- diversity was recognized as a compelling interest to justify affirmative action under strict scrutiny
- affirmative action policies had to be narrowly tailored and use race as one factor among many
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: no racial quotas, upheld diversity as a compelling interest. race can be considered as one factor among many in admissions
- Grutter v. Bollinger: achieving a diverse student body is a compelling interest that can justify limited, individualized consideration of race. universities can consider race to foster “cross-racial understanding” and break down racial stereotypes
- Parents involved v. Seattle: diversity in k-12 education is not as easily justified as in higher education. struck down public school assignment plan that relied too heavily on race
- students for fair admissions v. Harvard/UNC: race-conscious admissions programs in higher ed violate the equal protection clause. diversity remains a valuable goal, using race directly as a factor in admissions is no longer allowed.
A
Diversity & affirmative action
15
Q
- fixed numerical targets that reserve a certain number of spots or opportunities for members of specific racial or ethnic groups
- regents of the University of California v. Bakke: the court struck down racial quotas in college admissions. reserved 16 out of 100 for minority applicants. quotas excluded individuals based solely on race, rather than treating applicants as individuals
- rigid racial quotas are unconstitutional
- they fail strict scrutiny because they are not narrowly tailored, automatically favor some individuals over others based on race. conflict with the constitutional principle that government must treat individuals equally
A
Quotas
16
Q
- highest level of judicial review courts use to evaluate laws that classify people based on race, national origin, or infringe on fundamental rights (like voting, marriage, privacy, or free speech)
- the government must prove that the law or policy: serves a compelling government interest, is narrowly tailored, uses the least restrictive means
- it covers: race, ethnicity, national origin, sometimes alienage, applies to laws that infringe on fundamental rights
- the burden is on the government. must show that the law meets all three parts if not law is unconstitutional
A
Strict scrutiny (test/ who it covers/ who has the burden)
17
Q
- middle level of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws that classify people based on quasi-suspect classifications like sex or gender. stricter than rational, but less demanding Thant strict scrutiny
- government must prove: serves an important government interest. is substantially related to achieving that interest (law must have a clear and tight connection to the goal
- applies to: sex-based classifications (Craig v. Born, United States v. Virginia). Illegitimacy (non-marital children). Sometimes extended to transgender or sexual orientation claims (depending on the court)
- burden on on the government
- helps protect against stereotypes and unjustified gender distinctions, while still giving the government some flexibility
A
Intermediate scrutiny (test/ who it covers/ who has the burden)
18
Q
- apart of intermediate scrutiny test applied in sex or gender discrimination cases
- first emphasized in United States v. Virginia, where the court struck down the Virginia military institute’s male only admissions policy
- to defend a gender-based classification, the government must provide an: important government objective, and the law or policy that is substantially related to achieving that objective
- in gender cases the court has added the the government must also offer an exceedingly persuasive justification; the gov must how more than convenience or tradition, must demonstrate a strong and convincing reason for treating people different based on sex
- United States v Virginia
A
Exceedingly persuasive justification
19
Q
- lowest level of judicial review used by courts. it applies when laws do not involve fundamental rights or suspect/quasi-suspect classifications
- the law must: serve a legitimate government interest. be rationally related to achieving that interest. the laws do not need to be perfect, just reasonable.
- applies to: age, disability, poverty/income, economic classifications. most general laws not targeting specific protected groups.
- burden is on the challenger, not the gov. the law is presumed constitutional unless the challenger proves it is entirely irrational or based on animus
- most laws easily survive rational review, but some have not like Romeo v. Evan and Cleburne v. Cleburne living center
A
Rational basis scrutiny (test/ who it covers/ who has the burden)
20
Q
- the Supreme Court has not definitively declared a specific level of scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination
- the court has appealed a form of “enhanced” rational basis review - more skeptical than ordinary rational basis, but not full intermediate or strict scrutiny.
- romer v. evans: struck down a Colorado amendment that barred protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. the court used rational basis, but applied it more aggressively - finding the law was based on animus, not legitimate interest
- United States v. Windsor: overturned part of the defense of marriage act.did not announce a level of scrutiny, bust used reasoning similar to heightened or rational basis “with bite”
- Obergefell v. Hodges: legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. grounded the decision in fundamental rights and liberty under substantive due process, not equal protection. the court again avoided declaring a scrutiny level, but focused on dignity, equality, and individual autonomy.
A
Sexual orientation discrimination (what level of scrutiny)
21
Q
- title VII of the civil rights act (1964): originally did not protect sexual orientation. Bostock v. Clayton county: Supreme Court ruled that firing someone for being gay or transgender is discrimination “because of sex” and thus violates Title VII
- defense of marriage act: defined marriage as one man, one women. U.S v. Windsor: struck down parts of DOMA. Obergefell v. Hodges: legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, ending DOMA.
A
Federal laws/ sexual orientation
22
Q
- rights the supreme court has recognized as deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions and essential to liberty.
- laws that infringe on fundamental rights are reviewed under strict scrutiny.
- strict scrutiny: government must show that the law serves a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored, unless the least restrictive means
- no, the Court has not recognized education as a fundamental right under the constitution. San Antonio Independent school district v. Rodriguez: court held that education is important but not a fundamental right. laws involving education only need to meet rational basis review unless another protected right or suspect classification is involved.
A
Fundamental rights (level of scrutiny)/ education?
23
Q
- section of the civil rights act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination.
- makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based on: race, color, religion, sex, national origin.
- Bostock v. Clayton, the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status is covered under the ban on sex discrimination
- title VII is the cornerstone off federal employment discrimination law. enforced by the equal protection opportunity commission
A
1964 Civil Rights Act – Title VII
24
- history of discrimination: has the group faced long standing and systemic discrimination or prejudice?
- immutable characteristics: is the characteristic beyond the person's control (race, national origin)
- political powerlessness: is the group a "discrete and insular minority" the lacks meaningful political influences?
- relevance to ability to contribute to society: is the trait irrelevant;evant to a person's capabilities or worth (race does not impact one's ability to work or vote)
Factors to determine whether a class is suspect (strict scrutiny)
25
- the Supreme Court has not yet definitively ruled on what level of scrutiny applies to transgender classifications under the equal protection clause
- many federal appeals courts have applied intermediate scrutiny to laws or policies that discriminate based on gender identity. Glenn v. Crumby - the court ruled that discrimination against a transgender person is a form of sex discrimination and required intermediate scrutiny
- bostock v. Clayton county: the Supreme Court ruled that firing someone for being transgender violates Title VII's ban on sex discrimination - but this was an employment case, not an equal protection case, and did not set a scrutiny level
- no single clear standard from the Supreme Court (yet)
- many courts apply intermediate scrutiny to transgender discrimination under equal protection.
- some courts used rational basis with intermediate skepticism when government bias is suspected.
Transgender/level of scrutiny
26
these rights are protected under substantive due process, and any law infringing them is reviewed under strict scrutiny (the law must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored)
- Privacy & Autonomy:
- marriage (obergefell v. Hodges)
- procreation (skinner v. Oklahoma)
- contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut)
- parental rights (Meyer v. Nebraska)
- childrearing decisions
- refusal of medical treatment (cruzan v. Missouri)
- intimate conduct
- sexual intimacy (Lawrence v. texas)
- bodily integrity
- abortion (roe v. wade, planned parenthood v. Casey)
fundamental rights recognized by the court
27
a fundamental implied by several amendments in the bill of rights that protects personal decisions about marriage, family, and intimacy from the government interference
right to privacy
28
implied zones of privacy created by the "shadows" of specific constitutional guarantees (1st, 3rd, 5th, and 9th)
justice Douglas penumbras right to privacy
29
9th amendment protects unenumerated rights, including privacy, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution
justice Goldberg 9th amendment justification on the right to privacy
30
grounded the right to privacy in the 14th amendment's due process clause, arguing that the law violated values "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty"
Justice Harlan substantive due process
31
agreed the law was unconstitutional but used a rational basis text, stating there was no valid state interest in banning contraceptive use by married couples
Justice White rational Basis & liberty for the right to privacy
32
- recognized a women's constitutional right to choose an abortion under the right to privacy rooted in substantive due process of the 14th amendment. the court applied strict scrutiny and created the trimester framework to balance the women's right with the state's interest
- 1st trimester: abortion decisions left to the women and physician
2nd trimester: state regulate the interest of maternal health
- 3rd trimester: state could prohibit abortion to protect potential life
roe v wade
33
legal doctrine protecting fundamental rights (like abortion) from government interference, even if not explicitly listed in the constitution
roe treated abortion as a fundamental right, so the law had to pass strict scrutiny
substantive due process roe v. wade
34
overturned roe v. wade, ruling that the constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and returned the power to regulate abortion to the state
Dobbs v. Jackson women's health organization
35
used historical and traditional test, asking whether the right to abortion was "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions"
finding it was not, the court held it was not a fundamental right under the substantive due process
Historical tradition analysis Dobbs v. Jackson
36
because abortion was no linger considered a fundamental right, abortion laws now only need to meet
rational basis review Dobbs v. Jackson
37
Roe used substantive due process and strict scrutiny to protect abortion as an fundamental right
Dobbs rejected that approach, using a historical analysis and applied rational basis review, giving states broad power to regulate abortion
key difference in analysis for roe v wade and hobbs v jackson
38
- the decision to have an abortion is left entirely to the women and her physician
- the state cannot regulate or interfere with the abortion decision
- rationale: abortion during this period is considered safest, and the state's interest is minimal
first trimester (0-12 weeks)
39
- the state may regulate abortion, but only to protect the women's health
- the state still cannot ban abortion during this stage
- rationale: as the pregnancy progresses, risks increase, giving the state a greater interest in maternal health
second trimester (13-24 weeks)
40
- the state may prohibit abortion, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother
- rationale: the fetus is now viable (can survive outside the womb), so the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling
third trimester (viability onward)
41
a legal standard from Planned Parenthood v. Casey that determines whether an abortion restriction is unconstitutional. a law is invalid if it places a substantial obstacle in the path of a women seeking a pre-viability abortion
undue burden test
42
part of the undue burden test requiring courts to evaluate whether the purpose or effect of the law is to restrict access to abortion in a way that creates a substantial obstacle
purpose of effect standard
43
a barrier or regulation that seriously limits or prevents a women from obtaining an abortion before fetal viability. if such an obstacle exists, the law imposes an undue burden and is unconstitutional
substantial obstacle
44
examples include a 24 hours waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent for minors with a judicial bypass - all considered constitutional in Casey because they did not impose a substantial obstacle
regulations upheld under the undue burden test
45
the spousal notification requirement in Casey was invalidated because it posed a substantial risk of domestic abuse, coercion, or fear, and therefore was an undue burden
regulation struck down under the undue burden test
46
this standard replaced the trimester framework from Roe v. Wade and governed abortion regulations for three decades, until it was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson
impact of the undue burden test
47
- abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, except as punishment for crime
- "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States"
13th amendment (1865)
48
- granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., including former slaves, and provided
- due process clause: states cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
- equal protection clause: states must provide equal protection of laws to all people
- privileges or immunities clause: originally meant to protect basic rights of citizens against state infringement
- became the foundation for many major civil cases, including cases on desegregation, same-sex marriage and gender equality
14th Amendment (1868)
49
- prohibited the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or pervious condition of servitude
- "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied...on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"
- aimed to secure voting rights for African American men (although states later found ways to undermine it through poll taxes, literacy tests
15th amendment (1870)
