Individual Rights Flashcards
Privileges and Immunities Clause
“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities or citizens of the United states”
Cases:
Slaughterhouse cases (butchers mandated to go to central slaughterhouse)
Saenz v. Roe (Cali benefits)
Slaughter House Cases
mandated butchers to go to a specific monopolized slaughterhouse
i. 14 Amendment originally designed to eliminate slavery exclusively
iii. Privileges or immunities of fed citizenship compared to state: wanted a right to gainful employment; said this was a state right & here state was passing the legislation
1. Eviscerates privileges and immunities clause;
2. privileges and immunities you enjoy as a U.S. citizen; not state citizenship (access to sea ports, protection on high seas.. enumerated)
Saenz v. Roe
(less benefits to new residents of CALI as opposed to the established citizen …right to freely chose your citizenship)
i. Privileges or immunities clause protects the rights of newly arrived citizens
ii. This is the only useful area for the clause
Protection of Economic Liberty
a. Due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments are interpreted to protect the “freedom of contracts”- Stems from Post-Revolution fear of wealth redistribution
b. Designed to protect existing contracts
2. History: after the rev war the leg. Was setting up schemes to allows debtors to escape creditors… feared redistribution of wealth
Cases:
(1) Home Building & loan association
(2) Allied Steel v. Spannus
Home Building & loan association
- Great depression credit crisis. Passed legislation to extend mortgage payments
- Balance state police power with protecting creditors- said no rights are absolute
- Reasonability test: state interest was homes; fundamental- acting to protect community.
-Balancing needs of all with individual interest
-Also consider emergency
Passed
Allied Steel v. Spannus
- Statute required certain employers in Minnesota to a “pension funding charge” if they terminated a pension plan or closed an office or if existing pension funds were not sufficient to pay pensions to employees who had worked at least 10 years
- Test: nature and purpose of act
a. Severe? –here yes; completely altered relationship b/w employer and employee
b. Greater societal interest needing protection?- potential problem only harms small portion of society- narrow effects
- failed
Private Property-Eminent Domain
i. Takings clause: (1)Taking must actually happen (2) Taking must be for some public use; not individual gain (3) Sort of in tune with the contracts clause for societal benefit (4) What counts as just compensation?
ii. Types:
1. Physical occupation
2. Regulatory taking; regulates the use f property; compensation is only required if the purpose of regulation or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the economic use of the property suggest that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner
3. Government takes property; when a physical intrusion reaches the extreme form of a permanent physical occupation regardless of how small the amount of space occupied.
United States v. Causby
planes were flying over Causby’s land and his chickens were dying from fear and flying into walls of barn.
4. Flights over private land are not a taking unless the are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land- court here said it was
Kelo v. City of New London
(NLDC proposed a development plan to build residences, shops, a museum, and office space next to a research facility)
a. “public use” was defined broadly
c. dissent: Motel 6 v. Ritz Carlon
i. property here presented no public harm
ii. also homes were being taking; this is a huge fucking deal
Notes:
-Berman: cleared slums to eliminate blight; this was considered a public harm
-used Midkiff- in Hawaii gov took property to prevent land oligopoly
Incorporation Doctrine
Bill of Rights has been incorporated to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment;
Selective v. Total (comes from Adamson)
-Total: Justice Black argues complete Bill of Rights applies to the States
-Selective: piecemeal approach 1:1 as justice needed according to Frankfuerter
Palko v. CT: Rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty are incorporated through the 14th
Cases of incorporation doctrine
Barron v. Baltimore (city drained wharf and inhibited his business)
Adamson v. CA (dude refused to testify in his own defense; California law then meant he admitted guilt through this)
McDonald v. City of Chicago (guy wanted to use his handgun, and city tried to ban them)
Barron v. Baltimore
(city drained wharf and inhibited his business)→ dude lost, pre-14th, no incorporation at all
i. Sued for constructive deprivation of property
ii. Sued State actor, not Fed,
iii. Marshall argued that the Bill of Rights only limited the powers of the federal government and was not applicable to state legislatures.
1. Marshall also argues intent of the constitution was to bind the general government
2. Marshall’s oversight: not evaluating the other amendments and what they indicate;
Adamson v. CA
(dude refused to testify in his own defense; California law then meant he admitted guilt through this) claimed violated the 14th.- Upheld
i. Application of implicit to the concept of ordered liberty test: looked at process-> must be fair procedurally
ii. 14th does not bind state courts in procedure and trial dealing
1. Ruled for state
2. Black dissent: you can’t pick and choose which rights you think should apply
a. Judges shouldn’t be the ones interpreting fundamentals
McDonald v. City of Chicago
Chicago (guy wanted to use his handgun, and city tried to ban them) Mc argued it was a fed right under 2nd amendment
i. New Incorporation Test: conflict b/w state law and constitutional right: this was fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty… more broad than in Palco.
ii. This case is a good example of justice Thomas’s view on privilege and immunities clause
