Individual Rights Flashcards
Barron v. Baltimore
The city of Baltimore diverted streams around the Baltimore harbor, which reduced water levels in the harbor. The plaintiff claimed that this destroyed the value of his wharf, affecting a regulatory taking under the 5th Amendment
The Court held that the 5th Amendment’s protections did not extend to takings by the States. The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government.
The purpose of the BoR was to prevent the federal government from overreaching.
Slaughterhouse Cases
Louisiana passed a statute permitting the slaughtering of animals in New Orleans only in a slaughterhouse owned by a corporation chartered by the statute, and ordered all other slaughterhouses to close.
The Court maintained a narrow interpretation of the P&I clause, arguing that the purpose of the clause was to protect the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves.
Therefore, P&I clause does not incorporate the 14th Amendment.
Palko
Court held that the Due Process Clause only protects those rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, essential to a fair and enlightened system of justice, and so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental
Adamson
The jury instruction allowed the jury to infer from the defendant’s silence that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged. The defendant argued that this instruction, sanctioned by California law, violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th.
The Court held that the 5th’s protections against self-incrimination did not extend to the states because they were not so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty that there could not still be fair and enlightened justice. (This holding has since been reversed).
McDonald
After the Court’s ruling in Heller, the city of Chicago banned handgun possession. The appellant argued that because Heller made the right to bear arms an individual right, the handgun ban violated the Due Process Clause.
The Court held that this right was fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, and that it was rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, relying on the same history set forth in Heller.
Civil Rights Cases
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 prohibited discrimination by private persons in public accommodations based on the §5 of the 14th Amendment.
The Court held that the §5 power cannot extend to private action because the 14th Amendment only protects against violations by the States.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
A New York law required a literacy test for voters. The VRA prohibited literacy tests, and allowed anyone with a sixth grade education who was instructed in a Puerto Rican school (even if she was instructed in Spanish) to vote. New York challenged the VRA on §5 grounds.
The Court held that this law was plainly adapted to enforcing the Equal Protection Clause, and as such, the Act was within the §5 power, even if literacy tests are not unconstitutional. The Court gave deference to Congress in determining whether there was a legitimate reason for Congress to pass the VRA.
City of Boerne
The City refused to grant a permit for a church to expand its parish, citing historical preservation and zoning laws. The parish sued the City, claiming that it had violated RFRA.
RFRA reverted the standard for 1st Amendment violations to strict scrutiny, as provided in Sherbert, citing the §5 enforcement power as its source of power for so doing.
The Court held that RFRA exceeded the §5 power because Congress can only enact laws that are congruent and proportional means to prevent or remedy an injury under the 14th Amendment. Here, Congress attempted to give its own meaning to the protections of the 1st and 14th Amendments
Morrison
The Violence Against Women Act allowed a victim of gender-motivated crimes to seek redress from her attacker and the State in a civil action.
The Court held that this provision of the VAWA was not within its enforcement power because the Equal Protection Clause only protects against state action, not private action. Therefore, it is not congruent and proportional to the injury, because there was no Constitutional injury in the first place.
