Limits on Gov Power: SDP Flashcards
14A Due Process Clause
“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property w/o due process of law”
- Interpreting the word liberty to have fundamental rights which are NOT enumerated in the constitution
SDP = Gov defending whether or not they have the right to deny the right to everyone (not to a particular set of people)
- SDP limits the policy choices the gov can make (depending upon the nature of the individual liberty at issue)
- looks at the gov action taken
Exam tip: law denies a right to some but not all
Procedural Due Process: limits the methods by which gov enforces law (Not tested on final)
Standard of Review Based on Individual Liberty at Issue
If NON-FUNDAMENTAL Liberty interest: Rational Basis Review
(non-fundamental liberty interest could be: economic interests)
- Ends-Means Analysis:
(i) End/purpose is permissible as long as court can conceive ANY goal not prohibited by Const.
(ii) Means(law) is permissible as long as there is a/any rational relationship to the purpose (See Williams v. Lee Optial)
If FUNDAMENTAL liberty interest (excluding abortion): Strict Scrutiny
Ends-Mean Analysis:
- The End/purpose must be COMPELLING goal not prohibited by the constitution
- The means (law) is only permissible if necessary/least burdensome way to achieve the purpose
(i) High hurdle for gov to satisfy (but still possible)
(ii) Compelling goal: National Security, Child support, criminalizing incest or sex with a minor.
What was the Lochner-Era
Time when the Court was making policy from the bench by inputting their ideology by striking or upholding state or federal laws
- Usually political ideology or economic policy
TAKEAWAY: Freedom to Contract is a fundamental right
Substantive Due Process
Whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life, liberty, or property.
E.g., when a right under the Due Process Clause is deemed fundamental by the Supreme Court, the government must prove that its action is necessary to achieve a compelling purpose
Lochner-Era Cases
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
- Court struck down a LA law requiring all insurance on LA property to be issued by insurers registered to do business in the state. SC characterized the law as an infringement on the right of out of state brokers to pursue their livelihoods.
Coppage v. Kansas: Striking down state law facilitating union organizing
Lochner v. NY: Striking down law setting maximum hours for bakers b/c violates right to contract
Holmes dissent: Majority decides case based on economic policy, not the law. Their job is not to make policy but to interpret the Const
Muller v. Oregon: Upheld law setting maximum hours for women to work
(i) Ends: Women are essential for offspring and thus their physical well-being is a public interest
(ii) Means is appropriate and legitimate → women are weaker than men and need special protection
(b) Ex of inconsistency: SC previously held right to contract is fundamental, but in this case the court sets that aside when it interferes with their policy preference.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital: Struck down minimum wage law for women
Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.: Struck Down Bedcovers consumer protection law
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
LEAVING THE LOCHNER ERA
Court upheld state law establishing minimum wage for women, directly overruling Adkins.
(a) SC said Constitution doesn’t speak of freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty w/o DP of law.
(b) West Coast Hotel court also rejected Lochner’s assumption that K are freely made
(i) Here the court now credited legislatures’ perspectives, which saw bargaining inequality and coercion
(c) Echoed Holmes Lochner Dissent: Holmes in Lochner accused SC of having a particular economic philosophy and implementing its own economic theory. Now SC is saying the legislature should make economic philosophy and implement economic theory
US v. Carolene Products
TAKEAWAY: When law does not infringe on a fundamental right, then it gets rational basis review
FACTS: Congress passed the Filled Milk Act, which prohibits the sale of milk mixed with oil or non-milk fat.
ISSUE: Whether the Filled Milk Act violates the DPC of the 14th Amendment?
HOLDING: No, in passing the FMA, Congress relied on extensive evidence that consuming inferior milk products posed a significant danger to the health and safety of the general public.
Famous Footnote 4
When Constitutionality may not be presumed and stricter scrutiny may be applied:
1. Infringes on a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights.
- Restricts or infringes upon the political process (e.g. votings)
- Prejudices “discrete, numerical, and insular minorities.”
PROF:
If this case was brought up to the court during the Lochner Court, what would be the fundamental right that the court will likely protect?
- The Filled Milk Act will likely have been struck down because it would have infringed on an economic fundamental right of freedom to contract and the Court would have applied strict scrutiny.
Williamson v. Lee Optical
TAKEAWAY: Gov can now win when the law does not infringe on a recognized fundamental right because there is a presumption of constitutionality when the government action does not infringe on a fundamental right. Therefore the Court will apply Rational Basis Review which is highly deferential to the government’s action.
FACTS: Oklahoma state law prohibits opticians from making new glasses for people without a prescription. History showed that the state legislature had been heavily lobbied by ophthalmologists, who didn’t want to miss the opportunity to charge patients for an eye exam.
ISSUE: Does the OK law violate the DPC of the 14th Amendment?
HOLDING:
Standard of Review: RBR because not infringing on a fundamental right
Purpose: To make people get more frequent eye exams.
Means: Forcing people to get eye exams before getting new glasses.
Incorporation Overview
Incorporation= means by which SC has made most BOR provisions applicable to states (since Slaughterhouse cases said application of BOR to states cannot be through Privileges or Immunities clause)
(a) Incorporation is a version of substantive due process
Exam tip: States don’t violate BOR, must allege they violated the 14A
Incorporation Cases
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR Co. V. City of Chicago
- The DPC of the 14th A prevented states from taking property without just compensation.
Twinning v. New Jersey
- SC first expressly discussed applying the BOR to the states through the process of finding a right to be “incorporated” into the DPC of the 14th.
- Twinning opened the door to SCOTUS applying provisions of the BOR to the states by finding them included – incorporated - into the DPC of the 14th.
Gitlow v. New York
- Court held that 1st A protection of freedom of speech & press applies to the states through its incorporation into DPC of 14A
Selective Incorporation
SC uses Palko test to determine if an BOR provision is applicable to state.
Selective Incorporation: Court uses selective incorporation to apply provisions of the first 8 amendment to state / local gov
Key Takeaway: Selective incorporation is a way to limit power of state and local government and virtually all provisions have been incorporated.
Prof: One accurate critique is that selective incorporation gives judges power. It’s a highly discretionary rule that could be applied one way in one decade but another way in a later decade
Incorporation Today
Almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have passed this test
What is NOT
(a) 5th Amend (grand jury criminal indictment)
(b) 7th Amend (jury trial in civil cases)
Undecided
(a) 3rd Amend (quartering of soldiers)
