Midterm Flashcards
What is the equal protection clause and what amendment is it found in?
“no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws”
14th amendment
What is the State Action Doctrine?
It is found in the 14th amendment and says that only states are able to break the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause has nothing to do with private people being able to do things. After the 1964 Civil Rights Act, private businesses cannot openly discriminate because of race.
What is reverse incorporation?
Technical way of saying that although the equal protection clause says ‘no state shall’, the federal government is just as liable of violating the equal protection clause. (After 1954 in Bolling v. Sharpe)
What is a standard of review?
It’s a way that judges examine the legislative classification to determine its constitutionality. In a standard of review, there is a presumption of constitutionality or unconstitutionality.
What is strict scrutiny SR and when is it used?
Strict Scrutiny incorporates a strong assumption of unconstitutionality. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the constitutionality. The government must be able to prove to things in order to overcome the strong assumption of unconstitutionality:
- Compelling State Interest - this is a state interest that is very important. Something that the government needs to do in order to fulfill its role as the government. This is a high standard to meet.
- Narrowly Tailored - Assuming the first qualification has been met, the government must show that the only way to achieve the goal is by using this specific legislative classification.
What is Intermediate Scrutiny SR and when is it used?
This is also a heightened scrutiny standard of review. There is a weaker assumption of unconstitutionality. The state can overcome the presumption of unconstitutionality if it can show two things:
- If it can show it has an important interest. This is less than compelling.
- It has to be substantially related, meaning the state can show that there really aren’t too many ways of achieving this.
What is rational basis SR and when is it used?
This is how most legislative classifications work. The law singles out a specific variable and decides how it is related to the standard of review. The plaintiff must show that it is either rationally related or a legitimate government interest.
You figure out how much under and over inclusion the law has and see the relationship. There are five possible relationships:
- Perfect fit - no under inclusion or over inclusion
- Worst possible fit - completely under and over inclusion
- Under inclusion but no over inclusion
- Over inclusion but no under inclusoin
- At least some under inclusion and some over inclusion.
What are the facts of the Beazer case?
- The legislative classification is people who use methadone and people who don’t use methadone.
- The state’s interest was workplace safety and efficiency.
- This case is about over-inclusion because if the primary concern is about safety, the workers on methadone for over a year were only slightly more likely to pose danger than those under a year.
- The judge held that the rule served the general objective of safety and efficiency and that it was not directed towards a group of people with an unpopular trait.
- Justice White’s concern is a ban on methadone users has a disporportionate effect on certain users. If you had an abuse problem with other substances you wouldn’t be included. (subtle form of discrimination)
What are the facts of the Fritz case?
- About the legitimate part of legitimate state interests.
- This case gave double benefits to those who had at least 25 years of railroad service as of 1974. If you had works less than 10 years you wouldn’t get any benefits. If you had already retired as of 1974 and hadnt worked anywhere else, you got double.
- This case involves reverse incorporation.
- The majority opinion said that any conceivable interest that the state offers as a goal, even if that isn’t the interest thaty motivated anyone who voted for the law, then it is legitamate. (Arguing that the judiciary shouldn’t have the power to interpret the intent of the lawmakers)
- 6.
What are the facts of the Moreno case?
- Congress modified what a household means to further clarify who qualifies and who doesn’t qualify for food stamps.
- State Interest: Minimize fraud and increase levels of nutrition among low income households.
- Under-inclusion: Those that were committing fruad who still qualified as a family.
- Over-inclusion: Those who were not committing fruad who did not qualify as a family.
- Brennon found that there was enough legislative history to indicate that this bill was intended to target hippie communes, and targetting an unpopular group cannot qualify as a legitimate state interest. The program instead targets those who cannot afford to alter their living arrangements to retain their eligability.
What are the facts of the Dred Scott case?
- Dred Scott is a slave who is owned by an army doctor in Missouri.
- The slave owner is stationed in a free state, and his personal slave is there with him for two years.
- After they spend time in the free state they move to the wisconsin territory.
- The doctor is sent to florida and dies, and Dred Scott sues the widow of the doctor for his freedom.
- Dred Scott wins at the trial court, but eventually loses at the Missouri Supreme Court.
- He has to prove Diversity of Citizenship jurisdiction (plaintiff and defendant of different states) in order for his case to be heard in a federal court.
- Dred Scott sued his current owner which was a citizen of New York.
- The supreme court had to answer a procedural question and a substantive question.
What are the procedural and substantive questions of the Dred Scott case, and how were they answered?
- The Procedural Question: Does Diversity of Citizenship Jurisidiction exist in this case? Taney concludes that no black person could ever be a citizen in his or her state. Citizenship is exclusively white. Taney used his originalist stance as a defense for this.
- The substantive question: Is the Missouri compromise of 1820 constitutional? Scott was claiming that the comromise freed him because he lived in the territoty. The court found it unconstitutional. Taney argued that Congress does not have the power to ban slavery in the territories because the constitution was written as a pro-slavery document. He is trying to show that the constitution curates the right to own a slave, and a slave cannot be relinquished from its owner without due process of law.
What are the facts of Plessy v. Ferguson?
- Plessy argued that he was 1/8 African American and should be entitled to sit in coach with whites.
- The court must decide whether racially segregated passenger cars violate the equal protection clause.
- The court concludes that only civil rights fall under strict scrutiny, and social rights fall under something like rational basis.
- The court argued that the seperation of the two races did not imply the african american race as inferior. If there was an implication of inferiority, it was because the african americans constructed it on themselves.
- The court upheld the Louisiana law which held that seperate but equal public facilities be constitutional.
What are the facts of railway express case?
- Legislative Classification: Advertising on trucks
- Rational Basis Standard of Review
- Over-inclusion – very little or none
- Under-inclusion – any person who is advertising on their truck for the purpose of their business, but is not renting out advertising to third parties.
- The state’s interest is to prevent traffic problems by distracting advertisements.
- The court argued that the legislative classification has relation to the purpose for which it was made and does not contain discrimination against that which the equal protection clause protects. It also noted that the one-step-at-a-time approach was best because government might not have the resources to address the problem of traffic safety, and there might not be a legislative majority which supports the case.
How does Justice Black decide Korematsu?
- Black implies in his opinion that he is using strict scrutiny, but instead takes a more rational basis approach.
- Black was aware that there wasn’t any incriminating evidence, but still made his opinion in the favor of internment.
- The case was heavily over and under inclusive.
- Black argues that during wartime, the actions of congress against the japanese people cannot be racially antagonizing. Since it is not racial antagonism, then strict scrutiny is not necessary.
- Black clearly believes that since Korematsu is Japanese, then he is more likely to commit acts of espionage.
