PDP/SDP/EP/2nd Am Flashcards
What is rational basis review?
the governmental action must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest
What is intermediate scrutiny?
the governmental action must further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest
What is strict scrutiny?
the governmental action must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means
What are the critical inquires of PDP?
notice and an opportunity to be heard
what constitutes deprivation by the govt in PDP analysis?
purposefully/intentionally depriving a person of a life/liberty/ppty interest constitutes deprivation
what constitutes a ppty interest for purposes of PDP? what is required in the case of govt benefits?
a person clearly must have more than an abstract need/desire for it or a unilateral expectation of it – he must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it
government benefits can constitute a ppty interest for purposes of DP, but only where the employee had a reasonable expectation (not an abstract need/desire) of receiving the gov’t benefit
what constitutes a liberty interest for purposes of PDP? common examples?
a liberty interest may arise from the Constitution itself, by reason of guarantees implicit in the word “liberty,” or it may arise from an expectation/interest created by state law/policies
• common examples
o right to education (Goss)
o right to parental custody (Stanley)
o **any change in legal status
what is your PDP analysis?
1) was there a deprivation?
2) did the depravation impact life/liberty/ppty?
3) Mathews: was the process sufficient? Factors:
(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action,
(2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards,
(3) the gov’t’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional/substitute procedural requirement would entail (deference given to the administrative agency)
what is the premise of SDP?
the concept that there are unwritten individual rights that should be judicially protected against gov’t invasion – i.e. there is no level of process that is sufficient to have these rights encroached upon
what review for SDP of economic rights? what is the only surviving issue and the test?
rational basis
Only surviving - punitive dmg awards
o rule: only when an award can be categorized as grossly excessive in relation to a state’s legitimate interests does it enter the zone of arbitrariness that violates the DPC of the 14th Am
o Gore Guideposts:
(1) degree of reprehensibility of ∆’s conduct
• i.e. is it purely economic or trickery/deceit/concealment
(2) ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages
• few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy DP (Campbell)
(3) sanctions for comparable misconduct
what are the three areas of SDP still alive today?
o (1) express violations of BOR provisions
o (2) breakdowns in the political process
those that can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of the legislation (like the right to vote, assemble, etc.)
discriminatory measures directed at discrete and insular minorities
• (3) violations of privacy rights
what is your SDP privacy rights analysis? how do we determine fundamental rights?
• (1) courts determine whether a claimed right is a “fundamental right”
o fundamental right: those rights and liberties which are objectively deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed (Washington v Glucksberg)
o **common alternative: sometimes courts will use a “collective conscious” analysis and base their conclusion NOT upon history and tradition, BUT UPON the trend of modern legislation and society (ex – Lawrence v Texas)
• (2) if so – strict scrutiny (i.e. cannot be over/under inclusive); if not – rational basis
what are the six protected SPD privacy rights that we know of?
contraceptive use abortion family relationships the right to die consensual sexual choices marriage
SDP contraceptive use rule
• if the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual (married or single) to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child (Eisenstadt v Baird)
SDP abortion rule
• governing rule: a statute which, while furthering a valid state interest, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice to abort a nonviable fetus cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends (Planned Parenthood v Casey)
o reworks Roe into a simple viability inquiry:
(1) prior to viability, the State must be pursuing a legitimate state interest (life of the fetus), and in doing so, cannot impose a substantial obstacle in the way of the mother’s right to abort
• i.e. you can set up structural mechanisms to protect the life of the fetus but never at the expense of the mother’s ultimate choice to choose
(2) subsequent to viability, the State may regulate so long as the abortion is not necessary for the life or health of the mother
unconstitutional conditions doctrine
the government may not penalize the exercise of a constitutional right but may refrain from subsidizing the exercise of that right (Maher, Harris) – i.e. no affirmative duty to act/assist
SDP family rights rules (4)
• rule: there is a fundamental right for a family to choose to live together (Moore)
o extends beyond the nuclear family to uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, grandchildren
• rule: parents have a fundamental right in the care, custody, and control of their children (Troxel)
o so long as the parent is adequately fit, there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the parent’s decisions about child rearing
- rule: the familial liberty interest is not confined to families with married parents (Stanley v IL)
- rule: where a natural father can establish an existing functional relationship with his children, deprivation of his interest “in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his children” warrants application of strict scrutiny (Stanley v IL)
SDP regarding the right to die
• rule: there is a fundamental right to refuse unwanted medical care
o **the decision is personal, so for an incompetent individual, family members do not have a fundamental constitutional right to make the decision on behalf of the incompetent individual
• exception: there is no fundamental right to assisted suicide, whether the patient wants medical assistance to end their own life (Washington v Glucksberg), or whether the patient wants the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment (Vacco)
o i.e. no fundamental “right to die”
SDP consensual sexual choices rule
personal sexual choices that are private and between consenting adults are outside the control of govt legislation
SDP right to marry (3 rules)
• rule: there is a fundamental right to marry or not marry another person (Loving v VA)
o reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed (Zablocki)
- rule: prison inmates have a right to marry (Turner v Safley)
- rule: the right to marriage extends to same-sex couples (Obergeffel v Hodges)
what are the three major categories of EP violations
class-based claims class of one claims fundamental rights claims
what is the default EP standard of review? what purposes will the court look at
rational basis
• must show:
o (1) that the legislation does not rationally advance a legitimate state objective – i.e. the means fail, OR
o (2) that no matter how well the legislation serves the objective, the objective is not legitimate – i.e. the ends fail
in determining legislative objective, the court may look at stated, actual (Brennan), or even conceivable (Rehnquist) objectives (Fritz)
***so long as legislatures can regulate the area as a whole, they can regulate piecemeal for any conceivable rational purpose (so long as the line is not arbitrarily drawn), without interference from the court
how does rational basis with a bite work? where does it apply? what are the unifying qualities of these cases?
while purporting to apply rational basis review, the court appears to only consider the actual purpose of the legislature and invalidating the govt’l action based upon illegitimate govt’l purposes (more strict review of means to ends)
o rule: a bare desire to harm (animus) a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest
applies in Equal Protection Cases
o unifying qualities of these types of cases:
gov’t acting out of an irrational hostility/animus towards an unpopular group
depriving members of an important right/interest while obtaining little, if any, actual advancement of legitimate (non-irrational animus) govt’l interests
what do you have to show to get strict scrutiny for EP analysis?
for heightened scrutiny to apply, the burden is on the challenger to show that a law is (1) purposefully discriminatory, (2) on the basis of a protected classification