Quiz (Shelby, SFFA, Carpenter) Flashcards
Shelby county v. Holder
2013, Section 5 and 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, prohibited some states from changing election law without official authorization. Shelby County Alabama wanted that to end, on the grounds that it exceeded Congress’ authority under the 14th and 15th Amendments, and therefore violated the 10th Amendment and Article 4 of the Const. An important precedent was South Carolina v. katzenbach which upheld the act and said it was justified by the exceptional conditions of widespread racism in voting. SC sided with Alabama and held that section 4 of the VRA was unconst. MO by Justice Roberts: the act imposes burdens that aren’t responsive to current conditions. The restrictions made sense when they were made but they don’t anymore so there an unconst. infringement on states powers. DO by Justice Ginsberg: Congress had gathered sufficient evidence to show why the act was still necessary, and congress can make legislation that targets potential states abuses. She said that the increase in african american voters was because of the act.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
2023, (SFFA) sued Harvard and the University of NC, arguing their race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian applicants and violated federal civil rights law and the Constitution. The clash was between affirmative action in college admissions and the EPA of the 14th Amendment. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): Allowed race to be used as one factor among many in admissions to achieve diversity. But such policies must be narrowly tailored and time-limited. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), while affirmative action could be used in college admissions, rigid racial quotas were unconst. SC held that AA admissions at Harvard and UNC violated the EPA. MO by justice Roberts: exceptions to EPA have to pass strict scrutiny. The universities couldn’t demonstrate their compelling interests in a measurable way, failed to avoid racial stereotypes, and did not offer a logical endpoint for when race-based admissions would cease. Didn’t say applicants can’t discuss how race affected their lives. DO by justice Sotomayer: Argued the majority was ignoring the role of race in systemic inequality. The decision rolled back decades of progress and misunderstood the purpose of AA as a tool for equal opportunity, not discrimination.
Carpenter v. U.S
2018, Carpenter was convicted of robbery based in part on cell phone location records obtained by the FBI without a warrant. The gov got several months of his cell-site location info from his wireless carrier under the Stored Communications Act. The conflict was between the SCA (allowed access to phone records without a warrant) and the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. An important precedent was: Katz v. United States (1967), which established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, and that the 4th amend protect people not places. SC held that the gov needs a warrant to access cell phone location data, as people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. MO by Justice Roberts: 4th amend protects not only property interests, but also reasonable expectations of privacy. Tracking a person’s movements and location through extensive cell-site records is intrusive. People do not voluntarily share this data in a meaningful way with cell providers. So this violated the 4th amend and a warrant is needed. DO by Justice Kennedy: cell-site records are no different from the many other kinds of business records the government has a lawful right to obtain by compulsory process. He would continue to limit the 4th Amendment to its property-based origins.
