Rest of con law

Question 1

City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center

Answer 1

i. Facts: The city denied a permit to a group home of mentally challenged individuals
ii. Issue: Are regulatory classifications based on mental retardation quasi-suspect such that they should receive intermediate scrutiny?
iii. Holding: The requirement that this group gets a special permit does not pass the rational basis test thus this law is law is invalid
iv. Takeaway: Mental retardation is not a suspect class, so their validity is subject to rational basis review, however, rational basis review does not mean that a court will automatically uphold a law
1. The law here was struck down
2. The motives behind the city’s denial of the permit were irrational
3. This is a higher version of rational basis – shows that the levels of review are more of a sliding scale

Question 2

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Answer 2

i. Facts: Dred Scott was a slave that claimed because his master took him to a place where slavery was not allowed and then took him back to Missouri he should be a free man
ii. Issue: Can an African American slave become a member of the political community entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities appertaining thereto?
iii. Holding: Declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional (first time the Supreme Court determined a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional), held that slaves were not proper citizens
iv. Takeaway: The word citizen as used in the Constitution does not include slaves
1. This decision indirectly led to the freeing of slaves because it became central to the issues that led to the Civil War
2. This decision was overturned by the 14th Amendment which granted citizenship to all persons born in the US

Question 3

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)

Answer 3

i. Facts: West Virginia law declared that only whites may serve on juries
ii. Issue: Does the West Virginia law that declared only white males could serve on juries violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
iii. Holding: Yes
iv. Takeaway: Denying a citizen participation in the administration of justice solely on racial grounds violates equal protection

Question 4

Which case established strict scrutiny for race & national origin

Answer 4

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Question 5

Korematsu v. United States

Answer 5

i. Facts: Korematsu was a Japanese-American that appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a federal military order excluding Japanese-Americans from certain parts in the western half of the US
ii. Issue: May a racial classification survive strict scrutiny on the basis of military need or national security?
iii. Holding: Yes – military necessity and national security may justify placing legal restrictions on a single racial group, the law that excluded Japanese from West Coast is upheld
iv. Takeaway: Military necessity and national security may justify placing legal restrictions on a single racial group

Question 6

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Answer 6

i. Facts: White man and black woman were married in DC and then moved back to Virginia – they were convicted of violating the interracial marriage ban and sentenced to a year in jail
1. Virginia argues because the statute treats blacks and whites equally it is not discriminatory
ii. Issue: Do statutes that ban interracial marriages violate the EPC of 14th Amendment?
iii. Holding: The statute is unconstitutional – no legitimate purpose to the law except racial discrimination
iv. Takeaway: Legislation that restricts the freedom to marry solely on the basis of racial classification violates the EPC of the 14th Amendment

Question 7

h. Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)

Answer 7

i. Facts: A mother was awarded custody of her 3-year-old daughter after her and her husband obtained a divorce, the father filed for custody a year later after the mother moved in with a black man
ii. Issue: Can a court consider private racial bias and the possible injury caused by them when determining the custodial placement of a child?
iii. Holding: No – although domestic relations are usually left up to the states, the Constitution cannot permit a state court to give way to such discrimination
iv. Takeaway: Courts cannot use private racial bias as a justification for official court action

Question 8

i. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 8

i. Facts: A man asserted an equal protection challenged against his conviction for violating a Louisiana statute which required railway companies to maintain separate accommodations for whites and blacks after he was forcibly removed by from police from a coach car
ii. Issue: Does the EPC of 14th Amendment restrict states from segregating citizens based on race?
iii. Holding: No – the 14th Amendment does not restrict states from requiring the separation of the races
iv. Takeaway: The 14th Amendment does not withhold from states the power to permit or require the separation of races.
1. The was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education

Question 9

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Answer 9

i. Facts: Black children in four states challenged the denial of their admission to public schools reserved solely for whites pursuant to laws permitting or requiring segregation
ii. Issue: May states require or permit that public schools be segregated on the basis of race?
iii. Holding: No – states cannot segregate public schools on the basis of race
1. Overruled Plessy v. Ferguson
iv. Takeaway: States cannot segregate schools on the basis of race
1. Courts have expanded this principle that “separate but equal” is a violation of equal protection in virtually every area of civic life

Question 10

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Answer 10

i. Facts: Two black police officers and two black applicants to the District of Columbia’s police department sought to challenge the department’s application process as discriminatory on the basis of race on several grounds, including that certain written tests had a discriminatory impact on blacks
ii. Issue: Does a facially neutral law or official act violate equal protection merely because it has a discriminatory impact?
iii. Holding: No – a facially neutral law or official act will be declared unconstitutional only if there is proof that the law or act has a discriminatory purpose
iv. Takeaway: A facially neutral law will only be overturned if it has a discriminatory purpose

Question 11

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

Answer 11

i. Facts: Black man in Georgia convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death – there was data that the death penalty was applied more often to African Americans than other minorities, he argued it violated equal protection
ii. Issue: Does statistical evidence indicating a risk that race plays a role in capital sentencing determinations prove a violation of equal protection?
iii. Holding: No – this alone does not prove a violation of equal protection
iv. Takeaway: Statistical evidence indicating a risk that race plays a role in capital sentencing determinations does not alone prove a violation of equal protection.

Question 12

City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)

Answer 12

i. Facts: A group of black citizens of Mobile Alabama filed suit in federal court claiming that the city’s commission form of government was maintained in violation of the 15th Amendment’s prohibition against race-based interference with the right to vote
ii. Issue: Where it is found that minorities vote without hindrance, can a 15th Amendment violation be inferred from the fact that a proportionate number of minority candidates have failed to hold office?
iii. Holding/takeaway: No – the 15th amendment does not entail the right to have black candidates elected but prohibits only purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgement by government of the freedom to vote
1. Establishes a stringent standard for proving purposeful discrimination under the 15th Amendment

Question 13

Personnel Adminstrator of Mass. v. Reeny (1979)

Answer 13

i. Facts: A female state employee was passed over for promotion by several less qualified male applicants that had served in the armed forces – she sued based on equal protection challenging the state personnel office’s stated preference for veterans
ii. Issue: Does the government’s awareness of the discriminatory impact of certain legislation suggest that such legislation was enacted for a discriminatory purpose?
iii. Holding:
iv. Takeaway: To be deemed purposefully discriminatory, a government act must have been taken because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.

Question 14

Brown 2

Answer 14

i. Facts: In 1952 the court decided (Brown 1) that racial discrimination in public schools is unconstitutional – 1955 is the trial that determined the remedies for the discrimination
ii. Issue: What is the appropriate remedy for a violation of the constitutional principles invalidating public school segregation?
iii. Holding: The district courts are to determine the remedies based on their specific districts – the schools need to make a prompt and reasonable start towards compliance with the original ruling – the local school authorities should be responsible for implementing anti-discrimination remedies
iv. Takeaway: The Federal District Courts which first heard the cases involved in Brown I are to employ their full equitable power to ensure and oversee the full implementation of the constitutional principles announced therein.

Question 15

Green v. Country School Board (1968)

Answer 15

Declared the “freedom if choice” plan is unconstitutional - gave students the ability to choose which school they attended

Question 16

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

Answer 16

i. Facts: A black student and others filed a petition in federal District Court seeking relief from the failure of the Charlotte School to desegregate in an expedient manner consistent with Brown I
ii. Issue: May federal district courts employ broad equitable powers to fashion a plan for desegregation once it has been shown that school officials have failed to do so?
iii. Holding: Yes – this is within the court’s broad equitable powers
1. Mathematic ratios are a useful starting point but not an inflexible requirement
2. One race schools – the court should scrutinize these schools and the burden is on the school authorities to satisfy their racial comp is not discrimination
3. Altering of attendance zones may be inconvenient but is necessary during interim remedial period
4. Transferring students is within the jurisdiction of the courts to decide
iv. Takeaway: This court defined the remedial powers of federal courts – courts have authority until they have dismantled the dual school system and complied with the decision in Brown

Question 17

Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

Answer 17

i. Facts: A federal district court in Michigan ordered a multidistrict, area-wide remedy to address the racial segregation in only one of the 53 school districts in the metropolitan Detroit area
ii. Issue: Can a federal court impose a multi-district, area-wide remedy to a single-district segregation problem absent any finding that the other included school districts have failed to operate unitary school systems in their districts?
iii. Holding: The multi-district remedy is not applicable in this case – in order for the remedy to be placed on an entire school system the school had to have been found to violate the 14th amendment, Detroit was the only school district that had violated this and thus is the only school that can be forced into a remedy
iv. Takeaway: Before the boundaries of separate and autonomous school districts may be set aside by consolidating the separate units for remedial purposes or by imposing a cross-district remedy, it must first be shown that there has been a constitutional violation within one district that produces a significant segregative effect in another district.

Question 18

Parents involved in community schools v. Seattle School district (2007)

Answer 18

i. Facts: A Seattle School District used race as a factor when assigning children to schools – Seattle had never operated segregated schools, Louisville district had racial discriminatory past and were under a court order for almost 20 years until they were found to operate a unitary school
ii. Issue: Can a public school that had never operated legally segregated schools choose to classify students by race and rely upon that to make school assignments?
iii. Holding: These schools cannot use racial assignments
iv. Takeaway: Use of race as a factor in school assignments, unless it is to remedy past segregation or used as one factor in a range, violates the equal protection clause

Question 19

What goals must affirmative actions accomplish?

Answer 19

• remedy past proven discrimination in particular establishment
• diversity as a benefit for the educational experience

Question 20

Regents of the University of Cali v. Bakke (1978)

Answer 20

Medical school set aside 16 slots for minorities

Takeaway: cannot use a set number of seats for minorities or a quota

Question 21

Richmond v. JA Croson Co (1989)

Answer 21

i. Facts: After losing its bid on a public project due to its inability to procure satisfactory bids from minority subcontractors, a construction company filed suit against Richmond, VA to challenge the city ordinance that required 30% of subcontractors on public projects to be owned by minorities
ii. Issue: Can a local government justify maintenance of a policy of affirmative action in awarding public project contracts in an effort to remedy prior discrimination where there is no precise evidence of prior purposeful discrimination?
iii. Holding: No – in order for a local government to remedy discrimination with the use of affirmative action they must prove that such plans are necessary and that they are addressing actual past discrimination
1. There was no consideration of non-race measures to combat the perceived discrimination and the quota used was not narrowly tailored to any goal
2. Takeaway: A city may use its spending powers to remedy private discrimination if it identifies that discrimination with the particularity required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 22

Metro Broadcasting inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1990)

Answer 22

i. Facts: Minority applicants for broadcast licenses were given preference if all other factors were basically equal and the distress sale was challenged as it allowed broadcasters in danger of losing their licenses to sell their stations to minority buyers before the FCC formally ruled on the viability of their stations
ii. Issue: Did the FCC’s minority preference policies violate the EPC component of 5th amendment?
iii. Holding: No – these policies were constitutional because they provided appropriate remedies for discrimination victims and were aimed at the advancement of legitimate congressional objectives for program diversity
iv. Takeaway: Intermediate scrutiny used for affirmative action programs

Question 23

Adornad Constructors v. Pena

Answer 23

Overruled Metro and said affirmative action needs strict scrutiny

i. Facts: United States Department of Transportation gave additional compensation to contractors that hired small businesses controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (based on race) to be their subcontractors
ii. Issue: Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
iii. Holding: Yes – even proof of past injury does not in itself establish the suffering of present or future injury
iv. Takeaway: All racial classifications (whether imposed by federal, state or local authorities) must pass strict scrutiny review

Question 24

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Answer 24

i. Facts: Gratz was denied admission to the undergraduate University of Mich in favor of minority candidates
1. U of Mich used the many factors when granting candidates admission, one of which is race
2. School used point system based on different points for characteristics, 20 points automatically for being a minority
ii. Issue: Does the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the EPC and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
iii. Holding: Yes – violate equal protection – do not survive strict scrutiny
iv. Takeaway: University admissions policies must take race into account, if at all, only on a case-by-case individualized basis
1. The fatal blow to the admissions policy was the quantification of each student’s admissibility and giving a value to a specific race

Question 25

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Answer 25

i. Facts: Grutter was a white law school applicant that was denied admission at U of Mich based on their policy for relying on applicant’s race in admissions decisions
1. The school had an admissions policy that required the school to consider all factors but emphasized the inclusion of candidates from racial or ethnic groups fostered racial and ethnic diversity in the student body
ii. Issue: Can a law school use race as a factor in student admissions?
iii. Holding: Yes – using the holding in Bakke – student body diversity serves a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in the admissions process
iv. Takeaway: To withstand a constitutional challenge, a race-based admissions policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest
1. Compelling purpose: Diverse student body to fulfill the good faith mission
2. Narrowly tailored: Considered race/ethnicity as a plus, used it in a flexible, nonmechanical way, school gave weight to other diversity factors besides race

Question 26

Reasons for intermediate scrutiny for gender

Answer 26

i. Biological differences between men and women make it more likely that gender classifications will be upheld / justified
ii. Women are a political majority with voting power
iii. Strict scrutiny might prohibit the government from engaging in affirmative action to benefit women’s equality

Question 27

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Answer 27

Invalidated a gender classification for the first time (used rational basis)

i. Holding: Invalidated a law that said if two people were competing applicants in the same category to receive an inheritance the man was preferred over the woman
1. Can’t pick a person to handle the estate because they are a man versus a woman if they are the exact same relationship to the deceased – this violates the EPC

Question 28

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

Answer 28

i. Facts: Female lieutenant in US Air Force filed suit against the Armed Forces regarding the statute that created the assumption that wives of men in the service were dependent for purposes of obtaining living allowances but the same was not available for dependent men
ii. Issue: Are gender classifications subject to strict scrutiny?
iii. Holding: Strict scrutiny should be used and the law is unconstitutional as it violates EPC of the 5th amendment
iv. Takeaway: Gender based classifications are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict scrutiny – not a majority opinion on the level of scrutiny

Question 29

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Answer 29

Supreme Court agreed on intermediate scrutiny as appropriate level of review for gender

i. Facts: A male between 18-21 and a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer filed an action in federal district court challenging constitutionality of OK statutes prohibiting the sale of nonintoxicating 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18
ii. Issue: Are statutes which discrimination between men and women subject to heightened scrutiny?
iii. Holding: This law violates the EPC
iv. Takeaway: Intermediate scrutiny is the level of scrutiny appropriate for gender classifications – the law must pass an important government purpose and be substantially related to achieving that purpose

Question 30

United States v. Virginia

Answer 30

i. Facts: VMI is an all mens military institute and only single public institution of higher learning in Virginia – VMI based their decision
ii. Issue: Is reserving the public VMI military college for only men a violation of the equal protection clause?
iii. Holding: This violates the equal protection clause
iv. Takeaway: Opinion states that there must be an exceedingly persuasive justification for sex-based classification to be upheld – seems slightly higher than the intermediate scrutiny used in Craig v. Boren

Question 31

Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)

Answer 31

i. Facts: A group of women filed a claim against the state of California challenging its disability insurance system on the ground that the denial of benefits for pregnancy related disability worked a discrimination against women in violation of equal protection
ii. Issue: Does discrimination on the basis of pregnancy amount to invidious discrimination under the EPC?
iii. Holding: Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not a violation of the equal protection clause
1. California has a legitimate interest in keeping the program self-sustaining, allowing pregnant women to gain coverage would raise costs
2. The benefits are available to non-pregnant women and males, thus this is not discriminatory against all women
iv. Takeaway: Classifications on the basis of pregnancy only need to pass the rational basis test

Question 32

Orr v. Orr (1979)

Answer 32

i. Facts: Alabama statute did not require women to pay alimony but required men to, a man in a divorce proceeding challenged this statute
ii. Issue: Does requiring only men to pay alimony violate the equal protection clause?
iii. Holding: This violates the EPC – a state cannot require only men to pay alimony upon divorce
iv. Takeaway: Gender stereotypes cannot justify sex classifications even when they benefit women

Question 33

Michael M v. Superior Court (1981)

Answer 33

i. Facts: 17 year old man convicted for statutory rape of a 16 year odl female
1. Statue convicted under only applied to men convicted of sex with underage females, not the other way around
ii. Issue: Does the statute violate the EPC if it only is applicable to men who have sex with underage women?
iii. Holding: No – this statute does not violate the EPC
iv. Takeaway: States may enact laws making it a crime for a man to have sex with an underage female in an effort to address the problem of teen pregnancy and teen sex

Question 34

Roster v. Goldberg (1981)

Answer 34

i. Facts: Congress enacted Military Selective Service Act which allows the president to require all male citizens between 18-26 to register for the draft
ii. Issue: Does requiring only men to register for the selective service but not women violate the EPC?
iii. Holding: No – this law is constitutional
iv. Takeaway: Congress can pass a law authorizing the president to require only men to register for selective service
1. Court has a strong deference to Congress in the area of military law
2. Held that men are more useful in combat than women – this exclusion of women is closely related to the purpose of enacting the statute

Question 35

California v. Webster (1977)

Answer 35

i. Facts: Section 215 of Social Security Act provides insurance benefits to be computed based on the wage earners average monthly wage during the elapsed years - men had a longer elapsed years than women in a similar situation
1. Basically, women could exclude three more low-wage years than men in order to get greater insurance benefits
ii. Issue: Can the government enact a gender-based classification in an effort to remedy past economic disparity between men and women arising as a result of prior discrimination aimed at women?
iii. Holding: Yes – reduction in the disparity in economic condition between men and women is a governmental interest that can justify this classification
iv. Takeaway: A remedial purpose will justify a gender classification if it directly serves that purpose

Question 36

Scrutiny used for aliens

Answer 36

Strict scrutiny

• 2 exceptions:
  1. Classifications related to self-government and the democratic process
  2. Congressionally approved

Question 37

Graham v. Richardson (1971)

Answer 37

i. Facts: Richardson is a lawfully admitted resident alien from Mexico that became disabled and applied for benefits, she did not receive benefits because she had not lived in the state long enough (15 years)
ii. Issue: Does the Equal Protection Clause prevent a state from conditioning welfare benefits on the fact a person has a US citizenship or if the beneficiary is an alien that they have resided in this country for a certain amt of years?
iii. Holding: Yes – a state’s desire to preserve limited welfare benefits for its own citizens is inadequate to justify the exclusion of resident aliens from receiving a portion of these benefits
iv. Takeaway: Person as noted in the 14th amendment applies to aliens, aliens are a suspect class under the EPC, financial concerns cannot justify classifications based on alienage

Question 38

Folie v. Connelie (1978)

Answer 38

i. Facts: Appellant is an alien lawfully admitted for residence in New York – New York refused to allow him to take the police exam because they have a law stating that no personal shall be appointed to the NY state police unless they are a citizen of the US
ii. Issue: Can a state constitutionally limit the appointment of members of its police force to only citizens of the United Staes?
iii. Holding: A state can confined the important public responsibility of policing to citizens of the United States
iv. Takeaway: Case illustrates the exception to the general rule that classifications based on alienage are deserving of strict scrutiny – police officers occupy a type of position that qualifies for the exception

Question 39

Ambach v. Norwick (1979)

Answer 39

i. Facts: Appellees were born in Scotland & Finland, both eligible to be citizens of the US but refused to go through with it
1. New York law restricts public school teachers to only those that are citizens of the United states – the two brought suit as a violation of the EPC
ii. Issue: Is it constitutional for a state to refuse to employ elementary and secondary teachers that are aliens who are eligible for citizenship but refuse to seek naturalization?
iii. Holding: This law does not violate the EPC
iv. Takeaway: The exception to the general strict scrutiny standard rests on important principles inherent to the constitution, thus governmental entities have wider latitude in limiting noncitizens when exercising functions of the government
1. Public school teachers fall within the governmental function exception to basic alienage rule of strict scrutiny

Question 40

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

Answer 40

i. Facts: Several undocumented alien children filed an EPC challenged of a Texas statute which prohibited children that were undocumented aliens from enrolling in the state’s public schools
ii. Issue: Is it a violation of the equal protection clause to deny undocumented school-age children free public education that it provides to US citizens and legal aliens?
iii. Holding: This violates the equal protection clause - Texas cannot make a distinction between parents who are lawfully in the country from those who are not when providing public education
1. If a state chooses to deny the benefit of free public education to undocumented alien children it must do so in order to further some substantial state interest.
iv. Takeaway: The law cannot be rational unless it furthers a substantial goal of the US due to the severe costs it would impose on the Nation’s children

Question 41

Mass. Board of Retirement v. Muriga (1976)

Answer 41

i. Mass. Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976)
1. Facts: Muriga (a state police officer) was forced into retirement by Mass. At age 50 – he had passed the exam 4 months prior to being forced into retirement
2. Issue: Does requiring a state police officer to retire at the age of 50 violate the EPC of the 14th amendment?
3. Holding: This law passes the rational basis test
4. Takeaway: Classifications based on age are only subject to rational basis review and so must be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose

Question 42

Fundamental Right

Answer 42

Liberties the Supreme Court has held so important they are deemed to be fundamental and the government cannot infringe upon them unless strict scrutiny is met
- Protected by the court under DPC and or EPC of 15th and 4th amendments

Question 43

iii. Main difference between the two basis is how the constitutional arguments are phrased (dpc v. etc)

Answer 43

1. Due process: Constitutional issue is whether the government’s interference is justified by a sufficient purpose - if the law denies the right to everyone this is the best grounds for analysis
2. Equal protection: Constitutional issue is whether the government’s discrimination as to who can exercise the right is justified by a sufficient purpose

Question 44

Framework for Analyzing Fundamental Right

Answer 44

i. Is the right fundamental? – strict scrutiny – otherwise rational basis is used
1. Ways to determine if a right is fundamental: text of the constitution/framer’s intent, history and tradition, rights ensuring adequate representation and effective operation of political process
ii. Is the Constitutional Right infringed upon?
1. If the exercise of the right is prohibited – answer is clearly yes
2. Harder case: when is burdening the exercise of the right also an infringement
a. SC: consider the directness and substantiality of the interference
iii. Is there sufficient justification for the government’s infringement?
1. Government must present a compelling interest
iv. Is the means sufficiently related to the purpose?
1. Requires government to prove they cannot attain the goal through any means less restrictive of the right

Question 45

Unenumerated Fundamental Rights

Answer 45

i. Right to marry (due process and equal protection)
ii. Family rights (both)
iii. Reproduction (due process)
iv. Right to vote (equal protection)
v. Access to courts (equal protection)
vi. Medical autonomy (due process)
vii. Right to travel / move to another state (due process)

Question 46

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Answer 46

Declared right to marry a fundamental right under DPC

i. Right to marry resides with a person an cannot be infringed on by the state
ii. Takeaway: States cannot impede people from getting married if they are of different races and also cannot stop people from living in a certain state because they are married to someone of a different race

Question 47

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)

Answer 47

Struck down law infringing on the right to marry

i. Facts: WI law prevented an individual from obtaining a marriage license without court approval if the person had a minor child in custody and there was an order to pay child support
1. Court only granted marriage if child support payments were up to date
ii. Issue: Can the court deny the right to marriage because a person is not up to date with child support payments?
iii. Holding: No – this is against the EPC
iv. Takeaway: Ensuring child support payments are up to date is a substantial state interest but the law was not sufficiently related to that end

Question 48

United States v. Windsor (2013)

Answer 48

Declared DOMO unconstitutional

i. Facts: Two women were married in Onatrio and returned to New York to recognize their marriage as legal
1. One of the women died leaving her estate to her wife
2. The DOMA denied federal recognition of same sex marriage and would not let Windsor claim estate tax exemption
ii. Issue: Is Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional?
iii. Holding: Yes
iv. Takeaway: If a state law says that two people of the same sex can be married than the federal law cannot take that away
1. Did not make same sex marriage constitutional

Question 49

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Answer 49

i. Facts: Ohio law declared marriage was limited to a union between a woman and a man – Obergefell sued for his right to be listed on his husband’s death certificate as surviving spouse
ii. Issue: Are laws that prohibit same-sex marriage constitutional?
iii. Holding: No – states laws that deny same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry are unconstitutional
iv. Takeaway: Liberties protected by the DPC extend to personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy

Question 50

Stanley v. Illinois (1972)

Answer 50

i. Facts: Joan Stanley lived with Peter Stanley for 18 years, they had 3 children, Joan died and Peter lost custody because of a rule in Illinois that made children of unwed fathers wards of the state upon the death of the mother
ii. Issue: Can the state take the children away absent a showing of unfitness?
iii. Holding: No
iv. Takeaway: Children are not separated from their parents unless there is a showing that the parent is unfit to serve as the parent of their child

Question 51

Michael H v. Gerald D (1989)

Answer 51

i. Facts: Man used a blood test to establish he was the natural father of a certain child an challenged a state court’s denial of his request for parental & visitation rights
1. Denial was based on a CA presumption that a child born to a woman living with her husband is a child of that marriage
ii. Issue: Are there any restrictions on what type of interests can receive constitutional protection under the DPC of 14th Amendment?
iii. Holding: Yes – the state does not need to recognize multipole fatherhood
iv. Takeaway: In order to receive the protections of substantive due process under the 14th amendment, an asserted liberty interest must be both fundamental interest and one that has been traditionally protected by American society
1. If a state wishes to declare that any child born at the time the mother is married to someone else they can say that the people that are married are the parents of the child and no one else can be recognized as the parent of the child as long as those parents are still married
• The opinion says you look to the tradition in its narrowest and not broadest sense - traditions protected the family unit through marriage, not the family through a biological sense

Question 52

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Answer 52

1. Facts: East Cleveland housing ordinance limits occupancy of a dwelling to members of a single family but limits family to a few categories
   a. Appellant lives with her son and two grandsons – the two grandsons are cousins not brothers, city says this violates the ordinance
2. Issue: Does the ordinance violate DPC of 14th Amendment?
3. Holding: Yes
4. Takeaway: The right of both immediate and extended family members to live together is a fundamental right protected by principles of substantive due process

Question 53

Meyer v. Nebraska

Answer 53

1. Facts: Nebraska school teacher was charged with unlawfully teaching German to a 10 year old student – Nebraska act said no person can teach a language or teach in a language other than English until after a child passes the 8th grade
2. Issue: Does the constitution enable a state to prohibit the teaching of children in languages other than English?
3. Holding: No
4. Takeaway: The constitution provides that the government may not interfere with a person’s liberty by legislative action that is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to a legitimate government purpose
   a. Constitution does not permit government interference with education-related decisions
   b. Broad reading of the term liberty: This has been used by many courts that have sought to expand the term to other unenumerated rights

Question 54

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

Answer 54

1. Facts: Compulsory Education Act required that every parent, guardian or other person having control / custody of a child between 8-16 send them to a public school for that time period
2. Issue: Can a state require children of a certain age to be sent to private school?
3. Holding: No – this is unconstitutional
4. Takeaway: A child is not a creature of the state, those who raise them have the duty and right to recognize and prepare their child for future obligations – rights guaranteed by the constitution cannot be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to the purpose of the state

Question 55

Troxel v. Granville

Answer 55

1. Facts: Children’s paternal grandparents filed suit to get visitation rights when the mother told the grandparents that she was going to limit their access to the children
2. Issue: Is a statute that allows any person to petition a court for visitation rights with a child and then gives the petitioned court whole authority to decide the issue without giving weight to the position of the child’s parents constitutional?
3. Holding: No - unconstitutional
4. Takeaway: Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care and control of their children, any state interference with that right will be closely scrutinized

Question 56

Buck v. Bell (1927)

Answer 56

i. Facts: Buck committed to State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble minded – it was ordered that she be sterilized according to a VA act that said the health of the patient and welfare of society might be promoted by sterilizing “mental defectives”
ii. Issue: Is a VA Act allowing sterilization constitutional?
iii. Holding: The act is upheld – sterilization is constitutional
iv. Takeaway: This case is regarding the right to procreate – no issue about procedural due process as there were many procedures that occurred before sterilization occurred

Question 57

Skinner v. OK ex rel Williamson (1942)

Answer 57

Implicitly overruled Buck v. Bell

i. Facts: OK Habitual Criminal Sterilizaton Act deprives certain criminals of the right to procreate by ordering sterilization if certain factors were met
ii. Issue: Can a state implement a criminal sterilization law which makes arbitrary distinctions between he types of criminals that can be sterilized under the law without violating the constitution?
iii. Holding: The Act is unconstitutional – there is no proof that a person who commits a crime of larceny vs. a crime of embezzlement have more of an undesirable biologically inheritable trait – this goes directly against EPC
iv. Takeaway: the court here held that procreation is a fundamental right that deserves a strict scrutiny analysis
1. Distinguishable from Buck v. Bell – sterilizing people based on one crime over another is a violation of EPC, no EPC argument in Buck v. Bell

Question 58

Griswold v. CT (1965)

Answer 58

Right of a married person to use contraceptives

i. Facts: Griswold was a licensed physician and advised patients of birth control methods and was convicted of a misdemeanor for providing advice about contraception to married couples in violation of a CT statute
ii. Issue: Does the Constitution provide a right to privacy that is protected from government intrusion?
iii. Holding: Yes - there is a constitutional right of privacy implied from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights that cannot be invaded by government action absent a showing that the government action at issue is necessary to accomplish a compelling government interest
iv. Takeaway: Supreme Court recognized a broad right of personal privacy which shields the use of contraceptives by married persons from governmental intrusion

Question 59

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

Answer 59

Applied Griswold to unmarried people

Question 60

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 60

i. Facts: Pregnant woman challenged a Texas criminal abortion law that permitted abortion only when the continuation of pregnancy would place the life of the mother in jeopardy
ii. Issue: Does a woman have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion during the early stages of pregnancy
iii. Holding: Yes – Criminal abortion statutes that only permit the termination of pregnancy when the life of the mother is in danger are unconstitutional
iv. Takeaway: Right to privacy includes the right to the abortion decision
1. First trimester: No governmental regulation is allowed
2. Second trimester: Reasonable regulation allowed with regard to maternal health – up until the end of the second trimester the state is only concerned with the health of the mother
3. Third trimester: Any regulation is allowed, including prohibition of abortion – but cannot be prohibited if needed to protect the life or health of the mother

Question 61

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Answer 61

i. Facts: A family planning clinic challenged the constitutionality of a PA law placing certain restrictions on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion
1. Must provide informed consent of the procedure
2. Must be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before procedure
3. Minors seeking abortion need consent of parents or approval from a judge
4. Married women must inform their husbands of intent to obtain an abortion – struck down
5. Facilities performing abortions must meet certain reporting requirements
ii. Issue: Should the essential holding of Roe v. Wade be retained and affirmed?
iii. Holding: Overruled the trimester distinctions in Roe and the use of strict scrutiny for government abortion regulations – the state can regulate and place restrictions on abortion so long as those regulations do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to make the abortion decision
1. When an undue burden results, the regulations are unconstitutional
iv. Takeaway: This is the major case articulating current protections and constitutional standards for right to abortion
1. Abortion laws are constitutional as long as they do not place an undue burden on a woman’s ability to obtain one

Question 62

Standard for Abortion now

Answer 62

i. Government has a strong interest in protecting the life of both the mother and the fetus that begins at the moment of conception
ii. There are tremendous restrictions that are allowed
iii. Women have right to abortion up until the point of viability - shortly after the end of the second trimester

Question 63

What is considered an undue burden

Answer 63

i. Biological father consent or notification
ii. Parental consent without judicial bypass
iii. Unnecessary health regulations
iv. Admitting privileges requirement and building requirements unrelated to women’s safety

Question 64

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Answer 64

Virginia poll tax required residents to pay $1.50 in order to vote
i. Rule / takeaway: Poll taxes are unconstitutional and a state violates the EPC when it makes a payment of a fee a precondition to voting

Question 65

Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969)

Answer 65

Citizen challenged a New York law which prohibited certain people from voting in school district elections

i. Rule / takeaway: Laws that limit the ability of certain people to vote in various governmental elections are unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
1. A state cannot lawfully only allow landowners and people with children enrolled in public school to vote in school district elections

Question 66

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)

Answer 66

Indiana enacted a statute that required voters to show a picture ID at the polls and Crawford claimed the statute was unconstitutional burden on voting rights
i. Rule/Takeaway: Evenhanded restrictions on the right to vote that are related to voter qualifications and that protect integrity and reliability of the electoral process are valid

Question 67

Reynolds v. Sims

Answer 67

A constitutional challenge was brought against Alabama’s legislative districting scheme on the ground that it violated equal protection by not apportioning its districts according to population - this resulted in less-populated districts having more representation in the state legislature than more populous districts

i. Rule/Takeaway: EPC requires that all voters be awarded the opportunity for equal protection in the election of state legislators
1. The state must make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly equal in population as practical – mathematical exactness is not required but efforts to come close need to be made

Question 68

Boddie v. CT (1971)

Answer 68

i. Facts: Appellants are welfare recipients in CT that cannot afford the filing fees and cost of service and process required to obtain a divorce as their welfare barely covers their cost of living
ii. Issue: Can a state constitutionally make a payment of a court fee a pre-req to obtaining a divorce?
iii. Holding: No – DPC prohibits a state from denying the dissolution of marriage because of inability to pay
iv. Takeaway: The Due Process Clause prohibits the States from denying individuals seeking dissolution of their marriages access to the courts based solely on a person’s inability to pay court fees
1. Right to Marriage is a fundamental right and by prohibiting a person to get a divorce that is prohibiting them from re-marrying

Question 69

United States v. Kras (1973)

Answer 69

i. Facts: Indigent person could not pay his debts and wanted to declare bankruptcy but could not afford the filing fees – Kras challenges this on the 5th amendment and claims his case falls under the holding in Boddie
1. Bankruptcy is an exclusive federal power,
ii. Issue: Is it unconstitutional to impose a filing fee as a precondition to filing for bankruptcy?
iii. Holding: No – this is constitutional. There is no constitutional right to obtain discharge of debts through bankruptcy
1. A person has other ways to discharge debts, bankruptcy is not the only way, the person could also come up with the money to file over time
iv. Takeaway: The principle set forth in Boddie that the government may not make the payment of court fees a prerequisite to accessing the courts for the purpose of obtaining a divorce does not apply in cases involving the payment of fees as a perquisite in initiating no-asset bankruptcy proceedings

Question 70

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

Answer 70

i. Facts: A class action suit was brought by lower-income people who challenged the Texas system for financing public education
1. Appellants argument wanted the court to recognize poor people in underfunded areas as a suspect class – rejected
ii. Issue: Is the right to education a fundamental right
iii. Holding: No
iv. Takeaway: The right to acquire a public education is not a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right; therefore, laws affecting that right are only subject to rational basis scrutiny