SDP Analysis Flashcards
Court of this era decide cases on Laissez-Faire Economics. Their job is not to make policy but to interpret the Constitution.
Lochner Era Cases
Upheld state law establishing minimum wage for women, signaling end point of Lochner Era. SC said Const. doesn’t speak of freedom of K (recognizing bargaining inequality), but of liberty and prohibits deprivation of liberty w/o DP.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Congress passed Filled Milk Act, SC said it did not infringe on a fundamental right, so gets RBR. Footnote 4 provides guidelines for when Constitutionality may not be presumed and stricter scrutiny may be applied. Exceptions:
- Legislation w/in a specific prohibition of Const/BOR
- Legislation restricts political process
- Prejudice against discrete and insular minorities
US v. Carolene Products
Court reasoned that legislature might have concluded that forcing people to have their eyes checked when their glasses needed to be replaced was a way to improve eye care, and this is conceivable, even if not actual state interest. As long as SC can conceive of ANY goal, then RBR is satisfied.
Williamson v. Lee Optical
Court says framers of 14A did NOT intend total incorporation of 1-8As to limit power of state govs. However, most of BOR has been incorporated except 5A grand jury crim indictment and 7A jury trial in civil cases. Undecided - 3A (quartering)
Selective Incorporation
CT statute allows state to appeal crim convictions. P argued the 5A’s protections against double jeopardy should apply through 14A. Whether it (the protection - i.e., protecting someone against double jeopardy) is a “principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”
Palko v. Connecticut
OK law permits gov to sterilize people who were “habitual criminals.” Strict scrutiny applied because right to reproduce is a fundamental right.
Skinner v. OK (Reproduction - fund.)
CT law prohibiting birth control violates DPC of 14A. Harlan’s concurrence says should not infer new right of privacy from Const., rather right to use contraception in marriage is supported by 14A DPC “liberty” (maj rule today). Reproductive autonomy is fundamental bc it is crucial to concept of ordered liberty (Palko). Judicial self-restraint is key, they use history, contemporary values, and doctrines of federalism as guide.
Griswold v. Connecticut (Contraception/reproductive autonomy - fund.)
NE law prohibited teaching in any language other than English. SC said law is unconstitutional, parents have fundamental right to control child’s education/upbringing.
Meyer v. Nebraska (Parental Choices - fund.)
OR law requiring students to go to public school was unconstitutional. Law interferes with fundamental right of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (Parental Choices - fund.)
WI law preventing remarriage by people w/ unpaid child support obligations from previous marriages is unconst. Rule: Gov regulation that regulates marriage infringes on the fund. right to marry and thus gets strict scrutiny test. Law was not sufficiently related to compelling gov purpose of ensuring child support is paid bc many alternative ways and this law didn’t help purpose.
Zablocki v. Redhail (Marriage regulation - fund.)
Couple who had gotten married in DC and moved to Virgina were indicted for violating state’s ban on interracial marriages and told to leave state. VA law violated 14A DPC bc marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man (broad reading). Narrow is that Loving stands for proposition that interracial marriage is fundamental right.
Loving v. Virginia
City ordinance limited homes to family members based on parenthood. Grandma housed her son and 2 grandkids, one of whom moved in after his mom died. Since boy’s parents didn’t live there, city filed crim charges. City ordinance violated 14A DPC. Liberty interest was matters of marriage and family life. Tradition of protecting family is rooted in nation’s history, extends to extended family. Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of liberties protected (decisional autonomy) as well as spatial autonomy of city trying to regulate her home.
Moore vs City of East Cleveland (Family Living Regulations - fund. right)
Consolidated cases brought by Ps challenging laws or Constitutional provisions in their states that banned same-sex marriage. Court found fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Need a secular reason to justify law in question.
Obergefell v. Hodges (Sexual intimacy - fund.)
CA law provides if paternity is not challenged in 2 years, presumption is husband of mother is father. Right (VERY narrow) of natural father to assert parental rights over a child born during another’s marriage is not fund. right so RBR. Palko T&H have protected marital family above other family situations. On exam cite Lawrence that says gov agrees T&H is starting point, not stopping point like Scalia does here (also plurality)
Michael H. v. Gerald D. (Family Visitation (PLURALITY) - NOT fund.)
