Substantive Due Process

Question 1

SDP Economic Liberties

Answer 1

a. 5th amendment; applies to fed government, no deprivation of life liberty, or property w/o due process of the law
b. 14th; no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law
c. Bill of rights due process rights are incorporated through the due process clause

Question 2

Way to Analyze SDP

Answer 2

d. Process of analysis
i. Who’s acting state (14th) or fed (5th)?
ii. What is the liberty interest of the individual (characterizing this is where you win)
iii. What is the governmental interest?
iv. Balance 2&3: apply rational basis scrutiny w/economic interest; rational relationship b/w action of the state & interest
1. Legit interest
2. Rationally related -> tailoring prong

Question 3

Economic liberty cases

Answer 3

i. Lochner v. NY (NY 14th –tried to curb amount of hours bakers could work)
ii. Nebbia v. NY: NY price fixed milk
iii. West Coast Hotel v. Parish (govt established minimum wage for workers…women?)
iv. Williamson v. Lee Optical (OKLA passed statute that opticians couldn’t fit prescription anymore)

Question 4

Lochner v. NY

Answer 4

1.	Lochnerizing: really hard look at state interest
state actor (2) freedom to contract (3) public health (4) court held it was rationally related but then applied heightened scrutiny
2.	Second-guessed legislature here- no deference to state
3.	Dissents: argued it was rationally related; constitution not designed to protect laisse-fair economics

Question 5

Nebbia v. NY

Answer 5

NY price fixed milk

1. Steps (1) State (2) rt. To operate business (3) preventing crisis (4) passed clear connection b/w action and result
2. A state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may be deemed to promote public welfare

Question 6

West Coast Hotel v. Parish

Answer 6

(govt established minimum wage for workers…women?)

1. State (2) rt to contract (3) protecting laborers (4) legit interest rationally related
2. The end of the contracts clause

Question 7

Williamson v. Lee Optical

Answer 7

(OKLA passed statute that opticians couldn’t fit prescription anymore)

1. State didn’t give interest but court didn’t question leg. –uber deference
   a. Right to gainful employment vs. trust legislature
   i. Court made up its own reasons for leg.
   b. “laws need not be in every respect rational.

Question 8

Family Cases

Answer 8

Family Cases: Strict Scrutiny

• Meyers
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters
• Griswold v. CT (Privacy)
• Skinner

Question 9

Michael H. approach v. McDonald approach

Answer 9

5. Michael H. Approach: law presumed husband is automatic father of children of married woman. Interest must be traditional interest, can’t make them up
6. McDonald Approach: Liberties are dynamic and change w/society

Question 10

Meyers

Answer 10

(family direction)- law banned teachers from teaching any language but english… teacher taught in German
a. not in constitution, but right to raise family the way you want is your call

Question 11

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Answer 11

• Oregon mandated school age children to go to public schools
  a. Right being deprived: sending your kids to Society of sisters
  b. Nature: fundamental? Raising your family how you want
  c. State interest: standardizing edu- court rejected this

Question 12

Griswold v. CT

Answer 12

(is the liberty interest fundamental?) Privacy grounded in penumbras of the constitution
(CT prevented docs from giving contraceptive advice to married couples)
a. Privacy was liberty being deprived
b. State interest to prevent adultery: not compelling and not narrowly tailored

Question 13

Skinner

Answer 13

Sterilization of thieves

a. Issue was who they determined to sterilize; no rational reason for discriminating against certain prisoners

Question 14

Marriage Cases

Answer 14

Strict Scrutiny Plus
Cases:
-Loving v. VA
-Zablocki v. Redhail

Question 15

Zablocki v. Redhail

Answer 15

(law prevented men who owe child support from obtaining marriage license without court consent): State interest was to prevent wards of the state; still not compelling enough to deny marriage

Question 16

Loving v. VA

Answer 16

: (interracial marriage case): state interest=racial purity. Court obliterated this; No State interest could inhibit freedom to marry.

Question 17

Privacy Cases

Answer 17

Traditional Strict Scrutiny
Cases:
-Griswold v. CT
-Lawrence v. TX

Question 18

Lawrence v. TX

Answer 18

(TX anti-sodomy law b/w same sex persons)

a. Overruled Bowers
b. Liberty interest: self expression, privacy, intimacy
c. State interest morality: not compelling; only applied to same sex couples
i. Scrutinized states true intent over stated: legislation (Hammer scrutiny)

Question 19

abortion cases

Answer 19

require a different framework

• Planned Parenthood v. Casey
• Roe v. Wade
• Gonzales v Carthart

Question 20

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Answer 20

(Penn Law placed restrictions on obtaining abortions). Changes Trimester standard to viability

a. State interests: traditional test; when weighing the state interest vs. the deprival, the state interest must be narrowly tailored and the only method of protecting that interest
i. So if the state interest is protecting the fetus, then the ONLY way to do it would be to ban abortions
ii. Pre-viability; state does not have sufficiently strong interests to justify placing a substantial obstacles that unduly burden the fundamental right to make decisions about parenthood.

Question 21

P-P v. Casey Undue Burden Test

Answer 21

Comes from Planned Parenthood v. Casey
24 waiting period; burdensome, but not undue. State has legitimate interest in woman fully contemplating her choices
ii. Requiring husband’s consent is an undue burden. Married woman should not have an additional constraint unmarried women do
iii. Requiring consent for minors is not an undue burden

Question 22

Roe v. Wade

Answer 22

Used trimester framework to determine who has rights

a. 1st trimester: mom 3rd Tri: state/fetus

Question 23

Gonzales v. Carthart

Answer 23

Partial birth abortion ban act valid

• Ban did not apply to a partial birth abortion necessary to save the life of a mother Act differs from NE act that omitted protection for the mother
• Act punishes “knowingly performing PB abortion- scienter element
  b. Govt interest was protecting the integrity of med community.
  i. Procedure is almost never medically necessary
  ii. Gave deference to legislature
  c. Scalia: we still shouldn’t be here
  d. Ginsburg dissent: This act blurs the line b/w viability

Question 24

Procedural Due Process

Answer 24

Don’t mess with process

Case- a. Cleveland board of education v. Loudermill

Question 25

Cleveland board of education v. Loudermill

Answer 25

i. Employee was terminated without given any hearing or opportunity to respond
ii. Court weighed individual interest in employment against state interest in a speedy removal of unsatisfactory employees
iii. Process that is due to you is a function of the thing being deprived
iv. Balancing tests
1. Interest of individual; value, enormous value
2. States counter interests to lengthy process
3. Risk of erroneous deprivation-how helpful will process be
4. Formula comes from Matthew v. Eldridge
i. When a state creates a private interest or property interest constitution assigns a process to it