The Fed Constitution and the States

Question 1

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Answer 1

Facts: Peititoners challenging a law enacted in Chicago that prohibited residents from possessing handguns, claiming that the law violated the 2nd and 14th amendments- DUE PROCESS

Rule: A bill of rights guarantee applied to the states if it is fundamental to the nations scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in the nations history.

Question 2

McDonald- Majority and Rationale

Answer 2

Majority: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia

Dissent: Breyer, RBGM Sotomayor

Question 3

Concurrence in McDonald- GUN

Answer 3

Thomas- these rights are afforded to the people through privileges and immunities NOT DUE PROCESS.

Question 4

McDonald test of when rights apply to the states

Answer 4

2 questions

1. is the right fundamental to the nations system of ordered liberty
2. is the right deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition.

Question 5

Timbs (2019)

Answer 5

Facts: Timbs was charged with drug selling dn the police tried to seize his Range Rover that his father deaths gave him

Rule of Law: due process incorporated to the states the protection against excessive fines

Question 6

Timbs- How the court voted

Answer 6

Unanimous except for ACB and Jackson.

Question 7

Thomas Concurrence in Timbs

Answer 7

Again, this is privileged and immunities, not substantive due process

Question 8

Right to trials by unanimous juries- Apodaca

Answer 8

bd case where the court stated that there doe snot need to be a unanimous jury

this all changed in Ramos

Question 9

Ramos (2020)

Answer 9

Rule: the Constitution does require a unanimous jury to convict a defendant. OVERTURNS APODACA.

Question 11

Ramos Majority

Answer 11

ALITO WROTE OPINION AND MADE SURE TO STRESS STARE DECISIS.

Thomas, RBG, Breyer Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and kavanugh

sotomayor concurrence- terribleness of Apodaca should be highlighted

Kvanaigh concurrence- laud out a seven step analysis of when stare decisis should apply

Thomas P and I not DP

Question 12

Ramos DISSENT

Answer 12

Roberts and Kagan (in part)

Stare decisis requires that we follow Apodaca and the court has thrown it away
- kagan just wanted to stress that plain disagreement is not enough to get rid of the case

Question 13

RAMOS IS NOT RETROACTIVE

Answer 13

Edwards v. Vannoy- the court reviews Ramos to hold that it is not retroactive in 2021- everyone but Breyer and the two girlies agreed

Question 14

Bruin- 2022 case about guns

Answer 14

Facts- NY made people show a need to get a gun.

rule: the court said no- this is too restrictive under the 2nd amendment.
- professors note: a lot of what we can learn about the 2nd amendment is that it is deeply rooted in history.

the 2 girlies + Breyer dissent

Question 15

Privileges and Immunities

Answer 15

In the main body of the cont, it says the “citizens of each state shall be entitled…”

the 14th amendment- “so state shall make or enforce an law which shall abridge…”

Question 16

Slaughterhouse Cases

Answer 16

Facts- a monopoly was created in a slaughterhouse business for the city of New Orleans, the law required that the comoanyta allow any person to slaughter animals in the slaughterhouse for a fixed fee. several butchers suit challenging the grant of the monopoly because it git in the wya of their proactive of their right and deprived them of their property under privileges and immunities

Question 17

Slaughterhouse- rule

Answer 17

the 13th amendment is solely about slavery felt by African Americans. this only protects right guaranteed by the us and not individual states.

Question 18

Saenz (1999)

Answer 18

Facts: in 1992 CA passed a state which limited the maximum amount of welfare benefits for out of state citizens. it made it fixed to what they would have received in their go states/

Question 19

Sanez rule

Answer 19

rule: the P&I protects the right to travel between the states, securing them equal treatment.

they used strict scrutiny here

Question 20

Piper

Answer 20

Rule: Privileges and immunities prohibit states from restricting who gets to practice law to only state citizens

Thomas here was in the back saying that he did not believe in sap

Question 21

what up with Thomas and SDP

Answer 21

he prefers p and I because this protects citizens where as sup protects non citizens

Question 22

Economic rights- Lochner

Answer 22

facts-state was regulating working hours of bakers and the employees sued saying that this violated their 14th amendment right to contract freely.

RUle- states cannot do this

Question 23

Lochner- rationale

Answer 23

the statute necessarily interferes with the rights of employees to contractt freely.

Question 24

Lochner- famous dissent- Harlan

Answer 24

baking is dangerous and there are actual heath professionals who have said that baking dust should not be inhaled for long periods of time.

Question 25

lets talk the different levels of scrutiny

Answer 25

1. ordinary- the ends must be legitimate and the means must be reasonably related to that end. 2. intermediate- somewhere in the middle. 3. strict- ends must be compelling and the means must be narowlly tailored to those ends

Question 26

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)

Answer 26

facts- Oklahoma state law made it illegal for any person not licensed to fit glasses and play with the frames. rule- the court gave some power back to the states and held that a state may regulate a business if its legislature determines there is a particular health and safety problem at hand.

Question 27

Cleburne Living

Answer 27

- home for the mentally disabled. - the rule here was that the mentally disabled were not suspect class (even though they fit the damn frontiero elements) - however the ruling her was ultimately in favor of of the mentally disabled and they struck down the law which is very rare when they use ordinary scrutiny. it was just a technicality and should have been suspect. we see this in the Marshalls concurrence which was joined by Brennan who wrote frontiero.

Question 28

WHAT IS TO BE SAID ABOUT STRUCT SCRUTINY?

Answer 28

Strict in theory, fatal in fact" Gerald Gunther

Question 29

Punitive Damages

Answer 29

the court has generally held that disgustingly high punitive damages awards cannot make it. in torts, we learned that the ratio was 1:9, here the Supreme Court says that the ratio should not hit double digits, so 1:9 is perfect. can be higher when it is especially repugnant facts that are serving of punishment.

Question 30

Punitive- BMW case

Answer 30

4 million punitive was bad when the compensatory was only 4k. - THOMAS did not want to uphold this knocking of damages and he (along with Scalia) believed that the courts should not get involved.