Constitutional Law 2 Outline

Constitutional Law 2 Outline

Professor Bracey
Professor Bracey
GW LAW, Spring 2010
GW LAW, Spring 2010
I. I I. INTRODUCTION NTRODUCTION TO TO I INDIVIDUAL NDIVIDUAL R RIGHTS IGHTS AND AND THE THE
C CONSTITUTION ONSTITUTION
A A!en"!ents
a. 13th Amendment Abolish Slavery
i. #eit$er sla%ery nor in%oluntary ser%itu"e, e&cept as a punis$!ent for cri!e
w$ereof t$e party s$all $a%e 'een "uly con%icte", s$all e&ist wit$in t$e
(nite" States, or any place su')ect to t$eir )uris"iction
b. 14th Amendment Due Process & Equal Protection
i. Section 1. All persons 'orn or naturali*e" in t$e (nite" States, an" su')ect
to t$e )uris"iction t$ereof, are citi*ens of t$e (nite" States an" of t$e State
w$erein t$ey resi"e #o State s$all !a+e or enforce any law w$ic$ s$all
a'ri"ge ,
1 t$e privileges or immnities of citi*ens of t$e (nite" States-
2 nor s$all any State "epri%e any person of life, li'erty, or property,
wit$out !e process of law-
. nor "eny to any person wit$in its )uris"iction t$e e"#l protection of
t$e laws
B /$eories of Constitutional 0nterpretation
#. Gener#ll$
i. We "e'ate t$ese t$eories 'ecause t$ey "e1ne $ow !any rig$ts we $a%e
1 0f a 'roa" interpretation !ore rig$ts
2 0f a narrow interpretation less rig$ts
ii. W$en you c$oose your t$eory of interpretation, you pre1gure t$e scope an" it
will tell you w$at2s i!portant t$e sta+es are $ig$
iii. We li+e to t$in+ t$at t$e constitution is interprete" 'y principle an" not
politics
1 0t2s suppose" to en"ure, s$oul" 'e a'o%e t$e fray of politics
%. Origin#lism
i. 3e1nition Loo&s to '(#t t(e )r#mers (#! in min! *intent+ '(en
t(e$ 'rote t(e constittion
ii. Soft % 4ar" Originalis!
1 Soft5 W$at woul" t$e fra!ers say now6
2 4ar"5 /e&tualists "on2t stray fro! original !eaning
iii. 7&a!ple Pu'lic 7"ucation
1 4ar" not !entione" e&plicitly in t$e Constitution
2 Soft Constitution tal+s a'out e8uality, can 'e applie" to pu'lic
sc$ools
iv. Pro'le!s
1 9ay 'e "i:cult to "eter!ine original intent
2 Coul" reac$ a le%el of e&traction w$ere our co!fort le%el "i!inis$es
. 3ou't t$at suc$ an ol" "ocu!ent s$oul" 'in" future generations
c. ,or#l Argments - D'or&in
i. Originalis! !ust 'e re)ecte" 'ecause it "oesn2t ;1t< our tra"ition an" "oes
not ;)ustify< it
ii. .!ges mst se e/p#nsive protection o) (m#n rig(ts.
iii. (se ;'est constructi%e account< of e&isting legal !aterials 'y putting
constitutional te&t in 'est possi'le lig$t
iv. Pro'le!s
1 A!'iguity if Constitution is fore%er e%ol%ing, w$at are t$e li!itations6
2 Life cycle on !orals an" %alues, $ow an" w$en "o we a'an"on t$e!6
. W$y s$oul" any )u"ge 'e a'le to i!pose !orality on people %ia t$e
Constitution
!. N#tr#l L#' - N#tr#l Rig(ts
i. /$ere is a (ig(er l#' t(#t ever$one n!erst#n!s, unwritten co"e )u"ges
s$oul" +now
ii. Pro'le!
1 #o single, !oral, correct rea"ing of t$e constitution
2 W$o "eci"es6
e. Represent#tion0Rein)orcement
i. We s$oul" all 'e soft originalists w$en it2s relati%ely una!'iguous
ii. /$is s$oul" en$ance "e!ocratic %alues an" representation
iii. Pro'le!s
1 W$o "eci"es6
2 4ow representati%e s$oul" t$e (S 'e6
. Se%eral issues "on2t 1t into t$is sc$e!e =a'ortion>
II. E II. E1UALIT2 1UALIT2 AND AND THE THE C CONSTITUTION ONSTITUTION
A Sla%ery an" Segregation5 /$e Origins of 78ual Protection
#. State % Post =SC of #? 1@AB> 0s sla%ery legal in #?6
i. Cacts
1. Statute in #? saying t$at sla%es 'orn after 1@0A are free- Sla%ery
inten"e" to "ie out
2. State constitution "eclare" all !en to 'e free an" e8ual
3. Pro'le! fe"eral go%ern!ent still recogni*es sla%ery
ii. Court
1. S$oul" not loo+ to !orality
a. ;)u"ges !ust 'e !ore t$an !en<
2. no legal argu!ent against sla%ery
3. Des sla%ery is legal 'Ec ot$erwise law woul" 'e !ore clear
iii. #otes
1. .!ge col! (#ve se! !i3erent met(o! o) constittion#l
interpret#tion
%. 3re" Scott % Sanfor" =1@BF> Stan"ing E Legality of 9issouri Co!pro!ise
i. Cacts
1. Scott is a sla%e w$o was once li%ing in free territory
2. 4e !o%e" 'ac+ to 9issouri, a sla%ery state
ii. Court
1. 4e "oes not $a%e stan"ing to sue 'Ec not a citi*en of any state 'Ec $e
is property
2. Struc+ "own t$e 9issouri Co!pro!ise w$ic$ sai" so!e states coul" 'e
sla%e free
iii. #otes
1. Cort #ttempte! to solve complic#te! politic#l isse
2. By constitutionalGi*ing t$e issue it too+ t$e pro'le! away fro! politics
a. W$at were t$e i!plications of t$is6
i. #o way out of t$e sla%ery 8uestion %ia politics
ii. Create" ra"icalis! fuele" t$e ci%il war 'ecause people
+new t$ey coul"n2t count on t$e legal process to ac$ie%e
t$eir outco!es
3. 4oster c(il! )or 5!ici#l #ctivism
4. Pro'le!s =fro! 'oo+>
a. Court unnecessarily an" unwisely reac$e" out to "eci"e an issue
not properly presente"
b. Court2s "ecision is racist in its pre!ise an" !orally o'tuse in its
result
c. Court unwisely assu!e" t$at it coul" 1nally resol%e a "i%ise
political issue 'y ta+ing it ;out of politics<
d. Pro'le! was not t$at court atte!pte" to i!pose a solution 'ut
t$at it atte!pte" to i!pose t$e wrong solution
c. Slaug$terG4ouse Cases =1@F.> 1st postGreconstruction case to a""ress 1.G1Bt$
A!en"!ents
i. Cacts
1. One slaug$ter $ouse in #OLA $a" a !onopoly
2. #o ot$ers coul" slaug$ter ani!als
ii. Court
1. 1.t$ A!en"!ent =antiGsla%ery>
a. Cor!er confe"erates cannot en)oy protections !eant to co%er
for!er sla%es
b. S$oul" only 'e rea" 'roa"ly w$en protecting for!er sla%es H
not 'e raceG'ase"
2. 1At$ A!en"!ent
a. Pri%ilegesEi!!unities clause not %iolate" 'Ec only aIects rig$ts
of (S citi*ens$ip an" not state citi*ens$ip
i. P H 0 clause "ea" now "estroye" natural $o!e for
)u"icial rig$ts
ii. /e&tual approac$ 'Ec says ;of t$e unite" states<
b. 3ue process clause not %iolate" 'Ec "i"n2t protect t$e rig$t to
;practice a tra"e<
i. Loo+e" at $istory an" conte&t of t$e clause
ii. #ot goo" law any!ore
c. 78ual protection clause not %iolate" 'Ec not !eant to protect e&G
sla%es
i. Soft originalis!
ii. #ot goo" law any!ore
iii. #otes
1. 9ain 4ol"ing
a. T(e )r#mers !i! not inten! to tr#ns)er gener#l
responsi%ilit$ )or protection o) civil rig(ts )rom st#tes to
t(e )e!er#l government.
b. /$us, t$e pri%ileges an" i!!unities clause "i" not pro%i"e
general fe"eral protection for citi*ens against state regulation
2. Goo", Ba" H t$e (gly
a. Goo" ac+nowle"ges pri!ary purpose of pro%i"ing protection
an" e8uality
b. Ba" Court 8uic+ly forgets t$is an" lea%es it to states (n"oes
goo" "one 'y Congress an" 7&ec 'ranc$
c. (gly 0ts narrow rea"ing of PH0 "estroys t$e !ost natural $o!e
for )u"icially enforce" fun"a!ental rig$ts ?u"ges $a%e to 1n"
ot$er Const pro%isions to pro%i"e t$ese protections =78ual
Protection Clause>
3. Sggests # t'o0tiere! #ppro#c( to t(e )orteent( #men!ment6
a. W$en t$e rig$ts of newly free" sla%es are at sta+e
i. 9ust 'e rea" e&pansi%ely to pro%i"e co!pre$ensi%e
fe"eral protection
b. But w$en racial "iscri!ination is not at issue
i. t$e protections of fe"eral citi*ens$ip are narrower, an" a
state resi"ent2s pri!ary recourse for protection of $is
rig$ts re!ains to $is own state go%ern!ent
!. /$e Ci%il Jig$ts Cases
i. Cacts
1. Ci%il Jig$ts Act of 1@FB
a. secure" t$e e8ual en)oy!ent of 0nns an" ot$er pu'lic
acco!!o"ations
b. pro%i"e for ci%il "a!ages if t$ere was "iscri!ination in t$ese
places
c. esta'lis$e" t$e rig$t of 'lac+s to ser%e as )urors
d. 0t protecte" political =)uror> an" social rig$ts =social
acco!!o"ations>
ii. Court
1. 4ol"ing CJA is in%ali"
a. Cort s#$s 7rnning sl#ver$ #rgment into t(e gron!8
b. 19t( #men!ment !i!n:t give congression#l #t(orit$ to
regl#te soci#l lives
c. No st#te #ction #n! 1;t( #men!. onl$ protects #g#inst
st#te #ctions< not priv#te !iscrimin#tion
e. Plessy % Cerguson =1@KL> Sep#r#te is Constittion#l
i. Cacts
1. Plessy is 1E@
t$
'lac+, FE@t$s w$ite
2. Prosecute" cri!inally for sitting in a w$ite railroa" train car
3. ;78ual 'ut separate< policy
ii. Court =Brown> soft originalis!
1. 1;t( Amen!ment ONL2 #pplies to politic#l ine"#lit$ #n! not to
soci#l ine"#lit$
a. Political rig$ts sit on )ury, own property, sign contracts, etc
b. Social rig$ts e8ual access to pu'lic acco!!o"ations,
integrate" sc$ools
c. MM 1At$ a! #ot !eant to reac$ social rig$ts
2. Or"inance isn2t "iscri!ination 'ut is a ;"istinction< t$at applies e8ually
to 'lac+sEw$ites
3. Court says it !ust 'e ;reasona'le<
a. 7sta'lis$e" t$roug$ custo!s, tra"itions wE regar" to co!fort,
preser%ation of peace an" social or"er
b. T(is is # re#son#%le r#ce !istinction
iii. #otes
1. 3issent =4arlan> we s$oul" $a%e a color 'lin" constitution
). Brown % Boar" of 7" =1KBA Brown 1> Sep#r#te =#cilities #re In(erentl$
Une"#l
i. Cacts
1. Court $a" 'ac+e" itself into a corner wE ot$er cases 'y trying to
!aintain a separate 'ut e8ual syste! 'ut can2t pro"uce e8uality in
"ual syste!
2. Blac+ c$il"ren soug$t a"!ission to nonGsegregate" pu'lic sc$ools
ii. Court =Warren>
1. 7&pansi%e rea"ing of in!ivi!#l rig$ts protections p#r#!igm s(i)t -
ne' #ppro#c(
a. S(i)t to grop %#se! constittion rig(t
b. 0nterprets e8ual protection clause in !o"ern "ay circu!stances,
not as it was inten"e" at ti!e of enact!ent
2. #arrow $ol"ing
a. ?ust a'out pu'lic e"ucation
iii. #otes
1. 78ual protection clause now roote" in ;co!!on sense<
2. 3i"n2t o%errule Plessy =Gale "i">
3. Strange rationale 'ase" on psyc$ological wellG'eing of c$il"ren
4. Court2s )usti1cations =p ALF>
g. Brown % Boar" of 7" =1KBB Brown 2> Je!an" 7nforce!ent 9easures to 3istrict
Courts
i. Cacts 9atter of relief for Brown 1
ii. Court
1. Rem#n! to corts to !esegreg#te
2. BEC of pro&i!ity to local con"itions an" t$e possi'le nee" for furt$er
$earings
i. 7#s soon #s pr#ctic#%le on # non!iscrimin#tor$
%#sis8
ii. 9ay ta+e pu'lic interest into account
iii. 9ust !a+e ;pro!pt an" reasona'le start<
iii. #otes
1. Court "i"n2t t$in+ states were rea"y
2. Actual Brown plaintiIs ne%er atten"e" "esegregate" sc$ools
a. /ells us t$ese aren2t in"i%i"ual rig$ts
3. Criticis!s
a. 0f segregation is unconstitutional, t$e court cannot legiti!ately
tolerate continue" segregation
b. Nee!lessl$ encor#ge! '(ite resist#nce to
!esegreg#tion %$ )#iling to !em#n! #n imme!i#te
reme!$
c. O%erstate" a"!inistrati%e "i:culties of "esegregation
d. Acte" unwisely in re!itting tas+ of enforce!ent to lower courts
4. But
a. Cle&i'ility allowe" for success =p AFK>
(. PostGBrown H /$e 3e ?ureE 3e Cacto 3istinction an" Li!its on t$e Constitution2s
Je!e"ial Power
i. Green v. County Sch. Bd. =1KL@>
1. Cree"o! of c$oice, provi!ing st!ents 'it( t(e option to c(oose
'(ere t(e$ col! #tten! is not enog(
2. 9an"ates unitary syste! group rig$ts not in"i%i"ual rig$ts
structural re!e"y
ii. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg =1KF1> 'using syste!
1. Constitutional co!!an" !oesn:t me#n t(#t ever$ sc(ool in ever$
commnit$ mst #l'#$s re>ect t(e r#ci#l composition of t$e
sc$ool syste! as a w$ole
2. 9 principles to gi!e sc(ool !esegreg#tion
a. (nconstitutional to purposely !anipulate sc$ool2s racial
co!position
b. Scope of )u"icial power li!ite" 'y scope of constitutional
%iolation
c. Once sc$ool $as ;unitary< status, )u"icial inter%ention s$oul"
cease
iii. 3e1nitions
1. 3e ?ure re8uire" 'y law
2. 3e Cacto w$at $appens in fact alt$oug$ not re8uire" 'y law
iv. Milliken v. Bradley =1KFA> Inter!istrict relie) not permitte!
1. Courts lac+ power to i!pose inter"istrict "esegregation
a. (nless t$ere is an inter"istrict %iolation or eIects
B Jational Basis Je%iew
#. 78ual protection clause now a !a)or "octrinal tool for analy*ing contro%ersies
unrelate" to race
i. Clai!s in%ol%e a c$allenge to laws t$at allocate 'ene1ts or i!pose 'ur"ens
on a "e1ne" class of in"i%i"uals
1. W$en go%ern!ent "raws line 'etween fa%ore" an" "isfa%ore" groups
in an i!per!issi'le place
%. Jeal 8uestion !eci!ing i) c(#llenge! cl#ssi?c#tion is permitte!
i. /$ree 'asic 8uestions
1. Ho' (#s t(e govt !e?nes t(e grop %eing %ene?te! or
%r!ene!@ *t(e me#ns+
2. A(#t is t(e go#l t(e govt is prsing@ *t(e en!s+
3. Is t(ere # sBcient connection %et'een t(e me#ns #n! t(e
en!s@ *?t-ne/s+
ii. SC analy*es t$ese 8uestions on le%els of tiers of scrutiny
c. Jational 'asis re%iew lowest le%el of scrutiny
i. 9eansE7n" analysis
1. !ust 'e rationally relate" to so!e go%ern!ent o')ecti%e
2. loo+ at state" purpose an" not 'eyon"
ii. N2C Tr#nsit At(. v. Ce#Der *1EFE+ G c#n emplo$er !iscrimin#te on
met(#!one se@
1. Cacts 7!ployer woul"n2t $ire !et$a"one users, t$oug$t it unsafe
2. Court =Ste%ens>
a. Hol!ing G !oes not viol#te e"#l protection cl#se %-c
i. not 7# cl#ss o) persons c(#r#cteriDe! %$ some
npopl#r tr#it or #Bli#tion8
ii. N2C (#! re#son G s#)et$ #n! reli#%ilit$
b. W$en t$ere are rules t$at treat people "iIerently t$at "on2t
trigger concerns a'out !a)oritarian 'ias t$en t$e court s$oul"
not interfere
i. ;Legislati%e classi1cations are %ali" unless t$ere is #O
JA/0O#AL relations$ip to t$e State2s o')ecti%e<
1. 9eans !ust 'e rationally relate" to t$e o')ecti%e
=en"s>
3. #otes
a. Policy is 'ot$ un"er an" o%er inclusi%e 'ut it2s not irrational
b. W$at a'out t$e fact t$at !ost !et$a"one users are !inorities
an" are poor6 #o Connection is too attenuate"
iii. R#il'#$ E/press Agenc$ v. N2 *1E;E+ G #!s on trc&s
1. Cacts #D regulation t$at "i"n2t let a"%ertise!ents on %e$icles unless
it was alrea"y 'eing use" for so!et$ing Coul"n2t 'e for
a"%ertise!ent sa+e alone no !o'ile 'ill'oar"s
2. Court Constitutionally per!issi'le
a. Ban is rationally relate" to t$e en"s5 re"uces "istractions H
tra:c
b. 3oesn2t loo+ into !oti%es, )ust ta+es reasoning on face %alue
i. 'Ec class not su:ciently raceGli+e
iv. ,inn. v. Clover Le#) Cre#mer$ Co. *1EH1+ G mil& %ottles
1. Cacts Banne" t$e sale of !il+ in plastic, nonreturna'leEnonre1lla'le
containers
2. Court Constitutionally per!itte"- 7n%iron!ental reasoning %ali"
a. States not re8uire" to pro%i"e e!pirical e%i"ence for
classi1cation
b. States s$oul" $a%e a legiti!ate state" purpose
c. 0t will not 8uestion t$ese purposes in econo!ic "istinctions
v. Ailli#mson v. Lee Optic#l *1EII+
1. Cacts /$e state pre%ents anyone w$o is not license" as an
opto!etrist or op$t$al!ologist to 1t lenses or "uplicate or replace
lenses into fra!es e&cept on a written prescription of an
op$t$al!ologist or opto!etrist
2. Court Constitutionally %ali"- gi%e greater !ar+et s$are to opticians
!. Jational 'asis re%iew N 'ite
i. Loo+ 'eyon" state" purpose =or t$at asserte" as go%ern!ent interest> an"
try to "e1ne t$e actual, un"erlying !oti%e an" "eter!ine if t$at constitutes a
legiti!ate go%ern!ent purpose
1. City of Cle'urne, 9oreno
ii. W$at triggers t$is6
1. W$en re8uire!ent "oesn2t $a%e anyt$ing to "o wit$ state" goal
a. 9oreno
2. hen !rou"s are race#li$e %i.e. share immutable characteristic&
a. 9oreno =!entally "isa'le">, Jo!er =gays>, age
b. W$ere to "raw t$e line6 (n+nown
i. Oi"s 'orn out of we"loc+6 Poor people6
3. /$e area in w$ic$ t$e regulation is ta+ing place
iii. US Dept. o) Agricltre v. ,oreno *1EF9+
1. Cacts 7&clu"e" fro! participation in t$e foo" sta!p progra! any
$ouse$ol" containing an in"i%i"ual w$o was unrelate" to any ot$er
!e!'er of t$e $ouse$ol"
2. Court Pro%ision is unconstitutional 'Ec
a. Purpose of foo" sta!ps P nutrition an" increase agriculture
econo!ies
i. E/tr# re"irement !oesn:t (#ve #n$t(ing to !o 'it(
t(e go#l
3. #otes
a. Pro%ision actually was !eant to 'e antiG$ippieEco!!unes
iv. Cit$ o) Cle%rne v. Cle%rne Living Ctr. *1EHI+ G ment#ll$ ret#r!e!
1. Cacts City allowe" a %ariety of structures to 'e 'uilt on certain plot
of lan" 'ut speci1cally e&clu"e" certain structures group $o!es for
!entally retar"e", insane or "rug a""icts /$en, special per!it
re8uire"
2. Court =W$ite>
a. Go%ern!ent "i" #O/ $a%e a legiti!ate go%ern!ent o')ecti%e
i. 4ig$ sc$ool near'y, structure on Qoo" plainEunsafe
b. Base" on irrational pre)u"ice against !entally retar"e"
i. Loo+s at !a)oritarian 'ias pierces t$e %eil
1. Cort is 'illing to loo& %e$on! t(e st#te!
prpose to ?n! t(#t t(e motives #re
illegitim#te G t(is is RATIONAL CASIS J CITE
ii. ;"iscri!ination is at t$e $eart of t$e city2s "ecision<
v. Romer v. Ev#ns *1EEK+ G g#$s #n! les%i#ns
1. Cacts Legislation 'anne" a'ility to pro!ulgate gay protections in
Colora"o
2. Court Ban is too 'roa" an" un"iIerentiate" "isa'ility on a single
group
a. Court pieces t$e %eil t$is law in CO was !oti%ate" 'y s$eer
ani!us against gay people =ie r#tion#l %#sis J %ite>
b. Loo+s li+e race, ie so!ew$at i!!uta'le
3. 3issent =Scalia> !orals- go%t un"er no o'ligation to protect lifestyle
c$oice
e. 9easure!ent of 78uality
i. 9ay 'e !easure" wit$ respect to for!al treat!ent sa!e selection regi!e
ii. 9ay 'e !easure" wit$ respect to outco!es sa!e le%el of 'ene1t ac$ie%e"
iii. /$e tric+ to ac$ie%ing Const per!issi'le treat!ent is to 1gure out w$ic$
"iIerences an" w$ic$ si!ilarities are rele%ant as a Const 'attle
). (n"erinclusion % O%erinclusion
i. Not # pro%lem n!er r#tion#l %#sis revie'
ii. O%erinclusion
1. Bea*er so!e !et$a"one wor+ers will 'e safeEe:cient wor+ers
a. S$oul" stri+e 'alance
i. Weig$ t$e i!portance of safety against t$e i!portance of
e!ploy!ent an" t$en "iscount eac$ si"e of t$e e8uation
'y t$e ris+ of error
iii. (n"erinclusion
1. Bea*er "oes not inclu"e reco%ering alco$olics, !ental patients,
"ia'etics, etc
iv. 3i:cult to write legislation t$at is neit$er
v. Bot$ are constitutionally 8uestiona'le un"er $eig$tene" scrutiny
vi. 7!ploy!ent
1. 0n%ol%es "iscretionary "ecisions, t$us o+ay to treat people "iIerently
C Strict Scrutiny an" t$e Pro'le! of Jace
#. O%er%iew
i. 3e1nition
1. Je8uires co!pelling go%ern!ent o')ecti%e 'eing soug$t N narrowly
tailore"
ii. Cest c#se )or (eig(tene! revie' is )or cl#ssi?c#tions %#se! on r#ce
iii. 3isparate i!pact #O/ PJO/7C/73 =Washington v. Davis>
1. #ee" to pro%e
a. 3iscri!inatory intent or purpose A#3
b. 3iscri!inatory eIects
2. Ci%il Jig$ts Act pro%i"es so!e "isparate i!pact relief
a. O%erlap $ere
iv. As& Does it constitte # r#ci#l cl#ssi?c#tion@
1. Des
a. 0f e&plicitly "raws on racial lines OJ !oti%ate" 'y a racial
purpose
i. Strict scrutiny analysis
1. Only s$owing of n#rro' t#iloring J overri!ing
government#l interest can o%erco!e t$e
inference t$at t$e classi1cation was !oti%ate" 'y a
"esire to $ar! t$e !inority
a #o 'rig$t line rule for narrow tailoring
ii. Court will pro'a'ly in%ali"ate it
2. #o
a. 0f classi1cation is nonGrace speci1c
i. Jational 'asis re%iew "espite "isparate i!pact on
!onitory group
ii. Court will pro'a'ly up$ol" it
3. Mixed Motives (rlington !eights exa"#le $ town doesn%t want
"inorities or #oor #eo#le (not a #rotected class&&
a. Still $a%e to s$ow "irect proof 'ut w$ere t$e !oti%e is !i&e"
i. you can s$ow "irect proof of 'ot$ A#3
ii. t$en 'ur"en s$ifts "efense !ust s$ow t$at outco!e
woul" $a%e 'een t$e sa!e
b. 7&ception 4istory an" 7Iects,
i. So!eti!es a co!'ination of $istory as well as eIects can
'e enoug$ to create an inference of 'a" intentions or
"iscri!inatory purpose 7&actly w$en co!'o is rig$t an"
Court will infer t$is is unclear
1. 7&a!ple G Jogers % Lo"ge =%oting conte&t>
L. #O/ in cri!inal )ustice conte&t
%. Origins H Jationale for 4eig$tene" Scrutiny in JaceGSpeci1c Classi1cations
i. Strau"er % WR =1@@0> ?ury Selection
1. Cacts Strau"er is a 'lac+ !an con%icte" of !ur"er 'efore all w$ite
)ury WR statute t$at li!its )ury ser%ice to all w$ite !en 21 an" ol"er
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Denie! t(e !e)en!#nt e"#l protection o) t(e l#'s
b. Broa", 'ut purposeful rea"ing of t$e 7P Clause
i. Says was !eant to gi%e special protection to 'lac+s
c. Group is single" out an" "enie" a rig$t of citi*ens$ip
i. ?ury ser%ice, %oting are signi1cant rig$ts
ii. Oore!atsu % (S =1KAA> ?apanese 0ntern!ent
1. Cacts ?apanese put in internment c#mps or or"ere" to o'ey
curfew PlaintiI is con%icte" an" trie" for %iolating an e&ecuti%e or"er
to %acate $is $o!e
2. Court Constitutional
a. 7All leg#l restrictions '(ic( crt#il t(e civil rig(ts o) #
single r#ci#l grop #re imme!i#tel$ sspect8
b. Constitutionally %ali" policy e%en wit$ ele%ate" scrutiny
i. Jacial classi1cations are 'a" 'ut if you $a%e a really goo"
reason it can tru!p t$e s+epticis!
1. 4ere it was 'ecause of !ilitary necessity
3. #otes
a. 0f t$ere are o%er inclusi%ely pro'le!s =loyal ?apanese 'eing
swept up> B(/ t$ere2s also un"erinclusi%ity pro'le!s =not
Ger!ans or 0talians>
i. 4ow woul" you gauge t$e court2s "ecision wit$ t$is in
!in"6
1. /$ese policies are o+ay as long as t$ere is a goo"
enoug$ reason
iii. Lo%ing % Rirginia =1KLF> 1st c#se to #rticl#te !i3erent st#n!#r! o)
revie'
1. Cacts Rirginia $a" statute to pre%ent interracial !arriages to
preser%e ;racial integrity< an" pre%ent ;corruption of 'loo"< an"
creation of ;!ongrel 'ree" of citi*ens<
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Riolates central !eaning of e8ual protection clause
b. #o legiti!ate purpose for t$is regulation =ie w$ite supre!acy
not legit>
iv. Pal!ore % Si"oti =1K@A> c$il" custo"y
1. Cacts 9o! awar"e" custo"y in "i%orce 9o! re!arries a 'lac+ !an
an" court awar"s custo"y to fat$er now
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. 4ere, court i"enti1es co!pelling o')ecti%e an" narrowly tailore"
!eans B(/ Court unani!ously re)ect argu!ent t$at t$is case
meets strict scrtin$
i. W$y6 Because csto!$ !ecisions c#nnot give e3ect
to priv#te %i#ses /$e custo"y "ecision "isfa%ors racial
!inorities wit$ respect to perpetuating !a)ority 'ias
v. 4unter % 7ric+son =1KLK> $ousing
1. Cacts
a. A+ron, O$io passe" fair $ousing or"inance t$at pro$i'ite" racial
"iscri!ination in real estate transactions
b. /$en a!en"!ent passe" t$at or"inances regulating real estate
transactions ;on t$e 'asis of race, color, religion, national origin,
or ancestry< $a" to 'e appro%e" 'y t$e %oters 'efore ta+ing
eIect
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Amen!ment serve! no compelling government prpose
b. Pro'le! is !anipulation of "e!ocratic process to create special
'arriers to enact legislation "esigne" to "isfa%or !inorities
4ere, t$ere was e&press racial classi1cation
c. Cacially #onracial Classi1cations t$at 3isa"%antage Jacial 9inorities
i. Was$ington % 3a%is =1KFL> Disp#r#te Imp#ct NOT protecte! G INTENT
J 4UR4OSE RE1UIRED
1. Cacts
a. PlaintiI2s c$allenge test t$at is gi%en to police o:cers to get )o'
Clai! not relia'le pre"ictor of )o' perfor!ance an" !ore
i!portantly t$at 'ecause t$at test was c$allenging on so!e
le%el to 'lac+s, w$o "i" not pass at sa!e le%el as w$ite, was
racially "iscri!inatory
2. Court Constitutionally Rali"
a. /$e re8uire!ent to 'eco!e a police o:cer was not "one to
purposely e&clu"e 'lac+s- no in%i"ious intention
b. E3ects #re not enog(. In or!er to trigger strict scrtin$
4 (#s to provi!e proo) o) !iscrimin#tor$ prpose-intent
AND e3ect
i. Constitution "oes '() #rotect against dis#arate i"#act
3. #otes
a. 0f "isparate i!pact were unconstitutional lots of legislation
woul" 'e unconstitutional 'ecause of all t$e ine8uality out t$ere
b. Laws treat people "iIerently E une8ual all t$e ti!e 0ne8uality
e&ists
ii. ,i/e! ,otives
1. Arlington 4eig$ts % 9etropolitan 4ousing 3e%elop!ent Corp =1KFF>
a. Cacts
i. 3e%elop!ent co!pany applies for per!it to re*one to
per!it construction of lower inco!e $ousing
ii. Denie! permit< ses on constittion#l gron!s
#rging t(#t
1. vill#ge:s !ecision to re)se to reDone '#s #
racially motivated !iscrimin#tor$ !ecision
*%-c r#ce o)ten correl#te! 'it( cl#ss+
b. Court Constitutionally per!issi'le
i. Nee! DIRECT proo) o) illicit prpose i) mi/e!
motives
ii. So!e argue t$at s$oul" loo+ at natural an" pro'a'le
conse8uences to "eter!ine purpose
1. Court re)ects too close to an eIects test
2. Jo"gers % Lo"ge =1K@2>
a. Cacts
i. Cl#c& constitents c(#llenge #t l#rge election.
ii. Pro'le! is t$at no 'lac+ !e!'ers $a%e 'een electe" to
county 'oar" of co!!issioners "espite fact t$at !a)ority
of county2s resi"ents are 'lac+
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. #ot set up on purpose to "isa"%antage !inorities
ii. B(/ 1n"s country $a" retaine" structure for illicit
purposes
1. Purpose was not constitutional w$en enacte"
L. But WAS after t$ey retaine" it
c. #ote
i. So)tening o) ashin!ton v. Davis st#n!#r! o) !irect
proo)< #t le#st in voting conte/t
!. #ote on 3istincti%e Pro'le!s in t$e A"!inistration of Cri!inal ?ustice
i. 9cCles+ey % Oe!p =1K@F>
1. Cacts
a. Blac+ !an con%icte" for !ur"ering w$ite police o:cer an"
sentence" to "eat$ 4e clai!s t$e capital sentencing sc$e!e is
racially !oti%ate" Cites Bal"us stu"y t$at conclu"es t$at capital
con%ictions "ecisions are !oti%ate" 'y race
2. Court Constitutionally %ali"
a. Conce"es t$at t$e stats fro! stu"y "o s$ow 'lac+s are
"isproportionately e&ecute" B(/ insu:cient to sur!ount t$e
'ur"en of proof fro! Washington v. Davis
b. 3iscri!inatory purpose re8uires t$at t$e action 'e ta+en
B7CA(S7 of, not !erely in spite of, its eIects of a particular
class
i. Legislature woul" $a%e $a" to $a%e enacte" capital
sentencing 'ecause of its "isparate i!pact on 'lac+s
ii. 3i" not pro%e "iscri!ination on in"i%i"ual 'asis
c. 4ol"ing #ee" 30J7C/ e%i"ence of racial ani!us, strong
inference not enoug$
e. JaceGSpeci1c Classi1cations 3esigne" to Bene1t Jacial 9inorities
=A:r!ati%e Action>
i. Overvie'
1. /ypical )usti1cations for AA
a. re!e"ying prior "iscri!ination
i. S$oul" we focus on past P(BL0C "iscri!ination or PJ0RA/7
"iscri!ination6 W$ic$ one pro'a'ly !ore pro'le!atic6
b. to en$ance "i%ersity =Bollinger factors>
i. Allows critical !ass of !inority stu"ents to !atriculate
w$ic$ pro!otes crossGracial un"erstan"ing, 'rea+s "own
stereotypes, etc
ii. 9a+es for 'etter wor+ers an" citi*ens
1. But w$o "oes t$is 'ene1t accrue6 7!ployers,
!ilitary
iii. 3esperate nee" to pro!ote lea"ers wit$ "i%ersity =nee"
to $a%e pat$ways open to all in or"er to legiti!i*e t$ose
w$o 'eco!e lea"ers in t$e eyes of all>
2. Strict Scrutiny also applies $ere for JAC7 =Crosen>
a. #otice $ow t$e court is s(i)ting its )ocs )rom grop0%#se!
protections to in!ivi!#l0%#se! rig(ts protections
b. Also touc$es upon t$e +in"s of )usti1cations for co!pelling
interests t$at a court will accept fro! t$e state w$en e%aluating
w$et$er AA progra! can e&ist
i. Cannot 'e use" to re!e"y societal "iscri!ination
ii. Can it 'e use" to re!e"y syste!atic pri%ate
"iscri!ination6 See!s no
iii. 9ust also 'e narrowly tailore" N co!pelling interest
c. 3irect proof always 'est =Was$ington % 3a%is>
i. But t$is is a $ig$ 'ur"en
d. AA !ust 'e for SP7C0C0C PAS/ WJO#GS
e. Suotas fail
i. Because t$ey are not narrowly tailore"
3. AA for wo!en gets inter!e"iate Scrutiny
a. /$us easier to !a+e progra!s for t$e!
ii. AA in Contr#cts 'it( Government
1. City of Jic$!on" % Croson =1K@K>
a. Cacts
i. Jic$!on" city council !ust awar" .0T of su'contracts to
!inority 'usiness enterprises =9B7>
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. Applies strict scrtin$ =for all racial classi1cations use"
'y state go%2t regar"less of w$ic$ races are 'ene1te" an"
w$ic$ ones are $ar!e">
1. #o co!pelling o')ecti%e 'y city
L. #ot narrowly tailore"
ii. T(ere is NO rig(t to AA
2. A"ara'" Constructors, 0nc % Pena =1KKB>
a. Cacts
i. P su'!itte" a low 'i" 'ut wasn2t gi%en t$e )o', sues
ii. Argues t$at t$e policy t$at prefers !inority %iolate" t$e
Bt$ a!en"!ent
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. #ot narrowly tailore" N "oes not furt$er co!pelling go%t
interest
ii. ALL levels o) government *)e!-st#te-loc#l+ '(o
p#rticip#te in AA progr#ms mst %e ev#l#te! on
strict scrtin$ %#sis
iii. Hol!ing AA onl$ o&#$ to reme!$ speci?c polic$
iii. AA in 4%lic E!c#tion
1. Grutter % Bollinger =200.>
a. Cacts
i. (9 law sc$ool $a" AA policy W$ite resi"ent of 90 w$o
was re)ecte" 'roug$t suit, clai!ing t$at s$e $a" not 'een
a"!itte" 'Ec law sc$ool relie" on race
b. Court Constitutionally %ali"
i. 3i%ersity is a co!pelling go%t interest all stu"ents
'ene1t N "eference to (9
ii. Hol!ing 2o CAN se AA %t $o (#ve to se
7speci#l c#re8 to !o it
1. #o 8uotas, un"e1ne" 'oost o+ay
2. Grat* % Bollinger =200.>
a. Cacts
i. A"!issions to t$e un"ergra" (9 on a point syste! Bonus
20 points if you are a !inority
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. Point syste! auto!atically ga%e 20 points to applicants
an" it $a" t$e eIect of !a+ing it "ecisi%e
ii. #ot narrowly tailore"
iv. Note on R#ce Speci?c Voting Districts
1. so!eti!es go%ern!ents will "raw "istricts so !inorities can 'e t$e
!a)ority
2. t$in+ a'out t$is as AA in %oting trying to get a particular outco!e
t$is way
3. SCO/(S =A !a)or cases>
a. 9ust !eet strict scrutiny
i. But !ay not 'e as strict as we $a%e seen in ot$er
conte&ts
b. Riolation occurs w$en race is t$e pre"o!inant factor in "rawing
legislati%e "istricts
i. 7&a!ples
1. S$aw % Jeno ;"u!''ell "istrict<, 'i*arre s$ape
L. Circu!stances, e%ents, t$at state $as relie" upon
race in su'stantial "isregar" for custo! "istricting
practices
9. 3irect e%i"ence t$at race pre"o!inate factor =?
Oenne"y, 9iller % ?o$nson>
a State "i" not ta+e usual patterns for
"istricting
c. /$e 'igger t$e group in)ury t$e greater t$e in)ury
4. Jace % Cayetano =2000> 0n"igenous Peoples
a. Cacts Roter statute t$at li!its %oting to nati%e 4awaiians or
t$ose of 4awaiian "escent to certain electe" o:cial
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. /ri'es are fe"erally recogni*e", 4awaii is )ust a state
v. S$nt(esis o) Cro'n #n! AA
1. W$at is relations$ip 'Ew Brown =!o%e!ent to "esegregate> an" AA6
a. AA was to pro!ote t$e aspirations of Brown
b. /o pro!ote an" integrate for!ally oppresse" population
2. Parents 0n%ol%e" in Co!! Sc$ools % Seattle Sc$ool 3ist =200F>
a. Cacts
i. two sc$ool "istricts w$o wante" to ensure t$at eac$
sc$ool wit$in t$eir "istrict was racially 'alance"
1. 10 $ig$ sc$ools in t$e "istrict an" so!e are 'etter
t$an ot$ers
ii. Sc$ool assign!ents after a certain point were !a"e on
t$e 'asis of race, coul" ran+ sc$ools
iii. Stu"ents coul" as+ for transfers 'ut not if t$ere was no
space or if it woul" "estroy racial 'alance
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. #O/ a co!pelling go%ern!ent interest
1. racial 'alancing fails in a'sence of a speci1c 1n"ing
of "e )ure segregation
ii. #O/ narrowly tailore" eit$er
3 78ual Protection5 0nter!e"iate Scrutiny an" t$e Pro'le! of Gen"er
#. 7arly cases
i. Generally
1. Concerne" wit$ "elicacy of wo!an, protecti%e of t$e! E paternalistic
2. /$oug$t t$at !en woul" ta+e care of wo!en in pri%ate sector
ii. Bra"well % 0llinois up$el" "enying a wo!an t$e rig$t to practice law
iii. 9inor % 4appersett sai" wo!en were ;persons< 'ut coul" not %ote
iv. 9uller % Oregon wo!en coul" only wor+ 10 $ours a "ay
%. Joa" to 0nter!e"iate Scrutiny
i. Jee" % Jee" =1KF1> 1st case to in%ali"ate gen"er classi1cation un"er t$e
7PC
1. Cacts
a. 0"a$o2s law go%erning estates of persons w$o $a" "ie" wEo a will
w$ic$ esta'lis$e" a $ierarc$y of classes of persons eligi'le for
appoint!ent as a"!inistrators
b. Pro%i"e" t$at ;of se%eral persons clai!ing an" e8ually entitle"
to a"!inister, !ales !ust 'e preferre" to fe!ales<
2. Court (nconstitutional per e8ual protection clause
a. ;%ery +in" of ar'itrary legislati%e c$oice for'i""en 'y t$e 7PC<
b. Cort 5st ses r#tion#l %#sis revie' (ere
ii. Crontiero % Jic$ar"son =1KF.> intermediate revie' arrives ( e)"ansion
o* +eed
1. Cacts
a. Ce"eral law says m#le mem%er o) t(e ni)orme! #rme!
services col! #tom#tic#ll$ clai! $is spouse as a
"epen"ent H get larger $ousing allowance E !e"ical 'ene1ts
b. B(/ )em#les col! onl$ !o so i) s(e !emonstr#te! t$at $er
spouse was in fact "epen"ent on $er for o%er $alf $is support
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Riolate" e8ual protection co!ponent of t$e Bt$ a!en"!ent2s
3P clause
b. Gen!er cl#ssi?c#tions li&e r#ce merit 7close scrtin$8
=i!!uta'le c$aracteristics> an" are in$erently suspect
iii. Con)sion ensres
1. Oa$n % S$e%in =1KFA> Court up$el" statute pro%i"ing for a property
ta& e&e!ption for wi"ows 'ut not for wi"owers /$oug$t is wo!en
!ore 1nancially nee"y
2. Ge"ul"ig % Aiello =1KFA> re)ecte" an attac+ on CA2s "isa'ility
insurance progra! t$at e&clu"es pregnancyGrelate" "isa'ilities fro!
co%erage Only e&e!pts category of illness
iv. Craig % Boren =1KFL> soli!i?e! INTER,EDIATE SCRUTIN2
1. Cacts OO statute pro$i'its t$e sale of 'eer to !ales un"er t$e age of
21 an" fe!ales un"er t$e age of 1@
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. #ot su'stantially relate" to an i!portant go%ern!ent o')ecti%e
i. Interme!i#te scrtin$ s(ol! %e #pplie!
3. #ote court ne%er e&plains w$y $eig$tene" scrutiny is necessary
c. Arc$aic an" O%er'roa" Generali*ations %ersus ;Jeal< 3iIerences
i. (S % Rirginia =1KKL>
1. Cacts
a. Rirginia 9ilitary 0nstitute =R90> was singleGse& pu'lic sc$ool for
!en to prepare t$e! to 'e ;citi*enGsol"iers< Wo!en e&clu"e"
Lawsuit in 1KK0
b. Parallel institute create" RA wo!en2s 0nstitute for lea"ers$ip
=RW0L>
2. Court (nconstitutional per 7PC
a. t$ose see+ing to "efen" a gen"erG'ase" go%ern!ent action
!ust "e!onstrate an Ue/cee!ingl$ pers#sive 5sti?c#tionU
for t$at action
b. RirginiaVs argu!ents for +eeping t$e fe!ales out were
unpersuasi%e
c. RW0L une8ual to R90 not as rigorous
ii. S$ort !entions wE real "iIerences
1. Jost+er % Gol"'erg =1K@1> Up(el! m#le onl$ !r#)t =real
"iIerence>
a. Base" on e&clusion of wo!en fro! co!'at
b. Woul" t$is still 'e up$el" to"ay6
2. 9ic$ael 9 % Sono!a County Sup Court =1K@1> Up(el! st#ttor$
r#pe st#tte
a. W$ic$ sai" t$at statutory rape is se& wit$ a fe!ale !inor
iii. #guyen % 0#S =2001> (*eal Di+erence&
1. Cacts
a. 22 year ol" Rietna!ese !an LPJ con%icte" cri!e of !oral
turpitu"e E felony set up for "eportation W$ile pen"ing, $is
fat$er atte!pte" to !a+e $i! (SC t$roug$ parentage
b. c$il" 'orn a'roa" to un!arrie" parents auto!atically get (SC if
t$e c$il"2s !ot$er is (SC w$o $a" 'een li%ing in (S at so!e
point for a year
i. B(/ not w$en fat$er is a (SC nee" ;clear an"
con%incing e%i"ence<
1. Can only apply if you are 1@ or younger
2. Court Constitutionally %ali"
a. 9ot$er is always present at t$e 'irt$, t#&es into #ccont
%iologic#l !i3erences
b. 9ot$er is tie" to c$il" at 'irt$ wit$ !eaningful relations$ip
/$ere is at least an opportunity $ere to 'on" w$ic$ t$e fat$er
"oes not $a%e
iv. Califano % Gol"far' =1KFF>
1. Cacts
a. Allowe" wi"ows =fe!ale> to reco%er fro! t$eir "ecease" spouses
pension plans 'ase" on t$e earnings of "ea" $us'an" 9ale
wi"owers coul" only "o so if $e $a" 'een recei%ing W of $is
support fro! $er
2. Courts (nconstitutional
a. Discrimin#te! #g#inst )#milies '(ere )em#le is # '#ge
e#rner.
b. Punis$e" 'ot$ se&es5 Presu!a'ly punis$es !en for t$eir reliance
on t$eir wi%es 3iscri!inate" against t$e wage earner, w$ic$ is
wo!en
v. California % We'ster =1KFF>
1. Cacts
a. SSA pro%ision on $ow to pay out 'ene1ts /$ey were calculate"
'ase" on a%erage !ont$ly wages =function of salary>
b. 0n t$is case, wo!en coul" e&clu"e so!e of t$ose low paying
salary years so t$at t$eir a%erage !ont$ly ta+e $o!e woul" 'e
increase" 'ecause cutting out lower nu!'ers /$e eIect was to
'oost t$e a%erage salary of a fe!ale retiree
2. Court constitutionally %ali"
a. Aor&s !irectl$ to reme!$ e3ects o) p#st !iscrimin#tion
b. #ot a pro"uct of o%ergenerali*ation a'out status of wo!en no
stereotyping
3. #ote5 AA
a. AA for wo!en !ore li+ely to 'e up$el"
7 Se&ual Orientation
#. Generally
i. 4ow to "eter!ine se&ual orientation6
1. SelfGi"enti1cation ='ecause t$ere is no i!!uta'le c$aracteristic>
ii. So!eti!es people say t$is is rele%ant
iii. 0s it a suspect class6
1. 3iscrete, insular !inority
2. 3iscri!inate" against
3. 0!!uta'le c$aracteristic
4. 3on2t $a%e political power
%. Jo!er % 7%ans =1KKL> =Jational Basis Je%iew N B0/7>
i. Cacts Legislation 'anne" a'ility to pro!ulgate gay protections in Colora"o
ii. Court Ban is too 'roa" an" un"iIerentiate" "isa'ility on a single group
1. Court pieces t$e %eil t$is law in CO was !oti%ate" 'y s$eer ani!us
against gay people =ie r#tion#l %#sis J %ite>
a. #ot wit$in constitutional tra"ition to enact laws li+e t$is
2. Loo+s li+e race, ie so!ew$at i!!uta'le
3. 7%eryone is entitle" to nonG"iscri!ination
a. 4ere gaysEles'ians 'eing treate" "iIerently t$an t$e 'aseline
stan"ar"
iii. 3issent =Scalia> !orals- go%t un"er no o'ligation to protect lifestyle c$oice
1. Co!pares to !ur"er, polyga!y, etc
C Ot$er Can"i"ates for 4eig$tene" Scrutiny
#. Alienage =not i!!uta'le>
i. Generally
1. (nli+e race or gen"er alienage is not in%oluntary or i!!uta'le
a. /$ey C4OOS7 to co!e to t$e (S an" t$en can C4OOS7 to
'eco!e citi*ens
2. W$at a'out un"ocu!ente" aliens6
a. /$ey "i" c$oose to co!e to t$e (S 'ut t$ey cannot c$oose to
'eco!e citi*ens
b. But t$ey are #O/ treate" as a suspect class not e%en in t$e way
t$at "ocu!ente" aliens are
i. W$y not w$en t$eir status loo+s !ore li+e raceEgen"er6
1. Because t$eir group is "e1ne" 'y illegal con"uct
3. W$at sorts of classi1cations of aliens are going to 'e for'i""en6
a. Only t$ings regar"ing econo!ic, nonGpolitical 'ene1ts
i. #ee" to !aintain li%eli$oo"
4. Ce"eral pree!ption issue fe"s t$oug$t to +now w$at2s 'est on t$is
ii. Sugar!an % 3ougall =1KF.> w$en conte&t irrele%ant, "iscri!ination not
per!itte"
1. Cacts
a. #D statute e&clu"e" aliens fro! all go%t ci%il ser%ice positions
1lle" 'y co!petiti%e e&a!ination
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Statute is not narrowly con1ne" or precise in its application
b. 4eig$te" scrutiny applie" ='ut $ar" to +now w$at le%el>
i. W$y6 3iscrete an" insular group, prone to "iscri!ination,
cannot participate in politics to protect t$e!sel%es
3. #ote
a. Alien#ge !iscrimin#tion nconstittion#l %t onl$ in t(e
conte/ts '(ere #lien#ge s(ol! %e irrelev#nt
b. 4eig$tene" scrutiny D(,S '() --./ )( .. classi0cations t$at
apply to aliens
i. Court says scrutiny will not 'e so "e!an"ing w$en we
"eal wit$ !atters 1r!ly resting wit$in a state2s
prerogati%e
iii. 7"ucational Jig$ts
1. 'y1uist v. Mauclet =1KFF> #D can2t "eny 1nancial ai" to nonciti*en
stu"ents w$o $as neit$er applie" for citi*ens$ip nor $a" a:r!e" t$eir
intent to apply as soon as t$ey 'eca!e eligi'le
2. -lyer v. Doe =1K@2> /e&as cannot $a%e a policy refusing to pro%i"e
free pu'lic e"ucation to illegally present alien c$il"ren
iv. Ca'ell % C$a%e*GSali"o =1K@2>
1. (p$el" citi*ens$ip re8uire!ent for pro'ation o:cers
2. 2 pronge" test
a. /$e speci1city of t$e classi1cation will 'e e&a!ine"5 a
classi1cation t$at is su'stantially o%erinclusi%e or un"erinclusi%e
ten"s to un"ercut t$e go%ern!ental clai! t$at t$e classi1cation
ser%es legiti!ate political en"s
b. 7%en if t$e classi1cation is su:ciently tailore", it m#$ %e
#pplie! in t(e p#rticl#r c#se onl$ to ;persons $ol"ing state
electi%e or i!portant nonelecti%e, e&ecuti%e, legislati%e
positions<
v. Ce"eral Pree!ption cases
1. !a"#ton v. Mow Sun Wong =1KFL> in%ali"ate" ci%il ser%ice
co!!ission policy e&clu"ing aliens fro! !ost ci%il ser%ice )o's
2. Matthew v. Dia2 =1KFL> up$el" fe"eral statute li!iting participation
in a fe"eral !e"ical insurance progra! to citi*ens an" aliens w$o $a"
'een in (S continuously for BN years an" were LPJs
%. Wealt$ Classi1cations =not i!!uta'le>
i. Poor people #re not # protecte! cl#ss t(e$ !o not get (eig(tene!
scrtin$
1. Onl$ r#tion#l %#sis revie' or !ay'e rational 'asis re%iew plus 'ite
2. Je)ection of t$e i"ea t$at ;1nancial nee" alone i"entities a suspect
class for purposes of t$e e8ual protection clause<
ii. 4ypot$eticals
1. 9unicipally owne" swi!!ing pool Cee for using t$e pool if
X1B00Eyear 3oes t$at "eny e8ual protections to fa!ilies w$o are too
poor to pay6 Pro'a'ly not,
2. But suppose t$e statute oppresse" anyone w$o "i"n2t earn X1B0+Eyear
fro! using t$e pool 3enial of e8ual protection6 9ay'e,
iii. (sually rig$ts e!erge $ere if t$ey relate to life, li'erty or property
iv. 0f you stri+e "own an e&clusion of poor people P saying t$at poor people $a%e
rig$t to so!et$ing
1. Gri3n v. 4llinois (5678& states cannot to c$arge in"igents for cort
tr#nscripts for in"igents appealing cri!inal con%ictions, 'asically
saying t$ey $a%e a rig$t to t$e!
2. Douglas v. Cali9ornia (568:& states !ust provi!e in!igents 'it(
consel on a 1rst appeal of rig$t to c$allenge a cri!inal con%iction
a. 9itigate eIects of pri%ate !ar+et
3. !ar#er v. ;irginia Board o9 ,lections (5688& C#nnot c(#rge poll
t#/, presu!a'ly !eans poor people $a%e rig$t to %ote
a. Stri+es "own poll ta& for people w$o can aIor" to pay it as well
v. #o "iscri!ination,
1. M.B v. S.< (5668& re8uire!ent for poor to pay recor" preparation
fees 'efore appealing up$el" e%en t$oug$ "isproportionate i!pact
=3a%is stan"ar">
2. San ntonio School Dist. v. *odrigue2 (56=:& Sc$ool raise" !oney
fro! property ta&es #o "iscri!ination to poor on rational 'asis re%iew
#o a'solute "epri%ation 7PC "oes not re8uire perfect e8uality in
sc$ooling
c. Ot$er 3isa"%antage" Groups
i. Cit$ o) Cle%rne v. Cle%rne Living Ctr. *1EHI+ G ment#ll$ ret#r!e!
1. Cacts City allowe" a %ariety of structures to 'e 'uilt on certain plot
of lan" 'ut speci1cally e&clu"e" certain structures group $o!es for
!entally retar"e", insane or "rug a""icts /$en, special per!it
re8uire"
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Go%ern!ent "i" #O/ $a%e a legiti!ate go%ern!ent o')ecti%e
i. 4ig$ sc$ool near'y, structure on Qoo" plainEunsafe
b. Base" on irrational pre)u"ice against !entally retar"e"
i. Loo+s at !a)oritarian 'ias pierces t$e %eil
1. Cort is 'illing to loo& %e$on! t(e st#te!
prpose to ?n! t(#t t(e motives #re
illegitim#te G t(is is RATIONAL CASIS J CITE
ii. ;"iscri!ination is at t$e $eart of t$e city2s "ecisions
ii. 0!portant analysis of Cle'urne
1. W$y "oesn2t t$e court apply $eig$tene" scrutiny6 /$ey see! to 1t a
suspect class
a. I) 'e !ecl#re sspect cl#ss t(en get (eig(tene! scrtin$
#cross t(e %o#r! #n! in some c#ses legisl#tion t(#t
cl#ssi?es ment#ll$ ret#r!e! m#&es sense
iii. W$at purpose "oes "esignating a suspect class ser%e6
1. Goo" part now it s$ifts 'ur"en to state to )ustify w$y it2s using t$e
classi1cation
2. Ba" part creates 'ur"en on legislatures to actually try to "o t$ings
t$at $elp !e!'ers of suspect classes =a:r!ati%e action for !entally
retar"e">
iv. Collowing Cley'urne, Court routinely "enies suspect class to %arious groups
nonG!arital c$il"ren, el"erly
G /$e Cun"a!ental 0nterests Prong of 78ual Protection Analysis
#. Origins
i. #ew rule $ere laws t$at "istri'ute interests une8ually C(#3A97#/AL
0#/7J7S/ PJO#G.
1. T(ings t(e Cort !eems to %e so )n!#ment#l t(#t legisl#tion
t(#t in)ringes on t(#t interest< it triggers strict scrtin$
2. Cun"a!ental interests $a%e to 'e protecte" e8ually
a. not t$at t$e Constitution pro%i"es 'ut rat$er rig$ts t$at t$e
states gi%e an" t$at t$e fe"eral go%ern!ent !ust protect on an
e8ual protection 'asis
ii. S+inner % O+la$o!a =1KA2> Jig$t to Procreate E 4a%e OIspring
1. Cacts
a. OO $as statute t$at allows for su!!arily sterili*ation for certain
$a'itual oIen"ers
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Rig(t to procre#te is # )n!#ment#l (m#n rig(t
b. W$en state classi1es in a way t$at "enies so fun"a!ental an
interest as procreation, strict scrtin$ is essential
%. /$e Jig$t to Rote
i. A($ # )n!#ment#l interest@
1. 0"ea is cannot 'e left to process itself
2. Jepresentation reinforce!ent !o"el
3. Roting is not suppose" to 'e fun"a!ental in t$e constitution it s$oul"
'e 'ase" on t$e fact t$at it2s roote" as a fun"a!ental ele!ent of
"e!ocracy
ii. Deni#l o) t(e Rig(t to Vote
1. 4arper % RA Boar" of 7" =1KLL> poll ta&es are irrele%ant for %oting
a. Cacts
i. Rirginia $a" a poll ta&
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. Voting is )n!#ment#l so strict scrtin$ #pplies
ii. Poll ta& cannot stan" 'ecause it2s a'out wealt$ an"
#%ilit$ to p#$ poll t#/ is not # relev#nt "#li?c#tion
to vote
2. Ora!er % (nion Cree Sc$ool 3ist =1KLK> %oting restrictions !ust 'e
narrowly tailore"
a. Cacts
i. #D law says in certain #D sc$ool "istricts, resi"ents !ay
%ote in sc$ool "istrict election only if t$ey =1> own or lease
ta&a'le real property wit$in t$e "istrict, or =2> are parents
=or $a%e custo"y of> c$il"ren enrolle" in t$e local pu'lic
sc$ools
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. 7%en t$oug$ t$ere !ay 'e a legiti!ate go%ern!ent
interest, t$e statute is #O/ narrowly tailore" enoug$
iii. Diltion o) t(e Rig(t to Vote
1. Jeynol"s % Si!s =1KLA> !ust 'e 'ase" on population
a. Cacts Ala'a!a2s legislature $as not c$ange" $ow it apportions
=legislati%e "istricts> in L0 years Le" to irrational sc$e!e
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. St#tes mst se popl#tion %#se! !istricts #n! t(e
!istricts mst %e virt#ll$ i!entic#l in popl#tion
2. City of 9o'ile % Bol"en =1K@0> ;fair representation< syste! not
!an"atory
a. Cacts #o 'lac+ $as e%er 'een electe" as city co!!ission e%en
t$oug$ $ig$ 'lac+ population Clai! at large %oting syste!
"ilutes strengt$ of 'lac+s in 9o'ile
b. Court Constitutional syste!
i. S#$s m#5orit$ rle elections *#&# 'inner0t#&es0#ll+
#re inv#li! ONL2 I= t(e$ #re inten!e! to invi!iosl$
minimiDe %l#c& voting strengt(.
ii. Roting rig$ts "oes #O/ confer a rig$t to elect
representati%es in proportion to your nu!'ers
iii. Ste%en2s gui"elines for )u"ging unconstitutionality
1. #ot t$e pro"uct of a !anifest or routine political
"ecision
L. Signi1cant a"%erse i!pact on a !inority
9. /otally irrational or enacte" wit$ intent to curtail
power of !inority
iv. Deni#l o) 7Access to t(e C#llot8
1. Willia!s % J$o"es =1KL@>
a. Cacts
i. O4 law sai" t$at political parties t$at $a" recei%e" 10T of
t$e %ote in prior go%ernor election auto!atically 8uali1e"
for t$e ne&t presi"ential election 'allot Ot$er political
parties $a" to earn a spot after pro%ing an ela'orate party
structure
b. Court (nconstitutional
i. State laws 'ur"en two t$ings
1. Jig$t of in"i%i"uals to associate for t$e
a"%ance!ent of political 'eliefs
L. Jig$t of 8uali1e" %oters to cast t$eir %otes
eIecti%ely
ii. Co!pelling state interest in !anaging 'allots not enoug$
c. Cri!inal ?ustice Syste!
i. Gri:n % 0llinois =1KBL> rig$t to court transcripts
1. Cacts C$arge" in"igents for court transcripts w$en appealing
cri!inal con%ictions
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. 0n"igents $a%e a rig$t to access transcripts wit$out 'ur"en
3. to pro%i"e t$ese "efen"ants wit$ a"e8uate an" eIecti%e appellate
re%iew
ii. 3ouglas % California =1KL.> Jig$t to Counsel on Appeal
1. Cacts Jule saying court woul" e%aluate if in"igents woul" get free
counsel on appeal
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. States !ust provi!e in!igents 'it( consel on a 1rst appeal
of rig$t to c$allenge a cri!inal con%iction
b. But t$is is not )ust application of Gri:n 'ecause 3ouglas "oes
not !erely for'i" states fro! c$arging a fee, it i!poses an
#Brm#tive o%lig#tion on states to pro%i"e counsel for "irect
appeals
i. Involves rel#tivel$ r#re interest '(ere cort
cre#tes positive rig(ts n!er const< verss
neg#tive rig(t t(#t )or%i!s st#te )rom !oing
somet(ing
iii. Bo""ie % C/ =1KF1> rig$t to free "i%orce
1. Cacts State re8uire!ent t$at in"i%i"uals pay court fees an" costs of
XL0 in or"er to sue for "i%orce
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. 9arriage is fun"a!ental in our society
b. Courts are necessary for regulari*e" process of "ispute
settle!ent- !onopoly on "i%orce
c. 3epri%ation of "ue process of law
3. #ote
a. /$is "ecision 3O7S #O/ J7AC4 C0R0L AJ7#A
i. Only pertains to fun"a!ental rig$ts li+e !arriageE"i%orce
1. >S v. ?ras "i" not e&ten" to 'an+ruptcy
!. /$e Jig$t to /ra%el
i. O%er%iew E Jan"o!
1. ,ore )n!#ment#l t(#n t(e rig(t to vote *#ge restrictions on
t(#t+
2. Jesi"ency re8uire!ents for sc$ools $as 'een up$el"
a. #ot$ing in$erently wrong a'out a state trying to only 'ene1t
t$eir own resi"ents
ii. S$apiro % /$o!pson =1KLK>
1. Cacts Je8uire" people to li%e in 3C one year 'efore 8ualifying for
welfare 'ene1ts
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Uses strict scrtin$ %ec#se rig(t to tr#vel is
)n!#ment#l *implie! t(rog( or )e!er#l nion #n!
person#l li%ert$ concepts+
i. Resi!enc$ re"irements )or %ene?ts nconsttion#l
b. "iIerence is 'etween people w$o $a%e an" w$o $a%en2t
tra%ele"
i. /$e law treats t$e! "iIerently an" t$is is t$e %iolation of
e8ual protection
c. 7%en if goo" reason =state "oesn2t want 'ur"en>, not narrowly
tailore">
iii. Saen* % Joe =1KKK>
1. Cacts CA welfare progra! li!ite" new resi"ents to t$e 'ene1ts t$ey
woul" $a%e recei%e" in t$e state of t$eir prior resi"ence
2. Court (nconstitutional
a. Cort reconcept#liDes t(e rig(t to tr#vel G loo&s #t t(e
privileges #n! immnities cl#se 'Ec
i. Can2t get to t$e resolution t$ey want to get wit$ t$eir
fun"a!ental interest approac$ 'ecause t$ere2s not a real
penalty
b. PH0 clause $as less scrutiny 'ut it2s still enoug$ to stri+e "own to
put "own t$ese su'tle "iIerences
c. /$ree co!ponents of rig$t to tra%el
i. Jig$t to interstate tra%el
ii. Jig$t to 'e treate" as a welco!e %isitor
iii. Cor t$ose w$o 'eco!e per!anent citi*ens t$e rig$t to 'e
treate" li+e any ot$er citi*en of t$e state
e. Welfare
i. Generally
1. NOT # )n!#ment#l rig(t r#tion#l %#sis revie' ONL2
2. W$y 90G4/ welfare 'e fun"a!ental6
a. Dou nee" a 'asic 'aseline in or"er to participate in politics, $a%e
access to t$e court syste!
b. Close ne&us to t$e en)oy!ent of ot$er rig$ts
ii. 3an"ri"ge % Willia!s =1KF0>
1. Cacts pro%ision of 932s welfare progra! t$at grante" !ost eligi'le
fa!ilies t$eir co!pute" ;stan"ar" of nee"< 'ut i!pose" a !a&
!ont$ly grant of X2B0 per fa!ily regar"less of si*e
2. Court Constitutional
a. Welfare is not a fun"a!ental interest
b. Coun" rational state interest
c. Court wants to a%oi" pro%i"ing strict scrutiny 'ecause t$en law
woul" 'e presu!pti%ely in%ali"
i. 0t woul" 'e i!possi'le to run a welfare progra! wit$out
"rawing so!e "istinctions an" SS woul" pose so!e
"i:culty
1. Want to a%oi" state cutting progra! entirely
). 7"ucation
i. San Antonio 0n"ep Sc$ool 3ist % Jo"rigue* =1KF.> #o rig$t to pu'lic
e"ucation
1. Cacts /e&as use" 1nancing syste! 'ase" on property ta&es t$at
ga%e so!e stu"ents in t$e "istrict !ore !oney per pupil t$an ot$ers
2. Court Constitutional =rational 'asis re%iew>
a. No )n!#ment#l rig(t to p%lic e!c#tion in t(e
constittion
i. #ot really a 'asis in t$e past =)u"icial restraint>
b. 7PC "oes not re8uire perfect e8uality in sc$ooling
ii. Plyler % 3oe =1K@2> (n"ocu!ente" c$il"ren $a%e a rig$t to free pu'lic
e"ucation
1. Cacts /e&as statute aut$ori*e" local sc$ool "istricts to "eny free
pu'lic e"ucation to un"ocu!ente" c$il"ren 9ust pay tuition fees
2. Court (nconstitutional =inter!e"iate scrutiny>
a. Hig(er level o) scrtin$ %ec#se concern )or n!oc
c(il!ren '(o #re (ere t(rog( no )#lt o) t(eir o'n
i. 0t2s a oneti!e e%ent 4ere, t$e states actions were so
unpalata'le t$at Court was unwilling to a"$ere to its
prece"ent
b. Co!'ines pree!pti%e analysis fe"eral go%t to !a+e t$ese
"ecisions
c. 3oes not o%errule Jo"rigue*
III. , III. ,ODERN ODERN S SUCSTANTIVE UCSTANTIVE D DUE UE 4 4ROCESS ROCESS
A. Pri%acy an" Procreation
a Origins
i. Loc$ner so!eti!es people $a%e li'erty interests in conQict wit$ legislation
ii. 9eyers =1K2.> in%ali"ate" state law pro$i'iting t$e teac$ing of any
!o"ern language ot$er t$an 7nglis$ in any pu'lic or pri%ate gra!!ar sc$ool
' Waters$e" Cases
i. Griswol" % C/ =1KLB> t$ere is a fun"a!ental rig$t to pri%acy
1. Cacts
#. Griswol" is 7&ec 3irector of Planne" Parent$oo" an" 3r Bu&ter
is p$ysician Gi%e a"%ice on contraception to !arrie" persons
%. (n"er Conn law it is a cri!e for anyone to use anyt$ing to
pre%ent contraception /$ey are c$ange" wit$ accessories to
%iolators of t$is law =!arrie" couple>
L. Court (nconstitutional
#. Viol#te! #n n0enmer#te! rig(t to priv#c$
i. Sorce@ 4enm%r# o) cert#in %ill o) rig(ts
provisions
%. Court see!s to say t$at state cannot regulate use of
contracepti%e 'ut can regulate t$e a'ility to possess it an"
!anufacturing of it
ii. Joe % Wa"e =1KF.> fun"a!ental rig$t to an a'ortion
1. Cacts
#. /Y statute !a"e procuring an a'ortion a cri!e e&cept for sa%ing
!o!2s life
L. Court (nconstitutional
#. E/ten!s Gris'ol! rig(t to priv#c$ into #%ortion conte/t.
C#l#nces #g#inst govt:s interest in regl#ting in t(e #re#.
Cec#se )n!#ment#l interest< #ppl$ strict scrtin$.
%. Also respect for wo!en2s autono!y
c. Joe says t$at t$e 1rst tri!ester t$ere2s no co!pelling interest to
regulate a'ortion
i. But 'eyon" t$e 1st tri!ester you can regulate a'ortion
!. Cort !r#'s t(e line #t vi#%ilit$ G # %it mr&$ *not
%iologic#ll$ ?/e!+
e. states re8uire" to per!it a'ortions if t$e life of t$e !ot$er is
t$reatene"
i. even i) t(e interest in post0vi#%le )et#l li)e is
compelling< t(is interest !oes not ot'eig( t(e
interest o) # 'om#n controlling (er %o!$ to protect
(er (e#lt(
1. Balancing act 'etween life of !ot$er an" life of
fetus
c A'ortion Cun"ing
i. 9a$er % Joe =1KFF>
1. Cacts
#. state regulation "enie" !e"icai" 'ene1ts for nont$erapuetic
a'ortion 'ut ga%e it for c$il"'irt$
L. Court Constitutional
#. Government (#s no #Brm#tive constittion#l o%lig#tion
to ensre t(#t #ll 'omen (#ve t(e ?n#nci#l resorces to
(#ve #n #%ortion
i. Courts assu!ption is t$e sa!e positi%eEnegati%e rig$ts
1. We "on2t want t$e go%ern!ent i!posing positi%e
rig$ts to t$e states
%. 4ol"ing5 in"igent wo!en $a%e a constitutional rig$t to a'ortion
'ut t$ere is no constitutional rig$t for t$e state to fun" t$ese
proce"ures
ii. 4arris % 9cJae =1K@0>
1. Cacts
#. Law pro$i'iting use of !e"icai" fun"s ;to perfor! a'ortions
e&cept w$ere t$e life of t$e !ot$er woul" 'e en"angere" or
rapeEincest<
L. Court Constitutional
#. Aom#n:s )ree!om o) c(oice !oesn:t c#rr$ 'it( it
constittion#l entitlement to t(e ?n#nci#l resorces to
#v#il (ersel) o) )ll r#nge o) protections
" A'ortion Jegulation
i. City of A+ron % A+ron Ctr for Jepr 4ealt$ =1K@.>
1. Cacts
#. State statute $a" t$e following re8uire!ents
i. 2n" tri!ester a'ortions 'e perfor!e" in a $ospital
ii. Before consenting to a'ortions, wo!en 'e ;orally
infor!e" 'y $er p$ysician of t$e status of $er pregnancy,
t$e "e%elop!ent of $er fetus, possi'ility of %ia'ility, an"
ot$er options
iii. Atten"ing p$ysician !ust infor! wo!an ;of particular
ris+s<
iv. A'ortion can only 'e perfor!e" until 2A $rs after wo!an
signs consent
L. Court Unconstittion#l to #!! more %r!ens on 'om#n
#. 4ospital re8uire!ent
i. /oo costly, struc+ "own
%. 2n" tri!ester a'ortions can 'e "one in a nonG$ospital setting
i. But w$at2s wrong wit$ !a+ing 2#3 tri!ester a'ortions
safer6
c. 0nfor!e" consent
i. Generally o+ay 'ut t$e i"ea $ere was to "issua"e wo!an
fro! e&ercising t$eir rig$t to an a'ortion an" t$is is an
o'stacle
!. Stri+es "own "octor2s "iscussion of ris+s an" aftercare present
su'stantial o'stacles to a'ortion
i. Suspicions fro! infor!e" consent !ay $a%e spille" o%er
to t$is one "on2t want "octors to "issua"e wo!en
e. Waiting perio"
i. Court stri+es "own as ar'itrary an" inQe&i'le too costly
ii. 9inors = Matheson >
1. /$ey $a%e !ore li!ite" rig$ts on a'ortions
L. Court says c$il"ren are "iIerent fro! a"ults an" t$ey will 'ene1t fro!
consultation wit$ t$eir parents
#. But t$e court says t$at wo!en s$oul"n2t $a%e to tal+ to t$eir
$us'an"s 'ut "aug$ters $a%e to tal+ to t$eir parents
9. #ot an un"ue 'ur"en for !inors to $a%e to spea+ wit$ t$eir parents
iii. C$ange of /ri!ester Cra!ewor+ Political 7%ent
1. Webster Court up$ol"s se%eral 9issouri statutes regulating a'ortion
Suggests Joe tri!ester fra!ewor+ s$oul" 'e a'an"on an" at o""s wit$
state2s "eter!ination of %ia'ility
iv. PP of S7 Penn % Casey =1KK2>
1. Cacts
#. Court as+e" to consi"er constitutionality of Penn laws regulating
a'ortion GG infor!e" consent, 2A $our waiting perio", parental
consent to !inors, spousal consent for !arrie" wo!en
L. Court so!e constitutional, so!e unconstitutional n!e %r!en
st#n!#r!
#. Re#Brms Roe CUT reconcept#liDes vi#%ilit$ *st#rts #t
conception+
i. Re5ects trimester )r#me'or&
%. 9a+es a'ortion !ore a'out autono!y an" 'o"ily integrity
i. 0f rig$ts are going to !ean anyt$ing, t$en we nee" to
clearly articulate its 'oun"aries
c. Applying un"ue 'ur"en
i. 2AG$our waiting perio"
1. #o, not any!ore ,verrule -ity o* A$ron, say
alt$oug$ t$ere is a 'ur"en, it is not an un"ue
'ur"en 0nfor!e" "ecision !a+ing is t$e 'etter
rule
ii. Spousal noti1cation perio"
1. Court says t$is an un"ue 'ur"en
L. /$is goes to pri%acy greater intrusion $a%ing to
tell t$e $us'an"
iii. Consent for !inors
1. #ot an un"ue 'ur"en
!. /est
i. Before %ia'ility a wo!an $as a rig$t to ter!inate $er
a'ortion
ii. A law "esigne" to furt$er t$e state2s interest in fetal
%ia'ility t$at i!poses an un"ue 'ur"en on a'ortion 'efore
%ia'ility is (C
iii. After %ia'ility a state !ay place any restriction inclu"ing
proscri'ing a'ortion
e Partial Birt$ A'ortions
i. Sten'erg % Car$art =2000>
1. Cacts
#. #e'ras+a statute 'anne" ;partial 'irt$ a'ortion< =3H7 an" 3HY>
"e1ne" as
i. An a'ortion proce"ure in w$ic$ t$e person perfor!ing t$e
a'ortion partially "eli%ers %aginally a li%ing un'orn c$il"
'efore +illing t$e un'orn c$il" an" co!pleting t$e "eli%ery
L. Court Unconstittion#l per strict scrtin$
#. =#ils to m#&e #n e/ception )or t(e (e#lt( o) t(e mot(er
i. State cannot en"anger !ot$er 'y forcing $er to un"ergo
ris+ier proce"ure
ii. Only per!its e&ception if lifeGt$reatening not ot$er
$ealt$ ris+s
1. ,ot(er:s #tonom$ still trmps
%. (n"ue 'ur"en
ii. Gon*ale* % Car$art =200F>
1. Cacts
#. A'out a fe"eral act w$ic$ contains a !oral clai!, focuses on
li%ing fetuses =not su'stantial pieces of an un'orn c$il">, uses
anato!ical "iIerences Je8uire!ent of an ;o%ert act< a+a +illing
t$e fetus after presentation
i. Cri!inali*es O#LD w$en a'ortion "one to facilitate +illing
%ersus co!plete "eli%ery
ii. S/0LL no e&ception for t$e $ealt$ of t$e !ot$er
L. Court Constitutional
#. '(en t(e )ets is plle! ot t(en it constittes # li)e in
'(ic( t(e st#te (#s #n interest G cort mst %e
concerne! 'it( gresomeness
%. W$y no un"ue 'ur"en6
i. Court says t$ere2s alternati%es 3H7 an" 3H7 wE fetal
"e!ise
1. But w$at a'out t$e rig$t of a wo!en to c$oose a
safer option6
a Court says t$ere2s an e%i"entiary conQict
so!e e%i"ence on 'ot$ si"es =!ore ris+y %
less ris+y>
9. #ote Blow to t$e proGc$oice !o%e!ent
C. Ca!ily an" Ot$er ;Pri%acy< 0nterests
a Ca!ily is a Cun"a!ental Jig$t
i. 9oore % City of 7ast Cle%elan" =1KFF>
1. Cacts
#. Or"inance w$ic$ purports to li!it occupants of t$e sa!e
"welling to !e!'ers of t$e sa!e fa!ily only inclu"e" a few
categories of in"i%i"uals =e&ten"e" fa!ily are not inclu"e">
L. Court (nconstitutional per "ue process clause
#. Viol#te! )n!#ment#l rig(t *t(s strict scrint$+ to !e?ne
one:s o'n )#mili#l #rr#ngements
i. S#nctit$ o) )#mil$ G even non0ncle#r
ii. Deepl$ roote! in or tr#!ition #n! t(is merits more
constittion#l protection
%. Barring unrelate" people fro! li%ing wit$ eac$ ot$er is rationally
relate" =rational 'asis>
' 9arriage is a Cun"a!ental Jig$t =un"er 78ual Protection Clause>
i. Zaloc+i % Je"$ail =1KF@>
1. Cacts
#. W0 statute says !arriage applicants w$o alrea"y $a%e a c$il"
an" !ust support %ia c$il" support !ay not !arry wit$out prior
)u"icial "eter!ination t$at t$e support $as 'een !et an"
c$il"ren won2t 'eco!e pu'lic c$arges
L. Court (nconstitutional per t$e e"#l protection cl#se *not s%.
!e process+
#. T(ere is # )n!#ment#l rig(t to m#rr$
%. /$is is not a reasona'le regulation, interferes wit$ "ecision
!a+ing
c. Broa" infringe!ent on t$e rig$t to !arry
!. Pro'a'ly "eci"e" on e8ual protection clause 'ecause if on su'
"ue process woul" $a%e re%iewe" too !uc$ legislation on strict
scrutiny
i. 9ig$t open up gay !arriage
ii. 9arriage penalties wit$ ta&es
c Se&ual Orientation 0nterests
i. Bowers % 4ar"wic+ =1K@L> OVERTURNED C2 LAARENCE
1. Cacts
#. A"ult !ale was cri!inally c$arge" for %iolating Georgia2s
so"o!y statute 'y co!!itting a se&ual act wit$ anot$er a"ult
!ale in $is own 'e"roo!
%. Statute "e1ne" so"o!y as co!!itting or su'!itting ;any
se&ual act in%ol%ing t$e se& organs of one person an" t$e !out$
or anus of anot$er<
i. #ot necessarily $o!ose&ual
L. PlaintiI2s Clai!
#. Se&ual li'erty an" autono!y e&tension of JoeEGriswol"
%. /urne" it into a case a'out general so"o!y
9. Court Constitutional
#. #one of pre%ious rig$ts =a'ortion, pri%acy, rig$t to procreate> are
si!ilar to t$is
%. #ot inclu"e" to ta+e !ore e&pansi%e %iew of fun"a!ental rig$ts
in t$e "ue process clause
c. Against !oral teac$ings, court turne" it into gay so"o!y issue
ii. Lawrence % /e&as =200.>
1. Cacts
#. /Y cri!inali*es anal an" oral se& =so"o!y> neig$'or calle"
a'out terroris! t$reat an" police 'uste" in an" foun" two !en
$a%ing se&
L. Court
#. Cra!es t$e 8uestion of so"o!y BJOA3LD, inclu"ing
$eterose&ual so"o!y
%. Use r#tion#l %#sis revie' G not # )n!#ment#l rig(t
i. No legitim#te st#te interest
c. O%erturns Bowers say tra"itional 'asis was ;Qawe"<
!. 9ost parts of t$e worl" "on2t cri!inali*e gay se& can%ases
international sources
i. Woul"n2t international nor!s 'e loo+e" at 'y legislatures
an" not courts6
1. Can2t always "epen" on t$e !a)ority to gi%e us
rig$ts
a Argu!ent can run 'ot$ ways
iii. #ote on Sa!eGSe& 9arriage
1. Protecte" fa!ily is roote" in tra"ition
L. 9oreo%er states are allowe" to regulate so!e aspects of t$e fa!ily
#. 9eans t$ey will 'e a'le to regulate !arriage
9. 3O9A ="e1nes !arriage for fe"eral purposes as unity 'etween
!anEwo!an>
#. Allows states #O/ to recogni*e sa!eGse& !arriage if t$ey "on2t
want to
%. 3e1nes !arriage for fe"eral purposes as t$e unity 'etween a
!an an" a wo!an
;. 0n lig$t of Jo!er is 3O9A unconstitutional6
#. 0nteresting 8uestion argua'ly so[
%. 3O9A allows states to "o w$at SCO/(S for'i"s in Jo!er an"
frowns up in Lawrence w$ic$ is singling out gays for "iIerent
treat!ent
c. But you coul" always argue it 0S constitution 'y saying it2s
reasona'le regulation
i. Jeal constitutional 1g$t $ere o%er gay !arriage
I. W$at2s t$e 'est strategy for securing t$e rig$t to gay !arriage6
#. Ria fe"eral go%ern!ent or %ia t$e states to c$ange t$eir
regulations6
i. 9ay'e start state 'y state to s$ow t$e fe"s t$ere is
support an" t$en go t$roug$ t$e fe"eral go%t
C. /$e Jig$t to 3ie s&ippingM
a Cru*an % 3ir, 9issouri 3ept of 4ealt$
' Was$ington % Gluc+s'erg
IV. 4 IV. 4ROCEDURAL ROCEDURAL D DUE UE 4 4ROCESS ROCESS
A Li'erty an" Property 0nterests
a Generally
i W$at will trigger life, li'erty, property
1 3epri%ation of statutory entitle!ent
2 7nsure certain proce"ural safeguar"s
' Gol"'erg % Oelly
i welfare recipient2s interest in continue" receipt of pay!ents constitute" a
;property interest<
1 #ew property was "e%elope" 'y Jeic$ i"ea was t$at certain state
'ene1ts $a%e 'eco!e crucial to certain !e!'ers of society 'eco!e
reliant on state 'ene1ts an" 'ecause of t$at t$ey can 'e consi"ere"
positi%e law un"er state law
c Boar" of Jegents % Jot$ =1KF2>
i Cacts
1 Prof $ire" for oneGyear ter! an" is an untenure" professor W$en not
re$ire" $e sue"
2 Jot$ argues as a state e!ployee $e $a" a property interest
=e&pectation for $a%ing a )o'> t$at was "epri%e"
ii Court Constitutional, no guarantee of )o'
1 B(/ in Goldberg v. ?elly case t$ere2s t$e i"ea of #7W property
2 3iIerences 'etween *oth an" Goldberg
a Welfare is a !ore su'stantial interest
' 0t is guarantee" at a certain inco!e le%el
c 4owe%er, one !ay argue t$at a )o' is !ore i!portant 'ecause it
+eeps people oI welfare
" Perry % Sin"er!ann =1KF2>
i Cacts
1 (nli+e Jot$ t$ere was suggestion t$at )o' security was an entitle!ent
2 PlaintiI is arguing t$at alt$oug$ t$ere was no for!al tenure at t$e
institution t$e institution argua'ly create" an entitle!ent to )o'
security t$at !ust 'e acco!panie" 'y proce"ural safeguar"s w$en it is
t$reatene" or "enie"
ii Court 9ay'e, re!an"
1 CA# AJ0S7 CJO9 un"erstan"ings or state entitle!ents
e Cle%elan" Boar" of 7" % Lou"er!ill =1K@B>
i Cacts
1 security guar" $ire", sai" on $is application t$at $e ne%er $a" a felony
t$ey foun" out $e $a" a larceny c$arge Cire" for "is$onestly Clai!s
$e s$oul" get a preGter!ination $earing
ii Court (nconstitutional
1 O$io create" t$e original property interest 'Ec t$ey classi1e" $i! as a
ci%il ser%ant
a Sai" suc$ e!ployees can 'e ter!inate" only for cause an" !ay
o'tain a"!inistrati%e re%iew
2 State can2t constitutionally aut$ori*e t$e "epri%ation of an interest
once t$ey2%e conferre" it wit$out appropriate proce"ural safeguar"s
f /own of Castle Joc+, CO % Gon*ale*
i Cacts
1 ?u"ge grante" restraining or"er against $er c$il"ren2s fat$er
2 C$il"ren ta+en fro! playgroun" an" s$e calle" police to enforce or"er
an" go get $er +i"s =+now w$ere t$ey are>, an" police "i"n2t Oi"s were
+ille" Or"er tol" police to use any possi'le !eans to enforce or"er
ii Court no property rig$ts
1 0s t$ere anyt$ing in Colora"o law t$at says t$at enforce!ent of t$e JO
is !an"atory6
a #ot !uc$ in CO law t$at says t$at it2s !an"atory use of t$e
wor" ;s$all<
2 Police $a%e "iscretion
B W$at Process is 3ue
a 9att$ews % 7l"ri"ge =1KFL>
i Cacts
1 PlaintiI $a" 'een recei%ing "isa'ility 'ene1ts for years 3octors say $e
is no longer "isa'le" an" t$ey ta+e away $is "isa'ility 'ene1ts after a
notice an" a written response
ii Court t$ere was enoug$ "ue process $ere
1 7sta'lis$es 'alancing test
a Pri%ate interest aIecte"
i Loo+s at speci1c pri%ate interest aIecte"
ii W$ere "oes interest in confrontation factor in6
' Jis+ of erroneous "epri%ation
i Loo+s at speci1c proce"ure oIere" an" alternati%es to
t$e proce"ure
ii Will a""e" proce"ure protect pri%ate interest 'etter6
c Go%ern!ent interests =a""itional cost of proce"ural safeguar"s>
i Li!ite" resources for "isa'ility ser%ices progra!
ii Loo+s to !ore utilitarian %alues
iii A""e" costs to progra! !ay "epri%e ot$ers of t$eir
'ene1ts
V. S V. STATE TATE A ACTION CTION AND AND 4 4ROCLE,S ROCLE,S O= O= 4 4RIVATE RIVATE 4 4OAER OAER
A State Action an" Ce"eralis!
#. Gener#ll$
i Guarantees of Constitution run only against State
1. Pro$i'itions apply only to state con"uct an" not to purely pri%ate
con"uct
ii Pri%ate "iscri!inators
1. #ot su')ect to constitution 'ut are su')ect to ci%il rig$ts statutes
iii Court $as struggle" to "eter!ine state action %ersus truly pri%ate con"uct
1. Cor e&a!ple, w$en power is attri'uta'le to 'ene1ts pro%i"e" 'y
go%ern!ent to pri%ate parties t$at aIect t$e li%es of people Li+e
'roa"casters W$at is t$e con"uct encourage" 'y or aut$ori*e" 'y
go%2t action6 (n"er t$ose circu!stances la'eling actions as pri%ate
con"uct !ay see! inappropriate
i% /wo ru'rics for 4AJ3 CAS7S
1. So!eti!es, t$e Court 1n"s t$at a pri%ate actor !ust 'e su')ect to
constitutional re8uire!ents 'ecause t$e state $as "elegate" a
tra"itional state or pu'lic function to a pri%ate entity
L. So!eti!es t$e court 1n"s t$at a pri%ate actor !ust 'e su')ect to
constitutional re8uire!ents 'ecause
#. /$e state $as appro%e", encourage", or facilitate" pri%ate
con"uct
%. /$e state $as 'eco!e entangle" wit$ a pri%ate entity
% 7ASD CAS7S P #O S/A/7 AC/0O#
1. W$en t$e state itself $as acte" or w$en t$ere is t$oug$t to 'e no state
action of any +in"
L. #o state action !eans only t$at t$e Constitution "oesn2t of its own
force regulate t$e acti%ity
%. Constittion< Amen!. 1;< NN 1< I
i Section 1. All persons 'orn or naturali*e" in t$e (nite" States, an" su')ect
to t$e )uris"iction t$ereof, are citi*ens of t$e (nite" States an" of t$e State
w$erein t$ey resi"e #o State s$all !a+e or enforce any law w$ic$ s$all
a'ri"ge t$e pri%ileges or i!!unities of citi*ens of t$e (nite" States- nor s$all
any State "epri%e any person of life, li'erty, or property, wit$out "ue process
of law- nor "eny to any person wit$in its )uris"iction t$e e8ual protection of
t$e laws
ii Section I. /$e Congress s$all $a%e power to enforce, 'y appropriate
legislation, t$e pro%isions of t$is article
c. T(e Civil Rig(ts C#ses
i Bans "iscri!ination in places of a!use!ent an" pu'lic con%eyances
ii Pri%ate encroac$!ent on t$ese rig$ts is not protecte" against
iii Concern of fe"eralis!
i% 9ay stan" for t$e proposition t$at states are t$e pri!ary guarantors of t$e
rig$ts of t$eir citi*ens, an" t$at t$e fe" go%t !ay protect t$ose rig$ts if
'ut only if t$e states fail to "o so
B Pure 0naction
#. 3es$aney % Winne'ago County 3ept of Social Ser%ices =1K@K>
i Cacts
1. C$il" se%erely 'eaten 'y fat$er after state ga%e custo"y an" e%en after
state inspectors went to c$ec+ on t$e c$il"
ii Court state not lia'le
1. Pure inaction "oes #O/ e8ual state action
#. Dou nee" SO97 action 'ut $ow !uc$ "o you nee"6
%. Clagg Bros % Broo+s =1KF@>
i Cacts
1. wo!an gets e%icte", t$ings put in storage s$e gets a 'ill
L. s$e gets angry, "oesn2t want to pay, an" sues
9. #D law allows for t$e sale of possessions to satisfy t$e lien if t$e
person $as 'een noti1e"
ii Court state not lia'le
1. All #D $as "one is ac8uiesce to t$e sale
c. Lugar % 7"!onson Oil Co!pany =1K@2>
i Cacts
1. Lugar was in"e'te" to t$e oil co!pany
L. Co!pany attac$e" property to t$e "e't lower court allowe" t$is
9. Writ of attac$!ent was later "is!isse" 'ecause )usti1cations were
insu:cient
;. Lugar sues in fe"eral court clai!ing cre"itor an" state )ointly acte" to
"epri%e $i! of $is property in t$e "ue process clause
ii Court state was lia'le
1. T'o p#rt #ppro#c(
#. Depriv#tion mst %e c#se! %$ t(e e/ercise o) some
rig(t or privilege cre#te! %$ t(e St#te or %$ # rle o)
con!ct impose! %$ t(e St#te or %$ # person '(om t(e
St#te is responsi%le
%. 4#rt$ c(#rge! 'it( t(e !epriv#tion mst %e )#irl$
c(#rge! to %e # st#te #ctor
i. ,#$ %e st#te oBci#l %-c (e (#s #cte! toget(er 'it(
or (#s o%t#ine! signi?c#nt #i! )rom st#te oBci#ls<
or %ec#se (is con!ct is ot(er'ise c(#rge#%le to
t(e St#te
L. wEo t$is pri%ate parties coul" face constitutional litigation w$ere%er
t$ey see+ to rely on so!e state rule go%erning t$eir interactions
C ?u"icial Action an" t$e /$eory of Go%ern!ent #eutrality
#. S$elley % Orae!er =1KA@>
i Cacts
1. Pri%ate racially restricte" co%enants
L. W$ite neig$'or sue" to $a%e t$e co%enants enforce" 'y t$e courts
9. Blac+s say e8ual en)oy!ent of property is part of t$e 1At$
a!en"!ent
ii Court
1. State cannot encourage t$is con"uct t$roug$ acti%e state action
L. W$en will go%ern!ent con"uct 'e su')ect to attac+ w$en t$e action is
see!ingly neutral6
#. 3espite facial neutrality, state see!s to 'e aut$ori*ing,
su'si"i*ing, or appro%ing suc$ neutrality
3 State Su'si"i*ation of Pri%ate Con"uct
#. Burton % Wil!ington Par+ Aut$ =1KL1>
i Cacts
1. Blac+ !an "enie" ser%ice in a coIee s$op on a par+ing lot t$at t$e
state owns
ii Court
1. T(e )#cts (ere sggest s$m%iosis G mt#ll$ %ene?ci#l
rel#tions(ip
#. 0"ea $ere is t$at t$e state is in ca$oots wit$ t$e pri%ate actor
i. State got t$e !oney fro! t$e $ig$est 'i""er
1 State gets !oney
2 CoIee s$op gets custo!ers an" a pri!e location,
20 year lease
%. /$is 0S a !utually 'ene1cial relations$ip so we s$oul" treat
t$e! as a state actor
i. W$y isn2t t$e go%ern!ent a coGparticipant in all
organi*ations, entities, sole proprietors$ips t$at pay
ta&es6
L. W$en it co!es to su'si"i*es $ow !uc$ is nee"e" to create state
action6
#. W$at a'out sc$ool lunc$es in pri%ate sc$ools6 per$aps
%. W$at a'out ta&Ge&e!pt status for nonGpro1ts6 per$aps
%. Jen"ellGBa+er % Oo$n =1K@2>
i Cacts
1. Petitioners are e!ployees of t$e #ew Perspecti%e Sc$ool, w$ic$ is
pri%ately owne" speciali*ing in trou'le" stu"ents, !ost stu"ents
referre" to it fro! pu'lic sc$ools K0T fun"e" 'y t$e state
L. After %oicing "isagree!ents at t$e sc$ool, t$e e!ployees were 1re"
an" sue" re5 1st a!en"!ent an" 3P
ii Court state not lia'le
1. Cort !istingis(es )rom .urton %ec#se t(e sit#tion is more
li&e contr#cting< #n! less li&e s$m%iosis
#. /$e sc$ool is "oing an optional ser%ice, it is not !an"ate" 'y
t$e state
L. Burger says state "oesn2t 'ene1t fro! t$e sc$ool 'ut is t$at really
true6 9ost of t$e sc$ool2s population consists of trou'le" +i"s "rawn
fro! pu'lic sc$ool syste! 0s t$at a 'ene1t to t$e state6
#. Des t$e state 'ene1ts 'Ec pro'le! +i"s are still getting e"ucate"
an" now pu'lic sc$ool syste! can run !ore eIecti%ely
%. Bene1t to sc$ool is a'le to run 'usiness fro! state fun"ing
c. Burger analogi*es to ot$er pri%ate corporations w$ose 'usiness
"epen"s on go%ern!ent contracts 0ts pri%ati*e" go%ern!ent
acti%ity
9. 4ow is t$is "istinguis$e" fro! Burton6
#. 9an"atory %ersus optional6
i. E!c#tion is not # )n!#ment#l rig(t
c. San Cran Arts H At$letics, 0nc % (S Oly!pic Co!!ittee =1K@F>
i Cacts
1. e&clusi%e rig$t to use t$e ter! ;Oly!pics< an" so!eone starts ;t$e
gay Oly!pics< Oly!pic co!!ittee $as 'een grante" a copyrig$t
na!e 'y Congress, "efen"ant2s say it2s selecta'ly enforce" t$us e8ual
protection %iolation
ii Court no state action
1. State "oesn2t 'ene1t 1nancially wit$ t$e copyrig$t enforce!ent
L. St#te #ction 'ill %e present onl$ '(en t(e st#te #cts NON0
NEUTRALL2
9. 3iIerence 'tw Shelley an" San @rancisco, $ere state is not actually
encouraging con"uct
7 State Licensing an" Aut$ori*ation
#. Pu'lic (tilities Co!! % Polla+ =1KB2>
i Cacts
1. C$arters capital area transit for 'us an" streetcar ser%ice 0t
e&peri!ents wit$ a ;!usic as you ri"e< progra!, passengers o')ect,
sue 3C
ii Court #ot clear
1. W$at "o you nee" to ren"er t$e licensee a state actor6
#. Dou nee" so!et$ing 'eyon" licensing
i. I!e# is t(#t t(is goes %e$on! netr#lit$ #n! is
encor#ging t(e !epriv#tion o) li%ert$
%. 9oose Lo"ge #o 10F % 0r%is =1KF2>
i Cacts
1. Pri%ate clu' on pri%ate property "enie" ser%ing 'lac+ !an in 'ar 0ssue
is o%er li8uor license
ii Court state not lia'le E no state action
1. Ev#l#ting s$m%iosis
#. 4ow "oes t$e Lo"ge 'ene1t6
i. Lo"ge gets !ore !e!'ers$ips increase re%enues
%. W$ere is t$e state 'ene1t6
i. State can regulate li8uor "istri'ution, gets pai" for t$e
li8uor license =%ery e&pensi%e[>
L. 74enn Li"or Control %o#r! pl#$e! #%soltel$ no p#rt in
est#%lis(ing or en)orcing t(e mem%ers(ip or gest policies o)
t(e cl% t(#t it licenses to serve li"or8
#. State not a partner or e%en a )oint %enturer in t$e clu'
c. ?ac+son % 9etropolitan 7"ison Co =1KFA>
i Cacts
1. Pri%ate electrical utility operating un"er state grante" !onopoly =li+e
Pollac+> ?ac+son was a custo!er w$o faile" to pay utility 'ill so
9etropolitan 7"ison ter!inate" ser%ice Clai!s 7"ison state action t$at
"epri%e" $er of property in %iolation of 3P
ii Court #o state action
1. 3istinguis$es fro! Pollac+ 'y saying $ow t$ere t$ey $a" nonGneutral
action 'y i!ple!enting in%estigation an" ter!inating it An" $ere
t$ere is not$ing nonGneutral
#. But, coul"n2t you argue t$at passi%ity is en"orse!ent6 #ot as
crystal clear as Court suggests
L. Regl#tion #lone< no m#tter (o' close #n! e/tensive< is not
going to ren!er t(e regl#te! entit$ # st#te #ction
C /$e Pu'lic Cunction 3octrine
#. 9ars$ % Ala'a!a
i Cacts
1. Co!pany town, C$ic+asaw, pri%ately owne" 'y s$ipping co!pany, 'ut
ot$er t$an t$at loo+s li+e su'ur'an town
L. /own $a" no solicitation signs in stores an" appellant wante" to solicit
!aterials an" s$e was arreste" for %iolating state statute un"er
cri!inal trespass
ii Court
1. Cin"s for 9ars$ an" t$at application of cri!inal trespass statute
%iolates Constitution
#. Owners$ip "oes not always !ean a'solute "o!inion
i. T(is to'n )nctions 5st li&e ever$ ot(er
mnicip#lit$ so $o c#nnot go #ron! crt#iling
)ree!om o) resi!ents or visitors in t(e to'n.
1. 4er)orming # p%lic )nction
L. 4ere t$e court is caring a'out t$e eIect
#. An eIects test re8uires a:r!ati%e go%ern!ent inter%ention
i. But courts often loo+s to !oti%es
ii. ConQict wit$ Washington v. Davis
iii. Only concentrates on 'a" eIects not intent
9. Court states t$at )ree!om o) speec( #n! press #re more integr#l
t(#n propert$ rig(ts =in"icate" in Constitution>
;. (ses pri%ateEpu'lic "istinction
%. ?ac+son % 9etropolitan 7"ison Co
i Cacts
1. Pri%ate electrical utility operating un"er state grante" !onopoly =li+e
Pollac+> ?ac+son was a custo!er w$o faile" to pay utility 'ill so
9etropolitan 7"ison ter!inate" ser%ice Clai!s 7"ison state action t$at
"epri%e" $er of property in %iolation of 3P
ii Court #o state action
1. 4ow woul" it co!e out un"er t'o prong ,#rs( test =a'o%e>6
#. W$et$er e&ercising state li+e power6
i. 9onopoly o%er pu'lic electricity yes, e&ercises large
power 'ecause electric !o"ern necessity of life
7&ercises power o%er in"i%i"uals t$at ri%als t$e sa!e
%. 3oes t$e i!position of Const constraints upon t$e electric
co!pany seriously t$reaten t$e personal autono!y of co!pany6
i. #ot really 4ar" to see $ow state control seriously
t$reatens personal autono!y 0" State re8uire" 3P
$earings 'efore ter!inations of custo!er ser%ices see!s
1ne an" coul" i!pose wit$out "i:culty
L. One coul" conclu"e state inter%ention coul" 'e )usti1e"
#. But Court "oesn2t apply twoGprong test
G (nconstitutional Con"itions H Bur"enEBene1t 3istinction
#. 0ntro"uction
i 'eneat$ t$e state action analysis t$ere are 'aseline e&pectations
ii unconstitutional con"itions pro'le! arises w$en t$ere are strings to
go%ern!ent 'ene1ts
1. e&a!ple if t$e $ospital were to get fun"ing, t$ey !ust not perfor!
a'ortions
iii not e%ery ;string< is going to 'e unconstitutional
i% 8uestion $ow s$oul" t$e court approac$ t$ese strings an" "eter!ine w$ic$
are unconstitutional6
% t$e new in8uiry $as a relations$ip to t$e state action "octrine
1. 0n t$at it as+s $as t$e state acte" nonGneutrally in so!e way6
#. Co!pare wit$ t$e 'aseline set of circu!stances t$at allows for
t$e 'ene1t
%i +ey 8uestion w$at is t$e correct 'aseline so we can "eter!ine
constitutionality
%. Just % Sulli%an =1KK1>
i Cacts
1. statute fe"eral fun"s for fa!ily ser%ices s$oul" not 'e use" w$ere
a'ortion is a !et$o" of fa!ily planning
L. a"!in interpretation fe"eral fun"s coul" not 'e use" for a'ortion or
any acti%ities t$at encourageEpro!oteEa"%ocate a'ortion
ii Court con"ition was constitutional
1. Go%ern!ent CA# select so!e acti%ities to fun" an" not ot$ers
L. #ot li!iting free speec$ )ust saying you can2t use fe"eral !oney
9. BAS7L0#7 P political econo!y of speec$
c. 9a$er % Joe =1KFF>
i Cacts
1. state regulation granting 9e"icai" 'ene1ts for c$il"'irt$, 'ut "enying
suc$ 'ene1ts for nonGt$erapeutic a'ortions
ii Court con"ition was constitutional
1. BAS7L0#7 P "eter!ine" 'y t$e allocation of wealt$ t$roug$ our pri%ate
property syste!
L. Po%erty is an o'stacle on t$e pat$ to a'ortion not a state action
!. S3 % 3oe =1K@F>
i Cacts
1. fe"eral statute "irecting t$e secretary of transportation to wit$$ol" a
portion of fe"eral $ig$way fun"s fro! states t$at "on2t pro$i'it it t$e
purc$ase of alco$ol 'y people un"er t$e age of 21
ii Court con"ition was constitutional
1. BAS7L0#7 P reser%e power of t$e state
e. #ollan % CA Coastal Co!! =1K@F>
i Cacts
1. con"itione" a 'uil"ing per!it on an ease!ent against t$eir 'eac$
property
ii Court unconstitutional con"ition
1. BAS7L0#7 P t$e un"erlying law of property w$ere you $a%e t$e rig$t to
'uil" on your property
L. t$e co!!ission2s action are at least suspicious 'ecause it see!s to
interfere wit$ t$e rig$t to own property
9. co!!ission was engage" in nonGneutral 'e$a%ior