Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
II.
III.
Judicial Review The power of the Supreme Court (and federal courts) to invalidate or regard as invalid the
actions of the legislative and executive branch (or state statutes and state court judgments) if they collide
with the US Constitution.
II.
MARBURY v. MADISON
a. HOLDING Court rules against Marbury and held that the Supreme Court could NOT constitutionally
hear the case as a matter of original jurisdiction.
i. Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized such jurisdiction, this provision of the statute was
unconstitutional b/c Congress can NOT expand original jurisdiction beyond Article III of
Constitution.
ii. Marshall took this as an opportunity to claim the power of judicial review (but in a context least
likely to draw opposition)
b. Marshalls Reasoning Marshall structured the opinion around three questions:
i. Issue 1 Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
1. YES Marbury has a right to the commission b/c all the proper procedures were
followed. Thus, withholding the commission is violative of a vested legal right
ii. Issue 2 Do the Laws afford Marbury a Remedy?
1. YES Marshall states for every right, there is a remedy. USA is a government of
laws, not of men. Thus, even President is not above the law.
a. Marshall draws a distinction When Judiciary can review Executive actions:
i. Ministerial acts Judiciary MAY give remedy against the Executive if
it is a specific legal duty to a particular person.
ii. Political acts Judiciary may NOT provide a remedy when the
Executive action is a political matter left to the Presidents discretion.
iii. Issue 3 Can the Supreme Court issue this remedy? (Is Mandamus appropriate?)
1. YES Judicial Review (including mandamus) is ONLY appropriate regarding
ministerial acts where the executive has a legal duty to act.
a. Thus Marbury has right to commission and Court has authority to issue writ of
mandamus to require the President to act.
iv. Issue 4 Does Court properly have Original Jurisdiction to issue mandamus?
1. NO The Judiciary Act of 1789 does provide statutory authority to issue mandamus
here. However, the Judiciary Act unconstitutionally expanded Original Jurisdiction
beyond Article III.
2. Congress may NOT expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
a. Article IIIs list of areas of original jurisdiction would be mere surplusage if
Congress could expand it at will.
i. Thus, the court does NOT have jurisdiction because the Judiciary Act of
1789 violated Article III.
v. Issue 5 Can the Court declare laws Unconstitutional?
1. YES The Supreme Court may declare laws repugnant to the constitution to be
unconstitutional and invalid.
a. The Constitution is law that can be enforced in ordinary courts.
b. Constitution is supreme law and should control over all other acts of
Congress. (When laws conflict Constitution must trump)
III.
IV.
2) Writ of Certiorari When the Court may use its discretion to decide whether to take the case.
a) Court can review just one issue if it chooses (must have substantial federal question)
b) Almost all of the Supreme Courts cases come through writ of cert
The militia phrase of the second amendment is a prefatory clause that doesnt limit the latter clause
just announces a purpose
The right was pre-existing, the second amendment notes that it will not be infringed
Not a limitless right valid exercises include forbidding possession by felons, mentally ill, or carrying
in sensitive places
No other constitutional right has to undergo a balancing test in order to determine validity the
amendment is product of balancing
o
o Ginsburgh/Bryer Dissent:
Stevens dissent: The second amendment is limited to military purposes no constitutional right to
use weapons for self-defense
Breyer dissent: Handguns werent part of framers conception more recent historical practices
beg the question limits depend on interests involved, but probably military purposes
Justiciability Doctrines judicially created limits on the matters that can be heard in federal court. 5
doctrines: 1) prohibition on advisory opinions; 2) standing; 3) ripeness; 4) mootness; 5) political question
doctrine.
a. Case and Controversy Requirement
i. Article III 2 limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to cases and controversies. The
terms refer to matters that are appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from
disputes that a hypothetical, academic or moot. The jurisdiction is limited:
1. Must be a matter that is definite and concrete;
2. Must have parties with adverse legal interests
3. Must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief.
b. Constitutional vs. Prudential Requirements
i. Constitutional Requirements some justiciability doctrines are derived from interpretation of
Article III case and controversy requirement.
1. Constitutional limits on judicial power may NOT be overridden by Congress.
ii. Prudential Requirements other justiciability doctrines are derived from wise policy and
prudent judicial administration.
1. Prudential limits on federal power may be overridden by Congressional statute. (but
judges are bound by prudential limits in absence of statute)
II.
III.
a. Principles of Avoidance even when a case is justiciable, the court will follow avoidance principles to
ensure that it will only reach constitutional questions when necessary.
b. Avoidance Principles Justice Brandeis (Ashwater)
i. Requirement of Strict Necessity in passing upon constitutional questions
1. Court will only pass on constitutional questions that are actually before it in a concrete
dispute btw adverse parties
2. Court will NOT decide constitutional questions in broader terms than are required by
the facts before it
3. Court will construe statutes so as to avoid constitutional issues
IV.
V.
"show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the
taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to
Congress by Art. I, 8." Only when both nexuses have been satisfied may the petitioner have standing to sue.
#2 STANDING: MOST IMPORTANT (as proclaimed by the court)
I.
Standing determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for
adjudication.
a. Policies behind Limiting Standing
i. Separation of Powers
1. Standing limits what matters Courts will address and minimizes judicial review of the
actions of other branches of government
ii. Preserving Judicial Economy
1. Standing prevents a flood of suits by those who have only an ideological stake in the
outcome.
iii. Improve Judicial Decision Making
1. Standing ensures specific controversies with adverse litigants who can effectively litigate
the matter (sharpens issues)
iv. Promote Fairness for absent parties
1. Ensuring that people will only raise their own rights; others will not meddle to protect
rights of others who do not want protection.
II.
REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDING Constitutional and Prudential requirements. (must have at outset of
original case and appeal)
a. Constitutional Standing Requirements (based on Article III: power over cases & controversies
(main concern is prohibiting advisory opinions) (Congress may NOT override)
i. Injury in Fact (linchpin)
1. P must alleged that she suffered or imminently will suffer personal harm
2. Must suffer distinct and palpable harm
a. Personal (for oneself); tangible harm--- distinct from population at large
ii. Causation
1. The injury must be fairly traceable to Ds illegal conduct.
2. Must link the injury to the claim of illegality
iii. Redressability
1. If court rules in Ps favor, the decision must actually redress the injury
a. Like prohibition on advisory opinions decision must have effect
b. Prudential Standing Requirements (Based on prudential judicial administration concerns)
(Congress may override by statute)
i. Prohibition on Third Party Standing
1. General Rule Party may only assert his own rights, and NOT rights of third parties not
before the court.
a. Exception Where Third party is unlikely to be able to sue
b. Exception Close relationship btw Plaintiff and Third Party
ii. Prohibition on Generalized Grievances (although trending towards treating as Const. not Prden.)
1. NO taxpayer standing;
2. NO citizen standing for claim to force Government to follow the law
a. Narrow Exception Taxpayer may sue to challenge congressional spending in
violation of Establishment Clause (Flast v. Cohen)
a. Simon v. Welfare Rights Org: Ps were indigents who claimed they were
denied medical care b/c of a change in IRS policy toward tax-exempt hospitals.
Holding Court did NOT find sufficient causation b/c it was only speculative
that the IRS policy was responsible for Ps denial of care. Also, there was NOT
sufficient redressability b/c nothing shows that courts granting Ps requested
relief would result in given medical care.
IV.
10
11
12
Doctrine of Limited Federal Legislative Powers: Basic Principle of American Govt: Congress may only act
when there is express or implied authority to by the constitution. (states can act unless the constitution
prohibits)
a. Article I: all legislative powers granted to a house and senate (congress)
i. Article I, 8: Necessary and Proper Clause: Allows Congress to execute laws that are
necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated powers of Article I, 8. All
legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
b. Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
i. Throughout history, Congress powers have been defined relative to the states.
ii. Currently use 10th Amendment to prohibit, even constitutional laws, because they infringe on
state sovereignty
1. Federal Government is of limited powers
2. State Governments are of general powers
c. Congress Power vs. State Sovereignty Federalism
i. Congress may act only if there is express or implied authority in the Constitution.
1. Evaluating constitutionality of any act of Congress involves two questions:
a. Does Congress have authority to legislate?
b. If so, does the law violate another constitutional provision or doctrine?
(interfering with separation of powers or individual liberty)
2. However Congress has been interpreted to have broad authority under provisions like
the Commerce Clause
ii. States may act unless the Constitution prohibits the action
1. States possess police power power to protect health, safety, morals, etc.
2. Evaluating constitutionality of state law involves only one question:
a. Does the legislation violate the Constitution?
b. Supremacy Clause: All state rights and laws that are contrary to constitutional
rights are subordinate to the Constitution
II.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Defining the scope of Congresss powers and delineating the relationship
btw Federal government and the States.
a. Justice Marshall uses this case to broadly construe Congress implied powers and narrowly limit the
authority of State governments to impede the Federal government.
McCULLOCH v. MARYLAND DECISION
a. Maryland places a tax on the controversial National Bank. Bank refuses to pay tax. Maryland sues to
collect.
13
b. Question #1 Does Congress have authority to create the National Bank? YES
i. Holding #1 Congress has authority to create Bank b/c there is a rational basis to justify an
implied power to create the bank as reasonably linked to Congress enumerated power to
tax/spend/commerce.
1. Marshall refutes Marylands argument that States maintain ultimate sovereignty because
they ratified the Constitution.
a. Constitution originates from the People directly; and NOT from the States
2. Marshalls method of Constitutional Interpretation
a. A Constitution should be interpreted differently than a statute.
i. Constitutions are meant to be flexible to endure over time.
1. Thus Court should be willing to find implied powers
3. Marshall broadly interprets Scope of Congress powers.
a. Federal government is of limited powers, but federal government is supreme
in its sphere.
b. Framers decided to enumerate the powers of Congress
i. However there are Implied powers as well
c. Necessary and Proper Clause the (not so) limiting modifiers
i. In McCulloch v. Maryland, court interprets "necessary and proper
clause" in Article I 8 as a grant, not limitation, of power to use any
means not prohibited by the constitution to carry out its authority.
1. What does necessary mean?
a. Interpret in light of the rationally relatedness to a vested
power that they already have
2. What does proper mean?
a. (1) is the end within the enumerated scope of the
Constitution? (2) is there some minimal degree of FIT
between the means and the end -- is law appropriate; (3)
does anything else in the constitution prohibit what
congress is trying to do?
3. With McCulloch; Marshal says that giving the state the power to
tax [the federal bank] give the power to destroy it.
ii. Marshall interprets necessary as expanding Congressional power
necessary means conducive to or convenient rather than indispensable.
Marshall goes towards the broader end of the spectrum here, as opposed
to strictly necessary
iii. Implying powers to Congress to have the means to carry out its
enumerated powers. (Congress may use N&P clause to enact laws, so
long as those laws are a proper means to an enumerated end)
iv. Rational Basis Test for Implied Powers:
1. If there is some rational link between Congress action and an
enumerated power the act is Constitutional.
2. The ends must be legitimate and consistent with Constitution
3. Courts will defer to Congress (limiting judicial power)
v. U.S. v. Comstock: In determining whether the N&P clause is used
properly, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is
rationally related (and reasonably adapted) to the implementation of a
constitutionally enumerated power. Upheld: law allows civil
commitment of mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal inmates beyond
14
the end of the prisoners' criminal sentences: (1) Congress is the custodian
of federal prisoners (they created the federal crime) and may therefore
constitutionally prescribe the sanctions for said crimes and take steps to
protect the public from those inmates (2) the statute does not violate the
Tenth Amendment by usurping powers reserved to the states. In fact, the
statute specifically provides that inmates must be handed over if states
assert their authority.
c. Question #2 Is the state tax on the Bank constitutional? NO.
i. Holding #2 It is unconstitutional for a state to tax a federal entity like the Bank.
1. The power to create the bank (enumerated power) also creates power to preserve it
2. The power to tax is the power to destroy (power MA is trying to exercise); and the
power to destroy essentially infringes on the power (of the Fed.) to create.
3. Federal government is supreme in its sphere
a. States are subordinate and do NOT have authority to destroy an entity of the
federal government (this would amount to veto power of states)
d. Lessons Learned by McColloch:
(1) Federal government is supreme over the states
(2) Congresss powers are expansive
(3) States cannot interfere with federal government activities
II.
Central Policy Question What role should concern over protecting State Sovereignty have in defining
Congresss Powers?
a. Should Congress powers be interpreted narrowly to leave room for State Sovereignty?
Two Key Underlying Normative Issues:
a. First How important is the protection of state sovereignty and federalism?
i. Opposing Judiciarys use of Federalism (states rights) to Limit Congresss Power:
1. National legislation is needed to deal with complex national problems
a. Judiciary should NOT use Federalism or Tenth Amendment to limit Congress
power.
ii. Favoring use of Federalism (states rights) to constrain Congress Power:
1. Judiciary should limit Congress power by enforcing Federalism and using Tenth
Amendment to protect states sovereignty.
2. Three benefits of protecting state sovereignty:
a. Decreasing likelihood of tyranny
b. Enhancing democracy because States are closer to the people
c. Allow states to be laboratories for new ideas, w/out risking rest of country
b. Second Should Judiciary protect state sovereignty or leave it to Political Process?
i. Political Process is Adequate Protection of State Sovereignty
1. Weschlers Argument Judicial enforcement of Federalism to protect states right is
unnecessary b/c the national Political Process will adequately protect State
governments interest.
ii. Judiciary Needed to Protect State Sovereignty
1. Political Process does NOT adequately protect States as independent entities
a. Before 17th Amendment States government chose Senators
b. After 17th Amendment Senators are popularly elected and are less likely to
protect State Governments as sovereign political entities.
15
Commerce Clause:
a. Article I 8
the Congress shall have the powerto regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes.
II.
III.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): NY State had given Ogden a license to operate a ferry boat between NY and NJ.
Gibbons has a license from Federal Government to operate steamboat. Ogden sues arguing Gibbons violated
his monopoly rights given by NY. Ogden argues that Congress commerce power is limited to trade only, not
transport. Holding Congresss commerce power extends to intercourse not just traffic. Congress has
broad power to regulate interstate waterways. Federal law authorized Gibbons to operate ferry; thus the NY
grant of a monopoly was preempted by federal law under commerce clause.
II.
16
17
ii. Also in this era Court invalidated federal laws as interfering with economic substantive due
process and violating freedom of contract
b. Dual Federalism federal and state governments were separate sovereigns and each had its separate
zone of authority. Judiciarys role is to protect the states by interpreting the Constitution to protect the
states zone of authority and prevent federal interference.
c. Three Doctrines reflected Dual Federalism:
1. Court narrowly defines commerce to leave a zone of power reserved to States.
2. Court narrowly defines among the states so Congress may regulate only when there was a
substantial effect on interstate commerce
3. Court used Tenth Amendment to reserve a zone of activities to States
1. Even if regulation was within commerce power law was unconstitutional if it invaded
the States zone of interest protected by Tenth Amendment.
II.
III.
18
i.
IV.
19
within the State police power. Court argues that if Congress can regulate production inside a
state, federalism is destroyed. The goods are harmless.
f.
II.
20
truism Basically: Congress can choose the MEANS reasonably adapted to attain legitimate
END (end being the regulation of interstate commerce)
d. Example Very broad view of commerce reaching Cumulative Substantial Effects
i. Complete rejection of old test of direct effects on interstate commerce
ii. Court broadly interprets Commerce Clause as permitting Congress to regulate even small intrastate activities with negligible impact if the activity, looked at cumulatively/aggregate, had a
substantial effect on interstate commerce.
iii. Marks surrender of Court in reviewing the Actions of Congress under the Commerce
Clause Congress made decision to regulate on a REASONABLE/RATIONALE basis and
feels that the aggregate effect of wheat growers will affect interstate commerce, then the Court
will not second guess that decision
Wickard v. Filburn (1942): Agricultural Adjustment Act set quotas for wheat production.
Filburn has small dairy farm and grew wheat only for home use. Filburn argues AAA could not
constitutionally apply to him b/c his wheat was only for personal use and was never sold to
anyone. Holding Court upholds application of federal regulation to small farmers homegrown wheat b/c of the cumulative/aggregate effect of that wheat on national market. Even
though his wheat alone/individually had trivial impact, Congress could regulate his production
b/c cumulatively/in aggregate homegrown wheat had a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. Problem Looks like there is NO limit on Congress power. Rejects indirect v. direct
test.
III.
IV.
21
i. Court gives broad deference to Congress and asks only two questions:
1. Did Congress have a rational basis for finding that the regulated activity had a
substantial effect on interstate commerce?
2. Are the means selected reasonably related to protecting commerce (the ends)?
c. Example Civil Rights Laws Enacted under Commerce Clause
i. Civil Rights of Act of 1964 Enacted by Congress under commerce power.
1. 1883 Court held that Fourteenth Amendment only permitted Congress to regulate
government conduct and state activity (not private behavior)
2. Uncertain in 1964 whether Congress could use the Fourteenth Amendment ( 5) to
outlaw private discrimination in employment and public accommodations.
a. Thus Congress used commerce power to enact Civil Rights Act
b. Under this approach ask: Could Congress have reasonably concluded that this
kind of transaction, even if local, has a substantial impact on interstate
commerce?
c. If YES it has a real and substantial relation to the national interest b/c
commerce is diminished through discriminatory practices, then Congress
may regulate the activity
Heart of Atlanta Motel (1964): Motel operated near interstate highway discriminated against
blacks. Holding Civil Rights Act applies to Motel b/c there is a rational basis for Congress
finding racial discrimination had a substantial effect on channels of interstate commerce.
Discrimination effects black travelers. It makes NO difference that Congress has a moral
motive for the regulation. Dating back to Lottery Cases, court had upheld federal exercise of
commerce power to remedy moral evils.
1. TEST: Determinative test for Congress exercise of power under Commerce Clause =
whether the activity sought to be regulated is commerce which concerns more States
than one and has a real and substantial relation to the national interest
Katzenback: Small family-owned Ollies BBQ restaurant discriminated against blacks. Court
upheld application of Civil Rights Act to small restaurant via commerce power. Restaurant got
46% of its meat from out of state. Holding Court concludes that Congress had rational
basis to find restaurants discriminating against blacks, looked at cumulatively, had a
substantial effect on interstate commerce. (RULE: Although an activity may be regarded as
local and may not be regarded as commerce, it may still be reached by Congress if it exerts a
substantial economic effect on interstate commerce)
d. Example Federal Regulatory Laws Enacted under Commerce Clause
i. Congress can regulate purely intra-state activities, including all aspects of business, if there is a
rational basis for the belief there is an effect on interstate commerce.
Hodel v. Indiana (1981): Court upheld a federal law that regulated strip mining. Court stated
that it will only invalidate a federal regulation enacted under commerce power if there is NO
rational basis.
e. Example Federal Criminal Laws Enacted under Commerce Clause
Perez v. United States (1971) Court upholds federal law criminalizing loan sharking.
Congress has plenary power to protect the challenges and instrumentalities of interstate
commerce from misuse. Even though extortionate loans are wholly local, Court concluded that
Congress had a rational basis for finding that loan sharking effects national organized crime
and thus has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Dissent argues this is slippery slope
because ALL crime is a national problem. No limit to Congress power to intrude on States
sovereignty over police power.
V.
22
a. In Darby (1941) Court declared that the Tenth Amendment is simply a truism to remind Congress
that it must have express or implied authority to act under the Constitution.
i. 1941-1976 Court refused to use Tenth Amend to limit federal commerce power.
b. Under this analysis: We might concede that something is not beyond the power of the
commerce clause for Congress to regulate, but a second inquiry: we might say that its still
beyond the scope of the Congress b/c it has an impact on state authority and prerogatives (rights
analysis instead of powers analysis)
Something may fall under Commerce power, but still be prohibited b/c effectively
regulates the states in violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
c. In Natl League of Cities (1976) Rhenquist attempts to revive Tenth Amendment as a limit on
Congress Commerce Power and define a zone of activity where State government was immune from
federal regulation as a separate sovereign of general powers.
i. Hodels 4 part Test Applied in Userys When does a federal law violate the Tenth
Amendment?
1. If the federal law/statute attempts to regulate the States as states;
2. Federal law interferes with traditional/indisputable State functions
3. State compliance with the federal statute directly impairs integral operations of state
govts.
4. The relation of state and federal interests must not be such that the nature of the federal
interest justifies state submission
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976): Congress passed regulation requiring State and Local
governments to comply with Fair Labor Standards Act. Although applicable to private companies,
States challenged Congress attempt to regulate State governments directly. Holding Applying
Act to State govt is a violation of the Tenth Amendment which bars Congress from intruding on
the States integral/essential or traditional government functions. Nothing left of Federalism w/o
some zone of immunity for State governments from federal regulation. Act makes police/fire
protection more expensive interferes with States freedom to make decisions fundamentally
within the States prerogative. RULE: Congress may not exercise power in a fashion that impairs
the states integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal system (However case is
later overruled)
VI.
TAKE AWAY: National League of Cities ruling is dead! - cant use the 10th Amendment as a challenge to the
encroachment of federal regulations into the area of state sovereignty
1995 Present Narrowing of the Commerce Power and Revival of Tenth Amendment as a
Constraint on Congress Power
23
a. The New Era Modern Court seems committed to limiting scope of Congress commerce power and
protecting state sovereignty by invoking the Tenth Amendment.
i. Ask: What is Congress authority to regulate among the States?
1. Needs to be related to commerce and have some sort of commercial impact
ii. In Lopez (1995) For the first time in 60 years, the Court invalided a federal law as exceeding
Congress commerce power. (regulation of guns is not commercial)
iii. In New York (1992) The Court again used the Tenth Amendment to protect state governments
from federal encroachments into state sovereignty.
b. Examples Narrowing Congress Commerce Power over Non-Economic Activities
i. New distinction between Economic and Non-Economic Activities
1.
Congress may regulate economic activities based on cumulative/aggregate impact
2.
However non-economic activities may NOT be regulated solely on cumulative
impact. Requires showing of substantial effect on commerce. A.k.a the Categories listed
below
United States v. Lopez (1995): Congress passes Gun-Free School Zone Act under commerce power
making it a crime to possess a firearm near school zone. Holding Act unconstitutionally exceeds
Congress commerce power b/c the law is a criminal statute that bears NO relation to commerce or any
sort of economic enterprise; unconstitutional interference w/ States police power. New rule If the
regulated activity is non-economic, then court will NOT look to cumulative substantial effects on
interstate commerce. Now, Congress only has power in following categories (1) the channels of
interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of, or persons or things in, interstate commerce; OR (3)
activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce. For non-economic activity
must show clearer nexus btw statute and commerce. Criminal law is traditional area of State
sovereignty. There must be some limit to protect States rights. (Congress authority is not without
bounds) Concurrence (Kennedy/OConnor) schools traditionally zone of state; experimentation;
other alternatives. Dissent Court should use restraint and give deference to congress via rational basis
test. Majority is trying to revive formulaic tests for commerce power that are outdated. Lochner all
over again.
United States v. Morrison (2000): Confirms Lopez wasn't a fluke. Under commerce power, Congress
passes Violence Against Women Act to create a federal cause of action for victims of gender-related
violence. Congress found that gender violence costs US economy billions and contracts womens
freedom of travel. Holding Act exceeds Congress commerce power b/c there was insufficient
evidence this non-economic activity substantially effected interstate commerce. Court emphasized that
Congress was regulating non-economic activity that is traditionally under State Laws. Court does NOT
overrule Wickard, BUT For regulations of non-economic activity, court will NOT look at aggregate
effect on interstate commerce. Need distinction btw what is truly national and truly local. Helps protect
traditionally state regulated areas.
c. Example Narrowly Interpreting Laws to Avoid Constitutional Doubts
Solid Waste Agency (2001): Clean Water Act regulates discharge of materials in navigable
waters. Agency had interpreted statute to apply to temporary ponds which are habitat of
migratory birds. P wants to build dump on land. Agency refuses to grant permit. Holding
Court avoids difficult constitutional question of whether Act exceeds Congress commerce power.
Prudential doctrine of avoiding constitutional question. Instead the court resolves the case by
reading the Statute very narrowly. Court rejects Agencys reading of the statute as extending to
temporary ponds for migratory birds. Court will avoid constitutional collision if the fight is
unnecessary. Dissentmuch $ spent by tourists to watch birds; also dumping almost certainly
involves economic reasons; environmental regs. always proper federal power.
d. Examples Upholding Federal Law and Rejecting Commerce Clause Challenges
24
i. In 2003 for the first time since Morrison, the Court reaffirmed Congress broad power to
regulate channels of interstate commerce.
Guillen (2003): Court unanimously reaffirmed Congresss broad power to regulate road safety as
channels of interstate commerce. Ps were injured in car accident at dangerous traffic
intersection. Ps sued for access to info on governments traffic studies. Federal law had
exempted these studies from discovery. Holding Court unanimously upheld the federal law
stating that Congress has broad power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce.
ii. In 2005 Court reaffirms that Congress may regulate economic activity by looking to
cumulative impact across nation to determine if the economic activity has a substantial effect
on interstate commerce.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005): Court holds that Congress may use its power to regulate commerce
among the states to prohibit possession of small amounts of home grown marijuana for
medicinal purposes. CA passed a law exempting medical marijuana from criminal prosecution.
(note: direct conflict b/w state and federal law) Federal agents arrested Ps under federal law
banning all possession. Holding Court upholds federal prohibition because home-grown
marijuana, looked at cumulatively, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Regulating
marijuana was also part of Congress broader regulatory scheme. Court reaffirms Wickard
Court will uphold federal regulation of economic activity if there is a rational basis for
finding substantial effects on interstate commerce in looking at the activity in the aggregate.
II.
25
1. Even if Congress acts within its commerce power Tenth Amendment bars Congress
from compelling state governments to implement federal laws
a. Congress may NOT directly commandeer state legislatures to enact or
administer a federal regulatory program
b. Congress may NOT commandeer state executive officials to implement a
federal mandate
c. Congress may prohibit harmful conduct by state governments, particularly if the
law also applies to private entities
i. However Congress may NOT impose affirmative duties on state
governments
1990s Today Tenth Amendment limits Congress authority in Four basic ways:
1. Tenth Amendment may be used as a limiting rule of construction
i. Court will apply a federal law that imposes a substantial burden on a State government ONLY if
Congress clearly indicated it wanted the law to apply
2. Tenth Amendment bars Congress from commandeering or compelling state legislatures to adopt
federal laws or federal regulations
ii. Congress may NOT conscript state legislatures to enact laws carrying out federal policies
Violates Tenth Amendment by interfering with state sovereignty
1. However Congress may set standards, attach funding, and give incentives for State
governments to comply with federal laws
New York v. United States (1992): Radioactive Waste Act created duty for States to safely
dispose of waste. Act provided monetary incentives for states to comply. However, it also
included a take title provision for any undisposed waste making States liable. Holding
Although Congress may regulate dispose of waste under commerce power, Take Title provision
is unconstitutional b/c it impermissibly commandeered State governments and forced
compliance with federal regulation. Tenth Amend limits scope of Congress power to compel
state governments to enact federal laws. Even a compelling federal interest is NOT enough
justify commandeering of states to enact federal policy.
3. Tenth Amendment also bars Congress from commandeering state executive officials to carry out
federal mandates
Printz v. United States (1997): Brady Act temporarily required state executive officials to
conduct background checks for handgun purchases. Holding The Act violates Tenth
Amendment by conscripting state executive officials to carry out federal policy. (required local
officials to carry out federal regulation) Also violates separation of powers b/c President is
vested with all executive powers, yet Congress side stepped president by compelling State
executives to carry out law instead.
4. The commandeering principle is narrow does NOT apply to prohibition on conduct
iii. 10th violated only if Congress imposes affirmative duty on States to carry out policy.
Reno v. Condon: Drivers Privacy Act prohibited states from disclosing personal info gathered
by DMV. Act applied to both state governments and private companies. Holding Court
upholds the law. Act did NOT violate Tenth Amd b/c it prohibited harmful conduct (disclosure
of info) rather than imposing an affirmative mandate on states. Further law equally applies to
private entities
26
So what options does this leave the govt. with if they want to carry out their agenda? (How can they make it
Constitutional?)
1. Monetary incentives (such as in NY)
2. Federal govt. could pay for funding (via grants) for states that agree to implement program
Could condition $$$ they are already giving the states as being allocated to fund programs (not
money already allocated, but for future fundings)
Grant of annual funds based on certain stipulations
Bottom line provision of funding gets you around some problems but when funding giving is
an issue
Conditions to grants: must be clearly stated; relate to purpose of the program; and are NOT
unduly coercive (National Federation of Independent Buss: unduly coercive to threaten entire
states Medicaid budget, which they depended on significantly, for not implementing some new
law).
3. Need something conditional that relates to the issue at hand way for the states to opt out
I.
II.
The individual mandate of the Act its a valid exercise of Congresss power to tax and
spend. It is reasonable to construe the individual mandate as increasing taxes on those
who have a certain income, but choose to go without health insurance. Thus, the
individual mandate is within Congresss power to tax. (not valid as under commerce
clause cuz Congress does not have power to regulate NON-ACTIVITY, cannot
compel people to buy into the system).
the Medicaid expansion exceeds Congresss authority under the Spending Clause: While
the federal government may condition receipt of money by the states on states agreement
with certain federal policies, they cannot compel the states to enact or administer a
federal regulatory program w/out a choice. Had no choice cuz they threatened to take
ALL their funding away.
27
o
o
o
o
o
Broader view: same thing, but also gives congress the authority to interpret the 14th amendment to
expand the scope of rights or even to create new rights. Can create rights by statute where the court has
not found them, but they cannot dilute or diminish constitutional rights.
The argument over which is more proper is grounded in how 5 should be interpreted. Narrow view
says that congress is not "enforcing" if it is creating new rights; broader view believes congress is
enforcing by creating greater protections.
Argument over appropriate role of the court and congress: narrow view; solely the courts role to decide
the rights protected under the constitution and congress limited to enacting laws to prevent and remedy
violations. Broader view; see both congress and the court as having authority to recognize and protect
rights under the constitution.
Narrow view; views it as the opportunity to limit fed power and to protect the actions of the state.
Broader view; sees it as creating a needed national power to protect civil rights and civil liberties.
Katzenbach v. Morgan & MorganCongress: may pass legislation under its powers in 5 of the
Fourteenth Amendment provided that the legislation is (1) an enactment to enforce a provision of the
Equal Protection Clause; (2) plainly adapted to that end; and (3) consistent with the letter and spirit of
the Constitution. Under this analysis, the law in question is valid: Congress specifically stated that the
reason it enacted the provision was to prevent unequal treatment under the law of the Puerto Rican
community in New York. Additionally, the law was plainly adapted for that purpose.
Basically argues that Congress should have power to enact laws to further mitigate civil rights
City of Boerne v. Flores: Congress cannot create new rights, or expand the scope of rights: Congresss
powers under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment are strictly remedial and not plenary (legislate to
remedy or protect rights already upheld by court). When upholding a constitutional right, Congress may
only enforce legislation that utilizes means proportional to achieving that legislative purpose (must be
narrowly tailored).
Non-delegation Doctrine: legislative branch can't delegate its powers to the executive, e.g., grant Pres.
power to labor wages. Executive branch can't legislateConst. says all legislative power must remain
in Congress.
o although, since 1937, such delegation has yet to be struck down (at least not those delegated to
executive agencies.
Line Item Veto (UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
o sign the whole bill, or veto the whole bill
Legislative veto (UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
o For Congress to act, there MUST ALWAYS be bicameralism:
must pass both houses
Presentment: must get signed by Pres.
Congress Cannot Delegate Executive Powers to itself.
28
This section will examine the validity/willingness/appropriateness of judicial second guessing and questioning of the
authority of the Presidential Authority
I.
II.
29
IV.
30
i. Executive Privilege can be invoked to protect military, diplomatic, or national security secrets.
(presumption in favor of privilege)
ii. However Executive Privilege must yield to countervailing interests/judicial review
1. In the context of a criminal proceeding Presumption against privilege
2. An absolute executive privilege would place the President above the law and interfere
with Judiciarys ability to perform its functions under rule of law
a. (In criminal trial courts must be able to compel evidence, etc)
3. Must be a balance b/w need for information v. need for secrecy
THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO INCREASE EXECUTIVE POWER
I.
Does Congress have the ability to enhance the powers of the President by conferring upon him authority not
contained in the Constitution? Underlying issue Separation of Powers
a. SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUES:
i. Two approaches to Separation of powers
1. One view Separation of Powers issues are best resolved btw Congress and the
President. If the branches agree, Judiciary should only rarely interfere
2. Another view Separation of powers is Constitutionally mandated. Courts should
actively enforce separation of powers.
ii. Formalist vs. Functionalist Approach to Separation of Powers
1. Formalist Rigid focus on text of Constitution. Court should interfere and invalidate a
law to strictly enforce separation of powers even when two branches are in agreement.
2. Functionalist Emphasizing the need for change and flexibility. Court should only
invalidate laws that actually interfere the functions of the separate branches within
separation of powers
iii. Two Important Concepts:
1. Non-delegation doctrine: the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested
with "all legislative powers" by Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot
delegate that power to other branches of government (e.g., the Executive Branch). However,
the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does have latitude to delegate regulatory powers
to executive agencies as long as it provides an "intelligible principle" which governs the
agency's exercise of the delegated regulatory authority.
2. Bicameralism and Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the United
States Constitution outlines federal legislative procedure (that is, how bills originating in
Congress become federal law) in the United States.
b. LINE ITEM VETO ACT (Presidents Power to Determine National Policy Delegation of the
Legislative Power to the Executive)
i. Supreme Court invalidated in the cancellation provisions of the Line-Item Veto as an
unconstitutional attempt by Congress to increase Presidential power.
1. Even though both Congress and President agreed on Line-Item Veto, the Court interferes
and invalidates it as a violation of Separation of Powers.
2. Congress can only change the process of passing laws through a Constitutional
Amendment Take away: Congress may not increase the Presidential powers, via
statute, beyond what is granted to him in the Constitution. Changes to the procedures for
enacting and vetoing laws must come from a Constitutional Amendment, not by legislative
action. Majority = formalistic Constitutional view Dissent = functional constitutional view
Clinton v. City of New York (1998): Line Item Veto Act allowed President to cancel provisions
of enacted laws. President could cancel certain expenditures and then send it back to Congress
who could overturn veto w/ majority vote.
31
Majority Holding cancellation provisions of Line Item Veto are unconstitutional. President is
changing a law adopted by Congress. The constitutional procedures for enacting laws in Article I
must be strictly followed. The final bill, that is altered by president by the line item veto,
is different than what Congress passed and outside of the regular veto process, the
president cant exercise veto option. Thus the Line Item Veto violates separation of
powers. Violation of text of constitution and the framework set forth (tradition is to veto
entire bill) (Majority uses Highly Formalist approach)
Dissent Complexity of budget has changed in modern times. We need a flexible standard for
veto-- Different way to achieve same result (Functionalist Approach.)
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
a. Huge growth of Administrative Agencies (1932-today)
i. No express Constitutional provision for administrative agencies. However, complex modern
problems gave rise to many regulations.
ii. Complex regulations are better handled by specialized agency (rather than Congress)
iii. Political dimension Expansive delegation of legislative power to Agencies allows Congress to
act, but avoid the political heat of specific regulations.
b. Administrative Agencies exercise all government powers: legislative, executive, judicial
i. Combination of all power into a single, unelected agency conflicts with:
1. separation of powers and
2. checks and balances.
ii. However Congress routinely delegates its power to executive agencies
II.
III.
THE LEGISLATIVE VETO (and its Demise) Congressional Interference with Presidential Prerogative
a. In 1930s Congress was looking for a way to check the power of growing administrative agencies.
Congress could enact a law overturning an agencys rule, but this would require getting a bill passed by
both houses and obtaining presidential signature.
b. The Legislative Veto Created by Congress as a check on administrative agencies. Congress
included in statutes provisions authorizing one-House or a committee to overturn an agencys decision by
doing something less than fully enacting a new law.
c. In Chadha (1983) Court declared the Legislative Veto Unconstitutional
i. Modern Rule Legislative vetoes are unconstitutional. If Congress wants to overturn an
executive agencys action, there must be:
1. Bicameralism (passage by both houses of Congress); and
2. Presentment (giving the bill to President to sign or veto)
Anything less is an unconstitutional legislative veto
32
INS v. Chadha (1983): Chadha was an immigrant was up for deportation. Administrative Judge
declares Chadhas deportation could be suspended. House of Reps passes legislative veto
overturning agencys decision to suspend Chadhas deportation. Chadha (P) challenges
constitutionality of legislative veto. Holding The legislative veto is unconstitutional. Article
I says Congress may ONLY legislate if there is: Bicameralism (both houses vote) and
Presentment (President signs). Legislative Veto is legislative in effect by affecting legal rights
but does NOT comport with specific textual provisions in Article I. Court rejects argument that
legislative veto is necessary for efficient check on agencies. Follow text! (Formalistic
approach)
Dissent Legislative veto is needed in the modern, complex world and is consistent with the
basic functions of lawmaking. Constitution was meant to be flexible and Congress needs some
way to check Agencies. Makes sense for Congress to retain some power and ability to
exercise legislative veto in certain situations (Functionalist Approach)
Note: Process Altering Decision -- This case struck down more statutes than any other case
struck down immeasurable amount of prior legislation demands nothing less than
bicameralism and presentment for any legislation (to overturn an executive action)
d. CONTRASTING APPROACH
Mistretta v. United States, Mistretta argued that the Sentencing Guidelines promulgated
by the United States Sentencing Commission he was facing were unconstitutional due to
a gross distribution of authority by Congress resulting in a violation of the separation of
powers. The Commission was created under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Act),
18 U.S.C.S. 3551 et seq. (1982 ed., Supp. IV) and 28 U.S.C.S. 991-998 (1982 ed.,
Supp. IV). The trial court rejected petitioner's contention that the Act was
unconstitutional. On appeal, petitioner's first contention was that Congress had granted
the Commission excessive legislative discretion. Holding The Supreme Court did not
agree. The Court found that Congress had provided guidelines under which the
Commission was to operate and that it had not delegated excessive legislative power to
another branch of government. The Court also found that Congress had not upset the
constitutionally mandated balance of powers among the branches of government
(one branch not crushing/ encroaching too much on the other). The Court concluded
that the Act was constitutional and therefore affirmed the trial court's decision.
(Functionalist Approach)
IV.
V.
33
i. Court takes a formalist approach to Congress attempting to aggrandize its own powers and
assume power to execute its own laws.
1. This is a clearer violation of separation of powers
a. Article II specifically assigns the executive power to the President
VI.
Majority says that there is great overlap of branch authority (executive, legislative, and
judicial) -- but we need flexibility here so its okay
BUT, what about Presidents authority to be the sole person to prosecute?
o This limits authority of President to determine whether to have prosecutor, whether to fire
prosecutor (thus limits power of AG)
34
HELD: some limitations on power to remove is okay (b/c not exercising core executive
authority)
Take away president has power to remove any one in executive branch
But Congress can limit that power only where division from the president is desirable
There is a shift in the reasoning here b/c there is an exercise of core executive authority
here (enforcement of law) -- the court has to alter its previous approaches slightly -- b/c
has taken core executive power of president and limited it in some way
So the Court doesnt restrict its examination to just blanket authority but goes further
by asking question of whether there is a usurpation of power of the core aspects of
sovereignty of the President?
35
ii. However Congress may limit by statute the presidents removal power over commissioners of
non-partisan independent regulatory agencies like FTC which are not under direct executive
control. (Humphreys)
iii. Further Even without a statutory limit on removal, President is restricted from removing an
administrative officer from a commission where independence from the president is desirable
(Weirner).
iv. Congress may NOT give itself the power to remove executive officials except through the
impeachment process. Congress may NOT aggrandize its own powers by giving executive
powers to itself or to its agents. (Bowsher).
v. Congress may limit Presidents power to remove an independent counsel appointed to investigate
and prosecute alleged wrongdoing in the executive branch. Counsel may only be removed for
good cause. (Morrison)
vi. Distinctions btw quasi-legsilative or quasi-judicial functions not dispositive. The real
question is whether removal restrictions are of such a nature that they impede the presidents
ability to perform his constitutional duty. (Morrison).
II.
36
ii. In Curtis-Wright Court held: Yes, the president has more inherent power over foreign affairs
than over domestic matters.
1. There is a fundamental difference between domestic and foreign policy
a. The doctrine of limited, enumerated powers of the Federal government applies
only to domestic affairs.
i. Prior to Constitution the States had authority over domestic affairs, but
NOT foreign affairs.
b. The Federal government has plenary power over foreign affairs.
2. President has inherently more power over Foreign Affairs
a. President should trump Congress in foreign policy
b. President is principal representative of USA to foreign countries
United States v. Curtis-Wright (1936): Congress passed resolution authorizing President
outlaw sale of weapons to warring nations in S. America. Ps argued that Congress had
unconstitutionally delegated lawmaking authority to the president. Holding Court upholds
Congress granting of lawmaking power to President. Because it involves Foreign Affairs,
Congress delegation of lawmaking power to President is constitutional. Bold grant of power to
President in foreign affairs. (Highly Functionalist Approach).
ZIVOTOFSKY v. KERRY
(in regards to a law that required Jerusalem be indicated on birth certificates instead of Isreal)
held that, although the Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of recognition of foreign
nations, the Reception Clause in Article II of the Constitutionwhich states that the President
will receive foreign ambassadorsgrants the President the power to recognize foreign states. The
fact that Article II also vests the President with the power to make treaties and appoint
ambassadors gives the President further control over recognition decisions. Although Congress
has a role to play in other aspects of foreign policy, often by granting the Presidents formal
recognition practical effect, Congress has no such power to initiate international diplomacy
without involving the President. Because the question of whether the American government
recognizes a foreign nation must have only one answer, the Presidents power is assumed to be
exclusive, and therefore Congress cannot act in a manner that contradicts Executive branch policy
regarding recognition
III.
TAKE AWAY: The very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of
the federal government in the field of international relations is a power which does not require as a
basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power,
must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the United States Constitution. If,
in the maintenance of international relations, embarrassment - perhaps serious embarrassment - is to
be avoided and success for national aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made
effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the
President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible
were domestic affairs alone involved.
37
IV.
WAR POWERS
a. Central Tension Constitution is an invitation for a struggle between President and Congress
over control of the war power. PREZ. DOES have power to send troops to foreign country.
i. Article I Gives Congress the power to declare war and raise army
ii. Article II Makes President commander-in-chief (inherent powers to defend US?)
b. When can President send troops without Congressional Approval?
i. Absence of Case Law Concerning War Powers
1. Court has rarely spoken on constitutionality of president sending troops without
formal declaration of war. (Zone 2 of Jacksons approach)
2. Prize Cases: Court ruled that Lincoln had the power to impose a blockade of the
south without congressional declaration of war. Court rules that President DID
have authority based on power from Constitution: 1) As commander in chief
and 2) to take care that laws are faithfully executed
3. Strongest declaration that president of US has inherent power to defend nation
against attack by foreign adversaries and internal insurrection --- even apart from
permission of Congress (its an obligation and duty) --- to protect
land/persons/territories of US (nothing abroad)
38
4. If president doesnt have authority to enter into treaties with foreign nations or to
defend nation then who does?
o President has necessity to protect US property and persons
o Comes from language of commander in chief and STRUCTURE of the
government
This applies in cases of Prize and Curtiss-Wright
ii. Challenges Likely to be Dismissed as Political Questions
1. Court has often generally stated that challenges to the Presidents conduct of
foreign policy pose non-justiciable political questions and are dismissed.
2. Conduct of foreign policy is textually committed by the Constitution to the
Executive and Legislative Departments (the political branches)
c. What Constitutes a Declaration of War?
i. Uncertainty about what constitutes a declaration of war under Article I
1. Is formal declaration required? (Pearl Harbor)
2. Is Gulf of Tonkin Resolution sufficient? (Vietnam - Mora v McNamara)
3. Is repeated congressional approval of funding an implicit declaration?
ii. Mora v McNamara Case was on appeal : Asking if Vietnam War was unconstitutional?
Legal question can you go to war without the Congress declaring it?
Was there Standing to pursue this case? -- YES, Mora was a specific litigant with
an injury in fact
Was this case a political question? -- IS this a job for the courts or someone else?
o Reasonable claims that challenges to Vietnam war involved political, not
justiciable questions
o Court would have authority to interpret Constitution and determine if war
declaration needed
o What is the ripeness issue?
o This is dispute b/w Congress and President does Congress have to declare
war or can president do it on his own (like in Goldwater) -- court says that
they wont step up and make a ruling on dispute if Congress hasnt explicitly
said the war is illegal and they havent opposed it, but instead have done
things that support the war (passed legislation supporting funding)
d. War Powers Resolution
i. Uncertainty as to whether it is constitutional for congress to put limits on Presidents power to
use troops in foreign countries. Presidents have not always obeyed it.
ii. War Powers Resolution states that president may use troops when there is:
1. Congressional Declaration of War
2. Specific statutory authorization; or
3. National emergency created by attack on USA
iii. Reporting Requirements and Time Limits
1. President must report to Congress within 48 hours
2. President shall withdraw troops after 60 days unless Congress has declared war or
authorized an extension, or is unable to meet as result of attack.
39
40
c. Separation of Powers --- clear that Congress and president are on the same side; Congress has
passed statutes to limit judicial process and president has attempted to use them, but Court says
this is invalid
This goes against Jacksons notion that when President and Congress acting together that is the
strongest grant of authority
Court rules this way because of their prior decisions such as Hamdi -- Boumd case was 4th time they
had ruled unconstitutional -- even though military exigency -- MUST have some HC rights
This case is strongest refutation of executive authority when exercised in concert with Congress at
least in wartime
BUT not a classic due process case
Boumd does not apply to prisoners held in Afghanistan, theater of war areas --- it is limited to
Gitmo
Even in wartime, when great deference is typically afforded to Presidential discretion, there are Due
Process and Habeas Corpus rights that citizens in or on US soil are owed absent a suspension of the
writ of Habeas Corpus by Congress (or a charge of treason where criminal proceedings are due.) The
President has the power to detain those labeled enemy combatants or those who are perceived as a
threat to US, but they are owed procedural rights (HC of some fashion). These two cases indicate that
the right to HC exists for citizens held on US soil as well as non-citizens held in American territory
abroad (ie Cuba)
TAKE AWAY: Together these two cases dont dramatically change the affirmative grant of authority of the
president
Change what is demanded by Due Process of Law
Change view of Constitutional demand of HC
But still operating in Jacksons framework to determine if President had power to engage
in activities in the first place
II.
41
ii. Clinton v. Jones President does NOT have immunity for unofficial acts or for actions taken
before he assumed office.
1. Separation of powers doctrine does NOT require federal courts to defer suits until
president leaves office on private actions for unofficial conduct
a. Court (wrongly) holds that there is no risk of distraction
b. Criminal Suits against the President
i. No case has ever addressed whether a sitting President can be criminally prosecuted
1. Strong argument that impeachment and removal should be the sole remedy against the
president. (After removal criminal trial could proceed).
III.
IMPEACHMENT:
a. Article I President shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
i. What constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors?
1. Court held Challenges to Impeachment process are political questions
a. Thus Congress gets to decide what constitutes high crimes and
misdemeanors and court will NOT review their decision
i. Impeachment is a very political process.
CHAPTER (Who the Fuck Knows): Limits on State Regulatory & Taxing Power
PREEMPTION OF STATE & LOCAL LAWS:
The authority of State Law may be limited by the existence of a national government and of other states.
o 2 situations:
1. Congress has lawfully used its congressional power to pass law, does that law pre-empt the
state/local law?
Supremacy Clause (Article VI 2): Constitution and the laws of the US are the supreme
law of the land, so yesh.
2. Congress hasn't acted, or decided federal does not pre-empt state/local law. Than NO. BUT, even
so State/local law can be challenged under 2 principles:
The Dormant Commerce Clause (the negative commerce clause): State/local laws are
unconstitutional if they place undue burden on interstate commerce. Insinuated by the
fact that Congress is granted the power to regulate commerce among the states.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, 2: limits the ability of states to
discriminate against out of staters in regards to constitutional rights or economic
activities. "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
citizens of the several states."
The hardest question is deciding whether a state/local statute is preempted by a federal statute or regulation.
There is no tell-all formula for doing so.
Traditionally the court has held such in 2 situations:
1. Federal law expressly preempts state/local law
Express Preemption: When Congress has the authority to legislate, they can make federal law
exclusive in the field, by expressly excluding state/local regulation in the field, which expressly
allows it to preventatively preempt state/local regulations
Congress' command is explicitly stated in the statute's language.
42
AFTER: trying to find preemption, and if can't then can look at whether its limited under the Dormant Commerce
Clause or Privilege & Immunities Clause: (Scalia and minority believes the determination should stop after the
initial preemption determination, that).
The Dormant Commerce Clause (the negative commerce clause): Not in constitution. Inferred from
commerce clause/commerce powers given to congress. State/local laws are unconstitutional if they place
undue burden on interstate commerce. Insinuated by the fact that Congress is granted the power to
regulate commerce among the states in Article I, 8.
function: Limits state/local govts regulations (As opposed to authorizing congressional actions
via its right to regulate interstate commerce).
On Exam: ask; is it Congress trying to do something, or is it a State doing something that
interferes (if the later, then apply Dormant Commerce Clause).
The Privileges & Immunities Clause of Article IV, 2: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to
all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states." limits the ability of states to discriminate
against out of staters in regards to constitutional rights or economic activities. Limited to citizens
(individuals). So corporations nor Aliens cannot sue.
On Exam: if its Corp. challenging out of stater discriminatory law, then ONLY use
DCC, but if an individual, have to consider both DCC and P&I clause.
Protection by the govt; the enjoyment of life and liberty; right to acquire and possess property of
every kind; right to pursue and maintain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such
restraints as the govt may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. Sufficient to the
promotion of interest of interstate harmony
Dormant Commerce Clause v. P&I clause:
o
Dormant can also allow suit for out-of-state discrimination suit, but doesn't require a case of such like
P&I does.
o
Corporations and Aliens can sue under Dormant
o
Dormant: if congress has approved of the state law, then they do not violate. No longer dormant.
43
Determination:
o
FIRST: Does it discriminate against out of staters? treat them alike?
o Must affect fundamental right of citizenship, OR ability to earn livelihood.
if NO, then P&I does NOT apply.
if YES then,
Was there sufficient justification?
Does the discrimination bear a substantial relationship to the state's objective?
Court also considers availability of less restrictive alternatives.
o
SECOND: Does it burden economic activity/interest? (interstate harmony/commerce)
If the burden to Int. Commerce outweighs the benefit of the law, then YES, Dormant Commerce
Clause applies.
Balancing determination
Exceptions:
If its NECESSARY to achieve a very important Govt. purpose, then it doesn't
apply
SCOTUS implies strict scrutiny (compelling purpose), but has not
explicitly set the standard. Simply says it must be necessary.
If Congress approves law, valid even if it would otherwise violate DCC.
Market Participant Exception:
state/local govt. may favor own citizens when receiving benefits from
govt. programs or when dealing with govt. organizations. (e.g. public
universities, govt. owned businesses)
Facially Neutral Laws:
Reciprocity Requirements:
Court has held unconstitutional, state laws that limit out-of-stater's access to markets and equal access to benefits to
actors/states that offer reciprocal benefits or laws.
Facially neutral laws can be discriminatory if they have the purpose or the effect of discriminating out-of-staters
P&I Clause most obviously seeks to prevent discrimination against people who need access to markets and
resources
1. Can be facially discriminatory. Will be scrutinized most
2. Or can be neutral of its face, but have a discriminatory impact or purpose. Will be
scrutinized more
3. Or it is generally neutral and doesn't have a discriminatory purpose, but their may be a
justification. Must do a balancing act to determined whether the benefits are worth the
discrimination.
a. But it also considers whether it's an outlier; do other states do this.
b. Also considers the burden placed on the parties and/or on interstate commerce.
c. Dissent argues that its too hard to balance separate things that are so different.
Hunt, Governor of NC v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm. (1977): A facially neutral statute still
violates the Commerce Clause if it discriminates against interstate commerce in practice. HELD: it has a practical
effect of discriminating against Washington growers; the new labeling system that NC growers already use,
requiring Washington growers to spend money to change their labels to comply, strips away the competitive
advantage. Undesirable since it jeopardizes the quality of apples. The statute unconstitutionally burdens interstate
commerce because the statute is discriminatory in practical effect and would reduce the quality of apples.
Consolidated Freightways v. Raymond (1981): Iowa law restricting use of extra long trucks on interstate.
HELD: the regulations significantly impair the federal interest in efficient and safe interstate transportation. The
state law cannot be harmonized with the Commerce Clause. From the evidence presented in the district court,
Iowas law added approximately $12.6 million each year to the cost of trucking companies.
44
SC of NH v. Kathryn A. Piper (1985): States may discriminate against rights of out-of-state residents as long as
there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and the discrimination practiced against nonresidents
bears a substantial relationship to the states objective. HELD: The purpose of the Privileges and Immunities
Clause is to create a national economic union where citizens of state A have the same rights to do business in state
B as citizens of state B. The practice of law should be treated just like any business among the several states, as
the practice of law is a privilege and is necessary for the provisions of justice.
The main text of the Constitution contains relatively few protections of individual rights
a. Framers thought that the Federal governments limited powers rendered detailing of rights unnecessary.
Further, some may have feared that a delineation of rights was dangerous because the list would
inevitably be incomplete.
i. Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the
public Safety require it. (Article 1, section 9)
ii. Prohibition on Bills of Attainder
1. Bill of Attainder a law that directs the punishment of a particular person. In essence, a
trial by legislature that negates all due process protections.
iii. Prohibition against Ex Post Facto Laws
1. Ex Post Facto Laws one that criminally punishes conduct that was lawful when it
was done.
45
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people.
I.
II.
46
residents. Dissent Resurrecting long dormant clause that will become yet another convenient
tool for inventing new rights.
III.
47
a. Only fundamental rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty are
incorporated to the States through Due Process Clause. (theoretical/platonic
view of justice)
b. Fundamental rights = something which is so central to notion of procedural
fairness, that you could not have a fair regime without it
2. Total Incorporationists - Jot for Jot - Textually Dependent Approach
a. Everything in the Bill of Rights should be incorporated through the 14th
Amendment/Due Process clause and apply to the States.
b. Justice Black argues this approach is rooted in the text of the Constitution,
limiting activist judges from inventing rights.
3. Selective Incorporationists Fundamental to the American Scheme of Justice
a. Some provisions or phrases from the Bill of Rights are sufficiently fundamental
to apply to the State governments.
IV.
V.
48
a. Refers to whether the government has an adequate justification for taking away a persons life, liberty or
property.
i. When a right is deemed fundamental under Due Process, the government must prove that its
action is necessary to achieve a compelling purpose
1. Protecting economic liberties
2. Safeguarding privacy
ECONOMIC SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
I.
II.
49
1. Weaver v. Palmer Bros. (1926) A state may not enact consumer protection legislation
when no significant public health and safety concerns exist, or when such concerns may
be easily alleviated. Any legislative restraints on the use of shoddy (in mattresses) are
arbitrary and directly interfere with Palmer Bros. Fourteenth Amendment rights because
of the unlikely health and safety dangers associated with this product, and the ease of
eliminating dangers by sterilization
ii. Upholding Maximum Hours Laws for Women Workers
1. Muller v. Oregon (1908) Court upholds maximum work hours for women b/c female
reproduction is a legitimate exception to freedom of contract. As a lawyer, Brandeis
files a detailed brief with scientific data (this is an EXCEPTION involved a special
interest to protect rights and health since women couldnt vote)
iii. Invalidating Minimum Wage Laws for Women Workers
1. Adkins v. Childrens Hospital (1923) Court invalidates (rules unconstitutional)
minimum wage law for women b/c 19th amendment gave women equality through voting
rights. This infringes on liberty of K.
III.
IV.
50
United States v. Carolene Products (1938): Court upholds another economic regulation on milk
products. Court announces it will no longer second guess the legislature as to whether a
regulation has a rational basis linking a public purpose.
d. Carolene Products Footnote #4 and New Theory of Judicial Review
i. Generally, the court will give broad deference to the legislature and uphold laws so long as they
are rationally related to legitimate public purpose.
1. Court defers to democratic process where voters are the check on laws.
2. Moving from a time of rigid intervention to a presumption of constitutionality
ii. Three Exceptions Court will NOT give presumption of constitutionality if:
1. The law conflicts with explicit text of Bill of Rights
2. The law restricts citizens access to political process (voting rights)
3. The law prejudices discrete and insular minorities
a. In these areas, the political process is NOT sufficient to protect the rights
involved. Minorities and those denied voting rights cannot have any recourse by
voting out members of legislature.
b. Thus Court must intervene with a more searching/heightened scrutiny.
V.
Since Locher/1937 - economic substantive due process has been unavailable to challenge
govt. economic and social welfare laws and regulations
No economic regulatory statute has been held invalid under DP since 1937
(limits are permissible)
51
II.
52
III.
53
54
2. NYC Transit Auth. v. Beazer: Concerning a law that prohibited hiring of eomployees
that used a certain type of medicine. The Transit Authoritys rule serves the general
objectives of safety and efficiency. The rule is not directed against any class of persons
characterized by some unpopular trait. Therefore, it does not create the likelihood of bias
on the part of the ruling majority.
iv. Example Rare case invalidating law b/c did NOT serve legitimate purpose:
1. If the only conceivable justification behind a law drawing a classification is prejudice
and animosity the court will NOT be as deferential to legislature
2. Romer v. Evans (1996): Court declares unconstitutional a voter approved Colorado
Amendment that repealed all laws protecting gays from discrimination and prohibited all
future government action to protect gays from discrimination. Holding There is NO
legitimate purpose in singling out a particular group and barring them from political
process. This classification is born out of animosity toward an unpopular group and
does NOT further any legitimate government purpose. Court seemed to use a slightly
higher standard of review here Rational basis test with teeth
3. Lawrence v Texas
v. Any Conceivable State Purpose is Sufficient Actual Purpose Irrelevant
1. Under Rational Basis Review The law will be upheld if any conceivable legitimate
government purpose can be identified for discrimination.
a. The actual purpose motivating the legislature is irrelevant.
b. Extreme deference for legislative decisions
c. Social and Economic regulatory legislation is given greater deference
d. REQUIREMENT THAT MEANS BE RATIONALLY RELATED TO ENDS
i. Under Rational Basis Test the court must also decide whether the classifications drawn in a
statute are reasonably related to the purpose behind the law.
ii. Extreme Deference in finding reasonable relationship btw means and ends
1. Laws will be upheld unless the governments action is clearly wrong, a display of
arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment
2. Court is tolerant of both underinclusive and overinclusive classifications as long as they
are rationally related to legitimate government purposes
3. Court gives deference to legislatures need to make one step at a time
iii. Example Tolerance for Under-Inclusiveness in Rational Basis Review:
1. Railway Express v. New York: Court upheld an ordinance that banned all advertising
on trucks unless the ad was for the business of the trucks owner. P argued law was
irrational as a way of achieving purpose of decreasing traffic distractions b/c the
government did NOT ban other obvious driving distractions. Court tolerates underinclusiveness and upholds law.
2. Japanese Internment Victims: punished Japanese, but not those of other races who
were also posing problems (didnt punish all offenders)
iv. Example Tolerance for Over-Inclusiveness in Rational Basis Review:
1. Japanese Internment Victims: punishing a large number of people, but only some of
them are causing the problem law covers more people than it needs to in order to
accomplish its purpose only some of the Japanese were offenders, but all were
punished.
v. Examples Laws Invalidated as Arbitrary and Unreasonable (rare)
1. Court has rarely found laws to be so arbitrary and unreasonable as to fail rational basis
review thus the classifications violate Equal Protection.
55
II.
56
i. Where Race Classification exists on the Face of the Law (in the text)
ii. Where law is Facially Neutral, but has applied in a discriminatory way (biased implementation
only applies to some)
iii. Where law is Facially Neutral, but has a discriminatory purpose and impact
III.
NOTE: This case sets the basis for the Court to say that if you have decided to draw the lines
based on race, then the Court will apply strict scrutiny and will presume this is unconstitutional
Govt. must show: (1) an extremely important reason for its action and (2) is must
demonstrate that the goal cannot be achieved through any less discriminatory alternative.
57
58
b. Court points to public education as the most important function of state and
local governments. (notion of centrality of education gateway to
citizenship and meaningful opportunities)
c. Questioning whether segregation in education carries an inherent brand of
inferiority which effects blacks ability to learn.
i. Once state has undertaken public education it becomes a right that
must provided to all citizens on equal terms.
d. Court does NOT expressly overrule Plessy, except as to education.
e. Brown II Court places burden on Schools to make good faith effort to end
segregation with all deliberate speed
iii. Following Brown, the SC took a wide array of cases dealing with segregation
Court rooms, Public swimming pools, Street cars public accommodations
In every case the court reversed the segregated practices and simply said See Brown -the court did not readdress these concerns, but simply said B v Board demands reversal
Essentially this overturned Plessy completely, but that was not done through the Brown
ruling explicitly
Johnson v. California: separation in prisons (for gang related purposes)
De FACTO Segregation: not by law, by implication. Now they take
measures to try and change this. Robert's argues (in line with Plessy
dissent about a color-blind constitution) that such a measure is
unconstitutional (don't want diversity just for diversity's sake)
iv. Name against Name and Brown II demonstrate tension for Court b/w ability of Court to say
what the law is and the limitation that thats where their authority stops --- must then rely on
executive branch and local govt. actors to carry out what the Court deems the law to be
1. What is the Constitutional Violation that Brown declares and defines?
2. Do you have the right as a school kid to go to schools that are racially integrated -- does
Brown guarantee a right to integrated education?
a. No right to proportionally integrated schools
b. Brown describes the violation of a right which is state imposed separation and
the impact that flows to students as a result of state enforced separation
c. Brown doesnt speak to private schools
d. Brown doesnt create a right to attend desegregated school Law says you cant
have state imposed separation
IV.
59
V.
II.
standard of review or rational basis test with teeth Standard of Review: RBT: A
classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference
having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike. (Is there any conceivable justification regardless of whether
one was provided?) COURT HOLDS: efficiency is not a CSI and there was no rational basis
60
doesnt makes sense, but later it becomes clear that RBT still stands, sex discrimination applies a
different standard of review
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973): Federal law (example of EP applied against federal govt, not
states) allowed male military men to automatically claim their wives as dependents. A women,
however, could only claim her husband after proof he was actually dependent. Holding Court
invalidates the law, but disagrees on level of scrutiny. Four justices took the position that gender
classifications should be subjected to strict scrutiny. Others wanted to use rational basis review
for sex discrimination. (Not a majority decision) Court applied CSI test and the law failed
means = preferring men over women for the granting of benefits of spouses and the ends = saving
money Court says that saving money is a legitimate goal of govt, but not a compelling
reason
What are arguments that sex discrimination is like racial discrimination SHOULD THERE BE AN
ELEVATED STANDARD OF REVIEW?
It is an immutable characteristic
Sex has no reflection on ability to perform
Frequently Irrational b/c unrelated to the claim on the merits (whether you fall within statute or
not)
Paternalistic attitudes toward women
Long history of discrimination women burdened traditionally
Examines actions of Congress have already declared this is something invidious
History of political marginalization/exclusion from the political process lack of right to vote
(polt. disenfranchisement) Carolene Footnote 4 discrete and insular minority
61
c.
Conclusion: Rehnquist No. In a plurality decision, the Court held that the law
did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "young
men and young women are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and the risks of
sexual intercourse." The Court found that the state had a strong interest in preventing "illegitimate
pregnancy." The Court noted that "[i]t is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect
minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself
constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar natural sanctions deter males."
Note: there is only a Plurality here written by Rehnquist
Rehnquist advocates sharper focus here -- reluctant to embrace full version of important
govt. interest test in Craig, but still wants some intermediate level of review (but not as far as
CvB)
After RvR, CvB, Michael M. WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IN SEX DISCRIMINATION
CASES?
Michael M. doesnt apply full important govt. interest test of CvB (this case has a weaker standard
of review) , so where does this leave us
Important Govt. interest test used --- unless statute relates to actual physical differences (where men
and women are not similarly situated i.e. pregnancy) -- then will be more deferential review (more
like RBT test)
o If statute based in perceptions of behavior, stereotypes of gender roles then we apply more
searching scrutiny of IGI test
2.
Rostker v. Goldberg, (1981) President Carter initially suggested a draft registration
that applied to men and women Congress said NO!!! -- and kept it a male only draft registration -this was the statute challenged in the case
What is the STANDARD OF REVIEW?
o Doesnt embrace the IGI test of CvB -- is a more moderate level of scrutiny
o Part of it is the Court trying to figure out how much deference to afford Congress since
they decided issue based on national security concerns Court doesnt want to 2 nd guess
too much
o More focus on fair and substantial -o Court said this was RATIONAL statute -- logical link
What was the purpose of this particular registration?
to prepare for combat
Court says: men and women are not similarly situated for purposes of
military combat b/c there was a statute saying that men could serve in
combat, but women could not (Note: court doesnt address whether this
statute was constitutional, but assumed it was so) -- Court was
bootstrapped by statute
3. NOW: What is the STANDARD of REVIEW?
o Roskt --- This standard is more deferential than IGI test
o This is a middle tier asking whether it is reasonable to draw these distinctions
This case is treated more like Michael M. standard similar to idea of actual physical differences
that implicates a middle ground b/w RBT and IGI
Michael M. and Rostker Are OUTLIERS employ a more deferential standard of review
o May be a result of actual physical differences b/w men and women when it comes to
being pregnant
o Rostk --- b/c of importance of military/national security (deference to Congress or that
there was a statute creating a difference = legal distinction)
62
i. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982), is a five to four ruling of the United States
Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that Mississippi University for Women's single sex
admissions policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
1. STANDARD OF REVIEW This case uses the CvB standard of intermediate scrutiny
BUT the court talks about an exceedingly persuasive justification
2. This case says:
a. Must have an important govt. interest
b. Fair and substantial relationship b/w means employed and impt govt interest
c. BUT must have an exceedingly persuasive justification for the important govt
interest
3. This is the IGI test on steroids will be applied going forward
4. Whats the difference? --- JUSTICE OCONNER joins the court
This is a more rigorous standard of justification than even CvB
a. HOGAN BECOMES THE STANDARD for gender/sex discrimination
review under EP
b. NOTE: would accept an argument that distinguishes b/w men and women that is
not based on stereotypes or preconceived notions
ii. Ginsberg adopts a more rigorous intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications and
requires an exceedingly persuasive justification to be upheld.
United States v. Virginia (1996): Virginia Military Institute allows only male cadets claiming
that the school uses an adversative method that is specially designed for men. Female cadet is
denied admission. Holding VMIs exclusion of women is a violation of equal protection
because VMI did NOT prove an exceedingly persuasive justification for discriminating against
women. There is no persuasive evidence in the record that VMIs male-only policy furthers a
state policy of diversity No fair and substantial relationship. There is NO proof that women
cannot participate in the adversative method. Further, Virginias attempt to remedy the
discrimination by opening a female college is NOT enough. Remedy for intentional
discrimination requires curing all discrimination.
III.
I.
63
constructs and whether they should matter (Nguyen v. INS: requiring stricter proof of
paternity relationship than maternity relationship, b/c of nature of biological relationship)
B. General Principles of Gender Based Affirmative Action Cases
These cases focus on compensatory measures aimed at correcting inequalities based on sex
All of these cases are decided before the SC becomes tougher on race-based classifications so all of
these cases are decided when the court was fairly lenient (generous) - court was also being generous
toward racial affirmative action as well
o Less certain that the court has a generous bent toward gender based classifications
o It would be very ironic if 14th Amendment stands as a tough standard for race based
affirmative action and a more lenient standard for sex based affirmative action
o HOWEVER, we dont know how the court would decide these cases after the race line of
cases
Orr v. Orr: states purposes for the law: (1) to provide help for needy spouses; and (2) to compensate
women for past discrimination in marriage and divorce. Requiring men, and not women, to pay
alimony is NOT substantially related to either of the stated purposes. Alabama already conducts
individualized administrative hearings as part of each alimony ruling. The hearing officer can easily
consider the parties financial circumstances and assign alimony payments based on who is best
equipped to pay. Hence there is no reason for Alabama to use generalizations about gender as a proxy
for need.
C. MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN ET AL. v.
HOGAN (1982)
1.
FACTS: A male student sought to enroll in a state women's university because a
baccalaureate degree in nursing would enable him to earn more and to obtain specialized training. No
similar school was located within a reasonable distance. The university allowed male students to
attend only on an auditing basis. The university argued that it should be allowed to continue
prohibiting male students from enrolling for credit because the university had traditionally served
only women and because the prohibition compensated for past discrimination against women
2.
Standard of Review: OConnor (important govt. interest with EPJ)
Exceedingly persuasive justification (like VMI case) sets standard for sex discrimination
cases
3.
What does Miss say the Impt. govt. interest served by the rule?
a.
Aid to help women economically by allowing them to attend school
compensating for past discrimination based on sex
b.
COURT SAYS: This IS an important govt. interest/goal on this basis, but still
fails b/c is based on a stereotype
c.
Court says this isnt reasonable way to open up economic opportunity to
women b/c it is nursing and there are occupational stereotypes -- this is ad hoc based on
stereotypes
d.
Was a public institution; court wanted to eliminate paternalistic attitude
e.
Mere recitation of a benign purpose is not an automatic shield (doesnt mean
youll escape strict scrutiny)
D. What is the standard in Gender Discrimination cases today?
i.
Almost all of these cases occur prior to the shift in race discrimination.
ii.
Dont know what impact the subsequent race cases will have on gender
cases Leaves open the question of what the standard of review is for affirmative action cases
in terms of gender?
iii.
Required: Demonstrable proof of discrimination and any remedy
must alleviate the effects of discrimination
I.
Under Title VII federal statute part of 1964 Civil Rights act prevents discrimination in
employment
Under the Courts rule the burden doesnt shift to the employer unless intentional discriminatory
purpose and impact shown
WvD standard ends up being a harsh standard b/c it tries not to avoid deeming something
discriminatory simply based on statistics and numbers
What does it take to show there was actual Intention?
Does it require proof of what decision makers where thinking? If so, then the EP clause
under WvD is a very high standard
Most likely it can be satisfied with less than a declared intention to discriminate, but you
must do more than simply prove your case by the numbers
d. Proof of Discriminatory Effect as well as Discriminatory Purpose is Required
iii. Challenges to facially neutral laws must prove BOTH discriminatory impact (effect) and
discriminatory purpose (intent) to trigger strict scrutiny review.
iv. Proof of disproportionate impact on blacks is NOT enough to trigger strict scrutiny.
1. Must prove that government had a discriminatory purpose in redrawing the boundary
lines so as to intentionally exclude blacks
Palmer v. Thompson: Regardless of the Citys possible discriminatory motives in closing the
pools, Palmer fails to prove that the pool closing has a discriminatory impact on African
American residents as a group. The City closed all of its pools
2.
Additional Examples Have to take a literacy test if you want to vote, but there is a
grandfather clause and if your ancestors could vote as of 1958, then you dont have to take a
literacy test (not facially discriminatory, but since Blacks couldnt vote until after this so this
DOES demonstrate intent)
65
3.
If court did NOT require proof of discriminatory purpose slippery slope for thousands
of law suits challenging all kinds of laws.
4.
However proving a discriminatory purpose or any intent of legislature is extremely
difficult. Thus, some obviously discriminatory laws are upheld.
a.
Judicial abdication of responsibility to enforce equal protection?
f.
66
1. Finding proof that legislature enacted a law with discriminatory purpose or intent is
extremely difficult (cant get congressmen to testify)
2. Burden Shifting Method If sufficient evidence is presented that discrimination was a
motivating factor the Burden Shifts to the government to show a race-neutral
explanation for enacting law.
3. Proximate Cause Footnote 21 introduces an idea of proximate cause to these cases.
Namely, it states that the petitioner must prove respondent had 1) an improper intent
(i.e. that his intent was to discriminate against another race). After this is proven, the
burden of proof shifts to the respondent, who must prove that 2) the improper intent did
not actually affect the outcome of his decision.
a. Thus, the court is saying that to satisfy this test, you must prove improper intent,
a disparate impact, and proximate cause (i.e. that the improper intent is the cause
of the disparate impact). If proximate cause cannot be proven, "there would be no
justification for judicial interference with the challenged decision," as "the
complaining party in a case of this kind no longer fairly could attribute the injury
complained of to improper consideration of a discriminatory purpose."
REMEMBER: Arlington, Feeny and Hunter all look at whether statutes are gender/racially neutral
(whether this is disprt and intentional) focus is on how to categorize the case (this triggers intention of
decision maker as long as there is not a facial classification) -- not what standard to apply
67
68
i. General Rule All Racial classifications benefiting minorities must meet strict scrutiny and be
narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest
a. Benign racial classifications may only be used:
i.
As a remedy upon proven past intentional discrimination
ii.
As a limited way to achieve classroom diversity in Colleges.
ii. Shift begins in the way the court approaches these cases Bakke (education) and Fullilove
(minority contracts) were two very generous decisions leading up to Croson and Adarand
iii. State and local affirmative action programs must meet Strict Scrutiny:
iv. Federal affirmative actions programs must meet Strict Scrutiny:
v. NEW STANDARD FOR THIS TYPE OF CASE
1) CONGRUENCE should apply the same standard vis-a-vis the federal govt. to the state
govts. when exploring constitutional propriety of affirmative action; should same standard be
applied to federal govt. as to the states
o Is there a difference in constitutional restraint b/w 14 th amendment and 5th amendment?
Yes, there is no EP clause in the 5th Amendment
i. OConnor - how does she get around the lack of EP clause in 5th Amendment to justify
that the federal standard is lower than the state standard?
a. She discusses Bolling v Sharpe its unthinkable that we would enforce
something against the states and not the federal govt. (thats an unequal standard)
EP clause doesnt apply by its language to the federal govt, but unreasonable to
think that they wouldnt be held to the same standard as the states.
b. Congruence means same standard for race and gender discrimination cases
whether the state or federal govt is acting
c. OConnor would apply congruence in sex discrimination cases as well
2) CONSISTENCY
i.
Whether you are talking about discrimination directed at blacks or affirmative action
against whites, the standard of review needs to be the same
ii.
This means that the CSI test is the appropriate test for Race Discrimination whether
youre considering a racial discrimination statute or a racial affirmative action program
3) SKEPTICISM
Must engage in demanding skepticism when race is involved
vi. SUMMARY: After Adarand its easier to justify affirmative action based on gender/sex, than
on race (this means there is a less strict standard applied gender classifications -- than to race
cases seems ironic given the fact 14th Amendment was meant to protect blacks)
a. OConnor indicates she wants to alter CSI test slightly (could still pass benign things
under CSI test)
b. CSI test will be applied to affirmative action cases across the board, but doesnt mean
that all affirmative action programs are unconstitutional
c. When race is used either as benign or malevolent purposes (to either achieve or thwart
discrimination against traditional minorities -- consistency) it triggers the highest level of
scrutiny the level of review is the same for state and federal govt the test should
not be strict in theory and fatal in fact (shouldnt be impossible to pass)
d. WILL REQUIRE: significant proven demonstration of past discrimination and direct
and causal link b/w remedial program and the discrimination sought to be remedied must
be VERY CLOSE (very close connection b/w remedy and goal of eliminating past
discrimination)
e. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS
i. General Rule Colleges may use race as ONE factor among many in making otherwise
individualized admissions decisions
69
iv. Rejecting Race Classification Adding Automatic Point Allocation for Minorities
v. Rejecting use of Race Classification to Racial Balancing in K-12 Schools
1. General Rule Schools may NOT look to Race alone in making attendance zoning
decisions, but must include individualized factors.
a. Majority is hesitant to extend Grutter to K-12 schools. Questionable whether
diversity is a compelling interest in K-12. (still have right to education regardless;
just alters the school you attend)
i.
Roberts and Alito have very narrow view of diversity as a compelling
interest to justify racial classifications.
ii.
Roberts doesnt deem this a CSI the only CSI for him are war and
higher ed cases that require a diverse student body (Bakke and Grutter)
iii.
Roberts deems the use of race as impermissible in this situation b/c :
a. Odious to a free people instills notion of hostility and inferiority
b. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating
on the basis of race."
This makes one skeptical that he would think race is a permissible
delineating factor
70
II.
III.
TWO EXCEPTIONS
a. Exception #1 Congressionally Approved Federal Alienage Classifications
i. Only rational basis review used for federal laws drawing alienage classifications
1. Congress has plenary power over immigration and aliens
b. Exception #2 Alienage Classifications Related to Self-Governing and Democracy (Political
Function Exception narrow exception to the rule that alienage triggers strict scrutiny)
i. Only rational basis review is used for alienage classifications related to Self-Governing and the
Democratic Process ( defining their political community)
ii. Alienage discrimination is permissible in jobs involving public policy discretion
iii. Court has declared that a a democratic society is ruled by its people
1. Thus State may deny aliens the right to vote or hold political office, or serving on
juries.
2. The court has altered the level of scrutiny to find these self-government interests
compelling and only requires a rational basis
c. Exception 1: Federal Medical Insurance Program
i. MATHEWS v. DIAZ (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court applied relaxed scrutiny in upholding the
validity of a federal statute that conditioned an alien's eligibility for participation in a federal
medical insurance program on the satisfaction of a durational residency requirement (of 5 years),
71
but imposed no similar burden on citizens. The Court emphasized that Congress, as an aspect of
its broad power over immigration and naturalization, enjoys rights to distinguish among aliens
that are not shared by the States.
ii. Equal Protection Claim: govt. treating those here less than 5 years one way and those here more
than 5 years differently (NOTE: if this had been a state action it would be unconstitutional)
iii. HELD: this IS constitutional for Federal Govt. to do
iv. Does this mean that 5th/14th Amendment doesnt apply to federal govt.?
o NO. it just means that Congress has plenary authority to limit/condition immigration
o Court will thus, NOT apply the CSI test
Hampton v. Wong: Alienage discriminatory laws adopted by executive agencies, however, will
remain under strict scrutiny, ALTHOUGH if they are adopted by federal law or by presidential order,
then they may under rational basis.
IV.
V.
72
ii.
Age Classification: although it is immutable and highly visible, the court has still generally held that rational
basis review is the standard.
Mass. Board of Retirement v. Mergia: rationally furthers a legitimate state goal of ensuring the physical health
and vitality of uniformed police officers.
Disability Classification:
Wealth Classification:
o
o
City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center: Must be rationally related to a legitimate govt.
Held constitutional an ordinance that required a special permit to operate a group home for the mentally
disabled. Although such laws go under Rational Basis Review, the American with Disabilities Act broadly
prohibits such discrimination.
Dandrige v. Williams: Held rational basis was the proper level, and upheld a law that limited the amount
of welfare benefits that a family could receive, regardless of how many people it was. Said the law related
to economics and social welfare; the court believed the argument that the state's interest in allocating
scarce public benefits as justifying the law.
73
a. Rational Basis Review Laws restricting the right to education or laws drawing classifications regarding
education are subject to deferential rational basis test.
i. General unwillingness to hold that there are constitutional rights to affirmative services provided
by government.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriequez (1973): Court expressly rejected the
claim that education is a fundamental right and rejected a challenge to TX school funding scheme
based on local property taxes that resulted in disparities in school funding for poor districts.
(economic discrimination in education) Holding Court upholds the TX funding scheme and
rejects arguments that inequities in school funding violate Equal Protection as wealth
discrimination. Poverty is NOT a suspect class nor is education a fundamental right. Thus
only rational basis review is appropriate.
ii. Why did the court make this decision? --- Completely CONTRARY to ideas of equal
opportunity, especially with respect to earlier cases weve looked at
1. Court looks at what theyve already done they have already decided race discrimination
Court has interfered in past and it hasnt necessarily turned out well
2. SCOTUS leaves it to the states to work it out (states should work it out
FEDERALISM) Dramatic disparities in education funding have gone
unaddressed as a result
b. However Court has recognized that education is uniquely important because it provides basic tools to
maintain our basic democracy institutions and lead productive lives.
i. Public education is more fundamentally important and distinguishable from mere government
benefits like social welfare.
1. Brown v. Board Recognizes education as playing a fundamental role in the fabric of
our society. Most important function of state governments.
2. SUMMARY:
Court is trying to limit the scope here much more likely to have a fundamental right
declared prior to San Antonio v Rodriguez
No more fundamental rights after this case fundamental rights must be implicit or
explicit in the text of the Constitution
Could also announce that the court is finished with fundamental rights
HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A RIGHT IS FUNDAMENTAL UNDER
EP: must assess whether there is a right to education explicitly or implicitly in
the Constitution
3. Plyer v. Doe declares unconstitutional a texas law denying public education to
children of illegal immigrants.
a. States may NOT deny public education to children of illegal immigrants
b. Irrationality No one benefits from the creation of an illiterate underclass
who would drain other resources later on (welfare, crime, etc).
Plyler v. Doe (1982): Texas law provided free education for children of citizens and documented aliens.
However, the law denied free education to children of illegal immigrants. Holding Court invalidates
law denying education to children of illegals. Although the court does NOT treat illegals as a suspect
class the court does engage in rational basis review with teeth. Court points to the importance of
education, though it explicitly states that education is NOT a fundamental right. Further, children of
illegal aliens are innocents and it is unfair to punish them for their parents deed. Court concludes there is
no legitimate government interest in producing an illiterate underclass.
c. Even though education is NOT a fundamental right, court doesnt use RBT instead uses an intermediate level of scrutiny
d. Majority (Brennan) Depriving education this interest is crucial
74
II.
75
i. Ninth Amendment is not generally seen as source of rights, but to provide a textual justification
for the Court to protect non-textual rights like the right to privacy.
III.
76
i. Unelected judges are making up rights and enforcing them on the people contrary to the
democratic process. Non-textual Rights can only be created by Amendment.
e. Level of Review: Court deems this a fundamental right and thus uses heightened scrutiny
f.
II.
Note: this case presented a classic example of 3rd party standing exception b/c the doctors were able to
present the rights of the patients
i. Allows doctors to assert claim on behalf of their patients (b/c its not the doctors constitutional
right being asserted here)
PATERNITY RIGHTS
a. Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989) Limitations on what types of interests can receive protection under
the DP clause of the 14th Amendment
i. FACTS: Michael D had a relationship and fathered a child with a woman who was married to
another man. Michael used a blood test to establish that he was the natural father of a certain child
challenged state courts denial of his request for parental and visitation rights, which denial was
based on a California presumption that a child born to a married woman living with her husband is
the child of that marriage.
ii. Right asserted Michael wanted visitation rights to see daughter and prove he was the father,
BUT Calf. law created the irrebuttable presumption that a child born to a married woman living
with her husband is the child of that marriage (after 2 years from the time of birth)
b. Scalia Uses a rational basis test and upholds constitutionality of law
i. Rationale: In order to receive the protections of the substantive due process under the 14 th Amendment,
an asserted liberty interest must be both 1) a fundamental interest and 2) one that has been traditionally
protected by American society.
ii. No history or tradition of protecting paternity rights in this type of situation and thus this was not
deemed a fundamental right to privacy and only triggered the RBT
iii. Level of Generality of the Claim: Scalia says the right must be defined at lowest level of
generality (very specific level of abstraction) --- aka, exactly as it is: Have we recognized the right
of an interloper to a marriage to take a baby he has fathered away from married couple?
c. OConnor and Kennedy (Concurrence)
i. Disagree with Footnote 6 What is the level of generality that is the acceptable basis for defining
scope?
ii. OConnor and Kennedy Argue that we should protect rights at a HIGHER level of generality
b/c otherwise you diminish the nature of the right and it doesnt accurately describe how weve
handled past cases we describe rights more generally
Examples: (Roe v Wade and Eisenstadt v Baird: What is true for married couples in Griswold
is also true for a single woman around 25 years of age right to use contraceptives)
77
iii. IN THIS CASE: Court starting to determine how (much more) broadly you can employ
constitutional decision making than just as applied to the mere facts in front of you --HOW BROAD IS THE DEFINITION OF RIGHT?
d. Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun (Dissent) Court limits that which may be a fundamental right
protected in a substantive sense by the DP clause to certain traditional liberties
i. However, with a progressive, evolving society, nontraditional rights may become more fundamental
(this is such a right and the majority takes too narrow of an approach)
II.
III.
PARENTAL RIGHTS
a. Buck v. Bell: initially rejected the use of strict scrutiny; upheld a law that required sterilization
b. Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) Recognition of the importance of the right to bear children and
maintain a family.
HOLDING A state law requiring forced sterilization of criminals convicted 3 time of crimes of moral
turpitude unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental rights of marriage and procreation and violates
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
78
i. First Trimester Woman and her doctors can make the abortion decision free from intervention
from the state; the right of the fetus and the health of the mother are not compelling interests yet
(strict scrutiny applies)
ii. Second Trimester The States compelling interest in protecting the health of mother is
triggered and the State may regulate the abortion in ways that are reasonably related to mothers
health (licensing doctors, procedures, etc).
iii. Third Trimester After the fetus reaches viability, States compelling interest in protecting
unborn life is triggered, and the State may regulate and even outlaw abortion except where it is
necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the
mother.
d. Dissent: White and Rehnquist:
i. This case is NOT within the reach of the privacy cases the Court has already decided (different in
kind than aspects of rights to privacy that weve already defined)
ii. Summary: Right to abortion not protected by 1) text of constitution or 2) any historical
practice/justification beyond the constitution; therefore, this is judges enforcing rights without
warrant
II.
III.
79
80
4. Court seems more receptive to States interest in dignity of human life and brutality
of the procedure new avenues to attack abortion rights???
THIS CASE SIGNALS A SHIFT IN THE COURT: Gonzales was widely interpreted as signaling a
shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence toward a restriction of abortion rights
MODERN DAY: What is the state of abortion law now? The right to privacy?
What is the standard of review now?
Undue burden (instead of compelling state interest test) from Casey
o Casey -- you can notify woman as well as try to persuade her to take pregnancy to term
And legitimate state interest test from Gonzales
o Greater deference/wider range of interest of state in restricting abortion process
o Claims of coarsening and moral aspects are added as legitimate state interest
Substantial/Undue Burden Test vs. Compelling State Interest vs. Overturning Roe v Wade
Scalia, Thomas youve hung right to abortion on a right to privacy in the Constitution and the
constitution doesnt speak to this issue (would still vote to overturn Roe v Wade)
Roberts, Alito unwilling to accept undue burden test
Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter/Sotomayor, Breyer --- support Casey Undue Burden Standard, but
probably more --- they may also support the Compelling state interest test (Roe standard) (b/c its
more protective of womans right to choose)
[undue burden (Casey) + CSI (Roe rigid trimester)]
Kennedy signed on to Casey, but expresses reticence in Gonzales
Embraces Undue Burden with some broader categories of state interest that could be weighed
against exercise of constitutional right to abortion
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) reaffirms constitutional protection of non-textual right to privacy and holds
that states may not prohibit private consensual sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex.
Sexuality is fundamental aspect of personhood
a. Lawrence expressly overrules Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
i. In Bowers court ruled that the right to privacy does NOT protect a right to engage in private
consensual sodomy (Georgia law applied to both homo and hetero sex)
1. Bowers held that right to privacy only pertained to matters of family, marriage, and
reproduction which did NOT fit with homosexual activity. (moral disapproval was the
rational basis for the law no fundamental right or heightened level of scrutiny used)
a. Originalists Court should protect rights as Fundamental only if they are
supported by:
i. the Constitutions text,
ii. the framers intent, or
iii. a tradition of being safeguarded.
b. Dissent: morality not enough to force religious views on everyone (although it
doesn't completely disregard morality as a consideration, just not for a matter of
private conduct)
b. Lawrence v. Texas Kennedys Majority Opinion:
i. Both a Due Process and Equal Protection Challenge
81
ii.
i.
ii.
iii.
1. Due process challenge state cant regulate my liberty (right to engage in intimate
behavior) state cant come in and regulate my personal conduct
2. Equal Protection state may or may not be able to regulate sodomy (substantive right),
but focuses on the comparative approach and cant say its okay for one group and not
another
Kennedy argues that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
extends to consensual homosexual activity and expressions of sexuality
1. However Kennedy does NOT articulate a level of scrutiny
a. Court did NOT speak of a fundamental right or strict scrutiny
i. But Kennedy did rely on right to privacy cases where strict scrutiny
has been used before.
b. Court seems to engaged in some kind of heightened scrutiny
i. TX justified law as advancing moral judgment which has traditionally
been enough for rational basis review
ii. Courts rejection of morality implies a higher scrutiny
1. Moral hatred of unpopular group is NOT a rational basis for laws
infringing on privacy.
iii. Court is reluctant to create new fundamental rights or new suspect
classes
2. Kennedy rejects originalism Text, Intent, Tradition is NOT dispositive
a. Our notions of liberty do change
b. Living Document approach to Constitution
i. Development of liberty is important and there should be adaptation over
time --- evolving awareness of intimate bond and importance of the right
ii. Is it okay to give this level of authority to judges? allows them to
enforce THEIR VISIONS of liberty and equality over other elected
branches of govt.
iii. This case embraces an evolving sense of Constitutional liberty (like
Grisw, Roe and Eisns)
c. Kennedys opinion crucially grounded the right of consenting adults to have sex
on how intimate and personal the conduct was to those involved, not on the
conduct being traditionally protected by society (as in Bowers), procreative (as in
Eisenstadt and Roe), or conducted by married people (as in Griswold). He
eloquently says: Autonomy of self & Dignity; Intimate sexual conduct in
home (or other private place). Quotes Casey: the right to define ones own
concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human
life.
The state has NO legitimate interest to enter peoples private lives and prohibit individual
expressions of sexuality and personhood
1. Bowers misconstrued the liberty at stake It demeans homosexuals to speak in terms
of the only liberty asserted is to engage in sodomy
2. Rather sexuality is an expression of personhood and is protected by the right to
privacy. (Bowers failed to recognize the impact the denial of this right would have)
Two cases support overturning Bowers: Casey (constitutional protection for personal liberties)
and Romer (struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as violation of EP
clause)
Majority HOLDS: "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify
its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," this is a Constitutionally
82
protected right to privacy right to engage in private, homosexual, consensual conduct (No
standard explicitly set forth, seems more than RBT some elevated form of scrutiny; doesnt
alter RBT, but says this statute is simply irrational)
iv. Kennedy expressly says this case does NOT require gay marriage recognition
83
Scalia Dissent The sum of all the Courts nonspecific hand-waving seems to be a mixture of EP, SDP,
and a dash of some amorphous federalism Court has exalted view of its role. We should be especially
careful before assuming Congress and President are acting out of hate
Alito Dissent Cant possibly be a SDP claim. No history of such a right. No EP claim, either. Not similarly
situated. Totally rational to require two persons of opposite sex to have marriage.
Roberts Dissent Very worried about looking at legislative intent; Should not be so quick to embrace
animus rationale; Long history of banning same-sex marriage
II.
RIGHT TO MARRY:
Loving v. VA: cannot be upheld unless they are shown to accomplish a permissible state objective independent of the
racial discrimination. In the present case, there is no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial
discrimination that justifies Virginias classification.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Under the DP and EP Clause of 14A, state laws banning are unconstitutional: a.k.a states must
issue marriage licenses and recognize lawful out-of-state marriages for same-sex couples. Rationale Though marriage
has historically been viewed as between opposite-sex couples, the institution has changed over time, including through the
changing legal status of women. Similarly, while same-sex relationships were once forbidden, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539
U.S. 558 (2003), the Court held that same-sex couples had an equal right to intimate associations. Refusing to allow samesex couples to marry denies them a myriad of legal rights, including those related to taxation, insurance benefits, intestate
succession, spousal evidentiary privileges, child custody and support, etc. In this instance, the liberty interest protected by
due process intersects with the right to equal protection, and same-sex marriage bans violate both.
State Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage:
o Traditional definition of Marriage (Alito argument)
o Will lead to fewer opposite-sex marriages by severing connection between marriage and procreation and childrearing
o Children are better off with mom and dad
o We dont know yet what will happen
o Argument against Slippery Slope:
[T]hese cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no
risk of harm to themselves or third parties.
Kennedy (SDP rationale) view of role of HISTORY and TRADITION?: History a starting point but not ending point.
Times can blind can have new insights revealing liberty interests.
Reasoning for finding of Fundamental RightUltimately, the four principles underpinning the protection of the right to
marry apply equally to opposite and same-sex couples:
(1) the right to choose whether and whom to marry is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy;
o Loving; Griswold; and all other cases protecting contraception, family relationships, procreation, and
child-rearing for privacy and autonomy reasons
(2) the right serves relationships that are equal in importance to all who enter them;
o Avoid STIGMA of knowing their families are lesser (Sounds like Brown)
(3) assuring the right to marry protects children and families, which implicates the myriad of rights related to procreation
and childrearing; and
o Gay couples often have biological and/or adopted children
84
Refuse Treatment: There is constitutional right to individuals to refuse medical treatment, BUT it is not
absolute and can be regulated by the statement.
a. Law upheld that required vaccinations; reasoned that state had compelling interest in preventing the
spread if the disease.
b. Struck down law requiring prisoners to take antipsychotic drugs; reasoned that the injection into a nonconsenting adult is an interference w/ their liberty
i. However, court ruled interference was avoided with proper notice and opportunity to present case
against recommendation of medical professional
ii. Although court generally agrees with this right, they have never explicitly indicated the level of
scrutiny it deserves.
Cruzan v. Director: A state may require that a guardian seeking to remove life-prolonging treatment prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the person in the persistent vegetative state would have wanted the
treatment withdrawn under such circumstances. Only competent person can refuse. Taking away life
sustaining treatment is different than requesting death inducing treatment.
II.
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) Washington v Glucksberg and Vacco v Quill: SC rejected facial
challenges to state laws prohibiting aiding a suicide and the claim that there is a constitutional right to
physician-assisted suicide (the laws were upheld as Constitutional)
a. FACTS: Dr. Harold Glucksberg, a physicianalong with two other physicians, three terminally ill
patients, and the non-profit organization, Compassion in Dying, counseling those considering assistedsuicide challenged Washington state's ban against assisted suicide in the Natural Death Act of 1979.
They claimed that assisted suicide was a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
b. Rehnquists Majority Opinion:
i. On review, the United States Supreme Court held that history, legal traditions, and practice
support criminalizing assisted suicide. (argues for rooted in history approach to rights)
ii. History provides no right to assisted-suicide, and neither does Constitution because
assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was therefore not protected under the
14th Amendment.
c. Due Process Interpretation:
Substantive Due Process analysis has 2 parts:
1. Due process clause protects fundamental rights and liberties deeply rooted in Nations history
and tradition and implicit in concept of ordered liberty (this idea doesnt easily fit Eisdt and
Roe ---- we adopted a middle ground b/c weve adopted some non-textual rights --- if we adopt
liberties that are non-textual, need to be grounded in history)
2. Fundamental liberty interest must described specifically to see if grounded in history, practice and
tradition
d. Level of Generality:
i. Rehq --- wants to describe right specifically (lowest level of generality) -- have we historically
given protection to the right of someone to assist in suicide?
85
ii. Breyer much broader right --- have we given Constitutional protection to the right to die
with dignity? (the higher the level of the generality, the less you are able to claim that the right
is grounded in history)
e. RATIONALE:
i. Cruzan doesnt authorize right b/c idea that you can refuse treatment is different than taking an
affirmative act to take your life and have someone assist you in process
ii. Casey - Intimate personal decisions rooted in tradition/history --- Prosecution makes argument
here that this must also cover the end of life
Rehq says that this may be a similar right, but weve never protected it
Not one of historical pedigree
But the rights in Casey are procreative, but we need to limit how broad how we go
c. What standard?
i. RBT state has interest in preservation of human life
ii. Court concludes there is no fundamental right implicated by suicide ban, but is the law rationally
related to a legitimate state interest?
HOLDING the assisted-suicide ban was rationally related to a legitimate government
interest because Washington sought to preserve human life and for protection of public-health
interest
Law also upholds the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.
Additionally, Washington's statute sought to protect vulnerable groups, such as the poor,
elderly, and disabled from abuse, neglect, and mistakes and equally valued all lives.
Finally, the Court held that Washington's ban on assisted-suicide effectively prevented a
broader license to voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.
d. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS: These rights arent good candidates for significant judicial
intervention (unlike earlier cases)
This is a right we can entrust to the legislature and dont have to decide ourselves
Large part of decision not to constitutionalize right to decide the end of life
o By removing decisions from democratic process not always effective (as demonstrated by
beginning of life issues)
o How do you come up with a workable standard and rules?
o There shouldnt be pointed intervention b/c we will ALL face this one day
Here the legislature will be doing it to everyone equally, not to a specific group of
people (powerful incentive to do the best you can since all are affected)
The court will SAY:
You might have the right as applied, but not on the face as these cases (Cruzan and Washington) were
brought
Court treads tentatively Doesnt want to remove question from political process
86