Constitutional Law II - Lupu - Fall 2004 - 2

8/11/2019 Constitutional Law II - Lupu - Fall 2004 - 2

1/54

CON LAW IIFall 2004

Professor LupuA. Levin

INCORPORATION OF THE BILL OF RI HT!

The Bill of Rights (BOR) applies only directly to the FEDERAL GOVTo B!t" # $t (%arren $o!rt) &egan incorporating the BOR into the D' cla!se of the th A*end*ento This ga+e citi,ens the sa*e protections against their states as they are afforded against the federal go+t

're-.ncorporation (OLD A''ROA$/) 0 BOR do not restrict state a!thority1 only federal a!thority (Barron + Balti*ore)Barron + 2ayor 3 $ity $o!ncil of Balti*ore

Facts4o ' s!ed city clai*ing +iolation of 5 th a*end ta6ings cla!se &eca!se state of 2D too6 his

property7!se of his 8harf in Balti*ore har&or /eld4

o ' didnt ha+e a clai* that 5 th a*end*ent protected hi* against ta6ings &y the state 8itho!tco*pensation

/ad the fra*ers intended for BOR restrictions to apply to the states" they 8o!ld ha+edone so E9'RE##L:

; original approaches to incorporation4 (*ore detail &elo8)Total .ncorporation

; #electi+e .ncorporation

". TOTAL INCORPORATION #Bla$%& The original p!rpose of the th a* 8as to incorporate all of the BOR This *ini*i,es

i (i e 0 the co!rt cant =go shopping> for rights?pic6ing and choosing rights to protect against state action) $riticis* of this approach4

i Total incorporation 8o!ld !nd!ly li*it state a!tono*y in enforcing cri* la8 instead of gi+ing greaterdeference to the states" as the only parts of the BOR they ha+e to co*ply 8ith are those essential to thecore of

ii @ot all of the BOR are the sa*e 0#o*e 8ere *eant to protect the states and restrict the federal go+t

; .t doesnt *a6e sense to restrict the states %7R7T the a*end*ents that 8ere *eant to protectstate rights rather than citi,en rights (this arg so*eti*es *ade %7R7T ; nd a*)

2. !ELECTI'E INCORPORATION #Car(o)o * Fran%fur+er& There is no general r!le that *a6es all a*end*ents apply to the states as they do the federal go+t ses the =f!nda*ental fairness *eas!ring stic64>

i The O@L: rights applica&le to the states 8ere those that 8ere =principles of

ii This refers to the core pro+isions representing f!nda*ental principles (i e D') 0 ('al6o + $onnectic!t)

iii .f the th

* a&sor&ed so*e of the BOR" it 8as &eca!se li&erty and inside the BOR" the co!rt *ay pic6 !p s!&stanti+e as 8ell as proced!ral rights

The court has NEVER specifically said that ALL of the BOR apply to the states, but one by one, they have incorporated all BOR provisions EXCE T!

o ; nd A* 0 right to &ear ar*so Crd A* 0 right not to ha+e a soldier !artered in a persons ho*eo 5th A* 0 right to grand

th A* 0 right to

A Le+in 'age 75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


2/54

o Hth A* 0 right against e cessi+e finesB!t the other pro+isions of the H th a*end*ent (i e e cessi+e &ail) DO apply to the states)

Any BOR pro+ision that applies to the states applies 8ith the sa*e a*o!nt of force as it does to the federal go+t

PO!T,CI'IL WAR A-EN -ENT!

Bac6gro!nd to 'ost-$i+il %ar a*end*ents4o Dred #cott + #anford

Facts4 .n+ol+ed constit!tionality of 2isso!ri co*pro*ise of H; " 8hich legislated that there 8o!ld &e no

sla+ery in certain territories Dred #cott 8as sla+e in 2isso!ri and *o+ed to free state of .L Later" he 8as ta6en &ac6 and sold to

so*eone else #cott arg!ed that 8hen he 8as ta6en to .L he &eca*e free" and therefore co!ldnt &eco*e a sla+e again

8hen ta6en *ac6 to 2O/eld"

Blac6s not part of =people> of #" and not citi,ens of the # #ince cant &e citi,ens" no di+ersity

rights i*plicated &y Art .V" J;

!lau/3+er3ouse $ases ( H C 0 5 yrs after th a*end ratified) (5- ) Facts4

o LA granted *onopoly to one sla!ghterho!se and forced others to closeo B!tchers s!ed" clai*ing depri+ation of the right to e ercise their trade !nder C th and th

a*end*ents The reg!lation of place and *anner of sla!ghtering is e ercise of #TATE police po8er4

o 'ro+ides for health and co*fort of citi,ens '!rpose of th a*end*ent 8as to co*plete the e*ancipation pro+ided for in the C th a*end*ent" &y

a!thori,ing $ongress to recogni,e the rights of freed *en

A Le+in 'age ;75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


3/54

o /O%EVER4 The th a*end*ents lang!age does not refer to sla+es or the history gi+ing riseto the a*end*ent

$o!rt arg!es that e+en tho!gh the 5 th a*end is the only one that specifically *entions &lac6s doesnt*ean that the other ; dont address the sa*e concern Therefore" any fair and

'3. cla!se4o .ntended to protect citi,en of a state against federal go+t only" not the legislati+e po8er of his

o8n stateo #pea6s to citi,ens of #" not citi,ens of states

Art .V" J ;4 '3. &et8een stateso Cor+fiel( v. Cor ell

Fo!nd so*e rights to &e f!nda*ental rights" &elonging to citi,ens of all freego+ern*ents.ncl!des protection of 8anderers 0 #tates *!st allo8 citi,ens fro* other states to

p!rs!e interest that their o8n citi,ens can p!rs!e $o!rt says that the &!ndle of rights in the th a*end*ent is the &!ndle of rights gi+en in Art .V" J ; 0

these rights attach to citi,ens of the #" not the citi,ens of stateso The p!rpose of li*iting the rights protected against the states &y the '3. cla!se it to assist a

ret!rn to nor*alcy after the ci+il 8ar

Ri"hts afforded to citi#ens of the $% "ov&t fro' the () Clause!o Right to &e a citi,en of the #o Right to co*e to seat of go+t and assert clai*s against that go+to Right to transact &!siness 8ith the go+to Right to see6 go+t protection" share its offices" engage in ad*inistering its f!nctionso Right of free acess to seaportso Right to de*and care and protection of the fed go+t o+er life" li&erty and property 8hen on

the high seaso Right to peacea&ly asse*&le and petition for redress of grie+anceso Right to petition for the 8rit of /$o Right to !se the na+iga&le 8aters of the #o Rights sec!red &y treaties 87 foreign nationso Rights sec!red &y C" 5 th a*end*ents

These rights arise o!t of a relationship &et8een a citi,en and the national go+t #tates are not per*itted to interfere 8ith these rights

Fiel( issen+5o Ta6es +ie8 that '3. cla!se in Art .V has &een carried o+er to the th a*end*ent" so th a*

does confer protection to the &!tcher plaintiffso Therefore" LA la8 is !nconstit!tional &eca!se it discri*inates against so*e %7R7T the right

to p!rs!e la8f!l e*ploy*ent

This case e e*plifies a deep di+ision as to 8hat &!ndle of rights the th a*end*ent adopted andi*posed on the states

nli6e the C th and 5 th a*end*ents" the th a* lang!age is not anchored to sla+ery and freedo* of &lac6s

o th a* lang!age 8as *!ch *ore general1 designed to o+err!le Barron " &!t no clear 8ay tosay that the lang!age really *eant one thing or the other

o After the #la!ghterho!se cases4Re*aining !estion - %hat is the th a*end*ent s!pposed to doK.t loo6s li6e the th a*end 8as designed to do so*ething *ore than deal 8ith sla+ery 0 relates to the *istr!stof the states going &eyond

A Le+in 'age C75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


4/54

/o8e+er" it is slightly res!rrected" playing a s*all role in !aen) v. Roe

!aen) v. Roeo $A i*posed 8aiting pd to &e eligi&le for 8elfare &enefits to disco!rage ppl fro* pi+ing there

E PROCE!! * THE INCORPORATION CONTRO'ER!6

*nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, +ithout of la+-

Application of the BOR to the states is the *ost i*portant constit!tional de+elop*ent in the ; th cent!ry

Battle &et8een #ELE$T.VE and TOTAL incorporation4o 2a

Took the total incorporation position #aid that all of the BOR 8as *eant to &e incorporated &y the th a*end*ent '!rpose of th a*end*ent 8as to o+err!le Barron Thin6s that *a


5/54

Approach e*phasi,es restraint4 not a

The*es predo*inating in Pal%o and A(a son 4o !estions of federalis*o 'ro&le*s of o&

o Total incorporation#aid that the f!nda*ental fairness7ordered li&erty approach 8as too +ag!e and left too *!ch roo* fors!& First ti*e the co!rt effecti+ely said that the BOR 8o!ld &e applied to the states 8as in the ; s 0 i+lo7 v. ! C s 0Car(o)o 1Pal%o v. Conne$i+u+ - tal6 a&o!t 8hat concepts are i*plicit in the concept of ordered li&erty as a 8ay to

deter*ine 8hich rights are incorporated 5 s and I s 0 2ain p!sh for incorporation !nder the %arren co!rt1 r!sh of incorporation cases

Curren+ approa$35 -us+ loo% a+ 73a+ pro+e$+ions are fun(a en+all fair an( ne$essar +o or(ere( li8er+ in +3e $on+e9+ of

+3e PRE!ENT s s+e #ra+3er +3an in an i a/ine( s s+e &. # un$an&o un$an v. Louisiana

Facts4 D con+icted of *isde*eanor1 so!ght

year sentence$o!rt as6s 8hether the I th a*end*ent g!arantee is essential to f!nda*ental fairness" and sho!ld therefore &eapplied to the states/eld"

The I th a*end*ent right to a

B!t the *ethodology for the decision a&o!t 8hat federal rights apply in state co!rts is 8hat things 7rights are f!nda*ental to the A*erican syste* of

Harlan (issen+ 4 /e doesnt thin6 that the th a*end*ent re !ired national !nifor*ity $oncerned a&o!t states rights Thin6s that the process &y 8hich co!rt incorporates so*e &!t not all a*end*ents is illogical (=/o8

did 8e get thereK>)

The after*ath4 Al*ost TOTAL incorporationo Beginning in the early I s" %arren co!rt &egan to apply *ost of the g!arantees of the BOR to the states 8itho!t

saying so specifically that they 8ere a&andoning the f!nda*ental fairness standardo $o!rt achie+ed this &y finding the BOR g!arantees to &e f!nda*ental one-&y-one" rather than incorporating the* all atonce

The court has NEVER specifically said that ALL of the BOR apply to the states, but one by one, they have incorporated all BOR provisions EXCE T!

o ; nd A* 0 right to &ear ar*so Crd A* 0 right not to ha+e a soldier !artered in a persons ho*eo 5th A* 0 right to grand

th A* 0 right to



6/54


7/54

! B!TANTI'E E PROCE!!

*nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, +ithout of la+-

#!&stanti+e D'4o Definition4 %hether the go+t has an ade !ate reason for ta6ing a8ay a persons life" li&erty or property

Generally" 8here la8 li*its the li&erty of ALL persons to engage in so*e acti+ity" it is a D' !estion.f the la8 treats si*ilarly sit!ated persons differently" its an E' pro&le* (see &elo8)

Applica&le standards of re+ie84o #!&stanti+e D' rights are generally either s!&


8/54

! B!TANTI'E P an( ECONO-IC RE LATION T3e Rise an( Fall of u(i$ial In+erven+ion

THE LOCHNER ERA ICIAL INTER'ENTION * ECONO-IC RE LATION

D!ring the Lo$3ner Era" the $o!rt constricted the state police po8er and aggressi+ely safeg!arded indi+id!al rights &yapplying strict scr!tiny

o Lo$3ner v. N6

Facts4 @: la8 prohi&ited the e*ploy*ent of &a6ery EEs for *ore than hrs7day or I hrs786 L con+icted of per*itting an EE to e ceed ho!rly 8or6 li*its

/eld" The la8 interferes 8ith the right of M &et8een EEr and EE The general right to M is part of the indi+id!al li&erties protected &y the th a* D' cla!se

There is so*ething a&o!t the inade !acy of the s!&stanti+e

A(air v. ! sed 5 th A*end*ent D' to &ar =yello8 dog> Ms on interstate RRs /arlan stated that the right of a person to sell his la&or on the ter*s he dee*s proper is the

sa*e as the right of the p!rchaser of la&or to prescri&e consitions

o -ini u Wa/esA(%ins v. C3il(renDs Hospi+al Overrule( 8 Wes+ Coas+ Ho+el v. Paris3

$o!rt held D$ la8 prescri&ing *in 8ages for 8o*en +iolated D'o %ages 8ere different fro* ho!rs &eca!se 8o*en 8ere no8 e !al to *en (post th

a*)" and there 8as no reason to dist!r& the relationship &et8een legal e !als andtheir e*ployers

o Res+ri$+ions on 8usiness en+r an( o+3er e$ono i$ re/ula+ionsNe7 !+a+e I$e Co. v. Lie8 an

A Le+in 'age H75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


9/54

.n+alidated an OM la8 that treated *an!fact!re of ice li6e a p!&lic !tility and re !iredcertification as prere !isite to entry of the &!siness

ECLINE of LOCHNER The doctrines of the Lochner era i*peded legislati+e atte*pts to deal 8ith the pro&le* of d!e process Restrictions li*ited &oth the state and federal go+ern*ents $riti !e of Lochner - in the na*e of li&erty of M" Lochner era !nreasona&ly restricted the police po8er of states

$o!rt &egins to lighten !p on econo*ic legislation" and not stri6e it do8n 8hen there is legit p!&lic interest ( Ne88ia v. N6 )

A state is free to adopt 8hate+er econo*ic policy *ay reasona&ly &e dee*ed to pro*ote p!&lic 8elfare" and to enforce that policy &y legislation adapted to its p!rpose ( Ne88ia v. N6 )

.f the la8 passed see*s to ha+e a rational relation to a proper legislati+e p!rpose and are neither ar&itrary nor discri*inatory"the re !ire*ent of D' is satisfied ( Ne88ia v. N6 )

o Ne88ia v. N6 ( C )Facts4

@: legislat!re esta&lished a *il6 control &oard 8ith po8er to fi *in and *a retail prices to &echarged &y stores to cons!*ers

The prices 8ere reg!lated at the retail le+el" &eca!se the retailers 8ere setting the prices so lot thatthe far*ers 8ere not profiting

@e&&ia con+icted of selling *il6 &elo8 the *ini*!* price/eld"

$o!rt !pholds the la8" &eca!se a state can reg!late prices 8hene+er it 8o!ld achie+e a p!&licgood" 8hether there 8as a *onopoly pro&le* or not

$o!rt says that once they see that there is a p!&lic good" and that there is so*e concei+a&lerelationship &et8een the states action and the good" then the in !iry is done

$o!rts are not a!thori,ed or co*petent to deal 8ith close scr!tiny of relationship &et8eenlegislati+e *eans chosen and legislati+e ends assigned

o (This is VER: different fro* Lochner )Dissent4

Loo6s at the pro&le* &y saying the it *a6es *il6 cons!*ers pay *ore &eca!se far*ers are ha+ingecono*ic tro!&le1 see*s li6e econo*ics redistri&!tion arg!*ent

$o!rt no8 8illing to !phold *in 8age la8s ( Wes+ Coas+ Ho+el v. Parris3 )

o Wes+ Coas+ Ho+el v. Parris3O+err!les Ad6ins/eld"

$o!rt !pholds *ini*!* 8age la8s .f there is an ine !ality of &argaining po8er that per*its e*ployers to e ploit circ!*stances of

e*ployees" then the legislat!re can respond/ere" constriction on the police po8er disappears

-O ERN APROACH TO ECONO-IC RE LATION

$!rrent approach to econo*ic reg!lation rep!diates the Lo$3ner Erao D!ring the Lo$3ner Era" the $o!rt constricted the state police po8er and aggressi+ely safeg!arded indi+id!al

rights &y applying strict scr!tinyLochner ele+ated the freedo* of M to a f!nda*ental constit!tional principleB!t?this era no8 sy*&oli,es overreaching judicial activism

Only *ini*al protection of econo*ic li&erty is pro+ided &y the $onstit!tion

2ost *odern co!rts hold that4o #tates are free to adopt 8hate+er econo*ic policy *ay reasona&ly &e dee*ed to pro*ote p!&lic 8elfare" and to

enforce that policy &y legislation adapted to its p!rpose



10/54

o .f the la8 passed see*s to ha+e a reasona&le relation to a proper legislati+e p!rpose" and it is neither ar&itrarynor discri*inatory" the re !ire*ent of D' is satisfied

The !se of property and entering into Ms shall &e free of go+t interference" &!t neither of these rightsare a&sol!teThe g!arantee of D' de*ands O@L: that the la8 not &e !nreasona&le" ar&itrary or capricio!s" and thatthe *eans selected ha+e a REAL and # B#[email protected] relation to the o&

o This is a +ery diffic!lt &!rden to o+erco*e

! v. Carolene Pro(u$+so $o!rt re

To &e constit!tional" the la8 doesn!t have to "e in ever# respect logicall# consistent $%its aims .ts eno!gh that there isan e+il that *!st &e corrected" and that the legislat!re tho!ght that the la8 8as a rational 8ay to correct it ( LeeOp+i$al )

The legit ends of the go+ t (reasons &ehind the la8) *!st ser+e so*e p!&lic good or p!&lic interest The co!rt attri&!tes the p!rpose of the stat!te fro* its *eans1 does not loo6 for e+idence of the co!rts act!al p!rpose

8hen deciding 8hether it is constit!tional ( Lee Op+i$al )

Willia son v. Lee Op+i$al Facts4

o OM la8 *ade it !nla8f!l for any person not a licensed opto*etrist or optha*ologist

to fit lenses to a fact 8itho!t a 8ritten prescriptiono 'ossi&le legit reason for this - *ay &e trying to rectify so*e health7safety pro&le*o 'ossi&le illegit reason for this 0 antico*petiti+e p!rpose (!nconstit!tional 0 no

p!&lic good or interest) /eld4

o The la8 does not ha+e to &e in e+ery respect consistent 8ith its ai*s to &econstit!tional1 its eno!gh that there is an e+il that *!st &e corrected" and that thelegislat!re tho!ght this la8 8as a rational 8ay to do it

o $o!rt doesnt loo6 at the possi&ility that the la8 is anti-co*petiti+e



11/54

o E a*ple of *ini*!* rationality re+ie8 0 *!st ha+e so*e rational connection &et8een the chosen *eans and the states legiti*ate ends" 8hich *!st ser+e so*e p!&lic good or interest

o This holding is Anti-Lochner 0 .f the Lochner era co!rt had s!spected that this 8asanti-co*petiti+e legislation" they 8o!ld scr!tini,e the *eans that 8ere !sed o get tothe ends

o @OTE 0 This co!rt re


12/54

o .n E' ter*s" if this 8ere

E ec Dir of 'lanned 'arenthood and a licensed physician and professor 8ere cri*inally p!nished &eca!se they ga+e infor*ation" instr!ction" and *edical ad+ice to *arried persons as a *eans of pre+enting conception$hallenge to ; $onnectic!t pro+isions -

Any person 8ho !ses dr!g or instr!*ent for p!rpose of pre+entingcontraception shall &e s!&o i/ni+ar In+eres+s Cons+raine( 8 Tra(i+ional Re/ula+ion (/arlan)Those interests that ha+e &een historically reg!lated &y states or other co!ntries*ay re*ain to &e reg!lated Tho!gh states *ay offend the re !ire*ents ofli&erty so*eti*es" the co!rt sho!ld &e e tre*ely rel!ctant to stri6e do8n stateaction if states ha+e historically acted in this *anner

La8s cannot &an the distri&!tion of contracepti+es ( Eisens+a(+ v. Bair( ) The distinction &et8een the *arried and the !n*arried is an !nconstit!tional distinction ( Eisens+a(+ v. Bair( )

Eisens+a(+ v. Bair( O+ert!rned con+iction !nder a la8 &anning !se of contracepti+es on E' challenge



13/54

o /o8e+er" co!rt a+oided decision of of 8hether f!nda*ental right recogni,ed inris7ol( e tened &eyond !se to distri&!tion and &eyond *arried co!ples to non-*arried

co!ples .2'ORTA@T4 The distinction &et8een the *arried and the !n*arried is an !nconstit!tional

distinctiono Applying E'" distinction &et8een *arried and !n*arried is not s!spicio!s classification"

&!t ## still applies &eca!se the discri*ination has to do 8ith the distri&!tion of af!nda*ental constit!tional right

#$ said that the right of pri+acy is the right of the indi+id!al (*arried or single) to &e free fro*

!n8arranted go+ t intr!sion into *atters so f!nda*entally affecting a person as the decision8hether to &ear or &eget a child Q&!t this case 8as decided on E' gro!nds This &roadened ris7ol( " 8hich arg!a&ly co!ld ha+e &een read to only protect *arried persons

#tates cannot prohi&it sales or distri&!tion of contracepti+es to *inors !nder I 8ho do not ha+e appro+al fro* alicensed physician ( Care v. Popula+ions !ervi$es In+Dl )

Care v. Popula+ions !ervi$es In+Dl 'ost-Roe case /eld"

o #tr!c6 do8n @: prohi&ition on sale or distri&!tion of contracepti+es to *inors !nder Io #tandard of re+ie8 0

## re !ired for restrictions on constit!tionally protected right of decision in*atters of child&earing%hen state &!rdens a f!nda*ental right" its atte*pt to

&are assertion that the &!rden is connected to that policyo QDecided on E' or D' gro!nds(K)

$onc!r (%hite)o #tate did not de*onstrate that the prohi&ition against distri&!tion to *inors contri&!tes to

the deterrent p!rposes of the state $onc!r (#te+ens)

o .rrationality of *eans e*ployed1 states sho!ldnt &e a&le to disco!rage !nderage se &ys!&


14/54

st tri*ester 0 @o state interest" e+en 8o*ens health" is strong eno!gh toreg!late a&ortion (e cept to re !ire licensed health professional to do the

proced!re; nd tri*ester 0 #tate co!ld reg!late in the interest of a 8o*ans health" &!treg!lation has to &e narro8ly tailored to this interestVia&ility 0 @ot defined in ter*s of n!*&ers or 8ee6s"

Dissent (%hite" Rehn !ist)o There is nothing in $onstit!tion that s!pports this

RELATE I!! E! AFTER ROE5

o F N IN RE!TRICTION!#tates can fa+or child&irth o+er a&ortion (-a3er v. Roe )#tates $A@ grant *edical &enefits for child&irth &!t deny the* for nontherap!tic" *edically !nnecessary

a&ortions 8itho!t +iolating the $onstit!tion ( -a3er v. Roe ) #tate is free to !se its reso!rces to enco!rage child&irth

%o*en ha+e the right to chose an a&ortion" &!t no right or entitle*ent to state f!nds to carry o!t that right(#a*e as saying that yo! ha+e right to o8n a g!n" &!t state doesnt ha+e to &!y it for yo! )

#tate can do 8hat they 8ant 8ith their &!dget Federal go+t can decide to only rei*&!rse the states for paying for pregnancies that in+ol+e rape" incest" or life-sa+ing ter*inations ( Harris v. -$Rae ) Q.s thiscorrect(K)



15/54

'!&lic e*ployees can &e restricted fro* perfor*ing a&ortions 8ithin the scope of their e*ploy*ent(We8s+er v. Repro(u$+ive Heal+3 !ervi$es )

@ote4 ho8e+er" its !nclear if the state 8as the sole s!pplier of the a&ortion ser+ice" 8hether theres!lt *ight &e different

o HEALTH RE LATION#tate cannot re !ire that all ; nd tri*ester reg!lations ha+e to &e perfor*ed in hospitals ( A%ron v. A%ronCen+er for Repro(u$+ive Heal+3 )

A%ron v. A%ron Cen+er for Repro(u$+ive Heal+3o Facts4

La8 said that all ; nd tri*ester a&ortions had to &e perfor*ed in hospital" arg!ingthat these are *ore co*plicated and necessary for 8o*ens health" and ; nd se*ester has possi&ility of +ia&ility that state can protect

o /eld"Does not pass ## &eca!se not narro8ly tailored to interest in *aternal health

The la8 enco*passes fet!ses that ha+e not reached +ia&ility #tate *ade a&ortions *ore e pensi+e and less con+enient 0 !nd!e

&!rden placed

o CON!ENT * NOTICEPa+ien+ Consen+

#tates *ay insist on patient consent &eca!se of ordinary *edical nor*s .*posing 8aiting periods 8hile pro+iding info a&o!t options 8as held (post- Roe " pre-Case " to &

!nconstit!tional &eca!se it 8as done in first tri*ester ( A%ron )

!pousal Consen+ #tate cant pre+ent a 8o*an fro* ha+ing an a&ortion 8itho!t spo!ses consent ( Planne(

Paren+3oo( v. anfor+3 )o La8 a!thori,es the one 8ho &ears the physicality of the pregnancy to ha+e the last 8ord

Paren+al Consen+ #un arrie( inors& #tates ordinarily can re !ire consent of a parent &efore intr!si+e *edical treat*ent of !n*arried

*inor

%hy does this r!le gi+e 8ay 8hen !n*arried *inor see6s to ter*inate a pregnancyKo R!le is that if state insists on notice to parents" the constit!tion re !ires a

str!ct!reA *inor 8ho doesnt 8ant to notify her parent a&o!t her a&ortion can go &eforea

!TAN AR CHAN E! N E B R EN! #tate can reg!late pre-+ia&ility as long as it does not create an =!nd!e &!rden> on the right to ter*inate a pregnancy

#Planne( Paren+3oo( v. Case &$t resol+ed the tension &et8een the co*peting interests of the *other and the state &y !sing the = un(ue8ur(en +es+ > There is a distinction &et8een pre-+ia&ility and post +ia&ility

o 're-+ia&ility r!lesBefore via8ili+ a s+a+e a NOT PROHIBIT a8or+ions 8u+ i+ a a(op+ re/ula+ionspro+e$+in/ +3e 3eal+3 an( life of +3e o+3er as lon" as the re"ulation doesn&t i'pose anundue burden4substantial obstacle to the +o'an&s ri"ht to have an abortion1

The *eans chosen &y the state to ad+ance its interest in potential life *!st &e calc!lated toinfor* the 8o*ans free choice" not to hinder it



16/54

Th!s" the states p!rpose DOE# @OT /AVE TO BE $O2'ELL.@G" and the *eansdont ha+e to &e narro8ly tailored

The 8ur(en of persuasion is on the party attac6ing the reg!lation to sho8 it i*poses as!&stantial o&stacleThe ct has fo!nd that the follo8ing DO @OT constit!te an !nd!e &!rden

A&ortions *!st &e perfor*ed &y licensed physicians 'hysicians 8ho pro+ide the 8o*an 8ith tr!thf!l infor*ation a&o!t the nat!re and

ris6s of the proced!re Re !ire*ent that the 8o*an 8ait ; ho!rs &efore gi+ing her infor*ed consent in

ha+ing the a&ortiono This *ight &e an e tra layer of cost to the 8o*an" &!t its not an o&stacle

to8ards her getting an a&ortion Re !ire*ent that *inors o&tain parents consent Q or &oth " as long as there is a

=&ypass proced!re> 8here&y the *inor can o&tain the a&ortion 87o!t her parentsconsent &y o&taining the consent o the judge The

o The *inor is s!fficiently *at!re to *a6e her o8n decisiono .f she is not s!fficiently *at!re" ha+ing an a&ortion 87o!t her parents

consent is in her &est interestThe follo8ing constit!te an !nd!e &!rden

#po!sal consent and notification la8s are !nconstit!tional This is a 8o*ans right"and a h!s&and *ay not ha+e a&sol!te +eto po8er

The ref!sal of go+ t to f!nd or pro+ide facilities for a&ortions This is so e+en if the go+ t f!nds or pro+ide facilities for child&irth This is &7c !nder

Roe " the state has an interest in potential life" and th!s *ay enco!rage child&irth Additionally" p!&lic e*ployees can &e restricted fro* perfor*ing a&ortions 8ithin

the scope of their e*ploy*ent ( We8s+er v. Repro(u$+ive Heal+3 !ervi$es ) @ote4 ho8e+er" its !nclear if the state 8as the sole s!pplier of the a&ortion ser+ice"

8hether the res!lt *ight &e different

o 'ost-+ia&ility r!lesThe go+ t 2A: 'RO/.B.T a&ortions" e&cept 8here necessary to protect *others life orhealthThe iss!e of 8hether the fet!s is +ia&le is a physicians

!pousal No+i$e in Case /!s&and has interest in the life of his child 0 this is a legit state interest /O%EVER" pro+ision is !nconstit!tional

o Despite e ceptions in the notice re !ire*ent for 8o*en 8ho say that / is not father orthat she fears +iolence fro* hi*" this pro+ision places an @D E B RDE@ on 8o*en

For instance" 8o*en 8ho dont fall !nder the e ception &!t still dont 8ant totell h!s&and" 8o*en that dont fear +iolence" &!t fear tension" press!re" andconflict" etc.t doesnt *atter ho8 *any 8o*en fit !nder these circ!*stances1 the point isthat it is a s!&stantial o&stacle and !nd!e &!rden for those 8ho do

Infor e( $onsen+ an( 24 3our 7ai+in/ perio(s in Case This is @OT !nconstit!tional Despite possi&ility of poor 8o*en ha+ing a hard ti*e 8ith the ; ho!r 8aiting period" co!rt

doesnt see this as s!&stantial o&stacles

o Par+ial Bir+3 A8or+ions (!+en8er/ v. Car3ar+ )A state *ay @OT co*pletely &an 'BAs" &7c this 8o!ld &e an !nd!e &!rden on a 8o*ans right to choosethe pre-+ia&ility a&ortionThe state 2A: &ar one type of 'BA if

there are other ade !ate" safe *ethods of a&ortion a+aila&le" A@D the la8 pro+ides an e ception for those instances 8hen the proced!re is necessary to preser+e the

life or health of the *other A Le+in 'age I75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


17/54

'BAs incl!de .nd!ced la&or .ntra-!terine in

'risoners ha+e the right to *arry" and it can t &e conditioned any *ore strictly than anyone elses right to*arry ( Turner v. !afle )

o Ri"ht to 6eep e2tended fa'ily to"ether The state cannot pro*!lgate legislation that restricts fa*ily relationships Tho!gh there is a strongtradition of e tended fa*ily life" there is no tradition of the legal reg!lation of e tension of fa*ily Fa*ily

cannot &e restricted to a certain definition %hile the states interests *ight &e legiti*ate" the *eans are nottight eno!gh ( -oore v. Eas+ Clevelan( )B!t" in order to &e considered a fa*ily" all *!st &e related #$ said there is no traditional right to li+e 8ith

people 8ho are not yo!r fa*ily *e*&ers ( Belle Terre v. Boraas )

o Ri"ht to control the upbrin"in" of one&s children'arents ha+e a right to direct and control the !p&ringing of their children This incl!des4

%ho cares for the children %hat ed!cation the children recei+es %hat relati+es are allo8ed +isitation rights" etc ( Tro9el v. ranville )

The state *ay in


18/54

o Ri"ht to en"a"e in private consensual ho'ose2ual activityThe #$ has @EVER said that the right to engage in certain se !al acts is f!nda*ental B!t" it did stri6edo8n anti-sodo*y la8s applied to consenting ad!lt *e*&ers of the sa*e se in La7ren$e v. Te9as2oral disappro+al" &y itself" is ins!fficient to +alidate a stat!te !nder D'$ rational &asis re+ie8

La7ren$e v. Te9aso Facts4

o /eld"

o Ri"ht to refuse 'edical treat'ent co*petent ad!lts ha+e the right to ref!se *edical care" e+en if its necessary to sa+e their li+es

this has ne+er e pressly &een r!led a f!nda*ental right" tho!gh/o8e+er" the state *ay re !ire clear and con+incing e+idence that the patient does not 8ant to contin!etreat*ent &efore that is ordered The state can pre+ent fa*ily *e*&ers fro* ter*inating treat*ent(Cruzan v. 'irector( )issouri 'ept. o *ealth )

o There is NOT a ri"ht to physician5assisted suicideWas3in/+on v. lu$%s8ur/ 4 there are longstanding state policies against aiding 3 a&etting s!icide that*!st &e !pheld

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o !+an(ar( of revie7 in priva$ $ases5.f the right &eing asserted falls !nder right of pri+acy" then 8hat is the standard of re+ie8K

Bet8een Roe ( C) 0 Case ( ;)" standard 8o!ld &e strict scr!tinyThere is no si*ple ans8er no8Case reaffir*s the core of Roe " saying that prohi&itions on a&ortion pro-+ia&ility are !nconstit!tional #o" it reaffir*san o!tco*eCase per*its reg!lations" &ased on standard of !nd!e &!rdens (.ts o8n standard of re+ie8 )#o 8hat a&o!t other non-a&ortion iss!es of pri+acy 0 %hat standard of re+ie8KLa7ren$e *!ddied the 8aters

La7ren$e doesnt reiterate strict scr!tiny/ard to .D the standard of re+ie8 in this caseThis case not fra*ed in standard of re+ie8 ter*s$o!rt said that there can &e ethical7*oral state concerns" &!t they 8ere not 8eighty eno!gh to i*posecri*inal la8 on peoples se !al pri+acy in this case

@o disc!ssion of narro8 tailoringFra*ed in ter*s of degree of intr!sion on pri+acy" and states

#e !al inti*acy is part of right to pri+acy" &!t no e plicit standard of re+ie8#o" its hard to 6no8 8hat standard is for other pri+acy cases 0 %e

A Le+in 'age H75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


19/54

EG AL PROTECTION

*nor deny to any person +ithin its 3urisdiction the e7ual protection of la+s-

E' foc!sed on classifications" 8hereas D' is foc!sed on reg!latory *eans The E' cla!se of the th a*end*ent only applies to state and local go+ t E' ideals are applied to the federal go+ t thro!gh

the D' cla!se of the 5 th a*end*ent %hen a la8 is in+alidated on E' gro!nds" it doesnt *ean that the cond!ct *ay not &e reg!lated at all

o .t *eans that the partic!lar *ethod for go+erning the cond!ct 8as too discri*inatory" and the legislation *!st &eredra8n to ha+e a &roader i*pact This is an effecti+e practical g!aranty against ar&itrary and !nreasona&le go+ t

o %hen a la8 is in+alidated on D' gro!nds" the ct is saying that the go+ t cannot *a6e certain cond!ct illegal

4 anal +i$al s+eps of EP5". W3a+ is +3e $lassifi$a+ion 8ein/ a(e>2. Is +3e $lassifi$a+ion (is$ri ina+or >:. W3a+ level of s$ru+in s3oul( 8e applie(>4. Is +3e re/i e $ons+i+u+ional un(er +3a+ level of s$ru+in #appli$a+ion&>

CLA!!IFICATION!

". WHAT I! THE CLA!!IFICATION BEIN -A E>

! !PECT CLA!!IFICATION!

Ra$ial Classifi$a+ions Q&ased on race or national origin ( ore a+su )o All legal restrictions 8hich c!rtail the ci+il rights of a single racial gro!p are i**ediately s!spect and deser+e

the *ost pressing7rigid scr!tiny ( ore a+su - go+ t s!r+i+ed ## in this case" tho!gh)

ore a+su v. !o Facts4

D!ring %%;" *ilitary co**anders p!t Papanese A*ericans in ca*ps" ga+ethe* c!rfe8s" and e cl!ded the* fro* the %est $oast

o /eld"Racial classifications are s!spect" and sho!ld get strict scr!tiny(B T 0 didnt rigidly apply strict scr!tiny)

o @OTE 0 This case is se*inal case standing for proposition that racial classifications areinherently s!spect" and s!&


20/54

o /o8e+er" the ct has RAREL: !sed the ## in a traditional sense .nstead" AA re+ie8 *!st &e tho!ght of as acontin!!*4 the

Findings *ade &y a co*petent &ody that past discri*ination act!ally occ!rred A narro8ly tailored progra* A sho8ing that race-ne!tral alternati+es ha+e &een tried" and ha+e failed Racial distinctions

sho!ld &e a last resortAfter A(aran( " the fed go+ t ca*e o!t 8ith Reg!lation on the $o*pelling Federal .nterest" a generico+erreaching co*pelling interest finding for the fed go+ t" as it 8as trying to doc!*ent the cases of

prior discri*ination in +ario!s ind!stries B!sinesses can !se this to sho8 their need for i*ple*entingAA progra*s 0 ho8e+er no &!siness is pres!*ed disad+antaged *erely &7c it is *inority-o8ned

o A(aran( Cons+ru$+ors v. Pena ( 5)Facts4

'olicy S iss!e - .f yo! hire *inority fir* for a M" get a &on!s fro* thego+t

/eld" @o decision on facts of the case1 # $t stated the la8 and re*anded #trict #cr!tiny is appropriate in this case1 re+ie8 sho!ld &e searching1

strict in theory &!t not necessarily fatal in fact R!les dont change 8hether *inorities are fa+ored or disfa+ored The sa*e r!les apply for federal go+t as for state and local go+t

This case o+err!les -e+ro Broa($as+in/

Co pellin/ in+eres+s are NOT5 /a+ing *inority teacher role *odels for *inority st!dents ( W /an+ )

o W /an+ v. a$%son B(. Of E(

Facts4 Teacher lay-offs and *inority hiring progra* Dont !se p!re seniority syste* for layoffs1 6ept *inorities 8ith less

e perience in order to preser+e the rational *a6e!p of the trachingforce

/eld" This practice 8as !nconstit!tional (&!t no *a

po8er of $ongress to enforce th a*end*ent

A Le+in 'age ; 75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


21/54

o sing this po8er" $ongress is co*petent &ody to *a6e findingof past discri*ination

Disting!ishes M set asides fro* conte t of e*ploy*ent and ed!cationthat in+ol+es indi+id!als

o M ad+antage progra*s foc!s on fir*sThis is pro&le*atic &eca!se the 8or6force *ay not

&e represented &y *any *inorities1 identified o8nerco!ld

progra*s

'l!rality opinion doesnt !se any con+entional standard of re+ie8

#tate legislat!res7local a!thorities ha+e not afforded the sa*e deference as afforded to $ongress inFullilove (Ri$3 on( v. Croson Co. ).n order to

/eld" #trict scr!tiny sho!ld &e applied to AA progra*s .n order to


22/54

T3ere are : reasons 73 +3e !C finall (e$i(e( +o appl !! in AA #A(aran(&5 #6epticis*

o There needs to &e a caref!l in !iry" strict in theory &!t not necessarily fatal in fact $onsistency

o The standard of re+ie8 is the sa*e 8hether *inorities are fa+ored or disfa+ored $ongr!ence

o The sa*e r!les apply to the fed go+ t as do the state go+ t

o Affir a+ive A$+ion in E(u$a+ion

The ct has held the follo8ing to &e co*pelling interests4 Re*edying past discri*ination

o /o8e+er" this arg!*ent in the conte t of AA dra8s the necessary concl!sion that AA*!st end e+ent!ally since past discri*ination 8ill e+ent!ally &e re*edied

Achie+ing racial di+ersityo This pro*otes cross racial !nderstanding" &rea6s do8n racial stereotypes" and

ena&les f!t!re leadership to ha+e legiti*acy &y allo8ing *inority representation ofthe leaders

o This arg!*ent s!pports the proposition that AA *ay contin!e indefinitely as long asthe school can pro+e that it contin!es to 8or6

The follo8ing progra*s ARE narro8ly tailored

$onsidering race as one factor in the applicants candidacy Accepting a =critical *ass> of !nderrepresented *inorities so that the *inorities feelco*forta&le and not isolated ( ru++er )

o There *!st &e an indi+id!ali,ed consideration so that race is not !sed in a*echanical and infle i&le 8ay ( ru++er )

Re"ents of California v1 Ba66e ( H)o F4 $ Da+is *ed progra* had !otas for &lac6 st!dentso /eld4 @o *a%hite cheats &y saying" =%e 8ill loo6 at these factors for ne8 classes" &!t raceis already settled >

o 'o8ell4 /is +ie8 on Re*ediation is still the *a


23/54

O$onnor is s8ing +ote (&ig s!rprise)1 !pholds la8 school progra* andin+alidates !ndergrad syste*

La8 school !ses race as one of se+eral factors in indi+id!ali,eddecision*a6ing process 2ore fle i&le1 s!& p!&lic schools for children of different races still a*o!nts to !ne !altreat*ent This is &7c e+en tho!gh the tangi&le factors are the sa*e (sa*e a*o!nt of &oo6s"classroo*s)" there are too *any intangi&le factors (&eing a&le to socially integrate 8ith othersthat are different" learning their +ie8points" etc) cr!cial to ed!cation that cannot &e e !ali,edif races are separated

To separate races inherently s!ggests that one race is inferior to the other" 8hich is se+erelyda*aging ( Bro7n v. Boar( of E(u$a+ion )

G A!I,! !PECT CLA!!IFICATION!

o EN ER The original te t of the $onstit!tion ne+er referred to 8o*en at all There 8as no federal protectionagainst la8s e plicitly treating 8o*en different than *en The th A*end*ent is the only one thataddresses e pressly any aspect of a 8o*ans e !ality (right to +ote)For *any years" the co!rt fo!nd it accepta&le to treat 8o*en differently &ased on their =delicate nat!reand need for protection > Qand th!s applied rational &asis re+ie8 0 &asically s*!ggling their ideologiesinto the constit!tionE' protects O@L: those 8ho are #.2.LARL: #.T ATED

A+erage Differences4 the state *ay @OT generally ta6e into acco!nt a+erage differences &et8een the se es 8hen enacting a la8 (only hiring *en &7c they" on a+erage" are strongerthan 8o*en 0 &!t there are so*e 8o*en 8ho are stronger than so*e *en)

o There is a presumption against rel#ing on average di erences in making a la$.nstead of saying only *en can ha+e this certain circ!*stances" li6e pregnancy) o There is a presumption o validit# here" &!t still *!st as6 8hether the reg!lation isreasona&le 87regard to the p!rpose of the la8

o The legislat!re *ay @OT *a6e o+er&road generali,ations &ased on se 8hich areentirely !nrelated to any differences &et8een *en and 8o*en" or 8hich de*ean thea&ility or social stat!s of the affected class

!$3lesin/er v. Ballar( o Facts4

@a+y pro*otions1 different r!les for 8o*en and *en

A Le+in 'age ;C75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


24/54

Go+t arg!ed that *en and 8o*en ha+e different opport!nities in the @a+y" sonot si*ilarly sit!ated 8ith regard to pro*otions

o $ase is not a&o!t re*ediation1 its a&o!t ad

o #pecial case for a lot of reasonsCalifano v. We8s+er

o Facts4A&o!t #oc #ec &enefitsBenefit co*p!tation for*!la &enefited 8o*en and not *en

This 8as case a&o!t re*ediation and re*edying past 8rong of pastdiscri*ination against 8o*en#o*e tailoring of re*edy to the prior 8rong

o /eld"'artic!lar for*!la of &enefit co*p!tations 8as s!&stantially related to there*edial p!rpose

There are not *any physical difference cases ( Aielo " -i$3ael - )o -i$3ael - 0 %o*en *ay s!ffer affects of teenage pregnancy *ore than *en

.f there are real physical differences &et8een *en and 8o*en that are rele+antto the p!rposes" then they are @OT si*ilarly sit!ated 8ith regard to those

p!rposesTherefore" rational &asis re+ie8 is s!fficient hereDissent arg!ed that this la8 8as a&o!t +irt!e and gender" and not real physicaldifferences

#o*eti*es there is !ncertainty a&o!t 8hether la8 iso #o" it 8o!ld see* safer to ha+e inter*ediate scr!tiny al8ays apply to gender

classifications" and 8here real differences are in+ol+ed" then that &ears on the !estion of8hether the standard of scr!tiny is satisfied

Reed v1 Reed ( ) -- the rationality standard gets ratcheted !p a notch F4 #tat!te preferred *en o+er 8o*en as ad*inistrators of estates /4 Violates E'

o $o!rt p!rported to apply rationality std" &!t in re

; " and to fe*ales !nder H /olding4 does this deny E' to *ales !nder HK :es

o @e8 #tandard4 The conc!rring and dissenting opinions +ie8ed the *a


25/54

an i*portant and legiti*ate go+ern*ent interest (dont ha+e to sho8 *orereasona&le alternati+e) =inter*ediate scr!tiny>

Application4o O&

@ot the sa*e training in *ilitary or leadership" not the sa*e !ality offac!lty" al!*ni" prestige" rep!tation

@e8 #tandardK4 2a#calia s Dissent4 the $onstit!tion *!st adhere to tradition

E+en if there are real differences" the go+ t *ay ha+e to choose a gender neutral alternative " if one isreasona&ly a+aila&le A gender ne!tral alternati+e *eans either e-ualizing up or do$n fro* the reg!lation at iss!e An alternati+e is only reasona&ly a+aila&le if it does not ha+e a ad+erse effect on the p!rpose

of the la8 (e g disco!raging girls fro* reporting rape if its illegal for &oth se es to ha+e se!nderage ) ( -i$3ael -. )

o LE ITI-AC6 Q&orn into *arriage or o!t of 8edloc6These are !asi-s!spect &7c of the stig*a la8s cast against non-*arital children" and &7c this is ani**!ta&le trait fi ed at &irth

o ALIEN! (non-citi,ens of the #)Alienage is a !asi-s!spect classification 8hen states !se it

This is &7c state la8 is &ased on state citi,enship" so any la8 against the* is pres!*ed to &e &ased on ani*!s to8ards o!tsiders

B T" the FEDERAL go+ t has the plenary po8er to treat non-citi,ens differently fro* citi,ens" and thestandard is a lo8 rationality one/o8e+er" states *ay e cl!de non-citi,ens fro* *e*&ership in the political co**!nity" li6e +oting"and significant go+ t positions (high p!&lic office 0 elected positions" or policy positions" schoolteachers and la8 enforce*ent)

OTHER CLA!!IFICATION!

o ECONO-IC



26/54

o A EAge classifications *ay &e s!& rational &asis standard > ( -ass B(. Of Re+ire en+v. -ur/ia )

o -ass. B(. Of Re+ire en+ v. -ur/ia#!stained 2ass la8 that *ade police officers retire at 5 years old=Rela ed> rational &asis standard applied 0 La8 f!rthers p!rpose of see6ing to

protect the p!&lic &y ass!ring physical preparedness of its !nifor*ed police%hen iss!e is 8hether the go+t can discri*inate &et8een people o+er or !nder

5 " the classifications +alidity is *eas!red &y 8hether the classification ser+es alegit p!rpose !estions to as6 a&o!t age classifications (These !estions are a&o!t the resilts of the decision to

classify &ased on age)4o Are these classifications fair 8ith respect to si*ilarly sit!ated personsKo .s an age classification an efficient 8ay for the go+t to sort o!t 8ho gets the &enefit and

8ho doesntKo /o8 e pensi+e or diffic!lt is it to test e+eryone 8ho 8ants the &enefit" li6e in -ur/ia " a

police officerK

Age classifications do not 8arrant heightened scr!tiny &7c they are rarely &ased on ani*osity or pre

%e !se age all the ti*e as a *eas!re of entry into so*e opport!nity (+oting" dri+ing" &!yingcigarettes 3 alcohol" consent to se " etc)

o %e e cl!de certain ages of people &eca!se 8e try to deter*ine 8hen people are *at!reeno!gh to do things 8ith significant social7political conse !ences

o .ts not efficient to test people indi+id!ally for *at!rity" and 8e 8o!ld 8orry a&o!tdiscretion of the e a*iners

o %e dont get the sense that pre

o E+en tho!gh this policy is either !nder or o+erincl!si+e at ti*es" and not perfectly fair orefficient" 8e are pretty confident that it is not pre

o !E AL ORIENTATIONThe co!rt in Ro er v. Evans (and Lof+on ) s!&


27/54

#a*e se *arriage has ne+er &een attac6ed !nder the E' r!&ric in the federal arena This co!ld &e &eca!se *arriage la8s do not classify &y se !al orientation" at least on their face E+ery indi+id!al hasthe right to *arry 0 he is

This &rea6s do8n to 8hether the right to *arry is a f!nda*ental right" or 8hether the right to*arry 8ho yo! 8ant to *arry is a f!nda*ental right

#a*e se co!ples are depri+ed of the &enefits of *arriage Right to e !ita&le di+ision of property or ali*ony in the e+ent of di+orce 'rotection against disinheritance A&ility to inherit fro* spo!se 87o!t paying gift ta es A&ility to file re+ie8 ( Cle8urne v. Cle8urne Livin/Cen+er 0 in this case" the ct looked closel# at the actual purpose "ehind the regulation and 8hether there !ire*ents i*posed &y the reg!lation applied to gro!p ho*es other than those for the *entallyretarded)

L!p! calls this =sit!ational s!spicio!sness> &eca!se tho!gh the class affected is not

s!spicio!s" the circ!*stances &ehind the la8 are +ery fishy The co!rt recogni,es thatso*ething is not right 8ith this la8" and ta6es a =hard loo6> at the act!al p!rpose and factss!rro!nding it

Cle8urne Livin/ Cen+er Facts4

o T9 city denied special !se per*it for the operation of a gro!pfor the *entally retarded" acting p!rs!ant to a *!nicipal,oning ordinance

o $L$ 8anted to open a gro!p ho*e for a *entally retardedresidence and per*it denied

o Other gro!ps can locate in this district 8itho!t a per*it(hospitals" fraternities)

/eld"o '!rports to apply rational &asis re+ie8o $lassification for *ental retardation is not considered

s!spicio!s or !asi-s!spicio!s

This also happens in Ro er .

2. I! THE CLA!!IFICATION I!CRI-INATOR6>

QLeft off here in $/E$ML.#T



28/54

The la8 *!st discri*inate against so*e gro!p 0 if there is no in

al'er v1 Tho'pson ( )o F4 2ississippi told city they 8o!ld ha+e to desegregate their pools" so the city closed all

of the*o /4 # $t re

2ost E' pro&le*s are analy,ed !sing rational &asis re+ie8 (e cept for 8hen a la8 discri*inates on its face 0 see &elo8)

: WA6! A LAW CAN BE I!CRI-INATOR65

#"& T3e la7 is (is$ri ina+or on i+s fa$e # e ure (is$ri ina+ion&

o The la8" &y its +ery ter*s" *a6es a distinction &et8een different classes of peopleE g !+rau(er v. Wes+ 'ir/inia 4 By stat!te" &lac6s 8ere not allo8ed to ser+e on

!+rau(er v. W' Facts4

o # con+icted of *!rder &y an all-8hite

/eld"o La8 8as !nconstit!tional &eca!se the p!rpose of the post

ci+il-8ar a*end*ents 8as to sec!re for &lac6s all of the rightsof 8hites

o Fact that &lac6s are singled o!t and e pressly denied the rightis an i*pedi*ent to e !al

o $o!rt doesnt in+o6e any specific standard of re+ie8o #ee*s li6e a per se r!le against i*posing la8s e cl!ding one

race fro* a right that others en


29/54

#:& T3e la7 3as a disparate i'pact, and has a discri'inatory purpose # e Fa$+o (is$ri ina+ion plusinvi(ious purpose&

o %hen la8 is facially ne!tral" ha+e to sho8 that it has &een enforced in an !nconstit!tional 8ay" or thatits enact*ent 8as *oti+ated &y !nconstit!tional p!rposes

o The la8 is ne!tral on its face and as applied" &!t it

o

Once disparate i*pact has &een sho8n" a closer loo6 at the la8 8ill only &e appropriate if the la8 is &eing enacted or *aintained for an in+idio!s p!rpose ( Was3in/+on v. avis )

o Was3in+/on v. avis ( I)Facts4

Facially ne!tral la8 ns!ccessf!l &lac6 applicants for police positions &ro!ght s!it They

had failed 8ritten test of +er&al a&ility and reading co*prehension"8hich &lac6s failed fo!r ti*es as fre !ently as 8hites

.ss!e4 'laintiffs clai*ed that this differential i*pact *ade the hiring process

+iolati+e of E' e+en tho!gh those 8ho co*posed the test had no intentto discri*inate against &lac6s ('s prod!ced e+idence s!ggesting that

perfor*ance did not correlate 87 o Ro"ers v1 Lod"e ( H;) 0 .f stat!te is enacted for race-ne!tral p!rposes &!t *aintainedfor discri*inatory p!rposesK

F4 Blac6 +oters attac6ed an at-large +oting sche*e1 arg!ed that !se of thisarrange*ent 8as intended to dil!te the &lac6 +ote/eld4

'roof of discri*inatory p!rpose" not



30/54

$o!rt held that re !isite proof of discri*inatory p!rpose had &een*ade1 the fact that no &lac6 had &een elected 8as =i*portant e+idenceof p!rposef!l e cl!sion

Altho!gh the stat!te 8asnt enacted for discri* p!rposes (&7c &lac6s co!ldnt+ote 8hen &loc6 +oting 8as esta&lished)" it 8as *aintained for that p!rpose

The larger and *ore legislati+e in character a la8*a6ing &ody is" the *ore diffic!lt it is to pro+e this 6indof !nconstit!tional taint in enact*entThe s*aller and *ore ad*inistrati+e the decision-*a6er" the easier it is to pro+e discri*inatory intent &y

loo6ing at depart!res fro* nor*al practices" press!res on the*" etcDecision to enact *!st &e sho8n to &e tainted &y constit!tionally i*per*issi&le *oti+es1 and then &!rdenshifts to other side to sho8 that the taint 8as har*less error

Pal er v. T3o pson -o #egregated poolso #!ggests that e+en if theres possi&le discri* p!rpose" if there is no act!al in

har* The iss!e of har* co*es in 8ith standing

Ro er " Cle8urne 0 $o!rt says its !sing rational &asis re+ie8" &!t still stri6es the la8 #ees so*e e+idence of discri*ination and therefore its not ordinary rational &asis

o Disproportionate i*pact is not irrele+ant" &!t its not the sole to!chstone of an in+idio!s racial discri*inationfor&idden &y the $onstit!tion An in+idio!s discri*inatory p!rpose *ay &e inferred fro* the totality of the rele+antfacts" incl!ding the fact that the la8 &ears *ore hea+ily on one race than another /o8e+er" a la8 ne!tral on its faceand ser+ing ends other8ise 87in the go+ t po8er to p!rs!e" is not in+alid !nder E' &7c it *ay affect a greater

proportion of one race than of anothero Discri*inatory p!rpose i*plies *ore than intent as +olition or a8areness of conse !ences .t i*plies that the

decision*a6er selected or affir*ed a partic!lar co!rse of action at least in part &eca!se of" rather than in spite of" itsad+erse effects !pon an identifia&le gro!p ( Feene )

o Once the ' sho8s a disparate i*pact that is enacted or *aintained for a discri*inatory p!rpose" the "urden shi ts tothe state to pro+e that the la8 8asnt enacted 87the intent to discri*inate

.f it is pro+en that the la8 8as enacted to discri*inate" then the state has an opport!nity to sho8 that theyco!ld ha+e enacted it any8ay for other reasons (i e that it 8as /AR2LE## ERROR that the la8 8asenacted for discri*inatory p!rposes)The pro&le* is" e+en if the la8 is str!c6 do8n" the state can al8ays t!rn aro!nd and reenact it for anotherreason

o To adopt a r!le that allo8s disparate i*pact 8o!ld ha+e s8eeping i*pact on other areas of the la8Al*ost all policies co!ld &e !nderstood as ha+ing negati+e effects on so*e gro!pGo+ t 8o!ld &e !nder an o&ligation to sho8 8hy it does 8hat it does all the ti*e.t 8o!ld enco!rage race conscio!sness on the part of go+ t decision*a6ers

o A disparate i*pact alone is not s!fficient to sho8 a discri*inatory p!rpose" &!t it *ay &e a factor in pro+ing there is s!ch a p!rpose

o $o!pled 87the follo8ing" disparate i*pact *ay &e eno!gh to sho8 discri*inatory p!rpose4( Arlin/+onHei/3+s Feene #)

/istorical $irc!*stances %hat is the historical &ac6gro!nd of the decisionK Does it e*erge fro* prior

racial7tension7&iasK Loo6 to the legislati+e history also

#!&stanti+e depart!res fro* prior policies This is easier to *a6e at lo8er go+ t7ad*inistrati+e le+el

'roced!ral .rreg!larities of the decision*a6er This is for agencies or ,oning &oards" not really for legislat!res

$onte*poraneo!s re*ar6s &y the decision*a6er that indicate discri*inatory p!rpose

A Le+in 'age C 75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


31/54

o The challenged action doesnt ha+e to rest solely on discri*inatory p!rposes .ts eno!gh to sho8 thata discri*inatory p!rpose has &een a *oti+ating factor in the decision (2.9ED 2OT.VE) Loo6 tocirc!*stantial and direct e+idence

/o8e+er" if there is a disparate i*pact" &!t no indication at all of a discri*inatory p!rpose" the standard isrational &asis re+ie8

/rlington *eights v. )etropolitan *ousing Corp ( )4o F4 ref!sal to re,one fro* single-fa*ily to *!ltiple-fa*ily $t reaffir*s need for

in+idio!s p!rpose if disparate i*pacto

Factors !sed to deter*ine in+idio!s p!rpose4.f disparate i*pact star6 and other8ise ine plica&le" *ight &e eno!gh along/istorical &ac6gro!nd#!&stanti+e depart!res fro* prior policies and proced!res$onte*poraneo!s state*ents of decision *a6ersReasons &y decision-*a6ers

o .f there is taint of an !nconstit!tional p!rpose" &!rden shifted to go+t to sho8 that taint8as har*less error *!st sho8 sa*e decision 8o!ld &e *ade 8itho!t !nconstit!tional

p!rposeo Facially ne!tral la8s are pres!*ed to &e legiti*ate

0eene# 4o $o!rt held that e*ployer preference for +eterans is not an E' +iolation e+en tho!gh it has

a disparate i*pact on 8o*en $o!rt said to +iolate E'$" the stat!te had to &e enacted &eca!se of the discri* p!rpose" not in spite of (&7c the ER 6ne8 it 8o!ld negati+elyaffect 8o*en )



32/54

LE'EL OF !CR TIN6

:. WHAT LE'EL OF !CR TIN6 !HO L BE APPLIE >

Re*edial interests 8ill al8ays &e co*pelling go+t interest in a p!&lic e*ploy*ent case Di+ersity of religio!s7racial7ethnic people *ay &e a co*pelling interest in certain circ!*stances

LE'EL! OF !CR TIN6

!+ri$+ !$ru+in is !sed for the follo8ing classificationso $lassifications &ased on the e ercise of the F!nda*ental Righto F!nda*ental rights incl!de

Right to tra+elRight to +ote

At large +oting sche*es and *!lti*e*&er districts are not !nconstit!tional per se /o8e+er" the ct has recogni,ed that they +iolate the th a*end*ent if they are !sed f!rther

discri*ination &y *ini*i,ing" canceling o!t or dil!ting the +oting strength of racial ele*ents inthe +oting pop!lation ( Ro(/ers v. Lo(/e )

st a*end*ent rightsright to *arryright to choose ho8 to raise yo!r child

pri+acy rights Qfor certain ,ones onlyo All s!spect classifications (i e race)

Hei/3+ene(,In+er e(ia+e Ra+ional Basis Revie7 (=hard loo6>)o This standard is often applied in sit!ations 8here the class affected does @OT &y itself 8arrant heightened scr!tiny"

&!t it is apparent fro* the facts and circ!*stances s!rro!nding the partic!lar la8 that the la8 8as pro&a&ly enactedfor an in+idio!s reason

o Re !ires e ceedingly i*portant p!rpose and e ceedingly pers!asi+e


33/54

o The legislat!re does not ever have to articulate its reasons for enacting a stat!te

o nder rational &asis" there *!st &e so*e concei+a&le legiti*ate p!rpose of the go+ern*ent" and the la8 *!st &erationally related to achie+ing that p!rpose

o .f $ongress can eli*inate &enefits for all classes of e*ployees (or other si*ilar gro!ps)" then $ongress is allo8ed todra8 lines &et8een gro!ps of e*ployees for the p!rpose of phasing o!t those &enefits and still pass rational &asisre+ie8

o Rational &asis re+ie8 pres!*es constit!tionality of the stat!te There is *!ch deference gi+en to the legislati+edeter*inations of ho8 to act

o

Also" a legislat!re is allo8ed to attac6 a general p!rpose thro!gh piece*eal legislation ( Lee Op+i$al )P!st &7c the state *ay&e hasnt chosen the &est *eans to acco*plish this p!rpose" 8hen rationality is thetest" the state doesnt +iolate E' la8s &7c the classifications are i*perfect

o The p!rpose is legiti*ate 8hen it can arg!a&ly &e said to &e 87in the state police po8er" 8hich is generallydescri&ed as the po8er to reg!late in p!&lic health" safety" 8elfare 3 *orals

o .f there are e*pirical !ncertainties a&o!t the *eans-ends relationship" the go+ t is not precl!ded fro* 8inning thecase

n(erin$lusive an( Overin$lusive Classifi$a+ions

o eneral rule5 the classification *!st &e reasona&le" not ar&itrary" and *!st rest !pon so*e gro!nd of differenceha+ing a fair and s!&stantial relation to the o&

o E A-PLE! of appli$a+ion of Ra+ional Basis revie75

Warren Cour+ #" M0s * " 0s& eferen+ial Tren( Willia son v. Lee Op+i$al

o Re

o Legislat!res are pres!*ed to ha+e acted constit!tionally" e+en if the L/ is silent

Bur/er Cour+ #Earl " 0s& Invali(a+e( La7s on EP /roun(s 7i+3ou+ asser+in/ 3ei/3+ene( s$ru+in

o ! ep+ of A/ri$ul+ure v. -oreno

A Le+in 'age CC75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


34/54

1urports to appl# rationalit# standard " &!t str!c6 do8n a pro+ision of a federalfood sta*p progra* that assisted ho!seholds li*ited to gro!ps of relater

persons$o!rt fo!nd progra* irrational" and irrele+ant to the p!rpose of the stat!te"8hich 8as to raise le+els of n!trition a*ong lo8 inco*e ho*esD!ring this ti*e" lots of hippie co**!nes &eing for*ed" and !sing go+t help8hen they 8ere a&le to 8or6$o!rt thin6s that this classification 8as *ade o!t of desire to har* this gro!p of

people1 all!des to ani*!s

This decision rests on the co!rts 8illingness to ignore the cross p!rpose" and thefact that there *ay &e ani*!s in+ol+ed #La+er " 0s& Re+rea+e( +o ore (eferen+ial ra+ionali+ revie7

o Ne7 Orleans v. u%es#!stained a @e8 Orleans pro+ision that e e*pted food +endors 8ho contin!allyoperated the sa*e &!siness for H years prior to ; for* a prohi&ition againstoperating in the French !arterThis 8as

@e8 Orleanso -ass. B(. Of Re+ire en+ v. -ur/ia

#!stained 2ass la8 that *ade police officers retire at 5 years old=Rela ed> rational &asis standard applied 0 La8 f!rthers p!rpose of see6ing to

protect the p!&lic &y ass!ring physical preparedness of its !nifor*ed police%hen iss!e is 8hether the go+t can discri*inate &et8een people o+er or !nder5 " the classifications +alidity is *eas!red &y 8hether the classification ser+es alegit p!rpose

o $o!rt 8ill &e +ery deferential 8hen e+al!ating classifications" and 8ill !phold a la8 that is either o+er or!nderincl!si+e ( Rail7a E9press )

Rail7a E9press A/en$ v. N6 Facts4

o @:$ traffic regs pro+ide that no on can dri+e on any street an =ad+ertising +ehicle>"*eaning that one cant dri+e a tr!c6 8ith an ad for so*ething else on the side

o /o8e+er" reg!lations allo8ed ads if it 8as for the tr!c6 o8ners o8n &!sinesso Reg!lation ai*ed at +ehicles !sed only or *ainly for ad+ertisingo @: co!rts constr!ed the la8 in 8ay that prohi&ited *a6ing &!siness deli+ery +ehicle into

an ad+ertising +ehicleo ' operates tr!c6s and sells space on side for ad+ertising1 charged 8ith +iolating @:$ rego ' clai*s that la8

/eld"o $o!rt applies a +ery deferential standard of re+ie8" finding that the legislat!re co!ld ha+e

concl!ded that those 8ho ad+ertise on their o8n tr!c6s dont present the sa*e traffic pro&le*

o /ere" the challenge is that so*e fol6s are incl!ded in the la8s scope and others are noto $o!rt says that the local a!thorities co!ld ha+e &elie+ed that ads for hire are *ore

distracting than other ads.f this is tr!e" then the classification has a rational relation to the p!rpose for

8hich it 8as *ade" and doesnt +iolate E'#o*e ads *ay &e *ore distracting than others Then there is o+er and!nderincl!sion at the sa*e ti*e

o O+er and !nderincl!sion is OM &eca!se legislat!res cant reg!late perfectly $onc!rrence (Pac6son)"

o Finds so*ething different fro* E' and D'D' in+ol+es the !estion of 8hether the state can reg!late at allE' is different &eca!se it is designed to *a6e s!re that legislat!re doesnt isolate*inorities and pic6 on the*1 it still per*its legislat!re to reg!late in that area"

&!t has to redo the &o!ndaries



35/54

o #!ggests that e+en if there is no real difference in ter*s of the distraction ris6 here" thereare co*peting +al!es There are also concerns for a!tono*y in &!siness

o $o!rts are e tre*ely deferential to

o Facts4$A ta syste* &enefited long ter* o8ners at e pense of short ter* o8ners$A intended to protect long-ter* o8ners in order to pro*ote sta&ility ofneigh&orhoods and pre+ent people fro* *o+ing

o /eld"pheld $As ac !isition ta syste*" 8hich &enefited longer ter* property

o8ners at the e pense of ne8er property o8nersDisting!ished Alle/3en Pi++s8ur/3$A intended to protect long-ter* o8ners in order to pro*ote sta&ility ofneigh&orhoods and pre+ent people fro* *o+ing$o!rt said that these p!rposes are legit

o The co!rt does not loo6 at the legislat!res act!al artic!lated p!rpose1 only a concei+a&le p!rpose ( Fri+) 1FCC v.Bea$3 Co uni$a+ions )

! RR Re+ire en+ B(. '. Fri+) Facts4

o 'rior to " federal la8 per*itted retired ppl 8ho 8or6ed for the RR ind!stry and o!tof it to recei+e d!al &enefits (8indfall &enefits)

o This 8as *a6ing RR &an6r!pt" so $ongress eli*inated accr!als of d!al &enefitso /o8e+er" this 8as not f!lly retroacti+e1 so*e classes had their 8indfalls preser+ed

.f already getting d!al &enefits" co!ld 6eep it

.f 8or6ed in RR ind!stry Y years" co!ld not 6eep it

.f 8or6ed *ore than ;5 years and not retired" co!ld 6eep itThis 8as &eca!se so*e people had planned their retire*ent e pecting the

&enefit1 reliance iss!eso $onstit!tionality iss!e 8as the distinction &et8een those that co!ld contin!e to recei+e

d!al &enefits and those 8ho co!ldnt /eld"

o

La8 is +alido $ongress co!ld ha+e eli*inated all 8indfall &enefits for all classes" so it 8as not

!nconstit!tional for the* to dra8 lines for p!rpose of phasing o!t the &enefito $ongress didnt achie+e its p!rpose in an ar&itrary or irrational 8ay1 it 8as &ased on

connection 8ith the ind!stry$ongress co!ld ha+e decided that c!rrency 8eighs hea+ier than longe+ity

o $o!rt has ne+er insisted that a legislati+e &ody artic!late its reasons for enacting a stat!teThis is especially tr!e 8hen the legislat!re engages in process of line dra8ing

$onc!rrence (#te+ens)"o .t is not tr!e that e+ery stat!tory classification *!st f!rther an o&


36/54

Rational &asis re+ie8 affords a strong pres!*ption of +alidity of the stat!e" and if one 8ishes toattac6 it" has the &!rden to negati+e e+ery concei+a&le &asis 8hich *ight s!pport it

o As long as a stat!tory sche*e chosen &y $ongress rationally ad+ances a reasona&le and identifia&le go+t o&


37/54

.ts la8s are !nifor*" &!t they are only applied to one person E+eryone else doesnt ha+e the la8 apply to the*

.f this is the case" then the reality is the r!le is really the one that the state is applying (in fact) ( Alle/3enPi++s8ur/3 )

%hen there appears to &e a "are desire to harm a certain gro!p ( -oreno ) .n this sit!ation" the co!rt 8ill li6ely ignore e+en legit cross p!rposes in order to in+alidate the

reg!lation B!t" the co!rts reasoning in 2oreno *ight not &e so!nd" &7c they p!rport to apply rational &asis

re+ie8" &!t then loo6 to the real p!rpose &ehind the la8o L!p! do!&ts 8hether this 8as correctly decided

%hen the go+ t passes a reg!lation o!t of concern for pri+ate pre

INTER-E IATE !CR TIN6

o To 8ithstand constit!tional challenge" classifications *!st ser+e i*portant go+ t o&

o .f e*pirical !ncertainties e ist" the go+ t reg!lation *!st failo The follo8ing are @OT s!fficiently i*pt p!rposes to

Ad*inistrati+e ease and con+enience ( Ree( v. Ree( )Gender !sed as an inacc!rate pro y for other" *ore ger*ane &ases of classifications (archaic and o+er&roadgenerali,ations) ( Crai/ v. Boren )

!TRICT !CR TIN6

o The go+ t *!st ha+e a co*pelling or o+erriding p!rpose" and the *eans *!st &e necessary to achie+e that p!rposeThis *eans the go+ t *!st !se the least restricti+e alternati+e to it Anything else failsZ

o .f there is e*pirical e+idence or do!&t" go+ t 8ill loseo There *!st &e a pressing p!&lic necessity for the reg!lation ( ore a+su 0 ho8e+er this case *ight only &e read to

apply in ti*es of 8ar or national sec!rity1 its !nli6ely the go+ t 8o!ld &e allo8ed to go that far no8 0 also" the ctclai*ed to apply ##" &!t really didnt)

%hat 8o!ld pass inter*ediate re+ie8 that 8o!ld @OT pass strict scr!tinyK (hard )o Go+t $ontracting

.t sho!ld &e easier to defend a special go+t M pro+ision for fe*ale o8ned &!sinesses than for *inority o8ned &!sinesses.n &oth cases" tal6ing a&o!t re*ediation as p!rpose for the pro+ision (di+ersity 8ont 8or6 here)For fe*ale progra*" findings need not &e as rigoro!s to


38/54

!ECON A-EN -ENT

*A +ell re"ulated 'ilitia, bein" necessary to the security of a free state, the ri"ht of the people to 6eep and bear ar's, shall not beinfrin"ed1-

Approa$3es +o +3e eanin/ of +3e 2 n( A en( en+

o =!+a+es Ri/3+s Colle$+ive Ri/3+sK in+erpre+a+ion2eaning of the a*end*ent !nder this approach

the ;nd

a*end*ent doesn!t appl# to individuals 1 rather" it *erely recogni,es the right o a state to arm its militiaso it can fight the fed go+ t if need &e

This is the *ini*!* protection the a*end*ent affords !nder any reading of it 0 the Feds *ay ne+er disar* thestates

This is the approach the $t endorsed in -iller .

0iller v1 California ( C ) F4 2iller had a sa8ed-off shotg!n /e arg!ed that he had a ; nd A* right to possess it /eld4

o /a+e to loo6 to 8hat 8as original intent of stat!te4 to *aintain *ilitia Th!s" protectionapplies to 8eapons that *ilitia co!ld carry A sa8ed-off shotg!n is not the type !sed &ythe 2ilitia

o Foc!s is on the state interest Th!s" ; nd A* doesnt protect an indi+id!al right thatsdetached for* the *ilitary

$o**ent4o The &roadest reading of 2iller regarding indi+id!al rights is that the A* protects the

right of indi+id!als to ha+e ar*s that co!ld reasona&ly &e !sed in the 2ilitiao The narro8er +ie8 of 2iller is that &y the ; nd A*" citi,ens *ay &e o&ligated to carry

ar*s /ence" its a states rights arg!*ent The Federal Go+t cant interfere 8ith a statela8

Res!lts of this approach There is a special anti-pree*ption r!le i*posed here4 !s!ally" the fed go+ t has the last 8ord 87respect to all

*atters 8ith in Article . po8er /o8e+er" here" the states la8s tr!*p fed go+ t la8s !nder this approach

This reasoning &rings !p pro&le*s of 8ho has standing to &ring a ;nd

a*end*ent s!it The state aloneK Theindi+id!als 8ho o8n the 8eapons re !ired &y the stateK /o8e+er" the fed go+ t (and also the state go+ t) can li6ely constit!tionally reg!late firear*s that 8o!ld not &e

appropriate for *ilitia !se" since the ; nd a*end*ent only gi+es the states the right to ar* their *ilitias

Rationales for the states right approach To pre+ent the fed go+ t fro* garnishing too *!ch po8er

o The states *ay ar* and organi,e *ilitias 8hich can fight the fed go+ t if it steps o!t of lineo /o8e+er" state *ilitias no longer e ist as a practical *atter nder this !nderstanding the a*end*ent

is an anachronis*" or relic7anti !e

o !op3is+i$a+e( Colle$+ive Ri/3+s Approa$3Recogni,es so*e li*ited species of indi+id!al right

/o8e+er" this right to &ear ar*s can onl# "e e&ercised "# mem"ers o the state militia " 8ho can only &ear ar*s 8hile andas a part of acti+ely participating in the organi,ed *ilitias acti+itiesThe indi+id!al right to 6eep ar*s only applies to *e*&ers of s!ch a *ilitia" and then only if the fed 3 state go+ t fail to

pro+ide the firear*s necessary for s!ch *ilitia ser+ice'resently" +irt!ally the only organi,ed and acti+e *ilitia is the @ational G!ard" 8hich gets its firear*s fro* the fed go+ t#o" as the sit!ation is no8" this approach to the ; nd a*end*ent 8o!ldnt pre+ent the total disar*a*ent of the A*erican

p!&lic

o In(ivi(ual Ri/3+s Approa$3Recogni,es the right o the individual to 6eep and &ear ar*s

This is the approached endorsed in E erson (&!t only in dicta)

A Le+in 'age CH75 Last Re+ised4 7 7;


39/54

$% v1 E'erson (; ) F4 E*erson is s!& to the =people>

o Thro!gho!t the $onstit!tion" rights are only reser+ed for people" not stateso Also" the phrase =the people> has &een not &een a reference to state interest

There is s!pport for this approach o!tside the ; nd a*end*ent 4+3 a en( en+ * Ri/3+ +o Priva$ 4 6eeping ar*s at ho*e for the p!rpose of sec!rity

o B!t" is this a traditional li&erty of the people" 8idely recogni,ed" not reg!larly challengedK#o*eti*es" &!t the right to pri+acy also re !ires that the right &e dignitary 0 iss!es of dignity and

personhood and identity are tied !p in the right at iss!eo There is no consens!s in the # a&o!t this" &!t it co!ld &e an arg!*ent

Privile/es * I uni+ies Clause ( th A*end)o The #la!ghterho!se cases recogni,ed a &!ndle of rights of # citi,enship arising o!t of the '7. $la!se

These are relational rights &et8een the # go+ t 3 its citi,enso There is an arg!*ent that one of these rights is the right of the citi,en to &e protected fro* #tate

tyrannyo #!pport of this co*es fro* the fact that freed *en after the ci+il 8ar 8ere e tre*ely +!lnera&le to

pri+ate +iolence 3 co!ldnt depend on the state for protection Also" the *ilitia act only incl!ded free8hite *en" so e+en free &lac6s 8ere li*ited in their a&ility to carry ar*s

"4 +3 A en( en+ JLife li8er+ . . .K

#ignificance of the .ndi+id!al Right Approach The ; nd a*end*ent is a L.2.T on states rights in this conte t &7c of the indi+id!als right to 6eep and &ear

ar*s o!tside of *ilitiao There is precedence for this incorporation arg!*ent !nder the esta&lish*ent cla!se of the st

a*end*ent This cla!se originally protected the states and li*ited the fed go+ t /o8e+er" postincorporation" it li*its &oth

.f there is an indi+id!al right to 6eep and &ear ar*s" ho8 sho!ld the co!rts respond to partic!lar reg!lation &ythe state or fed go+ tK

RE LATION of FIREAR-!

o W3o a 8e re/ula+e(> $ongress *ay pre+ent the follo8ing people fro* 6eeping 3 &earing ar*s4 Felons" .nco*petents"

.llegal aliens" $hildren" Dishonora&ly discharged *ilitary personnel" @arcotic addicts" Reno!ncedciti,ens"

'eople s!&


40/54

a person is prohi&ited fro* ha+ing a g!n (in E erson " the ct !pheld the prohi&ition &7cit 8as te*porary)

/o8e+er" $ongress doesnt ha+e the a&sol!te po8er to restrict this right The reg!lation sho!ld &e narro8ly tailored 0 not &e o+er&road This isn t al8ays the case

#o*eti*es reg!lations *ay &e

#!pport for a historical

conte ts (&!t" *ay&e the go+ t interest is different)

o W3a+ a 8e re/ula+e( >$ongress *ay 8ant to reg!late the possession of certain 6inds of firear*s B!t ho8 sho!ld $ongressdeter*ine 8hich firear*s the people *ay possessK

Test the 8eapons against the p!rposes assigned to the ; nd a*end*ento 'ri+ate +iolence4 the go+ t co!ld prohi&it g!ns that are not appropriate for that p!rposeo 'rotect against tyrannical go+ t4 people sho!ld" in theory" ha+e the sa*e ar*s that the

national g!ard has" other8ise they ha+e no chance of fighting the* ade !atelyThis goes too far %e cannot ha+e people 87n!6es in their &ac6yard

o O+3er issues of re/ula+ion>Li$ensin/ * Re/is+ra+ion

Fro* a reg!latory perspecti+e" this *a6es co*plete sense B!t" 8hen e a*ining this in light ofthe constit!tion" if one of the p!rposes of firear*s is protection against go+ t tyranny" then 8edont 8ant the go+ t to 6no8 8here the g!ns are

.f 8e e a*ine this in ter*s of the p!rpose of self-defense" then 8hy sho!ld there &e a concern atallK

!afe+ Re/ula+ions .f s!ch reg!lations 8ere i*posed no8" tho!sands of g!ns 8o!ldnt ha+e the*" so it 8o!ldnt &e

that effecti+e .f the go+ t tried to *a6e e+eryone 8ith an old g!n get the ne8 safety feat!res" it *ight &e an

!nd!e &!rden in o8ning the g!no F!rther*ore" if these feat!res *a6e the g!ns *ore e pensi+e" so*e 8ill &e precl!dedfro* o8ning g!ns

The cts are not li6ely to &e pers!aded &y these arg!*ents" pro&a&ly &7c of p!&lic policy reasons

o !+an(ar( of revie7 of re/ula+ions>#tates are *!ch *ore li6ely to reg!late in detail the &earing of ar*s than the fed go+ tThe standard of re+ie8 that reg!lations *!st pass is !nclear and has ne+er &een decided 0 sho!ld it &enarro8ly tailored" or *ore &roadK.n any case" the state 8ill al8ays ha+e a co*pelling interest in the reg!lation of g!ns &7c they aredangero!s

All that can &e confidently said is that it 8o!ld stop a total prohi&ition on the 6eeping of ar*s for p!rposes of personal sec!rity

The *odel *ight co*e !nder a Case standard of !nd!e &!rdens 87respect to reg!lations" 8hile the prohi&ition of g!ns is strictly



41/54

FIR!T A-EN -ENT

*Con"ress shall 'a6e no la+ = abrid"in" the freedo' of speech or the press< or the ri"ht of people peaceable to asse'ble, and to petition the /ov>t for a redress of "rievances1-

Freedo* of e pression 7 incite*ent 0 H5 0 1 I - CHFighting 8ords7rep!tation7pri+acy 0 C 0 H1 5 0 C/ate speech - H#e !ally e plicit speech 0 ; C- ;;

T3e /ov + a re/ula+e spee$3 in one of : 7a s5

o #"& Con+en+,8ase( re/ula+ions on spee$3These reg!lations *!st *eet strict scrutin#

The go+ t *!st ha+e a co*pelling interest that is necessary to the *eans it e*ploysThere are ; types of $ontent Based reg!lations

!u8;e$+ a++er res+ri$+ions 4 the application of the la8 depends on the topic of the speech 'ie7poin+ res+ri$+ions 4 the application of the la8 depends on the ideology of the *essage

o #2& Con+en+,neu+ral re/ula+ions on spee$3These reg!lations *!st *eet intermediate scrutin#

The go+ t *!st ha+e an i*portant interest that is s!&stantially related to the *eans it e*ploys

o #:& Re/ula+ions on $on(u$+ +3a+ in$i(en+all affe$+s spee$3%hen the state reg!lates the time( place( or manner o conduct or speech " yo! *!st loo6 at its interest in doingso.f the state is reg!lating the cond!ct or speech for p!&lic health and7or safety reasons" the reg!lation is justi ied

E g a reg!lation that pre+ents people fro* screa*ing at night in pri+ate neigh&orhoods doesnt prohi&it only certain *essages1 it depends on the fact that it is a dist!r&ance

- The st a*end*ent in+ol+es rights of citi,ens against r!les *ade &y their go+ern*ents Th!s" the applica"ilit# o the 2 st amendment depends e-uall# on the particular rule at issue( and the speci ic conte&t in $hich it is "eing applied

o E a*ine the la8 the person is &eing charged !nder" &eca!se it *ight &e one that doesnt i*plicate speech +al!es atall" and if it has that effect" it *ight &e only incidental to the la8s tr!e p!rpose

- /o8 *!ch protection the st a*end*ent affords depends on the type of speech at iss!e

o Poli+i$al !pee$3This is gi+en the *ost protection" !nless it falls into one of the categories &elo8" in 8hich case it *ight &ete*pered so*e8hat4

o In$i+e en+ +o Cri e 'iolen$eA state *ay not prohi&it speech ad+ocating the !se of force or +iolation of the la8s" e cept 8here

s!ch ad+ocacy is directed to inciting or prod!cing .22.@E@T la8less action A@Do this is a +ariation of the clear and present danger test p!t forth in Schenck " and prod!ces a

!estion of pro i*ity and degreeo loo6 at 8ho the spea6er is" 8ho the listeners are" 8here they are" and 8hat the historical

conte t is Q8arti*e" etcthis &!rden is on the prosec!tiono the idea that the go+ t *!st 8ait to reg!late speech !ntil danger is i**inent is consistent

87/ol*es *ar6et place theory4o if the (an/er is NOT i inen+ " the *ar6et place *ight resol+e it &y allo8ing *ore

speech a&o!t the iss!eo if the (an/er I! i inen+ " there has &een a *ar6et place fail!re" and the go+ t *!st

inter+ene to pre+ent the har*UUU .t is @OT clear 8hether this is definitely al8ays a factor One reading of

3randen"urg is that this is no longer a factor &7c 'ennis doesnt *ention it atall" and the *a


42/54

Another arg!*ent is that it 8as only a factor on the facts of 3randen"urg Or" i*ay &e that the gra+ity of the har* and the i**inence factor are in+erselyrelated4 the greater the har*" the less i**inence is re !ired and +ice +ersa (L/ands +ie8 in )asses ) This reading 8o!ld &e consistent 87 'ennis " 8here thethreat 8as a co**!nist o+erthro8 of the # go+ t" and i**inence 8asnt afactor 0 the har* 8as that great

is L.MEL: to .@$.TE or prod!ce s!ch action ( 3randen"urg )o this is a *atter of the lang!age and style of spea6ing !sed &y the spea6er o a distinction *!st &e recogni,ed &et8een e pressing ones +ie8s and opinions" and

co**anding others to act la8lesslyteaching people to &elie+e in so*ething or &elie+e there sho!ld &e action ta6enis @OT an !rging to action ( 4ates )

.ates4 %elaed4 Noto ( 5 - I ) #*ith Act con+ictions 8here ##$ held that e+en if yo! are a *e*&er

of a cri*inal gro!p 8hich ad+ocates o+erthro8ing the go+t (e+en ifyo! dont)" for a con+iction" yo! *!st4

o Mno8 of !nla8f!l ai*s" ando /a+e specific intent to f!rther !nla8f!l ai*s

2!st &e an acti+e *e*&er of the org " not a no*inal *e*&er

The action sho!ld pose a har* of so*e 6ind" &!t its de&ata&le 8hether this is still a factor" or

li*ited to the facts of 'enniso .f the gra+ity of the har* is a factor to &e considered (&7c 3randen"urg didnt o+err!le

'ennis )" this i*plies that the har* has to &e gra+e eno!gh to

#tat!tes *!st dra8 a distinction "et$een the a"stract teaching o a resort to orce or violence( and actuall# preparing a group orviolent action and steering it to s!ch action

The legislat!re *ay @OT concl!si+ely pres!*e an entire category of speech dangero!s 87o!t regard to indi+id!al conte t andcirc!*stances ( 3randen"urg " in o+err!ling 5hitne# )

The #cope of Branden&!rg4 the follo8ing co!ld arg!a&ly not &e incite*ent to cri*e $opycat cri*es

o A!thors and prod!cers define their st a*end*ent defense in ter*s of scienter" arg!ing that Branden&!rgre !ires intent to incite la8less action" 8hich the a!thor didnt ha+e

'!re info 8hich facilitates cri*eo E g %e&sites that list &o*& recipes

Aiding and a&etting cri*e

Brandenbur" v1 Ohio o F4 D is a leader of the Ml! Ml! Mlan D charged 8ith syndicalis* /is speech 8as ad+ocating and teaching

la8lessness" &!t not preparation &7c not li6ely to inciteo /eld4

$on+iction o+ert!rned ##$ co*&ines the *ost speech-protecti+e aspects of &oth the =c3p

danger> test and the =ad+ocacy7incite*ent> distinction @o8 yo! *!st loo6 to ( ) facial +alidity of the stat!te (if o+er&road facially in+alid)" and (;)application of the stat!te

@e8 Test4 #peech ad+ocating the !se of force or cri*e co!ld only &e proscri&ed 8here ;conditions 8ere satisfied4the ad+ocacy is =directed to inciting or prod!cing i**inent la8less action>1 andthe ad+ocacy is also =li6ely to incite or prod!ce s!ch action >#ignificance of ne8 test4 #een as co*&ing &oth /ol*es and /and test in a 8ay that gi+es =do!&le

protection> to speecho /ol*es4 c3p legacy reflected in =li6ely to incite or prod!ce> i**inent !nla8f!l action



43/54

o /and4 8hat sho!ld &e restricted is only direct ad+ocacy of action" not *ere doctrine #een in the intentionre !ire*ent

o Ele*ents of the Test4E press ad+ocacy of la8 +iolationAd+ocacy that calls for i**inenceViolation of la8 *!st &e li6ely to occ!r

$o**ent4 .ss!es Raised &y BB4o Te*poral and #pacial .ss!es4 .n analysis for =li6ely to incite> *!st consider te*poral and special iss!es 0 if

too *!ch ti*e 8ill pass after ad+ocating" not i**inent Or if a!dience has to go far" not i**inento 2ar6et Fail!re if there is ti*e for the *ar6et to c!re the speech" pro&a&ly not i**inent (Brandeis)o 2edi!*s of $o**!nication4 The less connected the *edi!* (8e&" radio" letter) the less i**inent

nder BB Test4 Loo6 ato ( ) the har*s of the speech ando (;) the p!&ic interest (social +al!e) ofo (a) the speech and theo (&) danger of s!ppressing the speech

Fi/3+in/ Wor(s

o The state *ay &an fighting 8ords Fighting 8ords are those that &y their +ery !tterance tend to incite an i**ediate &reach of the peace (Chaplinsk# )

Fighting 8ords only tend to incite an i**ediate &reach of the peace if they are spo6en ace to ace Qi e directed at aspecific person%ords that are offensi+e &!t are not directed at anyone in partic!lar are not considered fighting 8ords ( Cohen v. C/ )

B!t" the state *ay prohi&it certain 8ords fro* &eing spo6en or displayed in certain conte ts" li6e in aco!rtroo* The stat!te *!st

#tates can t &an offensi+e 8ords

Cohen v1 California ( ) p 5 0 'laces li*its on $haplins6yo !+an(s for +3e proposi+ion +3a+ profane offensive lan/ua/e is none+3eless " s+ A

spee$3 an( a no+ 8e suppresse( un(er +3e /uise of re/ula+in/ +3e J annerK ofspee$3.

o Facts4D is charged 8ith =offensi+e cond!ct > (so this is co**!nicati+e cond!ct ) Dis in a corridor co!rtho!se and 8earing a


44/54

E*oti+e content4 %ords ha+e an e*oti+e force" people pic6 the* for a partic!lar reason

.t is not the go+ern*ents

.f there is an intent re !ire*ent" then yo! ha+e to loo6 at 8hether the person spea6ing the fighting 8ords !nderstood thelocal c!lt!re and 8hat is pro+ocati+e4

the Chaplinsk# $t says that its 8hether *en of co**on intelligence 8o!ld reali,e the 8ords tend to incite ani**ediate &reach of the peace

efa a+ion

%hether defa*atory speech is !nprotected &y the st A*end*ent depends on 8ho the speech is ai*ed at and 8hat iss!e thespeech in+ol+es

The defense to a defa*ation charge is truth 1 if the speech 8as @OT held o!t to &e tr!e (i e a parody or


45/54

o .n this case" yo! are only s!&


46/54

a*end*ent *odel 8hich 8o!ld ha+e created s!fficient predicta&ility and control in the hands of the spea6er(see

Documents

Constitutional Law II - Lupu - Fall 2004 - 2