Constitutional Law II - Lupu - Spring 2004

8/11/2019 Constitutional Law II - Lupu - Spring 2004

1/30

Constitutional Law Outline (Spring 2004, Lupu)

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

I. THEBILLOFRIGHTSANDTHEPOST-CIVILWARAMENDMENTS

1. Pre-Civil War Situation Barron v. Baltiore (1!"")# $ol%ing t$at t$e &t$ 'en%ents *ust +opensation +lause is not

appli+ale to t$e states.

o ars$all sas t$at t$e 'en%ents were not liitations on t$e states e+ause t$e Billo/ ig$ts was put in pla+e to liit t$efederal governmentso t$ere is a presuption t$at anrig$ts are assue% to liit onl t$e natl governent unless t$e Constitution epli+itl sas so.

o Loos at 'rt. 3, 5 an% 10 6 w$en t$e Constitution eant to in% t$e states, it %i%

so.o 's an institutional atter, it +oes to w$o gets to %e+i%e /or w$o, an issue o/

aut$orit. 's a sustantive atter, a set o/ national rig$ts woul% serve a uni/ing purpose.o Basi+all, in t$e pre-war perio%, t$e onl /e%eral liitation on states was 'rt. 3.

7re% S+ott v. San/or% (1!&8)# $ol%ing t$at la+s are not +iti9ens an% t$us,

no %iversit *uris%i+tion in /e%eral +ourts, an% t$e issouri Coproise was un+onstitutional, sin+e it%eprives persons o/ propert wit$out *ust +opensation.

2. :$e Purpose an% 3pa+t o/ t$e Post-Civil War 'en%ents Constitutionali9e% t$e en% o/ slaver 6 1"t$ '%., ut t$is wasnt enoug$, so in response to Sout$ern

Bla+ Co%es, Congress passe% t$e Civil ig$ts '+t, ut /a+e% wit$ un+ertain +onstitutional /ooting, itpasse% t$e 14t$ an% 1&t$ 'en%ents to +oplete t$e pro*e+t o/ ;an+ipation.

:$e .S. an% state +iti9ens? onl t$ose P

A 3 o/ t$e national govt are prote+te%, su+$ as rig$t to petition, see prote+tion an% a++ess to/e%eral instruentalities. :$us, t$e Constitution %oes not +ontrol t$e power o/ state govts overt$e rig$t o/ t$eir own +iti9ens e+ept to re@uire t$at a state grant e@ual rig$t to its own +iti9ensan% out-o/-state +iti9ens in its *uris%i+tion. :$e Court %istinguis$e% P A 3 /oun% in 'rt. 3, 2(w$i+$ prote+te% +iti9ens o/ States /ro inter/eren+e /ro ot$er states D wan%erers rig$ts).

o Held t$at t$e purpose o/ t$e 'en%ents was to prote+t t$e newl-a%e /reeen an%

+iti9en /ro t$e oppressions o/ t$ose w$o $a% /orerl eer+ise% unliite% %oinion overt$e.

o ;//e+tivel ars t$e en% o/ P A 3 as a sustantive rig$ts provision.

Saen9 v. oe (1555) (o%ern P A 3 rig$ts un%er 14t$ '%.)# stru+ %own a Cali/ornia law

t$at state% t$at i/ ou ove% to Cali/ornia, ou will not e ale to re+eive state wel/are ene/its /or aear, un%er t$e P A 3 o/ t$e 14t$ 'en%ent.

o :$e P A 3 Clause prote+ts t$e rig$t to igrate to anot$er state re@uiring states to

provi%e t$e sae privileges an% iunities to new resi%ents as t$e provi%e to t$eir own+iti9ens.

o State-+reate% ene/its are not +onsi%ere% /un%aental (wan%erers) rig$ts prote+te%

'rt. 3.

1


2/30


o :$e Court state% t$at a state +annot pro$iit people /ro +oing in to tae a%vantage

o/ w$at t$e state $as to o//er, wit$ a /ew e+eptions lie %ivor+e or in-state s+$ool tuitiono P A 3 prote+ts a rig$t to ove an% sta t$ere.

II. DUEPROCESSANDTHE"INCORPORATION" CONTROVERSY

Car%o9oEnpre%i+tale# w$i+$ rig$ts werein t$e +ore or t$e perip$er woul%+$ange wit$ new *u%ges.

:$is view is insensitive to t$e /a+t t$atsoe +lauses $ave /e%eralis +on+erns(e.g. 2n% 'en%ent)

Palo v. Conne+ti+ut (15"8)# %oule *eopar% +lause o/ t$e &t$ 'en%ent is not a /un%aental rig$t, an%t$ere/ore is not in+orporate% against t$e states? onl /un%aental rig$ts are in+orporate% into t$e 14t$ '%.

Bla+ woul% argue t$at t$e &t$ '%. governs %oule *eopar% in /e%eral +ourts, an% t$e 14t$

'%. eten%s t$e %oule *eopar% +lause to t$e states.

:$e Court re*e+te% total in+orporation in /avor o/ in+orporating onl t$ose rig$ts w$i+$ are

o/ t$e ver essen+e o/ a s+$ee o/ or%ere% liert an% ne+essar /or %ue pro+ess.

'%ason v. Cali/ornia (1548)# t$e a*orit a%$eres to t$e Car%o9o view, in $ol%ing t$at t$e prose+ution a+oent on t$e Fs /ailure to tae t$e stan%, w$i+$ is not allowe% un%er t$e &t$ '%. in /e%eral +ourts.


3/30


III. SUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESSANDECONOMICCLASSIFICATIONS

1. Pre-Lo+$ner ;ra Cal%er v. Bull (185!)# re*e+ting an '+t w$i+$ overturne% a proate +ourt an% re%istriute% propert, on

a natural law t$eor, t$at t$ere are laws t$at a inter/ere wit$ natural rig$ts o/ people even t$oug$t$ose rig$ts are not spe+i/ie% in t$e Constitution. 3/ an a+t %oes soet$ing /un%aentall un*ust an%wrong, even t$oug$ t$ere is not$ing in Constitution, weJre still going to sa itJs wrong.

ugler v. Kansas (1!!8)# sustaine% a state law pro$iiting intoi+ating everages, ut t$e Court

announ+e% t$at it was willing to eaine t$e sustantive reasonaleness o/ state legislation. =otever statute ena+te% ostensil /or t$e prootion o/ t$e puli+ orals, t$e puli+ $ealt$, or t$epuli+ sa/et woul% e a++epte% as a legitiate eertion o/ t$e poli+e powers o/ t$e State.

2. Lo+$ner ;ra# no %e/eren+e to legislative *u%gent %uring t$e reign o/ Lo+$ner-stle sustantive %ue pro+ess ut rat$er an intrusion o/ t$e *u%i+ial e+onoi+ value +$oi+es inpre/eren+e to t$ose sele+te% t$e legislature.

Lo+$ner v. =ew or (150&)# $ol%ing t$at a law pro$iiting /ree%o o/ +ontra+t (liits

overtie $ours) in t$e aretpla+e is un+onstitutional i/ it %oes not ear a reasonale relationto a legitiate governental purpose Gloos at eans an% en%sH.o Laor laws are suspe+t, an% t$e puli+ $ealt$ +onsi%erations were re*e+te%, as aers

are in no ore %anger t$an ot$er o++upations.o


4/30


West Coast otel Co. v. Parris$ (15"8)# up$ol%ing iniu wages /or woen, as it is

perissile to $ave laor laws %esigne% to re%ress ine@ualities in argaining power Ew legale@uals (i%ea in Lo+$ner t$at laor laws are illegal is t$rown out t$e win%ow).o egulation assuring paent o/ a living wage is +learl reasonale, espe+iall

+onsi%ering t$e +ost to t$e governent an% +ounit o/ t$e alternative.o ' vali% puli+ interest in preventing t$e eploitation o/ worers w$o are in a wea

argaining position.

Late 15"0s 7evelopents# %raati+ epansion o/ legislative power ut restri+tion o/ e+onoi+ %ue

pro+ess eaination? re%u+es /e%eral *u%i+ial powerEs+rutin o/ e+onoi+ poli+E%ue pro+ess. SeeWest Coast otel, =LB v. Mones A Laug$lin (15"8) (power o/ natl govt to regulate natl e+ono?$ere iniu wages an% aiu $ours), ;rie v. :opins (/e%eral +ourts sitting in %iversit+ases s$oul% appl t$e sae law as t$e $ig$est +ourt so t$e state 6 no /e%eral +oon law).

U.S. v. Ca*o/(n( P*o0uc1! Co.#$&'#o :$e Court %e+line% to +$allenge t$e rationalit o/ +ongressional /in%ings, presuing t$at

t$e legislative asis /or t$e pro$iition was soun%.Foo1no1( 2 3 ## N:$ere a e narrower s+ope /or operation o/ t$e presuption o/ +onstitutionalitw$en legislation appears on its /a+e to e wit$in a spe+i/i+ pro$iition o/ t$e Constitution, su+$ as

t$ose o/ t$e /irst ten 'en%ents, w$i+$ are %eee% e@uall spe+i/i+ w$en $el% to e era+e%wit$in t$e 14t$. T4( 5*(!u651on o7 con!11u1ona/18 494 n 0u( 5*oc(!! ca!(!2 ,u1 )4(n 1(:1!1*c1/8 5*o4,1! !o6(14n92 )(;// o,vou!/8 a04(*( 1o 14a1cou*1! 4av( 1o ,( ca*(7u/ 1o 5*o1(c1 a9an!1 14! +n0 o7

ou15u1. T4! 7oo1no1( ,(co6(! 0v0n9 /n( ,?) 5*o5on(n1 an0 o55on(n1! o7 a77*6a1v( ac1on.

4.

A71(* #$&@ Econo6c Du( P*oc(!! 6ov(! 1o 6n6u6 *a1ona/18 !1an0a*0. W//a6!on v. L(( O51ca/ Co. #$'# minimum rationality standard, an% will wor wit$out

an evi%en+e or %is+losure o/ w$at legislatures purpose was, t$e Court will presue+onstitutionalit. Part o/ t$e presuption o/ +onstitutionalit is t$at i/ we +an /in% anpossile legitiate purpose, we will use t$at, w$et$er or not it is t$e one epresse%. :$enloo to see i/ iniall rational +onne+tion Ew eans an% en%s. :$is +reates an argualinsurountale ur%en on +$allenger to prove t$at no one +oul% reasonal elieve t$at t$ese

eans a%van+e t$ese en%s.o 'ppeare% to +opletel a%i+ate *u%i+ial s+rutin o/ e+onoi+ legislation.

o ;ventuall, t$e Court +on+lu%e% t$at it woul% not overturn e+onoi+ regulations unless

t$ere was no +on+eivale *usti/i+ation /or t$e regulation, a ver $ar% ur%en /or soeone+$allenging to eet. So long as soe vali%, rational purpose +oul% e iagine%, itwoul% wit$stan% *u%i+ial s+rutin.

o S1(5 #@ 'ttriute a legitiate purpose to t$e law? ig$tve een %one /or puli+ goo%.

o S1(5 =@ eans are a rational wa to a%van+e t$e en%s Ginial rational +onne+tion

etween eans an% en%s 6 t$is +reates a $ig$ ur%en /or a +$allenger? ust prove t$at

4


5/30


=O rational legislature +oul% $ave %one t$isH. 3agine possile goo%s t$at t$is ig$tserve an% attriute it to t$e en%s.

&. But SeePunitive 7aages, etroa+tive Legislation an% t$e evival o/ Sustantive 7ue Pro+ess. ;astern ;nterprises v. 'p/el (155!)# retroa+tive legislation e+ee%e% %ue pro+ess? t$e law

+reate% liailit /or events w$i+$ o++urre% "& ears ago an% was too roa% in s+ope. BW v. Qore (155I)# striing %own a punitive %aage awar% (R2 illion /or R400 a+tual

%aages) as eing e+essive, on pro+e%ural %ue pro+ess groun%s Gi.e. /air noti+e to t$e%e/en%ant o/ potential liailitH an% in +on+urren+e, sustantive %ue pro+ess Guni/orit int$e law an% /ree%o /or e+essiveH


6/30


Post1+arren Era 3rationality review with (ite4

>.S. 7ept. o/ 'gri+ulture v. oreno (158") (outlier)# el% t$at t$e governent +oul% not %en /oo% stapsassistan+e to $ouse$ol%s o/ unrelate% persons w$ile granting assistan+e to $ouse$ol%s o/ relate% persons.Sin+e t$e state% purpose o/ /oo% staps was to raise nutrition levels in t$e low-in+oe $ousing an%strengt$en t$e agri+ultural e+ono prooting t$e +onsuption o/ /oo%, t$e +lassi/i+ation was /oun% to ew$oll unrelate% to t$e purpose o/ t$e law.

Classi/i+ations t$at $ave to %o wit$ liveli$oo% a $ave to e taen ore seriousl. ationalit reviewwoul% e+oe ore or less stri+t %epen%ing on w$ose interests were at stae.

:;, a +ongressional %esire to $ar an unpopular group wasnt a legitiate governental interest.

assa+$usetts B%. o/ etireent v. urgia (158I)# up$el% law w$i+$ set a an%ator retireent age /or state+ops as a non-invi%ious %is+riination? rationalit stan%ar% is retaine%? onl nee% to /in% soe rational reason/or +lassi/i+ation.

U.S. Ra/*oa0 R(1*(6(n1 Boa*0 v. F*1 #$&'# up$el% a retireent s+$ee w$i+$ allowe% soe worersto +olle+t %ual ene/its 6 So+. Se+. an% retireent /un%s 6 w$ile ot$ers were e+lu%e% ase% on t$eir tie

wit$ t$e railroa%. :$e Court will not invali%ate a statute erel e+ause it +onsi%ers it unwise or unart/ull%rawn? a +lassi/i+ation a e suspe+t ut i/ a reason is given, t$at is enoug$. :$e Court will not evaluate reasonaleness 6 as long as t$ere are plausile reasons /or Congressional

a+tion, t$e Courts in@uir en%s 6 even i/ t$e Congressional re+or% +ontra%i+ts w$at t$e Court /in%s is t$elegitiate reason.

'n +orrelation etween t$e +lassi/i+ation an% t$e a+tualEpresue% purpose.

:$e Qovt %oesnt generall lost ;PC +ases 6 w$at ig$t lea% t$e governent to lose ;PC +ases w$ere

t$ere are no suspi+ious +lassi/i+ationsU 'nius, +lose% set o/ purposes, +lassi/i+ation-purpose neus.

'lleg$en Pittsurg$ Coal v. Wester Count (15!5) (propert ta? govt loses)# $el% t$at West irginiaspropert ta sste, w$i+$ t$e state +oul% not *usti/ an% unlie =or%linger, was not tring to a+$ieve t$eene/its o/ an a+@uisition value sste, was un+onstitutional.

=or%linger v. a$n (1552)# up$el% t$e States a+@uisition-value taation sste 6 w$i+$ was +ra/te% to ene/ilonger-ter propert owners 6 was +onstitutional, even t$oug$ t$ere were great %isparities as in 'lleg$en,ut $ere t$e State was ale to *usti/ it arguing t$at it wante% to prote+t people /ro run-ups in propertvalue an% taation.

5n an e6tremely deferential o&inion* the ,ourt held that 7in areas of social or economic &olicy* a statutory

classification that neither &roceeds along sus&ect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must

(e u&held if there is any reasona(ly conceiva(le set of facts that could &rovide a rational (asis for the

classification)7


7/30


S1an0a*0 o7 *(v() M(an!-(n0! conn(c1on Gov(*n6(n1a/

En0!?O,(c1v(

W4a1 C/a!!7ca1on!

Ra1ona//8 *(/a1(0 ationall relate% Legitiate :$e 7e/ault, 7isailit, 'geIn1(*6(0a1( !c*u1n8

!1a1(! ,u*0(n o7

5*oo7'

Sustantiall relate%Gper$aps no neutralalternative an% +ostsH

3portant Qen%er, 'ge, 7isparate 3pa+t,3llegitiate C$il%ren,'//irative '+tion

S1*c1 Sc*u1n8 !1a1(!

,u*0(n'

=e+essar Gno ra+e-neutralalternativesH

Copelling a+e, ;t$ni+it, eligion,'lienage

V. EUALPROTECTIONANDEPLICITMINORITY-DISADVANTAGINGRACIAL

CLASSIFICATIONS

Strau%er v. West irginia (1!!0)# striing %own a state law t$at e+lu%e% la+s /ro *ur servi+es, as t$eselaws ten% to e a pro%u+t o/ pre*u%i+e, an% a ar o/ superioritEin/eriorit, an% t$ere/ore, stiulate pre*u%i+e

elsew$ere.

Koreatsu v. >.S. (1544)# $ol%ing t$at ra+ial +lassi/i+ations t$at single out inorit groups (et$ni+ an% ra+ial)are in$erentl suspi+ious an% su*e+t to stri+t s+rutin Gsuspe+t ra+ial +lassi/i+ations are un+onstitutionalunless pressing puli+ ne+essit eists /or t$eH

T)o-!1(5 ana/8!!@ #' (n0! 4av( 1o ,( /(916a1( an0 co65(//n9 !9n7can1 (nou94 1o

u54o/0 a *aca/ c/a!!7ca1on an0 14( =' 6(an! 6u!1 ,( na**o)/8-1a/o*(0 1o 14( (n0! 14(*( 6u!1

,( no *ac(-n(u1*a/ a/1(*na1v(! ava/a,/(.

3n t$is +ase, t$e Court %e/erre% to t$e ilitar in WW33, an% up$el% t$e +on+entration +aps.

Loving v. irginia (15I8)# striing %own a an on interra+ial arriages, an% stating t$at laws that classify onthe (asis of race are reviewed under eual &rotection with strict scrutiny and will not (e u&held unless they

are necessary to accom&lish some &ermissi(le and com&elling state o(8ectives) :$e states interest in prote+ting t$e ra+ial purit o/ w$ites 3S =O: a legitiate, +opelling nee%.

Copleting t$e pro+ess o/ ;an+ipation.

Palore v. Si%oti(15!4)# $ol%ing t$at a state *u%ge a not tae +usto% /ro a ot$er sipl e+ause s$earrie% a an o/ a %i//erent ra+e. :$e *u%ges ra+ial +lassi/i+ation was not ne+essar to a++oplis$ t$elegitiate state purpose o/ guar%ing t$e +$il%s wel/are, an% t$e state +annot give e//e+t to private ra+ialiases.

8


8/30


Brown v. Boar% o/ ;%u+ation (15&4)# overturning Pless v.


9/30


+ivil servi+e eaH* as the ,onstitution is concerned with laws that are motivated (y a discriminatory&ur&ose.o :$e Court %i% not want to iport :itle 33 language into t$e

Constitution (un%er :itle 33, V nee% onl s$ow %isparate ipa+t, not %is+riinator otive? ur%enis on V to s$ow ipa+t ut t$en t$e state $as t$e ur%en o/ s$owing t$e ne+essit o/ t$e poli+ an%%esire% goal).

o owever, an invi%ious %is+riinator purpose a e s$own a

totalit o/ t$e +ir+ustan+es, in+lu%ing %isproportionate ra+ial ipa+t.o :$e Court was +on+erne% e+ause alost an law $as a %isparate

out+oe.

A*/n91on H(941! v. M(1*o5o/1an Hou!n9 Co*5. #$KK'#

t$e Court rea//ire% 7avis, an% $el% t$at o//i+ial a+tion will not e $el% un+onstitutional solel e+ause itresults in a ra+iall %isparate ipa+t.o ere, t$e Court up$el% t$e +its re/usal to grant a

re@uest to re9one +ertain propert to uil% /e%erall-susi%i9e% $ousing units /or low-in+oe people,in+lu%ing inorities.

o :$e Court elaorate% on was o/ proving ra+ial

%is+riination in su+$ +ases# 3pa+t o/ t$e %e+ision (ut or%inaril ipa+t

alone not enoug$) istori+al +ir+ustan+es (ra+ial aniosit or

even-$an%e% approa+$? ogers) 3s t$is a sustantive %eparture /ro prior

poli+iesU Pro+e%ural irregularities in t$e e$avior o/ t$e

%e+ision-aer Conteporaneous stateents %e+ision-

aers ;aination o/ t$e su*e+tive otives o/ t$e

%e+ision-aers (ut t$is will onl e utili9e% in e+eptional +ases.)

o 5f you are a(le to make a &rima

facie case that the decision was tainted (y racial discrimination* then the (urden of &roof shifts to . o/ .s un%ergra%uate +ollege

were violate% >niversits poli+ o/ autoati+all %istriuting 20 points, or one-/i/t$ o/ t$osenee%e% to guarantee a%ission, to ever single un%errepresente% inorit appli+ant solel e+ause

o/ ra+e? t$at poli+ was not narrowl tailore% to asserte% +opelling state interest in a+$ievinge%u+ational %iversit.

o 7is+riination t$at violates ;PC +oitte% institution t$at a++epts /e%eral /un%s

also +onstitutes a violation o/ :itle 3Gapplies to an puli+ or private a+tor w$o re+eives /e%eralassistan+eH.

H*n9 an0 F*n9 !(1-a!0(!'


17/30


2. 3/ tra%itional, t$en as w$et$er it is a legitiate state interest, w$et$er t$e progra is narrowltailore% to t$at interest, an% w$at *usti/i+ation /or overrea%t$U

'reas o/ '+tive Mu%i+ial eview /or Priva+ ig$tsLiert in+lu%es not erel /ree%o /ro o%il restraint ut also t$e rig$t o/ t$e in%ivi%ual to +ontra+t, toengage in an o/ t$e +oon o++upations o/ li/e, to a+@uire use/ul nowle%ge, to arr, estalis$ a $oe an%ring up +$il%ren eer (+enol%s, M.) (152").

'. Control an% >pringing o/ C$il%ren >suall roote% in t$e 1st 'en%ent (a+@uisition o/ nowle%ge an% religious /ree%o)

eer v. =erasa (152")# reversing a tea+$ers +onvi+tion un%er a state law t$at pro$iite%

t$e tea+$ing o/ /oreign languages to oung +$il%ren, as it in/ringe% on t$e parents /un%aental rig$tto raise an% +ontrol t$eir +$il%ren as t$e see /it.

Pier+e v. So+iet o/ Sisters (152&)# striing %own a state law t$at re@uire% all +$il%ren to

atten% puli+ s+$ools, an% /ori%%ing paro+$ial an% private s+$ools.

B. Pro+reative C$oi+e# arriage an% pro+reation are /un%aental to t$e ver eisten+e an% survival o/t$e ra+e. Sinner.


18/30


o e*e+ts t$e /ollowing arguents /or state *usti/i+ation# (1) provi%ing a /avorale setting /or

pro+reation Gnot all arriages pro%u+e +$il%ren? not re@% state? an% non-arital +$il%rearing isa++epte%H? (2) ensuring t$e optial setting /or +$il% rearing, w$i+$ t$e %epartent %e/ines as a two-parent /ail wit$ one parent o/ ea+$ se? an% (") preserving s+ar+e State, private /inan+ial resour+es.

2. ;ten%e%


19/30


20/30


Still ust eet inial rationalit stan%ar%s an% legitiate state interests

Brennan s+$ool# rig$ts o/ autono an% person$oo% (oe), is not liite% tra%itional

lierties. ig$t to arr is a /un%aental rig$t an% state restri+tions ust e narrowltailore% to iportant state interests. ust %eterine w$at state interests are an% w$et$er lawsare narrowl tailore%# ea+tl t$e sae ur%en, et+. as i/ t$is were a gen%er %is+riinationprole un%er ;P.

nion,

suppress 3nsurre+tions an% repel 3nvasions. 3n t$is pursuit, Congress a organi9e, ar an%%is+ipline ilitias w$en +alle% in %e/ense o/ t$e >nite% States.

%. States ole# (1) 'rt. 1, 10 6 states +annot eep troops or wars$ips wit$out Congress+onsent? (2) 'rt. 1, ! 6 states $ave power o/ appointent o/ o//i+ers an% training o/ t$e ilitia.

2. 2n% 'en%ent# N' well regulate% ilitia, eing ne+essar to t$e se+urit o/ a


21/30


Sele+tive 3n+orporationist iew# is t$e 2n% '%. ipli+it in t$e +on+ept o/ or%ere% liert

(SeePalo). :$e 2n% '%. 6 i/ /or sel/-%e/ense an% t$e rig$t to eep an% ear ars 6 is a sustantiverig$t, an% t$e @uestion is w$et$er t$is is a /un%aental rig$t.

4. >nite% States v. iller (15"5)# $ol%ing t$at e+ause t$ere is no reasonale relation etween a sawe%-o// s$otgun an% possile use in a state ilitia, Congress a pro$iit, ta, an% regulate interstate+oer+e o/ su+$ weapons.

3pli+it is t$is opinion is t$e Courts assuption t$at t$e 2n% '%. onl %eals wit$+alling t$e state ilitia, an% t$e 2n% '%. prote+ts onl weapons t$at woul% e use/ul /or t$e ilitiasnee%s.

iller ig$t e rea% to pre+lu%e a /e%eral pro$iition on $an%guns, sin+e t$ese an%

siilar weapons are +ertainl use/ul /or an are% popula+e to /or a ilitia.

&. 3s t$ere an arguent t$at t$e 2n% '%. is an ana+$ronis lie t$e "r% '%.U ilitias no longer eist? t$ere is now a /e%eral ar, an% states $ave pro/essional poli+e

an% national guar% units 6 t$e nee% /or private in%ivi%uals to e are% /or t$e purpose o/ serving int$e state ilitia $as largel evaporate%, alt$oug$ states ig$t pre/er t$e option i/ t$reatene% t$enatl govt.

owever, i/ t$e 2n% '%. prote+ts an in%ivi%ual rig$t to eep an% ear ars, t$en not

voi%.

I. >nite% States v. ;erson (&t$ Cir. 2001)# $ol%ing t$at t$e 2n% '%. prote+ts ot$ t$e +olle+tiveilitia rig$t '=7 t$e in%ivi%ual rig$t to prote+t oursel/ (eep an% ear ars), ut t$e 2n% '%. issu*e+t to reasonale an% tra%itional regulations. :$is %e+ision woul% +ertainl ae a pro$iition on weapons reasonal relate% to prote+tion

un+onstitutional. ere, t$e Court /oun% t$at teporar restraining or%ers (pro$iiting Z /ro possessing a /irear)

are reasonale regulations, sin+e t$e are not grant wit$ *u%i+ial review, liite% in %uration, an%unlaw/ul violen+e in %oesti+ settings in ver $ig$.

8. ow will t$e Courts easure i/ a law violates t$e 2n% '%.U 3s t$e 2n% '%. a /un%aental rig$t (stri+t s+rutin 6 narrowl tailore% to t$e governents

interest in prevent gun violen+e an% ensuring gun sa/et) or *u%ge% un%er rational asis testU Per$aps an un%ue ur%en tests lie CaseU

!. :$e 2n% '%. onl prevents outrig$t (/e%eral %e/initel, an% possil state) pro$iitions on gunowners$ip, ut not regulator easures. "ser restrictions# people +onvi+te% o/ a /elon, people %is$onoral %is+$arge%, +$il%ren an%

entall in/ir are pro$iite% /ro owning a gun. :$ese are tra%itional restri+tions on t$at liert,

an% will liel e up$el%. Safety regulations# no guns sol% wit$out trigger lo+s, /or eaple. Courts woul% liel loo at

t$is %e/erentiall, espe+iall i/ t$e +ost is inial an% not punitive. Discretionary &ermitting systems# ou ig$t nee% o//i+ial perission to own an% operate a gun.

W$ile states a li+ense guns, it liel +annot all law en/or+eent o//i+ials great %is+retion in%eterining w$o a %o so.

Registration and (allistic finger&rint laws# govt wants to +atalogue all guns out t$ere. 3/ t$e 2n%

'%. prote+ts an ipli+it rig$t o/ are% revolution i/ /a+e% wit$ tranni+al governent, t$en itwoul% e a violation? ut i/ it sipl allows sel/-%e/ense, t$en it woul% not e.

21


22/30


5. Ot$er et$o%s o/ 3n+orporation esi%es t$e 2n% an% 14t$ '%. Privileges and 5mmunities ,lause# rig$ts arising out o/ t$e relations$ip etween +iti9ens an% t$e

/e%eral governent. 3/ t$e rig$t to eep an% ear ars is orn out o/ +on+ern wit$ a tranni+al /e%eralgovernent, t$en t$e people nee% to eep ars /or t$is purpose, an% an state law w$i+$ woul%%isar t$e people will %estro t$at relations$ip.

Su(stantive Due Process?Privacy# t$e penuras o/ priva+Ese+urit? tra%itional longstan%ing

+ivil liert to e are% in sel/-%e/ense? priva+ an% person$oo%.

FIRST AMENDMENT

I. F*((0o6 o7 E:5*(!!on Ov(*v()'

:$e nite% States (1515)# $ol%ing t$at t$e Constitution perits t$e punis$ent /or spee+$ w$en t$e

wor%s are use% in su+$ +ir+ustan+es to +reate a +lear an% present %anger t$at t$e will ring aout t$e sustantiveevils t$at Congress $as a rig$t to prevent.o :$is test /o+uses on proiit to $ar (p$si+al, teporal, eotional) 6 $ere, t$e Court /oun% t$at

S+$en+ +oul% e +onvi+te% /or +ir+ulating lea/lets inten%e% to $in%er t$e 'rs +ons+ription, sin+e t$e a+t+overe% ot$ a+tual an% +onspira+ies to ostru+t.

o See also S (1515) (t$e +ir+ulation o/ t$e paper was in @uarters w$ere a little reat$

woul% e enoug$ to in%le a /lae) and7es v. >S (1515).o Really* this test asks whether the words have a 7tendency7 to (ring a(out harm* even if there was no

&ro(a(ility that the listeners would uickly react)

22


23/30


o 3n 'ras v. >.S. (1515), oles in %issent a%%s an iinen+ re@uireent (ie%iate an% severe)

Ol% Stan%ar% (2)# %ire+t in+iteent

asses Pulis$ing Co. v. Patten (S7= 1518)# opinions +riti+i9ing t$e law a not e punis$e% as

en+ouraging t$e violation o/ t$e law G$ere, t$e postaster re/use% to %istriute a +ertain aga9ineH unless t$e /ulleaning o/ t$e epression %ire+tl +ounsels or a%vises ot$ers to violate t$e law (telling t$e t$at its t$eir %ut or int$eir interest to violate t$e law).o S+$en+ ep$asi9es proiit to %anger, ut +overs an language w$i+$ suggests lawless a+tion.

o asses proles o/ t$e $arless in+iter an% allows in%ire+t in+iteent.

Ol% Stan%ar% (")# t$e e% S+areE'sso+iation +ases

Qitlow v. =.. (152&)# $ol%ing t$at t$e Legislature +oul% %e/ine an entire +lass o/ spee+$ (spee+$

w$i+$ tea+$es t$e overt$row o/ t$e Qovernent an% +riinal anar+$ statute) involve su+$ %anger t$at t$e a epunis$e%? +lear an% present %anger test %oesnt appl.

W$itne v. Cali/ornia (1528)# +riinal sn%i+alis (use o/ violen+e to pro%u+e politi+al +$ange)?

+riinal to e+oe eer o/ group t$at tea+$es t$e overt$row o/ organi9e% govts. rs. W$itne +onvi+te% an%sustaine%, even t$oug$ s$e %i% not a%vo+ate an% even verall %issents /ro +onvention vote to +all /or ass violenta+tion to overt$row govJt. 3n +on+urren+e, Bran%ies urges 'ras iinent approa+$.

7ennis v. >.S. (15&1)# $ol%ing t$at w$en spee+$ or puli+ation +reates a +lear an% present %anger o/

attepting or a++oplis$ing a pro$iite% +rie, t$e govt a +onstitutionall restri+t t$at spee+$.

ates v. >.S. (15&8)# will liit pro$iition to urging to a+tion rat$er t$an erel elie/ in t$e en%?t$e prose+ution ust prove t$at people are a%vo+ating a+tion an% not *ust a elie/.

S+ales v. >.S. (15I1)# $ol%ing t$at un%er t$e Sit$ '+t, t$e govt ust prove not onl nowing

eers$ip is a group t$at is o/ unlaw/ul purposes, it ust s$ow spe+i/i+ intent to /urt$er its goals.

NEW STANDARD@ "14( 6o0(*n nc1(6(n1 1(!1"

B*an0(n,u*9 v. O4o #$%$'# overruling W$itne, an% $ol%ing t$at t$e 1st '%. will not allow a

state to /ori% or pros+rie a%vo+a+ o/ t$e use o/ /or+e or o/ a violation o/ t$e law unless su+$ a%vo+a+is (1) %ire+te% to in+iting or pro%u+ing Gspe+i/i+ intent? o*e+tiveH (2) iinent lawless a+tion, an% (") is

liel to in+ite or pro%u+e su+$ a+tion. Coines an%s in+iteent wit$ oles iinen+. ess v. 3n%iana (158")# overturne% +onvi+tion /or elling Well tae t$e /u+ing street later (or

again) e+ause it %i% not urge iinent lawless a+tion? t$ere was tie /or +onsi%eration t$e +row%. =''CP v. Claiorne ar%ware Co. (15!2)# reversing a large %aage awar% /ro an e+onoi+

o+ott la+ +iti9ens (one w$o sai% t$e o+ott violators woul% e %is+ipline%) e+ause ereadvocacyo/ t$e use o/ /or+e or violen+e %oes not reove spee+$ /ro t$e prote+tion o/ t$e


24/30


C$aplins v. =ew ap. (1542)# up$el% a +onvi+tion un%er t$e statute w$i+$ state% t$at no person s$alla%%ress an o//ensive, %erisive, or annoing wor% to an ot$er person w$o is law/ull in an street or puli+pla+e, not +all $i an o//ensive or %erisive nae. :$e wor%s ust ten% to in+ite an ie%iate rea+$ o/ t$e pea+e.

Several +ru+ial eleents# (1) t$e wor%s ust e /a+e to /a+e? (2) average a%%ressee? an% (") ten%

to in+ite ie%iate rea+$ o/ t$e pea+e. SeeQoo%ing v. Wilson (1582)# overturning a /ig$ting wor%s statute, e+ause it was not liite%

to /a+e-to-/a+e en+ounters or t$e average a%%ressee.

Co4(n v. Ca/7o*na #$K#'# $ol%ing t$at unless t$e spee+$ is liel to in+ite lawlessness an% violen+e, t$egovt +annot restri+t spee+$ sipl e+ause it is o//ensive ($ere, a *a+et in +ourt rea%ing /u+ t$e %ra/t). :$ere was no os+enit (not eroti+ /u+)? no /ig$ting wor%s (no /a+e-to-/a+e insult)

M. arlan states t$at t$ere is no rig$t to prote+t our sensiilities in puli+? +ertain language is

+$osen /or its eotive /or+e an% use% to gra attention. Co$en is aout t$e /ree%o to e outrageous 6 one ans vulgarit is anot$er ans lri+ 6 t$e

govt +annot regulate taste in language.


25/30


7un A Bra%street, 3n+. v. Qreenoss Buil%ers (15!&)# t$is is outsi%e t$e 1st 'en%ent, an%

a state a ipose stri+t liailit (or an ot$er liailit) i/ it +$ooses.4. +hen C is a &u(lic figure and s&eech is not of &u(lic concern* uncertainty.

:$e ore puli+ soeone is, t$e ore liel t$at spee+$ will e o/ a puli+

+on+ern.

Balan+e t$e +opeting interest, wit$ weig$t given to /ree an% in%epen%ent e%ia.

V. P*vac8 Non-D(7a6a1on To*1! an0 Inva!on! o7 P*vac8'

1. 3ntentional 3n/li+tion o/ ;otional 7istress (Paro%ies) ustler aga9ine v.


26/30


o (1) :$e wor $as to e viewe% as a w$ole? (2) nee% to loo at t$e e//e+t on t$e average

person? (") prurien+e o/ t$e aterial? (4) o//ensiveness o/ t$e presentation trans+en%s +ounitstan%ar%s.

o :$e reason t$at os+enit +an e suppresse% is t$at t$e wor is utterl wit$out re%eeing

so+ial iportan+e 6 t$at is o//ere% as t$e rationale, ut not t$e stan%ar%. Kingsle 3ntl Pi+tures Corp. v. egents (15&5)# overturning a state statute w$i+$

anne% seuall ioral /ils as overroa%.

Stanle v. Qeorgia (15I5)# $el% t$at t$e state +annot +riinali9e t$e possession o/os+ene aterial 6 t$is is a priva+ +ase, an% is liite% to t$e $oe 6 %oesnt appl to %istriution.

>nite% States v. ei%el (1581)# a//irs t$at t$ere is no /un%aental rig$t to %istriute

or sell pornograp$? t$ere/ore, t$e state +an ae it +ontraan%, ut on+e in t$e $oe, priva+applies.

M//(* v. Ca/7o*na #$K'# $ol%ing t$at os+ene aterial is not prote+te% t$e 1st

'en%ent an% +an e regulate% t$e states wit$out a s$owing t$at t$e aterial is utterl wit$outso+ial value, so long as t$e statutes w$i+$ a%%ress restri+tions are carefully limited* s&ecificallydefined statutesw$i+$ nae w$i+$ a+tions are inappropriate an% +opl wit$ +onstitutional stan%ar%so/ os+enit.o :$ree gui%elines# (1) t$e statute ust spe+i/i+all %e/ine t$e in% o/ +on%u+t

t$at a not e portrae% (solves /air warning prole)? (2) t$e average person appling

+onteporar +ounit stan%ar%s woul% /in% t$at t$e wor, taen as a w$ole, appeals toprurient interest, an% (") t$e wor taen as a w$ole la+s serious literar, artisti+, s+ienti/i+, orso+ial value.

o aling v. >nite% States (1584)# $el% t$at lo+al, not statewi%e, +ounit

stan%ar%s appl.

o Sit$ v. >.S.(1588)# t$e serious value prong is not easure% lo+al+ounit stan%ar%s.

Paris '%ult :$eatre 3 v. Slaton (158")# $ol% t$at States $ave a

legitiate interest in regulating +oer+e in os+ene aterial an% in regulating e$iition o/ os+eneaterial in pla+es o/ puli+ a++oo%ation, in+lu%ing so-+alle% a%ult t$eaters /ro w$i+$ inors an%passers are e+lu%e%.

". C$il% pornograp$ =ew or v.


27/30


,) view&oint1(ased laws

'n Boosellers 'ssn v. u%nut (8t$ Cir. 15!I)# stru+ %own or%inan+e t$at nae% pornograp$ as%is+riination against woen e+ause it was viewpoint %is+riination an% overroa% un%er iller. ' state a not %e+lare one perspe+tive rig$t an% silen+e opponents o/ t$at perspe+tive

aing t$eir a+tions illegal, even w$en t$e a+tions are $ar/ul or potentiall $ar/ul to a group o/people (su+$ as woen or +$il%ren).

4. Seuall-;pli+it ut =on-Os+ene ;pression :ie, Pla+e an% anner egulation o/ Spee+$

o Lost o/ law on t$is# ust e reasonale an% +ontent-neutral? reasonale iniall rational

o ;r9no9ni v. Ma+sonville (158&) ($ol%ing t$at 1st 'en%ent stri+tl liits t$e govts power to

sele+tivel s$iel% t$e puli+ /ro soe in%s o/ spee+$ on t$e groun% t$at t$e are oreo//ensive t$an ot$ers (su+$ as seuall-epli+it nu%it at a %rive-in t$eatre))an% S+$a% v. ount;p$rai (15!1) (nu%it alone %oes not pla+e ot$erwise prote+te% aterial outsi%e t$e antle o/t$e 1st '%.? ust regulate a++or%ing to soe iportant state interest, an% narrowl tailore%.

Xoning an% =u%e 7an+ing

oung v. 'eri+an ini :$eatres (158I)# up$el% %ispersal 9oning? re@uire% %ispersal o/ a%ult

uses? t$eor t$at a%ult uses near ea+$ ot$er attriute% to vi+e.

o 7e+ision, Stevens# t$is is low value spee+$ +it s$oul% $ave ore power to ove it

aroun% (not a a*. on t$is i%ea? ore +ontroversial). Cit +an 9one spee+$ ase% on +ontento Looing at se+on%ar e//e+ts o/ t$e spee+$T+on+erns o/ t$e +it w$ere +on+entration o/ uses

ae propert values %e+rease an% +rie an% vi+e in neig$or$oo%s in+rease (priar e//e+tseing t$e ipa+t o/ t$e aterial itsel/ on listeners, +onsuers, et+.)

o But +anJt 9one in a wa t$at allows no pla+e /or t$e aterialTt$at aounts to suppression.

enton v. Platie :$eatres (15!I)# 9oning t$eatres awa /ro resi%en+es, +$ur+$es, pars an%

s+$ools? ver little lan% le/t (onl [& o/ +it an% ost epensive lan% in +it).o :$eatres argue t$at t$ere is no evi%en+e $ere as in oung o/ prior $ar an% no reasonale

alternative o/ w$ere to go.o 7e+ision# +it +an 9one proa+tivel an% i/ lan% turns out too epensive, too a%. Ot$er

*usti+es a not sign on wit$ Stevens, ut t$e proal t$in t$is spee+$ %oes $ave a lowervalue. Yuestion o/ viewpoint %is+riination.

3/ spee+$ is seuall epli+it ut is not os+ene an% %oes not +onstitute +$il% pornograp$, it is

wit$in t$e real o/


28/30


Spen+e v. Was$ington (1584)# a non-veral a+t is spee+$ i/ t$ere was intent to +onve a parti+ulari9e%essage an% it was present an% +oul% e un%erstoo% to t$ose w$o viewe% it (%ire+t essage an% lieli$oo% o/eing un%erstoo%). Loo also at law un%er w$i+$ t$e person is eing prose+ute%# is it a rule aie% at +ouni+ative $arsU

.'.. v. St. Paul (1552)# t$e Court ep$asi9e% t$at soli+ +on%u+t as +onstitutionall prote+te%.See alsoStroerg v. Cali/ornia (15"1)# striing %own a state statute t$at /ori% anone /ro %isplaing a re%

/lag as a sol o/ opposition to organi9e% governent? Brown v. Louisiana (15II)# re+ogni9ing t$at apuli+ lirar sit-in $as


29/30


30/30


=ational So+ialist Part v. Soie (1588)# re/using to allow +ourts to en*oin =a9is /ro ar+$ing w$ilewearing swastia, as t$e Court re*e+ts govJt arguent t$at +ertain t$ings are /ig$ting wor%s per se (lieswastia, /lag urning, et+)? also re*e+ts arguents t$at t$ere were olo+aust survivors in Soie t$at woul%stir up terrile eories an% /ears.

.'.. v. Cit o/ St. Paul (1552)# unaniousl overturning a ias-otivate% spee+$ or%inan+e.

Sca/a a!!u6(! 14! ! a 7941n9 )o*0! o*0nanc( )4c4 14( -5(*!on concu**(nc( 5on1! ou1 1 !

no1 ,(cau!( 1 )a! no1 /61(0 1o 7ac(-1o-7ac( 5*ovoca1on 14( 5*o,/(6 ! 14a1 1 ! con1(n1 an0v()5on1 0!c*6na1o*82 ou1/a)n9 c(*1an )o*0! ,u1 no1 o14(*! /61(0 1o *ac(2 9(n0(*2 *(/9on2

NOT 5o/1ca/2 !(:ua/ o*(n1a1on'. ' state a liit a suset o/ unprote+te% spee+$ i/ t$at suset is parti+ularl $ar/ul (eaple, a

outlaw onl t$reats against t$e Presi%ent, e+ause o/ t$e spe+ial $ar), ut a not %raw a line ase% onviewpoint %is+riination (a not outlaw onl t$reats against epuli+ans).

Can e prose+ute% un%er ot$er lawsTterroris, arson, +riinal %aage o/ propert

Wis+onsin v. it+$ell (155")# unaniousl up$ol%ing state en$an+eent s+$ee w$en soeone sele+tsassault an% atter vi+ti on asis o/ ra+e.

ere, t$e statute %i% not punis$ epressive spee+$ as in .'.., ut unprote+te% violent

+on%u+t.

Content-neutral regulation o/ +on%u+t lie :itle 33 o/ C' (15I4)# t$e wor%s are not t$e +rie itsel/ utuse% as evi%en+e o/ otive o/ illegal un%erling +on%u+t, an% t$e State a single out ias-otivate%+on%u+t E+ t$is +on%u+t is t$oug$t to in/li+t greater in%ivi%ual an% so+ietal $ar Gretaliator +ries,%istin+t eotional $ar, an% +ounit polari9ationH.

irginia v. Bla+ (2001)# state an on +ross-urning wit$ intent to intii%ate %i% not violate 1st 'en%ent?$owever, it is a +onstitutional violation /or +ross-urning to e a pria /a+ie +ase o/ intent to intii%ate, sin+enot all +ross-urnings are eant to intii%ate (too roa%). 1st 'en%ent a//or%s prote+tion to soli+ or epressive +on%u+t as well as to a+tual spee+$.

1st 'en%ent perits a State to an true t$reats, w$i+$ en+opass t$ose stateents w$ere speaer

eans to +ouni+ate serious epression o/ intent to +oit a+t o/ unlaw/ul violen+e to parti+ularin%ivi%ual or group o/ in%ivi%uals, an% speaer nee% not a+tuall inten% to +arr out t$reat? rat$er,

pro$iition on true t$reats prote+ts in%ivi%uals /ro /ear o/ violen+e an% /ro %isruption t$at /earengen%ers, in a%%ition to prote+ting people /ro possiilit t$at t$reatene% violen+e will o++ur.

:$e statute %oes not single out an parti+ular politi+al or so+ial essage, *ust 'LL intii%ation, w$i+$ in

pros+riale sense o/ wor% pursuant to t$e nite% States (15I5) (prote+tingpoliti+al $perole o/ i/ t$e ae e +arr a ri/le t$e /irst a 3 want to get in sig$ts is LBM) withpersonal or %ire+te% t$reats.

Documents

Constitutional Law II - Lupu - Spring 2004