Glossary of Con Law II - Cases

Start Studying! Add Cards ↓

Board of Regents v. Roth
DP - Gov't Employment
Contract teacher was not rehired at the end of his term. He sued under Due Process.
Held: the teacher had no property interest because there was no reasonable expectation that he would be rehired. The contract provided that the employment would terminate on a specific date, with no provision for renewal. Property was NOT based on the importance of the job to the individual, bur the expectation of continued employment.
Perry v. Sinderman
DP - Gov't Employment
professor working at a college without a formal tenure system. When he was denied tenure, sued under due process.
Held: Despite the lack of a formal tenure system, the professor had a genuine expectation of continued interest from the general understanding fostered by the university regarding tenure.
Bishop v. Wood
DP - GOv't Employment
- police officer classified as a permanent employee, but working in an at will state. When fired, sued under DP.
Held: because of the at will nature of the employment, the officer had no valid expectancy interest in continuation of his employment. Not deprived of liberty or property.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
DP - Gov't Employment
employees could only be terminated for cause and civil servants were only entitled to a post termination hearing
Held: In order to satisfy due process, there must be a pre-termination notice and adequate post termination hearing.
Due process requires some kind of hearing designatedto assure that there are reasonable grounds for discharge and a full post termination hearing if necessary.
Goldberg v. Kelley
DP - Gov't Benefits
recipients of welfare benefits were having their benefits terminated
Held: Given the dependence of the recipient on the benefits for subsistence, the importance to the state that persons receive such substance and the abscence of any emergency justifying procedures, DP requires timly notice stating the basis for termination, hearing before an impartial examiner and opportuinty to present evidence
Mathews v. Eldredge
DP - Gov't Benefits
disability benefits were being cut off. Held: the indivdiual hardship is not as great as in Goldberg, tehre is less risk of error given the medical determination for the termination, and there would be a great burden to the gov't. The court fashions a test to determine what process is due.
Stanley v. Illinios
DP - Liberty Interests
Unmarried man lost custody of his two children to the state following the death of their mother.
Held: state may not deny an unmarried father custody absent a hearing and a finding that the father was an unfit parent. Father had to prove that 1) he was the biological father and 2) had exhibited a continued interest in the child.
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
DP - Liberty Interests
mother had an affair which resulted in birth of child with non-husband However remained with husband. State law presumed that children are given custody to the mother and husband if living together, state refused to recognize the rights of the biological father after he petitioned for visitation rights.
Held: state could create the presumption that a woman's husband if the father of her child. Scalia and Rehnquist say that the court should only recognize a liberty interest if there is a tradition of providing protection, when the tradition is stated at the most specific level of abstraction. [footnote six - which only had Rehnquist and scalia agreeing with it] So here, there was not a history of recognizing adulterous father's custody rights. Distinguishes Stanley by saying even though he was the biological father and had exhibited a contineued interest in teh child, the difference is in how specific we recognize the rights.
Wisconsin v. Constantineau -
DP - Liberty Interests
woman was placed on a legal notice to all liquor vendors forbidding the sale of alcohol to her. State had required her name be posted because of drinking was leaving her family in wont
Held: She claimed that before you smear my good name, as branding me as an abandoner, im entitled to some notice and an opportunity to be heard. She won. Court says person's good name reputation or honor is a valid liberty stake, and therefore notice and an opportunity to be heard are required.
Paul v. Davis
man who was known to be a shoplifter was placed on a flyer and given to stores. His boss found out and called him in, and was embarrassed.
Held: Claims the same as Consteantineau. Court says no, mere injury to reputation alone is not a liberty interest for a constitutional claim. It must be injury to an interest mentioned in the constitution or created by statut AND the loss of some state created right (right to purchase alcohol after 21)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
DP - Procedural
Hamdi was classified as an enemy combatant and therefore could be held indefinately without access to his family or lawyer.
Court applies the Matthews v. Eldredge test.
Hamdi's liberty interests are very high, hes being locked up
the risk of erroneous deprvation are high becasue citizens could mistakenly be labled as enemy combatant without any process at all. The gov'ts interest is very strong though, need to keep terrorists off of the battlefeild. The value of the additional procedures was high, they could get notice of the charges against them, and have (even if just in military tribunal) a hearing with an opportunity to present evidence (even if just hearsay)
Licence Termination Cases
DP - Procedures
Having your license taken away. People were racking up points against their license. You would get a notice saying that your license has been suspended. If you disagree, you can call this number and arrange a hearing (after the fact)
Holding: Court goes through Matthews v. Eldrege factors.
i. Private interest: Driving does not equal survival as in the welfare case.
ii. Likely to lead to an erroneous determination: this is an addition problem, maybe there was a mistake, but really since you had accumulated these over a period of time, all that’s at stake is someone recounting
iii. Governments interest: wanting to keep dangerous drivers off the road. This is more than just mere administrative procedure or mere money saving.
Munn v. Illinois
DP - Economic Due Process
- Law saying only a certain price can be charged by grain warehouses
Held: ordinarily telling someone what to charge for their goods is improper. However, here the court applies a rational basis test and says that you can regulate how much someone is charging, only because this business is "affected with a public interest". But if the business is not affected with a public interest, the legislature cannot pass regulations of price, etc. Court declares that it was for the judiciary
Lochner v. New York
DP - Economic
New York law set the maximum hours that bakers could work at 10 hours per day and 60 hours or less per week.
Held: the law unconstitutional under the 14th amendment using a rational basis.
(1) Fundamental right of freedom of contract is a basic right protected as liberty and property
(2) Gov't should interfere with the freedom of contract only to serve a valid police purpose to protect public health safety or morals. State would have to prove it was advanced by the law, and that the health and safety was actually furthered by the law. The court determines this, and doesn’t rely on the state.
(3) gov’t can’t regulate just to regulate private contracts or private economic arrangements
(4) Judiciary should scrutinize legislation that interferes with the freedom of contract to make sure it served a valid police purpose.
The law interferes with a bakery owners right to contract and set employment with bakers.
Nebbia v. New York
DP - Ecocnomic
law set minimum prices for milk, and Nebbia was cited for selling under the minimum price.
Held: Neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute. Cannot use one man's property for harm or detriment.
Due process is only a protection against arbitrariness, and if the legislature wants to regulate and protect, all that matters is that ther law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
Free to adopt any economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote the public welfare. The courts are without authority to declare a policy or to override the legislature.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
DP - Economic
state law required minimum wage for women.
Held: Court expressly abandons Lochner. Says there is no freedom of contracts because the constitution does not speak to freedom of contract. Court applies a rational basis test. Gov't can regulate for health and well being. Court would defer to the legislature so long as their choices were reasonable.
Skinner v. Oklahoma
DP - Reproduction
law that said that courts could sterilize people convicted two or more times for crimes involving moral turpitude
Held: right to procreate is protected as a fundamental right
Griswold v. Connecticut
DP Substantive
- state law punishing people who distributed contraceptives, even married couples.
Held: right of privacy was a fundamental right, but rejected that it was protected under the due process clause. Instead found it in the penumbra of privacy in the other bill of rights amendments. (afraid of lochnerizing a right to privacy) Says law violates the right of married couples to use contraceptives, INVADES THE MARITAL BEDROOM
(Goldberg - C) Uses the 9th amendment for finding the right of privacy.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
DP Substantive - law that prohibited distributing contraceptives to anyone other than married couples.
Held: The law denied equal protection of single people. Takes the right to contraception away from the married person and gives it to the individual, gives right to privacy to the individual.
Roe v. Wade
DP - Substantive Reproductive
- Texas law prohibited all abortions except to save the life of the mother
Held: (Blackmun) There is a fundamental right to have an abortion under the due process clause. There are competing interests, a woman's right to privacy and the dual interests of the state (viability of the fetus and viability of the mother) But the fetus is not a person, the constitution does not mention the unborn. Therefore the child is only protected once it becomes viable on its own.
Court uses strict srutiny test - and splits into trimesters. The state has a compelling interest after the first trimester. After that point, the state can regulate if it reasonably relates to the preservation of the mother's health. Before that, any regulation on a woman's right to choose is subjected to strict scrutiny. State would have to put in an exception to save the life of the child.
Therefore the Texas law sweeps too broadly, places the burden of an unwanted child on a mother.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
DP Substantive
- (1) a woman seeking an abortion is required to give her informed consent prior to the abortion procedure and to be provided, at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed, with certain information concerning her decision whether to undergo an abortion, (2) a minor seeking an abortion is required to obtain the informed consent of one of her parents or guardians, judicial bypass (3) unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion is required to sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband of her intended abortion, (4) exemption for a "medical emergency," (5) facilities providing abortion services are subject to certain reporting and record-keeping requirements
Planned parenthood v. Casey
DP - Substantive
The issue is the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy and the right to decide whether or not to have a child. These are fundamental life changing decisions within the realm of personal liberty that the government may not enter.
Woman has a right to choose to have an abortion, court crafts rules fashioned around viabillity.

. a state has the power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the state law imposing such a restriction contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman's life or health
• a state has legitimate interests from the outset of a pregnancy in protecting the health of the pregnant woman AND the life of the fetus that may become a child
• Undue Burdens: Pre viability, state may not place an undue burden on the woman’s right to chose an abortion. Undue Burden= any regulation that had the purpose or effect of placing a substational obstical in the way of a woman getting an abortion. Post viability, the state could regulate or prohibit, but had to provide medical emergency exception.
• !!!Never mentions fundamental right or right to privacy, so that makes it possible to fashion the undue burden standard instead of applying strict scrutiny. In application, its an intermediate standard, and therefore less rigorous than roe.
• !!! Had to apply stare decisis
o Big factor in the equasion
o Whether the prior rule unworkable
o Whether there has been relied upon
o Whether the rule of law has been undermined
o Change in factual predicate for the decisions
Planned parenthood v. Casey
REporting reqirement the only good part of the law.
everything else struck down
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Stevens --> applies the test stricter than it was written
Blackmun --> C: should have used my trimester approach
Rehnquist --> overtun roe. A woman's interest in having an abortion is a form of liberty protected by the due process clause, but states may regulate abortion procedures in ways rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Wants a rational basis review
Scalia --> BS is the stare decisis crap, nothing in constitution regarding abortion
Stenberg v. Carhart
EP - Reproductive
first time that applied the undue burden standard
There is no adequate exception for the life of the mother. It sweeps to broadly and encompasses other procedures than necessary, not narrowly tailored enough.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland
DP - Substantive
City zoning ordinance limited the number of unrelated people who could live together. Unrelated defined as outside of the nuclear family. Grandmother fined for caring for her grandchildren
Held: families have a liberty interest in staying together. History of allowing grandparents to raise and be involved in family.
Troxel v. Granvill
Washington statute permitted anyone to petition for visitation rights if it was in the best interest of the child. Grandparents were reduced to seeing their grandchildren to once a month and on holidays. Grandparents used the statute to get more visitation time. Mother sued saying it’s a violation of her due process rights so long as she is a fit parent.
Held: plurality opinion says there is a liberty interest in the care, custody and control of their children, and this law infringed upon this fundamental right. The statue was breathtakingly broad, giving the judge a right to overturn a parents decision.
Washington v. Glucksberg
DP - Substantive
- Law against assisted suicide
Held: there is no constitutional right to physician assisted suicide. History and traditions have punished or disapproved of suicide. Suicide had been outlawed, and assisted suicide has always been outlawed. Applied a rational basis test to uphold the law.
Vacco v. Quill
P challenged state law that criminalized physician assisted suicide. P said there should be a fundamental right for mentally competent terminally ill patients to die with dignity. The court unanimously upheld the law, on its face and applied, Rehinquist says that there is no fundamental liberty interest. Distinguishes v. Missouri - competent has a right to refuse unwanted medical care, even if it would result in death. Not a right to control over body, its was a right against forced medication.

In these cases, when read closely, 5 of the justices have a view that there might be a fundamental right of term ill patines who are in pain to manage that pain with drugs from doctors even if it hastens their death.
Bowers v. Hardwick
Georgia anti sodomy law. Hardwick was charged with engaging in homosexual activity.
Held: The law is constitutional. The court refuses to recognize any constitutional protection for sexual orientation or sexual activity. Court narrowly construes the fundamental right question as one of whether there is a right to engage in homosexual activity. Rights are only protected if they are listed in the constitution, framers intent or tradition. Just because the activity occurred in the privacy of the home does not justify giving it constitutional protection. Why give abortion rights and not sodomy? It has to do with the level of how they frame the issue.
Court applies a rational basis test, and the moral objection was reason enough.
Lawrence v. Texas
Overrules Bowers. Kennedy frames the issue as whether two consenting adults have a fundamental right to engage in private sexual relations in the privacy of the home. The majority doesn't talk about strict scrutiny, nor does he use the words fundamental right.
Subject to Limitations:
• Adults
• Consensual
• Private
• Non-solicitation or prostitution
• Not about same sex marriage
Also a big issue about not just picking on conduct, you're picking on conduct associated with a certain group of people, and branding them as criminals. That controls a personal relationship, and whether its entitled recognition in the law (wanted to prevent gay marriage ideas) involved the liberty of people to chose without being branded as criminal, their intimate personal sexual relationship. Then these people have a stigma associated with them about being a criminal. By doing this you are branding an entire group and opening them up to the ill effects of criminality.
The statute gives no legitimate state interest - its almost like a balancing test - to justify the state entering into the private life of the individual. Because there is an ill will towards a certain type of people, we are going to hold you to more strict rational basis test.
Romer v. Evans
Colorado statute that prohibited civil rights laws that protected any homosexual. Kennedy says this qualification of a single class of persons from seeking the ordinary protection of the laws was unprecedented. The qualifications the state gave (respect for religious, conserve resources for other civil rights battles) were too flimsy, and was based on animosity towards homosexuals. Rational basis test strikes the law down.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
application for a zoning ordinance denied for a group home for the mentally retarded. State claims it was to protect the people from the junior high kids across the street, to keep down overcrowding, located on a flood plain, etc.
Held: Denial of use of a special permit in this case appears to rest on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded. The states concerns were negated when it was shown that other types of group homes, like nursing homes and fraternities were allowed zoning permits.
Dissents - there is a long history of grotesque discrimination against the mentally retarded
Palmore v. Sidoti
- Lower court denied a mother custody of her child because she had married a person of a different race. State court said that the child's best interests would be served by not living with an interracial couple because he would be taunted.
Held: the constitution cannot control prejudice, nor can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot directly or indirectly give them effect.
Loving v. Virgnia
law made it a crime for a white person to marry outside the Caucasian race. The state claims that the law punishes both blacks and whites, so its not discrimination. Each of the race can only marry within its own race.
Held: court rejects the fact that it burdens both blacks and whites equally. These miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. Rejecting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classification violates the central meaning of the EP clause. There was no purpose other than racial discrimination. The purpose of the 14th amendment was to eliminate state sponsored invidious discrimination.
Anderson v. martin
race of the candidates had to be listed on the ballot. Appears to apply to everyone
Held: even if it does apply to everyone the effect of the law would be to allow racial prejudice at the polls
Plessey v. Ferguson
Law required segregation of train cars.
Held: The court using a reasonableness standard created the separate but equal doctrine. This doctrine stood for almost 50 years.
(Harlan - D) Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows or tolerates classes among citizens.
Brown v. Board of Education
Segregation in the schools. The court determines that the separate but equal doctrine in the context of education is unconstitutional. It said that the blacks were being given a tangible inequality of education. The court did not immediately create remedies though. They later addressed the remedies based on the situations at hand
Bolling v. Sharpe
Segregation in the DC public schools. Court holds separate but equal doctrine is unconstitutional because the court read the equal protection guarantee into the 5th amendment. Holds the federal government to the equal protection clause. Begins the strict scrutiny doctrine by calling race a suspect classification, and that the gov't interests are not furthered by the means chosen.
Washington v. Davis
to be on the police force in DC, you had to take a test. Statistics showed that black failed the examination much more than whites. Suit said that it’s a form of racial discrimination.
Held: Mere discriminatory impact is not enough to show racial classification. There must be a proof of a discriminatory purpose behind the law in order to subject the law to strict scrutiny. Otherwise they are subjected only to rational basis. The police dept didn’t make a discriminatory test, or apply it in a discriminatory way.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing
city refused to rezone a parcel of land to allow construction of low and moderate income housing. P's claimed that it was the purpose to exclude blacks from the city.
Discriminatory Impact PLUS purpose. Must prove that there was a pupose to discriminate, can do so in one of four ways.
(1) historical background - area had always been single family zoning, not the apartment zoning
(2) sequence of events leading to the decision - no change in zoning after the zoning application was filed.
(3) Departure from normal procedure - no the company was granted a fair hearing
(4) Legislative history - nothing in it suggested an invidious purpose.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
city ordinance that required laundries to be located in brick or stone buildings unless a waiver was obtained from the board. Out of 200 petitions by Chinese people were all denied, all but one petitions from whites were approved.
Held: even though the law was neutral on its face, the administration directed exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant and require the conclusion that whatever the original intent of the law was, its being applied in such a way that is unequal and oppressive that denies the equal protection of the laws.
Gomillion v. Lightfood
gov't redistricts city boundaries to exclude blacks from participating in city elections. All but four of 400 black were excluded.
Held: it could only be the legislatures intent to deprive blacks of their pre-existing municipal vote. If the predominant purpose is to discriminate, the court will judge what the court has done as racial discrimination.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke
university of California had instituted an affirmative action program, which reserved a certain number of seats for minority students. Student that was denied admission claims that it violated the equal protection clause.
Held: a race based admissions program is not per se invalid.
 State Claims - the state made the following claims as to the reason they had the AA program.
• Reducing historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in medical profession
• Court rejects this as just a determination based on race
• Countering the effects of societal discrimination
• Cannot claim to help one group at the expense of another group. Here the effects are felt by Bakke.
• Increasing the number of minority physicians who will practice in communities
• No showing that this would further this interest
• Obtaining the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body
• This is a constitutionally permissible justification. The state can consider race as a number of factors for admission.
 Standard of Review
The state claimed that Bakke as a while male is not a member of a discrete and insular minority, therefore just a rational basis of review should be applied, instead of heightened scrutiny. The court rejects this argument, claims that all classifications based on race are a suspect classification and takes an individual approach. So a heightened review applies.
• Compelling Justification - See above, only compelling justification is the obtaining an ethically diverse student body.
• Narrowly Tailored - Justices don’t believe that the quota system is narrowly tailored. While race used as a factor of consideration in higher academic admissions, they cannot place a hard line quota. The court advocates a program similar to Harvard's.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Michigan law school had AA program. White students denied admissions claimed a violation of the equal protection clause.
Held: O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
Law school program was a permissible affirmative action program and race can be a factor in admission programs
 Standard of Review - Strict Scrutiny is the test for raced based affirmative action programs.
• Compelling Justification
AA programs are not limited to remedial pruposes, you can have good effects justifications in the educational realm. The state claims its diversity in education from a critical mass of students from otherwise unrepresented minorities. This is permissible in the strict scrutiny of education. Diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify narrowly tailored (read: individualized) admissions program. The expands on the policy from Bakke, which held that diversity is a compelling interest because of its educational benefits, and the court here says that diversity is good for society as well as education.
Race can be used as a factor of consideration for higher education (from Bakke)
• Narrowly Tailored
narrowly tailored requirement here does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race neutral alternative, just a serious good-faith consideration of workable race neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks. The state claims that other alternatives would hurt the excellence of the school. The court claims that the program is narrowly tailored because it does not place a quota system on the numbers and provides individualized consideration of each student and uses race in a flexible, non-mechanical way (but weren't they really worried about the "numbers", looking at the admission statistics every day?). Each applicant can compete for all seats.
Indicia of well tailored laws:
Race neutral alternatives: why weren’t they forced to use a lottery or a certain percentage of all highschool grads out of their class? Oconnor says you just have ot have workable alternative, but you can have many ways of doing that
Undue harm to non minorities: the sceme of the process is that everyone gets an individualized chance to show how they could add to the class.
Time limits or review periods - Court puts a sunset provision of 25 years on the school's affirmative action. Recognizes that this is a limited way of remedying a wrong, but that it should not have to continue.
Grutter v. Bollinger
 Thomas
• Concurs with sunset provision and the application of strict scrutiny.
• Court is too deferential to the law school and there could have been race neutral alternatives, by choosing not to develop race neutral alternatives, the primary goal appears not to be diversity, but maintaining an elite institution. Not a constitutional interest. How is that compelling? The only cognizable state interest is the training of state residents to be lawyers, but few students stay in Michigan. And the EP clause only covers application within its jurisdiction.
• Admission of students based on their race rather than their qualifications harms and stigmatizes them.
 Rehnquist's & Kennedy
• Concurs with sunset provision and the application of strict scrutiny.
• Strict scrutiny is not deferential to the school.
• Their individual approach is not really individualized, the school's racial profile mirrors that of society in its percentages and holds steady yearly, and is tied to the percentage of minorities in the overall population.
Gratz v. Bollinger
- Michigan state university liberal arts admission program which assigned 20 points for being a minority.
Held: Rehnquist
The states liberal arts program is struck down under the equal protection clause.
 Standard of Review - Strict Scrutiny
• Compelling Justification - the states interest in diversity is a permissible compelling interest.
• Narrowly Tailored - 20 points granted does not further the objective the state is trying to create, its not narrowly tailored enough.
Race can be A factor but not THE factor considered, there must be individualized review in order to achieve this. Here, only a few cases were flagged for individual review. Overall, the program lacked a holistic, individualized consideration that the court demanded.
City of Richmond v. JA Croson Co.
City program which 30% of the city's contracts were set aside for minority business enterprises. MBE = businesses that were owned by 51% minorities. There was no waiver possibility, no ceiling and no sunset date. Says that there is discrimination history of the construction area.
Standard of Review: Strict Scrutiny
• Compelling Justification - Remedying past discrimination in the construction industry. Societal discrimination is not enough. Just because over the course of history, in the entire united states there was discrimination, doesn't mean that Richmond itself has this problem. Also, just because the population is 50% black, but only 2% has performed government contracts. It could just mean that many blacks in Richmond don’t perform construction. It has to be the number of minority contractors operating in Richmond. You can't compare the number of MBEs to the number of minorities in the city. It may be that there is discrimination at large, but you have to prove that the City of Richmond is discriminating on the basis of race and therefore has to remedy it.
• Societal discrimination is not enough
• General comparisons are not enough
• Racial balancing doesn't work
- Narrowly Tailored -even if the law had a compelling justification, the quota system of 30% is not narrowly tailored, the lack of waiver meant that no race neutral alternatives were being used or considered. Too broadly crafted - the law even covered Eskimos. No time limit on when the program will expire.
Reed v. Reed
- There was a preference for male executors over female executrix.
Held: Under a rational basis review, the court held that there was not a rational relationship between the ability to administer an estate and gender.
Fronterio v. Richardson
- federal law allowed men to automatically claim his wife as a dependant, and get greater allowance for military quarters and medical benefits. A woman could only get the dependent benefits for her husband if she proved that her spouse was dependent on her for over half of his support.
Held: A plurality (not majority) uses strict scrutiny strikes down the law. Points to the history, stigma, etc that comes with being a woman and therefore they should be a suspect classification.
Craig v. Boren
law that prohibited the sale of near-beer to males under 21 and females under 18. State traffic statistics show that there was a difference in the drunk driving cases of 2% to .18%. This resulted in men being ten times more likely to be in an alcohol related crash.
Held:The 2% difference between men and women is a tenuous fit. They apply an intermediate level of scrutiny, and say that the law cannot be upheld.
United States v. Virgnia
VMI's male only military school, with a unique (hazing) method of creating citizen soldiers
States Arguments
o could not have the same adversative method with the women there (break you down to build you back up through lack of privacy and hazing)
o There was a VMI for women created at Mary Baldwin College
o Diversity of educational choice
Held: Reserving spots only for men is unconstitutional. The court forces the VMI to integrate females into the class.
You will just have to adjust your adversative method to incorporate the women, so long as there is one woman who can perform the tasks, she should be allowed to do so
o Undisputed that the states goal of having cit. solizers or its methodology of training was inherently unsuitable to ALL women. IT can’t rest on generalizations about women. There were individual women who could make it under those methods.
o The VMI for women was not a comparable institution. There can be single sex schools. But the single opportunity to have that sort of education can’t discriminate. Men and women have to have the same kind of opportunities.
o The differences between the two could not be said to be related to the "real differences" between
o While diversity in educational choice is a public good, it didn't serve the objective because there was no comparable institution for women, and no other place for the women to seek out a similar education. The only educational institution of its kind.
Personal Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney
Mass law that gave preference in hiring for state jobs to veterans. Problem is that most veterans were males, and a woman who was getting higher scores than them was getting denied for jobs
Held: not a gender classification because the law created a preference for veterans was facially gender neutral and there was no proof that the states purpose was to disadvantage women.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
woman's only admission policy at nursing school, state claims it was for affirmative action for women
Held: the objective here is questionable - The program has been in place for many years, and has never been said to be an AA program for women, they’re coming in after the fact trying to say its an AA program. Also, women have never had a problem entering nursing school, and were not subject to discrimination in that area. Compensation was not the actual purpose of the gov't. Instead the court felt the law was perpetuating stereotypes, and that is illegitimate.
Rosker v. Goldberg
male only draft.
States Arguments
o Concern for national security, readiness of the troops, avoidance of sexual tension,
o women aren't allowed to perform in combat, so there is no need to have them drafted

Court uphold the law that says that males only have to register for the draft. The key to the case is an issue (unlitigated) because women were entirely limited from combat in the military.
When the draft was created, it was made for creating a database of people that could be put in the field at the time of the emergency. It made sense at the time to limit it to men. The key was the real difference between men and women.
Michael M v. Superior Court of Sonoma County
statutory rape law that held only the man criminally liable.
States Arguments
o prevents illegitimate teenage pregnancies. (Motive could have been to protect the chastity of young women.)
o Applied only to men because the stigma of pregnancy would deter the female, whereas nothing to deter the male. So the criminality of it might further the important gov't objective of preventing teen pregnancies.
Holding: there is a real difference between men and women because the objective of the law is to prevent unwanted preganacies, and since only women suffered the natural deterent from pregnancy, you can treat them differently.
o This is a classification that realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated (real differences between men and women)
o The different treatment is fairly and substantially related to the gov't interest of preventing illegitimate teenage pregnancies.
Bernal v. Fainter
- law preventing aliens from being notaries, had to be citizens. State tried to claim that there was a need to have the people there 20 years down the road to remember what they notarized.
Held: First - it was not narrowly tailored enough. There is no guarantee that citizens would be in the state 20 years from now, much less aliens. Second being a notary public does not go to the heart of representative government.
Does not apply the political function test
Mass Board of Retirement v. Murgia
- Police officers are required to retire at 40. State claims that it related to the preparedness of the police force.
Held: Because they are not a suspect classification, the law is reviewed under rational basis, and age could be reasonably related to the preparedness of the police force.
Griffin v. Illinois
Transcript Fee required for a criminal right of appeal was reviewed with heightened scrutiny.
Held: We don’t want constitutional rights inhibited by the fact that someone can't afford it. Reviewed under
• Cutting services that help the poor, but benefiting the wealthy. - Rational basis
• Bankruptcy fee - Rational Basis. There is no right to go bankrupt, it is not a constitutionally afforded right.
Shapiro v. Thompson
restriction of welfare benefits to people unless they have been a citizen of the state for at least on year.
Classification burdens the fundamental right of interstate movement and does not promote a compelling state interest.
Saenz v. Roe
he court used the 14th amendment to protect a right, that was not already provided for. CA said that if you were going to travel to that state, you could only get welfare benefits that were at the level from the states from which you came. Didn't want people flocking to the state taking advantage of social benefits. (Example: $80 welfare in AL and $380 in CA) They said that they had to wait a year before they could collect the state's more generous social benefits.

This is not P&I of article 4, that says that you have to extend the same P&I to members of another state visiting your state. Here the people wanted to move there. The court wanted to use the 14th amendment P&I. Court had struggled with dealing with people that pick up and move to another state. They think it interferes with the national P&I to pick up and move across the country.

Rights protected under the P&I are rights of CITIZENS, whereas the Bill of Rights is rights of PERSONS. But the 14th amendment becomes important for DUE PROCESS
Zobel v. WIlliams
- distributing state income derived from oil drilling to citizens based on the duration of their citizenship.
Uses rational basis standard, strikes down the law is irrational.

(Plurality thinks it should be strict scrutiny because burdens right to interstate movement)
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
Challenge to the local property taxes creating differences in the quality of education from area to area. State claims that it is for local control of education
Held: No showing that the state is not providing at least the minimal skills necessary for the exercise of constitutional rights (like voting and speech) and it is rationally related to promotion of local control of education.
Plyler v. Doe
texas statute denying public school to children of illegal aliens.
States Arguments
• Can't provide quality education to legal citizens
• Aliens don’t stick around in the state to utilize their education
• Illegal alien children are not a suspect class, but they are an underclass in our society
• Uses heightened scrutiny - State failed to show that the discrimination was justified by a substantial state interest.

2. Creates a permanent subclass
i. It’s a caste system, creating a permanent disability, by not allowing the children to get an education, then you are making them subordinate for life.
ii. They become a burden on the united states.

Under mid-level scruitiny, the states justifications fail.
1. Want to protect the state against the influx of illegal aliens.
2. These kids prevent us from providing a high quality education to others
3. The kids are less likely to remain into the state and use the education that they gave them for the benefit of the state

Add Cards

You must Login or Register to add cards