Docstoc

Const. Law 2 Notes

Document Sample
Const. Law 2 Notes Powered By Docstoc
					Const. Law 2 Professor Durden Equal Protection- 14th amendment- dual citizenship between privledges and
immunities. (Slaughterhouse cases-P and I clause of the 14 th amendment protects private citizens) Can take things to federal court but also has the option to return to the state. Deprivation of Life, Liberty or Property.  Romer v. Evans- Colorado enacted a statute that a certain class of people could not be considered a group. There was a law declaring that it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from gov. is denial of Equal Protection. o The court will use rational basis which fails because o 1.) Imposes broad disability on single named group o 2.) too broad jurisdiction purposes  This statute said homosexuals could not get protected status, claim of discrimination, quota preference.- all branches-judicial, executive, legislative, state, local and county.  Dissent- Prior we said it was okay to make a crime for homosexual act than disfavoring them should be okay. United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritzo Is there a legitimate reason for the Railroad board to see what kind of benefits. There is a rational basis for all things that pass the laugh test. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New Yorko Signs on trucks…you can only have advertisement on trucks that are owned by the company. o It doesn’t matter if there is more/less traffic..doesnt matter. o It’s easy to make a legitimate government interest. o New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer o Meth users. o Drug and alcohol users we don’t want driving the train. o This law lets heroin users work for the Transit Authority. o Save money. Because 25% of the methodone users will become heroine users again then nobody can work there. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno o Unrelated and related people are committing fraud and getting food stamps. There is no difference between these too categories. Related v. Unrelated don’t really matter. o How do you show that the purpose of this law is irrational or unrelated to a legitimate state interest? Use statistics…there is no rational basis to distinguish between the two. City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc





o Facts: Acting pursuant to municipal zoning ordinance requiring permits for such homes, a Texas city denied a special use permit for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded. o The property values may go down around the property. Taxes o Issue: Are regulatory classifications based on mental retardation “quasisuspect” classifications warranting intermediate scrutiny? o Concern: Junior high school across the street from the new facility. o Rule of Law: Because legislative or regulatory classifications based on mental retardation are neither suspect nor “quasi- suspect” their validity should be determined pursuant to a rational basis review

Dred Scott v. Sandford  After being taken by his owner to Illinois, a free-state under Missouri Compromise, a slave sought to prevent his extradition to Missouri, a slave state, by the administrator of the slave owner’s estate. Issue- Consistent with the Constitution, can a slave become a member of the political community entitled to all the rights, privledges and immunities appertaining thereto. Rule of Law- The word “citizen” as used by the Constitution does not include slaves Said Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional Thought he ended the slavery problem Post-Civil War amendments- 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. Adopted to aid the freed slave



   

Korematsu v. United States  Facts: A Japanese-American appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a federal military order excluding Japanese-Americans from certain parts in the western-half of the United States. Issue: May a racial classification survive strict scrutiny on the basis of military need or national security. Rule of Law: Military necessity and national security may justify placing legal restrictions on a single racial group In order to put a total race in concentration camps….must be compelling state interest…all disloyal. White people are scared.

  

California didn’t want slaves because they had enough Mexicans????? Why aren’t we afraid of the brown people????? What the fuck is wrong with this class??????!!!!!! Loving v. Virginia    An interracial couple appealed their convictions for breaking Virginia’s miscegenation statute. Issue: Do statutes which ban interracial marriages violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.- Yes. Rule of Law- Legislation which restricts the freedom to marry solely on the basis of racial classifications violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Plessy v. Ferguson        A man asserted an equal protection challenge against his conviction for violating a Louisiana statute which required railway companies to maintain separate accommodations for whites and blacks. Separate but Equal Issue: Does the EPC of the 14 th amendment restrict states from segregating citizens based on race. Rule of Law: The 14th amendment does not withhold from states the power to permit or require the separation of races. Held: No The law requires separation..justification because you cant require integration because it wont work so you can make separation.. “We have a color blind Constitution”-Justice Harlem

Brown v. Board of Education        Several minor children in Kansas , South Carolina, Virginia, Deleware challenged the denial of their admission to schools attended by whites pursuant to laws permitting or requiring segregation… Thurgood Marshall argued this case. Issue: May states require or permit that public schools be segregated on basis of race? Black Letter Rule: States may not segregate public schools on the basis of race. Held: No In the field of education there is No separate but equal. Education is extremely important but not a fundamental right.

  

**Intent to discriminate is a requirement for an equal protection argument. We presume pure motivations of the Legislation. Although it may have a disparate impact. Rational basis- if things are not facially neutral.

Washington v. Davis  Facts: Two black officers and two black applicants to the District of Colombia’s police department sought to challenge the department’s application process as discriminatory on the basis of race on several grounds , including that certain written test had discriminatory impact on blacks.  Issue: Does a facially neutral law or official act violate equal protection merely because it has a discriminatory impact?  Held: No  Rule of Law: A facially neutral law or official act will be declared unconstitutional only if there is proof that the law or act has a discriminatory purpose. McClesky v. Kemp     Facts: A black man convicted of murder appealed his death sentence on equal protection grounds, claiming that the state administered the death penalty in discriminatory manner against blacks Issue: Does statistical evidence indicating a risk that race plays a role in capital sentencing determinations prove a violation of equal protection Held: No Black Letter Law: Statistical evidence indication a risk that race plays a role in capital sentencing determinations does not alone prove a violation of equal protection.

City of Mobile v. Bolden  Facts: A group of black citizens of Mobile, Alabama filed suit in federal district court claiming that the city’s commission form of government was maintained in violation of the 15 th amendment’s prohibition against racebased interference with the right to vote. Issue: Where it is found that minorities vote without hindrance, may a 15th amendment violation nevertheless be inferred from the fact that a proportionate number of minority candidates failed to hold office. Held: No Rule of Law: The 15th amendment does not entail the right to have black candidates elected but prohibits only purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgment by government of the freedom to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”

  

Palmer v. Thompson

   

Facts: A group of black citizens files suit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi challenging the city council’s decision to close public pools rather thatn operate them on a segregated basis as a violation of Equal Protection. Issue: May an act of local government , race-neutral on its face be held invalid under 14th amendment merely due to the race-based motives behind it? Held: No Black Letter Law: A legislative act does not violate equal protection merely because it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney  Facts: A female state employee who was passed over for probation by several less qualified male applicants who had served in the armed forces filed an equal protection suit challenging the state personnel office’s stated preference for veterans  Issue: Does the gov’s awareness of the discriminatory impact of certain legislation suggest that such legislation was enacted for a discriminatory purpose.  Held:No  Rule of Law: To be deemed purposefully discriminatory, a government act must have been taken because of, not merely in spite of, it’s adverse effects upon an identifiable group.  When you look at a law you must prove a discriminatory purpose rather than just an impact. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp  Facts: A real estate developer filed suit in federal court alleging that the decision of the defendant municipality to deny a rezoning request for low and moderateincome housing was racially discriminatory and in violation of the 14 th amendment  Issue: To succeed on a 14 th amendment equal protection claim, must the plaintiff show that the challenged action was motivated solely by race?  Held: No  Rule of Law: Wehre there is proof that a discriminatory purpose was a motivated factor in the decision, the judicial deference usually accorded to governmental action is no longer warranted. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.  Facts: After losing its bid on a public project due to its inability to procure satisfactory bids from minority subcontractors, a construction company filed suit against the city of Richmond, Virginia to challenge the city’s ordinance requiring that 30% of subcontractors on public projects be owned by minorities.  Issue: May a local government justify maintenance of a policy of affirmative action in awarding public project contracts in an effort to remedy prior discrimination where there is no precise evidence of prior purposeful discrimination  Held: No



Rule of Law: A city may use its spending powers to remedy private discrimination if it identifies that discrimination with the particularity required by the 14th amendment.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena  Facts: A highway construction company filed suit against the federal gov. challenging the Department of Transportation’s policy favoring minority subcontractors as a violation of equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment  Issue: Are affirmative action plans subject to strict scrutiny review when they are the result of a federally mandated policy?  Rule of Law: All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. Find the rest of your notes……. Fighting words…Look at your binder…. Check the dates of your notes to fix them….


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags:
Stats:
views:205
posted:1/22/2009
language:English
pages:6
Description: Constitutional Law II- general focus economic liberties through amendments