291 terms

Constitutional Law

STUDY
PLAY

Terms in this set (...)

Rational Basis Review: Burden
Plaintiff
Rational Basis Review: Case tests
Williamson v. Lee Optical, Moreno, Cleburne, Romer v. Evans
Under Rational Basis Review What Are Government Interests
Rationally related to any conceivable government interest
Rational Basis Review: Application
age, disability, sexual orientation
Burden is on who in Strict Scrutiny
Government
Strict Scrutiny: Case tests
Frontiero v. Richardson
Under Strict Scrutiny What Are Government Interests
Narrowly tailored or necessary to achieve a compelling gov interest (least restrictive means)
Strict Scrutiny: Application
race and alienage (with exceptions)
Intermediate Scrutiny: Burden
government
Intermediate Scrutiny: Case tests
United States v. Virginia (VMI)
Intermediate Scrutiny: Government interests
Substantially related to an exceedingly important government objective
Intermediate Scrutiny: Application
sex and illegitimate children
The law will be upheld if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental purpose
Strict Scrutiny
The law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose
Rational Basis
The law will be upheld if it is substantially related to an important government purpose
Intermediate Scrutiny
Right to Marry
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Procreate
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Custody of Children
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Keep Family Together
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Control Raising of Children
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Purchase and Use Contraceptives
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Travel
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Vote
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Abortion
Undue Burden
Right to Practice a Trade or Profession
Rational Basis
Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide
Rational Basis
Right to Education
Rational Basis
Right to Freedom of Speech
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Freedom of Association
Strict Scrutiny
Right to Free Exercise of Religion
Strict Scrutiny
Equal Protection of Race
Strict Scrutiny
Equal Protection of National Origin
Strict Scrutiny
Equal Protection of Gender
Intermediate Scrutiny
Equal Protection of Aliens (Generally)
Strict Scrutiny
Equal Protection of Aliens concerning self-government
Rational Basis
Discrimination against Non-marital Children
Intermediate Scrutiny
Age Discrimination
Rational Basis
Disability Discrimination
Rational Basis
Wealth Discrimination
Rational Basis
Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Rational Basis
Economic Regulation
Rational Basis
Content-Based Restrictions on Speech
Strict Scrutiny
Content-Neutral Restrictions on Speech
Intermediate Scrutiny
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
SCOTUS decision declaring laws of racial segregation in public schools illegal.
Dred Scott Decision (1857)
Congress could not ban slavery on American territories. The decision was a consequence of the Jacksonian democrats.
Robert Henri Lee
He published the Article of Confederation. They were ratified for the last state in Maryland in 1788.
Virginia Plan
- more powerful national government.
- a bicameral legislation with three branches of government.
- favored populated states because each states was represented by the number of people.
New Jersey Plan
- 3 branches government.
- smaller states' interest with unicameral congress that would represent the states equally.
The Great Compromise
Federalist papers
List of articles written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay
Article 1, section 2
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives".
Article 1, Section 2
House of representative members are elected for two years and their number is population proportionated.
Article 1, Section 3
Each state has 2 senators elected for 6 years.
Article 1, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Article 6
Conflict between Statute Law and Federal Law : Federal Law prevails
Article 2
The POTUS' role. He's elected for 4 years.
22nd Amendment
POTUS cannot be elected more than twice.
12th Amendment
Each state provides a number of electors which correspond to the number of senators plus the number of representatives (including the 3 of the district of Colombia).
Bush v. Al Gore (2000)
Al Gore won the popular vote with 550 000 votes. Though, with the winner takes it all system, Bush won Florida and won the election.
1st Amendment
Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
2nd Amendment
Protects the right to keep and bear arms.
3rd Amendment
Restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes, in response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the Revolutionary War.
4th Amendment
Guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
5th Amendment
Protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.
6th Amendment
The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of rights of the defendant in a criminal trial:

to a speedy and public trial
to trial by an impartial jury
to be informed of criminal charges
to confront witnesses
to compel witnesses to appear in court
to assistance of counsel
7th Amendment
The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases that deal with claims of more than twenty dollars. It also prohibits judges from overruling findings of fact by juries in federal civil trials.
8th Amendment
The Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines, though it leaves the term "excessive" open to interpretation. The most frequently litigated clause of the amendment is the last, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
9th Amendment
The right to privacy.
10th Amendment
The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principles of separation of powers and federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people.
13th Amendment
Abolition of Slavery and fights racial discrimination
14th Amendment
Equal protection clause and due process of law.
15th Amendment
Voting rights shall not be deprived by the US or by the States for a reason of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.
19th Amendment
Women can vote
26th Amendment
18 years old can vote
Constitutional Interpretation
≠judicial review
It is mostly based on political views. Constitutional Interpretation is an act of fidelity. Acceptance of the idea that Constitution guides collective behavior.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
State Statutes that forbids use of drugs and instruments to avoid pregnancy. Marital privacy is protected by the Constitution as an idea to protect the liberty of the people in the privacy of marriage.
Textualism
Contains judges so they don't drift too far away from the Constitution.
Limits : wording of the Constitution is ambiguous.
Doctrinarism
It is both a way to decide cases and to organize Constitutional Law. It is an attempt to impose a coherent analytical frame on an entire area of the law.
Stare decisis
Doctrine of the precedent. Case Law is used to make new judicial to make a new judicial decision.
Prudentialism
Approach used to concile conflicting interests and sensitive cases.
Structuralism
The idea is determining the meaning of a single provision by examining the whole Constitution. [broad and narrow conceptions]
Philosophical arguments
It's an aspirational approach.
Comparative perspective
Comparative approach. There is a debate on the issue
Federalist n° 78
The judiciary is beyond comparaison the weakest of the three branches.
3 kinds of appellate jurisdiction
- Certification
- Appeal
- Certiorari
Decision making
- Legal brief time
- Oral Argument Time
- Court's meeting time
- Opinion assignement and writing time
- Outcome
Erga omnes
Decision have the purpose to apply to other parties or cases.
INS v. Chadha (1983)
As the plaintiff of the case, Chadha stayed in the US when his Visa expired. He wasn't considered either as a citizen of Kenya or one of India. The Attorney general wanted to stop his deportation. Section 244 would impose its veto and invalidate the decision of the attorney general. Justices voted and said that the decision violated the separation of power.
DC v Heller
case that appealed an individual right to possess a handgun granted by the 2nd Amendment. Two judges were reaching opposing goals. One of them was Justice Scalia, relying on originalism to uphold the right to possess a handgun. He discussed concepts such as what "the people" means, and what "the rights to bear arms" means. Another Justice, Justice Stevens, wrote a dissenting opinion relying on the same approach. He used original intent to reach exactly the opposing point. According to the words' original meaning, he denied that the Government gave the authority to restrict the right of people to bear arms.

The case shows that original intent is very difficult to use and very difficult to determine in an objective way. It is odd to determine objectively the intentions of the framers 200 years ago. In addition, there is no proof that the American's of the 21st century want to be governed by ideas and concepts derived from the 18th century.
Originalism
Refers to the meaning of the words as intended by the Founding Fathers.
Ashwander rules
General guidelines of interpretation and canons of restrain.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
A man burnt the American flag to protest against the media administration and was sentenced to one year of jail. SCOTUS decision hold that burning the flag was part of the freedom of expression as said in the First Amendment. This decision opposed 48 states law. Therefore the 1989 Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress.
United States v. Eichmann (1990)
The Flag Protection Act was struck down by the same opinion as in Johnson. The SCOTUS wanted to prove that the First Amendment is more important than the flag. Congress was archi vener and wanted to protect the flag within the Constitution. It was defeated by Senate and did not pass.
Boerne v. Flores (1997)
Archbishop of San Antonio, Texas, wanted to enlarge a church on a historical place. The permit was refused due to the localization of the church. Consequently he sued the local authorities arguing that this refusal was against the RFRA.
The Court challenged the Act because it said that the RFRA took away from them the power to refuse that kind of permit for good reasons, which were historical reasons. The Court held the RFRA overly restricts the states' freedom to enforce the federal legislation in a manner which they seem most appropriate, meaning that this Act was considered by the SCOTUS as disproportionate in its effect compare to its objective.
This case is often studied after the Smith case because the Boerne one was the end of any legislative attempt to overturn the Employment Division v. Smith ruling.
Christolm v. Georgia (1793)
The court ruled that Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution abrogated the states' sovereign immunity and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes between private citizens and states.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The SCOTUS ruled that its own interpretation of the Constitution should prevail over any contrary interpretation made by Congress, by the POTUS, and by everyone else, unless the SCOTUS overruled its precedent or until the people amend the Constitution. (cf class because huge stuff)
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Came from the State refusal to enforce Brown. Issue was brought by the governor of Arkansas who refused to enforce a Federal Court order that made it compulsory to desegregate Little Rock public schools. All the 9 Justices of the SCOTUS signed this decision providing "the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution". Consequently, Cooper v. Aaron is not only binding on Courts but also on officials.
Ex parte v. McCardle (1868)
the defendant was seeking redress under the Habeas Corpus Statute. Congress did not want SCOTUS to hear the case, therefore Congress tried to repeal a part of the Habeas Corpus Statute in order for the SCOTUS not to have jurisdiction anymore. Consequently, the Court declined to decide this case because its jurisdiction under the Statute was withdrawn.
Rules of standing
- Injury in fact
- Causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct
- Likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
Mootness
when the facts that constitute the dispute are no longer alive if the case has been settle one way or another. The SCOTUS does not always hear cases in order not to answer a Constitutional question if it does not concern the person anymore.
Ripeness
Allows the Court to dismiss the case because adjudication would not end the dispute.
Leser v. Garnett (1922)
On judicial review. Case in which male voters from Maryland challenged the validity of the 19th amendment that provides female suffrage. They argued that it challenged the validity of the 19th amendment
departmentalism
Federal Courts have the power of judicial review that is to say the power to disregard a law that seems unconstitutional.
Injury in fact
an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical
Causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct
the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court;
Likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.
Coleman v. Miller (1939)
"lapse of time" issue.
Linked to Child Labor Amendment which proposed to authorize Congress to regulate labor of minors. Kansas rejected the Amendment in 1925 and adopted it 13 years later (interlude). Some argued that this 13-year lapse of time restricted the Amendment of its validity. Consequently, the SCOTUS held that the question of what constitutes a "reasonable time" was one for Congress to consider and not for the SCOTUS to hear. In this case, Congress needed to decide what a reasonable time was. On the question on enforcement on amendment, the SCOTUS may oversee, to a certain extent, the enforcement of an amendment.
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
since them, the SCOTUS has strongly circumscribed the power of enforcement on amendment.
Reasons for the the development of judicial review ?
1st : History
2nd : Political reasons
RIGHT TO PRIVACY - SUBJECTS
CAMPERS

Contraception
Abortion
Marriage (including same-sex marriage, although the Court did not specify the exact level of scrutiny)
Procreation (and childrearing)
Education, private
Relations, family (family members have the right to live together; parents have fundamental rights concerning care, custody, and control of their children)
Sexual relations

Also: obscene reading material,
GOV'T REGULATION w/r/t ABORTION
Pre-viability: A state may regulate abortion as long as no UNDUE BURDEN is placed on the ability to obtain an abortion.

Post-viability: A state may prohibit a woman from having an abortion unless the procedure is necessary to protect the woman's life.

In neither case is the government required to fund an abortion.

If a statute restricts abortions, a court should not invalidate the statute in its entirety if the statute has valid applications. It can attempt to fashion narrower declaratory and injunctive relief against the unconstitutional application.
UNDUE BURDENS w/r/t ABORTION
NOT undue burdens (remember: pre-viability):
Required disclosures to obtain informed consent
24 hour waiting period
Parental notification (if judicial bypass is in place)
Requiring abortions to be conducted only by licensed physicians
"Partial birth" abortion ban if other methods are available

Undue burdens:
Spousal consent requirement
GOV'T REGULATION w/r/t COMMERCIAL SPEECH
Commercial speech is absolutely NOT PROTECTED if:
1) It concerns unlawful activity
2) It is fraudulent in nature
3) It is misleading

Commercial speech IS PROTECTED if:
1) It concerns lawful activity
2) It is not fraudulent
3) It is not misleading

3-part test for legitimate regulation of protected commercial speech:
1) The regulation must directly advance
2) a substantial governmental interest;
3) and the regulation is narrowly-tailored (but does not need to be least-restrictive alternative).
TWO TYPES OF CON LAW QUESTIONS
1) POWERS OF GOVERNMENT: relative affirmative powers in the Articles; federalism; Supremacy Clause; Dormant Powers clause

2) Individual rights (13 or 14 questions): limits on governmental power such as freedom of speech, procedural due process, protection of fundamental rights & equal protection
STANDING
Standing requires that a plaintiff establish concrete direct personal stake in the outcome of the case:

1) INJURY IN FACT: $, or (in rare cases) environmental or aesthetic injuries. (However, a person challenging constitutionality of a statute does not need to wait until it has been violated; a clear threat of prosecution is enough to establish injury in fact. Similarly, anyone alleging violation of equal protection has injury in fact.)

2) CAUSATION: must be the connection between injury and conduct complained of

3) REDRESSABILITY: the relief sought must relieve the injury alleged (no advisory opinions)

NOTES:
-No third party standing (w/ exceptions)
-No generalized grievances as a citizen or taxpayer (w/ exceptions)
Steps for CON LAW question:
1. What level of government is acting?
2. Is the question a "powers" or "rights" question?
3. What is the appropriate rule or test for the power/right?
REGULATORY POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS BY THE COMMERCE POWER
Congress has the power to regulate:
1) Channels of interstate commerce
2) Instrumentalities of interstate commerce
3) Any activity which has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce
TESTS for GOV'T REGULATION of INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
If the INTRAstate activity is ECONOMIC: the test is whether RATIONAL BASIS exists to conclude that the activity SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS interstate commerce.

If the INTRAstate activity is NON-ECONOMIC: the test is whether there is a CONGRESSIONAL FINDING that the activity SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS interstate commerce.

These tests measure AGGREGATE EFFECTS.
DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE
The dormant commerce clause (or "negative implications of the commerce clause") is the principal that that state or local laws are unconstitutional if they place an excessive burden on interstate commerce. Therefore, state regulations on interstate commerce will be upheld ONLY IF:
1) The regulation is non-discriminatory, and
2) The regulation does not unduly burden interstate commerce.

This is a balancing test.
STATE ACTION w/r/t CIVIL RIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS
A state can be said to have acted discriminatorily if:
1) Must be governmental conduct;
2) MAY apply to private conduct if state is SIGNIFICANTLY INVOLVED in the conduct of the private party.

There was held to be NO state action where, for example:
-It was the grant of a state license;
-It was the grant of a monopoly to a utility company;
-It was the grant of state land or funds.
EQUAL PROTECTION
A Constitutional right that applies when similarly situated persons receive disparate treatment.
1) Are the people similarly situated?
2) Are they treated differently?
3) What level of scrutiny applies?
-Strict
-Intermediate
-Rational basis
STRICT SCRUTINY
Strict scrutiny applies to
1) Protected first amendment right
2) Suspect classes
3) Fundamental rights (right to travel, right to privacy, right to refuse medical treatment, right to vote)

Burden is on GOVERNMENT to prove that:
1) Law is NECESSARY to achieve
2) There are no less restrictive means
3) And there is a COMPELLING governmental interest (i.e., necessary or crucial for society)
The burden is so high that the law is presumptively invalid.
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
Intermediate scrutiny applies when the discrimination is based on GENDER or on CHILDREN BORN TO UNWED PARENTS, commercial speech, content-neutral time place manner regulation, symbolic speech where medium is the message, and cable TV.

The burden is on the GOVERNMENT to prove that the law is SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED to IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS.
1) Substantially related: a close fit is required; NOT the least restrictive means.
2) Important governmental interest: legitimate > IMPORTANT > necessary. Important governmental interest must be genuine, not hypothesized.

Any interest requires "exceedingly persuasive justification."
RATIONAL BASIS
Rational basis scrutiny applies when neither strict nor intermediate scrutiny apply. I.e., discrimination based on age, proverty/wealth, mental incapacity, necessities for life.

The PLAINTIFF must show that the law is NOT RATIONALLY RELATED to ANY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST.

Burden is very hard for plaintiffs to prove.
SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS
RAN

RACE
ALIENAGE
NATIONAL ORIGIN
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IMPLICATING STRICT SCRUTINY
1) Right to VOTE
2) Right to TRAVEL
3) Right to PRIVACY
4) Right to refuse medical treatment
EXCEPTION for STRICT SCRUTINY w/r/t ALIENAGE
Discrimination regarding functioning of government (i.e., police, teachers, serving on a jury) is given RATIONAL BASIS test.

It is rational to limit jurors to citizens to ensure familiarity with our court system and a sufficient stake in our system of justice.
STEPS for questions about STATUTES REGULATING SPEECH/FIRST AMENDMENT
1. Is there a facial attack on statute? I.e., overbreadth, vagueness, prior restraints

2. Determine if the statute regulates CONTENT of speech or CONDUCT of speech.
-If CONTENT, apply strict scrutiny
-If CONDUCT, apply time, place, & manner test
TEST for legitimacy of REGULATION OF CONDUCT OF SPEECH/EXPRESSION
Time, Place, Manner Test (similar to intermediate scrutiny)

If regulation is over public forums (park, street, sidewalk) and the regulation is content-neutral, the regulation must:
1) Further SIGNIFICANT/IMPORTANT government interests
2) Be NARROWLY TAILORED
3) Leave open ALTERNATIVE CHANNELS of communication.

If regulation is over nonpublic forums, the regulation must:
1) Be viewpoint NEUTRAL
2) Be reasonably related to LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE.
Categories of UNPROTECTED SPEECH
IF CODA

1) Speech advocating imminent lawlessness, and is likely to product such a result (i.e., disclosure of intelligence operations)
2) Fighting words - must be a true threat or a personally abusive epithet, but can't proscribe words based on viewpoint (usually regulation of this is overbroad or vague)
3) Child porn (must be visual depiction of sexual conduct; children must have been used in production; gov't may punish private possession)
4) Obscenity (may not punish private possession, only sale)
5) Defamation
6) Advertising: false/deceptive
TEST for legitimacy of REGULATION under ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
A regulation will be upheld under the Establishment Clause if:
1) It has a secular purpose,
2) Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
3) It does not produce excessive government entanglements with religion.
LIMITS on FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
A person may be punished for membership in a group if:
1) The group calls people to ILLEGAL ACTION (as opposed to merely advocating what people ought to do);
2) The person KNOWS of the group's illegal advocacy, and
3) The person has the SPECIFIC INTENT to accomplish the illegal aims.
EXCEPTIONS to the NO THIRD PARTY STANDING RULE
1) Close relationships
2) Doctor/patient relationship
3) Third party is unlikely to assert his/her own rights
4) Associational standing if the members would have standing to sue, the interests are germane to the organization's purpose, and neither the claim nor relief requires participation of individual members
EXCEPTIONS to the NO GENERALIZED GRIEVANCES RULE
Plaintiff must not be suing solely as a citizen or a taxpayer interest in having the gov't follow the law, unless:
1) taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures pursuant to federal (or state and local) statutes as violating the Establishment Clause (note: tax credits are NOT under the purview of the Establishment Clause)
2) citizens have standing to allege that a federal action violates the Tenth Amendment by interfering with the powers reserved to the states as long as the person can show injury in fact and redressability.
ELEMENTS OF JUSTICIABLE CLAIM
1) Standing
2) Ripeness
3) (lack of) Mootness
4) (lack of) Political question
5) (lack of) Advisory opinion
6) (lack of) Adequate and independent nonfederal grounds
7) (lack of) Unsettled state law (requires temporary abstention)
8) (lack of) Pending state proceedings (requires temporary abstention unless the claim is criminal)
9) (lack of) 11th Amendment issues
10) (lack of) Sovereign immunity issues
DEFINITION/REQUIREMENTS OF RIPENESS
Ripeness is the question of whether a federal court may grant pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation.

A court will examine:
1) HARDSHIP plaintiff will endure without pre-enforcement review
2) The FITNESS of the issues on the record for judicial review
ARTICLE III
Federal judicial power
DEFINITION & EXCEPTIONS OF MOOTNESS
If events after the filing of a lawsuit END A PLAINTIFF'S INJURY, the case must be dismissed as moot because a plaintiff must present a live controversy, though a non-frivolous money damages claim will keep the case alive.

Exceptions:
1) Time duration: If the wrong is capable of repetition but evades review because of its inherently limited time duration, it is not moot (ex: abortion challenges)
2) voluntary cessation if the defendant gives up the practice but could resume
3) class action suits
DEFINITION/TYPES OF POLITICAL QUESTION
Refers to constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicate. Political questions are: i) issues committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or 2) issues inherently incapable of resolution and enforcement by the judicial process. (Latter is more likely to be on the bar)

Political question issues:
1) What constitutes a "republican form of government" guaranteed to the state by Article IV, § 4
2) Questions regarding the conduct of foreign relations
3) Issues as to when hostilities w/ a foreign nation have stopped
4) Which group of delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention
5) Challenges to the impeachment & removal process
6) Questions regarding partisan legislative reapportionment/partisan gerrymandering (note: states may use independent commissions to draw districts rather than allowing the state legislature to do so)
METHODS OF SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1) Writ of certiorari (discretionary)
-all cases from state courts
-all appellate court cases

2) Appeal (mandatory)
-appeals that come from decisions from three-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctive relief

3) Original jurisdiction (discretionary)
-Supreme Court has original and EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction for suits between state governments
FINAL JUDGMENT RULE
Generally, the Supreme Court may hear cases only after there has been a final judgment of the highest state court, or of a United States Court of Appeals, or of a three-judge federal district court.
ADEQUATE & INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS
Supreme Court will refuse jurisdiction for a case arising from a state court decision if there were ADEQUATE and INDEPENDENT nonfederal grounds to support the state decision.

Adequate- issues that are FULLY DISPOSITIVE of the case
Independent- not based on federal law
11TH AMENDMENT LIMITS ON FEDERAL COURTS
Federal courts cannot hear these cases:
-Actions against state governments for damages
-Actions against state governments for injunctive/declaratory relief where the state is named as a party
-Actions against state government officers where the effect of the suit will be that retroactive damages will be paid from the state treasury or would divest the state of ownership of land
-Actions against state government officers for violating state law

The 11th Amendment does NOT prohibit federal courts from hearing these cases:
-where the defendant state has consented to being sued in federal court
-where the plaintiff is the United States or another state
-where Congress has granted federal courts the authority to hear the case under the Fourteenth Amendment
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ISSUES
-suits against a state government in state court without the defendant state's consent
-adjudicative actions against states and state agencies before federal administrative agencies
STATE GOVERNMENTS MAY ONLY BE SUED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
1) Waiver/consent of defendant state
2) States sued under the 14th Amendment
3) Federal government suits against a state government
4) Bankruptcy proceedings
STATE OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE SUED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
1) Injunctive relief
2) Money damages to be paid out of their own pockets
3) Money damages PAID BY THE STATE in the FUTURE co comply with the court order
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POWER COMES FROM
Article 1 § 8 - Congress can adopt all laws that are about taxing, spending, & commerce
EXCEPTIONS WHERE CONGRESS HAS POLICE POWER
MILD

1) Military
2) Indian reservations
3) Lands (federal)
4) District of Columbia
TAXING POWER
Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes IF:
1) They are uniform throughout the nation - identical taxation of the taxed Article in every state where it is found, and
2) Capitation & direct taxes are laid in proportion to the census, and,
3) Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states,
4) OR if the tax bears a REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP to revenue production
WHAT IS A TAX?
The determination of whether a legislative enactment imposes a tax does NOT depend on what Congress calls it. Rather, it is determined by its FUNCTION.
SPENDING POWER
Congress may spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare. This includes the ability to attach "strings" to government grants.
COMMERCE POWER
Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, Indian tribes, and among the states. The Supreme Court said that Congress could act under the Commerce clause in any of the following three situations:

1) regulating channels of interstate commerce, such as highways, waterways, the Internet
2) regulating the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons or things in interstate commerce
3) regulating economic activities (including INTRAstate activities) that have a rational basis on which the activity could have an substantial effect on interstate commerce
4) regulating non-economic INTRAstate activities IF Congress can show a direct substantial economic effect on interstate commerce (NOT cumulative effect).

This is basically ANYTHING involving two or more states or any transmission across state lines (including electricity, gas, TV, radio, etc.).

Congress does NOT have the power to COMPEL activity where there is none, even if the failure to undertake the activity affects interstate commerce.
TENTH AMENDMENT
The Tenth Amendment as a limit on Congressional powers states that all powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. From this, three principles emerge:

1) Congress cannot compel state regulatory or legislative action.
2) Congress may prohibit harmful commercial activity by state governments.
3) Federal law is supreme and preempts state law
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT
The Fifteenth Amendment is a limitation on both the states and the federal government by prohibiting them from denying any citizen the right to vote based on race or color.

Enabling Clause: allows Congress to adopt legislation about anything related to a "badge of slavery"
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
Congress has broad discretion to delegate its legislative power, IF:
-power is not uniquely confined to Congress
-the delegation includes intelligible standards for the delegate to follow (low threshold)
-the delegate is independent from Congress and Congress does not keep certain controls over the delegate
-it is not usurping power from another branch by delegating
-if the delegating interferes with the exercise of a fundamental liberty, delegate must show she has that right
-the delegate may have the authority to enact regulations that impose criminal penalties, but the prosecutions of violations must be left to the executive or judicial branches
LEGISLATIVE VETOES
A legislative veto is an attempt by Congress to overturn an executive agency action without bicameralism (passage by the House and Senate) or presentment (giving the bill to the President to sign or veto).
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE POWER
Article II, § 1
PRESIDENT'S POWER OVER FOREIGN POLICY
President's power is paramount to represent and act for the United States. This includes:
-the power to recognize foreign states lies exclusively with the President.
-the power to make treaties
-the power to enter into executive agreements
-the power to appoint and receive ambassadors
LINE ITEM VETOES
The veto power allows the President only to approve or reject a bill IN TOTO: he cannot cancel part and approve other parts through a line item veto.
PRESIDENT'S TREATY POWER
These are agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the President and are effective when ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. Treaties are either self-executing or require Congress to effectuate it.

-State laws that conflict with treaties are invalid; treaties are the supreme law of the land.
-Federal laws that conflict with treaties are resolved by order of adoption, with the last in time prevailing.
-If the Constitution conflicts with a treaty, the treaty is invalid.
PRESIDENT'S POWER OVER EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
An agreement between the United States and a foreign country that is effective when signed by the President and the head of a foreign country.

-No requirement for Senate approval.
-Can be used for any purpose.
-State laws that conflict with executive agreements are invalid.
-If federal law conflicts with executive agreements, the executive agreements are invalid.
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT POWER
The President may appoint ambassadors, federal judges, judges of the Supreme Court, and officers of the United States. However, the Senate must approve the nomination in order for the person to take office.

Recess Appointments - The President may make an appointment without Senate approval during a Senate recess of "sufficient duration." The Senate is in recess only when one is declared. If no recess is declared and the Senate holds pro forma sessions, then the President may not make an appointment without Senate approval.
CONGRESSIONAL APPOINTMENT POWER
Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President, the Heads of Departments, or the lower federal courts.

There is no other Congressional appointment power, except to appoint its own officers to carry on internal legislative tasks.
PRESIDENTIAL REMOVAL POWER
Unless removal is limited by statute, the President may fire any executive branch official without interference from Congress. However, Congress may limit removal to where there is good cause shown to all other executive appointees.
CONGRESSIONAL REMOVAL POWER
Congress may, by statute, limit removal, but it cannot give itself the power to remove an officer charged with the execution of laws except through impeachment.

Removal must be an office where independence from the President is desirable.

Congress may limit removal to where there is good cause shown, but it may not prohibit removal.
IMPEACHMENT
The President, the Vice President, federal judges and all officers of the United States can be impeached and removed from the office for: treason, bribery, high crimes & misdemeanors.

A MAJORITY VOTE in the House is necessary to INVOKE THE CHARGES OF IMPEACHMENT; a TWO-THIRDS VOTE in the SENATE is necessary to CONVICT.

The President cannot veto an impeachment.

Impeachment does not remove a person from office.
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
The President has absolute immunity to civil suits for money damages for any actions while carrying out the duties of the office. This immunity extends to aides if they are exercising discretionary authority on behalf of the President in "sensitive" areas of national concern.

The President does not have immunity for actions that occurred prior to taking office.

The President has executive privilege for presidential papers and conversations, but such privilege must yield to other important government interests.

Presidential immunity does not extend to presidential communiques in criminal proceedings.
PRESIDENTIAL PARDON POWER
The President has the power to pardon anyone accused or convicted of FEDERAL (not state) crimes except where the person to be pardoned has been impeached or to offenses of civil contempt.
PREEMPTION
When state and federal laws are on the same subject matter, the Supremacy Clause provides that the federal law is supreme and the state law is rendered void due to preemption.

In preemption cases, especially those involving a field traditionally within the power of the states, such as regulations involving health, safety or welfare, the Court begins with the presumption that state police powers are NOT to be superseded unless it was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.

Two types of preemption:
1. Express preemption
2. Implied preemption
SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article VI
EXPRESS PREEMPTION
When Congress has authority to act, it can state that its power is exclusive in a field; if a federal statute says that a federal law is exclusive in a field, then state and local laws are preempted.
An express preemption clause will be narrowly construed.
IMPLIED PREEMPTION
Even if a federal statute is silent about preemption, implied preemption can be found in any of the following ways:
1) State law actually conflicts with federal requirements (without being so narrowly conflicting as to be expressly preempted)
2) State law prevents achievement of federal objectives: i.e., if it is not possible for someone to simultaneously comply with both federal and state laws
3) Congress has preempted the entire field: to figure out if Congress has "occupied" the entire field, the courts will look for Congress's intent (especially re: comprehensiveness and oversight)
PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
Article IV

The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV: No state or municipality may intentionally deny citizens of other states the fundamental privileges and immunities it affords its own citizens without substantial justification.
Requires:
-Discrimination against non-residents
-Discrimination concerns fundamental rights
-Discrimination is intentionally protectionist
-If there is substantial justification for the different treatment and no less restrictive means to solve the problem, the discrimination will be legitimate

If the law discriminates against out-of-staters with regard to their ability to earn a living, it violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV unless it is necessary to achieve an important government purpose. The discrimination must be with regard to fundamental rights or important economic activities. Fundamental rights means rights relating to important commercial activities such as the pursuit of a livelihood, or civil liberties.

Corporations or aliens cannot use or invoke the privileges and immunities clause.
STATE TAXATION/REGULATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Intergovernmental immunity: States may not charge state tax to be paid out of the federal treasury or burdensome regulation for federal government activity. The federal government is immune from unwanted state taxation or regulation.

Indirect taxes on federal government are permissible if they are not unreasonably burdensome.
EXCEPTIONS TO DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE
1) Congress approves of the discrimination (although this will not prevent the law from violating the Equal Protection Clause, since Congress cannot approve state actions that would violate equal protection)

2) Marketplace participation exception: discriminatory state law may be valid if the state is acting as a market participant (i.e., giving subsidies, government programs, government-owned businesses, buying or selling products, hiring labor).
-Note: even if it doesn't violate the DCC, it may violate the Interstate Privileges & Immunities Clause

3) Necessary to important state interest: discriminatory state law may be valid if it furthers an important NONECONOMIC state interest and there are NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES

4) Discrimination against interstate commerce where government is performing a traditional government function (such as waste disposal)
DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXES
How to tell if a state tax is discriminatory? Ask: does it single out interstate commerce for taxation in order to benefit the local economy?

Discriminatory state taxes violate:
-Commerce Clause if it discriminates against interstate commerce
-Privileges & Immunities Clause if it discriminates against nonresidents
-Equal Protection Clause if the discrimination is not rationally related to a legitimate state purpose

Types of discriminatory state taxes:
-taxation on interstate commerce (obviously)
-a uniform tax that earmarks proceeds for subsidies to in-state businesses
-local taxes that don't give credit for income taxed by another state
-taxes giving exemptions only to long-time residents of the state (EPC)
-taxes based on other suspect classifications or infringing on fundamental rights
-taxes that discriminate against natural people who are nonresidents (P&I Clause)
VALIDITY OF STATE TAXES THAT DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE TAX
Does the state tax discriminate against interstate commerce (i.e., does it single out interstate commerce for taxation in order to benefit the local economy)? If not, then it is nondiscriminatory, but it could still be argued that the tax unduly burdens interstate commerce.

A state may only tax activities if there is:
1) substantial nexus between the product or activity to be taxed and the state. Substantial nexus requires signification activity within the taxing state.
2) fair apportionment: the tax should be based on the extent of the taxable activity or property in the state
3) fair relationship: tax must be fairly related to the services or benefits provided by the state
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
A judgment entitled to FFC must be recognized in sister states if original court:
1) had jurisdiction (personal and SMJ)
2) rendered judgment on the merits
3) rendered a final judgment
STATE ACTION REQUIREMENT
The Constitution prohibits only governmental infringement of constitutional rights, so it is necessary to find action attributable to the state.

State action can be found in the actions of seemingly private individuals who:
1) perform traditional and exclusive public functions (only running a town or running an election for public office have been found to be such exclusive public functions), OR
2) have significant state involvement in their activities by affirmatively facilitating acts of discrimination (called the "entanglement exception")

Types of state action:
-peremptory challenges
-when state is lessor for a racially discriminatory lessee
-racially restricted covenant
-when a state provides free books to private schools that racially discriminate
-There is state action when a private entity regulates interscholastic sports within a state
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude

Enabling Clause allows Congress to prohibit PRIVATE race discrimination by adopting laws to enforce this provision.
METHODS OF REGULATING PRIVATE DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT
13th Amendment Enabling Clause
Commerce Clause (i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Congress cannot use section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to regulate private behavior... only to regulate state and local governments.
BILL OF RIGHTS AS APPLIED TO THE STATES
Four provisions of the Bill of rights are not incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment:
-3rd Amendment right not to have a soldier quartered in your personal home
-5th Amendment right to grand jury inditement in criminal cases
-7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases
-8th Amendment right against excessive right is presumed to be incorporated but there is no precise ruling
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
The procedural safeguards of notice and a hearing are required whenever there is any serious deprivation of life, liberty, or property interest.

IF THERE HAS BEEN A DEPRIVATION (and only then), the Court will weigh:
1) the importance of the individual interest involved
2) the value of specific procedural safeguards to that interest
3) the governmental interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency

However, in emergency situations, the government is liable under due process only if its conduct "shocks the conscience."
ELEMENTS OF DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY
1) Intentional act of the government or its employees (or at least reckless action)
2) Deprivation: no or inadequate remedy for taking
3) Liberty: loss of significant freedom of action or denied a freedom provided by the Constitution or statute

A deprivation of property occurs if a person has an entitlement (a reasonable expectation to the continued receipt of a benefit) and that entitlement is not fulfilled.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Used for protecting economic liberties and safeguarding property.

Economic liberties: rational basis test.

Property: protected by the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The government may not take private property for public use without just compensation.
TAKING CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
Fifth Amendment prohibits governmental taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
1) Public use: a use will be held to be public as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose (which can be almost anything, including aesthetic ends)
2) Taking vs regulation: there is no clear cut formula for determining whether there has been a taking. There is usually an actual appropriation or destruction of property, or complete destruction of all economic use of the land
3) Just compensation
JUST COMPENSATION/REMEDIES FOR TAKINGS
The government may take private property for public use but only if it pays the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking, terminates the regulation, or pays the owner the damages that incurred while the regulation was in effect (i.e. damages for a temporary taking). The value of the gain to the government by the taking is irrelevant.
EX POST FACTO
Constitution says that neither the federal or state governments can adopt ex post facto laws that criminally punish conduct that was lawful when it was done or that increases punishment for a crime after it was committed. The ex post facto clause does not apply in civil cases, only in criminal cases.

Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10.

The Ex Post Facto Clause has also been applied in civil cases where criminal penalties are disguised as civil disabilities. When undertaking this inquiry, courts assess whether the ostensibly civil fine or penalty is penal in nature.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Punitive damages do not necessarily violate due process unless they are "grossley excessive." The court will examine:
1) whether defendant had fair notice of the possible magnitude of the punitive damages (KEY ISSUE)
2) reprehensibility of defendant's conduct
3) disparity between actual harm suffered and punitive award (generally should not exceed 10 times the compensatory damages)
4) difference between punitive damages and the penalties authorized for comparable misconduct
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
Every state must issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex and recognize same sex marriage validly performed elsewhere but the court did not specify the standard of review.
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT
Competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment.

A state has a compelling interest in protecting the sanctity of life and so may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment terminated before it is ended.

A state may prevent family members from terminating treatment for another.

There is no Constitutional right to physician assisted death.
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
5th Amendment - applies to the Federal Government

Grossly unreasonable discrimination by the FEDERAL government violates the Due Process Clause
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Fourteenth Amendment
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from treating similarly situated people differently without sufficient justification.

Limited to state action (counterpart for federal action is the Due Process Clause in the 5th Amendment)

Steps in analysis:
1) What is the classification/discrimination?
2) Is there INTENT to discriminate via facial discrimination or discriminatory impact AND discriminatory intent?
3) What level of scrutiny should be applied?
4) Does this law meet the level of scrutiny?
EXAMPLES OF VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER STRICT SCRUTINY
THE FOLLOWING WILL HAVE TO PASS STRICT SCRUTINY
-Discriminatory use of peremptory challenges
-Intentional segregation
-Even racial classifications BENEFITING minorities must pass strict scrutiny
-Race as the predominant factor in drawing up new voting districts (it's okay to be a factor, just not a predominant one)

NOT A VIOLATION OF STRICT SCRUTINY:
-A majority of the Court has not found diversity itself to be a sufficiently compelling interest
-Undocumented aliens are not a suspect classification
-Educational institutions may use race as one factor in admission decisions to benefit minorities, as long as there is no race neutral alternative and it is not simply adding points to an applicant's admission scores based solely on race
REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER STRICT SCRUTINY
STRICT SCRUTINY
-A court may not impose a remedy that goes beyond the purpose of remedying the vestiges of past segregation/racism.
-Numerical set-asides require clear proof that it will fix past discrimination
-Even where a state/local gov't has not engaged in past discrimination it may have a compelling interest in affirmative action as long as the action is NARROWLY TAILORED to that interest -- there must be past private discrimination within the government's jurisdiction
IMPORTANT WORDS TO REMEMBER FOR STRICT SCRUTINY
Necessary
Compelling governmental interest
Race/national origin
Fundamental personal interest
IMPORTANT WORDS TO REMEMBER FOR INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
Quasi-suspect classification
Substantially related
Important governmental interest
Exceedingly persuasive justification
IMPORTANT WORDS TO REMEMBER FOR RATIONAL BASIS TEST
Rationally related
Legitimate governmental interest
REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
Valid remedies:
-Affirmative action benefiting women that are designed to remedy past discrimination

Invalid remedies:
-Gender classifications benefiting women that are based on gender role stereotypes will not be allowed.
-Intentional discrimination against men
EXAMPLES OF VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
Invalid discrimination:
-denial to admit males to a state university
-law that provides that only wives are eligible for alimony
-Law that permits unwed mother to stop adoption of offspring, but not unwed father

Valid discrimination:
-law punishing males but not females for statutory rape
-male-only draft registration
-law granting automatic citizenship to nonmarital children born abroad to American mothers, but requiring American fathers to take specific steps to establish paternity
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Right to travel between states is a fundamental right. This includes the right to be treated equally in becoming a permanent resident of another state.

Two different standards of review under two similar circumstances (not sure I understand the difference tbh):
-Durational residency requirements: a waiting period for dispensing benefits should be subject to the strict scrutiny test. State residency requirements should not be upheld merely because they have some theoretical rational relationship to an arguably legitimate end of government (i.e., rational review is not relevant here).
-Distinctions between old and new residents: rational basis test is applicable where a state law has an adverse impact on new residents but does not have a waiting period

International travel is not a fundamental right.
RIGHT TO VOTE
Restrictions on voting, other than on basis of age, residency, or citizenship, are invalid unless they can pass strict scrutiny.

However, relatively short residency requirements restricting the right to vote are valid because there is a compelling interest in ensuring that only bona fide residents vote.

States can require a person to have been registered with a party for a reasonable time before that party's primary election in order to be eligible to vote in the primary.

An unreasonably high filing fee might be held totally invalid so that no candidate would have to pay the fee.

A reasonable valid fee would have to be waived for an indigent candidate who could not pay the fee.
RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT
The Supreme Court has held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental liberty.

Valid law:
-An individual can be made to submit to vaccination because of the governmental interest in preventing the spread of disease
-Government may involuntarily administer antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill defendant to make him competent to stand trial if: the treatment is medically appropriate, the treatment is substantially unlikely to cause side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial, and the treatment is necessary for important governmental trial-related interests.

Not valid:
-No right to assisted suicide
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Various privacy rights (CAMPERS) are fundamental rights, and regulations affecting these rights are reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard and will be upheld only if they are necessary to a compelling interest.
GOVERNMENT SPEECH
The Free Speech Clause does not restrict government speech, it restricts governmental regulation of private speech.

The government is generally free to voice its opinions, fund private speech that promote its policies while refusing to fund other private speech, choose artists to fund, and is not subject to the various levels of scrutiny that apply to government regulation of private speech.

However, the government is not generally free to fund private messages without viewpoint neutrality.
CONTENT v. CONDUCT w/r/t FREEDOM OF SPEECH
In General, a regulation seeking to forbid communication of specific ideas (i.e. content regulation) is LESS likely to be upheld than a regulation of conduct incidental to speech.

Content-based regulation: subject matter restriction or viewpoint restriction (not sure how these are different tbh) is subject to strict scrutiny
*Exceptions:

Content-neutral regulation: intermediate scrutiny

Conduct regulation: time, place, & manner regulations are valid
*Public forums: narrowly tailored to achieve an important government interest
*Nonpublic forums: reasonably related to a legitimate regulatory purpose
PRIOR RESTRAINTS ON SPEECH
Prior restraints: Stopping speech before it occurs. They are very disfavored. Prior restraints are only tolerable if no less restrictive alternative would work.
1) Key question: is there a special societal harm that justifies the restraint?
2) Are there no other less restrictive alternatives?
3) Does the prior restraint meet strict scrutiny?
4) Does the prior restraint comply with procedural safeguards?

Court orders suppressing speech must meet strict scrutiny. However, procedurally proper court orders must be complied with until they are vacated or overturned because a person who violates a court order can't challenge it.

Procedural safeguards: The Supreme Court has held that no system of prior restraint will be upheld unless it provides the persons whose speech is being restrained certain procedural safeguards:
1) standards for restraint must be narrow, reasonable, and definite
2) the restraining body must promptly seek an injunction of the material it wishes to restrain
3) there must be a prompt and final judicial determination of the validity of the restraint

ANOTHER REQUIREMENT: There must be no other less restrictive alternative that would work.
LICENSES FOR SPEECH
The government can require a license for speech only if there is an important reason for licensing and clear criteria leaving almost no discretion to the licensing authority. In addition, there must be procedural safeguards such as prompt determination of requests for licenses and judicial review of license denials.
VAGUENESS DOCTRINE w/r/t FREE SPEECH
If a criminal law or regulation fails to give persons reasonable notice of what is prohibited, it may violate the Due Process Clause.

Burden is on the challenger to show vagueness.

Note: Fighting words are not protected speech, but statutes attempting to punish the use of such words are often found to be void for vagueness.
OVERBROAD REGULATION OF SPEECH
A regulation will not be upheld if it is overbroad. It is overbroad if it prohibits substantially more speech than is necessary judged in relation to the regulation's plainly legitimate sweep, the regulation is facially invalid.
REGULATION OF SYMBOLIC SPEECH
The government may regulate conduct that communicates if:
1) the government has an important interest
2) the interest is unrelated to suppression of the message
3) and the impact on communication is no greater than necessary to achieve the government's goal.

Flag burning, nude dancing, burning a cross (as long as it isn't a threat), expenditure limits in campaigns (however, contribution limits in campaigns are allowed)
TEST FOR OBSCENITY
The material must appeal to the prurient interest, or a prurient interest (shameful or morbid interest) in sex (contemporary community standard).
ii. The material must be patently offensive (contemporary community standard)
iii. Taken as a whole, the material must lack serious redeeming artistic, literary, political, or scientific value as determined by a national reasonable person standard (NOT contemporary community standard).

The government may seize the assets of businesses convicted of violating obscenity laws.
PROFANE & INDECENT SPEECH
Generally protected by the First Amendment.

Exceptions:
-free over the air broadcast media
-schools can prohibit and punish profane speech
FALSE SPEECH
Generally protected by the First Amendment.
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
Advertising for illegal activity, and false and deceptive ads are not protected by the First Amendment. Even true commercial speech that inherently risks deception can be prohibited.

Professional speech:
-States may prevent professionals from advertising or practicing under trade names
-States may prohibit attorney, in-person solicitation of clients for profit.
-The government may not prohibit accountants from in-person solicitation of clients for profit.

A regulation of commercial speech will be struck down if the speech involves a lawful activity and is not misleading, unless:
1) the regulation serves a substantial government interest,
2) it directly advances that interest, and
3) is narrowly tailored to achieving that interest.
*Note: Government regulation of commercial speech must be narrowly tailored, but it does not need to be the least restrictive alternative.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
The press has the right to publish information about a matter of public concern, even if the information was unlawfully obtained by another party, as long as:
1) it is a matter of public concern
2) the publisher did not obtain it unlawfully or know who did
3) the original speaker's privacy expectations are low

The press does not have a privilege of exemption from appearing and testifying before, or revealing confidential sources to, grand juries.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Laws that prohibit or punish group membership must meet strict scrutiny.

To punish membership in a group it must be proven that the person:
a. is actively affiliated with the group;
b. has knowledge of the group's illegal activities; and
c. has the specific intent of furthering those illegal activities or objectives.

Laws that require disclosure of group membership, where such disclosure would chill association, must meet strict scrutiny.

Freedom of Association does not protect a right to discriminate, unless:
a. Exception: "intimate association" (i.e., small dinner party)
b. Exception: where discrimination is integral to the expressive activities of the group
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Free Exercise Clause: The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from punishing someone on the basis of the person's religious beliefs. Religious belief does not require recognition of a supreme being and need not arise from a traditional or organized religion. The free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge a neutral law of general applicability unless it can be shown that the law was motivated by a desire to interfere with religion; nor may the government deny benefits to individuals who quit their jobs for religious reasons.

Establishment Clause: SEX
(S) there must be a secular purpose for the law.
(E) the primary effect must be neither to advance nor inhibit religion
(X) there must not be excessive government entanglement with religion.
Approach to Con Law questions
1. Underline who is passing the law (state, Congress, etc.)
2. Subject matter of the question
3. What's the best power to regulate it?
JUDICIAL REVIEW ACRONYM
RAMPS

Ripeness - genuine immediate threat of harm
Advisory opinions - federal courts may not give advisory opinions
Mootness - a case is moot unless an actual controversy exists at all stages of review
Political question - committed to another branch of government
Standing - the first issue to discuss in your essay whenever there is a plaintiff in federal court
USUALLY WRONG ANSWERS
1. General Welfare Clause where it doesn't limit the Taxing and Spending Power because it always limits the Taxing and Spending Power
2. Privileges & Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment hasn't been a right answer ever
3. Something is a privilege, not a right because that's just rarely true anymore
4. The Contracts Clause because it can be defeated by Congress's police power
5. Enabling/Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment only comes into play where you're dealing with issues of civil rights/fundamental rights
6. Federal police power because there is no federal police power per se
7. 10th Amendment because it's a very weak limitation on the Commerce power
FEDERAL PROPERTY POWER
Under the property power, Congress has the power to make all rules and regulations affecting territory or other property belonging to the United States.
1) Wild animals roaming on federal property, even if they wander on to state land
2) Military ships and airplanes
3) Federal buildings and enclaves
4) Indian reservations
SUPERCESSION POWER
A federal law will supercede any state law in direct conflict, but not where you can comply with both (i.e., federal standards are that you cook beef at 150 degrees; state law says you have to cook it at 165 degrees). States may give greater protection than what is required by federal law.
TWO KEY WAYS TO UPHOLD A STATE LAW
1) Dormant Commerce Clause
2) State police power: any health, safety, welfare, morals or aesthetics interest
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION
Delegation by Congress of its commerce power to the President.
CONTRACTS CLAUSE
The Contracts Clause prohibits STATES from retroactively impairing obligation of existing public or private contract, UNLESS there is a significant government interest.
SUSPECT CLASSES
RAN

Strict scrutiny applies when discrimination is based on SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION (race, alienage*, or national origin) AND a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT is implicated (right to vote, travel, privacy, refuse medical treatment).
1. Suspect classification?
2. Fundamental right implicated?

*There are exceptions for whether strict scrutiny applies to state discrimination w/r/t alienage.
WHEN DO YOU USE FIRST AMENDMENT V. EQUAL PROTECTION
Equal Protection review is unnecessary to analyze laws that burden the exercise of 1st Amendment rights because the substantive guarantees of the First Amendment itself give the strongest protection.
WHEN DO YOU USE EQUAL PROTECTION V. DUE PROCESS
Equal protection analysis is used where a STATE law affects some persons and creates an arbitrary classification.

Substantive due process analysis is used where a law affects ALL persons. It challenges the reasonableness of the statute.
WHEN DO YOU USE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE V. ARTICLE 4 PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIES
DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE: PROTECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE
-outlaws both laws that discriminate against interstate commerce and laws that are nondiscriminatory but unduly burden interstate commerce without sufficient offsetting benefits based on the principle that the economic unit is the nation
-states acting as market participants are exempt from the limits of the Dormant Commerce Clause
-protects interstate commercial activity
-only allows discrimination against interstate commerce if no alternative non-discriminatory means are available to achieve legitmate ends
-Congress can authorize states to regulate in ways that would be impermissible under the Dormant Commerce Clause because the Clause is a federalism provision and not a rights provision.

P&I: PROTECTS NONRESIDENTS
-only outlaws laws that discriminate against nonresidents of a state based on the principle that the economic unit is the nation
-states acting as market participants are not exempt from the limits of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2
-protects nonresidents in the exercise of fundamental privileges and immunities of state citizenship which are rights that are essential to interstate harmony such as commercial activity
-only allows discrimination against nonresidents if there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment and the degree of discrimination is closely related to the state's objective
-The Privileges and Immunities Clause is a rights provision and, therefore, arguably Congress may not authorize states to violate the Clause.
ALIENAGE
STATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALIENS: State (not federal) discrimination against aliens is subject to strict scrutiny. The exception is where functioning of government is involved: policemen, teachers, and serving on a jury. The Court ruled this way because these are STATE JOBS that directly affect the political process.

FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALIENS: Federal discrimination against aliens is subject only to rational basis scrutiny because one of the enumerated Art I §8 is that Congress has plenary power over aliens. If the federal government discriminates against aliens, apply only rational basis scrutiny.

ILLEGAL ALIENS: Are not suspect, and you should apply rational basis.

CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS: Laws w/r/t children of aliens are decided w/ intermediate scrutiny.
PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF ARTICLE IV v. 14TH AMENDMENT
Article 4: The P&I Clause of Article 4 protects against discrimination by a state in favor of its own citizens when it affects a fundamental right. It protects against economic discrimination by one state against citizens or residents of another state.
Exception: UNLESS there's a significant government interest.

14th Amendment: The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents discrimination against people from out of state, but only with regard to basic rights. The Court uses a two-part test to determine if the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been violated. First, it looks to see if a law discriminates against people from out of state regarding fundamental rights (e.g. protection by the government of the enjoyment of life, and liberty, the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety). These rights often focus on the economic right to pursue a livelihood. The second part of the test focuses on whether the state is justified in the discrimination. It examines if there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and if the discriminatory law has a substantial relationship to that reason.
ATTACKS ON STATUTES REGULATING SPEECH:
1) overbreadth
2) vagueness
3) prior restraint
4) unfettered discretion - if someone has unfettered discretion to stop you from speaking
LOYALTY OATHS
The Supreme Court has upheld oaths requiring government employees to oppose the violent overthrow of the government and to support the Constitution.

Impermissible:
-The Court has held that government employees cannot be required to show respect for the flag, as a person might refuse to salute the flag on religious grounds.
-The federal government may not require any federal office holder to take an oath based on a religious belief as a condition for receiving the job because such a requirement is prohibited by Article VI of the constitution. State and local governments are prohibited from requiring such oaths by the Free Exercise Clause.

Loyalty oaths must generally survive vagueness attacks and First Amendment objections.
1st Amendment
Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Right to Assemble and Petition
2nd Amendment
Right to Bear Arms
3rd Amendment
No Quartering of Soldiers
4th Amendment
Freedom from unlawful search and seizure
5th Amendment
Protection from double jeopardy and self incrimination
6th Amendment
Right to a fair and speedy trial
7th Amendment
Guarantees the right to jury trial in civil suits involving $20.00 or more.
8th Amendment
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and from excessive bail.
9th Amendment
The people retain all of their rights, even those not mentioned in the Constitution.
10th Amendment
All power not granted by the Constitution is reserved for the States and the People.
Bill of Rights
First 10 amendments to the Constitution
lemon test
A three-part test to determine if the establishment clause has been violated.
establishment clause
Prohibits the establishment of a national religion-1st amendment
habeas corpus
an accused person cannot be jailed indefinitely without being charged with a crime
ex post facto clause
congress can't pass a law that punishes a person retroactively (after the fact)
double jeopardy
Cannot be tried for the same crime twice
eminent domain
allows the government to take property for public use but also requires the government to provide just compensation for that property
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The federal government is immune from state taxation

Court rules in favor of McCulloch
1st National Bank is opposed by the State of ______ and she attempts to tax it away. Marshall's Supreme Court uses Supremacy Clause and the necessary and proper clause to say "States may not tax the Feds".
Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Blacks are ineligible regardless of freedom

Missouri Compromise Unconstitutional

Court rules in favor of Sandford
A slave is brought to a non-slave state and his owner dies. He sues for his freedom. Taney's court says that black people of African descent are not citizens and therefore ineligible to bring suit....also, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

FCLA violates the 10th Amendment

Court rules in favor of Dagenhart
The Federal Child Labor Act of 1915 prohibits the employment of an employee's sons. White's court cites the tenth amendment in striking down the law.
U.S. v. Darby Lumber (1941)

Hammer v. Dagenhart Overturned

Court rules in favor of U.S.
The owner of a lumber mill cites Hammer v. Dagenhart to challenge the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to avoid paying the required minimum wage. Stone's court unanimously upholds the law and overturns Hammer v. Dagenhart.
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)

FLSA violates proper regulation of states

Court rules in favor of Usery
An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act extends the wage and hour requirements to state employees. Burger's court affirms congressional authority to do so but strikes down the law citing improper regulation of states.
Garcia v. SAMTA (1985)

National League of Cities v. Usery Overturned

Court rules in favor of Garcia
Fair Labor Standards were extended even further. An employee sues for overtime pay. Burger's court says that rules for proper state regulation were not established and overturns National League of Cities v. Usery. "States should look to the political process, not the court to protect their interests as long as congress is constitutionally exercising its power.
Printz v. U.S. (1997)

States are not merely administrative units of the federal government

Court rules in favor of Printz
A sheriff disagrees with new federal requirements regarding background checks for gun purchases. Rehnquist's court strikes down the law, stating that "states are not merely administrative units of the federal government".
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

The interstate commerce and supremacy clauses grant greater legal authority to federal licenses.

Commerce is intercourse

Court rules in favor of Gibbons
A steamboat operator possesses a state license to operate in the waters of New York. A colleague possesses a federal license to operate up and down the coast. Marshall's court declares that under the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) and the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), federal licenses are superior.
U.S. v. E.C. Knight (1895)

Sherman Anti-Trust Act does not apply to manufacturing

Court rules in favor of E.C. Knight
The federal government claims that the acquisition of 4 small sugar manufacturing companies proposed by American Sugar violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Fuller's court rejects the claim because the act does not apply to manufacturing.
Swift and Co. v. U.S. (1905)

Sherman Anti-Trust Act applies to stockyards

Stream of Commerce Doctrine introduced

Court rules in favor of U.S.
The federal government attempts to break up the meat packing trust. Justice Holmes argues that the stockyards lie at a midpoint in the process of a commercial sale, rendering it well within congressional authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Panama Refining Co. v. U.S. (1935)

NIRA violates proper delegation of power

Court rules in favor of Panama Refining Co.
Under the National Industry recovery Act (NIRA) the congress grants nearly all its discretionary commercial authority to the executive branch. Stone's court strikes down the law and deals a blow to the New Deal. (1st rejection of law based on improper delegation of power)
Schecter Poultry Corp v. U.S. (1935)

NIRA violates proper delegation of power

Stream of Commerce Doctrine rejected

Court rules in favor of Schecter Poultry Corp
Schecter is in violation of National Industry Recovery Act standards but challenges their constitutionality based on a delegation of power from legislative to executive branches by allowing the president to draft legal code when unable to procure legal code from industry officials.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)

Stream of Commerce broadened

Burdens and obstructions to commerce may spring from other sources

Court rules in favor of NLRB
The Wagner Act enables collective bargaining and establishes the National Labor Relations Board to enforce compliance. A manufacturing company engages in unfair labor practices and the NLRB orders them to reinstate 10 workers who were wrongfully terminated.
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Home-grown wheat competes with market wheat

Agricultural Adjustment Act is necessary and proper

Court rules in favor of Wickard
The 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act limits the amount of home grown wheat a person may grow, pursuant to increased wheat prices. A farmer is legally allowed 200 bushels but he harvests over 400. He refuses to pay the fine of $117.11 and challenges the law. Justice Jackson decides that home-grown wheat competes with wheat in commerce. The law stands.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964)

Regulatory power under Commerce Clause gains moral utilization

Court rules in favor of U.S.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in lodging facilities of 5 rooms or more. By serving the traveling public they are involved with interstate commerce. Morton Rolleston Jr. sues but Justice Clark declares that the law was sound.
U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Gun-Free School Zones Act does not demonstrate the effect of gun violence at schools on commerce

Court rules in favor of Lopez
A student violates the Gun-Free School Zones Act by bringing a gun to school. The government argued that gun-violence in schools affects interstate commerce. Justice Rehnquist disagreed and the court sided with the student
Raich v. Gonzales(2005)

Congress may regulate production/cultivation affecting commerce regardless of state law

Court rules in favor of Gonzales
A medical marijuana patient depends on 2 caregivers to grow/supply her with marijuana. The DEA raids the apartment of one of the caregivers and destroyed the patient's plants. Justice Stevens affirmed congressional authority in this case.
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)

Individual Mandate is constitutional as a tax not a penalty

Court rules in favor of Sebelius
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is challenged by the National Federation of Independent Businesses along with 26 states on the grounds that the "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. Anyone without insurance after a specified period of time would be subject to a penalty. The constitutionality of this penalty was called into question. Robert's court ruled that congress could not impose a mandate but it could levy a tax. The law stands
Hylton v. U.S. (1796)

Carriage tax of 1794 found to be properly applied as an excise tax

Court rules in favor of U.S.
Congress passes a nationwide carriage tax. The burden falls disproportionately on the south. A southerner challenges the designation of the law as an excise tax as opposed to a direct tax, as he believes it is. Direct taxes must be imposed proportionally among citizens. The court ruled that the designation as excise tax is correct. (1st use of judicial review)
Springer v. U.S. (1881)

Income tax of 1864 is found properly applied as an excise tax

Court rules in favor of U.S.
The 1864 Income Tax Act is challenged by an individual who claims the tax is a direct tax and, therefore, should be proportionally applied. The court rejected this notion and affirmed the congressional right to tax incomes.
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust (1895)

Income tax of 1894 is unconstitutional

Court rules in favor of Pollack

Prompted passage of 16th Amendment
A shareholder in Farmer's Loan and Trust, sued to block the company from paying income tax on the grounds that it was a direct tax and that it violated the state's right to borrow. The Supreme Court agreed that the tax was outside the scope of congressional authority. (The 16th amendment was passed almost 20 years later, granting this specific authority to congress.)
Collector v. Day (1871)

States are immune from federal taxation

Court rules in favor of Day
A judge argues that the federal government could not tax his income due to his status as a state employee. The court agreed.
South Carolina v. Baker (1988)
Congress has the authority to tax interest on unregistered state and local long term bonds
Court rules in favor of South Carolina
A 1982 law removed the exemption of taxation for interest earned on long-term bonds. A bondholder challenged the law. The law was found to be constitutional. The law stands.
Davis v. Michigan (1989)

States do not have the authority to tax income from federal retirement programs as long as state programs are exempt

Court rules in favor of Davis
Court strikes down law that taxes income from federal retirement plans. State plan incomes are still eligible for taxation. The Tax Immunity Doctrine remains viable but with restrictions applied.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922)

A federal tax on profits from child labor exceeds congressional authority

Court rules in favor of Drexel Furniture
The court strikes down a tax on profits of any company that hires child labor. Taft saw the tax as "penalty to coerce the people of a state to act as congress wishes...in a matter completely the business of a state government"
U.S. v. Butler (1936)

Agricultural Adjustment Act was found not to be a constitutionally defined tax but rather a transfer of money from processors to farmers

Court rules in favor of Butler
The Court affirms congressional authority to tax and spend pursuant to the general welfare. However, the Agricultural Adjustment Act was found to be unconstitutional. The act essentially paid farmers not to farm in an effort to reduce supply and increase prices. To pay for these expenditures, congress imposed an excise tax on the processing of agricultural products. This action is found to be unlawful.
South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Spending power is expanded and more clearly defined

Court rules in favor of Dole
Congress passes a statute withholding federal highway funds from states that have minimum drinking ages under the age of 21. The 21st amendment granted all regulation of alcohol to the states. The court sides against the plaintiff state and affirms congressional authority to place conditions upon federal funding. The spending must be, however, pursuant to the general welfare.
Butchers' Benevolent Association v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughter House Company (1873)

Substantive Due Process introduced and rejected

Court rules in favor of Crescent City
Plaintiffs try to use "due process" rationale to disqualify the federal regulation granting exclusive rights to receive and slaughter all livestock in New Orleans. The law was a response to disposal and sanitation issues that arose after industry waste was found in the Mississippi River. The plaintiff's lawyer argued that they were deprived of their right to pursue their business. The court found that there was no "substantive due process" case to be made and sides with Crescent City.
Munn v. Illinois (1877)

Only businesses unaffected with a public interest are under the authority of substantive due process arguments

Court rules in favor of Illinois
A state legislature passes a law regulating the grain storage industry in response to corrupt business practices. Regulations include a cap on fees. A grain storage facility owner challenged the law on due process grounds. The Court upholds the law and finds no substantive due process argument.
Lochner v. N.Y. (1905)

The freedom of master and employee to contract with each other cannot be prohibited or interfered with.

Substantive Due Process gains judicial support

Distinction between circumstances of industries is necessary

Court rules in favor of Lochner
New York passes restrictions on hours and wages for all bakeries in the state. A bakery owner was found to be in violation of the law but decided to challenge its constitutionality. The court sides with the bakery owner and affirms his substantive due process claim. The Holden case dealt with mining and federal involvement was justified due to the inherent danger in the mining industry. In this case, they court felt that bakers could take care of themselves without federal involvement.
Muller v. Oregon (1908)

Brandeis Brief sufficiently focused courts attention away from Substantive Due Process approach

Court rules in favor of Oregon
A business owner opposed a state regulation limiting the number of hours a woman can work. The court upheld the law but many felt that that this special treatment amounted to discrimination and limited a women's financial independence.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)

Court assumes rational basis for legislation in government and rejects Substantive Due Process.

Court rules in favor of Parrish
An employee sues for the $216.19 she would have been had the minimum wage law been abided by. The court sides with the employee and the principle of "substantive due process" was rejected once more.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

The 5th Amendment is viewed solely as a limitation on federal power

The Takings Clause applies only to federal government

Court rules in favor of Baltimore
A dock owner who challenges a municipal decision that results in an alteration of water levels in the harbor, rendering the owner incapable of accommodating larger ships. The owner asserts that this action amounts to a taking under the 5th Amendment's definition. Marshall states that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the states.
Penn Central v. N.Y. (1978)



Court rules in favor of N.Y.
The Landmarks Preservation Act of 1965 restricted an owner's ability to change a building designated a landmark. When the owners of a train station were prevented from proceeding with plans to add 50+ stories to the top of the structure, they challenged the law, citing the "Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment. The court denies this interpretation of the clause and declares that this does not constitute a "taking".
U.S. v. Causby (1946)



Court rules in favor of Causby
A farm-owner whose chickens began dying after an airfield was constructed nearby. Although the government had not physically taken anything from the farmer, it had deprived him of the use of his chickens. The court sides with the farmer and grants him compensation.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)



Court rules in favor of Nollan
A husband and wife apply for a building permit for renovations to their beachfront property. The city grants the permit with the stipulation that a public walkway from one side of the property to the public beach on the other side. The court ruled that this constituted a taking and granted compensation. Private property protection gains more jurisprudential support.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)



Court rules in favor of Hawaii Housing Authority
In an effort to break up a de facto oligopoly on Oahu known as Bishop Estate. The state legislature enacted legislation that would transfer ownership from Bishop to the lessees of the properties. The court affirmed this power. The act was deemed a constitutional use of state police power.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992)



Court rules in favor of Lucas
The plaintiff buys 2 oceanfront properties for $975,000 with the intention of building rental properties on the land. Subsequent legislation prohibits construction on the coast. The court rules that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation as his potential for profit has been taken from him.
Kelo v. New London, Connecticut (2005)



Court rules in favor of Kelo
A government agency is established to encourage economic development in the city of New London, Connecticut. A 300 million dollar facility is planned along with an entire complex of structures that would require 115 privately owned parcels of land. The plaintiff refused to sell. The court sides against the plaintiff and renders the construction and acquisition of property to be within the law as it is "rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.

Flickr Creative Commons Images

Some images used in this set are licensed under the Creative Commons through Flickr.com.
Click to see the original works with their full license.