Constitutional Law - Individuals Rights Flashcards
(22 cards)
What rights are conferred by Privileges and Immunities Clause?
Article IV of Constitution (Privileges and Immunities Clause) prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states with respect to “fundamental” rights such as rights relating to important commercial activities or civil liberties
Exceptions:
1. Corporations and aliens are not citizens of a state for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clause
2. Substantial justification exception if non-residents are part of problem and there are no less restrictive means to solve problem
Are individuals protected from slavery?
Thirteenth Amendment provides that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the US, and this applies to governmental action and private action. Court has defined involuntary servitude as forcing someone to perform work through the use or threatened use of physical injury or restraint, but psychology and other forms of coercion alone are generally inadequate to show involuntary servitude (United States v. Kozminski)
Exception: Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit all forms of labour that one person is compelled to perform for the benefit of another including compulsory military service, civic obligations such as jury duty, convicted prisoners who must perform work as part of their criminal sentence, or even recipients of medical scholarships who are required to work pro bono
What is the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment?
- Rights of National Citizenship: Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying their own citizens rights of national citizenship
- Due Process and Equal Protection: Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process and equal protection of the law
Is there a constitutional right against retroactive legislation?
- Contract Clause – Applies to States Only: Contract Clause limits the ability of states to enact laws that retroactively impair contract rights
- Ex Post Facto Laws – Applies to Both Federal and States: Ex Post Facto Clauses prohibits legislation that (1) makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, (2) prescribes greater punishment than what was prescribed when act was committed or (3) reduces evidence required to convict a person of a crime from what was required at the time that the act was allegedly committed
- Bills of Attainder – Applies to Both Federal and States: Bills of attainder prohibits laws inflicting punishment without a judicial trial on people by name or past conduct
Is there a constitutional right to ensure procedural due process?
(1) Due Process Clauses of Fifth Amendment applicable to the federal government and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment applicable to the states provide that the government shall not take a person’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law
What constitutional rights are conferred by the “taking” clause in the Fifth Amendment?
Fifth Amendment prohibits governmental taking of private property at the federal level “for public use without just compensation”. Prohibition is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago)
Is there a constitutional right to ensure substantive due process?
Substantive due process guarantees that laws will be reasonable and not arbitrary, hence this requires the Court to review the substance of the law rather than the procedures employed. (1) Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government and (2) Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment applies to state and local governments
- Fundament Right – Strict Scrutiny: Where a law limits a fundamental right, strict scrutiny will be applied, and the law or other governmental action will be upheld only if the government can prove that the action is necessary to promote a compelling or overriding interest
- All Other Cases – Rational Basis: In all cases not involving a fundamental right, the mere rationality test is applied, and the law will be upheld unless the challenger can prove that the action is not rationally related to any conceivable legitimate government interest
What are the requirements of equal protection?
(1) Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment has no counterpart in the Constitution applicable to the federal government and is limited to state action but (2) grossly unreasonable discrimination by the federal government violates the Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe). Test for reasonableness depends on (1) criteria used to classify such as whether suspect or quasi-suspect classification, (2) nature of right such as fundamental right and (3) discriminatory intent
1.4.8.1 What are the different types of suspect classifications?
- Suspect Classification – Strict Scrutiny: Strict scrutiny applies if governmental action classifies persons based on exercise of a (1) fundamental right or (2) involves a suspect classification on the basis of race, national origin, or alienage → government must prove action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest
- Quasi-Suspect Classification – Intermediate Scrutiny: Intermediate standard applies if classifications based on gender are almost always suspect, and distinctions between marital and nonmarital children merit special scrutiny → government must show discrimination is substantially related to an important government interest
- Other Classifications – Rational Basis: All other classifications are reviewed under the rational basis standard and will be upheld → provided they bear no rational relationship to any conceivable legitimate government interest
What are the three ways discriminatory intent can be shown?
- Facial Discrimination: Law may include a classification on its face that by its own terms, makes an explicit distinction between classes of persons such as by race or gender
- Discriminatory Application: Law that appears to be neutral on its face will be applied in a different manner to different classes of persons
- Discriminatory Motive: Sometimes a government action will appear to be neutral on its face and in its application, but will have disproportionate impact on a particular class of persons such as a racial minority or women
Is there a constitutional right to an abortion?
As of 2022, there is no constitutional right to an abortion and the matter is left to states to legislate (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
Is there a constitutional right to privacy?
Various privacy rights are fundamental rights including marriage, use of contraceptives, obscene reading material in the home except child pornography, living with extended family, to educate and raise children. Regulations affecting these rights are reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard and will be upheld only if they are necessary to a compelling interest
Is there a constitutional right to vote?
By virtue of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, all US citizens who are 18 years of age or older enjoy the right to vote
Is there a constitutional right to travel interstate?
Individuals have a fundamental right to travel from state to state, which encompasses the right: (1) to leave and enter another state and (2) to be treated equally if they become permanent residents of that state (Saenz v. Roe)
Residency Requirement: Durational residency requirements (i.e. waiting periods) for dispensing benefits ordinarily subject to strict scrutiny → e.g. 30 days is likely permitted but 1 year would be invalid
No Distinction Between Old and New Residents: State law that distinguishes between residents of the state on the sole basis of their length of residency has no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest and is invalid
Is there a constitutional right to bear arms?
Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms
If a regulation burdens an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, then the government must justify the regulation by demonstrating it is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation
Is there a constitutional right to freedom of speech?
First Amendment limits government regulation of private speech but not government speech
Is a regulation of conduct of speech valid?
- Regulation of speech in public forums (e.g. sidewalks and parks) and designated public forums (e.g. schoolrooms open for use after school for social events) will avoid strict scrutiny and be upheld if (1) content is neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest and (3) leave open alternative channels of communication
- Regulation of speech in limited public forums (i.e. public property open for expressive activities only on a certain topic) and non-public forums (i.e. public property not open for expressive activities) is valid if (1) the viewpoint of the regulation is neutral and (2) reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose
Is a regulation of content of speech valid?
Regulation of speech protected by First Amendment based on content is generally prohibited
Exceptions: Supreme Court has previously determined that certain categories of speech are unprotected and can be prohibited by regulation
1. Speech that creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action
2. Speech that constitutes “fighting words” that communicate an intent to place an individual or group in fear of bodily harm or likely to incite immediate physical retaliation
3. Speech that is obscene (Roth v. US)
4. Speech that constitutes defamation, which may be the subject of a civil “penalty” through a tort action where (1) the person suing is a public official or public figure, or (2) where the defamatory statement involves an issue of public concern
5. Certain commercial speech that violates regulations against false or deceptive advertising
Does the constitutional right of freedom of speech apply to government employees?
- Government may punish public employee for unwanted speech made as part of employee’s official duties even if the speech touches on a matter of public concern (Garcetti v. Ceballos)
- If a government employee’s speech does not involve a matter of public concern, the courts give the government employer a wide degree of deference and allow the employer to punish the employee if the speech was disruptive of the work environment
- If a matter of public concern is involved, courts must balance the employee’s rights as a citizen to comment on a matter of public concern against the government’s interest as an employer in efficient performance of public service
In what circumstances would the Court uphold a prior restraint prohibiting speech?
Prior restraint is a court order or administrative system that keeps speech from occurring → e.g. a licensing system, a prohibition against using mails, movie censorship and an injunction
Prior restraints are invalid unless (1) Court is satisfied that this is justified by a special societal harm or (2) pursuant to contract
Procedural Safeguards: 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 must be narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite
2. Injunction must be sought promptly
3. There must be a prompt and final determination of validity of restraint
Is there a constitutional right to freedom of association and belief?
- Electoral Process: Laws regulating the electoral process that impact on First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and association are subject to a balancing test in determining whether a regulation of the electoral process is valid. If the restriction on First Amendment activities is severe, it will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. If the restriction is reasonable and non-discriminatory, it generally will be upheld on the basis of the states’ important regulatory interests (Burdick v. Takushi)
- Government may punish public employee for unwanted speech made as part of employee’s official duties even if the speech touches on a matter of public concern (Garcetti v. Ceballos). If a government employee’s speech does not involve a matter of public concern, the courts give the government employer a wide degree of deference and allow the employer to punish the employee if the speech was disruptive of the work environment. If a matter of public concern is involved, courts must balance the employee’s rights as a citizen to comment on a matter of public concern against the government’s interest as an employer in efficient performance of public service
- Loyalty Oaths: Permissible for the federal government to require employees and other public officers to take loyalty oaths but such oaths will not be upheld if they are overbroad or are vague so that they have a chilling effect on First Amendment activities
- Disclosure of Associations: State may force disclosure of First Amendment activities that are relevant to the position to ensure loyalty and professional competence (Shelton v. Tucker)
- School Sponsorship or Extracurricular Clubs: Schools sponsorship of associations can be subject to regulation that is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest
Is there a constitutional right to freedom of religion?
- Free Exercise Clause: Free Exercise Clauses prohibits the government from punishing someone on the basis of the person’s religious beliefs. However, general conduct regulation that incidentally burdens religious practice is generally valid
- Establishment Clause: Establishment Clause compels the government to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion by prohibiting government sponsorship of religion. However, action or law that is not neutral may still be upheld if it aligns with historical practices and the understandings of the Founding Fathers (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
