Economic Rights and Incorporation Flashcards
(30 cards)
DC v. Heller (2008)
DC passed law banning firearm ownership except under special circumstances. Was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL as 2ND AM guarantees INDIVIDUAL right to gun ownership
Prob: no scrutiny used, RBR + principles of FEDERALISM allows for state policy experimentation
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Chicago banned all firearms, was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL under DP of 14th: right to self defense is “fundamental to preservation of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in history or tradition”
Made regulation almost impossible
Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
Yazoo land scandal- govt took land, sold it, those people sold it to third party. Contracts invalidated by State, 3rd party lost land and sues.
Georgia’s invalidation of contracts UNCONSTITUTIONAL (9-0) b/c right to contract is a VESTED right. Also, if state can take away contracts in this case, they can do it any time.
Calder v. Bull (1798)
Law passed that put limit on when appeals for wills can be claimed, Bulls missed deadline and will left to them was not approved in court. Thought law was ex-post-facto.
NOT ex-post-facto (9-0), but REAL point was “govt. cannot heavily restrict natural rights. If they do, court should be empowered to overturn those laws”
Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)
PA statute prohibiting “posse behavior” in tracking down of ex-slaves. Prigg and posse kidnapped family of ex-slaves (mother was basically freed by old owner). PA convicts Prigg.
Found that statute CONFLICTS with FED. FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT of 1793 (which they had power to pass under fugitive slave clause in const., nec+prop, and Supremacy)
Also found that PA denying PROPERTY RIGHTS, which are so FUNDAMENTAL that no reg. can oppose it.
Slaves= people, DP
Slaves ≠ citizens, P+I
FREE STATES CAN LIBERATE SLAVES, “NATURAL RIGHTS” (fund rights and DP- strict scrutiny needed)
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Dred Scott taken to free state w/ owner, married wife, had kids. Then moved back to slave state and in order to prevent family from being separated, went to court to argue freedom. Could bring case b/c considered PERSON (DP)
7-2 for Sanford. Determined that “descendants of African Slaves” could NEVER be citizens of US.
Why?: [text] framers did not write in slaves as full citizens, considered mainly property (right to import until 1808, FSC), [history] slavery existed in all 13 colonies @ time of ratification, marriage was not allowed anywhere, no education allowed, etc… [other] comity (P+I) couldn’t have applied to slaves b/c they would have run away
PROPERTY RIGHTS SO FUNDAMENTAL, CANNOT BE CONTROLLED AT ALL BY STATE OR FED.
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
Butchers made to work in 1 factory b/c before water supplies of city being contaminated. Argued unconst. under 13th and 14th (DP and PI)
CONSTITUTIONAL: 13th applies only to ex-slaves, POLICE POWER–can infringe on indiv. lib. (DP) for public good, P/I basically invalidated (just guarantees rights already est. (COMITY) AND if it did infringe fed would get to overturn st. statute (FEDERALISM))
SUBST. DP: not how right is taken away, but q of should it be/why is it being taken away
Munn v. IL (1877)
IL private-owned grain warehouse regulated by state for how much they can charge to store/transport grain (for benefit of farmers)
DP and EP of 14th am NOT VIOLATED, states can reg. use of private property when for public good (PP).
BUT! PROB: b/c companies don’t have DP rights we cannot know what govt. can/can’t do.
OVERRULED eventually (unimportant)
Railroad Commission Cases (1886)
State regulation of railroad tariffs UPHELD b/c of POLICE PWR (prevent monopolies from having too much pwr)
Power to regulate ≠ power to destroy
Limitation ≠ confiscation
This dicta implies DP can apply to Corporations
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
Corporations became people under 14th DP and EP
Lochner v. New York (1905)
NY statute limited work hrs to 60/week, 10hrs/day for bakers
Violates DP of 14TH AM.
PP argument not accepted: if st. can regulate this, what can’t they regulate?
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT (Allgeyer precedent)
SUBST. DP USED: Bakers don’t need state to regulate on their behalf
Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)
Louisiana limited where ppl/companies could buy insurance for fear that they would be duped by dishonest companies- used POLICE PWR.
14th am DP and Lib. of contract violated
est. tie between ECONOMIC LIBERTY and DUE PROCESS
Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934)
To ensure rates of homelessness and bank ownership of houses don’t spike majorly during depression, MN passed Mortgage Moratorium Law (2-year extension)
NOT a violation of LIB TO CONTRACT or DP of 14TH b/c emergency (depression) requires broader reading of const.
POLICE PWR has to be applied to ECON RELATIONSHIPS (Lochner) for STABILIZATION- “all reasonable means”: low bar
West Coast Hotel v. Parish (1937)
OVERTURNS ADKINS and MOREHEAD
Min wage for women upheld. Need to protect from becoming “fallen” or “wards of the state,” have to be mothers and wives (PUBLIC WELFARE and SOCIAL ORGANIZATION)
Lib to contract not REALLY in const, subject to SOME restraints (no “absolute liberty” can be regulated)
Switch in time that saved the 9
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
DC min wage/max hrs for women+children ruled VIOLATION of 5TH AM DP
If min wage can be set, why can’t max?
To regulate this is to extend PP too far.
Women = to men (19th from 15th, 15th from 14th, 19th and 14th related)
Different from Muller/Lochner: about payment, not just contract
Muller v. Oregon (1908)
Oregon law limiting women’s working hrs to 10 – POLICE POWER
Does NOT violate DP and LIB OF CONTRACT b/c women need state intervention + special protection so they can reproduce
US v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
Filled milk deemed injurious to pub health, not allowed to ship under COMMERCE. Company sues b/c they feel they’re being targeted.
UPHELD b/c no evidence of specific scrutiny
FOOTNOTE 4: introduces tiered scrutiny (“Insular and discrete minorities” = not deferential)
Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955)
“Laws that we review need not be logically consistence with problem”
Ignores Lochner, deferential to STATE legis.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Individual mandate: not “penalty” b/c can’t be passed under COMMERCE (b/c you can’t create a market to regulate), and Nec + Proper cannot be used b/c “end” is not explicit (need “means to end,” like bank in McCulloch)
As a TAX it’s ok b/c not so severe as to be COERCIVE (against principles of FEDERALISM) and collected legitimately by IRS.
RBR used: no fundamental right involved
Fed govt. cannot use POLICE POWER
Civil Rights Cases of 1883
SC ruled 8-1 (Harlan dissented) that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which prohibited racial disc. in places of pub. accom.) was unconstitutional, as the 13th and 14th amendments apply only to governmental actions, not individual ones
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
CRA of 1964 used COMMERCE clause to assert right of banning discrimination in public accommodations
UPHELD 8-1 as discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on “the interstate flow of food and upon the movement on products generally” and restricted blacks traveling across state lines.
Daniel v. Paul (1969)
“Private” club denied admission to black people, claimed CRA didn’t apply.
BUT b/c food in club was from other states, could be regulated w/ commerce
Steward Machine v. Davis/Collector of Internal Revenue (1937)
Social Security Act: employers paid a tax to the federal government but could deduct the same tax if they made a contribution to a state employment fund
does NOT violate right to CONTRACT or federalism, as tax was uniform throughout the states and did not coerce the states.
CRISIS of unemployment.
Sonzinsky v. US ( 1937)
Tax on firearm dealers
Ct upheld law as cong. fully able to choose who gets taxed and who doesn’t and courts cannot intervene.
