Midterm Cases Flashcards Preview

Con Law II > Midterm Cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Midterm Cases Deck (42)
Loading flashcards...
1

Railway Express Agency v. New York
(ads)

"Issue/Facts
Did the law prohibiting ads on trucks violate the due process?

Rule
Rational Basis

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Passes rational basis b/c overinclusive OK"

2

NY City Transit Authority v. Beazer
(addicted)

"Issue/Facts
regulation prohibiting the hiring of former addicts recieving methodone treatment violate due process?

Rule
Rational Basis

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
passes rational basis even though policy is over and underinclusive"

3

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery
(Milk)

"Issue/Facts
Regulation banning plastic milk containers violate due process?

Rule
Rational Basis

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Passes rational basis b/c court must believe evidence unless FORCED to disbelieve legitimate purpose"

4

US Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno
(Hippie)

"Issue/Facts
Regulation restricting food stamps to prohibit hippie communes violates due process?

Rule
Rational Basis - Animus

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Fails rational basis b/c bare desire to do harm appears in legislative history and ≠ legitimate gov't interest"

5

Cleburne, TX v. Cleburne Living Center
(retarded)

"Issue/Facts
Denying permit to home for retarded violate due process?

Rule
Rational Basis - Legitimate purpose

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Fails rational basis b/c court doesn't believe legitimate purpose, or law doesn't further legitimate purpose."

6

US v. Windor
(gay)

"Issue/Facts
Law defining family as hetero couples and preventing tax exemption violate due process?

Rule
Rational basis- Animus

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Purpose of law was to demean same sex couples ≠ legitimate purpose"

7

Romer v. Evans
(colorado)

"Issue/Facts
Whether Amendment 2, prohibiting legislation to protect homosexuals, violates due process?

Rule
Rational basis- Animus

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Purpose of law was to demean same sex couples ≠ legitimate purpose"

8

Korematsu v. US
(Japs)

"Issue/Facts
Was the governments interest in preventing espionage a compelling interst such that a law requiring the relocation of Japanese Americans is constitutional?

Rule
Strict Scrutiny - Racial Discrimination

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Court said yes it was but this case is kind of a black mark everyone says it was decided wrong becuase there were likely other ways to acomplish the gov goal"

9

Loving v. Virginia
(Loving)

"Issue/Facts
Was a law preventing interacial marrage violate equal protection?

Rule
Strict Scrutiny - Racial Discrimination

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Restricting marriage based on race violates the meaning of equal protection"

10

Palmore v. Sidoti
(interracial Step-dad)

"Issue/Facts
Was it constitutional for Florida to grant sole custody to a dad simply becuase the mother (divorced) was in an interactial relationship?

Rule
Strict Scrutiny - Racial Discrimination

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Yes, the kids life may be harder becuase her mom was in an interracial relationship but removing a child from it's natural born mother based on a race classification is a violation of equal protection"

11

GRATZ fail
(20/100)

"Issue/Facts
Did a colleges admissions policy that requried 100 points for admission, and gave 20 points for being a minority violate equal protection?

Rule
Strict Scrutiny - Racial Discrimination

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Admissions policies must be narrowly tailored. Race can be considered but must not be the sole or contributing factor in admissions."

12

Grutter v. Bollinger - pass
(Plus)

"Issue/Facts
Did U Mich law schools admission policy violate equal protection when race was one of many soft factors considered for admissions.

Rule
Strict Scrutiny - Racial Discrimination

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
The admissions policy was narroly tailoered and race was merely a factor of a factor of a factor in admissions that only resulted in a plus unlike GPA and LSAT scores."

13

City of Richmond v. Croson
(contractors)

"Issue/Facts
Did a law that set aside 30% of city's construction budget for minority owned contractors violate equal protection?

Rule
Strict Scrutiny - Racial Discrimination

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
ultimate goal of Const. is to eliminate irrelevant factors, like race, from gov. decisions. You can use race to right past discrimination but it has to be limited to correcting discrimination in the JX the law/action passed/happened, You need evidence of the discriminiation, you need to try non racially motivated alternatives, and actions limited to the class discriminated against. "

14

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
(top 10% of students)

"Issue/Facts
Did top 10% policy discriminate against whites and violate EP?

Rule
Strict Scrutiny - Racial Discrimination

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Deference to school to use diversity to achieve goals.
Studies showed admissions policy hasn't achieved ""critical mass"" of minorities.
P didn't support claim that admission policy has minimal affect.
No other workable plans to have diversity w/o using race."

15

Craig v. Boren
(Beer drinking)

"Issue/Facts
Did a law the set diff ages between males and females for low alcohol bear purchase violate EP?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Gender Discrimination

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
The gov.'s intest was valid but the law fails in other ways. Disparaity between males and females was large but the overall problem was actually small (very small percent of young men drink and drive). There were flaws in states statistical methods. not clear and convincing enough to allow sex based discrimination "

16

US v. Virginia (VMI Case)
(School boys)

"Issue/Facts
All men school prohibiting women applicants violate EP?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Gender Discrimination

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Significant interest using adversarial method to teach (weak, but passable).
DOES NOT substantially further the interest b/c other mens programs (military) have successfully integrated women.
So long as some women want to apply, you can't say that most don't want to apply (strict view)."

17

Frontiero v. Richardson - gender
(dependant fathers)

"Issue/Facts
Military dependant policy violate EP b/c woman denied more benefits b/c husband was denied as dependant?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Gender Discrimination

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Strict scrutiny for race also applies to gender."

18

Michael M. v. Superior ct of sonoma county
(raped women)

"Issue/Facts
Statutory rape law only punishes men (not women) violate EP?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Gender Discrimination

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Law ""equalises"" the deterrent.
Equal punishment would deter woman from reporting rape."

19

Rostker v. Goldberg
(draft)

"Issue/Facts
Policy excluding women from the draft violates EP?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Gender Discrimination

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Women are non combat."

20

Califano v. Webster
(big checks)

"Issue/Facts
Policy allowing women to exclude more time from benefits calculations violate EP?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Gender Discrimination

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Purpose is to remedy past discrimination.
Law was based on wage gap, not archaic generalizations."

21

Washington v. Davis
(black cops)

"Issue/Facts
Police admission test with disproportionate impact on blacks violate EP?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Race

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Statistical disparities and disproportionate impact aren't sufficient to show purposeful discrimination. Must consider the totalitiy of the circumstances."

22

Personnel admin. Of Mass. V. Feeney
(veterans)

"Issue/Facts
Law favoring veterans over non-veterans violate EP when white woman with higher scores lost to veteran man?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Gender Discrimination

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
""Because of"" vs. ""in spite of"" test.
Not purposefully discriminatory b/c law not passed in order to discriminate against women. "

23

Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp
(zoning violation)

"Issue/Facts
zoning decision to deny low-income, racially segregated housing violate EP?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Race

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
For heightened scrutiny, it is not required to show that the discriminatory is the primary purpose.
Factors to show purposeful discrimination:
- Sequence of events
- Departures from normal procedural sequence
- Substantive departures
- Legislative or administrative history"

24

McCleskey v. Kemp
(death penalty)

"Issue/Facts
Death penalty violate EP b/c study that shows disproportional impact when blacks kill whites?

Rule
Intermediate Scrutiny - Race

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Study showing disproportional impact not sufficient to show unconstitutional discrimination.
other policies against racial jury bias are in place to protect defendant's rights. "

25

Griswold v. Conn. ***
(reproductive)

"Issue/Facts
Whether a Conn. law that prevented aiding people in obtaining or learning about contraception violate due process.

Rule
Substantive Due Process - Contraception

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
There are privacy right implied by the express guarantees that are necessary to make those guarantees more meaningful. The right of procreation arises under the right privacy is protected by the constitution. State purpose was not accepted by ct. and ct. felt the law was not sufficiently related to goal given."

26

Michael v. Gerald
(Parental)

"Issue/Facts
Whether a CA state law can prevent an unwed father from having a relationship with its father.

Rule
Substantive Due Process - Parental right

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
This is an example about narrow and broad framing of issue. Ultimately the law was upheld becuase the court felt that an unwed an who had an adulterous affair with a women did not have a fundamental right to undue a family unit by usurping fatherhood from the woman's husband who had raised the child from birth."

27

Buck vs. Bell
(Reproductive - mental)

"Issue/Facts
Did a law the allowed forced steriliztion of mental patients violate Due Process.

Rule
Substantive Due Process - Sterilization

Constitutional?
Yes

Reasoning/Rule
Law was constitutional overturned by Skinner becuase procreation is a fundamental right."

28

Skinner v. Oklahoma
(reproductive - criminal)

"Issue/Facts
Did a Ok. law the allowed forced sterilization after 3""strikes"" vilate Due process?

Rule
Substantive Due Process - Sterilization

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Procreative rights are a fundamental liberty. Law treated people commiting equally similar crimes (embezzelment and theft) differently. "

29

Zablocki v. Redhail
(marriage - Child support)

"Issue/Facts
Whether a law prohibiting fathers behind on child support from marrying violated due process.

Rule
Substantive Due Process - Marriage

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
There is a fundamental right to marry, and the states law was not narrowly drawn. There were other ways to collect unpaid child support."

30

Moore v. Cleveland
(Family)

"Issue/Facts
Whether a law restricting single family home occupancy to immediate family members violated a Due Process.

Rule
Substantive Due Process - Family living

Constitutional?
No

Reasoning/Rule
Family living arangments are a fundamental right under the right to privacy. State argumed preventing overcrowing, traffic, parking congestion, and burdens on the schools. Sup. Ct. unconvinced law would achieve purpose."