My Con Law deck Flashcards
(35 cards)
Sobriety Checkpoints: which amendment
4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure
Sobriety Checkpoints: key question
The stop of the vehicle is a seizure. Pertinent question is whether the “search” of the person is reasonable.
Sobriety Checkpoints: test
Determine reasonableness by balancing 3 factors:
- Invasion of person’s privacy
- Government’s interest in the matter
- degree to which the checkpoint advances the gov’s interest
Sobriety Checkpoints: SCOTUS conclusion
- Invasion of privacy is slight because person only stopped for a minute
- gov interest in stopping drunk driving is highly compelling
- checkpoints advance this interest even if there are other ways of doing so
Sobriety Checkpoints: MISC conclusion
MI constitution affords more protection than the 4th amendment does. Checkpoints violate the MI constitution.
2nd amendment: difference between MI and SCOTUS
SCOTUS: in Heller, conferred an individual right to bear arms outside of the militia.
MI: the MI constitution plainly confers the individual right to bear arms
8th amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and minors
- UnC to sentence D to death if crime committed before 18th birthday
- UnC to sentence D to life without parole for a non-homicide committed before age 18
- Mandate that judge sentence life without parole on juvenile if it does not allow judge to take into account attendant circumstances.
School speech: Drug use
Schools can take steps to safeguard student from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.
Can free speech serve as a defense in tort cases?
Yes. If speech is protected by 1A, protection eliminates liability for the exercise of 1A rights.
Difference in protection between speech of public concern vs private concern
Speech of public concern is afforded much higher protection.
Garcetti test for free speech and public employment
Gov cannot fire an employee for exercising first amendment right
- Did the employee speak as a private citizen on a matter of public concern? If not to either of these, there is no 1A violation premised on employer’s reaction to the speech.
- If yes, ask whether the state had an adequate justification for treating employee differently from other private citizens. look at effect on workplace.
Is the 2nd amendment limited to weapons in exitence in 18th century?
No. Extends to all bearable arms
Is it valid under 2A to ban an entire class of guns for individual?
No.
Cherry and dairy cases
Look for a tax on all the subsidizes just in-state businesses. Evene if the separate parts are valid (tax and subsidy) need to look to the combined effect
Rule from Locke v. Davey
Don’t apply strict scrutiny even though a discriminatory law because state has merely chosen not to fund a category of instruction. Does not require student to choose between beliefs and something else. State’s interest not based in hostility but in want to avoid establishment of religion
Commercial speech rule statement:
CS does not enjoy as much protection as other speech but has protection under intermediate scrutiny. May be regulated if GOV satisifes 4 part Hudson test: 1. speech protected by 1A-not false and lawful activity 2. substantial interest of gov. 3. regulation directly advances that interest and 4. narrowly drawn.
Standing Reqs
Injury in fact
causation
redressibility
Are funds to to support a political campaign speech?
yes
Limitations on the expenditure of political funds are subject to
strict scrutiny. Must be necessary to achieve a compelling gov interest and narrowly tailored to that interest
Difference in treatment between restrictions on political campaign expenditures and political contributions to campaigns
limitations election contributions: permissible if closely drawn to match sufficiently important interest
campaign expenditures: strict scrutiny
Content based restrictions on speech are
preemptively unconstitutional
When a state fails to assist party in exercising political activities
does not infringe on 1A rights. Apply rational basis review.
In a school setting Students’ C rights
are not consistent with adults in other settings
School officials retain the right
to exercise authority consistent with C safeguards to control conduct in schools