Public Rights Cases Flashcards
Shelley v. Kraemer: “Kraemer’s Public Racism”
Property as Sovereign: Private individuals are allowed to discriminate among themselves, but once state enforcement is necessary (in the form of courts), the Equal protection clause is violated, and therefore not allowed. Agreements ALONE do NOT violate 14th amendment—only a state/court enforcement that violates the agreement. OVERTURNED. (see Jones)
Jones: “Jones Stretched Shelley’s Privates”
Property as Sovereign: In lieu of §1982, all discrimination (both public and private) in sale and rental of property is illegal under the 13th Amendment.
– This case goes further than Shelley: extends to private discrimination as well
Marsh v. Alabama: “Door-to-Door Evangelists”
Private Property Acting as Public Entity: When a private actor takes on the characteristics of a public/ state actor, it will be held liable for violation of the Constitution that would otherwise be permissible when private.
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner: “Anti-Vietnam Handbills”
Private Property Acting as Public Entity: Private property owners may restrict the dissemination of info. on private property if done in a nondiscriminatory way. Just because the property is open to the public does not mean it takes on a public character, especially when the main purposes of being open to the public is due to commercial interests.
Pruneyard: “Can’t Prune Mallrats”
Private Property Acting as Public Entity: State law requiring owners of large shopping centers to allow members of the public to enter their property to distribute petitions isn’t a taking of property (even though the law limits the property owner’s right to exclude others from its property) because there’s nothing to suggest that allowing ∆’s activities will impair the value/use of the property as a shopping center.
Fuentes: “Stove Seizure”
New Property as Process: The 14th Amendment protection of property extends to ANY significant property interest (not just tangible property), not only that property which is a necessity. Furthermore, the courts do not make the decision as to what property is necessary.
Jackson: “Jackson Jacks Juice”
New Property as Process: Government regulation of private enterprises, no matter how extensive, will not equal state action for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
Flemming v. Nestor:
“Commu-Nestor”
or
“Socialism v. Social Security”
New Property as Liberty: Social Security is a privilege. Ex post facto acts are only outlawed in criminal punishments. (Deportation is not a criminal punishment). Guy is no longer an American citizen so he is not contributing back to the US economy. Has not begun receiving, so no possessory rights.
Goldberg: “Government Gives Golden Grant”
Kelly and Reich
New Property as Liberty: The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard. Can’t take away if person is depending on it without Due Process. Statutory granted property.
Dandridge: “Welfare Caps Jimmies”
New Property as Liberty: State economic regulations don’t have to be perfect to be valid; as long as the classification has a rational basis, some inequality of result does not invalidate it. This is not subject to strict scrutiny, because large families are not a protected group under the Constitution and no fundamental rights are involved
Roth: “Hot For Teacher”
New Property as Acquired Interests: Constitutional protection of property applies only to ALREADY acquired property interests, NOT MERE EXPECTATIONS.
Perry v. Sinderman: “Perry’s Proof Scrutinizes Sinderman”
New Property as Acquired Interests: Proof of facts tending to show that an individual has been deprived of a benefit for an impermissible reason requires a full hearing on the issue.
–Difference from Roth: Here, there was an offer of proof that the dismissal was based on an exercise of 1st Amendment rights.
–Property interests are created by: Statute, Contract, Custom, Conquest, Hunting
