Strict Scrutiny and Suspect Classifications: Lawful Permanent Residents, Sex and Illegitimacy Flashcards
Diversity? Is it a compelling interest?
Not just about race, socioeconomic, geography etc.
A diverse student body is a compelling intertest in higher education, the Michigan law school achieved this as using race as a “plus” factor.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education
Facts: The Seattle School district and Jefferson County district have applications that require a parent to state what the race of his or her child is. When determining where to place a child or where to transfer a child both school districts use race as the qualifying factor on where to send the child. Seattle allows students to choose a high school but when too many students choose a school they decide based on siblings in schools and the race of the child. Jefferson was originally ordered to desegregate its schools. In attempts to correct the problem Jefferson has a ratio that there should not be more than 50% black students at a particular school. A parent with a child from each district that was denied a transfer to another school based on the race of their child brought suit.
Rule: School plans that use race alone as a qualifying criterion for school assignments is unconstitutional.
Scrutiny Congress has over immigration?
Minimal, Congress has great deference.
Scrutiny states have over immigration?
SS
Discrete and insular
immutable characteristic, history of being discriminated against, lack of access to political power.
Sugarman v. Dougall
Facts: A New York state statute prohibited aliens from being employed as civil servants in the competitive class. This prohibition applied to a wide range of positions, though not to elected offices or higher offices in state agencies. Several New York resident aliens who were discharged from civil-service positions on the basis of their alienage (plaintiffs) brought an action against the administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration (defendant), challenging the constitutionality of the statute. A three-judge panel of the district court held that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the case.
Rule: Laws affecting a suspect classification must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
Exception to general rule: States can require citizenship for civil service jobs where necessary “to preserve the basic conception of a political community.” Sugarman
States cannot exclude LPRs from (1) practice of law (2) notary public (3) engineering, and (4) receipt of college financial aid from the state
States may require US citizenship for: (1) police officers; (2) public schoolteachers; and (3) probation officers
Craig v. Boren
) (The case where the court essentially settled on intermediate level of scrutiny for gender). Govt has to have an important interest and there has to be a substantial relation bw the means (the law) it chooses and the achievement of that important government interest
Presumption that those classifications are invalid so the govt must overcome such a burden.
Facts: An Oklahoma statute prohibited the sale of “non-intoxicating” 3.2 percent alcoholic beer to males under the age of twenty-one, but permitted the sale of such beer to females over the age of eighteen. Craig (plaintiff), a liquor vendor in Oklahoma, brought suit against Boren (defendant), an Oklahoma state official, in federal district court on the grounds that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld the statute, holding that statistical evidence regarding young men’s drunk-driving arrests and traffic injuries demonstrated that the gender-based discrimination was substantially related to the achievement of traffic safety on Oklahoma roads. Craig appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule: A governmental regulation involving gender discrimination is constitutional if it is substantially related to the achievement of an important government purpose.
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County
(Coming back to idea of physical differences bw sexes)
Facts: A California law defined statutory rape as sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18 who is not the perpetrator’s wife. Michael M. (defendant), a 17-year-old male, was charged with violating California’s statutory-rape law by having sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old female. He sought dismissal of his charges in California state court on the grounds that the statutory-rape law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The trial court denied his motion, and the Supreme Court of California affirmed. The state supreme court found that the statutory-rape statute discriminated on the basis of sex because only females could be victims, and only males could be charged with violating the statute. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the gender classification in the statute was justified by California’s compelling state interest in preventing illegitimate teenage pregnancies. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule: A state statutory-rape law that discriminates against males does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it deters males from engaging in sexual behavior that might lead to illegitimate pregnancies.
Rostker v. Goldberg
Facts: When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, President Carter reactivated the draft registration process. Carter attempted to expand the scope of the draft by requiring both males and females to register. Congress reacted by passing the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) which prohibited the President from requiring females to register. Goldberg (plaintiff), a male citizen, and several other males brought suit against Rostker (defendant) in federal district court. Goldberg challenged the MSSA on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The district court agreed with Goldberg, and Rostker appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule: A congressional act that requires men and not women to register for a military draft does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because women cannot statutorily participate in combat and thus are not similarly situated as men.
United States v. Virginia
Facts: The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was the only single-sex public higher education institution in the State of Virginia. It functioned to train men for leadership in civilian life and military service using an “adversative” method. VMI refused to admit women. After an adverse court ruling that this policy of excluding women violated the Equal Protection Clause, VMI created an alternative program for women known as the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL). VWIL differed from VMI in its academic offerings, methods of education, and financial resources.
Rule: All governmental gender classifications must be substantially related to an important government purpose that can be demonstrated by the government if it offers an exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification.
