Untitled Deck Flashcards by Damon Lee

Established judicial review for federal government

Supremacy of constitution

Notes: political question, original vs. appellate jurisdiction, constitutional avoidance, exclusive vs. concurrent jurisdiction

POLICY: are judges too strong? Are courts not democratic (Countermajoritarian difficulty)?

Marbury v. Madison

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Valid Exercises of Commerce Power?

Flow of commerce/stream of commerce

Commerce

Inherently Dangerous

Direct Efforts

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Invalid Exercises of Commerce Power

intrastate

Agriculture, manufacturing, mining

Harmless

Indirect Efforts

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Federal supremacy over states

Necessary and proper clause analysis

POLICY: intertextualism: “absolutely necessary” vs. “necessary”

State cant tax as const needs to be supreme

McCulloch v. Maryland

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Interstate commerce is power of Congress

Transportation counts as interstate intercourse

Dormant commerce clause → telling states to back off

Gibbons v. Ogden

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is absolute (plenary)

Congress may guard morals (lottery tickets)

Champion v. Ames

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Sugar trust buys competitors, Sherman Anti-trust act tries to stop, Court says cant because Manufacturing is not commerce

US v. EC Knight (Lochner Era)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Supreme Court struck down a New York law limiting bakers’ work hours to 60 per week

Legislature can’t impede on the individual right to contract

Adopts laissez faire econ regulation attitude, broad reading of sub DP

Lochner v. New York

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Cattle said to be in the stream of commerce as they are in the stockyard so that was commercey enough

Swift v. US

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Court ruled that by the time poultry reached slaughterhouses in Brooklyn, any interstate transactions regarding the chicken were complete and thus couldn’t be regulated

If gov can regulate specific field of commerce in one state, then commerce could be regulated anywhere

POLICY: valid regulation when flow/stream of commerce, invalid when intrastate

Schechter Poultry v. United States (Lochner Era)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Congress can’t regulate things like mining that haven’t entered interstate commerce yet

The fact that the coal being mined would eventually find its way into the stream of commerce was not enough for Congress to be able to regulate it

POLICY: valid regulation when direct effect on commerce, invalid when indirect

Carter v. Coal (Lochner Era)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Congress allowed to regulate labor unions because if operations stop because of disputes between employers and employees, it could harm interstate commerce

Destroyed the idea of flow of commerce and supports a more expanded power of direct and indirect efforts

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (NEW DEAL)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Overturns Dagenhart

Overturning arguments pertaining to danger/harmlessness and interstate/intrastate

Congress is allowed to stop goods made from unfair working conditions from entering interstate commerce

U.S. v. Darby (NEW DEAL)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Congress is allowed to make rules about wheat grown for personal use because when you add up all the wheat grown by farmers like him, it can have a big effect on the price of wheat.

Wickard v. Filburn (NEW DEAL)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Production vs. commercial

Can’t regulate local child labor because it’s a matter of production

POLICY: regulation valid when problem inherently dangerous, invalid when harmless

Hammer v. Dagenhart (Lochner Era)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Cannot enact individual mandate through the commerce clause bc Congress cant make you buy things you do not want to (inactivity cant be punished)

Individual mandates are taxes → it is a tax bc inducing the public to do something and punishes you not to do it (if it looks like a tax, it is likely a tax), not coercive just an incentive

Power to spend with Medicaid → Congress can decide how federal money is spent BUT the requirements cannot be too coercive (“gun to the head”)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (TAXING POWER)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Upholds a statute that sets a minimum wage for women, ends Lochner idea of freedom of contract

Avoiding more expenses on the rest of society by allowing a workable wage

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Congress can exclude from interstate commerce things which are injurious to the general welfare

Footnote 4: Courts will more strictly scrutinize certain kinds of laws if they deal with religious and insular minorities because they can’t protect themselves

U.S. v. Carolene Products

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Lean toward rational basis viewpoint

If rational basis established, courts defer to legislature → presumption of constitutionality

Reject Lochner type argument

Williamson v. Lee Optical

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Congress had the power to regulate the hotel’s discriminatory practices because they had a substantial and harmful effect on commerce across state lines (think Green Book)

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Supports rational basis

restaurant refusing to serve Black customers was an artificial restriction on the market

Commerce clause power extends to any PPA/restaurant which gets food/materials which cross state lines (basically all restaurants)

Katzenbach v. McClung

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Congress tried passing a gun law that prevents guns from being on high schools

Blurring of the lines of state and federal government, worried about this being a step too far

Here, channels, instrumentalities, activities are not at issue

When those not at issue, then need to connect issue to interstate commerce with substantial effects test (direct connection)

POLICY: Congress could have added line such as “guns in possession that were moved via interstate commerce” to establish jurisdictional element

U.S. v. Lopez

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Court held civil remedy provision of the violence against women act was unconstitutional

Congress argued that gender motivated violence affects interstate commerce by deterring potential victims from traveling interstate

Court uses similar reasoning in Lopez to reject

Slippery slope of allowing congress to regulate any kind of crime as long as it affects some national aspect

U.S. v. Morrison

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Marijuana growers grow it themselves, not for sale at all. It’s a small farming operation. Did not have an impact on market prices

But court still held that BAN on private cultivation and use of marijuana applied to the marijuana growers

it’s a highly valuable drug

Gonzales v. Raich

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Brady Act was gun control act that required state and local officials to conduct background checks Court ruled that congress is not allowed to compel state officials to administer federal programs POLICY: Concept of commandeering state/local offices by the federal government

Printz v. U.S.

Great depression, congress extended time on mortgages Majority ruled that in times of emergency, Congress can use police powers to affect contractual rights sets up Rational Basis review; the intent or intended applications of framers do not matter bc circumstances present now did not exist then; deference to state emergency powers

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell

Eminent domain is okay if private takings are for a public use and compensated for Thomas dissent: wants a narrower domain law for only condemned land and to greater societal purpose (hospitals)

Kelo v. City of New London

land on coast, tries to build prop but stopped via state police power making land worthless If 100% diminution in value, then it is a taking BUT if you lose 95% it could still maybe be a taking but without this rule, states could use regulation to appropriate private property without compensation

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Majority: allowing union reps to enter private property temporarily is a regulatory taking BECAUSE it removes the right to exclude Dissent: regulation is not a taking, because it temporarily limits one’s ability to exclude others, hurts government ability to impose ordinary inspections

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Listed Powers of the President

Commander in chief, army and navy Faithfully executes laws Receive ambassadors Pardon power In wartime, gets a lot more executive power

The 3 branches are not entirely separate and will check one another

Federalist 47

Ambition to check ambition, leads to efficiency and stops tyranny. Or because of political parties does it lead to inefficiency and stalemate and allows for private groups to completely block regulations? Congress has more power but is more accountable

Federalist 48

Majority: if the president wants more emergency powers (seize steel production), these powers should come from Congress 1. Express authorization from congress → authority at maximum (Congress and president on same side so court deferential) 2. Congressional silence Pres can only rely on independent powers (Zone of twilight where congress has concurrent authority → have to pragmatically assess imperatives of events) 3. Congress expressly or implicitly prohibits something → authority at lowest Pres still has constitutional powers and those trump any congressional statute

Youngstown v. Sawyer

in gen, courts NOT likely to second guess what exec branch says is necessary concerning foreign affairs BUT even when exec power should be at its highest during a terrorist attack, there should be some limitation on exec war on terror is NOT a blank check for pres, thus suggesting some limitations on war related powers of pres

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld → “rogue tribunal”

Congress cannot authorize a lesser representative of the Legislative branch to exercise executive power alone / independently Separation of powers problem bc no bicameralism or presentment

Bowsher v. Synar

There are principal and inferior officers It wasn’t a violation of separation of powers to have the law giving judiciary the power to appoint inferior executive officers and protecting them from being removed Independent Counsel is an inferior officer bc his position is limited in that he does NOT have policy making powers Thus, the President can fire him Worries about enfeebling the president

Morrison v. Olsen

Pres can remove officers at will UNLESS officer is associated with other branches (think FTC)

Meyers v US & Humphrey’s Executor

Majority: CFPB principal officer structure where 1 person had too much power and was not democratically held accountable; for cause removal impedes a president from enacting his policies, especially bc the 5 year term made it so that some presidents could never appoint director

Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Hamilton saying why the President is not a King → 4 year term, limited veto power, may be punished (impeachment), cannot declare war even though in charge of military, share treaty-making power POLICY: Hamilton didn’t expect parties in politics, power of veto is a lot stronger, Congress doesn’t really declare war, President also seems legally immune, and Prez foreign power is huge

Federalist 69

General immunity from judicial process does not exist Balancing judicial process with keeping military / diplomatic secrets -method agreed on is that judge gets to see it first and decide based on level of confidentiality if it would have major impacts - in camera review

United States v. Nixon

Majority: criminal prosecution is intrusive and don’t want to scare President from being bold and unhesitating because of fear of being sued by the next president Core powers - conclusive and preclusive (pardon power and removal) Official Acts - presumptive immunity Unofficial acts (subject to investigation up to judge) No motive inquiry for core/official

Trump v. US

Free states CANNOT pass laws shielding fugitive slaves Violates supremacy clause

Prigg v PA

Slaves and their descendents NOT citizens entitled to full protection of the law Missouri Compromise overruled Fed gov cant prohibit slavery in territories

Dred Scott v Sanford

First case on anti-subordination No denial of jury based on race Okay to deny based on sex, age, citizenship, property holding, education (MODERN INTERPRETATION)

Strauder v West Virginia

Right to labor is NOT a national privilege or immunity, thus can be limited by the state Privileges and immunities clause made irrelevant

The Slaughterhouse Cases

Establishes the state action doctrine for 14th amendment 14th cannot apply to private actions narrows 13th amendment "Mere discrimination based on race or color is not a symbol of slavery"

The Civil Rights Cases of 1875

Separate but equal The power to require separation in a way that doesn’t imply inferiority of one race has been generally recognized as part of the state’s police power (i.e. schools) - the use of separate, but equal railcars for the two races does not violate the Equal Protection Clause All citizens are equal before the law BUT NOT socially

Plessy v Ferguson

NOT providing a separate law school for black student was NOT separate but equal

Gaines v Canada

Due to the lack of prestige and access to similar professors and facilities, the black law school is NOT separate but equal from UT

Sweatt v Painter

CANNOT have separate but equal within the same school bc NOT actually equal does NOT overrule Plessy black students had different sections of the library and classrooms where Blacks had to sit

McLaurin v Board of Regents

Overturns Plessy in the learning/school environment Separate is NEVER equal State is providing edu so it needs to be providing it equally used study on psychological harm / inferiority (Caroline products case - injurious)

Brown I

School boards must desegregate schools with ALL DELIBERATE SPEED Deference to courts to decide the meaning

Brown II

Reverse incorporation of 14th amend EPC finding of Brown against the fed gov through 5th amend DPC POLICY: bs reasoning BUT cannot hold states to a higher standard The Court held segregated schools unconstitutional in DC (even though DC isn't a state)

Bolling v Sharpe

hybrid, originalist when constitution unambiguously settles a question, but if ambiguous, then living constitution

Living originalism

constitution terms are vague and undecided because each generation needs to be able to adapt the constitution and decide how to adapt it We decide in the present for it to bind us No dead hand problem Game of construction

Living Constitutionalism

court decisions are legitimate if they follow the original meaning of the constitution The people ratified these words and made them part of the constitution This was democratic legitimacy Game of interpretation

Originalism

One person one vote States are responsible for apportionment based on population Alabama had counties with lots of disproportionate voting power. New voters were not being represented

Reynolds v. Sims

called in the arkansas national guard to segregate, then president ordered federal troops to confront them SC says no to schools request for more time for segregation

Cooper v Aaron

Unconstitutional to close down every public school in the area and open up private school (for white kids)

Griffin v Prince Edwards County

Formalist vs. realist debate Formalist says equal right to choose school is desegregation Realist says that equal choice in theory => reality is that its segregated because white students choose white schools, black students choose black schools Freedom of choice plan is not a unitary system of desegregation

Green v New Kent

Once unitary school system met, courts to take a step back → Courts may ONLY intervene if there is a const violation / de jure. School districts have broad power to formulate policy → can order x amount of black kids at each school

Swann v Board of Education

Following a finding of de jure segregation in one district, the district court entered a decree targeting the 53 suburban districts surrounding Detroit. Although the city was predominantly Black and the suburbs White, there was no substantial evidence of race classifications designed to segregate The suburban districts did not commit a constitutional violation, so this remedy is impermissible. The remedy should instead be confined to Detroit DISSENT: drawing lines between counties and cities is arbitrary and incompatible with EPC DISSENT: state is responsible for white flight, effects of segregation go past district lines and spread everywhere, state action => state is responsible => EPC violation

Milliken v Bradley

If schools look integrated enough, let districts out of these obligations POLICY: BUT in practice, segregation creeps back in

Freeman v Pitt

Magnet schools/increased funding to attract white students from outside the district is impermissible Can’t use single district remedy when there is no multiple district violation DISSENT: these kinds of remedies are meant to help fight off segregation If districts cannot even use magnet schools as a remedy, then district courts can’t do much

Missouri v Jenkins

Strict Scrutiny - narrowly tailored to a compelling gov interest Intermediate Scrutiny - substantially related and important gov interest - exceedingly persuasive justification (might make it strict) Rational Basis Review - rationally related to a legitimate gov interest

Heightened Scrutiny = Equal Protection (equality)

SS - Race Nat’l Origin, Religion, Alienage (political function & fed exemption) IS - Sex, Illegitimacy RB w/ bite - NOT an actual classification BUT RB w/ close focus RB - everything else

Due Process (fundamental rights)

If fundamental right, then SS If expressly in constitution, most likely a fundamental right To see if fundamental right for SDP, look to history and tradition

higher scrutiny for discrete and insular minorities Classification based on race => inherently suspect => strict scrutiny Critical public necessity (like wartime) could justify classification based on race (deference to military orders)

Korematsu v US (anti-cannon)

interracial marriage criminalized and told to leave VA 14th NOT about social rights and this is a social right (originalist pov) court gets around this saying 14th amend’s clear purpose was to eliminate all state sources of invidious racial discrimination EPC demands that racial classifications be subject to most rigid scrutiny and must be narrowed to legit state interests court says law fails test as it is designed to maintain white supremacy because that what was argued

Loving v Virginia

The state took away womans kid bc she married a black man The law CANNOT reinforce potential biases in violation of EPC

Palmore v Sidoti

prisoners segregated by race segregation doesnt seems to be necessary means to reduce violence since other districts seem to be fine and able to handle things without seg Finds SS applies - race neutral alternative exists

Johnson v California

A woman reported that a young Black man broke into her house and attacked her. The police questioned every Black male student per a list from Oneonta plaintiffs were questioned on their general physical description, of which race is just one factor; so this is not a racial classification Rational Basis

Brown v Oneonta (2nd Cir. - persuasive)

fair housing law amendment has racial classification because minorities are essentially blocked by law because they cant lobby legislature to enact laws AND that is discrimination

Hunter v Erikson

laundry permits to chinese applicants but 79/80 white applicants law on its face was neutral, there was no race descrim just applied discriminatorily, court says its decrim => SS applies

Yick Wo v Hopkins

Chinese Hairstyle banned facially neutral BUT unconst against EPC bc it was enacted with intent to descrim against chinese ppl, had descrim purpose

Ho Al Kow v Nunan

AL legis redrew tuskegee boundary so that blacks outside city EPC violation because while it appears facially neutral it has a clear purpose to infringe black ppl’s voting rights

Gomillian v Lightfoot

school board shut down schools for everyone and opened white only private schools BUT was race descrim bc purpose was to avoid integration (DISPARATE IMPACT)

Griffin v Prince Edward

AL const disenfranchised anyone who was convicted of any crime including moral turpitude crimes BUT purpose was to disenfranchise black ppl (facially neutral => disc purpose)

Hunter v Underwood

Title 7 Case Job has HS req and IQ test req to get job or one of them to transfer in, basically company set things up so only white ppl can succeed NOT all black ppl blocked by policy just a disproportionate impact when P can show a disparate impact, then needs to see if it is justified under a business necessity, not just business convenience - in this case, no business necessity => thus struck down

Griggs v Duke Power

DCPD written test has disparate impact on black applicants RB to be used for facially neutral laws Impact alone NOT enough BUT intention + impact matters, thus impact shown → discriminatory purpose behind impact

Washington v Davis

Some factors to look at to decide whether or not there is a purpose 1. Irregularities in passing a law? 2. Was a minority group excluded from the laws debate? test = if legis would have made same decision anyways regardless of race; this opens up possibility that D could be overtly racist a low standard, making it rare for P to win on these claims

Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation

veterans preference; P says she is being locked out of promotions State acts with discriminatory intent when state acted bc of that purpose and not in spite of those consequences DISSENT: Impact very foreseeable and very burdensome on women & w/ big impact, have to prove NOT discrimin policy

Personnel Admin. of Massachusetts v Feeney

Racial Classification? What to check

strict scrutiny = compelling interest + narrowly tailored

Facially Neutral? What to check?

Does it have a descrim purpose?

setting out a certain number of seats in the class for the economically or educationally disadvantanged is wrong but race as a consideration in university decision is FINE because classroom diversity is a compelling government interest

Regents of the University of California v Bakke

college goal to “ensure a critical mass of underrepresented minority students” is constitutionally fine compelling state interest that justifies the use of race in admission

Grutter v. Bollinger

bonus points on a scale for college admissions struck down bc plan too mechanical

Gratz v Bollinger

school districts creating assignment plans to rank schools in elementary school entrances, when a tie occurred the school would change the assignments to make it diverse to change metrics Diversity in school (Grutter) → idea of diversity in higher edu does NOT apply to elementary school even if there’s a compelling interest, it is NOT narrowly tailored; there is NO finding of de jure discrimination

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District

Harvard & UNC non-quota systems where they take race into account for admissions by checking a box Court will defer to universities on compelling interests

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard

Women citizens BUT CANNOT vote to avoid tearing apart fam

Virginia v. Minor

The const does NOT preclude sharp lines between the sexes Women can’t work as bartenders unless husband/father operates it

Goesaert v Cleary

Women NOT called for jury service bc who takes care of home?

Hoyt v Florida

male military could claim wife as dependent BUT woman cant claim their husband UNLESS provides over 50% support Plurality uses heightened scrutiny for sex

Frontiero v Richardson

holds that pregnancy descrim is NOT sex descrim line drawn btwn preg ppl and non-preg ppl (includes women), so NOT sex descrim bc line is around pregnancy Arguing that pregnancy is a status, NOT an inherent trait Ovaries???

Geduldig v Aiello

An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "non intoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under 21 y/o and to females under 18 y/o Establishes intermediate scrutiny for sex if sex neutral alternatives exist, will strongly weight against the constitutionality of the law

Craig v Boren

military school (VMI) with NO women allowed, created alt school for women BUT it was so diff that it didn't match male school and thus was NOT a good remedy “exceedingly persuasive justification” needed for intermediate scrutiny => seems pretty similar to important government interest sex programs ok if they dissipate sex stereotypes AND DONT reinforce them (ex STEM programs 4 women, nursing 4 men)

US v Virginia

court upholds law about status of international children born to unmarried parents (if mother a citizen, then child a citizen BUT if father a citizen, then NOT bc important gov interests met) (like Geduldig) worried about women from overseas claiming their kids as American citizens

Nguyen v INS

Council denied permit for disability housing NO heightened scrutiny (IS) for ppl with intellectual disabilities as they have NO decreased political powerlessness since several laws are being enacted to help them BUT this is a dual edged sword as they may be powerless and need these laws No rational basis that this home poses special threat to city’s legitimate interest => negative attitudes, being near a middle school, difficulty of evacuating people with disabilities, the size of the home/number of the people, avoiding congestion on the streets are NOT legitimate interests in denying the home RATIONAL BASIS WITH BITE: targeting laws with animus (irrational prejudice)

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

TX school districts different wealth levels resulting in disparities EPC part - NO heightened scrutiny for wealth disparities bc NOT a suspect class BUT suggestion for extremely poor people DPC part - edu is NOT a fund right

San Antonio v. Rodriguez

TX law that undocu children have to pay tuition found unconst Only rational basis because undocu children NOT suspect class DPC - No fund right to edu EPC - court uses substantial interest to say NO rational basis bc denying kids edu will create societal burden Mix of suspect class and fund right so courts examine closely Diff than Rodriguez bc differences in wealth do NOT violate EPC BUT total denial of edu does violate

Plyler v Doe

Teacher convicted of teaching bible in german DPC allows for people to establish a home and raise kids how they like without interference under the guise of protecting a public interest, liberty is more than bodily restraint

Meyer v Nebraska

Court invalidated statute requiring children to attend public schools State police power does NOT include standardizing education Fundamental right to educate and raise kids as parents see fit

Pierce v Society of Sisters

state required sterilization for criminals with 3+ convictions, court said it is a departure from fund rights to do this to crims Fundamental right to procreation

Skinner v Oklahoma

Law against birth control Douglass: Penumbra of rights creates a right to privacy (Amends 1, 3, 4, 5, 9 blended together)

Griswold v Connecticut

Fundamental right to privacy under DPC Griswold applies for DPC because there is a fund right which requires SS SO gov needs to show compelling interest

Roe v Wade

court throws out trimesters approach and puts in undue burden test that says states can regulate as long as it does NOT put an undue burden on ppl for fund rights (strikes a balance) Getting rid of stare decisis is when a law becomes unworkable, precedent has remnants of abandoned doctrine, old rule robbed of its justification because of changing facts

Planned Parenthood v Casey

Physcian Assisted Suicide NOT a fund right under DPC so looks to rational basis, to which the state has a compeling interest Says yes to fund right to refuse med treatment because that is battery and stopping battery is deeply rooted in nations history

Washington v Glucksberg

Kills Roe and Casey No right to abortions, as NOT deeply rooted in hist and tradition 5 factors to overturn stare decisis: nature of the error, quality of reasoning, workability of the imposed rules, disruptive effect on other areas of law, and absence of concrete reliance

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org

Fund rights arg, NOT EPC, no fund right to gay sex Upheld sodomy laws against gay ppl

Bowers v Hardwick (overruled)

state law saying cities cant make anti-discrimination laws 4 gays unconst as it had NO rational basis bc law is product of animus against gay ppl rational basis with bite

Romer v Evans

TX law says NO same sex conduct in own bedroom Living const approach since 14th did NOT consider gay ppl Finds fundamental right to privacy and in relationships BUT NOT fund right to be gay Holding confusing - NO clear EPC language - maybe rational basis with bite for gay ppl (O’Connor Concurrence) BUT probably more along the lines of privacy being a fund right so maybe SDP side

Lawrence v Texas

Gay marriage DP case - finds fund right to marry and gay ppl can exercise that right, uses Loving as justification and says stigma on children if parents cant marry EPC lang included, maybe gays and straights need to be equal

Obergefell v Hodges

Wong Kim child of Chinese immigrants born in US during time when NO illegal aliens, USSC says he was NOT an excluded class like Indians, ambassador children, or occupying armies so was a citizen “subject to the jurisdiction”

US v Wong Kim Ark

Current Case very afraid of anchor babies, one arg is that illegal aliens are an invading force and NOT covered so their children are NOT citizens, this causes a cascading issue though Second arg: narrowing Ark by saying it is now illegal to be in the US so they are NOT subject to our jurisdiction and so kids dont have right to citizenship Third arg: read the text as is and these kids are citizens bc they were born here

Trump v CASA

SDP: Dobbs Version how to tell what rights are covered? if covered then what?

Look at History and Tradition if covered, use heightened scrutiny

2nd amendment how to tell what rights are covered? and then what?

2nd Amend Text (Bruen) Use intermediate scrutiny (heller) use history and tradition (Bruen)

Ban on sawed-off shotgun Gun does NOT tie to preservation or efficiency of well-regulated militia

US v Miller

Individual right to bear arms for self-d is a fundamental right No explanation as to how certain restrictions on certain weapons to be imposed (why the need for Bruen) 2-part test - history & means-ends scrutiny (levels of scrutiny)

DC v Heller

NY Law requiring cause to get CCW unconstitutional Thomas: new test is just to look at the text and if it is a gun issue, interpret the history and trad, removes compelling interest req

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Bruen

Man with Restraining Order for DV denied ability for temp time to get a gun, court says this was const Looks to history and finds similar laws restricting violent ppl who threaten physical harm from having guns what level of generality to view tradition? → high but NOT too high

US v Rahimi

Untitled Deck Flashcards

(120 cards)