Con Law II, Walker, Fall 2013
I. Role of SCOTUS
a. Intro Stuff
i. Counter-majoritarian difficulty: courts are not democratic, federal judges are appointed and have power to overrule democratically enacted law
ii. Article III: constitutional article that governs courts
iii. Passive virtues: inaction (court’s power not to decide certain cases); operates as necessary means of mediating bt the 2 competing ideas at work in US gov’t electoral accountability and governance according to principle
b. Case or Controversy Requirements
i. Advisory Opinions
1. Cannot decide if things are constitutional simply by being asked by the President
2. Must be an actual case or controversy before the court
3. Declaratory judgments are allowed: enables court to say whether a party is going to be harmed or not, way of deciding legality and constitutionality of laws
a. 1) P’s must show that a specific action will violate a federal law and 2) that law poses a “real and immediate danger” to the P
ii. Standing
1. Allen v. Wright: black parents sued bc racially segregated school claimed tax-exempt status; R: standing requires that the P faces an injury, directly linked bt the challenged gov’t conduct and the claimed injury; injury must be distinct, real and something “actual” or “palpable’; P’s injury here unlikely to be redressed by a court ruling and the injuries are too generalized w/o sufficient causal connection
2. 3Ps P’s can bring action for injured P’s: 1) when 3Ps find it difficult to assert their rights, 2) injury to 3P affects P’s relationship to the 3P
3. Taxpayers have standing against schools for violating establishment clause, only to Congress’s taxing and spending power
4. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow: pledge of allegiance case
iii. Political Questions
1. Baker v. Carr: old TN apportionment scheme, P bring suit under equal protection; if you bring a ? better left to political branch of gov’t, court will stay out
II. Equality and the Constitution
a. BIG TEST, APPLY THIS ON THE EXAM
i. State Action?
1. All citizens affected? DUE PROCESS CLAIM (Only some citizens affected? EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM)
2. Class being treated differently? Go to #2
3. Does it affect a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT? If yes, go DIRECTLY to strict scrutiny (might be a due process claim)
a. 1st, 2nd (guns), 4th (search and seizure), 5th (self-incrim and eminent domain), 6th (speedy trial, impartial jury, right of confrontation), 8th (cruel and unusual punishment); 14th (due process)=ALL fundamental
b. 3rd (quartering soldiers), 5 (grand jury), 7 (right to jury in civil), 8 (excessive fines) = NOT fundamental protected
ii. Class?
1. Suspect? (Race, ancestry, heritage, any sort of residency requirement)
a. Strict Scrutiny applies
2. Legitimate? (Identifiable group)
a. Rational Basis applies
3. Immutable characteristic? (Gender)
a. Substantially related/intermediate scrutiny applies
iii. If strict scrutiny:
1. Is the purpose a compelling interest? (Is there a legitimate overriding purpose?)
2. Is relationship between the action and interest narrowly tailored? (Is action necessary to achieve purpose? (means test))
a. Remember to make case for YES and NO
iv. If rational basis:
1. Is action rationally related to the goal?
a. Remember to make case for YES and NO
v. If substantially related/intermediate scrutiny:
1. Is action substantially related to the action?
a. Remember to make case for YES and NO
vi. àSide note: invidious discrimination: treats different classes of people different for no rational reason will fail ALL tests
b. Rational Basis Review
i. BASIC QUESTION
1. State Action?
2. Who is the class? Is the state’s definition of class legitimate? (does it target a class of persons characterized by some unpopular trait or affiliation?)
3. Is state’s goal legitimate?
a. The desire to harm a politically unpopular group, goal=not legitimate
4. Is action reasonably related to the goal?
a. “Actual purpose review”: is the action’s actual purpose to improve the community or to target an unpopular group?
ii. NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer: state action not allowing methadone users to be NYCTA operators; legit class of users; goal to promote safety and efficiency of subway; goal was legitimate; action reasonably related to goal
iii. US Dept. of Ag. v. Moreno: food stamp program excluded unrelated people living together; legit class; goal to raise levels of nutrition and strengthen agricultural economy; legit goals but goals not rationally related to action
iv. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center: zoning ordinance that didn’t allow homes for insane, feebleminded, alcoholics or drug addicts; legit class; goal to keep mentally ill from being harassed; action not reasonably related to goal though (really about property value)
v. Romer v. Evans: statute prohibiting local gov’ts from enacting antidiscriminat
irginia: VA felony for interracial marriage; class=interracial couples, SS even though it affects races equally; compelling interest? Preserve racial integrity is NOT compelling
v. Palmore v. Sidoti: Ct. transfer custody of white child after mom marries black; goal=no taunting of child; NOT COMPELLING!
vi. Johnson v. CA: inmates assigned to cells by race; goal=reduce violence; compelling interest? Yes but segregation not necessary means of achieving goal, other ways to do it
vii. Hunter v. Erickson: law that all real estate transaction ordinances about race must be approved by voters; class=people affected by amendment; compelling interest? NO
viii. Washington v. Davis: test to get on police force, challenged by blacks; class=people applying to be on police force (not suspect bc test doesn’t mention race, more about disparate impact); disproportionate impact of test results doesn’t alone trigger SS must have explicit mention of race or a discriminatory racial purpose
1. Just because not suspect class, must still pass rational basis; here it passes, we want literate and good police officers
2. Oregon v. Mitchell: ban on literacy tests for voting upheld by SCOTUS citing educational inequality; different from Davis bc voting=right, job=not entitlement
ix. Jury Selection cases:
1. Batson v. KY: D must show he’s member of racial group and that prosecutor used preemptory challenges to remove his group from jury pool
2. Castaneda v. Partida: compare % of jurors to % in community to show problem
3. McClesky v. Kemp: death penalty disproportionately applied but this is different from jury selection bc the conviction of the crime is the determinative factor of whether someone is on death row, so jury selection is where it counts
4. US v. Armstrong: SCOTUS held racial disparity in crack convictions didn’t violate EP; you must show similarly situated person treated differently and not prosecuted (very hard to do)
x. Shaw v. Reno: crazy voting district drawn to guarantee black person in state congress; if the only reason you’re drawing it is for race, then it violates EP
