CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II MORRISON FALL 2014
· APPLICATION OF BILL OF RIGHTS
o Bill of Rights provides individual rights, and applies to the states and the federal government.
o This is found in the 14th Amendment
o State Action Doctrine: the constitution, including BOR applies to state actors; i.e. including employers, states, cities, schools, etc…
§ Individuals are never considered state actors
o State can exercise police powers to get around BOR, however the federal government does not have any police powers!
§ Fed gov’t can regulate through its tax/spending power, and the commerce clause
o The court originally declared that the BOR did not apply to individuals in U.S. v. Stanley in about 1885. This allowed individuals to discriminate based on gender since they weren’t state actors. Later overruled of course.
o Exceptions to State Action Doctrine (when BOR can apply to non state actors):
o Public Function
Marsh Test: When there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the function, then the BOR can apply to non state actors.When private property is so open to the public, the owner must abide by the constitution
Jackson Test: Is the action a traditionally government function? If so, then BOR applies.
§ Entanglement: the constitution applies to private people if the government authorizes, encourages, or facilitates private conduct that violates the constitution.
· A state court case is a state action!!
§ Entwinement: private agencies can be treated as state agencies because it is so pervasively intertwined with the state. p. 593
· Economic Substantive Due Process
o Based on the BOR freedom of contract
o Legislature cannot use police power to regulate the hours of bakers because it didn’t protect the health, safety, welfare or morals of the citizens, and violated due process in 14th amendment, Lochner v. New York (1905).Ruled that liberty of contract IS protected by the DPC in order to avoid state control of businesses. The right to purchase or sell labor is part of that liberty protected. The only way a state may counter this right is to show they are exercising a valid police power with their regulation. Those powers relate to the safety, health, morals and general welfare of the public. The effect of this legislation was to regulate labor conditions and not to protect workers. The state could accomplish its goals with means that did not interfere with the freedom to contract. Because the police power exercised here is not strong, the Court suspected that there were legislative motives behind the enactment of this law. New York was using its power to upset the free market.
o State also cannot disallow a company to contract away an employee’s right to join a union, Coppage v. Kansas (1915)State cannot use police power to correct an imbalance in power, because this interferes with the owner’s freedom of contract. State law saying employers can’t condition employees’ agreement to not join union.
o Muller: Women, like minors, are a special class of worker that needs protection. This statute is within the state’s police power to protect the health of the general public because the physical well-being of women is paramount to the production of healthy offspring.
o Before the 1930’s was the Lochner Era, where cases such as the one above strongly enforced the freedom of contract in favor of individual employee’s rights
o The Lochner Era (basically before the 1930’s) typically favored strong federal court oversight, strong deference to individual rights, individual situations of each case, and a very activist court. Post Lochner, the courts favored weaker oversight, more deference to state legislation, facts of each individual case were less important, and the court was much more hands off.During the 1930’s the rise of state police powers was seen as well
o End of Lochner Era was signaled by West Coast v. Parrish, which stated that a minimum wage law did NOT violate the freedom of contract in 1937
o Carolene Products (1938) Cong saw this filled milk as public health risk and used commerce clause to stop it
– Issue: does this act infringe on the 5th amend?
o 5th amend – because it is a fed issue
o Manufacturer’s right to do business and consumers’ right to purchase as they see fit
– Exercising police power (health risk)
– Hold: no, it does not infringe on the 5th amend- it’s const
– Reas: case law that supports leg protecting public health from food items
o They investigated the situation, found it a public health risk
o Leave it up to the political process
o Danger society of not raising strong Americans
o If there is some rational basis for cong’s actions, then it will be upheld
§ Low standard, easy to meet
§ Court will be deferential to any set of facts supporting a law
§ Only w/ econ regulations
Judicial interference should not be used unless it concerns something of more importance like treatment of minorities, greater violations of the constitution
Williamson v Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc, Law that only licensed optometrist/ophthalmologist can prescribe lenses and opticians need prescription to fix broken lenses
– Issue: does this law count under state police powers? is it const under 14th amend?
o Will I have right as customer to get glasses as I want to, or will I have to go to an eye doctor first
– Hold: yes, const
– Reas: state leg knows best – they have their reasons – leave it up to the political process
o Could be a public health risk and can be under the police power
o Facts support state law- important for detecting diseases, ailments, etc
o Passed because there’s some rational basis for exercising state police power
West coast case:Possible const arg for this legislation discriminating agains poor ppl: 14th amend “equal protection” claim. Reas: women (and other workers w/ little bargaining power) need to be protected from employers.
BMW of North Americaa, Inc v Gore, US 1996 p 631
– Due process clause prohibits state from imposing “grossly excessive” punishment on a tortfeasor
– Facts: dr. gore found out his car had been repainted and the dealer did not tell him, so he sued. They found out that BMW were selling damaged cars, and if the damage was under 3% of the pric
clause, there is still a due process claim.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon, US 1922 p 668
– Diminution of value
§ If they mine out all the coal, it will damage their (Mahon) property à will collapse
§ But Mahon should have known this when they signed the contract so Penn is pissed
– Issue: (1. can the police power be stretched so far to limit mining on private property and void previous contracts?) and Is this a taking?
– Hold: (1. no, this act overreached police power)
2. yes, it’s a taking
1. The area below the surface is not common/public, so the state cannot regulate it and it doesn’t impact like the surfaceThey (indvs) only got surface rights, so it’s on them that the coal co is mining underneath where they (indv) have no say
2. Yes it’s a taking:
o State have to compensate Penn for the coal
o State ratifying(approve) contract by paying compensation
o Whether public use or not, it doesn’t matter so much
– Dissent: restrictions (leg) imposed to protect public health, safety, or morals from dangers threatened ≠ taking
o The property restricted is still in possession of the owner
o When their use is done being noxious, then the restrictions will be lifted and the owner can go back to enjoying their property like they used to
o Coal in place = land – it’s not coal, it’s not energy, it’s not basis for profit, it’s just land
o Reg didn’t prevent Penn from doing stuff w/ their land, just said that you can’t do something with your land that will hurt my land ≠ taking – state is just exercising police power
Miller v. Schoene, US 1928 p 670
– Facts: have to cut down their trees to prevent spread of plant disease w/in two miles of apple orchard– destroy apple trees – statute doesn’t allow for compensation for the felled trees
o The red cedars are ornamental and not very valuable – apple orchards are very valuable and ppl have put a lot of money into them, they’re one of chief exports of VA, a lot of development linked to them – not as big as econ value as apple orchards – you can still sell the felled cedar à there is still econ value!
o State had to choose between the two, and chose the one that would have less impact on state economy – greater value to the public
o “where public interest is involved preferment of that interest over the property interest of the indv” – public over indv interest – favor one group over another
o Heavy police power here – large econ value
– Low standard – some rational basis for passing this law
