FAMILY LAW OUTLINE
Professor Kearney
Fall 2015
Substantive Due Process
Must be a fundamental right
Strict scrutiny applied to govt
Fundamental Right
Look for precedent:
Right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children
Right to procreate
Right to contraception
Right to sexual intimacy in one’s home
Right to terminate a pregnancy
Right to marry/divorce
Right to association
Test to determine if ___ is a fundamental right (You need 1 & 2, or just 2) (If it’s not on the list of a fundamental right, use the test below to determine)
Whether the interest is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition; AND
So essential to ordered liberty that neither liberty nor justice would exist without it.
Any other kind of liberty interest (other than fundamental right)
Rational basis
If the govt can get the case under the rational basis theory (unlike strict scrutiny) then the govt will win.
State Action
Only the government or state can be responsible for violating Constitution depriving liberties or fundamental rights
Deprivation
If the liberty interest is a fundamental right, sometimes the court will look to see if the government action is a significant interference with the right.
If the liberty interest is an interest other than a fundamental right, any interference is enough
Any person
Fundamental Right
Intermediate Scrutiny (In between strict scrutiny & rational basis)
Without Due Process of Law (These are the same for Equal Protection)
Strict Scrutiny
Compelling government interest (to save lives or limbs)
Narrowly tailored (least restricted/interference means) to the government’s actions
Rational Basis
Legitimate intent
Rationally related to government basis
Government doesn’t need to introduce any evidence about the rational basis. As long as the court can imagine a relationship b/t the government’s actions and their interests, they will assume they are rationally related.
Heightened Scrutiny
Important government interest
Reasonably related on substantive due process
Substantially related (Equal Protection only)
Equal Protection
State Action (Denies)
Within its Jurisdiction
Equal Protection of the Law
Nature of the class of people
Race, religion, ethnicity, nationality (If one of these, it’s a fundamental right and must be subject to Strict Scrutiny)
Gender, illegitimacy, alienage (Intermediate Scrutiny, Substantially related)
Any other classifications (Rational Basis) *Typically the govt wins under Rational Basis
Nature of the interest implicated
If it’s a fundamental right (Strict Scrutiny)
Not a fundamental Right (Rational Basis)
Defining a Family
US Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno pg 346
Amendment to food stamp law excluded unrelated people (discrimination)
Is it illegal discrimination?
We have State Action b/c it’s a Federal Food Stamp Law
Is there an Equal Protection Violation?
What’s the nature of the class of people being discriminated against?
Related v. Unrelated people of the household
Their not protected b/c it’s not race, religion, ethnicity, etc
Not gender, illegitimacy, alienage
THEY FALL UNDER “OTHER CLASSICIATION” which is RATIONAL BASIS
What is the nature of the interest implicated? Is it a Fundamental Right or Not?
Getting Food Stamps is NOT a fundamental right, it’s a government benefit. So it stays at Rational Basis, NOT Strict Scrutiny
Level of Scrutiny Analysis- Rational Basis
Government’s “Rational Basis” for excluding the unrelated persons- Minimizing Fraud in the Administration of the Food Stamp program
HOW TO REBUT THE RATIONAL BASIS ARGUMENT- The government is saying there is reason for this law is to prevent fraud BUT really this is an attempt to target a particular group to protect hippies (pretext)
HOW TO REBUT THE RATIONAL BASIS ARGUMENT- The govt has no evidence that excluding unrelated people helps fraud
HOW TO REBUT THE RATIONAL BASIS ARGUMENT- Look at what the govt did- they originally gave benefits to unrelated people, then changed the law to exclude them. Why did they do that? To discriminate against “hippies” but they didn’t want to say that
This law was not narrowly tailored. The ends and the means don’t connect.
Moore
same household
Emotional reliance on each other
Particulars of their day to day relationship
Manner in which they related to each other in attending to life’s mundane requirements
Marvin v. Marvin
Lee Marvin created reasonable expectation in Michelle Marvin’s mind that if she quits her job that she will be taken care of.
Clark v. Jeter
Petitioned challenged a PA statute that required proof of paternity to receive child support, and required a 6 year statute of limitations for paternity actions. Under Heightened Scrutiny (b/c this regard illegitimacy) the statute is unconstitutional b/c not substantially related to the State’s interest in avoiding litigation of stale/fraudulent claims. Since PA is known for tolling the statute in situations related to paternity actions instituted by the father, of tolling the limitation during the child’s minority, it shows that PA is not that concerned with avoiding the litigation in fraudulent claims.
Wallis v. Smith
Man and woman were sexually intimate and she got pregnant.He alleges she told him that she was on birth control. She had baby. Man sued woman for money damages, claiming fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and prima facie tort.Lower court dismissed for failure to state a claim and he appealed. Ct said Man was trying to dodge child support. The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) requires strict liability for child support, and the public policy that each parent is financially responsible for the conception of a child.The Ct said that no jurisdiction recognizes contraceptive fraud of breach of promise to practice birth control as a ground for adjusting a natural parent’s obligation to pay child support. Whether or not people use birth control is a private matter. The Ct said that the Man could have used birth control too. Becoming pregnant is not a tort and not all misrepresentations are actionable.
