CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Cases, History, and Practice Fourth Edition · CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Cases,...

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWCases, History, and Practice

Fourth Edition

0001 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 4] (Beg Group) Composed: Thu Feb 3 16:34:45 EST 2011XPP 8.1C.1 Patch #6 FM000150 nllp 3522 [PW=540pt PD=720pt TW=360pt TD=580pt]

VER: [FM000150-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Nov 10 07:55][TT-: 27 Oct 10 08:00 loc=usa unit=03522-fmvolcasebk] 0

LexisNexis Law School PublishingAdvisory Board

William AraizaProfessor of LawBrooklyn Law School

Lenni B. BensonProfessor of Law & Associate Dean for Professional DevelopmentNew York Law School

Raj BhalaRice Distinguished ProfessorUniversity of Kansas, School of Law

Ruth ColkerDistinguished University Professor & Heck-Faust Memorial Chair in Constitutional LawOhio State University, Moritz College of Law

David GamageAssistant Professor of LawUC Berkeley School of Law

Joan HeminwayCollege of Law Distinguished Professor of LawUniversity of Tennessee College of Law

Edward ImwinkelriedEdward L. Barrett, Jr. Professor of LawUC Davis School of Law

David I. C. ThomsonLP Professor & Director, Lawyering Process ProgramUniversity of Denver, Sturm College of Law

Melissa WereshDirector of Legal Writing and Professor of LawDrake University Law School

0001 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 4] Composed: Thu Feb 3 16:34:46 EST 2011XPP 8.1C.1 Patch #6 FM000150 nllp 3522 [PW=540pt PD=720pt TW=360pt TD=580pt]


CONSTITUTIONAL LAWCases, History, and Practice

Fourth EditionWILLIAM D. ARAIZAProfessor of LawBrooklyn Law School

M. ISABEL MEDINAFerris Family Distinguished Professor of LawLoyola University New Orleans College of Law

0001 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 4] (Beg Group) Composed: Thu Feb 3 16:34:46 EST 2011XPP 8.1C.1 Patch #6 FM000150 nllp 3522 [PW=540pt PD=720pt TW=360pt TD=580pt]


ISBN:978-1-4224-8536-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataAraiza, William D.Constitutional law : cases, history, and practice / William D. Araiza, M. Isabel Medina. -- 4th ed.p. cm.Previous ed. has sub-title: Cases, history, and dialoguesIncludes index.ISBN 978-1-4224-8536-1 (hard cover)1. Constitutional law--United States--Cases. I. Medina, M. Isabel. II. Title.KF4550.A758 2011342.73--dc22 2011000103

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject mattercovered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, orother professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competentprofessional should be sought.LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks and Michie is a trademark of Reed ElsevierProperties Inc., used under license. Matthew Bender and the Matthew Bender Flame Design are registeredtrademarks of Matthew Bender Properties Inc.Copyright © 2011 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.All Rights Reserved.No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and excerpts from court opinions quoted within thiswork. Permission to copy material exceeding fair use, 17 U.S.C. § 107, may be licensed for a fee of 25¢ perpage per copy from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, telephone(978) 750-8400.

NOTE TO USERSTo ensure that you are using the latest materials available in this area, please besure to periodically check the LexisNexis Law School web site for downloadableupdates and supplements at www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool.

Editorial Offices121 Chanlon Rd., New Providence, NJ 07974 (908) 464-6800201 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94105-1831 (415) 908-3200www.lexisnexis.com

(2011–Pub.3522)



PREFACEThis edition of the book marks the departure of the Professors Phoebe Haddon and

Dorothy Roberts, the last of the original group of authors that came together to write theFirst Edition. It retains the core of the original authors’ work, and, just as importantly,continues to reflect their goal of creating a challenging, sophisticated work that isnevertheless approachable to students and appropriate for their role as future practitionersof constitutional law.

In attempting to come closer to that elusive goal, the Fourth Edition features severalsignificant changes. First, it provides, at appropriate points, concise statements of theframeworks of analysis developed by the Court to resolve constitutional claims. Thisprovision of “the rules” is intended to complement students’ learning, by providing afocal point for their reading and discussion of the cases. Obviously, constitutional law istoo rich and complex to be reduced to a series of terse rules. Providing these analyticalframeworks is designed to provide a jumping-off point for students to consider the moredifficult issues that lurk behind those rules.

Second, the Fourth Edition has attempted to highlight areas of the law that are oftenunder-studied in a basic constitutional law class. For example, throughout, the book givessignificant attention to immigration, naturalization and citizenship issues. These issuesare becoming more important in a society that is globalizing at a rapid rate but at thesame time feeling significant insecurity as a result of that process, because of both theemphasis on terrorism and the changes that immigrant populations are perceived to augurfor American life.

Third, the Fourth Edition aims to prepare students for practice. This is clear from thevery start of the book. The Introduction provides an extended discussion of constitutionallitigation, by following a modern Supreme Court case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, frominception to the Court’s opinion. In addition, the pleadings, hearing transcripts, opinionsand other materials considered in the Introduction are available on the Internet athttp://www.loyno.edu/~hamdi. Professors and students may find access to these materialshelpful in better understanding the case, and the role of attorneys and courts inconstitutional litigation. Understanding how constitutional litigation actually happenshelps students realize that the process of making constitutional “law” is more than theprocess by which the Supreme Court writes an opinion stating broad principles. Theprocess happens every day, in small decisions made in courthouses, city halls and policestations across the nation. The Introduction illustrates this dynamic.

In the Introduction students are asked to read the entire Hamdi opinion. Casebooksusually present only heavily-edited opinions that focus on one or a small number ofissues. Our hope in providing the full opinion in Hamdi is to give students a sense of thevariety of issues an opinion often has to resolve. Finally, throughout the book students areasked to think of the issues in the context of what they would have to allege or assert in acomplaint, a brief or in developing an argument, consistently urging them to think of thepractical applications or implications of theory.

Writing a casebook — even writing a new edition of an existing casebook — is a taskthat cannot be completed by authors alone. Colleagues, students, administrative assistantsand others all play crucial roles. Professor Araiza wishes to thank Rebecca Gold, Helen

iii



Gutgarts, Kristine Holm, Sheila Jerry, Alison Matela, Edward Murray, Rob Sobelmanand Jay Zeffren for their research assistance, Gloria Kern for her secretarial help, and thestaff and faculty of the Brooklyn Law School Library. Professor Medina wishes to thankher colleagues Brian Bromberger, Joel Friedman, Johanna Kalb, Stephen Higginson,Kathryn Lorio, Lawrence Moore and Karen Sokol for their advice and support, RaechelleMunna and Mary-Patricia E. Livengood Wray for research assistance, Dawn Harvey forinvaluable secretarial assistance, Peter McArdle for assistance with technology issues,and the staff and faculty of the Monroe Library and the Loyola University New OrleansCollege of Law Library. Thanks are also due to Keith Moore, our always-helpful andpatient editor at LexisNexis, and to the entire LexisNexis team. Professor Araiza alsowishes to thank his partner, Stephen Schneider, for his patience, support andunderstanding. Professor Medina gives a special thanks to her children, Genevieve,Nicholas and Alexander. Both authors wish to thank the students in their constitutionallaw classes for helping them to think carefully about law, theory and pedagogy.

Finally, both authors owe a special debt of thanks to the original authors of thecasebook: Phoebe Haddon, Donald Lively, Dorothy Roberts and Russell Weaver. Eventhough they have all ostensibly left the book, their wisdom and judgment remains evidenton every page.

The authors welcome comments, input and suggestions.

W.D.A.M.I.M.

PREFACE

iv



TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. THE MAKING OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. The Role of the Three Branches of Government in the Development of

Constitutional Norms — Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary . . . . 1

2. Article III — The Role of the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. THE MAKING OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THROUGH A SUPREMECOURT CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld’s origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Three Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Petition for Certiorari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. Grant of Certiorari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Briefs of the Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6. Amicus Curiae Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

7. Oral Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

8. Deliberations and Drafting the Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

C. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Understanding the opinion announcing the judgment of the Court —

Self-Test: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2. Understanding Justice Souter’s opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg —

Self-Test: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3. Understanding Justice Scalia’s dissent, joined by Justice Stevens —

Self-Test: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4. Understanding Justice Thomas’s dissent — Self-test: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5. Supreme Court Opinions: majority, plurality, concurrence, and dissent . 68

6. Self-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

D. IMPLEMENTING HAMDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

E. CITIZENSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

F. THE PROBLEM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW— CONSTITUTIONALINTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Calder v. Bull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Note: The Debate in the Modern Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

McDonald v. Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Note: Use of Foreign Law in Supreme Court Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter I THE JUDICIAL POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

A. THE POWER “TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Note: The Scope of “the Judicial Power” and the Lead-Up toMarbury . 83

v



Marbury v. Madison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Note: Introduction toMartin v. Hunter’s Lessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Note: Supreme Court Review of State Constitutional Law Decisions . . 97

Note: Challenges to Judicial Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Cooper v. Aaron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Note: Post-Cooper Challenges to the Supreme Court’s Interpretive

Supremacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B. CONGRESSIONAL CHECKS ON THE JUDICIAL POWER . . . . . . . . 102

Note: The Background to Ex parte McCardle, Ex parte Yerger and United

States v. Klein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Ex Parte McCardle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Note: Ex parte Yerger and United States v. Klein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Note: Congressional Power Over Statutory Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Note: Jurisdiction-Stripping Statutes in the Modern Era . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

C. SELF-IMPOSED LIMITS ON THE JUDICIAL POWER . . . . . . . . . . . 119

1. The Political Question Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Baker v. Carr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Note: Textual Commitments of Decisions to Other Branches . . . . . 128

Nixon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Note: Partisan Gerrymandering and the Political Question

Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Note: Chevron v. NRDC and the Interpretation of Statutory Law . . . 138

2. The Case or Controversy Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

a. Advisory Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Muskrat v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

b. Standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

i. The Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Warth v. Seldin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Note: Applying the Injury, Causation and Redressability

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Singleton v. Wulff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

ii. The Congressional Role in Standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Note: “Zone of Interest” Standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

iii. Modern Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Lujan v. Defenders Of Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Note: Generalized Grievances and Particularized Interests . . . . 180

Friends Of The Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services . . . . . 182

Note: Standing and Large-Scale Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . 194

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi



c. Ripeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

United Public Workers v. Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Note: Poe v. Ullman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Ohio Forestry Association v. Sierra Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

d. Mootness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

DeFunis v. Odegaard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Note: Abortion Rights Claims and Mootness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Friends Of The Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services . . . . . . 214

Chapter II FEDERAL REGULATORY POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

A. INTRODUCTION: FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY POWERTODAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

B. THE “NECESSARY AND PROPER” CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

McCulloch v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

United States v. Comstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

C. FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE THE ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

1. Seminal Principles and Early Doctrinal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Gibbons v. Ogden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Note: State Laws and the Development of Commerce Clause Doctrine in

the Nineteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

2. Increased Federal Regulation — And Judicial Resistance . . . . . . . . . . 252

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Swift & Co. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Note: Commerce Clause Analysis Up to 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

3. The Evolution of Expanded Federal Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Note: The Aftermath of Jones & Laughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

United States v. Darby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Wickard v. Filburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Note: The Commerce Clause at Its Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

4. A More Limited Commerce Power (?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

United States v. Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Note: The Congressional Response to Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Note: United States v. Morrison and the Role of Congressional

Fact-Finding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Gonzales v. Raich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

5. Statutory Interpretation as Means of Policing the Interstate Commerce

Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Jones v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii



D. THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS A LIMITATION ON STATEREGULATORY POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

1. Early Analysis and the Evolution of the Modern Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Note: The Court’s Early Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

2. The Evolution of the Modern Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

a. Heightened Scrutiny for Discriminatory Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Dean Milk Co. v. Madison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

b. Balancing Local Benefits and Interstate Burdens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros. . . . 327

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Note: Interstate Traffic and the Evolution of the Dormant Commerce

Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

3. Modern Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

a. Modern Benefit-Burden Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

b. Discrimination Against Interstate Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

C.A. Carbone, Inc. v. City Of Clarkstown, N.Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Note: More on Discrimination and Strict Scrutiny . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

c. Identifying Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n . . . . . . . . . 356

Exxon Corporation v. Governor Of Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

Note: The State as a Market Participant and Provider of Government

Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

4. The Limits of the Doctrine — and Critiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370

Note: The Limits of Political Process Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370

Note: Critiques of Benefit-Burden “Balancing” and the Dormant

Commerce Clause Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

E. INTERSTATE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

Supreme Court Of New Hampshire v. Piper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

F. FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

Note: Introduction to Pre-Emption Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association . . . . . . . . . . 387

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

Note: The Continued Battle Over the Presumption Against

Pre-Emption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

G. FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412

1. Regulation of the States as Economic Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

Note: FromWirtz to Garcia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

2. The Prohibition on “Commandeering” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

New York v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

Note: The Scope — and Limits — of the “Anti-Commandeering”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii



Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

3. Constitutional Limits on Judicial Remedies Against States . . . . . . . . . 438

a. The Young Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440

Edelman v. Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440

Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman . . . . . . . . . . . . 446

Note: Seminole Tribe’s Further Limitation on Young Relief . . . . 456

Idaho v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe Of Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458

b. State “Waiver” of Sovereign Immunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

Note: Pennsylvania v. Union Gas and Congress’s Article I Authority to

Abrogate State Sovereign Immunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

Seminole Tribe Of Florida v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

Note: Article I Power to Abrogate State Sovereign Immunity After

Seminole Tribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

c. The Tenth Amendment as the Source of State Sovereign Immunity . 486

Alden v. Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

H. OTHER FEDERAL REGULATORY POWERS: THE NATURALIZATION,WAR, AND TREATY POWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497

1. The Naturalization Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498

a. The Naturalization Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498

United States v. Wong Kim Ark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499

Note: Citizenship and Naturalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

b. The Power to Regulate Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

Chae Chan Ping v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512

Fiallo. v. Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518

Note: The Immigration Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

2. The War Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. . . . . . . . . . . . 523

3. The Treaty Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526

Missouri v. Holland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

Note: The Effect of Treaty Obligations and the Question of Non-Self-

Executing Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

Medellin v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

I. THE TAXING AND SPENDING POWER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TOREGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541

1. The General Scope of the Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542

Sonzinsky v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

2. The Spending Power as a Means of Influencing State Government

Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544

South Dakota v. Dole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix



Chapter III THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL POWERS . . . . . . 551

A. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

2. Presidential Authority in Foreign Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

3. Presidential Immunity From Judicial Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

4. Congressional Power to Delegate Legislative Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552

5. The President and the Bureaucracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552

6. The War Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

B. FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

Note: Introduction to the Separation of Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

Note: The Background of the Youngstown Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case) . . . . . . 556

Note: Formalism and Functionalism in Separation of Powers

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

C. LOCATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF EXECUTIVEPOWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

1. Foreign Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

Note: United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. and the

Expansiveness of Inherent Executive Power in Foreign Affairs . . . . 569

Dames & Moore v. Regan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570

2. Presidential Immunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

Note: Presidential Immunities up to United States v. Nixon . . . . . . . 573

United States v. Nixon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575

Note: The Reach of the Presidential Immunity Between Nixon and

Clinton v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582

Clinton v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

D. DEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THEBUREAUCRACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588

1. Limits on Congressional Authority to Delegate Legislative Power . . . . 588

Note: The Evolution of the Non-Delegation Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . 588

Yakus v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590

Note: The Non-Delegation Doctrine in the Modern Era . . . . . . . . . 593

Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594

2. Congressional Control Over Delegated Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599

Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Chadha . . . . . . . . . . . . 599

Note: Continued Legislative Oversight over the Bureaucracy . . . . . 613

E. EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER THE BUREAUCRACY . . . . . . . . . . 614

Morrison v. Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight

Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626

Note: Congressional “Aggrandizement,” “Incongruous” Appointments, and

TABLE OF CONTENTS

x



Other Aspects of Executive Control Over the Bureaucracy . . . . . . . . . 645

F. ALLOCATING THE POWER BETWEEN THE CONGRESS AND THEPRESIDENT TO MAKE WAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647

1. The War Power Before the War Powers Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647

Note: The War Power in Theory, History and Practice . . . . . . . . . . 647

2. The War Powers Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649

War Powers Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650

Note: The War Powers Resolution in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST

IRAQ RESOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH UPON SIGNING H.

J. RES. 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654

3. Executive Authority and the War on Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE . . . . . . . . 655

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656

Note: From Hamdi to Boumediene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665

Boumediene v. Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666

Chapter IV INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES . . . . . . . . . . . 693

A. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693

1. The Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693

2. The Bill of Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694

Barron v. Mayor And City Council Of Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696

Note: On the Way to “Incorporation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697

B. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OFINDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DOCTRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697

Slaughter-House Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698

Note: Reflections on Slaughter-House and the Privileges or Immunities

Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707

C. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS DOCTRINE —RECOGNIZING IMPLIED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE LIBERTYPROTECTED BY THE CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707

1. Economic or Contract Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708

Lochner v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708

Note: The Lochner Doctrine in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712

Muller v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713

2. Origins of Modern Substantive Due Process — Parental Autonomy

Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715

Meyer v. Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715

Note: Liberty, Due Process and the Right of Parents to Control the

Upbringing and Education of Their Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

3. Abandonment of Substantive Due Process Protection for Economic

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi



Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718

Nebbia v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718

Notes on Nebbia and Deference to Legislative Judgments . . . . . . . . 720

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720

Note: The Most Famous Footnote in Supreme Court History . . . . . 725

United States v. Carolene Products Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726

D. APPLICATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES — THEINCORPORATION CONTROVERSY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727

Palko v. Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728

Note: Selective Incorporation, Total Incorporation or Fundamental

Rights? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730

Adamson v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731

Note: Selective Incorporation of Rights Fundamental to the American

Scheme of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736

McDonald v. Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737

E. PERSON—WHO CONSTITUTES A PERSON FOR PURPOSES OF THEFOURTEENTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760

1. Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761

2. Noncitizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761

3. Other Candidates for Personhood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762

F. MODERN FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIESDOCTRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763

Saenz v. Roe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763

Chapter V DUE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769

A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769

B. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REGULATION — THE MINIMALGUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS PROTECTION AGAINSTIRRATIONAL OR ARBITRARY REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771

Williamson v. Lee Optical Of Oklahoma, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771

Note: Deference to Legislatures — Privacy and the War on Drugs . . . 773

Whalen v. Roe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773

Note: Due Process Protection Limiting Award of Punitive Damages in Tort

Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774

C. RIGHTS OR LIBERTIES ENTITLED TO HEIGHTENED PROTECTIONUNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774

1. Theoretical Underpinnings — A Right to Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776

Griswold v. Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776

Note: Griswold and the Right to Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786

2. A Right to Marry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787

Loving v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788

Note: The Right to Marry: Child Support Obligations and Prison

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xii



Inmates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788

Note: A Right to Marry But, Perhaps, Not to Live Together in the United

States? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790

Note: A Right to Marry a Person of the Same Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791

3. The Right to Terminate a Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793

Roe v. Wade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793

Note: Implementing Roe v. Wade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802

Planned Parenthood Of South-eastern Pennsylvania v. Casey . . . . . 804

Note: Implementing Casey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830

Gonzales v. Carhart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831

Note: Regulation of Abortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846

4. The Right of Parents to Raise Their Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847

Troxel v. Granville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847

Note: Nonmarital Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857

Michael H. v. Gerald D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858

Note: A Child’s Liberty Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869

5. The Right of a Family to Live Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870

Moore v. City Of East Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870

6. The Right to Bodily Integrity and Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department Of Health . . . . . . . . . . . 876

Washington v. Glucksberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886

Note: A Right to Bodily Integrity that Includes Physician Assisted

Suicide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895

7. A Right to Intimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895

Lawrence v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895

D. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904

2. Protected Interests — What Constitutes a Protected Liberty or Property

Interest? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905

Board Of Regents Of State Colleges v. Roth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905

Note: A Protected Property Interest in Police Enforcement of Protective

Orders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910

Town Of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911

Note: Noncitizens Admitted to Permanent Residence in the United

States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923

Landon v. Plasencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923

3. What Process Is Due? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926

Mathews v. Eldridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiii



Chapter VI THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: EQUALITYCONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937

A. THE GUARANTEE OF EQUALITY — TREATING SIMILARLYSITUATED INDIVIDUALS EQUALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937

B. SLAVERY, RACE AND THE UNION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938

1. Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938

2. The Constitution and Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939

3. Territorial Expansion and the Growing Division between North and South

over Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945

4. Slavery in the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947

Dred Scott v. Sandford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948

Note: Dred Scott’s Place in Constitutional Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953

5. Slavery and Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954

6. Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955

Strauder v. West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958

Note: State Action, Private Actors, and Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960

7. Beyond Slavery — Race in a Broader Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960

Yick Wo v. Hopkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961

8. Segregation of the Races: Separate But Equal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964

Plessy v. Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964

Note: Separate but Equal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968

C. MODERN EQUAL PROTECTION DOCTRINE: CLASSIFICATIONSBASED ON RACE, COLOR AND NATIONAL ORIGIN . . . . . . . . . . . 970

Korematsu v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970

Ex Parte Mitsuye Endo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979

1. Why Heightened Scrutiny for Classifications Based on Race, Color and

National Origin? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983

Brown v. Board Of Education (Brown I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984

Bolling v. Sharpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986

2. The School Desegregation Cases — Eliminating the Vestiges of Past

Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987

Brown v. Board Of Education (Brown II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987

Note: Southern Resistance to Desegregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988

Green v. County School Board Of New Kent County . . . . . . . . . . . 989

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Of Education Et Al. . . . . . 993

Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999

Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008

Note: Eliminating the Vestiges of Segregation “To the Extent

Practicable” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013

Freeman v. Pitts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014

Missouri v. Jenkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiv



a. Extending the Logic of Brown— Invidious Racial Discrimination in

Other Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022

i. Juries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022

Hernandez v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022

Note: Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection — Peremptory

Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025

ii. Interracial Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026

Loving v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026

iii. Child Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027

Palmore v. Sidoti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027

3. The Requirement of Discriminatory Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030

a. Invidious Intent and Facially Neutral Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030

Washington v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031

b. How to Prove Discriminatory Intent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034

Village Of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development

Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034

c. Individualized Proof of Discriminatory Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035

McCleskey v. Kemp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035

Note: A Critique of the Discriminatory Intent Requirement . . . . 1042

d. Facially Neutral Schemes That Cannot Be Explained Other Than as the

Result of Discriminatory Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043

Miller v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045

Note: ImplementingMiller and the Use of Race in Districting . . 1056

D. RACE-CONSCIOUS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056

1. Race Conscious Measures in Public Contracts — the Modern View . . 1059

City Of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059

Note: Congressional Power to Enact Race Conscious Measures . . . 1069

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071

2. Race Conscious Measures in Higher Education — Diversity as a Compelling

Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081

Grutter v. Bollinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081

Note: What Constitutes a Narrowly Tailored Admissions Policy? . 1103

3. Race Conscious Measures in Schools — Brown I and Desegregation

Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School

District No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106

E. GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133

1. Traditional Stereotypes About Women and Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133

2. From Rational Basis Scrutiny to Intermediate Scrutiny . . . . . . . . . . . 1134

Frontiero v. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135

Craig v. Boren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1139

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xv



3. “Real” Differences or Stereotypes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143

Michael M. v. Superior Court Of Sonoma County . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143

Rostker v. Goldberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1149

Note: Gender Based Classifications and Military Necessity . . . . . . 1155

United States v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1156

Nguyen v. Immigration And Naturalization Service . . . . . . . . . . . 1168

4. Facially Neutral Gender Classification Schemes — The Requirement of

Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1187

Personnel Administrator Of Massachusetts v. Feeney . . . . . . . . . . 1187

Note: Gender Discrimination in Jury Selection — Peremptory

Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190

F. RATIONAL BASIS SCRUTINY — THE EQUALITY GUARANTEE . 1190

Railway Express Agency v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190

Note: Over-Inclusiveness and Under-Inclusiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193

Massachusetts Board Of Retirement v. Murgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194

1. Illegitimate Purposes? — When Legislatures Are Motivated by Animus

Towards Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198

City Of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198

Romer v. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205

G. IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER GROUPS WARRANTING CLOSERSCRUTINY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211

1. Classifications Distinguishing Citizens and Noncitizens: Alienage . . . 1211

a. Discrimination on the Basis of Citizenship at the State Level . . . . . 1212

i. Noncitizens Who Have Been Admitted to the United States . . . . 1212

Graham v. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1212

Sugarman v. Dougall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216

In Re Griffıths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1218

Note: The Political Function Exception to the Anti-Discrimination

Norm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1222

ii. Noncitizens in the United States Without Authorization . . . . . . . 1223

Plyler v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223

b. Discrimination on the Basis of Citizenship at the Federal Level . . . 1234

Mathews v. Diaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1234

Note: The Intersection of Citizenship and Race, National Origin or

Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1238

c. Nonmarital Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1238

i. Nonmarital Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1238

ii. Nonmarital Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1239

d. Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1240

H. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS STRAND OF EQUAL PROTECTION —RIGHT TO MARRY, TRAVEL, VOTING, EDUCATION ANDPRIVACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1241

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvi



1. The Right to Marry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1242

Skinner v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1242

Zablocki v. Redhail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246

2. The Right to Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1251

Shapiro v. Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1251

Regan v. Wald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1260

Note: Developments in the Right to Interstate Travel . . . . . . . . . . 1262

3. Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1263

Reynolds v. Sims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264

Note: One-Person One-Vote and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 . . 1269

4. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1270

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . 1270

Note: Public School Financing and Education Inequalities . . . . . . 1281

Plyler v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1281

5. Right to Assisted Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1285

Vacco v. Quill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1285

Chapter VII CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO ENFORCE THEFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1291

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1291Note: The Enforcement Power Before City of Boerne v. Flores . . . 1291City Of Boerne v. Flores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1294Note: Applying the “Congruence and Proportionality” Standard . . 1306Board Of Trustees Of The University Of Alabama v. Garrett . . . . . 1306Nevada Dept Of Human Resources v. Hibbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1320Note: The Enforcement Clause After Garrett and Hibbs . . . . . . . . 1329Note: The State Action Requirement and the Enforcement Clause . 1331

Chapter VIII ECONOMIC RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333

A. THE CONTRACT CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333

Dartmouth College v. Woodward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333

Note: Recognition of Substantive Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334

Note: Modern Contract Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334

1. State Regulation of Private Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335

a. Determining When State Regulations Violate the Contract Clause . 1335

b. Abridgment of Existing Contractual Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1336

Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1337

c. Revisiting State Regulation of Existing Contractual Obligations — Laws

of General Applicability Designed to Advance Broad Societal

Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1340

Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1340

2. Public Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1342

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvii



United States Trust Co. Of New York v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 1343

B. THE TAKING CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346

1. When Is a Taking for Public Use? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347

Kelo v. City Of New London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347

2. Is There a Taking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1353

a. Physical Occupation of Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1353

b. Regulatory Takings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1353

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City Of New York . . . . . . . . 1354

Note: The State’s Regulatory Power to Deal with Nuisance, Risk and

Environmental Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1360

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1360

Note: Regulatory Takings and Property Development . . . . . . . . 1367

3. Just Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1368

Chapter IX THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A RIGHT TO POSSESSGUNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1369

District Of Columbia v. Heller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1369Note: Implementing Heller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1402

Chapter X STATE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1405

A. THE REQUIREMENT OF STATE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1405

The Civil Rights Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1406

United States v. Morrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1408

B. WHAT CONSTITUTES STATE ACTION? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1413

1. Traditional Government Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1414

a. Company Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1414

Marsh v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1414

b. Shopping Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1416

c. Party Primaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1418

Terry v. Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1419

d. Utility Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423

e. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1428

2. State Involvement, Encouragement, Coercion, or Entwinement . . . . . 1428

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1428

Shelley v. Kraemer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1432

a. State Involvement or Entwinement in Private Segregation . . . . . . . 1436

b. State Involvement Insufficient to Constitute State Action — Liquor

Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1439

Moose Lodge v. Irvis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1439

Note: State Involvement in Licensing Radio Broadcasting . . . . . 1442

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xviii



c. State Involvement Through Funding — Coercion or Symbiotic

Relationship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1445

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1445

Note: State Involvement in Athletic Associations . . . . . . . . . . . 1450

d. Private Actors Relying on State Law in the Commercial Context —

Traditional State Function or State Involvement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1453

Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1453

American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1459

Note: Garnishment and Prejudgment Attachment Procedures — Where

the State Is a Willful Participant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1464

e. State Failure to Enforce Law or Protect Those Over Whom It Has

Exercised Some Control as State Action? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1465

Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty Soc. Servs. Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1465

f. Entwinement Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1475

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School

Athletic Ass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1475

Appendix United States Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APP-1

Table of Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TC-1

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xix



CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Cases, History, and Practice Fourth Edition · CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Cases,...

Documents

Transcript of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Cases, History, and Practice Fourth Edition · CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Cases,...