Constitutional Law II - Colby - Spring 2007 - 2

8/11/2019 Constitutional Law II - Colby - Spring 2007 - 2

1/78

Con Law II OutlineColby, Spring 2007

I. INTRODUCTION

A. From Con Law I to Con Law II The Bill of Rights

Notes:

Federalism and separation of powers designed to protet indi!idual liberty and freedom

o "o!ernment must be limited to protet t#e rig#ts of t#e people

o $i!ides up power btw federal and state go!%ts, t#en btw bran#es of t#e federal go!%t

&w#i# go!ernment of limited powers, as is Congress and t#e 'resident(

o For many people in )7*7 &+antifederalists-(, .adison%s !ision wasn%t enoug# to protet

indi!idual rig#ts/ onditioned t#eir aeptane of t#e ratifiation on t#e passage of a illof 1ig#ts

First t#ing t#e )st Congress does is draft and pass a Bill Of Rights&o1(

o )0 of proposed amendments ui3ly ratified, beame part of Constitution in )7*)

o 1ig#ts t#at framers t#oug#t were so important are p#rased in !ery !ague terms

Views of the Constitution Originalist !. Nonoriginalist

Originalist: Constitution means today w#at it meant w#en it was ratified, ot#erwise would be

interpreted un4ustlyo 5#is is a written ontrat 6 letting 4udges ma3e up t#e rule as t#ey go along would be

ta3ing away t#e meaningo Same onstitutional uestion must produe t#e same onstitutional answer, regardless of

t#e date

Nonoriginalist: onstitution was intended to be interpreted, and to remain !alid as time #anges

and adapt to problems and rises t#at didn%t eist at t#e time of draftingo Framers didn%t mean to tie us to t#e ultural norms of )*t# entury 8meria

o Same meaning it always #ad, but only beause its always #ad a fleible meaning

Somet#ing t#at was allowed in )79) may no longer be allowed today, as our

notions of, say, free spee#, #a!e #anged

Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore&S )*;;(

Fats: alleges illegal ta3ings w#en state go!ernment di!erts ri!ers in t#e #arbor w#i# ma3e #is

w#arf ompletely useless

)

5#e ill of 1ig#ts &1ele!ant 'ro!isions(

8mendment I: 1eligion &


2/78

Court &.ars#all(: BoR was inten"e" to a##l$ onl$ to a%tions of the fe"eral go!&t&no effet on

t#e ations of t#e state go!%ts(o Aistorial argument: o1 was drafted only bB of onerns of antifederalists, meant

speifially to address t#eir onerns about t#e fe"eralgo!ernment

o Strutural argument: o1 is pat btw t#e people and t#e federal go!ernment t#ey%!e

agreed to reate

'ower of t#e states is not reated or limited in t#e Constitution

o 5etual argument: 8rt= I, Set )0, limits on state power/ 5 !ery epliit in limiting

speifi ats/ w#ate!er is not epliitly restrited is reser!ed to t#e states

Notes:.ars#all was for robust federal go!ernment, but #ere, in one of #is last opinions, #e guts t#e power of t#efederal onstitution o!er t#e states, federal power, and federal 4udiiary%s power

5#is is !ery unli3e .ars#all

o Opinion lea!es states free to ta3e property wit#out ompensation, to oere onfessions,

to limit spee#, et=o "oes out of #is way to say t#at t#is was a !ery easy ase

State ourts, before t#is opinion, say t#at t#e o1 does limit state power #y does #e do t#isD 5wo possible readings of t#e Constitution:

o road reading:

o1 s#ould apply to states, eept for )st 8., w#i# speifially says +Congress

s#all ma3e no law,- w#ile t#e rest say +No person s#all be ompelled-o .ars#all%s reading:

road reading runs up against .ars#all%s #istorial, strutural, and tetual

arguments, w#i# are pretty strong 5#ese indi!idual rig#ts were not endowed by a onstitution/ t#ey are selfe!ident

&natural rig#ts(

"o!ernments are bound by bot# positi!e and natural law

y t#is time, Ameri%an law e!ol!e" to lean hea!il$ on #ositi!e law

?ob of 4udges was not to deide if state ation !iolated natural rig#ts, but

rat#er w#et#er it !iolated t#e tet of t#e o1

.ars#all suddenly frees t#e states from t#e obligations enumerated in t#e o1

o


3/78

1epublians stru3 ba3 wB 1eonstrution 8t of )*E7, plaed sout# under military rule

o


4/78

o

original meaning rig#t at all

Opposite appears to be true=

o 1ep= ing#am &aut#or of t#e )t# 8.(: 'oint is to protet by national law=== t#e inborn

rig#ts of e!ery itiGeno Sen= Aoward &sponsor of )t# 8.(: S#ould protet against state intrusion of t#e first *

8. rig#ts, 8N$ all rig#ts desribed by ?ustie as#ington in Coryell

1ig#t ba3 to aron != altimore &states returned to ating #ow t#ey did, enating ?im Crow laws,

et=(o 0laughter12ouse is the en" of the 'ri!ileges an" Immunities %lause

Saenz v. Roe&S )999(

Fats: C8 limited welfare benefits to new residents/ 1oe argued t#is was putting a limit on

interstate tra!el

Court: Finds rig#t to tra!el between states in )t# 8. for first time as 'HI &)st time state law is

stru3 down under t#e 'HI lause=(

o Loo3ed li3e Slaug#ter Aouse was being o!erruled, but t#is is atually a !ery narrow

deision 6 rig#t to tra!el among t#e states is one of t#ose rig#ts t#at owes it eistene tot#e federal go!ernment, so it is appliable to t#e states=

o 5#is was really a rare opportunity to apply SA

5#omas% dissent:

o SA is wrong, e!eryone 3nows it%s wrong, 'HI does protet all fundamental rig#ts

o Is willing to get rid of a entury of preedent to bring t#e meaning ba3 to w#at #e t#in3s

is t#e original

Law remains from 012

C. In%or#oration

Constitution still protets against intrusion/ it%s 4ust t#at 'HI lause isn%t t#e one t#at protets it: Now it%s$ue 'roess

Palko v. Connecticut &notes ase, S )9;7(

Issue: $oes protetion from double 4eopardy apply to t#e statesD

Court: Not a rig#t etended to t#e states under t#e $ue 'roess lause

o CardoGo%s test for w#i# rig#ts are inluded under t#e $' lause: Is it a fun"amentalrig#tD +Of t#e !ery essene of a s#eme of libertyD- Can we

an imagine a free and 4ust soiety wit#out t#is rig#tD

Not: pri!ilege selfinrimination, rig#t to trial by 4ury

Jes: rig#t to ounsel, et=

5#e 3ind of double 4eopardy w#i# ' was eposed to is not t#at bad

o Aere, $' doesn%t +inorporate- t#e o1= 1ig#ts in o1 are only proteted beause

t#ey%re an essential part of liberty

Due 'ro%ess Clause 3Nor shall an$ state "e#ri!e an$ #erson of life) li4ert$) or #ro#ert$

without "ue #ro%ess of law.5


5/78

Some o!er lap between $=' and o1, but not really related to ea# ot#er

NO5 a laim of natural law

la3%s dissent:

o Total in%or#orationposition: all rig#ts in o1 are proteted by t#e $' lause

o $oesn%t belie!e t#ere are natural rig#ts ot#er t#an w#at is in t#e o1:

$egrades onstitutional safeguards of t#e o1 &CardoGo%s !ision is an affront toliberty(

Inorporating less or more t#an t#e o1 is not w#at framers wanted &framers

t#oug#t 'HI lause would do t#at, but getting it in t#roug# $' is more importantt#an not getting it in at all(

Adamson v. CA &notes ase, S )97(

.a4ority: no grounds for ma3ing pri!ilege against selfinrimination appliable to states

Fran3furter%s and Aarlan%s onurrene:

o reogniGed in soiety

o $isagree wit# la3, t#in3 t#e $' s#ould be mu# broader t#an t#e o1 la3%s dissent:

o Full inorporation is w#at original framers wanted

Natural law t#eory gi!es 4udges way too mu# power

o Notions of federalism, doesn%t want to interfere wit# t#e ability of t#e state go!ernments

to do w#at t#ey want, e!en if it doesn%t !iolate t#e o1

.odels adopted by Supremes t#roug#out #istory:

Car"o6o: some, but not all o1 rig#ts are inluded, and t#ere are ot#ers outside= Sometimes a rig#t isonly inorporated in part &i=e, double 4eopardy 6 depends on se!erity(

Bla%7: 5#e w#ole o1, and not#ing but t#e o1

FF8 2arlan: Aalf and #alf 6 bigger body of rig#ts t#an CardoGo t#in3s= Not limited to #istory, an adaptto urrent !alues=

9ur#h$: $' inludes all of o1 and lots of ot#er rig#ts too

Brennan: .ost of o1 and lots of ot#er stuff too &li3e CardoGo H FF, but almost all o1 are inluded=($isagrees wit# CardoGo t#at +really bad- instanes of o1 are !iolations= 8ll !iolations, e!en minorones, !iolate t#e $' lause

Ver$ Conser!ati!e: only o1s are proteted, and only t#ose dealing wit# proedural safeguards, li3e Et#8. rig#t to an attorney in a riminal ase= No 4usties #a!e ta3en t#is position, but many legal t#in3ers#a!e=

8rguments for t#e ?usties !iews:

Car"o6o:

Bla%7:

K


6/78

#y would framers #a!e bot#ered to enumerate all t#e o1 and t#en put anot#er lause in t#ere

seems t#ey didn%t t#in3 t#e $' would o!er all t#e o1

Isn%t t#is !iew 4udiial ati!ism beause it%s defining more narrowly t#e sope of rig#ts t#at t#e

founders intendedD

la3: t#is isn%t a federalism issue= 5#e issue is, #ow mu# power do t#e states #a!e !is a !is t#e

peopleDo Aow mu# power do t#ey #a!e o!er t#e peopleD 5#is power is being ta3en away, but not

gi!en to t#e federal go!ernment 6 it%s gi!en to t#e people= It%s an indi!idual rig#tsonern, not a federalism one

FF8 2arlan:

Aarlan: we%!e put t#e states in a onstitutional straig#t4a3et wBrBt t#eir own de!elopment of

riminal 4ustieo


7/78

o 1ig#ts must only be fundamental in t#e sense t#at t#ey%re fundamental in our soiety

today

o Case by ase, Court #as inorporated almost all o1 rig#ts &not 7t#, ;rd, inditment, et(

Inorporation was a misnomer for FF and Aarlan, and CardoGo= 5#ey t#oug#t t#ere was some

o!erlap, but it wasn%t inorporated in any meaningful wayo 5oday, inorporation is not a misnomer 6 most #a!e been entirely inorporated against

stateso Ot#er rig#ts are found to be onstitutionally proteted, e!en t#oug# not speifially

written into o1

eause of inorporation t#at we #a!e t#e modern dotrine of su4stanti!e D'

8 lot of rig#ts in t#e o1 don%t seem to fit into $' at all &aren%t proedural( 6 freedom of spee#,

religion, assembly, et= &t#ese seem more substanti!e(o Freedom of spee# is a substanti!e rig#t t#at an ne!er be ta3en away from you, e!en

wit# +$ue 'roess-

II. 0UB0TANTIV:DU:'ROC:00

A. Theochner :ra

0u4stanti!e Due 'ro%ess: Notion t#at $' lause protets substanti!e rig#ts in addition to proeduralones

5#oug# 'HI seems li3e a more logial plae to put +S$'-, Slaug#terAouse ases read t#e 'HI

lause of t#e )t# 8. out of t#e onstitution all toget#ero No w#ere else to put t#e intent of t#e framers under $' &2nd best solution(

5, S$' was reogniGed well before SA and well before t#e )t# amendment

o .any old state onstitutions #a!e $' lauses, and #a!e long been understood to protet

substanti!e rig#ts

!ynehamer v. Peo"le&notes ase, NJ )*9KE(

ouldn%t ma3e sense not to interpret $' substanti!ely &fundamental rig#ts aren%t wort# mu# ifstates an ta3e t#em away so long as t#ey went t#roug# t#e proper proedures(

ill t#at ta3es away t#ese rig#ts s#ould not be onsidered law, t#erefore not ounted under t#e

)t# amendment as +$' of law-

$redd Sott != Sanford

Court in!alidates fed law t#at gi!es automati freedom to sla!es transported into free states &t#is

would be ta3ing away property from sla!e#olders(o Stri3ing eample of t#e dangers of S$'

$uring sla!ery, bot# sides relied on S$' &antisla!ery t#oug#t sla!es were people, w#o s#ould

not be depri!ed of life or liberty/ prosla!ery t#oug#t t#is was depri!ing owners or property(

)9t# Century: Court begins to find a M of eonomi rig#ts t#at fall wit#in t#e sope of S$'

ochner v. #e$ %ork&S )90K(

Fats: NJ sets maimum #ours law for ba3ers wor3ing in NJ=

Court: !iolation of t#e onstitution &ontrat lause rig#t to ontrat for you labor &not a o1,

but one of t#e ot#er +fundamental rig#ts- swept wit#in sope of $'((o alaning:

7


8/78


9/78


10/78

o e want t#e ourts to aggressi!ely enfore t#ese rig#ts t#ey are

in t#e Constitution beause framers didn%t t#in3 t#e politialproess would be enoug#


11/78

ses Lo#ner again: parents #a!e fundamental rig#t to ditate t#e eduation of

t#eir #ildren, e!en if not enumerated in o1 $efinition of +liberty-: freedom to ontrat, marry, auire 3nowledge

5oday, we treat t#ese differently t#an Lo#ner &we praise t#ese, and ondemn Lo#ner(

o 5, t#ese laws did not target a partiular minority &preluded all pri!ate s#ools not

4ust Cat#oliP, and all foreign languages not 4ust "ermanP(o Court #adn%t originally premised its deision on disrimination grounds, but rat#er on

fundamental rig#ts grounds

)ris$old v. Connecticut&S )9EK(

Fats: C5 law ma3es it illegal for married ouples to use ontraepti!es/ 2 dotors proseuted for

aiding t#e use of su# ontraepti!es= State%s 4ustifiation: neessary to ensure againstpromisuity, forniation out of wedlo3, adultery=

Court: stri3es it down:

o Finds a +rig#t to pri!ay- 6 !iolates t#is onstitutional rig#t=

o Striter srutiny is reuired

Signifiant enroa#ment #ere, so t#e ompeting interest must be +ompelling-

&too easy for t#is to sur!i!e 1 re!iew( Law is not +narrowly tailored- to a#ie!e t#at interest/ sweeps too broadly

State an promote its interest in ot#er ways 6 regulate, get toug#er about

enforing adultery laws

Notes:

.ost laws sub4et to strit srutiny are going to be stru3 down by t#e Supreme Court

o 5oo easy to find some +rationally related- go!ernment interest

o .ust s#ow t#ere was no ot#er way to ad!ane t#at interest s#ort of interfering wit#

fundamental interests to be up#eld

Should this la$ have &een su&*ected to SS+ ,s there a fundamental constitutional right at issue here+ ;subuestions:

-/ =hat is the sour%e of this %onstitutional right to #ri!a%$>

$ouglas: first * 8.S &t#: freedom from unlawful sear#es and seiGures 6 pri!ay element #ere(

o +Qone of pri!ay- wit#in t#e 8.s 6 t#ere%s a broader point, e!en t#oug# t#ey don%t

speifially mention pri!ay &Court #ad by t#is time long spo3en of t#e t# and Kt#amendments as artiulating and proteting a fundamental rig#t to pri!ay(

+'enum4ras- gi!e t#e guarantees life and substane

o S$' doesn%t go so far &$' only protets o1(, but t#e o1 itself broadly rea#es out in

t#ese penumbras to protet rig#ts not enumerated .eyers and 'iere artiulated t#ese rig#ts under S$'

1ig#ts of spee# and press inlude t#e rig#t to gain 3nowledge, tea# 3idslanguages, et=t#ese are penumbras of t#e )st 8.

"oldberg%s onurrene:

o 9t# 8. simply a3nowledges t#at t#e rig#ts proteted by t#e Kt# and )t# amendments

are not limited to t#ose enumerated in t#e first * &+5#e enumeration in t#is onstitution,of ertain rig#ts, s#all not be onstrued to deny or disparage ot#ers retained by t#epeople=-(

))


12/78

o 8tual soure of t#ese rig#ts is $', t#e 9t# 8. tells us it%s o3 to interpret $' as

proteting t#e rig#ts non enumerated in t#e o1

Aarlan%s onurrene:

o nder onept of ordered liberty &'al3o(, law s#ould be stru3 down

o "oes ba3 to S$' 6$' lause protets all fundamental rig#ts impliit in t#e onstitution,

w#et#er t#ey%re o1 rig#ts or not

la3, wit# Stewart dissenting:

o 5#is is a +natural law- approa# from t#e Lo#ner era

$ilutes a onstitutionally guaranteed rig#t to substitute words for t#ose atually

wit#in t#e onstitution

$' protets t#e o1 and not#ing but t#e o1

o Same position #e too3 during t#e inorporation debates

Stewart:

o 5#is is a silly law, but doesn%t see w#ere it !iolates t#e Constitution

-+/ If it not foun" e;#li%itl$ in the %onstitution) shoul"n&t the Court 4e in the 4usiness of #rote%ting

rights that aren&t s#e%ifi%all$ mentione" in the %onstitution>

Framers belie!ed in ertain +fundamental rig#ts,- but t#ere are speifi, few rig#ts t#at t#ey putinto t#e onstitution w#i# binds us today

ut t#is is w#ere t#e ?th A9omes in 6 it%s not 4ust a nullity

o 1eap on o1: Federalists != 8ntifederalists:

Federalists% onerns:

Conern M): Limited powers 6 people would assume t#at if t#ese weren%t

speifially limited, Congress would #a!e #ad t#e power to infringe ont#em

o .adison: )0t# 8. ta3es are of t#is &if it%s not listed as a federal

power, it%s not a federal power(

Conern M2: 'eople would naturally ta3e t#is list to be elusi!e

o .adison: 9t# 8. &it%s not elusi!e(o 9t# 8.: #istory and tet, along wit# #istory and tet of t#e )t# &'HI, $'( are strong,

powerful e!idene to rebut t#e notion t#at t#e w#ole enterprise of reogniGing unenumerated fundamental rig#ts

-@/ If the %ourt shoul" 4e in this 4usiness) how shoul" the Court "etermine whether an allege" right

is "o fun"amental that it&s entitle" to %onstitutional #rote%tion>

Notes:

?udge%s 8rguments: Aarlan != la3

o Aarlan

la3 is being naR!e= Linedrawing is ne!er going to get easier, and la3%sposition isn%t going to sa!e us from #a!ing to line draw in t#e future=

'olitial proess doesn%t protet from t#e +tyranny of t#e ma4ority- t#at does

ma3e it a rime to use birt# ontrol, et=o la3:

It%s one t#ing for 4udges to say t#at a law !iolates an epliit pro!ision of t#e

onstitution, but anot#er to go outside t#e tet of t#e onstitution= 5#is seemsli3e 4udges delaring w#at t#e law oug#t to be=

)2


13/78

No rig#t to marry or proreate, but doesn%t t#in3 t#at any state or politiian

would pass su# a law 6 t#is is w#at we #a!e t#e politial proess for

?udges are wrestling wit# problem of 4udiial ati!ism in "riswold &e!ery time t#e 4udges

reogniGe a rig#t as +fundamental,- t#ey%re ta3ing it away from t#e people to deide(o 5#is grinds demoray to a #alt, unless t#e Constitution gets amended, or t#e 4usties

lea!eBdie and are replaed wit# 4udges w#o feel differently &and t#at an ta3e deades( 6so:

Aow do we onstrain t#e 4udgesD

o $ouglas: +penumbra- onstrains 4udges beause t#ey an only reogniGe rig#ts t#at an

be read from wBin t#e o1 &not any +leftfield- rig#ts found under $'( ut, seems t#at $ouglas is only proteting t#ose penumbras t#at #e li3es &not

freedom to ontrat, for eample( $ouglas was a New $ealer, #ated Lo#ner &spent #is life fig#ting S$' notion(

Finds #imself adopting t#is formula t#at ends up sounding sort of silly,

beause #e doesn%t want to find S$' outside of t#e o1, but also an%tstand t#e t#oug#t of t#is law being o3

Critis #ad a field day wit# #is +penumbra- argument, wit# #arges of

blatant 4udiial ati!ismo "oldberg: relies on S$'

1ig#ts are so rooted in t#e tradition of t#e people t#at t#ey are fundamental

&draws on #istory( 6 4udges an%t ma3e up new rig#ts Aistory an be powerful soure of and limit on fundamental rig#ts

'roblem ): if #istory is our guide, t#en &yet again( w#y is Lo#ner

wrongDo Framers ared more about eonomi, property rig#ts t#an t#ey

did about ontraeption

'roblem 2: doesn%t aount for t#e possibility of #ange

o +5raditions of our people- 6 doesn%t ma3e mu# sense in terms

of t#e present ma3eup of our nation, t#ere isn%t a ommon set ofrig#ts or !alues in t#e peoples of 8meria todayo 5#ere are new t#reats to liberty t#at didn%t eist at t#e time of t#e

Framers, so we need new protetions

o Aarlan: $' is 4ust t#e balane we stri3e in soiety between go!ernmental power and

indi!idual liberty 5radition is a li!ing t#ing, and $' doesn%t ommand ad#erene to traditions t#at

are old &Aistory suggests t#at we s#ould not be bound by #istory( Framers, in writing 9t# amendment, seemed to intend for us to #a!e fleible

rig#ts to grow wit# t#e timeso Speifi rig#ts in t#e o1 will always be fundamental, but t#ose broader p#rases &'HI,

$', et( in#erently enompass notion of #anging body of fundamental rig#ts Whats the actual method of IDing the scope of rights protected under the DP clause?

o Fouses on t#e bedroom, w#at #appens in your own #ome

$eade later, Court does stri3e down law t#at riminaliGes sale of ontraeption=

.ust go furt#er t#an narrow language "riswold ourt uses= "riswold ourt is fine wit# ma3ing it a rime for unmarried ouples to use

ontraeption &or +forniate- at all(

);


14/78

$ouglas: somet#ing spiritual, sared of marriage &despite #is well3nown

etramarital eploits(

Court etends t#is rig#t to unmarried persons as well &"riswold deision

is wider t#an t#e language of t#e deision implies(o CL met#od of deisionma3ing:

1elies #ea!ily on preedentB rationale underlying prior ases

8llows for e!olution and #ange in t#e law

$on%t #a!e to limit yourself to t#e narrowlyepressed rationale 6 if t#e

rationale no longer seems !alid, you an abandon earlier rules and mo!et#e law forward

Court #as employed t#is met#odology in t#is area of onstitutional law

A4ortion Roe !. =a"e

Roe v. !ade&S )97;(

Fats: 5@ riminaliGing abortion eept w#ere neessary to sa!e mot#er%s life=

Court:

-/ Does this law infringe on a fun"amental Constitutional right>

Jes, t#e rig#t to pri!ay in t#e )t# 8. S$' lause

o Court is now more omfortable grounding its deision ba3 in t#e notion of S$' &no

+penumbral- rig#ts of "riswold(

>iolation of t#e rig#t to pri!ay bB #ri!a%$ is now inter#rete" as autonom$= Comes from CL

met#odology:o In


15/78

o &2( 0tate&s interest in #rote%ting the life of the fetus onl$ 4e%omes %om#elling at the

#oint of !ia4ilit$beause state%s interest is greater in proteting t#e mot#er in t#e earlierstages t#an it is later on w#en t#e fetus ould atually sur!i!e

If state%s interest is in proteting potential life, !iability does not ma3e sense

beause a fetus is potential #uman life before !iability

ut 5@ laims t#at t#ey are interested in real #uman life, w#i# to t#em

starts at oneption

Court doesn%t want to deide w#en life begins, but essentially deides it

by pointing to age of !iability &re4ets argument t#at it starts atoneption(

o Court .S5 deide t#e issue before t#em, but t#ey%re not

#olding life starts at !iability for a matter of law Court #as to deide w#en t#e issue beomes ompelling enoug# &don%t t#in3 5@

#as t#e rig#t to tell t#em #ow ompelling t#eir interest is(

Aa!e to ma3e t#ese moral 4udgments in t#ese ases, beause ot#erwise

you an%t #a!e 4udiial enforement of onstitutional norms Colby: .aybe ourt is 4ust saying t#e woman gets to deide &if s#e belie!es life

starts at oneption, s#e won%t get abortion/ if s#e t#in3s it%s !iability t#en s#ean%t get an abortion after t#en(

ut t#is seems wrong too 6 it%s saying women #a!e #oie to ta3e a

#uman life

.aybe saying t#ere is no rig#t or wrong answer

'roteting #ealt# of baby, but !iability gets pus#ed earlier and earlier wit#

ad!anes in medial te#nology

ut pri!ay rig#t s#ould be same regardless of medial te#nology

o Via4ilit$ ma7es little sense

Conerns wit# unwanted pregnanies

Finanially unable, emotionally unable, et=

o

&)( 0tate&s interest in #rote%ting health of mother Interest isn%t ompelling until end of )st trimester, beause at t#at point t#e ris3

to t#e woman of #a!ing an abortion is greater t#an t#e ris3 of #ildbirt#

2ol"ing:

)st trim= >iability

IIIICan%t do anyt#ing 1egulate only for .om Can ban entirely

Notes

5#is is one of t#e most ritiiGed aspets of t#e 1oe deision seems to stem from t#e fat t#at?ustie la3mun spent #is time in t#e medial field &was general ounsel at .ayo Clini(

o 5#in3 #e was more onerned wit# go!ernment not regulating dotors

o 8lso doesn%t eplain w#y t#is falls wit#in pri!ay rig#t, wit#in ourt%s preedent

>iability line is arbitrary

Court may be doing a balaning test:

o alaning woman%s interest in #er own life and t#e state%s interest in proteting t#e life of

a fetus &las# of absolutes(

)K


16/78

One side will always narrowly out!ote t#e ot#er, and rus# an essential liberty, so

t#ey do t#eir own balaning test and ome out t#is way

Should they be doing this?

o 1e#nuist: t#is w#ole opinion #as t#e feel of legislation

o SS is not supposed to be about balaning in t#is way

S#ould be a uestion of absolutes: does t#e indi!idual

#a!e a fundamental rig#tDIf so, does t#e state #a!e aompelling interestD

5#ere were more logial ways of oming out &one way or t#e ot#er(, but t#ose

ways would #a!e been ompletely unaeptable to K0 of t#e 8merian publi

.ay be saying t#at state does not #a!e a ompelling interest in potential #uman life=

o Interest is legitimate, but not ompelling &ot#erwise ould also regulate ontraeption(

o State does #a!e a ompelling interest in proteting atual #uman life

5o deide w#en fetus beomes an atual #uman life, #a!e to pi3 somew#ere 4ust

to deide t#is ase from a legal, onstitutional standpoint

Not ontraeption/ not birt# 6 so !iability is a ompromise

o One it #its t#is point, state%s interest beomes ompelling

o Consistent wit# t#e !iew of a ma4ority of 8merianso 5#is would ma3e more sense if t#is is w#at t#e Court was saying

ut t#ey were afraid or unwilling to say t#is

anted to say t#at it wasn%t deiding in any way w#en life begins

Hy"o: If goernment created mandatory bone!marrow registry "donor bank# for a new kind of procedure

that is much more promising than the old ones but the process of donating the marrow is incredibly

physically ta$ing "%& hour procedure' ( month recoery' cuts into earning potential for ne$t %& years#'

can they force you to undergo that procedure if youre a match to sae someones life? )s a matter of

*on +aw?

nder 1oe, t#is would li3ely be unonstitutional

S#ould t#e state be allowed to ma3e you do t#isDo If not for you, t#e ot#er person would die

o $ifferene may be t#at t#ere was responsibility in t#e pregnany, w#ereas in t#e donor

#ypo t#ere wasn%t ut w#at about rape, inest, et asesD

Notes:

#at s#ould t#e Court #a!e said in 1oeD

o S#ould it #a!e e!en gotten to strit srutinyD

.ost people feel omfortable getting up to "riswold, and


17/78

etween t#ese ; options, wasn%t t#e first one losest to t#e !alues of t#e

traditions and beliefs of t#e 8merians as a w#oleD

If t#is is true, isn%t t#e nature of t#e 4udiial proess trying to figure out

t#e traditions of our people as e!ol!ing t#roug# timeD

o 5#en didn%t t#ey essentially get t#is ase rig#t, e!en if t#e

reasoning isn%t learD

1oe%s after effets: 8bortion suddenly beomes a #uge politial issue

o Opposition to 1oe beomes a fundamental plan3 of t#e 1epublian party in e!ery

'residential eletiono Only one demorati 'resident between )970s)992 &Carter(, and didn%t get to #oose

any ?ustieso 8s more of t#e old 1oe ma4ority dies out, seems li3e 1epublians may get t#eir way

A4ortionPlanned Parenthood v. Casey

Planned Parenthood v. Casey&S )992(

Fats: 2 pro!isions of '8 law being #allenged: .andatory 2 waiting period &+Informed

Consent- pro!ision after deision to #a!e an abortion(/ .andatory spousal notifiation &eept inase of medial emergeny(=

o Instead in!ol!es law t#at limits t#e rig#t to abortion

"i!es Court t#e #ane to o!errule 1oe altoget#er

Tennedy originally ast #is !ote against 1oe, all t#at was left was t#e

writing of t#e opinions= 5#en la3mun reei!es note from Tennedy,w#o #ad been meeting wit# O%Connor and Souter, deided to swit#sides

Court &?oint Opinion(

o 'lurality, sometimes ma4ority:

o 'artial onurrene, partial dissent by Ste!ens

o

'artial onurrene, partial dissent by la3muno Salia, #ite, 1e#nuist and 5#omas

.a4or issues:/ !hat are doctrinal rules regarding a&ortion under Casey+ !ere they correct+

Reasserts 0D' right to li4ert$) in%lu"ing right to #ro%ure a4ortion) 4ut still su4


18/78

o 5#e !ery nature of t#e state%s interest is different #ere &not based

on morality, ommunity, safety, et( 6 designed to protet 2indi!iduals fundamental rig#ts rig#t up net to ea# ot#er

o 5#ere%s more t#an a ompelling interest #ere, t#ere%s a profound

interesto ndue burden test gets ;&D( !otes &O%Connor, Tennedy and Souter(

Ste!ens mentions is, but en!isions it as a striter standard 6 doesn%t seem to want

to go along wit# t#e plurality%s !iew la3mun wants strit srutiny, li3es 1oe trimester framewor3

$issenters: want rational basis

$on%t t#in3 t#ere%s a rig#t to pri!ay, w#i# means t#e ourt s#ouldn%t be

aggressi!ely proteting t#is, it s#ould be left to t#e legislati!e proess

1ational asis ndue urden Strit Srutiny

III

$issenters O%Connor, Tennedy, Souter Ste!ens, la3mun

o e #a!e to use t#e test wit# w#i# K people would at least agree

Aere, w#en t#in3s regulation is OT, it #as 7 !otes, and w#en it t#in3s it%s not

o3, it #as K !otes 5#e Constitution is silent on any test, ne!er tells us w#at t#e test s#ould be 6

rational basis, strit srutiny were bot# made up by 4udges

Constitution seems to demand a balaning test, beause no rig#t seems to be

absolute

U#hol"s the 9an"ator$ +( waiting #erio" -3Informe" Consent5 #ro!ision/o State%s reason: omen s#ould be informed of #ow proedure wor3s, gestational age of

fetus, et= 5#oug# possibly to on!ine women to #ange t#eir minds &designed to

disourage abortion, to disourage eerise of onstitutional rig#ts(o Court: 5#e state, in trying to disourage t#e free eerise of t#is rig#t, burdens it, but not

unduly, w#en ompared against t#e state%s interest in proteting potential life &balanes( 5#oug# t#ere may be irumstanes w#ere t#e burden is #uge a!ing to dri!e )2

#ours 4ust to get to t#e dotor, et=(, on the record before them only, it is not anundue burden

>ery fatsensiti!e inuiry=


19/78

o .ore broadly, t#e plurality #as made a onsious deision to split t#e differene 6 t#ey

want to us#er in a new era of true balane 5o do t#at, t#ey #a!e to up#old one pro!ision, and stri3e down anot#er

o 'robably aware of t#e inonsisteny in t#eir met#odology, but t#ey may be onsiously

doing it to attain a broader goal

0/ !as S. Ct. correct to invoke doctrine of stare decisis to refuse to overturn Roe v. !ade+

-/ Relian%e= O%Connor: +Liberty finds no refuge in a 4urisprudene of doubt=- &liberty depends

on a ertain amount of ertainty, #a!e to 3now #ow far t#ey etend(o So Court in!o3es dotrine of stare deisis &ounsels against o!erruling 1oe, e!en if 1oe

was wrong( Aas t#ere been reliane #ereD

Some sort of ultural reliane on abortion rig#ts, 3nowing it%s t#ere as an

option in ase ontraeption fails

omen being able to be in t#e wor3 fore, et=, beause t#ey 3now t#ey

#a!e some ontrol o!er w#en to start t#eir family

Court reogniGes more epliitly t#e women%s rig#ts aspet of t#is issue

o 5#oug# on!entionally S$ #as been applied more in statutory law, ourt #olds t#at inases regarding onstitutional uestions, need for S$ is espeially great:

In Con Law, t#e only way to o!errule t#e Court is to #ange t#e onstitution, if it

ouldn%t o!errule itself Aere, t#e Court finds an eeption w#ere t#e ase is so #ig# profile and so

deisi!e

-+/ Legitima%$

o ould illegitimatiGe t#e Court%s power to perform its funtion if t#ey don%t up#old

pre!ious deisionso Legitimay turns on t#e publi pereption t#at t#e Court is ad#ering to pre!ious legal

epertise and is ating neutrallyo ant to plae t#e law abo!e t#eir moral beliefs, so as not to onflate law and politi, and

s#ow t#e people t#e independene of t#e Court

Dissenters: agree wit# legitimay argument, but t#in3 it%s for 4ust t#is reason t#at Court s#ould

get out of t#e abortion rig#ts arena all toget#ero ants to return t#is power to t#e states, and t#e people

o Loo3 ba3 to "riswold, Stewart%s dissent:

No su# t#ing as unenumerated S$' rig#ts &t#oug#t t#ese died wit# Lo#ner(

1oe != ade: Stewart%s onurrene

1eogniGes t#at #e lost in "riswold/ sees t#is e!olution of t#e pat# of

law, &e!en if #e would #a!e #osen anot#er pat#(

o 1oe follows


20/78

In 'lessy, soiety didn%t t#in3 t#ere was anyt#ing wrong wit# segregation 6 by

t#e time rown ame around, soiety understood t#at t#ere was a badge ofinferiority in#erent in segregation

Same t#ing in Lo#ner 6 eonomis progressed to re4et idea of laiGe faire

In 1oe and Casey, t#ere #asn%t been any fallay pro!en in t#e fatual

underpinnings &not#ing #as #anged stare deisis is appropriate(o Lo#ner and 'lessy: legal priniples artiulated in t#e earlier ases were no longer !alid

for t#e urrent ases as a w#ole

'artial 0D>'lurality relies on stare deisis to up#old 1oe%s ruling, but still o!erruled t#e

trimester standardo la3mun dissents: an%t pi3 and #oose w#ere you want to apply S$ in t#e ase

o 1e#nuist and Salia also dissent-+3eep w#at you want, and t#row away t#e rest-

!ersion of S$(o ,s this defensi&le+

.aybe t#e ourt is building on t#e ore of 1oe !s= ade=

?ettison parts t#at are indefensible li3e 5rimester framewor3, but

grounding t#e t#eory in bodily integrity, unli3e 1oe=

.aybe ma3es a mo3ery of stare deisis by molding it differently= .aybe impro!ing wea3nesses of prior opinion and #olding onto t#e ore &1oe

was onlusory and ursory(

Notes:

Casey !s= 1oe:

o odily Integrity:

Casey eplains #ow t#is fits wit# preedent &rig#t not to ta3e mediation against

will, pump stoma# against will, surgery against will= .u# of t#is edited out ofaseboo3(= 8ttempts to eplain pri!ay and autonomy 6 osts of arrying #ildagainst #er will=

o omen%s 1ig#ts:

Casey epresses willingness to see t#is issue in terms of women%s rig#ts=

1oe aggressi!ely s#ied away from t#is=


21/78

o nepeted pro#oie !itory=

o Still great deal of fear in pro#oie mo!ement t#at abortion rig#ts disappear if Casey

were o!erruled= K deision=o Clinton


22/78

Fats: .an alleges #e parented a #ild of a married woman=

Court: C8 law presumes t#at #ild of marriage is t#e biologial #ild of t#e #usband=

o .an%s blood test pro!ed it was #is 3id, but in t#e eyes of t#e law, it%s #usband%s 3id

o Salia: Uuestion is: is t#ere a rig#t for an adulterousnatural fat#er to !isit t#e #ildD &!ery

speifi inuiry(

Conludes no/ eamines #istorial traditions: No #istorial relations#ip=

Long standing presumption of legitimay between married parents=

o rennan: Uuestion is: does aparent#a!e a rig#t to be in!ol!ed in t#e #ild%s lifeD &Aig#er

le!el of generality( Court #as artiulated t#is rig#t at a broader, #ig#er generality

9etho"olog$ These a##roa%hes t$#if$ what is use" 4$ Brennan an" 0%alia=

Salia:

o &)( "riswold: Salia would as3 does a married ouple #a!e a rig#t to use ontraeption,

t#en would loo3 for a tradition of proteting t#is rig#t=

"riswold was deided more generally for a rig#t of pri!ay=

o &2( Lo!ing !s= >irginia: Salia would as3 does an interraial ouple #a!e a fundamentalrig#t to marryD No, t#ere was a long tradition of denying married ouples t#e rig#t tomarry to ouples of different raes=

5#e same point an be made for !irtually e!ery ase in w#i# t#ere is a

fundamental unenumerated rig#t, but t#is isn%t onsistent wit# t#e way ourts#a!e loo3ed at t#is

rennan:

o 5#is is inonsistent wit# preedent

o Salian !iew #as a narrower !iew of liberty

o 5#is freeGes liberty 6 doesn%t allow it to e!ol!e &Salia always loo3s to w#at was

onsidered liberty 200 years ago(

attle between originalists and nonoriginalistso Brennan: same uestion doesn%t #a!e to produe t#e same answer as it did 200 year ago

Law 200 years ago #ad a strong presumption against illegitimate parents beause

t#ere wasn%t a way of 3nowing w#et#er t#at was true 5oday, we an pro!e w#o t#e fat#er is, so t#ere%s no rele!ant presumption

Constitution must be fleible to reflet te#nologial #anges

o 0%alia: Only time you%d find S$' !iolation is w#ere t#ere%s a 200year old proteted

rig#t t#at is suddenly unproteted &etremely rare( $oesn%t allow for CL model of onstitutional deision ma3ing 6 if you always

rely on narrowest model of generality, you an%t rely on preedent, 4ust narrow#istorial reord


23/78

Loo3 to t#e rationale for "riswold2 asn%t so narrow as to etend to use of

ondoms, but nor was it about a general, broad freedomo Infer unifying reasons for t#e ase law, t#en apply it to t#e fats

2ow $ou "efine the right an" #hrase the uestion is usuall$ going to "i%tate

the answer=

+"ames of abstration- are not uniue to S$'

o .ore ommon in S$', #owe!er, beause abstration is t#e

w#ole game &no onrete wording to fall ba3 on(

0e;ualit$

a$rence v. 3e4as&S 200;(

Fats: 2 men engaged in se are on!ited of a rime of sodomy in !iolation of 5@ law

Court:S$' inludes rig#ts of gays to engage in onsensual ondut, inluding sodomy

o O!errules owers:

&)( Soietal !alues #a!e #anged, &2( legal landsape #as #anged &no reliane(,

&;( fatual underpinnings #a!e #anged, &( no relianeo 5a3es a roader !iew:

In owers, Court as3ed &narrow le!el of generality(: +as t#ere a fundamental

rig#t for persons to engage in #omoseual sodomyD-

8s3ed a narrow uestion, ensuring a negati!e answer

Aere, as3s +$oes a person #a!e t#e rig#t to be let aloneD-

'rior body of ases t#at we%!e been reading would enompass a

uestions somew#ere in between:o +Is t#ere a fundamental rig#t to ma3e ertain deisions regarding

your own seual #oies and autonomyD-

Salia an%t belie!e Tennedy, w#o one laimed in Casey t#at for ontro!ersial, blo3buster

ases, Court s#ould ad#ere to stare deisiso Now )2 years later, Tennedy and Souter are o!erruling owers &t#in3s #e%s manipulating

stare deisis(

Legal Lan"s%a#e:

o la3mun%s dissent lines up most rationally wit# t#e reasoning

1oe fit into legal landsape, w#ile owers didn%t &was undermined by subseuent

ase law as well 6 i=e=, Casey(o .a3es epliit point of artiulated broader le!el of generality

.a3es lear t#at 1oe line of ases relates to freedom regarding intimate #oies

regarding family, proreation, et= Consensual seual relations#ips seem to follow from t#is reasoning

Fa%tual Un"er#innings:

o In Casey, 1oe was based on assumptions of women%s rig#ts t#at #ad not #anged

o In Lawrene, owers% fatual understandings #anged 6 li3e 'lessyBrown:

&)( In owers, Court loo3ed to #istorial riminaliGation of #omoseual se, but

t#e ourt in Lawrene says t#at t#e #istory is wrong in owers

Long legal #istory of riminaliGing all nonproreati!e se, and we now

#a!e a different understanding of t#is

asn%t until )970s t#at states singled out #omoseual se for

riminaliGing

2;


24/78

&2( In owers, many of t#e ?usties were old in )9*E, and didn%t understand

#omoseuality

y 200;, in Lawrene, t#e 4usties #a!e a mu# different understanding

of w#at it means to be gayo Court implies t#ese #anges in understanding uite learly

La%7 of Relian%e

o Tennedy doesn%t find reliane on owers

o Salia t#in3s t#ere #as been reliane, on bot# owers andK00 years of law, based on

notion t#at it%s 4ob of ourt to protet notion of morality

0o%ietal !alues

o Tennedy 6 our !alues #a!e #anged wBrBt to seual freedom generally &for adult persons

in onduting t#eir onsensual seual li!es(, and wit# seuality Our soiety #as #anged "es#iteowers

5#oug# it was only 20 years, our soiety an #ange t#at ui3ly

o Loo3 to !alues on raial issues, )9EK)9*K

o Fators:

Legal #anges &T and


25/78

o -/Some people #a!e ta3en t#is to mean t#at Court is on !erge of abandoning SS

framewor3/ on !erge of S$' re!olution Ot#ers #a!e t#oug#t t#e Court is beoming more libertarian 6 go!ernment must

#a!e legitimate reason for infringing on anyt#ing in our li!es, w#et#er or not it%sa +fundamental rig#t-

o -+/Ot#ers say it%s not t#is etreme, but suggest t#at Court is doing a balaning test,

wit#out as3ing w#et#er interest is fundamental

t#e state%so -@/Colby: s3eptial of all of t#is

Lawrene is best read as a autious, onfused opinion

est understood as part and parel of t#e seual freedom ases, and #olding t#at

state an%t o!erome t#at liberty rig#t in t#e name of morality


26/78

Affirmati!e Rights

1eShaney v. !inne&ago City Services&S(

Fats: C#ild put in ustody of #is fat#er, beaten= .ot#er brings laim by putting #im in ustody

of #is fat#er, and ta3ing on responsibility for proteting #im, t#e state reated a duty for itself, andt#erefore !iolated #is onstitutional rig#ts by failing to fulfill it

Court: No onstitutional obligation on t#e part of t#e state to protet t#e #ild= 8ll rig#ts

proteted by S$' are +negati!e rig#ts- 6 t#ings t#e state an%t regulate, or tell you to do &noaffirmati!e rig#ts t#at states must do=(

o Framers didn%t ontemplate t#ese rig#ts 6 wanted go!ernment to #a!e as little role as

possible

Notes:

F$1%s New $eal ame lose to epanding S$' to o!er fundamental affirmati!e rig#ts &+Seond

o1- 6 rig#t to wor3, deent #ome, med are, eduation, suffiient wages, free trade, protetionfrom monopolies, protetion from t#reat of destitution(

o Suggested we s#ould reate t#ese statutorily, rat#er t#an t#roug# onstitution

Aa!e t#ese beome impliit in our notion of a 4ust and free soietyD Is t#ere a onst rig#t to t#esetoday, e!en t#oug# t#ere wasn%t w#en t#e Const was writtenD

o 5ime w#en arren Court loo3ed li3e it was 4ust waiting for t#e rig#t ase to say t#at t#e

seond bill of rig#ts is now inorporated 4ust li3e t#e first bill of rig#ts urger ourt after Nion was eleted and t#e ourt ba3ed away=

III. :UAL'ROT:CTION

Rational Basis

1ational asis

Rail$ay 64"ress Agency v. #e$ %ork&S )99(.o re/uirement of e/ual protection that all eils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all

?ustie $ouglas, )99

Fats: NJ law #eld you ould not ad!ertise on t#e side of tru3, unless ad!ertising for your own

business= 8im was to redue distrations to pedestrians and dri!ers= 's ontended t#at law isunfairly applied to t#em=

Court: NJ%s lassifiation is not t#e 3ind of disrimination against w#i# t#e


27/78

Notes:

Not#ing in 1 says you #a!e to deal wB t#e worse problem first 6 e let t#e state #ip away at its

interest in random order=

8 law an be underinlusi!e and still omply wB eual protetion srutiny=

o .any laws are bot# o!erinlusi!e and underinlusi!e S= Ct= up#eld a law preluding

people in a met#adone lini from being bus dri!ers=

5#e law does not #a!e to be perfet= It 4ust #as to on t#e w#ole ma3e t#e ity streets safer t#an

t#ey would be wit#out t#e law=

1ational re!iew is etremely deferential in bot# t#e means and t#e ends=

1euiring eual treatment protets against all stupid and oppressi!e laws= If a #ars# law applies

to eeryone t#e publi won%t stand for it, e=g=+awrence - 0e$as

Slaughter-House cases

First to interpret t#e amendment 6


28/78

Notes:

.any people ite1orematsuas onstitutional 4ustifiation for furt#ering t#e argument t#at we

s#ould #a!e internment amps for 8rab8merianso Narrow U: S#ould1orematsustill ser!e as preedent today in a time of warD

o road U: 8re t#ere any irumstanes in w#i# laws t#at disriminate on t#e basis of rae

s#ould sur!i!e srutinyD SS good enoug#D S#ould we #a!e ategorial srutiny to raial statutesD

Still lets t#e 5imot#y .>eig#s t#roug#

If we%re afraid of t#e ris3 of Torematsu, s#ouldn%t we 4ust say t#at any raiallydisriminatory

statute is ompletely barredD

o Is t#e possibility of a few random ases w#ere it mig#t be !alid for go!ernment to

disriminate enoug# to also lea!e t#e door open for anot#er internment ampD

Sine t#is ase, t#e Court #as ne!er up#eld rae disrimination on t#e SS test

Ra%ial 0egregation

Aistorial narrati!e:

8fter Ci!il ar, t#ere were immediate #anges in t#e !oting eletorate= la3s ould !ote, but

former onfederate soldiers ould not= la3s gained a ma4ority in se!eral state #ouseso .ay )972: Congress passes law gi!ing amnesty to almost all former onfederates, so

suddenly bla3 sout#erners are outnumbered againo Federal go!ernment ends agreeing to end reonstruting in return for Aayes to beome

'resident &pulls out of Sout#(, abandoning fed protetion of i!il rig#ts

1aists ta3e ontrol in legislatures in sout#, and now t#ey ontrol t#e law

)9t# Century saw enatment of +?im Crow- laws 6 segregation, denial of rig#ts affirmati!ely

mandated by law:

Plessy v. 8erguson&S )*9E(

Fats: 's #allenge imposition of segregation on rail ars

Court: 7) up#olds onstitutionality= $oesn%t disuss le!el of srutiny, but #as feel of rational

basis re!iewo 5#is falls in general polie power of state, no reason to t#in3 t#is law is unreasonable

Aarlan%s dissent, writing only for #imself:

o Constitution is olorblind t#is will fall 4ust li3e t#e $red Sott ase

o $oesn%t buy into separate but eual 6 reogniGes t#at t#is is putting a brand on a lass of

peopleo 5 Aarlan was not raially enlig#tened 6 see #is dissent on letting #ildren of C#inese

immigrants beome 8merian itiGens

Notes: Court finds t#is isn%t politial ineuality &it%s soial(, and it%s not +ineuality-

o Court buys into +separate but eual- rationale for soial ineuality

ut t#e purpose be#ind separation laws is to 3eep bla3s out of t#e w#ites% world,

and not !ie !ersa NO5 t#e result of merely soial fores Court dismisses +badge of inferiority- t#eory, and t#in3s if t#is does eist, it%s

beause bla3s interpreted t#is law as stigmatiGing t#eir lass

Aistory of i!il rig#ts:

2*


29/78

o )922: N88C' reei!es large grant to try to end segregation, uses t#e money to mount a

massi!e ampaign in t#e ourts Aouston and 5#urgood .ars#all bring t#e ases, #ose targets arefully 6 pi3ed

ases w#ere t#ere wasn%t e!en an argument for t#e ot#er sideo )ainesase 6 .O law s#ools were all w#ite, wB no option for bla3 students= Court

stri3es it down 6 t#is is not separate but eualo S$eatase: 5@ law s#ool 6 reated separate publi law s#ool for bla3s= Court finds

t#at t#e s#ools are not eual, ordered t#em to admit law students

One #e #ad t#ese preedents, .ars#all was ready to bring t#e big ase t#at dealt wit# primary

and seondary eduation:

Bro$n v. Board of 6ducation 9Bro$n ,:&S )9K(

Fats: .inors bring ase for separated s#ools

Court: nanimously #olds t#at separation !iolates t#e inson dies, arren ta3es ommandand is adamant about ending segregation 6 e!entually bring around ?ustie 1eed=)9K: Court announes #istorial opinion

o 'roeeds on presumption t#at tangible failities are eual, but reogniGes t#e stigma t#at

goes along wit# being separatedo $istinguis#es 'lessy by saying t#at t#ere%s somet#ing different about eduation t#an train

ars &+Sep but eual- #as no plae in eduation 6 it%s uniue(

Notes:

N88C' wanted a bigger win, and t#ey get it #ere

rown is not 4ust important in i!il rig#ts ontet 6 also in Con Law Contet

asis for Court%s atual #olding: t#ey are not eual 6 fatual underpinnings of 'lessy is no longer

found to be true Cites psy#ologial studies t#at s#ow t#at segregation is detrimental

o On its fae, t#e opinion 4ust reads as if segregation isn%t intentionally raist, it%s 4ust t#at

t#ey didn%t realiGe somet#ing t#at we now 3now t#an3s to t#e studies

Arguments for Bro$n &eing correctly decided2

o 8fter West *oast, Court #eld t#at sometimes t#ey an%t trust demoray 6 politial

proess mig#t brea3 down, and 4udiial re!iew mig#t be proper for t#ose rules affe%ting3"is%rete an" insular5 minorities:

Can%t be done in Congress: filibusters, et=

State legislatures: an%t get it past t#e Sout#

Can%t be done t#roug# !ote beause ma4ority are w#ite w#o support legislation,

and t#ere are laws in plae t#at sub4ugate t#e bla3s% !ote Only ot#er politial option is to amend t#e Constitution 6 impossible as well, so

Court #as to step in #ere

5#ese are t#e arguments for w#y rown was properly deided

8rguments for rown being inorretly deided:

o 5et of Constitution almost runs ontrary &separate but eual failities are eual in terms

of t#e failities(o 'reedent doesn%t support t#e result

29


30/78

o Aistory of t#e )t# 8mendment: inonlusi!e= 'roblems wit# t#e #istory:

&)( nlear: Some t#oug#t it would be onstitutional, ot#ers t#oug#t it would be

unonstitutional, ot#ers didn%t t#in3 somet#ing eit#er way

ut, no one w#o !oted for )t# amendment t#oug#t segregated s#ool

unonstitutional 6 speifially #eld t#at t#is wouldn%t etend tosegregation

&2( 8na#ronisti: 5#is is not a uestion t#at would #a!e been posed at t#e time

>ery few publi s#ools in t#e sout# at t#e time, and ertainly none for

bla3 personso 8gain, t#is is disingenuous t#ere was segregation and publi

s#ools at t#e time 5#ey tal3ed about it, debated it and answered it

&;( Aistory is not t#e tou#stone: Capable of #a!ing a different sope and

meaning in t#e )9K0s t#en it did in )*E*

?ust beause somet#ing was a !iolation of t#e law ba3 t#en doesn%t

mean t#at it is +today- Court doesn%t base its deision on t#e #istory

o !hat has changed+ &)( Tnowledge of 'sy#ology, Fats

&2(


31/78

Notes:

5#oug# we read t#is ase after rown, it%s atually a S$' ase, and an important one

?udge our3e &Supreme Court nominee( testified at onfirmation #earings t#at #e didn%t t#ere

was S$' for unenumerated rig#ts 6 didn%t t#in3 t#ere was o Some ities instituted t#eir own bussing programs to try to get rid of de fato segregation

in t#e nort# Cities gi!e in to politial pressure, s#ifting ba3 to system of neig#bor#ood

s#ools in bot# nort# and sout#

#ite flig#t 6 mo!e to suburbs

#ite parents send t#eir #ildren to pri!ate s#ools

o $C: )9E9 6 EK w#ite population/ after rown, K w#ite

5oday, $C is ;) w#ite, but publi s#ool system is only =) w#ite

o 5#ere is a trend toward more de fato segregation 6 we%re more segregated now in our

s#ools t#an we were in )9K ut t#is isn%t ationable beause it%s not statutorily mandated

Ra%iall$ Dis%riminator$ 'ur#ose an" :ffe%t

oving v. ;A&o ; 6 SS, stri3e it down( &S )9E7(

;)


32/78

Fats: >8 proseutes interraial married ouple= State argues t#at:

o No disriminatory effet: felt eually by bot# raes

o No disriminatory purpose: to preser!e t#e integrity of t#e w#ite rae &not to sub4ugate

t#e bla3 rae(

Court: 8pplies SS to stri3e down t#e statute on


33/78

Court 'ro!e "is%riminator$ #ur#ose 4$

o -/ 0tats

o -+/ Legislati!e histor$

$iffiult, beause legislators wouldn%t li3ely say raist t#ings on t#e reord

Often, laws are passed for a !ariety of purposes some !oted for raist reasons,

and some for perfetly benign reasons ?ust #a!e to pro!e t#at it%s 8 purpose &not t#e only( of passing t#e law

Palmer v. 3hom"son&o E 6 1( &S )97)(

Fats: .S losed all its pools in t#e fae of desegregation

Court: p#eld statute= 1 re!iew, no disriminatory purpose or effet

Notes:

'roblems wit# t#is:

o Could still #a!e disriminatory effet 6 now people go to pri!ate pools w#i# only allow

w#iteso Law t#at truly #as no disriminatory effet, e!en if raist in purpose, t#e politial proess

s#ould ta3e are of it beause e!eryone will be negati!ely affeted by it &e!eryonesuffers, no one an swim(

o E: faially neutral law: 1ational basis re!iew &'almer(

o 5#is deision mig#t be rig#t if we apply proessbased 4udiial re!iew &we want 4udiial

srutiny w#ere legislature passes a law t#at benefits t#e ma4ority but #arms t#e minority/#ere, t#is law will #arm t#e ma4ority(

.aybe people are willing to #arm t#emsel!es if it also #arms a raial minority

!ashington v. 1avis Bo4 =5 RB/&S )97E(

Fats: la3 appliants #allenge a law t#at reuires all polie appliants to ta3e a i!il ser!ie

type eam=o 5#is is faially neutral

o No one alleges disriminatory purposeD

o $isriminatory effetD 's laim signifiantly fewer bla3s get #ired t#an w#ites after

ta3ing t#e eam

Court: 5#is 3ind of disparateimpat ase is ationable, but if t#ere is no disriminatory purpose,

t#e fat t#at it #as a disriminatory effet doesn%t matter 6 so we apply 1 re!iew:

o Court won%t infer a disriminatory purpose from t#e effet #ere &li3e t#ey did in 3ick Wo(

beause t#e statistis aren%t enoug# to persuade t#emo 5#is isn%t disrimination on t#e basis of rae at all, and so not a matter of


34/78

Affirmati!e A%tionRegents of 'niv. of CA v. Bakke> 3he

Michigan Cases

)rutter v. Bollinger&S 200;/ )ratz v. Bollinger&S 200;(

30tri%t 0%rutin$ - 1 /5

ot# ases use +SS-

o Narrowly tailored:

.ust be narrowly tailored, but doesn%t #a!e to e#aust e!ery alternati!e

o 5rying to balancedi!ersity interests wit# strit aademi interests

Is t#is SSD $oesn%t loo3 li3e it 6 lots of deferene to t#e law s#ool

SS isn%t about deferene, it%s sub4eting to etremely strit srutiny

o Compelling interest:

$i!ersity not enoug# to up#old a statute t#at #arms raial minorities

,ow compelling is diersity+

$i!ersity in go!ernment leaders#ip: leaders#ip tends to be drawn from

nation%s top law s#ools $i!erse aademi perspeti!es &'owell reogniGes t#is in t#e a33e

ase(

In reality, t#is isn%t t#e same aggressi!e le!el of srutiny t#at t#e Court applies in oes ),;,,K

o 5#is is +SS- 6 a little less t#an normal SS

O%Connor doesn%t want to admit t#is 6 but t#is is w#at s#e%s doing

8ll 9 want some form of SS: admit it%s watered down, ) won%t admit t#at,

mean truly strit srutiny

Court t#in3s t#at t#is pratie isn%t ideal, and if we e!er get to t#e point w#ere we don%t need t#is,

and in t#at ase t#is poliy won%t be legalo Court: warning s#ot= $on%t get laGy, epets t#ere to be real #anges t#at will ma3e t#is

unneessary 6 t#is is t#e easy way outo If state an s#ow 2K years from now t#at it is still neessary, it an still be up#eld

Should there &e SS or SS-/ in Bo4 0+ 1id the Court "ro"erly a""ly that standard+

o 5#omas: of ourse not= 5#e only 4ustifiable go!%t interest would be some 3ind of

absolute publi neessity, and e!en t#en t#at ouldn%t be t#e ase #ere &no publineessity in #a!ing a law s#ool in .I(

5#is is 4ust an interest in aest#etis

u"i%ial Re!iew Anal$sis

5etualism:

o 5et of t#e Constitution says states may not deny protetion to any person under t#e law

suggests we oug#t to apply same le!el of srutiny in bo ) and bo 2o Cuts in fa!or of #eig#tened srutiny

Originalism:

o Aistorial reord 6 )*EE, Congress t#at passed )t# amendment appropriated to be

gi!en to poor women and #ildren w#o were 8frian 8merian only )*E7 6 0t# Congress passes statute for +destitute olored persons- in $C

Jear after year during i!il ar period, Congress passes statutes regarded only

8frian 8merians

o Cuts in fa!or of lower srutiny

;


35/78

'lain language uts one way, w#ile #istory uts t#e ot#er

'olitial 'roess:

o $o we need ourts to aggressi!ely step in #ere to protet an insular minorityD

No, beause t#ese laws are benefiial to minorities

5#is is not t#e generosity, not t#e tyranny of t#e ma4ority

o

Cuts in fa!or of lower srutiny 'reedent:

o Aarlan%s 'lessy dissent: our onstitution is olorblind

o rown != oard: Court o!errules 'lessy, but doesn%t adopt Aarlan%s dissent

o $oes rown turn on olorblindness, or does it turn on fat t#at laws were passed beause

of disriminatory purpose and effetD p to you to draw your own onlusions, but strong arguments on bot# sides

o Cuts bot# ways

!as this decided correctly+ ,s diversity a good *ustification+

Benefits of Affirmati!e A%tion

o &)( $i!ersity in t#e lassroom: 1obust e#ange of ideas &'owell( ut isn%t it raist to t#in3 people of a ertain rae s#are same !iewpointD

Jet t#ere is somet#ing uni!ersal about a ertain rae%s eperiene in t#is ountry

o &2( Conrete eduation benefits: Learning #ow to li!e wit#, assoiate wit# persons of

different raes usiness ommunity amius briefs 6 #iring t#e best inludes t#ose people wit#

di!ersity eperieneo &;( "lobal ompetiti!enessB


36/78


37/78

?ust says wit#out support or delaration t#at t#is was w#at t#e prior ases

#ad #eld, and applied t#e test

ust li7e that) his non%halant senten%e %hanges Ameri%an law

o


38/78

o >IL: t#is isn%t t#e same= 5#ey%!e #anged it so t#at women wouldn%t be taug#t under

t#e >.I system simply isn%t t#e same opportunity for women 1e4ets e!idene t#at women +t#ri!e- in ooperati!e en!ironments= I5%s

depri!ing women of t#at #oie= 5#ey #a!e to #a!e t#e same options=

Salia%s dissent: 5#is is not intermediate srutiny, it%s some form of #eig#tened srutiny &IS W(

Notes:

Court%s r#etori sounds more stringent t#an 4ust but is t#is 4ust p#rasing, or are t#ey really

applying a #ig#er standardD

5#is is "insburg%s masterpiee

o C#ips away at go!%t ability to promulgate stereotypes about men and women, e!en w#ere

t#ey #old true wit# most women and most men aross t#e boardo Auge ad!ane for "insburg%s areer and women%s rig#ts

Michael M. v. Su"erior Court&S )9*)(

Fats: C8 riminal law punis#es male, but not female, for statutory rape

Court: 8pplying IS, up#olds onstitutionality of t#e law &1e#nuist(

o Important go!ernmental interest: pre!enting teenage pregnanyo Substantially related law: osts of pregnany fall elusi!ely on female, and boys don%t

#a!e t#at inenti!e

$issent: t#e real reason of t#e law was to protet t#e #astity, female !irtue of girls= 'regnany

onern was only a post#o reason

Notes:

Court doesn%t are w#at t#e real reason for t#e law was, as long as state an artiulate a real,

important reason for t#e law in ourto ,s this consistent $ith ;M,D

No 6 Court said di!ersity wasn%t t#e +real- reason in >.I, so t#ey didn%t buy t#at

argument= Aere, t#ey%re buying t#e argument t#e state proffers

"insburg ared about t#e original reason for passing t#e law

Law really #as #anged sine .i#ael . 6 Court doesn%t afford t#e same

deferene by t#is point

Rostker v. )old&erg&S )9*)(

Fats: Issue was w#et#er women #a!e to register for t#e draft= 8rgument t#at women wouldn%t

want to undergo t#e same rigorous training &for ombat(o ut same argument s#ould apply as >.I: 4ust beause most wouldn%t want to do it,

doesn%t mean some wouldn%t want to

8lso great deferene to Congress in military affairs

0tan"ar" of re!iew is trul$ higher not .I, seems suspet 6 espeially if no omparable women%s team

o If t#ey%re of t#e same aliber &men%s and women%s soer teams(, t#en it seems it would

be o3 &aording to 1e#nuist%s opinion( 'ossible t#at t#e intangibles aren%t eual &eposure, prestige, training, et=(

ut t#ere are basi biologial differenes ould argue it #as not#ing to do wit#

impermissible stereotypes

;*


39/78

o If t#e s#ool only wanted one team, and allowed e!eryone to try out, it%s li3ely t#at few

women would get to play- ,sn?t the "ro&lem that a neutral "olicy has an adverseim"act on $omen+

Can%t we analogiGe t#is to as#ington != $a!isD

>.I today #as enoug# women today t#at t#ey #a!e many !arsity women%s sports teams

o Still #as ad!ersati!e met#od of eduation

!hy is se4 discrimination su&*ect to heightened scrutiny in the first "lace+

Court 4ust ma3es t#ese up

o $oesn%t ome from t#e onstitution

o ut w#at #oie does t#e Court #a!eD

$ri!er%s test, liensing, et= disriminates against illiteray, age, et

SS would be o!er and underbroad for t#e go!ernment interest in road safety

would grind demoray to a #alt

Salia: Funtion of t#is ourt is to preser!e soietyX, not to re!ise it= S#ould be left up to politial

proess

Ho$ does Court kno$ $hich ty"es of discrimination should the Court "rotect against+ Originalism: rae, and rae only

o Court is not willing to ta3e t#is position, so t#ey loo3 to:

-/ 'oliti%al 'ro%ess theor$ Is group disrete, insular minority t#at an%t protet itself t#roug#

t#e politial proessDo 5#is would inlude 4ust about e!eryone &4ugglers, plumbers, et=( 6 t#is is ?ustie

?a3son%s !iewpoint ut sometimes optiians, 4ugglers, et= win &e!eryone%s in a mi of groups t#at

puts t#em in t#e ma4ority sometimes and minority ot#er times 6 it all balanesout(= +S#ifting oalitions- ensure wealt# is spread out o!er time

o 5#e problem is t#at t#ere are some groups t#at are systematially on t#e losing end

istorial proseutions(o Dis%rete an" insularminorities are proteted against

$isrete: separate and distint &p#ysially andBor ulturally apart from e!eryone

else, or p#ysially distint 6 standing out from t#e rowd, ma3ing you an easytarget(

Isolated: ma3es you largely inapable of entering into t#ose rossgroup allianes

t#at protet you in t#e politial proesso So $hat a&out $omen+ .ig#t be distint &p#ysially notieably different(, but not

insular, not a minority Aistorially, were disrete and insular &not allowed to !ote, #old 4obs, et(

publi offie

-+/ Immuta4le Chara%teristi%s 'ersons disriminated against based on a #arateristi t#at t#eyan%t do anyt#ing about is of speial onern

o ealt#: people an go from poor to ri#, and !ie !ersa

o 8ge: e!eryone will be old if t#ey li!e out t#eir natural life spans

5ie t#is ba3 to politial proess: if lawma3er passes law disriminating against

bla3s, ne!er #as to worry about it= 5#ose w#o pass laws disriminating againstt#e elderly will suffer its own onseuenes

;9


40/78

5#ose w#o ma3e laws regarding #ildren 3now w#at it%s li3e to be a #ild,

#opefully an relate and understand

-@/ 2istor$ of Dis%rimination

o Aistory is a proy for w#at we really are about 6 li3eli#ood t#at a partiular law was

passed out of animus pre4udie

o "i!en #istory, we an be fairly ertain t#at a law passed t#at disriminates against bla3s

was passed out of pre4udie

o 5#is is w#y gender falls in t#e middle: t#ere is a long #istory of misogyny in t#is ountry,

and many laws are passed on basis of outdated stereotypes, 5 t#ere are legitimatereasons for passing t#ese laws

This is not a %he%7list

o 5#ese are t#ings t#e ourt loo3s at #olistially in e!aluating ea# ase

00 I0 RB

1ae Se 8ge

8lienage Legitimay ealt#

National origin

Disa4ilit$ Dis%rimination 9ental 2an"i%a#) Age) =ealth

Cle&urne v. Cle&urne iving Center5 ,nc= &S )9*K(

Fats: Suit against ity for reuiring a speial permit for mental #andiapped faility, w#ile not

reuiring one for any ot#er faility

Court: ses 1 re!iew to stri3e down t#e law

o $isreteD

>isually distint, singled outD Sometimes

8part from t#e rest of usD Jes, li!e apart sometimes, an%t partiipate generally in

t#e ommunityo 5est for Srutiny-

*an they be counted on to protect their own interests in the political process?

.ost annot, but Court doesn%t t#in3 t#ey need ourt%s #elp:

o Ot#er people do step up to protet t#eir interests &many laws are

passed on t#eir be#alf t#at benefit t#em(o 5#ey are born into e!ery family 6 t#ose w#o are ri# and poor,

e!ery rae, et=o

Legislature mig#t 4ust be ompassionate

Could go eit#er way on #eig#tened srutiny

Immutable *haracteristics? Jes

"oes toward #eig#tened srutiny

,istory of discrimination?

Auge #istory of s#ameful disrimination in t#is ountry

"oes toward #eig#tened srutiny

5, in lig#t of all t#e legislation, t#ese laws aren%t passed out of malie

5reating t#em t#e same &in s#ools, et( would be more maliious

0


41/78


42/78

o Not only does it repeal t#ese, but it forbids speifi legal protetions for t#is targeted

lass &speial disability(

o 'ur#ort to a##l$ RB -"efault/: 8mendment 2 fails and defies it:

5#e protetion of t#e laws is simply not being pro!ided eually

ut t#ey go on, almost as an alternati!e #olding, apply 1:

o &)( Imposes broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group

Simply no lin3 between interests and rule

5oo narrow, too broad &defines people by single trait, and denies protetion

aross t#e board( $a!is != eason &Court says reliane on t#is is misplaed(:

$enied .ormons and polygamists t#e rig#t to !ote

)( If it means t#ose wB ertain pratie an%t !ote, it%s no longer good law

2( If it means t#ose of a ertain status an%t !ote, it would #a!e to sur!i!e

SS, and li3ely ouldn%t

;( If it means felons an%t !ote, it%s irrele!ant #ere

o &2( So broad it%s disontinuous wit# t#e reasons offered for it 6 seems to be noting but

animus toward #omoseuals

Imposes real H ontinuing in4uries w#i# belie any proffered 4ustifiation

&)( 1espet for freedom of assoiation &rig#t not to assoiate wit# people t#ey

find ab#orrent( &2( Conser!ing resoures to fig#t disrimination against ot#er groups &suspet

riterion(

readt# belies t#is

Cannot say t#at t#e amendment is direted toward any legitimate state

interest &not rationall$ relate"(

ut t#is analysis isn%t onsistent wit# 1 re!iew 6 Court #as ne!er ared

if a law is o!er or under inlusi!e for 1 re!iewo 1eal onern is t#at Court 4ust doesn%t buy t#e rationale 6 only

plausible rationale for t#is is bare desire to #arm an unpopularpolitial group

8lso doesn%t seem li3e 1 to seond guess w#at t#e real interest was, so

long as we an t#in3 of a possible interest t#at would be ser!ed by t#islaw

$issent: 5#is is an attempt by +tolerant Coloradans- to preser!e traditional seual mores against a

+politially powerful- minorityo 5#ese #a!e been speifially appro!ed moti!es by Congress and t#e Court

o Aas not#ing to do wit# #atred 6 to say t#at it does is to ta3e sides in t#e Tultur3ampf

Salia ta3es !iew of #omoseuality as an at, not as an identity &w#i# t#e

ma4ority ta3es(

2eightene" 0%rutin$ in Romer:&)( $isreet and Insular minorityD

K20 of population= .inority t#at an%t sueed wBout oalition in politial proess=

o $on%t seem to be insular 6 li!e among us, born into e!ery family=

o >isibility: C#arateristi t#at stands out= "L not as !isible= C#oose not be !isible 6

suessfully= La3 of !isibility wor3s against "L in politial proess= 'eople an #oose to be

in t#e loset

2


43/78

o "L5 politial suess: appears to wor3 in some ases loally= ut in t#is ase, it didn%t

wor3 on t#e state le!el=-+/ Aistory of $isrimination:Jes=-@/ Immutable>

5#is is a de!iate=

1omer ourt aepts seual orientation as an in#erent part of identity and not a #obby=

o Implies t#at t#ey t#in3 #omoseuality immutable=

Immutability isn%t dispositi!e:

o


44/78

-+/ :':

#at is t#e state%s interest in pro#ibiting gay marriageD

o &)( +To #rote%t against illegal se;- 8fter Lawrene, off t#e table=

o &2( O##ressing ga$s: $esire to #arm politially unpopular illegal under 1omer and

Lawrene=o &;( Legislate "isa##ro!alof #omoseuality morality alone an%t be used under

Lawrene and 1omer=

Lawrene 6 O%Connor wanted to deide on irginia:

C#ildren born into multiraial families #a!e problems=

Intermediate SrutinyD

o 8re t#ese +important- interestsD 'er#aps=

1:

o Certainly +legitimate- interests=

o ut is law rationally related to t#e interestsD

Studies s#ow "L parents an raise #ealt#y families

o 1 W o!er and under inlusi!e:

Let old and sterile people get married=

Straig#t people getting married wit# no interest in reprodution=

o .8 8=

o >8 Supreme Court said it%s t#e same reord we sent you=

o Federal .arriage 8mendment= 6 8mendment proposed for interraial marriage in t#e

past=

Fun"amental Interests

:ual 'rote%tion: 1 unless suspet lass 6 #eig#tened intermediate or SS=

Court originally laimed 4ust one 3ind of #eig#tened srutiny: 1 or SS=


45/78

Fun"amental RightsSS if bears on pro!ision of ertain fundamental rig#ts

Namely !oting rig#ts and rig#ts to aess to t#e 4udiial proess=

00 in two wa$s:&)( Suspet Class=

&2( 'ro!ision of a fundamental rig#t arren ourt reated dotrine to use in two areas:

o &)( >oting=

Not epliitly in onstitution=

Stru3 down literay and poll ta laws=

Can%t distinguis# between urban !oters and nonurban=

us# != "ore: If FL pro!ides rig#t to !ote, must treat all !otes t#e same=

o &2( 8ess to 4udiial proess=

Stru3 down laws denying $ aess to trial transripts for appeals=

5#ere is no onstitutional rig#t to an appeal e!en in riminal ases=

arren ourt says if you are going to apply appellate rig#ts, you an%t

deide w#o gets appeals and w#o doesn%t%= urger relutant to etend t#ese ases=

o


46/78

In%itement Before ==II

Schenck v. 'S&S )9)9(

Fats: 'amp#let ma3es argument t#at draft !iolates t#e o1 &!iolates free spee#, li3ens it to

sla!ery=( 8ut#or was indited=

Court: p#olds inditment= Loo3s to ontet 6 finds t#at it%s too dangerous, ould bring about

#arm during t#is time of national risiso 5est: +Clear and present danger- test: Court finds t#at it%s met #ere

Jes: Li3e rowded t#eater eample, t#ere%s a potential for +flame- starting, ould

ause pani and #aos No: ClearD In t#eater senario, we 3now people will be #urt= e 3now w#at

peoples% reations would be in t#at situation, not as lear #ere

'resentD Not really all t#at present=

Notes:

$espite w#at it laims to be applying, t#e ourt doesn%t seem to be applying a +lear and present

danger- test

Seems more li3e a +potential- test &t#is is t#e 3ind of ati!ity t#at tends to bring about t#is 3ind of#arm(

5est atually applied: "enerally free to spea3 your mind, but not w#en your words are

intendedBdesigned to ause #arm

1e&s v. 'S&S )9)9(

Fats: "o!ernment t#rew $ in 4ail for #is politial spee# t#at was ritial of t#e go!ernment= $

ne!er publily ritiiGed t#e war or t#e draft

Court: p#olds #is on!ition

o y saying t#at #e opposes all war means t#at #e opposes t#is war, w#i# is spee#

designed to bring about opposition to t#e drafto

5est: spee# t#at #as a +natural ten"en%$- to bring about #arm $oesn%t e!en use +lear and present danger-

Notes:

$emoray: we need to preser!e t#e rig#t to dissent

Costs and benefits to e!eryt#ing

o $issent an be #armful in a time of war, and t#at osts an be #armful too

A&rams v. 'S&S )9)9(

Fats: 1ussian 1e!olution ase, #anding out pamp#lets

Court: 5#is is lear and present danger

$issent: $oesn%t t#in3 t#is ase passes +lear and present danger-

o Fouses on notion of immediay

Aolmes seems to t#in3 t#at #e was too restriti!e before

o 5#is is so mu# li3e pre!ious ases &during a time of war( but Aolmes doesn%t t#in3

anyone is going to pay attention, t#in3s t#is isn%t li3ely to inite anyone Butif spee# is proteted w#ere t#ere is no #ane of ausing #arm, t#en w#at

about attempted bribery, et 6 wB no #ane of suessD 5#is is different beause of t#e intent of spee#: goal was not for t#e S to lose

t#e war &it was to protet t#e 1ussian re!olution(

E


47/78

Notes:

Can%t gi!e us a !ery good t#eoretial eplanation for #ow to fit t#ese in C'$ dotrine

o ut, spee# an be proseuted if: Creates C'$, or as intended to reate C'$

Aolmes simply seems to be more liberal #ere 6 applies t#e same test, but applies it differently

o Suddenly #e atually means +lear and present danger-

o

.ost people t#in3 it #as to do wit# letters #e e#anged wB ?udge Learned Aand

Masses Pu&lishing Co. v. Patten&NJ )9)7 6 Aand%s preferred test(

Court: Test is: do words urge ot#ers t#at it%s t#eir duty or in t#eir interest to ta3e a ertain ationD

o $issent an inite, but in a free ountry t#is is neessary for t#e e#ange of ideas

Notes:

Aolmes% !iewpoint != Aand%s !iewpoint:

o Aolmes:

In!ol!es guesswor3, w#et#er danger is posed and #ow immediate

'eople an be t#rown in 4ail for spea3ing learly &not manipulating t#eir own

words(o Aand:

So long as you #oose your words arefully, you an do a lot of t#ings

9ar7et#la%e of i"eas rationale&Aolmes dissent in 8brams( 6 Only by letting e!eryone spea3

will t#e best ideas float to t#e top and will t#e trut# beome 3nowno Critiues

Internal ontraditionYt#eory%s goal is trut# yet posits we an ne!er 3now trut#

so we must 3eep loo3ing .ar3et FailureGNo eual aess to t#e mar3et of ideas= 5#e +mar3et plae- of

ideas is distorted by t#e eonomi reality t#at dissenting or minority !iewpointsdo not #a!e a fair #ane &media onglomerates(=

SelffulfillingYt#e dominant idea is t#e trut#ful one &bB won(=

#at about +fraudulent- wordsD 8re t#ose OT bB will lose in t#e uest

for trut#D For eample, ad t#at igarette smo3ing does not ause aner=

'roblem reuires people to use t#eir rational apaities to eliminate

untrut#fulYassumes people 81< rational=

Re" 0%are Cases -)itlo$an" !hitney/

o Come up during times of peae, not during war

o Freedom of spee# annot be restrited by Congress, but not by statesD

)t# amendment 6 inorporation

)itlo$ v. #%&S )92K(

Fats: " was printer of leftwing manifesto, alling for ommunist re!olution= Con!ited for

!iolating statute t#at pro#ibited ad!oating t#rowing o!er t#e go!ernment by fore

Court: C'$ doesn%t apply beause t#e legislature #as already made a determination t#at t#is type

of spee# t#e type t#at ould be restrited= .a3es su# little weig#t of t#e inorporation issue&t#is was before t#e law of inorporation was being #ammered out spee# assumed to beinorporated in )92K(

o Hreat "eferen%e to the 0tate legislaturein determining w#at spee# are so e!il an be

subsribed 4$ the #oli%e #ower

7


48/78

o Statute #ere riminaliGes spee# &ad!oate, ad!ise, tea# t#e duty( 6 ot#er ases

riminaliGed ondut= #ere spee# is a rime, Court is deferential to t#e legislature

o Confi"ent this is the 7in" of s#ee%h that #resents a "anger 4e%ause the legislature

has sai" it "oes) an" therefore falls outsi"e the s%o#e of #rote%te" s#ee%h

5#is deferential treatment is 1 re!iew "i!es t#e go!ernment unfettered

aut#ority to suppress indi!idual freedom

Aolmes, dissenting

o .ar3etplae t#eory

o 5#in3s C'$ s#ould apply

5#is is a real danger 6 t#is ta3eo!er #ad 4ust #appened in 1ussia

5 not a present danger6 not lear or present in 8meria

.ust be implying t#at t#e t#reat must be present beause e!ery idea is an

initement &always designed to on!ine ot#ers to at in a ertain way( 6t#is is part of t#e politial proess=

If it%s far enoug# away, we #a!e onfidene in t#e mar3etplae to get rid

of it wit#out go!ernment ensors#ipo Finally means C'$

!hitney v. CA&S )927(

Fats: #itney ati!e in #elping wor3ing lass and t#e poor, beame member of Communist

party= Con!ited of being a member of an organiGation t#at was organiGed for o!ert#rowinggo!ernment by unlawful means

o S#e #ad been ati!e in trying to on!ine ommunists to #ange t#eir tune

o S#e ouldn%t get a lawyer at t#e time, until t#e day before &lawyer didn%t 3now anyt#ing

about t#e ase(

Court: Conurred, 4ury ould #a!e found t#at spee# was immediate and serious

randeis, onurring: 'olitial proess t#eory= C'$ as !ery spee#proteti!e

o Important points:

$anger must be immediate, imminent

8dds a +seriousness- reuirement

o 'reser!es Aolmes% notion t#at attempts are proseutable too, e!en if no li3eli#ood of

suesso


49/78

o Does gra!it$ of e!il) "is%ounte" 4$ its #ro4a4ilit$) -2 ; J In!asion of Free 0#ee%h/

"et rid of immediay reuirement

Fran3furter, onurring: 8d!oates balaning test 6 mu# more epliit t#an t#e ma4ority

o Legislatures, not ourts, s#ould be ma3ing t#ese 4udgments

o 5oug# balaning test 6 w#y s#ould t#e ourt be t#e one w#o gets t#e final sayD

o ?udiiary #as no idea w#at t#e possible suess is & fator( 6 t#ey s#ould not be t#e

ones ma3ing t#is alulations

$ouglas, dissenting:

o Freedom will pre!ail if t#e ourt sits ba3 and does not#ing

Communism was faltering as it was 6 if people read t#ese manifestos, t#eir

wea3nesses will beome e!ident and people will #oose freedomo 5#e way to defeat ommunism is not to ensor or suppress 6 it%s to allow t#ese boo3s to

be read, disussed and ritiiGed

Notes:

Aand #anged #is .asses test bB bound by Supreme Court 4udgment 6 #as to say C'$, but ourt

#ad ne!er artiulated w#at t#at means or #ow t#at applies ,s this a good test+

o ad:

'rofoundly sub4eti!e test Aow to measure t#e !alue of infringing on free

spee#DD No immediay: "o!%t mig#t see t#e #arm as so big, t#at e!en a minisule #ane

of it #appening won%t sa!e t#e spee# from being ensored

"o!ernment will want to at soon, beause if t#ey wait until t#ere%s a

really good #ane of t#e e!ent ourring t#en it%ll be too lateo "ood:

$efines a standard

Branden&urg v. (hio

Fats: TTT member arrested for words spo3en at TTT meeting

Court: .ust be "ire%tl$intended to inite ation, imminentand li7el$to inite ation

o Court a3nowledges t#at #itney #as not stood t#e test of time

o $ennis o!errules #itney to t#e etent t#at #itney didn%t e!en reuire C'$ w#en a law

is aimed at spee# $ennis went ba3 to C'$ 6 but does it go as far as t#e Court goes #ereD

Notes

Court&s tests

o S#en3 &+bad tendeny- test(:

person%s spee# ould still be broug#t downo Aolmes: #at matters is t#e effet of t#e spee# 6 t#e intent doesn%t matter

5#is was only a dissent

o Aand: 8s3s #ow t#e words are p#rased epliit all for lawless ation is reuired

5#e #arm doesn%t #a!e to be ompletely li3ely, but it does #a!e to be somew#at

li3ely 5#is was 4ust a lower ourt 4udge

o $ennis: "o!ernment doesn%t #a!e to wait until t#e +3uts#- is about to be eeuted

9


50/78


51/78

I=e=, 1ed Sare 6 easy to get aug#t up in t#e paranoia s

.aybe doesn%t go far enoug#D

No epliit reuirement for seriousness= ut e!en impliit:

o #at about enouraging someone to go 2 miles o!er t#e speed

limitD Is t#is 4ust enouragingD

.aybe goes too farD $oes it tie t#e #ands too mu#D

Imminene reuirement: may #a!e to wait too long/ diret may mean

you an%t proseute t#e +win3, win3 nudge, nudge%Do 9t# Cir= in +Nuremburg Files- ase: Found t#at t#reats don%t do

t#roug# t#is test= 8pplying randenburg, an%t be ensored .aybe it%s outdated now

5oday, it%s different 6 people of a li3e mindset an find ea# ot#er, 4oin

mo!ements, and turn spee# into ation mu# more ui3ly

e li3e to t#in3 t#at t#e mar3etplae of ideas will pre!ail, but #ow

onfident are we in t#is idea in t#e internet eraD


52/78


53/78


54/78

S#e%s not a publi offier, s#e%s a #u4li% figure= Test:

o Someone w#o #as su# publi sway t#at people are w#at t#at person #as to say

5#ose w#o #a!e t#rust t#emsel!es to t#e forefront of publi ontro!ersies in

order to #old sway in t#e issues in!ol!ed

S#e #asn%t really put #erself in t#e spotlig#t Courts #a!e made a big

deal about #a!ing to #a!e !oluntarily put yourself in t#e spotlig#t #en people !oluntarily put t#emsel!es in t#e spotlig#t, t#ey as3ed for t#e

attention &balaning test 6 party%s rig#ts != spea3er%s rig#ts(

In 5imes, ourt didn%t seem to are mu# about interests of t#e publi offiial

o 'ubli offiials are #appy to all a press onferene to fi a message 6 t#ey want t#e

spotlig#t and so don%t need t#e #elp of t#e ourts Spee# in t#is instane is a matter of publi onern

#en t#ere is spee# by or about a #ri!ate figure &.ary C#eney(, but about somet#ing of #u4li%

onern &gay or lesbian rig#ts(, t#en t#ere%s a +mi""le groun"- standardo urden of proof on plaintiff

o ut doesn%t #a!e to pro!e atual malie

Hy"o2 website publishes nude photos of )merican Idol conducts' and implies her promiscuity- 0urns outshes not the one in the photos

.alieD 1e3less disregard as to t#e !eraityD

'u4li% Con%ern No #u4li% %on%ern

'u4li% offi%ial8 figure Sulli!anButts No lear answer Aard to find somet#ing t#atfalls into t#is ategory in t#is dayand age

'ri!ate figure "ertG $un H radstreet

5a3e a loo3 at nondefamation torts


55/78

!hy are $e treating o&scenity as outside the freedom of s"eech at all+ !hat gives government

the right to censor o&scenity+

o La3 of any soial importane

o $oesn%t ontribute to mar3et plae of ideas, politial proess or sear# for trut#

o Distinction it from other art forms that we do proide protection to:

Some mo!ies and artoons are purely politial spee#, so t#ey #a!e )st 8mend=

'rotetion 8rgument: t#is is not epression/ it only affets us p#ysially

ut #ow is t#at different t#an slapsti3 #umorD 5#at also eliits a

p#ysial response &laug#ing(

Court: any benefits are simply outweig#ed by t#e osts &we don%t treat mo!ies outside t#e sope

of t#e )st amendment beause as a w#ole, mo!ies #a!e more benefits(o ut obsenity isn%t really its own ategory of art, it%s not it%s own medium

o #at are t#e ostsD

Obsenity tends to inite lustful t#oug#ts

+S#ameful- 6 .'C

?ustifiations:

o 5#oug#t ontrol

o +Offensi!e-

Suffiient to 4ustify ta3ing it outside t#e freedom of spee#D

o 'roteting 3ids

Tids will always find it

ut t#e argument against it is we%re not going to ta3e away all #emistry boo3s

so t#at 3ids an%t ma3e alo#ol, et= S#ouldn%t let w#at%s appropriate for K year olds ditate w#at%s appropriate for

soietyo .orality:

"o!ernments tell us w#at we an and an%t do

Court seems to be drawing #uge distintion btw t#e politial and t#e moral 8ll of t#ese don%t stand up !ery well against srutin

Constitutional Law II - Colby - Spring 2007 - 2

Documents

Transcript of Constitutional Law II - Colby - Spring 2007 - 2