Constitutional Law

Fall 1999

Professor George Garvey

Outline by

Christopher S. Lee


I.                    The Judicial Function in Constitutional Cases

A.     Judicial Review – The power of the SC to define its own powers, as well as review the powers of other Branches of Government.

1.           Marbury v. Madison

2.           Legitimacy of Judicial Review

3.           Authority of Supreme Court

a)      Legislative Branch creates Laws

b)      Executive Branch Executes Laws

c)      Judicial Branch Interprets the Laws

B.     Constitutional & Prudential Limits

1.           Standing

a)      Must show Injury-in-Fact.

b)      Must be Case-in-Controversy.

c)      Cannot assert rights of 3rd parties.  No generalized grievances.

d)      Constitutional v. Prudential Bases

(1)   Constitutional Barrier – Congress can’t waive.

(2)   Prudential Basis

(a)    SC acts as self-regulator imposing own juris.

(b)   SC decides it is unwise for it to decide case.

2.           Mootness & Ripeness

3.           Nonjusticiable Political Questions

a)      Political Questions assigned to Political Branches.

b)      Prudential reasons to refuse (assuming case-in-controversy)

(1)   Case embarrassing to Gov’t.

(2)   Treaties & Foreign Policy Issues.

C.     Supreme Court Authority to Review State Court Judgments

1.           Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

a)      Supremacy of the Federal Constitution, Laws, Treaties,…

b)      Uniformity of Interpretation of Laws.

c)      SC does have Authority & Juris to review ST decisions.

2.           Cohens v. Virginia Supreme Court

a)      SC - Original Jurisdiction v. Appellate Jurisdiction

b)      Federal Judge appointees v. State Judge Electees

D.     Article III – Framework for Judicial Branch

1.           Size

2.           Terms

3.           Creation of Lower Courts.

E.      Congressional Restraints on the Judicial Branch

1.           Senate confirmation of Judges

2.           Appellate Jurisdiction created by Congress

3.           Federal Question issues subject to Congressional Changes.

4.           Impeachment

F.      Political Restraints on the Supreme Court: May Congress Strip the Court of Its Jurisdiction?

SC – The case, not the party, determines Jurisdiction.

1.           Ex Parte McCardle

a)      Issue:  Did SC have Jurisdiction to hear case?

b)      Congress creates Jurisdiction, and removed prior to this case.

c)      Therefore, SC can’t hear case, dismisses.

d)      SC can’t review Congress’s motives; must accept at value.

e)      When Congress removes SC Jurisdiction, ST CT’s decide.

2.           Internal and External Restraints

3.           Congressional Control of Lower Courts

G.     SC Background and Present

1.           Initially all matters regarding Federal Rights were appealable.

2.           1920’s – Certiorari & Right of Appeal.

3.           1988 – Certiorari only.  SC given discretion on all matters.

4.           Certiorari requires 4 Justices to vote for hearing case.

5.           Denial of Certiorari means no Prejudice

6.           Types of cases

a)      Split among Circuits

b)      Split between State SC’s


II.                 The Structure of Government:  Nation and States in the Federal Systems

A.     National Powers and Local Activities:  Origins and Recurrent Themes

1.           Federalism – Relationship between the State and Federal Gov’t.

a)      Categorical Approach

(1)   Pigeon Hole Federal & State Ownership

(2)   CT’s determine Ownership

(3)   Enumerated Powers of Federal Government.

(4)   Everything else belongs to States.

b)      Pragmatic Functional Approach

(1)   Goals & Purpose of Government

(2)   Gets away from Categorizing

(3)   Goal-measured.

(4)   What is the function of Government?

(5)   Prompted by collapse of Articles of Confederation

c)      SC – Picks & chooses which ones to use

d)      States

(1)   Promotes democracy by keeping power close to people.

(2)   Policies tailored to local needs, tastes.

(3)   Autonomy to organize as chose.  Experimentation.

e)      Federal Government

(1)   Provides for what States can’t provide; Defense

(2)   Avoids States creating negative externalities; exporting problems elsewhere

(3)   Avoids Balkanization – Trade wars between states.

(4)   Dealing with other Nations

(5)   Protection of Constitution & Principles

(6)   Mediate conflicts between states.

(7)   Prevent states from engaging in “race to bottom”.

2.           McCulloch v. Maryland

a)      Marshall - SC has ONLY authority to resolve issue.

b)      Source of Federal Power is the People.

c)      Ultimate Source of Power is the People.

d)      Within enumerated powers – Fed is Supreme.

e)      Constitution supports Supreme Powers

f)        Superior to States

g)      Necessary & Proper Clause

h)      Marshall – It’s a Constitution we are interpreting.

i)        Constitution doesn’t provide details; therefore

j)        Allows for Interpretation & IMPLIED Powers

k)      Incidental & Implied Powers to make enumerated powers.

l)        Marshall – creates Doctrine of Implied Powers

(1)         It’s a Constitution we are interpreting.

(2)         Framers left room for Interpretation

(3)         Federalist Papers

(4)         Establishes Strong Central Government

(5)         Necessary – Enlargement of Federal Powers

(6)         Necessary – Appropriate

(7)         Necessary – Convenient

(8)         “Let the ENDS be legitimate.”

(9)         Pretext – Proper beginning to achieve unfair end prohibited.

(10)     Plenary Power – Any power chosen by Congress

(11)     Power to tax is power to destroy.  One sovereign cannot hold power to destroy a higher sovereign.

3.           Implied Powers and the Necessary & Proper Clause

a)      Articles of Confederation

b)      Constitutional Convention

4.           National Bank

5.           Restraints on Congressional Power

a)      Political Safeguards

b)      Term Limits Case

(1)   J. Stevens – States can’t retain what doesn’t exist.

(2)   J. Thomas – States are repositories of all powers not vested in the Constitution to Federal Gov’t.  Strong supporter of States’ Rights, weak Federal Government.

III.               The Commerce Power

United States v. Lopez

A.     Development of the Commerce Power from 1824 - 1936

1.           Gibbons v. Ogden

a)      Power to regulate Interstate Commerce.

b)      Effects Test - Power to regulate Intrastate Commerce which affects Interstate Commerce.

c)      Broad-reaching Federal Powers

2.           Champion v. Ames – Lottery Case

a)      Were the ends proper?

b)      Pestilence

c)      Regulation of Morality

d)      Majority

(1)   Congress has power to limit evils

(2)   Plenary - Expanding Federal Powers

e)      Minority

(1)   Lottery Regulation is State Police Power Issue

(2)   Pretext Issue – Beyond Federal Powers

3.           Hipolite Egg v. U.S.

a)      Adulterated Food

b)      Federal Gov’t can adopt rules to protect the public.

4.           Hammer v. Dagenhut

a)      Child Labor Case

b)      Majority

(1)   Doesn’t affect IC. 

(2)   Thing being shipped is not evil.

(3)   Unfair competition between States.

(4)   Goods of Child Labor will compete with other ST laws.

c)      Holmes Dissent – If there is any evil, it is Child Labor

d)      Sets stage for future clash with FDR’s New Deal

5.           Schechter v. U.S.

a)      Code and Price Setting Case;  Attacks FDR’s New Deal

b)      SC

(1)   Doesn’t affect IC directly.

(2)   Effect on IC is indirect.

(3)   Constitution governs Direct Commerce.

(4)   Sale of chickens not IC, not Direct effect.

c)      Cardozo Concurrence

(1)   Delegation of legislative responsibilities to private parties.

(2)   Delegation will run riot.

(3)   Commerce – Sale of chickens not IC.

(4)   Rejects Categorical “Direct v. Indirect” approach.

(5)   Looks at the big picture and looks at whether there is a justification for Federal Regulation.

(6)   Balancing Approach - Judges must balance competing issues

6.           Carter Coal

a)      Regulation of Coal Mining Industry controlling prices and collective bargaining.

b)      Fed Gov’t. – National Issue & National Problem

c)      SC

(1)   Distinguishes labor relations and commerce.

(2)   Production v. Commerce Issue

(3)   Production can’t be regulated by Fed Gov’t. 

(4)   Local activities can’t be regulated by Fed Gov’t

(5)   Test

(a)    Commerce – Fed Gov’t Regulation

(b)   Production – State Gov’t Regulation

(6)   Powers of Fed Gov’t not expanded by Nat’l Problem.

d)      Dissent – Cardozo

(1)   Effects Test

(a)    What is the effect on IC?

(b)   Is it being applied evenly to not do harm?

(2)   Schechter went too far.

(3)   Carter Coal is appropriate use of CC.

7.           FDR’s Court Packing Plan/Threat

B.     Decline of Limits on the Commerce Power: 1937

1.           NRLB v. J&L Steel Corp.

a)      Test – Effect on Commerce and not Specific Case

If Substantial Effect – Fed. can regulate

b)      Overturns Schecter & Carter Coal

c)      Majority – Follows Cardozo’s Carter Coal decision

d)      Fed Gov’t follows up with

(1)   Throat of Commerce Test

(2)   Stream of Commerce Test - Some corps. Industries are so connected to the stream of commerce the effect Commerce and can be regulated.

e)      SC Test – Does it effect IC?

f)        Practical Effects Test – Determines power of Congress

2.           Wickard v. Filburn

a)      Allows Fed. to aggregate effect.

b)      Cardozo – Too remote to consider.

c)      Political arena has power to check Judicial responses if too far reaching.

3.           U.S. v. Darby

a)      Regulation of wage and hours in local manufacturing.

b)      SC Explicitly overrules Hammer Child Labor Case.

c)      Creates Broad Reaching Powers for Fed Gov’t.

d)      Lifts difference between production and commerce.

e)      Regulation of working conditions, not commerce.

f)        SC – Substantial Effects Test

g)      SC – Congress may pursue own Public Policy Goals.

h)      SC – People will serve as check to Congress

i)        SC – Pretext Language

(1)   If means are Police Power, Federal Regulation can be struck down.

(2)   If means are Commerce Power, Federal Regulations can’t be struck down.

j)        10th Amendment is a Truism;  All that the Fed has is All, but it isn’t a limitation.

4.           Darby Decision Outcome

a)      States are no longer barriers.

b)      10th Amendment is a Truism

c)      Congress and Federal Gov’t can affect all commerce.

d)      CC can be used to arrest Immoral Activities – Civil Rights

C.     External Limits on the Commerce Power

1.           State Autonomy

a)      U.S. v. Lopez

(1)   Tests

(a)    Channel of Interstate Commerce

(b)   Instrumentality of Commerce

(c)    Substantial Effects Test

(d)   Cardozo Balancing Test

(2)   How far should Fed v. ST rights go?

(3)   When does the Fed go too far?

(4)   SC puts breaks on Commerce Clause

(5)   J. Thomas Concurrence

(a)    Wants to return to pre-1937 Position

(b)   Manufacturing, production, labor not IC.

(c)    Supports Hammer Case

(d)   Narrow reading of CC.

(6)   J. Bryer Dissent

(a)    Substantial Effects Test

(b)   Significant Effects Test – Lower Standard.

(c)    Rational Basis – Congress Decides

(7)   SC

(a)    Strict Scrutiny

(b)   Intermediate Scrutiny

(c)    Rational Basis – Congress Prevails

b)      New York v. U.S.

(1)   Can Fed Gov’t induce States?  Yes

(2)   Case crosses line from inducement to coercion.

(3)   Dormant Commerce Clause

(a)    States can’t discriminate against other states.

(b)   But Congress can give states authority do so.

(4)   Fed can’t hand out money for unrelated reasons.

(5)   Fed Gov’t Pre-Emption Power – Take away and Regulate any industry it chooses to do so.

2.           Sovereign Concerns

a)      Printz v. U.S.

(1)   Brady Handgun Violence Act

(2)   Fed can commandeer ST CT’s to carryout Fed Policy.

(3)   Fed can’t commandeer ST/Local employees for Fed Policy enforcement.

3.           10th Amendment

D.     Federalism-Based Restraints on Other National Powers in the Constitution

1.           The Taxing Power as a Regulatory Tool

SC – Any revenue raising Tax is Permitted.

2.           The Spending Power as a Regulatory Tool

a)      U.S. v. Butler (1936)

(1)   SC

(a)    Invasion of States’ Rights

(b)   Fed can’t buy what can’t do directly.

(c)    Fed can’t induce by spending money.

(2)   Dissent

(a)    National Problem requires Fed Regulations

(b)   States can’t deal with problem individually

(c)    Exceptions

(i)                  Must be a “True National Problem”

(ii)                Can’t coerce ST control.

(iii)               Conscience of Congress

3.           War, Foreign Affairs, and Federalism

a)      South Dakota v. Dole

(1)   Drinking Age and Transportation Grants case

(2)   Congress Shoehorns Necessary and Proper Clause

(3)   Standard of Review

(a)    Power

(b)   No Limits

(4)   Express Limits – Spending Power

(5)   Emolument – Perks

(6)   Wraps spending with Necessary and Proper Clause

E.      Federal Limits on State Power to Regulate the National Economy

1.           State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause

DCC – Unexercised Federal Gov’t acts as restraint on ST Gov’ts


Commerce v. Police Power (all powers of state)

Purpose (Johnston’s concurrence in Gibbons)

Direct v. Indirect Test

States can regulate indirectly.

No clear roadmap to follow.

Direct v. Incidental

Local v. National

                Cooley Test – Newer SC following.

                National – Uniform

Rational Basis Test – State always prevails

a)      Early Developments

(1)   Gibbons v. Ogden

(2)   Wilson v. Blackbird Creek

(a)    Marshall applies Balancing Test

(b)   State’s interest greater than Fed’s Interests

(3)   Cooley v. Board of Wardens

(a)    Local pilots for PA waterways

(b)   Direct v. Indirect Test

(c)    Cooley Test

b)      The Modern Court’s Approach

(1)   Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

(a)    Is statute Discriminatory?

(b)   Incorporates all tests

(c)    State prevails if statute not discriminatory, very local and incidental.

(2)   Philadelphia v. New Jersey

(a)    Waste Management Case

(b)   SC

(i)      Protectionism – Always struck down

(ii)    Legitimate purpose, illegitimate means.

(iii)   Virtual Per Se Nullity

(iv)  Redline Issue – IC

(v)    Necessary & Proper Clause

(vi)  Pike Test

(3)   Waste Management Cases

(4)   Dean Milk v. Madison County, WI

(a)    Is it discrimination against IC?

(b)   SC – Doesn’t use Virtual Per Se Test; law applies to in-state and out-of-state products.

(c)    SC – Doesn’t use Rationality Test – Finding reasonable way to pursue issue.

(d)   Prior cases – Barrier imposed at ST border.

(e)    SC – Make other milk plants pay for Inspector travel costs.  Effects Test burden; Use the least discriminating method to resolve issue.

(f)     Pike Balancing Test

(i)      CT determines which options are best

(ii)    Bad to allow CT’s to decide options; Legislature & people should set & choose options.

(g)    Dormant Commerce Clause

(5)   Baldwin v. GAF Seelig

(a)    Economic protectionism for in-state producers.

(b)   Commerce Clause Themes

(i)      Economic Argument; efficiency, free flow of trade, promotes economic growth; Hamiltonian

(ii)    Balkanization Agreement; Barriers might split apart states; Potential for Economic Warfare.

(c)    Protectionism – ALWAYS Loses

(d)   Balancing Test – Used in Grey Areas

(6)   Hunt v. Washington State Apple Association

(a)    Practical Effect – Discrimination against out of state apple growers.

(b)   After Practical Effect BOP shifts to D to show

(i)                  Benefit to D/State

(ii)                No less restrictive method/ discrim.

(7)   Byrd v. City of Alexandria

(a)    Door-to-Door Salesmen prohibited

(b)   Pestilence theory

(c)    KEY:  SC deals with problems differently.

(d)   KEY:  Different practices at different times.

(8)   SC Highway v. Barnwell – Trucking Case

(a)    South Carolina prohibits large & wide trucks

(b)   J. Stone

(i)      Rational Basis Test – Okay if not discriminatory.

(ii)    Intra & Interstate is not discriminatory.

(iii)   Rely on legis & political process to resolve issues

(iv)  SC only intervenes when law is arbitrary or irrational.

(9)   Southern Pacific v. Arizona

(a)    Limits numbers on Rail Cars

(b)   DCC – No Federal Regulation

(c)    SC – Cooley Test – Local v. National Regs.

(d)   Rational Basis Test – Tipped in favor of AZ.

(e)    Rational Basis Test not used.

(f)     SC

(i)      Evaluates Multiple Factors

(ii)    Ultimately decides burden of free flow of commerce; Safety issues.

(iii)   Rejects Barnwell Non-Discrim. Test

(iv)  RR historically treated as Fed. Enterprise

(v)    Highway Regs treated as ST issue

(10)           Kassel v. Consolidated Freight

(a)    IA ST Reg prohibiting doubles > 60 FT

(b)   State Statutes – Given strong presumption of validity.

(c)    Safety v. Commerce Clause Balancing Test

(d)   SC

(i)      In part questions motives.

(ii)    Controlling Factor – Actual Intent

(iii)   Finds Protectionism

(iv)  Virtual Per Se Invalidity

(v)    If bona fide safety reg – Rational Basis Test; left to legis. to decide.

(e)    Dissent

(i)      Majority has overstepped bounds.

(ii)    IA law designed to keep trucks from damaging ST’s highways.

(11)           Exxon v. Maryland

(a)    MD ST divestiture law.

(b)   Not Discriminatory – All refiners affected.

(c)    Expectation – Virtual Per Se Invalidity

(d)   Outcome – MD Law upheld

(e)    Exxon is a Pestilence

(f)     Local Independent Dealers have Clout

(g)    Discriminatory law; but finds major problem is the Big Oil Refiners

(12)           Edgar v. MITE (1982)

(a)    SC strikes IL anti-takeover law.

(b)   Violates DCC

(c)    Interferes with Securities & Control of Corps.

(d)   Protectionist Model – Balancing Model

(e)    Market is Efficient

(13)           CTS v. Dynamics Corp (1987)

(a)    IN law discouraging takeovers

(b)   SC – Non-Discrim. because effects IN only.

(c)    Law aimed at NY Investment Bankers

(d)   SC – Tender Offers are Pestilence; Regs Okay.

(e)    NOTE: Inconsistency with Edgar case.

c)      The Market Participant Exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause

2.           The Privileges & Immunities Clause of Article IV

Prohibits discrimination by state against non-residents.

Promotes IC harmony.

Union through Individual Rights

Protection against Discrimination of Individuals.

National Citizenship – Right to Interstate Travel

Right to Employment protected by P&I Clause

P&I Test

1)                     ST must show substantial reason to discriminate (intermediate scrutiny); AND

2)                     Substantially Related

Least Restrictive Test = Strict Scrutiny; Rational Basis

a)      United Building v. City of Camden

(1)                  40% set aside required for City Public Works K’s

(2)                  NJ SC Rejects Statute – Discriminatory

(3)                  US SC

(a)    Reverses – City can use set aside.

(b)   P&I Clause extends to subdivisions of ST.

(c)    P&I Clause doesn’t apply to Market Participant

(d)   P&I only applies to certain Fundamental Rights

(e)    City can engage as Market Participant and attach strings to K’s; Not a Regulation.

3.           Congressional Ordering of Federal- State Relationships by Preemption and Consent

a)      Preemption of State Authority

PG&E v. State Energy Commission of California

(a)    Issues

(i)                  Is CA ban preempted by U.S. Act?

(ii)                Is there preemption?

(iii)               What is the extent of preemption?

(iv)              What is explicit & implicit?

(b)   SC – Can find preemption of National issue with limited scope.

(c)    Comparison to DCC.

(d)   What is traditionally done by States?

(e)    DCC – State traditions left to states.

(f)     Preemption – State traditions left to states.

(g)   Implicit Preemption – SC won’t interfere with Congressional intent.  Must have clear and implicit intent.

(h)    Fed – Safety Concerns; ST – Economic Concerns; roles reversed from traditional : Fed-Econ; ST-Safe

(i)      Real ST issue – Political reaction to fear of Nuclear

(j)     SC – Safety not enough to curtail construction.

(k)   Congress can grant power to States for DCC issues, but CAN’T grant P&I Clause power.

b)      Consent to State Laws


IV.              Separation of Powers

A.     The Authority to Make National Policy:  The Conflict between Executive Authority & Legislative Powers

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

a)      Truman seizes all steel mills after labor strike shut down.

b)      SC – Seizure not authorized by law

c)      President

(1)   Commander and Chief exercising power during Korean War.

(2)   Aggregate Powers – Inherent to President; beyond strict, literal reading in Article II.

d)      War Powers – Shared by Executive & Legislative Branches

e)      J. Frankfurter Concurrence

(1)   Look to Tradition

(2)   Experiential Interpretation

(3)   Past Presidential behavior becomes accepted over time.

(4)   Seizure may be allowed in future; but not now.

f)        J. Jackson Concurrence

(1)   FDR’s Attorney General

(2)   Defends FDR’s Seizure powers during WWII

(3)   Nature of Power Relationship

(4)   No clearly defined Bright Lines of Power

(5)   Independent & Interdependent

(6)   Too much Presidential power can lead to tyranny

(7)   Congress must maintain own power.

(8)   Congress must protect itself from Presidential Power

g)      Possible Alternatives

(1)   Grant from Congress – Only struck if outside powers; President at Peak of Power; Extreme approach

(2)   President defies Congress – Weakest (arguably strongest); Power so vested in President, even Congress can’t stop; Extreme approach

(3)   Presidential action in light of Congressional Inaction or silence.  Middle of the Road/Twilight approach.

h)      J. Vinson – Dissent

(1)   President should be able to act.

(2)   President is not a messenger boy.

(3)   Pragmatic approach.

(4)   President has power to do what he needs to do under the given circumstances.  Congress can check the power if necessary.

B.     Separation of Powers:  Congressional Encroachments on the Executive’s Domain.



Constitutional Law

Spring 2000

Professor George Garvey

Outline by

Christopher S. Lee



I.                    Separation of Powers

II.                 Individual Liberties

III.               Substantive Due Process

IV.              Takings Clause

V.                 Contracts Clause

VI.              Non-Economic Substantive Due Process

VII.            Equal Protection

VIII.         Freedom of Speech



NOTES:  Focus on


            Powers Exercised

            Limits on Powers

            Keep Like Principles with Like Cases


Case Types:

      Privacy – Abortion, Suicide, Marriage, Contraception







Identify Areas where Substantial Due Process Applied/Expanded

See:  Privacy, Work, Education, Race, Voting, Gender, and Ethnicity

Personal Autonomy protected, but not completely.

Note Potential for Reversals


Due Process

1.      Has the gov’t violated a person’s interest in life, liberty, or property?

2.      Does the right fall into marriage, child bearing/raising (fundamental)?

3.      What is the substantive due process right being violated?

4.      Is it a fundamental right being violated? (Privacy/Autonomy)

5.      Does the State have a necessary means to achieve a compelling end?

6.      Is the State or the Federal Government imposing the burden?

5th v. 14th Amendments


Equal Protection

7.      Is the government intentionally treating the class differently?

8.      Is there a legislative Classification?

9.      Is there discrimination?  One class being treated less favorably than another?

10.  Is it facial or as applied?

Facial – Statute textually discriminates

As Applied – How the statute is carried out

11.  Is the statute a state/local or Federal law?

12.  What level of review should be applied?




I.        Standard of Review

A.     Strict Scrutiny – necessary to achieve a compelling state interest

Means-End Test

State has burden of proof

B.     Intermediate Scrutiny – substantially related to an important state interest

C.     Rational Basis – rationally related to a legitimate state interest


II.     Substantive Due Process – all persons affected


“[n]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” 14th Amendment, Section 1.


Harlan’s Due Process Formula

1.      Liberty

2.      Any arbitrary imposition of purposeful restraint invalid

3.      Rational Basis Test

4.      Continuum

5.      Careful scrutiny of the standards asserted to justify their abridgment

6.      Eventually ratchets up to strict scrutiny


Interpretative v. Non-interpretative Modes – SEE Handouts


Contrast with Procedural Due Process – taking a person’s life, liberty or property.


A.     Fundamental Rights – Strict Scrutiny

1.      Privacy – Right to Privacy

2.      Personal Autonomy

3.      Voting

4.      1st Amendment

5.      Right to work/travel


Non-Economic Fundamental Rights

6.      Sex

7.      Marriage

8.      Child-bearing/rearing


Fundamental Right = Strict Scrutiny

Non-Fundamental Right = Rational Basis


B.     All other Cases – Rational Basis


1.      All Economic Statutes Upheld since 1937


2.      Slaughterhouse Cases

a)      14th Amendment protects

(1)   Class of  former slaves

(2)   not Class butchers

b)      P&I Clause – Substantive Rights – Only Nat’l Citizenship

c)      Holding – No relation to fundamental substantive right

d)      “Fundamental Rights Drain” on Equal Protection

e)      Traditional – Implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

f)        Modern – Fundamental to the American scheme of justice.


3.      Palko v. Connecticut

a)      Due Process implicit on “Ordered Liberty”

b)      Natural Law Approach – Fundamental inalienable rights.  Justices make decisions on own principles; fundamental rights.  God given laws

c)      Positive Law Approach – Law is what is written.  Written laws.


4.      Lochner v. New York – Due Process – Strict Scrutiny

a)      Life, Liberty, or Property

b)      Police Powers v. Individual Rights

c)      Health & Safety v. Labor/Property/K rights

d)      Majority – Strict Scrutiny; Property Rights prevail

(1)   Nature of Job requires long hours

(2)   Sui Juris – Adult men can take care of themselves

(3)   Women and children can have protection

e)      Harlan Dissent

(1)   Legality, not wisdom of the law.

(2)   Does the power exist?

(3)   Means/Ends Test

(4)   Real v. Substantive Relationship?  YES

f)        Holmes Dissent

(1)   Economic Theory

(2)   Social Darwinism

(3)   Laissez Faire

(4)   State must stay out of business issues

(5)   Let the political process decide


Rational Basis for Socio-Economic Laws

Strict Scrutiny for Fundamental Rights Laws


5.      Nebbia v. New York – Intermediate Scrutiny

a)      3 Decades after Lochner

b)      Follows Harlan’s Lochner dissent

c)      Health & Welfare v. Property Rights

d)      Scrutiny

(1)   Reasonable relation

(2)   Appropriate purpose

(3)   Not arbitrary or discriminatory


6.      Williamson v. Lee Optical – Rational Basis with a Vengeance

a)      Might have rational relation to a legitimate state interest.

b)      Almost no scrutiny exists.

c)      Legislatures given great deference.


7.      Carolene Products – Rational Basis; Filled milk case

a)      Minimal level of scrutiny.

b)      Political Process Rationale

c)      Discrete & Insular Minority

(1)   Limited Powers

(2)   Limited response from Legislature

(3)   Some groups can’t achieve results through political process; therefore Judiciary has special, protective responsibilities.

(4)    Power v. Economics; Politics v. Jobs/Income

(5)   Existence of facts support the legislative judgment is to be presumed.  But Discrete and Insular minorities have special protection when personal rights are burdened.


III.   Equal Protection – certain classes treated differently than others


“[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.”  14th Amendment


People who are similarly situated will be treated similarly.


Interpretive v. Non-Interpretative

Harlan – Non-Interpretative


Guarantee of Laws

Socio-Economic Laws – Rational Basis


Goal is to eliminate invidious discrimination, stigmas, and castes.

People should be judged on merit, not immutable traits or stereotypes.



A.     Suspect Classification – Strict Scrutiny


Must be Invidious discrimination of following classes


National Origin

Alienage (but not according to Garvey)


Suspect Class Traits



Political Powerlessness


1.      Race

a)      Purpose + Effect required – must demonstrate de jure discrimination before Strict Scrutiny will be applied.

b)      Gov’t must be acting with purpose of disadvantaging class.

c)      Circumstantial evidence may demonstrate Gov’t intent.

d)      Affirmative Action

(1)   Must eradicate past discrimination

(2)   Clear and convincing evidence

(3)   Types of Cases

(a)    College admissions

(b)   Construction contracts

(c)    Election districting


2.      National Origin – Rarely tested.


3.      Alienage – Frequently tested.


a)      Check for legal v. illegal aliens

b)      EXCEPTION:  Gov’t jobs general permit denial to aliens.


4.      Voting Rights

a)      Literacy Tests, Poll Taxes

b)      Strict Scrutiny


Suspect Classification - Intermediate Scrutiny

5.      Religion

6.      Gender

a)      U.S. v. Virginia Military Institute

b)      Invidious v. Benign

c)      Stereotypical laws usually struck

d)      Purpose required; No Effect required

7.      Legitimacy – Inheritance rights


Suspect Classification – Rational Basis

8.      Economic/Tax

9.      Social Welfare – Age, licenses, permits

10.  One Step at a time – Lee Optical – Rational Basis with a bite.

11.  Gay, Mentally Disabled – Rational Basis with a bite


B.     Not Suspect Classifications

1.      Age

2.      Wealth

3.      Education


C.     De Jure & de facto

1.      de jure – by law

2.      de facto – underlying intent of law


D.     School Integration

1.      Intentional Discrimination – Strict Scrutiny

2.      Remedies


E.      Benign Government Discrimination – Affirmative Action

1.      Remedy for Past Discrimination – Permitted

2.      No Past Discrimination – Permits narrowly tailored remedies

a)      Local Private Discrimination – United Jewish Organization

b)      Diversity in Public Schools – Bakke


F.      Discriminatory Legislative Apportionment

1.      Can’t be predominant factor

2.      Permitted if narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest


G.     Alienage

1.      Federal Classifications – Valid if not arbitratrary and unreasonable

2.      State Classifications – Strict Scrutiny

3.      Undocumented Aliens

a)      Not suspect class – Generally rational basis

b)      Undocumented alien children – Suspect Class


H.     Quasi-Suspect Classifications – Intermediate Scrutiny

1.      Gender

a)      Intentional discrimination against women invalid.

b)      Government must have Genuine interest – VMI

c)      Affirmative Action remedying past discrimination upheld.

d)      Intentional discrimination against men invalid.

2.      Legitimacy


I.        Disability

1.      Protected by statute, not by Constitution

2.      Immutable – favoring heightened scrutiny

3.      Difficult to identify class.

4.      History of abuse, benevolent and malevolent actions.

5.      Not a powerless group.

6.      SC – Not a special class

7.      Rational Basis with a bite.


J.       Strauder v. West Virginia – Strict Scrutiny

1.      Blacks excluded from juries.

2.      SC – Violation of Equal Protection Clause

3.      KEY – Broadens protect class from slaves to “ANY” Race


K.    Korematsu v. U.S. – Strict Scrutiny/1st Time

1.      SC Upholds race based discrimination on National Security issues.

2.      Dissent – Majority follows bad assumptions on race.


L.      Plessy v. Ferguson

1.      Separate but Equal doctrine upheld by SC.

2.      Harlan Dissent

a)      Can’t do Separate but Equal

b)      Notes discriminatory undertones.

c)      Goal is to keep blacks separated from whites.

d)      Sends out White Supremacy message.


M.   Brown v. Board of Education

1.      Strikes down Plessy v. Ferguson.

2.      “Separate but Equal” will no longer be tolerated.

3.      Criticizes Social Science data showing inferiority.

4.      Harlan Senior – Constitution is Colorblind


N.    Frontiero v. Richardson – Heightened Scrutiny

1.      J. Stone – Discrete & Insular minorities are entitled to protection

2.      Separated from rest of society.


O.    Craig v. Boren – Heightened Scrutiny

1.      3.2% alcohol case.

2.      Rehnquist Dissent

a)      Rational Basis

b)      Doesn’t like Intermediate Scrutiny

c)      Men aren’t disadvantaged class.


P.      U. of California v. Bakke – Intermediate Scrutiny

1.      Any Race is a suspect class.

2.      Individuals AND Group Rights protected

3.      Benign – Not to disadvantage anyone

4.      Remedial – Remedy for victims of past discrimination

5.      Quotas not permitted; Plus factors preferred.


Q.    Richmond v. J.A Croson Co. – Strict Scrutiny

1.      Must find compelling interest to remediate documented past discrimination.  Cannot use societal discrimination to justify.

2.      Extending preferences to other classes is overinclusive.

3.      Narrowly tailored remedies permitted for individual victims of past discrimination.

4.      Strict scrutiny applied to State/Local laws addressing stereotypes and racial politics.


R.     Adarand v. Pena – Strict Scrutiny

1.      Wealth is NOT a suspect class.

2.      Rigid, Narrowly tailored; sliding scale


S.      Harper v. VA State – Strict Scrutiny

1.      No absolute right to vote, BUT SC has found nexus to EP.

2.      Wealth in this situation can be a suspect class.

3.      Poll tax designed to exclude minorities from voting; Invidious

4.      Restricts right to participate in a democratic government.

5.      Dissent

a)      Traditional

b)      Reasonable for State to impose poll tax.


IV.  Fundamental Rights – Strict Scrutiny

A.     Right to Privacy

1.      Marriage – Griswold v. Connecticut

2.      Contraceptive Use – Carey v. Population Services Int’l.

3.      Abortion – Roe v. Wade

4.      Reading Obscene Materials – Stanley v. Georgia

5.      Extended Families – Moore v. City of East Cleveland

6.      Private Education – Pierce v. Society of Sisters

7.      No Right to Homosexual Acts – Bowers v. Hardwick


B.     Griswold v. Connecticut – Strict Scrutiny; Substantive Due Process

1.      Intimate relationship of husband and wife.  Narrowly tailored.

2.      J. Douglass - Zones of Privacy, Emanations & Penumbras

a)      Interpretivist view protecting:

(1)   Marital Relations

(2)   Marital Bedroom

3.      9th Amendment – Unenumerated Rights – J. Goldberg

4.      14th Amendment – Exist & Protected

5.      J. Black Dissent

a)      Strict Reading of Constitution

b)      Distains CT. law

c)      Finds no Constitutional right to strike law.

d)      Dislikes Natural law

6.      Natural Law v. Fundamental Rights

a)      Rooted in the conscience of the people.

b)      Right of married couple to decide to use birth control.

7.      Harlan – Ordered Liberty; Non-Interpretivist View

a)      Due Process Clause

(1)   Arbitrary laws invalid.

(2)   State Justification of restraint.

b)      Restraint comes from Judges

(1)   Shouldn’t hide decisions

(2)   Tradition accepts and rejects practices

(a)    Lochner dies

(b)   Myers/Pierce survives

c)      Fundamental Rights – Married couple’s decision

d)      Means – Harlan would uphold law passed to prevent immoral purposes.

e)      SC must define Due Process

f)        Strikes balance between Individual Liberty v. Civil Order.

g)      “Collective conscience of the people.”


C.     Roe v. Wade

1.      SC – Mother’s Privacy Interest v. State’s interest in Procuring Life

2.      Privacy v. Liberty Interest

3.      Personal v. State Interests

4.      SC rejects extremes and uses balancing test.

5.      Legal Positivism – Strict Reading of the Constitution

6.      J. Blackmun – Trimester System

7.      J. Douglass Concurrence – Non-Interpretivist

a)      Right to Privacy

b)      Quickening – Mother feels baby moving

8.      J. White & Rehnquist Dissent

a)      Rational Basis Test

b)      Substantive Due Process


D.     Planned Parenthood v. Casey

1.      O’Conner Plurality

a)      3 Keys

(1)   Liberty

(2)   Reasoned Judgment

(3)   Substantive Due Process

b)      Roe v. Wade survives

c)      Stare Decisis

d)      Liberty

(1)   Griswold

(2)   Marriage

(3)   Procreation

e)      Fundamental v. Non-Fundamental Rights

f)        Reasoned Judgment

g)      Substantive Due Process

h)      Woman’s Autonomy v. State Interests in Protecting unborn

i)        No longer follows trimester approach

j)        Cultural order which women make decisions upon

k)      No “Zones of Privacy” approach

2.      Harlan – Contrasted

a)      SC Defines Rights

b)      Use Balancing Test to decide

c)      Involves self-restraint

d)      Confines SC Powers

(1)   Separation of Powers

(2)   History

(3)   Traditionalism

3.      Scalia Dissent – Rational Basis

a)      National Issue; but can’t be resolved with Nat’l Abortion Code.

b)      Removal from political process stops compromise.

4.      Holding

a)      Woman has ultimate right to make decision; BUT

b)      State has interest and can regulate without undue burdens (anything preventing abortions).

c)      Spousal consent not required; all other items upheld.

d)      “Undue Burden” Scrutiny – Vague

e)      Strict Scrutiny test dropped.

f)        Trimester system dropped.


E.      Bowers v. Hardwick – Rational Basis on moral choices

1.      Brandies – Rights to

a)      Privacy

b)      To be left alone

c)      Personal Autonomy

2.      SC  - Homosexuality differs from marriage, family, procreation.

3.      Sodomy traditionally condemned; NOT a fundamental right.

4.      Chief J. Burger – Tradition & History brand sodomy as bad.

5.      J. Blackmun Dissent

a)      Right to Privacy

b)      Personal Autonomy, Liberty


F.      Right to Die – Clear & Convincing Evidence; Higher Standard of Proof

1.      Liberty Interests in choosing not to live.

2.      Leaves matters to State Legislatures.

3.      Cruzan Case

a)      Clear & Convincing Evidence may be required.

b)      Heightened Scrutiny

c)      Patient has supreme rights

d)      C/L – Unwanted medical treatment is battery.

4.      Washington v. Glucksberg

a)      No right to assisted suicide.

b)      Due Process Issue

c)      Deeply rooted in the nation’s history

d)      Due Process requires highly specific statutes

e)      Rational Basis


G.     Right to Vote

1.      Restrictions

a)      Residency – 30 day residency permitted

b)      No requirement to own property – Kramer v. Union Schools

c)      Poll Taxes Prohibited – Harper v. Va. Board of Elections

2.      Voter Dilution

a)      One person, one vote

b)      Racial Gerrymandering prohibited – Shaw v. Reno

c)      Political Gerrymandering prohibited, but P must show consistent dilution of voting power of particular group.


V.     Separation of Powers

Executive Powers – Article II, Section 1.


A.     Appointment and Removal of Officers

1.      J. White Dissent – Let branches experiment

2.      Morrison v. Olson – Permits removal of Independent Counsel by Pres.

3.      Mistretta v. U.S. – Permits 3 branch appointment in Sentencing Commission.


B.     Veto Power

1.      Clinton v. NY; overturns Line Item Veto

2.      Note competing Philosophies – Formalistic v. Innovative


C.     Executive Privilege/Immunity

D.     Impeachment


VI.  Takings Clause

5th & 14th Amendments – prohibits taking of private property “for public use without just compensation.”

Intermediate – Heightened/Strict Scrutiny

Higher burden on State to take without compensation


A.     Limitation of Power, not Grant.  Taking must be for public purpose and just compensation must be paid.


B.     Taking v. Regulation

1.      Economic Impact

2.      Extent of the Interference

3.      Nature of the Action



C.     Use Restrictions

1.      Denial of Economic Value – Lucas v. SC Costal Council

2.      Decreasing Economic Value – Pennsylvania Coal & Keystone cases

a)      Regulatory Taking – Heightened Scrutiny

b)      Health & Safety v. K Rights

c)      Balancing Test

3.      Zoning Ordinances – Penn Central – Intermediate Scrutiny

4.      Building/Development Permits – Nollan & Dolan cases

a)      Means-End Analysis

b)      Diminution of value no longer SC focus

c)      Dolan

(1)   Nexus

(2)   Rough Proportionality


VII.            Freedom of Speech

Categorical v. Balancing Test


A.     Content –

1.      Content-based Regulation – Strict Scrutiny

2.      Content-neutral Regulation - Intermediate Scrutiny


B.     Conduct

1.      Content-neutral – Time, place, and manner regulations permitted

2.      Public Forums Regulations must be narrowly tailored to meet an important government interest.

3.      Non-Public Forums Regulations must have a reasonable relationship to a legitimate regulatory purpose.


C.     Unprotected Speech

1.      Clear and Present Danger of imminent lawless action.


2.      Fighting words defined by narrow, precise statute.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Cohen v. California

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul


3.      Obscene – Child Pornography.

a)      SC Definition

(1)   Taken as a whole;

(2)   By the average person;

(3)   Applying contemporary community standards.

b)      Also

(1)   Appeals to prurient interest in sex;

(2)   Portrays sex in a patently offensive way;

(3)   Has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value using reasonable person standard


4.      Defamation via civil tort suit.

a)      Public figures must prove malice.

(1)   Knowledge of false stmt; or

(2)   Reckless disregard of truth or falsity

b)      Private figures must prove negligence


5.      False or deceptive advertising.

6.      Compelling government interest.