Page 1 of 29

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
I. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
A. Important Points on the Constitution:
a. The Exceptions Clause Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 Says that Congress an
hange the !rea"th o# the Supreme Court$s appe%%ate &uris"ition "oes not app%y to the
Supreme Court$s origina% &uris"ition '!ut Congress an put something in the SC$s
origina% &uris"ition into its appe%%ate &uris"ition(
!. The Supremac Clause Article !, Section 2 The Constitution) the %a*s that #urther
it) an" treaties o# the U.S. are the supreme %a* o# the %an" 'ontrary state %a*s *i%% not
pre+ai%(
. The E"ual #rotection Clause The $%th Amen&ment, Section $ ,e-uires states to
treat e-ua%%y a%% simi%ar%y situate" %asses o# peop%e
". 'ue #rocess Clause The (th Amen&ment SC has use" this %ause to "e%are that the
#e"era% go+ernment must a!i"e !y the e-ua% protetion measures spe%%e" out in the ./th
Amen"ment
e. 'ue #rocess Clause The $%th Amen&ment Use" to partia%%y inorporate some o#
the 0i%% o# ,ights 'see !e%o*(
#. The Necessar an& #roper Clause Article $, Section ), Clause $) 1ery important
to the 2Cu%%oh "eision 'see "isussion !e%o*(
g. Commerce Clause Article $, Section ), Clause 3 Congress has po*er to regu%ate
interstate ommere an" tra"e *ith other nations
h. The 'ue #rocess clause has a%so !een uti%i3e" to reogni3e unenumerate" rights %i4e
pri+ay ',oe +. 5a"e(
Usin* the selecti+e incorporation &octrine, the Court has incorporate& e+er
amen&ment sa+e these %, 2n& Amen&ment, 3r& Amen&ment, (th Amen&ment
re"uirement o- *ran& .ur, /th Amen&ment
II. 6UDICIA7 ,E1IE5
5hen Congress passes a %a*) t*o -uestions 8
.( 5as it *ithin one o# Congress$s %imite" enumerate" po*ers 'e.g. opyright po*er(9
:( Does it +io%ate someone$s rights9
A. 2ar!ury +. 2a"ison '.;<=(
a. 2ar!ury *ants a *rit o# man"amus #oring Seretary o# State 2a"ison to "e%i+er his
ommission
!. >ey Ho%"ing: 2ar!ury has a right to his ommission !ut the 6u"iiary At o# .?;@
*rong#u%%y ga+e the Supreme Court the po*er to issue 5rits o# 2an"amus
. Court has the ri*ht o- .u&icial re+ie0 other go+t. !ranhes must #o%%o* the ourt$s
interpretation o# onstitution
1ritii3e" as !eing ounter8ma&oritarian
". Court has no .uris&iction o+er purel political matters
e. Court has no origina% or appe%%ate &uris"ition *ith regar"s to *rits 'not %ai" out in Arti%e
III(
#. The 2ar!ury ho%"ing annot rest on the teAt o# the Constitution !eause the &u"iiary
Page 2 of 29
annot interpret the Constitution to inrease its o*n po*er 'this *ou%" ause iru%arity(
so 2ar!ury reates an un0ritten constitutional tra&ition
III. EBUA7 P,OTECTION OF THE 7A5S
A. Ear%y Deisions: The Centra%ity o# ,ae
a. Dred Scott v. Sandford '.;C?( 'ho%"ing that Dre" Sott is not a iti3en o# 2issouri #or
#e"era% "i+ersity &uris"ition) reasoning that the #ramers "i" not onsi"er !%a4 DpersonsE
as Diti3ensE) so !%a4s "i" not en&oy any rights o# iti3ens) suh as the right to !ring suit
in ourt. The Court "e%are" the at o# Congress prohi!iting s%a+ery in 7ouisiana
Territory unonstitutiona% !eause the Constitution eAp%iit%y guarantee" Dthe right o#
property in a s%a+eE #or t*enty years '*hih ha" eApire"((.
!. Slaughterhouse Cases '.;?=( 're&eting e-ua% protetion atta4 on 7A statute granting to
a sing%e ompany the eA%usi+e right to s%aughter %i+esto4) reasoning that it *as the &o!
o# the States rather than the #e"era% go+ernment to protet i+i% rights genera%%y) an" that
the Done per+a"ing purposeE o# the ./
th
Amen"ment *as Dthe #ree"om o# the s%a+e
raeFan" the protetion o# the ne*%y8ma"e #reeman F#rom the oppressions o# those
*ho ha" #ormer%y eAerise" un%imite" "ominion o+er him.E(
. Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan '.;?@( i# %a* "isa"+antages a %ass use heightene" means en&
scrutin 8 "o the means #it a ompe%%ing state interest9 'stri2in* &o0n or"inane
permitting sheri## to ut prisoners$ hair 'ue or"inane( !eause a%though the %anguage o#
the regu%ation *as #aia%%y neutra%) it *as %ear that the purpose o- the re*ulation *as to
impose an a""itiona%) "egra"ing punishment on Chinese prisonersG ues *ere a mar4 o#
re%igious #aith(.
0. D Separate !ut E-ua%E
a. Plessy v. Ferguson '.;@H( 'uphol&in* 7a. Statute re-uiring rai%roa"s to pro+i"e De"ual
3ut separate accommo&ations #or the *hite an" o%ore" raesE) 4arlan5s &issent:
purpose 0as &iscriminator
!. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka '0ro*n I( '.@C/( 'Stri2in* &o0n segregate"
shoo%s as 6inherentl une"ual,7 ho%"ing that *here the state separate e"uation
*enerates a -eelin* o- in-eriorit
C. Stan"ar"s o# ,e+ie* un"er the E-ua% Protetion C%ause
Strict Scrutin
a. App%ies 'SEE 2U,IIA( *hen %assi#iation
i. Inter#eres *ith eAerise o# #un"amenta% right 'prong ne+er use" !J i# statute +io%ates
onstitutiona% right) unonstitutiona% *Jo e-ua% protetion(
ii. Operates to peu%iar "isa"+antage o# a suspet %ass
iii. History o# purpose#u% une-ua% treatment
i+. Su!&et to "isa!i%ities on !asis o# stereotype" harateristis
+. Po%itia% po*er%essness 'nee"s protetion #rom po%itia% ma&ority(
!. Suspect classes: rae) o%or) ree") re%igion '99() 'gen"er() 'i%%egitimay( !ut NOT age
'Murgia() po+erty 'Maher() 'gen"er( nor seAua% orientation.
. To"ay app%ies to: Dany raia% %assi#iation su!&eting KaL person to une-ua% treatmentE
darand v. Pena '.@@C(
". TEST: a %a* must !e 6narro0l tailore& to -urther a compellin* state interest7
e. CASES
Page 3 of 29
i. !ore"atsu v. #nited States '.@//( 'uphol&in* an eA%usion or"er issue" !y mi%itary
omman"er re-uiring a%% persons o# 6apanese "esentMin%u"ing U.S. iti3ensMto
report to DAssem!%y CentersE) ho%"ing that the or"er *as !ase" on a pu!%i neessity
rather than raia% antagonismG 6apanese *ere a suspet %ass) !ut %a* &usti#ie" !y
nationa% seurity interests(.
ii. Loving v. Virginia '.@H?( 'stri4ing "o*n 1irginia$s misegenation statutes !eause
they Dprosri!e genera%%y aepte" on"ut i# engage" in !y mem!ers o# "i##erent
raesE an" that there is Dno le*itimate 8purpose in"epen"ent o# in+i"ious raia%
"isrimination *hih &usti#ies this %assi#iation.E(
Interme&iate scrutin, onl applies to *en&er9sex, ille*itimac &iscrimination
#. TEST: su3stantiall relate& to ahie+ement o# important *o+ernmental o3.ecti+es
Craig v. BorenG see a%so #.S. v. $irginia '12I ase( re-uiring Dexcee&in*l persuasi+e
&usti#iation.E
g. CASES
i. Bradwell v. %llinois '.;?=( 'upho%"ing I%%inois %a* "enying to *omen the right to
pratie %a*) reasoning that pratiing %a* *as not a pri+i%ege or immunity o#
iti3enship protete" !y ./
th
Amen"ment. 0ra"%ey$s in#amous onurrene: Dthe
natura% an" proper timi"ity an" "e%iay *hih !e%ongs to the #ema%e seA e+i"ent%y
un#its it #or many o# the oupations o# i+i% %i#e.E(
ii. Minor v. &appersett '.;?C( 'ho%"ing that a%though *omen are DpersonsE an"
Diti3ensE *ithin the meaning o# the ./
th
Amen".) the right to +ote *as not a pri+i%ege
o# U.S. iti3enship an" ou%" !e "enie" to *omen(.
iii. Craig v. Boren '.@?H( 'in+a%i"ating O4%a. Statute prohi!iting sa%e o# =.:N !eer to
men un"er :. an" *omen un"er .;) re&eting statistia% e+i"ene purporting to sho*
that ma%es !et*een .;8:< *ere a greater tra##i ris4 than #ema%es an" #in"ing that the
gen"er !ase" "i##erene *as not Dsu!stantia%%y re%ate" to the ahie+ement o# the
statutory o!&eti+eE(. Classification not class
i+. Mississippi #niversity for 'o"en v. &ogan 'in+a%i"ating a%% #ema%e a"missions
po%iy at shoo% o# nursing as +io%ating e-ua% protetion %ause sine the other p%aes
*here Hogan ou%" stu"y nursing *ere so #ar a*ay as to impose upon him Da !ur"en
he *ou%" not !ear *ere he #ema%eE '.@;:(
+. (.E.B. v. la)a"a e* rel '.@@/( 'ho%"ing that gen"er8!ase" peremptor challen*es
are unonstitutiona%(
+i. Michael M. v. Sono"a County Superior Court '.@;.( 'upho%"ing Ca%i#. statutor
rape statute ma4ing men !ut not *omen rimina%%y %ia!%e #or seAua% interourse *ith
#ema%es un"er .;) reasoning that the onse-uenes o# pregnany pro+i"e" a "eterrent
#or the #ema%e) an" that it *as reasona!%e #or the %egis%ature to De-ua%i3e the
"eterrentsE through rimina% santions on ma%es(.
+ii. #nited States v. $irginia '.@@H( 'in+a%i"ating ma%e8on%y a"missions at 12I #or lac2
o- an 6excee&in*l persuasi+e .usti-ication7 #or eA%u"ing *omen an" re&eting
1irginia$s propose" reme"y o# an a%% #ema%e 1irginia 5omen$s Institute #or
7ea"ership as Dune-ua% in tangi!%e an" intangi!%e #ai%itiesE(.
+iii.+guyen v. %+S ':<<.( 'upho%"ing INS ru%e re-uiring an un*e" iti3en #ather '!ut not
a iti3en mother( o# a hi%" !orn o+erseas to "emonstrate that there *as an
opportunity to #orm a re%ationship "uring the hi%"$s minority years !e#ore the hi%"
an !eome a iti3enG Dthe mother is a%*ays present at !irth) !ut the #ather nee" not
!e) KsoL the #aia%%y neutra% ru%e *ou%" sometimes re-uire #athers to ta4e a""itiona%
a##irmati+e steps Kto pro+e parenthoo"LE(.
1excee&in*l persuasi+e .usti-ication &rops out
Page 4 of 29
.usti-icator analsis must ser+e important *o+ernmental o3.ecti+es an&
3e su3stantiall relate& to o3.ecti+es
:ational 3asis re+ie0, applies to all other state actions
h. TEST: %assi#iation must !e 6rationall relate& to a le*itimate state purpose7
i. CASES
i. ,ailway E*press gency v. +ew -ork '.@/@( 'upho%"ing Ne* Oor4 regu%ation
a%%o*ing a"+ertising on tru4s use" #or "e%i+eries !ut prohi!iting them on tru4s use"
main%y #or a"+ertising(. No re"5mt that all e+ils o- same *enus 3e tac2le& at once;
ii. 'illia"son v. .ee /ptical '.@CC( 'upho%"ing O4%a. Statute prohi!iting optiians
#rom supp%ying %enses *ithout a presription #rom an optometrist or ophtha%mo%ogist)
arguing that Dre#orm may ta4e one step at a time) a""ressing itse%# to the phase o# the
pro!%em Fmost aute to the %egis%ati+e min"E(. No in+i&ious purpose;
iii. Minnesota v. Cloverleaf Crea"ery Co. '.@;.( 'upho%"ing 2inn. 7a* !anning sa%e
o# mi%4 in p%asti) nonreturna!%e ontainers !ut permitting sa%e o# mi%4 in paper!oar")
nonreturna!%e ontainers) ho%"ing that rationa% !asis is satis#ie" *hen there is a
theoretia% onnetion !et*een the %assi#iation an" the %aime" purpose) the
onnetion nee" not satis#y empiria% srutiny(. Nee& not 3e sensi3le;
i+. City of Cle)urne v. Cle)urne .iving Center '.@;C( 'stri4ing "o*n un"er rationa%
!asis re+ie* an or"inane re-uiring a speia% permit #or a group home #or menta%%y
retar"e" !ut not re-uiring one #or hospita%s) sanitariums) or nursing homes) #in"ing
that a!sent a "emonstration that the group home *ou%" Dthreaten %egitimate interests
o# the ity in a *ay that other permitte" usesF*ou%" notE) there *as no .usti-ication
other than 6irrational pre.u&iceE( <: court not reall usin* rational 3asis 39c
suspicious o- animus to0ar&s mentall retar&e&
+. FCC v. Beach '.@@=(: ha+e to upho%" statute i# any reasona!%y onei+a!%e rationa%
!asisG "oesn$t ha+e to !e atua% purpose
D. Other Issues in E-ua% Protetion
Sexual Orientation
a. Bowers v. &ardwick '.@;;( 'upho%"ing Ia. So"omy statute) #in"ing that there *as no
imp%ie" #un"amenta% right to engage in homoseAua% so"omy(
!. ,o"er v. Evans '.@@H( 'in+a%i"ating Co%ora"o Amen"ment :) *hih prohi!itie"
regu%ations entit%ing homoseAua%s to %aim "isrimination *as unonstitutiona% un"er
rationa% !asis(
.. Court says state interest is proteting iti3ens$ #ree"om o# assoiation not
%egitimate state interest
:. 0UT ourt is rea%%y suspiious that %a* !ase" on animus to*ar"s
homoseAua%s app%ies higher stan"ar" an" stri4es !eause o# "isriminatory
purpose
'iscriminator intent +s; 'iscriminator impact
. 'ashington v. Davis '.@?H( 8 ou ha+e to sho0 6in+i&ious purpose7 -or e"ual
protection claim= &isproportionate racial impact is not enou*h '0%a4s ha%%enge"
test a"ministere" to app%iants #or po%ie "ept. !eause higher proportion o# 0%a4s
#ai%e"( i# %egis%ation "oesn$t sing%e out a Dsuspet %assE) use rational 3asis test
". rlington &eights v. Metropolitan &ousing '.@??( 're&eting E-ua% Protetion %aim o#
raia% "isrimination *hen a 3oning permit *as re#use" #or the onstrution o# %o*
inome housing) !eause %aimants D#ai%e" to arry their !ur"en o# pro+ing that
&iscriminator purpose *as a moti+atin* -actorE(.
A--irmati+e Action
e. darand v. Pena '.@@C( 'raising a onstitutiona% o!sta%e to a##irmati+e ation po%iies
Page 5 of 29
!y re-uiring that strict scrutin 3 applie& to 6all racial classifications7> : A"aran"
trans-orms strict scrutin -rom a metho& o- smo2in* out in+i&ious purposes into
.usti-icator 3alancin* test. It hypothesi3es an e##et #rom a%% raia% %assi#iations
'perpetuation o# raia% stereotypes( ?in+erts Wasnin*ton +; 'a+is 0here e--ects 0ere
e+i&ence o- intent>
i. 6usti#iatory +ie* "oes ompe%%ing interest &usti#y %assi#iations9
#. @rutter +; Aolin*er ':<<=( "i+ersity is a ompe%%ing state interest 'uphe%" U 2ih 7a*
Shoo% a"missions po%iy that use" rae as a p%us #ator to ahie+e a ritia% mass o#
minorities un"er strit srutiny(
g. @ratB +; Aollin*er ':<<=( a"missions "eisions in%u"ing rae must sti%% !e
in"i+i"ua%i3e") not group8!ase" 'stru4 "o*n U 2ih a"missions po%iy that ga+e :<
point !onus to un"errepresente" minorities !eause it *as not narro*%y tai%ore"(
Aush +; @ore, ?2CCC> ',e+erse" F%ori"a Supreme Court$s or"er o# manua% reount(
i. Opinion #in"s e-ua% protetion +io%ation #un"amenta% rights prong
.. ,eount !eing on"ute" un"er Dintent o# +oterE stan"ar" +io%ates e-ua%
protetion
:. Di##erenes in *ays ounties ount +otes) so ar!itrary an" une-ua%
ii. No possi!%e reme"y !y De. .:
th
.. Impossi!%e to omp%ete reount in a *ay in aor" *ith e-ua% protetion
:. No !asis #or this "ate
=. Date is part o# sa#e har!or %a* that protets states #rom ha%%enges to
se%ete" e%etors) !ut "oesn$t re-uire se%etion !y then
I1. SEPA,ATION OF PO5E,S
A. A%%oation o# Po*ers !et*een the Fe"era% Io+ernment an" the States
.. 0a4groun"
a. 2Cu%%oh +. 2ary%an" '.;.@( state o# 2ary%an" sues 2Cu%%oh
'ashier( #or #ai%ing to pay a state taA %e+ie" on the !an4G Court ru%es the
U.S. an inorporate a !an4) !ut 2ary%an" annot taA it
i; Asserts supreme authorit o- US *o+ernment o+er
states
ii; <ust nee& le*itimate en&s an& appropriate means -or
act to 3e constiutional
iii. Neessary an" proper %ause "oes not restrit
ongressiona% po*ers
:. Commere Po*er Congress may regu%ate #or any reason 'DA,0O( an on%y
reah intrastate ati+ities that are eonomi in nature an" on%y #or purposes o#
a""ressing su!stantia% aggregate e##ets on IC
a. Ii!!ons +. Og"en '.;:/( #e"era% go+ernment an regu%ate
interstate ommere 'o+erturne" #erry monopo%y !et*een states(
i; Con*ress 0ill not re*ulate matters o- commerce that
are totall internal to othe states
!. U.S. +. EC >night '.;@C( Sherman At unonstitutiona% *hen
app%ie" to sugar ompany a-uisition !eause no po0er to
re*ulate manu-acturin*
i. Commere on%y in%u"es transport) not manu#aturing
. T*o Strategies o# Interpreting Congress$ Enumerate" Po*ers
Page 6 of 29
i. EC >night 8 7itera% is po*er *ithin enumerate"
po*er9) Non8purposi+e) ,estriti+e
.. Carter +. Carter Coa% Co. '.@=H( stru4 "o*n #e"era%
statute *ith prie8#iAing an" %a!or pro+isions !eause %a!or
not part o# ommere
:. Champion +. Ames '.@<=( uphe%" in"itment un"er %a*
prohi!iting interstate transport o# %ottery ti4ets 're+erse" !y
Hammer(
=. U.S. +. Dar!y uphe%" F7SA *hih prohi!ite" interstate
shipment o# goo"s ma"e un"er un#air *or4 on"itions !J
*ithin "e#inition o# Congress
a. O+erru%e" Hammer
3; Thro0s out DcCulloch purpose test; Allo0s
Con*ress to re*ulate Interstate Commerce -or ANE
reason;
ii. 2Cu%%oh EApansi+eG #urposi+e are en"s %egitimate9 'an$t
use ommere as preteAt #or non8%egitimate en"(
.. Shre+eport ,ate Cases '.@./( upho%" ICC setting rates #or
intrastate Da%%as8to 2arsha%% route !eause it a##ets
interstate ommereG can re*ulate intrastate commerce i-
it has a lar*e impact on interstate commerce
:. Hammer +. Dagenhart '.@.;( Congress an$t regu%ate
hi%" %a!or through interstate ommere %ause !eause
purpose is soia% %egis%ation not ommere 're+erse" !y
Dar!y(
a. Fa%%s un"er preteAt eAeption 'restriti+e si"e o#
2Cu%%oh(
!. 5ou%" upho%" un"er EC >night
. 5i4ar" +. Fi%!urn '.@/:( %oa% ommere an !e
regu%ate" i# it eAerts Dsu!stantia% eonomi e##etE on
interstate ommere 'upho%" pena%ty o# #armer *ho
gro*s *heat o+er -uota e+en though *heat inten"e"
#or persona% onsumption(
i. Aggregate e##ets prinip%e a%%o*s a%most
any at to #a%% *ithin po*er
ii. Heart o# At%anta 2ote% '.@H/( an"
>at3en!ah +. 2Chung 'upho%" %a*s
prohi!iting "isrimination in pu!%i
aomo"ations as +a%i" eAerise o# po*er to
regu%ate interstate ommere(
iii; Com3o o- Wic2ar& ?can re*ulate
intrastate acti+it> an& 'ar3 ?no
purpose> allo0e& Con*ress to re*ulate
anthin*
=. Ne* Dotrine %imits on ommere po*er
a. U.S. +. 7ope3 '.@@C( Congress$ authority to regu%ate ommere is %imite"
to economic effects that Dsu!stantia%%y a##etE interstate ommere 'as
oppose" to any e##et in aggregate un"er 5i4ar"( 'stru4 "o*n Iun8Free
Shoo% Pones At !eause "i" not regu%ate ommeria% ati+ity an"
Page 7 of 29
possession not onnete" to interstate ommere( :einstates DcCulloch
purpose tests
.. Is it eonomi ati+ity9
a. No8 %a* in+a%i"
!. Oes app%y 7ope3 "oes it su!stantia%%y a##et interstate
ommere9
:. Three ategories Congress an regu%ate
a. Channe%s o# interstate ommere
!. Instrumenta%ities o# interstate ommere
. Eonomi ati+ities ha+ing su!stantia% re%ationship to interstate
ommere
!. U.S. +. 2orrison ':<<<( "on$t e+en app%y test i# regu%ating non8eonomi
ati+ity e+en i# there are su!stantia% eonomi e##ets '1io%ene Against
5omen At is unonstitutiona% !eause gen"er8re%ate" rimes are not an
eonomi ati+ity(
. argues #or purposi+e test
.. Is purpose o# statute eonomi9
:. This is *hat ourt "oes in 7ope3) !ut "oesn$t say so
". No pro!%em *ith Tit%e 1II !eause eonomi ati+ity 'hiring an" #iring(
un"er 7ope3) !ut get pro!%em *ith $s purposi+e ana%ysis
/. Setion C o# the ./
th
Amen"ment 'ongress an en#ore e-ua% protetion %ause(
an" ..
th
Amen"ment
i. >at3en!ah +. 2organ '.@HH( 8 Setion C po*ers a%%o* Congress to stop
Din+i"ious "isriminationE 'uphe%" 1oting ,ights At *hih prohi!ite"
"isen#ranhisement o# Puerto ,ians !ase" on ina!i%ity to spea4 Eng%ish(
.. 7a* trying to pre+ent minorities #rom +oting
2; Con*ress can pre+ent unconstitutional &iscrimination in a
proportionate manner
ii. City o# 0oerne +. F%ores '.@@?( Congress annot "etermine su!stane o# ./
th

amen"ment un"er setion C po*er 'in+a%i"ate" ,e%igious Free"om ,estoration
At *hih re-uire" ompe%%ing interest #or any uni+ersa%%y app%ia!%e %a*
su!stantia%%y !ur"ening re%igion(
.. %a* says en#ore) not interpret an" "e#ine
:. Congress an on%y en#ore setion CG *hen it goes #urther an" tries to
impose re-uirements o# ./
th
amen"ment not re-uire" !y SC has
eAee"e" po*er un%ess "i" so to reme"y +io%ation 'purposi+e in-uiry(
an" %a* is ongruent an" proportiona% 'means8en" test(
(; Un0ritten States :i*hts
i. Ne* Oor4 +. Unite" States '.@@:( Congress annot &ust ompe% states to "o
something 'o+erturne" statute a!out "isposa% o# *aste(
ii. Print3 +. U.S. '.@@?( Con*ress can5t comman&eer state o--icers 'in+a%i"ate"
pro+ision o# 0ra"y At !e#ore nat. !a4groun" he4) responsi!i%ity o# state
%a* en#orement o##iers to he4 !a4groun"s o# gun !uyers(
iii. ,eno +. Con"on ':<<<( i# Congress imposes re-uirements on state ators that
are i"entia% to re-uirements on e+eryone its onstitutiona% 'uphe%" statute
re-uiring "is%osures o# persona% in#ormation in reor"s o# state motor +ehi%es
!eause o# genera% app%ia!i%ity(
!; Constitutional Immunit
i. Un"er ..
th
Amen"ment Dotrine) states ha+e immunity #rom i+i% suitsG Congress
annot "isp%ae immunity eAept *here E-ua% Protetion C%ause imp%iate"
Page 8 of 29
.. !e#ore .@@C) SC he%" ..
th
Amen"ment "i" not app%y to suits arising
un"er #e"era% %a*) &ust "i+ersity suits
:. interprete" ..
th
Amen"ment to say iti3ens an$t sue their o*n states
'e+en though amen"ment on%y says an$t sue iti3ens o# other iti3ens(
=. A%so app%ies to state ourts
/. thin4s amen"ment inten"e" to &ust app%y to "i+ersity suits
ii. 0oar" o# Trustees o# the Uni+ersity o# A%a!ama +. Iarrett ':<<<( Iarrett an$t
!ring suit #or "amages un"er the ADA !eause o# the ..
th
Amen"ment 'go+t. an
!ring ation to en#ore ADA) !ut iti3en annotG uphe%" %a* un"er ommere
%ause(
iii. Ne+a"a Dept. o# Human ,esoures +. Hi!!s ':<<=( re&et ha%%enge to money
"amages o# Fami%y an" 2e"ia% 7ea+e At as app%ie" to statesG satis#ie"
re-uirements o# ongruene an" proportiona%ity !eause gen"er merits higher
stan"ar"s o# re+ie*
0. A%%oation o# Po*ers *ithin the Fe"era% Io+ernment
i; #resi&ent as La0ma2er
.. U.S. +. Curtiss85right '.@=H( presi"ent has !roa"er po*ers than %iste"
in Arti%e II *hen #oreign a##airs in+o%+e" 'uphe%" reso%ution o# Congress
authori3ing Presi"ent to prohi!it sa%e o# armsG Curtis85right in"ite" in
onspiray to se%% arms to 0o%i+ia(
a. Ha" to "ea% here *J non8"e%egation "otrine) !ut no %onger goo"
%a*) so no* Curtis85right is an easy ase
:. Ooungsto*n Sheet Q Tu!e Co. +. Sa*yer '.@C:( 'pres. EAee"e"
onstitutiona% po*er *hen he "irete" Seretary o# Commere to sei3e
nation$s stee% mi%%s to ontinue stee% pro"ution "uring >orean 5arG must
at un"er statute or Constitutiona% po*ers(
a. 6a4son onurrene ontro%%ing authority 8 3 cate*ories 0hen
presi&ent acts
i; Express or implie& authoriBation o- Con*ress onl
unconstitutional i- -e&eral *o+t; lac2s po0er
ii; Con*ressional silence ?t0ili*ht Bone 3ecause 3oth
Con*ress an& pres; Da ha+e authorit> must 3e
0ithin presi&ent5s po0er
iii; Incompati3le 09 express or implie& 0ill o- Con*ress
unconstitutional unless presi&ent actin* 0ithin
plenar authorit
!. Not a Curtis85right ase !eause not *ithin omman"eer in
hie# po*ers
i. 6a4son says this is ategory = ase !eause Congress
*ithhe%" po*er
=. C%inton +. City o# Ne* Oor4 '.@@;( 'Court in+a%i"ate" D7ine Item 1eto
AtE !eause !eyon" Constitutiona% po*ers o# presi"entG an$t a%ter
Arti%e . Setion ? a!out ho* !i%% !eomes a %a*(
ii. Congressiona% De%egation to an" 1etoes o# A"ministrati+e Agenies
.. %itt%e onstraint on "e%egation o# authority to a"ministrati+e agenies
:. INS +. Cha"ha '.@;=( 'o+erturne" statute gi+ing one house o# Congress
po*er to oppose "eportation(
a; One 4ouse le*islati+e +etoes are unconstitutional ?con*ress
can5t ma2e en& run aroun& presentment clause>
Page 9 of 29
!. 7egis%ati+e po*er) so nee" to #o%%o* ru%es #or eAerises o#
%egis%ati+e po*er
. Court shi#ting #rom 2o"e . to 2o"e : ana%ysis an" saying using
2o"e . !eause %egis%ati+e po*er
i. ,ea% 9 seems to !e *hether po*er is he4e"
iii. Appointment an" ,emo+a% o# A"ministrati+e O##iers
.. 2yers +. Unite" States '.@:H( 'remo+a% o# postmaster %a*#u% "espite
statute re-uiring onsent o# SenateG statute *as un%a*#u% %imitation on
remo+a% po*er(
a. Note: Arti%e II) Setion :) %ause : on%y ta%4s a!out
appointment) not remo+a% o# o##iers
3; #resi&ent has po0er to remo+e executi+e o--icers
:. Humphrey$s EAeutor +. U.S. '.@=C( 'Statute sai" mem!ers o# FTC
ou%" !e remo+e" #or Dgoo" auseEG onstitutiona% !eause FTC has
%egis%ati+e #untion(
a; Con*ress can re*ulate #resi&ent5s po0ers o+er
a&ministrati+e o--icials
!. 2o"e . ana%ysis
. Not pure%y eAeuti+e o##ier as in 2yers
". Ioo" ause is "i##erent than atua%%y in+o%+ing se%# in remo+a%
=. 0o*shar +. Synar '.@;H( 'At a%%o*ing Congress to remo+e
Comptro%%er Ienera% o# IAO unonstitutiona% !eause ongress an on%y
remo+e o##ier harge" *ith eAeution o# %a*s !y impeahment(
a. EAeuti+e po*er use 2o"e .
/. 2orrison +. O%son '.@;;( 'pro+ision o# Ethis in Io+ernment At
a%%o*ing Congress to appoint in"epen"ent ounse% onstitutiona% !J "oes
not inter#ere *ith ro%e o# eAeuti+e !ranh(
a. 2o"e T*o "oes not inter#ere *ith presi"ent$s po*ers
!. O+erturne" reasoning in Humphreys 'mo"e .( !ut not outome
i. Congress an use goo" ause %imitation) !ut an$t
in+o%+e se%# in remo+a% po*er
. Does not pass 2o"e . !eause eAeuti+e #untion so shou%" go
to presi"ent
C. 2istretta +. U.S. '.@;@( 'Unite" States Sentening Commission *ith ?
mem!ers) = o# *hom are #e"era% &u"ges is onstitutiona%(
a. Commission ma4es %a*) !ut not separation o# po*ers pro!%em
!eause !a%ane o# po*er 2o"e T*o
!. ,e#%ets !rea"th o# "e%egation "otrine
H. ,ust +. Su%%i+an '.@@.( 'Uphe%" gag ru%e issue" !y Seretary o# Hea%th
prohi!iting "otors #rom a"+ising patients a!out a!ortion in #e"era%%y
#un"e" me"ia% %inis(
i+. Enemy Com!atants
.. ourt using 2o"e . separation o# po*ers ana%ysis) not he4s an"
!a%anes ana%ysis
:. Con#irms imp%iation #rom Ooungsto*n an" Curtiss85right that there is
something "i##erent a!out eAerise o# po*er a!roa"
+. Separation o# Po*ers Ana%ysis
.. 2o"e . Separation o# Po*ers 1ie* '0o*har) 2yers(
a. Is po*er eAeuti+e) %egis%ati+e or &u"iia%9
i. "i##iu%t to "etermine 'e.g. Ooungsto*n an" Cha"ha
ourt sai" %egis%ati+e) !ut "i##iu%t to "etermine *hy(
Page 10 of 29
:. 2o"e : Che4s an" 0a%anes 1ie* '2orrison) 2istretta(
a. Pre+ai%ing Approah No*
!. 6a4son$s onurrene in Ooungsto*n
=. I# you a"" up "emise o# non8"e%egation "otrine) 2yers an" Humphreys
'Congress annot in+o%+e itse%# in remo+a% o# eAe o##iers) !ut on%y
impose goo" ause %imitations( an" Cha"ha 're&etion o# one house
+eto() get +irtua%%y unhe4e" eAeuti+e po*er 'e.g. ,ust(
/. ma4es ase #or %egis%ati+e +eto !eause rep%iates Arti%e .) Setion ?
'i# ma&ority o# !oth houses an" presi"ent "on$t appro+e or :J= o# !oth
houses) "on$t ha+e %a*(
a. *Jo %eg. 1eto a"ministrati+e ageny an ma4e %a* that ma&ority
o# house or senate "on$t appro+e !eause nee"s :J= o# !oth
houses to o+erturn %a*
!. "oesn$t entire%y rep%iate Arti%e I !eause more "i##iu%t to get
+otes #or re&eting %a* than passing it
. ho*e+er) !e%ie+es Cha"ha outome orret !eause Congress not
"oing something %egis%ati+e in nature '2o"e .( ga+e
a"&u"iatory po*ers to se%#
C. nothing !ars eAeuti+e ageny or &u"iia% o##iers #rom ma4ing %a*G on%y
ategory prohi!ite" #rom eAerising po*er o# other !ranhes is Congress
a. Arti%e .) setion H) %ause : Congresspersons annot !e
o##iers un%ess they gi+e up seats
1. UNENUDE:ATE' :I@4TS, 4ISTO:ICAL 'EFELO#DENTS ?GEN>
A. The pri+i%eges or immunities %ause
a. Slaughter &ouse Cases '.;?=( >i%%e" the pri+i%eges or immunities %ause o# the ./th
amen"ment. PQI *as suppose to app%y the 0i%% o# ,ights to the states a#ter Dre" Sott)
!ut 2i%%er ru%e" that it on%y app%ie" to nationa% 'rather than state( iti3enship.
i. Fie%" "issent: point o# ./th$s PQI %ause *as to "isrupt the #e"era%Jstate re%ationship
an" gi+e these #e"era% rights to a%%.
ii. Pree"ent: 0i%% o# ,ights app%ies to states !eause o# the ./th$s Due Proess %ause.
0. Su!stanti+e Due Proess: Eonomi Interest Q the Pro!%em o# R,e"istri!ution$
Ae-ore Lochner, 'ue #rocess is proce&ural= economic su3stanti+e process 3orn 0ith
Lochner, !ut ear%ier ases set the stage
a. Dred Scott v. Sanford '.;C?( Congress ou%" not prohi!it s%a+ery !eause it ou%" not
"epri+e a US iti3en o# property &ust !eause his %oation has hange" "ue proess
+io%ation
!. Munn v. %llinois '.;??( 7a* #iAing maAimum harge #or grain8storage *arehouses 'run
!y a monopo%y( "i" not +io%ate "ue proess. The test o# *hether or not it +io%ate" DP
*ou%" !e *hether Dpri+ate property$ *as Ra##ete" *ith a pu!%i interest.$
. ,ailroad Co""ission Cases '.;;H( DKTheL po*er to regu%ate is not a po*er to
K"estroyL.E State annot re-uire a rai%roa" orp. to arry personsJproperty *Jo re*ar".
Cannot ta4e *Jo ompensation.
". Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific ,ailroad '.;;H( Corporations are peop%e *ithin
the DPC o# the ./th. opening "oor to ha%%enges to regu%ations !y orporations
e. Mugler v. Kansas '.;;?(: i# statute enate" to protet pu!%i hea%th or sa#ety has no rea%
or su!stantia% re%ations to those o!&ets) it is an in+asion o# rights an" "uty o# ourts to so
a"&u"ge
Page 11 of 29
#. Minnesota ,ate Case '.;@<( #irst time Court use" DPC to in+a%i"ate a state eonomi
regu%ation 'a state statute authori3ing a ommission to set #ina% rai%roa" rates(.
g. .ochner v. +ew -ork '.@<C( 7an"mar4 ase in+a%i"ating a NO %a* prohi!iting
emp%oyers #rom emp%oying *or4ers in !a4eries more than .< hrsJ"ay or H<hrsJ*4.
2aAimum hours ei%ing unonstitutiona%%y inter#ere" *ith the *or4ers an" emp%oyers$
right o# %i!erty o# ontrat. Themes: anti8paterna%ism 'go+$t shou%"n$t protet *or4ers(G
anti8re"istri!ution 'tait #ear o# soia%ism(G eAterna%ities are important 'i# the !rea" *as
poisone" !y !a" hea%th on"itions) then ourt *ou%" upho%" statute(. 'C0 ?.=(
i; Hun&amental Constitutional ri*ht to enter into contracts
ii; Suspicion o- la05s moti+e as potentiall socialist
iii. DOne o# the most on"emne" ases in US historyE 'Siegan) .@;<(.
i+. Ho%mes Dissent 'an !e ite" as %a*(: Case is "ei"e" un"er eonomi theory 'strit
%aisse3 #aire( *hih %arge part o# ountry "oes not entertainG onstitution not inten"e"
to em!o"y partiu%ar eonomi theory
Lochner Era ?$IC( to mi&1$I3CsJ> Court in+ali&ate& 2CC economic re*ulations un&er
$%th5s '#C; Hi+e1person ma.orit ten&s to stri2e &o0n pro1la3or, +a*uel socialist la0s,
la0s that are intereste& in health, sa-et, etc; ?CA /2%>
h. T*o maA. hour ases that ontra"it 7ohner:
i. Muller v. /regon '.@<;( Court uphe%" statute prohi!iting *omen in %aun"ries to
*or4 more than .< hours a "ay.
ii. Bunting v. /regon '.@.?( uphe%" a maAimum ten8hour *or4"ay #or #atory *or4ers
o# !oth seAes.
i. dair v. #S '.@<;( J Coppage v. !ansas '.@.C( Union ases: Court IN1A7IDATES
%egis%ation FO,0IDDINI emp%oyers #rom re-uiring *or4ers NOT to &oin a union. It is
Dnot *ithin the #untions o# the go+. KtoL ompe% any person in the ourse o# his !usiness
KtoL retain the persona% ser+ies o# another.E 'A"air(. Coppage: e##orts to %e+e% the
eonomi p%aying #ie%" *J unions !eyon" po%ie po*er.
&. dkins v. Children0s &ospital '.@:=( in+a%i"ate" minimum *age #or *omen.
4. Prie regu%ation unonstitutiona% in +arious #ie%"s '5i%%iams +. Stan"ar" Oi%) ,i!ni4 +.
20ri"e) Tyson Q 0rother +. 0anton(.
%. +ew State %ce Co. v. .ie)"ann '.@=:( in+a%i"ate" prohi!ition against ie manu#aturing
*Jo a erti#iate) i.e. %a*s restriting entry to !usiness unonstitutiona%.
'emise O- Lochner
Uni-in* theme is the Court5s intention test, i- the *enuine intent o- the re*ulation is to
protect health9sa-et9moral, then it 0as uphel&= i- intent 0as re1&istri3utional, then
re*ulation in+ali&ate& ?CA /2(>;
m. +e))ia v. +ew -ork '.@=/( Court uphe%" C8/ prie regu%ation '#or mi%4(. Contrat)
property rights) a!i%ity to engage in unrestrite" !usinessMa%% are not a!so%ute. DA state is
#ree to a"opt 0hate+er economic polic ma reasona3l 3e &eeme& to promote pu3lic
0el-are) an" to en#ore that po%iy !y %egis%ation a"apte" to its purpose.E
n. 'est Coast &otel Co. v. Parrish '.@=?( O+erru%e" A"4ins) uphe%" minimum *age #or
*omen.
o. 'illia"son v. .ee /ptical of /klaho"a '.@CC( Constitutiona% to re-uire
ophtha%mo%ogist 'not optometrists( to #i%% eyeg%ass presriptions. .. The le*islature not
the .u&iciar must 3alance the a&+anta*es o# this statute. :. Court *on$t use DPC to
stri4e "o*n any %a*.
p. Ferguson v. Skrupa '.@H=( States an !an "e!t a"&usting. Court #in"s that states shou%"
!e a!%e to %egis%ate against Din&urious praties in their interna% ommeria% an" !usiness
Page 12 of 29
a##airsE 'as %ong as it "oesn$t ontra"it #e"era% %a*( an" that it is the state le*islature
an& not the court that &etermines the reasona3leness o# this %egis%ation.
C. Inorporation
a. Barron v. Mayor 1 City Council of Balti"ore '.;==( 0arron sue" ity #or ruining his
*har# through the ity$s *ater "i+erting onstrution. Court he%" that the #irst eight
amen"ments "i" not app%y to states.
!. Murray v. &o)oken .and 1 %"prove"ent Co. '.;CH( Due Proess S D!y the %a* o# the
%an"E in 2agna Carta.
. Twining v. +ew (ersey '.@<;( In state ourt proseution) &ury instrute" that it might
+ie* the "e#en"ants$ #ai%ure to testi#y un#a+ora!%y. Se%#8inrimination is not !arre" !y
Due Proess an" the Cth Am. "oesn$t app%y to states.
". Palko v. Connecticut '.@=?( Dou!%e 6eopar"y not !arre" in state ourts) *here Cth
amen"ment "oes not app%y. 'o+erru%e" !y Benton v. Marlan! '.@H@((
e. da"son v. California '.@/?( A##irms T*ining. 6ustie Doug%as argues 'in "issent( #or a
ne+er a"opte" theory o# Tota% Inorporation './th inorporate" a%% o# the pree"ing
amen"ments(. '2a%%oy +. Hogan %ater o+erru%e" T*ining(.
#. Duncan v. .ouisiana '.@H;(: Inorporate" Hth Amt right to &ury tria% through ./th amt.
g. Benton v. Maryland '.@H@(: No Dou!%e 6eopar"y 'inorporate" Cth(
h. ,o)inson v. California '.@H:(: inorporate" ;th: no rue% an" unusua% punishment.
i. Schil) v. !ue)el '.@?.(: Inorporate" ;th: No eAessi+e !ai%
&. 'olf v. Colorado '.@/@(: The /th amt protetions against po%ie intrusion inorporate"
4. ,oth v. #S '.@C?(: .st amt inorporate" !ut not as se+ere%y #or states
A-ter the $I!Cs ?'uncan>, the Court hel& that incorporate& ri*hts applie& to states in the
same manner as to the -e&eral *o+ernment;
All o- the Aill o- :i*hts -rom $1) incorporate& a*ainst the states 0ith -our exceptions 2
n&
, 3
r&
,
@ran& <ur clause o- (
th
, /th
1I. UNENU2E,ATED ,IIHTS: THE ,IIHTS OF P,I1ACO '>EN(
A. SeA) Contraeption) A!ortion
Cases
a. Meyer v. +e)raska '.@:=( Court in+a%i"ate" Eng%ish8on%y %a* #or grammar shoo%s)
arguing that it +io%ate" the ./th$s DPC$s %i!erty to 6en*a*e in the common occupations
in li-e,7 inclu&in* learnin*, marrin*, ha+in* a home, 3rin*in* up chil&ren, etc;
!. Pierce v. Society of Sisters '.@:C( In+a%i"ate" state statute re-uiring pu!%i rather than
pri+ate shoo%s. Inter#ere" *J li3ert o- parents to &irect up3rin*in* o# hi%"ren.
. 2riswold v. Connecticut '.@HC( Iris*o%" 'EAeuti+e Diretor o# P%anne" Parenthoo")
CT( +io%ate" a CT statute prohi!iting the use o# "rugs) me"iines) or instruments #or !irth
ontro%. The Supreme Court ru%e" #or Iris*o%") ho%"ing that the statute impinge" on an
unenumerate& ri*ht o- intimate association an& pri+ac. The right omes #rom the
Dpenum!rasE o# se+era% Amts. in the 0i%% o# ,ights: the right o# pri+ay o# assoiation 'in
the .st) #rom NAACP +. A%a!ama() the prohi!ition o# -uartering so%"iers '=r"() the
prohi!ition on searh an" sei3ure '/th() the se%#8inrimination %ause 'Cth() an" the
genera% suggestion that there are unenumerate" rights '@th(.
". Skinner v. /klaho"a '.@/:( An O4%ahoma at *ou%" steri%i3e any Dha!itua% rimina%E
*ho ha" ommitte" se+era% D#e%onies in+o%+ing mora% turpitu"e.E S4inner sto%e hi4ens
Page 13 of 29
an" *as t*ie on+ite" o# ro!!ery *ith #irearms. Doug%as in+a%i"ate" the At) ho%"ing
that ..( it +io%ate" the E-ua% Protetion C%ause 'an em!e33%er *ho sto%e T:< *ou%" not !e
steri%i3e" !ut someone *ho sto%e T:< *orth o# hi4ens *ou%" !e() an" :.( it +io%ate" the
-un&amental ri*hts to ha+e o--sprin*.
e. Eisenstadt v. Baird '.@?:( Court in+a%i"ate" a 2A statute prohi!iting !irth ontro% sa%es
to unmarrie" persons. E-ua% Protetion 1io%ation 'treate" marrie" an" unmarrie" peop%e
"i##erent%y() so 0rennan uses the rational 3asis test. DI# the right o# pri+ay means
anything) it is the right o# the in"i+i"ua%) marrie" or sing%e) to !e #ree #rom un*ante"
go+ernmenta% intrusion into matters so #un"amenta%%y a##eting a person as the "eision
*hether to !ear or !eget a hi%".E
#. ,oe v. 'ade '.@?=( 7an"mar4 a!ortion ase that %ega%i3e" a!ortion in the #irst trimester
i. 0%a4mun: ,ight to pri+ay in%u"es the *oman$s "eision *hether or not to
terminate pregnany. The ./th Amt or the @th Amt$s guarantees to pri+ay in%u"e a
*oman$s right to hoose. 5oman$s right is not a!so%ute !ut li2e other
6-un&amental ri*hts,7 re*ulation limitin* these ri*hts can onl 3e .usti-ie& 3 a
6compellin* state interest7 an& i- it is 6narro0l &ra0n7 to express onl those
interests: the state has a ompe%%ing interest in proteting the hea%th o# mothers
'#etuses ho*e+er are not peop%e(. The #irst trimester is the Dompe%%ing pointE a#ter
*hih the state an &usti#ia!%y pre+ent an a!ortion !eause o# the #etus$s Dapa!i%ity
o# meaning#u% %i#e outsi"e the *om!.E
ii. Ste*art Conurrene: a *oman$s right to an a!ortion is in%u"e" in Eisensta"t$s right
o# the in"i+i"ua% against un*arrante" go+ernment intrusion.
iii. Doug%as onurrene: Ninth Amt. "oes not reate #e"era%%y en#orea!%e rights.
Suggests instea" three Dtime8honore" rightsE #rom the D0%essings o# 7i!ertyE in the
pream!%e to the Constitution: ..( autonomous ontro% o+er se%#8"e+e%opmentG :.(
#ree"om o# hoie in !asi %i#e "eisions 'marriage) "i+ore) e"uation) et.(G =.(
Free"om o# hea%th an" person.
i+. 5hite "issent: Nothing in %anguage or history o# Constitution to support this.
+. ,ehn-uist "issent: This is 7ohner a%% o+er again. 0%a4mun$s argument is
inonsistent: the ourt on%y nee"s to out%a* statutes that pre+ent %i#e8sa+ing a!ortions
'*hih *ou%" onstitute go+ernmenta% intrusion(. A%so) the ma&ority o# states restrit
a!ortion) suggesting that it isn$t roote" in the Amerian tra"ition o# !e%ie#s. The
"ra#ters "i" not inten" to santion a!ortion 'origina%ist(.
g. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey '.@@:(
i. O$Connor) >enne"y) Souter: 5ea4ens !ut a##irms ,oe$s essentia% ho%"ing) *hih the
Court sees as: ..( right to a!ortionG :.( State po*er to restrit a!ortion a#ter #eta%
+ia!i%ityG =.( State has %egitimate interests in proteting the hea%th o# *oman an" %i#e
o# #etus. ,oe om!ine" t*o %ines o# "eisions: ..( Iris*o%"$s %i!ertyG :.( ru%e o#
persona% autonomy an" !o"i%y integrity. 0eause ,oe$s #atua% un"erpinnings ha+e
not hange" 'un%i4e 5est Coast Hote% Co. '*hih signa%e" the en" o# 7ohner( or
P%essy() stare "eisis ana%ysis suggests that the Court annot signi#iant%y a%ter ,oe$s
ru%ing. To o+erru%e ,oe) there#ore) *ou%" se+ere%y *ea4en the ourt$s %egitimay.
a. rep%aes strit srutiny e+a%uation *ith 6un&ue 3ur&en7 stan"ar": *hen
a Dstate regu%ation has the purpose or e##et o# p%aing a su!stantia% o!sta%e in
the path o# a *oman see4ing an a!ortion o# a non+ia!%e #etus.E
!. re&ets trimester #rame*or4
. ,egu%ations that are mere%y strutura% or that #urther a *oman$s sa#ety
are permitte".
". ,oe is rea##irme". DState may not prohi!it any *omen #rom ma4ing the
u%timate "eision to terminate her pregnany !e#ore +ia!i%ity.E
Page 14 of 29
e. A#ter +ia!i%ity) State an regu%ate or prosri!e a!ortion to sa+e a
mother$s %i#e.
#. Pro+ision re-uiring that physiians in#orm patients is not an un"ue
!ur"en. A4ron an" Thorn!urgh o+erru%e" to the eAtent that they ontra"it this.
A :/8hr *aiting perio" is a%so not an un"ue !ur"en.
g. spousa% onsent not re-uire" !eause o# possi!i%ity o# spousa% a!use.
Constitution protets #rom un*arrante" intrusion #rom go+ernment an"
hus!an".
h. Parenta% onsent pro+ision is not an un"ue !ur"en.
ii. 0%a4mun 'onurringJ"issenting in part( State restritions on a!ortion +io%ate a
*oman$s pri+ay !y ..( imposing su!stantia% physia% intrusions an" ris4s o# physia%
harm) an" :.( "epri+es a *oman$s right to ma4e her o*n "eisions a!out
repro"ution Q #ami%y p%anning. Doesn$t %i4e :/ hour *aiting perio". ,egu%ation to
in#orm pu!%i "oes not #urther the state$s interest in proteting materna% hea%th. 'other
opinions optiona%(
h. Stern)erg v. Carhart ':<<<( Court he%" that a statute !anning partial13irth a!ortions
*as unonstitutiona%: ..( no %ause proteting the mother$s %i#eG :.( impinges on *oman$s
a!i%ity to hoose to ha+e a DQE 'as oppose" to a DQU( a!ortion 'un"ue !ur"en(. 'other
opinions optiona%(
i. Bowers v. &ardwick '.@;H( Court uphe%" a Ieorgia statute !anning so"omy. No
pri+ac9association9marria*e ri*hts -rom past cases appl to homosexual so"omy.
DKNLotions o# mora%ityE are enough to ma4e this pass the rationa% !asis test. 'other
opinions optiona%(
&. 7a*rene +. TeAas ':<<=(: SC "e%are" TeAas statute ma4ing same seA so"omy a rime
in+a%i" !ase" on the "ue proess %auseG o+erru%e" 0o*ers +. Har"*i4G "i" not use e-ua%
protetion groun"s
4. Moore v. City of East Cleveland '.@??( Court in+a%i"ate" or". %imiting the "*e%%ing
oupany to mem!ers o# the same #ami%y. Court eAamine" Dthe importane o# the
go+ernmenta% interest a"+ane" an" the eAtent to *hih they K*ereL ser+e"E an" #oun"
that the or" +io%ate" the ./th Amt. DKTLhe Constitution pre+ents East C%e+e%an" #rom
stan"ar"i3ing its hi%"renMan" its a"u%ts.E Anti8tota%itarian %anguage in opinion.
Su!stanti+e "ue proess) D!asi +a%ues o# soiety.E
%. 3a)locki v. ,edhail '.@?;( Court in+a%i"ate" 5isonsin statute prohi!iting un*e"
parents to marry i# they "i" not pay hi%" support. 1io%ate" -un&amental ri*ht to marr.
No ompe%%ing state interest to pre+ent marriages.
m. Boddie v. Connecticut '.@?.( Court in+a%i"ate" %a* re-uiring in"igents to pay ourt #ees
an" TH< to get a "i+ore. 'ue #rocess Fiolation 3ecause it con&itione& ri*ht o-
marria*e on economic status.
n. ,o)erts v. #.S. (aycees '.@;/( Uphe%" 2innesota statute !arring seA "isrimination) in
app%iation to the a%%8ma%e 6ayees. Court argue" that the 6ayee$s right to assoiation an"
se%#8"e#inition *as not as strong as that o# a marriage or #ami%y) sine it %a4e" sma%%ness)
se%eti+ity) an" se%usion. Aalancin*.
o. 'ashington v. 2lucks)erg '.@@?( Prohi!ition o# euthanasia o4ay un"er ./th amt. Not a
#un"amenta% right in US tra"ition. S%ippery s%ope onerns. 'other opinions optiona%(.
p. Tro*el v. 2ranville ':<<<( 5A %a* a%%o*ing +isitation rights any time #oun"
unonstitutiona% !eause it ignore" the mother$s onerns #or the sa#ety o# her hi%".
Suggests a $%th Amt; ri*ht o- a parent to control the care9custo& o- chil&.
-. Shapiro +. Thompson '.@H@( T*o states an" DC has passe" %a*s "enying *e%#are to
resi"ents *ho ha" not resi"e" *ithin their &uris"itions #or at %east one year.
Unonstitutiona% restrition on ri*ht to tra+el. 1io%ate" e-ua% protetion *ithout
ompe%%ing state interest.
Page 15 of 29
r. Saen3 +. ,oe '.@@@( Ca%i#ornia ga+e *e%#are !ene#its to ne* resi"ents #or #irst year o#
resi"ene at same rate as in origina% state. SC sai" this +io%ate" pri+i%eges an" immunities
%ause o# the ./
th
amen"ment.
8TN %a* imposing one8year *aiting perio" #or +oting *as #oun" unonstitutiona%G
ourt sai" it "i"n$t matter i# tra+e% atua%%y "eterre") !ut that %a* pena%i3e"
eAerise o# right
1II. F,EEDO2 OF SPEECHJF,EEDO2 OF ,E7IIION
A. Suggeste" he4%ist #or assessing speeh %aims:
Is it a state actor suppressin* the speechJ
K:emem3er that HA applies to *o+ernment action onlLpri+ate in&i+i&uals can punish
people -or expressionM
'oes the speech -all into a cate*or o- unprotecte& speechJ
KSpeech -allin* into these le*al cate*ories can 3e 3roa&l re*ulate& accor&in* to its content
0ithout tri**erin* strict scrutinM
a. O!senityM5or4 appea%ing to prurient interest) "esri!ing seAua% on"ut in a Dpatent%y
o##ensi+e *ayE AND %a4ing a%% re"eeming soia% +a%ue. ,u%e o# thum!MHar" ore porn
is o!sene) mere nu"ity isn$t. Pro#anity isn$t either anymore 'see Cohen +. Ca%i#ornia(
!. A"+oay o# I%%ega% Con"utMAran&en3ur* test, Intent to incite ille*al con&uct N
imminence o- threat N li2elihoo& o- outcome N actual commission o- ille*al acts;
. Frau"u%ent 2isrepresentation
". 7i!e%JDe#amationMSee NOT an" Iert3.
e. Fighting 5or"sMSee ,A1 an" 2ithe%%.
#. Commeria% SpeehM Iets partia% protetion *hih %oo4s %i4e TP2 test.
I- the communication occurs merel throu*h con&uct rather than 0or&s, &oes it meet the
Spence test -or expressi+e con&uctJ
#articulariBe& messa*e
Li2el to 3e un&erstoo& 3 au&ience
g. I# not) then no FA +io%ation an !e #oun".
h. I# yes) "oes regu%ation in -uestion satis- the three ore e%ements o# the O5Arien test9
4as to 3e 0ithin *o+ernment po0er
4as to su3stantiall -urther si*ni-icant *o+ernment interests
Unrelate& to suppression o- expression
Least restricti+e means 'ne+er atua%%y app%ie" SC muh more
%enient(
Note, This is essentiall the time, place an& manner test, applie& to con&uct;
Hor protecte& speech, as2 0here &oes the speech occurJ
i. I# on pu!%i property) is it a pu3lic -orum9 KIs it a tra!itionall !esignate! p%ae o#
assem!%y or ommuniationMpar4s) streets) si"e*a%4sMor has it !een opene! up for
pu"lic !iscourse !y go+ernment ation9L. See Da+isJHague.
i. I# yes) proee" to norma% ontent8neutra%ity test to "etermine stan"ar" o# srutiny
ii. 5ithin non8pu!%i #orums) suh as airport termina%s) mi%itary !ases) an" go+ernment
o##ies) regu%ation must satis#y mere rationa%8!asis test an" may a%so nee" to !e
+ie*point neutra%.
&. I# on pri+ate propert) treat same as pu3lic -orum) proee" to ontent8neutra%ity test.
NOTE: Internet is not go+t o*ne" so it$s pro!a!%y treate" as same as pu!%i #orum or
Page 16 of 29
pri+ate property.
Is the re*ulation content1neutralJ 'oes the re*ulation ma2e an sense 0ithout 2no0in*
somethin* a3out the messa*e the spea2ers are con+ein*J
4. I# no) app%y %assi strit srutiny test) stri4ing "o*n regu%ation un%ess it is neessary to
#urther a ompe%%ing state interest an" narro*%y tai%ore" to ahie+e that en".
%. I# yes) app%y time, place, an& manner test.
i. Content8neutra%
ii. Narro*%y tai%ore" to meet a signi#iant go+ernment interest 'though not neessari%y
the %east restriti+e means Ksee 5ar"L(. 2ust not p%ae su!stantia%%y unneessary
ini"enta% !ur"ens on speeh.
iii. 7ea+es open amp%e a%ternate hanne%s o# ommuniation.
0. $s ta4e on First Amen"ment 'FA( in a nutshe%%
a. Spene test unsatis#atory: Art an" ineApressi!%e emotions o#ten "o not on+ey
partiu%ari3e" messages. A%so) peop%e may not inten" to ommuniate) !ut that shou%"
sti%% !e protete".
!. Shou%"n$t as4 *hether on"ut *as inten"e" to !e eApressi+e !ut rather *hether state
inten"e" to restrit "ue to its eApressi+e potentia%. Thus) an prohi!it someone #rom
trying to !%o* up the 5hite House) !J this on"ut) *hi%e potentia%%y an eApression o#
po%itia% #rustration) is not prosri!e" "ue to its ommuniati+e ontent.
. Cannot ma4e sense o# O$0rien test #or eApressi+e on"ut *ithout re&eting the !a%aning
approah an" open%y a"opting a purposi+e approah.
". Nee" a non8onse-uentia%ist approah to speeh to un"erstan" *hy a"+oay o# i%%ega%
atsJthreats goes unprotete" yet other "angerous speeh %i4e pornography or hate speeh
remains protete" 888the rea% reason *hy porn regu%ations are stru4 "o*n is that the go+t
is aiming at the eApressi+e message there an" that$s impermissi!%e. It$s not that porn
isn$t harm#u% enough.
e. $s *ay o# eAp%aining unprotete" speeh: 5e re-uire imminene o# harm !e#ore *e an
regu%ate pure speeh888thus) onspiray) agreement to i%%ega% on"ut) assau%t) #ighting
*or"s are a%% so intert*ine" *ith rime as to ma4e them punisha!%e. 0ut impat o# a
!oo4 is #ar too #ar remo+e". Fa%se statements o# #at are a%so unprotete" '%i!e%) per&ury)
#rau"() e+en *hi%e #a%se i"eas are protete".
#. 0a%aning test en"s up !eing ar!itrary !J ourts ha+e to "etermine *hat$s a ompe%%ing
interest) *eigh this against the +a%ue o# gi+en type o# speeh. He pre#ers an in-uiry into
the purpose !ehin" the %a*. State shou%" ha+e to re!ut presumption that it$s atua%%y
targeting speeh or e%se %a* annot stan". The !a%aning approah %ea"s to rappy)
unreasone" "eisions suh as 0oy Souts.
C. >ey ases *J #ous on urrent "otrine rather than historia% e+o%ution
a. Spence v. 'ashington '.@?/( Court o+erturns on+ition #or improper use o# #%ag)
arguing that suh sym!o%i "isp%ays shou%" !e a##or"e" First Amen"ment protetion as
speeh pro+i"e" that they on+eye" a particulari#e! message that *as li$el to "e
un!erstoo! !y an au"iene.
%Spence test 3a& 3ecause it loses art ?+er in-re"uentl has clear messa*e>
an& not har& to satis- ?spee&er 0ho sas I5m expressin* messa*e>
!. #nited States v. /0Brien '.@H;( O$0rien !urne" "ra#t ar" in +io%ation o# #e"era% %a*.
Court #in"s %a* onstitutiona%
i. Artiu%ates 3alancin* test #or regu%ations o# eApressi+e on"ut:
ii; Dust -urther an important or su3stantial *o+ernmental interest
iii; That interest must 3e unrelate& to the suppression o- -ree expression
Page 17 of 29
E
A
p
r
e
s
s
i
+
e

C
o
n
"
u

t
i+; The inci&ental restriction on alle*e& Hirst Amen&ment -ree&oms is no *reater
than is essential to the -urtherance o- that interest
+. Court %aims it "oesn$t onsi"er purpose) !ut this %ea"s to an inoherene !eause
purpose is *hat it$s rea%%y %oo4ing at on%y *ay to ma4e sense o# step V: a!o+e
. Te*as v. (ohnson '.@;@( an" #S v. Eich"ann '.@;@( The #%ag8!urning ases. 0oth
statutes "eeme" ontent8!ase" !J they aime" at the ommuniati+e impat o# "e#i%ing or
"e#aing a #%ag. EAamp%e o# ontent8!ase" speeh restritions !eing su!&ete" to strit
srutiny an" in+a%i"ate".
". City o# Erie +. Pap$s A.2. ':<<<( Uphe%" Erie) PA or"inane !anning pu!%i nu"ity
sai" to protet pu!%i hea%th) sa#ety an" *e%#are 're"ue +io%ene) harassment)
prostitution) sprea" o# STDs) et.( or&inance aime& at harm-ul secon&ar e--ects
e. 'est $irginia State Board of Education v. Barnette '.@/=( an" 'ooley v. Maynard
'.@??(
i. 0arnette ma"e it i%%ega% to ompe% shoo%hi%"ren to sa%ute #%ag an" reite p%e"ge o#
a%%egiane. 5oo%ey a%%o*e" "ri+ers to o+er up the Ne* Hampshire %iense p%ate
motto D%i+e #ree or "ieE.
ii. State annot ompe% eApression or en"orsement o# ertain !e%ie#s. Fits *ith anti8
omman"eering theme.
#. &oole v. Manar!: NH annot rimina%%y punish in"i+i"ua%s *ho o+er up state motto
D%i+e #ree or "ieE on their %iense p%ates ompe%%ing interest stan"ar"
g. Branden)urg v. /hio '.@H@( At >>> ra%%y) %ea"er 0ran"en!urg ma"e +ague threats
to*ar" go+t an" a%%u"e" to a marh on 5ashington. He *as on+ite" un"er Ohio$s
rimina% syn"ia%ism statute. Court o+erturns on+ition in per uriam "eision.
i. Ne* test #or *hen a"+oay is unprotete" speeh. / parts:
a. Intentiona% a"+oay o# %a*%essnessG
!. a"+oay must a%% #or imme"iate or imminent %a*%essnessG
. %a*%essness must !e %i4e%y to ourG
". that it in #at must our. Ca+eat that ops an inter+ene i# it$s &ust a!out
to our. 0ut %oo4ing !a4 on an e+ent) an$t punish i# no i%%ega% on"ut e+er
ame o# it.
ii. Su!se-uent "eisions ha+e uphe%" these riteria:
h. &ess v. %ndiana '.@?=(: Court re+erse" the on+ition o# a man *ho shoute")D5e$%% ta4e
the #u4ing street %ater)E "uring an anti8*ar "emonstration) !J his a"+oay *asn$t
imminent.
i. +CP v. Clai)orne '.@;:(' 0eause +io%ene ne+er ensue" 'i.e. prong V/() Court
re+erse" state ru%ing that !oyott o# *hite !usinesses *as i%%ega% !eause an NAACP
o##iia% sai" i# D*e ath any o# you going in any o# them raist store) *e$re gonna !rea4
your "amn ne4.E
i. 2ere a!strat teahing o# the propriety or e+en mora% neessity o# +io%ene is not the
same as preparing a group #or +io%ent ation.
&. "erican Booksellers ssociation v. &udnut '?
th
Cir. .@;C( In"ianapo%is anti8
pornography statute "e#ine" pornography as "epiting su!or"ination o# *omen an"
!anne" it. 7a* unonstitutiona% +ie*point "isrimination. 'Di"n$t app%y 0ran"en!urg
ou%" ha+e sai" "i"n$t ha+e intentiona%ity an" imminene(.
4. Schneider v. State '.@=@( Court he%" in+a%i" an anti8%ittering %a*. Content neutra%) !ut
not narro*%y tai%ore" !J no nee" to pre+ent a%% "istri!ution o# han"!i%%s.
%. Martin v. City of Struthers '.@/=( Court o+erturne" a %a* against "oor8to8"oor
4no4ing !y 6eho+ah$s 5itnesses. Content neutra%) !ut not narro*%y tai%ore" !J ou%"
ha+e re%ie" on tra"itiona% %ega% ru%es against harassment to so%+e pro!%em.
m. !ovacs v. Cooper '.@/@( Court uphe%" an or"inane prohi!iting use o# soun" tru4s in
streets. Content8neutra% an" passes time) p%ae an" manner test.
Page 18 of 29
A
"
+
o

y

o
#

I
%
%
e
g
a
%

C
o
n
"
u

t
C
o
n
t
e
n
t

n
e
u
t
r
a
%
)

!
u
t

n
o
t

n
a
r
r
o
*
%
y

t
a
i
%
o
r
e
"
C
o
n
t
e
n
t

n
e
u
t
r
a
%
)

p
a
s
s
e
s

T
)

P

a
n
"

2

t
e
s
t
n. U.S. +. Irae '.@;=(: %a* !anning signs promoting parites) orgs or mo+ements in #ront o#
SC is in+a%i". Si"e*a%4 is a Dpu!%i #orumE so go+ernment$s a!i%ity to restrit eApression
is +ery %imite". Can onl en-orce T#D i- content1neutral, narro0l tailore& an&
lea+e open ample alternati+e channels;
o. 2rayned v. ,ockford '.@?:(MCourt uphe%" or"inane prohi!iting any person #rom
ma4KingL noise or "i+ersion on si"e*a%4s *ithin .<< #t o# shoo% proee"ings that
"istur!s those proee"ings. Content neutra%) passe" T) P an" 2 test.
p. City of .adue v. 2illeo '.@@/( Court he%" that ity annot prohi!it homeo*ners #rom
"isp%aying signs on their property. No amp%e a%ternati+e hanne%s o# ommuniation as
re-uire" in T) P an" 2anner test.
-. 'ard v. ,ock gainst ,acis" '.@;@(MCourt upho%"s NOC regu%ation re-uiring use o#
ity8pro+i"e" soun"s systems an" tehniians #or onerts. ,egu%ation passe" T) P) 2
test. Importane o# this ase is that it a""resses more %ose%y the issue o# narro*
tai%oring: DK0ut soL %ong as the means hosen are not su!stantia%%y !roa"er than neessary
to ahie+e the go+ernment$s interest) KtheL regu%ation *i%% not !e in+a%i"FE
r. (avis v. MA '.;@?( Court uphe%" or"inane #or!i""ing pu!%i a""ress on 0oston
Common. 'Da+is on+ite" un"er or"inane(. Ho%mes sai" %a* not aime" at #ree speeh)
!ut mo"es un"er *hih Commons may !e use".
s. &ague v. C%/ '.@=@( o+erru%e" Da+is) in p%ura%ity opinion !y ,o!erts. Distinguishe"
!et*een pu!%i property that is a pu!%i #orum +s. non8pu!%i. ,o!erts$ "ita esta!%ishe"
the Dtime immemoria%E test) stating that pu!%i #orums are those *hih ha+e tra"itiona%%y
!een "esignate" spaes #or pu!%i "isourse) %i4e streets) par4s) si"e*a%4s.
t. City of ,enton v. Playti"e Theatres '.@;H( City ou%" %imit p%aement o# a"u%t
theatres) !eause it$s targeting seon"ary e##ets) not the atua% ontent o# the #i%ms
sho*n.
i. SC pretn&e& la0 0as content1neutral so &i&n5t use strict scrutin, 3ut reall
content13ase&
ii. 7ater) in 0oos +. 0arry '.@;;( Court sai" that D%isteners$ reations to speeh are not
the type o# Rseon"ary e##ets$ *e re#erre" to in ,enton.E An important %ari#iation
to the perniious ,enton "eision. In+a%i"ate" #e"era% statute *hih prohi!ite"
"isp%ay o# signs *ithin C<< #t o# em!assy i# they *ou%" !ring #oreign go+ernment
into "isrepute.
u. City of .os ngeles v. la"eda Books ':<<:(MCourt uphe%" a ity or"inane
prohi!iting more than one a"u%t esta!%ishment #rom operating out o# the same !%"g.
P%ura%ity 'OConnor) ,en) Sa% Q Th( sai" it$s the same as ,enton) >enne"y$s
onurrene a"mits that it$s ontent8!ase" !ut says purpose is not to target speeh.
+. %nternational Society for !rishna Consciousness v. .ee '.@@:( Court in+a%i"ate" a
!an !y the Port Authority on the sa%e or "istri!ution o# %iterature in airports) !ut uphe%"
the !an on so%iitation. 2a&ority he%" that airports are not pu!%i #ora. One test is
*hether something has !een "e+ote" #rom Dtime immemoria%E to pu!%i eApression. 0ut
a seon" is *hether it$s !een intentiona%%y opene" up !y its reators to suh ati+ity.
*. rkansas Educational Television Co""ission v. For)es '.@@;( 88AETC eA%u"e"
For!es #rom partiipating in a te%e+ise" "e!ate. 0J this *as a se%eti+e aess program)
it *as not a pu!%i #orum an" there#ore regu%ation nee"e" on%y to !e reasona!%e. Court
upho%"s For!es$ eA%usion.
A. ,osen)erger v. ,ector and $istors of #$ '.@@C( )n+o%+es "is!ursement o# uni+ersity
#un"s #or seu%ar !ut not #or re%igious ati+ities. Unonstitutiona% +ie*point
"isrimination.
y. Miller v. California '.@?=(: 2i%%er on+ite" un"er CA rimina% o!senity statute.
O3scenit not protecte& 3 $
st
amen&ment;
*est'
Page 19 of 29
P
u
!
%
i

F
o
r
u
m

S
e

o
n
"
a
r
y

E
#
#
e

t
s
N
o
n
8
p
u
!
%
i

F
o
r
a
Appeals to prurient interest
'epicts or &escri3es sexual con&uct as &e-ine& 3 applica3le
sate la0
Lac2s serious literar, artistic, political an& scienti-ic +alue
3. FCC v. Pacifica '.@?;(: Ieorge Car%in$s DFi%thy *or"sE regu%ate" !y FCC. FCC an
regu%ate !roa"ast that is o##ensi+e !ut not o!sene !eause a+ai%a!%e to 4i"s.
aa. Sa)le Co""unications %nc. v. FCC '.@;@(: #e"era% statute proh!iting "ia%8a8porn is
unonstitutiona%. Other means to #u%#i%% interest o# proteting hi%"ren.
!!. #.S. v. Play)oy ':<<<(: At re-uiring a!%e operators to sram!%e porn or %imit sho*ing
to .< pm to H pm unonstitutiona%. Sine sram!%ing is eApensi+e) most operators %imite"
hours. Content13ase& restriction so use strict scrutin nee& least restricti+e means.
Court "oes not use %east restriti+e means.
. shcroft v.. Free Speech Coalition ':<<:(: Statute prohi!iting porn *ith omputer8
generate" 4i"s is unonstitutiona%. Io+ernment "i"n$t sho* onnetion !et*een +irtua%
porn an" seA a!use o# 4i"s. Prospet o# rime "oesn$t &usti#y suppression o# protete"
speeh.
"". Chaplinsky v. +ew &a"pshire '.@/:(: Uphe%" on+ition o# man *ho ye%%e" angry
*or"s %i4e Dyou are a go" "amne" ra4eteer.E Hi*htin* 0or&s are unprotecte&;
ee. ,$ v. St. Paul '.@@:(88 Court in+a%i"ates or"inane that prohi!its !urning o# ross)
s*asti4a or other sym!o% that auses anger on !asis o# rae) o%or) re%igion or gen"er.
7imits speeh so%e%y on !asis o# su!&et manner. Can5t re*ulate -i*htin* 0or&s 3ase&
on content;
##. 'isconsin v. Mitchell '.@@=(88Court upho%"s on+ition un"er hate8rime %a* o# !%a4
teen *ho suggests !eating up *hite 4i"s a#ter *athing 2iss. 0urning. Court si"esteps
its norma% !a%aning test !y saying this is not eApressi+e on"ut) there#ore no FA %aim.
thin4s this is height o# FA insanity. As4 instea" *hether the guy *as punishe" #or
eApression an" the ans*er is %ear%y no.
gg. 1irginia +. 0%a4 ':<<=( 1A ross !urning statute unonstitutiona%
8go+ernment ou%" !an A77 ross !urning *ith intent to intimi"ate) !ut annot
say ross !urning is prima #aie e+i"ene o# intent 'this e##eti+e%y prohi!its any
ross !urning(
hh. +-T v. Sullivan '.@H=(MCourt #in"s that NOT annot !e sue" #or in&ury to 2ontgomery
o##ia%s$ reputation *ithout proo# o# atua% ma%ie !J these are pu!%i #igures an" to #in"
other*ise *ou%" ause se%#8ensorship) p%aing a hi%%ing e##et on #ree"om o# press.
De!ate o+er pu!%i issues shou%" !e ro!ust an" *i"e8open. Li3el is 6lo0 +alue7 speech
not no +alue speech;
ii. 2ert4 v. 'elch '.@?/(: NOT ru%e "oesn$t app%y to pri+ate peop%e. Stan"ar" #or pri+ate
#igures is %o*er.
&&. Cohen v. California '.@?.(MDFu4 the Dra#tE ase. Pro#anity !y itse%# is not o!sene
an" there#ore "eser+es protetion.
44. +CP v. la)a"a '.@C;(MNAACP not #ore" to "is%ose mem!ership %ists !eause
this *ou%" ha+e hi%%ing e##et on #ree"om to assoiate) a First Amen"ment right in#erre"
#rom the right to spea4 an" the the right to assem!%e. ,are ase o# a #aia%%y neutra% %a*
o# genera% app%ia!i%ity !eing in+a%i"ate") !ut this #its *ith $s emphasis on suspete"
purpose o# the %a*. See a%so NAACP +. 0utton) a%%o*ing group !oyotting.
%%. ,o)erts v. (aycees '.@;/(MCourt uphe%" 2inn. Human ,ights At *hih #ore" 6ayees
%u! 'a not #or pro#it( to hange its a%%8ma%e po%iy. Free"om o# eApressi+e assoiation
not a!so%ute888must gi+e *ay to state$s su!stantia% interest in en"ing "isrim. To*ar"s
*omen. State ation is not targeting eApression o# ma%e +a%ues an" the group$s !asis
ree" has not !een su!stantia%%y !ur"ene". Essentia%%y) this is an O0rien test on
Page 20 of 29
H
a
t
e

S
p
e
e

h
J
F
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

5
o
r
"
s
eApressi+e on"ut. 7ea+es open -uestion o# *hether Na3i groups ou%" prohi!it 6e*s.
mm. Boy Scouts of "erica v. Dale ':<<<(M0eause the a"mission o# a gay
soutmaster *ou%" serious%y impair the organi3ation$s a!i%ity to promote its message)
state$s interest in e%iminating "isrimination "oes not here out*eigh the right o#
eApressi+e assoiation. 5hy is the state$s interest in pre+enting the !urning o# "ra#t ar"s
su##iient to stop eApressi+e on"ut) !ut "isrimination against gays isn$t9
nn. $illage of Schau")urg v. Citi4ens for Better Environ"ent '.@;<(MDoor to "oor
so%iitation is protete" "espite its ommeria% harater !J it$s inherent%y intert*ine"
*ith in#ormati+e an" persuasi+e speeh e%ements.
oo. 2ooding v. 'ilson '.@?:(MFighting *or"s may on%y !e prosri!e" i# they ha+e "iret
ten"eny to ause +io%ene. IA %a* in -uestion *as too +ague an" a%so o+er!roa".
Tightens the ru%e in Chap%ins4y) remains goo" %a* on #ighting *or"s.
D. Bui4 Iui"e to 7i!e%:
Compensatory "amagesG pu!%i #igure
ACTUA7 2A7ICE stan"ar" app%ies. NOT +.
Su%%i+an.
Puniti+e "amagesG pu!%i #igure Possi!%y no
%ia!i%ity at a%% ' not sure() !ut "e#inite%y at %east
atua% ma%ie
Compensatory "amagesG pri+ate #igure
"epen"ing on the state %a*) it has to !e at %east
neg%igent an$t !e strit %ia!i%ity. Iert3 +.
5e%h
Puniti+e "amagesG pri+ate #igure ha+e to
sho* atua% ma%ie 'NOT() 0UT i# it$s not a
matter o# pu!%i onern) you "on$t nee" to
sho* atua% ma%ie to reo+er puniti+e
"amages.
E. Other 2is Topis:
Esta3lishment Clause ?i*nore& in class>LAasic test is the Lemon test, -rom .e"on v.
!urt4"an; A+oi&s esta3lishment clause +iolation 3 meetin* a1c;
a. Io+t must ha+e a seu%ar %egis%ati+e purpose
!. Primary e##et must not !e a"+ane re%igion
. 2ust not #oster eAessi+e go+t entang%ement *ith re%igion 'ie !y a%%o*ing re%igious
!o"ies to per#orm i+i "uties) et(
Hree Exercise
Intentional 3ur&ens *et strict scrutin; Unintentional impact on reli*ion, see Smith; Dust
3e -aciall neutral la0 o- *eneral applica3ilit an& can5t ha+e in&i+i&ualiBe& exemptions;
Hree Exercise Clause protects reli*ious con&uct as 0ell as 3elie-s;
O+er3rea&th
This &octrine allo0s exception to *eneral rule o- stan&in* 39c liti*ants can claim
o+er3rea&th 0ith respect to some ima*ine& other part rather than .ust themsel+es;
Fa*ueness
La0 can 3e struc2 &o0n i- reasona3le person 0oul& ha+e to *uess at its meanin*;
:i*ht to spea2 on others5 pri+ate propert
In *eneral, no HA ri*ht to ha+e access to another5s pri+ate propert in or&er to spea2;
Thus, there is no HA ri*ht to spea2 in shoppin* centers K4u&*ens +; NL:A, uphol&in*
trespassin* la0s as means o- stoppin* anti10ar protesters in a shoppin* mallM
Page 21 of 29
1III. CONSTITUTION AND 5EA7TH
A. E-ua%i3ing Po%itia% Speeh
a. Mia"i &erald v. Tornillo '.@?/( 'in+a%i"ating F%ori"a$s Dright o# rep%yE statute as a
+io%ation o# the .
st
Amen"ment *hih impermissi!%y Dompe%%Ke"L pu!%ishers to pu!%ish
that *hih Rreason$ te%%s them shou%" not !e pu!%ishe"E(.
!. ,ed .ion Broadcasting v. FCC '.@H@( 'upho%"ing D#airness "otrineE re-uiring ra"io
an" te%e+ision !roa"asters to pro+i"e an atta4e" person an opportunity to respon"
'Dpersona% atta4 ru%eE( an" #urther re-uiring that a !roa"aster *ho en"orses a
an"i"ate) must pro+i"e the oppose" an"i"ate an opportunity to rep%y 'Dpo%itia%
e"itoria%i3ing ru%eE(. The Court emphasi3e" the sarity o# !roa"asting #re-uenies as
&usti#iation #or Dre-uiring a %iensee to share his #re-ueny *ith others an" to present
those +ie*s an" +oies *hih are representati+e o# his ommunity an" *hih *ou%"
other*ise F!e !arre" #rom the air*a+es.E
. Buckley v. $aleo '.@?H( 'upho%"ing ampaign #inane restritions on Dontri!utionsE to a
an"i"ate$s ampaign) !ut in+a%i"ating %imits on DeApen"ituresE #or po%itia% a"+ertising.
The interests in a+oi"ing orruption an" the appearane o# orruption *ere "eeme"
su##iient to &usti#y the ontri!ution %imits) !ut neither these interests nor a "esire to
e-ua%i3e aess to po%itia% speeh *ere #oun" to &usti#y the eApen"iture ei%ing: Dthe
onept that go+ernment may restrit the speeh o# some in or"er to enhane the re%ati+e
+oie o# others is *ho%%y #oreign to the First Amen"mentFthe First Amen"ment$s
protetionFannot proper%y !e ma"e to "epen" on a person$s #inania% a!i%ity to engage
in pu!%i "isussion.E
". First +ational Bank of Boston v. Bellotti '.@?;( 'in+a%i"ating 2ass. Statute prohi!iting
orporations #rom engaging in po%itia% a"+ertising(.
e. ustin v. Michigan Cha")er of Co""erce '.@@<( 'upho%"ing 2ih. Statute prohi!iting
orporations #rom spen"ing treasury #un"s to support or oppose a an"i"ate #or state
o##ie) !ut permitting orporations to ma4e suh eApen"itures #rom segregate" #un"s use"
so%e%y #or po%itia% purposes(.
0. Su!si"ies an" Pena%ties
a. Maher v. ,oe '.@??( 'upho%"ing state regu%ation pro+i"ing 2e"iai" !ene#its #or
hi%"!irth !ut not #or nontherapeuti a!ortions) reasoning that #inania% nee" "oes not
i"enti#y a suspet %ass an" that the #un"amenta% right o# aess to a!ortion *as not
a!so%ute an" that the in"igeny *hih ma"e aess to a!ortion "i##iu%t *as not ause"
!y or e+en a##ete" !y the regu%ation.(
!. &arris v. McCrae '.@;<( %a* prohi!iting use o# #e"era% 2e"iai" #un"s #or a!ortions
eAept in ases o# %i#e en"angerement or rape is onstitutiona%. 6ust !eause *oman has
right to a!ortion "oesn$t mean she has right to #inania% resoures to a+ai% se%# o# #u%%
range o# hoies.
. ,ust v. Sullivan '.@@.( 'ho%"ing that the Dgag ru%eE prohi!iting Tit%e U %inis #rom
pro+i"ing a!ortion ounse%ing an" re-uiring that any a!ortion8re%ate" ati+ities !y
physia%%y an" #inania%%y separate #rom the #un"e" ati+ities *as not +ie*point
"isrimination) reasoning that Dthe *o+ernment can8selecti+el -un& a program to
enourage ertain ati+ities it !e%ie+es to !e in the pu!%i interest *ithout F #un"ing an
a%ternate program *hih see4s to "ea% *ith the pro!%em in another *ay.E(
". .egal Services Corp. v. $elas5ue4 ':<<.( 'ho%"ing unonstitutiona% a Congressiona%%y
impose" restrition that #or!a"e 7SC8#un"e" attorneys #rom ha%%enging the %ega%ity or
onstitutiona%ity o# eAisting *e%#are %a*s) "istinguishing +ust on groun"s that the 7SC
#un"s *ere not !eing "is!urse" in or"er to transmit a go+ernmenta% message !ut rather to
Page 22 of 29
#ai%itate pri+ate speeh an" !eause in"igent 7SC %ients *ou%" not ha+e aess to
a%ternate ounse% *ho ou%" raise these issues.(
e. #.S. v. "erican .i)rary ssociation ':<<=( Chi%"ren$s Internet Protetion At *hih
re-uire" pu!%i %i!raries to insta%% #i%ters is onstitutiona%. Constitutional to restrict
-ree&om o- speech as con&ition o- recei+in* -un&s;
C. E-ua% Protetion an" 5ea%th
Earl cases, 0ealth classi-ications su3.ect to hei*htene& scrutin
a. 2riffin v. %llinois '.@CH( 'DState may no more "isriminate on aount o# po+erty than on
aount o# re%igion) rae or o%orE(.
!. &arper v. $irginia Board of Elections '.@HH( 'D7ines "ra*n on the !asis o# *ea%th or
property) %i4e those o# rae) are tra"itiona%%y "is#a+ore"E(.
. Edwards v. California '.@/.( 'Da man$s mere property statusFannot !e use" !y a state
to test) -ua%i#y) or %imit his rightsF.In"igene is a neutra% #atMonstitutiona%%y an
irre%e+ane %i4e rae) ree" or o%or)E 6a4son) 6.) onurring(.
$I/Cs, increasin* reluctance to strictl scrutiniBe 0ealth classi-ications
". Maher v. ,oe) supra) W1III'0('.(
e. Dandridge v. 'illia"s '.@?<( 'upho%"ing 2"$s AFDC program %imiting #ami%ies to a
maAimum grant o# T:C< per #ami%y) regar"%ess o# si3e) reasoning that rationa% !asis
re+ie* app%ies Din the area o# eonomis an" soia% *e%#areE. Dissent argue" that the
rationa%ity test *as on%y app%ie" to ases *here !usiness interests *ere at sta4e) !ut here
there *ere in"i+i"ua% interests Do# a po*er%ess minorityE(.
#. San ntonio School District v. ,odrigue4 '.@?=( 're&eting onstitutiona% ha%%enge to
shoo% #inaning #rom %oa% property taAes: D*here *ea%th is in+o%+e") the E-ua%
Protetion C%ause "oes not re-uire a!so%ute e-ua%ity or preise%y e-ua% a"+antagesE(.
0UT: issue *as poor "istrits) not poor in"i+i"ua%s.
Criminal la0 an& access to the .u&icial process
g. 2riffin v. %llinois '.@CH( 'ho%"ing that a state must #urnish an in"igent rimina% "e#en"ant
*ith a #ree tria% transript *here suh a transript is neessary #or an Da"e-uate an"
e##eti+e appe%%ate re+ie*E(
h. Douglas v. California '.@H=( 'in+a%i"ating Ca%. ,u%e re-uiring state appe%%ate ourts to to
appoint ounse% on%y i# their in"epen"ent in+estigation o# the reor" sho*e" that Dit
*ou%" !e he%p#u% to the "e#en"ant or to the ourt.E The ru%e "isriminate" D!et*een ases
*here the rih man an re-uire the ourt to %isten to argument o# ounse% !e#ore "ei"ing
on the merits !ut a poor man annotE(.
i. ,oss v. Moffitt '.@?/( 'ho%"ing that Constitution "oes not re-uire states to pro+i"e
ounse% #or in"igent "e#en"ants petitioning #or "isretionary appe%%ate re+ie*(.
IU. STATE ACTION
3 0as pri+ate parties5 action 3ecome state action,
?$> <u&icial inter+ention courts settle &ispute
?2> Entan*lement
?3> #u3lic -unction
a. F%agg 0rothers +. 0roo4s '.@?;(: 5arehousman$s propose" sa%e o# goo"s entruste" to
him #or storage as permitte" !y NO Uni#orm Co"e is not a state ation
a. Sett%ement o# "isputes !et*een "e!tors an" re"itors is not tra"itiona%%y a
pu!%i #untion
!. Doesn$t matter there *as a state statute imp%iate"
Page 23 of 29
!. 7ugar +. E"mun"son Oi% Co. '.@;:(: Attahment o# 7ugar$s property *as state ation
an" +io%ate" "ue proess.
a. "istinguishe" #rom F%agg 0rothers !eause &oint partiipation *ith
state ators in sei3ure o# property
0. 6u"iia% Inter+ention
a. Shelley v. !rae"er '.@/;( 0%a4 #ami%ies purhase" homes *J raia%%y restriti+e
o+enants signe" !y neigh!orhoo" property o*ners. 0oth the !uyer an" se%%er) ho*e+er)
*ere *i%%ing to go through *J the "ea%. State ourt uphe%" o+enant) !ut SC re+erse"
#in"ing that state court5s acti+e inter+ention allo0e& transaction, so it 0as a state
action
1#rett much &ea& la0 &on5t sa 0hene+er lo0er court en-orces, it5s a
state action
!. She%%ey trou!%esome !eause the restriti+e o+enant ou%" !e seen as #untiona%%y
e-ui+a%ent to 3oning %a*s. Barrows v. (ackson ?$I(3> Simi%ar ase) eAept respon"ent
a%%o*e" the non*hite purhasers to mo+e onto the property. Petitioners 'the other
property o*ners( sue" #or "amages. A%though the Court he%" that Shelle !arre" the suit)
1inson '*ho *rote Shelle( "issents: the atua% agreement is not unonstitutiona% '&ust
the state ourt$s ations in Shelle(.
C. Entang%ement
a. Burton v. 'il"ington Parking uthority ?$I!$> A restaurant "enying ser+ie to
appe%%ant !eause he *as !%a4 #oun" to +io%ate the EPC o# the ./
th
Amt. !eause the
restaurant %ease" spae #rom the 5i%mington Par4ing Authority) a De%a*are state ageny.
The %an" an" !ui%"ing *ere pu!%i%y o*ne" #or pu!%i use. 0oth the par4ing struture an"
the restaurant reei+e" Dmutua% !ene#itsE 'ustomers par4 an" then go to restaurant) et.(.
As in Shelle) the ourt sees the Authority as %etting "isrimination s%i"e !y 'it ou%" ha+e
put the ./
th
Amt. into the restaurant$s %ease) #or eAamp%e() there!y ma4ing the state
u%pa!%e.
6a& hoc test o- 0hether pri+ate an& *o+t; a*encies are entan*le&
!. ,endell6Baker v. !ohn ?$I)2> Pri+ate shoo% #or Dpro!%emE stu"ents "isharges
petitioners a#ter they "isagree *ith shoo% po%iies. Petitioners a%%ege First Amt. a!uses
!ut SCOTUS ho%"s that e+en though the shoo% reei+es @@N o# its #un"ing #rom the
state) the shoo% is NOT a state ator. Petitioners argue that the shoo% has a Dsym!ioti
re%ationshipE to the state 'simi%ar to the Dmutua% !ene#itsE in Burton() !ut 0urger ho%"s
that the shoo% is more %i4e a ontrator.
. San Francisco rts 1 thletics7 %nc. v. #S /ly"pic Co""ittee ?$I)/> The US O%ympi
Committee$s use o# the *or" DO%ympiE is NOT state ation. Petitioner ha" organi3e" the
DIay O%ympi IamesE an" *hen the Committee "enie" use o# the *or") sue" #or e-ua%
protetion +io%ations. Use o# the *or" DO%ympiE is simi%ar to a orporate harter or the
en#orea!%e rights o# a tra"emar4 'grante" !y a go+ernmenta% at(. 0rennan "issent:
mutua% !ene#its 'see 0urton(G onnetion in pu!%i a*arenessG #inania%J%egis%ati+e %in4.
". Pu)lic #tilities Co""ission v. Pollak ?$I(2> A pri+ate%y o*ne" !us orporation
'regu%ate" !y the Pu!%i Uti%ities Commission( !egan to p%ay Dmusi as you ri"e.E The
Commission or"ere" an in+estigation to see i# the !roa"asts *ere onsistent *ith pu!%i
sa#ety) #oun" that they *ere) an" "isontinue" the stu"y. Passengers appea%e") a%%eging a
onstitutiona% "epri+ation o# .
st
Amt. rights. The ourt he%" that the orporation 5AS a
state ation '!eause it *as regu%ate" !y the Pu!%i Uti%ities Commission an" !eause the
Commission *as in+o%+e" *ith the !uses enough to or"er an in+estigation(. The
!roa"asts themse%+es *ere #oun" to !e not unonstitutiona%.
Page 24 of 29
e. Moose Lo!ge No. ,-. v. )rvis '.@?:( Appe%%ee) a !%a4) *as re#use" ser+ie at the 2oose
7o"ge) a nationa% #raterna% organi3ation that restrits mem!ership to *hites. His ation
name" !oth the 7o"ge an" the Pennsy%+ania 7i-uor Authority) *hih issue" the group its
%i-uor %iense. SCOTUS #oun" this *as NOT a state ation: no sym!ioti re%ation as in
0urton. State %iense is not state ation.
#. /ac$son v. Metropolitan 0!ison Co. '.@?/( E"ison 'pri+ate%y o*ne" uti%ity *J state
erti#iation( sue" !y 6a4son *hen it turne" her po*er o## #or a%%ege" nonpaymentG
ho%"ing E"ison as a state ator) 6a4son sue" #or "ue proess +io%ation '%ost property(.
SCOTUS #oun" the uti%ity *as NOT a state ator: state regu%ationJappro+a% is not state
ationG no D%ose neAus.E
g. Brentwoo! Aca!em v. *ennessee Secon!ar School Athletic Ass1n ':<<.( The
Assoiation '*hih regu%ates intersho%asti sports in Tennessee high shoo%s( is ma"e up
o# ;/N pu!%i shoo%s an" shoo% o##iia%s ma4e up the +oting mem!ership. 0rent*oo")
pena%i3e" #or +io%ating a reruiting ru%e) sues) a%%eging the Ass$n to !e a state ator an"
FirstJFourteenth Amt. +io%ations. SCOTUS #oun" the Ass$n 5AS a state ator !eause o#
Dper+asi+e entert*iningE that in"iate" Da pu!%i haraterE that ou%" !e &u"ge" D!y
onstitutiona% stan"ar"s.
D. Pu!%i Funtion
a. Marsh v. la)a"a ?$I%!> Unonstitutiona% #or a ompany8o*ne" to*n to +io%ate
someone$s First Amt. rights. Appe%%ant 'a 6eho+ah$s 5itness( *as arreste" *hen she
"istri!ute" re%igious %iterature against ompany posting an" A%a!ama o"e. I# the to*n
*ere not ompany8o*ne") this *ou%" %ear%y !e a +io%ation. E+en though the to*n is
ompany o*ne") o*nership D"oes not a%*ays mean a!so%ute "ominion.E The
onstitutiona% rights o# those inha!iting ompany8o*ne" to*ns trumps the ompanies$
property rights 'simi%ar to the *ay pri+ate%y8o*ne" !ri"ges) turnpi4es) rai%roa"s) are not
as pri+ate%y o*ne" as a #armer$s #arm(.
!. Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trust ?$I(/> Petitioners *ere "enie"
a"missionM!eause they *ere !%a4Mto a shoo% set up !y a trust #un" #or Dpoor *hite
ma%e orphans.E 0eause the 0oar" o# Trustees *as an ageny o# the State o# Penn.) the
ourt #oun" this "isrimination !y the state. 'On reman") state ourt appointe" pri+ate
trustees to omp%y *ith the *i%%G ourt o# appea%s #oun" this a%so unonstit.(
. Evans v. +ewton ?$I!!> 2aon) Ieorgia par4 reate" !y a .@.. *i%% spei#ie" on%y use
!y *hite peop%e an" ontro% !y a *hite8on%y !oar" o# managers. SCOTUS:
Unonstitutiona%Mthe par4 is an Dintegra% partE o# the ity) the pu!%i thin4s o# it as a
Dpu!%i #ai%ity)E it has Dmuniipa% maintenaneE an" Dharater.E
In reman" 'Evans v. )ney ?$I/C>( the Court a##irme" a state ourt ru%ing that
the *hite8on%y re-uirement ha" !eome impossi!%e to #u%#i%%) "e%aring the trust a #ai%ure)
an" re+erting the par4%an" to pri+ate o*nership !y the heirs. Suppose"%y "i##erent #rom
Shelle !eause the par4 *as e%iminate" #or !oth !%a4 an" *hite users. 0rennan "issent:
the state ourt here is &ust %i4e in She%%eyMit a##irms pri+ate "isrimination.
6White primar7 cases
". +i*on v. &erndon ?$I2/> Disrimination !y Dpri+ateE po%itia% groups ou%" !e
attri!ute" to state. 0%a4s *ere "enie" !a%%ots at the state Demorati Party primary
'pursuant to TeAas statute(.
e. +i*on v. Condon ?$I32>: a re*ritten statute 'gi+ing the State EAeuti+e Committee the
po*er to presri!e mem!ership -ua%i#iations( #oun" unonstitutiona% !eause authority
*as "e%egate" to the state.
#. 2rovey v. Townsend ?$I3(> state party on+ention *Jo statutory authori3ation ou%"
raia%%y eA%u"e. No statute) no state ation) no onstitutiona% +io%ation.
Page 25 of 29
g. S"itt v. llwright ?$I%%> O+erru%e" Iro+ey: D*henFKthe pri+i%ege o# party mem!ership
isL the essentia% -ua%i#iation #or +oting in a primary to se%et nominees #or a genera%
e%etion) the State ma4es the ation o# the party the ation o# the State.E ,easoning
un%ear) !ut imp%ie" that atua% state in+o%+ement ma4es the primary a state ation.
h. Terry v. da"s ?$I(3> The TeAan 6ay!ir" Demorati Assoiation eA%u"e" !%a4s #rom
+oting. Though the 6ay!ir"s a%%ege to !e a se%#8go+erning %u! *ith no state onnetions
or %ega% onnetions to the e%etions) the Ass$n$s resu%ts #untiona%%y D"ei"eE !oth the
primary an" state e%etions. Eight &usties agree" that this +io%ate" the .C
th
Amt.) !ut no
ma&ority opinion. 0%a4: state #ai%ure "epri+e" !%a4s o# po%itia% po*er. Fran4#urter:
state o##iia%s *ere 6ay!ir" +oters. C%ar4: 6ay!ir"s part o# Demorati Party) an org.
eAisting un"er the auspies o# TeAas %a*Mthere#ore A%%*right suggests that 6ay!ir"s are
state ators.
i. Tash8ian v. ,epu)lican Party ?$I)!> ,epu!%ian Party ha%%enge to state %a*
'prohi!iting nonparty mem!ers #rom partiipating in primaries( uphe%".
@ro0in* reluctance to la3el pu3lic entities as state actors, unless the ha+e an
EOCLUSIFE state -unction;
&. (ackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. ?$I/%> 'see pre+ious page( Uti%ities are not state
#untions or muniipa% "uties. DKTLhere is no %ose" %ass or ategory o# !usiness a##ete"
*ith pu!%i interest.E Dissent: essentia% pu!%i ser+ieG I"enti#ie" *ith state
4. Shopping Centers: .ogan $alley Pla4a ?$I!)> Anti8shopping enter pi4eters at a
shopping enter o+ere" un"er Marsh: state ation app%ies to shopping enters an"
!usiness "istrits. 0utM.loyd Corp. v. Tanner ?$I/2>Mthis "oes not app%y to 1ietnam
protest han"!i%%s 'the shoppers ou%"n$t protest e%se*hereG the peae protesters ou%"(.
7ogan an" 7%oy" are inonsistent '&udgens v. +.,B ?$I/!>(.
%. Dispute reso%ution !et*een "e!tors is NOT a Dpu!%i #untion.E
m. Shoo%s: ,en"e%%80a4er: shoo% #or ma%a"&uste" NOT su!&et to onstitutiona% restraints.
n. Nursing Homes : Blu" v. -aretskyMnursing homes NOT pu!%i #untion.
o. Amateur Sports : US O%ympi ommittee not pu!%i.
p. Peremptory Cha%%enges , Ed"onson v. .eesville Concrete ?$II$> pri+ate %itigants in i+i%
ases A,E state ators *hen peremptory ha%%enges use" to eA%u"e !%a4s. App%ies
*err v. A!ams reasoning.
U. TA>INISJ6UST CO2PENSATION
A. Eminent Domain C%ause
6KNMor shall pri+ate propert 3e ta2en -or pu3lic use, 0ithout .ust compensation;7 $;> all
ta2in*s must 3e -or pu3lic use= 2;> all ta2in*s must 3e accompanie& 09 compensation;
a. ,e#%ets &u"gment that payment shou%" ome #rom pu!%i at %arge) not in"i+i"ua%s.
0. Pu!%i Use ,e-uirement
a. &awaii &ousing uthority v. Midkiff '.@;/( Court unanimous%y uphe%" the 'Ha*aii(
7an" ,e#orm At o# .@H?$s mehanism #or on"emning resi"entia% trats an" #or
trans#erring o*nership o# the property. The At authori3es the HHA to ho%" a pu!%i
hearing an" i# pu!%i purposes are ser+e") the HHA an se%% the %an" *ithout the
+o%untary permission o# the o*ner. 0erman +. Par4er '.@C/(: po%ie po*er a%%o*s use o#
eminent "omain po*er to #ori!%y se%% on"emne" %an"s) su!&et to %egis%ature appro+a%)
onstitutiona% %imits) an" pu!%i interest. Ha*aii At is onstitutiona% !eause it so%+es
%an" o%igopo%y: Da omprehensi+e an" rationa% approah to i"enti#ying an" orreting
mar4et #ai%ure.E
Page 26 of 29
!. Note: Origina%%y) pu!%i use re-uire" !oth !ene#iia% use an" "e#inite use !y the pu!%i.
E+entua%%y) Duse !y pu!%iE pro+ision *as a!an"one" '2i%% Ats permitte" riparian
o*ners to eret an" maintain "ams that #%oo"e" neigh!oring property(.
C. Determining *hether a Dta4ingE has ourre"
a. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon '.@::( >oh%er At) a statute #or!i""ing mining o#
anthraite oa%) he%" not to !e a sustaina!%e eAerise o# po%ie po*er !eause it Dhas +ery
near%y the same e##et #or onstitutiona%
!. Miller v. Schoene '.@:;( State may %ega%%y "estroy one %ass or property in or"er to sa+e
another *hih) in the &u"gment o# the %egis%ature) is o# greater +a%ue to the pu!%i. Un"er
the Ce"ar ,ust At o# 1irginia) the state ut "o*n p%ainti##s$ ornamenta% re" e"ar trees
'on p%ainti##s$ property an" through their #un"ing( in or"er to pre+ent the e"ar rust
"isease #rom in#eting the neigh!oring app%e orhar" 'a Dprepon"erant pu!%i onernE(.
. ndrus v. llard '.@?@( Court uphe%" Eag%e Protetion At *hih !anne" sa%e o#
!a%"Jgo%"en eag%e parts !ut not possessionJtransportation. Neither a re"ution in +a%ue or
a "enia% o# one tra"itiona% property right onstitute a ta4ing. No surren"er o# arti#ats)
there#ore no physia% in+asion.
". &otel v. %rving '.@;?( Court he%" unonstitutiona% a pro+ision o# the .@;= In"ian 7an"
Conso%i"ation At that re-uire" %an" to esheat 're+ert( to tri!a% o*nership i# it *as %ess
than :N o# the areage an" i# the o*ner earne" %ess than T.<< 'the goa% *as to
reonstitute the SiouA %an"s to the eAtent that they a%%o*e" #or pratia%%y use(.
O$Connor: a!rogates right to pass on property.
i. Sa%iaJ,ehn-uistJPo*e%%: D%imits A%%ar" to its #ats.E
ii. 0rennanJ2arsha%%J0%a4mun: "oesn$t a##et A%%ar".
e. Euclid v. ")ler ,ealty Co. '.@:H( Court uphe%" 3oning or"nane that *ou%" %imit a
+aant property *ith a mar4et +a%ue o# T.<)<<< per are to resi"entia% use 'on%y T:)C<<
per are(. E+en though non8"angerous) ino##ensi+e in"ustria% %an" use *ou%" a%so !e
prohi!ite") the !ene#its o# 3oning out*eigh.
#. !aiser etna v. #nited States '.@?@( Court #oun" that the Army Corps o# Engineers use
o# >uapa Pon" onstitute" a ta4ing: ..( >aiser$s impro+ements *ere the so%e reason *hy
the pon" ou%" !e na+iga!%eG :.( the pon" *as pri+ate propertyG =.( intrusion *as on right
to eA%u"eG /.( atua% physia% in+asion.
g. #S v. ,iverside Bayview &o"es '.@;C( ,e-uiring a %an" o*ner to get a permit is not a
ta4ing. E+en "enying the permit is not a ta4ing un%ess it pre+ents Deonomia%%y +ia!%eE
%an" use.
h. Prune-ard Shopping Center v. ,o)ins '.@;<( Ca%i#ornia Supreme Court he%" that state
onstitutiona% right o# #ree speeh grante" #ree speeh rights to protestors in shopping
enter property. No impairment o# +a%ue or use o# shopping enter) there#ore no ta4ing.
'Su!&et to time) p%ae an" manner regu%ations(.
i. .oretto v. Telepro"pter Manhattan CAT1 Corp '.@;:( DKPLermanent physia%
oupation authori3e" !y go+ernment is a ta4ing *ithout regar" to the pu!%i interests
that it may ser+e.E Court #oun" a NO 7a* unonstitutiona%: it re-uire" %an" %or"s to a%%o*
a!%e T1 ompanies to insta%% a!%e #ai%ities on %an"%or"$s property) oupying the roo#
an" si"e.
&. FCC v. Florida Power Corp '.@;?( Court uphe%" a #e"era% statute authori3ing the FCC to
regu%ate rates that uti%ity ompanies harge a!%e operators #or use o# uti%ity po%es.
7oretto inapp%ia!%e: this is optiona% instea" o# re-uire".
4. #S v. Caus)y '.@/H( Fre-uent #%ights a!o+e a %an"o*ner$s property "oes onstitute a
ta4ing i# they ou%" not use the %an" #or any purpose.
%. Bowen v. 2illiard '.@;?( ,e"ution in AFDC !ene#its not a ta4ing sine Congress has no
Page 27 of 29
o!%igation to 4eep !ene#its at any %e+e%.
D. ,eent "e+e%opments
a. .ucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council '.@@:( Ta4ing ours *hen the p%ainti## has
!een "enie" a%% eonomia%%y !ene#iia% use o# %an") e+en i# there is a pu!%i interest that
is ser+e". T*o types o# ompensa!%e regu%atory ati+ities: ..( physia% in+asionG :.(
regu%ation that "enies a%% eonomia%%y !ene#iia% use o# %an". NoAious8use %ogi not
enough to "istinguish ta4ings '*hih re-uire ompensation( #rom regu%ation.
Compensation on%y a%%o*e" *hen %an" ou%" ha+e !een use" any*ays. P%ainti## ha"
purhase" !eah#ront property to !ui%" housesG South Caro%ina At ma"e a%% %an"
+a%ue%ess !eause o# erosion onerns.
1I- propert loses $CCP o- +alue, it5s a ta2in* un&er Lucas, 3ut Lucas .ust applies to lan&, not
propert ?see An&ras>
1i- 3ac2*roun& nuisance principles alrea& pre+ente& action ?*o+ernment can come an& ta2e it
0ithout it 3ein* a ta2in*>
UI. ,E7IIION
A. Free EAerise go+ernment an$t suppress re%igion
a. E"ploy"ent Division v. S"ith '.@@<(: Smith #ire" #rom &o! !eause too4 Peyote as part
o# nati+e Amerian re%igious ritua%. Denie" unemp%oyment. Ienera% prohi!ition on
Peyote "oes not +io%ate Smith$s .
st
amen"ment #ree eAerise rights.
=. re&ets Smith$s argument that SC shou%" use strit srutiny #rom Sher!ert +.
1erner *hih ho%"s that an in"i+i"ua% has an o!%igation to o!ey a %a* that
goes against his re%igion on%y a#ter go+ernment "emonstrates ompe%%ing
interest
%; Hree exercise &oes NOT mean ri*ht to opt out o- *enerall1applica3le
la0
(; :e.ects 3alancin* test approach to -ree exercise
a. 2a4es it onsistent *ith #ree speeh 'an$t get eApensi+e #or speeh or
re%igion(
!. 0ig eAeption o# ourse is !oy souts
!. Church of the .uku"i Ba)alu ye v. City of &ialeah '.@@=(: 0an on Dritua% s%aughterE
+io%ates #ree eAerise. Purpose o# %a* *as to "isriminate.
0. Esta!%ishment C%ause #irst &ust meant Congress an$t esta!%ish nationa% hurh or pass %a*s
restriting a!i%ity o# States to esta!%ish re%igion. No* it means go+ernment an$t promote re%igion
re%igious neutra%ity.
a. Everson v. Board of Education '.@/?( N6 statute repaying parents o# hi%"ren in
pri+ate shoo%s #or the ost o# transportation "oes not +io%ate esta!%ishment %ause
H. neutra% to re%igious !e%ie+ers an" non8!e%ie+ers
!. .ynch v. Donnelly '.@;/( "isp%aying a rXhe in shopping "istrit "oes not +io%ate
esta!%ishment %ause. Not trying to impose a state8sponsore" hurh
. County of llegheny v. "erican Civil .i)erties #nion '.@;@( County "isp%aye" a
menorah an" a nati+ity sene. 2enorah "i" not +io%ate esta!%ishment %ause !eause
message not eA%usi+e%y re%igious) !ut nati+ity sene "i". A"opte" en&orsement analsis
can5t en&orse reli*ion;
". Mc2owan v. Maryland '.@H.( %a* re-uiring !usinesses to !e %ose" on Sun"ays "i"
Page 28 of 29
not +io%ate esta!%ishment %ause !eause goa% *as seu%ar uni#orm "ay o# rest.
e. 'al4 v. Ta* Co""ission '.@?<( property taA eAemption #or hurhes "oes not +io%ate
esta!%ishment %ause
#. 2arsh +. Cham!ers '.@;=( %egis%ati+e sessions opene" *ith prayers %e" !y state8
emp%oye" hap%ain. Di" not +io%ate esta!%ishment %ause. ,e%ies on Duni-ue historyE
argument First Congress ha" hap%ain.
g. Shoo% Prayer ases
8Stone v. 2raha" '.@;<(8 SC he%" unonstitutiona% a >O statute re-uiring that a opy o# the .<
omman"ments !e poste" on the *a%%s o# eah pu!%i %ass room !eause it ha" Dno seu%ar %egitimate
purposeE
8Engel v. $itale '.@H:(MSC sai" it *as unonstitutiona% NO 0oar" o# ,egents to reommen" shoo%
"istrits to reite a prayer !eause go+ernment an$t ompose o##iia% prayers
8)ington School District v. Sche"pp '.@H=(MSC he%" unonstitutiona% a state %a* re-uiring that ten
+erses #rom the 0i!%e !e rea" a%ou" at the opening o# eah pu!%i shoo% "ay. Using 0i!%e as
re%igious instrumentG an on%y use #or non8re%igious purposes.
8'allace v. (affree '.@;C(MSC he%" unonstitutiona% an A%a!ama statute authori3ing shoo%s to set
asi"e one minute at the start o# eah shoo% "ay #or Dme"itation or +o%untary prayerE. Statute
amen"e" an ear%ier statute authori3ing a moment o# si%ene #or me"itation. SC sai" statute ser+e" NO
seu%ar purpose not a%rea"y authori3e" !y the me"itation statute
a. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of (esus Christ of .atter Day Saints v.
"os '.@;?( App%ying eAemption #rom Tit%e 1II$s prohi!ition against re%igious
"isrimination in emp%oyment "oes not +io%ate esta!%ishment %ause
1appl Lemon i- it passes Lemon .ust use rational 3asis
8secular purpose "on$t *ant go+ernmenta% inter#erene
8la05s primar e--ect &oes not a&+ance or inhi3it reli*ion
!. Te*as Monthly v. Bullock '.@;@( EAempting re%igious pu!%iations #rom state sa%es taA
+io%ates esta!%ishment %ause !eause %a* is essentia%%y a su!si"y #or re%igious
organi3ations 'NOTE: This ase pre8"ates Smith. No #ree eAerise right to eAemption
anymore(
. 1ie*point8!ase" "isrimination
%&i!mar v. Vincent 2,34,5MSC he%" that it *as O> #or a state uni+ersity to ma4e #un"s a+ai%a!%e to a
stu"ent prayer group as %ong as it *as a+ai%a!%e to other groups as *e%%
%Lam"1s Chapel v. Center Moriches 6nion Free School (istrict 2,3375MSC in+a%i"ate" a shoo%
"istrit$s restrition on the a#ter8hours use o# its #ai%ities !y re%igious groups
%+osen"erger v. +ector an! Visitors of the 6niversit of Virginia 2,3385MSC in+a%i"ate" uni+ersity
po%iy authori3ing payment #or the printing osts o# a +ariety o# stu"ent pu!%iations !ut prohi!iting
#un"s #or re%igious pu!%iations
8Capitol S5uare ,eview and dvisory Board v. Pinette '.@@C( SC he%" no esta!%ishment %ause
+io%ation in a%%o*ing pri+ate group to "isp%ay 7atin ross on pu!%i property
a. 3el"an v. Si""ons6&arris ':<<:( Ohio shoo% +ouher program "oes not +io%ate
esta!%ishment %ause
?. +a%i" seu%ar purpose o# pro+i"ing e"uationa% assistane to poor 4i"s
;. ini"enta% a"+anement o# re%igious mission is attri!uta!%e to in"i+i"ua%s) not
go+ernment
@. go+ernment pre#erene is #or %o*8inome #ami%ies) not re%igion
$C; la0 o- *eneral applica3ilit neutralit re*ime *ettin* stron*er an&
stron*er
Page 29 of 29