Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Government Regulations on Race, Equal Protection, and Speech: Scrutinizing Free Expression, Study notes of Law

An in-depth analysis of the legal concept of 'strict scrutiny' as it applies to government actions that infringe upon race-based equal protection and free speech. various aspects of strict scrutiny, including the importance of narrowly tailoring means to achieve government interests, the application of strict scrutiny to various contexts such as affirmative action and property rights, and exceptions to free speech protections. It also discusses the importance of the marketplace of ideas and the role of the courts in balancing competing interests.

Typology: Study notes

2020/2021

Uploaded on 11/26/2021

myki-duvall
myki-duvall 🇺🇸

1 document

1 / 46

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
I. Structure of Rights
a. Bill of rights
i. Adoption of a bill of rights was the condition that the thirteen
original states imposed in exchange for ratification of the
Constitution.
ii. Defenders of the Constitution feared that the enumeration of
specific rights would imply the exclusion of others, critics of the
Constitution warned that, without these express protections, the
federal government would have too much power.
iii. The critics prevailed, and the states immediately adopted ten of
the twelve amendments proposed by the first Congress.
iv. At first, the limits on government action in the Bill of Rights
only applied to the federal government, and not to state or local
governments, or their officers
b. Slaughterhouse cases
i. The Thirteenth Amendment solely prohibits slavery as
experienced by Africans in the United States before the Civil
War, and the Fourteenth Amendment (which is largely geared
towards the protections of emancipated slaves and African
Americans) only protects rights guaranteed by the United States
and not individual states
1. The 13thamendment does not protect an American
citizen’s right to carry out a chosen occupation
ii. 13th amendment
1. Purpose: to eradicate black African slavery
2. Court limited slavery to the black-african slavery
that we are familiar with in the US.
3. Does not require state actor
c. 14th Amendment
iii. Establishes citizenship - Citizenship Clause
1. Anybody that is born in the US is a citizen
iv. The bill of rights does not have an equal protection clause in it
1. SC has interpreted the 5th amendment due process
clause to operate the same as the 14th amendments
equal protection clause
2. 14th amendment says states should not violate
equal protection
v. Scope of rights under 14th
1. Privileges and immunities
a. The rights that we can claim as respective
sovereigns (citizens to state and US)
b. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment only protects the
privileges and immunities guaranteed by the
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a
pf2b
pf2c
pf2d
pf2e

Partial preview of the text

Download Government Regulations on Race, Equal Protection, and Speech: Scrutinizing Free Expression and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

I. Structure of Rights a. Bill of rights i. Adoption of a bill of rights was the condition that the thirteen original states imposed in exchange for ratification of the Constitution. ii. Defenders of the Constitution feared that the enumeration of specific rights would imply the exclusion of others, critics of the Constitution warned that, without these express protections, the federal government would have too much power. iii. The critics prevailed, and the states immediately adopted ten of the twelve amendments proposed by the first Congress. iv. At first, the limits on government action in the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, and not to state or local governments, or their officers b. Slaughterhouse cases i. The Thirteenth Amendment solely prohibits slavery as experienced by Africans in the United States before the Civil War, and the Fourteenth Amendment (which is largely geared towards the protections of emancipated slaves and African Americans) only protects rights guaranteed by the United States and not individual states

  1. The 13th^ amendment does not protect an American citizen’s right to carry out a chosen occupation ii. 13th amendment
  2. Purpose: to eradicate black African slavery
  3. Court limited slavery to the black-african slavery that we are familiar with in the US.
  4. Does not require state actor c. 14th Amendment iii. Establishes citizenship - Citizenship Clause
  5. Anybody that is born in the US is a citizen iv. The bill of rights does not have an equal protection clause in it
  6. SC has interpreted the 5th amendment due process clause to operate the same as the 14th amendments equal protection clause
  7. 14th amendment says states should not violate equal protection v. Scope of rights under 14th
  8. Privileges and immunities a. The rights that we can claim as respective sovereigns (citizens to state and US) b. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only protects the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the

United States and not by the individual states. The rights guaranteed by the United States are very limited and historically do not include civil rights. c. We have privileges and immunities as state and federal citizens i.Derives from relationship to state and US ii. State P&I are expansive and it derives from state primacy vi. Doctrine of Incorporation

  1. One of the key purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to apply most, if not all, of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, that is, to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
  2. Incorporation helps to underscore the fundamental difference between the Constitution as initially enacted, which was focused almost entirely on the federal government, and the Constitution as understood today, which holds state and local governments to almost all of the same standards. d. McDonald v. City of Chicago vii. The Court also incorporated the Second Amendment against the states using the Due Process Clause. viii. A four-justice plurality voted to follow the Court’s selective incorporation precedents, whereas Justice Thomas, writing for himself, would have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause and overruled The Slaughterhouse Cases.
  3. When this case came to the SC the parties briefed the case only on privileges and immunities and suggested the court should breath new life into the clause that was killed by Slaughter house a. Court says they need to brief the case under due process bc they are not overturning slaughter house b. Imagine it declined bc they didn’t know what would happen if they did ix. Test for Incorporation: Is the right deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition such that it is essential to our notion of justice?
  4. The city argued that gun ownership is not a fundamental right bc other countries have limited gun ownership however, the standard to be applied in incorporation cases is not whether there is any civilized legal system that does not recognize a particular right,

i. Governor makes everyone start smoking cigarettes (means) to stop covid (ends) c. Means do more than the ends (over-inclusive/does more than achieve the ends) i. Governor issues mask mandate (means) and it stops the spread of more than just covid (ends) ii. This is allowed under RBR d. Means does less than ends (under-inclusive/does less to achieve the ends) i. Governor adopts mask mandate (means) but we need immunizations, social distancing, etc. (ends) ii. Gov can move to achieve its goal one step at a time

  1. This is allowed under RBR ii. When to apply RBR to due process litigation
  2. Anytime gov is regulating an econ matter (business, econ, K relationship) III. Economic Substantive Due Process a. Due Process Clause i. States should not take liberty without due process b. Works the same at the 5th amen against federal gov c. Lochner – rational basis review that looks more like today’s intermediate scrutiny i. Can regulate safety in mines bc the work is inherently unsafe ii. Cannot regulate bakery because it is not inherently unsafe thus the limit on baker’s hours is against constitution iii. Court In the Lochner era was adverse to government regulation of business iv. EXAM: illustrate history of Lochner era pre and post Williams v. lee optical d. Williams v. Lee optical i. Test: Gov regulation has to be rationally related to any conceivable gov end (rational basis review) ii. Ct defers to legis and if they agree, then it is good for the ct. iii. If the gov action meets the objective, it meets rational basis review e. Rights of the 14th^ amendment apply to states only i. Rights of the 5th^ amendment apply to federal government in same way but under the 5th^ amendment due process clause f. Framework for analyzing any gov regulation of econ matters i. Whenever the gov regulates econ matter, apply 4 part approach
  3. Does the gov regulation violate substantive due process? (RBR – under Williamson)

a. Drop in Lochner language

  1. Contracts clause a. Prohibits states from interfering with K b. Applies against states, not fed gov c. Two part. Test i. Is gov action substantial interference with K ii. If so, is the gov action related to a substantial gov interest (basically RBR) iii. If it is not a substantial impairment, there is no need to go to step 2
  2. Takings clause a. The gov cannot take property without providing just compensation b. If the gov takes property for public use, what is public use? c. What constitutes just compensation? i. Fair market value at the time of the taking? d. Tricky when gov regulates property (when does regulation turn into a taking?)
  3. Procedural due process a. Cannot infringe on life, liberty, or property without procedural due process. IV. Takings Clause a. Analysis i. Is there a taking?
  4. Is it for a naked transfer of wealth (one priv party to another) a. This is uncon
  5. Is the land going to public use? If yes, go to step two a. If no land is being taken, end here ii. Is it for public use?
  6. Generalized Public purpose (not limited to literal public use) From Kelo v. New London a. Fact specific and have to look at the purpose (low standard) iii. Did the gov pay just compensation?
  7. Fair market value of the property at the time of the taking b. Two kinds of takings i. Actual physical taking
  8. Gov uses power of imminent domain to put land to public use  Have to walk through the three step analysis ii. Regulatory taking
  9. Gov regulates property to such a degree that it effects a taking
  1. The threshold inquiry is “whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.” (there must be a substantial impairment)
  2. Total destruction of contractual expectations is not necessary for a finding of substantial impairment.
  3. If the gov action is not an impairment, no need to apply the K clause ii. K Clause Test (priv Ks)
  4. Step 1: If the state regulation constitutes a substantial impairment, the State, in justification, must have a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem
  5. Step 2: Once a legitimate public purpose has been identified, the next inquiry is whether the adjustment of “the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties [is based] upon reasonable conditions and [is] of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying [the legislation’s] adoption a. Fitness of means end analysis (similar Lee Optical rational basis review)
  6. Ex: One legitimate state interest is the elimination of unforeseen windfall profits. e. US Trust Comp of NY v. NJ
  7. The means have to be a perfect fit to the ends (perfect overlap bw the two circles)
  8. Apply this when Public interferes with their own K
  9. Gov has to show this is the only way to reach the goal a. No under or over conclusion b. Can look to how heavily the industry has been regulated in the past
  10. The K has to be both reasonable and necessary to serve the admittedly important purposes claimed by the Stat
  11. If π can show that the state has another way of doing it, the π wins VI. Equal protection doctrine a. Whenever the gov discriminates think about how the gov is dividing up the world? (by race, class, income, sex, etc.) i. Most of them are not protected by the equal protection clause and will be subject to rational basis review b. Based on how the world is divided, what level of scrutiny/test do we apply? i. Rational basis
  12. Ex: cannot deny mental health home permit just bc it sits on the flood plane
  13. Line up justifications of the law and look at them based on facts in record and ask if it is a legit gov end and is the law rationally related to it

a. If not related, gov is just trying to disadvantage a politically unpopular group b. Ex: do same sex couples have fund. Right to marry like straights?

  1. Cleburne v. Celburn Living Center a. Discrim based in disability is subject to RBR ii. Intermediate scrutiny iii. Strict scrutiny
  2. Used when something racial discrims 2. A state has to have a compelling gov justification and the state law discrim by race has to be narrowly tailored or necessary to achieve that compelling gov interest
  3. Will apply to any racial classification whether the classification is designed to harm the race or if it is a symmetrical way ( Loving v. VA ) or even if they are helping the race or providing a remedy (affirmative action)
  4. Korematsu v. US a. Contrived and based on stereotypes of ppl from Japanese dissent c. The more suspect the classification, the greater level of scrutiny the cts will apply and the more likely the classification will be overturned i. More suspect: The more offensive/worse it is VII. Intentional racial discrim a. Strict scrutiny  has to compel a gov interest i. When it intentionally discrims, it discrims in the only way it can achieve a compelling gov interest ii. Examples
  5. Affirmative action: remedying the govs prior own prior discrim (remedial)
  6. Diversity in higher edu b. If π can show that the gov can achieve its compelling intersts in a lesser non discrim way, gov wins c. The two overlapping circles in a venn diagram must be perfectly overlapping d. When do we apply strict security i. Gov intends to discrim by race (need gov intent/purpose)
  7. How do we know when this is happening? a. The gov action says wither race or on its face dsicrims by race b. Loving v. VA c. Brown v. Board of Education d. Korematsu v. US
  8. Gov intent so we automatically apply strict scrutiny a. Romeo, Calyborn, Romer v. Evans

c. Triggers equal protection analysis iii. De jure segregation: exists in the law (schools ordered to segregate) intentional

  1. School is segregated in law, the gov or fed ct can use race- based means to overcome the effects of de jure segregation
  2. Strict scruitiny: a. Race based means are narrowly tailored to achieve gov interest to overcome prior unconstitutional racial segregation iv. De facto segregation: schools are segregated in fact (gov isn’t telling them to segregate) discriminatory impact
  3. Cannot used race-based means like they can in de jure bc de facto is not a con violation so there is no compelling gov interest
  4. Strict scrutiny a. Fed DC cannot used race based means to desegregate schools b. Can use racially neutral criteria (redraw dict. Boundaries, identify children by geography, not race) h. Remedial affirmative action i. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1
  5. “The best way to stop discrimination by race is stop discriminating by race” a. Anytime the gov treats races differently, there will be a lack of equality and disparate b. Anytime the gov uses race, SCOTUS is suspect
  6. 1st dist had de jure segregation  gov adopted race based means to end the segregation  dist achieved unitary status (level of integration that it would have if it there never past de jure segregation)
  7. 2 nd^ district was just only de facto segregated schools
  8. Unitary status a. Schools may go back to segregated status, but if they do this with no go action, it is now de facto i. The gov cannot use race to solve it, but can use race neutral criteria to overcome the prior de facto segregation ii. City of Richmond v. Croson
  9. Gov action that violated equal protection (intentional race discrim in gov K)  race based remedies to overcome the effects of the prior uncon behavior
  10. Making sure the means are narrow a. Indicating the correct uncon action and knowing the extent of it

b. Identify racial minority w/ precision  tailors new remedies with precision to match the issue i. Higher education affirmative action i. Designed to achieve compelling gov interest of diversity in higher edu ii. In designing the program, the gov cannot assign pts by race and cannot set aside racial quotas iii. Remedial solution in search of a program (aimed at diversity) iv. Issue of it being remedial affirmative action while looking like edu affirmative action v. Nothing is preventing a public school from adopting a remedial program if it can show that it had an uncon issue with race in the past vi. Fisher v. UT Austin

  1. Π thought lesser qualified students were being accepted to UTA instead of her (white girl)
  2. More than just GPA and rank matter in an application VIII. Sex & Gender Discrimination a. Sex discrim will be intermediate scrutiny b. Fronterio v. Richardson i. The action must be related to a state interest ii. Factors to apply to determine what level of scrutiny to apply when the ct has not yet identified the issue
  3. History of/current discrim against burdened class
  4. History of/current of lack of political pwr by burdened class
  5. Is it an immutable characteristic iii. Ones that we do not know which level of scrutiny to apply
  6. Sexual orientation
  7. Gender identity iv. When making arg:
  8. Π side a. Go through factors and argue they win under heightened review b. Sam sex marriage i. Heightened review bc gender discrim ii. Provided history and current discrim against LGBTQ+ iii. Provided history and current lack of political pwr for LGBTQ+ (make political change) iv. Ppl cannot voluntarily change their sexual orientation
  9. Gov a. Go through factors and go against heightened review
  1. Have a vulnerable class that does not get strict scrutiny is combined w/ a state discrim on an important interest (that is not a fund right) a. Add them together to get rational basis + b. Ct can overturn the regulation bc of this
  2. Looks @ state claims one at a time and see if the interests are valid
  3. Arg 1: state is trying to save money in edu a. Invalid bc it is a way to say discrim w/o saying discrim
  4. Arg 2: State wants to deter immigration into the state so by denying edu to non-citizen children will deter imm a. Invalid bc it is not the reason ppl immigrate, they come for employment opportunities
  5. Arg 3: preserve quality of edu bc resources are taken from citizen children to non-citizen a. No evid of this
  6. Arg 4: state has an interest in keeping citizen children in the state a. No evid of this, and any child can leave the state so the interest can apply to anyone iv. How to argue it
  7. Π arg a. The regulation should be struck b. Use Plyer
  8. Gov arg a. Williamson v. Lee Optical i. Most deferential to the gov b. Two kinds of alienage classifications i. Non-authorized citizen status ( Plyer v. Doe)
  9. When the fed or state gov discrims against them, apply RBR a. Go through all 3 RBRs ii. Authorized aliens (non-citizens lawfully in the country)
  10. When the fed gov discrims, apply RBR a. The fed gov has plenary pwr of immigration
  11. For states, the discrim will be subject to strict scrutiny a. Exception: when a state discrims like this in areas of the democratic process , it will be subject to RBR i. These are the exceptions: School teachers, police officers, parole/probation officers ii. Notary public is not subject to the exception (so it will be under strict scrutiny) c. MA v. Murgia (π challenging law req. police retire @ 50)

i. Age discrim gets RBR ii. Ct says there are ppl under 50 who cannot protect and ppl over 50 who can protect

  1. It is both over and under inclusive
  2. Since it is RBR, it does not need to be a perfect fir
  3. The means are rationally related to the ends X. Recap of SS and RBR a. Must know language of strict scrutiny i. Substantially related to an exceedingly important gov interest b. Arguing intermediate scrutiny i. Start with language
  4. Substantially related to an exceedingly important gov interest ii. Start with easy cases
  5. If gov interests for sex is based on stereotypes or romantic paternalism a. If this is all gov does, ct will strike it iii. Arg for over and under inclusion
  6. Hard to make bc can’t make determinate arg iv. Make analogies and distinctions bw the cases c. Traditional i. Williamson v. Lee Optical d. Under Cleburne, Romer v. Evans, Moreno e. Under Plyer v. Doe f.RBR is the default XI. Fundamental rights a. Substantive due process fund. Rights i. Fund right in due process clause bc ct has found them there (unenumerated bc not directly in Con) ii. The state cannot place an undue burden on the fund right iii. Whenever the state interferes w/ a fund right, SS applies iv. Examples:
  7. Right to marry, parent, pro-create, abortion v. Claimed rights that the ct has not identified
  8. “state is infringing on fund right that hasn’t been determined yet” a. Have to argue gov action fails @ SS b. Lawrence v. TX i. Fund. Right for consenting adults to engage in priv. sex. Conduct ii. Methodology for finding new fund right
  9. What is the right? a. Right to privacy (broad)

ii. Gov argued that it’s a right to marry person of the same sex and it is not deeply rooted in hist & trad iii. Is the right to marry one other person deeply rooted in hist & trad?

1. Can interpret it in a lot of ways (helped π say the commonality has always been the right to marry one other person) 2. Gov says it changed a lot but never to include the right to marry the same sex b. If the right already exists i. First step: SDP right exists ii. Second step: Under equal protection principles , we must include a previously excluded group in that right 1. Applying a Romer, Moreno v. Evans, Calyborne POV 2. Obergefell : gov has no valid reason for excluded same sex couples from marriage so it must include them

  1. Other examples: contraceptive cases iii. Ex: contraceptive was only for married couples  changed to include unmarried couples b. Fund right to abortion i. Protected under SDP (do not have to go through two step process to establish this) ii. State cannot place undue burden on abortion pre viability iii. Roe v. Wade
  2. First trimester: State cannot really regulate
  3. Second trimester: state interest in women’s health and safety
  4. Third trimester: state interest in the potential life of the fetus a. State can ban abortion here but must be exception for health and safety of the woman iv. Casey v. Planned Parenthood
  5. Trimester framework is not sustainable bc abortions become safer later into the pregnancy a. Potential life of the fetus will occur earlier in the pregnancy as well
  6. Trimesters will collapse into points of fetal viability outside the womb (usually around week 22-24) a. State interest begins at post viability and can ban abortion so long as there is the health and safety exception for women

b. Pre viability, state cannot place undue burden on access to abortion i. Parental notification is undue burden ii. Parental notification with judicial override is not an undue burden

  1. If child cannot get consent of parent, can get consent from judge iii. Collecting anon info on abortions is not an undue burden v. Whole Women’s Health v. Heller
  2. TX said that abortion providers have to have admitting privileges at the local hospital and have requirements equal to operating rooms (expensive and unnecessary) a. Π tried to strike this
  3. Ct used balancing test a. Looked @ state interest (safety of the interest, safety of the woman) b. Ct said state has no interest in this and it does not benefit the safety of the woman c. Burden outweighed the benefit and the ct struck it c. Right to travel i. Saenz v. Roe
  4. States were providing a level of benefits for out of staters at a lower level than for instaters a. Wanted to deter opportunistic welfare migration
  5. We have a con right to free travel across state lines a. Not at issue in this case
  6. Right to be treated as a welcomed visitor in a state a. Cannot discrim against people from out of state (P&I clause in Art. 4) b. Not at issue here
  7. Right to cross state lines and take up residency in new state (issue in the case) a. At some point, you become a new resident of the new state (register to vote, get drivers license, etc.) b. Get equal level of welfare benefits that the state’s citizens have as soon as they move there (14th^ A. P&I clause) c. If a state is treating new instaters differently than long- term residents, apply strict scrutiny and the 14th^ A P&I XII. Right to vote a. Two gov restrictions i. Facial: gov cannot absolutely ban a person/class of ppl from voting (ex: no one over 60 can vote)

iii. Reynolds v. Sims (1 person 1 vote)

  1. Legis districts (no matter the level) have to be equal size in # of ppl in the districts (does not apply to the Senate)
  2. Ct allows up to a 10% variance for the size of the districts a. If outside of this, apply strict scrutiny
  3. Only applies when there is a disproportionate # of voters in a district a. If it is believed to be racially charged, can add in EPC XIII. Access to cts/justice a. When there is a categorical impediment to access in cases of a fund. Right, it is uncon (ex: fee barrier to get into ct)  fee has to be waived or it is uncon- b. The thing litigated has to be a fund right, not an economic barrier or non-fund right (right to file for bankruptcy) c. Boddie v. Ct i. When an action imposes categorical barriers, it is uncon ii. If someone cannot afford the ct fee, they can get relief from welfare or from getting a job d. US v. Krass i. Fee barrier to access for ppl who cannot afford it is not uncon if it involved a non-fund right
  4. Does not include filing for bankruptcy and other nonfund. Rights ii. Right of appeal  right to justice
  5. However, circuit cts do not have that right to be at SCOTUS e. Ct can provide litigants with the tools they need to litigate i. Ex: parent in parental termination proceeding it raises fund. Right to parent. Appellate ct applies transcript fee to the parent.
  6. Fee barrier is lack of access to justice f. If the ct is doing more than denying classes to justice, look to procedural due process i. Have to look and see if litigants interests are sufficiently protected, if not, a lawyer must be appointed. XIV. Non-right to education a. San Antonio v. Rodriguez i. No right to education in con ii. One school district was latinx and underfunded compared to neighboring predominately white school dist iii. Could have argued under disparate impact ( Washington v. Davis, Arlington Heights approach)
  7. Need to show that the school funding formula year after year gives less money to the minority school districts so it is racial intent
  8. Gov argues no fund. Right to education and apply RBR XV. Procedural due process

a. If the gov takes life, liberty, or property, it must do so with due process of law (somewhat like the takings clause) b. Must ask: i. What is life, liberty, or property

  1. Life: if gov wants to kill client (death penalty) there must be due process a. Ct proceedings with appellate rights, post-conviction rights, habeaus rights
  2. Liberty: a. If gov wants to lock client up, there must be liberty i. Under Gideon v Wainright , there must lawyer
  3. Property: a. Goldberg v. Kelly i. Continued receipt of welfare benefits is a property interest ii. How do we know what gov interests are property?
  4. If a person has a reasonable exception of continued receipt of the benefits then the person has a property interest such that gov has to provide due process to take it away
  5. Person must be receiving the gov benefit, no interest if you do not yet have it b. Ex: i. Tenured College professor #1 @ state univ. The professor #2 is on a (renewable) year-to- year K.
  6. Different property interests bc #1 has expectation of employment (gov interest) Prof #2 does not bc it is only year to year so they have no procedural due process claim if the K is not renewed ii. What is due process (Ex: court proceeding, habeus rights, right to counsel)
  7. When the court measures what process is due, look to Mathew v. Eldridge balancing factors (3) a. (1) Level of Π interest i. Is it significant or not? ii. The most significant is life, lower is econ interest b. (2) Level of gov interest in deprivation i. Is it taking away the interest for a good or bad reason ii. Ex: high safety and well-being of child in parent property deprivation case; low interest in saving $ c. (3) Risk of an erroneous deprivation