Con Law II Outline

Colby, Spring 2007

I. INTRODUCTION
A. From Con Law I to Con Law II The Bill of Rights
Notes:
Federalism and separation of powers designed to protet indi!idual liberty and freedom
o "o!ernment must be limited to protet t#e rig#ts of t#e people
o $i!ides up power btw federal and state go!%ts, t#en btw bran#es of t#e federal go!%t
&w#i# go!ernment of limited powers, as is Congress and t#e 'resident(
o For many people in )7*7 &+anti,federalists-(, .adison%s !ision wasn%t enoug# to protet
indi!idual rig#ts/ onditioned t#eir aeptane of t#e ratifiation on t#e passage of a 0ill
of 1ig#ts
First t#ing t#e )st Congress does is draft and pass a Bill Of Rights &0o1(
o )0 of proposed amendments 2ui3ly ratified, beame part of Constitution in )7*)
o 1ig#ts t#at framers t#oug#t were so important are p#rased in !ery !ague terms
Views of the Constitution Originalist !. Nonoriginalist
Originalist: Constitution means today w#at it meant w#en it was ratified, ot#erwise would be
interpreted un4ustly
o 5#is is a written ontrat 6 letting 4udges ma3e up t#e rule as t#ey go along would be
ta3ing away t#e meaning
o Same onstitutional 2uestion must produe t#e same onstitutional answer, regardless of
t#e date
Nonoriginalist: onstitution was intended to be interpreted, and to remain !alid as time #anges
and adapt to problems and rises t#at didn%t e7ist at t#e time of drafting
o Framers didn%t mean to tie us to t#e ultural norms of )*t# entury 8meria
o Same meaning it always #ad, but only beause its always #ad a fle7ible meaning
Somet#ing t#at was allowed in )79) may no longer be allowed today, as our
notions of, say, free spee#, #a!e #anged
Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore &:S )*;;(
Fats: 0 alleges illegal ta3ings w#en state go!ernment di!erts ri!ers in t#e #arbor w#i# ma3e #is
w#arf ompletely useless
)
5#e 0ill of 1ig#ts &1ele!ant 'ro!isions(
8mendment I: 1eligion &<stablis#ment and Free <7erise Clauses(/ Freedom of Spee#/
Freedom of t#e 'ress/ 1ig#t to 8ssembly/ 1ig#t to 'etition=
8mendment >: $ouble ?eopardy/ Self,Inrimination/ $ue 'roess/ 5a3ings=
8mendment @I>: <2ual 'rotetion, $ue 'roess inorporated to t#e States=
Court &.ars#all(: BoR was inten"e" to a##l$ onl$ to a%tions of the fe"eral go!&t &no effet on
t#e ations of t#e state go!%ts(
o Aistorial argument: 0o1 was drafted only bB of onerns of anti,federalists, meant
speifially to address t#eir onerns about t#e fe"eral go!ernment
o Strutural argument: 0o1 is pat btw t#e people and t#e federal go!ernment t#ey%!e
agreed to reate
'ower of t#e states is not reated or limited in t#e Constitution
o 5e7tual argument: 8rt= I, Set )0, limits on state power/ 0:5 !ery e7pliit in limiting
speifi ats/ w#ate!er is not e7pliitly restrited is reser!ed to t#e states
Notes:
.ars#all was for robust federal go!ernment, but #ere, in one of #is last opinions, #e guts t#e power of t#e
federal onstitution o!er t#e states, federal power, and federal 4udiiary%s power
5#is is !ery unli3e .ars#all
o Opinion lea!es states free to ta3e property wit#out ompensation, to oere onfessions,
to limit spee#, et=
o "oes out of #is way to say t#at t#is was a !ery easy ase
State ourts, before t#is opinion, say t#at t#e 0o1 does limit state power
C#y does #e do t#isD 5wo possible readings of t#e Constitution:
o 0road reading:
0o1 s#ould apply to states, e7ept for )st 8., w#i# speifially says +Congress
s#all ma3e no law,- w#ile t#e rest say +No person s#all be ompelled-
o .ars#all%s reading:
0road reading runs up against .ars#all%s #istorial, strutural, and te7tual
arguments, w#i# are pretty strong
5#ese indi!idual rig#ts were not endowed by a onstitution/ t#ey are self,e!ident
&natural rig#ts(
"o!ernments are bound by bot# positi!e and natural law
0y t#is time, Ameri%an law e!ol!e" to lean hea!il$ on #ositi!e law
?ob of 4udges was not to deide if state ation !iolated natural rig#ts, but
rat#er w#et#er it !iolated t#e te7t of t#e 0o1
.ars#all suddenly frees t#e states from t#e obligations enumerated in t#e 0o1
o <gregious !iolations of #uman rig#ts resulted from t#is ruling &sla!ery, et=(
B. 'ri!ileges or Immunities
Notes: Aistorial onte7t:
)*E;, after <manipation 'rolamation, defeated onfederay was fored into re,integration wB
union and fored to abolis# sla!ery=
o 'uppet go!ernments set up, ditate to sout#ern states
o Con!entions of loyal :nionists ratify t#e <manipation 'rolamation
1adial 1epublians ta3e power in Congress &aggressi!e anti,sla!ery(, passed a i!il rig#ts bill of
)*EE
o ?o#nson !etoes, laiming it goes beyond Congress% power
Congress t#en passes )Ft# 8./ gi!ing bla3s i!il rig#ts, and ma3ing it lear t#at Congress does
#a!e t#ese powers
o Only 5N ratified t#e amendment of t#e sout#ern states 6 sout#ern states t#en passed
+bla3 odes- on t#e +freed- sla!es
2
1epublians stru3 ba3 wB 1eonstrution 8t of )*E7, plaed sout# under military rule
o <sape only permissible for t#ose states w#i# set up new i!il go!ernments, granted
!oting rig#ts to bla3s, and too3 pledge of allegiane to t#e :nion
8ll e!entually ga!e in, by )*E*, )*70
Slaughter-House Cases &:S )*7;(
Fats: 0ut#ers suing beause of monopoly on but#ering business in New Orleans, based on L8
state law= Claimed );t# and )Ft# 8.s s#ould apply beause not being treated e2ually, s#ould be
able to pratie t#eir trade
o +In!oluntary ser!itude- 6law is foring t#em to do somet#ing t#ey don%t want to do
&an%t be but#ers(
Court:
o );t# 8.: 5e7tual argument 6 no speifi grant
Aistorial argument: t#is 8. protets more t#an 4ust bla3s, but it%s partiularly
about raial sla!ery
In!oluntary ser!itude put in 8. beause t#ere were many different s#ades of
sla!ery ta3ing plae in bla3 ode states
o )Ft# 8mendment: 'oint of t#is 8. is to protet itiGens of federal go!ernment, not t#e
states
Narrowly interpreted: only t#ose rig#ts w#i# owe t#eir e7istene solely to t#e
8merian Constitution &doesn%t inlude natural law rig#ts(
$issent: +'ri!ileges or immunities of itiGens of t#e :S-: purpose was to use general language to
protet a broad range of rig#ts, inluding natural &fundamental( rig#ts
o Intended to gi!e effet to inalienable rig#ts of $elaration of Independene &Constitution
4ust reogniGes t#ese/ it doesn%t reate t#em(
o Art. () *+ ',Is designated in t#e 8. are already defined in t#e Constitution, and t#ose
are t#e 'HIs w#i# belong to t#e itiGens of all free go!ernments
"o to ase law for #istorial definition:
?ustie Cas#ington%s opinion in Corfield: pri!ileges of men of all free
nations I natural pri!ileges
o .a4ority%s reading ma3es t#e lause on 'HIs redundant
If it%s really t#is meaning, it%s ma3ing unonstitutional w#at%s already
unonstitutional &states an%t pass laws t#at ta3e away federal rig#ts(
Notes:
5#e 2 readings:
-./ +CitiGens of t#e :S- modifies t#e 'HI &ma4ority(
5wisted reading , onern is wit# preser!ing federalism, would rat#er err on t#e side of
interpreting t#is 8. as adding and doing not#ing t#an err on t#e side of letting it re!olutioniGe
onstitutional law
Only rig#ts proteted by t#e )Ft# 8mendment are t#ose granted under t#e Constitution, not t#ose
natural rig#ts granted to all indi!iduals
o $on%t want to underta3e responsibility for i!il rig#ts of all people under state go!%ts
o 1ely on #istory= <!en if language of t#e lause would suggest a broader meaning, s#ould
read it more narrowly to more losely follow t#e drafters% intent &+originalist- argument(
-+/ +CitiGens of :S- modifies w#o is being proteted &dissent(
0road t#emes mentioned w#i# go beyond original reasons for enating t#e 8. in t#e first plae,
and it s#ould be interpreted to go t#is far=
;
o <!en if aepting t#e originalist !iew met#odology, not lear t#at t#e ourt%s getting t#at
original meaning rig#t at all
Opposite appears to be true=
o 1ep= 0ing#am &aut#or of t#e )Ft# 8.(: 'oint is to protet by national law=== t#e inborn
rig#ts of e!ery itiGen
o Sen= Aoward &sponsor of )Ft# 8.(: S#ould protet against state intrusion of t#e first *
8. rig#ts, 8N$ all rig#ts desribed by ?ustie Cas#ington in Coryell
1ig#t ba3 to 0aron != 0altimore &states returned to ating #ow t#ey did, enating ?im Crow laws,
et=(
o 0laughter12ouse is the en" of the 'ri!ileges an" Immunities %lause
Saenz v. Roe &:S )999(
Fats: C8 limited welfare benefits to new residents/ 1oe argued t#is was putting a limit on
interstate tra!el
Court: Finds rig#t to tra!el between states in )Ft# 8. for first time as 'HI &)st time state law is
stru3 down under t#e 'HI lause=(
o Loo3ed li3e Slaug#ter Aouse was being o!erruled, but t#is is atually a !ery narrow
deision 6 rig#t to tra!el among t#e states is one of t#ose rig#ts t#at owes it e7istene to
t#e federal go!ernment, so it is appliable to t#e states=
o 5#is was really a rare opportunity to apply S,A
5#omas% dissent:
o S,A is wrong, e!eryone 3nows it%s wrong, 'HI does protet all fundamental rig#ts
o Is willing to get rid of a entury of preedent to bring t#e meaning ba3 to w#at #e t#in3s
is t#e original
Law remains from 012
C. In%or#oration
Constitution still protets against intrusion/ it%s 4ust t#at 'HI lause isn%t t#e one t#at protets it: Now it%s
$ue 'roess
Palko v. Connecticut &notes ase, :S )9;7(
Issue: $oes protetion from double 4eopardy apply to t#e statesD
Court: Not a rig#t e7tended to t#e states under t#e $ue 'roess lause
o CardoGo%s test for w#i# rig#ts are inluded under t#e $' lause:
Is it a fun"amental rig#tD +Of t#e !ery essene of a s#eme of libertyD- Can we
an imagine a free and 4ust soiety wit#out t#is rig#tD
Not: pri!ilege self,inrimination, rig#t to trial by 4ury
Jes: rig#t to ounsel, et=
5#e 3ind of double 4eopardy w#i# ' was e7posed to is not t#at bad
o Aere, $' doesn%t +inorporate- t#e 0o1= 1ig#ts in 0o1 are only proteted beause
t#ey%re an essential part of liberty
F
Due 'ro%ess Clause 3Nor shall an$ state "e#ri!e an$ #erson of life) li4ert$) or #ro#ert$
without "ue #ro%ess of law.5
Some o!er lap between $=' and 0o1, but not really related to ea# ot#er
NO5 a laim of natural law
0la3%s dissent:
o Total in%or#oration position: all rig#ts in 0o1 are proteted by t#e $' lause
o $oesn%t belie!e t#ere are natural rig#ts ot#er t#an w#at is in t#e 0o1:
$egrades onstitutional safeguards of t#e 0o1 &CardoGo%s !ision is an affront to
liberty(
Inorporating less or more t#an t#e 0o1 is not w#at framers wanted &framers
t#oug#t 'HI lause would do t#at, but getting it in t#roug# $' is more important
t#an not getting it in at all(
Adamson v. CA &notes ase, :S )9F7(
.a4ority: no grounds for ma3ing pri!ilege against self,inrimination appliable to states
Fran3furter%s and Aarlan%s onurrene:
o <n!ision a mu# broader set of rig#ts, bot# in and outside t#e 0o1
o <!olutionary potential for t#e body of rig#ts proteted= S#ould inlude rig#ts newly
reogniGed in soiety
o $isagree wit# 0la3, t#in3 t#e $' s#ould be mu# broader t#an t#e 0o1
0la3%s dissent:
o Full inorporation is w#at original framers wanted
Natural law t#eory gi!es 4udges way too mu# power
o Notions of federalism, doesn%t want to interfere wit# t#e ability of t#e state go!ernments
to do w#at t#ey want, e!en if it doesn%t !iolate t#e 0o1
.odels adopted by Supremes t#roug#out #istory:
Car"o6o: some, but not all 0o1 rig#ts are inluded, and t#ere are ot#ers outside= Sometimes a rig#t is
only inorporated in part &i=e, double 4eopardy 6 depends on se!erity(
Bla%7: 5#e w#ole 0o1, and not#ing but t#e 0o1
FF8 2arlan: Aalf and #alf 6 bigger body of rig#ts t#an CardoGo t#in3s= Not limited to #istory, an adapt
to urrent !alues=
9ur#h$: $' inludes all of 0o1 and lots of ot#er rig#ts too
Brennan: .ost of 0o1 and lots of ot#er stuff too &li3e CardoGo H FF, but almost all 0o1 are inluded=(
$isagrees wit# CardoGo t#at +really bad- instanes of 0o1 are !iolations= 8ll !iolations, e!en minor
ones, !iolate t#e $' lause
Ver$ Conser!ati!e: only 0o1s are proteted, and only t#ose dealing wit# proedural safeguards, li3e Et#
8. rig#t to an attorney in a riminal ase= No 4usties #a!e ta3en t#is position, but many legal t#in3ers
#a!e=
8rguments for t#e ?usties !iews:
Car"o6o:
Bla%7:
K
C#y would framers #a!e bot#ered to enumerate all t#e 0o1 and t#en put anot#er lause in t#ere
,,, seems t#ey didn%t t#in3 t#e $' would o!er all t#e 0o1
Isn%t t#is !iew 4udiial ati!ism beause it%s defining more narrowly t#e sope of rig#ts t#at t#e
founders intendedD
0la3: t#is isn%t a federalism issue= 5#e issue is, #ow mu# power do t#e states #a!e !is a !is t#e
peopleD
o Aow mu# power do t#ey #a!e o!er t#e peopleD 5#is power is being ta3en away, but not
gi!en to t#e federal go!ernment 6 it%s gi!en to t#e people= It%s an indi!idual rig#ts
onern, not a federalism one
FF8 2arlan:
Aarlan: we%!e put t#e states in a onstitutional straig#t4a3et wBrBt t#eir own de!elopment of
riminal 4ustie
o <7: i!il 4ury trial re2uired w#ere t#e amount in ontro!ersy is more t#an L20=== is t#is
really fundamentalD
.ust go ase by ase to determine w#et#er it%s a )Ft# !iolation for t#at partiular inursion
FF: For 0la3 and .urp#y%s !iews: w#at%s really going to #appen #ere to libertyD
o $on%t want to water down fundamental protetions=== if we say a )2,person 4ury is
fundamental= 5#is waters down w#at we would onsider fundamental
9ur#h$:
5#ere are fundamental rig#ts inluded in t#e 0o1, but t#e framers ould not #a!e foreseen
proesses neessary in t#e future
Legislati!e #istory meant it to inlude t#e first * amendments
0ut w#o%s going to deide w#at a fundamental rig#t is outside of t#e 0o1D
Seems to enompass e!eryt#ing t#e framers intended
Brennan:
C#o%s going to deide w#at a fundamental rig#t is outside of t#e 0o1D
o 5#e Supreme Court
5#is is w#at onerned 0la3 6 didn%t want 4udiial ati!ism
o .ay be ommon 3nowledge 6 determinable and defined, so we don%t #a!e to worry
about 4udges imposing t#eir own personal !alues on t#e rest of us
But is this true? Is it common knowledge that abortion is an absolute right?
Conser!ati!e:
$oesn%t say +no state s#all depri!e itiGens of life, liberty, or property-==== it says +wit#out due
proess of law-
Aow omfortable are we wit# t#e idea t#at states an depri!e us of life, liberty or property as long
as t#ey gi!e us some proessD
o 0ut, most states #a!e o!erlap in t#eir state onstitutions wit# t#e federal onstitutions
Isn%t t#is !iew 4udiial ati!ism beause it%s defining more narrowly t#e sope of rig#ts t#at t#e
founders intendedD
Notes:
0rennan%s !iew #as pre!ailed: rig#ts #a!e to be inorporated in full
E
o 1ig#ts must only be fundamental in t#e sense t#at t#ey%re fundamental in our soiety
today
o Case by ase, Court #as inorporated almost all 0o1 rig#ts &not 7t#, ;rd, inditment, et(
Inorporation was a misnomer for FF and Aarlan, and CardoGo= 5#ey t#oug#t t#ere was some
o!erlap, but it wasn%t inorporated in any meaningful way
o 5oday, inorporation is not a misnomer 6 most #a!e been entirely inorporated against
states
o Ot#er rig#ts are found to be onstitutionally proteted, e!en t#oug# not speifially
written into 0o1
0eause of inorporation t#at we #a!e t#e modern dotrine of su4stanti!e D'
8 lot of rig#ts in t#e 0o1 don%t seem to fit into $' at all &aren%t proedural( 6 freedom of spee#,
religion, assembly, et= &t#ese seem more substanti!e(
o Freedom of spee# is a substanti!e rig#t t#at an ne!er be ta3en away from you, e!en
wit# +$ue 'roess-
II. 0UB0TANTIV: DU: 'ROC:00
A. The ochner :ra
0u4stanti!e Due 'ro%ess: Notion t#at $' lause protets substanti!e rig#ts in addition to proedural
ones
5#oug# 'HI seems li3e a more logial plae to put +S$'-, Slaug#ter,Aouse ases read t#e 'HI
lause of t#e )Ft# 8. out of t#e onstitution all toget#er
o No w#ere else to put t#e intent of t#e framers under $' &2nd best solution(
0:5, S$' was reogniGed well before S,A and well before t#e )Ft# amendment
o .any old state onstitutions #a!e $' lauses, and #a!e long been understood to protet
substanti!e rig#ts
!ynehamer v. Peo"le &notes ase, NJ )*9KE(
Couldn%t ma3e sense not to interpret $' substanti!ely &fundamental rig#ts aren%t wort# mu# if
states an ta3e t#em away so long as t#ey went t#roug# t#e proper proedures(
0ill t#at ta3es away t#ese rig#ts s#ould not be onsidered law, t#erefore not ounted under t#e
)Ft# amendment as +$' of law-
$redd Sott != Sanford
Court in!alidates fed law t#at gi!es automati freedom to sla!es transported into free states &t#is
would be ta3ing away property from sla!e#olders(
o Stri3ing e7ample of t#e dangers of S$'
$uring sla!ery, bot# sides relied on S$' &anti,sla!ery t#oug#t sla!es were people, w#o s#ould
not be depri!ed of life or liberty/ pro,sla!ery t#oug#t t#is was depri!ing owners or property(
)9t# Century: Court begins to find a M of eonomi rig#ts t#at fall wit#in t#e sope of S$'
ochner v. #e$ %ork &:S )90K(
Fats: NJ sets ma7imum #ours law for ba3ers wor3ing in NJ=
Court: !iolation of t#e onstitution &ontrat lause , rig#t to ontrat for you labor &not a 0o1,
but one of t#e ot#er +fundamental rig#ts- swept wit#in sope of $'((
o 0alaning:
7
<mployers #a!e rig#t to #ire for as many #ours as t#ey want/ employees #a!e t#e
rig#t to wor3 as many #ours as t#ey want to wor3, t#oug#:
State #as rig#t to e7erise &legitimate( polie power
o As7 is this a reasona4le e;er%ise of the #oli%e #ower) or is it unne%essar$ an"
ar4itrar$ -Rational Basis Re!iew/
State%s grounds for passing t#e law:
&)( >alid labor law
o Court re4ets: ba3ers don%t need to be proteted by state
legislature/ t#ey are apable of negotiating for t#emsel!es
Court says t#ey won%t seond,guess t#e legislature%s
opinion, but t#en t#ey do 4ust t#at
.ig#t be laiming t#at it%s irrational and arbitrary to say
t#at an employee an%t protet #is own rig#ts
o Notion t#at t#ere%s a le!el playing field wit# t#e ba3er and t#e
owner &but management was in a position to oppress labor,
espeially in )90K(
State is now passing labor laws, safety laws, et,
beoming more in!ol!ed to protet people and t#e
eonomy from t#e industrial re!olution
&2( >alid publi safety law
o State: s#orter #ours for ba3ers will lead to a safer food supply,
w#i# will lead to a #ealt#ierBsafer publi
o Court re4ets: lean, #ealt#y bread does not depend on #ow many
#ours t#e ba3ers are wor3ing &t#oug# reports s#owed ot#erwise(
&;( >alid #ealt# regulation
o Court re4ets: relies on +ommon 3nowledge- t#at ba3ing is not
a dangerous profession li3e mining is, so it doesn%t need to be
regulated by t#e state &reports s#ow ot#erwise(
o Court e7pressly says it will be deferential to t#e legislature, but it in fat is not &not 10
#ere(
$issent &Aarlan(:
o Constitutional rig#t ontrat proteted by t#e $', but Court s#ould not seond guess t#e
state legislature on balaning t#is wit# publi #ealt# and safety
o ?udiial 8ti!ism: In trying to protet Constitutional rig#ts, Court is trampling on
itiGens% states rig#ts
$issent &Aolmes , Aolmes% most famous opinion(
o 5#is is really an eonomi t#eory &laisseG faire eonomis( preferred by t#e ri# and well,
eduated, &i=e= t#e ?usties(
<onomi t#eories are trendy, ome and go, s#ould only be enated by
legislatures, not read into t#e Constitution
o Freedom to ontrat is not a fundamental liberty beause:
.ust be a deep rooted tradition and onsensus among t#e people
5#e word liberty is per!erted if it ontradits a !oting ma4ority, unless minds an
differ about w#et#er it is fundamental
Liberty of ontrat is an old fad t#at was popular w#en t#e ?usties were young=
5oday%s fad is 'rogressi!ism and is being enated properly t#roug# t#e state
legislatures
*
Notes:
Lo#ner <ra 6 ;0 year period in w#i# t#e Court stru3 down all 3inds of state laws t#at tried to
protet labor, would #a!e allowed unions, set minimum wages and safety standards=
o Court in .uller != Oregon did up#old labor standards in fatories dominated by women
employees bB women were dependant on t#e gentlemen in t#e legislature to protet t#eir
frail, wea3 ondition= :nli3e men, women were not onsidered as apable of entering
freely into ontrats=
C#at is wrong wB Lo#nerD
o Court is dis#onest , says it would not seond,guess state law, t#en it does
o Stands in t#e way of demoray 6 it puts t#e opinions of t#e un,eleted 4usties a#ead of
t#e opinions of t#e people t#at are eleted and aountable to t#e peopleN
9o"ern :%onomi% Regulation
#e&&ia v. #e$ %ork &:S )9;F(
Fats: NJ passed .il3 Control 0oard to regulate retail pries for mil3
Court: applies rational basis, finds t#at state #as not ated arbitrarily or apriiously
Notes:
'rogressi!e .o!ement is ta3ing off in t#is ountry, ulminating ultimately in F$1 and t#e New
$eal
)9;K: S#e#ter 'oultry Case deided
o Court ontinues to stri3e down federal regulation &New $eal 1egulations(
o Court says t#is is a matter for t#e states, but t#en w#en t#e states regulate it, t#ey stri3e
t#ose laws down too on Lo#ner grounds &infringes on personal rig#ts(
:ltimately leads to F$1%s fireside #at, )9;7:
Says Court #olds itself as a ;rd #ouse of ongress, and is pre!enting
regulation w#ere t#e publi wants and needs it, by pretending t#e
Constitution rea#es t#ere
Institutes t#e +ourt,pa3ing- plan: wants to pass law t#at for e!ery
4ustie o!er 7K, #e%ll add anot#er 4ustie
5#is leads to Cest Coast Aotel:
!est Coast Hotel v. Parrish &:S )9;7(
Court allows state to set minimum wage re2uirements
Lo#ner era is definitely o!er
o Court won%t put itself in position to seond,guess state laws
o No longer standing in t#e way in t#e name of proteting liberty of ontrat
?ustie 1oberts swit#es sides to t#e ma4ority 6 30wit%h in time that sa!es the Nine5
'S v. Carolene Products Co= &:S )9;*(
8s long as regulation rests upon a +rational basis- t#e Court will up#old it
Stems from dissents way ba3 w#en=== dissents plant seeds o!er time
o Aere, Aolmes%s dissent from o!er ;0 years ago is being !indiated
?ustie Stone%s F8.O:S Footnote ( :
o Lo#ner era is o!er 6 now presumption of onstitutionality for state law
Court won&t "efer to legislature -greater <u"i%ial s%rutin$/ where
-./ Laws !iolate s#e%ifi% BoR
9
o Ce want t#e ourts to aggressi!ely enfore t#ese rig#ts , t#ey are
in t#e Constitution beause framers didn%t t#in3 t#e politial
proess would be enoug#
<7: religion, politial, spee# &demoray won%t wor3
wit#out t#e ore protetions of free spee#(/ ta7ation
wit#out representation
-+/ Laws are "ire%te" at religious) national or ra%ial minorities
o .inorities an%t protet t#emsel!es t#roug# t#e politial proess
beause it%s a minority
o Situations w#ere t#e politial proess mig#t brea3 down, or
w#ere it won%t protet some people
o <7pression of proess,based rationale of 4udiial re!iew
Notion t#at demoray naturally, generally s#ould be allowed to run its ourse
Cise ourt is t#e ourt t#at defers, and lets t#e people deide w#ere t#ey want to
stri3e t#e balane, 0:5
5#ere are some irumstanes w#ere t#e proess won%t wor3
&fundamental, non,eonomi rig#ts(
o Basis for the whole stru%ture of mo"ern %onstitutional law
!illiamson v. ee ("tical Co. &:S )9KK(
Fats: State law ma3es it illegal for anyone ot#er t#an optometrist or op#t#almologist to fit lenses
wit#out a presription from t#ese 2 groups= Optiians bring suit beause t#ey do e7atly w#at t#e
statute forbids &fitting frames( wit#out a presription &denying t#em t#eir eonomi liberty of
ontrat
Court: C#et#er or not t#is is a good law, it%s not t#e 4ob of t#e ourt to do t#is balaning test
o No e!idene as to w#at t#e legislature was t#in3ing, but enoug# t#at t#ere are possible
rational reasons for t#is to up#old it &Court guesses(
Full irle from Lo#ner &w#ere t#ey refused to aept any atual reason gi!en
for passing t#e law(
Notes:
5#is is more li3e 3imaginar$5 rational 4asis re!iew, w#en t#e ourt is ma3ing up t#e reasons
and doesn%t are if t#at was t#e real reason and doesn%t are if t#ere are substantial ounter!ailing
interests
0u#reme Court has not stru%7 "own a single e%onomi% regulation sin%e FDR&s s#ee%h
'ri!a%$ an" Contra%e#tion Re!i!al of 0D' for None%onomi%
Li4erties
Notes:
$uring Lo#ner period, Court was also proteting rig#ts t#at were not fundamental or non,
eonomi:
o Meyer v. #e&raska &:S )92;(: law forbidding tea#ing foreign languages to #ildren is
stru3 down beause of Lo#ner reasoning
.entions ot#er fundamental rig#ts proteted under t#e $' lause &pri!ileges
reogniGed at CL( 6 onsistent wit# natural law t#eory
o Pierce v. Society of Sisters &:S )92K(: Stri3es down O1 law re2uiring all #ildren to go
to publi s#ool
)0
:ses Lo#ner again: parents #a!e fundamental rig#t to ditate t#e eduation of
t#eir #ildren, e!en if not enumerated in 0o1
$efinition of +liberty-: freedom to ontrat, marry, a2uire 3nowledge
5oday, we treat t#ese differently t#an Lo#ner &we praise t#ese, and ondemn Lo#ner(
o 0:5, t#ese laws did not target a partiular minority &preluded all pri!ate s#ools Onot
4ust Cat#oliP, and all foreign languages Onot 4ust "ermanP(
o Court #adn%t originally premised its deision on disrimination grounds, but rat#er on
fundamental rig#ts grounds
)ris$old v. Connecticut &:S )9EK(
Fats: C5 law ma3es it illegal for married ouples to use ontraepti!es/ 2 dotors proseuted for
aiding t#e use of su# ontraepti!es= State%s 4ustifiation: neessary to ensure against
promisuity, forniation out of wedlo3, adultery=
Court: stri3es it down:
o Finds a +rig#t to pri!ay- 6 !iolates t#is onstitutional rig#t=
o Striter srutiny is re2uired
Signifiant enroa#ment #ere, so t#e ompeting interest must be +ompelling-
&too easy for t#is to sur!i!e 10 re!iew(
Law is not +narrowly tailored- to a#ie!e t#at interest/ sweeps too broadly
State an promote its interest in ot#er ways 6 regulate, get toug#er about
enforing adultery laws
Notes:
.ost laws sub4et to strit srutiny are going to be stru3 down by t#e Supreme Court
o 5oo easy to find some +rationally related- go!ernment interest
o .ust s#ow t#ere was no ot#er way to ad!ane t#at interest s#ort of interfering wit#
fundamental interests to be up#eld
Should this la$ have &een su&*ected to SS+ ,s there a fundamental constitutional right at issue here+ ;
sub,2uestions:
-./ =hat is the sour%e of this %onstitutional right to #ri!a%$>
$ouglas: first * 8.S &Ft#: freedom from unlawful sear#es and seiGures 6 pri!ay element #ere(
o +Qone of pri!ay- wit#in t#e 8.s 6 t#ere%s a broader point, e!en t#oug# t#ey don%t
speifially mention pri!ay &Court #ad by t#is time long spo3en of t#e Ft# and Kt#
amendments as artiulating and proteting a fundamental rig#t to pri!ay(
+'enum4ras- gi!e t#e guarantees life and substane
o S$' doesn%t go so far &$' only protets 0o1(, but t#e 0o1 itself broadly rea#es out in
t#ese penumbras to protet rig#ts not enumerated
.eyers and 'iere artiulated t#ese rig#ts under S$'
1ig#ts of spee# and press inlude t#e rig#t to gain 3nowledge, tea# 3ids
languages, et= t#ese are penumbras of t#e )st 8.
"oldberg%s onurrene:
o 9t# 8. simply a3nowledges t#at t#e rig#ts proteted by t#e Kt# and )Ft# amendments
are not limited to t#ose enumerated in t#e first * &+5#e enumeration in t#is onstitution,
of ertain rig#ts, s#all not be onstrued to deny or disparage ot#ers retained by t#e
people=-(
))
o 8tual soure of t#ese rig#ts is $', t#e 9t# 8. tells us it%s o3 to interpret $' as
proteting t#e rig#ts non enumerated in t#e 0o1
Aarlan%s onurrene:
o :nder onept of ordered liberty &'al3o(, law s#ould be stru3 down
o "oes ba3 to S$' 6$' lause protets all fundamental rig#ts impliit in t#e onstitution,
w#et#er t#ey%re 0o1 rig#ts or not
0la3, wit# Stewart dissenting:
o 5#is is a +natural law- approa# from t#e Lo#ner era
$ilutes a onstitutionally guaranteed rig#t to substitute words for t#ose atually
wit#in t#e onstitution
$' protets t#e 0o1 and not#ing but t#e 0o1
o Same position #e too3 during t#e inorporation debates
Stewart:
o 5#is is a silly law, but doesn%t see w#ere it !iolates t#e Constitution
-+/ If it not foun" e;#li%itl$ in the %onstitution) shoul"n&t the Court 4e in the 4usiness of #rote%ting
rights that aren&t s#e%ifi%all$ mentione" in the %onstitution>
Framers belie!ed in ertain +fundamental rig#ts,- but t#ere are speifi, few rig#ts t#at t#ey put
into t#e onstitution w#i# binds us today
0ut t#is is w#ere t#e ?th A9 omes in 6 it%s not 4ust a nullity
o 1eap on 0o1: Federalists != 8nti,federalists:
Federalists% onerns:
Conern M): Limited powers 6 people would assume t#at if t#ese weren%t
speifially limited, Congress would #a!e #ad t#e power to infringe on
t#em
o .adison: )0t# 8. ta3es are of t#is &if it%s not listed as a federal
power, it%s not a federal power(
Conern M2: 'eople would naturally ta3e t#is list to be e7lusi!e
o .adison: 9t# 8. &it%s not e7lusi!e(
o 9t# 8.: #istory and te7t, along wit# #istory and te7t of t#e )Ft# &'HI, $'( are strong,
powerful e!idene to rebut t#e notion t#at t#e w#ole enterprise of reogniGing un,
enumerated fundamental rig#ts
-@/ If the %ourt shoul" 4e in this 4usiness) how shoul" the Court "etermine whether an allege" right
is "o fun"amental that it&s entitle" to %onstitutional #rote%tion>
Notes:
?udge%s 8rguments: Aarlan != 0la3
o Aarlan
0la3 is being naR!e= Line,drawing is ne!er going to get easier, and 0la3%s
position isn%t going to sa!e us from #a!ing to line draw in t#e future=
'olitial proess doesn%t protet from t#e +tyranny of t#e ma4ority- t#at does
ma3e it a rime to use birt# ontrol, et=
o 0la3:
It%s one t#ing for 4udges to say t#at a law !iolates an e7pliit pro!ision of t#e
onstitution, but anot#er to go outside t#e te7t of t#e onstitution= 5#is seems
li3e 4udges delaring w#at t#e law oug#t to be=
)2
No rig#t to marry or proreate, but doesn%t t#in3 t#at any state or politiian
would pass su# a law 6 t#is is w#at we #a!e t#e politial proess for
?udges are wrestling wit# problem of 4udiial ati!ism in "riswold &e!ery time t#e 4udges
reogniGe a rig#t as +fundamental,- t#ey%re ta3ing it away from t#e people to deide(
o 5#is grinds demoray to a #alt, unless t#e Constitution gets amended, or t#e 4usties
lea!eBdie and are replaed wit# 4udges w#o feel differently &and t#at an ta3e deades( 6
so:
Aow do we onstrain t#e 4udgesD
o $ouglas: +penumbra- onstrains 4udges beause t#ey an only reogniGe rig#ts t#at an
be read from wBin t#e 0o1 &not any +left,field- rig#ts found under $'(
0ut, seems t#at $ouglas is only proteting t#ose penumbras t#at #e li3es &not
freedom to ontrat, for e7ample(
$ouglas was a New $ealer, #ated Lo#ner &spent #is life fig#ting S$' notion(
Finds #imself adopting t#is formula t#at ends up sounding sort of silly,
beause #e doesn%t want to find S$' outside of t#e 0o1, but also an%t
stand t#e t#oug#t of t#is law being o3
Critis #ad a field day wit# #is +penumbra- argument, wit# #arges of
blatant 4udiial ati!ism
o "oldberg: relies on S$'
1ig#ts are so rooted in t#e tradition of t#e people t#at t#ey are fundamental
&draws on #istory( 6 4udges an%t ma3e up new rig#ts
Aistory an be powerful soure of and limit on fundamental rig#ts
'roblem ): if #istory is our guide, t#en &yet again( w#y is Lo#ner
wrongD
o Framers ared more about eonomi, property rig#ts t#an t#ey
did about ontraeption
'roblem 2: doesn%t aount for t#e possibility of #ange
o +5raditions of our people- 6 doesn%t ma3e mu# sense in terms
of t#e present ma3eup of our nation, t#ere isn%t a ommon set of
rig#ts or !alues in t#e peoples of 8meria today
o 5#ere are new t#reats to liberty t#at didn%t e7ist at t#e time of t#e
Framers, so we need new protetions
o Aarlan: $' is 4ust t#e balane we stri3e in soiety between go!ernmental power and
indi!idual liberty
5radition is a li!ing t#ing, and $' doesn%t ommand ad#erene to traditions t#at
are old &Aistory suggests t#at we s#ould not be bound by #istory(
Framers, in writing 9t# amendment, seemed to intend for us to #a!e fle7ible
rig#ts to grow wit# t#e times
o Speifi rig#ts in t#e 0o1 will always be fundamental, but t#ose broader p#rases &'HI,
$', et( in#erently enompass notion of #anging body of fundamental rig#ts
Whats the actual method of IDing the scope of rights protected under the DP clause?
o Fouses on t#e bedroom, w#at #appens in your own #ome
$eade later, Court does stri3e down law t#at riminaliGes sale of ontraeption=
.ust go furt#er t#an narrow language "riswold ourt uses=
"riswold ourt is fine wit# ma3ing it a rime for unmarried ouples to use
ontraeption &or +forniate- at all(
);
$ouglas: somet#ing spiritual, sared of marriage &despite #is well,3nown
e7tra,marital e7ploits(
Court e7tends t#is rig#t to unmarried persons as well &"riswold deision
is wider t#an t#e language of t#e deision implies(
o CL met#od of deision,ma3ing:
1elies #ea!ily on preedentB rationale underlying prior ases
8llows for e!olution and #ange in t#e law
$on%t #a!e to limit yourself to t#e narrowly,e7pressed rationale 6 if t#e
rationale no longer seems !alid, you an abandon earlier rules and mo!e
t#e law forward
Court #as employed t#is met#odology in t#is area of onstitutional law
A4ortion Roe !. =a"e
Roe v. !ade &:S )97;(
Fats: 5@ riminaliGing abortion e7ept w#ere neessary to sa!e mot#er%s life=
Court:
-./ Does this law infringe on a fun"amental Constitutional right>
Jes, t#e rig#t to pri!ay in t#e )Ft# 8. S$' lause
o Court is now more omfortable grounding its deision ba3 in t#e notion of S$' &no
+penumbral- rig#ts of "riswold(
>iolation of t#e rig#t to pri!ay bB #ri!a%$ is now inter#rete" as autonom$= Comes from CL
met#odology:
o In <isenstadt, Court broadened t#is rig#t to people and t#eir fundamentally personal
deisions su# as t#e rig#t to bear or beget a #ild &flows from "riswold , .eyers and
'iere(
8utonomy rig#ts:
1ig#t to ma3e life deisions, and to bodily integrity
Stewart%s onurrene:
o 5#is is an intimately personal deision, so any regulation would be an in!asion of your
pri!ay
Jou #a!e rig#t to pri!ayB autonomy in deisions and ations regarding ertain fundamental life
#oies
1e#n2uist, dissent:
o 5#is and "riswold are no different t#an Lo#ner
0ut e7istene of fundamental, un,enumerated rig#t to pri!ay was well,settled by
t#is point
-+/ If so) "oes this law sur!i!e stri%t s%rutin$>
5e7as%s reasons:
o &)( 'roteting #ealt# and safety of mot#er
o &2( 'roteting t#e life of t#e fetus &main argument(
5#is law is narrowly,tailored/ one of t#ose ases w#ere t#ere%s no ot#er way to
sa!e t#e life of e!ery fetus
Court:
)F
o &2( 0tate&s interest in #rote%ting the life of the fetus onl$ 4e%omes %om#elling at the
#oint of !ia4ilit$ beause state%s interest is greater in proteting t#e mot#er in t#e earlier
stages t#an it is later on w#en t#e fetus ould atually sur!i!e
If state%s interest is in proteting potential life, !iability does not ma3e sense
beause a fetus is potential #uman life before !iability
0ut 5@ laims t#at t#ey are interested in real #uman life, w#i# to t#em
starts at oneption
Court doesn%t want to deide w#en life begins, but essentially deides it
by pointing to age of !iability &re4ets argument t#at it starts at
oneption(
o Court .:S5 deide t#e issue before t#em, but t#ey%re not
#olding life starts at !iability for a matter of law
Court #as to deide w#en t#e issue beomes ompelling enoug# &don%t t#in3 5@
#as t#e rig#t to tell t#em #ow ompelling t#eir interest is(
Aa!e to ma3e t#ese moral 4udgments in t#ese ases, beause ot#erwise
you an%t #a!e 4udiial enforement of onstitutional norms
Colby: .aybe ourt is 4ust saying t#e woman gets to deide &if s#e belie!es life
starts at oneption, s#e won%t get abortion/ if s#e t#in3s it%s !iability t#en s#e
an%t get an abortion after t#en(
0ut t#is seems wrong too 6 it%s saying women #a!e #oie to ta3e a
#uman life
.aybe saying t#ere is no rig#t or wrong answer
'roteting #ealt# of baby, but !iability gets pus#ed earlier and earlier wit#
ad!anes in medial te#nology
0ut pri!ay rig#t s#ould be same regardless of medial te#nology
o Via4ilit$ ma7es little sense
Conerns wit# unwanted pregnanies
Finanially unable, emotionally unable, et=
o &)( 0tate&s interest in #rote%ting health of mother
Interest isn%t ompelling until end of )st trimester, beause at t#at point t#e ris3
to t#e woman of #a!ing an abortion is greater t#an t#e ris3 of #ildbirt#
2ol"ing:
)st trim= >iability
I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I
Can%t do anyt#ing 1egulate only for .om Can ban entirely
Notes
5#is is one of t#e most ritiiGed aspets of t#e 1oe deision , seems to stem from t#e fat t#at
?ustie 0la3mun spent #is time in t#e medial field &was general ounsel at .ayo Clini(
o 5#in3 #e was more onerned wit# go!ernment not regulating dotors
o 8lso doesn%t e7plain w#y t#is falls wit#in pri!ay rig#t, wit#in ourt%s preedent
>iability line is arbitrary
Court may be doing a balaning test:
o 0alaning woman%s interest in #er own life and t#e state%s interest in proteting t#e life of
a fetus &las# of absolutes(
)K
One side will always narrowly out!ote t#e ot#er, and rus# an essential liberty, so
t#ey do t#eir own balaning test and ome out t#is way
Should they be doing this?
o 1e#n2uist: t#is w#ole opinion #as t#e feel of legislation
o SS is not supposed to be about balaning in t#is way
S#ould be a 2uestion of absolutes: does t#e indi!idual
#a!e a fundamental rig#tDIf so, does t#e state #a!e a
ompelling interestD
5#ere were more logial ways of oming out &one way or t#e ot#er(, but t#ose
ways would #a!e been ompletely unaeptable to K0S of t#e 8merian publi
.ay be saying t#at state does not #a!e a ompelling interest in potential #uman life=
o Interest is legitimate, but not ompelling &ot#erwise ould also regulate ontraeption(
o State does #a!e a ompelling interest in proteting atual #uman life
5o deide w#en fetus beomes an atual #uman life, #a!e to pi3 somew#ere 4ust
to deide t#is ase from a legal, onstitutional standpoint
Not ontraeption/ not birt# 6 so !iability is a ompromise
o One it #its t#is point, state%s interest beomes ompelling
o Consistent wit# t#e !iew of a ma4ority of 8merians
o 5#is would ma3e more sense if t#is is w#at t#e Court was saying
0ut t#ey were afraid or unwilling to say t#is
Canted to say t#at it wasn%t deiding in any way w#en life begins
Hy"o: If goernment created mandatory bone!marrow registry "donor bank# for a new kind of procedure
that is much more promising than the old ones but the process of donating the marrow is incredibly
physically ta$ing "%& hour procedure' ( month recoery' cuts into earning potential for ne$t %& years#'
can they force you to undergo that procedure if youre a match to sae someones life? )s a matter of
*on +aw?
:nder 1oe, t#is would li3ely be unonstitutional
S#ould t#e state be allowed to ma3e you do t#isD
o If not for you, t#e ot#er person would die
o $ifferene may be t#at t#ere was responsibility in t#e pregnany, w#ereas in t#e donor
#ypo t#ere wasn%t
0ut w#at about rape, inest, et asesD
Notes:
C#at s#ould t#e Court #a!e said in 1oeD
o S#ould it #a!e e!en gotten to strit srutinyD
.ost people feel omfortable getting up to "riswold, and <isenstadt, so it
doesn%t seem to be a big step from t#ere to 1oe
0ut t#e big step is t#e part t#at #olds t#e state%s interest is so mu# more
ompelling
5#ree alternati!es:
o &)( <7pliitly say t#at interest in proteting potential life is not ompelling, and fetus is
not atual #uman life until !iability
o &2( Say no ompelling interest in proteting potential life, and t#at fetus is not atual
#uman life before birt#
o &;( Court s#ouldn%t say w#et#er fetus is or isn%t #uman life, t#is s#ould be left to
legislati!e proess
)E
0etween t#ese ; options, wasn%t t#e first one losest to t#e !alues of t#e
traditions and beliefs of t#e 8merians as a w#oleD
If t#is is true, isn%t t#e nature of t#e 4udiial proess trying to figure out
t#e traditions of our people as e!ol!ing t#roug# timeD
o 5#en didn%t t#ey essentially get t#is ase rig#t, e!en if t#e
reasoning isn%t learD
1oe%s after effets: 8bortion suddenly beomes a #uge politial issue
o Opposition to 1oe beomes a fundamental plan3 of t#e 1epublian party in e!ery
'residential eletion
o Only one demorati 'resident between )970s,)992 &Carter(, and didn%t get to #oose
any ?usties
o 8s more of t#e old 1oe ma4ority dies out, seems li3e 1epublians may get t#eir way
A4ortion Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Planned Parenthood v. Casey &:S )992(
Fats: 2 pro!isions of '8 law being #allenged: .andatory 2F waiting period &+Informed
Consent- pro!ision after deision to #a!e an abortion(/ .andatory spousal notifiation &e7ept in
ase of medial emergeny(=
o Instead in!ol!es law t#at limits t#e rig#t to abortion
"i!es Court t#e #ane to o!errule 1oe altoget#er
Tennedy originally ast #is !ote against 1oe, all t#at was left was t#e
writing of t#e opinions= 5#en 0la3mun reei!es note from Tennedy,
w#o #ad been meeting wit# O%Connor and Souter, deided to swit#
sides
Court &?oint Opinion(
o 'lurality, sometimes ma4ority:
o 'artial onurrene, partial dissent by Ste!ens
o 'artial onurrene, partial dissent by 0la3mun
o Salia, C#ite, 1e#n2uist and 5#omas
.a4or issues:
-./ !hat are doctrinal rules regarding a&ortion under Casey+ !ere they correct+
Reasserts 0D' right to li4ert$) in%lu"ing right to #ro%ure a4ortion) 4ut still su4<e%t to
%ounter!ailing state interests
o State%s interest in proteting atual life:
State an now pro#ibit abortion altoget#er at point of !iability
8t !iability, fetus #as its own rig#ts as a person
o State%s interest in proteting potential life:
Can enourage birt# o!er abortion, but an%t impose substantial obstales to
abortion before !iability
Re<e%ts trimester framewor7 -"oesn&t ma7e sense/ 1 now su4<e%t to 3un"ue 4ur"en5
stan"ar" -limiting the right is o7) as long as there&s no un"ue 4ur"en on that right/
o No more SS re!iew/ but t#is isn%t 10 srutiny eit#er
o :ndue burden is somew#ere in between t#ese two standards
It%s a balaning test 6 C#yD
.aybe Court reogniGes t#at t#ere are powerful interests on bot# sides
)7
o 5#e !ery nature of t#e state%s interest is different #ere &not based
on morality, ommunity, safety, et( 6 designed to protet 2
indi!iduals fundamental rig#ts rig#t up ne7t to ea# ot#er
o 5#ere%s more t#an a ompelling interest #ere, t#ere%s a profound
interest
o :ndue burden test gets ;&D( !otes &O%Connor, Tennedy and Souter(
Ste!ens mentions is, but en!isions it as a striter standard 6 doesn%t seem to want
to go along wit# t#e plurality%s !iew
0la3mun wants strit srutiny, li3es 1oe trimester framewor3
$issenters: want rational basis
$on%t t#in3 t#ere%s a rig#t to pri!ay, w#i# means t#e ourt s#ouldn%t be
aggressi!ely proteting t#is, it s#ould be left to t#e legislati!e proess
1ational 0asis :ndue 0urden Strit Srutiny
I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I
$issenters O%Connor, Tennedy, Souter Ste!ens, 0la3mun
o Ce #a!e to use t#e test wit# w#i# K people would at least agree
Aere, w#en :0 t#in3s regulation is OT, it #as 7 !otes, and w#en it t#in3s it%s not
o3, it #as K !otes
5#e Constitution is silent on any test, ne!er tells us w#at t#e test s#ould be 6
rational basis, strit srutiny were bot# made up by 4udges
Constitution seems to demand a balaning test, beause no rig#t seems to be
absolute
U#hol"s the 9an"ator$ +( waiting #erio" -3Informe" Consent5 #ro!ision/
o State%s reason: Comen s#ould be informed of #ow proedure wor3s, gestational age of
fetus, et=
5#oug# possibly to on!ine women to #ange t#eir minds &designed to
disourage abortion, to disourage e7erise of onstitutional rig#ts(
o Court: 5#e state, in trying to disourage t#e free e7erise of t#is rig#t, burdens it, but not
unduly, w#en ompared against t#e state%s interest in proteting potential life &balanes(
5#oug# t#ere may be irumstanes w#ere t#e burden is #uge &#a!ing to dri!e )2
#ours 4ust to get to t#e dotor, et=(, on the record before them only, it is not an
undue burden
>ery fat,sensiti!e in2uiry= <mpirial enterprise, real,world balaning test, many
of t#ese ome down to trial
0tri7es "own the 9an"ator$ s#ousal notifi%ation
o State: Coman an bypass w#ere: Ausband wasn%t fat#er of #ild, #usband ouldn%t be
loated, pregnany was result of se7ual assault already reported to aut#orities, or w#ere
s#e%ll suffer bodily #arm if s#e tells #er #usband
o 'lurality: <!en wit# bypass pro!ision, t#ere are ot#er forms of abuse women may fear
regardless of t#is pro!ision et=
Court is t#in3ing about t#is more as a woman%s rig#t
,ow do we reconcile the application of this standard to each of the proisions?
)*
o .ore broadly, t#e plurality #as made a onsious deision to split t#e differene 6 t#ey
want to us#er in a new era of true balane
5o do t#at, t#ey #a!e to up#old one pro!ision, and stri3e down anot#er
o 'robably aware of t#e inonsisteny in t#eir met#odology, but t#ey may be onsiously
doing it to attain a broader goal
-0/ !as S. Ct. correct to invoke doctrine of stare decisis to refuse to overturn Roe v. !ade+
-./ Relian%e= O%Connor: +Liberty finds no refuge in a 4urisprudene of doubt=- &liberty depends
on a ertain amount of ertainty, #a!e to 3now #ow far t#ey e7tend(
o So Court in!o3es dotrine of stare deisis &ounsels against o!erruling 1oe, e!en if 1oe
was wrong(
Aas t#ere been reliane #ereD
Some sort of ultural reliane on abortion rig#ts, 3nowing it%s t#ere as an
option in ase ontraeption fails
Comen being able to be in t#e wor3 fore, et=, beause t#ey 3now t#ey
#a!e some ontrol o!er w#en to start t#eir family
Court reogniGes more e7pliitly t#e women%s rig#ts aspet of t#is issue
o 5#oug# on!entionally S$ #as been applied more in statutory law, ourt #olds t#at in
ases regarding onstitutional 2uestions, need for S$ is espeially great:
In Con Law, t#e only way to o!errule t#e Court is to #ange t#e onstitution, if it
ouldn%t o!errule itself
Aere, t#e Court finds an e7eption w#ere t#e ase is so #ig# profile and so
deisi!e
-+/ Legitima%$
o Could illegitimatiGe t#e Court%s power to perform its funtion if t#ey don%t up#old
pre!ious deisions
o Legitimay turns on t#e publi pereption t#at t#e Court is ad#ering to pre!ious legal
e7pertise and is ating neutrally
o Cant to plae t#e law abo!e t#eir moral beliefs, so as not to onflate law and politi, and
s#ow t#e people t#e independene of t#e Court
Dissenters: agree wit# legitimay argument, but t#in3 it%s for 4ust t#is reason t#at Court s#ould
get out of t#e abortion rig#ts arena all toget#er
o Cants to return t#is power to t#e states, and t#e people
o Loo3 ba3 to "riswold, Stewart%s dissent:
No su# t#ing as unenumerated S$' rig#ts &t#oug#t t#ese died wit# Lo#ner(
1oe != Cade: Stewart%s onurrene
1eogniGes t#at #e lost in "riswold/ sees t#is e!olution of t#e pat# of
law, &e!en if #e would #a!e #osen anot#er pat#(
o 1oe follows <isenstadt
5#in3s t#at to protet t#e legitimay of t#e institution, must treat matters
as settled, w#et#er or not you agreed wit# to begin wit#
o 5o Salia, getting t#e meaning of t#e Constitution and t#e sope
of rig#ts orret are more important
'ast 're%e"ent: Court #as to onfront 2 most important ases: Cest Coast Aotel &<nded t#e
Lo#ner era(, and 0rown != 0oard of <duation &Stru3 down raial segregation(
o Aad Court relied on S$ in eit#er of t#ese ases, #istory would be !ery different
o 5#is ase is different beause in =est Coast8 Lo%hner an" 'less$8Boar") fa%tual
un"er#innings ha" %hange" -#ro!en false/ not so here
)9
In 'lessy, soiety didn%t t#in3 t#ere was anyt#ing wrong wit# segregation 6 by
t#e time 0rown ame around, soiety understood t#at t#ere was a badge of
inferiority in#erent in segregation
Same t#ing in Lo#ner 6 eonomis progressed to re4et idea of laiGe faire
In 1oe and Casey, t#ere #asn%t been any fallay pro!en in t#e fatual
underpinnings &not#ing #as #anged I stare deisis is appropriate(
o Lo#ner and 'lessy: legal priniples artiulated in t#e earlier ases were no longer !alid
for t#e urrent ases as a w#ole
'artial 0D> 'lurality relies on stare deisis to up#old 1oe%s ruling, but still o!erruled t#e
trimester standard
o 0la3mun dissents: an%t pi3 and #oose w#ere you want to apply S$ in t#e ase
o 1e#n2uist and Salia also dissent -+3eep w#at you want, and t#row away t#e rest-
!ersion of S$(
o ,s this defensi&le+
.aybe t#e ourt is building on t#e ore of 1oe !s= Cade=
?ettison parts t#at are indefensible li3e 5rimester framewor3, but
grounding t#e t#eory in bodily integrity, unli3e 1oe=
.aybe ma3es a mo3ery of stare deisis by molding it differently=
.aybe impro!ing wea3nesses of prior opinion and #olding onto t#e ore &1oe
was onlusory and ursory(
Notes:
Casey !s= 1oe:
o 0odily Integrity:
Casey e7plains #ow t#is fits wit# preedent &rig#t not to ta3e mediation against
will, pump stoma# against will, surgery against will= O.u# of t#is edited out of
aseboo3(= 8ttempts to e7plain pri!ay and autonomy 6 osts of arrying #ild
against #er will=
o Comen%s 1ig#ts:
Casey e7presses willingness to see t#is issue in terms of women%s rig#ts=
1oe aggressi!ely s#ied away from t#is=
<7plains t#e dangers of 4udiial ati!ism in t#is area=
o State Interest:
Casey more respetful t#an 1oe of state interest=
Aonest about t#e fat t#at +at t#e end of t#e day- balaning state !s=
indi!idual interest=
Some of Casey plurality members personally opposed to abortion, but
ommitted to t#e fabri of onstitutional law=
o 8nalysis:
"etting rid of parts of prior ases t#at were irrational or unsound, w#ile 3eeping
t#e #eart and fous of t#e prior deision in 3eeping wit# #anged soietal !alues
and legal dotrines=
$issenters:
1oe was in!alid/ Court ontrol of abortion issue is un4ust and
unwor3able=
Cor3s against SCO5:S institutional legitimay=
S#ould lea!e to states and t#e people &3ey disagreement(
Casey 8ftermat#:
20
o :ne7peted pro,#oie !itory=
o Still great deal of fear in pro,#oie mo!ement t#at abortion rig#ts disappear if Casey
were o!erruled= K,F deision=
o Clinton <letion:
C#ite retired, replaed by "insburg &foused on women%s rig#ts aspet(=
0la3mun replaed wB0reyer= E,; now in fa!or of abortion rig#ts=
o 'eople in t#e pro,#oie mo!ement weren%t #appy wBCasey=
$idn%t li3e undue burden standard= In a region between SS and 10=
'ro,Life :n#appy as well: ourt was aggressi!e about undue burden= Loo3ed
more li3e SS=
o Stenberg - *arhart: $elares N< law unonstitutional restriting partial birt# w#en no
e7eption for t#e #ealt# of t#e mot#er= Tennedy swit#ed #is !ote #ere ma3ing K,F= Ae
saw state interest in proteting fetus from gruesome pratie as ompared to marginally
safer form of abortion for t#e mot#er=
.ore onser!ati!e 4udges an ma3e undue burned a serious inroad into abortion
rig#ts=
o 0us# Jears t#roug# 'resent:
O%Connor replaed wit# 8lito &#as written t#at #e doesn%t t#in3 abortion is a
proteted rig#t(
1oberts 6 interested in ontinuity of t#e law and legitimay of SCO5:S=
,ypothetical: New Court #as ase and #olds K,F t#at 1oe s#ould be o!erruled= <merging soietal
onsensus t#at a fetus is a person at t#e time of oneption &early on, fetus are mu# more de!eloped t#an
was understood at t#e time of 1oe ( 'ost,1oe laws ombined wBnew riminal and tort laws to ma3e it
illegal to #arm a fetus= SCO5:S #olds t#at fetus is a person proteted by S$'= Can%t depri!e any person
of a rig#t to life= AOL$S: No state an pass or enfore a law allowing an abortion, e7ept maybe to sa!e
t#e life of a mot#er=
5#e issue is now onstitutionaliGed= 5#e SCO5:S #as remo!ed it from t#e politial proess=
Could t#e SCO5:S deision be legitimateD
o If t#is seems li3e 4udiial ati!ism, t#en w#at do we t#in3 of 1oe and CaseyD
.aybe it%s better to effetuate t#ese #anges t#roug# demoray=
o $o we really #a!e s#ared soietal !alues about issues li3e t#isD
o .aybe better to lea!e t#is issue to t#e states and t#e people= +Liberty finds no refuge in a
4urisprudene of doubt=-
o $id t#is wor3D Is 1oe any more safe todayD
Famil$ Relationshi#s
Michael H. v. )erald 1. &:S )9*9(
2)
Fats: .an alleges #e parented a #ild of a married woman=
Court: C8 law presumes t#at #ild of marriage is t#e biologial #ild of t#e #usband=
o .an%s blood test pro!ed it was #is 3id, but in t#e eyes of t#e law, it%s #usband%s 3id
o Salia: Uuestion is: is t#ere a rig#t for an adulterous natural fat#er to !isit t#e #ildD &!ery
speifi in2uiry(
Conludes no/ e7amines #istorial traditions:
No #istorial relations#ip=
Long standing presumption of legitimay between married parents=
o 0rennan: Uuestion is: does a parent #a!e a rig#t to be in!ol!ed in t#e #ild%s lifeD &Aig#er
le!el of generality(
Court #as artiulated t#is rig#t at a broader, #ig#er generality
9etho"olog$ These a##roa%hes t$#if$ what is use" 4$ Brennan an" 0%alia=
Salia:
o &)( "riswold: Salia would as3 does a married ouple #a!e a rig#t to use ontraeption,
t#en would loo3 for a tradition of proteting t#is rig#t=
"riswold was deided more generally for a rig#t of pri!ay=
o &2( Lo!ing !s= >irginia: Salia would as3 does an interraial ouple #a!e a fundamental
rig#t to marryD No, t#ere was a long tradition of denying married ouples t#e rig#t to
marry to ouples of different raes=
5#e same point an be made for !irtually e!ery ase in w#i# t#ere is a
fundamental unenumerated rig#t, but t#is isn%t onsistent wit# t#e way ourts
#a!e loo3ed at t#is
0rennan:
o 5#is is inonsistent wit# preedent
o Salian !iew #as a narrower !iew of liberty
o 5#is freeGes liberty 6 doesn%t allow it to e!ol!e &Salia always loo3s to w#at was
onsidered liberty 200 years ago(
0attle between originalists and non,originalists
o Brennan: same 2uestion doesn%t #a!e to produe t#e same answer as it did 200 year ago
Law 200 years ago #ad a strong presumption against illegitimate parents beause
t#ere wasn%t a way of 3nowing w#et#er t#at was true
5oday, we an pro!e w#o t#e fat#er is, so t#ere%s no rele!ant presumption
Constitution must be fle7ible to reflet te#nologial #anges
o 0%alia: Only time you%d find S$' !iolation is w#ere t#ere%s a 200,year old proteted
rig#t t#at is suddenly unproteted &e7tremely rare(
$oesn%t allow for CL model of onstitutional deision ma3ing 6 if you always
rely on narrowest model of generality, you an%t rely on preedent, 4ust narrow
#istorial reord
<7: if we define "riswold as rig#t to use ontraepti!es in t#e material
bedroom, t#ere%s no w#ere to go from t#ere
o 0road generality would find it to #old t#at t#ere%s a fundamental
rig#t to pri!ay in matters of family and se7ual freedom &allows
us to get to <isenstadt and 1oe(
5#in3 of generality as t#e triangle 6 Salia would see t#e rig#t as t#e
lowest point on t#e triangle/ 0rennan would see somet#ing #ig#er
Is there an alternatie to these methods?
o $on%t define generality randomly/ do it t#roug# t#e ase law
22
Loo3 to t#e rationale for "riswold2 Casn%t so narrow as to e7tend to use of
ondoms, but nor was it about a general, broad freedom
o Infer unifying reasons for t#e ase law, t#en apply it to t#e fats
2ow $ou "efine the right an" #hrase the Auestion is usuall$ going to "i%tate
the answer=
+"ames of abstration- are not uni2ue to S$'
o .ore ommon in S$', #owe!er, beause abstration is t#e
w#ole game &no onrete wording to fall ba3 on(
0e;ualit$
a$rence v. 3e4as &:S 200;(
Fats: 2 men engaged in se7 are on!ited of a rime of sodomy in !iolation of 5@ law
Court: S$' inludes rig#ts of gays to engage in onsensual ondut, inluding sodomy
o O!errules 0owers:
&)( Soietal !alues #a!e #anged, &2( legal landsape #as #anged &no reliane(,
&;( fatual underpinnings #a!e #anged, &F( no reliane
o 5a3es a 0roader !iew:
In 0owers, Court as3ed &narrow le!el of generality(: +Cas t#ere a fundamental
rig#t for persons to engage in #omose7ual sodomyD-
8s3ed a narrow 2uestion, ensuring a negati!e answer
Aere, as3s +$oes a person #a!e t#e rig#t to be let aloneD-
'rior body of ases t#at we%!e been reading would enompass a
2uestions somew#ere in between:
o +Is t#ere a fundamental rig#t to ma3e ertain deisions regarding
your own se7ual #oies and autonomyD-
Salia an%t belie!e Tennedy, w#o one laimed in Casey t#at for ontro!ersial, blo3buster
ases, Court s#ould ad#ere to stare deisis
o Now )2 years later, Tennedy and Souter are o!erruling 0owers &t#in3s #e%s manipulating
stare deisis(
Legal Lan"s%a#e:
o 0la3mun%s dissent lines up most rationally wit# t#e reasoning
1oe fit into legal landsape, w#ile 0owers didn%t &was undermined by subse2uent
ase law as well 6 i=e=, Casey(
o .a3es e7pliit point of artiulated broader le!el of generality
.a3es lear t#at 1oe line of ases relates to freedom regarding intimate #oies
regarding family, proreation, et=
Consensual se7ual relations#ips seem to follow from t#is reasoning
Fa%tual Un"er#innings:
o In Casey, 1oe was based on assumptions of women%s rig#ts t#at #ad not #anged
o In Lawrene, 0owers% fatual understandings #anged 6 li3e 'lessyB0rown:
&)( In 0owers, Court loo3ed to #istorial riminaliGation of #omose7ual se7, but
t#e ourt in Lawrene says t#at t#e #istory is wrong in 0owers
Long legal #istory of riminaliGing all non,proreati!e se7, and we now
#a!e a different understanding of t#is
Casn%t until )970s t#at states singled out #omose7ual se7 for
riminaliGing
2;
&2( In 0owers, many of t#e ?usties were old in )9*E, and didn%t understand
#omose7uality
0y 200;, in Lawrene, t#e 4usties #a!e a mu# different understanding
of w#at it means to be gay
o Court implies t#ese #anges in understanding 2uite learly
La%7 of Relian%e
o Tennedy doesn%t find reliane on 0owers
o Salia t#in3s t#ere #as been reliane, on bot# 0owers andK00 years of law, based on
notion t#at it%s 4ob of ourt to protet notion of morality
0o%ietal !alues
o Tennedy 6 our !alues #a!e #anged wBrBt to se7ual freedom generally &for adult persons
in onduting t#eir onsensual se7ual li!es(, and wit# se7uality
Our soiety #as #anged "es#ite 0owers
5#oug# it was only 20 years, our soiety an #ange t#at 2ui3ly
o Loo3 to !alues on raial issues, )9EK,)9*K
o Fators:
Legal #anges &:T and <: laws(
$omestially 6 less t#an V states riminaliGe/ K states re4eted 0owers in
interpreting t#eir state onstitutions
Last ensus 6 o!er E00,000 self,I$%s openly gay families
Corporations pro!ide benefits for gay partners, most states allow gay adoption
o Salia:
8mii briefs and Aollywood don%t represent t#e ma4ority opinion
:ses +persons w#o engage in #omose7ual ondut- 6 still goes on assumption
t#at some people #oose to engage in t#is +de!iant be#a!ior-
Notes:
.aybe neessary to reogniGe #anging norms, and after a ertain t#res#old it%s t#e Court%s duty
to step in, to protet t#e reogniGed group
o 5#ere will always be an anti,ontingent of t#e population
Srutiny: Seems to be SS 6 +fundamental- used &diffiult to tell(
o Salia t#in3s t#ey s#ould be using rational basis
Court says t#e law doesn%t furt#er any legitimate state interest &t#is is 10
language(, doesn%t find gay se7 a fundamental rig#t
If t#is is 10, #ow is t#is law being stru3 downD
o Salia: ma4ority t#in3s it%s illegitimate to pass a law based on
morality
0ut mu# of riminal ode is based on state%s ability to
riminaliGe be#a!ior t#at we find immoral
o .a4ority opinion ma3es big deal out of statute targeting gays and lesbians alone
Could be intent problem 6 e!en if faially neutral intent is lear
Court is e7pliitly resol!ing t#is on S$', fundamental liberty grounds &<' not enoug#(
o "riswold line of ases seem to stand for freedom in se7ual relations
AoldingD "ay or straig#t, you #a!e t#e rig#t to #a!e t#e sort of se7ual relations t#at your desire
&Salia t#in3s t#is may be w#at Tennedy is trying to say, but ne!er omes out to say it(
5#is isn%t a !ery well,written opinion &dotrinally, !ery unlear(= Inter#retations:
2F
o -./ Some people #a!e ta3en t#is to mean t#at Court is on !erge of abandoning SS
framewor3/ on !erge of S$' re!olution
Ot#ers #a!e t#oug#t t#e Court is beoming more libertarian 6 go!ernment must
#a!e legitimate reason for infringing on anyt#ing in our li!es, w#et#er or not it%s
a +fundamental rig#t-
o -+/ Ot#ers say it%s not t#is e7treme, but suggest t#at Court is doing a balaning test,
wit#out as3ing w#et#er interest is fundamental
<!ery time liberty is being interfered wit#, Court will balane your interest wit#
t#e state%s
o -@/ Colby: s3eptial of all of t#is
Lawrene is best read as a autious, onfused opinion
0est understood as part and parel of t#e se7ual freedom ases, and #olding t#at
state an%t o!erome t#at liberty rig#t in t#e name of morality
<7plains 0owers was based on fatually inaurate assumptions about
#omose7uality
Ultimatel$) 7e$ hol"ing 0tate %annot <ustif$ this intrusion into in"i!i"ual li4ert$
'oliy Uuestions:
Should state &e a&le to regulate in the name of morality+
Aard to t#in3 about t#is wit#out t#in3ing about fat t#at t#e law in t#is ase is targeting an entire
group of people, and demeaning t#eir e7istene
.orality is tied into religion
$oes so wBrBt murder, inest, et, but t#ere are ot#er interest at play t#ere
.ust be t#at t#e go!ernment is saying t#ey #a!e a rig#t to do t#ese t#ings beause t#e ma4ority
t#in3s its wrong
o If t#is omes into onflit wit# a minority%s !iew, w#ose s#ould pre!ailD
o Tennedy: go!ernment an%t ma3e t#ese moral deisions for you
5#is is a signifiant defeat for t#e onser!ati!e !iew of t#e family and soiety
Sli""ery slo"e2 if homose4uality is allo$ed5 does that mean &estiality5 incest5 &igamy5 fornication5
adultery5 "olygamy5 etc. should &e allo$ed too+
Some are different beause t#ey%re not between onsenting adults &rules out bestiality, pedop#ilia(
o C#at about polygamy, adulteryD
Aas somet#ing to do wit# go!ernment santion of a partiular relations#ip
o 'rostitution 6 go!ernment #as free reign to regulate eonomi transations
o "roup se7, forniation, masturbationD
$oes Lawrene stand for t#e santion of t#ese t#ingsD
Not #arming ot#er people, not about state santion, not eonomi
transations
Lawrene: t#is is about t#e rig#t of 2 people to ta3e t#eir lo!e to t#e ne7t
le!el &marriage isn%t a!ailable for gay ouples, so t#e forniation laws
ause a deeper #arm to gays(
Sometimes ourt draws a line, but t#e underlying priniples are mu# broader, and often resurfae
later &"riswold speifially said it wasn%t inluding #omose7uals in its deision(
5#is seems liberal wBrBt fundamental rig#ts, but we%re atually 2uite onser!ati!e ompared to Cestern
<urope
2K
Affirmati!e Rights
1eShaney v. !inne&ago City Services &:S(
Fats: C#ild put in ustody of #is fat#er, beaten= .ot#er brings laim , by putting #im in ustody
of #is fat#er, and ta3ing on responsibility for proteting #im, t#e state reated a duty for itself, and
t#erefore !iolated #is onstitutional rig#ts by failing to fulfill it
Court: No onstitutional obligation on t#e part of t#e state to protet t#e #ild= 8ll rig#ts
proteted by S$' are +negati!e rig#ts- 6 t#ings t#e state an%t regulate, or tell you to do &no
affirmati!e rig#ts t#at states must do=(
o Framers didn%t ontemplate t#ese rig#ts 6 wanted go!ernment to #a!e as little role as
possible
Notes:
F$1%s New $eal ame lose to e7panding S$' to o!er fundamental affirmati!e rig#ts &+Seond
0o1- 6 rig#t to wor3, deent #ome, med are, eduation, suffiient wages, free trade, protetion
from monopolies, protetion from t#reat of destitution(
o Suggested we s#ould reate t#ese statutorily, rat#er t#an t#roug# onstitution
Aa!e t#ese beome impliit in our notion of a 4ust and free soietyD Is t#ere a onst rig#t to t#ese
today, e!en t#oug# t#ere wasn%t w#en t#e Const was writtenD
o 5ime w#en Carren Court loo3ed li3e it was 4ust waiting for t#e rig#t ase to say t#at t#e
seond bill of rig#ts is now inorporated 4ust li3e t#e first bill of rig#ts
0urger ourt after Ni7on was eleted and t#e ourt ba3ed away=
III. :BUAL 'ROT:CTION
Rational Basis
1ational 0asis
Rail$ay 64"ress Agency v. #e$ %ork &:S )9F9(
.o re/uirement of e/ual protection that all eils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all
?ustie $ouglas, )9F9
Fats: NJ law #eld you ould not ad!ertise on t#e side of tru3, unless ad!ertising for your own
business= 8im was to redue distrations to pedestrians and dri!ers= 's ontended t#at law is
unfairly applied to t#em=
Court: NJ%s lassifiation is not t#e 3ind of disrimination against w#i# t#e <' lause affords
protetion= Loal aut#orities may #a!e determined t#at ompanies t#at ad!ertise t#eir own wares
or ser!ies on t#eir own tru3s do not pose t#e same 3ind of distration
o If so, t#e lassifiation bBt different 3inds of ads #as relation to t#e purpose for w#i# it is
made
Rational Basis Re!iew
0te# .: Is the go!ernment&s interest a legitimate one>
>irtually any state interest will be legitimate:
o NO5 a state interest in fa!oring one 3ind are desire to #arm one unpopular group
0te# + Is this law rationall$ relate" to #romoting the go!ernment&s interest>
<!en t#oug# state didn%t #a!e any e!idene and didn%t say w#y it was passing t#e law, ourt want
to be ery deferential to t#e state law now, in t#e post,Lo#ner era=
2E
Notes:
Not#ing in 10 says you #a!e to deal wB t#e worse problem first 6 Ce let t#e state #ip away at its
interest in random order=
8 law an be under,inlusi!e and still omply wB e2ual protetion srutiny=
o .any laws are bot# o!er,inlusi!e and under,inlusi!e S= Ct= up#eld a law preluding
people in a met#adone lini from being bus dri!ers=
5#e law does not #a!e to be perfet= It 4ust #as to on t#e w#ole ma3e t#e ity streets safer t#an
t#ey would be wit#out t#e law=
1ational re!iew is e7tremely deferential in bot# t#e means and t#e ends=
1e2uiring e2ual treatment protets against all stupid and oppressi!e laws= If a #ars# law applies
to eeryone t#e publi won%t stand for it, e=g= +awrence - 0e$as
Slaughter-House cases
First to interpret t#e amendment 6 <' intended to protet raial minorities
Strouder case
Court: Stri3es down law t#at pre!ented 88s from partiipating on 4uries
o "o!ernment an restrit members#ip on 4uries #owe!er it wants, so long as it doesn%t
#inge on rae disrimination
o Only rela7ed, rational,basis re!iew w#en t#ere%s disrimination based on ot#er fators,
not rae
7orematsu v. 'S &:S )9FF(
Fats: Internment Camp ase= T was born in :S, fired from #is 4ob t#e day after 'earl Aarbor/
on!ited of not being in a detention amp=
Court: 8pplied SS, but t#e law sur!i!ed t#e test= Court found t#e go!ernment%s interest in t#e
+real military dangers- &fear of in!asion(= 0orn out of genuine desire to protet from in!asion,
not from raist feelings, so t#e Court must defer=
o 0la3: all legal restritions w#i# urtail t#e rig#ts of a single group are +immediately
suspet=- Ais appliation of t#e law to t#e fats of t#is ase are not loo3ed upon
fa!orably today 6 t#oug# #is +strit srutiny- test is
.urp#y%s dissent: 5#is law fails on bot# means and ends &bot# prongs of SS re!iew(
o No ompelling go!ernment interest: purpose be#ind t#e law is raist
o Not narrowly,tailored enoug#: 0ot# o!er, and under,inlusi!e:
O!er: applies to people w#o wouldn%t pose a serious t#reat to t#e :S
:nder: $oesn%t inlude people w#o would pose a t#reat to :S t#at aren%t of
?apanese dissent &"ermans, Italians(
For eonomi regulation, an be o!er, or under,inlusi!e 6 raially not
o3
?a3son%s dissent: :p#olding t#is law is doing more damage t#an 4ust letting it slide
o If not t#e middle of t#e war, t#is law would be stri3en down in an instant
.a4ority only up#olds in need to defer to military
Sometimes #a!e to be realisti t#at in some situations t#e Constitution may be
ompromised, and !itory is paramount
Substantial dose of legal realism
Court #as to be sensible, and step ba3 for a moment before it ats
o +0ut w#et#er or not it%s neessary, let%s not pretend it%s onstitutional-
27
Notes:
.any people ite 1orematsu as onstitutional 4ustifiation for furt#ering t#e argument t#at we
s#ould #a!e internment amps for 8rab,8merians
o Narrow U: S#ould 1orematsu still ser!e as preedent today in a time of warD
o 0road U: 8re t#ere any irumstanes in w#i# laws t#at disriminate on t#e basis of rae
s#ould sur!i!e srutinyD
SS good enoug#D S#ould we #a!e ategorial srutiny to raial statutesD
Still lets t#e 5imot#y .>eig#s t#roug#
If we%re afraid of t#e ris3 of Torematsu, s#ouldn%t we 4ust say t#at any raially,disriminatory
statute is ompletely barredD
o Is t#e possibility of a few random ases w#ere it mig#t be !alid for go!ernment to
disriminate enoug# to also lea!e t#e door open for anot#er internment ampD
Sine t#is ase, t#e Court #as ne!er up#eld rae disrimination on t#e SS test
Ra%ial 0egregation
Aistorial narrati!e:
8fter Ci!il Car, t#ere were immediate #anges in t#e !oting eletorate= 0la3s ould !ote, but
former onfederate soldiers ould not= 0la3s gained a ma4ority in se!eral state #ouses
o .ay )972: Congress passes law gi!ing amnesty to almost all former onfederates, so
suddenly bla3 sout#erners are outnumbered again
o Federal go!ernment ends agreeing to end reonstruting in return for Aayes to beome
'resident &pulls out of Sout#(, abandoning fed protetion of i!il rig#ts
1aists ta3e ontrol in legislatures in sout#, and now t#ey ontrol t#e law
)9t# Century saw enatment of +?im Crow- laws 6 segregation, denial of rig#ts affirmati!ely
mandated by law:
Plessy v. 8erguson &:S )*9E(
Fats: 's #allenge imposition of segregation on rail ars
Court: 7,) up#olds onstitutionality= $oesn%t disuss le!el of srutiny, but #as feel of rational
basis re!iew
o 5#is falls in general polie power of state, no reason to t#in3 t#is law is unreasonable
Aarlan%s dissent, writing only for #imself:
o Constitution is olor,blind , t#is will fall 4ust li3e t#e $red Sott ase
o $oesn%t buy into separate but e2ual 6 reogniGes t#at t#is is putting a brand on a lass of
people
o 0:5 Aarlan was not raially enlig#tened 6 see #is dissent on letting #ildren of C#inese
immigrants beome 8merian itiGens
Notes:
Court finds t#is isn%t politial ine2uality &it%s soial(, and it%s not +ine2uality-
o Court buys into +separate but e2ual- rationale for soial ine2uality
0ut t#e purpose be#ind separation laws is to 3eep bla3s out of t#e w#ites% world,
and not !ie !ersa , NO5 t#e result of merely soial fores
Court dismisses +badge of inferiority- t#eory, and t#in3s if t#is does e7ist, it%s
beause bla3s interpreted t#is law as stigmatiGing t#eir lass
Aistory of i!il rig#ts:
2*
o )922: N88C' reei!es large grant to try to end segregation, uses t#e money to mount a
massi!e ampaign in t#e ourts
Aouston and 5#urgood .ars#all bring t#e ases, #ose targets arefully 6 pi3ed
ases w#ere t#ere wasn%t e!en an argument for t#e ot#er side
o )aines ase 6 .O law s#ools were all w#ite, wB no option for bla3 students= Court
stri3es it down 6 t#is is not separate but e2ual
o S$eat ase: 5@ law s#ool 6 reated separate publi law s#ool for bla3s= Court finds
t#at t#e s#ools are not e2ual, ordered t#em to admit law students
One #e #ad t#ese preedents, .ars#all was ready to bring t#e big ase t#at dealt wit# primary
and seondary eduation:
Bro$n v. Board of 6ducation 9Bro$n ,: &:S )9KF(
Fats: .inors bring ase for separated s#ools
Court: :nanimously #olds t#at separation !iolates t#e <' lause
o Aistory: )9K2 Conferene, Court didn%t !ote beause t#ey were afraid of issuing a
di!ided opinion 6 unanimity was so important in t#is ase
Fran3furter: wanted to o!errule 'lessy, but #ad to #a!e unanimous opinion
Ordered re,argument in order to buy time= >inson dies, Carren ta3es ommand
and is adamant about ending segregation 6 e!entually bring around ?ustie 1eed=
)9KF: Court announes #istorial opinion
o 'roeeds on presumption t#at tangible failities are e2ual, but reogniGes t#e stigma t#at
goes along wit# being separated
o $istinguis#es 'lessy by saying t#at t#ere%s somet#ing different about eduation t#an train
ars &+Sep but e2ual- #as no plae in eduation 6 it%s uni2ue(
Notes:
N88C' wanted a bigger win, and t#ey get it #ere
0rown is not 4ust important in i!il rig#ts onte7t 6 also in Con Law Conte7t
0asis for Court%s atual #olding: t#ey are not e2ual 6 fatual underpinnings of 'lessy is no longer
found to be true
Cites psy#ologial studies t#at s#ow t#at segregation is detrimental
o On its fae, t#e opinion 4ust reads as if segregation isn%t intentionally raist, it%s 4ust t#at
t#ey didn%t realiGe somet#ing t#at we now 3now t#an3s to t#e studies
Arguments for Bro$n &eing correctly decided2
o 8fter West *oast, Court #eld t#at sometimes t#ey an%t trust demoray 6 politial
proess mig#t brea3 down, and 4udiial re!iew mig#t be proper for t#ose rules affe%ting
3"is%rete an" insular5 minorities:
Can%t be done in Congress: filibusters, et=
State legislatures: an%t get it past t#e Sout#
Can%t be done t#roug# !ote beause ma4ority are w#ite w#o support legislation,
and t#ere are laws in plae t#at sub4ugate t#e bla3s% !ote
Only ot#er politial option is to amend t#e Constitution 6 impossible as well, so
Court #as to step in #ere
5#ese are t#e arguments for w#y 0rown was properly deided
8rguments for 0rown being inorretly deided:
o 5e7t of Constitution almost runs ontrary &separate but e2ual failities are e2ual in terms
of t#e failities(
o 'reedent doesn%t support t#e result
29
o Aistory of t#e )Ft# 8mendment: inonlusi!e= 'roblems wit# t#e #istory:
&)( :nlear: Some t#oug#t it would be onstitutional, ot#ers t#oug#t it would be
unonstitutional, ot#ers didn%t t#in3 somet#ing eit#er way
0ut, no one w#o !oted for )Ft# amendment t#oug#t segregated s#ool
unonstitutional 6 speifially #eld t#at t#is wouldn%t e7tend to
segregation
&2( 8na#ronisti: 5#is is not a 2uestion t#at would #a!e been posed at t#e time
>ery few publi s#ools in t#e sout# at t#e time, and ertainly none for
bla3 persons
o 8gain, t#is is disingenuous , t#ere was segregation and publi
s#ools at t#e time
5#ey tal3ed about it, debated it and answered it
&;( Aistory is not t#e tou#stone: Capable of #a!ing a different sope and
meaning in t#e )9K0s t#en it did in )*E*
?ust beause somet#ing was a !iolation of t#e law ba3 t#en doesn%t
mean t#at it is +today-
Court doesn%t base its deision on t#e #istory
o !hat has changed+
&)( Tnowledge of 'sy#ology, Fats
&2( <duation system #as #anged
&;( Law #as #anged and e!ol!ed
'lessy mig#t be good in t#e abstrat, but it%s missing a fundamental
priniple
&F( >alues #a!e #anged
Court an%t say t#is &don%t want to alienate anyone at t#e time(, but it%s
w#at t#ey%re t#in3ing
5#is is t#e ultimate non,originalist opinion
o 'lessy was more originalist
5#oug# +legislature was at liberty to at aording to traditions and ustoms of
t#e people-
o 5#is is an outrig#t re4etion of originalism , Court doesn%t% are
o 0ut many people, if fored to #oose between 0rown and originalism would #oose
0rown= For ot#ers, 0rown is illegitimate
Bolling v. Shar"e &:S )9KF(
Fats: Sister ase to 0rown, for $C s#ools
Court: stri3es down wBrBt Kt# amendment $ue 'roess &ouldn%t use <' beause t#e )Ft#
8mendment only applies to states, and $C wasn%t a state &doesn%t onstrain Congress, only
states(
o 5#is is a S$' ase: <' is one of t#ose rig#ts t#at%s impliit in t#e onept of ordered
liberty su# t#at it%s inluded in $' lause, e!en if not speifially artiulated &li3e
+in!erse inorporation-(
o Kt# 8. $' lause ratified in )79) 6 at t#e time not li3ely understood to guarantee e2ual
protetion of t#e raes 6 sla!ery going on at t#e time
o +:nt#in3able- t#at t#e Constitution would apply a lesser duty to t#e federal t#an t#e state
go!ernments
Aistorially, no long,rooted rig#t to e2uality
o <mploying open,ended e!olutionary met#odology of interpreting $' rig#ts
;0
Notes:
5#oug# we read t#is ase after 0rown, it%s atually a S$' ase, and an important one
?udge 0our3e &Supreme Court nominee( testified at onfirmation #earings t#at #e didn%t t#ere
was S$' for unenumerated rig#ts 6 didn%t t#in3 t#ere was <' from federal go!ernment
0egregation after Brown !. Boar":
0rown, on its fae, does not o!errule 'lessy 6 it ta3es pains to distinguis# it
o Court !ery 2ui3ly e7tended 0rown to stri3e down segregation aross t#e board
5#is is 4ust CL met#od of 4udiial deisions at wor3
Ne!er state a broader rule t#an you #a!e to for t#e ase before you, t#en
as more ases ome up, find t#at it is appliable to more situations
o Court didn%t order a remedy at t#e end of t#e opinion/ 0rown II orders remedy 6$s must
+ma3e prompt and reasonable effort- to omply wit# desegregation
1esistane to 0rown was widespread
5imeline:
o )9K7: Little 1o3 Central Aig#
o )9E2: : of .S riots
o )9E;: .ar# on Cas#ington, +I #a!e a $ream Spee#-
o )9EF: go!ernor of 8L ma3es +segregation fore!er- spee#
o Ci!il 1ig#ts 8t of )9EF passed: wit##eld federal eduation funds from states t#at didn%t
integrate s#ools
Students in 0rown didn%t get t#e benefits of t#e deision
o Court #ad to ta3e it slow beause t#ey 3new t#at t#ere would be massi!e resistane 6 and
any instant demand wouldn%t be obeyed by t#e masses
Ho$ much credit should $e give S. Ct. for desegregation+
o $idn%t really sueed until Congress got in!ol!ed for t#e first time 6 maybe 0rown did
!ery little
o $on%t underestimate role of 0rown 6 it was 4ust one fator, but was a ma4or one
Federal distrit 4udges in t#e Sout# were t#e ones w#o issued ourt,orders for
integration, and stood by t#ose orders in t#e fae of life,t#reats on a daily basis
$e fato segregation
o <!en if all 3ids go to t#eir neig#bor#ood s#ools, neig#bor#oods are not di!erse
o Some ities instituted t#eir own bussing programs to try to get rid of de fato segregation
in t#e nort#
Cities gi!e in to politial pressure, s#ifting ba3 to system of neig#bor#ood
s#ools in bot# nort# and sout#
C#ite flig#t 6 mo!e to suburbs
C#ite parents send t#eir #ildren to pri!ate s#ools
o $C: )9E9 6 EKS w#ite population/ after 0rown, FKS w#ite
5oday, $C is ;)S w#ite, but publi s#ool system is only F=)S w#ite
o 5#ere is a trend toward more de fato segregation 6 we%re more segregated now in our
s#ools t#an we were in )9KF
0ut t#is isn%t ationable beause it%s not statutorily mandated
Ra%iall$ Dis%riminator$ 'ur#ose an" :ffe%t
oving v. ;A &0o7 ; 6 SS, stri3e it down( &:S )9E7(
;)
Fats: >8 proseutes interraial married ouple= State argues t#at:
o No disriminatory effet: felt e2ually by bot# raes
o No disriminatory purpose: to preser!e t#e integrity of t#e w#ite rae &not to sub4ugate
t#e bla3 rae(
Court: 8pplies SS to stri3e down t#e statute on <' grounds
o 1e4et notion t#at rational,basis s#ould apply
o 1e4ets state%s laim: C#at purpose ould a state #a!e in maintaining +raial purity- if
not raismD
State doesn%t are if ot#er raes besides a w#ite person
<!en if we ould imagine t#at +raial purity- wasn%t raist, t#is is still w#ite
supremay
Notes:
$ita suggests t#at e!en if purpose was not disriminatory, Court would still apply SS and would
still stri3e t#is down
See C8 ase, raial !iolene in prisons: Law segregating prisons didn%t #a!e disriminatory,
raist purpose= Court: 5#is segregation ignores repeated ommand t#at any type of segregation
an be neutral or e2ual
Should $e really have SS in &o4 < if there is no discriminatory "ur"ose or effect+
o It is a 2uestion of #ow narrowly tailored t#e law isD
Sometimes +SS- means +strit in t#eory but fatal in fat-
Court is so aggressi!e about t#is , mig#t want t#em to +water down- SS, but t#ey
want to treat it t#e same as all t#e ot#er bo7es
o Counter,arguments:
1ae e7ists in t#is world, and sometimes it%s o3 for go!ernment to reat to t#at
:seful for us to 3eep statistis based on rae, it%s a good t#ing for t#e go!ernment
to 3now
Lo!ing is also a blatantly non,originalist opinion wBrBt meaning of )Ft# 8mendment
o Legislati!e #istory of bot# s#ows people always belie!ed t#at t#ere s#ouldn%t be
interraial marriage
Laws that are not ra%iall$ 4ase"
%ick !o v. Ho"kins &0o7 K 6 SS( &:S )**E(
Fats: Statute re2uired permit to run laundry business in wooden buildings &faially neutral(= 8ll
non,C#inese appliants were granted permits, not one of 200 C#inese appliants were granted a
permit
Court: Stri3es it down
o $isriminatory effet: Law was enated for a non,disriminatory purpose, but were
a"ministere" raially
"omillion != Lig#tfoot &0o7 K( &:S )9E0(
Fats: 8L redrawing of !oting boundaries e7luded bla3s from t#e ity , 1aial purpose and
effet
Court: 8pplies SS, stri3es it down
Note: ,ow do we know if were in Bo$ 2 or not?
Ji3 Co: See statistis 6 so many C#inese appliations t#at were re4eted, w#ereas so many non,
C#inese were aepted, t#at%s all ourt needs to 3now
;2
Court 'ro!e "is%riminator$ #ur#ose 4$
o -./ 0tats
o -+/ Legislati!e histor$
$iffiult, beause legislators wouldn%t li3ely say raist t#ings on t#e reord
Often, laws are passed for a !ariety of purposes , some !oted for raist reasons,
and some for perfetly benign reasons
?ust #a!e to pro!e t#at it%s 8 purpose &not t#e only( of passing t#e law
Palmer v. 3hom"son &0o7 E 6 10( &:S )97)(
Fats: .S losed all its pools in t#e fae of desegregation
Court: :p#eld statute= 10 re!iew, no disriminatory purpose or effet
Notes:
'roblems wit# t#is:
o Could still #a!e disriminatory effet 6 now people go to pri!ate pools w#i# only allow
w#ites
o Law t#at truly #as no disriminatory effet, e!en if raist in purpose, t#e politial proess
s#ould ta3e are of it beause e!eryone will be negati!ely affeted by it &e!eryone
suffers, no one an swim(
0o7 E: faially neutral law: 1ational basis re!iew &'almer(
o 5#is deision mig#t be rig#t if we apply proess,based 4udiial re!iew &we want 4udiial
srutiny w#ere legislature passes a law t#at benefits t#e ma4ority but #arms t#e minority/
#ere, t#is law will #arm t#e ma4ority(
.aybe people are willing to #arm t#emsel!es if it also #arms a raial minority
!ashington v. 1avis -Bo4 =5 RB/ &:S )97E(
Fats: 0la3 appliants #allenge a law t#at re2uires all polie appliants to ta3e a i!il ser!ie,
type e7am=
o 5#is is faially neutral
o No one alleges disriminatory purposeD
o $isriminatory effetD 's laim signifiantly fewer bla3s get #ired t#an w#ites after
ta3ing t#e e7am
Court: 5#is 3ind of disparate,impat ase is ationable, but if t#ere is no disriminatory purpose,
t#e fat t#at it #as a disriminatory effet doesn%t matter 6 so we apply 10 re!iew:
o Court won%t infer a disriminatory purpose from t#e effet #ere &li3e t#ey did in 3ick Wo(
beause t#e statistis aren%t enoug# to persuade t#em
o 5#is isn%t disrimination on t#e basis of rae at all, and so not a matter of <'
Notes:
!hy might this not &e a good rule+
o $isriminatory purpose is #ard to s#ow, and a go!%t an get away wit# disrimination if
t#ey #ide t#eir moti!es 6 disrimination will snea3 t#roug#
o Court doesn%t want to beome a legislature
Ine!itable t#at almost e!ery law will #a!e disparate impat beause of ultural
differenes
Court doesn%t want to apply SS e!ery time &ost would #a!e been massi!e
4udiial interferene in all areas of soiety(
;;
Affirmati!e A%tion Regents of 'niv. of CA v. Bakke> 3he
Michigan Cases
)rutter v. Bollinger &:S 200;/C )ratz v. Bollinger &:S 200;(
30tri%t 0%rutin$ - 1 /5
0ot# ases use +SS-
o Narrowly tailored:
.ust be narrowly tailored, but doesn%t #a!e to e7#aust e!ery alternati!e
o 5rying to balance di!ersity interests wit# strit aademi interests
Is t#is SSD $oesn%t loo3 li3e it 6 lots of deferene to t#e law s#ool
SS isn%t about deferene, it%s sub4eting to e7tremely strit srutiny
o Compelling interest:
$i!ersity not enoug# to up#old a statute t#at #arms raial minorities
,ow compelling is diersity+
$i!ersity in go!ernment leaders#ip: leaders#ip tends to be drawn from
nation%s top law s#ools
$i!erse aademi perspeti!es &'owell reogniGes t#is in t#e 0a33e
ase(
In reality, t#is isn%t t#e same aggressi!e le!el of srutiny t#at t#e Court applies in 0o7es ),;,F,K
o 5#is is +SS,- 6 a little less t#an normal SS
O%Connor doesn%t want to admit t#is 6 but t#is is w#at s#e%s doing
8ll 9 want some form of SS: F admit it%s watered down, ) won%t admit t#at, F
mean truly strit srutiny
Court t#in3s t#at t#is pratie isn%t ideal, and if we e!er get to t#e point w#ere we don%t need t#is,
and in t#at ase t#is poliy won%t be legal
o Court: warning s#ot= $on%t get laGy, e7pets t#ere to be real #anges t#at will ma3e t#is
unneessary 6 t#is is t#e easy way out
o If state an s#ow 2K years from now t#at it is still neessary, it an still be up#eld
Should there &e SS -or SS-/ in Bo4 0+ 1id the Court "ro"erly a""ly that standard+
o 5#omas: of ourse not= 5#e only 4ustifiable go!%t interest would be some 3ind of
absolute publi neessity, and e!en t#en t#at ouldn%t be t#e ase #ere &no publi
neessity in #a!ing a law s#ool in .I(
5#is is 4ust an interest in aest#etis
Du"i%ial Re!iew Anal$sis
5e7tualism:
o 5e7t of t#e Constitution says states may not deny protetion to any person under t#e law ,
suggests we oug#t to apply same le!el of srutiny in bo7 ) and bo7 2
o Cuts in fa!or of #eig#tened srutiny
Originalism:
o Aistorial reord 6 )*EE, Congress t#at passed )Ft# amendment appropriated L to be
gi!en to poor women and #ildren w#o were 8frian 8merian only
)*E7 6 F0t# Congress passes statute for +destitute olored persons- in $C
Jear after year during i!il Car period, Congress passes statutes regarded only
8frian 8merians
o Cuts in fa!or of lower srutiny
;F
'lain language uts one way, w#ile #istory uts t#e ot#er
'olitial 'roess:
o $o we need ourts to aggressi!ely step in #ere to protet an insular minorityD
No, beause t#ese laws are benefiial to minorities
5#is is not t#e generosity, not t#e tyranny of t#e ma4ority
o Cuts in fa!or of lower srutiny
'reedent:
o Aarlan%s 'lessy dissent: our onstitution is olor,blind
o 0rown != 0oard: Court o!errules 'lessy, but doesn%t adopt Aarlan%s dissent
o $oes 0rown turn on olor,blindness, or does it turn on fat t#at laws were passed beause
of disriminatory purpose and effetD
:p to you to draw your own onlusions, but strong arguments on bot# sides
o Cuts bot# ways
!as this decided correctly+ ,s diversity a good *ustification+
Benefits of Affirmati!e A%tion
o &)( $i!ersity in t#e lassroom: 1obust e7#ange of ideas &'owell(
0ut isn%t it raist to t#in3 people of a ertain rae s#are same !iewpointD
Jet t#ere is somet#ing uni!ersal about a ertain rae%s e7periene in t#is ountry
o &2( Conrete eduation benefits: Learning #ow to li!e wit#, assoiate wit# persons of
different raes
0usiness ommunity amius briefs 6 #iring t#e best inludes t#ose people wit#
di!ersity e7periene
o &;( "lobal ompetiti!enessB <onomi growt#
o &F( Cor3fore tension, .ilitary tension: 1eruiting from mostly,w#ite ampuses reates
w#ite C<Os and military offiers, w#i# reates tensions between t#ose gi!ing and ta3ing
orders
o &K( "o!ernment leaders#ip
o &E( Community leaders#ip
Failitates raial interation in t#e ommunity
Costs of Affirmati!e A%tion
o &)( $isrimination against w#ites, 8sian,8merians
0ut 6 remember #andiapped par3ing spot argument
o &2( Stigma: 1ae s#ould be off t#e table &someone s#ould ne!er be treated differently be
t#e go!ernment(
o &;( Sense of entitlement: Count on affirmati!e ation
o &F( 1aial tension: Aarder to get past raist legay
o &K( Less suess: Law re!iew artile: affirmati!e ation ultimately leads to less suess
5end to #a!e lower soresB"'8s, aren%t as prepared as t#e rest of t#eir
lassmates, so tend to get lower grades,end up wit# fewer opportunities
Self,esteem osts
0:5 t#is is strit srutiny, we s#ouldn%t be balaning osts and benefits 6 4ust #e3:
o Is t#is a ompelling interestD
o Is it narrowly tailoredD
Com#elling Interest:
;K
Is di!ersity t#e only powerful, ompelling interestD
o In 0a33e, #eld t#at remedying past disrimination was a ompelling interest
o "insburg, in "ratG: t#oug#t t#ey s#ould be allowed to use remedying past wrongs to
4ustify affirmati!e ations
.a4ority #eld t#is wasn%t a 4ustifiation: s#ouldn%t punis# w#ite and 8sian
students for t#e wrongs of t#eir forefat#ers
1eognition on di!ersity #as allowed t#e state a ertain amount of leeway to pursue t#is interest
Notes:
"rutter ase &up#olding law s#ool poliy( was K,F
o 8lito wrote t#at #e doesn%t belie!e t#e Constitution allows for affirmati!e ation
<!en if Court doesn%t #ange its position, legislati!e proess may render t#is ase moot
o Only issue is w#et#er states an engage in t#is ation
5#ese ases are not about ta3ing away from legislati!e proess 6 t#ey%re about t#e Courts gi!ing
t#e legislature more leeway
o States are free to #ange t#eir minds if t#ey so #oose
o 'olitial support for affirmati!e ation is drying up all o!er t#e ountry
o 5#an3s to Cas#ington != $a!is, t#e people are t#e ones w#o #a!e t#e final say
0e; Dis%rimination Interme"iate 0%rutin$
Aistory:
0radwell != State &)*7;(: :p#eld law forbidding women from pratiing law in Illinois
o 1elied on inferior status of women
o Court applied same 10 re!iew as to optometrists, et=
:sing +10- re!iew, Court starts stri3ing down se7,based lassifiations
Frontiero != 1i#ardson &)97;(: Stru3 down rule of military t#at male members were
presumpti!ely pro!iding for t#eir wi!es/ females were re2uired to s#ow t#at t#eir #usbands were
dependent on t#em
o Is this rationalD 'ossibly, onsidering t#e reality of t#e times= 0ut Court stru3 it down,
so it must #a!e been using somet#ing more stringent:
o F 4usties wanted to apply strit srutiny, but ne!er got t#e Kt# !ote
Craig v. Boren &:S )97E(
Fats: OT statute allows women )* or o!er to buy non,into7iating beer, w#ereas males were not
allowed to buy it under t#ey were 2) or o!er
Court &0rennan(: 5o wit#stand onstitutional #allenge:
.ust ser!e important go!ernment ob4eti!es, and
.ust be substantially related to t#ose ob4eti!es
5#is isn%t strit &not +ompelling,- or +narrowly tailored-(, and not 10
&not +legitimate- or 4ust +rationally- related(
o 5#is is interme"iate s%rutin$
0rennan 3nows t#at male,ma4ority Court more li3ely to identify wit# t#ese
males, so t#is is t#e 3ind of ase t#at will open t#e Court%s eyes to t#e in4ustie ,
t#e perfet ase to establis# a #ig#er le!el of srutiny
Now#ere does #e all t#is +immediate basis re!iew- or a3nowledge t#at t#is is
somet#ing different
;E
?ust says wit#out support or delaration t#at t#is was w#at t#e prior ases
#ad #eld, and applied t#e test
Dust li7e that) his non%halant senten%e %hanges Ameri%an law
o <' is no longer 4ust about rae disrimination
Notes:
$oesn%t apply SS bB #e an%t get t#e K !otes, and as a pragmatist, #e 4ust goes as far as #e an=
8t some le!el, Court mig#t see #ow e!il rae disrimination is, but doesn%t t#in3 se7
disrimination is as bad
"ender != 1ae,base:
o 0at#rooms separated by se7 and t#ose segregated by rae O
'#ysial differenes atually 4ustify se7 disrimination
Ce #a!e t#ese restrooms for reasons #a!ing not#ing to do wit# se7ism &to do
wit# pri!ay(
"ender,based disrimination is not usually based on maliious intent li3e rae,
based disrimination usually is
Mississi""i 'niversity for !omen v. Hogan &:S )9*2(
Fats: .ale not admitted to women%s nursing s#ool
Court: 5#oug# not based on #atred, t#ese are still based on notions of women being more deliate
t#an men &premised on stereotypes, outmoded notions of female sensiti!ities(
0e; Dis%rimination 'S v. ;irginia
'S v. ;irginia &:S )99E(
Fats: 8t >.I, females not admitted
o S#ool%s 2 4ustifiations:
&)( Single se7 eduation #as important eduational benefits &+di!ersity-(
8llows men t#e opportunity to #oose between o,ed or single,se7
eduation
&2( >.I is uni2ue in t#e way t#at t#ey tea#, beause t#ey #a!e an +ad!ersati!e-
met#od of tea#ing
Limited pri!ay, brea3 t#em down and t#en build t#em up, leaders#ip
s3ills t#roug# military,type training &+itiGen,soldiers-(
o S#ool offers to reate a women%s program &>CIL 6 >8 Comen%s Institute for
Leaders#ip(
Court &"insburg(: Court stri3es down men,only admissions poliy of t#e s#ool/ applies
intermediate le!el of srutiny
o 'arties t#at see3 to defend t#is disriminatory ation must bear t#e burden of s#owing
+e7eedingly persuasi!e 4ustifiation- &I gender disrimination test(
5#is is more aggressi!e t#an w#at was defined in Craig != 0oren
5#is is loser to strit srutiny &Intermediate srutiny W(
o Court on s#ool%s 2 4ustifiations:
&)( Important eduational benefits not being pro!ided to women as well
&2( +8d!ersati!e- met#od of tea#ing wouldn%t be destroyed by admitting
women, beause t#is was t#e same argument made for women entering t#e law
and t#e medial field
Some women mig#t t#ri!e in ooperati!e en!ironments, but so do some
men 6 ot#er women mig#t t#ri!e in t#is en!ironment
;7
o >CIL: t#is isn%t t#e same= 5#ey%!e #anged it so t#at women wouldn%t be taug#t under
t#e >.I system , simply isn%t t#e same opportunity for women
1e4ets e!idene t#at women +t#ri!e- in ooperati!e en!ironments= I5%s
depri!ing women of t#at #oie= 5#ey #a!e to #a!e t#e same options=
Salia%s dissent: 5#is is not intermediate srutiny, it%s some form of #eig#tened srutiny &IS W(
Notes:
Court%s r#etori sounds more stringent t#an 4ust , but is t#is 4ust p#rasing, or are t#ey really
applying a #ig#er standardD
5#is is "insburg%s masterpiee
o C#ips away at go!%t ability to promulgate stereotypes about men and women, e!en w#ere
t#ey #old true wit# most women and most men aross t#e board
o Auge ad!ane for "insburg%s areer and women%s rig#ts
Michael M. v. Su"erior Court &:S )9*)(
Fats: C8 riminal law punis#es male, but not female, for statutory rape
Court: 8pplying IS, up#olds onstitutionality of t#e law &1e#n2uist(
o Important go!ernmental interest: pre!enting teenage pregnany
o Substantially related law: osts of pregnany fall e7lusi!ely on female, and boys don%t
#a!e t#at inenti!e
$issent: t#e real reason of t#e law was to protet t#e #astity, female !irtue of girls= 'regnany
onern was only a post,#o reason
Notes:
Court doesn%t are w#at t#e real reason for t#e law was, as long as state an artiulate a real,
important reason for t#e law in ourt
o ,s this consistent $ith ;M,D
No 6 Court said di!ersity wasn%t t#e +real- reason in >.I, so t#ey didn%t buy t#at
argument= Aere, t#ey%re buying t#e argument t#e state proffers
"insburg ared about t#e original reason for passing t#e law
Law really #as #anged sine .i#ael . 6 Court doesn%t afford t#e same
deferene by t#is point
Rostker v. )old&erg &:S )9*)(
Fats: Issue was w#et#er women #a!e to register for t#e draft= 8rgument t#at women wouldn%t
want to undergo t#e same rigorous training &for ombat(
o 0ut same argument s#ould apply as >.I: 4ust beause most wouldn%t want to do it,
doesn%t mean some wouldn%t want to
8lso great deferene to Congress in military affairs
0tan"ar" of re!iew is trul$ higher not <ust tougher rhetori%) a%tuall$ tougher in #ra%ti%e
1oes this make sense+ C#at about separate at#leti programsD
o :nder >.I, seems suspet 6 espeially if no omparable women%s team
o If t#ey%re of t#e same aliber &men%s and women%s soer teams(, t#en it seems it would
be o3 &aording to 1e#n2uist%s opinion(
'ossible t#at t#e intangibles aren%t e2ual &e7posure, prestige, training, et=(
0ut t#ere are basi biologial differenes , ould argue it #as not#ing to do wit#
impermissible stereotypes
;*
o If t#e s#ool only wanted one team, and allowed e!eryone to try out, it%s li3ely t#at few
women would get to play- ,sn?t the "ro&lem that a neutral "olicy has an adverse
im"act on $omen+
Can%t we analogiGe t#is to Cas#ington != $a!isD
>.I today #as enoug# women today t#at t#ey #a!e many !arsity women%s sports teams
o Still #as ad!ersati!e met#od of eduation
!hy is se4 discrimination su&*ect to heightened scrutiny in the first "lace+
Court 4ust ma3es t#ese up
o $oesn%t ome from t#e onstitution
o 0ut w#at #oie does t#e Court #a!eD
$ri!er%s test, liensing, et= disriminates against illiteray, age, et
SS would be o!er and under,broad for t#e go!ernment interest in road safety ,
would grind demoray to a #alt
Salia: Funtion of t#is ourt is to preser!e soietyX, not to re!ise it= S#ould be left up to politial
proess
Ho$ does Court kno$ $hich ty"es of discrimination should the Court "rotect against+
Originalism: rae, and rae only
o Court is not willing to ta3e t#is position, so t#ey loo3 to:
-./ 'oliti%al 'ro%ess theor$ Is group disrete, insular minority t#at an%t protet itself t#roug#
t#e politial proessD
o 5#is would inlude 4ust about e!eryone &4ugglers, plumbers, et=( 6 t#is is ?ustie
?a3son%s !iewpoint
0ut sometimes optiians, 4ugglers, et= win &e!eryone%s in a mi7 of groups t#at
puts t#em in t#e ma4ority sometimes and minority ot#er times 6 it all balanes
out(= +S#ifting oalitions- ensure wealt# is spread out o!er time
o 5#e problem is t#at t#ere are some groups t#at are systematially on t#e losing end
&#istorial proseutions(
o Dis%rete an" insular minorities are proteted against
$isrete: separate and distint &p#ysially andBor ulturally apart from e!eryone
else, or p#ysially distint 6 standing out from t#e rowd, ma3ing you an easy
target(
Isolated: ma3es you largely inapable of entering into t#ose ross,group allianes
t#at protet you in t#e politial proess
o So $hat a&out $omen+ .ig#t be distint &p#ysially notieably different(, but not
insular, not a minority
Aistorially, were disrete and insular &not allowed to !ote, #old 4obs, et(
<!en today, may be a ma4ority of t#e population, but t#ey%re not a ma4ority in
publi offie
-+/ Immuta4le Chara%teristi%s 'ersons disriminated against based on a #arateristi t#at t#ey
an%t do anyt#ing about is of speial onern
o Cealt#: people an go from poor to ri#, and !ie !ersa
o 8ge: e!eryone will be old if t#ey li!e out t#eir natural life spans
5ie t#is ba3 to politial proess: if lawma3er passes law disriminating against
bla3s, ne!er #as to worry about it= 5#ose w#o pass laws disriminating against
t#e elderly will suffer its own onse2uenes
;9
5#ose w#o ma3e laws regarding #ildren 3now w#at it%s li3e to be a #ild,
#opefully an relate and understand
-@/ 2istor$ of Dis%rimination
o Aistory is a pro7y for w#at we really are about 6 li3eli#ood t#at a partiular law was
passed out of animus pre4udie
o "i!en #istory, we an be fairly ertain t#at a law passed t#at disriminates against bla3s
was passed out of pre4udie
o 5#is is w#y gender falls in t#e middle: t#ere is a long #istory of misogyny in t#is ountry,
and many laws are passed on basis of outdated stereotypes, 0:5 t#ere are legitimate
reasons for passing t#ese laws
This is not a %he%7list
o 5#ese are t#ings t#e ourt loo3s at #olistially in e!aluating ea# ase
00 I0 RB
1ae Se7 8ge
8lienage Legitimay Cealt#
National origin
Disa4ilit$ Dis%rimination 9ental 2an"i%a#) Age) =ealth
Cle&urne v. Cle&urne iving Center5 ,nc= &:S )9*K(
Fats: Suit against ity for re2uiring a speial permit for mental #andiapped faility, w#ile not
re2uiring one for any ot#er faility
Court: :ses 10 re!iew to stri3e down t#e law
o $isreteD
>isually distint, singled outD Sometimes
8part from t#e rest of usD Jes, li!e apart sometimes, an%t partiipate generally in
t#e ommunity
o 5est for Srutiny-
*an they be counted on to protect their own interests in the political process?
.ost annot, but Court doesn%t t#in3 t#ey need ourt%s #elp:
o Ot#er people do step up to protet t#eir interests &many laws are
passed on t#eir be#alf t#at benefit t#em(
o 5#ey are born into e!ery family 6 t#ose w#o are ri# and poor,
e!ery rae, et=
o <!eryone is e7posed to t#em, an loo3 out for t#eir interests
Legislature mig#t 4ust be ompassionate
Could go eit#er way on #eig#tened srutiny
Immutable *haracteristics?
Jes
"oes toward #eig#tened srutiny
,istory of discrimination?
Auge #istory of s#ameful disrimination in t#is ountry
"oes toward #eig#tened srutiny
0:5, in lig#t of all t#e legislation, t#ese laws aren%t passed out of malie
5reating t#em t#e same &in s#ools, et( would be more maliious
F0
5#is is 4ust realiGing t#e reality of t#e situation
o 0o heightene" s%rutin$ is not a##ro#riate
o Cit$&s <ustifi%ations fail RB re!iew:
&)( Fear of negati!e !iews of residents in t#e area
Court: negati!e attitude, unsubstantiated fears an%t be basis
&2( Fear of #arassment by nearby 4unior #ig# s#ool
Court: no 4ustifiation, mentally #andiapped people go to t#e s#ool
&;( Land w#ere #ome is going to be built is loated on flood plain
Court: but t#is is an e7use t#at would be rele!ant for any 3ind of
residene &for t#e elderly, #ospital, et(
&F( 8fraid of legal responsibility t#at would ome from #a!ing t#is #ome
Fraternity #ouse would pose same legal obligations, et=
&K( 5#oug#t t#e siGe of t#e #ome wasn%t appropriate for t#e neig#bor#ood
0ut again, #ospital, et= would be o3 in t#is instane
.ars#all, dissenting &wit# 0rennan and 0la3mun(:
o IS s#ould be used
.ere fat t#at legislators sometimes loo3 out for t#is group doesn%t mean t#ey%re
not disriminated against anymore
o 5#is isn%t 10 re!iew:
11 <7press Case: O3 for a law to be under,inlusi!e, so long as it #ips away at
t#e problem a little bit
$on%t #a!e to eradiate ot#er soures of t#e problem for <'
So long as t#e law in some way ontributes to ser!ing t#e state%s legitimate
interest, t#at%s good enoug#
o Aere, ourt is again afraid t#at poliy is under,inlusi!e, but t#is s#ouldn%t be an issue
It&s reall$ a##l$ing something more aggressi!e here 3rational 4asis with 4ite5 -RBE/
o Why is court being stricter here?
Court is less trustful of t#e politial purpose
Conerned about more pre4udie against t#e mentally retarded
C#en pre4udie is no onern, t#ey apply true 10
0e;ual Orientation Dis%rimination
Romer v. 6vans -:S )99E &Tennedy((
Fats: CO statute designed to ban disrimination ame under fire in )992 w#en an amendment
was adopted w#i# e7pliitly pro#ibited e7euti!e, legislati!e, or 4udiial protetion of
#omose7uals
o State S= Court applied SS &infringed on rig#t to be in!ol!ed in politial proess(
o 0tate&s argument:
'uts #omose7uals on same footing as all ot#er persons
1espet for freedom of assoiation
o CO S= Ct: Crong= 5#is repeals laws t#at ban disrimination 6 doesn%t 4ust ta3e away
speial rig#ts &ta3es t#is away from gays, but no ot#ers(
Court: <numeration is t#e essential de!ie used to ma3e t#e duty not to disriminate onrete and
to pro!ide guidane
F)
o Not only does it repeal t#ese, but it forbids speifi legal protetions for t#is targeted
lass &speial disability(
o 'ur#ort to a##l$ RB -"efault/: 8mendment 2 fails and defies it:
5#e protetion of t#e laws is simply not being pro!ided e2ually
0ut t#ey go on, almost as an alternati!e #olding, apply 10:
o &)( Imposes broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group
Simply no lin3 between interests and rule
5oo narrow, too broad &defines people by single trait, and denies protetion
aross t#e board(
$a!is != 0eason &Court says reliane on t#is is misplaed(:
$enied .ormons and polygamists t#e rig#t to !ote
)( If it means t#ose wB ertain pratie an%t !ote, it%s no longer good law
2( If it means t#ose of a ertain status an%t !ote, it would #a!e to sur!i!e
SS, and li3ely ouldn%t
;( If it means felons an%t !ote, it%s irrele!ant #ere
o &2( So broad it%s disontinuous wit# t#e reasons offered for it 6 seems to be noting but
animus toward #omose7uals
Imposes real H ontinuing in4uries w#i# belie any proffered 4ustifiation
&)( 1espet for freedom of assoiation &rig#t not to assoiate wit# people t#ey
find ab#orrent(
&2( Conser!ing resoures to fig#t disrimination against ot#er groups &suspet
riterion(
0readt# belies t#is
Cannot say t#at t#e amendment is direted toward any legitimate state
interest &not rationall$ relate"(
0ut t#is analysis isn%t onsistent wit# 10 re!iew 6 Court #as ne!er ared
if a law is o!er, or under, inlusi!e for 10 re!iew
o 1eal onern is t#at Court 4ust doesn%t buy t#e rationale 6 only
plausible rationale for t#is is bare desire to #arm an unpopular
politial group
8lso doesn%t seem li3e 10 to seond guess w#at t#e real interest was, so
long as we an t#in3 of a possible interest t#at would be ser!ed by t#is
law
$issent: 5#is is an attempt by +tolerant Coloradans- to preser!e traditional se7ual mores against a
+politially powerful- minority
o 5#ese #a!e been speifially appro!ed moti!es by Congress and t#e Court
o Aas not#ing to do wit# #atred 6 to say t#at it does is to ta3e sides in t#e Tultur3ampf
Salia ta3es !iew of #omose7uality as an at, not as an identity &w#i# t#e
ma4ority ta3es(
2eightene" 0%rutin$ in Romer:
&)( $isreet and Insular minorityD
K,20S of population= .inority t#at an%t sueed wBout oalition in politial proess=
o $on%t seem to be insular 6 li!e among us, born into e!ery family=
o >isibility: C#arateristi t#at stands out= "L not as !isible= C#oose not be !isible 6
suessfully=
La3 of !isibility wor3s against "L in politial proess= 'eople an #oose to be
in t#e loset
F2
o "L05 politial suess: appears to wor3 in some ases loally= 0ut in t#is ase, it didn%t
wor3 on t#e state le!el=
-+/ Aistory of $isrimination:Jes=
-@/ Immutable>
5#is is a de!iate=
1omer ourt aepts se7ual orientation as an in#erent part of identity and not a #obby=
o Implies t#at t#ey t#in3 #omose7uality immutable=
Immutability isn%t dispositi!e:
o <=g= religion , ould on!ert to anot#er religion=
o O!er time emerges general onsensus t#at its biologially determined, inreases
#eig#tened srutiny argument=
1omer Court:
o 1ational 0asis W re!iew=
Notes:
3aking sides in culture $ars2
o Court%s ta3ing sides #ere beause t#ey belie!e t#at t#e onstitution ta3es sides
o Court relies on morals and not on 4udiial preedent
Court: #ig#er srutiny must be used w#en a ertain group must resort to a +#ig#er deision,
ma3ing le!el- &i=e=, go t#roug# t#e politial proess(
1omer 1ationale
o &)( Fae,!alue, literal depri!ation of <' &singling out for no protetion(
o &2( Couldn%t e!en sur!i!e minimum rationality srutiny
'laed great emp#asis on illegitimay of CO%s end
8lternati!e 4ustifiations for 1omer
o 'aria# 'riniple: t#at go!ernment an%t designate anyone as an +untou#able-
o 5argeting people for w#o t#ey are &not w#at t#ey do(
Se4ual (rientation2 1P or 6P+
$idn%t mention $' or 0owers != Aardwi3
Lawrene didn%t mention <' 6 distintion between ondut and identity
o .aybe worried about far,rea#ing impliations of relying on <' 6 wit# Lo!ing in t#e
piture, may #a!e e7tended to gay marriage as well
o Laurene 5ribe 6 t#is was really 4ust a onflation of S$' and <', and Tennedy realiGed
#e ould suffie wit# a narrow <' ruling
o Tennedy in Lawrene and #ere: C#y does #e ignore t#e tier of srutiny and instead rely
on +deferential standard- w#ile still stri3ing laws downD
Se7ual Orientation and t#e .ilitary
o 9t# Cir: Finds <' rele!ant in reinstating offiers
)ay Marriage2
4iolate federal constitution for states to limit marriage to heterose$ual couples only?
-./ 0u4stanti!e Due 'ro%ess
<=g= +oing - 4irginia: fundamental rig#t to marry regardless of rae=
o 5oget#er wit# Lawrene: fundamental rig#t to #a!e se7 wBw#oe!er
o .aybe fundamental rig#t to marry w#o you want regardless of se7 I end result=
F;
-+/ :':
<!aluate strengt# of go!ernment interest 6 suffiiently tailored to interestD
C#at is t#e state%s interest in pro#ibiting gay marriageD
o &)( +To #rote%t against illegal se;- , 8fter Lawrene, off t#e table=
o &2( O##ressing ga$s: $esire to #arm politially unpopular illegal under 1omer and
Lawrene=
o &;( Legislate "isa##ro!al of #omose7uality , morality alone an%t be used under
Lawrene and 1omer=
Lawrene 6 O%Connor wanted to deide on <'= S#e made lear t#at moral
disappro!al an ne!er be a legitimate go!ernment interest=
o &F( :n%ourage #ro%reation= Limiting marriage to t#ose w#o an proreate biologially=
+C#ild best raised in a #ouse wit# a mom and dad=-
o &K( 'rote%ting the institution of marriage
Same as used in Lo!ing !s= >irginia:
C#ildren born into multi,raial families #a!e problems=
Intermediate SrutinyD
o 8re t#ese +important- interestsD 'er#aps=
10:
o Certainly +legitimate- interests=
o 0ut is law rationally related to t#e interestsD
Studies s#ow "L parents an raise #ealt#y families
o 10 W o!er and under inlusi!e:
Let old and sterile people get married=
Straig#t people getting married wit# no interest in reprodution=
o .8 <7amined t#ese:
.8 law not rationally related to t#ese interests=
If promoting marriage t#an w#y deny to people w#o want to get married=
o Seems possible to say gay marriage bans won%t pass strit srutiny=
1omer: about pre4udie and disrimination, moral disappro!al and #ate=
o 5o say bans on gay marriage not enated out of pre4udie, not #omop#obia, onern for
t#e institution of marriage=
o O%Connor went out of #er way to say gay marriage bans not unonstitutional=
Politically &ad time to &ring case for gay activists+
Similar to pre,0rown lead up= 6 waiting for marriage ase=
Corried about ba3las#=
$u3ing t#e issue= Originally sent ba3 to >8=
o >8 Supreme Court said it%s t#e same reord we sent you=
o Federal .arriage 8mendment= 6 8mendment proposed for interraial marriage in t#e
past=
Fun"amental Interests
:Aual 'rote%tion: 10 unless suspet lass 6 #eig#tened intermediate or SS=
Court originally laimed 4ust one 3ind of #eig#tened srutiny: 10 or SS=
FF
Fun"amental Rights SS if bears on pro!ision of ertain fundamental rig#ts
Namely !oting rig#ts and rig#ts to aess to t#e 4udiial proess=
00 in two wa$s:
&)( Suspet Class=
&2( 'ro!ision of a fundamental rig#t
Carren ourt reated dotrine to use in two areas:
o &)( >oting=
Not e7pliitly in onstitution=
Stru3 down literay and poll ta7 laws=
Can%t distinguis# between urban !oters and non,urban=
0us# != "ore: If FL pro!ides rig#t to !ote, must treat all !otes t#e same=
o &2( 8ess to 4udiial proess=
Stru3 down laws denying $ aess to trial transripts for appeals=
5#ere is no onstitutional rig#t to an appeal e!en in riminal ases=
Carren ourt says if you are going to apply appellate rig#ts, you an%t
deide w#o gets appeals and w#o doesn%t%=
0urger relutant to e7tend t#ese ases=
o <=g= poor rig#t to transript only in riminal ases and e7tremely
important i!il ases=
San Antonio ,nde"endent Sch. 1ist. v. Rodriguez &:S )97;(
Fats: <' #allenge to funding s#ools based on property ta7es, w#i# #as t#e effet of gi!ing
better eduation to t#ose born to ri# parents
Court: 5#is is t#e final nail in t#e offin of t#e <' dotrine
o <duation is not a fundamental rig#t triggering SS
o 8lready #eld t#at !oting rig#ts are fundamental, but t#at%s it for t#is body of law &if it
hasn&t alrea"$ 4een re%ogni6e") it ne!er will 4e(
Certainly not any fundamental affirmati!e rig#ts &welfare, #ousing, et=(
o Fun"amental rights are now Auite narrow -!oting) a%%ess to %ourts/
IV. FR::DO9 OF :F'R:00ION
i. Intro"u%tion
8. ): 3Congress shall ma7e no law a4ri"ging the free"om of s#ee%h) or of the #ress5
Not all spee# is proteted under +freedom of spee#-
o 'olitial spee# an be proteted, per4ury and bribery are not
C#yD Supreme Court #as ne!er told us
5e7tualism and Originalism don%t get us an answer as to w#at spee# is proteted:
o Framers t#oug#t it was o3 to proseute you after you say somet#ing
So we #a!e to loo3 to preedent:
o 're,CCI: 'eople were imprisoned for gi!ing spee#es and #anding out pamp#lets t#at
were ritial of :s in!ol!ement and t#e draft
FK
In%itement Before ==II
Schenck v. 'S &:S )9)9(
Fats: 'amp#let ma3es argument t#at draft !iolates t#e 0o1 &!iolates free spee#, li3ens it to
sla!ery=( 8ut#or was indited=
Court: :p#olds inditment= Loo3s to onte7t 6 finds t#at it%s too dangerous, ould bring about
#arm during t#is time of national risis
o 5est: +Clear and present danger- test: Court finds t#at it%s met #ere
Jes: Li3e rowded t#eater e7ample, t#ere%s a potential for +flame- starting, ould
ause pani and #aos
No: ClearD In t#eater senario, we 3now people will be #urt= Ce 3now w#at
peoples% reations would be in t#at situation, not as lear #ere
'resentD Not really all t#at present=
Notes:
$espite w#at it laims to be applying, t#e ourt doesn%t seem to be applying a +lear and present
danger- test
Seems more li3e a +potential- test &t#is is t#e 3ind of ati!ity t#at tends to bring about t#is 3ind of
#arm(
5est atually applied: "enerally free to spea3 your mind, but not w#en your words are
intendedBdesigned to ause #arm
1e&s v. 'S &:S )9)9(
Fats: "o!ernment t#rew $ in 4ail for #is politial spee# t#at was ritial of t#e go!ernment= $
ne!er publily ritiiGed t#e war or t#e draft
Court: :p#olds #is on!ition
o 0y saying t#at #e opposes all war means t#at #e opposes t#is war, w#i# is spee#
designed to bring about opposition to t#e draft
o 5est: spee# t#at #as a +natural ten"en%$- to bring about #arm
$oesn%t e!en use +lear and present danger-
Notes:
$emoray: we need to preser!e t#e rig#t to dissent
Costs and benefits to e!eryt#ing
o $issent an be #armful in a time of war, and t#at osts an be #armful too
A&rams v. 'S &:S )9)9(
Fats: 1ussian 1e!olution ase, #anding out pamp#lets
Court: 5#is is lear and present danger
$issent: $oesn%t t#in3 t#is ase passes +lear and present danger-
o Fouses on notion of immediay
Aolmes seems to t#in3 t#at #e was too restriti!e before
o 5#is is so mu# li3e pre!ious ases &during a time of war( but Aolmes doesn%t t#in3
anyone is going to pay attention, t#in3s t#is isn%t li3ely to inite anyone
But if spee# is proteted w#ere t#ere is no #ane of ausing #arm, t#en w#at
about attempted bribery, et 6 wB no #ane of suessD
5#is is different beause of t#e intent of spee#: goal was not for t#e :S to lose
t#e war &it was to protet t#e 1ussian re!olution(
FE
Notes:
Can%t gi!e us a !ery good t#eoretial e7planation for #ow to fit t#ese in C'$ dotrine
o 0ut, spee# an be proseuted if: Creates C'$, or Cas intended to reate C'$
Aolmes simply seems to be more liberal #ere 6 applies t#e same test, but applies it differently
o Suddenly #e atually means +lear and present danger-
o .ost people t#in3 it #as to do wit# letters #e e7#anged wB ?udge Learned Aand
Masses Pu&lishing Co. v. Patten &NJ )9)7 6 Aand%s preferred test(
Court: Test is: do words urge ot#ers t#at it%s t#eir duty or in t#eir interest to ta3e a ertain ationD
o $issent an inite, but in a free ountry t#is is neessary for t#e e7#ange of ideas
Notes:
Aolmes% !iewpoint != Aand%s !iewpoint:
o Aolmes:
In!ol!es guesswor3, w#et#er danger is posed and #ow immediate
'eople an be t#rown in 4ail for spea3ing learly &not manipulating t#eir own
words(
o Aand:
So long as you #oose your words arefully, you an do a lot of t#ings
9ar7et#la%e of i"eas rationale &Aolmes dissent in 8brams( 6 Only by letting e!eryone spea3
will t#e best ideas float to t#e top and will t#e trut# beome 3nown
o Criti2ues
Internal ontraditionYt#eory%s goal is trut# yet posits we an ne!er 3now trut#
so we must 3eep loo3ing
.ar3et FailureGNo e2ual aess to t#e mar3et of ideas= 5#e +mar3et plae- of
ideas is distorted by t#e eonomi reality t#at dissenting or minority !iewpoints
do not #a!e a fair #ane &media onglomerates(=
Self,fulfillingYt#e dominant idea is t#e trut#ful one &bB won(=
C#at about +fraudulent- wordsD 8re t#ose OT bB will lose in t#e 2uest
for trut#D For e7ample, ad t#at igarette smo3ing does not ause aner=
'roblem re2uires people to use t#eir rational apaities to eliminate
untrut#fulYassumes people 81< rational=
Re" 0%are Cases -)itlo$ an" !hitney/
o Come up during times of peae, not during war
o Freedom of spee# annot be restrited by Congress, but not by statesD
)Ft# amendment 6 inorporation
)itlo$ v. #% &:S )92K(
Fats: " was printer of left,wing manifesto, alling for ommunist re!olution= Con!ited for
!iolating statute t#at pro#ibited ad!oating t#rowing o!er t#e go!ernment by fore
Court: C'$ doesn%t apply beause t#e legislature #as already made a determination t#at t#is type
of spee# t#e type t#at ould be restrited= .a3es su# little weig#t of t#e inorporation issue
&t#is was before t#e law of inorporation was being #ammered out , spee# assumed to be
inorporated in )92K(
o Hreat "eferen%e to the 0tate legislature in determining w#at spee# are so e!il an be
subsribed 4$ the #oli%e #ower
F7
o Statute #ere riminaliGes spee# &ad!oate, ad!ise, tea# t#e duty( 6 ot#er ases
riminaliGed ondut= C#ere spee# is a rime, Court is deferential to t#e legislature
o Confi"ent this is the 7in" of s#ee%h that #resents a "anger 4e%ause the legislature
has sai" it "oes) an" therefore falls outsi"e the s%o#e of #rote%te" s#ee%h
5#is deferential treatment is 10 re!iew , "i!es t#e go!ernment unfettered
aut#ority to suppress indi!idual freedom
Aolmes, dissenting
o .ar3etplae t#eory
o 5#in3s C'$ s#ould apply
5#is is a real danger 6 t#is ta3eo!er #ad 4ust #appened in 1ussia
0:5 not a present danger6 not lear or present in 8meria
.ust be implying t#at t#e t#reat must be present beause e!ery idea is an
initement &always designed to on!ine ot#ers to at in a ertain way( 6
t#is is part of t#e politial proess=
If it%s far enoug# away, we #a!e onfidene in t#e mar3etplae to get rid
of it wit#out go!ernment ensors#ip
o Finally means C'$
!hitney v. CA &:S )927(
Fats: C#itney ati!e in #elping wor3ing lass and t#e poor, beame member of Communist
party= Con!ited of being a member of an organiGation t#at was organiGed for o!ert#rowing
go!ernment by unlawful means
o S#e #ad been ati!e in trying to on!ine ommunists to #ange t#eir tune
o S#e ouldn%t get a lawyer at t#e time, until t#e day before &lawyer didn%t 3now anyt#ing
about t#e ase(
Court: Conurred, 4ury ould #a!e found t#at spee# was immediate and serious
0randeis, onurring: 'olitial proess t#eory= C'$ as !ery spee#,proteti!e
o Important points:
$anger must be immediate, imminent
8dds a +seriousness- re2uirement
<!en ad!oating brea3ing t#e law is proteted unless it is serious
o 'reser!es Aolmes% notion t#at attempts are proseutable too, e!en if no li3eli#ood of
suess
o <7pliitly #allenges "itlow%s opinion t#at Court s#ould defer to t#e legislature w#en
t#ey speifially target spee# &Liberty is bot# an end and a means(
Notes:
Original 1ed Sare died down after t#ese ases, but 2K years later, post,CCII, anot#er
.Cart#y,era 1ed Sare omes about: .Cart#y wit# #unt
In%itement After ==II
1ennis v. 'S &:S )9K), 'lurality opinion(
Fats: In!ol!ed arrest and proseution of all leaders of :S Communist party w#o !iolated Smit#
8t=
Court: $oesn%t agree wit# "itlow and C#itney , t#in3s C'$ does apply #ere 6 t#in3s Aolmes,
0randeis test is best, adopts Aand%s definition of C'$:
F*
o Does gra!it$ of e!il) "is%ounte" 4$ its #ro4a4ilit$) <ustif$ an in!asion of free s#ee%h
as ne%essar$ to a!oi" the "anger> -2 ; I J In!asion of Free 0#ee%h/
"et rid of immediay re2uirement
Fran3furter, onurring: 8d!oates balaning test 6 mu# more e7pliit t#an t#e ma4ority
o Legislatures, not ourts, s#ould be ma3ing t#ese 4udgments
o 5oug# balaning test 6 w#y s#ould t#e ourt be t#e one w#o gets t#e final sayD
o ?udiiary #as no idea w#at t#e possible suess is &S fator( 6 t#ey s#ould not be t#e
ones ma3ing t#is alulations
$ouglas, dissenting:
o Freedom will pre!ail if t#e ourt sits ba3 and does not#ing
Communism was faltering as it was 6 if people read t#ese manifestos, t#eir
wea3nesses will beome e!ident and people will #oose freedom
o 5#e way to defeat ommunism is not to ensor or suppress 6 it%s to allow t#ese boo3s to
be read, disussed and ritiiGed
Notes:
Aand #anged #is .asses test bB bound by Supreme Court 4udgment 6 #as to say C'$, but ourt
#ad ne!er artiulated w#at t#at means or #ow t#at applies
,s this a good test+
o 0ad:
'rofoundly sub4eti!e test , Aow to measure t#e !alue of infringing on free
spee#DD
No immediay: "o!%t mig#t see t#e #arm as so big, t#at e!en a minisule #ane
of it #appening won%t sa!e t#e spee# from being ensored
"o!ernment will want to at soon, beause if t#ey wait until t#ere%s a
really good #ane of t#e e!ent ourring t#en it%ll be too late
o "ood:
$efines a standard
Branden&urg v. (hio
Fats: TTT member arrested for words spo3en at TTT meeting
Court: .ust be "ire%tl$ intended to inite ation, imminent and li7el$ to inite ation
o Court a3nowledges t#at C#itney #as not stood t#e test of time
o $ennis o!errules C#itney to t#e e7tent t#at C#itney didn%t e!en re2uire C'$ w#en a law
is aimed at spee#
$ennis went ba3 to C'$ 6 but does it go as far as t#e Court goes #ereD
Notes
Court&s tests
o S#en3 &+bad tendeny- test(: <!en if pamp#lets weren%t li3ely to #a!e an effet, t#e
person%s spee# ould still be broug#t down
o Aolmes: C#at matters is t#e effet of t#e spee# 6 t#e intent doesn%t matter
5#is was only a dissent
o Aand: 8s3s #ow t#e words are p#rased , e7pliit all for lawless ation is re2uired
5#e #arm doesn%t #a!e to be ompletely li3ely, but it does #a!e to be somew#at
li3ely
5#is was 4ust a lower ourt 4udge
o $ennis: "o!ernment doesn%t #a!e to wait until t#e +3uts#- is about to be e7euted
F9
Li3eli#ood matters in t#e sense t#at it s#ould be li3ely, but it doesn%t matter in t#e
sense t#at it #as to be more li3ely t#an not
If t#ere%s a )0S #ane t#at ommunists will bring down t#e :S, t#is
ould be enoug# to up#old on!itions beause t#e gra!ity ould outweig#
t#e #arm of suppression of free spee#
0%hen%7 2olmes8Bran"eis 2an" 9asses Dennis Bran"en4urg
Dire%te" No No Jes Jes Jes
Imminent No Jes No No Jes
Li7el$ No Sort of No No Jes
0erious No Jes Jes ImpliitD
Bran"en4urg: 5a3es most spee#,proteti!e aspets of pre!ious ases to pull toget#er the most
#rote%ti!e test that the %ourt has $et ha"
o Nearly #alf a entury after A,0%s ideas ourt is going e!en fart#er t#an A,0 ould #a!e
e!en imagined &anot#er e7ample of t#e power of dissents(
5#is is a re!olution in free s#ee%h law, and yet t#e Court is treating its test as settled law, as if
it%s ob!ious, as if it%s brea3ing new ground
o 5#is ase is issued +per curiam- 6 no one%s putting t#eir name on t#e opinion &e!eryone
puts t#eir name on t#e ase(
8ll 9 4usties agreed t#at t#is on!ition #ad to be o!erturned, but ouldn%t agree
on t#e test
Opinion assigned to ?ustie Fortis 6 e7pliitly relies on $ennis, finds test is C'$,
and found t#ere was no C'$ in t#is ase
Fortis t#en #as to resign from t#e Court
0rennan pi3s t#e draft up, only ta3ing out sentene about C'$, and
replaes it wit# 3"ire%te") imminent) li7el$5 re2uirements, t#en sends it
ba3 around, suggesting to publis# it per uriam
o 5#is #ange mo!ed well beyond $ennis 6 0rennan essentially snu3 it into t#e opinion
wit#out t#e rest of t#e ourt realiGing its importane
8lso did t#is in <isenstadt 6 snea3s in +bear or beget a #ild,- w#i# t#en
pro!ided preedene for 1oe != Cade
Last opinion of Carren%s ourt , #is ourt%s opinions #a!e almost always been saled ba3 sine 6
but NO5 on #is free spee# opinions
Should $e "raise this as much as $e do+
o "ood:
<7tremely spee#,proteti!e
Court #asn%t done a good 4ob #istorially in standing up for free spee#
rig#ts, espeially during times of onflit bB of realist institution
onerns 6 Court afraid to stand up for t#e law and do t#e rig#t t#ing
during t#e time of risis
1e2uires 4udge to find diret, li3ely #arm
8llowing more spee# is better 6 letting people #ear ignorant spee# lets t#em
3now #ow bad it is
Censoring t#e spee# ma3es t#em t#in3 somet#ing must be rig#t about
t#e spee#
o 0ad:
5ests t#at all for Court to deide #ow li3ely t#e #arm really is &more fle7ible
tests( ma3e it li3ely t#at during times of danger t#ey%re li3ely to o!erestimate t#is
K0
I=e=, 1ed Sare 6 easy to get aug#t up in t#e paranoia s
.aybe doesn%t go far enoug#D
No e7pliit re2uirement for seriousness= 0ut e!en impliit:
o C#at about enouraging someone to go 2 miles o!er t#e speed
limitD ,, Is t#is 4ust enouragingD
.aybe goes too farD
$oes it tie t#e #ands too mu#D
Imminene re2uirement: may #a!e to wait too long/ diret may mean
you an%t proseute t#e +win3, win3 nudge, nudge%D
o 9t# Cir= in +Nuremburg Files- ase: Found t#at t#reats don%t do
t#roug# t#is test= 8pplying 0randenburg, an%t be ensored
.aybe it%s outdated now
5oday, it%s different 6 people of a li3e mindset an find ea# ot#er, 4oin
mo!ements, and turn spee# into ation mu# more 2ui3ly
Ce li3e to t#in3 t#at t#e mar3etplae of ideas will pre!ail, but #ow
onfident are we in t#is idea in t#e internet eraD
<ngland an proseute t#ese people 6 we an%t
Fighting =or"s
Cha"linksy v. #H &:S )9F2(
Fats: C alled a :S .ars#al a +"od damned ra3eteer-
Court: Cell understood t#at t#e rig#t of free spee# is not absolute=
o Lays out free spee# dotrine 6 t#ose words t#at don%t ontribute in any way to t#e
mar3etplae of ideas
Cords t#at #a!e a #uge soial ost on order and morality 6 4udiial balaning
&ategorial(
Notes:
,s court right to say that fighting $ords are of such a nature that they $ould lead an ordinary
"erson to res"ond $ith "hysical violence and so should not &e allo$ed+
o Seems anti2uated, sub4eti!e 6 #as a +playground feel- to it
o 5#is ase #as ne!er been o!erruled, but it%s also t#e last time t#e Court #as up#eld a
on!ition based on t#is dotrine
Court #as simply narrowed t#e sope
o Could li3ely still stop you from goading someone into a publi fig#t, but not for t#e
riminaliGation of basi insults
Uuestion remains: w#at e7atly do fig#ting words ontribute to t#e mar3etplae of ideasD
o $on%t t#ese atual undermine mar3etplae of ideas by undermining free e7#ange of
ideasD
$egrading to insults and p#ysial !iolene #inders t#is e7#ange
Cohen v. California &:S )97)(
Fats: C arrested for wearing a 4a3et t#at said, +Fu3 t#e draft- on it for !iolating statute t#at
pro#ibited willfully disturbing t#e peae
o State%s interest: Cant to protet t#e 2uality of publi disourse, t#is is atta3ing
unsuspeting !iewers
K)
o $C: 5#ese are fig#ting words, will li3ely e!o3e a !iolent response from people
Court: Stri3es down on!ition= 5#is is not direted toward any speifi #earer 6 not a
personaliGed insult
o Co#en not really on notie t#at any partiular person may atta3 #im
Less li3ely to get in a p#ysial fig#t if t#ere%s a publi message, beause less
li3ely t#at anyone would see t#is as a personal slig#t on t#emsel!es
o 8llowing state to suppress t#is spee# is allowing t#e #e3ler to spea3
Silening t#e spee# of someone w#o #as somet#ing to say
o 5#is is not one of t#ose ategories outside proteted spee#
In t#is instane, people ould easily a!ert t#eir eyes to a!oid furt#er offense
&doesn%t want to let t#e easily offended silene t#e rest of us(
o Aarlan%s responses to argument t#at profanity doesn%t ontribute to mar3etplae:
)( C#y not 4ust re2uire #im to #ange t#e wordingD
0anning profanity in#ibits )st 8. goals, impedes free e7pression
2( C#y s#ouldn%t state 4ust ban profanityD
Slippery slope problem
Could ta3e away people%s #oie to e7press w#at t#ey want #owe!er
t#ey want
;( C#at if it #ad said, +Fu3 Communism-D
It%s all sub4eti!e
Notes:
Court seems already unomfortable wit# t#e fig#ting words dotrine, seems to be loo3ing to pull
ba3
Co#en was arrested in a ourt#ouse , an%t a state impose dress ode for t#e ourt#ouseD
o 0ut t#ere was no warning to Co#en #ere
o So long as t#e law is !iewpoint neutral and reasonable, a law banning t#is would be
onstitutional,
<!en if t#e onstitution would #a!e allowed t#e go!ernment to proseute you, t#e on!ition still
an%t stand if you were proseuted under an o!erly broad statute
o Ce want to pre!ent a %hilling effe%t 6 people mig#t be afraid to spea3 against t#ese laws,
e!en if t#ey would e!entually pre!ail in ourt
Li4el
#% 3imes Co. v. Sullivan &:S )9EF(
Fats: 'olie ommissioner brings suit against newspaper for libel for an ad t#at ma3es laims
about w#at polie were doing to bla3s in t#e sout#= Law says a statement is libelous per se if it
in4ures t#e reputation of t#e person &regardless of any real #arm(
Court: 'rotets t#is spee#:
o It%s direted at t#e go!ernment, and t#e freedom to ritiiGe t#e go!ernment is essential to
demoray
o Ce "on&t want to %hill #eo#le from gi!ing !aluable ontributions to t#e mar3et plae of
ideas for fear t#at t#ey%ll be sued for defamation
First amendment needs some +breat#ing room- to sur!i!e
Ce tolerate lies to ensure t#at we also get trut#
K2
o $efamation not ategorially outside t#e sope of t#e first amendment=
o Test:
A%tual mali%e standard 6 3nowledge t#at w#at you said was false, or re3less
disregard to w#at you said was false
' &t#e defamed( #as t#e burden &de!iation from CL(
o 5rut#Bfalsity !ery diffiult to pro!e by lear H on!ining
e!idene
Only applies w#en your spee# onerns publi offiials% offiial ations
o Spee# onerning a publi offiial an still gi!e rise to
defamation
o 5#ere isn%t any atual malie #ere, and t#e spee# does not mention Sulli!an or #is
position at all
5#e most t#ere is #ere is negligene
Notes:
1oes the actual malice standard make any sense+
o If we%re trying to inrease t#e 2uality of debate 6 does it matter if t#e laims are
negligently or re3lessly falseD If t#ey%re false, don%t t#ey #a!e t#e same effetD
See #illing effet 6 an%t +#ill- people from ating negligently
o Cill still be a #illing effet e!en under t#e NJ 5imes standard
$oesn%t ta3e into aount t#e #arm to t#e person being defamed
o Court re2uires t#e !itims to subsidiGe t#e osts of freedom of spee#
Old law of riminal seditious libel #as been supereded
o Nobody e!er t#oug#t t#at t#e )st 8. #ad anyt#ing to say about i!il defamation liability
o Some found t#is suit against t#e NJ 5imes to be a le!er way to suppress t#e bla3s in
t#e sout#
Hy"o2 5perator of white house gift shopped accused in Post of embe66ling gift shop reenue- Based on
inside source7 turns out to be false-
*an gift shop manager preail in defamation action?
o 5urns on w#et#er s#e%s a publi or pri!ate person
Is e!eryone w#o wor3s for t#e go!ernment is a publi offiialD
Sulli!an lea!es t#is 2uestion open
Later definition of #u4li% offi%er: Someone w#o t#e publi perei!es to
#a!e a great deision in poliy,ma3ing, et=/ w#ere t#e publi #as great
interest in #ow t#ey perform t#eir duties
No atual malie on t#e 'ost%s part
CopsD Lower ourts #a!e interpreted 5imes to say t#at e!ery publi employee is
a publi offiial
Hy"o2 Someone writes letter to Post calling senator an 8idiot and a crook9
5imes doesn%t apply to opinion 6 only to false statements of fat
o +Idiot and roo3- is broad, opinion
o Saying t#ey%re a +twie,on!ited felon- is narrow enoug# to be different
Hy"o2 *aller to talk show host calls in to say :ary *heney is cheating' and host says that 8this goes to
show gay people dont hae the morals to hold together a relationship9
If t#ese allegations were false, #as to pro!e atual malie 6 #ere would be !ery #ard to do wit#
lear and on!ining e!idene= 5imes standard lets people get away wit# a lot=
K;
S#e%s not a publi offier, s#e%s a #u4li% figure= Test:
o Someone w#o #as su# publi sway t#at people are w#at t#at person #as to say
5#ose w#o #a!e t#rust t#emsel!es to t#e forefront of publi ontro!ersies in
order to #old sway in t#e issues in!ol!ed
S#e #asn%t really put #erself in t#e spotlig#t , Courts #a!e made a big
deal about #a!ing to #a!e !oluntarily put yourself in t#e spotlig#t
C#en people !oluntarily put t#emsel!es in t#e spotlig#t, t#ey as3ed for t#e
attention &balaning test 6 party%s rig#ts != spea3er%s rig#ts(
In 5imes, ourt didn%t seem to are mu# about interests of t#e publi offiial
o 'ubli offiials are #appy to all a press onferene to fi7 a message 6 t#ey want t#e
spotlig#t and so don%t need t#e #elp of t#e ourts
Spee# in t#is instane is a matter of publi onern
C#en t#ere is spee# by or about a #ri!ate figure &.ary C#eney(, but about somet#ing of #u4li%
onern &gay or lesbian rig#ts(, t#en t#ere%s a + mi""le groun" - standard
o 0urden of proof on plaintiff
o 0ut doesn%t #a!e to pro!e atual malie
Hy"o2 website publishes nude photos of )merican Idol conducts' and implies her promiscuity- 0urns out
shes not the one in the photos
.alieD 1e3less disregard as to t#e !eraityD
'u4li% Con%ern No #u4li% %on%ern
'u4li% offi%ial8 figure Sulli!anB0utts No lear answer
, Aard to find somet#ing t#at
falls into t#is ategory in t#is day
and age
'ri!ate figure "ertG $un H 0radstreet
5a3e a loo3 at non,defamation torts
<7: doumentary about mental institution
o In!asion of pri!ay
o Aumiliating to inmates, but li3ely led to reformation of mental institutions
Aow to balane t#e interestD
O4s%enit$
Roth v. 'S &:S )9K7(
Fats:
Court: Obsenity is ategorially outside t#e )st 8. &unli3e profanity and .3 0imes wit# libel 6
re4eted t#e C#aplins3y dita t#ere, aepts it #ere(
o Obsenity is material t#at deals wit# se7 in a matter appealing to t#e prurient interest
&tends to inite lustful, s#ameful t#oug#ts(
Notes:
5#is is not a !ery liberal standard, but is pretty liberal w#en you ta3e into onsideration w#at
ame before it
KF
!hy are $e treating o&scenity as outside the freedom of s"eech at all+ !hat gives government
the right to censor o&scenity+
o La3 of any soial importane
o $oesn%t ontribute to mar3et plae of ideas, politial proess or sear# for trut#
o Distinction it from other art forms that we do proide protection to:
Some mo!ies and artoons are purely politial spee#, so t#ey #a!e )st 8mend=
'rotetion
8rgument: t#is is not e7pression/ it only affets us p#ysially
0ut #ow is t#at different t#an slapsti3 #umorD 5#at also eliits a
p#ysial response &laug#ing(
Court: any benefits are simply outweig#ed by t#e osts &we don%t treat mo!ies outside t#e sope
of t#e )st amendment beause as a w#ole, mo!ies #a!e more benefits(
o 0ut obsenity isn%t really its own ategory of art, it%s not it%s own medium
o C#at are t#e ostsD
Obsenity tends to inite lustful t#oug#ts
+S#ameful- 6 .'C
?ustifiations:
o 5#oug#t ontrol
o +Offensi!e-
Suffiient to 4ustify ta3ing it outside t#e freedom of spee#D
o 'roteting 3ids
Tids will always find it
0ut t#e argument against it is we%re not going to ta3e away all #emistry boo3s
so t#at 3ids an%t ma3e alo#ol, et=
S#ouldn%t let w#at%s appropriate for K year olds ditate w#at%s appropriate for
soiety
o .orality:
"o!ernments tell us w#at we an and an%t do
Court seems to be drawing #uge distintion btw t#e politial and t#e moral
8ll of t#ese don%t stand up !ery well against srutiny
o Crime
C#en t#e immoral spee# leads to #arm toward ot#ers, it an be regulated
o Subordination of women
Se7ualiGes and romantiiGes abuse and rape
American Booksellers Ass?n v. Hudnut &7t# Cir= )9*K(
Fats: 'orn s#op #arged wit# obsenity
Court: 'orn film still ontributes to mar3etplae, go!ernment s#ould not be allowed to suppress
o Not up to t#e go!ernment to presribe t#e rig#t !iew and ensor t#e ot#er ones
Aistory of alien sedition at
In!o3es 0randenburg &inites ot#er people to ommit illegal, #armful ats(
$oesn%t meet t#e 0randenburg standard: Not li3ely, not imminent
o .o3s free spee# to stri3e down t#ese messages
Can%t silene t#e w#ite supremaists or pornograp#ers
No matter how "e#lora4le the message or harmC we %an&t su##ress it unless
it meets the Bran"en4urg test
Supreme Court affirms wit#out omment
KK
Notes:
Counter argumentsD
o 'orn wor3s at a subonsious le!el &people may not e!en realiGe t#at t#eir !iew is slowly
#anging(
State: If it%s not wor3ing at a onsious le!el, t#ere%s a mar3et failure &people
an%t proess it at t#e +mar3et- le!el(
<asterbroo3: t#is is ma3ing an assumption about t#e trut#
o 5rut# is ditated by t#e mar3etplae
o 0:5, t#is also allows a great deal of #arm to our, inluding t#e
perpetuation of t#is 3ind of #arm
Bottom line: 1egulation of obsenity is purely ontent,based= .a3ing it its own ategory, we
an say it%s largely soially wort#less, but you ould say t#e same for lots of t#ings &!iolent #orror
mo!ies, #ate spee#(
o Ce #eris# t#e priniple t#at spee# is proteted= Ce don%t want t#e go!ernment
regulating it 6 but we don%t e7tend it to obsenity=
5#in3 of Saw II, ot#er soially #armful ategories &torture, ruel, !iolene(, are
not outside t#e sope of t#e )st amendment
Only se7 is different
?usties 0la3 and $ouglas: "o!%t #as no business telling people w#at t#ey an read or wat# ,
"reat #ampions of t#e first amendment
o 0la3: first )st amendment +absolutist- 6 t#oug#t 8LL spee# was proteted
0ut at some le!el it 4ust doesn%t end up wor3ing in pratie
0la3 tried to draw line between spee# and ondut &per4ury, t#reats were
+ondut-(
<nds up not supporting rig#t to engage in e7pressi!e ondut
Regar"less of reason) o4s%enit$ I0 outsi"e free"om of s#ee%h
o C#at is obseneD
1ot# standard almost immediately loses ma4ority support
Court ouldn%t get K !otes for a standard for years after 1ot# , #eld
+mo!ie nig#ts- to determine ase,by,ase w#at was obsene
"o!ernment an%t proseute you for wat#ing pornograp#y in your own #ome
o 0ut t#is doesn%t apply to internet porn
o Still an be made a rime by t#e go!ernment to buy, download, ma3e, distribute obsene
materials
Miller v. CA &:S )97;(
Fats:
Court: Finally defines obsenity wit# @ 'art Test -%urrent/:
KE
)( C#et#er t#e a!erage person, applying ontemporary ommunity standards, finds
t#at t#e wor3, ta3en as a w#ole appeals to t#e #rurient interest
&2( C#et#er wor3 depits in an offensi!e way, se7ual ondut as defined by state
law
&;( C#et#er t#e wor3, ta3en as a w#ole, la%7 serious literar$) artisti%) #oliti%al or
s%ientifi% !alue
o 1ot# was 4ust part ) 6 t#is test adds parts 2 H ;
o Still ategorially outside )st amendment, but not onsidered obsene if it ontributes to
mar3etplae of ideas
8 more liberal standard
0rennan dissents: <!en t#oug# a more liberal standard t#an 1ot#, not a pratial way of drawing
t#is test
Cill always gi!e some ommunities disproportionate power to ontrol and
ensor some t#ings
o It%s impossible for people to 3now if t#eir wor3 will be onsidered obsene 6 for t#e ris3,
a!erse, it reates a #illing effet t#at we%re so worried about in free spee# ases
o Cants to get out of t#e +obsenity business-
Sometimes got F !otes for t#is proposition, but ne!er got fi!e
Notes:
!hat are some "ro&lems $ith this test+
&)( C#at does t#is standard really meanD
o +'rurient interest- means it #as to turn you on, se7ually arouse you
o +Offensi!e- means re!olting, disgusting
It #as to bot# turn you on and off at t#e same time 6 seems strange
&2( 5#ese are based on loal standards 6 does this make sense?
o "ood: 8llows for different loal ultures 6 reognition of t#e fat t#at we #a!e different
standards of offensi!eness in t#is ountry
If w#ole point is to protet our moral !alues, we #a!e to rely on loal standards
beause t#ere isn%t one nation,wide moral !alue
o 0ad: >agueness problem t#at applies regardless of w#et#er t#ere%s a loal or national
standard
.orals differ person,by,person
Ne!er 3now if your mo!ie is going to be found obsene or not
+C#illing effet- of t#is law
.inorities in more onser!ati!e areas w#o are less easily offended are restrited
from wat#ing a mo!ie in .S t#at t#ey ould wat# in NJ=
It%s in t#ese ommunities t#at we would e7pet Free Spee# to be most
neessary
8llowing t#e tyranny of t#e ma4ority in t#ese onser!ati!e areas
Aow is t#is onstitutional lawD Ce don%t allow loal standards based on ot#er
ontentious issues, su# as abortion
o Internet ases 6 standard in !iewer%s ommunity applies &essentially t#e same t#ing as
mail,order porn(
$istributor of internet porn an%t ontrol w#ere it gets s#ipped , so w#at #appens
nowD
.ost intolerant ommunity in 8meria is going to set t#e national
standard , sets national standard of prudeness
o If you set t#e standard at w#ere t#e distributor is, t#en you set a
national standard of permissi!eness
C#at ot#er approa#es ould we ta3eD
5#in3 of +ommunity- as +yber ommunity- in w#i# you%re
interating for setting t#e +loal- standards= 0ut:
o Aard to identify w#o t#e internet ommunity is
K7
o $oesn%t sol!e problem of t#e fat t#at a person in &Iowa( is
aessing orrupting material in a loality t#at onsiders t#is
offensi!e
Courts are 4ust starting to wrestle wit# t#is problem
&;( +La3s serious !alue- 6 ob4eti!e, not a loal test
o Salia: #ow to determine w#et#er piee of artwor3 is ob4eti!ely !aluable or notD
8nyone determining t#is brings to t#e table t#eir own biases and t#eir own
ommunity upbringing
Seems profoundly inonsistent wit# freedom of spee# for go!ernment to be
telling us w#at is +ob4eti!ely- !aluable or wort#less
For a long time, t#ere weren%t obsenity proseutions in t#is ountry for many years &under 0us# I and
Clinton(= 5#is #as #anged under t#e 0us# II administration=
"onGales reated +Obsenity 'roseution 5as3 Fore- 6 made obsenity proseutions top priority
1ig#t now proseutors are going after manufaturer and distributors, but are faing pressure to go
after t#e onsumer
i. Chil" 'ornogra#h$
Why is this an issue?
8 lot of w#at we onsider #ild porn is not se7 &often 4ust nudity( 6 doesn%t meet definition of
obsenity
$on%t gi!e us a lear onstitutional definition of w#at is or isn%t #ild porn
0:5 #ild porn, w#et#er or not obsene, is outside t#e sope of t#e First 8mendment
#e$ %ork v. 8er&er &notes ase, :S )9*2(
Court: States #a!e more leeway wBrBt #ild pornograp#y:
o )( Compelling interest in proteting #ildren
o 2( Intrinsially related to #ild abuse &psy#ologial #arm is greatest fous(:
'ermanent reord of #ild%s in!ol!ement, #arm is e7aerbated by irulation
$istribution networ3 must be losed if prodution is to be effeti!ely ontrolled
.iller standard may not reflet State%s more ompelling interest in proseuting
t#ose w#o e7ploit #ildren
5#ird fator is irrele!ant &doesn%t matter if t#ere is artisti or sientifi
!alue(
o ;( 8d!ertisingBselling pro!ides eonomi inenti!e/ t#us an integral part of t#e
prodution, w#i# is illegal
o F( >alue is +modest, if not de minimis-
o K( Classifying t#is as outside t#e )st 8mendment is onsistent wit# prior opinions:
C#aplins3y
Content,based lassifiation is aepted in some irumstanes bB as a w#ole,
t#e e!il outweig#s t#e good, and so ase,by,ase determination is unneessary
o Limits: Condut to be pro#ibited must be ade2uately defined by state law
Test is different t#an .iller test, but may be ompared to it for larity, e7ept:
Need not find t#at it appeals to prurient interest of a!erage person/
K*
Not re2uired t#at se7ual ondut portrayed be done in a patently
offensi!e manner, and
5#e material at issue need not be onsidered as a w#ole
O%Connor, onurring: NJ doesn%t #a!e to e7ept material wit# serious literary, sientifi or
eduational !alue from its statute , audiene%s reation s#ouldn%t matter
0rennan and .ars#all, onurring in t#e 4udgment: 8ppliation of NJ law to su# depitions of
#ildren t#at do #a!e serious literary, sientifi or eduational !alue would !iolate )st amendment
o 1egulated spee# #as 2 #arateristis:
Little soial !alue
Compelling go!ernment interest in t#eir regulation
Notes:
$ifferene wit# t#is and regular obsenity:
&)( In obsenity, ourts aren%t onerned wit# t#e effet on t#e people depited in t#e material
o Aere, #ildren are inapable of onsenting to t#is e7ploitation
&2( Stanley != "8 doesn%t apply to #ild porn
Osborne != O#io &:S )990(
Court finds Stanley != "8 inappliable to #ild porn/ mere #ossession is a %rime
Statute annot ban +nudity- per se, but lower ourts #ad limited its appliation to nudity in
+lewd- depitions
Ashcroft v. 8ree S"eech Coalition &:S 2002(
Can%t ban #ild,se7 images w#ere ators are o!er,age, or w#ere images are reated by omputer
grap#is , no one to protet in t#ese instanes
8rguments against t#is:
o +C#ets t#e appetite- of pedop#iles= 0ut:
.ere tendeny of spee# to inite #armful ats isn%t enoug# &0randenburg(
Ce an%t forbid proteted spee# to pro#ibit unproteted spee#
Notes:
Law of #ild porn #as ne!er been !ery ontro!ersial , e!eryone agrees it%s so profoundly !ile
Should it &e controversial+
o 'ro!ision for +la3 of serious !alue- is no longer part of t#e e2uation
<7ludes mo!ies &8merian 0eauty, Lolita, et=(
o $oesn%t ta3e into aount w#et#er #ildren are atually being e7ploited, or t#e piture
ta3er%s intent= 'eople being arrested for ta3ing pitures of t#eir 3ids in t#e tub 6 some
#ad t#eir 3ids ta3en away from t#em and were imprisoned, and weren%t released until
mont#s later w#en a go!ernment e7pert testified t#at t#ere was not#ing se7ual about t#e
p#otos= )E year old girls posted nude pitures of t#emsel!es on .yspae for t#eir
boyfriends, and t#e boyfriends were subse2uently indited of #ild porn and imprisoned=
ii. Content1Base" Restri%tion
0tri%t 0%rutin$ unless go!ernment esta4lishes un#rote%te"8low !alue
o Compelling "o!ernmental Interest
o Narrowly 5ailored
K9
View#oint Regulation
o >iew,point 0ased Legislation is e!en .O1< suspet= &For e7ample, allows spee#
0:5 not from 1epublians or pro,lifers=(
'i3eters:
Police 1e"artment v. Mosely &:S )972(
Fats: City ordinane pro#ibiting pi3eting near primary or seondary s#ool building e$cept for
labor dispute in!ol!ing s#ools I faially unonstitutional=
Court <' H )st 8mend #allenge= If onerned pi3eting would distrat from s#ool%s edu
mission, t#is ontent,based reg an%t be 4ustified bB ot#er pi3eting would be eAuall$ "isru#ti!e=
Can&t Be Base" on Content Alone +Seleti!e e7lusions from a publi forum an%t be based on
ontent alone or 4ustified on basis of ontent alone- City an%t selet w#i# issues wort# debating
in publi failities
Anal$sis un"er stri%t s%rutin$
o Im#ortant go!ernment interest K santityBno disruption of eduation 0:5 pro#ibition
must be narrowly tailored t#an to purpose=
o Not narrowl$ tailore" to purpose bB ourt re4eted laim t#at peaeful labor pi3eting
would be less disrupti!e t#an peaeful pi3eting of anot#er type= &In fat, pi3eting of
tea#ers ould be .O1< disrupti!e and against purpose=(
Carey v. Bro$n &:S )9*0(
Fats: 'eaeful pi3et outside mayor%s #ome ad!oating raial integration of s#ools t#roug#
busing on!ited under statute forbidding pi3eting outside pri!ate #omes e7ept for labor
disputes
Court: Law impermissibly prefers e7pression of !iews on one partiular sub4et=
Indistinguis#able from :osely=
Criminals:
Simon @ Shuster v. Mem&ers of the #% State Crime ;ictims Board &:S )99)(
Fats NJ Son of Sam law 1e2uiring all Ts wB on!ited person for depition of rime to turn
o!er inome to an esrow fund for !itim to be ontent,based statuteYin!alid=
Court Content14ase" singles out inome deri!ed from e7pressi!e ati!ity for a burden t#e State
plaes on NO O5A<1 INCO.<, and it is direted at wor3s wBin a speifi onte7t/
0tri%t 0%rutin$ anal$sis
o Ho!ernment Interest Compensate >itims
o NOT narrowl$ tailore" 0B only boo3s &not 4ewelry t#ie!es(
'L:S o!er,inlusi!e to apply to boo3s su# as 5#oreau%s Ci!il $isobediene,
.alolm @, et= not o!ered=
o 'ro4lem inidental effet of dri!ing ertain ideas or !iewpoints from t#e mar3etplae
bB law plaes finanial disinenti!es on speifi types of wor3s=
?ustie Tennedy, onurring: Fully proteted ategory of spee# w#y not say per se proteted bB
direted to S'<<CA alone
>oting:
Burson v. 8reeman &:S )992( 6 Sur!i!es SSN
Fats: )st 8. #allenge to state law pro#ibiting soliitation of !otes, display of politial posters
or signs, et wit#in )00 feet of polling plaes=
E0
Court: "o!%t #as ompelling interest in ombating eletion fraud and intimidation= States #ad
tried ot#er met#ods/ all K0 deided on t#is one=
Re"u&lican Party of M# v. !hite &:S 2002(
Fats: .N 4udiial ode #eld 4udiial andidates ouldn%t announe t#eir !iews on disputed legal
or politial issues=
Court: Interest in preser!ing impartiality not suffiiently ompelling to 4ustify t#e lause 6
+woefully under,inlusi!e-
Notes:
Spea3er restritions != ontent restritions: not always onsidered t#e pratial e2ui!alent, so long
as ground on w#i# spea3ers are lassified an be desribed as related to some aspet of t#eir
status independent of t#eir point of !iew
o I=e=, go!%t gi!es ta7 benefit to !eterans and not ot#er lobbyists/ en4oined protesters outside
abortion linis but not elsew#ere
Impat on t#e audiene:
Boos v. Barry &:S )9**(
Fats: $C ode pro#ibited display of sign near embassy t#at tended to bring t#at foreign go!%t
into +publi odium- or +disrepute=
Court: Sub4et to SS= Fails beause not narrowly tailored enoug# to protet dignity of foreign
diplomats
Content Neutral Laws
:sually time, plae, manner restritions
Intermediate srutinyN
o State doesn%t #a!e to e7#aust less restriti!e alternati!es
Total 9e"ium Bans
Suspet
Court will in!alidate some w#ere t#ey suppress too mu# spee#, regardless of w#et#er t#ey do
so seleti!ely=
iii. 0$m4oli% 0#ee%h
'nited States v. (?Brien &:S )9E*(
Fats: O%0rien burns #is draft ard, is on!ited
Court: Ae%s not being on!ited for #is spee# #ere, #e%s being on!ited for #is ondut
o New Test for Statutes targeting ondut t#at in#ibit e7pression= ?ustified w#ere:
-./ It is within the %onstitutional #ower of the go!ernment
-+/ If it furthers an im#ortant or su4stantial go!ernmental interest
-@/ Ho!ernmental interest is unrelate" to the su##ression of free e;#ression
-(/ In%i"ental restri%tion on .st A9 free"oms no greater than essential to the
furtheran%e of that interest
o Aere, t#is is unrelated to free spee# &aepts go!%ts reasoning at fae !alue(
E)
Court won%t in2uire 6 but wit# raial disrimination law, ourt $O<S in2uire into
w#at t#e real purpose was be#ind t#e law &at least under strit srutiny(
Carren%s disdain for O%0rien &and ot#er war protestors( saturates t#is opinion 6 doesn%t really
apply #is own test to t#e fats of t#e ase= 5wists t#e fats so t#at O%0rien will stay in prison=
Notes:
O%0rien laims #e burned it to ma3e a politial statement= ,sn?t this *ust another case of
someone &eing convicted for s"eech under the "retense of a la$ that regulates conduct+
o Court #olds t#at it%s not: lays out funtional reasons for t#e statute
0an ser!es legitimate purpose in terms of 3eeping tra3 of draftees, et=
5#e 'rongs:
o 'rongs &2( and &F( are 4ust standard 4udiial srutiny &is t#ere a substantial go!ernment
interest, and is t#e law narrowly tailoredD(
o 'rong &F(: t#is loo3s sort of li3e intermediate 6 strit srutiny
o 'rong &2(: Interests are:
'reser!ing t#e funtioning of t#e draft, preser!ing national seurity
Is this law 8essential9 to the furtherance of that interest? $rafts an funtion
e!en wit# burnt ards
o 'rong &;(: 5ries to pre!ent a +slippery slope, - loo3s to t#e underlying reason
Hy"o: .a6is wants to rally in downtown park- ;ot denies permit because:
&)( ;ot employees threaten to stay home= 5#is isn%t unrelated to free
e7pression beause it%s gi!ing in to t#e message of t#e employees
&2( Parks flowers and grass will be crushed= Seems unrelated to free
e7pression= If you also deny peae rallies, arni!als, demonstrations, et=
in t#e par3, it may pass t#e test
"o!%t !irtually always #as interest in suppressing ontro!ersial spee# t#at would
sur!i!e IS, so t#is test #as gate,3eeps to ensure go!%t an%t target spee#
5est: If t#e go!%t ation is related to t#e suppression of free e7pression, t#en we don%t e!en get to
t#e rest of t#e test
5est in 8tion:
3e4as v. Aohnson &:S )9*9(
Fats: ?o#nson, protestor, burns 8merian flag= 8rrested, on!ited of deserating t#e flag in
!iolation of 5@ law=
Court: K,F, delares t#e law unonstitutional= Statue regulates ondut, so it%s t#e O%0rien test
o But 4efore we e!en get there) we ha!e to as7 if this is 3s$m4oli% s#ee%h5 Test:
Cas t#e ondut engaged in wit# t#e intent of ommuniating an ideaD
Could it be r7able be understood by t#ose w#o obser!ed t#e ondut as intending
to on!ey an ideaD &unontested in t#is ase(
o 5#res#old: was go!ernment interest in passing t#e law unrelated to t#e suppression of
free e7pressionD 5e7as% interests:
&)( 're!ent brea#es of t#e peae
Initement onern: Not !ery li3ely, not imminent &not#ing #appened(
+Fig#ting words-: Sending a message t#at angers a lot of people is not
fig#ting words, 0:5 must be indi!idualiGed &don%t want to reate a
+#e3ler%s !eto- in t#e law(
&2( 'rotet t#e flag and its symboli !alue
E2
+Symboli !alue- is e7pressing a message , not#ing ould be more
related to t#e suppression of free e7pression
o Court doesn%t e!en get to IS or t#e rest of t#e test, beause t#ey find t#at it is related to
t#e suppression of free e7pression
5reat as go!ernment suppression of free spee# &See ontent based materials(=
1e#n2uist: Flag burning outside t#e essential e7pression of ideas
Notes:
Law restrits spee# if !iewpoint based and is sub4et to 00 6 low tolerane for outrig#t ensors#ip=
Content neutral 6 sub4et to time plae manner restritions: form of I0=
,s this la$ is content &ased+
o Jes , not illegal to burn flag in all irumstanes= Can%t "ese%rate t#e flag= +In a way
t#at t#e ator 3nows will offendZ- &only illegal if it will offend people(
:nder federal law, supposed to burn a flag if it beomes too old and tattered=
o "o!%t may not pro#ibit t#e e7pression of an idea simply beause soiety t#in3s
disagreeable=
What about looking for alternatie' less offensie ways?
o O5#is loo3s li3e Co#en, +F t#e draft-ase=P Not o3ay t#at #e ould ma3e t#e point in
some ot#er non,offensi!e way=
>aluable )st 8. import to t#e met#od #e #ooses=
o 0urning t#e flag #as similar emotional !alue, ould do t#e 4ob better t#an a poster
o "o!%t an limit means by w#i# you e7press your ideas 6 e=g= painting t#e C#ite Aouse
red to protest t#e war, e!en if t#is limits t#e mode by w#i# you on!ey your message=
Content Neutral: Interest in 3eeping go!ernment property &w#ite #ouse( lean is
ompletely unrelated to suppression of free e7pression=
5@ ould ban you from burning flag in front of t#e go!ernor%s mansion=
5#is is an <asy Case: 5otally ontent based and annot possibly pass strit srutiny=
Is this outside the essential e$pression of ideas?
o C#aplin3y: &see also, #ild porn ases(: $oesn%t #old up logially=
'orn is for se7ual gratifiation, people don%t li3e it for politialBe7pression
reasons=
Co#en != C8: 'rofanity an be about e7pressing ideas=
Sulli!an: Libel to some e7tent part of e7pressing ideas=
1e#n2uist wants anot#er e7eption=
?udiial 8ti!ismD
o No: It was s2uarely before t#em, someone was atually on!ited under a statute=
o O!erturning a law t#at%s popular supported by a ma4ority of t#e peopleD
If t#at%s #ow you define it=
No one ta3es 0la3%s position t#at t#is is ondut
o 8ti!ist from an originalist perspeti!eD
5#en yes=
o $e!iating from preedentD
$issent was atually more ati!ist=
o ?udiial 8ti!ist is a ban3rupt p#rase:
.ore of a politial term now rat#er t#an genuine legal disagreement=
'S v. 6ichman2
E;
Fats: Congress tried to pass a new flag burning law: Crime to destroy a flag for an$ reason unless
warn or soiled &diff= from 5@ law(= 'urely ontent neutral=
o "o!%t says for p#ysial integrity of t#e flag in all irumstanes=
Court: Stri3es down federal law= Not#ing to do wit# suppressionD
8mendments in ongress 6 pass easily in t#e #ouse and ome lose in t#e Senate, ) !ote s#y last
time=
i!. 2ate 0#ee%h
'eople #armed by t#e offensi!e spee# to t#e e7tent t#at t#ey are offended=
o .ost aggressi!e t#eory 6 "roup Libel:
Beauharnais v. ,llinois &:S )9K2(
Fats: IL riminal group libel law pro#ibited publis#ing, selling, e7#ibiting publiation t#at portrays
depra!ity, riminality, et= of a lass of itiGens of any rae, olor, reed or religion= 0 irulated
petition doing 4ust t#at=
Court: :sed group libel t#eory= 0uilding on C#aplins3y &words t#at inflit in4ury are outside of t#e
)st 8.(, depiting entire fae as per!erted or inferior inflits in4ury by t#eir !ery nature=
o In4ury is bot# diret and indiret= C#at atually #arms you and w#at on!ines ot#er
people to beome bigoted=
o 5#ese words an beome riminaliGed=
0la3, $issent 6 t#is is 4ust ensors#ip=
Notes:
5#is ase #as ne!er been o!erruled but it AI"ALJ suspet as preedent=
o "roup libel of an entire rae builds on t#e idea t#at libel is outside of t#e )st 8.
0:5 after Sulli!an t#is is no longer t#e ase=
o Issue #ere is statements of opinion, not false statements of fat= Opinion an ne!er be
suppressed, espeially politial opinions li3e t#ose at issue in rae spee#=
Beauharnais premised t#at words t#at inflit in4ury aren%t part of first amendment , *ohen limits t#is
as well: profanity inflits in4ury but proteted=
o 0e$as - <ohnson: flag burning proteted despite inflition of in4ury
Skokie: 5reat 0eau#arnais li3e not longer good law=
o 8llow NaGis to mar# down t#e street of a predominately ?ewis# town t#at #ad lots of
#oloaust sur!i!ors=
o "roup libel t#eory of raist spee# doesn%t fly in t#e 20
t#
entury=
o Some forms of raist spee# limited s#ort of outrig#t ban on raism=
RA; v. City of St. Paul &:S )992(
Fats: C#ite 3ids on!ited for burning a ross on t#eir bla3 neig#bors% lawn, on!ited under
0ias,.oti!ated Crime Ordinane
Court: Aolds t#at it is unonstitutional &9,0(, but s#arply di!ided on w#y:
0%alia -L !otes(: )st 8. law turns on w#et#er you an be on!ited under a speifi statute
Not an O%0rien test ase= Why not? .aybe fails t#e t#res#old in2uiry of t#e O0 test beause it%s
diretly related to t#e suppression of free e7pression
EF
o Col4$: seems to be beause t#is law is not targeted at ondut 6 t#is is targeted at
e7pression on its fae &doesn%t pretend it%s about ondut(
"enerally spea3ing, law targeting spee# is sub4et to SS w#en ontent,based
o 0o Auestion is is law %ontent1neutral or %ontent 4ase"> Content,based &an be
on!ited for spee# t#at offends on t#e basis of rae, but not on ot#er bases Osports team
affiliation, et=P(
'roblem wit# Salia%s w#ole analysis: .N S= Ct= #as interpreted t#is statute to apply only to
fig#ting words=
o C#aplins3y: fig#ting words is a ategory outside t#e sope of )st 8.=
o 0ut Salia doesn%t see it t#is way 6 t#is isn%t a general fig#ting words statute/ it pro#ibits
ertain fig#ting words
:!en outsi"e the .st A9 -fighting wor"s) o4s%enit$) %hil" #orn/) $ou still %an&t "is%riminate
on the 4asis of %ontent
o 0ut t#is an%t be entirely true 6 a state, in #oosing to #a!e obsenity law would #a!e to
riminaliGe all obsenity &we mig#t not want states to riminaliGe e!eryt#ing t#at
onstitutionally ould be riminaliGed(
Salia%s response: Can draw ontent,based distintions, as long as t#e line t#at
you%re drawing is based on t#e same ontent you used to ta3e it outside t#e )st
8mendment in t#e first plae
I=e=, obsenity is outside beause it%s morally offensi!e and dangerous, so
you an riminaliGe t#e most morally offensi!e and dangerous obsenity,
w#ile lea!ing ot#ers
Why doesnt this apply here?
1aist disrimination seems most li3ely to inite fig#ts &seems to be on
t#e strong end of fig#ting words(
0:5 Salia doesn%t buy t#at t#ese are t#e most li3ely ations to inite
fig#ts &t#ere are ot#er bases t#at would be e2ually li3ely to start a fig#t,
so it seems li3e a strange distintion to draw=(
o 5#is doesn%t seem !ery on!ining on its own
8N$: you an ne!er draw !iewpoint,based laws &it%s t#e worst 3ind of free spee# suppression(
o Outlaws raial,based fig#ting words, but not et#niBNaGi,based fig#ting words &i=e=,
alling someone a +raist pri3- is proteted , Silenes anti,'C !iewpoints
Dusti%e =hite& %on%urren%e: 8grees wit# result, !e#emently re4ets Salia%s reasoning:
5#in3s #is reasoning is o!erbroad: basi )st 8mendment rule: <!en if your spee# ould be
proseuted under a properly narrow rule, if you%re proseuted under an o!erly broad rule t#at
sweeps too far, it%s unonstitutional on its fae
o 8pplying t#is only to fig#ting words is stret#ing too far to sa!e it from o!er breadt#
o 5#in3s t#is would be fine e!en if it only o!ered raist fig#ting words
Notes:
:nder Salia%s test, ould regulate porn based on #ow +bad- it is, but not on a !iewpoint,based
distintion &t#at w#i# omments politially, for e7ample(
o Does it surie SS?
State: wants families to li!e wit#out fear and feel safe &interest is ompelling(
0ut it%s not narrowly tailored, so it doesn%t sur!i!e SS
Could be written to protet t#e e7at same way wit#out drawing
!iewpoint, and ontent,based distintion
EK
o "eneral pro#ibition against fig#ting words law, for e7ample
$oes redrawing it t#is way really ma3e it more narrowly tailoredD
o Jes, in t#e sense t#at it a!oids t#e disrimination we don%t li3e in spee# regulation
o No, beause t#is law would outlaw a lot more spee# 6re2uires e!en more ensoring
!hose o"inion is more convincing+
o C#ite%s is simple
o 0%alia #as a raGy, on!oluted opinion: It%s going pretty far 6 somet#ing +profoundly
fis#yBirritating- about t#is opinion
Aow an t#e )st 8mendment rea# into areas t#at are +outside- its limits, but
only in ertain irumstanesD Aow an it be t#at it an%t rea# w#ere you use
ontent,based distintions for some t#ings but not ot#ers, etD
Ae is essentiall$ rewriting .st Amen". Law
C#y did #e go t#is far w#en #e didn%t #a!e to do damage to t#e w#ole
systemD
?ustie C#ite, et: Salia seems to want to #a!e #is a3e and eat it too:
Cants to 3eep C#aplins3y ategorial approa# to t#e )st 8. &we an
outlaw obsene mo!ies(, but #e also wants to find a way for t#e ourts to
stri3e down politially inorret outside of t#e )st 8.
Critis t#in3 ourt s#ould #a!e to bite t#e bullet one way or t#e ot#er
!isconsin v. Mitchell &notes ase, :S )99;(
Fats: Law pro!ides en#aned penalties w#en t#e $ ated on t#e basis of rae, gender, et=
Court: 9,0, Court agrees t#at t#is type of #ate,rime law is perfetly onstitutional
Notes: Whats the difference?
5#is law is !iewpoint,based too &not en#aned sentene if you%!e #osen your !itim on t#e basis
of t#eir politial affiliation, et=(, 0:5 t#is is not about spee# 6 it%s regulating pure ondut &not
e!en e7pressi!e ondut(
o $s: but t#is #ate,rime law #as t#e effet of punis#ing t#em beause of t#eir beliefs
&t#ose w#o beat up someone beause t#ey t#in3 ri# people s#ould be beaten up don%t get
a longer sentene(
o 5#e go!ernment is ma3ing a !alue 4udgment #ere
The go!ernment #rote%ts onl$ $our s#ee%h an" e;#ression) NOT the moti!es 4ehin" $our
%on"u%t
o State #as made t#e 4udgment t#at ating out of ertain moti!es is worse t#an ot#ers, and
t#e law reogniGes t#is distintion
;irginia v. Black &:S 200;(
Fats: Cross,burning law 6 different t#an 18>= No ross,burning wit# t#e intent to intimidate=
Not fousing on fig#ting words, or on t#e li3ely effet on t#e person your ondut is targeted at/
instead it fo%uses on the moti!es be#ind t#e ondut
Court: $oesn%t !iolate onstitution to pro#ibit ross,burning wB intent to intimidate
o 5#is targets ondut
)( 5#is spee# falls outside t#e sope of t#e )st 8.
:nli3e 18>, t#is is not a fig#ting words ase
>8 onsiders t#is a t#reat &also outside t#e sope of t#e first amendment(
2( :!en outsi"e the .st) statute still %annot 4e %ontent 4ase"
EE
$oesn%t pro#ibit all ross,burning 6 mig#t be reasons for ross,burning
ot#er t#an intimidation &Colby: +li3e for roasting mars#mallows, if
you%re really si3=-(, rallying purposes, et=
5#is is singling out a narrow subset of a broad ategory of
onstitutionally prosribable t#reats
,sn?t this content-&ased+ Court doesn%t do a good 4ob of engaging in t#is
analysis/ seem to impliitly aept t#at t#is is ontent,based regulation
&4ust w#at 18> says you an%t do(
o 0:5, t#is falls under t#e e7eption in 18>, w#i# says you an
prosribe w#ere you draw lines based on t#e reason t#e ategory
is outside t#e first amendment in t#e first plae
o Aere, ross,burning is one of t#e most in!idious, intimidating
3inds of t#reats
5#is is different from 18>, bB t#ere, Salia says t#at statute is singling out
!iewpoint &an use fig#ting words as long as your message is pro,tolerane(
5#is isn%t !iew,point based disrimination 6 it%s 8LL intimidation
But what else would you be trying to say by burning a cross on
someones lawn? &Colby: +Not [rent%s due on Cednesday%-(
o Court omes up wit# e7amples of people burning rosses on
lawns for ot#er reasons &union members, et=(/ t#erefore, t#is
isn%t !iewpoint based disrimination
o 0ut t#is I0 unonstitutional= C#yD
5#e statute doesn%t re2uire t#e proseutor to pro!e intent to disriminate ,
problem wit# t#e o!er breadt# dotrine
Sine statute is unonstitutional on its fae, it an%t be used to proseute anyone,
e!en $s in t#is ase w#o were intending to disriminate
5#omas%s onurrene: 5#is is really a law about ondut 6 loo3s to #istory of t#e law &ross,
burning used to be step ) in t#e lyn#ing proess= Li3e law in CI != .it#ell(
o Cross,burning is !iolene, not e7pression
o S#o3ing t#ing for #im to say 6 8ll ot#ers agree t#at t#is is an e7pressi!e at
Notes:
0ummari6ing 2ate 0#ee%h
o Can%t be suppressed as group libel, or as fig#ting words
o Some forms an be suppressed under t#e t#reats dotrine, but only under narrow ategory
of #ate spee# &intent to t#reaten a partiular indi!idual(
0ut most #ate spee# isn%t direted at a partiular indi!idual
What about a state =ni- prohibiting all hate speech directed toward a certain race or religion?
o Could affet t#e 2uality of t#e institution, but omes up against free spee# protetion
o 0roadly, a few arguments in support of t#ese regulations:
&)(: 5#is 3ind of raist #ate spee# s#ould be onsidered outside )st 8. &low
!alue, doesn%t ontribute to mar3etplae of ideas, #urtful to soiety(
0ut, mar3etplae t#eory: 8llowing bad ideas is t#e best way to get t#e
best ideas to t#e top
C#ole idea of )st 8. is to treat all ideas e2ually 6 if we don%t li3e one,
we re4et it/ we don%t ensor it
E7
&2( 5#is s#ould fall wBin free spee#,proteted Gone, and s#ould be sub4et toB
sur!i!e SS
Compelling go!ernment interests: di!ersity, ma3ing people feel safe and
not feel intimidated
Narrowly tailored lawD
One of t#e great issues in our era bB it pits fundamental onstitutional issues against ea# ot#er
o )st amendment != )Ft# amendment, or more broadly:
o :Aualit$ !. Li4ert$
Aow do we stri3e t#is balaneD
So far, our law #as tended to resol!e t#ese onflits in fa!or of liberty
"enerally #old t#at go!%t #as no rig#t to interfere or tell us w#at we an%t
say
0:5 t#is is in flu7 we #a!en%t seen t#e end of t#is
A. T2: R:LIHION CLAU0:0
i. Intro"u%tion
ii. Free :;er%ise
Church of the ukumi Ba&alu Aye v. City of Hileah &:S )99;(
Fats: 'ratitioners of Santeria want to open #ur# in suburb of .iami= ?ust before opening, t#e
ity ma3es ritual slaug#tering of animals a rime= C#ur# sues=
Court: :nanimously stri3es t#is statute down as !iolating t#e free e7erise lause
o Loo7s to language of statute: not faially disriminatory:
Ob!iously aimed at religion &uses +ritual- and +sarifie-(, but t#ese an #a!e
seular meanings &+ritual- of brus#ing your teet# e!ery morning(
Could it be written t#is way wit#out a disriminatory purposeD
<!ery ot#er slaug#ter is o3 &e!en 3os#er slaug#tering(
Seular reasons &proteting animals( don%t seem belie!able to t#e ourt
o If t#is was t#e reason, would say it was o3 to slaug#ter animals
for food &e!en in t#e in#umane ways t#at some liensed
slaug#ter#ouses use(, for #unting, resear# purposes, et=
o Loo7s to intent 4ehin" the statute &li3e laims of <' !iolation(:
Aistorial onte7t: Ne!er #ad t#is law until ity was informed t#at Santeria
#ur# would be opened
Legislati!e #istory: 'assed wit# a disriminatory purpose:
In ounsel meetings, people e7pressed improper purpose 6 moti!ated by
desire to 3eep Santeria praties out &beause t#ey were +sinners,- et=(
Salia, 1e#n2uist: $oesn%t belie!e it%s e!er appropriate for t#e ourt to loo3 to
legislati!e #istory to disern t#e meeting of t#e law
5#oug# only minority, ourt is less li3ely to use legislati!e #istory today
o $oesn%t t#is sur!i!e SS bB o!er and under,inlusi!e: No e7eption for ritual sarifie so
long as it%s done under proper super!ision
Notes:
'retty easy ase 6 dotrinal lessons:
E*
o SS applies to any law t#at faially disriminates against religious praties
o SS applies to faially neutral laws enated out of intent to disriminate against religious
praties
Not the rules that matter to"a$) 4e%ause legislatures tr$ to get aroun" this
I=e=: laws t#at ma3e it mandatory to wor3 on Saturday:
Neutral Laws A"!ersel$ Affe%ting Religion
Sher&ert v. ;erner &:S )9E;(
Fats: Se!ent# $ay 8d!entist refused to wor3 on Saturday, so fired from #er 4ob= 8pplies for
unemployment benefits, but denied by state beause s#e ould find wor3, s#e 4ust turned down
t#e wor3 s#e ould find= Files suit=
o Law is faially neutral, and no intent to disriminate, but #as disriminatory effet
Court: 8pplies SS: and t#is law an%t sur!i!e it
o Compelling interest: not gi!ing out unemployment benefits to people w#o an find wor3
but w#o turn it down
0ut is there a %om#elling interest in not ma7ing an e;%e#tion to this law for
#eo#le who are "is%riminate" againstD
Only potential one #ere is onern about fraud
o Narrowly tailored: e!en if t#is was a real onern, t#e law isn%t narrowly tailored enoug#
Could as3 #er to sign somet#ing, ontat religious leader, et=
8fter t#is ase sets t#e rule, for ;0 years t#e Court applies SS
!isconsin v. %oder &:S )972(
Fats: 8mis# man proseuted for failing to send )K year old #ild to s#ool, in !iolation of CI%s
laws= 1eligious beliefs of not sending 3ids to s#ool after *t# grade=
Court: 8pplies SS, stri3es down on!ition= State #as ompelling interest in s#ool laws, but no
ompelling interest in refusing to e7empt t#e 8mis#=
Then e!er$thing %hanges in .??M
6m"loyment 1ivision5 1e"t. of Human Resources v. Smith &:S )990(
Fats: O1 outlaws use of peyote= Smit# fired from #is 4ob for using peyote as part of Nati!e
8merian religious pratie= $enied unemployment benefits beause of #is own +misondut=-
Court: Sustains on!ition against t#e free e7erise #allenge , not a free e7erise ase
o $oesn%t apply any srutiny beause #e doesn%t t#in3 t#ere%s a onstitutional issue #ere
In the ol"er %ases) there was free e;er%ise of religion E some other right that
was legal &eduation of #ildren, free spee#, et(
5#is is different beause t#ere%s no ot#er rig#t to use drugs
o $istinguis#es S#erbert: Condut by S#erbert not pro#ibited by law/ t#is is a riminal ase
Isnt it worse when the goernment criminali6es religious practices than >ust
denying a benefit because of the religious practice?
In benefits ases, e!eryt#ing is deided on indi!idual basis, w#ere it%s easy to say
t#at t#ere s#ould be e7eptions for religion= S#ouldn%t spread t#is to riminal
ondut beause t#ere%s no opportunity for ase,by,ase 4udgments by
go!ernment deision ma3ers
Col4$: but t#ere%s proseutorial disretion, t#ere is t#is opportunity #ere
E9
o No onst%l re2uirement to reate e7eption for religion for generally appliable law
Now, rule is NO SC1:5INJ &no onstitutional issue presented(
O%Connor, 0la3mun, 0rennan and .ars#all: 5#in3 SS s#ould apply
Notes:
What does 8hybrid9 mean? Do you hae to hae a 8alid9 claim or >ust a 8plausible9 claim?
o If it #ad to be +!alid,- t#en we wouldn%t e!en need free e7erise
o If it #ad to be +plausible-, doesn%t ma3e sense eit#er 6 #ow does a law t#at +almost-
!iolates free spee# and +almost- !iolates free e7erise, #ow does t#at e2ualD
o Joder didn%t rely on +#ybrid,ness- and S#erbert didn%t rely on +ase,by,ase- feature
Salia%s use of preedent #ere is pretty wea3
0ottom line is t#at Salia doesn%t t#in3 t#e pre!ious ases were rig#t, so #e tries
to +distinguis# t#em into t#e ground-
Court does t#is all t#e time &0rown != 0oard distinguis#ed 'lessy(
!hat?s Scalia relying on+
o Not preedent
o Not te7t &Congress s#all ma3e NO law abridging t#e free e7erise(
o Not #istory &as great originalist, got ritiism for re!olutioniGing t#e law(
O%Connor%s riti2ue: "oes t#roug# original #istory, w#i# ontradits Salia%s
!iew &#istory is inonlusi!e(
5#oug#t t#ere s#ould be e7eptions for ertain religious praties,
espeially in t#e riminal onte7t
Commentators say O%Connor #as t#e better of t#e argument
o Not struture
Strutural arg would be: $otrinal onsisteny re2uired t#roug# all of onst%l
law/ free e7erise is most li3e <'/ in <', faially neutral and not disriminatory
in purpose &only in effet(, t#en 10 is applied &Cas#ington != $a!is(
$oesn%t seem to be t#e ase #ere
Not so easy: unified t#eories are != diffiult aross t#e board in Con Law
o I=e=, faially and purposely neutral but disriminatory in effet
regulations on free spee# still sub4et to SS
o 1ules: $oesn%t li3e balaning tests, li3es #ard and fast rule
5#in3s e!en SS is too sub4eti!e 6 #ere #e gi!es a #ard rule
o 'olitial 'roess
.a3es proess,based onst%l argument: t#is is not t#e 3ind of onst%l rig#t we
need 4udiiary to protet bB t#e politial proess wor3s well to protet t#is !alue
<@: :nder Smit#, state ould pass law pro#ibiting t#e gat#ering of )0 or more
people on Sunday, w#i# would pre!ent C#ristians from attending #ur#
0ut t#is would ne!er be passed beause it%s a ma4ority religion
:nli3ely t#at t#ere would be law t#at infringed on Cat#olis% rig#t &only
2KS of 8merians( beause t#ey wouldn%t li3ely pass a law against a
religion t#ey omparati!ely identify wit#
Comes in its urrent form from Carolene 'roduts footnote
Need t#e 4udiiary to protet t#e minority fB t#e tyranny of t#e ma4ority
o Speifially lists religious minorities as a disrete and insular
minorities
1eligious Freedom 1eformation 8t &1F18(: 'assed unanimously in Aouse,
almost unanimously in Senate= $oes t#is mean we an trust t#e politial proessD
70
o 5#ey don%t always protet t#e interests of minorities
o SS is designed to reate a 4udiial safety !al!e for t#e bad times
&#a!e it on t#e boo3s so we an #a!e it w#en we need it(
o Final 4ustifiation: 8nar#y= e7eption to religious pratitioners for e!ery generally
appliable law, t#ere will #a!e to be tons of e7eptions, &undermines t#e rule of law(
0efore Smit#, t#e ourt said it was applying SS, but it was more li3e +SS,+
o 5oo sub4eti!e for Salia, but t#ere wasn%t anar#y during t#ose years
o 1F18 &)99;( was designed to o!errule Smit# and impose SS 6 Court stri3es down=
Congress doesn%t #a!e power
Free e7erise lause applies to states under )Ft#, so Congress #as power to enfore t#at against
t#e states, but Court has final sa$ on what .(th means) an" therefore what the free e;er%ise
means so Congress %an&t enfor%e it in an in%om#ati4le wa$
iii. :sta4lishment 0%hool
'ra$er
S= Court #asn%t gi!en us lear answers to w#at e7atly t#is means
; 5ypes of issues:
o 1eligious prayer and instrution in publi s#ools
o :se of religious symbols or spee# in publi plaes
o :se of publi money to fund religious t#ings
.Collum != 0d= of <duation &:S )9F*(: Court stru3 down allowing religious eduators to be
broug#t into t#e s#ools
Borach v. Clauson &:S )9K2(
Fats: NJ s#ools allow students to lea!e t#e s#ool building during t#e day to go to #ur#
Court: :p#olds= 5#is is different from .Collum bB it%s not ta3ing plae on state property=
C#at%s t#e 5<S5D
o -./ For%e>: &If so, t#en bot# praties s#ould be o3(
C#y not 4ust end s#ool ) #our earlierD
State: +students wouldn%t go to C#ur#=-
5#eir 4ustifiation is ob!iously to enourage #ur#,going/ t#oug# s#ort
of fore, it%s designed to +oere- t#e students to get religious eduation
o -+/ Coer%ion>: Not te#nially t#e ase #ere 6 soial pressure mig#t ount w#en t#e lass
is #alted and all your friends went to #ur#
Some degree of de fato oerion #ere
o -@/ Use of Ho!ernment Fa%ilities> If so, maybe bot# t#ese ases were deided orretly
$oesn%t really o!er +establis#ment- of religion
0ut t#ey mig#t be using go!ernment resoures: ) #ours of t#e s#ool day used,
3eeping tra3 of w#ere students #a!e been, et=
Why is this ok?
o Seems li3e a strange line to draw
o ?ust treating religious groups same as dane groups, baseball, et
o -(/ Neutralit$>
<C s#ouldn%t allow go!%t to fa!or or enourage religion, but must go!%t treat
religious groups and religion on e2ual footing wit# ot#er e7traurriularsD
7)
Court seems to rely on it in Qora#, but t#at doesn%t seem to be t#e differene
between t#e 2 deisions
.Collum was onerned wit# use of go!ernment failities and
resoures, not neutrality
Notes:
Separation of #ur# and state: 5#is is t#e big priniple, but w#at does it meanD
o ForeD CoerionD :se of go!ernment failitiesD :se of go!ernment resouresD
NeutralityD
o Can%t #a!e omplete separation: Can #a!e fire department put out fire at #ur#, #ur#es
bound by state law
C#at is t#e e7tent of separation t#at isBisn%t toleratedD
Comes into tension wit# Free <7erise lause
ee v. !eisman &:S )992(
Fats: 8t middle s#ool graduation, rabbi deli!ers +nonsetarian- address= "o!%t didn%t lead t#e
prayer #ere &so go!ernment is not engaging in religious ati!ities 6 is bringing in pri!ate religious
figure to lead t#e prayer 6 different from old prayer in s#ool ases(
Court: 5#is !iolates <C= 5#is is still a s#ool funtion 6 doesn%t matter w#i# aut#ority is leading
t#e prayer= 5#is is essentially %oer%ion
o 0ut t#is !iew of oerion was denied in Qora#: Aere, student%s not e!en fored to attend
t#e graduation or fored to engage in prayer
o 0ut student s#ouldn%t #a!e to #oose between prayer against will and attending
graduation
Not standing is drawing attention to t#e fat t#at you are in t#e minority 6 t#is
mig#t be enoug# to +oere- people into standing
0la3mun, Ste!ens, Souter, O%Connor: onur separately to say t#at oerion is not t#e only
problem 6 also on!eys t#e notion of go!ernment en"orsement of ertain religious beliefs
o .ust be more to <C t#an 4ust oerion, bB oerion is literal !iolation of F< lause
o Casn%t t#e go!%t engaging in t#is prayer 6 but t#ey%re supposed to be neutral between and
among religions
o Cant +endorsement priniple-
Salia: <ndorsement priniple an%t be rig#t
Notes:
'eer pressure always an issue= But then isnt the coercion here coming from the kids' not the
goernment?
o State is reating t#e +apti!e audiene- situation in t#e first plae &failitated by go!%t(
o <!en if ma4ority doesn%t get to en4oy prayer 6 t#is would be en4oying t#e fruits of
!iolating t#e onstitution, w#i# is somet#ing t#ey don%t #a!e t#e rig#t to en4oy
F 4usties argue t#at t#e law is also unonstitutional beause it%s go!%t endorsement of religion
o 0ut +"od Sa!e t#is Court,- +One Nation :nder "od-: t#ese endorse religion
o Souter%s response:
&)( .adison, ?efferson, et= t#oug#t t#ese were unonst%l from t#e beginning
&2( 0a3 t#en, go!%t wasn%t saying anyt#ing t#at alienated anyone beause almost
e!eryone ba3 t#en was some sort of ?udeo,C#ristian
?ust beause it was onstitutional ba3 t#en doesn%t mean it is so today
72
&;( 0ig differene between #ig# s#ool graduation eremony and using terms in
t#e ourt, on t#e dollar bills, et: 5oday t#ese words aren%t e!en notied, easily
ignored, unobtrusi!e
In graduations, t#ere%s a apti!e audiene and an +in your fae- prayer is
mu# different
o Souter seems to be ma3ing 2 points:
&)(: 5#ese really #a!e faded into t#e ba3ground, t#ey%re +eremonial deism-
Lost t#eir endorsing power
&2(: <!en if not true, all it an pro!e is t#at t#ere%s a longstanding pratie t#at
%ertain things ha!e 4een gran"fathere" in to the :C 6 but t#at s#ouldn%t open
t#e floodgates to new t#ings
5#at would ma3e t#e <C a nullity
But why is this principle e/ually applicable to ,S football games?
Santa 8e ,nd. Sch. 1ist. v. 1oe &notes ase, :S 2000(
Fats: Student #aplain at football games #allenged=
Court: 5#oug# t#is isn%t as important as a graduation, for some students t#is isn%t !oluntary &band,
#eerleaders, team(
o Court reogniGes t#at standing up implies t#at you are agreeing wit# t#e prayer leader
o State puts you in position to eit#er gi!e impression t#at you agree wit# prayer or t#at
Salia: C#at do 4usties 3now about #ild psy#ologyD Aow an we base our 4urisprudene on
t#atD &0ut remember: in psy#ologial studies used in 0rown(
o 5#is isn%t oerion in t#e legal sense &imposed by t#e law(
Aow different is t#is from Santa FeD
0%hool Curri%ulum issues <!olutionism, reationism:
States an%t forbid t#is, bB only reason for forbidding is it%s inonsistent wit# t#e literal meaning
of t#e 0ible &ad!aning religion at t#e e7pense of seularism(
Can%t re2uire e2ual time for reationism for time spent on e!olutionism:
6d$ards v. Aguillard &:S )9*7(
Fats: Creationism 8t in L8 re2uired t#at for e!ery #our of e!olutionism taug#t, an #our of
reationism must be taug#t as well=
Court: Lemon 5est:
$oes t#e law #a!e a seular #ur#oseD
$oes t#e law #a!e t#e effe%t of in#ibitingBad!aning religionD
$oes t#e law reate an impermissible entanglement between go!ernment and
religionD
.:S5 meet all ; for law to be onstitutional
Still te#nially in effet today, but #as been s#arply ritiiGed o!er and
o!er again by Supreme Court 4usties
Sometimes t#e Court 4ust ignores it &see Lee != Ceisman(
o 8pplies t#e Lemon 5est #ere:
Fails prong ): No seular purpose 6 purpose is to ad!ane religion
$oesn%t mandate t#at ot#er !iewpoints be taug#t, 4ust t#e 0ible%s
!iewpoint
7;
Legislati!e #istory !ery lear in t#is ase 6 intended to try to enourage
3ids to belie!e t#e word of t#e 0ible
Salia%s dissent: $oesn%t t#in3 we s#ould e!er loo3 to legislati!e #istory/ so opposed to w#ole
first prong of Lemon test
Notes:
+Intelligent $esign- attempts: all literature s#ows t#at reason be#ind it is t#at t#ey want #ildren
to belie!e in reationism
'urpose remains to ad!ane religion
i!. :sta4lishment 0$m4olism
Marsh v. Cham&ers &notes ase, :S )9*;(
Fats: N< legislature paid a #aplain to lead prayer before sessions
Court: $oesn%t apply Lemon, endorsement, et= 1elies on argument t#at if somet#ing was done
by t#e !ery first Congress &t#e one t#at enated t#e 0ill of 1ig#ts(, t#en we an%t say t#at it
!iolates t#e 0o1
o 8nyt#ing t#at goes ba3 to )7*9 will be onsidered onstitutional
0rennan%s dissent: 5#is ob!iously !iolates Lemon
o 'rofound entanglement 6 go!%t pays #aplain, ould e7erise ontrol o!er #is ser!ies
ynch v. 1onnelly &:S )9*F(
Fats: 'awtu3et, 1I erets religious display e!ery C#ristmas wit# r\#e=
Court: 0urger doesn%t li3e Lemon test 6 tries to apply it= Lemon test:
'ur#ose: Seular purpose, to a3nowledge and elebrate t#e #istorial origins in
a national #oliday &seems a tenuous argument(
:ffe%t: No partiular effet of ad!aning religion &Doesnt it?(
O%Connor: Cruial Kt# !ote, onurs
o :nderstands t#e first 2 prongs of t#e Lemon test to 4ust be an +endorsement=- 5#is is all
!ery onte7tual=
In t#e middle of t#e #oliday season, surrounded by Santa et=, people wouldn%t
t#in3 t#is was an endorsement of religion
o Step ) &0aseline assumption(: go!%t elebrating C#ristmas does not endorse religion
Aa!e to belie!e t#at C#ristmas is also a seular #oliday &Jule elebrations t#at
too3 plae in pre,C#ristian <urope, et=(
o Step 2: 5#en does t#at mean t#at w#en t#e go!%t offiially inludes its display along wit#
t#e seular symbols, it still isn%t endorsing C#ristmasD
O%Connor%s <ndorsement 5est: =oul" the reasona4le o4ser!er 4elie!e that the
go!&t inten"e" to or "i" in fa%t %reate the im#ression that it was en"orsing
religion>
Should we beliee that the 8aerage' reasonable9 person is a *hristian
iewer' since the ma>ority of )mericans are *hristian?
If were looking out for the interests of non!*hristians' should we ask
what a reasonable non!*hristian would beliee?
o O%Connor du3s t#e issue , Is t#is an impossible abstrationD
Notes:
7F
)pplying the Cr4a&le o&serverD test ? @In ;od We 0rust9? Atc:
o 5#ese praties don%t date ba3 to t#e founding
o +:nder "od- wasn%t added to pledgeB +In "od Ce 5rust- wasn%t added to L until )9K0s
o Clearly fails t#e Lemon test and t#e oerion test 6 9t# Cir= stru3 pledge down
0ut Court will ne!er agree wit# t#is 6 will not pus# Const%n as far as logi
suggests t#at it goes
5#ey an%t atually ma3e t#e world #ange 6 fear a ba3las# and a onstitutional
amendment
'ost L$n%h "e!elo#ments
Allegheny Co. v. AC' &:S )9*9(
Court: stri3es down r\#e on ounty ourt#ouse t#at stood alone 0:5 up#olds ity display of a
menora# beause it appears ne7t to a C#ristmas tree &seular #oliday( and sign t#at says +Salute
to Liberty% beause t#e message #ere is a message of di!ersity
O&Connor&s :n"orsement Test wins out
McCreary County v. AC' of 7% &:S 200K(
Fats: TJ ourt#ouse posts )0 Commandments on walls/ 5@ #as )0 Commandments sulpture in
art garden &see 4an 5rden - Perry, below(
Court: F !ote to stri3e down bot# monuments/ F !ote to up#old bot# monuments/ 0reyer !otes to
stri3e down TJ post: #istory in w#i# it was ereted mattered to #im
0reyer: TJ only put up more seular t#ings one t#ey were sued= $oesn%t apply Lemon or
<ndorsement test 6 <ust as7s whether monument %ontri4utes to atmos#here of religious
"i!isi!eness= "oes out of #is way to say #e doesn%t li3e tests
Souter%s ma4ority &4oined by O%Connor 6 importantN(
o :ses <ndorsement, and ta3es it seriously
o O%Connor 4oins it &surprising t#at s#e%d find endorsement in t#is 3ind of monument(
Salia%s dissent: $oesn%t want to play along wB #arade t#at religious e7pression isn%t religious
e7pression= )0 Commandments are profoundly religious message, but it%s onstitutional=
o 5#is is 4ust an endorsement of biblial monot#eism generally, not#ing wrong wit# t#is
beause we%!e always been doing t#is
o OT for go!%t to endorse ?udeo,C#ristian monot#eism, to endorse t#e 0ible
5#omas: 5#is 4ust goes to s#ow #ow bad t#e tests are 6 ompel a result ontrary to w#at t#e
8merian people belie!e
o S#ould 4ust say t#at <C isn%t inorporated against t#e states by t#e Kt# 8mendment
;an (rden v. Perry
Court: up#olds one display of )0 ommandments= 0reyer !otes to up#old: freestanding, wit#
seular onte7t 6 ot#er monuments t#at #ad seular surroundings
o 8t time it was built, no one notied or paid attention &weren%t disputes at t#e time, so
didn%t ontribute to atmosp#ere of religious di!isi!eness li3e t#e TJ monument(
o Rule seems to 4e: an%t build any more )0 Commandments monuments beause of t#e
urrent soietal en!ironment, and t#ose built wit#in last K years must also ome down=
:nli3ely t#at t#is rule will #old for !ery long
1e#n2uist, plurality: $oesn%t t#in3 Lemon is useful #ere, doesn%t belie!e in endorsement test
o Instead, s#ould say )0t# Commandment monuments are onstitutional beause of t#e
#istorial role of religion in our publi life
7K
o 5ries to use Lemon, endorsement tests defensi!ely to 4ustify it:
$oesn%t !iolate beause not ereted for religious reason 6 seular reasons for
eretion and seular message
Nonreligious reognition of our nation%s religious #istory, and a elebration of t#e
rule of law
Notes:
)0 Commandments:
o Some seular ommandments, some non,seular
o Not inspiration for onstitution
o In order to win O%Connor%s !ote, states try to pretend li3e t#is was all seular
.a4ority of Court agrees wB O%Connor t#at +endorsement test- is orret way to assess <C laims
o 5est arguably ma3es sense in t#eory, but Court found it diffiult to apply: C#at a r7able
C#ristian would perei!e != r7able ?ew, 8t#eist, Aindu perei!e is different
Aard to determine w#o r7able obser!er is wBo pre4udging if t#ere was a !iolation
o 5est led to #uge +song and dane- in t#e way t#e ases were being litigated
'er#aps all of t#at is o!er now: Some of more liberal 4usties #ad always refused
to aept t#e routine &0rennan( insulted by it &i=e=, r\#e is not religious(
o O%Connor%s !ote is gone now &Kt# !ote( C#ere will Court go from #ereD
Sti3 wit# endorsement testD 8gree wit# SaliaD Find its way ba3 to a middle
ground againD
!. :sta4lishment Fun"ing
6verson v. Board of 6ducation &:S )9F7(
Fats: N? program for gi!ing money to parents for sending 3ids to s#ool on a bus 6 a!ailable to
bot# publi and pri!ate students
Court: :p#olds t#e program against <C #allenge=
It%s neutral 6 a!ailable to bot# publi and pri!ate s#ools
5#is is su# a +separate funtion- from t#e religious ati!ities
o Can%t possibly mean it w#en we say t#at go!ernment an ne!er use any money to support
religious institutions= 5#is is li3e paying t#e fire dep%t to put out money at a #ur#, et=
6 t#is is still using publi money to benefit a religious institution
o Can%t single out religious institutions for basi go!ernment ser!ies , t#is would also
bring up Free <7erise onerns
Notes:
Ce%!e got 2 fundamental <C priniples:
o Neutrality
o Separation of C#ur# and State &no funding religious institutions(
5#ese 2 las#, but bot# #a!e support in #istory, te7t, ase law
Court t#in3s t#is is different: Ne!er goes to #ur#Bs#ool &goes to t#e parents(
Mueller v. Allen &:S )9*;(
Fats: .N ta7 e7emption for eduational e7penses for #ildren going to publi or pri!ate s#ool
Court: 5#is is about indi!idual #oie 6 t#e parents get t#e benefit regardless
7E
o "i!ing money to t#e s#ool is funding religion/ "i!ing money to t#e parent allows t#em
free #oie of #ow to eduation t#eir #ildren &t#e pri!ate ator is ma3ing t#e deision(
5#is is neutrality wit#out diret funding
Notes:
Funding or neutrality , Court goes ba3 and fort# &depends on w#o%s in t#e ma4ority ea# year(
o Teeps distinguis#ing prior ases on ridiulous grounds:
State an loan boo3s, but not film pro4etors to religious s#ools
State an pay to bus pri!ate students to s#ool, but not to field trips, et=
Lemon 5est, 'rong ;: Led to super!ision of religious s#ool tea#ers 6 Court said goes too far
o <C onerned wit# too mu# religion in our go!ernment, but also too mu# go!ernment
in our religion
o Idea t#at go!%t ould super!ise religious tea#ers H deide t#eir pay raises goes too far
5#ings #a!e #anged: o!er last 20 &espeially t#e last )2(, Court has mo!e" in fa!or of the
neutralit$ #rin%i#le at the e;#ense of the no fun"ing #rin%i#le
o :sed to be t#at w#en t#ese two las#ed, no funding usually won out , didn%t used to
allow go!%t money to e!en indiretly fund go!ernment tea#ing
o :nder 1e#n2uist Court, neutrality priniple wins out &usually in K,F ases(:
&)( No <C !iolation for publi uni!ersity to use generally appliable student
ati!ities funds for religious groups, e!en if t#ey use it to publis# a newsletter
Court relies on te#niality t#at money atually goes to printer
&2( "o!%t an pro!ide omputers to all s#ools, inluding pri!ate, e!en t#oug#
t#ey%re going to be used for religious purposes
Now possible to diretly use go!ernment money to support religion
o 1e#n2uist Court%s non,originalist r#etori: .atter of poliy is at sta3e: pre!enting 3ind of
in!ol!ement in religious life t#at leads to strife= 8t t#is point in t#e 20t# entury, we%re
far remo!ed from t#e dangers t#e founders faed=
Belman v. Simmons-Harris -:S 2002(
Fats: OA enats a s#ool !ou#er law, pro!ides money for families in Cle!eland s#ool distrit,
w#i# an be used to offset t#e ost of tuition at ot#er &publi or pri!ate( s#ools
Court: K,F, Court up#olds= .a4ority, 1e#n2uist:
o 8pplies Lemon 5est:
'ur#ose: learly seular, to en#ane eduation of inner,ity
:ffe%t: 5#is is a +pri!ate #oie- and neutral
$oesn%t #a!e effet of ad!aning religion &diretly, at least(
o 5a3es on <ndorsement 5est: $oesn%t #a!e effet of endorsing religion
8tually a disinenti!e to send 3ids to pri!ate s#ool bB t#ey%ll #a!e to o,pay
Souter, dissent: 5#is is go!ernment ta7 money being used to pay religious instrution , annot be
s2uared wit# priniple endorsed in <!erson
o Not on!ined by t#e neutrality argument:
9ES of s#ools are religious 6 t#is is only !erbal neutrality
8ren%t many seular pri!ate s#ools , Only way family an send 3ids to t#ose
s#ools is if t#ey an afford to ma3e up t#e differene
2B; of parents sending t#eir 3ids to religious pri!ate s#ools didn%t belie!e in t#e
religion taug#t t#ere, but sent t#at%s w#ere t#e good eduation is
1eligious s#ools an afford to ta3e on a 3id for L;000, w#ere as t#e
nonreligious +aademies- ost about L)*,000Byear=
Notes:
77
In t#eory, on t#e fae of t#e statute t#ere is genuine neutrality and free #oie, but in pratie t#is
isn%t really t#e ase
o 0ut faially neutral is enoug# for ma4ority to sustain onstitutionality
o Neutralit$ is now 7ing
Old +separation of #ur# and state- wall #as gone by t#e wayside
!i. Tension Lo%7e !. Da!e$
ocke v. 1avey &:S 200F(
Fats: 'romise S#olars#ip program didn%t allow for students studying to beome a minister=
State: doesn%t want to !iolate t#e freedom rig#ts of ot#ers, w#ose ta7payer dollars are going to
eduate someone in a religion t#at you don%t belie!e in
o >alue isn%t about punis#ing religion, but about go!%t entanglement in religion
Court &1e#n2uist(: So long as religious eduation is one of se!eral options a!ailable to t#e
student, t#e program is onstitutional &wouldn%t !iolate t#e <C for C8 to #ange t#is rule and
ma3e a religious eduation eligible(
o Law doesn%t disriminate against religion: allows students to go to religious s#ools and
an ta3e religious lasses, 4ust an%t learn to be a religious figure
"o!ernment is essentially foring t#em to pursue a seular areer 6 fine line
o Seems to be enoug# for Court to onlude t#at t#is doesn%t faially disriminate
State%s non,punis#ing purpose is t#e #eart of t#e Court%s opinion
o Dust 4e%ause :C "oesn&t for4i" state from ma7ing fun"s a!aila4le to religious
e"u%ation) "oesn&t mean that the F: %lause reAuires it
5#ere%s some +play in t#e 4oints- between t#ese 2 lauses
Salia and 5#omas, dissenting: neutrality s#ould always win
Souter: no funding s#ould always win
7*