Chapter 5 Constitutional Law

GONZALES v. RAICH
o P: Raich, Monson
o D: U.S. Attorney General Gonzales; head of the DEA
Seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the
enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
prevents possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for
their medical use
o Marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment;
Monson cultivates her own; Raich relies on two caregivers
o Federal agents raided Monsons house and destroyed her plants
o S: Federal courts (US Supreme Court) analyzes whether Congress
has acted within the scope of its constitutionally granted legislative
power (Commerce Clause gives Congress the primary authority to
regulate interstate commerce) to prohibit the local cultivation and use
of marijuana
Produced and consumed locally?
CSAs prohibition of marijuana as applied to interstate
manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes
pursuant to California law > Congress authority under the CC
3 categories of regulation under CC: (1) regulate the channels;
(2) regulate and protect the instrumentalities (persons or things);
(3) regulate activities that substantially affect interstate
commerce
Wickard v. Filburn forestall resort to the market by producing
to meet his own needs; Congress can regulate purely interstate
activity that is not commercial nor produced for sale
Leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal
control would affect price and market conditions
o District Court: Ruled against Raich/Monson
o Ninth Circuit: Reversed; Gonzales appealed

GRANHOLM v. HEALD
o P: Out of state wineries
o D:
Out of state wineries wished to ship directly to customers
o States permitted to mandate a three-tier distribution scheme under the
21
st
Amendment
o Michigan and New Yorks three-tier system is only for out-of-state
wineries while in-state wineries can obtain a license for direct sales to
consumers
o S: Discrimination against interstate commerce with growth of Internet
commerce
o District Courts: Ruled for plaintiffs
o Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Ruled for plaintiffs (Michigan case)
o Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Ruled for defendants (New York
case); losing parties appealed
o Supreme Court: Consolidated the appeals and granted certiorari;
affirmed opinion of Sixth Circuit; reversed opinion of Second Circuit
Does a States regulatory scheme that restricts of out-of-state
wineries violate the CC in light of Sec. 2 of the 21
st

Amendment transportation or importation into any (state) for
delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors is prohibited?
Does not give authority to pass nonuniform laws to
discriminate against
Whether either system advances a legitimate local
purpose that cannot be served with nondiscriminatory
alternatives? minors (little evidence) and facilitating tax
collection (can be achieved with nondiscriminatory
alternatives)
May not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or
shippers simply to give a competitive advantage (economic
Balkanization)
Michigan system complete ban on direct sales to out-of-state
wineries; increases cost; inability to secure wholesaler
New York system must have a physical presence in the State;
indirect way of subjecting out-of-state wineries; drives up the
cost; contrary that States cannot require an out-of-state firm to
become a resident

SORRELL v. IMS HEALTH, INC.
o P: Vermont data miners and an association of drug manufacturers
o D:
o S: Claiming it violated their First Amendment free speech rights as
incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment
Pharmaceutical manufacturers promote brand-name drugs
through detailing using prescriber-identifying-information sold
by data miners who buys this information from pharmacies
Vermonts Prescription Confidentiality Law (Act 80) not sell
records containing prescriber-identifiable information for
marketing or promoting a drug unless prescriber consents
(based on goal conflict with state incomplete/biased
information and drives up health care costs)
Content-based restrictions bars any disclosure when
used for marketing
Speaker-based restrictions specifically pharmaceutical
manufacturers
o Heightened judicial scrutiny is warranted
required by the First Amendment whenever the
government creates a regulation of speech
because of disagreement with the message it
conveys
o State argues heightened judicial scrutiny is
unwarranted because its law is commercial (not
prevented by First Amendment) and because its
conduct not speech but Courts held otherwise
Must show it directly advances a substantial government
interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that
interest: (1) protect medical privacy; (2) improve public
health and reduce healthcare costs (neither withstands
scrutiny)
o Trial Judge: Upheld Act 80
o Court of Appeals: Reversed Act 80 burdened free speech without
adequate justification
o Supreme Court: Granted certiorari; confirmed opinion of Court of
Appeals
Pharmaceutical marketing is protected by First Amendment
Free Speech Clause; must be subjected to heightened judicial
scrutiny

GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER
o P: Grutter (Caucasian)
o D: Law school
o S: Current thinking of affirmative action
Grutters application was rejected because illegally used
race as predominant factor to enroll a critical mass of
underrepresented minority students
o US District Court: Ruled for Grutter enjoined from using race as
a factor
o Sixth Circuit: Reversed the District Courts judgment vacated the
injunction
o Supreme Court: Granted certiorari; affirmed opinion of Sixth
Circuit
Law school sought to ensure law complied with most recent
ruling (Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke State has
substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a
properly devised admission program involving the
competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin)
Policy does not restrict the types of diversity contributions
eligible for substantial weight
Policy does reaffirm racial and ethnic diversityhistorically
discriminated by enrolling a critical mass to make unique
contributions
Equal Protection Clause no State deny any person equal
protection Fourteenth Amendment protects persons not
groups so race (a group) must be subject to detailed judicial
inquiry to ensure that the personal right to equal protection
has not been infringed
Benefits: promotes cross-racial understanding, breaks
down racial stereotypes, better understanding of different
races all important and laudable
Cannot use quota system may consider race or ethnicity
only as a plus without insulating from comparison (same
footing, not necessarily same weight)
Policy did not make race a defining feature and weighs many
other diversity factors
Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the narrowly
tailored use of race in admissions to further a compelling
interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from
diverse student body

KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON
o P: Nine landowners
o D:
Called an illegal taking (no allegation in poor condition;
happened to be in the development area)
o S: Whether a citys decision to take property for the purpose of
economic development satisfies the public use requirement
New London, Connecticut was a distressed area; city
reactivated the New London Development Corporation
(NLDC) to assist in planning economic development,
including Fort Trumbull State Park
Used power of eminent domain to acquire land
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment not take private
property for public use, without just compensation (made
applicable to state/local by Fourteenth Amendment)
May not take private property for the purpose of transferring
it to another private party, even with just compensation,
unless if future use by the public is the purpose did not
benefit a particular class
Berman v. Parker creation of a better balanced, more
attractive community was refused to by Congress as a
invalid public use
Judgment area must be planned as a whole
Purpose of eliminating the social and economic evils of a
land oligopoly qualified as a valid public use
Formulated economic plan to benefit the community in
hopes to benefit the whole greater than the sum of its parts
o Trial Court:
o Connecticut Supreme Court: Held for defendants landowners
appealed
o US Supreme Court: Granted certiorari affirmed opinion of
Connecticut Supreme Court based on based case law
interpretation of the provision dictates an affirmative answer