Limitations on Governmental Power 1) The Constitution a. Ex Post Facto Laws (Art. 1, 9 & 10) prohiit !e"is!ation o# retrospecti$e cri%ina! punish%ent. App!ies to oth #e&era! & state "o$ern%ents. . 'i!!s o# Attain&er (Art. 1, 9 & 10) prohiit #e&era! & state !e"is!atures #ro% passin" !e"is!ation specia!!( to punish in&i$i&ua!s without tria!. c. Contract C!ause (Art. 1, 10) speci)es that no state sha!! pass !aws i%pairin" the o!i"ation o# contract. *) The 'i!! o# +i"hts (1,10 A%en&s.) a. Barron v. Baltimore he!& that the 'i!! app!ies to the #e&era! "o$ern%ent not necessari!( state "o$ern%ents. . - th A%en&. .ue Process/ 0hi!e there is no 11 th A%en&. .ue Process co%para!e C!ause app!ica!e to the #e&era! "o$2t, the - th A%en&. .ue Process C!ause wou!& ar unreasona!e i%pair%ent o# sustanti$e $este& !e"a! ri"hts. 3owe$er, - th A%en&. .ue Process re$iew has een characteri4e& ( the Court as 5!ess searchin"6 than re$iew un&er the Contract C!ause. i. The "uarantee on!( app!ies a"ainst !e"is!ati$e (not 7u&icia!) action i%pairin" sustanti$e !e"a! ri"hts. ii. 0ea8 source o# !i%itation on "o$ern%ent. Charles River Bridge v. Warren (19:;), in a case in$o!$in" a pu!ic contract #or ui!&in" a ri&"e, the Court he!& that the !e"is!ature can a%en& an& inter#ere with a $a!i& contract ecause the Contract C!ause wou!& (ie!& to reasona!e state po!ice power. :) The Ci$i! 0ar A%en&%ents a. 1: th A%en&. ao!ishes s!a$er( an& in$o!untar( ser$itu&e. App!ies to oth pu!ic & pri$ate action. . 1- th A%en&. prohiits state an& #e&era! "o$ern%ent #ro% &en(in" $otin" ri"hts ase& on race or pre$ious con&ition o# ser$itu&e. <t &oes not esta!ish a "enera! ri"ht to $ote. c. 11 th A%en&. esta!ishes that persons orn or natura!i4e& in the countr( are citi4ens an& re7ects the Dred Scott v. Sanford &ecision that &enie& citi4enship to a !ac8 s!a$e. <t a!so %a8es %ost o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts app!ica!e to the states. Ao!itionists $iew the 11 th A%en&. as a %eetin" "roun& o# constitutiona! an& natura! ri"hts. i. Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause ii. .ue Process/ =ustanti$e & Proce&ura! iii. E>ua! Protection 1) Privilees or Imm!nities o" #$ t% Amen&. (co$ers citi4ens? .ue Process & E>ua! Protection app!( to persons) a. Fa!se start in Slaughterhouse Cases (19;:), where the Court he!& that the Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause o# the 11 th A%en&. &i& not %a8e the 'i!! o# +i"hts app!ica!e to the states in a case in$o!$in" La. statute creatin" a *-,(r %onopo!(. i. <t was he!& that the so!e #unction o# the C!ause was to protect the ri"hts secure& to in&i$i&ua!s in their re!ationship to the #e&era! "o$ern%ent, in their capacit( as #e&era! citi4ens. Pa"e 1 o# 9: ii. Case re@ecte& #e&era!is% $a!ues an& #un&a%enta! ri"hts an& ase& on a constitutiona! %is>uote. 5<t is >uite c!ear, then, that there is a citi4enship o# the Anite& =tates an& a citi4enship o# a state, which are &istinct #ro% each otherB6 1. 5<ts so!e purpose was to &ec!are to the se$era! states that whate$er those ri"hts, as (ou "rant or esta!ish the% to (our own citi4ens, or as (ou !i%it or >ua!i#(, or i%pose restrictions on their exercise, the sa%e neither %ore or !ess, sha!! e the %easure o# the ri"hts o# citi4ens o# other states within (our 7uris&iction.6 . +ecent!(, the Court resurrecte& the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause to protect that aspect o# interstate tra$e! that "uarantee& to tra$e!ers, who are per%anent resi&ents o# a state, the ri"ht to e treate& !i8e other citi4ens o# that state. i. .iscri%ination a"ainst the new!( arri$e& citi4en ase& on the exercise o# the ri"ht to tra$e! e$en i# on!( an inci&enta! ur&en is a pena!t(, su7ect to strict scrutin(. ii. <n Saenz v. Roe (1999), Court struc8 &own a Ca!. !aw that con&itione& we!#are ene)ts on the #a%i!(2s prior resi&ence. =tate ar"ue& that this was to ser$e )sca! o7ecti$es, ut the Court state& that the =tate cannot &iscri%inate a%on" e>ua!!( nee&( citi4ens. 1. Anc!ear whether this is a re$i$a! in the use o# the C!ause as a sustanti$e source o# protection o# #un&a%enta! ri"hts. *. =tate %a( sti!! see8 to assure that a new!( arri$e& tra$e!er is %aintainin" a ona )&e resi&ence e#ore it pro$i&es state ene)ts. c. Cri"ina! <ntent/ Dohn 'in"ha%, the principa! author o# the 11 th A%en&., speci)ca!!( sai& that the pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities o# citi4ens o# the Anite& =tates, contra&istin"uishe& #ro% citi4ens o# a state, are chie@( &e)ne& in the )rst 9 A%en&%ents o# the Constitution o# the Anite& =tates. i. Pro#. Trie conc!u&es that the C!ause is est seen then, as incorporatin" the 'i!! o# +i"hts a"ainst state "o$ern%ents without i%p!(in" the exc!usi$it( o# that set o# "uarantees. Trie a!so ar"ues that Corfeld can e est un&erstoo& as an atte%pt to i%port the natura! ri"hts &octrine into the Const. ( wa( o# the Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities. &. Ao!itionist Perspecti$e/ <t has een su""este& that the three C!auses o# the 11 th A%en&. were the pro&uct an& too8 their %eanin", app!ication, an& si"ni)cance #ro% the ao!itionist %o$e%ent, a popu!ar an& pri%ari!( !a( %o$e%ents, which was %ora!, ethica!, re!i"ious, an& re$i$a!ist rather than !e"a! in character. The A%en&. to the% was a 5%eetin" "roun& o# constitutiona! an& natura! ri"hts,6 protectin" 5natura! an& inherent ri"hts o# a!! %en.6 i. An&er this interpretation, the A%en&. inten&e& to inc!u&e the entire 'i!! o# +i"hts an& a "reat &ea! %oreEthe who!e spectru% o# ri"hts e%race& in such phrases as 5natura! ri"hts,6 5#un&a%enta! ri"hts,6 5the ri"hts o# %an,6 5Fo&,"i$en ri"hts6 an& so #orth an& in such &ocu%ents as the .ec!aration o# <n&epen&ence, the Prea%!e to the Constitution, an& the 'i!! o# +i"hts. Pa"e * o# 9: e. +e7ectin" the Ao!itionist Construction/ D. Gi!!er ar"ues that the Fra%ers cou!& not ha$e inten&e& to restructure the A%erican #e&era! s(ste% in or&er to pro$i&e #e&era! protection #or ci$i! ri"hts. i. 3owe$er, E. Corwin notes/ The &eates in Con"ress on the a%en&%ent !ea$e one in !itt!e &out o# the intention o# its #ra%ers to nationa! ci$i! !iert( in the A=, pri%ari!( #or the ene)t o# the #ree&o%, ut inci&enta!!( #or the ene)t o# a!!. This wou!& e &one ( con$ertin" =tate citi4enship an& its pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities into pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities o# nationa! citi4enship. 1. Then ( section -, o# the a%en&., which e%powers Con"ress to en#orce its other pro$isions ( 5appropriate !e"is!ation,6 that o&( wou!& e %a&e the u!ti%ate authorit( in &e!i%itin" the entire sphere o# pri$ate ri"hts in re!ation to the powers o# the =tates, !ea$in" to the =upre%e Court an inter%e&iate ro!e in this respect. ii. D. Fox ar"ues that Gi!!er wron"!( re!e"ate& the #un&a%enta! pri$i!e"es o# citi4enship, which were extensi$e!( &iscusse& ( the &ra#ters o# the a%en&. an& suse>uent Con"resses, to state pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities. <n &oin" so, !i%ite& the on"oin" con"ressiona! &eate o$er speci)c &e)nitions o# the C!ause in the context o# the en#orce%ent powers un&er -. 1. Contrar( to %o&ern =upre%e Court interpretation, the ori"ina! intent was that Con"ress ha& power un&er - to &eter%ine so%e o# the content o# the pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities o# nationa! citi4enship. #. Constitutiona!i4in" Ci$i! +i"hts/ +. 'er"er ar"ues that the three C!auses o# 1 o# the A%en&. were a!! #acets o# the sin"!e concern to prohiit &iscri%ination a"ainst #ree%en in re"ar& to a !i%ite& ran"e o# #un&a%enta! ri"hts re@ecte& in the 19HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act. i. The sustanti$e ri"hts were i&enti)e& ( the pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities C!ause? the e>ua! protection was to ar !e"is!ati$e &iscri%ination with respect to those ri"hts? an& the 7u&icia! %achiner( to secure the% was to e supp!ie& ( non&iscri%inator( &ue process o# the se$era! states. 1. The sustanti$e ri"hts inc!u&e& on!( (1) persona! securit(? (*) #ree&o% to %o$e aout? an& (:) ownership an& &isposition o# propert(. The inci&enta! ri"hts necessar( #or sa#e"uar&in" these ri"hts were enu%erate& in the 19HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act which &e)ne& the outer !i%its o# the 11 th A%en&. pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities. ii. Critics o# this ar"u%ent point out that this is an o$ersi%p!i)e& $iew o# the co%p!exit( o# %oti$ations that un&er!ie the a%i"uous pro$isions o# the 11 th A%en&. E$en i# the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause was %eant to constitutiona!i4e the ri"hts enu%erate& in the 19HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act, this &oes not necessari!( %ean that the A%en&. was so !i%ite&, since it &oes not enu%erate speci)c ri"hts as &oes the Ci$i! +i"hts Act. 1. <# the ri"hts o# Anite& =tates citi4enship are the natura! ri"hts to !i#e, !iert(, an& propert(, as repeate&!( state& ( the #ra%ers, then the ri"hts speci)e& in 1 o# the Ci$i! +i"hts Act Pa"e : o# 9: &o not co%pro%ise the entire corpus o# the ri"hts o# A= citi4ens. ". Du&icia! $iew/ C.D. 0arren su""este& in Brown I, that the histor( o# the 11 th A%en&. is 5at est, inconc!usi$e.6 D. 'rennan (concurrin" an& &issentin" in Ore. v. Mitchell) conc!u&e& that the 5recor& !e#t ( the #ra%ers o# the 11 th A%en&. is thus too $a"ue an& i%precise,6 an& the A%en&. there#ore re%ain 5capa!e o# ein" interprete& ( #uture "enerations in accor&ance with the $ision an& nee&s o# those "enerations.6 -) Nat!ral 'i%ts a. 'e"ins with the .ec!aration o# <n&epen&ence, which procee&s #ro% the pre%ise that it is a 5se!#,e$i&ent truth6 that 5a!! %en are create& e>ua!6 an& en&owe& with Fo&,"i$en, ina!iena!e ri"hts to !i#e, !iert( an& the pursuit o# happiness. i. <t has een su""este& that the !aw o# nature is nothin" %ore or !ess than the popu!ation conception o# 7ustice an& ri"ht. DeIerson2s use o# it as a 7usti)cation #or re$o!ution is !ess trou!eso%e than its use ( D. Chase as a asis #or 7u&icia! re$iew. . <n Calder v. Bull (1;99) D. Chase co%%ente& that 5the o!i"ation o# a !aw in "o$ern%ents esta!ishe& on express co%pact, an& on repu!ican princip!es, %ust e &eter%ine& ( the nature o# the power, on which it is #oun&e&6 (in$o!$in" the $a!i&it( o# a Conn. !aw o$erturnin" a proate court &ecree an& "rantin" a new hearin" was attac8e& as an ex post #acto !aw). i. Cn the contrar(, D. <re&e!! wrote separate!( to express his $iew that in the asence o# an( constitutiona! restraints the Court &i& not ha$e the power to &ec!are the !aw $oi&, pointin" out that the i&eas o# natura! 7ustice are not re"u!ate& ( an( )xe& stan&ar&. c. <n letcher v. !ec" (1910) the Court re!ie& on natura! !aw to &ec!are state !aw unconstitutiona! ecause the !e"is!ati$e power is !i%ite& ( oth the "enera! princip!es o# our po!itica! institutions an& the wor&s o# the Constitution (!an& tit!e ha& een con$e(e& to innocent owners, state !aw rescin&in" the "rant was &ee%e& to unconstitutiona!!( inter#ere with $este& ri"hts). &. Econo%ic ri"hts/ .octrine o# Jeste& +i"hts states that propert( ri"ht is #un&a%enta! an& an( !aw i%pairin" $este& ri"hts is $oi&. Propert( was a natura! ri"ht protecte& ( the socia! co%pact. This &octrine was use& ( the courts principa!!( was a u!war8 o# econo%ic propert( interests a"ainst state !e"is!ati$e intrusion. A!so #ro% the 19 th Cent. to 19:;, the Court #oun& that #ree&o% to contract was a asic ri"ht un&er the !iert( an& propert( pro$isions o# the &ue process C!ause. (!e Pro)ess *eanins , The &ue process princip!e &eri$es #ro% the Ga"na Carta, pro$i&in" protection #ro% the Kin", 7u&iciar( an& the !e"is!ature. There is serious >uestion that either phrase was ori"ina!!( inten&e& to pro$i&e a sustanti$e, rather then a proce&ura!, !i%itation on "o$ern%enta! power. , 0hat is the nature o# the 5!iert(6 protecte& ( the .ue Process C!ause that wou!& in& the statesL .oes it incorporate the 'i!! o# +i"hts an& to what extentL Pa"e 1 o# 9: #+ Total In)or,oration The Court, re7ecte& tota! incorporation o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts as app!ica!e to the states in Barron v. Baltimore. a. 5ha& the #ra%ersB inten&e& Mthe 'i!! o# +i"htsN to e !i%itations on the powers o# the state "o$ern%ents, the( wou!& ha$e i%itate& the #ra%ers o# the ori"ina! constitution, an& ha$e expresse& that intention.6 . 5These a%en&%ents contain no expression in&icatin" an intention to app!( the% to the state "o$ern%ents.6 2+ Fle-i.le (!e Pro)ess /In&e,en&ent Poten)0+ <n the 1910s & -0s, a Court %a7orit( e%p!o(e& a @exi!e approach which $iewe& the .ue Process C!ause as ha$in" a %eanin" in&epen&ent o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts. The Court &eter%ine& whether a procee&in" was so un#air as to oIen& the #un&a%enta! stan&ar&s o# &ecenc(. a. <n&epen&ent Potenc( o# the .ue Process C!ause o# the 11 th & - th A%en&s./ i. =tan&ar& o# 5whether the( oIen& those canons o# &ecenc( an& #airness which express the notions o# 7ustice.6 Fro% #damson v. Cal. (191;) (upho!&in" .2s con$iction o# %ur&er cha!!en"in" Ca!. proce&ure pro$i&in" that #ai!ure o# . to testi#( can e consi&ere&). ii. Consensus theor( o# what the %a7orit( o# the states &o to in#or% notions o# &ue process. 1. Ase& in $ones v. lowers to &eter%ine that the state nee&e& to ta8e a&&itiona! reasona!e steps to noti#( owner o# tax sa!e. 1+ Sele)tive In)or,oration The Court has he!& that so%e, ut not a!!, o# the pro$isions o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts are incorporate& ( the .ue Process C!ause an& thus %a&e app!ica!e to the states. Goreo$er, the "uarantees o# the .ue Process C!ause are not !i%ite& to those ri"hts in the 'i!! o# +i"hts. a. =tan&ar& o# <ncorporation/ i. Concept o# Cr&ere& Liert( 1. Co$ers on!( #un&a%enta! ri"hts or ri"hts that are necessar( to a ci$i!i4e& societ(. *. Announce& in !al"o v. Conn. (19:;), D. Car&o4o writin" that so%e o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts are protecte& $a!ues ecause the( are i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert(, i.e. #ree&o% o# expression, #ree exercise o# re!i"ion, the ri"ht o# peacea!e asse%!(, an& the ri"ht o# one accuse& o# cri%e to the ene)t o# counse!. ii. +oote& in A%erican Tra&ition or Dustice 1. As8s i# it is #un&a%enta! e$en thou"h a #air & en!i"htene& s(ste% o# 7ustice wou!& e possi!e without the "uarantee. Duncan v. %a. (19H9). . Pro$isions Oot <ncorporate&/ Gost o# the sustanti$e & proce&ura! "uarantees o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts ha$e een incorporate& except, * n& , : r& , an& - th A%en&. ri"ht to "ran& 7ur( in&ict%ent an& ; th A%en&. ri"ht to tria! ( 7ur( in ci$i! cases, #ree&o% #ro% excessi$e ai!, an& re>uire%ents o# a 1*,person 7ur( an& o# a unani%ous $er&ict #or con$iction. $+ F!ll 2 Partial In)or,oration The Court has he!& that the incorporate& ri"hts app!ies a"ainst the states to the sa%e extent an& in the sa%e %anner as the 'i!! o# +i"hts pro$ision app!ies Pa"e - o# 9: a"ainst the #e&era! "o$ern%ent. 3owe$er, !ater cases ha$e narrowe& the scope o# certain 'i!! o# +i"hts "uarantees to acco%%o&ate state proce&ures. Pa"e H o# 9: P'OC3(U'AL (U3 P'OC3SS Fuarantee& ( the - th an& 11 th A%en&s. +e%e&ies #or proce&ura! &ue process $io!ations %an&ate that the "o$2t chan"e the processes use& in &ea!in" with persons ( &o not re>uire an( re#or% in the sustanti$e ru!e itse!#. #+ Interest Inva&e&4 <s there a &epri$ation o# a si"ni)cant !i#e, !iert(, or propert( interest so that the .ue Process C!ause app!iesL The Court has on!( reco"ni4e& &ue process as app!(in" to ene)ts that are present!( en7o(e&. a. Propert(/ the #act that an interest is i%portant to an in&i$i&ua! is ina&e>uate to create 5propert(/ #or &ue process purposes. Propert( has een !i%ite& to interests reco"ni4e& ( the "o$ern%ent (in existin" ru!es or un&erstan&in"s that ste% #ro% state or #e&era! !aw). i. For "o$ern%ent ene)ts to constitute propert(, the person see8in" &ue process %ust show so%e entit!e%ent create& ( "o$ern%ent. 0hether we!#are is &ee%e& a ri"ht or pri$i!e"e, this is a si"ni)cant propert( interest an& &ue process %ust e aIor&e& when ene)ts are ter%inate&. 1. 5+e!e$ant constitutiona! restraints app!( as %uch to the with&rawa! o# pu!ic assistance ene)ts as to &is>ua!i)cation #or une%p!o(%ent co%pensation? or to &enia! o# a tax exe%ption? or to &ischar"e #ro% pu!ic e%p!o(%ent.6 &old'erg v. (ell) (19;0). ii. A ene)t is OCT a protecte& entit!e%ent i# "o$ern%ent oIicia!s %a( "rant or &en( it in their &iscretion. Castle Roc" v. &onzales (*00-) (=ca!ia #or the Ct. ho!&in" that there is no propert( interest or entit!e%ent to en#orce%ent o# a restrainin" or&er), note& the arriers to en#orce%ent constitutin" a propert( interest/ 1. Lac8s a %onetar( $a!ue *. A!!e"e& propert( interest arises inci&enta!!(, #ro% a #unction routine!( per#or%e&? not out o# so%e new species o# "o$2t ene)t or ser$ice. :. An in&irect an& inci&enta! resu!t o# the "o$ern%ent2s en#orce%ent action &oes not a%ount to a &epri$ation o# an( interest in !i#e, !iert( or propert(. . Liert(/ roa& concept inc!u&in" con&itions o# i%prison%ent, reputation, %arria"e, raisin" a #a%i!(, wor8in" in co%%on occupations o# the co%%unities, an& other notions protecte& ( sustanti$e &ue process. c. .epri$ation/ %ust e a &e!ierate act ( the "o$ern%ent rather than a ne"!i"ent act, or pri$ate act. 2+ Pro)e&!res 'e5!ire&4 The %ini%u% proce&ures &e%an&e& ( &ue process are notice an& hearin". a. An&er the Matthews test, the Court consi&ers three #actors (Matthews v. *ldridge) (19;H) (Ct. he!& that &ue process &oes not re>uire a pre, ter%ination hearin")/ i. The se$erit( o# the har% to the !iti"ant i# the re>ueste& proce&ures are not "rante& ii. The ris8 o# error i# the proce&ures are not aIor&e& iii. The a&%inistrati$e &iIicu!t( an& cost o# pro$i&in" the a&&e& proce&ures. . Court has note& that Matthews is not an 5a!!,e%racin" test #or &eci&in" &ue process c!ai%s.6 Dusen'er) v. +S (*00*) (usin" 5a %ore Pa"e ; o# 9: strai"ht#orwar& test o# reasona!eness un&er the circu%stances6 in ho!&in" that notice o# #or#eiture sent ( certi)e& %ai! to #e&era! prison where c!ai%ant was incarcerate& satis)e& proce&ura! &ue process.). c. Court he!& that pu!ic e%p!o(ees &o not ha$e to accept the 5itter with the sweet,6 o$erru!in" a pre$ai!in" $iew that a pu!ic e%p!o(ee can e &ischar"e without a hearin". Cleveland Bd. of *duc. v. %oudermill (o$erru!in" #rnett v. (enned)). i. Propert( is not &e)ne& ( proce&ures pro$i&e& #or its &epri$ation. The ri"ht to &ue process is con#erre& ( the Constitution. 0hi!e the !e"is!ature %a( e!ect not to con#er a propert( interest in pu!ic e%p!o(%ent, it %a( not constitutiona!!( authori4e the &epri$ation o# such an interest, once con#erre&, without appropriate proce&ura! sa#e"uar&s. &. Court use& consensus theor( o# &ue process in &eci&in" what 8in& o# notice is suIicient in $ones v. lowers. SUBSTANTI63 (U3 P'OC3SS 3)onomi) S!.stantive (!e Pro)ess , The Court initia!!( re7ecte& the )rst atte%pts to use the &ue process C!ause to protect econo%ic ri"hts #ro% "o$ern%ent inter#erence. 5An&er no construction o# Mthe .ue ProcessN C!ause, or an( that we &ee% a&%issi!e, can the restraint i%pose& ( the "o$ern%ent o Slaughter ,ouse Cases (19;:)/ Ct. express!( re7ecte& utchers2 sustanti$e &ue process c!ai% cha!!en"in" La. !aw that "rante& a pri$ate co%pan( a *-,(r %onopo!(. Ct. state& that the .ue Process C!ause cou!& not e use& to sa#e"uar& a ri"ht to practice a tra&e or pro#ession #ro% aritrar( "o$ern%ent inter#erence. D. Fie!& & 'ra&!e( &issente&, interpretin" the .ue Process C!ause as !i%itin" the ai!it( o# states to a&opt aritrar( !aws, especia!!( ones that inter#ere& with natura! ri"hts. 5This ri"ht to choose one2s ca!!in" is an essentia! part o# that !iert( which is the "o$ern%ent2s o7ect to protect? an& a ca!!in" when chosen, is a %an2s propert( an& ri"ht.6 The 7ustices interprete& 5!iert(6 an& 5propert(6 in the .ue Process C!ause as protectin" a ri"ht to practice a tra&e or pro#ession. , 'ise4 Prior to the Oew .ea!, the Court use& the .ue Process C!auses o# the - th
& 11 th A%en&. to in$a!i&ate a $ariet( o# #e&era! an& state socia! an& econo%ic !aws as aritrar( inter#erences with the #ree&o% to contract protecte& ( the .ue Process "uarantees o# !iert( an& propert(. o 5<n %ere pri$ate contracts, re!atin" to %atters in which the pu!ic has no interest, what is reasona!e %ust e ascertaine& 7u&icia!!(B ecause the !e"is!ature has no contro! o$er such contract.6 Munn v. Illin. (19;;) (Ct. &icta). o Ct. he!& that prohiitin" a person #ro% %a8in" a contract with an out,o#, state co%pan( was a $io!ation o# the in&i$i&ua!2s ri"ht to contract protecte& ( the 11 th A%en&. #llge)er v. %a. (199;). o 5The ri"ht to purchase or se!! !aor is part o# the !iert( protecte& ( Mthe 11 th N a%en&%ent, un!ess there are circu%stances which exc!u&e that Pa"e 9 o# 9: ri"ht.6 %ochner v. -. (190-) (Ct. in$a!i&ate& state !aw re"u!ation %axi%u% hours o# e%p!o(%ent.). Puestion is whether this is a #air, reasona!e, an& appropriate exercise o# the po!ice power o# the state or is it an unreasona!(, unnecessar(, an& aritrar( inter#erence with the ri"ht o# the in&i$i&ua! to his persona! !iert(L The act %ust ha$e a %ore &irect re!ation, as a %eans to an en& an& the en& itse!# %ust e appropriate an& !e"iti%ate, e#ore an act can e he!& to e $a!i& which inter#eres with the "enera! ri"ht o# an in&i$i&ua! to e #ree in his person an& in his power to contract in re!ation to his own !aor. D. 3o!%es &issentin", 5a constitution is not inten&e& to e%o&( a particu!ar econo%ic theor(.6 =u""este& that the Ct. #ai!e& to see that #ree&o% cou!& e !i%ite& ( centers o# econo%ic powerEthe corporation as we!! as ( "o$2t. Criticis% that the Ct. rea& an econo%ic theor( o# !aisse4,#aire that was not there. o Court struc8 &own a #e&era! !aw which %a&e it a cri%ina! oIense #or an interstate carrier to &ischar"e an e%p!o(ee ecause o# his %e%ership in a !aor union. #dair v. +S (1909). o Court in$a!i&ate& a %ini%u% wa"e !aw #or wo%en, reco"ni4in" that #ree&o% o# contract is the "enera! ru!e an& restraint the exception. #d"ins v. Children/s ,os0ital (19*:). , (e)line4 <n the #ace o# risin" a&$erse pu!ic reaction to 7u&icia! in$a!i&ation o# the Oew .ea!, the &octrine o# econo%ic sustanti$e &ue process e"an to e. o Oeither propert( ri"hts not contract ri"hts are aso!ute. E>ua!!( #un&a%enta! with the pri$ate ri"ht is that o# the pu!ic to re"u!ate it in the co%%on interest. The - th a%en&., in the )e!& o# #e&era! acti$it(, an& the 11 th a%en&., as respects to state action, &o not prohiit "o$ern%enta! re"u!ation #or the pu!ic we!#are. -e''ia v. -. (19:1) (Ct. uphe!& state !e"is!ation settin" %i!8 prices #or the purpose o# stai!i4in" the %ar8et an& roa&ens exception #or re"u!ation o# usiness aIecte& with pu!ic interest). The "uarantee o# &ue process &e%an&s on!( that the !aw sha!! not e unreasona!e, aritrar( or capricious, an& that the %eans se!ecte& sha!! ha$e a rea! an& sustantia! re!ation to the o7ect sou"ht to e attaine&. =o #ar as the re>uire%ent o# &ue process is concerne&, an& in the asence o# other constitutiona! restriction, a state is #ree to a&opt whate$er econo%ic po!ic( %a( reasona!( e &ee%e& to pro%ote pu!ic we!#are, an& to en#orce that po!ic( ( !e"is!ation a&apte& to its purpose. 'ational .asis stan&ar& o" review4 <# the !aws passe& are seen to ha$e a reasona!e re!ation to a proper !e"is!ati$e purpose, an& are neither aritrar( nor &iscri%inator(, the re>uire%ents o# &ue process are satis)e&. 0ith -e''ia, the Court e"an a %arch that was to en& with tota! 7u&icia! a&ication. Pa"e 9 o# 9: o S!.stantive )%ane ca%e when the Court announce& that 5Liert( un&er the Constitution is thus necessari!( su7ect to the restraints o# &ue process, an& re"u!ation which is reasona!e in re!ation to its su7ect an& is a&opte& in the interests o# the co%%unit( is &ue process.6 W. Coast ,otel Co. v. !arish (19:;) (o$erru!in" #d"ins an& notin" that 5the co%%unit( %a( &irect its !aw,%a8in" power to correct the ause which sprin"s #ro% our se!)sh &isre"ar& o# the pu!ic interest.6). =use>uent!(, the Court &ec!are& 5it is not !on"er open to >uestion that the )xin" o# a %ini%u% wa"e is within the !e"is!ati$e power an& that the are #act o# its exercise is not a &enia! o# &ue process.6 +S v. Dar') (upho!&in" stan&ar&s o# the Fair Laor =tan&ar&s Act). o (e"erential a,,roa)% ta8en in upho!&in" statutes #ori&&in" &iscri%ination a"ainst nonunion e%p!o(ees (%incoln ed. %a'or +nion v. -W Iron 1 Metal), an& &et,a&7ustin" (erguson v. S"ru0a). 5An&er the s(ste% o# "o$ern%ent create& ( our Constitution, it is up to !e"is!atures, not courts, to &eci&e on the wis&o% an& uti!it( o# !e"is!ation.6 o C!rrent a,,roa)% the Court uses to 7u&"e the $a!i&it( o# econo%ic re"u!ation set #orth in +S v. Carolene !rods. (19:9)/ For re"u!ator( !e"is!ation aIectin" or&inar( co%%ercia! transaction is not to e pronounce& unconstitutiona! un!ess in the !i"ht o# the #acts %a&e 8nown or "enera!!( assu%e& it is o# such character as to prec!u&e the assu%ption that it rests upon so%e rationa! asis within the 8now!e&"e an& experience o# the !e"is!ators. The ur&en is on the cha!!en"in" part( to esta!ish that the !aw has no rationa! re!ation to a per%issi!e "o$ern%enta! purpose. There %a( e a narrower scope #or operation o# the presu%ption o# constitutiona!it( when !e"is!ation appears on its #ace to e within speci)c prohiition o# the Constitution, such as those o# the )rst ten a%en&%ents. There is a!so the possii!it( o# 5%ore exactin" 7u&icia! scrutin(6 when !e"is!ation ne"ati$e!( i%pacte& the po!itica! process itse!# o# aIecte& &iscrete an& insu!ar %inorities. D. =tone at #n 1. *o&ern S!.stantive (!e Pro)ess4 Non7F!n&amental 'i%ts , 'ational .asis review4 To&a(, socia! an& econo%ic re"u!ator( an& tax !e"is!ation which &oes not inter#ere with #un&a%enta! ri"hts wi!! not e c!ose!( scrutini4e& ( the #e&era! courts. <# there is an( rationa! asis that the !e"is!ature %i"ht ha$e ha& #or conc!u&in" that the !e"is!ation wou!& #urther per%issi!e !e"is!ati$e o7ecti$es, it wi!! e sustaine&. o The !aw %ust not e aritrar( or irrationa! an& wi!! e presu%e& to e constitutiona!. o The cha!!en"in" part( ha& the ur&en o# proo#, which is essentia!!( insur%ounta!e an& no econo%ic !e"is!ation has een he!& to e unconstitutiona! ( the Court. , A,,l0 t%e stan&ar&4 0hen exa%inin" a statute un&er the .ue Process C!ause, i# there is no asis #or in$o8in" a stricter stan&ar& o# re$iew, the rationa!it( test shou!& e a&opte&/ deference to legislative 0olic) 2udgments 1) ascertain the o7ecti$e o# the !aw (a court wi!! not proe #or the true purpose o# the !aw) a. #or state !aws, per%issi!e po!ice power o7ecti$es wi!! suIice. Pa"e 10 o# 9: *) i&enti#( the %eans use& ( the state to achie$e the o7ecti$e :) exa%ine the rationa!it( o# the %eans #or achie$in" the o7ecti$e ( re$iewin" the re!e$ant #acts a. i# there are #acts that wou!& sustain the !aw, courts wi!! "enera!!( assu%e the !e"is!ation was ase& on those #acts S!.stantive (!e Pro)ess4 F!n&amental 'i%ts , Stri)t s)r!tin0 review4 0hen !e"is!ation intru&es on 5#un&a%enta! ri"hts6 app!ica!e to the states throu"h the &ue process "uarantee, a %ore &e%an&in" stan&ar& o# re$iew is a&opte&. The "o$ern%ent %ust &e%onstrate that the !e"is!ation is narrow!( tai!ore& or necessar( to #urther a co%pe!!in" state interest. , This re>uires a %uch %ore speci)c showin"/ o that the %eans are reasona!e, o o# ur"ent state interest o narrow tai!orin" (i# the !aw is not precise!( &rawn, it can e he!& to e unconstitutiona!!( o$erroa&) , The ur&en o# 7usti)cation is on the "o$ern%ent. , A,,li)a.ilit04 0hi!e a strict scrutin( is use& #or a!! express ri"hts, the Court has a!so app!ie& the %ore &e%an&in" stan&ar& to ri"hts that are not express!( enu%erate&. o <n so%e cases, the ri"hts are i%p!ie& #ro% the express ri"hts, e.". ri"hts o# association an& e!ie# i%p!ie& #ro% the 1 st A%en&. o <n other instances, the 7u&icia! &eter%ination o# whether a #un&a%enta! ri"ht is si"ni)cant!( ur&ene& re@ects consi&erations such as tra&ition, conte%porar( %ora!s, prece&ent an& ana!o"(, !o"ic an& reason, or the conse>uences o# the !aw #or the in&i$i&ua! (as app!ie& ana!(sis). o 0hen the Court &ec!ines to #ashion a separate 5#un&a%enta! ri"ht6 ut &eter%ines whether the "o$ern%ent re"u!ation sustantia!!( ur&ens a si"ni)cant !iert( interest "uarantee& ( the .ue Process C!ause. The Court %a( a$oi& use o# strict scrutin(, ut a&opts a 5continuu%6 approach re@ectin" the reasonin" 5that certain interests re>uire particu!ar!( care#u! scrutin( o# the state nee&s asserte& to 7usti#( their ari&"e%ent.6 !oe v. +llman (19H1) (3ar!an &issentin"). The Court a!ances the "o$ern%ent interest in re"u!atin" the con&uct a"ainst the ur&en on protecte& !iert(, resu!tin" in an inter%e&iate !e$e! o# scrutin(. Contra)e,tion , Court #oun& that speci)c "uarantees in the 'i!! o# +i"hts (1 st , : r& , 1 th , - th , an& 9 th
A%en&s.) ha$e penu%ras that create a 54ones o# pri$ac(.6 50e &ea! with a ri"ht o# pri$ac( o!&er than the 'i!! o# +i"hts.6 <t is an i%per%issi!e intrusion on the ri"ht o# association protectin" the %arita! re!ationship. &riswold v. Conn. (19H-) (.r. was char"e& with &istriutin" contraception to %arrie& persons). o D. Fo!&er"2s concurrence state&/ Du&"es %ust !oo8 to the tra&itions an& co!!ecti$e conscience o# our peop!e to &eter%ine whether a princip!e is so roote& there as to e ran8e& as #un&a%enta!. Liert( a!so "ains content #ro% the e%anations o# speci)c constitutiona! "uarantees an& #ro% experience with the re>uire%ents o# a #ree societ(. Pa"e 11 o# 9: A!so !oo8e& to the 9 th A%en&. as protectin" a&&itiona! #un&a%enta! ri"hts not enu%erate&. =ti!! has %o&ern #orce. o D. 3ar!an2s concurrence uses the in>uir( o# whether the statute in#rin"es 5ecause the enact%ent $io!ate& asic $a!ues i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert(.6 This in>uir( &oes not &epen& on the 'i!! o# +i"hts, thou"h %a( e in#or%e& ( it. .oes not )n& that the an on contraception #or %arrie& coup!es #urther =tate2s an on i!!icit sexua! re!ationships. 'ui!t on his &issent in !oe v. +llman/ .ue process has not een re&uce& to an( #or%u!a? its content cannot e &eter%ine& ( re#erence to an( co&eB. <nas%uch as context is not one o# wor&s, ut o# histor( an& purposes, the #u!! scope o# the !iert( "uarantee& ( the .ue Process C!ause cannot e #oun& in or !i%ite& ( the precise ter%s o# the speci)c "uarantees e!sewhere pro$i&e& in the ConstitutionB. <t is a rationa! continuu% which, roa&!( spea8in", inc!u&es a #ree&o% #ro% a!! sustantia! aritrar( i%positions an& purpose!ess restraints, an& which a!so reco"ni4es, what a reasona!e an& sensiti$e 7u&"%ent %ust, that certain interests re>uire particu!ar!( care#u! scrutin( o# the state nee&s asserte& to 7usti#( their ari&"e%ent. o D. '!ac8 &issentin", is s8eptica! o# how the Court shou!& &eter%ine which tra&itions are roote& in the co!!ecti$e conscience o# our peop!e an& ar"ues that 5"o$ern%ent has a ri"ht to in$a&e Man in&i$i&ua!2s pri$ac(N un!ess prohiite& ( so%e speci)c constitutiona! pro$ision.6 o D. =tewart &issentin", )n&s 5no such "enera! ri"ht o# pri$ac( in the 'i!! o# +i"hts, in an( other part o# the Constitution, or in an( case e$er e#ore &eci&e& ( this Court.6 o Ootes & Critics on .ue Process interpretation/ Case can e un&erstoo& as a spatia! an& &ecisiona! pri$ac( ri"hts as we!! as access to in#or%ation. <t has een su""este& that what e%er"es here is a %o&i)e& 5natura! !aw6 (ie!&in" a o&( o# ri"hts whose content is su""este& ( speci)c constitutiona! pro$isions ut whose scope an& content are not restricte& to, or (, the enu%erate& ri"hts. MOot "roun&e& on .ue Process, accor&in" to =ca!ia, &issentin" in %awrence.N P. Kauper/ The pro!e% with the rea&th o# D. .ou"!as2 interpreti$is% ($iew that !e"a! ri"hts an& &uties are &eter%ine& throu"h interpretation o# practice sensiti$e to the $a!ues that practice ser$es, or ascertainin" ori"ina! intent or purpose) resu!ts #ro% the #act that in exten&in" the peripher(, an& in )n&in" ri"hts &eri$e& #ro% the tota! sche%e o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts, the Court in &riswold is app!(in" the essentia!!( the sa%e processes as that use& in the #un&a%enta! ri"hts approach, ut &i"ni#(in" it with a &iIerent na%e creatin" the i!!usion o# "reater o7ecti$it(. o Ootwithstan&in" D. .ou"!as2 protestations, &riswold %ar8e& a si"ni)cant re$i$a! o# natura! ri"hts thin8in", Pa"e 1* o# 9: whate$er the #or%a! ar"u%ent e%p!o(e& ( the %a7orit(. 0. 'eane( su""ests that D. .ou"!as2 opinion wishes to a$oi& the 5natura! !aw6 princip!e which in$o!$es se!ectin" ri"hts inc!u&a!e in the .ue Process C!ause o# the 11 th A%en&.Ea process he an& D. '!ac8 ha& sou"ht to a$oi& ( &e%an&in" #u!! incorporation o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts. At the sa%e ti%e, he wants to circu%$ent the !i%itations pose& ( '!ac82s insistence that on!( those ri"hts speci)e& in the 'i!! o# +i"hts or other pro$isions o# the Constitution are protecte&. 0hat resu!ts is a %o&i)e& 5natura! !aw6 (ie!&in" a o&( o# ri"hts whose content is su""este& ( speci)c constitutiona! pro$isions ( whose scope an& content are not restricte& to, or (, the enu%erate& ri"hts. D. E!( )n&s support in the Constitution #or 5representation, rein#orcin"6 $a!ues which 7usti#( acti$e 7u&icia! inter$ention in 5ensurin" roa& participation in the process an& &istriutions o# "o$ern%ent.6 The Constitution is a process o# "o$ern%ent, not a "o$ernin" i&eo!o"(. +. Posner/ A court is suppose& to e tethere& to authoritati$e texts, such as constitutiona! an& statutor( pro$isions, an& to pre$ious 7u&icia! &ecisions? a !e"is!ature is notEit can roa% #ree. 'ut the =upre%e Court, when it is &eci&in" constitutiona! cases, is po!itica! in the sense o# ha$in" an& exercisin" &iscretionar( power as capacious as the !e"is!atures. <t cannot a&icate that power, #or there is nothin" on which to &raw to &eci&e constitutiona! cases o# an( no$e!t( other than &iscretionar( 7u&"%entB. =uch cases occup( a roa& open area where the con$entiona! !e"a! %ateria!s o# &ecision run out an& the Dustices, &epri$e& o# those crutches, ha$e to %a8e a &iscretionar( ca!!. C. =unstein2s theor( o# proce&ura! %ini%a!is%/ in the %ost &iIicu!t an& contro$ersia! &o%ains, the Court ten&s to choose re!ati$e!( narrow an& una%itious "roun&s? it procee&s ( ui!&in" cautious!( on prece&ent, in the #ashion o# co%%on !aw courts. o T%e 8 t% Amen&94 The Court has "enera!!( interprete& the 9 th A%en&. in a %anner that &enies it an( ro!e in the constitutiona! structure. <t is open,texture& enou"h to support a!%ost an(thin" one %i"ht wish to ar"ue. <t %a( e that it is an anti,pree%ption pro$ision, in&icatin" that the enu%eration o# constitutiona!!( protecte& ri"hts is not inten&e& to occup( the )e!& an& there( prec!u&e state,create& supp!e%entar( ri"hts that are not "roun&e& in speci)c textua! pro$isions. =o construe&, the 9 th A%en&. wou!& not authori4e the 7u&iciar( to reco"ni4e the new #e&era!!( protecte& constitutiona! ri"hts. =i%i!ar!(, it %a( e &esi"ne& to c!ari#( that the enu%erate& ri"hts is not inten&e& to e an exhausti$e !ist o# !e"a!!( reco"ni4e& ri"hts. <t has a!so een su""este& that the #ra%ers conte%p!ate& the existence o# ri"hts ao$e an& e(on& those enu%erate& in the 'i!! o# +i"hts, which are ase& on natura! !aw. Pa"e 1: o# 9: o *arital an& Familial Priva)04 The pri$ac( reco"ni4e& in &riswold %a( e seen as @owin" #ro% the tra&itiona! $a!ues associate& with %arita! ri"hts an& the un&!e o# ri"hts associate& with ho%e, #a%i!( an& %arria"e Eri"hts supporte& ( prece&ent, histor(, an& co%%on un&erstan&in". <t has een state& that whate$er the constitutiona! ri"ht o# pri$ac( %a( %ean in other contexts, the %ain o7ect o# constitutiona! protection in &riswold was the %arita! re!ationship. o 'i%t to .e le"t alone4 The pri$ac( &iscussion e%phasi4e& the ho%e as a critica! !ocus o# pri$ac( an& the rea!% o# e!ie#s an& thou"hts as essentia! parts o# the 5ri"ht to e !e#t a!one.6 Stanle) v. &a. (19H9) (Ct. struc8 &own a con$iction ase& on possession o# oscene %ateria!s in one2s ho%e, citin" the 1 st A%en&. an& ri"ht to pri$ac(). , Court a!so pro$i&e& this ri"ht to un%arrie& in&i$i&ua!s in *isenstadt v. Baird (19;*) (in$a!i&atin" Gass. !aw prohiitin" &istriution o# contraception to un%arrie& persons &espite a!!owin" access to %arrie& peop!e on the asis o# e>ua! protection "roun&s). o 5<# the ri"ht o# pri$ac( %eans an(thin", it is the ri"hts o# the in&i$i&ua!, %arrie& or sin"!e, to e #ree #ro% unwarrante& "o$ern%enta! intrusion into %atters so #un&a%enta!!( aIectin" a person as the &ecision whether to ear or e"et a chi!&.6 A.ortion , Court exten&e& the ri"ht o# pri$ac( to inc!u&e the &ecision to ter%inate a pre"nanc(, ut this ri"ht is not un>ua!i)e& an& %ust e consi&ere& a"ainst i%portant state interests in re"u!ation. Roe v. Wade (19;:) (in$a!i&atin" Tx. !aws %a8in" it a cri%e to procure an aortion except to sa$e the !i#e o# the %other). o The Court use& a tri%ester ana!(sis where( the state on!( has a co%pe!!in" interest in the hea!th o# the %other a#ter the )rst tri%ester an& can re"u!ate aortion reasona!( re!ate& to the preser$ation an& protection o# %aterna! hea!th. Prior to this point, the ph(sician an& patient are #ree to &eter%ine whether to ter%inate the pre"nanc(, without re"u!ation ( the state. o 0ith respect to the state2s interest in potentia! !i#e, the co%pe!!in" point is at $iai!it( an& the state can proscrie aortion &urin" that perio&, except when it is necessar( to preser$e the !i#e or hea!th o# the %other. o The state is #ree to p!ace increasin" restrictions on aortion as the perio& o# pre"nanc( !en"thens, so !on" as those restrictions are tai!ore& to the reco"ni4e& state interests. o D. .ou"!as concurrin", in&icates his support #or pri$ac( ri"hts to e retaine& ( the peop!e (per 9 th A%en&.) an& that this is a #un&a%enta! &ecisiona! ri"ht, a!on" with &ecisions re"ar&in" %arria"e, &i$orce, procreation, an& e&ucation an& uprin"in" o# chi!&ren. A&&itiona!!(, this ri"ht to chose an aortion is ase& in the #ree&o% #ro% o&i!( restraint. o D. =tewart concurrin" that the &ecision can e rationa!!( un&erstoo& on!( as a ho!&in" that the Conn. statute sustanti$e!( in$a&e& the 5!iert(6 that is protecte& ( the .ue Process C!ause ecause prece&ents in&icate that #ree&o% o# persona! choice in %atters o# %arria"e an& #a%i!( !i#e is one o# the !ierties protecte& ( the C!ause. Pa"e 11 o# 9: 3is concurrence re@ects the tension etween a&herin" to prece&ence an& "oin" in a new &irection. o D. 0hite (with +ehn>uist) &issentin", )n&s nothin" in the !an"ua"e or histor( o# the Constitution to support Court2s announce%ent o# a new constitutiona! ri"ht #or pre"nant %others an& that the issue is est !e#t to the peop!e an& the po!itica! process. o D. +ehn>uist &issentin", &oes not )n& a #un&a%enta! ri"ht to aortion. +eco"ni4in" that there is a !iert( interest #or a wo%an to contro! her own o&(, &ue process an& rationa! asis are re>uire& ut no %ore. o Oote & Criticis%s/ Another approach to the aortion >uestion is to !in8 5o&i!( inte"rit(6 with a concept o# 5personhoo&.6 'ecause o&i!( inte"rit( is necessar( #or the #or%ation o# se!#hoo&, it is essentia! that !aw reco"ni4e wo%en2s su7ecti$it( in its construction o# wo%en2s procreati$e !i$es. D. E!(/ 0hat is #ri"htenin" aout Roe is that this super,protecte& ri"ht o# the wo%en to choose is not in#era!e #ro% the !an"ua"e o# the Constitution, the #ra%ers2 thin8in" respectin" the speci)c pro!e% in issue, an( "enera! $a!ue &eri$a!e #ro% the pro$ision the( inc!u&e&, or the nation2s "o$ern%enta! structure. The ri"i& tri%ester #ra%ewor8 eco%es the #ocus o# &issentin" opinions in post,Roe cases. <t can e ar"ue& that a person %i"ht accept &riswold, (et sti!! con&e%n Roe as an aerration o# 7u&icia! !e"is!ation. Roe in&icates the nee& #or a co%pe!!in" reason in or&er to in$a&e a #un&a%enta! ri"ht, ut it &oes not account #or wh( such a stan&ar& is appropriate nor &oes it in&icate wh( it has not een satis)e&. , Later, the Court re7ects the tri%ester #ra%ewor8, ut reaIir%s the essentia! ho!&in" in Roe, ase& on the stron" !iert( interests in$o!$e&, which the Court c!ai%s are, !lanned !arenthood v. Case) (199*) (usin" stare &ecisis an& concerns o# institutiona! inte"rit( to ase its reaIir%ation)/ 1) The ri"ht o# the wo%an to choose to ha$e an aortion e#ore $iai!it( an& to otain it without un&ue ur&en #ro% the state. a. 'e#ore $iai!it(, the state2s interests are not stron" enou"h to support a prohiition o# aortion or the i%position o# a sustantia! ostac!e to the wo%an2s eIecti$e ri"ht to e!ect the proce&ure. . The #act that a !aw which ser$es a $a!i& purpose, not &esi"ne& to stri8e at the ri"ht itse!#, has the inci&enta! eIect o# %a8in" it %ore &iIicu!t or %ore expensi$e to procure an aortion cannot e enou"h to in$a!i&ate it. c. An!ess there is a sustantia! ostac!e to her ri"ht to choose, a state %easure &esi"ne& to persua&e her to choose chi!&irth o$er aortion wi!! e uphe!& i# reasona!( re!ate& to that "oa!. &. An un&ue ur&en exists i# its purpose or eIect is to p!ace a sustantia! ostac!e in the path o# a wo%an see8in" an aortion e#ore the #etus attains $iai!it(. *) The state has the power to restrict aortions a#ter #eta! $iai!it(, i# the !aw contains exceptions #or pre"nancies which en&an"er a wo%an2s !i#e or hea!th. Pa"e 1- o# 9: :) The state has !e"iti%ate interests #ro% the outset o# pre"nanc( in protectin" the hea!th o# the wo%an an& the !i#e o# the #etus that %a( eco%e a chi!&. a. *1,hour waitin" perio& in or&er to ena!e the wo%an to "i$e in#or%e& consent is not a sustantia! ostac!e to otainin" an aortion. . =pousa! noti)cation an& consent is !i8e!( to pre$ent a si"ni)cant nu%er o# wo%en #ro% otainin" an aortion, an& hence, is in$a!i&. =tate %a( not "i$e to a %an the 8in& o# &o%inion o$er his wi#e that parents exercise o$er their chi!&ren. c. =tate %a( re>uire a %inor see8in" an aortion to otain parenta! consent, pro$i&e& that there is an a&e>uate 7u&icia! (pass proce&ure. &. +ecor&8eepin" & reportin" re>uire%ents o# the ph(sician, #aci!it(, wo%an2s a"e, nu%er o# prior pre"nancies, prior aortions, %e&ica! con&ition or reason #or aortion, #eta! wei"ht, an& wo%an2s a"e & %arita! status are $a!i&, ut %ust e con)&entia!. 'ut a reportin" pro$ision that re>uires spousa! noti)cation is not. o D. =te$ens concurrin" & &issentin" )n&s that it is unc!ear when the state2s interest (which %ust e secu!ar) outwei"hs the wo%an2s interest in persona! !iert(. A!so )n&s that the state persua&in" the wo%an an& the *1,hr waitin" perio& are in$a!i& since the( inter#ere with &ecisiona! autono%(. o D. '!ac8%un concurrin" an& &issentin", e!ie$es that the ri"ht o# repro&ucti$e choice is entit!e& to #u!! protection, that the re"u!ations i%pose an unconstitutiona! ur&en an& wou!& app!( strict scrutin(. Roe/s tri%ester #ra%ewor8 is %ore a&%inistra!e an& !ess %anipu!a!e than the 5un&ue ur&en6 stan&ar&. o D. +ehn>uist &issentin" (with 0hite, =ca!ia, Tho%as) #oun& that a wo%an2s &ecision to ter%inate her pre"nanc( is not a #un&a%enta! ri"ht nor is it a &eep!( roote& tra&ition. Prece&ent in&icates that !iert( inc!u&es a ri"ht to %arr(, to procreate, an& to use contracepti$e, ut &oes not in&icate a ri"ht to pri$ac(. Roe was incorrect!( ase& on this. Aortion is not &eep!( roote& in histor( or tra&ition. The 5un&ue ur&en6 stan&ar& is create& !ar"e!( wou!& o# who!e c!oth an& not ui!t to !ast. A wo%an2s interest in ha$in" an aortion is a #or% o# !iert( protecte& ( the .ue Process C!ause, ut =tates %a( re"u!ate aortion proce&ures in was rationa!!( re!ate& to a !e"iti%ate state interest. o D. =ca!ia &issentin" (with +ehn>uist, 0hite, Tho%as) state& that this who!e issue shou!& e &eci&e& ( the po!itica! process not ( the 7u&iciar(. The Constitution is si!ent on this issue an& !on"stan&in" tra&itions o# A%erican societ( ha$e per%itte& it to e !e"a!!( proscrie&. 3e a!so attac8s the new stan&ar& as !ac8in" unprincip!e& an& &out#u! in app!ication. , =tate re"u!ation o# * n& tri%ester aortions #or hea!th an& sa#et( reasons %ust a!so pro$i&e #or the %other2s hea!th. Sten'erg v. Carhart (*000) (-,1 in$a!i&atin" statute prohiitin" partia!,irth aortions at an( sta"e o# pre"nanc( un!ess it is necessar( to sa$e the !i#e o# the %other). Currentl) onl) 3 of the 4 2ustice ma2orit) are on the court. Pa"e 1H o# 9: o '( $irtua!!( annin" one proce&ure e$en thou"h it %a( e the !ess ris8( option, the state i%poses a si"ni)cant hea!th ris8 on wo%en. o The statute use& roa& !an"ua"e that cou!& e rea& to an the %ost co%%on!( use& %etho& o# * n& tri%ester aortions, there( chi!!in" potentia! aortion pro$i&ers. D. +ehn>uist, Tho%as an& Kenne&( (who was part o# the 7oint opinion in Case)) &issente& on the "roun&s that Case) shou!& e rea& as authori4in" states to re"u!ate aortion practices #or the purpose o# pro%otin" state interests re!ate& to the practice o# %e&icine. D. Kenne&( state& that 5the Court2s ho!&in" contra&icts Case)/s assurance that the =tate2s constitutiona! position in the rea!% o# pro%otin" respect #or !i#e is %ore than %ar"ina!.6 D. =ca!ia &issentin", #oun& the notion that the Constitution prohiits states #ro% annin" a ruta! %eans o# e!i%inatin" ha!#,orn posterit( as 5>uite si%p!( asur&.6 , *inors4 E$en thou"h a %inor2s repro&ucti$e ri"hts are protecte&, the Court has reco"ni4e& the "reater state interest in protectin" i%%ature %inors an& has app!ie& a !ess strin"ent stan&ar& o# re$iew an& a!!owin" "reater state re"u!ation. 3owe$er, the state %a( not restrict access to aortions that are %e&ica!!( necessar(. o Fenera!!(, parenta! noti)cation or parenta! consent can e re>uire& i# there is a pro$ision #or a 7u&"e to "rant per%ission #or the aortion where the %inor has &e%onstrate& suIicient %aturit( or it is in her est interest. o =tates ha$e the ri"ht to re>uire parenta! in$o!$e%ent when a %inor consi&ers ter%inatin" her pre"nanc( ecause o# their stron" an& !e"iti%ate interest in the we!#are o# their (oun" citi4ens (ut the state cannot restrict aortions i# there is a %e&ica! e%er"enc(). #)otte v. !lanned !arenthood of -ew *ngland (*00H) (Ct. chose not to re$isit its aortion prece&ents an& instea& he!& that i# en#orcin" a parenta! noti)cation statute that re"u!ates access to aortions wou!& e unconstitutiona! in %e&ica! e%er"encies, in$a!i&atin" the statute entire!( is not a!wa(s necessari!( or 7usti)e&). , Government "!n&in4 The aortion ri"ht is not si"ni)cant!( ur&ene& i# "o$ern%ent #ai!s to %a8e the ri"ht eIecti$e ( #un&in" aortions e$en #or those &epen&ent on "o$ern%ent ai&. Maher v. Roe (19;;). There is no aIir%ati$e ri"ht to "o$ern%ent ai&. o Prohiitin" pu!ic #un&in" #or certain %e&ica!!(,necessar( aortions &oes not $io!ate the .ue Process, E>ua! Protection or Esta!ish%ent C!auses. ,arris v. McRae (1990) (0hi!e "o$ern%ent %a( not p!ace ostac!es in the path o# a wo%an2s exercise o# her #ree&o% o# choice, it nee& not re%o$e those ostac!es it &i& not create.). o =tate %a( prohiit pu!ic e%p!o(ees an& #aci!ities #ro% ein" use& #or #aci!itatin" aortions not necessar( to sa$e the !i#e o# the %other. We'ster v. Re0roductive ,ealth Servs. (1999). *arital an& Familial 'i%ts , The Court has #oun& that the institutions o# %arria"e an& #a%i!( !i#e are &eep!( roote& in our nation2s histor( an& tra&itions. Garria"e was characteri4e& as Pa"e 1; o# 9: 5one o# the asic ci$i! ri"hts o# %an, #un&a%enta! to our $er( existence an& sur$i$a!.6 =i%i!ar!(, the Court has accepte& that a parent has a #un&a%enta! ri"ht in the care, custo&(, an& contro! o# chi!&ren. o Stan&ar& o" review4 A %ore strin"ent stan&ar& o# re$iew is appropriate when these ri"hts are si"ni)cant!( ur&ene&. , 'ut not a!! re!ationships an& associations are within the 5%arria"e6 an& 5#a%i!( !i#e6 an& 5parenta! ri"hts6 that are protecte& ( .ue Process !iert(. The c!ai%e& interest %a( e &e)ne& ( the Court in such a wa( that it &oes not >ua!it( #or constitutiona! protection. o The eIect o# constitutiona! !aw in the &o%estic !i#est(!e area is potentia!!( , 0hen "o$ern%ent intru&es on choices concernin" #a%i!( !i$in" arran"e%ents, the Court %ust exa%ine care#u!!( the i%portance o# the "o$ern%ents interests a&$ance& an& the extent to which the( are ser$e& ( the cha!!en"e& re"u!ation. Moore v. *. Cleveland (19;;) (in$a!i&ate& cit( or&inance that a!!owe& on!( %e%ers o# a sin"!e #a%i!( to !i$e to"ether usin" historic tra&itions). o Stan&ar& o" review4 inter%e&iate stan&ar& re>uires states to &o %ore than "i$e a rationa! re!ation? &oes not ca!! it a #un&a%enta! ri"ht. , .ecisions concernin" chi!& rearin", which Me)ers, !ierce an& other cases ha$e reco"ni4e& as entit!e& to constitutiona! protection, !on" ha$e een share& with "ran&parents or other re!ati$es who occup( the sa%e househo!&Ein&ee& who %a( ta8e on %a7or responsii!it( #or the rearin" o# the chi!&ren. Moore v. *. Cleveland. o 5'ut un!ess we c!ose our e(es to the asic reasons wh( certain ri"hts associate& with the #a%i!( ha$e een accor&e& she!ter un&er the 11 th
A%en&.2s .ue Process C!ause, we cannot a$oi& app!(in" the #orce an& rationa!e o# these prece&ents to the #a%i!( choice in$o!$e& in this case.6 o Appropriate !i%its on sustanti$e &ue process co%e #ro%B respect #or the teachin"s o# histor( an& so!i& reco"nition o# the asic $a!ues that un&er!ie our societ(. <t is throu"h the #a%i!( that we incu!cate an& pass &own %an( o# our %ost cherishe& $a!ues, %ora! an& cu!tura!. <n a #n, D. Powe!! respon&in" to the 0hite2s &issent, which is ase& on )n&in" it 5i%p!icit in or&ere& !iert(6/ an approach "roun&e& in histor( i%poses on the 7u&iciar( that are %ore %eanin"#u! than an( ase& on the astract #or%u!a ta8en #ro% !al"o v. Conn. an& apparent!( su""este& as an a!ternati$e. o 'ur"er &issentin" ecause !iti"ant shou!& use the a&%inistrati$e re%e&ies. o =tewart (with +ehn>uist) &issentin" on the "roun&s that the asserte& interest in sharin" housin" with re!ati$es is not a persona! interest &ee%e& to e i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert(. To e>uate this with the #un&a%enta! &ecisions to %arr( an& to ear an& raise chi!&ren is to exten& the !i%ite& sustanti$e contours o# the .ue Process C!ause e(on& reco"nition. o 0hite &issentin", )n&s that .ue Process C!ause protect on!( those ri"hts i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert( an& the interest in resi&in" with %ore than one set o# "ran&chi!&ren is one that 5neither !iert( nor 7ustice wou!& exist i# it were sacri)ce&.6 'asin" .ue Process on &eep!( roote& tra&itions o# the countr( is &eata!e an& roa&en the hori4ons o# the C!ause. Pa"e 19 o# 9: o Oote/ The court in Moore saw the case as a &ispute etween #a%i!( an& state rather than a &ispute a%on" citi4ens aout the %eanin" o# 5#a%i!(.6 , Court uphe!& or&inance that 4one& #or 5sin"!e #a%i!( &we!!in"s,6 with #a%i!( &e)ne& as re!ate& persons ( !oo&, a&option o# %arria"e, an& characteri4e& it as anti,co%%une 4onin" or&inance as socia! an& econo%ic !e"is!ation &eser$in" 7u&icia! &e#erence, rather than ta8e issue with the &e)nition o# #a%i!(. 5illage of Belle 6erre v. Boraas (19;1) (app!(in" rationa! asis). , Court uphe!& the #un&a%enta! ri"ht o# parents to %a8e &ecisions concernin" the care, custo&(, an& contro! o# their chi!&ren an&, in a p!ura!it( opinion, struc8 &own a 0ash. state statute pro$i&in" #or an( person to petition the court #or $isitation ri"hts when it %a( ser$e the est interest o# the chi!&. 6ro7el v. &ranville (*000) (D. C2Connor, #or the p!ura!it(? "ran&parents sou"ht an& "rante& %ore $isitation e$en thou"h %other &i& not &en( it, on!( &esire& to re&uce it). o P!ura!it( #oun& the statute reathta8in"!( roa&, as app!ie&, excee&e& the oun&s o# the .ue Process C!ause ( un&u!( inter#erin" with the constitutiona!!( protecte& ri"ht o# a parent to raise his or her chi!&. The pro!e% here is not that the 0ashin"ton =uperior Court inter$ene&, ut that when it &i& so, "a$e no specia! wei"ht to the tra&itiona! presu%ption that a )t parent wi!! act in the est interest o# his or her chi!&. o D. Tho%as, concurrin", reco"ni4e& 5a #un&a%enta! ri"ht o# parents to &irect the uprin"in" o# their chi!&ren6 an& wou!& app!( strict scrutin( 5to in#rin"e%ents o# #un&a%enta! ri"hts.6 o D. =outer, concurrin", a!so accepte& a this as a #un&a%enta! ri"ht, ut #oun& the statute was #acia!!( o$erroa& an& unconstitutiona!. o D. =ca!ia, &issentin", &i& not )n& a #un&a%enta! ri"ht as it is asent #ro% the Constitution an& that the 7u&iciar( !ac8s the authorit( to &en( the !e"a! eIect to !aws in#rin"in" on unenu%erate& ri"hts. o Critics c!ai% that the !ine the Court is atte%ptin" to wa!8 etween the preser$ation o# parenta! ri"hts an& the reco"nition o# nonparenta! c!ai%s is untena!e. The Court is tr(in" to ha$e it oth wa(s. So&om0 , Prior prece&ent in Bowers v. ,ardwic" (199H) D. 0hite, state& that there was no constitutiona! ri"ht o# ho%osexua!s to en"a"e in so&o%(. (upho!&in" Fa. statute cri%ina!i4in" so&o%( #or either "en&er). o +i"ht is not #oun& in either 5#un&a%enta! !ierties that are i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert(6 or in !ierties 5&eep!( roote& in the Oation2s histor(.6 +ather, prohiitin" this con&uct has historic roots in a!! -0 states. o D. '!ac8%un &issente& an& ar"ue& that this was not aout ho%osexua! acti$it(, ut aout the ri"ht to e !e#t a!one, which inc!u&e& persona!Q&ecisiona! pri$ac( an& spatia! pri$ac(, oth o# which exten& to ho%osexua! so&o%(. o D. =te$ens &issente&, #ra%in" the issue as an une>ua! app!ication o# the !aw an& reasone& that a "enera! an on so&o%( in$o!$es the essentia! !iert( to en"a"e in pri$ate, non,repro&ucti$e, inti%ate socia! con&uct, e$en etween %arrie& heterosexua!s, an& the state has not 7usti)e& a se!ecti$e app!ication o# the !aw. Pa"e 19 o# 9: =te$ens2 &issent eco%es stron"!( in@uentia! on the Court2s opinion in %awrence v. 6e7. , The Court, $ia Kenne&(, o$erru!es Bowers in %awrence v. 6e7. (*00:) ( reexa%inin" &riswold an& its !ine o# cases, which in&icate a ri"ht to %a8e certain &ecisions re"ar&in" sexua! con&uct that exten&s e(on& the %arita! re!ationship. The Court exp!icit!( state& it #ai!e& to appreciate the extent o# !iert( at sta8e in Bowers (an& re,#ra%es the issue to o$erru!e it). o Stan&ar& o" review4 The Court &oes not in&icate what 8in& o# re$iew is ein" use&, thou"h it %i"ht e consi&ere& 5particu!ar!( care#u! scrutin(6 or a rationa!it( test. There has een no showin" that in this countr( the "o$ern%enta! interest in circu%scriin" persona! choice is so%ehow %ore !e"iti%ate or ur"ent. The !aw &oes not #urther a !e"iti%ate state purpose which can 7usti#( its intrusion into the persona! an& pri$ate !i#e o# the in&i$i&ua!. o A&u!ts %a( choose to enter upon this re!ationship in the con)nes o# their ho%es an& pri$ate !i$es an& sti!! retain their &i"nit( as #ree persons. =exua!it( is part o# a persona! on&. The !iert( protecte& ( the Constitution a!!ows ho%osexua! persons the ri"ht to %a8e this choice. !lanned !arenthood v. Case) state&/ These %atters, in$o!$in" the %ost inti%ate an& persona! choices a person %a( %a8e in a !i#eti%e, choices centra! to persona! &i"nit( an& autono%(, are centra! to the !iert( protecte& ( the 11 th A%en&. At the heart o# !iert( is the ri"ht to &e)ne one2s own concept o# existence, o# %eanin", o# the uni$erse, an& o# the %(ster( o# hu%an !i#e. Persons in a ho%osexua! re!ationship %a( see8 autono%( #or these purposes, 7ust as heterosexua! persons &o. o =tare &ecisis is inappropriate/ 3istoric e$i&ence re!ie& on in Bowers was o$erstate& an& inaccurate. Cn!( recent!( &i& A%erican !aws tar"et ho%osexua!s (as peop!e $ersus con&uct). Go&ern !aws an& tra&itions show an 5e%er"in" awareness6 that !iert( "i$es sustantia! protection to a&u!t persons in &eci&in" how to con&uct their pri$ate !i$es, citin" GPC reco%%en&ation to &iscar& cri%ina! pena!ties #or consensua! sexua! con&uct, EA con$entions in$a!i&atin" si%i!ar !aws, an& the &ecrease in the nu%er o# states proscriin" so&o%(. The #oun&ations o# Bowers ha$e sustaine& serious erosion #ro% our recent &ecisions in Case) an& Romer. Goreo$er, Bowers causes uncertaint( since the prece&ents e#ore an& a#ter it contra&ict its centra! ho!&in". o Court exp!icit!( &oes not a&&ress "a( %arria"e o# an( #or%a! reco"nition an& &oes not a&&ress ri"ht to pri$ac( (on!( !iert( &iscusse&). o D. C2Connor concurrin", wou!& not o$erru!e Bowers, ut #oun& the Tex. statute unconstitutiona! ase& on e>ua! protection usin" a %ore searchin" #or% o# rationa! asis re$iew. The !aw is not "en&er neutra!, such that on!( ho%osexua! so&o%( is cri%ina!, whereas heterosexua! so&o%( is not. This &iscri%inates ase& on ho%osexua! status e$en thou"h it out!aws the con&uct, here the con&uct is c!ose!( corre!ate& with ein" ho%osexua!. Pa"e *0 o# 9: o D. =ca!ia (with +ehn>uist, Tho%as) &issentin", wou!& app!( rationa! asis test an& points out that whi!e o$erru!in" the outco%e o# Bowers, the Court sti!! has not #oun& a #un&a%enta! ri"ht un&er the .ue Process C!ause #or ho%osexua! so&o%( The Tex. !aw was rationa!!( re!ate& to the !e"iti%ate state interest in #urtherin" the e!ie# o# its citi4ens that certain #or%s o# sexua! eha$ior are i%%ora! an& unaccepta!e, ana!o"i4in" to state !aws a"ainst i"a%(, sa%e,sex %arria"e, a&u!t incest, prostitution, %asturation, a&u!ter(, #ornication, estia!it(, an& oscenit(. o D. Tho%as &issentin", state& that it is not the ro!e o# the Court to reso!$e this, ut that o# the state !e"is!ature. o Ootes & Criticis%s/ C. =unstein e%phasi4es the extent to which the %ochner Court posite& the existence o# a natura! an& prepo!itica! pri$ate sphere, one that ser$e& as a rea8 on !e"is!ation. The pro!e% with the %ochner Court was its re!iance on co%%on !aw an& status >uo ase!ines? the Court was una!e to see the wa(s in which those ase!ines were i%p!icate& in, in&ee& a pro&uct o# !aw. Pointin" out that 5tra&itiona!6 &isapproation o# ho%osexua! practice is itse!# a creature o# !aw, =unstein ar"ues that %ochner/s in$a!i&ation o# state !e"is!ation an& Bower/s upho!&in" o# state !e"is!ation are $irtua!!( i&entica! 7u&icia! &ecisions. A reasona!e ar"u%ent cou!& e #ashione& that %ochner/s protection o# econo%ic an& propert( interests actua!!( has a )r%er "roun&in" in histor( o# the Constitution2s creation than the ri"ht reco"ni4e& in Roe or asserte& in Bowers. F. Giche!%an asserts a repu!ican ar"u%ent to e %a&e that the in&i$i&ua! assertin" a ri"ht to en"a"e in ho%osexua! eha$ior is ein" &enie& 5&ue citi4enship.6 Ci$ic repu!ican theor( posits a e!ie# in the suor&ination o# pri$ate interests to the pu!ic "oo& an& that %ost %en rea!i4e& their hu%anit( when the( participate& in pu!ic, co%%una! !i#e. <t see%s $er( !i8e!( that a%on" the eIects o# an anti,so&o%( !aw on persons #or who% ho%osexua!it( is an aspect o# i&entit( is a &enia! or i%pair%ent o# their citi4enship, in the roa& sense appropriate to %o&ern repu!ican constitutiona!is%/ that o# a&%ission to #u!! an& eIecti$e participation in the $arious arenas o# pu!ic !i#e. <t a!so &enies citi4enship ( $io!atin" pri$ac(. Pro#. Trie critici4es C2Connor2s e>ua! protection ar"u%ent ecause i# the Court ha& stoppe& short o# ho!&in" that a an on so&o%( &e)ne& without re"ar& to sex wou!& e unconstitutiona!, then an( state cou!& #ree!( prohiit or attach other ne"ati$e conse>uences to the sexua! inti%acies to which ho%osexua!s are &istincti$e!( &rawn as !on" as it prohiite& or si%i!ar!( pena!i4e& the sa%e acts when co%%itte& ( opposite,sex coup!es. The state wou!& then e in a position to 7usti#( withho!&in" e%p!o(%ent, parentin", or other Pa"e *1 o# 9: opportunities #ro% those !ae!e& ho%osexua!, un!ess sexua!!( inacti$e, %a( e assu%e& to en"a"e in con&uct that the state is entit!e& to &iscoura"e. <%p!ications o# the &ecision support same7se- marriae ecause the sa%e reasonin" can to support ar"u%ents that the state has sustanti$e &ue process o!i"ations to reco"ni4e such %arria"es. 'i%t to Personal Li"est0le C%oi)es , Dohn =tuart Gi!!s ar"ues that inter#erence with in&i$i&ua! !iert( o# action can on!( e warrante& when it is to pre$ent har% to others. , Court &ec!ine& to exten& the pri$ac( cases to po!ice "roo%in" re"u!ations in (elle) v. $ohnson (19;H). o Roe an& &riswold were &istin"uishe& as in$o!$in" 5a sustantia! c!ai% o# in#rin"e%ent on the in&i$i&ua!2s #ree&o% o# choice with respect to certain asic %atters as procreation, %arria"e, an& #a%i!( !i#e.6 o A!thou"h the citi4enr( at !ar"e %a( ha$e a 5!iert(6 interest in %atters o# persona! appearance, the Court conc!u&e& that this was not &eter%inati$e o# the $a!i&it( o# such re"u!ations #or po!ice oIicers. The choice o# or"ani4ation, &ress, an& e>uip%ent #or !aw en#orce%ent personne! is a &ecision entit!e& to the sa%e sort o# presu%ption o# !e"is!ati$e $a!i&it( as state choices &esi"ne& to pro%ote other c!ai%s within the co"ni4ance o# the state2s po!ice power. The re"u!ation was &ee%e& a rationa! %eans o# pursuin" "o$ern%ent2s o$era!! nee& #or &iscip!ine, esprit &e corps, an& uni#or%it( in its po!ice #orce. o D. Garsha!! (with 'rennan) &issentin" ar"ue& that not on!( were the !iert( interests o# the 11 th A%en&. i%p!icate&, ut that no rationa! re!ationship existe& etween the cha!!en"e& re"u!ations an& the i&enti)e& state "oa!s. The ri"ht in one2s persona! appearance is inextrica!( oun& up with the historica!!( reco"ni4e& ri"ht o# e$er( in&i$i&ua! to the possession an& contro! o# his own person? an& perhaps e$en %ore #un&a%enta!!(, with the ri"ht to e !et a!one. o Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 +ationa! asisE0hether the re"u!ations shou!& e enacte& is so irrationa! that is %a( e ran&e& aritrar( an& there#ore a &epri$ation o# the oIicer2s !iert( interest in #ree&o% to choose his own hair st(!e. o Criticis%/ Con#or%it( to custo% see%s insuIicient to 7usti#( the !i%itation on in&i$i&ua! choice. 'i%ts to Treatment an& Prote)tion , Fo$ern%ent "enera!!( has no aIir%ati$e constitutiona! &ut( to pro$i&e care an& protection #or in&i$i&ua!s. 3owe$er, where the =tate exercises custo&( o# an in&i$i&ua!, the .ue Process C!ause i%poses a &ut( on the "o$ern%ent to assu%e so%e responsii!it( #or that person2s care an& we!!,ein". , Court #oun& that the state cannot in$o!untari!( con)ne patients who are not a threat to se!# or others. O/Connor v. Donaldson (19;-). A )n&in" o# %enta! i!!ness a!one cannot 7usti#( a state !oc8in" up a person a"ainst his wi!! an& 8eepin" hi% in&e)nite!( in si%p!e custo&ia! con)ne%ent. , Court ru!e& that an in$o!untari!( co%%itte& in&i$i&ua! has !iert( interests in persona! securit( an& #ree&o% #ro% o&i!( restraint. 3ence the state %ust pro$i&e sa#e con&itions o# con)ne%ent an& 5%ini%a!!( a&e>uate o# reasona!e Pa"e ** o# 9: trainin"6 to ensure sa#et( an& #ree&o% #ro% un&ue restraint. .oung'erg v. Romeo (199*) (D. Powe!! #or the Court, care#u! not to &escrie as !iert( interests rather than #un&a%enta! ri"hts since %e&ica! 7u&"%ent is in$o!$e&). o 3owe$er, when the =tate institutiona!i4es an in&i$i&ua! who is therea#ter who!!( &epen&ent on the =tate, it is conce&e& that a &ut( to pro$i&e certain ser$ices an& care &oes exist, a!thou"h a =tate has consi&era!e &iscretion in &eter%inin" the nature an& scope o# its responsii!ities. o 0hen the =tate ( the aIir%ati$e exercise o# its power so restrains an in&i$i&ua!2s !iert( that it ren&ers his una!e to care #or hi%se!# an& at the sa%e ti%e #ai!s to pro$i&e #or his asic hu%an nee&s, it trans"resses the sustanti$e !i%its on state action ( the 9 th A%en&. an& .ue Process C!ause. Exp!aine& in DeShane) v. Winne'ago. The aIir%ati$e &ut( to protect arises not #ro% the =tate2s 8now!e&"e o# the in&i$i&ua!2s pre&ica%ent or #ro% its expression o# intent to he!p hi%, ut #ro% the !i%itation which it has i%pose& on his #ree&o% to act on his own eha!#. , There is no &epri$ation o# the chi!&2s 5!iert(6 in $io!ation o# the &ue process "uarantee when the =tate #ai!s to protect the chi!& #ro% ph(sica! ause. DeShane) v. Winne'ago Ct). De0t. of Soc. Servs. (1999) (C.D. +ehn>uist #or the Court? =oc. =er$s. trie& to protect the chi!& #ro% ausi$e #ather, ut &i& not re%o$e hi% #ro% his #ather2s custo&( an& the chi!& suse>uent!( suIere& per%anent rain &a%a"e). o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un) &issentin", ar"ue& that "o$ern%ent shou!& e he!& responsi!e when it atte%pts to "i$e ai& to a pri$ate citi4en ( #ai!s to #o!!ow throu"h, particu!ar!( when that ai& supp!ants pri$ate sources o# ai&. o Oote/ The i%p!ication o# a ho!&in" #o!!owin" the &issent wou!& e to &isincenti$ise an( "o$ern%ent ai&. , The =tate is not constitutiona!!( responsi!e #or #ai!in" to aIir%ati$e!( protect pri$ate citi4ens #ro% har% which arises #ro% other sources. DeShane). o The .ue Process C!auses "enera!!( con#er no aIir%ati$e ri"ht to "o$ern%enta! ai&, e$en where such ai& %a( e necessar( to secure !i#e, !iert(, or propert( interests o# which the "o$ern%ent itse!# %a( not &epri$e the in&i$i&ua!. o The .ue Process C!ause was inten&e& to protect the peop!e #ro% the =tate, not to ensure that the =tate protecte& the% #ro% each other. o The =tate p!a(e& no part in the creation o# the &an"er. The =tate &oes not eco%e the per%anent "uarantor o# an in&i$i&ua!2s sa#et( ( ha$in" once oIere& hi% she!ter. Pa"e *: o# 9: 3:UAL P'OT3CTION , The 11 th A%en&. pro$i&es that, 5Oo =tateB sha!! &en( to an( person the e>ua! protection o# the !aws.6 0hi!e there is no correspon&in" #e&era! counterpart, unreasona!e c!assi)cations ( the #e&era! "o$ern%ent $io!ate the - th A%en&. .ue Process "uarantee. , Cn!( when a c!assi)cation is unreasona!e, aritrar( an& in$i&ious &oes it $io!ate E>ua! Protection. o +easona!eness o# a c!assi)cation is &epen&ent on/ 'asis o# the c!assi)cation Oature o# the interests i%paire& ( the c!assi)cation Fo$ern%ent interests supportin" the c!assi)cation Tra&itional 35!al Prote)tion , Court tra&itiona!!( "rants a wi&e %easure o# &iscretion with respect to %a8in" c!assi)cations in enactin" socia! an& econo%ic !e"is!ation. o As !on" as the c!assi)cation set #orth in the statute has so%e rationa! asis (i.e. it is rationa!!( re!ate& to a per%issi!e "o$ern%ent interest), the E>ua! Protection C!ause is not $io!ate& &espite so%e ine>ua!it( in the resu!ts. , T3ST/ <s the c!assi)cation rationa!!( re!ate& to a !e"iti%ate "o$ern%ent interestL 0hen a c!assi)cation is cha!!en"e& on the asis o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause, i# an( state o# #acts reasona!( can e concei$e& to sustain the !aw, the existence o# that state o# #acts at the ti%e the !aw was enacte& wi!! e presu%e&. o Cne who cha!!en"es a !aw has the ur&en o# showin" that the c!assi)cation has no rationa! re!ationship to a per%issi!e "o$ern%enta! purpose an& is essentia!!( aritrar(. o This ur&en o# proo# has pro$en essentia!!( insur%ounta!e. , <# the c!assi)cation has re!ation to the purpose #or which it is %a&e an& &oes not contain the 8in& o# &iscri%ination a"ainst which the E>ua! Protection C!ause aIor&s protection, then it is $a!i&. Rw). *70ress #genc) v. -. (1919) (upho!&in" ORC an on a&$ertisin" on truc8s, a!!owin" on!( the owner to a&$ertise on his truc8s, an& that !oca! authorities %a( we!! ha$e conc!u&e& that those who a&$ertise their own wares on their truc8s &o not pose the sa%e 8in& o# traIic pro!e% in $iew o# the nature or extent o# the a&$ertisin" which the( use). o <t is not a re>uire%ent o# E>ua! Protection that a!! e$i!s o# the sa%e "enus e era&icate& or none at a!!. Le"is!ature is not re>uire& to so!$e the who!e pro!e% an& can choose to so!$e parts o# the pro!e%. o D. Dac8son concurrin", re7ecte& the Court2s rationa!e since there was not e$en a pretense that traIic ha4ar&s pose& ( the two c!asses o# truc8 a&$ertisin" &iIere&. <nstea& he ur"e& that the !e"is!ature %a( ha$e ha& the o7ecti$e o# curin" the nuisance pose& ( truc8 a&$ertisin" an& that !e"iti%ate o7ecti$e wou!& %a8e the c!assi)cation rationa!, the &iIerence ein" actin" in se!#,interest an& actin" #or hire. 3e a!so pointe& out that in$a!i&atin" on the asis o# .ue Process %a8es the re"u!ation co%p!ete!( in$a!i&, whereas in$a!i&atin" on Pa"e *1 o# 9: the asis o# E>ua! Protection on!( a!!ows the !e"is!ature to expan& the c!ass ein" re"u!ate&. , 0hen !oca! econo%ic re"u!ation is cha!!en"e& so!e!( as $io!atin" the E>ua! Protection C!ause, the Court consistent!( &e#ers to !e"is!ati$e &eter%inations as to the &esirai!it( o# particu!ar statutor( &iscri%ination. -ew Orleans v. Du"es (19;H) (upho!&in" !oca! or&inance prohiitin" pushcarts with a 5"ran&#ather C!ause6 exe%ptin" $en&ors who ha& een operatin" S 9(rs). o The 7u&iciar( %a( not sit as a super!e"is!ature to 7u&"e the wis&o% or &esirai!it( o# !e"is!ati$e po!ic( &eter%inations %a&e in areas that neither aIect #un&a%enta! ri"hts nor procee&s a!on" suspect !ines? in the !oca! econo%ic sphere, it is on!( the in$i&ious &iscri%ination, the who!!( aritrar( act, which cannot stan& consistent!( with the 11 th A%en&. 'ationalit0 Wit% Bite4 <n so%e cases, the Court has in&icate& a wi!!in"ness to uti!i4e a so%ewhat %ore strin"ent approach in tra&itiona! re$iew, which %ore c!ose!( approxi%ates true a& hoc a!ancin" to &eter%ine the reasona!eness o# the !aw. This is usua!!( the case when the Court ru!es #or po!ic( reasons. o Geans,en& re!ationship/ tra&itiona! e>ua! protection re>uires that there e a rationa! re!ationship etween the %eans se!ecte& an& a per%issi!e "o$ern%ent purpose. <n e$a!uatin" the reasona!e o# a c!assi)cation un&er this stan&ar&, the courts #re>uent!( exa%ines the %eans,en& re!ationship in ter%s o# 5un&er,6 an& 5o$er,6 inc!usi$eness o# the c!assi)cation. An&er,inc!usion occurs when a state ene)ts or ur&ens persons in a %anner that #urthers a !e"iti%ate pu!ic purpose ut &oes not con#er this sa%e ene)t or p!ace this sa%e ur&en on others who are si%i!ar!( situate&. Persons who shou!& e co$ere& un&er the !aw are exc!u&e& or exe%pte&. C$er,inc!usion occurs when the c!assi)cation inc!u&es not on!( those who are si%i!ar!( situate&, with respect to the purpose ut others who are not so situate& as we!!. , =tatute %a8in" an exception to a #ew $en&ors an& prohiitin" others was in$a!i& ecause it was not rationa!!( re!ate& to consu%er protection. More) v. Doud (19-;) (struc8 &own state !aw re"u!atin" %one( or&ers, exceptin" A=P=, AGET, Posta! Te!e"raph, an& 0. Anion). , Court he!& that a Foo& =ta%p Act pro$ision, which "enera!!( exc!u&es an( househo!& containin" an in&i$i&ua! who is unre!ate& to an( other %e%er o# the househo!&, $io!ates E>ua! Protection ecause it &oes not rationa!!( #urther an( !e"iti%ate state o7ecti$e. +SD# v. Moreno (19;:). , An A!as8an !aw &istriutin" oi! pro)ts ase& on !en"th o# resi&ence $io!ates E>ua! Protection. 0hi!e the =tate %a( ha$e an interest in encoura"in" resi&ents to re%ain in the =tate, an& in pro%otin" pru&ent use o# the =tate2s resources, these en&s are not rationa!!( #urthere& ( &istin"uishin" a%on" past resi&ents. +ewar&in" citi4ens #or past contriutions is not a !e"iti%ate state purpose. 8o'el v. Williams (199*). , A =tate %a( not constitutiona!!( #a$or its own resi&ents ( taxin" #orei"n corporations at a hi"her rate so!e!( ecause o# their resi&ence. Pro%otion o# &o%estic usinesses within the =tate ( &iscri%inatin" a"ainst #orei"n corporations is not a !e"iti%ate purpose un&er the E>ua! Protection C!ause, nor is the encoura"e%ent o# in$est%ent in =tate assets an& "o$ern%enta! securities a !e"iti%ate purpose when #urthere& ( &iscri%ination. Met %ife v. Ward (199-) Pa"e *- o# 9: (in$a!i&atin" a state pre#erence tax with !ower tax rates on &o%estic insurance co%panies). , A tax assess%ent sche%e resu!tin" in "ross &isparit( o$er a !on" perio& o# ti%e $io!ates E>ua! Protection. The "o$ern%ent %a( reasona!( see8 to pro%ote tax appraisa! ase& on the true %ar8et $a!ue& o# propert(, the !aw %ust pro$i&e #or so%e seasona!e attain%ent o# a rou"h e>ua!it( o# si%i!ar!( situate& propert( owners. #lleghen) !itts'urgh Coal Co. v. Count) Com/n (1999) (in$a!i&atin" po!ic( that assess rea! propert( on the recent purchase price, ut %a8es on!( %inor %o&i)cations to assess%ents o# properties not recent!( so!&? whi!e the state purporte& to treat a!! propert( uni#or%!( in &eter%inin" tax assess%ents, the count( ha& en"a"e& in intentiona! s(ste%atic un&ere$a!uation). =o%e cases purportin" to use rationa!it( re$iew to in$a!i&ate &iscri%inator( !aws appear to re@ect 7u&icia! concern that the cha!!en"e& !aw %ani#ests pre7u&ice or ani%us towar&s a particu!ar "roup rather than !e"iti%ate "o$ern%ent interests. , A !aw %a8in" it %ore &iIicu!t #or one c!ass o# citi4ens to see8 !e"a! protection is inconsistent with E>ua! Protection. Romer v. *vans (199H) (in$a!i&atin" Co!o. state constitutiona! a%en&. prohiitin" anti,&iscri%ination !aws #or the protection o# ho%osexua!s in housin", e%p!o(%ent, e&ucation, pu!ic acco%%o&ations an& hea!th an& we!#are ser$ices). o A !aw that i%poses a roa& an& un&iIerentiate& &isai!it( on a sin"!e "roup which is inexp!ica!e ( an(thin" ut ani%us towar&s the c!ass it aIects #ai!s e$en rationa!it( re$iew. S!s,e)t Classi;)ation4 Stri)t S)r!tin0 , 0hen a !aw e%p!o(s a suspect c!assi)cation or si"ni)cant!( ur&ens the exercise o# a #un&a%enta! ri"ht, the Court strict!( scrutini4es the re!ation o# the c!assi)cation to the "o$ern%enta! purpose. , T3ST/ 1) The cha!!en"er %ust pro$e that the &iscri%ination was purpose#u!, either o$ert!( or co$ert!(. *) The ur&en is on the "o$ern%ent to &e%onstrate that the c!assi)cation is necessar( to achie$e a co%pe!!in" state interest. The or&inar( presu%ption o# constitutiona!it( no !on"er app!ies. o 0hi!e &iscri%inator( i%pact or eIect %a( e e$i&ence o# &iscri%inator( purpose it is usua!!( not suIicient in itse!# to pro$e &iscri%inator( purpose. <# a &ecision is %oti$ate& in part ( &iscri%inator( purpose, the =tate %a( a$oi& strict scrutin( i# it pro$e& that it wou!& ha$e reache& the sa%e &ecision re"ar&!ess o# the &iscri%inator( purpose. o There %ust not e a !ess ur&enso%e a!ternati$e a$ai!a!e #or achie$in" the "o$ern%ent o7ecti$e. <# it is shown that the purpose o# the a&%inistrators is to c!assi#( on a suspect asis, the "o$ern%ent %ust show that the c!assi)cation is necessar( in or&er to achie$e a co%pe!!in" state interest. o Laws can a!so e cha!!en"e& as app!ie&. E$en i# the !aw is neutra!, it %a( e a&%inistere& or en#orce& in a &iscri%inator( #ashion. , Criteria o" S!s,e)tness4 Factors that ha$e een consi&ere& in !ae!in" a c!assi)cation suspect/ (1) the historic purpose o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause? (*) a histor( o# per$asi$e &iscri%ination a"ainst the c!ass? (:) the sti"%ati4in" eIect o# c!assi)cation (5caste6 !e"is!ation)? (1) c!assi)cation ase& on an Pa"e *H o# 9: i%%uta!e status or con&ition which a person cannot contro!? (-) &iscri%ination a"ainst a po!itica!!( insu!ar %inorit(. o +ace & Oationa! Cri"in are suspect c!asses ecause the $er( purpose o# the 11 th A%en&. was to pre$ent !e"a! &iscri%ination a"ainst racia! %inorities. There is se!&o% an( 7usti)cation #or c!assi)cation that &iscri%inates a"ainst a racia! %inorit(, which in$o!$es an i%%uta!e con&ition an& a "roup that %a( e not ha$e een a!e to protect their interest throu"h the po!itica! process. o Criticis%/ The specia! treat%ent aIor&e& racia! c!assi)cation are 7usti)e& on "roun&s o# 7u&icia! protection o# 5&iscrete an& insu!ar %inorities6 who are &enie& eIecti$e representation thou"h the po!itica! process. 3owe$er, the %ere #act that a "roup !oses in the po!itica! %ar8etp!ace &oes not %ean the representati$e s(ste% o# "o$ern%ent is %a!#unctionin". <# racia! %inorities acti$e!( participate in the po!itica! process, wou!& the asis #or hei"htene& re$iew o# racia! c!assi)cations e e!i%inate&L C. Fiss ar"ues #or in$o8in" E>ua! Protection a"ainst "o$ern%ent action which a""re"ates the suor&inate position o# a specia!!( &isa&$anta"e& "roup an& that !aw shou!& re#or% institutions an& practices that en#orce the secon&ar( socia! status o# historica!!( oppresse& "roups. , E>ua! Protection &e%an&s that racia! c!assi)cations, especia!!( in cri%ina! statutes, e su7ecte& to the 5%ost ri"i& scrutin(,6 an& i# there are e$er to e uphe!&, the( %ust e shown to e necessar( to the acco%p!ish%ent o# so%e per%issi!e state o7ecti$e, in&epen&ent o# the racia! &iscri%ination which the 11 th A%en&. sou"ht to e!i%inate. %oving v. 5a. (19H;) (in$a!i&atin" anti, %isce"enation !aw ecause there was no !e"iti%ate o$erri&in" purpose to 7usti#( the statute). o The #act o# e>ua! app!ication &oes not i%%uni4e the statute #ro% the $er( hea$( ur&en o# 7usti)cation. , E$en i# the !aw is #acia!!( neutra!, i# it is app!ie& an& a&%inistere& with 5an e$i! e(e an& une>ua! han&, so as practica!!( to %a8e un7ust an& i!!e"a! &iscri%inations etween persons in si%i!ar circu%stances, %ateria! to their ri"hts,6 it $io!ates E>ua! Protection. .ic" Wo v. ,o0"ins (199H) (in$a!i&atin" cit( or&inance that re>uire !aun&r( operations to otain a per%it, un!ess it was !ocate& in a ric8 or stone ui!&in"). o +ecor& showe& that :10Q:*0 !aun&ries in =F were o# woo&en construction an& whi!e *00 Chinese ha& app!ie& #or per%its none ha& een "rante& a!thou"h a!! non,Chinese app!ications ha& een "rante&. , Oo &iscri%ination sha!! e %a&e ( the !aw ase& on race. Exc!usion o# !ac8s #ro% 7ur( ser$ices $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Strauder v. W. 5a. (1990) (!ac8 &e#en&ant2s con$iction o$erturne&? !aw sha!! e the sa%e #or a!! races an& !ac8s were &enie& a "o$ern%ent ene)t a$ai!a!e to whites). , =tate2s consi&eration o# pri$ate racia! iases an& the in7ur( the( %i"ht in@ict on the chi!& as a asis #or re%o$in" the chi!& #ro% the natura! %other2s custo&( $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Pri$ate iases cannot e "i$en !e"a! eIect. !almore v. Sidoti (1991) (in$a!i&atin" !ower court or&er to p!ace chi!& with #ather when %other e"an !i$in" with a !ac8 %an, a!thou"h =tate trie& to use socia! science e$i&ence in %a8in" its ar"u%ent). Pa"e *; o# 9: o The "oa! o# "rantin" custo&( ase& on the est interests o# the chi!& is in&isputa!( a sustantia! "o$ern%enta! interest #or purposes o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause an& racia! an& ethnic pre7u&ices exists. 'ut the rea!it( o# pri$ate iases an& the possi!e in7ur( the( %i"ht in@ict are not per%issi!e consi&erations. o Lower courts ha$e a!!owe& race to e a #actor in &eter%inin" where to p!ace a chi!&, ut the use o# race as the sole reason to %a8e to chan"e an a&option p!ace%ent is not constitutiona!. <n su%, an inherent!( suspect, in&ee& presu%pti$e!( in$a!i&, racia! c!assi)cation in the a&option statute is, in a constitutiona! sense, necessar( to a&$ance a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%ent interest/ the est interest o# the chi!&. <t thus sur$i$es strict scrutin(. , Court uphe!& a warti%e con$iction #or $io!ation o# a %i!itar( or&er exc!u&in" A%ericans o# Dapanese ancestr( #ro% certain &esi"nate& areas on the west coast ase& on warti%e necessit( an& a!!e"e& inai!it( to separate the !o(a! #ro% the &is!o(a!. Exc!usion o# the who!e "roup was a %i!itar( i%perati$e. (orematsu v. +S (1911) (notin" that pressin" puic necessar( %a( so%eti%es 7usti#( ci$i! ri"hts restrictions o# a sin"!e racia! "roup, ut racia! anta"onis% ne$er can). (is)riminator0 P!r,ose 2 Im,a)t , A possi!e exp!anation #or wh( &iscri%inator( purpose is a necessar( con&ition #or strict scrutin( is that the "o$ern%ent has no constitutiona! &ut( to re%e&( a har% it has not cause&. A!so, i# &isparate racia! i%pact were suIicient, it wou!& %a8e race a pre$ai!in" #actor in "o$ern%ent &ecision,%a8in". o *eanin o" <P!r,ose=4 .iscri%inator( purpose, howe$er, i%p!ies %ore than intent as $o!ition or intent as awareness o# conse>uences. <t i%p!ies that the &ecision%a8er, in this case the state !e"is!ature, se!ecte& or reaIir%e& a particu!ar course o# action at !east in part Uecause o#,2 not %ere!( Uin spite o#,2 its a&$erse eIects upon an i&enti)a!e "roup. !ers. #dmin/r v. eene). o Critics note the pro!e% in tr(in" to &eter%ine the intent o# a "roup, such as a !e"is!ati$e o&(. E$en at the in&i$i&ua! !e$e!, it is o#ten &iIicu!t to assess the precise %oti$e, so%e o# which %a( e suconscious. A!so, %ora! responsii!it( #or actions exten&s e(on& those actions one speci)ca!!( inten&s. Fai!ure to act aIects those who are without the !aw2s e>ua! protection. Fina!!(, courts ou"ht to interpret the E>ua! Protection C!ause to po!ice how peop!e are treate& ( their "o$ern%entEthe per%issii!it( o# !aws rather than the purit( o# !e"is!ati$e %oti$e. , Proo# o# racia!!( &iscri%inator( intent or purpose is re>uire& to show a $io!ation o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause. .isproportionate i%pact is not irre!e$ant, ut it is not suIicient to show in$i&ious racia! &iscri%ination an& not suIicient to tri""er strict scrutin(. Washington v. Davis (19;H) (sustainin" the use o# a test #or po!ice%en &espite &isparate i%pact o# !ac8 recruits in !i"ht o# eIorts to acti$e!( recruit oIicers an& a neutra! test to ser$e a per%issi!e "o$ern%ent purpose). o =te$ens concurrin", pointe& out that it is unrea!istic to re>uire the $icti% o# a!!e"e& &iscri%ination to unco$er the actua! su7ecti$e intent o# the &ecision,%a8er. The !ine etween &iscri%inator( purpose an& i%pact is not near!( as ri"ht as the Court %i"ht assu%e. Pa"e *9 o# 9: 0hen the &isproportionate i%pact is as &ra%atic as in .ic" Wo or &ormillion (cit( oun&aries chan"e& to re%o$e a!! ut a #ew !ac8 $oters he!& in$a!i&), it &oes not %atter whether the stan&ar& is phrase& in ter%s o# purpose or eIect. , .iscri%inator( intent or purpose is re>uire& to show an E>ua! Protection $io!ation. .eter%inin" whether in$i&ious &iscri%inator( purpose was a %oti$atin" #actor &e%an&s a sensiti$e in>uir( into such circu%stantia! an& &irect e$i&ence o# intent as %a( e a$ai!a!e. 5illage of #rlington ,ghts. v. Met. ,ousing Dev. Cor0. (19;;) (ho!&in" a !oca! 4onin" &ecision &en(in" a !ow inco%e housin" pro7ect &i& not $io!ate E>ua! Protection). o <%pact %a( e a #actor/ =o%eti%es a c!ear pattern, unexp!aina!e on "roun&s other than race, e%er"es #ro% the eIect o# the state action e$en when the !e"is!ation is neutra! on its #ace. o 3istorica! ac8"roun& o# the &ecision is another #actor, particu!ar!( i# it re$ea!s a series o# oIicia! actions ta8en #or in$i&ious purposes. o .epartures #ro% the nor%a! proce&ura! se>uence %i"ht a!so e in&icati$e o# i!!e"iti%ate purpose. o Criticis% #rlington ,gts. "i$es "o$ern%ent oIicia!s a pri%er on how to ui!& an appropriate recor& to pre$ent )n&in" o# &iscri%inator( intent. The eIect o# this case is to restructure the ur&en o# proo# in racia! &iscri%ination cases so that the 7usti)cations or&inari!( rou"ht #orwar& in &e#ense as co%pe!!in" eco%e the asis to re#ute the pri%a #acie case o# racia! &iscri%ination in the )rst instance. G. =e!%i/ The e!e%ent o# intent is in#erre& #ro% the !an"ua"e o# #acia!!( &iscri%inator( practices an& po!icies, ut that %ore co%%on!(, statutes an& po!icies cha!!en"e& as &iscri%inator( are #acia!!( neutra!, an& the Court %ust in#er #ro% the #act o# &iIerentia! treat%ent. This in#erence is "enera!!( ase& on the accu%u!ate& e$i&ence, which is a!%ost a!wa(s circu%stantia! in character. .espite its rhetoric re"ar&in" the i%portance o# #erretin" out sut!e &iscri%ination, the Court has on!( seen &iscri%ination, asent #acia! c!assi)cation, in the %ost o$ious situationsE situations that cou!& not e exp!aine& on an( asis other than race. 0hene$er the Court #oun& roo% to accept a non&iscri%inator( exp!anation #or a &ispute& act, it &i& so. Ca!sation4 The 8e( >uestion is whether race %a&e a &iIerence in the &ecision,%a8in" process, a >uestion that tar"ets causation, rather than %enta! states. #rlington ,gts. in&icates that the "o$ern%ent nee& not show a co%pe!!in" 7usti)cation i# it can &e%onstrate that the sa%e &ecision wou!& ha$e resu!te& e$en ha& the i%per%issi!e purpose not een consi&ere&. o The eIect o# #rglinton ,gts. there#ore is to restructure the ur&en o# proo# in racia! &iscri%ination cases so that the 7usti)cations or&inari!( rou"ht #orwar& in &e#ense as co%pe!!in", eco%e the asis to re#ute the Pa"e *9 o# 9: pri%a #acie case o# racia! &iscri%ination in the )rst instance. L. A!exan&er ar"ues that i# a !aw &isa&$anta"es a racia! %inorit( an& racia! &iscri%ination is a %oti$atin" #orce #or the !aw, this shou!& e suIicient to tri""er strict scrutin(. The #act that, in retrospect, the state wou!& ha$e ta8en the sa%e action apart #ro% the &iscri%inator( purpose &es not ser$e to pur"e the har%#u! racia! eIects o# the !aw nor the racia! %oti$ation ehin& it. (esereation , <ntentiona! se"re"ation in pu!ic schoo!s is inherent!( une>ua! an& $io!ates E>ua! Protection. <n the )e!& o# pu!ic e&ucation, the &octrine o# 5separate ut e>ua!6 has no p!ace. Brown v. Bd. of *duc. (19-1) (C.D. 0arren #or the unani%ous Court, o$erru!in" !less) v. erguson, which sustaine& statute #or separate rai!wa( acco%%o&ations #or !ac8s & whites). o =eparate e&ucationa! #aci!ities are inherent!( une>ua! ecause &epri$es %inorit( chi!&ren o# e>ua! e&ucationa! opportunities. =e"re"ation has a &etri%enta! eIect on !ac8 chi!&ren, since the separation is interprete& as a si"n o# in#eriorit(, aIectin" the chi!&2s %oti$ation to !earn. o E&ucation is a princip!e instru%ent in awa8enin" a chi!& to cu!tura! $a!ues an& socia! a&7ust%ent. <t is &out#u! that an( chi!& %a( reasona!( e expecte& to succee& in !i#e i# he is &enie& the opportunit( o# an e&ucation. =uch an opportunit(, where the state has un&erta8en to pro$i&e it, is a ri"ht which %ust e %a&e a$ai!a!e to a!! on e>ua! ter%s. Critics are sp!it as to whether the 11 th A%en&. conte%p!ate& schoo! se"re"ation. <t2s a!so note& that the !an"ua"e o# c!assi)cation was conspicuous!( asent. , =tate i%pose& se"re"ation in $arious pu!ic #aci!ities are unconstitutiona! on the asis o# Brown in suse>uent per curia% &ecisions. Critics point out that it is &iIicu!t to un&erstan& how these $ar(in" #actua! contexts cou!& e su%%ari!( han&!e& i# Brown is ase& on the specia! p!ace o# e&ucation in our societ( an& the har% o# state i%pose& se"re"ation on the chi!&. , <n the #e&era! context, e&ucationa! se"re"ation !aws $io!ate& the .ue Process C!ause o# the - th A%en&. since &iscri%ination %a( e so un7usti)a!e as to e $io!ati$e o# &ue process. Bolling v. Shar0e (19-1) (a&&ressin" se"re"ate& schoo!s in ..C., to which the 11 th A%en&. &oes not app!(). o C!assi)cations ase& so!e!( upon race %ust e scrutini4e& with particu!ar care since there are contrar( to our tra&itions an& hence constitutiona!!( suspect. Liert( un&er !aw exten&s to the #u!! ran"e o# con&uct which the in&i$i&ua! is #ree to pursue, an& it cannot e restricte& except #or a proper "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e. o =e"re"ation in pu!ic e&ucation is not reasona!( re!ate& to an( proper "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e an& thus it i%poses on Oe"ro chi!&ren a ur&en that constitutes an aritrar( &epri$ation o# their !iert( in $io!ation o# the .ue Process C!ause. , Im,lementin Brown: The Court or&ere& the schoo! &istricts to &ese"re"ate 5with a!! &e!ierate spee&.6 o .ue the $arie& !oca! schoo! pro!e%s, !ower courts were to retain 7uris&iction an& app!( e>uita!e princip!es to &ese"re"ate in "oo& #aith an& as soon as possi!e. Pa"e :0 o# 9: The ur&en reste& upon the schoo! &istricts to esta!ish that %ore ti%e is necessar( in the pu!ic interest. Lower courts were to consi&er the a&e>uac( o# an( p!ans the schoo!s %a( propose to %eet these pro!e%s an& to eIectuate a transition, &urin" which the courts wi!! retain 7uris&iction. '( &e!a(in" the re%e&( the Court ha& encoura"e& %assi$e resistance to &ese"re"ation. <t was the re!ent!ess re#usa! o# citi4ens an& pu!ic oIicia!s to accept the %eanin" o# Brown that re>uire& the courts to intru&e with such coercion an& strate"ic an& %ana"eria! preoccupations that straine& the oun&aries o# the tra&itiona! 7u&icia! #unction. The &e!a( %i"ht ha$e een to a!!ow peop!e to "et use& to the i&ea. o <n re%e&(in" de 2ure se"re"ation, e>ua! protection &oes not re>uire racia! a!ancin", ut racia! >uotas %a( e use& as %easures o# &ese"re"ation. Swann v. Charlotte9Mec"len'urg Bd. of *duc. (19;1). Brown &i& not &istin"uish etween de 2ure an& de facto se"re"ation. 3owe$er, in the case o# de facto se"re"ation, no "o$ern%ent action is nee&e& (i# it can pro$e that schoo! co%position is not the resu!t o# past &iscri%inator( action), since it is not responsi!e. o A!thou"h the !ower courts ha$e roa& &iscretion in #ashionin" re%e&ies, the nature o# the re%e&( %ust re@ect the nature o# the constitutiona! $io!ation. o <n schoo! &istricts where there ha& een de 2ure se"re"ation, 5#ree&o% o# choice6 p!ans that a!!owe& a pupi! to choose the pu!ic schoo! that resu!te& in practica!!( no inte"ration were unconstitutiona!. &reen v. Count) Sch. Bd. (19H9) (9-V o# the !ac8 chi!&ren in the s(ste% were sti!! in an a!!,!ac8 sch.? 'rennan #or the Court #ra%e& the issues as to whether the p!an was a&e>uate co%p!iance with Brown II). o =i%i!ar!(, the #e&era! "o$ern%ent re>uest to &e!a( &ese"re"ation was o$erru!e& consi&erin" re>uest was 1- (ears a#ter the or&er. #le7ander v. ,olmes Count) Bd. of *duc. (19H9). o The ri"hts o# schoo! chi!&ren were 5not to e sacri)ce& or (ie!&e& to the $io!ence an& &isor&er which ha$e #o!!owe& upon the actions o# the Fo$ernor an& Le"is!ature.6 <n other wor&s, concern #or $io!ence is not an excuse #or not en#orcin" constitutiona! ri"hts. Coo0er v. #aron (19-9). , In&ivi&!al an& Gro!, 'i%ts4 o The ci$i! ri"ht at issue in this case is the ri"ht to race,neutra! assi"n%ent that e!on"e& to each in&i$i&ua! stu&ent an& there#ore cou!& not e reconci!e& with the "roup,oriente& notion that the Constitution re>uires inte"ration throu"h race,conscious stu&ent assi"n%ents. o There is a "roup character o# ri"hts an& &uties in$o!$e& in se"re"ation. The costs o# se"re"ation are orne ( $arious "roups in societ( an& the ene)ts o# &ese"re"ation $ar( ( the "roup to which one happens to e!on". o The "ra&ua! re%e&( o# Brown II #ashione& can on!( e 7usti)e& on the "roun& that the 5persona! an& present6 ri"ht o# the in&i$i&ua! p!aintiIs %ust (ie!& to the o$erri&in" ri"hts o# Oe"roes as a c!ass to a co%p!ete!( Pa"e :1 o# 9: inte"rate& pu!ic e&ucation. +S v. $e:erson Count) Bd. of *duc. (- th Cir. 19HH). A>irmative A)tion , T3ST4 E>ua! Protection &oes not prec!u&e the $o!untar( use o# racia! c!assi)cations where a proper #actua! )n&in" is %a&e. 'ut a race,ase& #e&era!, state an& !oca! are su7ect to strict scrutin(. The "o$ern%ent %ust esta!ish that the race,conscious pro"ra% is necessar( to a co%pe!!in" state interest. , A&%issions pro"ra% to %e&ica! schoo! that set asi&e a nu%er o# p!aces #or %inorit( stu&ents $io!ates E>ua! Protection ecause >ua!i)e& non,%inorit( app!icants are &enie& opportunit( to e consi&ere& &ue to race. Regents of +C v. Ba""e (19;9). o D. Powe!! writin" #or the Court p!ura!it(, ar"ues #or app!ication o# strict scrutin(, procee&in" #ro% the pre%ise o# in&i$i&ua! ri"hts are "uarantee& (in&i$i&ua! ri"hts $iew o# E>ua! Protection)/ +acia! an& ethnic &istinctions o# an( sort are inherent!( suspect an& thus ca!! #or the %ost exactin" 7u&icia! exa%ination. <n or&er to use these c!assi)cations, the =tate %ust show that its purpose or interest is oth constitutiona!!( per%issi!e an& sustantia!, an& that its use is necessar( to the acco%p!ish%ent o# its purpose or the sa#e"uar&in" o# its interest. 0hether the pro"ra% is &escrie& as a >uota or a "oa!, it is a !ine &rawn on the asis o# race an& ethnic status. The "uarantee o# e>ua! protection cannot %ean one thin" when app!ie& to one in&i$i&ua! an& so%ethin" e!se when app!ie& to a person o# another co!or. <# oth are not accor&e& the sa%e protection, then it is not e>ua!. <# the purpose is to assure within the stu&ent o&( so%e speci)e& percenta"e o# a particu!ar "roup %ere!( ecause o# its race, such pre#erentia! purpose is #acia!!( in$a!i&. The purpose o# he!pin" certain "roups who% the #acu!t( o# the %e&ica! sch. percei$e& as $icti%s o# societa! &iscri%ination &oes not 7usti#( a c!assi)cation that i%poses &isa&$anta"es upon persons !i8e respon&ent, who ear no responsii!it( #or whate$er har% the ene)ciaries o# the specia! a&%issions pro"ra% are thou"ht to ha$e suIere&. Attain%ent o# a &i$erse stu&ent o&( is a constitutiona!!( per%issi!e "oa! #or a uni$ersit(, ut the >uestion is whether the pro"ra%2s racia! c!assi)cation is necessar( to pro%ote this interest. Assi"n%ent o# a )xe& nu%er o# seats to a %inorit( "roups is not a necessar( %eans towar& that en&. A $a!i& pro"ra% shou!& treat each app!icant as an in&i$i&ua! in the a&%issions process. The #ata! @aw in petitioner2s pre#erentia! pro"ra% is its &isre"ar&s o# in&i$i&ua! ri"hts "uarantee& in the 11 th
A%en&. 0hen the a =tate2s &istriution o# ene)ts or i%position o# ur&ens hin"es on the co!or o# a person2s s8in or ancestr(, that in&i$i&ua! is entit!e& to a &e%onstration that the cha!!en"e& c!assi)cation is necessar( to pro%ote a sustantia! =tate interest. +ace can e a #actor, ut not the &ispositi$e #actor. Pa"e :* o# 9: o D. =te$ens (with 'ur"er, =tewart, +ehn>uist) concurrin" that the pro"ra% $io!ate& Tit!e J< o# the Ci$i! +i"hts Act o# 19H1 prohiitin" racia! &iscri%ination in a pro"ra% that recei$es #e&era! #un&in". Accor&in"!(, race cannot e the asis o# exc!u&in" an(one #ro% participation in a #e&era!!( #un&e& pro"ra% an& 'a88e was exc!u&e& #ro% the %e&ica! schoo! ecause o# his non,%inorit( status. o D. 'rennan (with 0hite, Garsha!!, '!ac8%un) concurrin" an& &issentin", ar"ues #or an inter%e&iate stan&ar& o# re$iewEthe c!assi)cation %ust e sustantia!!( re!ate& to an i%portant "o$ern%ent interest ("roup ri"hts $iew o# E>ua! Protection). Fo$ern%ent %a( ta8e race into account with it acts not to &e%ean or insu!t an( racia! "roup, ut to re%e&( &isa&$anta"es cast on %inorities ( past pre7u&ice. Powe!! wou!& re>uire #actua! )n&in"s e#ore a!!owin" re%e&(, ut 'rennan ar"ues that 7u&icia! &eter%ination o# a $io!ation as a pre&icate #or race,conscious re%e&ia! actions wou!& e se!#,&e#eatin". +acia! c!assi)cations &esi"ne& to #urther re%e&ia! purposes %ust ser$e i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an& %ust e sustantia!!( re!ate& to achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es. An i%portant an& articu!ate& purpose #or its use %ust e shown an& the c!assi)cation &oes not sti"%ati4e the "roup. .a$is2 pro"ra% ser$es an i%portant purpose an& &oes not sti"%ati4e whites. There are no practica! %eans ( which it cou!& achie$e its en&s in the #oreseea!e #uture without the use o# race,conscious %easures. 3ar$ar& a&%issions pro"ra% (that "i$es a 5p!us6 #actor to certain %inorities, ut &oes not insu!ate app!icant #ro% the rest o# the can&i&ate poo!) that was en&orse& is the sa%e as this pro"ra%, except that it is un8nown to the extent o# the pre#erence. o D. Garsha!! &issentin", ar"ues that the Court is unwi!!in" to co!& that a c!ass,ase& re%e&( #or &iscri%ination is per%issi!e, i"norin" the #act that #or se$era! hun&re& (ears !ac8s ha$e een &iscri%inate& a"ainst. As a resu!t o# historica! &iscri%ination, !ac8s shou!& e aIor&e& "reater protection un&er the 11 th A%en&. without a #urther showin" o# #act. o D. '!ac8%un &issentin", ar"ues that 5in or&er to "et e(on& racis%, we %ust )rst ta8e account o# race.6 There is no other race,neutra! wa( to structure an aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%. E>ua! Protection C!ause shou!& not perpetuate racia! supre%ac(. o Ootes & Criticis%/ Powe!!2s opinion in&icates the re!e$ant criteria in &eter%inin" the per%issii!it( o# a race,conscious a&%issions pro"ra% are the nu%er o# traits that are "i$en specia! wei"ht an& the &e"ree to which those traits are consi&ere& in a co%petiti$e #ashion. 'ut it is unc!ear 7ust how those criteria re!ate to each other an& exact!( how the( are to e %easure&. <t is un!i8e!( that the 3ar$ar& p!an wou!& pro&uce an( &iIerent a&%ission resu!ts than a %ore !atant race conscious p!an. Pa"e :: o# 9: The &iIerences etween the aIir%ati$e action p!ans that Powe!! #oun& unconstitutiona! were aesthetic. Powe!! thou"ht o# aIir%ati$e action as a transition, a short, ter% &eparture #ro% the i&ea! o# co!or,!in&ness 7usti)e& on!( ( pressin" necessit(. A!!owin" %inorit( set,asi&es to continue unti! a!! eIects o# past societa! &iscri%ination ha& een e!i%inate& %i"ht %ean the( wou!& !ast #ore$er. Powe!! there#ore cra#te& an approach &esi"ne& oth to per%it aIir%ati$e action an& to constrain it. 0. Jan A!st(ne warns that the stan&ar&s o# re$iew per%ittin" 7usti)cation o# race,conscious re%e&ies are 5a sie$e that encoura"es renewe& race,ase& !aws, racia! &iscri%ination, racia! co%petition, racia! spoi!s s(ste%, an& %ore 7u&icia! sport.6 The eni"n use o# race to o$erco%e racis% has historica!!( een a #ai!ure an& is u!ti%ate!( &e#eatin". Cne "ets e(on& racis% ( a co%p!ete, reso!ute, an& cre&i!e co%%it%ent ne$er to to!erate it in the practices o# "o$ern%ent. A. 'ic8e! ar"ues #or a co!or,!in& princip!e ecause an( racia! c!assi)cation is i!!e"a! un&er the 11 th A%en&. D. E!( ar"ue& that specia! scrutin( is not appropriate when the white %a7orit( has &eci&e& to #a$or %inorities at the white peop!e2s expense. A white %a7orit( is un!i8e!( to &isa&$anta"e itse!# #or reasons o# racia! pre7u&ice? not is it !i8e!( to e te%pte& either to un&eresti%ate the nee&s an& &eserts o# whites re!ati$e to those o# others. Pro!e% is that this ar"u%ent treats whites as a #un"i!e c!ass an& Powe!!2s opinion procee&s #ro% an in&i$i&ua! ri"hts presu%ption, as we!! as in&icatin" that whites as a c!ass is %a&e up o# %an( &iIerent %inorities. P. 'rest )n&s the "roup orientation inconsistent with the tra&itiona! anti&iscri%ination princip!e an& notions o# in&i$i&ua! autono%( which attriutes no %ora! si"ni)cance to %e%ership in racia! "roups. D. +uen#e!& ar"ues that aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s &o not &iIer in a constitutiona! sense #ro% the har%s in@icte& on the etter,oI pro"ra%s that oIer specia! opportunities to the poor, or !aws that re>uire pre#erences #or $eterans. <t is i%possi!e that the on!( 8in& o# aIir%ati$e action %a&e unconstitutiona! un&er the Ci$i! 0ar A%en&%ents is the 8in& that wou!& oIer assistance to !ac8s. '. Garsha!! ar"ues that the E>ua! Protection C!ause can on!( e un&erstoo& in ter%s o# its protections o# "roups, an& o# in&i$i&ua!s ( reason o# their %e%ership in "roups. .iscri%ination is not a"ainst in&i$i&ua!s. <t is a"ainst a peop!e. An& the re%e&(, there#ore, has to correct an& cure an& co%pensate #or the &iscri%ination a"ainst the peop!e an& not 7ust the &iscri%ination a"ainst the i&enti)a!e persons. +. Post notes that a!thou"h Powe!!2s exposition o# co%pe!!in" e&ucationa! interest o# &i$ersit( ha& een inte!!ectua!!( e!e"ant an& precise, it ha& &isp!a(e& !itt!e or no re!ationship to the actua! Pa"e :1 o# 9: reasons wh( aIir%ati$e action ha& eco%e pro%inent in A%erican hi"h e&ucation. These reasons were ase& a!%ost entire!( on the #e!t nee& to re%e&( &eep socia! &is!ocations associate& with race. D. DeIries, Powe!!2s !aw c!er8, notes that i# &i$ersit( in the c!assroo% enhance& the e&ucation o# a!! stu&ents, then a search #or %inorit( representation cou!& e seen as soun& e&ucationa! po!ic(, not racia! #a$oritis%. D. 0i!8inson oser$e& that &i$ersit( was the %ost accepta!e pu!ic rationa!e #or aIir%ati$e action ecause it has een historica!!( c!ear!( re!ate& to a uni$ersit(2s #unction. 3owe$er, race & ethnicit( are not necessari!( in&icators o# &i$erse experience as %uch as &iIerences in econo%ic status. Perhaps the >uestion shou!& e on how tra&itiona! a&%issions criteria continue to perpetuate race an& c!ass pri$i!e"e. , Con"ressiona! statute %an&atin" 10V o# #e&era! #un&s #or !oca! pro7ects e sucontracte& out to %inorit( owne& usinesses was constitutiona! ecause the pro"ra% was !i%ite& (sunset pro$ision) an& tai!ore& pro"ra% &esi"ne& to re%e&( prior &iscri%ination in the construction in&ustr( an& a!so ha& a&%inistrati$e re%e&ies. ullilove v. (lutznic" (1990) (no %a7orit( #or a stan&ar& o# re$iew). , =trict scrutin( app!ies to state an& !oca! aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s, which re>uire statistics to support re%e&(in" o# speci)c statistica! )n&in"s, consi&eration o# race,neutra! a!ternati$es, an& !i%its on &uration an& scope. Cit) of Richmond v. $.#. Croson Co. (1999) (in$a!i&atin" !oca! re>uire%ent to awar& :0V o# pu!ic pro7ects to %inorit( sucontractors? Court wante& )n&in"s to support Cit(2s ar"u%ent that it was tr(in" to re%e&( past &iscri%ination). o =trict scrutin( nee&e& to ensure a!!e"e&!( 5eni"n6 p!ans are not ase& on racia! pre7u&ice. , Court aIir%e& that a!! racia! c!assi)cations, i%pose& ( whate$er #e&era!, state or !oca! "o$ern%ent actor, %ust e ana!(4e& un&er strict scrutin(. #darand Constr. v. !ena (199-) (o$erru!in" Metro Broadcasting v. CC to the extent that it prescrie& a &iIerent stan&ar& o# re$iew (inter%e&iate) #or #e&era! pro"ra%s). o Three "enera! propositions "o$ern aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s/ =8epticis%/ the nee& #or searchin" re$iew #or a!! race an& ethnicit( c!assi)cations in or&er to s%o8e out co$ert in$i&ious &iscri%ination. Consistenc(/ since E>ua! Protection is a persona! ri"ht, stan&ar&s o# re$iew shou!& not &epen& on the race o# the person ene)te& or ur&ene&. The stan&ar& o# re$iew in race,ase& cases shou!& e consistent. Con"ruence/ E>ua! Protection ana!(sis un&er the - th & 11 th A%en&s. use the sa%e stan&ar& o# re$iew. 'ut this &oes not necessari!( %ean that the( wi!! app!( the sa%e wa(? courts %a( "i$e "reater &e#erence to #e&era! pro"ra%s. , =tu&ent o&( &i$ersit( in hi"her e&ucation is a co%pe!!in" state interest that can 7usti#( the use o# race in a&%issions, ut on!( i# the pro"ra% is narrow!( tai!ore& an& "i$es app!icants in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration. &rutter v. Bollinger (*00:) (Ani$. Gich. Law =ch. a&%issions pro"ra% that consi&ere& a %ix o# traits inc!u&in" race was cha!!en"e& an& uphe!& ( C2Connor #or the Court). Pa"e :- o# 9: o .ec!ares that a!! racia! c!assi)cations i%pose& ( "o$ern%ent %ust e ana!(4e& un&er strict scrutin(, ut there is &e#erence to the schoo!2s 7u&"%ent that &i$ersit( is essentia! to its e&ucationa! %ission. o Court a!so in&icates that &i$ersit( in !aw schoo! he!ps to #urther !e"iti%ac( o# pu!ic oIicia!s an& oIicers (since a sustantia! nu%er o# e!ecte& pu!ic oIicers ho!& !aw &e"rees). o Ani$ersities can consi&er race or ethnicit( %ore @exi!( as a 5p!us6 #actor in the context o# in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration o# each an& e$er( app!icant. The a&%issions pro"ra% ensures that a!! #actors that %a( contriute to stu&ent o&( &i$ersit( are %eanin"#u!!( consi&ere& a!on"si&e race in a&%issions &ecisions. o The !aw schoo!2s p!an is narrow!( tai!ore& to the schoo!2s "oa! o# attaintin" a critica! %ass o# un&errepresente& %inorit( stu&ents. The pro"ra% &i& not use >uotas, p!ace &iIerent racia! "roups on &iIerent a&%ission trac8s, or awar& a set nu%er o# points to an app!icant ase& on %inorit( status. The purpose o# narrow tai!orin" re>uire%ent is to ensure that the %eans chosen #or the co%pe!!in" "oa! so c!ose!( that there is !itt!e or no possii!it( that the %oti$e #or the c!assi)cation was i!!e"iti%ate racia! pre7u&ice or stereot(pe. o Oarrow tai!orin" &oes not re>uire exhaustion o# e$er( concei$a!e race, neutra! a!ternati$e. 'ut it &oes, howe$er, re>uire "oo& #aith consi&eration o# wor8a!e race,neutra! a!ternati$es that wi!! achie$e the &i$ersit( the uni$ersit( see8s. o There is no reason to exe%pt race,conscious a&%issions pro"ra%s #ro% the re>uire%ent that a!! "o$ern%enta! use o# race %ust ha$e a !o"ica! en& point. <n the context o# hi"her e&ucation, the &urationa! re>uire%ent can e %et ( sunset pro$isions in these po!icies an& perio&ic re$iews to &eter%ine whether racia! pre#erences are sti!! necessar( to achie$e stu&ent o&( &i$ersit(. o D. Finsur" (with 're(er) concurrin" expresse& concern that *- (ears a#ter Ba""e the Court is sti!! &eci&in" the issue an& that in ti%e, one %a( hope that aIir%ati$e action can sunset. o D. +ehn>uist (with =ca!ia, Tho%as, Kenne&() &issentin", #oun& that the pro"ra% was not narrow!( tai!ore& an& that the pro"ra% ears no re!ation to the "oa! o# achie$in" a 5critica! %ass,6 rather the percenta"e o# %inorit( app!icants corre!ates to the percenta"e o# a&%itte& stu&ent an& hence, #ai!s strict scrutin(. A&&itiona!!(, there is no ti%e !i%it on the schoo!2s use o# race. o D. Kenne&( &issentin" #oun& that the !aw schoo! ha& the ur&en o# pro$in" that is &i& not use race in an unconstitutiona! wa( an& the schoo! &i& not exp!ain the corre!ations etween app!icant poo! an& a&%itte& stu&ents. .e#erence is antithetica! to strict scrutin(. o D. =ca!ia (with Tho%as) &issentin", is s8eptica! that cross,racia! un&erstan&in" is a true e&ucationa! ene)t, teacha!e in or uni>ue!( re!e$ant to !aw schoo!? an& &oes not e!ie$e racia! &i$ersit( is a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%ent interest. The Constitution proscries "o$ern%ent &iscri%ination on the asis o# race, an& state pro$i&e& e&ucation is no exception. Pa"e :H o# 9: o D. Tho%as (with =ca!ia) &issentin", ar"ues that racia! &iscri%ination is not a per%issi!e so!ution to the se!#,in@icte& woun&s o# an e!itist a&%ission po!ic(. The pro"ra% ser$e& aesthetic interests, ut pro&uce& on!( %ar"ina! e&ucationa! ene)ts. <n #act, there is a race,neutra! a!ternati$e, which wou!& e to aan&on its exc!usionar( a&%issions pro"ra% an& a&%it app!icants %eetin" %ini%u% >ua!i)cations on a co!or !in& asis, e.". a !otter(. There is no asis #or the Court2s unprece&ente& &e#erence ase& on the i&ea o# e&ucationa! autono%(, an& no asis #or a ri"ht to &o what otherwise wou!& $io!ate the E>ua! Protection C!ause. Law schoo!s choose to use a test that the( 8now %a( e racia!!( ias, ut the( %ust accept the constitutiona! ur&ens o# this. , An&er"ra&uate a&%issions po!ic( that auto%atica!!( &istriutes 1Q- th o# the points nee&e& to "uarantee a&%ission to each un&errepresente& %inorit( app!icant ase& on race is not narrow!( tai!ore& to achie$e the interest in e&ucationa! &i$ersit(. &ratz v. Bollinger (*00:) (C.D. +ehn>uist #or the Court in co%panion case to &rutter). o The point s(ste% has the eIect o# %a8in" the #actor o# race &ecisi$e #or $irtua!!( e$er( %ini%a!!( >ua!i)e& un&errepresente& %inorit( app!icant an& &oes not a!!ow assess%ent o# the app!icant2s entire app!ication. o The #act that a re$iew co%%ittee can !oo8 at the app!ications in&i$i&ua!!( an& i"nore the points, once an app!ication is @a""e&, &oes not he!p the po!ic( sur$i$e strict scrutin( ecause such in&i$i&ua!i4e& re$iew is the exception an& not the ru!e. o D. C2Connor concurrin", e%phasi4e& the !ac8 o# %eanin"#u! in&i$i&ua!i4e& re$iew o# the app!icants. The se!ection in&ex, ut settin" up auto%atic, pre&eter%ine& point a!!ocations #or the so#t $aria!es, ensures that the &i$ersit( contriutions o# app!icants cannot e in&i$i&ua!!( assesse&. o D. 're(er concurrin" with the 7u&"%ent o# the Court, with C2Connor2s concurrence an& with Finsur"2s &issent. o D. Tho%as concurrin", reiterate& his e!ie# that the =tate2s use o# racia! &iscri%ination in hi"her e&ucation a&%issions is cate"orica!!( prohiite& ( the E>ua! Protection C!ause. o D. =te$ens (with =outer) &issentin", ar"ues that there is an asence o# e$i&ence that either petitioner wou!& recei$e an( ene)t #ro% prospecti$e re!ie#, an& hence ha$e no stan&in". o D. =outer (with Finsur") &issentin", ar"ues that the &ecision shou!& not "o e(on& a reco"nition that &i$ersit( can ser$e as a co%pe!!in" state interest 7usti#(in" race,conscious &ecisions in e&ucation an& )n&s that the pro"ra% pro$i&es in&i$i&ua!i4e& re$iew. The pro"ra% is c!oser to what &rutter appro$es o# than what Ba""e con&e%ns, since it &oes not in$o!$e a >uota or set,asi&e s(ste%. The se!ection in&ex s(ste%, a!! o# the characteristics that the co!!e"e thin8s re!e$ant to stu&ent &i$ersit( #or e$er( one o# the p!aces to e )!!e& )ts Powe!!2s &escription o# a constitutiona!!( accepta!e pro"ra%Eone that consi&ers 5a!! pertinent e!e%ents o# &i$ersit( in !i"ht o# the particu!ar >ua!i)cations o# each app!icant.6 <t see%s un#air to treat the can&or o# the a&%issions p!an as an Achi!!es2 hee!. Pa"e :; o# 9: o D. Finsur" (with =outer) &issentin", is %ost sharp!( in contrast with the Court an& ar"ues #or an inter%e&iate re$iew, citin" #darand an& &istin"uishes eni"n c!assi)cation. Actions &esi"ne& to ur&en "roups are not ran8e& the sa%e with %easures ta8en to e!i%inate &iscri%ination. The po!ic( &oes not see8 to exc!u&e ase& on race, nor &oes it un&u!( construct a&%issions opportunities #or non,%inorit( stu&ents. <# honest( is the est po!ic(, #u!!( &isc!ose& Co!!e"e aIir%ati$e action pro"ra% is pre#era!e to achie$in" si%i!ar nu%ers throu"h win8s, no&s, an& &is"uises. o Critics & =cho!ars/ A!thou"h the Court, in &rutter, announce& a strict scrutin( stan&ar&, in app!ication it was %ore &e#erentia!. <n ho!&in" that &i$ersit( cou!& e a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%enta! interest, the %a7orit( too8 the schoo! oIicia!s at their wor& when the schoo! oIicia!s sai& the( nee&e& racia! &i$ersit( #or e&ucationa! reasons. <n a&&ition, ho!&in" that the pro"ra% was narrow!( tai!ore&, the %a7orit( "a$e the schoo! the ene)t o# the &out in the operation o# the racia! pre#erences. A!thou"h &rutter casts itse!# as %ere!( en&orsin" Powe!!2s opinion in Ba""e, it &oes not oIer an account o# the intrinsic $a!ue o# the e&ucationa! process or ene)ts. <t instea& concei$es o# e&ucation as instru%enta! #or the achie$e%ent o# extrinsic socia! "oo&s, !i8e pro#essiona!is%, citi4enship, or !ea&ership. <t #o!!ows #ro% this wa( o# conceptua!i4in" the pro!e% that the Law =choo! can ha$e a co%pe!!in" interest in usin" &i$ersit( to #aci!itate the attain%ent o# these socia! "oo&s on!( i# there is an in&epen&ent!( co%pe!!in" interest in the actua! attain%ent o# these "oo&s. Pre&i)tion4 <t %a( e ar"ue& that the Court has now i%p!icit!( accepte& re%e&(in" societa! &iscri%ination as a state co%pe!!in" interest an& appears that the Court wi!! upho!& a narrow!( &rawn race,ase& pro"ra% &esi"ne& to re%e&( speci)c i&enti)e& i!!e"a! racia! &iscri%ination. =o the %ost i%portant #unction o# aIir%ati$e action reco"ni4e& in &rutter is #orwar&,!oo8in"/ to %a8e possi!e the eIecti$e #unctionin" o# institutions that ha$e een historica!!( se"re"ate& or strati)e& ( inte"ratin" the% at a!! !e$e!s. A!thou"h the 1 concurrin" 7ustices in Ba""e wou!& ha$e uphe!& an aIir%ati$e action pro"ra% &esi"ne& to re%e&( past societa! &iscri%ination, the Court has "enera!!( re7ecte& re%e&(in" societa! &iscri%ination as suIicient to 7usti#( a racia! c!assi)cation. E$en =ca!ia an& Tho%as are wi!!in" to accept race,conscious pro"ra%s to re%e&( the "o$ern%ent2s own &iscri%ination a"ainst i&enti)e& $icti%s. Pro#. Post !ists #our re>uire%ents that the Court uses in &rutter9 &ratz in &eter%inin" i# a &i$ersit( p!an is narrow!( tai!ore&? a race, ase& aIir%ati$e action p!an/ Pa"e :9 o# 9: 1) %ust 5not un&u!( har% %e%ers o# an( racia! "roup6 *) can e i%p!e%ente& on!( i# there has een a 5serious "oo& #aith consi&eration o# wor8a!e race,neutra! a!ternati$es that wi!! achie$e the &i$ersit( the uni$ersit( see8s6 :) 5%ust e !i%ite& in ti%e6 1) %ost i%portant!(, it %ust aIor& each app!icant 5tru!( in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration.6 The Court ne$er %a8es c!ear whether the &ratz pro"ra% #ai!s the in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration ecause it >uanti)es the contriution o# race to &i$ersit( ( a speci)c an& i&enti)a!e %easure or ecause the pro"ra% e%p!o(s a %easure that is &ecisi$e. The #act that it is i%portant #or the pro"ra% to ha$e a &urationa! !i%it see%s to e consistent on!( i# the co%pe!!in" interest in the pro"ra% is re%e&ia!. Interme&iate 'eview4 Gen&er Classi;)ation , The #ra%ers o# the 11 th A%en&. &i& not conte%p!ate sex e>ua!it(. 'o!&!( &(na%ic interpretation, &epartin" ra&ica!!( #ro% the ori"ina! un&erstan&in", is re>uire& to tie the 11 th A%en&.2s E>ua! Protection C!ause to a co%%an& that "o$ern%ent treat %en an& wo%en as in&i$i&ua!s e>ua! in ri"hts, responsii!ities, an& opportunities. +uth Finsur", 19;9 0ash. A.L.P. , Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 Purpose#u! "en&er c!assi)cations a"ainst wo%en or %en 5%ust ser$e i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an& %ust e sustantia!!( re!ate& to achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es.6 Craig v. Boren (19;H) (re7ectin" &iIerent &rin8in" a"es ase& on sex? +ehn>uist o7ectin" to inter%e&iate stan&ar& o# re$iew). o The "o$ern%ent 7usti)cation %ust e excee&in"!( persuasi$e, which %a8es it c!oser to strict scrutin(. +S v. 5a. (199H). The =tate has the ur&en to show at !east that the c!assi)cation ser$es i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an& that the &iscri%inator( %eans e%p!o(e& are sustantia!!( re!ate& to the achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es. o Court wi!! use the actua! "o$ern%ent purpose an& &e%an& c!ose correspon&ence o# the c!assi)cation to that en&. C!assi)cations are %ost !i8e!( to #ai! ecause the c!assi)cation is not sustantia!!( re!ate& to the "o$ern%ent interest. Pro!e%s arise when (ou &e)ne the o7ecti$e &iIerent!(. o The 7usti)cation %ust e "enuine, not h(pothesi4e& or in$ente& post hoc in response to !iti"ation. o The 7usti)cation %ust not re!( on o$erroa& "enera!i4ations aout the &iIerent ta!ents, capacities, or pre#erences o# %a!es an& #e%a!es. , =tate !aw cannot "i$e pre#erence to %a!es o$er #e%a!es as a&%inistrators o# estates. Reed v. Reed (19;1) (re7ectin" =tate2s 7usti)cation o# ease o# a&%inistration? 5'( pro$i&in" &issi%i!ar treat%ent #or %en an& wo%en who are thus si%i!ar!( situate&, the cha!!en"e& section $io!ates the E>ua! Protection C!ause.6). , A!thou"h no %a7orit( o# the Court has e$er he!& that sex shou!& e a suspect c!ass, 'rennan points out reasons that it wou!& e suspect in his opinion in rontiero v. Richardson (19;:) (stri8in" &own re"u!ation %a8in" it %ore Pa"e :9 o# 9: &iIicu!t #or #e%a!e uni#or%e& ser$ice%e%er to c!ai% her husan& as &epen&ent). o =ex, !i8e race an& nationa! ori"in, is an i%%uta!e characteristic &eter%ine& ( acci&ent o# irth? an& #re>uent!( ears no re!ation to ai!it( to per#or% or contriute to societ(. o <n !ater cases, the Court exp!ains wh( sex was not he!& as suspect c!ass? %ain!( ecause its eIects are !ess se$ere than racia! &iscri%ination an& can e eIecte& thou"h the po!itica! process. , The hei"htene& re$iew stan&ar& &oes not %a8e sex a suspect c!ass. =tate cannot constitutiona!!( &en( wo%en who ha$e the wi!! an& capacit( access to the trainin" an& atten&ant opportunities that an institution uni>ue!( aIor&s on!( to %en. 5MI (199H) (Finsur" #or the Court, e%p!o(in" an in&i$i&ua! ri"hts $iew). o =tate was not success#u! in ar"uin" that JG< was esta!ishe& with a $iew to &i$erse e&ucationa! opportunit( within the =tate. Cn!( ser$in" =tate2s sons without an( pro$ision #or her &au"hters &oes not ser$e &i$ersit( an& $io!ates E>ua! Protection. <# JG<2s "oa! is to train citi4en so!&iers, the "oa! &oes not prec!u&e wo%en. The opportunities oIere& at JG< are uni>ue that a para!!e! pro"ra% cou!& not oIer. o =ex c!assi)cation %a( e use& to co%pensate wo%en #or econo%ic &isai!ities or to a&$ance e%p!o(%ent opportunities. A re%e&ia! &ecree %ust c!ose!( )t the constitutiona! $io!ation? it %ust e shape& to p!ace persons &enie& an opportunit( or a&$anta"e in the position the( wou!& ha$e occupie& in the asence o# &iscri%ination. JG< create& a para!!e! pro"ra% #or wo%en see8in" entrance to JG<, Jir"inia 0o%en2s <nstitute #or Lea&ership (J0<L), ut with %ar8e& &iIerences #ro% JG<, na%e!( !ac8in" a&$ersati$e %etho& o# e&ucation. An& hence, was not sustantia!!( co%para!e. M<# this were so, JG<L %i"ht ha$e een $a!i&.N The #act that JG< is uni>ue eco%es %ore o# a &epri$ation to wo%en who cannot atten&. M=ca!ia critici4es this, since an( pro"ra% can e characteri4e& as uni>ue.N o D. +ehn>uist concurrin", &isa"rees with the new stan&ar& announce& an& wou!& pre#er the stan&ar& in ,ogan. The pro!e% is that the &i$ersit( c!ai%s on!( ene)t one sex. Oo correspon&in" sin"!e,sex pro"ra% #or wo%en. <t is not the exc!usion o# wo%en that $io!ates the E>ua! Protection C!ause, ut the %aintenance o# an a!!,%en schoo! without pro$i&in" an( co%para!e institution #or wo%en. o D. =ca!ia &issentin", ar"ues #or #aith#u! app!ication o# inter%e&iate scrutin(, which has ne$er re>uire& a !east,restricti$e %eans ana!(sis, ut on!( a sustantia! re!ation etween the c!assi)cation an& the state interests it ser$es. Puestion is whether the exc!usion o# wo%en #ro% JG< is sustantia!!( re!ate& to an i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e o# pro$i&in" eIecti$e co!!e"e e&ucation #or its citi4ens, which sin"!e, sex instruction part o# this approach. Pa"e 10 o# 9: The i%p!ication o# the Court2s &ecision %a( e wi&esprea& &isruption o# sin"!e,sex e&ucation, &epen&in" on how this app!ies to pri$ate e&ucation. o Ootes & Criticis%/ Court ac8now!e&"e& that un&er this ana!(sis, %eans %er"e& into en&s an& the %er"er ris8e& (passin" an( e&ucationa! scrutin(. Jir"inia &i& what #e%inist theorists ha$e !on" critici4e&Ethe( assu%e& the correctness o# the %ascu!ine %a!e stan&ar& an& as8e& on!( whether wo%en cou!& )t in, not whether it was an appropriate stan&ar& #or persons o# either sex. <%p!ications that wo%en are in#erior i# the( &o not %atch up. Court2s %essa"e is a re7ection o# sweepin" "enera!i4ations upon which the( were #oun&e&. <n$a!i& stereot(pes wi!! e #ata! to "o$ern%ent #un&in" o# co!!e"es which exc!u&e app!icants on the asis o# sex. 0hi!e in %an( cases c!assi)cations on the asis o# sex are s(non(%ous with sex &iscri%ination, in other cases, sex c!assi)cations per%it e>ua! protection to e achie$e& within a #ra%ewor8 that reco"ni4es &iIerence. F. =i%pson/ 0ith re"ar& to coor&inate sin"!e,sex schoo!s, i# no sti"%a or &isa&$anta"e to the "ir!s or o(s is #oun&, the schoo!s pass wou!& pass constitutiona! %uster. <#, howe$er, &isa&$anta"e is #oun& to exist, the state is c!ear!( c!assi#(in" on sex an& inter%e&iate scrutin( app!ies an& it is &out#u! that the s(ste% o# coor&inate sin"!e,sex schoo!s wi!! sur$i$e such re$iew. , A wo%en,on!( a&%issions po!ic( to a state nursin" schoo! $io!ates E>ua! Protection. A!thou"h the state ar"ue& the c!assi)cation was co%pensator(, it in #act ser$e& to rein#orce a stereot(pe o# nursin" as a pro#ession #or wo%en (who ha& not een &iscri%inate& a"ainst in the pro#ession an& &oes not ser$e the purpose o# &i$ersit(). Miss. +niv. for Women v. ,ogan (199*) (%a!e app!icant see8in" entrance to nursin" schoo!). , <n so%e cases, the Court has &eter%ine& that the sexes are not si%i!ar!( situate&Ewhen the sex c!assi)cations are ase& on rea! &iIerences rather than "en&er stereot(pesEthe c!assi)cation wi!! !i8e!( e uphe!&. o =tatutor( rape !aw which %a8es %en a!one cri%ina!!( !ia!e #or the act o# sexua! intercourse with a #e%a!e %inor &oes not $io!ate the E>ua! Protection C!ause ecause this c!assi)cation rea!istica!!( re@ects the #act that the sexes are not si%i!ar!( situate& certain circu%stances, na%e!( the io!o"ica! conse>uences. An& the state has an interest in pre$entin" teen pre"nanc(. Michael M v. Su0erior Ct. (1991) (+ehn>uist #or the Court app!(in" inter%e&iate scrutin( that he ha& pre$ious!( &issente& #ro%). o Fe&era! %a!e,on!( &ra#t re"istration &oes not $io!ate the - th A%en&. E>ua! Protection since the sex c!assi)cation rea!istica!!( re@ects the #act that the sexes are not si%i!ar!( situate& in re"ar& to the nee& to pro$i&e co%at troops, in which wo%en &o not participate. This is c!ose!( re!ate& to Con"ress2 i%portant "o$ern%enta! interest in &e$e!opin" a poo! o# potentia! co%at troops. Rost"er v. &old'erg (1991). , 0hi!e &iscri%inator( eIect %a( e e$i&ence o# &iscri%inator( purpose, it is not enou"h to tri""er inter%e&iate re$iew. Cn!( a "o$ern%enta! purpose to Pa"e 11 o# 9: &iscri%inate 7usti)es &eparture #ro% the tra&itiona! rationa!it( stan&ar&. !ers. #dm/r of Mass. v. eene) (19;9) (upho!&in" $eteran pre#erence po!ic( in hirin"? whi!e it has the eIect o# &isa&$anta"in" wo%en, it is not the purpose? there#ore, rationa! asis app!ies). o 0hen a statute is "en&er,neutra! on its #ace is cha!!en"e& on the "roun& that its eIects upon wo%en are &isproportionate!( a&$erse, a two,#o!& in>uir( is appropriate/ 1) whether the statutor( c!assi)cation is in&ee& neutra! in the sense that is not "en&er ase&? *) <# the c!assi)cation itse!#, co$ert or o$ert, is not ase& upon "en&er, the secon& >uestion is whether the a&$erse eIects re@ects in$i&ious "en&er,ase& &iscri%ination. o Garsha!! (with 'rennan) &issentin", )n&s that the $eteran,pre#erence e$inces purpose#u! "en&er,ase& &iscri%ination an& ears not !e"iti%ate "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e. 0here the #oreseea!e i%pact o# a #acia!!( neutra! po!ic( is so &isproportionate, the ur&en shou!& rest o# the =tate to esta!ish that sex,ase& consi&erations p!a(e& no part in the choice o# the particu!ar !e"is!ati$e sche%e. =tate #ai!e& to esta!ish a suIicient re!ationship etween its o7ecti$es an& %eans chosen to eIectuate the%. Barron4 <# there is a "en&er,neutra! %eans, then a "en&er,ase& statute is unre!ate&. Se-!al Orientation4 :!asi7S!s,e)t? , 0hi!e the Court has not he!& whether c!assi)cations ase& on sexua! orientation are su7ect to hei"htene& scrutin(, it has he!& that a !aw i%posin" a roa&, un&iIerentiate& &isai!it( a"ainst "a(s (!aw #ori&s protecte& status ase& on sexua! orientation) is irrationa! an& $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Romer v. *vans (199H). This %a( in&icate a "reater scrutin( wi!! e "i$en to !aws i%posin" specia! ur&ens on "a(s as a c!ass. o First!(, the !aw has the pecu!iar propert( o# i%posin" a roa& an& un&iIerentiate& &isai!it( on a sin"!e "roup. o =econ&!(, its shear rea&th is so &iscontinuous with the reasons oIere& #or it that the !aw see%s inexp!ica!e ( an(thin" ut ani%us towar& the c!ass that it aIects? it !ac8s a rationa! re!ationship to !e"iti%ate state interests. o Court states that it is app!(in" rationa! re$iew. A !aw &ec!arin" that in "enera! it sha!! e %ore &iIicu!t #or one "roup o# citi4ens than #or a!! others to see8 ai& #ro% the "o$ern%ent is itse!# a &enia! o# E>ua! Protection o# the !aws in the %ost !itera! sense. o D. =ca!ia &issentin", )n&s that this &oes not &en( co%%on !aw protections an& hence, is not a $io!ation o# E>ua! Protection. Cn!( that the( %a( not otain pre#erentia! protections without a%en&in" the !aw. This is a po!itica! issue. o Ootes/ <%%e&iate reaction to Romer was that it conspicuous!( #ai!e& to articu!ate a princip!e& 7usti)cation. Kenne&(2s opinion was roote& neither in ori"ina! %eanin" nor in prece&ent, an& pro$i&e& !itt!e "ui&ance #or #uture contro$ersies. Kenne&(2s opinion cou!& e an a%a!"a% o# two theories/ 1) !itera! rea&in" o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause an& *) the !aw was so o$er Pa"e 1* o# 9: an& un&er inc!usi$e in ser$in" an( !e"iti%ate en&s that is %ust e un&erstoo& as ase& u!ti%ate!( on na8e& ani%osit( towar&s "a( peop!e a!one. The Court #oun&e& its &ecision on a ru!e that !e"is!ation %a8in" it %ore ur&enso%e #or a sin"!e "roup o# citi4ens to see8 the "o$ern%ent2s protection is a per se &enia! o# e>ua! protection o# the !aws. <t %ust e ecause the "roun&s #or the !aw are proper!( oI !i%its, since the !aw re@ects a 7u&"%ent that certain citi4ens shou!& e treate& as socia! outcasts. Romer re@ects the princip!e that the "o$ern%ent %a( not &esi"nate an( societa! "roup as untoucha!e. Romer i!!u%inate& the core o# E>ua! ProtectionE"o$ern%ent %ust respect the princip!e that a!! persons ha$e e>ua! intrinsic worth. This princip!e ars !aws roote& in hosti!it( towar& a particu!ar "roup. E$en when ani%osit( is !ac8in" howe$er, the princip!e ars !aws that see8 to entrench a socia! hierarch(. The %a7orit( characteri4e& the u!ti%ate &ri$in" #orce ehin& the !aw as constitutiona!!( i%per%issi!e ani%us, rather than %ora! &isappro$a! an& so he!& that it #ai!e& rationa! asis re$iew. D. =ca!ia ar"ues that the on!( ani%us at issue is %ora! &isappro$a! o# ho%osexua! con&uct si%i!ar to that expresse& in Bowers. 0hi!e .ue Process e%phasi4es $a!ues that are tra&itiona!!( protecte&, E>ua! Protection C!ause &oes not sa#e"uar& tra&ition? it protects a"ainst tra&itions, howe$er !on",stan&in" an& &eep!( roote&. , Ar!ment "or S!s,e)t or :!asi7S!s,e)t Class4 Proponents o# hei"htene& scrutin( point to/ o 3istor( o# &iscri%ination o A percei$e& !ac8 o# po!itica! c!out o Lac8 o# re!ationship etween ai!it( to per#or% or contriute an& to (what is eco%in" 8nown as) an i%%uta!e trait o =i%i!ar!(, the Court has #oun& sex an& other c!assi)cations >uestiona!e ecause the( #re>uent!( ear no re!ation to ai!it( to per#or% or contriute to societ(, are t(pica!!( %oti$ate& ( stereot(pica! rather than #act,ase& thin8in", an& per$asi$e!( aIect c!asses o# citi4ens tra&itiona!!( su7ecte& to !e"a! &isai!ities. App!ie& to ho%osexua! !e"a! histor(, sexua! orientation c!assi)cation shou!& e at !east su7ect to inter%e&iate scrutin(. , Same Se- *arriae4 .eate has %o$e& to =tate constitutions, which &o not ha$e a histor( o# interpretation !i8e the A= Constitution. o 3awaii =tate constitution has an exp!icit prohiition on &iscri%ination ase& on sex, un!i8e the #e&era! Constitution. As a resu!t, the =tate =upre%e Court he!& that a !aw restrictin" %arria"e to opposite,sex coup!es can within the =tate2s prohiition. The case was re%an&e& to e ana!(4e& un&er strict scrutin(. Baehr v. %ewin (3aw. 199:). o Gassachusetts he!& that the state an on sa%e,sex %arria"e $io!ate& the state constitution, conc!u&in" that the %arria"e an &oes not %eet the Pa"e 1: o# 9: rationa! asis test #or either &ue process or e>ua! protection. &oodridge v. De0t. of !u'l. ,ealth (Gass. *00:). =o%e coup!es in Gass. ha$e een %arrie& an& i# the =tate e"ins to prohiit this, then there2s an ar"u%ent that the =tate is creatin" two c!asses o# citi4ens. o A. Kopp!e%an ar"ues that since inter%e&iate scrutin( #or "en&er,ase& &iscri%ination is appropriate, an& !aws that &iscri%inate a"ainst "a(s cannot withstan& inter%e&iate scrutin(, statutes that sin"!e out "a(s #or une>ua! treat%ent are in$a!i&. <n the sa%e wa( that the prohiition a"ainst %isce"enation in %oving v. 5a. preser$e& the po!arities to race on which white supre%ac( reste&, the prohiition o# ho%osexua!it( preser$es the po!arities on which rests the suor&ination o# wo%en. o +. .uncan/ Garria"e !aws app!( the sa%e e>ua! stan&ar& to each "en&er, neither %en nor wo%en %a( %arr( a person o# the sa%e "en&er. Oeither the ene)ts nor the ur&en o# these !aws are &istriute& une>ua!!( to %en or wo%en as a c!ass. +e7ectin" the %oving ana!o"(/ 'ecause race is irre!e$ant to what %a8es a re!ationship a %arria"e, it was i%%ora! an& unconstitutiona! #or Jir"inia to #ori& interracia! %arria"es. 3owe$er, un!i8e Jir"inia2s racist restriction on %arria"e, the &ua!, "en&er re>uire%ent i# ase& upon the inherent sexua! co%p!e%entarit( o# husan& an& wi#e. o C. =unstein/ 3owe$er, i# %awrence is put to"ether with %oving it wou!& see% p!ausi!e to sa( that the "o$ern%ent wou!& ha$e to pro&uce a co%pe!!in" 7usti)cation #or re#usin" to reco"ni4e such %arria"es, an& co%pe!!in" 7usti)cations are not eas( to )n&. <# we e%phasi4e an e>ua!it( rationa!e, the sutext o# %awrence, then ans on sa%e,sex %arria"es are in serious constitutiona! trou!e. D. C2Connor was aware o# the potentia!!( roa& i%p!ications o# %awrence. Exp!ainin" that ans on sa%e,sex %arria"e cou!& e uphe!& a#ter her conc!usion that %ora! &isappro$a! is not a suIicient asis #or &iscri%ination a%on" "roups o# persons, C2Connor state& that 5other reasons exist to pro%ote the institution o# %arria"e e(on& %ora! &isappro$a! o# an exc!u&e& "roup.6 O. 3unter ar"uin" that C2Connor e!ie$es that preser$in" the tra&itiona! institution o# %arria"e is a !e"iti%ate state o# interest an& presu%a!( wou!& satis#( the rationa!,asis test that wou!& e use& to &eci&e a "a( %arria"e case. o L. Trie ar"ues that the un&er!(in" theor( an& %ost i%portant passa"es o# %awrence su""est rea&( (thou"h not i%%e&iate) app!icai!it( o# the ho!&in" to sa%e,sex %arria"e. <t wou!& see% i%p!ausi!e #or this Court to accept there wou!& e har%s to the institution o# %arria"e, since its one an& on!( re#erence to what wou!& &e%ean those who are %arrie& is &en(in" the ri"ht to ha$e sexua! intercourse. The o$ious i%p!ication o# this !unt state%ent is that %arria"e is not on!( aout sex, ut a!so aout inti%ac(, co%panionship, an& !o$eEpheno%ena that ha$e a pu!ic an& pri$ate #ace. Dust as the %oving Court ca%e to rea!i4e that racia! oun&aries cannot &e)ne Pa"e 11 o# 9: such a re!ationship, so this Court ou"ht to co%e to a si%i!ar conc!usion with respect to sexua! orientation. 35!al Prote)tion o" F!n&amental 'i%ts , The Court wi!! in$o8e a hei"htene& stan&ar& o# re$iew ecause o# the nature o# the interests aIecte& ( the c!assi)cation. o 3ar& to &e)ne what %a8es a ri"ht #un&a%enta! so it %a( e %ore he!p#u! to consi&er the character o# the ine>ua!ities that wi!! e 7u&icia!!( to!erate& an& the character o# the ine>ua!ities to e constitutiona!!( con&e%ne&. 'ut prece&ents in&icate that states cannot prec!u&e access to the ser$ice or ene)r or perpetuate c!asses. Court struc8 &own a state !aw %an&atin" sexua! steri!i4ation o# persons con$icte& o# %ora! turpitu&e, ho!&in" that it was $io!ati$e o# E>ua! Protection as certain !esser cri%es were the asis #or steri!i4ation. S"inner v. O"la. e7 rel. Williamson (191*). o .urin" the 0arren Court (ears, the Court e"an to #ashion sustanti$e $a!ues an& interests &irect!( #ro% the E>ua! Protection C!auseEa new 5sustanti$e e>ua! protection6 e"an to e%er"e 0hi!e 5#un&a%enta! interests6 such as $otin" or access to cri%ina! 7ustice strict!( %i"ht not e constitutiona! ri"hts protecte& ( the .ue Process "uarantee !i8e #ree&o% o# speech, the ri"ht o# interstate %i"ration or the ri"hts re!atin" to %arria"e, #a%i!( an& pri$ac(, !aws &iscri%inatin" a%on" c!asses in their ai!it( en7o( such interests wou!& e su7ecte& to stricter scrutin(. The !atter 'ur"er an& +ehn>uist Courts &i& not exten& this. , Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 0hen a c!assi)cation si"ni)cant!( ur&ens, &eters, or pena!i4e the exercise o# a #un&a%enta! persona! ri"ht, the "o$ern%ent usua!!( %ust pro$e that the c!assi)cation is necessar( to a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%enta! interest. o 'ut note that the Court has occasiona!!( use& $ar(in" ter%ino!o"( in &e)nin" the stan&ar& o# re$iew, su""estin" a %o$e%ent awa( #ro% strict scrutin( #or%u!ation. o Fun&a%enta! ri"hts %a( e &eri$e& in&epen&ent!( #ro% pro$isions o# the Constitution or %a( e &epen&ent on the E>ua! Protection C!ause. o The #act that a c!assi)cation has so%e eIect on the exercise o# a #un&a%enta! ri"ht &oes not necessari!( %ean that a %ore strin"ent stan&ar& o# re$iew than rationa!it( wi!! e app!ie&. <n so%e cases, where the !aw &oes not &eter, pena!i4e or otherwise si"ni)cant!( ur&en the exercise o# the protecte& ri"ht, the Court has app!ie& the tra&itiona! rationa! asis test. 'i%t o" Interstate *iration 2 'esi&en)0 'e5!irements , The Court has reco"ni4e& a #un&a%enta! constitutiona! ri"ht o# interstate %o$e%ent, a!thou"h ne$er c!ear!( in&icatin" the source. o The nature o# our Fe&era! Anion an& our constitutiona! concepts o# persona! !iert( unite to re>uire that a!! citi4ens to e #ree to tra$e! throu"h the !en"th an& rea&th o# our !an& uninhiite& ( statutes, ru!es, or re"u!ations which unreasona!( ur&en or restrict this %o$e%ent. Sha0iro v. 6hom0son (19H9). =ource %a( e #ro% Art. 1 Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause. Pa"e 1- o# 9: A!ternati$e!(, the ri"ht )n&s no exp!icit %ention in the Constitution. The reason ein" that it is a ri"ht so e!e%entar( #ro% the e"innin" to e a necessar( conco%itant o# the stron"er Anion the Constitution create&. , 0hen the state "o$ern%ent %a8es recent exercise o# interstate tra$e! a asis #or &en(in" ene)ts, the c!assi)cation ur&ens the #un&a%enta! ri"ht to tra$e! an& the strict scrutin( o# 7u&icia! re$iew app!ies. o 'ut i# the c!assi)cation &oes not &eter, pena!i4e, or otherwise si"ni)cant!( ur&en the protecte& ri"ht, the Court wi!! not app!( strict scrutin(. , =tates can re>uire ona )&e e$i&ence o# current resi&enc(. McCarth) v. !hiladel0hia Civil Serv. Comm/n (19;H). o Court per curia% uphe!& %unicipa! re"u!ation re>uirin" e%p!o(ees o# the Cit( o# Phi!a&e!phia e resi&ents o# the cit(. 'ecause the re"u!ation in$o!$es proo# o# continuin" resi&enc( rather than prior &urationa! resi&enc(, the ri"ht to tra$e! is not i%p!icate&. , Wel"are@State Bene;ts4 =tate cannot &en( we!#are assistance to resi&ents who ha$e not resi&e& within the state #or at !east one (ear prece&in" their app!ication ecause this ur&ens the #un&a%enta! ri"ht (o# an in&i"ent) o# interstate %o$e%ent. Sha0iro v. 6hom0son (19H9). o =tate2s purpose to conser$e )sca! resources ( &eterrin" %i"ration o# nee&( persons is constitutiona!!( i%per%issi!e. =tate o7ecti$e to &iscoura"e in&i"ents who wou!& tra$e! to the =tate to otain !ar"er ene)ts %a( e 7usti)e&, ut none o# the statutes are tai!ore& to this purpose, as the c!ass o# arre& newco%ers is a!!,inc!usi$e, !u%pin" the "reat %a7orit( who co%e to the =tate #or other purposes (i.e., to %a8e a new !i#e) with those who co%e #or the so!e purpose o# co!!ectin" !ar"er ene)ts. .iIicu!t( in seein" how !on",ter% resi&ents who >ua!i#( #or we!#are are %a8in" a "reater present contriution to the =tate in taxes than in&i"ent resi&ents who ha$e recent!( arri$e&. o The E>ua! Protection C!ause prohiits =tate apportion%ent o# ene)ts an& ser$ices accor&in" to past tax contriutions o# its citi4ens. A c!assi)cation o# we!#are app!icants accor&in" to whether the( ha$e !i$e& in the =tate #or one (ear prior see% irrationa! an& unconstitutiona!. o Court a!so re7ects =tate2s reasons #or the waitin",perio& re>uire%ent, which/ 1) #aci!itates p!annin" o# the we!#are u&"et? *) pro$i&es an o7ecti$e test o# resi&enc(? :) %ini%i4es the opportunit( #or recipients #rau&u!ent!( to recei$e pa(%ents #ro% %ore than one 7uris&iction? 1) encoura"es ear!( entr( into the !aor #orce. o Court notes that this i%p!ies no $iew o# the $a!i&it( o# waitin",perio& or resi&ence re>uire%ents &eter%inin" e!i"ii!it( to $ote, e!i"ii!it( #or tuition,#ree e&ucation, to otain a !icense to practice a pro#ession, to hunt or )sh, an& so #orth. =uch re>uire%ents %a( pro%ote co%pe!!in" state interests on the one han&, or on the other, %a( not e pena!ties upon the exercise o# the constitutiona! ri"ht o# interstate tra$e!. o D. 0arren (with '!ac8) &issentin", #ra%es the >uestion as to whether Con"ress %a( create %ini%a! resi&ence re>uire%ents, not whether the =tates actin" a!one %a( &o so, since the case arises in ..C. Pa"e 1H o# 9: The insustantia!it( o# the restriction i%pose& ( resi&ence re>uire%ents %ust then e e$a!uate& in !i"ht o# the possi!e con"ressiona! reasons #or such re>uire%ents. Cur cases re>uire on!( that Con"ress ha$e a rationa! asis #or )n&in" that a chose re"u!ator( sche%e is necessar( to the #urtherance o# interstate co%%erce. o D. 3ar!an &issentin", ar"ues a"ainst expan&in" what constitutes a 5co%pe!!in" interest6 to inc!u&e recent interstate %o$e%ent. 5Co%pe!!in" interest6 &octrine ase& on two ranches/ 1) suspect c!ass, such as racia! c!assi)cation? *) #un&a%enta! ri"ht. The #un&a%enta! ri"ht ranch is %ore trou!eso%e ecause it has een he!& that a statutor( c!assi)cation is su7ect to the 5co%pe!!in" interest6 test i# the resu!t o# the c!assi)cation %a( e to aIect a 5#un&a%enta! ri"ht6 re"ar&!ess o# the asis o# the c!assi)cation. This is un#ortunate ecause it creates an exception which threatens to swa!!ow the stan&ar& E>ua! Protection ru!e, since $irtua!!( e$er( state statute aIects i%portant ri"hts. For exa%p!e, the Court has he!& that tra&itiona! E>ua! Protection stan&ar& is app!ica!e to statutor( c!assi)cation aIectin" such #un&a%enta! %atters as the ri"ht to pursue a particu!ar occupation, the ri"ht to recei$e "reater or s%a!!er wa"es or to wor8 %ore or !ess house, an& the ri"ht to inherit propert(. +i"hts such as these are in princip!e in&istin"uisha!e #ro% those in$o!$e& here, an& to exten& 5co%pe!!in" interest6 ru!e to a!! cases in which such ri"hts are aIecte& wou!& "o #ar towar& %a8in" this Court a 5super, !e"is!ature.6 This ranch o# the &octrine is a!so unnecessar(, since an( in#rin"e%ent can e &ea!t with un&er the .ue Process C!ause. < 8now nothin" which entit!es this Court to pic8 our particu!ar hu%an acti$ities, characteri4e the% as 5#un&a%enta!6 an& "i$e the% a&&e& protection un&er an unusua!!( strin"ent e>ua! protection test. The &ecision see%s to re@ect an unusua! &e"ree the notion that this Court possesses a pecu!iar wis&o% a!! its own. This resur"ence o# the expansi$e $iew o# 5e>ua! protection6 carries the see&s o# %ore 7u&icia! inter#erence with the state an& #e&era! !e"is!ati$e process. , =tate cannot con&ition pu!ic pro$ision o# non,e%er"enc( %e&ica! care on one, (ear &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ent ecause Sha0iro was #oun& to e contro!!in" an& the state #ai!e& to &e%onstrate a co%pe!!in" state interest #or ur&enin" the ri"ht to interstate tra$e!. Memorial ,os0. v. Marico0a Count) (19;:). o Sha0iro &i& not &ec!are &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ents as per se unconstitutiona!, on!( that the( %a( not &eter or pena!i4e the ri"ht to tra$e!. o Ge&ica! care is as %uch a asic necessit( o# !i#e to an in&i"ent as we!#are assistance. An& "o$ern%ent pri$i!e"es or ene)ts necessar( to asic Pa"e 1; o# 9: sustenance ha$e o#ten een $iewe& as ein" o# "reater constitutiona! si"ni)cant than !ess essentia! #or%s o# "o$ern%enta! entit!e%ents. , =tate can re>uire one,(ear resi&enc( in or&er app!( a &i$orce ecause o# the =tate2s $irtua!!( exc!usi$e re"u!ation o# &o%estic re!ations an& that the interest was not #orec!ose& ( %ere!( &e!a(e&. Sosna v. Iowa (19;-). , =tate cannot &istriute inco%e #ro% its natura! resources ase& on the &uration o# resi&enc( ecause it $io!ates E>ua! Protection when it creates perpetua! c!asses o# ona )&e resi&ents. 8o'el v. Williams (199*) ('ur"er #or the Court). o =tate interests to incenti$ise A!as8an resi&enc( an& encoura"e pru&ent %ana"e%ent o# the #un& were not ser$e& ( "rantin" "reater &i$i&en&s to certain in&i$i&ua!s. o Awar&in" citi4ens #or past contriutions was not a !e"iti%ate state interest. o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un, Powe!!) concurre& on the asis o# ri"ht to tra$e! an& the i&ea o# constitutiona!!( protecte& e>ua!it(. The past,contriution rationa!e is so #ar,reachin" in it potentia! app!ication, an& the re!ationship etween resi&ence an& contriution to the =tate so $a"ue an& insupporta!e, that it a%ounts to !itt!e %ore than a restate%ent o# the criterion #or &iscri%ination that it purports to 7usti#(. o D. C2Connor concurrin", e%p!o(e& the Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause an& note& that the =tate ha& #ai!e& to pro$e that the new resi&ents were a pecu!iar source o# an( e$i! or that the &iscri%ination ore a sustantia! re!ationship to the a%ount that peop!e %i"ht ha$e contriute& to the state. o D. +ehn>uist &issentin", ar"ues that the state interest in reco"ni4in" past contriutions satis)e& rationa!it( re$iew an& &i& not i%pe&e an(one2s ri"ht to tra$e! to the =tate. , =tate cannot "i$e $eteran e%p!o(%ent pre#erence ase& on in,state resi&enc( status at the ti%e o# en!ist%ent. #tt) &en/l of -. v. Soto9%o0ez (199H) (in$a!i&atin" OR !aw pre#errin" on!( those resi&ent $eterans who !i$e& in the state at the ti%e o# entr( into ser$ice). o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un, Powe!!) conc!u&e& that the pre#erence $io!ate& constitutiona!!( protecte& ri"hts to %i"rate an& to e>ua! protection o# the !aw. The =tate ha& not %et its hea$( ur&en o# pro$in" that it has se!ecte& a %eans o# pursuin" a co%pe!!in" state interest which &oes not i%pin"e unnecessari!( on constitutiona!!( protecte& interests. Cnce $eterans esta!ish a ona )&e resi&ence in a state, the( %a( not e &iscri%inate& a"ainst so!e!( on the &ate o# their arri$a!. o D. 'ur"er (with 0hite) concurrin", wou!& ha$e &eci&e& the case ase& on 8o'el usin" e>ua! protection rationa! asis ana!(sis, which wou!& ha$e in$a!i&ate the !aw pure!( on e>ua! protection. o D. C2Connor (with +ehn>uist, =te$ens) &issentin", too8 issue with the Court2s 5#ree,@oatin" ri"ht to %i"rate,6 e>ua! protection ana!(sis, an& #ai!ure to %a8es c!ear how %uch o# its ana!(sis is necessar( or suIicient to )n& a $io!ation o# the ri"ht to %i"rate in&epen&ent!( o# an E>ua! Protection C!ause $io!ation. , =tate cannot !i%it we!#are ene)ts a$ai!a!e to new!( arri$e& resi&ents ase& on pre$ious entit!e%ent in #or%er state, without $io!atin" Pri$i!e"es & Pa"e 19 o# 9: <%%unities C!ause & 11 th A%en&. Oew!( arri$e& citi4ens o# a state ha$e the ri"ht to the sa%e pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities en7o(e& ( other citi4ens o# the state. Saenz v. Roe (1999) (in&icatin" 5the appropriate stan&ar& %a( e %ore cate"orica! than that articu!ate& in Sha0iro, ut it is sure!( no !ess strict,6 ut app!ies inter%e&iate stan&ar&). o The ri"ht to tra$e! e%races : &iIerent co%ponents/ (1) it protects the ri"ht o# a citi4en o# one state to enter an& !ea$e another? (*) the ri"ht to e treate& as a we!co%e $isitor rather than an un#rien&!( a!ien when te%porari!( present in another state? (:) #or those who e!ect to eco%e per%anent resi&ents, the ri"ht to e treate& !i8e other citi4ens o# that =tate. o Per%issi!e 7usti)cations #or &iscri%ination etween resi&ents an& nonresi&ents are si%p!( inapp!ica!e to nonresi&ent2s exercise o# the ri"ht to %o$e into another =tate an& eco%e a resi&ent o# that =tate. o Court assu%es that the we!#are ene)t wi!! e consu%e& in,state, it is not a porta!e ene)t, un&er%inin" an( &urationa! re>uire%ent (7usti)e& #or other ene)ts, such as tuition rates an& &i$orce procee&in"s). o The >uestion is whether the =tate %a( acco%p!ish that en& ( the &iscri%inator( %eans it has chosen. o D. +ehn>uist (with Tho%as) &issentin", )n&s that the ri"ht to tra$e! is not at issue since the !iti"ants are resi&ents an& =tates shou!& ha$e the authorit( to ensure their pro"ra%s are not exp!oite&. .oes not see how the ri"ht to eco%e a citi4ens o# another =tate is a necessar( co%ponent o# the ri"ht to tra$e!. Court has con@ate& the ri"ht to tra$e! with the ri"ht to e>ua! state citi4enship. +esi&ence re>uire oth ph(sica! presence an& an intention to re%ain, the !atter o# which is si%p!( unwor8a!e to $eri#(. =tates use &urationa! re>uire%ents to test the !atter. o D. Tho%as (with +ehn>uist) &issentin", ar"ues that the %a7orit( %isinterprets the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause that was uninten&e& ( #ra%ers o# the 11 th A%en&. At the ti%e o# the 11 th A%en&., peop!e un&erstoo& 5pri$i!e"es or i%%unities o# citi4ens6 as #un&a%enta! ri"hts rather than e$er( pu!ic ene)t esta!ishe& ( positi$e !aw. The Slaughter9,ouse Cases sappe& the C!ause o# an( %eanin". The &e%ise o# the C!ause has contriute& in no s%a!! part to the current &isarra( o# our 11 th A%en&. 7urispru&ence. 'e#ore in$o8in" the C!ause, we shou!& en&ea$or to un&erstan& what the #ra%ers o# the 11 th A%en&. thou"ht that it %eant otherwise the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause wi!! eco%e another con$enient too! #or in$entin" new ri"hts, !i%ite& so!e!( ( the pre&i!ections o# those who happen at the ti%e to e %e%ers o# the Court. o Ootes/ L. Trie/ The co%ponent o# the ri"ht o# tra$e! con)r%e& in Saenz in$o!$e& in the e!aoration o# a structura! princip!es o# e>ua! citi4enship %ore than the protection o# an in&i$i&ua! ri"hts o# interstate %o$e%ent or an( in&i$i&ua! ri"ht &eri$in" #ro% either the Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause o# Art. <J or the Pri$i!e"es or Pa"e 19 o# 9: <%%unities C!ause o# 11 th A%en&. neither o# which spea8 in ter%s o# tra$e!, interstate %oi!it(, or an(thin" o# that sort. .outs that Saenz is a harin"er o# #resh new 7urispru&ence o# pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities. The Saenz &ecisions see%s to ha$e re$ea!e& a Court #ar %ore co%#orta!e protectin" ri"hts that can &escrie in architectura! ter%s, especia!!( in ter%s o# #e&era!is%, than it is in protectin" ri"hts that present the%se!$es as spheres o# persona! autono%( or as &i%ensions o# constitutiona!!( %an&ate& e>ua!it(. There was a concern that states, #ear#u! o# eco%in" we!#are %a"nates, wou!& en"a"e in a race to the otto%. Saenz ho!&s that the protections aIor&e& ( the Citi4enship C!ause a!so !i%its the powers o# the nationa! "o$ern%ent. D. O4e!ie ar"ues that the ri"ht to tra$e! is "roun&e& pure!( in the #e&era!ist structure an& is not tracea!e to the spirit o# speci)c pro$isions in the 'i!! o# +i"hts. 0hen $iewe& as a !i%itation on interstate con@ict, it is i!!o"ica! to construe the #ree %o$e%ent princip!e a!so as a !i%itation on the powers o# the nationa! "o$ern%ent. +. 3i!!/ Oeither the Saenz Court nor the prece&ents pro$i&e an a&e>uate account o# what it %eans to e a ona )&e resi&ent o# a state. The prece&ents su""est that the &e)nition o# state resi&ence wi!! $ar( with the particu!ar pro"ra% to which a new resi&ent see8s access. Saenz Court a&opte& a non&iscri%ination theor( that once a new resi&ent &e%onstrates that he is a ona )&e resi&ent, =tates are cate"orica!!( arre& #ro% &rawin" &istinctions that ur&en that new resi&ent ase& on !en"th o# resi&ence. 0hi!e the Saenz was correct to re7ect &iscri%ination a"ainst in&i"ent newco%ers in we!#are ene)ts "i$en the &an"er o# cu!tura! ani%osit(, the Court shou!& ha$e !i%ite& its cate"orica! non&iscri%ination ru!e to the context. G. =trasser ar"ues =tates that prohiit the reco"nition o# same7se- marriaes per#or%e& in another &o%ici!iar( $io!ate pri$i!e"es & i%%unities "uarantees ( &iscri%inatin" a"ainst nonresi&ents who are #orce& to choose etween re%ainin" in a state where the %arria"e was per#or%e& or surren&erin" their %arria"e in or&er to %i"rate to a new state. <# the pri$i!e"es o# nationa! citi4enship &o not inc!u&e so%ethin" as #un&a%enta! as the ri"ht to ha$e one2s %arria"e ($a!i& in the &o%ici!e at the ti%e o# ce!eration) reco"ni4e& in each state throu"h which one %i"ht tra$e! or to which one %i"ht %i"rate, then it is not c!ear what interests cou!& possi!( %eet the re!e$ant stan&ar&. , 6otin4 A re>uire%ent that a person e a resi&ent o# the state #or a (ear an& the count( #or : %os. e#ore ein" a!!owe& to $ote was he!& to e $io!ati$e o# the E>ua! Protection. Dunn v. Blumstein (19;*). Pa"e -0 o# 9: o The Court use& strict scrutin( ecause &en(in" so%e citi4ens the ri"ht to $ote, &epri$es the% o# a #un&a%enta! po!itica! ri"ht, which is the preser$ati$e o# a!! ri"hts, an& ecause such a resi&enc( re>uire%ent &irect!( i%pin"es on the exercise o# a secon& #un&a%enta! ri"htEri"ht to tra$e!. o Court #oun& the resi&enc( re>uire%ent was not necessar( to achie$in" the state interest o# !e"iti%ac( an& 8now!e&"ea!e $oters. Fixin" a constitutiona! accepta!e perio& is a %atter o# &e"ree, notin" that :0 &a(s appears to e a%p!e perio& #or the =tate to co%p!ete whate$er a&%inistrati$e tas8s necessar( to pre$ent #rau&. =i%i!ar!(, the re!ationship etween the =tate interest in an in#or%e& e!ectorate an& &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ents was too attenuate&. o A state2s -0 &a( &urationa! $otin" resi&enc( re>uire%ent an& -0 &a( $oter re"istration cutoI re>uire%ents were $a!i&. Marston v. %ewis (19;:). , T!ition Bene;ts4 Cne,(ear &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ent #or recei$in" in, state tuition rate is $a!i&. Starns v. Mal"erson (19;1). Pa"e -1 o# 9: F'33(O* OF 3AP'3SSION , The 1 st A%en&. exp!icit!( protects #ree&o% o# speech an& press on!( #ro% the #e&era! "o$ern%ent. , Protection was exten&e& to prohiit states #ro% ari&"in" this in &itlow v. -ew .or" (19*-), in which the Court state& that/ we %a( an& &o assu%e that #ree&o% o# speech an& o# the pressEwhich are protecte& ( the 1 st A%en&. #ro% ari&"e%ent ( Con"ressEare a%on" the #un&a%enta! persona! ri"hts an& 5!ierties6 protecte& ( the &ue process C!ause o# the 11 th A%en&. #ro% i%pair%ent ( the =tates. , Gan( cases re$iewe& de novo &ue to .octrine o# Constitutiona! Fact, when the #acts o# the case are oun& up with !e"a! &octrine that the(2re insepara!e. , Un,rote)te& S,ee)%4 3istorica!!(, there are so%e cate"ories o# expression that are co%p!ete!( unprotecte&/ #rau&, &e#a%ation, oscenit(, true threatsQ)"htin" wor&sQincite%ent. o Co%%ercia! speech is not co%p!ete!( protecte&. o .isc!osure o# oIicia! secrets is a!so assu%e& to e ari&"a!e without 1 st
A%en&. protection. , Cne wa( to approach #ree&o% o# expression is to i&enti#( cate"ories o# protecte& or unprotecte& expression. , Another wa( is to as8 what interest "o$ern%ent has in suppressin" a particu!ar #or% o# expression. <n recent (ears, the =upre%e Court has ten&e& (un&er =ca!ia2s pro&&in") in the !atter &irection, proin" "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es rather than the nature o# particu!ar speech. <n this approach, "o$ern%ent neutra!it( towar& content or $iewpoint eco%es an i%portant "oa!. First Amen&ment 'ationales 1) Gar8etp!ace o# <&eas a. Theor( ase& on the princip!e that the First A%en&. #ori&s the "o$ern%ent #ro% ta8in" si&es in the natura! stru""!e o# i&eas, representin" the app!ication o# =ocia! .arwinis% to i&eas. . <ntro&uce& ( D. 3o!%es, &issentin" in #'rams v. +S (1919), 5the est test o# truth is the power o# the thou"ht to "et itse!# accepte& in the co%petition o# the %ar8et, an& that truth is the on!( "roun& upon which their wishes sa#e!( can e carrie& out.6 c. Criticis%s/ i. <nterna! contra&iction that the theor(2s "oa! is the attain%ent o# truth, (et it posits that we can ne$er rea!!( 8now the truth, so we %ust 8eep !oo8in". 'ut i# we can ne$er attain the truth, wh( other to continue the #ruit!ess searchL The &an"er is that so%eone wi!! &eci&e that he has attaine& the truth an& wou!& e 7usti)e& in shuttin" oI expression o# an( $iews that are contrar(. ii. +e>uires peop!e to e a!e to use their rationa! capacities to e!i%inate &istortion cause& ( the #or% an& #re>uenc( o# %essa"e presentation an& to )n& the core o# re!e$ant in#or%ation or ar"u%ent. This assu%ption cannot e accepte& ecause e%otiona! or irrationa! appea!s ha$e "reat i%pact. iii. Free &iscussion o# i&eas is an i!!usion ecause the %ar8etp!ace o# i&eas is so &istorte& ( econo%ic rea!it( that the &issentin" i&ea rea!!( &oes not ha$e a #air chance. An&er the ru!e o# %onopo!istic %e&iaEthe%se!$es the %ere instru%ents o# econo%ic an& po!itica! powerEa %enta!it( is create& #ro% which ri"ht an& wron", true an& Pa"e -* o# 9: #a!se are pre&e)ne& whene$er the( eIect the $ita! interests o# the societ(. i$. Chan"es in the co%%unications in&ustr( ha$e &estro(e& the e>ui!iriu% in that %ar8etp!ace. A rea!istic $iew o# the 1 st A%en&. re>uires reco"nition that a ri"ht o# expression is so%ewhat thin i# it can exercise& on!( at the suIerance o# the %ana"ers o# %ass co%%unications. *) Citi4en Participant Go&e! a. Announce& in -ew .or" 6imes v. Sullivan, that the centra! purpose o# the 1 st A%en&. is to encoura"e $i"orous roust &iscussion o# pu!ic issues an& oIicia!s. =uch &iscussion is centra! to &e%ocratic "o$ern%ent in or&er that the peop!e %a( acti$e!( participate in "o$ernin". . Froun&s the 1 st A%en&. on the princip!e o# se!#,"o$ern%ent an& consent to authorit(Ethe princip!e o# #ree&o% o# speech sprin"s #ro% the necessities o# se!#,"o$ern%ent. c. Criticis%s/ i. This uti!itarian $iew &oes not "uarantee an( in&i$i&ua! protection o# speechEit is on!( re>uire& that e$er(thin" worth sa(in" sha!! e sai&. ii. +. 'or8 exten&e& the i%p!ication that on!( po!itica! speech &eser$es 1 st A%en&. protection. =ince the ene)ts o# non,po!itica! speech are in&istin"uisha!e #ro% the #unctions or ene)ts o# a!! other hu%an acti$it(, it is on!( the &isco$er( an& sprea& o# po!itica! truth that &istin"uishes speech #ro% an( other #or% o# hu%an acti$it( an& there#ore the on!( princip!e& asis upon which to pro$i&e "reater protection to speech than to other acti$ities. 1. <n response, it has een ar"ue& that there are nu%erous non, co%%unicati$e, non,speech acti$ities that %a( e thou"h to ai& in the attain%ent o# po!itica! truth. There is no cate"or( o# expression that #urthers a $a!ue o# $a!ues uni>ue to speech. :) <n&i$i&ua! Liert( Go&e! a. Free&o% o# expression ser$es in&i$i&ua! $a!ues as we!! as societa! "oa!s. =tate& in Whitne) v. Cal. that !iert( is $a!ue& oth 5as an en& an& as a %eans.6 Free&o% o# expression pro%otes in&i$i&ua! autono%( an& #urthers se!#,&eter%ination. . The !iert( %o&e! ho!&s that the #ree speech c!ause protects not a %ar8etp!ace ut rather an arena o# in&i$i&ua! !iert( #ro% certain t(pes o# "o$ern%enta! restrictions. Dusti)es protection ecause o# the wa( the protecte& con&uct #osters in&i$i&ua! se!#,rea!i4ation an& se!#, &eter%ination without i%proper!( inter#erin" with the !e"iti%ate c!ai%s o# others. c. Except, perhaps in extraor&inar( circu%stances, "o$ern%ent %a( not restrict speech ecause it #ears that the speech wi!! persua&e those who hear it to &o so%ethin" o# which the "o$ern%ent &isappro$es. &. Criticis%/ i. Cther eha$ior which ar"ua!( #urthers hu%an experience an& "rowth is re"u!ate& an& e$en prohiite& ( "o$ern%ent, an& the constitutiona! &e%an&s o# !iert( re>uire on!( that the !aw e reasona!e. Pa"e -: o# 9: 1. <# there is no princip!e o# #ree speech in&epen&ent o# a %ore "enera! !iert(, then #ree speech is %ore a p!atitu&e than a princip!e. FI'ST A*3N(*3NT *3TBO(OLOGC #+ A.sol!tist4 S,ee)%@A)tion (i)%otom0 a. 1 st A%en&. cou!& e rea& as an aso!utist prohiition on !aws re"u!atin" speech. . D. '!ac8/ G( $iew is without &e$iation, without exception, without an( i#s, uts, or whereases, that #ree&o% o# speech %eans that (ou sha!! not &o so%ethin" to peop!e either #or the $iews the( ha$e or the $iews the( express o# the wor&s the( spea8 or write. i. .oes not e!ie$e in the 5c!ear an& present &an"er6 &octrine has a p!ace in the interpretation o# the 1 st A%en&. c. A #un&a%enta! &istinction %ust e &rawn etween con&uct which consists o# 5expression6 an& con&uct which consists o# 5action.6 5Expression6 %ust e #ree!( a!!owe& an& encoura"e&. 5Action6 can e contro!!e&, su7ect to other constitutiona! re>uire%ents ut not ( contro!!in" expression. &. Criticis%/ that an aso!ute construction o# the 1 st A%en&. is not re>uire& ( the !an"ua"e o# the A%en&., not &ictate& ( the intent o# the #ra%ers, an& i%possi!e in practice. i. 0hat !itt!e e$i&ence there is su""ests that the #ra%ers inten&e& an extre%e!( narrow construction o# the A%en&. =o%eti%es, the #ree speech interest %ust "i$e wa( in such a situation to a co%petin" socia! interest an& so%e #or% o# a!ancin" process is use&. 2+ Cateories o" S,ee)% a. The Court has he!& that certain cate"ories o# speech are not entit!e& to #u!! 1 st A%en&. protection (e.". co%%ercia! speech), or to an( 1 st A%en&. protection (e.". )"htin" wor&s, oscenit(, chi!& porno"raph(). . =uch cate"ories o# speech are su7ect to 1 st A%en&. re$iew un&er certain circu%stances. These areas o# speech can, consistent with the 1 st
A%en&., e re"u!ate& ecause o# their constitutiona!!( proscria!e content (oscenit(, &e#a%ation, etc.). 'ut cannot e %a&e $ehic!es #or content &iscri%ination unre!ate& to their &istincti$e!( proscria!e content. i. The unprotecte& #eatures o# the wor&s are &espite their $era! character, essentia!!( a nonspeech e!e%ent o# co%%unication. Fo$ern%ent re"u!ates the %o&e o# speech as a %anner o# co%%unicatin" the i&ea. ii. =tate !aw that &iscri%inates within an unprotecte& cate"or( o# speech #ai!s strict scrutin( an& $io!ates the 1 st A%en&. R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (199*) (in$a!i&atin" statute that prohiite& on!( )"htin" wor&s that insu!t or pro$o8e $io!ence on the ases o# race, co!or, cree& re!i"ion or "en&er). 1. The &iscri%ination etween #or%s o# )"htin" wor&s was he!& to e an unconstitutiona! re"u!ation ase& on speech content which #ai!e& to satis#( strict scrutin( re$iew. 1+ Stri)t S)r!tin0 Pa"e -1 o# 9: a. Court has a!so e%p!o(e& strict scrutin( stan&ar& o# re$iew, i%posin" a hea$( ur&en o# 7usti)cation on "o$ern%ent when it see8s to re"u!ation speech content. i. C!ear & Present .an"er test, necessar( to a co%pe!!in" state interest. . An&er this test, the !aw is presu%pti$e!( in$a!i&. c. Co%pe!!e& speech wi!! e su7ect to this test. $+ Balan)in a. 0hen a !aw is on!( in&irect!( or inci&enta!!( ur&ens #ree&o% o# speech, the Court is %ore !i8e!( to en"a"e in so%e #or% o# o$ert a!ancin" o# the co%petin" interests to &eter%ine i# the !aw is reasona!e. . The interests o# the "o$ern%ent in re"u!atin" the acti$it( are wei"he& a"ainst the ur&en on #ree speech interests. c. At ti%es, the a$ai!ai!it( o# !ess ur&enso%e a!ternati$es to achie$e the "o$ern%ent interests are consi&ere&. 'ut it is not necessar( that the "o$ern%ent a&opt the !east restricti$e %eans. Ward v. Roc" #gainst Racism (1999). &. The &e"ree o# 7u&icia! scrutin( in interest a!ancin" $aries wi&e!(. i. <n so%e cases, the courts en"a"e in si%p!e a& hoc a!ancin" o# the co%petin" interests. ii. <n other cases, a %ore wei"hte& a!ancin" is use&, such as that the !aw %ust e narrow!(,tai!ore& to achie$e an i%portant "o$ern%ent interest. iii. =o%e $iew the C!ear & Present .an"er &octrine an& strict scrutin( as %ore strin"ent #or%s o# interest a!ancin". D+ Content7Base& v9 Content7Ne!tral 'e!lation a. Content,'ase&/ 0hen the "o$ern%ent un&erta8es to re"u!ate expression ecause o# the content o# the speech, ecause o# what is ein" sai&, the !aw is presu%pti$e!( in$a!i& an& strict scrutin( wi!! e app!ie&. i. =u7ect,%ater &iscri%ination is presu%pti$e!( in$a!i& ecause there is a concern that "o$ern%ent wi!! &istort the pu!ic &eate or #a$or particu!ar %essa"es. ii. Jiew,point ase& re"u!ation is e$en %ore >uestiona!e. iii. A re"u!ation neutra! on its #ace %a( e content,ase& i# its %ani#est purpose i# to re"u!ate speech ecause o# the %essa"e it con$e(s. The Court has a!so use& E>ua! Protection C!ause to pre$ent &iscri%ination a"ainst particu!ar speech, i&eas, or spea8ers. i$. 0hen re"u!atin" on the asis o# content, "o$ern%ent %ust pro$e that the !aw #a!!s into a cate"or( o# !ow,$a!ue o# no,$a!ue speech or %ust 7usti#( the !aw ( esta!ishin" that the &iIerentia! treat%ent is necessar( to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state interest an& is narrow!( &rawn to achie$e that en&. Simon 1 Schuster v. Mem'ers of -. State Crime 5ictims Bd. (1991). 1. Law prohiitin" pic8etin" near schoo!, except #or !aor &isputes is unconstitutiona! as a #or% o# content &iscri%ination. !olice De0t. of Chicago v. Mosle) (19;*) (Garsha!! #or the Court co%ine& e>ua! protection ana!(sis with pu!ic #oru% concepts an& see%e& to announce princip!es app!ica!e to a!! #ree speech cases). Pa"e -- o# 9: a. 'ecause the !aw treats so%e pic8etin" &iIerent!( #ro% others, we ana!(4e this or&inance in ter%s o# E>ua! Protection C!ause o# the 11 th A%en&. The E>ua! Protection c!ai% is c!ose!( intertwine& with 1 st A%en&. interests ecause it in$o!$es expressi$e con&uct, in ter%s o# the su7ect o# the pic8etin". . Crucia! >uestion is whether there is an appropriate "o$ern%enta! interest suita!( #urthere& ( the &iIerentia! treat%ent. c. An&er E>ua! Protection an& 1 st A%en&., "o$ern%ent %a( not "rant the use o# a #oru% to peop!e whose $iews it )n&s accepta!e, ut &en( use to those wishin" to express !ess #a$ore& or %ore contro$ersia! $iews. *. Law re>uirin" inco%e #ro% a contract #or a &epiction o# a cri%e o# an accuse& or con$icte& person to e put in escrow #un& #or the $icti% $io!ates the 1 st A%en&. Simon v. Schuster v. Mem'ers of the -. State Crime 5ictims Bd. (1991). a. The Court #oun& the !aw to e a content,ase& statute ecause it sin"!es out inco%e &eri$e& #ro% expressi$e acti$it( #or a ur&en the =tate p!ace on no other inco%e, an& it is &irecte& on!( at wor8s with a speci)e& content. . 'ecause the !aw esta!ishes a )nancia! &isincenti$e to create or pu!ish wor8s with a particu!ar content, it cou!& e uphe!& on!( i# it ser$e& a co%pe!!in" state interest an& were narrow!( &rawn to ser$e that interest. The !aw was not narrow!(,tai!ore& to the state2s un&ispute& co%pe!!in" interest in ensurin" that cri%ina!s &o not pro)t #ro% their cri%es. c. D. Kenne&( concurrin", re7ecte& the use o# strict scrutin( #or such a content,ase& re"u!ation in #a$or o# a per se ru!e, since the !aw is &irecte& to speech a!one that &oes not #a!! into a proscria!e cate"or( an& hence is protecte&. . Content,Oeutra!/ Fo$ern%ent re"u!ations that are unre!ate& to the content o# the speech are su7ect to a !esser &e"ree o# 7u&icia! scrutin(, an inter%e&iate re$iew, e$en thou"h speech %a( e inci&enta!!( ur&ene&. i. <# a !aw is 7usti)e& without re#erence to the content o# the re"u!ate& speech, it %a( e he!& to e content,neutra!. ii. Court wi!! re>uire that the !aw e 5narrow!( tai!ore& to ser$e a si"ni)cant "o$ern%ent interest an& !ea$e open a%p!e a!ternati$e channe!s o# co%%unication.6 iii. A "o$ern%ent re"u!ation is suIicient!( 7usti)e&B (1) i# it #urthers an i%portant or sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest/ (*) i# the "o$ern%ent interest is unre!ate& to the suppression o# #ree expression? an& (:) i# the inci&enta! restriction o# a!!e"e& 1 st A%en&. #ree&o%s is no "reater than is essentia! to the #urtherance o# that interest. +S v. O/Brien. Pa"e -H o# 9: 1. This &oes not re>uire that "o$ern%ent use the !east ur&enso%e %eans, i# the %eans are &irect an& eIecti$e. *. +e"u!atin" !ocation o# a&u!t theaters he!& to e content, neutra! ecause i# was &irecte& to secon&ar( eIects o# a&u!t theaters an& not the content o# the a&u!t %o$ies. An( ur&en on speech was &ee%e& on!( inci&enta!. Cit) of Renton v. !la)time 6heaters (199H). :. Fo$ern%ent can re>uire that ca!e te!e$ision s(ste%s carr( !oca! roa&cast stations. 6urner Broadcasting S)s. v. CC (1991). a. Principa! in>uir( to &eter%ine content neutra!it( is whether the "o$ern%ent has a&opte& a re"u!ation o# speech ecause o# a"ree%ent or &isa"ree%ent with the %essa"e it con$e(s. i. The purpose wi!! o#ten e e$i&ent on its #ace. 3owe$er, whi!e a content,ase& purpose %a( e suIicient in certain circu%stances to show that a re"u!ation is content,ase&, it is not necessar( in a!! cases. . The ru!es are content,neutra!. i. The( i%pose ur&ens an& con#er ene)ts without re#erence to the content o# the speech. 1. 0hi!e the ru!es inter#ere& with e&itoria! &iscretion, the extent o# the inter#erence &oes not &epen&s on the ca!e operators2 pro"ra%%in". ii. The pro$isions &o not pose such inherent &an"ers to #ree expression, or present such potentia! #or censorship or %anipu!ation, as to 7usti#( app!ication o# strict scrutin(. c. Thus, shou!& e re$iewe& un&er the inter%e&iate !e$e! o# scrutin( app!ica!e to content,neutra! restrictions that i%pose an inci&enta! ur&en on speech. Clear 2 Present (aner (o)trine , A&$ocac( o# i!!e"a! con&uct &irecte& to incitin" or pro&ucin" i%%inent !aw!ess action which are !i8e!( to resu!t can e suppresse& ecause o# its content. Braden'urg v. Ohio (19H9). , First #or%u!ate& in Schenc" v. +S (1919), ( D. 3o!%es/ The >uestion in e$er( case is whether the wor&s use& are use& in such circu%stances an& are o# such a nature as to create a c!ear an& present &an"er that the( wi!! rin" aout the sustanti$e e$i!s that Con"ress has a ri"ht to pre$ent. <t is a >uestion o# proxi%it( an& &e"ree (Court aIir%e& con$iction o# &istriutor o# !ea@ets that encoura"e& ostruction o# the &ra#t). o 0hen a nation is at war %an( thin"s that %i"ht e sai& in ti%e o# peace are such a hin&rance to its eIort that their utterance wi!! not e en&ure& so !on" as %en )"ht an& that no Court shou!& re"ar& the% as protecte& ( an( constitutiona! ri"ht. o D. 'ran&eis concurrin" in Whitne) v. Cal. (19*;), reco"ni4e& the $a!ue o# #ree&o%s o# expression as oth an en& an& as a %eans to the &isco$er( Pa"e -; o# 9: an& sprea& o# po!itica! truth. 5'ut e$en a&$ocac( o# $io!ence, howe$er reprehensi!e %ora!!(, is not a 7usti)cation #or &en(in" #ree speech where the a&$ocac( #a!!s short o# incite%entB <n or&er to support a )n&in" o# c!ear an& present &an"er, it %ust e shown either that i%%e&iate serious $io!ence was to e expecte& or was a&$ocate&, or that the past con&uct #urnishe& reason to e!ie$e that such a&$ocac( was then conte%p!ate&. Oo &an"er @owin" #ro% speech can e &ee%e& c!ear an& present, un!ess the inci&ence o# e$i! apprehen&e& is so i%%inent that it %a( e#a!! e#ore there is opportunit( #or #u!! &iscussion. The court %ust conc!u&e that a particu!ar restraint is 7usti)e& ecause o# the &an"er. A !e"is!ati$e 7u&"%ent that the &an"er is too i%%e&iate an& too serious to per%it the nor%a! re!iance on #ree &iscussion is not conc!usi$e e$en i# it is reasona!e. o Masses Test4 D. 3an& e%phasi4e& the nature o# the speech rather than circu%stances. Cn!( &irect incite%ent o# i!!e"a! con&uct wou!& e prohiite& an& that the "ra$it( o# the e$i! %ust e &iscounte& ( its i%proai!it(. Masses !u'lishing v. !atten (191;) (OR post%aster re#use& to &e!i$er a pu!ication that ha%pere& the war eIort, in accor&ance with the Espiona"e Act). D. 3o!%es pointe& out that punishin" incite%ent %i"ht a!!ow "o$ern%ent inter$ention e#ore an( rea! threat existe&. o Criticis%s/ The &octrine is an o$ersi%p!i)e& 7u&"%ent un!ess it ta8es account a!so o# a nu%er o# other #actors/ the re!ati$e seriousness o# the &an"er in co%parison with the $a!ue o# the occasion #or speech or po!itica! acti$it(? the a$ai!ai!it( o# %ore %o&erate contro!s than those which the state has i%pose&? an& perhaps the speci)c intent with which the speech or acti$it( is !aunche&. Test assu%es that once expression i%%e&iate!( threatens the attain%ent o# so%e $a!i& socia! o7ecti$e, the expression can e prohiite&. To per%it the state to cut oI expression as soon as it co%es c!ose to ein" eIecti$e is essentia!!( to a!!ow on!( astract or innocuous expression. 'a!ancin" tests ine$ita!( eco%e intertwine& with the i&eo!o"ica! pre&ispositions o# those &oin" the a!ancin"Eor i# not that, at !east with the re!ati$e con)&ence or paranoia o# the a"e in which the( are &oin" it. , *o&ern Test4 Focuses on oth the nature o# the speech an& the &an"er it presents. The "o$ern%ent cannot an a&$ocac( o# un!aw#u! con&uct un!ess it is/ (1) &irecte& to pro&ucin" i%%inent !aw!ess action an& is (*) !i8e!( to pro&uce such actions. Braden'urg v. Ohio (19H9) (in$a!i&atin" state statute that &i& not &istin"uish etween %ere a&$ocac( an& incite%ent to i%%inent !aw!ess action). o Cn!( intentiona! incite%ent o# un!aw#u! con&uct, not a&$ocac( o# astract &octrine, can e punishe&. o D. .ou"!ass concurrin", e!ie$es that the C!ear & Present .an"er .octrine is not reconci!a!e with the 1 st A%en&. &urin" peaceti%e. o Ootes/ Pa"e -9 o# 9: <t co%ines the %ost protecti$e in"re&ients o# the Masses incite%ent e%phasis with the %ost use#u! e!e%ents o# the c!ear an& present &an"er herita"e. The test aIor&s the Court an opportunit( to re$iew !ower courts throu"h constitutiona! #act, since the ru!e is ase& on oth content an& context. Braden'urg c!ear!( i%p!ies that the proai!it( that speech %a( rin" aout an un!aw#u! act is not a suIicient constitutiona! asis #or cri%ina!i4in" it, un!ess the speech is so c!ose!(, i%%e&iate!(, an& intentiona!!( en"a"e& with a particu!ar un!aw#u! act that the speech itse!# is part an& parce! o# that act, or an atte%pt (in the cri%ina! !aw sense o# the wor&) to rin" it aout. G. +e&ish/ <n a!! rea!it(, a!! the Court inten&e& to &o in Braden'urg was to app!( the &istinction etween protecte& astract a&$ocac( on the one han& an& unprotecte& a&$ocac( o# concrete #uture at so%e un&eter%ine& point on the other. o A&$ocac( o# i!!e"a! action at so%e in&e)nite #uture ti%e (an& was not &irect!( a&&resse& to an( "roup o# persons) !ac8s !i8e!ihoo& that it wou!& pro&uce i%%inent &isor&er. ,ess v. Indiana (19;:) (app!(in" Braden'urg, re$erse& a con$iction o# anti,war &e%onstrator #or sa(in" 5we2!! ta8e the #uc8in" street !ater6). o Coer)ive S,ee)%4 =tate%ents inten&e& to exercise a coerci$e i%pact &oes not re%o$e the% #ro% the reach o# the 1 st A%en&. -##C! v. Clair'orne ,ardware Co. (199*) (speech ( OAACP !ea&er warnin" o# 5&iscip!ine6 a"ainst !ac8s $io!atin" an econo%ic o(cott o# white %erchants was protecte& speech) =peech &i& not authori4e or &irect!( threaten acts o# $io!ence nor &irecte& incite%ent o# i%%inent !aw!ess action. Prior 'estraint (o)trine , Gan( ha$e ar"ue& that the #ree&o% o# speech co%prehen&e& in the ori"ina! un&erstan&in" o# the 1 st A%en&. was to !i%it prohiition o# prior restraints, which ten&s to e %ore sweepin" an& inhiitin", (as it cuts oI co%%unication e#ore it ta8es p!ace) an& cannot e co!!atera!!( attac8e&. o Topica! exceptions/ nationa! securit(, oscenit( an& incite%ent (see UOotes2 e!ow). , Prior restraints in$o!$e "o$ern%ent restraints on #ree&o% o# expression which operate prior to the ti%e that expression entere& the %ar8etp!ace o# i&eas (as oppose& to pena!ties a#ter the #act, e.". reach o# peace, &isor&er!( con&uct, &e#a%ation). o Ex/ !icensin", per%it s(ste%s, censorship, in7unctions , Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 Prior restraints are hi"h!( suspect, oth sustanti$e!( an& proce&ura!!(, an& there is a sustantia! presu%ption a"ainst their constitutiona!it(. The "o$ern%ent ears a hea$( ur&en o# showin" 7usti)cation #or the i%position o# such a restraint. o Fenera!!(, the Court has pro#esse& to e%p!o( the C!ear & Present .an"er .octrine in re$iewin" prior restraint s(ste%s. -e'. !ress #ssn. v. Stuart (19;H). Pa"e -9 o# 9: , 0hi!e not 0er se i%per%issi!e, prior restraints are su7ect to c!ose 7u&icia! scrutin(. -ear v. Minn. (19:1) (in$a!i&atin" !aw en7oinin" pu!ications that re"u!ar!( pu!ish %a!icious, scan&a!ous %ateria!). o Ootes/ Cne a&$anta"e o# the &octrine is that it &oes not re>uire the sa%e &e"ree o# 7u&icia! a!ancin" that the courts ha$e he!& to e necessar( in %ost 1 st A%en&. contexts. An&er -ear, the nor% is inten&e& to e #ree&o% #ro% prior restraint. Ja!i& prior restraints are inten&e& to e the exception, which the Court !ists/ nationa! securit(, oscenit(, an& incite%ent to $io!ence. 3owe$er, the Court ne$er exp!ains what %a8es his three exceptions exceptiona!. D. 'ut!er ar"ues that the re"u!ation cha!!en"e& in -ear was not a prior restraint at a!! ecause an in7unction cou!& on!( e otaine& a#ter a 7u&icia! &eter%ination an& cou!& e &irecte& on!( a"ainst repeat pu!ications o# si%i!ar nature. E. Jo!o8h ar"ues that the prior restraint &octrine shou!& not prohiit per%anent in7unctions o# unprotecte& speech, entere& a#ter a #u!! consi&eration o# the %erits whether at tria! or on su%%ar( 7u&"%ent. To a certain extent the Court has reco"ni4e& that a&%inistrati$e restraints are %ore har%#u!. 3owe$er, in a nu%er o# cases, the Court has i%pose& its hea$( ne"ati$e presu%ption on 7u&icia! in7unctions, without &istin"uishin" such restraints #ro% the a&%inistrati$e $ariet(. <n -e'. !ress #ss/n v. Stuart, the Court re$erse& a "a" or&er, restrainin" %e&ia co$era"e, issue& ( a state tria! 7u&"e ecause o# the #ai!ure to consi&er a!ternati$es to a restrainin" or&er. o Court cou!& not issue an in7unction, asent a Con"ressiona! statute, restrainin" a newspaper pu!ication o# a c!assi)e& stu&( on the Jietna% 0ar. Fo$ern%ent #ai!e& to &e%onstrate that the pu!ication wou!& necessari!( in$o!$e &irect, i%%e&iate, an& irrepara!e &a%a"e to the nation. -. 6imes v. +S (19;1). o Protecti$e or&er prohiitin" &isse%ination, prior to tria!, o# in#or%ation "aine& throu"h the pretria! &isco$er( process &oes not $io!ate the 1 st
A%en&. ecause the restraint was no "reater than necessar( to protect the inte"rit( o# the &isco$er( process an& &i& not restrict &isse%ination o# the in#or%ation i# "aine& #ro% other sources. Seattle 6imes Co. v. Rhinehart (1991). , I&enti"0in Prior 'estraints4 The &iIicu!t( is that the Court has so%eti%es app!ie& the ter% so !iera!!( as to &epri$e it o# an( har& %eanin". The specia! $ice o# a prior restraint is that co%%unication wi!! e suppresse&, either &irect!( or ( in&ucin" excessi$e caution in the spea8er, e#ore an a&e>uate 7u&icia! &eter%ination so that it is unprotecte& ( the 1 st A%en&. o <t shou!& not e thou"ht that 7ust ecause a !aw pre$ents a co%%unication #ro% occurrin" that the contro! auto%atica!!( eco%es a prior restraint. .isor&er!( con&uct, reach o# the peace, oscenit( !aws, Pa"e H0 o# 9: e$en when narrow!( &rawn to con#or% to =upre%e Court re>uire%ents, inhiit #ree expression an& ten& to pro&uce se!#,censorship. There is an a%i"uous or&er!an& where contro!s exist which can e c!assi)e& either as exa%p!es o# suse>uent punish%ent or as prior restraints. o For the part( see8in" to in$a!i&ate the contro!, characteri4in" a re"u!ation as a prior restraint %a( in&uce a court to &e%an& a hea$( ur&en o# 7usti)cation, re>uire& to sustain a prior restraint. , Oot a!! in7unctions are prior restraints su7ect to the hea$( presu%ption o# unconstitutiona!it(. <# the in7unction on!( inci&enta!!( aIects expression an& is content,neutra!, the prior restraint &octrine &oes not app!(. o The Court as8s whether the cha!!en"e& pro$isions o# the in7unctions ur&en no %ore speech than necessar( to ser$e a si"ni)cant "o$ern%ent interests. o The "reater the &an"er o# censorship an& &iscri%inator( app!ication, the Court e%p!o(s a so%ewhat %ore strin"ent stan&ar& than nor%a!!( use& #or content,neutra! re"u!ations. o 0hi!e content,ase& per%it s(ste%s are ur&ene& sustanti$e!( an& proce&ura!!(, a content,neutra! per%it s(ste% not in$o!$in" censorship concerns nee& on!( contain a&e>uate stan&ar&s to "ui&e a&%inistrati$e &iscretion an& ren&er the oIicia!2s actions su7ect to 7u&icia! re$iew. First Amen&ment 6a!eness 2 Over.rea&t% , <# the !an"ua"e o# the !aw is unconstitutiona!!( $a"ue or o$erroa& on its #ace, the #act that it is app!ie& in a narrow, constitutiona! %anner wi!! not sa$e the !aw. , 6a!eness4 A !aw is #acia!!( in$a!i& i# it is not &rawn with suIicient c!arit( an& &e)niteness to in#or% persons o# or&inar( inte!!i"ence what actions are proscrie&. A $a"ue statute re"u!atin" the 1 st A%en&. acti$it( is #un&a%enta!!( un#air, $io!atin" oth &ue process an& #ree&o% o# expression. o Cne o# the %ost #un&a%enta! $ices o# a $a"ue statute is that the in&i$i&ua! is not "i$en #air warnin" that his or her con&uct wi!! run a#ou! o# the statutor( an. o The 1 st A%en&. &e%an&s specia! c!arit( in oth cri%ina! an& ci$i! !aws ur&enin" #ree&o% o# expression so that protecte& expression wi!! not e chi!!e& or suppresse&. , Over.rea&t%4 A !aw is #acia!!( in$a!i& i# it is sustantia!!( o$erroa& in that the !aw in&iscri%inate!( reaches oth constitutiona!!( protecte& an& unprotecte& acti$it(. A statute %ust e precise!( &rawn so that protecte& eha$ior is not chi!!e& or suppresse&. o The &octrine postu!ates that the "o$ern%ent %a( not achie$e its conce&e&!( $a!i& purpose ( %eans that sweep unnecessari!( roa&!(, reachin" constitutiona!!( protecte& as we!! as unprotecte& acti$it(. o <t can ser$e as a use#u! too! to test the !e"iti%ac( o# !aw%a8ers2 %oti$es? the c!ose the )t etween the "o$ern%ent2s chosen %eans an& its $a!i& o7ecti$es, the %ore !i8e!( it is that !aw%a8ers tru!( sou"ht to #u!)!! those o7ecti$es. Pa"e H1 o# 9: o Stan&in4 The &istincti$e conse>uence o# the o$errea&th &octrine is its &eparture #ro% stan&in" princip!es. A !iti"ant has stan&in" to cha!!en"e the constitutiona!it( o# an o$erroa& statute e$en thou"h his acti$ities cou!& e prohiite& un&er a proper!( &rawn statute ecause the !aw cou!& e app!ie& to another whose con&uct cou!& not e re"u!ate& un&er a proper!( &rawn !aw an& who %a( e chi!!e& in the exercise o# their 1 st
A%en&. ri"hts. , <ncreasin"!(, the Court re>uires rea! an& sustantia! o$errea&th #or #acia! in$a!i&it(. The Court wi!! consi&er the !i8e!ihoo& that a si"ni)cant a%ount o# protecte& speech wi!! e ur&ene& an& the potentia! constitutiona! app!ications o# the !aw. Broderic" v. O"lahoma (19;:) (re7ectin" oth $a"ueness an& o$errea&th cha!!en"es to =tate !aw restrictin" the po!itica! acti$ities o# the state2s ci$i! ser$ants? an& whate$er o$errea&th that %a( exist shou!& e cure& throu"h case,(,case ana!(sis o# the #acts). o 0here con&uct an& not %ere!( speech is in$o!$e&, the o$errea&th o# the statute %ust not on!( e rea!, ut sustantia! as we!!, 7u&"e& in re!ation to the statute2s p!ain!( !e"iti%ate sweep. D. 'rennan (an& : other 7ustices) &issentin" too8 issue with the #act that the Court %a8es no eIort to &e)ne what it %eans ( 5sustantia! o$errea&th6 an& oIers no exp!anation as to wh( &eterrence o# con&uct shou!& e $iewe& &iIerent!( #ro% &eterrence o# speech, e$en where oth are e>ua!!( protecte& ( the 1 st A%en&. o The concept o# sustantia! o$errea&th is not rea&i!( re&uce& to an exact &e)nition. There %ust e a rea!istic chance that the statute itse!# wi!! si"ni)cant!( co%pro%ise reco"ni4e& 1 st A%en&. protection o# parties not e#ore the Court #or it to e #acia!!( cha!!en"e& on o$errea&th "roun&s. %# Cit) Council v. 6a70a)ers for 5incent (1991) (upho!&in" an or&inance prohiitin" the postin" o# si"ns on pu!ic propert(). The %ere #act that one can concei$e o# so%e i%per%issi!e app!ications o# a statute is not suIicient to ren&er i# suscepti!e to an o$errea&th cha!!en"e. o Ja"ue an& excessi$e intrusion on #ree asse%!( an& association o# a cit( or&inance %a8in" it a cri%e #or one or %ore persons to asse%!e on the si&ewa!8 an& there con&uct the%se!$es in a %anner anno(in" to persons passin" (. Coates v. Cincinnati (19;1). o 'annin" a!! 1 st A%en&. acti$ities within the centra! airport ter%ina! is #acia!!( unconstitutiona! un&er the o$errea&th &octrine. Bd. of #ir0ort Comm/r of %# v. $ews for $esus (199;). The an reaches the uni$erse o# expressi$e acti$it( an& purports to create a $irtua! 1 st A%en&.,#ree 4one at LAT an& &oes not %ere!( re"u!ate expressi$e acti$it( in that %i"ht create pro!e%s such as con"estion or &isruption o# acti$ities. Fi%tin Wor&s (o)trine4 Fi%tin Wor&s, Tr!e T%reats, an& O>ensive S,ee)% , Fo$ern%ent can i%pose care#u!!( &rawn content,ase& re"u!ation when the speech constitutes )"htin" wor&sEwor&s which ( their $er( utterance in@ict in7ur( or ten& to incite an i%%e&iate reach o# the peace. Pa"e H* o# 9: , The &octrine is ase& on the theor( that )"htin" wor&s are o# such s!i"ht $a!ue as a step to truth as not to %erit 1 st A%en&. protection. The #ocus is on the nature o# the speech rather than on the context. 0hi!e the &octrine ori"ina!!( was !i%ite& to #ace to #ace $era! encounters that are !i8e!( to pro&uce a $io!ent reaction #ro% a reasona!e person, it has increasin"!( een %er"e& into the %o&ern C!ear & Present .an"er &octrine, un&er Braden'urg. , Test4 The test is what %en o# co%%on inte!!i"ence wou!& un&erstan& wou!& e wor&s !i8e!( to cause an a$era"e a&&ressee to )"ht. Cha0lins") v. -, (191*). o Fi"htin" wor&s inc!u&e persona!!( ausi$e epithets, which are inherent!( !i8e!( to pro$o8e $io!ent reaction. Cohen v. Cal. (19;1). o Over.rea&t% 2 6a!eness4 The Court has pro$i&e& !itt!e "ui&ance on what wor&s constitute )"htin" wor&s. <nstea&, it has ten&e& to ho!& that the statute in >uestion is not !i%ite& to )"htin" wor&s, an& there#ore is o$erroa& or $a"ue an& hence #acia!!( unconstitutiona!. , =tate cannot punish wor&s that are %ere!( oIensi$e. Cohen v. Cal (5Fuc8 the .ra#t6 on the ac8 o# a 7ac8et worn outsi&e courthouse &oes not constitute )"htin" wor&s, since the %essa"e was not &irecte& to an( person an& was not an incite%ent). o =tates are #ree to an 5)"htin" wor&s,6 ut in this instance it was not c!ear!( &irecte& to a speci)c person, so that no in&i$i&ua! present cou!& reasona!( ha$e re"ar&e& the wor&s on the 7ac8et as a &irect persona! insu!t. o The %ere presu%e& presence o# unwittin" !isteners or $iewers &oes not ser$e auto%atica!!( to 7usti#( curtai!in" a!! potentia!!( oIensi$e speech. <n or&er #or the "o$ern%ent to shut oI &iscourse so!e!( to protect others #ro% hearin" it, &epen&s upon a showin" that sustantia! pri$ac( interests are ein" in$a&e& in an essentia!!( an into!era!e %anner. Goreo$er, no rea&i!( ascertaina!e "enera! princip!e exists #or &eter%inin" what is oIensi$e. Fo$ern%ent oIicia!s cannot %a8e &istinctions in this area o# taste an& st(!e that is so in&i$i&ua!. o Guch !in"uistic expression ser$es co%%unicates oth e%otion an& i&eas. 0e cannot sanction the $iew that the Constitution, whi!e so!icitous o# the co"niti$e content o# in&i$i&ua! speech, has !itt!e or no re"ar& #or that e%oti$e #unction, which %a( o#ten e the %ore i%portant e!e%ent o# the o$era!! %essa"e sou"ht to e co%%unicate&. o Ootes & Criticis%s/ D. Powe!! in a suse>uent case &issentin", ar"ue& #or reco"ni4in" an& proscriin" oIensi$e speech, &e)ne& as 5the wi!!#u! use o# scurri!ous !an"ua"e ca!cu!ate& to oIen& the sensii!ities o# an unwi!!in" au&ience.6 T. =hea/ The C!ear & Present .an"er &octrine #ocuses the reactions o# the actua! a&&ressees, where as the Fi"htin" 0or&s .octrine !oo8s to the proa!e reactions o# reasona!e persons. The Court2s suse>uent attention to the reactions o# the particu!ar a&&ressee su""ests that the )"htin" wor&s &octrine is rapi&!( eco%in" on!( a #or% o# the c!ear an& present &an"er &octrine. .. Farer/ Cohen; in re7ectin" the =tate2s ai!it( to re"u!ate oIensi$e !an"ua"e e%p!o(s a a!ancin" test restraine& (/ 1) a Pa"e H: o# 9: stron" concern #or sharpness o# #ocus in re"u!ator( sche%es, an& *) a reutta!e presu%ption a"ainst reco"ni4in" new 7usti)cations #or content re"u!ation. =. Far& ar"ues that the Fi"htin" 0or&s &octrine shou!& e aan&one& ecause such !an"ua"e 1 st A%en&. protection. The &octrine, which operates, at est to pena!i4e in&i$i&ua!s #or #ai!in" to show others the respect societ( &ee%s proper, an& at worse, to pena!i4e in&i$i&ua!s #or $ehe%ent criticis% o# "o$ern%ent oIicia!, is si%p!( not constitutiona!!( 7usti)e&. G. +e&ish/ The theoretica! #a!!ac( in Cha0lins") &octrine is the assu%ption that the $a!ue o# #ree speech is a %eans to attain truth. <# one reco"ni4es that the pri%ar( $a!ue o# #ree speech is a %eans o# #osterin" in&i$i&ua! &e$e!op%ent, the inappropriateness o# &istin"uishin" etween the $a!ues o# &iIerent t(pes o# speech eco%es c!ear. A. 'ic8e! ar"ues that there is such a thin" as $era! $io!ence, a 8in" o# cursin", assau!ti$e speech that a%ounts to a!%ost ph(sica! a""ression, u!!(in" that is no !ess punishin" ecause it is si%u!ate&. E>ua!!( i%portant, it %a( create a c!i%ate in which con&uct an& actions that were not possi!e e#ore eco%e possi!e. .. Farer, in contrast, ar"ues that use o# oIensi$e !an"ua"e re$ea!s the existence o# so%ethin" oIensi$e an& u"!(, whether in situation or in the spea8er2s %in&. <n either e$ent, the !an"ua"e re$ea!s an i%portant thou"h unp!easant truth aout the wor!&. =uppressin" this !an"ua"e $io!ates a car&ina! princip!e o# a #ree societ(, that truths are etter con#ronte& than represse&. As !on" as we !i$e in an u"!( wor!&, u"!( speech %ust ha$e its #oru%. , Bostile A!&ien)e4 <# the source o# i%pen&in" $io!ence i# a crow& o# !isteners hosti!e to the spea8er2s !aw#u! %essa"e, the po!ice usua!!( %ust procee& a"ainst the crow& an& protect the spea8er. ®or) v. Chicago (19H9). The 1 st A%en&. protects speech e$en i# it in&uces a con&ition o# unrest, creates &issatis#action with con&itions as the( are, or e$en stirs peop!e to an"er. 6erminiello v. Chicago (1919). o 3owe$er, there is prece&ent ne$er o$erru!e&, that i# the threatene& &isruption is &ue to the spea8er2s own intentiona! pro$ocation, then the spea8er can e punishe& un&er narrow!( &rawn !aws proscriin" incite%ent to !i8e!(, i%%inent !aw!ess action. einer v. -. (19-1) (upho!&in" spea8er2s con$iction #or reach o# peace). =pea8er was not arreste& nor con$icte& #or the content o# his speech. +ather, it was the reaction which it actua!!( en"en&ere&. <t is one thin" to sa( that the po!ice cannot e use& as an instru%ent #or the suppression o# unpopu!ar $iews, an& another to sa( that, when as here the spea8er passes the oun&s o# ar"u%ent or persuasion an& un&erta8es incite%ent to riot, the( are power!ess to pre$ent a reach o# peace. o =pea8er who "i$es prior notice o# his %essa"e has not co%pe!!e& a con#rontation with those who $o!untari!( !isten. 5illage of S"o"ie v. -at/l Socialist !art) (<!!in. 19;9) (state court re7ectin" that the &isp!a( o# the swasti8a threatens peace to a &e"ree that it shou!& e en7oine&, %oreo$er it is a s(%o!ic #or% o# #ree speech entit!e& to protection). Pa"e H1 o# 9: Bate S,ee)% , =o%e states an& !oca!ities ha$e enacte& !aws prohiitin" expression that incites hatre& o#, or which is insu!tin" or &ero"ator( towar&s, tra&itiona!!( $u!nera!e "roupsEracia! %inorities, wo%en, ethnic or re!i"ious "roups, ho%osexua!s. o <t is ar"ue& that such speech in@icts e%otiona! har%, pro%otes &iscri%ination an& $io!ence an& si!ences $icti%s. Jio!ence is a necessar( an& ine$ita!e part o# the structure o# racis%. <t is the )na! so!ution, as #ascists 8now, are!( he!& at a( whi!e the tactica! weapons o# se"re"ation, &ispara"e%ent, an& hate propa"an&a &o their wor8. , 0hi!e it &oes not %eanin"#u!!( pro%ote 1 st A%en&. $a!ues, it un&er%ines the $a!ues o# E>ua! Protection C!ause. o Apart #ro% the context o# threatene& $io!ence, the constitutiona!it( o# these !aws is >uestiona!e since the( constitute content,ase& re"u!ations $io!ati$e o# 1 st A%en&. protection aIor&e& oIensi$e & ausi$e speech. , 3owe$er, !aws which punish racia!!( %oti$ate& har%#u! con&uct or which enhance the pena!t( #or cri%es when inspire& ( racia! ias are consistent with the 1 st A%en&. The racia! ias %oti$e %ust e esta!ishe& e(on& a reasona!e &out. #00rendi v. -$ (*000). Tr!e T%reats , (e;nition4 The 1 st A%en&. per%its =tates to prohiit #or%s o# inti%i&ation that are true threats, where a spea8er &irects a threat to a person or "roup with the intent o# p!acin" the $icti% in #ear o# o&i!( har% or &eath. 5a. v. Blac" (*00:). Court consi&ers the i%pact o# the speech. , True threats are constitutiona!!( proscria!e ecause it ser$es to protect in&i$i&ua!s #ro% the #ear o# $io!ence an& #ro% the &isruption that #ear en"en&ers an& #ro% the possii!it( that the threatene& $io!ence wi!! occur. R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (199*). , Law annin" s(%o!s that reasona!( wou!& arouse an"er, a!ar%, or resent%ent in others on the asis o# race, co!or, cree&, re!i"ion or "en&er is #acia!!( in$a!i&. R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (=ca!ia #or the %a7orit(? prece&ent is !ess in@uentia! that initia!!( thou"ht). o Cr&inance is #acia!!( unconstitutiona! ecause it prohiits otherwise per%itte& speech on the asis o# the su7ects the speech a&&resses. The "o$ern%ent %a( proscrie !ie!, ut it %a( not %a8e the #urther &iscri%ination o# proscriin" on!( !ie! critica! o# the "o$ern%ent. The 1 st A%en&. &oes not per%it =t. Pau! to i%pose specia! prohiitions on those spea8ers who express $iews on &is#a$ore& su7ects. o The prohiition a"ainst content &iscri%ination that the 1 st A%en&. re>uires is not aso!ute. First, when the asis #or the content &iscri%ination consists entire!( o# the $er( reason the entire c!ass o# speech at issue is proscria!e, no si"ni)cant &an"er o# i&ea o# $iewpoint &iscri%ination exists. Another $a!i& asis #or &iIerentia! treat%ent to a content,&e)ne& suc!ass o# proscria!e speech is that the suc!ass happens to e associate& with particu!ar secon&ar( eIects o# speech so that the re"u!ation is 7usti)e& without re#erence to the content o# speech. Pa"e H- o# 9: Fina!!(, an exception #or content,ase& re"u!ations in a cate"or( o# proscria!e speech %a( exist so !on" as 5the nature o# the content &iscri%ination is such that there is no rea!istic possii!it( that oIicia! suppression o# i&eas is a#oot. o 0hi!e notin" that the interest (to ensure asic hu%an ri"hts o# %e%ers o# "roups that ha$e een historica!!( &iscri%inate& a"ainst) is co%pe!!in", the content &iscri%ination was not reasona!( necessar( to achie$e this interest. The existence o# content,neutra! a!ternati$esEannin" a!! )"htin" wor&sEwas &eter%inati$e. The reason wh( )"htin" wor&s are cate"orica!!( exc!u&e& #ro% the protection o# the 1 st A%en&. i# not that their content co%%unicates an( particu!ar i&ea, ut that their content e%o&ies a particu!ar!( into!era!e (an& socia!!( unnecessar() %o&e o# expressin" whate$er i&ea the spea8er wishes to con$e(. The or&inance &i& not sin"!e out an especia!!( oIensi$e %o&e o# expression. +ather, it has prohiite& on!( those wor&s that co%%unicate i&eas in a threatenin" %anner. <t has proscrie& )"htin" wor&s that co%%unicate racia!, "en&er, or re!i"ious into!erance. o D. 0hite (with '!ac8%un, C2Connor, =te$ens) concurre& in 7u&"%ent, ut )n&in" issue with restrictions on the ai!it( o# "o$ern%ent to re"u!ate within proscria!e cate"ories? pre#erre& to &eci&e the case un&er the o$errea&th &octrine. The cate"orica! approach is a )r%!( entrenche& part o# our 1 st
A%en&. 7urispru&ence. <t is inconsistent to ho!& that the "o$ern%ent %a( proscrie an entire cate"or( o# speech ecause o# the content o# that speech is e$i!, ut that the "o$ern%ent %a( not treat a suset o# that cate"or( &iIerent!( without $io!atin" the 1 st
A%en&. An&er the %a7orit(2s $iew, a narrow!( &rawn content,ase& or&inance cou!& ne$er pass constitutiona! %uster i# the o7ect o# that !e"is!ation cou!& e acco%p!ishe& ( anne& a wi&er cate"or( o# speech. The %a7orit(2s concern aout content,ase& re"u!ations within Cha0lins") cate"ories o# unprotecte& speech is unnecessar( ecause the E>ua! Protection C!ause re>uires that the re"u!ation p# unprotecte& speech e rationa!!( re!ate& to a !e"iti%ate "o$ern%ent interest. o D. '!ac8%un concurrin" in 7u&"%ent, note& that it wi!! ser$e as prece&ent #or #uture cases or it wi!! not. '( &eci&in" that a =tate cannot re"u!ate speech that causes "reat har% un!ess it a!so re"u!ates speech that &oes not (settin" !aw an& !o"ic on their hea&s), the Court see%s to aan&on the cate"orica! approach, an& ine$ita!( to re!ax the !e$e! o# scrutin( app!ica!e to content,ase& !aws. o D. =te$ens (with 0hite an& '!ac8%un) wrote separate!( to su""est how the a!!ure o# aso!ute princip!es s8ewe& the %a7orit( & D. 0hite2s opinion. Pa"e HH o# 9: Critici4e& the Court #or ho!&in" that content,ase& re"u!ations are presu%pti$e!( in$a!i& an& that "o$ern%ent %ust either proscrie a!! speech or no speech at a!!. <n roa&est ter%s, our entire 1 st A%en&. 7urispru&ence creates a re"i%e ase& on the content o# speech. The scope o# the 1 st A%en&. is &eter%ine& ( the content o# expressi$e acti$it(. 0hether speech #a!!s within one part o# the cate"ories o# unprotecte& or proscria!e expression is &eter%ine& in part ( its content. E$en within cate"ories o# protecte& expression, the 1 st
A%en&. status o# speech is )xe& ( its content. The cate"orica! approach sacri)ces sut!et( #or c!arit( an& )ts poor!( with the co%p!ex rea!it( o# expression, ine$ita!( "i$es rise on!( to #u44( oun&aries (i.e., expressi$e con&uct). <t is unwor8a!e, u!ti%ate!( #uti!e, an& &estine& to #ai!. , =tate can enhance cri%ina! pena!ties ase& on racia! ias %oti$ation. Wisc. v. Mitchell (199:) (upho!&in" sentencin" enhance%ents when a "roup o# !ac8 %en eat a white o( se$ere!(). o Ph(sica! assau!t is not expressi$e con&uct protecte& ( the 1 st A%en&. =uch !aws are ai%e& at unprotecte& con&uct. o The statute &oes not $io!ate the 1 st A%en&. protection aIor&e& thou"ht & e!ie#s. 0hi!e a person %a( not e punishe& ecause o# his astract e!ie#s, %oti$e is #re>uent!( an i%portant #actor in &eter%inin" pena!ties #or cri%ina! con&uct. o 'ias,inspire& cri%e %a( e sin"!e& out ecause this con&uct is throu"h to in@ict "reater in&i$i&ua! an& societa! har%. o The c!ai% that pena!t( enhance%ent %i"ht cause an in&i$i&ua! to a$oi& (protecte&) i"ote&, oIensi$e speech is too specu!ati$e to support an o$errea&th cha!!en"e. o There is no 1 st A%en&. arrier to e$i&entiar( use o# speech in or&er to pro$e %oti$e or intent or the e!e%ents o# a cri%e. o Ootes & Critics/ =uch !aws are a&opte& #or the $er( purpose o# pena!i4in" thou"ht processes an& po!itica! %oti$ations #oun& to e oIensi$e ( those in power, the( constitute c!assic ari&"e%ents o# the constitutiona!!( protecte& #ree&o% o# thou"ht. <n response to the reasonin" ao$e/ Fi$in" the "ree&( %ur&erer a %ore se$ere sentence than the co%passionate 8i!!er %a( raise interestin" >uestions aout the theor( o# punish%ent, ut not aout #ree speech concerns. The "ree&( %ur&erer is ein" punishe& not #or ho!&in" certain astract e!ie#s, ut #or acting on those e!ie#s in a wa( that %a8es his con&uct %ore reprehensi!e, %ore &an"erous, an& perhaps %ore in nee& o# &eterrence than the co%passionate 8i!!er. , =tate %a( an cross,urnin" with the intent to inti%i&ate ecause it is a particu!ar!( $iru!ent #or% o# inti%i&ation. 5a. v. Blac" (*00:) (uphe!& statute2s prohiitions on cross,urnin", ut in$a!i&ate& pro$ision that the con&uct was pri%a #acie e$i&ence o# intent). <nstea& o# prohiitin" a!! inti%i&atin" %essa"es, the =tate %a( choose to re"u!ate this suset o# inti%i&atin" %essa"e Pa"e H; o# 9: in !i"ht o# cross urnin"2s !on" an& pernicious histor( as a si"na! o# i%pen&in" $io!ence. o Dust as a =tate %a( re"u!ate on!( that oscenit( which is the %ost oscene &ue to its prurient content, so too %a( a =tate choose to prohiit on!( those #or%s o# inti%i&ate that are %ost !i8e!( to inspire #ear o# o&i!( har%. 0e &i& not ho!& in R#5 that the 1 st A%en&. prohiits a!! #or%s o# content,ase& &iscri%ination within a proscria!e area o# speech. +ather, we specia!!( state& that so%e t(pes o# content &iscri%ination &i& not $io!ate the 1 st A%en&. An!i8e the statute in R#5, the Ja. statute &oes not sin"!e out #or opproriu% on!( that speech &irecte& towar& one o# the speci)e& &is#a$ore& topics. <t &oes not %atter whether an in&i$i&ua! urns a cross with intent to inti%i&ate ecause o# $icti%2s race, "en&er, or re!i"ion, etc. o The pri%a #acie e$i&ence pro$ision, as interprete& ( the 7ur( instruction, ren&ers the statute unconstitutiona!. The pro$ision chi!!s constitutiona!!( protecte& po!itica! speech ecause o# the possii!it( that a =tate wi!! prosecute so%eo&( en"a"in" in !aw#u! po!itica! speech at the core o# what the 1 st A%en&. is &esi"ne& to protect. o D. =ca!ia (with Tho%as) concurrin" an& &issentin", a"rees that un&er R#5, a =tate %a(, without in#rin"in" the 1 st A%en&., prohiit cross urnin" carrie& out with the intent to inti%i&ate, ut &isa"rees that the pri%a #acie pro$ision is o$erroa& an& shou!& e interprete& as a reutta!e presu%ption. o D. =outer (with Kenne&(, Finsur") concurrin" an& &issentin", )n&s that the statute %a8es a content,ase& &istinction within the cate"or( o# punisha!e inti%i&atin" or threatenin" expression, ut is sti!! unconstitutiona! ecause it ris8s content,&iscri%ination. The speci)c prohiition o# cross urnin" with intent to inti%i&ate se!ects a s(%o! with particu!ar content #ro% the )e!& o# a!! proscria!e expression %eant to inti%i&ate, an& hence constitutes a t(pe $iew,point ase& &iscri%ination. The issue is whether the statutor( prohiition restricte& to this s(%o! #a!!s within one o# the exceptions to R#52s "enera! con&e%nation o# !i%ite& content,ase& proscription within a roa&er cate"or( o# expression proscria!e "enera!!(. The Ja. statute &oes not >ua!i#( #or the $iru!ence exception as R#5 exp!aine& it. The %a7orit(2s &iscussion o# a specia! $iru!ence exception here %o$es that exception towar& a %ore @exi!e conception. R#5 &e)nes the specia! $iru!ence exception to the ru!e arrin" content,ase& suc!asses o# cate"orica!!( proscria!e expression this wa(/ prohiition ( sucate"or( is nonethe!ess constitutiona! i# it is %a&e 5entire!(6 on the 5asis6 o# 5the $er( reason6 that 5the entire c!ass o# speech at issue is proscria!e6 at a!!. The Court exp!aine& that when the sucate"or( is con)ne& to the %ost o$ious!( Pa"e H9 o# 9: proscria!e instances, 5no si"ni)cant &an"er o# i&ea or $iewpoint &iscri%ination exists.6 Actua!!(, another wa( o# !oo8in" at to&a(2s &ecision wou!& see it as a s!i"ht %o&i)cation o# R#52s : r& exception, which a!!ows content, ase& &iscri%ination within a proscria!e cate"or( when its nature is such 5that there is no rea!istic possii!it( that oIicia! suppression o# i&eas is a#oot.6 The %a7orit(2s approach cou!& e ta8en as reco"ni4in" an exception to R#5 when circu%stances show that the statute2s ostensi!( $a!i& reason #or punishin" particu!ar!( serious proscria!e expression proa!( is not a ruse #or %essa"e suppression, e$en thou"h the statute %a( ha$e a "reater (ut not exc!usi$e) i%pact on a&herents o# one i&eo!o"( than on others. For whether or not the Court shou!& concei$e o# exceptions to R#5/s "enera! ru!e in a %ore practica! wa(, no content,ase& statute shou!& sur$i$e e$en un&er a pra"%atic recastin" o# R#5 without a hi"h proai!it( that no oIicia! suppression o# i&eas is a#oot. <t is &iIicu!t to concei$e o# an inti%i&ation case that cou!& e easier to pro$e than one with cross,urnin", assu%in" an( circu%stances su""estin" inti%i&ation are present. The pro$ision is >uite enou"h to raise the >uestion whether Ja.2s content,ase& statute see8s %ore than %ere protection a"ainst a $iru!ent #or% o# inti%i&ation. =ince no R#5 exception can sa$e the statute as content,ase&, it can on!( sur$i$e i# narrow!( tai!ore& to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state interest, a strin"ent test the statute cannot pass? a content,neutra! statute annin" inti%i&ation wou!& achie$e the sa%e o7ect without sin"!in" out particu!ar content. o D. Tho%as &issentin", )n&s that the statute prohiits on!( con&uct, not expression an& hence there is not nee& to ana!(4e it un&er an( o# the 1 st
A%en&. tests. o Ootes & Critics/ F. Char!es/ Ja. can per%issi!( re"u!ate cross,urnin" ecause it is re"u!atin" a particu!ar!( $iru!ent #or% o# inti%i&ation, one cou!& ar"ue that =t. Pau! shou!& ha$e een a!e to sin"!e out )"htin" wor&s uttere& on the asis o# race, "en&er an& re!i"ion ecause such )"htin" wor&s are !i8e!( to cause an"er an& incite i%%e&iate $io!ence. <# cross,urnin" itse!# is a particu!ar!( $iru!ent t(pe o# inti%i&ation, then urnin" a cross on the asis o# the $icti%2s race %ust certain!( e an e$en %ore $iru!ent t(pe o# inti%i&ation. <# one were to app!( Blac"2s reasonin" to R#5, not on!( shou!& the Court ha$e uphe!& =t. Pau!2s or&inance, ut it presente& a %ore co%pe!!in" case #or aIir%ance than the statute in Blac". =. Fe( conten&s that the Court2s &e)nition o# 5true threat6 is roa& an& a%i"uous an& threatens the speech,protecti$e stan&ar& &ictate& in Braden'urg v. Ohio, potentia!!( strippin" si"ni)cant %eanin" #ro% the 1 st A%en&. Pa"e H9 o# 9: The on!( %ani#estation o# #ear that shou!& e re!e$ant to the app!ication o# true threats ana!(sis is that persona!i4e& an& i%%e&iate #ear o# a person who is sin"!e& out an& to!& in no uncertain ter%s that he is speci)ca!!( tar"ete& #or attac8. <# a "enera!i4e&, &iIuse& #ear can e use& as a 7usti)cation #or sanctionin" speech, then a!! a""ressi$e!( anta"onistic &issent wi!! e su7ect to suppression. F. =chauer raises the >uestion whether a potentia! &e#en&ant shou!& e re>uire& to possess intent i# the har% the !e"is!ature see8s to protect a"ainst is the #ear resu!tin" #ro% such a threat, an& not the threat itse!#. <t %a( e ri"ht that the spea8er can e prosecute& ecause he is as responsi!e #or the or&inar( %eanin" o# his wor&s as he is as responsi!e #or the or&inar( conse>uences o# his con&uct. D. 'e!! en&orses a $icti%,centere& approach, which wou!& a!!ow #or prosecution in a!! cases in which a &e#en&ant urne& a cross with a &irect!( tar"ete& $icti%. 3-,ressive Con&!)t4 S0m.oli) S,ee)% , Con&uct can e use& as a %eans o# co%%unicatin" i&easEthe %e&iu% can e the %essa"e. D. Dac8son reco"ni4e& that s(%o!ic action cou!& so%eti%es e the %ost eIecti$e #or% o# expressin" an i&ea. o Two part ana!(sis/ 1) is the con&uct expressi$eL *) i# it is expressi$e, is it protecte& ( the 1 st A%en&.L , Is t%e Con&!)t Comm!ni)ative? <n &eter%inin" whether the con&uct is speech, the Court o#ten exa%ines the nature o# the con&uct, the #actua! context, an& the en$iron%ent to &eter%ine i# the actor has an intent to co%%unicate a %essa"e an& whether the au&ience $iewin" the con&uct wou!& un&erstan& the %essa"e. S0ence v. Washington (19;1). C#ten the Court wi!! assu%e arguendo that the con&uct is expressi$e. , Is t%e S,ee)% Prote)te&? 0hen speech an& non,speech e!e%ents are in the sa%e course o# con&uct, "o$ern%ent re"u!ation o# s(%o!ic speech is per%issi!e i#, un&er O/Brien v. +S (19H9)/ 1) it #urthers an i%portant or sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest, *) the "o$ern%ent interest is unre!ate& to the suppression o# #ree expression, (this &eter%ination is essentia!!( the sa%e as as8in" whether the re"u!ation is content,ase& or content,neutra!) :) the inci&enta! restriction on a!!e"e& 1 st A%en&. #ree&o% is no "reater than essentia! to the #urtherance o# that interest. o The O/Brien test (inter%e&iate stan&ar&) app!ies on!( i# the re"u!ation is content neutra! an& is essentia!!( the sa%e stan&ar& use& in re$iew content,neutra! re"u!ation o# the pu!ic #oru%. , <# the re"u!ation is ase& on the content o# the s(%o!ic speech the %ost exactin" scrutin( app!ies. 6e7as v $ohnson (1999). , The "o$ern%ent interest in the eIecti$e #unctionin" o# the =e!ecti$e =er$ice =(ste% is suIicient!( !e"iti%ate an& sustantia! to 7usti#( a !aw prohiitin" the con&uct o# urnin" &ra#t car&s in spite o# the inci&enta! restrain on 1 st A%en&. expression. O/Brien v. +S (19H9) (upho!&in" con$iction un&er #e&era! !aw prohiitin" 58nowin"!( %uti!ateMionN6 o# &ra#t car&). Pa"e ;0 o# 9: o The Court cannot accept the $iew that an apparent!( !i%it!ess $ariet( o# con&uct can e !ae!e& 5speech6 whene$er the person en"a"in" in con&uct inten&s there( to express an i&ea. o The %an( #unctions per#or%e& ( the =e!ecti$e =er$ice certi)cates (proo# o# re"istration, #aci!itation o# co%%unication to !oca! &s., noti)cations o# whereaouts o# re"istrant, prohiition a"ainst their &ecepti$e %isuse) esta!ish e(on& a &out that Con"ress has a !e"iti%ate an& sustantia! interest in pre$entin" their wanton &estruction an& assurin" their a$ai!ai!it( ( punishin" peop!e who 8nowin"!( & wi!!#u!!( &estro( or %uti!ate the%. o There are no a!ternati$e %eans that wou!& %ore precise!( an& narrow!( assure the continuin" a$ai!ai!it( o# issues certi)cates than a !aw which prohiits their wi!!#u! %uti!ation or &estruction. o The non,co%%unicati$e i%pact o# C2'rien2s act o# urnin" his re"istration certi)cate #rustrate& the "o$ern%ent2s interest, a suIicient interest shown to 7usti#( C2'rien2s con$iction. o The Court wi!! not stri8e &own an otherwise constitutiona! statute on the asis o# an a!!e"e& i!!icit !e"is!ati$e %oti$e. <n>uiries into con"ressiona! %oti$es or purposes are a ha4ar&ous %atter. 0hen the issues is si%p!( the interpretation o# !e"is!ation, the Court wi!! !oo8 to state%ents ( !e"is!ators #or "ui&ance as to the purpose o# the !e"is!ature, ecause the ene)t to soun& &ecision,%a8in" in this circu%stance is thou"ht suIicient to ris8 the possii!it( o# %isrea&in" Con"ress2 purpose. <t is an entire!( a &iIerent %atter when we are as8e& to $oi& a statute that is constitutiona! on its #ace, on the asis o# what a #ew Con"ress%en sai& aout it. o Ootes & Critics/ For %ost expressi$e con&uct, the purpose o# expression is protecte&, ut the %etho& o# expression is re"u!a!e. <nter%e&iate scrutin( is sai& to e the resu!tin" co%pro%ise, a!!owin" "o$ern%ent to retain si"ni)cant power to re"u!ate in these areas ut ac8now!e&"in" that the 1 st A%en&. sti!! pro$i&es so%e protection. A!thou"h the O/Brien test re%ains "oo& !aw, the Court has ne$er use& it to in$a!i&ate !aws that inci&enta!!( ur&en expressi$e con&uct. <n #act, the Court has create& a wai$a!e presu%ption that such !aws &o not $io!ate the 1 st A%en&. G. .or#/ <n so%e sense, the O/Brien test is the worst o# a!! possi!e wor!&s. A !ar"e cate"or( o# content,neutra! !aws is suscepti!e to an O/Brien cha!!en"e. Liti"ation o$er re"u!ations in this cate"or( i%poses sustantia! costs to societ(, ut (ie!&s #ew tan"i!e ene)ts. 'ecause %ost o# the cha!!en"e& !aws wi!! sur$i$e, %ost o# the cases actua!!( !iti"ate& wi!! not ene)t #ree speech. Oor &oes the prospect o# O/Brien scrutin( &eter potentia!!( speech,chi!!in" !aws, ecause !e"is!ators enactin" content, neutra! !aws wi!! not or&inari!( conte%p!ate #ree speech issues/ ( &e)nition, such !aws are ai%e& at pro!e%s that &o not arise #ro% the co%%unicati$e i%pact o# speech. Thus, i# Pa"e ;1 o# 9: O/Brien scrutin( is to re%ain tooth!ess, it har&!( see%s worth retainin" as a &iscrete 1 st A%en& test. T. E%erson pre$ious!( su""este& s(%o!ic speech cases ( &eter%inin" whether the speech or con&uct e!e%ent is pre&o%inant in the con&uct un&er consi&eration. <n his $iew, O/Brien was wron"!( &eci&e& ecause the action was speech rather than con&uct, an& thus entit!e& to 1 st A%en&. protection. D. .ou"!as, in Braden'urg, %a&e %uch the sa%e speech,action &istinction when he state& that speech "roupe& with con&uct shou!& not e protecte& un&er the 1 st A%en&. D. E!( ar"ue& that urnin" a &ra#t car& to express opposition to the &ra#t is an un&iIerentiate& who!e, 100V action an& 100V expression. Atte%pts to &eter%ine which e!e%ent 5pre&o%inates6 wi!! ine$ita!( &e"enerate into >uestion,e""in" 7u&"%ents aout whether acti$it( shou!& e protecte&. L. 3en8in ar"ue& that a 5constitutiona! &istinction etween speech an& con&uct is specious. =peech is con&uct an& actions spea8.6 The %eanin"#u! constitutiona! &istinction is not etween speech an& con&uct, ut etween con&uct that spea8s, co%%unicates, an& other 8in&s o# con&uct. E. Jo!o8h a!so ar"ues that whi!e speech & con&uct shou!& e &istin"uishe&, t(pica! 5it2s not speech, it2s con&uct6 &octrines wou!& #orce courts to #ocus on the wron" >uestions an& reach the wron" resu!ts. Courts shou!& #ocus on a &istinction %ore !i8e that o# O/Brien, so that expression can "enera!!( e re"u!ate& to pre$ent har%s that @ow #ro% its non,co%%unicati$e e!e%ents (noise, traIic ostruction, an& the !i8e), ut not har%s that @ow #ro% what the expression expresses. Oeither "enera!!( app!ica!e !aws nor specia!!( tar"ete& !aws shou!& e a!!owe& to restrict speech ecause o# what the speech sa(s, un!ess the speech #a!!s within one o# the exceptions to protection (e.". threats or #a!se state%ents o# #act) or un!ess the restriction passes strict scrutin(. L. Trie ar"ues that a !aw is content,ase& i# on its #ace, it is tar"ete& at i&eas or in#or%ation that "o$ern%ent see8s to suppress, or i# "o$ern%ent actions neutra! on its #ace was %oti$ate& ( an intent to sin"!e out constitutiona!!( protecte& speech #or contro! or pena!t(. D. E!( su""ests that the &eter%ination o# whether a !aw is content contro! turns on whether the har% that the state is see8in" to a$ert is one that "rows out o# the #act that the &e#en&ant is co%%unicatin", an& %ore particu!ar!( out o# the wa( peop!e can e expecte& to react to his %essa"e, or rather wou!& arise e$en i# the &e#en&ant2s con&uct ha& no co%%unicati$e si"ni)cance whatsoe$er. , Fo$ern%ent can i%pose a !aw that re"u!ates con&uct ase& on sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest that inci&enta!!( aIects speech. Con"ressiona! !aw pre$entin" schoo!s that recei$e #e&era! #un&s to prohiit %i!itar( recruiters #ro% "ainin" access to ca%puses &oes not $io!ate the schoo!s2 #ree&o% o# speech. Rumsfeld v. #IR (*00H) (+oerts #or a unani%ous Court uphe!& the Pa"e ;* o# 9: =o!o%on A%en&%ent/ in or&er #or a !aw schoo! an& its uni$ersit( to recei$e #e&era! #un&in", the !aw schoo! %ust oIer %i!itar( recruiters the sa%e access to its ca%pus an& stu&ents that it pro$i&es to non%i!itar( recruiters recei$in" the %ost #a$ora!e access). o =uIicient "o$ern%enta! interest exercise& un&er Con"ressiona! power to raise an& %aintain ar%es. o The !aw re"u!ates con&uct, not speech. <t aIects what the !aw schoo! %ust &o, not what the( %a( or %a( not sa(. .oes not har% an( o# the #ree&o% o# expression ri"hts/ Law &oes not re>uire co%pe!!e& speech ( the schoo!s. The recruitin" assistance pro$i&e& ( the schoo!s o#ten inc!u&es e!e%ents o# speech, ut is on!( inci&enta! to the !aw2s re"u!ation o# con&uct. The co%pe!!e& speech $io!ation in the Court2s prior cases resu!te& #ro% the #act that the co%p!ainin" spea8er2s own %essa"e was aIecte& ( the speech it was #orce& to acco%%o&ate. Law &oes not prohiit speech. Oothin" aout recruitin" su""ests that !aw schoo!s a"ree with an( speech ( recruiters an& nothin" in the !aw restricts what the !aw schoo!s %a( sa( aout the %i!itar(2s po!icies. Law &oes not $io!ate the schoo!2s expressi$e associationa! ri"hts. The !aw &oes not #orce schoo!s to accept %e%ers it &oes not &esire. =tu&ents an& #acu!t( are #ree to associate to $oice their &isappro$a! o# the %i!itar(2s %essa"e. Dust as sa(in" con&uct is un&erta8en #or expressi$e purposes cannot %a8e it s(%o!ic speech, so too a spea8er cannot erect a shie!& a"ainst !aws re>uirin" access si%p!( ( assertin" that %ere association wou!& i%pair its %essa"e. Pa"e ;: o# 9: P!.li) For!m (o)trine , The Court esta!ishe& that the use o# streets an& pu!ic p!aces #or expressi$e purposes has tra&itiona!!( 5een part o# the pri$i!e"es, i%%unities, ri"hts, an& !ierties o# citi4ens.6 Fro% this princip!e, there &e$e!ope& the concept o# 5pu!ic #oru%6 a$ai!a!e to the citi4en #or expressi$e acti$it(. , The 1 st A%en&. ri"ht o# access to pu!ic propert( has een co%p!e%ente& ( the 1 st A%en&. E>ua! Protection concept o# the ri"ht o# e>ua! access. , Nat!re o" t%e For!m4 A sharp &istinction is &rawn etween the re"u!ator( an& proprietar( ro!es o# "o$ern%ent. 0here the "o$ern%ent is actin" as a proprietor, %ana"in" its interna! operations rather than actin" as a !aw%a8er with the power to re"u!ate or !icense, its actions wi!! not e su7ecte& to hei"htene& re$iew to which its actions as a !aw%a8er %a( e su7ecte&. Int/l Soc/) for (rishna Consciousness v. %ee (199*). Tra&itional P!.li) For!m , (e;nition4 A tra&itiona! pu!ic #oru% is pu!ic propert( that has historica!!( ha& as a principa! purpose the #ree exchan"e o# i&eas (e.". streets an& par8s). o Fo$ern%ent %a( not ar a!! co%%unicati$e acti$it( #ro% 5>uintessentia!6 pu!ic #oru%. =uch p!aces ha$e historica!!( een associate& with expressi$e acti$it(. The( are natura! an& proper p!aces #or &isse%inatin" in#or%ation. , Stan&ar&4 Content,ase& re"u!ation o# speech in a tra&itiona! pu!ic #oru% %ust #a!! into a cate"or( o# !ow,$a!ue speech (proscria!e) or e 7usti)e& usin" strict scrutin(. Content,neutra! re"u!ation o# the pu!ic #oru% is constitutiona! i# the !aw is narrow!(,tai!ore& to ser$e a 5si"ni)cant "o$ern%enta! interest6 an& !ea$es open a%p!e a!ternati$e channe!s #or co%%unication o# the in#or%ation (sa%e test #or ti%e, p!ace & %anner contro!s). , Peace#u! &e%onstrators on pu!ic state capito! "roun&s %a( not e $a!i&!( prosecute& #or con&uctin" a protest. *dwards v. S. Carolina (19H:). , A !aw arrin" a!! pic8etin" an& !ea@etin" on the pu!ic si&ewa!8s surroun&in" the =upre%e Court is unconstitutiona! ecause such a roa& prohiition o# 5pu!ic #oru% propert(6 &oes not narrow!( ser$e the pu!ic interests in protectin" persons an& propert( or %aintainin" proper or&er an& &ecoru%. +S v. &race (199:). Limite& or (esinate& P!.li) For!m , (e;nition4 The pu!ic #oru% was he!& to inc!u&e other pu!ic propert( where expressi$e acti$it( was not inco%pati!e with the nor%a! use to which the propert( is put (e.". pu!ic !irar(, uni$ersities). The !i%ite& pu!ic #oru% is a!so &eter%ine& ( "o$ern%ent &esi"nation an& intent to open the propert( #or expressi$e acti$it(. o Fo$ern%ent &oes not create a pu!ic #oru% ( inaction. <t %ust e shown that the practice an& po!ic( o# the "o$ern%ent in&icate an intent to open a nontra&itiona! #oru% #or "enera! pu!ic &iscourse. o 3owe$er, "o$ern%ent %a( with&raw the p!ace #ro% pu!ic #oru% &esi"nation. , Stan&ar&4 =a%e stan&ar& as a tra&itiona! pu!ic #oru%. <# the "o$ern%ent exc!u&es spea8ers who are within the c!ass to which a &esi"nate& pu!ic #oru% is %a&e "enera!!( a$ai!a!e, its actions are su7ect to strict scrutin(. , =tate ru!e !i%itin" &istriution o# in#or%ation at a state #air to a )xe& !ocation is constitutiona!. ,e:ron v. Int/l Soc/) for (rishna Consciousness (1991). Pa"e ;1 o# 9: o =tate #air "roun&s constitute a !i%ite& pu!ic #oru%. The )xe& !ocation ru!e is content,neutra! an& is narrow!( tai!ore& to #urther i%portant state interest in traIic contro! on the crow&e& #air"roun&s. o A!ternati$e #oru%s such as speech at the )xe& !ocation or contact oI the #air"roun&s are a$ai!a!e. , Ani$ersit( create& #oru% "enera!!( open #or stu&ent "roup use cannot &iscri%inate in use ( &en(in" access #or re!i"ious worship or teachin". Widmar v. 5incent (1991). o <n or&er to 7usti#( such &iscri%ination in access to pu!ic #oru% ase& on the re!i"ious content o# the "roup2s inten&e& speech, the uni$ersit( %ust show that its re"u!ation is necessar( to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state interest an& that it is narrow!( &rawn to achie$e that en&. o The uni$ersit( is not 7usti)e& ( the &esire to %aintain separation o# church an& state %an&ate& ( the state an& #e&era! constitutions. Non,!.li) For!m , (e;nition4 Pu!ic propert( which is not ( tra&ition or &esi"nation a #oru% #or pu!ic co%%unication (e."., %i!itar( ases, 7ai!s, rapi&,transit cars an& %ai!oxes). o The #act that particu!ar propert( is owne& ( the "o$ern%ent &oes not %a8e it part o# the pu!ic #oru%. Certain pu!ic!(,owne& p!aces are inappropriate #or an( asse%!( or protest. o A &esi"nates pu!ic #oru% is not create& when the "o$ern%ent "rants on!( se!ecti$e access #or in&i$i&ua! spea8ers rather than "enera! access #or a c!ass o# spea8ers. 0hen the "o$ern%ent "rants e!i"ii!it( #or access to the #oru% to a particu!ar c!ass o# spea8ers, whose %e%ers %ust then, as in&i$i&ua!s, otain per%ission to enter, on!( a nonpu!ic #oru% exists. , Stan&ar&4 +e"u!ation o# access to such propert( nee& on!( e $iewpoint, neutra! an& reasona!e. +easona!eness has een %ar8e& ( 7u&icia! &e#erence to "o$ern%ent, a8in to rationa!it( test. , Count( 7ai! is not an appropriate p!ace #or the exercise o# 1 st A%en&. ri"hts. .e%onstrator2s con$iction #or trespass is constitutiona!. #dderl) v. la. (19HH) (when pu!ic propert( such as state capito! "roun&s %a( e open to the pu!ic, 7ai!s, ui!t #or securit( purposes, are not). , =choo! &istrict2s interschoo! %ai! s(ste% is not ( tra&ition or ( &esi"nation a pu!ic #oru%. !err) *duc. #ssn. v. !err) %ocal *ducators/ #ssn. (199:) (&istrict2s "rant o# exc!usi$e access to the teachers2 ar"ainin" representati$e to interschoo! %ai! s(ste% &oes not $io!ate the 1 st A%en&. ri"hts o# ri$a! teacher "roup since it is nonpu!ic #oru%? use o# the #aci!ities a!!ows representati$e to per#or% o!i"ations to a!! teachers? an& a!ternati$e channe!s o# union,teacher co%%unication re%ain open). , Airports are not &esi"nation or pu!ic #ora. Int/l Soc/) for (rishna Consciousness v. %ee (199*) (upho!&in" re"u!ation prohiitin" so!icitation an& receipt o# #un&s in airport ter%ina!s). o The tra&ition o# airport acti$it( &oes not &e%onstrate that airports ha$e historica!!( een %a&e a$ai!a!e #or speech acti$it(. The princip!e purpose is #aci!itatin" tra$e!, not pro%otin" exchan"e o# i&eas. Oor are the ter%ina!s &esi"nate& pu!ic #ora intentiona!!( open to speech acti$it(. o The ru!e is a reasona!e content,neutra! re"u!ation "i$en the &isrupti$e eIect o# so!icitation on the nor%a! @ow o# traIic an& the potentia! #or #rau& an& &uress o# harrie& tra$e!ers. Pa"e ;- o# 9: o D. Kenne&( (with : other 7ustices) ar"ues that airport ter%ina!s are pu!ic #or a since the( share ph(sica! si%i!arities with other pu!ic #ora. The $er( rea&th an& extent o# the pu!ic2s use o# airports %a8e it i%perati$e to protect speech ri"hts there. Ti%e, p!ace an& %anner re"u!ation can assure that expressi$e acti$it( is >uite co%pati!e with the uses o# %a7or airports. , Pu!ic te!e$ision roa&castin" is a nonpu!ic #oru% an& roa&caster2s exc!usion o# an in&epen&ent can&i&ate #ro% a &eate &oes not $io!ate the 1 st A%en&. Can&i&ate2s exc!usion was ase& on !ac8 o# pu!ic support rather than $iewpoint &iscri%ination. #r". *duc. 6elevision Comm/n v. or'es (1999). o The pu!ic #oru% shou!& not e exten&e& in a %echanica! wa( to the context o# pu!ic te!e$ision roa&castin". Te!e$ision roa&casters en7o( the wi&est 7ourna!is% #ree&o% consistent with their pu!ic responsii!ities. The nature o# e&itoria! &iscretion counse!s a"ainst su7ectin" roa&casters to c!ai%s o# $iewpoint &iscri%ination. Pro"ra%%in" &ecisions wou!& e particu!ar!( $u!nera!e to c!ai%s o# this t(pe. As a resu!t, roa&casters %i"ht &eci&e to a$oi& contro$ers( an& &i%inish the #ree @ow o# i&eas. o A &esi"nate& pu!ic #oru% is not create& when "o$ern%ent a!!ows se!ecti$e access #or in&i$i&ua! spea8ers rather than "enera! access #or a c!ass o# spea8ers. Fo$ern%ent &oes not create a &esi"nate& pu!ic #oru% when it &oes not %ore than reser$e e!i"ii!it( #or access to the #oru% to a particu!ar c!ass o# spea8ers. o Oonpu!ic #oru% status &oes not %ean that the "o$ern%ent can restrict speech in whate$er wa( it !i8es. To e consistent with the 1 st A%en&., the exc!usion o# a spea8er #ro% a nonpu!ic #oru% %ust not e ase& on the spea8er2s $iewpoint an& %ust otherwise e reasona!e in !i"ht o# the purpose o# the propert(. o D. =te$ens (with =outer, Finsur") &issentin", ar"ues that pu!ic roa&castin" is !i%ite& pu!ic #oru%, an& the e&itoria! &ecision was a& hoc an& !ac8e& stan&ar&s pointin" to e$i&ence that the in&epen&ent can&i&ate &i& ha$e support enou"h to aIect the outco%e. <# a co%para!e &ecision were %a&e to&a( ( a pri$ate!( owne& networ8, it wou!& e su7ect to scrutin( un&er the Fe&era! E!ection Ca%pai"n Act un!ess the networ8 use& pre,esta!ishe& o7ecti$e criteria to &eter%ine which can&i&ates %a( participate in the &eate. Oo such criteria "o$erne& the AETC. 'ecause AETC is owne& ( the =tate, &e#erence to its interest in %a8in" a& hoc &ecisions aout the po!itica! content o# its pro"ra%s necessari!( increases the ris8 o# "o$ern%ent censorship an& propa"an&a in a wa( that protection o# pri$ate!( owne& roa&casters &oes not. The &ispositi$e issue is not whether AETC create& a &esi"nate& pu!ic #oru% or a nonpu!ic #oru%, ut whether AETC &e)ne& the contours o# the &eate #oru% with suIicient speci)cit( to 7usti#( the exc!usion o# a a!!ot,>ua!i)e& can&i&ate. Pa"e ;H o# 9: AETC2s contro! was co%para!e to that o# a !oca! "o$ern%ent oIicia! authori4e& to issue per%its to use pu!ic #aci!ities #or expressi$e acti$ities an& hence wou!& a!so nee& narrow, o7ecti$e &e)nite stan&ar&s re>uire& to su7ect 1 st A%en&. #ree&o%s to prior restraint. 0hen the &e%an& #or spea8in" #aci!ities excee&s supp!(, the =tate %ust ration o# a!!ocate the scarce resources on so%e accepta!e neutra! princip!e. Commer)ial S,ee)% , (e;nition4 Expression that &oes no %ore than propose a co%%ercia! transaction? expression re!ate& so!e!( to the econo%ic interests o# the spea8er an& its au&ience. , <n 5alentine v. Chrestensen (191*), the Court unani%ous!( he!& that co%%ercia! speech was outsi&e the 1 st A%en&. since it &i& not re!ate& to se!#, "o$ern%ent or pro%ote in&i$i&ua! se!#,&i"init(. , <t is now esta!ishe& that e$en co%%ercia! a&$ertisin" (assu%in" the acti$it( a&$ertise& is !e"a!) en7o(s so%e 1 st A%en&. protection thou"h not as sustantia! as other speech. 5a. State Bd. of !harmac) v 5a. Citizns Consumer Council (19;H) (consu%er an& societ( ha$e a stron" interest in #ree @ow o# in#or%ation). o <t is ar"ue& that co%%ercia! speech has "reater o7ecti$it( an& har&iness per%ittin" "reater state re"u!ation. o The prior restraint &octrine &oes not app!(. o +estriction o# co%%ercia! speech wi!! not e #acia!!( in$a!i&ate& ecause o# o$errea&th. o Ar"uin" #or %ore re"u!ation/ A&$ertisin" pressure &oes %ore than in@uence content? it so%eti%es &ictates it. E$en non,!ie!ous po!itica! &issent, when critica! o# a&$ertisers, is su7ect to outri"ht suppression. Co%%ercia! speech is co%%ercia! power. , Un,rote)te& Commer)ial S,ee)%4 Pro$i&in" in#or%ation aout i!!e"a! acti$ities or contrar( to pu!ic po!ic( is not protecte& ( the 1 st A%en&. (e.". sex,&esi"nate& he!p wante& a&s, constitutin" i!!e"a! sex &iscri%ination, are not protecte&). Fa!se an& %is!ea&in" a&$ertisin" is not protecte& (e.". state statute prohiitin" use o# tra&e na%es #or opto%etr( is $a!i&, since it ha& no intrinsic %eanin"). 3owe$er, #a!se &e#a%ator( pu!ication, no in$o!$in" co%%ercia! speech, &oes en7o( constitutiona! protection. , *o&ern Stan&ar&4 A #or% o# inter%e&iate re$iew to &eter%ine the constitutiona! protection pro$i&e& (Centr. ,udson &as 1 *lec. v. !u'. Serv. Comm/n of -.)/ #lthough remaining valid law; the Court has 'een less deferential in a00l)ing this test and a num'er of 2ustices have <uestioned its use for reviewing regulation of truthful; nonmisleading information. 1) =peech %ust not e %is!ea&in" or re!ate& to un!aw#u! acti$it( *) The asserte& "o$ern%ent interest %ust e sustantia! :) Fo$ern%ent re"u!ation %ust &irect!( a&$ance the "o$ern%enta! interest asserte& a. The re"u!ation %ust a&$ance the "o$ern%enta! interest in a &irect an& %ateria! wa(, that the potentia! har%s are rea! an& that the Pa"e ;; o# 9: re"u!ation wi!! a!!e$iate the% to a %ateria! &e"ree. The re!ationship cannot e !e#t to specu!ation o# con7ecture. 1) +e"u!ation %ust not e %ore extensi$e than is necessar( to ser$e that interest a. +e"u!ation can e necessar( e$en i# it is not the !east restricti$e %eans o# achie$in" the sustantia! state interests? it is suIicient i# there is a 5reasona!e )t.6 . The a$ai!ai!it( o# !ess ur&enso%e a!ternati$es re%ains re!e$ant in &eter%inin" i# the )t is reasona!e. o A proph(!actic re"u!ation &esi"ne& to a$ert the potentia! #or &eception is se!&o% suIicient to %eet this test. , =tate prohiition on truth#u! uti!it( a&$ertisin" to pro%ote the use o# e!ectricit( $io!ates the 1 st & 11 th A%en&s. Centr. ,udson (1990) (#or%u!atin" an& app!(in" the pre$ai!in" stan&ar&). o 1 st / The co%%ercia! speech &oes not concern i!!e"a! acti$it( an& is not %is!ea&in", thus the 1 st A%en&. app!ies. o * n& / The "o$ern%ent interest in #air rates an& ener"( conser$ation are c!ear an& sustantia!. o : r& / The prohiition o# a&$ertisin" &oes &irect!( a&$ance the "o$ern%ent interest in ener"( conser$ation since a&$ertisin" is &esi"ne& to increase the use o# e!ectricit(. o 1 th / 0hi!e pro%otiona! a&$ertisin" is &irect!( re!ate& to the state2s interests in ener"( conser$ation, a tota! prohiition is %ore extensi$e than is necessar( to #urther the state2s ener"( conser$ation interest. , A state uni$ersit( has a sustantia! interest in re"u!atin" co%%ercia! speech in the #or% o# Tupperware parties in co!!e"e &or%s to pro%ote an e&ucationa! rather than a co%%ercia! at%osphere an& pre$entin" the co%%ercia! exp!oitation o# stu&ents an& preser$in" resi&entia! tran>ui!it(. Bd. of 6rustees of State +niv. of -. v. o7 (1999) (a re"u!ation is narrow!( tai!ore& to a&$ance these interests i# the =tate pro$es that the !aw &oes not ur&en sustantia!!( %ore speech than is necessar( to #urther the interest? there %ust e a 5reasona!e6 )t). , =tate !aw annin" a&$ertise%ent o# retai! !i>uor prices except at the p!ace o# sa!e $io!ates the 1 st A%en&.? an& the *1 st A%en&. &oes not >ua!i#( the !aw ari&"in" the #ree&o% o# speech in the 1 st A%en&. 33 %i<uormart v. R.I. (199H) (=te$ens #or the p!ura!it( o# the Court? C2Connor2s concurrence pre$ents o$erru!in" the !osadas ho!&in" that the !e"is!ature can choose suppression o$er a !ess speech,restricti$e po!ic( an& that the "reater state re"u!ator( power inc!u&es the !esser, (power to an the acti$it( %ust inc!u&e power to an a&$ertisin" #or it)). o 0hen the =tate re"u!ates co%%ercia! %essa"es to protect consu%ers #ro% %is!ea&in", or &ecepti$e, or a""ressi$e sa!es practices, or re>uires the &isc!osure o# ene)cia! consu%er in#or%ation, the purpose o# its re"u!ation is consistent with the reasons #or accor&in" constitutiona! protection to co%%ercia! speech an& there#ore 7usti)es !ess than strict re$iew. o 3owe$er, when a =tate entire!( prohiits &isse%ination o# non,%is!ea&in" co%%ercia! %essa"es #or reasons unre!ate& to the preser$ation o# a #air ar"ainin" process, there is #ar !ess reason to &epart #ro% the ri"orous Pa"e ;9 o# 9: re$iew that the 1 st A%en&. "enera!!( &e%an&s? an& it %ust e re$iewe& with 5specia! care6 un&er Centr. ,udson. o * n& / =tate c!ai%s its interest in pro%otin" te%perance 7usti)es this an, ut there is no e$i&ence to support this. E!i%ination o# the an wou!& si"ni)cant!( increase a!coho! consu%ption i# specu!ati$e. o : r& / Oot an eIecti$e nor &irect wa( to achie$e interests. 3ea$( &rin8ers wou!& sti!! purchase &espite price. o 1 th / +estriction on speech is %ore extensi$e than necessar(. =tate interest cou!& e acco%p!ishe& ( e&ucationa! pro"ra%s an& hi"her taxes. !osadas erroneous!( per#or%e& the 1 st A%en&. ana!(sis. (=te$ens, Kenne&(, Tho%as, Finsur") !osadas c!ear!( erre& in conc!u&in" that it was up to the !e"is!ature to choose suppression o$er a !ess,restricti$e po!ic(. Cannot accept the contention that the 5"reater,inc!u&e,the, !esser6 reasonin" ecause it is inconsistent with !o"ic an& we!!,sett!e& &octrine. o 'annin" speech %a( so%eti%es e %ore intrusi$e than annin" con&uct. 0or&s are not necessari!( !ess $ita! to #ree&o% than actions, or that !o"ic so%ehow pro$es that the power to prohiit an acti$it( is necessari!( "reater than the power to suppress speech aout it. 1 st A%en&. &irects that "o$ern%ent %a( not suppress speech as easi!( as it %a( suppress con&uct an& that speech restrictions cannot e treate& as si%p!( another %eans that the "o$ern%ent %a( use to achie$e its en&s. The =tate2s re"u!ation o# a sa!e o# "oo&s &iIers in 8in& #ro% the =tate2s re"u!ation o# accurate in#or%ation aout those "oo&s. <t2s power to an& the sa!e o# !i>uor entire!( &oes not inc!u&e a power to censor a!! a&$ertise%ents that contain accurate in#or%ation aout the price o# the pro&uct. Anpersuasi$e that the speech re"u!ation tar"ete& a 5$ice6 acti$it(. 3ar& to &e)ne $ice an& annin" speech aout it, whi!e a!!owin" the acti$it( is not a princip!e& 7usti)cation. o D. =ca!ia &issentin", is unco%#orta!e with the Centr. ,udson test ut &oes not ha$e the wherewitha! to o$erru!e it or rep!ace it with so%ethin" e!se? a!so shares a$ersion to paterna!istic "o$ern%ent po!icies that shie!& #acts #ro% the pu!ic. o D. Tho%as concurrin" in 7u&"%ent, )n&s that app!ication o# Centr. ,udson shou!& not e app!ie& in this 8in& o# case in which the "o$ern%ent2s asserte& interest is to 8eep !e"a! users o# a pro&uct o# ser$ice i"norant in or&er to %anipu!ate their choices in the %ar8etp!ace. =uch an interest is 0er se i!!e"iti%ate an& can no %ore 7usti#( a re"u!ation o# co%%ercia! speech than it can 7usti#( re"u!ation o# nonco%%ercia! speech. P!ura!it(2s interpretation o# the 1 th pron" o# the Centr. ,udson co%%its the courts to stri8in" &own restrictions on speech whene$er a &irect re"u!ation wou!& e an e>ua!!( eIecti$e %etho& o# &a%penin" &e%an& ( !e"a! users. 3owe$er, in a!! cases annin" Pa"e ;9 o# 9: the pro&uct wou!& e as eIecti$e as restrictin" its a&$ertisin", such that, a!! restrictions with such a purpose wou!& #ai! the 1 th pron" o# the test. +ather than usin" Centr. ,udson, he wou!& app!( 5a. !harmac) Bd., un&er which these restrictions wou!& #ai!. o D. C2Connor concurrin" (with +ehn>uist, =outer, 're(er), wou!& reso!$e the case ( app!(in" Centr. ,udson. =ince it #ai!s the 1 th pron", the an is in$a!i&. <n or&er #or a speech restriction to pass %uster un&er the 1 th pron", there %ust e a )t that is reasona!e an& that represents a scope that is in proportion to the interest ser$e&. =ince !osadas, the Court has exa%ine& %ore searchin"!( the =tate2s pro#esse& "oa!, an& the speech restriction put into p!ace to #urther it, e#ore acceptin" the =tate2s c!ai% that the speech restriction satis)es the 1 st A%en&. The c!oser !oo8 we ha$e re>uire& co%ports etter with the purpose o# the ana!(sis set out in Centr. ,udson, ( re>uirin" the =tate to show that the speech re>uire%ent &irect!( a&$ances its interests an& is narrow!( tai!ore&. o Ootes/ +. Post/ Co%%ercia! speech recei$es protection ecause o# its in#or%ationa! #unction, whereas pu!ic &iscourse is protecte& to assure citi4en participation. The in#or%ation,protection rationa!e o# co%%ercia! speech exp!ains wh( it can e su7ect to restrictions that wou!& not e to!erate& in the case o# pu!ic &iscourse (e."., prior restraint, o$errea&th an& co%pe!!e& &isc!osure). 'ut the Centr. ,udson test is ina&e>uate to acco%p!ish the in#or%ationa! #unction o# co%%ercia! speech. <t wi!! either continue to un#o!& ( &e$e!opin" &octrina! too!s necessar( to assess the i%pact o# state re"u!ation on the actua! circu!ation o# co%%ercia! in#or%ation, or the Court wi!! %er"e it with pu!ic &iscourse. =. =herr( ar"ues that concrete, atheoretica! concerns p!a( a sustantia! ro!e in the Court2s co%%ercia! speech cases, &e%onstrate& ( its re!iance on e%pirica! &ata in so%e cases. The Court cre&ite& the &istrict court )n&in"s o# #act ase& on e%pirica! stu&ies o# !i>uor consu%ption patterns, re7ectin" the appe!!ate court2s )n&in" o# inherit %erit in the state2s ar"u%ent that co%petiti$e price a&$ertisin" wou!& !ower prices an& thus increase a!coho! sa!es. C. E. 'a8er ar"ues that a&$ertisers, not "o$ern%ents, are the pri%ar( censors o# %e&iate content in the A=. 3e e!ie$es the current co%%ercia! speech &octrine ten&s to #a$or re"u!ation o# co%%ercia! speech since an( "oo& po!ic( 7usti)cation #or a tax or re"u!ation shou!& &e#eat an a&$ertiser2s 1 st A%en&. c!ai%s. O.s)ene S,ee)% , Oo 1 st A%en&. protection #or oscene speech since such expression !ac8s socia! i%portance. Pa"e 90 o# 9: , (e;nition4 <n or&er #or %ateria! to e cate"ori4e& as oscene it %ust satis#( each e!e%ent (Miller v. Cal.=/ a) 0hether the a$era"e person, app!(in" conte%porar( co%%unit( stan&ar&s wou!& )n& that the wou!&, ta8en as a who!e, appea!s to the prurient interest? i. Dur( &eter%ination (not chi!&ren) o# co%%unit( stan&ar&s. Oationa! stan&ar& &oes not nee& to e conte%p!ate&. 1. Oo expert e$i&ence is re>uires to esta!ish is re>uire& to esta!ish oscenit(. ) 0hether the wor8 &epicts or &escries, in a patent!( oIensi$e wa(, sexua! con&uct speci)ca!!( &e)ne& ( the app!ica!e state !aw? an& c) 0hether the wor8 ta8en as a who!e !ac8s serious !iterar(, artistic, po!itica! or scienti)c $a!ue. i. Du&"e& as a who!e ( an o7ecti$e reasona!e person stan&ar&. !o0e v. Illin. o <n %a8in" this &eter%ination, the 7ur( s(ste% wi!! e use&. , Court2s "ui&e!ine to &e)ne oscenit( tries to exc!u&e 5har& core6 porno"raph( #ro% 1 st A%en&. protection. 3owe$er, con&uct %ust e speci)ca!!( &e)ne& ( the app!ica!e =tate !aw or authoritati$e!( construe& #or the re"u!ation to e constitutiona!. Miller v. Cal. (19;:). o Oo one wi!! e su7ect to prosecution #or the sa!e or exposure o# oscene %ateria!s un!ess these %ateria!s &epict or &escrie patent!( oIensi$e 5har&,core6 sexua! con&uct speci)ca!!( &e)nes ( the re"u!atin" state !aw as written or construe&. o These speci)c prere>uisites wi!! pro$i&e #air notice to a &ea!er in such %ateria!s that his pu!ic an& co%%ercia! acti$ities %a( rin" prosecution. o A!thou"h notin" that it is not the Court2s #unction to propose re"u!ator( sche%es, a #ew exa%p!es o# what a state statute cou!& &e)ne #or re"u!ation as patent!( oIensi$e sexua! con&uct/ Patent!( oIensi$e representations or &epictions o# u!ti%ate sexua! acts, nor%a! or per$erts, actua! or si%u!ate&. Patent!( oIensi$e representations or &epictions o# %asturation, excretor( #unctions an& !ew& exhiition o# the "enita!s. o At a %ini%u%, prurient, patent!( oIensi$e &epiction or &escription o# sexua! con&uct %ust ha$e serious !iterar(, artistic, po!itica! or scienti)c $a!ue to %erit 1 st A%en&. protection. , 0hi!e Miller was %eant to !ea$e the &eter%ination o# oscenit( to !oca! co%%unities, this &oes not prec!u&e in&epen&ent 7u&icia! re$iew e$en o# the 7ur( &eter%ination o# oscenit(. Constitutiona! stan&ar&s %ust e satis)e&. , Gere possession o# oscene %atter (except #or chi!& porno"raph() cannot constitutiona!!( e %a&e a cri%e. Pri$ac(, a #un&a%enta! ri"ht, protects what an in&i$i&ua! rea&s or watches in his own ho%e. o 'ut the ri"ht o# pri$ac( &oes not protect oscene &isp!a(s in p!aces o# pu!ic acco%%o&ation e$en when eIecti$e sa#e"uar&s are e%p!o(e& a"ainst exposure to 7u$eni!es an& passers(. !aris #dult 6heater v. Slaton (19;:). o Possession o# chi!& porno"raph( can e cri%ina!i4e& ecause o# the state2s co%pe!!in" interests in protectin" the ph(sica! an& ps(cho!o"ica! we!!,ein" o# the %inors an& in &estro(in" the %ar8et #or the exp!oiti$e Pa"e 91 o# 9: use o# chi!&ren &istin"uish this #ro% other oscene %ateria!. Os'orne v. Ohio (1990). , Contro! o# oscenit( %a( a!so ta8e the #or% o# ci$i! statutes such as nuisance or 4onin" !aws, which constitute prior restraints in$o!$in" !icensin", in7unction, an& a&%inistrati$e censorship. The Court "enera!!( has ta8en a %ore #a$ora!e attitu&e to such prior restraints on the theor( that the( a$oi& %an( o# the e$i!s o# oscenit( contro! pursue& throu"h cri%ina! !aws. !aris #dult 6heater v. Slaton (19;:). o Fre>uent!(, 4onin" !aws are treate& as ti%e, p!ace an& %anner re"u!ations rather than content contro!s rather than content contro!s. <n cases where the re"u!ation si"ni)cant!( eIects protecte& acti$it(, the !aw %ust e &esi"ne& to achie$e a sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest an& !ea$e open reasona!e a!ternati$e channe!s o# co%%unication. o <# the re"u!ation &oes not si"ni)cant!( ur&en expression o# the eIects o# speech, the 1 st A%en&. protection &oes not app!( an& the !aw nee& on!( e rationa!. In&e)ent S,ee)% an& Broa&)astin , Fu!! 1 st A%en&. protection &oes not exten& to roa&castin" &ue to the per$asi$e nature o# the %e&iu% an& ease o# accessii!it( to chi!&ren. CC v. !acifca ound. (19;9) (FCC authorit( to re"u!ate 5an( oscene, in&ecent, or pro#ane !an"ua"e ( %eans o# ra&io co%%unications6 &oes not $io!ate 1 st A%en&.). o The constitutiona! protection accor&e& to a co%%unication containin" such patent!( oIensi$e sexua! an& excretor( !an"ua"e nee& not e the sa%e in e$er( context. <t is the characteristic o# such speech that oth its capacit( to oIen& an& its socia! $a!ue $ar( with the circu%stances. o 'ecause content o# that character is not entit!e& to aso!ute constitutiona! protection un&er a!! circu%stances, the Court %ust consi&er its context in or&er to &eter%ine whether the FCC2s action was per%issi!e. Court has reco"ni4e& that each %e&iu% o# expression presents specia! 1 st A%en&. pro!e%s. o The "o$ern%ent re"u!ation is ase& on a nuisance rationa!e, which %a( %ere!( e the ri"ht thin" at the wron" ti%e. This &oes not &epen& on )n&in" that the speech was oscene. 'roa&cast %e&ia has a uni>ue!( per$asi$e presence an& the au&ience constant!( tunes in an& out, #or which prior warnin"s #or pro"ra%%in" %a( e ineIecti$e. 'roa&cast is a!so uni>ue!( accessi!e to chi!&ren, e$en those too (oun" to rea&, which 7usti)es specia! treat%ent o# in&ecent roa&castin". o D. Powe!! (with '!ac8%un) concurrin" e%phasi4es that the Court2s &ecision turns on the uni>ue characteristics o# the roa&cast %e&ia, co%ine& with societ(2s ri"ht to protect its chi!&ren #ro% speech inappropriate #or their a"e an& not on the $a!ue or protection accor&e& the speech. o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!) &issentin", ar"ues that the FCC or&er is not a per%issi!e ti%e, p!ace an& %anner re"u!ation ecause it is ase& on content. Pa"e 9* o# 9: The %ono!o"ue &oes not #a!! into the cate"ories o# unprotecte& speech, hence is shou!& e protecte&. 0hate$er the %ini%a! &isco%#ort suIere& ( a !istener who ina&$ertent!( tunes into a pro"ra% he )n&s oIensi$e &urin" the rie# inter$a! e#ore he can si%p!( switch stations is sure!( worth the can&!e to preser$e the roa&caster2s ri"ht to sen& an& the ri"ht o# those to recei$e a %essa"e entit!e& to the #u!! 1 st A%en&. protection. 'ecause the %ono!o"ue is o$ious!( not an erotic appea! to the prurient interests o# chi!&ren, the Court, #or the 1 st ti%e, a!!ows the "o$ern%ent to pre$ent %inors #ro% "ainin" access to %ateria!s that are not oscene, an& are there#ore protecte& as to the%. The responsii!it( an& ri"ht to wee& worth!ess an& oIensi$e co%%unications #ro% the pu!ic airwa(s resi&es with the pu!ic in a %ar8etp!ace unsu!!ie& ( the censor2s han&. , 0hen the %e&iu% re>uires the !istener to ta8e aIir%ati$e steps to recei$e the co%%unication, an& techno!o"ica! %eans to !i%its its a$ai!ai!it(, a tota! an o# the %ateria! is not narrow!( tai!ore& to ser$e the co%pe!!in" interest o# pre$entin" %inors #ro% ein" expose&. Sa'le Commc/n of Cal. v. CC (1999). o There is no capti$e au&ience pro!e% where a ca!!er see8s an& is wi!!in" to pa( #or the co%%unication. This is %ani#est!( &iIerent #ro% a situation in which a !istener &oes not want to recei$e the %essa"e. o Court re7ecte& the "o$ern%ent2s ar"u%ent that nothin" !ess that a tota! an wou!& pre$ent chi!&ren #ro% otainin" access to &ia!,a,porn %essa"es, which are sexua!!( in&ecent ut not oscene. Techno!o"ica! %eans were a$ai!a!e to pre$ent such access. Pa"e 9: o# 9:
Neville Goddard Master Course to Manifest Your Desires Into Reality Using The Law of Attraction: Learn the Secret to Overcoming Your Current Problems and Limitations, Attaining Your Goals, and Achieving Health, Wealth, Happiness and Success!
Deep Sleep Meditation: Fall Asleep Instantly with Powerful Guided Meditations, Hypnosis, and Affirmations. Overcome Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia, Stress, and Relax Your Mind!