Con Law Outline Fall 2008 Chapter 7 – Equal Protection A. INTRODUCTION 1.

Constitutional Provisions  The Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment was rarely used before the 1950’s.  Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ushered in modern era for combating discrimination and fundamental rights. (which applied the 14th amendment to the state government)  Bolling v. Sharpe – court held that equal protection applies to the federal government through the due process clause of the 5th amendment. 2. Frame work for EP Question 1: What is the government’s classification? o Is the law one of obvious facial classification? o Is the law one that has a discriminatory impact? If so, was its purpose to discriminate? Question 2: What is the appropriate level of scrutiny?  Strict Scrutiny: discrimination based on race, national origin, aliens. o The government must have a truly significant reason for discriminating, and it must show that it cannot achieve its objective through any less discriminatory alternative. o The government has the burden of proof.  Intermediate Scrutiny: discrimination based on gender and non-martial children. o The government’s purpose need not be compelling but important – it must have a substantial purpose being sought. o The government has the burden of proof.  Rational basis test: o Minimal level of scrutiny tests o A law will be upheld only if it is rationally related to a legitimate purpose. o The challenger has the burden of proof.  3 rigid tiers or sliding scale? Question 3: Does the government action meet the level of scrutiny?  The court evaluates both the laws ends and its means. o Strict – the end must be deemed compelling for the law to be upheld. o Intermediate – the end has to be regarded as important o Rational basis test – there just has to be a legitimate purpose. Underinclusive: a law that does not apply to individuals who are similar to those to whom the law applies. Overinclusive: a law that applies to those who need not to be included in order for the government to achieve its purpose.  The protection of fundamental rights under equal protection: o Skinner v. Oklahoma – the act required surgical sterilization for individuals who had been convicted three or more times for crimes involving moral turpitude. The law was analyzed under strict scrutiny and held unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to procreate. B. THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST 1. Introduction  It is rare that the SC to find that a law fails the rational basis test. (exception – Romer v. Evans) Is this appropriate deference to the legislation process or undue judicial abandonment?  Under the rational basis test there are 2 questions: o Does the law have a legitimate purpose?  What constitutes a legitimate purpose?

o

The government has a legitimate purpose if it advances a traditional police power: protecting safety, public health, or public morals. • Any goal not forbidden by the constitution will be deemed sufficient to meet the rational basis test.  Must it be the actual purpose or is a conceivable purpose enough? • A law will be upheld so long as the government’s lawyer can identify some conceivable legitimate purpose, regardless of whether that was the government’s actual purpose. • United States Railroad Retirement Brd. v. Fritz illustrates the debate over whether conceivable purpose should be sufficient or legitimate actual purpose is required. Is the law rationally related to achieving it?  Tolerance for under inclusive and overinclusive. • Railway Express Agency v. NY – Under inclusive - The Equal Protection Clause does not require that a statute eliminate all problems of the same type or none at all. • NY City Transit Authority v. Beazer – Overinclusive - A policy excluding all methadone users does not violate the EP Clause.  Cases where laws are deemed arbitrary and unreasonable • US Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno: The federal law that denies food stamps to any household containing an individual unrelated to any other member of the household violates the EP Clause. • City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center - Laws impacting the mentally retarded are not to e given heighten constitutional scrutiny.

C. Classifications based on Race and National Origin 1. Race discrimination and slavery before the 13th and 14th amendments.  Dred Scott v. Sanford – The court held the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional and broadly held that slaves were property not citizens.  Post Civil War Amendments o 13th amendment adopted in 1865 – made slavery unconstitutional. o 14th amendment adopted in 1868 – provided equal protection which overruled the Dred Scott decision. 2. Strict Scrutiny for discrimination based on race and national origin  Racial classification is only allowed if the government can prove an extremely important reason for its action and it must demonstrate that the goal cannot be achieved through any less discriminatory alternative.  Justification of strict scrutiny – political powerlessness of groups and unfairness to discriminate against a trait acquired at birth that cannot be changed. 3. Proving the existence of a Race or National Origin Classification. a. Race and National Origin classifications on the face of law: exist when the law, in its very terms, draws distinction among people based on those characteristics. There are (3) major types of such laws. 1. Race – Specific Classifications that disadvantage racial minorities.  Korematsu v. US – a citizen of Japanese descent charged for not evacuating to a concentration camp. 2. Racial classifications burdening both whites and minorities. Example: statutes that prohibit interracial cohabitation and marriage. 3. Laws requiring separation of races – Plessey v. Ferguson: allowed for segregation on railroads.  Initial attack on “separate but equal” – Brown v. Board of Education: sad that segregation is schools was a violation of EPC.

civil rights statutes often allow violations to be proven based on discriminatory impact without evidence of a discriminatory purpose. Racial Classifications Benefiting Minorities What is the level of scrutiny?---Strict Scrutiny What purposes for affirmative action are sufficient to meet the level of scrutiny? What techniques of affirmative action are sufficient to meet the level of scrutiny?  Affirmative Action o In Richmond v. Lodge) – the same electoral system became unconstitutional.  How is a discriminatory purpose proven? o It is not enough to prove that the government took an action with knowledge that it would have discriminatory consequences – but that they desired to discriminate. in a case dealing with gender discrimination – the court defines discriminatory intent as – Discriminatory purpose implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. o Personnel Ad. (1989) the Supreme Court for the 1st time reviewed affirmative action under the Strict Scrutiny Test.  The Supreme Court has said that there must be a proof of a discriminatory purpose for such laws to be treated as racial or national origin classifications – Washington v. o Soon after in 1982 (Rogers v. A prima facie case of discrimination must be presented. (pools were closed – after desegregation was enforced – but reason given for closing pools was due to finances). Davis holds that equal protection requires proof of a discriminatory purpose in order to demonstrate that a facially neutral law constitutes a racial classification. 2. J. 3.  Although Washington v. Mobile v. Croson Co. The court must decide whether explanation is persuasive.b. Thompson is the case that indicates that discriminatory impact also must be shown. Feeney. Bolden is the Key Case. Kemp: Death sentence more likely to be among blacks) So the question then becomes is the clause only about equal treatment by the government or should it also be concerned with equal results?  15th amendment o The Supreme Court extended the requirement for a discriminatory purpose to include the 15th amendment. o 3 step process to determine Baston 1. and its prohibition of racebased interference with the right to vote. o Palmer v.A. It implies that the decision maker selected or reaffirmed an action at least in part of not merely in spite of its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. Davis (1976) is a key case articulating this requirement. but it appears that both are required. . o Then the 1982 Amendments eliminate the need for proof of discriminatory purpose in challenging an election system as being racially discriminatory.  Is proof of a discriminatory effect also required? o Must there be both discriminatory impact and discriminatory purpose? The Supreme Court has never expressly addressed the question. Of Mass v.  Discriminatory use of peremptory challenges o Baston holds that the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor denies equal protection. (McCleskey v. The burden then shifts to the other side to offer race neutral explanation. Facially Neutral Laws with a Discriminatory Impact or with Discriminatory Administration.

A. There was a point system  Gratz v. ∏ claimed violations of fourteenth amendment and claimed there was reverse discrimination claiming. while other pool was weighed against all others. University of California Regents v.  Three very important dissents: Ginsburg: No need for two types of legislation to be reviewed equal when they are for two different purposes. 5 – 4.  In Grutter v. there were four seats and still did not get in. supporters of strict scrutiny for affirmative action argue that all racial classifications stigmatize and breed racial hostility and therefore all should be subjected to strict scrutiny.5 G. o Drawing election districts to increase minority representation  1) The Supreme Court has held that the use of race in drawing election districts must meet Strict Scrutiny. Asked question whether student wished to be considered disadvantaged or minority. Thomas: Stamp of inferiority and sense of entitlement. Δ said that minority applicants were ranked amongst each other. This option would allow them to be waived against general admissions or have a 2. ∏ was a white applicant who applied twice and was rejected. Bollinger (2003) In this case the guidelines were not upheld because they were not narrowly tailored. under inclusive? . Easley v. It is proven that race was a predominant factor in drawing the lines  Court considered what justifications are sufficient to meet strict scrutiny? 1.  Those who argue for a lower level of scrutiny emphasize that achieving social equity requires affirmative action at this point in American history. Bizarre district shapes that makes it evident…. Cromate: Whether there is adequate support for the District Court’s key findings particularly the ultimate finding that the legislature’s motive was predominantly o Summation of Racial and National Origin Classification Race & National origin: Strict scrutiny When a law benefits minorities: Strict Scrutiny Does the government have a compelling and necessary interest? What is that interest? Is the objective narrowly tailored? Is it overinclusive. 265 (1978): Two admissions programs. 2. between those 2 views as the appropriate level of scrutiny for affirmative action.S. Factually how was admissions process administered: Point system to make a composite score--seats were just saved for minority students (NOT CONSTITUTIONAL) The use of race to benefit minorities in college and universities admissions. Compliance with Voting Rights Acts.o A year after that in Metro Broadcasting (1990) it held that affirmative action needs only to be reviewed under Intermediate Scrutiny. o In Adarand Constructors (1995) the Supreme Court overruled Metro Broadcasting. o The Arguments for and against Strict Scrutiny  Those who favor strict scrutiny for affirmative action programs argue that all racial classification – whether invidious or benign – should be subjected to strict scrutiny.  It appears that the current Court is split.  2) 2 ways that it can be determined that race was used in drawling election districts 1. Bollinger (2003) the Supreme Court held that the use of race as a factor in student admissions by the University of Michigan Law School was NOT unlawful because it had a compelling state interest that was narrowly tailored. Bakke: 438 U. In third time.P.  Moreover.

This court applied rational basis—one step at a time. Orr: Alimony was only allowed for women to receive alimony. biological differences. but they could have placed a gender neutral solution instead? So why did this court uphold it? Rokster v. specifically man can’t have sex with a woman. Reed rational basis was used to invalidate gender classifications. When is it discrimination? Geduldig v. Proving the Existence of a Gender Classification Two major ways: First: Can exist on the face of the law or the law by its very terms draws a distinction between genders. In Reed v. Craig v. It only criminalized statutory rape. Mississippi v. Men were not allowed to buy beer until 21 but women at 18 could. Michael M. Historical Background of decisions with invidious motives 2. The court stated that sex could not bear relation to the ability to perform and contribute to society. Ct applied that it must have an important governmental objective and must be substantially related to achievements of those objectives. Departures from normal procedure 3. Aiello: Pregnancy was not a covered disability under private insurance.  Frontiero v. How is it invalid? In this case there was no actual discrimination shown because nurses have always been women. The Level of Scrutiny National Origin is an immutable characteristic. Boren (US 1976) said that it should be intermediate scrutiny. Goldberg: Is the Military Selective Service Act legal? Yes the Congress has great deference in military affairs and congress is not denying equal protection of the laws by only drafting men. . ----Example of over inclusiveness--2. Hogan: Can a state exclude men from the nursing school? No. GENDER CLASSIFICATION 1. Is this measure appropriate? It must be an important.  Advocates for Intermediate Scrutiny – equal protection (14th amendment) meant to outlaw race discrimination only.  Advocates for Strict Scrutiny – immutable characteristics. Second way can be proved when there is a facially gender neutral law that has both a discriminatory impact and a discriminatory purpose. only women can get pregnant.: Statutory rape statute. D. Legislative or administrative history and statements made by members of decision making body. Congress greatly considered drafting women as well as men but the government decided that combat troops should be men mostly. Gender classifications based on role stereotypes Orr v.** This was also under inclusive** Governmental purpose: To prevent teen pregnancy. Don’t forget the 14th amendment enacts the 5th to the government. unrepresented in the political process. Richardson (US 1973) ∏ sued because felt it was unfair that Women could not claim their husbands as dependents as easily as males could claim females. the governmental purpose was to remedy past discrimination. In sum. The method was upheld under the notion of governmental Administrative Convenience.How do you know that there is discrimination when the law is neutral on its face? 1. This court applied Intermediate Scrutiny. v.  What part of the 14th amendment would apply to this situation? § 5 the enforcing the laws section. This court did not sustain this holding. The court held that men’s equal protection rights were violated. but benefits for women will go through intermediate scrutiny will be permitted. there is no relation to objective. immediately visible characteristics. Superior Ct. Classifications based on role stereotypes will not be permitted.

Federal Gov: Rational Basis. E. Webster: What is the classification? Women What is the governmental purpose? Must be important or significant governmental purpose & objectives must be substantially related to achievements of those objectives Governmental Purpose Means related to end Strict Scrutiny Compelling Necessary (narrowly tailored) no other alternative—No Over or Under Inclusiveness Intermediate Scrutiny Significant/important Substantially related / fit together like a puzzle--. or review of broad public policy and conduct representations that go to the heart of representative government. or any other program. So states would have to pass strict scrutiny if they made a distinction on Alienage unless there is a job that implies “direct participation in the formulation. serve on jury rights.Government. Democratic process (voting rights. right of a state to allow only citizens to be troopers). Alienage classifications related to self-governments and democratic process: Federal governments. Foley v. use Rational Basis: For Self.Gender Classifications Benefiting Women: INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY WHEN IT BENEFITS WOMEN Calafano v. Strict Scrutiny Graham v. When a Federal Law makes a distinction. public education. immutable characteristics. whether for public assistance. Citizen: Alienage Classification (not immutable) Alienage Discrimination: Strict Scrutiny how do you know when to apply strict scrutiny(lack of political representation. any state law would be preempted. 1. Self-Government: instilling values. have plenary power to regulate immigration. Less than S. hold office. past discrimination. BUT not with invidious means that deny aliens equal protection rights. . Norwick: Can a state require that their teachers be citizens? Yes why because teachers play a critical role in the developing student’s attitude toward government and understanding of the role of citizens in our society. ALIENAGE CLASSIFICATIONS Born in Cambodia: National Origin—Originally Chinese—(Race) U. ability to represent yourself.S. It may legitimately attempt to limits its expenditures.Over inclusive-depends Under inclusive-depends Rational Basis Legitimate/Conceivable Rationally related—(Can be purpose under inclusive or overinclusive)—Just one STEP closer. Richardson: Rule: A state has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs. 2. Or Democratic process: Police officer. Connelie: Ambach v. execution.S.

Age classification: Rational Basis Mass v. Other types of discrimination: Only rational basis review 1. Neutral: not in its words (but in effect) Compelling Interest & necessary & narrowly tailored (if there is an alternative then gov.3. Doe: What is the level of scrutiny for children of undocumented aliens? Sum Federal government=Rational Basis (Except government agencies) State Government= Strict Scrutiny Unless it is for= Democratic /Government functions (police officers) Discretion jobs Jobs that instill values F. Wealth Discrimination: making distinctions based on wealth usually rational basis**** Laws discriminating against the poor: heightened scrutiny.----Facially: you can find it in words. Sexual Orientation: Rational Basis _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Is there a classification? S.S. Congressionally Approved Discrimination: 4. Murgia: 2. Discrimination: What is the level of review? Intermediate scrutiny The court has allowed both rational basis and intermediate review for illegitimate children First laws that provide a benefit to all marital children. but no non-marital children are always declared unconstitutional G. Discrimination based on disability Rational Basis 3. 4. Undocumented Plyer v. fails) no over or under exclusive Intermediate Scrutiny--Rational Basis--. on its face.Reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose (can be over or under inclusive) IN the end is it a step closer? When you have a neutral piece of legislation what do you do? .

government only has to meet rational basis test and must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Then you decide from the three. The right to custody of one’s children: . Education is not a fundamental right**** Little depends on whether the court uses due process clause or equal protection clause as a basis for protecting a fundamental right. Sexual Activity.S. Ct must decide whether a claimed liberty is sufficiently important to be regarded as fundamental. Ninth Amendment: Procedural Due process Framework: Is there a fundamental right? Once you determine that there is a fundamental right. these rights include: Family autonomy. then you must decide the level of scrutiny. there is strict scrutiny Is the Constitutional Right Infringed? Is there a sufficient justification for the government’s infringement of a right? Is the means sufficiently related to the purpose? 1. Va: Zablocki v. (Makes more sense to use for a S.Discriminatory Impact + Discriminatory Purpose (three factors. The State’s goal was obviously to 2. and access to the courts. Fourth Amendment’s safeguard from unreasonable seizures Fifth Amendments’ protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy Sixth Amendment’s right to bail and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment Few claims raise heightened scrutiny. Introduction: Some liberties are so important that they must be considered fundamental rights and government cannot infringe them without first meeting strict scrutiny. The right to Marry Loving v. although it is not mentioned in the Constitution. most claims of rights under equal protection usually only receive minimal judicial scrutiny. Redhail: ∏ sued because there was a statute that did not allow a male to marry without having first complying with child support payments.1) historical background (what is happening around the world at the time)2) Departure from legislative norms 3) Legislative & Administrative History ) or Intent When you have all of these you are showing discrimination. Medical Care decision making. Procreation. voting. Major differences between due process and equal protection as the basis for protecting fundamental rightsin how the constitutional arguments are phrased. travel. Due Process: Whether the government as interference is justified by a sufficient purpose Equal Protection: Whether the government’s discrimination as to who can exercise the right justified by a sufficient purpose.) What is the classification? What is the level of scrutiny? Does the government meet the level of scrutiny? Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights under Due Process and Equal protection A. Sexual Orientation. Scr. or Int.

The statute in place allows the grandparents to petition the court and the judge to make the decision. Michael v. The city in this instance argues that the ordinance is permissible to alleviate traffic. In this a case the Court notes that the city seeks to slice deeply into the family itself. City of East Cleveland: In this case appellant Mr. Liberties recognized in this court: Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family rights are protected as a liberty by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Parens patriae Wisconsin v. Troxel v. In essence the court can interfere when acting to guard the youth’s well-being and the state can require school attendance and prohibiting child labor. The state uses a Belle Terre case that upheld this type of ordinance for college students that were not related. Society of Sisters of Mary: In this case an Oregon statute mandated that all children between 8 and 16 years of age attend a public school in the district in which the child resides. Pierce v. . If there is not sterility or infertility then the child is considered to be the child of the married father. This court struck down that statute and declared that the teacher had the right to teach and the parents have the right to engage the teacher to instruct their children. the court has recognized that the rights to make parenting decisions are not absolute and can be interfered with by the state if necessary to protect a child. Illinois: Parents have a fundamental right to custody of their children in this case petitioner was a single father whose wife died and the state attempted to give his children to the state as wards because single dads were not fit parents. Prince v. The court held that applying the Myers doctrine. Gerald: Did Michael have any rights to see Victoria his biological daughter when she was married and lived with her husband. ________________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ However. Facts: Mother of two little girls decided to cut the visitations by her daughters to their grandparents by their father’s side. The grandparents never alleged that the mom was not fit nor was the intervention for the best interests of the child. minimizing parking congestion and such state objectives. overcrowding. 3. the court was seeking to protect family autonomy and family ideals. Inez Moore lives with her son and her two grandsons in the same home. Yoder: Also the court here upheld the right of Amish parents to not have to send their 14 and 15 year olds to public high school because it interferes with their right to control the upbringing of their child and the free exercise clause. Ct held he did not. that the act plainly interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. Nebraska: In this case petitioner taught German to a student in a Parochial school to a ten year old student in contravention of the State of Nebraska statute. Holding: Court did not uphold the ordinance. These rights cannot be abridged by some legislation that has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state.** 4. ** There is not a liberty interest in foster parents that have not had the child for more than 18 months. This court affirms the Washington Supreme Court decision overruling the statute because it is very broad and it exceeded the bounds of Due Process. Mass: Did not allow the solicitation by a 9 year old for Jehovah witness. Granville: In this case a Washington statute permitted any person to petition a superior court for visitation rights at any time and authorizes that court to grant such visitation rights whenever “visitation may serve the best interest of the child” In essence the court did not defer in any way to the parent’s decision. Right to keep the family together Moore v. Right of parents to control the upbringing of their children: Family autonomy Myer v. The family received a violation notice from the city that they were violating a statute in place and that the grandson was an “illegal occupant” and he needed to move.Stanley v. She was charged and sentenced to five days in jail and a 25 dollar fine.

D. married or single. and married or single women could get contraceptives to avoid the spread of disease. Court noted right to procreate fundamental right overruled act. 3. Ninth amendment provides: the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people. The court here characterized the sterilization of Δ as discrimination because someone convicted of embezzlement would not suffer the same fate as a larceny crime(social distinctions). the state in promoting its interest in the interest of the mother. at the time women mortality rate was high. Bell: In this case the court allowed the sterilization of a woman Carrie Buck who was feeble minded and was institutionalized. Right to Procreate: Involuntary sterilization must meet strict scrutiny. Eisenstaedt v. Baird: Under Massachusetts law there was a distinction drawn between who could receive contraceptives. The recognition and reaffirmation of the right to an abortion Roe v. The third amendment=quartering of soldiers. The statute in place here did not allow for contraceptives to be prescribed to women. States interest: To prevent promiscuity. Married people could get contraceptives to avoid pregnancy single women could not. so states cannot prohibit. So balancing the states interest with the woman’s free rights. Constitutional Protection for reproductive autonomy 1. 2. Fifth Amendment= selfincrimination clause. hands off. then armed robbery two times after that. regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are .(State can make sure doctors are qualified and facilities. This court defined that the right to privacy if it means anything it should mean that the right of an individual. Her mother was also institutionalized and an act in Virginia in 1924 allowed for sterilization of “mental defectives” to promote the welfare for society. Right to Abortion a. Skinner v. Fourth Amendment= right against unreasonable seizures. 1) For the stage prior to the end of the first trimester. Buck v. health of women. Oklahoma: In this case an Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act allowed for sterilization of individuals who had committed two or more felonies involving moral turpitude. In this case the petitioner had been convicted of stealing chickens. Right to purchase and use contraceptives Griswold v. no state interest whatsoever) First 3 months 2) For the stage subsequent to the end of the first trimester. the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgement of the patient and the medical doctor. to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether or not to beget a child. protecting the fetus. Wade: How was the court able to confront the traditions? Critical issue: The balancing in the point of viability of the fetus with the woman’s freedom and rights. Connecticut: In this case the petitioners included the director of the PPH and the doctor as well as a married couple. may if so chooses. The court noted memorably that this present relationship lies within the source of privacy created by fundamental constitutional guarantees. The court upheld this finding that three generations of imbeciles are enough. The court did not uphold this because they found it was a violation of the right to privacy. but here there was a classification so it was really an equal protection issue.

may if it chooses regulate and even proscribe abortion except where if it is necessary in appropriate medical judgement. The statute does not allow them even a medical exception. only MOTHER’s HEALTH) (Can’t prohibit until the third trimester. for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. What is the state’s interest?—Promote viability After viability: government can regulate and can prohibit with the exception of the abortion being necessary to protect the life of the pregnant woman. and even proscribe. **does it apply to pre-viability or post? Both. need it be for the health of the mother---no undue burden (creating a substantial obstacle) (Can a state require that women view a video of life of baby before an abortion?—YES. Before viability state can still not prohibit. So what is the level of scrutiny now?—Must not be an undue burden. if it chooses regulate. . American College: Seven types of information given to mother.reasonably related to maternal health. Partial birth** Stenberg v. however they did away with the trimester distinctions and overruled the strict scrutiny. Under Casey analysis it can regulate and add this 24 hour provision if it promotes the health of the mother. can there be regulation at three weeks? Yes. Government regulation of abortions: There are many ways a government can regulate abortions. for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. This case kept the third trimester system. you can regulate though in this second) 3) For the stage subsequent to viability. Carhadt brought this action seeking declaratory judgement that the Nebraska statute violates the Constitution. and must be reasonably related of the goal set by the state (except saying birth begins at conception) b. (FETUS VIABILITY) *** Woman’s right. the state in promoting its interests in the potentiality for human life may. (3 months to 6 months)(Childs interest is not in play here. Issue: Does the statute violate the constitution as interpreted by Casey & Roe? Holding: Yes. right to privacy etc***USED STRICT SCRUTINY Planned Parenthood v. Carhardt: A Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions is in question here. Casey: Technically speaking the court did not overruled Roe. Under Roe it does not promote the health of the mother. This affected both the pre-viability and the post viability analysis. Notes: In Akron: the court looked at whether 24 hour waiting period was valid (decided under Roe because was before Casey) this was under Roe so it was decided under strict scrutiny. this was more to promote the keeping of baby. which classifies this as a class III felony. but it has to be true. Dr. **Three is a substantial obstacles IF the alternatives ( to the regulated abortion) to abortions are not safe** This court applies these principles to this Nebraska law. 3) Subsequent to viability the state in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life. Thornburgh v. state can regulate. In this case the court recognizes three established principles: 1) Before viability the woman has the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy 2) A law designed to further a State’s interest in fetal life which imposes an undue burden on the woman’s decision before fetal viability is unconstitutional. abortion except where it is necessary in appropriate medical judgement. the other alternatives are dangerous and the statute is too broad. 2) imposes an undue burden on the woman’s ability to choose a D&E abortion. In Casey this would have been upheld. An undue burden is shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a non-viable fetus. The court finds this statute unconstitutional for two reasons 1) no exception for the preservation of the life of the mother.

not a prohibition. Planned Parenthood v. Spousal Consent and Notice Requirements: Supreme court recognizes that government cannot require either spousal consent or spousal notification as a prerequisite for a married woman’s obtaining of an abortion. Baird: E. This statute places no limitations or obstacles to women who wish to get an abortion. the manner in which it dispenses the care is subject to constitutional limitations.rational basis(wealth) Privacy right Harris v. only to the LIFE of the mother. Here equal protection based on class. but were denied because of insufficient evidence of Nancy's intent. Reasoning: The constitution imposes no obligation to the states to pay the pregnancy related expenses of indigent woman. Ms. including psychiatric necessity. Court made it seem like it was going more to the funding of abortion. whereas the Hyde Amendment withholds funding of certain medically necessary abortions. Parental Notice and Consent Requirements Bellotti v. alleging she has a liberty interest in withdrawal of treatment. Director. Planned Parenthood v. (1990) Brief Fact Summary: Nancy Cruzan's parents sought to withhold medical treatment from their vegetative daughter. it need not remove those not of its own creation. Would this be valid under Casey? No because it makes no mention to health. Issue: Whether the constitution requires a participating state to pay for non-therapeutic abortions when it pays for childbirth? Holding: No. Casey: Section 3209 of the Pennsylvania abortion statute e. This does not impinge on any right or on the fundamental right recognized in Roe. Holding: No. McRae: Congress since 1976 has prohibited the use of federal funds to reimburse the costs of abortions under the Medicaid programming except under certain circumstances. it need not remove those not of its own creation. Government restrictions on funds and facilities for abortions Maher v. Synopsis of Rule of Law: States are given wide latitude in determining how they give rights to patient surrogates. Although the government may no place obstacles in the path os a woman’s exercise of her freedom of choice. Although government may not place obstacles in the path of a woman’s exercise of her freedom of choice. Danworth: Missouri law required that prior written consent from a spouse must be shown unless the abortion is certified by a licensed physician to be necessary in order to preserve the life of the mother. Missouri Dept. but when the state decides to provide medical care. d. Constitutional Protection for Medical Care Decisions Right to refuse treatment Cruzan v. it does not impinge on the due process right recognized in Wade. . contravenes the liberty or equal protection guarantees of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? This case differs from Maher in that the case involves a failure to fund non-therapeutic abortions. Cruzan's parents now bring suit on her behalf. Issue: Whether the Hyde amendment by denying public funding for certain medically necessary abortions. Roe: The Connecticut Welfare department limits abortions only to those that are medically necessary.c.

A group of physicians who treat terminally ill patients declare that they would assist these patients in ending their lives if not for the Washington Ban. In Refusing Life Sustaining treatment Assisting . Rule of Law: Assisted suicide is not a liberty interest protected by the Constitution. Dissent. Missouri denied the withdrawal of treatment request because Ms. Issue: Whether Washington’s prohibition against causing or aiding a suicide offends the 14th amendment? NO Rationale: The court looked to see if this was a violation of substantive due process. Therefore the Washington’s assisted-suicide ban had to be ONLY rationally related to the legitimate government’s interest. Glucksberg (1997) Brief Fact Summary.) and the difficulty for police in distinguishing. They looked at Intent and Causation. not judicial choice. That is a legislative. Issue: Does Missouri have a legitimate state interest in protecting the liberty interests of incompetent patients? Yes. Issue: Whether NY’s prohibition on assisting suicide therefore violates the EPC of the 14th amendment? NO Rationale: The court discusses the difference b/w a patient’s right in refusing medical – life sustaining treatment and in aiding in suicide. Cruzan had a discussion with a friend who testified in court that she said she would not want to be on life support. Brennan) dissents. Ms. arguing that the State interest cannot outweigh Ms. Vacco v. but they are free to establish the standard by which they do so. The court found that the asserted right to assistance of another in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process cause.Facts. Cruzan's wishes regarding such withdrawal by clear and convincing evidence. Cruzan's liberty interest in having treatment withheld. The court held that the state had unquestionable important and legitimate interests and the ban was at least reasonably related to their promotion and protection. Washington has a law that provides: A person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide. Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide Washington v. As this could undermine the relationship b/w patient/doctor by blurring the line b/w harming and healing. (3) Protecting vulnerable groups – extending to disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice. The state interest is in the preservation and protection of human life. Justice William Brennan (J. Cruzan's parents could not establish Ms. Quill (1997) Facts: New York made it a crime to aid another to commit or attempt suicide. (4) Involuntary euthanasia (mercy killing to prevent a prolonged and painful death. Missouri is free to choose whether or not they will accept a surrogate for an incompetent's medical decisions. but this was the only evidence of her personal wishes. In the analysis they looked at (2) primary features: (1) the protection of fundamental rights and liberties which are deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and (2) a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. The state’s listed several interests in banning assisted suicide: (1) the preservation of human life (2) the preservation of the integrity and ethics of the medical profession i. The state is entitled to guard against potential abuses from family members therefore is entitled to consider a judicial proceeding to make a determination of incompetent’s wishes.

on its face. F. is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. ISSUE: May the government maintain lists of personal health information without violating a zone of privacy? YES The NY program does not." § 21. Texas (2003) Rule of Law. Hardwick. child rearing. or "(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.Just to honor patient’s wishes .01(1). procreation. contraception. not to mandate our own moral code. some individuals’ concerns for their own privacy may lead them to avoid or to postpone needed medical attention However.. Evans. The court then discussed (2) cases that were decided after Bowers – Casey and Romer v. . A statute criminalizing two consenting adults of the same sex for engaging in certain intimate contact. and education. When the police entered the home.06(a). FACTS: The police arrived at and entered Mr. which provides "[a] person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. Constitutional Protection for Sexual Orientation and Sexual Activity Lawrence v. Lawrence's home in response to a weapons disturbance. In Casey the decision confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage. Unquestionably. It stated that the issue is whether the majority may use the power of the state to enforce these views on the whole society through the operation of the criminal law. The constitutionality of the entry was not in dispute.No intent .intent is there . they found the Petitioners. In Romer. family relationships. in which a Georgia statute criminalizing certain sexual conduct was upheld. § 21.doctor is the cause of death The court also found that all the state’s interest were valid and important public interest that easily satisfy the constitutional requirement that a legislative classification bear a relation to some legitimate end. The court stated that the petitioners were entitled to respect for their private lives and that the Tex. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all. Statue furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Penal Code Ann. two adults. G." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows: "(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person.Doctor doesn’t cause death. The court rationed that the case was decided on the traditions and beliefs and views of the society. Constitutional Protection for Control Over Information Whalen v. the court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the EPC. engaging in a consensual sexual act. some degree . FACTS: The State of New York was collecting personal information regarding individuals prescribed drugs for which there is a legal and an illegal market. Roe (1977) Synopsis of Rule of Law: The government may maintain detailed lists of personal information for administrative convenience and health of the community. The statute also criminalized unauthorized release of any such information. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and charged with violating Tex. pose sufficiently grievous threat to either interest to establish a constitutional violation. ISSUES (1) Can a state criminalize intimate sexual conduct between (2) persons of the same sex in violation of substantive due process of the 14th amendment? NO The Supreme Court initially revisited its decision in Bowers v.

color. 1) Is there an interest? 2) Is the interest infringed? If there is no infringement. Roe: Synopsis of Rule of Law. and (3) For those travelers who elect to become permanent residents. the court applied RB. California did not advance a discriminatory intent to the law. a family of two moving from Arizona would be eligible for only $275/month. Discussion: The Supreme Court does not argue there is no invasion of privacy here. FACTS: A California statute required families to live in California for twelve months before becoming eligible for full welfare benefits. but that the discriminatory means is inappropriate to the ends advanced. (2) The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state. The right to vote as a fundamental right The fifteenth amendment provides that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race. When there is a fundamental right a governmental interest must be identified. For example. In the interim. H. The case a bar deals with the (3) aspect. only that there is no constitutionally impermissible invasion of privacy. States may not discriminate against non-residents in such a manner that denies them the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the citizens of that State. The Appellee has failed to establish how the statute invades any right or liberty. or previous servitude” Nineteenth amendment extended the right to vote to woman and says that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. In this case once the fundamental right to privacy is identified. the right to be treated like other citizens of the state. ISSUE: May a State discriminate against non-citizens who travel to the State with regard to current residents? NO The court discussed (3) components that are protected in the RIGHT TO TRAVEL (1) The right of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state. they were limited to the amount payable by the State of the family's prior residence. This should be the same whether they are transiently in the new State or a traveling to settle in the new state. Restrictions on Foreign Travel I. but rather noted it would save the State almost $11 million annually. Right to Vote 1. Constitutional Protection for Travel Saenz v. but he also acknowledges that there is a statutory penalty for unauthorized disclosure.of disclosure is already inherent in the current prescription drug system. The court rationed that saving is an important issue. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14TH Amendment guarantees to citizens of other States the ability to be treated in the same manner as a citizen of a State to which he they are traveling. where a California resident would be eligible for $456/month. The court acknowledges the fear of accidental disclosure. then strict scrutiny. .

18yrs old or older. . Senate. Because voting is a fundamental right. Residents challenged the State tax under the EPC of the Fourteenth Amendment.50 on every resident of the State 21 years of age or older. Vice President. Twenty Sixth extends right to vote to citizens of the U. The tax divides the eligible voters of the State into two classes: those who can afford the tax and those who cannot. Discussion. A State poll tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. ISSUE: Does a State poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution? Yes. (1971) Right to vote is a fundamental right and protected under EPC and used Strict Scrutiny. – This applies to President. Virginia State: Synopsis of Rule of Law.S. it invidiously discriminates against those who cannot afford the tax. Poll Taxes Harper v. a classification based on wealth is clearly inappropriate. As such.Twenty fourth amendment prohibits poll taxes in elections for federal office. In the present case. classifications involving the right to vote are closely scrutinized. FACTS: Virginia levied a poll tax not exceeding $1.

Sims: Alabama Legislature had not apportioned its district since 1900’s so this was alleged to have denied “equal suffrage in free and equal elections and the equal protection of the laws. Gore: The equal protection claim was based on the different counting standards throughout Florida. In this case the law was overinclusive and underinclusive. . 3. and seemed to have the effect of diluting voting power because the populations of 500 ppl were same as 100k people. Literacy Tests Ability to read and write can be implemented as a requirement. Any person too poor to hire a lawyer can’t be assured a fair trial unless counsel is appointed. in this case states were required to provide indigents attorney in all criminal cases that may lead to a prison sentence. Bush v. Union: Whether § 2012 of the New York Education law is constitutional when it does not allow everyone to vote in a school district election only reserves right to parents or homeowners in area. McVeigh: Right to be heard is a principle that lies at the foundation of all wellordered systems of jurisprudence and is founded on the principles of natural justice Access to the courts subjected to strict scrutiny Protected under strict guarantees in the Bill of rights: 6th amendment’s right to counsel in all criminal cases Gideon v. one vote principle of the EPC of the 14th amendment. Sims extends to federal. Constitutional protection for access to courts Fundamental constitutional right of access to courts Right to be heard is a fundamental aspect of due process Windsor v. The state cannot deny to the poor an adequate appellate review accorded to all who have enough money to pay costs in advance. one vote. Prisoner’s right to vote States cannot deny the right to vote to those being held waiting for trial and in fact. Well in this case the court allows the restriction and used reasonable relationship. However once a person has been convicted of a felony they may be disenfranchised but the felony cannot be for moral turpitude. Ball v. not constitutional because the remedy is not narrowly tailored the distinction needs to show that the exclusion is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. but is appeals are made available government cannot make discriminatory distinctions or create barriers. Wainwright: this right applies to states. Reynolds v.Property Ownership Requirements Kramer v. No right to appeal. James: Whether the peculiarity narrow function of this local governmental body and the special relationships of one class of citizens to that body releases it from the demands of one person. Sanders: Fifth Congressional Districts. This was a form of gerrymandering. Holding: No. J. one count. Wesberry v. must provide them absentee ballots if they have no other way of voting. Dilution of the rights to vote Reynolds v.

Both the appellants in Boddie and Kras stand for completely different purposes. U. Connecticut: appellants are welfare recipients who live in CT and are challenging the filling fees for obtaining a divorce which is $60.L. S. Schwab (1973): government was not obligated to waive filing fees for judicial review of adverse welfare decisions. (Respondent). Ct: finds that there are other alternatives to conserve the time of the courts from frivolous litigation. Issue: Does this case fit squarely within Boddie meriting the right to waive this filing fee? Holding: No. v. Marriage is of utmost basic importance on our society. This would result in the equivalent of denying them an opportunity to be heard upon their claimed right to dissolution of marriage and essentially a denial of due process. Boddie stands for the notion that a state cannot deny access simply because of one’s poverty to a judicial proceeding that is the ONLY effective means of resolving the conflict in hand.Above right limited to first appeals. the Respondent.L. two children.00 at the time of this litigation. Fee requirements are not examined only for rationality when a fundamental right is involved.J. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (J. The Petitioner is indigent and cannot pay record preparation fees of over $2. v. Kras: (Ct refused to extend Boddie to other civil proceedings) The Respondent Kras lived in a small apartment with his wife. .B. Issue: Does the filling fee deny equal access of welfare recipients to the courts? Holding: Yes. Filing Fees Boddie v. condition appeals from trail court decrees terminating parental rights on the affected parent’s ability to pay record preparation fees? Holding: Yes. so must the indigent parent whom the courts have found unfit. State argues: states interest in preventing frivolous litigation is substantial and costs are allocated where scarceness Id substantial and balancing this and a defendant’s right to notice and plaintiffs right to access is reasonable. M. sued for adoption. The Respondent receives public assistance as well as a small amount of income he earns himself. Bankruptcy is not the only alternative available for a debtor for the adjustment of his legal relationship with his creditors.L. The Respondent cannot even afford to save up for a full year to afford the bankruptcy filing fee. citizens must resort to the state to get married and must invoke the state’s judicial machinery to get out of a marriage also. Issue: May a state. not to discretionary appeals or collateral attacks on convictions. and elderly mother.J. Basically the elimination of debt does not rise to the level of significance as marriage.S.: The Petitioner lost custody of her two minor children when their stepmother. Notes: Ortwein v. consistent with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court finds that the appellants legitimately cannot afford this. He challenges the Bankruptcy Act fee under the Fifth Amendment Due Process grounds and claims that his case fits squarely within Boddie. S. Not allowing them to get out of marriage would essentially make the defendants be excluded from the only forum in which they would be able to settle their disputes. Reversed and remanded. No constitutional right in obtaining discharge of one’s debts.000 to appeal the trial court judgment. Ginsburg) argues that as a petty criminal must be afforded access to appellate justice.

unless they lack a rational basis. Indigent inmates must be provided with paper & pens to draft legal memoranda and stamps to mail. The Respondents allege that these denials have denied them the ability to access the courts. among others. there is no explicit constitutional guarantee. the fiscal decisions of the State of Texas are beyond review of the Court. Casey: (Limited Bounds greatly) The Respondents. However for Procedural purposes a prisoner should arguable know what a lawyer knows. the Court applied the rational basis test to require the Texas law to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Lewis and others associated with the Department of Corrections (Petitioners). Avery: Invalidated a law that did not allow inmates to help other inmates with appeals write. 3 • Without explicit or implicit constitutional protections. Nor do they argue that the class is entitled to the best education provided by public schools in Texas. The district makes up the difference in operating expense with funds from local property taxes. Issue: Does the inadequacy of the libraries equate to a deprivation of the courts? Holding: The court notes that Bounds did not create a new right. libraries are only an ends not means. Court further establishes this under rational basis review. Bounds v. legal libraries and photocopying services. unless the state provides alternatives. . Smith: Δ claim that the lack of libraries is a form of denying access to the courts. A prisoner cannot allege actual injury from not having an adequate library and for Bounds to apply there must be an actual injury. or legal assistance. Respondents allege that this denies the children in poor district Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Prisoners right of access to the courts Ex Parte Hull: State may not abridge or impair the right of a petitioner to apply to a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant alleges that this deprives illiterates and lock down prisoners. classifications affecting access to education are subject to strict scrutiny. Casey and other inmates (Respondents). Johnson v. Such a lacking is not found by the Court. K. The state provides a set amount of funding for each district based on the number of students in the district. allege that the Petitioners. For a court to find library inadequate the alleged shortcomings must hinder an effort to pursue a legal claim. 4 • Thus. 2 • There is no mention of education in the Constitution. Only facts are needed to fill out a Habeas Corpus claim. The Court notes that Respondents do not argue that there is some quantum of education that is fundamental and which the class is not receiving. have not presented them with up-to-date legal materials. The question is now one of whether education is implicitly a fundamental right. This reliance on property taxes results in a large disparity in per student spending between property rich and property poor districts. 1 • If education is a fundamental right. They would have to show that a claim was dismissed for failure to satisfy a technical requirement that because of the deficient libraries he could not have known. Issue: Whether the states must protect the rights of prisoners to access to the courts by providing them with law libraries or alternative sources to legal knowledge? Holding: Yes. Lewis v. Rodriguez: The State of Texas provides for free primary and secondary education for the children of the State. Thus. Constitutional Protection for a Right to Education San Antonio v.

P. property or life then the government does not have to provide S.D. Therefore to meet procedural due process a government must require that a notice and hearing be given and there must be a clear and convincing need to terminate custody.  Substantive Due Process: asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life.P. liberty or property.D. County of Sacramento v. before parental rights are permanently terminated.P. Ct holds that to hold that injury that is caused by lack of due care as deprivation within the fourteenth amendment would be a triviality of the regular notions of due process of law. o What is the liberty? or property? If not a denial of liberty. involved. Substantive D. Behavior at the end of the culpability spectrum is the type that would support a substantive due process claim.P. are at stake: Person seeks government action declared unconstitutional as violative of a constitutional right S. When strict scrutiny is used: then the government will pass Sub D. liberty or property? 3) Is it without “due process of law”? What is a “deprivation”? Is Negligence sufficient to constitute a deprivation? Daniels v.D. conduct intending to injure in some way unjustifiable . Williams (1986): Petitioner seeks damages for back and ankle injuries after falling after slipping on a pillow in his prison when a guard negligently left a pillow in the stairwell. if the law is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental purpose. hearing. or P. and (2) that the explicit or implicit constitutional guarantee analysis advanced by the Court ignores the Court's previous decisions.Dissent.P. o Distinctions when S. requires that government prove that terminating custody is necessary to achieve a compelling purpose such as the need to prevent the abuse and neglect of a child. 1 • Justice William Brennan dissents along two arguments: (1) the funding system of the State of Texas lacks a logical basis. action declared unconstitutional because of the lack of adequate safeguards such as notice. – In Rational Basis: justification by the government is met when there is a rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.P at issue. Lewis (1998): Issue: Does a police officer violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high speed auto chase aimed at apprehending a suspect offender? Holding: No. This looks to whether there is sufficient justification for the government’s action. L. necessary for a due process violation.P. only in cases in which the purpose of the conduct is to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object to the arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience. liberty. Strict Scrutiny applies. P. If the person seeks to have a gov. Procedural Due Process DPC is used to impose procedures on the government when it takes away a person’s life.  Classic Procedural Due Process concerns what type of notice and what form of hearing the government should provide when it takes a particular action. o Example: Parental Custody: Fundamental Right. This depends on the level of scrutiny used. or property.P and P. 1) Has there been a “deprivation”? 2) Is it life. The court also makes it a point to state that petitioner can seek relief through tort claim statutes.D.D.D.

to have property interest in a benefit. Welfare: once bestowed becomes property requiring due process before termination. Is it a deprivation of Life. worship. What is a deprivation of property? New approach for determining whether there is a property interest. liberty and invasion by private actors. When is the government’s failure to protect a person from privately inflicted harms a deprivation? DeShaney v. The court notes that because something is conferred by the government and is classified a “privilege” and not a “right” it may give rise to a serious loss by its recipient. What is liberty? Liberty is freedom from bodily restraint. he was not tenure track and was on a yearly contract.P of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding: Yes. Analysis: Court goes into this analysis of the interest of the eligible recipient in an uninterrupted receipt of public assistance coupled with the state’s interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated. Public assistance is not mere charity.P suggests that the language be extended to life. engage in any occupation of life. but a means to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. marry. acquire knowledge. Liberty or Property? Rights-Privileges Distinction--& its demise The government is required to give due process only if there has been a deprivation of life. Goldberg v. Roth (1972) Petitioner’s contract was not renewed. a person clearly must have more than an abstract desire and . State does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual’s safety by having once offered him shelter. and establish a home. What are forms of property interest? Certain attributes of property must be present. There is a liberty or a property interest only if there is a “right”/ A governments bestowed privilege was not a basis for D. Board of Regents v. brought suit alleging no D. Example of officer conduct: when extended opportunity afforded (not a split second decision) and there was protracted failure to even care then the indifference needed is shocking. Kelly (1970) Issue: Does a state that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity to attend an evidentiary hearing before termination violate D.P. liberty or property. The recipient must have timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for termination and effective opportunity to defend and confront any adverse witnesses and present an argument and evidence orally.P. 2. Ct decides that the hearing will be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. State does have a constitutional duty to care for an individual (safety and well being) if it has deprived him of freedom. raise children. Winnebago Cnty Dept of Social Svc (1989) Holding: The state’s failure to protect an individual against private action does not constitute a violation of Due Process. right of individual to contract. clearly outweighs the state’s competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens. Nothing in D.by any governmental interest is the sort of official action most likely to rise to the conscience shocking level.

Lopez (1975): Students have a legitimate property right in their education which is protected by the D. Distinguishable from Goss b/c in that case property entitlement was granted to students. non-private public official b. Davis (1976): Reputation alone apart from more tangible interests such as employment is neither liberty nor property for due process purposes. Must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Class notes: Has there been a deprivation? Not negligence—(Daniels)—must be intentional Intended result (Lewis) a. not negligence Is it a life. More than a unilateral expectation of it.need for it. teachers etc. Protect claims of which people rely on in their daily lives. Goldberg.P. Paul v. What procedures are due? .C.interest to person. rather defined by existing rules and state law of which rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims to entitlement to those benefits. Property rights are not created by the constitution. property interest? a. Students have the right to protect their right to attend school by making the administrators document the misconduct and provide report to students’ parents. liberty. Where student’s reputation is at stake the minimal requirements of DPC must be satisfied to prevent mistakes that could seriously harm the students standing with pupils. This right cannot be taken away without appropriate procedural hearings. What is a deprivation of liberty? Reputation as a liberty interest? Goss v.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.