Term
| involved a law that outlawed foreign insurance companies from doing business within the state |
|
Definition
Court said that it violated due process because people within LA have the right to contract outside LA
A. Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) |
|
|
Term
| laws regarding maximum work hours in bakeries; not within the police power of the state |
|
Definition
i. The liberty interest protected by the DP clause includes individual liberty to contract
ii. The State may infringe on the liberty only to achieve a valid police purpose, such as safety, health, or morals
iii. State regulation mut be necessary to achieve the police purpose
B. Lochner v. New York (1905) |
|
|
Term
| involved a KS law that made it illegal to coerce an employee not to join a union |
|
Definition
Court upheld the law because employment relations are held to the same contractual standards; both employer and employee are free to choose how a relationship will be defined
C. Coppage v. Kansas (1915) |
|
|
Term
| Why does the court find regulating women's work hours is acceptible? |
|
Definition
because regulating women’s hours affects their health and saferty, the court accepts the hours women can work
D. Muller v. Oregon |
|
|
Term
| Why was did the court declare unconstitutional a law that set a minimum wage for women? |
|
Definition
ii. No valid police purpose, court rejected idea that this would force women to earn money in an immoral manner.
e. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital |
|
|
Term
| Why was a law prohibitting the use of shoddy in making bedding declared unconstitutional? |
|
Definition
ii. the law interfered with freedom of contract for those who wished to buy and sell such products. The Court said that the public interest in health could be served by regulation, such as by mandating sterilization of the material.
f. Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. |
|
|
Term
| Why was a law that set price of milk upheld? |
|
Definition
if the law at issue has a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, then the requirements of due process are satisfied
Nebbia v. New York |
|
|
Term
| Economic Rights Post 1937 |
|
Definition
1. No longer does the Court protect freedom of contract as part of the liberty interest protected by the DP clause
2. State can act to further any purpose not forbidden by the Constitution
3. States may choose any means that are a reasonable way to achieve that end |
|
|
Term
| Why did the Supreme Court uphold a state law that required minimum wage for women employees? |
|
Definition
epudiates the notion that the liberty protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments encompass economic freedoms; goal of equalizing bargaining power is a legitimate state interest; employers area taking advantage of subsidies the government has to pay for wages the employer refuses to pay
A. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish |
|
|
Term
| What level of scrutiny is used for economic regulation |
|
Definition
Rational basis
B. United States v. Carolene Products Co. |
|
|
Term
| Why was a statute that prohibited an optician to fit or duplicate lenses without a prescripton from an optometrist or an opthalmalogist upheld? |
|
Definition
| Whatever the reason, – it is for the legislature, not the courts, to determine the advantages or disadvantages of a public health concern |
|
|
Term
| What governing body makes policy judgment when it comes to economic regulation. |
|
Definition
Congress
Courts do not substitute their own policy judgment.
Ferguson v. Skrupa |
|
|
Term
| II. Punitive Damages Jurisprudence |
|
Definition
| due process clause has no substantive guarantee against an unfair punitive damage |
|
|
Term
| Due process Limitations on punitive damages |
|
Definition
1. Degree of reprehensibility of defendant’s misconduct
2. Disparity between the harm suffered by the plaintiff and his punitive damages award
3. Difference between the remedy and civil penalties authorized or imposed in similar cases
A. BMW of North America v. Gore – where car was repainted and sold, punitive damages were unconstitutional because a line had been crossed into deprivation of property |
|
|
Term
| May a jury award punitive damages for conduct occurring in another state? |
|
Definition
punitive damages are now limited ot punishing a defendant for the type of conduct that occurred within the state.
B. State Farm v. Campbell |
|
|
Term
| Why was a juries award of $800,000 and $79.5 million to the widow of a smoker deemed unconstitutional? |
|
Definition
The Supreme Court held that this award violated due process because it punished the defendant for harms suffered by individuals other than the plaintiff.
iii. However, the Court said that a jury in considering the reprehensibility of a defendant's conduct may consider the extent of harm to third parties
m. Phillip Morris USA v. Williams |
|
|
Term
| What to consider when reviewing punitive damages? |
|
Definition
1. Does the Court adequately justify using DP to limit punitive damages?
2. How should each of the BMW guideposts be applied?
3. Should the lack of other punishments in the state indicate that large punitive damages are not allowed OR alternatively, large punitive damages are necessary because there are no other punishments. |
|
|
Term
| Rules to remember regarding the contracts clause |
|
Definition
1. Only applies to state governments
2. Only applies to existing contract obligations
3. Not absolute – can be reasonably related to a governmental purpose |
|
|
Term
| Why was a Minnesota law that prevented the foreclosure of homeowner's mortgages for a two year period found to be constitutional? |
|
Definition
because it was temporary and lenders still had an opportunity to foreclose after the time period
ii. Narrowly tailored emergency legilsation
a. Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell |
|
|
Term
Contract Clause
Three Part test similar to rational basis |
|
Definition
1. Is there a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship
2. If so, does it serve a legitimate and significant public goal
3. If so, is it reasonably related to achieving the goal?
B. Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co. |
|
|
Term
| Why was a law that required employers to pay a pesnsion funding charge if they terminated a pension plan or closed an office found to be unconstitutional. |
|
Definition
It was not adequately narrowly tailored emergency legislation.
This was an undue impariment of contract; impairment to contracts already in place.
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus. |
|
|
Term
| What limit is placed on the state ability to modify its own contracts? |
|
Definition
| government interference with government contracts will be subjected to heightened scrutiny |
|
|
Term
| Issues to consider for an Individual Liberties case |
|
Definition
1. Is it a basic or inherent right that the Court would deem fundamental? (If the right is not fundamental, then the test is rational basis)
2. Is the right infringed by government regulation?
3. Is the government’s action justified by a sufficient purpose?
4. Are the means sufficiently related to the goal sought? |
|
|
Term
| Will an anti-miscegenation law be held to be constitutional? |
|
Definition
No. Equal application of a statue concerning racial classifications is not enough to remove the classifications from the 14th amendment's proscription of all invidious racial distinctions.
Loving v. Virginia |
|
|
Term
| A. All equal protection issues are tied up with what the classification is, whether or not it is a permissible government purpose |
|
Definition
i. Identify what the classification is
ii. What level of scrutiny will be applied?
iii. Does the particular government action meet the level of scrutiny? |
|
|
Term
Equal Protection
Rational Basis test |
|
Definition
a. Legitimate purpose genereally is any purpose not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution
b. Court looks to any conceivable purpose for the law, not just the actual motivating purpose
c. Substantial underinclusiveness is ok
d. Sunstantial overinclusiveness is ok |
|
|
Term
| Why was a voter-approved initiative that repealed all laws protecting gays from discriminationand that prohbited all future government action to protect these idnividuals from discrimination ruled unconstitutional? |
|
Definition
a. It closed off the political process to one group
b. Law may not draw moral distinctions based on sexual practices between consenting adults
c. State cannot single out one group for pariah status
d. The law’s goal – state action – reflecting moral judgment against gay people was impermissible
ii. Romer v. Evans |
|
|
Term
| Where there is plausible reasons for congressional action, what is required of the reasoning that underlies the legislative decision? |
|
Definition
. It is, of course, constitutionally irrelevant whether this reasoning in fact underlies the legislative decision because this Court never has insisted that a legislative body articulate its reasons for enacting a statute.
iii. United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz |
|
|
Term
| Was a law banning the operation of advetising vehicles, but allowing for business advertisements on delivery vehicles found to be constitutional? |
|
Definition
Court found not requirement for equal protection (driver safety was the reason)
iv. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York |
|
|
Term
| Was the NYC Transit Authority's refusal to employ individuals on methadone found to be constitutional? |
|
Definition
Yes, Court found that the Constitution does not authorize a federal court to interfere in policy if there is a degree of rationality
i. the Supreme Court has indicated that even significant overinclusiveness is allowed under rational basis review.
d. New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer |
|
|
Term
| Was a law that excluded people from receiving food stamps because they lived in a household with unrelated people found to be constitutional? |
|
Definition
intended to prevent hippie communes from participating in the program; Court stated that a bare Congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest
vi. U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno |
|
|
Term
| Was a zoning ordinance that prevented the operation of a home for the mentally disabled found to be constitutional? |
|
Definition
Court found that heightened scrutiny did not apply for mental retardation and that rational basis should apply – View of records showed there was no rational basis for believing the home would pose any threat to the city’s legitimate interests, was just irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded
vii. City of Cleburne, TX v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. |
|
|
Term
| What is rational basis with bite? |
|
Definition
– somewhat more stringent (these cases had an added level of prejudice against a particular group
Cleburne and Romer |
|
|
Term
Equal Protection Clause
iii. Facially Discriminatory |
|
Definition
| race specific classifications; racial classifications that both whites and minorities |
|
|
Term
| Does congress have the authroity to grant citizenship to slaves or their descendants? |
|
Definition
this would be a taking of property from slave owners without due process or just compensation.
Slaves are not citizens, even if they move to a free state.
Dred Scott v. Sanford |
|
|
Term
| How was Japanese internment during WW2 justified? |
|
Definition
i. The Court declared: “[ A] ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect.
ii. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.” 28
underinclusive because we were at war with a lot of the world, overinclusive because not all Japanese Americans sympathize with Japan; Court upheld because of national security interest – too difficult to segregate the loyal and disloyal
b. Korematsu v. U.S. |
|
|
Term
| Will an anti-miscegination law be upheld? Why? |
|
Definition
i. “we reject the notion that the mere equal application of a statute concerning racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations.”
c. Loving v. Virginia |
|
|
Term
| A divorced father is asking for custody because mother is marrying an african american man. |
|
Definition
Court held racial bias alone is not enough to remove a child from the custod of its mother
The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.…
d. Palmore v. Sidoti |
|
|
Term
| What case held that seperate but equal was constitutional? |
|
Definition
| Plessy v. Ferguson, allowed for segregation of rail cars based on race. |
|
|
Term
| Why was segregation held to be unconstitutional in the long run? |
|
Definition
separate is not equal – segregation fosters and inherent stigma of inferiority
Brown v. Board of Education |
|
|
Term
| What level of scrutiny is used in evaluating routine racial segregation? |
|
Definition
Strict Scrutiny.
they will be upheld only if the government can prove that its action is necessary to achieve a compelling purpose.
g. Johnson v. California |
|
|
Term
| What level of scrutiny is used on C. Classifications based on race and national origin |
|
Definition
| strict scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of race or national origin |
|
|
Term
Equal Protection Clause
iv. Facially Neutral |
|
Definition
proof of discriminatory impact and purpose; not enough to show government took an action that would have discriminatory consequences. If there is a discriminatory impact, the burden shifts to the government to show that there is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; if yes, burden shifts to plaintiff to show underlying discriminatory purpose
Neutral statute with neutral purpose with disproportionate consequences = constitutional |
|
|
Term
| Is proof of discriminatory impact sufficient to invalidate a law? |
|
Definition
proof of discriminatory impact is insufficient, by itself, to show the existence of a racial classification. Laws that are facially neutral as to race and national origin will receive more than rational basis review only if there is proof of a discriminatory purpose.
Washington v. Davis |
|
|
Term
| What is required to prove a violation of equal protection in sentancing? |
|
Definition
i. proof of discrimination impact in the administration of the death penalty was insufficient to show an equal protection violation. 129
ii. Because it could not be proven that the prosecutors or juries were biased, no equal protection violation existed.
b. McCleskey v. Kemp |
|
|
Term
| When will an at-large voting system for municipal election violate rights of black voters? |
|
Definition
Court said it did not and the fact that black people did not vote or run for office does not constitute a constitutional violation
i. the Supreme Court held that an election system that had the impact of disadvantaging minorities was not to be subjected to strict scrutiny unless there was proof of a discriminatory purpose.
ii. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found no equal protection violation because there was not sufficient evidence of a discriminatory purpose.
c. City of Mobile v. Bolden |
|
|
Term
| When can an at-large election system be found to be unconstitutional? |
|
Definition
i. the Court found that an at-large election system was unconstitutional because there was sufficient proof of a discriminatory purpose behind the election system
ii. The election system was was being maintained for the invidious purpose of diluting the voting strength of the black population.”
Rodgers v. Lodge |
|
|
Term
| Was a cities decision to close pools rather than segregate them held to be constitutional? Why? |
|
Definition
It was upheld. because all pools were shut down there is no violation of equal protection, not a discriminatory purpose and effect
ii. “there is an element of futility in a judicial attempt to invalidate a law because of the bad motives of its supporters. If the law is struck down for this reason, rather than because of its facial content or effect, it would presumably be valid as soon as the legislature or relevant governing body repassed it for different reasons.”
e. Palmer v. Thompson |
|
|
Term
| When a veteran's preference statute that overwhelmingly favored males was constitutionally challenged what was the holding? Why? |
|
Definition
Court said it was constitutional because it was gender neutral and in purpose and on its face
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney |
|
|
Term
| How does the Supreme Court Identify ways in which a discriminatory purpose can be demonstrated? |
|
Definition
First, the impact of a law may be so clearly discriminatory as to allow no other explanation than that it was adopted for impermissible purposes.
ii. A second way of proving discriminatory purpose is through the history surrounding the government's action.
iii. A third way of proving discriminatory purpose is through the legislative or administrative history of a law.
g. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp |
|
|
Term
| How did SCOTUS rule on an affirmative action plan that took race into consideration as a factor for selecting students? |
|
Definition
i. the Court ruled that colleges and universities have a compelling interest in creating a diverse student body and that they may use race as one factor, among many, to benefit minorities and enhance diversity.
a. Grutter v. Bollinger |
|
|
Term
| How did scotus rule on an undergraduate admissions program that instantly added 20 points to applications of minority students? |
|
Definition
i. the Court, 6 to 3, invalidated an affirmative action program for undergraduate admissions which added 20 points to the applications for minority students.
ii. the Court ruled that the undergraduate program was not sufficiently “narrowly tailored” to meet the strict scrutiny used for government racial classifications.
iii. Diversity is a compelling interest in education and universities may use race as a factor to ensure diversity, but quotas or numerical quantification of benefits is impermissible.
b. Gratz v. Bollinger |
|
|
Term
| What scrutiny should gender classifications be subjected to? Prior to Craig v. Boren |
|
Definition
ii. four Justices took the position that gender classifications should be subjected to strict scrutiny. 29
iii. Traditionally such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” 31
a. Frontiero v. Richardson |
|
|
Term
| Why was a statute that allowed for different drinking ages between men and women struck down? |
|
Definition
To withstand constitutional challenge, previous cases establish that classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to those objectives
b. Craig v. Boren |
|
|
Term
| How did the Supreme court rule on a military institute barring admission to women, when there was an alternative women's instutition available? |
|
Definition
iii. VMI's exclusion of women was found unconstitutional because it was based entirely on gender stereotypes.
ii. Justice Ginsburg applied intermediate scrutiny and said that “[ p] arties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification for that action.… The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State.” Justice Ginsburg said that the justification “must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” 48 |
|
|
Term
| May a state's dissability insurance system exclude pregnancy related disabilities while including disabilities effecting only men? |
|
Definition
Yes, The program divides potential recipients into two groups: pregnant women and nonpregnant persons.
iii. The Court said that the exclusion of pregnancy met rational basis review because the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the fiscal integrity of its program and making choices in allocating its funds
d. Geduldig v. Aiello |
|
|
Term
| Was a law that allowed women, but not men to receive alimony upheld in court? |
|
Definition
i. the Court invalidated an Alabama law that allowed women, but not men, to receive alimony in case of divorce. 75
ii. The Court explained that “[ u] nder the statute, individualized hearings at which the parties' relative financial circumstances are considered already occur.… Needy males could be helped along with needy females with little if any additional burden.” 76
e. Orr v. Orr |
|
|
Term
| How did the court rule on the constitutionality of a state nursing school that was open only to women? |
|
Definition
i. the Court applied intermediate scrutiny to declare unconstitutional a state nursing school that was available only to women. 46
ii. the gender classification was not designed to remedy past discrimination, but based on an occupational stereotype: “Rather than compensate for discriminatory barriers faced by women, MUW's policy tends to perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as an exclusively woman's job.
f. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan |
|
|
Term
| Why was a statutory rape law that defined statutory rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator where female is under age 18? |
|
Definition
ii. Court upheld the statutory rape law. Justice Rehnquist, writing for the plurality, said that the state could attack the problem of teenage pregnancy and sexual activity by regulating and punishing men, but not women.
iii. It is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment.
g. Michael M v. Superior Court of Sonoma County |
|
|
Term
| Why did the Supreme Court uphold a federal law requiring men, but not women, to register for the draft? |
|
Definition
ii. The Court premised its holding on the fact that women, unlike men, are not eligible for combat and that Congress and the president had evidenced an intent to retain that policy in the future. 98 The Court said that the exclusion of women from combat justifies Congress's decision to have only men register for possible conscription.
h. Rostker v. Goldberg |
|
|
Term
| Why was a provision in the Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Benefits program whereby a woman automatically would receive benefits based on the earnings of her husband, but a man would receive such benefits only if he could prove that he received at least half of his support from his wife found unconstiutional? |
|
Definition
The Court declared the law unconstitutional because it was based, at least in part, on a “presumption that wives are usually dependent.” 80 The Court said that “such assumptions do not suffice to justify a gender-based discrimination in the distribution of employment-related benefits
i. Califano v. Webster |
|
|
Term
| How did the court rule on a navy regulation that required the discharge of male officers who had gone 9 years without a promotion, but allowed women to remain 13 years without a promotion? |
|
Definition
ii. The Court decided that this was constitutional because men had more opportunities for promotion than women.
iii. “Congress may quite rationally have believed that women line officers had less opportunity for promotion than did their male counterparts, and that a longer period, of tenure for women officers would, therefore, be consistent with the goal to provide women officers with fair and equitable career advancement programs.”
j. Schlesinger v. Ballard |
|
|
Term
| How did the court rule on gender classifications benefitting women because of biolgical differences between men and women? |
|
Definition
It was allowed.
iv. Nguyen’s significance is in allowing a gender classification benefiting women based on biological differences between men and women. The issues, however, whenever the Court purports to rely on biological differences as a justification for differences in treatment, are whether these differences are real or social constructs and whether they should matter
k. Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service |
|
|
Term
| How did SCOTUSrule on a state's miscegenation stuattute that made it a crime for a white person to marry outisde the caucasian race? |
|
Definition
ii. The Court said that “we reject the notion that the mere equal application of a statute concerning racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations.” 54
iii. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.” 55
a. Loving v. Virginia |
|
|
Term
| What level of right did SCOTUS hold marriage to be? |
|
Definition
i. the majority opinion found the right to marry to be a fundamental right protected under the liberty of the due process clause, 7 but the concurring opinion by Justice Powell used an equal protection approach. 8
ii. Also, once a right is deemed fundamental, under due process or equal protection, strict scrutiny is generally used.
b. Zablocki v. Redhail |
|
|
Term
| How did SCOTUs rule on a state law that made children wards of the state if their mother dies unmarried to the children's father? |
|
Definition
The court held that custody of one's children is a fundmental right.
i. Supreme Court held that a state may not deny an unmarried father of custody absent a hearing and a finding that the father was an unfit parent
c. Stanley v. Illinois |
|
|
Term
| May a state law create the irrebuttable presumption that a married woman's husband is the father of her child? |
|
Definition
ii. The Court said that the biological father had no right to a hearing to determine paternity and could be denied all parental rights, including visitation.
Michael H. v. Gerald D. |
|
|
Term
| How did SCOTUS rule on a state law preventing cousins from living together? |
|
Definition
The supreme court recognized af undamental right to keep family together, which includes extended family.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland Ohio |
|
|
Term
| How did the supreme court rule on a state law that prohibited the teaching in school of any language except English? |
|
Definition
ii. The Court invalidated the law, not on First Amendment grounds, but by using substantive due process and finding that the statute violated the right of parents to make decisions for their children.
Meyer v. Nebraska |
|
|
Term
| How did SCOTUS rule on a state law that required children to attend public schools? |
|
Definition
Unconstitutional.
violates 14th A because the right to decide education is a fundamental right
The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for his additional obligations.”
ii. Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary |
|
|
Term
| How did the Court rule on a law that recognized the rights of grandparents to control the upbringing of children? |
|
Definition
The underlying constitutional issue is whether such statutes impermissibly interfere with the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children.
the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional
no fundamental right to have a relationship with grandchildren
Troxel v. Granville |
|
|
Term
| What is the most horrible thing ever entered into the United States Reporter? |
|
Definition
i. In Buck, the Supreme Court stated that it was constitutional for the State of Virginia to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old woman, pursuant to a law that provided for the involuntary sterilization of the mentally retarded who were in state institutions.
ii. “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Buck v. Bell |
|
|
Term
| How did the Court rule on a law tat allowed courts to order sterilization of those convicted two or more times for crimes involving "moral turpitude"? |
|
Definition
i. the Court rejected this approach and declared unconstitutional the Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act that allowed courts to order the sterilization of those convicted two or more times for crimes involving “moral turpitude.” 6
ii. “This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to perpetuation of a race— the right to have offspring.” 7
b. Skinner v. Oklahoma |
|
|
Term
| What holding did SCOTUS have on a state law that forbid the use and distribution of contraceptives? |
|
Definition
ii. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Douglas, found that the right to privacy was a fundamental right.
and that the right this law was unconstitutional
Griswold v. Connecticut |
|
|
Term
| What did the Court rule on a Massachusetts law that prohibited distributing contraceptives to unmarried individuals and that only allowed physicians to distribute them to married persons? |
|
Definition
ii. The Court found that the Massachusetts law denied equal protection because it discriminated against nonmarried individuals.
iii. Moreover, the Court said that prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives served no legitimate government purpose.
iv. Eisenstadt expands on Griswold in recognizing a right to control reproduction as a fundamental right. Eisenstadt also is significant in recognizing a right for unmarrieds,
b. Eisenstadt v. Baird |
|
|
Term
| How did the Court rule on the right to an abortion? |
|
Definition
– Court attempts to balance fundamental right of reproductive choice with interest of the state in “protecting life” –
a. First trimester – must be legal, state had no compelling interest
b. Second trimester – reasonable regulation based on maternal health
c. Third trimester – point of viability, where the state has an interest
vi. Roe v. Wade |
|
|
Term
| In a How did a court rule on a state law requiring spousal notification and a 24 hour waiting period. |
|
Definition
UNLESS THERE IS A SUBSTNATIAL EFFECT ON RIGHT OF CHOICE, A STATE LAW DESIGNED TO PURSUADE A WOMAN TO CHOOSE CHILDBIRTH OVER ABORTION WILL BE UPHELD
viii. Planned Parenthood v. Casey |
|
|
Term
| A state law required clear and convincing evidence of patient's wishes to end medical care. How did the Court rule? |
|
Definition
ii. “[ F] or purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.” 17
iii. The second major aspect of the Court's holding in Cruzan was that a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment terminated before it is cut off.
iv. Finally, the Cruzan Court said that a state may prevent family members from terminating treatment for another.
v. Hence the Court said that “the State may choose to defer only to [the] wishes [of the patient], rather than confide the decision to close family members.” 23
a. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health |
|
|
Term
| How did the Court rule on a a law that prohibited assisted suicide? |
|
Definition
ii. Rehnquist's opinion began by observing that a right is protected as fundamental under the due process clause only when supported by history or tradition. Rehnquist then stated that “for over 700 years, the Anglo-American common-law tradition has punished or otherwise disapproved of both suicide and attempting suicide.” 33
iii. Court explained that “when a patient refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, he dies from an underlying fatal disease or pathology; but if a patient ingests lethal medication prescribed by a physician he is killed by that medication.” 46
b. Washington v. Glucksberg |
|
|
Term
| How did the court rule on laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide? |
|
Definition
i. held that laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide do not violate the equal protection clause.
ii. Does not discriminate against a suspect class, nor violates a fundamental right.
iii. Under equal protection analysis this means that the law was to be upheld so long as it met a rational basis test.
c. Vacco v. Quill |
|
|
Term
| How did the Court rule on a state law that prohibited pribate consensual homosexual activity? |
|
Definition
ii. the Court held that the right to privacy protects the right of consenting adults to engage in same-sex sexual activity in their bedrooms.
iii. Moreover, Justice Kennedy's opinion did not state the level of scrutiny being used and thus it is unclear, even under the right to privacy, whether rationale basis review or heightened scrutiny is to be applied to laws that prevent private, consensual same-sex sexual activity.
a. Lawrence v. Texas |
|
|
