Baron v. Baltimore

(Baron’s wharf is wiped out by Baltimore construction, suing for just compensation and loses)

• Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the actions of the city of Baltimore did not constitute a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee to just compensation for property.
• Bill of Rights protects against Fed Govt, not the State.

Way of thinking which argues:

If A -> B

but B is False

then, A is False.

  Example:

 If the watch-dog detects an intruder (A), then the dog will bark (B). The dog did not bark (not B) Therefore, no intruder was detected. (not A)

Slaughter-House Cases

(New Orleans enacts monopoly on slaughter-houses in order to regulate disposal of carcasses for the public welfare under State Police Powers, S.C rules in New Orleans’ favor)

Twining v. New Jersey

(Failure to testify in State Court is argued to be a violation of 5th Amendment Rights, Supreme Court rules that BofR is not applicable to the States)

is the 5th Amendment incorporated to the States under the 14th? No.

Same claim as slaughterhouse: protections from the state come from state constitutions, NOT Bill of Rights/14th Amendment

Palco v. Connecticut 

(State statute allows for convicted criminals to be brought back to trial if the wrong charge is convicted in the original hearing. Supreme Court denies appeal, Palco is executed pursuant to the 2nd Trial’s outcome)

Criminal Procedure Case (Double Jeopardy) Key Phrases:

•    “Implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus…become valid against the States.” 
• “principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” 
  • Liberal v. Conservative political theory

Adamson v. California

(Failure of a defendant to testify in court can be seen by a jury as bring guilty)

If this was a Fed. Case, there is no doubt that a 5th Amendment violation occurred, BUT, the BofR does not apply to the States, therefore no violation occurred.

established the debate between Frankfurter and Black.

Frankfurter: BofR is a completely separate set of protections from the 14th Amendment

Black: 14th Amendment protects everything in BofR but nothing more.

Rochin v. California

(States lose ability to experiment with Judicial Procedure due to mandated compliance with Federal Regulations)

Frankfurter: Uses the 14th Amendment to argue that forced stomach pump “shocks the conscience of the court"

Black: 4th & 5th Amendment issue. (Due Process Clause of 14 is the vehicle by which the BofR is applicable to the states)

Duncan v. Louisiana

(Right to Jury Trial applicable to States)

Mugler v. Kansas

(Created the Court’s definition of Economic Substantive Due Process under the 14th Amendment)

Argues that Due Process guarantees certain rights that the Government cannot revoke, no matter what process is used.

Liberty is the focus of Substantive Due Process.

Allgeyer v. Louisiana 

(Business Law case which gave substantive content to the idea of “Liberty”)

Quotes the Dissent of Slaughter-House: there are a set of rights that government just can’t deny you, and Liberty is one of those rights.

Another right is the right to enter into a contract.

Lochner v. New York

(Poster Child for Substantive Due Process)

Majority: Argues for the right to enter into voluntary contracts, essentially constitutionalizes Laisseze Faire Economics and gives DP Clause Substantive Meaning

Harlan, White, Day’s dissent: Not a fundamental right, but rather; a liberty interest, which triggers a “rational basis test” rather than “Strict Scrutiny"

West Coast Hotel v. Parish

(Court Liberals v. Court Conservatives)

Majority (Court Liberals): Argue women need special protection, and Justice Hughes moves in the direction of overturning Adkins

Dissent (Court Conservatives): Majority is patriarchal.  The minimum wage legislation does not deal with the public interest, but rather, it is an arbitrary law aimed at “protecting women” who are just as capable as men are.

Meyer v. Nebraska

(Illegal teaching of foreign language case)