Con Law - Individual Rights

Guess Who?

100

This justice said: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."(Bonus points for naming case!) (Hint: Dissent)

Harlan

200

This Justice said: "Virginia has fallen short of establishing the 'exceedingly persuasive justification' that must be the sold base for any gender-defined classification"

Ginsburg, US v. Virginia

300

This Justice said: "By blindly accepting the government's misguided invitation to sanction discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group... [the majority] redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one 'gravely wrong' decision with another"

Sotomayor

400

This justice said "Whatever is forbidden by the 5th Amendment, is forbidden by the 14th also... [but] there is no such general rule" to describe the court's selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Cardozo (Palko v. CT)

500

This Justice said: "The consistency that the court espouses would disregard the difference between a 'No Trespassing' sign and a welcome mat."

Stevens (with Ginsburg) in Adarand Constructors v. Pena 

What Case?

100

Aptly named, this case held that restricting marriage solely on the basis of race violates Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment 

Loving v. Virginia

200

This case extended the public use requirement of the Takings Clause to include "economic rational relation to a conceivable public purpose" (Bonus points for 2 cases cited within the opinion)

Kelo v. City of New London 

See also Berman v. Parker, Hawaii Housing v. Midkiff

300

This case's famous footnote indicated that legislation that restricts political processes, discriminates against minorities, or contravenes a specifically enumerated constitutional liberty, may be subject to "more searching judicial scrutiny."

Carolene Products (footnote four)

400

This case used a powerful public policy argument for the protection of children to address states recognition of lawful out of state marriage licenses. 

Obergefell v. Hodges

500

This case surrounding racial discrimination in DC schools found that Due Process and Equal Protection applies to federal law and is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. 

Bowling v. Sharp

What Right?

100

The court generally considers these rights "fundamental" under substantive due process.

Liberty, Privacy, Marriage, Right to Travel

200

These types of restrictions on procuring an abortion would be an undue burden and held unconstitutional. 

Spousal veto, 48 hour waiting period, admitting privileges

300

This entity holds the burden of showing the state is pursuing a compelling objective when infringing on a fundamental right.

The state

400

During these times a state may impose increased limitations on the freedom to contract. 

Emergency circumstances

500

This kind of evidence is required when determining whether someone, unable to consent, would want life-saving treatment withdrawn 

Clear and convincing evidence

Why Me? Level of Scrutiny

100

Use this level of scrutiny for race-based classfications

Strict 

200

Use this level of scrutiny for legislation with animus or hostility to a politically unpopular group

Rational-basis with bite (Hippie case)

300

Use this level of scrutiny for age and disability classifications.

Rational-basis

400

Use this level of scrutiny for gender-based classifications

Intermediate

500

Use this level of scrutiny where the differential treatment of a class is not intentional but has an incidental effect of burdening a certain class

Rational Basis; Not strict - Washington v. Davis (Brennen dissent - should be heightened)

Which Civil Rights Amendments?

100

This amendment says "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"

15th Amendment

200

The court has held this type of function to include a form of state action for the purposes of the Civil Rights Amendments.

Government/ Public

300

With this term, SCOTUS allows Congress to extend the limits of the 13th amendment past its literal/textual meaning.

Badges and incidents of slavery.

400

These powers of Congress are broad, where Congress may prohibit certain types of action that not only could directly violate the Civil Rights Amendments, but also could lead to violations of the amendments.

Remedial Powers (SC v. Katzenbach)

500

In City of Boerne v. Flores, the court held that Congress may enact legislation that utilizes these means to achieve that legislative purpose.

Congruent and proportional