General 14th
3 parts of 14th amendment?
1. EPC
2. DPC
3. P&I
1. How is gov classifying?
2. What test?
-rational basis- rationally related to legitimate
-intermediate- substantially related to important
-strict- necessary for compelling
3. does it pass the test?
Marsh
a close relationship must exist between the interest and the classification. This relationship “assure[s] that the validity of a classification is determined through reasoned analysis rather than through the mechanical application of traditional, often inaccurate, assumptions about the proper roles of men and women.”
Mississipi v Hogan
1. immutable characteristic
2. historical discrimination
3. can't protect themselves in political process
case which upheld idea that private conduct by private actors inapplicable
Morrison
EPC does not apply to private actors, only state action: EXCEPT:
and define each
1) entanglement- encouraging, entwined, incentivized
2) public function- historically and exclusively done by government
Public Function Exception case: meddling in voting
Terry v Adams
College admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause when they lacked sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employed race in a negative manner, involved racial stereotyping, and lacked meaningful end points.
Harvard (affirmative action)
under- doesnt include enough people to fulfill purpose
over- applies to those who DO NOT need to be included
Katzenbach importance
If not facially discriminatory, then must be discriminatory in
IMPACT + PURPOSE
enforcing a racist covenant would in turn be STATE ACTION
City of Cleburne established that ______ people are not subject to strict scrutiny
Factors to determine PURPOSE:
1) the impact
2) sequence of events leading up
3) straying from normal procdeures
4) historical background
5) legislative/ administrative background
ok this is morelike 15th amendment voting rights
case which said voting regulations burden must be justified
Alabama v Holder
case which said you need PURPOSE, not just impact
Washington v. David, but also death penalty case?
5 common ways to be entangled
1) judicial / law enforcement actions
2) gov regulations
3) gov subsidies
4) initiatives encourgaing violation of rights
5) entwinement
out of casese lol: list 3 groups which receive strict scrutiny
1) race
2) ethinicty/national origin
3) alienation (if state made)
What case established intermediate scrutiny? + need for SUBSTANTIAL
Craig v. Boren, the percentage numbers were not so much to be substantial
-congress may not decree substantive rights protected by 14th amendment, only enforce rights recognized by the court.. dont overstep! must be congruent/proportional
What case failed rational basis review bc it was fueled on hate? and also didnt establish a test for sexual orientation
Romer v Evans
The state’s objective cannot be rooted in archaic or stereotypical understandings of gender. “If the statutory objective is to exclude or ‘protect’ members of one gender because they are presumed to suffer from an inherent handicap or be innately inferior, the objective itself is illegitimate.”
Virginia (military school)
1. alienation (federal)
2. disbality
3. age
4. wealth
Matthew v Eldredge Test
prodecural due process:
1) private interest
2) risk of error in the government procedure plus value of any safeguard
3) weigh private interest with gov interest