DCC
Fundamental rights/state Action
14th Amendment
Individual Liberties
Random
100

What is the case where NJ had solid waste which NJ prevented outsiders from bringing to NJ to be discarded because they claimed this went to public health & safety. 

City of Philadelphia v. NJ

100

Is abortion a fundamental right? what test is applied? What case?

No. Rational Basis Test. Dobbs.

100

What rights are in the 14th amendment?

Privileges or immunities

Equal protection

Due process  

100

what kind of incorporation does the constitution have?

Selective incorporation

100

Maine v. Taylor & US held: A facially discriminatory law is not constitutional where less discriminatory alternatives are unavailable.  True or false?

False because it is.

200

What was the case Maine v. Taylor?

Maine has a statute prohibiting the importation of this golden shiner fish. Taylor tried to import over 150,000 of these fish & was indicted federally for them. Taylor argued that this statute burden interstate commerce. The court held Maine had a legitimate interest in guarding against imperfectly understood environmental risks so them taking action is within their power to do so to protect fisheries from parasites.

200

What is the case where a town was owned by a private corporation (gulf shipbuilding Corp.). The town and its shopping district are accessible to unfairly used by the public in general, and there is nothing to distinguish this town from any others except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation. The appellant was on the sidewalk of the town when she was distributing religious literature before being arrested & charged with a crime of remaining on the premises after being warned to leave.

Marsh v. Alabama

200

The 14th amendment is attributed to who?

The states.

200

What rights are not attributable to the states?

3, 5, & 7.

200

The State of Elliott enacts a statute preventing aliens from owning more than five acres of land in Elliott. E.T., a resident alien, wants to buy ten acres of land in Elliott and challenges the statute on grounds that it violates the interstate Privileges & Immunities Clause. What result?

Loses, because he isn’t protected by the interstate Privileges & Immunities Clause (although he would have a valid Equal Protection claim). The interstate Privileges & Immunities Clause only protects out-of-state citizens and residents, not corporations or aliens. Article IV, §2, cl. 1.

300

What is the analysis for a nondiscriminatory law?

The balancing Test: the burden imposed on interstate commerce” by the state law and prevent its enforcement if the law’s burdens are “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.

300

what are the two exceptions to state action?

Entanglement & Public Function Exception 

300

The 14th amendment is attributed to the federal government through which amendment?

5th - due process for life, liberty, & property

300

Timbs v. Indiana?

Grossly disproportionate to enforce. 8th amendment incorporated to the states

300

What types of activities are subject to the right of privacy?

Marriage, procreation, contraception, living with one’s relatives, private consensual sexual activity, and the “right to die.”

400

What was the name of the case where the state enacted a law requiring apples from out of state to have the US grade only, no state grades allowed. 

Hunt, gov. of NC v. Washington State Apple Ad. Commission: NC wanted to restrict state business & damage out of state commerce. Finding the law discriminatory because it has the effect of discriminating against Washington apples, & NC failed to establish the purpose of this law & how it was nondiscriminatory to preserve the state interest, so it was unconstitutional to require this. 

400

What right did Loving v. Va. establish? (interracial couples)

The right to marry

400

What standard must a statute meet to withstand intermediate scrutiny?

The statute must be substantially related to an important governmental interest.

400

What was the name of the case that held guns are considered an ordain liberty which was the intent of the framers & found to be incorporated under 14th Amendment DP.

McDonald v. City of Chi

400

A discriminatory law regulating recreational activity does not violate the P & I clause. T or F?

True. (Lester Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana).

500

The 2 exceptions to DCC? Define?

Market participant: Provides that a state may favor its own citizens in dealing with government owned businesses and in receiving benefits from the government programs

Congressional Approval: If Congress ordains, the states may freely regulate an aspect of Interstate commerce, and action taken by a state within the scope of the Congressional authorization is rendered and vulnerable to the Commerce Clause challenge

500

Where do you have a fundamental right to travel?

In the US but not internationally.

500

There goes the neighborhood. Concerned over the possibility that continued economic problems in the United States could result in a transfer of American property to foreign hands, the State of Ames passes a law prohibiting aliens from owning more than 30 percent of stock in a corporation chartered in Ames. Frederick, an English investor who is a longtime resident of the United States, seeks to purchase a controlling interest in an Ames corporation. He sues, challenging the stock ownership ban. A reviewing court should:

  • A.  Uphold the ban, because only citizens of the United States are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • B.  Invalidate the ban, because owning stock in a private company is not a “political” function.
  • C.  Uphold the ban, because diffusion of property could imperil the political community of Ames.
  • D.  Invalidate the ban, because classifications based on alienage are presumptively unconstitutional.

B.

 Believe it or not, many states used to have restrictions on alien ownership of land. Moreover, an early-twentieth-century Supreme Court decision upheld this ban. Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923) (holding that preserving land affected “the safety and power of the state itself”). That changed with pre-Graham cases, such as Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission, 334 U.S. 410 (1948), in which the Court invalidated a California law denying aliens the ability to obtain commercial fishing licenses. The situation in the facts resembles the Takahashi case. With that in mind, consider the answers. A is incorrect; the Equal Protection Clause protects all “persons” within a state’s jurisdiction, not just citizens. C is incorrect as well, because it does not accurately reflect the current doctrine. D is incorrect because some alienage classifications are not presumptively unconstitutional. That leaves B, which is the best answer: The ban on stock ownership does not implicate the “political function” exception that garners only rational basis scrutiny. Wherever the line lies between those performing important public functions and those that who are not, it is clear that a private individual’s ownership of land or property in a state is not a public or political function; therefore, restrictions on alien ownership would garner strict scrutiny.

500

What was the policy & theory for Palko v. Conn.?

•Policy: state sovereignty & selective Incorporation

•Theory: Avoid Tyranny

500

A State of Bonneville statute prohibits illegitimate children from maintaining wrongful death actions for the deaths of their parents, but allows legitimate children to maintain such actions. Captain Hook’s illegitimate son, Fish, wants to file a wrongful death action against Al Ligator for eating his father, but the statute prevents him from doing so. Fish challenges the statute on equal protection grounds. What result?

The statute will be struck down. Equal protection problems arise when the state creates a discriminatory classification. When the classification is based on illegitimacy, as here, the statute is subject to intermediate scrutiny—the law must be substantially related to an important government goal. Here, the state’s interest is discouraging people from having illegitimate children. The problem is that the statute punishes the illegitimate children themselves, who cannot control their status. Statutes like this are struck down because of this unfair punishment. Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968).