106765860
1
Calder v. Bull
1798
Marbury v. Madison
McCulloch v. Maryland
1803
1816
Gibbons v. Ogden
1824
Barron v. Baltimore
1833
Dred Scott v. Sanford
1857
EP
gdr
PI
Bradwell
1872
Slaughterhouse Cases
1873
EP
Strauder v. W. Virginia
1879
SA
Civil Rights Cases
1883
EP
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
1886
US v. E.C. Knight
1895
Plessy v. Ferguson
1896
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
1897
NR/DP
CC
NR/DP
CC
EP
SDP
Individuals have natural rights against federal government: Ct held that SC should reverse st legislation which violates
natural rights. People enter into a social comtract which legitimizes society & protects natural rights [Lockean argument]
Gov’t is stified in achieving certain ends, but if the gov’t does not act in a manner that is protective, the Act is illegitimate
and improper. Public Welfare: Gov’tl axn must be legitimately connected to pursuit of general welfare. [Iredell dissent:
natural rights are not fixed – who decides? Stick to the text!]
Judicial Review: Supremacy of Constitution. Congress can’t expand original jurisdiction.
“Necessary and Proper” Clause – Implied Powers: Const. emanates from the people, not a contract among the States.
Const. written to allow Gov’t to meet crises of the ages
Congr has power to regulate i/c although states may pass regs which affect i/c on other grounds – police power of state –
BUT regardless of st power’s source, a st reg can’t conflict w/ fed regulation: Supremacy clause – feds trump state. No area
of i/c is reserved for state control
Bill of Rts applies only to the federal government. Rationale original intent: B of Rts written in fear of gov’t. Does not
recognize natural rights.
B/Rts incorporated on case-by-case basis: to date, 1, 4, 5, 6, 8.
Issue of original intent: look to what the framers and ratifiers intended. Negroes aren’t included and were not intended to
be included as citizens in the Const. Problems with original intent? Static instrument may be the engine of evil as moral
judgments change.
Woman who filed for license to practice law. Privileges and Immunities: not a P&I of women as citizens to engage in any
and every profession, occupation or employment in civil life.
Narrow interpretation of P&I, the EP clause, and 13th A: 14th A protects only the rts of US citizenship, not st citizenship.
13th A designed to deal with a particular historical evil – slavery. EP: must be interpreted in light of its history. It is an
attempt to deal w/ freed slaves. If it involves health/safety/morals/welfareSC won’t interfere.
DISSENT (Field): P/I applies to citizens of all free govts. Question is: what is necessary to be truly free? Majority decision
only supports rights in place prior to 14 A, thereby eviscerating meaning of 14 A.
Discriminatory purpose: Any state action that denied the immunity from inequality of legal protection either for life, liberty
or property to a colored man is in conflict with the Constitution. Law must be the same for B & W
Purpose of the 14th A to guard against: 1) reimposition of subordinate status on blacks; 2) unfriendly legislation; 3)
legislation implying inferiority. In this case, jury law rooted in racial hostility; 2) implication of inferiority; 3) lessens
security when blacks cannot participate in gov't and system of justice
guarantees of EP and DP clauses governed by §1 of the 14 th A apply by their own terms to st action only. Grant to Congr in
§5 of 14th A did not authorize Congr to regulate solely private conduct.
“Civ Rts Cases seem to hold that enforcement power of 14 A is limited to st action. However, it can be argued that the Civ
Rts Cases leave open the possibility of Congressional action if the state fails to provide protection against private
discrimination.” (Protection itself still has to be inside the 14th A)
On its face, Statute is neutral, but it is discriminatory in its application (applied w/ an evil eye and an unequal hand) –
invidious discrimination against individuals. Gov't can't exercise its discretion on the basis of hostility to race or nationality,
or in an arbitrary manner.
Direct Effects Test/ Logical Nexus Test: differentiates between manufacturing and commerce. Implied that there must be a
direct and logical relationship b/w the intrast activity being regulated and i/c
Equal but separate accommodations for Blacks and Whites on trains is okay b/c 14 th A’s purpose is not to enforce absolute
equality of the 2 races nor to establish social equality. 13 th A doesn’t apply b/c this isn’t a badge of slavery.
Court invalidated a state statute on the grounds that it unduly interfered with his freedom of contract. Articulates freedom of
contract as fundamental liberty.
106765860
2
Champion v. Ames
1903
CC
CC
SDP
Swift
Lochner v. New York
1905
1905
Lochner Era (1905 – 1934)
Means-end test  end must
be legit; direct relation btw
means and end
Muller v. Oregon
1908
SDP
Adair v. US
1908
Hippolite Egg
1911
Hoke (Mann Act Case)
1913
Shreveport Rate Case
1914
Coppage v. Kansas
1915
Guinn v. Beal
1915
Hammer v. Dagenhart
1918
Adkins v. Children’s
1923
CC
CC
SDP
EP
CC
SDP
Facts: The sale of lottery tickets was controlled by Congr by banning their interst transport. Was upheld, despite the fact
that the motivations behind the law were police power regulatory. Harlan: we should hesitate long before adjudging that an
evil of such an appalling character cannot be met and crushed by the only power competent to that end. [Fuller’s diss: Police
powers, under 10th belong to st.]
Current of Commerce: Congr may regulate items that are in the current of commerce.
No reasonable ground for interfering w/ the liberty of person or the rt of free contract, by determining the hours of labor, in
the occupation of a baker. Not a valid labor lawInequality of bargaining power is not a legitimate subject of gov’t
interference. Gov’t can’t just reallocate resources. Health Law Bakers not so diff from other occupations and not in need
of special protection. Their long hours don’t affect public health.
Test determining valid uses of st police power: 1) the end must be legitimate for an act that interferes w/ freedoms
considered valid; 2) there must be a direct relation between means and end
SDP
CC
Under Commerce Clause, Congr may reg for purpose of guarding the “morals of people.” National police powers: use of the
CC to reach areas that otherwise would be outside of Congr ctrl.
Problems w/ Lochner – DISSENT: Harlan  Ct can look at ends, but should defer to legis about means
Holmes: Ct should not look at ends or means. “A Const is not intended to embody a particular economic theory.” Legis
should decide what ends are legit, and whether the means are rationally related.
Ct sustained law restricting hours of women working in factory or laundry > 10 hrs. Weaker, no voting rights, reproductive
powers. Legit end = healthy women  healthy babies. Based on facts, there is reas rel. Origin of “Brandeis Brief” 
utilization of social science by court to justify means-end connection.
Arbitrary interference with liberty of contract to disturb the equaility of right between EE and ER. Ban on yellow dog
contract is unconstitutional.
Commerce Prohibiting Power: Commerce Prohibiting Power: fully effectuates this power. Congress may order the seizure
of items that moved in interstate transport that had been banned once they arrived at their destinations as a logical outgrowth
Transport of prostitutes across state lines banned, law upheld: “Congr has power over transportation ‘among the several
states’; that the power is complete in itself, and that Congr, as an incident to it, may adopt not only means necessary but
convenient to its exercise and the means may have the quality of police regulations.
Instrumentality argument: Congressional authority extends to interstate carriers as instruments of i/c so that Congr can
regulate b/c although it involves intrastate activities, these are part of the instrumentaility of i/c; Substantial effects test
Ban on yellow dog contracts (won’t join union as a condition of employment) struck down. Violated subst due process
because it impaired the “freedom to contract.” Inequality is necessary result of exercise of freedom of contract.
Election officers using grandfather clause. Discriminatory effect of state law – excluded virtually all illiterate blacks, and
virtually no illiterate whites. Held unconstitutional – effect can only be explained by prejudice
Reg prohibits shipment of i/c of products from mills employing kids – struck down! Mfr is NOT commerce. Congr may
prohibit the carrying of goods (lottery tix) interstate since the use of i/c was necessary to the accomplishment of the
“harmful” results. Regulation over commerce could only be accomplished by prohibiting the use of i/c to affect the “evil”
intended. Here, the thing is itself harmless. Production of articles even if intended for i/c is a matter for local regulation.
Congr can’t require states to exercise their police powers. [Holmes diss: no legal distinction b/t evils sought to be controlled
in those cases and the evil of premature & excessive child labor. Ct has no right to substitute its judgment of which evils
may be controlled] overruled by Darby – Holmes wins out
Min. wage laws for women struck down. Violation of freedom of contract. Wages not sufficiently related to the
106765860
3
Hospital
SDP
Ed
Meyer v. Nebraska
Education (still Lochner
Era)
1923
SDP
Kids
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Childrearing
1925
SDP
Buck v. Bell
1927
SDP
Nebbia v. NY
1934
Schecter Poultry “sick
chicken”
RR Board v. Alton RR Co
1935
Carter Coal
1936
US v. CA
1936
1937
SDP
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
SDP
Minimum Rationality
Carolene Products
CC
CC
1935
CC
CC/10
A
CC
SDP
FI
CC
FI
1937
1938
Carolene Products –
Footnote
1938
Carolene FN
U.S. v. Darby
1938
1941
Skinner v. Oklahoma
1942
health/protection of women. Hard to see min wage laws promoting legit health obj.  looked more like objective of
lessening economic inequality. “Naked, arbitrary exercise of legislative power.”
 tried and convicted of teaching German to a child. Ct held that "liberty" included more than economic rights. Included is
the right to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, worship God, establish a home, etc. Test: mere rationality, but still
concluded that statute was w/o reasonable relation to any end. Court is reading tradition into the Constitution: education
regarded as a supremely important right.
Act requires all kids to be sent to public schools. State law requiring attendance at a public school is violative of parents'
liberty to direct the education of their children. Test: Reasonable relation to some purpose w/in the competency of the
state.
Sterilization of retarded women upheld! Legis determined that sterilization was in the public interest, & in the interest of
those being sterilized. Any goal which is legit, the leg. could adopt as long as not inconsistent w/ people and the laws.
Kerrie Buck was not denied due process – had a lot of procedures.
NY Milk price control. Any economic policy reasonably deemed to promote public welfare okay. Applied Lochner test on
its surface, but w/ much greater deference to the legislature. Legislation is only unconst if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or
demonstrable irrelevant, and the means have no relation.
“Indirect Effects” Theory: Court required a direct effect on commerce, not indirect. If Congress could regulate indirect
effects, then they could regulate anything
Applied Hammer to strike down FDR initiative imposing mandatory retirement on RR industry. Obvious attempt to impose
social policy under the commerce clause.
Production v. Commerce – production is a purely local activity. Holding: No direct effect on i/c. The issue is whether there
is a direct logical relation (not too many steps removed), not extent of the effect Cardozo diss: law is not indiff to
considerations of degree. Language of necessary and proper is comprehensive in scope
Congress can regulate state run railroad. No limit from Spirit of 10 th. “The sovereign of the states is necessarily diminished
to the extent of the grants of power to the federal govt and the Constitution.”
Expanded Substantial Economic Effect Test: Ct rejected current of commerce thy. Also rejected mfr v. commerce
distinction. 10th A is no longer a barrier to federal commerce clause power
Overruled Adkins. Upheld minimum wage for women. Ends: protecting health of women. Redressing their inferior
bargaining position – readjustment of econ bargaining power becomes more legit. Means: wages have relation to health
and bargaining power.
Upheld prohibition of the interstate shipment of filled milk. Presumption of constitutionality will be applied in the case of an
econ regulation subjected to a due process attack. ANY rational explanation is sufficient – deference to legislature, even w/o
explicit legislative findings.
Stone gives 3 instances where less deference to legis: 1) when they interfere w/ a specific textual prohibition; 2) when they
restrict political processes that can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation; 3) discrete &
insular minorities – statute discrim against this group given less deference
(2) political process which is to be used to repeal undesirable legislation.
Overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart. Motive is irrelevant. Reasonable means: Once Congr is dealing with a permitted end, it
can choose means that are reasonably adapted.
OK has statute permitting sterilization of habitual criminals. Statute is invalid – ct used strict scrutiny b/c the different
treatment must be justified with compelling interest  fundamental interest. The statute does not apply uniformly.
Embezzlers just as guilty, but not covered. Explicity refuses to overturn Buck. Reproduction is not fundamental right.
106765860
4
Wickard v. Fillburn
1943
EP
Korematsu v. U.S.
1944
EP
gdr
SA
Goesart v. Cleary
1948
Shelley v. Kraemer
1948
EP
Railway Express Agency v.
NY
Rochin v. California
1949
Brown v. Board of
Education
1954
CC
SDP
EP
EP
SDP
1952
Bolling v. Sharpe
1954
Williamson v. Lee Optical
1955
Hypothetical Rationality
EP
FI
Cts
Brown II
Griffin v. Illinois
1955
1956
EP
race
SA
Gommilion v. Lightfoot
1960
Burton v. Wilmington
Parking Authority
1961
FI
Symbiotic Relationship
Gray v. Saunders
1963
Cumulative Effect theory – Wickard alone has little impact, but in the aggregate, home consumption will compete with i/c
sold wheat, and protection of that wheat falls w/in commerce power. Kreimer: regulated act is not commerce itself.
Plausible claim of impact, relying on data.
Ct held that there was a compelling need to prevent espionage & sabotage and that there was an imminent danger. All laws
which discriminate against a race are immediately suspect and demand rigid scrutiny. Murphy dissent: classification
must have a reasonable relation – the military order fails rational-basis scrutiny. Racial prejudices are behind the order and
that is impermissible. Jackson Dissent: question of reasonableness is up to the military, next time should leave it out of cts.
Legacy of Black: introduced the legal std – "suspect" classifications are subject to rigid scrutiny – need factual
characteristics of "imminent danger" and "necessary"
Women prohibited from obtaining bartender license. Old rational relation standard. Preservation of women’s proper role.
Regarding sale of home in area where agmt restricted occupancy to whites: actions of st cts are state actions w/in the
meaning of the 14th A. Judicial enforcement of these private racial restrictions constitutes state discrimination contrary to
the 14th A and denied  EP.
Broad holding of Shelley has never been repeated – would eliminate public/private distinctions.
Conceivable purpose: if the legis may have believed that there is a difference then that's enough to sustain the legislation.
Once step at a time: Gov't need not eradicate the entire evil at once, but can do it one step @ a time
Stomach pumping. Yuck test: so at odds w/ settled notions of decency, that it is a violation of DP – it is inconsistent w/
fundamental personal immunities, rooted in the conscience of our people. Shocks the conscience.
Distinct from Lochner era b/c concern bodily autonomy v. economic interests/property
overturned doctrine of separate but equal in context of public education – which is critical to participation in American
society. Congressional intent irrelevant and inconclusive – role of education different now. Inherently unequal – generates
a feeling of inferiority. Evidence relies on psychological data.
Kreimer! Brown can stand for (1) race should never be taken into account, or (2) equalization – system built on racial
discrimination, the remedies must take race into account to equalize educational opportunities. (ex. bussing)
Racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny: likely to embody racial hostility; unrelated to legit purposes
Separation is not a proper government objective. People must be regarded as equal individuals. Decided on DP.
Hypothetical rationality: Ct willing to hypothesize reasons – willing to accept any rational assumption, which need not be
the real basis. As long as there is an evil, and statute could be a rational way of addressing it. The law need not be
logically consistent in every aspect. No good when statute is completely arbitrary and capricious (if Ct can’t hypothesize a
legit end, and the means as a rational way of addressing it)
Fed dist cts had responsibility to supervise desegregation – in a manner with “all deliberate speed.” Ct must be proactive.
St must provide a trial transcript or its equivalent to an indigent criminal appealing a conviction on non-federal grounds. No
constitutional right to appeal. Once it is granted to some, it must be granted to all. Ability to pay bears no rational relation to
D’s guilt or innocence.
28 sided figure. Gerrymandering to exclude every minority member from city – can infer an intent to exclude blacks from
the absurdly shaped district lines. Violation of EP and 15 A
Eagle Coffee shop refuses to serve black man, parking garage owned by agent of the state. Relationship was symbiotic. Ct
held that state action was present. If any state action is involved w/ private discrimination, the 14 th As protections are
invoked
One person, one vote.
106765860
FI
Cts
5
Douglas v. California
1963
Heart of Atlanta Motel
1964
Katzenbach v. McClung
1964
EP
Anderson v. Martin
1964
Cng
15
SDP
Repro
Voting Rights Act
1965
Griswold v. Conn
1965
Harper v. West Virginia
1966
US v. Price
Color of law
South Carolina v.
Katzenbach
1966
Katzenbach v. Morgan
1966
Loving v. Virginia
1967
Maryland v. Wirtz
(IC not overruled, see 10 A)
Maryland v. Wirtz
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer
Co.
1968
EP
Hunter v. Erickson
1969
FI
vote
Cng
Kramer v. Union Free
School District
Oregon v. Mitchell
1969
CC
CC
FI
vote
SA
Cng
15 A
Cng
15 A
EP
CC
10 A
Cng
13
1966
1968
1968
1970
Ct held that st must appoint counsel for an indigent  for the first appeal granted as a matter of statutory right from criminal
conviction. Unconstnal line has been drawn btw the rich and the poor.
Rational Basis – racial discrim discouraged blacks from travelling, thereby affecting i/c. Since there was a rational basis for
concluding as such, statute is okay. Congress may promote i/c by regulating local activities which have a substantial and
harmful effect on i/c. STRONG DEFERENCE to Congressional determinations. Will not look at facts.
Cumulative effect – in the aggregate, discriminatory conduct like this has an effect on i/c. Rational basis required: if there
is a rational basis for finding that a regulatory scheme is necessary to the protection of commerce, then it is okay Congr
need not show that in reality there will be an effect. Must be able to rationally conclude that it affects commerce.
[Douglas would have preferred 14th A analysis as well] Similar to hypothetical rationality.
Struck down st law requiring listing of race on ballot. Rejected facially neutral argument…induces prejudice at polls. St
endorsement of racial categories is problematic.
Congress has enabling power under §5 of 14 A and §2 of 15A to enforce provisions. VRA created rebuttable presumption
that literacy tests in certain states were used to perpetrate racial discrimination.
Contraceptive use: Ct holds that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rts have penumbras or peripheral rights which make the
specific rights more secure. Right of married persons to use contraceptives fall w/in this penumbra. Limitation of right
would be repulsive to notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship. Applied extremely strict standard of review
– note, same author as Lee Optical (hypoth. Rationality). Concurrence suggested 9th A could support.
Poll tax unconstnal. Voting is a fund interest. “Wealth, like race, creed, or color is not germane to one’s ability to participate
intelligently in the electoral process.” Poll tax may be a tradition, but it’s not how we recognize indiv as equal citizens.
Civil rights workers murder. Private individuals who acted together with local law enforcement officials acted under “color
of law.”
Upheld Voting Rights Act of 1965. Held that Congress' power to enforce the 15 th A was broad. Any rational means could
be chosen to enforce the 15th A's ban on racial discrimination in voting. Remedies provided by congress were necessary
and proper and should not violate any provisions of the constitution.
Challenging provision allowing Puerto Ricans voting rights: Ct holds that the law was a valid exercise by Congr of its
powers under §5 of the 14th A. Brennan: 1) REMEDIAL Congress can conclude on basis of info it has that violation of
voting rights occurred (if court knew what congress knew, court would do same  key is that Congress uses courts
normative evaluation of constitutuional right in new context); 2) Congress is making a separate decision that action is
unconstitutional (violates 14th)  expanding Court’s definitions but doesn’t have power to contract (rejected in Oregon v.
Mitchell, 1970); 3) PROPHYLACTIC device to prevent future violations in other areas (i.e. provisions of public services.)
B&W violating VA’s miscegenation law. Eq application doesn’t immunize statute from SS. Rigid scrutiny – necessary to
accomplishment of permissible st. objectives. The gov't interest in preserving racial integrity is not legitimate
Impact on IC cannot be trivial. Congress must show rational basis on the record. Enterprise concept = companies’
treatment of employees can be regulated if company engages in commerce or production of goods for commerce.
(overruled by NLC) DISSENT: first surfacing of 10th A/federalism in CC.
Co. had failed to seel Ps a home, simply because of their race. Ct. held that 13 th A had the power to rationally determine
what are the badges and incidents of slavery. §1982 of CRA of 1966 bars all racial discrimination (private and public) in the
sale or rental of property. Grants Cong proactive power to enforce the 13 th A.
City fair housing ordinance. Special burden affecting only racial minorities. Statute that excludes a group from benefits
disproportionately on the basis of race is a violation of EP.
Ct struck down NY req that one either own prop or have kid in school in order to vote in election of school board. Once
delegated to the pp, voting rt is fundamental. Must have significant/compelling reason to deny vote.
Upheld Cong’s imposition of literacy test prohibition on basis of §2 of 15 th A. Rejected Cong’ ability to make its own
106765860
15 A
CC
EP
EP
gdr
FI
Cts
SA
6
Bass
Griggs v. Duke Power
(intent does not matter!)
Reed v. Reed
1971
1971
Boddie
1971
Moose Lodge v. Irvis
1972
1971
determination of what’s constnal. (#2 of Katzenbach v. Morgan)
Penalty for possession of guns by felons. Must prove that individual gun traveled in interstate commerce to regulate.
Employment test kept out most blacks. Title VII – statutory – even if there is no discriminatory intent, a test that has a
discriminatory effect is not valid if not related to the job – must show business necessity
Ct declined to hold that sex is a suspect classification. Applied a rationality standard – not SS, but unarticulated heightened
scrutiny; sex can't be sole classification; invidious discrim is arbitrary inaccurate stereotypes
DP prohibits a st from denying a divorce, solely based on inability to pay. It’s based on “fundamental” right to marriage.
This is not saying that access to courts for all is fund right  access to courts = fund interest.
Private club refuses to serve blacks. They possess state granted liquor licenses. Ct says granting a license is not a state
action. State Passive, discriminiation indvdl. Standard: was the gov't significantly involved w/ invidious discrimination?
Nexus Relationship
SDP
Repro
Eisenstadt v. Baird
1972
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v.
Moreno
Frontiero v. Richardson
1973
San Antonio Indep. School
Dist. v. Rodriguez
1973
FI
Cts
FI
Cts
SDP
abor
Kras
1973
Contraceptive distribution: decided on a minimum rationality equal protection ground. Rt of privacy includes the right of
individuals, single or married, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusions into matters that so fundamentally
affect a person as the decision on whether to bear a child. Extends Griswold to unmarried couples
Statute limiting receipt of food stamps to households of related persons – designed to prevent hippies from getting food
stamps. No good – bare desire to harm policitally unpopular group is not a legit gov't purpose
Plurality states strict scrutiny for gender. Struck down military requirement that men could automatically get money for
dependent wives but women in military had to show proof that husbands were economically dependent.
Education is not a fundamental right. SS not required because there was no suspect classification. There is rational basis for
schools to finance as they wish.
Marshall (dissent): introduces sliding scale approach.
Boddie does not extend to bankruptcy hearings.
Ortwein
1973
Boddie does not apply to filing fee for challenging denial to welfare benefits.
Roe v. Wade
Trimester System
1973
SDP
Abor
EP
Doe v. Bolton
1973
Lau v. Nichols
1974
Geduldig v. Aiello
1974
Right to privacy is broad enough to encompass the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Right to privacy extends
throughout the entire pregnancy, but rt to abortion divided into trimesters: 1 st trimester – State may not ban or even closely
regulate abortions. No valid interest in protecting health of mother at this stage; 2 nd trimester – State may regulate abortion
procedure in ways reasonably related to mother's health; 3rd trimester State may regulate, even proscribe abortions.
Exception life/health of the mother. Fetus is viable and state had a compelling interest in preserving fetal life. See outline
for further discussion.
Ct held that a state may not require that abortions be performed only in accredited hospitals. Physical must be permitted to
consider all relevant factors.
No equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, and teachers and curriculum for
students who don't understand English. They are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. Violation of Title
VI – school was receiving federal funds. Explicit articulation of effects based EP violation.
Upheld CA disability insurance system excluding coverage of disabilities arising from pregnancy. No showing of invidious
intent to discriminate btw the sexes. Real differences btw pregnant and non-pregnant people. No evid of invidious intent to
discriminate against women; therefore mere rationality std applied. Once classif deemed facially neutral, then
rationality test will apply.
EP
EP
gdr
EP
ed
EP
gdr
1973
106765860
FI
Cts
SA
7
Ct refused to extend Douglas right to counsel to discretionary appeals. Just b/c it might benefit the poor does not mean it’s
constnally required. We’re providing access – does not have to be equal access.
Electric service terminated w/o notice/hearing. Inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close NEXUS b/w the state
and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State
itself. Key is the method of regulation  rates renewed automatically; state action would require active state oversight.
First majority opinion to reference 10th A but narrow holding.
Public intolerance: mere public intolerance can’t const justify the deprivation of a person’s personal/physical liberty.
Simple dislike not a legit basis for state action. Father committed son to mental institution.
10th amendment as independent limitation – Commerce power can’t be used to impair the State’s integrity or their ability to
function effectively in the federal system. Can’t regulate integral state fxns. Min. wage violated 1. St ability to fxn
effectively purely as a matter of cost; 2) removal of discretion  stripped states of their discretion to decide how they
wished allocate their pool of funds.
Relaxed rational basis standard. Age is not treated as a suspect class. Defer to legislature.
DISSENT (Marshall) – promotes sliding scale  age should get heightened scrutiny.
DC test for police not related to job performance. Invidious effect must be traced to invidious discriminatory purpose.
Disproportionate racial impact can never by itself be sufficient to prove discriminatory purpose; but can be used to infer
discriminatory purpose. Burden of proof on 
Intermediate scrutiny  classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially
related to achievement of those objectives. Stereotypes, even if accurate, shouldn't govern individual opportunity. (3.2%
beer)
Chicago suburb rezoning property. Official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially
disproportionate impact. Must show that a discrim purpose has been a motivating factor in decision
Struck down rule allowing pharmacists to only distribute contraceptives to adults – fundamental right of procreation.
Ross v. Moffitt
1974
Jackson v. Metropolitan
Edison
Public functions test
Fry v. US
O’Connor v. Donaldson
1974
National League of Cities
(overrules Wirtz)
1976
MA Bd of Retirement v.
Murgia
Washington v. Davis
1976
EP
gdr
Craig v. Boren
1976
EP
Arlington Heights v. Metro
Housing
Carey v. Population Svcs
1977
Moore v. East Cleveland
1977
Zablocki v. Redhail
1977
UC Regents v. Bakke
1978
Zoning ordinance limiting occupancy to members of single family invalidated. Grandma can’t live w/ her 2 grandkids.
Fails Intermediate Scrutiny  sanctity of family deeply rooted in nations history and tradition. Requires intermediate Scr.
Cout strikes down Wisc. Law which said marriage lic. Was contingent on not owing any alimony. Right to marry is of
fundamental importance. Other less intrusive ways of intervening to get alimony payments existed.
Powell: classifications based on race are subject to strict scrutiny, regardless of the reason behind the classification, or
the class that it is directed against. Effect of guaranteeing EP to individuals, rather than members of groups. Objective
needs to be compelling: possibly satisfies the one element of contributing diversity to the student body – educational
benefits. Necessity – are the means necessary/narrowly tailored? No, not necessary to use a quota system; can use race as a
factor like Harvard plan.
1978
EP
Flagg Brothers v. Brooks
Public functions test
Mass v. Feeney
EP
US RR Retirement v. Fritz
1980
Brennan: agreed that race can be taken into account. Standard of review for affirm axn program should be intermediate
scrutiny. Whites are not a discrete and insular minority, not similarly situated. With IS: important interest – remedying
prior societal discrimination. Stigmatization: does not stigmatize any racial group. No const difference b/w quota and "plus"
factor.
Ct held that state action is to be viewed narrowly: sale of bailed goods to satisfy a lien was not state action. Pub. fxns
analysis will only apply with functions that have traditionally been exclusively w/in domain of the gov't
Veterans giving hiring preference. 98% male. awareness of consequences is not sufficient to prove an intent to
discriminate; there is only intentional discrimination if the Legis enacted the statute "because of, not in spite of"
Revamped retirement benefits – double to some and none to others. Combines rational basis with any conceivable reason to
10 A
SDP
10 A
EP
EP
SDP
repro
SDP
Fam
SDP
Mar
EP
race
SA
1975
1975
1976
1977
1979
106765860
8
EP
EP
race
Mobile v. Bolden
Fullilove v. Klutznick
1980
1980
Cng
15 A
EP
gdr
City of Rome
1980
Michael M. v. Superior Ct
1981
EP
gdr
Rostker v. Goldberg
1981
EP
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush
Co.
Rogers v. Lodge
1982
Rogers v. Lodge
Miss. Univ. for Women v.
Hogan
Plyler v. Doe
1982
1982
1982 Trilogy
Blum v. Yaretsky
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil
Palmore v. Sidoti
1982
1982
1982
1982
1984
Garcia v. SAMTA
(overrules NLC)
1985
EP
Hunter v. Underwood
1985
EP
Mtl ill
City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Ctr.
1985
EP
EP
EP
gdr
EP
alien
SA
SA
SA
SA
EP
CC/10
A
1982
1982
approve program.
Ct held that you must show more than just an all white result to show violation of EP
set aside program for minority businesses in gov't contracts: apply intermediate scrutiny to the racial classification. Fed
gov't has authority to address societal discrimination – deference to Congress. Congress need not be colorblind. Can infer
past discrimination requiring remedy.
Issue is preclearance under Voting Rts Act. Court says congress has the power to ban practices that are discriminatory only
in EFFECTGS< not intent. RE-affirming Katzenbach v. Morgan (#3 Prophylactic)
CA statutory rape law upheld: punishment of male and not female was deemed okay. Ct. applied intermed. scrutiny: EPC
doesn't require that different things be treated alike. Gender classifications are ok when they realistically reflect the facts
that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances. In this case, all of the harm of teenage pregnancies fall on
the women a crim sanction imposed only on the male serves to roughly equalize the deterrents on the sexes. Brennan
dissent: no rational relationship b/w classification & goal
Ct rejected claim under EP of the 5th A due process clause that selective service was unconstitutional because it required
registration of males and not females. Held that men & women, because of combat restrictions are not similarly situated for
purposes of the draft or registration for the draft.
Radical irrationality: total irrationality will be struck down. Ct found that the classification was totally irrational – green
eyes v. brown eyes
At large voting system dilutes the voting power of Black citizens. Violates the 14 th A if conceived or operated as purposeful
devices to further racial discrimination by minimizing or canceling out voting strength. Circumstancial evidence (effects)
can show purpose.
at large voting scheme predictably resulted in exclusion of blacks. Held unconst because of invidious purpose.
Defenders of gender-classifying law must carry burden of showing an exceedingly persuasive justification. No important
objective here – allowed male nursing student to enter
TX statute denying free public ed to undocumented children of illegal immigrants. Statute unconstitutional since legis
punishes children for the acts of their parents which violates fundamental conceptions of liberty. Not a suspect class, but
more than mere rationality needed since: children are not voluntary aliens, education is important, denying education will
render them illiterate and prevent their integration. Ct is worried about the creation of a permanent underclass w/o access to
opp. to enter mainstream of American society
Schizo standards for Nursing Homes; Schools; and Creditors.
See Dee’s Outline
See Dee’s Outline
See Dee’s Outline  See Edmonson v. Leesville (1991) for test
Custody question where one person remarried to a black person. Law may not directly/indirectly give effect to private racial
prejudices. Even if a statute meets SS, the gov't can't adopt a racial classification if the reason that the leg. adopts it is
private prejudice, or the threat of priv prejudice
Blackmun changes mind, overrules Nat’l League. Line drawing leads to judicial subjectivity. Leave decision making to
Congress. Balancing test: eval. The degree to which there are fed and state interests; test to be carried out by Congress.
Court only intervenes if failure of political process.
Disenfranchises people convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. A neutral st law that produces disproportionate
effects along racial lines must be subject to scrutiny of Arlington. There was clear invidious motive and a discriminatory
effect  therefore it is an invalid law
Zoning issue for mental center. Rational rel is the test: No RR here! Should 've passed under rtl relation, but they are
applying more cuz: 1)immutable charac; 2) history of discrim; 3) perpetuates ignorance or irrational fears. Concurrence:
106765860
9
EP
Batson v. Kentucky
1986
EP
Thornburgh v. Gingles
1986
Bowers v. Hardwick
1986
South Dakota v. Dole
(Spending Power)
1987
EP
McCleskey v. Kemp
1987
EP
ed
EP
race
Kadramas v. Dickinson
Public Schools
Richmond v. JA Croson
1988
SA
DeShaney v. Winnebago
Cty Soc Svcs Dept
1989
EP
race
Metro Broadcasting
(overruled by Adarand)
Gregory v. Ashcroft
1990
Edmonson v. Leesville
Concrete Co
1991
New York v. US
1992
Planned Parenthood v.
Casey
Undue Hardship (replaces
Trimester System)
TXO v. Alliance Resources
1992
SDP
Sex
CC/ 10
A
CC/ 10
A
SA
CC/ 10
A
SDP
Abor
SDP
1989
1991
1993
level of scrutiny should vary w/ the constitutional & societal importance of the interest adversely affected & the recog
invidiousness of the basis upon which the particular classifcation is drawn.
w/o statistical proof, one can show, w/in the 's own case, the requisite impermissible racial bias
Pattern of racially motivated decisions by prosecutor shifts burden to prosecutor to show legit reason.
Post-Rogers VRA amendments  Expanded effects test. Court pulls back and holds violation of VRA requires subjective
intent.
 charged w/ violating GA sodomy law. Ct held that there was no fundamental right to engage in sodomy. Privacy of the
home doesn't constitute a valid enough exception  Ct afraid of other horrible acts, i.e. incest, fornication in the home.
Burger: no deep rooted historical tradition. Powell: no fundamental right – 8th amendment challenge could have been made.
Dissent: not about a fundamental right to engage in sodomy, but the right to be left alone! No right way in conducting our
intimate relations. Immorality of act is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.
Congressional Incentives: Congress has authority to condition receipt of fed funds on certain st axns. Limits: 1) Must be in
pursuit of general welfare; 2) conditions must be reasonably related to federal intent; 3) can’t be too coercive – would be
compulsion.
Inmate wants to use statistics to show that capital sentencing process administered in a racially discriminatory manner in
violation of 8th and 14th A. But he cannot prove that he would have been convicted but for his race.  may not use
statistical proof. Must prove that the decision makers in his case acted w/ discrim purpose
Requirement that indigent family pay for transportation to school does not violate EP. Ct would not say that degrees of
access can raise EP problems.
Modeled Fullilove program. General societal discrimination is insufficient for compelling st interest. Use of race will only
pass SS if specific instances of discrimination can be shown. Note: under Fullilove, Cong can infer past discrimination but
here, city must give specific evidence.
Joshua beaten to pt of permanent brain injuries. State social workers documented the beatings over course of 2 years, but
did nothing to remove him from father’s custody. s claim as if state had beaten him themselves. HELD SDP does not
create an affirmative duty to act.
Intermediate scrutiny should apply, when dealing with race-conscious, benign, action by Congr & Equal Protxn.
Plain Stmt Rule: If Congr wants to interfere, make it a clear statement in the Act. Power to determine qualifications of st.
gov’t officials is a power reserved to the states under the 10th A and guaranteed by a republican form of gov’t. Leaves
definition and articulation of regulation to Congress but requires clarity. Consistent with Garcia.
Private litigant used peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on basis of race. Ct. held use by private litigant in a civil
proceeding of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race constituted state action. Even though action was
taken by non-state actors.
Used LUGAR test: 1. if claimed const. Deprivation resulted from exercise of right or privilege having souce in state
authority; 2. if private litgant, in all fairness may be deemed a govt actor.
Radioactive Waste Policy. Congress cannot require states to “take title” of waste. Congress cannot use states as implements
of regulation  first stment of commandeering doctrine. Incentives for states to comply remain okay!
PA act require informed consent; 24 hr waiting period; spousal notification; inform parent. Ct reversed all except husband
notification requirement. Ct held that the state may restrict abortions so long as they do not place undue burdens on a
woman's right to choose. Abortion is no longer a fundamental right and restrictions need not be strictly scrutinized.
Can 2nd guess jury determination when there is a gross disproportion. Jury is not popularly elected and must follow
instructions of the Ct. Therefore, they are entitled to less deference. Legis is appropriate forum for resolution of value
106765860
EP
race
10
Potential resuscitation of
Lochner – econ SDP
Shaw v. Reno
conflicts and facts. Ct should not read in its own values.
1993
Appearances matter.
EP
gdr
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel
1994
Lopez
1995
EP
race
Miller v. Johnson
1995
EP
race
Adarand Constructors v
Pena
1995
EP
race
Bush v. Vera
1996
EP
gdr
US v. Virginia (VMI)
1996
EP
gays
FI
Cts
Romer v. Evans
1996
MLB v. SLJ
1996
Printz v. US (supp 11)
1997
SDP
Washington v. Glucksberg
1997
EP
race
Cng
Lawyer v. DOJ
1997
City of Boerne v. Flores
Proportionality &
Congruence Test
1997
SDP
Abor
Mazurek v. Armstrong
1997
CC
CC/
10A
Bug splatter and snake districts drawn to maximize rights of minorites in the voting process. Innate problem under EP w/
action that classifies individuals on basis of race. Must survive SS (compelling interest/necessary)
Why bad? Reinforces belief that people viewed w/ racial charac; sends message that one should identify as a member of a
racial group; sends message to elected officials to view selves as representing racial groups
Gender based preemptory challenges to jurors were unconstitutional. Exceedingly persuasive just. std used. EP prohibits
discrim in jury selection on the basis of gender or on the assumption that an indiv will be biased in a particular case for no
reason other than the fact that she is a woman
Gun Free School Zone Act exceeds CC; over-inclusive includes guns that did not travel in IC.
Cong can only regulate 3 areas of IC: (1) use of channels; (2) instrumentalities of IC; (3) activities that have substantial
relation to IC. (this is the real change. – away from rational relation) Wickard not overruled.
Predominant factor test: 's burden is to show that race was the predominant motivating factor for the decision to district.
Shape is relevant because it may show legislature's rationale in drawing lines. Shape can be persuasive of race as
predominant motivating factor but is not inherently unconstnal.
SS must be applied to race-based affirmative action programs even when Congress imposes them. Overruling Metro and
expanding Croson to fed govt. O'Connor maj: 5th & 14th protect persons, not groups. All racial classifications by any state
or federal actor are subject to strict scrutiny.
Ct held that for SS to apply, a court must find that legit districting principles were subordinated to race. For SS to apply,
race must be “predominant factor motivating the legislature’s redistricting decision.”
CONCUR (O’Connor with self) – compliance w/ VRA may be a compelling st interest and pass strict scrutiny.
Rejected SS. Standard is exceedingly persuasive justification. State must show at least that the challenged classification
serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the
achievement of those objectives.
Gender-based classifications may not be based on over-broad generalizations of talents and preferences of males and
females. (stereotypes)
Co. passed st referendum affecting discrim of gays. Ct held that a state cannot classify a group of individuals to make them
unequal to everyone else. Homosexuality can't be singled out for unfavorable treatment.
Ct found unconstnal a Miss ct order that parental rights of petitioner be terminated. MLB sought appeal, but st required her
to pay records fee of over $2000.
Background check on gun purchases. No Commandeering of the executive branch: Congr may not: 1) force a state to
legislate or regulate in a certain way or 2) require state executive branch personnel to perform even ministerial functions;
incompatible w/ our sys. of dual sovereignty
Upheld ban on assisted suicide. Effect of Fundamental Rights – Rule: If legislation interferes w/ fund rts, the Ct will not
accord the same degree of deference. Committing suicide is not a fundamental interest (not deeply rooted in this Nation's
history/traditions) Therefore, need only withstand rational basis scrutiny
Where race is taken into account in redistricting, demonstrably benign and satisfactorily tidy districts are okay.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 unconstitutional. Congress has no right to specify the substantive contours of
constitutional rights. Congress has power to enforce, not determine what is const. Violation. There must be
Proportionality (means-end) and congruence (with what the court defines) between the injury and the means adopted to
that end – narrowly tailored to the identified victim.
Upheld Montana law that effectively prevented state’s only non-physician licensed to perform abortions, from performing
106765860
SDP
11
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
1998
Saenz v. Roe
1999
Morrison
(supra, modern state action –
lack of)
Reno v. Condon
2000
Willowbrook v. Olech
2000
EP
race
Cng
Rice v. Cayetano
2000
US v. Morrison
2000
Cng
Dickerson v. US
2000
SDP
Fam
SDP
abor
Troxel v. Granville
2000
Stenberg v. Carhart
2000
CC/
10A
EP mtl
ill
FI
vote
Solid Waste v. Army Corps
2001
Bd of Trustees v. Garrett
2001
Bush v. Gore
2001
SA
Brentwood Academy v. TN
Secondary School Athletic
Asscn
2001
Cng
SDP
Ed
Board of Trustees v. Garrett
See Supra, E.P. – other
levels (mental disability)
2001
PI
CC
CC/
10A
EP
2000
abortions. Court said it did not cause “undue burden.”
Used DP Takings Clause to strike down law for economic intervention. Retroactive surcharge on mining industry
unconstitutional.
Potential resuscitation of Lochner – econ SDP (Kennedy is only justice to raise SDP; other 4 cite only takings)
States cannot discriminate against newcomers – CA welfare benefits. P&I of national citizenship gives a newcomer just as
much right as the state citizen. Decision also founded in right to travel (see Civil Rts Cases).
Violence Against Women’s Act struck down. Stats demonstrated effect on IC but event regulated was not economic in
nature. Note: Court reviewed Congressional findings.
DMV database. Cong regulate state sales’ of DMV information. This is okay! Consistent with NY/Printz. Does not require
the state to regulate or st officials to enforce – merely regulates sale of item that clearly relates to IC (marketing info).
Arbitrary application of zoning rule to one individual has no rational basis. Case dismissed.
Arbitrary + personal hostility  unconstnal
Struck down AA program in Hawaii that limited the vote for trustees of the state Office of HI Affairs to Hawaiians.
Violation of 15th amendment.
Numerous findings of pervasive discrimination against women in state court system. Statute struck down  discrimination
in state system is a violation of EPC but making individual, not the state, liable as a way of remedying state violations is not
proportional nor congruent to the act.
Upheld Miranda warning. Congress can’t legislatively supersede Ct’s decisions in interpreting and applying the Const.
(rejects #2 again) Miranda had set forth a const. Rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively.
S.Ct. strikes down state court decision as applied which seemed to allow grandparents’ visitation rights without parental
consent. Very narrowly written. State must weigh parents’ relationship w/ kids and their concerns about kids’ upbringing
Struck down Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions b/c no exception created for cases where woman’s life was
endangered.  posed undue burden upon woman’s right to make an abortion decision.
Application of Migratory Bird Rule to puddle. If statute is at outer limits of Cong power, requires clear indication that Cong
intended the result. W/o clear intent, Court interprets I to avoid constitutional problem.
Three interpretations on meaning of Cleburne: (1) maj – rational relations, (2) conc – hostile feelings need to be screened
out by EPC, (3) diss – heightened scrutiny b/c of history of discrimination against disabled.
Voting still a fundamental interest and requires heightened scrutiny.
In area of voting rights (and by implication, any fund interest), a system which allows standard-less decisionmaking by
officials to augment or subtract from the exercise of the right is an EP violation.
Mere entwinement – state is entwined in management or control. School athletic group once was official, now unofficial
(winks & nods). Criteria (not controlling) to determine state action: results from stat’s coercive power; provides significant
encouragement; private actor willful participant in jt activity w/state; controlled by agency of state; delgated public function;
entinement.
Goes further than prior cases but does not overrule ‘narrow interpretation’ of state action.
Held: that employees of the state may not recover damages by reason of the state’s failure to comply with the provisions of
the ADA.
106765860
12