Equal Protection Pyramid

Due Process House

Everything in the Due Process House is a fundamental right and gets strict scrutiny applied, except abortion which uses the undue burden analysis

Framework for Analyzing Fundamental Rights

The first question asked is if there is a fundamental right? The second question is whether the right is being infringed? Third, is whether the govovernment's action are justified by a sufficient purpose? And the last question is whther the means adopted are sufficiently related to the ends being sought?

Is there a fundamental right? Originalists look for explicit words in the constitution or rights clearly intended by the framers. Noj-originalists don't adopt this strict view. Moderate originalists think the Court should implement the Framer's general intent, but not their specific intent. The Court has also looked at tradition and history and has said that fundamnetal rights include those liberites that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. And some argue that the Court's preeminent role is to perfecting the process of government.

Is the constitutional right infringed? The Court askes the question whether there is a direct and substantial interference with the excercise of that right.

The government has the burden of showing that a truky vital interest is servef by infrinfing the right.

The government must also show that the law is necessary to achieve its objectiveThere is also a requiremnt that the government use the least restrictive means.

Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court has held that some liberties are so important tha they are deemed fundamental. Generally, State action that infringes upon these "fundamental rights" will not be upheld unless strict scruitny is met. Fundamental rights include rights that protect family autonomy, procreation,sexual activity and orientation, medical care decison making, travel, voting, and acess to the courts. However, claims of economic liberites (think Lochner) only need to meet rational basis review.

Infringements on fundamental rights can be challeneged under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The difference is that under Due Process the issue is whether the government's interference is justified by a sufficient purpose, unde Equal Protection the issue is whether the government's discrimination is justified by a sufficient purpose.

Equal Protection for Non-Marital Children

In, Lalli v. Lalli, the Court upheld a NY State law that mandates paternity be proven during the father’s lifetime. If paternity was not proven during the father's lifetime, the illegitimate children could take under intestacy. The court found illegitimate children to be a quasi-suspect class, like gender, and applied intermediate scrutiny. The Court ruled that intestate efficiency and combating fraud were important state interests and mandating paternity to be proven during the father's lifetime was substantially related to that interest.

Exceptions to Strict Scrutiny for Alienage Classifications

The Supreme Court generally applies Strict Scrutiny when a challenged government action has an alienage classification. However, rational basis review is applied when the alienage classifications are related to self government and the democratic process. Thus a State may deny aliens the right to vote, hold public office, or serve on juries. This has been called the "government function" exception. What else fits under this exception?

In determining what is a government function, the Court may ask the question, "does this function fulfil a most fundamental obligation of government to it's constituency." In Foley v. Conelleie, the Court found that police officers fit under the government function exception. In Ambach v. Norwick, the Court extended the government function exception to public elementary and secondary school teachers. Looking at the role of public educators, the Court found that they do fit under the exception as was stated in Sugarmann and Foley. In Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, the court extended the exception to probation officers. However, in Bernal v. Fainter, the court refused to extend the exception to notary publics.

Alienage Classifications

Notes:

-Alienage classifications refers to discrimination against non-citizens.
-Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to only citizens and is applicable to everyone within our territorial jurisdictions.
-Generally, Strict Scrutiny is used to evaluate discrimination against non-citizens.
-However, alienage classifications related to self-government and the democratic process only need to meet the rational basis test.
-Additionally, Congress has plenary power to regulate immigration and the Court has been deferential to federal statutes and presidential orders that discriminate against aliens.

Cases:

- Graham v. Richardson, the court held that a State statute that denies welfare benefits to resident aliens and one that denies them to aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- Sugarman v. Dougall, the Court invalidated NY law that prevented aliens from holding civil service jobs.
- In re Griffiths, the Court invalidated a state law that excluded aliens from being licensed as attorneys.
-Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, the Court invalidated a Puerto Rican law that only allowed U.S. citizens to be engineers.
-Nyquist v. Mauclet, the Court invalidated a NY law that only affected aliens by placing conditions on the receipt of financial aid for higher education.

Illegal Aliens Political Cartoon

Iowa's Supreme Court Gay-Marriage Decision

Iowa's Supreme Court Gay-Marriage Decision
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889534,00.html?iid=tsmodule

Gender Discrimination

Equal Protection Clause and Gender Discrimination

History:

-1971, the first time the Court invalidates a Gender Classification
-What Scrutiny?
-Reasons for Strict Scrutiny, long history of discrimination of women, usually based on stereotypes, gender is an immutable characteristic, also a visual characteristic, and under representation in the political process
-Reasons for Intermediate Scrutiny, framer's intent, women are a political majority; if there was Strict Scrutiny it would be harder to uphold affirmative action laws for women.
-1872, Court upheld Illinois State law that prohibited women from practicing law
-1908, Court upheld Oregon law limiting the hours women could work in factories (what about Lochner, only 3 years later)
-1928, Court upheld NY law that prohibited women from working graveyard shifts in restaurants
-1923 and 1937, Court flip flops and upholds a minimum wage law for women
-1948, Court upheld a Michigan law that prohibits women as bartenders unless they are the wife or daughter of the owner
-1961, Court upheld a Florida law where women were exempted from jury duty unless they waived it, men were not given this exemption
-1971, Court invalidated an Idaho law that preferred men over women in selecting administrators of estates, but it used Rational Basis review.

Present:

-The Court uses Intermediate Scrutiny for challenges to laws that discriminate based on gender.
-Gender is a Quasi-Suspect Class and is on the second tier of the Equal Protection Pyramid
-Test for Intermediate Scrutiny, the law must be substantially related to an important state interest, the burden of proof is on the government to show the law is valid and the government is given no deference because gender is a quasi-suspect class

Picture of the Lovings

The Lovings from
"Loving v. Virginia"

Con Law Blog

I have created this blog and its corresponding Twitter account to satisfy the Alternative Creative Assessment for Professor Duhart's Winter 2009 Section 2 Constitutional Law I Class (LAW 0625) at the Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad School of Law.

This blog has been created in conjunction with a Twitter page. Follow this blog's tweets at www.twitter.com/ConLawGuy.