Constitutional Law Final Outline Spring 2014

Posted on Sep 2, 2024 in Law & Jurisprudence

Constitutional Law Final Outline – Spring 2014

I. Identifying the Issue

First, pinpoint the precise legal issue at hand (e.g., sugary drinks, healthcare insurance).

II. Federal Court Jurisdiction & Standing

A. Justiciability

1. Constitutional Standing Elements

• Actual Injury (Injury in Fact):
  • Plaintiff injured by the conduct in question.
  • Present or Imminent Injury Required:
    • Imminent (future) injury requires a showing that harm is “certainly impending.”
    • Clapper v. Amnesty International USA: Injury too speculative.
    • Lyons v. City of Los Angeles: Likely arrest and chokehold not imminent.
  • Injury Must Be “Concrete”:
    • Allen v. Wright: Injury shared by too many is not concrete.
    • Massachusetts v. EPA: Loss of land due to climate change is sufficient.
• Causation:
  • Injury “fairly traceable” to the challenged conduct (Clapper).
    • Cannot be “too attenuated” (Allen v. Wright).
    • Massachusetts v. EPA: Car emissions too speculative of overall harm.
• Redressability:
  • Injury redressable by a favorable ruling.
  • Massachusetts v. EPA: No remedy – US reduction would slow emissions regardless.
• No General Grievance (GG):
  • Injury only as a citizen objecting to government policy.
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry: Proponents lacked standing – not directly against them.
  • Allen v. Wright: Plaintiff’s injury traced to conduct, redressable by relief.
  • United States v. Windsor: No general grievance.

III. Federal Statute, Regulation, and Individual Rights

1. Federal Statute or Regulation -> Commerce Clause Analysis -> Affects Individual Rights?
2. Affects Individual Rights -> State Action Analysis -> Equal Protection Analysis and/or Substantive Due Process Analysis

IV. Commerce Clause Analysis

A. Congress’s Federal Commerce Clause Power

1. General Power

• Can Congress’s action be justified as an exercise of the Commerce Power?

2. Commerce Clause [+ Necessary and Proper] Analysis

• United States v. Lopez Analysis:
  • Channels:
    • Railroads, highways, waterways, airways.
    • Regulating articles moving in interstate commerce (e.g., driver identification) (Reno v. Condon).
    • Gibbons v. Ogden: Interstate commerce includes boats navigating NY waters (federal law trumps state regulation).
  • Instrumentalities:
    • People, machines, and other things used in interstate commerce.
  • Substantial Effects [SEIC]:
    • Economic Activity?
      • Economic in nature (United States v. Morrison) (not regulating violence against women).
      • Wickard v. Filburn: Regulating purely local activity with an economic “class” can have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (can be indirect).
      • Lopez: Regulating intrastate activity with an economic behavior.
      • Gonzales v. Raich: Regulating local economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce (marijuana).
      • One of the Following Must Be Met:

1. Aggregated Effect -> May Be SEIC:

• Wickard: Cumulative effect of wheat production on interstate commerce.
• Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States: May regulate moral wrongs related to interstate commerce.
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: Mandate not regulating existing activity but compels individuals to purchase health insurance.

Not Regulating -> Undercuts General Regulatory Scheme?

• Katzenbach v. McClung: Congress determines with rational basis test.
• Gonzales: Regulating forbidding marijuana might undermine federal regulation.

“Too Attenuated?”

• Morrison: Non-economic violent conduct too attenuated from interstate commerce.
• Lopez: Cannot regulate purely local activity solely because it is too attenuated.

Jurisdictional Hook Exception?

• Direct element of a particular crime/act (e.g., Gun-Free School Zones Act).

Passes Lopez Test -> Violate 10th Amendment?

V. Taxing and Spending Power

A. Tax and Spending Power Analysis

1. Lay and collect taxes (e.g., railroads -> revenue from tax).
2. Sebelius: Payment is a tax, not a penalty.
3. Valid Under Tax and Spending Power -> Necessary and Proper?

B. Necessary and Proper Analysis

• Rational basis test (United States v. Comstock).

VI. 10th Amendment Analysis

A. 10th Amendment Limitations on Congress

1. Limits Congress’s ability to use the Commerce Power to regulate states.
2. Violate by Commandeering?

• By Dictating Legislation to States?
  • Directly compelling or forcing states to regulate a program (New York v. United States).
• By Using State Officials to Implement Federal Scheme?
  • Printz v. United States: Congress cannot order state officials to conduct background checks for guns.
• By Forcing Impossible Choice Through Bribe (Fair Bribe?)? [Can be cut off by 10th Amendment]
  • South Dakota v. Dole: Congress cannot directly regulate drinking age, but can threaten to withhold funds for a regulatory goal.

Or By Extending Too Far Into “Areas of Traditional State Concern”?

• Generally applicable law is okay (Reno v. Condon).
  • Statute not requiring states to regulate their own citizens, enact legislation, or assist federal statutes regulating private individuals.

Done, Unless Federal Statute/Regulation Affects Individual Rights -> State Action Analysis

VII. State Action Analysis

A. State Action Requirement

1. Before Equal Protection analysis, determine if there is state action (private party treated as state actor -> subject to constitutional restrictions).
2. Public Functions Exception:
   1. Duty traditionally performed by the state.
   2. Sufficient nexus to “fairly treat as action of the state.”

• Marsh v. Alabama: Company-owned town considered state actor – primary benefit to the public/essential government function.

Entanglement/Endorsement Exception (State Involvement):

1. State action may arise from the state being so “entangled” with a private actor’s conduct that the conduct is treated as state action.
2. This is true where the state and private party act together to carry out the challenged action.

Deprivation from Right with Source in State: Private Party Fairly a State Actor? [3 Factors for 2nd Prong (Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.)]

• Factor: Extent Private Party Relies on Government Assistance:
  • Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.: State allowing private litigant to exclude juror based on race -> state action met.
  • Rendell-Baker v. Kohn: Private school not a state actor (funding + heavy regulation).
• Factor: Extent Performing Traditional Government Function:
  • Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.: Mere acquiescence to private party’s discrimination -> not enough (needs traditional government function).
• Factor: Injury Uniquely Aggravated by Government Authority?
  • Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority: Private party’s close nexus to state action -> injury to plaintiff.
• Go to Equal Protection Analysis and/or Substantive Due Process Analysis:

1. One person or all infringed -> Only Substantive Due Process Analysis.
2. Greater than one and less than all -> Either Substantive Due Process and/or Equal Protection Analysis.

VIII. Equal Protection Analysis

A. Equal Protection Clause

1. Is it a Facially Neutral Classification?

• Yes -> Then Disparate Impact + Purpose?
• No -> Then it’s Disparate Treatment -> Figure out type of Classification.

Was There Disparate Impact and Purpose?

• In General:
  • Defendant acted “because of,” not “in spite of” disparate impact.
  • Washington v. Davis: Disparate impact -> intent to maintain the act is sufficient.
  • Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney: Purpose when act “in part” expressly refers to race.
• Yes -> Figure out type of Classification.
• No -> Apply Rational Basis Scrutiny.

What Type of Classification (3 Levels)?

• Strict Scrutiny (Race/National Origin/Fundamental Right) (Korematsu v. United States):
  • Burden of proof on the government.
  • Necessary/Narrowly Tailored? (Means):
    • Over/Underinclusiveness as narrow as possible.
    • Palmore v. Sidoti: Removing child not necessary for best interests where interracial relationship -> harmful.
  • Compelling? (End):
    • Korematsu: War sufficient for interring Japanese Americans.
• Intermediate Scrutiny (Gender):
  • Burden of proof on the government.
  • Substantially Related? (Means):
    • Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan: Race requires more scrutiny than rational basis test.
  • Important or Exceedingly Persuasive? (End):
    • United States v. Virginia (VMI): Requires “exceedingly persuasive” end for all-male state military academy.
• Rational Basis Scrutiny (“Other” Discriminations):
  • Burden of proof on the challenger.
  • Rationally Related? (Means):
    • Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York: Standard easy to meet.
    • “With Bite” = “actually related?” (Romer v. Evans) (Striking CO “no special rights gays” ordinance).
  • Legitimate? (End):
    • City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center: Regulating similar parties differently without a legitimate reason.
    • “With Bite” = “actually legitimate?”

Over or Underinclusive? (Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.): Over/underinclusiveness not unconstitutional if rationally related to a permissible purpose.

IX. Substantive Due Process Analysis

A. Substantive Due Process Test

1. Is it a Fundamental Right? (Very Important Question -> Substantive Due Process Problem):
   1. If Abortion -> “Undue Burden” Analysis (Planned Parenthood v. Casey/Gonzales v. Carhart):
   2. Depends on What Fundamental Right It Is:

• Yes -> Check if Fundamental Right Was Infringed Upon.
• No -> Apply Rational Basis Scrutiny (Lunacy Test).

Was the Right Infringed Upon?

1. Yes -> Apply Strict Scrutiny.
2. No -> Apply Rational Basis Scrutiny (Lunacy Test).