Gender
Facial Classifications
Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) (cb985) (nt12) -- overruled
•	Woman denied right to practice law by Illinois Bar who was otherwise qualified.
•	Holding: Upheld.  "Separate spheres".
Reed v. Reed (1971) (cb988) (nt12)
•	Challenge to Idaho law choosing man over woman when both equally qualified to be administrator of an estate.
•	Holding: Unconstitutional under "minimal rationality" 14th Amendment Equal Protection.
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) (cb988) (nt12, 13)
•	Military gives benefits, assumes wife of armed forces member is dependent without proof, husband must prove dependency.
•	Sex classifications should be subject to close judicial scrutiny.
•	Administrative convenience does not outweigh due process.
•	Invalid under 5th amendment due process clause.
Craig v. Boren (1976) (cb1011) (nt12, 13)
•	State law prohibiting sale of beer to males under 21 and females under 18.
•	Intermediate Scrutiny: classifications must be substantially related to important objectives.
•	Cannot rely on archaic and overbroad generalizations.
United States v. Virginia (1996) (cb1025) (nt12, 13)
•	VMI admits only men, women's school not comparable.
•	Gender classifications must demonstrate exceedingly persuasive justification, serve important governmental interest and be substantially related to achievement of that interest.
•	State has burden to prove justification.
•	Doesn't answer "separate but equal" question (Rehnquist's concurrence) since VWIL facility was not remotely "equal". (see also Newberg v. Board of Public Education (1983) (cb1049) (nt13), Philadelphia single-sex schools not "equal").
Pregnancy
Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) (cb1065) (nt13)
•	California statute excluded disabilities incident to normal pregnancies from insurance scheme.
•	Court upheld statute under rational basis standard: does not divide world into men and women but pregnant women and non-pregnant people.
Disparate Impact
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979) (cb1053) (nt13)
•	Veteran preference in Civil Service, disparate impact on women since most veterans are men.
•	Not facially discriminatory. As under Washington v. Davis and Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., disparate impact must be traced to discriminatory purpose.
•	Does not violate equal protection: passed in spite of rather than because of disparate impact.
•	If it would not have passed but for discrimination, then it is unconstitutional invidious intent.
Discrimination Against Men
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (1981) (cb1089) (nt14)
•	California Statutory Rape act only applies to males who have intercourse with underage females.
•	Court applies rational basis with a sharper focus -- looks for fair and substantial relationship to an important governmental objective but does not look for record of intent.
•	Although statute classifies by gender, it is linked to pregnancy, thus state does not violate equal protection.
•	Distinctions involving family and sex are treated with some deference.
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Ins (2001) (sp103) (nt14)
•	Statutory requirements for citizenship more stringent if father is citizen than if mother is citizen.
•	Statute is upheld under intermediate scrutiny; again distinction is linked to pregnancy, thus legitimate differential treatment.
Affirmative Action
Kahn v. Shevin (1974) (cb1114) (nt14)
•	Tax exemption for widows but not widowers.
•	Statue upheld because of women's traditional economic dependency on men and economic discrimination against women (decided before court settled on intermediate scrutiny standard).
Schlesinger v. Ballard (1975) (cb1114) (nt14)
•	Navy practice allowed women to stay in service without promotion longer than men.
•	Practice upheld because it is directly related to disadvantages women have in Navy (can't participate in battle).
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) (cb1044) (nt13)
•	Mississippi state school for nursing limited to women.
•	Does not meet 14th amendment test of substantial relation to important governmental objectives.
•	No evidence of past discrimination to justify affirmative action;  could be justified if it remedied past group discrimination, and need not be past unconstitutional discrimination (unlike race, where remedy must go to individuals who suffered unconstitutional discrimination).

State Action
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) (mat31) (nt9)
•	Challenge of racially restrictive covenant on privately-held land.
•	Judicial enforcement and legislative action both constitute State Action.
•	When Court intervenes to enforce covenant, it violates Equal Protection Clause, thus private discriminatory covenants cannot be enforced under Constitution.
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982) (mat35) (nt9)
•	Counselor fired from school funded mainly by state; public school committee votes to send students.
•	Court finds no state action:
•	Education has not been exclusively public function
•	Decisions not compelled or influenced by state regulation.
•	Significant or total funding from state is not sufficient to become state actor.
Brentwood Academcy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) (mat39) (nt9)
•	Question of whether non-profit membership organization that regulates interscholastic sports is state actor.
•	Winks and nods--can't make a public entity private simply by formalism.
•	Entwinement doctrine: coercive power of state, significant overt or covert encouragement, willful participant in joint activity with State, controlled by agency of State, delegated public function by State, entwined with governmental policies, or government entwined in management or control.

Fundamental Rights
Substantive Due Process/Equal Protection
Fundamental rights in Equal Protection context different from Substantive Due Process context: in substantive due process, fundamental rights generally related to privacy. In equal protection, fundamental rights relate to other interests protected by the Constitution, but generally not privacy.
Birth Control
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) (cb1134) (nt15)
•	Statute imposed fine for aiding in distributing birth control.
•	Not decided on equal protection, although statute had disparate impact on women, the poor, and teenagers, instead struck down under substantive due process, but distinguished from Lochner.
•	"Specific guarantees in Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
•	Right to privacy found in 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th amendments, general sense of Constitution, and historical privacy of marriage.
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) (cb1145) (nt15)
•	Issue of distribution of birth control to unmarried couples.
•	Decided on rational basis test under equal protection (see Romer v. Evans), can't provide fundamental right (birth control/privacy) to one group (married people) and not to another.
•	Right to privacy applies to individual, not to marital couple.
Family/Living Arrangements
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974) (cb1155) (nt15)
•	Zoning prevents six unrelated college students from living in one-family dwelling.
•	No fundamental right to live in this arrangement, state can safeguard "family values."
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) (cb1156) (nt15)
•	Extended family prevented from living together in public housing.
•	Court finds fundamental right to live with family, City cannot "slice deeply into the family itself" by defining family narrowly.
Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989) (cb1157) (nt15)
•	Biological father challenging statute which denies visitation rights when child is from extra-marital affair, unless paternity is established within two years of birth.
•	Court finds no fundamental right for adulterous fathers to have relationship with daughter.
•	Adopts narrowest reading of fundamental rights from tradition and history of United States.
Abortion
Roe v. Wade (1973) (cb1172) (nt16)
•	Finds fundamental right to abortion as part of 14th amendment due process (following Harlan in Poe, implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, rather than Douglas' "penumbras and emanations").
•	No tradition of prohibiting abortion, no history of fetuses being people under 14th amendment.
•	States' interest to protect maternal health becomes compelling in second trimester, interest to protect potentiality of life becomes compelling in third trimester.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) (cb1202) (nt16)
•	Statute imposes waiting period, spousal consent, parental consent, counseling to dissuade abortion.
•	Fundamental right is "woman's ability to chose her destiny" (not doctor-patient relationship), arises out of due process clause of 14th amendment.
•	Stare decisis, reliance, legitimacy of court suggest Roe should not be overturned.
•	Upholds the core of Roe: right to chose abortion prior to viability.
•	State cannot place undue burden on decision to have abortion; no longer relies on trimester framework: unconstitutional if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman" seeking a pre-viability abortion.
•	Waiting period is not undue burden (ignoring potential class discrimination), but spousal consent is undue burden (focusing on potential gender discrimination).
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) (sp132) (nt16)
•	Statute prohibits "partial birth abortion" with no "health exception".
•	Unconstitutional undue burden under Casey: statute is vague, and mother must be able to chose abortion not only to protect her health, but must be able to chose safer form of abortion when available.
Maher v. Roe (1977) (cb1526) (nt18)
•	State limits Medicaid to medically necessary first trimester abortion, must be authorized by DSS.
•	No equal protection violation, because State doesn't "erect barriers that aren't there already."
•	Court holds that woman's inability to pay does not constitute state action.
•	Draws formalistic line between action and inaction.
Rust v. Sullivan (1991) (cb1457) (nt19)
•	Program that receives family planning services public funds cannot mention abortion to women.
•	Court finds no undue burden: fundamental right is not to be given abortion, rather not to be prevented from making choice by state.
•	Court also finds no First Amendment violation; government can specify what its funds are used for.
Sodomy
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) (cb1243) (nt16)
•	Challenge of state sodomy prohibition, facially neutral with respect to sexual orientation.
•	Court narrows issue to homosexual sodomy, finds there is no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy, no "deeply rooted tradition," thus statute is subject to rational basis test.
•	Dissent: this is not about fundamental right to sodomy, rather about right to be let alone.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) (sp145) (nt17)
•	Statute prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation in public accommodations.
•	First Amendment Right to Associate includes Right to Exclude, Boy Scouts have expressive interest in saying that homosexuality is immoral.
Baker v. State (2000) (sp139) (nt17)
•	Challenge under Vermont Constitution of denial of "common benefits" to same sex couples (more of an equal protection claim).
•	People do not have fundamental right to marry, but finds it unconstitutional that certain civil and political rights are denied to some individuals.
•	Allows legislature to remedy situation: expand marriage definition, give benefits to same-sex couples, or get rid of all benefits of marriage.
Romer v. Evans (1996) (cb1259) (nt15)
•	Equal protection claim (not really substantive due process).
•	State Constitutional Amendment prevents sexual orientation from being basis of state anti-discrimination laws.
•	Court uses rational basis test to invalidate Amendment, finds animus in Amendment.
•	Possible bases for decision: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (but no suspect class), amendment to Constitution (makes change much harder, democratic process issues), animus (is statute motivated by hatred inherently irrational?).
Right to Die
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) (cb1326) (nt17)
•	Family wanted to remove feeding tube for comatose person.
•	Court holds there needs to clear and convincing evidence of women's intention.
•	State has countervailing interest to protect and preserve human life, can also protect deeply personal decision of individual, thus can protect others making decision for individual.
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) (cb1340) (nt17)
•	Statute prohibiting aiding and abetting of suicide, challenged under 14th amendment due process clause.
•	No fundamental right to commit suicide or to have third-party assistance in committing suicide.
•	Possible bases: no historical basis for legal suicide (Bowers, Michael H.), rational basis to protect life, prevent improper suicide, slippery slope, balancing test favors state (Harlan in Poe).
Vacco v. Quill (1997) (cb1354) (nt17)
•	Equal protection companion to Glucksberg: people who want lethal medication are not being treated equally to people who want to terminate treatment.
•	No suspect classification (e.g., race), nor any fundamental right (e.g., contraception/privacy) thus applies rational basis test.
•	Since there is no substantive due process protection (Glucksberg), there is no heightened scrutiny for equal protection.
Voting
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) (cb1373) (nt17)
•	Although there is no fundamental right to vote, if voting is present, distribution will be subject to strict scrutiny.
•	Poll tax held to be unconstitutional, although wealth is not suspect classification.
Travel/Welfare
Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) (cb1505) (nt17)
•	Statute prohibits welfare to people who have not lived in state for one year.
•	Unconstitutional because state denies a vital government benefit and thus impairs fundamental right of interstate movement, although there is no fundamental right to welfare.
•	Equal protection seems to protect "fundamental right" (important thing combined with travel) combined with somewhat suspect classification (poverty).
Saenz v. Roe (1999) (cb1518) (nt17)
•	Statute provides unequal benefits to newcomers.
•	Reconceptualizes Shapiro on the basis of privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment.
•	Finds right to travel implicit in Federalism, Article 4, 14th amendment.  Three rights:
•	Right to cross state boards en route (Edwards v. California)
•	Right to be treated equally when temporarily present in State (Article 4, Section 2, Piper)
•	Right to be treated equally with previous residents of State (14th amendment)
•	Unclear when something is important enough to constitute barrier to travel (in state tuition for higher education seems not to be so important as to constitute violation of right to travel).
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) (cb1384) (nt18)
•	Child abused by father, caseworker failed to protect him, claim that substantive due process right to liberty (right to live as healthy, intact person) was violated.
•	Due process is about limiting government, not compelling government to act.
•	Thus, no fundamental right to have government intervene.
•	Dissent: state created laws which gave father dominion over child, established State as sole protector, thus took positive causal action.
Education
San Antonio School Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) (cb1543)  (nt18)
•	Local education funded by property tax, extreme disparity challenge under equal protection clause.
•	No suspect class (wealth--court also claims this is not a wealth classification anyway), no fundamental right (education), thus no strict scrutiny.
•	Case ends era of 'new' fundamental rights under equal protection.  Fundamental rights must be established under substantive due process clause, i.e., be rooted in history and traditions.
Plyler v. Doe (1982) (cb1560) (nt18)
•	Statute denying education to illegal aliens.
•	Illegal aliens are not suspect class, education is not fundamental right, but court finds statute fails rational basis test.
•	Complete deprivation of education seems to be worse than unequal education (as in Rodriguez).  May resemble animus irrationality in Romer.

Commerce Clause/Congressional Power
Foundations
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (cb17) (nt1)
•	Maryland attempts to tax Second Bank of the United States, claims Federal Government can only do what is "absolutely necessary".
•	Marshall: "In considering this question, then, we must never forget, it is a Constitution we are expounding." Read the document so it works.
•	Although Article I, Section 8 doesn't talk about "banks", Congress still has power: "Let the ends be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) (cb464) (nt4)
•	After "switch in nine", Court allows Congress to regulate labor conditions under commerce power, finds that manufacturing is part of integrate unit that goes across country; commerce is not just "buying and selling across state lines."
United States v. Darby (1941) (cb465) (nt4)
•	Prohibits goods from being shipped across state lines that are not made in accordance with Fair Labor Standards Act, also prohibits goods from being manufactured not in accordance with Standards.
•	Shipping prohibition is constitutional because it is interstate, manufacturing prohibition is also constitutional because it substantially affects interstate commerce even if sale is intrastate.
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) (cb468) (nt5)
•	Upholds Congressional wheat price control act even when defendant grew wheat for his own family's consumption; even wheat grown for your own consumption affects interstate commerce.
Civil Rights
Katzenbach v. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel
•	Congress passes Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Commerce Clause Power.
•	Court upholds Congress' ability to outlaw discrimination in restaurant (McClung) and Motel (Heart of Atlanta Motel) because both affect/are engaged in interstate commerce.
•	Congress essentially has plenary power when it acts under commerce clause; its motivation is irrelevant to judicial review.
Taxing/Spending
Steward Machine Company v. Davis (1937) (cb477) (nt5)
•	Tax on employers, could be avoided if employer contributed to state unemployment fund.
•	Deference to Congress with respect to taxing power, no need for tight nexus between taxing and spending.
South Dakota v. Dole (1987) (cb533) (nt5)
•	Congress conditions highway funding on 21-year-old drinking age.
•	Objectives not within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields" may be attained through use of spending power, thus condition is upheld as constitutional.
Limitations to Commerce Clause (to affect people)
United States v. Lopez (1995) (cb512) (nt5)
•	Challenge of Gun-Free School Zones Act.
•	Link between guns in schools and interstate commerce is too tenuous: the activity is not commercial, nor does it have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
•	Commerce power can regulate: channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or things which substantially affect interstate commerce. 
United States v. Morrison (2000) (sp1) (nt6)
•	Challenge of Violence Against Women Act, which provided Federal cause of action for gender-based violence. Congressional record included lots of details about economic effects.
•	Act concerns family law or crime, neither of which is commerce.  Thus, not within Congress' power under commerce clause.
Limitations On Commerce Clause (to regulate states)
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) (cb552) (nt6) OVERRULED
•	Challenge to Fair Labor Standards Act as applied to State as employer.
•	Although law is within Commerce Power, violates Tenth Amendment, leaves States without separate existence, control over essential functions. Overruled by Garcia.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) (cb555) (nt6)
•	Laws of general application apply to the States as well.
•	Structure of federal government protects States; political process will devolve decisions to people if they want it.
New York v. United States (1992) (cb576) (nt6)
•	Statute requiring States to dispose of radioactive waste in certain ways.
•	Federal Government cannot commandeer state legislature; tax/spend provisions are legitimate, but not provisions compelling state to enact and enforce federal regulatory program, reading Commerce Clause with Tenth Amendment interpretation.
Printz v. United States (1997) (cb595) (nt6)
•	Challenge of federal handgun control bill, requires background checks by local law enforcement.
•	Similar to New York, Federal Government cannot commandeer State's executive branch.
•	(Government can still control State Judiciary under Supremacy Clause).
Reno v. Condon (2000) (sp64) (nt6)
•	Driver's Privacy Protection Act restricts state's ability to disclose personal information without consent, challenged as "commandeering" state officials under Printz and New York v. United States.
•	Distinguished from Printz because it commands inaction; also regulates state activities rather than controlling state regulation of private parties.  Upheld as constitutional.
Power Under Civil Rights Amendments
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) (cb484) (nt6)
•	Upholds Voting Rights Act as exercise of Congress' broad remedial powers under 15th amendment, history of voting rights violations in South Carolina leads it to reasonably believe prohibited actions would lead to violations of amendment.
Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966) (cb488) (nt6)
•	Upholds Voting Rights Act as applied to New York's English Language Requirement, even though there was no demonstrated prior history of unconstitutional discrimination in New York on the basis of language, and Court had previously upheld language requirements as constitutional.
•	Bases for decision: Congress might have rational basis to think that Puerto Ricans might not be able to elect people to represent their interests based on language requirements, thus representatives might take unconstitutional actions towards them; alternatively, Congress might have co-equal interpretive power of 14th amendment with Court, and believe that language requirement violates Equal Protection Clause, can expand on equal protection rights (this basis rejected in City of Boerne v. Flores).
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) (cb536) (nt7)
•	Zoning denied church permit, challenged under Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which sets strict standard for Government in limiting religious practices (even facially neutral statutes that do not intend to discriminate are prohibited).
•	Court holds that RFRA goes beyond remedial power, is not congruent or proportional to ends.
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) (sp44) (nt7)
•	Congress cannot abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment Immunity in Age Discrimination cases; age discrimination would only be subject to rational basis test.
•	ADEA cannot abrogate sovereign immunity because it does not prevent what the Court would find to be unconstitutional discrimination.  Law is not congruent and proportional to the supposed problem.
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2000) (sp45) (nt14)
•	Similarly, discrimination against disabled people is not unconstitutional under 14th amendment, thus ADA cannot abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by States for claims that State fails to comply with Act.
Pre-Emption
Gade v. National State Wastes Management Association (1992) (mat7) (nt7)
•	Federal Government sets standards for hazardous waste disposal (OSHA), question of whether State can impose its own standard.
•	Statute specifically doesn't pre-empt worker's compensation law or prevent State from regulating occupational safety or health issue where there is no federal standard.  Also, permits State to promulgate its own plan for approval by federal government.
•	Conflict Pre-emption: when it is impossible to comply with state and federal regulations simultaneously (or conflicting objectives exist).
•	Field Pre-emption: Congress establishes comprehensive scheme, totally cover an area.
•	Court holds that OSHA was meant to pre-empt state law; concurrence suggest this is 'implied expressed conflict pre-emption'.
•	Pre-emption generally dealt with on a "statute by statute" basis, looks at Congressional intent in passing statute.

Dormant Commerce Clause/Horizontal Federalism
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978) (mat15) (nt8)
•	New Jersey prohibits importing waste into state.
•	Court finds waste is clearly commerce.
•	Facial discrimination is per se unconstitutional. Burden falls on State to explain absolute necessity of discrimination.
•	Violates commerce clause, even if purpose was environment/health/safety, the state may not accomplish these objectives by sorting world into 'in state' and 'out of state'.
C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994) (mat21) (nt8)
•	Local 'flow control ordinance' requires all trash passing through town to be processed at waste processing center to finance landfill.
•	Not facially discriminatory, but creates a local preference.  Close enough to facial discrimination that should be considered per se violation.
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) (cb615)
•	"Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed in such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities."
Market Participant Exception: State can prefer local interests when it is acted as a market participant, i.e., choosing what to buy or sell itself.
New Hampshire v. Piper (1985) (cb620) (nt8)
•	Vermont resident not admitted to New Hampshire bar on basis of residence.
•	Article IV privileges and immunities protects rights which are fundamental to interstate harmony.
•	State bears burden of showing substantial reason for difference, substantial relationship between means and ends, and no less restrictive way to do it.

Procedural Due Process
Questions to ask:
1.	Has the individual's life, liberty, or property been taken?
2.	If so, what process was due prior to the taking?
Procedural Due Process applies one case at a time.
Liberty for Procedural Due Process Purposes
•	Physical Liberty--violated when you are imprisoned or denied freedom of movement.
•	Intangible Liberty--e.g., right to drive, right to practice one's profession, right to raise one's family.
Property for Procedural Due Process Purposes
•	Physical Property/Debt Collection/"Takings"
•	Benefits you are already receiving (welfare)
•	Government Job when there is legitimate claim of entitlement.
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) (cb1400) (nt18)
•	State terminates welfare benefits to recipients without evidentiary hearing prior to termination, challenged under Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment.
•	Welfare entitlements may be more like property than a gratuity.
•	When person is deprived of property, there must be prior notice, opportunity to be heard, witnesses, counsel, some sort of process.
Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) (cb1406) (nt18)
•	Question of what process is due for termination of disability benefits.
•	Balance: private interest's weight, risk of erroneous deprivation, government's interest in limiting costs.
•	In this case, Court finds benefit not as important, risk lower, so no prior hearing is necessary before cut off.
Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) (cb1409) (nt18)
•	Roth had on year contract with public university, was not renewed after one year, claimed he was due explanation of reasons for non-renewal and opportunity for hearing.
•	"Terms of appointment secured absolutely no interest in re-employment for the next year," thus no protected property interest that would warrant procedural due process.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (cb1412) (nt19)
•	City employed dismissed from job, statute required he must be dismissed "for cause" and was entitled to "post-termination administrative review", plaintiff claimed right to pre-termination hearing.
•	Court will give deference to legislative determinations of entitlement, but not legislative determinations of process, otherwise there is no role for judicial review of process.  State cannot define property right in such a way as to preclude due process.

Race
Early Cases--Overruled
Civil Rights Cases (1883) (cb285) (nt2)
•	Congress cannot regulate "private discrimination"--in this case, public accommodations are beyond the reach of 14th amendment. Only 13th amendment deals with private interactions.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (cb272) (nt2)
•	Segregated railroad doesn't violate equal protection, because it is applied equally to all races.
Segregation
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) (cb742) (nt4)
•	Separate can never be equal. Segregated schools violate equal protection clause.
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) (cb759) (nt4)
•	Desegregates DC schools, reverse incorporation: equal protection is now part of Fifth Amendment Due Process.
Discrimination
Korematsu v. United States (1944) (cb810) (nt10)
•	Appeal from criminal conviction, for avoiding Japanese internment camp during World War II.
•	Curtailing civil rights of a racial group are immediately suspect.
•	Court finds State passes strict scrutiny, because of military danger.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) (cb801) (nt11)
•	Challenge of Virginia miscegenation statute.
•	Racial attitudes can never constitute legitimate state ends, no other possible justification for statute, thus unconstitutional.
•	Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to eliminate individious racial discrimination.
Washington v. Davis (1976) (cb851) (nt11)
•	Police test leads to disparate impact, claim that it violates equal protection.
•	If statute is facially neutral, must be a discriminatory purpose to trigger strict scrutiny.
•	Every law has disparate impact; test is uphleld as constitutional.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977) (cb867) (nt11)
•	Challenge to zoning which had racial disparate impact.
•	Look for 'red flags' made in changes by governing body: legislative history, official statements, substantial departure from normal procedure, contemporary events, impact.
United States v. Clary (1994) (cb873) (nt11)
•	Challenge of sentencing guidelines which have disparate impact because crack is penalized so much more than cocaine.
•	Court applies rational basis test, upholds sentence, no strict scrutiny because no racial intent.
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) (cb884) (nt11)
•	Challenge of disparate impact in death penalty application.
•	Uses statistics to show correlation, but unable to show causation or intent, thus no equal protection claim. Hard to find "intent" with decision-making (police, prosecutors, juries, etc..)
Affirmative Action
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson, Co. (1989) (cb927) (nt11)
•	City plan, modeled after Federal Statute upheld in Fullilove v. Klutznick, which set aside subcontracting business for minority businesses.
•	No evidence of past constitutional violation, thus statute does not survive strict scrutiny.
•	Possibility of race neutral alternatives.
•	Remedy for past discrimination: state needs to have been past actor; contractors (or perhaps specific contractors in question) need to have been victims.
Metro Broadcasting v. FCC (1990) (cb951) (nt12)
•	Challenge to federal diversity regulations for radio, distinguished from Croson because it is Federal Government (not restricted by Fourteenth Amendment).
•	"Benign race-conscious measures mandated by Congress--even if those measures are not 'remedial' in the sense of being designed to compensate victims of past governmental or societal discrimination--are constitutionally permissible to the extent that they serve important governmental objectives within the power of Congress and are substantially related to achievement of those objectives."
•	Diversity in broadcasting was found to be important governmental objective, thus regulations are upheld.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995) (cb953) (nt12)
•	Challenge of federal subcontracting provision giving additional payment to prime contractors who use minority business enterprises for subcontracts.
•	Adopts 'jot-for-jot' incorporation of Fourteenth Amendment into Fifth Amendment.
•	Congruence: equal protection must be the same under Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment.
•	Skepticism: race is always suspect.
•	Consistency: all use of race is equally impermissible, regardless of whether it is "benign".
Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996) (cb973) (nt12)
•	Challenge to University of Texas Law School's affirmative action program which made it easier for African-Americans and Mexican-Americans to gain admission.
•	School claims program is for diversity rather than remediation.
•	Program does not help those who were discriminated against.
•	5th Circuit holds that diversity is not a compelling state interest; other circuits may allow diversity--Bakke held that diversity was compelling state interest, but only author of opinion agreed with that.

Conditioning Rights
Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) (cb1450) (nt19)
•	Challenge of 501(c)(3) status requirement to not lobby; claimed to violate First Amendment right to free speech and Equal Protection Clause that some organizations can lobby and some cannot (e.g., Veterans organization).
•	No protected class, no content regulations on lobbying, thus no Equal Protection violation.
•	No right to be tax exempt, condition is not that onerous, thus no First Amendment violation.
FCC v. League of Women Voters of California (1984) (cb1452) (nt19)
•	Statute withholding public broadcasting funds if Pacifica editorializes, again claiming First Amendment violation.
•	Radio is near "core of speech", statute cuts of all funding if Pacifica editoralizes at all, thus court applies intermediate scrutiny and finds statute irrational.
•	"Buys a lot more silence" than the money given.
Rust v. Sullivan (1991) (cb1457) (nt19)
•	Program that receives family planning services public funds cannot mention abortion to women.
•	Court finds no undue burden: fundamental right is not to be given abortion, rather not to be prevented from making choice by state.
•	Court also finds no First Amendment violation; government can specify what its funds are used for.
Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez (2001) (sp151) (nt19)
•	Statute prohibits legal services funded by Government from bringing Constitutional Challenges on behalf of clients.
•	Right to counsel is fundamental negative right: government cannot prevent you from getting counsel.
•	Speech in question is speech of client, restriction is unconstitutional under First Amendment.
•	Raises possible balance of powers issue and may skew information counsel can give to court, maybe raising Article III problem.