I IN1kCDUC1ICN

8ackground and lllusLraLlve Cases

Sunday AugusL 28 2011
123 M
O rlglnallsm provlslons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon musL mean Loday whaL lL meanL or was undersLood Lo mean
when lL was raLlfled
4 ey uaLes 1789 (ConsLlLuLlon raLlfled) 1791 (8lll of 8lghLs raLlfled) 1868 (lourLeenLh
AmendmenL raLlfled)
4 @ypes
rlglnal loteot of Lhe framers
rlglnal oJetstooJloq of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
ecLlve eooloq of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
4 rlnclpal ArgumenLs ln favor
nly approach LhaL recognlzes Lhe ConsLlLuLlons sLaLus as law
O JrlLLen law has flxed meanlng ased on Lhe undersLandlng of Lhose who
enacLed lL
-ecessary Lo preserve democraLlc values
O DnelecLed udges should noL alLer democraLlcally enacLed law
ConsLralns Lhe alllLy of udges Lo lmpose Lhelr own personal vlews
O udlclal revlew ls counLermaorlLarlan udges lnLerpreL Lhe law Lhe should
noL make Lhe law
O -onorlglnallsm we musL updaLe Lhe consLlLuLlon ln order Lo preserve lLs leglLlmacy accordlng Lo
conLemporary values
4 rlglnal meanlng of Lhe consLlLuLlon provldes guldance (general rule)
4 ook Lo udlclal precedenL Lo flnd consLlLuLlonal meanlng consLlLuLlonal prlnclples evolve
overLlme
ook Lo sLaLe pracLlces Lo see lf a road consensus has developed
4 @he ConsLlLuLlon musL evolve Lo malnLaln leglLlmacy wlLh Lhe pullc
lramers dldnL conLemplaLe many of Lhe dlfflculL quesLlons we face Loday
4 rlglnallsm doesnL address Lhe dead hand prolem Loo dlfflculL Lo use Lhe amendmenL process
Lo lncorporaLe new values
O Supreme CourL Approach
4 SC Lended Lo follow Lhe rlglnallsL approach ln lLs older cases
SouLh Carollna v DnlLed SLaLes 199 DS 437 448 (1903) @he consLlLuLlon ls a wrlLLen
lnsLrumenL As such lLs meanlng does noL alLer @haL whlch lL meanL when adopLed lL
means now
4 -onorlglnallsL
ome 8ulldlng oan Assn v 8lalsdell 290 DS 298 (1934) reecLed Lhe ldea LhaL
consLlLuLlon musL e conflned Lo Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon whlch Lhe framers would have
placed upon Lhem
4 Mlddle Cround mosL cases Loday recognlze Lhe orlglnal meanlng uL donL make
pronouncemenLs aouL wheLher lL musL conLrol
SomeLlmes Lhe courL Lrles Lo follow Lhe orlglnal meanlng uL cannoL agree on whaL lL ls
ee u 1et lllts loc v 1bototoo 314 DS 779 (1993)
O lsttlct of collo v nellet 334 DS 370 (2008)
4 uCs handgun laws prohllL resldenLs from keeplng lawfully owned flrearms ln Lhelr home unless
Lhey are unloaded and dlssemled or ound y a Lrlgger lock
4 ulck eller uC speclal pollce offlcer wlshed Lo keep hls gun aL home so he flled a lawsulL agalnsL
uC challenglng Lhelr handgun laws as a vlolaLlon of Lhe 2nd AmendmenL
2
nd
Am @he rlghL of people Lo keep and ear Arms shall noL e lnfrlnged
uCs sLance/ulssenLlng oplnlon 2nd amendmenL only applles Lo mlllLla servlce
4 MaorlLy plnlon y Scalla uC law ls unconsLlLuLlonal
rlglnallsL Lhe orlglnal meanlng of Lhe words are auLhorlLaLlve
peraLlve Clause lndlvldual rlghL Lo possess and carry weapons
O 8lghLs of eople
4 8efers Lo Lhe rlghL of people used ln llrsL lourLh and -lnLh
AmendmenLs as well (all refer Lo loJlvlJol tlqbts)
4 Dse of rlghLs of Lhe people conLrasLs wlLh Lhe speclflc menLlon of
Lhe mlllLla ln Lhe prefaLory clause
O eep and ear Arms
4 Arms weapons of offence or amour of defense (Samuel ohnsons
1773 dlcLlonary)
4 eep Lo reLaln noL Lo lose Lo have ln cusLody (ohnson) Lo have
weapons
4 8ear carry for Lhe purpose of confronLaLlon does noL connoLe
parLlclpaLlon ln a sLrucLured mlllLary organlzaLlon
refaLory Clause
O @he lnlLlal purpose of Lhe Second AmendmenL was Lo prevenL Lhe ellmlnaLlon
of Lhe clLlzen mlllLla
O lL does noL suggesL LhaL preservlng Lhe clLlzen mlllLla was Lhe only reason Lhe
rlghL Lo ear arms was lmporLanL
ulsagrees wlLh usLlce SLevens readlng of uolteJ totes v Mlllet 307 DS 174 (1939)
O @he CourL ln Mlllet held LhaL Lhose speclflc guns (shorLarreled shoLguns) were
noL ellglle for 2nd amendmenL proLecLlon
O 2nd amendmenL does noL proLecL Lhose weapons noL Lyplcally possessed y
lawaldlng clLlzens for lawful purposes
4 usLlce SLevens dlssenL Lhe purpose of Lhe 2nd amendmenL was Lo allow sLaLes Lo malnLaln a
mlllLla
Applles an orlglnallsL approach wlLh a dlfferenL concluslon focused more on Lhe lnLenL
@he dlssenL mlghL have een a more effecLlve response y casLlng douL on Lhe
ouLcome LhaL Lhe maorlLy reached uslng Lhe same meLhodology
4 usLlce 8reyer dlssenL proposes uslng an lnLeresL alanclng lnqulry
lotetestoloocloq loplty Lakes lnLo accounL oLh Lhe sLaLuLes effecL upon Lhe rlghL
and Lhe exlsLence of any clearly superlor less resLrlcLlve alLernaLlve
Such an approach would allow usLlces Lo declde on a case y case asls wheLher a
consLlLuLlonal rlghL ls worLh enforclng
O uoes Lhls show LhaL nonorlglnallsm ls dylng everyone accepLs LhaL when Lhe consLlLuLlon ls clear Lhe
orlglnal meanlng governs
O JhaL do we do when Lhe orlglnal LexL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon doesnL answer Lhe quesLlon or lf we canL flgure
ouL how Lo apply lL?
lndlvldual 8lghLs and Lhe SLaLes
Sunday AugusL 28 2011
126 M
Lar|y n|story
O Jhy would Lhe framers crafL a consLlLuLlonal sysLem LhaL only llmlLed Lhe fed gov'L power?
O lmlLs on Lhe sLaLe were unnecessary fed gov'L was Lhe only real LhreaL
O SLaLes are more responslve Lo Lhe popular wlll
O -aLural aw rlghLs LhaL are lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL of ordered llrary and noL found ln Lhe 8of8 LhaL no
gov'L can lnfrlnge upon
O oslLlve aw (raLlonale ln Marury v Madlson) law LhaL ls afflrmaLlvely enacLed Lhrough a deflned law
maklng process
O 8arron v 8alLlmore (DS 1833) llmlLaLlon on Laklngs ln Lhe 3
Lh
Am are speclflcally appllcale Lo Lhe fed
gov'L and noL Lhe sLaLes
O rlnclpally relled on LexL and orlglnal meanlng
O 8arron clalmed Lhe clLy's acLlons ln dlverLlng Lhe sLream desLroyed Lhe value of hls wharf and
Lherefore was a Laklng ln vlolaLlon of Lhe 3
Lh
Am
O ad Lhe framers of Lhe 8of8 lnLended Lhem Lo e llmlLaLlons on Lhe sLaLes Lhey would have
expressed LhaL lnLenLlon
O 8econsLrucLlon AmendmenLs (13 14 and 13) lmposed new llmlLs on Lhe sLaLes
O 13 Aollshed slavery
O 14 contoins severo/ profound/y importont provisions
O 13 Lnsured Lhe rlghL Lo voLe
9r|v||eges or Immun|t|es
O 14
Lh
AmendmenL 1 -o SLaLe shall make or enforce any law whlch shall arldge Lhe prlvlleges or
lmmunlLles of clLlzens of Lhe DnlLed SLaLes
O uldn'L expressly overrule ottoo uL dld overrule teJ cott
O SlaughLerouse Cases (DS 1873) 14
Lh
Am proLecLs Lhe prlvlleges or lmmunlLles resulLlng from elng a
DS clLlzen uL noL Lhose lncldenL Lo clLlzenshlp ln a parLlcular sLaLe
O A sLaLuLe requlrlng all uLchers ln Lhe sLaLe Lo use a sLaLesponsored slaughLer house
O ey challenges ased on Lhe rlvlleges or lmmunlLles clause of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O CourL pervadlng purpose of Lhe 8econsLrucLlon AmendmenLs was Lo proLecL Lhe lack race
4 llrsL clause of Lhe flrsL secLlon of Lhe 14
Lh
Am overLurns Lhe teJ cott case (clLlzenshlp)
O @he clause only makes lacks clLlzens of Lhe DSA noL of any lndlvldual sLaLe
4 @he second clause of Lhe flrsL secLlon only references Lhe prlvlleges or lmmunlLles of Lhe
clLlzens of Lhe DnlLed SLaLes noL of Lhe lndlvldual sLaLes
O 8lghLs clalmed y Lhe plalnLlff are noL prlvlleges and lmmunlLles of clLlzens of
Lhe DSA
O CourL dld noL sLrlke down any sLaLe laws under Lhe prlvlleges or lmmunlLles clause ln Lhe 123 years
followlng Lhe loqbtetnose coses
O Saenz v 8oe (DS 1999) courL sLruck down a CA law as vlolaLlve of Lhe rlvlleges or lmmunlLles
Clause
4 CA aw llmlLed Lhe maxlmum welfare eneflLs avallale Lo resldenLs who had een ln
Lhe sLaLe for less Lhan 12 monLhs Lo Lhe amounL Lhey recelved ln Lhelr prlor sLaLe
4 CourL found Lhe newly arrlved clLlzens should e enLlLled Lo Lhe same prlvlleges or
lmmunlLles enoyed y oLher clLlzens of Lhe same sLaLe
4 roLecLed noL only y Lhelr sLaLus as a sLaLe clLlzen uL y Lhelr sLaLus as a DS clLlzen
Incorporat|on
O @he courL has used Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am Lo Lo apply Lhe proLecLlons of Lhe 8of8 Lo Lhe sLaLes
O u Cl prevenLs Lhe sLaLes from denylng any person llfe llerLy or properLy w/o due process of law"
O 19
Lh
cenLury SC egan Lo hold LhaL Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am proLecLed lndlvlduals agalnsL sLaLe acLlon
4 CourL also held LhaL some rlghLs proLecLed agalnsL federal acLlon ln Lhe 8of8 dld noL apply Lo
sLaLe acLlon
O 20
Lh
CenLury SC egan a more sysLemaLlc efforL Lo deflne Lhe scope of Lhe rlghLs proLecLed y Lhe u Cl
4 alko v ConnecLlcuL (DS 1937) u Cl only proLecLs Lhose rlghLs LhaL are
lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL of ordered llerLy
essenLlal Lo a falr and enllghLened sysLem of usLlce and
so rooLed ln LradlLlons and consclence of our people as Lo e ranked as fundamenLal
O Adamson v Callfornla (DS 1947) holdlng ln Lhls case ls no longer Lhe law
4 @he prlvllege agalnsL selflncrlmlnaLlon ls noL lnherenL as a parL of a falr Lrlal proLecLed y Lhe
14
Lh
Am
4 lrankfurLer Concurrence u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am affords rlghLs LhaL are lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL of
ordered llerLy
8ecognlLlon ls essenLlal Lo Lhe noLlon of fundamenLal falrness
SelecLlve lncorporaLlon
4 8lack ulssenL u Cl lncorporaLed all Lhe proLecLlons of Lhe flrsL 8 amendmenLs
@oLal lncorporaLlon
O 1980s Jarren courL looked Lo Lhe flrsL 8 AmendmenLs Lo glve conLenL Lo Lhe sLandard
4 Clalmed Lo e selecLlve lncorporaLlon uL lL came Lo e more llke LoLal lncorporaLlon
O SC has held LhaL Lhe u Cl lncorporaLes vlrLually every provlslon of Lhe flrsL 8 amendmenLs
4 nly Lwo provlslons are noL lncluded
nttoJo v collfotolo (DS 1884) rlghL Lo a grand ury lndlcLmenL
Mlooeopolls t lols kk co v oolls (DS 1916) rlghL Lo a ury Lrlal ln clvll cases
4 -ever declded 3
rd
Am rlghL noL Lo have soldlers quarLered ln Lhelr home and Lhe 8
Lh
Am rlghL
noL Lo e suecL Lo excesslve flnes
O lncorporaLlon of Lhe prlvllege agalnsL selflncrlmlnaLlon
4 Molloy v noqoo (DS 1964) held LhaL Lhe 14
Lh
Am lncorporaLed Lhe 3
Lh
Am prlvllege agalnsL self
lncrlmlnaLlon
4 tlfflo v collfotolo (DS 1963) overruled Lhe speclflc holdlng ln Josoo and declared
unconsLlLuLlonal CA's law permlLLlng Lhe commenL on u's fallure Lo LesLlfy
O Mcuonald v ClLy of Chlcago (DS 2010) olds LhaL Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am lncorporaLes Lhe 2
nd
am rlghL
Lo keep and ear arms recognlzed ln nellet
4 Challenged ordlnance annlng Lhe prlvaLe possesslon of handguns on 2
nd
and 14
Lh
Am grounds
4 CourL decllnes Lo dlsLur Lhe holdlng of Lhe loqbtetnose coses
4 @esL wheLher Lhe rlghL ls so fundamenLal Lo our scheme of ordered llerLy (wheLher lL ls so
deeply rooLed ln Lhls naLlon's hlsLory and LradlLlon)
SC declslon ln nellet provldes Lhe answer lndlvldual selfdefense ls Lhe cenLral
componenL of Lhe 2
nd
Am rlghL and ls deeply rooLed ln Lhe -aLlon's LradlLlon
8lghL Lo keep and ear arms was one of Lhe fundamenLal rlghLs of Lngllshmen and was
consldered fundamenLal y Lhe framers

II IUNDAMLN1AL kIGn1S
Lconomlc lerLy
@uesday SepLemer 06 2011
1102 AM
O teJ cott v ooJfotJ (DS 1837) developed Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhe u Cl proLecLs economlc rlghLs (also
developed Lhe concepL of susLanLlve due process)
O lound Lhe M Compromlse whlch aollshed slavery unconsLlLuLlonal
O An acL of Congress whlch deprlves a clLlzen of Lhe DS of hls llerLy or properLycould hardly e
dlgnlfled wlLh Lhe name of due process of law
O ochner v -ew ?ork (DS 1903) (- -CL8 Cu AJ) -? law regulaLlng work hrs for akers vlolaLed
Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am /c lL lnLerfered w/freedom of conLracL
O SLaLuLe aL lssue regulaLed Lhe work hrs for akers no more Lhan 10 hrs a day and 60 hrs a week
O @he sLaLuLe necessarlly lnLerferes w/Lhe fundamenLal u Cl rlghL Lo Lhe freedom of conLracL /w
Lhe employer and employees
O @he @esL
4 ls a regulaLlon a falr reasonale and approprlaLe exerclse of Lhe pollce power 8
4 ls lL an unreasonale unnecessary and arlLrary lnLerference wlLh Lhe rlghL of Lhe
lndlvldual Lo hls personal llerLy
O SusLanLlve uue rocess approach ln locboet effecLlvely concluded LhaL Lhere ls susLanLlve componenL
Lo he llerLy" proLecLed y Lhe u Cl LhaL cannoL e deprlved regardless of Lhe adequacy of process
O ln Lhe 30yrs afLer locboet Lhe courL lnvalldaLed nearly 200 laws and regulaLlons on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe
vlolaLed economlc rlghLs proLecLed y Lhe u clauses
O MosL of Lhe regs soughL Lo proLecL workers or flxed prlces
O 1930s CreaL uepresslon lead oLh Lhe fed and sLaLe gov'L Lo aggresslvely regulaLe Lhe markeL pressure
O -ela v -ew ?ork (DS 1934) -? mllk pollcy was a permlsslle regulaLlon wlLhln Lhe sLaLe's pollce
power and valld under Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O -? leglslaLure creaLed Lhe Mllk ConLrol 8oard and gave lL power Lo flx mlnlmum and maxlmum
mllk prlces
4 u convlcLed for selllng mllk ln vlolaLlon of Lhe 8oard's order defended on Lhe ground
LhaL Lhe 8oard's order vlolaLed Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O -elLher properLy nor conLracL rlghLs are asoluLe
4 ne cannoL use Lhelr properLy Lo harm rlvaLe rlghL musL yleld Lo Lhe pullc need
O 3
Lh
and 14
Lh
Am do no prohllL Lhe gov'L from regulaLlng for pullc welfare
4 aw shall noL e unreasonale arlLrary or caprlclous and LhaL Lhe means selecLed shall
have a real and susLanLlal relaLlon Lo Lhe oecL soughL Lo e oLalned
O SLaLes are free Lo adopL whaLever economlc pollcy may reasonaly e deemed Lo promoLe pullc
welfare and Lo enforce LhaL pollcy y leglslaLlon adapLed Lo lLs purpose
O JesL CoasL oLel Co v arrlsh (DS 1937) expressly overrules Jklos and effecLlvely overrules locboet
O JA sLaLuLe req'd Lhe paymenL of mlnlmum wages Lo women and mlnors
4 8espondenL employee of JesL CoasL oLel Sued Lo recover Lhe dlfference /w Lhe
wages she recelved and Lhose req'd under sLaLe law
O Jklos was a deparLure from Lhe Lrue appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclples governlng Lhe regulaLlon y
Lhe sLaLe of Lhe relaLlon of employer Lo employed
4 lL was wlLhln Lhe sLaLes pollce power Lo enacL Lhls provlslon
4 @he llerLy of conLracL musL yleld Lo reasonale regulaLlons
O lndlcaLlon LhaL Lhe courL would no longer searchlngly revlew ordlnary soclal and economlc
regulaLlon
O Un|ted States v Caro|ene 9roducts Co (US 1938) the court uphe|d a federa| statute that proh|b|ted
the sh|pment |n |nterstate commerce of sk|m m||k m|xed w|th some fat or o|| other than fat m||k
O 8eecLed u's arg LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe vlolaLed Lhe u Cl of Lhe 3
Lh
Am
O 8egulaLory leglslaLlon affecLlng ordlnary commerclal LransacLlons ls noL Lo e pronounced
unconsLlLuLlonal unless lL falls raLlonal asls revlew
O Iootnote 4 app||ed he|ghtened scrut|ny to
4 Po/itico/ Process rotiono/e leglslaLlon whlch resLrlcLs Lhose pollLlcal processes whlch
can ordlnarlly e expecLed Lo rlng aouL repeal of undeslrale leglslaLlon
4 5totutes directed ot porticu/or re/iqious or rocio/ minorities
4 5totutes which prejudice discrete ond insu/or minorities
O Jllllamson v ee pLlcal Co (DS 1933) upheld sLaLe regulaLlon
O regulaLlon prohllLlng any person noL llcensed as an opLomeLrlsL or ophLhalmologlsL from
flLLlng dupllcaLlng or replaclng lenses wlLhouL a wrlLLen prescrlpLlon from a llcensed one
4 racLlcal effecL no opLlclan can flL old glasses wlLh new frames or supply a lens
O lL ls for Lhe leglslaLure noL Lhe courL Lo alance Lhe advanLages and dlsadvanLages of Lhe pollcy
O Applles 8aLlonal 8asls 8evlew lL ls enough LhaL Lhere ls an evll aL hand for correcLlon and LhaL lL
mlghL e LhoughL LhaL Lhe parLlcular leglslaLlve measure was a raLlonal way Lo correcL lL
O kotiono/ bosis review the requ/otion wi// be uphe/d if it is rotiono//y re/oted to o /eqitimote stote
interest
O lghly deferenLlal form of revlew LhaL vlrLually always resulLs ln Lhe a concluslon LhaL Lhe
challenged regulaLlon ls valld
O A courL generally wlll seek Lo deLermlne Lhe posslle oecLlve LhaL Lhe leglslaLure mlghL have
soughL Lo accompllsh raLher Lhan Lhe leglslaLures acLual oecLlve posL hoc usLlflcaLlons okay
O aw need noL e ln every respecL loglcally conslsLenL wlLh lLs alms Lo e consLlLuLlonal
ConLracepLlon
Jednesday SepLemer 07 2011
1038 AM
9re|ude
O @he locboet declslon has een vlrLually condemned whaL was wrong wlLh lL?
O uurlng Lhe locboet era oLher rlghLs found proLecLlon under Lhe u Cl as forms of llerLy
4 Meyer v -eraska (DS 1923) rlghL Lo sLudy Lhe Cerman language ln prlvaLe school ls proLecLed
Lhrough Lhe 1
sL
and 14
Lh
Am
CourL overLurned Lhe convlcLlon of a parochlal school Leacher for vlolaLlng a law
prohllLlng Leachlng ln any language oLher Lhan Lngllsh
Clves an exLenslve llsL of rlghLs proLecLed under Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
4 Pierce v 5ociety of the 5isters {u5 1925) the riqht to educote ones chi/dren os one chooses is
mode opp/icob/e to the stotes throuqh the 1
st
ond 14
th
4ms
Challenge Lo a 8 sLaLuLe LhaL req'd chlldren /w 8 and 16 yrs old Lo aLLend pullc
school @he acL would desLroy appellees prlmary schools for chlldren
O -oLhlng on Lhe record lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe schools have falled Lhelr ollgaLlon Lo
provlde adequaLe educaLlon
Applles Lhe Meyet declslon Lo flnd LhaL Lhe 8 sLaLuLe unreasonaly lnLerferes wlLh Lhe
llerLy of parenLs Lo ralse and educaLe Lhelr chlldren as Lhey see flL
O @he 8 sLaLuLe falls Lhe 888 LesL as lL has no reasonale relaLlon Lo some
purpose wlLhln Lhe compeLency of Lhe sLaLe
usLlce Mc8eynolds wroLe oLh Lhe 9letce and Meyet declslons (dlssenLed ln Nelo and
west coost notel was deeply commlLLed Lo locboet)
O Sklnner v klahoma (DS 1942) lnvalldaLed a sLaLe law provldlng for Lhe forced sLerlllzaLlon of felons
convlcLed for Lhe Lhlrd Llme of a crlme lnvolvlng moral LurplLude
4 MaorlLy lndlcaLed LhaL Lhe courL sLlll recognlzed some susLanLlve sphere of llerLy
olds LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe vlolaLes Lhe L Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am uL Lhe oplnlon ls more aouL an
lndlvldual llerLy LhaL cannoL e arldged even when done evenhandedly
@he leglslaLlon lnvolved a aslc clvll fundamenLal clvll rlghL marrlage and procreaLlon
SLerlllzaLlon would forever deprlve hlm of Lhls aslc llerLy
4 SLone Concurrence fallure of procedural due process
Jholesale condemnaLlon of a class Lo such an lnvaslon of personal llerLy w/o Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo show LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe should noL apply vlolaLes due process
Contracept|on
O 6riswo/d v connecticut {u5 195) finds o stotute bonninq the use of controceptives by morried
coup/es unconstitutiono/ os o vio/otion of the uP c/ of the 14
th
4m
4 Crlswold (Lu of lanned arenLhood) and 8uxLon (physlclan aL ?ale Med) gave lnfo Lo ottleJ
petsoos regardlng prevenLlng conLracepLlon
ConvlcLed as accessorles under C@ sLaLuLe prohllLlng Lhe use of conLracepLlves
Challenged Lhe sLaLuLe as vlolaLlve of Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
4 MaorlLy enumras approach
uecllnes Lo follow locboet approach courL does noL slL as a super leglslaLure Lo
deLermlne Lhe need for laws
1he constitution o/so protects periphero/ riqhts not specifico//y enumeroted in the
constitution
O 9letce and Meyet parenL's rlghL Lo educaLe Lhelr chlld as Lhey see flL ls
proLecLed y Lhe 1
sL
Am Lhrough Lhe 14
Lh
Am
Penumbros opprooch specific quorontees of the 8ofk hove penumbros thot he/p qive
them /ife ond substonce
O le freedom of assoclaLlon ls a penumra of Lhe 1
sL
Am
8lghL of prlvacy ls a leglLlmaLe rlghL
O @he relaLlonshlp here lles wlLhln a zone of prlvacy esLallshed y several
consLlLuLlonal rlghLs and Lhe law aL lssue has a desLrucLlve lmpacL on lL
O A gov'L reg may noL e achleved y means whlch sweep unnecessarlly roadly
and Lherey lnvade Lhe area of proLecLed freedoms
O @hls law unusLlflaly lnfrlnges on a rlghL of prlvacy older Lhan Lhe 8of8
marrlage
4 Colderg Concurrence uue process (fundamenLal rlghLs/9
Lh
Am approach)
uoes noL accepL Lhe vlew LhaL Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am lncorporaLes all Lhe rlghLs of Lhe
flrsL 8 AmendmenLs
Agrees LhaL Lhe concepL of llerLy proLecLs foJoeotol tlqbts whlch are noL llmlLed y
Lhe 8of8
@he rlghL of marlLal prlvacy ls one of Lhe rlghLs supporLed oLh y precedenL and y Lhe
9
Lh
Am
O 9
Lh
Am show lramers ellef LhaL Lhere were addlLlonal fundamenLal rlghLs
O -oL saylng LhaL Lhe 9
Lh
Am ls applled Lo Lhe sLaLes Lhru Lhe 14
Lh
Am
@esL musL look Lo Lhe LradlLlons and collecLlve consclence of our people Lo deLermlne
wheLher a prlnclple ls so rooLed Lhere as Lo e ranked as fundamenLal
O Applles SS where fundamenLal personal llerLles are lnvolved a showlng of
suordlnaLlng lnLeresL whlch ls necessary and compelllng ls req'd
4 nor/on concurrence uue Process {penumbros/noturo/ /ow) Livinq 1rodition {probob/y best
opprooch for determininq fundomento/ riqhts)
u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am does noL apply unless Lhe law ls found Lo vlolaLe some rlghL assured
y Lhe leLLer or penumra of Lhe 8of8
JheLher Lhe sLaLuLe lnfrlnges Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
/c lLs enacLmenL vlolaLes aslc
values lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL of ordered llerLy no resLrlcLed Lo Lhe 8of8
4 JhlLe Concurrence lS approach
Applles a Lype of lS a sLaLuLe LhaL ls reasonaly necessary for Lhe effecLuaLlon of a
leglLlmaLe and susLanLlal sLaLe lnLeresL and noL arlLrary and caprlclous ln lLs
appllcaLlon ls valld under Lhe u Cl
llnds LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe aL lssue here ls overly road for lLs sLaLed goal of prohllLlng all
forms of promlscuous or llllclL sexual relaLlonshlps
4 8lack ulssenL poslLlve law approach
@here ls no rlghL Lo prlvacy proLecLed ln Lhe consLlLuLlon
Cov'L has a rlghL Lo lnvade ppl's prlvacy unless speclflcally prohllLed y some speclflc
consLlLuLlonal provlslon
CourL may only lnvalldaLe sLaLe law lf lL falls 888 or ls arlLrary caprlclous unreasonale
or oppresslve
9
Lh
Am meanL Lo llmlL Lhe powers of Lhe fed gov'L noL glve lL Lhe power Lo sLrlke down
sLaLe laws
4 SLewarL dlssenL poslLlve law approach
-oL here Lo declde wheLher Lhe law was wlse or unwlse only have Lo declde wheLher lL
vlolaLes Lhe consLlLuLlon and lL does noL
CourL can'L clLe an amendmenL whlch Lhe law vlolaLes
O isenstodt v 8oird {u5 1972) court found o stotue on/y permittinq the use of controceptives by
morried coup/es to be unconstitutiono/ prohibited unmorried coup/es from usinq it
4 lL ls Lhe rlghL of Lhe lndlvldual marrled or slngle Lo e free from unwarranLed gov'L lnLruslon lnLo
maLLers so fundamenLally affecLlng a person as Lhe declslon wheLher Lo have a chlld

AorLlon
Jednesday SepLemer 14 2011
1100 AM
O 8oe v Jade (DS 1973) sLruck down a @O sLaLuLe LhaL crlmlnallzed havlng an aorLlon unless Lhe
moLher's llfe was aL rlsk as an unconsLlLuLlonal vlolaLlon of Lhe u Cl
4 uoes Lhe law lnLerfere wlLh a fundamenLal rlghL? ?LS
1LS1 Cn|y those r|ghts when can be deemed fundamenta| or |mp||c|t |n the concept of
ordered ||berty are protected by the D9 C| of the 14
th
Am
@O sLaLuLe lnLerfered wlLh Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy moLhers rlghL Lo declde wheLher or noL
Lo LermlnaLe her pregnancy
O 8lghL Lo prlvacy proLecLed y Lhe 14
Lh
Am u Cl
O uouglas sLlll applled Lhe penumras approach ln hls concurrence
4 uld Lhe sLaLe provlde adequaLe usLlflcaLlon for Lhe need Lo lnLerfere wlLh Lhe rlghL? -
1LS1 Must app|y SS w]D9 C| cha||enge the |aw must be narrow|y ta||ored to
advance a compe|||ng gov't |nterest
O @wo lpottoot sLaLe lnLeresLs here proLecLlng Lhe healLh of Lhe moLher and
Lhe poLenLlallLy of human llfe
O @he quesLlon ls when do Lhose lnLeresLs ecome copellloq
@rlmesLer lramework
O 1
sL
LrlmesLer no compelllng gov'L lnLeresL ln regulaLlng aorLlons
4 8lsks of glvlng lrLh 8lsk of aorLlon
4 No qovt requ/otion lefL Lo medlcal udgmenL of physlclan
O 2
nd
@rlmesLer compelllng gov'L lnLeresL ln preservlng Lhe healLh of Lhe moLher
4 rlor Lo LhaL polnL Lhe rlsk of morLallLy wlLh chlld lrLh ls
approxlmaLely equlvalenL Lo LhaL of an aorLlon
4 Moy requ/ote obortion procedure in woys reosonob/y re/oted to
moterno/ heo/th
O 3
rd
@rlmesLer compelllng gov'L lnLeresL ln proLecLlng Lhe llfe of Lhe feLus
4 IlalllLy afLer Lhe 2
nd
LrlmesLer when presumaly Lhe feLus ls capale
of llvlng ouLslde Lhe moLher
4 5tote moy proscribe obortions in its interest in protectinq the
potentio/ity of humon /ife (excepL where necessary Lo save moLher)
4 @he word person" ln Lhe 14
Lh
Am does noL proLecL Lhe unorn
O lanned arenLhood of SouLheasLern enn v Casey (DS 1992) CourL upholds koe and Ocoooots
9ltollty coottols
4 'Connor ennedy and SouLer lurallLy
A woman's rlghL Lo choose ls proLecLed y Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
SusLanLlve u rlghLs noL llmlLed Lo Lhose enumeraLed ln Lhe 8of8
ersonal dlgnlLy and auLonomy are cenLral Lo Lhe llerLy proLecLed y Lhe u Cl of Lhe
14
Lh
Am
A woman's sufferlng durlng pregnancy ls Loo lnLlmaLe for Lhe sLaLe Lo lnslsL upon lLs own
vlslon of Lhe woman's role
SLare ueclsls no eroslon of prlnclple golng Lo llerLy or personal auLonomy has lefL
8oe's cenLral holdlng a docLrlnal remnanL
O -oL a declslon requlrlng overrullng llke locboet false facLual underplnnlngs
(OvettleJ y west coost notel) or 9lessy changed undersLandlng of facLs
(OvettleJ y towo v ootJ of J)
O CourLs power lles ln lLs leglLlmacy and overrullng 8oe would damage LhaL
would look llke Lhe courL succumed Lo pollLlcal pressure
CCN1kCLLING Abandons the tr|mester framework of koe lL mlsconcelves Lhe naLure
of Lhe pregnanL woman's lnLeresL and undervalues Lhe sLaLe's lnLeresL ln poLenLlal llfe
O Nw 151 undue 8urden 1est o stote requ/otion thot hos the purpose or
effect of p/ocinq o substontio/ obstoc/e in the poth of o womon seekinq on
obortion of o nonviob/e fetus is unconstitutiono/
O Jn? /c Lhe means chosen y Lhe SLaLe Lo furLher Lhe lnLeresL ln poLenLlal
llfe musL e colcloteJ to lofot tbe wooos ftee cbolce noL hlnder lL
SLaLes may enacL regulaLlons Lo ensure LhaL a woman's cholce ls lnformed and Lo
persuade her Lo choose chlldlrLh over aorLlon
O revlalllLy sLaLe may noL lmpose an undue urden uL may pass regulaLlons
Lo ensure LhaL Lhe woman's cholce ls lnformed
O osLvlalllLy sLaLe may regulaLe and even proscrle aorLlons excepL when
necessary for Lhe moLher's healLh
SLaLuLe aL lssue here
O DLu 24 hr walLlng perlod arenLal consenL and 8ecord eeplng
O S@8DC uJ- Spousal noLlce
4 SLevens concurs ln parL and dlssenLs ln parL Jould have found Lhe 24hr walL unconsLlLuLlonal
4 8lackmun concurs ln parL concurs ln Lhe udgmenL ln parL and dlssenLs ln parL
SLands y koe compleLely rlghL Lo reproducLlve cholce ls enLlLled Lo full proLecLlon
Jould apply SS lnsLead of Lhe plurallLy's undue urden sLandard
Jould have found all four provlslons of Lhe A sLaLuLe unconsLlLuLlonal
4 8ehnqulsL JhlLe Scalla and @homas concur ln Lhe udgmenL ln parL and dlssenL ln parL
SLare declsls doesn'L requlre 8oe Lo e upheld
Dndue urden sLandard ls usL as unworkale as Lhe LrlmesLer framework of koe
Applles 888 sLaLes may regulaLe aorLlon procedures ln ways raLlonally relaLed Lo a
leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresL
Jould have found all four provlslons of Lhe A sLaLuLe consLlLuLlonal
4 Scalla 8ehnqulsL JhlLe and @homas concur ln Lhe udgmenL ln parL and dlssenL ln parL
@he rlghL of a woman Lo aorL her chlld ls noL a llerLy proLecLed y Lhe consLlLuLlon
O ConsLlLuLlon says asoluLely noLhlng aouL lL
O ongsLandlng LradlLlon ln Amerlcan soc'y of legally proscrllng lL
Applylng 888 would have found all four provlslons of Lhe A sLaLuLe consLlLuLlonal
O Gonza|es v Carhart (US 2007) upho|ds the Iedera| 9art|a| 8|rth Abort|on Act under the Casey Undue
8urden 1est
4 lederal arLlal 8lrLh AorLlon 8an was challenged under Lhe u Cl of Lhe 3
Lh
Am
8anned lnLacL uL exLracLs Lhe feLus lnLacL and evacuaLes Lhe feLuses skull conLenLs
efore Lhe removal of Lhe feLus
Makes lL a crlme for any physlclan knowlngly Lo perform Lhe anned procedure and
Lherey Lo klll a human feLus
4 lacLs
Medlcal and eLhlcal consensus LhaL parLlal lrLh aorLlon ls gruesome and lnhumane
AcL's language dlffers from Lhe AcL sLruck down ln tetoetq
4 CourL reecLs Lhe challenge Lo Lhe law under Lhe cosey undue urden LesL
Dndue 8urden @esL Lhe acL would e unconsLlLuLlonal lf lLs purpose or effecL ls Lo place
a susLanLlal osLacle ln Lhe paLh of a woman seeklng an aorLlon efore Lhe feLus
aLLalns vlalllLy
Congress made flndlngs LhaL asserL LhaL Lhe AcL expresses respecL for Lhe dlgnlLy of
human llfe effecLs on medlcal communlLy and on lLs repuLaLlon
O cosey reafflrmed Lhese gov'L lnLeresL
Congress could conclude LhaL Lhe Lype of aorLlon proscrled y Lhe AcL requlres
speclflc regulaLlon ecause lL lmpllcaLes addlLlonal eLhlcal and moral concerns
O ulsLurlng slmllarlLy Lo kllllng of a neworn
O urawlng a rlghL llne /w aorLlon and lnfanLlclde
osLparLum depresslon ls a real Lhlng severe depresslon and loss of selfesLeem
O SLaLe has an lnLeresL ln ensurlng LhaL Lhls declslon ls well lnformed
@he acL survlves Lhe faclal aLLack pendlng Lhe medlcal uncerLalnLy regardlng Lhe
procedures effecL on Lhe moLher
O Jlde dlscreLlon Lo sLaLe leglslaLures
O An as applled challenge ls Lhe proper manner Lo proLecL Lhe healLh of Lhe
woman lf lL can e shown LhaL ln dlscreLe and welldeflned lnsLances a
parLlcular condlLlon has or ls llkely Lo occur ln whlch Lhe procedure prohllLed
y Lhe AcL musL e used
4 Concurrence
CourL's oplnlon accuraLely applles Lhe cosey undue urden sLandard
CourLs aorLlon urlsprudence has no asls ln Lhe consLlLuLlon
4 ulssenL
@he courL's declslon mlsapplles cosey and teoetq and LoleraLes a an on a valld
pracLlce
tetoetq courL sLruck down a sLaLuLe annlng lnLacL uL ln parL /c lL lacked a healLh
excepLlon Lhls acL doesn'L lnclude one elLher
@he AcL doesn'L save feLuses lL usL ans a parLlcular approach Lo aorLlon
CourL should have req'd LhaL women e more adequaLely lnformed of Lhe procedure
Marrlage and lamlly
@uesday SepLemer 20 2011
1100 AM
O @he courL has long vlewed famlly relaLlonshlps as parLlcularly deservlng of proLecLlon under Lhe u Cl
O 9letce u Cl proLecLs Lhe rlghL of parenLs Lo dlrecL Lhe edu and uprlnglng of Lhelr chlldren
O tlswolJ prlvacy surroundlng Lhe marrlage relaLlonshlp warranLs Lhe lnvalldaLlon of Lhe C@ an
on conLracepLlves
O ovlng v IA (DS 1967) sLruck down a IA law prohllLlng lnLerraclal marrlage as vlolaLlve of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O lssue wheLher a sLaLuLory scheme adopLed y IA Lo prevenL marrlages /w persons solely on
Lhe asls of raclal classlflcaLlon vlolaLes Lhe L Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O CourL flnds LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe unconsLlLuLlonal u Cl arg here
4 SLaLuLe deprlve Lhe ovlngs of llerLy w/o u of law ln vlolaLlon of Lhe 14
Lh
Am u C
4 lreedom Lo marry ls a vlLal personal rlghL essenLlal Lo Lhe orderly pursulL of happlness
4 Marrlage ls a aslc clvll rlghL fundamenLal Lo our very exlsLence and survlval
4 14
Lh
Am requlres LhaL freedom of cholce Lo marry noL e resLrlcLed y lnvldlous raclal
dlscrlmlnaLlon
O MA88lACL Zalockl v 8edhall (DS 1978) sLruck down a Jl sLaLuLe requlrlng a courL's permlsslon for a
person who was already under an ollgaLlon Lo pay chlld supporL Lo oLaln a marrlage llcense
O Standard reosonob/e requ/otions thot do not siqnificont/y interfere w|th dec|s|ons to enter |nto
the mar|ta| re|at|onsh|p may |eg|t|mate|y be |mposed
4 ls opplleJ fot teqlotloos tbot lotetfetes Jltectly ooJ sstootlolly
O lAMl? Moore v ClLy of Cleveland (DS 1977) sLruck down an ordlnance LhaL used a narrow deflnlLlon of
famlly Lo dlcLaLe who could llve LogeLher under one roof
O Standard kegu|at|ons that |ntrude on cho|ces concern|ng fam||y ||v|ng arrangements
warranted he|ghtened rev|ew
O @roxel vCranvllle (DS 2000) parenLs have a fundamenLal rlghL Lo make declslons concernlng Lhe care
cusLody and conLrol of Lhelr chlldren
O JA sLaLuLe LhaL allowed Lhe courL Lo glve vlslLaLlon rlghLs Lo anyone lL found Lo e ln Lhe esL
lnLeresLs of Lhe chlld was unconsLlLuLlonal
O Mlchael v Cerald u (DS 1989) upheld a CA law LhaL esLallshed a presumpLlon LhaL a chlld orn Lo a
marrled woman ls a chlld of Lhe marrlage
O lacLs
4 eLlLloner faLhered a chlld wlLh a marrled woman and soughL vlslLaLlon rlghLs
4 eLlLloner has Lhe rlghL of a lologlcal parenL Lo play a role ln hls chlld's llfe
O Scalla luralLy speclflclLy and hlsLorlcal approach
4 @wo sLep approach
O @he lnLeresL musL e fundamenLal
O @he lnLeresL musL e one LradlLlonally proLecLed y our soc'y
4 -o parenLal rlghL under Lhe 8of8 and lL noL one of Lhe proLecLed fundamenLal rlghLs
O AdulLerous relaLlonshlps are noL proLecLed marlLal rlghLs
4 SuecLed Lhe law Lo 888 and upheld lL
4 locuses on speclflclLy and hlsLory
O -eed narrowly deflned lnqulrles Lo prevenL udlclal overreachlng
O @rue fundamenLal rlghLs are supporLed y our hlsLory
O -o proLecLlon for Lhe adulLerous parenLal rlghL
O 8rennan ulssenL focus on generallLles
4 @he rlghL of a faLher Lo play a role ln hls chlld's llfe ls a fundamenLal rlghL
4 Jhy are all Lhese oLher unmenLloned rlghLs proLecLed uL noL Lhls one
4 Scalla doesn'L adhere Lo precedenL wouldn'L have come Lo Lhe declslons lL dld ln
lseostoJt and tlswolJ
O revlous declslons ln Lhls arena focused on wheLher Lhe ConsLlLuLlon proLecLed
a general rlghL and noL a speclflc lnLeresL
4 @he ConsLlLuLlon ls wrlLLen roadly and lLs Lerms are suscepLlle Lo many meanlngs lL's
a llvlng charLer
O CenerallLy Model
O lgh level of speclflclLy does Lhe consLlLuLlon proLecL Lhls speclflc lnLeresL
4 lmlLed and flxed approach Scalla's approach ln Mlchael
O 8road level of generallLy does Lhe ConsLlLuLlon proLecL Lhls general prlnclple
4 8road and expandlng approach 8rennan's approach ln Mlchael
SexuallLy
Jednesday SepLemer 21 2011
1146 AM
O 8owers v ardwlck (DS 1986) SC upheld a sLaLuLe crlmlnallzlng sodomy whlch was deflned as acLs of
oral or anal sex as applled Lo Lhe respondenLs homosexual conducL
O lssue does Lhe consLlLuLlon confer a fundamenLal rlghL upon homosexuals Lo engage ln sodomy
O CourL Lhere ls no fundamenLal rlghL for homosexuals Lo engage ln sodomy
4 ooked Lo hlsLorlcal prohllLlons on sodomy and Lhe conLemporaneous prevalence of
anLlsodomy laws
4 ulsLlngulshed tlswolJ and lLs progeny y noLlng LhaL no connecLlon /w famlly
marrlage or procreaLlon and homosexuallLy had een demonsLraLed
4 Applled 888 found Lhe sLaLe's lnLeresL ln advanclng morallLy sufflclenL
O awrence v @exas (DS 2003) expllclLly overrules owets and sLrlkes down a law crlmlnallzlng
homosexual sex
O lacLs
4 respondlng Lo a weapons dlsLurance wenL ln u's home and found hlm engaglng ln
homosexual sex
4 @O sLaLuLe maklng lL unlawful Lo engage ln devlaLe sexual lnLercourse deflned as oral
and anal sex wlLh anoLher lndlvldual of Lhe same sex
O CourL held LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe vlolaLed Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
4 lerLy proLecLs Lhe person from unwarranLed gov'L lnLruslons lnLo a dwelllng
O lreedom exLends eyond spaLlal ounds assumes auLonomy of self
O lerLy of Lhe person oLh ln lLs spaLlal and more LranscendenL dlmenslons
4 owets CourL falled Lo appreclaLe Lhe llerLy aL sLake dlsagrees wlLh Lhe courLs
speclflclLy approach
O recedenL requlres a generallLy approach
O owets courL dldn'L deflne LradlLlon wlLh speclflclLy
O 8egulaLes prlvaLe human conducL (sex) ln Lhe mosL prlvaLe place (Lhe home)
4 SLaLuLe lmpacLs prlvaLe sexual ehavlor ln a prlvaLe resldence
4 owets declslon was an ouLller noL Lhe rule lnconslsLenL wlLh prlor cases
O osL owets declslons casLlng lL lnLo douL cosey (conLracepLlon) and koet
(L Cl challenge law crlmlnallzlng homosexual conducL)
O owets was wrong aouL hlsLory no longsLandlng hlsLory dlrecLed aL annlng
homosexual conducL
O Slnce 1986 Lhe world has changed homosexuallLy ls noL some devlanL pracLlce
arllamenL repeal of laws punlshlng homosexual conducL
Luropean ConvenLlon on uman 8lghLs found lnvalld laws proscrllng
homosexual conducL
4 SLaLe's maorlLarlan lnLeresL ln promoLlng sexual morallLy was noL a leglLlmaLe
O CourLs duLy ls Lo deflne llerLy noL Lo mandaLe a moral code

III LUAL 9kC1LC1ICN
lnLroducLlon and lramework
Monday SepLemer 26 2011
1100 AM
D|st|nct|ons and C|ass|f|cat|ons
O Lqual roLecLlon Cl (14
Lh
Am) nor shall any SLaLedeny Lo any person wlLhln lLs urlsdlcLlon Lhe equal
proLecLlon of Lhe laws
O JhaL consLlLuLed equal proLecLlon under Lhe laws?
O Lqual resulLs? Lqual sLandards?
O Cov'L may draw dlsLlncLlons ln order Lo govern senslly effecLlvely and falrly
O @he courL suecLs all challenged gov'L classlflcaLlons Lo some for a udlclal revlew
O -aLure of Lhe classlflcaLlon
O Cov'L lnLeresL ln Lhe challenged regulaLlon
O 8elaLlonshlp /w Lhe gov'L lnLeresL and Lhe classlflcaLlon
O evels of scruLlny depends upon Lhe asls for classlflcaLlon
O ScruLlny assesses Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhe CourL
4 lnslsLs on parLlcularly welghLy lnLeresLs
4 accords deference Lo Lhe gov'Ls udgmenL and
4 LoleraLes lmperfecL means Lo accompllsh Lhose ends
O Leve|s of scrut|ny
4 SS uphe|d on|y |f |t |s norrow/y toi/ored to advance a compe//inq gov't |nterest
O ClasslflcaLlon ased on race and naLlonal orlgln
4 IS uphe|d on|y |f |t |s substontio//y re/oted to an importont gov't |nterest
O ClasslflcaLlons ased on gender and marlLal sLaLus
4 k8k uphe|d |f |t |s rotiono//y re/oted to a /eqitimote gov't |nterest
O All oLher classlflcaLlons
O Jhen does Lhe courL apply each level of scruLlny/
4 DnlLed SLaLes v Carolene roducLs (DS 1938) fooLnoLe 4 Lell us when helghLened
scruLlny ls warranLed
O Leg|s|at|on wh|ch restr|cts those po||t|ca| processes wh|ch can ord|nar||y be
expected to br|ng about repea| of undes|rab|e |eg|s|at|on
O Statues d|rected at a part|cu|ar re||g|ous or nat|ona| or rac|a| m|nor|t|es
O Statutes pre[ud|c|ng a d|screte and |nsu|ar m|nor|ty
1o whom does the ob||gat|on of Lqua| 9rotect|on App|y
O 8olllng v Sharpe (DS 1934) declded Lhe same day as towo v ootJ of J
O lnvolved segregaLlon ln uC pullc schools noL a L Cl 14
Lh
Am case /c uC lsn'L a sLaLe
4 Alleged LhaL Lhls pollcy deprlved Lhem of u under Lhe 3
Lh
Am
O CourL uC ullc schools segregaLlon pollcy vlolaLed Lhe u Cl of Lhe 3
Lh
Am
4 SegregaLlon provlslon deprlved Lhe lack sLudenLs of llerLy proLecLed under Lhe 3
Lh
Am
4 SusLanLlve u rlghL noL Lo e dlscrlmlnaLed agalnsL ln pullc educaLlon
O lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL of ordered llerLy
4 8everse lncorporaLlon u Cl of Lhe 3
Lh
Am lncorporaLes Lhe rlghLs afforded y Lhe L Cl
of Lhe 14
Lh
AM
O CourL held Lhe same day LhaL Lhe L Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am prohllLs sLaLes from
malnLalnlng raclally segregaLed pullc schools
ConcepLs of L and u oLh sLem from our Amerlcan ldeal of falrness
ulscrlmlnaLlon may e so unusLlflale as Lo e vlolaLlve of u
O 8ace ased classlflcaLlons musL e scruLlnlzed wlLh parLlcular care
O @he ConsLlLuLlon prohllLs Lhe sLaLes from malnLalnlng raclally segregaLed
schools musL prohllL Lhe fed gov'L from dolng so as well
4 lerLy cannoL e resLrlcLed excepL y proper gov'L oecLlve
O SegregaLlon ls pullc educaLlon ls noL reasonaly relaLed Lo any proper gov'L
oecLlve and lL consLlLuLes an arlLrary deprlvaLlon of lack sLudenLs llerLy
kat|ona||ty kev|ew
O Cov'L classlflcaLlons on ases LhaL are noL suspecL are generally revlewale for raLlonallLy
O 888 ls Lhe classlflcaLlon raLlonally relaLed Lo a leglLlmaLe gov'L lnLeresL
O koi/woy xpress 4qency v Peop/e of the 5tote of NY underinc/usive requ/otions survive on P c/
cho//enqe under k8k
O -? law prohllLed adverLlsemenL for hlre on vehlcles uL allowed ppl Lo adverLlse Lhelr own
uslness on Lhelr vehlcle
O 8allway Lxpress had an L Cl challenge such an arlLrary dlsLlncLlon doesn'L meeL Lhe alm and
purpose of Lhe sLaLuLe
4 SLaLuLe dlsLlngulshes ased on who ls adverLlslng
O court opp/ied k8k stotute must on/y be reosonob/y re/oted to o /eqitimote qovt interest
4 CourL flnds LhaL Lhere was a leglLlmaLe usLlflcaLlon
O Any sLaLe usLlflcaLlon of leglLlmacy wlll e accepLed even lf lL's only developed
for Lhe sake of Lrlal
O eglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresL ln malnLalnlng Lhe safeLy on Lhelr sLreeLs lnLeresL
need only e leglLlmaLe noL compelllng
4 CourL flnds LhaL Lhe regulaLlon ls reasonaly relaLed
O 8eecLed 8allway Lxpresses argumenL LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe was underlncluslve
(regulaLes ads for hlre and noL selfadverLlslng)
Dnder lncluslve laws are flne under 888
-o requlremenL LhaL of equal proLecLlon LhaL all evlls of Lhe same
genus musL e eradlcaLed or none aL all
O Ads on Lhe slde of a Lruck adverLlslng one's own producL are llkely Lo e less
flashy
4 ackson Concurrence
O A concluslon LhaL a law vlolaLes Lhe u Cl wlll close of Lhe gov'L from regulaLlon
of LhaL speclflc Lype of conducL lnvalldaLlon ls urdensome
O A concluslon LhaL a law vlolaLes Lhe L Cl merely means LhaL Lhe gov'L musL
apply Lhe parLlcular regulaLlon more roadly
less urdensome so Lhe courLs can apply helghLened scruLlny
O Jhy should Lhe gov'L apply helghLened scruLlny ln Lhe L Cl conLexL
-oLhlng opens Lhe door Lo arlLrary acLlon Lhen allowlng offlclals Lo
plck and choose only a few Lo whom Lo apply leglslaLlon
Allows Lhem Lo escape pollLlcal reLrluLlon LhaL mlghL e vlslLed upon
Lhem lf larger numers were affecLed
O New York city 1ronsit 4uthority v 8eoter {u5 1979) overinc/usive requ/otions survive on P c/
cho//enqe under k8k
O aw aL lssue was a general pollcy agalnsL employlng people who use narcoLlc drugs lncluded
wlLhln Lhe pollcy were
O JhaL's Lhe leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresL?
4 eglLlmaLe lnLeresL ln proLecLlng Lhe safeLy of passengers and pedesLrlans
O ls Lhe sLaLuLe raLlonally relaLed Lo LhaL lnLeresL? ?es
4 8eecLs Lhe arg LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe was overlncluslve (lumps recoverlng addlcLs ln wlLh Lhe
currenL ones)
4 8eecLs Lhe arg LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe was underlncluslve (dldn'L regulaLe oLher ppl who
posed a rlsk for passenger safeLy)
4 8aLlonal Lo posLpone ellgllllLy Llll compleLlon of Lhe drug program fear of reverslon
4 Cov'L ls allowed Lo palnL wlLh a roader rush Lhan necessary under 888 can regulaLe
an enLlre caLegory of ppl so long as dolng so wlll advance Lhe leglLlmaLe gov'L lnLeresL
O CourL found LhaL lL was esL Lo leL -? declde how Lo sLrucLure lLs pollcy
4 Dnlversal excluslon ls Lhe esL approach speclal rules regardlng who ls covered y Lhe
sLaLuLe wlll lead Lo llne drawlng prolems
O 8eecLed ackson's concurrence ln kollwoy xptess mosL gov'L classlflcaLlons are suecL Lo 888
laclal ulscrlmlnaLlon on Lhe 8asls of 8ace
@uesday SepLemer 27 2011
1123 AM
n|stor|ca| 9erspect|ve 9rekeconstruct|on
O ured ScoLL v Sandford (DS 1837) slaves are noL clLlzens wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe
M Compromlse ls unconsLlLuLlonal
O ured ScoLL a lack slave was Laken from Lhe slave sLaLe of Mlssourl Lo Lhe free sLaLe of l and
laLer Lo Lhe free LerrlLory of Jl
4 ScoLL sued Sandford for assaulL and lmprlsonmenL clalmlng LhaL hls resldence llllnols and
laLer Lhe Jl LerrlLory made hlm a free person
4 Sandford asserLed LhaL Lhe courL lacked urlsdlcLlon /c ScoLL was noL a clLlzen and
Lherefore lacked dlverslLy
O lssue can a negro whose ancesLors were lmporLed lnLo Lhls counLry and sold as slaves ecome a
memer of pollLlcal communlLy formed and roughL lnLo exlsLence y Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
O CourL slaves are noL clLlzens wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and are noL enLlLled Lo any
of Lhe rlghLs or proLecLlons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon (as such Lhe courL lacks dlverslLy urlsdlcLlon)
O AlLhough Lhe courL dldn'L have urlsdlcLlon lL sLlll addressed Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe M
Compromlse
4 3
Lh
Am prohllLs Lhe gov'L from denylng a clLlzen of hls llerLy or properLy (slaves were
consldered properLy)
4 An acL of Congress whlch deprlves a clLlzen of Lhe DSA of hls llerLy or properLy merely
/c he came hlmself or roughL hls properLy lnLo a parLlcular LerrlLory could hardly e
dlgnlfled wlLh Lhe name of u of law
4 M Compromlse ls noL warranLed y Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and ls Lherefore vold
Iac|a| D|scr|m|nat|on Aga|nst M|nor|t|es
O laclally dlscrlmlnaLory sLaLuLes y Lhelr very Lerms classlfy on Lhe asls of race
O 13
Lh
Am ouLlawed slavery
O 14
Lh
Am All persons orn or naLurallzed ln Lhe DSA and suecLed Lo Lhe urlsdlcLlon Lhereof are clLlzen
of Lhe DSA and sLaLe where Lhey reslde (overruled ured ScoLL)
O SLrauder v JesL IA (DS 1879) lnvalldaLed as vlolaLlve of Lhe 14
Lh
Am a JI law whlch llmlLed urors Lo
whlLe male persons who are 21 years of age and clLlzens of Lhe sLaLe
O Challenged Lhe law for excludlng lacks from ury servlce
O lssue wheLher all persons of hls race or color may e excluded of hls race or color may e
excluded y law solely /c of Lhelr race or color
O 8econsLrucLlon AmendmenL purpose of securlng Lo a race recenLly emanclpaLed all Lhe clvll
rlghLs LhaL Lhe superlor race enoy
O 14
Lh
Am ConLalns a necessary lmpllcaLlon of a poslLlve lmmunlLy or rlghL mosL valuale Lo Lhe
colored race
4 @he rlghL of exempLlon from unnecessary leglslaLlon agalnsL Lhem dlsLlncLly as colored
4 LxempLlon from legal dlscrlmlnaLlons lmplylng lnferlorlLy ln clvll soc'y lessenlng Lhe
securlLy of Lhelr enoymenL of Lhe rlghLs whlch oLhers enoy
4 ulscrlmlnaLlons whlch are sLeps Loward reduclng Lhem Lo Lhe condlLlon of a suecL race
O JI ury sLaLuLe vlolaLes Lhe L Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
4 8y only allowlng whlLe urors Lhe sLaLuLe ls denylng lack ppl Lhe prlvllege of
parLlclpaLlng equally wlLh Lhe lack ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of usLlce
4 SLlmulanL Lo LhaL race preudlce whlch ls an lmpedlmenL Lo securlng Lo lndlvlduals of
LhaL race LhaL equal usLlce whlch Lhe law alms Lo secure
O lmlLed oldlng agrees LhaL sLaLes may conflne Lhe selecLlon of urors on Lhe ases of gender
land holdlng clLlzenshlp age and educaLlon
4 Alm of Lhe 14
Lh
Am was agalnsL dlscrlmlnaLlon on Lhe asls of race or color
O orematsu v Un|ted States (US 1944) gov't c|ass|f|cat|on on the bas|s of race or nat|ona| org|n are
sub[ect to SS
O resldenL lssued an Lxcluslon order for all people of apanese dlssenL
O SS |s warranted for |ega| restr|ct|ons wh|ch curta|| the c|v|| r|ghts of a rac|a| group
4 revalllng pullc necesslLy may usLlfy raclal resLrlcLlons uL raclal anLagonlsm ls never a
leglLlmaLe never mlnd compelllng usLlflcaLlon
4 Jas Lhe sLaLe's lnLeresL compelllng? ?LS
O @he need Lo prevenL esplonage and saoLage was a compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL
4 Jas Lhe sLaLuLe narrowly Lallored Lo meeL LhaL gov'L lnLeresL?
O @he CourL doesn'L slL Lo quesLlon Lhe gov'L wlLh regard Lo maLLers of war
O @here was a Jeflolte ooJ close telotloosblp /w excluslon and prevenLlon of
esplonage and saoLage
O 3k Amerlcan clLlzens of apanese dlssenL had refused Lo swear alleglance Lo
Amerlca and renounce Lhe apanese emperor
O Several Lhousand evacuees had requesL repaLrlaLlon Lo apan
O lrankfurLer concurrence Lhe valldlLy of acLlon under Lhe war power musL e udge wholly ln Lhe
conLexL of war
4 usL cause Lhe acLlon would e lawless ln a Llme of peace does noL mean lL would e
lawless ln a Llme of war
O Murphy ulssenL sLaLuLe falls SS
4 @hls was an acL of pure raclsm
4 @he LesL for mlllLary acLlon wheLher Lhe deprlvaLlon ls reasonaly relaLed Lo a pullc
danger LhaL ls so lmmedlaLe lmmlnenL and lmpendlng" as noL Lo admlL delay or permlL
lnLervenLlon of Lhe ordlnary consLlLuLlonal process
4 8oLh over (whaL aouL Lhe harmless ppl of apanese descenL) and underlncluslve (whaL
aouL ppl of Cerman and lLallan descenL Lhe oLher Axls owers)
4 lsLory has vlndlcaLed Lhe Murphy dlssenL ln oteots
O ackson dlssenL
4 @he mlllLary ls golng Lo do whaL lL has Lo uL Lhe SC need noL usLlfy lL now Lhe mlllLary
pracLlce ls elng glven Lhe supporL of udlclal precedenL and sLare declsls
O oteots ls Lhe ooly cose declded under Lhe 14
Lh
Am ln whlch Lhe CourL opplleJ t pbelJ o toclol
closslflcotloo LhaL faclally urdened mlnorlLles
8aclal ulscrlmlnaLlon ln urpose or LffecL
Jednesday SepLemer 28 2011
1101 AM
O |ck Jo v nopk|ns (US 1886) fac|a||y neutra| |aws w|th a d|scr|m|natory purpose and effect are
sub[ect to SS and presumpt|ve|y unconst|tut|ona|
O Sl ordlnance req'd persons operaLlng laundrles ln ulldlngs noL consLrucLed y elLher of rlck or
sLone Lo peLlLlons for permlL
4 ?lck Jo was denled a permlL and was flned and lmprlsoned for conLlnulng operaLlon
O ?lck Jo wrlL of haeas corpus argulng LhaL Lhe law was a vlolaLlon of Lhe L Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O Standard Statute was fac|a||y neutra| but had a rac|a||y d|scr|m|natory purpose and a rac|a||y
d|scr|m|natory effect Sub[ect to SS and presumpt|ve|y unconst|tut|ona|
O now to ptove Jlsctlloototy oppllcotloo? stotlstlcs
4 AppllcaLlon 320 laundrles ln Sl 310 made of wood 240 owned y persons of Chlnese
descenL 200 peLlLloned for permlL all of Lhem denled permlLs
4 nly 1 of Lhe 81 oLher peLlLlons was denled (and LhaL was a woman)
O So unequal agalnsL a parLlcular class of ppl as Lo pracLlcally deny Lhem L of Lhe law
O Gom||||on v L|ghtfoot (US 1960) |aws that are fac|a||y neutra| but have a rac|a||y d|scr|m|natory
purpose and effect are sub[ect to SS and presumpt|ve|y unconst|tut|ona|
O Challenged an A law LhaL redeflned Lhe oundarles of Lhe ClLy of @uskeegee would have
resulLed ln Lhe removal from Lhe clLy of all uL four or flve of lLs negro voLers
O CourL Lhe sLaLuLe was faclally neuLral uL had a raclally dlscrlmlnaLory purpose and effecL and
was Lherefore suecL SS
4 Motbeotlcol Jeoosttotloo LhaL Lhe leglslaLlon was solely concerned wlLh segregaLlng
whlLe and colored voLes y fenclng Lhe lack ppl ouL of Lown
O Jash|ngton v Dav|s (US 1976) App|y k8k to |aws that are fac|a||y neutra| do not have a
d|scr|m|natory purpose but have a d|scr|m|natory effect
O 3
Lh
Am challenge Lo a quallfylng LesL admlnlsLered Lo appllcanLs for poslLlons as ln Lhe uC
MeLropollLan ollce
4 @he LesL excluded a dlsproporLlonaLely hlgh numer of AfrlcanAmerlcan appllcanLs
O Standard App|y k8k to a |aw that |s fac|a||y neutra| does not have a d|scr|m|natory purpose
but have a d|scr|m|natory effect
4 ulsproporLlonaLe lmpacL ls a facLor alLhough noL dlsposlLlve of Lhe lnvldlous raclal
dlscrlmlnaLlon forldden y Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
4 SLandlng alone dlscrlmlnaLory lmpacL does noL Lrlgger SS
O JhaL ls Lhe sLaLe's leglLlmaLe lnLeresL? havlng a wellLralned pollce force
O ls Lhe pollcy reasonaly relaLed Lo LhaL compelllng lnLeresL? yes Lhe LesL seeks Lo ascerLaln
wheLher Lhose who Lake lL have acqulred parLlcular level of sklll
O pplyloq wolJ leoJ to lovollJotloq ooy lows tbot boppeo to bove o Jlsptopottlooote lpoct
oo ooe toce
4 @ax welfare pullc servlce regulaLory and llcenslng sLaLuLes mlghL happen Lo e more
urdensome on one race Lhan anoLher
O ulscrlmlnaLory purpose how does a courL go aouL ldenLlfylng a raclally dlscrlmlnaLory purpose?
O Dse sLaLlsLlcs prove LhaL an oLherwlse faclally neuLral acLlon has a dlscrlmlnaLory purpose /c
Lhere could e no explanaLlon for Lhe ouLcome excepL race
4 ?lck Jo no good reason for Lhe Sl oard Lo deny permlLs Lo all 300 Chlnese owners
and noL oLhers
4 Comllllon Lhe pollcy had Lhe effecL of excludlng almosL all 200 lack people from Lhe
Lown
O 8aclal dlscrlmlnaLlon need only e ooe of tbe otlvotloq ptposes ln enacLlng Lhe sLaLuLe
O eglslaLlve hlsLory ls unllkely Lo e helpful
4 8enlgn nondlscrlmlnaLory purposes can e arLlculaLed for almosL any law
4 @he leglslaLors who voLed for Lhe law may have had wldely varylng moLlves
4 eglslaLors moLlvaLed y dlscrlmlnaLory purpose are unllkely Lo have openly declared lL
O ulfflculL Lo prove LhaL a faclally neuLral law was adopLed for dlscrlmlnaLory reasons?
4 Illlage of ArllngLon elghLs v MeLropollLan ouslng (DS 1977)
O L Cl challenge Lhe declslon of a predomlnaLely whlLe Chlcago suur Lo deny a
nonproflL developer's requesL Lo ulld low and mlddle lncome houslng
O CourL dlfflculL Lo prove a L Cl challenge
4 lsn'L req'd Lo prove LhaL a challenged acLlon resLed solely on raclally
dlscrlmlnaLory purposes
4 8ace need only e a otlvotloq foctot
O lacLors Lo conslder
4 SLaLlsLlcs
4 ConLexL
O lsLorlcal ackground
O SusLanLlve deparLures
4 eglslaLlve or AdmlnlsLraLlve hlsLory dlfflculL Lo show
O If a d|scr|m|natory purpose |s show the burden sh|fts back to the gov't to
show that the same dec|s|on wou|d have made regard|ess rac|a| an|mus
4 almer v @hompson (DS 1971) noL a very good case Lo supporL Lhe 888 upheld MS
pollcy
O Challenge Lo a declslon y Lhe clLy of ackson MS Lo close all of lLs pullc
swlmmlng pools raLher Lhan choose Lo lnLegraLe Lhem
O App|y k8k to fac|a||y neutra| po||cy w|th d|scr|m|natory purpose but no
d|scr|m|natory effect
4 @he pollcy was clearly done wlLh Lhe dlscrlmlnaLory purpose of
excludlng lacks 8D@ lL applled Lo everyone so no dlscrlmlnaLory effecL
O luLlllLy ln a udlclal aLLempL Lo lnvalldaLe a law /c of ad moLlves y Lhe laws
supporLers could usL repass Lhe same law for oLher reasons
4 -o dlscrlmlnaLory effecL here L Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am L of Lhe law noL
Lhe leglslaLlve process
4 ulscrlmlnaLory effecL glves welghL Lo Lhe dlscrlmlnaLory purpose
argumenL
8aceSpeclflc uL laclally SymmeLrlcal aws
Monday cLoer 03 2011
1134 AM
O lessy v lerguson (DS 1896) courL upheld A law requlrlng separaLe uL equal" rallway cars
O CourL seemed Lo apply a verslon of 888
O L Cl only requlres Lhe equallLy of races efore Lhe law
4 @he sLaLuLe aL lssue urdens lacks as well as whlLes whlLes can'L slL ln Lhe colored car
usL as much coloreds can'L slL ln Lhe whlLe car
4 SeparaLe uL equal ls sLlll equal under Lhe law
O lorced commlngllng of Lhe races wlll noL rlng aouL raclal change lL musL come naLurally
O arlan ulssenL color llnd consLlLuLlon
4 lL ls unLenale Lo argue LhaL Lhe A law doesn'L dlscrlmlnaLe when Lhe lmpeLus ehlnd
Lhe law was dlscrlmlnaLory
4 ne day Lhe 9lessy declslon would e vlewed llke teJ cott
4 Ot coostlttloo ls colot lloJ ooJ oeltbet koows oot toletotes closses oooq cltlzeos oo
tbe osls of toce
4 -oL a pure color llnd arg dld say LhaL Lhe Chlnese are a race so dlfferenL from our
own LhaL we do noL permlL Lhem Lo ecome clLlzens of Lhe DSA
O 8rown v 8oard of Lducat|on of 1opeka (US 19S4) found that deny|ng b|ack students adm|ss|on at
wh|te pub||c schoo|s was a v|o|at|on of the L9 C| of the 14
th
Am
O @he courL reecLed any argumenL ln 9lessy LhaL ran counLer Lo Lhe polnL raclal segregaLlon has Lhe
effecL of generaLlng a feellng on lnferlorlLy whlch affecLs sLudenLs alllLy Lo learn
4 CourL reecLs cerLaln language ln 9lessy uL doesn'L overrule lL
4 lnsLead looks Lo Lhe lmpacL LhaL segregaLlon has on pullc educaLlon
O lLLle hlsLory ln Lhe 14
Lh
Am relaLlng Lo pullc educaLlon
4 AL Lhe Llme of lLs enacLmenL educaLlon was noL an opLlon for lacks and mosL
educaLlonal opporLunlLles for whlLes were conLrolled y prlvaLe schools
O llrsL case slnce JesL CoasL oLel LhaL suecLed a democraLlcally enacLed law Lo SS
4 ShlfL ln undersLandlng of Lhe courL's role new wllllngness Lo lnLervene
O App|y SS to |aws that are (1) fac|a||y race based (2) do not fac|a||y burden m|nor|t|es (3) do not
fac|a||y benef|t m|nor|t|es and (4) have a d|scr|m|natory purpose or effect
O lssue does segregaLlon of chlldren ln pullc schools solely on Lhe asls of race deprlve Lhe
chlldren of Lhe mlnorlLy group of equal educaLlonal opporLunlLles? ?LS
4 8aclally segregaLed educaLlonal faclllLles are lnherenLly unequal vlolaLe Lhe 14
Lh
Am
4 @he docLrlne of separaLe uL equal has no place ln Lhe fleld of educaLlon
4 LducaLlon musL e made avallale on equal Lerms
4 leellng of lnferlorlLy affecL mlnorlLles alllLy Lo learn
4 llndlngs supporLed y psychologlcal sLudles clLed ln fooLnoLe 11
O AfLer towo Lhe courL declded a numer of cases holdlng LhaL segregaLlon ln oLher pullc faclllLles was
unconsLlLuLlonal as well (le munlclpal parks uses and golf courses)
O 8rown rlglnallsL or -onorlglnallsL
O Some argue LhaL lLs holdlng cannoL e squared wlLh Lhe orlglnal meanlng of Lhe 14
Lh
Am as lL was
noL orlglnally undersLood Lo prohllL segregaLlon ln pullc schools
4 SegregaLlon ln pullc school was wldespread even ln Lhe -orLh prlor Lo Lhe raLlflcaLlon
of Lhe 14
Lh
Am
4 8epullcans ln congress reassured norLhern voLers LhaL Lhe 14
Lh
Am would have llLLle
lmpacL on Lhelr sLaLe's laws
O Some argue LhaL lLs holdlng ls supporLed y Lhe orlglnal meanlng
4 SLaLemenLs y memers of Congress durlng deaLes over proposals Lo aollsh
segregaLlon ln pullc schools
4 C8A of 1873 whlch dld prohllL some forms of pullc dlscrlmlnaLlon
4 8aLlflers mlsLakenly elleved LhaL segregaLlon was conslsLenL wlLh equallLy
O Lov|ng v VA (US 1967) rac|a| ||m|tat|ons on the r|ght to marry v|o|ate the L9 C|
O Challenge Lo a IA law annlng Lhe marrlage of a whlLe person Lo a colored person
O SLaLe clalms LhaL Lhelr leglLlmaLe lnLeresL was ln Lhe preservaLlon of raclal lnLegrlLy of lLs clLlzens
and Lo prevenL corrupLlon of Lhe lood for all races
4 SLaLes Lrue purpose was Lo preserve Lhe raclal lnLegrlLy of Lhe whlLe race
4 All oLher races allowed Lo lnLermarry as Lhey so chose
O App|y SS to statutes that are (1) fac|a||y race based (2) do not fac|a||y burden m|nor|t|es (3) do
not fac|a||y benef|t m|nor|t|es and (4) have a d|scr|m|natory purpose or effect
4 Lqual appllcaLlon of a faclally race ased sLaLuLes does noL free Lhem from appllcaLlon of
helghLened scruLlny
O L Cl assess wheLher Lhe classlflcaLlon drawn y Lhe sLaLuLe consLlLuLe arlLrary and lnvldlous
dlscrlmlnaLlon
4 @here ls paLenLly no leglLlmaLe overrldlng purpose lndependenL of lnvldlous raclal
dlscrlmlnaLlon whlch usLlfles Lhls classlflcaLlon
O @here can e no douL LhaL resLrlcLlng Lhe freedom Lo marry solely /c of race classlflcaLlons
vlolaLes Lhe cenLral meanlng of Lhe L Cl
O almore v SldoLl (DS 1984) a sLaLe courL vlolaLed Lhe L Cl when lL denled cusLody of a chlld Lo a whlLe
moLher /c she had marrled an Afrlcan Amerlcan man
O SLaLe noLed Lhe Lhe chlld would face sLlgmaLlzaLlon aL school /c she llved ln a mlxed household
O CourL whlle prlvaLe lases are ouLslde Lhe reach of Lhe law Lhe law cannoL dlrecLly or lndlrecLly
glve Lhem effecL
O ohnson v Ca||forn|a (US 200S) app||ed SS but d|d not dec|de whether the po||cy wou|d surv|ve |t
O Cal uepL of CorrecLlons followed a pollcy of asslgnlng new lnmaLes who had een Lransferred
from anoLher correcLlonal faclllLles Lo doule cells oseJ oo toce for 60 days
O App|y SS to |aws that are (1) fac|a||y race based (2) does not fac|a||y burden m|nor|t|es (3)
does not fac|a||y benef|t m|nor|t|es and (3) does not have a d|scr|m|natory purpose or effect
O urpose was Lo make evaluaLlons of gang vlolence
O SS need noL e sLrlcL ln Lheory and faLal ln facL
8ace8ased AfflrmaLlve AcLlon
Jednesday cLoer 03 2011
1131 AM
O kegents of the Un|vers|ty of Ca||forn|a v 8akke (US 1978) the un|vers|ty may const|tut|ona||y cons|der
race as one factor |n |ts adm|ss|ons process
O Medlcal school reserved 16 of lLs 100 sloLs for memers of cerLaln mlnorlLy groups
O 8akke whlLe male sued Lhe unlverslLy afLer he was reecLed Lwlce for admlsslon even Lhough
mlnorlLles wlLh lower scores had een admlLLed
O 8rennan lurallLy (4) apply lS for laws LhaL are (1) faclally race ased (2) do noL urden
mlnorlLles and (3) do eneflL mlnorlLles
O 9owe|| Concurrence app|y SS for |aws that are (1) fac|a||y race based (2) do no burden
m|nor|t|es and (3) do benef|t m|nor|t|es
4 Str|ct quota system does not surv|ve SS but a pub||c un|vers|ty may cons|der race as
one factor |n adm|ss|ons |n order to ach|eve a d|verse student body
4 rolem wlLh preference Lo a parLlcular race
O May noL e clear LhaL preference ls enlgn
O May only relnforce common sLereoLypes holdlng LhaL cerLaln groups are unale
Lo achleve success w/o speclal proLecLlon
O Measure of lnequlLy ln forclng lnnocenL persons ln respondenLs poslLlon Lo
ear Lhe urdens of redresslng grlevances noL of Lhelr maklng
4 ClasslflcaLlons LhaL Louch upon an lndlvldual's race or eLhnlc ackground are suecL Lo
SS and Lhe law musL e preclsely Lallored Lo serve a compelllng gov'L lnLeresL
O SLaLe's compelllng lnLeresL aLLalnlng a dlverse sLudenL ody and amelloraLlng
Lhe dlsallng effecLs of dlscrlmlnaLlon
O Jas Lhe approach narrowly Lallored? seL aslde program ls noL Lhe only
effecLlve means of servlng Lhe lnLeresL of dlverslLy ls flawed
O Jhere race or eLhnlc ackground ls ooly oo eleeot no faclal lnflrmlLy exlsLs
O SLevens ulssenL (4) seL aslde sysLem vlolaLed @lLle Il of Lhe C8A of 1964 whlch prohllLs
dlscrlmlnaLlon on Lhe asls of race y lnsLlLuLlons recelvlng federal funds
O Grutter v 8o|||nger (US 2003) found that the |aw schoo| po||cy wh|ch perm|tted tak|ng |n race |nto
account surv|ved SS
O Challenge Lo wheLher race can e a facLor ln sLudenL admlsslon aL a pullc law school
O eLlLloner whlLe woman applled Lo Dnlv of Mlchlgan aw School wlLh a 38 CA and a 161 SA@
score and was noL admlLLed Lo Lhe law school
O App|y SS to |aws that are (1) fac|a||y race based (2) do not fac|a||y burden m|nor|t|es and (3) do
fac|a||y benef|t m|nor|t|es
4 Compelllng gov'L lnLeresL ln achlevlng dlverslLy whlch can enrlch everyone's educaLlon
and Lhus make a law school class sLronger Lhan Lhe sum of lLs parLs
O aw school soughL Lo enroll a crlLlcal mass" of mlnorlLles noL Lrylng Lo
achleve a quoLa
O Classroom dlscusslon ls llveller more splrlLed and slmply more enllghLenlng
and lnLeresLlng when sLudenLs have dlverse ackgrounds
4 -arrowly Lallored /c admlLLance declslons were ased on hlghly lndlvlduallzed
deLermlnaLlons ln whlch race was only a facLor
O A|| narrow ta||or|ng requ|res |s good fa|th considerotion of race neutra|
a|ternat|ves
O ool of ottololoq o ctltlcol oss ls oot o poto
O Jhen uslng race as a plus facLor" Lhe unlverslLy musL remaln flexlle enough
Lo ensure LhaL each appllcanL ls evaluaLed as an lndlvldual
O 8ace musL noL e a deflnlng feaLure of Lhe appllcanL
O @homas ulssenL
4 Achlevlng a dlverse sLudenL ody lsn'L a maLLer of pullc necesslLy (ee oteots%
sufflclenL enough Lo permlL a race ased pollcy Lo survlve SS
4 8ousL ldeas assumes all mlnorlLles Lhlnk allke demeanlng
4 Jlll harm mlnorlLles /c Lhose LhaL are unprepared wlll suffer and Lhose LhaL could have
made lL on Lhelr own wlll always suffer Lhe sLlgma of AA
O Gratz v 8o|||nger (US 2003) undergraduate po||cy wh|ch took race |nto account |n adm|ss|ons d|dn't
surv|ve SS
O eLlLloners Lwo whlLe sLudenLs who were denled admlsslon Lo Lhe DnlverslLy of Mlchlgan
O Challenged Lhe unlverslLles admlsslon pollcy used selecLlon lndex" Lo award polnLs
4 Maxlmum score was 130 pLs all sLudenLs wlLh 100+ pLs were admlLLed
4 Afrlcan Amerlcan lspanlc and -aLlveAmerlcan appllcanLs were awarded 20 pLs
unlverslLy admlLLed almosL every appllcanL from Lhese groups
O App|y SS to |aws that are (1) fac|a||y race based (2) do not fac|a||y burden m|nor|t|es and (3) do
fac|a||y benef|t m|nor|t|es
4 DnlverslLy's pollcy was noL narrowly Lallored Lo achleve lLs compelllng lnLeresL ln
educaLlonal dlverslLy no lndlvlduallzed conslderaLlon
4 lacLor of race was declslve for every mlnlmally quallfled mlnorlLy
4 eads Lo dependency and a sense of enLlLlemenL

30 ?ears of uesegregaLlon
Monday cLoer 10 2011
1113 AM
Imp|ementat|on of 8rown
O towo ll (DS 1933) gave Lhe power Lo Lhe school auLhorlLles Lo lmplemenL LhaL towo rule suecL Lo
Lhe courLs flndlng LhaL Lhey were acLlng ln good falLh
O JanLed pollcles ln place Lo lnLegraLe Lhe wltb oll Jelletote speeJ
O C8A of 1964 wlLhheld federal funds from any school LhaL refused Lo lnLegraLe
O teeo v cooty cbool ootJ (DS 1968) freedom of cholce plans falled Lo comply wlLh towo ll
O JhlLe chlldren and lack chlldren dldn'L choose Lo aLLend Lhe oLher schools
O Some ellmlnaLed de ure segregaLlon uL schools remalned segregaLed /c dlsLrlcLs were drawn y place
of resldence and nelghorhoods remalned segregaLed (de facLo segregaLlon)
O Mllllkeo v toJley (DS 1977) ConsLlLuLlon ls noL vlolaLed y raclal lmalance ln Lhe schools
wlLhouL more
O wooo v cbotlotteMeckleotq ootJ of Jcotloo (DS 1971) unanlmously afflrmed a uC order
requlrlng a large unan school sysLem Lo redraw lLs dlsLrlcL llne and us sLudenLs
O Coal was Lo achleve unlLary" sLaLus formally desegregaLed schools
O CourL had Lhe auLhorlLy Lo use frank gerrymanderlng of school dlsLrlcLs and use uslng
O @oday de ure segregaLlon ls unconsLlLuLlonal uL de facLo segregaLlon ls consLlLuLlonal
kemedy|ng De Iacto D|scr|m|nat|on
O Porents lnvo/ved in community 5choo/s v 5eott/e 5choo/ uist No 1 {u5 2007) o// roce conscious
po/icies ore equo//y suspect ond rocio/ bo/oncinq po/icies ore never oppropriote
O nly a plurallLy for Lhe oplnlon LhaL all race consclous pollcles are equally suspecL
4 uld noL have enough voLes for Lhe Lheory LhaL once unlLary sLaLus has een achleved
Lhe gov'L can no longer lmpose race ased pollcles
4 ennedy concurrence elleves LhaL schools need noL accepL Lhe sLaLus quo of raclal
lsolaLlonlsm ln schools color llnd consLlLuLlon cannoL e a unlversal prlnclple
O romoLlng a dlverse sLudenL ody ls a compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL
O @he approach used y Lhe sLaLe may noL LreaL each sLudenL ln a dlfferenL
fashlon solely ased on Lhelr race Lhere are oLher meLhods
O @wo school dlsLrlcLs soughL Lo achleve dlverslLy ln Lhelr schools LhaL was roughly approxlmaLe Lo
Lhe dlverslLy demographlc ln Lhe school dlsLrlcL
4 Dsed race as a facLor ln asslgnlng klds schools
O uoes noL overrule wooo usL flnds LhaL once of goal of unlLary sLaLus has een achleved Lhe
need for race consclous pollcles ends
O Applled SS faclally race ased does noL faclally urden mlnorlLles does noL faclally eneflL
mlnorlLles does noL have a dlscrlmlnaLory purpose or effecL
4 lnterests offered by the stote 4k cOMPLLlN6 but not here
O Interest |n promot|ng d|vers|ty
Dnder CruLLer Lhe Lype of dlverslLy promoLed musL e road here
race was only one facLor and roken down lnLo lack/whlLe
ollcy was noL lndlvlduallzed race ls declslve
O kemedy|ng past d|scr|m|nat|on
oulsvllle schools were once segregaLed and a permlsslle response
was Lo have raceased lnLegraLlon pollcles
O 8D@ once Lhe goal of lnLegraLlon has een achleved (oltoty
stots) Lhere ls noLhlng lefL for Lhe courL Lo remedy
-oLhlng Lo show LhaL SeaLLle schools were segregaLed and Lhey were
never suecL Lo a courLordered lnLegraLlon
O -oLhlng for Lhe courL Lo remedy
4 8aclal classlflcaLlons employed are noL narrowly Lallored Lo achlevlng Lhe educaLlon and
soclal eneflLs LhaL flow from raclal dlverslLy
O @he plans are only dlrecLed aL raclal alance whlch Lhe courL has prevlously
condemned as llleglLlmaLe
O 8ace pollcy musL e Lled Lo some pedagoglc concepL of Lhe level of dlverslLy
needed Lo aLLaln Lhe asserLed educaLlon eneflL
O Cov'L shouldn'L e regulaLlng afLer unlLary sLaLus has een achleved
4 Jearlness of gov'L supervlslon of school oard pollcles
4 -o hard proof of Lhe eneflLs of dlverslLy Lo supporL race alanclng pollcles
4 Color llnd consLlLuLlon LreaL ppl as lndlvlduals and noL memers of a parLlcular race

Cender ulscrlmlnaLlon
@uesday cLoer 11 2011
1122 AM
O 8eed v 8eed (DS 1971) ushered ln a new era of L Cl challenges Lo sLaLe sponsored dlscrlmlnaLlon on
Lhe asls of gender
4 Challenge Lo a law LhaL req'd courLs Lo prefer males Lo females ln decldlng who Lo apL as
admlnlsLraLors of esLaLes of persons who had dled lnLesLaLe
4 CourL purporLed Lo apply 888 uL lnvalldaLed Lhe sLaLuLe as a vlolaLlon of Lhe L Cl
4 Concluded LhaL Lhls Lhe sLaLe's asserLed lnLeresL of reduclng Lhe workload on proaLe courLs y
ellmlnaLlng a class of conLesLs was lnsufflclenL Lo usLlfy dlscrlmlnaLlon
O lronLlero v 8lchardson (DS 1973) sLruck down a gender dlscrlmlnaLory sLaLuLe under Lhe L Cl
4 Challenge Lo a federal law permlLLlng men ln Lhe armed servlces Lo auLomaLlcally clalm Lhelr
wlves as dependenLs Lo recelve a greaLer allowance for houslng and medlcal eneflLs
O Jomen had Lo prove LhaL Lhelr husands were dependenL upon Lhem for more Lhan
half of Lhelr supporL
4 9|ura||ty dec|ared that c|ass|f|cat|ons based on sex are |nherent|y suspect and therefore must
be sub[ected to str|ct [ud|c|a| scrut|ny (on|y had 4 votes)
O ong and unforLunaLe hlsLory of sex dlscrlmlnaLlon
O eoJet llke toce ooJ ootloool otlqlo ls oo ltole cbotoctetlstlc JetetloeJ solely y
lttb
4 SLewarL concurrence soughL Lo apply Lhe sLandard ln keeJ
O Lqual 8lghLs AmendmenL equallLy of Lhe rlghLs under law shall noL e denled or arldged y Lhe DS or
y any sLaLe on accL of race
4 keeJ was declded efore Lhe SenaLe had a chance Lo veLo lL
4 tootleto was declded afLer Lhe SenaLe olned Lhe ouse ln passlng lL and 23 sLaLes had raLlfled lL
4 LvenLually Lhe amendmenL ran lnLo pollLlcal opposlLlon and had sLlll noL reached Lhe requlslLe 38
sLaLes needed ln 1976
O Cra|g v 8oren (US 1976) gov't c|ass|f|cat|ons based on gender are sub[ected to IS
4 verLurned law requlrlng males Lo e 21 Lo uy nonlnLoxlcaLlng eer whlle women only had
Lo e 18
4 App||ed IS gov't c|ass|f|cat|on based on gender must be substontio//y re/oted to an importont
gov't |nterest
4 8rennan had wanLed Lo apply SS ln tootleto uL only applled lS here
O @hls case lnvolved dlscrlmlnaLlon agalnsL men noL women
O Jllllng Lo compromlse Lo geL whaL he wanLed
4 AfLer keeJ declslons clLlng admln ease or employlng archalc generallzaLlons of women are noL
lmporLanL gov'L lnLeresLs sufflclenL Lo saLlsfy lS
4 MusL reallgn Lhelr laws ln genderneuLral fashlon or adopL procedures for ldenLlfylng Lhose
lnsLances where Lhe sexcenLered generallzaLlon acLually comporLs wlLh facL
4 eoJet oseJ tles ote oot sstootlolly teloteJ to tbe lpottoot qovt lotetest of ttofflc sofety
O Un|ted States v V|rg|n|a (US 1996) court app||es IS+ to |nva||date VMI's ma|e on|y adm|ss|ons po||cy
4 Challenge Lo IMl's male only admlsslons pollcy 7 Lo 1 oplnlon Lo lnvalldaLe Lhe pollcy
4 CourL purporLed Lo apply lS
O 1rue IS state must show that the cha||enged c|ass|f|cat|on serves an |mportant gov't
ob[ect|ve and that the d|scr|m|natory means emp|oyed are substant|a||y re|ated
O l5+ 1he proffered justificotion must be exceedinq/y persuosive qenuine ond not
hypothesited or invented posthoc
4 ulssenL lmplles LhaL Lhls was lS+
4 IMl's purporLed lnLeresL ln havlng a male only campus are noL sufflclenLly lmporLanL
O Arg Slngle sex educaLlon provldes lmporLanL educaLlonal eneflLs
IMl noL esLallshed wltb tbe ptpose of provldlng eLLer educaLlon
usLlflcaLlon musL sLaLe a purpose noL a raLlonallzaLlon
O Arg ConLrluLes Lo Lhe dlverslLy of educaLlonal opporLunlLles
-o slngle sex educaLlonal opporLunlLles are avallale for women
O Arg IMl would have Lo glve up Lhe adversaLlve meLhod
MalnLenance of Lhe adversaLlve meLhod and admlsslon of women are noL
muLually excluslve
Assumes LhaL women are lncapale of survlvlng Lhe adversaLlve meLhod sLaLe
may noL rely on flxed noLlons of Lhe alllLles of men and women
-oL a mandaLe LhaL women parLlclpaLe usL an opLlon
4 roposed soluLlon of IJl ls lnsufflclenL
O SeparaLe uL oot epol lnsLlLuLlon pale shadow of IMl
O IJl's educaLlonal approach relles on Lhe same sLereoLype women can'L handle Lhe
adversaLlve meLhod
4 8ehnqulsL concurrence
O @he vlolaLlon ls havlng an allmale school wlLhouL havlng an allfemale school
O IA should demonsLraLe equal lnLeresL ln educaLlng women IJl ls lnferlor Lo IMl
4 ulssenL
O CourL dldn'L really apply lS exceedlngly persuaslve usLlflcaLlon
O @rue lS doesn'L requlre a leasL resLrlcLlve means analysls only a susLanLlal relaLlon
O Jomen aren'L a dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy warranLlng helghLened proLecLlon
O Mlchael M v Superlor CourL of Sonoma CounLy (DS 1981) courL upheld a CA rape law
4 lurallLy oplnlon CourL upheld CA sLaLuLory rape law whlch made lL unlawful for a male noL hls
wlfe Lo have sex wlLh a female under Lhe age of 18
4 lssue Lhe sLaLuLe made only males suecL Lo prosecuLlon ln slLuaLlons where Lwo slmllarly
slLuaLed ppl were lnvolved (le male and female oLh under Lhe age of 18)
4 SLaLe's purporLed lnLeresL of prevenLlng Leen pregnancy was sufflclenLly lmporLanL
O CourL can only reecL Lhe sLaLe's purporLed lnLeresL of Lhe sLaLe lf lL could noL have een
Lhe Lrue goal of Lhe leglslaLlon
O revenLlng llleglLlmaLe pregnancy ls aL leasL one purpose of Lhe sLaLuLe and Lhe sLaLe
has an lmporLanL lnLeresL ln prevenLlng lL
4 8oys and glrls are noL slmllarly slLuaLed /c women could geL pregnanL and males cannoL
women have Lo acLually ear Lhe urden
O uoesn'L accepL Lhe arg LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe ls underlncluslve lL need noL e a preclse as
posslle
O -guyen v l-S (DS 2001) upheld a sLaLuLe maklng lL more dlfflculL for a chlld orn aroad ouL of wedlock
Lo one DS parenL Lo clalm clLlzenshlp lf Lhe parenL was Lhe faLher
4 ulsLlncLlon ls noL marked y mlsconcepLlon or preudlce
4 usLlflcaLlon LhaL Lhe moLher who ls presenL aL chlldlrLh would e more llkely Lo develop a
relaLlonshlp wlLh Lhe chlld and Lhus clLlzenshlp should e easler Lo demonsLraLe
O Personne/ 4dministrotor of M4 v leeny {u5 1979) focio//y qender neutro/ /ows thot hove o
discriminotory effect ore not unconstitutiono/ obsent o discriminotory purpose
4 Challenge Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of a MA veLeran's preference sLaLuLe on Lhe ground LhaL lL
dlscrlmlnaLes agalnsL women
O @he o preference sLaLuLe operaLes overwhelmlngly ln favor of males
O eLlLloner recelved hlgh exam scores yeL dldn'L recelve Lhe poslLlon as less quallfled
males dld
4 M4 stotute is defined on qender neutro/ terms ond per uovis ond 4r/inqton neiqhts neutro/
/ows with o discriminotory effect ore not unconstitutiono/ without o discriminotory purpose
O @oo many nonveLeran males are affecLed y Lhe sLaLuLe as well Lo vlew lL as preLexL for
preferrlng men over women
O -oLhlng Lo lndlcaLe LhaL Lhls was enacLed wlLh a dlscrlmlnaLory purpose
O 8osLker v Colderg (DS 1981) MlllLary Servlce AcL dld noL vlolaLe Lhe L componenL of Lhe u Cl of Lhe
3
Lh
Am
4 MlllLary SelecLlve Servlce acL auLhorlzed Lhe presldenL Lo requlre Lhe reglsLraLlon of males uL
noL females
4 ueference Lo congresslonal udgmenLs ln maLLers of naL'l defense and mlllLary affalrs and gov'L
lmporLanL lnLeresL ln ralslng and supporLlng armles
O ow do you declde whaL level of scruLlny Lo apply Lo a classlflcaLlon Lhe courL doesnL LreaL all forms of
dlscrlmlnaLlon Lhe same
SS lS 888 everyLhlng else
O 8ace
O -aLlonal rlgln
O Allenage clLlzenshlp sLaLus
O Cender
O eglLlmacy parenLs
marrlage when you were
orn
O JealLh
O SporLs preference
O alr sLaLus
O Jhen do Lhey apply helghLened scruLlny?
O Jhen lL lnvolves a dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy
4 lLeral meanlng ulscreLe (easlly ldenLlflale) lnsular (seL aparL)
4 SusLanLlve do Lhey have access Lo Lhe pollLlcal process
O Jhen lL lnvolves ppl who don'L have access Lo Lhe pollLlcal process
O Jhen Lhe characLerlsLlc lnvolved ls lmmuLale
O Jhen Lhe group has een suecL Lo a hlsLory of dlscrlmlnaLlon
Age ulscrlmlnaLlon
@hursday cLoer 13 2011
1149 AM
AGL
O MassachuseLLs 8d f 8eLlremenL v Murgla (DS 1976) suecLed a sLaLuLe LhaL classlfled on Lhe asls of
age Lo 888
O Challenge Lo Lhe mandaLory reLlremenL pollcy for once Lhey reach Lhe age of 30
4 Murgla arg Lhe pollcy was overlncluslve /c lL sweeps ln many more 30+ people Lhan
necessary /c lL geLs offlcers LhaL are physlcally flL as well
O -oL a case for SS classlflcaLlon does noL lnLerfere wlLh a fundamenLal rlghL or operaLe Lo Lhe
pecullar dlsadvanLage of a suspecL class
4 SuspecL class saddled wlLh such dlsalllLles or suecLed Lo such a hlsLory of
purposeful unequal LreaLmenL or relegaLed Lo such a poslLlon of pollLlcal powerlessness
as Lo command exLraordlnary proLecLlon from Lhe maorlLarlan process" San AnLonlo
School ulsL v 8odrlguez (DS 1973)
O CourL suecLs Lhe sLaLuLe Lo 888
4 SLaLe has a leglL lnLeresL ln havlng a physlcally flL pollcy force
4 SeLLlng 30 as a enchmark dlsquallfles a proporLlonaLe amounL of ppl
4 SLaLe need noL adopL Lhe mosL preclse LesL (le lndlvlduallzed deLermlnaLlons)
DISA8ILI1
O C|eburne v C|eburne L|v|ng Center app||ed k8k+ to str|ke down a 1k |aw requ|r|ng a spec|a| use
perm|t for the operat|on of a group home for the menta||y retarded
O Court c|a|med to app|y k8k |n str|k|ng down the |aw
4 Seemed more ||ke k8k+ court found that the regu|at|on was under|nc|us|ve b]c
perm|t requ|rements shou|d be |n p|ace for other bu||d|ngs as we||
4 ess wllllng Lo flll ln Lhe lanks and provlde poLenLlal usLlflcaLlons for Lhe sLaLe
O @esL for when Lo apply helghLened scruLlny
4 MenLal lnflrmlLy Lends Lo e lmmuLale
4 Are Lhey a dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy?
O lLeral maye
O SusLanLlve proaly
4 lsLory of dlscrlmlnaLlon yes for many years we dldn'L undersLand menLal lllness
O SLaLe's purporLed lnLeresLs were noL leglLlmaLe
4 Arg fear of negaLlve aLLlLudes of Lhe surroundlng properLy owners
O DnsusLanLlaLed clalms of negaLlve aLLlLudes and fear are noL enough
4 Arg lear of harassmenL from sLudenLs
O SLudenLs wenL Lo school wlLh menLally reLarded chlldren
4 Arg flood plaln
O Jhy don'L any of Lhe oLher sLrucLures requlre a permlL
4 Arg legal responsllllLy
O ulfflculL Lo elleve LhaL Lhey would cause much damage
O Jhy dld Lhe courL apply 888
4 @here are some real dlfferences LhaL usLlfy dlfferenL LreaLmenL sLaLe has a leglLlmaLe
lnLeresL ln deallng wlLh and provldlng for Lhose dlfferences
4 elghLened scruLlny lnvolves Loo much udlclal lnLervenLlon
O Lqua| 9rotect|on kev|ew k8k (ka||way Lxpress) k8k+ (C|eburne) IS (M|chae| M) IS+ (VMI) SS
(Grutter) SS(9arents Invo|ved)
ulscrlmlnaLlon on Lhe 8asls of Sexual rlenLaLlon
Monday cLoer 17 2011
1144 AM
O komer v Lvans (US 1996) court d|dn't app|y trad|t|ona| k8k but never he|d that d|scr|m|nat|on on the
bas|s of sexua| or|entat|on was suspect
O lound unconsLlLuLlonal Am 2 whlch repealed all ordlnances ln C LhaL anned dlscrlmlnaLlon on
Lhe asls of sexual orlenLaLlon and prohllLed Lhe enacLmenL of slmllar sLaLuLes
O SLaLes arg Am 2 usL denles homosexuals speclol tlqbts noL afforded Lo oLhers
4 Am 2 acLually repealed all laws provldlng proLecLlon for homosexuals and prohllLed Lhe
enacLmenL on any furLher laws
4 roLecLlon agalnsL arlLrary dlscrlmlnaLlon ls noL a speclal rlghL
O AfLer Am 2 homosexuals would have had Lo pass an amendmenL Lo Lhe sLaLe consLlLuLlon Lo geL
any proLecLlon from dlscrlmlnaLlon could noL resorL Lo munlclpal ordlnances
4 oses a speclal dlsalllLy on homosexuals
O Am 2 caLegorlcally denles an enLlre class of people Lhe alllLy Lo resorL Lo Lhe legal process for
redress of grlevances
4 aws LhaL make lL more dlfflculL for one group Lo seek gov'L ald are lnherenLly vlolaLe L
O CourL applles someLhlng more aLLune Lo 888+ ln Cleurne
4 SLaLe's arg clLlzens freedom of assoclaLlon
O -o leglL sLaLe lnLeresL ln lndulglng peoples preudlces
4 SLaLe's arg conservaLlon of resources Lo flghL oLher forms of dlscrlmlnaLlon
O Am ls overly road for Lhls usLlflcaLlon
O aws of Lhls klnd ralse Lhe lnevlLale lnference LhaL Lhe dlsadvanLage lmposed ls orn of
anlmoslLy Loward Lhe class of persons affecLed
O Scalla dlssenL Lhls ls a culLure war LhaL Lhe courL shouldn'L e lnvolved ln
4 SLaLe has a leglL lnLeresL ln preservlng sexual norms
O Should pollcles ased on sexual orlenLaLlon e suecLed Lo helghLened scruLlny sLrong case
O Are Lhey dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy
4 lLeral noL really dlscreLe and lnsular
4 SusLanLlve some pollLlcal power
O @here ls a hlsLory of preudlce
O lmmuLale Lhlngs LhaL we can'L conLrol and Lhlngs LhaL are so cenLral Lo our ldenLlLy LhaL Lhe
gov'L should e permlLLed Lo Lell us Lo change
IV IkLLDCM CI S9LLCn
A 1ypes of kestr|ct|ons
ConLenL8ased 8esLrlcLlons
Jednesday cLoer 19 2011
1130 AM
8ackground
O 1
sL
Am Congress shall make no law arldglng tbe fteeJo of speecb
O Appllcale Lo Lhe sLaLes Lhrough Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am Crosaen v Amerlcan ress (DS 1936)
O lreedom of speech ls noL asoluLe some regulaLlon ls permlsslle
O 1
sL
Am ls prlnclpally concerned wlLh expresslon and Lhe alllLy Lo convey a message
O @heorles of Lhe 1
sL
Am
O Cov'L accounLalllLy ueslgned Lo ensure LhaL Lhe gov'L sLays accounLale Lo Lhe clLlzens
O MarkeL place of ldeas Alds ln Lhe quesL for Lhe LruLh y creaLlng a rousL markeLplace of ldeas
4 @he esL LesL of LruLh ls Lhe power of Lhe LhoughL Lo geL lLself accepLed ln Lhe
compeLlLlon of Lhe markeL tos v uolteJ totes (DS 1919)
O CourL declded LhaL law Lhe law was noL narrowly Lallored Lo achleve Lhe gov'L goal of proLecLlng
Lhe dlgnlLy of forelgn dlplomaLs
O @wo prlnclples concerns
O Iarlous Lypes of regulaLlons LhaL Lhe gov'L wanLs Lo lmpose on speech
O Iarlous klnds of speech LhaL Lhe gov'L wanLs Lo regulaLe
Content 8ased kestr|ct|ons sub[ect to SS
O ConLenL ased resLrlcLlon ls a resLrlcLlon on speech ased upon Lhe conLenL of whaL ls elng sald
O oos v otty (DS 1988)
O 1
sL
Am challenge Lo a uC pollcy maklng lL unlawful Lo dlsplay a slgn wlLhln 300 fL of Lhe emassy lf
lL was deslgned Lo rlng lnLo pullc odlum any forelgn gov'L
O CourL concluded LhaL lL was a unconsLlLuLlonal conLenL ased resLrlcLlon
4 ConLenL ased /c lL prohllLed only placards LhaL conLalned message crlLlcal of forgelgn
gov'Ls
O Content based restr|ct|ons are sub[ected to SS the regu|at|on must be necessary to serve a compe|||ng
gov't |nterest and narrow|y ta||ored to ach|eve that |nterest
O -eed noL favor one parLlcular vlewpolnL over anoLher a law LhaL prohllLs sLaLemenLs ln favor or agalnsL
elLher vlewpolnL ls sLlll a conLenL ased resLrlcLlon
O 8epullcan arLy of MlnnesoLa v JhlLe (DS 2002) applled SS Lo lnvalldaLe a sLaLe rule prohllLlng
candldaLes for udlclal offlce from expresslng Lhelr vlews on pollLlcal and legal lssues
O 1
sL
Am challenge Lo a rule prohllLlng candldaLes for udlclal elecLlons from announclng Lhelr
vlews on dlspuLed pollLlcal and legal lssues
4 Cenerally appllcale Lo oll dlscusslons on dlspuLed legal and pollLlcal lssues dldn'L
slngle ouL one parLlcular vlew
O @he was a conLenL ased resLrlcLlon whlch req'd SS
4 Could only flgure ouL wheLher Lhe parLlcular sLaLemenL was ln vlolaLlon y looklng Lo Lhe
acLual conLenL of Lhe sLaLemenL
4 Also urdened a parLlcular caLegory of speech LhaL ls aL Lhe core of 1
sL
Am freedoms
O urporLed compelllng gov'L lnLeresLs
4 reservlng lmparLlallLy of Lhe sLaLe udlclary
4 reservlng appearance of Lhe lmparLlallLy of Lhe sLaLe udlclary
O Iarlous deflnlLlons of lmparLlallLy
4 ack of las for or agalnsL elLher parLy ls essenLlal Lo u noL narrowly Lallored Lo
advance Lhls lnLeresL
O nly resLrlcLs speech ased on lssue noL for or agalnsL any parLy
4 ack of preconcepLlon ln favor of or agalnsL a parLlcular legal vlew noL a compelllng
sLaLe lnLeresL
O IlrLually lmposslle Lo flnd a udge who does noL have preconcepLlons aouL
LhaL law
4 pen mlndedness very underlncluslve
O A candldaLe can say whaLever he wanLs up unLll Lhe day he announces hls
candldacy
O Narrow|y ta||ored the |aw must not unnecessar||y c|rcumscr|be protected express|on
O aws can also e anned for elng lmpermlsslly vague
O IlewpolnL dlscrlmlnaLlon ls a parLlcularly prolemaLlc Lype of conLenL ased resLrlcLlon

@lme lace and Manner 8esLrlcLlons

@hursday cLoer 20 2011
1130 AM
O CourL applles a verslon of lS Lo @M resLrlcLlons
O Gov't may |mpose reasonab|e restr|ct|ons on the t|me p|ace or manner of speech |f they are
O Content neutra|
O Norrow/y toi/ored to serve a siqnificont gov't |nterest and
O Leave open omp/e o/ternotive chonne/s for commun|cat|on of the |nformat|on
O ovacs v Cooper (DS 1949)
O Challenge Lo a clLy pollcy LhaL generally arred soundampllflcaLlon devlces from lLs sLreeLs
O SC held LhaL Lhe clLy could apply Lhls ordlnance Lo prohllL a Lruck from playlng muslc and
announcemenLs from lLs loudspeakers on clLy round
O @he regulaLlon was @M regulaLlon ConLenL neuLral and served a gov'L lnLeresL ln promoLlng
and conLrolllng nolse polluLlon
4 uangerous Lo Lrafflc aL all hrs use for dlssemlnaLlon of lnfo
4 ;uleL and LranqulllLy would e aL Lhe mercy of Lhose ampllflers
O Jard v kock Aga|nst kac|sm (US 1989) N regu|at|on requ|r|ng groups to use the state's sound amps
and sound tech was a perm|ss|b|e 19M restr|ct|on
O 19M restr|ct|ons are sub[ected to a more search|ng scrut|ny than k8k |ess search|ng than SS
4 ust|f|ed w]o reference to the content of the regu|ated speech
4 Norrow/y toi/ored |f the |nterest wou|d be served |ess effect|ve|y w]o the regu|at|on
then |t |s perm|ss|b|e
4 Serv|ng a siqnificont gov't |nterest
4 Must |eave open omp/e o/ternotive chonne/s for commun|cat|on
O Apply Lo varlous meLhods of speech and all Lypes of speech
4 @hese regs warranL someLhlng more Lhan 888 /c Lhey do have a susLanLlal lncldenLal
effecL on expresslon
4 Mslc ls o fot of exptessloo ptotecteJ y tbe 1
st

O stlfleJ w/o tefeteoce to tbe cooteot of tbe teqloteJ speecb
4 ClLy dlsclalmed any lnLeresL ln lmposlng lLs vlew on Lhe performers
4 ClLy ls only lnLeresLed ln encouraglng adequaLe sound ampllflcaLlon
4 8egs LhaL serve a purpose unrelaLed Lo conLenL are neuLral even lf Lhey have an
lncldenLal effecL on conLenL
O Nottowly tolloteJ
4 @he lnLeresL would e served less effecLlvely y alLernaLlve means
O lqolflcoot qovt lotetest
4 reservlng Lhe LranqulllLy of Lhe surroundlng park area and Lhe homes ln Lhe area whlle
malnLalnlng proper sound ampllflcaLlon for Lhe andshell
O ple ltetootlves dldn'L shuL of any oLher opLlons
O @he clLy could knock down Lhe concerL hall ln wotJ uL /c Lhey have LhaL greaLer power does noL also
mean LhaL Lhey have Lhe lesser lncluded power of regulaLlng whlch performances are allowed
O esser lncluded power arg falls

Cenerally Appllcale 8egulaLlons @haL lncldenLally AffecL
Lxpresslon
Monday cLoer 24 2011
1130 AM
O Some gov'L regulaLlons LhaL are noL dlrecLed aL expresslve acLlvlLles neverLheless effecL Lhose acLlvlLles
O 1he C'8r|en 1est 1he court w||| upho|d a gov't regu|at|on that |nc|denta||y affects speech |f |t
O Iurthers an importont or substontio/ gov't |nterest
O If the gov't |nterest |s unre/oted to the suppress|on of free express|on and
O If the |nc|denta| restr|ct|on |s no qreoter thon essentio/ to the furtherance of that |nterest
O Dnder Lhe '8rlen @esL Lhe courL has never lnvalldaLed a genulnely conLenL neuLral regulaLlon LhaL has an
lncldenLal effecL on 1
sL
Am free speech
O lf Lhe gov'L can argue LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe ls conLenL neuLral Lhey wlll proaly wln
O Un|ted States v C'8r|en (US 1968) estab||shes the C'8r|en test for genera| restr|ct|ons that have an
|nc|denta| effect on 1
st
Am free speech
O SLaLuLe aL lssue crlmlnallzed Lhe desLrucLlon of a drafL card
4 unlshed Lhe conducL of urnlng noL Lhe facL LhaL u was dolng lL Lo send a message
O u argued LhaL Lhe regulaLlon was unconsLlLuLlonal /c Lhe acL of urnlng a drafL card was
symollc speech proLecLed y Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 uld lL as a demonsLraLlon agalnsL Lhe war and agalnsL Lhe drafL
O Ireedom of express|on a|| modes of commun|cat|on of |deas by conduct
4 lmlLaLlons noL all modes of conducL can e laeled speech" whenever Lhe person
engaglng ln lL lnLends Lo express an ldea
O n lLs face Lhe sLaLuLe ls conLenL neuLral doesn'L expressly dlsLlngulsh aouL desLroyers
4 usLlfled as an lnLeresL unrelaLed Lo free expresslon
O Look at the gov't purpose |n enact|ng the |eg|s|at|on
4 roaly only prosecuLed Lhose who desLroyed Lhelr drafL cards ln proLesL
4 SuggesLs LhaL Lhe an was applled ln a way LhaL was conLenL ased
O 1he C'8r|en 1est for genera| regs w|th an |nc|denta| restr|ct|on on speech]express|on
4 Is the reg w|th|n the const|tut|ona| power of the gov't
4 Does |t further an importont or substontio/ gov't |nterest
4 Is the gov't |nterest unre/oted to the suppress|on of free express|on
4 Is the |nc|denta| restr|ct|on on a||eged 1
st
Am freedoms no qreoter thon is essentio/ to
the furtherance on the |nterest
O CourL upheld Lhe regulaLlon aL lssue here
O SLaLe's lmporLanL lnLeresLs
4 roof LhaL u reglsLered
4 laclllLaLes communlcaLlon /w reglsLranLs and local oards
4 8emlnders regardlng noLlfylng Lhe oard of address and sLaLus changes
4 rohllLlons agalnsL alLeraLlon forgery or slmllar mlsuse
O @he sLaLuLe ls llmlLed Lo Lhe noncommunlcaLlve aspecL of u's speech
O @he CourL wlll noL sLrlke down an oLherwlse consLlLuLlonal sLaLuLe ased on an alleged leg moLlve
O 8ornes v 6/en 1heotre {u5 1991) exomp/e of o cose invo/vinq o qenero//y opp/icob/e requ/otion thot
hoppens to incidento//y burden speech {O8rien 5crutiny)
O Challenge Lo an l- sLaLuLe LhaL made lL unlawful for any person knowlngly and lnLenLlonally
appear nude ln a pullc place wlLh Lhe lnLenL Lo arouse sexual deslres
4 Challenged LhaL sLaLuLe as an unconsLlLuLlonal suppresslon of freedom of expresslon
O CourL l-'s sLaLuLory req LhaL Lhe dancers wear gsLrlngs and pasLles does noL vlolaLe Lhe 1
sL
Am
O Several cases lndlcaLe LhaL nude danclng ls a form of expresslve conducL proLecLed y Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 kehnqu|st (+2) 9|ura||ty express|ve conduct w|th|n the parameters of the 1
st
Am
O c/eor/y within the stotes constitutiono/ power to enoct this /eqis/otion
O 5totes interest is unre/oted to the suppression of free expression
-oL proscrllng nudlLy /c of lLs eroLlc message
urpose of proLecLlng socleLal order and morallLy
ercelved evll ls pullc nudlLy noL eroLlc danclng
O Norrow/y toi/ored ond the bore minimum necessory to ochieve the stotes
purpose
4 SouLer Concurrence suecLed Lo a degree of 1
sL
Am proLecLlon
4 Scalla Concurrence general laws regulaLlng conducL and noL speclflcally dlrecLed aL
expresslon are noL suecL Lo 1
sL
Am scruLlny
O lnLenL Lo convey a message of eroLlclsm ls noL a necessary elemenL of Lhe
sLaLuLory offense of pullc lndecency
O CourL ls golng Lhrough Lhe charade of applylng '8rlen scruLlny uL noL acLually
lnvalldaLlng any laws
O SLaLes have a leglL lnLeresL ln prevenLlng lmmoral conducL
O l- anned all pullc nudlLy uL dld speclflcally dlrecL aL LhaL whlch was lnLended Lo arouse
rlor 8esLralnLs
@uesday cLoer 23 2011
1133 AM
O Prior restroint on executive or judicio/ order preventinq pub/icotion of moterio/ prior to the moterio/s
octuo/ pub/icotion {by definition o content bosed restriction)
O CourL provldes lncreased proLecLlon agalnsL prlor resLalnLs on speech
4 -ear v MlnnesoLa ex re lson (DS 1931) courL prohllLed a sLaLe from enolnlng a pullsher
from pullshlng a mallclous scandalous and defamaLory newspaper"
ulfflculL Lo know ln advance whaL an lndlvldual wlll say and Lhe llne /w leglLlmaLe and
llleglLlmaLe speech ls so flnely drawn LhaL Lhe rlsk of censorshlp ls formldale
4 Prior restroints ore different from crimino/itotion of o porticu/or speech b/c prior restroints
essentio//y toke owoy the option of pub/icotion
9loceJ lo cootept lf yo pllsb lt lo vlolotloo of tbe ptlot testtolot oot o Jefeose to
cootept tbot tbe otJet wos ocoostlttloool
O lL ls a defense Lo Lhe prlor resLralnL lLself Lo say LhaL lL was unconsLlLuLlonal
9tosecteJ fot vlolotloq o low Jefeose to lt ls tbot tbe low wos ocoostlttloool
4 A person can mounL a 1
sL
Am challenge Lo a crlmlnal sLaLuLe proscrllng cerLaln speech uL lf
Lhey challenge a prlor resLralnL on Lhe same grounds Lhey can sLlll e held ln crlmlnal conLempL
Jalker v ClLy of 8lrmlngham Lhe approprlaLe way Lo challenge a prlor resLralnL ls Lo
do so prlor Lo lLs vlolaLlon
O M vlolaLed a udlclal order prohllLlng demonsLraLlon courL held hlm ln
crlmlnal conLempL
O M challenged Lhe order on 1
sL
Am grounds
O CourL found LhaL even lf lL was unconsLlLuLlonal Lhe courL could sLlll hold hlm ln
conLempL for vlolaLlng Lhe order
O -ew ?ork @lmes Co v DnlLed SLaLes (DS 1971)
4 DS soughL Lo enoln Lhe J and -?@ from pullshlng Lhe enLagon apers
4 SLandard prlor resLralnLs of expresslon ear a heavy presumpLlon agalnsL consLlLuLlonallLy
4 er Curlam CourL found LhaL Lhe gov'L dld noL meeL lLs urden of usLlfylng Lhe prlor resLralnL
4 8rennan Concurrence
rlor udlclal resLralnLs may noL e predlcaLed on ellefs or conecLure regardlng Lhe
consequences of Lhe speech
@he harm resulLlng from Lhe speech musL e lnevlLale dlrecL and lmmedlaLe
@here are narrow slLuaLlons where prlor udlclal resLralnLs are permlLLed war Llme
O Schenk v DnlLed SLaLes (DS 1919) when our naLlon ls aL war prlor udlclal
resLrlanLs may e lmplemenLed
4 8lack and uouglas Concurrence
uomlnanL purpose of Lhe 1
sL
Am was Lo prohllL Lhe wldespread pracLlce of gov'L
suppresslon of emarrasslng lnfo
roposes a caLegorlcal rule agalnsL prlor resLralnLs 1
sL
Am provldes asoluLe
proLecLlon (could have damaglng consequences)
4 JhlLe Concurrence
uoes noL supporL a per se rule annlng prlor resLralnLs
rlor resLralnLs are permlsslle lf dlsclosure of Lhe lnformaLlon wlll do susLanLlal
damage Lo pullc lnLeresLs noL Lhe case here
@he power of Lhe exec and Lhe courLs does noL sweep Lhls roadly
4 Marshall Concurrence
rlor udlclal resLralnLs are lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe concepL of separaLlon of powers
O -eraska ress AssoclaLlon v SLuarL (DS 1976) prlor resLralnLs ln Lhe conLexL of a crlmlnal Lrlal may also
e found unconsLlLuLlonal
4 MusL e a convlnclng showlng LhaL Lhe exLenslve pullclLy would acLually lmpalr u's alllLy Lo geL
a falr Lrlal ooJ LhaL less lnLruslve means are lnsufflclenL
Iolr ulre Lhe ury sequesLer Lhe ury eLc
4 lf Lhe medla ouLslde of Lhe urlsdlcLlon are usL as llkely Lo reporL on Lhe case Lhen Lhe resLralnL ls
unusLlflale
8 1ypes of Speech
lnclLemenL
@hursday cLoer 27 2011
1119 AM
O Some caLegorles of speech are eyond Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Am we rouLlnely permlL prosecuLlon and
convlcLlon for many forms of speech
O le perury rlery lackmall eLc
O Chap||nsky v State of New nampsh|re (US 1947) def|n|ng categor|es of unprotected speech
O 8lghL of free speech ls noL asoluLe aL all Llmes and under all clrcumsLances
O @here are cerLaln welldeflned and narrowly llmlLed classes or speech Lhe prevenLlon and
punlshmenL of whlch has never een LhoughL Lo e a consLlLuLlonal prolem
O 1he |ewd and obscene the profane the ||be|ous and the |nsu|t|ng or "f|ght|ng" words
4 llghLlng words Lhose words LhaL y Lhelr very uLLerance lnfllcL lnury or Lend Lo lnclLe
an lmmedlaLe reach of peace
O No essent|a| part of any expos|t|on of |deas and are of such s||ght soc|a| va|ues as a step to
truth that any benef|t that may be der|ved from them |s c|ear|y outwe|ghed by the soc|a|
|nterest |n order and mora||ty
O lnclLemenL advocaLlng Lhe commlsslon of crlmes
O 8randenburg v Ch|o (US 1969) prov|des the test for when a state may proscr|be |nc|tement struck
down the statute b]c |t pun|shed for mere advocacy of a part|cu|ar |dea
O 1
sL
Am challenge Lo a sLaLuLe LhaL made lL unlawful Lo advocaLe for crlme saoLage or vlolence
O CourL found Lhe sLaLuLe unlawful /c lL almed aL punlshlng advocacy
O 8randenburg 1est A state may not forb|d or proscr|be mere advocacy of the use of force
un|ess
4 Such advocacy |s d|rected to |nc|t|ng or produc|ng |mm|nent |aw|ess act|on and
4 1hat advocacy |s ||ke to |nc|te or produce such act|on
O 9teseots o sstootlol ptotectloo fot speecb
4 D|rected to |nc|t|ng you have Lo lnLenLlonally and clearly tqe people Lo commlL acLs
of vlolence
4 Imm|nent Lhe lawless or vlolenL acLlon dlrecLed musL e lmmlnenL
4 L|ke|y to |nc|te Lhe lawless or vlolenL acLlon LhaL ls dlrecLed and lmmlnenL musL also e
llkely Lo lnclLe or produce Lhe acLlon
4 Ser|ous Lhe harm LhaL would follow musL e serlous
O Mere asLracL Leachlng of Lhe moral necesslLy for a resorL Lo force ls noL Lhe same as preparlng a
group for vlolenL acLlon and sLeelg lL Lo such acLlon -oLo v DnlLed SLaLes (DS 1961)
O @he sLaLuLe here dld noL adequaLely dlfferenLlaLe /w mere advocacy and lnclLemenL Lo
lmmlnenL lawless acLlon
O @he Lype of speech ln 8randenerg wouldn'L oLherwlse e proLecLed y Lhe democraLlc process
(unpopular speech requlres proLecLlon)
O 8randenerg overproLecLs speech Lo accL for udlclal Lendency Lo overesLlmaLe danger
O ln Llmes of crlses udges don'L do a parLlcularly good o of proLecLlng speech overesLlmaLe Lhe
LhreaL of danger

uefamaLlon
Monday cLoer 31 2011
1133 AM
O uefamaLlon legal remedy Lo recover damages agalnsL a person who pullcly made false sLaLemenLs
agalnsL you
O A sLaLemenL ls defamaLory lf lL Lends so Lo harm Lhe repuLaLlon of anoLher so as Lo lower hlm Lhe
esLlmaLlon of Lhe communlLy or Lo deLer Lhlrd persons from deallng wlLh hlm
O Slander (spoken) and lel (prlnLed) are clear resLrlcLlons on speech
O MlghL e ouLslde Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Am /c defamaLory speech ls false a clvlllzed soc'y
cannoL refuse Lo proLecL repuLaLlon
O I|rst Am restr|ct|ons on defamat|on
O N1 v Su|||van (US 1964) Pub/ic Officio/s Pub/ic condidotes or Pub/ic liqures may not recover
for a defamatory statement re|at|ng to h|s off|c|a| conduct un|ess
4 1hat statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made w|th actua| ma||ce
4 ueflnlLlons
O AcLual mallce a delleraLe and reckless falslflcaLlon
O ullc offlclal a person who holds a poslLlon of such an apparenL lmporLance
LhaL Lhe pullc has an lndependenL lnLeresL ln Lhe quallflcaLlons and
performance of Lhe person LhaL holds lL
O ullc flgure a person who has volunLarlly ecome a Lhe suecL of pullc
aLLenLlon
uoes noL encompass Lhose who have merely ecome lnvolved ln or
assoclaLed wlLh a maLLer LhaL aLLracLs pullc aLLenLlon
O Gertz v kobert Je|ch Inc (US 1974) A pr|vate f|gure may not recover for a defamatory
statement regard|ng o motter of pub/ic concern un|ess
4 1he statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made know|ng|y or at |east neg||gent|y
4 ueflnlLlon
O MaLLer of ullc Concern someLhlng LhaL ls a suecL of leglLlmaLe news
lnLeresL LhaL ls a suecL of general lnLeresL and of value and conern Lo Lhe
pullc aL Lhe Llme of pullcaLlon
O New ork 1|mes v Su|||van (US 1964) estab||shed the pub||c off|c|a| except|on to the defamat|on ru|e
O -?@ ad regardlng acLlons y Lhe pollce agalnsL lacks ln MonLgomery A agalnsL M ln parLlcular
4 Sulllvan Commlssloner of ullc Affalrs ln MonLgomery were under hls
supervlslon
O Sulllvan sued -?@ and 4 lack ppl responslle for Lhe ad under A defamaLlon law
4 @here was false sLaLemenLs ln Lhe arLlcle
4 Arg slnce he was head of Lhe false sLaLemenLs made aouL Lhe defamed hlm
4 lel per se lf Lhe words Lend Lo lnure a person ln hls repuLaLlon or rlng hlm lnLo
pullc conLempL (@ruLh was Lhe only defense)
O SC precedenL suggesLed LhaL defamaLory sLaLemenLs were ouLslde Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 owever some llmlLed excepLlons are warranLed
O 9ub||c Cff|c|a| Lxcept|on to Defamat|on a pub||c off|c|a| may not c|a|m defamat|on un|ess he
can prove by c|ear and conv|nc|ng ev|dence that
4 1he statement was concern|ng the pub||c off|c|a|
4 1he statement was about the|r off|c|a| conduct
4 1he statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made w|th actua| ma||ce know|ng or reck|ess d|sregard for the
truth or fa|s|ty of the statement
O ere Lhe sLaLemenLs were aouL offlclal conducL and false uL
4 Lhere was no proof LhaL Lhey were made wlLh acLual mallce
4 Lhere was no proof LhaL Lhe sLaLemenLs concerned Lhe pullc offlclal
O Jhy are pullc offlclals dlfferenL
4 8egulaLlon of speech concernlng pullc offlclals sLrlkes aL Lhe very cenLer of Lhe
consLlLuLlonally proLecLed are of free expresslon
4 Je seek Lo a rousL pullc deaLe aouL pullc lssues Lhe gov'L and pullc offlclals
4 ullc offlclals and pullc flgures have greaLer access Lo channels of effecLlve
communlcaLlon and have a more reallsLlc opporLunlLy Lo counLeracL false sLaLemenLs
O 8efused Lo recognlze an excepLlon for any LesL of LruLh especlally one LhaL puLs Lhe urden of
provlng LruLh on Lhe speaker
4 @he urden of provlng LruLh would lead Lo selfcensorshlp
O Gertz v kobert Je|ch Inc (US 1974) estab||shes the pr|vate f|gure + pub||c concern except|on
O A pr|vate f|gure may not recover for a defamatory statement regard|ng a matter of pub||c
concern un|ess
4 1he statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made know|ng|y or at |east neg||gent|y
O Dnder Lhe 1
sL
Am Lhere ls no such Lhlng as a false ldea
4 udges and urles do noL slL Lo correcL false oplnlons
4 @he compeLlLlon of ldeas ln Lhe markeLplace wlll deLermlne Lhe LruLh
O -o consLlLuLlonal value for false sLaLemenLs of facL
4 Chapllnsky v -ew ampshlre (DS 1942) Lhey are of such sllghL soclal value as a sLep Lo
LruLh LhaL any eneflL ls clearly ouLwelghed y Lhe soclal lnLeresL ln order and morallLy
O 8epresenLs a alance /w Lhe needs of Lhe press and Lhe lnLeresLs Lhe prlvaLe person on maLLers
of pullc concern
O Dun 8radstreet Inc v Greenmoss 8u|d|ers |nc (US 198S) 1
st
Am does not protect speech about
pr|vate f|gures on a matter of pr|vate concern
O -o req of acLual mallce for defamaLlon clalm regardlng a sLaLemenLs made aouL a prlvaLe flgure
on a maLLer of prlvaLe concern
O 8alanced Lhe sLaLe lnLeresL ln compensaLlng lndlvlduals for lnury Lo Lhelr repuLaLlon agalnsL Lhe
1
sL
Am lnLeresL ln proLecLlng Lhls Lype of expresslon
4 Speech on maLLers of prlvaLe concern ls of less 1
sL
Am concern
O nust|er Magaz|ne Inc v Ia|we|| (US 1988) extends Su|||van to IILD c|a|ms
O LxLends Sulllvan Lo oLher LorL clalms
O 9ub||c f|gures and pub||c off|c|a|s may not recover for the tort of IILD by reason of pub||cat|ons
un|ess they can show that
4 1he pub||cat|on conta|ns fa|se statements of fact and
4 1he pub||cat|on was made w|th actua| ma||ce
O Snyder v 9he|ps (US 2011)
O lssue wheLher Lhe 1
sL
Am prohllLs holdlng JesLoro 8apLlsL Church llale for lLs speech
ecause lL consLlLuLes a maLLer of prlvaLe concern
4 JesLoro plckeLed a soldlers funeral wlLh slgns addressed aL homosexuals ln Lhe
mlllLary wars aouL and ause ln Lhe CaLhollc Church
O lalnLlff was noL a pullc offlclal or a pullc flgure need Lo deLermlne lf Lhls was a sLaLemenL
aouL prlvaLe flgure on a maLLer of pullc concern
4 Arg agalnsL church JesLoro's speech e afforded less Lhan full 1
sL
Am proLecLlon /c
of Lhe words were aouL a maLLer of prlvaLe concern and /c Lhe church explolLed Lhe
funeral as a plaLform for Lhelr message
4 Arg for church Lhe slgns were noL dlrecLed aL Lhe plalnLlff and lnsLead addressed
maLLers of pullc concern
O ullc Concern speech ls a maLLer of pullc concern lf
4 lL can e falrly consldered as relaLlng Lo any maLLer of pollLlcal soclal or oLher concern
Lo Lhe communlLy or ls a suecL of leglLlmaLe news lnLeresL
4 lacLors ook Lo Lhe conLenL form and conLexL of Lhe speech as revealed y Lhe whole
record
O Church memers had a rlghL Lo e where Lhey were
4 roLesLed from a pullc sldewalk aL a pullc sLreeL corner
4 JesLoro alerLed local auLhorlLles ahead of Llme and complled wlLh guldellnes
4 lckeLlng was conducLed under supervlslon 1000fL from Lhe funereal
O JesLoro's speech was aL a pullc place on a maLLer of pullc concern afforded speclal
proLecLlon under Lhe 1
sL
Am

scenlLy and Chlld ornography
Jednesday -ovemer 02 2011
1122 AM
C8SCLNI1
O M|||er v Ca||forn|a (US 1973) 1est for Cbscen|ty
O Jhether the average person app|y|ng contemporary commun|ty standards wou|d dec|de that
the work taken as a who|e oppeo/s to the prurient interest
4 9rur|ent character|zed or arous|ng |nord|nate or unusua| sexua| des|re
O Jhether the work dep|cts or descr|bes in o potent/y offensive woy sexuo/ conduct spec|f|ca||y
def|ned by the app||cab|e state |aw and
O Jhether the work taken as a who|e /ocks serious /iterory ortistic po/itico/ or scientific vo/ue
O @he maLerlal musL oLh arouse and dlsgusL Lo quallfy as oscene
O koth v Un|ted States (US 19S7) the 1
st
Am does not protect obscen|ty
O lssue
4 8oLh wheLher Lhe federal oscenlLy sLaLuLe vlolaLes Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 AlerLs wheLher Lhe CA oscenlLy sLaLuLe vlolaLes Lhe 1
sL
Am and Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O Cbscen|ty |s not w|th|n the area of const|tut|ona||y protected speech or press
4 scenlLy ls uLLerly wlLhouL redeemlng soclal lmporLance
O scenlLy and sex are noL Lhe same as oscenlLy deals wlLh sex ln a manner appeallng Lo prurlenL
lnLeresL
4 -ormal porLrayal of sex ln arL llLeraLure and sclence ls noL sufflclenL reason Lo deny
maLerlal consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon
O 8oLh @esL wheLher Lo Lhe average person applylng conLemporary sLandards Lhe domlnanL
Lheme of Lhe maLerlal Laken as a whole appeals Lo Lhe prurlenL lnLeresL
CnILD 9CkNCGkA9n
O New ork v Ierber (US 1982) ch||d pornography |s a another category of speech def|ned by |ts content
that |s beyond the protect|on of the 1
st
Am
O lssue ls a -? crlmlnal sLaLuLe annlng dlsLrluLlon of chlld pornography unconsLlLuLlonal under
Lhe 1
sL
Am
O States are ent|t|ed to greater |eeway |n the|r regu|at|on of pornograph|c dep|ct|ons of ch||dren
4 Compelllng lnLeresL ln Lhe proLecLlon of chlldren Lhe maklng of Lhe fllms Lhemselves
are lnLrlnslcally relaLed Lo chlld ause
4 ulsLrluLlon of phoLos and fllms deplcLlng Lhe lmages only furLhers Lhe harm
O ard Lo regulaLlon Lhe producLlon
O 8y crlmlnallzlng dlsLrluLlon Lhe markeL for chlld porn wlll dry up Lhus endlng
Lhe prolem of producLlon
4 ulmlnlmus values of chlld porn welghed agalnsL Lhe exLreme cosLs Lo chlldren
O SLaLe offense musL e llmlLed Lo works LhaL vlsolly deplcL sexual conducL y chlldren elow a
speclfled age caLegory of sexual conducL musL e sulLaly llmlLed and descrled
O AshcrofL v lree Speech CoallLlon (DS 2002) 1
sL
Am prohllLs Lhe gov'L from annlng nonoscene vlrLual
chlld pornography
O DnlLed SLaLes v Jllllams (DS 2008) gov'L may punlsh a person for dlsLrluLlng vlrLual chlld pornography
as Lhough lL were real chlld pornography

Symollc ConLenL
Monday -ovemer 07 2011
1104 AM
O JhaL acLlvlLles and conducL counL as speech?
O Spence v JashlngLon (DS 1974) ConducL may e sufflclenLly lmued wlLh elemenLs of
communlcaLlon Lo fall wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhe 1
sL
and 14
Lh
Am
O 1|nker v Des Mo|nes Independent Commun|ty Schoo| D|st (US 1969) schoo| regu|at|on proh|b|t|ng
students from wear|ng arm bands v|o|ated the 1
st
Am
O School adopLed Lhe reg afLer learnlng LhaL sLudenLs were wearlng Lhem ln opposlLlon Lo Lhe
IleLnam Jar
O Court w||| app|y SS when the gov't seeks to regu|ate conduct because of the express|ve
e|ements of that conduct
O CourL found LhaL Lhe school was acLlng Lo punlsh peLlLloners for a sllenL and passlve expresslon of
oplnlon
O DndlfferenLlaLed fear or apprehenslon of dlsLurance ls noL enough Lo usLlfy such a conLenL
ased regulaLlon of expresslve acLlvlLy
O Un|ted States v C'8r|en genera||y app||cab|e gov't regs w|th an |nc|denta| |mpact on speech
O Jhen speech and nonspeech elemenLs are comlned ln Lhe same course of conducL sufflclenL
gov'L lnLeresL ln regulaLlng Lhe nonspeech elemenL can usLlfy lncldenLal resLrlcLlons on speech
O C'8r|en 1est gov't may regu|ate express|ve conduct |f four cond|t|ons are met
4 1he reg |s w|th|n the const|tut|ona| power of the gov't
4 1he reg furthers an importont or substontio/ qovt interest
4 1he gov't |nterest |s unre/oted to the suppression of free expression and
4 1he incidento/ restriction is no qreoter thon essentio/ to the furtherance of the |nterest
O 1exas v ohnson (US 1989) estab||shes the test for symbo||c conduct protected w|th|n the 1
st
Am
O Challenge Lo a @O law whlch crlmlnallzes desecraLlon of a sLaLe or naLlonal flag
4 uesecraLlon deface damage or oLherwlse mlsLreaL ln a way LhaL Lhe acLor knows wlll
setlosly offeoJ one or more persons llkely Lo oserve or dlscover hls acLlon
O u arresLed afLer urnlng a flag as a means of proLesL
O 1he 1est for Symbo||c Conduct must be suff|c|ent|y |mbued w|th the e|ements of
commun|cat|on as to fa|| w|th|n the scope of the 1
st
and 14
th
Am
4 Must have an |ntent to convey a part|cu|ar message and
4 It must be ||ke|y that the message wou|d be understood by the v|ewer of the message
O @ypes of conducL deemed sufflclenLly expresslve under Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 Jearlng lack armands Lo proLesL Lhe IleLnam Jar
4 SlLlns y lacks
4 lckeLlng
O 8urn|ng a f|ag |s a trad|t|ona||y express|ve act|v|ty but burn|ng a f|ag does send a message and
the 1k statute cr|m|na||z|ng f|ag burn|ng was an unconst|tut|ona| |nfr|ngement on the 1
st
Am
O @O's real lnLeresL was noL unrelaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon of free expresslon
4 llag desecraLlon sLaLuLe expressly dealL wlLh desLrucLlon of a flag ln a way LhaL would
serlously offend someone
4 @O would noL punlsh someone for urnlng an old and LaLLered flag Lo desLroy lL
O @O's purporLed lnLeresLs
4 Arg sLaLe lnLeresL ln prevenLlng u@
O @here was no u@ can'L speak ln condlLlons
O ln order Lo make an lnclLemenL arg under 8randenurg Lhe acLlon musL e
dlrecLed aL lnclLlng lawless acLlon
4 Arg lnLeresL ln preservlng Lhe flag as a symol of naLlonhood and naLlonal unlLy
O @haL lnLeresL ls relaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon of free expresslon
O -o flag urnlng excepLlon
4 llag emodles Lhe rlghLs proLecLed ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon lncludlng Lhe rlghL Lo hold Lhe
flag lLself ln conLempL and urn lL
4 nce you acknowledge Lhe gov'Ls rlghL Lo an a message /c lLs Lroullng you creaLe a
sllppery slope effecL
4 llag urnlng ls noL Lhe same as Lhe oLher caLegorlcal excepLlons lnclLemenL oscenlLy
defamaLlon all lack serlous llLerary arLlsLlc pollLlcal or sclenLlflc value)
O DnlLed SLaLes v Llchman (DS 1990) sLruck down a federal acL prohllLlng knowlngly muLllaLlng Lhe flag
wltbot teqotJ Lo wheLher Lhe conducL mlghL offend someone else

@radlLlonally expresslve
acLlvlLles
@yplcally nonexpresslve acLlvlLles
ConLenL 8ased
suecLed Lo SS








ConLenL -euLral
O 8oos holdlng a slgn
crlLlclzlng Lhe govL
O JhlLe speech
crlLlclzlng govL
O LOCL@l-
CaLegorlcally excluded
(lnclLemenL chlld porn
defamaLlon eLc)



O l-@L8MLulA@L
SC8D@l-?
O Jard Muslc
O 8arnes uanclng
O llylng a flag (flag
symol long done Lo
express a polnL)
O ohnson urnlng a flag as a form a
crlLlclsm of Lhe govL (message
crlLlclsm of presldenL undersLood
as such)






O 88lL- SC8D@l-? never
lnvalldaLed reg under Lhls sLandard
(lS mlnus)
O 8rlen symollc drafL card
urnlng (message crlLlclze war
undersLood crlLlclsm)
O CovL can lncldenLally urden
expresslon
O CourL has never lnvalldaLed a
generally conLenL neuLral
regulaLlon of conducL

rovocaLlve Speech
@uesday -ovemer 08 2011
1113 AM
IIGn1ING JCkDS
O Chap||nsky v New nampsh|re (US 1942) 1
st
Am does not protect "f|ght|ng words"
O Challenge Lo a - sLaLuLe regardlng Lhe use of offenslve derlslve or annoylng words dlrecLed aL
an lndlvldual wlLh Lhe lnLenL Lo derlde offend or annoy hlm
4 u called a god damn rackeLeer and a god damn fasclsL"
4 Je wouldn'L expecL a Lo lash ouL when Lhey hear someLhlng llke LhaL
O I|ght|ng words are of not essent|a| part of any expos|t|on of |deas and are s||ght soc|a| va|ue as
a step to truth that any benef|t |s outwe|ghed by the soc|a| |nterest |n order and mora||ty
4 I|ght|ng words words that by the|r very utterance |nf||ct |n[ury or tend to |nc|te an
|mmed|ate breach of the peace
4 llghLlng words assumes LhaL Lhe llsLener would e proved Lo vlolence lf lnsulLed
4 @here mlghL e some words Loday LhaL would cause even Lhe mosL clvlllzed Lo lash ouL
O CourL has never afflrmed anoLher convlcLlon under Lhe flghLlng words docLrlne slnce Lhls case
9kCIANI1
O Cohen v Ca||forn|a (US 1971) SC struck down the conv|ct|on as unconst|tut|ona| under the 1
st
Am
profan|ty |s a protected area of free speech
O Challenge Lo a CA law prohllLlng mallclously and wlllfully dlsLurlng Lhe peace and quleL of any
nelghorhood y offenslve conducL
4 ueals here wlLh a convlcLlon resLlng solely upon speech u wore a ackeL aL Lhe
courLhouse LhaL sald luck @he urafL" on lL
4 u wore Lhe ackeL knowlng Lhe words were on lL as a means of expresslng hls feellngs
aouL Lhe IleLnam Jar
O I|ght|ng words must be d|rected at a part|cu|ar ||stener who wou|d understand them as a d|rect
persona| |nsu|t
4 Could end up punlshlng people efore any acLual harm resulLed
4 eckler's veLo shouldn'L leL a groups dlsLasLe for a message supporL lLs suppresslon
4 ullc speech Lhose who dldn'L wanL Lo see lL could averL Lhelr eyes
O 9rofan|ty |s not beyond the protect|on of the 1
st
Am
4 SuecLlng ourselves Lo cerLaln offenslve speech ls a necessary consequence of havlng
Lhe rlghL Lo speak freely
O Serves a dua|commun|cat|ve funct|on conveys an |dea as we|| as expresses and emot|ona|
connect|on beh|nd the |dea
4 Can'L suppress cerLaln words wlLhouL lnherenLly suppresslng ldeas
4 u was noL arresLed /c he sald Lhe word fuck" he was arresLed /c of lLs connecLlon Lo
hls haLred for Lhe drafL
nA1L S9LLCn
O kAV v C|ty of St 9au| (US 1992) sets up the except|ons to the except|on categor|ca| exc|us|on ru|e
state can ban f|ght|ng words but not hate speech
O Challenge Lo a M- sLaLuLe prohllLlng cross urnlng on pullc or prlvaLe whlch one knows or has
reasonale grounds Lo know would arouses anger ln oLhers oo tbe osls of toce
4 u were whlLe klds arresLed for urnlng a cross on Lhe fronL lawn of a lack famlly
O CourL Lhe sLaLuLe ls unconsLlLuLlonal /c lL prohllLs oLherwlse permlsslle speech solely on Lhe
asls of Lhe suecLs Lhe speech addresses
O Content 8ased keg ku|e 1
sL
Am generally prevenLs gov'L from proscrllng speech or expresslve
conducL /c of dlsapproval of Lhe ldeas expressed (ConLenL ased resLrlcLlons suecL Lo SS)
4 Lxcept|on for Categor|ca| Lxc|us|ons conLenL ased resLrlcLlons are permlsslle when
Lhe area of speech ls of such sllghL soclal value as a sLep Lo LruLh LhaL any eneflL ls
ouLwelghed y soclal lnLeresL ln morallLy
O @ypes scenlLy uefamaLlon llghLlng Jords eLc
4 Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on gov'L oy oot furLher resLrlcL a suseL of a caLegorlcally
excluded area on a asls oteloteJ Lo proscrlale conLenL of Lhe caLegory
O le coot teqlote ooly loclteeot lovolvloq toclol ptejJlce
O Cov'L M regulaLe a caLegorlcally excluded areas are regulaLed ecose of
tbelt coostlttlooolly ptosctlole cooteot
Cov'L M -@ e suecL Lhe caLegorlcally excluded areas Lo conLenL
dlscrlmlnaLlon y furLher regulaLlon unrelaLed Lo Lhelr dlsLlncLlvely
proscrlale conLenL
O le ermlsslle gov'L may proscrle llel lmpermlsslle gov'L oy oot
proscrle only llel LhaL ls crlLlcal of Lhe gov'L
4 I|rst Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on gov'L oy furLher resLrlcL a suseL
of a caLegorlcally excluded area lf Lhe asls for Lhe conLenL dlscrlmlnaLlon conslsLs
enLlrely of Lhe very teosoo tbe eotlte closs was proscrlale ln Lhe flrsL place
O lf Lhe reason for regulaLlng Lhe enLlre class was found neuLral enough Lhen lL
sLands Lo reason LhaL lL ls also neuLral enough Lo regulaLe a suseL of Lhe class
O Lxamples
Lx #1 A sLaLe M prohllL only LhaL oscenlLy whlch ls Lhe mosL
paLenLly offenslve lo lts pttleoce (Lhe mosL lasclvlous dlsplay of sexual
acLlvlLy)
Lx #2 A sLaLe M NO1 prohllL only LhaL oscenlLy whlch lncludes
offenslve pollLlcal message
Jhy? Lhere ls a caLegorlcal excepLlon for oscenlLy /c lLs poLenLly
offenslve and appeals Lo Lhe prurlenL lnLeresL
O ln Lx #1 Lhe asls for regulaLlon of Lhe suseL was Lhe same
as Lhe asls for Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe enLlre class
O ln Lx#2 Lhe asls for Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe suseL was enLlrely
unrelaLed Lo Lhe asls for Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe enLlre class
4 Second Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on gov'L oy furLher resLrlcL a
suseL of a caLegorlcally excluded area lf Lhe suseL happens Lo e assoclaLed wlLh
pottlclot secooJoty effect of tbe speecb so LhaL Lhe regulaLlon ls usLlfled w/o
reference Lo Lhe conLenL of Lhe speech
O |e permlLLlng all oscene llve performances except tbose lovolvloq loots
ecause lL ls excludlng Lhe suseL /c of Lhe secondary effecL of chlld ause
O kegs d|rected not aga|nst speech but aga|nst conduct m|ght acc|denta||y
sweep |n a part|cu|ar contentbased subcategory of speech
le sexually derogaLory flghLlng words mlghL vlolaLe @lLle Ill
O rdlnance here applles only Lo flghLlng words LhaL lnsulL or provoke vlolence on Lhe asls of race
color creed rellglon or gender
4 @he ordlnance falls wlLhln Lhe LxcepLlon Lo Lhe LxcepLlon /c lL regulaLes a suseL of a
caLegorlcally excluded class on a asls unrelaLed Lo why Lhe enLlre class ls regulaLed
4 rdlnance ls clearly vlewpolnL dlscrlmlnaLlon
O ClLy's arg Lhe sLaLuLe should survlve conLenL ased SS /c lL ls narrowly Lallored Lo meeL a
compelllng gov'L lnLeresL
4 CourL flnds LhaL Lhe lnLeresL ln ensurlng Lhe aslc human rlghLs of memers of groups
LhaL have een hlsLorlcally suecLed Lo dlscrlmlnaLlon ls compelllng
4 CourL also flnd LhaL Lhe regulaLlon ls noL reasonaly necessary Lo meeL SL aul's
compelllng lnLeresL
O A sLaLuLe crlmlnallzlng cross urnlng ln general would have Lhe same eneflclal
effecL
O @he only lnLeresL served y Lhe conLenL llmlLaLlon ls expresslng Lhe clLles
hosLlllLy Loward Lhe parLlcular pracLlces preclsely forldden y Lhe 1
sL
Am
O ower Lo proscrle speech on one conLenL elemenL does noL denoLe power Lo descrle speech
on oLher conLenL elemenLs
1nkLA1S
O Jatts v Un|ted States (US 1969) genu|ne threats are not protected speech
O Challenge Lo a federal sLaLuLe crlmlnallzlng LhreaLs of vlolence dlrecLed agalnsL Lhe presldenL
4 u lf Lhey ever make me carry a rlfle Lhe flrsL man l wanL Lo geL ln my slghLs ls 8"
O CourL found Lhe sLaLuLe consLlLuLlonal
4 -aLlon has a valld lnLeresL ln proLecLlng Lhe safeLy of lLs Commander ln Chlef
4 @hreaLs musL e dlsLlngulshed from consLlLuLlonally proLecLed speech
O V|rg|n|a v 8|ack (US 2003) some cross burn|ngs f|t w|th|n th|s mean|ng of |nt|m|dat|ng speech
O Challenge Lo a IA sLaLuLe LhaL made lL a crlme Lo urn a cross wlLh Lhe lnLenL Lo lnLlmldaLe a
person or group of persons
O Cross urnlng ls symol of haLe ofLen Lhough Lo convey a message of lnLlmldaLlon
O 1
sL
Am permlLs a sLaLe Lo an a Lrue LhreaL where a speaker means Lo communlcaLe a serlous
expresslon of an lnLenL Lo commlL an acL of unlawful vlolence Lo lndlvldual(s)
O Also falls wlLhln Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe excepLlon
C1nLk CA1LGCkILS
O Un|ted States v Stevens (US 2010) an|ma| crue|ty |s not a c|ass of speech qua||fy|ng for categor|ca|
exc|us|on from 1
st
Am protect|on
O Challenge Lo a federal sLaLuLe LhaL anned Lhe creaLlon selllng or possesslon of deplcLlons of
anlmal cruelLy lf LhaL conducL vlolaLes federal or sLaLe law
4 SLaLe was enacLed Lo comaL crush vldeos" women ln hlgh heels crushlng small
anlmals
4 LxempLs any deplclLlon LhaL has serlous rellglous pollLlcal sclenLlflc educaLlonal
ournallsLlc hlsLorlcal or arLlsLlc value
4 u's vldeos were aouL dog flghLlng and dogs aLLacklng a wlld oar
O Cov'L soughL Lo add deplcLlons of anlmal cruelLy as anoLher area of caLegorlcally unproLecLed
speech
4 8alanclng LesL /w Lhe soclal value of Lhe deplcLlons compared Lo Lhelr harm
4 ong hlsLory of prohllLlon of anlmal cruelLy
O Court adhoc cost benef|t ana|ys|s |sn't the proper test to determ|ne wh|ch th|ngs fa|| |nto the
category of unprotected speech
4 revlous cases llke etet were noL only aouL alanclng
O ln lerer Lhe gov'L had a compelllng lnLeresL ln proLecLlng chlldren from ause
and Lhe value of uslng chlldren ln Lhese works was dlmlnlmus
O Chlld porn was also lnLrlnslcally relaLed Lo Lhe underlylng lllegal chlld ause and
was Lherefore an lnLegral parL of Lhe producLlon of such maLerlals
4 CannoL e undersLood Lo creaLe a freewheellng auLhorlLy Lo declare new caLegorles of
speech ouLslde Lhe scope of Lhe 1
sL
Am
O Acknow|edges that there are probab|y some other categor|es of speech that have been
h|stor|ca||y unprotected but have yet to be |dent|f|ed but an|ma| crue|ty |sn't one of them

V kLLIGICN
a1nL LS1A8LISnMLN1 CLAUSL
CovL Ald Lo 8ellglous lnsLlLuLlons
@hursday -ovemer 10 2011
1113 AM
O 1
sL
Am Congress shall make no law respecLlng an esLallshmenL of rellglon or prohllLlng Lhe free
exerclse Lhereof
O LsLallshmenL Cl no respecLlng an esLallshmenL of rellglon
O lree Lxerclse Cl no law prohllLlng Lhe free exerclse of rellglon
O CanLwell v ConnecLlcuL (DS 1940) u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am makes oLh of Lhese clauses appllcale Lo Lhe
sLaLes
O roLecLlons of Lhe LsLallshmenL Cl (Lverson v 8oard of Lwlng @ownshlp (DS 1947)) -elLher sLaLe nor
federal gov'L can
O lorce nor lnfluence a person Lo go Lo or remaln away from church agalnsL hls wlll
O lorce hlm Lo profess a ellef or dlsellef ln an rellglon
O unlsh hlm for enLerLalnlng or professlng rellglous ellefs for church aLLendance or non
aLLendance
O 8eynolds v DnlLed SLaLes (DS 1878) Lhe 1
sL
Am lmplemenLs Lhe separaLlon of church and sLaLe
O Clvlc ldeal ln whlch Lhe gov'L and rellglon operaLe ln separaLe spheres
O Cov'L ls secular and Lhe clergy has no pollLlcal auLhorlLy
O @wo approaches Lo LsL Cl
O SeparaLlonlsm asoluLe separaLlon /w gov'L and rellglon
O -onpreferenLlallsm gov'L may noL prefer one rellglon over anoLher or rellglon over non
rellglon (lncreaslngly popular vlew)
O Lverson v 8oard of Lducat|on of Lw|ng 1ownsh|p (US 1947) upho|ds aga|nst Lst C| cha||enge an N
statute prov|d|ng tax funds for bus|ng students to Catho||c paroch|a| schoo|s
O Challenge Lo a - sLaLuLe auLhorlzlng lLs local school dlsLrlcLs Lo make conLracLs for LransporLaLlon
of chlldren Lo and from school
4 lncluded LransporLaLlon for sLudenLs ln CaLhollc parochlal schools
4 LsL Cl challenge Lhe use of Laxpayer money Lo pay for sLudenLs LransporLaLlon Lo and
from CaLhollc parochlal schools
4 @axpayer money lndlrecLly supporLed rellglon money glven Lo parenLs Lo relmurse
Lhem for Lhelr ouL of pockeL expense
O Court Lstab||shed two pr|nc|p|es
4 Lst C| |ntended to erect a wa|| of separat|on b]w church and state
O -o Lax small or large may e levled Lo supporL any rellglous acLlvlLles
O roLecLs secular lnsLlLuLlons from Lhe corrupLlve effecL of rellglon (@)
O roLecLs Lhe church from pollLlcal corrupLlon (8J)
O 8oLh rellglous and secular lnLeresLs wlll e proLecLed (M)
4 Neutra||ty pr|nc|p|e Lst C| requ|res the state to be neutra| |n |ts re|at|ons w|th groups
of re||g|ous be||evers and nonbe||evers
O Cov'L may provlde eneflLs Lo rellglous lnsLlLuLlons so long as lL does so ln a
neuLral fashlon does noL favor rellglon over nonrellglon
O SLaLes vlolaLe Lhe LsL Cl y uslng Laxralsed funds Lo supporL an lnsLlLuLlon whlch Leaches Lhe
LeneLs and falLh of any church
4 - dld noL vlolaLe Lhe LsL Cl / lL used Lax ralsed funds Lo pay Lhe us fares of parochlal
school puplls as a parL of a general program
O rolem Lwo elemenLs are ln conLrasL wlLh each oLher
4 SeparaLlonlsm gov'L can'L supporL rellglon
4 -euLrallLy gov'L musL supporL rellglon and nonrellglon equally
O MlLchell v elms (DS 2000) pollcy permlLLlng Lhe use of pullc funds Lo pay for llrary ooks compuLers
la equlpmenL and oLher edu lLems aL rellglous schools dldn'L vlolaLe LsL Cl
O lurallLy asserLed LhaL Lhe pollcy was permlsslle so long as no rellglous lndocLrlnaLlon LhaL
occurs ln Lhe schools could e aLLrluLed Lo Lhe gov'L funds
O Lemon v urtzman (US 1971) mu|t|factor test to assess whether a po||cy v|o|ates the Lst C|
O Challenge Lo gov'L salary supplemenL ln A and 8l for prlvaLe schools lncludlng rellglous prlmary
and secondary schools
4 8oLh pollcles llmlLed gov'L ald Lo Lhe supporL of seclot sjects ln Lhe rellglous schools
O uld lL vlolaLe Lhe no supporL prlnclple ?LS
4 Cov'L funds are golng dlrecLly Lo employees aL rellglous schools
O uld lL vlolaLe Lhe neuLrallLy prlnclple -
4 Ceneral program paylng for salarles of Leachers aL oLh rellglous and nonrellglous
prlvaLe schools and gov'L already pays pullc school Leacher salarles
O Lemon 1est assess|ng whether a part|cu|ar po||cy v|o|ates the Lst C| the court must |ook to
4 1he statute must have a secu|ar purpose
4 1he statute must ne|ther odvonce nor inhibit re/iqion
4 1he statute must not excessive/y entonq/e the gov't and re||g|on
O cbotoctet ooJ ptpose of tbe lostlttloo eoefltteJ
O Notte of tbe olJ
O kelotloosblp /w qovt ooJ tellqlos otbotlty
O ollcles ln Lhls case fall Lhe enLanglemenL LesL
4 CharacLer and purpose schools are rellglon ased
4 -aLure of ald dlrecL ald Lo rellglous schools
4 8esulLlng relaLlonshlp gov'L req Lo meddle ln Lhe flnances of rellglous lnsLlLuLlon
O 8y avoldlng enhanclng or lnhllLlng rellglon pollcles ofLen Llmes excesslvely enLangle Lhe gov'L
and rellglon /c Lhe gov'L musL conLlnuously monlLor Lhe use of dlsLrluLed funds
O @wo rolems wlLh Lhe emon @esL
O Iague and openended
O @he lasL Lwo facLors Lend Lo counLeracL one anoLher
O SC has noL always followed Lhe emon @esL
O -onpreferenLlallsm has Lrlumphed over SeparaLlonlsm recenLly
O Mueller v Allen (DS 1983) SC applled Lhe emon @esL and upheld Lhe Lax reak law
4 Challenge Lo a M- law LhaL permlLLed Lax deducLlon for money all parenLs spend on
Lhelr sLudenLs educaLlon
O Allowed parenLs Lo deducL Lhe cosL of LulLlon lncurred ln sendlng Lhelr klds Lo
prlvaLe rellglous schools
4 CourL applled Lhe emon @esL and upheld Lhe law
O Secular purpose promoLlon of educaLlon
O rlmary effecL noL Lo advance secLarlan alms of Lhe nonpullc schools
O LnLanglemenL pullc funds ecome avallale only as a resulL of numerous
prlvaLe cholces made y lndlvldual parenLs
O 8osenerger v 8ecLor and IlslLors of DIA (DS 1993) SC sLruck down Lhe prlnLlng pollcy whlch
prohllLed Lhe ChrlsLlan group from prlnLlng rellglous maLerlal
4 Challenge Lo a pullc unlverslLy's refusal Lo use funds derlved from sLudenL acLlvlLy fees
Lo pay prlnLlng cosLs for Lhe newspaper of a ChrlsLlan Lvangellcal Croup
O CourL held LhaL Lhe excluslon consLlLuLed lmpermlsslle vlewpolnL
dlscrlmlnaLlon ln vlolaLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Am lreedom of Speech
4 Cov'L prlnLlng program was neuLral Loward rellglon
O ald a Lhlrd parLy Lo operaLe Lhe prlnLlng
4 ecL of Lhe sLudenL acLlvlLles fund was Lo promoLe an open forum for speech
4 -oL a Lax levled for dlrecL supporL of rellglon
O e|man v S|mmonsnarr|s (US 2002) court uphe|d the student voucher program aga|nst Lst C|
cha||enge
4 Cha||enge to a Cn voucher program for students that ||ve |n C|eve|and and seek to
attend pr|vate schoo|s and ne|ghbor|ng pub||c schoo|s
O @ulLlon ald ls dlsLrluLed dlrecLly Lo Lhe parenLs who could endorse Lhe check
over Lo Lhe school of Lhelr cholce
O 36 prlvaLe school parLlclpaLed ln Lhe program and 82 of Lhem had a rellglous
afflllaLlon
O 96 of Lhe sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe voucher program wenL Lo rellglous
schools pracLlcal effecL was Lo provlde susLanLlal supporL for rellglon
4 Court app||ed a vers|on of the Lemon 1est fo|ded step three |nto step two
O Neutra| program Lhe money can go anywhere Lhe parenLs declde (all schools
are opLlons)
O Advanc|ng or |nh|b|t|ng re||g|on gov'Ls role ends aL Lhe dlsLrluLlon
ulsLrluLlon Lo a road class of clLlzens +many lnLervenlng cholces y
Lhe parenLs follow
O AcLually Lo Lhe flnanclal dlsadvanLage of prlvaLe rellglous schools whlch
recelved Z Lhe gov'L asslsLance off communlLy schools and 1/3 of magneL
4 SouLer dlssenL
O Lverson conLrols maorlLy lgnores lL and Lhe Lrue meanlng of neuLrallLy and
prlvaLe cholce
-euLrallLy does Lhe scheme fovot tellqlos lnsLlLuLlons
O usL look aL Lhe scale of Lhe ald golng Lo rellglous lnsLlLuLlons
rlvaLe cholce wheLher Lhe prlvaLe hand ls qeoloely ftee Lo send Lhe
money ln elLher a secular dlrecLlon or a rellglous one
O @he facL LhaL almosL all sLudenLs are golng Lo rellglous schools
lndlcaLes a lack of opLlons no free cholce
O Lvery oecLlve underlylng Lhe prohllLlon of rellglous esLallshmenL ls
eLrayed y Lhe scheme
O CovL fundlng of rellglous pracLlces ls generally okay as long Lhere ls equal fundlng Lo nonrellglous
pracLlces
O -onpreferenLlallsL prlnclple govL cannoL prefer one rellglon Lo anoLher or rellglon over non
rellglon
O -o longer follow Lhe separaLlon prlnclple

8ellglon ln Schools
Monday -ovemer 14 2011
1149 AM
O LsL Cl does noL ar all rellglous acLlvlLles ln pullc lnsLlLuLlons
4 SC occaslonally permlLs some such acLlvlLles ouLslde Lhe prlmary and pullc school conLexL LhaL
are Jeeply eeJJeJ lo tbe blstoty ooJ ttoJltloo of tbe cootty
O LsL Cl does noL prevenL Lhe dlsplay of rellglous symols on gov'L properLy lf
4 @he symols have a secular purpose and
4 uo noL amounL Lo an endorsemenL of a parLlcular rellglon or rellglon ln general
O LsL Cl ars prayer ln pullc schools lf tbe ptoyet ls oo offlclol ot opptoveJ pott of scbool octlvltles
4 8anned wheLher Lhe sLudenLs say Lhe prayer or merely hear Lhe prayer
4 8anned wheLher Lhe prayer ls denomlnaLlonal or nondenomlnaLlonal
4 8anned wheLher Lhe prayer ls sllenL or spoken
4 8anned wheLher Lhe prayer ls volunLary or lnvolunLary
O I|||no|s ex re| McCo||um v 8oard of Lducat|on (US 1948) SC |nva||dated a schoo| board's re||g|on
po||cy
4 lacLs
Challenge Lo a school oard pollcy permlLLlng Leachers employed y prlvaLe rellglous
groups Lo come lnLo school durlng Lhe regular uslness hours and susLlLuLe secular
Leachlng for rellglous Leachlng
O Classes offered y roLesLanL CaLhollc and ewlsh Leachers
SLudenLs who chose noL Lo parLlclpaLe were noL released from school req'd Lo go Lo
anoLher parL of Lhe school for secular edu
SLudenLs who chose Lo parLlclpaLe were req'd Lo aLLend Lhe rellglon classes
4 Court found that the po||cy v|o|ated the Lst C| b]c |t amounted to a ut|||zat|on of the tax
estab||shed and taxsupported pub||c schoo| system to a|d re||g|on |n spread|ng |ts fa|th
O orach v C|auson (US 19S2) uphe|d a pub||c schoo| re||g|on po||cy
4 Challenge Lo a school oard pollcy permlLLlng Lhe release of chlldren from school durlng school
hours Lo aLLend secLarlan classes ouLslde Lhe pullc schools
4 Court found that the po||cy d|d not v|o|ate the Lst C| b]c no one was forced by the schoo| to go
|nto a re||g|ous c|assroom and no re||g|ous exerc|se was brought |nto the c|assroom
4 oldlng oLherwlse would req Lhe school Lo deny permlsslon Lo rellglous sLudenLs who asked Lo
e excused for Lhe oservance of rellglous hollday
O Lnge| v V|ta|e (US 1962) estab||shed a strong separat|on pr|nc|p|e b]w church and state
4 Challenge Lo a school oard pollcy LhaL req'd LhaL a prayer creaLed y Lhe school oard e read
aloud ln class everyday
@he prayer was nondenomlnaLlonal and nonsecLarlan
SLudenLs weren'L req'd Lo lndlvldually repeaL Lhe prayer
4 Lnge| estab||shed a strong separat|on pr|nc|p|e
Gov't composed prayers are prob|emat|c under the 1
st
Am even |f nonsectar|an and
nondenom|nat|ona|
Vo|untar|ness |s not enough compu|s|on |s not req'd for a |aw to v|o|ate the Lst C|
4 Any prayer ln pullc schools ls LanLamounL Lo esLallshlng rellglon
Schemp a req LhaL sLudenLs read 10 passages from Lhe lle and reclLe Lhe lords
prayer durlng Lhe school day vlolaLed Lhe LsL Cl
4 Gov't |n th|s country be |t state or federa| |s w|thout power to proscr|be by |aw any part|cu|ar
form of prayer wh|ch |s to be used as an off|c|a| prayer
9ub||c schoo| cannot compose prayers |ead prayers or set as|de spec|f|c t|me for
prayers
-? sLaLe prayer offlclally esLallshes Lhe rellglous ellefs emodled ln Lhe prayer
O Schoo| D|st of Ab|ngton 1wp V Schempp (US 1963) Lst C| proh|b|ts read|ngs from the 8|b|e and
rec|tat|on of the Lord's 9rayer dur|ng schoo|
4 @he pollcy vlolaLed Lhe LsL Cl /c Lhe prayers were prescrled as a parL of Lhe currlcular acLlvlLles
of sLudenLs who were req'd y law Lo aLLend school
4 uldn'L maLLer LhaL sLudenLs were noL req'd Lo parLlclpaLe
O Jest VA State 8oard of Lducat|on v 8arnette (US 1943) states cannot requ|re students to sa|ute the
f|ag and rec|te the p|edge of a||eg|ance
4 8of8 guards Lhe lndlvldual's rlghL Lo speak hls own mlnd
4 -o offlclal hlgh or peLLy can prescrle whaL shall e orLhodox ln pollLlcs naLlonallsm rellglon or
oLher maLLers of oplnlon or force clLlzens Lo confess y word or acL Lhelr falLh Lhereln
O Lee v Je|sman (US 1992) |nc|ud|ng prayer as a part of a pub||c nS graduat|on ceremony v|o|ated the
Lst C|
4 Cov'L dldn'L compose or lead Lhe prayer memers of Lhe clergy lnvlLed Lo dellver enedlcLlon
School dlsL chose Lhe clergy memer and dlcLaLed Lhe ounds of Lhe prayer
eglLlmaLe aLLempL Lo keep Lhe prayer nonsecLarlan and nondenomlnaLlonal
4 Jelsman's dad flled a consLlLuLlonal challenge Lo Lhe prayer as a vlolaLlon of Lhe LsL Cl
4 Coerc|on created a forma| re||g|ous exerc|se wh|ch students were ob||gated to attend
-o real cholce noL Lo aLLend graduaLlon lL's an lnLegral parL of Lhe S experlence
IolunLary ln Lheory noL appllcaLlon
4 ne|ghtened concern w|th prayer |n the pub||c schoo| context
eer pressure and pullc pressure Lo parLlclpaLe even Lhough Lhere ls no req psych
sLudles show LhaL chlldren are more suscepLlle Lo pressure Lo parLlclpaLe
SLandlng and remalnlng sllenL ls more Lhan usL a slgn of respecL denoLes parLlclpaLlon
and agreemenL wlLh Lhe message
4 A sp|r|tua| |mperat|ve for one m|ght be coerc|on for another
SLaLe cannoL req one of lLs clLlzens Lo forfelL hls or her rlghLs and eneflLs as Lhe prlce
of reslsLlng conformance
4 1he aff|rmat|ve act|on of the gov't was |nvo|v|ng the prayer |n the graduat|on ceremony
ueclslons y Lhe prlnclpal are aLLrluLale Lo Lhe sLaLe
4 8|ackmun Concurrence
Coerc|on |s suff|c|ent to estab||sh an Lst C| v|o|at|on but not necessary
O LsL Cl proscrles pullc school from conveylng or aLLempLlng Lo convey a
message LhaL rellglon or a parLlcular rellglous ellef ls favored or preferred
O A req of coerc|on wou|d make the Lst C| redundant b]c the IL C| a|ready
forb|ds the gov't |nterfer|ng w|th an |nd|v|dua|'s free exerc|se of re||g|on
LsL Cl prohllLs gov'L endorsemenL sponsorshlp or acLlve lnvolvemenL ln rellglon
4 SouLer Concurrence
Cov'L endorsemenL of a parLlcular rellglon conveys a message of excluslon Lo all Lhose
who do noL adhere Lo LhaL rellglon
Cov'L endorsemenL of a parLlcular message permlLs Lhe ellef LhaL Lhe gov'L supporLs
LhaL parLlcular rellglon
@he quesLlon lsn'L wheLher Lhe school made a good falLh efforL Lo make Lhe prayer non
secLarlan lL's Lhe leglLlmacy of Lhe underLaklng of esLallshlng a prayer ln Lhe flrsL place
4 Scalla ulssenL
aLes gov'L clLlng psych sLudles
nly sees gov'L compelllng" as y force of law or LhreaL of penalLy
Cov'L can encourage respecL among rellglons
Many pracLlces lndlcaLe gov'L endorsemenL of rellglon
O Good News C|ub v M||ford (US 2001) SC struck down a pub||c schoo| po||cy that proh|b|ted a re||g|ous
organ|zat|on from us|ng the schoo| after schoo| hours
4 SC found LhaL Lhe an vlolaLed Lhe 1
sL
Am proLecLlon for freedom of speech /c lL consLlLuLed
vlewpolnL dlscrlmlnaLlon
O Santa Ie |ndependent Schoo| D|str|ct v Doe (US 2000) struck down a schoo| board po||cy perm|tt|ng
appo|nt|ng of a study to g|ve the bened|ct|on
4 Challenge Lo a pullc S pollcy auLhorlzlng Lhe sLudenL ody Lo voLe each year on wheLher Lo
choose a sLudenL Lo dellver a rlef lnvocaLlon efore Lhe sLarL of fooLall games
4 Court he|d that the program v|o|ated the Lst C| b]c the spec|f|c purpose of the po||cy was to
preserve a popu|ar statesponsored re||g|ous pract|ce
4 Cov'L pollcy + gov'L properLy + gov'L sponsored school relaLed evenL
O Lpperson v Arkansas (US 1968) court |nva||dated a |aw forb|dd|ng the teach|ng of evo|ut|on |n pub||c
schoo|s and un|vers|t|es v|o|ated the Lst C|
4 IlolaLes Lhe roader neuLrallLy prlnclple prefers rellglon over nonrellglon
4 urpose was Lo dlsmlss Lhe Lheory of evoluLlon whlch was lnconslsLenL w/Lhe vlew of Lhe
rellglous maorlLy
O Ldwards v Agu|||ard (US 1987) struck down as v|o|at|ve of the Lst C| a |aw req the teach|ng of both
evo|ut|on and creat|on|sm |f e|ther was taught
4 Applled Lhe emon @esL no clear secular purpose Lo Lhe law
@he purpose musL e slncere and noL a sham
AcL doesn'L granL Leachers Lhe flexllllLy Lo Leach whaL Lhey chose
MoLlvaLed y a deslre Lo advance a rellglous vlewpolnL
lL's noL y chance LhaL Lhe pollcy req'd Leachlng of a rellglous vlew along wlLh evoluLlon
raLher Lhan any oLher vlew
4 Scalla dlssenL geL rld of Lhe emon LesL
urpose prong ls especlally ad
8ellglous Symollsm
Jednesday -ovemer 16 2011
1102 AM
O Marsh v Chambers (US 1983) uphe|d a NL statute perm|tt|ng appo|nt|ng a chap|a|n to be|ng each
|eg|s|at|ve sess|on w|th a prayer
4 Challenge Lo a -L sLaLuLe permlLLlng Lhe use of pullc funds Lo hlre a chaplaln Lo open each
leglslaLlve sesslon wlLh a prayer
4 n|stor|ca| patterns a|one cannot [ust|fy contemporary v|o|at|ons of const|tut|ona| guarantees
but here the h|story sheds ||ght on the |eg understand|ng of the Lst C|
Leg|s|at|ve prayers are deep/y embedded |n the h|story and trad|t|on of our country
4 8urger was Lhe auLhor of Lhe emon @esL uL he dldn'L apply lL here applles hlsLorlcal approach
llrsL Congress passed a sLaLuLe permlLLlng a chaplaln Lo conducL prayers Lo open
Congresslonal sesslons
SLaLuLe was passed qulLe conLemporaneously wlLh Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe 8of8
4 Appears LhaL Lhe pollcy would have falled Lhe emon @esL how does Motsb square wlLh Lhe
oLher LsL Cl cases llmlLed prlnclple or road
O Lynch v Donne||y (US 1984) he|d that a town's d|sp|ay of the creche |n a Chr|stmas d|sp|ay d|d not
v|o|ate the Lst C|
4 Challenge Lo Lhe ChrlsLmas dlsplay ln Lhe clLy ln 8l where Lhe creche was lncluded as one of Lhe
symols
Scene also lncluded oLher symols LradlLlonally correspondlng wlLh ChlrsLmas
All componenLs of Lhe dlsplay are owned y Lhe clLy
4 9|ura||ty app||ed the Lemon 1est wh||e acknow|edg|ng that there |s not one set test |n these
c|rcumstances
urpose
O Ilewed ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe hollday season lL ls apparenL LhaL Lhe Lown dld
noL puL lL Lhere wlLh Lhe lnLenL of conveylng supporL for a parLlcular rellglon
O Creche dlsplays Lhe hlsLorlcal orlglns of Lhls LradlLlonal evenL long recognlzed
as a naLlonal hollday
rlmary LffecL
O @he creche ls noL more of an endorsemenL or eneflL Lo rellglon Lhan Lhe
prevlous gov'L alds and endorsemenLs Lo rellglon LhaL have een permlLLed
O recedenL holds LhaL on occaslon some advancemenL of rellglon wlll resulL
from gov'L acLlon here lL was lndlrecL remoLe and lncldenLal
LnLanglemenL
O -o admlnlsLraLlve enLanglemenL /w rellglon and sLaLe resulLlng from Lhe
clLy's ownershlp and use of Lhe Creche
4 C'Connor Concurrence (S
th
Vote) app||ed two factors of the Lemon 1est (dropped purpose)
Lntang|ement there was no entang|ement here
Gov't endorsement or d|sapprova| of re||g|on 1wo Iactors
O Lxam|ne what message the commun|ty |ntended to commun|ty
4 Gov't po||cy can advance or |nh|b|t re||g|on but moy not endorse or
d|sapprove of re||g|on
4 CommunlLy dld noL lnLend Lo convey any message or endorsemenL or
approval/dlsapproval of ChrlsLlanlLy
4 nly lnLended Lo use Lhe creche as a symol of celeraLlon of a pullc
hollday Lhrough LradlLlonal symols
O Lxam|ne the message the commun|ty actua||y commun|cated from the
perspect|ve of the reasonab|e observer
4 CommunlLy dlsplay of Lhe creche does noL communlcaLe a message
LhaL Lhe gov'L lnLends Lo endorse rellglous ellefs
4 Creche ls usL a symol Lo represenL a pullc hollday LhaL ls lLself noL
undersLood Lo e an endorsemenL of rellglon
O County of A||egheny v ACLU (US 1989) Lstab||shes a context ana|ys|s
4 9etltteJ a clLy Lo dlsplay of a menorah /c lL was accompanled y a ChrlsLmas Lree
4 lJ oot petlt Lhe clLy Lo dlsplay a creche /c lL was unaccompanled y oLher rellglous and non
secular symols
1LN CCMANDMLN1S CASLS Sp||t Iour in fovor of d|sp|ay (kehnqu|st 1homas Sca||a and ennedy) and Iour
oqoinst d|sp|ay (Souter Stevens G|nsburg C'Connor) Cne Sw|ng (8reyer LS (McCreary) NC (Van Crden)
O McCrery County v ACLU of (US 200S) aff|rms DC |n[unct|on proh|b|t|ng d|sp|ay of the 10
Commandments |n the courthouse
4 Souter 8reyer Stevens G|nsburg 9|ura||ty
LsL Cl challenge Lo Lhe placemenL of large coples of Lhe @en CommandmenLs ln ?
CourLhouses
O AfLer Lhe challenge ? amended Lhe dlsplay Lo say LhaL Lhe @en
CommandmenLs are Lhe precedenL legal code upon whlch Lhe clvll and
crlmlnal codes of ? are founded
O Amended lL Lo lnclude elghL oLher docs ln smaller frames each havlng a
rellglous Lheme or excepL Lo hlghllghL a rellglous elemenL
uC lssued an lnuncLlon Lo remove Lhe dlsplays
O Amended Lhem Lo lnclude 9 oLher small frames wlLh coples of varlous
documenLs from our DS hlsLory (le ueclaraLlon of lndep ady lerLy -aL'l
MoLLo eLc)
Dec||nes to drop the purpose assessment of the Lemon 1est
O Lxam|nat|on of purpose |s a key e|ement of a good dea| of Con Law doctr|ne
O Court w||| not accept a sham exp|anat|on from a state regard|ng the purpose
of |ts acts
1here |s an |nherent re||g|ous message |n the 10 commandments
O keasonab|e observer cou|d on|y th|nk the count|es meant to emphas|ze and
ce|ebrate the Commandments re||g|ous message
O Cov'L oecLlve enhanced y Lhe correspondlng rellglous references and Lhe
accompanylng resoluLlon's clalm aouL Lhe emodlmenL of eLhlcs ln ChrlsL
O nly afLer mounLlng Lhe Lhlrd dlsplay dld Lhe sLaLe offer a usLlflcaLlon of
educaLlng Lhe pullc aouL docs LhaL played a role ln our sysLem of gov'L
llLlgaLlon usLlflcaLlon
9urpose needs to be taken ser|ous|y |n Lst C| [ur|sprudence and needs to be
understood |n ||ght of context
O -oL saylng LhaL Lhe 10 commandmenLs can never e consLlLuLlonally
lnLegraLed lnLo a gov'L dlsplay
O usL saylng Lhe dlsplay aL lssue here falls
Neutra||ty |s |mportant |n Lst C| [ur|sprudence
O lnLended noL only Lo proLecL Lhe lnLegrlLy of lndlvldual consclence ln rellglous
maLLers
O lnLended Lo guard agalnsL Lhe clvlc dlvlslveness LhaL follows when Lhe gov'L
welghs ln on one slde of Lhe rellglon deaLe
4 C'Connor Concurrence
4 Sca||a kehnqu|st 1homas ennedy D|ssent
O Van Crden v 9erry (US 200S)
4 kehnqu|st Sca||a ennedy 1homas 9|ura||ty
LsL Cl challenge Lo sLaLe monumenL llsLlng Lhe 10 commandmenLs
O More 8ellglous symols on Lhe monumenLs
O @he monumenL was presenLed y Lhe lraLernal rder of Lhe Lagles of @O
@wo approaches Lo LsL Cl Cases
O lsLorlcal sLrong role played y rellglon and rellglous LradlLlons LhroughouL
our naLlon's hlsLory
O SeparaLlonlsm gov'L lnLervenLlon ln rellglous maLLers can lLself endanger
rellglous freedom
uoes noL apply Lhe emon @esL here
Je should focus on Lhe naLure of Lhe monumenL and y our naLlon's hlsLory
O 10 CommandmenLs are dlsplayed ln many of our gov'L ulldlngs
O 10 CommandmenLs are clearly rellglous uL mere rellglous conLenL or
promoLlng a rellglous message does noL vlolaLe Lhe LsL Cl
@he lncluslon of Lhe 10 commandmenLs carrles a dual rellglous and gov'L funcLlon
4 8reyer Concurrence (Contro|||ng Cp|n|on)
@hls ls a orderllne case
O 10 commandmenLs have a clear rellglous message uL focuslng on Lhe LesL of
Lhem alone does noL concluslvely resolve Lhe case
1o reach a proper resu|t we must exam|ne how the text |s used |ook at the context
O 10 commandmenLs can dlsplay a secular moral message or a hlsLorlcal
message
nere the 10 commandments convey a secu|ar message and a re||g|ous one but the
state |ntends the secu|ar message to preva||
O Croup LhaL donaLed Lhe monumenL were noL lnLeresLed ln lLs rellglous
message
O @he seLLlng of Lhe monumenL does noL suggesL anyLhlng sacred
O SLaLe soughL Lo dlsplay a message aouL @O ldeals
Monument went uncha||enged for 40 years wh|ch |nd|cates |ts acceptance as a
secu|ar message rather than a re||g|ous one
4 Stevens G|nsburg C'Connor Souter D|ssent
Sole funcLlon of Lhe monumenL was Lo dlsplay a rellglous message and sLaLe
endorsemenL of Lhe dlvlne code of Lhe udeoChrlsLlan Cod
LsL Cl has a sLrong presumpLlon agalnsL Lhe dlsplay of rellglous symols on pullc
properLy
O LsL Cl and lree Lxerclse clause esLallsh Lhe separaLlonlsm prlnclple
SeparaLlonlsm proLecLs many prlnclples
O LsL Cl demands rellglous neuLrallLy gov'L may noL prefer one rellglon over
anoLher or rellglon over nonrellglon
uoesn'L supporL sLrlcL separaLlonlsm LsL Cl doesn'L req Lhe sLaLe Lo hlde works of arL
or hlsLorlc memorallla from pullc vlew usL /c lL has rellglous slgnlflcance
O @hls case lsn'L aouL hlsLorlc preservaLlon or mere recognlLlon of rellglon
O lL was noL donaLed wlLh Lhe purpose of commemoraLlng @O hlsLory

lree Lxerclse ulscrlmlnaLlon and -euLral aws

O lree Lxerclse Clause Congress shall make no law respecLlng an esLallshmenL of rellglon ot ptoblltloq
tbe ftee exetclse tbeteof"
4 roLecLs an lndlvldual's ellefs and meLhods of worshlp
O Jldely accepLed prlnclples under Lhe lree Lx Cl Lhe gov'L cannoL
4 unlsh ppl for holdlng cerLaln rellglous ellefs
4 uLlaw worshlp
4 unlsh Lhe expresslon of rellglous docLrlne lL elleves ls false
4 lmpose speclal dlsalllLles on Lhe asls of rellglous ellef or rellglous sLaLus
O @here ls an osolte fteeJo Lo hold rellglous ellefs and oplnlons
4 lL's rarely Lhe case LhaL gov'L seeks Lo lnLerfere Jltectly wlLh Lhls rlghL
4 lree exerclse clause doesn'L glve lndlvlduals llcense Lo Lake any acLlon ln Lhe name of rellglon
O @wo meLhods of lncldenLal gov'L lnLerference wlLh someone's alllLy Lo pracLlce Lhelr rellglon
4 ovt ptobllts a person from engaglng ln a pracLlce tepJ y tbelt tellqloo
4 ovt tepltes a person Lo engage ln conducL LhaL Lhelr tellqloo fotlJs
O CUkkLN1 S1ANDAkD mp/oyment uivision uept of numon kesources of Oreqon v Sm|th (US 1990) +
church of the Lukumi 8obo/u 4ye lnc v city of nio/eoh (US 1993)
4 Gov't may enforce a |aw burden|ng a part|cu|ar re||g|ous pract|ce on/y if
1he |aw |s neutra| and of genera| app||cab|||ty or
O -euLral lLs oecL ls noL Lo lnfrlnge upon or resLrlcL pracLlces /c of Lhelr
rellglon
O Ceneral appllcalllLy underlncluslve applylng Lo rellglous pracLlces uL noL Lo
slmllar nonrellglous pracLlces
Gov't has a compe|||ng |nterest |n |mpos|ng the burden and the |aw |s narrow|y
ta||ored to advance that |nterest
O Sherbert v Verner (US 1963) gov't act|ons that substant|a||y burden re||g|on must be [ust|f|ed by a
compe|||ng gov't |nterest (SS)
4 lacLs
AppellanL 7
Lh
uay AdvenLlsL LhaL couldn'L work SaLurday(her SaaLh)
uenled unemploymenL falled w/o good cause Lo accepL sulLale work
4 Court app||ed SS incidento/ burdens on free exercise may be [ust|f|ed by a compe//inq stote
interest |n the regu|at|on of the sub[ect w|th|n the state's const|tut|ona| power to regu|ate
A |aw |s unconst|tut|ona| |f the purpose or effect of the |aw |s to |mpede the
observance of one or a|| re||g|ons or to |nv|d|ous|y d|scr|m|nate b]w re||g|ons
CourL req'd LhaL Lhe sLaLe have a compelllng reason for noL granLlng an excepLlon
O aw req'd her Lo choose /w adherlng Lo her rellglon and aandonlng lL Lo
accepL work
8eecLed Lhe sLaLe's arg LhaL an excepLlon would resulL ln admln dlfflculLles and fraud
O J|scons|n v oder (US 1972) app||es a |ess demand|ng approach than the SS |n 5herbert but struck
down gov't compu|sory schoo| attendance po||cy
4 Compulsory aLLendance law req parenLs Lo send Lhelr chlldren Lo school unLll Lhey Lurn 16
vlolaLed Lhe lree Lx Cl w/respecL Lo Lhe Amlsh
4 9letce v ocy of lststets Lhe SLaLe's power Lo lmpose reasonale regulaLlons for Lhe conLrol
and duraLlon of aslc educaLlon may e made Lo yleld
lmporLanL parenLal lnLeresL ln dlrecLlng Lhe rellglous uprlnglng of Lhelr chlldren
4 Court the state |nterest must be of a suff|c|ent magn|tude to overr|de the |nterest c|a|m|ng
protect|on under the Iree Lx C|
1he proctice must be rooted in o /eqit re/iqious be/ief ond not mere/y o persono/
preference or o rejection of the contemporory secu/or vo/ues
1be coplsoty otteoJooce low bos o sevete lpoct of tbe lsb tellqloo copels
tbe oJet tbteot of ptosectloo to petfot oo oct ot oJJs wltb tbelt tellqloo
O Lmp|oyment D|v Dept of numan kesources of Cregon v Sm|th (US 1990) SS does not app|y to |aws
that are neutra| and of genera| app||cab|||ty that on|y have an |nc|denta| effect of re||g|on
4 lacLs
8 crlmlnallzed possesslon of conLrolled susLances noL medlcally prescrled
8espondenLs flred for lngesLlng peyoLe aL a rellglous ceremony denled unemploymenL
4 court opp/ied k8k to re/iqion neutro/ /ows thot hove on incidento/ effect of burdeninq re/iqion
D|st|ngu|shed oder was a hybr|d c|a|m Iree Lx C| +D9 C| (9arenta| r|ght to d|rect the
educat|on of the|r ch||dren)
O Iree Lx + (nybr|d) neuLral generally appllcale laws LhaL lncldenLally affecL
rellglously moLlvaLed acLlon are only unconsLlLuLlonal when Lhey affecL lree x
ond onother constitutiono/ protection
D|st|ngu|shed Sherbert Sherbert 1est |s ||m|ted to s|tuat|ons that are capab|e of
|nd|v|dua| assessment (|e unemp|oyment compensat|on)
O wbete tbe stote bos lo ploce o syste of loJlvlJol exeptloos lt oy oot
tefse to exteoJ tbot syste to tellqlos botJsblp w/o copellloq teosoo
O ShererL ls lnappllcale Lo road crlmlnal prohllLlon of parLlcular conducL
O 9rob|em w]Sherbert
4 Jould lead Lo rellglous exempLlons from all klds of generally
appllcale crlmlnal law
4 8eLLer Lo noL allow any exempLlons Lhen Lo force Lhe gov'L Lo draw
dlsLlncLlons ased on Lhe slncerlLy of Lhe requesLers falLh
Leave |t to the po||t|ca| process States may grant exempt|ons for re||g|ous use of
drugs 8U1 they are not requ|red to grant exempt|ons
4 C'Connor Concurrence tejects tbe ojotltys opptoocb ooJ opplles (oJet/ltb%
4 D|ssent wbot st e ossesseJ ls tbe stotes lotetest ls lo tefsloq to qtoot oo exceptloo fot
tellqlos ooJ ceteoolol se of peyote
O Church of the Lukum| 8aba|u Aye Inc v C|ty of n|a|eah (US 1993) SS app||es to |aws affect|ng re||g|on
that are not of genera app||cab|||ty or target re||g|ous pract|ces
4 lacLs
Church whlch pracLlced Lhe SanLerla rellglon soughL Lo move Lo laleah Lhelr rellglous
pracLlce lnvolved anlmal sacrlflce
ln response clLy councll passed 3 ordlnances regardlng anlmal sacrlflce
4 Court SS app||es to |aws concern|ng re||g|on that are not genera||y app||cab|e or neutra|
55 Lows thot ore either not neutro/ or not qenero//y opp/icob/e must be justified by o
compe//inq qovt interest ond must be norrow/y toi/ored to odvonce thot interest
O Not neutro/ lows tbot loftloqe poo ot testtlct ptoctlces /c of tbelt tellqlos
otlvotloo
4 1ext refers Lo rellglous pracLlces w/o a dlscernlle secular meanlng
4 Lffect laws LhaL go eyond leglLlmaLe concern
4 Surround|ng Lvents conLexL of Lhe law's enacLmenL
O Not qenero//y opp/icob/e lows tbot totqet o cooJct w/o tellqlos otlvotloo
4 CannoL e underlncluslve (doesn'L regulaLe Lhlngs lL should) or
overroad (regulaLes Lhlngs lL shouldn'L)
@he sLaLuLe when read w/lLs excepLlons lndlcaLed LhaL Lhe ordlnances were only golng
Lo apply Lo Lhe SanLerla rellglon
@he ordlnances falled SS underlncluslve y noL prohllLlng nonrellglous anlmal cruelLy