Constitutional Law II - Barron - Fall 2006

8/11/2019 Constitutional Law II - Barron - Fall 2006

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutional-law-ii-barron-fall-2006 1/83

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IIBarron, Fall 2006

Limitations on Governmental Power 1) The Constitution

a. Ex Post Facto Laws (Art. 1, §§ 9 & 10) prohiit !e"is!ation o# retrospecti$ecri%ina! punish%ent. App!ies to oth #eera! & state "o$ern%ents.

. 'i!!s o# Attainer (Art. 1, §§ 9 & 10) prohiit #eera! & state !e"is!atures

#ro% passin" !e"is!ation specia!! to punish ini$iua!s without tria!.c. Contract C!ause (Art. 1, § 10) species that no state sha!! pass !aws

i%pairin" the o!i"ation o# contract.*) The 'i!! o# +i"hts (110 A%ens.)

a. Barron v. Baltimore he! that the 'i!! app!ies to the #eera! "o$ern%entnot necessari! state "o$ern%ents.

. -th A%en. ue Process/ hi!e there is no 1th A%en. ue Processco%para!e C!ause app!ica!e to the #eera! "o$2t, the - th A%en. ueProcess C!ause wou! ar unreasona!e i%pair%ent o# sustanti$e $este!e"a! ri"hts. 3owe$er, -th A%en. ue Process re$iew has eencharacteri4e the Court as 5!ess searchin"6 than re$iew uner the

Contract C!ause.i. The "uarantee on! app!ies a"ainst !e"is!ati$e (not 7uicia!) action

i%pairin" sustanti$e !e"a! ri"hts.ii. ea8 source o# !i%itation on "o$ern%ent. Charles River Bridge v.

Warren (1:;), in a case in$o!$in" a pu!ic contract #or ui!in" ari"e, the Court he! that the !e"is!ature can a%en an inter#erewith a $a!i contract ecause the Contract C!ause wou! ie! toreasona!e state po!ice power.

:) The Ci$i! ar A%en%entsa. 1:th A%en. ao!ishes s!a$er an in$o!untar ser$itue. App!ies to oth

pu!ic & pri$ate action.. 1-th A%en. prohiits state an #eera! "o$ern%ent #ro% enin" $otin"

ri"hts ase on race or pre$ious conition o# ser$itue. <t oes notesta!ish a "enera! ri"ht to $ote.

c. 1th A%en. esta!ishes that persons orn or natura!i4e in the countrare citi4ens an re7ects the Dred Scott v. Sanford ecision that enieciti4enship to a !ac8 s!a$e. <t a!so %a8es %ost o# the 'i!! o# +i"htsapp!ica!e to the states. Ao!itionists $iew the 1th A%en. as a %eetin""roun o# constitutiona! an natura! ri"hts.

i. Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!auseii. ue Process/ =ustanti$e & Proceura!iii. E>ua! Protection

) Privilees or Imm!nities o" #$t% Amen&.(co$ers citi4ens? ue Process & E>ua! Protection app! to persons)

a. Fa!se start in Slaughterhouse Cases (1;:), where the Court he! that thePri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause o# the 1th A%en. i not %a8e the 'i!!o# +i"hts app!ica!e to the states in a case in$o!$in" La. statute creatin" a*-r %onopo!.

i. <t was he! that the so!e #unction o# the C!ause was to protect theri"hts secure to ini$iua!s in their re!ationship to the #eera!"o$ern%ent, in their capacit as #eera! citi4ens.

Pa"e 1 o# :



ii. Case re@ecte #eera!is% $a!ues an #una%enta! ri"hts an aseon a constitutiona! %is>uote. 5<t is >uite c!ear, then, that there is aciti4enship o# the nite =tates an a citi4enship o# a state, whichare istinct #ro% each otherB6

1. 5<ts so!e purpose was to ec!are to the se$era! states thatwhate$er those ri"hts, as ou "rant or esta!ish the% to ourown citi4ens, or as ou !i%it or >ua!i#, or i%pose restrictionson their exercise, the sa%e neither %ore or !ess, sha!! e the

%easure o# the ri"hts o# citi4ens o# other states within our 7urisiction.6

. +ecent!, the Court resurrecte the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause toprotect that aspect o# interstate tra$e! that "uarantee to tra$e!ers, whoare per%anent resients o# a state, the ri"ht to e treate !i8e otherciti4ens o# that state.

i. iscri%ination a"ainst the new! arri$e citi4en ase on theexercise o# the ri"ht to tra$e! e$en i# on! an incienta! uren is apena!t, su7ect to strict scrutin.

ii. <n Saenz v. Roe (1999), Court struc8 own a Ca!. !aw thatconitione we!#are enets on the #a%i!2s prior resience. =tate

ar"ue that this was to ser$e sca! o7ecti$es, ut the Court statethat the =tate cannot iscri%inate a%on" e>ua!! nee citi4ens.

1. nc!ear whether this is a re$i$a! in the use o# the C!ause as asustanti$e source o# protection o# #una%enta! ri"hts.

*. =tate %a sti!! see8 to assure that a new! arri$e tra$e!er is%aintainin" a ona e resience e#ore it pro$ies stateenets.

c. ri"ina! <ntent/ Dohn 'in"ha%, the principa! author o# the 1th A%en.,specica!! sai that the pri$i!e"es an i%%unities o# citi4ens o# thenite =tates, contraistin"uishe #ro% citi4ens o# a state, are chie@ene in the rst A%en%ents o# the Constitution o# the nite=tates.

i. Pro#. Trie conc!ues that the C!ause is est seen then, asincorporatin" the 'i!! o# +i"hts a"ainst state "o$ern%ents withouti%p!in" the exc!usi$it o# that set o# "uarantees. Trie a!so ar"uesthat Coreld can e est unerstoo as an atte%pt to i%port thenatura! ri"hts octrine into the Const. wa o# the Pri$i!e"es &<%%unities.

. Ao!itionist Perspecti$e/ <t has een su""este that the three C!auses o#the 1th A%en. were the prouct an too8 their %eanin", app!ication,an si"nicance #ro% the ao!itionist %o$e%ent, a popu!ar an pri%ari!!a %o$e%ents, which was %ora!, ethica!, re!i"ious, an re$i$a!ist ratherthan !e"a! in character. The A%en. to the% was a 5%eetin" "roun o#constitutiona! an natura! ri"hts,6 protectin" 5natura! an inherent ri"htso# a!! %en.6

i. ner this interpretation, the A%en. intene to inc!ue the entire'i!! o# +i"hts an a "reat ea! %orethe who!e spectru% o# ri"htse%race in such phrases as 5natura! ri"hts,6 5#una%enta! ri"hts,65the ri"hts o# %an,6 5o"i$en ri"hts6 an so #orth an in suchocu%ents as the ec!aration o# <nepenence, the Prea%!e to theConstitution, an the 'i!! o# +i"hts.

Pa"e * o# :



e. +e7ectin" the Ao!itionist Construction/ D. Gi!!er ar"ues that the Fra%erscou! not ha$e intene to restructure the A%erican #eera! sste% inorer to pro$ie #eera! protection #or ci$i! ri"hts.

i. 3owe$er, E. Corwin notes/ The eates in Con"ress on thea%en%ent !ea$e one in !itt!e out o# the intention o# its #ra%ersto nationa! ci$i! !iert in the =, pri%ari! #or the enet o# the#reeo%, ut incienta!! #or the enet o# a!!. This wou! e one con$ertin" =tate citi4enship an its pri$i!e"es an i%%unities

into pri$i!e"es an i%%unities o# nationa! citi4enship.1. Then section -, o# the a%en., which e%powers Con"ress

to en#orce its other pro$isions 5appropriate !e"is!ation,6that o wou! e %ae the u!ti%ate authorit in e!i%itin"the entire sphere o# pri$ate ri"hts in re!ation to the powers o#the =tates, !ea$in" to the =upre%e Court an inter%eiate ro!ein this respect.

ii. D. Fox ar"ues that Gi!!er wron"! re!e"ate the #una%enta!pri$i!e"es o# citi4enship, which were extensi$e! iscusse thera#ters o# the a%en. an suse>uent Con"resses, to statepri$i!e"es an i%%unities. <n oin" so, !i%ite the on"oin"

con"ressiona! eate o$er specic enitions o# the C!ause in thecontext o# the en#orce%ent powers uner §-.

1. Contrar to %oern =upre%e Court interpretation, theori"ina! intent was that Con"ress ha power uner §- toeter%ine so%e o# the content o# the pri$i!e"es ani%%unities o# nationa! citi4enship.

#. Constitutiona!i4in" Ci$i! +i"hts/ +. 'er"er ar"ues that the three C!auseso# §1 o# the A%en. were a!! #acets o# the sin"!e concern to prohiitiscri%ination a"ainst #ree%en in re"ar to a !i%ite ran"e o##una%enta! ri"hts re@ecte in the 1HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act.

i. The sustanti$e ri"hts were ientie the pri$i!e"es ani%%unities C!ause? the e>ua! protection was to ar !e"is!ati$eiscri%ination with respect to those ri"hts? an the 7uicia!%achiner to secure the% was to e supp!ie noniscri%inatorue process o# the se$era! states.

1. The sustanti$e ri"hts inc!ue on! (1) persona! securit? (*)#reeo% to %o$e aout? an (:) ownership an isposition o#propert. The incienta! ri"hts necessar #or sa#e"uarin"these ri"hts were enu%erate in the 1HH Ci$i! +i"hts Actwhich ene the outer !i%its o# the 1th A%en. pri$i!e"esan i%%unities.

ii. Critics o# this ar"u%ent point out that this is an o$ersi%p!ie $iewo# the co%p!exit o# %oti$ations that uner!ie the a%i"uouspro$isions o# the 1th A%en. E$en i# the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unitiesC!ause was %eant to constitutiona!i4e the ri"hts enu%erate in the1HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act, this oes not necessari! %ean that the A%en. was so !i%ite, since it oes not enu%erate specic ri"htsas oes the Ci$i! +i"hts Act.

1. <# the ri"hts o# nite =tates citi4enship are the natura! ri"htsto !i#e, !iert, an propert, as repeate! state the#ra%ers, then the ri"hts specie in §1 o# the Ci$i! +i"hts Act

Pa"e : o# :



o not co%pro%ise the entire corpus o# the ri"hts o# =citi4ens.

". Duicia! $iew/ C.D. arren su""este in Brown I , that the histor o# the1th A%en. is 5at est, inconc!usi$e.6 D. 'rennan (concurrin" anissentin" in Ore. v. Mitchell) conc!ue that the 5recor !e#t the#ra%ers o# the 1th A%en. is thus too $a"ue an i%precise,6 an the A%en. there#ore re%ain 5capa!e o# ein" interprete #uture"enerations in accorance with the $ision an nees o# those

"enerations.6-) Nat!ral 'i%ts

a. 'e"ins with the ec!aration o# <nepenence, which procees #ro% thepre%ise that it is a 5se!#e$ient truth6 that 5a!! %en are create e>ua!6an enowe with o"i$en, ina!iena!e ri"hts to !i#e, !iert an thepursuit o# happiness.

i. <t has een su""este that the !aw o# nature is nothin" %ore or !essthan the popu!ation conception o# 7ustice an ri"ht. DeIerson2s useo# it as a 7ustication #or re$o!ution is !ess trou!eso%e than its use D. Chase as a asis #or 7uicia! re$iew.

. <n Calder v. Bull (1;9) D. Chase co%%ente that 5the o!i"ation o# a !aw

in "o$ern%ents esta!ishe on express co%pact, an on repu!icanprincip!es, %ust e eter%ine the nature o# the power, on which it is#oune6 (in$o!$in" the $a!iit o# a Conn. !aw o$erturnin" a proatecourt ecree an "rantin" a new hearin" was attac8e as an ex post #acto!aw).

i. n the contrar, D. <ree!! wrote separate! to express his $iew thatin the asence o# an constitutiona! restraints the Court i notha$e the power to ec!are the !aw $oi, pointin" out that the ieaso# natura! 7ustice are not re"u!ate an xe stanar.

c. <n letcher v. !ec" (110) the Court re!ie on natura! !aw to ec!are state!aw unconstitutiona! ecause the !e"is!ati$e power is !i%ite oth the"enera! princip!es o# our po!itica! institutions an the wors o# theConstitution (!an tit!e ha een con$ee to innocent owners, state !awrescinin" the "rant was ee%e to unconstitutiona!! inter#ere with $este ri"hts).

. Econo%ic ri"hts/ octrine o# Jeste +i"hts states that propert ri"ht is#una%enta! an an !aw i%pairin" $este ri"hts is $oi. Propert was anatura! ri"ht protecte the socia! co%pact. This octrine was use the courts principa!! was a u!war8 o# econo%ic propert interestsa"ainst state !e"is!ati$e intrusion. A!so #ro% the 19th Cent. to 19:;, theCourt #oun that #reeo% to contract was a asic ri"ht uner the !iertan propert pro$isions o# the ue process C!ause.

(!e Pro)ess *eanins The ue process princip!e eri$es #ro% the Ga"na Carta, pro$iin" protection

#ro% the Kin", 7uiciar an the !e"is!ature. There is serious >uestion thateither phrase was ori"ina!! intene to pro$ie a sustanti$e, rather then aproceura!, !i%itation on "o$ern%enta! power.

hat is the nature o# the 5!iert6 protecte the ue Process C!ause thatwou! in the states oes it incorporate the 'i!! o# +i"hts an to whatextent

Pa"e o# :



#+ Total In)ororationThe Court, re7ecte tota! incorporation o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts as app!ica!e to thestates in Barron v. Baltimore.

a. 5ha the #ra%ersB intene Mthe 'i!! o# +i"htsN to e !i%itations on thepowers o# the state "o$ern%ents, the wou! ha$e i%itate the #ra%ers o# the ori"ina! constitution, an ha$e expresse that intention.6

. 5These a%en%ents contain no expression inicatin" an intention toapp! the% to the state "o$ern%ents.6

2+ Fle-i.le (!e Pro)ess /In&een&ent Poten)+<n the 190s & -0s, a Court %a7orit e%p!oe a @exi!e approach which $iewe the ue Process C!ause as ha$in" a %eanin" inepenent o# the 'i!! o#+i"hts. The Court eter%ine whether a proceein" was so un#air as to oIenthe #una%enta! stanars o# ecenc.

a. <nepenent Potenc o# the ue Process C!ause o# the 1th & -th A%ens./i. =tanar o# 5whether the oIen those canons o# ecenc an

#airness which express the notions o# 7ustice.6 Fro% #damson v.Cal. (19;) (upho!in" 2s con$iction o# %urer cha!!en"in" Ca!.proceure pro$iin" that #ai!ure o# to testi# can e consiere).

ii. Consensus theor o# what the %a7orit o# the states o to in#or%

notions o# ue process.1. se in $ones v. lowers to eter%ine that the state neee to

ta8e aitiona! reasona!e steps to noti# owner o# tax sa!e.1+ Sele)tive In)ororation

The Court has he! that so%e, ut not a!!, o# the pro$isions o# the 'i!! o# +i"htsare incorporate the ue Process C!ause an thus %ae app!ica!e to thestates. Goreo$er, the "uarantees o# the ue Process C!ause are not !i%ite tothose ri"hts in the 'i!! o# +i"hts.

a. =tanar o# <ncorporation/i. Concept o# rere Liert

1. Co$ers on! #una%enta! ri"hts or ri"hts that are necessar toa ci$i!i4e societ.

*. Announce in !al"o v. Conn. (19:;), D. Caro4o writin" thatso%e o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts are protecte $a!ues ecause theare i%p!icit in the concept o# orere !iert, i.e. #reeo% o#expression, #ree exercise o# re!i"ion, the ri"ht o# peacea!easse%!, an the ri"ht o# one accuse o# cri%e to the eneto# counse!.

ii. +oote in A%erican Traition or Dustice1. As8s i# it is #una%enta! e$en thou"h a #air & en!i"htene

sste% o# 7ustice wou! e possi!e without the "uarantee. Duncan v. %a. (19H).

. Pro$isions Oot <ncorporate/ Gost o# the sustanti$e & proceura!"uarantees o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts ha$e een incorporate except, *n, :r,an -th A%en. ri"ht to "ran 7ur inict%ent an ;th A%en. ri"ht to tria! 7ur in ci$i! cases, #reeo% #ro% excessi$e ai!, an re>uire%ents o# a1*person 7ur an o# a unani%ous $erict #or con$iction.

$+ F!ll Partial In)ororationThe Court has he! that the incorporate ri"hts app!ies a"ainst the states to thesa%e extent an in the sa%e %anner as the 'i!! o# +i"hts pro$ision app!ies

Pa"e - o# :



a"ainst the #eera! "o$ern%ent. 3owe$er, !ater cases ha$e narrowe the scopeo# certain 'i!! o# +i"hts "uarantees to acco%%oate state proceures.

Pa"e H o# :



P'OC3(U'AL (U3 P'OC3SSuarantee the -th an 1th A%ens. +e%eies #or proceura! ue process $io!ations %anate that the "o$2t chan"e the processes use in ea!in" with persons o not re>uire an re#or% in the sustanti$e ru!e itse!#.

#+ Interest Inva&e&4 <s there a epri$ation o# a si"nicant !i#e, !iert, orpropert interest so that the ue Process C!ause app!ies The Court has on!reco"ni4e ue process as app!in" to enets that are present! en7oe.

a. Propert/ the #act that an interest is i%portant to an ini$iua! is

inae>uate to create 5propert/ #or ue process purposes. Propert haseen !i%ite to interests reco"ni4e the "o$ern%ent (in existin" ru!esor unerstanin"s that ste% #ro% state or #eera! !aw).

i. For "o$ern%ent enets to constitute propert, the person see8in"ue process %ust show so%e entit!e%ent create "o$ern%ent.hether we!#are is ee%e a ri"ht or pri$i!e"e, this is a si"nicantpropert interest an ue process %ust e aIore when enetsare ter%inate.

1. 5+e!e$ant constitutiona! restraints app! as %uch to thewithrawa! o# pu!ic assistance enets as to is>ua!ication#or une%p!o%ent co%pensation? or to enia! o# a tax

exe%ption? or to ischar"e #ro% pu!ic e%p!o%ent.6&old'erg v. (ell) (19;0).

ii. A enet is OT a protecte entit!e%ent i# "o$ern%ent oIicia!s%a "rant or en it in their iscretion. Castle Roc" v. &onzales (*00-) (=ca!ia #or the Ct. ho!in" that there is no propert interestor entit!e%ent to en#orce%ent o# a restrainin" orer), note thearriers to en#orce%ent constitutin" a propert interest/

1. Lac8s a %onetar $a!ue*. A!!e"e propert interest arises incienta!!, #ro% a #unction

routine! per#or%e? not out o# so%e new species o# "o$2tenet or ser$ice.

:. An inirect an incienta! resu!t o# the "o$ern%ent2sen#orce%ent action oes not a%ount to a epri$ation o# aninterest in !i#e, !iert or propert.

. Liert/ roa concept inc!uin" conitions o# i%prison%ent, reputation,%arria"e, raisin" a #a%i!, wor8in" in co%%on occupations o# theco%%unities, an other notions protecte sustanti$e ue process.

c. epri$ation/ %ust e a e!ierate act the "o$ern%ent rather than ane"!i"ent act, or pri$ate act.

2+ Pro)e&!res 'e5!ire&4 The %ini%u% proceures e%ane ue processare notice an hearin".

a. ner the Matthews test, the Court consiers three #actors ( Matthews v. *ldridge) (19;H) (Ct. he! that ue process oes not re>uire a preter%ination hearin")/

i. The se$erit o# the har% to the !iti"ant i# the re>ueste proceuresare not "rante

ii. The ris8 o# error i# the proceures are not aIoreiii. The a%inistrati$e iIicu!t an cost o# pro$iin" the ae

proceures.. Court has note that Matthews is not an 5a!!e%racin" test #or eciin"

ue process c!ai%s.6 Dusen'er) v. +S (*00*) (usin" 5a %ore

Pa"e ; o# :



strai"ht#orwar test o# reasona!eness uner the circu%stances6 inho!in" that notice o# #or#eiture sent certie %ai! to #eera! prisonwhere c!ai%ant was incarcerate satise proceura! ue process.).

c. Court he! that pu!ic e%p!oees o not ha$e to accept the 5itter withthe sweet,6 o$erru!in" a pre$ai!in" $iew that a pu!ic e%p!oee can eischar"e without a hearin". Cleveland Bd. of *duc. v. %oudermill (o$erru!in" #rnett v. (enned) ).

i. Propert is not ene proceures pro$ie #or its epri$ation.

The ri"ht to ue process is con#erre the Constitution. hi!e the!e"is!ature %a e!ect not to con#er a propert interest in pu!ice%p!o%ent, it %a not constitutiona!! authori4e the epri$ation o# such an interest, once con#erre, without appropriate proceura!sa#e"uars.

. Court use consensus theor o# ue process in eciin" what 8in o#notice is suIicient in $ones v. lowers.

SUBSTANTI3 (U3 P'OC3SS3)onomi) S!.stantive (!e Pro)ess

The Court initia!! re7ecte the rst atte%pts to use the ue process C!ause to

protect econo%ic ri"hts #ro% "o$ern%ent inter#erence. 5ner no constructiono# Mthe ue ProcessN C!ause, or an that we ee% a%issi!e, can the restrainti%pose the "o$ern%ent

o Slaughter ,ouse Cases (1;:)/ Ct. express! re7ecte utchers2

sustanti$e ue process c!ai% cha!!en"in" La. !aw that "rante a pri$ateco%pan a *-r %onopo!. Ct. state that the ue Process C!ause cou!not e use to sa#e"uar a ri"ht to practice a trae or pro#ession #ro%aritrar "o$ern%ent inter#erence.

D. Fie! & 'ra!e issente, interpretin" the ue Process C!ause as

!i%itin" the ai!it o# states to aopt aritrar !aws, especia!! onesthat inter#ere with natura! ri"hts. 5This ri"ht to choose one2sca!!in" is an essentia! part o# that !iert which is the "o$ern%ent2so7ect to protect? an a ca!!in" when chosen, is a %an2s propertan ri"ht.6

• The 7ustices interprete 5!iert6 an 5propert6 in the ue

Process C!ause as protectin" a ri"ht to practice a trae orpro#ession.

'ise4 Prior to the Oew ea!, the Court use the ue Process C!auses o# the -th & 1th A%en. to in$a!iate a $ariet o# #eera! an state socia! an econo%ic!aws as aritrar inter#erences with the #reeo% to contract protecte theue Process "uarantees o# !iert an propert.

o

5<n %ere pri$ate contracts, re!atin" to %atters in which the pu!ic has nointerest, what is reasona!e %ust e ascertaine 7uicia!!B ecause the!e"is!ature has no contro! o$er such contract.6 Munn v. Illin. (1;;) (Ct.icta).

o Ct. he! that prohiitin" a person #ro% %a8in" a contract with an outo#state co%pan was a $io!ation o# the ini$iua!2s ri"ht to contractprotecte the 1th A%en. #llge)er v. %a. (19;).

o 5The ri"ht to purchase or se!! !aor is part o# the !iert protecte Mthe

1thN a%en%ent, un!ess there are circu%stances which exc!ue that

Pa"e o# :



ri"ht.6 %ochner v. - (190-) (Ct. in$a!iate state !aw re"u!ation%axi%u% hours o# e%p!o%ent.).

uestion is whether this is a #air, reasona!e, an appropriate

exercise o# the po!ice power o# the state or is it an unreasona!,unnecessar, an aritrar inter#erence with the ri"ht o# theini$iua! to his persona! !iert

• The act %ust ha$e a %ore irect re!ation, as a %eans to anen an the en itse!# %ust e appropriate an !e"iti%ate,e#ore an act can e he! to e $a!i which inter#eres with the"enera! ri"ht o# an ini$iua! to e #ree in his person an inhis power to contract in re!ation to his own !aor.

D. 3o!%es issentin", 5a constitution is not intene to e%o a

particu!ar econo%ic theor.6 =u""este that the Ct. #ai!e to see that #reeo% cou! e !i%ite

centers o# econo%ic powerthe corporation as we!! as "o$2t. Criticis% that the Ct. rea an econo%ic theor o# !aisse4#aire that

was not there.o Court struc8 own a #eera! !aw which %ae it a cri%ina! oIense #or an

interstate carrier to ischar"e an e%p!oee ecause o# his %e%ership ina !aor union. #dair v. +S (190).o Court in$a!iate a %ini%u% wa"e !aw #or wo%en, reco"ni4in" that

#reeo% o# contract is the "enera! ru!e an restraint the exception. #d"ins v. Children/s ,os0ital (19*:).

(e)line4 <n the #ace o# risin" a$erse pu!ic reaction to 7uicia! in$a!iation o#the Oew ea!, the octrine o# econo%ic sustanti$e ue process e"an to e.

o Oeither propert ri"hts not contract ri"hts are aso!ute. E>ua!!

#una%enta! with the pri$ate ri"ht is that o# the pu!ic to re"u!ate it inthe co%%on interest. The -th a%en., in the e! o# #eera! acti$it, anthe 1th a%en., as respects to state action, o not prohiit "o$ern%enta!

re"u!ation #or the pu!ic we!#are. -e''ia v. - (19:) (Ct. uphe! state!e"is!ation settin" %i!8 prices #or the purpose o# stai!i4in" the %ar8etan roaens exception #or re"u!ation o# usiness aIecte with pu!icinterest).

The "uarantee o# ue process e%ans on! that the !aw sha!! not

e unreasona!e, aritrar or capricious, an that the %eansse!ecte sha!! ha$e a rea! an sustantia! re!ation to the o7ectsou"ht to e attaine.

=o #ar as the re>uire%ent o# ue process is concerne, an in the

asence o# other constitutiona! restriction, a state is #ree to aoptwhate$er econo%ic po!ic %a reasona! e ee%e to pro%ote

pu!ic we!#are, an to en#orce that po!ic !e"is!ation aapte toits purpose.

'ational .asis stan&ar& o" review4 <# the !aws passe are seen to

ha$e a reasona!e re!ation to a proper !e"is!ati$e purpose, an areneither aritrar nor iscri%inator, the re>uire%ents o# ueprocess are satise.

• ith -e''ia, the Court e"an a %arch that was to en withtota! 7uicia! aication.

Pa"e 9 o# :



o S!.stantive )%ane ca%e when the Court announce that 5Liert

uner the Constitution is thus necessari! su7ect to the restraints o# ueprocess, an re"u!ation which is reasona!e in re!ation to its su7ect anis aopte in the interests o# the co%%unit is ue process.6 W. Coast ,otel Co. v. !arish (19:;) (o$erru!in" #d"ins an notin" that 5theco%%unit %a irect its !aw%a8in" power to correct the ause whichsprin"s #ro% our se!sh isre"ar o# the pu!ic interest.6).

=use>uent!, the Court ec!are 5it is not !on"er open to >uestion

that the xin" o# a %ini%u% wa"e is within the !e"is!ati$e poweran that the are #act o# its exercise is not a enia! o# ue process.6+S v. Dar') (upho!in" stanars o# the Fair Laor =tanars Act).

o (e"erential aroa)% ta8en in upho!in" statutes #oriin"

iscri%ination a"ainst nonunion e%p!oees ( %incoln ed. %a'or +nion v. -W Iron 1 Metal), an eta7ustin" ( erguson v. S"ru0a). 5ner thesste% o# "o$ern%ent create our Constitution, it is up to !e"is!atures,not courts, to ecie on the wiso% an uti!it o# !e"is!ation.6

o C!rrent aroa)% the Court uses to 7u"e the $a!iit o# econo%ic

re"u!ation set #orth in +S v. Carolene !rods. (19:)/ For re"u!ator!e"is!ation aIectin" orinar co%%ercia! transaction is not to epronounce unconstitutiona! un!ess in the !i"ht o# the #acts %ae 8nownor "enera!! assu%e it is o# such character as to prec!ue theassu%ption that it rests upon so%e rationa! asis within the 8now!e"ean experience o# the !e"is!ators.

The uren is on the cha!!en"in" part to esta!ish that the !aw has

no rationa! re!ation to a per%issi!e "o$ern%enta! purpose. There %a e a narrower scope #or operation o# the presu%ption o#

constitutiona!it when !e"is!ation appears on its #ace to e withinspecic prohiition o# the Constitution, such as those o# the rst tena%en%ents. There is a!so the possii!it o# 5%ore exactin" 7uicia!

scrutin6 when !e"is!ation ne"ati$e! i%pacte the po!itica! processitse!# o# aIecte iscrete an insu!ar %inorities. D. =tone at #n .

*o&ern S!.stantive (!e Pro)ess4 Non7F!n&amental 'i%ts 'ational .asis review4 Toa, socia! an econo%ic re"u!ator an tax

!e"is!ation which oes not inter#ere with #una%enta! ri"hts wi!! not e c!ose!scrutini4e the #eera! courts. <# there is an rationa! asis that the!e"is!ature %i"ht ha$e ha #or conc!uin" that the !e"is!ation wou! #urtherper%issi!e !e"is!ati$e o7ecti$es, it wi!! e sustaine.

o The !aw %ust not e aritrar or irrationa! an wi!! e presu%e to e

constitutiona!.

o The cha!!en"in" part ha the uren o# proo#, which is essentia!!insur%ounta!e an no econo%ic !e"is!ation has een he! to eunconstitutiona! the Court.

Al t%e stan&ar&4 hen exa%inin" a statute uner the ue Process C!ause,i# there is no asis #or in$o8in" a stricter stanar o# re$iew, the rationa!it testshou! e aopte/deference to legislative 0olic) 2udgments

1) ascertain the o7ecti$e o# the !aw (a court wi!! not proe #or the truepurpose o# the !aw)

a. #or state !aws, per%issi!e po!ice power o7ecti$es wi!! suIice.Pa"e 10 o# :



*) ienti# the %eans use the state to achie$e the o7ecti$e:) exa%ine the rationa!it o# the %eans #or achie$in" the o7ecti$e

re$iewin" the re!e$ant #actsa. i# there are #acts that wou! sustain the !aw, courts wi!! "enera!!

assu%e the !e"is!ation was ase on those #acts

S!.stantive (!e Pro)ess4 F!n&amental 'i%ts Stri)t s)r!tin review4 hen !e"is!ation intrues on 5#una%enta! ri"hts6

app!ica!e to the states throu"h the ue process "uarantee, a %ore e%anin"stanar o# re$iew is aopte. The "o$ern%ent %ust e%onstrate that the!e"is!ation is narrow! tai!ore or necessar to #urther a co%pe!!in" stateinterest.

This re>uires a %uch %ore specic showin"/o that the %eans are reasona!e,

o o# ur"ent state interest

o narrow tai!orin" (i# the !aw is not precise! rawn, it can e he! to e

unconstitutiona!! o$erroa) The uren o# 7ustication is on the "o$ern%ent. Ali)a.ilit4 hi!e a strict scrutin is use #or a!! express ri"hts, the Court

has a!so app!ie the %ore e%anin" stanar to ri"hts that are not express!enu%erate.

o <n so%e cases, the ri"hts are i%p!ie #ro% the express ri"hts, e.". ri"hts

o# association an e!ie# i%p!ie #ro% the 1st A%en.o <n other instances, the 7uicia! eter%ination o# whether a #una%enta!

ri"ht is si"nicant! urene re@ects consierations such as traition,conte%porar %ora!s, preceent an ana!o", !o"ic an reason, or theconse>uences o# the !aw #or the ini$iua! (as app!ie ana!sis).

o hen the Court ec!ines to #ashion a separate 5#una%enta! ri"ht6 ut

eter%ines whether the "o$ern%ent re"u!ation sustantia!! urens a

si"nicant !iert interest "uarantee the ue Process C!ause. The Court %a a$oi use o# strict scrutin, ut aopts a

5continuu%6 approach re@ectin" the reasonin" 5that certaininterests re>uire particu!ar! care#u! scrutin o# the state neesasserte to 7usti# their ari"e%ent.6 !oe v. +llman (19H1)(3ar!an issentin").

The Court a!ances the "o$ern%ent interest in re"u!atin" the

conuct a"ainst the uren on protecte !iert, resu!tin" in aninter%eiate !e$e! o# scrutin.

Contra)etion Court #oun that specic "uarantees in the 'i!! o# +i"hts (1st, :r, th, -th, an 9th

A%ens.) ha$e penu%ras that create a 54ones o# pri$ac.6 5e ea! with ari"ht o# pri$ac o!er than the 'i!! o# +i"hts.6 <t is an i%per%issi!e intrusionon the ri"ht o# association protectin" the %arita! re!ationship. &riswold v.Conn. (19H-) (r. was char"e with istriutin" contraception to %arriepersons).

o D. o!er"2s concurrence state/ Du"es %ust !oo8 to the traitions anco!!ecti$e conscience o# our peop!e to eter%ine whether a princip!e is soroote there as to e ran8e as #una%enta!. Liert a!so "ains content#ro% the e%anations o# specic constitutiona! "uarantees an #ro%experience with the re>uire%ents o# a #ree societ.

Pa"e 11 o# :





whate$er the #or%a! ar"u%ent e%p!oe the%a7orit.

. 'eane su""ests that D. ou"!as2 opinion wishes to a$oi the

5natura! !aw6 princip!e which in$o!$es se!ectin" ri"hts inc!ua!e inthe ue Process C!ause o# the 1th A%en.a process he an D.'!ac8 ha sou"ht to a$oi e%anin" #u!! incorporation o# the'i!! o# +i"hts.

• At the sa%e ti%e, he wants to circu%$ent the !i%itations

pose '!ac82s insistence that on! those ri"hts specie inthe 'i!! o# +i"hts or other pro$isions o# the Constitution areprotecte. hat resu!ts is a %oie 5natura! !aw6 ie!in" ao o# ri"hts whose content is su""este specicconstitutiona! pro$isions whose scope an content are notrestricte to, or , the enu%erate ri"hts.

D. E! ns support in the Constitution #or 5representation

rein#orcin"6 $a!ues which 7usti# acti$e 7uicia! inter$ention in5ensurin" roa participation in the process an istriutions o#"o$ern%ent.6 The Constitution is a process o# "o$ern%ent, not a"o$ernin" ieo!o".

+. Posner/ A court is suppose to e tethere to authoritati$e texts,

such as constitutiona! an statutor pro$isions, an to pre$ious 7uicia! ecisions? a !e"is!ature is notit can roa% #ree. 'ut the=upre%e Court, when it is eciin" constitutiona! cases, is po!itica!in the sense o# ha$in" an exercisin" iscretionar power ascapacious as the !e"is!atures. <t cannot aicate that power, #orthere is nothin" on which to raw to ecie constitutiona! cases o#an no$e!t other than iscretionar 7u"%entB. =uch cases occupa roa open area where the con$entiona! !e"a! %ateria!s o#ecision run out an the Dustices, epri$e o# those crutches, ha$e

to %a8e a iscretionar ca!!. C. =unstein2s theor o# proceura! %ini%a!is%/ in the %ost iIicu!t

an contro$ersia! o%ains, the Court tens to choose re!ati$e!narrow an una%itious "rouns? it procees ui!in" cautious!on preceent, in the #ashion o# co%%on !aw courts.

o T%e 8t% Amen&94 The Court has "enera!! interprete the 9th A%en. in a%anner that enies it an ro!e in the constitutiona! structure.

<t is opentexture enou"h to support a!%ost anthin" one %i"ht

wish to ar"ue. <t %a e that it is an antipree%ption pro$ision, inicatin" that the

enu%eration o# constitutiona!! protecte ri"hts is not intene to

occup the e! an there prec!ue statecreate supp!e%entarri"hts that are not "roune in specic textua! pro$isions. =oconstrue, the 9th A%en. wou! not authori4e the 7uiciar toreco"ni4e the new #eera!! protecte constitutiona! ri"hts.

=i%i!ar!, it %a e esi"ne to c!ari# that the enu%erate ri"hts is

not intene to e an exhausti$e !ist o# !e"a!! reco"ni4e ri"hts. <t has a!so een su""este that the #ra%ers conte%p!ate the

existence o# ri"hts ao$e an eon those enu%erate in the 'i!!o# +i"hts, which are ase on natura! !aw.

Pa"e 1: o# :



o *arital an& Familial Priva)4 The pri$ac reco"ni4e in &riswold %a

e seen as @owin" #ro% the traitiona! $a!ues associate with %arita!ri"hts an the un!e o# ri"hts associate with ho%e, #a%i! an %arria"eri"hts supporte preceent, histor, an co%%on unerstanin".

<t has een state that whate$er the constitutiona! ri"ht o# pri$ac

%a %ean in other contexts, the %ain o7ect o# constitutiona!protection in &riswold was the %arita! re!ationship.

o 'i%t to .e le"t alone4 The pri$ac iscussion e%phasi4e the ho%e as

a critica! !ocus o# pri$ac an the rea!% o# e!ie#s an thou"hts asessentia! parts o# the 5ri"ht to e !e#t a!one.6 Stanle) v. &a. (19H9) (Ct.struc8 own a con$iction ase on possession o# oscene %ateria!s inone2s ho%e, citin" the 1st A%en. an ri"ht to pri$ac).

Court a!so pro$ie this ri"ht to un%arrie ini$iua!s in *isenstadt v. Baird (19;*) (in$a!iatin" Gass. !aw prohiitin" istriution o# contraception toun%arrie persons espite a!!owin" access to %arrie peop!e on the asis o#e>ua! protection "rouns).

o 5<# the ri"ht o# pri$ac %eans anthin", it is the ri"hts o# the ini$iua!,%arrie or sin"!e, to e #ree #ro% unwarrante "o$ern%enta! intrusioninto %atters so #una%enta!! aIectin" a person as the ecision whetherto ear or e"et a chi!.6

A.ortion Court extene the ri"ht o# pri$ac to inc!ue the ecision to ter%inate a

pre"nanc, ut this ri"ht is not un>ua!ie an %ust e consiere a"ainsti%portant state interests in re"u!ation. Roe v. Wade (19;:) (in$a!iatin" Tx.!aws %a8in" it a cri%e to procure an aortion except to sa$e the !i#e o# the%other).

o The Court use a tri%ester ana!sis where the state on! has a

co%pe!!in" interest in the hea!th o# the %other a#ter the rst tri%esteran can re"u!ate aortion reasona! re!ate to the preser$ation an

protection o# %aterna! hea!th. Prior to this point, the phsician an patient are #ree to eter%ine

whether to ter%inate the pre"nanc, without re"u!ation thestate.

o ith respect to the state2s interest in potentia! !i#e, the co%pe!!in" pointis at $iai!it an the state can proscrie aortion urin" that perio,except when it is necessar to preser$e the !i#e or hea!th o# the %other.

o The state is #ree to p!ace increasin" restrictions on aortion as the perio

o# pre"nanc !en"thens, so !on" as those restrictions are tai!ore to thereco"ni4e state interests.

o D. ou"!as concurrin", inicates his support #or pri$ac ri"hts to e

retaine the peop!e (per 9th A%en.) an that this is a #una%enta!ecisiona! ri"ht, a!on" with ecisions re"arin" %arria"e, i$orce,procreation, an eucation an uprin"in" o# chi!ren. Aitiona!!, thisri"ht to chose an aortion is ase in the #reeo% #ro% oi! restraint.

o D. =tewart concurrin" that the ecision can e rationa!! unerstoo on!

as a ho!in" that the Conn. statute sustanti$e! in$ae the 5!iert6that is protecte the ue Process C!ause ecause preceents inicatethat #reeo% o# persona! choice in %atters o# %arria"e an #a%i! !i#e isone o# the !ierties protecte the C!ause.

Pa"e 1 o# :



3is concurrence re@ects the tension etween aherin" to

preceence an "oin" in a new irection.o D. hite (with +ehn>uist) issentin", ns nothin" in the !an"ua"e or

histor o# the Constitution to support Court2s announce%ent o# a newconstitutiona! ri"ht #or pre"nant %others an that the issue is est !e#t tothe peop!e an the po!itica! process.

o D. +ehn>uist issentin", oes not n a #una%enta! ri"ht to aortion.

+eco"ni4in" that there is a !iert interest #or a wo%an to contro! herown o, ue process an rationa! asis are re>uire ut no %ore.

o Oote & Criticis%s/

Another approach to the aortion >uestion is to !in8 5oi!

inte"rit6 with a concept o# 5personhoo.6 'ecause oi! inte"ritis necessar #or the #or%ation o# se!#hoo, it is essentia! that !awreco"ni4e wo%en2s su7ecti$it in its construction o# wo%en2sprocreati$e !i$es.

D. E!/ hat is #ri"htenin" aout Roe is that this superprotecte

ri"ht o# the wo%en to choose is not in#era!e #ro% the !an"ua"e o#the Constitution, the #ra%ers2 thin8in" respectin" the specic

pro!e% in issue, an "enera! $a!ue eri$a!e #ro% the pro$isionthe inc!ue, or the nation2s "o$ern%enta! structure. The ri"i tri%ester #ra%ewor8 eco%es the #ocus o# issentin"

opinions in post Roe cases. <t can e ar"ue that a person %i"htaccept &riswold, et sti!! cone%n Roe as an aerration o# 7uicia!!e"is!ation.

Roe inicates the nee #or a co%pe!!in" reason in orer to in$ae a

#una%enta! ri"ht, ut it oes not account #or wh such a stanaris appropriate nor oes it inicate wh it has not een satise.

Later, the Court re7ects the tri%ester #ra%ewor8, ut reaIir%s the essentia!ho!in" in Roe, ase on the stron" !iert interests in$o!$e, which the Court

c!ai%s are, !lanned !arenthood v. Case) (199*) (usin" stare ecisis anconcerns o# institutiona! inte"rit to ase its reaIir%ation)/1) The ri"ht o# the wo%an to choose to ha$e an aortion e#ore $iai!it an to

otain it without unue uren #ro% the state.a. 'e#ore $iai!it, the state2s interests are not stron" enou"h to support

a prohiition o# aortion or the i%position o# a sustantia! ostac!e tothe wo%an2s eIecti$e ri"ht to e!ect the proceure.

. The #act that a !aw which ser$es a $a!i purpose, not esi"ne to stri8eat the ri"ht itse!#, has the incienta! eIect o# %a8in" it %ore iIicu!tor %ore expensi$e to procure an aortion cannot e enou"h toin$a!iate it.

c. n!ess there is a sustantia! ostac!e to her ri"ht to choose, a state%easure esi"ne to persuae her to choose chi!irth o$er aortionwi!! e uphe! i# reasona! re!ate to that "oa!.

. An unue uren exists i# its purpose or eIect is to p!ace a sustantia!ostac!e in the path o# a wo%an see8in" an aortion e#ore the #etusattains $iai!it.

*) The state has the power to restrict aortions a#ter #eta! $iai!it, i# the !awcontains exceptions #or pre"nancies which enan"er a wo%an2s !i#e orhea!th.

Pa"e 1- o# :



:) The state has !e"iti%ate interests #ro% the outset o# pre"nanc in protectin"the hea!th o# the wo%an an the !i#e o# the #etus that %a eco%e a chi!.

a. *hour waitin" perio in orer to ena!e the wo%an to "i$e in#or%econsent is not a sustantia! ostac!e to otainin" an aortion.

. =pousa! notication an consent is !i8e! to pre$ent a si"nicantnu%er o# wo%en #ro% otainin" an aortion, an hence, is in$a!i.=tate %a not "i$e to a %an the 8in o# o%inion o$er his wi#e thatparents exercise o$er their chi!ren.

c. =tate %a re>uire a %inor see8in" an aortion to otain parenta!consent, pro$ie that there is an ae>uate 7uicia! pass proceure.

. +ecor8eepin" & reportin" re>uire%ents o# the phsician, #aci!it,wo%an2s a"e, nu%er o# prior pre"nancies, prior aortions, %eica!conition or reason #or aortion, #eta! wei"ht, an wo%an2s a"e &%arita! status are $a!i, ut %ust e conentia!. 'ut a reportin"pro$ision that re>uires spousa! notication is not.

o D. =te$ens concurrin" & issentin" ns that it is unc!ear when the state2sinterest (which %ust e secu!ar) outwei"hs the wo%an2s interest inpersona! !iert. A!so ns that the state persuain" the wo%an an the*hr waitin" perio are in$a!i since the inter#ere with ecisiona!

autono%.o D. '!ac8%un concurrin" an issentin", e!ie$es that the ri"ht o#

reproucti$e choice is entit!e to #u!! protection, that the re"u!ationsi%pose an unconstitutiona! uren an wou! app! strict scrutin.

Roe/s tri%ester #ra%ewor8 is %ore a%inistra!e an !ess

%anipu!a!e than the 5unue uren6 stanar.o D. +ehn>uist issentin" (with hite, =ca!ia, Tho%as) #oun that a

wo%an2s ecision to ter%inate her pre"nanc is not a #una%enta! ri"htnor is it a eep! roote traition.

Preceent inicates that !iert inc!ues a ri"ht to %arr, to

procreate, an to use contracepti$e, ut oes not inicate a ri"ht topri$ac. Roe was incorrect! ase on this. Aortion is not eep!roote in histor or traition.

The 5unue uren6 stanar is create !ar"e! wou! o# who!e

c!oth an not ui!t to !ast. A wo%an2s interest in ha$in" an aortion is a #or% o# !iert

protecte the ue Process C!ause, ut =tates %a re"u!ateaortion proceures in was rationa!! re!ate to a !e"iti%ate stateinterest.

o D. =ca!ia issentin" (with +ehn>uist, hite, Tho%as) state that this

who!e issue shou! e ecie the po!itica! process not the

7uiciar. The Constitution is si!ent on this issue an !on"stanin"traitions o# A%erican societ ha$e per%itte it to e !e"a!! proscrie.3e a!so attac8s the new stanar as !ac8in" unprincip!e an out#u! inapp!ication.

=tate re"u!ation o# *n tri%ester aortions #or hea!th an sa#et reasons %usta!so pro$ie #or the %other2s hea!th. Sten'erg v. Carhart (*000) (-in$a!iatin" statute prohiitin" partia!irth aortions at an sta"e o#pre"nanc un!ess it is necessar to sa$e the !i#e o# the %other). Currentl) onl) 3 of the 4 2ustice ma2orit) are on the court.

Pa"e 1H o# :



o ' $irtua!! annin" one proceure e$en thou"h it %a e the !ess ris8option, the state i%poses a si"nicant hea!th ris8 on wo%en.

o The statute use roa !an"ua"e that cou! e rea to an the %ost

co%%on! use %etho o# *n tri%ester aortions, there chi!!in"potentia! aortion pro$iers.

D. +ehn>uist, Tho%as an Kenne (who was part o# the 7oint

opinion in Case) ) issente on the "rouns that Case) shou! erea as authori4in" states to re"u!ate aortion practices #or thepurpose o# pro%otin" state interests re!ate to the practice o#%eicine.

• D. Kenne state that 5the Court2s ho!in" contraictsCase)/s assurance that the =tate2s constitutiona! position inthe rea!% o# pro%otin" respect #or !i#e is %ore than%ar"ina!.6

D. =ca!ia issentin", #oun the notion that the Constitution prohiits

states #ro% annin" a ruta! %eans o# e!i%inatin" ha!#ornposterit as 5>uite si%p! asur.6

*inors4 E$en thou"h a %inor2s reproucti$e ri"hts are protecte, the Court

has reco"ni4e the "reater state interest in protectin" i%%ature %inors anhas app!ie a !ess strin"ent stanar o# re$iew an a!!owin" "reater statere"u!ation. 3owe$er, the state %a not restrict access to aortions that are%eica!! necessar.

o enera!!, parenta! notication or parenta! consent can e re>uire i#

there is a pro$ision #or a 7u"e to "rant per%ission #or the aortion wherethe %inor has e%onstrate suIicient %aturit or it is in her estinterest.

o =tates ha$e the ri"ht to re>uire parenta! in$o!$e%ent when a %inor

consiers ter%inatin" her pre"nanc ecause o# their stron" an!e"iti%ate interest in the we!#are o# their oun" citi4ens (ut the state

cannot restrict aortions i# there is a %eica! e%er"enc). #)otte v. !lanned !arenthood of -ew *ngland (*00H) (Ct. chose not to re$isit itsaortion preceents an instea he! that i# en#orcin" a parenta!notication statute that re"u!ates access to aortions wou! eunconstitutiona! in %eica! e%er"encies, in$a!iatin" the statute entire!is not a!was necessari! or 7ustie).

Government "!n&in4 The aortion ri"ht is not si"nicant! urene i#"o$ern%ent #ai!s to %a8e the ri"ht eIecti$e #unin" aortions e$en #or thoseepenent on "o$ern%ent ai. Maher v. Roe (19;;). There is no aIir%ati$eri"ht to "o$ern%ent ai.

o Prohiitin" pu!ic #unin" #or certain %eica!!necessar aortions oes

not $io!ate the ue Process, E>ua! Protection or Esta!ish%ent C!auses. ,arris v. McRae (190) (hi!e "o$ern%ent %a not p!ace ostac!es in thepath o# a wo%an2s exercise o# her #reeo% o# choice, it nee not re%o$ethose ostac!es it i not create.).

o =tate %a prohiit pu!ic e%p!oees an #aci!ities #ro% ein" use #or#aci!itatin" aortions not necessar to sa$e the !i#e o# the %other.We'ster v. Re0roductive ,ealth Servs. (199).

*arital an& Familial 'i%ts The Court has #oun that the institutions o# %arria"e an #a%i! !i#e are eep!

roote in our nation2s histor an traitions. Garria"e was characteri4e asPa"e 1; o# :



5one o# the asic ci$i! ri"hts o# %an, #una%enta! to our $er existence ansur$i$a!.6 =i%i!ar!, the Court has accepte that a parent has a #una%enta!ri"ht in the care, custo, an contro! o# chi!ren.

o Stan&ar& o" review4 A %ore strin"ent stanar o# re$iew is appropriate

when these ri"hts are si"nicant! urene. 'ut not a!! re!ationships an associations are within the 5%arria"e6 an 5#a%i!

!i#e6 an 5parenta! ri"hts6 that are protecte ue Process !iert. Thec!ai%e interest %a e ene the Court in such a wa that it oes not

>ua!it #or constitutiona! protection.o The eIect o# constitutiona! !aw in the o%estic !i#est!e area is potentia!!

hen "o$ern%ent intrues on choices concernin" #a%i! !i$in" arran"e%ents,the Court %ust exa%ine care#u!! the i%portance o# the "o$ern%ents interestsa$ance an the extent to which the are ser$e the cha!!en"e re"u!ation. Moore v. *. Cleveland (19;;) (in$a!iate cit orinance that a!!owe on!%e%ers o# a sin"!e #a%i! to !i$e to"ether usin" historic traitions).

o Stan&ar& o" review4 inter%eiate stanar re>uires states to o %orethan "i$e a rationa! re!ation? oes not ca!! it a #una%enta! ri"ht.

ecisions concernin" chi! rearin", which Me)ers, !ierce an other cases ha$ereco"ni4e as entit!e to constitutiona! protection, !on" ha$e een share with"ranparents or other re!ati$es who occup the sa%e househo!inee who%a ta8e on %a7or responsii!it #or the rearin" o# the chi!ren. Moore v. *.Cleveland.

o 5'ut un!ess we c!ose our ees to the asic reasons wh certain ri"hts

associate with the #a%i! ha$e een accore she!ter uner the 1th A%en.2s ue Process C!ause, we cannot a$oi app!in" the #orce anrationa!e o# these preceents to the #a%i! choice in$o!$e in this case.6

o Appropriate !i%its on sustanti$e ue process co%e #ro%B respect #orthe teachin"s o# histor an so!i reco"nition o# the asic $a!ues thatuner!ie our societ.

<t is throu"h the #a%i! that we incu!cate an pass own %an o#our %ost cherishe $a!ues, %ora! an cu!tura!. <n a #n, D. Powe!! responin" to the hite2s issent, which is ase

on nin" it 5i%p!icit in orere !iert6/ an approach "roune inhistor i%poses on the 7uiciar that are %ore %eanin"#u! than anase on the astract #or%u!a ta8en #ro% !al"o v. Conn. anapparent! su""este as an a!ternati$e.

o 'ur"er issentin" ecause !iti"ant shou! use the a%inistrati$e

re%eies.o =tewart (with +ehn>uist) issentin" on the "rouns that the asserte

interest in sharin" housin" with re!ati$es is not a persona! interest

ee%e to e i%p!icit in the concept o# orere !iert. To e>uate thiswith the #una%enta! ecisions to %arr an to ear an raise chi!ren isto exten the !i%ite sustanti$e contours o# the ue Process C!auseeon reco"nition.

o hite issentin", ns that ue Process C!ause protect on! those ri"hts

i%p!icit in the concept o# orere !iert an the interest in resiin" with%ore than one set o# "ranchi!ren is one that 5neither !iert nor 7usticewou! exist i# it were sacrice.6 'asin" ue Process on eep! rootetraitions o# the countr is eata!e an roaen the hori4ons o# theC!ause.

Pa"e 1 o# :



o Oote/ The court in Moore saw the case as a ispute etween #a%i! anstate rather than a ispute a%on" citi4ens aout the %eanin" o# 5#a%i!.6

Court uphe! orinance that 4one #or 5sin"!e #a%i! we!!in"s,6 with #a%i!ene as re!ate persons !oo, aoption o# %arria"e, an characteri4e itas antico%%une 4onin" orinance as socia! an econo%ic !e"is!ation eser$in" 7uicia! e#erence, rather than ta8e issue with the enition o# #a%i!. 5illageof Belle 6erre v. Boraas (19;) (app!in" rationa! asis).

Court uphe! the #una%enta! ri"ht o# parents to %a8e ecisions concernin"

the care, custo, an contro! o# their chi!ren an, in a p!ura!it opinion,struc8 own a ash. state statute pro$iin" #or an person to petition the court#or $isitation ri"hts when it %a ser$e the est interest o# the chi!. 6ro7el v.&ranville (*000) (D. 2Connor, #or the p!ura!it? "ranparents sou"ht an"rante %ore $isitation e$en thou"h %other i not en it, on! esire toreuce it).

o P!ura!it #oun the statute reathta8in"! roa, as app!ie, exceee the

ouns o# the ue Process C!ause unu! inter#erin" with theconstitutiona!! protecte ri"ht o# a parent to raise his or her chi!.

The pro!e% here is not that the ashin"ton =uperior Court

inter$ene, ut that when it i so, "a$e no specia! wei"ht to thetraitiona! presu%ption that a t parent wi!! act in the est interesto# his or her chi!.

o D. Tho%as, concurrin", reco"ni4e 5a #una%enta! ri"ht o# parents to

irect the uprin"in" o# their chi!ren6 an wou! app! strict scrutin5to in#rin"e%ents o# #una%enta! ri"hts.6

o D. =outer, concurrin", a!so accepte a this as a #una%enta! ri"ht, ut

#oun the statute was #acia!! o$erroa an unconstitutiona!.o D. =ca!ia, issentin", i not n a #una%enta! ri"ht as it is asent #ro%

the Constitution an that the 7uiciar !ac8s the authorit to en the!e"a! eIect to !aws in#rin"in" on unenu%erate ri"hts.

o

Critics c!ai% that the !ine the Court is atte%ptin" to wa!8 etween thepreser$ation o# parenta! ri"hts an the reco"nition o# nonparenta! c!ai%sis untena!e. The Court is trin" to ha$e it oth was.

So&om Prior preceent in Bowers v. ,ardwic" (19H) D. hite, state that there was no

constitutiona! ri"ht o# ho%osexua!s to en"a"e in soo%. (upho!in" a.statute cri%ina!i4in" soo% #or either "ener).

o +i"ht is not #oun in either 5#una%enta! !ierties that are i%p!icit in theconcept o# orere !iert6 or in !ierties 5eep! roote in the Oation2shistor.6 +ather, prohiitin" this conuct has historic roots in a!! -0states.

o D. '!ac8%un issente an ar"ue that this was not aout ho%osexua!acti$it, ut aout the ri"ht to e !e#t a!one, which inc!uepersona!Qecisiona! pri$ac an spatia! pri$ac, oth o# which exten toho%osexua! soo%.

o D. =te$ens issente, #ra%in" the issue as an une>ua! app!ication o# the

!aw an reasone that a "enera! an on soo% in$o!$es the essentia!!iert to en"a"e in pri$ate, nonreproucti$e, inti%ate socia! conuct,e$en etween %arrie heterosexua!s, an the state has not 7ustie ase!ecti$e app!ication o# the !aw.

Pa"e 19 o# :



=te$ens2 issent eco%es stron"! in@uentia! on the Court2s opinion

in %awrence v. 6e7. The Court, $ia Kenne, o$erru!es Bowers in %awrence v. 6e7. (*00:)

reexa%inin" &riswold an its !ine o# cases, which inicate a ri"ht to %a8ecertain ecisions re"arin" sexua! conuct that extens eon the %arita!re!ationship. The Court exp!icit! state it #ai!e to appreciate the extent o#!iert at sta8e in Bowers (an re#ra%es the issue to o$erru!e it).

o Stan&ar& o" review4 The Court oes not inicate what 8in o# re$iew is

ein" use, thou"h it %i"ht e consiere 5particu!ar! care#u! scrutin6or a rationa!it test. There has een no showin" that in this countr the"o$ern%enta! interest in circu%scriin" persona! choice is so%ehow%ore !e"iti%ate or ur"ent. The !aw oes not #urther a !e"iti%ate statepurpose which can 7usti# its intrusion into the persona! an pri$ate !i#e o# the ini$iua!.

o Au!ts %a choose to enter upon this re!ationship in the connes o# theirho%es an pri$ate !i$es an sti!! retain their i"nit as #ree persons.=exua!it is part o# a persona! on. The !iert protecte theConstitution a!!ows ho%osexua! persons the ri"ht to %a8e this choice.

!lanned !arenthood v. Case) state/ These %atters, in$o!$in" the

%ost inti%ate an persona! choices a person %a %a8e in a!i#eti%e, choices centra! to persona! i"nit an autono%, arecentra! to the !iert protecte the 1th A%en. At the heart o#!iert is the ri"ht to ene one2s own concept o# existence, o#%eanin", o# the uni$erse, an o# the %ster o# hu%an !i#e. Personsin a ho%osexua! re!ationship %a see8 autono% #or thesepurposes, 7ust as heterosexua! persons o.

o =tare ecisis is inappropriate/

3istoric e$ience re!ie on in Bowers was o$erstate an

inaccurate. n! recent! i A%erican !aws tar"et ho%osexua!s

(as peop!e $ersus conuct). Goern !aws an traitions show an 5e%er"in" awareness6 that

!iert "i$es sustantia! protection to au!t persons in eciin" howto conuct their pri$ate !i$es, citin" GPC reco%%enation toiscar cri%ina! pena!ties #or consensua! sexua! conuct, Econ$entions in$a!iatin" si%i!ar !aws, an the ecrease in thenu%er o# states proscriin" soo%.

The #ounations o# Bowers ha$e sustaine serious erosion #ro% our

recent ecisions in Case) an Romer . Goreo$er, Bowers causesuncertaint since the preceents e#ore an a#ter it contraict itscentra! ho!in".

o Court exp!icit! oes not aress "a %arria"e o# an #or%a! reco"nitionan oes not aress ri"ht to pri$ac (on! !iert iscusse).

o D. 2Connor concurrin", wou! not o$erru!e Bowers, ut #oun the Tex.

statute unconstitutiona! ase on e>ua! protection usin" a %oresearchin" #or% o# rationa! asis re$iew.

The !aw is not "ener neutra!, such that on! ho%osexua! soo% is

cri%ina!, whereas heterosexua! soo% is not. This iscri%inatesase on ho%osexua! status e$en thou"h it out!aws the conuct,here the conuct is c!ose! corre!ate with ein" ho%osexua!.

Pa"e *0 o# :





opportunities #ro% those !ae!e ho%osexua!, un!ess sexua!!inacti$e, %a e assu%e to en"a"e in conuct that the state isentit!e to iscoura"e.

<%p!ications o# the ecision support same7se- marriae ecause

the sa%e reasonin" can to support ar"u%ents that the state hassustanti$e ue process o!i"ations to reco"ni4e such %arria"es.

'i%t to Personal Li"estle C%oi)es Dohn =tuart Gi!!s ar"ues that inter#erence with ini$iua! !iert o# action can

on! e warrante when it is to pre$ent har% to others. Court ec!ine to exten the pri$ac cases to po!ice "roo%in" re"u!ations in

(elle) v. $ohnson (19;H).o Roe an &riswold were istin"uishe as in$o!$in" 5a sustantia! c!ai% o#

in#rin"e%ent on the ini$iua!2s #reeo% o# choice with respect to certainasic %atters as procreation, %arria"e, an #a%i! !i#e.6

o A!thou"h the citi4enr at !ar"e %a ha$e a 5!iert6 interest in %atters o#persona! appearance, the Court conc!ue that this was noteter%inati$e o# the $a!iit o# such re"u!ations #or po!ice oIicers.

The choice o# or"ani4ation, ress, an e>uip%ent #or !aw

en#orce%ent personne! is a ecision entit!e to the sa%e sort o#presu%ption o# !e"is!ati$e $a!iit as state choices esi"ne topro%ote other c!ai%s within the co"ni4ance o# the state2s po!icepower. The re"u!ation was ee%e a rationa! %eans o# pursuin""o$ern%ent2s o$era!! nee #or iscip!ine, esprit e corps, anuni#or%it in its po!ice #orce.

o D. Garsha!! (with 'rennan) issentin" ar"ue that not on! were the

!iert interests o# the 1th A%en. i%p!icate, ut that no rationa!re!ationship existe etween the cha!!en"e re"u!ations an theientie state "oa!s.

The ri"ht in one2s persona! appearance is inextrica! oun up

with the historica!! reco"ni4e ri"ht o# e$er ini$iua! to thepossession an contro! o# his own person? an perhaps e$en %ore#una%enta!!, with the ri"ht to e !et a!one.

o Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 +ationa! asishether the re"u!ations shou! e

enacte is so irrationa! that is %a e rane aritrar an there#ore aepri$ation o# the oIicer2s !iert interest in #reeo% to choose his ownhair st!e.

o Criticis%/ Con#or%it to custo% see%s insuIicient to 7usti# the !i%itation

on ini$iua! choice.'i%ts to Treatment an& Prote)tion

o$ern%ent "enera!! has no aIir%ati$e constitutiona! ut to pro$ie care

an protection #or ini$iua!s. 3owe$er, where the =tate exercises custo o#an ini$iua!, the ue Process C!ause i%poses a ut on the "o$ern%ent toassu%e so%e responsii!it #or that person2s care an we!!ein".

Court #oun that the state cannot in$o!untari! conne patients who are not athreat to se!# or others. O/Connor v. Donaldson (19;-). A nin" o# %enta!i!!ness a!one cannot 7usti# a state !oc8in" up a person a"ainst his wi!! an8eepin" hi% inenite! in si%p!e custoia! conne%ent.

Court ru!e that an in$o!untari! co%%itte ini$iua! has !iert interests inpersona! securit an #reeo% #ro% oi! restraint. 3ence the state %ustpro$ie sa#e conitions o# conne%ent an 5%ini%a!! ae>uate o# reasona!e

Pa"e ** o# :



trainin"6 to ensure sa#et an #reeo% #ro% unue restraint. oung'erg v. Romeo (19*) (D. Powe!! #or the Court, care#u! not to escrie as !iertinterests rather than #una%enta! ri"hts since %eica! 7u"%ent is in$o!$e).

o 3owe$er, when the =tate institutiona!i4es an ini$iua! who is therea#terwho!! epenent on the =tate, it is concee that a ut to pro$iecertain ser$ices an care oes exist, a!thou"h a =tate has consiera!eiscretion in eter%inin" the nature an scope o# its responsii!ities.

o hen the =tate the aIir%ati$e exercise o# its power so restrains an

ini$iua!2s !iert that it reners his una!e to care #or hi%se!# an atthe sa%e ti%e #ai!s to pro$ie #or his asic hu%an nees, it trans"ressesthe sustanti$e !i%its on state action the th A%en. an ue ProcessC!ause. Exp!aine in DeShane) v. Winne'ago.

The aIir%ati$e ut to protect arises not #ro% the =tate2s

8now!e"e o# the ini$iua!2s preica%ent or #ro% its expression o#intent to he!p hi%, ut #ro% the !i%itation which it has i%pose onhis #reeo% to act on his own eha!#.

There is no epri$ation o# the chi!2s 5!iert6 in $io!ation o# the ue process"uarantee when the =tate #ai!s to protect the chi! #ro% phsica! ause. DeShane) v. Winne'ago Ct). De0t. of Soc. Servs. (199) (C.D. +ehn>uist #or theCourt? =oc. =er$s. trie to protect the chi! #ro% ausi$e #ather, ut i notre%o$e hi% #ro% his #ather2s custo an the chi! suse>uent! suIereper%anent rain a%a"e).

o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un) issentin", ar"ue that "o$ern%entshou! e he! responsi!e when it atte%pts to "i$e ai to a pri$ateciti4en #ai!s to #o!!ow throu"h, particu!ar! when that ai supp!antspri$ate sources o# ai.

o Oote/ The i%p!ication o# a ho!in" #o!!owin" the issent wou! e to

isincenti$ise an "o$ern%ent ai. The =tate is not constitutiona!! responsi!e #or #ai!in" to aIir%ati$e! protect

pri$ate citi4ens #ro% har% which arises #ro% other sources. DeShane) .o The ue Process C!auses "enera!! con#er no aIir%ati$e ri"ht to

"o$ern%enta! ai, e$en where such ai %a e necessar to secure !i#e,!iert, or propert interests o# which the "o$ern%ent itse!# %a notepri$e the ini$iua!.

o The ue Process C!ause was intene to protect the peop!e #ro% the

=tate, not to ensure that the =tate protecte the% #ro% each other.o The =tate p!ae no part in the creation o# the an"er. The =tate oes

not eco%e the per%anent "uarantor o# an ini$iua!2s sa#et ha$in"once oIere hi% she!ter.

Pa"e *: o# :



3:UAL P'OT3CTION The 1th A%en. pro$ies that, 5Oo =tateB sha!! en to an person the e>ua!

protection o# the !aws.6 hi!e there is no corresponin" #eera! counterpart,unreasona!e c!assications the #eera! "o$ern%ent $io!ate the -th A%en.ue Process "uarantee.

n! when a c!assication is unreasona!e, aritrar an in$iious oes it $io!ate E>ua! Protection.

o +easona!eness o# a c!assication is epenent on/

'asis o# the c!assication Oature o# the interests i%paire the c!assication

o$ern%ent interests supportin" the c!assication

Tra&itional 35!al Prote)tion Court traitiona!! "rants a wie %easure o# iscretion with respect to %a8in"

c!assications in enactin" socia! an econo%ic !e"is!ation.o As !on" as the c!assication set #orth in the statute has so%e rationa!

asis (i.e. it is rationa!! re!ate to a per%issi!e "o$ern%ent interest),the E>ua! Protection C!ause is not $io!ate espite so%e ine>ua!it in the

resu!ts. T3ST/ <s the c!assication rationa!! re!ate to a !e"iti%ate "o$ern%entinterest hen a c!assication is cha!!en"e on the asis o# the E>ua!Protection C!ause, i# an state o# #acts reasona! can e concei$e to sustainthe !aw, the existence o# that state o# #acts at the ti%e the !aw was enacte wi!!e presu%e.

o ne who cha!!en"es a !aw has the uren o# showin" that the

c!assication has no rationa! re!ationship to a per%issi!e "o$ern%enta!purpose an is essentia!! aritrar.

o This uren o# proo# has pro$en essentia!! insur%ounta!e. <# the c!assication has re!ation to the purpose #or which it is %ae an oes

not contain the 8in o# iscri%ination a"ainst which the E>ua! ProtectionC!ause aIors protection, then it is $a!i. Rw). *70ress #genc) v. - (199)(upho!in" ORC an on a$ertisin" on truc8s, a!!owin" on! the owner toa$ertise on his truc8s, an that !oca! authorities %a we!! ha$e conc!ue thatthose who a$ertise their own wares on their truc8s o not pose the sa%e 8ino# traIic pro!e% in $iew o# the nature or extent o# the a$ertisin" which theuse).

o <t is not a re>uire%ent o# E>ua! Protection that a!! e$i!s o# the sa%e "enus

e eraicate or none at a!!. Le"is!ature is not re>uire to so!$e thewho!e pro!e% an can choose to so!$e parts o# the pro!e%.

o D. Dac8son concurrin", re7ecte the Court2s rationa!e since there was not

e$en a pretense that traIic ha4ars pose the two c!asses o# truc8a$ertisin" iIere.

<nstea he ur"e that the !e"is!ature %a ha$e ha the o7ecti$e o#

curin" the nuisance pose truc8 a$ertisin" an that !e"iti%ateo7ecti$e wou! %a8e the c!assication rationa!, the iIerenceein" actin" in se!#interest an actin" #or hire.

3e a!so pointe out that in$a!iatin" on the asis o# ue Process

%a8es the re"u!ation co%p!ete! in$a!i, whereas in$a!iatin" on

Pa"e * o# :



the asis o# E>ua! Protection on! a!!ows the !e"is!ature to expanthe c!ass ein" re"u!ate.

hen !oca! econo%ic re"u!ation is cha!!en"e so!e! as $io!atin" the E>ua!Protection C!ause, the Court consistent! e#ers to !e"is!ati$e eter%inations asto the esirai!it o# particu!ar statutor iscri%ination. -ew Orleans v. Du"es (19;H) (upho!in" !oca! orinance prohiitin" pushcarts with a 5"ran#atherC!ause6 exe%ptin" $enors who ha een operatin" S rs).

o The 7uiciar %a not sit as a super!e"is!ature to 7u"e the wiso% or

esirai!it o# !e"is!ati$e po!ic eter%inations %ae in areas that neitheraIect #una%enta! ri"hts nor procees a!on" suspect !ines? in the !oca!econo%ic sphere, it is on! the in$iious iscri%ination, the who!!aritrar act, which cannot stan consistent! with the 1th A%en.

'ationalit Wit% Bite4 <n so%e cases, the Court has inicate a wi!!in"ness touti!i4e a so%ewhat %ore strin"ent approach in traitiona! re$iew, which %ore c!ose!approxi%ates true a hoc a!ancin" to eter%ine the reasona!eness o# the !aw. Thisis usua!! the case when the Court ru!es #or po!ic reasons.

o Geansen re!ationship/ traitiona! e>ua! protection re>uires that there

e a rationa! re!ationship etween the %eans se!ecte an a per%issi!e"o$ern%ent purpose.

<n e$a!uatin" the reasona!e o# a c!assication uner this stanar,

the courts #re>uent! exa%ines the %eansen re!ationship in ter%so# 5uner6 an 5o$er6 inc!usi$eness o# the c!assication.

• nerinc!usion occurs when a state enets or urenspersons in a %anner that #urthers a !e"iti%ate pu!ic purposeut oes not con#er this sa%e enet or p!ace this sa%euren on others who are si%i!ar! situate. Persons whoshou! e co$ere uner the !aw are exc!ue or exe%pte.

• $erinc!usion occurs when the c!assication inc!ues noton! those who are si%i!ar! situate, with respect to the

purpose ut others who are not so situate as we!!. =tatute %a8in" an exception to a #ew $enors an prohiitin" others wasin$a!i ecause it was not rationa!! re!ate to consu%er protection. More) v. Doud (19-;) (struc8 own state !aw re"u!atin" %one orers, exceptin" =P=, AGE, Posta! Te!e"raph, an . nion).

Court he! that a Foo =ta%p Act pro$ision, which "enera!! exc!ues anhouseho! containin" an ini$iua! who is unre!ate to an other %e%er o#the househo!, $io!ates E>ua! Protection ecause it oes not rationa!! #urtheran !e"iti%ate state o7ecti$e. +SD# v. Moreno (19;:).

An A!as8an !aw istriutin" oi! prots ase on !en"th o# resience $io!atesE>ua! Protection. hi!e the =tate %a ha$e an interest in encoura"in"

resients to re%ain in the =tate, an in pro%otin" pruent use o# the =tate2sresources, these ens are not rationa!! #urthere istin"uishin" a%on" pastresients. +ewarin" citi4ens #or past contriutions is not a !e"iti%ate statepurpose. 8o'el v. Williams (19*).

A =tate %a not constitutiona!! #a$or its own resients taxin" #orei"ncorporations at a hi"her rate so!e! ecause o# their resience. Pro%otion o#o%estic usinesses within the =tate iscri%inatin" a"ainst #orei"ncorporations is not a !e"iti%ate purpose uner the E>ua! Protection C!ause, noris the encoura"e%ent o# in$est%ent in =tate assets an "o$ern%enta! securitiesa !e"iti%ate purpose when #urthere iscri%ination. Met %ife v. Ward (19-)

Pa"e *- o# :



(in$a!iatin" a state pre#erence tax with !ower tax rates on o%estic insuranceco%panies).

A tax assess%ent sche%e resu!tin" in "ross isparit o$er a !on" perio o# ti%e $io!ates E>ua! Protection. The "o$ern%ent %a reasona! see8 to pro%ote taxappraisa! ase on the true %ar8et $a!ue o# propert, the !aw %ust pro$ie #orso%e seasona!e attain%ent o# a rou"h e>ua!it o# si%i!ar! situate propertowners. #lleghen) !itts'urgh Coal Co. v. Count) Com/n (199) (in$a!iatin"po!ic that assess rea! propert on the recent purchase price, ut %a8es on!

%inor %oications to assess%ents o# properties not recent! so!? whi!e thestate purporte to treat a!! propert uni#or%! in eter%inin" tax assess%ents,the count ha en"a"e in intentiona! sste%atic unere$a!uation).

=o%e cases purportin" to use rationa!it re$iew to in$a!iate iscri%inator !awsappear to re@ect 7uicia! concern that the cha!!en"e !aw %ani#ests pre7uice orani%us towars a particu!ar "roup rather than !e"iti%ate "o$ern%ent interests.

A !aw %a8in" it %ore iIicu!t #or one c!ass o# citi4ens to see8 !e"a! protection isinconsistent with E>ua! Protection. Romer v. *vans (199H) (in$a!iatin" Co!o.state constitutiona! a%en. prohiitin" antiiscri%ination !aws #or theprotection o# ho%osexua!s in housin", e%p!o%ent, eucation, pu!icacco%%oations an hea!th an we!#are ser$ices).

o A !aw that i%poses a roa an uniIerentiate isai!it on a sin"!e"roup which is inexp!ica!e anthin" ut ani%us towars the c!ass itaIects #ai!s e$en rationa!it re$iew.

S!se)t Classi;)ation4 Stri)t S)r!tin hen a !aw e%p!os a suspect c!assication or si"nicant! urens the

exercise o# a #una%enta! ri"ht, the Court strict! scrutini4es the re!ation o# thec!assication to the "o$ern%enta! purpose.

T3ST/ 1) The cha!!en"er %ust pro$e that the iscri%ination was purpose#u!,either o$ert! or co$ert!. *) The uren is on the "o$ern%ent to e%onstratethat the c!assication is necessar to achie$e a co%pe!!in" state interest. Theorinar presu%ption o# constitutiona!it no !on"er app!ies.

o hi!e iscri%inator i%pact or eIect %a e e$ience o# iscri%inatorpurpose it is usua!! not suIicient in itse!# to pro$e iscri%inatorpurpose.

<# a ecision is %oti$ate in part iscri%inator purpose, the

=tate %a a$oi strict scrutin i# it pro$e that it wou! ha$ereache the sa%e ecision re"ar!ess o# the iscri%inatorpurpose.

o There %ust not e a !ess urenso%e a!ternati$e a$ai!a!e #or achie$in"

the "o$ern%ent o7ecti$e.

<# it is shown that the purpose o# the a%inistrators is to c!assi# ona suspect asis, the "o$ern%ent %ust show that the c!assication isnecessar in orer to achie$e a co%pe!!in" state interest.

o Laws can a!so e cha!!en"e as app!ie. E$en i# the !aw is neutra!, it %ae a%inistere or en#orce in a iscri%inator #ashion.

Criteria o" S!se)tness4 Factors that ha$e een consiere in !ae!in" ac!assication suspect/ (1) the historic purpose o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause?(*) a histor o# per$asi$e iscri%ination a"ainst the c!ass? (:) the sti"%ati4in"eIect o# c!assication (5caste6 !e"is!ation)? () c!assication ase on an

Pa"e *H o# :



i%%uta!e status or conition which a person cannot contro!? (-) iscri%inationa"ainst a po!itica!! insu!ar %inorit.

o +ace & Oationa! ri"in are suspect c!asses ecause the $er purpose o#

the 1th A%en. was to pre$ent !e"a! iscri%ination a"ainst racia!%inorities. There is se!o% an 7ustication #or c!assication thatiscri%inates a"ainst a racia! %inorit, which in$o!$es an i%%uta!econition an a "roup that %a e not ha$e een a!e to protect theirinterest throu"h the po!itica! process.

o Criticis%/ The specia! treat%ent aIore racia! c!assication are 7ustieon "rouns o# 7uicia! protection o# 5iscrete an insu!ar %inorities6 whoare enie eIecti$e representation thou"h the po!itica! process.3owe$er, the %ere #act that a "roup !oses in the po!itica! %ar8etp!aceoes not %ean the representati$e sste% o# "o$ern%ent is%a!#unctionin". <# racia! %inorities acti$e! participate in the po!itica!process, wou! the asis #or hei"htene re$iew o# racia! c!assications ee!i%inate

. Fiss ar"ues #or in$o8in" E>ua! Protection a"ainst "o$ern%ent

action which a""re"ates the suorinate position o# a specia!!isa$anta"e "roup an that !aw shou! re#or% institutions anpractices that en#orce the seconar socia! status o# historica!!oppresse "roups.

E>ua! Protection e%ans that racia! c!assications, especia!! in cri%ina!statutes, e su7ecte to the 5%ost ri"i scrutin,6 an i# there are e$er to euphe!, the %ust e shown to e necessar to the acco%p!ish%ent o# so%eper%issi!e state o7ecti$e, inepenent o# the racia! iscri%ination which the1th A%en. sou"ht to e!i%inate. %oving v. 5a. (19H;) (in$a!iatin" anti%isce"enation !aw ecause there was no !e"iti%ate o$erriin" purpose to 7usti# the statute).

o The #act o# e>ua! app!ication oes not i%%uni4e the statute #ro% the $er

hea$ uren o# 7ustication. E$en i# the !aw is #acia!! neutra!, i# it is app!ie an a%inistere with 5an e$i!ee an une>ua! han, so as practica!! to %a8e un7ust an i!!e"a!iscri%inations etween persons in si%i!ar circu%stances, %ateria! to theirri"hts,6 it $io!ates E>ua! Protection. ic" Wo v. ,o0"ins (1H) (in$a!iatin"cit orinance that re>uire !aunr operations to otain a per%it, un!ess it was!ocate in a ric8 or stone ui!in").

o +ecor showe that :10Q:*0 !aunries in =F were o# wooen construction

an whi!e *00 Chinese ha app!ie #or per%its none ha een "rantea!thou"h a!! nonChinese app!ications ha een "rante.

Oo iscri%ination sha!! e %ae the !aw ase on race. Exc!usion o# !ac8s

#ro% 7ur ser$ices $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Strauder v. W. 5a. (10) (!ac8e#enant2s con$iction o$erturne? !aw sha!! e the sa%e #or a!! races an!ac8s were enie a "o$ern%ent enet a$ai!a!e to whites).

=tate2s consieration o# pri$ate racia! iases an the in7ur the %i"ht in@ict onthe chi! as a asis #or re%o$in" the chi! #ro% the natura! %other2s custo $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Pri$ate iases cannot e "i$en !e"a! eIect. !almorev. Sidoti (19) (in$a!iatin" !ower court orer to p!ace chi! with #ather when%other e"an !i$in" with a !ac8 %an, a!thou"h =tate trie to use socia!science e$ience in %a8in" its ar"u%ent).

Pa"e *; o# :



o The "oa! o# "rantin" custo ase on the est interests o# the chi! isinisputa! a sustantia! "o$ern%enta! interest #or purposes o# theE>ua! Protection C!ause an racia! an ethnic pre7uices exists. 'ut therea!it o# pri$ate iases an the possi!e in7ur the %i"ht in@ict are notper%issi!e consierations.

o Lower courts ha$e a!!owe race to e a #actor in eter%inin" where to

p!ace a chi!, ut the use o# race as the sole reason to %a8e to chan"e anaoption p!ace%ent is not constitutiona!.

<n su%, an inherent! suspect, inee presu%pti$e! in$a!i, racia!c!assication in the aoption statute is, in a constitutiona! sense,necessar to a$ance a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%ent interest/ the estinterest o# the chi!. <t thus sur$i$es strict scrutin.

Court uphe! a warti%e con$iction #or $io!ation o# a %i!itar orer exc!uin" A%ericans o# Dapanese ancestr #ro% certain esi"nate areas on the westcoast ase on warti%e necessit an a!!e"e inai!it to separate the !oa!#ro% the is!oa!. Exc!usion o# the who!e "roup was a %i!itar i%perati$e. (orematsu v. +S (19) (notin" that pressin" puic necessar %a so%eti%es 7usti# ci$i! ri"hts restrictions o# a sin"!e racia! "roup, ut racia! anta"onis%ne$er can).

(is)riminator P!rose Ima)t A possi!e exp!anation #or wh iscri%inator purpose is a necessar conition

#or strict scrutin is that the "o$ern%ent has no constitutiona! ut to re%e ahar% it has not cause. A!so, i# isparate racia! i%pact were suIicient, it wou!%a8e race a pre$ai!in" #actor in "o$ern%ent ecision%a8in".

o *eanin o" <P!rose=4 iscri%inator purpose, howe$er, i%p!ies %ore

than intent as $o!ition or intent as awareness o# conse>uences. <t i%p!iesthat the ecision%a8er, in this case the state !e"is!ature, se!ecte orreaIir%e a particu!ar course o# action at !east in part Uecause o#,2 not%ere! Uin spite o#,2 its a$erse eIects upon an ientia!e "roup. !ers.

#dmin/r v. eene) .o Critics note the pro!e% in trin" to eter%ine the intent o# a "roup, such

as a !e"is!ati$e o. E$en at the ini$iua! !e$e!, it is o#ten iIicu!t toassess the precise %oti$e, so%e o# which %a e suconscious. A!so,%ora! responsii!it #or actions extens eon those actions onespecica!! intens. Fai!ure to act aIects those who are without the !aw2se>ua! protection. Fina!!, courts ou"ht to interpret the E>ua! ProtectionC!ause to po!ice how peop!e are treate their "o$ern%enttheper%issii!it o# !aws rather than the purit o# !e"is!ati$e %oti$e.

Proo# o# racia!! iscri%inator intent or purpose is re>uire to show a $io!ationo# the E>ua! Protection C!ause. isproportionate i%pact is not irre!e$ant, ut it

is not suIicient to show in$iious racia! iscri%ination an not suIicient totri""er strict scrutin. Washington v. Davis (19;H) (sustainin" the use o# a test#or po!ice%en espite isparate i%pact o# !ac8 recruits in !i"ht o# eIorts toacti$e! recruit oIicers an a neutra! test to ser$e a per%issi!e "o$ern%entpurpose).

o =te$ens concurrin", pointe out that it is unrea!istic to re>uire the $icti%

o# a!!e"e iscri%ination to unco$er the actua! su7ecti$e intent o# theecision%a8er. The !ine etween iscri%inator purpose an i%pact isnot near! as ri"ht as the Court %i"ht assu%e.

Pa"e * o# :



hen the isproportionate i%pact is as ra%atic as in ic" Wo or

&ormillion (cit ounaries chan"e to re%o$e a!! ut a #ew !ac8 $oters he! in$a!i), it oes not %atter whether the stanar isphrase in ter%s o# purpose or eIect.

iscri%inator intent or purpose is re>uire to show an E>ua! Protection $io!ation. eter%inin" whether in$iious iscri%inator purpose was a%oti$atin" #actor e%ans a sensiti$e in>uir into such circu%stantia! anirect e$ience o# intent as %a e a$ai!a!e. 5illage of #rlington ,ghts. v.

Met. ,ousing Dev. Cor0. (19;;) (ho!in" a !oca! 4onin" ecision enin" a !owinco%e housin" pro7ect i not $io!ate E>ua! Protection).

o <%pact %a e a #actor/ =o%eti%es a c!ear pattern, unexp!aina!e on

"rouns other than race, e%er"es #ro% the eIect o# the state action e$enwhen the !e"is!ation is neutra! on its #ace.

o 3istorica! ac8"roun o# the ecision is another #actor, particu!ar! i# it

re$ea!s a series o# oIicia! actions ta8en #or in$iious purposes.o epartures #ro% the nor%a! proceura! se>uence %i"ht a!so e inicati$e

o# i!!e"iti%ate purpose.o Criticis%

#rlington ,gts. "i$es "o$ern%ent oIicia!s a pri%er on how to ui!an appropriate recor to pre$ent nin" o# iscri%inator intent.The eIect o# this case is to restructure the uren o# proo# in racia!iscri%ination cases so that the 7ustications orinari! rou"ht#orwar in e#ense as co%pe!!in" eco%e the asis to re#ute thepri%a #acie case o# racia! iscri%ination in the rst instance.

G. =e!%i/ The e!e%ent o# intent is in#erre #ro% the !an"ua"e o#

#acia!! iscri%inator practices an po!icies, ut that %oreco%%on!, statutes an po!icies cha!!en"e as iscri%inator are#acia!! neutra!, an the Court %ust in#er #ro% the #act o#iIerentia! treat%ent. This in#erence is "enera!! ase on the

accu%u!ate e$ience, which is a!%ost a!was circu%stantia! incharacter.

• espite its rhetoric re"arin" the i%portance o# #erretin" outsut!e iscri%ination, the Court has on! seen iscri%ination,asent #acia! c!assication, in the %ost o$ious situationssituations that cou! not e exp!aine on an asis other thanrace. hene$er the Court #oun roo% to accept anoniscri%inator exp!anation #or a ispute act, it i so.

• Ca!sation4 The 8e >uestion is whether race %ae aiIerence in the ecision%a8in" process, a >uestion thattar"ets causation, rather than %enta! states. #rlington ,gts.

inicates that the "o$ern%ent nee not show a co%pe!!in" 7ustication i# it can e%onstrate that the sa%e ecisionwou! ha$e resu!te e$en ha the i%per%issi!e purpose noteen consiere.

o The eIect o# #rglinton ,gts. there#ore is to restructurethe uren o# proo# in racia! iscri%ination cases sothat the 7ustications orinari! rou"ht #orwar ine#ense as co%pe!!in", eco%e the asis to re#ute the

Pa"e *9 o# :



pri%a #acie case o# racia! iscri%ination in the rstinstance.

L. A!exaner ar"ues that i# a !aw isa$anta"es a racia! %inorit

an racia! iscri%ination is a %oti$atin" #orce #or the !aw, thisshou! e suIicient to tri""er strict scrutin. The #act that, inretrospect, the state wou! ha$e ta8en the sa%e action apart #ro%the iscri%inator purpose es not ser$e to pur"e the har%#u!racia! eIects o# the !aw nor the racia! %oti$ation ehin it.

(esereation <ntentiona! se"re"ation in pu!ic schoo!s is inherent! une>ua! an $io!ates

E>ua! Protection. <n the e! o# pu!ic eucation, the octrine o# 5separate ute>ua!6 has no p!ace. Brown v. Bd. of *duc. (19-) (C.D. arren #or theunani%ous Court, o$erru!in" !less) v. erguson, which sustaine statute #orseparate rai!wa acco%%oations #or !ac8s & whites).

o =eparate eucationa! #aci!ities are inherent! une>ua! ecause epri$es%inorit chi!ren o# e>ua! eucationa! opportunities. =e"re"ation has aetri%enta! eIect on !ac8 chi!ren, since the separation is interpreteas a si"n o# in#eriorit, aIectin" the chi!2s %oti$ation to !earn.

o Eucation is a princip!e instru%ent in awa8enin" a chi! to cu!tura!

$a!ues an socia! a7ust%ent. <t is out#u! that an chi! %a reasona!e expecte to succee in !i#e i# he is enie the opportunit o# aneucation. =uch an opportunit, where the state has unerta8en topro$ie it, is a ri"ht which %ust e %ae a$ai!a!e to a!! on e>ua! ter%s.

Critics are sp!it as to whether the 1th A%en. conte%p!ate schoo!

se"re"ation. <t2s a!so note that the !an"ua"e o# c!assication wasconspicuous! asent.

=tate i%pose se"re"ation in $arious pu!ic #aci!ities are unconstitutiona! onthe asis o# Brown in suse>uent per curia% ecisions.

Critics point out that it is iIicu!t to unerstan how these $arin"

#actua! contexts cou! e su%%ari! han!e i# Brown is ase onthe specia! p!ace o# eucation in our societ an the har% o# statei%pose se"re"ation on the chi!.

<n the #eera! context, eucationa! se"re"ation !aws $io!ate the ue ProcessC!ause o# the -th A%en. since iscri%ination %a e so un7ustia!e as to e $io!ati$e o# ue process. Bolling v. Shar0e (19-) (aressin" se"re"ateschoo!s in .C., to which the 1th A%en. oes not app!).

o C!assications ase so!e! upon race %ust e scrutini4e with particu!arcare since there are contrar to our traitions an hence constitutiona!!suspect. Liert uner !aw extens to the #u!! ran"e o# conuct which theini$iua! is #ree to pursue, an it cannot e restricte except #or a

proper "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e.o =e"re"ation in pu!ic eucation is not reasona! re!ate to an proper

"o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e an thus it i%poses on Oe"ro chi!ren a urenthat constitutes an aritrar epri$ation o# their !iert in $io!ation o# theue Process C!ause.

Imlementin Brown: The Court orere the schoo! istricts to ese"re"ate5with a!! e!ierate spee.6

o ue the $arie !oca! schoo! pro!e%s, !ower courts were to retain

7urisiction an app! e>uita!e princip!es to ese"re"ate in "oo #aithan as soon as possi!e.

Pa"e :0 o# :



The uren reste upon the schoo! istricts to esta!ish that %ore

ti%e is necessar in the pu!ic interest. Lower courts were to consier the ae>uac o# an p!ans the

schoo!s %a propose to %eet these pro!e%s an to eIectuate atransition, urin" which the courts wi!! retain 7urisiction.

' e!ain" the re%e the Court ha encoura"e %assi$e

resistance to ese"re"ation. <t was the re!ent!ess re#usa! o# citi4ensan pu!ic oIicia!s to accept the %eanin" o# Brown that re>uirethe courts to intrue with such coercion an strate"ic an%ana"eria! preoccupations that straine the ounaries o# thetraitiona! 7uicia! #unction. The e!a %i"ht ha$e een to a!!owpeop!e to "et use to the iea.

o <n re%ein" de 2ure se"re"ation, e>ua! protection oes not re>uireracia! a!ancin", ut racia! >uotas %a e use as %easures o#ese"re"ation. Swann v. Charlotte9Mec"len'urg Bd. of *duc. (19;1).

Brown i not istin"uish etween de 2ure an de facto

se"re"ation. 3owe$er, in the case o# de facto se"re"ation, no"o$ern%ent action is neee (i# it can pro$e that schoo!

co%position is not the resu!t o# past iscri%inator action), since itis not responsi!e.o A!thou"h the !ower courts ha$e roa iscretion in #ashionin" re%eies,

the nature o# the re%e %ust re@ect the nature o# the constitutiona! $io!ation.

o <n schoo! istricts where there ha een de 2ure se"re"ation, 5#reeo% o#choice6 p!ans that a!!owe a pupi! to choose the pu!ic schoo! thatresu!te in practica!! no inte"ration were unconstitutiona!. &reen v.Count) Sch. Bd. (19H) (-V o# the !ac8 chi!ren in the sste% were sti!!in an a!!!ac8 sch.? 'rennan #or the Court #ra%e the issues as towhether the p!an was ae>uate co%p!iance with Brown II ).

o =i%i!ar!, the #eera! "o$ern%ent re>uest to e!a ese"re"ation waso$erru!e consierin" re>uest was 1- ears a#ter the orer. #le7ander v. ,olmes Count) Bd. of *duc. (19H9).

o The ri"hts o# schoo! chi!ren were 5not to e sacrice or ie!e to the

$io!ence an isorer which ha$e #o!!owe upon the actions o# theo$ernor an Le"is!ature.6 <n other wors, concern #or $io!ence is not anexcuse #or not en#orcin" constitutiona! ri"hts. Coo0er v. #aron (19-).

In&ivi&!al an& Gro! 'i%ts4o The ci$i! ri"ht at issue in this case is the ri"ht to raceneutra! assi"n%ent

that e!on"e to each ini$iua! stuent an there#ore cou! not ereconci!e with the "rouporiente notion that the Constitution re>uires

inte"ration throu"h raceconscious stuent assi"n%ents.o There is a "roup character o# ri"hts an uties in$o!$e in se"re"ation.

The costs o# se"re"ation are orne $arious "roups in societ an theenets o# ese"re"ation $ar the "roup to which one happens toe!on".

o The "raua! re%e o# Brown II #ashione can on! e 7ustie on the"roun that the 5persona! an present6 ri"ht o# the ini$iua! p!aintiIs%ust ie! to the o$erriin" ri"hts o# Oe"roes as a c!ass to a co%p!ete!

Pa"e :1 o# :



inte"rate pu!ic eucation. +S v. $e:erson Count) Bd. of *duc. (-th Cir.19HH).

A>irmative A)tion T3ST4 E>ua! Protection oes not prec!ue the $o!untar use o# racia!

c!assications where a proper #actua! nin" is %ae. 'ut a racease#eera!, state an !oca! are su7ect to strict scrutin. The "o$ern%ent %ustesta!ish that the raceconscious pro"ra% is necessar to a co%pe!!in" stateinterest.

A%issions pro"ra% to %eica! schoo! that set asie a nu%er o# p!aces #or%inorit stuents $io!ates E>ua! Protection ecause >ua!ie non%inoritapp!icants are enie opportunit to e consiere ue to race. Regents of +Cv. Ba""e (19;).

o D. Powe!! writin" #or the Court p!ura!it, ar"ues #or app!ication o# strict

scrutin, proceein" #ro% the pre%ise o# ini$iua! ri"hts are "uarantee(ini$iua! ri"hts $iew o# E>ua! Protection)/

+acia! an ethnic istinctions o# an sort are inherent! suspect an

thus ca!! #or the %ost exactin" 7uicia! exa%ination. <n orer to usethese c!assications, the =tate %ust show that its purpose orinterest is oth constitutiona!! per%issi!e an sustantia!, anthat its use is necessar to the acco%p!ish%ent o# its purpose or thesa#e"uarin" o# its interest.

hether the pro"ra% is escrie as a >uota or a "oa!, it is a !ine

rawn on the asis o# race an ethnic status. The "uarantee o#e>ua! protection cannot %ean one thin" when app!ie to oneini$iua! an so%ethin" e!se when app!ie to a person o# anotherco!or. <# oth are not accore the sa%e protection, then it is note>ua!.

<# the purpose is to assure within the stuent o so%e specie

percenta"e o# a particu!ar "roup %ere! ecause o# its race, such

pre#erentia! purpose is #acia!! in$a!i. The purpose o# he!pin" certain "roups who% the #acu!t o# the

%eica! sch. percei$e as $icti%s o# societa! iscri%ination oes not 7usti# a c!assication that i%poses isa$anta"es upon persons !i8eresponent, who ear no responsii!it #or whate$er har% theeneciaries o# the specia! a%issions pro"ra% are thou"ht to ha$esuIere.

Attain%ent o# a i$erse stuent o is a constitutiona!!

per%issi!e "oa! #or a uni$ersit, ut the >uestion is whether thepro"ra%2s racia! c!assication is necessar to pro%ote this interest. Assi"n%ent o# a xe nu%er o# seats to a %inorit "roups is not a

necessar %eans towar that en. A $a!i pro"ra% shou! treat each app!icant as an ini$iua! in the

a%issions process. The #ata! @aw in petitioner2s pre#erentia!pro"ra% is its isre"ars o# ini$iua! ri"hts "uarantee in the 1th A%en.

hen the a =tate2s istriution o# enets or i%position o# urens

hin"es on the co!or o# a person2s s8in or ancestr, that ini$iua! isentit!e to a e%onstration that the cha!!en"e c!assication isnecessar to pro%ote a sustantia! =tate interest.

+ace can e a #actor, ut not the ispositi$e #actor.Pa"e :* o# :



o D. =te$ens (with 'ur"er, =tewart, +ehn>uist) concurrin" that the pro"ra% $io!ate Tit!e J< o# the Ci$i! +i"hts Act o# 19H prohiitin" racia!iscri%ination in a pro"ra% that recei$es #eera! #unin". Accorin"!,race cannot e the asis o# exc!uin" anone #ro% participation in a#eera!! #une pro"ra% an 'a88e was exc!ue #ro% the %eica!schoo! ecause o# his non%inorit status.

o D. 'rennan (with hite, Garsha!!, '!ac8%un) concurrin" an issentin",

ar"ues #or an inter%eiate stanar o# re$iewthe c!assication %ust e

sustantia!! re!ate to an i%portant "o$ern%ent interest ("roup ri"hts $iew o# E>ua! Protection).

o$ern%ent %a ta8e race into account with it acts not to e%ean

or insu!t an racia! "roup, ut to re%e isa$anta"es cast on%inorities past pre7uice.

• Powe!! wou! re>uire #actua! nin"s e#ore a!!owin" re%e,ut 'rennan ar"ues that 7uicia! eter%ination o# a $io!ationas a preicate #or raceconscious re%eia! actions wou! ese!#e#eatin".

+acia! c!assications esi"ne to #urther re%eia! purposes %ust

ser$e i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an %ust e sustantia!!re!ate to achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es.

• An i%portant an articu!ate purpose #or its use %ust eshown an the c!assication oes not sti"%ati4e the "roup.

• a$is2 pro"ra% ser$es an i%portant purpose an oes notsti"%ati4e whites.

There are no practica! %eans which it cou! achie$e its ens in

the #oreseea!e #uture without the use o# raceconscious %easures.

• 3ar$ar a%issions pro"ra% (that "i$es a 5p!us6 #actor tocertain %inorities, ut oes not insu!ate app!icant #ro% therest o# the caniate poo!) that was enorse is the sa%e as

this pro"ra%, except that it is un8nown to the extent o# thepre#erence.

o D. Garsha!! issentin", ar"ues that the Court is unwi!!in" to co! that ac!assase re%e #or iscri%ination is per%issi!e, i"norin" the #actthat #or se$era! hunre ears !ac8s ha$e een iscri%inate a"ainst. As a resu!t o# historica! iscri%ination, !ac8s shou! e aIore "reaterprotection uner the 1th A%en. without a #urther showin" o# #act.

o D. '!ac8%un issentin", ar"ues that 5in orer to "et eon racis%, we

%ust rst ta8e account o# race.6 There is no other raceneutra! wa tostructure an aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%. E>ua! Protection C!ause shou!not perpetuate racia! supre%ac.

o Ootes & Criticis%/ Powe!!2s opinion inicates the re!e$ant criteria in eter%inin" the

per%issii!it o# a raceconscious a%issions pro"ra% are thenu%er o# traits that are "i$en specia! wei"ht an the e"ree towhich those traits are consiere in a co%petiti$e #ashion.

• 'ut it is unc!ear 7ust how those criteria re!ate to each otheran exact! how the are to e %easure. <t is un!i8e! thatthe 3ar$ar p!an wou! prouce an iIerent a%issionresu!ts than a %ore !atant race conscious p!an.

Pa"e :: o# :



• The iIerences etween the aIir%ati$e action p!ans thatPowe!! #oun unconstitutiona! were aesthetic.

• Powe!! thou"ht o# aIir%ati$e action as a transition, a shortter% eparture #ro% the iea! o# co!or!inness 7ustie on! pressin" necessit. A!!owin" %inorit setasies tocontinue unti! a!! eIects o# past societa! iscri%ination haeen e!i%inate %i"ht %ean the wou! !ast #ore$er. Powe!!there#ore cra#te an approach esi"ne oth to per%itaIir%ati$e action an to constrain it.

. Jan A!stne warns that the stanars o# re$iew per%ittin"

7ustication o# raceconscious re%eies are 5a sie$e thatencoura"es renewe racease !aws, racia! iscri%ination, racia!co%petition, racia! spoi!s sste%, an %ore 7uicia! sport.6

• The eni"n use o# race to o$erco%e racis% has historica!!een a #ai!ure an is u!ti%ate! e#eatin". ne "ets eonracis% a co%p!ete, reso!ute, an crei!e co%%it%entne$er to to!erate it in the practices o# "o$ern%ent.

A. 'ic8e! ar"ues #or a co!or!in princip!e ecause an racia!

c!assication is i!!e"a! uner the 1th

A%en. D. E! ar"ue that specia! scrutin is not appropriate when the white

%a7orit has ecie to #a$or %inorities at the white peop!e2sexpense. A white %a7orit is un!i8e! to isa$anta"e itse!# #orreasons o# racia! pre7uice? not is it !i8e! to e te%pte either touneresti%ate the nees an eserts o# whites re!ati$e to those o#others.

• Pro!e% is that this ar"u%ent treats whites as a #un"i!ec!ass an Powe!!2s opinion procees #ro% an ini$iua! ri"htspresu%ption, as we!! as inicatin" that whites as a c!ass is%ae up o# %an iIerent %inorities.

P. 'rest ns the "roup orientation inconsistent with the traitiona!antiiscri%ination princip!e an notions o# ini$iua! autono%which attriutes no %ora! si"nicance to %e%ership in racia!"roups.

D. +uen#e! ar"ues that aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s o not iIer in

a constitutiona! sense #ro% the har%s in@icte on the etteroIpro"ra%s that oIer specia! opportunities to the poor, or !aws thatre>uire pre#erences #or $eterans. <t is i%possi!e that the on! 8ino# aIir%ati$e action %ae unconstitutiona! uner the Ci$i! ar A%en%ents is the 8in that wou! oIer assistance to !ac8s.

'. Garsha!! ar"ues that the E>ua! Protection C!ause can on! e

unerstoo in ter%s o# its protections o# "roups, an o# ini$iua!s reason o# their %e%ership in "roups.

• iscri%ination is not a"ainst ini$iua!s. <t is a"ainst apeop!e. An the re%e, there#ore, has to correct an curean co%pensate #or the iscri%ination a"ainst the peop!e annot 7ust the iscri%ination a"ainst the ientia!e persons.

+. Post notes that a!thou"h Powe!!2s exposition o# co%pe!!in"

eucationa! interest o# i$ersit ha een inte!!ectua!! e!e"ant anprecise, it ha isp!ae !itt!e or no re!ationship to the actua!

Pa"e : o# :



reasons wh aIir%ati$e action ha eco%e pro%inent in A%ericanhi"h eucation. These reasons were ase a!%ost entire! on the#e!t nee to re%e eep socia! is!ocations associate with race.

D. DeIries, Powe!!2s !aw c!er8, notes that i# i$ersit in the c!assroo%

enhance the eucation o# a!! stuents, then a search #or %inoritrepresentation cou! e seen as soun eucationa! po!ic, not racia!#a$oritis%.

• D. i!8inson oser$e that i$ersit was the %ost accepta!e

pu!ic rationa!e #or aIir%ati$e action ecause it has eenhistorica!! c!ear! re!ate to a uni$ersit2s #unction.

• 3owe$er, race & ethnicit are not necessari! inicators o#i$erse experience as %uch as iIerences in econo%ic status.Perhaps the >uestion shou! e on how traitiona! a%issionscriteria continue to perpetuate race an c!ass pri$i!e"e.

Con"ressiona! statute %anatin" 10V o# #eera! #uns #or !oca! pro7ects esucontracte out to %inorit owne usinesses was constitutiona! ecause thepro"ra% was !i%ite (sunset pro$ision) an tai!ore pro"ra% esi"ne tore%e prior iscri%ination in the construction inustr an a!so ha

a%inistrati$e re%eies. ullilove v. (lutznic" (190) (no %a7orit #or astanar o# re$iew). =trict scrutin app!ies to state an !oca! aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s, which

re>uire statistics to support re%ein" o# specic statistica! nin"s,consieration o# raceneutra! a!ternati$es, an !i%its on uration an scope.Cit) of Richmond v. $.#. Croson Co. (199) (in$a!iatin" !oca! re>uire%ent toawar :0V o# pu!ic pro7ects to %inorit sucontractors? Court wante nin"sto support Cit2s ar"u%ent that it was trin" to re%e past iscri%ination).

o =trict scrutin neee to ensure a!!e"e! 5eni"n6 p!ans are not aseon racia! pre7uice.

Court aIir%e that a!! racia! c!assications, i%pose whate$er #eera!, state

or !oca! "o$ern%ent actor, %ust e ana!4e uner strict scrutin. #darandConstr. v. !ena (199-) (o$erru!in" Metro Broadcasting v. CC to the extent thatit prescrie a iIerent stanar o# re$iew (inter%eiate) #or #eera!pro"ra%s).

o Three "enera! propositions "o$ern aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s/

=8epticis%/ the nee #or searchin" re$iew #or a!! race an ethnicit

c!assications in orer to s%o8e out co$ert in$iious iscri%ination. Consistenc/ since E>ua! Protection is a persona! ri"ht, stanars o#

re$iew shou! not epen on the race o# the person enete orurene. The stanar o# re$iew in racease cases shou! econsistent.

Con"ruence/ E>ua! Protection ana!sis uner the -th & 1th A%ens.use the sa%e stanar o# re$iew. 'ut this oes not necessari!%ean that the wi!! app! the sa%e wa? courts %a "i$e "reatere#erence to #eera! pro"ra%s.

=tuent o i$ersit in hi"her eucation is a co%pe!!in" state interest thatcan 7usti# the use o# race in a%issions, ut on! i# the pro"ra% is narrow!tai!ore an "i$es app!icants ini$iua!i4e consieration. &rutter v. Bollinger (*00:) (ni$. Gich. Law =ch. a%issions pro"ra% that consiere a %ix o#traits inc!uin" race was cha!!en"e an uphe! 2Connor #or the Court).

Pa"e :- o# :



o ec!ares that a!! racia! c!assications i%pose "o$ern%ent %ust eana!4e uner strict scrutin, ut there is e#erence to the schoo!2s 7u"%ent that i$ersit is essentia! to its eucationa! %ission.

o Court a!so inicates that i$ersit in !aw schoo! he!ps to #urther

!e"iti%ac o# pu!ic oIicia!s an oIicers (since a sustantia! nu%er o#e!ecte pu!ic oIicers ho! !aw e"rees).

o ni$ersities can consier race or ethnicit %ore @exi! as a 5p!us6 #actor

in the context o# ini$iua!i4e consieration o# each an e$er app!icant.The a%issions pro"ra% ensures that a!! #actors that %a contriute tostuent o i$ersit are %eanin"#u!! consiere a!on"sie race ina%issions ecisions.

o The !aw schoo!2s p!an is narrow! tai!ore to the schoo!2s "oa! o#

attaintin" a critica! %ass o# unerrepresente %inorit stuents. Thepro"ra% i not use >uotas, p!ace iIerent racia! "roups on iIerenta%ission trac8s, or awar a set nu%er o# points to an app!icant aseon %inorit status.

The purpose o# narrow tai!orin" re>uire%ent is to ensure that the

%eans chosen #or the co%pe!!in" "oa! so c!ose! that there is !itt!e

or no possii!it that the %oti$e #or the c!assication wasi!!e"iti%ate racia! pre7uice or stereotpe.o Oarrow tai!orin" oes not re>uire exhaustion o# e$er concei$a!e race

neutra! a!ternati$e. 'ut it oes, howe$er, re>uire "oo #aithconsieration o# wor8a!e raceneutra! a!ternati$es that wi!! achie$e thei$ersit the uni$ersit see8s.

o There is no reason to exe%pt raceconscious a%issions pro"ra%s #ro%

the re>uire%ent that a!! "o$ern%enta! use o# race %ust ha$e a !o"ica! enpoint. <n the context o# hi"her eucation, the urationa! re>uire%ent cane %et sunset pro$isions in these po!icies an perioic re$iews toeter%ine whether racia! pre#erences are sti!! necessar to achie$e

stuent o i$ersit.o D. insur" (with 'reer) concurrin" expresse concern that *- ears

a#ter Ba""e the Court is sti!! eciin" the issue an that in ti%e, one %ahope that aIir%ati$e action can sunset.

o D. +ehn>uist (with =ca!ia, Tho%as, Kenne) issentin", #oun that the

pro"ra% was not narrow! tai!ore an that the pro"ra% ears nore!ation to the "oa! o# achie$in" a 5critica! %ass,6 rather the percenta"eo# %inorit app!icants corre!ates to the percenta"e o# a%itte stuentan hence, #ai!s strict scrutin. Aitiona!!, there is no ti%e !i%it on theschoo!2s use o# race.

o D. Kenne issentin" #oun that the !aw schoo! ha the uren o# pro$in"

that is i not use race in an unconstitutiona! wa an the schoo! i notexp!ain the corre!ations etween app!icant poo! an a%itte stuents.e#erence is antithetica! to strict scrutin.

o D. =ca!ia (with Tho%as) issentin", is s8eptica! that crossracia!

unerstanin" is a true eucationa! enet, teacha!e in or uni>ue!re!e$ant to !aw schoo!? an oes not e!ie$e racia! i$ersit is aco%pe!!in" "o$ern%ent interest. The Constitution proscries "o$ern%entiscri%ination on the asis o# race, an state pro$ie eucation is noexception.

Pa"e :H o# :



o D. Tho%as (with =ca!ia) issentin", ar"ues that racia! iscri%ination is nota per%issi!e so!ution to the se!#in@icte wouns o# an e!itist a%issionpo!ic. The pro"ra% ser$e aesthetic interests, ut prouce on!%ar"ina! eucationa! enets.

<n #act, there is a raceneutra! a!ternati$e, which wou! e to

aanon its exc!usionar a%issions pro"ra% an a%it app!icants%eetin" %ini%u% >ua!ications on a co!or !in asis, e.". a !otter.

There is no asis #or the Court2s unpreceente e#erence ase on

the iea o# eucationa! autono%, an no asis #or a ri"ht to owhat otherwise wou! $io!ate the E>ua! Protection C!ause.

Law schoo!s choose to use a test that the 8now %a e racia!!

ias, ut the %ust accept the constitutiona! urens o# this. ner"rauate a%issions po!ic that auto%atica!! istriutes 1Q-th o# the

points neee to "uarantee a%ission to each unerrepresente %inoritapp!icant ase on race is not narrow! tai!ore to achie$e the interest ineucationa! i$ersit. &ratz v. Bollinger (*00:) (C.D. +ehn>uist #or the Court inco%panion case to &rutter ).

o The point sste% has the eIect o# %a8in" the #actor o# race ecisi$e #or

$irtua!! e$er %ini%a!! >ua!ie unerrepresente %inorit app!icantan oes not a!!ow assess%ent o# the app!icant2s entire app!ication.o The #act that a re$iew co%%ittee can !oo8 at the app!ications ini$iua!!

an i"nore the points, once an app!ication is @a""e, oes not he!p thepo!ic sur$i$e strict scrutin ecause such ini$iua!i4e re$iew is theexception an not the ru!e.

o D. 2Connor concurrin", e%phasi4e the !ac8 o# %eanin"#u! ini$iua!i4e

re$iew o# the app!icants. The se!ection inex, ut settin" up auto%atic,preeter%ine point a!!ocations #or the so#t $aria!es, ensures that thei$ersit contriutions o# app!icants cannot e ini$iua!! assesse.

o D. 'reer concurrin" with the 7u"%ent o# the Court, with 2Connor2s

concurrence an with insur"2s issent.o D. Tho%as concurrin", reiterate his e!ie# that the =tate2s use o# racia!

iscri%ination in hi"her eucation a%issions is cate"orica!! prohiite the E>ua! Protection C!ause.

o D. =te$ens (with =outer) issentin", ar"ues that there is an asence o#e$ience that either petitioner wou! recei$e an enet #ro%prospecti$e re!ie#, an hence ha$e no stanin".

o D. =outer (with insur") issentin", ar"ues that the ecision shou! not

"o eon a reco"nition that i$ersit can ser$e as a co%pe!!in" stateinterest 7usti#in" raceconscious ecisions in eucation an ns that thepro"ra% pro$ies ini$iua!i4e re$iew.

The pro"ra% is c!oser to what &rutter appro$es o# than what Ba""econe%ns, since it oes not in$o!$e a >uota or setasie sste%.

The se!ection inex sste%, a!! o# the characteristics that the

co!!e"e thin8s re!e$ant to stuent i$ersit #or e$er one o# thep!aces to e !!e ts Powe!!2s escription o# a constitutiona!!accepta!e pro"ra%one that consiers 5a!! pertinent e!e%ents o#i$ersit in !i"ht o# the particu!ar >ua!ications o# each app!icant.6

<t see%s un#air to treat the canor o# the a%issions p!an as an

Achi!!es2 hee!.

Pa"e :; o# :



o D. insur" (with =outer) issentin", is %ost sharp! in contrast with theCourt an ar"ues #or an inter%eiate re$iew, citin" #darand anistin"uishes eni"n c!assication.

Actions esi"ne to uren "roups are not ran8e the sa%e with

%easures ta8en to e!i%inate iscri%ination. The po!ic oes not see8 to exc!ue ase on race, nor oes it

unu! construct a%issions opportunities #or non%inoritstuents.

<# honest is the est po!ic, #u!! isc!ose Co!!e"e aIir%ati$eaction pro"ra% is pre#era!e to achie$in" si%i!ar nu%ers throu"hwin8s, nos, an is"uises.

o Critics & =cho!ars/

A!thou"h the Court, in &rutter , announce a strict scrutin

stanar, in app!ication it was %ore e#erentia!.

• <n ho!in" that i$ersit cou! e a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%enta!interest, the %a7orit too8 the schoo! oIicia!s at their worwhen the schoo! oIicia!s sai the neee racia! i$ersit #oreucationa! reasons. <n aition, ho!in" that the pro"ra%

was narrow! tai!ore, the %a7orit "a$e the schoo! theenet o# the out in the operation o# the racia! pre#erences. A!thou"h &rutter casts itse!# as %ere! enorsin" Powe!!2s opinion

in Ba""e, it oes not oIer an account o# the intrinsic $a!ue o# theeucationa! process or enets. <t instea concei$es o# eucationas instru%enta! #or the achie$e%ent o# extrinsic socia! "oos, !i8epro#essiona!is%, citi4enship, or !eaership.

• <t #o!!ows #ro% this wa o# conceptua!i4in" the pro!e% thatthe Law =choo! can ha$e a co%pe!!in" interest in usin"i$ersit to #aci!itate the attain%ent o# these socia! "oos on!i# there is an inepenent! co%pe!!in" interest in the actua!

attain%ent o# these "oos. Pre&i)tion4 <t %a e ar"ue that the Court has now i%p!icit!

accepte re%ein" societa! iscri%ination as a state co%pe!!in"interest an appears that the Court wi!! upho! a narrow! rawnracease pro"ra% esi"ne to re%e specic ientie i!!e"a!racia! iscri%ination.

• =o the %ost i%portant #unction o# aIir%ati$e action

reco"ni4e in &rutter is #orwar!oo8in"/ to %a8e possi!e theeIecti$e #unctionin" o# institutions that ha$e een historica!!se"re"ate or stratie inte"ratin" the% at a!! !e$e!s.

• A!thou"h the concurrin" 7ustices in Ba""e wou! ha$euphe! an aIir%ati$e action pro"ra% esi"ne to re%epast societa! iscri%ination, the Court has "enera!! re7ectere%ein" societa! iscri%ination as suIicient to 7usti# aracia! c!assication. E$en =ca!ia an Tho%as are wi!!in" toaccept raceconscious pro"ra%s to re%e the "o$ern%ent2sown iscri%ination a"ainst ientie $icti%s.

Pro#. Post !ists #our re>uire%ents that the Court uses in &rutter9

&ratz in eter%inin" i# a i$ersit p!an is narrow! tai!ore? a racease aIir%ati$e action p!an/

Pa"e : o# :



1) %ust 5not unu! har% %e%ers o# an racia! "roup6*) can e i%p!e%ente on! i# there has een a 5serious "oo

#aith consieration o# wor8a!e raceneutra! a!ternati$es thatwi!! achie$e the i$ersit the uni$ersit see8s6

:) 5%ust e !i%ite in ti%e6) %ost i%portant!, it %ust aIor each app!icant 5tru!

ini$iua!i4e consieration.6

• The Court ne$er %a8es c!ear whether the &ratz pro"ra% #ai!s

the ini$iua!i4e consieration ecause it >uanties thecontriution o# race to i$ersit a specic an ientia!e%easure or ecause the pro"ra% e%p!os a %easure that isecisi$e.

The #act that it is i%portant #or the pro"ra% to ha$e a urationa!

!i%it see%s to e consistent on! i# the co%pe!!in" interest in thepro"ra% is re%eia!.

Interme&iate 'eview4 Gen&er Classi;)ation The #ra%ers o# the 1th A%en. i not conte%p!ate sex e>ua!it. 'o!!

na%ic interpretation, epartin" raica!! #ro% the ori"ina! unerstanin", isre>uire to tie the 1th A%en.2s E>ua! Protection C!ause to a co%%an that"o$ern%ent treat %en an wo%en as ini$iua!s e>ua! in ri"hts,responsii!ities, an opportunities. +uth insur", 19;9 ash. .L..

Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 Purpose#u! "ener c!assications a"ainst wo%en or %en5%ust ser$e i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an %ust e sustantia!!re!ate to achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es.6 Craig v. Boren (19;H) (re7ectin"iIerent rin8in" a"es ase on sex? +ehn>uist o7ectin" to inter%eiatestanar o# re$iew).

o The "o$ern%ent 7ustication %ust e exceein"! persuasi$e, which%a8es it c!oser to strict scrutin. +S v. 5a. (199H).

The =tate has the uren to show at !east that the c!assicationser$es i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an that theiscri%inator %eans e%p!oe are sustantia!! re!ate to theachie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es.

o Court wi!! use the actua! "o$ern%ent purpose an e%an c!ose

corresponence o# the c!assication to that en. C!assications are %ost!i8e! to #ai! ecause the c!assication is not sustantia!! re!ate to the"o$ern%ent interest.

Pro!e%s arise when ou ene the o7ecti$e iIerent!.

o The 7ustication %ust e "enuine, not hpothesi4e or in$ente post hoc

in response to !iti"ation.

o The 7ustication %ust not re! on o$erroa "enera!i4ations aout theiIerent ta!ents, capacities, or pre#erences o# %a!es an #e%a!es.

=tate !aw cannot "i$e pre#erence to %a!es o$er #e%a!es as a%inistrators o#estates. Reed v. Reed (19;1) (re7ectin" =tate2s 7ustication o# ease o#a%inistration? 5' pro$iin" issi%i!ar treat%ent #or %en an wo%en who arethus si%i!ar! situate, the cha!!en"e section $io!ates the E>ua! ProtectionC!ause.6).

A!thou"h no %a7orit o# the Court has e$er he! that sex shou! e a suspectc!ass, 'rennan points out reasons that it wou! e suspect in his opinion in rontiero v. Richardson (19;:) (stri8in" own re"u!ation %a8in" it %ore

Pa"e :9 o# :



iIicu!t #or #e%a!e uni#or%e ser$ice%e%er to c!ai% her husan asepenent).

o =ex, !i8e race an nationa! ori"in, is an i%%uta!e characteristic

eter%ine accient o# irth? an #re>uent! ears no re!ation toai!it to per#or% or contriute to societ.

o <n !ater cases, the Court exp!ains wh sex was not he! as suspect c!ass?

%ain! ecause its eIects are !ess se$ere than racia! iscri%ination ancan e eIecte thou"h the po!itica! process.

The hei"htene re$iew stanar oes not %a8e sex a suspect c!ass. =tatecannot constitutiona!! en wo%en who ha$e the wi!! an capacit access tothe trainin" an attenant opportunities that an institution uni>ue! aIorson! to %en. 5MI (199H) (insur" #or the Court, e%p!oin" an ini$iua!ri"hts $iew).

o =tate was not success#u! in ar"uin" that JG< was esta!ishe with a $iew

to i$erse eucationa! opportunit within the =tate. n! ser$in" =tate2ssons without an pro$ision #or her au"hters oes not ser$e i$ersit an $io!ates E>ua! Protection.

<# JG<2s "oa! is to train citi4en so!iers, the "oa! oes not prec!ue

wo%en. The opportunities oIere at JG< are uni>ue that a para!!e!pro"ra% cou! not oIer.

o =ex c!assication %a e use to co%pensate wo%en #or econo%ic

isai!ities or to a$ance e%p!o%ent opportunities. A re%eia! ecree%ust c!ose! t the constitutiona! $io!ation? it %ust e shape to p!acepersons enie an opportunit or a$anta"e in the position the wou!ha$e occupie in the asence o# iscri%ination.

JG< create a para!!e! pro"ra% #or wo%en see8in" entrance to

JG<, Jir"inia o%en2s <nstitute #or Leaership (J<L), ut with%ar8e iIerences #ro% JG<, na%e! !ac8in" a$ersati$e %ethoo# eucation. An hence, was not sustantia!! co%para!e. M<# this

were so, JG<L %i"ht ha$e een $a!i.N The #act that JG< is uni>ueeco%es %ore o# a epri$ation to wo%en who cannot atten.M=ca!ia critici4es this, since an pro"ra% can e characteri4e asuni>ue.N

o D. +ehn>uist concurrin", isa"rees with the new stanar announce anwou! pre#er the stanar in ,ogan.

The pro!e% is that the i$ersit c!ai%s on! enet one sex. Oo

corresponin" sin"!esex pro"ra% #or wo%en. <t is not theexc!usion o# wo%en that $io!ates the E>ua! Protection C!ause, utthe %aintenance o# an a!!%en schoo! without pro$iin" anco%para!e institution #or wo%en.

o D. =ca!ia issentin", ar"ues #or #aith#u! app!ication o# inter%eiatescrutin, which has ne$er re>uire a !eastrestricti$e %eans ana!sis, uton! a sustantia! re!ation etween the c!assication an the stateinterests it ser$es.

uestion is whether the exc!usion o# wo%en #ro% JG< is

sustantia!! re!ate to an i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e o#pro$iin" eIecti$e co!!e"e eucation #or its citi4ens, which sin"!esex instruction part o# this approach.

Pa"e 0 o# :



The i%p!ication o# the Court2s ecision %a e wiesprea

isruption o# sin"!esex eucation, epenin" on how this app!ies topri$ate eucation.

o Ootes & Criticis%/

Court ac8now!e"e that uner this ana!sis, %eans %er"e into

ens an the %er"er ris8e passin" an eucationa! scrutin. Jir"inia i what #e%inist theorists ha$e !on" critici4ethe

assu%e the correctness o# the %ascu!ine %a!e stanar an as8eon! whether wo%en cou! t in, not whether it was an appropriatestanar #or persons o# either sex. <%p!ications that wo%en arein#erior i# the o not %atch up.

Court2s %essa"e is a re7ection o# sweepin" "enera!i4ations upon

which the were #oune. <n$a!i stereotpes wi!! e #ata! to"o$ern%ent #unin" o# co!!e"es which exc!ue app!icants on theasis o# sex.

hi!e in %an cases c!assications on the asis o# sex are

snon%ous with sex iscri%ination, in other cases, sexc!assications per%it e>ua! protection to e achie$e within a

#ra%ewor8 that reco"ni4es iIerence. . =i%pson/ ith re"ar to coorinate sin"!esex schoo!s, i# no

sti"%a or isa$anta"e to the "ir!s or os is #oun, the schoo!spass wou! pass constitutiona! %uster. <#, howe$er, isa$anta"e is#oun to exist, the state is c!ear! c!assi#in" on sex aninter%eiate scrutin app!ies an it is out#u! that the sste% o#coorinate sin"!esex schoo!s wi!! sur$i$e such re$iew.

A wo%enon! a%issions po!ic to a state nursin" schoo! $io!ates E>ua!Protection. A!thou"h the state ar"ue the c!assication was co%pensator, it in#act ser$e to rein#orce a stereotpe o# nursin" as a pro#ession #or wo%en (whoha not een iscri%inate a"ainst in the pro#ession an oes not ser$e the

purpose o# i$ersit). Miss. +niv. for Women v. ,ogan (19*) (%a!e app!icantsee8in" entrance to nursin" schoo!). <n so%e cases, the Court has eter%ine that the sexes are not si%i!ar!

situatewhen the sex c!assications are ase on rea! iIerences rather than"ener stereotpesthe c!assication wi!! !i8e! e uphe!.

o =tatutor rape !aw which %a8es %en a!one cri%ina!! !ia!e #or the act o#

sexua! intercourse with a #e%a!e %inor oes not $io!ate the E>ua!Protection C!ause ecause this c!assication rea!istica!! re@ects the #actthat the sexes are not si%i!ar! situate certain circu%stances, na%e!the io!o"ica! conse>uences. An the state has an interest in pre$entin"teen pre"nanc. Michael M v. Su0erior Ct. (191) (+ehn>uist #or the

Court app!in" inter%eiate scrutin that he ha pre$ious! issente#ro%).

o Feera! %a!eon! ra#t re"istration oes not $io!ate the -th A%en. E>ua!Protection since the sex c!assication rea!istica!! re@ects the #act thatthe sexes are not si%i!ar! situate in re"ar to the nee to pro$ieco%at troops, in which wo%en o not participate. This is c!ose! re!ateto Con"ress2 i%portant "o$ern%enta! interest in e$e!opin" a poo! o#potentia! co%at troops. Rost"er v. &old'erg (191).

hi!e iscri%inator eIect %a e e$ience o# iscri%inator purpose, it is notenou"h to tri""er inter%eiate re$iew. n! a "o$ern%enta! purpose to

Pa"e 1 o# :



iscri%inate 7usties eparture #ro% the traitiona! rationa!it stanar. !ers. #dm/r of Mass. v. eene) (19;9) (upho!in" $eteran pre#erence po!ic in hirin"?whi!e it has the eIect o# isa$anta"in" wo%en, it is not the purpose?there#ore, rationa! asis app!ies).

o hen a statute is "enerneutra! on its #ace is cha!!en"e on the "rounthat its eIects upon wo%en are isproportionate! a$erse, a two#o!in>uir is appropriate/ 1) whether the statutor c!assication is ineeneutra! in the sense that is not "ener ase? *) <# the c!assication itse!#,

co$ert or o$ert, is not ase upon "ener, the secon >uestion is whetherthe a$erse eIects re@ects in$iious "enerase iscri%ination.

o Garsha!! (with 'rennan) issentin", ns that the $eteranpre#erence

e$inces purpose#u! "enerase iscri%ination an ears not !e"iti%ate"o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e.

here the #oreseea!e i%pact o# a #acia!! neutra! po!ic is so

isproportionate, the uren shou! rest o# the =tate to esta!ishthat sexase consierations p!ae no part in the choice o# theparticu!ar !e"is!ati$e sche%e.

=tate #ai!e to esta!ish a suIicient re!ationship etween its

o7ecti$es an %eans chosen to eIectuate the%. Barron4 <# thereis a "enerneutra! %eans, then a "enerase statute isunre!ate.

Se-!al Orientation4 :!asi7S!se)t? hi!e the Court has not he! whether c!assications ase on sexua!

orientation are su7ect to hei"htene scrutin, it has he! that a !aw i%posin" aroa, uniIerentiate isai!it a"ainst "as (!aw #oris protecte statusase on sexua! orientation) is irrationa! an $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Romerv. *vans (199H). This %a inicate a "reater scrutin wi!! e "i$en to !awsi%posin" specia! urens on "as as a c!ass.

o First!, the !aw has the pecu!iar propert o# i%posin" a roa an

uniIerentiate isai!it on a sin"!e "roup.o =econ!, its shear reath is so iscontinuous with the reasons oIere

#or it that the !aw see%s inexp!ica!e anthin" ut ani%us towar thec!ass that it aIects? it !ac8s a rationa! re!ationship to !e"iti%ate stateinterests.

o Court states that it is app!in" rationa! re$iew. A !aw ec!arin" that in

"enera! it sha!! e %ore iIicu!t #or one "roup o# citi4ens than #or a!!others to see8 ai #ro% the "o$ern%ent is itse!# a enia! o# E>ua!Protection o# the !aws in the %ost !itera! sense.

o D. =ca!ia issentin", ns that this oes not en co%%on !aw protections

an hence, is not a $io!ation o# E>ua! Protection. n! that the %a not

otain pre#erentia! protections without a%enin" the !aw. This is apo!itica! issue.

o Ootes/

<%%eiate reaction to Romer was that it conspicuous! #ai!e to

articu!ate a princip!e 7ustication. Kenne2s opinion was rooteneither in ori"ina! %eanin" nor in preceent, an pro$ie !itt!e"uiance #or #uture contro$ersies.

Kenne2s opinion cou! e an a%a!"a% o# two theories/ 1) !itera!

reain" o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause an *) the !aw was so o$er

Pa"e * o# :



an uner inc!usi$e in ser$in" an !e"iti%ate ens that is %ust eunerstoo as ase u!ti%ate! on na8e ani%osit towars "apeop!e a!one.

The Court #oune its ecision on a ru!e that !e"is!ation %a8in" it

%ore urenso%e #or a sin"!e "roup o# citi4ens to see8 the"o$ern%ent2s protection is a per se enia! o# e>ua! protection o# the!aws. <t %ust e ecause the "rouns #or the !aw are proper! oI!i%its, since the !aw re@ects a 7u"%ent that certain citi4ens shou!

e treate as socia! outcasts.• Romer re@ects the princip!e that the "o$ern%ent %a not

esi"nate an societa! "roup as untoucha!e. Romer i!!u%inate the core o# E>ua! Protection"o$ern%ent %ust

respect the princip!e that a!! persons ha$e e>ua! intrinsic worth.This princip!e ars !aws roote in hosti!it towar a particu!ar"roup. E$en when ani%osit is !ac8in" howe$er, the princip!e ars!aws that see8 to entrench a socia! hierarch.

The %a7orit characteri4e the u!ti%ate ri$in" #orce ehin the

!aw as constitutiona!! i%per%issi!e ani%us, rather than %ora!

isappro$a! an so he! that it #ai!e rationa! asis re$iew.• D. =ca!ia ar"ues that the on! ani%us at issue is %ora!

isappro$a! o# ho%osexua! conuct si%i!ar to that expressein Bowers.

hi!e ue Process e%phasi4es $a!ues that are traitiona!!

protecte, E>ua! Protection C!ause oes not sa#e"uar traition? itprotects a"ainst traitions, howe$er !on"stanin" an eep!roote.

Ar!ment "or S!se)t or :!asi7S!se)t Class4 Proponents o# hei"htenescrutin point to/

o 3istor o# iscri%ination

o A percei$e !ac8 o# po!itica! c!outo Lac8 o# re!ationship etween ai!it to per#or% or contriute an to (what

is eco%in" 8nown as) an i%%uta!e traito =i%i!ar!, the Court has #oun sex an other c!assications >uestiona!e

ecause the #re>uent! ear no re!ation to ai!it to per#or% orcontriute to societ, are tpica!! %oti$ate stereotpica! rather than#actase thin8in", an per$asi$e! aIect c!asses o# citi4ens traitiona!!su7ecte to !e"a! isai!ities. App!ie to ho%osexua! !e"a! histor, sexua!orientation c!assication shou! e at !east su7ect to inter%eiatescrutin.

Same Se- *arriae4 eate has %o$e to =tate constitutions, which o not

ha$e a histor o# interpretation !i8e the = Constitution.o 3awaii =tate constitution has an exp!icit prohiition on iscri%ination

ase on sex, un!i8e the #eera! Constitution. As a resu!t, the =tate=upre%e Court he! that a !aw restrictin" %arria"e to oppositesexcoup!es can within the =tate2s prohiition. The case was re%ane to eana!4e uner strict scrutin. Baehr v. %ewin (3aw. 199:).

o Gassachusetts he! that the state an on sa%esex %arria"e $io!ate the

state constitution, conc!uin" that the %arria"e an oes not %eet the

Pa"e : o# :



rationa! asis test #or either ue process or e>ua! protection. &oodridgev. De0t. of !u'l. ,ealth (Gass. *00:).

=o%e coup!es in Gass. ha$e een %arrie an i# the =tate e"ins to

prohiit this, then there2s an ar"u%ent that the =tate is creatin"two c!asses o# citi4ens.

o A. Kopp!e%an ar"ues that since inter%eiate scrutin #or "eneraseiscri%ination is appropriate, an !aws that iscri%inate a"ainst "ascannot withstan inter%eiate scrutin, statutes that sin"!e out "as #or

une>ua! treat%ent are in$a!i. <n the sa%e wa that the prohiition a"ainst %isce"enation in

%oving v. 5a. preser$e the po!arities to race on which whitesupre%ac reste, the prohiition o# ho%osexua!it preser$es thepo!arities on which rests the suorination o# wo%en.

o +. uncan/ Garria"e !aws app! the sa%e e>ua! stanar to each "ener,

neither %en nor wo%en %a %arr a person o# the sa%e "ener. Oeitherthe enets nor the uren o# these !aws are istriute une>ua!! to%en or wo%en as a c!ass.

+e7ectin" the %oving ana!o"/ 'ecause race is irre!e$ant to what

%a8es a re!ationship a %arria"e, it was i%%ora! anunconstitutiona! #or Jir"inia to #ori interracia! %arria"es.3owe$er, un!i8e Jir"inia2s racist restriction on %arria"e, the ua!"ener re>uire%ent i# ase upon the inherent sexua!co%p!e%entarit o# husan an wi#e.

o C. =unstein/ 3owe$er, i# %awrence is put to"ether with %oving it wou!see% p!ausi!e to sa that the "o$ern%ent wou! ha$e to prouce aco%pe!!in" 7ustication #or re#usin" to reco"ni4e such %arria"es, anco%pe!!in" 7ustications are not eas to n. <# we e%phasi4e an e>ua!itrationa!e, the sutext o# %awrence, then ans on sa%esex %arria"es arein serious constitutiona! trou!e.

D. 2Connor was aware o# the potentia!! roa i%p!ications o# %awrence. Exp!ainin" that ans on sa%esex %arria"e cou! euphe! a#ter her conc!usion that %ora! isappro$a! is not asuIicient asis #or iscri%ination a%on" "roups o# persons,2Connor state that 5other reasons exist to pro%ote the institutiono# %arria"e eon %ora! isappro$a! o# an exc!ue "roup.6

O. 3unter ar"uin" that 2Connor e!ie$es that preser$in" the

traitiona! institution o# %arria"e is a !e"iti%ate state o# interestan presu%a! wou! satis# the rationa!asis test that wou! euse to ecie a "a %arria"e case.

o L. Trie ar"ues that the uner!in" theor an %ost i%portant passa"es

o# %awrence su""est rea (thou"h not i%%eiate) app!icai!it o# theho!in" to sa%esex %arria"e. <t wou! see% i%p!ausi!e #or this Courtto accept there wou! e har%s to the institution o# %arria"e, since itsone an on! re#erence to what wou! e%ean those who are %arrie isenin" the ri"ht to ha$e sexua! intercourse.

The o$ious i%p!ication o# this !unt state%ent is that %arria"e is

not on! aout sex, ut a!so aout inti%ac, co%panionship, an!o$epheno%ena that ha$e a pu!ic an pri$ate #ace. Dust as the %oving Court ca%e to rea!i4e that racia! ounaries cannot ene

Pa"e o# :



such a re!ationship, so this Court ou"ht to co%e to a si%i!arconc!usion with respect to sexua! orientation.

35!al Prote)tion o" F!n&amental 'i%ts The Court wi!! in$o8e a hei"htene stanar o# re$iew ecause o# the nature o#

the interests aIecte the c!assication.o 3ar to ene what %a8es a ri"ht #una%enta! so it %a e %ore he!p#u!

to consier the character o# the ine>ua!ities that wi!! e 7uicia!!

to!erate an the character o# the ine>ua!ities to e constitutiona!!cone%ne. 'ut preceents inicate that states cannot prec!ue accessto the ser$ice or ener or perpetuate c!asses.

Court struc8 own a state !aw %anatin" sexua! steri!i4ation o#

persons con$icte o# %ora! turpitue, ho!in" that it was $io!ati$eo# E>ua! Protection as certain !esser cri%es were the asis #orsteri!i4ation. S"inner v. O"la. e7 rel. Williamson (19*).

o urin" the arren Court ears, the Court e"an to #ashion sustanti$e

$a!ues an interests irect! #ro% the E>ua! Protection C!ausea new5sustanti$e e>ua! protection6 e"an to e%er"e

hi!e 5#una%enta! interests6 such as $otin" or access to cri%ina!

7ustice strict! %i"ht not e constitutiona! ri"hts protecte theue Process "uarantee !i8e #reeo% o# speech, the ri"ht o#interstate %i"ration or the ri"hts re!atin" to %arria"e, #a%i! anpri$ac, !aws iscri%inatin" a%on" c!asses in their ai!it en7osuch interests wou! e su7ecte to stricter scrutin.

The !atter 'ur"er an +ehn>uist Courts i not exten this.

Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 hen a c!assication si"nicant! urens, eters, orpena!i4e the exercise o# a #una%enta! persona! ri"ht, the "o$ern%ent usua!!%ust pro$e that the c!assication is necessar to a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%enta!interest.

o

'ut note that the Court has occasiona!! use $arin" ter%ino!o" inenin" the stanar o# re$iew, su""estin" a %o$e%ent awa #ro% strictscrutin #or%u!ation.

o Funa%enta! ri"hts %a e eri$e inepenent! #ro% pro$isions o# theConstitution or %a e epenent on the E>ua! Protection C!ause.

o The #act that a c!assication has so%e eIect on the exercise o# a

#una%enta! ri"ht oes not necessari! %ean that a %ore strin"entstanar o# re$iew than rationa!it wi!! e app!ie. <n so%e cases, wherethe !aw oes not eter, pena!i4e or otherwise si"nicant! uren theexercise o# the protecte ri"ht, the Court has app!ie the traitiona!rationa! asis test.

'i%t o" Interstate *iration 'esi&en) 'e5!irements The Court has reco"ni4e a #una%enta! constitutiona! ri"ht o# interstate

%o$e%ent, a!thou"h ne$er c!ear! inicatin" the source.o The nature o# our Feera! nion an our constitutiona! concepts o#

persona! !iert unite to re>uire that a!! citi4ens to e #ree to tra$e!throu"h the !en"th an reath o# our !an uninhiite statutes, ru!es,or re"u!ations which unreasona! uren or restrict this %o$e%ent.Sha0iro v. 6hom0son (19H9).

=ource %a e #ro% Art. Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause.

Pa"e - o# :



A!ternati$e!, the ri"ht ns no exp!icit %ention in the Constitution.

The reason ein" that it is a ri"ht so e!e%entar #ro% the e"innin"to e a necessar conco%itant o# the stron"er nion theConstitution create.

hen the state "o$ern%ent %a8es recent exercise o# interstate tra$e! a asis#or enin" enets, the c!assication urens the #una%enta! ri"ht to tra$e!an the strict scrutin o# 7uicia! re$iew app!ies.

o 'ut i# the c!assication oes not eter, pena!i4e, or otherwise si"nicant!

uren the protecte ri"ht, the Court wi!! not app! strict scrutin. =tates can re>uire ona e e$ience o# current resienc. McCarth) v.

!hiladel0hia Civil Serv. Comm/n (19;H).o Court per curia% uphe! %unicipa! re"u!ation re>uirin" e%p!oees o# the

Cit o# Phi!ae!phia e resients o# the cit. 'ecause the re"u!ationin$o!$es proo# o# continuin" resienc rather than prior urationa!resienc, the ri"ht to tra$e! is not i%p!icate.

Wel"are@State Bene;ts4 =tate cannot en we!#are assistance to resientswho ha$e not resie within the state #or at !east one ear precein" theirapp!ication ecause this urens the #una%enta! ri"ht (o# an ini"ent) o#interstate %o$e%ent. Sha0iro v. 6hom0son (19H9).

o =tate2s purpose to conser$e sca! resources eterrin" %i"ration o#

nee persons is constitutiona!! i%per%issi!e. =tate o7ecti$e toiscoura"e ini"ents who wou! tra$e! to the =tate to otain !ar"erenets %a e 7ustie, ut none o# the statutes are tai!ore to thispurpose, as the c!ass o# arre newco%ers is a!!inc!usi$e, !u%pin" the"reat %a7orit who co%e to the =tate #or other purposes (i.e., to %a8e anew !i#e) with those who co%e #or the so!e purpose o# co!!ectin" !ar"erenets.

iIicu!t in seein" how !on"ter% resients who >ua!i# #or we!#are

are %a8in" a "reater present contriution to the =tate in taxes than

ini"ent resients who ha$e recent! arri$e.o The E>ua! Protection C!ause prohiits =tate apportion%ent o# enets

an ser$ices accorin" to past tax contriutions o# its citi4ens. A c!assication o# we!#are app!icants accorin" to whether the

ha$e !i$e in the =tate #or one ear prior see% irrationa! anunconstitutiona!.

o Court a!so re7ects =tate2s reasons #or the waitin"perio re>uire%ent,

which/ 1) #aci!itates p!annin" o# the we!#are u"et? *) pro$ies ano7ecti$e test o# resienc? :) %ini%i4es the opportunit #or recipients#rauu!ent! to recei$e pa%ents #ro% %ore than one 7urisiction? )encoura"es ear! entr into the !aor #orce.

o Court notes that this i%p!ies no $iew o# the $a!iit o# waitin"perio orresience re>uire%ents eter%inin" e!i"ii!it to $ote, e!i"ii!it #ortuition#ree eucation, to otain a !icense to practice a pro#ession, to huntor sh, an so #orth. =uch re>uire%ents %a pro%ote co%pe!!in" stateinterests on the one han, or on the other, %a not e pena!ties upon theexercise o# the constitutiona! ri"ht o# interstate tra$e!.

o D. arren (with '!ac8) issentin", #ra%es the >uestion as to whether

Con"ress %a create %ini%a! resience re>uire%ents, not whether the=tates actin" a!one %a o so, since the case arises in .C.

Pa"e H o# :



The insustantia!it o# the restriction i%pose resience

re>uire%ents %ust then e e$a!uate in !i"ht o# the possi!econ"ressiona! reasons #or such re>uire%ents. ur cases re>uireon! that Con"ress ha$e a rationa! asis #or nin" that a chosere"u!ator sche%e is necessar to the #urtherance o# interstateco%%erce.

o D. 3ar!an issentin", ar"ues a"ainst expanin" what constitutes a5co%pe!!in" interest6 to inc!ue recent interstate %o$e%ent.

5Co%pe!!in" interest6 octrine ase on two ranches/ 1) suspectc!ass, such as racia! c!assication? *) #una%enta! ri"ht.

The #una%enta! ri"ht ranch is %ore trou!eso%e ecause it has

een he! that a statutor c!assication is su7ect to the5co%pe!!in" interest6 test i# the resu!t o# the c!assication %a eto aIect a 5#una%enta! ri"ht6 re"ar!ess o# the asis o# thec!assication.

• This is un#ortunate ecause it creates an exception whichthreatens to swa!!ow the stanar E>ua! Protection ru!e,since $irtua!! e$er state statute aIects i%portant ri"hts.

•

For exa%p!e, the Court has he! that traitiona! E>ua!Protection stanar is app!ica!e to statutor c!assicationaIectin" such #una%enta! %atters as the ri"ht to pursue aparticu!ar occupation, the ri"ht to recei$e "reater or s%a!!erwa"es or to wor8 %ore or !ess house, an the ri"ht to inheritpropert. +i"hts such as these are in princip!einistin"uisha!e #ro% those in$o!$e here, an to exten5co%pe!!in" interest6 ru!e to a!! cases in which such ri"hts areaIecte wou! "o #ar towar %a8in" this Court a 5super!e"is!ature.6

• This ranch o# the octrine is a!so unnecessar, since an

in#rin"e%ent can e ea!t with uner the ue Process C!ause. < 8now nothin" which entit!es this Court to pic8 our particu!ar

hu%an acti$ities, characteri4e the% as 5#una%enta!6 an "i$ethe% ae protection uner an unusua!! strin"ent e>ua!protection test.

• The ecision see%s to re@ect an unusua! e"ree the notionthat this Court possesses a pecu!iar wiso% a!! its own.

• This resur"ence o# the expansi$e $iew o# 5e>ua! protection6carries the sees o# %ore 7uicia! inter#erence with the statean #eera! !e"is!ati$e process.

=tate cannot conition pu!ic pro$ision o# none%er"enc %eica! care on one ear urationa! resienc re>uire%ent ecause Sha0iro was #oun to econtro!!in" an the state #ai!e to e%onstrate a co%pe!!in" state interest #orurenin" the ri"ht to interstate tra$e!. Memorial ,os0. v. Marico0a Count) (19;:).

o Sha0iro i not ec!are urationa! resienc re>uire%ents as per se

unconstitutiona!, on! that the %a not eter or pena!i4e the ri"ht totra$e!.

o Geica! care is as %uch a asic necessit o# !i#e to an ini"ent as we!#are

assistance. An "o$ern%ent pri$i!e"es or enets necessar to asic

Pa"e ; o# :



sustenance ha$e o#ten een $iewe as ein" o# "reater constitutiona!si"nicant than !ess essentia! #or%s o# "o$ern%enta! entit!e%ents.

=tate can re>uire oneear resienc in orer app! a i$orce ecause o# the=tate2s $irtua!! exc!usi$e re"u!ation o# o%estic re!ations an that the interestwas not #orec!ose %ere! e!ae. Sosna v. Iowa (19;-).

=tate cannot istriute inco%e #ro% its natura! resources ase on the urationo# resienc ecause it $io!ates E>ua! Protection when it creates perpetua!c!asses o# ona e resients. 8o'el v. Williams (19*) ('ur"er #or the Court).

o =tate interests to incenti$ise A!as8an resienc an encoura"e pruent%ana"e%ent o# the #un were not ser$e "rantin" "reater i$iens tocertain ini$iua!s.

o Awarin" citi4ens #or past contriutions was not a !e"iti%ate state

interest.o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un, Powe!!) concurre on the asis o#

ri"ht to tra$e! an the iea o# constitutiona!! protecte e>ua!it. The pastcontriution rationa!e is so #arreachin" in it potentia!

app!ication, an the re!ationship etween resience ancontriution to the =tate so $a"ue an insupporta!e, that ita%ounts to !itt!e %ore than a restate%ent o# the criterion #oriscri%ination that it purports to 7usti#.

o D. 2Connor concurrin", e%p!oe the Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause an

note that the =tate ha #ai!e to pro$e that the new resients were apecu!iar source o# an e$i! or that the iscri%ination ore a sustantia!re!ationship to the a%ount that peop!e %i"ht ha$e contriute to thestate.

o D. +ehn>uist issentin", ar"ues that the state interest in reco"ni4in" pastcontriutions satise rationa!it re$iew an i not i%pee anone2sri"ht to tra$e! to the =tate.

=tate cannot "i$e $eteran e%p!o%ent pre#erence ase on instate resienc

status at the ti%e o# en!ist%ent. #tt) &en/l of - v. Soto9%o0ez (19H)(in$a!iatin" OR !aw pre#errin" on! those resient $eterans who !i$e in thestate at the ti%e o# entr into ser$ice).

o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un, Powe!!) conc!ue that the

pre#erence $io!ate constitutiona!! protecte ri"hts to %i"rate an toe>ua! protection o# the !aw. The =tate ha not %et its hea$ uren o#pro$in" that it has se!ecte a %eans o# pursuin" a co%pe!!in" stateinterest which oes not i%pin"e unnecessari! on constitutiona!!protecte interests.

nce $eterans esta!ish a ona e resience in a state, the %a

not e iscri%inate a"ainst so!e! on the ate o# their arri$a!.

o D. 'ur"er (with hite) concurrin", wou! ha$e ecie the case ase on 8o'el usin" e>ua! protection rationa! asis ana!sis, which wou! ha$ein$a!iate the !aw pure! on e>ua! protection.

o D. 2Connor (with +ehn>uist, =te$ens) issentin", too8 issue with the

Court2s 5#ree@oatin" ri"ht to %i"rate,6 e>ua! protection ana!sis, an#ai!ure to %a8es c!ear how %uch o# its ana!sis is necessar or suIicientto n a $io!ation o# the ri"ht to %i"rate inepenent! o# an E>ua!Protection C!ause $io!ation.

=tate cannot !i%it we!#are enets a$ai!a!e to new! arri$e resients aseon pre$ious entit!e%ent in #or%er state, without $io!atin" Pri$i!e"es &

Pa"e o# :



<%%unities C!ause & 1th A%en. Oew! arri$e citi4ens o# a state ha$e theri"ht to the sa%e pri$i!e"es an i%%unities en7oe other citi4ens o# thestate. Saenz v. Roe (1999) (inicatin" 5the appropriate stanar %a e %orecate"orica! than that articu!ate in Sha0iro, ut it is sure! no !ess strict,6 utapp!ies inter%eiate stanar).

o The ri"ht to tra$e! e%races : iIerent co%ponents/ (1) it protects theri"ht o# a citi4en o# one state to enter an !ea$e another? (*) the ri"ht toe treate as a we!co%e $isitor rather than an un#rien! a!ien when

te%porari! present in another state? (:) #or those who e!ect to eco%eper%anent resients, the ri"ht to e treate !i8e other citi4ens o# that=tate.

o Per%issi!e 7ustications #or iscri%ination etween resients an

nonresients are si%p! inapp!ica!e to nonresient2s exercise o# theri"ht to %o$e into another =tate an eco%e a resient o# that =tate.

o Court assu%es that the we!#are enet wi!! e consu%e instate, it is nota porta!e enet, uner%inin" an urationa! re>uire%ent (7ustie #orother enets, such as tuition rates an i$orce proceein"s).

o The >uestion is whether the =tate %a acco%p!ish that en the

iscri%inator %eans it has chosen.o D. +ehn>uist (with Tho%as) issentin", ns that the ri"ht to tra$e! is not

at issue since the !iti"ants are resients an =tates shou! ha$e theauthorit to ensure their pro"ra%s are not exp!oite.

oes not see how the ri"ht to eco%e a citi4ens o# another =tate is

a necessar co%ponent o# the ri"ht to tra$e!. Court has con@atethe ri"ht to tra$e! with the ri"ht to e>ua! state citi4enship.

+esience re>uire oth phsica! presence an an intention to

re%ain, the !atter o# which is si%p! unwor8a!e to $eri#. =tatesuse urationa! re>uire%ents to test the !atter.

o D. Tho%as (with +ehn>uist) issentin", ar"ues that the %a7orit

%isinterprets the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause that was unintene #ra%ers o# the 1th A%en.

At the ti%e o# the 1th A%en., peop!e unerstoo 5pri$i!e"es or

i%%unities o# citi4ens6 as #una%enta! ri"hts rather than e$erpu!ic enet esta!ishe positi$e !aw.

The Slaughter9,ouse Cases sappe the C!ause o# an %eanin". The

e%ise o# the C!ause has contriute in no s%a!! part to the currentisarra o# our 1th A%en. 7urispruence. 'e#ore in$o8in" theC!ause, we shou! enea$or to unerstan what the #ra%ers o# the1th A%en. thou"ht that it %eant otherwise the Pri$i!e"es or<%%unities C!ause wi!! eco%e another con$enient too! #or

in$entin" new ri"hts, !i%ite so!e! the prei!ections o# thosewho happen at the ti%e to e %e%ers o# the Court.

o Ootes/

L. Trie/ The co%ponent o# the ri"ht o# tra$e! conr%e in Saenz

in$o!$e in the e!aoration o# a structura! princip!es o# e>ua!citi4enship %ore than the protection o# an ini$iua! ri"hts o#interstate %o$e%ent or an ini$iua! ri"ht eri$in" #ro% either thePri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause o# Art. <J or the Pri$i!e"es or

Pa"e 9 o# :



<%%unities C!ause o# 1th A%en. neither o# which spea8 in ter%so# tra$e!, interstate %oi!it, or anthin" o# that sort.

• outs that Saenz is a harin"er o# #resh new 7urispruenceo# pri$i!e"es an i%%unities. The Saenz ecisions see%s toha$e re$ea!e a Court #ar %ore co%#orta!e protectin" ri"htsthat can escrie in architectura! ter%s, especia!! in ter%s o# #eera!is%, than it is in protectin" ri"hts that presentthe%se!$es as spheres o# persona! autono% or as i%ensions

o# constitutiona!! %anate e>ua!it. There was a concern that states, #ear#u! o# eco%in" we!#are

%a"nates, wou! en"a"e in a race to the otto%. Saenz ho!s thatthe protections aIore the Citi4enship C!ause a!so !i%its thepowers o# the nationa! "o$ern%ent.

D. O4e!ie ar"ues that the ri"ht to tra$e! is "roune pure! in the

#eera!ist structure an is not tracea!e to the spirit o# specicpro$isions in the 'i!! o# +i"hts. hen $iewe as a !i%itation oninterstate con@ict, it is i!!o"ica! to construe the #ree %o$e%entprincip!e a!so as a !i%itation on the powers o# the nationa!"o$ern%ent.

+. 3i!!/ Oeither the Saenz Court nor the preceents pro$ie an

ae>uate account o# what it %eans to e a ona e resient o# astate.

• The preceents su""est that the enition o# state resiencewi!! $ar with the particu!ar pro"ra% to which a new resientsee8s access.

• Saenz Court aopte a noniscri%ination theor that once anew resient e%onstrates that he is a ona e resient,=tates are cate"orica!! arre #ro% rawin" istinctions thaturen that new resient ase on !en"th o# resience.

• hi!e the Saenz was correct to re7ect iscri%ination a"ainstini"ent newco%ers in we!#are enets "i$en the an"er o#cu!tura! ani%osit, the Court shou! ha$e !i%ite itscate"orica! noniscri%ination ru!e to the context.

G. =trasser ar"ues =tates that prohiit the reco"nition o# same7se-

marriaes per#or%e in another o%ici!iar $io!ate pri$i!e"es &i%%unities "uarantees iscri%inatin" a"ainst nonresients whoare #orce to choose etween re%ainin" in a state where the%arria"e was per#or%e or surrenerin" their %arria"e in orer to%i"rate to a new state.

• <# the pri$i!e"es o# nationa! citi4enship o not inc!ue

so%ethin" as #una%enta! as the ri"ht to ha$e one2s %arria"e($a!i in the o%ici!e at the ti%e o# ce!eration) reco"ni4e ineach state throu"h which one %i"ht tra$e! or to which one%i"ht %i"rate, then it is not c!ear what interests cou!possi! %eet the re!e$ant stanar.

otin4 A re>uire%ent that a person e a resient o# the state #or a ear anthe count #or : %os. e#ore ein" a!!owe to $ote was he! to e $io!ati$e o#the E>ua! Protection. Dunn v. Blumstein (19;*).

Pa"e -0 o# :



o The Court use strict scrutin ecause enin" so%e citi4ens the ri"ht to $ote, epri$es the% o# a #una%enta! po!itica! ri"ht, which is thepreser$ati$e o# a!! ri"hts, an ecause such a resienc re>uire%entirect! i%pin"es on the exercise o# a secon #una%enta! ri"htri"ht totra$e!.

o Court #oun the resienc re>uire%ent was not necessar to achie$in"

the state interest o# !e"iti%ac an 8now!e"ea!e $oters. Fixin" aconstitutiona! accepta!e perio is a %atter o# e"ree, notin" that :0 as

appears to e a%p!e perio #or the =tate to co%p!ete whate$era%inistrati$e tas8s necessar to pre$ent #rau.

=i%i!ar!, the re!ationship etween the =tate interest in an in#or%e

e!ectorate an urationa! resienc re>uire%ents was tooattenuate.

o A state2s -0 a urationa! $otin" resienc re>uire%ent an -0 a $oter re"istration cutoI re>uire%ents were $a!i. Marston v. %ewis (19;:).

T!ition Bene;ts4 neear urationa! resienc re>uire%ent #or recei$in" instate tuition rate is $a!i. Starns v. Mal"erson (19;1).

Pa"e -1 o# :



F'33(O* OF 3P'3SSION The 1st A%en. exp!icit! protects #reeo% o# speech an press on! #ro% the

#eera! "o$ern%ent. Protection was extene to prohiit states #ro% ari"in" this in &itlow v. -ew

or" (19*-), in which the Court state that/ we %a an o assu%e that#reeo% o# speech an o# the presswhich are protecte the 1st A%en.#ro% ari"e%ent Con"ressare a%on" the #una%enta! persona! ri"htsan 5!ierties6 protecte the ue process C!ause o# the 1th A%en. #ro%

i%pair%ent the =tates. Gan cases re$iewe de novo ue to octrine o# Constitutiona! Fact, when the

#acts o# the case are oun up with !e"a! octrine that the2re insepara!e. Unrote)te& See)%4 3istorica!!, there are so%e cate"ories o# expression

that are co%p!ete! unprotecte/ #rau, e#a%ation, oscenit, truethreatsQ"htin" worsQincite%ent.

o Co%%ercia! speech is not co%p!ete! protecte.

o isc!osure o# oIicia! secrets is a!so assu%e to e ari"a!e without 1st A%en. protection.

ne wa to approach #reeo% o# expression is to ienti# cate"ories o#protecte or unprotecte expression.

Another wa is to as8 what interest "o$ern%ent has in suppressin" a particu!ar#or% o# expression. <n recent ears, the =upre%e Court has tene (uner=ca!ia2s proin") in the !atter irection, proin" "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$esrather than the nature o# particu!ar speech. <n this approach, "o$ern%entneutra!it towar content or $iewpoint eco%es an i%portant "oa!.

First Amen&ment 'ationales1) Gar8etp!ace o# <eas

a. Theor ase on the princip!e that the First A%en. #oris the"o$ern%ent #ro% ta8in" sies in the natura! stru""!e o# ieas,representin" the app!ication o# =ocia! arwinis% to ieas.

. <ntrouce D. 3o!%es, issentin" in #'rams v. +S (1919), 5the est testo# truth is the power o# the thou"ht to "et itse!# accepte in theco%petition o# the %ar8et, an that truth is the on! "roun upon whichtheir wishes sa#e! can e carrie out.6

c. Criticis%s/i. <nterna! contraiction that the theor2s "oa! is the attain%ent o#

truth, et it posits that we can ne$er rea!! 8now the truth, so we%ust 8eep !oo8in". 'ut i# we can ne$er attain the truth, wh otherto continue the #ruit!ess search The an"er is that so%eone wi!!ecie that he has attaine the truth an wou! e 7ustie inshuttin" oI expression o# an $iews that are contrar.

ii. +e>uires peop!e to e a!e to use their rationa! capacities toe!i%inate istortion cause the #or% an #re>uenc o# %essa"epresentation an to n the core o# re!e$ant in#or%ation orar"u%ent. This assu%ption cannot e accepte ecause e%otiona!or irrationa! appea!s ha$e "reat i%pact.

iii. Free iscussion o# ieas is an i!!usion ecause the %ar8etp!ace o#ieas is so istorte econo%ic rea!it that the issentin" iearea!! oes not ha$e a #air chance. ner the ru!e o# %onopo!istic%eiathe%se!$es the %ere instru%ents o# econo%ic an po!itica!powera %enta!it is create #ro% which ri"ht an wron", true an

Pa"e -* o# :



#a!se are preene whene$er the eIect the $ita! interests o# thesociet.

i$. Chan"es in the co%%unications inustr ha$e estroe thee>ui!iriu% in that %ar8etp!ace. A rea!istic $iew o# the 1st A%en.re>uires reco"nition that a ri"ht o# expression is so%ewhat thin i# itcan exercise on! at the suIerance o# the %ana"ers o# %assco%%unications.

*) Citi4en Participant Goe!

a. Announce in -ew or" 6imes v. Sullivan, that the centra! purpose o# the1st A%en. is to encoura"e $i"orous roust iscussion o# pu!ic issues anoIicia!s. =uch iscussion is centra! to e%ocratic "o$ern%ent in orerthat the peop!e %a acti$e! participate in "o$ernin".

. rouns the 1st A%en. on the princip!e o# se!#"o$ern%ent an consentto authoritthe princip!e o# #reeo% o# speech sprin"s #ro% thenecessities o# se!#"o$ern%ent.

c. Criticis%s/i. This uti!itarian $iew oes not "uarantee an ini$iua! protection o#

speechit is on! re>uire that e$erthin" worth sain" sha!! esai.

ii. +. 'or8 extene the i%p!ication that on! po!itica! speech eser$es1st A%en. protection. =ince the enets o# nonpo!itica! speech areinistin"uisha!e #ro% the #unctions or enets o# a!! other hu%anacti$it, it is on! the isco$er an sprea o# po!itica! truth thatistin"uishes speech #ro% an other #or% o# hu%an acti$it anthere#ore the on! princip!e asis upon which to pro$ie "reaterprotection to speech than to other acti$ities.

1. <n response, it has een ar"ue that there are nu%erous nonco%%unicati$e, nonspeech acti$ities that %a e thou"h toai in the attain%ent o# po!itica! truth. There is no cate"oro# expression that #urthers a $a!ue o# $a!ues uni>ue to speech.

:) <ni$iua! Liert Goe!a. Freeo% o# expression ser$es ini$iua! $a!ues as we!! as societa! "oa!s.

=tate in Whitne) v. Cal. that !iert is $a!ue oth 5as an en an as a%eans.6 Freeo% o# expression pro%otes ini$iua! autono% an#urthers se!#eter%ination.

. The !iert %oe! ho!s that the #ree speech c!ause protects not a%ar8etp!ace ut rather an arena o# ini$iua! !iert #ro% certain tpeso# "o$ern%enta! restrictions. Dusties protection ecause o# the wa theprotecte conuct #osters ini$iua! se!#rea!i4ation an se!#eter%ination without i%proper! inter#erin" with the !e"iti%ate c!ai%so# others.

c. Except, perhaps in extraorinar circu%stances, "o$ern%ent %a notrestrict speech ecause it #ears that the speech wi!! persuae those whohear it to o so%ethin" o# which the "o$ern%ent isappro$es.

. Criticis%/i. ther eha$ior which ar"ua! #urthers hu%an experience an

"rowth is re"u!ate an e$en prohiite "o$ern%ent, an theconstitutiona! e%ans o# !iert re>uire on! that the !aw ereasona!e.

Pa"e -: o# :



1. <# there is no princip!e o# #ree speech inepenent o# a %ore"enera! !iert, then #ree speech is %ore a p!atitue than aprincip!e.

FI'ST A *3N(*3NT *3TO(OLOG

#+ A.sol!tist4 See)%@A)tion (i)%otom a. 1st A%en. cou! e rea as an aso!utist prohiition on !aws re"u!atin"

speech.. D. '!ac8/ G $iew is without e$iation, without exception, without an i#s,

uts, or whereases, that #reeo% o# speech %eans that ou sha!! not oso%ethin" to peop!e either #or the $iews the ha$e or the $iews theexpress o# the wors the spea8 or write.

i. oes not e!ie$e in the 5c!ear an present an"er6 octrine has ap!ace in the interpretation o# the 1st A%en.

c. A #una%enta! istinction %ust e rawn etween conuct which consistso# 5expression6 an conuct which consists o# 5action.6 5Expression6%ust e #ree! a!!owe an encoura"e. 5Action6 can e contro!!e,su7ect to other constitutiona! re>uire%ents ut not contro!!in"expression.

. Criticis%/ that an aso!ute construction o# the 1st A%en. is not re>uire

the !an"ua"e o# the A%en., not ictate the intent o# the #ra%ers,an i%possi!e in practice.

i. hat !itt!e e$ience there is su""ests that the #ra%ers intene anextre%e! narrow construction o# the A%en. =o%eti%es, the #reespeech interest %ust "i$e wa in such a situation to a co%petin"socia! interest an so%e #or% o# a!ancin" process is use.

2+ Cateories o" See)%a. The Court has he! that certain cate"ories o# speech are not entit!e to

#u!! 1st A%en. protection (e.". co%%ercia! speech), or to an 1st A%en.protection (e.". "htin" wors, oscenit, chi! porno"raph).

. =uch cate"ories o# speech are su7ect to 1st A%en. re$iew uner certaincircu%stances. These areas o# speech can, consistent with the 1st A%en., e re"u!ate ecause o# their constitutiona!! proscria!econtent (oscenit, e#a%ation, etc.). 'ut cannot e %ae $ehic!es #orcontent iscri%ination unre!ate to their istincti$e! proscria!econtent.

i. The unprotecte #eatures o# the wors are espite their $era!character, essentia!! a nonspeech e!e%ent o# co%%unication.o$ern%ent re"u!ates the %oe o# speech as a %anner o#co%%unicatin" the iea.

ii. =tate !aw that iscri%inates within an unprotecte cate"or o#speech #ai!s strict scrutin an $io!ates the 1st A%en. R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (199*) (in$a!iatin" statute that prohiite on! "htin"wors that insu!t or pro$o8e $io!ence on the ases o# race, co!or,cree re!i"ion or "ener).

1. The iscri%ination etween #or%s o# "htin" wors was he!to e an unconstitutiona! re"u!ation ase on speech contentwhich #ai!e to satis# strict scrutin re$iew.

1+ Stri)t S)r!tin

Pa"e - o# :



a. Court has a!so e%p!oe strict scrutin stanar o# re$iew, i%posin" ahea$ uren o# 7ustication on "o$ern%ent when it see8s to re"u!ationspeech content.

i. C!ear & Present an"er test, necessar to a co%pe!!in" stateinterest.

. ner this test, the !aw is presu%pti$e! in$a!i.c. Co%pe!!e speech wi!! e su7ect to this test.

$+ Balan)in

a. hen a !aw is on! inirect! or incienta!! urens #reeo% o# speech,the Court is %ore !i8e! to en"a"e in so%e #or% o# o$ert a!ancin" o# theco%petin" interests to eter%ine i# the !aw is reasona!e.

. The interests o# the "o$ern%ent in re"u!atin" the acti$it are wei"hea"ainst the uren on #ree speech interests.

c. At ti%es, the a$ai!ai!it o# !ess urenso%e a!ternati$es to achie$e the"o$ern%ent interests are consiere. 'ut it is not necessar that the"o$ern%ent aopt the !east restricti$e %eans. Ward v. Roc" #gainst Racism (199).

. The e"ree o# 7uicia! scrutin in interest a!ancin" $aries wie!.i. <n so%e cases, the courts en"a"e in si%p!e a hoc a!ancin" o# the

co%petin" interests.ii. <n other cases, a %ore wei"hte a!ancin" is use, such as that the

!aw %ust e narrow!tai!ore to achie$e an i%portant "o$ern%entinterest.

iii. =o%e $iew the C!ear & Present an"er octrine an strict scrutinas %ore strin"ent #or%s o# interest a!ancin".

D+ Content7Base& v9 Content7Ne!tral 'e!lationa. Content'ase/ hen the "o$ern%ent unerta8es to re"u!ate expression

ecause o# the content o# the speech, ecause o# what is ein" sai, the!aw is presu%pti$e! in$a!i an strict scrutin wi!! e app!ie.

i. =u7ect%ater iscri%ination is presu%pti$e! in$a!i ecause thereis a concern that "o$ern%ent wi!! istort the pu!ic eate or #a$orparticu!ar %essa"es.

ii. Jiewpoint ase re"u!ation is e$en %ore >uestiona!e.iii. A re"u!ation neutra! on its #ace %a e contentase i# its %ani#est

purpose i# to re"u!ate speech ecause o# the %essa"e it con$es.The Court has a!so use E>ua! Protection C!ause to pre$entiscri%ination a"ainst particu!ar speech, ieas, or spea8ers.

i$. hen re"u!atin" on the asis o# content, "o$ern%ent %ust pro$ethat the !aw #a!!s into a cate"or o# !ow$a!ue o# no$a!ue speech or%ust 7usti# the !aw esta!ishin" that the iIerentia! treat%ent isnecessar to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state interest an is narrow!rawn to achie$e that en. Simon 1 Schuster v. Mem'ers of -State Crime 5ictims Bd. (1991).

1. Law prohiitin" pic8etin" near schoo!, except #or !aorisputes is unconstitutiona! as a #or% o# contentiscri%ination. !olice De0t. of Chicago v. Mosle) (19;*)(Garsha!! #or the Court co%ine e>ua! protection ana!siswith pu!ic #oru% concepts an see%e to announceprincip!es app!ica!e to a!! #ree speech cases).

Pa"e -- o# :



a. 'ecause the !aw treats so%e pic8etin" iIerent! #ro%others, we ana!4e this orinance in ter%s o# E>ua!Protection C!ause o# the 1th A%en. The E>ua!Protection c!ai% is c!ose! intertwine with 1st A%en.interests ecause it in$o!$es expressi$e conuct, inter%s o# the su7ect o# the pic8etin".

. Crucia! >uestion is whether there is an appropriate"o$ern%enta! interest suita! #urthere the

iIerentia! treat%ent.c. ner E>ua! Protection an 1st A%en., "o$ern%ent

%a not "rant the use o# a #oru% to peop!e whose $iewsit ns accepta!e, ut en use to those wishin" toexpress !ess #a$ore or %ore contro$ersia! $iews.

*. Law re>uirin" inco%e #ro% a contract #or a epiction o# acri%e o# an accuse or con$icte person to e put in escrow#un #or the $icti% $io!ates the 1st A%en. Simon v. Schusterv. Mem'ers of the - State Crime 5ictims Bd. (1991).

a. The Court #oun the !aw to e a contentase statuteecause it sin"!es out inco%e eri$e #ro% expressi$e

acti$it #or a uren the =tate p!ace on no otherinco%e, an it is irecte on! at wor8s with a speciecontent.

. 'ecause the !aw esta!ishes a nancia! isincenti$e tocreate or pu!ish wor8s with a particu!ar content, itcou! e uphe! on! i# it ser$e a co%pe!!in" stateinterest an were narrow! rawn to ser$e that interest.The !aw was not narrow!tai!ore to the state2sunispute co%pe!!in" interest in ensurin" thatcri%ina!s o not prot #ro% their cri%es.

c. D. Kenne concurrin", re7ecte the use o# strict scrutin#or such a contentase re"u!ation in #a$or o# a per seru!e, since the !aw is irecte to speech a!one that oesnot #a!! into a proscria!e cate"or an hence isprotecte.

. ContentOeutra!/ o$ern%ent re"u!ations that are unre!ate to thecontent o# the speech are su7ect to a !esser e"ree o# 7uicia! scrutin,an inter%eiate re$iew, e$en thou"h speech %a e incienta!!urene.

i. <# a !aw is 7ustie without re#erence to the content o# the re"u!atespeech, it %a e he! to e contentneutra!.

ii. Court wi!! re>uire that the !aw e 5narrow! tai!ore to ser$e asi"nicant "o$ern%ent interest an !ea$e open a%p!e a!ternati$echanne!s o# co%%unication.6

iii. A "o$ern%ent re"u!ation is suIicient! 7ustieB (1) i# it #urthersan i%portant or sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest/ (*) i# the"o$ern%ent interest is unre!ate to the suppression o# #reeexpression? an (:) i# the incienta! restriction o# a!!e"e 1st A%en.#reeo%s is no "reater than is essentia! to the #urtherance o# thatinterest. +S v. O/Brien.

Pa"e -H o# :



1. This oes not re>uire that "o$ern%ent use the !easturenso%e %eans, i# the %eans are irect an eIecti$e.

*. +e"u!atin" !ocation o# au!t theaters he! to e contentneutra! ecause i# was irecte to seconar eIects o# au!ttheaters an not the content o# the au!t %o$ies. An urenon speech was ee%e on! incienta!. Cit) of Renton v. !la)time 6heaters (19H).

:. o$ern%ent can re>uire that ca!e te!e$ision sste%s carr

!oca! roacast stations. 6urner Broadcasting S)s. v. CC (199).

a. Principa! in>uir to eter%ine content neutra!it iswhether the "o$ern%ent has aopte a re"u!ation o#speech ecause o# a"ree%ent or isa"ree%ent with the%essa"e it con$es.

i. The purpose wi!! o#ten e e$ient on its #ace.3owe$er, whi!e a contentase purpose %a esuIicient in certain circu%stances to show that are"u!ation is contentase, it is not necessar ina!! cases.

. The ru!es are contentneutra!.i. The i%pose urens an con#er enets without

re#erence to the content o# the speech.1. hi!e the ru!es inter#ere with eitoria!

iscretion, the extent o# the inter#erenceoes not epens on the ca!e operators2pro"ra%%in".

ii. The pro$isions o not pose such inherent an"ersto #ree expression, or present such potentia! #orcensorship or %anipu!ation, as to 7usti#app!ication o# strict scrutin.

c. Thus, shou! e re$iewe uner the inter%eiate !e$e!o# scrutin app!ica!e to contentneutra! restrictionsthat i%pose an incienta! uren on speech.

Clear Present (aner (o)trine A$ocac o# i!!e"a! conuct irecte to incitin" or proucin" i%%inent !aw!ess

action which are !i8e! to resu!t can e suppresse ecause o# its content. Braden'urg v. Ohio (19H9).

First #or%u!ate in Schenc" v. +S (1919), D. 3o!%es/ The >uestion in e$ercase is whether the wors use are use in such circu%stances an are o# sucha nature as to create a c!ear an present an"er that the wi!! rin" aout thesustanti$e e$i!s that Con"ress has a ri"ht to pre$ent. <t is a >uestion o#proxi%it an e"ree (Court aIir%e con$iction o# istriutor o# !ea@ets thatencoura"e ostruction o# the ra#t).

o hen a nation is at war %an thin"s that %i"ht e sai in ti%e o# peaceare such a hinrance to its eIort that their utterance wi!! not e enureso !on" as %en "ht an that no Court shou! re"ar the% as protecte an constitutiona! ri"ht.

o D. 'raneis concurrin" in Whitne) v. Cal. (19*;), reco"ni4e the $a!ue o#

#reeo%s o# expression as oth an en an as a %eans to the isco$er

Pa"e -; o# :



an sprea o# po!itica! truth. 5'ut e$en a$ocac o# $io!ence, howe$erreprehensi!e %ora!!, is not a 7ustication #or enin" #ree speech wherethe a$ocac #a!!s short o# incite%entB <n orer to support a nin" o#c!ear an present an"er, it %ust e shown either that i%%eiate serious $io!ence was to e expecte or was a$ocate, or that the past conuct#urnishe reason to e!ie$e that such a$ocac was then conte%p!ate.

Oo an"er @owin" #ro% speech can e ee%e c!ear an present,

un!ess the incience o# e$i! apprehene is so i%%inent that it %a

e#a!! e#ore there is opportunit #or #u!! iscussion. The court %ust conc!ue that a particu!ar restraint is 7ustie

ecause o# the an"er. A !e"is!ati$e 7u"%ent that the an"er is tooi%%eiate an too serious to per%it the nor%a! re!iance on #reeiscussion is not conc!usi$e e$en i# it is reasona!e.

o Masses Test4 D. 3an e%phasi4e the nature o# the speech rather than

circu%stances. n! irect incite%ent o# i!!e"a! conuct wou! eprohiite an that the "ra$it o# the e$i! %ust e iscounte itsi%proai!it. Masses !u'lishing v. !atten (191;) (OR post%aster re#useto e!i$er a pu!ication that ha%pere the war eIort, in accorance withthe Espiona"e Act).

D. 3o!%es pointe out that punishin" incite%ent %i"ht a!!ow

"o$ern%ent inter$ention e#ore an rea! threat existe.o Criticis%s/

The octrine is an o$ersi%p!ie 7u"%ent un!ess it ta8es account

a!so o# a nu%er o# other #actors/ the re!ati$e seriousness o# thean"er in co%parison with the $a!ue o# the occasion #or speech orpo!itica! acti$it? the a$ai!ai!it o# %ore %oerate contro!s thanthose which the state has i%pose? an perhaps the specic intentwith which the speech or acti$it is !aunche.

Test assu%es that once expression i%%eiate! threatens the

attain%ent o# so%e $a!i socia! o7ecti$e, the expression can eprohiite. To per%it the state to cut oI expression as soon as itco%es c!ose to ein" eIecti$e is essentia!! to a!!ow on! astract orinnocuous expression.

'a!ancin" tests ine$ita! eco%e intertwine with the ieo!o"ica!

preispositions o# those oin" the a!ancin"or i# not that, at !eastwith the re!ati$e conence or paranoia o# the a"e in which theare oin" it.

*o&ern Test4 Focuses on oth the nature o# the speech an the an"er itpresents. The "o$ern%ent cannot an a$ocac o# un!aw#u! conuct un!ess itis/ (1) irecte to proucin" i%%inent !aw!ess action an is (*) !i8e! to prouce

such actions. Braden'urg v. Ohio (19H9) (in$a!iatin" state statute that i notistin"uish etween %ere a$ocac an incite%ent to i%%inent !aw!ess action).

o n! intentiona! incite%ent o# un!aw#u! conuct, not a$ocac o# astract

octrine, can e punishe.o D. ou"!ass concurrin", e!ie$es that the C!ear & Present an"er

octrine is not reconci!a!e with the 1st A%en. urin" peaceti%e.o Ootes/

Pa"e - o# :



<t co%ines the %ost protecti$e in"reients o# the Masses

incite%ent e%phasis with the %ost use#u! e!e%ents o# the c!ear anpresent an"er herita"e.

The test aIors the Court an opportunit to re$iew !ower courts

throu"h constitutiona! #act, since the ru!e is ase on oth contentan context.

Braden'urg c!ear! i%p!ies that the proai!it that speech %a

rin" aout an un!aw#u! act is not a suIicient constitutiona! asis#or cri%ina!i4in" it, un!ess the speech is so c!ose!, i%%eiate!, anintentiona!! en"a"e with a particu!ar un!aw#u! act that the speechitse!# is part an parce! o# that act, or an atte%pt (in the cri%ina!!aw sense o# the wor) to rin" it aout.

G. +eish/ <n a!! rea!it, a!! the Court intene to o in Braden'urg

was to app! the istinction etween protecte astract a$ocacon the one han an unprotecte a$ocac o# concrete #uture atso%e uneter%ine point on the other.

o A$ocac o# i!!e"a! action at so%e inenite #uture ti%e (an was not

irect! aresse to an "roup o# persons) !ac8s !i8e!ihoo that it wou!

prouce i%%inent isorer. ,ess v. Indiana (19;:) (app!in" Braden'urg, re$erse a con$iction o# antiwar e%onstrator #or sain"5we2!! ta8e the #uc8in" street !ater6).

o Coer)ive See)%4 =tate%ents intene to exercise a coerci$e i%pactoes not re%o$e the% #ro% the reach o# the 1st A%en. -##C! v.Clair'orne ,ardware Co. (19*) (speech OAACP !eaer warnin" o#5iscip!ine6 a"ainst !ac8s $io!atin" an econo%ic ocott o# white%erchants was protecte speech)

=peech i not authori4e or irect! threaten acts o# $io!ence nor

irecte incite%ent o# i%%inent !aw!ess action.Prior 'estraint (o)trine

Gan ha$e ar"ue that the #reeo% o# speech co%prehene in the ori"ina!unerstanin" o# the 1st A%en. was to !i%it prohiition o# prior restraints,which tens to e %ore sweepin" an inhiitin", (as it cuts oI co%%unicatione#ore it ta8es p!ace) an cannot e co!!atera!! attac8e.

o Topica! exceptions/ nationa! securit, oscenit an incite%ent (see

UOotes2 e!ow). Prior restraints in$o!$e "o$ern%ent restraints on #reeo% o# expression which

operate prior to the ti%e that expression entere the %ar8etp!ace o# ieas (asoppose to pena!ties a#ter the #act, e.". reach o# peace, isorer! conuct,e#a%ation).

o Ex/ !icensin", per%it sste%s, censorship, in7unctions

Stan&ar& o" 'eview4 Prior restraints are hi"h! suspect, oth sustanti$e!an proceura!!, an there is a sustantia! presu%ption a"ainst theirconstitutiona!it. The "o$ern%ent ears a hea$ uren o# showin" 7ustication #or the i%position o# such a restraint.

o enera!!, the Court has pro#esse to e%p!o the C!ear & Present an"eroctrine in re$iewin" prior restraint sste%s. -e'. !ress #ssn. v. Stuart (19;H).

Pa"e -9 o# :



hi!e not 0er se i%per%issi!e, prior restraints are su7ect to c!ose 7uicia!scrutin. -ear v. Minn. (19:1) (in$a!iatin" !aw en7oinin" pu!ications thatre"u!ar! pu!ish %a!icious, scana!ous %ateria!).

o Ootes/ ne a$anta"e o# the octrine is that it oes not re>uire the sa%e

e"ree o# 7uicia! a!ancin" that the courts ha$e he! to enecessar in %ost 1st A%en. contexts.

ner -ear , the nor% is intene to e #reeo% #ro% prior

restraint. Ja!i prior restraints are intene to e the exception,which the Court !ists/ nationa! securit, oscenit, an incite%ent to $io!ence. 3owe$er, the Court ne$er exp!ains what %a8es his threeexceptions exceptiona!.

D. 'ut!er ar"ues that the re"u!ation cha!!en"e in -ear was not a

prior restraint at a!! ecause an in7unction cou! on! e otainea#ter a 7uicia! eter%ination an cou! e irecte on! a"ainstrepeat pu!ications o# si%i!ar nature.

E. Jo!o8h ar"ues that the prior restraint octrine shou! not

prohiit per%anent in7unctions o# unprotecte speech, entere

a#ter a #u!! consieration o# the %erits whether at tria! or onsu%%ar 7u"%ent. To a certain extent the Court has reco"ni4e that a%inistrati$e

restraints are %ore har%#u!. 3owe$er, in a nu%er o# cases, theCourt has i%pose its hea$ ne"ati$e presu%ption on 7uicia!in7unctions, without istin"uishin" such restraints #ro% thea%inistrati$e $ariet.

• <n -e'. !ress #ss/n v. Stuart, the Court re$erse a "a" orer,restrainin" %eia co$era"e, issue a state tria! 7u"eecause o# the #ai!ure to consier a!ternati$es to a restrainin"orer.

o Court cou! not issue an in7unction, asent a Con"ressiona! statute,restrainin" a newspaper pu!ication o# a c!assie stu on the Jietna%ar. o$ern%ent #ai!e to e%onstrate that the pu!ication wou!necessari! in$o!$e irect, i%%eiate, an irrepara!e a%a"e to thenation. - 6imes v. +S (19;1).

o Protecti$e orer prohiitin" isse%ination, prior to tria!, o# in#or%ation

"aine throu"h the pretria! isco$er process oes not $io!ate the 1st A%en. ecause the restraint was no "reater than necessar to protectthe inte"rit o# the isco$er process an i not restrict isse%ination o# the in#or%ation i# "aine #ro% other sources. Seattle 6imes Co. v. Rhinehart (19).

I&enti"in Prior 'estraints4 The iIicu!t is that the Court has so%eti%esapp!ie the ter% so !iera!! as to epri$e it o# an har %eanin". The specia! $ice o# a prior restraint is that co%%unication wi!! e suppresse, eitherirect! or inucin" excessi$e caution in the spea8er, e#ore an ae>uate 7uicia! eter%ination so that it is unprotecte the 1st A%en.

o <t shou! not e thou"ht that 7ust ecause a !aw pre$ents a

co%%unication #ro% occurrin" that the contro! auto%atica!! eco%es aprior restraint. isorer! conuct, reach o# the peace, oscenit !aws,

Pa"e H0 o# :



e$en when narrow! rawn to con#or% to =upre%e Court re>uire%ents,inhiit #ree expression an ten to prouce se!#censorship.

There is an a%i"uous orer!an where contro!s exist which can

e c!assie either as exa%p!es o# suse>uent punish%ent or asprior restraints.

o For the part see8in" to in$a!iate the contro!, characteri4in" are"u!ation as a prior restraint %a inuce a court to e%an a hea$uren o# 7ustication, re>uire to sustain a prior restraint.

Oot a!! in7unctions are prior restraints su7ect to the hea$ presu%ption o#unconstitutiona!it. <# the in7unction on! incienta!! aIects expression an iscontentneutra!, the prior restraint octrine oes not app!.

o The Court as8s whether the cha!!en"e pro$isions o# the in7unctions

uren no %ore speech than necessar to ser$e a si"nicant "o$ern%entinterests.

o The "reater the an"er o# censorship an iscri%inator app!ication, the

Court e%p!os a so%ewhat %ore strin"ent stanar than nor%a!! use#or contentneutra! re"u!ations.

o hi!e contentase per%it sste%s are urene sustanti$e! an

proceura!!, a contentneutra! per%it sste% not in$o!$in" censorshipconcerns nee on! contain ae>uate stanars to "uie a%inistrati$eiscretion an rener the oIicia!2s actions su7ect to 7uicia! re$iew.

First Amen&ment a!eness Over.rea&t% <# the !an"ua"e o# the !aw is unconstitutiona!! $a"ue or o$erroa on its #ace,

the #act that it is app!ie in a narrow, constitutiona! %anner wi!! not sa$e the!aw.

a!eness4 A !aw is #acia!! in$a!i i# it is not rawn with suIicient c!arit aneniteness to in#or% persons o# orinar inte!!i"ence what actions are

proscrie. A $a"ue statute re"u!atin" the 1

st

A%en. acti$it is #una%enta!!un#air, $io!atin" oth ue process an #reeo% o# expression.o ne o# the %ost #una%enta! $ices o# a $a"ue statute is that the

ini$iua! is not "i$en #air warnin" that his or her conuct wi!! run a#ou!o# the statutor an.

o The 1st A%en. e%ans specia! c!arit in oth cri%ina! an ci$i! !awsurenin" #reeo% o# expression so that protecte expression wi!! not echi!!e or suppresse.

Over.rea&t%4 A !aw is #acia!! in$a!i i# it is sustantia!! o$erroa in that the!aw iniscri%inate! reaches oth constitutiona!! protecte an unprotecteacti$it. A statute %ust e precise! rawn so that protecte eha$ior is not

chi!!e or suppresse.o The octrine postu!ates that the "o$ern%ent %a not achie$e its

concee! $a!i purpose %eans that sweep unnecessari! roa!,reachin" constitutiona!! protecte as we!! as unprotecte acti$it.

o <t can ser$e as a use#u! too! to test the !e"iti%ac o# !aw%a8ers2 %oti$es?

the c!ose the t etween the "o$ern%ent2s chosen %eans an its $a!io7ecti$es, the %ore !i8e! it is that !aw%a8ers tru! sou"ht to #u!!! thoseo7ecti$es.

Pa"e H1 o# :



o Stan&in4 The istincti$e conse>uence o# the o$erreath octrine is its

eparture #ro% stanin" princip!es. A !iti"ant has stanin" to cha!!en"ethe constitutiona!it o# an o$erroa statute e$en thou"h his acti$itiescou! e prohiite uner a proper! rawn statute ecause the !aw cou!e app!ie to another whose conuct cou! not e re"u!ate uner aproper! rawn !aw an who %a e chi!!e in the exercise o# their 1st A%en. ri"hts.

<ncreasin"!, the Court re>uires rea! an sustantia! o$erreath #or #acia!

in$a!iit. The Court wi!! consier the !i8e!ihoo that a si"nicant a%ount o#protecte speech wi!! e urene an the potentia! constitutiona! app!icationso# the !aw. Broderic" v. O"lahoma (19;:) (re7ectin" oth $a"ueness ano$erreath cha!!en"es to =tate !aw restrictin" the po!itica! acti$ities o# thestate2s ci$i! ser$ants? an whate$er o$erreath that %a exist shou! e curethrou"h casecase ana!sis o# the #acts).

o here conuct an not %ere! speech is in$o!$e, the o$erreath o# thestatute %ust not on! e rea!, ut sustantia! as we!!, 7u"e in re!ation tothe statute2s p!ain! !e"iti%ate sweep.

D. 'rennan (an : other 7ustices) issentin" too8 issue with the #act

that the Court %a8es no eIort to ene what it %eans 5sustantia! o$erreath6 an oIers no exp!anation as to wheterrence o# conuct shou! e $iewe iIerent! #ro% eterrenceo# speech, e$en where oth are e>ua!! protecte the 1st A%en.

o The concept o# sustantia! o$erreath is not reai! reuce to an exact

enition. There %ust e a rea!istic chance that the statute itse!# wi!!si"nicant! co%pro%ise reco"ni4e 1st A%en. protection o# parties note#ore the Court #or it to e #acia!! cha!!en"e on o$erreath "rouns. %# Cit) Council v. 6a70a)ers for 5incent (19) (upho!in" an orinanceprohiitin" the postin" o# si"ns on pu!ic propert).

The %ere #act that one can concei$e o# so%e i%per%issi!e

app!ications o# a statute is not suIicient to rener i# suscepti!e toan o$erreath cha!!en"e.o Ja"ue an excessi$e intrusion on #ree asse%! an association o# a cit

orinance %a8in" it a cri%e #or one or %ore persons to asse%!e on thesiewa!8 an there conuct the%se!$es in a %anner annoin" to personspassin" . Coates v. Cincinnati (19;1).

o 'annin" a!! 1st A%en. acti$ities within the centra! airport ter%ina! is

#acia!! unconstitutiona! uner the o$erreath octrine. Bd. of #ir0ortComm/r of %# v. $ews for $esus (19;).

The an reaches the uni$erse o# expressi$e acti$it an purports to

create a $irtua! 1st A%en.#ree 4one at LA an oes not %ere!

re"u!ate expressi$e acti$it in that %i"ht create pro!e%s such ascon"estion or isruption o# acti$ities.

Fi%tin Wor&s (o)trine4 Fi%tin Wor&s, Tr!e T%reats, an& O>ensiveSee)%

o$ern%ent can i%pose care#u!! rawn contentase re"u!ation when thespeech constitutes "htin" worswors which their $er utterance in@ictin7ur or ten to incite an i%%eiate reach o# the peace.

Pa"e H* o# :



The octrine is ase on the theor that "htin" wors are o# such s!i"ht $a!ueas a step to truth as not to %erit 1 st A%en. protection. The #ocus is on thenature o# the speech rather than on the context. hi!e the octrine ori"ina!!was !i%ite to #ace to #ace $era! encounters that are !i8e! to prouce a $io!entreaction #ro% a reasona!e person, it has increasin"! een %er"e into the%oern C!ear & Present an"er octrine, uner Braden'urg.

Test4 The test is what %en o# co%%on inte!!i"ence wou! unerstan wou! ewors !i8e! to cause an a$era"e aressee to "ht. Cha0lins") v. -, (19*).

o Fi"htin" wors inc!ue persona!! ausi$e epithets, which are inherent!!i8e! to pro$o8e $io!ent reaction. Cohen v. Cal. (19;1).

o Over.rea&t% a!eness4 The Court has pro$ie !itt!e "uiance on

what wors constitute "htin" wors. <nstea, it has tene to ho! thatthe statute in >uestion is not !i%ite to "htin" wors, an there#ore iso$erroa or $a"ue an hence #acia!! unconstitutiona!.

=tate cannot punish wors that are %ere! oIensi$e. Cohen v. Cal (5Fuc8 thera#t6 on the ac8 o# a 7ac8et worn outsie courthouse oes not constitute"htin" wors, since the %essa"e was not irecte to an person an was notan incite%ent).

o =tates are #ree to an 5"htin" wors,6 ut in this instance it was not

c!ear! irecte to a specic person, so that no ini$iua! present cou!reasona! ha$e re"are the wors on the 7ac8et as a irect persona!insu!t.

o The %ere presu%e presence o# unwittin" !isteners or $iewers oes not

ser$e auto%atica!! to 7usti# curtai!in" a!! potentia!! oIensi$e speech. <n orer #or the "o$ern%ent to shut oI iscourse so!e! to protect

others #ro% hearin" it, epens upon a showin" that sustantia!pri$ac interests are ein" in$ae in an essentia!! an into!era!e%anner.

Goreo$er, no reai! ascertaina!e "enera! princip!e exists #or

eter%inin" what is oIensi$e. o$ern%ent oIicia!s cannot %a8eistinctions in this area o# taste an st!e that is so ini$iua!.o Guch !in"uistic expression ser$es co%%unicates oth e%otion an ieas.

e cannot sanction the $iew that the Constitution, whi!e so!icitous o# theco"niti$e content o# ini$iua! speech, has !itt!e or no re"ar #or thate%oti$e #unction, which %a o#ten e the %ore i%portant e!e%ent o# theo$era!! %essa"e sou"ht to e co%%unicate.

o Ootes & Criticis%s/

D. Powe!! in a suse>uent case issentin", ar"ue #or reco"ni4in"

an proscriin" oIensi$e speech, ene as 5the wi!!#u! use o#scurri!ous !an"ua"e ca!cu!ate to oIen the sensii!ities o# an

unwi!!in" auience.6 T. =hea/ The C!ear & Present an"er octrine #ocuses the reactions

o# the actua! aressees, where as the Fi"htin" ors octrine!oo8s to the proa!e reactions o# reasona!e persons. The Court2ssuse>uent attention to the reactions o# the particu!ar aresseesu""ests that the "htin" wors octrine is rapi! eco%in" on! a#or% o# the c!ear an present an"er octrine.

. Farer/ Cohen; in re7ectin" the =tate2s ai!it to re"u!ate

oIensi$e !an"ua"e e%p!os a a!ancin" test restraine / 1) a

Pa"e H: o# :



stron" concern #or sharpness o# #ocus in re"u!ator sche%es, an *)a reutta!e presu%ption a"ainst reco"ni4in" new 7ustications #orcontent re"u!ation.

=. ar ar"ues that the Fi"htin" ors octrine shou! e

aanone ecause such !an"ua"e 1st A%en. protection.

• The octrine, which operates, at est to pena!i4e ini$iua!s#or #ai!in" to show others the respect societ ee%s proper,an at worse, to pena!i4e ini$iua!s #or $ehe%ent criticis% o# "o$ern%ent oIicia!, is si%p! not constitutiona!! 7ustie.

G. +eish/ The theoretica! #a!!ac in Cha0lins") octrine is the

assu%ption that the $a!ue o# #ree speech is a %eans to attain truth.<# one reco"ni4es that the pri%ar $a!ue o# #ree speech is a %eanso# #osterin" ini$iua! e$e!op%ent, the inappropriateness o#istin"uishin" etween the $a!ues o# iIerent tpes o# speecheco%es c!ear.

A. 'ic8e! ar"ues that there is such a thin" as $era! $io!ence, a 8in"

o# cursin", assau!ti$e speech that a%ounts to a!%ost phsica!a""ression, u!!in" that is no !ess punishin" ecause it is

si%u!ate. E>ua!! i%portant, it %a create a c!i%ate in whichconuct an actions that were not possi!e e#ore eco%e possi!e. . Farer, in contrast, ar"ues that use o# oIensi$e !an"ua"e re$ea!s

the existence o# so%ethin" oIensi$e an u"!, whether in situationor in the spea8er2s %in. <n either e$ent, the !an"ua"e re$ea!s ani%portant thou"h unp!easant truth aout the wor!. =uppressin"this !an"ua"e $io!ates a carina! princip!e o# a #ree societ, thattruths are etter con#ronte than represse. As !on" as we !i$e inan u"! wor!, u"! speech %ust ha$e its #oru%.

ostile A!&ien)e4 <# the source o# i%penin" $io!ence i# a crow o# !istenershosti!e to the spea8er2s !aw#u! %essa"e, the po!ice usua!! %ust procee a"ainst

the crow an protect the spea8er. &regor) v. Chicago (19H9). The 1st

A%en.protects speech e$en i# it inuces a conition o# unrest, creates issatis#actionwith conitions as the are, or e$en stirs peop!e to an"er. 6erminiello v.Chicago (199).

o 3owe$er, there is preceent ne$er o$erru!e, that i# the threateneisruption is ue to the spea8er2s own intentiona! pro$ocation, then thespea8er can e punishe uner narrow! rawn !aws proscriin"incite%ent to !i8e!, i%%inent !aw!ess action. einer v. - (19-1)(upho!in" spea8er2s con$iction #or reach o# peace).

=pea8er was not arreste nor con$icte #or the content o# his

speech. +ather, it was the reaction which it actua!! en"enere.

<t is one thin" to sa that the po!ice cannot e use as aninstru%ent #or the suppression o# unpopu!ar $iews, an another tosa that, when as here the spea8er passes the ouns o# ar"u%entor persuasion an unerta8es incite%ent to riot, the are power!essto pre$ent a reach o# peace.

o =pea8er who "i$es prior notice o# his %essa"e has not co%pe!!e a

con#rontation with those who $o!untari! !isten. 5illage of S"o"ie v. -at/lSocialist !art) (<!!in. 19;) (state court re7ectin" that the isp!a o# theswasti8a threatens peace to a e"ree that it shou! e en7oine, %oreo$erit is a s%o!ic #or% o# #ree speech entit!e to protection).

Pa"e H o# :



ate See)% =o%e states an !oca!ities ha$e enacte !aws prohiitin" expression that incites

hatre o#, or which is insu!tin" or ero"ator towars, traitiona!! $u!nera!e"roupsracia! %inorities, wo%en, ethnic or re!i"ious "roups, ho%osexua!s.

o <t is ar"ue that such speech in@icts e%otiona! har%, pro%otesiscri%ination an $io!ence an si!ences $icti%s.

Jio!ence is a necessar an ine$ita!e part o# the structure o#

racis%. <t is the na! so!ution, as #ascists 8now, are! he! at a

whi!e the tactica! weapons o# se"re"ation, ispara"e%ent, an hatepropa"ana o their wor8.

hi!e it oes not %eanin"#u!! pro%ote 1st A%en. $a!ues, it uner%ines the $a!ues o# E>ua! Protection C!ause.

o Apart #ro% the context o# threatene $io!ence, the constitutiona!it o#

these !aws is >uestiona!e since the constitute contentase re"u!ations $io!ati$e o# 1st A%en. protection aIore oIensi$e & ausi$e speech.

3owe$er, !aws which punish racia!! %oti$ate har%#u! conuct or whichenhance the pena!t #or cri%es when inspire racia! ias are consistent withthe 1st A%en. The racia! ias %oti$e %ust e esta!ishe eon a reasona!eout. #00rendi v. -$ (*000).

Tr!e T%reats (e;nition4 The 1st A%en. per%its =tates to prohiit #or%s o# inti%iation that

are true threats, where a spea8er irects a threat to a person or "roup with theintent o# p!acin" the $icti% in #ear o# oi! har% or eath. 5a. v. Blac" (*00:).Court consiers the i%pact o# the speech.

True threats are constitutiona!! proscria!e ecause it ser$es to protectini$iua!s #ro% the #ear o# $io!ence an #ro% the isruption that #earen"eners an #ro% the possii!it that the threatene $io!ence wi!! occur. R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (199*).

Law annin" s%o!s that reasona! wou! arouse an"er, a!ar%, or

resent%ent in others on the asis o# race, co!or, cree, re!i"ion or "ener is#acia!! in$a!i. R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (=ca!ia #or the %a7orit? preceent is!ess in@uentia! that initia!! thou"ht).

o rinance is #acia!! unconstitutiona! ecause it prohiits otherwise

per%itte speech on the asis o# the su7ects the speech aresses. The "o$ern%ent %a proscrie !ie!, ut it %a not %a8e the

#urther iscri%ination o# proscriin" on! !ie! critica! o# the"o$ern%ent. The 1st A%en. oes not per%it =t. Pau! to i%posespecia! prohiitions on those spea8ers who express $iews onis#a$ore su7ects.

o The prohiition a"ainst content iscri%ination that the 1st A%en.

re>uires is not aso!ute. First, when the asis #or the content iscri%ination consists entire!

o# the $er reason the entire c!ass o# speech at issue isproscria!e, no si"nicant an"er o# iea o# $iewpointiscri%ination exists.

Another $a!i asis #or iIerentia! treat%ent to a contentene

suc!ass o# proscria!e speech is that the suc!ass happens to eassociate with particu!ar seconar eIects o# speech so that there"u!ation is 7ustie without re#erence to the content o# speech.

Pa"e H- o# :



Fina!!, an exception #or contentase re"u!ations in a cate"or o#

proscria!e speech %a exist so !on" as 5the nature o# the contentiscri%ination is such that there is no rea!istic possii!it thatoIicia! suppression o# ieas is a#oot.

o hi!e notin" that the interest (to ensure asic hu%an ri"hts o# %e%ers

o# "roups that ha$e een historica!! iscri%inate a"ainst) is co%pe!!in",the content iscri%ination was not reasona! necessar to achie$e thisinterest. The existence o# contentneutra! a!ternati$esannin" a!!

"htin" worswas eter%inati$e. The reason wh "htin" wors are cate"orica!! exc!ue #ro% the

protection o# the 1st A%en. i# not that their content co%%unicatesan particu!ar iea, ut that their content e%oies a particu!ar!into!era!e (an socia!! unnecessar) %oe o# expressin" whate$eriea the spea8er wishes to con$e.

The orinance i not sin"!e out an especia!! oIensi$e %oe o#

expression. +ather, it has prohiite on! those wors thatco%%unicate ieas in a threatenin" %anner. <t has proscrie"htin" wors that co%%unicate racia!, "ener, or re!i"iousinto!erance.

o D. hite (with '!ac8%un, 2Connor, =te$ens) concurre in 7u"%ent, ut

nin" issue with restrictions on the ai!it o# "o$ern%ent to re"u!atewithin proscria!e cate"ories? pre#erre to ecie the case uner theo$erreath octrine.

The cate"orica! approach is a r%! entrenche part o# our 1 st

A%en. 7urispruence. <t is inconsistent to ho! that the"o$ern%ent %a proscrie an entire cate"or o# speech ecause o#the content o# that speech is e$i!, ut that the "o$ern%ent %a nottreat a suset o# that cate"or iIerent! without $io!atin" the 1st A%en.

ner the %a7orit2s $iew, a narrow! rawn contentaseorinance cou! ne$er pass constitutiona! %uster i# the o7ect o#that !e"is!ation cou! e acco%p!ishe anne a wier cate"oro# speech.

The %a7orit2s concern aout contentase re"u!ations within

Cha0lins") cate"ories o# unprotecte speech is unnecessarecause the E>ua! Protection C!ause re>uires that the re"u!ation p#unprotecte speech e rationa!! re!ate to a !e"iti%ate"o$ern%ent interest.

o D. '!ac8%un concurrin" in 7u"%ent, note that it wi!! ser$e as preceent

#or #uture cases or it wi!! not.

' eciin" that a =tate cannot re"u!ate speech that causes "reathar% un!ess it a!so re"u!ates speech that oes not (settin" !aw an!o"ic on their heas), the Court see%s to aanon the cate"orica!approach, an ine$ita! to re!ax the !e$e! o# scrutin app!ica!e tocontentase !aws.

o D. =te$ens (with hite an '!ac8%un) wrote separate! to su""est how

the a!!ure o# aso!ute princip!es s8ewe the %a7orit & D. hite2s opinion.

Pa"e HH o# :



Critici4e the Court #or ho!in" that contentase re"u!ations are

presu%pti$e! in$a!i an that "o$ern%ent %ust either proscrie a!!speech or no speech at a!!.

<n roaest ter%s, our entire 1st A%en. 7urispruence creates a

re"i%e ase on the content o# speech. The scope o# the 1st A%en.is eter%ine the content o# expressi$e acti$it.

hether speech #a!!s within one part o# the cate"ories o#

unprotecte or proscria!e expression is eter%ine in part itscontent. E$en within cate"ories o# protecte expression, the 1st A%en. status o# speech is xe its content.

The cate"orica! approach sacrices sut!et #or c!arit an ts

poor! with the co%p!ex rea!it o# expression, ine$ita! "i$es riseon! to #u44 ounaries (i.e., expressi$e conuct). <t isunwor8a!e, u!ti%ate! #uti!e, an estine to #ai!.

=tate can enhance cri%ina! pena!ties ase on racia! ias %oti$ation. Wisc. v. Mitchell (199:) (upho!in" sentencin" enhance%ents when a "roup o# !ac8%en eat a white o se$ere!).

o Phsica! assau!t is not expressi$e conuct protecte the 1st A%en.

=uch !aws are ai%e at unprotecte conuct.o The statute oes not $io!ate the 1st A%en. protection aIore thou"ht &

e!ie#s. hi!e a person %a not e punishe ecause o# his astracte!ie#s, %oti$e is #re>uent! an i%portant #actor in eter%inin" pena!ties#or cri%ina! conuct.

o 'iasinspire cri%e %a e sin"!e out ecause this conuct is throu"h toin@ict "reater ini$iua! an societa! har%.

o The c!ai% that pena!t enhance%ent %i"ht cause an ini$iua! to a$oi

(protecte) i"ote, oIensi$e speech is too specu!ati$e to support ano$erreath cha!!en"e.

o There is no 1st A%en. arrier to e$ientiar use o# speech in orer to

pro$e %oti$e or intent or the e!e%ents o# a cri%e.o Ootes & Critics/

=uch !aws are aopte #or the $er purpose o# pena!i4in" thou"ht

processes an po!itica! %oti$ations #oun to e oIensi$e those inpower, the constitute c!assic ari"e%ents o# the constitutiona!!protecte #reeo% o# thou"ht.

<n response to the reasonin" ao$e/ i$in" the "ree %urerer a

%ore se$ere sentence than the co%passionate 8i!!er %a raiseinterestin" >uestions aout the theor o# punish%ent, ut not aout#ree speech concerns. The "ree %urerer is ein" punishe not#or ho!in" certain astract e!ie#s, ut #or acting on those e!ie#s

in a wa that %a8es his conuct %ore reprehensi!e, %orean"erous, an perhaps %ore in nee o# eterrence than theco%passionate 8i!!er.

=tate %a an crossurnin" with the intent to inti%iate ecause it is aparticu!ar! $iru!ent #or% o# inti%iation. 5a. v. Blac" (*00:) (uphe! statute2sprohiitions on crossurnin", ut in$a!iate pro$ision that the conuct waspri%a #acie e$ience o# intent). <nstea o# prohiitin" a!! inti%iatin"%essa"es, the =tate %a choose to re"u!ate this suset o# inti%iatin" %essa"e

Pa"e H; o# :



in !i"ht o# cross urnin"2s !on" an pernicious histor as a si"na! o# i%penin" $io!ence.

o Dust as a =tate %a re"u!ate on! that oscenit which is the %ost

oscene ue to its prurient content, so too %a a =tate choose to prohiiton! those #or%s o# inti%iate that are %ost !i8e! to inspire #ear o# oi!har%.

e i not ho! in R#5 that the 1st A%en. prohiits a!! #or%s o#

contentase iscri%ination within a proscria!e area o# speech.

+ather, we specia!! state that so%e tpes o# contentiscri%ination i not $io!ate the 1st A%en.

n!i8e the statute in R#5 , the Ja. statute oes not sin"!e out #or

opproriu% on! that speech irecte towar one o# the specieis#a$ore topics. <t oes not %atter whether an ini$iua! urns across with intent to inti%iate ecause o# $icti%2s race, "ener, orre!i"ion, etc.

o The pri%a #acie e$ience pro$ision, as interprete the 7ur instruction,

reners the statute unconstitutiona!. The pro$ision chi!!s constitutiona!!protecte po!itica! speech ecause o# the possii!it that a =tate wi!!prosecute so%eo en"a"in" in !aw#u! po!itica! speech at the core o#what the 1st A%en. is esi"ne to protect.

o D. =ca!ia (with Tho%as) concurrin" an issentin", a"rees that uner R#5 ,a =tate %a, without in#rin"in" the 1st A%en., prohiit cross urnin"carrie out with the intent to inti%iate, ut isa"rees that the pri%a#acie pro$ision is o$erroa an shou! e interprete as a reutta!epresu%ption.

o D. =outer (with Kenne, insur") concurrin" an issentin", ns that

the statute %a8es a contentase istinction within the cate"or o#punisha!e inti%iatin" or threatenin" expression, ut is sti!!unconstitutiona! ecause it ris8s contentiscri%ination.

The specic prohiition o# cross urnin" with intent to inti%iatese!ects a s%o! with particu!ar content #ro% the e! o# a!!proscria!e expression %eant to inti%iate, an hence constitutesa tpe $iewpoint ase iscri%ination.

The issue is whether the statutor prohiition restricte to this

s%o! #a!!s within one o# the exceptions to R#5 2s "enera!cone%nation o# !i%ite contentase proscription within aroaer cate"or o# expression proscria!e "enera!!.

• The Ja. statute oes not >ua!i# #or the $iru!ence exception as R#5 exp!aine it. The %a7orit2s iscussion o# a specia! $iru!ence exception here %o$es that exception towar a %ore

@exi!e conception.• R#5 enes the specia! $iru!ence exception to the ru!e

arrin" contentase suc!asses o# cate"orica!!proscria!e expression this wa/ prohiition sucate"oris nonethe!ess constitutiona! i# it is %ae 5entire!6 on the5asis6 o# 5the $er reason6 that 5the entire c!ass o# speech atissue is proscria!e6 at a!!. The Court exp!aine that whenthe sucate"or is conne to the %ost o$ious!

Pa"e H o# :



proscria!e instances, 5no si"nicant an"er o# iea or $iewpoint iscri%ination exists.6

Actua!!, another wa o# !oo8in" at toa2s ecision wou! see it as

a s!i"ht %oication o# R#5 2s :r exception, which a!!ows contentase iscri%ination within a proscria!e cate"or when its natureis such 5that there is no rea!istic possii!it that oIicia! suppressiono# ieas is a#oot.6 The %a7orit2s approach cou! e ta8en asreco"ni4in" an exception to R#5 when circu%stances show that the

statute2s ostensi! $a!i reason #or punishin" particu!ar! seriousproscria!e expression proa! is not a ruse #or %essa"esuppression, e$en thou"h the statute %a ha$e a "reater (ut notexc!usi$e) i%pact on aherents o# one ieo!o" than on others.

For whether or not the Court shou! concei$e o# exceptions to

R#5/s "enera! ru!e in a %ore practica! wa, no contentasestatute shou! sur$i$e e$en uner a pra"%atic recastin" o# R#5 without a hi"h proai!it that no oIicia! suppression o# ieas isa#oot.

<t is iIicu!t to concei$e o# an inti%iation case that cou! e easier

to pro$e than one with crossurnin", assu%in" an circu%stancessu""estin" inti%iation are present. The pro$ision is >uite enou"hto raise the >uestion whether Ja.2s contentase statute see8s%ore than %ere protection a"ainst a $iru!ent #or% o# inti%iation.

=ince no R#5 exception can sa$e the statute as contentase, it

can on! sur$i$e i# narrow! tai!ore to ser$e a co%pe!!in" stateinterest, a strin"ent test the statute cannot pass? a contentneutra!statute annin" inti%iation wou! achie$e the sa%e o7ect withoutsin"!in" out particu!ar content.

o D. Tho%as issentin", ns that the statute prohiits on! conuct, not

expression an hence there is not nee to ana!4e it uner an o# the 1st

A%en. tests.o Ootes & Critics/

. Char!es/ Ja. can per%issi! re"u!ate crossurnin" ecause it is

re"u!atin" a particu!ar! $iru!ent #or% o# inti%iation, one cou!ar"ue that =t. Pau! shou! ha$e een a!e to sin"!e out "htin"wors uttere on the asis o# race, "ener an re!i"ion ecausesuch "htin" wors are !i8e! to cause an"er an incite i%%eiate $io!ence.

• <# crossurnin" itse!# is a particu!ar! $iru!ent tpe o#inti%iation, then urnin" a cross on the asis o# the $icti%2srace %ust certain! e an e$en %ore $iru!ent tpe o#

inti%iation. <# one were to app! Blac"2s reasonin" to R#5 ,not on! shou! the Court ha$e uphe! =t. Pau!2s orinance,ut it presente a %ore co%pe!!in" case #or aIir%ance thanthe statute in Blac".

=. e contens that the Court2s enition o# 5true threat6 is roa

an a%i"uous an threatens the speechprotecti$e stanarictate in Braden'urg v. Ohio, potentia!! strippin" si"nicant%eanin" #ro% the 1st A%en.

Pa"e H9 o# :



• The on! %ani#estation o# #ear that shou! e re!e$ant to theapp!ication o# true threats ana!sis is that persona!i4e ani%%eiate #ear o# a person who is sin"!e out an to! in nouncertain ter%s that he is specica!! tar"ete #or attac8. <# a"enera!i4e, iIuse #ear can e use as a 7ustication #orsanctionin" speech, then a!! a""ressi$e! anta"onistic issentwi!! e su7ect to suppression.

F. =chauer raises the >uestion whether a potentia! e#enant shou!

e re>uire to possess intent i# the har% the !e"is!ature see8s toprotect a"ainst is the #ear resu!tin" #ro% such a threat, an not thethreat itse!#. <t %a e ri"ht that the spea8er can e prosecuteecause he is as responsi!e #or the orinar %eanin" o# his worsas he is as responsi!e #or the orinar conse>uences o# hisconuct.

D. 'e!! enorses a $icti%centere approach, which wou! a!!ow #or

prosecution in a!! cases in which a e#enant urne a cross with airect! tar"ete $icti%.

3-ressive Con&!)t4 Sm.oli) See)% Conuct can e use as a %eans o# co%%unicatin" ieasthe %eiu% can e

the %essa"e. D. Dac8son reco"ni4e that s%o!ic action cou! so%eti%es ethe %ost eIecti$e #or% o# expressin" an iea.

o Two part ana!sis/ 1) is the conuct expressi$e *) i# it is expressi$e, is it

protecte the 1st A%en. Is t%e Con&!)t Comm!ni)ative? <n eter%inin" whether the conuct is

speech, the Court o#ten exa%ines the nature o# the conuct, the #actua! context,an the en$iron%ent to eter%ine i# the actor has an intent to co%%unicate a%essa"e an whether the auience $iewin" the conuct wou! unerstan the%essa"e. S0ence v. Washington (19;). #ten the Court wi!! assu%e arguendo

that the conuct is expressi$e. Is t%e See)% Prote)te&? hen speech an nonspeech e!e%ents are in thesa%e course o# conuct, "o$ern%ent re"u!ation o# s%o!ic speech isper%issi!e i#, uner O/Brien v. +S (19H)/

1) it #urthers an i%portant or sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest,*) the "o$ern%ent interest is unre!ate to the suppression o# #ree

expression,(this eter%ination is essentia!! the sa%e as as8in" whether there"u!ation is contentase or contentneutra!)

:) the incienta! restriction on a!!e"e 1st A%en. #reeo% is no "reaterthan essentia! to the #urtherance o# that interest.

o The O/Brien test (inter%eiate stanar) app!ies on! i# the re"u!ation iscontent neutra! an is essentia!! the sa%e stanar use in re$iewcontentneutra! re"u!ation o# the pu!ic #oru%.

<# the re"u!ation is ase on the content o# the s%o!ic speech the %ostexactin" scrutin app!ies. 6e7as v $ohnson (199).

The "o$ern%ent interest in the eIecti$e #unctionin" o# the =e!ecti$e =er$ice=ste% is suIicient! !e"iti%ate an sustantia! to 7usti# a !aw prohiitin" theconuct o# urnin" ra#t cars in spite o# the incienta! restrain on 1st A%en.expression. O/Brien v. +S (19H) (upho!in" con$iction uner #eera! !awprohiitin" 58nowin"! %uti!ateMionN6 o# ra#t car).

Pa"e ;0 o# :



o The Court cannot accept the $iew that an apparent! !i%it!ess $ariet o#conuct can e !ae!e 5speech6 whene$er the person en"a"in" inconuct intens there to express an iea.

o The %an #unctions per#or%e the =e!ecti$e =er$ice certicates (proo#

o# re"istration, #aci!itation o# co%%unication to !oca! s., notications o#whereaouts o# re"istrant, prohiition a"ainst their ecepti$e %isuse)esta!ish eon a out that Con"ress has a !e"iti%ate an sustantia!interest in pre$entin" their wanton estruction an assurin" their

a$ai!ai!it punishin" peop!e who 8nowin"! & wi!!#u!! estro or%uti!ate the%.

o There are no a!ternati$e %eans that wou! %ore precise! an narrow!assure the continuin" a$ai!ai!it o# issues certicates than a !aw whichprohiits their wi!!#u! %uti!ation or estruction.

o The nonco%%unicati$e i%pact o# 2'rien2s act o# urnin" his

re"istration certicate #rustrate the "o$ern%ent2s interest, a suIicientinterest shown to 7usti# 2'rien2s con$iction.

o The Court wi!! not stri8e own an otherwise constitutiona! statute on theasis o# an a!!e"e i!!icit !e"is!ati$e %oti$e. <n>uiries into con"ressiona!%oti$es or purposes are a ha4arous %atter.

hen the issues is si%p! the interpretation o# !e"is!ation, the Court

wi!! !oo8 to state%ents !e"is!ators #or "uiance as to the purposeo# the !e"is!ature, ecause the enet to soun ecision%a8in" inthis circu%stance is thou"ht suIicient to ris8 the possii!it o#%isreain" Con"ress2 purpose.

<t is an entire! a iIerent %atter when we are as8e to $oi a

statute that is constitutiona! on its #ace, on the asis o# what a #ewCon"ress%en sai aout it.

o Ootes & Critics/

For %ost expressi$e conuct, the purpose o# expression is

protecte, ut the %etho o# expression is re"u!a!e. <nter%eiatescrutin is sai to e the resu!tin" co%pro%ise, a!!owin""o$ern%ent to retain si"nicant power to re"u!ate in these areasut ac8now!e"in" that the 1st A%en. sti!! pro$ies so%eprotection.

A!thou"h the O/Brien test re%ains "oo !aw, the Court has ne$er

use it to in$a!iate !aws that incienta!! uren expressi$econuct. <n #act, the Court has create a wai$a!e presu%ptionthat such !aws o not $io!ate the 1st A%en.

G. or#/ <n so%e sense, the O/Brien test is the worst o# a!! possi!e

wor!s. A !ar"e cate"or o# contentneutra! !aws is suscepti!e to

an O/Brien cha!!en"e. Liti"ation o$er re"u!ations in this cate"ori%poses sustantia! costs to societ, ut ie!s #ew tan"i!eenets. 'ecause %ost o# the cha!!en"e !aws wi!! sur$i$e, %ost o#the cases actua!! !iti"ate wi!! not enet #ree speech.

• Oor oes the prospect o# O/Brien scrutin eter potentia!!speechchi!!in" !aws, ecause !e"is!ators enactin" contentneutra! !aws wi!! not orinari! conte%p!ate #ree speechissues/ enition, such !aws are ai%e at pro!e%s that onot arise #ro% the co%%unicati$e i%pact o# speech. Thus, i#

Pa"e ;1 o# :



O/Brien scrutin is to re%ain tooth!ess, it har! see%s worthretainin" as a iscrete 1st A%en test.

T. E%erson pre$ious! su""este s%o!ic speech cases

eter%inin" whether the speech or conuct e!e%ent is preo%inantin the conuct uner consieration. <n his $iew, O/Brien waswron"! ecie ecause the action was speech rather thanconuct, an thus entit!e to 1st A%en. protection.

D. ou"!as, in Braden'urg, %ae %uch the sa%e speechaction

istinction when he state that speech "roupe with conuctshou! not e protecte uner the 1st A%en.

D. E! ar"ue that urnin" a ra#t car to express opposition to the

ra#t is an uniIerentiate who!e, 100V action an 100Vexpression. Atte%pts to eter%ine which e!e%ent 5preo%inates6wi!! ine$ita! e"enerate into >uestione""in" 7u"%ents aoutwhether acti$it shou! e protecte.

L. 3en8in ar"ue that a 5constitutiona! istinction etween speech

an conuct is specious. =peech is conuct an actions spea8.6The %eanin"#u! constitutiona! istinction is not etween speech anconuct, ut etween conuct that spea8s, co%%unicates, another 8ins o# conuct.

E. Jo!o8h a!so ar"ues that whi!e speech & conuct shou! e

istin"uishe, tpica! 5it2s not speech, it2s conuct6 octrines wou!#orce courts to #ocus on the wron" >uestions an reach the wron"resu!ts. Courts shou! #ocus on a istinction %ore !i8e that o#O/Brien, so that expression can "enera!! e re"u!ate to pre$enthar%s that @ow #ro% its nonco%%unicati$e e!e%ents (noise, traIicostruction, an the !i8e), ut not har%s that @ow #ro% what theexpression expresses.

• Oeither "enera!! app!ica!e !aws nor specia!! tar"ete !aws

shou! e a!!owe to restrict speech ecause o# what thespeech sas, un!ess the speech #a!!s within one o# theexceptions to protection (e.". threats or #a!se state%ents o##act) or un!ess the restriction passes strict scrutin.

L. Trie ar"ues that a !aw is contentase i# on its #ace, it is

tar"ete at ieas or in#or%ation that "o$ern%ent see8s to suppress,or i# "o$ern%ent actions neutra! on its #ace was %oti$ate anintent to sin"!e out constitutiona!! protecte speech #or contro! orpena!t.

D. E! su""ests that the eter%ination o# whether a !aw is content

contro! turns on whether the har% that the state is see8in" to a$ert

is one that "rows out o# the #act that the e#enant isco%%unicatin", an %ore particu!ar! out o# the wa peop!e can eexpecte to react to his %essa"e, or rather wou! arise e$en i# thee#enant2s conuct ha no co%%unicati$e si"nicancewhatsoe$er.

o$ern%ent can i%pose a !aw that re"u!ates conuct ase on sustantia!"o$ern%ent interest that incienta!! aIects speech. Con"ressiona! !awpre$entin" schoo!s that recei$e #eera! #uns to prohiit %i!itar recruiters#ro% "ainin" access to ca%puses oes not $io!ate the schoo!s2 #reeo% o#speech. Rumsfeld v. #IR (*00H) (+oerts #or a unani%ous Court uphe! the

Pa"e ;* o# :



=o!o%on A%en%ent/ in orer #or a !aw schoo! an its uni$ersit to recei$e#eera! #unin", the !aw schoo! %ust oIer %i!itar recruiters the sa%e access toits ca%pus an stuents that it pro$ies to non%i!itar recruiters recei$in" the%ost #a$ora!e access).

o =uIicient "o$ern%enta! interest exercise uner Con"ressiona! power toraise an %aintain ar%es.

o The !aw re"u!ates conuct, not speech. <t aIects what the !aw schoo!

%ust o, not what the %a or %a not sa. oes not har% an o# the

#reeo% o# expression ri"hts/ Law oes not re>uire co%pe!!e speech the schoo!s.

• The recruitin" assistance pro$ie the schoo!s o#teninc!ues e!e%ents o# speech, ut is on! incienta! to the !aw2sre"u!ation o# conuct.

• The co%pe!!e speech $io!ation in the Court2s prior cases

resu!te #ro% the #act that the co%p!ainin" spea8er2s own%essa"e was aIecte the speech it was #orce toacco%%oate.

Law oes not prohiit speech.

•Oothin" aout recruitin" su""ests that !aw schoo!s a"ree withan speech recruiters an nothin" in the !aw restricts whatthe !aw schoo!s %a sa aout the %i!itar2s po!icies.

Law oes not $io!ate the schoo!2s expressi$e associationa! ri"hts.

• The !aw oes not #orce schoo!s to accept %e%ers it oes not

esire. =tuents an #acu!t are #ree to associate to $oicetheir isappro$a! o# the %i!itar2s %essa"e.

• Dust as sain" conuct is unerta8en #or expressi$e purposescannot %a8e it s%o!ic speech, so too a spea8er cannoterect a shie! a"ainst !aws re>uirin" access si%p! assertin" that %ere association wou! i%pair its %essa"e.

Pa"e ;: o# :



P!.li) For!m (o)trine The Court esta!ishe that the use o# streets an pu!ic p!aces #or expressi$e

purposes has traitiona!! 5een part o# the pri$i!e"es, i%%unities, ri"hts, an!ierties o# citi4ens.6 Fro% this princip!e, there e$e!ope the concept o#5pu!ic #oru%6 a$ai!a!e to the citi4en #or expressi$e acti$it.

The 1st A%en. ri"ht o# access to pu!ic propert has een co%p!e%ente the 1st A%en. E>ua! Protection concept o# the ri"ht o# e>ua! access.

Nat!re o" t%e For!m4 A sharp istinction is rawn etween the re"u!ator

an proprietar ro!es o# "o$ern%ent. here the "o$ern%ent is actin" as aproprietor, %ana"in" its interna! operations rather than actin" as a !aw%a8erwith the power to re"u!ate or !icense, its actions wi!! not e su7ecte tohei"htene re$iew to which its actions as a !aw%a8er %a e su7ecte. Int/lSoc/) for (rishna Consciousness v. %ee (199*).

Tra&itional P!.li) For!m (e;nition4 A traitiona! pu!ic #oru% is pu!ic propert that has historica!!

ha as a principa! purpose the #ree exchan"e o# ieas (e.". streets an par8s).o o$ern%ent %a not ar a!! co%%unicati$e acti$it #ro% 5>uintessentia!6

pu!ic #oru%. =uch p!aces ha$e historica!! een associate withexpressi$e acti$it. The are natura! an proper p!aces #or isse%inatin"in#or%ation.

Stan&ar&4 Contentase re"u!ation o# speech in a traitiona! pu!ic #oru%%ust #a!! into a cate"or o# !ow$a!ue speech (proscria!e) or e 7ustie usin"strict scrutin.Contentneutra! re"u!ation o# the pu!ic #oru% is constitutiona! i# the !aw isnarrow!tai!ore to ser$e a 5si"nicant "o$ern%enta! interest6 an !ea$esopen a%p!e a!ternati$e channe!s #or co%%unication o# the in#or%ation (sa%etest #or ti%e, p!ace & %anner contro!s).

Peace#u! e%onstrators on pu!ic state capito! "rouns %a not e $a!i!prosecute #or conuctin" a protest. *dwards v. S. Carolina (19H:).

A !aw arrin" a!! pic8etin" an !ea@etin" on the pu!ic siewa!8s surrounin"the =upre%e Court is unconstitutiona! ecause such a roa prohiition o#5pu!ic #oru% propert6 oes not narrow! ser$e the pu!ic interests inprotectin" persons an propert or %aintainin" proper orer an ecoru%. +Sv. &race (19:).

Limite& or (esinate& P!.li) For!m (e;nition4 The pu!ic #oru% was he! to inc!ue other pu!ic propert where

expressi$e acti$it was not inco%pati!e with the nor%a! use to which thepropert is put (e.". pu!ic !irar, uni$ersities). The !i%ite pu!ic #oru% isa!so eter%ine "o$ern%ent esi"nation an intent to open the propert #orexpressi$e acti$it.

o

o$ern%ent oes not create a pu!ic #oru% inaction. <t %ust e shownthat the practice an po!ic o# the "o$ern%ent inicate an intent to opena nontraitiona! #oru% #or "enera! pu!ic iscourse.

o 3owe$er, "o$ern%ent %a withraw the p!ace #ro% pu!ic #oru%esi"nation.

Stan&ar&4 =a%e stanar as a traitiona! pu!ic #oru%. <# the "o$ern%entexc!ues spea8ers who are within the c!ass to which a esi"nate pu!ic #oru%is %ae "enera!! a$ai!a!e, its actions are su7ect to strict scrutin.

=tate ru!e !i%itin" istriution o# in#or%ation at a state #air to a xe !ocation isconstitutiona!. ,e:ron v. Int/l Soc/) for (rishna Consciousness (191).

Pa"e ; o# :



o =tate #air "rouns constitute a !i%ite pu!ic #oru%. The xe !ocationru!e is contentneutra! an is narrow! tai!ore to #urther i%portant stateinterest in traIic contro! on the crowe #air"rouns.

o A!ternati$e #oru%s such as speech at the xe !ocation or contact oI the

#air"rouns are a$ai!a!e. ni$ersit create #oru% "enera!! open #or stuent "roup use cannot

iscri%inate in use enin" access #or re!i"ious worship or teachin".Widmar v. 5incent (191).

o <n orer to 7usti# such iscri%ination in access to pu!ic #oru% ase onthe re!i"ious content o# the "roup2s intene speech, the uni$ersit %ustshow that its re"u!ation is necessar to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state interestan that it is narrow! rawn to achie$e that en.

o The uni$ersit is not 7ustie the esire to %aintain separation o#

church an state %anate the state an #eera! constitutions.Non!.li) For!m (e;nition4 Pu!ic propert which is not traition or esi"nation a #oru% #or

pu!ic co%%unication (e."., %i!itar ases, 7ai!s, rapitransit cars an%ai!oxes).

o The #act that particu!ar propert is owne the "o$ern%ent oes not

%a8e it part o# the pu!ic #oru%. Certain pu!ic!owne p!aces areinappropriate #or an asse%! or protest.

o A esi"nates pu!ic #oru% is not create when the "o$ern%ent "rants

on! se!ecti$e access #or ini$iua! spea8ers rather than "enera! access#or a c!ass o# spea8ers. hen the "o$ern%ent "rants e!i"ii!it #or accessto the #oru% to a particu!ar c!ass o# spea8ers, whose %e%ers %ust then,as ini$iua!s, otain per%ission to enter, on! a nonpu!ic #oru% exists.

Stan&ar&4 +e"u!ation o# access to such propert nee on! e $iewpointneutra! an reasona!e. +easona!eness has een %ar8e 7uicia! e#erenceto "o$ern%ent, a8in to rationa!it test.

Count 7ai! is not an appropriate p!ace #or the exercise o# 1st

A%en. ri"hts.e%onstrator2s con$iction #or trespass is constitutiona!. #dderl) v. la. (19HH)(when pu!ic propert such as state capito! "rouns %a e open to the pu!ic, 7ai!s, ui!t #or securit purposes, are not).

=choo! istrict2s interschoo! %ai! sste% is not traition or esi"nation apu!ic #oru%. !err) *duc. #ssn. v. !err) %ocal *ducators/ #ssn. (19:)(istrict2s "rant o# exc!usi$e access to the teachers2 ar"ainin" representati$eto interschoo! %ai! sste% oes not $io!ate the 1st A%en. ri"hts o# ri$a! teacher"roup since it is nonpu!ic #oru%? use o# the #aci!ities a!!ows representati$e toper#or% o!i"ations to a!! teachers? an a!ternati$e channe!s o# unionteacherco%%unication re%ain open).

Airports are not esi"nation or pu!ic #ora. Int/l Soc/) for (rishnaConsciousness v. %ee (199*) (upho!in" re"u!ation prohiitin" so!icitation anreceipt o# #uns in airport ter%ina!s).

o The traition o# airport acti$it oes not e%onstrate that airports ha$ehistorica!! een %ae a$ai!a!e #or speech acti$it. The princip!epurpose is #aci!itatin" tra$e!, not pro%otin" exchan"e o# ieas. Oor arethe ter%ina!s esi"nate pu!ic #ora intentiona!! open to speech acti$it.

o The ru!e is a reasona!e contentneutra! re"u!ation "i$en the isrupti$e

eIect o# so!icitation on the nor%a! @ow o# traIic an the potentia! #or#rau an uress o# harrie tra$e!ers.

Pa"e ;- o# :



o D. Kenne (with : other 7ustices) ar"ues that airport ter%ina!s are pu!ic#or a since the share phsica! si%i!arities with other pu!ic #ora. The $er reath an extent o# the pu!ic2s use o# airports %a8e it i%perati$eto protect speech ri"hts there. Ti%e, p!ace an %anner re"u!ation canassure that expressi$e acti$it is >uite co%pati!e with the uses o# %a7orairports.

Pu!ic te!e$ision roacastin" is a nonpu!ic #oru% an roacaster2s exc!usiono# an inepenent caniate #ro% a eate oes not $io!ate the 1st A%en.

Caniate2s exc!usion was ase on !ac8 o# pu!ic support rather than $iewpoint iscri%ination. #r". *duc. 6elevision Comm/n v. or'es (199).

o The pu!ic #oru% shou! not e extene in a %echanica! wa to the

context o# pu!ic te!e$ision roacastin". Te!e$ision roacasters en7othe wiest 7ourna!is% #reeo% consistent with their pu!icresponsii!ities.

The nature o# eitoria! iscretion counse!s a"ainst su7ectin"

roacasters to c!ai%s o# $iewpoint iscri%ination. Pro"ra%%in"ecisions wou! e particu!ar! $u!nera!e to c!ai%s o# this tpe. Asa resu!t, roacasters %i"ht ecie to a$oi contro$ers ani%inish the #ree @ow o# ieas.

o A esi"nate pu!ic #oru% is not create when "o$ern%ent a!!owsse!ecti$e access #or ini$iua! spea8ers rather than "enera! access #or ac!ass o# spea8ers.

o$ern%ent oes not create a esi"nate pu!ic #oru% when it

oes not %ore than reser$e e!i"ii!it #or access to the #oru% to aparticu!ar c!ass o# spea8ers.

o Oonpu!ic #oru% status oes not %ean that the "o$ern%ent can restrict

speech in whate$er wa it !i8es. To e consistent with the 1st A%en., theexc!usion o# a spea8er #ro% a nonpu!ic #oru% %ust not e ase on thespea8er2s $iewpoint an %ust otherwise e reasona!e in !i"ht o# the

purpose o# the propert.o D. =te$ens (with =outer, insur") issentin", ar"ues that pu!ic

roacastin" is !i%ite pu!ic #oru%, an the eitoria! ecision was ahoc an !ac8e stanars pointin" to e$ience that the inepenentcaniate i ha$e support enou"h to aIect the outco%e.

<# a co%para!e ecision were %ae toa a pri$ate! owne

networ8, it wou! e su7ect to scrutin uner the Feera! E!ectionCa%pai"n Act un!ess the networ8 use preesta!ishe o7ecti$ecriteria to eter%ine which caniates %a participate in theeate. Oo such criteria "o$erne the AETC.

'ecause AETC is owne the =tate, e#erence to its interest in

%a8in" a hoc ecisions aout the po!itica! content o# its pro"ra%snecessari! increases the ris8 o# "o$ern%ent censorship anpropa"ana in a wa that protection o# pri$ate! owneroacasters oes not.

The ispositi$e issue is not whether AETC create a esi"nate

pu!ic #oru% or a nonpu!ic #oru%, ut whether AETC ene thecontours o# the eate #oru% with suIicient specicit to 7usti# theexc!usion o# a a!!ot>ua!ie caniate.

Pa"e ;H o# :



• AETC2s contro! was co%para!e to that o# a !oca! "o$ern%entoIicia! authori4e to issue per%its to use pu!ic #aci!ities #orexpressi$e acti$ities an hence wou! a!so nee narrow,o7ecti$e enite stanars re>uire to su7ect 1st A%en.#reeo%s to prior restraint.

hen the e%an #or spea8in" #aci!ities excees supp!, the =tate

%ust ration o# a!!ocate the scarce resources on so%e accepta!eneutra! princip!e.

Commer)ial See)% (e;nition4 Expression that oes no %ore than propose a co%%ercia!

transaction? expression re!ate so!e! to the econo%ic interests o# the spea8eran its auience.

<n 5alentine v. Chrestensen (19*), the Court unani%ous! he! thatco%%ercia! speech was outsie the 1st A%en. since it i not re!ate to se!#"o$ern%ent or pro%ote ini$iua! se!#i"init.

<t is now esta!ishe that e$en co%%ercia! a$ertisin" (assu%in" the acti$ita$ertise is !e"a!) en7os so%e 1st A%en. protection thou"h not as sustantia!as other speech. 5a. State Bd. of !harmac) v 5a. Citizns Consumer Council(19;H) (consu%er an societ ha$e a stron" interest in #ree @ow o#in#or%ation).

o <t is ar"ue that co%%ercia! speech has "reater o7ecti$it an hariness

per%ittin" "reater state re"u!ation.o The prior restraint octrine oes not app!.

o +estriction o# co%%ercia! speech wi!! not e #acia!! in$a!iate ecauseo# o$erreath.

o Ar"uin" #or %ore re"u!ation/ A$ertisin" pressure oes %ore than

in@uence content? it so%eti%es ictates it. E$en non!ie!ous po!itica!issent, when critica! o# a$ertisers, is su7ect to outri"ht suppression.

Co%%ercia! speech is co%%ercia! power. Unrote)te& Commer)ial See)%4 Pro$iin" in#or%ation aout i!!e"a!acti$ities or contrar to pu!ic po!ic is not protecte the 1 st A%en. (e.".sexesi"nate he!p wante as, constitutin" i!!e"a! sex iscri%ination, are notprotecte). Fa!se an %is!eain" a$ertisin" is not protecte (e.". state statuteprohiitin" use o# trae na%es #or opto%etr is $a!i, since it ha no intrinsic%eanin"). 3owe$er, #a!se e#a%ator pu!ication, no in$o!$in" co%%ercia!speech, oes en7o constitutiona! protection.

*o&ern Stan&ar&4 A #or% o# inter%eiate re$iew to eter%ine theconstitutiona! protection pro$ie (Centr. ,udson &as 1 *lec. v. !u'. Serv.Comm/n of - )/

#lthough remaining valid law; the Court has 'een less deferential in a00l)ingthis test and a num'er of 2ustices have <uestioned its use for reviewingregulation of truthful; nonmisleading information.

1) =peech %ust not e %is!eain" or re!ate to un!aw#u! acti$it*) The asserte "o$ern%ent interest %ust e sustantia!:) o$ern%ent re"u!ation %ust irect! a$ance the "o$ern%enta! interest

assertea. The re"u!ation %ust a$ance the "o$ern%enta! interest in a irect

an %ateria! wa, that the potentia! har%s are rea! an that the

Pa"e ;; o# :



re"u!ation wi!! a!!e$iate the% to a %ateria! e"ree. The re!ationshipcannot e !e#t to specu!ation o# con7ecture.

) +e"u!ation %ust not e %ore extensi$e than is necessar to ser$e thatinterest

a. +e"u!ation can e necessar e$en i# it is not the !east restricti$e%eans o# achie$in" the sustantia! state interests? it is suIicient i#there is a 5reasona!e t.6

. The a$ai!ai!it o# !ess urenso%e a!ternati$es re%ains re!e$ant in

eter%inin" i# the t is reasona!e.o A proph!actic re"u!ation esi"ne to a$ert the potentia! #or eception is

se!o% suIicient to %eet this test. =tate prohiition on truth#u! uti!it a$ertisin" to pro%ote the use o# e!ectricit

$io!ates the 1st & 1th A%ens. Centr. ,udson (190) (#or%u!atin" an app!in"the pre$ai!in" stanar).

o 1st/ The co%%ercia! speech oes not concern i!!e"a! acti$it an is not

%is!eain", thus the 1st A%en. app!ies.o *n/ The "o$ern%ent interest in #air rates an ener" conser$ation are

c!ear an sustantia!.o :r/ The prohiition o# a$ertisin" oes irect! a$ance the "o$ern%ent

interest in ener" conser$ation since a$ertisin" is esi"ne to increasethe use o# e!ectricit.

o th/ hi!e pro%otiona! a$ertisin" is irect! re!ate to the state2sinterests in ener" conser$ation, a tota! prohiition is %ore extensi$ethan is necessar to #urther the state2s ener" conser$ation interest.

A state uni$ersit has a sustantia! interest in re"u!atin" co%%ercia! speech inthe #or% o# Tupperware parties in co!!e"e or%s to pro%ote an eucationa!rather than a co%%ercia! at%osphere an pre$entin" the co%%ercia!exp!oitation o# stuents an preser$in" resientia! tran>ui!it. Bd. of 6rusteesof State +niv. of - v. o7 (199) (a re"u!ation is narrow! tai!ore to a$ance

these interests i# the =tate pro$es that the !aw oes not uren sustantia!!%ore speech than is necessar to #urther the interest? there %ust e a5reasona!e6 t).

=tate !aw annin" a$ertise%ent o# retai! !i>uor prices except at the p!ace o#sa!e $io!ates the 1st A%en.? an the *1st A%en. oes not >ua!i# the !awari"in" the #reeo% o# speech in the 1st A%en. 33 %i<uormart v. R.I. (199H)(=te$ens #or the p!ura!it o# the Court? 2Connor2s concurrence pre$entso$erru!in" the !osadas ho!in" that the !e"is!ature can choose suppression o$era !ess speechrestricti$e po!ic an that the "reater state re"u!ator powerinc!ues the !esser, (power to an the acti$it %ust inc!ue power to ana$ertisin" #or it)).

o

hen the =tate re"u!ates co%%ercia! %essa"es to protect consu%ers#ro% %is!eain", or ecepti$e, or a""ressi$e sa!es practices, or re>uiresthe isc!osure o# enecia! consu%er in#or%ation, the purpose o# itsre"u!ation is consistent with the reasons #or accorin" constitutiona!protection to co%%ercia! speech an there#ore 7usties !ess than strictre$iew.

o 3owe$er, when a =tate entire! prohiits isse%ination o# non%is!eain"co%%ercia! %essa"es #or reasons unre!ate to the preser$ation o# a #airar"ainin" process, there is #ar !ess reason to epart #ro% the ri"orous

Pa"e ; o# :



re$iew that the 1st A%en. "enera!! e%ans? an it %ust e re$iewewith 5specia! care6 uner Centr. ,udson.

o *n/ =tate c!ai%s its interest in pro%otin" te%perance 7usties this an,

ut there is no e$ience to support this. E!i%ination o# the an wou!si"nicant! increase a!coho! consu%ption i# specu!ati$e.

o :r/ Oot an eIecti$e nor irect wa to achie$e interests. 3ea$ rin8ers

wou! sti!! purchase espite price.o th/ +estriction on speech is %ore extensi$e than necessar. =tate

interest cou! e acco%p!ishe eucationa! pro"ra%s an hi"hertaxes.

!osadas erroneous! per#or%e the 1st A%en. ana!sis. (=te$ens,

Kenne, Tho%as, insur")

• !osadas c!ear! erre in conc!uin" that it was up to the

!e"is!ature to choose suppression o$er a !essrestricti$e po!ic.

• Cannot accept the contention that the 5"reaterinc!uethe!esser6 reasonin" ecause it is inconsistent with !o"ic anwe!!sett!e octrine.

o 'annin" speech %a so%eti%es e %ore intrusi$e than

annin" conuct. ors are not necessari! !ess $ita! to#reeo% than actions, or that !o"ic so%ehow pro$es thatthe power to prohiit an acti$it is necessari! "reaterthan the power to suppress speech aout it.

• 1st A%en. irects that "o$ern%ent %a not suppress speechas easi! as it %a suppress conuct an that speechrestrictions cannot e treate as si%p! another %eans thatthe "o$ern%ent %a use to achie$e its ens.

• The =tate2s re"u!ation o# a sa!e o# "oos iIers in 8in #ro%the =tate2s re"u!ation o# accurate in#or%ation aout those"oos. <t2s power to an the sa!e o# !i>uor entire! oes not

inc!ue a power to censor a!! a$ertise%ents that containaccurate in#or%ation aout the price o# the prouct.

• npersuasi$e that the speech re"u!ation tar"ete a 5$ice6acti$it. 3ar to ene $ice an annin" speech aout it,whi!e a!!owin" the acti$it is not a princip!e 7ustication.

o D. =ca!ia issentin", is unco%#orta!e with the Centr. ,udson test ut

oes not ha$e the wherewitha! to o$erru!e it or rep!ace it with so%ethin"e!se? a!so shares a$ersion to paterna!istic "o$ern%ent po!icies that shie!#acts #ro% the pu!ic.

o D. Tho%as concurrin" in 7u"%ent, ns that app!ication o# Centr. ,udsonshou! not e app!ie in this 8in o# case in which the "o$ern%ent2sasserte interest is to 8eep !e"a! users o# a prouct o# ser$ice i"norant inorer to %anipu!ate their choices in the %ar8etp!ace.

=uch an interest is 0er se i!!e"iti%ate an can no %ore 7usti# a

re"u!ation o# co%%ercia! speech than it can 7usti# re"u!ation o#nonco%%ercia! speech.

P!ura!it2s interpretation o# the th pron" o# the Centr. ,udson

co%%its the courts to stri8in" own restrictions on speechwhene$er a irect re"u!ation wou! e an e>ua!! eIecti$e %ethoo# a%penin" e%an !e"a! users. 3owe$er, in a!! cases annin"

Pa"e ;9 o# :



the prouct wou! e as eIecti$e as restrictin" its a$ertisin", suchthat, a!! restrictions with such a purpose wou! #ai! the th pron" o#the test.

+ather than usin" Centr. ,udson, he wou! app! 5a. !harmac) Bd.,

uner which these restrictions wou! #ai!.o D. 2Connor concurrin" (with +ehn>uist, =outer, 'reer), wou! reso!$e

the case app!in" Centr. ,udson. =ince it #ai!s the th pron", the an isin$a!i.

<n orer #or a speech restriction to pass %uster uner the th pron",there %ust e a t that is reasona!e an that represents a scopethat is in proportion to the interest ser$e.

=ince !osadas, the Court has exa%ine %ore searchin"! the

=tate2s pro#esse "oa!, an the speech restriction put into p!ace to#urther it, e#ore acceptin" the =tate2s c!ai% that the speechrestriction satises the 1st A%en. The c!oser !oo8 we ha$ere>uire co%ports etter with the purpose o# the ana!sis set out inCentr. ,udson, re>uirin" the =tate to show that the speechre>uire%ent irect! a$ances its interests an is narrow! tai!ore.

o Ootes/

+. Post/ Co%%ercia! speech recei$es protection ecause o# its

in#or%ationa! #unction, whereas pu!ic iscourse is protecte toassure citi4en participation. The in#or%ationprotection rationa!e o# co%%ercia! speech exp!ains wh it can e su7ect to restrictionsthat wou! not e to!erate in the case o# pu!ic iscourse (e.".,prior restraint, o$erreath an co%pe!!e isc!osure). 'ut theCentr. ,udson test is inae>uate to acco%p!ish the in#or%ationa!#unction o# co%%ercia! speech.

• <t wi!! either continue to un#o! e$e!opin" octrina! too!snecessar to assess the i%pact o# state re"u!ation on the

actua! circu!ation o# co%%ercia! in#or%ation, or the Court wi!!%er"e it with pu!ic iscourse.

=. =herr ar"ues that concrete, atheoretica! concerns p!a a

sustantia! ro!e in the Court2s co%%ercia! speech cases,e%onstrate its re!iance on e%pirica! ata in so%e cases.

• The Court creite the istrict court nin"s o# #act ase on

e%pirica! stuies o# !i>uor consu%ption patterns, re7ectin"the appe!!ate court2s nin" o# inherit %erit in the state2sar"u%ent that co%petiti$e price a$ertisin" wou! !owerprices an thus increase a!coho! sa!es.

C. E. 'a8er ar"ues that a$ertisers, not "o$ern%ents, are the

pri%ar censors o# %eiate content in the =. 3e e!ie$es thecurrent co%%ercia! speech octrine tens to #a$or re"u!ation o#co%%ercia! speech since an "oo po!ic 7ustication #or a tax orre"u!ation shou! e#eat an a$ertiser2s 1st A%en. c!ai%s.

O.s)ene See)% Oo 1st A%en. protection #or oscene speech since such expression !ac8s socia!

i%portance.

Pa"e 0 o# :



(e;nition4 <n orer #or %ateria! to e cate"ori4e as oscene it %ust satis#each e!e%ent ( Miller v. Cal.=/

a) hether the a$era"e person, app!in" conte%porar co%%unitstanars wou! n that the wou!, ta8en as a who!e, appea!s to theprurient interest?

i. Dur eter%ination (not chi!ren) o# co%%unit stanars. Oationa!stanar oes not nee to e conte%p!ate.

1. Oo expert e$ience is re>uires to esta!ish is re>uire to

esta!ish oscenit.) hether the wor8 epicts or escries, in a patent! oIensi$e wa, sexua!

conuct specica!! ene the app!ica!e state !aw? anc) hether the wor8 ta8en as a who!e !ac8s serious !iterar, artistic,

po!itica! or scientic $a!ue.i. Du"e as a who!e an o7ecti$e reasona!e person stanar.

!o0e v. Illin.o <n %a8in" this eter%ination, the 7ur sste% wi!! e use.

Court2s "uie!ine to ene oscenit tries to exc!ue 5har core6 porno"raph#ro% 1st A%en. protection. 3owe$er, conuct %ust e specica!! ene the app!ica!e =tate !aw or authoritati$e! construe #or the re"u!ation to econstitutiona!. Miller v. Cal. (19;:).

o Oo one wi!! e su7ect to prosecution #or the sa!e or exposure o# oscene

%ateria!s un!ess these %ateria!s epict or escrie patent! oIensi$e5harcore6 sexua! conuct specica!! enes the re"u!atin" state !awas written or construe.

o These specic prere>uisites wi!! pro$ie #air notice to a ea!er in such

%ateria!s that his pu!ic an co%%ercia! acti$ities %a rin"prosecution.

o A!thou"h notin" that it is not the Court2s #unction to propose re"u!ator

sche%es, a #ew exa%p!es o# what a state statute cou! ene #or

re"u!ation as patent! oIensi$e sexua! conuct/ Patent! oIensi$e representations or epictions o# u!ti%ate sexua!

acts, nor%a! or per$erts, actua! or si%u!ate. Patent! oIensi$e representations or epictions o# %asturation,

excretor #unctions an !ew exhiition o# the "enita!s.o At a %ini%u%, prurient, patent! oIensi$e epiction or escription o#

sexua! conuct %ust ha$e serious !iterar, artistic, po!itica! or scientic $a!ue to %erit 1st A%en. protection.

hi!e Miller was %eant to !ea$e the eter%ination o# oscenit to !oca!co%%unities, this oes not prec!ue inepenent 7uicia! re$iew e$en o# the 7ur eter%ination o# oscenit. Constitutiona! stanars %ust e satise.

Gere possession o# oscene %atter (except #or chi! porno"raph) cannotconstitutiona!! e %ae a cri%e. Pri$ac, a #una%enta! ri"ht, protects whatan ini$iua! reas or watches in his own ho%e.

o 'ut the ri"ht o# pri$ac oes not protect oscene isp!as in p!aces o#

pu!ic acco%%oation e$en when eIecti$e sa#e"uars are e%p!oea"ainst exposure to 7u$eni!es an passers. !aris #dult 6heater v. Slaton(19;:).

o Possession o# chi! porno"raph can e cri%ina!i4e ecause o# the

state2s co%pe!!in" interests in protectin" the phsica! an pscho!o"ica!we!!ein" o# the %inors an in estroin" the %ar8et #or the exp!oiti$e

Pa"e 1 o# :



use o# chi!ren istin"uish this #ro% other oscene %ateria!. Os'orne v.Ohio (1990).

Contro! o# oscenit %a a!so ta8e the #or% o# ci$i! statutes such as nuisance or4onin" !aws, which constitute prior restraints in$o!$in" !icensin", in7unction,an a%inistrati$e censorship. The Court "enera!! has ta8en a %ore #a$ora!eattitue to such prior restraints on the theor that the a$oi %an o# the e$i!so# oscenit contro! pursue throu"h cri%ina! !aws. !aris #dult 6heater v.Slaton (19;:).

o Fre>uent!, 4onin" !aws are treate as ti%e, p!ace an %annerre"u!ations rather than content contro!s rather than content contro!s. <ncases where the re"u!ation si"nicant! eIects protecte acti$it, the !aw%ust e esi"ne to achie$e a sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest an !ea$eopen reasona!e a!ternati$e channe!s o# co%%unication.

o <# the re"u!ation oes not si"nicant! uren expression o# the eIects o#

speech, the 1st A%en. protection oes not app! an the !aw nee on! erationa!.

In&e)ent See)% an& Broa&)astin Fu!! 1st A%en. protection oes not exten to roacastin" ue to the per$asi$e

nature o# the %eiu% an ease o# accessii!it to chi!ren. CC v. !acica ound. (19;) (FCC authorit to re"u!ate 5an oscene, inecent, or pro#ane!an"ua"e %eans o# raio co%%unications6 oes not $io!ate 1st A%en.).

o The constitutiona! protection accore to a co%%unication containin"such patent! oIensi$e sexua! an excretor !an"ua"e nee not e thesa%e in e$er context. <t is the characteristic o# such speech that oth itscapacit to oIen an its socia! $a!ue $ar with the circu%stances.

o 'ecause content o# that character is not entit!e to aso!ute

constitutiona! protection uner a!! circu%stances, the Court %ustconsier its context in orer to eter%ine whether the FCC2s action was

per%issi!e. Court has reco"ni4e that each %eiu% o# expression presents

specia! 1st A%en. pro!e%s.o The "o$ern%ent re"u!ation is ase on a nuisance rationa!e, which %a

%ere! e the ri"ht thin" at the wron" ti%e. This oes not epen onnin" that the speech was oscene.

'roacast %eia has a uni>ue! per$asi$e presence an the

auience constant! tunes in an out, #or which prior warnin"s #orpro"ra%%in" %a e ineIecti$e.

'roacast is a!so uni>ue! accessi!e to chi!ren, e$en those too

oun" to rea, which 7usties specia! treat%ent o# inecent

roacastin".o D. Powe!! (with '!ac8%un) concurrin" e%phasi4es that the Court2s

ecision turns on the uni>ue characteristics o# the roacast %eia,co%ine with societ2s ri"ht to protect its chi!ren #ro% speechinappropriate #or their a"e an not on the $a!ue or protection accorethe speech.

o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!) issentin", ar"ues that the FCC orer is not aper%issi!e ti%e, p!ace an %anner re"u!ation ecause it is ase oncontent.

Pa"e * o# :



The %ono!o"ue oes not #a!! into the cate"ories o# unprotecte

speech, hence is shou! e protecte. hate$er the %ini%a! isco%#ort suIere a !istener who

ina$ertent! tunes into a pro"ra% he ns oIensi$e urin" therie# inter$a! e#ore he can si%p! switch stations is sure! worththe can!e to preser$e the roacaster2s ri"ht to sen an the ri"hto# those to recei$e a %essa"e entit!e to the #u!! 1st A%en.protection.

'ecause the %ono!o"ue is o$ious! not an erotic appea! to theprurient interests o# chi!ren, the Court, #or the 1st ti%e, a!!ows the"o$ern%ent to pre$ent %inors #ro% "ainin" access to %ateria!s thatare not oscene, an are there#ore protecte as to the%.

The responsii!it an ri"ht to wee worth!ess an oIensi$e

co%%unications #ro% the pu!ic airwas resies with the pu!ic in a%ar8etp!ace unsu!!ie the censor2s han.

hen the %eiu% re>uires the !istener to ta8e aIir%ati$e steps to recei$e theco%%unication, an techno!o"ica! %eans to !i%its its a$ai!ai!it, a tota! an o#the %ateria! is not narrow! tai!ore to ser$e the co%pe!!in" interest o#pre$entin" %inors #ro% ein" expose. Sa'le Commc/n of Cal. v. CC (199).

o There is no capti$e auience pro!e% where a ca!!er see8s an is wi!!in"to pa #or the co%%unication. This is %ani#est! iIerent #ro% asituation in which a !istener oes not want to recei$e the %essa"e.

o Court re7ecte the "o$ern%ent2s ar"u%ent that nothin" !ess that a tota!

an wou! pre$ent chi!ren #ro% otainin" access to ia!aporn%essa"es, which are sexua!! inecent ut not oscene. Techno!o"ica!%eans were a$ai!a!e to pre$ent such access.

Documents

Constitutional Law II - Barron - Fall 2006