 Review the first day power point!!  Know the different tests (strict scrutiny, middle level review, mere rationality review) and different classes (suspect, quasi/semi-suspect etc, and which groups included in each)!  Note – Court refers to classes under mere rationality review as either semi-suspect or quasi-suspect, we have used both in class which is why it says quasi/semi- suspect)  Understand the example given about the carpenter and how all 3 tests could be used (in the power point)

 Issue: Whether Scott could be a citizen of the US and therefore receive all protections of constitution? Whether Missouri compromise was unconstitutional?  Decision: No; Yes.  Significance: No longer good law, overturned by passing of 13, 14, 15 Amendments  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional (CRA made it a federal crime to deny on basis of race any individual’s equal access to inns, public transportation, and other public places of accommodations)  Decision: Yes  Significance: First time SC says 14 th Amendment rights applicable only where state action is present. No longer good law, overturned in 1964 & 1965 by Civil Rights Act which included eating establishments and other public places of accomodations  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether LA law violated the 14 th Amendment?  Decision: No  Significance: This case formulated and upheld the “separate but equal” doctrine  Precedents: Roberts v. City of Boston -ruled segregated schools were constitutional

 Issue: Whether the restrictive covenant, restricting the sale of homes to minorities, violated the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes  Significance: Still good law, you can have restrictive covenants, but they won’t be enforced by the Courts  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether segregation of races in public schools violates the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes, unanimous!  Significance:  Precedent: Sweatt v. Painter –ruled that segregated law schools were not equal because did not provide equal educational opportunities

 Issue: Whether the segregation of public schools based on race was a violation of the due process clause of the 5 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes  Significance: Still good law, applied Brown v. BOE to the federal governments  Precedent: Brown v. BOE

 Issue: How should Brown I be implemented? By when do schools need to be integrated?  Decision: Schools must integrate “with all deliberate speed”  Significance: Decision was apology for not setting precise guidelines as well as a recognition for the limitation of judicial power  Precedent: Brown v. BOE

 Issue: Whether the multidistrict desegregation plan was an appropriate remedy to the de facto segregation in the Detroit area?  Decision: No, it was not  Significance: Still good law, court defines difference btwn de facto and de jure segregation. Not the job of the courts to fight de facto segregation, only de jure segregation.  Precedent: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg— federal courts may not order a school board to adjust the racial composition of any of its schools unless there has been a finding that there was de jure segregation

 Issue: Whether University of California’s quota system used for admissions violated the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes  Significance: even though quota system unconstitutional, it upheld affirmative action, also noted that affirmative action plans subject to strict scrutiny  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether law school’s consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions was a violation of the EP clause?  Decision: No, was constitutional  Significance: Law school’s best interest to create diverse student body, upheld Bakke, recognized benefits of affirmative action  Precedent: Bakke

 Issue: Whether UM use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates equal protection clause of 14 th Amendment? (used point system, people assigned automatic 20 points)  Decision: Yes, unconstitutional  Significance: upheld Bakke but no factor can be solely based on race  Precedent: Bakke, Grutter

 Remember 4 things we wrote down that help us in analyzing cases and state of law after Grutter & Gratz  Race conscious admissions measures will receive strict scrutiny, and thus must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objective  Pursuit of diversity in student body can be compelling objective  A one at a time student evaluation where race is merely one factor among various ones is sufficiently narrow  Mechanical approaches resembling quotas such as automatically awarding an applicant a fixed number of points towards admissions based on race are not narrowly tailored and therefore violate EP

 Issue: Whether the Seattle school district’s policy of using race as a “tie breaker” to help determine which high school students should go to violates EP clause of the 14 th Amendment.  Decision: Yes, policy unconstitutional  Significance: Affirmative action cannot be applied in school system with race as a determinative factor  Precedent: Bakke, Gratz, Grutter

 Brief Facts: Woman in air force, husband had to prove he was dependent on her before he could get benefits, men in air force, their wives were presumed to be dependent  Issue: Whether the difference in benefit treatments btwn men and women (for their spouses) violates due process clause of 5 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes, unconstitutional  Significance: While gender given strict scrutiny in this case, court later settled on middle level review  Precedent: Reed v. Reed – overturned a law that gave fathers of deceased mandatory preference over mothers in administering deceased estate bc gave preferences to males without regard to their individual qualifications

 Issue: Whether gender-based difference regarding sale of non-intoxicating beer constitutes a denial to males years old of the EP of laws of 14 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes, unconstitutional  Significance: Court permanently settled on intermediate level of scrutiny for gender-based classifications, regardless of whether they are benign.  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether the statute denying welfare benefits to residents who have not resided in the state for at least one year violates 14 th amendment equal protection clause?  Decision: Yes, unconstitutional  Significance: strict scrutiny applies to fundamental rights, right to travel is fundamental right  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether the mentally retarded should be regarded as a quasi/semi-suspect class? Whether the city ordinance violated the EP clause of the 14 th Amendment?  Decision: No, mentally retarded not quasi- suspect class; yes, city ordinance violated EP  Significance: SC felt best way to protect the mentally retarded was to not classify them as quasi-suspect  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether Mississippi statute which excluded males from enrolling in state- supported professional nursing school violated the EP clause of 14 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes, unconstitutional  Significance: Still good law, very narrow ruling, Court’s reasoning based on nursing profession and fact that majority in profession were women and that had been true historically  Precedent: NA

 Issue: Whether law prohibiting sodomy was unconstitutional under due process clause of 14 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes, unconstitutional  Significance: recognized equal rights of homosexuals and court recognized that there has been history of discrimination, trying to reverse some of that  Precedent: Romer v. Evans

 Issue: Whether DOMA violates due process clause of 5 th Amendment?  Decision: Yes, DOMA unconstitutional  Significance: declared DOMA unconstitutional, Federal govt must recognize same sex marriages if state permits it  Precedent: Lawrence v. Texas

 Issue: Whether Prop 8 violates EP clause of 14 th Amendment?  Decision: Court didn’t answer this, Court found petitioners lacked standing to bring the case  Significance: Allowed lower court’s ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional to stand, leaves big question of whether law prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitional  Precedent: NA