BLAW Week 12 – Flashcards

An article in Article 1, Section 8 of constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate any activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce

Trade, Traffic, Transportation in the United States. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate any activity that has a SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT on interstate commerce

A case that was an important test to the Commerce Clause Congress tried to stabilize wheat/grain prices. Filburn grew more wheat than he was allowed to ; was fined. He claimed Congress didn't have the right to regulate him bc none of his wheat went into interstate commerce. AKA, Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to tell him what to do. Supreme court disagree w/ Filburn, & decide that his home grown wheat DOES have a substantial economic impact on interstate commerce. Congress reasoned that if Filburn hadn't grown his own wheat, he would've had to have bought wheat from the open market. They said that this effect, while not substantial just from Filburn, would be substantial through the cumulitive actions of thousands of farmers doing the same thing

States that the Constitution, and federal statutes and treaties, shall be the supreme law of the land. If there's a conflict bw federal ; state laws, the Federal Law will PREEMPT (control) the issue. The state law will be void. Thus, state law only control when there's no conflicting federal law, and has not expressed an intention to preempt the issue.

1st amendment "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."

The government regulates commercial speech, provided that the rules are reasonable and directed to a legitimate goal. However, Political speech gets more protection. It can be prohibited only if it is intended and likely to create imminent lawless action. Ex: A town may require a group to apply for a permit before using a public park for a political demonstration. The town may insist that the demonstration take place during daylight hours and that there be adequate police supervision and sanitation provided. However, the town may not prohibit such demonstrations outright. Ex: Many public universities have designated "free speech zones" located in high-traffic areas of campus that are not immediately adjacent to a large number of classrooms. The zones allow for debates to proceed and reach many students, but they minimize the chances that noisy demonstrations will interfere with lectures. The Supreme Court has consistently held that obscenity does not play a valued role in our society and has refused to give protection to obscene works. If a trial finds that the answer to 3 specific questions is YES, It can be judged as Obscene. If the answer to ANY of the 3 is NO, then it's not obscene. This is the 3-pronged Miller Test.

No, never! Use the 3-pronged Miller Test! If a trial finds that the answer to these 3 specific questions is YES, It can be judged as Obscene. If the answer to ANY of the 3 is NO, then it's not obscene. 1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient (people interested in inappropriate shit) interest; 2) Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by state law 3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Speech that has a dominant theme to propose a commercial transaction (like advertisements). It's protected by the First Amendment, but the govt is permitted to regulate it more closely than other forms of speech. Commercial speech that is false, unlawful, or misleading gets no protection; otherwise, regulations on this speech must be reasonable and directed to a legitimate goal. Edward Salib owned a Winchell's Donut House in Mesa, Arizona. To attract customers, he displayed large signs in his store window. The city ordered him to remove the signs, because they violated its Sign Code, which prohibited covering more than 30 percent of a store's windows with signs. Salib sued, claiming that the Sign Code violated his First Amendment free speech rights. The trial court gave summary judgment for Mesa, and the store owner appealed. Does Mesa's sign code violate the 1st amendment? Under this (Central Hudson), Commercial Speech that isn't either unlawful or misleading (which doesn't get any protection) may be regulated if the govt satisfies a 3-pronged test. 1) the govt must assert a substantial interest in support of the regulation. 2) the govt must demonstrate that the challenged regulation advances its interest in a direct and material way. 3) Is the regulation "narrowly tailored" to directly advance a goal, meaning is there a reasonable fit between the intent and purpose of the regulation and the means chosen to accomplish those goals required. 1) Mesa argues, and Salib agrees, that the governmental regulation of aesthetics constitutes a substantial interest, so the first prong of Central Hudson is not at issue. 2) Salib argues that this prong has not been met because no studies were conducted to determine what aesthetic or safety problems existed and how the Sign Code could solve such problems. Mesa responds that the Sign Code was enacted because of legitimate concerns among business owners that many businesses in the area had 100 percent coverage of their storefront windows and that this total coverage was unattractive and detracted from the aesthetics of the city. 3) Mesa argues that 30 percent is a reasonable compromise between 100 percent coverage and a total ban of signage. Further, Mesa argues, the Sign Code is narrow because it only addresses signs that are inside the pane, and the Code allows alternative methods of communication, including signs hanging outside of the window sill area. Additionally, Mesa conducted comparisons with other communities and found that the 30 percent restriction on window coverage was comparable to other cities' restrictions. The Sign Code directly advances a substantial governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to directly advance the goal of improved aesthetics. The trial court grants Mesa Summary Judgment.

The 5th ; 14th amendments both have a due process clauses. 5th is w/ Federal Govt, ; 14th is w/ state and local govt. Procedural Due process is required whenever the government attempts to take liberty or property. The point of Procedural Due Process is that before depriving anyone of liberty or property, the government must go through certain steps, or procedures, to ensure that the result is fair. This process is to ensure that before the government takes liberty or property, the affected person has a fair chance to oppose the action. 1) Is the government attempting to take liberty or property? 2) If so, how much process is due? (If the government is not attempting to take liberty or property, there is no due process issue.)

1) Is the government attempting to take liberty or property? liberty is obvious, but property can mean the govt taking my education (my property) or me being fired from my job (my property). With these things, I deserve Due Process, just like when my liberty is taken away. 2) If so, how much process is due? (If the government is not attempting to take liberty or property, there is no due process issue). The more important the interest, the more formal the procedures must be. Regardless of how formal the hearing, one requirement is constant: The fact finder must be neutral (meaning they have no personal interest in the outcome). Usually, there's a pre-deprivation hearing. There must be a neutral fact-finder w/ Procedural Due Process 3) govt employees are entitled to know the charges against them, to hear the employer's evidence, and to have an opportunity to tell his side of the story. They're not entitled to have a lawyer present. 4) Due process = served if student receives notice of the reason he's dismissed and has some opportunity to respond, such as by writing a letter contradicting the school's claims. No hearing is required in due process if it's for just something like missing too many classes. In cases of disciplinary suspension or expulsion, courts require schools to provide a higher level of due process.

Together, The Due Process Clause ; The Takings Clause state that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 3 clauses prevent the govt from arbitrarily taking a person's important shit. The government has the right to take a person's liberty or property. But there are three important limitations: Procedural Due Process Substantive Due Process The Takings Clause

1 of the 3 due process clauses. When the government takes property for public use, such as to build a new highway, it has to pay a fair price (just compensation). Eminent Domain = power of the govt to take private property for public use. Officials must notify you of their intentions and give you an opportunity to oppose the project and to challenge the amount the town offers to pay. But when the hearings are done, the town may write you a check and level your house, whether you like it or not. The govt must express an unquestionable intent to take the private property for PUBLIC USE

A part of the due process clause, but separate from the takings clause and procedural due process. The substance of any law or government action may be challenged on fundamental fairness grounds, meaning you're challenging the fact that you believe you have a right that's so fundamental the govt can't take it at all. facts: This case limited punitive damages under the due process clause of the 14th amendment (so I know it had to do w/ state or local govt). Gore (plaintiff) bought BMW, discovered it was repainted before he bought it. BMW's policy was to sell damaged cars as new if there was a super small, inexpensive amt of damage. Gore sued, & got 4k in compensatory damages, & 4M in punitive damages, based on BMW's behavior over a while to a ton of unsuspecting customers. Issue: do super high punitive damages like this violate the Due Process clause of constitution? Court's Opinion: found that excessively high punitive damages DO violate due process clause, bc the punitive damages were "grossly excessive". If punitive damages are "grossly excessive", then they violate the substantive due process clause. AKA, a 3-pronged test was used to determine if the punitive damages were grossly excessive: 1) the degree of reprehensibility (how reprehensible was the act?) 2) the disparity (difference) bw the harm & potential harm 3) the amt of the punitive damage award & how big/small this is compared to similar cases the Court found that BMW's conduct was NOT particularly reprehensible (no reckless disregard for health or safety, nor even evidence of bad faith). The ratio of actual or potential damages to punitive damages was suspiciously high (4k vs 4M lmao). Finally, the criminal sanctions available for similar conduct were limited to $2,000, making the $2 million assessment the equivalent of a severe criminal penalty. However, The court noted that Punitive damages may be imposed to further a state's legitimate interest in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring the risk of it happening again as long as they are not "grossly excessive."

the 14th amendment; "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which means that Governments must treat people equally! Unfair classifications among people or corporations will not be permitted, such as racial discrimination. Our fundamental rights are PROTECTED by the Due Process Clause in the 14th amendment. However, the govt makes classifications every day. There are 3 categories of classifications: 1) minimal scrutiny; classifies ppl into economic or social categories; to be upheld, it must be RATIONALLY related to a legitimate goal. They're almost always upheld 2) Intermediate scrutiny; Gender-based classification; these are sometimes upheld; must have an exceedingly persuasive justification (good reason) to be upheld. Private school's aren't a part of the govt, so they can classify by gender bc they dont' get protection from the Equal Protection Clause. However, To keep a girl off an all boys team at a public high school, the school would have to prove that doing so substantially relates to an important government objective. 3) strict scrutiny; Race, Ethnicity, Fundamental Rights; almost never upheld; Any govt action that discriminates against racial/ethnic minorities or interferes with fundamental rights is invalid. In such cases, courts will look at statute/policy w/ Strict Scrutiny. How does a law pass a strict scrutiny test? - It must be justified by a compelling govt interest - That law/policy must be NARROWLY TAILORED to achieve that goal/interest, meaning its written to specifically fulfill only its intended goals - Law/policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

When there is no existing federal law, the Dormant Commerce Clause applies to tell us what states may or may not do. By granting Congress the power to regulate Commerce with the Commerce Clause, there's an implied restriction of state power, stating that if a state statute discriminates against interstate commerce, then it's almost always unconstitutional. Promoting the economic interest of a state's own citizens at the expense of out-of-state citizens is not a legitimate state objective it can use to rationalize the law, which places a burden on interstate commerce. The burden on interstate commerce must be outweighed by the benefit to the state's interests. Congress can expressly preempt any competing state laws if a state law conflicts with federal law or impedes the achievement of a federal objective. Also, if Congress shows they had a clear intent to preempt state law, the theory of implied preemption applies, and the federal law will rule over the state law. Preemption applies, however, only when there is a federal law which is on point.

Express Preemption = State law is expressly preempted in an area when a federal statute explicitly says the state can't regulate an activity, which is the subject of federal law (not state law) Implied Preemption = State Law is Impliedly Preempted when a state law conflicts w a federal law ; its objective. This also applies when Congress expresses obvious intent to preempt state law, but doesn't ever explicitly state that. If it did, it would be Express Preemption, and not implied.

2 Live Crew arrested for Obscenity. Found NOT guilty! It was a test of Freedom of speech: a 1st amendment right. Remember, to find that something is obscene, it must do all 3 of these: 1) offend community standards, 2) appeal to a morbid interest in sex, 3) lack artistic merit and value. A lot of people thought 2 live crew didn't have artistic merit, since they just swore a ton etc, but the court found that it reflected/parodied black street language, which has artistic merit. Since It has artistic merit, it's ruled not obscene, and is protected by Freedom of Speech (1st amendment).

Under the 1st amendment (freedom of speech), Political Speech is more protected than commercial speech, and is therefore subject to less regulation than commercial speech. It can be prohibited only if it is intended and likely to create imminent lawless action.

The reasonableness of a time, manner, place restriction on Freedom of Speech is evaluated w/ 3 rules: 1) restriction must be content-neutral 2) restriction must be viewpoint-neutral 3) restriction must burden speech no more than is necessary to serve an important govt interest Limited Public Forum Examples = courthouses (more regulation than most public forums bc duh, it's a courthouse... you can't just yell in there), uni campuses (think of the free speech quad area), state fairs, capital grounds

The Lemon Test! 3 prongs that outline the requirements for legislation concerning religion. 1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (AKA the Purpose Prong) 2) The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (AKA the Effect Prong) 3) The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (AKA the Entanglement Prong) If any of the 3 prongs is violated, the govt action is deemed unconstitutional under Establishment Clause of 1st amendment of constitution

This is short for "Incorporation of the Bill of Rights", and refers to the Incorporation Doctrine. The Bill of Rights used to only apply to the federal govt, but under the Incorporation doctrine, most bills also "incorporate" state ; local governments

City did not physically seize, but required dedication of part of private property to public use for zoning approval to building Regulatory taking

Congress passed a statute called "Gun-Free School Zones Act" to try to keep schools safe by forbidding firearms in school zones. Lopez carried a firearm into his SA high school. He was charged w/ violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional because Congress shouldn't have that much power under the Commerce Clause? Lopez argued the Commerce Clause didn't give the govt enough power to pass such a law. Lopez won, bc the Supreme court ruled Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause. They agreed that carrying a firearm into a school has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.