CONSTITIONAL LAW

1
CONSTITIONAL LAW

• Text Chapter 3

2
Learning Objectives

• Basics of the Constitution and federalism
• Relationship between federal and state powers
• Important legal principles supremacy,
  preemption
• Constitutional guarantees and limitations

3 - 2
3
Overview of the Constitution

• Establishes a tripartite government to ensure a
  separation of powers
• Article I sets forth the legislative powers of
  Senate and Congress
• Article II gives executive power to execute
  legislation, command armed forces, make treaties
• Article III provides judicial power to the
  Supreme Court and subsidiary courts

3 - 3
4
Judicial Review

• In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court
  interpreted the Constitution to grant federal
  courts the power of judicial review the power
  to declare a statute or governmental action
  unconstitutional and void
• Irony the statute in question gave the Supreme
  Court special powers

3 - 4
5
A System of Checks Balances

• No single branch may control government
• Supreme Court has power of judicial review
• Federal powers are limited
• States reserve certain powers

3 - 5
6
The Power to Regulate

• Federal government has exclusive power to
  administer certain national concerns, such as war
  and currency
• Some powers are shared with the states
• Example power to tax, power to spend
• States possess exclusive power to enact laws to
  protect general welfare, health, and safety

3 - 6
7
Federal Supremacy

• The Constitution and statutes enacted by
  Congress, including treaties, are the supreme law
  of the land
• Article VI, Clause 2

3 - 7
8
Federal Preemption

• Article I, Section 8 lists issues on which
  Congress may pass statutes
• Thus, if Congress enacts a law on a certain
  issue, then Congress preempts state regulation
  of that issue
• Example Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of
  1964, thus a state cannot enact a law allowing
  discrimination based on race, religion, or gender

3 - 8
9
Testing Constitutionality

• Courts apply a means-ends test to review
  allegedly unconstitutional statute
• Rational basis test (minimal scrutiny)
• if law has rational basis, it will stand
• Intermediate scrutiny
• law must substantially relate to important
  governmental objectives to stand
• Strict scrutiny
• Law presumed invalid if, on its face, it is based
  on race, ethnicity, and religion

3 - 9
10
The Commerce Power

• Commerce clause literally applies to interstate
  commerce
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
• Supreme Court has applied the power to intrastate
  commerce when the activity affects interstate
  commerce
• Gonzales v. Raich emphasizes the far reach of the
  commerce power

3 - 10
11
Gonzales v. Raich

• Facts
• Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits
  possession and sale of marijuana
• California statute created criminal prosecution
  exemption for patients (Raich and Monson)
  possessing and using marijuana for
  physician-approved medicinal purposes
• Federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents
  seized Monsons cannabis plants
• Raich and Monson filed for an injunction to bar
  enforcement of the Federal CSA as applied to
  medical use because enforcement violated the
  Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the
  Fifth Amendment

3 - 11
12
Gonzales v. Raich

• Procedural History
• Federal District Court denied preliminary
  injunction
• U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with
  the Commerce Clause argument and directed the
  lower court to issue a preliminary injunction
• The U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal
  governments petition for a writ of certiorari
• Issue Whether Congress power to regulate
  interstate markets for medicinal substances
  encompasses. . .markets that are supplied with
  drugs produced and consumed locally?

3 - 12
13
Gonzales v. Raich

• Reasoning
• Discussed legislative history, public policy
• Judicial precedent (Wickard v. Filburn)
  Congress has power to regulate activities
  substantially affecting interstate commerce
• Wickard (wheat) and this case (marijuana) are
  similar, but Lopez and Morrison are
  distinguishable
• Holding
• Locally cultivated product used domestically is
  subject to federal regulation
• Appellate decision vacated, case remanded

3 - 13
14
The First Amendment

• First Amendment guarantees freedoms of religion,
  speech, press, assembly, and petition to
  individuals
• And to corporations
• Protection has never been afforded to certain
  classes of speech
• False, lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and
  insulting speech is not protected
• See U.S. v. American Library Assoc., Inc.

3 - 14
15
Commercial Speech

• Speech proposing a commercial transaction
• Neither noncommercial expression nor political,
  thus commercial speech not fully protected
• A restriction on commercial speech is valid if it
  (1) seeks to implement a substantial govt
  interest, (2) directly advances the interest, and
  (3) is the least restrictive method of achieving
  the interest

3 - 15
16
Kasky v. Nike, Inc.

• What were the facts?
• What was the arguments of the parties?
• What three elements did the court consider in
  categorizing Nikes speech?
• What did the California Supreme Court hold and
  why?
• Follow-up Nike appealed to U.S. Supreme Court,
  which rejected and remanded the case to trial
  parties settled pre-trial in 2003.

3 - 16
17
Issue Compelled Advertising

• When government requires producers to pay for
  generic industry advertisements
• U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Johanns v.
  Livestock Marketing Association that the beef
  assessment funding was for government speech,
  thus the promotional program is not subject to a
  First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenge

3 - 17
18
Constitutional Limitations

• Fifth Amendment prohibits federal government from
  depriving any person of life, liberty, or
  property without due process of law.
• Known as the due process clause
• Applied to states through Fourteenth Amendment by
  process of incorporation

3 - 18
19
Constitutional Limitations

• Due process clause interpreted liberally to be
  guarantee of protection from
• Unreasonable procedures
• procedural due process
• Unreasonable laws
• substantive due process
• Protection from government action
• Federal funding may create government nexus
• See Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary
  School Athletic Association

3 - 19
20
Constitutional Limitations

• Equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment
  applies to states and federal government when
  classifying or distinguishing people
• Basic test rational basis (minimal)
• Compare the tests applied in
• City of Dallas v. Stanglin
• Bush v. Gore

3 - 20
21
Constitutional Limitations

• Equal protection clause prohibits a government
  from treating one person differently than another
  without reasonable grounds for classifying
  differently
• Suspect classifications (race, gender,
  ethnicity) require higher level of scrutiny
• Examples Gratz v. Bollinger, Grutter v.
  Bollinger

3 - 21
22
The Gratz Grutter Cases

• Facts
• Caucasian, academically-qualified applicants were
  denied admission to University of Michigans
  undergraduate college (Gratz) or law school
  (Grutter)
• Plaintiffs filed suit alleging discrimination
  violating the Equal Protection Clause and Title
  VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Evidence
• Undergraduate admissions process applied point
  advantage to minority applicants
• Law school admissions process was narrowly
  tailored, individualized, and not a quota system

3 - 22
23
The Gratz Grutter Cases

• U.S. Supreme Court Decision
• Applicable legal precedents and public policy
• Student body diversity is a compelling state
  interest
• Regents University of California v. Bakke
• All racial classifications reviewable under the
  Equal Protection Clause must be strictly
  scrutinized
• Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

3 - 23
24
The Gratz Grutter Cases

• U.S. Supreme Court Decision (cont.)
• Racial classifications are constitutional only if
  they are narrowly tailored to further compelling
  governmental interests
• Regents University of California v. Bakke
• Applying law to facts (conclusion)
• Undergraduate admission process not narrowly
  tailored
• Law school admission process is individualized,
  flexible

3 - 24
25
Constitutional Limitations

• Phrase depriving a person of property known
  as the takings clause
• Interpreted to require government to pay property
  owner just compensation in exchange for taking
  property through eminent domain
• Public use purpose required
• Takings for economic development purpose
  satisfies public use requirement
• Kelo v. City of New London

3 - 25