8/12/2019 conlaw-openingps

1/4

Constitutional Law Opening Paragraphs

(1) Standing

Article III provides that the federal courts only have jurisdiction where there is an actual case and controversy.Thus, in order to properly assert her claims in federal court, a plaintiff must have standing. There is standing wherethe plaintiff alleges (1) an actual or imminent injury, (2) which was caused y the defendant!s conduct, and (")which is redressile y the court.

An association may sue on ehalf of its memers if (1) the memers would have standing to sue on their own, (2)the interests of the litigation are germane to the organi#ation!s purpose, and (") the memers would not need toparticipate in the suit.

A ta$payer has standing if (1) the law he see%s to challenge was enacted under &ongress!s ta$ing and spendingpower, and (2) he alleges that &ongress has e$ceeded some specific limitation on that power.

(2) Ripeness

'or proper federal jurisdiction, the claim must e ripe for review. A claim is ripe where the plaintiff would sufferharm if review were denied.

(3) Mootness

'or proper federal jurisdiction, there must e an actual controversy at every stage of the litigation. Thus if eventsafter the filing of the lawsuit end the plaintiff!s injury, the claim should e dismissed as moot. owever, there is ane$ception to the mootness doctrine where the wrong is capale of repetition yet evading review, or where thedefendant has voluntarily ceased the conduct which caused the plaintiff!s harm.

(4) SSI

The 11thAmendment prohiits private individuals from ringing suits in federal courts against state government.owever, a state may waive its sovereign immunity. Also, the 11thAmendment does not ar suits against stateofficers for injunctive relief. oreover, &ongress may arogate **I under sec. + of the 1thAmendment when it isacting to remedy - prevent an already recogni#ed constitutional violation, and when the law is proportional andcongruent to the constitutional violation.

() !or"ant Co""er#e Clause

The &ommerce &lause gives &ongress plenary power to regulate interstate commerce. owever, where &ongressis silent on an issue, the states are free to regulate local transactions affecting interstate commerce. ut, stateregulations which unduly urden interstate commerce are unconstitutional.

/here a state regulation discriminates against out0of0staters, there is a presumption that the regulation undulyurdens interstate commerce. Thus, the state must show that the regulation is necessary to serve an importantgovernment interest, and that there are no less restrictive means availale. owever, there is an e$ception when&ongress has approved the regulation or where the state is acting as a mar%et0participant.

/here the state regulation is non0discriminatory, the &ourt will alance the state!s interest in maintaining the

regulation against the urden on interstate commerce.

($) Pri%ileges and I""unities Clause

The rivileges and Immunities &lause of the thAmendment prohiit a state from denying non0citi#ens theprivileges and immunities afforded to its own citi#ens. Thus a state or local law which discriminates against out0of0staters with regards to civil lierties or an individual!s aility to earn a living will e struc% down as unconstitutionalunless the state demonstrates that the law is necessary to serve an important government purpose. ut, the Iclause does not apply to corporations or aliens.

1

8/12/2019 conlaw-openingps

2/4

(&) State '#tion

The 1thAmendment only applies where there is action y the state or local government, or y an individual who isperforming a function which is traditionally performed e$clusively y the state.

() *ual Prote#tion

The 34ual rotection &lause of the 1 thAmendment prohiits state governments from denying any person within its

jurisdiction the e4ual protection of the laws. /hile the 1

th

Amendment applies e$clusively to state governments,grossly unreasonaly discrimination y the federal government is prohiited y the 5ue rocess &lause of the +thAmendment. 6nder either provision, the analysis is the same.

To successfully assert an e4ual protection claim, the plaintiff must first show that she is a memer of a class ofpersons who is eing treated differently from others. The discrimination may appear on the face of the law, orwhere the law is facially neutral, the plaintiff must show that there is oth a discriminatory intent for the law and adiscriminatory impact for the law.

/here there is a classification, the level of scrutiny to e applied depends on classification at issue or the righteing limited.

&lassifications ased on race, national origin, or alienage generally must meet strict scrutiny 7 necessary toachieve a compelling government purpose. *o must regulations which implicate a fundament right 7 travel, votingor 'ree *peech.

&lassifications ased on gender or illegitimacy must meet intermediate scrutiny 7 sustantially related to animportant government purpose.

/here the law does not affect a suspect class nor implicate a fundamental right, the law need only meet rationalasis review. That is the challenger must demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to a legitimategovernment interest. 3.g. Age, disaility, wealth and other classifications.

(+) Pro#edural !ue Pro#ess

The 5ue rocess &lause of the 1thAmendment re4uires that a state provide its citi#ens fair process andprocedures efore the government may deprive one of life, lierty or property interest. rocedural due0process

invo%es a two0step in4uiry.

'irst, there must e a deprivation of life, lierty, or property. There is a lierty deprivation when the state ta%esaway a significant freedom secured y the &onstitution or statute. There is a property deprivation when the stateta%es away an entitlement to the continued receipt of a enefit. 8ote also that the deprivation must e intentional orat least rec%less. A deprivation that results from negligence is an insufficient ases for a procedural 5 violation.

If there is a deprivation, the ne$t step is to consider what process is due. ere, the court will alance (1) theimportance of the interest to the individual, (2) the aility of additional procedures to increase the accuracy of thefact0finding process, and (") the government!s interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency.

The final step is to consider whether the government has provided the appropriate process.

(1,) Su-stanti%e !ue Pro#ess

/here the law limits the aility of all persons to engage in an activity, sustantive due process may apply. The 5uerocess &lause of the +thAmendment applies to the federal government, which the due process clause of the 1 th

Amendment applies to the states. The in4uiry is whether the government has an ade4uate reason to ta%e away apersons life, lierty or property interest.

ere, the analysis depends on the right eing impaired. /here the law limits a fundamental right, such as the rightto vote, travel, privacy or freedom of speech, strict scrutiny applies. In all other cases, the rational asis testapplies.

2

8/12/2019 conlaw-openingps

3/4

(11) .ree Spee#h

A law which see%s to regulate speech is presumptively unconstitutional. To justify content0ased regulation ofspeech, the government must show that the ordinance is necessary to serve a compelling state interests and it isnarrowly drawn to achieve that end. 95iscuss whether the regulation is content0ased:

&ontent0neutral regulations on speech are suject to intermediate scrutiny, and will e upheld if the governmentcan show that (1) they advance an importance interest unrelated to the suppression of speech, and (2) they do not

urden sustantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.

a/ 0i"e Pla#e and Manner Restri#tions

To e valid, government regulation on speech in pulic forums must e (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored toserve a significant government interest, and (") leave open alternative channels of communication.

;egulations on speech in designated pulic forums 7 places where the government could close speech, utchooses to open 7 must meet the same standard as applies to pulic forums.

;egulations on speech in private forums must (1) e viewpoint neutral and (2) reasonaly related to a legitimategovernment interest.

-/ Prior Restraints

rior restraints on speech must meet strict scrutiny. The restraint must e necessary to serve a compellinggovernment interest.

#/ agueness O%er-readth

A law is unconstitutionally vague if a reasonale person cannot tell what speech is prohiited and what is allowed.A law is unconstitutionally overroad if it regulates sustantially more speech than the constitution allows.

d/ S"-oli# Spee#h

The government can regulate conduct that communicates if it has an important interest unrelated to suppression ofthe message and if the impact on communication is no greater than necessary to achieve the government!s

purpose.

e/ Co""er#ial Spee#h

&ommercial speech which inherently ris%s deception is not protected y the 'irst Amendment, so the governmentmay regulate such speech as it pleases. ;egulations on commercial speech which is not inherently deceptive mustmeet intermediate scrutiny.

5/ O-s#enit

8/12/2019 conlaw-openingps

4/4

(14) 0he sta-lish"ent Clause

The 3stalishment &lause prohiits laws respecting the estalishment of religion. If government regulation oractivity gives preference to one religious sect over another, it is invalid unless it is narrowly tailored to serve acompelling state interest.

If a government regulation or action contains no sect preference, it is valid under the 3stalishment &lause if (1) ithas a secular purpose, (2) it neither advances nor inhiits religion, and (") it does produce e$cessive governmental

entanglement with religion.

(1) 0a7ing

The government may ta%e property, though the power of eminent domain, ut only if (1) it does so for the pulicuse, and (2) it provides just compensation to the owner. hysical ta%ings must meet this test, as must userestrictions which deprive the owner of all economic value.

(1$) Contra#ts

The &ontracts &lause prohiits state or local interference with e$isting contracts. Interference with governmentcontracts must meet strict scrutiny. Interference with private contracts must meet intermediate scrutiny.

(1&) State 0a6ation

/here state ta$ation laws conflict with federal laws, the state laws are preempted y the *upremacy &lause.5iscriminatory ta$es are invalid under the &ommerce &lause. /here a state ta$ law is not preempted and is notdiscriminatory, it will e upheld if (1) there is a sustantial ne$us etween the activity and the state, and (2) state ta$on interstate usinesses must e fairly apportioned.

(1) '##ess to Courts

A state must waive court filing fees imposed on indigents when the imposition of a fee would deny a fundamentright to the indigent. The inaility to pay a fee cannot e the sole asis upon which a person is deprived of afundamental constitutional right. (;aises e4ual protection issue 7 discrimination ased on wealth> ut note, accessto courts is not a fundamental right).

4