Constitutional Law Cases: Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights
first Edition
Constitutional Law Cases: Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights
Whenever we ask the question whether something is constitutional, we look to decisions of the courts particularly the United States Supreme Court. This body of case law provides us with an understanding of the Equal Protection Clause, the notion of implied fundamental rights, the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Religion and finally the Supreme Court's treatment of State Action and Private Power. It is fair to say that judicial review is the foundation of constitutional law. This case book limits the excerpts to focus primarily on the seminal decisions of the Supreme Court. Although the casebook provides substantial excerpts from the key cases, the excerpts are heavily abbreviated to allow the reader to focus on the essence of the court's decision. This case book is suited to an advanced course on Constitutional Law.
About the Author
Acknowledgments
Preface
The Constitution of the United States
1.
Equality and the Constitution
1.1.
Racial discrimination
1.1.1.
Slavery
1.1.1.1.
State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368 (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1845)
1.1.1.2.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
1.1.2.
The Breakdown of Reconstruction
1.1.3.
Separate but Equal
1.1.3.1.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
1.1.3.2.
Cumming v. Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899)
1.1.3.3.
McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, 235 U.S. 151 (1914)
1.1.3.4.
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938)
1.1.3.5.
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)
1.1.3.6.
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)
1.1.4.
Rejection of Separate but Equal
1.1.4.1.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
1.1.4.2.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
1.1.5.
Resistance to Brown and Judicial Relief
1.1.5.1.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
1.1.5.2.
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I)
1.1.5.3.
Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977) (Milliken II)
1.2.
Equal Protection Methodology: Rational Basis Review
1.2.1.
Economic Regulations
1.2.1.1.
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568 (1979)
1.2.1.2.
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981)
1.2.1.3.
Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949)
1.2.1.4.
Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483 (1955)
1.2.2.
Animus/Spite Against an Unpopular Group
1.2.2.1.
U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973)
1.2.2.2.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)
1.2.2.3.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
1.3.
Equal Protection Methodology: Heightened Scrutiny
1.3.1.
Classifications based on Race
1.3.1.1.
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. (10 Otto) 303 (1880)
1.3.1.2.
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
1.3.1.3.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
1.3.2.
Facially Neutral Classifications That Disadvantage Racial Minorities
1.3.2.1.
Disparate Application
1.3.2.2.
Disparate Effects
1.3.3.
Racial Classifications Adopted to Benefit Racial Minorities
1.3.3.1.
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
1.3.3.2.
Fullilove v. Klutznik, 448 U.S. 448 (1980)
1.3.3.3.
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
1.3.3.4.
Sheet Metal Workers Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers International Association v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)
1.3.3.5.
United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 92 (1987)
1.3.3.6.
Richmond v. Cronson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
1.3.3.7.
Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
1.3.3.8.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
1.3.4.
Use of Race to Achieve a Diverse Student Body
1.3.4.1.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
1.3.4.2.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
1.3.4.3.
Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II), 136 S.Ct. 2198 (2016)
1.3.4.4.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)
1.3.5.
Altering the Political Process that Adversely Affects Minorites
1.3.5.1.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014)
1.3.6.
Racial Classifications to Separate Prisoners
1.3.6.1.
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005)
1.3.7.
Race-Specific Voting Districts
1.3.7.1.
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
1.3.7.2.
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
1.4.
Intermediate Scrutiny: Gender Discrimination
1.4.1.
Real Differences vs. Stereotypes and Broad Generalizations
1.4.1.1.
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)
1.4.1.2.
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
1.4.1.3.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
1.4.1.4.
United States v. Virginia (VMI), 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
1.4.1.5.
Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court (Statutory Rape) 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
1.4.1.6.
Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
1.4.1.7.
Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977)
1.4.2.
Benign Gender Classifications
1.4.2.1.
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
1.4.2.2.
Califano Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (1977)
1.5.
Sexual Orientation
1.5.1.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
1.5.2.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)
1.5.3.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)
1.6.
Other Candidates for Heightened Scrutiny
1.6.1.
Alienage
1.6.1.1.
Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973)
1.6.2.
Wealth Classifications
1.6.2.1.
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)
1.6.2.2.
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963)
1.6.2.3.
Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
1.6.3.
Mentally Handicapped
1.6.3.1.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)
2.
Implied Fundamental Rights
2.1.
Fundamental interests in the Context of the Equal Protection Clause
2.1.1.
Understanding Fundamental Interest and the Right to Reproduce
2.1.1.1.
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
2.1.2.
Voting
2.1.2.1.
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
2.1.2.2.
Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)
2.1.2.3.
Slayer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719 (1973)
2.1.2.4.
Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981)
2.1.2.5.
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)
2.1.2.6.
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
2.1.2.7.
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)
2.1.3.
Denial of “Access to the Ballot”
2.1.3.1.
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
2.1.4.
Access to the Judicial Process and Wealth
2.1.4.1.
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)
2.1.4.2.
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963)
2.1.4.3.
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)
2.1.4.4.
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996)
2.1.5.
Right to Travel
2.1.5.1.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
2.1.5.2.
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
2.1.6.
Welfare
2.1.6.1.
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970)
2.1.7.
Education
2.1.7.1.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)
2.1.7.2.
Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
2.2.
Substantive due process: the Protection of Economic Rights
2.2.1.
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
2.2.2.
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)
2.2.3.
Adkins v. Childrens Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
2.2.4.
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
2.2.5.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
2.2.6.
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483 (1955)
2.2.7.
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)
2.3.
Substantive Due Process Outside the Economic Realm: Privacy, Personhood, and Family
2.3.1.
The Right to Privacy
2.3.1.1.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
2.3.2.
Abortion
2.3.2.1.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
2.3.2.2.
Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)
2.3.2.3.
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)
2.3.2.4.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
2.3.2.5.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
2.3.2.6.
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)
2.3.3.
Family and Other Privacy Interests
2.3.3.1.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
2.3.3.2.
Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635 (1986)
2.3.3.3.
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
2.3.3.4.
California v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 (1977)
2.3.4.
Homosexuality and sodomy
2.3.4.1.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
2.3.4.2.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
2.3.5.
The Right to Die
2.3.5.1.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
2.3.5.2.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 707 (1997)
3.
Procedural Due Process
3.1.
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
3.2.
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
3.3.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
3.4.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
4.
Freedom of Speech
4.1.
Content-Based Regulations
4.1.1.
Subversive Advocacy
4.1.1.1.
Shaffer v. United States, 255 F. 886 (9th Cir. 1919)
4.1.1.2.
Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917)
4.1.1.3.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
4.1.1.4.
Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919)
4.1.1.5.
Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919)
4.1.1.6.
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
4.1.1.7.
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
4.1.1.8.
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
4.1.1.9.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
4.1.1.10.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
4.1.1.11.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S.Ct. 2705 (2010)
4.1.2.
Criticism of the Judicial Process
4.1.2.1.
Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941)
4.1.3.
Speech that threatens
4.1.3.1.
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
4.1.3.2.
Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002)
4.1.4.
Speech that Provokes a Hostile Audience Reaction
4.1.4.1.
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
4.1.4.2.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
4.1.4.3.
Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951)
4.1.4.4.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
4.1.4.5.
Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America, 373 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. 1978)
4.1.4.6.
Forsythe County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S 123 (1992)
4.1.4.7.
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
4.1.4.8.
Cox v Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965)
4.1.4.9.
Gregory v City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969)
4.1.4.10.
Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011)
4.1.5.
Speech That Discloses Confidential Information
4.1.5.1.
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)
4.1.5.2.
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)
4.1.5.3.
New York Times Co. v. United States; United States v. Washington Post Co. (Pentagon Papers Case), 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
4.1.5.4.
Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980)
4.1.5.5.
Progressive Controversy Case: United States v. The Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979)
4.1.5.6.
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)
4.2.
Content-Based Restrictions: "Low Value" Speech
4.2.1.
False Statements of Fact
4.2.1.1.
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
4.2.1.2.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts; Associated Press v. Walker, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)
4.2.1.3.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
4.2.2.
Parody
4.2.2.1.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
4.2.3.
Commercial Advertising
4.2.3.1.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976)
4.2.3.2.
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Services Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
4.2.3.3.
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986)
4.2.3.4.
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)
4.2.3.5.
Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)
4.2.3.6.
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002)
4.2.4.
Obscenity
4.2.4.1.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
4.2.4.2.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)
4.2.4.3.
United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971)
4.2.4.4.
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
4.2.4.5.
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)
4.2.5.
Child Pornography
4.2.5.1.
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
4.2.5.2.
Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
4.2.5.3.
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010)
4.2.6.
The Lewd, the Profane and the Indecent
4.2.6.1.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
4.2.6.2.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
4.2.6.3.
Ashcroft v American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)
4.2.6.4.
Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976)
4.2.7.
Hate Speech
4.2.7.1.
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952)
4.2.7.2.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
4.2.7.3.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)
4.2.7.4.
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
4.3.
Content-Neutral Restrictions
4.3.1.
Determining Content Neutrality
4.3.1.1.
Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939)
4.3.1.2.
Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943)
4.3.1.3.
Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949)
4.3.1.4.
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)
4.3.1.5.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994)
4.3.2.
Streets and Parks as Public Forums
4.3.2.1.
Commonwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510, 39 N.E. 113 (1895), affd sub nom.
4.3.2.2.
Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
4.3.2.3.
Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939)
4.3.2.4.
Ward v. Rock against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
4.3.2.5.
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1983)
4.3.2.6.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941)
4.3.2.7.
Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)
4.3.3.
Public Property Other Than Streets and Parks
4.3.3.1.
Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
4.3.3.2.
Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (1981)
4.3.3.3.
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976)
4.3.3.4.
U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, 453 U.S. 114 (1981)
4.3.3.5.
United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
4.3.3.6.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)
4.3.4.
Content Neutrality Where Granting Access to a Public Forum
4.3.4.1.
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)
4.3.4.2.
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974)
4.3.4.3.
Perry Educators Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983)
4.3.4.4.
Arkansas Education Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998)
4.3.5.
Symbolic Conduct
4.3.5.1.
United States v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
4.3.5.2.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
4.3.5.3.
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
4.3.5.4.
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc, 501 U.S. 560 (1991)
4.3.5.5.
City of Erie v. Paps A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000)
4.3.6.
The Right Not to Speak or Associate
4.3.6.1.
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
4.3.6.2.
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
4.3.6.3.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
4.3.6.4.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)
4.3.6.5.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
4.3.6.6.
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
4.4.
Regulating The Modern Mass Media to Correct Against Market Failures
4.4.1.
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
4.4.2.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1960)
4.4.3.
Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)
5.
The Constitution and Religion
5.1.
Introduction: Meaning of Non-Support For Religion
5.1.1.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
5.1.2.
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)
5.1.3.
School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
5.1.4.
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
5.1.5.
How Do We Define Religion
5.1.5.1.
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
5.1.5.2.
Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)
5.1.5.3.
Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971)
5.1.5.4.
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
5.2.
The Establishment Clause
5.2.1.
The Establishment Clause Test
5.2.1.1.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
5.2.2.
The Anti Coercion Principle
5.2.2.1.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
5.2.2.2.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
5.2.3.
Endorsement of Religion and the Establishment Clause
5.2.3.1.
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
5.2.3.2.
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961)
5.2.3.3.
Walz v. Tax Commn of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
5.2.3.4.
Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922)
5.2.3.5.
Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
5.2.3.6.
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
5.2.3.7.
Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004)
5.2.3.8.
Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010)
5.2.4.
Statutes That are Facially Neutral but Aid Religion
5.2.4.1.
Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)
5.2.4.2.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
5.2.4.3.
Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985)
5.2.5.
Targeting of Religious Groups and Animus
5.2.5.1.
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018)
5.3.
Is Government Required to Provide Accomodations to Religion Under the Free Exercise Clause
5.3.1.
Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961)
5.3.2.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
5.3.3.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
5.3.4.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
5.3.5.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
5.4.
Permissible Accommodation and the Establishment Clause
5.4.1.
Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
5.4.2.
Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989)
5.4.3.
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)
5.4.4.
Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985)
5.4.5.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comn, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018)
6.
STATE ACTION AND PRIVATE POWER
6.1.
State Action and Federalism
6.1.1.
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
6.2.
Government Inaction and the Theory of Government Neutrality
6.2.1.
Government Inaction
6.2.1.1.
De Shaney v. Winnebago County Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
6.2.1.2.
Flag Brothers v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978)
6.2.1.3.
Lugar v. Edmonson Oil, 457 U.S. 922 (1982)
6.2.1.4.
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988)
6.2.1.5.
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001)
6.2.2.
State Action and the Lack of Government Neutrality
6.2.2.1.
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
6.3.
State Subsidization, Approval, And Encouragement as Violations From Neutrality
6.3.1.
Government Subsidization of Private Conduct
6.3.1.1.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)
6.3.1.2.
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)
6.3.1.3.
San Francisco Arts and Athletics v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987)
6.3.2.
State Licensing and Authorization of Unconstitutional Conduct
6.3.2.1.
Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952)
6.3.2.2.
Moose Lodge No.107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972)
6.3.2.3.
Jackson vs. Metropolitan Edison Company, 419 U.S. 345 (1974)
6.4.
When Must a State Depart From Neutrality: The Public Function Doctrine
6.4.1.
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
6.5.
Unconstitutional Conditions
6.5.1.
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)
6.5.2.
Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)
6.5.3.
Nollan v. California Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)
Ziyad Motala is a Professor of law at Howard University School of Law. He served as an Honorary Professor of Law at the University Of Western Cape School Of Law in South Africa. Prior to his teaching at Howard, he also taught at Northwestern Law School as an adjunct law professor and a visiting assistant professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. Motala is a native of Durban, South Africa, and was active in the struggle for liberation in South Africa. He received his B.A. and LL.B. degrees from the University of Natal (South Africa). He has an LL.M. and an SJ.D degree from Northwestern University in Chicago. He is an authority on international law, constitutional law, and comparative law. He served for eight years as the Director of the Graduate Studies Program at Howard University School of Law and currently serves as the Director of the Howard South Africa Summer Abroad Program, which he initiated. Motala is the co-author of Constitutional Law Analysis and Cases with Cyril Ramaphosa the current President of the Republic of South Africa. He has also authored Constitutional Options For a Democratic South Africa: a Comparative Perspective and a casebook Constitutional Law Cases: The Structure of Government. He has co-edited, The Protection of Human Rights in African Criminal Proceedings with M.C. Bassiouni. He is the author of over seventy law reviews/journals, op-ed pieces or books. He has worked on projects pertaining to legal reform and administration of justice in various parts of the world.
Copyright held by Ziyad Motala. All rights reserved. 2020