conlaw_outline_flynn_spring06

conlaw_outline_flynn_spring06 - Con Law Outline Flynn /...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Con Law Outline Flynn / Spring 2006 E QUAL P ROTECTION A NALYSIS 1. Is there state action? ( Shelley v. Kraemer, Burton v. WPC, Moose Lodge ) 2. What classification is the law making? a. FACIAL Classifications i. Race : SS ( Korematsu, Adarand ) ii. Sex : IS/EPJ (IS: Craig , EPJ: Hogan, VMI ). Real differences: IS ( Michael M., Rostker ). Or redefine classification so not sex: RR ( Parham ) iii. Illegitimacy : IS iv. Poverty : RR ( San Antonio ) v. Disability : RR ( Cleburne ) vi. Sexual Orientation : RR ( Romer, Goodridge ) – still do HS analysis vii. New Classification? Argue for heightened scrutiny. Three step inquiry: 1. history of discrimination 2. political powerlessness 3. immutability/no relation to ability to perform 4. (if necessary, Carolene Products “discrete and insular minority”) b. NON-FACIAL Classifications i. Is there a discriminatory effect on a race or sex classification? ( Yick Wo, Gomillion ) 1. something in fact pattern will generally show disparate impact. ii. Is there discriminatory intent ? ( Palmer, Washington v. Davis ) 1. P needs to show that the law/policy implemented because of and not in spite of the discriminatory outcome ( Washington v. Davis, Feeney ) 2. Ways to prove intent : (laid out in Arlington Heights ) a. clear pattern unexplainable on other grounds ( Yick Wo, Gomillion ) b. historical background of decision (timing of decision, departures from normal procedure) c. legislative history ( Moreno ; but see Fletcher (leg. history irrelevant, could be passed again with “pure motives”; intrusion into other branches)) 3. Once intent proven, burden of proof shifts to gov’t to prove non-discriminatory reason for implementing statute. (apply appropriate standard) iii. If not race or sex, apply RR. Look at who created the policy, whether groups are affected, and if there is a relationship b/t the policy and the goal of the policy. Is there animus ( Romer – is the statute so broad that there’s no other explanation)? 3. Apply the standard of review: (analogize to cases, bring in facts) a. State Interests i. SS – is the interest compelling ? 1 Con Law Outline Flynn / Spring 2006 ii. IS – is the interest important ? iii. RR – is the interest legitimate ? b. Means-Ends Fit i. SS – is the statute narrowly tailored ? ii. IS – is the statute substantially related ? iii. RR – is the statute rationally related ?...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/19/2008 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Vark during the Spring '08 term at Uni. Tartu.

Page1 / 20

conlaw_outline_flynn_spring06 - Con Law Outline Flynn /...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online