{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Con Law Outline - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II OUTLINE STATE...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II OUTLINE S TATE  A CTION    public function theory    significant state involvement theory 1 C ONGRESSIONAL  P OWER   TO  R EACH  P RIVATE  I NTERFERENCES   WITH  C ONSTITUTIONAL  R IGHTS 2 C ONGRESS S  § 5 E NFORCEMENT  P OWER 3 E QUAL  P ROTECTION    socioeconomic legislation    levels of scrutiny 4 R ACE    racial classifications    disparate impact 5 G ENDER    gender classifications 7 O THER  S USPECT /Q UASI -S USPECT  C LASSES  & L EVELS   OF  S CRUTINY    classifications summary 9 F UNDAMENTAL  R IGHTS    voting    access to courts 10 E QUAL  P ROTECTION  S UMMARY 10 F IRST  A MENDMENT    first amendment theories 11 CATEGORICAL   APPROACH    unprotected categories    protected categories    overbreadth & vagueness    categorical approach summary 11 STANDARDS FORA PROCEDURE    symbolic conduct    traditional public forum; licensing & medium bans; discretion; prior restraint     time, place, manner regulations    compatibility approach    government as proprietor:  Perry  modern tripartite approach    government as educator    government as employer    government as patron/speaker    right against compelled speech 15
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
   right to associate/not associate     R ELIGION  C LAUSES    free exercise    establishment    religion in curriculum    religious symbolism    financial aid 21 S OME  T IPS 23 S TATE  A CTION Hypo: If I want to arrange a block party for whites only, can Congress reach my discrimination? The  answer is no, because 14A requires state action ( Civil Rights Cases ). The court is trying to balance my  freedom to associate with whom I please in my personal autonomy vs. an interest to prevent  discrimination. Today, the narrow reading requiring state action stems from the  Civil Rights Cases , which  construed 14A, § 5 as requiring a distinction between private and public wrongs, and Congress can reach  only the latter. Issue: Is there a sufficient nexus between the state and the actor? Is there significant state involvement?  Is the action “sanctioned in some way by the State,” or “done under State authority”? Are there laws on  the books, customs, judicial or executive proceedings that render it state action? At what point in time is  there significant entanglement, rendering you a state actor? Could one survive without the other? Is the  State placing its imprimatur on the activity of discrimination?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}