Texas v. Johnson

Marbury v. Madison

McCulloch v. Maryland

       Cooper v. Aaron

State v. Post

Strauder v. West Virginia

Civil Rights Cases 1883

Bolling v. Sharpe

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena 

F: White student denied admission to Michigan law school [b/c of affirmative action].

-Remedy as CSI is abandoned 

L/S: Strict Scrutiny

CSI: Ct. says diversity IS a CSI.

N/T: Yes, individual file review, no quotas, race is just a plus factor

F: School board assigning students to public schools solely for the purpose of achieving racial integration.

- Ct. declined to recognize racial balancing as a compelling state interest.

-Kennedy concurrence: Schools may use "race conscious" means to achieve diversity in schools, but in this case not narrowly tailored.

L/S: Strict Scrutiny

CSI: No; "the Constitution is not violated by racial imbalance in the schools, without more."

N/T: No, in Grutter the race consideration would nearly triple minority population. Minimal effect here.

F: Law prohibits selling milk in plastic containers, only cardboard. 

-Classification btw people making plastic containers vs. cardboard ones

L/S: RBR, non-suspect classification

LSI: Yes; State said it was for environmental reasons, but clover leaf said thats not really the reason. Cant't strike down state interest just because irrational. 

      - Don't care about actual purpose as long as some rational purpose is feasible: "The states are not required to convince courts of the correctness their legislative judgements"

RR?: yes

Rule: No requirement that the gov't prove it actually serves the end... only has to be rational. IS THE MOTIVE PLAUSIBLE AND IS IT PLAUSIBLE THAT IT IS RATIONALLY RELATED?

F: Ordinance prohibiting ads on vehicles unless the ad is for the business of the vehicle owner.

- Classification btw those who want to advertise their own business and those who want to sell the ad space to others.

L/S: RBR     LSI: yes

- Ct. says there is no requirement that we end all evils of the same variety: NYC can lower the level of visual clutter in traffic by banning advertising for some, but not for others. If there is a big problem and a lesser problem, it is ok for the legislature to just get rid of the lesser one if they want.

Note: Ct. is more likely to uphold a statute in the area of economic regulation.

F: Law prohibiting prevented persons who were not licensed optometrists or ophthalmologists from fitting lenses for eyeglasses

-Classification btw opticians (artisans) and eye doctors.

L/S: RBR

LSI: Yes; health and safety

RR: Yes; the law may exact a needless, wasteful requirement, but it is for the legislature--not the courts--to balance advantages and disadvantages of the requirement. 

f

* Rationally related as long as there is a plausible legitimate purpose and a rational relation to that purpose which is plausible.

F: Transit Authority refused to employ people taking methodone for heroin addiction. 

-applies EPC of the 14th Am. 

L/S: RBR; non-suspect classification

LSI: Yes; safety and efficiency

Rationally Related?: Yes; rational consdering costs associated with screening safe from non-safe methodone users.

Dissent: Not hard to tell safe from non-safe users; this is just blanket exclusion.