Eldridge Test

(for what and what is it)

1. Procedural Due Process

2. a. importance of right to individual

b. chance of erroneous deprivation

c. burden on government

closed b/c of Slaughterhous 

Revived under Saenz

1. EPC

2. Procedural Due Process

3. Substantive Due Process

4. P/I 14th

5. 11th Abrogation

1. Has there been a deprivation

2. Of Life, Liberty or Property

3. Without Due Process of law

1. Is there a FR?

2. Has it been infringed

3. Is the law the substantially justified

4. Are the means sufficently related to the ends

Roth - Entitlement

1. Importance of Interest the Individual has in it

2. Reasonable Expectation for it to continue

1. remedying your own past discrim bakke

2. diversity limited grutter

- NO quotas gratz

1. Need to be your own discrimination parents involved

2. no quotas

3. vague race-neutral polic NO Croson

1. Immutable

2. Carolen Products 'discrete and insular'

3.History of discrimination 

Must be State Action in order to sue for 14th

Exceptions:

1. Public Function

2. Entanglement Burton

DOES NOT APPLY to licenses Moose Lodge

1. Is there state action

2. What is the classifcation

3. Facial/Benign/Neutral/Invidious

4. Level of Scrutiny

5. State Interest

6. Over/Under

1. channels

2. insturmentalities

3. substantially related to interstate commerce

substantially limited 'substantially related' by making it hard to prove for non-economic activites for cumulative effect on interstate commerce

* A Lot of congressional hearings

DOle - congress can attach reasonable conditions to funds

* cannot directly compel 

Boerne - congress acts must be congruant and proportional to the discrimination they are trying to remedy 

- If something gets higher scrutiny under EPC, more power to act

I. Pre-Emption VI - Supremacy

II. DCC

III. P/I Art IV §2

I. Commerce Clause Art 1 §8

II. Tax and Spending Power 

III. 14 §5

IV. Commandeering

V. N/P Art 1 §18

VI. 11th abrogation

10th Am

Cannot compel states states to act

NY v US

Printz

Art 1 §18

McCollough

1. War

2. Exec Orders

3. Holding Enemy Combatants

Pre-Emption

Article VI 

[Explicit, Implicit, Field Pre-Emption]

1. Is the State Discriminating?

a. Yes- Granholm

b. No - Pike

2. How is it Discriminating (ins and outs)

a. facial philly

b. intent kassel

c. effect (argue both)

3. Is there an Exception?

a. Market Participant?

b. Congress Acted

DCC

Balance of State interest on burden on interstate commerce

a. legit state interest

b. substantially relation to non protectionist goal

c. No less discriminatory alternatives

P/I can only be used if:

a. Discrimination against out of staters

b. Corps/ALiens cannot sue under it

c. No DCC exceptions

1. Has the state discriminated against out of staters

2. Does it infringe on a FR (Corfield - CLAMS!)

3. Is it justified?