US Constitutional Law: Key Supreme Court Cases and Doctrines

Privacy Rights: Roe, Griswold, and Casey

Roe v. Wade Precedent: Griswold v. Connecticut

• Trimester Framework: Established in Roe v. Wade by Justice Blackmun (later modified).
• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): Established a fundamental right to privacy derived from 'zones' in the Constitution (specifically citing Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14).

Levels of Judicial Review

• Strict Scrutiny:
  • Requires a compelling government interest.
  • The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
  • Burden of proof is on the government.
  • Statute is presumed unconstitutional.
  • Applied in cases involving fundamental rights (e.g., religion, race) or suspect classifications.
• Rational Basis Review:
  • Requires the government to show rational grounds for the law (legitimate government interest).
  • The law must be rationally related to that interest.
  • Burden of proof is on the person challenging the law.
  • Statute is presumed constitutional (e.g., drinking age laws).

Challenges to Roe v. Wade: Casey and Beyond

• Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): Reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe but replaced the trimester framework with the 'undue burden' standard, giving states broader latitude to regulate abortions.
• Partial-Birth Abortions:
  • Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): Initially struck down a state ban.
  • Gonzales v. Carhart (2007): Later upheld a federal ban on the procedure.
• Impact of Overturning Roe: If Roe is overturned, state courts would determine whether state abortion restrictions violate their respective state constitutions.

First Amendment: Speech and Press Freedoms

Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions

• Definition: Justifies government restrictions on the time, place, or manner of First Amendment activities (like speech or assembly) in public forums.
• Requirements: Regulations must be reasonable, narrowly drawn to serve a significant government interest, content-neutral, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.
• Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1981) (Minnesota State Fair Case):
  • The Court upheld a rule requiring literature distribution only at assigned booths.
  • The rule was content-neutral (applied equally to all groups).
  • It served the state's significant interest in public safety and order at the crowded fair.
  • The regulation did not violate the time, place, and manner doctrine.

Public Forum Doctrine

• Definition: Government property traditionally open for public expression (e.g., parks, streets).
• Non-Public Forums Examples: Airports (ISKCON v. Lee), Jail facilities (Adderley v. Florida), Private malls (do not lose private character merely because the public is allowed access).
• Regulation: Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible in public forums, but content-based restrictions face strict scrutiny. Regulations must be content-neutral.

Prior Restraint Doctrine

• Definition: Government action preventing speech or publication *before* it occurs (e.g., censorship). This is highly disfavored and subject to the strictest scrutiny, especially concerning freedom of the press.
• New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (Pentagon Papers Case): The government bears a heavy burden to justify prior restraint. It can only be imposed if publication poses a direct, immediate, and irreparable threat to national security.

Content Discrimination: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

• Reason for Striking Down Statute: A city ordinance banning hate speech (like cross burning) was struck down because it engaged in content discrimination, prohibiting speech based on the subjects the speech addresses (e.g., race, religion), and viewpoint discrimination within those subjects.
• Contrast with Virginia v. Black (2003): A statute banning cross-burning *with the intent to intimidate* was upheld because it targeted the intimidating *conduct*, not merely the expressive content.

Defamation and NYT v. Sullivan

• Defamation Definition: Publishing false statements about a person that harm their reputation.
• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): Established the 'actual malice' standard for defamation cases brought by public officials (later extended to public figures).
• Actual Malice Standard: The plaintiff must prove the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

First Amendment: Religion Clauses

School Prayer and the Lemon Test

• Mandatory school prayer often violates the Establishment Clause based on the Lemon Test:
• 1. Purpose: Lacks a secular purpose; primarily endorses religion.
• 2. Effect: The primary effect advances religion, not neutral.
• 3. Entanglement: Government oversight or enforcement of prayer constitutes excessive entanglement with religion.

Free Exercise Clause: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye

• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993): City ordinances banning animal sacrifice were struck down under the Free Exercise Clause.
• Analysis:
  • Neutrality: The ordinances were not neutral but specifically targeted the Santería religion's practices.
  • General Applicability: The laws were not generally applicable but aimed specifically at religious conduct, thus requiring strict scrutiny, which they failed.

Establishment Clause: Holiday Displays (Lynch v. Donnelly)

• Lynch v. Donnelly (1984): A city's Christmas display including a crèche (nativity scene) alongside secular symbols was challenged under the Establishment Clause.
• Ruling: The display did NOT violate the Establishment Clause.
• Lemon Test Application:
  • 1. Secular Purpose: The Court found a secular purpose in celebrating the holiday and depicting its historical origins.
  • 2. Primary Effect: In the context of the overall secular display, the crèche's primary effect was not deemed to advance religion.
  • 3. Entanglement: Including the crèche did not create excessive government entanglement with religion.

The Lemon Test Prongs

• To be constitutional under the Establishment Clause (per Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), a government action must:
• 1. Have a secular legislative purpose.
• 2. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
• 3. It must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

First Amendment: Obscenity

Obscenity Test: Miller v. California

• Miller v. California (1973) established the current test for obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment:
• 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
• 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
• 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (SLAPS test).