Limitations on Governmental Power

1) The Constitution
a. Ex Post Facto Laws (Art. 1, 9 & 10) prohiit !e"is!ation o# retrospecti$e
cri%ina! punish%ent. App!ies to oth #e&era! & state "o$ern%ents.
. 'i!!s o# Attain&er (Art. 1, 9 & 10) prohiit #e&era! & state !e"is!atures
#ro% passin" !e"is!ation specia!!( to punish in&i$i&ua!s without tria!.
c. Contract C!ause (Art. 1, 10) speci)es that no state sha!! pass !aws
i%pairin" the o!i"ation o# contract.
*) The 'i!! o# +i"hts (1,10 A%en&s.)
a. Barron v. Baltimore he!& that the 'i!! app!ies to the #e&era! "o$ern%ent
not necessari!( state "o$ern%ents.
. -
th
A%en&. .ue Process/ 0hi!e there is no 11
th
A%en&. .ue Process
co%para!e C!ause app!ica!e to the #e&era! "o$2t, the -
th
A%en&. .ue
Process C!ause wou!& ar unreasona!e i%pair%ent o# sustanti$e $este&
!e"a! ri"hts. 3owe$er, -
th
A%en&. .ue Process re$iew has een
characteri4e& ( the Court as 5!ess searchin"6 than re$iew un&er the
Contract C!ause.
i. The "uarantee on!( app!ies a"ainst !e"is!ati$e (not 7u&icia!) action
i%pairin" sustanti$e !e"a! ri"hts.
ii. 0ea8 source o# !i%itation on "o$ern%ent. Charles River Bridge v.
Warren (19:;), in a case in$o!$in" a pu!ic contract #or ui!&in" a
ri&"e, the Court he!& that the !e"is!ature can a%en& an& inter#ere
with a $a!i& contract ecause the Contract C!ause wou!& (ie!& to
reasona!e state po!ice power.
:) The Ci$i! 0ar A%en&%ents
a. 1:
th
A%en&. ao!ishes s!a$er( an& in$o!untar( ser$itu&e. App!ies to oth
pu!ic & pri$ate action.
. 1-
th
A%en&. prohiits state an& #e&era! "o$ern%ent #ro% &en(in" $otin"
ri"hts ase& on race or pre$ious con&ition o# ser$itu&e. <t &oes not
esta!ish a "enera! ri"ht to $ote.
c. 11
th
A%en&. esta!ishes that persons orn or natura!i4e& in the countr(
are citi4ens an& re7ects the Dred Scott v. Sanford &ecision that &enie&
citi4enship to a !ac8 s!a$e. <t a!so %a8es %ost o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts
app!ica!e to the states. Ao!itionists $iew the 11
th
A%en&. as a %eetin"
"roun& o# constitutiona! an& natura! ri"hts.
i. Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause
ii. .ue Process/ =ustanti$e & Proce&ura!
iii. E>ua! Protection
1) Privileges or Immunities of 14
th
Amend.
(co$ers citi4ens? .ue Process & E>ua! Protection app!( to persons)
a. Fa!se start in Slaughterhouse Cases (19;:), where the Court he!& that the
Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause o# the 11
th
A%en&. &i& not %a8e the 'i!!
o# +i"hts app!ica!e to the states in a case in$o!$in" La. statute creatin" a
*-,(r %onopo!(.
i. <t was he!& that the so!e #unction o# the C!ause was to protect the
ri"hts secure& to in&i$i&ua!s in their re!ationship to the #e&era!
"o$ern%ent, in their capacit( as #e&era! citi4ens.
ii. Case re@ecte& #e&era!is% $a!ues an& #un&a%enta! ri"hts an& ase&
on a constitutiona! %is>uote. 5<t is >uite c!ear, then, that there is a
Pa"e 1 o# 9:
citi4enship o# the Anite& =tates an& a citi4enship o# a state, which
are &istinct #ro% each otherB6
1. 5<ts so!e purpose was to &ec!are to the se$era! states that
whate$er those ri"hts, as (ou "rant or esta!ish the% to (our
own citi4ens, or as (ou !i%it or >ua!i#(, or i%pose restrictions
on their exercise, the sa%e neither %ore or !ess, sha!! e the
%easure o# the ri"hts o# citi4ens o# other states within (our
7uris&iction.6
. +ecent!(, the Court resurrecte& the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause to
protect that aspect o# interstate tra$e! that "uarantee& to tra$e!ers, who
are per%anent resi&ents o# a state, the ri"ht to e treate& !i8e other
citi4ens o# that state.
i. .iscri%ination a"ainst the new!( arri$e& citi4en ase& on the
exercise o# the ri"ht to tra$e! e$en i# on!( an inci&enta! ur&en is a
pena!t(, su7ect to strict scrutin(.
ii. <n Saenz v. Roe (1999), Court struc8 &own a Ca!. !aw that
con&itione& we!#are ene)ts on the #a%i!(2s prior resi&ence. =tate
ar"ue& that this was to ser$e )sca! o7ecti$es, ut the Court state&
that the =tate cannot &iscri%inate a%on" e>ua!!( nee&( citi4ens.
1. Anc!ear whether this is a re$i$a! in the use o# the C!ause as a
sustanti$e source o# protection o# #un&a%enta! ri"hts.
*. =tate %a( sti!! see8 to assure that a new!( arri$e& tra$e!er is
%aintainin" a ona )&e resi&ence e#ore it pro$i&es state
ene)ts.
c. Cri"ina! <ntent/ Dohn 'in"ha%, the principa! author o# the 11
th
A%en&.,
speci)ca!!( sai& that the pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities o# citi4ens o# the
Anite& =tates, contra&istin"uishe& #ro% citi4ens o# a state, are chie@(
&e)ne& in the )rst 9 A%en&%ents o# the Constitution o# the Anite&
=tates.
i. Pro#. Trie conc!u&es that the C!ause is est seen then, as
incorporatin" the 'i!! o# +i"hts a"ainst state "o$ern%ents without
i%p!(in" the exc!usi$it( o# that set o# "uarantees. Trie a!so ar"ues
that Corfeld can e est un&erstoo& as an atte%pt to i%port the
natura! ri"hts &octrine into the Const. ( wa( o# the Pri$i!e"es &
<%%unities.
&. Ao!itionist Perspecti$e/ <t has een su""este& that the three C!auses o#
the 11
th
A%en&. were the pro&uct an& too8 their %eanin", app!ication,
an& si"ni)cance #ro% the ao!itionist %o$e%ent, a popu!ar an& pri%ari!(
!a( %o$e%ents, which was %ora!, ethica!, re!i"ious, an& re$i$a!ist rather
than !e"a! in character. The A%en&. to the% was a 5%eetin" "roun& o#
constitutiona! an& natura! ri"hts,6 protectin" 5natura! an& inherent ri"hts
o# a!! %en.6
i. An&er this interpretation, the A%en&. inten&e& to inc!u&e the entire
'i!! o# +i"hts an& a "reat &ea! %oreEthe who!e spectru% o# ri"hts
e%race& in such phrases as 5natura! ri"hts,6 5#un&a%enta! ri"hts,6
5the ri"hts o# %an,6 5Fo&,"i$en ri"hts6 an& so #orth an& in such
&ocu%ents as the .ec!aration o# <n&epen&ence, the Prea%!e to the
Constitution, an& the 'i!! o# +i"hts.
Pa"e * o# 9:
e. +e7ectin" the Ao!itionist Construction/ D. Gi!!er ar"ues that the Fra%ers
cou!& not ha$e inten&e& to restructure the A%erican #e&era! s(ste% in
or&er to pro$i&e #e&era! protection #or ci$i! ri"hts.
i. 3owe$er, E. Corwin notes/ The &eates in Con"ress on the
a%en&%ent !ea$e one in !itt!e &out o# the intention o# its #ra%ers
to nationa! ci$i! !iert( in the A=, pri%ari!( #or the ene)t o# the
#ree&o%, ut inci&enta!!( #or the ene)t o# a!!. This wou!& e &one
( con$ertin" =tate citi4enship an& its pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities
into pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities o# nationa! citi4enship.
1. Then ( section -, o# the a%en&., which e%powers Con"ress
to en#orce its other pro$isions ( 5appropriate !e"is!ation,6
that o&( wou!& e %a&e the u!ti%ate authorit( in &e!i%itin"
the entire sphere o# pri$ate ri"hts in re!ation to the powers o#
the =tates, !ea$in" to the =upre%e Court an inter%e&iate ro!e
in this respect.
ii. D. Fox ar"ues that Gi!!er wron"!( re!e"ate& the #un&a%enta!
pri$i!e"es o# citi4enship, which were extensi$e!( &iscusse& ( the
&ra#ters o# the a%en&. an& suse>uent Con"resses, to state
pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities. <n &oin" so, !i%ite& the on"oin"
con"ressiona! &eate o$er speci)c &e)nitions o# the C!ause in the
context o# the en#orce%ent powers un&er -.
1. Contrar( to %o&ern =upre%e Court interpretation, the
ori"ina! intent was that Con"ress ha& power un&er - to
&eter%ine so%e o# the content o# the pri$i!e"es an&
i%%unities o# nationa! citi4enship.
#. Constitutiona!i4in" Ci$i! +i"hts/ +. 'er"er ar"ues that the three C!auses
o# 1 o# the A%en&. were a!! #acets o# the sin"!e concern to prohiit
&iscri%ination a"ainst #ree%en in re"ar& to a !i%ite& ran"e o#
#un&a%enta! ri"hts re@ecte& in the 19HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act.
i. The sustanti$e ri"hts were i&enti)e& ( the pri$i!e"es an&
i%%unities C!ause? the e>ua! protection was to ar !e"is!ati$e
&iscri%ination with respect to those ri"hts? an& the 7u&icia!
%achiner( to secure the% was to e supp!ie& ( non&iscri%inator(
&ue process o# the se$era! states.
1. The sustanti$e ri"hts inc!u&e& on!( (1) persona! securit(? (*)
#ree&o% to %o$e aout? an& (:) ownership an& &isposition o#
propert(. The inci&enta! ri"hts necessar( #or sa#e"uar&in"
these ri"hts were enu%erate& in the 19HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act
which &e)ne& the outer !i%its o# the 11
th
A%en&. pri$i!e"es
an& i%%unities.
ii. Critics o# this ar"u%ent point out that this is an o$ersi%p!i)e& $iew
o# the co%p!exit( o# %oti$ations that un&er!ie the a%i"uous
pro$isions o# the 11
th
A%en&. E$en i# the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities
C!ause was %eant to constitutiona!i4e the ri"hts enu%erate& in the
19HH Ci$i! +i"hts Act, this &oes not necessari!( %ean that the
A%en&. was so !i%ite&, since it &oes not enu%erate speci)c ri"hts
as &oes the Ci$i! +i"hts Act.
1. <# the ri"hts o# Anite& =tates citi4enship are the natura! ri"hts
to !i#e, !iert(, an& propert(, as repeate&!( state& ( the
#ra%ers, then the ri"hts speci)e& in 1 o# the Ci$i! +i"hts Act
Pa"e : o# 9:
&o not co%pro%ise the entire corpus o# the ri"hts o# A=
citi4ens.
". Du&icia! $iew/ C.D. 0arren su""este& in Brown I, that the histor( o# the
11
th
A%en&. is 5at est, inconc!usi$e.6 D. 'rennan (concurrin" an&
&issentin" in Ore. v. Mitchell) conc!u&e& that the 5recor& !e#t ( the
#ra%ers o# the 11
th
A%en&. is thus too $a"ue an& i%precise,6 an& the
A%en&. there#ore re%ain 5capa!e o# ein" interprete& ( #uture
"enerations in accor&ance with the $ision an& nee&s o# those
"enerations.6
-) Natural Rights
a. 'e"ins with the .ec!aration o# <n&epen&ence, which procee&s #ro% the
pre%ise that it is a 5se!#,e$i&ent truth6 that 5a!! %en are create& e>ua!6
an& en&owe& with Fo&,"i$en, ina!iena!e ri"hts to !i#e, !iert( an& the
pursuit o# happiness.
i. <t has een su""este& that the !aw o# nature is nothin" %ore or !ess
than the popu!ation conception o# 7ustice an& ri"ht. DeIerson2s use
o# it as a 7usti)cation #or re$o!ution is !ess trou!eso%e than its use
( D. Chase as a asis #or 7u&icia! re$iew.
. <n Calder v. Bull (1;99) D. Chase co%%ente& that 5the o!i"ation o# a !aw
in "o$ern%ents esta!ishe& on express co%pact, an& on repu!ican
princip!es, %ust e &eter%ine& ( the nature o# the power, on which it is
#oun&e&6 (in$o!$in" the $a!i&it( o# a Conn. !aw o$erturnin" a proate
court &ecree an& "rantin" a new hearin" was attac8e& as an ex post #acto
!aw).
i. Cn the contrar(, D. <re&e!! wrote separate!( to express his $iew that
in the asence o# an( constitutiona! restraints the Court &i& not
ha$e the power to &ec!are the !aw $oi&, pointin" out that the i&eas
o# natura! 7ustice are not re"u!ate& ( an( )xe& stan&ar&.
c. <n letcher v. !ec" (1910) the Court re!ie& on natura! !aw to &ec!are state
!aw unconstitutiona! ecause the !e"is!ati$e power is !i%ite& ( oth the
"enera! princip!es o# our po!itica! institutions an& the wor&s o# the
Constitution (!an& tit!e ha& een con$e(e& to innocent owners, state !aw
rescin&in" the "rant was &ee%e& to unconstitutiona!!( inter#ere with
$este& ri"hts).
&. Econo%ic ri"hts/ .octrine o# Jeste& +i"hts states that propert( ri"ht is
#un&a%enta! an& an( !aw i%pairin" $este& ri"hts is $oi&. Propert( was a
natura! ri"ht protecte& ( the socia! co%pact. This &octrine was use& (
the courts principa!!( was a u!war8 o# econo%ic propert( interests
a"ainst state !e"is!ati$e intrusion. A!so #ro% the 19
th
Cent. to 19:;, the
Court #oun& that #ree&o% to contract was a asic ri"ht un&er the !iert(
an& propert( pro$isions o# the &ue process C!ause.
Due Process Meanings
, The &ue process princip!e &eri$es #ro% the Ga"na Carta, pro$i&in" protection
#ro% the Kin", 7u&iciar( an& the !e"is!ature. There is serious >uestion that
either phrase was ori"ina!!( inten&e& to pro$i&e a sustanti$e, rather then a
proce&ura!, !i%itation on "o$ern%enta! power.
, 0hat is the nature o# the 5!iert(6 protecte& ( the .ue Process C!ause that
wou!& in& the statesL .oes it incorporate the 'i!! o# +i"hts an& to what
extentL
Pa"e 1 o# 9:
1) otal Incor!oration
The Court, re7ecte& tota! incorporation o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts as app!ica!e to the
states in Barron v. Baltimore.
a. 5ha& the #ra%ersB inten&e& Mthe 'i!! o# +i"htsN to e !i%itations on the
powers o# the state "o$ern%ents, the( wou!& ha$e i%itate& the #ra%ers o#
the ori"ina! constitution, an& ha$e expresse& that intention.6
. 5These a%en&%ents contain no expression in&icatin" an intention to
app!( the% to the state "o$ern%ents.6
") #le$i%le Due Process &Inde!endent Potenc')
<n the 1910s & -0s, a Court %a7orit( e%p!o(e& a @exi!e approach which
$iewe& the .ue Process C!ause as ha$in" a %eanin" in&epen&ent o# the 'i!! o#
+i"hts. The Court &eter%ine& whether a procee&in" was so un#air as to oIen&
the #un&a%enta! stan&ar&s o# &ecenc(.
a. <n&epen&ent Potenc( o# the .ue Process C!ause o# the 11
th
& -
th
A%en&s./
i. =tan&ar& o# 5whether the( oIen& those canons o# &ecenc( an&
#airness which express the notions o# 7ustice.6 Fro% #damson v.
Cal. (191;) (upho!&in" .2s con$iction o# %ur&er cha!!en"in" Ca!.
proce&ure pro$i&in" that #ai!ure o# . to testi#( can e consi&ere&).
ii. Consensus theor( o# what the %a7orit( o# the states &o to in#or%
notions o# &ue process.
1. Ase& in $ones v. lowers to &eter%ine that the state nee&e& to
ta8e a&&itiona! reasona!e steps to noti#( owner o# tax sa!e.
() )elective Incor!oration
The Court has he!& that so%e, ut not a!!, o# the pro$isions o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts
are incorporate& ( the .ue Process C!ause an& thus %a&e app!ica!e to the
states. Goreo$er, the "uarantees o# the .ue Process C!ause are not !i%ite& to
those ri"hts in the 'i!! o# +i"hts.
a. =tan&ar& o# <ncorporation/
i. Concept o# Cr&ere& Liert(
1. Co$ers on!( #un&a%enta! ri"hts or ri"hts that are necessar( to
a ci$i!i4e& societ(.
*. Announce& in !al"o v. Conn. (19:;), D. Car&o4o writin" that
so%e o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts are protecte& $a!ues ecause the(
are i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert(, i.e. #ree&o% o#
expression, #ree exercise o# re!i"ion, the ri"ht o# peacea!e
asse%!(, an& the ri"ht o# one accuse& o# cri%e to the ene)t
o# counse!.
ii. +oote& in A%erican Tra&ition or Dustice
1. As8s i# it is #un&a%enta! e$en thou"h a #air & en!i"htene&
s(ste% o# 7ustice wou!& e possi!e without the "uarantee.
Duncan v. %a. (19H9).
. Pro$isions Oot <ncorporate&/ Gost o# the sustanti$e & proce&ura!
"uarantees o# the 'i!! o# +i"hts ha$e een incorporate& except, *
n&
, :
r&
,
an& -
th
A%en&. ri"ht to "ran& 7ur( in&ict%ent an& ;
th
A%en&. ri"ht to tria!
( 7ur( in ci$i! cases, #ree&o% #ro% excessi$e ai!, an& re>uire%ents o# a
1*,person 7ur( an& o# a unani%ous $er&ict #or con$iction.
4) #ull * Partial Incor!oration
The Court has he!& that the incorporate& ri"hts app!ies a"ainst the states to the
sa%e extent an& in the sa%e %anner as the 'i!! o# +i"hts pro$ision app!ies
Pa"e - o# 9:
a"ainst the #e&era! "o$ern%ent. 3owe$er, !ater cases ha$e narrowe& the scope
o# certain 'i!! o# +i"hts "uarantees to acco%%o&ate state proce&ures.
Pa"e H o# 9:
PR+,-D.RAL D.- PR+,-))
Fuarantee& ( the -
th
an& 11
th
A%en&s. +e%e&ies #or proce&ura! &ue process
$io!ations %an&ate that the "o$2t chan"e the processes use& in &ea!in" with persons
( &o not re>uire an( re#or% in the sustanti$e ru!e itse!#.
1) Interest Invaded/ <s there a &epri$ation o# a si"ni)cant !i#e, !iert(, or
propert( interest so that the .ue Process C!ause app!iesL The Court has on!(
reco"ni4e& &ue process as app!(in" to ene)ts that are present!( en7o(e&.
a. Propert(/ the #act that an interest is i%portant to an in&i$i&ua! is
ina&e>uate to create 5propert(/ #or &ue process purposes. Propert( has
een !i%ite& to interests reco"ni4e& ( the "o$ern%ent (in existin" ru!es
or un&erstan&in"s that ste% #ro% state or #e&era! !aw).
i. For "o$ern%ent ene)ts to constitute propert(, the person see8in"
&ue process %ust show so%e entit!e%ent create& ( "o$ern%ent.
0hether we!#are is &ee%e& a ri"ht or pri$i!e"e, this is a si"ni)cant
propert( interest an& &ue process %ust e aIor&e& when ene)ts
are ter%inate&.
1. 5+e!e$ant constitutiona! restraints app!( as %uch to the
with&rawa! o# pu!ic assistance ene)ts as to &is>ua!i)cation
#or une%p!o(%ent co%pensation? or to &enia! o# a tax
exe%ption? or to &ischar"e #ro% pu!ic e%p!o(%ent.6
&old'erg v. (ell) (19;0).
ii. A ene)t is OCT a protecte& entit!e%ent i# "o$ern%ent oIicia!s
%a( "rant or &en( it in their &iscretion. Castle Roc" v. &onzales
(*00-) (=ca!ia #or the Ct. ho!&in" that there is no propert( interest
or entit!e%ent to en#orce%ent o# a restrainin" or&er), note& the
arriers to en#orce%ent constitutin" a propert( interest/
1. Lac8s a %onetar( $a!ue
*. A!!e"e& propert( interest arises inci&enta!!(, #ro% a #unction
routine!( per#or%e&? not out o# so%e new species o# "o$2t
ene)t or ser$ice.
:. An in&irect an& inci&enta! resu!t o# the "o$ern%ent2s
en#orce%ent action &oes not a%ount to a &epri$ation o# an(
interest in !i#e, !iert( or propert(.
. Liert(/ roa& concept inc!u&in" con&itions o# i%prison%ent, reputation,
%arria"e, raisin" a #a%i!(, wor8in" in co%%on occupations o# the
co%%unities, an& other notions protecte& ( sustanti$e &ue process.
c. .epri$ation/ %ust e a &e!ierate act ( the "o$ern%ent rather than a
ne"!i"ent act, or pri$ate act.
") Procedures Re0uired/ The %ini%u% proce&ures &e%an&e& ( &ue process
are notice an& hearin".
a. An&er the Matthews test, the Court consi&ers three #actors (Matthews v.
*ldridge) (19;H) (Ct. he!& that &ue process &oes not re>uire a pre,
ter%ination hearin")/
i. The se$erit( o# the har% to the !iti"ant i# the re>ueste& proce&ures
are not "rante&
ii. The ris8 o# error i# the proce&ures are not aIor&e&
iii. The a&%inistrati$e &iIicu!t( an& cost o# pro$i&in" the a&&e&
proce&ures.
. Court has note& that Matthews is not an 5a!!,e%racin" test #or &eci&in"
&ue process c!ai%s.6 Dusen'er) v. +S (*00*) (usin" 5a %ore
Pa"e ; o# 9:
strai"ht#orwar& test o# reasona!eness un&er the circu%stances6 in
ho!&in" that notice o# #or#eiture sent ( certi)e& %ai! to #e&era! prison
where c!ai%ant was incarcerate& satis)e& proce&ura! &ue process.).
c. Court he!& that pu!ic e%p!o(ees &o not ha$e to accept the 5itter with
the sweet,6 o$erru!in" a pre$ai!in" $iew that a pu!ic e%p!o(ee can e
&ischar"e without a hearin". Cleveland Bd. of *duc. v. %oudermill
(o$erru!in" #rnett v. (enned)).
i. Propert( is not &e)ne& ( proce&ures pro$i&e& #or its &epri$ation.
The ri"ht to &ue process is con#erre& ( the Constitution. 0hi!e the
!e"is!ature %a( e!ect not to con#er a propert( interest in pu!ic
e%p!o(%ent, it %a( not constitutiona!!( authori4e the &epri$ation o#
such an interest, once con#erre&, without appropriate proce&ura!
sa#e"uar&s.
&. Court use& consensus theor( o# &ue process in &eci&in" what 8in& o#
notice is suIicient in $ones v. lowers.
).1)ANI2- D.- PR+,-))
-conomic )u%stantive Due Process
, The Court initia!!( re7ecte& the )rst atte%pts to use the &ue process C!ause to
protect econo%ic ri"hts #ro% "o$ern%ent inter#erence. 5An&er no construction
o# Mthe .ue ProcessN C!ause, or an( that we &ee% a&%issi!e, can the restraint
i%pose& ( the "o$ern%ent
o Slaughter ,ouse Cases (19;:)/ Ct. express!( re7ecte& utchers2
sustanti$e &ue process c!ai% cha!!en"in" La. !aw that "rante& a pri$ate
co%pan( a *-,(r %onopo!(. Ct. state& that the .ue Process C!ause cou!&
not e use& to sa#e"uar& a ri"ht to practice a tra&e or pro#ession #ro%
aritrar( "o$ern%ent inter#erence.
D. Fie!& & 'ra&!e( &issente&, interpretin" the .ue Process C!ause as
!i%itin" the ai!it( o# states to a&opt aritrar( !aws, especia!!( ones
that inter#ere& with natura! ri"hts. 5This ri"ht to choose one2s
ca!!in" is an essentia! part o# that !iert( which is the "o$ern%ent2s
o7ect to protect? an& a ca!!in" when chosen, is a %an2s propert(
an& ri"ht.6
The 7ustices interprete& 5!iert(6 an& 5propert(6 in the .ue
Process C!ause as protectin" a ri"ht to practice a tra&e or
pro#ession.
, Rise/ Prior to the Oew .ea!, the Court use& the .ue Process C!auses o# the -
th

& 11
th
A%en&. to in$a!i&ate a $ariet( o# #e&era! an& state socia! an& econo%ic
!aws as aritrar( inter#erences with the #ree&o% to contract protecte& ( the
.ue Process "uarantees o# !iert( an& propert(.
o 5<n %ere pri$ate contracts, re!atin" to %atters in which the pu!ic has no
interest, what is reasona!e %ust e ascertaine& 7u&icia!!(B ecause the
!e"is!ature has no contro! o$er such contract.6 Munn v. Illin. (19;;) (Ct.
&icta).
o Ct. he!& that prohiitin" a person #ro% %a8in" a contract with an out,o#,
state co%pan( was a $io!ation o# the in&i$i&ua!2s ri"ht to contract
protecte& ( the 11
th
A%en&. #llge)er v. %a. (199;).
o 5The ri"ht to purchase or se!! !aor is part o# the !iert( protecte& ( Mthe
11
th
N a%en&%ent, un!ess there are circu%stances which exc!u&e that
Pa"e 9 o# 9:
ri"ht.6 %ochner v. -. (190-) (Ct. in$a!i&ate& state !aw re"u!ation
%axi%u% hours o# e%p!o(%ent.).
Puestion is whether this is a #air, reasona!e, an& appropriate
exercise o# the po!ice power o# the state or is it an unreasona!(,
unnecessar(, an& aritrar( inter#erence with the ri"ht o# the
in&i$i&ua! to his persona! !iert(L
The act %ust ha$e a %ore &irect re!ation, as a %eans to an
en& an& the en& itse!# %ust e appropriate an& !e"iti%ate,
e#ore an act can e he!& to e $a!i& which inter#eres with the
"enera! ri"ht o# an in&i$i&ua! to e #ree in his person an& in
his power to contract in re!ation to his own !aor.
D. 3o!%es &issentin", 5a constitution is not inten&e& to e%o&( a
particu!ar econo%ic theor(.6
=u""este& that the Ct. #ai!e& to see that #ree&o% cou!& e !i%ite&
( centers o# econo%ic powerEthe corporation as we!! as ( "o$2t.
Criticis% that the Ct. rea& an econo%ic theor( o# !aisse4,#aire that
was not there.
o Court struc8 &own a #e&era! !aw which %a&e it a cri%ina! oIense #or an
interstate carrier to &ischar"e an e%p!o(ee ecause o# his %e%ership in
a !aor union. #dair v. +S (1909).
o Court in$a!i&ate& a %ini%u% wa"e !aw #or wo%en, reco"ni4in" that
#ree&o% o# contract is the "enera! ru!e an& restraint the exception.
#d"ins v. Children/s ,os0ital (19*:).
, Decline/ <n the #ace o# risin" a&$erse pu!ic reaction to 7u&icia! in$a!i&ation o#
the Oew .ea!, the &octrine o# econo%ic sustanti$e &ue process e"an to e.
o Oeither propert( ri"hts not contract ri"hts are aso!ute. E>ua!!(
#un&a%enta! with the pri$ate ri"ht is that o# the pu!ic to re"u!ate it in
the co%%on interest. The -
th
a%en&., in the )e!& o# #e&era! acti$it(, an&
the 11
th
a%en&., as respects to state action, &o not prohiit "o$ern%enta!
re"u!ation #or the pu!ic we!#are. -e''ia v. -. (19:1) (Ct. uphe!& state
!e"is!ation settin" %i!8 prices #or the purpose o# stai!i4in" the %ar8et
an& roa&ens exception #or re"u!ation o# usiness aIecte& with pu!ic
interest).
The "uarantee o# &ue process &e%an&s on!( that the !aw sha!! not
e unreasona!e, aritrar( or capricious, an& that the %eans
se!ecte& sha!! ha$e a rea! an& sustantia! re!ation to the o7ect
sou"ht to e attaine&.
=o #ar as the re>uire%ent o# &ue process is concerne&, an& in the
asence o# other constitutiona! restriction, a state is #ree to a&opt
whate$er econo%ic po!ic( %a( reasona!( e &ee%e& to pro%ote
pu!ic we!#are, an& to en#orce that po!ic( ( !e"is!ation a&apte& to
its purpose.
Rational %asis standard of review/ <# the !aws passe& are seen to
ha$e a reasona!e re!ation to a proper !e"is!ati$e purpose, an& are
neither aritrar( nor &iscri%inator(, the re>uire%ents o# &ue
process are satis)e&.
0ith -e''ia, the Court e"an a %arch that was to en& with
tota! 7u&icia! a&ication.
Pa"e 9 o# 9:
o )u%stantive change ca%e when the Court announce& that 5Liert(
un&er the Constitution is thus necessari!( su7ect to the restraints o# &ue
process, an& re"u!ation which is reasona!e in re!ation to its su7ect an&
is a&opte& in the interests o# the co%%unit( is &ue process.6 W. Coast
,otel Co. v. !arish (19:;) (o$erru!in" #d"ins an& notin" that 5the
co%%unit( %a( &irect its !aw,%a8in" power to correct the ause which
sprin"s #ro% our se!)sh &isre"ar& o# the pu!ic interest.6).
=use>uent!(, the Court &ec!are& 5it is not !on"er open to >uestion
that the )xin" o# a %ini%u% wa"e is within the !e"is!ati$e power
an& that the are #act o# its exercise is not a &enia! o# &ue process.6
+S v. Dar') (upho!&in" stan&ar&s o# the Fair Laor =tan&ar&s Act).
o Deferential a!!roach ta8en in upho!&in" statutes #ori&&in"
&iscri%ination a"ainst nonunion e%p!o(ees (%incoln ed. %a'or +nion v.
-W Iron 1 Metal), an& &et,a&7ustin" (erguson v. S"ru0a). 5An&er the
s(ste% o# "o$ern%ent create& ( our Constitution, it is up to !e"is!atures,
not courts, to &eci&e on the wis&o% an& uti!it( o# !e"is!ation.6
o ,urrent a!!roach the Court uses to 7u&"e the $a!i&it( o# econo%ic
re"u!ation set #orth in +S v. Carolene !rods. (19:9)/ For re"u!ator(
!e"is!ation aIectin" or&inar( co%%ercia! transaction is not to e
pronounce& unconstitutiona! un!ess in the !i"ht o# the #acts %a&e 8nown
or "enera!!( assu%e& it is o# such character as to prec!u&e the
assu%ption that it rests upon so%e rationa! asis within the 8now!e&"e
an& experience o# the !e"is!ators.
The ur&en is on the cha!!en"in" part( to esta!ish that the !aw has
no rationa! re!ation to a per%issi!e "o$ern%enta! purpose.
There %a( e a narrower scope #or operation o# the presu%ption o#
constitutiona!it( when !e"is!ation appears on its #ace to e within
speci)c prohiition o# the Constitution, such as those o# the )rst ten
a%en&%ents. There is a!so the possii!it( o# 5%ore exactin" 7u&icia!
scrutin(6 when !e"is!ation ne"ati$e!( i%pacte& the po!itica! process
itse!# o# aIecte& &iscrete an& insu!ar %inorities. D. =tone at #n 1.
Modern )u%stantive Due Process/ Non3#undamental Rights
, Rational %asis review/ To&a(, socia! an& econo%ic re"u!ator( an& tax
!e"is!ation which &oes not inter#ere with #un&a%enta! ri"hts wi!! not e c!ose!(
scrutini4e& ( the #e&era! courts. <# there is an( rationa! asis that the
!e"is!ature %i"ht ha$e ha& #or conc!u&in" that the !e"is!ation wou!& #urther
per%issi!e !e"is!ati$e o7ecti$es, it wi!! e sustaine&.
o The !aw %ust not e aritrar( or irrationa! an& wi!! e presu%e& to e
constitutiona!.
o The cha!!en"in" part( ha& the ur&en o# proo#, which is essentia!!(
insur%ounta!e an& no econo%ic !e"is!ation has een he!& to e
unconstitutiona! ( the Court.
, A!!l' the standard/ 0hen exa%inin" a statute un&er the .ue Process C!ause,
i# there is no asis #or in$o8in" a stricter stan&ar& o# re$iew, the rationa!it( test
shou!& e a&opte&/
deference to legislative 0olic) 2udgments
1) ascertain the o7ecti$e o# the !aw (a court wi!! not proe #or the true
purpose o# the !aw)
a. #or state !aws, per%issi!e po!ice power o7ecti$es wi!! suIice.
Pa"e 10 o# 9:
*) i&enti#( the %eans use& ( the state to achie$e the o7ecti$e
:) exa%ine the rationa!it( o# the %eans #or achie$in" the o7ecti$e (
re$iewin" the re!e$ant #acts
a. i# there are #acts that wou!& sustain the !aw, courts wi!! "enera!!(
assu%e the !e"is!ation was ase& on those #acts
)u%stantive Due Process/ #undamental Rights
, )trict scrutin' review/ 0hen !e"is!ation intru&es on 5#un&a%enta! ri"hts6
app!ica!e to the states throu"h the &ue process "uarantee, a %ore &e%an&in"
stan&ar& o# re$iew is a&opte&. The "o$ern%ent %ust &e%onstrate that the
!e"is!ation is narrow!( tai!ore& or necessar( to #urther a co%pe!!in" state
interest.
, This re>uires a %uch %ore speci)c showin"/
o that the %eans are reasona!e,
o o# ur"ent state interest
o narrow tai!orin" (i# the !aw is not precise!( &rawn, it can e he!& to e
unconstitutiona!!( o$erroa&)
, The ur&en o# 7usti)cation is on the "o$ern%ent.
, A!!lica%ilit'/ 0hi!e a strict scrutin( is use& #or a!! express ri"hts, the Court
has a!so app!ie& the %ore &e%an&in" stan&ar& to ri"hts that are not express!(
enu%erate&.
o <n so%e cases, the ri"hts are i%p!ie& #ro% the express ri"hts, e.". ri"hts
o# association an& e!ie# i%p!ie& #ro% the 1
st
A%en&.
o <n other instances, the 7u&icia! &eter%ination o# whether a #un&a%enta!
ri"ht is si"ni)cant!( ur&ene& re@ects consi&erations such as tra&ition,
conte%porar( %ora!s, prece&ent an& ana!o"(, !o"ic an& reason, or the
conse>uences o# the !aw #or the in&i$i&ua! (as app!ie& ana!(sis).
o 0hen the Court &ec!ines to #ashion a separate 5#un&a%enta! ri"ht6 ut
&eter%ines whether the "o$ern%ent re"u!ation sustantia!!( ur&ens a
si"ni)cant !iert( interest "uarantee& ( the .ue Process C!ause.
The Court %a( a$oi& use o# strict scrutin(, ut a&opts a
5continuu%6 approach re@ectin" the reasonin" 5that certain
interests re>uire particu!ar!( care#u! scrutin( o# the state nee&s
asserte& to 7usti#( their ari&"e%ent.6 !oe v. +llman (19H1)
(3ar!an &issentin").
The Court a!ances the "o$ern%ent interest in re"u!atin" the
con&uct a"ainst the ur&en on protecte& !iert(, resu!tin" in an
inter%e&iate !e$e! o# scrutin(.
,ontrace!tion
, Court #oun& that speci)c "uarantees in the 'i!! o# +i"hts (1
st
, :
r&
, 1
th
, -
th
, an& 9
th

A%en&s.) ha$e penu%ras that create a 54ones o# pri$ac(.6 50e &ea! with a
ri"ht o# pri$ac( o!&er than the 'i!! o# +i"hts.6 <t is an i%per%issi!e intrusion
on the ri"ht o# association protectin" the %arita! re!ationship. &riswold v.
Conn. (19H-) (.r. was char"e& with &istriutin" contraception to %arrie&
persons).
o D. Fo!&er"2s concurrence state&/ Du&"es %ust !oo8 to the tra&itions an&
co!!ecti$e conscience o# our peop!e to &eter%ine whether a princip!e is so
roote& there as to e ran8e& as #un&a%enta!. Liert( a!so "ains content
#ro% the e%anations o# speci)c constitutiona! "uarantees an& #ro%
experience with the re>uire%ents o# a #ree societ(.
Pa"e 11 o# 9:
A!so !oo8e& to the 9
th
A%en&. as protectin" a&&itiona! #un&a%enta!
ri"hts not enu%erate&.
=ti!! has %o&ern #orce.
o D. 3ar!an2s concurrence uses the in>uir( o# whether the statute in#rin"es
5ecause the enact%ent $io!ate& asic $a!ues i%p!icit in the concept o#
or&ere& !iert(.6 This in>uir( &oes not &epen& on the 'i!! o# +i"hts,
thou"h %a( e in#or%e& ( it.
.oes not )n& that the an on contraception #or %arrie& coup!es
#urther =tate2s an on i!!icit sexua! re!ationships.
'ui!t on his &issent in !oe v. +llman/ .ue process has not
een re&uce& to an( #or%u!a? its content cannot e
&eter%ine& ( re#erence to an( co&eB. <nas%uch as context
is not one o# wor&s, ut o# histor( an& purposes, the #u!! scope
o# the !iert( "uarantee& ( the .ue Process C!ause cannot
e #oun& in or !i%ite& ( the precise ter%s o# the speci)c
"uarantees e!sewhere pro$i&e& in the ConstitutionB. <t is a
rationa! continuu% which, roa&!( spea8in", inc!u&es a
#ree&o% #ro% a!! sustantia! aritrar( i%positions an&
purpose!ess restraints, an& which a!so reco"ni4es, what a
reasona!e an& sensiti$e 7u&"%ent %ust, that certain
interests re>uire particu!ar!( care#u! scrutin( o# the state
nee&s asserte& to 7usti#( their ari&"e%ent.
o D. '!ac8 &issentin", is s8eptica! o# how the Court shou!& &eter%ine which
tra&itions are roote& in the co!!ecti$e conscience o# our peop!e an&
ar"ues that 5"o$ern%ent has a ri"ht to in$a&e Man in&i$i&ua!2s pri$ac(N
un!ess prohiite& ( so%e speci)c constitutiona! pro$ision.6
o D. =tewart &issentin", )n&s 5no such "enera! ri"ht o# pri$ac( in the 'i!! o#
+i"hts, in an( other part o# the Constitution, or in an( case e$er e#ore
&eci&e& ( this Court.6
o Ootes & Critics on .ue Process interpretation/
Case can e un&erstoo& as a spatia! an& &ecisiona! pri$ac( ri"hts as
we!! as access to in#or%ation.
<t has een su""este& that what e%er"es here is a %o&i)e&
5natura! !aw6 (ie!&in" a o&( o# ri"hts whose content is su""este&
( speci)c constitutiona! pro$isions ut whose scope an& content
are not restricte& to, or (, the enu%erate& ri"hts. MOot "roun&e&
on .ue Process, accor&in" to =ca!ia, &issentin" in %awrence.N
P. Kauper/ The pro!e% with the rea&th o# D. .ou"!as2
interpreti$is% ($iew that !e"a! ri"hts an& &uties are
&eter%ine& throu"h interpretation o# practice sensiti$e to the
$a!ues that practice ser$es, or ascertainin" ori"ina! intent or
purpose) resu!ts #ro% the #act that in exten&in" the peripher(,
an& in )n&in" ri"hts &eri$e& #ro% the tota! sche%e o# the 'i!!
o# +i"hts, the Court in &riswold is app!(in" the essentia!!( the
sa%e processes as that use& in the #un&a%enta! ri"hts
approach, ut &i"ni#(in" it with a &iIerent na%e creatin" the
i!!usion o# "reater o7ecti$it(.
o Ootwithstan&in" D. .ou"!as2 protestations, &riswold
%ar8e& a si"ni)cant re$i$a! o# natura! ri"hts thin8in",
Pa"e 1* o# 9:
whate$er the #or%a! ar"u%ent e%p!o(e& ( the
%a7orit(.
0. 'eane( su""ests that D. .ou"!as2 opinion wishes to a$oi& the
5natura! !aw6 princip!e which in$o!$es se!ectin" ri"hts inc!u&a!e in
the .ue Process C!ause o# the 11
th
A%en&.Ea process he an& D.
'!ac8 ha& sou"ht to a$oi& ( &e%an&in" #u!! incorporation o# the
'i!! o# +i"hts.
At the sa%e ti%e, he wants to circu%$ent the !i%itations
pose& ( '!ac82s insistence that on!( those ri"hts speci)e& in
the 'i!! o# +i"hts or other pro$isions o# the Constitution are
protecte&. 0hat resu!ts is a %o&i)e& 5natura! !aw6 (ie!&in" a
o&( o# ri"hts whose content is su""este& ( speci)c
constitutiona! pro$isions ( whose scope an& content are not
restricte& to, or (, the enu%erate& ri"hts.
D. E!( )n&s support in the Constitution #or 5representation,
rein#orcin"6 $a!ues which 7usti#( acti$e 7u&icia! inter$ention in
5ensurin" roa& participation in the process an& &istriutions o#
"o$ern%ent.6 The Constitution is a process o# "o$ern%ent, not a
"o$ernin" i&eo!o"(.
+. Posner/ A court is suppose& to e tethere& to authoritati$e texts,
such as constitutiona! an& statutor( pro$isions, an& to pre$ious
7u&icia! &ecisions? a !e"is!ature is notEit can roa% #ree. 'ut the
=upre%e Court, when it is &eci&in" constitutiona! cases, is po!itica!
in the sense o# ha$in" an& exercisin" &iscretionar( power as
capacious as the !e"is!atures. <t cannot a&icate that power, #or
there is nothin" on which to &raw to &eci&e constitutiona! cases o#
an( no$e!t( other than &iscretionar( 7u&"%entB. =uch cases occup(
a roa& open area where the con$entiona! !e"a! %ateria!s o#
&ecision run out an& the Dustices, &epri$e& o# those crutches, ha$e
to %a8e a &iscretionar( ca!!.
C. =unstein2s theor( o# proce&ura! %ini%a!is%/ in the %ost &iIicu!t
an& contro$ersia! &o%ains, the Court ten&s to choose re!ati$e!(
narrow an& una%itious "roun&s? it procee&s ( ui!&in" cautious!(
on prece&ent, in the #ashion o# co%%on !aw courts.
o he 4
th
Amend5/ The Court has "enera!!( interprete& the 9
th
A%en&. in a
%anner that &enies it an( ro!e in the constitutiona! structure.
<t is open,texture& enou"h to support a!%ost an(thin" one %i"ht
wish to ar"ue.
<t %a( e that it is an anti,pree%ption pro$ision, in&icatin" that the
enu%eration o# constitutiona!!( protecte& ri"hts is not inten&e& to
occup( the )e!& an& there( prec!u&e state,create& supp!e%entar(
ri"hts that are not "roun&e& in speci)c textua! pro$isions. =o
construe&, the 9
th
A%en&. wou!& not authori4e the 7u&iciar( to
reco"ni4e the new #e&era!!( protecte& constitutiona! ri"hts.
=i%i!ar!(, it %a( e &esi"ne& to c!ari#( that the enu%erate& ri"hts is
not inten&e& to e an exhausti$e !ist o# !e"a!!( reco"ni4e& ri"hts.
<t has a!so een su""este& that the #ra%ers conte%p!ate& the
existence o# ri"hts ao$e an& e(on& those enu%erate& in the 'i!!
o# +i"hts, which are ase& on natura! !aw.
Pa"e 1: o# 9:
o Marital and #amilial Privac'/ The pri$ac( reco"ni4e& in &riswold %a(
e seen as @owin" #ro% the tra&itiona! $a!ues associate& with %arita!
ri"hts an& the un&!e o# ri"hts associate& with ho%e, #a%i!( an& %arria"e
Eri"hts supporte& ( prece&ent, histor(, an& co%%on un&erstan&in".
<t has een state& that whate$er the constitutiona! ri"ht o# pri$ac(
%a( %ean in other contexts, the %ain o7ect o# constitutiona!
protection in &riswold was the %arita! re!ationship.
o Right to %e left alone/ The pri$ac( &iscussion e%phasi4e& the ho%e as
a critica! !ocus o# pri$ac( an& the rea!% o# e!ie#s an& thou"hts as
essentia! parts o# the 5ri"ht to e !e#t a!one.6 Stanle) v. &a. (19H9) (Ct.
struc8 &own a con$iction ase& on possession o# oscene %ateria!s in
one2s ho%e, citin" the 1
st
A%en&. an& ri"ht to pri$ac().
, Court a!so pro$i&e& this ri"ht to un%arrie& in&i$i&ua!s in *isenstadt v. Baird
(19;*) (in$a!i&atin" Gass. !aw prohiitin" &istriution o# contraception to
un%arrie& persons &espite a!!owin" access to %arrie& peop!e on the asis o#
e>ua! protection "roun&s).
o 5<# the ri"ht o# pri$ac( %eans an(thin", it is the ri"hts o# the in&i$i&ua!,
%arrie& or sin"!e, to e #ree #ro% unwarrante& "o$ern%enta! intrusion
into %atters so #un&a%enta!!( aIectin" a person as the &ecision whether
to ear or e"et a chi!&.6
A%ortion
, Court exten&e& the ri"ht o# pri$ac( to inc!u&e the &ecision to ter%inate a
pre"nanc(, ut this ri"ht is not un>ua!i)e& an& %ust e consi&ere& a"ainst
i%portant state interests in re"u!ation. Roe v. Wade (19;:) (in$a!i&atin" Tx.
!aws %a8in" it a cri%e to procure an aortion except to sa$e the !i#e o# the
%other).
o The Court use& a tri%ester ana!(sis where( the state on!( has a
co%pe!!in" interest in the hea!th o# the %other a#ter the )rst tri%ester
an& can re"u!ate aortion reasona!( re!ate& to the preser$ation an&
protection o# %aterna! hea!th.
Prior to this point, the ph(sician an& patient are #ree to &eter%ine
whether to ter%inate the pre"nanc(, without re"u!ation ( the
state.
o 0ith respect to the state2s interest in potentia! !i#e, the co%pe!!in" point
is at $iai!it( an& the state can proscrie aortion &urin" that perio&,
except when it is necessar( to preser$e the !i#e or hea!th o# the %other.
o The state is #ree to p!ace increasin" restrictions on aortion as the perio&
o# pre"nanc( !en"thens, so !on" as those restrictions are tai!ore& to the
reco"ni4e& state interests.
o D. .ou"!as concurrin", in&icates his support #or pri$ac( ri"hts to e
retaine& ( the peop!e (per 9
th
A%en&.) an& that this is a #un&a%enta!
&ecisiona! ri"ht, a!on" with &ecisions re"ar&in" %arria"e, &i$orce,
procreation, an& e&ucation an& uprin"in" o# chi!&ren. A&&itiona!!(, this
ri"ht to chose an aortion is ase& in the #ree&o% #ro% o&i!( restraint.
o D. =tewart concurrin" that the &ecision can e rationa!!( un&erstoo& on!(
as a ho!&in" that the Conn. statute sustanti$e!( in$a&e& the 5!iert(6
that is protecte& ( the .ue Process C!ause ecause prece&ents in&icate
that #ree&o% o# persona! choice in %atters o# %arria"e an& #a%i!( !i#e is
one o# the !ierties protecte& ( the C!ause.
Pa"e 11 o# 9:
3is concurrence re@ects the tension etween a&herin" to
prece&ence an& "oin" in a new &irection.
o D. 0hite (with +ehn>uist) &issentin", )n&s nothin" in the !an"ua"e or
histor( o# the Constitution to support Court2s announce%ent o# a new
constitutiona! ri"ht #or pre"nant %others an& that the issue is est !e#t to
the peop!e an& the po!itica! process.
o D. +ehn>uist &issentin", &oes not )n& a #un&a%enta! ri"ht to aortion.
+eco"ni4in" that there is a !iert( interest #or a wo%an to contro! her
own o&(, &ue process an& rationa! asis are re>uire& ut no %ore.
o Oote & Criticis%s/
Another approach to the aortion >uestion is to !in8 5o&i!(
inte"rit(6 with a concept o# 5personhoo&.6 'ecause o&i!( inte"rit(
is necessar( #or the #or%ation o# se!#hoo&, it is essentia! that !aw
reco"ni4e wo%en2s su7ecti$it( in its construction o# wo%en2s
procreati$e !i$es.
D. E!(/ 0hat is #ri"htenin" aout Roe is that this super,protecte&
ri"ht o# the wo%en to choose is not in#era!e #ro% the !an"ua"e o#
the Constitution, the #ra%ers2 thin8in" respectin" the speci)c
pro!e% in issue, an( "enera! $a!ue &eri$a!e #ro% the pro$ision
the( inc!u&e&, or the nation2s "o$ern%enta! structure.
The ri"i& tri%ester #ra%ewor8 eco%es the #ocus o# &issentin"
opinions in post,Roe cases. <t can e ar"ue& that a person %i"ht
accept &riswold, (et sti!! con&e%n Roe as an aerration o# 7u&icia!
!e"is!ation.
Roe in&icates the nee& #or a co%pe!!in" reason in or&er to in$a&e a
#un&a%enta! ri"ht, ut it &oes not account #or wh( such a stan&ar&
is appropriate nor &oes it in&icate wh( it has not een satis)e&.
, Later, the Court re7ects the tri%ester #ra%ewor8, ut reaIir%s the essentia!
ho!&in" in Roe, ase& on the stron" !iert( interests in$o!$e&, which the Court
c!ai%s are, !lanned !arenthood v. Case) (199*) (usin" stare &ecisis an&
concerns o# institutiona! inte"rit( to ase its reaIir%ation)/
1) The ri"ht o# the wo%an to choose to ha$e an aortion e#ore $iai!it( an& to
otain it without un&ue ur&en #ro% the state.
a. 'e#ore $iai!it(, the state2s interests are not stron" enou"h to support
a prohiition o# aortion or the i%position o# a sustantia! ostac!e to
the wo%an2s eIecti$e ri"ht to e!ect the proce&ure.
. The #act that a !aw which ser$es a $a!i& purpose, not &esi"ne& to stri8e
at the ri"ht itse!#, has the inci&enta! eIect o# %a8in" it %ore &iIicu!t
or %ore expensi$e to procure an aortion cannot e enou"h to
in$a!i&ate it.
c. An!ess there is a sustantia! ostac!e to her ri"ht to choose, a state
%easure &esi"ne& to persua&e her to choose chi!&irth o$er aortion
wi!! e uphe!& i# reasona!( re!ate& to that "oa!.
&. An un&ue ur&en exists i# its purpose or eIect is to p!ace a sustantia!
ostac!e in the path o# a wo%an see8in" an aortion e#ore the #etus
attains $iai!it(.
*) The state has the power to restrict aortions a#ter #eta! $iai!it(, i# the !aw
contains exceptions #or pre"nancies which en&an"er a wo%an2s !i#e or
hea!th.
Pa"e 1- o# 9:
:) The state has !e"iti%ate interests #ro% the outset o# pre"nanc( in protectin"
the hea!th o# the wo%an an& the !i#e o# the #etus that %a( eco%e a chi!&.
a. *1,hour waitin" perio& in or&er to ena!e the wo%an to "i$e in#or%e&
consent is not a sustantia! ostac!e to otainin" an aortion.
. =pousa! noti)cation an& consent is !i8e!( to pre$ent a si"ni)cant
nu%er o# wo%en #ro% otainin" an aortion, an& hence, is in$a!i&.
=tate %a( not "i$e to a %an the 8in& o# &o%inion o$er his wi#e that
parents exercise o$er their chi!&ren.
c. =tate %a( re>uire a %inor see8in" an aortion to otain parenta!
consent, pro$i&e& that there is an a&e>uate 7u&icia! (pass proce&ure.
&. +ecor&8eepin" & reportin" re>uire%ents o# the ph(sician, #aci!it(,
wo%an2s a"e, nu%er o# prior pre"nancies, prior aortions, %e&ica!
con&ition or reason #or aortion, #eta! wei"ht, an& wo%an2s a"e &
%arita! status are $a!i&, ut %ust e con)&entia!. 'ut a reportin"
pro$ision that re>uires spousa! noti)cation is not.
o D. =te$ens concurrin" & &issentin" )n&s that it is unc!ear when the state2s
interest (which %ust e secu!ar) outwei"hs the wo%an2s interest in
persona! !iert(. A!so )n&s that the state persua&in" the wo%an an& the
*1,hr waitin" perio& are in$a!i& since the( inter#ere with &ecisiona!
autono%(.
o D. '!ac8%un concurrin" an& &issentin", e!ie$es that the ri"ht o#
repro&ucti$e choice is entit!e& to #u!! protection, that the re"u!ations
i%pose an unconstitutiona! ur&en an& wou!& app!( strict scrutin(.
Roe/s tri%ester #ra%ewor8 is %ore a&%inistra!e an& !ess
%anipu!a!e than the 5un&ue ur&en6 stan&ar&.
o D. +ehn>uist &issentin" (with 0hite, =ca!ia, Tho%as) #oun& that a
wo%an2s &ecision to ter%inate her pre"nanc( is not a #un&a%enta! ri"ht
nor is it a &eep!( roote& tra&ition.
Prece&ent in&icates that !iert( inc!u&es a ri"ht to %arr(, to
procreate, an& to use contracepti$e, ut &oes not in&icate a ri"ht to
pri$ac(. Roe was incorrect!( ase& on this. Aortion is not &eep!(
roote& in histor( or tra&ition.
The 5un&ue ur&en6 stan&ar& is create& !ar"e!( wou!& o# who!e
c!oth an& not ui!t to !ast.
A wo%an2s interest in ha$in" an aortion is a #or% o# !iert(
protecte& ( the .ue Process C!ause, ut =tates %a( re"u!ate
aortion proce&ures in was rationa!!( re!ate& to a !e"iti%ate state
interest.
o D. =ca!ia &issentin" (with +ehn>uist, 0hite, Tho%as) state& that this
who!e issue shou!& e &eci&e& ( the po!itica! process not ( the
7u&iciar(. The Constitution is si!ent on this issue an& !on"stan&in"
tra&itions o# A%erican societ( ha$e per%itte& it to e !e"a!!( proscrie&.
3e a!so attac8s the new stan&ar& as !ac8in" unprincip!e& an& &out#u! in
app!ication.
, =tate re"u!ation o# *
n&
tri%ester aortions #or hea!th an& sa#et( reasons %ust
a!so pro$i&e #or the %other2s hea!th. Sten'erg v. Carhart (*000) (-,1
in$a!i&atin" statute prohiitin" partia!,irth aortions at an( sta"e o#
pre"nanc( un!ess it is necessar( to sa$e the !i#e o# the %other). Currentl) onl)
3 of the 4 2ustice ma2orit) are on the court.
Pa"e 1H o# 9:
o '( $irtua!!( annin" one proce&ure e$en thou"h it %a( e the !ess ris8(
option, the state i%poses a si"ni)cant hea!th ris8 on wo%en.
o The statute use& roa& !an"ua"e that cou!& e rea& to an the %ost
co%%on!( use& %etho& o# *
n&
tri%ester aortions, there( chi!!in"
potentia! aortion pro$i&ers.
D. +ehn>uist, Tho%as an& Kenne&( (who was part o# the 7oint
opinion in Case)) &issente& on the "roun&s that Case) shou!& e
rea& as authori4in" states to re"u!ate aortion practices #or the
purpose o# pro%otin" state interests re!ate& to the practice o#
%e&icine.
D. Kenne&( state& that 5the Court2s ho!&in" contra&icts
Case)/s assurance that the =tate2s constitutiona! position in
the rea!% o# pro%otin" respect #or !i#e is %ore than
%ar"ina!.6
D. =ca!ia &issentin", #oun& the notion that the Constitution prohiits
states #ro% annin" a ruta! %eans o# e!i%inatin" ha!#,orn
posterit( as 5>uite si%p!( asur&.6
, Minors/ E$en thou"h a %inor2s repro&ucti$e ri"hts are protecte&, the Court
has reco"ni4e& the "reater state interest in protectin" i%%ature %inors an&
has app!ie& a !ess strin"ent stan&ar& o# re$iew an& a!!owin" "reater state
re"u!ation. 3owe$er, the state %a( not restrict access to aortions that are
%e&ica!!( necessar(.
o Fenera!!(, parenta! noti)cation or parenta! consent can e re>uire& i#
there is a pro$ision #or a 7u&"e to "rant per%ission #or the aortion where
the %inor has &e%onstrate& suIicient %aturit( or it is in her est
interest.
o =tates ha$e the ri"ht to re>uire parenta! in$o!$e%ent when a %inor
consi&ers ter%inatin" her pre"nanc( ecause o# their stron" an&
!e"iti%ate interest in the we!#are o# their (oun" citi4ens (ut the state
cannot restrict aortions i# there is a %e&ica! e%er"enc(). #)otte v.
!lanned !arenthood of -ew *ngland (*00H) (Ct. chose not to re$isit its
aortion prece&ents an& instea& he!& that i# en#orcin" a parenta!
noti)cation statute that re"u!ates access to aortions wou!& e
unconstitutiona! in %e&ica! e%er"encies, in$a!i&atin" the statute entire!(
is not a!wa(s necessari!( or 7usti)e&).
, Government funding/ The aortion ri"ht is not si"ni)cant!( ur&ene& i#
"o$ern%ent #ai!s to %a8e the ri"ht eIecti$e ( #un&in" aortions e$en #or those
&epen&ent on "o$ern%ent ai&. Maher v. Roe (19;;). There is no aIir%ati$e
ri"ht to "o$ern%ent ai&.
o Prohiitin" pu!ic #un&in" #or certain %e&ica!!(,necessar( aortions &oes
not $io!ate the .ue Process, E>ua! Protection or Esta!ish%ent C!auses.
,arris v. McRae (1990) (0hi!e "o$ern%ent %a( not p!ace ostac!es in the
path o# a wo%an2s exercise o# her #ree&o% o# choice, it nee& not re%o$e
those ostac!es it &i& not create.).
o =tate %a( prohiit pu!ic e%p!o(ees an& #aci!ities #ro% ein" use& #or
#aci!itatin" aortions not necessar( to sa$e the !i#e o# the %other.
We'ster v. Re0roductive ,ealth Servs. (1999).
Marital and #amilial Rights
, The Court has #oun& that the institutions o# %arria"e an& #a%i!( !i#e are &eep!(
roote& in our nation2s histor( an& tra&itions. Garria"e was characteri4e& as
Pa"e 1; o# 9:
5one o# the asic ci$i! ri"hts o# %an, #un&a%enta! to our $er( existence an&
sur$i$a!.6 =i%i!ar!(, the Court has accepte& that a parent has a #un&a%enta!
ri"ht in the care, custo&(, an& contro! o# chi!&ren.
o )tandard of review/ A %ore strin"ent stan&ar& o# re$iew is appropriate
when these ri"hts are si"ni)cant!( ur&ene&.
, 'ut not a!! re!ationships an& associations are within the 5%arria"e6 an& 5#a%i!(
!i#e6 an& 5parenta! ri"hts6 that are protecte& ( .ue Process !iert(. The
c!ai%e& interest %a( e &e)ne& ( the Court in such a wa( that it &oes not
>ua!it( #or constitutiona! protection.
o The eIect o# constitutiona! !aw in the &o%estic !i#est(!e area is potentia!!(
, 0hen "o$ern%ent intru&es on choices concernin" #a%i!( !i$in" arran"e%ents,
the Court %ust exa%ine care#u!!( the i%portance o# the "o$ern%ents interests
a&$ance& an& the extent to which the( are ser$e& ( the cha!!en"e& re"u!ation.
Moore v. *. Cleveland (19;;) (in$a!i&ate& cit( or&inance that a!!owe& on!(
%e%ers o# a sin"!e #a%i!( to !i$e to"ether usin" historic tra&itions).
o )tandard of review/ inter%e&iate stan&ar& re>uires states to &o %ore
than "i$e a rationa! re!ation? &oes not ca!! it a #un&a%enta! ri"ht.
, .ecisions concernin" chi!& rearin", which Me)ers, !ierce an& other cases ha$e
reco"ni4e& as entit!e& to constitutiona! protection, !on" ha$e een share& with
"ran&parents or other re!ati$es who occup( the sa%e househo!&Ein&ee& who
%a( ta8e on %a7or responsii!it( #or the rearin" o# the chi!&ren. Moore v. *.
Cleveland.
o 5'ut un!ess we c!ose our e(es to the asic reasons wh( certain ri"hts
associate& with the #a%i!( ha$e een accor&e& she!ter un&er the 11
th

A%en&.2s .ue Process C!ause, we cannot a$oi& app!(in" the #orce an&
rationa!e o# these prece&ents to the #a%i!( choice in$o!$e& in this case.6
o Appropriate !i%its on sustanti$e &ue process co%e #ro%B respect #or
the teachin"s o# histor( an& so!i& reco"nition o# the asic $a!ues that
un&er!ie our societ(.
<t is throu"h the #a%i!( that we incu!cate an& pass &own %an( o#
our %ost cherishe& $a!ues, %ora! an& cu!tura!.
<n a #n, D. Powe!! respon&in" to the 0hite2s &issent, which is ase&
on )n&in" it 5i%p!icit in or&ere& !iert(6/ an approach "roun&e& in
histor( i%poses on the 7u&iciar( that are %ore %eanin"#u! than an(
ase& on the astract #or%u!a ta8en #ro% !al"o v. Conn. an&
apparent!( su""este& as an a!ternati$e.
o 'ur"er &issentin" ecause !iti"ant shou!& use the a&%inistrati$e
re%e&ies.
o =tewart (with +ehn>uist) &issentin" on the "roun&s that the asserte&
interest in sharin" housin" with re!ati$es is not a persona! interest
&ee%e& to e i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert(. To e>uate this
with the #un&a%enta! &ecisions to %arr( an& to ear an& raise chi!&ren is
to exten& the !i%ite& sustanti$e contours o# the .ue Process C!ause
e(on& reco"nition.
o 0hite &issentin", )n&s that .ue Process C!ause protect on!( those ri"hts
i%p!icit in the concept o# or&ere& !iert( an& the interest in resi&in" with
%ore than one set o# "ran&chi!&ren is one that 5neither !iert( nor 7ustice
wou!& exist i# it were sacri)ce&.6 'asin" .ue Process on &eep!( roote&
tra&itions o# the countr( is &eata!e an& roa&en the hori4ons o# the
C!ause.
Pa"e 19 o# 9:
o Oote/ The court in Moore saw the case as a &ispute etween #a%i!( an&
state rather than a &ispute a%on" citi4ens aout the %eanin" o# 5#a%i!(.6
, Court uphe!& or&inance that 4one& #or 5sin"!e #a%i!( &we!!in"s,6 with #a%i!(
&e)ne& as re!ate& persons ( !oo&, a&option o# %arria"e, an& characteri4e& it
as anti,co%%une 4onin" or&inance as socia! an& econo%ic !e"is!ation &eser$in"
7u&icia! &e#erence, rather than ta8e issue with the &e)nition o# #a%i!(. 5illage
of Belle 6erre v. Boraas (19;1) (app!(in" rationa! asis).
, Court uphe!& the #un&a%enta! ri"ht o# parents to %a8e &ecisions concernin"
the care, custo&(, an& contro! o# their chi!&ren an&, in a p!ura!it( opinion,
struc8 &own a 0ash. state statute pro$i&in" #or an( person to petition the court
#or $isitation ri"hts when it %a( ser$e the est interest o# the chi!&. 6ro7el v.
&ranville (*000) (D. C2Connor, #or the p!ura!it(? "ran&parents sou"ht an&
"rante& %ore $isitation e$en thou"h %other &i& not &en( it, on!( &esire& to
re&uce it).
o P!ura!it( #oun& the statute reathta8in"!( roa&, as app!ie&, excee&e& the
oun&s o# the .ue Process C!ause ( un&u!( inter#erin" with the
constitutiona!!( protecte& ri"ht o# a parent to raise his or her chi!&.
The pro!e% here is not that the 0ashin"ton =uperior Court
inter$ene&, ut that when it &i& so, "a$e no specia! wei"ht to the
tra&itiona! presu%ption that a )t parent wi!! act in the est interest
o# his or her chi!&.
o D. Tho%as, concurrin", reco"ni4e& 5a #un&a%enta! ri"ht o# parents to
&irect the uprin"in" o# their chi!&ren6 an& wou!& app!( strict scrutin(
5to in#rin"e%ents o# #un&a%enta! ri"hts.6
o D. =outer, concurrin", a!so accepte& a this as a #un&a%enta! ri"ht, ut
#oun& the statute was #acia!!( o$erroa& an& unconstitutiona!.
o D. =ca!ia, &issentin", &i& not )n& a #un&a%enta! ri"ht as it is asent #ro%
the Constitution an& that the 7u&iciar( !ac8s the authorit( to &en( the
!e"a! eIect to !aws in#rin"in" on unenu%erate& ri"hts.
o Critics c!ai% that the !ine the Court is atte%ptin" to wa!8 etween the
preser$ation o# parenta! ri"hts an& the reco"nition o# nonparenta! c!ai%s
is untena!e. The Court is tr(in" to ha$e it oth wa(s.
)odom'
, Prior prece&ent in Bowers v. ,ardwic" (199H) D. 0hite, state& that there was no
constitutiona! ri"ht o# ho%osexua!s to en"a"e in so&o%(. (upho!&in" Fa.
statute cri%ina!i4in" so&o%( #or either "en&er).
o +i"ht is not #oun& in either 5#un&a%enta! !ierties that are i%p!icit in the
concept o# or&ere& !iert(6 or in !ierties 5&eep!( roote& in the Oation2s
histor(.6 +ather, prohiitin" this con&uct has historic roots in a!! -0
states.
o D. '!ac8%un &issente& an& ar"ue& that this was not aout ho%osexua!
acti$it(, ut aout the ri"ht to e !e#t a!one, which inc!u&e&
persona!Q&ecisiona! pri$ac( an& spatia! pri$ac(, oth o# which exten& to
ho%osexua! so&o%(.
o D. =te$ens &issente&, #ra%in" the issue as an une>ua! app!ication o# the
!aw an& reasone& that a "enera! an on so&o%( in$o!$es the essentia!
!iert( to en"a"e in pri$ate, non,repro&ucti$e, inti%ate socia! con&uct,
e$en etween %arrie& heterosexua!s, an& the state has not 7usti)e& a
se!ecti$e app!ication o# the !aw.
Pa"e 19 o# 9:
=te$ens2 &issent eco%es stron"!( in@uentia! on the Court2s opinion
in %awrence v. 6e7.
, The Court, $ia Kenne&(, o$erru!es Bowers in %awrence v. 6e7. (*00:) (
reexa%inin" &riswold an& its !ine o# cases, which in&icate a ri"ht to %a8e
certain &ecisions re"ar&in" sexua! con&uct that exten&s e(on& the %arita!
re!ationship. The Court exp!icit!( state& it #ai!e& to appreciate the extent o#
!iert( at sta8e in Bowers (an& re,#ra%es the issue to o$erru!e it).
o )tandard of review/ The Court &oes not in&icate what 8in& o# re$iew is
ein" use&, thou"h it %i"ht e consi&ere& 5particu!ar!( care#u! scrutin(6
or a rationa!it( test. There has een no showin" that in this countr( the
"o$ern%enta! interest in circu%scriin" persona! choice is so%ehow
%ore !e"iti%ate or ur"ent. The !aw &oes not #urther a !e"iti%ate state
purpose which can 7usti#( its intrusion into the persona! an& pri$ate !i#e o#
the in&i$i&ua!.
o A&u!ts %a( choose to enter upon this re!ationship in the con)nes o# their
ho%es an& pri$ate !i$es an& sti!! retain their &i"nit( as #ree persons.
=exua!it( is part o# a persona! on&. The !iert( protecte& ( the
Constitution a!!ows ho%osexua! persons the ri"ht to %a8e this choice.
!lanned !arenthood v. Case) state&/ These %atters, in$o!$in" the
%ost inti%ate an& persona! choices a person %a( %a8e in a
!i#eti%e, choices centra! to persona! &i"nit( an& autono%(, are
centra! to the !iert( protecte& ( the 11
th
A%en&. At the heart o#
!iert( is the ri"ht to &e)ne one2s own concept o# existence, o#
%eanin", o# the uni$erse, an& o# the %(ster( o# hu%an !i#e. Persons
in a ho%osexua! re!ationship %a( see8 autono%( #or these
purposes, 7ust as heterosexua! persons &o.
o =tare &ecisis is inappropriate/
3istoric e$i&ence re!ie& on in Bowers was o$erstate& an&
inaccurate. Cn!( recent!( &i& A%erican !aws tar"et ho%osexua!s
(as peop!e $ersus con&uct).
Go&ern !aws an& tra&itions show an 5e%er"in" awareness6 that
!iert( "i$es sustantia! protection to a&u!t persons in &eci&in" how
to con&uct their pri$ate !i$es, citin" GPC reco%%en&ation to
&iscar& cri%ina! pena!ties #or consensua! sexua! con&uct, EA
con$entions in$a!i&atin" si%i!ar !aws, an& the &ecrease in the
nu%er o# states proscriin" so&o%(.
The #oun&ations o# Bowers ha$e sustaine& serious erosion #ro% our
recent &ecisions in Case) an& Romer. Goreo$er, Bowers causes
uncertaint( since the prece&ents e#ore an& a#ter it contra&ict its
centra! ho!&in".
o Court exp!icit!( &oes not a&&ress "a( %arria"e o# an( #or%a! reco"nition
an& &oes not a&&ress ri"ht to pri$ac( (on!( !iert( &iscusse&).
o D. C2Connor concurrin", wou!& not o$erru!e Bowers, ut #oun& the Tex.
statute unconstitutiona! ase& on e>ua! protection usin" a %ore
searchin" #or% o# rationa! asis re$iew.
The !aw is not "en&er neutra!, such that on!( ho%osexua! so&o%( is
cri%ina!, whereas heterosexua! so&o%( is not. This &iscri%inates
ase& on ho%osexua! status e$en thou"h it out!aws the con&uct,
here the con&uct is c!ose!( corre!ate& with ein" ho%osexua!.
Pa"e *0 o# 9:
o D. =ca!ia (with +ehn>uist, Tho%as) &issentin", wou!& app!( rationa! asis
test an& points out that whi!e o$erru!in" the outco%e o# Bowers, the
Court sti!! has not #oun& a #un&a%enta! ri"ht un&er the .ue Process
C!ause #or ho%osexua! so&o%(
The Tex. !aw was rationa!!( re!ate& to the !e"iti%ate state interest
in #urtherin" the e!ie# o# its citi4ens that certain #or%s o# sexua!
eha$ior are i%%ora! an& unaccepta!e, ana!o"i4in" to state !aws
a"ainst i"a%(, sa%e,sex %arria"e, a&u!t incest, prostitution,
%asturation, a&u!ter(, #ornication, estia!it(, an& oscenit(.
o D. Tho%as &issentin", state& that it is not the ro!e o# the Court to reso!$e
this, ut that o# the state !e"is!ature.
o Ootes & Criticis%s/
C. =unstein e%phasi4es the extent to which the %ochner Court
posite& the existence o# a natura! an& prepo!itica! pri$ate sphere,
one that ser$e& as a rea8 on !e"is!ation.
The pro!e% with the %ochner Court was its re!iance on
co%%on !aw an& status >uo ase!ines? the Court was una!e
to see the wa(s in which those ase!ines were i%p!icate& in,
in&ee& a pro&uct o# !aw. Pointin" out that 5tra&itiona!6
&isapproation o# ho%osexua! practice is itse!# a creature o#
!aw, =unstein ar"ues that %ochner/s in$a!i&ation o# state
!e"is!ation an& Bower/s upho!&in" o# state !e"is!ation are
$irtua!!( i&entica! 7u&icia! &ecisions.
A reasona!e ar"u%ent cou!& e #ashione& that %ochner/s
protection o# econo%ic an& propert( interests actua!!( has a
)r%er "roun&in" in histor( o# the Constitution2s creation than
the ri"ht reco"ni4e& in Roe or asserte& in Bowers.
F. Giche!%an asserts a repu!ican ar"u%ent to e %a&e that the
in&i$i&ua! assertin" a ri"ht to en"a"e in ho%osexua! eha$ior is
ein" &enie& 5&ue citi4enship.6
Ci$ic repu!ican theor( posits a e!ie# in the suor&ination o#
pri$ate interests to the pu!ic "oo& an& that %ost %en
rea!i4e& their hu%anit( when the( participate& in pu!ic,
co%%una! !i#e.
<t see%s $er( !i8e!( that a%on" the eIects o# an anti,so&o%(
!aw on persons #or who% ho%osexua!it( is an aspect o#
i&entit( is a &enia! or i%pair%ent o# their citi4enship, in the
roa& sense appropriate to %o&ern repu!ican
constitutiona!is%/ that o# a&%ission to #u!! an& eIecti$e
participation in the $arious arenas o# pu!ic !i#e. <t a!so
&enies citi4enship ( $io!atin" pri$ac(.
Pro#. Trie critici4es C2Connor2s e>ua! protection ar"u%ent ecause
i# the Court ha& stoppe& short o# ho!&in" that a an on so&o%(
&e)ne& without re"ar& to sex wou!& e unconstitutiona!, then an(
state cou!& #ree!( prohiit or attach other ne"ati$e conse>uences to
the sexua! inti%acies to which ho%osexua!s are &istincti$e!( &rawn
as !on" as it prohiite& or si%i!ar!( pena!i4e& the sa%e acts when
co%%itte& ( opposite,sex coup!es. The state wou!& then e in a
position to 7usti#( withho!&in" e%p!o(%ent, parentin", or other
Pa"e *1 o# 9:
opportunities #ro% those !ae!e& ho%osexua!, un!ess sexua!!(
inacti$e, %a( e assu%e& to en"a"e in con&uct that the state is
entit!e& to &iscoura"e.
<%p!ications o# the &ecision support same3se$ marriage ecause
the sa%e reasonin" can to support ar"u%ents that the state has
sustanti$e &ue process o!i"ations to reco"ni4e such %arria"es.
Right to Personal Lifest'le ,hoices
, Dohn =tuart Gi!!s ar"ues that inter#erence with in&i$i&ua! !iert( o# action can
on!( e warrante& when it is to pre$ent har% to others.
, Court &ec!ine& to exten& the pri$ac( cases to po!ice "roo%in" re"u!ations in
(elle) v. $ohnson (19;H).
o Roe an& &riswold were &istin"uishe& as in$o!$in" 5a sustantia! c!ai% o#
in#rin"e%ent on the in&i$i&ua!2s #ree&o% o# choice with respect to certain
asic %atters as procreation, %arria"e, an& #a%i!( !i#e.6
o A!thou"h the citi4enr( at !ar"e %a( ha$e a 5!iert(6 interest in %atters o#
persona! appearance, the Court conc!u&e& that this was not
&eter%inati$e o# the $a!i&it( o# such re"u!ations #or po!ice oIicers.
The choice o# or"ani4ation, &ress, an& e>uip%ent #or !aw
en#orce%ent personne! is a &ecision entit!e& to the sa%e sort o#
presu%ption o# !e"is!ati$e $a!i&it( as state choices &esi"ne& to
pro%ote other c!ai%s within the co"ni4ance o# the state2s po!ice
power. The re"u!ation was &ee%e& a rationa! %eans o# pursuin"
"o$ern%ent2s o$era!! nee& #or &iscip!ine, esprit &e corps, an&
uni#or%it( in its po!ice #orce.
o D. Garsha!! (with 'rennan) &issentin" ar"ue& that not on!( were the
!iert( interests o# the 11
th
A%en&. i%p!icate&, ut that no rationa!
re!ationship existe& etween the cha!!en"e& re"u!ations an& the
i&enti)e& state "oa!s.
The ri"ht in one2s persona! appearance is inextrica!( oun& up
with the historica!!( reco"ni4e& ri"ht o# e$er( in&i$i&ua! to the
possession an& contro! o# his own person? an& perhaps e$en %ore
#un&a%enta!!(, with the ri"ht to e !et a!one.
o )tandard of Review/ +ationa! asisE0hether the re"u!ations shou!& e
enacte& is so irrationa! that is %a( e ran&e& aritrar( an& there#ore a
&epri$ation o# the oIicer2s !iert( interest in #ree&o% to choose his own
hair st(!e.
o Criticis%/ Con#or%it( to custo% see%s insuIicient to 7usti#( the !i%itation
on in&i$i&ua! choice.
Rights to reatment and Protection
, Fo$ern%ent "enera!!( has no aIir%ati$e constitutiona! &ut( to pro$i&e care
an& protection #or in&i$i&ua!s. 3owe$er, where the =tate exercises custo&( o#
an in&i$i&ua!, the .ue Process C!ause i%poses a &ut( on the "o$ern%ent to
assu%e so%e responsii!it( #or that person2s care an& we!!,ein".
, Court #oun& that the state cannot in$o!untari!( con)ne patients who are not a
threat to se!# or others. O/Connor v. Donaldson (19;-). A )n&in" o# %enta!
i!!ness a!one cannot 7usti#( a state !oc8in" up a person a"ainst his wi!! an&
8eepin" hi% in&e)nite!( in si%p!e custo&ia! con)ne%ent.
, Court ru!e& that an in$o!untari!( co%%itte& in&i$i&ua! has !iert( interests in
persona! securit( an& #ree&o% #ro% o&i!( restraint. 3ence the state %ust
pro$i&e sa#e con&itions o# con)ne%ent an& 5%ini%a!!( a&e>uate o# reasona!e
Pa"e ** o# 9:
trainin"6 to ensure sa#et( an& #ree&o% #ro% un&ue restraint. .oung'erg v.
Romeo (199*) (D. Powe!! #or the Court, care#u! not to &escrie as !iert(
interests rather than #un&a%enta! ri"hts since %e&ica! 7u&"%ent is in$o!$e&).
o 3owe$er, when the =tate institutiona!i4es an in&i$i&ua! who is therea#ter
who!!( &epen&ent on the =tate, it is conce&e& that a &ut( to pro$i&e
certain ser$ices an& care &oes exist, a!thou"h a =tate has consi&era!e
&iscretion in &eter%inin" the nature an& scope o# its responsii!ities.
o 0hen the =tate ( the aIir%ati$e exercise o# its power so restrains an
in&i$i&ua!2s !iert( that it ren&ers his una!e to care #or hi%se!# an& at
the sa%e ti%e #ai!s to pro$i&e #or his asic hu%an nee&s, it trans"resses
the sustanti$e !i%its on state action ( the 9
th
A%en&. an& .ue Process
C!ause. Exp!aine& in DeShane) v. Winne'ago.
The aIir%ati$e &ut( to protect arises not #ro% the =tate2s
8now!e&"e o# the in&i$i&ua!2s pre&ica%ent or #ro% its expression o#
intent to he!p hi%, ut #ro% the !i%itation which it has i%pose& on
his #ree&o% to act on his own eha!#.
, There is no &epri$ation o# the chi!&2s 5!iert(6 in $io!ation o# the &ue process
"uarantee when the =tate #ai!s to protect the chi!& #ro% ph(sica! ause.
DeShane) v. Winne'ago Ct). De0t. of Soc. Servs. (1999) (C.D. +ehn>uist #or the
Court? =oc. =er$s. trie& to protect the chi!& #ro% ausi$e #ather, ut &i& not
re%o$e hi% #ro% his #ather2s custo&( an& the chi!& suse>uent!( suIere&
per%anent rain &a%a"e).
o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un) &issentin", ar"ue& that "o$ern%ent
shou!& e he!& responsi!e when it atte%pts to "i$e ai& to a pri$ate
citi4en ( #ai!s to #o!!ow throu"h, particu!ar!( when that ai& supp!ants
pri$ate sources o# ai&.
o Oote/ The i%p!ication o# a ho!&in" #o!!owin" the &issent wou!& e to
&isincenti$ise an( "o$ern%ent ai&.
, The =tate is not constitutiona!!( responsi!e #or #ai!in" to aIir%ati$e!( protect
pri$ate citi4ens #ro% har% which arises #ro% other sources. DeShane).
o The .ue Process C!auses "enera!!( con#er no aIir%ati$e ri"ht to
"o$ern%enta! ai&, e$en where such ai& %a( e necessar( to secure !i#e,
!iert(, or propert( interests o# which the "o$ern%ent itse!# %a( not
&epri$e the in&i$i&ua!.
o The .ue Process C!ause was inten&e& to protect the peop!e #ro% the
=tate, not to ensure that the =tate protecte& the% #ro% each other.
o The =tate p!a(e& no part in the creation o# the &an"er. The =tate &oes
not eco%e the per%anent "uarantor o# an in&i$i&ua!2s sa#et( ( ha$in"
once oIere& hi% she!ter.
Pa"e *: o# 9:
-6.AL PR+-,I+N
, The 11
th
A%en&. pro$i&es that, 5Oo =tateB sha!! &en( to an( person the e>ua!
protection o# the !aws.6 0hi!e there is no correspon&in" #e&era! counterpart,
unreasona!e c!assi)cations ( the #e&era! "o$ern%ent $io!ate the -
th
A%en&.
.ue Process "uarantee.
, Cn!( when a c!assi)cation is unreasona!e, aritrar( an& in$i&ious &oes it
$io!ate E>ua! Protection.
o +easona!eness o# a c!assi)cation is &epen&ent on/
'asis o# the c!assi)cation
Oature o# the interests i%paire& ( the c!assi)cation
Fo$ern%ent interests supportin" the c!assi)cation
raditional -0ual Protection
, Court tra&itiona!!( "rants a wi&e %easure o# &iscretion with respect to %a8in"
c!assi)cations in enactin" socia! an& econo%ic !e"is!ation.
o As !on" as the c!assi)cation set #orth in the statute has so%e rationa!
asis (i.e. it is rationa!!( re!ate& to a per%issi!e "o$ern%ent interest),
the E>ua! Protection C!ause is not $io!ate& &espite so%e ine>ua!it( in the
resu!ts.
, -)/ <s the c!assi)cation rationa!!( re!ate& to a !e"iti%ate "o$ern%ent
interestL 0hen a c!assi)cation is cha!!en"e& on the asis o# the E>ua!
Protection C!ause, i# an( state o# #acts reasona!( can e concei$e& to sustain
the !aw, the existence o# that state o# #acts at the ti%e the !aw was enacte& wi!!
e presu%e&.
o Cne who cha!!en"es a !aw has the ur&en o# showin" that the
c!assi)cation has no rationa! re!ationship to a per%issi!e "o$ern%enta!
purpose an& is essentia!!( aritrar(.
o This ur&en o# proo# has pro$en essentia!!( insur%ounta!e.
, <# the c!assi)cation has re!ation to the purpose #or which it is %a&e an& &oes
not contain the 8in& o# &iscri%ination a"ainst which the E>ua! Protection
C!ause aIor&s protection, then it is $a!i&. Rw). *70ress #genc) v. -. (1919)
(upho!&in" ORC an on a&$ertisin" on truc8s, a!!owin" on!( the owner to
a&$ertise on his truc8s, an& that !oca! authorities %a( we!! ha$e conc!u&e& that
those who a&$ertise their own wares on their truc8s &o not pose the sa%e 8in&
o# traIic pro!e% in $iew o# the nature or extent o# the a&$ertisin" which the(
use).
o <t is not a re>uire%ent o# E>ua! Protection that a!! e$i!s o# the sa%e "enus
e era&icate& or none at a!!. Le"is!ature is not re>uire& to so!$e the
who!e pro!e% an& can choose to so!$e parts o# the pro!e%.
o D. Dac8son concurrin", re7ecte& the Court2s rationa!e since there was not
e$en a pretense that traIic ha4ar&s pose& ( the two c!asses o# truc8
a&$ertisin" &iIere&.
<nstea& he ur"e& that the !e"is!ature %a( ha$e ha& the o7ecti$e o#
curin" the nuisance pose& ( truc8 a&$ertisin" an& that !e"iti%ate
o7ecti$e wou!& %a8e the c!assi)cation rationa!, the &iIerence
ein" actin" in se!#,interest an& actin" #or hire.
3e a!so pointe& out that in$a!i&atin" on the asis o# .ue Process
%a8es the re"u!ation co%p!ete!( in$a!i&, whereas in$a!i&atin" on
Pa"e *1 o# 9:
the asis o# E>ua! Protection on!( a!!ows the !e"is!ature to expan&
the c!ass ein" re"u!ate&.
, 0hen !oca! econo%ic re"u!ation is cha!!en"e& so!e!( as $io!atin" the E>ua!
Protection C!ause, the Court consistent!( &e#ers to !e"is!ati$e &eter%inations as
to the &esirai!it( o# particu!ar statutor( &iscri%ination. -ew Orleans v. Du"es
(19;H) (upho!&in" !oca! or&inance prohiitin" pushcarts with a 5"ran&#ather
C!ause6 exe%ptin" $en&ors who ha& een operatin" S 9(rs).
o The 7u&iciar( %a( not sit as a super!e"is!ature to 7u&"e the wis&o% or
&esirai!it( o# !e"is!ati$e po!ic( &eter%inations %a&e in areas that neither
aIect #un&a%enta! ri"hts nor procee&s a!on" suspect !ines? in the !oca!
econo%ic sphere, it is on!( the in$i&ious &iscri%ination, the who!!(
aritrar( act, which cannot stan& consistent!( with the 11
th
A%en&.
Rationalit' 7ith 1ite/ <n so%e cases, the Court has in&icate& a wi!!in"ness to
uti!i4e a so%ewhat %ore strin"ent approach in tra&itiona! re$iew, which %ore c!ose!(
approxi%ates true a& hoc a!ancin" to &eter%ine the reasona!eness o# the !aw. This
is usua!!( the case when the Court ru!es #or po!ic( reasons.
o Geans,en& re!ationship/ tra&itiona! e>ua! protection re>uires that there
e a rationa! re!ationship etween the %eans se!ecte& an& a per%issi!e
"o$ern%ent purpose.
<n e$a!uatin" the reasona!e o# a c!assi)cation un&er this stan&ar&,
the courts #re>uent!( exa%ines the %eans,en& re!ationship in ter%s
o# 5un&er,6 an& 5o$er,6 inc!usi$eness o# the c!assi)cation.
An&er,inc!usion occurs when a state ene)ts or ur&ens
persons in a %anner that #urthers a !e"iti%ate pu!ic purpose
ut &oes not con#er this sa%e ene)t or p!ace this sa%e
ur&en on others who are si%i!ar!( situate&. Persons who
shou!& e co$ere& un&er the !aw are exc!u&e& or exe%pte&.
C$er,inc!usion occurs when the c!assi)cation inc!u&es not
on!( those who are si%i!ar!( situate&, with respect to the
purpose ut others who are not so situate& as we!!.
, =tatute %a8in" an exception to a #ew $en&ors an& prohiitin" others was
in$a!i& ecause it was not rationa!!( re!ate& to consu%er protection. More) v.
Doud (19-;) (struc8 &own state !aw re"u!atin" %one( or&ers, exceptin" A=P=,
AGET, Posta! Te!e"raph, an& 0. Anion).
, Court he!& that a Foo& =ta%p Act pro$ision, which "enera!!( exc!u&es an(
househo!& containin" an in&i$i&ua! who is unre!ate& to an( other %e%er o#
the househo!&, $io!ates E>ua! Protection ecause it &oes not rationa!!( #urther
an( !e"iti%ate state o7ecti$e. +SD# v. Moreno (19;:).
, An A!as8an !aw &istriutin" oi! pro)ts ase& on !en"th o# resi&ence $io!ates
E>ua! Protection. 0hi!e the =tate %a( ha$e an interest in encoura"in"
resi&ents to re%ain in the =tate, an& in pro%otin" pru&ent use o# the =tate2s
resources, these en&s are not rationa!!( #urthere& ( &istin"uishin" a%on" past
resi&ents. +ewar&in" citi4ens #or past contriutions is not a !e"iti%ate state
purpose. 8o'el v. Williams (199*).
, A =tate %a( not constitutiona!!( #a$or its own resi&ents ( taxin" #orei"n
corporations at a hi"her rate so!e!( ecause o# their resi&ence. Pro%otion o#
&o%estic usinesses within the =tate ( &iscri%inatin" a"ainst #orei"n
corporations is not a !e"iti%ate purpose un&er the E>ua! Protection C!ause, nor
is the encoura"e%ent o# in$est%ent in =tate assets an& "o$ern%enta! securities
a !e"iti%ate purpose when #urthere& ( &iscri%ination. Met %ife v. Ward (199-)
Pa"e *- o# 9:
(in$a!i&atin" a state pre#erence tax with !ower tax rates on &o%estic insurance
co%panies).
, A tax assess%ent sche%e resu!tin" in "ross &isparit( o$er a !on" perio& o# ti%e
$io!ates E>ua! Protection. The "o$ern%ent %a( reasona!( see8 to pro%ote tax
appraisa! ase& on the true %ar8et $a!ue& o# propert(, the !aw %ust pro$i&e #or
so%e seasona!e attain%ent o# a rou"h e>ua!it( o# si%i!ar!( situate& propert(
owners. #lleghen) !itts'urgh Coal Co. v. Count) Com/n (1999) (in$a!i&atin"
po!ic( that assess rea! propert( on the recent purchase price, ut %a8es on!(
%inor %o&i)cations to assess%ents o# properties not recent!( so!&? whi!e the
state purporte& to treat a!! propert( uni#or%!( in &eter%inin" tax assess%ents,
the count( ha& en"a"e& in intentiona! s(ste%atic un&ere$a!uation).
=o%e cases purportin" to use rationa!it( re$iew to in$a!i&ate &iscri%inator( !aws
appear to re@ect 7u&icia! concern that the cha!!en"e& !aw %ani#ests pre7u&ice or
ani%us towar&s a particu!ar "roup rather than !e"iti%ate "o$ern%ent interests.
, A !aw %a8in" it %ore &iIicu!t #or one c!ass o# citi4ens to see8 !e"a! protection is
inconsistent with E>ua! Protection. Romer v. *vans (199H) (in$a!i&atin" Co!o.
state constitutiona! a%en&. prohiitin" anti,&iscri%ination !aws #or the
protection o# ho%osexua!s in housin", e%p!o(%ent, e&ucation, pu!ic
acco%%o&ations an& hea!th an& we!#are ser$ices).
o A !aw that i%poses a roa& an& un&iIerentiate& &isai!it( on a sin"!e
"roup which is inexp!ica!e ( an(thin" ut ani%us towar&s the c!ass it
aIects #ai!s e$en rationa!it( re$iew.
)us!ect ,lassi8cation/ )trict )crutin'
, 0hen a !aw e%p!o(s a suspect c!assi)cation or si"ni)cant!( ur&ens the
exercise o# a #un&a%enta! ri"ht, the Court strict!( scrutini4es the re!ation o# the
c!assi)cation to the "o$ern%enta! purpose.
, -)/ 1) The cha!!en"er %ust pro$e that the &iscri%ination was purpose#u!,
either o$ert!( or co$ert!(. *) The ur&en is on the "o$ern%ent to &e%onstrate
that the c!assi)cation is necessar( to achie$e a co%pe!!in" state interest. The
or&inar( presu%ption o# constitutiona!it( no !on"er app!ies.
o 0hi!e &iscri%inator( i%pact or eIect %a( e e$i&ence o# &iscri%inator(
purpose it is usua!!( not suIicient in itse!# to pro$e &iscri%inator(
purpose.
<# a &ecision is %oti$ate& in part ( &iscri%inator( purpose, the
=tate %a( a$oi& strict scrutin( i# it pro$e& that it wou!& ha$e
reache& the sa%e &ecision re"ar&!ess o# the &iscri%inator(
purpose.
o There %ust not e a !ess ur&enso%e a!ternati$e a$ai!a!e #or achie$in"
the "o$ern%ent o7ecti$e.
<# it is shown that the purpose o# the a&%inistrators is to c!assi#( on
a suspect asis, the "o$ern%ent %ust show that the c!assi)cation is
necessar( in or&er to achie$e a co%pe!!in" state interest.
o Laws can a!so e cha!!en"e& as app!ie&. E$en i# the !aw is neutra!, it %a(
e a&%inistere& or en#orce& in a &iscri%inator( #ashion.
, ,riteria of )us!ectness/ Factors that ha$e een consi&ere& in !ae!in" a
c!assi)cation suspect/ (1) the historic purpose o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause?
(*) a histor( o# per$asi$e &iscri%ination a"ainst the c!ass? (:) the sti"%ati4in"
eIect o# c!assi)cation (5caste6 !e"is!ation)? (1) c!assi)cation ase& on an
Pa"e *H o# 9:
i%%uta!e status or con&ition which a person cannot contro!? (-) &iscri%ination
a"ainst a po!itica!!( insu!ar %inorit(.
o +ace & Oationa! Cri"in are suspect c!asses ecause the $er( purpose o#
the 11
th
A%en&. was to pre$ent !e"a! &iscri%ination a"ainst racia!
%inorities. There is se!&o% an( 7usti)cation #or c!assi)cation that
&iscri%inates a"ainst a racia! %inorit(, which in$o!$es an i%%uta!e
con&ition an& a "roup that %a( e not ha$e een a!e to protect their
interest throu"h the po!itica! process.
o Criticis%/ The specia! treat%ent aIor&e& racia! c!assi)cation are 7usti)e&
on "roun&s o# 7u&icia! protection o# 5&iscrete an& insu!ar %inorities6 who
are &enie& eIecti$e representation thou"h the po!itica! process.
3owe$er, the %ere #act that a "roup !oses in the po!itica! %ar8etp!ace
&oes not %ean the representati$e s(ste% o# "o$ern%ent is
%a!#unctionin". <# racia! %inorities acti$e!( participate in the po!itica!
process, wou!& the asis #or hei"htene& re$iew o# racia! c!assi)cations e
e!i%inate&L
C. Fiss ar"ues #or in$o8in" E>ua! Protection a"ainst "o$ern%ent
action which a""re"ates the suor&inate position o# a specia!!(
&isa&$anta"e& "roup an& that !aw shou!& re#or% institutions an&
practices that en#orce the secon&ar( socia! status o# historica!!(
oppresse& "roups.
, E>ua! Protection &e%an&s that racia! c!assi)cations, especia!!( in cri%ina!
statutes, e su7ecte& to the 5%ost ri"i& scrutin(,6 an& i# there are e$er to e
uphe!&, the( %ust e shown to e necessar( to the acco%p!ish%ent o# so%e
per%issi!e state o7ecti$e, in&epen&ent o# the racia! &iscri%ination which the
11
th
A%en&. sou"ht to e!i%inate. %oving v. 5a. (19H;) (in$a!i&atin" anti,
%isce"enation !aw ecause there was no !e"iti%ate o$erri&in" purpose to
7usti#( the statute).
o The #act o# e>ua! app!ication &oes not i%%uni4e the statute #ro% the $er(
hea$( ur&en o# 7usti)cation.
, E$en i# the !aw is #acia!!( neutra!, i# it is app!ie& an& a&%inistere& with 5an e$i!
e(e an& une>ua! han&, so as practica!!( to %a8e un7ust an& i!!e"a!
&iscri%inations etween persons in si%i!ar circu%stances, %ateria! to their
ri"hts,6 it $io!ates E>ua! Protection. .ic" Wo v. ,o0"ins (199H) (in$a!i&atin"
cit( or&inance that re>uire !aun&r( operations to otain a per%it, un!ess it was
!ocate& in a ric8 or stone ui!&in").
o +ecor& showe& that :10Q:*0 !aun&ries in =F were o# woo&en construction
an& whi!e *00 Chinese ha& app!ie& #or per%its none ha& een "rante&
a!thou"h a!! non,Chinese app!ications ha& een "rante&.
, Oo &iscri%ination sha!! e %a&e ( the !aw ase& on race. Exc!usion o# !ac8s
#ro% 7ur( ser$ices $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Strauder v. W. 5a. (1990) (!ac8
&e#en&ant2s con$iction o$erturne&? !aw sha!! e the sa%e #or a!! races an&
!ac8s were &enie& a "o$ern%ent ene)t a$ai!a!e to whites).
, =tate2s consi&eration o# pri$ate racia! iases an& the in7ur( the( %i"ht in@ict on
the chi!& as a asis #or re%o$in" the chi!& #ro% the natura! %other2s custo&(
$io!ates E>ua! Protection. Pri$ate iases cannot e "i$en !e"a! eIect. !almore
v. Sidoti (1991) (in$a!i&atin" !ower court or&er to p!ace chi!& with #ather when
%other e"an !i$in" with a !ac8 %an, a!thou"h =tate trie& to use socia!
science e$i&ence in %a8in" its ar"u%ent).
Pa"e *; o# 9:
o The "oa! o# "rantin" custo&( ase& on the est interests o# the chi!& is
in&isputa!( a sustantia! "o$ern%enta! interest #or purposes o# the
E>ua! Protection C!ause an& racia! an& ethnic pre7u&ices exists. 'ut the
rea!it( o# pri$ate iases an& the possi!e in7ur( the( %i"ht in@ict are not
per%issi!e consi&erations.
o Lower courts ha$e a!!owe& race to e a #actor in &eter%inin" where to
p!ace a chi!&, ut the use o# race as the sole reason to %a8e to chan"e an
a&option p!ace%ent is not constitutiona!.
<n su%, an inherent!( suspect, in&ee& presu%pti$e!( in$a!i&, racia!
c!assi)cation in the a&option statute is, in a constitutiona! sense,
necessar( to a&$ance a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%ent interest/ the est
interest o# the chi!&. <t thus sur$i$es strict scrutin(.
, Court uphe!& a warti%e con$iction #or $io!ation o# a %i!itar( or&er exc!u&in"
A%ericans o# Dapanese ancestr( #ro% certain &esi"nate& areas on the west
coast ase& on warti%e necessit( an& a!!e"e& inai!it( to separate the !o(a!
#ro% the &is!o(a!. Exc!usion o# the who!e "roup was a %i!itar( i%perati$e.
(orematsu v. +S (1911) (notin" that pressin" puic necessar( %a( so%eti%es
7usti#( ci$i! ri"hts restrictions o# a sin"!e racia! "roup, ut racia! anta"onis%
ne$er can).
Discriminator' Pur!ose * Im!act
, A possi!e exp!anation #or wh( &iscri%inator( purpose is a necessar( con&ition
#or strict scrutin( is that the "o$ern%ent has no constitutiona! &ut( to re%e&( a
har% it has not cause&. A!so, i# &isparate racia! i%pact were suIicient, it wou!&
%a8e race a pre$ai!in" #actor in "o$ern%ent &ecision,%a8in".
o Meaning of 9Pur!ose:/ .iscri%inator( purpose, howe$er, i%p!ies %ore
than intent as $o!ition or intent as awareness o# conse>uences. <t i%p!ies
that the &ecision%a8er, in this case the state !e"is!ature, se!ecte& or
reaIir%e& a particu!ar course o# action at !east in part Uecause o#,2 not
%ere!( Uin spite o#,2 its a&$erse eIects upon an i&enti)a!e "roup. !ers.
#dmin/r v. eene).
o Critics note the pro!e% in tr(in" to &eter%ine the intent o# a "roup, such
as a !e"is!ati$e o&(. E$en at the in&i$i&ua! !e$e!, it is o#ten &iIicu!t to
assess the precise %oti$e, so%e o# which %a( e suconscious. A!so,
%ora! responsii!it( #or actions exten&s e(on& those actions one
speci)ca!!( inten&s. Fai!ure to act aIects those who are without the !aw2s
e>ua! protection. Fina!!(, courts ou"ht to interpret the E>ua! Protection
C!ause to po!ice how peop!e are treate& ( their "o$ern%entEthe
per%issii!it( o# !aws rather than the purit( o# !e"is!ati$e %oti$e.
, Proo# o# racia!!( &iscri%inator( intent or purpose is re>uire& to show a $io!ation
o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause. .isproportionate i%pact is not irre!e$ant, ut it
is not suIicient to show in$i&ious racia! &iscri%ination an& not suIicient to
tri""er strict scrutin(. Washington v. Davis (19;H) (sustainin" the use o# a test
#or po!ice%en &espite &isparate i%pact o# !ac8 recruits in !i"ht o# eIorts to
acti$e!( recruit oIicers an& a neutra! test to ser$e a per%issi!e "o$ern%ent
purpose).
o =te$ens concurrin", pointe& out that it is unrea!istic to re>uire the $icti%
o# a!!e"e& &iscri%ination to unco$er the actua! su7ecti$e intent o# the
&ecision,%a8er. The !ine etween &iscri%inator( purpose an& i%pact is
not near!( as ri"ht as the Court %i"ht assu%e.
Pa"e *9 o# 9:
0hen the &isproportionate i%pact is as &ra%atic as in .ic" Wo or
&ormillion (cit( oun&aries chan"e& to re%o$e a!! ut a #ew !ac8
$oters he!& in$a!i&), it &oes not %atter whether the stan&ar& is
phrase& in ter%s o# purpose or eIect.
, .iscri%inator( intent or purpose is re>uire& to show an E>ua! Protection
$io!ation. .eter%inin" whether in$i&ious &iscri%inator( purpose was a
%oti$atin" #actor &e%an&s a sensiti$e in>uir( into such circu%stantia! an&
&irect e$i&ence o# intent as %a( e a$ai!a!e. 5illage of #rlington ,ghts. v.
Met. ,ousing Dev. Cor0. (19;;) (ho!&in" a !oca! 4onin" &ecision &en(in" a !ow
inco%e housin" pro7ect &i& not $io!ate E>ua! Protection).
o <%pact %a( e a #actor/ =o%eti%es a c!ear pattern, unexp!aina!e on
"roun&s other than race, e%er"es #ro% the eIect o# the state action e$en
when the !e"is!ation is neutra! on its #ace.
o 3istorica! ac8"roun& o# the &ecision is another #actor, particu!ar!( i# it
re$ea!s a series o# oIicia! actions ta8en #or in$i&ious purposes.
o .epartures #ro% the nor%a! proce&ura! se>uence %i"ht a!so e in&icati$e
o# i!!e"iti%ate purpose.
o Criticis%
#rlington ,gts. "i$es "o$ern%ent oIicia!s a pri%er on how to ui!&
an appropriate recor& to pre$ent )n&in" o# &iscri%inator( intent.
The eIect o# this case is to restructure the ur&en o# proo# in racia!
&iscri%ination cases so that the 7usti)cations or&inari!( rou"ht
#orwar& in &e#ense as co%pe!!in" eco%e the asis to re#ute the
pri%a #acie case o# racia! &iscri%ination in the )rst instance.
G. =e!%i/ The e!e%ent o# intent is in#erre& #ro% the !an"ua"e o#
#acia!!( &iscri%inator( practices an& po!icies, ut that %ore
co%%on!(, statutes an& po!icies cha!!en"e& as &iscri%inator( are
#acia!!( neutra!, an& the Court %ust in#er #ro% the #act o#
&iIerentia! treat%ent. This in#erence is "enera!!( ase& on the
accu%u!ate& e$i&ence, which is a!%ost a!wa(s circu%stantia! in
character.
.espite its rhetoric re"ar&in" the i%portance o# #erretin" out
sut!e &iscri%ination, the Court has on!( seen &iscri%ination,
asent #acia! c!assi)cation, in the %ost o$ious situationsE
situations that cou!& not e exp!aine& on an( asis other than
race. 0hene$er the Court #oun& roo% to accept a
non&iscri%inator( exp!anation #or a &ispute& act, it &i& so.
,ausation/ The 8e( >uestion is whether race %a&e a
&iIerence in the &ecision,%a8in" process, a >uestion that
tar"ets causation, rather than %enta! states. #rlington ,gts.
in&icates that the "o$ern%ent nee& not show a co%pe!!in"
7usti)cation i# it can &e%onstrate that the sa%e &ecision
wou!& ha$e resu!te& e$en ha& the i%per%issi!e purpose not
een consi&ere&.
o The eIect o# #rglinton ,gts. there#ore is to restructure
the ur&en o# proo# in racia! &iscri%ination cases so
that the 7usti)cations or&inari!( rou"ht #orwar& in
&e#ense as co%pe!!in", eco%e the asis to re#ute the
Pa"e *9 o# 9:
pri%a #acie case o# racia! &iscri%ination in the )rst
instance.
L. A!exan&er ar"ues that i# a !aw &isa&$anta"es a racia! %inorit(
an& racia! &iscri%ination is a %oti$atin" #orce #or the !aw, this
shou!& e suIicient to tri""er strict scrutin(. The #act that, in
retrospect, the state wou!& ha$e ta8en the sa%e action apart #ro%
the &iscri%inator( purpose &es not ser$e to pur"e the har%#u!
racia! eIects o# the !aw nor the racia! %oti$ation ehin& it.
Desegregation
, <ntentiona! se"re"ation in pu!ic schoo!s is inherent!( une>ua! an& $io!ates
E>ua! Protection. <n the )e!& o# pu!ic e&ucation, the &octrine o# 5separate ut
e>ua!6 has no p!ace. Brown v. Bd. of *duc. (19-1) (C.D. 0arren #or the
unani%ous Court, o$erru!in" !less) v. erguson, which sustaine& statute #or
separate rai!wa( acco%%o&ations #or !ac8s & whites).
o =eparate e&ucationa! #aci!ities are inherent!( une>ua! ecause &epri$es
%inorit( chi!&ren o# e>ua! e&ucationa! opportunities. =e"re"ation has a
&etri%enta! eIect on !ac8 chi!&ren, since the separation is interprete&
as a si"n o# in#eriorit(, aIectin" the chi!&2s %oti$ation to !earn.
o E&ucation is a princip!e instru%ent in awa8enin" a chi!& to cu!tura!
$a!ues an& socia! a&7ust%ent. <t is &out#u! that an( chi!& %a( reasona!(
e expecte& to succee& in !i#e i# he is &enie& the opportunit( o# an
e&ucation. =uch an opportunit(, where the state has un&erta8en to
pro$i&e it, is a ri"ht which %ust e %a&e a$ai!a!e to a!! on e>ua! ter%s.
Critics are sp!it as to whether the 11
th
A%en&. conte%p!ate& schoo!
se"re"ation. <t2s a!so note& that the !an"ua"e o# c!assi)cation was
conspicuous!( asent.
, =tate i%pose& se"re"ation in $arious pu!ic #aci!ities are unconstitutiona! on
the asis o# Brown in suse>uent per curia% &ecisions.
Critics point out that it is &iIicu!t to un&erstan& how these $ar(in"
#actua! contexts cou!& e su%%ari!( han&!e& i# Brown is ase& on
the specia! p!ace o# e&ucation in our societ( an& the har% o# state
i%pose& se"re"ation on the chi!&.
, <n the #e&era! context, e&ucationa! se"re"ation !aws $io!ate& the .ue Process
C!ause o# the -
th
A%en&. since &iscri%ination %a( e so un7usti)a!e as to e
$io!ati$e o# &ue process. Bolling v. Shar0e (19-1) (a&&ressin" se"re"ate&
schoo!s in ..C., to which the 11
th
A%en&. &oes not app!().
o C!assi)cations ase& so!e!( upon race %ust e scrutini4e& with particu!ar
care since there are contrar( to our tra&itions an& hence constitutiona!!(
suspect. Liert( un&er !aw exten&s to the #u!! ran"e o# con&uct which the
in&i$i&ua! is #ree to pursue, an& it cannot e restricte& except #or a
proper "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e.
o =e"re"ation in pu!ic e&ucation is not reasona!( re!ate& to an( proper
"o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e an& thus it i%poses on Oe"ro chi!&ren a ur&en
that constitutes an aritrar( &epri$ation o# their !iert( in $io!ation o# the
.ue Process C!ause.
, Im!lementing Brown: The Court or&ere& the schoo! &istricts to &ese"re"ate
5with a!! &e!ierate spee&.6
o .ue the $arie& !oca! schoo! pro!e%s, !ower courts were to retain
7uris&iction an& app!( e>uita!e princip!es to &ese"re"ate in "oo& #aith
an& as soon as possi!e.
Pa"e :0 o# 9:
The ur&en reste& upon the schoo! &istricts to esta!ish that %ore
ti%e is necessar( in the pu!ic interest.
Lower courts were to consi&er the a&e>uac( o# an( p!ans the
schoo!s %a( propose to %eet these pro!e%s an& to eIectuate a
transition, &urin" which the courts wi!! retain 7uris&iction.
'( &e!a(in" the re%e&( the Court ha& encoura"e& %assi$e
resistance to &ese"re"ation. <t was the re!ent!ess re#usa! o# citi4ens
an& pu!ic oIicia!s to accept the %eanin" o# Brown that re>uire&
the courts to intru&e with such coercion an& strate"ic an&
%ana"eria! preoccupations that straine& the oun&aries o# the
tra&itiona! 7u&icia! #unction. The &e!a( %i"ht ha$e een to a!!ow
peop!e to "et use& to the i&ea.
o <n re%e&(in" de 2ure se"re"ation, e>ua! protection &oes not re>uire
racia! a!ancin", ut racia! >uotas %a( e use& as %easures o#
&ese"re"ation. Swann v. Charlotte9Mec"len'urg Bd. of *duc. (19;1).
Brown &i& not &istin"uish etween de 2ure an& de facto
se"re"ation. 3owe$er, in the case o# de facto se"re"ation, no
"o$ern%ent action is nee&e& (i# it can pro$e that schoo!
co%position is not the resu!t o# past &iscri%inator( action), since it
is not responsi!e.
o A!thou"h the !ower courts ha$e roa& &iscretion in #ashionin" re%e&ies,
the nature o# the re%e&( %ust re@ect the nature o# the constitutiona!
$io!ation.
o <n schoo! &istricts where there ha& een de 2ure se"re"ation, 5#ree&o% o#
choice6 p!ans that a!!owe& a pupi! to choose the pu!ic schoo! that
resu!te& in practica!!( no inte"ration were unconstitutiona!. &reen v.
Count) Sch. Bd. (19H9) (9-V o# the !ac8 chi!&ren in the s(ste% were sti!!
in an a!!,!ac8 sch.? 'rennan #or the Court #ra%e& the issues as to
whether the p!an was a&e>uate co%p!iance with Brown II).
o =i%i!ar!(, the #e&era! "o$ern%ent re>uest to &e!a( &ese"re"ation was
o$erru!e& consi&erin" re>uest was 1- (ears a#ter the or&er. #le7ander v.
,olmes Count) Bd. of *duc. (19H9).
o The ri"hts o# schoo! chi!&ren were 5not to e sacri)ce& or (ie!&e& to the
$io!ence an& &isor&er which ha$e #o!!owe& upon the actions o# the
Fo$ernor an& Le"is!ature.6 <n other wor&s, concern #or $io!ence is not an
excuse #or not en#orcin" constitutiona! ri"hts. Coo0er v. #aron (19-9).
, Individual and Grou! Rights/
o The ci$i! ri"ht at issue in this case is the ri"ht to race,neutra! assi"n%ent
that e!on"e& to each in&i$i&ua! stu&ent an& there#ore cou!& not e
reconci!e& with the "roup,oriente& notion that the Constitution re>uires
inte"ration throu"h race,conscious stu&ent assi"n%ents.
o There is a "roup character o# ri"hts an& &uties in$o!$e& in se"re"ation.
The costs o# se"re"ation are orne ( $arious "roups in societ( an& the
ene)ts o# &ese"re"ation $ar( ( the "roup to which one happens to
e!on".
o The "ra&ua! re%e&( o# Brown II #ashione& can on!( e 7usti)e& on the
"roun& that the 5persona! an& present6 ri"ht o# the in&i$i&ua! p!aintiIs
%ust (ie!& to the o$erri&in" ri"hts o# Oe"roes as a c!ass to a co%p!ete!(
Pa"e :1 o# 9:
inte"rate& pu!ic e&ucation. +S v. $e:erson Count) Bd. of *duc. (-
th
Cir.
19HH).
A;irmative Action
, -)/ E>ua! Protection &oes not prec!u&e the $o!untar( use o# racia!
c!assi)cations where a proper #actua! )n&in" is %a&e. 'ut a race,ase&
#e&era!, state an& !oca! are su7ect to strict scrutin(. The "o$ern%ent %ust
esta!ish that the race,conscious pro"ra% is necessar( to a co%pe!!in" state
interest.
, A&%issions pro"ra% to %e&ica! schoo! that set asi&e a nu%er o# p!aces #or
%inorit( stu&ents $io!ates E>ua! Protection ecause >ua!i)e& non,%inorit(
app!icants are &enie& opportunit( to e consi&ere& &ue to race. Regents of +C
v. Ba""e (19;9).
o D. Powe!! writin" #or the Court p!ura!it(, ar"ues #or app!ication o# strict
scrutin(, procee&in" #ro% the pre%ise o# in&i$i&ua! ri"hts are "uarantee&
(in&i$i&ua! ri"hts $iew o# E>ua! Protection)/
+acia! an& ethnic &istinctions o# an( sort are inherent!( suspect an&
thus ca!! #or the %ost exactin" 7u&icia! exa%ination. <n or&er to use
these c!assi)cations, the =tate %ust show that its purpose or
interest is oth constitutiona!!( per%issi!e an& sustantia!, an&
that its use is necessar( to the acco%p!ish%ent o# its purpose or the
sa#e"uar&in" o# its interest.
0hether the pro"ra% is &escrie& as a >uota or a "oa!, it is a !ine
&rawn on the asis o# race an& ethnic status. The "uarantee o#
e>ua! protection cannot %ean one thin" when app!ie& to one
in&i$i&ua! an& so%ethin" e!se when app!ie& to a person o# another
co!or. <# oth are not accor&e& the sa%e protection, then it is not
e>ua!.
<# the purpose is to assure within the stu&ent o&( so%e speci)e&
percenta"e o# a particu!ar "roup %ere!( ecause o# its race, such
pre#erentia! purpose is #acia!!( in$a!i&.
The purpose o# he!pin" certain "roups who% the #acu!t( o# the
%e&ica! sch. percei$e& as $icti%s o# societa! &iscri%ination &oes not
7usti#( a c!assi)cation that i%poses &isa&$anta"es upon persons !i8e
respon&ent, who ear no responsii!it( #or whate$er har% the
ene)ciaries o# the specia! a&%issions pro"ra% are thou"ht to ha$e
suIere&.
Attain%ent o# a &i$erse stu&ent o&( is a constitutiona!!(
per%issi!e "oa! #or a uni$ersit(, ut the >uestion is whether the
pro"ra%2s racia! c!assi)cation is necessar( to pro%ote this interest.
Assi"n%ent o# a )xe& nu%er o# seats to a %inorit( "roups is not a
necessar( %eans towar& that en&.
A $a!i& pro"ra% shou!& treat each app!icant as an in&i$i&ua! in the
a&%issions process. The #ata! @aw in petitioner2s pre#erentia!
pro"ra% is its &isre"ar&s o# in&i$i&ua! ri"hts "uarantee& in the 11
th

A%en&.
0hen the a =tate2s &istriution o# ene)ts or i%position o# ur&ens
hin"es on the co!or o# a person2s s8in or ancestr(, that in&i$i&ua! is
entit!e& to a &e%onstration that the cha!!en"e& c!assi)cation is
necessar( to pro%ote a sustantia! =tate interest.
+ace can e a #actor, ut not the &ispositi$e #actor.
Pa"e :* o# 9:
o D. =te$ens (with 'ur"er, =tewart, +ehn>uist) concurrin" that the pro"ra%
$io!ate& Tit!e J< o# the Ci$i! +i"hts Act o# 19H1 prohiitin" racia!
&iscri%ination in a pro"ra% that recei$es #e&era! #un&in". Accor&in"!(,
race cannot e the asis o# exc!u&in" an(one #ro% participation in a
#e&era!!( #un&e& pro"ra% an& 'a88e was exc!u&e& #ro% the %e&ica!
schoo! ecause o# his non,%inorit( status.
o D. 'rennan (with 0hite, Garsha!!, '!ac8%un) concurrin" an& &issentin",
ar"ues #or an inter%e&iate stan&ar& o# re$iewEthe c!assi)cation %ust e
sustantia!!( re!ate& to an i%portant "o$ern%ent interest ("roup ri"hts
$iew o# E>ua! Protection).
Fo$ern%ent %a( ta8e race into account with it acts not to &e%ean
or insu!t an( racia! "roup, ut to re%e&( &isa&$anta"es cast on
%inorities ( past pre7u&ice.
Powe!! wou!& re>uire #actua! )n&in"s e#ore a!!owin" re%e&(,
ut 'rennan ar"ues that 7u&icia! &eter%ination o# a $io!ation
as a pre&icate #or race,conscious re%e&ia! actions wou!& e
se!#,&e#eatin".
+acia! c!assi)cations &esi"ne& to #urther re%e&ia! purposes %ust
ser$e i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an& %ust e sustantia!!(
re!ate& to achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es.
An i%portant an& articu!ate& purpose #or its use %ust e
shown an& the c!assi)cation &oes not sti"%ati4e the "roup.
.a$is2 pro"ra% ser$es an i%portant purpose an& &oes not
sti"%ati4e whites.
There are no practica! %eans ( which it cou!& achie$e its en&s in
the #oreseea!e #uture without the use o# race,conscious %easures.
3ar$ar& a&%issions pro"ra% (that "i$es a 5p!us6 #actor to
certain %inorities, ut &oes not insu!ate app!icant #ro% the
rest o# the can&i&ate poo!) that was en&orse& is the sa%e as
this pro"ra%, except that it is un8nown to the extent o# the
pre#erence.
o D. Garsha!! &issentin", ar"ues that the Court is unwi!!in" to co!& that a
c!ass,ase& re%e&( #or &iscri%ination is per%issi!e, i"norin" the #act
that #or se$era! hun&re& (ears !ac8s ha$e een &iscri%inate& a"ainst.
As a resu!t o# historica! &iscri%ination, !ac8s shou!& e aIor&e& "reater
protection un&er the 11
th
A%en&. without a #urther showin" o# #act.
o D. '!ac8%un &issentin", ar"ues that 5in or&er to "et e(on& racis%, we
%ust )rst ta8e account o# race.6 There is no other race,neutra! wa( to
structure an aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%. E>ua! Protection C!ause shou!&
not perpetuate racia! supre%ac(.
o Ootes & Criticis%/
Powe!!2s opinion in&icates the re!e$ant criteria in &eter%inin" the
per%issii!it( o# a race,conscious a&%issions pro"ra% are the
nu%er o# traits that are "i$en specia! wei"ht an& the &e"ree to
which those traits are consi&ere& in a co%petiti$e #ashion.
'ut it is unc!ear 7ust how those criteria re!ate to each other
an& exact!( how the( are to e %easure&. <t is un!i8e!( that
the 3ar$ar& p!an wou!& pro&uce an( &iIerent a&%ission
resu!ts than a %ore !atant race conscious p!an.
Pa"e :: o# 9:
The &iIerences etween the aIir%ati$e action p!ans that
Powe!! #oun& unconstitutiona! were aesthetic.
Powe!! thou"ht o# aIir%ati$e action as a transition, a short,
ter% &eparture #ro% the i&ea! o# co!or,!in&ness 7usti)e& on!(
( pressin" necessit(. A!!owin" %inorit( set,asi&es to
continue unti! a!! eIects o# past societa! &iscri%ination ha&
een e!i%inate& %i"ht %ean the( wou!& !ast #ore$er. Powe!!
there#ore cra#te& an approach &esi"ne& oth to per%it
aIir%ati$e action an& to constrain it.
0. Jan A!st(ne warns that the stan&ar&s o# re$iew per%ittin"
7usti)cation o# race,conscious re%e&ies are 5a sie$e that
encoura"es renewe& race,ase& !aws, racia! &iscri%ination, racia!
co%petition, racia! spoi!s s(ste%, an& %ore 7u&icia! sport.6
The eni"n use o# race to o$erco%e racis% has historica!!(
een a #ai!ure an& is u!ti%ate!( &e#eatin". Cne "ets e(on&
racis% ( a co%p!ete, reso!ute, an& cre&i!e co%%it%ent
ne$er to to!erate it in the practices o# "o$ern%ent.
A. 'ic8e! ar"ues #or a co!or,!in& princip!e ecause an( racia!
c!assi)cation is i!!e"a! un&er the 11
th
A%en&.
D. E!( ar"ue& that specia! scrutin( is not appropriate when the white
%a7orit( has &eci&e& to #a$or %inorities at the white peop!e2s
expense. A white %a7orit( is un!i8e!( to &isa&$anta"e itse!# #or
reasons o# racia! pre7u&ice? not is it !i8e!( to e te%pte& either to
un&eresti%ate the nee&s an& &eserts o# whites re!ati$e to those o#
others.
Pro!e% is that this ar"u%ent treats whites as a #un"i!e
c!ass an& Powe!!2s opinion procee&s #ro% an in&i$i&ua! ri"hts
presu%ption, as we!! as in&icatin" that whites as a c!ass is
%a&e up o# %an( &iIerent %inorities.
P. 'rest )n&s the "roup orientation inconsistent with the tra&itiona!
anti&iscri%ination princip!e an& notions o# in&i$i&ua! autono%(
which attriutes no %ora! si"ni)cance to %e%ership in racia!
"roups.
D. +uen#e!& ar"ues that aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s &o not &iIer in
a constitutiona! sense #ro% the har%s in@icte& on the etter,oI
pro"ra%s that oIer specia! opportunities to the poor, or !aws that
re>uire pre#erences #or $eterans. <t is i%possi!e that the on!( 8in&
o# aIir%ati$e action %a&e unconstitutiona! un&er the Ci$i! 0ar
A%en&%ents is the 8in& that wou!& oIer assistance to !ac8s.
'. Garsha!! ar"ues that the E>ua! Protection C!ause can on!( e
un&erstoo& in ter%s o# its protections o# "roups, an& o# in&i$i&ua!s
( reason o# their %e%ership in "roups.
.iscri%ination is not a"ainst in&i$i&ua!s. <t is a"ainst a
peop!e. An& the re%e&(, there#ore, has to correct an& cure
an& co%pensate #or the &iscri%ination a"ainst the peop!e an&
not 7ust the &iscri%ination a"ainst the i&enti)a!e persons.
+. Post notes that a!thou"h Powe!!2s exposition o# co%pe!!in"
e&ucationa! interest o# &i$ersit( ha& een inte!!ectua!!( e!e"ant an&
precise, it ha& &isp!a(e& !itt!e or no re!ationship to the actua!
Pa"e :1 o# 9:
reasons wh( aIir%ati$e action ha& eco%e pro%inent in A%erican
hi"h e&ucation. These reasons were ase& a!%ost entire!( on the
#e!t nee& to re%e&( &eep socia! &is!ocations associate& with race.
D. DeIries, Powe!!2s !aw c!er8, notes that i# &i$ersit( in the c!assroo%
enhance& the e&ucation o# a!! stu&ents, then a search #or %inorit(
representation cou!& e seen as soun& e&ucationa! po!ic(, not racia!
#a$oritis%.
D. 0i!8inson oser$e& that &i$ersit( was the %ost accepta!e
pu!ic rationa!e #or aIir%ati$e action ecause it has een
historica!!( c!ear!( re!ate& to a uni$ersit(2s #unction.
3owe$er, race & ethnicit( are not necessari!( in&icators o#
&i$erse experience as %uch as &iIerences in econo%ic status.
Perhaps the >uestion shou!& e on how tra&itiona! a&%issions
criteria continue to perpetuate race an& c!ass pri$i!e"e.
, Con"ressiona! statute %an&atin" 10V o# #e&era! #un&s #or !oca! pro7ects e
sucontracte& out to %inorit( owne& usinesses was constitutiona! ecause the
pro"ra% was !i%ite& (sunset pro$ision) an& tai!ore& pro"ra% &esi"ne& to
re%e&( prior &iscri%ination in the construction in&ustr( an& a!so ha&
a&%inistrati$e re%e&ies. ullilove v. (lutznic" (1990) (no %a7orit( #or a
stan&ar& o# re$iew).
, =trict scrutin( app!ies to state an& !oca! aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s, which
re>uire statistics to support re%e&(in" o# speci)c statistica! )n&in"s,
consi&eration o# race,neutra! a!ternati$es, an& !i%its on &uration an& scope.
Cit) of Richmond v. $.#. Croson Co. (1999) (in$a!i&atin" !oca! re>uire%ent to
awar& :0V o# pu!ic pro7ects to %inorit( sucontractors? Court wante& )n&in"s
to support Cit(2s ar"u%ent that it was tr(in" to re%e&( past &iscri%ination).
o =trict scrutin( nee&e& to ensure a!!e"e&!( 5eni"n6 p!ans are not ase&
on racia! pre7u&ice.
, Court aIir%e& that a!! racia! c!assi)cations, i%pose& ( whate$er #e&era!, state
or !oca! "o$ern%ent actor, %ust e ana!(4e& un&er strict scrutin(. #darand
Constr. v. !ena (199-) (o$erru!in" Metro Broadcasting v. CC to the extent that
it prescrie& a &iIerent stan&ar& o# re$iew (inter%e&iate) #or #e&era!
pro"ra%s).
o Three "enera! propositions "o$ern aIir%ati$e action pro"ra%s/
=8epticis%/ the nee& #or searchin" re$iew #or a!! race an& ethnicit(
c!assi)cations in or&er to s%o8e out co$ert in$i&ious &iscri%ination.
Consistenc(/ since E>ua! Protection is a persona! ri"ht, stan&ar&s o#
re$iew shou!& not &epen& on the race o# the person ene)te& or
ur&ene&. The stan&ar& o# re$iew in race,ase& cases shou!& e
consistent.
Con"ruence/ E>ua! Protection ana!(sis un&er the -
th
& 11
th
A%en&s.
use the sa%e stan&ar& o# re$iew. 'ut this &oes not necessari!(
%ean that the( wi!! app!( the sa%e wa(? courts %a( "i$e "reater
&e#erence to #e&era! pro"ra%s.
, =tu&ent o&( &i$ersit( in hi"her e&ucation is a co%pe!!in" state interest that
can 7usti#( the use o# race in a&%issions, ut on!( i# the pro"ra% is narrow!(
tai!ore& an& "i$es app!icants in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration. &rutter v. Bollinger
(*00:) (Ani$. Gich. Law =ch. a&%issions pro"ra% that consi&ere& a %ix o#
traits inc!u&in" race was cha!!en"e& an& uphe!& ( C2Connor #or the Court).
Pa"e :- o# 9:
o .ec!ares that a!! racia! c!assi)cations i%pose& ( "o$ern%ent %ust e
ana!(4e& un&er strict scrutin(, ut there is &e#erence to the schoo!2s
7u&"%ent that &i$ersit( is essentia! to its e&ucationa! %ission.
o Court a!so in&icates that &i$ersit( in !aw schoo! he!ps to #urther
!e"iti%ac( o# pu!ic oIicia!s an& oIicers (since a sustantia! nu%er o#
e!ecte& pu!ic oIicers ho!& !aw &e"rees).
o Ani$ersities can consi&er race or ethnicit( %ore @exi!( as a 5p!us6 #actor
in the context o# in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration o# each an& e$er( app!icant.
The a&%issions pro"ra% ensures that a!! #actors that %a( contriute to
stu&ent o&( &i$ersit( are %eanin"#u!!( consi&ere& a!on"si&e race in
a&%issions &ecisions.
o The !aw schoo!2s p!an is narrow!( tai!ore& to the schoo!2s "oa! o#
attaintin" a critica! %ass o# un&errepresente& %inorit( stu&ents. The
pro"ra% &i& not use >uotas, p!ace &iIerent racia! "roups on &iIerent
a&%ission trac8s, or awar& a set nu%er o# points to an app!icant ase&
on %inorit( status.
The purpose o# narrow tai!orin" re>uire%ent is to ensure that the
%eans chosen #or the co%pe!!in" "oa! so c!ose!( that there is !itt!e
or no possii!it( that the %oti$e #or the c!assi)cation was
i!!e"iti%ate racia! pre7u&ice or stereot(pe.
o Oarrow tai!orin" &oes not re>uire exhaustion o# e$er( concei$a!e race,
neutra! a!ternati$e. 'ut it &oes, howe$er, re>uire "oo& #aith
consi&eration o# wor8a!e race,neutra! a!ternati$es that wi!! achie$e the
&i$ersit( the uni$ersit( see8s.
o There is no reason to exe%pt race,conscious a&%issions pro"ra%s #ro%
the re>uire%ent that a!! "o$ern%enta! use o# race %ust ha$e a !o"ica! en&
point. <n the context o# hi"her e&ucation, the &urationa! re>uire%ent can
e %et ( sunset pro$isions in these po!icies an& perio&ic re$iews to
&eter%ine whether racia! pre#erences are sti!! necessar( to achie$e
stu&ent o&( &i$ersit(.
o D. Finsur" (with 're(er) concurrin" expresse& concern that *- (ears
a#ter Ba""e the Court is sti!! &eci&in" the issue an& that in ti%e, one %a(
hope that aIir%ati$e action can sunset.
o D. +ehn>uist (with =ca!ia, Tho%as, Kenne&() &issentin", #oun& that the
pro"ra% was not narrow!( tai!ore& an& that the pro"ra% ears no
re!ation to the "oa! o# achie$in" a 5critica! %ass,6 rather the percenta"e
o# %inorit( app!icants corre!ates to the percenta"e o# a&%itte& stu&ent
an& hence, #ai!s strict scrutin(. A&&itiona!!(, there is no ti%e !i%it on the
schoo!2s use o# race.
o D. Kenne&( &issentin" #oun& that the !aw schoo! ha& the ur&en o# pro$in"
that is &i& not use race in an unconstitutiona! wa( an& the schoo! &i& not
exp!ain the corre!ations etween app!icant poo! an& a&%itte& stu&ents.
.e#erence is antithetica! to strict scrutin(.
o D. =ca!ia (with Tho%as) &issentin", is s8eptica! that cross,racia!
un&erstan&in" is a true e&ucationa! ene)t, teacha!e in or uni>ue!(
re!e$ant to !aw schoo!? an& &oes not e!ie$e racia! &i$ersit( is a
co%pe!!in" "o$ern%ent interest. The Constitution proscries "o$ern%ent
&iscri%ination on the asis o# race, an& state pro$i&e& e&ucation is no
exception.
Pa"e :H o# 9:
o D. Tho%as (with =ca!ia) &issentin", ar"ues that racia! &iscri%ination is not
a per%issi!e so!ution to the se!#,in@icte& woun&s o# an e!itist a&%ission
po!ic(. The pro"ra% ser$e& aesthetic interests, ut pro&uce& on!(
%ar"ina! e&ucationa! ene)ts.
<n #act, there is a race,neutra! a!ternati$e, which wou!& e to
aan&on its exc!usionar( a&%issions pro"ra% an& a&%it app!icants
%eetin" %ini%u% >ua!i)cations on a co!or !in& asis, e.". a !otter(.
There is no asis #or the Court2s unprece&ente& &e#erence ase& on
the i&ea o# e&ucationa! autono%(, an& no asis #or a ri"ht to &o
what otherwise wou!& $io!ate the E>ua! Protection C!ause.
Law schoo!s choose to use a test that the( 8now %a( e racia!!(
ias, ut the( %ust accept the constitutiona! ur&ens o# this.
, An&er"ra&uate a&%issions po!ic( that auto%atica!!( &istriutes 1Q-
th
o# the
points nee&e& to "uarantee a&%ission to each un&errepresente& %inorit(
app!icant ase& on race is not narrow!( tai!ore& to achie$e the interest in
e&ucationa! &i$ersit(. &ratz v. Bollinger (*00:) (C.D. +ehn>uist #or the Court in
co%panion case to &rutter).
o The point s(ste% has the eIect o# %a8in" the #actor o# race &ecisi$e #or
$irtua!!( e$er( %ini%a!!( >ua!i)e& un&errepresente& %inorit( app!icant
an& &oes not a!!ow assess%ent o# the app!icant2s entire app!ication.
o The #act that a re$iew co%%ittee can !oo8 at the app!ications in&i$i&ua!!(
an& i"nore the points, once an app!ication is @a""e&, &oes not he!p the
po!ic( sur$i$e strict scrutin( ecause such in&i$i&ua!i4e& re$iew is the
exception an& not the ru!e.
o D. C2Connor concurrin", e%phasi4e& the !ac8 o# %eanin"#u! in&i$i&ua!i4e&
re$iew o# the app!icants. The se!ection in&ex, ut settin" up auto%atic,
pre&eter%ine& point a!!ocations #or the so#t $aria!es, ensures that the
&i$ersit( contriutions o# app!icants cannot e in&i$i&ua!!( assesse&.
o D. 're(er concurrin" with the 7u&"%ent o# the Court, with C2Connor2s
concurrence an& with Finsur"2s &issent.
o D. Tho%as concurrin", reiterate& his e!ie# that the =tate2s use o# racia!
&iscri%ination in hi"her e&ucation a&%issions is cate"orica!!( prohiite&
( the E>ua! Protection C!ause.
o D. =te$ens (with =outer) &issentin", ar"ues that there is an asence o#
e$i&ence that either petitioner wou!& recei$e an( ene)t #ro%
prospecti$e re!ie#, an& hence ha$e no stan&in".
o D. =outer (with Finsur") &issentin", ar"ues that the &ecision shou!& not
"o e(on& a reco"nition that &i$ersit( can ser$e as a co%pe!!in" state
interest 7usti#(in" race,conscious &ecisions in e&ucation an& )n&s that the
pro"ra% pro$i&es in&i$i&ua!i4e& re$iew.
The pro"ra% is c!oser to what &rutter appro$es o# than what Ba""e
con&e%ns, since it &oes not in$o!$e a >uota or set,asi&e s(ste%.
The se!ection in&ex s(ste%, a!! o# the characteristics that the
co!!e"e thin8s re!e$ant to stu&ent &i$ersit( #or e$er( one o# the
p!aces to e )!!e& )ts Powe!!2s &escription o# a constitutiona!!(
accepta!e pro"ra%Eone that consi&ers 5a!! pertinent e!e%ents o#
&i$ersit( in !i"ht o# the particu!ar >ua!i)cations o# each app!icant.6
<t see%s un#air to treat the can&or o# the a&%issions p!an as an
Achi!!es2 hee!.
Pa"e :; o# 9:
o D. Finsur" (with =outer) &issentin", is %ost sharp!( in contrast with the
Court an& ar"ues #or an inter%e&iate re$iew, citin" #darand an&
&istin"uishes eni"n c!assi)cation.
Actions &esi"ne& to ur&en "roups are not ran8e& the sa%e with
%easures ta8en to e!i%inate &iscri%ination.
The po!ic( &oes not see8 to exc!u&e ase& on race, nor &oes it
un&u!( construct a&%issions opportunities #or non,%inorit(
stu&ents.
<# honest( is the est po!ic(, #u!!( &isc!ose& Co!!e"e aIir%ati$e
action pro"ra% is pre#era!e to achie$in" si%i!ar nu%ers throu"h
win8s, no&s, an& &is"uises.
o Critics & =cho!ars/
A!thou"h the Court, in &rutter, announce& a strict scrutin(
stan&ar&, in app!ication it was %ore &e#erentia!.
<n ho!&in" that &i$ersit( cou!& e a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%enta!
interest, the %a7orit( too8 the schoo! oIicia!s at their wor&
when the schoo! oIicia!s sai& the( nee&e& racia! &i$ersit( #or
e&ucationa! reasons. <n a&&ition, ho!&in" that the pro"ra%
was narrow!( tai!ore&, the %a7orit( "a$e the schoo! the
ene)t o# the &out in the operation o# the racia! pre#erences.
A!thou"h &rutter casts itse!# as %ere!( en&orsin" Powe!!2s opinion
in Ba""e, it &oes not oIer an account o# the intrinsic $a!ue o# the
e&ucationa! process or ene)ts. <t instea& concei$es o# e&ucation
as instru%enta! #or the achie$e%ent o# extrinsic socia! "oo&s, !i8e
pro#essiona!is%, citi4enship, or !ea&ership.
<t #o!!ows #ro% this wa( o# conceptua!i4in" the pro!e% that
the Law =choo! can ha$e a co%pe!!in" interest in usin"
&i$ersit( to #aci!itate the attain%ent o# these socia! "oo&s on!(
i# there is an in&epen&ent!( co%pe!!in" interest in the actua!
attain%ent o# these "oo&s.
Prediction/ <t %a( e ar"ue& that the Court has now i%p!icit!(
accepte& re%e&(in" societa! &iscri%ination as a state co%pe!!in"
interest an& appears that the Court wi!! upho!& a narrow!( &rawn
race,ase& pro"ra% &esi"ne& to re%e&( speci)c i&enti)e& i!!e"a!
racia! &iscri%ination.
=o the %ost i%portant #unction o# aIir%ati$e action
reco"ni4e& in &rutter is #orwar&,!oo8in"/ to %a8e possi!e the
eIecti$e #unctionin" o# institutions that ha$e een historica!!(
se"re"ate& or strati)e& ( inte"ratin" the% at a!! !e$e!s.
A!thou"h the 1 concurrin" 7ustices in Ba""e wou!& ha$e
uphe!& an aIir%ati$e action pro"ra% &esi"ne& to re%e&(
past societa! &iscri%ination, the Court has "enera!!( re7ecte&
re%e&(in" societa! &iscri%ination as suIicient to 7usti#( a
racia! c!assi)cation. E$en =ca!ia an& Tho%as are wi!!in" to
accept race,conscious pro"ra%s to re%e&( the "o$ern%ent2s
own &iscri%ination a"ainst i&enti)e& $icti%s.
Pro#. Post !ists #our re>uire%ents that the Court uses in &rutter9
&ratz in &eter%inin" i# a &i$ersit( p!an is narrow!( tai!ore&? a race,
ase& aIir%ati$e action p!an/
Pa"e :9 o# 9:
1) %ust 5not un&u!( har% %e%ers o# an( racia! "roup6
*) can e i%p!e%ente& on!( i# there has een a 5serious "oo&
#aith consi&eration o# wor8a!e race,neutra! a!ternati$es that
wi!! achie$e the &i$ersit( the uni$ersit( see8s6
:) 5%ust e !i%ite& in ti%e6
1) %ost i%portant!(, it %ust aIor& each app!icant 5tru!(
in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration.6
The Court ne$er %a8es c!ear whether the &ratz pro"ra% #ai!s
the in&i$i&ua!i4e& consi&eration ecause it >uanti)es the
contriution o# race to &i$ersit( ( a speci)c an& i&enti)a!e
%easure or ecause the pro"ra% e%p!o(s a %easure that is
&ecisi$e.
The #act that it is i%portant #or the pro"ra% to ha$e a &urationa!
!i%it see%s to e consistent on!( i# the co%pe!!in" interest in the
pro"ra% is re%e&ia!.
Intermediate Review/ Gender ,lassi8cation
, The #ra%ers o# the 11
th
A%en&. &i& not conte%p!ate sex e>ua!it(. 'o!&!(
&(na%ic interpretation, &epartin" ra&ica!!( #ro% the ori"ina! un&erstan&in", is
re>uire& to tie the 11
th
A%en&.2s E>ua! Protection C!ause to a co%%an& that
"o$ern%ent treat %en an& wo%en as in&i$i&ua!s e>ua! in ri"hts,
responsii!ities, an& opportunities. +uth Finsur", 19;9 0ash. A.L.P.
, )tandard of Review/ Purpose#u! "en&er c!assi)cations a"ainst wo%en or %en
5%ust ser$e i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an& %ust e sustantia!!(
re!ate& to achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es.6 Craig v. Boren (19;H) (re7ectin"
&iIerent &rin8in" a"es ase& on sex? +ehn>uist o7ectin" to inter%e&iate
stan&ar& o# re$iew).
o The "o$ern%ent 7usti)cation %ust e excee&in"!( persuasi$e, which
%a8es it c!oser to strict scrutin(. +S v. 5a. (199H).
The =tate has the ur&en to show at !east that the c!assi)cation
ser$es i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es an& that the
&iscri%inator( %eans e%p!o(e& are sustantia!!( re!ate& to the
achie$e%ent o# those o7ecti$es.
o Court wi!! use the actua! "o$ern%ent purpose an& &e%an& c!ose
correspon&ence o# the c!assi)cation to that en&. C!assi)cations are %ost
!i8e!( to #ai! ecause the c!assi)cation is not sustantia!!( re!ate& to the
"o$ern%ent interest.
Pro!e%s arise when (ou &e)ne the o7ecti$e &iIerent!(.
o The 7usti)cation %ust e "enuine, not h(pothesi4e& or in$ente& post hoc
in response to !iti"ation.
o The 7usti)cation %ust not re!( on o$erroa& "enera!i4ations aout the
&iIerent ta!ents, capacities, or pre#erences o# %a!es an& #e%a!es.
, =tate !aw cannot "i$e pre#erence to %a!es o$er #e%a!es as a&%inistrators o#
estates. Reed v. Reed (19;1) (re7ectin" =tate2s 7usti)cation o# ease o#
a&%inistration? 5'( pro$i&in" &issi%i!ar treat%ent #or %en an& wo%en who are
thus si%i!ar!( situate&, the cha!!en"e& section $io!ates the E>ua! Protection
C!ause.6).
, A!thou"h no %a7orit( o# the Court has e$er he!& that sex shou!& e a suspect
c!ass, 'rennan points out reasons that it wou!& e suspect in his opinion in
rontiero v. Richardson (19;:) (stri8in" &own re"u!ation %a8in" it %ore
Pa"e :9 o# 9:
&iIicu!t #or #e%a!e uni#or%e& ser$ice%e%er to c!ai% her husan& as
&epen&ent).
o =ex, !i8e race an& nationa! ori"in, is an i%%uta!e characteristic
&eter%ine& ( acci&ent o# irth? an& #re>uent!( ears no re!ation to
ai!it( to per#or% or contriute to societ(.
o <n !ater cases, the Court exp!ains wh( sex was not he!& as suspect c!ass?
%ain!( ecause its eIects are !ess se$ere than racia! &iscri%ination an&
can e eIecte& thou"h the po!itica! process.
, The hei"htene& re$iew stan&ar& &oes not %a8e sex a suspect c!ass. =tate
cannot constitutiona!!( &en( wo%en who ha$e the wi!! an& capacit( access to
the trainin" an& atten&ant opportunities that an institution uni>ue!( aIor&s
on!( to %en. 5MI (199H) (Finsur" #or the Court, e%p!o(in" an in&i$i&ua!
ri"hts $iew).
o =tate was not success#u! in ar"uin" that JG< was esta!ishe& with a $iew
to &i$erse e&ucationa! opportunit( within the =tate. Cn!( ser$in" =tate2s
sons without an( pro$ision #or her &au"hters &oes not ser$e &i$ersit( an&
$io!ates E>ua! Protection.
<# JG<2s "oa! is to train citi4en so!&iers, the "oa! &oes not prec!u&e
wo%en. The opportunities oIere& at JG< are uni>ue that a para!!e!
pro"ra% cou!& not oIer.
o =ex c!assi)cation %a( e use& to co%pensate wo%en #or econo%ic
&isai!ities or to a&$ance e%p!o(%ent opportunities. A re%e&ia! &ecree
%ust c!ose!( )t the constitutiona! $io!ation? it %ust e shape& to p!ace
persons &enie& an opportunit( or a&$anta"e in the position the( wou!&
ha$e occupie& in the asence o# &iscri%ination.
JG< create& a para!!e! pro"ra% #or wo%en see8in" entrance to
JG<, Jir"inia 0o%en2s <nstitute #or Lea&ership (J0<L), ut with
%ar8e& &iIerences #ro% JG<, na%e!( !ac8in" a&$ersati$e %etho&
o# e&ucation. An& hence, was not sustantia!!( co%para!e. M<# this
were so, JG<L %i"ht ha$e een $a!i&.N The #act that JG< is uni>ue
eco%es %ore o# a &epri$ation to wo%en who cannot atten&.
M=ca!ia critici4es this, since an( pro"ra% can e characteri4e& as
uni>ue.N
o D. +ehn>uist concurrin", &isa"rees with the new stan&ar& announce& an&
wou!& pre#er the stan&ar& in ,ogan.
The pro!e% is that the &i$ersit( c!ai%s on!( ene)t one sex. Oo
correspon&in" sin"!e,sex pro"ra% #or wo%en. <t is not the
exc!usion o# wo%en that $io!ates the E>ua! Protection C!ause, ut
the %aintenance o# an a!!,%en schoo! without pro$i&in" an(
co%para!e institution #or wo%en.
o D. =ca!ia &issentin", ar"ues #or #aith#u! app!ication o# inter%e&iate
scrutin(, which has ne$er re>uire& a !east,restricti$e %eans ana!(sis, ut
on!( a sustantia! re!ation etween the c!assi)cation an& the state
interests it ser$es.
Puestion is whether the exc!usion o# wo%en #ro% JG< is
sustantia!!( re!ate& to an i%portant "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e o#
pro$i&in" eIecti$e co!!e"e e&ucation #or its citi4ens, which sin"!e,
sex instruction part o# this approach.
Pa"e 10 o# 9:
The i%p!ication o# the Court2s &ecision %a( e wi&esprea&
&isruption o# sin"!e,sex e&ucation, &epen&in" on how this app!ies to
pri$ate e&ucation.
o Ootes & Criticis%/
Court ac8now!e&"e& that un&er this ana!(sis, %eans %er"e& into
en&s an& the %er"er ris8e& (passin" an( e&ucationa! scrutin(.
Jir"inia &i& what #e%inist theorists ha$e !on" critici4e&Ethe(
assu%e& the correctness o# the %ascu!ine %a!e stan&ar& an& as8e&
on!( whether wo%en cou!& )t in, not whether it was an appropriate
stan&ar& #or persons o# either sex. <%p!ications that wo%en are
in#erior i# the( &o not %atch up.
Court2s %essa"e is a re7ection o# sweepin" "enera!i4ations upon
which the( were #oun&e&. <n$a!i& stereot(pes wi!! e #ata! to
"o$ern%ent #un&in" o# co!!e"es which exc!u&e app!icants on the
asis o# sex.
0hi!e in %an( cases c!assi)cations on the asis o# sex are
s(non(%ous with sex &iscri%ination, in other cases, sex
c!assi)cations per%it e>ua! protection to e achie$e& within a
#ra%ewor8 that reco"ni4es &iIerence.
F. =i%pson/ 0ith re"ar& to coor&inate sin"!e,sex schoo!s, i# no
sti"%a or &isa&$anta"e to the "ir!s or o(s is #oun&, the schoo!s
pass wou!& pass constitutiona! %uster. <#, howe$er, &isa&$anta"e is
#oun& to exist, the state is c!ear!( c!assi#(in" on sex an&
inter%e&iate scrutin( app!ies an& it is &out#u! that the s(ste% o#
coor&inate sin"!e,sex schoo!s wi!! sur$i$e such re$iew.
, A wo%en,on!( a&%issions po!ic( to a state nursin" schoo! $io!ates E>ua!
Protection. A!thou"h the state ar"ue& the c!assi)cation was co%pensator(, it in
#act ser$e& to rein#orce a stereot(pe o# nursin" as a pro#ession #or wo%en (who
ha& not een &iscri%inate& a"ainst in the pro#ession an& &oes not ser$e the
purpose o# &i$ersit(). Miss. +niv. for Women v. ,ogan (199*) (%a!e app!icant
see8in" entrance to nursin" schoo!).
, <n so%e cases, the Court has &eter%ine& that the sexes are not si%i!ar!(
situate&Ewhen the sex c!assi)cations are ase& on rea! &iIerences rather than
"en&er stereot(pesEthe c!assi)cation wi!! !i8e!( e uphe!&.
o =tatutor( rape !aw which %a8es %en a!one cri%ina!!( !ia!e #or the act o#
sexua! intercourse with a #e%a!e %inor &oes not $io!ate the E>ua!
Protection C!ause ecause this c!assi)cation rea!istica!!( re@ects the #act
that the sexes are not si%i!ar!( situate& certain circu%stances, na%e!(
the io!o"ica! conse>uences. An& the state has an interest in pre$entin"
teen pre"nanc(. Michael M v. Su0erior Ct. (1991) (+ehn>uist #or the
Court app!(in" inter%e&iate scrutin( that he ha& pre$ious!( &issente&
#ro%).
o Fe&era! %a!e,on!( &ra#t re"istration &oes not $io!ate the -
th
A%en&. E>ua!
Protection since the sex c!assi)cation rea!istica!!( re@ects the #act that
the sexes are not si%i!ar!( situate& in re"ar& to the nee& to pro$i&e
co%at troops, in which wo%en &o not participate. This is c!ose!( re!ate&
to Con"ress2 i%portant "o$ern%enta! interest in &e$e!opin" a poo! o#
potentia! co%at troops. Rost"er v. &old'erg (1991).
, 0hi!e &iscri%inator( eIect %a( e e$i&ence o# &iscri%inator( purpose, it is not
enou"h to tri""er inter%e&iate re$iew. Cn!( a "o$ern%enta! purpose to
Pa"e 11 o# 9:
&iscri%inate 7usti)es &eparture #ro% the tra&itiona! rationa!it( stan&ar&. !ers.
#dm/r of Mass. v. eene) (19;9) (upho!&in" $eteran pre#erence po!ic( in hirin"?
whi!e it has the eIect o# &isa&$anta"in" wo%en, it is not the purpose?
there#ore, rationa! asis app!ies).
o 0hen a statute is "en&er,neutra! on its #ace is cha!!en"e& on the "roun&
that its eIects upon wo%en are &isproportionate!( a&$erse, a two,#o!&
in>uir( is appropriate/ 1) whether the statutor( c!assi)cation is in&ee&
neutra! in the sense that is not "en&er ase&? *) <# the c!assi)cation itse!#,
co$ert or o$ert, is not ase& upon "en&er, the secon& >uestion is whether
the a&$erse eIects re@ects in$i&ious "en&er,ase& &iscri%ination.
o Garsha!! (with 'rennan) &issentin", )n&s that the $eteran,pre#erence
e$inces purpose#u! "en&er,ase& &iscri%ination an& ears not !e"iti%ate
"o$ern%enta! o7ecti$e.
0here the #oreseea!e i%pact o# a #acia!!( neutra! po!ic( is so
&isproportionate, the ur&en shou!& rest o# the =tate to esta!ish
that sex,ase& consi&erations p!a(e& no part in the choice o# the
particu!ar !e"is!ati$e sche%e.
=tate #ai!e& to esta!ish a suIicient re!ationship etween its
o7ecti$es an& %eans chosen to eIectuate the%. 1arron/ <# there
is a "en&er,neutra! %eans, then a "en&er,ase& statute is
unre!ate&.
)e$ual +rientation/ 6uasi3)us!ect<
, 0hi!e the Court has not he!& whether c!assi)cations ase& on sexua!
orientation are su7ect to hei"htene& scrutin(, it has he!& that a !aw i%posin" a
roa&, un&iIerentiate& &isai!it( a"ainst "a(s (!aw #ori&s protecte& status
ase& on sexua! orientation) is irrationa! an& $io!ates E>ua! Protection. Romer
v. *vans (199H). This %a( in&icate a "reater scrutin( wi!! e "i$en to !aws
i%posin" specia! ur&ens on "a(s as a c!ass.
o First!(, the !aw has the pecu!iar propert( o# i%posin" a roa& an&
un&iIerentiate& &isai!it( on a sin"!e "roup.
o =econ&!(, its shear rea&th is so &iscontinuous with the reasons oIere&
#or it that the !aw see%s inexp!ica!e ( an(thin" ut ani%us towar& the
c!ass that it aIects? it !ac8s a rationa! re!ationship to !e"iti%ate state
interests.
o Court states that it is app!(in" rationa! re$iew. A !aw &ec!arin" that in
"enera! it sha!! e %ore &iIicu!t #or one "roup o# citi4ens than #or a!!
others to see8 ai& #ro% the "o$ern%ent is itse!# a &enia! o# E>ua!
Protection o# the !aws in the %ost !itera! sense.
o D. =ca!ia &issentin", )n&s that this &oes not &en( co%%on !aw protections
an& hence, is not a $io!ation o# E>ua! Protection. Cn!( that the( %a( not
otain pre#erentia! protections without a%en&in" the !aw. This is a
po!itica! issue.
o Ootes/
<%%e&iate reaction to Romer was that it conspicuous!( #ai!e& to
articu!ate a princip!e& 7usti)cation. Kenne&(2s opinion was roote&
neither in ori"ina! %eanin" nor in prece&ent, an& pro$i&e& !itt!e
"ui&ance #or #uture contro$ersies.
Kenne&(2s opinion cou!& e an a%a!"a% o# two theories/ 1) !itera!
rea&in" o# the E>ua! Protection C!ause an& *) the !aw was so o$er
Pa"e 1* o# 9:
an& un&er inc!usi$e in ser$in" an( !e"iti%ate en&s that is %ust e
un&erstoo& as ase& u!ti%ate!( on na8e& ani%osit( towar&s "a(
peop!e a!one.
The Court #oun&e& its &ecision on a ru!e that !e"is!ation %a8in" it
%ore ur&enso%e #or a sin"!e "roup o# citi4ens to see8 the
"o$ern%ent2s protection is a per se &enia! o# e>ua! protection o# the
!aws. <t %ust e ecause the "roun&s #or the !aw are proper!( oI
!i%its, since the !aw re@ects a 7u&"%ent that certain citi4ens shou!&
e treate& as socia! outcasts.
Romer re@ects the princip!e that the "o$ern%ent %a( not
&esi"nate an( societa! "roup as untoucha!e.
Romer i!!u%inate& the core o# E>ua! ProtectionE"o$ern%ent %ust
respect the princip!e that a!! persons ha$e e>ua! intrinsic worth.
This princip!e ars !aws roote& in hosti!it( towar& a particu!ar
"roup. E$en when ani%osit( is !ac8in" howe$er, the princip!e ars
!aws that see8 to entrench a socia! hierarch(.
The %a7orit( characteri4e& the u!ti%ate &ri$in" #orce ehin& the
!aw as constitutiona!!( i%per%issi!e ani%us, rather than %ora!
&isappro$a! an& so he!& that it #ai!e& rationa! asis re$iew.
D. =ca!ia ar"ues that the on!( ani%us at issue is %ora!
&isappro$a! o# ho%osexua! con&uct si%i!ar to that expresse&
in Bowers.
0hi!e .ue Process e%phasi4es $a!ues that are tra&itiona!!(
protecte&, E>ua! Protection C!ause &oes not sa#e"uar& tra&ition? it
protects a"ainst tra&itions, howe$er !on",stan&in" an& &eep!(
roote&.
, Argument for )us!ect or 6uasi3)us!ect ,lass/ Proponents o# hei"htene&
scrutin( point to/
o 3istor( o# &iscri%ination
o A percei$e& !ac8 o# po!itica! c!out
o Lac8 o# re!ationship etween ai!it( to per#or% or contriute an& to (what
is eco%in" 8nown as) an i%%uta!e trait
o =i%i!ar!(, the Court has #oun& sex an& other c!assi)cations >uestiona!e
ecause the( #re>uent!( ear no re!ation to ai!it( to per#or% or
contriute to societ(, are t(pica!!( %oti$ate& ( stereot(pica! rather than
#act,ase& thin8in", an& per$asi$e!( aIect c!asses o# citi4ens tra&itiona!!(
su7ecte& to !e"a! &isai!ities. App!ie& to ho%osexua! !e"a! histor(, sexua!
orientation c!assi)cation shou!& e at !east su7ect to inter%e&iate
scrutin(.
, )ame )e$ Marriage/ .eate has %o$e& to =tate constitutions, which &o not
ha$e a histor( o# interpretation !i8e the A= Constitution.
o 3awaii =tate constitution has an exp!icit prohiition on &iscri%ination
ase& on sex, un!i8e the #e&era! Constitution. As a resu!t, the =tate
=upre%e Court he!& that a !aw restrictin" %arria"e to opposite,sex
coup!es can within the =tate2s prohiition. The case was re%an&e& to e
ana!(4e& un&er strict scrutin(. Baehr v. %ewin (3aw. 199:).
o Gassachusetts he!& that the state an on sa%e,sex %arria"e $io!ate& the
state constitution, conc!u&in" that the %arria"e an &oes not %eet the
Pa"e 1: o# 9:
rationa! asis test #or either &ue process or e>ua! protection. &oodridge
v. De0t. of !u'l. ,ealth (Gass. *00:).
=o%e coup!es in Gass. ha$e een %arrie& an& i# the =tate e"ins to
prohiit this, then there2s an ar"u%ent that the =tate is creatin"
two c!asses o# citi4ens.
o A. Kopp!e%an ar"ues that since inter%e&iate scrutin( #or "en&er,ase&
&iscri%ination is appropriate, an& !aws that &iscri%inate a"ainst "a(s
cannot withstan& inter%e&iate scrutin(, statutes that sin"!e out "a(s #or
une>ua! treat%ent are in$a!i&.
<n the sa%e wa( that the prohiition a"ainst %isce"enation in
%oving v. 5a. preser$e& the po!arities to race on which white
supre%ac( reste&, the prohiition o# ho%osexua!it( preser$es the
po!arities on which rests the suor&ination o# wo%en.
o +. .uncan/ Garria"e !aws app!( the sa%e e>ua! stan&ar& to each "en&er,
neither %en nor wo%en %a( %arr( a person o# the sa%e "en&er. Oeither
the ene)ts nor the ur&en o# these !aws are &istriute& une>ua!!( to
%en or wo%en as a c!ass.
+e7ectin" the %oving ana!o"(/ 'ecause race is irre!e$ant to what
%a8es a re!ationship a %arria"e, it was i%%ora! an&
unconstitutiona! #or Jir"inia to #ori& interracia! %arria"es.
3owe$er, un!i8e Jir"inia2s racist restriction on %arria"e, the &ua!,
"en&er re>uire%ent i# ase& upon the inherent sexua!
co%p!e%entarit( o# husan& an& wi#e.
o C. =unstein/ 3owe$er, i# %awrence is put to"ether with %oving it wou!&
see% p!ausi!e to sa( that the "o$ern%ent wou!& ha$e to pro&uce a
co%pe!!in" 7usti)cation #or re#usin" to reco"ni4e such %arria"es, an&
co%pe!!in" 7usti)cations are not eas( to )n&. <# we e%phasi4e an e>ua!it(
rationa!e, the sutext o# %awrence, then ans on sa%e,sex %arria"es are
in serious constitutiona! trou!e.
D. C2Connor was aware o# the potentia!!( roa& i%p!ications o#
%awrence. Exp!ainin" that ans on sa%e,sex %arria"e cou!& e
uphe!& a#ter her conc!usion that %ora! &isappro$a! is not a
suIicient asis #or &iscri%ination a%on" "roups o# persons,
C2Connor state& that 5other reasons exist to pro%ote the institution
o# %arria"e e(on& %ora! &isappro$a! o# an exc!u&e& "roup.6
O. 3unter ar"uin" that C2Connor e!ie$es that preser$in" the
tra&itiona! institution o# %arria"e is a !e"iti%ate state o# interest
an& presu%a!( wou!& satis#( the rationa!,asis test that wou!& e
use& to &eci&e a "a( %arria"e case.
o L. Trie ar"ues that the un&er!(in" theor( an& %ost i%portant passa"es
o# %awrence su""est rea&( (thou"h not i%%e&iate) app!icai!it( o# the
ho!&in" to sa%e,sex %arria"e. <t wou!& see% i%p!ausi!e #or this Court
to accept there wou!& e har%s to the institution o# %arria"e, since its
one an& on!( re#erence to what wou!& &e%ean those who are %arrie& is
&en(in" the ri"ht to ha$e sexua! intercourse.
The o$ious i%p!ication o# this !unt state%ent is that %arria"e is
not on!( aout sex, ut a!so aout inti%ac(, co%panionship, an&
!o$eEpheno%ena that ha$e a pu!ic an& pri$ate #ace. Dust as the
%oving Court ca%e to rea!i4e that racia! oun&aries cannot &e)ne
Pa"e 11 o# 9:
such a re!ationship, so this Court ou"ht to co%e to a si%i!ar
conc!usion with respect to sexua! orientation.
-0ual Protection of #undamental Rights
, The Court wi!! in$o8e a hei"htene& stan&ar& o# re$iew ecause o# the nature o#
the interests aIecte& ( the c!assi)cation.
o 3ar& to &e)ne what %a8es a ri"ht #un&a%enta! so it %a( e %ore he!p#u!
to consi&er the character o# the ine>ua!ities that wi!! e 7u&icia!!(
to!erate& an& the character o# the ine>ua!ities to e constitutiona!!(
con&e%ne&. 'ut prece&ents in&icate that states cannot prec!u&e access
to the ser$ice or ene)r or perpetuate c!asses.
Court struc8 &own a state !aw %an&atin" sexua! steri!i4ation o#
persons con$icte& o# %ora! turpitu&e, ho!&in" that it was $io!ati$e
o# E>ua! Protection as certain !esser cri%es were the asis #or
steri!i4ation. S"inner v. O"la. e7 rel. Williamson (191*).
o .urin" the 0arren Court (ears, the Court e"an to #ashion sustanti$e
$a!ues an& interests &irect!( #ro% the E>ua! Protection C!auseEa new
5sustanti$e e>ua! protection6 e"an to e%er"e
0hi!e 5#un&a%enta! interests6 such as $otin" or access to cri%ina!
7ustice strict!( %i"ht not e constitutiona! ri"hts protecte& ( the
.ue Process "uarantee !i8e #ree&o% o# speech, the ri"ht o#
interstate %i"ration or the ri"hts re!atin" to %arria"e, #a%i!( an&
pri$ac(, !aws &iscri%inatin" a%on" c!asses in their ai!it( en7o(
such interests wou!& e su7ecte& to stricter scrutin(.
The !atter 'ur"er an& +ehn>uist Courts &i& not exten& this.
, )tandard of Review/ 0hen a c!assi)cation si"ni)cant!( ur&ens, &eters, or
pena!i4e the exercise o# a #un&a%enta! persona! ri"ht, the "o$ern%ent usua!!(
%ust pro$e that the c!assi)cation is necessar( to a co%pe!!in" "o$ern%enta!
interest.
o 'ut note that the Court has occasiona!!( use& $ar(in" ter%ino!o"( in
&e)nin" the stan&ar& o# re$iew, su""estin" a %o$e%ent awa( #ro% strict
scrutin( #or%u!ation.
o Fun&a%enta! ri"hts %a( e &eri$e& in&epen&ent!( #ro% pro$isions o# the
Constitution or %a( e &epen&ent on the E>ua! Protection C!ause.
o The #act that a c!assi)cation has so%e eIect on the exercise o# a
#un&a%enta! ri"ht &oes not necessari!( %ean that a %ore strin"ent
stan&ar& o# re$iew than rationa!it( wi!! e app!ie&. <n so%e cases, where
the !aw &oes not &eter, pena!i4e or otherwise si"ni)cant!( ur&en the
exercise o# the protecte& ri"ht, the Court has app!ie& the tra&itiona!
rationa! asis test.
Right of Interstate Migration * Residenc' Re0uirements
, The Court has reco"ni4e& a #un&a%enta! constitutiona! ri"ht o# interstate
%o$e%ent, a!thou"h ne$er c!ear!( in&icatin" the source.
o The nature o# our Fe&era! Anion an& our constitutiona! concepts o#
persona! !iert( unite to re>uire that a!! citi4ens to e #ree to tra$e!
throu"h the !en"th an& rea&th o# our !an& uninhiite& ( statutes, ru!es,
or re"u!ations which unreasona!( ur&en or restrict this %o$e%ent.
Sha0iro v. 6hom0son (19H9).
=ource %a( e #ro% Art. 1 Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause.
Pa"e 1- o# 9:
A!ternati$e!(, the ri"ht )n&s no exp!icit %ention in the Constitution.
The reason ein" that it is a ri"ht so e!e%entar( #ro% the e"innin"
to e a necessar( conco%itant o# the stron"er Anion the
Constitution create&.
, 0hen the state "o$ern%ent %a8es recent exercise o# interstate tra$e! a asis
#or &en(in" ene)ts, the c!assi)cation ur&ens the #un&a%enta! ri"ht to tra$e!
an& the strict scrutin( o# 7u&icia! re$iew app!ies.
o 'ut i# the c!assi)cation &oes not &eter, pena!i4e, or otherwise si"ni)cant!(
ur&en the protecte& ri"ht, the Court wi!! not app!( strict scrutin(.
, =tates can re>uire ona )&e e$i&ence o# current resi&enc(. McCarth) v.
!hiladel0hia Civil Serv. Comm/n (19;H).
o Court per curia% uphe!& %unicipa! re"u!ation re>uirin" e%p!o(ees o# the
Cit( o# Phi!a&e!phia e resi&ents o# the cit(. 'ecause the re"u!ation
in$o!$es proo# o# continuin" resi&enc( rather than prior &urationa!
resi&enc(, the ri"ht to tra$e! is not i%p!icate&.
, 7elfare=)tate 1ene8ts/ =tate cannot &en( we!#are assistance to resi&ents
who ha$e not resi&e& within the state #or at !east one (ear prece&in" their
app!ication ecause this ur&ens the #un&a%enta! ri"ht (o# an in&i"ent) o#
interstate %o$e%ent. Sha0iro v. 6hom0son (19H9).
o =tate2s purpose to conser$e )sca! resources ( &eterrin" %i"ration o#
nee&( persons is constitutiona!!( i%per%issi!e. =tate o7ecti$e to
&iscoura"e in&i"ents who wou!& tra$e! to the =tate to otain !ar"er
ene)ts %a( e 7usti)e&, ut none o# the statutes are tai!ore& to this
purpose, as the c!ass o# arre& newco%ers is a!!,inc!usi$e, !u%pin" the
"reat %a7orit( who co%e to the =tate #or other purposes (i.e., to %a8e a
new !i#e) with those who co%e #or the so!e purpose o# co!!ectin" !ar"er
ene)ts.
.iIicu!t( in seein" how !on",ter% resi&ents who >ua!i#( #or we!#are
are %a8in" a "reater present contriution to the =tate in taxes than
in&i"ent resi&ents who ha$e recent!( arri$e&.
o The E>ua! Protection C!ause prohiits =tate apportion%ent o# ene)ts
an& ser$ices accor&in" to past tax contriutions o# its citi4ens.
A c!assi)cation o# we!#are app!icants accor&in" to whether the(
ha$e !i$e& in the =tate #or one (ear prior see% irrationa! an&
unconstitutiona!.
o Court a!so re7ects =tate2s reasons #or the waitin",perio& re>uire%ent,
which/ 1) #aci!itates p!annin" o# the we!#are u&"et? *) pro$i&es an
o7ecti$e test o# resi&enc(? :) %ini%i4es the opportunit( #or recipients
#rau&u!ent!( to recei$e pa(%ents #ro% %ore than one 7uris&iction? 1)
encoura"es ear!( entr( into the !aor #orce.
o Court notes that this i%p!ies no $iew o# the $a!i&it( o# waitin",perio& or
resi&ence re>uire%ents &eter%inin" e!i"ii!it( to $ote, e!i"ii!it( #or
tuition,#ree e&ucation, to otain a !icense to practice a pro#ession, to hunt
or )sh, an& so #orth. =uch re>uire%ents %a( pro%ote co%pe!!in" state
interests on the one han&, or on the other, %a( not e pena!ties upon the
exercise o# the constitutiona! ri"ht o# interstate tra$e!.
o D. 0arren (with '!ac8) &issentin", #ra%es the >uestion as to whether
Con"ress %a( create %ini%a! resi&ence re>uire%ents, not whether the
=tates actin" a!one %a( &o so, since the case arises in ..C.
Pa"e 1H o# 9:
The insustantia!it( o# the restriction i%pose& ( resi&ence
re>uire%ents %ust then e e$a!uate& in !i"ht o# the possi!e
con"ressiona! reasons #or such re>uire%ents. Cur cases re>uire
on!( that Con"ress ha$e a rationa! asis #or )n&in" that a chose
re"u!ator( sche%e is necessar( to the #urtherance o# interstate
co%%erce.
o D. 3ar!an &issentin", ar"ues a"ainst expan&in" what constitutes a
5co%pe!!in" interest6 to inc!u&e recent interstate %o$e%ent.
5Co%pe!!in" interest6 &octrine ase& on two ranches/ 1) suspect
c!ass, such as racia! c!assi)cation? *) #un&a%enta! ri"ht.
The #un&a%enta! ri"ht ranch is %ore trou!eso%e ecause it has
een he!& that a statutor( c!assi)cation is su7ect to the
5co%pe!!in" interest6 test i# the resu!t o# the c!assi)cation %a( e
to aIect a 5#un&a%enta! ri"ht6 re"ar&!ess o# the asis o# the
c!assi)cation.
This is un#ortunate ecause it creates an exception which
threatens to swa!!ow the stan&ar& E>ua! Protection ru!e,
since $irtua!!( e$er( state statute aIects i%portant ri"hts.
For exa%p!e, the Court has he!& that tra&itiona! E>ua!
Protection stan&ar& is app!ica!e to statutor( c!assi)cation
aIectin" such #un&a%enta! %atters as the ri"ht to pursue a
particu!ar occupation, the ri"ht to recei$e "reater or s%a!!er
wa"es or to wor8 %ore or !ess house, an& the ri"ht to inherit
propert(. +i"hts such as these are in princip!e
in&istin"uisha!e #ro% those in$o!$e& here, an& to exten&
5co%pe!!in" interest6 ru!e to a!! cases in which such ri"hts are
aIecte& wou!& "o #ar towar& %a8in" this Court a 5super,
!e"is!ature.6
This ranch o# the &octrine is a!so unnecessar(, since an(
in#rin"e%ent can e &ea!t with un&er the .ue Process C!ause.
< 8now nothin" which entit!es this Court to pic8 our particu!ar
hu%an acti$ities, characteri4e the% as 5#un&a%enta!6 an& "i$e
the% a&&e& protection un&er an unusua!!( strin"ent e>ua!
protection test.
The &ecision see%s to re@ect an unusua! &e"ree the notion
that this Court possesses a pecu!iar wis&o% a!! its own.
This resur"ence o# the expansi$e $iew o# 5e>ua! protection6
carries the see&s o# %ore 7u&icia! inter#erence with the state
an& #e&era! !e"is!ati$e process.
, =tate cannot con&ition pu!ic pro$ision o# non,e%er"enc( %e&ica! care on one,
(ear &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ent ecause Sha0iro was #oun& to e
contro!!in" an& the state #ai!e& to &e%onstrate a co%pe!!in" state interest #or
ur&enin" the ri"ht to interstate tra$e!. Memorial ,os0. v. Marico0a Count)
(19;:).
o Sha0iro &i& not &ec!are &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ents as per se
unconstitutiona!, on!( that the( %a( not &eter or pena!i4e the ri"ht to
tra$e!.
o Ge&ica! care is as %uch a asic necessit( o# !i#e to an in&i"ent as we!#are
assistance. An& "o$ern%ent pri$i!e"es or ene)ts necessar( to asic
Pa"e 1; o# 9:
sustenance ha$e o#ten een $iewe& as ein" o# "reater constitutiona!
si"ni)cant than !ess essentia! #or%s o# "o$ern%enta! entit!e%ents.
, =tate can re>uire one,(ear resi&enc( in or&er app!( a &i$orce ecause o# the
=tate2s $irtua!!( exc!usi$e re"u!ation o# &o%estic re!ations an& that the interest
was not #orec!ose& ( %ere!( &e!a(e&. Sosna v. Iowa (19;-).
, =tate cannot &istriute inco%e #ro% its natura! resources ase& on the &uration
o# resi&enc( ecause it $io!ates E>ua! Protection when it creates perpetua!
c!asses o# ona )&e resi&ents. 8o'el v. Williams (199*) ('ur"er #or the Court).
o =tate interests to incenti$ise A!as8an resi&enc( an& encoura"e pru&ent
%ana"e%ent o# the #un& were not ser$e& ( "rantin" "reater &i$i&en&s to
certain in&i$i&ua!s.
o Awar&in" citi4ens #or past contriutions was not a !e"iti%ate state
interest.
o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un, Powe!!) concurre& on the asis o#
ri"ht to tra$e! an& the i&ea o# constitutiona!!( protecte& e>ua!it(.
The past,contriution rationa!e is so #ar,reachin" in it potentia!
app!ication, an& the re!ationship etween resi&ence an&
contriution to the =tate so $a"ue an& insupporta!e, that it
a%ounts to !itt!e %ore than a restate%ent o# the criterion #or
&iscri%ination that it purports to 7usti#(.
o D. C2Connor concurrin", e%p!o(e& the Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause an&
note& that the =tate ha& #ai!e& to pro$e that the new resi&ents were a
pecu!iar source o# an( e$i! or that the &iscri%ination ore a sustantia!
re!ationship to the a%ount that peop!e %i"ht ha$e contriute& to the
state.
o D. +ehn>uist &issentin", ar"ues that the state interest in reco"ni4in" past
contriutions satis)e& rationa!it( re$iew an& &i& not i%pe&e an(one2s
ri"ht to tra$e! to the =tate.
, =tate cannot "i$e $eteran e%p!o(%ent pre#erence ase& on in,state resi&enc(
status at the ti%e o# en!ist%ent. #tt) &en/l of -. v. Soto9%o0ez (199H)
(in$a!i&atin" OR !aw pre#errin" on!( those resi&ent $eterans who !i$e& in the
state at the ti%e o# entr( into ser$ice).
o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!, '!ac8%un, Powe!!) conc!u&e& that the
pre#erence $io!ate& constitutiona!!( protecte& ri"hts to %i"rate an& to
e>ua! protection o# the !aw. The =tate ha& not %et its hea$( ur&en o#
pro$in" that it has se!ecte& a %eans o# pursuin" a co%pe!!in" state
interest which &oes not i%pin"e unnecessari!( on constitutiona!!(
protecte& interests.
Cnce $eterans esta!ish a ona )&e resi&ence in a state, the( %a(
not e &iscri%inate& a"ainst so!e!( on the &ate o# their arri$a!.
o D. 'ur"er (with 0hite) concurrin", wou!& ha$e &eci&e& the case ase& on
8o'el usin" e>ua! protection rationa! asis ana!(sis, which wou!& ha$e
in$a!i&ate the !aw pure!( on e>ua! protection.
o D. C2Connor (with +ehn>uist, =te$ens) &issentin", too8 issue with the
Court2s 5#ree,@oatin" ri"ht to %i"rate,6 e>ua! protection ana!(sis, an&
#ai!ure to %a8es c!ear how %uch o# its ana!(sis is necessar( or suIicient
to )n& a $io!ation o# the ri"ht to %i"rate in&epen&ent!( o# an E>ua!
Protection C!ause $io!ation.
, =tate cannot !i%it we!#are ene)ts a$ai!a!e to new!( arri$e& resi&ents ase&
on pre$ious entit!e%ent in #or%er state, without $io!atin" Pri$i!e"es &
Pa"e 19 o# 9:
<%%unities C!ause & 11
th
A%en&. Oew!( arri$e& citi4ens o# a state ha$e the
ri"ht to the sa%e pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities en7o(e& ( other citi4ens o# the
state. Saenz v. Roe (1999) (in&icatin" 5the appropriate stan&ar& %a( e %ore
cate"orica! than that articu!ate& in Sha0iro, ut it is sure!( no !ess strict,6 ut
app!ies inter%e&iate stan&ar&).
o The ri"ht to tra$e! e%races : &iIerent co%ponents/ (1) it protects the
ri"ht o# a citi4en o# one state to enter an& !ea$e another? (*) the ri"ht to
e treate& as a we!co%e $isitor rather than an un#rien&!( a!ien when
te%porari!( present in another state? (:) #or those who e!ect to eco%e
per%anent resi&ents, the ri"ht to e treate& !i8e other citi4ens o# that
=tate.
o Per%issi!e 7usti)cations #or &iscri%ination etween resi&ents an&
nonresi&ents are si%p!( inapp!ica!e to nonresi&ent2s exercise o# the
ri"ht to %o$e into another =tate an& eco%e a resi&ent o# that =tate.
o Court assu%es that the we!#are ene)t wi!! e consu%e& in,state, it is not
a porta!e ene)t, un&er%inin" an( &urationa! re>uire%ent (7usti)e& #or
other ene)ts, such as tuition rates an& &i$orce procee&in"s).
o The >uestion is whether the =tate %a( acco%p!ish that en& ( the
&iscri%inator( %eans it has chosen.
o D. +ehn>uist (with Tho%as) &issentin", )n&s that the ri"ht to tra$e! is not
at issue since the !iti"ants are resi&ents an& =tates shou!& ha$e the
authorit( to ensure their pro"ra%s are not exp!oite&.
.oes not see how the ri"ht to eco%e a citi4ens o# another =tate is
a necessar( co%ponent o# the ri"ht to tra$e!. Court has con@ate&
the ri"ht to tra$e! with the ri"ht to e>ua! state citi4enship.
+esi&ence re>uire oth ph(sica! presence an& an intention to
re%ain, the !atter o# which is si%p!( unwor8a!e to $eri#(. =tates
use &urationa! re>uire%ents to test the !atter.
o D. Tho%as (with +ehn>uist) &issentin", ar"ues that the %a7orit(
%isinterprets the Pri$i!e"es or <%%unities C!ause that was uninten&e& (
#ra%ers o# the 11
th
A%en&.
At the ti%e o# the 11
th
A%en&., peop!e un&erstoo& 5pri$i!e"es or
i%%unities o# citi4ens6 as #un&a%enta! ri"hts rather than e$er(
pu!ic ene)t esta!ishe& ( positi$e !aw.
The Slaughter9,ouse Cases sappe& the C!ause o# an( %eanin". The
&e%ise o# the C!ause has contriute& in no s%a!! part to the current
&isarra( o# our 11
th
A%en&. 7urispru&ence. 'e#ore in$o8in" the
C!ause, we shou!& en&ea$or to un&erstan& what the #ra%ers o# the
11
th
A%en&. thou"ht that it %eant otherwise the Pri$i!e"es or
<%%unities C!ause wi!! eco%e another con$enient too! #or
in$entin" new ri"hts, !i%ite& so!e!( ( the pre&i!ections o# those
who happen at the ti%e to e %e%ers o# the Court.
o Ootes/
L. Trie/ The co%ponent o# the ri"ht o# tra$e! con)r%e& in Saenz
in$o!$e& in the e!aoration o# a structura! princip!es o# e>ua!
citi4enship %ore than the protection o# an in&i$i&ua! ri"hts o#
interstate %o$e%ent or an( in&i$i&ua! ri"ht &eri$in" #ro% either the
Pri$i!e"es & <%%unities C!ause o# Art. <J or the Pri$i!e"es or
Pa"e 19 o# 9:
<%%unities C!ause o# 11
th
A%en&. neither o# which spea8 in ter%s
o# tra$e!, interstate %oi!it(, or an(thin" o# that sort.
.outs that Saenz is a harin"er o# #resh new 7urispru&ence
o# pri$i!e"es an& i%%unities. The Saenz &ecisions see%s to
ha$e re$ea!e& a Court #ar %ore co%#orta!e protectin" ri"hts
that can &escrie in architectura! ter%s, especia!!( in ter%s o#
#e&era!is%, than it is in protectin" ri"hts that present
the%se!$es as spheres o# persona! autono%( or as &i%ensions
o# constitutiona!!( %an&ate& e>ua!it(.
There was a concern that states, #ear#u! o# eco%in" we!#are
%a"nates, wou!& en"a"e in a race to the otto%. Saenz ho!&s that
the protections aIor&e& ( the Citi4enship C!ause a!so !i%its the
powers o# the nationa! "o$ern%ent.
D. O4e!ie ar"ues that the ri"ht to tra$e! is "roun&e& pure!( in the
#e&era!ist structure an& is not tracea!e to the spirit o# speci)c
pro$isions in the 'i!! o# +i"hts. 0hen $iewe& as a !i%itation on
interstate con@ict, it is i!!o"ica! to construe the #ree %o$e%ent
princip!e a!so as a !i%itation on the powers o# the nationa!
"o$ern%ent.
+. 3i!!/ Oeither the Saenz Court nor the prece&ents pro$i&e an
a&e>uate account o# what it %eans to e a ona )&e resi&ent o# a
state.
The prece&ents su""est that the &e)nition o# state resi&ence
wi!! $ar( with the particu!ar pro"ra% to which a new resi&ent
see8s access.
Saenz Court a&opte& a non&iscri%ination theor( that once a
new resi&ent &e%onstrates that he is a ona )&e resi&ent,
=tates are cate"orica!!( arre& #ro% &rawin" &istinctions that
ur&en that new resi&ent ase& on !en"th o# resi&ence.
0hi!e the Saenz was correct to re7ect &iscri%ination a"ainst
in&i"ent newco%ers in we!#are ene)ts "i$en the &an"er o#
cu!tura! ani%osit(, the Court shou!& ha$e !i%ite& its
cate"orica! non&iscri%ination ru!e to the context.
G. =trasser ar"ues =tates that prohiit the reco"nition o# same3se$
marriages per#or%e& in another &o%ici!iar( $io!ate pri$i!e"es &
i%%unities "uarantees ( &iscri%inatin" a"ainst nonresi&ents who
are #orce& to choose etween re%ainin" in a state where the
%arria"e was per#or%e& or surren&erin" their %arria"e in or&er to
%i"rate to a new state.
<# the pri$i!e"es o# nationa! citi4enship &o not inc!u&e
so%ethin" as #un&a%enta! as the ri"ht to ha$e one2s %arria"e
($a!i& in the &o%ici!e at the ti%e o# ce!eration) reco"ni4e& in
each state throu"h which one %i"ht tra$e! or to which one
%i"ht %i"rate, then it is not c!ear what interests cou!&
possi!( %eet the re!e$ant stan&ar&.
, 2oting/ A re>uire%ent that a person e a resi&ent o# the state #or a (ear an&
the count( #or : %os. e#ore ein" a!!owe& to $ote was he!& to e $io!ati$e o#
the E>ua! Protection. Dunn v. Blumstein (19;*).
Pa"e -0 o# 9:
o The Court use& strict scrutin( ecause &en(in" so%e citi4ens the ri"ht to
$ote, &epri$es the% o# a #un&a%enta! po!itica! ri"ht, which is the
preser$ati$e o# a!! ri"hts, an& ecause such a resi&enc( re>uire%ent
&irect!( i%pin"es on the exercise o# a secon& #un&a%enta! ri"htEri"ht to
tra$e!.
o Court #oun& the resi&enc( re>uire%ent was not necessar( to achie$in"
the state interest o# !e"iti%ac( an& 8now!e&"ea!e $oters. Fixin" a
constitutiona! accepta!e perio& is a %atter o# &e"ree, notin" that :0 &a(s
appears to e a%p!e perio& #or the =tate to co%p!ete whate$er
a&%inistrati$e tas8s necessar( to pre$ent #rau&.
=i%i!ar!(, the re!ationship etween the =tate interest in an in#or%e&
e!ectorate an& &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ents was too
attenuate&.
o A state2s -0 &a( &urationa! $otin" resi&enc( re>uire%ent an& -0 &a(
$oter re"istration cutoI re>uire%ents were $a!i&. Marston v. %ewis
(19;:).
, uition 1ene8ts/ Cne,(ear &urationa! resi&enc( re>uire%ent #or recei$in" in,
state tuition rate is $a!i&. Starns v. Mal"erson (19;1).
Pa"e -1 o# 9:
#R--D+M +# ->PR-))I+N
, The 1
st
A%en&. exp!icit!( protects #ree&o% o# speech an& press on!( #ro% the
#e&era! "o$ern%ent.
, Protection was exten&e& to prohiit states #ro% ari&"in" this in &itlow v. -ew
.or" (19*-), in which the Court state& that/ we %a( an& &o assu%e that
#ree&o% o# speech an& o# the pressEwhich are protecte& ( the 1
st
A%en&.
#ro% ari&"e%ent ( Con"ressEare a%on" the #un&a%enta! persona! ri"hts
an& 5!ierties6 protecte& ( the &ue process C!ause o# the 11
th
A%en&. #ro%
i%pair%ent ( the =tates.
, Gan( cases re$iewe& de novo &ue to .octrine o# Constitutiona! Fact, when the
#acts o# the case are oun& up with !e"a! &octrine that the(2re insepara!e.
, .n!rotected )!eech/ 3istorica!!(, there are so%e cate"ories o# expression
that are co%p!ete!( unprotecte&/ #rau&, &e#a%ation, oscenit(, true
threatsQ)"htin" wor&sQincite%ent.
o Co%%ercia! speech is not co%p!ete!( protecte&.
o .isc!osure o# oIicia! secrets is a!so assu%e& to e ari&"a!e without 1
st

A%en&. protection.
, Cne wa( to approach #ree&o% o# expression is to i&enti#( cate"ories o#
protecte& or unprotecte& expression.
, Another wa( is to as8 what interest "o$ern%ent has in suppressin" a particu!ar
#or% o# expression. <n recent (ears, the =upre%e Court has ten&e& (un&er
=ca!ia2s pro&&in") in the !atter &irection, proin" "o$ern%enta! o7ecti$es
rather than the nature o# particu!ar speech. <n this approach, "o$ern%ent
neutra!it( towar& content or $iewpoint eco%es an i%portant "oa!.
#irst Amendment Rationales
1) Gar8etp!ace o# <&eas
a. Theor( ase& on the princip!e that the First A%en&. #ori&s the
"o$ern%ent #ro% ta8in" si&es in the natura! stru""!e o# i&eas,
representin" the app!ication o# =ocia! .arwinis% to i&eas.
. <ntro&uce& ( D. 3o!%es, &issentin" in #'rams v. +S (1919), 5the est test
o# truth is the power o# the thou"ht to "et itse!# accepte& in the
co%petition o# the %ar8et, an& that truth is the on!( "roun& upon which
their wishes sa#e!( can e carrie& out.6
c. Criticis%s/
i. <nterna! contra&iction that the theor(2s "oa! is the attain%ent o#
truth, (et it posits that we can ne$er rea!!( 8now the truth, so we
%ust 8eep !oo8in". 'ut i# we can ne$er attain the truth, wh( other
to continue the #ruit!ess searchL The &an"er is that so%eone wi!!
&eci&e that he has attaine& the truth an& wou!& e 7usti)e& in
shuttin" oI expression o# an( $iews that are contrar(.
ii. +e>uires peop!e to e a!e to use their rationa! capacities to
e!i%inate &istortion cause& ( the #or% an& #re>uenc( o# %essa"e
presentation an& to )n& the core o# re!e$ant in#or%ation or
ar"u%ent. This assu%ption cannot e accepte& ecause e%otiona!
or irrationa! appea!s ha$e "reat i%pact.
iii. Free &iscussion o# i&eas is an i!!usion ecause the %ar8etp!ace o#
i&eas is so &istorte& ( econo%ic rea!it( that the &issentin" i&ea
rea!!( &oes not ha$e a #air chance. An&er the ru!e o# %onopo!istic
%e&iaEthe%se!$es the %ere instru%ents o# econo%ic an& po!itica!
powerEa %enta!it( is create& #ro% which ri"ht an& wron", true an&
Pa"e -* o# 9:
#a!se are pre&e)ne& whene$er the( eIect the $ita! interests o# the
societ(.
i$. Chan"es in the co%%unications in&ustr( ha$e &estro(e& the
e>ui!iriu% in that %ar8etp!ace. A rea!istic $iew o# the 1
st
A%en&.
re>uires reco"nition that a ri"ht o# expression is so%ewhat thin i# it
can exercise& on!( at the suIerance o# the %ana"ers o# %ass
co%%unications.
*) Citi4en Participant Go&e!
a. Announce& in -ew .or" 6imes v. Sullivan, that the centra! purpose o# the
1
st
A%en&. is to encoura"e $i"orous roust &iscussion o# pu!ic issues an&
oIicia!s. =uch &iscussion is centra! to &e%ocratic "o$ern%ent in or&er
that the peop!e %a( acti$e!( participate in "o$ernin".
. Froun&s the 1
st
A%en&. on the princip!e o# se!#,"o$ern%ent an& consent
to authorit(Ethe princip!e o# #ree&o% o# speech sprin"s #ro% the
necessities o# se!#,"o$ern%ent.
c. Criticis%s/
i. This uti!itarian $iew &oes not "uarantee an( in&i$i&ua! protection o#
speechEit is on!( re>uire& that e$er(thin" worth sa(in" sha!! e
sai&.
ii. +. 'or8 exten&e& the i%p!ication that on!( po!itica! speech &eser$es
1
st
A%en&. protection. =ince the ene)ts o# non,po!itica! speech are
in&istin"uisha!e #ro% the #unctions or ene)ts o# a!! other hu%an
acti$it(, it is on!( the &isco$er( an& sprea& o# po!itica! truth that
&istin"uishes speech #ro% an( other #or% o# hu%an acti$it( an&
there#ore the on!( princip!e& asis upon which to pro$i&e "reater
protection to speech than to other acti$ities.
1. <n response, it has een ar"ue& that there are nu%erous non,
co%%unicati$e, non,speech acti$ities that %a( e thou"h to
ai& in the attain%ent o# po!itica! truth. There is no cate"or(
o# expression that #urthers a $a!ue o# $a!ues uni>ue to speech.
:) <n&i$i&ua! Liert( Go&e!
a. Free&o% o# expression ser$es in&i$i&ua! $a!ues as we!! as societa! "oa!s.
=tate& in Whitne) v. Cal. that !iert( is $a!ue& oth 5as an en& an& as a
%eans.6 Free&o% o# expression pro%otes in&i$i&ua! autono%( an&
#urthers se!#,&eter%ination.
. The !iert( %o&e! ho!&s that the #ree speech c!ause protects not a
%ar8etp!ace ut rather an arena o# in&i$i&ua! !iert( #ro% certain t(pes
o# "o$ern%enta! restrictions. Dusti)es protection ecause o# the wa( the
protecte& con&uct #osters in&i$i&ua! se!#,rea!i4ation an& se!#,
&eter%ination without i%proper!( inter#erin" with the !e"iti%ate c!ai%s
o# others.
c. Except, perhaps in extraor&inar( circu%stances, "o$ern%ent %a( not
restrict speech ecause it #ears that the speech wi!! persua&e those who
hear it to &o so%ethin" o# which the "o$ern%ent &isappro$es.
&. Criticis%/
i. Cther eha$ior which ar"ua!( #urthers hu%an experience an&
"rowth is re"u!ate& an& e$en prohiite& ( "o$ern%ent, an& the
constitutiona! &e%an&s o# !iert( re>uire on!( that the !aw e
reasona!e.
Pa"e -: o# 9:
1. <# there is no princip!e o# #ree speech in&epen&ent o# a %ore
"enera! !iert(, then #ree speech is %ore a p!atitu&e than a
princip!e.
#IR) AM-NDM-N M-?+D+L+G@
1) A%solutist/ )!eech=Action Dichotom'
a. 1
st
A%en&. cou!& e rea& as an aso!utist prohiition on !aws re"u!atin"
speech.
. D. '!ac8/ G( $iew is without &e$iation, without exception, without an( i#s,
uts, or whereases, that #ree&o% o# speech %eans that (ou sha!! not &o
so%ethin" to peop!e either #or the $iews the( ha$e or the $iews the(
express o# the wor&s the( spea8 or write.
i. .oes not e!ie$e in the 5c!ear an& present &an"er6 &octrine has a
p!ace in the interpretation o# the 1
st
A%en&.
c. A #un&a%enta! &istinction %ust e &rawn etween con&uct which consists
o# 5expression6 an& con&uct which consists o# 5action.6 5Expression6
%ust e #ree!( a!!owe& an& encoura"e&. 5Action6 can e contro!!e&,
su7ect to other constitutiona! re>uire%ents ut not ( contro!!in"
expression.
&. Criticis%/ that an aso!ute construction o# the 1
st
A%en&. is not re>uire&
( the !an"ua"e o# the A%en&., not &ictate& ( the intent o# the #ra%ers,
an& i%possi!e in practice.
i. 0hat !itt!e e$i&ence there is su""ests that the #ra%ers inten&e& an
extre%e!( narrow construction o# the A%en&. =o%eti%es, the #ree
speech interest %ust "i$e wa( in such a situation to a co%petin"
socia! interest an& so%e #or% o# a!ancin" process is use&.
") ,ategories of )!eech
a. The Court has he!& that certain cate"ories o# speech are not entit!e& to
#u!! 1
st
A%en&. protection (e.". co%%ercia! speech), or to an( 1
st
A%en&.
protection (e.". )"htin" wor&s, oscenit(, chi!& porno"raph().
. =uch cate"ories o# speech are su7ect to 1
st
A%en&. re$iew un&er certain
circu%stances. These areas o# speech can, consistent with the 1
st

A%en&., e re"u!ate& ecause o# their constitutiona!!( proscria!e
content (oscenit(, &e#a%ation, etc.). 'ut cannot e %a&e $ehic!es #or
content &iscri%ination unre!ate& to their &istincti$e!( proscria!e
content.
i. The unprotecte& #eatures o# the wor&s are &espite their $era!
character, essentia!!( a nonspeech e!e%ent o# co%%unication.
Fo$ern%ent re"u!ates the %o&e o# speech as a %anner o#
co%%unicatin" the i&ea.
ii. =tate !aw that &iscri%inates within an unprotecte& cate"or( o#
speech #ai!s strict scrutin( an& $io!ates the 1
st
A%en&. R.#.5. v. Cit)
of St. !aul (199*) (in$a!i&atin" statute that prohiite& on!( )"htin"
wor&s that insu!t or pro$o8e $io!ence on the ases o# race, co!or,
cree& re!i"ion or "en&er).
1. The &iscri%ination etween #or%s o# )"htin" wor&s was he!&
to e an unconstitutiona! re"u!ation ase& on speech content
which #ai!e& to satis#( strict scrutin( re$iew.
() )trict )crutin'
Pa"e -1 o# 9:
a. Court has a!so e%p!o(e& strict scrutin( stan&ar& o# re$iew, i%posin" a
hea$( ur&en o# 7usti)cation on "o$ern%ent when it see8s to re"u!ation
speech content.
i. C!ear & Present .an"er test, necessar( to a co%pe!!in" state
interest.
. An&er this test, the !aw is presu%pti$e!( in$a!i&.
c. Co%pe!!e& speech wi!! e su7ect to this test.
4) 1alancing
a. 0hen a !aw is on!( in&irect!( or inci&enta!!( ur&ens #ree&o% o# speech,
the Court is %ore !i8e!( to en"a"e in so%e #or% o# o$ert a!ancin" o# the
co%petin" interests to &eter%ine i# the !aw is reasona!e.
. The interests o# the "o$ern%ent in re"u!atin" the acti$it( are wei"he&
a"ainst the ur&en on #ree speech interests.
c. At ti%es, the a$ai!ai!it( o# !ess ur&enso%e a!ternati$es to achie$e the
"o$ern%ent interests are consi&ere&. 'ut it is not necessar( that the
"o$ern%ent a&opt the !east restricti$e %eans. Ward v. Roc" #gainst
Racism (1999).
&. The &e"ree o# 7u&icia! scrutin( in interest a!ancin" $aries wi&e!(.
i. <n so%e cases, the courts en"a"e in si%p!e a& hoc a!ancin" o# the
co%petin" interests.
ii. <n other cases, a %ore wei"hte& a!ancin" is use&, such as that the
!aw %ust e narrow!(,tai!ore& to achie$e an i%portant "o$ern%ent
interest.
iii. =o%e $iew the C!ear & Present .an"er &octrine an& strict scrutin(
as %ore strin"ent #or%s o# interest a!ancin".
A) ,ontent31ased v5 ,ontent3Neutral Regulation
a. Content,'ase&/ 0hen the "o$ern%ent un&erta8es to re"u!ate expression
ecause o# the content o# the speech, ecause o# what is ein" sai&, the
!aw is presu%pti$e!( in$a!i& an& strict scrutin( wi!! e app!ie&.
i. =u7ect,%ater &iscri%ination is presu%pti$e!( in$a!i& ecause there
is a concern that "o$ern%ent wi!! &istort the pu!ic &eate or #a$or
particu!ar %essa"es.
ii. Jiew,point ase& re"u!ation is e$en %ore >uestiona!e.
iii. A re"u!ation neutra! on its #ace %a( e content,ase& i# its %ani#est
purpose i# to re"u!ate speech ecause o# the %essa"e it con$e(s.
The Court has a!so use& E>ua! Protection C!ause to pre$ent
&iscri%ination a"ainst particu!ar speech, i&eas, or spea8ers.
i$. 0hen re"u!atin" on the asis o# content, "o$ern%ent %ust pro$e
that the !aw #a!!s into a cate"or( o# !ow,$a!ue o# no,$a!ue speech or
%ust 7usti#( the !aw ( esta!ishin" that the &iIerentia! treat%ent is
necessar( to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state interest an& is narrow!(
&rawn to achie$e that en&. Simon 1 Schuster v. Mem'ers of -.
State Crime 5ictims Bd. (1991).
1. Law prohiitin" pic8etin" near schoo!, except #or !aor
&isputes is unconstitutiona! as a #or% o# content
&iscri%ination. !olice De0t. of Chicago v. Mosle) (19;*)
(Garsha!! #or the Court co%ine& e>ua! protection ana!(sis
with pu!ic #oru% concepts an& see%e& to announce
princip!es app!ica!e to a!! #ree speech cases).
Pa"e -- o# 9:
a. 'ecause the !aw treats so%e pic8etin" &iIerent!( #ro%
others, we ana!(4e this or&inance in ter%s o# E>ua!
Protection C!ause o# the 11
th
A%en&. The E>ua!
Protection c!ai% is c!ose!( intertwine& with 1
st
A%en&.
interests ecause it in$o!$es expressi$e con&uct, in
ter%s o# the su7ect o# the pic8etin".
. Crucia! >uestion is whether there is an appropriate
"o$ern%enta! interest suita!( #urthere& ( the
&iIerentia! treat%ent.
c. An&er E>ua! Protection an& 1
st
A%en&., "o$ern%ent
%a( not "rant the use o# a #oru% to peop!e whose $iews
it )n&s accepta!e, ut &en( use to those wishin" to
express !ess #a$ore& or %ore contro$ersia! $iews.
*. Law re>uirin" inco%e #ro% a contract #or a &epiction o# a
cri%e o# an accuse& or con$icte& person to e put in escrow
#un& #or the $icti% $io!ates the 1
st
A%en&. Simon v. Schuster
v. Mem'ers of the -. State Crime 5ictims Bd. (1991).
a. The Court #oun& the !aw to e a content,ase& statute
ecause it sin"!es out inco%e &eri$e& #ro% expressi$e
acti$it( #or a ur&en the =tate p!ace on no other
inco%e, an& it is &irecte& on!( at wor8s with a speci)e&
content.
. 'ecause the !aw esta!ishes a )nancia! &isincenti$e to
create or pu!ish wor8s with a particu!ar content, it
cou!& e uphe!& on!( i# it ser$e& a co%pe!!in" state
interest an& were narrow!( &rawn to ser$e that interest.
The !aw was not narrow!(,tai!ore& to the state2s
un&ispute& co%pe!!in" interest in ensurin" that
cri%ina!s &o not pro)t #ro% their cri%es.
c. D. Kenne&( concurrin", re7ecte& the use o# strict scrutin(
#or such a content,ase& re"u!ation in #a$or o# a per se
ru!e, since the !aw is &irecte& to speech a!one that &oes
not #a!! into a proscria!e cate"or( an& hence is
protecte&.
. Content,Oeutra!/ Fo$ern%ent re"u!ations that are unre!ate& to the
content o# the speech are su7ect to a !esser &e"ree o# 7u&icia! scrutin(,
an inter%e&iate re$iew, e$en thou"h speech %a( e inci&enta!!(
ur&ene&.
i. <# a !aw is 7usti)e& without re#erence to the content o# the re"u!ate&
speech, it %a( e he!& to e content,neutra!.
ii. Court wi!! re>uire that the !aw e 5narrow!( tai!ore& to ser$e a
si"ni)cant "o$ern%ent interest an& !ea$e open a%p!e a!ternati$e
channe!s o# co%%unication.6
iii. A "o$ern%ent re"u!ation is suIicient!( 7usti)e&B (1) i# it #urthers
an i%portant or sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest/ (*) i# the
"o$ern%ent interest is unre!ate& to the suppression o# #ree
expression? an& (:) i# the inci&enta! restriction o# a!!e"e& 1
st
A%en&.
#ree&o%s is no "reater than is essentia! to the #urtherance o# that
interest. +S v. O/Brien.
Pa"e -H o# 9:
1. This &oes not re>uire that "o$ern%ent use the !east
ur&enso%e %eans, i# the %eans are &irect an& eIecti$e.
*. +e"u!atin" !ocation o# a&u!t theaters he!& to e content,
neutra! ecause i# was &irecte& to secon&ar( eIects o# a&u!t
theaters an& not the content o# the a&u!t %o$ies. An( ur&en
on speech was &ee%e& on!( inci&enta!. Cit) of Renton v.
!la)time 6heaters (199H).
:. Fo$ern%ent can re>uire that ca!e te!e$ision s(ste%s carr(
!oca! roa&cast stations. 6urner Broadcasting S)s. v. CC
(1991).
a. Principa! in>uir( to &eter%ine content neutra!it( is
whether the "o$ern%ent has a&opte& a re"u!ation o#
speech ecause o# a"ree%ent or &isa"ree%ent with the
%essa"e it con$e(s.
i. The purpose wi!! o#ten e e$i&ent on its #ace.
3owe$er, whi!e a content,ase& purpose %a( e
suIicient in certain circu%stances to show that a
re"u!ation is content,ase&, it is not necessar( in
a!! cases.
. The ru!es are content,neutra!.
i. The( i%pose ur&ens an& con#er ene)ts without
re#erence to the content o# the speech.
1. 0hi!e the ru!es inter#ere& with e&itoria!
&iscretion, the extent o# the inter#erence
&oes not &epen&s on the ca!e operators2
pro"ra%%in".
ii. The pro$isions &o not pose such inherent &an"ers
to #ree expression, or present such potentia! #or
censorship or %anipu!ation, as to 7usti#(
app!ication o# strict scrutin(.
c. Thus, shou!& e re$iewe& un&er the inter%e&iate !e$e!
o# scrutin( app!ica!e to content,neutra! restrictions
that i%pose an inci&enta! ur&en on speech.
,lear * Present Danger Doctrine
, A&$ocac( o# i!!e"a! con&uct &irecte& to incitin" or pro&ucin" i%%inent !aw!ess
action which are !i8e!( to resu!t can e suppresse& ecause o# its content.
Braden'urg v. Ohio (19H9).
, First #or%u!ate& in Schenc" v. +S (1919), ( D. 3o!%es/ The >uestion in e$er(
case is whether the wor&s use& are use& in such circu%stances an& are o# such
a nature as to create a c!ear an& present &an"er that the( wi!! rin" aout the
sustanti$e e$i!s that Con"ress has a ri"ht to pre$ent. <t is a >uestion o#
proxi%it( an& &e"ree (Court aIir%e& con$iction o# &istriutor o# !ea@ets that
encoura"e& ostruction o# the &ra#t).
o 0hen a nation is at war %an( thin"s that %i"ht e sai& in ti%e o# peace
are such a hin&rance to its eIort that their utterance wi!! not e en&ure&
so !on" as %en )"ht an& that no Court shou!& re"ar& the% as protecte&
( an( constitutiona! ri"ht.
o D. 'ran&eis concurrin" in Whitne) v. Cal. (19*;), reco"ni4e& the $a!ue o#
#ree&o%s o# expression as oth an en& an& as a %eans to the &isco$er(
Pa"e -; o# 9:
an& sprea& o# po!itica! truth. 5'ut e$en a&$ocac( o# $io!ence, howe$er
reprehensi!e %ora!!(, is not a 7usti)cation #or &en(in" #ree speech where
the a&$ocac( #a!!s short o# incite%entB <n or&er to support a )n&in" o#
c!ear an& present &an"er, it %ust e shown either that i%%e&iate serious
$io!ence was to e expecte& or was a&$ocate&, or that the past con&uct
#urnishe& reason to e!ie$e that such a&$ocac( was then conte%p!ate&.
Oo &an"er @owin" #ro% speech can e &ee%e& c!ear an& present,
un!ess the inci&ence o# e$i! apprehen&e& is so i%%inent that it %a(
e#a!! e#ore there is opportunit( #or #u!! &iscussion.
The court %ust conc!u&e that a particu!ar restraint is 7usti)e&
ecause o# the &an"er. A !e"is!ati$e 7u&"%ent that the &an"er is too
i%%e&iate an& too serious to per%it the nor%a! re!iance on #ree
&iscussion is not conc!usi$e e$en i# it is reasona!e.
o Masses est/ D. 3an& e%phasi4e& the nature o# the speech rather than
circu%stances. Cn!( &irect incite%ent o# i!!e"a! con&uct wou!& e
prohiite& an& that the "ra$it( o# the e$i! %ust e &iscounte& ( its
i%proai!it(. Masses !u'lishing v. !atten (191;) (OR post%aster re#use&
to &e!i$er a pu!ication that ha%pere& the war eIort, in accor&ance with
the Espiona"e Act).
D. 3o!%es pointe& out that punishin" incite%ent %i"ht a!!ow
"o$ern%ent inter$ention e#ore an( rea! threat existe&.
o Criticis%s/
The &octrine is an o$ersi%p!i)e& 7u&"%ent un!ess it ta8es account
a!so o# a nu%er o# other #actors/ the re!ati$e seriousness o# the
&an"er in co%parison with the $a!ue o# the occasion #or speech or
po!itica! acti$it(? the a$ai!ai!it( o# %ore %o&erate contro!s than
those which the state has i%pose&? an& perhaps the speci)c intent
with which the speech or acti$it( is !aunche&.
Test assu%es that once expression i%%e&iate!( threatens the
attain%ent o# so%e $a!i& socia! o7ecti$e, the expression can e
prohiite&. To per%it the state to cut oI expression as soon as it
co%es c!ose to ein" eIecti$e is essentia!!( to a!!ow on!( astract or
innocuous expression.
'a!ancin" tests ine$ita!( eco%e intertwine& with the i&eo!o"ica!
pre&ispositions o# those &oin" the a!ancin"Eor i# not that, at !east
with the re!ati$e con)&ence or paranoia o# the a"e in which the(
are &oin" it.
, Modern est/ Focuses on oth the nature o# the speech an& the &an"er it
presents. The "o$ern%ent cannot an a&$ocac( o# un!aw#u! con&uct un!ess it
is/ (1) &irecte& to pro&ucin" i%%inent !aw!ess action an& is (*) !i8e!( to pro&uce
such actions. Braden'urg v. Ohio (19H9) (in$a!i&atin" state statute that &i& not
&istin"uish etween %ere a&$ocac( an& incite%ent to i%%inent !aw!ess action).
o Cn!( intentiona! incite%ent o# un!aw#u! con&uct, not a&$ocac( o# astract
&octrine, can e punishe&.
o D. .ou"!ass concurrin", e!ie$es that the C!ear & Present .an"er
.octrine is not reconci!a!e with the 1
st
A%en&. &urin" peaceti%e.
o Ootes/
Pa"e -9 o# 9:
<t co%ines the %ost protecti$e in"re&ients o# the Masses
incite%ent e%phasis with the %ost use#u! e!e%ents o# the c!ear an&
present &an"er herita"e.
The test aIor&s the Court an opportunit( to re$iew !ower courts
throu"h constitutiona! #act, since the ru!e is ase& on oth content
an& context.
Braden'urg c!ear!( i%p!ies that the proai!it( that speech %a(
rin" aout an un!aw#u! act is not a suIicient constitutiona! asis
#or cri%ina!i4in" it, un!ess the speech is so c!ose!(, i%%e&iate!(, an&
intentiona!!( en"a"e& with a particu!ar un!aw#u! act that the speech
itse!# is part an& parce! o# that act, or an atte%pt (in the cri%ina!
!aw sense o# the wor&) to rin" it aout.
G. +e&ish/ <n a!! rea!it(, a!! the Court inten&e& to &o in Braden'urg
was to app!( the &istinction etween protecte& astract a&$ocac(
on the one han& an& unprotecte& a&$ocac( o# concrete #uture at
so%e un&eter%ine& point on the other.
o A&$ocac( o# i!!e"a! action at so%e in&e)nite #uture ti%e (an& was not
&irect!( a&&resse& to an( "roup o# persons) !ac8s !i8e!ihoo& that it wou!&
pro&uce i%%inent &isor&er. ,ess v. Indiana (19;:) (app!(in"
Braden'urg, re$erse& a con$iction o# anti,war &e%onstrator #or sa(in"
5we2!! ta8e the #uc8in" street !ater6).
o ,oercive )!eech/ =tate%ents inten&e& to exercise a coerci$e i%pact
&oes not re%o$e the% #ro% the reach o# the 1
st
A%en&. -##C! v.
Clair'orne ,ardware Co. (199*) (speech ( OAACP !ea&er warnin" o#
5&iscip!ine6 a"ainst !ac8s $io!atin" an econo%ic o(cott o# white
%erchants was protecte& speech)
=peech &i& not authori4e or &irect!( threaten acts o# $io!ence nor
&irecte& incite%ent o# i%%inent !aw!ess action.
Prior Restraint Doctrine
, Gan( ha$e ar"ue& that the #ree&o% o# speech co%prehen&e& in the ori"ina!
un&erstan&in" o# the 1
st
A%en&. was to !i%it prohiition o# prior restraints,
which ten&s to e %ore sweepin" an& inhiitin", (as it cuts oI co%%unication
e#ore it ta8es p!ace) an& cannot e co!!atera!!( attac8e&.
o Topica! exceptions/ nationa! securit(, oscenit( an& incite%ent (see
UOotes2 e!ow).
, Prior restraints in$o!$e "o$ern%ent restraints on #ree&o% o# expression which
operate prior to the ti%e that expression entere& the %ar8etp!ace o# i&eas (as
oppose& to pena!ties a#ter the #act, e.". reach o# peace, &isor&er!( con&uct,
&e#a%ation).
o Ex/ !icensin", per%it s(ste%s, censorship, in7unctions
, )tandard of Review/ Prior restraints are hi"h!( suspect, oth sustanti$e!(
an& proce&ura!!(, an& there is a sustantia! presu%ption a"ainst their
constitutiona!it(. The "o$ern%ent ears a hea$( ur&en o# showin"
7usti)cation #or the i%position o# such a restraint.
o Fenera!!(, the Court has pro#esse& to e%p!o( the C!ear & Present .an"er
.octrine in re$iewin" prior restraint s(ste%s. -e'. !ress #ssn. v. Stuart
(19;H).
Pa"e -9 o# 9:
, 0hi!e not 0er se i%per%issi!e, prior restraints are su7ect to c!ose 7u&icia!
scrutin(. -ear v. Minn. (19:1) (in$a!i&atin" !aw en7oinin" pu!ications that
re"u!ar!( pu!ish %a!icious, scan&a!ous %ateria!).
o Ootes/
Cne a&$anta"e o# the &octrine is that it &oes not re>uire the sa%e
&e"ree o# 7u&icia! a!ancin" that the courts ha$e he!& to e
necessar( in %ost 1
st
A%en&. contexts.
An&er -ear, the nor% is inten&e& to e #ree&o% #ro% prior
restraint. Ja!i& prior restraints are inten&e& to e the exception,
which the Court !ists/ nationa! securit(, oscenit(, an& incite%ent to
$io!ence. 3owe$er, the Court ne$er exp!ains what %a8es his three
exceptions exceptiona!.
D. 'ut!er ar"ues that the re"u!ation cha!!en"e& in -ear was not a
prior restraint at a!! ecause an in7unction cou!& on!( e otaine&
a#ter a 7u&icia! &eter%ination an& cou!& e &irecte& on!( a"ainst
repeat pu!ications o# si%i!ar nature.
E. Jo!o8h ar"ues that the prior restraint &octrine shou!& not
prohiit per%anent in7unctions o# unprotecte& speech, entere&
a#ter a #u!! consi&eration o# the %erits whether at tria! or on
su%%ar( 7u&"%ent.
To a certain extent the Court has reco"ni4e& that a&%inistrati$e
restraints are %ore har%#u!. 3owe$er, in a nu%er o# cases, the
Court has i%pose& its hea$( ne"ati$e presu%ption on 7u&icia!
in7unctions, without &istin"uishin" such restraints #ro% the
a&%inistrati$e $ariet(.
<n -e'. !ress #ss/n v. Stuart, the Court re$erse& a "a" or&er,
restrainin" %e&ia co$era"e, issue& ( a state tria! 7u&"e
ecause o# the #ai!ure to consi&er a!ternati$es to a restrainin"
or&er.
o Court cou!& not issue an in7unction, asent a Con"ressiona! statute,
restrainin" a newspaper pu!ication o# a c!assi)e& stu&( on the Jietna%
0ar. Fo$ern%ent #ai!e& to &e%onstrate that the pu!ication wou!&
necessari!( in$o!$e &irect, i%%e&iate, an& irrepara!e &a%a"e to the
nation. -. 6imes v. +S (19;1).
o Protecti$e or&er prohiitin" &isse%ination, prior to tria!, o# in#or%ation
"aine& throu"h the pretria! &isco$er( process &oes not $io!ate the 1
st

A%en&. ecause the restraint was no "reater than necessar( to protect
the inte"rit( o# the &isco$er( process an& &i& not restrict &isse%ination o#
the in#or%ation i# "aine& #ro% other sources. Seattle 6imes Co. v.
Rhinehart (1991).
, Identif'ing Prior Restraints/ The &iIicu!t( is that the Court has so%eti%es
app!ie& the ter% so !iera!!( as to &epri$e it o# an( har& %eanin". The specia!
$ice o# a prior restraint is that co%%unication wi!! e suppresse&, either
&irect!( or ( in&ucin" excessi$e caution in the spea8er, e#ore an a&e>uate
7u&icia! &eter%ination so that it is unprotecte& ( the 1
st
A%en&.
o <t shou!& not e thou"ht that 7ust ecause a !aw pre$ents a
co%%unication #ro% occurrin" that the contro! auto%atica!!( eco%es a
prior restraint. .isor&er!( con&uct, reach o# the peace, oscenit( !aws,
Pa"e H0 o# 9:
e$en when narrow!( &rawn to con#or% to =upre%e Court re>uire%ents,
inhiit #ree expression an& ten& to pro&uce se!#,censorship.
There is an a%i"uous or&er!an& where contro!s exist which can
e c!assi)e& either as exa%p!es o# suse>uent punish%ent or as
prior restraints.
o For the part( see8in" to in$a!i&ate the contro!, characteri4in" a
re"u!ation as a prior restraint %a( in&uce a court to &e%an& a hea$(
ur&en o# 7usti)cation, re>uire& to sustain a prior restraint.
, Oot a!! in7unctions are prior restraints su7ect to the hea$( presu%ption o#
unconstitutiona!it(. <# the in7unction on!( inci&enta!!( aIects expression an& is
content,neutra!, the prior restraint &octrine &oes not app!(.
o The Court as8s whether the cha!!en"e& pro$isions o# the in7unctions
ur&en no %ore speech than necessar( to ser$e a si"ni)cant "o$ern%ent
interests.
o The "reater the &an"er o# censorship an& &iscri%inator( app!ication, the
Court e%p!o(s a so%ewhat %ore strin"ent stan&ar& than nor%a!!( use&
#or content,neutra! re"u!ations.
o 0hi!e content,ase& per%it s(ste%s are ur&ene& sustanti$e!( an&
proce&ura!!(, a content,neutra! per%it s(ste% not in$o!$in" censorship
concerns nee& on!( contain a&e>uate stan&ar&s to "ui&e a&%inistrati$e
&iscretion an& ren&er the oIicia!2s actions su7ect to 7u&icia! re$iew.
#irst Amendment 2agueness * +ver%readth
, <# the !an"ua"e o# the !aw is unconstitutiona!!( $a"ue or o$erroa& on its #ace,
the #act that it is app!ie& in a narrow, constitutiona! %anner wi!! not sa$e the
!aw.
, 2agueness/ A !aw is #acia!!( in$a!i& i# it is not &rawn with suIicient c!arit( an&
&e)niteness to in#or% persons o# or&inar( inte!!i"ence what actions are
proscrie&. A $a"ue statute re"u!atin" the 1
st
A%en&. acti$it( is #un&a%enta!!(
un#air, $io!atin" oth &ue process an& #ree&o% o# expression.
o Cne o# the %ost #un&a%enta! $ices o# a $a"ue statute is that the
in&i$i&ua! is not "i$en #air warnin" that his or her con&uct wi!! run a#ou!
o# the statutor( an.
o The 1
st
A%en&. &e%an&s specia! c!arit( in oth cri%ina! an& ci$i! !aws
ur&enin" #ree&o% o# expression so that protecte& expression wi!! not e
chi!!e& or suppresse&.
, +ver%readth/ A !aw is #acia!!( in$a!i& i# it is sustantia!!( o$erroa& in that the
!aw in&iscri%inate!( reaches oth constitutiona!!( protecte& an& unprotecte&
acti$it(. A statute %ust e precise!( &rawn so that protecte& eha$ior is not
chi!!e& or suppresse&.
o The &octrine postu!ates that the "o$ern%ent %a( not achie$e its
conce&e&!( $a!i& purpose ( %eans that sweep unnecessari!( roa&!(,
reachin" constitutiona!!( protecte& as we!! as unprotecte& acti$it(.
o <t can ser$e as a use#u! too! to test the !e"iti%ac( o# !aw%a8ers2 %oti$es?
the c!ose the )t etween the "o$ern%ent2s chosen %eans an& its $a!i&
o7ecti$es, the %ore !i8e!( it is that !aw%a8ers tru!( sou"ht to #u!)!! those
o7ecti$es.
Pa"e H1 o# 9:
o )tanding/ The &istincti$e conse>uence o# the o$errea&th &octrine is its
&eparture #ro% stan&in" princip!es. A !iti"ant has stan&in" to cha!!en"e
the constitutiona!it( o# an o$erroa& statute e$en thou"h his acti$ities
cou!& e prohiite& un&er a proper!( &rawn statute ecause the !aw cou!&
e app!ie& to another whose con&uct cou!& not e re"u!ate& un&er a
proper!( &rawn !aw an& who %a( e chi!!e& in the exercise o# their 1
st

A%en&. ri"hts.
, <ncreasin"!(, the Court re>uires rea! an& sustantia! o$errea&th #or #acia!
in$a!i&it(. The Court wi!! consi&er the !i8e!ihoo& that a si"ni)cant a%ount o#
protecte& speech wi!! e ur&ene& an& the potentia! constitutiona! app!ications
o# the !aw. Broderic" v. O"lahoma (19;:) (re7ectin" oth $a"ueness an&
o$errea&th cha!!en"es to =tate !aw restrictin" the po!itica! acti$ities o# the
state2s ci$i! ser$ants? an& whate$er o$errea&th that %a( exist shou!& e cure&
throu"h case,(,case ana!(sis o# the #acts).
o 0here con&uct an& not %ere!( speech is in$o!$e&, the o$errea&th o# the
statute %ust not on!( e rea!, ut sustantia! as we!!, 7u&"e& in re!ation to
the statute2s p!ain!( !e"iti%ate sweep.
D. 'rennan (an& : other 7ustices) &issentin" too8 issue with the #act
that the Court %a8es no eIort to &e)ne what it %eans (
5sustantia! o$errea&th6 an& oIers no exp!anation as to wh(
&eterrence o# con&uct shou!& e $iewe& &iIerent!( #ro% &eterrence
o# speech, e$en where oth are e>ua!!( protecte& ( the 1
st
A%en&.
o The concept o# sustantia! o$errea&th is not rea&i!( re&uce& to an exact
&e)nition. There %ust e a rea!istic chance that the statute itse!# wi!!
si"ni)cant!( co%pro%ise reco"ni4e& 1
st
A%en&. protection o# parties not
e#ore the Court #or it to e #acia!!( cha!!en"e& on o$errea&th "roun&s.
%# Cit) Council v. 6a70a)ers for 5incent (1991) (upho!&in" an or&inance
prohiitin" the postin" o# si"ns on pu!ic propert().
The %ere #act that one can concei$e o# so%e i%per%issi!e
app!ications o# a statute is not suIicient to ren&er i# suscepti!e to
an o$errea&th cha!!en"e.
o Ja"ue an& excessi$e intrusion on #ree asse%!( an& association o# a cit(
or&inance %a8in" it a cri%e #or one or %ore persons to asse%!e on the
si&ewa!8 an& there con&uct the%se!$es in a %anner anno(in" to persons
passin" (. Coates v. Cincinnati (19;1).
o 'annin" a!! 1
st
A%en&. acti$ities within the centra! airport ter%ina! is
#acia!!( unconstitutiona! un&er the o$errea&th &octrine. Bd. of #ir0ort
Comm/r of %# v. $ews for $esus (199;).
The an reaches the uni$erse o# expressi$e acti$it( an& purports to
create a $irtua! 1
st
A%en&.,#ree 4one at LAT an& &oes not %ere!(
re"u!ate expressi$e acti$it( in that %i"ht create pro!e%s such as
con"estion or &isruption o# acti$ities.
#ighting 7ords Doctrine/ #ighting 7ordsB rue hreatsB and +;ensive
)!eech
, Fo$ern%ent can i%pose care#u!!( &rawn content,ase& re"u!ation when the
speech constitutes )"htin" wor&sEwor&s which ( their $er( utterance in@ict
in7ur( or ten& to incite an i%%e&iate reach o# the peace.
Pa"e H* o# 9:
, The &octrine is ase& on the theor( that )"htin" wor&s are o# such s!i"ht $a!ue
as a step to truth as not to %erit 1
st
A%en&. protection. The #ocus is on the
nature o# the speech rather than on the context. 0hi!e the &octrine ori"ina!!(
was !i%ite& to #ace to #ace $era! encounters that are !i8e!( to pro&uce a $io!ent
reaction #ro% a reasona!e person, it has increasin"!( een %er"e& into the
%o&ern C!ear & Present .an"er &octrine, un&er Braden'urg.
, est/ The test is what %en o# co%%on inte!!i"ence wou!& un&erstan& wou!& e
wor&s !i8e!( to cause an a$era"e a&&ressee to )"ht. Cha0lins") v. -, (191*).
o Fi"htin" wor&s inc!u&e persona!!( ausi$e epithets, which are inherent!(
!i8e!( to pro$o8e $io!ent reaction. Cohen v. Cal. (19;1).
o +ver%readth * 2agueness/ The Court has pro$i&e& !itt!e "ui&ance on
what wor&s constitute )"htin" wor&s. <nstea&, it has ten&e& to ho!& that
the statute in >uestion is not !i%ite& to )"htin" wor&s, an& there#ore is
o$erroa& or $a"ue an& hence #acia!!( unconstitutiona!.
, =tate cannot punish wor&s that are %ere!( oIensi$e. Cohen v. Cal (5Fuc8 the
.ra#t6 on the ac8 o# a 7ac8et worn outsi&e courthouse &oes not constitute
)"htin" wor&s, since the %essa"e was not &irecte& to an( person an& was not
an incite%ent).
o =tates are #ree to an 5)"htin" wor&s,6 ut in this instance it was not
c!ear!( &irecte& to a speci)c person, so that no in&i$i&ua! present cou!&
reasona!( ha$e re"ar&e& the wor&s on the 7ac8et as a &irect persona!
insu!t.
o The %ere presu%e& presence o# unwittin" !isteners or $iewers &oes not
ser$e auto%atica!!( to 7usti#( curtai!in" a!! potentia!!( oIensi$e speech.
<n or&er #or the "o$ern%ent to shut oI &iscourse so!e!( to protect
others #ro% hearin" it, &epen&s upon a showin" that sustantia!
pri$ac( interests are ein" in$a&e& in an essentia!!( an into!era!e
%anner.
Goreo$er, no rea&i!( ascertaina!e "enera! princip!e exists #or
&eter%inin" what is oIensi$e. Fo$ern%ent oIicia!s cannot %a8e
&istinctions in this area o# taste an& st(!e that is so in&i$i&ua!.
o Guch !in"uistic expression ser$es co%%unicates oth e%otion an& i&eas.
0e cannot sanction the $iew that the Constitution, whi!e so!icitous o# the
co"niti$e content o# in&i$i&ua! speech, has !itt!e or no re"ar& #or that
e%oti$e #unction, which %a( o#ten e the %ore i%portant e!e%ent o# the
o$era!! %essa"e sou"ht to e co%%unicate&.
o Ootes & Criticis%s/
D. Powe!! in a suse>uent case &issentin", ar"ue& #or reco"ni4in"
an& proscriin" oIensi$e speech, &e)ne& as 5the wi!!#u! use o#
scurri!ous !an"ua"e ca!cu!ate& to oIen& the sensii!ities o# an
unwi!!in" au&ience.6
T. =hea/ The C!ear & Present .an"er &octrine #ocuses the reactions
o# the actua! a&&ressees, where as the Fi"htin" 0or&s .octrine
!oo8s to the proa!e reactions o# reasona!e persons. The Court2s
suse>uent attention to the reactions o# the particu!ar a&&ressee
su""ests that the )"htin" wor&s &octrine is rapi&!( eco%in" on!( a
#or% o# the c!ear an& present &an"er &octrine.
.. Farer/ Cohen; in re7ectin" the =tate2s ai!it( to re"u!ate
oIensi$e !an"ua"e e%p!o(s a a!ancin" test restraine& (/ 1) a
Pa"e H: o# 9:
stron" concern #or sharpness o# #ocus in re"u!ator( sche%es, an& *)
a reutta!e presu%ption a"ainst reco"ni4in" new 7usti)cations #or
content re"u!ation.
=. Far& ar"ues that the Fi"htin" 0or&s &octrine shou!& e
aan&one& ecause such !an"ua"e 1
st
A%en&. protection.
The &octrine, which operates, at est to pena!i4e in&i$i&ua!s
#or #ai!in" to show others the respect societ( &ee%s proper,
an& at worse, to pena!i4e in&i$i&ua!s #or $ehe%ent criticis% o#
"o$ern%ent oIicia!, is si%p!( not constitutiona!!( 7usti)e&.
G. +e&ish/ The theoretica! #a!!ac( in Cha0lins") &octrine is the
assu%ption that the $a!ue o# #ree speech is a %eans to attain truth.
<# one reco"ni4es that the pri%ar( $a!ue o# #ree speech is a %eans
o# #osterin" in&i$i&ua! &e$e!op%ent, the inappropriateness o#
&istin"uishin" etween the $a!ues o# &iIerent t(pes o# speech
eco%es c!ear.
A. 'ic8e! ar"ues that there is such a thin" as $era! $io!ence, a 8in"
o# cursin", assau!ti$e speech that a%ounts to a!%ost ph(sica!
a""ression, u!!(in" that is no !ess punishin" ecause it is
si%u!ate&. E>ua!!( i%portant, it %a( create a c!i%ate in which
con&uct an& actions that were not possi!e e#ore eco%e possi!e.
.. Farer, in contrast, ar"ues that use o# oIensi$e !an"ua"e re$ea!s
the existence o# so%ethin" oIensi$e an& u"!(, whether in situation
or in the spea8er2s %in&. <n either e$ent, the !an"ua"e re$ea!s an
i%portant thou"h unp!easant truth aout the wor!&. =uppressin"
this !an"ua"e $io!ates a car&ina! princip!e o# a #ree societ(, that
truths are etter con#ronte& than represse&. As !on" as we !i$e in
an u"!( wor!&, u"!( speech %ust ha$e its #oru%.
, ?ostile Audience/ <# the source o# i%pen&in" $io!ence i# a crow& o# !isteners
hosti!e to the spea8er2s !aw#u! %essa"e, the po!ice usua!!( %ust procee& a"ainst
the crow& an& protect the spea8er. &regor) v. Chicago (19H9). The 1
st
A%en&.
protects speech e$en i# it in&uces a con&ition o# unrest, creates &issatis#action
with con&itions as the( are, or e$en stirs peop!e to an"er. 6erminiello v.
Chicago (1919).
o 3owe$er, there is prece&ent ne$er o$erru!e&, that i# the threatene&
&isruption is &ue to the spea8er2s own intentiona! pro$ocation, then the
spea8er can e punishe& un&er narrow!( &rawn !aws proscriin"
incite%ent to !i8e!(, i%%inent !aw!ess action. einer v. -. (19-1)
(upho!&in" spea8er2s con$iction #or reach o# peace).
=pea8er was not arreste& nor con$icte& #or the content o# his
speech. +ather, it was the reaction which it actua!!( en"en&ere&.
<t is one thin" to sa( that the po!ice cannot e use& as an
instru%ent #or the suppression o# unpopu!ar $iews, an& another to
sa( that, when as here the spea8er passes the oun&s o# ar"u%ent
or persuasion an& un&erta8es incite%ent to riot, the( are power!ess
to pre$ent a reach o# peace.
o =pea8er who "i$es prior notice o# his %essa"e has not co%pe!!e& a
con#rontation with those who $o!untari!( !isten. 5illage of S"o"ie v. -at/l
Socialist !art) (<!!in. 19;9) (state court re7ectin" that the &isp!a( o# the
swasti8a threatens peace to a &e"ree that it shou!& e en7oine&, %oreo$er
it is a s(%o!ic #or% o# #ree speech entit!e& to protection).
Pa"e H1 o# 9:
?ate )!eech
, =o%e states an& !oca!ities ha$e enacte& !aws prohiitin" expression that incites
hatre& o#, or which is insu!tin" or &ero"ator( towar&s, tra&itiona!!( $u!nera!e
"roupsEracia! %inorities, wo%en, ethnic or re!i"ious "roups, ho%osexua!s.
o <t is ar"ue& that such speech in@icts e%otiona! har%, pro%otes
&iscri%ination an& $io!ence an& si!ences $icti%s.
Jio!ence is a necessar( an& ine$ita!e part o# the structure o#
racis%. <t is the )na! so!ution, as #ascists 8now, are!( he!& at a(
whi!e the tactica! weapons o# se"re"ation, &ispara"e%ent, an& hate
propa"an&a &o their wor8.
, 0hi!e it &oes not %eanin"#u!!( pro%ote 1
st
A%en&. $a!ues, it un&er%ines the
$a!ues o# E>ua! Protection C!ause.
o Apart #ro% the context o# threatene& $io!ence, the constitutiona!it( o#
these !aws is >uestiona!e since the( constitute content,ase& re"u!ations
$io!ati$e o# 1
st
A%en&. protection aIor&e& oIensi$e & ausi$e speech.
, 3owe$er, !aws which punish racia!!( %oti$ate& har%#u! con&uct or which
enhance the pena!t( #or cri%es when inspire& ( racia! ias are consistent with
the 1
st
A%en&. The racia! ias %oti$e %ust e esta!ishe& e(on& a reasona!e
&out. #00rendi v. -$ (*000).
rue hreats
, De8nition/ The 1
st
A%en&. per%its =tates to prohiit #or%s o# inti%i&ation that
are true threats, where a spea8er &irects a threat to a person or "roup with the
intent o# p!acin" the $icti% in #ear o# o&i!( har% or &eath. 5a. v. Blac" (*00:).
Court consi&ers the i%pact o# the speech.
, True threats are constitutiona!!( proscria!e ecause it ser$es to protect
in&i$i&ua!s #ro% the #ear o# $io!ence an& #ro% the &isruption that #ear
en"en&ers an& #ro% the possii!it( that the threatene& $io!ence wi!! occur.
R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (199*).
, Law annin" s(%o!s that reasona!( wou!& arouse an"er, a!ar%, or
resent%ent in others on the asis o# race, co!or, cree&, re!i"ion or "en&er is
#acia!!( in$a!i&. R.#.5. v. Cit) of St. !aul (=ca!ia #or the %a7orit(? prece&ent is
!ess in@uentia! that initia!!( thou"ht).
o Cr&inance is #acia!!( unconstitutiona! ecause it prohiits otherwise
per%itte& speech on the asis o# the su7ects the speech a&&resses.
The "o$ern%ent %a( proscrie !ie!, ut it %a( not %a8e the
#urther &iscri%ination o# proscriin" on!( !ie! critica! o# the
"o$ern%ent. The 1
st
A%en&. &oes not per%it =t. Pau! to i%pose
specia! prohiitions on those spea8ers who express $iews on
&is#a$ore& su7ects.
o The prohiition a"ainst content &iscri%ination that the 1
st
A%en&.
re>uires is not aso!ute.
First, when the asis #or the content &iscri%ination consists entire!(
o# the $er( reason the entire c!ass o# speech at issue is
proscria!e, no si"ni)cant &an"er o# i&ea o# $iewpoint
&iscri%ination exists.
Another $a!i& asis #or &iIerentia! treat%ent to a content,&e)ne&
suc!ass o# proscria!e speech is that the suc!ass happens to e
associate& with particu!ar secon&ar( eIects o# speech so that the
re"u!ation is 7usti)e& without re#erence to the content o# speech.
Pa"e H- o# 9:
Fina!!(, an exception #or content,ase& re"u!ations in a cate"or( o#
proscria!e speech %a( exist so !on" as 5the nature o# the content
&iscri%ination is such that there is no rea!istic possii!it( that
oIicia! suppression o# i&eas is a#oot.
o 0hi!e notin" that the interest (to ensure asic hu%an ri"hts o# %e%ers
o# "roups that ha$e een historica!!( &iscri%inate& a"ainst) is co%pe!!in",
the content &iscri%ination was not reasona!( necessar( to achie$e this
interest. The existence o# content,neutra! a!ternati$esEannin" a!!
)"htin" wor&sEwas &eter%inati$e.
The reason wh( )"htin" wor&s are cate"orica!!( exc!u&e& #ro% the
protection o# the 1
st
A%en&. i# not that their content co%%unicates
an( particu!ar i&ea, ut that their content e%o&ies a particu!ar!(
into!era!e (an& socia!!( unnecessar() %o&e o# expressin" whate$er
i&ea the spea8er wishes to con$e(.
The or&inance &i& not sin"!e out an especia!!( oIensi$e %o&e o#
expression. +ather, it has prohiite& on!( those wor&s that
co%%unicate i&eas in a threatenin" %anner. <t has proscrie&
)"htin" wor&s that co%%unicate racia!, "en&er, or re!i"ious
into!erance.
o D. 0hite (with '!ac8%un, C2Connor, =te$ens) concurre& in 7u&"%ent, ut
)n&in" issue with restrictions on the ai!it( o# "o$ern%ent to re"u!ate
within proscria!e cate"ories? pre#erre& to &eci&e the case un&er the
o$errea&th &octrine.
The cate"orica! approach is a )r%!( entrenche& part o# our 1
st

A%en&. 7urispru&ence. <t is inconsistent to ho!& that the
"o$ern%ent %a( proscrie an entire cate"or( o# speech ecause o#
the content o# that speech is e$i!, ut that the "o$ern%ent %a( not
treat a suset o# that cate"or( &iIerent!( without $io!atin" the 1
st

A%en&.
An&er the %a7orit(2s $iew, a narrow!( &rawn content,ase&
or&inance cou!& ne$er pass constitutiona! %uster i# the o7ect o#
that !e"is!ation cou!& e acco%p!ishe& ( anne& a wi&er cate"or(
o# speech.
The %a7orit(2s concern aout content,ase& re"u!ations within
Cha0lins") cate"ories o# unprotecte& speech is unnecessar(
ecause the E>ua! Protection C!ause re>uires that the re"u!ation p#
unprotecte& speech e rationa!!( re!ate& to a !e"iti%ate
"o$ern%ent interest.
o D. '!ac8%un concurrin" in 7u&"%ent, note& that it wi!! ser$e as prece&ent
#or #uture cases or it wi!! not.
'( &eci&in" that a =tate cannot re"u!ate speech that causes "reat
har% un!ess it a!so re"u!ates speech that &oes not (settin" !aw an&
!o"ic on their hea&s), the Court see%s to aan&on the cate"orica!
approach, an& ine$ita!( to re!ax the !e$e! o# scrutin( app!ica!e to
content,ase& !aws.
o D. =te$ens (with 0hite an& '!ac8%un) wrote separate!( to su""est how
the a!!ure o# aso!ute princip!es s8ewe& the %a7orit( & D. 0hite2s opinion.
Pa"e HH o# 9:
Critici4e& the Court #or ho!&in" that content,ase& re"u!ations are
presu%pti$e!( in$a!i& an& that "o$ern%ent %ust either proscrie a!!
speech or no speech at a!!.
<n roa&est ter%s, our entire 1
st
A%en&. 7urispru&ence creates a
re"i%e ase& on the content o# speech. The scope o# the 1
st
A%en&.
is &eter%ine& ( the content o# expressi$e acti$it(.
0hether speech #a!!s within one part o# the cate"ories o#
unprotecte& or proscria!e expression is &eter%ine& in part ( its
content. E$en within cate"ories o# protecte& expression, the 1
st

A%en&. status o# speech is )xe& ( its content.
The cate"orica! approach sacri)ces sut!et( #or c!arit( an& )ts
poor!( with the co%p!ex rea!it( o# expression, ine$ita!( "i$es rise
on!( to #u44( oun&aries (i.e., expressi$e con&uct). <t is
unwor8a!e, u!ti%ate!( #uti!e, an& &estine& to #ai!.
, =tate can enhance cri%ina! pena!ties ase& on racia! ias %oti$ation. Wisc. v.
Mitchell (199:) (upho!&in" sentencin" enhance%ents when a "roup o# !ac8
%en eat a white o( se$ere!().
o Ph(sica! assau!t is not expressi$e con&uct protecte& ( the 1
st
A%en&.
=uch !aws are ai%e& at unprotecte& con&uct.
o The statute &oes not $io!ate the 1
st
A%en&. protection aIor&e& thou"ht &
e!ie#s. 0hi!e a person %a( not e punishe& ecause o# his astract
e!ie#s, %oti$e is #re>uent!( an i%portant #actor in &eter%inin" pena!ties
#or cri%ina! con&uct.
o 'ias,inspire& cri%e %a( e sin"!e& out ecause this con&uct is throu"h to
in@ict "reater in&i$i&ua! an& societa! har%.
o The c!ai% that pena!t( enhance%ent %i"ht cause an in&i$i&ua! to a$oi&
(protecte&) i"ote&, oIensi$e speech is too specu!ati$e to support an
o$errea&th cha!!en"e.
o There is no 1
st
A%en&. arrier to e$i&entiar( use o# speech in or&er to
pro$e %oti$e or intent or the e!e%ents o# a cri%e.
o Ootes & Critics/
=uch !aws are a&opte& #or the $er( purpose o# pena!i4in" thou"ht
processes an& po!itica! %oti$ations #oun& to e oIensi$e ( those in
power, the( constitute c!assic ari&"e%ents o# the constitutiona!!(
protecte& #ree&o% o# thou"ht.
<n response to the reasonin" ao$e/ Fi$in" the "ree&( %ur&erer a
%ore se$ere sentence than the co%passionate 8i!!er %a( raise
interestin" >uestions aout the theor( o# punish%ent, ut not aout
#ree speech concerns. The "ree&( %ur&erer is ein" punishe& not
#or ho!&in" certain astract e!ie#s, ut #or acting on those e!ie#s
in a wa( that %a8es his con&uct %ore reprehensi!e, %ore
&an"erous, an& perhaps %ore in nee& o# &eterrence than the
co%passionate 8i!!er.
, =tate %a( an cross,urnin" with the intent to inti%i&ate ecause it is a
particu!ar!( $iru!ent #or% o# inti%i&ation. 5a. v. Blac" (*00:) (uphe!& statute2s
prohiitions on cross,urnin", ut in$a!i&ate& pro$ision that the con&uct was
pri%a #acie e$i&ence o# intent). <nstea& o# prohiitin" a!! inti%i&atin"
%essa"es, the =tate %a( choose to re"u!ate this suset o# inti%i&atin" %essa"e
Pa"e H; o# 9:
in !i"ht o# cross urnin"2s !on" an& pernicious histor( as a si"na! o# i%pen&in"
$io!ence.
o Dust as a =tate %a( re"u!ate on!( that oscenit( which is the %ost
oscene &ue to its prurient content, so too %a( a =tate choose to prohiit
on!( those #or%s o# inti%i&ate that are %ost !i8e!( to inspire #ear o# o&i!(
har%.
0e &i& not ho!& in R#5 that the 1
st
A%en&. prohiits a!! #or%s o#
content,ase& &iscri%ination within a proscria!e area o# speech.
+ather, we specia!!( state& that so%e t(pes o# content
&iscri%ination &i& not $io!ate the 1
st
A%en&.
An!i8e the statute in R#5, the Ja. statute &oes not sin"!e out #or
opproriu% on!( that speech &irecte& towar& one o# the speci)e&
&is#a$ore& topics. <t &oes not %atter whether an in&i$i&ua! urns a
cross with intent to inti%i&ate ecause o# $icti%2s race, "en&er, or
re!i"ion, etc.
o The pri%a #acie e$i&ence pro$ision, as interprete& ( the 7ur( instruction,
ren&ers the statute unconstitutiona!. The pro$ision chi!!s constitutiona!!(
protecte& po!itica! speech ecause o# the possii!it( that a =tate wi!!
prosecute so%eo&( en"a"in" in !aw#u! po!itica! speech at the core o#
what the 1
st
A%en&. is &esi"ne& to protect.
o D. =ca!ia (with Tho%as) concurrin" an& &issentin", a"rees that un&er R#5,
a =tate %a(, without in#rin"in" the 1
st
A%en&., prohiit cross urnin"
carrie& out with the intent to inti%i&ate, ut &isa"rees that the pri%a
#acie pro$ision is o$erroa& an& shou!& e interprete& as a reutta!e
presu%ption.
o D. =outer (with Kenne&(, Finsur") concurrin" an& &issentin", )n&s that
the statute %a8es a content,ase& &istinction within the cate"or( o#
punisha!e inti%i&atin" or threatenin" expression, ut is sti!!
unconstitutiona! ecause it ris8s content,&iscri%ination.
The speci)c prohiition o# cross urnin" with intent to inti%i&ate
se!ects a s(%o! with particu!ar content #ro% the )e!& o# a!!
proscria!e expression %eant to inti%i&ate, an& hence constitutes
a t(pe $iew,point ase& &iscri%ination.
The issue is whether the statutor( prohiition restricte& to this
s(%o! #a!!s within one o# the exceptions to R#52s "enera!
con&e%nation o# !i%ite& content,ase& proscription within a
roa&er cate"or( o# expression proscria!e "enera!!(.
The Ja. statute &oes not >ua!i#( #or the $iru!ence exception as
R#5 exp!aine& it. The %a7orit(2s &iscussion o# a specia!
$iru!ence exception here %o$es that exception towar& a %ore
@exi!e conception.
R#5 &e)nes the specia! $iru!ence exception to the ru!e
arrin" content,ase& suc!asses o# cate"orica!!(
proscria!e expression this wa(/ prohiition ( sucate"or(
is nonethe!ess constitutiona! i# it is %a&e 5entire!(6 on the
5asis6 o# 5the $er( reason6 that 5the entire c!ass o# speech at
issue is proscria!e6 at a!!. The Court exp!aine& that when
the sucate"or( is con)ne& to the %ost o$ious!(
Pa"e H9 o# 9:
proscria!e instances, 5no si"ni)cant &an"er o# i&ea or
$iewpoint &iscri%ination exists.6
Actua!!(, another wa( o# !oo8in" at to&a(2s &ecision wou!& see it as
a s!i"ht %o&i)cation o# R#52s :
r&
exception, which a!!ows content,
ase& &iscri%ination within a proscria!e cate"or( when its nature
is such 5that there is no rea!istic possii!it( that oIicia! suppression
o# i&eas is a#oot.6 The %a7orit(2s approach cou!& e ta8en as
reco"ni4in" an exception to R#5 when circu%stances show that the
statute2s ostensi!( $a!i& reason #or punishin" particu!ar!( serious
proscria!e expression proa!( is not a ruse #or %essa"e
suppression, e$en thou"h the statute %a( ha$e a "reater (ut not
exc!usi$e) i%pact on a&herents o# one i&eo!o"( than on others.
For whether or not the Court shou!& concei$e o# exceptions to
R#5/s "enera! ru!e in a %ore practica! wa(, no content,ase&
statute shou!& sur$i$e e$en un&er a pra"%atic recastin" o# R#5
without a hi"h proai!it( that no oIicia! suppression o# i&eas is
a#oot.
<t is &iIicu!t to concei$e o# an inti%i&ation case that cou!& e easier
to pro$e than one with cross,urnin", assu%in" an( circu%stances
su""estin" inti%i&ation are present. The pro$ision is >uite enou"h
to raise the >uestion whether Ja.2s content,ase& statute see8s
%ore than %ere protection a"ainst a $iru!ent #or% o# inti%i&ation.
=ince no R#5 exception can sa$e the statute as content,ase&, it
can on!( sur$i$e i# narrow!( tai!ore& to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state
interest, a strin"ent test the statute cannot pass? a content,neutra!
statute annin" inti%i&ation wou!& achie$e the sa%e o7ect without
sin"!in" out particu!ar content.
o D. Tho%as &issentin", )n&s that the statute prohiits on!( con&uct, not
expression an& hence there is not nee& to ana!(4e it un&er an( o# the 1
st

A%en&. tests.
o Ootes & Critics/
F. Char!es/ Ja. can per%issi!( re"u!ate cross,urnin" ecause it is
re"u!atin" a particu!ar!( $iru!ent #or% o# inti%i&ation, one cou!&
ar"ue that =t. Pau! shou!& ha$e een a!e to sin"!e out )"htin"
wor&s uttere& on the asis o# race, "en&er an& re!i"ion ecause
such )"htin" wor&s are !i8e!( to cause an"er an& incite i%%e&iate
$io!ence.
<# cross,urnin" itse!# is a particu!ar!( $iru!ent t(pe o#
inti%i&ation, then urnin" a cross on the asis o# the $icti%2s
race %ust certain!( e an e$en %ore $iru!ent t(pe o#
inti%i&ation. <# one were to app!( Blac"2s reasonin" to R#5,
not on!( shou!& the Court ha$e uphe!& =t. Pau!2s or&inance,
ut it presente& a %ore co%pe!!in" case #or aIir%ance than
the statute in Blac".
=. Fe( conten&s that the Court2s &e)nition o# 5true threat6 is roa&
an& a%i"uous an& threatens the speech,protecti$e stan&ar&
&ictate& in Braden'urg v. Ohio, potentia!!( strippin" si"ni)cant
%eanin" #ro% the 1
st
A%en&.
Pa"e H9 o# 9:
The on!( %ani#estation o# #ear that shou!& e re!e$ant to the
app!ication o# true threats ana!(sis is that persona!i4e& an&
i%%e&iate #ear o# a person who is sin"!e& out an& to!& in no
uncertain ter%s that he is speci)ca!!( tar"ete& #or attac8. <# a
"enera!i4e&, &iIuse& #ear can e use& as a 7usti)cation #or
sanctionin" speech, then a!! a""ressi$e!( anta"onistic &issent
wi!! e su7ect to suppression.
F. =chauer raises the >uestion whether a potentia! &e#en&ant shou!&
e re>uire& to possess intent i# the har% the !e"is!ature see8s to
protect a"ainst is the #ear resu!tin" #ro% such a threat, an& not the
threat itse!#. <t %a( e ri"ht that the spea8er can e prosecute&
ecause he is as responsi!e #or the or&inar( %eanin" o# his wor&s
as he is as responsi!e #or the or&inar( conse>uences o# his
con&uct.
D. 'e!! en&orses a $icti%,centere& approach, which wou!& a!!ow #or
prosecution in a!! cases in which a &e#en&ant urne& a cross with a
&irect!( tar"ete& $icti%.
-$!ressive ,onduct/ )'m%olic )!eech
, Con&uct can e use& as a %eans o# co%%unicatin" i&easEthe %e&iu% can e
the %essa"e. D. Dac8son reco"ni4e& that s(%o!ic action cou!& so%eti%es e
the %ost eIecti$e #or% o# expressin" an i&ea.
o Two part ana!(sis/ 1) is the con&uct expressi$eL *) i# it is expressi$e, is it
protecte& ( the 1
st
A%en&.L
, Is the ,onduct ,ommunicative< <n &eter%inin" whether the con&uct is
speech, the Court o#ten exa%ines the nature o# the con&uct, the #actua! context,
an& the en$iron%ent to &eter%ine i# the actor has an intent to co%%unicate a
%essa"e an& whether the au&ience $iewin" the con&uct wou!& un&erstan& the
%essa"e. S0ence v. Washington (19;1). C#ten the Court wi!! assu%e arguendo
that the con&uct is expressi$e.
, Is the )!eech Protected< 0hen speech an& non,speech e!e%ents are in the
sa%e course o# con&uct, "o$ern%ent re"u!ation o# s(%o!ic speech is
per%issi!e i#, un&er O/Brien v. +S (19H9)/
1) it #urthers an i%portant or sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest,
*) the "o$ern%ent interest is unre!ate& to the suppression o# #ree
expression,
(this &eter%ination is essentia!!( the sa%e as as8in" whether the
re"u!ation is content,ase& or content,neutra!)
:) the inci&enta! restriction on a!!e"e& 1
st
A%en&. #ree&o% is no "reater
than essentia! to the #urtherance o# that interest.
o The O/Brien test (inter%e&iate stan&ar&) app!ies on!( i# the re"u!ation is
content neutra! an& is essentia!!( the sa%e stan&ar& use& in re$iew
content,neutra! re"u!ation o# the pu!ic #oru%.
, <# the re"u!ation is ase& on the content o# the s(%o!ic speech the %ost
exactin" scrutin( app!ies. 6e7as v $ohnson (1999).
, The "o$ern%ent interest in the eIecti$e #unctionin" o# the =e!ecti$e =er$ice
=(ste% is suIicient!( !e"iti%ate an& sustantia! to 7usti#( a !aw prohiitin" the
con&uct o# urnin" &ra#t car&s in spite o# the inci&enta! restrain on 1
st
A%en&.
expression. O/Brien v. +S (19H9) (upho!&in" con$iction un&er #e&era! !aw
prohiitin" 58nowin"!( %uti!ateMionN6 o# &ra#t car&).
Pa"e ;0 o# 9:
o The Court cannot accept the $iew that an apparent!( !i%it!ess $ariet( o#
con&uct can e !ae!e& 5speech6 whene$er the person en"a"in" in
con&uct inten&s there( to express an i&ea.
o The %an( #unctions per#or%e& ( the =e!ecti$e =er$ice certi)cates (proo#
o# re"istration, #aci!itation o# co%%unication to !oca! &s., noti)cations o#
whereaouts o# re"istrant, prohiition a"ainst their &ecepti$e %isuse)
esta!ish e(on& a &out that Con"ress has a !e"iti%ate an& sustantia!
interest in pre$entin" their wanton &estruction an& assurin" their
a$ai!ai!it( ( punishin" peop!e who 8nowin"!( & wi!!#u!!( &estro( or
%uti!ate the%.
o There are no a!ternati$e %eans that wou!& %ore precise!( an& narrow!(
assure the continuin" a$ai!ai!it( o# issues certi)cates than a !aw which
prohiits their wi!!#u! %uti!ation or &estruction.
o The non,co%%unicati$e i%pact o# C2'rien2s act o# urnin" his
re"istration certi)cate #rustrate& the "o$ern%ent2s interest, a suIicient
interest shown to 7usti#( C2'rien2s con$iction.
o The Court wi!! not stri8e &own an otherwise constitutiona! statute on the
asis o# an a!!e"e& i!!icit !e"is!ati$e %oti$e. <n>uiries into con"ressiona!
%oti$es or purposes are a ha4ar&ous %atter.
0hen the issues is si%p!( the interpretation o# !e"is!ation, the Court
wi!! !oo8 to state%ents ( !e"is!ators #or "ui&ance as to the purpose
o# the !e"is!ature, ecause the ene)t to soun& &ecision,%a8in" in
this circu%stance is thou"ht suIicient to ris8 the possii!it( o#
%isrea&in" Con"ress2 purpose.
<t is an entire!( a &iIerent %atter when we are as8e& to $oi& a
statute that is constitutiona! on its #ace, on the asis o# what a #ew
Con"ress%en sai& aout it.
o Ootes & Critics/
For %ost expressi$e con&uct, the purpose o# expression is
protecte&, ut the %etho& o# expression is re"u!a!e. <nter%e&iate
scrutin( is sai& to e the resu!tin" co%pro%ise, a!!owin"
"o$ern%ent to retain si"ni)cant power to re"u!ate in these areas
ut ac8now!e&"in" that the 1
st
A%en&. sti!! pro$i&es so%e
protection.
A!thou"h the O/Brien test re%ains "oo& !aw, the Court has ne$er
use& it to in$a!i&ate !aws that inci&enta!!( ur&en expressi$e
con&uct. <n #act, the Court has create& a wai$a!e presu%ption
that such !aws &o not $io!ate the 1
st
A%en&.
G. .or#/ <n so%e sense, the O/Brien test is the worst o# a!! possi!e
wor!&s. A !ar"e cate"or( o# content,neutra! !aws is suscepti!e to
an O/Brien cha!!en"e. Liti"ation o$er re"u!ations in this cate"or(
i%poses sustantia! costs to societ(, ut (ie!&s #ew tan"i!e
ene)ts. 'ecause %ost o# the cha!!en"e& !aws wi!! sur$i$e, %ost o#
the cases actua!!( !iti"ate& wi!! not ene)t #ree speech.
Oor &oes the prospect o# O/Brien scrutin( &eter potentia!!(
speech,chi!!in" !aws, ecause !e"is!ators enactin" content,
neutra! !aws wi!! not or&inari!( conte%p!ate #ree speech
issues/ ( &e)nition, such !aws are ai%e& at pro!e%s that &o
not arise #ro% the co%%unicati$e i%pact o# speech. Thus, i#
Pa"e ;1 o# 9:
O/Brien scrutin( is to re%ain tooth!ess, it har&!( see%s worth
retainin" as a &iscrete 1
st
A%en& test.
T. E%erson pre$ious!( su""este& s(%o!ic speech cases (
&eter%inin" whether the speech or con&uct e!e%ent is pre&o%inant
in the con&uct un&er consi&eration. <n his $iew, O/Brien was
wron"!( &eci&e& ecause the action was speech rather than
con&uct, an& thus entit!e& to 1
st
A%en&. protection.
D. .ou"!as, in Braden'urg, %a&e %uch the sa%e speech,action
&istinction when he state& that speech "roupe& with con&uct
shou!& not e protecte& un&er the 1
st
A%en&.
D. E!( ar"ue& that urnin" a &ra#t car& to express opposition to the
&ra#t is an un&iIerentiate& who!e, 100V action an& 100V
expression. Atte%pts to &eter%ine which e!e%ent 5pre&o%inates6
wi!! ine$ita!( &e"enerate into >uestion,e""in" 7u&"%ents aout
whether acti$it( shou!& e protecte&.
L. 3en8in ar"ue& that a 5constitutiona! &istinction etween speech
an& con&uct is specious. =peech is con&uct an& actions spea8.6
The %eanin"#u! constitutiona! &istinction is not etween speech an&
con&uct, ut etween con&uct that spea8s, co%%unicates, an&
other 8in&s o# con&uct.
E. Jo!o8h a!so ar"ues that whi!e speech & con&uct shou!& e
&istin"uishe&, t(pica! 5it2s not speech, it2s con&uct6 &octrines wou!&
#orce courts to #ocus on the wron" >uestions an& reach the wron"
resu!ts. Courts shou!& #ocus on a &istinction %ore !i8e that o#
O/Brien, so that expression can "enera!!( e re"u!ate& to pre$ent
har%s that @ow #ro% its non,co%%unicati$e e!e%ents (noise, traIic
ostruction, an& the !i8e), ut not har%s that @ow #ro% what the
expression expresses.
Oeither "enera!!( app!ica!e !aws nor specia!!( tar"ete& !aws
shou!& e a!!owe& to restrict speech ecause o# what the
speech sa(s, un!ess the speech #a!!s within one o# the
exceptions to protection (e.". threats or #a!se state%ents o#
#act) or un!ess the restriction passes strict scrutin(.
L. Trie ar"ues that a !aw is content,ase& i# on its #ace, it is
tar"ete& at i&eas or in#or%ation that "o$ern%ent see8s to suppress,
or i# "o$ern%ent actions neutra! on its #ace was %oti$ate& ( an
intent to sin"!e out constitutiona!!( protecte& speech #or contro! or
pena!t(.
D. E!( su""ests that the &eter%ination o# whether a !aw is content
contro! turns on whether the har% that the state is see8in" to a$ert
is one that "rows out o# the #act that the &e#en&ant is
co%%unicatin", an& %ore particu!ar!( out o# the wa( peop!e can e
expecte& to react to his %essa"e, or rather wou!& arise e$en i# the
&e#en&ant2s con&uct ha& no co%%unicati$e si"ni)cance
whatsoe$er.
, Fo$ern%ent can i%pose a !aw that re"u!ates con&uct ase& on sustantia!
"o$ern%ent interest that inci&enta!!( aIects speech. Con"ressiona! !aw
pre$entin" schoo!s that recei$e #e&era! #un&s to prohiit %i!itar( recruiters
#ro% "ainin" access to ca%puses &oes not $io!ate the schoo!s2 #ree&o% o#
speech. Rumsfeld v. #IR (*00H) (+oerts #or a unani%ous Court uphe!& the
Pa"e ;* o# 9:
=o!o%on A%en&%ent/ in or&er #or a !aw schoo! an& its uni$ersit( to recei$e
#e&era! #un&in", the !aw schoo! %ust oIer %i!itar( recruiters the sa%e access to
its ca%pus an& stu&ents that it pro$i&es to non%i!itar( recruiters recei$in" the
%ost #a$ora!e access).
o =uIicient "o$ern%enta! interest exercise& un&er Con"ressiona! power to
raise an& %aintain ar%es.
o The !aw re"u!ates con&uct, not speech. <t aIects what the !aw schoo!
%ust &o, not what the( %a( or %a( not sa(. .oes not har% an( o# the
#ree&o% o# expression ri"hts/
Law &oes not re>uire co%pe!!e& speech ( the schoo!s.
The recruitin" assistance pro$i&e& ( the schoo!s o#ten
inc!u&es e!e%ents o# speech, ut is on!( inci&enta! to the !aw2s
re"u!ation o# con&uct.
The co%pe!!e& speech $io!ation in the Court2s prior cases
resu!te& #ro% the #act that the co%p!ainin" spea8er2s own
%essa"e was aIecte& ( the speech it was #orce& to
acco%%o&ate.
Law &oes not prohiit speech.
Oothin" aout recruitin" su""ests that !aw schoo!s a"ree with
an( speech ( recruiters an& nothin" in the !aw restricts what
the !aw schoo!s %a( sa( aout the %i!itar(2s po!icies.
Law &oes not $io!ate the schoo!2s expressi$e associationa! ri"hts.
The !aw &oes not #orce schoo!s to accept %e%ers it &oes not
&esire. =tu&ents an& #acu!t( are #ree to associate to $oice
their &isappro$a! o# the %i!itar(2s %essa"e.
Dust as sa(in" con&uct is un&erta8en #or expressi$e purposes
cannot %a8e it s(%o!ic speech, so too a spea8er cannot
erect a shie!& a"ainst !aws re>uirin" access si%p!( (
assertin" that %ere association wou!& i%pair its %essa"e.
Pa"e ;: o# 9:
Pu%lic #orum Doctrine
, The Court esta!ishe& that the use o# streets an& pu!ic p!aces #or expressi$e
purposes has tra&itiona!!( 5een part o# the pri$i!e"es, i%%unities, ri"hts, an&
!ierties o# citi4ens.6 Fro% this princip!e, there &e$e!ope& the concept o#
5pu!ic #oru%6 a$ai!a!e to the citi4en #or expressi$e acti$it(.
, The 1
st
A%en&. ri"ht o# access to pu!ic propert( has een co%p!e%ente& (
the 1
st
A%en&. E>ua! Protection concept o# the ri"ht o# e>ua! access.
, Nature of the #orum/ A sharp &istinction is &rawn etween the re"u!ator(
an& proprietar( ro!es o# "o$ern%ent. 0here the "o$ern%ent is actin" as a
proprietor, %ana"in" its interna! operations rather than actin" as a !aw%a8er
with the power to re"u!ate or !icense, its actions wi!! not e su7ecte& to
hei"htene& re$iew to which its actions as a !aw%a8er %a( e su7ecte&. Int/l
Soc/) for (rishna Consciousness v. %ee (199*).
raditional Pu%lic #orum
, De8nition/ A tra&itiona! pu!ic #oru% is pu!ic propert( that has historica!!(
ha& as a principa! purpose the #ree exchan"e o# i&eas (e.". streets an& par8s).
o Fo$ern%ent %a( not ar a!! co%%unicati$e acti$it( #ro% 5>uintessentia!6
pu!ic #oru%. =uch p!aces ha$e historica!!( een associate& with
expressi$e acti$it(. The( are natura! an& proper p!aces #or &isse%inatin"
in#or%ation.
, )tandard/ Content,ase& re"u!ation o# speech in a tra&itiona! pu!ic #oru%
%ust #a!! into a cate"or( o# !ow,$a!ue speech (proscria!e) or e 7usti)e& usin"
strict scrutin(.
Content,neutra! re"u!ation o# the pu!ic #oru% is constitutiona! i# the !aw is
narrow!(,tai!ore& to ser$e a 5si"ni)cant "o$ern%enta! interest6 an& !ea$es
open a%p!e a!ternati$e channe!s #or co%%unication o# the in#or%ation (sa%e
test #or ti%e, p!ace & %anner contro!s).
, Peace#u! &e%onstrators on pu!ic state capito! "roun&s %a( not e $a!i&!(
prosecute& #or con&uctin" a protest. *dwards v. S. Carolina (19H:).
, A !aw arrin" a!! pic8etin" an& !ea@etin" on the pu!ic si&ewa!8s surroun&in"
the =upre%e Court is unconstitutiona! ecause such a roa& prohiition o#
5pu!ic #oru% propert(6 &oes not narrow!( ser$e the pu!ic interests in
protectin" persons an& propert( or %aintainin" proper or&er an& &ecoru%. +S
v. &race (199:).
Limited or Designated Pu%lic #orum
, De8nition/ The pu!ic #oru% was he!& to inc!u&e other pu!ic propert( where
expressi$e acti$it( was not inco%pati!e with the nor%a! use to which the
propert( is put (e.". pu!ic !irar(, uni$ersities). The !i%ite& pu!ic #oru% is
a!so &eter%ine& ( "o$ern%ent &esi"nation an& intent to open the propert( #or
expressi$e acti$it(.
o Fo$ern%ent &oes not create a pu!ic #oru% ( inaction. <t %ust e shown
that the practice an& po!ic( o# the "o$ern%ent in&icate an intent to open
a nontra&itiona! #oru% #or "enera! pu!ic &iscourse.
o 3owe$er, "o$ern%ent %a( with&raw the p!ace #ro% pu!ic #oru%
&esi"nation.
, )tandard/ =a%e stan&ar& as a tra&itiona! pu!ic #oru%. <# the "o$ern%ent
exc!u&es spea8ers who are within the c!ass to which a &esi"nate& pu!ic #oru%
is %a&e "enera!!( a$ai!a!e, its actions are su7ect to strict scrutin(.
, =tate ru!e !i%itin" &istriution o# in#or%ation at a state #air to a )xe& !ocation is
constitutiona!. ,e:ron v. Int/l Soc/) for (rishna Consciousness (1991).
Pa"e ;1 o# 9:
o =tate #air "roun&s constitute a !i%ite& pu!ic #oru%. The )xe& !ocation
ru!e is content,neutra! an& is narrow!( tai!ore& to #urther i%portant state
interest in traIic contro! on the crow&e& #air"roun&s.
o A!ternati$e #oru%s such as speech at the )xe& !ocation or contact oI the
#air"roun&s are a$ai!a!e.
, Ani$ersit( create& #oru% "enera!!( open #or stu&ent "roup use cannot
&iscri%inate in use ( &en(in" access #or re!i"ious worship or teachin".
Widmar v. 5incent (1991).
o <n or&er to 7usti#( such &iscri%ination in access to pu!ic #oru% ase& on
the re!i"ious content o# the "roup2s inten&e& speech, the uni$ersit( %ust
show that its re"u!ation is necessar( to ser$e a co%pe!!in" state interest
an& that it is narrow!( &rawn to achie$e that en&.
o The uni$ersit( is not 7usti)e& ( the &esire to %aintain separation o#
church an& state %an&ate& ( the state an& #e&era! constitutions.
Non!u%lic #orum
, De8nition/ Pu!ic propert( which is not ( tra&ition or &esi"nation a #oru% #or
pu!ic co%%unication (e."., %i!itar( ases, 7ai!s, rapi&,transit cars an&
%ai!oxes).
o The #act that particu!ar propert( is owne& ( the "o$ern%ent &oes not
%a8e it part o# the pu!ic #oru%. Certain pu!ic!(,owne& p!aces are
inappropriate #or an( asse%!( or protest.
o A &esi"nates pu!ic #oru% is not create& when the "o$ern%ent "rants
on!( se!ecti$e access #or in&i$i&ua! spea8ers rather than "enera! access
#or a c!ass o# spea8ers. 0hen the "o$ern%ent "rants e!i"ii!it( #or access
to the #oru% to a particu!ar c!ass o# spea8ers, whose %e%ers %ust then,
as in&i$i&ua!s, otain per%ission to enter, on!( a nonpu!ic #oru% exists.
, )tandard/ +e"u!ation o# access to such propert( nee& on!( e $iewpoint,
neutra! an& reasona!e. +easona!eness has een %ar8e& ( 7u&icia! &e#erence
to "o$ern%ent, a8in to rationa!it( test.
, Count( 7ai! is not an appropriate p!ace #or the exercise o# 1
st
A%en&. ri"hts.
.e%onstrator2s con$iction #or trespass is constitutiona!. #dderl) v. la. (19HH)
(when pu!ic propert( such as state capito! "roun&s %a( e open to the pu!ic,
7ai!s, ui!t #or securit( purposes, are not).
, =choo! &istrict2s interschoo! %ai! s(ste% is not ( tra&ition or ( &esi"nation a
pu!ic #oru%. !err) *duc. #ssn. v. !err) %ocal *ducators/ #ssn. (199:)
(&istrict2s "rant o# exc!usi$e access to the teachers2 ar"ainin" representati$e
to interschoo! %ai! s(ste% &oes not $io!ate the 1
st
A%en&. ri"hts o# ri$a! teacher
"roup since it is nonpu!ic #oru%? use o# the #aci!ities a!!ows representati$e to
per#or% o!i"ations to a!! teachers? an& a!ternati$e channe!s o# union,teacher
co%%unication re%ain open).
, Airports are not &esi"nation or pu!ic #ora. Int/l Soc/) for (rishna
Consciousness v. %ee (199*) (upho!&in" re"u!ation prohiitin" so!icitation an&
receipt o# #un&s in airport ter%ina!s).
o The tra&ition o# airport acti$it( &oes not &e%onstrate that airports ha$e
historica!!( een %a&e a$ai!a!e #or speech acti$it(. The princip!e
purpose is #aci!itatin" tra$e!, not pro%otin" exchan"e o# i&eas. Oor are
the ter%ina!s &esi"nate& pu!ic #ora intentiona!!( open to speech acti$it(.
o The ru!e is a reasona!e content,neutra! re"u!ation "i$en the &isrupti$e
eIect o# so!icitation on the nor%a! @ow o# traIic an& the potentia! #or
#rau& an& &uress o# harrie& tra$e!ers.
Pa"e ;- o# 9:
o D. Kenne&( (with : other 7ustices) ar"ues that airport ter%ina!s are pu!ic
#or a since the( share ph(sica! si%i!arities with other pu!ic #ora. The
$er( rea&th an& extent o# the pu!ic2s use o# airports %a8e it i%perati$e
to protect speech ri"hts there. Ti%e, p!ace an& %anner re"u!ation can
assure that expressi$e acti$it( is >uite co%pati!e with the uses o# %a7or
airports.
, Pu!ic te!e$ision roa&castin" is a nonpu!ic #oru% an& roa&caster2s exc!usion
o# an in&epen&ent can&i&ate #ro% a &eate &oes not $io!ate the 1
st
A%en&.
Can&i&ate2s exc!usion was ase& on !ac8 o# pu!ic support rather than
$iewpoint &iscri%ination. #r". *duc. 6elevision Comm/n v. or'es (1999).
o The pu!ic #oru% shou!& not e exten&e& in a %echanica! wa( to the
context o# pu!ic te!e$ision roa&castin". Te!e$ision roa&casters en7o(
the wi&est 7ourna!is% #ree&o% consistent with their pu!ic
responsii!ities.
The nature o# e&itoria! &iscretion counse!s a"ainst su7ectin"
roa&casters to c!ai%s o# $iewpoint &iscri%ination. Pro"ra%%in"
&ecisions wou!& e particu!ar!( $u!nera!e to c!ai%s o# this t(pe. As
a resu!t, roa&casters %i"ht &eci&e to a$oi& contro$ers( an&
&i%inish the #ree @ow o# i&eas.
o A &esi"nate& pu!ic #oru% is not create& when "o$ern%ent a!!ows
se!ecti$e access #or in&i$i&ua! spea8ers rather than "enera! access #or a
c!ass o# spea8ers.
Fo$ern%ent &oes not create a &esi"nate& pu!ic #oru% when it
&oes not %ore than reser$e e!i"ii!it( #or access to the #oru% to a
particu!ar c!ass o# spea8ers.
o Oonpu!ic #oru% status &oes not %ean that the "o$ern%ent can restrict
speech in whate$er wa( it !i8es. To e consistent with the 1
st
A%en&., the
exc!usion o# a spea8er #ro% a nonpu!ic #oru% %ust not e ase& on the
spea8er2s $iewpoint an& %ust otherwise e reasona!e in !i"ht o# the
purpose o# the propert(.
o D. =te$ens (with =outer, Finsur") &issentin", ar"ues that pu!ic
roa&castin" is !i%ite& pu!ic #oru%, an& the e&itoria! &ecision was a&
hoc an& !ac8e& stan&ar&s pointin" to e$i&ence that the in&epen&ent
can&i&ate &i& ha$e support enou"h to aIect the outco%e.
<# a co%para!e &ecision were %a&e to&a( ( a pri$ate!( owne&
networ8, it wou!& e su7ect to scrutin( un&er the Fe&era! E!ection
Ca%pai"n Act un!ess the networ8 use& pre,esta!ishe& o7ecti$e
criteria to &eter%ine which can&i&ates %a( participate in the
&eate. Oo such criteria "o$erne& the AETC.
'ecause AETC is owne& ( the =tate, &e#erence to its interest in
%a8in" a& hoc &ecisions aout the po!itica! content o# its pro"ra%s
necessari!( increases the ris8 o# "o$ern%ent censorship an&
propa"an&a in a wa( that protection o# pri$ate!( owne&
roa&casters &oes not.
The &ispositi$e issue is not whether AETC create& a &esi"nate&
pu!ic #oru% or a nonpu!ic #oru%, ut whether AETC &e)ne& the
contours o# the &eate #oru% with suIicient speci)cit( to 7usti#( the
exc!usion o# a a!!ot,>ua!i)e& can&i&ate.
Pa"e ;H o# 9:
AETC2s contro! was co%para!e to that o# a !oca! "o$ern%ent
oIicia! authori4e& to issue per%its to use pu!ic #aci!ities #or
expressi$e acti$ities an& hence wou!& a!so nee& narrow,
o7ecti$e &e)nite stan&ar&s re>uire& to su7ect 1
st
A%en&.
#ree&o%s to prior restraint.
0hen the &e%an& #or spea8in" #aci!ities excee&s supp!(, the =tate
%ust ration o# a!!ocate the scarce resources on so%e accepta!e
neutra! princip!e.
,ommercial )!eech
, De8nition/ Expression that &oes no %ore than propose a co%%ercia!
transaction? expression re!ate& so!e!( to the econo%ic interests o# the spea8er
an& its au&ience.
, <n 5alentine v. Chrestensen (191*), the Court unani%ous!( he!& that
co%%ercia! speech was outsi&e the 1
st
A%en&. since it &i& not re!ate& to se!#,
"o$ern%ent or pro%ote in&i$i&ua! se!#,&i"init(.
, <t is now esta!ishe& that e$en co%%ercia! a&$ertisin" (assu%in" the acti$it(
a&$ertise& is !e"a!) en7o(s so%e 1
st
A%en&. protection thou"h not as sustantia!
as other speech. 5a. State Bd. of !harmac) v 5a. Citizns Consumer Council
(19;H) (consu%er an& societ( ha$e a stron" interest in #ree @ow o#
in#or%ation).
o <t is ar"ue& that co%%ercia! speech has "reater o7ecti$it( an& har&iness
per%ittin" "reater state re"u!ation.
o The prior restraint &octrine &oes not app!(.
o +estriction o# co%%ercia! speech wi!! not e #acia!!( in$a!i&ate& ecause
o# o$errea&th.
o Ar"uin" #or %ore re"u!ation/ A&$ertisin" pressure &oes %ore than
in@uence content? it so%eti%es &ictates it. E$en non,!ie!ous po!itica!
&issent, when critica! o# a&$ertisers, is su7ect to outri"ht suppression.
Co%%ercia! speech is co%%ercia! power.
, .n!rotected ,ommercial )!eech/ Pro$i&in" in#or%ation aout i!!e"a!
acti$ities or contrar( to pu!ic po!ic( is not protecte& ( the 1
st
A%en&. (e.".
sex,&esi"nate& he!p wante& a&s, constitutin" i!!e"a! sex &iscri%ination, are not
protecte&). Fa!se an& %is!ea&in" a&$ertisin" is not protecte& (e.". state statute
prohiitin" use o# tra&e na%es #or opto%etr( is $a!i&, since it ha& no intrinsic
%eanin"). 3owe$er, #a!se &e#a%ator( pu!ication, no in$o!$in" co%%ercia!
speech, &oes en7o( constitutiona! protection.
, Modern )tandard/ A #or% o# inter%e&iate re$iew to &eter%ine the
constitutiona! protection pro$i&e& (Centr. ,udson &as 1 *lec. v. !u'. Serv.
Comm/n of -.)/
#lthough remaining valid law; the Court has 'een less deferential in a00l)ing
this test and a num'er of 2ustices have <uestioned its use for reviewing
regulation of truthful; nonmisleading information.
1) =peech %ust not e %is!ea&in" or re!ate& to un!aw#u! acti$it(
2) The asserte& "o$ern%ent interest %ust e sustantia!
3) Fo$ern%ent re"u!ation %ust &irect!( a&$ance the "o$ern%enta! interest
asserte&
a. The re"u!ation %ust a&$ance the "o$ern%enta! interest in a &irect
an& %ateria! wa(, that the potentia! har%s are rea! an& that the
Pa"e ;; o# 9:
re"u!ation wi!! a!!e$iate the% to a %ateria! &e"ree. The re!ationship
cannot e !e#t to specu!ation o# con7ecture.
4) +e"u!ation %ust not e %ore extensi$e than is necessar( to ser$e that
interest
a. +e"u!ation can e necessar( e$en i# it is not the !east restricti$e
%eans o# achie$in" the sustantia! state interests? it is suIicient i#
there is a 5reasona!e )t.6
. The a$ai!ai!it( o# !ess ur&enso%e a!ternati$es re%ains re!e$ant in
&eter%inin" i# the )t is reasona!e.
o A proph(!actic re"u!ation &esi"ne& to a$ert the potentia! #or &eception is
se!&o% suIicient to %eet this test.
, =tate prohiition on truth#u! uti!it( a&$ertisin" to pro%ote the use o# e!ectricit(
$io!ates the 1
st
& 11
th
A%en&s. Centr. ,udson (1990) (#or%u!atin" an& app!(in"
the pre$ai!in" stan&ar&).
o 1
st
/ The co%%ercia! speech &oes not concern i!!e"a! acti$it( an& is not
%is!ea&in", thus the 1
st
A%en&. app!ies.
o *
n&
/ The "o$ern%ent interest in #air rates an& ener"( conser$ation are
c!ear an& sustantia!.
o :
r&
/ The prohiition o# a&$ertisin" &oes &irect!( a&$ance the "o$ern%ent
interest in ener"( conser$ation since a&$ertisin" is &esi"ne& to increase
the use o# e!ectricit(.
o 1
th
/ 0hi!e pro%otiona! a&$ertisin" is &irect!( re!ate& to the state2s
interests in ener"( conser$ation, a tota! prohiition is %ore extensi$e
than is necessar( to #urther the state2s ener"( conser$ation interest.
, A state uni$ersit( has a sustantia! interest in re"u!atin" co%%ercia! speech in
the #or% o# Tupperware parties in co!!e"e &or%s to pro%ote an e&ucationa!
rather than a co%%ercia! at%osphere an& pre$entin" the co%%ercia!
exp!oitation o# stu&ents an& preser$in" resi&entia! tran>ui!it(. Bd. of 6rustees
of State +niv. of -. v. o7 (1999) (a re"u!ation is narrow!( tai!ore& to a&$ance
these interests i# the =tate pro$es that the !aw &oes not ur&en sustantia!!(
%ore speech than is necessar( to #urther the interest? there %ust e a
5reasona!e6 )t).
, =tate !aw annin" a&$ertise%ent o# retai! !i>uor prices except at the p!ace o#
sa!e $io!ates the 1
st
A%en&.? an& the *1
st
A%en&. &oes not >ua!i#( the !aw
ari&"in" the #ree&o% o# speech in the 1
st
A%en&. 33 %i<uormart v. R.I. (199H)
(=te$ens #or the p!ura!it( o# the Court? C2Connor2s concurrence pre$ents
o$erru!in" the !osadas ho!&in" that the !e"is!ature can choose suppression o$er
a !ess speech,restricti$e po!ic( an& that the "reater state re"u!ator( power
inc!u&es the !esser, (power to an the acti$it( %ust inc!u&e power to an
a&$ertisin" #or it)).
o 0hen the =tate re"u!ates co%%ercia! %essa"es to protect consu%ers
#ro% %is!ea&in", or &ecepti$e, or a""ressi$e sa!es practices, or re>uires
the &isc!osure o# ene)cia! consu%er in#or%ation, the purpose o# its
re"u!ation is consistent with the reasons #or accor&in" constitutiona!
protection to co%%ercia! speech an& there#ore 7usti)es !ess than strict
re$iew.
o 3owe$er, when a =tate entire!( prohiits &isse%ination o# non,%is!ea&in"
co%%ercia! %essa"es #or reasons unre!ate& to the preser$ation o# a #air
ar"ainin" process, there is #ar !ess reason to &epart #ro% the ri"orous
Pa"e ;9 o# 9:
re$iew that the 1
st
A%en&. "enera!!( &e%an&s? an& it %ust e re$iewe&
with 5specia! care6 un&er Centr. ,udson.
o *
n&
/ =tate c!ai%s its interest in pro%otin" te%perance 7usti)es this an,
ut there is no e$i&ence to support this. E!i%ination o# the an wou!&
si"ni)cant!( increase a!coho! consu%ption i# specu!ati$e.
o :
r&
/ Oot an eIecti$e nor &irect wa( to achie$e interests. 3ea$( &rin8ers
wou!& sti!! purchase &espite price.
o 1
th
/ +estriction on speech is %ore extensi$e than necessar(. =tate
interest cou!& e acco%p!ishe& ( e&ucationa! pro"ra%s an& hi"her
taxes.
!osadas erroneous!( per#or%e& the 1
st
A%en&. ana!(sis. (=te$ens,
Kenne&(, Tho%as, Finsur")
!osadas c!ear!( erre& in conc!u&in" that it was up to the
!e"is!ature to choose suppression o$er a !ess,restricti$e po!ic(.
Cannot accept the contention that the 5"reater,inc!u&e,the,
!esser6 reasonin" ecause it is inconsistent with !o"ic an&
we!!,sett!e& &octrine.
o 'annin" speech %a( so%eti%es e %ore intrusi$e than
annin" con&uct. 0or&s are not necessari!( !ess $ita! to
#ree&o% than actions, or that !o"ic so%ehow pro$es that
the power to prohiit an acti$it( is necessari!( "reater
than the power to suppress speech aout it.
1
st
A%en&. &irects that "o$ern%ent %a( not suppress speech
as easi!( as it %a( suppress con&uct an& that speech
restrictions cannot e treate& as si%p!( another %eans that
the "o$ern%ent %a( use to achie$e its en&s.
The =tate2s re"u!ation o# a sa!e o# "oo&s &iIers in 8in& #ro%
the =tate2s re"u!ation o# accurate in#or%ation aout those
"oo&s. <t2s power to an& the sa!e o# !i>uor entire!( &oes not
inc!u&e a power to censor a!! a&$ertise%ents that contain
accurate in#or%ation aout the price o# the pro&uct.
Anpersuasi$e that the speech re"u!ation tar"ete& a 5$ice6
acti$it(. 3ar& to &e)ne $ice an& annin" speech aout it,
whi!e a!!owin" the acti$it( is not a princip!e& 7usti)cation.
o D. =ca!ia &issentin", is unco%#orta!e with the Centr. ,udson test ut
&oes not ha$e the wherewitha! to o$erru!e it or rep!ace it with so%ethin"
e!se? a!so shares a$ersion to paterna!istic "o$ern%ent po!icies that shie!&
#acts #ro% the pu!ic.
o D. Tho%as concurrin" in 7u&"%ent, )n&s that app!ication o# Centr. ,udson
shou!& not e app!ie& in this 8in& o# case in which the "o$ern%ent2s
asserte& interest is to 8eep !e"a! users o# a pro&uct o# ser$ice i"norant in
or&er to %anipu!ate their choices in the %ar8etp!ace.
=uch an interest is 0er se i!!e"iti%ate an& can no %ore 7usti#( a
re"u!ation o# co%%ercia! speech than it can 7usti#( re"u!ation o#
nonco%%ercia! speech.
P!ura!it(2s interpretation o# the 1
th
pron" o# the Centr. ,udson
co%%its the courts to stri8in" &own restrictions on speech
whene$er a &irect re"u!ation wou!& e an e>ua!!( eIecti$e %etho&
o# &a%penin" &e%an& ( !e"a! users. 3owe$er, in a!! cases annin"
Pa"e ;9 o# 9:
the pro&uct wou!& e as eIecti$e as restrictin" its a&$ertisin", such
that, a!! restrictions with such a purpose wou!& #ai! the 1
th
pron" o#
the test.
+ather than usin" Centr. ,udson, he wou!& app!( 5a. !harmac) Bd.,
un&er which these restrictions wou!& #ai!.
o D. C2Connor concurrin" (with +ehn>uist, =outer, 're(er), wou!& reso!$e
the case ( app!(in" Centr. ,udson. =ince it #ai!s the 1
th
pron", the an is
in$a!i&.
<n or&er #or a speech restriction to pass %uster un&er the 1
th
pron",
there %ust e a )t that is reasona!e an& that represents a scope
that is in proportion to the interest ser$e&.
=ince !osadas, the Court has exa%ine& %ore searchin"!( the
=tate2s pro#esse& "oa!, an& the speech restriction put into p!ace to
#urther it, e#ore acceptin" the =tate2s c!ai% that the speech
restriction satis)es the 1
st
A%en&. The c!oser !oo8 we ha$e
re>uire& co%ports etter with the purpose o# the ana!(sis set out in
Centr. ,udson, ( re>uirin" the =tate to show that the speech
re>uire%ent &irect!( a&$ances its interests an& is narrow!( tai!ore&.
o Ootes/
+. Post/ Co%%ercia! speech recei$es protection ecause o# its
in#or%ationa! #unction, whereas pu!ic &iscourse is protecte& to
assure citi4en participation. The in#or%ation,protection rationa!e o#
co%%ercia! speech exp!ains wh( it can e su7ect to restrictions
that wou!& not e to!erate& in the case o# pu!ic &iscourse (e.".,
prior restraint, o$errea&th an& co%pe!!e& &isc!osure). 'ut the
Centr. ,udson test is ina&e>uate to acco%p!ish the in#or%ationa!
#unction o# co%%ercia! speech.
<t wi!! either continue to un#o!& ( &e$e!opin" &octrina! too!s
necessar( to assess the i%pact o# state re"u!ation on the
actua! circu!ation o# co%%ercia! in#or%ation, or the Court wi!!
%er"e it with pu!ic &iscourse.
=. =herr( ar"ues that concrete, atheoretica! concerns p!a( a
sustantia! ro!e in the Court2s co%%ercia! speech cases,
&e%onstrate& ( its re!iance on e%pirica! &ata in so%e cases.
The Court cre&ite& the &istrict court )n&in"s o# #act ase& on
e%pirica! stu&ies o# !i>uor consu%ption patterns, re7ectin"
the appe!!ate court2s )n&in" o# inherit %erit in the state2s
ar"u%ent that co%petiti$e price a&$ertisin" wou!& !ower
prices an& thus increase a!coho! sa!es.
C. E. 'a8er ar"ues that a&$ertisers, not "o$ern%ents, are the
pri%ar( censors o# %e&iate content in the A=. 3e e!ie$es the
current co%%ercia! speech &octrine ten&s to #a$or re"u!ation o#
co%%ercia! speech since an( "oo& po!ic( 7usti)cation #or a tax or
re"u!ation shou!& &e#eat an a&$ertiser2s 1
st
A%en&. c!ai%s.
+%scene )!eech
, Oo 1
st
A%en&. protection #or oscene speech since such expression !ac8s socia!
i%portance.
Pa"e 90 o# 9:
, De8nition/ <n or&er #or %ateria! to e cate"ori4e& as oscene it %ust satis#(
each e!e%ent (Miller v. Cal.=/
a) 0hether the a$era"e person, app!(in" conte%porar( co%%unit(
stan&ar&s wou!& )n& that the wou!&, ta8en as a who!e, appea!s to the
prurient interest?
i. Dur( &eter%ination (not chi!&ren) o# co%%unit( stan&ar&s. Oationa!
stan&ar& &oes not nee& to e conte%p!ate&.
1. Oo expert e$i&ence is re>uires to esta!ish is re>uire& to
esta!ish oscenit(.
) 0hether the wor8 &epicts or &escries, in a patent!( oIensi$e wa(, sexua!
con&uct speci)ca!!( &e)ne& ( the app!ica!e state !aw? an&
c) 0hether the wor8 ta8en as a who!e !ac8s serious !iterar(, artistic,
po!itica! or scienti)c $a!ue.
i. Du&"e& as a who!e ( an o7ecti$e reasona!e person stan&ar&.
!o0e v. Illin.
o <n %a8in" this &eter%ination, the 7ur( s(ste% wi!! e use&.
, Court2s "ui&e!ine to &e)ne oscenit( tries to exc!u&e 5har& core6 porno"raph(
#ro% 1
st
A%en&. protection. 3owe$er, con&uct %ust e speci)ca!!( &e)ne& (
the app!ica!e =tate !aw or authoritati$e!( construe& #or the re"u!ation to e
constitutiona!. Miller v. Cal. (19;:).
o Oo one wi!! e su7ect to prosecution #or the sa!e or exposure o# oscene
%ateria!s un!ess these %ateria!s &epict or &escrie patent!( oIensi$e
5har&,core6 sexua! con&uct speci)ca!!( &e)nes ( the re"u!atin" state !aw
as written or construe&.
o These speci)c prere>uisites wi!! pro$i&e #air notice to a &ea!er in such
%ateria!s that his pu!ic an& co%%ercia! acti$ities %a( rin"
prosecution.
o A!thou"h notin" that it is not the Court2s #unction to propose re"u!ator(
sche%es, a #ew exa%p!es o# what a state statute cou!& &e)ne #or
re"u!ation as patent!( oIensi$e sexua! con&uct/
Patent!( oIensi$e representations or &epictions o# u!ti%ate sexua!
acts, nor%a! or per$erts, actua! or si%u!ate&.
Patent!( oIensi$e representations or &epictions o# %asturation,
excretor( #unctions an& !ew& exhiition o# the "enita!s.
o At a %ini%u%, prurient, patent!( oIensi$e &epiction or &escription o#
sexua! con&uct %ust ha$e serious !iterar(, artistic, po!itica! or scienti)c
$a!ue to %erit 1
st
A%en&. protection.
, 0hi!e Miller was %eant to !ea$e the &eter%ination o# oscenit( to !oca!
co%%unities, this &oes not prec!u&e in&epen&ent 7u&icia! re$iew e$en o# the
7ur( &eter%ination o# oscenit(. Constitutiona! stan&ar&s %ust e satis)e&.
, Gere possession o# oscene %atter (except #or chi!& porno"raph() cannot
constitutiona!!( e %a&e a cri%e. Pri$ac(, a #un&a%enta! ri"ht, protects what
an in&i$i&ua! rea&s or watches in his own ho%e.
o 'ut the ri"ht o# pri$ac( &oes not protect oscene &isp!a(s in p!aces o#
pu!ic acco%%o&ation e$en when eIecti$e sa#e"uar&s are e%p!o(e&
a"ainst exposure to 7u$eni!es an& passers(. !aris #dult 6heater v. Slaton
(19;:).
o Possession o# chi!& porno"raph( can e cri%ina!i4e& ecause o# the
state2s co%pe!!in" interests in protectin" the ph(sica! an& ps(cho!o"ica!
we!!,ein" o# the %inors an& in &estro(in" the %ar8et #or the exp!oiti$e
Pa"e 91 o# 9:
use o# chi!&ren &istin"uish this #ro% other oscene %ateria!. Os'orne v.
Ohio (1990).
, Contro! o# oscenit( %a( a!so ta8e the #or% o# ci$i! statutes such as nuisance or
4onin" !aws, which constitute prior restraints in$o!$in" !icensin", in7unction,
an& a&%inistrati$e censorship. The Court "enera!!( has ta8en a %ore #a$ora!e
attitu&e to such prior restraints on the theor( that the( a$oi& %an( o# the e$i!s
o# oscenit( contro! pursue& throu"h cri%ina! !aws. !aris #dult 6heater v.
Slaton (19;:).
o Fre>uent!(, 4onin" !aws are treate& as ti%e, p!ace an& %anner
re"u!ations rather than content contro!s rather than content contro!s. <n
cases where the re"u!ation si"ni)cant!( eIects protecte& acti$it(, the !aw
%ust e &esi"ne& to achie$e a sustantia! "o$ern%ent interest an& !ea$e
open reasona!e a!ternati$e channe!s o# co%%unication.
o <# the re"u!ation &oes not si"ni)cant!( ur&en expression o# the eIects o#
speech, the 1
st
A%en&. protection &oes not app!( an& the !aw nee& on!( e
rationa!.
Indecent )!eech and 1roadcasting
, Fu!! 1
st
A%en&. protection &oes not exten& to roa&castin" &ue to the per$asi$e
nature o# the %e&iu% an& ease o# accessii!it( to chi!&ren. CC v. !acifca
ound. (19;9) (FCC authorit( to re"u!ate 5an( oscene, in&ecent, or pro#ane
!an"ua"e ( %eans o# ra&io co%%unications6 &oes not $io!ate 1
st
A%en&.).
o The constitutiona! protection accor&e& to a co%%unication containin"
such patent!( oIensi$e sexua! an& excretor( !an"ua"e nee& not e the
sa%e in e$er( context. <t is the characteristic o# such speech that oth its
capacit( to oIen& an& its socia! $a!ue $ar( with the circu%stances.
o 'ecause content o# that character is not entit!e& to aso!ute
constitutiona! protection un&er a!! circu%stances, the Court %ust
consi&er its context in or&er to &eter%ine whether the FCC2s action was
per%issi!e.
Court has reco"ni4e& that each %e&iu% o# expression presents
specia! 1
st
A%en&. pro!e%s.
o The "o$ern%ent re"u!ation is ase& on a nuisance rationa!e, which %a(
%ere!( e the ri"ht thin" at the wron" ti%e. This &oes not &epen& on
)n&in" that the speech was oscene.
'roa&cast %e&ia has a uni>ue!( per$asi$e presence an& the
au&ience constant!( tunes in an& out, #or which prior warnin"s #or
pro"ra%%in" %a( e ineIecti$e.
'roa&cast is a!so uni>ue!( accessi!e to chi!&ren, e$en those too
(oun" to rea&, which 7usti)es specia! treat%ent o# in&ecent
roa&castin".
o D. Powe!! (with '!ac8%un) concurrin" e%phasi4es that the Court2s
&ecision turns on the uni>ue characteristics o# the roa&cast %e&ia,
co%ine& with societ(2s ri"ht to protect its chi!&ren #ro% speech
inappropriate #or their a"e an& not on the $a!ue or protection accor&e&
the speech.
o D. 'rennan (with Garsha!!) &issentin", ar"ues that the FCC or&er is not a
per%issi!e ti%e, p!ace an& %anner re"u!ation ecause it is ase& on
content.
Pa"e 9* o# 9:
The %ono!o"ue &oes not #a!! into the cate"ories o# unprotecte&
speech, hence is shou!& e protecte&.
0hate$er the %ini%a! &isco%#ort suIere& ( a !istener who
ina&$ertent!( tunes into a pro"ra% he )n&s oIensi$e &urin" the
rie# inter$a! e#ore he can si%p!( switch stations is sure!( worth
the can&!e to preser$e the roa&caster2s ri"ht to sen& an& the ri"ht
o# those to recei$e a %essa"e entit!e& to the #u!! 1
st
A%en&.
protection.
'ecause the %ono!o"ue is o$ious!( not an erotic appea! to the
prurient interests o# chi!&ren, the Court, #or the 1
st
ti%e, a!!ows the
"o$ern%ent to pre$ent %inors #ro% "ainin" access to %ateria!s that
are not oscene, an& are there#ore protecte& as to the%.
The responsii!it( an& ri"ht to wee& worth!ess an& oIensi$e
co%%unications #ro% the pu!ic airwa(s resi&es with the pu!ic in a
%ar8etp!ace unsu!!ie& ( the censor2s han&.
, 0hen the %e&iu% re>uires the !istener to ta8e aIir%ati$e steps to recei$e the
co%%unication, an& techno!o"ica! %eans to !i%its its a$ai!ai!it(, a tota! an o#
the %ateria! is not narrow!( tai!ore& to ser$e the co%pe!!in" interest o#
pre$entin" %inors #ro% ein" expose&. Sa'le Commc/n of Cal. v. CC (1999).
o There is no capti$e au&ience pro!e% where a ca!!er see8s an& is wi!!in"
to pa( #or the co%%unication. This is %ani#est!( &iIerent #ro% a
situation in which a !istener &oes not want to recei$e the %essa"e.
o Court re7ecte& the "o$ern%ent2s ar"u%ent that nothin" !ess that a tota!
an wou!& pre$ent chi!&ren #ro% otainin" access to &ia!,a,porn
%essa"es, which are sexua!!( in&ecent ut not oscene. Techno!o"ica!
%eans were a$ai!a!e to pre$ent such access.
Pa"e 9: o# 9: