Under current law there is no way to bring political-discrimination claim at all. Fundamental right claim will be really strong, race/gender-discrimination could be strong but there aren't enough facts.
A gender-discriminton claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
A race-discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
A "fundamental right" to vote claim under the Equal ProtectionClause.
A political-discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
A gender-discrimination claim under the Equal ProtectionClause.
A "fundamental right" to vote claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
Self-defense is something that has been recognized by states/federal government for a very long time, there is uniformity in the legal tradition over time. This is a quintessential example of a fundamental right under Substantive Due Process doctrine.
Nothing to do with a bill of attainer because we don't have any sort of law that is basically a legislative adjudication of a particular question. No problem with state action - this is about the constitutionality of the law.
No, because the statute is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Yes,because the "fundamental" rights recognized under the Equal Protection Clause are limited to voting rights.
Yes, because the attacker was not a state actor.
No, because the court would likely conclude that a right of self-defense against imminent death or serious bodily harm is "fundamental" and that the state lacks a compelling justification to eliminate the defense.
The fact that you are using race in a mathematical way creates a major problem under Bakke (Affirmative Action case: if you want to use race, it has to be holistic). Race is the strongest basis for a challenge based on the strength of the claim AND the level of scrutiny (race gets you to strict scrutiny, the others don't).
Sexual-orientation discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
Fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause.
Racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
Sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
No facts showing subjective motive to discriminate on the basis of race, no facial discrimination on the basis of race. No gerrymandering style claim either. Even when the government acts as an employer, it is subject to the limitations of the Equal Protection Clause (no market-place participant style exception).
Substantive Due Process is the way that we identify fundamental rights (right to vote is the only fundamental right that we need to know under EP analysis - everything else we have put under SDP). The Fifth amendment limits the federal government, 14th amendment has the due process clause that restricts state action.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Substantive Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment
The Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
Substantive Due Process under the Fifth Amendment
Not a Bill of Attainder problem because the legislature isn't imposing the punishment and the law is general.
The Ex Post Facto Clause (in Article I, Section 10)
The Bill of Attainder Clause (in Article I, Section 10).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The default is rational basis - conceivable factual basis and a rational connection, we aren't asking why the legislature passed the bill (no subjective motive analysis unless we are dealing with a suspect classification under Equal Protection). The DPC applies to economic regulations, it just applies rational-basis review.
Yes, because there are conceivable facts that support the need for licensing.
No, because the Act impairs the right to work.
Yes, because the Due Process Clause does not apply to economic regulations.
No, so long as the court concludes that a motivating factor in the decision was an effort to insulate certain businesses from competition.
When approaching a question like this (combining a bunch of features of § 5 authority), approach the issues separately:
Is there a state action problem?
if not, is there Morrison problem (is the government creating a private remedy against a private individual or a public remedy against a private individual like a federal criminal law that would ban some private individual from doing something)
Or is there a congruency/proportionality problem?
Congress does not have unlimited discretion with the means it chooses. The key problem in Morrison was that the remedy ran against the private actor (it wasn't corrective in the courts view - not aimed at the state actor who was violating the constitution). Here, the man is authorized to sue the zoning board, the remedy is running against the government agency.
Yes, because so long as Congress has determined that states are violating § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it may chooses any means that will prevent the violation from occurring tin the first place.
No, because Congress has provided an alternative venue for claims that would ordinarily be filed and litigated in state court.
Yes, because Congress has determined that state zoning decisions are often unconstitutionally discriminatory, and because the means chosen to correct these violations is within Congress's § 5 enforcement authority.
No, because it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause to discriminate against sexual minorities.
The government is allowed to discriminate in order to try to engage in some political gerrymandering because there is no justiciable way for the courts to administer a rule against it. The number of residents in the district is non-responsive to the argument that this is a racial gerrymander - it would survive a one-person one-vote claim but its irrelevant to the racial gerrymandering claim.
The reason for drawing the lines in this way was to favor minorities by giving minority communities a greater opportunity to elect a representative from that minority group.
The reason for drawing the lines in this way was to isolate as many Democratic voters as possible, not to isolate minority voters.
The districting lines are constitutional because the challenged district has the same number of residents as surrounding districts.
Gerrymandering claims are not justiciable.
Undue burden analysis is focused on abortion - even if we had a choice between an undue burden test and an ordinary fundamentals rights claim, you want to bing the fundamental rights claim because that gets you to strict scrutiny as opposed to a permissive balancing test. You want to frame your claim in general terms.
As a violation of the fundamental right of businesses to contract with their customers.
As an interference with the fundamental right of sexual autonomy.
As an interference with the fundamental right to purchase a vibrator.
As an undue burden on the fundamental right of sexual autonomy.
Gender discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny (important or substantial governmental interest/narrowly tailored)
No, because Lauer had a gender-neutral objective -- namely, helping the city avoid the payment of legal fees from future lawsuits.
No, because Lauer -- a local official -- was not a "state actor."
Yes, because Lauer discriminated on the basis of sex/gender, and his actions were not the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling governmental interest.
Yes, because Lauer discriminated on the basis of sex-gender, and his actions were not narrowly tailored to a substantial government interest.
Yes, because the man was engaging in sex/gender discrimination, and the police officer is a state actor.
No, because the facts demonstrate that drunkenness, not sex/gender discrimination, was the predominant factor for the mans conduct.
Yes, because the man was engaging in sex/gender discrimination, and bars are places of public accommodation.
No, because there was no "state action."
The state is allowed to have a 10% variance with respect to state district lines (state representatives).
Yes, because the legislature has violated the "one-person, one-vote" rule.
No, because the state has not violated the "one-person, one-vote" rule.
Yes, because the state lacks a compelling justification for creating districts with different populations.
No, because the case involves a political question.
This statute is similar to waiting periods that the court has upheld (Casey). The right to an abortion is no an anti-discrimination right, state governments have been allowed to discriminate against having an abortion so long as it doesn't place an undue burden on the woman. If she is still free to make the ultimate decision (can incentivize her to not abort) then there is no undue burden.
Yes, because the SKA survives strict scrutiny in light of the fact that preservation of life is a compelling interest.
Yes, because the SKA does not impose an undue burden on the woman's right.
No, because the SKA's 24-hour waiting period imposes an undue burden.
No, because the SKA explicitly states that its purpose tis to encourage women to choose not to abort the pregnancy.
Apple App Storeで表示するTopgradeアプリを選択します。