This publication supplements Senate Document 103–6, The Constitution of the United

States of America: Analysis and Interpretation—it should be inserted

in the pocket on the inside back cover of that volume

104TH CONGRESS DOCUMENT " SENATE ! 2d Session No. 104–14

THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

1996 SUPPLEMENT

ANALYSIS OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO JULY 1, 1996

PREPARED BY THE

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

JOHNNY H. KILLIAN

GEORGE A. COSTELLO

KENNETH R. THOMAS

EDITORS

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

22–725 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
1

1 116 S. Ct. 1737 (1996). The decision was unanimous in result, but there were

several concurrences reflecting some differences among the Justices. 2 10 U.S.C. §§ 918(1), (4).

3The Court assumed the applicability of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238

(1972), and its progeny, to the military, 116 S. Ct. at 1742, a point on which Justice

Thomas disagreed, id. at 1753. 4 Rule for Courts-Martial; see 116 S. Ct. at 1740, 1741–42.

5 10 U.S.C. §§ 818, 836(a), 856.

6 116 S. Ct. at 1750–51.

ARTICLE I

Delegation

[P. 78, add to text following n.79:]

The infirm state of the nondelegation doctrine was demonstrated further in Loving v. United States. 1 Article 118 of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 2 provides for the death

penalty for premedicated murder and felony murder for persons

subject to the Act, but the statute does not comport with the

Court’s capital punishment jurisprudence, which requires the death

sentence to be cabined by standards so that the sentencing authority is constrained to narrow the class of convicted persons to be so

sentenced and to justify the individual imposition of the sentence. 3

However, the President in 1984 had promulgated standards that

purported to supply the constitutional validity the UCMJ needed. 4

The Court held that Congress could delegate to the President

the authority to prescribe standards for the imposition of the death

penalty—Congress’ power under Article I, § 8, cl. 14, is not exclusive—and that Congress had done so in the UCMJ by providing

that the punishment imposed by a court-martial may not exceed

‘‘such limits as the President may prescribe.’’ 5 Acknowledging that

a delegation must contain some ‘‘intelligible principle’’ to guide the

recipient of the delegation, the Court nonetheless held this not to

be true when the delegation was made to the President in his role

as Commander-in-Chief. ‘‘The same limitations on delegation do

not apply’’ if the entity authorized to exercise delegated authority

itself possesses independent authority over the subject matter. The

President’s responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief require him to

superintend the military, including the courts-martial, and thus

the delegated duty is interlinked with duties already assigned the

President by the Constitution. 6

In the course of the opinion, the Court distinguished between

its usual separation-of-powers doctrine—emphasizing arrogation of

power by a branch and impairment of another branch’s ability to

carry out its functions—and the delegation doctrine, ‘‘another
2 ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

7 Id. at 1743–44.

8 514 U.S. 779 (1995). The majority was composed of Justice Stevens (writing

the opinion of the Court) and Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Dissenting were Justice Thomas (writing the opinion) and Chief Justice Rehnquist and

Justices O’Connor and Scalia. Id. at 845. 9 Article I, § 2, cl. 2, provides that a person may qualify as a Representative if

she is at least 25 years old, has been a United States citizen for at least 7 years,

and is an inhabitant, at the time of the election, of the State in which she is chosen.

The qualifications established for Senators, Article I, § 3, cl. 3, are an age of 30

years, nine years citizenship, and an inhabitant of the State. 10See Sullivan, Dueling Sovereignties: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 109

HARV. L. REV. 78 (1995).

branch of our separation of powers jurisdiction,’’ which is informed

not by the arrogation and impairment analyses but solely by the

provision of standards, 7 thus confirming what has long been evident that the delegation doctrine is unmoored to separation-of-powers principles altogether.

Qualifications of Members of Congress

[P. 111, add to n.297:]

Powell’s continuing validity was affirmed in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton,

514 U.S. 779 (1995), both by the Court in its holding that the qualifications set out

in the Constitution are exclusive and may not be added to by either Congress or

the States, id. at 787–98, and by the dissent, who would hold that Congress, for different reasons, could not add to qualifications, although the States could. Id. at 875–

76.

[P. 114, add to text following n.312:]

The long-debated issue whether the States could add to the

qualifications that the Constitution prescribed for Senators and

Representations was finally resolved, by a surprisingly close vote,

in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. 8 Arkansas, along with twenty-two other States, all but two by citizen initiatives, had imposed

maximum numbers of terms that Members of Congress could serve.

In this case, the Court held that the Constitution’s qualifications

clauses 9 establish exclusive qualifications for Members that may

not be added to either by Congress or the States. The four-Justice

dissent argued that while Congress had no power to increase qualifications, the States did.

Richly embellished with disputatious arguments about the text

of the Constitution, the history of its drafting and ratification, and

the practices of Congress and the States in the early years of the

United States, the actual determination of the Court as controverted by the dissent was much more over founding principles

than more ordinary constitutional interpretation. 10

Thus, the Court and the dissent drew different conclusions

from the text of the qualifications clauses and the other clauses re-
ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 3

11 514 U.S. at 848 (Justice Thomas dissenting). See generally id. at 846–65. 12 Id. at 802. 13 Id. at 798–805. And see id. at 838–45 (Justice Kennedy concurring).

specting the elections of Members of Congress; the Court and the

dissent reached different conclusions after a minute examination of

the records of the Convention respecting the drafting of these

clauses and the ratification debates; and the Court and the dissent

were far apart on the meaning of the practices in the States in legislating qualifications and election laws and in Congress in deciding election contests based on qualifications disputes.

A default principle relied on by both Court and dissent, given

the arguments drawn from text, creation, and practice, had to do

with the fundamental principle at the foundation of the Constitution’s founding. In the dissent’s view, the Constitution was the result of the resolution of the peoples of the separate States to create

the National Government. The conclusion to be drawn from this

was that the peoples in the States agreed to surrender powers expressly forbidden them and to surrender those limited powers that

they had delegated to the Federal Government expressly or by necessary implication. They retained all other powers and still retained them. Thus, ‘‘where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power—that is, where the Constitution does

not speak either expressly or by necessary implication—the Federal

Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.’’ 11 The constitution’s silence about the States being limited meant that the

States could legislate additional qualifications.

Radically different were the views of the majority of the Court.

After the adoption of the Constitution, the States had two kinds of

powers: powers that they had before the founding and that were reserved to them. The States could have no reserved powers with respect to the Federal Government. ‘‘As Justice Story recognized, ‘the

states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring

out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution does not delegate to them. . . . No state can say, that it has

reserved, what it never possessed.’ ’’ 12 The States could not before

the founding have possessed powers to legislate respecting the Federal Government, and since the Constitution did not delegate to the

States the power to prescribe qualifications for Members of Congress, the States did not have it. 13

Evidently, the opinions in this case reflect more than a decision on this particular dispute. They rather represent conflicting

philosophies within the Court respecting the scope of national

power in the context of the States, an issue at the core of many

controversies today.
4 ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

14 Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). 15 United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The Court was divided 5-to–4,

with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices

O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, with dissents by Justices Stevens, Souter,

Breyer, and Ginsburg. 16 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). Congress subsequently amended the section to make

the offense jurisdictionally turn on possession of ‘‘a firearm that has moved in or

that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.’’ Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat.

3009–370. 17 514 U.S. at 556–57, 559. 18 Id. at 558–59. 19 Id. at 559.

[P. 115, add to n.317:]

Another census controversy was resolved in Wisconsin v. City of New York, 116

S. Ct. 1091 (1996), in which the Court held that the decision of the Secretary of

Commerce not to conduct a post-enumeration survey and statistical adjustment for

an undercount in the 1990 Census was reasonable and within the bounds of discretion conferred by the Constitution and statute.

Commerce Clause

[P. 207, add to text following n.820:]

For the first time in almost sixty years, 14 the Court invalidated a federal law as exceeding Congress’ authority under the

commerce clause. 15 The statute was a provision making it a federal

offense to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. 16 The

Court reviewed the doctrinal development of the commerce clause,

especially the effects and aggregation tests, and reaffirmed that it

is the Court’s responsibility to decide whether a rational basis exists for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affects

interstate commerce when a law is challenged. 17 The Court identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate

under its commerce power. ‘‘First, Congress may regulate the use

of the channels of interstate commerce. . . . Second, Congress is

empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even

though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. . . . Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate

those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate

commerce.’’ 18

Clearly, said the Court, the criminalized activity did not implicate the first two categories. 19 As for the third, the Court found an

insufficient connection. First, a wide variety of regulations of

‘‘intrastate economic activity’’ has been sustained where an activity

substantially affects interstate commerce. But the statute being

challenged, the Court continued, was a criminal law that had nothing to do with ‘‘commerce’’ or with ‘‘any sort of economic enter-
ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 5

20 Id. at 559–61. 21 Id. at 561. 22 Id. at 563–68. 23 Id. at 564. 24 ‘‘Not every epochal case has come in epochal trappings.’’ Id. at 615 (Justice

Souter dissenting) (wondering whether the case is only a misapplication of established standards or is a veering in a new direction). 25 Id. at 584–602 (Justice Thomas concurring).

prise.’’ Therefore, it could not be sustained under precedents ‘‘upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected

with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.’’ 20 The provision did not

contain a ‘‘jurisdictional element which would ensure, through

case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects

interstate commerce.’’ 21 The existence of such a section, the Court

implied, would have saved the constitutionality of the provision by

requiring a showing of some connection to commerce in each particular case. Finally, the Court rejected the arguments of the Government and of the dissent that there existed a sufficient connection between the offense and interstate commerce. 22 At base, the

Court’s concern was that accepting the attenuated connection arguments presented would result in the evisceration of federalism.

‘‘Under the theories that the Government presents . . . it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas

such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by

an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.’’ 23

Whether this decision bespeaks a Court determination to police

more closely Congress’ exercise of its commerce power, so that it

would be a noteworthy case, 24 or whether it is rather a ‘‘warning

shot’’ across the bow of Congress, urging more restraint in the exercise of power or more care in the drafting of laws is unclear. Obviously, Justice Thomas would undo much of modern commerceclause jurisprudence. He writes that the substantial-effects test in

conjunction with the aggregation principle betrays the intent of the

Framers and confers a ‘‘police power’’ on Congress that it should

not, indeed, does not, have. He argues that the Court in a future

case should undo what it has done. 25 On the other hand, Justice

Kennedy, with whom Justice O’Connor joined, argued that the

Court should generally not upset the stability of commerce-clause

jurisprudence and should not erode the ‘‘essential principles now in

place respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of

a commercial nature.’’ But, when a congressional enactment upsets

the federal balance by extending federal power into areas ‘‘to which
6 ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

26 Id. at 568–83 (Justice Kennedy concurring). 27For a striking example, in the same Term as Lopez, see Allied-Bruce

Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). 28 Indeed, there seemed to be a precedent squarely on point. Central Greyhound

Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653 (1948). Struck down in that case was a state

statute that failed to apportion its taxation of interstate bus ticket sales to reflect

the distance traveled within the State.

States lay claim by right of history and expertise,’’ he would have

the Court intervene. 26

Thus, it seems unlikely that the Court, as now constituted, will

retreat from much of the existing law in this area, but it may well

be that, outside the area of economic regulation, 27 the Court will

exert a restraining hand to legislation such as that federalizing

much state criminal law enforcement.

Dormant Commerce Clause—State Regulation and Taxation

[Pp. 215–16, add to n.864:]

Itel Containers Int’l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60, 78 (1993) (Justice Scalia

concurring) (reiterating view); Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514

U.S. 175, 200–01 (1995) (Justice Scalia, with Justice Thomas joining) (same).

[P. 223, add to n.907:]

Notice the Court’s distinguishing of Central Greyhound in Oklahoma Tax

Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175, 188–91 (1995).

[P. 227, add to n.928:]

And see C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 391 (1994)

(discrimination against interstate commerce not preserved because local businesses

also suffer).

[P. 227, add to n.930:]

For the most recent case in this saga, see West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy,

512 U.S. 186 (1994).

[P. 229, add to n.941:]

A recent application of the four-part Complete Auto Transit test is Oklahoma

Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (1995).

[P. 232, add to text following n.959:]

A deference to state taxing authority was evident in a case in

which the Court sustained a state sales tax on the price of a bus

ticket for travel that originated in the State but terminated in another State. The tax was unapportioned to reflect the intrastate

travel and the interstate travel. 28 The tax in this case was different, the Court held. The previous tax constituted a levy on gross

receipts, payable by the seller, whereas the present tax was a sales
ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 7

29Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (1995). Indeed,

the Court analogized the tax to that in Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989), a

tax on interstate telephone services that originated in or terminated in the State

and that were billed to an in-state address. 30Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 116 S. Ct. 848 (1996). The State had defended on

the basis that the tax was a ‘‘compensatory’’ one designed to make interstate commerce bear a burden already borne by intrastate commerce. The Court recognized

the legitimacy of the defense, but it found the tax to meet none of the three criteria

for classification as a valid compensatory tax. Id. at 855–60. 31See also Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Quality, 511

U.S. 93 (1994) (discriminatory tax). 32 C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994).

tax, also assessed on gross receipts, but payable by the buyer. The

Oklahoma tax, the Court continued, was internally consistent,

since if every State imposed a tax on ticket sales within the State

for travel originating there, no sale would be subject to more than

one tax. The tax was also externally consistent, the Court held, because it was a tax on the sale of a service that took place in the

State, not a tax on the travel. 29

However, the Court found discriminatory and thus invalid a

state intangibles tax on a fraction of the value of corporate stock

owned by state residents inversely proportional to the corporation’s

exposure to the state income tax. 30

[P. 232, add to n.961:]

And see Oregon Waste Systems v. Department of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S. 93

(1994) (surcharge on in-state disposal of solid wastes that discriminates against

companies disposing of waste generated in other States invalid).

[P. 236, add to n.978:]

In West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994), the Court held

invalidly discriminatory against interstate commerce a state milk pricing order,

which imposed an assessment on all milk sold by dealers to in-state retailers, the

entire assessment being distributed to in-state dairy farmers despite the fact that

about two-thirds of the assessed milk was produced out of State. The avowed purpose and undisputed effect of the provision was to enable higher-cost in-state dairy

farmers to compete with lower-cost dairy farmers in other States.

[P. 236, add to text following n.980:]

Further extending the limitation of the clause on waste disposal, 31 the Court invalidated as a discrimination against interstate commerce a local ‘‘flow control’’ law, which required all solid

waste within the town to be processed at a designated transfer station before leaving the municipality. 32 The town’s reason for the

restriction was its decision to have built a solid waste transfer station by a private contractor, rather than with public funds by the

town. To make the arrangement appetizing to the contractor, the

town guaranteed it a minimum waste flow, for which it could

charge a fee significantly higher than market rates. The guarantee
8 ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

33See The Supreme Court, Leading Cases, 1993 Term, 108 HARV. L. REV. 139,

149–59 (1994). Weight was given to this consideration by Justice O’Connor, 511 U.S.

at 401 (concurring) (local law an excessive burden on interstate commerce), and by

Justice Souter, id. at 410 (dissenting). 34 512 U.S. 298 (1994).

was policed by the requirement that all solid waste generated within the town be processed at the contractor’s station and that any

person disposing of solid waste in any other location would be penalized.

The Court analogized the constraint as a form of economic protectionism, which bars out-of-state processors from the business of

treating the localities solid waste, by hoarding a local resource for

the benefit of local businesses that perform the service. The town’s

goal of revenue generation was not a local interest that could justify the discrimination. Moreover, the town had other means to accomplish this goal, such as subsidization of the local facility

through general taxes or municipal bonds. The Court did not deal

with, indeed, did not notice, the fact that the local law conferred

a governmentally-granted monopoly, an exclusive franchise, indistinguishable from a host of local monopolies at the state and local

level. 33

[P. 241, add to n.1001:]

See also Itel Containers Int’l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60 (1993) (sustaining state sales tax as applied to lease of containers delivered within the State and

used in foreign commerce).

[P. 242, add to text following n.1004:]

Extending Container Corp., the Court in Barclays Bank v.

Franchise Tax Bd. of California, 34 upheld the State’s worldwidecombined reporting method of determining the corporate franchise

tax owed by unitary multinational corporations, as applied to a foreign corporation. The Court determined that the tax easily satisfied

three of the four-part Complete Auto test—nexus, apportionment,

and relation to State’s services—and concluded that the nondiscrimination principle—perhaps violated by the letter of the

law—could be met by the discretion accorded state officials. As for

the two additional factors, as outlined in Japan Lines, the Court

pronounced itself satisfied. Multiple taxation was not the inevitable

result of the tax, and that risk would not be avoided by the use of

any reasonable alternative. The tax, it was found, did not impair

federal uniformity nor prevent the Federal Government from

speaking with one voice in international trade. The result of the

case is that foreign corporations have less protection under the neg-
ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 9

35The Supreme Court, Leading Cases, 1993 Term, 108 HARV. L. REV. 139, 139–

49 (1993). 36 116 S. Ct. 2240 (1996). See also CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507

U.S. 658 (1993) (under Federal Railroad Safety Act, a state common-law claim alleging negligence for operating a train at excessive speed is preempted, but a second

claim alleging negligence for failure to maintain adequate warning devices at a

grade crossing is not preempted). 37 21 U.S.C. § 350k(a).

ative commerce clause, perhaps intentionally for a variety of reasons. 35

Preemption

[P. 247, add to n.1026, immediately preceding City of New York v.

FCC:]

Smiley v. Citibank, 116 S. Ct. 1730 (1996).

[P. 247, add to n.1027:]

And see Department of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993).

[P. 247, add to n.1029:]

See also American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).

[P. 248, add to n.1032:]

District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992)

(law requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage, equivalent to existing coverage, for workers receiving workers’ compensation benefits); John Hancock

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust and Savings Bank, 510 U.S. 86 (1993) (ERISA’s

fiduciary standards, not conflicting state insurance laws, apply to insurance company’s handling of general account assets derived from participating group annuity

contract); New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins.

Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995) (no preemption of statute that required hospitals to collect

surcharges from patients covered by a commercial insurer but not from patients covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan).

[P. 249, add to text following n.1035:]

No clarification of the confusing Cipollone decision and opinions resulted in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr. 36 The Medical Device

Amendments (MDA) of 1976 prohibits States from adopting or continuing in effect ‘‘with respect to a [medical] device’’ any ‘‘requirement’’ that is ‘‘different from, or in addition to’’ the applicable federal requirement and that relates to the safety or effectiveness of

the device. 37 The issue, then, was whether a common-law tort obligation imposed a ‘‘requirement’’ that was different from or in addition to any federal requirement. The device, a pacemaker lead, had

come on the market not pursuant to the rigorous FDA test but

rather as determined by the FDA to be ‘‘substantially equivalent’’
10 ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

38The dissent, by Justice O’Connor and three others, would have held preempted the latter claims, 116 S. Ct. at 2262, whereas Justice Breyer thought that

common-law claims would sometimes be preempted, but not here. Id. at 2259 (concurring).

to a device previously on the market, a situation of some import

to at least some of the Justices.

Unanimously, the Court determined that a defective design

claim was not preempted and that the MDA did not prevent States

from providing a damages remedy for violation of common-law duties that paralleled federal requirements. But the Justices split 4–

1–4 with respect to preemption of various claims relating to manufacturing and labeling. FDA regulations, which a majority deferred

to, limited preemption to situations in which a particular state requirement threatens to interfere with a specific federal interest.

Moreover, the common-law standards were not specifically developed to govern medical devices and their generality removed them

from the category of requirements ‘‘with respect to’’ specific devices.

However, five Justices did agree that common-law requirements

could be, just as statutory provisions, ‘‘requirements’’ that were

preempted, though they did not agree on the application of that

view. 38

[P. 252, add to n.1050 before Free v. Brand:]

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (federal arbitration

law preempts state law invalidating predispute arbitration agreements that were

not entered into in contemplation of substantial interstate activity); Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 116 S. Ct. 1652 (1996) (federal arbitration law preempts

state statute that conditioned enforceability of arbitration clause on compliance with

special notice requirement).

[P. 252, add to n.1054:]

See also Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, 116 S. Ct. 1103 (1996) (federal law empowering national banks in small towns to sell insurance preempts state

law prohibiting banks from dealing in insurance; despite explicit preemption provision, state law stands as an obstacle to accomplishment of federal purpose).

[P. 255, add to n.1069, immediately following Bethlehem Steel:]

See also Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) (finding preempted because

it stood as an obstacle to the achievement of the purposes of NLRA a practice of

a state labor commissioner).

[P. 263, add to n.1114:]

For recent tax controversies, see Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation,

508 U.S. 114 (1993); Department of Taxation & Finance v. Milhelm Attea & Bros.,

512 U.S. 61 (1994); Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 115 S. Ct. 2214

(1995).
ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 11

39 116 S. Ct. 1793 (1996). 40 Article I, § 10, cl. 2, applying to the States.

[P. 263, add to n.1117, immediately following Brendale discussion:]

And see Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994).

[P. 264, add to n.1119:]

See South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) (abrogation of Indian treaty

rights and reduction of sovereignty).

Aliens

[P. 276, add to n.1199:]

See Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) (construing statutes

and treaty provisions restrictively to affirm presidential power to interdict and seize

fleeing aliens on high seas to prevent them from entering U.S. waters).

[P. 281, add to n.1232:]

In Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993), the Court upheld an INS regulation providing for the ongoing detention of juveniles apprehended on suspicion of being deportable, unless parents, close relatives, or legal guardians were available to accept

release, as against a substantive due process attack.

Copyrights and Patents

[P. 297, add to n.1353:]

In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996), the Court

held that the interpretation of terms in a patent claim is a matter of law reserved

entirely for the court. The Seventh Amendment does not require that such issues

be tried to a jury.

[P. 298, add to n.1359:]

For fair use in the context of a song parody, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,

Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

The War Power

[P. 316, add to n.1465:]

See Loving v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1737 (1996) (in context of the death penalty under the UCMJ).

Taxes on Exports

[P. 356, add to text following n.1775:]

In United States v. IBM Corp., 39 the Court declined the Government’s argument that it should refine its export-tax-clause jurisprudence. Rather than read the clause as a bar on any tax that

applies to a good in the export stream, the Government contended

that the Court should bring this clause in line with the import-export clause 40 and with dormant-commerce-clause doctrine. In that
12 ARTICLE I—LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

view, the Court should distinguish between discriminatory and

nondiscriminatory taxes on exports. But the Court held that sufficient differences existed between the export clause and the other

two clauses, so that its bar should continue to apply to any and all

taxes on goods in the course of exportation.

[P. 356, add to n.1778:]

In United States v. IBM Corp., 116 S. Ct. 1793 (1996), the Court adhered to

Thames & Mercy, and held unconstitutional a federal excise tax upon insurance

policies issued by foreign countries as applied to coverage for exported products. The

Court admitted that one could question the earlier case’s conflating of a tax on the

insurance of exported goods as the same as a tax on the goods themselves, but it

observed that the Government had chosen not to present that argument. Principles

of stare decisis thus cautioned observance of the earlier case. Id. at 1800–01. The

dissenters argued that the issue had been presented and should be decided by overruling the earlier case. Id. at 1804 (Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg dissenting).

Ex Post Facto Laws

[P. 364, add to n.1829:]

But see California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995) (a law

amending parole procedures to decrease frequency of parole-suitability hearings is

not ex post facto as applied to prisoners who committed offenses before enactment).

The opinion modifies previous opinions that had held impermissible some laws because they operated to the disadvantage of covered offenders. Henceforth, ‘‘the focus

of ex post facto inquiry is . . . whether any such change alters the definition of

criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable.’’ Id. at

506 n.3.

Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports

[P. 400, add to n.2020:]

See also Itel Containers Int’l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60, 76–8 (1993). And

see id. at 81–2 (Justice Scalia concurring).
13

1Memorandum for John Schmidt, Associate Attorney General, from Assistant

Attorney General Walter Dellinger, Constitutional Limitations on Federal Government Participation in Binding Arbitration (Sept. 7, 1995); Memorandum for the

General Counsels of the Federal Government, from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President and

Congress (May 7, 1996). The principles laid down in the memoranda depart significantly from previous positions of the Department of Justice. For conflicting versions

of the two approaches, see Constitutional Implications of the Chemical Weapons

Convention, Hearings Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996), 11–26, 107–10

(Professor John C. Woo), 80–106 (Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard L.

Shiffrin).

ARTICLE II

Executive Power

[P. 420, add to n.34:]

In Loving v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1737 (1996), the Court recurred to the

original setting of Curtiss-Wright, a delegation to the President without standards.

Congress, the Court found, had delegated to the President authority to structure the

death penalty provisions of military law so as to bring the procedures, relating to

aggravating and mitigating factors, into line with constitutional requirements, but

Congress had provided no standards to guide the presidential exercise of the authority. Standards were not required, held the Court, because his role as Commanderin-Chief gave him responsibility to superintend the military establishment and Congress and the President had interlinked authorities with respect to the military.

Where the entity exercising the delegated authority itself possesses independent authority over the subject matter, the familiar limitations on delegation do not apply.

Id. at 1750–51.

Separation of Powers

[P. 422, add to text following n.45:]

Significant change in the position of the Executive Branch respecting its position on separation of powers may be discerned in

two briefs of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel,

which may spell some measure of judicial modification of the formalist doctrine of separation and adoption of the functionalist approach to the doctrine. 1 The two opinions withdraw from the contention of the Department of Justice, following Buckley v. Valeo,

that the execution of the laws is an executive function that may be

carried out only by persons appointed pursuant to the appointments clause, thus precluding delegations to state and local officers

and to private parties (as in qui tam actions), as well as to glosses

on the take care clause and other provisions of the Constitution.

Whether these memoranda signal long-term change depends on

several factors, importantly on whether they are adhered to by subsequent administrations.
14 ARTICLE II—EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

2Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994).

3 Id. at 472.

4See The Supreme Court, Leading Cases, 1993 Term, 108 HARV. L. REV. 139,

300–10 (1994). 5 ‘‘As a matter of constitutional logic, the executive branch must have some warrant, either statutory or constitutional, for its actions. The source of all federal governmental authority is the Constitution and, because the Constitution contemplates

that Congress may delegate a measure of its power to officials in the executive

branch, statutes. The principle of separation of powers is a direct consequence of

this scheme. Absent statutory authorization, it is unlawful for the President to exercise the powers of the other branches because the Constitution does not vest those

powers in the President. The absence of statutory authorization is not merely a statutory defect; it is a constitutional defect as well.’’ Id. at 305–06 (footnote citations

omitted).

[P. 425, in text following n.61, add:]

In the course of deciding that the President’s action in approving the closure of a military base, pursuant to statutory authority,

was not subject to judicial review, the Court enunciated a principle

that may mean a great deal, constitutionally speaking, or that may

not mean much of anything. 2 The lower court had held that, while

review of presidential decisions on statutory grounds might be precluded, his decisions were reviewable for constitutionality; in that

court’s view, whenever the President acts in excess of his statutory

authority, he also violates the constitutional separation-of-powers

doctrine. The Supreme Court found this analysis flawed. ‘‘Our

cases do not support the proposition that every action by the President, or by another executive official, in excess of his statutory authority is ipso facto in violation of the Constitution. On the contrary, we have often distinguished between claims of constitutional

violations and claims that an official has acted in excess of his statutory authority.’’ 3 Thus, the Court drew a distinction between executive action undertaken without even the purported warrant of

statutory authorization and executive action in excess of statutory

authority. The former may violate separation of powers, while the

latter will not. 4

Doctrinally, the distinction is important and subject to unfortunate application. 5 Whether the brief, unilluminating discussion in

Dalton will bear fruit in constitutional jurisprudence, however, is

problematic.

Appointment of Officers

[P. 512, add to n.461:]

The designation or appointment of military judges, who are ‘‘officers of the United States,’’ does not violate the appointments clause. The judges are selected by the

Judge Advocate General of their respective branch of the Armed Forces. These military judges, however, were already commissioned officers who had been appointed

by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, so that their designa-
ARTICLE II—EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 15

6 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Nixon at the time of his conviction and removal from office was a federal district judge in Mississippi.

tion simply and permissibly was an assignment to them of additional duties that

did not need a second formal appointment. Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163

(1994). However, the appointment of civilian judges to the Coast Guard Court of

Military Review was impermissible and their actions were not salvageable under

the de facto officer doctrine. Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

[P. 519, add to n.498:]

The Supreme Court held this provision unconstitutional in United States v.

NTEU, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).

Presidential Immunity From Judicial Direction

[P. 579, add to n.723:]

See also, following Franklin, Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994).

[P. 582, add to n.743:]

Following the Westfall decision, Congress enacted the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (the Westfall Act), which authorized

the Attorney General to certify that an employee was acting within the scope of his

office or employment at the time of the incident out of which a suit arose; upon certification, the employee is dismissed from the action, and the United States is substituted, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) then governing the action, which

means that sometimes the action must be dismissed against the Government because the FTCA has not waived sovereign immunity. Cognizant of the temptation

set before the Government to immunize both itself and its employee, the Court in

Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 115 S. Ct. 2227 (1995), held that the Attorney

General’s certification is subject to judicial review.

Impeachment

[P. 591, in text following n.784, add:]

Upon at last reaching the question, the Court has held that a

claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial

in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable question, a ‘‘political question.’’ 6 Specifically, the Could held that a claim that the Senate

had not followed the proper meaning of the word ‘‘try’’ in the impeachment clause, a special committee being appointed to take testimony and to make a report to the full Senate, complete with a

full transcript, on which the Senate acted, could not be reviewed.

But the analysis of the Court applies to all impeachment clause

questions, thus seemingly putting off-limits to judicial review the

whole process.

17

1Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218–19 (1995). The Court was

careful to delineate the difference between attempting to alter a final judgment, one

rendered by a court and either not appealed or affirmed on appeal, and legislatively

amending a statute so as to change the law as it existed at the time a court issued

a decision that was on appeal or otherwise still alive at the time a federal court

reviewed the determination below. A court must apply the law as revised when it

considers the prior interpretation. Id. at 226–27.

Article III creates or authorizes Congress to create not a collection of

unconnected courts, but a judicial department composed of ‘‘inferior courts’’ and ‘‘one

Supreme Court.’’ ‘‘Within that hierarchy, the decision of an inferior court is not (unless the time for appeal has expired) the final word of the department as a whole.’’

Id. at 227.

2 Id. at 227 (emphasis by Court).

ARTICLE III

Judicial Power

[P. 618, add to text following n.126:]

Judicial power confers on federal courts the power to decide a

case, to render a judgment conclusively resolving a case. Judicial

power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, and Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter

final judgments of Article III courts. 1 In this controversy, the

Court had unexpectedly fixed on a shorter statute of limitations to

file certain securities actions than that believed to be the time in

many jurisdictions. Resultantly, several suits that had been filed

later than the determined limitations had been dismissed and had

become final because they were not appealed. Congress enacted a

statute, which, while not changing the limitations period prospectively, retroactively extended the time for suits dismissed and provided for the reopening of the final judgments rendered in the dismissals of suits.

Holding the congressional act invalid, the Court held it impermissible for Congress to disturb a final judgment. ‘‘Having achieved

finality, . . . a judicial decision becomes the last word of the judicial department with regard to a particular case or controversy,

and Congress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the

law applicable to that very case was something other than what the

courts said it was.’’ 2

[P. 620, add to n.140:]

Notice the Court’s discussion in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211,

218, 225–26 (1995).
18 ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

3 512 U.S. 821 (1994).

4 Id. at 832–38. Relevant is the fact that the alleged contempts did not occur

in the presence of the court and that determinations of violations require elaborate

and reliable factfinding. See esp. id. at 837–38. 5 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996).

6P. L. 104–132, §§ 101–08, 110 Stat. 1214, 1217–26, amending, inter alia, 28

U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2253, 2254, 2255, and Fed. R. App. P. 22.

Contempt Power

[P. 622, add to text following n.154:]

In International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 3 the Court formulated a new test for drawing the distinction between civil and

criminal contempts, which has important consequences for the procedural rights to be accorded those cited. Henceforth, the imposition of non-compensatory contempt fines for the violation of any

complex injunction will require criminal proceedings. This case, as

have so many, involved the imposition of large fines (here, $52 million) upon a union in a strike situation for violations of an elaborate court injunction restraining union activity during the strike.

The Court was vague with regard to the standards for determining

when a court order is ‘‘complex’’ and thus requires the protection

of criminal proceedings. 4 Much prior doctrine, however, as in the

distinction between remedial sanctions, which are civil, and punitive, which are criminal, and between in-court and out-of-court

contempts remain.

[P. 631, add to n.195:]

See also International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (refining

the test for when contempt citations are criminal and thus require jury trials).

[P. 631, add to n.196:]

In International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 837 n.5 (1994), the

Court continued to reserve the question of the distinction between petty and serious

contempt fines, because of the size of the fine in that case.

[P. 634, add to n.206:]

See also International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994).

Congressional Control Over Habeas

[P. 639, add to text following n.238:]

In Felker v. Turpin, 5 the Court again passed up the opportunity to delineate Congress’ permissive authority over habeas,

finding that of the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act 6 none did raise questions of constitutional import.
ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 19

7The statute was part of an Omnibus Appropriations Act signed by the President on April 26, 1996. P. L. 104–134, §§ 801–10, 110 Stat. 1321–66–77, amending

18 U.S.C. § 3626. See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 935 F. Supp. 332 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). 8Thus, it appears that had the Court applied its standard in the current case,

the results would have been different in such cases as Linda R. S. v. Richard D.,

410 U.S. 614 (1973); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976); and Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737

(1984).

Congressional Control Over the Injunctive Process

[P. 642, add to text following n.264:]

Perhaps pressing its powers further than prior legislation,

Congress has enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996. 7

Essentially, the law imposes a series of restrictions on judicial remedies in prison-conditions cases. Thus, courts may not issue prospective relief that extends beyond that necessary to correct the

violation of a federal right that they have found, that is narrowly

drawn, is the least intrusive, and that does not give attention to

the adverse impact on public safety. Preliminary injunctive relief is

limited by the same standards. Consent decrees may not be approved unless they are subject to the same conditions, meaning

that the court must conduct a trial and find violations, thus cutting

off consent decrees. If a decree was previously issued without regard to the standards now imposed, the defendant or intervenor is

entitled to move to vacate it. No prospective relief is to last longer

than two years if any party or intervenor so moves. A number of

constitutional challenges can be expected respecting Congress’

power to limit federal judicial authority to remedy constitutional

violations.

Standing

[P. 661, add to text following n.357:]

In a case permitting a plaintiff contractors’ association to challenge an affirmative-action, set-aside program, the Court seemed to

depart from several restrictive standing decisions in which it had

held that the claims of attempted litigants were too ‘‘speculative’’

or too ‘‘contingent.’’ 8 The association had sued, alleging that many

of its members ‘‘regularly bid on and perform construction work’’

for the city and that they would have bid on the set-aside contracts

but for the restrictions. The Court found the association had standing, because certain prior cases under the equal protection clause

established a relevant proposition. ‘‘When the government erects a

barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group to

obtain a benefit than it is for members of another group, a member

of the former group seeking to challenge the barrier need not allege

that he would have obtained the benefit but for the barrier in order
20 ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

9 Northeastern Fla. Ch. of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993). The Court derived the proposition from another set

of cases. Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957

(1982); Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 281 n.14 (1978). 10 508 U.S. at 666. But see, in the context of ripeness, Reno v. Catholic Social

Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993), in which the Court, over the dissent’s reliance

on Jacksonville, id. at 81–2, denied the relevance of its distinction between entitlement to a benefit and equal treatment. Id. at 58 n.19.

to establish standing. The ‘injury in fact’ in an equal protection

case of this variety is the denial of equal treatment resulting from

the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain

the benefit.’’ 9 The association, therefore, established standing by

alleging that its members was able and ready to bid on contracts

but that a discriminatory policy prevented them from doing so on

an equal basis. 10

Declaratory Judgments

[P. 674, add to n.436:]

See also Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995).

Ripeness

[P. 678, add to n.457:]

In the context of the ripeness to challenge of agency regulations, as to which

there is a presumption of available judicial remedies, the Court has long insisted

that federal courts should be reluctant to review such regulations unless the effects

of administrative action challenged have been felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties, i.e., unless the controversy is ‘‘ripe.’’ See, of the older cases, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967); Toilet Goods Ass’n, Inc. v. Gardner, 387

U.S. 158 (1967); Gardner v. Toilet Goods Ass’n, Inc., 387 U.S. 167 (1967). More recent cases include Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993); Lujan

v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990).

Mootness

[P. 679, add to n.462:]

Munsingwear had long stood for the proposition that the appropriate practice

of the Court in a civil case that had become moot while on the way to the Court

or after certiorari had been granted was to vacate or reverse and remand with directions to dismiss. But, in U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership,

513 U.S. 18 (1994), the Court held that when mootness occurs because the parties

have reached a settlement, vacatur of the judgment below is ordinarily not the best

practice; instead, equitable principles should be applied so as to preserve a presumptively correct and valuable precedent, unless a court concludes that the public interest would be served by vacatur.

[PP. 679–80, add to n.463:]

Consider the impact of Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83

(1993).
ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 21

11 509 U.S. 86 (1993).

12 Id. at 97. While the conditional language in this passage might suggest that

the Court was leaving open the possibility that in some cases it might rule purely

prospectively, not even applying its decision to the parties before it, other language

belies that possibility. ‘‘This rule extends Griffith’s ban against ‘‘‘selective application of new rules.’’’ [Citing 479 U.S. at 323]. Inasmuch as Griffith rested in part on

the principle that ‘‘the nature of judicial review requires that [the Court] adjudicate

specific cases,’’ Griffith, 479 U.S. at 322, deriving from Article III’s case or controversy requirement for federal courts and forbidding federal courts from acting

legislatively, the ‘‘Court has no more constitutional authority in civil cases than in

criminal cases to disregard current law or to treat similarly situated litigants differently.’’ 509 U.S. at 97 (quoting American Trucking, 496 U.S. at 214 (Justice Stevens dissenting)). The point is made more clearly in Justice Scalia’s concurrence, in

which he denounces all forms of nonretroactivity as ‘‘the handmaid of judicial activism.’’ Id. at 105.

13 Id. at 110 (Justice Kennedy, with Justice White, concurring); 113 (Justice

O’Connor, with Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissenting). However, these Justices disagreed in this case about the proper application of Chevron Oil.

14 But see Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749 (1995) (setting aside

a state court refusal to give retroactive effect to a U. S. Supreme Court invalidation

of that State’s statute of limitations in certain suits, in an opinion by Justice Breyer,

Justice Blackmun’s successor); Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 184–85 (1995)

(‘‘whatever the continuing validity of Chevron Oil after’’ Harper and Reynoldsville

Casket).

[P. 680, add to n.466:]

Following Aladdin’s Castle, the Court in Northeastern Fla. Ch. of the Associated

Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 660–63 (1993), held that

when a municipal ordinance is repealed but replaced by one sufficiently similar so

that the challenged action in effect continues, the case is not moot. But see id. at

669 (Justice O’Connor dissenting) (modification of ordinance more significant and

case is mooted).

Retroactivity of Judicial Decisions

[P. 687, add to text following n.509:]

Apparently, the Court now has resolved this dispute, although

the principal decision is a close five-to-four result. In Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 11 the Court adopted the principle of the

Griffith decision in criminal cases and disregarded the Chevron Oil

approach in civil cases. Henceforth, in civil cases, the rule is:

‘‘When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before

it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and

must be given full retroactive effect in all cases open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule.’’ 12 Four Justices

continued to adhere to Chevron Oil, however, 13 so that with one

Justice each retired from the different sides one may not regard

the issue as definitively settled. 14
22 ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

15 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). The Court pronounced its decision as perfectly consonant with Powell v. McCormack. Id. at 236–38.

Political Questions

[P. 696, add to text following n.569:]

A challenge to the Senate’s interpretation of and exercise of its

impeachment powers was held to be nonjusticiable; there was a

textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to the Senate, and

there was a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue. 15

Judicial Review—Stare Decisis

[P. 712, add to n.639:]

Recent discussions of and both applications of and refusals to apply stare decisis

may be found in United States v. IBM Corp., 116 S. Ct. 1793, 1800–01 (1996) (noting principles of following precedent and declining to consider overturning an old

precedent when parties have not advanced arguments on the point), with which

compare id. at 1804 (Justice Kennedy dissenting) (arguing that the United States

had presented the point and that the old case ought to be overturned); Adarand

Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 231–35 (1996) (plurality opinion) (discussing stare decisis, citing past instances of overrulings, and overruling 1990 decision),

with which compare the dissents, id. at 242, 264, 271; Seminole Tribe of Florida v.

Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1127–32 (1996) (discussing policy of stare decisis, why it

should not be followed with respect to a 1989 decision, and overruling that precedent), with which compare the dissents, id. at 1133, 1145. Justices Scalia and Thomas have argued for various departures from precedent. E.g., Oklahoma Tax Comm’n

v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175, 200–01 (1995) (Justice Scalia concurring) (negative commerce jurisprudence); Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 116

S. Ct. 2309, 2323 (1996) (Justice Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part)

(rejecting framework of Buckley v. Valeo and calling for overruling of part of case).

Compare id. at 2321 (Court notes those issues not raised or argued).

Federal Question Jurisdiction

P. 721, add to n.702:]

See also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Peacock v.

Thomas, 116 S. Ct. 862 (1996) (both cases using the new vernacular of ‘‘ancillary

jurisdiction’’).

Admiralty

[P. 734, add to n.780:]

And see Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995), a tort

claim arising out of damages allegedly caused by negligently driving piles from a

barge into the riverbed, which weakened a freight tunnel that allowed flooding of

the tunnel and the basements of numerous buildings along the Chicago River, the

Court found that admiralty jurisdiction could be invoked. The location test was satisfied, because the barge, even though fastened to the river bottom, was a ‘‘vessel’’

for admiralty tort purposes; the two-part connection test was also satisfied, inasmuch as the incident had a potential to disrupt maritime commerce and the conduct
ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 23

16Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 2211 (1996). The decision

was five-to-four, so that the precedent may or may not be stable for future application.17 E.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945).

giving rise to the incident had a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.

United States as a Party

[P. 743, add to n.842:]

But, in Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 116 S. Ct. 619 (1996), a case involving

a death in territorial waters from a jet ski accident, the Court held that Moragne

does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases involving the death in territorial waters of a ‘‘nonseafarer’’ - a person who is neither a seaman covered by the Jones

Act nor a longshore worker covered by the LHWCA.

[P. 747, add to n.863:]

See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FSLIC’s ‘‘sue-and-be-sued’’ clause

waives sovereign immunity; but a Bivens implied cause of action for constitutional

torts cannot be used directly against FSLIC).

Suits Between States

[P. 755, add to n.909:]

But in Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S. 73 (1992), the Court’s reluctance to

exercise original jurisdiction ran afoul of the ‘‘uncompromising language’’ of 28

U.S.C. § 1251(a) giving the Court ‘‘original and exclusive jurisdiction’’ of these kinds

of suits.

Diversity of Citizenship

[P. 772, add to text following n.1013:]

Some confusion has been injected into consideration of which

law to apply—state or federal—in the absence of a federal statute

or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. 16 In an action for damages,

the federal courts were faced with the issue of the application either of a state statute, which gave the appellate division of the

state courts the authority to determine if an award is excessive or

inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable

compensation, or of a federal judicially-created practice of review of

awards as so exorbitant that it shocked the conscience of the court.

The Court determined that the state statute was both substantive

and procedural, which would result in substantial variations between state and federal damage awards depending whether the

state or the federal approach was applied; it then followed the

mode of analysis exemplified by those cases emphasizing the importance of federal courts reaching the same outcome as would the

state courts, 17 rather than what had been the prevailing standard,
24 ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

18 E.g., Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., 356 U.S. 525 (1958). 19 19 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure (2d ed.

1996), § 4511, at 311. 20 506 U.S. 390 (1993).

in which the Court balanced state and federal interests to determine which law to apply. 18 Emphasis upon either approach to considerations of applying state or federal law reflects a continuing

difficulty of accommodating ‘‘the constitutional power of the states

to regulate the relations among their citizens . . . [and] the constitutional power of the federal government to determine how its

courts are to be operated.’’ 19 Additional decisions will be required

to determine which approach, if either, prevails.

[P. 773, add to n.1016:]

But see O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994).

Power of Congress to Control the Federal Courts

[P. 788, add to n.1105:]

A restrained reading of McCardle is strongly suggested by Felker v. Turpin, 116

S. Ct. 2333 (1996). A 1996 congressional statute giving to federal courts of appeal

a ‘‘gate-keeping’’ function over the filing of second or successive habeas petitions limited further review, including denying the Supreme Court appellate review of circuit

court denials of motions to file second or successive habeas petitions. Pub. L. 104–

132, § 106, 110 Stat. 1214, 1220, amending 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Upholding the limitation, which was nearly identical to the congressional action at issue in McCardle

and Yerger, the Court held that its jurisdiction to hear appellate cases had been denied, but just as in Yerger the statute did not annul the Court’s jurisdiction to hear

habeas petitions filed as original matters in the Supreme Court. No constitutional

issue was thus presented.

Federal-State Court Relations

[Pp. 798–99, add to n.1161:]

But in Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 116 S. Ct. 1712 (1996), an exercise in

Burford abstention, the Court held that federal courts have power to dismiss or remand cases based on abstention principles only where relief being sought is equitable or otherwise discretionary but may not do so in common-law actions for damages.

Habeas Corpus

[P. 818, add to text following n.1270:]

The Court continues, with some modest exceptions, to construe

habeas jurisdiction quite restrictively, but it has now been joined

by new congressional legislation that is also restrictive. In Herrera

v. Collins, 20 the Court appeared, though ambiguously, to take the

position that, while it requires a showing of actual innocence to

permit a claimant to bring a successive or abusive petition, a claim
ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 25

21 Id. at 398–417. However, in a subsequent part of the opinion, the Court

purports to reserve the question whether ‘‘a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional,’’ and it imposed a high standard for making this showing. Id. at 417–19.

Justices Scalia and Thomas would have unequivocally held that ‘‘[t]here is no basis

in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice . . . for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.’’ Id. at 427–28 (Concurring). However, it is

not at all clear that all the Justices joining the Court believe innocence to be nondispositive on habeas. Id. at 419 (Justices O’Connor and Kennedy concurring), 429

(Justice White concurring). 22 513 U.S. 298 (1995). 23 Id. at 334 (Chief Justice Rehnquist dissenting, with Justices Kennedy and

Thomas), 342 (Justice Scalia dissenting, with Justice Thomas). This standard was

drawn from Sawyer v. Whitney, 505 U.S. 333 (1995). 24 513 U.S. at 327. This standard was drawn from Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S.

478 (1986). 25P. L. 104–132, Title I, 110 Stat. 1217–21, amending 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2253,

2254, and Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

of innocence is not alone sufficient to enable a claimant to obtain

review of his conviction on habeas. Petitioners are entitled in federal habeas courts to show that they are imprisoned in violation of

the Constitution, not to seek to correct errors of fact. But a claim

of innocence does not bear on the constitutionality of one’s conviction or detention, and the execution of one claiming actual innocence would not itself violate the Constitution. 21

But, in Schlup v. Delo, 22 the Court adopted the plurality opinion of Kuhlmann v. Wilson and held that, absent a sufficient showing of ‘‘cause and prejudice,’’ a claimant filing a successive or abusive petition must, as an initial matter, make a showing of ‘‘actual

innocence’’ so as to fall within the narrow class of cases implicating

a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The Court divided, however,

with respect to the showing a claimant must make. One standard,

found in some of the cases, was championed by the dissenters; ‘‘to

show ‘actual innocence’ one must show by clear and convincing evidence that but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would

have found the petitioner eligible for the death penalty.’’ 23 The

Court adopted a second standard, under which the petitioner must

demonstrate that ‘‘a constitutional violation has probably resulted

in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.’’ To meet this burden, a claimant ‘‘must show that it is more likely than not that no

reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new

evidence.’’ 24

In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996, 25 Congress imposed tight new restrictions on successive or

abusive petitions, including making the circuit courts ‘‘gate keepers’’ in permitting or denying the filing of such petitions, with bars

to appellate review of these decisions, provisions that in part were
26 ARTICLE III—JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

26 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996).

27The amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (emphasis supplied). On the constitutionality of this provision, see the various opinions in Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

upheld in Felker v. Turpin. 26 An important new restriction on the

authority of federal habeas courts is that found in the new law,

which provides that a habeas court shall not grant a writ to any

person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court ‘‘with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State

court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim - (1) resulted

in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme court of the United States[.]’’ 27
27

1 Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2498–99

(1994). 2Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (concurring); Allegheny County

v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (concurring); Board of Educ.

of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2500 (1994) (concurring). 3 Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2494 (1994)

(citing Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 492–95 (1961)).

FIRST AMENDMENT

RELIGION

An Overview

—Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion

[Pp. 973–74, change text following n.25 to read:]

and with increasing frequency have not been applied at all by

the Court.

[P. 974, add to n.26 following Lee v. Weisman citation:]

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993) (upholding provision of sign-language interpreter to deaf student attending parochial school); Board

of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994) (invalidating law

creating special school district for village composed exclusively of members of one

religious sect).

[P. 974, add to text following n.29:]

Justice O’Connor has suggested that it is inappropriate to try

to shoehorn all Establishment cases into one test, and has called

instead for recognition that different contexts may call for different

approaches. 1 For example, the Justice proposes that cases involving government ‘‘speech’’ on religious topics be judged by an endorsement test that would invalidate government actions only if a

reasonable observer would perceive the action as an endorsement

or disapproval of religious belief. 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

[P. 977, add to text following n.41:]

‘‘[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches

more than classic, 18th century establishments.’’ 3

Financial Assistance to Church-Related Institutions

[P. 984, add to text following n.74:]

On the other hand, public payment of a sign-language interpreter for a deaf student attending parochial school created no such
28 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

4Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993).

5See Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994).

Four Justices advocated outright overruling: Justice O’Connor, id. at 2498 (Aguilar

erroneously requires ‘‘disfavoring’’ of religion and should be reconsidered) (concurring opinion); and Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice

Thomas, Id. at 2514–15 (dissenting opinion). Justice Kennedy stated that the cases

‘‘may have been erroneous,’’ and advocated reconsideration. Id. at 2505 (concurring

opinion). 6Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). The

Court explained that there was ‘‘no realistic danger that the community would think

that the District was endorsing religion,’’ and that the three-part Lemon test would

not have been violated. Id. at 395. Concurring opinions by Justice Scalia, joined by

Justice Thomas, and by Justice Kennedy, criticized the Court’s reference to Lemon.

‘‘Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave

and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again,’’ Justice Scalia lamented. Id. at 398. 7 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995).

8 Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette, 115 S. Ct. 2440 (1995).

effects or entanglement problems, the Court ruled in a later case,

since this was not an expense that the parochial school would otherwise have borne, and since the interpreter had no role in selecting or editing the content of the educational and religious lessons. 4

Aguilar and Grand Rapids are now tenuous at best, five Justices

having recently expressed the opinion that the cases should be

overruled or at least reconsidered. 5

[P. 988, add to n.92:]

Similar reasoning led the Court to rule that provision of a sign-language interpreter to a deaf student attending a parochial school is permissible as part of a neutral program offering such services to all students regardless of what school they

attend. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). The interpreter,

the Court noted additionally, merely transmits whatever material is presented, and

neither adds to nor subtracts from the school’s sectarian environment. Id. at 13.

[P. 997, change heading to:]

Access of Religious Groups to Public Property

[P. 997, add to text following n.130:]

Similarly, public schools may not rely on the Establishment

Clause as grounds to discriminate against religious groups in afterhours use of school property otherwise available for non-religious

social, civic, and recreational purposes; 6 public colleges may not exclude student religious organizations from benefits otherwise provided to a full spectrum of student ‘‘news, information, opinion, entertainment, or academic communications media groups;’’ 7 and a

state that creates a traditional public forum for citizen speeches

and unattended displays on a plaza at its state capitol cannot, on

Establishment Clause grounds, deny access for a religious display. 8

These cases make clear that the Establishment Clause does not
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 29

9 115 S. Ct. 2440 (1995). The Court was divided 7–2 on the merits of Pinette,

a vote that obscured continuing disagreement over analytical approach. The portions

of Justice Scalia’s opinion that formed the opinion of the Court were joined by Chief

Justice Rehnquist and by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer.

A separate part of Justice Scalia’s opinion, joined only by the Chief Justice and by

Justices Kennedy and Thomas, disputed the assertions of Justices O’Connor, Souter,

and Breyer that the ‘‘endorsement’’ test should be applied. Dissenting Justice Stevens thought that allowing the display on the Capitol grounds did carry ‘‘a clear

image of endorsement’’ (id. at 2471), and Justice Ginsburg’s brief opinion seemingly

agreed with that conclusion. 10 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994). Only four Justices (Souter, Blackmun, Stevens, and

Ginsburg) thought that the Grendel’s Den principle applied; in their view the distinction that the delegation was to a village electorate rather than to a religious

body ‘‘lack[ed] constitutional significance’’ under the peculiar circumstances of the

case. 114 S. Ct. at 2488.

necessarily trump the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of

speech; in regulating private speech in a public forum, government

may not justify discrimination against religious viewpoints as necessary to avoid creating an ‘‘establishment’’ of religion.

[P. 1002, add new heading following n.163:]

Religious Displays on Government Property

[P. 1004, add new paragraph at end of section:]

In Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette, 9 the Court distinguished privately sponsored from governmentally sponsored religious displays on public property. There the Court ruled that Ohio

violated free speech rights by refusing to allow the Ku Klux Klan

to display an unattended cross in a publicly owned plaza outside

the Ohio Statehouse. Because the plaza was a public forum in

which the State had allowed a broad range of speakers and a variety of unattended displays, the State could regulate the expressive

content of such speeches and displays only if the restriction was

necessary, and narrowly drawn, to serve a compelling state interest. The Court recognized that compliance with the Establishment

Clause can be a sufficiently compelling reason to justify contentbased restrictions on speech, but saw no need to apply this principle when permission to display a religious symbol is granted

through the same procedures, and on the same terms, required of

other private groups seeking to convey non-religious messages.

Miscellaneous

[P. 1005, add to text at end of section:]

Using somewhat similar reasoning, the Court in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 10 invalidated a New York

law creating a special school district for an incorporated village
30 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

11Pub. L. 103–141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb–4. 12Pub. L. 103–141, § 2(b)(1) (citations omitted). Congress also avowed a purpose

of providing ‘‘a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially

burdened by government.’’ § 2(b)(2). 13See, e.g., Flores v. City of Boerne, 877 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Tex. 1995) (holding

the RFRA unconstitutional); and Canedy v. Boardman, 16 F.3d 183, 186 n.2 (7th

Cir. 1994) (dictum that the constitutionality of the RFRA—not before the court—

‘‘raises a number of questions involving the extent of Congress’s powers under Seccomposed exclusively of members of one small religious sect. The

statute failed ‘‘the test of neutrality,’’ the Court concluded, since it

delegated power to an electorate defined by common religious belief

and practice, in a manner that fails to foreclose religious favoritism.’’ It was the ‘‘anomalously case-specific nature of the legislature’s exercise of authority’’ that left the Court ‘‘without any direct

way to review such state action’’ for conformity with the neutrality

principle. Because the village did not receive its governmental authority simply as one of many communities eligible under a general

law, the Court explained, there was no way of knowing whether

the legislature would grant similar benefits on an equal basis to

other religious and nonreligious groups.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

[P. 1007, add to n.188:]

Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2492–93

(1994) (‘‘accommodation is not a principle without limits;’’ one limitation is that

‘‘neutrality as among religions must be honored’’).

Free Exercise Exemption From General Governmental Requirements

[P. 1018, add new paragraph following n.253:]

The political processes were soon utilized in an attempt to provide additional protection for religious exercise. In the Religious

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 11 Congress sought to supersede

Smith and substitute a statutory rule of decision. The Act provides

that laws of general applicability—federal, state, and local—may

substantially burden free exercise of religion only if they further a

compelling governmental interest and constitute the least restrictive means of doing so. The purpose, Congress declared in the Act

itself, was ‘‘to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in

Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially

burdened.’’ 12 Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

does not, however, close the book on Smith. Issues concerning the

RFRA’s constitutionality ensure continuing litigation over the appropriate constitutional test. 13
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 31

tion 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment’’). For an overview of these issues, see Scott

C. Idleman, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Pushing the Limits of Legislative Power, 73 TEX. L. REV. 247 (1994). For arguments pro and con, compare Douglas Laycock, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993 B.Y.U. L. REV. 221 with

Christopher L. Eisgruber and Lawrence G. Sager, Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is Unconstitutional, 69 N.Y.U. L. REV. 437 (1994). 14 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993). 15Through interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition extends to the States as well. See discussion on incorporation, main text, pp. 957–64. 16See discussion on state action, main text, pp. 1786–1802. 17 CBS v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 115 (1973) (opinion of Chief

Justice Burger). 18Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 115 S. Ct. 961, 971 (1995) (quoting

Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346–47 (1880)). The Court refused to be bound by

[P. 1018, add new note following comma after word ‘‘treatment’’ in

third sentence of paragraph beginning after n.253:]

This much was made clear by Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), striking down a city ordinance that prohibited ritual animal sacrifice but that allowed other forms of animal slaughter.

[P. 1018, add to text at end of third sentence of same paragraph:]

That the Court views the principle as a general one, not limited to criminal laws, seems evident from its restatement in

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah: ‘‘our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of

general application need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.’’ 14

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION—SPEECH AND PRESS

Adoption and Common Law Background

[P. 1025, add to text at end of section:]

The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress, and not to the actions of private persons. 15 This

leads to a ‘‘state action’’ (or ‘‘governmental action’’) limitation similar to that applicable to the Fourteenth Amendment. 16 The limitation has seldom been litigated in the First Amendment context, but

there is no obvious reason why analysis should differ markedly

from Fourteenth Amendment state action analysis. Both contexts

require ‘‘cautious analysis of the quality and degree of Government

relationship to the particular acts in question.’’ 17 In holding that

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a governmental entity for purposes of the First Amendment, the Court declared that ‘‘[t]he Constitution constrains governmental action ‘by

whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be

taken.’. . . [a]nd under whatever congressional label.’’ 18 The rela-
32 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

the statement in Amtrak’s authorizing statute that the corporation is ‘‘not . . . an

agency or establishment of the United States Government.’’ This assertion can be

effective ‘‘only for purposes of matters that are within Congress’ control,’’ the Court

explained. ‘‘It is not for Congress to make the final determination of Amtrak’s status

as a governmental entity for purposes of determining the constitutional rights of

citizens affected by its actions.’’ 115 S. Ct. at 971. 19 In CBS v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), the Court held that

a broadcast licensee could refuse to carry a paid editorial advertisement. Chief Justice Burger, joined only by Justices Stewart and Rehnquist in that portion of his

opinion, reasoned that a licensee’s refusal to accept such an ad did not constitute

‘‘governmental action’’ for purposes of the First Amendment. ‘‘The First Amendment

does not reach acts of private parties in every instance where the Congress or the

[Federal Communications] Commission has merely permitted or failed to prohibit

such acts.’’ Id. at 119. 20 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995).

tionship of the government to broadcast licensees affords other opportunities to explore the breadth of ‘‘governmental action.’’ 19

The Doctrine of Prior Restraint

—Obscenity and Prior Restraint

P. 1033, add to n.69:]

But cf. Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993) (RICO forfeiture of the

entire adult entertainment book and film business of an individual convicted of obscenity and racketeering offenses, based on the predicate acts of selling four magazines and three videotapes, does not constitute a prior restraint and is not invalid

as ‘‘chilling’’ protected expression that is not obscene).

Freedom of Belief

—Imposition of Consequences for Holding Certain Beliefs

[P. 1054, add to n.181 following cite to Barclay v. Florida:]

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (criminal sentence may be enhanced

because the defendant intentionally selected his victim on account of the victim’s

race),

Right of Association

[P. 1061, add to text at end of section:]

When application of a public accommodations law was viewed

as impinging on an organization’s ability to present its message,

the Court found a First Amendment violation. Massachusetts could

not require the private organizers of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade to allow a group of gays and lesbians to march as a unit proclaiming its members’ gay and lesbian identity, the Court held in

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group. 20 To do so would require parade organizers to promote a message they did not wish to promote. The Roberts and New York City cases were distinguished as
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 33

21 Id. at 2351. 22 Id. 23O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 116 S. Ct. 2353 (1996) (allegation that city removed petitioner’s company from list of those offered towing business on a rotating basis, in retaliation for petitioner’s refusal to contribute to mayor’s campaign, and for his support of mayor’s opponent, states a cause of action

under the First Amendment). See also Board of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 116

S. Ct. 2342 (1996) (termination or non-renewal of a public contract in retaliation for

the contractor’s speech on a matter of public concern can violate the First Amendment). 24 115 S. Ct. 1003 (1995). 25The plaintiff class consisted of all Executive Branch employees below grade

GS–16. Also covered by the ban were senior executives, Members of Congress, and

other federal officers, but the possibility of improprieties by these groups did not

justify application of the ban to ‘‘the vast rank and file of federal employees below

grade GS–16.’’

not involving ‘‘a trespass on the organization’s message itself.’’ 21

Those cases stood for the proposition that the state could require

equal access for individuals to what was considered the public benefit of organization membership. But even if individual access to

the parade might similarly be mandated, the Court reasoned, the

gay group ‘‘could nonetheless be refused admission as an expressive

contingent with its own message just as readily as a private club

could exclude an applicant whose manifest views were at odds with

a position taken by the club’s existing members.’’ 22

—Political Association

[P. 1063, add to text before first full paragraph on page:]

In 1996 the Court extended Branti and Finkel to protect independent government contractors. 23

Particular Governmental Regulations That Restrict Expression

[P. 1081, change subheading to:]

—Government as Employer: Political and Other Outside Activities

[P. 1084, add new paragraph to end of section:]

The Hatch Act cases were distinguished in United States v.

National Treasury Employees Union, 24 in which the Court struck

down an honoraria ban as applied to lower level employees of the

Federal Government. The honoraria ban suppressed employees’

right to free expression while the Hatch Act sought to protect that

right, and also there was no evidence of improprieties in acceptance

of honoraria by members of the plaintiff class of federal employees. 25 The Court emphasized further difficulties with the ‘‘crudely

crafted’’ honoraria ban: it was limited to expressive activities and

had no application to other sources of outside income, it applied
34 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

26 115 S. Ct. at 1018. 27 Board of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 116 S. Ct. 2342, 2346 (1996).

when neither the subjects of speeches and articles nor the persons

or groups paying for them bore any connection to the employee’s

job responsibilities, and it exempted a ‘‘series’’ of speeches or articles without also exempting individual articles and speeches. These

‘‘anomalies’’ led the Court to conclude that the ‘‘speculative benefits’’ of the ban were insufficient to justify the burdens it imposed

on expressive activities. 26

—Government as Employer: Free Expression Generally

[P. 1089, add to text following n.113:]

The protections applicable to government employees have been

extended to independent government contractors, the Court announcing that ‘‘the Pickering balancing test, adjusted to weigh the

government’s interests as contractor rather than as employer, determines the extent of their protection.’’ 27

[P. 1089, add to n.116:]

In Waters v. Churchill, 114 S. Ct. 1878 (1994), the Court grappled with what

procedural protections may be required by the First Amendment when public employees are dismissed on speech-related grounds, but reached no consensus.

—Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Elections

[P. 1097, add to n.150:]

See also Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 116 S. Ct. 2309 (1996)

(the First Amendment bars application of the Party Expenditure Provision of the

Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(d)(3), to expenditures that the political party makes independently, without coordination with the candidate).

Governmental Regulation of Communications Industries

—Commercial Speech

[P. 1116, add to n.12:]

Shapero was distinguished in Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 2371

(1995), a 5–4 decision upholding a prohibition on targeted direct-mail solicitations

to victims and their relatives for a 30-day period following an accident or disaster.

The ban struck down in Shapero was far broader, both in scope and in duration,

the Court explained, and was not supported, as Florida’s was, by findings describing

the harms to be prevented by the ban. Dissenting Justice Kennedy disagreed that

there was a valid distinction, pointing out the Court’s previous reliance on the mode

of communication (in-person solicitation versus mailings) as ‘‘mak[ing] all the difference.’’ 115 S. Ct. at 2382 (quoting Shapero, 486 U.S. at 475).
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 35

28 Ibanez v. Florida Bd. of Accountancy, 114 S. Ct. 2084 (1994) (also ruling that

Accountancy Board could not reprimand the CPA, who was also a licensed attorney,

for truthfuly listing her CPA credentials in advertising for her law practice). 29 Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 775 (1993). 30 Id. at 1803.

[P. 1116, add to text following n.13:]

, or prohibit a certified public accountant from holding herself

out as a certified financial planner. 28

[P. 1116, add to text following n.14:]

The Court later refused, however, to extend this principle to

in-person solicitation by certified public accountants, explaining

that CPAs, unlike attorneys, are not professionally ‘‘trained in the

art of persuasion,’’ and that the typical business executive client of

a CPA is ‘‘far less susceptible to manipulation’’ than was the accident victim in Ohralik. 29 To allow enforcement of such a broad

prophylactic rule absent identification of a serious problem such as

ambulance chasing, the Court explained, would dilute commercial

speech protection ‘‘almost to nothing.’’ 30

[P. 1117, delete last two sentences of paragraph continued from p.

1116, and substitute the following:]

The Court has developed a four-pronged test to measure the

validity of restraints upon commercial expression.

[P. 1117, add to n.19 following San Francisco Arts & Athletics cite:]

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585 (1995) (government’s interest in

curbing strength wars among brewers is substantial, but interest in facilitating

state regulation of alcohol is not substantial). Contrast United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418 (1993), finding a substantial federal interest in facilitating

state restrictions on lotteries. ‘‘Unlike the situation in Edge Broadcasting,’’ the

Coors Court explained, ‘‘the policies of some states do not prevent neighboring states

from pursuing their own alcohol-related policies within their respective borders.’’

115 S. Ct. at 1591.

[P. 1118, add to n.20 following Bolger cite:]

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585 (1995) (prohibition on display of

alcohol content on beer labels does not directly and materially advance government’s

interest in curbing strength wars among brewers, given the inconsistencies and

‘‘overall irrationality’’ of the regulatory scheme); Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761

(1993) (Florida’s ban on in-person solicitation by certified public accountants does

not directly advance its legitimate interests in protecting consumers from fraud, protecting consumer privacy, and maintaining professional independence from clients).

[P. 1118, add to text following n.20:]

Instead, the regulation must ‘‘directly advance’’ the governmental interest. The Court resolves this issue with reference to ag-
36 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

31 United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418, 427 (1993) (‘‘this question cannot be answered by limiting the inquiry to whether the governmental interest is directly advanced as applied to a single person or entity’’). 32 507 U.S. 410 (1993). See also Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993), decided

the same Term, relying on the ‘‘directly advance’’ third prong of Central Hudson to

strike down a ban on in-person solicitation by certified public accountants. 33 Id. at 1514. 34 Id. at 1515. The Court also noted the ‘‘minute’’ effect of removing 62 ‘‘commercial’’ newsracks while 1,500 to 2,000 other newsracks remained in place. Id. at 1510. 35 United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418 (1993).

gregate effects, and does not limit its consideration to effects on the

challenging litigant. 31

[P. 1118, add to n.21 following Bolger cite:]

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585 (1995) (there are less intrusive alternatives—e.g., direct limitations on alcohol content of beer—to prohibition on display of alcohol content on beer label).

[P. 1118, add to n.22:]

In a 1993 opinion the Court elaborated on the difference between ‘‘reasonable

fit’’ and least restrictive alternative. ‘‘A regulation need not be ‘absolutely the least

severe that will achieve the desired end,’ but if there are numerous and obvious

less-burdensome alternatives to the restriction . . . , that is certainly a relevant consideration in determining whether the ‘fit’ between ends and means is reasonable.’’

City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 417 n.13 (1993).

[P. 1118, delete remainder of section after n.22, and add the following:]

The ‘‘reasonable fit’’ standard has some teeth, the Court made

clear in City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 32 striking

down a city’s prohibition on distribution of ‘‘commercial handbills’’

through freestanding newsracks located on city property. The city’s

aesthetic interest in reducing visual clutter was furthered by reducing the total number of newsracks, but the distinction between prohibited ‘‘commercial’’ publications and permitted ‘‘newspapers’’ bore

‘‘no relationship whatsoever’’ to this legitimate interest. 33 The city

could not, the Court ruled, single out commercial speech to bear

the full onus when ‘‘all newsracks, regardless of whether they contain commercial or noncommercial publications, are equally at

fault.’’ 34 On the other hand, the Court upheld a federal law that

prohibited broadcast of lottery advertisements by a broadcaster in

a state that prohibits lotteries, while allowing broadcast of such

ads by stations in states that sponsor lotteries. There was a ‘‘reasonable fit’’ between the restriction and the asserted federal interest in supporting state anti-gambling policies without unduly interfering with policies of neighboring states that promote lotteries. 35

The prohibition ‘‘directly served’’ the congressional interest, and

could be applied to a broadcaster whose principal audience was in
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 37

36 Id. at 2704. 37Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328,

345–46 (1986). For discussion of the case, see P. Kurland, Posadas de Puerto Rico

v. Tourism Company: ‘‘’Twas Strange, ’Twas Passing Strange; ’Twas Pitiful, ’Twas

Wondrous Pitiful,’’ 1986 SUP. CT. REV. 1. 38 In Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585 (1995) (invalidating a federal

ban on revealing alcohol content on malt beverage labels), the Court rejected reliance on Posadas, pointing out that the statement in Posadas had been made only

after a determination that the advertising could be upheld under Central Hudson.

The Court found it unnecessary to consider the greater-includes-lesser argument in

United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418, 427 (1993), upholding

through application of Central Hudson principles a ban on broadcast of lottery ads. 39 116 S. Ct. 1495 (1996). 40 116 S. Ct. at 1511–14 (opinion of Stevens, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Ginsburg). The Stevens opinion also dismissed the Posadas ‘‘greater-includes-the-lesser argument’’ as ‘‘inconsistent with both logic and well-settled doctrine,’’ pointing out that the First Amendment ‘‘presumes that attempts to regulate

speech are more dangerous than attempts to regulate conduct.’’ Id. at 1512. 41 116 S. Ct. at 1522 (concurring opinion of O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice

Rehnquist and by Justices Souter and Breyer). 42 Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425

U.S. 748, 771 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 384 (1977). But

in Linmark Associates v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85, 93–94 (1977), the

Court refused to accept a times, places, and manner defense of an ordinance prohibiting ‘‘For Sale’’ signs on residential lawns. First, ample alternative channels of communication were not available, and second, the ban was seen rather as a content

limitation.

an adjoining lottery state, and who sought to run ads for that

state’s lottery. 36

In a 1986 decision the Court asserted that ‘‘the greater power

to completely ban casino gambling necessarily includes the lesser

power to ban advertising of casino gambling.’’ 37 Subsequently,

however, the Court has eschewed reliance on Posadas, 38 and it

seems doubtful that the Court would again embrace the broad principle that government may ban all advertising of an activity that

it permits but has power to prohibit. Indeed, the Court’s very holding in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 39 striking down the

State’s ban on advertisements that provide truthful information

about liquor prices, is inconsistent with the general proposition. A

Court plurality in 44 Liquormart squarely rejected Posadas, calling

it ‘‘erroneous,’’ declining to give force to its ‘‘highly deferential approach,’’ and proclaiming that a state ‘‘does not have the broad discretion to suppress truthful, nonmisleading information for paternalistic purposes that the Posadas majority was willing to tolerate.’’ 40 Four other Justices concluded that Posadas was inconsistent with the ‘‘closer look’’ that the Court has since required in applying the principles of Central Hudson. 41

The ‘‘different degree of protection’’ accorded commercial

speech has a number of consequences. Somewhat broader times,

places, and manner regulations are to be tolerated. 42 The rule
38 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

43 Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425

U.S. 748, 771–72 n.24 (1976); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Serv.

Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 571 n.13 (1980). 44 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379–81 (1977); Central Hudson

Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 477 U.S. 557, 565 n.8 (1980). 45 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383–84 (1977); Ohralik v. Ohio

State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 456 (1978). Requirements that advertisers disclose

more information than they otherwise choose to are upheld ‘‘as long as [they] are

reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing deception of consumers,’’ the

Court explaining that ‘‘[t]he right of a commercial speaker not to divulge accurate

information regarding his services is not . . . a fundamental right’’ requiring strict

scrutiny of the disclosure requirement. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

471 U.S. 626, 651 & n.14 (1985) (upholding requirement that attorney’s contingent

fees ad mention that unsuccessful plaintiffs might still be liable for court costs). 46 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495, 1507 (1996) (opinion of

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg). 47See, e.g., Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 465 (1978) (upholding ban on in-person solicitation by attorneys due in part to the ‘‘potential for overreaching’’ when a trained advocate ‘‘solicits an unsophisticated, injured, or distressed lay person’’). 48 Compare United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418 (1993) (upholding federal law supporting state interest in protecting citizens from lottery information) and Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 2371, 2379 (1995) (upholding a 30-day ban on targeted, direct-mail solicitation of accident victims by attorneys, not because of any presumed susceptibility to overreaching, but because the

ban ‘‘forestall[s] the outrage and irritation with the . . . legal profession that the

[banned] solicitation . . . has engendered’’) with Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S.

Ct. 1585 (1995) (striking down federal statute prohibiting display of alcohol content

on beer labels) and 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495 (1996)

(striking down state law prohibiting display of retail prices in ads for alcoholic beverages).

against prior restraints may be inapplicable, 43 and disseminators

of commercial speech are not protected by the overbreadth doctrine. 44

Different degrees of protection may also be discerned among

different categories of commercial speech. The first prong of the

Central Hudson test means that false, deceptive, or misleading advertisements need not be permitted; government may require that

a commercial message appear in such a form, or include such additional information, warnings, and disclaimers, as are necessary to

prevent deception. 45 But even truthful, non-misleading commercial

speech may be regulated, and the validity of such regulation is

tested by application of the remaining prongs of the Central Hudson test. The test itself does not make further distinctions based on

the content of the commercial message or the nature of the governmental interest (that interest need only be ‘‘substantial’’). Recent

decisions suggest, however, that further distinctions may exist.

Measures aimed at preserving ‘‘a fair bargaining process’’ between

consumer and advertiser 46 may be more likely to pass the test 47

than regulations designed to implement general health, safety, or

moral concerns. 48 As the governmental interest becomes further
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 39

49 Justice Stevens has criticized the Central Hudson test because it seemingly

allows regulation of any speech propounded in a commercial context regardless of

the content of that speech. ‘‘[A]ny description of commercial speech that is intended

to identify the category of speech entitled to less First Amendment protection should

relate to the reasons for permitting broader regulation: namely, commercial speech’s

potential to mislead.’’ Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585, 1595 (1995) (concurring opinion). The Justice repeated these views in 1996: ‘‘when a State entirely

prohibits the dissemination of truthful, nonmisleading commercial messages for reasons unrelated to the preservation of a fair bargaining process, there is far less reason to depart from the rigorous review that the First Amendment generally demands.’’ 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495, 1507 (1996) (a portion

of the opinion joined by Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg).

50 City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 476 U.S. 488 (1986) (leaving for future decision how the operator’s interests are to be balanced against a community’s interests in limiting franchises and preserving utility space); Turner

Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445, 2456 (1994).

51Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445, 2456–57 (1994).

removed from protecting a fair bargaining process, it may become

more difficult to establish the absence of less burdensome regulatory alternatives and the presence of a ‘‘reasonable fit’’ between

the commercial speech restriction and the governmental interest. 49

—Radio and Television

[P. 1126, delete last paragraph on page:]

—Governmentally Compelled Right of Reply to Newspapers

[P. 1127, add to n.65:]

See also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group, 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995) (state may

not compel parade organizer to allow participation by a parade unit proclaiming

message that organizer does not wish to endorse).

[P. 1127, add new section following n.65:]

—Regulation of Cable Television

The Court has recognized that cable television ‘‘implicates

First Amendment interests,’’ since a cable operator communicates

ideas through selection of original programming and through exercise of editorial discretion in determining which stations to include

in its offering. 50 Moreover, ‘‘settled principles of . . . First Amendment jurisprudence’’ govern review of cable regulation; cable is not

limited by ‘‘scarce’’ broadcast frequencies and does not require the

same less rigorous standard of review that the Court applies to regulation of broadcasting. 51 Cable does, however, have unique characteristics that justify regulations that single out cable for special
40 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

52 Id. at 2468 (referring to the ‘‘bottleneck monopoly power’’ exercised by cable

operators in determining which networks and stations to carry, and to the resulting

dangers posed to the viability of broadcast television stations). See also Leathers v.

Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991) (application of state gross receipts tax to cable industry permissible even though other segments of the communications media were exempted).

53 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994).

54 Id. at 2460. ‘‘Deciding whether a particular regulation is content-based or content-neutral is not always a simple task,’’ the Court confessed. Id. at 2459. Indeed,

dissenting Justice O’Connor, joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, and Thomas,

viewed the rules as content-based. Id. at 2475–79.

55 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968). The Court remanded Turner for further factual findings relevant to the O’Brien test.

56 116 S. Ct. 2374, 2391 (1996) (invalidating § 10(b) of the Cable Television

Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992).

57 Upholding § 10(a) of the Act, which permits cable operators to prohibit indecent material on leased access channels; and striking down § 10(c), which permits

a cable operator to prevent transmission of ‘‘sexually explicit’’ programming on public access channels.

58This section of Justice Breyer’s opinion was joined by Justices Stevens, O’Connor, and Souter. 116 S. Ct. at 2384.

59 Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Ginsburg, advocated this approach. 116 S.

Ct. at 2409, and took the plurality to task for its ‘‘evasion of any clear legal standard.’’ Id. at 2405.

60 Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, advocated this approach.

treatment. 52 The Court in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC 53

upheld federal statutory requirements that cable systems carry

local commercial and public television stations. Although these

‘‘must-carry’’ requirements ‘‘distinguish between speakers in the

television programming market,’’ they do so based on the manner

of transmission and not on the content the messages conveyed, and

hence are ‘‘content neutral.’’ 54 The regulations could therefore be

measured by the ‘‘intermediate level of scrutiny’’ set forth in United

States v. O’Brien. 55 Two years later, however, a splintered Court

could not agree on what standard of review to apply to contentbased restrictions of cable broadcasts. Striking down a requirement

that cable operators must, in order to protect children, segregate

and block programs with patently offensive sexual material, a

Court majority in Denver Area Educational Telecommunications

Consortium v. FCC, 56 found it unnecessary to determine whether

strict scrutiny or some lesser standard applies, since the restriction

was deemed invalid under any of the alternative tests. There was

no opinion of the Court on the other two holdings in the case, 57

and a plurality 58 rejected assertions that public forum analysis, 59

or a rule giving cable operators’ editorial rights ‘‘general primacy’’

over the rights of programmers and viewers, 60 should govern.
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 41

Government Restraint of Content of Expression

—Group Libel, Hate Speech

[P. 1136, add to n.111:]

On the other hand, the First Amendment does permit enhancement of a criminal penalty based on the defendant’s motive in selecting a victim of a particular

race. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). The law has long recognized motive

as a permissible element in sentencing, the Court noted. Id. at 2199. R.A.V. was distinguished as involving a limitation on ‘‘speech’’ rather than conduct, and because

the state might permissibly conclude that bias-inspired crimes inflict greater societal harm than do non-bias inspired crimes (e.g., they are more likely to provoke

retaliatory crimes). Id. at 2201. See generally Laurence H. Tribe, The Mystery of Motive, Private and Public: Some Notes Inspired by the Problems of Hate Crime and

Animal Sacrifice, 1993 SUP. CT. REV. 1.

—Obscenity

[P. 1152, add to n.14:]

None of these strictures apply, however, to forfeitures imposed as part of a

criminal penalty. Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993) (upholding RICO

forfeiture of the entire adult entertainment book and film business of an individual

convicted of obscenity and racketeering offenses). Justice Kennedy, dissenting in Alexander, objected to the ‘‘forfeiture of expressive material that had not been adjudged to be obscene.’’ Id. at 2786.

—Nonobscene But Sexually Explicit and Indecent Expression

[P. 1161, add to n.61:]

Similar rules apply in regulation of cable TV. In Denver Area Educ. Tel. Consortium v. FCC, 116 S. Ct. 2374, 2391 (1996), the Court, acknowledging that protection of children from sexually explicit programming is a ‘‘compelling’’ governmental

interest (but refusing to determine whether strict scrutiny applies), nonetheless

struck down a requirement that cable operators segregate and block indecent programming on leased access channels. The segregate and block restrictions, which included a requirement that a request for access be in writing, and which allowed for

up to 30 days’ delay in blocking or unblocking a channel, were not sufficiently protective of adults’ speech/viewing interests to be considered either narrowly or reasonably tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in protecting children.

Speech Plus

—The Public Forum

[P. 1167, add to n.98 following cite to Niemotko v. Maryland:]

Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette, 115 S. Ct. 2440 (1995) (denial of permission to Ku Klux Klan, allegedly in order to avoid Establishment Clause violation,

to place a cross in plaza on grounds of state capitol); Rosenberger v. University of

Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995) (University’s subsidy for printing costs of student

publications, available for student ‘‘news, information, opinion, entertainment, or

academic communications,’’ could not be withheld because of the religious content

of a student publication); Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist., 508 U.S.

384 (1993) (school district rule prohibiting after-hours use of school property for
42 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

61 114 S. Ct. 2516 (1994). 62The Court rejected the argument that the injunction was necessarily contentbased or viewpoint-based because it applied only to anti-abortion protesters. ‘‘An injunction by its very nature applies only to a particular group (or individuals). . . .

It does so, however, because of the group’s past actions in the context of a specific

dispute.’’ There had been no similarly disruptive demonstrations by pro-abortion factions at the abortion clinic. Id. at 2523. 63 Id. at 2525. 64 Id. at 2524–25. 65 Referring to Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988).

showing of a film presenting a religious perspective on child-rearing and family values, but allowing after-hours use for non-religious social, civic, and recreational purposes).

—Public Issue Picketing and Parading

P. 1179, add to text at end of section:]

More recently, disputes arising from anti-abortion protests outside abortion clinics have occasioned another look at principles distinguishing lawful public demonstrations from proscribable conduct. In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 61 the Court refined

principles governing issuance of ‘‘content-neutral’’ injunctions that

restrict expressive activity. 62 The appropriate test, the Court stated, is ‘‘whether the challenged provisions of the injunction burden

no more speech than necessary to serve a significant governmental

interest.’’ 63 Regular time, place, and manner analysis (requiring

that regulation be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest) ‘‘is not sufficiently rigorous,’’ the Court explained,

because injunctions create greater risk of censorship and discriminatory application, and because of the established principle that an

injunction should be no broader than necessary to achieve its desired goals.’’ 64 Applying its new test, the Court upheld an injunction prohibiting protesters from congregating, picketing, patrolling,

demonstrating, or entering any portion of the public right-of-way

within 36 feet of an abortion clinic. Similarly upheld were noise restrictions designed to ensure the health and well-being of clinic patients. Other aspects of the injunction, however, did not pass the

test. Inclusion of private property within the 36-foot buffer was not

adequately justified, nor was inclusion in the noise restriction of a

ban on ‘‘images observable’’ by clinic patients. A ban on physically

approaching any person within 300 feet of the clinic unless that

person indicated a desire to communicate burdened more speech

than necessary. Also, a ban on demonstrating within 300 feet of the

residences of clinic staff was not sufficiently justified, the restriction covering a much larger zone than an earlier residential picketing ban that the Court had upheld. 65
AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION 43

66 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995). 67 Id. at 2347. 68 115 S. Ct. 1511 (1995). 69 466 U.S. 789 (1984). 70 Justice Brennan argued in dissent that adequate alternative forms of communication were not readily available because handbilling or other person-to-person

Different types of issues were presented by Hurley v. IrishAmerican Gay Group, 66 in which the Court held that a state’s public accommodations law could not be applied to compel private organizers of a St. Patrick’s Day parade to accept in the parade a

unit that would proclaim a message that the organizers did not

wish to promote. Each participating unit affects the message conveyed by the parade organizers, the Court observed, and application of the public accommodations law to the content of the organizers’ message contravened the ‘‘fundamental rule . . . that a

speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.’’ 67

Leafleting, Handbilling, and the Like

[P. 1181, add to text after n.168:]

Talley’s anonymity rationale was strengthened in McIntyre v.

Ohio Elections Comm’n, 68 invalidating Ohio’s prohibition on the

distribution of anonymous campaign literature. There is a ‘‘respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes,’’

the Court noted, and neither of the interests asserted by Ohio justified the limitation. The State’s interest in informing the electorate

was ‘‘plainly insufficient,’’ and, while the more weighty interest in

preventing fraud in the electoral process may be accomplished by

a direct prohibition, it may not be accomplished indirectly by an indiscriminate ban on a whole category of speech. Ohio could not

apply the prohibition, therefore, to punish anonymous distribution

of pamphlets opposing a referendum on school taxes.

[P. 1181, substitute for first full paragraph on page:]

The handbilling cases were distinguished in City Council v.

Taxpayers for Vincent, 69 in which the Court held that a city may

prohibit altogether the use of utility poles for posting of signs.

While a city’s concern over visual blight could be addressed by an

anti-littering ordinance not restricting the expressive activity of

distributing handbills, in the case of utility pole signs ‘‘it is the medium of expression itself’’ that creates the visual blight. Hence, the

city’s prohibition, unlike a prohibition on distributing handbills,

was narrowly tailored to curtail no more speech than necessary to

accomplish the city’s legitimate purpose. 70 Ten years later, how-
44 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION

methods would be substantially more expensive, and that the regulation for the

sake of aesthetics was not adequately justified.

71 City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 114 S. Ct. 2038 (1994).

72 Id. at 2045, 2046.

73 Id. at 2045. Ladue’s legitimate interest in reducing visual clutter could be addressed by ‘‘more temperate’’ measures, the Court suggested. Id. at 2047.

ever, the Court unanimously invalidated a town’s broad ban on residential signs that permitted only residential identification signs,

‘‘for sale’’ signs, and signs warning of safety hazards. 71 Prohibiting

homeowners from displaying political, religious, or personal messages on their own property entirely foreclosed ‘‘a venerable means

of communication that is unique and important,’’ and that is ‘‘an

unusually cheap form of communication’’ without viable alternatives for many residents. 72 The ban was thus reminiscent of

total bans on leafleting, distribution of literature, and door-to-door

solicitation that the Court had struck down in the 1930s and

1940s. The prohibition in Vincent was distinguished as not removing a ‘‘uniquely valuable or important mode of communication,’’

and as not impairing citizens’ ability to communicate. 73
45

SECOND AMENDMENT

[P. 1194, add to n.7:]

See also Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to

challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment

is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 276 (1996);

United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770, 775 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (interpreting federal

prohibition on possession of firearm by a felon as having a justification defense ‘‘ensures that [the provision] does not collide with the Second Amendment’’).

47

1Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992) (home ‘‘was not only seized, it

literally was carried away, giving new meaning to the term ‘mobile home’’’). 2 115 S. Ct. 1914 (1995).

FOURTH AMENDMENT

History and Scope of the Amendment

—The Interest Protected

[P. 1206, add to n.38:]

Property rights are still protected by the Amendment, however. A ‘‘seizure’’ of

property can occur when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s

possessory interests in that property, and regardless of whether there is any interference with the individual’s privacy interest. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56

(1992) (a seizure occurred when sheriff’s deputies assisted in the disconnection and

removal of a mobile home in the course of an eviction from a mobile home park).

The reasonableness of a seizure, however, is an additional issue that may still hinge

on privacy interests. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 120–21 (1984) (DEA

agents reasonably seized package for examination after private mail carrier had

opened the damaged package for inspection, discovered presence of contraband, and

informed agents).

[P. 1214, add to text following n.82:]

In another unusual case, the Court held that a sheriff’s assistance to a trailer park owner in disconnecting and removing a mobile home constituted a ‘‘seizure’’ of the home. 1

Searches and Seizures Pursuant to Warrant

—Probable Cause

[P. 1218, add to n.98:]

Similarly, the preference for proceeding by warrant leads to a stricter rule for

appellate review of trial court decisions on warrantless stops and searches than is

employed to review probable cause to issue a warrant. Ornelas v. United States, 116

S. Ct. 1657 (1996) (determinations of reasonable suspicion to stop and probable

cause to search without a warrant should be subjected to de novo appellate review).

—Execution of Warrants

[P. 1227, add to text following sentence containing n.158:]

In Wilson v. Arkansas, 2 the Court determined that the common law ‘‘knock and announce’’ rule is an element of the Fourth

Amendment reasonableness inquiry. The rule does not, however,

require announcement under all circumstances. The presumption

in favor of announcement yields under various circumstances, including those posing a threat of physical violence to officers, those

in which a prisoner has escaped and taken refuge in his dwelling,
48 AMENDMENT 4—SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

3Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

4 Id. at 2237, 2139. In Dickerson the Court held that seizure of a small plastic

container that the officer felt in the suspect’s pocket was not justified; the officer

should not have continued the search, manipulating the container with his fingers,

after determining that no weapon was present. 5Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979) (discretionary random stops of

motorists to check driver’s license and registration papers and safety features of

cars constitute Fourth Amendment violation); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422

U.S. 873 (1975) (violation for roving patrols on lookout for illegal aliens to stop vehicles on highways near international borders when only ground for suspicion is that

occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry). In Prouse, the Court cautioned that

it was not precluding the States from developing methods for spot checks, such as

questioning all traffic at roadblocks, that involve less intrusion or that do not involve unconstrained exercise of discretion. 440 U.S. at 663. 6 An officer who observes a traffic violation may stop a vehicle even if his real

motivation is to investigate for evidence of other crime. Whren v. United States, 116

S. Ct. 1769 (1996). The existence of probable cause to believe that a traffic violation

has occurred establishes the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops regardless

of the actual motivation of the officers involved, and regardless of whether it is customary police practice to stop motorists for the violation observed.

and those in which officers have reason to believe that destruction

of evidence is likely.

Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants

—Detention Short of Arrest—Stop-and-Frisk

[P. 1230, add to text following n.12:]

If, in the course of a weapons frisk, ‘‘plain touch’’ reveals presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is

contraband, the officer may seize that object. 3 The Court viewed

the situation as analogous to that covered by the ‘‘plain view’’ doctrine: obvious contraband may be seized, but a search may not be

expanded to determine whether an object is contraband. 4

—Vehicular Searches

[P. 1239, add to n.62:]

An automobile’s ‘‘ready mobility [is] an exigency sufficient to excuse failure to

obtain a search warrant once probable cause is clear’’; there is no need to find the

presence of ‘‘unforeseen circumstances’’ or other additional exigency. Pennsylvania

v. Labron, 116 S. Ct. 2485, 2487 (1996).

[P. 1239, delete text accompanying n.63, and substitute the following:]

and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads,

but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable

cause or some ‘‘articulable and reasonable suspicion’’ 5 of traffic or

safety violation or some other criminal activity. 6
AMENDMENT 4—SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 49

7 115 S. Ct. 2386 (1995).

8 Id. at 2394–95.

9 Id. at 2395. 10 Id. at 2396.

—Drug Testing

[P. 1249, substitute for paragraph beginning after n.128:]

Emphasizing the ‘‘special needs’’ of the public school context,

reflected in the ‘‘custodial and tutelary’’ power that schools exercise

over students, and also noting schoolchildren’s diminished expectation of privacy, the Court in Vernonia School District v. Acton 7

upheld a school district’s policy authorizing random urinalysis drug

testing of students who participate in interscholastic athletics. The

Court redefined the term ‘‘compelling’’ governmental interest. The

phrase does not describe a ‘‘fixed, minimum quantum of governmental concern,’’ the Court explained, but rather ‘‘describes an interest which appears important enough to justify the particular

search at hand.’’ 8 Applying this standard, the Court concluded that

‘‘deterring drug use by our Nation’s schoolchildren is at least as important as enhancing efficient enforcement of the Nation’s laws

against the importation of drugs . . . or deterring drug use by engineers and trainmen.’’ 9 On the other hand, the interference with

privacy interests was not great, the Court decided, since schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and vaccinations. Moreover, ‘‘[l]egitimate privacy expectations are even less [for] student athletes, since they normally suit

up, shower, and dress in locker rooms that afford no privacy, and

since they voluntarily subject themselves to physical exams and

other regulations above and beyond those imposed on non-athletes.

The Court ‘‘caution[ed] against the assumption that suspicionless

drug testing will readily pass muster in other contexts,’’ identifying

as ‘‘the most significant element’’ in Vernonia the fact that the policy was implemented under the government’s responsibilities as

guardian and tutor of schoolchildren. 10

Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule

—Narrowing Application of the Exclusionary Rule

[P. 1267, add to n.211:]

Similarly, the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence that

was seized incident to an arrest that was the result of a clerical error by a court

clerk. Arizona v. Evans, 115 S. Ct. 1185 (1995).
50 AMENDMENT 4—SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

—Operation of the Rule: Standing

[P. 1270, add to n.229 following cite to Rakas v. Illinois:]

United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993) (only persons whose privacy or

property interests are violated may object to a search on Fourth Amendment

grounds; exerting control and oversight over property by virtue of participation in

a criminal conspiracy does not alone establish such interests).
51

1 United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996) (forfeitures, pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 981 and 21 U.S.C. § 881, of property used in drug and money laundering

offenses, are not punitive). The Court in Ursery applied principles that had been set

forth in Various Items of Personal Property v. United States, 282 U.S. 577 (1931)

(forfeiture of distillery used in defrauding government of tax on spirits); One Lot

Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972) (per curiam) (forfeiture

of jewels brought into United States without customs declaration); and United

States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984) (forfeiture, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), of firearms ‘‘used or intended to be used in’’ firearms offenses).

A two-part inquiry is followed. First, the Court inquires whether Congress intended

the forfeiture proceeding to be civil or criminal. Then, if Congress intended that the

proceeding be civil, the court determines whether there is nonetheless the ‘‘clearest

proof’’ that the sanction is ‘‘so punitive’’ as to transform it into a criminal penalty.

89 Firearms, supra, 465 U.S. at 366.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

RIGHTS OF PERSONS

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Development and Scope

[P. 1282, n.59, delete citation to One Lot Emerald Cut Stones case:]

[P. 1283, n.60, delete reference to 89 Firearms case and add:]

Montana Dep’t of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 114 S. Ct. 1937 (1994) (tax on possession of illegal drugs, ‘‘to be collected only after any state or federal fines or forfeitures have been satisfied,’’ constitutes punishment for purposes of double jeopardy).

[P. 1283, add to text following n.60:]

Ordinarily, however, civil in rem forfeiture proceedings may

not be considered punitive for purposes of double jeopardy analysis. 1

Reprosecution Following Acquittal

—Acquittal by Jury

[P. 1290, add note to end of first sentence in section:]

What constitutes a jury acquittal may occasionally be uncertain. In Schiro v.

Farley, 114 S. Ct. 783 (1994), the Court ruled that a jury’s action in leaving the

verdict sheet blank on all but one count did not amount to an acquittal on those

counts, and that consequently conviction on the remaining count, alleged to be duplicative of one of the blank counts, could not constitute double jeopardy. In any

event, the Court added, no successive prosecution violative of double jeopardy could

result from an initial sentencing proceeding in the course of an initial prosecution.
52 AMENDMENT 5—RIGHTS OF PERSONS

2Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990) (holding that the state could not prosecute a traffic offender for negligent homicide because it would attempt to prove

conduct for which the defendant had already been prosecuted—driving while intoxicated and failure to keep to the right of the median). A subsequent prosecution is

barred, the Court explained, if the government, to establish an essential element of

an offense, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant

has already been prosecuted. Id. at 521.

3 United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 709 (1993) (applying Blockburger test

to determine whether prosecution for a crime, following conviction for criminal contempt for violation of a court order prohibiting that crime, constitutes double jeopardy).

4Witte v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 2199, 2204 (1995) (consideration of defendant’s alleged cocaine dealings in determining sentence for marijuana offenses does

not bar subsequent prosecution on cocaine charges).

‘‘For the Same Offence’’

—Legislative Discretion as to Multiple Sentences

[P. 1299, add to n.142:]

But cf. Rutledge v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1241 (1996) (21 U.S.C. § 846, prohibiting conspiracy to commit drug offenses, does not require proof of any fact that

is not also a part of the continuing criminal enterprise offense under 21 U.S.C.

§ 848, so there are not two separate offenses).

—Successive Prosecutions for the Same Offense

[P. 1300, substitute for the two sentences immediately following

n.150:]

In 1990, the Court modified the Brown approach, stating that

the appropriate focus is on same conduct rather than same evidence. 2 That interpretation held sway only three years, however,

before being repudiated as ‘‘wrong in principle [and] unstable in application.’’ 3

[P. 1301, add to n.154:]

The fact that Felix constituted a ‘‘large exception’’ to Grady was one of the reasons the Court cited in overruling Grady. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688,

709–10 (1993).

[P. 1301, add to text following n.154:]

For double jeopardy purposes, a defendant is ‘‘punished . . .

only for the offense of which [he] is convicted’’; a later prosecution

or later punishment is not barred simply because the underlying

criminal activity has been considered at sentencing for a different

offense. 4
AMENDMENT 5—RIGHTS OF PERSONS 53

5 In Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 439 (1974), the Court had suggested a

distinction between a constitutional violation and a violation of ‘‘the prophylactic

rules developed to protect that right.’’ The actual holding in Tucker, however, had

turned on the fact that the interrogation had preceded the Miranda decision and

that warnings—albeit not full Miranda warnings—had been given. 6 428 U.S. 465 (1976).

7 507 U.S. 680 (1993).

8 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

9 507 U.S. at 691–92. 10 Id. at 693.

SELF-INCRIMINATION

Development and Scope

[P. 1309, add to n.190:]

In determining whether a state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because the prosecution violated due process by using his post-Miranda silence

for impeachment purposes at trial, the proper standard for harmless-error review

is that announced in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)—whether

the due process error ‘‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict—not the stricter ‘‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’’ standard of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967), applicable on direct review.

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993).

Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self-Incrimination

—Miranda v. Arizona

[P. 1332, substitute for paragraph that carries over to P. 1333:]

Although the Court had suggested in 1974 that most Miranda

claims could be disallowed in federal habeas corpus cases, 5 such a

course was squarely rejected in 1993. The Stone v. Powell 6 rule,

precluding federal habeas corpus review of a state prisoner’s claim

that his conviction rests on evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure, does not extend to preclude federal habeas review of a state prisoner’s Miranda claim, the Court ruled in

Withrow v. Williams. 7 The Miranda rule differs from the Mapp v.

Ohio 8 exclusionary rule denied enforcement in Stone, the Court explained. While both are prophylactic rules, Miranda unlike Mapp,

safeguards a fundamental trial right, the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda also protects against the use at trial of unreliable statements, hence, unlike Mapp, relates to the correct ascertainment of guilt. 9 A further consideration was that eliminating review of Miranda claims would not significantly reduce federal habeas review of state convictions, since most Miranda claims could

be recast in terms of due process denials resulting from admission

of involuntary confessions. 10
54 AMENDMENT 5—RIGHTS OF PERSONS

11Stansbury v. California, 114 S. Ct. 1526 (1994). 12Davis v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2350 (1994) (suspect’s statement that

‘‘maybe I should talk to a lawyer,’’ uttered after Miranda waiver and after an hour

and a half of questioning, did not constitute such a clear request for an attorney

when, in response to a direct follow-up question, he said ‘‘no, I don’t want a lawyer’’).13 507 U.S. 680 (1993). 14 428 U.S. 465 (1976). See main text, pp. 1265–66.

[P. 1334, add to text following n.324:]

Whether a person is ‘‘in custody’’ is an objective test assessed

in terms of how a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes would

perceive his or her freedom to leave; a police officer’s subjective and

undisclosed view that a person being interrogated is a suspect is

not relevant for Miranda purposes. 11

[P. 1338, add to text following n.344:]

After a suspect has knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, police officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney. 12

The Operation of the Exclusionary Rule

—Supreme Court Review

[P. 1341, add to text at end of section:]

In Withrow v. Williams, 13 the Court held that the rule of Stone

v. Powell, 14 precluding federal habeas corpus review of a state prisoner’s claim that his conviction rests on evidence obtained through

an unconstitutional search or seizure, does not extend to preclude

federal habeas review of a state prisoner’s claim that his conviction

rests on statements obtained in violation of the safeguards mandated by Miranda.

DUE PROCESS

Substantive Due Process

—Discrimination

[P. 1357, add to n.71:]

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 2106–08 (1995).

[P. 1358, add to n.75 following Richardson v. Belcher citation:]

FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (exemption from cable TV

regulation of facilities that serve only dwelling units under common ownership).
AMENDMENT 5—RIGHTS OF PERSONS 55

15 Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440 (1928); Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S.

142 (1927), modified, 276 U.S. 594 (1928); Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927).

See also Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932) (invalidating as arbitrary and capricious a conclusive presumption that gifts made within two years of death were made

in contemplation of death). 16 Untermyer was distinguished in United States v. Hemme, 476 U.S. 558, 568

(1986), upholding retroactive application of unified estate and gift taxation to a taxpayer as to whom the overall impact was minimal and not oppressive. All three

cases were distinguished in United States v. Carlton, 114 S. Ct. 2018, 2024 (1994),

as having been ‘‘decided during an era characterized by exacting review of economic

legislation under an approach that ‘has long since been discarded.’’’ The Court noted

further that Untermyer and Blodgett had been limited to situations involving creation of a wholly new tax, and that Nichols had involved a retroactivity period of

12 years. Id. 17 114 S. Ct. 2018, 2022 (1994) (quoting Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.,

428 U.S. 1, 16–17 (1976)). These principles apply to estate and gift taxes as well

as to income taxes, the Court added. 114 S. Ct. at 2024. 18 114 S. Ct. at 2023.

—Retroactive Taxes

[P. 1364, substitute for last paragraph in section:]

Although the Court during the 1920s struck down gift taxes

imposed retroactively upon gifts that were made and completely

vested before the enactment of the taxing statute, 15 those decisions

have recently been distinguished, and their precedential value limited. 16 In United States v. Carlton, the Court declared that ‘‘[t]he

due process standard to be applied to tax statutes with retroactive

effect . . . is the same as that generally applicable to retroactive

economic legislation’’—retroactive application of legislation must be

shown to be ‘‘‘justified by a rational legislative purpose.’ ’’ 17 Applying that principle, the Court upheld retroactive application of a

1987 amendment limiting application of a federal estate tax deduction originally enacted in 1986. Congress’ purpose was ‘‘neither illegitimate nor arbitrary,’’ the Court noted, since Congress had acted

‘‘to correct what it reasonably viewed as a mistake in the original

1986 provision that would have created a significant and unanticipated revenue loss.’’ Also, ‘‘Congress acted promptly and established only a modest period of retroactivity.’’ The fact that the taxpayer had transferred stock in reliance on the original enactment

was not dispositive, since ‘‘[t]ax legislation is not a promise, and a

taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code.’’ 18

—Deprivation of Property: Retroactive Legislation

[P. 1365, add to n.130:]

Concrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S.

602, 636–41 (1993) (imposition of multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability

on an employer is not irrational, even though none of its employees had earned vested benefits by the time of withdrawal).
56 AMENDMENT 5—RIGHTS OF PERSONS

19 483 U.S. at 842. 20 Justice Scalia, author of the Court’s opinion in Nollan, amplified his views

in a concurring and dissenting opinion in Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1

(1988), explaining that ‘‘common zoning regulations requiring subdividers to observe

lot-size and set-back restrictions, and to dedicate certain areas to public streets, are

in accord with [constitutional requirements] because the proposed property use

would otherwise be the cause of’’ the social evil (e.g., congestion) that the regulation

seeks to remedy. By contrast, the Justice asserted, a rent control restriction pegged

to individual tenant hardship lacks such cause-and-effect relationship and is in reality an attempt to impose on a few individuals public burdens that ‘‘should be

borne by the public as a whole.’’ 485 U.S. at 20, 22. 21 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). This was a 5–4 decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist’s

opinion of the Court was joined by Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Justices Blackmun and Ginsburg joined Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, and

Justice Souter added a dissenting opinion. 22 Id. at 2319–20. Justice Stevens’ dissent criticized the Court’s ‘‘abandon[ment

of] the traditional presumption of constitutionality and imposi[tion of] a novel burden of proof on [the] city.’’ Id. at 2326. The Court responded by distinguishing between challenges to generally applicable zoning regulations, where the burden appropriately rests on the challenging party, and imposition of property exactions

through adjudicative proceedings, where ‘‘the burden properly rests on the city.’’ Id.

at 2320 n.8. As for the standard of proof, the Court looked to state law and rejected

the two extremes—a generalized statement of connection deemed ‘‘too lax’’ to protect

the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation, and a ‘‘specific and uniquely attributable’’ test deemed too exacting. Instead, the Court chose an ‘‘intermediate position’’ requiring a showing of ‘‘reasonable relationship,’’ but recharacterized it as

‘‘rough proportionality’’ in order to avoid confusion with ‘‘rational basis.’’ Id. at 2319.

NATIONAL EMINENT DOMAIN POWER

When Property Is Taken

—Regulatory Takings

[P. 1387, add to n.277 after initial citation:]

Accord, Concrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508

U.S. 602, 645–46 (1993).

[P. 1391, delete remainder of paragraph after n.299 and substitute

the following:]

‘‘If [the government] wants an easement across the Nollans’

property, it must pay for it.’’ 19 Because the Nollan Court found no

essential nexus between the permit condition and the asserted government interest, it did not address whether there is any additional requirement when such a nexus does exist, as is often the

case with land dedications and other permit conditions. 20 Seven

years later, however, the Court announced in Dolan v. City of

Tigard 21 that conditions attached to development permits must be

related to the impact of the proposed development not only in nature but also in degree. Government must establish a ‘‘rough proportionality’’ between permit conditions and the developmental impacts at which they are aimed. 22 The Court ruled in Dolan that
AMENDMENT 5—RIGHTS OF PERSONS 57

Note, however, that the Court stated its holdings in terms of lack of ‘‘reasonable relationship,’’ rather than lack of ‘‘rough proportionality.’’

23 Id. at 2320.

24 Id. at 2321. This conclusion, Justice Souter pointed out in dissent, sounds

very much like ‘‘an application of Nollan’s nexus analysis.’’ Id. at 2330.

25The city had quantified the traffic increases that could be expected from the

development, but had merely speculated that construction of the bike path ‘‘could

offset’’ some of that increase. While ‘‘[n]o precise mathematical calculation is required,’’ the Court concluded, ‘‘the city must make some effort to quantify its findings in support of the dedication.’’ Id. at 2322.

the city’s conditioning of a building permit for expansion of a hardware store on the store owner’s dedication of a portion of her land

for a floodplain/recreational easement and for an adjacent pedestrian/bicycle pathway amounted to a taking. In general, the requisite nexus existed between the city’s interest in flood control and

imposition of an easement restricting development in the floodplain, and between the city’s interest in minimizing traffic congestion and the required bike path dedication. The floodplain easement, however, went beyond a mere building restriction; it also

contained a recreational component that deprived the property

owner of the right to exclude others from her land. Because the city

had not said ‘‘why a public greenway, as opposed to a private one,

was required in the interest of flood control,’’ 23 the Court concluded

that the city had failed to establish ‘‘the required reasonable relationship’’ for this component of the easement. 24 Similarly, the city

had not adequately demonstrated a reasonable relationship between the bikepath dedication requirement and the additional vehicle and bicycle trips that would be generated by the applicant’s development. 25

59

1See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). 2Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993).

3 United States v. Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. 2310 (1995).

4Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. at 2320. 5Lewis v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 2163 (1996).

SIXTH AMENDMENT

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

RIGHT TO TRIAL BY IMPARTIAL JURY

Jury Trial

[P. 1408, change heading to:]

—The Attributes and Function of the Jury

[P. 1410, add to text following n.64:]

Certain functions of the jury are likely to remain consistent between the federal and state court systems. For instance, the requirement that a jury find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt, which had already been established under the Due Process

Clause, 1 has been held to be a standard mandated by the Sixth

Amendment. 2 The Court has further held that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment require that

a jury find a defendant guilty of every element of the crime with

which he is charged, including questions of mixed law and fact. 3

Thus, a district court presiding over a case of providing false statements to a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 erred

when it took the issue of the ‘‘materiality’’ of the false statement

away from the jury. 4

—Criminal Proceedings to Which the Guarantee Applies

[P. 1411, add to text following n.68:]

A defendant who is prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses, however, does not have a constitutional right

to a jury trial, even if the aggregate of sentences authorized for the

offense exceeds six months. 5

[P. 1411, add to n.73:]

The distinction between criminal and civil contempt may be somewhat more

elusive. International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (fines levied on

the union were criminal in nature where the conduct did not occur in the court’s

presence, the court’s injunction required compliance with an entire code of conduct,

and the fines assessed were not compensatory).
60 AMENDMENT 6—RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

6 506 U.S. 364 (1993).

7 506 U.S. at 368–70 (1993) (failure of counsel to raise a constitutional claim

that was valid at time of trial did not constitute ‘‘prejudice’’ because basis of claim

had since been overruled).

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Development of an Absolute Right to Counsel

—Gideon v. Wainwright

[P. 1435, n.217, delete citation and parenthetical to Baldasar v. Illinois appearing after last semi-colon, and insert the following:]

But see Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994) (as Scott v. Illinois, 440

U.S. 367 (1979) provides that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction is valid if defendant is not incarcerated, such a conviction may be used as the basis for penalty

enhancement upon a subsequent conviction).

—Effective Assistance of Counsel

[P. 1439, add to n.244:]

In Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), the Court applied the Strickland test

to attorney decisions in plea bargaining, holding that a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty.

[P. 1439, delete last sentence at end of first full paragraph on page

and add the following:]

In Lockhart v. Fretwell, 6 the Court refined the Strickland test

to require that not only would a different trial result be probable

because of attorney performance, but that the trial result which did

occur was fundamentally unfair or unreliable. 7
61

1Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996) (interpretation and construction of terms underlying patent claims may be reserved entirely

for the court).

SEVENTH AMENDMENT

CIVIL TRIALS

TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES

Application of the Amendment

—Cases ‘‘at Common Law’’

[P. 1455, add to text following n.30:]

Where there is no direct historical antecedent dating to the

adoption of the amendment, the court may also consider whether

existing precedent and the sound administration of justice favor

resolution by judges or juries. 1

—Procedures Limiting Jury’s Role

[P. 1461, add to n.59:]

A federal appellate court may also review a district court’s denial of a motion

to set aside an award as excessive under an abuse of discretion standard. Gasperini

v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 2211 (1996) (New York State law which

requires a review of jury awards to determine if they ‘‘deviate materially from reasonable compensation’’ may be adopted by federal district, but not appellate, court

exercising diversity jurisdiction).

63

1 In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), the Court noted that the application of the excessive fines clause to civil forfeiture did not depend on whether

it was a civil or criminal procedure, but rather on whether the forfeiture could be

seen as punishment. The Court was apparently willing to consider any number of

factors in making this evaluation; civil forfeiture was found to be at least partially

intended as punishment, and thus limited by the clause, based on its common law

roots, its focus on culpability, and various indications in the legislative histories of

its more recent incarnations.

AMENDMENT 8—PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME

EIGHTH AMENDMENT

EXCESSIVE FINES

[P. 1471, add to text following n.35:]

The Court has held, however, that the excessive fines clause

can be applied in civil forfeiture cases. 1

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

—Capital Punishment

[P. 1478, add to n.69:]

Consequently, a judge may be given significant discretion to override a jury sentencing recommendation, as long as the court’s decision is adequately channeled to

prevent arbitrary results. Harris v. Alabama, 115 S. Ct. 1031 (1995) (Eighth Amendment not violated where judge is only required to ‘‘consider’’ a capital jury’s sentencing recommendation).

[P. 1480, add to n.76:]

But see Tuilaepa v. California, 114 S. Ct. 2630 (1994) (holding that permitting

capital juries to consider the circumstances of the crime, the defendant’s prior criminal activity, and the age of the defendant, without further guidance, is not unconstitutionally vague).

[P. 1480, add to n.77:]

Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463 (1993) (consistent application of narrowing construction of phrase ‘‘exhibited utter disregard for human life’’ to require that the defendant be a ‘‘cold-blooded, pitiless slayer’’ cures vagueness).

[P. 1481, add to n.82:]

Romano v. Oklahoma, 114 S. Ct. 2004 (1994) (imposition of death penalty after

introduction of evidence that defendant had been sentenced to death previously did

not diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility so as to violate the Eighth Amendment).
64

2 Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (holding that a petitioner would have

to meet an ‘‘extraordinarily high’’ threshold of proof of innocence to warrant federal

habeas relief).

[P. 1483, add new note following period after word ‘‘considered’’ in

second sentence of paragraph beginning after n.93:]

See, e.g., Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993) (consideration of youth as a

mitigating factor may be limited to jury estimation of probability that defendant

would commit future acts of violence).

[P. 1483, add new note at end of third sentence of paragraph beginning after n.93:]

Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40 (1992) (no cure of trial court’s use of invalid

aggravating factor where appellate court fails to reweigh mitigating and aggravating factors).

[P. 1484, add to n.103:]

Thus, where psychiatric testimony was introduced regarding an invalid statutory aggravating circumstance, and where the defendant was not provided the assistance of an independent psychiatrist in order to develop rebuttal testimony, the

lack of rebuttal testimony might have affected how the jury evaluated another aggravating factor. Consequently, the reviewing court erred in reinstating a death sentence based on this other valid aggravating factor. Tuggle v. Netherland, 116 S. Ct.

283 (1995).

[P. 1487, add to text following n.116:]

In addition, the Court has held that, absent an independent

constitutional violation, habeas corpus relief for prisoners who assert innocence based on newly discovered evidence should generally

be denied. 2

[P. 1498, add to n.171:]

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (prisoner who alleged exposure to secondhand ‘‘environmental’’ tobacco smoke stated a cause of action under the Eighth

Amendment).

[P. 1498, add to n.174:]

Deliberate indifference in this context means something more than disregarding

an unjustifiably high risk of harm that should have been known, as might apply

in the civil context. Rather, it requires a finding that the responsible person acted

in reckless disregard of a risk of which he or she was aware, as would generally

be required for a criminal charge of recklessness. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825

(1994).
65

1 United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1633–34 (1995).

TENTH AMENDMENT

RESERVED POWERS

Effect of Provisions on Federal Powers

—Federal Police Powers

[P. 1514, add to text following first sentence in paragraph starting

after n.42:]

More recently, the Court struck down a statute prohibiting

possession of a gun at or near a school, rejecting an argument that

possession of firearms in school zones can be punished under the

Commerce Clause because it impairs the functioning of the national economy. Acceptance of this rationale, the Court said, would

eliminate ‘‘a[ny] distinction between what is truly national and

what is truly local,’’ would convert Congress’ commerce power into

‘‘a general police power of the sort retained by the States,’’ and

would undermine the ‘‘first principle’’ that the Federal Government

is one of enumerated and limited powers. 1

67

1 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996).

2 Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices

O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Stevens dissented, as did Justice

Souter, whose opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. 3 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996) (invalidating a provision of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act authorizing an Indian tribe to sue a State in federal court to compel performance of a duty to negotiate in good faith toward the formation of a compact). 4 116 S. Ct. at 1127.

ELEVENTH AMENDMENT

State Immunity

Suits Against States

—The Nature of the States’ Immunity

[P. 1527, add to n.33:]

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1127–28 (1996).

[P. 1528, add to n.43 after first sentence and accompanying citation:]

Of course, when a state is sued in federal court pursuant to federal law, the

Federal Government, not the defendant state, is ‘‘the authority that makes the law’’

creating the right of action. See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct.

1114, 1170–71 (1996) (Justice Souter dissenting).

[P. 1530, delete n.51 and accompanying text]

[P. 1530, delete second full paragraph on page]

[P. 1531, add to text at end of section:]

The Hans interpretation has been solidified with the Court’s

ruling in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 1 that Congress lacks

the power under Article I to abrogate state immunity under the

Eleventh Amendment. That too, however, was a 5–4 decision, with

the four dissenting Justices believing that Hans was wrongly decided. 2

—Congressional Withdrawal of Immunity

[P. 1535, delete last sentence of first paragraph and substitute the

following new paragraph:]

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas lasted less than seven years, the

Court overruling it in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida. 3 Chief

Justice Rehnquist, writing for a 5–4 majority, concluded that there

is ‘‘no principled distinction in favor of the States to be drawn between the Indian Commerce Clause [at issue in Seminole Tribe]

and the Interstate Commerce Clause [relied upon in Union Gas].’’ 4
68 AMENDMENT 11—SUITS AGAINST STATES

5 134 U.S. 1 (1890).

6 116 S. Ct. at 1127–28 (quoting Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman,

465 U.S. 89, 97–98 (1984).

7 Id. at 1131–32. Justice Souter’s dissent undertook a lengthy refutation of the

majority’s analysis, asserting that the Eleventh Amendment is best understood, in

keeping with its express language, as barring only suits based on diversity of citizenship, and as having no application to federal question litigation. Moreover, Justice Souter contended, the state soverign immunity that the Court mistakenly recognized in Hans v. Louisiana was a common law concept that ‘‘had no constitutional

status and was subject to congressional abrogation.’’ 116 S. Ct. at 1153. The Constitution made no provision for wholesale adoption of the common law, but, on the

contrary, was premised on the view that common law rules would always be subject

to legislative alteration. This ‘‘imperative of legislative control grew directly out of

the Framers’ revolutionary idea of popular sovereignty.’’ Id. at 1173.

8 427 U.S. 445 (1976).

9 116 S. Ct. at 1128.

In the majority’s view, Union Gas had deviated from a line of cases

tracing back to Hans v. Louisiana 5 that viewed the Eleventh

Amendment as implementing the ‘‘fundamental principle of sovereign immunity [that] limits the grant of judicial authority in Article III.’’ 6 Because ‘‘the Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial

power under Article III, . . . Article I cannot be used to circumvent

the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction.’’ 7

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is another matter. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 8 ‘‘based upon a rationale wholly inapplicable to the Interstate Commerce Clause, viz., that the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted well after the adoption of the Eleventh

Amendment and the ratification of the Constitution, operated to

alter the pre-existing balance between state and federal power

achieved by Article III and the Eleventh Amendment,’’ remains

good law. 9
69

1 Bennis v. Michigan, 116 S. Ct. 994 (1996).

2 BMW v. Gore, 116 S. Ct. 1589 (1996) (holding that a $2 million judgement for

failing to disclose to a purchaser that a ‘‘new’’ car had been repainted was ‘‘grossly

excessive’’ in relation to the state’s interest, as only a few of the 983 similarly repainted cars had been sold in that same state). But see TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance

Resources, 509 U.S. 443 (1993) (punitive damages of $10 million for slander of title

does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment even though

the jury awarded actual damages of only $19,000).

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

DUE PROCESS

RIGHTS GUARANTEED

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Health, Safety and Morals

—Protecting Morality

[P. 1636, add to text following n.163:]

Similarly, a court may order a car used in an act of prostitution forfeited as a public nuisance, even if this works a deprivation

on an innocent joint owner of the car. 1

Procedure in Taxation

—Sufficiency of Remedy

[P. 1665, add to n.177:]

See also Reich v. Collins, 115 S. Ct. 547 (1994) (violation of due process to hold

out a post-deprivation remedy for unconstitutional taxation and then, after the disputed taxes had been paid, to declare that no such remedy exists).

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: CIVIL

Power of the State to Regulate Procedure

—Costs, Damages, and Penalties

[P. 1698, add to n.34:]

See also Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994) (striking down a provision of the Oregon Constitution limiting judicial review of the amount of punitive

damages awarded by a jury).

[P. 1698, add to text after n.34:]

The Court has indicated, however, that the amount of punitive

damages is limited to those reasonably necessary to vindicate a

state’s interest in deterring unlawful conduct. 2 These limits may
70 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED

3 BMW v. Gore, 116 S. Ct. at 1589 (1996).

4Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995) (solitary confinement not atypical ‘‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life’’).

be discerned by a court by examining the degree of reprehensibility

of the act, the ratio between the punitive award and plaintiff’s actual or potential harm, and the legislative sanctions provided for

comparable misconduct. 3

Jurisdiction

[P. 1716, change heading:]

—Actions In Rem: Proceeding Against Property

[P. 1717, add to n.144:]

Predeprivation notice and hearing may be required if the property is not the

sort that, given advance warning, could be removed to another jurisdiction, destroyed, or concealed. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S.

43 (1993) (notice to owner required before seizure of house by government).

The Procedure Which is Due Process

—The Interests Protected: Entitlement and Positivist Recognition

[P. 1731, add to text following n.215:]

In an even more recent case, the Court limited the application

of this test to those circumstances where the restraint on freedom

imposed by the State creates an ‘‘atypical and significant’’ deprivation. 4

—The Requirements of Due Process

[P. 1741, add to n.269:]

See also Richards v. Jefferson County, 116 S. Ct. 1761 (1996) (res judicata may

not apply where taxpayer who challenged a county’s occupation tax was not informed of prior case and where taxpayer interests were not adequately protected).

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: CRIMINAL

The Elements of Due Process

—Initiation of Prosecution

[P. 1753, add to n.43:]

The Court has also rejected an argument that due process requires that criminal prosecutions go forward only on a showing of probable cause. Albright v. Oliver,

114 S. Ct. 807 (1994) (holding that there is no civil rights action based on the Fourteenth Amendment for arrest and imposition of bond without probable cause).
AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED 71

—Fair Trial

[P. 1756, add to n.59:]

But see Montana v. Egelhoff, 116 S. Ct. 2013 (1996) (state may bar defendant

from introducing evidence of intoxication to prove lack of mens rea).

—Prosecutorial Misconduct

[P. 1760, add to n.76:]

See also Wood v. Bartholomew, 116 S. Ct. 7 (1995) (per curiam) (holding no Due

Process violation where prosecutor’s failure to disclose the result of a witness’ polygraph test would not have affected the outcome of the case).

—Proof, Burden of Proof, and Presumptions

[P. 1761, add to n.83:]

See also Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury requires a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

[P. 1762, add to n.87:]

But see Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (considered as a whole, jury instructions that define ‘‘reasonable doubt’’ as requiring a ‘‘moral certainty’’ or as

equivalent to ‘‘substantial doubt’’ did not violate due process because other clarifying

language was included.)

[P. 1764, add to n.96:]

The Court has held, however, that for purposes of a recidivism-based sentence

enhancement where a prosecutor carries the burden of establishing a prior conviction, a defendant can be required to bear the burden of production in challenging

the validity of such conviction. See Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) (a sentencing

court considering a guilty plea in prior case may rely upon a presumption of regularity during that proceeding).

[P. 1765, add to n.104 after Spencer v. Texas cite:]

Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992).

—The Problem of the Incompetent of Insane Defendant of Convict

[P. 1769, add to n.120:]

It is a violation of due process, however, for a state to require that a defendant

must prove competence to stand trial by clear and convincing evidence. Cooper v.

Oklahoma, 116 S. Ct. 1373 (1996).

—Corrective Process: Appeals and Other Remedies

[P. 1773, add to n.150:]

Establishing a right of access to law materials, however, requires an individualized demonstration of an inmate having been hindered in efforts to pursue a legal

claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996) (no requirement that the State

‘‘enable [a] prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate effectively’’).
72 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED

5 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). This was a 5–4 decision. Justice O’Connor’s opinion of

Court was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and by Justices Kennedy, Thomas,

and—to the extent not inconsistent with his own concurring opinion—Scalia. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dissented.

6 115 S. Ct. at 2113 (emphasis original).

TRADITIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION: ECONOMIC REGULATION

AND RELATED EXERCISES OF THE POLICE POWERS

Police Power Regulation

—Classification

[P. 1831, add to n.260 after paragraph headed ‘‘Attorneys’’:]

Cable Television: exemption from regulation under the Cable Communications

Policy Act of facilities that serve only dwelling units under common ownership. FCC

v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). Regulatory efficiency is served by

exempting those systems for which the costs of regulation exceed the benefits to consumers, and potential for monopoly power is lessened when a cable system operator

is negotiating with a single-owner.

EQUAL PROTECTION AND RACE

Permissible Remedial Utilization of Racial Classifications

[P. 1868, delete last sentence and add to text at end of section:]

The distinction between federal and state power to apply racial

classifications proved ephemeral. The Court ruled in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena 5 that racial classifications imposed by federal law must be analyzed by the same strict scrutiny standard

that is applied to evaluate state and local classifications based on

race. The Court overruled Metro Broadcasting and, to the extent

that it applied a review standard less stringent than strict scrutiny, Fullilove v. Klutznick. Strict scrutiny is to be applied regardless of the race of those burdened or benefited by the particular

classification; there is no intermediate standard applicable to ‘‘benign’’ racial classifications. The underlying principle, the Court explained, is that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect persons, not groups. It follows, therefore, that classifications based on

the group characteristic of race ‘‘should be subjected to detailed judicial inquiry to ensure that the personal right to equal protection

. . . has not been infringed.’’ 6
AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED 73

7 511 U.S. 127 (1994).

8 United States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996).

THE NEW EQUAL PROTECTION

Classifications Meriting Close Scrutiny

—Sex

[P. 1879, add to text after n.51:]

Even when the negative ‘‘stereotype’’ which is evoked is that

of a stereotypical male, the Court has evaluated this as potential

gender discrimination. In J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 7 the

Court addressed a paternity suit where men had been intentionally

excluded from a jury through peremptory strikes. The Court rejected as unfounded the argument that men, as a class, would be

more sympathetic to the defendant, the putative father. The Court

also determined that genderbased exclusion of jurors would undermine the litigants’ interest by tainting the proceedings, and in addition would harm the wrongfully excluded juror.

[P. 1885, add to text after n.76:]

In a 1996 case, the Court required that a state demonstrate

‘‘exceedingly persuasive justification’’ for gender discrimination.

When a female applicant challenged the exclusion of women from

the historically male-only Virginia Military Institute (VMI), the

State of Virginia defended the exclusion of females as essential to

the nature of training at the military style institution. 8 The State

argued that the VMI program, which included rigorous physical

training, deprivation of personal privacy, and an ‘‘adversative

model’’ that featured minute regulation of behavior, would need to

be unacceptably modified to facilitate the admission of women.

While recognizing that women’s admission would require accommodation such as different housing assignments and physical training

programs, the Court found that the reasons set forth by the State

were not ‘‘exceedingly persuasive,’’ and thus the State did not meet

its burden of justification. The Court also rejected the argument

that a parallel program established by the State at a private women’s college served as an adequate substitute, finding that the program lacked the military-style structure found at VMI, and that it

did not equal VMI in faculty, facilities, prestige or alumni network.
74 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED

9Miller v. Johnson, 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995) (drawing congressional district lines

in order to comply with § 5 of the Voting Rights Act as interpreted by the Department of Justice not a compelling governmental interest). 10 Id.; Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). See also Shaw v. Hunt, 116 S.Ct.

1894 (1996) (creating an unconventionally-shaped majority-minority congressional

district in one portion of state in order to alleviate effect of fragmenting geographically compact minority population in another portion of state does not remedy a violation of § 2 of Voting Rights Act, and is thus not a compelling governmental interest).11 Bush v. Vera, 116 S. Ct. 1941, 1961 (1996) (opinion of Justice O’Connor,

joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy) (also involving congressional districts). 12 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996). 13 Evans v. Romer, 854 P.2d 1270 (Colo. 1993).

Fundamental Interests: The Political Process

—Apportionment and Districting

[P. 1905, add to n.157 after cite for Summers v. Cenarrusa:]

But see Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (1993) (vacating and remanding for

further consideration the rejection of a deviation in excess of 10% intended to preserve political subdivision boundaries).

[P. 1906, add to text following n.161:]

Even if racial gerrymandering is intended to benefit minority

voting populations, it is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal

Protection Clause if racial considerations are the dominant and

controlling rationale in drawing district lines. 9 Showing that a district’s ‘‘bizarre’’ shape departs from traditional districting principles

such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivision lines may serve to reinforce such a claim, 10 although a plurality of the Justices would not preclude the creation of ‘‘reasonably

compact’’ majority-minority districts in order to remedy past discrimination or to comply with the requirements of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965. 11

[P. 1916, add new heading and text following n.24:]

Sexual Orientation

In Romer v. Evans, 12 the Supreme Court struck down a state

constitutional amendment which both overturned local ordinances

prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals, lesbians or

bisexuals, and prohibited any state or local governmental action to

either remedy discrimination or to grant preferences based on sexual orientation. The Court declined to follow the lead of the Supreme Court of Colorado, which had held that the amendment infringed on gays’ and lesbians’ fundamental right to participate in

the political process. 13 The Court also rejected the application of
AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED 75

14 116 S.Ct. at 1628, quoting Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S.

528, 534 (1973).

the heightened standard reserved for suspect classes, and sought

only to establish whether the legislative classification had a rational relation to a legitimate end.

The Court found that the amendment failed even this restrained review. Animus against a class of persons was not considered by the Court as a legitimate goal of government: ‘‘[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to

harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate

governmental interest.’’ 14 The Court then rejected arguments that

the amendment protected the freedom of association rights of landlords and employers, or that it would conserve resources in fighting

discrimination against other groups. The Court found that the

scope of the law was unnecessarily broad to achieve these stated

purposes, and that no other legitimate rationale existed for such a

restriction.

77

1 409 U.S. 109 (1972).

2 116 S. Ct. 1495 (1996) (statutory prohibition against advertisements that provide the public with accurate information about retail prices of alcoholic beverages

is not shielded from constitutional scrutiny by the Twenty-first Amendment).

3 Id. at 1514 (quoting Capital Cities Cable, Inc., v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 712

(1984)).

4 Id.

TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT

Effect of Section 2 Upon Other Constitutional Provisions

[P. 1982, delete sentence containing n.31 and substitute the following:]

The Court departed from this line of reasoning in California v.

LaRue. 1

[P. 1983, add to text at end of section:]

In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 2 the Court disavowed

LaRue and Bellanca, and reaffirmed that, ‘‘although the Twentyfirst Amendment limits the effect of the dormant Commerce Clause

on a state’s regulatory power over the delivery or use of intoxicating beverages within its borders, ‘the Amendment does not license

the States to ignore their obligations under other provisions of the

Constitution,’ ’’ 3 and therefore does not afford a basis for state legislation infringing freedom of expression protected by the First

Amendment. There is no reason, the Court asserted, for distinguishing between freedom of expression and the other constitutional guarantees (e.g., those protected by the Establishment and

Equal Protection Clauses) held to be insulated from state impairment pursuant to powers conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment. The Court hastened to add by way of dictum that states retain adequate police powers to regulate ‘‘grossly sexual exhibitions

in premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages.’’ ‘Entirely apart

from the Twenty-first Amendment, the State has ample power to

prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in inappropriate locations.’’ 4

79

ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL

IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

128. Act of August 29, 1935, ch. 814 § 5(e), 49 Stat. 982, 27 U.S.C. § 205(e).

The prohibition in section 5(e)(2) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 on the display of alcohol content on beer labels

is inconsistent with the protections afforded to commercial speech by

the First Amendment. The government’s interest in curbing strength

wars among brewers is substantial, but, given the ‘‘overall irrationality’’ of the regulatory scheme, the labeling prohibition does not directly and materially advance that interest.

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585 (1995).

Justices concurring: Thomas, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg,

Breyer, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justice concurring specially: Stevens.

129. Act of Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 521, 26 U.S.C. § 4371(1).

A federal tax on insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers not

subject to the federal income tax violates the Export Clause, Art. I,

§ 9, cl. 5, as applied to casualty insurance for losses incurred during

the shipment of goods from locations within the United States to purchasers abroad.

United States v. IBM Corp., 116 S. Ct. 1793 (1996).

Justices concurring: Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Souter, Breyer, and

Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justices dissenting: Kennedy, Ginsburg.

130. Act of May 11, 1976 (Pub. L. 94–283, § 112(2)), 90 Stat. 489; 2 U.S.C.

§ 441a(d)(3).

The Party Expenditure Provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limits expenditures by a political party ‘‘in connection with the general election campaign of a [congressional] candidate,’’ violates the First Amendment when applied to expenditures

that a political party makes independently, without coordination with

the candidate.

Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 116 S. Ct. 2309 (1996).

Justices concurring: Breyer, O’Connor and Souter.

Justices concurring in part and dissenting in part: Kennedy, Rehnquist,

Scalia, and Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Stevens and Ginsburg.

131. Act of Oct. 17, 1988 (Pub. L. 100–497, § 11(d)(7)), 102 Stat. 2472, 25

U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7).

A provision of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act authorizing an

Indian tribe to sue a State in federal court to compel performance of

a duty to negotiate in good faith toward the formation of a compact
80 ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL

violates the Eleventh Amendment. In exercise of its powers under Article I, Congress may not abrogate States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491

U.S. 1 (1989), is overruled.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996).

Justices concurring: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy,

and Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

132. Act of Nov. 30, 1989 (Pub. L. 101–194, § 601), 103 Stat. 1760, 5 U.S.C.

app. § 501.

Section 501(b) of the Ethics in Government Act, as amended in

1989 to prohibit Members of Congress and federal employees from accepting honoraria, violates the First Amendment as applied to Executive Branch employees below grade GS–16. The ban is limited to expressive activity and does not include other outside income, and the

‘‘speculative benefits’’ of the ban do not justify its ‘‘crudely crafted

burden’’ on expression.

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 115 S. Ct. 1003 (1995).

Justices concurring: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Justice concurring in part and dissenting in part: O’Connor.

Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Scalia and Thomas.

133. Act of Nov. 29, 1990 (Pub. L. 101–647, § 1702), 104 Stat. 4844, 18

U.S.C. § 922q.

The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which makes it a criminal offense to knowingly possess a firearm within a school zone, exceeds congressional power under the Commerce Clause. It is ‘‘a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any

sort of economic enterprise.’’ Possession of a gun at or near a school

‘‘is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition

elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.’’

United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995).

Justices concurring: Chief Justice Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and

Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

134. Act of Dec. 19, 1991 (Pub. L. 102–242 § 476), 105 Stat. 2387, 15 U.S.C.

§ 78aa–1.

Section 27A(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as added

in 1991, requiring reinstatement of any section 10(b) actions that

were dismissed as time barred subsequent to a 1991 Supreme Court

decision, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers to the extent

that it requires federal courts to reopen final judgments in private

civil actions. The provision violates a fundamental principle of Article

III that the federal judicial power comprehends the power to render

dispositive judgments.

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1447 (1995).
ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 81

Justices concurring: Scalia, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, and

Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justice concurring specially: Breyer.

Justices dissenting: Stevens and Ginsburg.

135. Act of Oct. 5, 1992 (Pub. L. 102–385, §§ 10(b) and 10(c)), 106 Stat. 1487,

1503; 47 U.S.C. § 532(j) and § 531 note, respectively.

Section 10(b) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992, which requires cable operators to segregate

and block indecent programming on leased access channels if they do

not prohibit it, violates the First Amendment. Section 10(c) of the Act,

which permits a cable operator to prevent transmission of ‘‘sexually

explicit’’ programming on public access channels, also violates the

First Amendment.

Denver Area Educ. Tel. Consortium v. FCC, 116 S. Ct. 2374 (1996).

Justices concurring: Breyer, Stevens, O’Connor (§ 10(b) only), Kennedy, Souter,

and Ginsburg.

Justices dissenting: Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, O’Connor (§ 10(c) only).

83

STATE ACTS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL

1090. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993).

A rule of the Florida Board of Accountancy banning ‘‘direct, inperson, uninvited solicitation’’ of business by certified public accountants is inconsistent with the free speech guarantees of the First

Amendment.

Justices concurring: Kennedy, White, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia, Souter,

Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justice dissenting: O’Connor.

1091. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993).

Oklahoma may not impose income taxes or motor vehicle taxes

on members of the Sac and Fox Nation who live in ‘‘Indian country,’’

whether the land is within reservation boundaries, on allotted lands,

or in dependent communities. Such tax jurisdiction is considered to be

preempted unless Congress has expressly provided to the contrary.

1092. Department of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993).

An Ohio statute setting priority of claims against insolvent insurance companies is preempted by the federal priority statute, 31

U.S.C. § 3713, which accords first priority to the United States, to the

extent that the Ohio law protects the claims of creditors who are not

policyholders. Insofar as it protects the claims of policyholders, the

law is saved from preemption by section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Justices concurring: Blackmun, White, Stevens, O’Connor, and Chief Justice

Rehnquist.

Justices dissenting: Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, Thomas.

1093. Oregon Waste Systems v. Oregon Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 114

S. Ct. 1345 (1994).

Oregon’s imposition of a surcharge on in-state disposal of solid

waste generated in other states—a tax three times greater than the

fee charged for disposal of waste that was generated in Oregon—constitutes an invalid burden on interstate commerce. The tax is facially

discriminatory against interstate commerce, is not a valid compensatory tax, and is not justified by any other legitimate state interest.

Justices concurring: Thomas, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter,

Ginsburg.

Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Blackmun.

1094. Associated Industries v. Lohman, 114 S. Ct. 1815 (1994).

Missouri’s uniform, statewide use tax constitutes an invalid discrimination against interstate commerce in those counties in which

the use tax is greater than the sales tax imposed as a local option,

even though the overall statewide effect of the use tax places a lighter
84 STATE ACTS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL

aggregate tax burden on interstate commerce than on intrastate commerce.

1095. Montana Dep’t of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 114 S. Ct. 1937 (1994).

Montana’s tax on the possession of illegal drugs, to be ‘‘collected

only after any state or federal fines or forfeitures have been satisfied,’’

constitutes punishment, and violates the prohibition, derived from the

Double Jeopardy Clause, against successive punishments for the same

offense.

Justices concurring: Stevens, Blackmun, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg.

Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas.

1096. West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994).

A Massachusetts milk pricing order, imposing an assessment on

all milk sold by dealers to Massachusetts retailers, is an unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce because the entire

assessment is then distributed to Massachusetts dairy farmers in

spite of the fact that about two-thirds of the assessed milk is produced out of state. The discrimination imposed by the pricing order

is not justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism.

Justices concurring: Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg.

Justices concurring specially: Scalia and Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist and Blackmun.

1097. Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 114 S. Ct. 2331 (1994).

A provision of the Oregon Constitution, prohibiting judicial review of the amount of punitive damages awarded by a jury unless the

court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict,

is invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judicial review of the amount awarded was one of the few procedural safeguards available at common law, yet Oregon has removed

that safeguard without providing any substitute procedure, and with

no indication that the danger of arbitrary awards has subsided.

Justices concurring: Stevens, Blackmun, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter,

and Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Ginsburg and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

1098. Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481

(1994).

A New York State law creating a special school district for an incorporated village composed exclusively of members of one small religious sect violates the Establishment Clause.

Justices concurring: Souter, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor, and Ginsburg.

Justice concurring specially: Kennedy.

Justices dissenting: Scalia, Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.
STATE ACTS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 85

1099. American Airlines v. Wolens, 115 S. Ct. 817 (1995).

The Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, to the extent that it authorizes

actions in state court challenging as ‘‘unfair or deceptive’’ marketing

practices an airline company’s changes in its frequent flyer program,

is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, which prohibits states

from ‘‘enact[ing] or enforc[ing] any law . . . relating to [air carrier]

rates, routes, or services.’’

Justices concurring: Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Chief Justice

Rehnquist.

Justices concurring specially: O’Connor, Thomas.

Justice dissenting: Stevens.

1100. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 115 S. Ct. 1511 (1995).

Ohio’s prohibition on the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech. The law, aimed at speech designed to influence voters in an election, is a limitation on political

expression subject to exacting scrutiny. Neither of the interests asserted by Ohio justifies the limitation.

Justices concurring: Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and

Breyer.

Justice concurring specially: Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

1101. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S. Ct. 1842 (1995).

An amendment to the Arkansas Constitution denying ballot access to congressional candidates who have already served three terms

in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate is invalid

as conflicting with the qualifications for office set forth in Article I of

the U.S. Constitution, (specifying age, duration of U.S. citizenship,

and state inhabitancy requirements). Article I sets the exclusive

qualifications for a United States Representative or Senator.

Justices concurring: Stevens Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Justices dissenting: Thomas, O’Connor, Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

1102. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 115 S. Ct. 2214 (1995).

Oklahoma may not impose its motor fuels excise tax upon fuel

sold by Chickasaw Nation retail stores on tribal trust land. The legal

incidence of the motor fuels tax falls on the retailer, located within

Indian country, and the petitioner did not properly raise the issue of

whether Congress had authorized such taxation in the Hayden-Cartwright Act.

1103. Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995).

Application of Massachusetts’ public accommodations law to require the private organizers of a St. Patrick’s Day parade to allow

participation in the parade by a gay and lesbian group wishing to proclaim its members’ gay and lesbian identity violates the First Amendment because it compels parade organizers to include in the parade

a message they wish to exclude.
86 STATE ACTS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL

1104. Miller v. Johnson, 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995).

Georgia’s congressional districting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause. The district court’s finding that race was the predominant factor in drawing the boundaries of the Eleventh District was

not clearly erroneous. The State did not meet its burden under strict

scrutiny review to demonstrate that its districting was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.

Justices concurring: Kennedy, Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Stevens Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.

1105. Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 116 S. Ct. 848 (1996).

North Carolina’s intangibles tax on a fraction of the value of corporate stock owned by North Carolina residents inversely proportional to the corporation’s exposure to the State’s income tax, violates

the ‘‘dormant’’ Commerce Clause. The tax facially discriminates

against interstate commerce, and is not a ‘‘compensatory tax’’ designed to make interstate commerce bear a burden already borne by

intrastate commerce.

1106. Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, 116 S. Ct. 1103 (1996).

A federal law empowering national banks in small towns to sell

insurance (12 U.S.C. § 92) preempts a Florida law prohibiting banks

from dealing in insurance. The federal law contains no explicit statement of preemption, but preemption is implicit because the state law

stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of one of the federal

law’s purposes.

1107. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495 (1996).

Rhode Island’s statutory prohibition against advertisements that

provide the public with accurate information about retail prices of alcoholic beverages abridges freedom of speech protected by the First

Amendment, and is not shielded from constitutional scrutiny by the

Twenty-first Amendment. There is not a ‘‘reasonable fit’’ between the

blanket prohibition and the State’s goal of reducing alcohol consumption.

Justices concurring: Stevens, Scalia (in part), Kennedy (in part), Souter (in

part), Thomas (in part), and Ginsburg (in part).

Justices concurring specially: Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, Souter, Breyer, and

Chief Justice Rehnquist.

1108. Romer v. Evans, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996).

Amendment 2 to the Colorado Constitution, which prohibits all

legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local

government if that action is designed to protect homosexuals, violates

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

amendment, adopted by statewide referendum in 1992, does not bear

a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.
STATE ACTS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 87

Justices concurring: Kennedy, Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and

Breyer.

Justices dissenting: Scalia, Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

1109. Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 116 S. Ct. 1652 (1996).

A Montana law declaring an arbitration clause unenforceable unless notice that the contract is subject to arbitration appears in underlined capital letters on the first page of the contract is preempted

by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Concurring Justices: Ginsburg, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter,

Breyer, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justice dissenting: Thomas.

1110. Shaw v. Hunt, 116 S. Ct. 1894 (1996).

North Carolina’s congressional districting law, containing the racially gerrymandered 12th Congressional District as well as another

majority-black district, violates the Equal Protection Clause because,

under strict scrutiny applicable to racial classifications, creation of

District 12 was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Creation of District 12 was not necessary to comply with either

section 2 or section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the lower court

found that the redistricting plan was not actually aimed at ameliorating past discrimination.

Justices concurring: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy,

and Thomas.

Justices dissenting: Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer.1111. Bush v. Vera,

116 S. Ct. 1941 (1996).

1111. Bush v. Vera, 116 S. Ct. 1941 (1996).

Three congressional districts created by Texas law constitute racial gerrymanders that are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court correctly held that race predominated

over legitimate districting considerations, including incumbency, and

consequently strict scrutiny applies. None of the three districts is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Justices concurring: O’Connor, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justices concurring specially: O’Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia.

Justices dissenting: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.

1112. United States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996).

Virginia’s exclusion of women from the educational opportunities

provided by Virginia Military Institute denies to women the equal

protection of the laws. A state must demonstrate ‘‘exceedingly persuasive justification’’ for gender discrimination, and Virginia has failed to

do so in this case.

Justices concurring: Ginsburg, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and

Breyer. Justice concurring specially: Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justice dissenting: Scalia.

89

ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL

125. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993).

The city’s refusal, pursuant to an ordinance prohibiting distribution of commercial handbills on public property, to allow the distribution of commercial publications through freestanding newsracks located on public property, while at the same time allowing similar distribution of newspapers and other noncommercial publications, violates the First Amendment.

Justices concurring: Stevens, Blackmun, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and

Souter.

Justices dissenting: Chief Justice Rehnquist, and White and Thomas.

126. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).

The city’s ordinances banning the killing of animals in a ritual

sacrifice are unconstitutional as infringing the free exercise of religion

by members of the Santeria religion.

Justices concurring: Kennedy, White, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and

Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Justices concurring specially: Blackmun and O’Connor.

127. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 114 S. Ct. 1677 (1994).

The town’s ‘‘flow control’’ ordinance, which requires all solid

waste within the town to be processed at a designated transfer station

before leaving the municipality, discriminates against interstate commerce and is invalid under the Commerce Clause.

Justices concurring: Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg.

Justice concurring specially: O’Connor.

Justices dissenting: Souter, Blackmun, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.

128. City of Ladue v. Gilleo,, 114 S. Ct. 2038 (1994).

The city’s ordinance, which prohibits all signs but makes exceptions for several narrow categories, violates the First Amendment by

prohibiting a resident from placing in the window of her home a sign

containing a political message. By prohibiting residential signs that

carry political, religious, or personal messages, the ordinance forecloses ‘‘a venerable means of communication that is both unique and

important.’’

91

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OVERRULED BY

SUBSEQUENT DECISION

Overruling Case Overruled Case(s)

* 205. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S.

688 (1993).

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990).

* 206. Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S.

738 (1994).

Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222

(1980).

* 207. Hubbard v. United States, 115 S.

Ct. 1754 (1995).

United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S.

503 (1955).

* 208. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.

Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995).

Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497

U.S. 547 (1990);

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448

(1990) (in part).

* 209. United States v. Gaudin, 115 S.

Ct. 2310 (1995).

Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263

(1929).

* 210. Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 116 S.

Ct. 848 (1996).

Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U.S. 390 (1912).

* 211. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996).Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491

U.S. 1 (1989).

* 212. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495 (1996).California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109

(1972) (in part);

New York State Liquor Auth. v.

Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714 (1981) (in part);

City of Newport v. Iacobucci, 479 U.S.

92 (1986) (in part).

93

TABLE OF CASES

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495 (1996)............................. 37–39, 77, 86, 91

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)................................................................. 20

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1996)........................................ 22, 54, 72, 91

Albright v. Oliver, 114 S. Ct. 807 (1994)...................................................................................... 70

Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993).................................................................. 32, 41

Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)....................................... 27

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)............................................................................................ 19

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) .................................................. 6, 10

American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).................................................................. 9, 85

Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463 (1993)........................................................................................... 63

Arizona v. Evans, 115 S. Ct. 1185 (1995)..................................................................................... 49

Associated Industries v. Lohman, 114 S. Ct. 1815 (1994) .......................................................... 83

Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) .............................................................................. 63

Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222 (1980)...................................................................................... 91

Barclays Bank v. Franchise Tax Bd. of California, 512 U.S. 298 (1994)..................................... 8

Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, 116 S. Ct. 1103 (1996)..................................... 10, 86

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) .............................................................. 37, 38

Benjamin v. Jacobson, 935 F. Supp. 332 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)........................................................... 19

Bennis v. Michigan, 116 S. Ct. 994 (1996) ................................................................................... 69

Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142 (1927) ...................................................................................... 55

BMW v. Gore, 116 S. Ct. 1589 (1996)..................................................................................... 69, 70

Board of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 116 S. Ct. 2342 (1996)............................................. 33, 34

Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994)..................... 27–30, 84

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) ................................................................................ 53

Bush v. Vera, 116 S. Ct. 1941 (1996) ..................................................................................... 74, 87

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., 356 U.S. 525 (1958) ....................................................... 24

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994) .................................... 6, 7, 89

California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995)................................................ 12

California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972)............................................................................... 77, 91

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ........................................................... 11

Canedy v. Boardman, 16 F.3d 183 (7th Cir. 1994)...................................................................... 30

Capital Cities Cable, Inc., v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984) ............................................................ 77

Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette, 115 S. Ct. 2440 (1995)....................................... 28, 29, 41

Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993)................................................ 20

CBS v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973)............................................................ 31, 32

Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653 (1948) ................................................... 6

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)................. 36–39

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ................................................................................. 53

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) ...................... 31, 89

City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) ...................................................... 43

City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993).................................... 36, 89

City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 114 S. Ct. 2038 (1994) ..................................................................... 44, 89

City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 476 U.S. 488 (1986)................................... 39

City of Newport v. Iacobucci, 479 U.S. 92 (1986) ........................................................................ 91

Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982) ................................................................................... 20

Colorado Republican Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 116 S. Ct. 2309 (1996) ...................... 22, 34, 79

Concrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602

(1993)..................................................................................................................................... 55, 56

Cooper v. Oklahoma, 116 S. Ct. 1373 (1996) ............................................................................... 71

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993)..................................................... 9

Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) .................................................................................. 14, 15
94 TABLE OF CASES

Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U.S. 390 (1912)....................................................................................... 91

Davis v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2350 (1994) ........................................................................... 54

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) ..................................................................................... 48

Denver Area Educ. Tel. Consortium v. FCC, 116 S. Ct. 2374 (1996) ............................ 40, 41, 81

Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) ....................................................... 75

Department of Taxation & Finance v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., 512 U.S. 61 (1994) ................. 10

Department of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993) ........................................................... 9, 83

District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992) ........................ 9

Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 116 S. Ct. 1652 (1996) ............................................. 10, 87

Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994)........................................................................... 56

Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993)............................................................................ 35, 36, 83

Evans v. Romer, 854 P.2d 1270 (Colo. 1993) ............................................................................... 74

Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880) ........................................................................................ 31

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) ..................................................................................... 64

FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) ........................................................... 54, 72

FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)............................................................................................. 23

Felker v. Turpin, 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996) ......................................................................... 18, 24, 26

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976).................................................................................... 68

Flores v. City of Boerne, 877 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Tex. 1995) ..................................................... 30

Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 2371 (1995) ...................................................... 34, 38

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) ......................................................................................... 42

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1990).................................................................................. 91

Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 116 S. Ct. 848 (1996) ................................................................... 86, 91

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)........................................................................................ 1

Gardner v. Toilet Goods Ass’n, Inc., 387 U.S. 167 (1967)........................................................... 20

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 2211 (1996) ....................................... 23, 61

Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989) ......................................................................................... 7

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990)..................................................................................... 52, 91

Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995)............................................. 22

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) ......................................................................... 23

Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 115 S. Ct. 2227 (1995) ....................................................... 15

Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) ............................................................................................. 11

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) ........................................................................................... 68

Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993)........................................................... 21

Harris v. Alabama, 115 S. Ct. 1031 (1995) .................................................................................. 63

Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)........................................................................................ 55

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) ..................................................................................... 64

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) ................................................................................. 24, 64

Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................. 45

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)............................................................................................. 60

Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994) ................................................................... 69, 84

Hubbard v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 1754 (1995) ...................................................................... 91

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group, 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995) ................................. 32, 39, 43, 85

Ibanez v. Florida Bd. of Accountancy, 114 S. Ct. 2084 (1994).................................................... 35

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) .............................................................................................. 59

International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) ............................................... 18, 59

Itel Containers Int’l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60 (1993) ........................................... 6, 8, 12

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) ................................................................ 73

John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust and Sav. Bank, 510 U.S. 86

(1993) ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993)......................................................................................... 64

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).......................................................... 22

Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) ........................................................................ 53
TABLE OF CASES 95

Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993) ................................ 28, 41

Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991).................................................................................... 40

Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 115 S. Ct. 961 (1995) ............................................... 31

Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996) ........................................................................................ 71

Lewis v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 2163 (1996) ........................................................................... 59

Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) ........................................................................... 19

Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 1996)............................................................................. 26

Linmark Assocs. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977).............................................. 37

Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) .................................................................................. 10

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) ................................................................................... 60

Loving v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1737 (1996) ............................................................... 1, 11, 13

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) ...................................................... 20

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) ....................................................................................... 27

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 114 S. Ct. 2516 (1994)....................................................... 42

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) ............................................................................................... 53

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996) ....................................... 11, 61

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 115 S. Ct. 1511 (1995) ............................................... 43, 85

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 116 S. Ct. 2240 (1996)............................................................................. 9

Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) ............................................................... 91

Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974) ..................................................................................... 53

Miller v. Johnson, 115 S. Ct. 2475 (1995) .............................................................................. 74, 86

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) .............................................................................. 48

Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S. 73 (1992) ............................................................................... 23

Montana Dep’t of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 114 S. Ct. 1937 (1994) ................................... 51, 84

Montana v. Egelhoff, 116 S. Ct. 2013 (1996) ............................................................................... 71

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) ....................................................................................... 25

New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S.

645 (1995)...................................................................................................................................... 9

New York State Liquor Auth. v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714 (1981) ................................................ 91

Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927)...................................................................................... 55

Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994)....................................................................... 60, 91

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) ............................................................................... 22

Northeastern Fla. Ch. of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508

U.S. 656 (1993) ..................................................................................................................... 20, 21

O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 116 S. Ct. 2353 (1996)...................................... 33

O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994)........................................................................ 24

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978).......................................................... 35, 38

Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 115 S. Ct. 2214 (1995)................................ 10, 85

Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (1995) .............................. 6, 7, 22

Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993)..................................... 10, 83

One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972) ........................................ 51

Oregon Waste Systems v. Department of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S. 93 (1994)...................... 7, 83

Ornelas v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996)........................................................................ 47

Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) ............................................................................................... 71

Peacock v. Thomas, 116 S. Ct. 862 (1996).................................................................................... 22

Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988)............................................................................. 56

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) ......................................... 68

Pennsylvania v. Labron, 116 S. Ct. 2485 (1996).......................................................................... 48

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1 (1989) ............................................................... 80, 91

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) ........................................................... 17, 80

Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs. v. Tourism Co., 478 U.S. 328 (1986) ....................................... 37

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 116 S. Ct. 1712 (1996) .......................................................... 24

Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ............................................. 20
96 TABLE OF CASES

Reich v. Collins, 115 S. Ct. 547 (1994) ......................................................................................... 69

Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993).......................................................... 20

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).............................................................................................. 11

Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749 (1995) .............................................................. 21

Richards v. Jefferson County, 116 S. Ct. 1761 (1996)................................................................. 70

Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40 (1992)........................................................................................ 64

Romano v. Oklahoma, 114 S. Ct. 2004 (1994) ............................................................................. 63

Romer v. Evans, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996)................................................................................. 74, 86

Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995) ............................................ 28, 41

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585 (1995)....................................................... 35–39, 79

Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995) ......................................................................... 15, 21

Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) ................................................................ 11

Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995) .................................................................................... 70

Sawyer v. Whitney, 505 U.S. 333 (1995)...................................................................................... 25

Schiro v. Farley, 114 S. Ct. 783 (1994)......................................................................................... 51

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).............................................................................................. 25

Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) ............................................................................................ 60

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996)................................... 22, 67, 80, 91

Shaw v. Hunt, 116 S.Ct. 1894 (1996) ..................................................................................... 74, 87

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)............................................................................................... 74

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976)....................................... 19

Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929) ............................................................................ 91

Smiley v. Citibank, 116 S. Ct. 1730 (1996) .................................................................................... 9

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) .................................................................................. 47

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993).......................................................................... 11

Stansbury v. California, 114 S. Ct. 1526 (1994) .......................................................................... 54

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976)...................................................................................... 53, 54

Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)............................................................................ 59, 71

Toilet Goods Ass’n, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158 (1967)........................................................... 20

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)...................................................................................... 27

Tuggle v. Netherland, 116 S. Ct. 283 (1995)................................................................................ 64

Tuilaepa v. California, 114 S. Ct. 2630 (1994)............................................................................. 63

Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994) .............................................. 39, 40

Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970)......................................................................................... 20

TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources, 509 U.S. 443 (1993)..................................................... 69

U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) ......................... 20

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)....................................................... 2, 85

United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503 (1955) ........................................................................ 91

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)................................................................ 48

United States v. Carlton, 114 S. Ct. 2018 (1994) ........................................................................ 55

United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) ......................................................................... 52, 91

United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418 (1993) ............................................. 35–38

United States v. Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. 2310 (1995) .................................................................. 59, 91

United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................. 45

United States v. Hemme, 476 U.S. 558 (1986) ............................................................................ 55

United States v. IBM Corp., 116 S. Ct. 1793 (1996)................................................. 11, 12, 22, 79

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) .......................................................................... 47

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) .................................. 70

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)................................................................. 4, 6, 65, 80

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 115 S. Ct. 1003 (1995) ................. 33, 80

United States v. NTEU, 513 U.S. 454 (1995) .............................................................................. 15

United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984) .................................... 51

United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993) ............................................................................... 50
TABLE OF CASES 97

United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996) ......................................................................... 51

United States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996) ................................................................. 73, 87

Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U.S. 440 (1928) .............................................................................. 55

Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................................................ 55

Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 115 S. Ct. 2386 (1995) .............................................................. 49

Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) .......................................................................................... 71

Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748

(1976)..................................................................................................................................... 37, 38

Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (1993) .................................................................................... 74

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ........................................................................................... 19

Waters v. Churchill, 114 S. Ct. 1878 (1994) ................................................................................ 34

Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994) ............................................................................... 15

West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994).................................................. 6, 7, 84

Whren v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1769 (1996).......................................................................... 48

Wilson v. Arkansas, 115 S. Ct. 1914 (1995)................................................................................. 47

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) ........................................................................... 20

Wisconsin v. City of New York, 116 S. Ct. 1091 (1996) ................................................................ 4

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)............................................................................ 32, 41

Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993)............................................................................. 53, 54

Wood v. Bartholomew, 116 S. Ct. 7 (1995)................................................................................... 71

Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 116 S. Ct. 619 (1996)............................................................. 23

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) ............................................... 38

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993) .............................................. 27, 28

99

INDEX

Abortion

protests, injunctions, First Amendment protections ............................................................ 42

Admiralty

maritime torts ......................................................................................................................... 22

Advertising

compelled disclosure of information ...................................................................................... 38

Affirmative action

federal legislation subject to strict scrutiny.......................................................................... 72

Appointments Clause

military judges ........................................................................................................................ 14

Association, right of

parade organizers, control of parade message...................................................................... 32

Cable Television

First Amendment protections ................................................................................................ 39

Campaign finance

independent party expenditures, First Amendment ............................................................ 34

Census

decision not to make statistical adjustment ........................................................................... 4

Commerce Clause

discriminatory local solid waste ‘‘flow control’’ law................................................................ 7

discriminatory state taxation............................................................................................... 6, 7

state taxation, apportionment, multinational corporation..................................................... 9

Commerce power

invalidity of Gun-Free School Zones Act................................................................................. 4

Congress

power under Commerce Clause ............................................................................................... 4

qualifications of Members, term limits.................................................................................... 2

Congressional districting

racial gerrymandering, bizarrely shaped districts ............................................................... 74

Contempt

distinction between civil and criminal contempt.................................................................. 18

Counsel, assistance of

ineffective counsel, grounds for new trial ............................................................................. 60

Death penalty

military justice, standards promulgated by President........................................................... 1

permissible jury instructions.................................................................................................. 63

Delegation

military justice, President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief...................................... 1, 13

Diversity of Citizenship

federal court cases, choice of law ........................................................................................... 23

Double jeopardy

same conduct test.................................................................................................................... 52

sentence enhancement............................................................................................................ 52

Drug testing

public high school athletes ..................................................................................................... 49

Due Process

retroactive taxation................................................................................................................. 55

solitary confinement of prisoners........................................................................................... 70

Ex Post Facto Clause

decreasing frequency of parole-suitability hearings............................................................. 12

Excessive fines

civil forfeiture .......................................................................................................................... 63
100 INDEX

Exclusionary rule

federal habeas corpus, review of Miranda claims ................................................................ 54

False statements

federal statute, materiality as issue for jury ........................................................................ 59

Federalism

Gun-Free School Zones Act, invalidity .................................................................................. 65

principles reflected in commerce power analysis.................................................................... 5

First Amendment

protected expression, state authority under 21st Amendment ........................................... 77

state action requirement ........................................................................................................ 31

Forfeiture

innocent joint owner, car used in prostitution...................................................................... 69

non-punitive nature, double jeopardy analysis..................................................................... 51

Government contractors

free speech rights .................................................................................................................... 33

Gun-Free School Zones Act

invalid as exceeding congressional commerce power ....................................................... 4, 65

Habeas corpus

claim of innocence, capital cases............................................................................................ 64

statutory limitations ............................................................................................................... 24

Homosexuals

Colorado constitutional amendment limiting local laws concerning................................... 74

Honoraria ban

government employees, free speech rights............................................................................ 33

Impeachment

judicial review of Senate trial, ‘‘political question’’ .............................................................. 15

Import-Export Clause

federal excise tax on insurance for exported goods .............................................................. 11

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

invalidity, abrogation of state immunity in federal court.................................................... 67

Injunctions

public demonstrations, First Amendment limitations ......................................................... 42

Judicial review

preclusion of review, military base closures ......................................................................... 14

Westfall Act, Federal Tort Claims Act .................................................................................. 15

Jury trial

civil, when required ................................................................................................................ 61

criminal, mixed questions of law and fact ............................................................................ 59

when required, multiple petty offenses ................................................................................. 59

Limitations period

retroactive change, final judgments, unconstitutionality .................................................... 17

Military justice

appointment of military judges.............................................................................................. 14

death penalty, President’s promulgation of standards .......................................................... 1

Miranda rule

federal habeas corpus claim ................................................................................................... 53

waiver of rights ....................................................................................................................... 54

Mootness

appropriateness of vacatur as remedy................................................................................... 20

Newsracks

use on public property, ban limited to commercial materials ............................................. 36

Parades

organizers, right to control parade message ......................................................................... 43
INDEX 101

Political question

impeachment proceedings, judicial review...................................................................... 15, 22

Preemption

Medical Device Amendments ................................................................................................... 9

Press, freedom of

cable television ........................................................................................................................ 39

Prisons

Prison Litigation Reform Act, restrictions on litigation ...................................................... 19

Punitive damages

amount, due process constraints............................................................................................ 69

Racial discrimination

affirmative action, federal legislation, strict scrutiny.......................................................... 72

Racial gerrymandering

‘‘bizarre’’ shape of congressional districts.............................................................................. 74

Religion: Establishment Clause

equal access of religious groups to school property.............................................................. 28

public funding for sign-language interpreter in public schools ........................................... 27

religious displays on public property..................................................................................... 29

special school district for religioius sect................................................................................ 29

test for validity........................................................................................................................ 27

Religion: Free Exercise

animal sacrifice ....................................................................................................................... 31

Religious Freedom Restoration Act ....................................................................................... 30

Retroactivity

Supreme Court ruling, cases still on direct review .............................................................. 21

taxation .................................................................................................................................... 55

Search and seizure

‘‘knock and announce’’ rule..................................................................................................... 47

definition of ‘‘seizure’’.............................................................................................................. 47

drug testing of public high school athletes ........................................................................... 49

frisk, ‘‘plain touch’’ seizure of contraband............................................................................. 48

traffic violation, pretextual stop ............................................................................................ 48

Separation of powers

changed position of Justice Department ............................................................................... 13

delegation to President in role as Commander-in-Chief........................................................ 2

legislative alteration of final judgments of courts................................................................ 17

Sex discrimination

jury selection ........................................................................................................................... 73

military college ........................................................................................................................ 73

Speech, commercial

beer labels, display of alcohol content ................................................................................... 35

compelled disclosure in advertising....................................................................................... 38

liquor ads, price information.................................................................................................. 37

reasonable fit between ends and means of regulation ......................................................... 36

Speech, freedom of

anonymous advocacy............................................................................................................... 43

cable television ........................................................................................................................ 39

hate crimes, enhancement of criminal penalty..................................................................... 41

in-person solicitation by CPAs ............................................................................................... 35

independent government contractors .............................................................................. 33, 34

parade organizers, right to control parade message ............................................................ 43

public demonstrations, injunctions........................................................................................ 42

public employees, honoraria ban............................................................................................ 33
102 INDEX

Speech, freedom of—Continued

residential signs ...................................................................................................................... 44

signs, use of utility poles ........................................................................................................ 43

Standing to sue

suit by organization on behalf of members ........................................................................... 19

Stare decisis

conflicting views of Justices ................................................................................................... 22

States

immunity in federal courts, congressional power to abrogate............................................. 67

Taking of property

land dedications, permit conditions....................................................................................... 56

Taxation, Federal

excise tax, import-export clause............................................................................................. 12

retroactive application ............................................................................................................ 55

Taxation, State

apportionment, multinational corporation, franchise tax...................................................... 8

discrimination against interstate commerce....................................................................... 6, 7

Term limits

Members of Congress, state-imposed limitations ................................................................... 2

Twenty-first Amendment

authority of states, regulation of expressive behavior ......................................................... 77

prohibition against liquor price advertising not shielded by............................................... 77

Vacatur

remedy for mootness, limitations........................................................................................... 20

Æ