DOCSLIB.ORG

Fourteenth Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fourteenth Amendment FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS GUARANTEED CONTENTS Page Section 1. Rights Guaranteed ................................................................................................... 1807 The Fourteenth Amendment and States’ Rights ............................................................. 1807 Citizens of the United States ............................................................................................ 1807 Privileges or Immunities ................................................................................................... 1810 Due Process of Law ............................................................................................................ 1814 Generally ...................................................................................................................... 1814 Definitions .................................................................................................................... 1815 “Person” ................................................................................................................. 1815 “Property” and Police Power ............................................................................... 1817 “Liberty” ................................................................................................................ 1818 The Rise and Fall of Economic Substantive Due Process: Overview .................... 1819 Regulation of Labor Conditions ................................................................................. 1825 Liberty of Contract ............................................................................................... 1825 Laws Regulating Working Conditions and Wages ............................................ 1830 Workers’ Compensation Laws ............................................................................. 1832 Collective Bargaining ........................................................................................... 1833 Regulation of Business Enterprises: Price Controls ................................................ 1837 Types of Businesses That May be Regulated .................................................... 1837 Substantive Review of Price Controls ................................................................ 1840 Early Limitations on Review .............................................................................. 1842 History of the Valuation Question ...................................................................... 1844 Regulation of Public Utilities and Common Carriers .............................................. 1847 In General ............................................................................................................. 1847 Compulsory Expenditures: Grade Crossings, and the Like ............................. 1848 Compellable Services ........................................................................................... 1849 Imposition of Statutory Liabilities and Penalties Upon Common Carriers ... 1851 Regulation of Businesses, Corporations, Professions, and Trades .......................... 1853 Generally ............................................................................................................... 1853 Laws Prohibiting Trusts, Restraint of Trade or Fraud .................................... 1854 Banking, Wage Assignments, and Garnishment ............................................... 1856 Insurance .............................................................................................................. 1857 Miscellaneous Businesses and Professions ........................................................ 1859 Protection of State Resources ..................................................................................... 1861 Oil and Gas ........................................................................................................... 1861 Protection of Property and Agricultural Crops .................................................. 1862 Water, Fish, and Game ........................................................................................ 1863 Ownership of Real Property: Rights and Limitations ............................................. 1865 Zoning and Similar Actions ................................................................................. 1865 Estates, Succession, Abandoned Property .......................................................... 1867 Health, Safety, and Morals ......................................................................................... 1869 Health ................................................................................................................... 1869 Safety .................................................................................................................... 1871 Morality ................................................................................................................. 1873 1801 1802 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED Section 1. Rights Guaranteed—Continued Due Process of Law—Continued Vested and Remedial Rights ...................................................................................... 1873 State Control over Local Units of Government ........................................................ 1874 Taxing Power ............................................................................................................... 1875 Generally ............................................................................................................... 1875 Jurisdiction to Tax ...................................................................................................... 1878 Generally ............................................................................................................... 1878 Real Property ........................................................................................................ 1879 Tangible Personalty ............................................................................................. 1880 Intangible Personalty ........................................................................................... 1882 Transfer (Inheritance, Estate, Gift) Taxes ......................................................... 1885 Corporate Privilege Taxes ................................................................................... 1889 Individual Income Taxes ..................................................................................... 1890 Corporate Income Taxes: Foreign Corporations ................................................ 1891 Insurance Company Taxes .................................................................................. 1892 Procedure in Taxation ................................................................................................. 1893 Generally ............................................................................................................... 1893 Notice and Hearing in Relation to Taxes ........................................................... 1893 Notice and Hearing in Relation to Assessments ............................................... 1894 Collection of Taxes ............................................................................................... 1896 Sufficiency and Manner of Giving Notice .......................................................... 1898 Sufficiency of Remedy .......................................................................................... 1899 Laches ................................................................................................................... 1899 Eminent Domain ......................................................................................................... 1900 Fundamental Rights (Noneconomic Substantive Due Process) ............................... 1900 Development of the Right of Privacy ................................................................. 1900 Abortion ................................................................................................................ 1905 Privacy after Roe: Informational Privacy, Privacy of the Home or Personal Autonomy? ......................................................................................................... 1917 Family Relationships ........................................................................................... 1927 Liberty Interests of People with Mental Disabilities: Civil Commitment and Treatment .......................................................................................................... 1929 “Right to Die” ....................................................................................................... 1931 Procedural Due Process: Civil ........................................................................................... 1933 Generally ...................................................................................................................... 1933 Relevance of Historical Use ................................................................................ 1934 Non-Judicial Proceedings .................................................................................... 1934 The Requirements of Due Process ...................................................................... 1935 The Procedure That Is Due Process .......................................................................... 1941 The Interests Protected: “Life, Liberty and Property” ...................................... 1941 The Property Interest .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rational Basis "Plus" Thomas B
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2017 Rational Basis "Plus" Thomas B. Nachbar Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nachbar, Thomas B., "Rational Basis "Plus"" (2017). Constitutional Commentary. 1094. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1094 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NACHBAR_DRAFT 4.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 7/13/17 12:45 PM RATIONAL BASIS “PLUS” Thomas B. Nachbar* INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court has asserted the power to review the substance of state and federal law for its reasonableness for almost 200 years.1 Since the mid-1960s, that review has taken the form of the “familiar ‘rational basis’ test,”2 under which the Court will strike a statute if it is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.3 The test is hardly perfect. It lacks, for one thing any textual basis in the Constitution.4 It has been criticized from both ends, as alternatively a judicial usurpation of legislative power5 or “tantamount to no review at all.”6 But the Court has applied it for decades,7 and while the test is not universally loved, neither is it particularly controversial, at least as rules of constitutional law go. If rational basis scrutiny itself is largely uncontroversial, the same cannot be said for so-called “rational basis with bite,” “rational basis with teeth,” or—as I shall call it—“rational basis plus” review.8 Rational basis plus is, as Justice O’Connor * Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Seventh Circuit's Application of the Substantive Due Process Right Of
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 3, Issue 1 Fall 2007 FAMILIA INTERRUPTUS: THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT’S APPLICATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHT OF FAMILIAL RELATIONS ∗ SCOTT J. RICHARD Cite as: Scott J. Richard, Familia Interruptus: The Seventh Circuit’s Application of the Substantive Due Process Right of Familial Relations, 3 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 140 (2007), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v3-1/richard.pdf. INTRODUCTION One of the oldest substantive due process rights derived from the Fourteenth Amendment and recognized by the Supreme Court is the right of individuals to be free from government intrusion into the control and management of their families.1 Despite its rhetoric that familial rights are a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court’s recognition of this right has been far from clear. Until recently,2 the articulation of this right has been enmeshed in the analysis of other constitutional rights, and even the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence is ambivalent towards this liberty interest, making it difficult to decipher the scope of this right and the appropriate standard to determine when it should be protected. ∗ J.D. candidate, May 2008, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; A.M., 2001, University of Chicago; B.A., 1999, Hamilton College. I would like to acknowledge Nikolai G. Guerra and Nicole L. Little for their careful edits of this Note. 1 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). 2 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). 140 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 3, Issue 1 Fall 2007 The Seventh Circuit’s most recent case involving a claim of familial rights, United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 248/Friday, December 27, 2019
    71714 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION procedures for the review and clearance Department’s rulemaking process can be of guidance documents; and (3) a found at 49 CFR 5.5. Office of the Secretary General Counsel memorandum, This final rule reflects the existing ‘‘Procedural Requirements for DOT role of the Department’s Regulatory 14 CFR Parts 11, 300, and 302 Enforcement Actions’’ (February 15, Reform Task Force in the development 2019),3 which clarifies the procedural of the Department’s regulatory portfolio 49 CFR Parts 1, 5, 7, 106, 211, 389, 553, requirements governing enforcement and ongoing review of regulations. and 601 actions initiated by the Department, Established in response to Executive including administrative enforcement Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory RIN 2105–AE84 proceedings and judicial enforcement Reform Agenda’’ (February 24, 2017), Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, actions brought in Federal court. the Regulatory Reform Task Force is the and Enforcement Procedures This final rule removes the existing Department’s internal body, chaired by procedures on rulemaking, which are the Regulatory Reform Officer, tasked AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of outdated and inconsistent with current with evaluating proposed and existing Transportation (OST), U.S. Department departmental practice, and replaces regulations and making of Transportation (DOT). them with a comprehensive set of recommendations to the Secretary of ACTION: Final rule. procedures that will increase Transportation regarding their transparency, provide for more robust promulgation, repeal, replacement, or SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth a public participation, and strengthen the modification, consistent with applicable comprehensive revision and update of overall quality and fairness of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning Law Is
    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REASONING LAW IS "MAN MADE" IT CHANGES OVER TIME TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIETY'S NEEDS LAW IS MADE BY LEGISLATURE LAW IS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE 1)WHETHER IT IS "CONSTITUTIONAL" 2)WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED (CALLED "PROCEDURAL LAW") I. Thomas Jefferson: "The study of the law qualifies a man to be useful to himself, to his neighbors, and to the public." II. Ask Several Students to give their definition of "Law." A. Even after years and thousands of dollars, "LAW" still is not easy to define B. What does law Consist of ? Law consists of enforceable rule governing relationships among individuals and between individuals and their society. 1. Students Need to Understand. a. The law is a set of general ideas b. When these general ideas are applied, a judge cannot fit a case to suit a rule; he must fit (or find) a rule to suit the unique case at hand. c. The judge must also supply legitimate reasons for his decisions. C. So, How was the Law Created. The law considered in this text are "man made" law. This law can (and will) change over time in response to the changes and needs of society. D. Example. Grandma, who is 87 years old, walks into a pawn shop. She wants to sell her ring that has been in the family for 200 years. Grandma asks the dealer, "how much will you give me for this ring." The dealer, in good faith, tells Grandma he doesn't know what kind of metal is in the ring, but he will give her $150.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's New Notice Pleading Requirements
    MICHAEL (FORMATTED).DOC 5/13/2016 4:57 PM THE SUPREME COURT’S NEW NOTICE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS: REVOLUTIONARY OR EVOLUTIONARY RICHARD A. MICHAEL* The Roberts Court’s decisions about the requirements of federal pleading have engendered significant controversy in the literature. These cases, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly1 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,2 have been said by some to have destroyed the federal notice-pleading system and “radically tipped the balance in favor of defendants.”3 It is the position of this article that these cases do not “radically” change federal pleading but merely modify it in a reasonable manner to correct past errors in the interpretation of its rules and address problems that have troubled courts and legal scholars since the adoption of the federal rules. It is further believed that recent decisions from modern fact-pleading jurisdictions provide a roadmap for the proper interpretation of the “facial plausibility” now required in federal pleadings. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF NOTICE PLEADING..........................268 II.THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF DISCOVERY AND PLEADING ..............272 III.TWOMBLY AND IQBAL..................................................................277 *Professor Emeritus, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law. J.D. 1958, Loyola of Chicago; LL.M. 1960 University of Illinois. Member, American Law Institute. Special thanks are expressed to Professor Locke for reviewing a draft of this article and to Brendan Kottenstette and Chantel Boctor for their able research assistance. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. 1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 2. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Conceiving Due Process
    Conceiving Due Process Cynthia R. Farinat "No answer is what the wrong question begets. We seem unable to make peace with procedural due process.2 To be sure, in the twenty years since Goldberg v. Kelly3 the Supreme Court has come to speak in the clear, strong tones of doctrinal certainty. It now deals deftly with claims that people have been mishandled by their government, first culling out those who can point to no "entitlement" and then weighing up, for those who remain, just how much process the system can afford. Once-sharp and fundamental debates on the Court about the nature, scope, and purpose of procedural due process in the administrative state have subsided into occasional squabbles among the justices about the margins of the doctrine and sporadic disagreements over its specific application. Do not, however, mistake this lessening conflict on the Court for some emergent consensus that procedural due process has been brought, at last, through the turbulent years of rapid growth to a stage of doctrinal maturity and sophistication. Scratch the smooth, plausible skin of the doctrine and there lies turmoil, contradiction, and instability, a pathological combination of ineffectu- alness and destructiveness. For years, commentators have warned of this, in terms ranging from dignified rebuke4 to near evangelical condemnation.' Indeed, the doctrine's most remarkable quality may be its ability to transcend traditional boundaries and unite, in thorough-going disapproval, those on the political left and right, constitutional theorists and administrative law scholars, academics and practitioners, Kantians, utilitarians, and Hegelians.6 Procedural t Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School; Associate Professor, Cornell Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers
    The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney December 23, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43834 The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers Summary Article III of the Constitution restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to deciding actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” The Supreme Court has articulated several “justiciability” doctrines emanating from Article III that restrict when federal courts will adjudicate disputes. One justiciability concept is the political question doctrine, according to which federal courts will not adjudicate certain controversies because their resolution is more proper within the political branches. Because of the potential implications for the separation of powers when courts decline to adjudicate certain issues, application of the political question doctrine has sparked controversy. Because there is no precise test for when a court should find a political question, however, understanding exactly when the doctrine applies can be difficult. The doctrine’s origins can be traced to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison; but its modern application stems from Baker v. Carr, which provides six independent factors that can present political questions. These factors encompass both constitutional and prudential considerations, but the Court has not clearly explained how they are to be applied. Further, commentators have disagreed about the doctrine’s foundation: some see political questions as limited to constitutional grants of authority to a coordinate branch of government, while others see the doctrine as a tool for courts to avoid adjudicating an issue best resolved outside of the judicial branch. Supreme Court case law after Baker fails to resolve the matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Antipodal Invective: a Field Gude to Kangaroos in American Courtrooms Parker B
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Antipodal Invective: A Field Gude to Kangaroos in American Courtrooms Parker B. Potter Jr. Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Potter, Parker B. Jr. (2006) "Antipodal Invective: A Field Gude to Kangaroos in American Courtrooms," Akron Law Review: Vol. 39 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol39/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Potter: Kangaroo Courts POTTER1.DOC 3/20/2006 9:16:14 AM ANTIPODAL INVECTIVE: A FIELD GUIDE TO KANGAROOS IN AMERICAN COURTROOMS Parker B. Potter, Jr.* I. INTRODUCTION Antipodes are “[a]ny two places or regions that are on diametrically opposite sides of the earth.”1 Go to the opposite side of the earth from where I sat while drafting this article and you will find, among other things, Australia. Go to Australia, and you will find kangaroos, by the thousands. Go to Westlaw, and you will find kangaroo
    [Show full text]
  • The Nondelegation Doctrine: Alive and Well
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\93-2\NDL204.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-DEC-17 10:20 THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE: ALIVE AND WELL Jason Iuliano* & Keith E. Whittington** The nondelegation doctrine is dead. It is difficult to think of a more frequently repeated or widely accepted legal conclusion. For generations, scholars have maintained that the doctrine was cast aside by the New Deal Court and is now nothing more than a historical curiosity. In this Article, we argue that the conventional wisdom is mistaken in an important respect. Drawing on an original dataset of more than one thousand nondelegation challenges, we find that, although the doctrine has disappeared at the federal level, it has thrived at the state level. In fact, in the decades since the New Deal, state courts have grown more willing to invoke the nondelegation doctrine. Despite the countless declarations of its demise, the nondelegation doctrine is, in a meaningful sense, alive and well. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 619 R I. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE . 621 R A. The Doctrine’s Life ..................................... 621 R B. The Doctrine’s Death ................................... 623 R II. THE STRUCTURE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION ....... 626 R III. THE PERSISTENCE OF THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE ...... 634 R A. Success Rate .......................................... 635 R B. Pre– and Post–New Deal Comparison .................... 639 R C. Representative Cases.................................... 643 R CONCLUSION .................................................... 645 R INTRODUCTION The story of the nondelegation doctrine’s demise is a familiar one. Eighty years ago, the New Deal Court discarded this principle, and since then, this once-powerful check on administrative expansion has had no place in our constitutional canon.
    [Show full text]
  • Substantive Due Process and Labor Law
    Substantive Due Process and Labor Law by Bany W. Poulson Department of Economics, Universiry of Colorado Substantive due process refers to a judicial policy that substantively protects, under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, activities that are not elsewhere secured in the Constitution. With reference to the protection of economic liberties, the doctrine is referred to as economic due process. From its earliest days the Supreme Court had protected property rights based upon natural rights and social compact doctrine. In the middle of the nineteenth century the court turned from these so-called unwritten laws to the due process clause of the Constitution as the basis for substantive protection of property rights. Prior to the 1850's the due process clause was invoked in criminal cases to ensure the procedural rights of defendants. The first Supreme Court application of substan- tive due process was in the 1855 Hoboken Land decision, in which the court determined that due process relates to civil processes at common law.' That made it possible for the court to invoke the due process clause as a protection of property rights and to restrain legislative infringement of those rights. State courts also turned to the due process clause in state constitutions as the basis for substantive protection of property rights. The most important of these early decisions was Wynehamer v. People in 1856.*The New York Court of Appeals ruled that a state law regulating the sale of intoxicating beverages was unconstitutional under the due process clause. The case was important because it extended substantive due process to the use of property as well as the ownership of property.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-161 Department of Homeland Security V
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. THURAISSIGIAM CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–161. Argued March 2, 2020—Decided June 25, 2020 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) provides for the expedited removal of certain “applicants” seeking admission into the United States, whether at a designated port of entry or elsewhere. 8 U. S. C. §1225(a)(1). An applicant may avoid expedited removal by demonstrating to an asylum officer a “credible fear of persecution,” defined as “a significant possibility . that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum.” §1225(b)(1)(B)(v). An ap- plicant who makes this showing is entitled to “full consideration” of an asylum claim in a standard removal hearing. 8 CFR §208.30(f). An asylum officer’s rejection of a credible-fear claim is reviewed by a su- pervisor and may then be appealed to an immigration judge. §§208.30(e)(8), 1003.42(c), (d)(1). But IIRIRA limits the review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
    [Show full text]