1 / 15

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 28

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 28. Economic Substantive Due Process March 17, 2008 . The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) [C p. 449, 523]. Can the Privileges and Immunities Clause be interpreted as applying the BOR to the States? Majority opinion by Miller, joined by Clifford, Strong, Hunt, Davis

cassara
Download Presentation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 28

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 28 Economic Substantive Due Process March 17, 2008

  2. The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) [C p. 449, 523] • Can the Privileges and Immunities Clause be interpreted as applying the BOR to the States? • Majority opinion by Miller, joined by Clifford, Strong, Hunt, Davis • Dissent by Field, joined by Chase, Swayne, Bradley • Separate dissents by Bradley and Swayne

  3. Moving toward Lochner • Munn v. Illinois (1876) [C p. 523] • Railroad Commission Cases (1886) [C p. 524] • Mugler v. Kansas (1887) [C p. 524] • ALL OF THESE CASES VIEWED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS A LIMIT ON THE GOVERNMENT’S REGULATORY POWER • None struck down government regulations

  4. Moving toward Lochner • 1886: Court declares that corporations are persons under Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of A XIV

  5. Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) [C p. 524] • Unanimous • Opinion of the Court by Peckham

  6. Lochner v. New York (1905) [C p. 526] • 5-4 • Majority opinion written by Peckham, joined by Fuller, Brewer, Brown, McKenna • Dissent by Holmes • Dissent by Harlan, joined by White and Day

  7. Yellow Dog Contracts: Coppage v. Kansas (1915) • Majority by Pitney, joined by McKenna, McReynolds, VanDevanter, Lamar • Dissent by Holmes • Dissent by Day; Hughes concurs in this dissent

  8. The XIX Amendment

  9. Amendment XIX (ratified 1920) • The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. • First president elected after women given right to vote: Warren Hading

  10. Muller v. Oregon (1908) • Unanimous • Opinion of the Court by Justice Brewer (Peckham, Harlan, and Holmes all signed on) • See also Bunting v. Oregon (1917) [C p. 535]

  11. The “Brandeis Brief” • Louis Brandeis, later a Supreme Court justice (1916-1939)

  12. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital • Majority by: SutherlandJoined by: McKenna, Van Devanter, McReynolds, ButlerDissent by: TaftJoined by: SanfordDissent by: Holmes • Brandeis did not participate

  13. Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. (1926) [C p. 527] One • Majority opinion by Butler • (joined by the other 3 Horsemen: Sutherland, McReynolds, Van Devanter as well as Sanford) • Dissent by Holmes, joined by Brandeis and Stone

  14. Justices Born on St. Paddy’s Day • Roger Brooke Taney • Pierce Butler • Near misses: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (3/15), Antonin Scalia (3/11), Earl Warren (3/19), Sandra Day O’Connor (3/26)

  15. Nebbia v. New York (1934) [C p. 539] Majority by: RobertsJoined by: Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, CardozoDissent by: McReynoldsJoined by: Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler(the 4 Horsemen)

More Related