Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
27 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Taylor v Louisiana background pt1 |
Same as hoyt but 14 years later w man. Lousiana las state that only includes women in jury if asks. Taylor has standing bc 6th amendment right trial by jury due process. Due process not equal protection bc Barron v Baltimore , 14th, and dunking v Louisiana |
|
Barron v Baltimore |
Background for taylor v louisiana- bill of rights not apply to states at all, bill of rights for national use only, |
|
14th amendment |
Background for taylor v Louisiana: some evidence privileges and immunities would make rights apply to states, but then slaughterhouse happened. Piece by piece almost all bill of rights applies to states. 14th absorbed bill of rights |
|
Exceptions to bill of rights applying to states |
Double check this bc may have missed one or two: 3rd, 7th, 5th- grand jury, excessive bails not apply |
|
Dunken v Louisiana |
Right to jury trial via sp applies to case as applied by 14th. |
|
Taylor v Louisiana white verdict |
8-1 Fair cross section rule requires women to be in jury pool because it gives public confidence in the legal system and prevents arbitrary treatment (holds judges and prosecutors in check by fair minded impartial jury) Court used strict scrutiny bc fundamental right- BOP on gov- end must be compelling. Administrative convenience and womens traditional role not compelling. Administrative convenience only pass ordinary, womens role not pass ordinary. Footnote: majority of women in workforce |
|
Fair cross section rule |
Rule that requires the jury pool to have a fair cross section of the community- cannot exclude groups of people from jury pool. However, just bc pool must be fair doesnt always mean diverse jury |
|
Taylor v Louisiana Rehnquist opinion |
Lone dissent- taylor has no standing- is a man. Argues a lot of people exempt from juries: teachers, police, lawyers, etc. So not a fiat cross section anyway, excluding women not different. |
|
What makes taylor v Louisiana different from hoyt |
1. Enlarged portion of women in workforce 2. The abandonment of automatic jury exemptions for women by all state legislatures by 1975 3. The decision in Duncan v Louisiana that the right to trial by jury is a required part of due process 4. The frontier and reed decisions 5. Changed attitudes toward women on part of supreme court justices |
|
Additional details on taylor v louisiana |
Not an equal protections case. First time classification based on sex subject to strict scrutiny - fundamental due process right. Included bc court rejects womens place is at home rational. Old notion womens place is at home is no longer acceptable or statistically accurate. |
|
Jury strikes |
When lawyer choose a jury can exclude certain people from being selected. Can eliminate jurors for cause or paremptiary |
|
With cause jury stike |
Unlimited number of strikes with cause, usually some relationship to case |
|
Paremptiary challenges |
Lawyers can pick somebody and eliminate them just bc they dont want them. Limited. Use carefully. |
|
Batson v kentucky |
Unconstitutional under equal protections to exclude people on juries bc of race. Defense can raise objections to paremptiary exclusion and have to give judge a reason that's not race for excluding person |
|
JES v Alabama |
Same rule as batson but for women. |
|
Smith Kline beacham Corp v aldoot laboratories |
9th circuit case: batson rule also applies to sexual orientation- lawyers in nevada cannot exclude lawyers based on parahemptory exclusion |
|
Fiallo v Bell (1977) |
Court upholds sex classification. Fiallo questioned preference of unwed mothers over unwed fathers for immigration reasons. Court upheld- deferred to Congress. Biological differences: know unwed mother is mother, dont know if unwed father is father. |
|
Rostker v goldberg (1981) background |
Issue: only men have to sign up for draft. Federal case: 5th amendment due process clause.
|
|
Rostker v goldberg Rehnquist opinion |
Majority: us Gov argues court should use ordinary scrutiny bc military decision but uses intermediate. End: power to raise and support armies, article 1 of constitution. Means: classification between women and men. Means are substantially related because not made on old notions: women cannot serve in combat so Congress rationally only drafts combat troops, men. On non combat positions Says need flexible army (jobs for men between deployments), training would be needlessly burdened by women who can only do non combat roles, positions could be filled by volunteers. Passes intermediate scrutiny |
|
Rostker v goldberg white and brennan opinion |
Dissent. Dont challenge rule that women cant be in combat. Evidence: not enough women volunteers to fill 80,000 non combat roles, so should be able to draft women. No reason why not |
|
Rostker v goldberg Marshall opinion |
Dissent: dont challenge women not being able to be kn combat. No proof excluding women would make draft more convenient. Consider- make both genders apply for draft and only draft men when need combat troops, no need for difference when registering for draft. |
|
Women in military progress 2012 |
Pentagon lifted restriction on 1400 military positions. women still inevitable for 20% of positions in military |
|
Women military progress January 2013 |
Pentagon lifted combat exclusion policy- women can now serve in combat and front line positions. Told army, navy, marines, air force,coast guard, give till Jan 2016 to implement changes and then report any exemptions they would like to make , |
|
Women military progress 2016 |
Women can be in all positions in military. Still physical tests- if women can pass they can get in. |
|
Types of sex cases that are constitutional |
Past Discrimination compensation, biological differences, foreign relations. |
|
Foreign relation cases considered constitutional so far |
Rostker and fiallo |
|
National coalition for men v SSS (2019) |
Texas district court. Now under equal protection women can be in draft because women and men are similarly situated. Federal trial court in texas- selective service system not bound by this verdict but might be appealed to supreme court. |