CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2006
Assignment #37
F. Classifications
Disadvantaging Aliens
- What
legitimate purposes might a state have for distinguishing between citizens
and non-citizens?
- voting?
holding elective office? other
functions in the political community? distribution
of public support?
- should
the use of such a classification be "suspect"? are there the same reasons for doing so that exist in
the case of race/national origin or gender?
- GRAHAM
V. RICHARDSON, p. 901 (1971)
- what
regulation, with what purpose?
- what
constitutional bases for objection?
- equal protection
- federal preemption: Truax
v. Raich (1915)
- under
equal protection, what standard of review?
- cases relied on
- Takahashi (1948), relying on Korematsu!
- Carolene Products footnote (1938) as a characterization of the
situation of aliens – at p. 902 – does that
characterization make
sense?
- is
the rationale of these cases alienage, or race/national
origin/ethicity? Does it matter?
- Under federal pre-emption, what standard of
review?
- BERNAL
V. FAINTER, p. 904 (1984)
- what
regulation, with what purpose?
- what
standard of review does the Court apply?
- suspect-classification strict scrutiny?
- rational basis?
- what
standard of review would be applied in the following cases?
- citizenship requirement for state police
officers (Foley v. Connelie (1978))
- same for public school teachers (Ambach v. Norwick
(1979))
- "peace officers", including probation
officers (Cabell (1982))
- how
do we know which standard to apply?
- MATHEWS
V. DIAZ, p. 908 (1976)
- what
regulation, with what purpose?
- what
standard of review is applied?
- what
distinguishes this from an identical state-law requirement? (Sugarman, 1973)