POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 18 Current Lecture Reconsideration Reversal of Bowers right to privacy does apply Lawrence v Texas decriminalization of homosexual acts Controversy over influence of European human rights law Question Should US Courts refer to foreign law Equal Protection Marriage equality sex discrimination Baehr v Lewin 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court Sex discrimination not sexual orientation State Supreme Court said it was a violation of equality Backlash States legalizing same sex marriage Several states Goodridge v MA 2004 MA law that was being interpreted not t allow marriage license to same sex couples violated equal protection right to marry is a fundamental right Federal reaction Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Dissenting opinion judiciary has taken away the authority of the legislature effect on children and the dissenting opinion takes the view that studies support having children brought up in couples that are of opposite sex The reaction by the federal government was to pass Defensive Marriage Act DOMA that President Clinton signed in 1996 Several states adopted it DOMA said states that didn t recognize same sex marriage were not obligated to recognize couples that were married in a different state Arguments in favor Equal protection Right to marry is a fundamental human right Right to privacy in family home life and intimate relationships Liberty no harm to others Marriage does not require procreation California California Supreme Court hears challenges to Prop 8 and in May 2009 upholds Prop 8 Strauss v Horton California Supreme Court hears challenges to Prop 8 and in May 2009 upholds Prop 8 The Court says the 18 000 marriages retain legal status Controversy over the meaning of marriage Poverty Policy How does the legal system treat socio economic status What are considered suspect classifications Economic Rights 1 Constitutional law 2 International Law countries that recognize economic rights Wealth Not a suspect classification San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez 1973 school finance did violate equal protection on the state level the supreme court said variation in property value was a consequence of rural to urban shifts in demographics The court ruled this wasn t a violation of equal protection This case raises the question of whether the quality of education correlates with financial status Compare with Serrano v Priest In CA the funding was validated The US Supreme Court has not recognized wealth discrimination as a basis for using the strict scrutiny test Analysis of a right constitutional right Supreme Court has had other decisions that deal with socio economic status Regulating the Poor book that argues that the purpose of well fare policy is a mechanism of social control for the poor Welfare Benefits Shapiro v Thompson filed law suit against the CT Welfare Commissioner CT had a one year residency requirement thought this was unconstitutional because it had a chilling event on travel The Court thought the states argument about protecting fiscal integrity was not compelling There are less restrictive way to achieve fiscal integrity than denying welfare to families There are other ways to maintain it without limit to right to travel American Constitutional System gives the right to travel but no right to welfare There is a fundamental right to travel No right to welfare Dandridge v Williams 1970 But due process required Goldberg v Kelly 1970 must give notice that the government is taking away the welfare Anti vagrancy laws Constitutional challenges based on vagueness and over breadth Kolender v Lawson 1982 courts would strike down these laws because they challenge status or condition There was a shift from anti vagrancy laws to public policy They didn t want people out soliciting prostitution and other kinds of crimes Mr Lawon didn t carry identification with him went on long walks He would be stopped by the police and wanted him to show his id There was a CA law that you had to show id anti loitering policy must identify and account for presence when asked by a police officer He had to show a credible id In Terry v Ohio police had to have reasonable justification to justify a stop Mr Lawson challenged this and was stopped about 15 times The Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutionally vague in the due process clause What does it mean to provide credible reasonable identification He was a Rastafarian could have been profiled Anti sleeping laws Anti sleeping ordinances people opposed the laws because they are non harmful Pottinger v City of Miami 1992 Not a US Supreme Court case a court used strict scrutiny to invalidate an ordinance that prohibited sitting standing lying down sleeping or performing any life sustaining activities in public places This would be a park The Florida court said this is ridiculous and it violates the 8 th and 14th amendment The court said homeless people have no choice but to conduct these activities It violated right to travel Clark v Community of Non Violence 1984 US Supreme Court People wanted to protest homelessness in the capital of the US They wanted to attract publicity They tried to get a permit Community of Creative Non Violence The National Park issued a permit initially and put up two symbolic tent cities to do public display But then the Park service said they couldn t sleep in the tents and said this prohibited regulations This policy violated under the first amendment as sleeping was a form of symbolic speech First Amendment protects symbolic actions Does sleeping in a park constitute symbolic speech The park regulation didn t violate first amendment Even if overnight sleeping is symbolic speech the exercise of free speech can be restricted in time manner etc The US Supreme Court said that the group wasn t been punished or applied unfairly because of the message they would convey The dissent acknowledged that the US has more homeless people than any other country in the world They questioned why they had to have an anti sleeping policy Also the court misunderstood the point as the homelessness and sleeping in the tents was part of the demonstration No sit no lie policies Known as obstruction ordinances designed to end cities of homeless people The challenge was brought by the Berkeley community health project They had a lot of older people and people with disabilities who couldn t stand for a long time had to sit on the sidewalk This was near auto tellers because people would have more money