POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 18 Current LectureReconsideration Reversal of Bowers- right to privacy does applyLawrence v. Texasdecriminalization of homosexual actsControversy over influence of European human rights lawQuestion: Should US Courts refer to “foreign law”? Equal Protection: Marriage equality- sex discriminationBaehr v. Lewin (1993)- Hawaii Supreme CourtSex discrimination, not sexual orientationState Supreme Court said it was a violation of equalityBacklashStates: legalizing same sex marriageSeveral statesGoodridge 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 rightFederal reaction: Defense of Marriage ActDOMADissenting 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 sexThe 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 favorEqual protectionRight to marry is a fundamental human rightRight to privacy in family, home life, and intimate relationshipsLiberty- no harm to othersMarriage does not require procreationCaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court hears challenges to Prop 8 and in May 2009 upholds Prop 8Strauss v. Horton: California Supreme Court hears challenges to Prop 8 and in May 2009 upholds Prop 8The Court says the 18,000 marriages retain legal statusControversy over the meaning of “marriage”Poverty PolicyHow does the legal system treat socio-economic status?What are considered suspect classifications? Economic Rights1. Constitutional law2. International Law- countries that recognize economic rightsWealthNot a “suspect” classificationSan 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 testAnalysis of a right, constitutional rightSupreme Court has had other decisions that deal with socio-economic statusRegulating the Poor- book that argues that the purpose of well-fare policy is a mechanism of social control for the poorWelfare BenefitsShapiro 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. AmericanConstitutional 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 welfareAnti-vagrancy lawsConstitutional challenges based on vagueness and over breadthKolender 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 peopleout 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 lawsAnti sleeping ordinances, people opposed the laws because they are non-harmfulPottinger 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 8th 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 symbolicspeech? 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-sleepingpolicy? Also, the court misunderstood the point, as the homelessness and sleeping in the tents was part of the demonstration. “No sit, no lie” policiesKnown as “obstruction” ordinances designed to end cities of homeless peopleThe challenge was brought by the Berkeley community health project. They had a lot of older people and people with