Key Facts– The California Department of Corrections (CDC) had an unwritten policy of racially segregating prisoners for up to 60 days when they entered a new corrections facility. Petitioner sues to overturn this policy.
Issue– Is strict scrutiny the proper standard of review for this policy?
Result– Strict scrutiny applied to all race-based classifications by the state, with this particular classification remanded for consideration in that light
Reasoning– All government racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny, because there is a presumption they have a sinister purpose, or could have. Thus, the government must be pursuing a very important end to be permitted to discriminate, and it must actually achieve, or be critical to achieving, that end. Separate is, as a matter of law, not equal. At the same time, prison systems are a place where government power is at its apex, so their obligation to prove they had a prison safety interest in this policy is not completely fatal.
Key Facts– Under California law, children born to married women living with their husbands are presumed to be children of the marriage. Michael H. had an affair with a woman married to Gerald D., and Michael H. now sues for the right to establish his paternity of the child he fathered with the wife.
Issue– Are parental rights guaranteed when one alleges paternity of a child born to a married couple?
Result– California law held to apply to the case.
Reasoning– California law provides an assumption of paternity for the husband. Historically, the interests of men in Michael’s situation have not been protected through any special measures. To have Due Process protection, a right must be fundamental, rooted in tradition and conscience. Since no such right exists here, state law shall apply.
Key Facts– California passed Proposition 14 in 1964, permitting people to refuse to lease, sell, or rent property to anyone for whatever reasons they choose. Reitman refused to rent a property to the Mulkeys, apparently based on their race.
Issue– Can a California law permit racial discrimination in private affairs such as renting property?
Result– Ruling by California court, preventing this discrimination,is affirmed.
Reasoning– Proposition 14 is a state permitting legal discrimination, even if the rule does not say so overtly. It also seems this was the lawmakers’ intent; this makes the law directly contradictory of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Key Facts– California enacted a statute limiting the maximum welfare that new residents of the state will be eligible for to the amount payable in that resident’s previous state of residence.
Issue– Does the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibit discrimination against new citizens of states?
Result– Law stricken
Reasoning– As stated in the Slaughterhouse cases, one of the Privileges conferred in the Privileges and Immunities Clause is the right, through residency, to become a citizen of a new state and thereafter enjoy the same rights as other citizens of that state.
Key Facts—California authorized the use of medical marijuana, in violation of Congress’s Controlled Substances Act. Nevertheless, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) enforced the Controlled Substances Act in California, and raided the homes of multiple people, finding and destroying marijuana when it located it. One of the people whose marijuana was destroyed was Raich, whose marijuana use was intended to treat conditions that would otherwise be excruciatingly painful and perhaps fatal. Thus, Raich brought action against the DEA and Attorney General for violating his rights.
Issue—Does the Controlled Substances Act overrule contrary California law? If so, is the Controlled Substances Act constitutional?
Holding—Yes and yes.
Result—Judgment against the government is vacated.
Reasoning—Well-settled law on drugs settles that Congress has the power to regulate them. The Court invokes Wickard here, and says that it controls, and that Raich’s lawyers, who tried to use Lopez and Morrison as precedents here, have interpreted those cases too broadly. Though the Supreme Court has strong reservations about enforcing this law, it is within Congress’s authority to pass it.