Commerce Power• Champion v. Ames (1903)• Shreveport Rate Case (1914)• Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)• Stafford v. Wallace (1922)• NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

(1937)• Edwards v. California (1941)• Wickard v. Filburn (1942)• Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

(1964)• Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)• City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)• Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.

(1981)

International Relations• Missouri v. Holland

(1920)

• U.S. v. Curtiss‑Wright Export Corp. (1936)

• U.S. v. Belmont (1937)

• Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)

• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

The Burger Court

1969-1986

Membership, 1969 & 1986

• Burger (1969) R-MN

• Black (1937) D-AL

• Douglas (1939) D-WA

• Harlan (1955) R-NY

• Brennan (1956) D-NJ

• Stewart (1958) R-OH

• White (1962) D-CO

• Fortas (1965) D-TN

• Marshall (1967) D-NY

• Burger (1969) R-MN

• Powell (1972) R-VA

• Stevens (1976) R-IL

• Rehnquist (1972) R-AZ

• Brennan (1956) D-NJ

• O’Connor (1982) R-AZ

• White (1962) D-CO Blackmun (1970) R-MN

• Marshall (1967) D-NY

Generalizations

• A preference for government over the individual?

• A preference for executive over legislative power?

• An enhanced concern for property rights?

• A diminished concern for political rights?

14th Amendment, ¶§ 1 [1868]

• All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Three Tiers of Equal Protection

• Rational Basis – applicable to most governmental classification, including economic. The burden of proof is on the challenging party to demonstrate that the government could have no rational basis for its discrimination–that it is arbitrary, capricious, and patently discriminatory.

• Strict Scrutiny – applicable to suspect classifications, like race. [See Korematsu.] The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that its regulation is essential to a compelling governmental interest. As a practical matter, the burden is never met. Scalia has said the only circumstances he could imagine would be a race riot in a prison, where government might find it necessary on a temporary basis to separate inmates by race.

• Intermediate Scrutiny – applicable to semi-suspect classifications, like sex. Here the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that its regulation is substantially related to an important governmental interest, but “separate, but equal” is permissible.

The Rehnquist Court

1986-present

Membership, 1986 & present

• Burger (1969) R-MN

• Powell (1972) R-VA

• Stevens (1976) R-IL

• Rehnquist (1972) R-AZ

• Brennan (1956) D-NJ

• O’Connor (1982) R-AZ

• White (1962) D-CO

• Blackmun (1970) R-MN

• Marshall (1967) D-NY

• Rehnquist (1969/86) R-AZ

• Kennedy (1988) R-CA

• Stevens (1976) R-IL

• Scalia (1986) R-DC

• Souter (1990) R-NH

• O’Connor (1982) R-AZ

• Ginsburg (1993) D-DC

• Breyer (1994) D-MA

• Thomas (1992) R-MO

Comparative Liberalism, 1986-1994

Name First Criminal Civil AverageAmendment Procedure Rights

Rehnquist 22.0% 17.0% 28.0% 22.3%Thomas 38.0% 19.0% 30.0% 29.0%Scalia 35.0% 26.0% 32.0% 31.0%White 31.0% 28.0% 45.0% 34.7%

O'Connor 46.0% 29.0% 42.0% 39.0%Kennedy 48.0% 29.0% 40.0% 39.0%Powell 50.0% 27.0% 46.0% 41.0%Souter 73.0% 44.0% 58.0% 58.3%Ginsberg 90.0% 47.0% 50.0% 62.3%Breyer 83.0% 35.0% 80.0% 66.0%Stevens 70.0% 72.0% 69.0% 70.3%Blackmun 73.0% 62.0% 83.0% 72.7%Brennan 85.0% 87.0% 91.0% 87.7%Marshall 86.0% 88.0% 94.0% 89.3%

Generalizations

• A preference for government over the individual?

• A preference for executive over legislative power?

• An enhanced concern for property rights?

• A diminished concern for political rights?