Constitutional Law1L
Constitutional Law — Complete 1L Outline
I. Judicial Review & the Role of the Federal Courts
The power of judicial review — the authority of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional — was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Constitution is the supreme law, and it is the province of the judiciary to say what the law is. This principle undergirds the entire structure of constitutional adjudication.
A. Marbury v. Madison and the Origin of Judicial Review
In Marbury v. Madison, the Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional insofar as it purported to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows. The key term Judicial Review describes this power. Marshall's opinion established three foundational propositions: (1) the Constitution is paramount law; (2) it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is; and (3) courts must refuse to enforce laws that conflict with the Constitution.
1. The Political Question Doctrine
Not all constitutional questions are justiciable. The political question doctrine, articulated in Baker v. Carr (1962), holds that certain matters are committed by the Constitution to the political branches and are therefore beyond judicial review. The Court identified six factors for determining whether a question is political, including a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to a coordinate branch and a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards.
B. Congressional Power to Limit Federal Jurisdiction
Under Article III, § 2, Congress has the power to make exceptions and regulations to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. The scope of this power remains contested — the essential-role thesis holds that Congress may not strip jurisdiction in a manner that destroys the essential role of the Court in the constitutional plan. The related concept of Due Process limits how far Congress can restrict access to judicial remedies.
II. Equal Protection & Substantive Due Process
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires that states treat similarly situated persons equally under the law. The Court applies different levels of scrutiny depending on the classification at issue: Strict Scrutiny for suspect classifications (race, national origin), intermediate scrutiny for quasi-suspect classifications (gender), and rational basis review for economic and social legislation.
A. Brown v. Board of Education and Desegregation
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Warren Court unanimously held that racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren wrote that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, overruling the 'separate but equal' doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Brown is considered one of the most important decisions in American constitutional history.
1. Implementing Desegregation: Brown II
In Brown II (1955), the Court addressed the remedy, famously ordering desegregation to proceed 'with all deliberate speed.' The phrase reflected the Court's awareness of massive resistance in the South while insisting on ultimate compliance. Subsequent cases — Green v. County School Board (1968), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) — addressed specific remedial measures including busing and attendance zone modifications.
B. Fundamental Rights Under Substantive Due Process
Substantive Due Process protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, even when proper procedures are followed. The Court has recognized rights to privacy, marriage, contraception, and family autonomy as fundamental. When a fundamental right is at stake, the government must satisfy strict scrutiny — showing that the law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored. Key cases include Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Loving v. Virginia (1967), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).
III. Criminal Procedure & the Rights of the Accused
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments collectively define the constitutional rights of persons accused of crimes. Through the process of selective incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, most of these protections now apply to state criminal proceedings. The landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that statements obtained during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the suspect was first advised of their Miranda Rights.
A. The Miranda Warnings and Custodial Interrogation
Chief Justice Warren's opinion in Miranda v. Arizona required law enforcement to advise suspects of four rights before custodial interrogation: the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against them, the right to an attorney, and the right to appointed counsel if indigent. The term Miranda Rights now refers to these procedural safeguards. Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are excluded from the prosecution's case-in-chief under the exclusionary rule.