ࡱ>  hj]^_`abcdefg` :bjbjss gC5$<HHHP Gld.$$$LK,wFHHHHHH$hll$$+++$$F+F++$$X LI[HL0G** +ll)G $n$x$\ $x.< CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I OUTLINE Field, Fall 2008  HYPERLINK \l "separationofpoewrs" Separation of Powers  HYPERLINK \l "judicialpower" Judicial Power (Art. III)  HYPERLINK \l "judicialpowergeneralrubric" General Rubric 1  HYPERLINK \l "jurisdiction" Jurisdiction ( HYPERLINK \l "fedctjurisdiction" fed. ct. jurisdiction,  HYPERLINK \l "polrestraintsonjud" political restraints on the judiciary) 1  HYPERLINK \l "caseorcontroversy" Case of Controversy Requirement ( HYPERLINK \l "notadvisoryopinion" not adv. op.,  HYPERLINK \l "standing" standing,  HYPERLINK \l "mootnessripeness" moot/ripeness,  HYPERLINK \l "politicalquestion" not political ?) 3  HYPERLINK \l "executivepower" Executive Power (Art. II)  HYPERLINK \l "executivepowerbasicpowers" Basic Powers 9  HYPERLINK \l "executivepowerseparationofpowers" Separation of Powers (Youngstown, executive agreements) 10  HYPERLINK \l "warpowers" War Powers (War Powers Res., wartime detention) 12  HYPERLINK \l "executiveprivilege" Executive Privilege 17  HYPERLINK \l "congressionaleffortstocontrolexecbranch" Congressional Efforts to Control Executive Branch (nondel. doctrine, leg. veto, line item veto) 18  HYPERLINK \l "legislativepower" Legislative Power (Art. I)  HYPERLINK \l "legislativepowergeneralrubric" General Rubric (n/p clause) 20  HYPERLINK \l "commerceclause" Commerce Clause &  HYPERLINK \l "the10thamend" the 10th and  HYPERLINK \l "the11themand" 11th Amends. 22  HYPERLINK \l "othercongressionalpowers" Other Congressional Powers:  HYPERLINK \l "congresstaxpower" Tax,  HYPERLINK \l "congressspendingpower" Spending,  HYPERLINK \l "congresswarpowers" War,  HYPERLINK \l "congressforeignaffairspower" Foreign Affairs 32  HYPERLINK \l "federalimitsonstateregulation" Federal Limits on State Regulation  HYPERLINK \l "dormantcommerceclause" Dormant Commerce Clause 38  HYPERLINK \l "interstateprivilegesandimmunities" Interstate Privileges & Immunities Clause 45  HYPERLINK \l "congressionalpreemption" Congressional Preemption and Consent 47  HYPERLINK \l "otheraspectsoffederalstaterelations" Other Aspects of Federal-State Relationships 50  HYPERLINK \l "thefourteenthamendment" The 14th Amendment  HYPERLINK \l "substantivedueprocess" Substantive Due Process  HYPERLINK \l "substantivedueprocessgeneralrubric" General Rubric 51  HYPERLINK \l "substantivedpcategoriesofrights" Categories of Rights 55  HYPERLINK \l "privacysubdp" Privacy 55  HYPERLINK \l "abortionsubdp" Abortion 56  HYPERLINK \l "marriagesubdp" Marriage 60  HYPERLINK \l "familyparentalcontrolsubdp" Family/Parental Control/Access to Children/Living Arrangements 61  HYPERLINK \l "sexualitysubdp" Sexuality 63  HYPERLINK \l "righttodiesubdp" Right to Die 63  HYPERLINK \l "economiccontractssubdp" Economic Contracts 65  HYPERLINK \l "NOTsubdprights" NOT Substantive Due Process Rights 66  HYPERLINK \l "subdppolicyissues" Policy Issues 66  HYPERLINK \l "equalprotection" Equal Protection  HYPERLINK \l "epgeneralrubric" General Rubric 68  HYPERLINK \l "eqcategoriesofclassification" Categories of Classifications 69  HYPERLINK \l "racep" Race ( HYPERLINK \l "raceepsegregation" segregation,  HYPERLINK \l "raceepdisparateeffects" disparate effects,  HYPERLINK \l "raceepaffirmativeaction" affirm. action ( HYPERLINK \l "raceepaffirmativeactioneducation" education,  HYPERLINK \l "raceepaffirmativeactionemployemtn" employment)) 69  HYPERLINK \l "sexep" Sex ( HYPERLINK \l "sexeprule" rule,  HYPERLINK \l "sexepdisparateeffects" disparate effects,  HYPERLINK \l "sexepaffirmativeaction" affirm. action, sex vs. race) 78  HYPERLINK \l "alienageep" Alienage 83  HYPERLINK \l "illegitimacyep" Illegitimacy 85  HYPERLINK \l "disabilityep" Disability 85  HYPERLINK \l "ageep" Age 86  HYPERLINK \l "povertywealthep" Poverty/Wealth 86  HYPERLINK \l "sexualorientationep" Sexual Orientation 87  HYPERLINK \l "fundamentalinterestsep" Fundamental Interests 88  HYPERLINK \l "fundintepproceduraldueprocess" Procedural Due Process/Access to Courts 88  HYPERLINK \l "fundintepfood" Food/Shelter/Education 90  HYPERLINK \l "fundintepvoting" Voting 92  HYPERLINK \l "fundintepreapportionemtnvotediluation" ReapportionmentVote Dilution 93  HYPERLINK \l "fundinreappgerrymander" ReapportionmentGerrymandering ( HYPERLINK \l "polgerrymander" political,  HYPERLINK \l "racialgerrymander" race) 94  HYPERLINK \l "ratbasisscrutiny" Rational Basis Scrutiny 96  HYPERLINK \l "privilegesandimmunities" Privileges and Immunities 98  HYPERLINK \l "requirementofstateactio" The Requirement of State Action 100  HYPERLINK \l "congresscivilrigthsenforcementpower" Congresss Civil Rights Enforcement Power 105  HYPERLINK \l "congcivrights13th" 13th Amendment 105  HYPERLINK \l "congcivrights14th" 14th Amendment 107  HYPERLINK \l "congcivrights15th" 15th Amendment 112 I. Separation of Powers A. Judicial Power (Art. III) 1. General Rubric Basic requirements for federal court jurisdiction (1) Jurisdiction under Art. III, 2, or authorizing statute (2) Case or controversy (a) Cannot be an advisory opinion (Rescue Army) Must be an adversarial proceedings with a real, active dispute (b) Parties must have standing: (i) Injury (ii) Causation (iii) Redressability (c) Ripeness/mootess (must be ripe; cannot be moot) (d) Justiciability (cannot be a political question) 2. Jurisdiction Federal Court Jurisdiction Creation of federal courts (Art. III, 1): The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in: (1) One Supreme Court, and (2) Such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish Jurisdiction of federal courts (Art. III, 2): The judicial power of the US shall extend to all cases/controversies: (1) Arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, (2) Affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, (3) Of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction (4) To which the United States is a party (5) Between two or more states (6) Between a state and citizens of another state (7) Between citizens of different states (8) Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states (9) Between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects Jurisdiction of US SC (Art. III, 2): (1) Original jurisdiction: All cases: (a) Affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls (b) In which a state shall be a party IMPORTANT: These are the limits to US SC original jurisdiction (i.e., Congress cannot by statute give US SC original jurisdiction over any other cases) (Marbury) (2) Appellate jurisdiction: All other cases abovementioned, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, and Congress shall make If Congress DOES grant jurisdiction: Federal courts HAVE to exercise that jurisdiction (reverse McCardle) BUT: US SC can decline cert. in most cases District and circuit courts have other ways/doctrines to evade cases Hierarchy of laws Constitution ( Federal statutes and treaties ( State laws Constitution trumps federal statutes and treaties (Marbury) Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties all trump state law (Supremacy Clause) judicial review Rule: Federal courts have power to review: (1) Actions of other branchesCongress and the executiveIF justiciable (i.e., not political questions) (Marbury) Court can review actions of other branches to see if they comport with constitutional demands, but cannot tell the other branches how to exercise their discretion within the Constitutions requirements Reasoning: Judiciary has ultimate responsibility for interpreting the law Without judicial review, inconsistencies would arise in the ways the various branches interpret the Constitution (2) State court decisions (Hunters Lessee) Ensures uniformity among states Helps protect against state bias (3) State statutes (Cohens) Two approaches: Clean hands (restrained): The Court should decide constitutional issues only when absolutely necessary to prevent the Court from acting unconstitutionally Watchdog (activist): Judicial review is essential in order enforce the Constitution and keep the other branches in check Court as arbiter/enforcer of the Constitution JUDICIAL SUPREMACY Rules: (1) Judicial interpretations of the Constitution must be followed even by those not immediate parties to the dispute (Cooper) Cooper: AR bound by Brown, even though not party to the suit (which involved KS), because Brown is the supreme law of the land (2) Congress cannot overrule US SC decisions on constitutional issues by statuteconstitutional amendment required (Dickerson) Dickerson: Miranda was a constitutional case, so Congress cannot overturn it by statute STARE DECISIS Rule: Court will generally refuse to overturn a prior case when: (1) The legal framework the prior case created is not unworkable (2) The doctrine the prior case enunciated is consistent with the the rule of law (3) People have relied on the prior decision in ordering their activities, and (4) The facts and doctrines supporting the legal rule in the prior case remain largely the same BUT, If any of these conditions are not met, the Court may overturn the prior decision POLITICAL RESTRAINTS ON THE JUDICIARY (1) Appointment and confirmation (2) Impeachment Judges hold their offices during good behavior (Art. III, 1) and can be impeached for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors (Art. II, 4) (3) Congressional budget-setting Congress sets the Courts budget, although cannot reduce Justices salaries (Art. III, 1) (4) Court packing Congress sets the Courts seize, so theoretically could increase number of Justices if wanted to (e.g., FDR) (5) Jurisdiction-stripping Congress may make exceptions to and place regulations on the US SCs appellate jurisdiction (Art. III, 2) I.e., Congress may strip the Court of power to hear specific subjects Exception: Arguably the Bill of Rights and EP clause limit Congresss ability to strip jurisdiction over particular classes of litigants without violating EP E.g., if Congress expressly repeals US SCs appellate jurisdiction over habeas claims, Court lacks jurisdiction to hear such claims (Ex Parte McCardle) (6) Constitutional amendment Very difficult to passsupermajority required 3. Case or Controversy Requirement General rule: Courts power extends only to cases and controversies Unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction Requirement 1: NOT AN ADIVOSRY OPINION (ADVERSARINESS) Rule: Court will only hear cases involving actual adversariesno mere hypothetical fact situations. There must be both (Chemerinsky): (1) An actual dispute between the adverse litigants, and (2) A substantial likelihood that a decision in favor of a claimant will have some effect (i.e., bring about some changes) Rationale: An advisory opinion is not a case within the meaning of Art. III because it does not involve real adversaries An adversarial proceeding ensures vigorous representation of both sides When the Court decides a case on a hypothetical set of facts, there is a greater risk of imprecision and error, as Court may neglect some critical aspect of the actual issue (Rescue Army) Requirement 2: PARTIES MUST HAVE STANDING Standing: The determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication Field: The Court will twist these rules to grant or not grant standing in a particular case depending on whether or not it wants to hear the case Rule: (1) Constitutional requirements: For a party to have standing, there MUST BE: (a) Injury in fact (b) Causation (c) Redressability NOTE: If a statute explicitly confers standing, the Court applies these three requirements much more deferentially (2) Prudential doctrines: Court MAY choose NOT to hear cases involving: (a) Third-party standing (b) Generalized grievance (c) Injury outside the statutory zone of interest (1) Injury in fact: A concrete and particularized, actual or imminent detriment to a legally protected interest (Lujan) Injury CANNOT merely be conjectural or hypothetical Injury CAN be merely economic or aesthetic (environmental) Application: NO injury in fact where: (a) Injury is merely procedural Procedural injury: A government officials failure to observe a procedure mandated by law Ones interest in the proper administration of the law is not a legally protected interest capable of injury (Lujan) Court wants to prevent Congress from creating a case or controversy where none exists simply by giving everyone the ability to enforce a statute (b)  Animal nexus :  s claim injury because won t be able to go see certain endangered animals if US does not stop giving funds to protects that harm endangered animal habitats (Lujan) No indication of when  s intended to return to endangered animal habitat (c)  Vocational nexus : Same as above, except  s claim in injury because will not be able to continue working with endangered animals (Lujan) To show injury,  s must show that they do or would work with the specific animals that are threatened (d) Line item veto dilutes Representatives voting power (Raines) Asserted interest is too diffuse Also, theres a legislative remedy availableCongress could just repeal the Line Item Veto Act or exempt appropriations bills from its reach NOTE: Line item veto later held unconstitutional in Clinton, where parties aggrieved by Clintons cancellation of certain appropriations were found to have standing (e) Other: (i) Asserted injury is merely stigmatic (i.e., imposition of a stigma) (Allen v. Wright) (ii) Asserted injury is to marital happiness (Roe) (2) Causation: Fairly traceable causal connection between  s injury and " s conduct complained of (Lujan) I.e.,  s injury not caused by a third-party Application: NO causation where: (a) Independent choices of third-parties are the main cause of  s injury (Lujan) (b) Parents of black children in public schools claim IRSs failure to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools makes desegregation more difficult (Allen) IRSs conduct not the main or direct cause of the school segregation, so chain of inferences too tenuous (3) Redressability: Likely that injury could be redressed by a favorable decision (Lujan) Application: NO redressability where: (a) US government only one of several actors causing the injury, and cessation of US government activity would not stop the asserted harm (Lujan) BUT, sufficient that requested remedy would reduce, not eliminate, the harm at issue (Mass v. EPA) (b) Hospital receiving tax exemption for serving the poor refuses to serve persons without insurance, because depriving the hospital of its tax-exemption would not necessarily lead it to serve the uninsured (Simon) Field thinks this is wrongwho else will enforce the exemption?but its a common argument (that theres no redressability because cannot ensure party will stop action even when punished) NOTE: EP cases arguably always have redressability problems (4) Statutorily conferred standing: If a congressional statute confers standing, the Court is MUCH more deferential in applying the three constitutional standing requirements (Mass v. EPA) IMPORTANT: There still needs to have been a possibility of standing in light of the three constitutional requirements even absent the statute (i.e., Congress cannot create standing out of thin air merely by passing a statute) (Lujan) Exception: Congress CAN authorize suits by private attorneys general (quit tam suits)where private AG sues on behalf of government (for injury government suffers) but maintains a personal interest in the suitbecause Congress simply delegating governments power to sue to private party (VT Agency of Natural Resources) Application: (a) MA has standing to sue EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, where Congress gives states power to sue EPA to enforce its regulations (Mass v. EPA) Injury in fact: Loss of coastland Causation: That greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and that global warming raises sea levels are undisputed Redressability: Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (even if incremental) will help slow rise in sea levels Chinas and Indias refusals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions do not defeat redressability (5) Prudential doctrines: Court MAY exercise its discretion to refuse to hear cases involving (i.e., usually no standing in cases involving): NOTE: Because prudential, Congress may override these doctrines by statute (unlike the above constitutional standing requirements) (a) Third-party standing: Action brought by one party on behalf of another party suffering injury Congressional conferral of standing might override this doctrine (Akins) IMPORTANT: Third-party standing more likely to allowed the closer the relationship and identity of interest between the third-party and the injured party Application: Third-party standing allowed where: (i) Beerseller has third-party standing where state law prohibited selling of alcohol to 18-year-old males but not 18-year-old females, because beersellers interest in selling alcohol identical to 18-year-old males interest in buying alcohol, and 18-year-old boys have standing problems (Craig) (ii) Voter group has third-party standing to challenge FECs failure to treat AIPAC as a PAC subject to reporting and disclosure requirements under federal election law, because federal statute grants standing and asserted harminformational injurydirectly relates a basic political right (voting) and is sufficiently concrete and specific (Akins) (b) Generalized grievances: Injury shared among millions of people (e.g.,  taxpayer injuries) Applies where:  sues solely as a: (i) Citizen concerned with having the government follow the law (ii) Taxpayer interested in restraining allegedly illegal government expenditures, and (iii) No specific constitutional right implicated Rationale: Any individual taxpayers interest in the use of tax monies is shared will millions of other taxpayers and comparatively minute and indeterminate (Frothingham) EXCEPTIONS: Standing usually permitted for generalized grievances involving: (i) Concrete, particularized injuries (Field on Lujan) E.g., informational injury (Akins) (ii) Claims under the Establishment Clause (Flast) (iii) In-kind transfers of wealth (Hein) Application: Standing for generalized grievance where: (i) Taxpayers, under the Establishment Clause challenge federal statute that grants aid to religious schools (Flast) NO standing for generalized grievance where: (i) Taxpayer sues to enjoin Treasury Sec from making conditional grants to state childbirth programs (Frothingham) (ii) Taxpayer sues to force CIA to disclose expenditures under the Constitutions Statement of Accounts clause (Richardson) (iii) Members of armed forces Reserves challenge congressmens membership in the Reserves as a violation of the Constitutions Incompatibility Clause (Schlesinger) (c) Injuries outside the applicable statutes zone of interest: Injury not within the range of interests the statute means to protect or regulate (i.e.,  not within the group intended to benefit from the law) EXCEPTION: Congress can negate this doctrine (i.e., require the Court to grant standing) with regard to a particular statute if it so chooses (Bennett) Application: No standing where: (i)  claims injury to economic interests under a statute whose purpose is to protect environmental interests Requirement 3: MOOTNESS/RIPENESS Mootness: A case must have an actual controversy extant at ALL stages or review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed EXCEPTION: Cases capable of repetition yet evading review (e.g., abortion, voting cases) Mootness occurs when litigants who clearly had standing to sue at the outset of the litigation are deprived of a concrete stake in the outcome of the case by changes in the facts or in the law after the lawsuit has gotten under way. So long as the parties to a case have a concrete, lingering interest (no matter how small) in the outcome of the litigation, a case is not moot Ripeness: A dispute must be sufficiently developedi.e., not too remote or speculativebefore the Court will hear it Court will refuse to grant anticipatory relief (must be more than a mere fear of future, punitive action) Idea is to prevent premature adjudication Application: Case not ripe where: (i)  fears that at some future point, the Army might use the fruits of its surveillance of  against him (Laird) Requirement 4: NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION Rule: Court will refuse to hear cases involving matters that are either: (1) Committed to the  unreviewable discretion of the political branches, or Test: Has there been a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department? (Nixon) This is a matter of constitutional interpretation, not discretion Baker (Brennan): Political question doctrine applies to other federal branches, not to state government (2) Ought to be left to the political branches as a matter of discretion Test: If Court were to decide case, would there be: (i) A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue, Field: When the Court can figure out an enforceable standard (like one person, one vote) it will step in (ii) Enforcement problems (difficulty of deriving effective judicial remedies), or (iii) Other institutional difficulties, such as (Baker v. Carr): (A) Problems of comity with/respect for the other branches, (B) Dangers to the Courts legitimacy, (C) Inability to decide case without making an initial policy determination clearly outside of judicial discretion (D) Unusual need for adherence to a political decision (i.e., a decision by a political branch) already made Application: NOT justiciable (i.e., political questions): (a) Foreign affairs (although not always) Presidents power to unilaterally terminate a treaty is not justiciable (Goldwater) (b) Validity of congressional enactments How long a constitutional amendment is open for ratification is not justiciable (Coleman) (c) The Guarantee Clause (constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government) Definition of republican form of government not justiciable (Luther) (d) Nature and conduct of impeachment proceedings by Senate Claim that Senate violated Constitution by trying impeached judge by committee rather than before full Senate not justiciable (Nixon) Rationale: Impeachment is Congresss sole check on the judiciary Justiciable (i.e., not political questions(?)): (a) Qualifications for membership in Congress Wrongful exclusion claim by member of Congress who meets all express criteria in the Constitution for membership (but has been embezzling) is justiciable (Powell) Narrow reading of the doctrineCourt here willing to adjudicate constitutional interpretation of another branch (Congress) (b) District apportionment (redistricting) Judicial involvement the only way to resolve malapportionment, and it is possible to craft judicially manageable standards (e.g., one person, one vote), so redistricting cases are justiciable (Baker v. Carr) (c) Uniformity of standards in election recount Controversy over state recount of presidential election using non-uniform standards is justiciable (Bush v. Gore) B. Executive Power (Art. II) 1. Basic Powers Basic Powers (Art. II) 1: Vesting Clause: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Description of whats to comediscrete power 2: Commander-in-Chief Clause: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States. The President shall have power to: (1) Grant pardons (2) Make treaties and appoint ambassadors and judges, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (3) Fill vacancies that may happen during congressional recess 3: The President shall: (1) Give Congress information on the state of the union (2) On extraordinary occasions, may convene both House of Congress, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to their time of adjournment, adjourn them to such time as he thinks proper (3) Take Care Clause: Take care that the laws be faithfully executed Other powers: Whether President has inherent powers beyond those listed in Art. II is an open question (Youngstown) Foreign affairs power: President is sole organ of foreign affairs and negotiations powers, which may include power to take measures to defend the lives of US citizens) (Durand, Curtiss-Wright) Does President have greater powers during states of emergency (i.e., emergency constitutionalism)? Milliken: No state-of-emergency exceptions for suspension of HC NOTE: Youngstown governs domestic affairs, while Curtiss-Wright governs foreign affairs (action abroad) 2. Separation of Powers GENERAL FRAMEWORK (Jackson Youngstown concurrence) NOTE: Arguably limited to domestic actions (1) Category 1: President acting pursuant to an express or implied congressional grant of authority (a) President has all his powers PLUS all powers Congress has delegated to him (b) President at his maximum power Strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation (c) Presidential action unconstitutional ONLY if federal government as an undivided whole lacks power to take the action (2) Category 2: President acting absent any congressional grant or denial of authority (zone of twilight) (a) President must rely on his own independent powers alone Concurrent authority with Congress is possible, but President relying on his own independent powers Acquiescence by Congress on the issue may enable President to take power in the area Frankfurter: A systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned [may] be treated as a gloss on Executive Power vested in the President by 1 of Art. (b) President at middle level of powers (c) Validity of Presidents exercise of power depends on particular circumstances and events at issue (3) Category 3: President acting in contravention of congressional action (a) President must rely solely on his own powers MINUS whatever powers Congress has in the area (b) Presidents power at its lowest ebb Court applies severe scrutiny, based on importance of maintaining proper separation of powers (c) Presidential action constitutional ONLY if it is within the Presidents powers but OUTSIDE congressional control (i.e., the Constitution has barred Congress from acting on the particular issue) APPLICATION: Attempted presidential seizure of steel mills unconstitutional because Congress has impliedly disapproved of the seizure by withholding authority or approval (Category 3), and the action is not within the Presidents sole powers as Commander in Chief or to faithfully execute the laws (Youngstown) Why Category 3: (i) Other statutes provide for similar kinds of seizures, but not this particular one (ii) A proposed bill to give the President this type of power had previously been voted down Field: BUT, not passing a bill to give the President a power is not the same as passing a bill to deny the President that power Truman: Points to three clauses in justifying his action: (1) Vesting clause, (2) Take Care clause, and (3) Commander in Chief clause Black: Seizure order is not presidential enforcement of a legislative act but is itself a legislative act, so President cannot do it absent authorizing statute Suggests that had seizure been temporary would have been okay Frankfurter: Had the seizure been expressly temporary, might have been okay Field thinks action here should fall into Category 2congressional silence is maybe not that telling EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS Executive agreement: International agreement made by the President without Senate consent Rules: (1) Executive agreements are constitutional (Belmont) (2) Executive agreements trump state regulations to the contrary (Belmont) APPLICATION: Executive agreement with the Soviet Union establishing diplomatic relations and assignment to the US all Soviet claims against Americans holding funds in Russian companies seized after the Bolshevik Revolution overrides NY state law to the contrary (Belmont) Agreement valid because establishment of relations and assignment of claims were all parts of one transaction Diplomatic recognition one of the Presidents enumerated Art. II powers (President . . . shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers as part of his powers as the sole organ in international affairs) (3) If Congress effectively authorizes the executive actions covered in an executive agreement through acquiescence, the agreement is VALID (even if it affects the availability of domestic judicial relief) (Dames & Moore) Longstanding congressional acquiescence in the area gives rise to a presumption of validity (Dames & Moore) BUT, as with the treaty power, executive agreement probably cannot extinguish fundamental rights under the Reid rule (if Reid applies to executive agreements APPLICATION: President can use executive agreement to extinguish claims by Americans against Iran in US courts as part of agreement to transfer American claims against Iran to Iran-US Claims Tribunal, because longstanding congressional and presidential practice has implicitly approved a presidential power to extinguish domestic claims as part of international agreements (Dames & Moore) Either Category 1 or Category 2 under Youngstown Boerne hypo: Even if the President cannot deprive fundamental rights in an executive agreement, could he possible make an agreement that protects additional rights under the 14th Amend. beyond what the Court has required, and thus bypass the 14th Amend. 5 limitations? Probably more difficult argument than related treaty-power argument, because expansion of 14th Amend. rights not usually an executive power 3. War Powers War Powers Resolution: Limitation on presidential war powersCongress asserts power to make war, save in emergency situations of attack where the President MUST respond quickly Rules: (1) President may introduce troops into hostilities pursuant ONLY to: (a) Congressional declaration of war (b) Specific statutory authorization, or (b) A national emergency created by an attack upon the US, its territories or possessions, or armed forces (2) If President introduces troops into hostilities, President must: (a) Within 48 hours notify Congress of the reasons for the action, and (b) Within 60 days terminate the use of force, UNLESS Congress has: (i) Declared war, (ii) Enacted specific authorization of the use of force, (iii) Extended by law such 60-day period, or (iv) Is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the US Constitutionality: Probably constitutional for Congress to restrict Presidents war powers in this way, but WP Resolution has never been challenged, so dont know for sure Congressional appropriations power (war funding) a possible alternative check Wartime Detention What Process Is Due? Habeas corpus: A prisoners right to challenge her detention in court (i.e., argue she is being held illegally) Prisoner must receive either (Boumediene): (i) Access to court, (ii) An adequate alternative to court access, or (iii) A decision that h/c has been suspended NOTE: Habeas statute ( 2241) applies to prisoners held without ability to challenge their detention (Rasul) Applicable provisions: (1) Suspension Clause (Art. I, 9, cl.2): The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, UNLESS when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. If h/c suspended, prisoners cannot appeal their detention to Art. III courts Factors relevant to determining the scope of the Suspension Clause (Boumediene): (1) Citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which the status determination was made, (2) Nature of the sites where apprehension and detention took place, and (3) Practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoners entitlement to the writ Dissent (Scalia): Eisentrager makes clear that h/c does not run to aliens held abroad APPLICATION: Although Guantanamo Bay is technically outside the USs sovereign territory, US maintains de facto sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay, so Suspension Clause extends there (Boumediene) Thus, if Congress denies h/c to Guantanamo detainess, must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause (2) AUMF: President authorized by Congress to detain persons (i.e., enemy combatants) the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of 9/11, or harbored such organizations or persons Who can be detained: (1) President CAN detain combatants under the AUMF (Hamdi) NOTE: Boumediene and fellow Algerians have no nexus or connection to 9/11, so there is no legislative authorization for their specific detentions Who can be tried by military commission: (1) Non-enemy/lawful combatant US citizen captured and held in US CANNOT be tried by military commission, so long as civilian courts still functioning (Milligan) Milligan: Non-belligerent Indiana citizen arrested at home during Civil War cannot be tried as a deserter by military commission, because military commissions do not afford the DP protections the Constitution requires (2) Enemy/unlawful combatant US citizen captured and held in US CAN be tried by military commission (Quirin) Quirin: US citizen and several other Germans arrested during WWII for secretly entering US with intent to destroy US military facilities can be tried by military commission, where Congress had authorized military commissions in such a situation (3) Military commissions may be used where (Milligan): (a) Martial law has been declared (i.e., civilian courts not open) (b) Military is occupying foreign territory (c) Prisoner has violated the laws of war Who has access to Art. III courts: (1) Citizenship: If US citizen, probably entitled to access to Art. III courts (Milligan, Hamdi) BUT, if belligerent US citizen violating the laws of war in the US, probably not entitled to access to Art. III courts (Quirin) If NOT US citizen, probably NOT entitled to access (2) Location of arrest and detention: If within US territory or effective control, probably entitled to access to Art. III courts (Boumediene) Key words: US territorial sovereignty and control Boumediene: Guantanamo Bay is within the USs effective control, so persons detained there have access to Art. III courts If NOT (or never) within US territory, probably NOT entitled to access (Eisentrager) (3) Belligerency (enemy/unlawful combatant status): If enemy/unlawful combatant and are a US citizen or in US territory or control, probably NOT entitled to access to Art. III courts (Quirin) If NOT enemy/unlawful combatant and are a US citizen or in US territory or control, probably entitled to access to Art. III courts (Milligan) (4) Whether detainee violated the laws of war: If detainee DID NOT violate laws of war, under UCMJ probably entitled to access to Art. III courts (Hamdan) (5) Length of detention: The longer the detention, the more likely that detainee will be entitled to access to Art. III Courts (suggestion from Boumedience) What process is due to military detainees: (1) US citizens detained in US as enemy combatants entitled to basic procedural protections (Mathews balancing test) in challenging enemy combatant status, including (Hamdi): (a) Notice of the factual basis for their detention (b) An opportunity to rebut that factual basis before a neutral decisionmaker (c) Standard higher than merely some evidence justifying their detention Dissent (Scalia): Standard should be all or nothingcitizen detainees entitled either to full protections of Art. III courts, or to release Dissent (Thomas): The decision to detain enemy combatants falls squarely within the Presidents near-plenary foreign affairs power, so DP requires only a good faith presidential determination that the detention is necessary to protect the public NOTE: Not clear if US citizens detained outside USsuch as in Guantanamo Baymust receive full DP protections (2) Absent explicit congressional authorization for their creation, military commissions for non-citizen detainees (Hamdan): (a) Can only try detainees for recognized violations of the laws of war, and Conspiracy not recognized as a war crime (b) Must comply with both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions (because absent explicit congressional authorization the Presidents power to try alien detainees by military commissions derives from the UCMJ, and the UCMJ requires Geneva compliance) (i) UCMJ requirements: Unless impracticable to do so, military commissions must apply the same rules as courts-martial NOTE: Courts-martial governed by the UCMJ (i) Geneva Convention requirements: Military commissions must: (1) Be regularly constituted courts and (2) Afford all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples (3) If Congress strips habeas jurisdiction over detainees but does not formally suspend h/c, must provide adequate substitute process for h/c (Boumediene) At a minimum, adequate substitute process involves an opportunity for the detainee to present relevant exculpatory evidence discovered after the conclusion of earlier proceedings (i.e., review for facts as well as law) DC Cir. review of CSRT to ensure the tribunal complies with the standards and procedures specified by the SecDef NOT adequate substitute process (Boumediene) Dissent (Roberts): H/c requires only an adequate opportunity for a detainee to contest the basis for her detention Lead-up to Boumediene: Rasul: Habeas statute extends to Guantanamo Bay, so persons detained there may petition DC Dist. for relief Distinction from Eisentrager (i.e., why Eisentrager doesnt extend to Guantanamo): (a) Guantanamo Bay effectively controlled by US (US has complete jurisdiction and control) and far from hostilities (b) Guantanamo detainees not alien enemies (status unresolved) (c) Guantanamo detainees never tried by tribunal (d) Guantanamo detainees being held indefinitely Hamdi: US citizens detained in US as enemy combatants entitled to DP protections under the Mathews balancing test NOTE: Hamdi says President can set up commissions to determine enemy combatant status Detainee Treatment Act (DTA): (1) Provided that citizen detainees must be tried in US courts (2) Created Combat Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) to give alien detainees an opportunity to challenge their detention (3) Strips federal courts of statutory h/c jurisdiction over alien detainees Hamdan: Military commissions can only try non-US citizen detainees for recognized violations of the laws of war and must comply with both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, so commissions President had set up are invalid NOTE: Although DTA purported to strip federal courts of h/c jurisdiction over alien detainees, Court interpreted DTA NOT to strip jurisdiction over pending appeals, so could hear Hamdans preexisting appeal Military Commissions Act (MCA): (1) Strips US SC of statutory jurisdiction over ALL alien detainee claimspast, present, and future PROBLEM: Does this violate the Suspension Clause? If yes, Congress must either provide alien detainees access to courts or a meaningful substitute NOTE: Under McCardle, if Congress expressly repeals US SCs appellate jurisdiction over h/c claims, US SC lacks jurisdiction to hear such claims (2) Grants DC Cir. jurisdiction, not to inquire in the legality of a detention generally, but only to assess whether the CSRT complied with the standards and procedures the DefSec specified (3) Grants president authority to empanel military commissions Boumediene: Suspension clause extends to Guantanamo Bay, so Congress may deny h/c to Guantanamo detainees only if it formally suspends the writ there or provides adequate substitute process for h/c, and CSRTs not an adequate substitute process Case concerns non-US citizens captured abroad and detained a Guantanamo as enemy combatants Separation of powers issues: Absent congressional habeas suspension, constitutional separation of powers does NOT mandate judicial deference If no congressional habeas suspension, NOT in Youngstown category 1 Quirin, in contrast, WAS a Youngstown category 1 case, because Congress in the articles of war explicitly provided that military tribunals would have jurisdiction to try offenders against the laws of war in appropriate cases Hamdi: Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. 4. Executive Privilege NOTE: This is an implicit, rather than an express, constitutional power of the President Rules: (1) In general: (a) NO absolute privilege over all executive communications (US v. Nixon) Neither the Presidents need for confidentiality in communications nor the doctrine of separation of powers requires an absolute privilege (b) BUT, there is a presumption of executive privilege for executive communications (i) Stronger presumption of executive privilege over executive communications concerning military, diplomatic, or national security secrets So, rule of US v. Nixon (that President has no absolute privilege) seems to apply mainly to domestic matters (c) Arguably stronger presumption of executive privilege when an executive communication is sought by Congress rather than a prosecutor, because separation of powers concerns implicated (2) Criminal suits: (a) Court balances type of claim asserted (general vs. specific privilege) against the needs of the judicial process (U.S. v. Nixon) Claim of specific privilege receives greater weight than claim of general privilege APPLICATION: Where President has exerted only a claim of general privilege and the prosecutor has demonstrated a specific need at trial for the requested materials (showing that the prosecutors interest in obtaining the requested evidence is substantial), granting executive privilege here would cut deeply into the guarantee of DP. Thus, in camera review of subpoenaed evidence, which would maintain confidentiality, is appropriate. (Nixon) (3) Civil suits: (a) Absolute immunity from civil damages liability for official acts committed while in office, absent explicit affirmative congressional action to the contrary (Nixon v. Fitzgerald) Rationale: Vulnerability to civil suits would distract the President from his public duties and distort his decisionmaking process NOTE: President still subject to declaratory judgments (i.e., no immunity from declaratory judgments) Chemerinsky suggests this is wrong, under Johnson NOTE: This absolute immunity does not extend to the Presidents senior aides, although such persons are entitled to qualified immunity (Harlow) (b) NO immunity from civil suits for unofficial acts committed before taking office (Clinton v. Jones) Presidential civil suit immunity extends only to official acts, not unofficial acts Allowing civil suits against the president while in office for unofficial acts committed before taking office does not violate the separation of powers, even if such suits burden the time and attention of the President Concurrence (Breyer): Distracting the President from discharging his constitutional duties is sufficient reason to prohibit a civil suit against the President while in office NOTE: These immunity rules do not apply to governors as heads of state 5. Congressional Efforts to Control the Executive Branch (Violation of the Separation of Powers) Central question: How can Congress constitutionally control the actions of an enlarged executive branch? (1) Delegation: Congress can be extremely specific in the powers it gives executive agencies to implement legislation (a) Non-delegation doctrine: Congress CANNOT delegate the legislative power to the executive branch Intelligible principle test (Touby): So long as Congress lays down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform, no forbidden delegation of the legislative power NOTE: Non-delegation doctrine is largely toothlessonly two cases have ever struck down laws on delegation grounds (Schechter Poultry & Panama Ref. Co.) (b) Congresss ability to delegate in the area of foreign affairs virtually unlimited (Curtiss-Wright) Curtiss-Wright: Emphasizes the unwisdom of requiring Congress in the field of foreign affairs to lay down narrowly definite standards by which the President is to be governed (2) Legislative Veto: (a) Unconstitutional (Chadha) Rule: All exercises of legislative power must be subject to bicameralism and presentment Reasoning: One-house legislative veto bypasses the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment in the exercise of legislative power, which the Constitution establishes to ensure checks and balances Dissent: (i) Congress had power to deport Chadha itself, so should have power to control exercise of deportation power it has delegated to AG Greater power includes the lesser (ii) Given increase in size and power of executive branch, legislative veto necessary to protect Congress against executive branch aggrandizement and so preserve the separation of powers as the Framers intended (functional separation of powers argument) APPLICATION: Statute authorizing one house of Congress to invalidate decision by AG, under powers delegated to him by Congress, to suspend deportation proceedings for an illegal alien is unconstitutional because authorizes a legislative act (altering of legal rights) without also requiring bicameralism and presentment (Chadha) Dissent: Majority is saying that Congress must delegate all or nothing; why cant Congress delegate and still retain some control at the back? NOTE: Congress still passes laws with one-house vetoes, even though clearly unconstitutional (and therefore unenforceable), perhaps to signal: (i) To the President that if he acts contrary to Congresss preference Congress will strip funding, or (ii) To the Court that this is NOT a category 2 zone of twilight case under Youngstown (3) Line Item Veto: Gives President power to cancel in whole certain types of provisions that have been signed into law (a) Unconstitutional Rule: Congress CANNOT give President unilateral power to amend text of duly enacted statutes (Clinton v. NY) Reasoning: Line Item Veto Act gives president unilateral power to amend text of a duly enacted statute, effectively enabling him to create new bills. Under the Constitution, however, the only way the President can exercise his veto power is to veto an entire bill, not merely specific aspects of that bill Dissent: Act does not violate separation of powers because essentially just gives President power to refuse to spend funds, which Field says he can do anyway. Act does NOT give President power to repeal entire statutes, but merely power to not enforce certain parts of statutes. Line Item Veto Act: Gives President power to cancel (in whole) three types of provisions that have been signed into law: (1) Any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority (2) Any item of new direct spending (3) Any limited tax benefit If Congress does not respond to the Presidents cancellations, they take effect. If, however, Congress passes a disapproval bill by a majority vote of both houses, Presidents cancellations are voided. Difference between standard veto and line-item veto: (i) Standard veto (constitutional return) (Art. I, 7): (1) Occurs before bill has become law (2) Concerns the entire bill (3) Expressly authorized by the Constitution (ii) Line item veto (statutory cancellation): (1) Occurs after the bill has become law (2) Concerns only a part (or parts) of the bill (3) Constitution is silent on issue (4) Presidential refusal to spend appropriated funds: (a) Congress MAY: (i) Retain control over the funding legislation, or (ii) Try to retain control over the officers executing the funding legislation NOTE: Under Field v. Clark, President may constitutionally refuse to spend funds Congress has appropriated C. Legislative Power (Art. I) Basis of federal/state relations: McCulloch. Connect with justifications for: Printz, New York, National League of Cities 1. General Rubric Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, 8, cl. 18): Congress shall have power . . . to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Extent of Congresss Powers Rule: Congress may exercise all powers (McCulloch) (1) Enumerated in the Constitution or (2) Necessary and proper to attaining its enumerated powers (i.e., legitimate ends) Necessary and proper = (a) reasonably calculated to achieving the objective (need not be absolutely essential to the objective) and (b) not prohibited by the Constitution E.g., creation of a federal bank necessary and proper to laying and collecting taxes, borrowing money, regulating commerce among the states, conducting war, and raising armies and navies (all legitimate, enumerated end)s, so constitutional (McCulloch) McColluch: Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. If means are proper and end legitimate, congressional action okay NOTE: Wherever the federal government has power to regulate, it has power to regulate completely (i.e., plenary power) in that area Limitations: Congress cannot act where: (1) The power is reserved to the states, or (2) The end is unconstitutional, even if the means is not Congress cannot use a legitimate means (as pretext) to attain an illegitimate end (i.e., cannot use a legitimate means indirectly calculated to accomplish another, illegitimate end) Federal/State Interaction Rules: (1) States cannot interfere with legitimate exercise of Congresss power (McCulloch) McCulloch: MD cannot tax the Bank of the US because could put Bank out of business, and Bank established by the whole country, not just MD (structural sovereignty argument) All states represented in Congress, but all states not represented in each individual state US Term Limits v. Thornton: AR cannot create additional membership qualifications (e..g, term limits) for its congressional representatives beyond those listed in the Constitution (age, citizenship, inhabitancy) Power to create additional membership qualification for congressional representatives not reserved to states by 10th Amend., because states lacked that power before Ratification of the Constitution and 10th Amend. protects only those state rights that existed before Ratification (big bang theory of the Constitution) Rejects idea that Constitution is a compact among the states (2) States can fill gaps where Congress has not actedwhen Congress has not acted in an area (i.e., when there are gaps), states can act in that area EXCEPTIONS: (a) Dormant Commerce Clause (b) Interstate P&I Clause (c) Where Congress has preempted state action (3) If Congress has power to act in an area, it also has power to prohibit states from acting (i.e., act exclusively) in that area Two divergent views of federalism: Term Limits majority: The only powers over the federal government that the states enjoy are those that the Constitution grants to them Term Limits minority: The states have all powers, including all powers over the federal government, except those the Constitution withholds either in Art. I, 9 or by necessary implication of the federal structure Theoretical basis: Constitution creates a system of overlapping sovereigntyboth the people as individuals and the people acting as states delegate power to the national government (McColluch) 2. The Commerce Clause & the 10th and 11th Amendments (Internal and External Limits on Congresss Powers) Commerce Clause (Art. I, 8, cl. 3): The Congress shall have power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. Step 1: Is the Law Within Congresss Powers under the Commerce Clause (Internal Limits)? Current rule: Activities/items falling within Congresss Commerce Clause Powers: (1) Use of the channels of interstate commerce (Gibbons) E.g., trucks, boats, shipping lines, hotels serving interstate customers, etc. (2) Items in (or instrumentalities of) interstate commerce (i.e., crossing state lines), even though purpose of law relates to intrastate activities (Darby, Ames, Hipolite Eggs, Hoke) IMPORTANT: Purpose of statute need not be related to interstate commerce in order to be able to regulate items in interstate commerce (Darby) E.g., Civil rights acts prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Katzenbach) (3) Items having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (a) Relationship to interstate commerce must be more than merely hypothetical If Congress drafts statute to include jurisdictional nexus with interstate nexus (i.e., banning guns in school zones obtained or previously moved through interstate commerce), more likely to be upheld (congressional response to Lopez) (b) Regulated activity must substantially affect interstate commerce (c) Aggregation: (i) Congress can regulate (economic) activity that, taken in isolation, does not substantially affect interstate commerce, if multiple iterations of the same activity would substantially affect interstate commerce (Wickard) Wickard: Act imposing penalties for exceeding quotas on home-grown wheat falls under Congresss Commerce Clause powers, because actions of all home-grown wheat growers taken together have a substantial effect on interstate commerce Although Filburn by himself has no impact on interstate commerce, if all wheat growers exceeded their quotas, that would affect interstate commerce (demand) Perez: Loansharking, though purely intrastate, affects interstate commerce by facilitating interstate operations of organized crime groups (ii) BUT, Court will NOT aggregate when: (A) Intrastate activity sought to be regulated is non-economic (i.e., not actually related to commerce or not having an economic motive), even when aggregation would show substantial effect on interstate commerce (Lopez, Morrison) Lopez: Congress cannot regulate possession of gun in school zone, because not an economic activity and no indication that gun moved through interstate commerce States claim that they need federal help to deal with gun violence in schools not relevant to whether Congress has power to regulate under the Commerce Clause Dissent (Breyer): Question should be whether Congress had a rational basis for concluding that gun possession in school zones substantially affects interstate commerce, not whether gun possession in schools actually does substantially affect interstate commerce, and Congress did have a rational basis for its conclusion Morrison: Congress cannot authorize civil damages for violence against women, because not an economic activity and parties not goods moving across state lines Raich: Congress can prohibit home-growing and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, because production of a commodity is an economic activity and home production of a commodity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce (supply) of that commodity in the aggregate NOTE: Court looks to marijuana production generally (higher level of generality), not home production of marijuana, to determine whether regulation concerns economic activity Court applies Wickard, which also involved a home-grown commodity (iii) ALSO, Court LESS LIKELY to aggregate when: (A) Regulation of the activity is traditionally a state function (Morrison) Traditional state regulations: crime, police power EXCEPTION: If regulation that is traditionally a state function is part of a broader statutory scheme regulating an economic non-traditionally state function activity (Raich) (B) Congress has NOT made findings that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce (Lopez, Morrison) Absence of findings may be fatal (Lopez) BUT, even presence of findings may not save statute (Morrison) (d) Drafting: Court MORE LIKELY to find substantial relation when: (i) Statute prescribes jurisdictional link between regulated activity and interstate commerce (i.e., applies only when theres a link between the regulated activity and interstate commerce) (Lopez) (ii) Intrastate regulation part of larger statute regulating interstate commerce and is necessary to the effectuation of the larger statute (Raich) I.e., if Congress can draft a statute that is valid overall (affects interstate commerce), it can get at activities that it might not have been able to regulate all by themselves (iii) Statute has defined interstate commerce in the statute to include the regulated activity (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Katzenbach) (e) Civil rights context: Through the Commerce Clause, Congress can prohibit discrimination in facilities whose operations affect interstate commerce Businesses affecting interstate commerce in civil rights context: (A) Motels and restaurants serving interstate travelers, because racial discrimination may deter affected persons from traveling between states (Heart of Atlanta Motel) (B) Small businesses receiving supplies (e.g., food) from other states, or from suppliers who receive supplies from other states (Katzenbach) IMPORTANT: In the relevant cases, Congress has defined interstate commerce to include any place of public accommodation that offers to serve interstate travelers or for whom a substantial portion of the food it serves has moved in commerce (i.e., Congress has defined an interstate commerce/civil rights nexus by statute) Court might not have found a substantial relationship absent the congressional definition Alternative views: (i) OConnor (Raich dissent): Federalism exists to keep states laboratories of democracy and ensure the federal government remains one of only enumerated powers (ii) Scalia (Raich) (N/P Clause): When a regulated activity is intrastate or does not itself have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, if regulation of the activity is necessary and proper to effectuate a broader regulation of an activity that DOES substantially affect interstate commerce, regulation of the intrastate activity okay I.e., absence of economic activity or substantial effect on interstate commerce not needed to sustain the regulation (iii) Thomas (Morrison): Substantial effects test not true to original intent (makes rest of Art. I, 8 surplusage); items must actually be IN interstate commerce in order for Congress to be able to regulate them Old rules: (1) Gibbons: The Commerce Clause covers all commercial activities except those wholly contained in a single state (expansive reading of the Commerce Clause) LIMITATION: Congress cannot regulate interstate commerce as a pretext for an illegitimate end (McCulloch) Gibbons v. Ogden: Federal regulation mandating competition among steamboat companies operating between NY and NJ trumps NY statute granting steamboat monopoly, because federal regulation involves navigation, and therefore commerce, between states Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something moreit is intercourse. The commerce power is the power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitation, other than are prescribed in the constitution. (2) PreNew Deal: (a) Direct effect test: Interstate commerce includes only those activities having a direct effect on interstate commerce (EC Knight) EC Knight: Sugar manufacturing NOT interstate commerce because has only indirect effect on interstate commerce (b) Substantial economic effect test: Interstate commerce includes only those activities whose practical effect has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce (Shreveport) I.e., Congress can regulate intrastate aspects of activities affecting both inter and intrastate commerce Shreveport: Federal law regulating rates on RR lines both within TX and between TX and LA valid under Commerce Clause because prevents rate discrimination between intrastate and interstate lines (c) Stream of commerce test: Items traveling with the stream of commerce from state to state are in interstate commerce, even when stopped within a state or at the end of the stream/line (Swift) Swift: Congress may regulate state cattlemens activities under the Commerce Clause because such activities are part of a constantly recurring stream of cattle commerce that travels across state lines (d) Police power: Congress may regulate (prohibit) items in interstate commerce for police power reasons (health, safety, morals, etc.)even though Congress, unlike the states, has no general police power IMPORTANT: The purpose of the regulation is not relevant so long as the regulated items actually are in interstate commerce Application: VALID regulations: (i) Lottery tickets in interstate commerce (Ames) (ii) Eggs in interstate commerce failing to disclose ingredients, even though purpose of regulation is health (Hipolite Egg) (iii) Women traveling across state lines for immoral purposes, even though purpose of law is morals (Hoke) INVALID regulations: (i) Prohibition of interstate transport of goods made with child labor (Hammer v. Dagenhart)overturned by Darby Purpose of laweliminating child laborhas no relation to commerce, and so law impermissibly infringes on states rights Production of articles intended for interstate commerce is a matter of local regulation (the child labor in this case takes place entirely within one state) Holmes (dissent): Anything that passes through interstate commerce can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, regardless of whatever indirect effect on state policy a regulation might have (3) New Deal: Commerce Clause does not grant Congress power to control wages and employee benefits (1) Purpose of law must actually be to regulate interstate commerce (not use of interstate commerce for some other end) (RR Retirement Board) RR Retirement Board: Congress cannot establish compulsory pension plan for RR workers, because purpose or effect is not to regulate interstate commerce, but rather to provide for social welfare of workers (2) Production is not interstate commerce (Carter) Carter: Congress lacks power under the Commerce Clause to set maximum hours and minimum wage for coal production, because provision falls mainly on production and production is a local activity that does not form any part of interstate commerce. That congressional power is needed because states cannot do something on their own is not a sufficient reason to bring congressional action within the scope of the Commerce Clause (3) Just because an activity may affect interstate commerce does not make that activity interstate commerce (Schecter Poultry, Carter) Schecter Poultry: NIRA provision authorizing codes of fair competition to govern even only local commerce (e.g., raising and selling of chickens within NY) struck down as beyond Congresss Commerce Clause powers That items sold only within one state could conceivably impact interstate commerce does not give Congress power to regulate the intrastate goods Cardozo: Activities local in their immediacy do not become interstate and national because of distant repercussions. Carter: That coal production has a large impact on the economy does not translate coal production into interstate commerce. An increase in the greatness of the effect adds to its importance. It does not alter its character. NOTE: Courts New Deal jurisprudence dovetails with Lochner and economic substantive DP (and taxation powers) (4) PostNew Deal (lead-up to Wickard): Expansion of definition of interstate commerce, helping to facilitate Wickard BACKGROUND: FDRs court-packing plan and Nebbia prompted a shift in the Courts Commerce Clause jurisprudence (i) Congress has power to regulate activitieseven intrastate production having a significant effect on interstate commerce The controlling question is the effect on interstate commerce (one of degree), not the source the interference Jones & Laughlin: NLRB order prohibiting discriminatory practices against J&L Steel employees seeking to join unions upheld under the Commerce Clause because J&L Steels steel production has direct and significant effect on interstate commerce Most of J&L Steels raw material shipped from other states to PA, manufactured in PA, and then shipped out of PA into interstate commerce (ii) Commerce Clause includes power both to facilitate and to prohibit commerce according to conditions of production (Darby) Congress now able to exercise commerce power for whatever reasons it wants (Commerce Clause now a policy choice) Darby: Congress can regulate employment conditions of workers producing goods for interstate commerce and the actual shipment of the goods so produced Overturns Hammer (iii) 10th Amend. merely a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered (Darby) So, 10th Amend. does not affect Courts holding in Darby Application: (a) Congress CAN regulate: Channels of commerce: (i) Boats traveling between states (Gibbons) Items in interstate commerce: (ii) Lottery tickets in interstate commerce (Ames) (iii) Eggs not having ingredient list in interstate commerce (Hipolite Egg) (iv) Women crossing state lines for immoral reasons (Hoke) Susbtantial relation to interstate commerce: (v) Unfair labor practices by large corporations transacting business in multiple states (Jones & Laughlin) (vi) Employment conditions of workers producing goods for interstate commerce (Darby) Aggregation: (vii) Homegrown wheat (Wickard) (viii) Homegrown marijuana (Raich) (ix) Motels and restaurants serving interstate customers (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Katzenbach) (x) Business receiving supplies from other states (Katzenbach) (xi) Loansharking (Perez) Pre-New Deal: Substantial economic effect test: (xii) RR lines within state, if part of same scheme as lines between states (Shreveport) Stream of commerce test: (xiii) Cattle in stream of commerce between states (Swift) (b) Congress CANNOT regulate: Aggregation: (i) Possession of guns in school zones (Lopez) (ii) Violence against women (Morrison) (iii) Codes of fair competition for local poultry producers (Schecter Poultry) (Overturned): Direct effect test: (iv) Manufacturing of iron (EC Knight) (v) Interstate shipment of goods made by child labor, where purpose of law is to ban child labor (Hammer) (vi) Compulsory pension plan for RR workers (RR Retirement Board) (vii) Hours and wages of coal producers (Carter) Broader themes: (i) Rise and fall of separate spheres doctrine pre- and post-New Deal (ii) Importance of congressional factfinding when drafting legislation (iii) Adding jurisdictional nexus requirement applying law only to items in or having moved through interstate commerce more likely to save statute Step 2: Is the Law Limited by External Limits on Congresss Commerce Clause Powers? 10th Amend.: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Rules (Federal regulation of states and state activities): (1) Congress CANNOT regulate states in a way that would infringe on states public function in a sovereign capacity (NOTE: Rule is in flux) (a) Congress CANNOT interfere with core functions of state sovereignty (Coyle) Coyle: Congress cannot compel Okla. to make certain city its state capital as a condition of entry into the union, because selection of capital a core function of state sovereignty Federal regulation of gubernatorial terms, retirement age of state SC justic also probably invalid (b) Congress CAN regulate traditional state activities so long as regulation extends similarly to private actors (New York v. US) New York: Congress can regulate NYs sale of bottle water from state-owned springs, because spring water also bottled by private parties (c) Congress CAN regulate state functionsincluding traditional state functionsso long as no large procedural defect in states participation in the national political process (Garcia) Garcia: State sovereignty protected through state participation/ representation in national political process, so no need for judicial intervention absent extraordinary defect in procedural safeguards for states in national political process Holding: Congress can regulate wages and hours of municipal transit authority employees under Fair Labor Standards Act) Its unworkable for courts to decide what are and are not traditional state functions (sewage? transportation?); would merely become exercise of naked judicial preference for particular state policies (overrules National League of Cities) Rests on idea that states are effective lobbyists in Congress Field not sure this is correct Dissent: Congress cannot be the sole decider of the limits of the Commerce Clause; the structure of the Constitution requires the judiciary actively to maintain areas for independent state action (laboratories of democracy) Wirtz: Congress can regulate wages and hours of state hospital workers under FLSA National League of Cities (overruled by Garcia): Congress cannot regulate state employees (through wage and hour requirements), because a states control of its own employees is an inherent part of its sovereign functions Rule: Congress cannot regulate integral operations of traditional state functions, because otherwise would destroy states separate sovereign existence (could make states unable to pay, e.g., for police and firefighters) Unclear if rationale is constitutional structure or 10th Amend. operating on its own (2) Congress CANNOT conscript/commandeer: (a) State legislatures to enact particular legislation (even where Congress could preempt the arena entirely) (New York v. US) New York: Aspects of waste disposal act incentivizing states to dispose of nuclear waste constitutional, but aspects requiring states to take title of the waste if they fail to dispose of the waste through the prescribed procedures unconstitutional Congress here both forcing states to regulate and prescribing how they must do it, which it cannot do IMPORTANT: That states consented to the regulatory scheme is irrelevant FERC: Federal statute providing that unless states impose particular procedures, Congress will impose them directly itself is constitutional, because Congress can impose the rules directly if it wants, but is just giving the states a chance to impose them themselves The greater power includes the lesser Difference from New York: In New York, Congress lacks power to require either alternative; here, Congress has power impose one of the alternatives if it wants to (b) State officials to implement or enforce federal regulation (even where Congress could preempt the arena entirely (Printz) Printz: Congress cannot direct state law enforcement officials to implement federal policy of conducting background checks on persons seeking to buy guns Dissent: Holding will require expansion of federal bureaucracy in this area which will effectively preempt the area entirely Rationale: (a) Accountability: Credit would go to Congress, but blame to the states (b) Funding: Congress must pay for programs it wants implemented (c) Dignity: Diminishes state sovereignty if Congress can boss states around (c) BUT, Congress CAN require state judges to enforce federal law, under the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, Cl. 2) (Testa) Note how this is incompatible with the commandeering principle Field: Theres nothing particularly wrong with the commandeering principleexcept that distinguishing between local and national obligations can be rather difficultbut states rights advocates simply made it up because they lack a constitutional doctrine they point to in order to say the Courts Commerce Clause and 10th Amend. cases are all wrong (3) Summary: Congress CAN regulate states directly but CANNOT require states to regulate their own citizens I.e., Congress CAN regulate state activities so long as Congress does not: (a) Require states to enact certain laws, or (b) Compel states to use their own personnel to enforce the regulations Action/non-action distinction: Congress CAN tell states they cannot do something, but CANNOT tell them they have to do something (Reno) Reno: Congressional amendment prohibiting state DMVs from vending personal data from drivers licenses and regulating disclosure of such information valid (not conscription or commandeering) because directly regulates state activities rather than regulating manner through which states regulate individuals Baker: Congress can eliminate federal income tax exemption for state-issued bearer bonds (thereby forcing states to issue tax-exempt registered board) because no procedural defect in the political process Hypo (testing the limits): Sanctuary cities: Can Congress tell state courts they cannot permit cities to be sanctuaries? Arguably yes, under the Supremacy Clause (this arguably is the limit of Printz and New York) Solution to 10th Amend. problems (also applies to the 11th Amend.) (1) Drafting: Draft statute in way that incentivizes rather than compels states to act in a certain way (New York) (2) Use Congresss spending or taxation powers instead, either to: (a) Create incentives for state action (condition payment of federal funds on state action), or (b) Directly regulate the relevant private activity at the end of the chain (3) Conditional preemption: Threaten to preempt the field if states dont follow federal standards Field: 10th Amend. questions come down to ones individual conception of federalism Field thinks what make a federal system federalist is that it has two levels of government, neither of which can swallow up the other SO, if the federal government becomes so big and powerful that it destroys the sovereignty of the states, that violates federalism Field thinks the current state of federalism is okay because, even though Congress could issue a seemingly unlimited number of regulations that would overpower and swamp the states, the fact of the matter is the Congress has not done so There is very little federal regulation commercial or otherwise), in comparison to state regulation 11th Amend.: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or subjects of any foreign states. Rules (Private-party suits against states): (1) Private individuals may not sue states in either state or federal court (under federal law), UNLESS state has consented to be sued IMPORTANT: Does not extend to suits among states, or by the federal government against states, or against state subdivisions Seminole Tribe established rule for federal courts, Alden for state courts Rule extends to federal administrative agency adjudications (FMC), but not bankruptcy proceedings (Central Virginia Community. College) (2) Exceptions: (a) Suits against individual state officers for injunction or declaratory relief (prospective relief) (Ex Parte Young): I.e., private individuals can sue states to compel end to enforcement of a particular policy  can also get monetary damages if state refuses to obey the injunction up until time state begins to obey the injunction (b) Suits for damages expressly authorized by Congress under 5 of the 14th Amend. (Seminole Tribe) SO, Congress can pass laws under 5 of the 14th Amend. that the 11th Amend. would bar under the Commerce Clause Requires clear statement by Congress authorizing suits Rationale: 5 of 14th Amend. places explicit limits on state powers and gives Congress power to enforce those limits Exception: When damages are part of contempt citation for violation of injunction by state official (c) When the state has consented to be sued Consent must be real, not forced BUT, Congress can condition federal funding on states agreement to waive sovereign immunity) 3. Other Congressional Powers: Tax, Spending, War, and Foreign Affairs A. TAXING POWER Art. I, 8: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Current Rules: (1) So long as a federal tax has a revenue-raising purpose, can also have regulatory effects (Kahringer) Kahringer: Congress CAN impose tax on gambling, even if the tax seems like merely a regulatory effort to ferret out gamblers and penalize them through large taxes, because provisions of the tax are adapted to the collection of a valid tax Unless there are penalty provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power. (2) If Congress has power to regulate the subject or activity to be taxed, CAN tax as a N/P exercise of its regulatory powers, EVEN if the tax does not have a revenue-raising purpose (but rather a regulatory purpose) E.g., Congress can tax bank notes as a N/P exercise of its power to regulate currency In practice, few federal taxes found invalid, because virtually all federal taxes can be upheld as necessary and proper exercises of the commerce power (3) Taxing power NOT a general police power, despite the phrase general welfare in Art. I, 8 Taxing (and spending) power generally tracks the commerce power, although may offer way around the commandeering principles (New York, Printz) by allowing Congress to offer states a choice of means in order to induce state compliance with federal wishes (4) Inducement of state action: (a) Congress CANNOT use the taxing power to induce states to take action that is clearly unconstitutional (eg., violate EP or DP) (b) Congress CANNOT use the taxing power to invade states reserved powers under the 10th Amend. (c) BUT, Congress probably CAN use the taxing power to induce states to take actions Congress could not directly compel because of the 10th Amend. Possibly a closer question with the taxing power than with the spending power Pre-New Deal rules: (1) Congress CAN use the taxing power to raise revenue (Sonzkinsky) but Distinction between a tax and a penalty (Child Labor tax Case) Tax (revenue production): Primary motive is obtain revenue. That there is also an incidental motive to discourage the taxed activity by making it more onerous does not change the tax to a penalty. Penalty (mere regulation): Primary motive is regulation and punishment. Sonzinsky: $200 licensing fee for firearms valid because produces revenue (US SC refuses to look behind statute to see if Congress had a punitive intent) (2) Congress CANNOT use the taxing power to: (a) Regulate/penalize activities that Congress cannot regulate directly (Constantine), or Constantine: $1000 federal fine for retail dealing in malt liquor invalid, where fine for other types of retail only $25, showing that purpose of malt liquor is to penalize selling of malt liquor If Congress CAN regulate the activity directly, penalty VALID (b) Enact regulations that are not otherwise within Congresss powers (Child Labor Tax Case) Child Labor Tax Case: Tax statute invalid because had a regulatory purpose (ending child labor), not a fiscal purpose (i.e., object of tax not related to raising of revenue) B. SPENDING POWER Art. I, 8: The Congress shall have the power to . . . provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Current Rules: Congressional exercise of spending power VALID where (Dole): (1) The exercise of the spending power is in pursuit of the general welfare (Dole, Butler), and Even when a broad view of the power to spend is accepted, the line must still be drawn between general and local welfare (Helvering) Very deferential standard of review (rational basis review) (Dole, Helvering) Dole: The Court should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress that a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes. Helvering: Congress has discretion to assess whether its exercise of the spending power invades state provinces . . . The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power. (2) If Congress has made a conditional grant of federal funds: (a) Congress has made a clear and unambiguous statement of the funding conditions, thereby enabling the states to exercise their choice knowingly (b) The conditions on the federal funds are related to the federal interest in the particular national project or program (nexus between program and spending condition), and The question here is how closely related the spending condition is to the appropriate exercise of federal power NOTE: Standard for germaneness here lower than standard for showing relation to interstate commerce APPLICATION: (i) Statute conditioning federal highway funding on states maintaining a minimum drinking age of 21 sufficiently related to federal interest in safe highways, so condition VALID (Dole) (ii) Unemployment compensation provisions under federal payroll tax with an opt-in refund to the states if they comply with federal standards VALID because not coercive, and there is a sufficient nexus between tax and the federal purpose of keeping federal treasury reasonably sound.(Steward Machine) It is one thing to impose a tax dependent upon the conduct that is unrelated to the fiscal need served by the tax in its normal operation, or to any other end legitimately national. . . It is quite another thing to say that a tax will be abated upon the doing of an act that will satisfy the fiscal need, the tax and the alternative being approximate equivalents. (iii) Hypo: If Congress tried to make the Brady provision in Lopez constitutional by condition education funds on state enactment of gun-free zones, condition probably INVALID, unless Congress has a strong argument about reimbursement (c) No other constitutional provisions provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds (i) Congress CANNOT condition funding on state action that is affirmatively unconstitutional (e.g., that violates DP, EP, or the ban on cruel and unusual punishment) E.g., Congress cannot condition federal funding on states banning of abortion (ii) Congress CANNOT condition funding in a way that invades states reserved powers under the 10th Amend. (iii) BUT, Congress CAN enact conditions to induce states to adopt regulations that under the 10th Amend. Congress could not directly mandate that they impose Dole: Even though Congress could not mandate a national drinking age of 21 because of the 21st Amend., CAN incentivize states to set state drinking age at 21 by denying 5% of federal highway funds to states who fails to do so (d) The percentage or amount of state funding conditioned on the state meeting the condition is not too high (implication from Dole) Dole Court suggests that if the offer is too good to refuse (i.e., 100% of federal funding in the area), the condition is INVALID Pre-New Deal rule (Butler): (1) Congresss spending power is a general power to spend in order to further the general welfare Court accepts Hamiltonian argument that congressional spending power is a power separate and distinct from Congresss other, enumerated powers, and so not limited merely to those enumerated powers Court rejects Madisonian argument that spending power is limited to providing for Congresss enumerated powers (2) BUT, Congresss spending power CANNOT be used to (Butler): (a) Invade states reserved rights, (b) Coerce the states into accepting particular programs or regulations, or (c) Circumvent other constitutional rules (e.g., division between federal and state spheres) Butler: Congress cannot purchase with federal funds submission to a regulation that it could not impose directly (here, limits on amount of crops farmers may grow) C. WAR POWER Art. I: The Congress shall have the power to . . . declare war, . . . to raise and support armies [through two-year appropriations] Rules: (1) War power: (a) Continues for the duration of the emergency, and MAY continue even after cessation of hostilities (Woods) BUT, exercise of war powers cannot continue indefinitely following cessation of hostiliesmust be some limit (b) Extends to remedy the evils caused by warm (Woods) APPLICATION: Congress may address housing shortage caused by demobilization of veterans at end of WWII through exercise of its war powers (Wood) (2) Treaty power: (a) Treaties supersede state laws to the contrary (Holland) Reasoning: Treaties are the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause, so override state laws to the contrary (b) In executing a treaty, Congress CAN enact statutes otherwise prohibited by the 10th Amend. (Holland) I.e., Congress can circumvent the 10th Amend. (invade states reserved rights) by enacting statutes pursuant to treaties Reasoning: Executing statute N/P to enforcement of the treaty APPLICATION: (i) Federal statute regulating migratory birds VALID, despite fact that 10th Amend. normally would bar such a statute, because enacted pursuant to executing migratory bird treaty with the UK (Holland) (c) BUT, Congress CANNOT, pursuant to the treaty power, deprive fundamental rights (e.g., rights protected by the Bill of Rights) (Reid) I.e., Congress cannot, pursuant to the treaty power, act unconstitutionally (laying aside the 10th Amend.) So, through the treaty power Congress can deny states 10th Amend. rights, but no other rights (protected by specific constitutional provisions) Reid: No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the Constraints of the constitution. . . . To the extent that the US can validly make treaties, however, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government. APPLICATION: (i) Executive agreement directing that spouses of military officials by tried abroad by military tribunals for crimes committed abroad INVALID because deprives military spouses of basic DP rights (Reid) NOTES: Self-executing treaty: Treaty that does not require implementing legislation to become enforceable domestically More likely to be used to evade usual constitutional restrictions Recent developments: Sanchez-Llamas: TX criminal procedure trumps ICJ opinion not directly reaching the case at issue, which concerned foreigners right under the VCCR to consul assistance following arrest Medelln: TX criminal procedure trumps ICJ opinion directly addressing the facts of the case and ordering specific remedies (here, new trial), even in light of presidential order to TX to follow the ICJ decision Field thought notion that President could order state courts to reopen cases was terrible, as its not even clear that Congress could order state courts to reopen cases Boerne hypo: Even if Congress cannot deprive DP rights pursuant to the treaty power, could it potentially use the treaty power to grant individual rights (e.g., DP rights) beyond those the Constitution requires (i.e., get around the 14th Amend. 5 limitations)? D. FOREIGN AFFAIRS POWER Art. I, 8, cl. 3: The Congress shall have the power to . . . regulate commerce with foreign nations, Perez: This power includes an implicit power to implement legislation for effective regulation of foreign affairs Source: Implied from the text of the Constitution (Perez) Perez: The states that joined together to form a single nation and to create, through the Constitution, a federal government to conduct the affairs of that nation must be held to have granted that government the powers indispensable to its functioning effectively in the company of sovereign nations. Rules: (a) Probably shared with the President (b) Interpreted to preclude state action in foreign affairs APPLICATION: (i) Oregon alien inheritance law INVALID because intrudes into the field of foreign affairs which the Constitution entrusts to President and the Congress (Zschernig) Statute at issue inescapably affects international relations and has great potential for disruption or embarrassment. (ii) Mass. law barring state entities from buying goods or services from companies that did business with Myanmar INVALID because of federal statute that preempts the field (Crosby) D. Federal Limits on State Regulation Interstate P&I Cl.Dormant Comm. Cl.Equal Protection Cl.Level of scrutiny for discr.IntermediateStrictSS/IS/RB, depndg on typeFor violation, discr. purpose needed, or just effect?-------Effect sufficient (purpose not needed)Purpose neededMarket participant & state operation exceptions.?NoYesNoCan Congress overturn Court decisions?NoYesNoApplies to corporations?NoYesYesInterests to which applies:Fundamental rightsAll commercial activityFundamental rights 1. Dormant Commerce Clause Central Question: Is the purpose or effect of the state law protectionist? Background: Applies when an its within Congresss powers to regulate a particular aspect of interstate commerce, but Congress has not acted (and so judiciary fills in the gaps) Idea is that state regulations cannot interfere with Congresss Commerce Power Congress CAN overrule judiciary in this field by passing a statute, because Congress has the ultimate power to say commercial regulations are and arent allowed (contrast with Congresss regulatory power under the 14th Amend.) Rule: Congress consents to states actions that otherwise would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, those state actions okay (Prudential Ins.) EXCEPTION: Congressional consent does not validate state laws that violate other Constitutional provisions that also constrain Congresss powers (like the DP or EP Clauses) APPLICATION: (a) SC law imposing 3% tax on all premiums paid to out-of-state insurance companies, but not imposing no similar tax on in-state companies, valid because of federal law declaring that states retain full authority to regulate insurance (Prundential Ins.) (b) Boston ordinance reserving 50% of jobs on public works projects to Boston residents valid because a significant percentage of the funds came from federal sources (White) Where state or local government action is specifically authorized by Congress, it is not subject to the Commerce Clause even if it interferes with interstate commerce. Reasoning: Congress can, under its Commerce Power, discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of local trade if it wants to (Prudential Ins.) Purpose: (1) Prevent state protectionism Baldwin: The Constitutionwas framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division. (2) Enable free trade among states Chemerinsky classifies the discriminatory cases into three categories: (1) Laws that limit access to in-state resources (Phila v. N.J., Hughes, H.P. Hood, Chemical Waste Management, Oregon Waste Systems) (2) Laws that limit access to local markets by out-of-staters (Hunt, Maine) (3) Laws that require use of local businesses (Dean Milk, Carbone v. Clarkstown, Pike) Chemerinsky says the preliminary inquiry is whether the state law is discriminatory (a) If discriminatory, per se invalid unless LRA to meet a legitimate (important) interest (b) If non-discriminatory, apply the balancing test Rules: (1) State law that is facially discriminatory (against out-of-state commerce) is virtually per se INVALID (Philadelphia v. NJ) I.e., where state openly discriminates against out-of-state commerce, invalid Strict scrutiny applies I.e., must be no satisfactory, nondiscriminatory alternate means EXCEPTIONS: (a) Where there is a compelling interest, if no satisfactory nondiscriminatory alternate means (i.e., if law is least restrictive means) (Maine v. Taylor) (b) Certain quarantine laws (c) Subsidies funded out of general revenue, NOT a specific tax (West Lynn Creamery) (d) Where state engaging in traditional public function that does not favor in-state private parties over out-of-state private parties (Davis) (e) Where state actor is market participant (i.e., goes into business), rather than market regulator (Wunnicke) BUT, state can only restrict actions in the immediate scope of its market participation, and NOT actions downstream States can discriminate in favor of in-state businesses when acting as buyers or sellers of goods or services or engaging in a program of subsidies or other economic incentives, cannot regulate other private parties in their dealings with state-owned entities (f) Natural resource regulations NOT an exception I.e., natural resource protection as bad as economic protection APPLICATION: (a) VALID state laws: (i) ME law prohibiting use of out-of-state baitfish because of concerns about introducing invasive non-native species (Maine v. Taylor) Legitimate environmental purpose No satisfactory, nondiscriminatory alternative means (ii) Certain state quarantine laws (iii) State law granting subsidies only to in-state producers (West Lynn Creamery) BUT, cannot tax both in- and out-of-state producers and then remit portion only to in-state producers, thereby effectively lowering their costs (West Lynn Creamery) Discriminatory subsidy VALID if funded out of general revenue rather than a tax specific to the subsidized goods So, discriminatory subsidies lawful; discriminatory tax breaks not Commerce Clause principle: States can subsidize however they wantidea is that states can spend money however they want Field thinks this really is just a result of you have to draw a line somewhere (iv) KY law exempting in-state bond interest from state income tax but imposing such taxes on bond interest from other states (Davis) Extends United Haulers Issue of public bonds a quintessentially public function Exemption does not favor local private entities over substantial similar out-of-state entities, only interest from in-state bonds (b) INVALID state laws: (i) MO law requiring only out-of-state goods peddlers to get state license (Welton) (ii) NJ law prohibiting waste from other states from entering its landfills (Philadelphia v. NJ) Asserted environmental and health interests do not save law (iii) State requirements that products be inspected, processed, or treated inside state before they may be shipped out-of-state (iv) OK law restricting in-state animals for in-state use (Hughes) Law here NOT a last-ditch attempt at conservation after other nondiscriminatory alternatives have proved unworkable Taxes: (v) State law imposing taxes only on out-of-state goods, but not on in-state goods (Chemical Waste Management) (vi) Oregon law imposing HIGHER taxes on out-of-state waste than on in-state waste (Oregon Waste System) Differential surcharge facially discriminatory, but differential tax maybe permissible if merely compensated for costs usu. charged in other ways to in-state producers, such as by general taxes (vii) State law granting tax exemption only to in-state entities (non-profits that favor Maine residents) (Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc.) Discriminatory tax exemption NOT considered a permissible subsidy (2) Facially neutral but discriminatory (protectionist) in purpose or effect state law is per se INVALID, UNLESS: (1) Legitimate (important) state interest involved, and Field thinks, realistically, legitimate here really means important Economic protectionism not a legitimate (important) interest (2) Law is least restrictive alternative Maine v. Taylor is an example of protectioninst law that was upheld Hunt law invalidated because LRA available NOTE: A sort of intermediate scrutiny applies EXCEPTIONS: (a) State interests in health and safety given greater weight BUT, where clear purpose of state law is to constrain interstate commerce and preference local business, INVALID (HP Hood) (b) Where there are no local businesses to benefit from the state law (Exxon) Idea here is that because no local businesses benefited, laws not protectionist (c) Where state operates facility performing a traditional state function (United Haulers) (d) Where state is a market participant APPLICATION: (a) VALID state laws: (i) MD law prohibiting gas station ownership by out-of-state oil companies, where MD has no in-state oil companies to benefit from the prohibition (Exxon) Valid despite fact all gas stations owned by in-state groups are independent and therefore preferred under the law to all out-of-state oil companies owning gas station in MD (ii) MN law banning sale of milk products in non-returnable plastic containers, but allowing sale of milk products in pulpwood containers, because law affects in- and out-of-state plastic producers evenly (Clover Leaf Creamery) Asserted state interested is waste management Valid despite fact that MN has large pulpwood industry (iii) Municipal ordinance favoring state-run facility performing a traditional government activity (United Haulers) State must treat every private business the same in its regulation, but can favor state-run, traditional government activity Laws favoring local government may be directed toward any number of legitimate goals unrelated to protectionism. Distinction from National League of Cities: This is the area of the Dormant Commerce Clause, not the federal government affirmatively trying to do something the Constitution forbids (b) INVALID state laws: (i) NY law barring importation of milk below certain price (Baldwin) Even though asserted state interest is protecting health, law clearly has a protectionist purpose (ii) NY law denying license to out-of-state entity on grounds that issuance will tend to destroy competition in a market already adequately served (H.P. Hood & Sons) Purpose of law is to curtail interstate commerce to aid local economic interests (iii) NC law requiring apples to bear either USDA or no grade stamp and disallowing display of state grades (Hunt) Nondiscriminatory alternative available for serving states asserted interest in eliminating confusion and deception in the marketplace: Permit out-of-state growers to use state grades only if they also marked their shipments with the applicable USDA label (iv) HI law exempting certain kinds of liquor unique to HI from wholesale liquor tax (Bacchus) (v) Municipal ordinance creating de facto monopoly for one private landfill operate (Carbone) Invalid because effect of ordinance is to prevent out-of-state (and other non-favored) processors from gaining access to the citys waste processing market Also, there are other possible means of advancing the municipal interest here in creating financing for the plant (c) Home processing requirements (requirement that processing/ inspection/treatment be done in state before item shipped out of state) usually INVALID, UNLESS: (i) No other available means to advance legitimate local interest (C&A Carbone), or (ii) State acting as a private actor (so market participation exception applies (United Haulers) APPLICATION: Madison ordinance that all milk sold in Madison must have been processed or bottled within 5 miles of the city INVALID because of presence of less restrictive alternatives (could require milk be shipped from city meeting certain USDA standards) (Dean Milk) Asserted health interest does not validate regulation here Field: The law here is like Geduldigdiscriminating against WI people as well as out-of-statersbut we dont do the Geduldig analysis here (3): Facially neutral state law with disproportionate adverse effect on interstate commerce, BALANCING TEST NOTE: Chemerinsky classifies Exxon and Clover Leaf Creamery, in contrast to Hunt and Carbone, as nondiscriminatory (and so subject to the balancing test) TEST: Regulation VALID unless imposes excessive burden on interstate commerce in relation to state benefits/interests achieved Pike: Where a statute regulates evenhandedly to affect a legitimate local interest, it will be upheld unless the burden on commerce is excessive in relation to local benefits. Kassel: Less deference is given to the findings of state legislatures (concerning the interests at issue) where the local regulation has a disproportionate effect on out-of-state residences and businesses. NOTE: Court most sympathetic to health, safety, police needs APPLICATION: (a) VALID state laws: (i) IN law providing that stock purchaser who acquired control shares of an IN corporation could acquire voting rights only to the extent approved by a majority vote of the prior disinterested stockholders (CTS Corp.) Laws limited effects on interstate commerce justified by INs interests in defining share attributes of IN corporations and protecting shareholders (b) INVALID state laws (excessive burdens): (i) High-quality cantaloupes grown in AZ but processed in CA subject to punitive fine for failure to get AZ label (Pike) Asserted local interest is advertising superior cantaloupes as being from AZ (ii) IA law banning double-length semis from IA roads, because imposes substantial burden on interstate commerce (requiring double-length semis either to reload in IA or travel around the state) but does little to improve safety (Kassel) Asserted IA interest in the ban is to prevent wear-and-tear on IA roads and improve safety Dissent would defer to IA legislatures judgment about state safety needs Field: District court had decided that double-length semis no safer than single semisis this the proper role of the district court? (iii) IL required trucks to use contoured mudflaps, but every other state required flat or merely any kind of mud flap. Impossible tocomply with both regulations (Bibb) Field: This is a case where what the state did was valid (not protectionist) but still held invalidmaybe the case to show that there really is a balancing test (4) Market Participant EXCEPTION: When state acts as a market participant (i.e., goes into business), rather than as a regulator, state can discriminate in favor of local businesses Limit: State can discriminate only at the point where it participates in the market; CANNOT discriminate (regulate) further downstream (Wunnicke) I.e., state cannot impose market conditions which have a substantial regulatory effect outside the (narrowly defined) market in which it is a participant (may not attach conditions to a sale that discriminate against interstate commerce) Market participant exception limited to transactions the state directly takes part in APPLICATION: (a) VALID laws: (i) Boston ordinance saying 50% of employees hired by contractors doing city projects had to be local residents (White, Alexandria Scrap) NOTE: Ordinance probably invalid under interstate P&I Difference from Wunnicke: Everyone here really working for the city, so city more like a direct participant (b) INVALID laws: (i) AK law requiring purchasers of AK-owned timber to process the timber in-state (Wunnicke) Valid ways to accomplish the same goal (Field says these can apply to most of the regulations found invalid): Subsidies Other views: Scalia and Thomas: Think Court should not strike down state laws unless they are protectionist EXCEPTION: Where state laws conflict, like in Bibb Bibb: IL required trucks to use contoured mudflaps, but every other state required flat or merely any kind of mud flap. Impossible comply with both regulations Field: The problem with having a default rule like this is that it involves discerning a congressional policy from congressional silence, which is always a dicey matter Rehnquist: Would give greater deference to health- or safety-based state laws (Kassel dissent) Historical rules: Gibbons v. Ogden (dicta): DCC exists; just because Congress has not regulated in an area pertinent to the Commerce Clause does not mean states can impose any regulations they want in that area (separate spheres model) (a) States may regulate those areas of interstate commerce which are local in nature and do not demand one national system of regulation by Congress (Cooley) Subject of regulation (whether local or more federal in nature) determines whether DCC bars state regulation (b) In areas where its essential to have more regulation than Congress has imposed, and states purpose in regulating is safety (police powers), not commerce, state law doesnt violate DCC so long as does not conflict with the national governments powers (Blackbird) (c) Direct vs. indirect effects on commerce (d) If state regulation has illegitimate purpose, invalid Jurisprudential questions: If DCC eliminated, what would pick up the slack? (a) Interstate P&I Clause: Maybe if fundamental commercial interest involve (b) EP Clause (c) Imports/Exports Clause: Would require broader application Clause usually only applied to foreign goods If interpreted to apply domestically, not only would bar states from taxing or otherwise inhibiting interstate commerce, but would also bar facially neutral state laws having a discriminatory effect (Thomas) Can one argue that the judiciary filling in gaps via DCC is similar to what the President does in emergency situation when he acts absent congressional authorization? Balancing with the DCC is different than the balancing we see in other contexts Normally, if a state laws is incongruent with a legitimate federal law, the federal law trumps the state law (even if the federal law is unimportant and the state law is extremely important) In the DCC context, however, where theres a national interest in leaving commerce unobstructed and a state interest in the particular law, rather than the national interest automatically trumping the state law we balance the two 2. Interstate Privileges & Immunities Clause Interstate Privileges & Immunities Clause: Art. IV, 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Purpose: Prevent discrimination on the basis of residency, such as barring access to state resources by non-resident General rules: (1) Applies to: (a) Distinctions based on state residency/non-residency (i.e., people in other states), AND (b) Distinctions based on municipal residency (municipal ordinances), where municipality discriminates BOTH against other in-state residents AND out-of-state residents (Camden) NOTE: Camden rule might not apply if only non-Camden instate residents discriminated against (2) Different from DCC in that: (a) Does NOT apply to corporations (b) ONLY covers fundamental rights (whereas DCC only covers commercial activity) (c) Congress CANNOT authorize states to violate Interstate P&I Clause (as it can for DCC) Reasoning: Interstate P&Is arguably have inviolable constitutional basis (d) NO market participant exception (unlike DCC) (Camden) Even if state is involved in activity as market participant (e.g., in construction), cannot prefer its citizens to those of other states under Interstate P&I Clause, even if could do so under DCC (Camden) TEST for applying (Hicklin, Camden) (1) Does the state regulation implicate fundamental rights What are fundamental rights? (a) Fundamental to the promotion of interstate harmony (Hicklin) (b) Sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the nation (Baldwin) IMPORTANT: Fundamental right here does not mean the same thing as in the DP or EP contextapplies more to economic necessities A lot of things that would be fundamental rights in other situations are NOT in P&I context Field: Funny definition of fundamental right APPLICATION: (a) Fundamental rights: (i) Opportunity to seek work with private employers (Baldwin) (ii) State-licensed employment, incl. bar admission (Piper) (iii) Opportunity to seek work with private contractors working for federal government (Camden) (b) NOT fundamental rights: (i) Fishing licenses and other recreational activities (2) Is there a substantial reason for the discrimination against nonresidents? I.e., can state offer a justifiable rationale for the regulation? NOTE: So, easier to justify state action under Interstate P&I Clause than under DCC, because facial discrimination okay so long as sufficient reason APPLICATION: (a) Substantial reason: (i) Solving city employment crisis and revitalizing city substantial reason for preferring city over non-city residents in city-funded construction projects, if preference found to be essential to accomplishing that purpose (Camden) Court remands for factfinding (b) NOT substantial reason: (i) Fact that nonresidents might be less likely to become familiar with local rules, be available for court proceedings, or do pro bono work in the state NOT substantial reason for denying them bar admission (Piper) (3) Is there a substantial relationship between the discrimination against nonresidents and the states objective? Intermediate scrutiny applies: (a) Court will look to see if a less restrictive means is feasible (b) Nonresidents must be shown to constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed (Camden) APPLICATION: (a) Unsure whether substantial relationship: Court remands for factfinding on whether Camden ordinance preferring city over non-city residents in city-funded construction projects is essential to asserted purpose of solving city employment crisis and revitalizing city (Camden) 3. Congressional Preemption and Consent Preemption: Where presence of federal regulation in a particular area forecloses state regulation in that area Three Types (1) Express preemption (2) Conflict preemption (implied): Where state regulation conflicts with federal regulatory scheme Rule: Preemption occurs where: (1) Federal government has complete scheme of regulation with clear standards (Hines), and (2) Either: (a) Compliance with both the federal and state regulation is a physical impossibility (i.e., cannot comply with both) (Florida Lime), or (b)The state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress(Hines) Common end between state and federal regulations does not neutralize conflicting means (Crosby) NOTE: When state law conflicts with federal regulation in field of foreign affairs, state law more likely to be preempted (Crosby) APPLICATION: State law preempted: (i) Federal regulatory scheme (OSHA) is very comprehensive/ authoritative, so precludes duplicative state regulations (Gade) That federal regulation aimed only at worker safety, whereas state regulation aimed at both worker safety AND public health is immaterial (ii) MA law prohibiting state entities from doing business with companies that do business with Burma preempted by federal law imposing less stringent federal sanctions on Burma and calling on President to cooperate with other countries to encourage democracy and human rights reform in Burma (Crosby) State law NOT preempted: (i) Federal regulation certifies avocados as mature but avocados contain less than the minimum oil content required by CA regulation (Florida Lime) Both regulations can be complied with at once, so no conflict (can have a mature avocado just not suitable for sale in CA) (3) Field preemption (implied): Where theres a clear showing Congress intended to occupy the whole regulatory field Field: There really arent rules here; rather, you just look at the statute and interpret it to decide whether Congress intended to occupy the whole field Court recently has become more willing to preempt state laws Rule: Preemption occurs where: (1) Clear showing that Congress intended to occupy the whole field and so displace the states from regulating on the subject matter, or (2) Congressional regulation so pervasive that court willing to infer congressional intent to supersede state law, because (Rice): (a) Federal interest in the field so dominant that federal system presumed to preclude state regulation in that field, or (b) Object of federal law and character of obligations imposed by it reveal congressional purpose to preempt state laws NOTE: Theres a presumption against field preemption in areas of traditionally local concern (Rice) SO, subject matter of regulation determines whether presumption is for or against preemption APPLICATION: (a) State law NOT preempted: (i) State law to slow construction of new nuclear power plants for economic reasons, because federal regulation exists to promote safety, not economic success, and also some indication in federal regulation that regulators should defer to state choices about whether new facilities are needed in light of finances and utility needs (PG&E) I.e., Federal regulation (AEA) only preempted state regulation of safety aspects of nuclear power plant construction, NOT state regulations concerning economic aspects of nuclear power plant construction Also, electricity regulation traditionally a local concern 4. Other Aspects of Federal-State Relationships STATE TAXATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS Rule: State tax on interstate business sustained against Dormant Commerce Clause challenge where the tax is (Brady): (1) Applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing state Nexus required under Commerce Clause greater than minimum contacts required under DP Clause (Quill Corp.) (2) Fairly apportioned, (3) Does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) Is fairly related to the services provided by the state INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITIES Rule: Federal immunity from state taxes appropriate only where the levy either (U.S. v. New Mexico): (1) Falls on the U.S. itself, or (2) Falls on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the U.S. government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities II. The Fourteenth Amendment A. Substantive Due Process Due Process Clause: 14th Amend., 1: No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . Central Question: Is the government interference justified by a sufficient purpose? 1. General Rubric Step 1: Does the Person Bringing Suit Have a Substantive Right Being Violated? Standing: Is the state substituting its judgment for someone else such that that person can assert a substantive due process claim? (Cruzan) Step 2: Is There a Substantive DP Right Being Violated? To argue YES: (1) Substantive DP is a valid constitutional doctrine The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights, and the various provisions combine to give due process a substantive dimension E.g., right to privacy (Griswold): Various provisions create zones of privacy The Ninth Amendment, while not an independent source of rights, suggests that the list of rights in the first eight amendment is not exhaustive (Goldberg in Griswold) Natural law argument: The Constitution reaffirmed preexisting fundamental rights (vital principles) entitled to protection whether or not those rights are explicitly stated in the document (Calder v. Bull) (2) Liberty should be defined broadly to encompass the right at issue (a) When construing rights for substantive DP purposes, court should reject the narrowest possible rule of construction Scalia proposed this rule of construction in Michael H., but no one joined him because the rule would lead to artificial and untenable definitions of rights Examples: Compare Bowers narrow definition (right to homosexual sodomy) with Lawrences broader one (right to choose personal relationships) Bowers did not consider the broader liberty interests (right to personal relationships) associated with sexual conduct, while Lawrence did Zablocki: Broad definition of marital liberty (b) Under a broad construction of liberty, the right at stake is fundamental to ones liberty (i) Liberty is a flexible concept Liberty should be defined by looking to how society today defines libertywhere the right today finds expressionnot by looking to how traditional society would define or cabin the right at stake (Lawrence, Belle Terre dissent) Should look to how people today live their lives, not to some nuclear family ideal (ii) Liberty is protection from unwarranted government intrusions Some things should simply be outside scope of governmental regulation, because they bear no relation to the political process or to the general welfare Liberty covers intimate conduct, belief, and expressions, in both is spatial and transcendent dimensions (Lawrence) Examples: Eisenstadt: Liberty is the right of individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. E.g., the home is a sphere the state generally cannot invade (iii) DP encompasses those rights deeply rooted in this nations history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty Liberty encompasses privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. (Meyer) Liberty is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion (Holmes in Lochner) Liberty is the freedom to be left alone, so long as ones behavior is not harming others (Blackmun in Bowers) (3) Analogize to other cases and areas of law where substantive DP rights have been found (a) Look to the principles that explain Courts move from protecting right to privacy to protecting right to abortion, marital relations, and right to do Early examples: (A) Right to engage in common occupations (Meyerlaw barred teaching of German in public schools) (B) Right of parents of direct upbringing and education of their children (Piercelaw required parents to send children to public schools) (C) Right not to be sterilized (Skinnerthough Court actually relied on EP to strike down law because did not cover embezzlers) Explain why the liberty rights in those situations are at stake in this situation (b) Distinguish right at stake from data privacy, economic DP, etc. To argue NO: (1) Substantive DP is not a valid constitutional doctrine No such thing as substantive DP Black/Stewart in Griswold: Court should not go beyond the text of the Constitution to invent new rights Risk of Lochnerizing (Lawrence dissents) Lochnerize: To throw out an outrageous law even though nothing in the Constitution says the law is unconstitutional (i.e., to substitute the Courts judgment for that of the legislature) Dont twist the Ninth Amendment: Ninth Amendment intended to safeguard state powers against the national government, not to confer or ensure individual rights against the states (2) Even if limited grounds exist for substantive DP, substantive DP does not protect the liberty interest at stake in this case (a) Liberty interests should be defined narrowly (rule of construction) Should define traditions and liberty interest/right at stake in the most specific terms (at most specific level of generality) possible E.g., Scalia in Michael H.: Defines liberty interest as rights of adulterous fathers, not parents generally Rationale: Only way to prevent judges from reading their own values into the Constitution (b) Tradition is the only valid basis for discovering substantive DP rights, and tradition does not support protecting the right in this case When liberty interest in this case is narrowly defined, it is not a traditionally protected right To use any metric other than tradition would explode the range of substantive DP (c) Analogize to cases where no substantive DP right found Belle Terre Right to die (outer edges) Appearance Economic substantive DP [Sidebar: IncorporationHas the Right at Issue Been Incorporated Against the States?] Issue: MAY want to consider whether the right at issue has been incorporated against the states HOWEVER, this probably is irrelevant since, realistically, any fundamental right will be considered to have been incorporated against the states through the DP clause Rule: DP clause incorporates against the states those rights that are fundamental to the American scheme of justice (Duncan) Application: Rights that have been incorporated against the states through the DP clause: (a) All criminal process guarantees in the Bill of Rights, EXCEPT: (i) Jury indictment requirement (5th) (ii) Excessive bail provision, arguably (8th) (b) Other rights not incorporated against the states (i) Right to bear arms (yet) (2nd) (ii) Guarantee against quartering of soldiers (3rd) (iii) Right to jury trial cases in civil cases at common law exceeding $20 (7th) Duncan (1968): 14th Amendment DP clause incorporates 6th Amendment guarantee of jury trial in serious criminal cases against the states Right to jury trial in criminal cases fundamental to the American scheme of justice Black (concurrence): 14th Amendment applies all Bill of Rights protections against the states Step 3: What State Interests Are at Stake? Usu. police powers (health, safety, welfare, morals) State presumptively has power to act to further any of these interests NOTE: Federal government does not have a general police power; rather, has only those powers given under the Constitution (which does include the Commerce Clause) NOTE: Morals given less weight today than before Is the right asserted something that either (a) the state has regulated as illegal or (b) that has traditionally been considered immoral? Look to number of states with similar laws on the books Lawrence (few states prohibit) Glucksberg (few states permit) Has there been a change in the number of states prohibiting the act? Nature of challenged law: State forbidden to recognize the right? State obligated to recognize the right? Simply area of state choice? Step 4: (1) If Substantive DP right found, apply balancing test: (a) How much infringement upon the fundamental right? (b) Apply some version of strict scrutiny (especially if law applies to discrete and insular minorities (Carolene Products) (i) How invasive is the regulation to the right in question? (ii) How detrimental/cumbersome is the regulation to the exercise of the right in question? E.g., undue burden test applies in abortion cases (iii) Is the state regulation: (A) Unduly broad and maximally damaging (Griswold), or I.e., is there away of furthering the relevant state interest that is less invasive to the fundamental right at stake? (B) Narrowly tailored? If narrowly tailored, regulation may not violate DP Carolene Products: May be greater reason for scrutiny in cases involving: (A) Problems the political process normally might not solve, or (B) Discrete and insular minorities Discrete: Discernable (i.e., others can identify someone as a member of that minority E.g., race and gender, NOT sexual orientation or political affiliation Insular: Separated out (in some fashion) E.g., the mentally ill NOTE: If substantive DP interest is a fundamental right, and the regulation could seriously impair the exercise of the right, regulation usu. unconstitutional (2) If No Substantive DP right found, can regulation survive rational basis scrutiny? (a) Which version of rational basis scrutiny: Relaxed or heightened (with bite)? (i) Relaxed: Rational basis means any conceivable basis that regulation hypothetically could serve, whether or not regulation in fact serves that basis (Williamson v. Lee Optical) State regulation almost always valid under this standard Court generally no longer looks for hints of bad faith behind the law, only to see whether there conceivably could be a rational relationship between the means and the end Williamson (1955): State regulation requiring prescription from ophthalmologist or optometrist in order to fit lenses does not violate DP, because state could have concluded safer to require prescriptions Legislature, not courts, should determine wisdom of laws Ferguson: Court refuses to sit as a super-legislature to weigh wisdom of laws Jech: Parents want to give child unusual last name, but state law prevents them from doing soparents win because states interests in administrability and the childs name are weak interests (ii) Heightened (with bite): Classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and rest on some ground having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the regulation Often seems to apply when case is in the vicinity of a fundamental right, but Court doesnt want to expand the definition of the right E.g., Stevens in Zablocki: Can impose direct and substantial restraints on marriage, but restraints cannot discriminate against the poor (b) Can argue should apply a sliding scale rather than discrete levels of scrutiny (like what Marshall wanted to do with EPC) Idea is to get rid of explicit ratcheting of standards E.g., Lawrence: Court essentially applied strict scrutiny, but did not say as much 2. Categories of Rights Privacy Rule: Fundamental right Focus: Centered on reproduction, but extends to contraception, abortion, family, right to die, etc. Interests protected: Bodily integrity Self-expression Reproduction Gender equality(?contraception necessary to give women equal status?) Interests NOT protected: Avoiding publicization of a record an official act, such as an arrest Sending ones children to a private school that does not admit blacks Exclusion of women by large and unselective organization Ability of father to veto adoption of an illegitimate child Hair length, for police officers Avoiding accumulation and computerization of names and addresses of patients for whom dangerous drugs are prescribed Extension: First applied to married couples (Griswold), but now: Anything that applies to married couples also applies to singles (Eisenstadt) Also extends to minors (?) (Carey) How derived: Bill of Rights, through incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment (Griswold) Stitch together penumbras formed from emanations from enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights to get zones of privacy Relevant enumerated rights: association (1st), quartering of soldiers in home (3rd), right to be secure in ones person and prohibition in unreasonable searches (4th), self-incrimination (5th) Also, enumeration of rights does not disparage others, suggesting the list of rights in the first eight amendments is not exhaustive (9th) (Goldberg) Also, right to privacy in marital relationships predates the Constitution Today: DP clause protects rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and sexual relations in marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be regulated This was Harlans position in his Griswold concurrence Relevant state interests: Morals (e.g., adultery), possibly population control Cases: Griswold: CT statute prohibiting use and distribution of contraceptives unconstitutional as applied to married couples Ban on use is especially objectionable Ban has maximally destructive impact on the right of privacy Regulation brings down full force of criminal law on violators Dissent (Black): State can invade privacy unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision Due process encompasses only those protections denominated in the first eight amendments (Bill of Rights) Eisenstadt: Extends Griswold to singles Right to privacy is an individual right, extends to individuals, not couples Any fundamental right given to married couples also extends to singles Field says this case makes no sense because majority saying singles have a right to contraception, but not to sex (fornication) Carey: State cannot bar sale and distribution of contraceptives to minors Strict scrutiny applies to contraception because contraception essential to decisions about childbearing Even though minors have lesser constitutional rights than adults, state interests in this case (morality, discouraging sexual activity among young people) not compelling enough Concurrence (Stevens): Applies rational basis scrutiny Law has no rational basis: No constitutional right to sex, but prohibiting contraceptives is like prohibiting motorcycle helmets Abortion Rules: (1) In general: (a) Current rule (post-Casey): (i) Undue burden test: State can regulate abortion throughout pregnancy as long as regulation does not impose undue burden (i.e., substantial obstacle) on the mothers choice to abort a nonviable fetus Undue burden (perhaps) exists when a regulation will keep someone actually from getting an abortion (Chemerinsky) A law with a valid purposei.e., a law not designed to strike at the right itselfdoes not impose an undue burden simply because it has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or expensive to obtain an abortion In deciding whether a regulation constitutes an undue burden, Court suggests should look more to affected persons as a whole rather than just those few for whom the regulation might prove a significant obstacle (ii) Viability still the point at which state can prohibit abortion altogether (with exception for health of mother), BUT: State can impose regulations prior to viability (i.e., from conception) to further interests in (1) health and (2) potential life Relative weight of the relevant interests change throughout the pregnancy Post-Casey, states interest in potential life now begins at conception Field: Theres no way to balance the womans interests in autonomy against the states interest in potential life Like trying to balance a bushel of feathers against next Thursday Field: When you have a moral concern, theres really no way to balance it; the moral concern takes up the whole space (b) Old rule (Roe): 1st trimester: No regulations (except regulation similar to those for other procedures, like requiring that procedure be performed by a licensed physician) Because abortion safer than childbirth in the 1st trimester 2nd trimester: State can regulate (but not prohibit) to protect mothers health 3rd trimester (viability): State may prohibit abortion, with exception for life or health of the mother 3rd trimester is the point at which the states interest in potential life becomes compelling Under Roe, courts were determine constitutionality of abortion regulations by assessing whether same regulations were required of abortion procedures as of other equally dangerous operations (2) Specifics: State CAN: (1) Ban a particular procedure entirely (in the 2nd trimester)without a health exceptionwhen other equally safe procedures are available (Carhart) Congressional findings in Carhart said D&E procedure never medically necessary Carhart court willing to accept some risk to the health of the mother Prior to Carhart, mother had to be permitted to abort whenever there was ANY health risk Field: Saying dignity interests of fetus can outweigh mothers health risks does not make sense If woman wants to challenge lack of an exception for the mothers health, must bring an as-applied challenge (2) Require woman to wait 24 hours before receiving abortion (Casey) Provision is reasonable, even it waiting period increases costs and risks of delay, because furthers states interest in protecting the unborn (3) Require abortion facilities to report information on abortions performed there (but not the patients names) (Casey) Provision reasonably related to preserving maternal health (4) Require doctor to inform mother of nature of procedure (Casey, overruling Akron I) Can require doctor to notify patient of (1) risks, (2) age of unborn child, even (3) preference for life without being an undue burden, so long as information is truthful and not misleading (5) Require that minors get parental consent (Casey) IMPORTANT: Judicial bypass procedures required where judge can grant abortion if determines minor is mature and informed enough to make decision by herself or if the abortion is in the childs best interests (Danforth, Belotti, HL v. Matheson) (6) Restrict funding to abortion facilities (Harris, Rust) (a) State may not be able to prohibit abortions, but it does not have to fund abortions, either (i.e., state not required to fund mothers choice) (b) State does not have to grant Medicaid benefits for medically unnecessary abortions (Maher) State able to make childbirth the more attractive option (by funding it) so long as does not impose additional restrictions on access to abortions (c) Government can refuse to pay even for most medically necessary abortions (Harris) Court applied rational basis review A womans right to choose does not carry with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices Although government may not place obstacles in the path of a womans exercise of her freedom of choice, it need not remove those not of its own creation (d) Government can require facilities receiving federal funding not to counsel patients on abortion (Rust) Government does not have to subsidize an activity merely because that activity is constitutionally protected (e) State can prohibit state employees from performing abortions and prohibit all abortions in state facilities, so long as there are available private facilities (Webster) DP clause generally confers no affirmative right to government aid State CANNOT: (1) Place undue burden on mothers choice (2) Prohibit abortion altogether until viability (3) Pass regulation without an exception for health of the mother, usu. (Ayotte, Casey) EXCEPTION: when regulation merely prohibits one method while leaving others available, health exception not necessary (Carhart) Undue burden currently defined rather narrowly, but can argue should be broadened (e.g., Blackmun in Roe: mental distress for unwanted child) (4) Require spousal notification (Casey) Spousal notification requirement may be okay if theres an exception for women with abusive husbands QUESTION: Under Eisenstadt, would notification have to extend to a boyfriend (if couple is not married?) (5) Require that abortion be performed only in accredited hospital and with approval of doctors committee (Doe v. Bolton) Possibly overturned by Casey (6) Require that abortions performed after 1st trimester be performed in hospitals, as opposed to outpatient facilities (Akron I) Rationale: Higher costs of hospitals becomes a de facto restriction Casey may have weakened (7) (Probably) Allow second trimester abortions only for good reasonswith a health exceptionrequiring that mother show a judge or doctor that she has good reason Probably unconstitutional under Casey as an undue burden May also undermine interest in bodily integrity and ability to make fundamental decisions that right to abortion protects How derived: Right of privacy encompasses womans decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy (Roe) Roe: Abortion a fundamental right given the psychological, physical, and emotion harms that flow from having an unwanted child Casey: Decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education among the most intimate and personal decisions a person may make and are central to the liberty the DP clause protects Interests protected: Gender equality/equal protection: Right of woman to control her own destiny Mother makes unique sacrifices/suffering at childbirth Bodily integrity Personal dignity and autonomy Basic decisions about family and parenthood Right to define ones concept of existence free from state compulsion Relevant state interests: (1) Health of mother After Casey, state cannot regulate in way that imposes undue burden on mothers health (2) Viability (potential life) Field: Shouldnt this mean potentially healthy life? Generally comes between the 2nd and 3rd trimesters After viability, state can prohibit abortion Remedies: If statute lacks constitutionally required exceptions, rather than validating statute Court will just issue injunctions in particular instances to prevent unconstitutional applications (Ayotte) Other Abortion a second-class right? Abortion cannot be a crime, but state can persuade mother from doing it State spends more to encourage birth than to cover abortions Field: Point at which state can prohibit abortion should be same as point at which state can allow parent to choose not to keep a disabled child, i.e., point at which parent can withhold life-saving treatment from the child Field argues that UT abortion law with exception for disabled fetuses is unconstitutional as a violation of EPC To argue abortion is always unconstitutional, either: (1) Reinterpret Fourteenth Amendment to include fetus within meaning of person, or (2) Argue that life beings at conception, so states interest in potential life always compelling Marriage Rule: Generally considered a fundamental right Relevant state interests: Morals, tradition Interests protected: (1) Basic personal right Skinner dicta (sterilization law, excluding embezzlers): Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race One of the basic civil rights of man Loving dicta: Marriage a fundamental personal right Zablocki: Right to marry is of fundamental importance (2) Legitimizing procreative activity Zablocki: If the right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the state allows sexual relations legally to take place (3) Turner (prison marriage case) (broadest reasoning): (1) Expression of emotion support and public commitment (2) Religious recognition of spiritual significance (3) Precondition to government benefits and legitimization of children Application: (1) Requiring payment of child support to ex-wife before you can remarry is an undue burden (Zablocki) Court applies strict scrutiny, finds state had other, less intrusive means of exacting compliance with support obligations, such as wage garnishments or civil contempt (not narrowly tailed enough) (2) Requiring permission of prison warden for inmates to marry is an undue burden, notwithstanding the other limitations on prisoners (voting, housing, etc.) (Turner) Law unconstitutional even under rational basis review (3) Hypotheticals: Perhaps laws against incest and marriage of minors okay because state interests against marriage outweigh the fundamental right Perhaps state could require AIDS tests before marriage if not an undue burden But what about costs, or Boddie (procedural DP)? Family/Parental Control/Access to Children/Living Arrangements (extending from marriage) Rule: Generally considered a fundamental right (1) Includes extended family (Moore) (2) Does not extend to unrelated persons living together (Belle Terre) (3) Does not extend to fathers outside wedlock (Michael H.) (4) Does not supersede parental custody/visitation decisions (5) Levels of scrutiny: (a) Strict(er) scrutiny applies when the government intrudes on the family choices of families living together (b) Rational basis review applies when persons living together are not related (Belle Terre) When persons living together are not related, provision is merely economic or social legislation Relevant state interests: Zoning, administration Interests protected: Strong basis in tradition Right of parents and guardians to direct upbringing and education of children under their control (Pierce, home schooling case) Application: (1) Extended family: Protection extends to extended family members (Moore, grandmother living with two grandsons) Court applies strict scrutiny Limiting homes to single families is a legitimate state interest, but because a fundamental right is at stake here, a legitimate interest is insufficient (interest must be compelling to survive scrutiny) Ordinance facially constitutional, but unconstitutional as applied (2) Unrelated persons: Protection does not extent to unrelated persons Thus, okay for city to zone to prevent unrelated persons (non-nuclear families) from living together (Belle Terre) Regulation of unrelated persons considered economic or social regulation, so court applies rational basis review (3) Balancing interests of family members: Grandparent cannot visit grandchild over objections of mother because of mothers substantive DP right in making decisions concerning care, custody, and control of her children (Troxel) Both parents of child have a right to decide how to raise their children NOTE: Parental rights do sever when a parent is declared unfit, but unfitness is a very high bar to pass (on the part of the state) Even a coke addict or alcoholic is not necessarily unfit, unless her substance abuse affects her children NOTE: Parents not permitted to sign child up for something that might harm the child (e.g., medical experimentation) unless the benefit of that thing will accrue to the child (4) Children out of wedlock: Probable father of child born out of wedlock but treated as child of mothers husband (not the father) NOT entitled to visitation under substantive DP because rights of father out of wedlock to visit child not a fundamental liberty interest traditionally protected in US society (Michael H.) Court looks to most specific level of generality under which history and tradition could be perceived: rights of the natural father of a child adulterously conceived (as opposed to merely the rights of a father or parent in general) Field: This case was rightly decided because what happens if boyfriend comes along, claims hes the biological father, and says he must be given a paternity test to show that hes the biological father Argument for broadening: The choice of households companionsinvolves deeply personal considerations as to the kind and quality of intimate relationships within the home. (Marshall in Belle Terre) Sexuality Rule: Probably a fundamental right (by inference from Lawrence) Current rule: State cannot prohibit consensual homosexual sodomy (Lawrence) Extension: Consenting adults have a right to intimate conduct in their own private sphere that does not hurt anyone else Old rule: State can prohibit sodomy between members of the same sex (Bowers) Gay sex not traditionally prohibited, and society frowns upon gay sex on morals grounds,, so Constitution does not confer right to gay sex Court applies rational basis review Relevant state interests: Morals (discouragement of non-procreative sex), tradition Interests protected: Privacy and freedom of intimate expression in ones home (from Griswold/Eisenstadt line) Application: (1) Statute prohibiting consensual homosexual sodomy violates DP (Lawrence) Liberty protects unwarranted government intrusions into dwellings and other private places Prohibition on homosexual sodomy touches on the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, in the most private of places, the home Persons have liberty to choose a personal relationship finding overt expression in sexual conduct without being punished as criminals (2) What about group sex, bigamy, bestiality, etc.? (Scalia in Lawrence) Possibly higher state interest might outweigh (as in Belle Terre) (3) Gay marriage: Possibly follows from Lawrence, but maybe can make same argument as in abortion funding cases; state cannot criminalize, but does not have to recognize or affirmatively support (4) Gay adoption: Gay adoption previously not permitted on grounds that law criminalized gay relationships; Lawrence undermines this rationale (5) Sterilization: Law requiring informed consent for sterilization violates DP as applied to mentally handicapped (who by definition never can give informed consent), because person has a right to sterilization (Valerie N) A person has a right to sterilization, even for non-medically related reasons (Worcester Hospital) Right to Die Rules: (1) Suicide: No substantive DP right, but state cannot criminalize it (2) Refusal/withdrawal of life-saving treatment: (a) Competent persons: Yes, substantive DP right (Cruzan) (b) Substituted judgment: Not clear (Cruzan reserved question) But, probably not, because state can require clear and convincing evidence that incompetent person would not want to have lived before surrogate can refuse life-saving treatment (Cruzan) (3) Assisted suicide: No substantive DP right (a) State can prohibit, or State can prohibit assisted suicide without violating substantive DP so long as law crafted such that competent person can refuse life-saving treatment (Glucksberg) Right to assisted suicide not traditionally protected OConnor concurrence suggests right to palliative treatment that might lead to death (i.e., law could potentially unconstitutional as applied in certain cases) (b) State can allow State probably can allow assisted suicide (if sufficient procedural requirements laid out) (implicit in Gonzales v. Oregon) Relevant state interests: Preserving life State not required to remain neutral between life and death Traditional interest in preserving life (Glucksberg) Suicide traditionally a crime Assisted suicide still widely prohibited today Error prevention in substituted judgment cases (Cruzan) Preventing exploitation of sick persons when a doctor is involved (Cruzen, Glucksberg) Preserving integrity of the medical profession (Glucksberg) Protecting vulnerable groups from abuse (Glucksberg) States interests in leeway to develop own laws (Glucksberg) Interests protected: Individual dignity Right to choose the manner of ones death is the ultimate individual choice (Breyer in Glucksberg) In situations of great suffering, possible substantive DP right to receive palliative medications that could potentially end ones life (Glucksberg concurrences) I.e., as-applied challenges might succeed States ability to experiment with different laws (Glucksberg) Arguments for expanding right: Argument that it violates EP to confer right to refuse life-saving treatment but refuse to confer substantive DP right to assisted suicide fails (Vacco) Refusal of life-saving treatment and assisted suicide considered different (Vacco) Difference from abortion: Difference between potential and actual life Gender impact (EP) in abortion cases bolsters abortion right Problems with assisted suicide laws (Field): Frequently require depressed people to become un-depressed before allowing them to kill themselves Paralyzed people cannot administer lethal dose to themselves Non-terminal persons not allowed to kill themselves Economic Contracts Rule (post-Nebbia): Rational basis scrutiny EXCEPTION: Punitive damages in civil cases Possible substantive DP right against arbitrary deprivation of property and (excessive) naked transfers of wealth (BMW v. Gore, State Farm, Philip Morris) (a) Too large punitive damage award might violate DP (b) Court cannot award punitive damages for injury done to people other than the  (Philip Morris) Arguably, this means economic substantive DP limited to areas of judicial competence (judicial process, damages) Rational basis scrutiny requires only that there be a (1) conceivable rational relationship to (2) any legitimate end Court usu. will postulate that relationship itselflegislature need not have pointed to any specific legitimate end itself History: Old rule: Fundamental (substantive DP) right to liberty of contract Lochner (1905): NY statute prohibiting bakery workers from working more than 10 hours a day struck down Law violated liberty of contract between master and servant Court downplayed states interests in safety and health (no suggestion baking is more dangerous than any other profession), suggested actual purpose of law was to redistribute wealth BUT, Court upheld regulation when states safety interest was sufficiently clear (miner case) Used to invalidate much of New Deal Criticism (Holmes in Lochner): The Court should not enshrine a particular economic ideology in the Constitution Overruled by West Coast Hotel Court decides it no longer should be substituting its judgment for that of the legislature in economic matters New rule: Can pass economic regulation that further the common interest (rational basis with bite) Rational basis with bite (Nebbia): (1) The law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, (2) The end must be legitimate, and (3) The means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. Nebbia (1934): NY statute authorizing milk board to set maximum and minimum prices for milk uphelddoes not violate liberty of contract NOT Substantive DP Rights (1) Personal appearance Kelley: Regulation requiring police officers to cut their hair upheld Could possibly distinguish in case involving civilians, since hair length regulation was rational in this case for employment reasons Rappaport: Regulation requiring women to wear dresses in order to get married at City Hall upheld ( wanted to wear green velvet pantsuit) Seems to be a rational basis: Want nice-looking, orderly weddings at City Halls (morals, too) (2) Data privacy (Whalen) (3) Possession of narcotics, firearms, stolen goods (Stanley) Distinguished from obscenity, which Cohen implies falls under the right to privacy (and also the First Amendment right of free expression) Cohen: F the Draft shirt case Field: Possible that taste and style protected by substantive DP (4) Freedom from involuntary commitment Hendricks: Involuntary civil commitment of sex offenders okay where there is proof of dangerousness BUT, involuntarily committed still have substantive DP rights to (a) safety, (b), freedom of movement, and (c) a minimum standard of living (Youngberg) 3. Policy Issues (1) Activist judges How active should judges be? Should judges be bound by text, history, or tradition? (2) Distinguishing modern substantive DP from discredited Lochner era? Incorporation: Rights enumerated in Bill of Rights adds greater textual support to modern substantive DP Difference between liberty of contract and modern substantive DP rights: Contract rights are rights provided by the state Modern substantive DP rights (privacy, family, etc.) are rights that exist outside government, closer to natural law, so government has weaker argument for interference Scope of choice permitted: Lochner foreclosed choice by imposing a single ideology upon the Constitution (laissez-faire) Court sitting as super legislature Modern substantive DP arguably promotes choice, increases options Interests furthered: Lochner supported and entrenched powerful business interests Modern substantive DP supports disenfranchised, less politically powerful Field: Lochner was the main substantive DP predecessor to Griswold (3) Why Court protects fundamental rights against state involvement through substantive DP, rather than through P&I: (a) P&I artificially narrowed at the outset to only encompass rights concerning interstate commerce (waterways, etc.) and other P&I of United Statesnot statecitizenship, rather than fundamental rights (Slaughterhouse Cases) Field: Under this interpretation, P&I of the United States become only those rights protected expressly or through the structural implications of the Constitutionthis means the 14th Amendments P&I clause adds nothing that wasnt already in the Constitution (mere surplussage) State P&I are those fundamental rights which belong to all citizens under a free government States determine what their P&I are by determining what rights to give their citizens With regard to those fundamental rights, under Art. IV 2, a state must treat state residents and out-of-staters the same (b) P&I seemingly has no textual limitations, while DP limited to protection of life, liberty, and property (c) P&I applies only to US citizens; DP applies to everyone (4) Difference between fundamental right under DP and fundamental right under EP: Fundamental right under DP: Absent compelling reasons, state cannot invade the right Fundamental right under EP: State either must give right to all/both, or to none EP does not prohibit states from proscribing a right altogether State cannot treat two categories of persons differently: EP does not say state cannot limit the right Rather, EP merely says that state either must give right to none, or to both/all (5) Three categories of substantive rights: (a) Right states cannot infringe upon (b) Right states must protect/provide (c) Right for which state has leeway to decide how much to protect or invade (Michael H., Cruzan, right to die cases) B. Equal Protection Equal Protection Clause: 14th Amend., 1: No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Also applies to federal government through substantive DP (5th Amendment) Central Question: Is the government discrimination justified by a sufficient purpose? 1. General Rubric Step 1: What Level of Scrutiny Should Apply? (1) Strict scrutiny: Rule: Classification must serve (a) compelling governmental interests and (b) be essential to those interests. Classification must be: (i) Narrowly tailored to the interest to be furthered (ii) Perfect fit between regulation and interest, with no over or under inclusion Overinclusive: Regulates individuals not similarly situated, i.e., covers more people than it needs to in order to accomplish its purpose Underinclusive: Does not regulate all who are similarly situated (iii) Least restrictive alternative (no less drastic means for furthering interest can be available) Categories included (inherently suspect): Race (incl. affirmative action) Illegitimacy (HL Central outline says belongs under intermediate scrutiny) Alienage (with exceptions) Voting (generally and as applied to race) Procedural DP (2) Intermediate scrutiny: Rule: Classification must serve (a) important governmental interests and (b) be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. (i) State must show exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification Categories included: Gender (incl. affirmative action) (3) Rational basis scrutiny: Rule: Classification must serve (a) any legitimate governmental interest and (b) be rationally related to that interest. Two sub-levels: (i) Relaxed: Any conceivable basis will do, whether or not that interest is the actual basis for the law (Lee Optical, Railway Express) (ii) Heightened (with bite): ACTUAL basis must be reasonable and have real and substantial relation to interest to be furthered (Cleburne) IMPORTANT: In heightened rational basis review, court looks to actual basis Applies when Court has reason to believe animus or some other impermissible ground is the real reason for the law Categories included: Economic classifications Age Poverty Disability Sexual orientation Other non-fundamental interests (4) ALTERNATIVES: (a) Sliding scale (Stevens in Cleburne, Rodriguez, Marshall in Plyler) Rule (Balancing test): Evaluate classification according to: (i) What is the class that is injured? (ii) Is the injured class traditionally disfavored by law? I.e., how much do we trust the legislature when passing laws that concern this particular class (iii) What is the laws purpose? (iv) What asserted class characteristic justifies the classification/disparate treatment? NOTE: Racial classifications that harm minorities would always fail under this test (b) Combine multiple classifications to argue for heightened scrutiny (Rodriguez, Plyler) Rodriguez: Alienage plus education Use in cases where each of the individual classifications on their own usually dont trigger heightened scrutiny Step 2: What Are the Relevant State Interests? Interests sufficient only for rational basis scrutiny: Administrability (Frontiero) Any interest that derives from a stereotype (MUW) Interests that are never sufficient: Animus towards a particular group (Moreno) Step 3: Apply the Applicable Level of Scrutiny How closely related is the classification to the identified government interest? Step 4: Consider Democratic Process Considerations (Romer) (1) Referenda: Possibly less entitled to presumption of validity than ogher laws Not susceptible to compromise Less a part of standard political traditions (2) Constitutional amendments: Possibly subject to closer scrutiny if extremely difficult to alter Legislation that alters a groups status and is extremely difficult to change may be more suspect 2. Categories of Classifications Race (extends to any classification according to race, national origin, ancestry, or ethnicity) (1) Segregation: Rule: Any form of purposeful segregation presumptively invalid (strict scrutiny) Field thinks the purpose/knowledge distinction does not make much sense Cases: Strauder (1887): Exclusion of blacks in trial of black man violates EP " has right to be tried by jury of his peers, so excluding blacks from his trial denies his rights as a citizen Excluding blacks as jurors also stamps brand of inferiority on blacks Case later unsuccessfully used by women to strike down male-only draft Plessy: Separate but equal constitutional because does not imply inferiority of one race or the other Court applies rational basis scrutiny, distinguishes between political and equality and social equality Law does have a rational basispreventing fights between whites and blacks Peace is a legitimate end, and segregation rationally related to that end 14th Amendment requires EP only in the political realm, not in the social realm Harlan in dissent: Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Everyone knows purpose of law is to exclude blacks from white-occupied cars, not vice-versa Brown: Separate but equal violates EP because segregation stamps the minority class with badge of inferiority First application of strict scrutiny Possible that segregation at the time might have survived rational basis scrutiny State needs compelling reason for classifications that runs afoul of the basic purpose of the 14th Amendment Also, sense that education is particularly important in 14th Amendment considerations Segregation gives black children a sense of inferiority, which retards their motivation to learn Court treats education as a fundamental interest Field: Court looks to importance of education TODAY, not as of 1868 Race a suspect classification Brown II: Desegregation should proceed with all deliberate speed Possible interpretations Brown: (a) Color-blindness of Constitution: Race never a permissible basis for distributing public benefits or burdens (b) Caste: State cannot distribute public benefits and burdens by race when doing so has the effect of stigmatizing or subordinating a racial group Under this theory, Brown prohibits only those uses of race that impose a social hierarchy or caste (c) White Supremacy: Segregation impermissible because created through process in which black voters were disenfranchised (d) Integration: Education is central to a democratic society, and integrated schools provide better education for black children Bolling: Separate but equal also violates DP clause Case involved DC public schools; Court had to use DP because 14th Amendment applies only to states and 5th Amendment does not contain an EP clause Segregation restricts black childrens liberty to pursue their education, and so is an arbitrary deprivation of liberty in violation of DP Segregation in public education not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest Field: But if DP includes EP, why have an separate EP clause? Application: (a) Cannot prohibit unmarried cohabitation only of interracial couples (McLaughlin) (b) Cannot prohibit interracial marriage (Loving) No legitimate purpose behind anti-miscegenation laws Even if anti-miscegenation law applies equally to different races, still segregates on the basis of race, so compelling interest required (c) Cannot consider racial composition of home in custody decisions (Palmore) Raising child in a single-race home NOT a compelling interest (whether home is multi- or single-racial does not affect the childs best interests) Field: The problem with the best interests of the child is that the standard is completely in the eye of the beholder Court rejects argument that possibility that others will be biased against child for living in multi-racial home is a permissible consideration in custody cases The law cannot, directly or indirectly, give such private biases effect (court not allowed to perpetuate racial discrimination) (d) Facially symmetrical race-based segregation laws still suspect, because obvious racial purpose behind segregation, probably because of animus towards blacks (Loving) (e) Cannot segregate prisoners by race to prevent prison rioting (Johnson) This shows how strict the scrutiny in racial segregation cases is For law in Johnson to pass scrutiny, state would have had to show that racial segregation was narrowly tailred, i.e., that no other method for preventing riots would have worked (or have worked better) (f) Urgent national security interests may justify racial segregation (Korematsu) Court finds pressing public necessity for exclusion order because not possible immediately to separate the loyal from the disloyal BUT, Korematsu now discredited and probably would come out differently today State interest may be compelling, but not a perfect fit between means and end (both over AND underinclusive) Overinclusive because included Japanese Americans everyone knew were loyal Underinclusive because did not include disloyal German Americans Field: Its somewhat typical for Court either to duck tough issues like this and wait until the war is over, or uphold actions that become an embarrassment later on Remedies: De Jure (Purposeful) Segregation: (i) State has affirmative duty to integrate (Green) (ii) Court can require busing, rezoning, redrawing of district boundaries (Swann) (iii) If court finds de jure segregation in only part of district, court can impose remedies on entire district (Keyes) If schools are mono-racial, Court will presume segregation was intentional (?) [check on this] (iv) Court cannot require interdistrict remedies where segregation is de jure in only one of the districts (Milliken) Court here willing to maintain boundaries between cities and suburbs Field: Theres a certain arbitrariness to school district lines, so its strange to place so much importance on their integrity (v) Court cannot impose taxes and other burdens (teacher salary increases, remedial education programs, etc.) on states and municipalities to remedy past de jure segregation (Jenkins) (vi) Once school has adequately remedied past discrimination, no continuing obligation to maintain desegregation (Dowell) At that point, neighborhood schools okay (neighborhood schools is a tradition, not necessarily purposefully discriminatory) Federal supervision of local school systems intended to be a temporary measure De Facto Segregation: (i) No affirmative duty to integrate (court will not impose remedies) (ii) State cannot attempt to remedy on its own (Parents Involved) Field: Doesnt this create too great of a disparity between what courts require when theres been de jure segregation and what they permit when segregation is de facto? (2) Disparate Effects (Race): Rule: Mere disparate effect not enough to violate EP; must be evidence of purposeful discrimination (purpose/knowledge distinction) (a) As applied: Racially discriminatory application of facially neutral law violates EP (Yick Wo) Yick Wo: Facially neutral ordinance require assent of supervisory board to operate Laundromat. Only one permit has ever been issued to a Chinese applicant. Application of ordinance so disparate that evinces racially discriminatory intent and thus violates EP NOTE: Regulation that creates closed categories presumptively invalid NOTE (Field): Once you get much away from complete action or inaction, the situation ceases to be Yick Wo and becomes more like Washington v. Davis (b) Facial challenge: To violate EP, racially disparate effect must be SO blatant as to point incontrovertibly to a racially discriminatory purpose (Washington v. Davis) Strict scrutiny applied only in cases of purposeful discrimination Test for whether racially discriminatory purpose present (Washington v. Davis): (i) If racial discrimination shown to be a motivating factor (does not have to be sole factor), then (ii) Burden shifts to city/state to show that same regulation would have been passed even absent racial animus Purpose of law can determined through effect, legislative history, etc. Application: Cases finding discriminatory purpose: Pre-Washington v. Davis: Gomillion (1960): Ordinance redefining city boundaries so as to include no more than 5 of 400 original black voters violates EP because obvious purpose is to disenfranchise black residents by removing them from the city Griffin (1964): Closing of public schools and opening of private schools with public assistance violates EP, because clear purpose was to continue racial segregation in schools Rogers: GA countys at-large voting system in which no black had been elected in the past 70 years (despite being a majority of the population) violates EP. County could not meet burden of showing that same system would have been created had racial animus not been a factor. Even if no discriminatory purpose in enacting at-large voting system initially, system had been maintained because of discriminatory purposes, so violates EP Hunter: AL provision disenfranchising those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude violates EP, where provision disenfranchises ten times as many blacks as withes and evidence shows original intent of law was to disenfranchise blacks (i.e., law would not have been enacted absent racially discriminatory motivation) Cases not finding discriminatory purpose: Pre-Washington v. Davis: Palmer: Closing of all public swimming pools clearly done to avoid integration does not violate EP, because (i) government has no affirmative duty to operate pools and (ii) city not giving money to white private pools Dissent: Closing violates EP because animus obviously behind closing Washington v. Davis: Requiring applicants for police force to pass test does not violate EP, even though whites pass at higher rate than blacks, because no purpose to discriminate shown Arlington Heights: New zoning regulation with racially disparate impact does not violate DP, because race not shown to be a motivating factor To determine whether impermissible motive behind action is present, court will look at: (A) Historic background of the state action (B) Sequence of events leading to the action (C) Departures from the normal procedural sequence (D) Substantive departures, particularly if the factors usually considered important by the decisionmaker strongly favor a contrary decision (E) Statements by members of the decisionmaking body (3) Affirmative Action (Race): (a) General rules: (a) Strict scrutiny applies (Adarand(?)) (b) Permissible only upon showing of past (de jure) discrimination or segregation (c) Even when permissible, remedial measures must be narrowly tailored such that no other measure will suffice (b) In Education: Rules: (i) Strict scrutiny applies (ii) Remedial action: (A) State interest in remedial action compelling only upon showing of purposeful (de jure) past discrimination (Bakke, Adarand) I.e., must be a constitutional or a statutory violation Mere societal discrimination not sufficient reason for burdening other, innocent individuals Purpose: Prevents arbitrary affirmative action programs (B) Remedial action must be of a finite duration (Grutter) (iii) Diversity is a compelling interest (Bakke, Grutter) The only two compelling interests regarding racial classifications in the school context that the Court has recognized are: (1) Remedying past intentional discrimination, and (2) Diversity in higher education Therefore, system for improving diversity will survive strict scrutiny if narrowly tailored Must treat each applicant as an individual rather than as a mere racial classification (Grutter) Goal must be to achieve a critical mass of minority representation, not a specific, predetermined number of minorities Narrow tailoring requires school to consider, but not exhaust, other possible means for improving diversity NOTE: Diversity interests more compelling in the education context than in the employment context Education serves as a training ground for future leaders, and quality of interactions shapes those leaders There may also be a 1st Amendment component in the education context NOTE: Because diversity interests are more compelling in the education context than in the employment context (robust exchange of ideas more relevant in the education context), affirmative action is easier to sustain in the education context (iv) Race cannot be THE defining factor between applicants (Grutter) Schools must treat applicants as individuals Application: Invalid programs: (i) Quota systems (and separate admissions committees) setting aside a specific number of slots for each race violate EP (Bakke) A flat quota is not narrowly tailored enough to survive strict scrutiny Powell seems wary in part because a quota system clearly hurts white applicants Diversity only compelling interest of those advanced by UC Insufficient evidence to show increasing minority graduates actually improves medical services to minority community (ii) A non-quota system where each minority receives a set amount of points merely for being a minority violates EP (Gratz) Awarding a set number of points merely for being a minority is not narrowly tailored enough to survive strict scrutiny System defines applicants too narrowly by race, does not treat each applicant as an individual (iv) A public school not subject to a desegregation order (i.e., no findings warranting remedial measures) cannot classify students by race (Parents Involved) State interest in remedying segregation not compelling because no showing of (applicable) de jure segregation Classification not narrowly tailored enough to diversity interest because treats each applicant as a member of a racial group Plurality says that racial balancing (i.e., integration) is NOT a compelling state interest, but Kennedy does not join that part of the opinion Kennedy: Schools can pursue the goal of diversity, but merely cannot treat students differently solely on the basis of a systematic typing by race Avoiding racial isolation and achieving a diverse student body both may be compelling interests Valid programs: (i) An individualized system that takes race into account as one of many factors does not violate EP (Grutter) Opinion focuses some on how education prepares future leadersperhaps a small step toward allowing remedying societal discrimination to be a legitimate goal (ii) MAYBE can use socioeconomic factors as a proxy for race Would still need to survive the Washington v. Davis test (c) In employment: Rules: (i) Strict scrutiny applies (no matter who the burdened race is) (Adarand) (ii) The only compelling state interest in the employment context is remedying past (de jure) discrimination or segregation Mere societal discrimination not sufficient (Wygant) (iii) Programs in the employment context very difficult to sustain absent very specific findings of past discrimination Generalized, ad-hoc findings of past discrimination not sufficient Application: Invalid programs: (i) Minority preference in teacher layoffs that contravenes seniority system violates EP where no past discrimination shown (Wygant) Providing minority role models not a compelling interest Field thinks that the problem here was that the system burdened specific, easily identifiable individuals (could point to a specific injury) (ii) State spending program setting aside ten percent of funds for minority business violates EP because no finding of specific facts showing past discrimination (Croson) OConnor seems to concerned about the ability to distinguish between benign and invidious discrimination (Field think it should be easy) NOTE: States (used to) get less deference in affirmative action programs than does the federal government (see below) (iii) Federal spending program giving contractors special incentives to hire minority subcontractors violates EP because no specific factual finding of past discrimination (Adarand) NOTE: This seems to overturn Fullilove Valid programs: (i) Congressional spending program setting aside ten percent of funds for minority business does not violate EP because does not use quotas, is based on congressional fact-finding, and Congress has greater powers under 5 of the 14th Amendment to remedy past discrimination (Fullilove) Overturned by Adarand (maybeunclear that Adarand had majority) (d) Why affirmative action programs SHOULD be presumptively valid (Field): (i) History: Affirmative action should not be suspect because 14th Amendment was meant to remedy discrimination by the majority against the minority (ii) Democratic process: That the majority makes the decision to benefit the minority at its own expense should seem to give such programs a presumption of legitimacy on democratic process grounds (cf. Carolene Products) (iii) Purpose: It doesnt make sense to apply strict scrutiny to programs that help minority just as you apply strict scrutiny to programs that hurt minorities The goal should be to INCENTIVIZE remedial action (Brennan in Bakke, Marshall in Croson, Stevens and Ginsburg in Adarand) (iv) Comparison to other forms of discrimination: It doesnt make sense to make it harder to remedy racial discrimination (because strict scrutiny applies) or gender discrimination (because intermediate scrutiny applies) than to remedy wrongs like age discrimination, sexual discrimination, etc. (because the only scrutiny that applies there is rational basis scrutiny) By applying strict scrutiny to both invidious AND benign racial discrimination, the Court has created a system under which, because racial discrimination is extremely hard to justify in the first place, it is also extremely hard to redress SEX Rule: Intermediate scrutiny applies, regardless of whether discrimination alleged is against a man or a woman (Craig). To pass scrutiny, classification must: (1) Serve an important state interest, and Administrative convenience NOT an important state interest (Reed) (2) Be substantially related to that interest, and Field: The cases demonstrate that even a substantial relation between the interest and the means often wont cut itrather, the cases bear out that gender usually cannot be used as a proxy (3) Have an exceedingly persuasive justification (MUW, VMI) Application: Invalid classifications (EP violations): (a) Oklahoma prohibition on sale of beer to males under 21, to women under 18 (Craig) Asserted state interest is traffic safety, but classification not substantially related to that interest Field points out this is despite fact that roughly 10 times as many young men are arrested for DUI as young women (b) Nursing school open only to women (Miss. University for Women (MUW)) Court rejects argument that remedying past discrimination is an important state interest, because no showing that women lacked equal opportunities to enter nursing. Court also rejects argument that all-women school provides better learning environment (c) State military academy open only to men (VMI) Asserted state interest in benefits of single-sex education stemming from biological differences not exceedingly persuasive justification Alternative school for women, VMIL, not an adequate alternative Possible intimation that separate-but-equal sex-segregated schools okay Possible Feeney-based argument: Since all VMI graduates supposed to enter combat duty, no point in admitting women since women excluded from combat (d) Sex-based peremptory strikes in jury trials (JEB) States only rationale was based on stereotypes about how men and women would view issues at trialNOT an exceedingly persuasive justification Court refuses to accept as rationale the very stereotype the law condemns (e) Regulation preferencing men over women as administrators of estates (Reed) No rational relationship between sex and skill at administering estates Court rejects asserted state interest in administrative convenience (avoiding hearings to determine who will be the administrator) (f) Military regulation providing automatic dependency allowance for wives of servicemen, but requiring servicewomen to prove their husbands are dependent before receiving the same type of allowance (Frontiero) Again, administrative convenience not a sufficient (important) interest (g) Statute giving mother but not father veto power over adoption of child born out of wedlock (Caban) State interest in promoting adoption of illegitimate child not served by differential treatment of mother and father, so both need to have veto power BUT, maybe easier to verify maternity than paternity (contrast to Michael H) Valid classifications (no EP violation): (a) State law excluding pregnancy as grounds for disability benefits (Geduldig) Regulation discriminates against pregnant persons, not women, so not sex discrimination Although only women can get pregnant, there are many non-pregnant woman just as there are many men Pregnancy an objectively definable physical condition (i.e., not every classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification) Dissent points out that state law provides benefits for several medical conditions only men can get Field HATES this decision Field: This case suggests discrimination against women is not as suspect as discrimination against blacks, since the Court almost certainly would strike down a plan that exempted sickle-cell anemia (b) Statutory rape law that punishes male but not female when both are under 18 (Michael M) How law discriminates against women under 18: Women under are the only persons who cannot have sex Survives intermediate scrutiny because state has important interest in preventing teen pregnancy, and girls already have an inherent deterrent while boys face no other sanction Also, a gender neutral statute would disincentivize reporting by girls, and reporting is necessary for enforcement (c) Requirement that all men but not all women to register for the draft (Rostker) Rationale is that, under statute, only men can be drafted, so no purpose in permitting or requiring women to register for the draft because men and women not similarly situated for draft purposes Constitution requires that government treat similarly situated persons similarly, but men and women not similarly situated for purposes of the draft because women by statute are excluded from combat Court very deferential because dealing with a specifically enumerated congressional power (raising armies) Congress receives great deference in setting military qualifications (d) Statute making children born abroad and out of wedlock to US citizen-mothers US citizens, but not making illegitimate children of US citizen-fathers born abroad US citizens absent proof of paternity and financial support (Nguyen) Justification is difference between mother-child and father-child relationships Parental relationship as proxy for relationship with US Disparate Effects (Sex): Test (Washington v. Davis principles): To show a sex-neutral statute has an impermissible sex-discriminatory purpose, must show: (a) Sex classification is not purpose-neutral Can possibly show this through disparate effect, and Must have purpose to discriminate, not just knowledge that regulation would disparately affect on sex (b) Disparate effect is the product of gender discrimination How to argue a facially neutral statute with disparate effects is sex discrimination: (a) Go through Washington v. Davis analysis and look closely at both the statutes purposes and effects Perhaps the statute was not originally enacted for discriminatory reasons, but has been retained for discriminatory reasons (like Rogers in the race arena) (b) If the proxy parallels gender too closely, argue it should be presumptively invalid Analogy to sickle-cell anemia: A regulation excluding state benefits to treat sickle-cell anemia would trigger strict scrutiny, but sickle-cell anemia tied closely to blacks Field would apply this argument to both Geduldig and Feeney Application (Field HATES both of these decisions): (a) State provision giving absolute lifetime preference for state civil service jobs to veterans, despite fact that almost all veterans are men, does not violate EP(Feeney) Veterans is a sex-neutral classificationregulation distinguishes between veterans and non-veterans, not between men and women Although almost all veterans are men, there are many non-veteran men just as there are many non-veteran women (similar to Geduldig) Field: This case is NOT like Washington v. Davis because it concerns a closed categorypast veteransand so different considerations come into play (b) State law excluding pregnancy as grounds for disability benefits does not violate EP (Geduldig) Regulation discriminates against pregnant persons, not women, so not sex discrimination Although only women can get pregnant, there are many non-pregnant woman just as there are many men Pregnancy an objectively definable physical condition Dissent points out that state law provides benefits for several medical conditions only men can get Affirmative Action (Sex): Rule: Remedial measures permissible (do not violate EP) so long as: (1) Fact-finding demonstrates a reasonable basis to believe past discrimination has occurred, and (2) Legislation does not perpetuate gender-based stereotypes (Orr, Weinberer) Affirmative action for women is okay; affirmative action for ladies is not NOTE: Arguably, intermediate scrutiny applies post-Adarand Application: Invalid programs/policies (perpetuate sex stereotypes): (a) Alimony obligation for ex-husbands but not ex-wives (Orr) Intermediate scrutinystatute not substantially related to states interest in compensating for past income gap during marriage because individual hearings could solve problem Gender not a close enough proxy for financial need (b) Social security provision giving dead husbands benefits to widow and children, but dead wifes benefits only to children (Wisenfeld) Provision gives less protection to women workers (c) Pension set-aside program requiring women to pay more because they tend to live longer than men (Manhart) Problem was that the program did not treat participants as individualseven if the generalization about lifespan is true in general, its not true for everyone NOTE: This was a Title VII case Valid programs/policies: (a) Property tax exemption for widows but not widowers (Kahn) Rational basis reviewexemption rationally related to states interest in cushioning financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for which that loss imposes a disproportionate burden Questionable in light of later cases (b) Social security provision allowing women to exempt three more low-wage years than men (Califano) Purpose is to remedy long history of discrimination Congressional fact-finding may possibly made the difference (c) Navy provision giving women thirteen years to make tenure but discharging men who are passed over for promotion twice (i.e., making it easier for women to gain tenure than men) (Ballard) Rational basis reviewprovision compensates women for past discrimination [So, review of remedial actions where court does in fact find evidence of past discrimination is done under rational basis review?] Sex discrimination vs. race discrimination: How rules for sex and race discrimination differ: (a) Goal with rules against sex discrimination is to avoid perpetuating stereotypes about traditional roles Thus, for job requiring heavy lifting, cannot say women need not apply, but CAN say must be able to lift one hundred pounds regularly and thereby cut down the number of female applicants (b) Tends to be less of a focus on deliberate dismantlement of discrimination-furthered systems (to make those systems how they would have been absent sex discrimination) in the sex than in the race context E.g., Manhart (pension discrimination case): Court orders companies to end practice of deducting more from women employees paychecks than from mens because women tend to live longer, but does not require companies to pay back the additional funds already deducted from women employees paychecks (c)  in sex discrimination case can be either a man or a woman, and either one can claim to be hurt by most sex classifications Sex classification purporting to benefit women obviously hurts men, but can also hurt women by perpetuating stereotypes So, harder to tell whether or not a gender preference law is benign or actually invidious (d) Court almost always finds race irrelevant to an asserted governmental interest, but does sometimes find sex relevant to an asserted interest Argument for treating sex discrimination same as race discrimination: (a) Similar history of oppression (b) Both inherent traits bearing no relation to capabilities ALIENAGE Rules: Classifications distinguishing US citizens and legal resident aliens (1) Strict scrutiny applies (suspect classification) EXCEPTION (Governmental function): Only rational basis scrutiny applies to classifications involving governmental functions (i.e., public policy functions that go to the heart of representative government) where it makes sense to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens Applies to classifications involving government functions related to self-government and the democratic process Rationale for making alienage a suspect classification: 14th Amendment guarantees EP of laws to persons, not citizens History of discrimination Politically powerless (by definition) group BUT, alienage NOT an immutable characteristic, because can be naturalized (2) Federal government gets much more deference than state regulations Rationale: Congresss exercises nearly exclusive powers over regulation Court will often throw out state alienage classifications on preemption grounds Congress may condition welfare eligibility on length of residency (Diaz) Because federal government has power to determine what rights resident aliens have, effectively preempts the field (Toll) Classifications distinguishing legal residents and illegal aliens (1) Rational basis scrutiny applies EXCEPTION: Children of illegal aliens have right to attend public school (Plyler) Application: Valid classifications: (1) Denial of access to aliens to government employment involving governmental function related to self-government and the democratic process (Foley, Amback, Bernal) (a) Applicable positions (only rational basis scrutiny applies): (i) State troopers (Foley) (ii) Public school teachers (Amback) (b) Non-applicable positions: (i) Notaries public (Bernal) Rationale: Notaries public essentially just perform clerical work Invalid classification: (1) Denial of state welfare benefits to aliens (Graham) Rationale: Preemptionits inconsistent with Congresss scheme not to give welfare benefits to aliens BUT, state may condition access to welfare benefits on admission to US for permanent residency and continuous residence in US for five years (Mathews) (2) Denial of ability to practice law (i.e., bar admission) to aliens (Griffiths) Strict scrutiny applies (3) Denial of ALL permanent competitive civil service positions to resident aliens (Sugarman, Mow Sun Wong) BUT, state CAN deny access to aliens to positions pertaining to states constitutional prerogatives (i.e., core state functions) (because state gets greater deference in those areas) (Sugarman) ILLEGITIMACY Rule: Either intermediate or heightened rational basis scrutiny applies (unclear) Chemerinsky says the standard is intermediate scrutiny (cite Clark) Illegitimacy is a suspect classification Application: Invalid classifications: (a) Provision saying that illegitimate children can inherit from mother but not from father where parents dont leave a will (Levy) Rational basis with bite Provision not rationally related to state interest in deterring illegitimacy; punishing illegitimate children does not deter illegitimacy State cannot try to control parents conduct by imposing burdens on their children (its not the kids fault) Also, illegitimate children arguably historically a discrete minority (b) S/L that cuts off child support claims for illegitimate children earlier than for legitimate children (Gomez) Cannot condition child support obligations on legitimacy Valid classifications: (a) Law requiring father to come to court to legitimate child before child can inherit, so long as the court procedure is not onerous (Lalli) NOTE: This is a rather old case DISABILITY Rule: Rational basis with bite (Cleburne) Disability NOT a suspect class because (Cleburne): (a) Different capabilities COULD in some cases be grounds for valid distinctions (b) The disabled have a powerful political lobby Field: But what about race and gender discrimination cases? (c) There are too many varying degrees of mental disability to create a discrete suspect class (d) Making disability a suspect class would open suspect class up to too many new categories (aged, infirm, etc.)slippery slope Application: Invalid classifications: (a) Denial of permit to home for mentally disabled violates EP (under rational basis scrutiny) because asserted state interests are not legitimate (Cleburne) NOTE: This was an as-applied, not a facial challenge Asserted state interest: Avoidance of harassment because of negative attitudes of neighbors towards the mentally disabled Under Lee Optical this might well have passed muster IMPORTANT: Negative societal attitudes towards or fears about a particular class NEVER a legitimate basis for classification See also Palmore Valid classifications: (a) Hypo: Public library that can only enter by climbing steps (no disabled access) Probably would survive rational basis To argue invalid, would have to use effects-based test Could apply Washington v. Davis and analogize to gender, say this case is like that in Gomillion where historically grounded but continued policy effectively denies access to an entire class NOTE: Washington v. Davis principles always apply, regardless of scrutiny level AGE Rule: Rational basis scrutiny w/o bite Age classification not close enough to Carolene Products standards Application: Valid classifications: (a) Mandatory retirement age of fifty for police officers does not violate EP (Murgia) Seniors not a closed class because each person eventually will enter the class Seniors not a discrete and insular minority, so dont need special protections No tradition of discrimination against the elderly Argument that heightened scrutiny should apply: Craig based on age discrimination, as well as gender discrimination Court has upheld right to vote at age 18 (Mitchell) Regulation in Murgia concerned a governmental function (police force); holding need not necessarily apply to other age-based regulations POVERTY/WEALTH Rule: Rational basis scrutiny w/o bite Rationale: America based on a capitalist system American tradition of rugged individualism Values of equality of opportunity and respect for individual achievement arguably embedded in the Constitution Application: Valid classifications: CA law providing that low-rent housing cannot be built unless prior approval given in local referendum (Valtierra) Possibly could distinguish from other situations because referendum involved SEXUAL ORIENTATION Rule: Technically, rational basis scrutiny BUT, could argue Lawrence heightens scrutiny by conferring substantive rights RESPONSE: Even though Lawrence declares sexual expression to be a substantive DP right, Lawrence says only that state cannot infringe (i.e., criminalize) sexual expression, and discrimination is different from criminalization Criminalization means state prohibition Discrimination means societal disapproval Also, state cannot say persons not entitled to special protections on account of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence) Arguments for/against heightened scrutiny: (1) For heightened scrutiny: (a) History of discrimination (so discrete and insular minority) (b) Few if any situations where sexual orientation plausibly related to an asserted state interest, because sexual orientation pertains wholly to private life In this, even stronger argument than for gender (c) Freedom of expression (1st Amendment) implicated (d) Lawrence recognized that all persons have certain substantive rights related to intimate sexual conduct, regardless of sexual orientation (2) Against heightened scrutiny: (a) Gays have a powerful political lobby (b) Homosexuality traditionally disfavored (moral traditions) Application: Invalid classifications: (a) State amendment disqualifying gays from claims to special protections because of sexual orientation (Romer) This is a LITERAL violation of EP Even absent heightened scrutiny, cannot deny individual groups right to claim specific protections (EP) of the law State amendment makes it harder for gays to get preferences than any other group, because requires another state constitutional amendment to overturn No rational relation between asserted state aim of maintaining level playing field and stripping possibility of discrimination claims Clear purpose behind law is animus (like Moreno) Desire to harm a politically unpopular group not a legitimate government interest (the pariah principle) (b) BUT, state possibly could repeal special privileges so long as state doesnt bar all claims of EP violations (Reitman) I.e., if heightened protection not constitutionally required, should be able to withdraw them without violating EP RESPONSE: What other justification could there possibly be for repealing prohibitions on discrimination besides animus? FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS General Rule: Heightened scrutiny applies to classifications involving fundamental interests Background: (1) IMPORTANT: Fundamental rights analysis under EP focuses on the substance of the right being denied (to some), NOT on the nature of the group excluded Thus, even with groups not normally entitled to heightened scrutiny, heightened scrutiny triggered because of nature of right being denied to them Harper: Where invasion of fundamental rights asserted under EP, invasion must be closely scrutinized and carefully confined E.g., poor people can argue poll tax triggers heightened scrutiny because voting is a fundamental interest NOTE: Washington v. Davis seems not to apply to fundamental interest cases, because what matters is whether the fundamental interest was in fact burdened, NOT whether the purpose was in fact to burden the interest (2) Fundamental rights under EP vs. under DP: Fundamental right under DP: State cannot invade unless sufficient justification Fundamental right under EP: State does not have to confer right, but once state DOES confer right, must give right to ALL I.e., once right given to some, must be given to all (3) Fundamental rights: (a) Voting (Harper) Unclear, though, under what conditions, how far the right extends (gerrymandering?), and what remedies apply (b) Access to judicial appeals (c) Avoidance of sterilization (Skinner) (d) Education (possibly), when (Plyler): (i) Combined with other forms of discrimination, or (ii) Completely deprived NOTE: Only somewhat heightened scrutiny applies in this case (4) NOT fundamental rights: (a) Food (b) Shelter (c) Education, when NOT (Rodriguez): (i) Combined with other forms of discrimination, or (ii) Totally deprived (1) PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS/ACCESS TO COURTS Rule: Fundamental interest, so strict scrutiny applies State cannot deny absent compelling interest Idea is that when the state proceeds against someone, the state is obligated to ensure that person has sufficient assistance to meet the states attack Field: The basis for these cases cannot be EP, because the Court does not even come CLOSE to equalizing the situation between rich and poor persons; rather, must be some combination of DP and EP Indigent parties get minimum procedural protection: (i) Attorney of choice (ii) Access to court (iii) Access to an initial appeal Appeals not constitutionally required, but once given to some must be given to all State must give the poor adequate opportunity to present their claims (meaningful access to the appellate system) (Ross) Application: Invalid denials: (i): Right to counsel: (A) State must provide " s counsel on initial appeal by right (Douglas) (B) State must provide plea-convicted " s counsel on initial review of plea convictions, even though plea-convicted " s relinquish their right to appeal (Halbert) Take-away seems to be that " s must get counsel on initial review, no matter the circumstances of that review or of conviction (C) State CANNOT condition initial appeal on ability to pay for trial transcripts (Griffin) (ii) Access to court: (A) State cannot condition appeal of decree terminating parental rights on ability to pay records fee (MLB) (B) State cannot condition access to judicial procedure on ability to pay filing fee if that procedure is the ONLY way to accomplish the end sought (Boddie) E.g., court cannot condition divorce on ability to pay filing fee (Boddie) IMPORTANT: Fundamental human relationship implicated in this case (as in MLB) (iii) Access to evidence (A) State must provide an indigent " in a paternity suit access to state-subsidized blood grouping tests (Little) Paternity suit has  quasi-criminal overtones, and parent-child ( fundamental human ) relationship at stake State also has an interest in determining who the real father is Valid denials: (i) Right to counsel: (A) State NOT required to provide counsel for discretionary appeals (Ross) (B) State NOT required to provide counsel in child custody hearings (Lassiter) (ii) Access to court: (A) Court can condition access to bankruptcy court on ability to pay filing fee (Kras) Distinctions from Boddie: (a) Bankruptcy does not rise to same constitutional level (does not involve a fundamental human relationship) (b) Government control over debt not as exclusive as government control over marriage (B) Court can condition judicial review of administrative denials of welfare benefits on payment of filing fee (Ortwein) Reasoning from Kras applies in distinguishing Boddie (2) FOOD/SHELTER/EDUCATION Rule: NOT a fundamental interest, so rational basis review NOTE: Still might be a fundamental right under DP Application: (a) Welfare benefits: (i) One-year waiting period before migrants can obtain full welfare benefits does not violate EP (but comes close) (Shapiro) Court comes close to saying access to welfare benefits a fundamental right (because involves necessities of life), but ultimately this is a P&I issue because involves citizenship (ii) State cap on monthly welfare payments without an exception for larger families does not violate EP (Dandridge) Rational basis review State interests: Encouraging work and not discriminating against the working poor Possible counterarguments: Could argue EP violation as discrimination against poor, but still would fail because not total deprivation, just relative Could argue EP violation because purpose is to disincentivize poor families from having more children, but still would fail because EP protects INDIVIDUAL interests, not family (or group) interests (b) Shelter (i) Eviction law limiting issues at eviction proceeding to tenants default and barring defense of landlords failure to maintain premises does not violate EP (Lindsey) Rights to decent shelter and to retain peaceful possession of ones home NOT fundamental interests (c) Education: (i) Differences in school resources by district because of differences in property values does not violate EP (Rodriguez) Education NOT a fundamental interest Asserted state interest: Local control of schools Problem of units: Discrimination would have to be against districts not individuals (because no definable class of poor people discriminated against), but EP only protects individual interests Field thinks school district boundaries are just as arbitrary as political district boundaries, and so the logic behind one man, one vote should apply equally to differences in funding between school districts Possible counterarguments: Could argue system punishes children for parents economic disadvantages (analogy to Levey) Could argue state could just disburse school funds at state level, rather than through districts, without destroying local control of schools (i.e., better alternative) (ii) Barring children of illegal aliens access to public schools violates EP (Plyler) Rational basis with bite Classification does not further a SUBSTANTIAL state interest This suggests education is closer to a fundamental right than is welfare Shades of a sliding scale? (the kind Stevens and Marshall want to apply) Why case differs from Rodriguez: (1) Theres an absolute denial rather than just a (relative) diminution of quality (2) Deprivation combines with a suspect class (alienage, even though here dealing with illegal aliens) (3) Concern with creating a permanent underclass (4) Regulation punishes children for acts of parents (analogy to Levey) (3) VOTING: Rule: Fundamental interest, so strict scrutiny applies Rationale: Voting is a fundamental political right, because preservative of all other rights (Kramer) NOTE: Courts approach to voting probably the best case for substantive DP rights, because Court considers voting a fundamental right, but voting is not an enumerated right Field: The right to vote is a made up right The 15th and 19th Amendments shows that the 14th Amendment did not confer a right to vote to all persons Application: Invalid provisions (violate EP): (A) Poll tax (Harper) So, although state can charge for participation in other activities (e.g., driving), cannot charge for participation in voting Wealth not related to voting ability, so classification according to payment of poll tax violates EP (B) Literacy requirement (C) Provision basing voter eligibility on conditions of residence (beyond mere residency) (Kramer) E.g., state cannot condition eligibility to vote in school elections on property interest or having a child currently in school (Kramer) Provision not narrowly tailored enough under strict scrutiny to furthering asserted state interest in ensuring that voters have a stake in the outcome because many people with no interest in school district could still vote EXCEPTION: Court has upheld election scheme basing voter eligibility in water district election on property values in affected district (Salyer Land Co.) Election scheme here narrowly tailored because all stakeholders and only stakeholders can vote in the election Field: Water district elections are the only special electionsi.e., elections requiring special qualifications in order to votethat have ever survived strict scrutiny Valid provisions (do not violate EP): (A) Disenfranchisement of felons (Richardson) 2 of 14th Amendment withholds penalty on states for disenfranchisement for disenfranchisement for participation in rebellion or other crime) (B) Voter ID requirement (Crawford) Burden of getting a government-issued ID does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, so passes balancing test (even though no history of vote fraud in IN) Court does not apply a specified level of scrutiny Could argue that disparately impacts poor, minorities, seniors, recent arrivals (either to country or to state) (C) Literacy tests (Lassiter) NOTE: Outlawed by federal statute (4) REAPPORTIONMENTVOTE DILUTION: Rules: (i) Apportionment of districts must conform to one person, one vote(otherwise, apportionment violates EP) (Reynolds) (A) Population must be the controlling consideration, even if state has a rational basis for apportioning some other way (Reynolds) Effect: All state legislatures must be apportioned on the basis of population If district populations are unequal, one persons vote is worth more than anothers (Reynolds) (B) Even apportionment passed by state referenda must conform to one person, one vote (Lucas) (ii) Strict scrutiny applies NOTE: Apportionment challenges justiciable following Baker v. Carr Rationale: Voting is a fundamental interest preservative of other rights One person, one vote necessary to prevent majority from invading minority voting rights EP means uniform treatment of persons similarly situated Hypo: What about law requiring a supermajority (66% of votes) for someone to be elected? Wouldnt violate Reynolds because everyones vote still counts the same; only difference is that now a higher bar to win Court has held supermajorities constitutional (Gordon, Town of Lockport) Vote dilution vs. racial segregation: Arguably, Milliken is inconsistent with Reynolds because Milliken views district lines as inviolate for purposes of remedying segregation, while Reynolds views district lines as totally fungible for purposes of ensuring equipopulous districts Possible distinction: Population is the controlling consideration in redistricting (following Reynolds), whereas Race is an impermissible consideration in school assignment absent showing of purposeful segregation (following Parents Involved) (5) REAPPORTIONMENTGERRYMANDERING: (a) Political Gerrymanders: Rule: Drawing district lines to maximize strength of particular political groups violates EP BUT, NOT constitutionally required to required draw districts that perfectly resemble political party strength in state as a whole (Davis) I.e., proportional representation not required Test: To prevail on a political gerrymrander claim,  must show (Davis): (i) Intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group, and (ii) Actual discriminatory effect on that group(i.e. consistent degrading of a group of voters influence on the political process as a whole) Finding must be supported by either:: (1) Continued frustration of the will of a majority of the voters, or (2) Effective denial to a minority of voters of a fair chance to influence the political process SO, single election not sufficient to show violation (iii) Kennedy in Vieth: A political gerrymander violates the law when political classification were applied either in an (a) invidious manner or in a way (b) unrelated to any legitimate legislative objective Application: In practice, relief extremely difficult to obtain ( s rarely win) Political gerrymandering claims possibly on cusp of being held non-justiciable (Vieth, Kennedy was fifth vote that this particular case was a political question, but did not agree that partisan gerrymanders ALWAYS political questions) (b) Racial Gerrymanders: Rule: Strict scrutiny (i) State can take race into account in drawing districts, but cannot subordinate traditional race-neutral districting principles to race (i.e., cannot make race the predominant factor in district drawing) absent a compelling interest (Vera) I.e., to subordinate traditional race-neutral districting principles to race, state must have a compelling interest Other, race-neutral factors include: compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual share interests (ii) Following the VRA has NOT been held to be a compelling state interest (Shaw I) Field: Following federal laws seems like it should be a compelling state interestField thus sees an interrelationship between the constitutionality of the VRA and the constitutionality of majority-minority districts (iii) State cannot take race into account beyond extent required to follow the VRA (Shaw II) I.e., state cannot go beyond what VRA requires Test: Apply strict scrutiny when (Shaw I): (i) District is majority-minority, and (ii) So irregularly shaped that cannot have been drawn merely for population reasons (and because district majority-minority, race presumptively was the overriding reason)i.e., that traditional districting principles must have been subordinated to race (A) Shape is one factor, but not the only factor, that can point to impermissible use of race in districting (Miller) (B) Not all strangely shaped districts automatically unconstitutional (Lawyer) NOTE: Similar standard as in racial affirmative actions cases applies NOTE: Might argue that such in-depth judicial fact-finding (to the point of reading emailsShaw III) goes too far, seems too manipulable Voting Rights Act (VRA): Requires states wanting to make districting changes that would have the effect of disenfranchising more blacks than whites to get pre-clearance from DOJ Field: VRA shows that Congress favors affirmative action in the voting arena Purposes: (A) Extend the vote to all eligible persons (B) Prohibit intentional dilution of minority votes (C) Decrease impact of group identity on voting patterns Prerequisites for creation of majority-minority districts: (A) Must show the minority is numerous enough and compact enough to have its own district (B) Must show the minority is cohesive in its voting patterns (C) Must show voting in the area is racially polarized Field: Applying same standards as in racial affirmative action runs headlong into the Voting Rights Act (VRA)VRA supposed to remedy past voter discrimination, but current racial gerrymander standard is so strict that many remedial measures struck down Field: Whos the victim in a racial gerrymander case?seems to be an open question Field: There is an interrelationship between the constitutionality of the VRA and constitutionality of majority-minority districts Application: (i) Districting to comply with VRA that has effect of splitting Hasidic Jew community in NYC into multiple districts does not violate EP (United Jewish Organization) Plurality opinion says permissible to consider racial factors so long as no racially discriminatory intent Probably would come out different today (ii) Majority-minority district so irregularly shaped that it cannot have been drawn for population reasons alone violates EP (Shaw I) Court finds situation to be reverse-Gomillion: Shape so irregular that there must have some other reason besides population for the way the boundaries were drawn, and here its pretty obvious that that reason was race Irregularly shaped majority-minority district violates EP because reinforces stereotypes that races vote in blocs State asserts interest in following VRAwhile following VRA COULD be compelling interest, state doing much more here than VRA requires (i) Under current regime, difficult for state to anticipate whether a districting scheme will be upheld One the one hand, VRA requires drawing of majority-minority districts to give minorities a voice On the other hand, strict scrutiny requires very narrowly calibrated remedies (ii) Because current regime is so strict, districting plans frequently get challenged as racial gerrymanders, even if: (A) Their intent is benign or (B) Gerrymander done for partisan, not racial, purposes RATIONAL BASIS SCRUTINY Rules: (1) Two levels: (a) Relaxed: (i) Requires ONLY some conceivable (hypothetical) reason for the classification (Lee Optical, Railway Express) Field would look to the equities of the parties involved rather than the purpose or reason behind the classification to determine whether a classification violates EPC (ii) Court will invent relationship/rationale (b) With bite: (i) Requires non-arbitrary (actual) relationship between regulation and object of regulation (ii) Court will only look at ACTUAL relationship/rationale (2) Class-based animuseven toward a non-suspect classnever a legitimate state interest Moreno: A bare Congressional desire to harm a group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest Field: Court uses this phrase as precedent when it wants to apply rational basis with bite scrutiny Thus, any regulation predicated on class animus fails rational basis scrutiny E.g., provision limiting food stamp assistance to households composed of related persons fails rational basis review, because actual purpose was to discriminate against hippie communes (Moreno) Analogy to Levey: State not able to punish a class merely because state disfavors unrelated behavior Application: Valid classifications: (a) NY regulation prohibiting advertising on vehicles unless vehicle is engaged in the owners usual work and not used merely for advertising (Railway Express) Relaxes rational basis review Local authorities may well have concluded that those who advertise their own products on their trucks do not present the same traffic problem in view of the nature or extent of the advertising which they use (b) New Orleans regulation exempting push carts vendors who had been in continuous operation for eight years (Dukes) Regulation rationally related to preserving appearance and custom of the French Quarter Court seems less concerned about closed class problems than in Dukes (see below) (c) Federal statute granting pension benefits only to those unretired workers who had been working a sufficient number of years (other unretired RR workers got no pension benefits under the statute) (Fritz) In drawing the lines the way it did, Congress could have assumed that those unretired workers who still qualified for dual benefits under the new plan were more likely than those who did not to be among the class of workers who pursue careers in the railroad industry, the class for whom the Railroad Retirement Act was created (and that such persons had greater equitable claims, too) In applying rational basis review, Court seems to ignore the fact that Congress did not seem to know what it was doing when it passed the RR pension statute Invalid classifications: (a) Economic regulation excluding American Express by name (Morey) Regulation created closed class Field thinks any classification involving a closed category should be immediately suspect Overruled by Dukes (b) Federal law limiting food stamp assistance to households, defined as groups of related persons, because real purpose of classification was animus against hippie communes (Moreno) Court applies rational basis with bite Classification in this case irrelevant to states asserted interest of improving nutrition in low-income families (c) Tax provision valuing particular property in Pittsburgh at a different rate than all the surrounding properties, because assessment based on purchase price from many years ago (Allegheny Pittsburgh) No rational basis for the provision Provision not rationally related to state policy of assessing all property at its estimated market value BUT, similar CA provision upheld under rational basis review because facts in record supported inference of alleged benefits of an acquisition-value tax scheme (Nordlinger) C. Privileges and Immunities (Differential treatment according to place and duration of residency) Privileges and Immunities Clause: 14th Amend., 1: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities or citizens of the United States . . . . Definitions: (1) P&I of citizens of the US: Those rights that arise out of the relationship between the individual and the national government, including the: (a) Right to pass freely from one state to another (the right to travel), including: (i) Right to travel through a state (ii) Right to visit a state (iii) Right to become a new resident of a state (b) Right to petition Congress for redress of grievances (c) Right to vote for national officers (d) Right to discuss matter growing out of national legislation IMPORTANT: P&I of the US do NOT include the rights in the Bill of Rights (Slaughterhouse Cases), meaning the P&I Clause does not protect those rights against state action (2) Place of residency (domicile): Two main determinants: (a) Physical presence (b) Intent to become and/or remain a resident of the state Can manifest through drivers license, property ownership, etc. NOTE: The 14th Amendment ( 1) protects ones right to choose ones state of residency (Saenz) Rules: New Rule (based on the P&I clause): State laws that treat new state residents differently from long-term residents are presumptively unconstitutional, absent a compelling state interest (strict scrutiny?) (Saenz) The right of a newly arrived citizen to the same P&I enjoyed by other citizens of the same state is protected by the new arrivals status both as a state citizen as well as her status as a citizen of the United States. (Saenz) P&I clause protects the right to travel, because inherent in the structure of the Constitution is the ability to move to a new state Importance of benefit at stake irrelevant (unlike under old rule) Strict scrutiny applies EXCEPTION: A state CAN treat new residents differently where the benefit at stake is portable, that is, where the benefit can easily be transferred to another state Idea is that for those benefits that are more likely to attract fake residency claims, the state may impose a durational residency requirement in order to assure the bona fides of a claim of new state residency NOTE: Saving money is a legitimate state interest, but desire to avoid becoming a welfare magnet NOT a legitimate state interest. (Shapiro) BUT, state must provide opportunity for persons to show bona fide long-term residency (Vlandis) Old Rule (based on EP): State laws may NOT treat new state residents differently from long-term residents in such a way that the state burdens new residents fundamental right to travel (Shapiro) A state law burdens new residents right to travel when that law gives new resident less access to the necessities of life than longtime residents (Shapiro) Shapiro involved the absolute deprivation of welfare benefits to new residents (difference from Saenz) Rigt to travel a fundamental right, so strict scrutiny applies Difference between New and Old Rules: Old rule (Shapiro) asked whether the benefit being denied was important enough (i.e., necessities of life) that having to wait for it burdened the fundamental right to travel in violation of EP New rule (Saenz) treats ANY classification treating new state citizens differently from longtime residents as presumptively unconstitutional, absent a compelling state interest, regardless of the importance of the benefit at issue Application: Invalid reasons for treating new and long-term residents differently: (1) Welfare benefits: Giving new residents, for one year, the welfare benefits they would have received in their prior state of residence rather than the welfare benefits normally given to residents of their new state of residence (Saenz) Even a congressional statute explicitly permitting this distinction does not fix the constitutional defect Desire to avoid becoming a welfare magnet not a permissible reason for imposing a residency requirement (2) (Non-emergency) medical care: One-year residency requirement before new residents can receive free non-emergency medical care (Maricopa County) (3) Voting: One-year residency requirement before new residents can vote in the state (Dunn) Voting is a fundamental interest/right Valid reasons for treating new and long-term residents differently: (1) In-state tuition: One-year residency requirement before students can receive in-state college tuition (Vlandis) BUT, state must provide hearings for residents claiming long-term residency, to avoid DP problems (2) Divorce: One-year residency requirement before new residents may divorce a resident of another state (Sosna) Other methods for striking down differential treatment according to residency: (1) Interstate P&I (Art. IV, 2): The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states Argue violation of STATE P&I when: (1) More advantageous to remain a non-resident, and (2) Law discriminates between residents and non-residents concerning a fundamental privilege of interstate citizenship (i.e., a privilege basic to the livelihood of the nation) Examples of interests relating to fundamental privileges of interstate citizenship: (i) Construction employment (Camden) (ii) Admission to the bar (Piper) (2) Dormant commerce clause: If market participation exemption would make a difference (3) EP: If distinctions between residents and non-residents relates to an interest important enough to warrant heightened scrutiny D. The Requirement of State Action Requirement of State Action: 14th Amendment, 1: No state shall make or enforce any law that violates P&I, DP, or EP IMPORTANT: The requirement of state action: Applies to the 14th and 15th Amendments Does NOT apply to the 13th Amendment (i.e., 13th Amendment applies to private actors) General rule: 14th Amendment reaches only STATE actions, not private actions So, the central question is what constitutes a state action? Defining state action: NOTE: Current state of the law is unsettled Civil Rights Cases: Congress lacks constitutional authority under the enforcement provisions ( 5) of the 14th Amendment to outlaw racial discrimination by private actors, rather than state actors. Field: One can read this case to say that when a state is enforcing prohibitions on discrimination (e.g., state requirement that innkeepers accept all travelers so long as inn is not full), the federal government cannot intervene, but what a state is NOT barring discrimination, the federal government CAN jump in Court usually balances among general criteria rather than drawing bright-line rule Broad interpretation (Terry, Frankfurter opinion): State action occurs where somewhere, to some extent, there is an infusion by conduct by officials into any scheme State action where: (a) Public entwinement between public and private actors (Brentwood Academy) (b) Symbiotic relationship between public and private actors (Burton) (c) State action enforces, authorizes, or encourages private discrimination (Reitman, Shelley) (d) Public function (incl. selection of government actors) performed by private party (Marsh, Evans v. Newton, Edmonson, Smith, Terry) See Burton for the broadest interpretation Narrow interpretation (Blum) (1) State normally held responsible for private action ONLY if it has either: (a) Exercised a coercive power, or (b) Provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must be deemed to be that of the state I.e., state has significantly involved itself with the invidious discrimination (Moose Lodge) (2) Mere approval or acquiescence in or inaction in stopping private action usually NOT sufficient (3) Where a private facility provides optional services the state is not required by law to provide, even extensive state regulation of the private facility does not turn the facility into a state actor See also Jackson Other factors to consider: (1) Nature of the right implicated, and the scrutiny that right usually receives Field thinks this is what is really going in the state action requirement E.g., Jackson concerns procedural DP, arguably would have come out differently if involved racial discrimination (2) Whether finding state action in a particular situation would go too far toward requiring people to associate with others with whom they might not want to associate Possible 1st Amendment issues Application: State action where: (1) State is interdependent with a discriminatory private actor (entanglementpublic entwinement, symbiotic relationship, joint participant) Burton: Private restaurants exclusion of blacks is state action where municipal authority owns the building and collects rents from the restaurant owner, because state and private actor joint participants in the venture Building built and maintained by public taxes Profits paid by discriminatory restaurant are indispensable elements in the financial success of the government agency Brentwood Academy: Public entwinement between public and private school officials in management and control of TN athletic association comprised of both public and private schools (84% of member schools were public) makes nominally private athletic association a state actor Without participation of public school officials, association would be unrecognizable Lugar: Joint participation between creditors and state officials in attachment of property (state clerk issue write of attachment, sheriff executes) makes the attachment a state action and the creditor a state actor (2) State coerces, enforces, authorizes, or encourages private discriminatory practices Reitman: State repeal of law prohibiting racial discrimination in housing violates 14th Amendment because effectively (or intent was to) authorizes private racial discrimination Shelley: Judicial enforcement of a racially discriminatory covenant violates 14th Amendment because would give effect to discriminatory covenant Even though the covenant is private, enforcement of the covenant is not Possible limitation on Shelley: For Court to enforce the covenant it would have to step in and stop a transaction between two private individuals NOTE: Following Blum, mere state approval of private discriminatory practices may not implicate the 14th Amendment (3) Private exercise of a public function either: (a) Traditionally (exclusively) reserved to the state, or Marsh: Company town cannot prohibit JW from distributing literature because operation of streets and public places in company town essentially a public function Hudgens: Marsh does not extend to shopping centers; shopping centers not engaging in state action, so can ban protestors Evans v. Newton: Park held under private trusteeship that bans blacks engages in state action (and so cannot ban blacks), because parks traditionally serve the community and the park in question is municipal in character Jackson: Supplying of utility services NOT traditionally a state function, so state action not implicated (b) Related to the selection of government actors Edmonson: Use of peremptory challenges (in both civil and criminal trials) in racially discriminatory fashion implicates state action because peremptory challenges used in selecting a governmental actors (jurors) Smith (15th Amend.): White primary implicates state action because party acting as an agent of the state in determining the requirements to participate in a primary election Terry (15th Amend.): State action implicated when club (Jaybird) that refuses blacks members takes pre-primary votes that basically determine the outcome of the primary NOT State action where: (1) No nexus between the states involvement with the discriminatory private actor and the discrimination itself, despite heavy public funding or state regulation of the discriminatory actor IMPORTANT: To be state action, the state nexus must be with the discrimination itself, not just the private entity Blum: Transfer of nursing home residents to inferior facilities not state action for 14th Amendment purposes, despite extensive state regulation of nursing homes, because state not responsible for the transfer The mere fact of extensive state regulation does not trigger 14th Amendment protections Moose Lodge: That state granted liquor license to a club not sufficient to implicate the state in the clubs discriminatory membership practices, because licensing law did not in any way foster or encourage racial discrimination NOTE: Generally, actions of private clubs not considered to be state action (Court exhibits concern with ensuring people have ability to live their social lives as they choose) NOTE (Field): A 1st Amendment right of association has as much grounding in the Constitution as does the right to vote Jackson: Fact that state heavily regulated utility is not enough to implicate the state in the utilitys termination procedures, even where the state passed on the legality of those termination procedures, where no relationship between state regulation and the utilitys assertedly discriminatory practices The mere fact that a business is subject to detailed state regulation does not convert its actions into state action That state said utilitys termination procedure was permissible under state law did not amount to a state endorsement of the termination procedure Rendall-Baker: Decisions of private school whose income derives primarily from public sources to discharge certain employees not state action Acts of private contractors do not become state acts by reason of the contractors significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts. (2) Mere repeal of anti-discrimination legislation without intent to authorize discrimiation (Reitman) BUT, if repeal coupled with intent to authorize private discrimination through the repeal, then state action (3) State acquiescence in assertedly violative private action, even where state given power under statute to bar the violative action (Flagg Bros.) Flagg Bros.: Warehousemans sale of bailed goods to satisfy a lien under the UCC not state action It is immaterial that a state has embodied its decision not to act in statutory form If every denial of judicial relief turned the private act into state action, all private acts would become state actions whenever the state denied relief to the injured party (4) Mere inaction by public actor (e.g., failure to protect) (DeShaney) DeShaney: States failure to protect boy in child services from abusive father not state action because state had no duty to intervene State non-action does not implicate 14th Amendment where state actors have no affirmative duty to act Field HATES this decision, points out that child services had previously acted to return child to father after child had been in hospital Field: Yick Wo could apply if enough state actors failed to act such that inaction essentially became the applicable law If enough people do (or dont do) something, that action (or inaction) becomes the law just as much as if the action (or inaction) were actually written into the law (Yick Wo) EXCEPTION: State DOES have affirmative duty to protect where person placed in involuntary custody (Youngblood) (5) State merely declines to provide service anymore (Palmore, Evans v. Abney) State has no affirmative duty to choose equal access over eliminating service Palmore: Decision by state to close public pools because doesnt want to integrate them does not implicate 14th Amendment Might have come out differently if the state service at issue were vital Evans v. Abney: Reversion of park to wills heirs because park no longer open only to whites not state action because reversion eliminated all discrimination by eliminating the park itself (and loss shared equally by blacks and whites alike) (6) State officer acting in a private capacity (Price) Alternative avenues of argument if private action does not implicate state action: (1) 13th Amendment (if private practice involves racial discrimination): Could argue 13th Amendment gives Congress authority to remove all vestiges or badges of slavery and involuntary servitude 13th Amendment has no state action requirement, but applies only to cases of slavery and involuntary servitude (2) Commerce Clause BUT, congressional reach again may depend on the kind of discrimination present (Heart of Atlanta Motel, McClung, Morrison) (3) Congresss enforcement powers under 14th Amendment, 5 This requires arguing for a change in the Courts current interpretation of Congresss powers under 5 E. Congresss Civil Rights Enforcement Power 1. The Thirteenth Amendment Thirteenth Amendment: 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2 (Enforcing clause): Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Rules: (1) Congress can reach private racial discrimination through 2 of 13th Amend. (NO requirement of state action) IMPORTANT: Congresss power under 13th Amend. limited to racial discrimination APPLICATION: Federal criminal sanctions for conspiracies to discriminate (42 USC 1985(3)) Valid application of 13th Amend. enforcement power: (i) Criminal sanctions under 1985(3) for conspiracy to racially discrimination (Griffin) Griffin (Stewart): [T]here must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators action. Invalid application of 13th Amend. enforcement power: (i) Criminal sanctions under 1985(3) for conspiracy motivated by economic or commercial animus (United Brotherhood of Carpenters) (ii) Criminal sanctions under 1985(3) for conspiracy to blockade abortion clinics, because animus toward abortion not a class-based animus towards women, so class-based animus not present (2) Congress can prohibit ALL racial discrimination, whether public or private, under 2 of the 13th Amend. (Jones) (a) 13th Amend. not only prohibits slavery, but 2 empowers Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the US (Jones) APPLICATION: (1) Federal statute prohibiting racial discrimination in property sales is valid exercise of Congresss powers under 2 because 13th Amend. includes freedom to buy whatever a white man can buy (Jones) (b) Congress empowered to decide what those badges and incidents of slavery are, and Court will apply rational basis review (Jones) (c) Limitation: Congress probably cannot prohibit racial discrimination in a private clubs, UNLESS the club is open to the general public (Sullivan, Runyon) Rationale: Federalism, freedom of association concerns Application: (1) Congress may prohibit general resident associations from excluding blacks (Sullivan) (2) Congress may prohibit private schools from excluding blacks (Runyon) 2. The Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment: 1: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities o citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person or life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 5 (Enforcing clause): The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. NOTE: 5 of the 14th Amend. only important in the 11th Amend. context, i.e., where Congress wants to provide for suits against states by victims of discrimination Otherwise, Congress could pass statute under the Commerce or Taxing/Spending clauses Rules: (1) Congress CANNOT reach private discrimination through 5 of 14th Amend. (state action required) (Morrison) I.e., Congress cannot use 5 to make an end run around the state action requirement NOTE: The Commerce Clause may provide separate authority to legislate in cases where 5 does not APPLICATION: VALID regulations of private discrimination under 5 (a) Congress CAN provide criminal sanctions under 5 for conspiracy to deprive blacks of their civil rights, where the conspiracy involved arresting blacks by means of false reports, because the arrests by false reports implicated active state involvement in the conspiracy (Guest) (b) Congress CAN provide criminal sanctions for conspiracy to kill civil rights workers, because 3 of the 13 conspirators were local law enforcement officials (Price) It is enough that the accused is a willful participant in joint activity with the state or its agents. INVALID regulation of private discrimination under 5 (a) Congress CANNOT offer civil remedies under 5 to victims of gender violence by private actors (Morrison) (i) VAWA civil remedies provision struck down because not narrowly tailored enoughpermits recovery even where no showing that state officials were the main actors of violence, as in case where college student accuses college football players of sexual assault (Morrison) Court also points to fact that VAWA applies nationally, but Congress has not found gender violence problems in all of the states How to argue Congress SHOULD have power to reach private actors under 5 (concurring opinions in Guest): 5 appears as a positive grant of legislative power, authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in fashioning remedies to achieve civil and political equality for all citizens. [T]here can now be no doubt that the specific language of 5 empowers the Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracieswith or without state actionthat interfere with 14th Amend. rights. (2) Congress CANNOT define the substance of the EP clause (i.e., confer new rights under the EP clause) differently from the Court, even for classifications that fall under rational basis reviewcan ONLY enforce the clause (Boerne) TEST: (a) To be a valid exercise of Congresss enforcement powers under 5 of the 14th Amend., congressional action must be congruent and proportionate to an identified harm (Boerne) Boerne: There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end. SO, even if there is an unconstitutionality a statute is meant to address, if the remedy is disproportionate to the remedy, Court will strike it down Field thinks this is basically a we dont like it test (b) I.e., congressional action must only be remedial To be remedial, congressional action must be: (1) Very narrowly tailored, and Potential problem is federal statute not limited only to those states where there are EP problems (2) Congress must have met a very high factfinding burden (or proving discrimination) IMPLICATION: Once the US SC rules that rational basis review applies to a particular classification, very difficult for Congress to enact prohibitions above and beyond what EP clause already prohibits Rationale: Separation of powers: The judiciary alone should define the substance of the EP clause, because otherwise Congress can use 5 to contravene federalism and impose upon the states Legislative history of 14th Amend. (rejected John Bingham proposal) suggests 5 more limited than the N/P clause BUT, is proportional and congruent a permissible constitutional substitute for necessary and proper? Might the Court be engaging in a separation of powers violation here? Application: Impermissible substantive definition of EP rights (i.e., congressional action NOT proportionate and congruent to an identified harm) where: (a) Federal statute granting remedies against state employers for discrimination against the disabled (Garrett) Insufficient findings of discrimination for provision to be considered remedial Court does not think that the discrimination Congress identified actually was unconstitutional (b) Federal statute granting state employees power to sue for violations of Age Discrimination Act (ADEA) (Kimel) Insufficient findings of discrimination for provision to be considered remedial Congress never identified any pattern of age discrimination by the states, much less any state discrimination that rose to the level of a constitutional violation Statute prohibits substantially more state employment practices than would likely be held unconstitutional under applicable EP standard, so is disproportionate to constitutional violations (c) Federal statute (RFRA) prohibiting state government actions that substantially burden an individuals exercise of religion, absent a showing that the action furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest (Boerne) Congress here seeking to redefine the scope and substance of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amend., so RFRA NOT remedial NOTE: Court possibly could have decided Boerne on narrower grounds, that RFRA impermissibly substantive because defines the Free Exercise Clause, not merely more broadly than the Court does, but in way totally at odds with the Courts definition RFRA basically directed the US SC to follow the religious freedom test (compelling interest test) that the Court rejected in Smith (d) Federal patent statute abrogating state sovereign immunity against claims of patent infringement, because no evidence that states depriving patent owners of property without DP of law by pleading sovereign immunity in federal-court patent actions (Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Expense Board) Lack of evidence of DP violations by states makes statute so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that [it] cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. (e) Federal trademark statute subjecting states to federal lawsuits by their business competitors for false and misleading advertising, because rights protected by the statute not the kind of property rights protected by the DP clause (College Savings Bank) Field: Range of actions Congress can take in influencing constitutional interpretation (a) Congress can alter a constitutional ruling because it has a different view of the Constitution than the Court (Boerne): INVALID (b) Congress can have a different view of the Constitution than the Court as applied in a particular community (broad view of Katzenbach): INVALID (c) Congress can have a different view of the Constitution than the Court because can find different facts (narrow reading of Katzenbach): NOT SURE (d) Prophylactic measures: INVALID (e) Remedial measures: VALID Field: Courts can create remedial measures, too, so theres nothing Congress can do under the current regime that Courts cannot do Field thinks its fine for Congress to raise constitutional issues (through statute) that it thinks the Court might reconsider Old test: Congress may enact any regulations that are necessary and proper to enforcing EP of the laws (i.e., to ending discrimination) (Katzenbach) To be valid, congressional statute under 5 must be: (i) Plainly adapted to the end of enforcing EP, and (ii) Consistent with the letter and spirit of (i.e., not prohibited by) the Constitution Katzenbach: 5 a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is need to secure the guarantees of the 14th Amendment. I.e., Congresss enforcement powers under 5 are both separate and greater than the judiciarys powers to find EP violations Brennan: BUT, 5 is a one-way ratchet, i.e., Congress can make EP guarantees more robust that what Court says EP requires, but cannot use its enforcement powers to dilute EP guarantees Effects: Very deferential review (rational basis) of congressional action under 5 Field thinks is the right standardif theres a rational basis for Congresss decision, should be upheld Very close to giving Congress power to redefine the substance of the EP clause APPLICATION: Valid exercise of 5 powers where Congress (VRA) prohibits state from denying the right to vote because of (English) illiteracy when the person seeking to vote was educated in Puerto Rico and has at least a 6th grade education, even if NY English literacy requirement is NOT an EP violation under the Courts jurisprudence (Katzenbach) Fields preferred test: Rational basis reviewCourt looks to see if Congress has a rational basis for restricting the states powers In practice, Court today does the oppositelooks to see if theres a rational basis for the state law the federal law restricts (3) In practice, Congress CAN enact legislation under 5 where (and probably ONLY where) (Hibbs, Lane): (a) The US SC has ALREADY found the action at issue unconstitutional NOTE: This isnt really a prophylactic powerfalls more under rule (2) above (b) The US SC WOULD find the action at issue unconstitutional if asked, or I.e., action at issue unconstitutional under Courts previous jurisprudence (c) A narrowly tailored prohibition on facially constitutional behavior is necessary to DETER unconstitut-./STUijklïϛϐvdQv?Q#jh:hN CJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:hJ.kCJaJjh:hJ.kCJUaJh:h:U9CJaJ'h:h:U90J5>*B*CJaJph&jh:hN 5CJUaJh:hJ.k5CJaJ jh:hJ.k5CJUaJh:U95CJ aJ h5CJ aJ h,-@h5>*CJ6aJ6.k ; =  p !w!v & F> $ gd:U9 & F> $ gd:U9 & F>gd:U9$a$gd5r $ $ a$gd9     = > ? G N O U W X | } ~ ޮퟔogퟔUEhA0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJhACJaJ$h:h9D\0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJjh:hLMCJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:hJ.kCJaJjh:hJ.kCJUaJh:h:U9CJaJh CJaJ     % & ( ) C D E M N P Q s ˹֦헌zg헌U헌#j.h:hN CJUaJ$h:h5r0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJjh:hLMCJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#j"h:hN CJUaJh:hJ.kCJaJjh:hJ.kCJUaJh CJaJh:h:U9CJaJhACJaJs t u y ) ˸ޭޢ޸˸umޢ[޸ޭޢ#jh:hN CJUaJh CJaJh:h5rCJaJhA0J>*B*CJaJph#j$h:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJh:h:U9CJaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph$h:h5r0J>*B*CJaJphjh:hLMCJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ) * + 7 8 9 : ; < n o p # $ % 8 9 : < ޭޭuޭc#jh:hN CJUaJ#j`h:hN CJUaJhACJaJh:h:U96CJaJ#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJh CJaJh:h:U9CJaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJphjh:hLMCJUaJ#j(h:hN CJUaJ&< = > w x y ~       N O P ^ _ m o p q 润曓ygU#j- h:hN CJUaJ#j h:hN CJUaJ#j h:hN CJUaJh CJaJhACJaJh:h5rCJaJhA0J>*B*CJaJph$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#j\h:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJjh:hLMCJUaJh:h:U9CJaJ! 234NOQRtuvyz|}ǵǣқljwe#j h:hN CJUaJ#j5 h:hN CJUaJ#j h:hN CJUaJh CJaJ#j' h:hN CJUaJ#j h:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJh:h:U9CJaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJphjh:hLMCJUaJ'    !"QRSuvwxڣډwoh#CJaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ#jch:hN CJUaJh CJaJ#j h:hN CJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#jE h:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJh:h:U9CJaJjh:hLMCJUaJ$ !"KLMqrsuvwޭވ}}ޭkވX}}$h:hLM0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:h1CJaJ$h:h10J>*B*CJaJph#j2h:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJh#CJaJh:h:U9CJaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJphjh:hLMCJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ  FGH_`abﰡq_qWE#j/h:hN CJUaJh#CJaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJjh:hLMCJUaJh:h:U9CJaJ'h:h:U90J5>*B*CJaJph&jlh:hN 5CJUaJh:hLM5CJaJ jh:hLM5CJUaJa%T&[U9 5i & F> $ gdLM & F> $ gd:U9 & F> $ gd:U9 & F> $ gd:U9 & F> $ gd:U9 !"$%&EFGOPQSTUtuv~ʿʿʿ~ʿl#jEh:hN CJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ#jKh:hN CJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJh:h:U9CJaJh#CJaJh:h CJaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJphjh:hLMCJUaJ&!"#%&'HIJVWXZ[\˭˭˭w˭e#jkh:hN CJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ#j[h:hN CJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJh#CJaJh:h:U9CJaJjh:hLMCJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph$h:hH+U0J>*B*CJaJph'    ABCSTUVwxyޮp^#jqh:hN CJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ#joh:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJjh:h"CJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJjh:hLMCJUaJh#CJaJh:h:U9CJaJ"$%&,1245]^_pqȶӣȑ~ncQ>$h:hLM0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:hLMCJaJhA0J>*B*CJaJph$h:h"0J>*B*CJaJph#jyh:hN CJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#j h:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJjh:h"CJUaJh:h:U9CJaJh#CJaJh:h CJaJqst%&'+,-.2345789:ۤ摁o摁g\T\h#CJaJh:h:U9CJaJhACJaJ#jh:hN CJUaJhA0J>*B*CJaJph$h:h"0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJ$h:hLM0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJjh:h"CJUaJh:hLMCJaJ :QRSVWYZuvw{|~  &ԜԜxԜmemh#CJaJh:h:U9CJaJ#jh:hN CJUaJ#jHh:hN CJUaJ$h:h"0J>*B*CJaJph#jh:hN CJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJphjh:h"CJUaJ#jfh:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJ &'(012456VWXdefhijޭޭޭwޭe#jB!h:hN CJUaJ#j h:hN CJUaJ#jZ h:hN CJUaJ#jh:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJh#CJaJh:h:U9CJaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJphjh:h"CJUaJ#jdh:hN CJUaJ',-.012Z[\]qrtvwxқ}}k}}#j"h:hN CJUaJh:h CJaJ$h:h 0J>*B*CJaJph#jL"h:hN CJUaJ$h:h:U90J>*B*CJaJph#j!h:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJh#CJaJh:h:U9CJaJjh:h"CJUaJ"1wAH$9QRopgd yYgd$a$gd & F> $ gd & F> $ gd & F> $ gd & F> $ gd:U9 456<=>@AByz{   ޭޭޭwޭޭe#j%h:hN CJUaJ#j#%h:hN CJUaJ#jv$h:hN CJUaJ#j#h:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJh#CJaJh:h CJaJ$h:h 0J>*B*CJaJphjh:h"CJUaJ#jx#h:hN CJUaJ$ <=>BCDEGHIklmñæÌyΦj_Mjyj#j9'h:hN CJUaJh:hV9CJaJjh:hV9CJUaJ$h:h 0J>*B*CJaJph#j&h:hN CJUaJh#CJaJh:h CJaJ#j1&h:hN CJUaJh:h"CJaJjh:h"CJUaJhA0J>*B*CJaJph$h:h"0J>*B*CJaJph #$%Z[\#ޮӜޮӊޮxޮ#j)h:hN CJUaJ#j)h:hN CJUaJ#j[(h:hN CJUaJ$h:h 0J>*B*CJaJph#j'h:hN CJUaJh:h5rCJaJjh:h5rCJUaJh:h CJaJh#CJaJ(#$%34589Rp   -/~qe~[~Q~[~Q~G~h:h>*aJhh5aJhh>*aJhh`gh5;aJhh`gh5;>*aJ haJh5>*B*CJ aJ phh5>*B* CJ(aJ(phh5B*CJ0aJ0phh:CJaJh#CJaJh:h CJaJ$h:h 0J>*B*CJaJphjh:h5rCJUaJ#j*h:hN CJUaJ <{23CD_37 b !gd yYgd&2 & F;gd yY & F;gd yY & F;gd yY/:;<z{123CD^_|xpk h&2>*h yYh yY>*h&2 h yYh&2 h&2h&2h yY h yY5hh`ghk~85;hh`gh yY5;>*hh&25aJh&25>*B*CJ aJ ph h&2aJh&2h5aJ hXFaJ hXF>*aJhh>*aJhh5aJ haJ h6aJ'3c  6 7 > G s !i!!!!!!!!!!!""A"E"g"""## # ########$$#$i$j$ļĸhh`gh: h yY6 hs6 hs>*hsh yYhk~85hk~8h yYhk~8>* hk~8>* h&2>*h yYh&2>*h yYh yY>*h yY h yY5h&2h&2h&2>*=!]!!!"A"g" #####$$i$j$|$$$F%G%W%%% & F;gd & F;gd & F;gdh`g & F;gdh`ggdh`g & F;gd yY & F;gd yY & F;gd yYj${$$$$$$$$$G%V%W%X%[%]%%%%%%%%%%%&&&y'}''''''''''(((((((?((((ÿÿà˿ht2hu>* hu5 h!c6 h!c>*h!ch(u h>*huhs h6hh5 h;hhh>* h5 h5>*h5;>* hh`g6hshh`g>* jhh`ghh`ghh`g5;>*2%&&'y''''(((*)X)Y)l)s))r*s*^gd: & F;gdP] & F;gdP] & F;gdP]gdP] & F;gdu & F;gd & F;gd(u & F;gd & F;gdu & F;gd & F;gds((*)X)Y)k)l)q)r)))))))* *K*P*r*s*w*********+J+K+X+Y+]+^+t++++++++ ,,-,1,Y,v,{,|,,,2-3-뫸맟 hP]h/`h/`h/`>*h/` h/`>*h:hP]>*h/`hP]>*h!c h!c6 hP]>*h: hP]6hP]hP]>* hP]5 hP]5>*hP]h(uhuht2hu>*8s**J+K+Y+++-,|,,3-4-Z-{--/.P...+/F/// & F;gdhi= & F;gd/`gd*y & F;gd/` & F;gdP]gdP] & F;gd!c & F;gdP]3-4-Y-Z-n-z---//;/E/F////000010111|1}1~111111222223242ž⵬~xngnxa h>jaJ h(u>*aJh(uh(u>*aJ h(uaJ hhi=5aJhhi=5>*aJhJDQ5>*B*CJ aJ phhhi=5>*B*CJ aJ phhqh:aJh/`h/`aJ h/`6aJ hhi=aJ h!caJ hhi=>*aJhhi=h/`>*aJ h/`aJ h*yaJh/`5>*aJh"h*yaJ#/021O1}1~111132425262m22-333#4k4'5 & Fgdhi= & FgdqE & Fgdhi= & Fgd(ugdgdhi=gd*y & F;gd/` & F;gd/` & F;gdhi=4262D2q2s2222222222 333Y3p33333"4#45%5(5R5S5[5555c6g6i6j666ȾرȚzqkd hd>*aJ hdaJhdhdaJ h>j5aJhd5>*aJ hr%aJhqEhqE>*aJ h>j6aJhqEhqEaJ hqE>*aJ hqEaJ h>j>*aJh>jh>j>*aJ h>jaJh>jhhi=>*aJ hhi=aJ hhi=5aJhhi=5>*aJh>j5>*aJh:5>*aJ&'5(5R55c6j66666_777788889>99:@; & Fgd(u & Fgdd & Fgdd & Fgdd & Fgdd & Fgd>jgd>j66666_7a7y77788 8!8"8%8,8A8S88888888889999 9.909:::@;ĸ⍆|vpvpviv hHr@6aJ hlaJ hHr@aJhlhHr@>*aJ hl>*aJ hHr@5aJ h!caJ h(uaJ h>j6aJ h!c>*aJh>jh>j>*aJhdh>j5>*aJ h>j5aJhdhd>*aJ h:>*aJ hJDQaJ h>jaJ hdaJ hd>*aJhdh>j>*aJ&@;B;<J=h>6???@0A;AAApBB CCDDQEwE FlF & Fgdd & Fgdd & Fgd\ & Fgd\ & Fgdd & Fgd!c & Fgdd ^ gd:@;B;J;;;<<<J=R=z==V>Z>d>f>h>6?>???@@@0AAAAAAAAAAABB^BbBlBBBBBCCCDDDDEE EHEJEOEPEQE^EhlhlaJ hd5aJ hl>*aJhlhl>*aJhdhl5>*aJ hl5aJ h\6aJ h\aJ hl6aJ h>jaJ hHr@6aJ h!caJ hHr@aJ hlaJ h:aJ:^EuEFFF/F5F;FKFLFPFTF]F_FjFkFlFnF*aJhJDQh{>*aJ hri6aJ h{aJ hriaJh{hri>*aJhrihri5>*aJ hri5aJ h(uaJ hd6aJ hdaJhdhd>*aJ hd>*aJhdhl>*aJ hl6aJ hlaJ hl>*aJ)lFCGG;HHI%K2KKKlLL8MMINNN & FgdRf & FgdJDQ & FgdD & FgdJDQ & Fgdri & Fgdri & Fgdri & Fgdri & FgdJDQ & Fgd{ & Fgdri & Fgd(u & FgddIIIIIK#K%K1K2KKKnL}LLLLL8M*aJ hqEaJ hDaJ hi>*aJ hiaJhRfhJDQ>*aJhJDQhJDQ5>*aJ hJDQ5aJ hri6aJ hriaJhrihriaJ hri5aJ hJDQ6aJ hJDQaJ h{aJ h!c6aJ h!caJ(NOOPRLSS TaTT>UUUUVCVPVzVVWW & FgdUSUdUUUUUUԺvpipc hR\aJ h(u6aJ h(uaJh:hi>*aJ h*aJhghgaJhghg>*aJ hgaJ hg5aJhghg5aJ hi5aJhi5>*aJ hiaJ hX6aJ hXaJ hX>*aJhXhX>*aJ hX5aJ&UUUUVVVV=VAVBVCVOVPVxVzV~VVVVWW WWWWWWWW X XXdXXXXXXXXYZnZpZ[[[[[[¼¼¼¼§¼ž§„hr%hr%aJhR\hR\>*aJ hr%5aJhr%5>*aJ hr%6aJ hc6aJ h*aJ hi5aJhihiaJ hi6aJ hiaJ h(uaJ hR\aJ hR\6aJ2W XXrZ[[_\`\\][]D^^I___```gdd4 & FgdqJ & FgdqJ & FgdqJ & F vgdC- & FgdC- & FgdC-gd B & Fgdr% & Fgdr% & Fgdr% & Fgd*aJ hqJ6aJ hqJ>*aJh$hqJaJh$h$aJ h$aJ h$>*aJhqJhqJ>*aJ hqJaJ hqJ5aJhqJ5>*aJhC- hC->*aJhC-hC->*aJ hC-aJ hC-5aJ h B5aJh B5>*aJ h BaJ hr%aJ hr%>*aJ&``eTeteue|ffffff۽۷۪۽۷۝۷۷۷۷ኃ hO)>*aJh:X2h:X2aJh(uh)>*aJ hMaJ hM6aJ hO)aJ h)6aJ h)aJh(uh:X2>*aJh:X2h:X25aJh:X2h:X2>*aJ h:X2aJ h:X25aJh:X25>*aJhd45>*aJ hd4aJ3`*B*CJ aJ phhlf5>*B*CJ aJ ph hlfaJh 5>*B* CJ(aJ(ph hhi=aJ hl6aJ hc6aJ hcaJ hO)>*aJ hlaJ hMaJ h)aJ hO)6aJ hHaJ h 46aJ h 4aJ h:X26aJ h:X2aJ hO)aJ*4g]gghThhiXiiiYjjjklsltlllllgd gdhi= & Fgdl & Fgdl & Fgdc & Fgdc & FgdO) & FgdO) & FgdO) & Fgd:X2 & Fgd:X2ll%mRmXmmmngnnnnop(pppQqqq\r]rurgdx & Fgdx & Fgdx & Fgdx & Fgdx & Fgd9w & Fgd9wgd9wlllllRmWmXmqmmnnoopppp9q?qAqOqqqqr%r3r]rtrvrrrrrrrrrrrԿԵԿԿԿԿԿԦԝԀymyhd9Yhd9Y5>*aJ hd9Y5aJhd9Yhx>*aJhx56>*aJhx5>*aJhV5>*aJhx5>*B*CJ aJ phhxhx>*aJ hx6aJ hx>*aJ hx5aJ hxaJh9wh9waJ h9w>*aJ h9waJ h9w5aJh9w5>*aJ(urvrrr8ssssrttu~uuvv>wwwxnx4yAy & FgdO & FgdO & Fgdd9Y & Fgdd9Y & Fgdd9Y & Fgdd9Y & Fgdxgdxrs7s8sJsssst^trtvtttttttttuuuu vmvvvvvvw=w>wBwLw_wrwwwwwwxxxnxyxxxxxxxުުޞޞޞhOhO>*aJhOhO;>*aJ hOaJ h3aJhOhd9Y>*aJhd9Yhd9YaJ hs5aJhd9Y5>*aJ hd9Y>*aJhd9Yhd9Y>*aJ hd9YaJhd9YhxaJ hd9Y5aJh3hd9Y5>*aJ5x2y3y4yoyyyyyyyz%z(z)z;z_zizkzyz{zzzz { {{{.{:{={{{{4||}}}}}4~5~:~A~W~Z~h~ýýýýýðyhVhO5>*aJ hO5aJh *zh *z5aJ h *zaJ h *z5aJhO5>*aJhs h3aJ hs+6aJ hGaJ hsaJhGhs>*aJ hO6aJhOhOaJ hO>*aJhOhO>*aJ hOaJ hd9YaJ/Aykz{zz.{{4||}^}}}}5~=~s~~<Z & Fgd9  & Fgd *z & Fgd *z & FgdOgdO & FgdG & Fgds & FgdO & FgdOh~j~q~r~s~w~~~~~~~~~~;<7;MWn݁߁ӐӐӄ}tngn h36aJ h3aJh *zh *zaJ hV5aJhVhV5>*aJhV5>*aJ h9 5aJ h9 aJh9 h *z5aJh *zh *z5aJ h *z6aJ h *zaJhVhO5>*aJhVh *z5>*aJ h *z5aJ hO5aJh *zhO5aJ h *z6h *z%KXYZyłɂӂׂ*n{|}IJWXYnp ѽ۶۶۬۶۬۶ۦxrixrh:h:aJ h:aJ h:5aJh:5>*aJhW[h*yaJ hVaJhV5>*B*CJ aJ ph haJh9 h9 5aJ h9 6aJh9 h9 >*aJhVhV>*aJhVh9 >*aJ h9 aJh3h35aJ h36aJ h3aJ h3>*aJ&Z}IJXY W|U+X & Fgd: & Fgd: & Fgd: & Fgd:gd*ygdV & Fgd9  & Fgd9  & Fgd3NRUVW{|ʇESTUYxɈ߈*+WXPQȊɊʊ׊:;PYcefz hKV6aJ hKVaJhhKV>*aJ h*aJh:5>*aJ h5 aJh:h:5aJ h:aJ h:>*aJh:h:>*aJ:QɊ;f{ًF^k9؎.k & Fgd & Fgd=% & Fgd & Fgd & FgdhRi & Fgd^q & Fgd^q & Fgd^qgd: & Fgd:z{؋ً?DEF[^btˌjk}wmwfw\whh5aJ h6aJhKVh>*aJ haJhh5aJ haJhh^q5aJh^qh^q>*aJhW[h^qaJ h;%5aJ h^q5aJh'55>*aJ hhRi5aJ hhRi6aJ hhRiaJ h*aJ h^qaJh^qh^q5aJ$78=|}׎؎ߎ-.jkotu!MNacq深ule_ h%)3aJ h%)35aJh%)35>*aJh%)3h5aJhPZhPZ>*aJhPZh>*aJ haJ h5aJ h;%5aJh=%h5aJ haJhh5aJ h6aJhh=%5aJ h=%6aJ h=%aJ h=%>*aJ haJhhaJhKVh>*aJ$kNc0YՓB7nݕ*; ?eΗ| & Fgd'5 & FgdiY & FgdiY & Fgd'5 & Fgd=% & Fgd'5 & Fgd'5 & Fgd^qqtu0WXY]fmwÒԓՓٓޓ8:@ABH67ȿxhiYh4tO5aJh^qh4tO5aJ h4tO6aJ hiY6aJ hhRi>*aJ h]?>*aJ h4tOaJh^qh%)35aJ h%)35aJh%)35>*aJh=% h=%aJh=%h%)35aJ h%)36aJ h-2>*aJhPZh%)3>*aJ h%)3aJ hPZaJ,7Packmnr}ܕݕ()*.;>HS[z (4>?Cdeh{żh0Nwh85aJ h86aJhh8>*aJhPZh85aJ h8aJh4tOh%)35aJ h%)35aJh%)35>*aJh%)3hiY5aJ h]?aJhiYhiY>*aJhiYhiY5aJ hiY6aJhhRihiY>*aJ hiYaJ0—̗͗Η {|ĘϘИј՘  ƿ힘}vovh}b[[ h]?>*aJ haJ hPZ5aJ hhRi5aJ h]?5aJhPZh85aJh8h85aJ h86aJ haJhh>*aJ hhRi>*aJh%)3h=%5aJ h=%aJ h=%6aJh=%h -5aJ h -aJh -h85aJ h -6aJ h8aJhh8>*aJhh8aJ#|јNӚW1emܠU & Fgd & Fgd'5 & Fgd & Fgd'5 & Fgdpn & Fgdpn & Fgd'5 & Fgd'5 U^jؙ#NPYZuҚӚƿƮХОДЊЄХОztmchpnhpn5aJ hpn5aJ hpnaJhpnh85aJ h -aJhPZh85aJh0Nwh85aJ h86aJhh8aJhh ->*aJ hhRi>*aJ h]?>*aJhh8>*aJ h8aJhh5aJ h6aJhh>*aJhhaJ haJ&ӚJUVWݛߛ).015Pdel2:ȝɝ5üöͭיג׈י׈י׈~wqqwqq h#zaJ h%)3>*aJh%)3h%)35aJhjTh%)35aJ h%)36aJhh%)3>*aJhh%)36aJhh%)3aJ h8aJ h#z5aJhh5aJhh%)35aJ h%)3aJ h%)35aJh%)35>*aJh01hpn5aJ hpn6hpn*34bdjlm!+۠ܠTU~ơ¸߮ߤߚ߮ߤߎߎ߄ߤߤztjߤ߄ߤhjTh5aJ haJhh85aJhjTh85aJ h0aJ haJhh5aJhh8>*aJh8h85aJhh86aJhh8aJhh85aJh#zh85aJ h8aJh8h%)35aJ h%)3aJh01h%)35aJ)L£bդX!`¦4^ & Fgd8 & Fgd$P & Fgd8 & Fgd%)3 & Fgd%)3 & Fgd%)3 & Fgd%)3 & Fgdlb  & Fgdlb  & Fgd'5 & Fgd'5JKLwѢۢ£ˣV`abiԤդߤƼƵիϡτzsi`VO h%)35aJh%)356>*aJh%)35>*aJh4tOh=%5aJ h=%>*aJh=%h=%5aJ h=%6aJ hA\aJh=%hlb 5aJ h"-aJhh=%>*aJhlb hlb 5aJ hlb 6aJhhlb 5aJhhlb aJ h=%aJ hlb aJhlb h%)35aJhh8>*aJ h8aJhjTh85aJ.NWXit !_`¦Ǧ$34:?]^`{{q{g{h01h85aJhpnhpn5aJ hpnaJh8h85aJh8h8>*aJh8h$P5aJ h$P6aJ h$PaJh$Ph85aJh8 h8aJ h86aJh8h%)35aJ hhRi6aJhh%)35aJ hhRiaJhVh%)3>*aJ h%)3aJ h%)36aJ({X%XYqxyܪݪop|íNO»~tndhh 5aJ h aJh hY5aJ h;NaJ hYaJ hY6aJhYh85aJ h5 aJh01h5aJ haJhh85aJ h8>*aJh01h85aJ h;X>*aJh8h85aJ h$PaJ h86aJhjTh85aJ h8aJ h;XaJ%^YyݪpOlܮ  gd*y & Fgd & Fgd0Nw & Fgd0Nw & Fgd0Nw & Fgd  & FgdY & Fgd & Fgd8 & Fgd8 & Fgd8 & Fgd8Odjlmۮܮ  &;E_ +,һұتءءءءҎ‡vo`Z h;%aJh;%5>*B*CJ aJ ph h;%5aJhdp'h:5aJ h:5aJ h*p5aJhW[h0NwaJhh5aJhhaJ h6aJhh0Nw5aJ h0Nw6aJh0Nwh0Nw5aJ hA\aJ h0NwaJ haJhA\h0Nw5aJhA\hA\5>*aJhA\h0Nw5>*aJ# ,-sDzSzg & Fgd70C & Fgd_4 & Fgd;% & Fgd;% & Fgd;%gd_4gd;%gd*y,->Fٱ۱svwʲ˲̲߲RS_abjijü񳫦óܜܼ񎉎~yq~qhnhY$5 h6-5hY$ hY$h70C h70C6h70Ch70Ch;%5>*h70Ch_45>* h_45h_4h_45h_4 h;%6 hY$h;% h;%h;%h;%h;%5hY$h;%5>* h;%5 h;%5>*h*y h;%>*h;%hXZh;%5aJ,Gyz~ٴ g!"#'2348IU\gַnҸӸ#ѿѲѮߢ뉄{ ho6ho h/>*h/ hY$6h/hY$5hY$hY$5 hY$h;% h6-6h6-h70Ch;%>* h;%6 h}6 h6-5hY$h;%5h;%hY$h;%5>* h;%5 h;%hY$hY$hnhY$5hnhn5/g#4nQ,ۻ"#]fʽ & Fgd24  & Fgd24  & Fgd24 gd24  & FgdY$ & FgdY$ & FgdY$ & FgdY$ & Fgd;% & Fgd;%#RTPQ+,7D`ahiq"#efjɽʽ&<ǸǬǬǥǔǏǬ|h24 h24 >*aJhW[h24 aJ h24 6h24 h24 5h=\ h=\5 h=\5>* h24 5 h24 5>*h24 5>*B*CJ aJ phh24 h6-ho h6->* hY$5aJ hY$hY$ hY$6aJ hY$aJhY$hv?hY$>*0<=nؾ+<?NOPſǿijnyJf\]~Ŀ忻h`-mh'$>* h'$>*h`-mh`-m5 h`-m5>*h'$h'$5 h'$6 h`-m5 h'$5>*h'$ h'$5 h24 5 h24 6 h=\h24 h=\h=\ h=\>*h=\h24 h24 h24 5 h24 aJhW[h24 aJ4Pj]WO!7 & FgdnI & FgdnI & FgdnI & Fgd/ & Fgd'$ & Fgd'$ & Fgd'$ & Fgd'$ & Fgd'$ & Fgd24  & Fgd24 ~7:OVWINOTX !%57; S\ɼɟɼɦ릃~ hf>*hfhnI5 hnI>*h`-mh`-m5>* h`-m5 hnI5>*hf hf5 hnI5hnIh'$5 hnI6hnIhnI5hnIh'$h/5h/ h/>*h/h'$5 h6-6h`-mh6-h'$h'$h'$517i4Eb=t & Fgd_4 & Fgd_4 ^ gd: & Fgd`-m & Fgd`-m & FgdnI & Fgd`-mY^mthikm34*0DEVabfz-3<ӻӷӧӯӧӧӟӻӯӧӯӧӯӧh`-mh:5h:h`-m5h`-mh`-m>*h`-mh`-m5hshsh`-m>*hsh`-m5h`-mhnI5h`-mhnIhnI5hnIhshnI5hnIhf5h/ hf6hf;<=rst #stu!#>?abʻʴʈwpk h 5 h 5>*h h >*h h 5h6h 5>*h 5>*B*CJ aJ ph h*y5>*hG?0heX6hT hG?0heXh 5>*B* CJ(aJ(ph h 5>*h24 h_45 h_46h_4h_4>*h_4h_45h_4 h_45h_4h`-m5* tu"#ab~- & FgdB & Fgd  & Fgd  & FgdMgd6 & FgdeXgd  & Fgd_4 & Fgd_4,-.DFJL{/3Q(l ]ĽĶh: h 5hhB>*hhM>* hhBhhB6 hh( hhB hh hh"h(h"hMhBh:h >*h h >* hB6heXhB>*hBh 4(; irF\ & FgdB & Fgd & Fgd: & Fgd & Fgd & FgdBgdB8^8gd: & Fgd  & Fgd  & Fgd  & FgdM]^bo \^ghirqrEF ]^[\ȻԮضԻԢԻԢԒ}hBhB5 hB>*hBhB>*hv-h5h}hv->*hv-hh:5h:h5 h6hh5 heX6heXhh>*h h5 hB5 h5>* hB5>*hBhnh h:1\gh)*BNOS]prs~*^CdĿĻĻ~w h 5>*hv-hB5 hB6hBhnhn5h}hn>*hv-hn>* hnhn hn6hv-hn5hn hn>*hnhn>*hBhB>*hv-hB>*hv-hv->*hv-hhhB5hBhB5hB.\hOs \ & FgdeX & FgdeXgd*ygd6gdeX & FgdB & Fgdn & Fgdn & FgdB & FgdB & FgdB `lw ;bxzƼzzvrnh hH]hT h'!5hGzheXheX5 heX6heX h 5 heX5 hT5 hT5>* hN5>*h*y h95>*h>h 5>*h h6h 5>*htZ5>*B*CJ aJ phheX5>*B*CJ aJ ph h:5>* heX5>*+*3ewW?ghx & Fgd|1 & Fgd|1 ^ gd: & Fgd- & FgdT & FgdT & FgdT & Fgdvj & FgdT & FgdF & FgdeX & FgdeXz!#()*23";Odeitw{˹謨|uquheO hkhk hT5 hT5>*h h >*h hvjhvj5hvjhvjheX5hTheXheX5 h 5heXhF5 hvj6 hF6hFhFheX5 hH]6hH]hTheX>* heX5heX hs6hs heX6,LNUVW^>?@fghqry}ĸЛwrrkkdd h|1h h|1h|1 h$>*h|1h|15 hK5h|1h|15>* h|1>*h|1h|1>*h|1heXh:5h:h-5h- h-6h-hT5hhH]hThT5hT hT6hThk5 hk6hkhFhk5>* hk>* hhk'eglnvwx}6D`gZ[ipܬ~vh|1h|1>*h'!h*_5 h*_6h*_h95h=h9h'!5h9h*_ h'!6h'!h5hheO5hheOh>heO>*hyhy5heOh|15h|1h'!hhT5 h6h hyhyhy.[Min!; & FgdN & FgdWY & FgdH & FgdH & FgdH & Fgd|1 & Fgd|1 & Fgd*_ & Fgd9 & Fgd|1 & FgdeOLMV X]_ghi+>򼸳h hIJ]>*hWYhIJ]hIJ]hH5h>hWY5>*h>hH5>* hH5hHhHh|15hyh|1>*hy h'!>*h'!h|1>* h|16h|1h|1>*h|1h|15h|1h|1h|15>*3*glmn !3:O^:;|}%&'欥楠z hF6h-hFhF5hFhNhN5 hN>*hN hN5 h>YhNhNhWY5 hWY6hWYhWY>*hWYh|l5h|lh>h|lh=5 h=6h=h=>*hWYh=h=hIJ]5hIJ] hIJ]6.;}'Uh cZ =OE & Fgd( & FgdT & Fgd' & Fgd' & Fgd' & FgdN & Fgdy & Fgdy & Fgdy & FgdF & FgdFefTUhltv{ FXA\bcŽx h>Y5>* hN5>*hhy5h'!hy5h9 h96h'!hy>*hvjhy5 hy6 hy>*hyhyhy5hyhF5hFhF5h ]hQ.hFhF>*hWYhFhF>* hF5hF hj`t6..YZ <=AMNOShiDEIJel⼷⭩z hT5hjfh(5h( h(6h(h'5 hjf6hhjf>*hnhjf hjf5 hT5 h'5hhcwh'5>* hG?0h' h'6h'h'5h'h'>*h' h>Y5hhcwh>Y56>*h>Y hN5.fgq~)*.Hc;=]a"ij!6MOS^u7;<Ϩϱϖϱϖϖ h(6 h(5h(h>*h h}>*h(h} h6h(h>* h5hNh(hjfh5hhjf5 hjf6hjfhhjf>*hh>*h;Eg*#U=R< & FgdT & FgdT & Fgd( & Fgd( & Fgd( & Fgd & Fgd & FgdN & Fgd & Fgd'<<F=sUY~~2 6 O             {         ѿѳѿѻѿѣښh| h0(6h0(h*h*>*h>h*hT>*h* h*6 hT6hThT>*hT hT5 hhcw5>*h}hn hhcw6hhcw h(5 h(6h(<U~2     {  a  L9( & Fgde & Fgdl & Fgdl & Fgdhcw & Fgd0( & FgdT & Fgd* & Fgd> & FgdT & Fgd*  @ Y ` a      Klr/7QYy9>'(-/')./0chitv׼ʧ h\B5hh\B5>*h\Bhl>*hlhl>* he6 h>h> hlhl hl6hH]heh> hH]hH] hl>*hlhhcw h0(6h0(h0(>*h0(:0iv%qGK/J & Fgd\B & Fgd\B & Fgd\B & Fgd\B & Fgd\B & Fgdl & Fgdlv#$%copq5EFG'=?IJK~#-./0BH廳껳 hFh\BhFh\B>* h\B>*h-h\B5hh\B5h*h\BDHIJ FVWXefz{|   :MNOx~ hB hJ$N5;>* hJ$NhNhJ$NhJ$N5>* hJ$N5>*hJ$NhJ$Nh\B5hFh\B5 h\B>*h1Wh\B5hvjh\B5hAXh\B5>*h*hbhJ.khJ$N5hbhJ$N5hbhb5hJ$NhJ$N5 h]5 hM5 hJ$N5>* h]5>* hJ$NhJ$NhJ$N hJ$N5hB hJ$N5hB hJ$N5>*.l  !K!j!L""|#[$$$Y% & Fgda[~ & Fgdb & Fgd!x & Fgd!x & FgdK & FgdW & Fgd!x & FgdK & FgdW & FgdJ$N & FgdJ$NjkltGl    ! s      ! ! !J!K!i!j!q!K"L"Q""ºªߢ뛓ہytہo h!x6 hb>*hKh!x5h!xhb5hWhW5>*hWhW6 hWhWhWhK>*hKhK5h!xh!x>*h!xh!x5h!xhKhJ$N5 hK6hbhK>*hbhKhJ$NhW5hW hW6hWhJ$N5hJ$N+""""""""#{#|###$Z$[$n$$$$$$$$$$%%%I%W%X%Y%a%%%&5&@&Q&R&&&&&'∀xh!xha[~5h~&ha[~5h~& ha[~>*hx@ha[~5 ha[~6ha[~hWha[~5 ha[~5hx@hb5>*hbhb5hb hb5hbhK5hh hWhKhK5h!xhWhK>*hK hK6hKh!x5-Y%R&&' (3((S))j*u***L++,_--.E.. & Fgd9k & Fgd9k & Fgdx@ & Fgd& & Fgda[~ & Fgd!x & Fgd!x & Fgda[~ & Fgda[~'' ( (2(3(C(K(P(X((((((())K)Q)R)S)Y))))))i*j*s*t*u*****K+L+a+b++++++,,L,,--^-_-`-ٺвhwh!xh&5 h&6hG9Ih&>* h&h&h&h&hb5hz}hb>* hb>*hz} hb6hb hz}5hbhb5 ha[~5hx@h!x5h!xh!x5h!x h!x66`-a-b-d-k-m-v-z-------.....?.@.D.E.J......../ //////%0+0F0G0L01111|w h9k>*h9khx@5hx@hx@5 hx@6hG9IhG9I5>* hR~6hR~ hG9I>*hG9IhG9I>*hG9Ihx@5hx@hx@>*hx@ h9khx@h9khz}h9k5>*h9kh9k5 h9kh9k h9k5 h9k5>* h~&5 hx@5../G01111222G333J44S5@66677 & FgdMgdB  & Fgd!x & Fgd!x & Fgd!x & FgdB  & FgdB  & Fgd(T & Fgd9k & Fgd9k & FgdG9I111111111021252=2Y2y2222222222 3B3F3G3T3z3333333I4J444R5S555?6@666666νΰάΰάΰΤ΀h]hB 5;>*hB h!x5 h!x6h!xh!x5h!xhwhB 5hz}hB hB 5 hml6hmlhB hB >* hB >*hB hB h(T5 h|t5 hB 5>*h(Th9k5 h9k6h9kh9kh9k526687Y7Z7z7777777777777 8884858>8@88888888:9=9`9999999999999:;˼˸ﰬˤ契 hM6 hM>* hs >* h<6 hz}6hz}hV.hM>*hMhM>*hs hh hs >*h< hz}5hMhM5>*hMhM5 h]5 hM5 hM5>* h]5>*hB hM hMhM hB 507588899::;J<<<g===>w>x>>>>?? & FgdtZgd*ygdtZ & FgdM & Fgd< & FgdM & FgdM;P;d;;;;8<:<G<H<J<<<g==== >>v>w>x>>>>>>>>???????@@ĵ~ule_ hL3aJ hp5aJhtZhtZaJhm5>*aJ htZaJ htZ5aJ h*y5aJhtZ5>*aJhe5>*aJh>htZ5>* htZ5>*htZ5>*B*CJ aJ ph h*y5>*hTAhz} hMhMh<hh hM6 hz}6hMhM>*hMh$hGV%@ @@@@b@@@@AAAAABB@BBSCTCUC~C1D9D;DADDDDD;ETEEEEEEEE÷̫å̘}t}n} hbaJhb5>*aJ hb5aJ hx5aJ htZ6aJ htZaJ htZ5aJ hxaJ hpaJhxhp5>*aJhphp5>*aJhp5>*aJ hp5aJhh-aJ h-aJ h-6aJh-htZaJ hL3aJ hL36aJ&?@AAcBBSCCDDTEEHFFFF5G & F pgdx & Fgdm & Fgdm & Fgdx & Fgdx & Fgdx & FgdtZ & Fgdp & Fgdp & Fgd- & Fgd- & FgdtZE,FGFHFFFFFFFFFG3G4G5G8GGGGGH$HCHLHHHIII*IQIRISI^IdIoI(JfJjJ{JJ޾޷޷ޱޕގzpz޷޷ޱj hSaJhShS>*aJhShm>*aJhSh->*aJ h->*aJhtZhmaJhxhxaJhxhx>*aJ hxaJ hm6aJ hm>*aJhmhmaJ hm5aJhm5>*aJ hmaJhmhtZaJ htZ5aJhmhtZ5>*aJ)5GGCHH IdI(JfJJqKrKKLSLL>MM#NO@O & Fgd & Fgd_ & Fgd & Fgde & Fgdegde & Fgdm & Fgdm & Fgdm & F gdxJJJJJJJqKrKwKKKKKKLLJLLLPLRLSLWL}LLLLLLLLLL3M*aJhh5>*aJhhe5aJheheaJ h6h h$MaJ he5aJ heaJhe5>*aJhlf5>*aJhm5>*aJ hm6aJ hmaJ hx>*aJhmhm>*aJ#=M>MaMyM{MMMMMMMMMMMM N!N#N,NOO>O?O@ODOXOOOOOOOPP#PMPNPOPdP佱~xqhhW5>*aJ hN0~5aJ hN0~aJh$Mh5aJh:h5aJ h$MaJh$Mhe5aJ heaJheheaJh$Mhe5>*aJ he5aJ h:aJhh_aJhh_>*aJ h_6aJ h_aJ haJ h>*aJh_h_aJ'@OOPPXQeQRLSTUVVWsWXXyYYZ & Fgd & FgdW & FgdW & Fgd & Fgdb & Fgd: & Fgd & Fgd$M & Fgd$M & Fgd$M & FgdedPiPrP{P|PPPPPQQQRRRRRR$R>RXRRRRRRS:S;SJSKSSSTTTUUUUUVIVQVoVpVqVһһ޻ҫҫҫҫҞһҗހvހhh>*aJ h:aJh$Mh5aJ h5aJ h$M5aJ hL3aJ h_6aJhh$MaJ h6aJ h_aJh:h$M>*aJ h$M>*aJ h$MaJ heaJ haJ hN0~5aJhW5>*aJhWhN0~5>*aJ.qVVVVW=W\WsWuWvWWXXXXTY`YaYsYwYyY}YYZZZZ*aJhxhx>*aJ hxaJhhaJhh>*aJ h>*aJ haJ h6hh5>*aJ hW6aJ hWaJhWhW5>*aJ hW5aJ h6aJhsh>*aJ hb>*aJ hbaJ h:aJ haJ(Z{Z@[[[\_\\b]c]p]]] ^|^^ ____v` & Fgd] & Fgd] & Fgd[ & Fgd#Ggd#Ggde & Fgdx & F 8gdx & Fgd & Fgd[[[\\\c\\\\\\\\-]a]b]c]o]p]w]]]]]^ ^ ^ ^^^F^X^s^u^z^÷~wnwgwaZ h]6aJ h]aJ h:5aJh]h]aJ h]5aJh]h]5>*aJ hN5aJh[haJ h5aJh5>*aJ h#GaJ h#G5aJh#Gh#G5>*aJh#G5>*aJ heaJhxhxaJ hx6aJ hxaJhh>*aJ haJ h6aJ#z^^^^^^^^_____ _S_]________________v`x```` a.aXaaacaaaaabbdbkblb컠컠ƒ | h8^6aJ h8^aJh:h8^>*aJ hWaJ h[6aJ h[aJh]h]aJh]h]5>*aJ h[5aJ h:aJhNhNaJ hN6aJ hNaJ h:5aJ hN5aJ h]5aJ h]>*aJ h]aJ0v``Xaaambbacc1e?e fffffgehijjgd*y & FgdG & Fgd8^ & Fgd8^ & Fgd8^ & Fgd] & Fgd: & Fgd: & Fgd] & Fgd]lbmbnbobbbbbbbbAcaccccccc|dddd0e1e>eCeeff f ff&fffffggehhhiijj.j/jBjjľĵľľľľ h#G5aJ h#GaJh#G5>*aJhh#G5aJ hcq#6aJ hGaJ h8^>*aJhh8^aJ h8^aJ h8^6aJ h:aJ h\_]5aJ h\_]aJ h[6aJ h8^5aJ h]5aJ h[5aJ h[aJ2j/jj kkEktl|llllmnnnnnnoo'o $Ifgd#G & Fgd#G & Fgd#G & Fgd#G & Fgd#G & Fgd#Ggd#Gjjjj kkkkkCkEkJktlylzlllllllmHmmmnnnnnnnnnnnooo&o'o(o¸򬝎}xpxpxp}h,h,5 h,5h,h#Gh#GhkaaJh55>*B* CJ(aJ(phhka5>*B* CJ(aJ(ph hkaaJ hcq#aJhh#G>*aJhh>*aJ haJ h#G>*aJ h#G5aJh#G5>*aJhh#GaJ h#GaJ h#G6aJ*'o(oEoRoYosoaXXXX $Ifgd#Gkd*$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 la(oYorosotoooooooooopp%p&pWpXp|p}pppppppqq1q>q@qAqKqMqqqqArȿ}s}m h.jaJhtht>*aJ htaJ ht5aJhy5>*aJh=h=aJ h=>*aJ h=aJ h=5aJh=5>*aJ h*yaJhzahkaaJhka5>*B*CJ aJ phh>h*y5>*h2.CJaJh,h,CJaJh,h,CJaJ'sotoooooaXXXX $Ifgd#Gkd*$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 laoopp"p%paXXXX $Ifgd#GkdK+$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 la%p&pMpPpTpWpaXXXX $Ifgd#Gkd+$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 laWpXpqptpxp|paXXXX $Ifgd#Gkd,$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 la|p}pppppaXXXX $Ifgd#Gkd_,$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 lappppp@qAqqa_ZZULD & Fgdth^hgd=gd=gd*ykd,$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 laqBr%ssatotmuvvZwcwwNxqxrxx@yyy9zz & FgdN  & FgdN gdN  & FgdF & Fgdt & Fgd_X & FgdR & FgdR & Fgd & FgdyArBrNrr%s)s+ssssssssssDt`tatntsttu[ukumuvvvIwXwZwbwcwwwwüëáxrke hFaJ hF6aJ htaJ hy5aJ hR6aJ h,aJ hRaJ h_XaJhhaJhh>*aJhh5aJ h_X6aJ h6aJ haJ hy>*aJ h_X5aJh_X5>*aJ hyaJhyhy>*aJ h.j>*aJh.jh.jaJ$w/xNxqxxxxyy yy(y*y>yyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzzzz{{!{+{9{;{M{N{O{{{ƿ~uuhyhyaJ hy6aJhyhy5>*aJhyhy5aJh]8h]85aJh]8hy5aJhy5>*aJ hy5aJ h5aJhthaJh5>*aJ h,2aJ hN 6aJ hN aJ hyaJ hFaJhzahFaJ+zzzzO{{{{|||}} ~~À & FgdV' & Fgdq  & FgdV' & FgdV' & FgdV' & Fgdygdgd,2 & FgdN {{{{{{|||||*|+|,|.|`|h|w|||||||||||| }}*}E}}}}}}}}ƿ첨옎Ƙztmtg hwaJ hm76aJ hwaJ hw>*aJ hv^vaJ hV'6aJhV'hV'>*aJ hV'aJhV'h%~>*aJhXqUhHL>*aJ hHLaJ h%~6aJ hHL>*aJ h,aJ h%~5aJhV'5>*aJh%~h%~aJ h%~>*aJ h%~aJ hyaJ hy>*aJ'}}~ ~IP t 4=Zlsz*PƂǂ»tnehv^vhXqUaJ hXqUaJhXqUhV'5>*aJhV'hV';aJ hV'6aJhXqUhV'>*aJhh%~>*aJ hV'aJhhy>*aJ hyaJ hy5aJhwhy5>*aJhzahq aJ hq aJ hwaJh%~h%~6aJ h%~6aJ h%~aJ haJ&nǂ?-hVs*1  ^ gd: & FgdV' & Fgdv^v & Fgdv^v & FgdXqU & FgdV' & FgdV',NTn*/1HMƇ79Vz෭ЕЎЈЕЎЕ|Ў| hq aJ h,aJ h:aJ hV'6aJhhV'>*aJ hv^v>*aJ h%~6aJhh%~>*aJ h%~aJ h'aJ hvmaJ hy6aJ hV'aJhhy>*aJ hyaJ hwaJ h,6aJ hv^v6aJ hv^vaJ0 ΈX DɊ6aًTMu & Fgd+a & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & Fgdm7 & Fgdmk & Fgdmk & Fgd & Fgdv^v & Fgdv^v   5>CDȊɊ͊ΊԊي56:п{rmi`[ hD6h=hm7aJhm7 hm76hm7haJhm7h5hmkhuaJ hu6huhuhmkaJhmkhm7hmk5 hmk5>*hmkhmkaJ hmk5hh5>* h5>* h5hh> h5aJh5>*aJ h5aJ h5aJ hv^vaJ":`agq؋ًKRSTh!;=KLMbtuǿǺ״njǿLJǺ~zulhhwaJ hw>*hwhwhaJ h>*hm7hwhs'Ch+aaJ h+aaJ hs'C6aJhwhs'C>*aJ hs'CaJ h6hh>*h h5 h5>*hhaJ h>*aJ haJ hmkaJhh=aJh=&u,1Ï*DHOے imnoruȕϕѕҕ֕&-./=úꩠÙÐ݃݊݊}} hs'CaJ hD6aJ h,aJhh'aJ h'6aJh'haJhh>*aJ h6aJhzahv^vaJ h'aJ hv^v6aJ hv^vaJ hs6aJ hsaJ h>*aJ haJ h5aJh5>*aJ03ŏ*D\orѕ/˖= & Fgd' & Fgd' & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & Fgdv^v & Fgdv^v & Fgds & Fgds=A]ėӗ՗ۗ +6Uۙ!+OWfik{њҚӚ »}wqwjwjw hD6aJ hN aJ hDaJhDh]8aJ h]85aJh> 5>*aJ h> 5aJ h5aJh |h |6aJ h |6aJ h |aJ hw5aJhwhw5aJ hw6aJ h'6aJh&?hw>*aJhwhw>*aJhwhw5>*aJ hwaJ)=ݗ1ۙfҚll̝=i/ & Fgd]8 & Fgd]8 & Fgdnr & Fgdnr & Fgd]8 & Fgd]8 & FgdD & Fgd>  & Fgdw & Fgdw & Fgdw"'.klpr}ɛϛכC|?JjlúϳϳϪ}sjjsjd h+aaJh'h'aJh'h'>*aJ h'6aJh'h]8>*aJhzah]8aJ h'aJ h]8aJ h]86aJh]8h> aJ h+a5aJh+a5>*aJh]8h]85>*aJh]8h]85aJ h]85aJh]85>*aJh]8hDaJ hDaJ hD6aJ&̝=AHUfܟx¡GɣۣܣGHMOfjȤĽĶį׎}v} hw>*aJh'h>*aJ h6aJ haJhhaJ h5hh5>*aJ h5aJ hM1>*aJ hM16aJ hM1aJ hmaJ h]86aJ h'aJ hnr6aJ hnraJ h]8>*aJ h]8aJh]8h]8aJ-/x¡GHڤȥ+;Ŧgy֧D & Fgd= & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd' & Fgd & Fgd & FgdM1 & FgdM1 & Fgd]8 & Fgd]8ȤΤФؤڤsǥȥ)*+Pæզ gyz̧ԧ֧NY8򧠧򧓍}vp h3 aJ h3 >*aJh,2h1aJ h16aJ h1aJ h1>*aJ hM1aJ h=6aJ h=aJhh>*aJhhaJ h5aJh5>*aJhhwaJ hwaJ h}xaJ h'aJ h6aJ haJ h'>*aJ)DN\8$ʭ Qgd1 & Fgd'8^8gd: & Fgd3  & Fgd1 & Fgd1 & Fgd1 & Fgd="$r ;N}ܲ޲_`hճֳƺ}thihiaJhih:aJ hiaJ h<aJ hi5aJhi5>*aJhzahxaJhx5>*B*CJ aJ ph h*yaJ h3 aJ h/aJ h15aJ h3FaJ h'6aJ h'aJ h16aJ h1aJ h1>*aJ h:aJ*߰_`ճֳQ & Fgdi & Fgdih^hgd: & Fgdigdigdxgd*y & Fgd/ & Fgd/ & Fgd1 & Fgd1 & Fgd1k~#_cu~ĵ˶ѶҶӶNļ۲۬ۊۊvۊofohG5>*aJ hG6aJh&?hG6aJh&?hG>*aJh&?hGaJ hGaJhGhG5>*aJ hG5aJ hiaJh&?hi6aJh&?hi6 h&?hi h.jaJh&?hi>*aJh&?hiaJhihiaJ hi5aJhGhi5>*aJ(_MӶķ!d(عRκV & FgdG & FgdM1 & FgdG & FgdG & FgdG & FgdG·ķ[b˸' KP'1UV,-39FKM]uȾvlh2.h2.5aJh2.h2.5>*aJ h2.5aJ h2.6aJh1h2.6aJ h2.aJh&`shzm>*aJ hzmaJ hzm5aJ hM1>*aJhM1hM1>*aJhM1hM1aJ hM1aJhGhGaJh2.hG5>*aJ hG5aJ hG6aJ hGaJ*V-:R;YuM¾$ҿT & Fgd&?gdx & Fgd.j & Fgd2. & Fgd2. & Fgd2. & Fgd2. & Fgd2. & Fgdzm & Fgdzm¾׾$&TƿпҿU`aewx|Ÿſxoxixb h&?>*aJ hD)aJh&?h&?aJ h&?5aJh&?h&?5>*aJh&?5>*aJ h&?aJhx5>*B*CJ aJ phh&?5>*B*CJ aJ ph h.j6aJ h1aJ h.jaJ hzm6aJh1hzm>*aJ h2.aJ hzmaJ hzm>*aJh2.h2.aJ h2.5aJ&TUaxWcnQ^s|W & FgdD) & FgdD) & FgdD) & FgdD) & FgdQb7 & FgdQb7 & Fgd&? & Fgd&? & Fgd&? & Fgd&?h^hgd&?3KP[aceg{glm ,;GIOIUH¸±±¥ h(jZ>*h]wh(jZ hD)6aJ hD)>*aJhD)hD)>*aJ hD)aJ hiaJ hQb76aJhD)hQb7>*aJ hQb7aJh5>h&?>*aJ h&?6aJhD)h&?>*aJ h&?aJ h&?>*aJ h(jZ5aJh(jZ5>*aJ1I!@M? *}IgdD)gd&? & FgdQb7 & Fgd.j & Fgd> & Fgd> & Fgd5> & FgdQb7 & Fgd(jZ & Fgd5> & Fgd(jZ & Fgdkn= & Fgd(jZ & Fgd(jZHI !%'>CDR;<FJLMOQz >?OswſŢ{qhh5>hQb7aJhQb7hQb7>*aJ hQb76aJh5>h5>aJ h5>>*aJh5>h5>>*aJ hQb7aJ h5>aJ hH aJhgr6hgr6>*aJ hgr6>*aJ hgr6aJ h(jZaJ h(jZ>*aJ h(jZ5aJh(jZ5>*aJh]whkn=aJ hkn=aJ h]waJh(jZh(jZaJ( .w{|}I7HJOUZxxs h85 h85>*h}x h86h8 hx6 hi>* hx>*hx hx5 hxhx hx5>*hx5>*B*CJ aJ phhzah&?aJh&?5>*aJ h.j6aJ h.jaJ hQb76aJ h>aJ hQb7aJ h5>6aJ h5>aJ-R [@$a$gdZ' & Fgd8 & Fgd8gd8 & Fgdx & Fgdx & Fgdxgdx +-8=˽ˮ}vpi_VGh 5>*B* CJ(aJ(phhBhBaJh'{XhB>*aJ hB>*aJ h{haJ hB5aJhB5>*aJ hBaJ h aJ h6\caJ h aJ h65aJh65>*aJhu5>*B* CJ(aJ(phhQw5B*CJ0aJ0phhu5B*CJ0aJ0phhZ'5B*CJ0aJ0phhzahxaJ h8h8 h86h8c*8nG & F9gdb & F9gdb & F9gdb & F9gdgd & F"gdgd6gdu$a$gdZ'c)*3678<mn8 MSǟ||wpkdk hb6>* hb>* hbhb hb5h R hb6 hbhhbhb5hb hh h5hh5>*aJh5>*aJ h6aJ haJ h5>* h5>*h*y5>*CJ #huhu5>*B*CJ aJ phhu5>*B*CJ aJ ph'(9g&jza) & F9gd&@ & F9gd&@ & F9gd0 & F9gd0 & F9gd0 & F9gdb & F9gdb & F9gdb & F9gdb06lt,49Agk&+Feijpxyz`a'(¹٠h+Th&@>*OJQJhMh&@5>*OJQJhMh&@5>*haoh0aJ h&@aJhaoh&@aJ h0>* hJh>*h0h0>* h06hJh h0hbhhb5>* hb>*h0 hb6hb1()?@FQRVde{ h=j>*h=jh&@>* h&@6 h&@5>* hVq6hVqhVq>*hVq h&@5h&@h0>*h0h0>* h06h0 h&@6aJ h&@aJhaoh&@aJh&@h&@h&@>*:ReI|L & F9gdjn & F9gdjn & F9gdjn & F9gd=j & F9gd&@ & F9gd&@ & F9gdVq & F9gd&@ & F9gd&@HI{|3AKL\fTUYrt24:;,ײhh>*aJ haJ hh]aJ hh]5aJ h5>* h5h:hhhjn>* hjn6>* hjn>* hjn6hjnhjn>*hj*whjnhjnh&@>* h&@5h&@h&@>*h&@h&@h=j>*h=j1U4;;W}7 & F9gdh] & F9gdh] & F9gdh] & F9gdgd & F9gdjn & F9gdjn,:;@AMXY~8;ef%l !+媦 hjn6hHh#o hjn5>* h5>*hjnhhh]aJhhaJhh]OJQJhh>*aJ hh]6aJhh]5>*aJ hh]>*aJ hh]aJ hh]5aJ haJ h>*aJ57f%l@!@  gd & F9gd & F9gdH & F9gdjn & F9gdjngdjn & F9gdh] & F9gd & F9gdh] NPT@AF"%'()¾h_hh5hhj*w5hj*whj*wh85 hVqh h6h8h85 hVq6hVqh8h>*hh5h8h;h5>* h5 h5>*h:hh6hjnh4PA)5u6_ & F9gd^FI & F9gd^FI & F9gd^FI & F9gd^FI & F9gd_h & F9gdj*w & F9gd8 & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd & F9gdgd45tuy56^_uvjkoYrstXY[\cd%&^_øҳҮҦҞxxh#oh#o5h;h#o h#o6 h6h#oh5hhh5hh5 h6 h>*h;h56>*h;h5>* h5hhj*wh^FI5 h^FI>*h^FIh^FI5h^FI h^FI6h^FIh_h5h_h/_vktY&_o#5=> & F9gdz0 & F9gdz0 & F9gdz0 & F9gdz0 & F9gd#o & F9gd#o & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd^FI_gUnot~!"#459<=>VW^_ǿ̨̨̨̰̣̞Ḳ̖̌{ndh!F+h~J;aJh!F+h~J5;>*aJ huaJhu5>*B*CJ aJ ph h*yaJhhz05 hz05 hz06hz0hz05hz0h5 hz0hz0hz0hz0>* hz0>*hz0 h>*hhhUE5hz4hUE hUE6hUEh#o5h#o h#o6&>VW_w g E#Y & F9gdUE & F9gdUE & F9gdq & F9gdq & F9gdJh & F9gd{W & F9gd~Jgdu_evw}!gE!"#EMYZ#$%abBGſſ}wۯp hM>*aJ huaJ h:aJ hl5aJ hUE6aJhUEhl>*aJ hUE>*aJ hl6aJ hUEaJ hlaJh{Whl5aJ h zaJ hqaJhqhqaJ hq5aJ hJhaJh{Wh~J5aJ h~JaJ h~J>*aJ h~J5aJ,%bBho J[J & F9gdM & F9gdM & F9gdl & F9gd: & F9gdl & F9gdlG #2hnow1[eow  I[\1 2     ۶ۤۤەەۏۏvh!F+h*y;>*aJh!F+h*y5;>*aJ h{WaJ hUEaJhlh^FIaJ h^FIaJhUEhl5>*aJhlhl>*aJ hl6aJ hJhaJ hl>*aJ h;6aJ hlaJ hl5aJ h{W5aJhM hM6aJ hMaJ,J2        8   h  4|0 & F9gdH & F9gdFF & F9gd?% & F9gd  & F9gd?% & F9gd?% & F9gd{W & F9gd{W ^ gd{W & F9gd{W & F9gdl             5 s {        7 8       g h   349Խԭ|vlbvhFFh{W5aJh{WhFF5aJ hFFaJhFFh 5aJh7uh7u5aJ h7uaJ h7u5aJh h{W5aJ h)aJ h?%aJh h >*aJ h aJh{Wh{W5aJ h{W6aJ h{WaJ h{W>*aJ hz4aJh?%h?%5aJ h?%5aJ hz45aJ%9>{|/0UVIJfgkvȪ}}sle h?%5aJ hz45aJh?%h :5aJ h;aJ h :6aJh{Wh :5aJ h :aJh :h{W5aJ h)aJh{Wh{W5aJ h{W6aJ h{WaJ h{W>*aJ hz4aJh{WhH5aJhHhH5aJ hHaJhHhFF5aJ hFFaJ hFF6aJ$0VJgved & F9gdq & F9gdq & F9gdt & F9gdt & F9gd?% & F9gd : & F9gd?% & F9gd : & F9gd?% & F9gd?% & F9gdHv|  07_`delcd ᳽͈́z͈pi h >*aJhthq5aJ hq6aJ hq>*aJhqhq5aJhqhH5aJhHhH5aJ h;aJ hH6aJhHht5aJ hHaJhtht5aJ hqaJ ht6aJ ht>*aJ htaJ ht5aJhV5>*aJhz45>*aJ)XY]noptuv~뛕}w h :aJhQHhQH5aJ hQH6aJ hQH>*aJ hQHaJhQHht5aJ h|aJ ht5aJhtht5aJ hV6aJ hV>*aJhthq5aJ hqaJhqht5aJ ht6aJ htaJ h >*aJ ht>*aJ.Ypi[vzC & F9gd?% & F9gd  & F9gd  & F9gdV & F9gdV & F9gdQH & F9gdQH & F9gdt & F9gdt & F9gdq  +himZ[_uvNSgitxyzVWڹڹڹ􍹃zhz45>*aJhth 5aJh hQH5aJ hQH6aJhQHh 5aJh h 5aJ h 6aJ h aJh hV5aJhVhV5aJ hV6aJ h :aJhVhQH5aJhVhQH>*aJ hQHaJ hVaJ,BCGc໵¬~tmf hq6aJ hq>*aJhqht5aJ ht6aJhth?%5aJhtht6aJhthtaJhth?%6aJhth?%aJ hqaJ h?%6aJ htaJh?%h?%5aJ h?%>*aJ ht>*aJ h?%aJhtht5aJ ht5aJhV5>*aJ(C;  !!@!!!!!!"""""")"""""""t#u#w#x#߭uhz4h:5aJ h:aJh:hEm5aJ hEm6aJhEmhEm5aJ hEm>*aJ hEmaJhEmht5aJhQHhQH5aJ hQHaJhtht5aJ ht6aJ ht>*aJ htaJhq hq6aJhthq5aJ hqaJ,x#########D$c$d$e$j$$$Q%R%f%g%%%%%%%%%&&D&E&&&&&&&&''5'6'L'l'm't'v''''''ۺČۖ h{W6aJh{Wh{W5aJ h{WaJ h{W5aJ h?%aJh?%h?%5aJ h?%5aJhEmh 5aJ hcaJ h 6aJh hz45aJ h aJhz4hz45aJ hz46aJ hz4aJ hz45aJ4e$R%g%%%%%&E&&&&'6'm'''((()C)#* & F9gd{W & F9gd{W & F9gd{W & F9gd?% & F9gd?% & F9gd?% & F9gdz4'''(((((())B)C)"*#*****+++++++++++++++,,,K,ѽѽѽѶ|rke hfpaJ hfp6aJhfph>*aJ h zaJ haJ h>*aJhh>*aJ h5aJh!F+h*y5;>*aJhxh*yaJ hEm5aJhEmhEm5aJhEmh?%5aJ hEmaJh?%h?%5aJ h?%6aJ h?%aJ h?%5aJh?%h{W5aJ%#***+++++++,L,,,-8-^-.K.... / & F9gdfp & F9gd & F9gdfp & F9gdfp & F9gd & F9gd & F9gdEm & F9gdEmK,L,,,,,,,--7-8-<-]-^-f-....J.K....... / //h/p/q/r//06070;000000000111&1'11111ҷҷҷȰؠؖؖ hHaJhfph z>*aJ h{haJh zhfp>*aJ hfp5aJhh>*aJ h6aJhfph>*aJ haJ h zaJ hfp6aJhfphfp>*aJ hfpaJhhfp>*aJ8 /r/7001'111&2'22223W3334444{4^gd: & F9gd z & F9gdfpgdfp & F9gdfp & F9gdfp & F9gd z & F9gdfp122%2&2'2e2222222233(3K3U3V3W3j333334444"4l4n4y4{4444 5!5555555Ȼ{tttȻ h}5aJh}hj*waJ hj*waJ h z6aJh}h:aJ h:>*aJh:h zaJ h z>*aJh zh z5aJ h zaJ h}6aJ h}aJ hfp>*aJ hfp5aJh!F+hfp5;>*aJhfphfp>*aJ hfp6aJ hfpaJ-{44 5<555;6Y6%7h77"888x99E::^;{;< & F9gdcv & F9gd  & F9gd  & F9gd  & F9gd} & F9gdH & F9gdj*w & F9gd} & F9gd} & F9gdj*w55 66;6Y6h7l7}78 8"88889$9n9p9v9x9:::^;b;y;;;;l<<<<<=R>j>k>> ?????Ｖ⪣❖} h>*aJhfphcvaJhxhcvaJ hcv5aJ hOHaJ hcv6aJ hcvaJ hj/aJ h aJ h aJhj*whj*w>*aJhj*wh}>*aJ h zaJ hHaJ hj*waJ h}6aJ h}aJhj/h}>*aJ,<=R>??$?d??)@v@A%AyAAA@BB"CCC3DDE & F9gdMh & F9gdj*w & F9gdcv & F9gd  & F9gdcv & F9gdcv & F9gdj*w?#?$?)?*?F?Z?b?c?d?r???????????(@)@3@L@n@t@u@v@@@AA$A%A>AxAyAAAAAAAAҺٰ߉٪x hj*w>*aJhj*whcv>*aJ hj*waJhcvh >*aJ h >*aJh h >*aJ h aJh hcv>*aJ h_h>*aJhcvhcv>*aJ hcv6aJ hcv>*aJ hcvaJ hcv5aJh!F+hcv5;aJh!F+hcv5;>*aJ,AA4B6B>B?B@BBB!C"CCCCCCCCCCCC&D1D2D3D7D[DcDDDDbEjEEEEEE[FdFeFfFFFFFѺѰ˩˟˩˕zhcvh_h>*aJ h_h6aJh_hh_h>*aJh_hhMh>*aJhMhhMh>*aJ hMh6aJhMhhcv>*aJhcvhcv>*aJ hcv6aJ hMhaJ hcvaJ hj/aJhj*whj*w>*aJ hj*w6aJ hj*waJ h_haJ h aJ.EEfFFFFF$GUGGGGHHHxIINJbJJJK & F9gd/ & F9gd2G^gd: & F9gd2G & F9gd2G & F9gd2G & F9gd_h & F9gdMhFFFFFFFFGG#G$G(GSGTGUGlGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHNHOHHHHHHHHHHHHlIvIwIxIѶѯѥѕѯяѯѯh/h2G5aJ h_haJ h aJh2Gh2GaJ h:5aJh:h2G5aJ h2G6aJhj/h2G>*aJh2Gh2G5aJ h2G>*aJ h2GaJ h2G5aJh!F+h*y;>*aJh!F+h*y5;>*aJhxh*yaJ0xIIIMJNJaJbJJJJJJJKKCKDKmKwKxKyKKKKKKKKKALSLTLULLLLLLLLLLMMмڨڞ}v} h{t6aJ h{taJh{th/5aJh/h/5aJ h/6aJh/h2G5aJh h2G5aJh h 5aJ h aJ h2G5aJ h2G6aJh2Gh2G5aJ h2GaJh2Ghyr5aJ hyraJhyrh/5aJ h/aJ+KDKyKKKKULLLMM+MM0NZNNNQOOOO(P)P^gd: & F9gd/ & F9gd{t & F9gd{t & F9gd{t & F9gd/ & F9gd2G & F9gd2GMMM*M+MMMMMMMNN!N/N0N6NYNZN_NaNNNNNNNNNJOOOPOQOOOOOOOOOOOO'P(P)PUPVP輶蕋{h h 5aJ h aJh h:5aJh:h{t5aJ h_haJh{th/5aJ h/>*aJ h/aJh/h{t5aJ h{t6aJh/h/>*aJh/h{t>*aJ h/6aJ h{taJ h{t5aJh{th{t5aJ0)PVPPP*Q+Q>QjQQjRRS>TT/U8U~UU$VV9W & F9gd R & F9gd R & F9gd^D & F9gd & F9gdun & F9gdun & F9gdungd{t & F9gd  & F9gd VPPPPP)Q*Q+Q>QCQIQOQRQiQR0R4RHRLRfRjR|SSS_TcTtTTTT/U7U8UBUiU|U}U~UUUUUUVƿƸƿƿƿƲƿơ̘̒Ɓ{{u h RaJ haJ h6aJh#oh^D>*aJ h^DaJhunhunaJhunhun>*aJ h6aJ haJ hun>*aJ hun6aJ hunaJ hun5aJh!F+h{t5;>*aJ h{taJh{th 5aJh h 5aJ h aJ+V#V*V2V4V7V[VVVV9W]WfWrWyW|WWWWWZXdXXXXXXXXX$Y%Y'Y0YFYHYLYNYRYqYYYYYYY=ZWZoZuZ;[D[蹩h5>*aJ h#oaJ h#o6aJ hH>*aJhh>*aJhxhaJ h6aJ haJ h>*aJh#oh^D>*aJ h^D5aJ h^D6aJh Rh^D>*aJ hHaJ h^DaJ h RaJ h=jaJ39W]WWWZXXX(YLYY=ZWZoZZ;[\d]] ^^^^ & F9gd & F9gd & F9gdgd & F9gd#o & F9gd & F9gd^D & F9gd=j & F9gd^DD[\\]]^^.^3^{^^^^^^_(_)_*_~__```-`.`4`^`_```bbb`cgccc!d)d*d+d,ddddeeeJeMeoeeeƿƶƿƿƿƙƓƓƿ hJhaJ hh)aJ hM)D5aJ h:aJ h:6aJh:hM)DaJhM)DhM)DaJ hM)D6aJ hM)DaJh5>*B*CJ aJ ph hj/aJ hOHaJ hz4aJ h6aJ hUEaJ haJ5^__``-`.`B`_```Faaakbbb cKc`ccc*d & F9gdM)D & F9gdM)D & F9gdM)D & F9gdM)Dgd & F9gd & F9gd*d+d,ddeffSgg;hwhh$iwiiijojjjj]k & F9gdh) & F9gdh) & F9gdh) & F9gd=j & F9gdM & F9gdM)D & F9gdM)D8^8gd:eeeffffffffRgSgggg:h;hvhwhhh#i$iviwiiiiiiiiijjnjojjjjjjj5k?kAkGk\k]k^k﹯ hh)5aJhh) hh)6aJhh)hh)5aJ hh)aJhh)hM)D5aJhM)DhM)D5aJ hM)DaJhM)Dh=j5aJh=jhM5aJ hMaJh=jh=j5aJ hc!*aJ h-aJ h=jaJhMhM)D5aJ2]k^krksklLlMllllllllllmm nnn*aJ hUeaJhUe5>*aJhUe5>*B*CJ aJ phh:5>*B*CJ aJ phh{hh{haJ h{h>*aJ h{h5aJh{h5>*aJ h{haJh82>hh)aJ h aJ hh)aJ h6\caJ h aJ h6aJ h65aJh65>*aJhh)5>*B* CJ(aJ(phmmmmm mAmFmJmMmVmimkmymmmmmmmmmmm nnnnnn*o1o:o;o*aJhnhnaJhc!*hUe5>*aJ h?aJ h/5aJ hUe5aJ h^}aJ hUe>*aJhUehUe>*aJ hUeaJ h/aJ hnaJhUehUeaJ:hoooop&pAppq0qRqoqqrsZssssstt$tDt & Fgdn & Fgdn & Fgdn & Fgdn & FgdUe & FgdUe & FgdUepqq/qVqmqnqoquqqqqqqqqrrrrrIrOrarcrnrprrrrrrrrrrrrrss s s-s/sMsYsZsssssss򳬳򳟳됟hnhZ2aJhZ2hnaJ hc!*aJ hZ2aJ hZ2>*aJ h}>N6aJ h}>NaJh/hnaJhnhn>*aJhnhn5aJhnhnaJhc!*hn5>*aJ hn5aJ hnaJ hn>*aJ5sDtItTtUtWtXt\titvt~tttttttttttuuuuuuRvXvnvrvvvvvvvv]wwwwwwwww xxxx%x*x7xZx`xaxbxcxhr1hr15aJ hr16aJ hr1aJhr156aJ hr15aJhlR5>*aJ hlR6aJ h}>N6aJ hlRaJhlRhlRaJ hlR5aJ h}>N5aJ h}>NaJ hnaJ:DtXtttu>uuuvnvvv\w]wwwwx7xbxcxxxgdr1 & F9gdr1 & F9gdr1gdlR & F9gdlR & F9gdlR & F9gdlR & F9gdlR & F9gd}>Ncx|x}x~xxxxyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzzzz{{{{{{{R{T{c{e{{{{ĵ茀yoic hZ'aJ hOaJhcAhr1>*aJ hr1>*aJh|hr15>*aJ hn5aJh!F+hr15;>*aJ hUeaJhr15>*B*CJ aJ phhA85>*B*CJ aJ ph hnaJ hc!*aJhr1hr15aJ hr16aJ hr15aJ hr1aJhr15>*aJh5>*aJ&xxypyyyzzzzz{{e{{{{{|l}} & F9gd[  & F9gdr1^gdZ' & F9gdOgd*y^gdUegdn & F9gdr1 & F9gdr1gdr1{{{{{||l}}~~x}IW$"]fuv{`aepMUڠږڷڷԷhc!*h*)>*aJhc!*hS>*aJ hS6aJ hZ'aJhc!*h[ >*aJ h*)aJ h*)6aJhc!*hK>*aJ hKaJ hc!*aJ hSaJ h[ 6aJ h aJ h[ aJ hr16aJ hr1aJ4}e~~bxa΁$]} ^ gdZ' & F9gdK & F9gdS & F9gd[  & F9gdS & F9gd  & F9gd  & F9gd[  & F9gd[ a6Ӈ4f%s! & F9gdO & F9gdn & F9gdn & F9gd[  & F9gd[  & F9gd[  & F9gd*) & F9gd*) & F9gdS & F9gdS & F9gd[ Ӈ߇(246^djqԊjCEKLˍ΍L[z{ǎȎ4ijЯĐhOhOhnaJh8&@h8&@aJ hn6hnhn6hnhnaJhn h8&@6aJhShn>*aJ h8&@aJ hc!*aJ hn6aJ h[ 6aJ h[ aJ hnaJh[ h[ aJ h[ 5aJ hOaJ1!Mڌ{Ȏ5fpƐe+ & F9gd  & F9gd- & F9gdn & F9gdO & F9gdO & F9gdn & F9gdn & F9gd8&@45efopxĐŐƐݐ-Yex~ߑ[c+5H[ړ!9ƿ͸Ͳͨ͸ͨͨ͸͖ͨ͸͖͉ͨ͸hBh >*aJ h !aJ h-5aJ h-aJh h 6>*aJh h >*aJ hnaJ h 6aJ h4]>*aJ h >*aJ h aJ h 5aJhnhnaJ hn5aJhnhOaJhOhOhOaJ2+]ٔ()?ȕquzTA & F9gdg & F9gdb & F9gdI & F9gd & F9gd & F9gdk~r & F9gdn & F9gdn ^ gdZ' & F9gd  & F9gdn & F9gd 9:U[ٔ()>CZcfksƕLRquvڶگگگڨ}sihIh>*aJhh>*aJ hk~raJ h|5aJh5>*aJh|h5>*aJh/5>*aJ hk~r5aJ hn6aJhBhn>*aJ hBaJ hOaJ h4]>*aJ hO>*aJ hnaJ hn5aJ hZ'aJ h !6aJ h !aJ h aJ&Ŗ!#Kjlstu|~yz")@STVWXjy'1Ƽ}ἣvochDyh_5>*aJ h_>*aJ h?6aJ h4]>*aJhhk~raJhk~rhbaJ hb6aJ hbaJ h?aJ hk~raJ hI6aJ hIaJhgh>*aJhghk~r>*aJ h5aJhh5aJ haJ h_aJhh>*aJhhaJ&1@AEFz{Κ)Lf֜לޜ:@%wx~Vwڡ躳☑h|hgaJhg56aJ h|6aJ h4]aJ h8&@aJ h|aJh|6>*aJ h|>*aJhghgaJ h4]>*aJhghg>*aJ hg6aJ h_5aJ hgaJ hg5aJh_h_aJ h_>*aJ2gל:xڡ$| & F9gd_ & F9gd_ & F9gd| & F9gd| & F9gd4] & F9gd| & F9gdg & F9gdg & F9gdg & F9gdg & F9gdgڡ$ʤΤ $%)OWYvw{򳟘򏳆vp h`%aJh`%h`%aJ h`%5aJh|6>*aJh`%h|aJ h`%>*aJ h?>*aJ hTv6aJ hTvaJ h|>*aJ h9x5aJh|h|aJh|5>*aJh|h|5>*aJ h|5aJ hDyaJ h_aJ h|aJ h|6aJ)գʤ%w1H & F9gd W & F9gd`% & F9gd`% & F9gd`% & F9gd`% & F9gd`% & F9gd| & F9gd| & F9gd| & F9gd_ /GHƨz!jp˪|-puﺰ駱 h-v5aJ h`%5aJ hZ'aJ hC46aJhJhC4>*aJ hC4aJ hJaJh[h}>*aJ h}aJ h!saJh-vh`%aJ h4]aJ h WaJ h-v6aJ h-vaJ h`%6aJ h`%aJh}h`%>*aJ0qƨ"j̪7|p & F9gd`% ^ gdZ' & F9gdC4 & F9gdC4 & F9gd} & F9gd} & F9gd} & F9gd-v & F9gd`% & F9gd`% & F9gd!s & F9gd!s<ήҮDI˯!"):[=DвѲ01@ANĴִ״޴ߴ!ӱӪ h[aJ h9x>*aJ hJaJh9xh9xaJh9hA8aJhA8 hA86aJh9hA8>*aJ h9x6aJ h-v>*aJh-vh-v>*aJ hA8aJ hZ?aJ h-v6aJ hC4aJ h-vaJ h9xaJ h9x5aJ2έYήK¯!/=GѲ1ANĴ & F9gdJ & F9gd9x & F9gdA8 & F9gdA8 & F9gd9x & F9gd9x & F9gd9x & F9gd-vĴ״ߴ*ݵU<w8dE & F9gd# & F9gd  & F9gdX+ & F9gdX+ & F9gd  & F9gd W & F9gd9x & F9gd9x & F9gd9x!()3Qo~յ۵ܵݵ'TU4:;<vwļăĘzvmh_h h aJ h 6h hC4aJhC4hC4h9xaJ h9x6hX+hX+aJ hX+5aJh9xh9xaJ h9x5h9xh aJh h h9xaJh h9x>*h9xh9xh WaJ h W6aJ h WaJ hJ>*aJ h9x>*aJ h9xaJ h[aJ h[6aJ%˸78[bcd(,SȻϻ$<DEIP硚}wmhF4hF4>*aJ h#aJh#h#aJ hF4aJ h5aJ hF45aJ h#5aJh#h aJ h!s6h hX+aJh9xhX+hX+hX+aJ hX+5aJh9xh aJ h 6h h aJh hJhJaJ hZ?aJ hJaJ*PRѼټڼ߼Ľ GKȾϾ־C3478<=>SXY[\>ǾDzǤǐǐ h[haJ hcA6aJ hcAaJ hD>*aJ hcA>*aJ h!F+>*aJ h!F+5aJh/h!F+5>*aJh!F+5>*aJ h!F+aJ hA8aJhF4hF4aJ hF4>*aJhF4hF4>*aJ hF46aJ h#aJ hF4aJ0EڼWѾC348Dw4pqrstuvh^hgdZ' & F9gdA8 & F9gd[h & F9gdcA & F9gd!F+gd!F+ & F9gdA8 & F9gdF4 & F9gdF4 & F9gd#>BDK`w4@dfiknpsvwLkl !$%PSUrx.1W[.<EϽ춯왒 hE{aJ hZ?aJ hZ?6aJ h?6aJ h?aJhcAhcAaJ h[h5aJ hcA5aJh*hcA5>*aJ hZ'aJhZ'hZ'aJ hcA6aJ hA8aJ hcA>*aJ hcAaJ h[haJ h[h6aJ4vwl'#U!i3]( & F9gd[h & F9gd[h & F9gd[h & F9gdA8 & F9gdcA & F9gdcA & F9gdcA & F9gdcAh^hgdZ'EB dSVzX & F9gdE{ & F9gds9P & F9gds9P & F9gdA8 & F9gdA8 & F9gds9P & F9gd[h & F9gd[h & F9gd/ & F9gd/ & F9gd[hE RSV/DM\X#$8FIXuzҿҿҶҶҶҶ hs6aJ hsaJ hs5aJh/h/aJ h/5aJh/5>*aJhs9Phs9PaJ hs9P6aJ hA8aJ hE{aJ hs9PaJ h[h6aJ h[haJ hs9P5aJ h[h5aJ h/6aJ h/aJ6XBzBwptz & F9gd* & F9gd* & F9gd* & F9gds & F9gds & F9gds & F9gd/ & F9gd/ & F9gds9P & F9gds9P & F9gds9P.AwoZ`Y12  㘱h*5>*aJ h*+6aJ hA86aJ hA8aJ h/aJ hs6aJ h*+aJ haJ hs5aJ h*6aJ h*5aJ h<aJhA8h<>*aJ h<>*aJ hA8>*aJhths>*aJ h*aJ hsaJ/1U OO  & F9gdaM & F9gd* & F9gd< & F9gdaM & F9gdaM & F9gd* & F9gd*+ & F9gd*+ & F9gd*+ & F9gdA8 & F9gds & F9gds  .BMST_oNOU_|ĻͱĻ٠͍ٚ}vmhaMhaMaJ haM6aJ haM>*aJhaMh<aJ h<aJ ht6aJ htaJ h*+>*aJh*+h*+>*aJh*+haM>*aJh*+haMaJh*+h*+aJ haMaJ h*+aJhaMhaM>*aJ h*aJ haM5aJ h*5aJh*h*aJ* Y\oxyz*.iqptúژڒژ hT5aJ hTaJ h#XaJ haJ h5aJhT5>*aJhh5>*aJhaMhaMaJ haM5aJhaMhn!aJ hn!6aJ hn!aJ h*+6aJ h*+aJ haJ haM6aJ haMaJ2 z0sp: & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd*+ & F9gdaM & F9gdn! & F9gdn! & F9gd*+ & F9gdaM & F9gdaM:O&H) & F9gdu  & F9gdT & F9gdT & F9gdT & F9gdTgdT & F9gd & F9gdn! & F9gdn! & F9gd & F9gd56;R_)c4AEG  "#f{} %DJŧ򷮷 hO6aJhhO5aJhOhTaJ hg26aJhThTaJ hT5aJ hT6aJ hg2aJ hu >*aJ hu aJ haJ hO>*aJ hO5aJ hOaJ hTaJ hT>*aJ6-Y4G # 'Lj & F9gdO & F9gdO & F9gdO & F9gdT & F9gdT & F9gdg2 & F9gdT & F9gdT & F9gdThV)B & F9gdp & F9gdp & F9gdO & F9gdOgdO & F9gdO & F9gdG & F9gdO & F9gdT & F9gdO <R]fHOTUV~ᴫ᝗vvo hp5aJhOhO>*aJhu hu >*aJ h2}6aJ h2}aJ hu aJ hO>*aJ hO5aJhO5>*aJ hZ'aJ h6aJ haJ hG6aJ hGaJ hg2aJ hO6aJ hOaJhOhTaJ hT5aJhThOaJ)#&'()AB9:*+AB$&NVxüמ hZ6aJ hZaJ hp>*aJhp5>*aJ hp5aJhphg2>*aJ hg2aJ hlo>*aJ hg2>*aJhg2hp>*aJhU!hp>*aJhphp>*aJ hp6aJ h2}6aJ hpaJhphO>*aJ2B:+B&Yv! & F9gd & F9gdp & F9gdg2 & F9gdZ & F9gdZ & F9gdpgdp & F9gdO & F9gdp & F9gdp !t)01GHJPY   3[lw»ɴɧɧɧɡ⡃} hGaJ h:6aJ h:>*aJ h:5aJh:5>*aJ h:aJ hZ6aJ h#XaJ hG6aJ hg2>*aJ hZ>*aJ hZaJ hg2aJ hp6aJ hpaJ haJ h5aJhphpaJ hp5aJ.n 1H  4wC & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd: & F9gd:gd: & F9gd & F9gdZ & F9gd & F9gd9m/:_ nP & F9gd{ & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd & F9gdgd & F9gd: & F9gd:89ck{ /9:^_ %19LmnOPxy޽޽޽޶ްަަh{h{>*aJ h{6aJ h{aJh{h6>*aJh{h>*aJ hZ'aJ h6aJhh>*aJ h>*aJ h5aJh5>*aJ haJ h:aJ haJ h6aJh:h:aJ3Py1 \ y  Y   M n     k    O & F9gd{ & F9gd{ & F9gd{ & F9gd{ & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd & F9gd_ & F9gd{' / 0 1 [ \ ` x y   X Y        L M Q m n          b d i j k          ǭ hDaJhDh{>*aJ hFdaJ hGaJ h{5aJ h{6aJh{h>*aJh{h{>*aJ h{aJ haJhh>*aJ h5aJhh_>*aJ h_6aJ h_aJh_h{>*aJ1  GMNO,345= 56BDHI_Ⱦzpg`YS hKaJ hK>*aJ hK5aJhK5>*aJhKh_>*aJh_h_aJ hSx>*aJ h_>*aJ h_5aJh_5>*aJ h#XaJh_h_>*aJ h_6aJ h_aJh_hG>*aJ hDaJ hGaJhGh{>*aJ h{6aJh{h{>*aJ h{aJh{hD>*aJ O5 6;N\ & F9gdK & F9gd: & F9gd: & F9gdK & F9gdK & F9gd: & F9gd_gd_ & F9gd#X & F9gd_ & F9gd{:;MN.[\z{VǶ羽hKh:>*aJ h:aJ h:>*aJh:h:>*aJ h:5aJ hK5aJhKhb>*aJ hs6aJ hsaJhbhK>*aJh:hK>*aJ hK6aJ hK>*aJ hKaJhKhK>*aJ5\{Ws|#Z-Bd & F9gdU! & F9gdlo & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gdK & F9gdK & F9gdKVW[^rs{|"#()=BYZ,-.0ABFcdǽӷvpvpvpv hU!aJhWWhe>*aJ heaJhehlo>*aJhlohlo>*aJ hloaJhlohA>*aJ hWWaJ hA>*aJ hAaJhAhA>*aJhU!hA5>*aJ hA5aJ hK6aJ hK5aJ h>5aJ hKaJhKhK>*aJ,dNT\^`xzDHVXZ ")*|v h/9(aJhh>*aJh/9(h>*aJhhWW>*aJ hWW6aJh/9(hWW>*aJ hWWaJhehe>*aJ hU!aJhWWhWW>*aJ hWW5aJhWWh>*aJ h6aJ h>*aJhhe>*aJ haJ heaJ*`zZ+AJ !""x^xgdZ' & F9gdc. & F9gdc. & F9gdc. & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gd & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gd*+,.@ABCBHIJ    !!"""|rl hZ'aJhZ'h&>*aJh&hc.>*aJ hc.6aJhc.hc.>*aJhc.he>*aJ he6aJhvhe>*aJhvhc.>*aJ hc.aJhWWhWW>*aJ h&aJ hWW6aJ hWWaJhWWhe>*aJ hU!aJ heaJhehWW>*aJ)""."D""""K#e##+$$$$/%a%n%%&&('>' & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gdc. & F9gdc. & F9gdc. & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gdU!x^xgdZ'""-"."/"0"C"D"E"F"Q""""""""""""""""*#E#I#J#K#]#c#d#e###*$+$$$$$$$$$$»»±ޫޚ}hehc.>*aJ hc.6hc.hc.hc.>*aJhc.he>*aJ hc.6aJ hc.aJhehWW>*aJ hWW6aJ hWWaJ h/9(aJhehe>*aJ hU!aJ heaJhWWhWW>*aJ hWW5aJhWWhZ'>*aJ/$$$$$%%.%/%`%a%m%n%o%p%r%%%%%%&&&&&&'&'''('='>''''''''%(&((((((((ϾϾշխϾϓhlohZ'>*aJhlohlo>*aJhlohU!>*aJhehc.>*aJ hc.aJhc.he>*aJ he6aJhU!hU!>*aJ hU!6aJ hU!aJ heaJ he>*aJhehe>*aJhU!he5>*aJ he5aJ0>'''&(((()*****+z,,,-- .H. & F9gd> & F9gd> & F9gdU! & F9gdU+ & F9gdc. & F9gdU!x^xgdZ' & F9gdU! & F9gdU! & F9gdc.(((())))*** ************8+z+++y,z,,,,,,,Q-~---------- .xh>hU!>*aJ h>6aJ h>aJhU!hlo>*aJ hloaJhlohU!>*aJ hU!6aJhU!hU!>*aJ hU!>*aJ hU!aJhc.hU+>*aJhU+hc.>*aJ hU+6aJ hU+aJ hc.aJhc.hc.>*aJ hc.>*aJ. . .A.B.G.H........... //M/N/^/{//////0'0,0-0.0/00040:0;0<0B0V0[0r0s0}0000011Ż hBaJ h)6aJ h)aJ h1aJ h1>*aJh1h1>*aJh15>*aJ h15aJh1hZ'>*aJ hZ'aJhZ'h>>*aJ h>>*aJ h>6aJ h/9(aJ hU+aJ h>aJh>h>>*aJ1H....N///.0/000<0s00112,2M2c22G3 & F9gd) & F9gd1 & F9gdB & F9gdB & F9gd1 & F9gd1 & F9gd1x^xgdZ' & F9gd> & F9gd>1111111122+2,2>2L2M2[2a2b2c222F3G3_3`3333344D4J4K4L4+5,5t5555554656666ξĸ|h1hC>*aJhCh)>*aJ hbaJ h)6aJh)h)>*aJh)h1>*aJ h16aJ h1aJ h)aJh1h1>*aJ h15aJh1hB>*aJ hCaJhBhB>*aJ hBaJhBh1>*aJ/G3`33L4,55566747777788<9Z9|99 & F9gd#E & F9gdE' & F9gdE' & F9gd & F9gdQw ^ gdZ' & F9gd1 & F9gd) & F9gd) & F9gd)667777(7273747777777778888;9<9P9X9Y9Z9{9|99999죝|rkbYkh#E5>*aJh%;5>*aJ h#E5aJhQwhE'>*aJhE'hE'>*aJ hE'6aJ hE'aJhE'hQw>*aJ hQwaJhh>*aJhQwh)>*aJh)hZ'>*aJ hZ'aJhZ'h)>*aJh)h)>*aJ h)6aJh)h1>*aJ haJ h)aJ h)5aJ!9999999999:::::":,:-:4:9:R:::::::E;M;N;O;v;;;;;;;;;;;;<<<<<W<X<<<<<<<ԝh%;h#E>*aJh#Eh#E5>*aJ h#E>*aJhChC>*aJ hCaJ h#E6aJ hb6hbh#Eh#Eh#E5aJhQwh#E>*aJ h#EaJ h#E5aJh#Eh#E>*aJ799:::O;;;<<X<<<D==>-> ?6??@8@ & F9gd%; & F9gd%; & F9gd%; & F9gd%; & F9gd%; & F9gd#E & F9gd#E & F9gd#E & F9gd#E<C=D=U=]======>>>,>->7>?>U>]>f>n>>>? ?5?a?~????@@@@@6@7@8@<@R@S@T@Z@@@@@5A:A;A h'6aJ hPkaJ h'aJh'h'>*aJh'5>*aJ h'5aJh'h%;>*aJh%;5>*aJ h%;5aJh%;hE'>*aJ hE'6aJ hE'aJhE'h%;>*aJ h%;6aJh%;h%;>*aJ h%;aJ28@T@@F H#H9H-II3JJ`K & F9gd8} & F9gdYc & F9gd & F9gdb & F9gd' & F9gd' & F9gd' & F9gd';ABBBDBBBC C:CCC"D#DhDiDDDDDDEEEEEEEEFFFFFGH H HHξξδȭȀz h4]aJ h aJ hPkaJhbh>*aJ h6aJ haJhhbU0>*aJ hbU0>*aJhbU0hb>*aJhbhb>*aJ hbU0aJ hbaJ h'6aJ h"aJ h'5aJ h'>*aJ h'aJh'h'>*aJ.H!H"H#H)H8H9HxHHHHHHH I%I'I+I,I-III2J3JQJ}JJJJJJJK KKKK#K+Kɿ٥ٔɊ~w~mgagagagag h\`aJ h8}aJh8}hYc>*aJ hPk6aJ hPkaJ h/9(aJhYch9>*aJh9hYc>*aJ h\d6aJ h\daJh?h9>*aJh8}h9>*aJh8}h8}>*aJ h9aJhYchYc>*aJ hYcaJ h'>*aJh'h'>*aJ h'5aJh'5>*aJ&+K/K_K`KKKKKKKKKK LLLLL=L>LL;MNFNGNNNNNNNNOü䜖{qmhChYchYc>*aJhYchYc5aJh'hQw>*aJ hQw6aJ hQwaJhQwhYc>*aJ hYcaJ h?aJhQwhPk>*aJ hYc5aJhYchPk>*aJhPkhPk>*aJ hPk6aJ h/9(aJ hPkaJhPkh8}>*aJ h8}aJ h\`aJ*`KKKL>L*aJ hYc6aJhYch'>*aJ h'5aJhPkhZ'>*aJ hZ'aJhZ'h\`>*aJ h\`aJh\`h9>*aJ h9aJh9h'>*aJ h'aJ hYcaJhCh\`>*aJh\`h\`>*aJh\`h\`hC>*aJhChChC>*aJ'yRROSPSQS^SToTTUUjVVYWWXXXXXXgdQw & F9gdQw & F9gdQw & F9gdPk & F9gdYc & F9gdYc & F9gd' ^ gdZ' & F9gd\` & F9gd9TUUUUBUKUUUiVjVVVXWYWWWXX~XXXXXXXXXXXXYYY YYYYY$YJYcYnYpYYY+Z0Z;ZϼϵϦϕϦώχχρ hDaJ hQw6aJ hQw>*aJh V%hQw>*aJ hQw5aJ h V%aJh V%h V%aJ h V%5aJhQw5>*aJhQwhQw>*aJ hQwaJhQwhPk>*aJhPkhPk>*aJhPkhYc>*aJ hPk6aJ hPkaJ0XXYYY+ZYZjZZ[[[][[*\x\<]]]]e^ & F9gdFd & F9gd V% & F9gdB & F9gdugd# & F9gdD & F9gd V% & F9gd V% & F9gd V% & F9gdQw;ZYZ[Z]ZhZiZjZwZZZ[[[[[\[][c[d[g[h[[[[[)\*\w\x\4]:];]<]G]L]]]]]]Ⱦطﱨwkh\hFd5;aJh V%h V%aJ h V%5aJhhB5 hBaJhBhu5hu hhuhohuaJ huaJ h V%6aJh#h#>*aJ h#>*aJhZ'h V%aJ h V%>*aJh V%hQw>*aJ hQwaJ h V%aJh V%h V%>*aJ']]]T^c^^R_S_W_[___a`f`s`;a@aBabbdceclc}ccccccc;dHdMdNddeeezszzmzg`gz h6aJ haJ hDaJ h V%6aJ h V%aJh\h V%aJh\h V%5aJh\h V%5;aJh\hBaJ h\hB h\hSxh\hSx6aJh\hSxaJh\hFd6aJh\hFdaJ hSxaJ hFd6aJ hFdaJhFdhFdaJ hFd5aJ%e^^S__ `s`Babec~ccc;dNde.eekfffg & F9gd & F9gdD & F9gd V% & F9gd V% & F9gd V% & F9gdSx & F9gdSx & F9gdFd & F9gdFde?f@fTfUfiffgggggggg h h h h,h-h9h>hhhhhhhhhiRibiźź~wpgaWapaWahEhE>*aJ hEaJhEhEaJ hE5aJ h,nv5aJ h aJ h6\caJ haJ h5aJh5>*aJh 5>*B* CJ(aJ(phh6\ch>nCJ aJ h6\ch6\cCJ aJ h6\cCJ aJ h6\ch>n5>*B* CJ(aJ(ph h>naJ h6aJ h V%6aJ h V%aJ haJ!ggg h hhhhciiii(jajjjtkkklAll & FgdYP & FgdYP & FgdYP & Fgd5 & FgdE & FgdE & Fgd gd gdgd>nbiciiii(jjjjkk'k@ktkxkkkllllllllllllmm=mbmumvm{m}mǹdzwwqj h 6aJ h<aJh h >*aJ h6\c>*aJ h aJ hE5aJ h 5aJ h,nv5aJh6\ch6\caJ h6\c5aJ hZ'aJ hYP6aJ hYP>*aJ hYPaJ h QaJ hE6aJhEhE>*aJhYPhE5aJ h5aJ hEaJ h,nvaJ$lll}mann(o@oopIqqorswssstuu & Fgdp & Fgdp & Fgd5 & Fgd6\c & Fgd6\c & Fgdp & Fgd6\c & Fgd6\c & Fgd ^gdZ'}mmmn nWnYn^n_n`nannnno'o(o7o?o@oIoJooooooooppp qq=q>q@qսն~tj`j\h Qh5h5>*aJh5hp>*aJh5h,nv>*aJ hpaJ h,nvaJh,nvh >*aJ h 5aJhph 5>*aJ h aJh h aJ h >*aJhphp>*aJmH sH hJaJmH sH hphpaJhp6aJmH sH hpaJmH sH hphpaJmH sH $@qGqHqIqNqmqyqqqqqqqqqqqr1rIrUrdrfrmrrrsssspsusws{sssssssssssttTužŸŮŠŚŠœōņ hp6aJ hp5aJ hpaJ h56aJ h5aJ hE6aJ hp>*aJhEhE>*aJ h6\caJ h6\c>*aJ hEaJ hE5aJ h,nv6aJhph,nv>*aJ h5>*aJ h aJ h,nvaJh Q h Q6.Tu^uuuuuuuuuuuuvvv6w`wwwwww!x#x2x3x4x8x>xxxxxxxxƿƹƚ}v}o}v}ch Qh,nv5;aJ hJ>*aJ h<6aJ h<aJ hJaJ h5>*aJh5h5>*aJ h5aJhZ'h,nvaJhZ'h aJ h 6aJ h aJ h,nv>*aJ h,nvaJ h,nv5aJh Qh 5;aJh h aJ h 5aJ hpaJhphp;aJ$uuv6ww4xxxxpyyCzz&{I{}{2|| & Fgd6\c & Fgd6\c & Fgd6\c & Fgd6\c & FgdYP & Fgd,nv & Fgd,nv & Fgd,nv & FgdJ & Fgd5 & Fgd  & Fgd  & Fgd xxyygynyyy* h=^ h h6\ch6\c5>*B* CJ(aJ(phh h OJQJhzhYP>*aJhzh6\c>*aJ hYP6aJ hYP>*aJ hYPaJ hYP5aJ h<5aJ h6\caJh6\ch6\caJ h6\c5aJ h,nv6aJ h,nv>*aJ h,nvaJh,nvh,nvaJ'|||$}}}}}M~N~z~~~~~G & Fgd] & Fgd]gd] & Fgd6\c & Fgd6\ch^hgd6\cgdgd gd6\c  ^` gd  & Fgd6\c & Fgd6\c}}~~L~M~N~W~Y~y~z~~~~~~~1(9ouкxkxkxkxbhJhaJhhaJmH sH haJmH sH h6aJ hX:aJ h -aJ hX:5aJ h>*aJh]h]>*aJ h]5aJ hZ'aJ h]aJ haJh -h6\c>*aJ h6\caJ h6\c5aJh6\c5>*aJh6\ch6\caJh h6\c5h6\ch%ˁƂڂ)qЃWO-H & Fgd ] & Fgd ] & Fgd & Fgd] & Fgd] & FgdX: & Fgd] & FgdJ & FgdX:ʁˁ249Ƃ؂߂'(.DgiopqŃǃ΃҃ԃՃ߃ %',.3=?GINPUV[ȷȷ뱪땾ȷȷ h6aJh ]h ]>*aJ hb>*aJ hu]6aJ hX>*aJ hu]>*aJ hu]aJ h ]6aJh ]hX:>*aJ h ]aJ h]6aJ h]aJ h]>*aJhX:hX:aJ hX:aJhhJaJ hJaJ1[aքڄ .YZ݅߅(8@CNOu%,ؾصصدؗ}vlbhLq/hX:>*aJh,uhX:>*aJ h Q>*aJhLq/h ]>*aJ hu]aJhu]h]>*aJ hu]>*aJ h6aJhLq/h>*aJ haJhLq/h]aJhLq/h]>*aJhLq/h ->*aJ h -aJ h]aJ hH6aJ hHaJ h]>*aJ hX:aJ hX:6aJ&,-FT&'5;<=ABJXn~͉ωЉ։؉iTehz~Ӻڴ|ukhXh6Wn>*aJ h6Wn6aJ hSi6aJ hX>*aJ hXaJhSihSi>*aJ hOeaJ hOe5aJ h6WnaJ hSi>*aJ hSiaJhSihX:aJ hD5aJhX:hX:aJ hX:5aJ hDaJ h ]6aJ h,uaJ h ]aJ h ]>*aJ hX:aJ*T'=ЉۊTi2z  & Fgd6Wn & FgdLq/ & Fgd6Wn & Fgd6Wn & FgdSi & FgdSi & FgdX: & FgdX: & FgdD & FgdD & Fgd ]~ -4FiČƌw͍΍12yz   ÿzqhPmhPmaJh#^h5>* h>*hPmhPmh6WnaJh6WnhJaJ hJ6hJhJh6WnaJ h6Wn6h6Wnh6WnaJh6Wnh hX>*aJ h>*aJ h6Wn>*aJ hLq/>*aJhLq/h6Wn>*aJ h6Wn6aJ h6WnaJ hLq/aJ, QX˕ϗ' 6i & FgdSi & FgdSi & FgdH & FgdX: & Fgdb & FgdX: & FgdX: & Fgd ] & FgdPm & FgdPm & FgdPmŐǐӐ1:GR PQUΓ7VWX]  <Hc͹dzǪ锏~hX:hPmaJh ]h h6hhPmaJhLq/hOe hPm6hPmhaJ h QaJ h6aJ h6aJ haJ h ]aJ hPmaJ h ]6aJhPmhPmaJhPm h>* hOe>*hPmhPm>*.ÕɕʕϕЕ;J\Ηϗ'2 WYə6=?EOWilҚ֚ښ%hiͦ䠙͓͍}͠w͠͠www haJ h QaJh,uh,u>*aJ h,uaJ haJ hSi6aJ hHaJhHhSi>*aJ hX:6aJh Qhb>*aJ hbaJ h -aJ hSiaJhSihX:>*aJ hSi>*aJ hX:aJ hX:5aJ hD5aJ hSi5aJ.iޛqkae4&O [դ & Fgd & Fgdb & FgdLq/ & FgdH & FgdD & FgdD & FgdH & FgdSi & Fgdiޛqxy~)QɝoӞ egi4&-4FMOɿɸɿɸɣɱɸɕɏɸ hb6aJ hJaJ hLq/aJ hLq/6aJ h ->*aJ hH6aJ hH>*aJ hD>*aJ hD6aJhDhD>*aJ hDaJhHhHaJ hHaJ h -aJh -h -aJ h -6aJ hbaJ haJ3£ǣϣУף  [bcdeԤդ '().ACHIJ]$'_`u4JLSU]ôʮ{ttt h6aJ hLq/aJ hJaJhLq/h>*aJ haJ h6Wn6aJhOeh6Wn>*aJ h6WnaJ h -aJhhaJ h!aJ h6aJ haJ hD6aJ h!>*aJ hu]>*aJ hLq/>*aJ h>*aJ hD>*aJ hDaJ-դ J`ϧ_23OPf; & Fgd |gd |gd*y & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & FgdD & Fgd]023NOPdlt;>?RƪΪժ򿳩򑌄zzpzh`Y h- h9nh- h9n5h- h ZV5h- h9n5>*h- h |5>*h- hZ'5 hZ'5 h |5h- h |>*aJh- h |aJh- h |5aJh- h |5>*aJh- h5#h- h |5>*B*CJ aJ ph h- h |#h- h |5>*B* CJ(aJ(phh- h |5 haJ o˫Z'iޮh±ϱ & FgdcE & Fgd*h- h*h- hcE6 h- hcEh- h9n6h- h9n5h- hk>*h- hk6hF7hk;>* h- hk h- h%h- h9n5>*h- h |5 h- h9nh- h9n>*-аٰ9;HQwy±ͱαϱӱ&'(,iopqruvwŽϮϦϦϜϦϊϦϊ{i#h- hk5>*B*CJ aJ ph h- hg hg hkh- h*h- hk;h- hk5>*h- h*h- h9n5h- hcE5>* h- h*h- h9n6 h- h9nh- h9n>*h- h/@>*)ϱ(qrstuvwݳ]^WX_ε#ȶ & Fgdk & Fgdk & Fgdbgdb & Fgdkgdk & Fgdkݳ\]dWX]cõĵ̵εԵ@~ܷD,.`澶槠敎~~v敾h- hk>*h- hJ.6h- hJ.>* h- hJ.hV. h- h% h- hW h- hfh- hk6h- h ZV>* h- h ZVh- h ZV5hbhbhb>* hb5hbhk5 h- hkh- hk5>*h- hk5.ȶ*)*L=ӿ C & Fgd-  & Fgd+oF & Fgdf & Fgdf & Fgd ZV & Fgd ZVx^xgdg  & FgdV. & Fgdk & FgdJ. & FgdJ.)*#HVѽXv<=Oº̺~wog`\h- h- h- h- h- 6h- h+oF6 h:o5>*h- h- 5>* h- h+oFh- h+oF5h- h/@5>*h- h+oF5>*h- hf6 h- hfh- h- 5h- hf5>*h- hf5h- h5h- h ZV6 h- h ZV h- hg hkhV. hV.6$OQ  9Az,IpAB&3Pƿะ贈ซ{whF7h- hf6h- hf>* h- hfh- hf; h- hg hg h h- hh- h'>* h- h' h- hbhbh+oFh- h+oF>*h- h+oF5>* h- h+oFh- h+oF5 h- hV.hV. hF76.CqIBP!s & Fgd:o & Fgd' & Fgd'^gdg  & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd' & Fgdb & Fgd+oF & Fgd+oFrQgb LJTo45=?kɹɱɹh- h'5h- h'5>* h- hh hh >* hh 6hh hV. h- 6h- h- 6h- h+oFh- h6 h- h- h- hh- h+oF6 h- h+oFh:oh- hf6 h- hf h- h'2h^ H_354 & FgdcE & Fgd; & Fgd' & Fgdh  & Fgdh  & FgdV. & FgdV. & Fgd-  & Fgd-  & Fgd' & Fgd'k9HJLPQxzҺ趲菇|wshh hh 5 hh 5>*hg h- h>6 h- h>hF7h;;>* h- h%h h- h<h;h<h<hcE>*h- h;H*h- hcE>* h- hcE h- h'h- h;6 h- h;h- h;>*h- h'>*,YQmJ & FgdZ & Fgdy & Fgd- & Fgd & Fgd & Fgdb & Fgdh  ^ gdg  & Fgd< & Fgd; & Fgd;,"=^_dfjk <J/1>HIYZǿǨǸǨǡǨzvqj h- h% hE- 5hE- h- hZ5h:o h:o5 hh >*Uh- h->* h- hZ h- hyh- h>*h- h-6 h- h-h- h6 h- hh- h5>*h- h/@5h- h5 h- hbhbhh hbhh >*(ional behavior (subject to heightened scrutiny) (prophylactic/preventive legislation, BUT Court has said prophylactic laws no longer VALID LIMITATIONS: (i) Narrow tailoring required (ii) High factfinding burden Parallel to affirmative action (e.g., Adarand): Unless Congress satisfies high factfinding burden to show the remedy is warranted, cannot legislate under 5, just as cannot provide affirmative action absent showing that the preference is necessary to correct past discrimination (iii) Congress cannot require much more EP protection than courts would grant Valid statutes falling under this rule generally concern rights that the Court has subjected to higher scrutiny Hibbs: Congress is not confined to the enactment of legislation that merely parrots the precise wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, but may prohibit a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendments text. Narrow tailoring still required APPLICATION: (i) Congress CAN prohibit facially constitutional conduct under the Family Medical Leave Act in order to deter unconstitutional conduct, where Congress has made an extensive showing of state gender discrimination (Hibbs) The impact of discrimination targeted by the FMLA is significant, and stereotypes about womens domestic roles are reinforced by parallel stereotypes presuming a lack of domestic responsibilities for mensuch perceptions lead to subtle discrimination that may be difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis. (ii) Congress CAN authorize disabled inmate to sue prison officials who deliberately deny care for his disability as a violation of 1 of 14th Amend. (cruel and unusual punishment, as incorporated by 1) (US v Georgia) 5 grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions the 14th Amend. by creating private remedies against the state for actual violation of those provisions. (iii) Congress CAN mandate handicapped access to courthouses, even if not constitutionally required, because otherwise handicapped might be denied access to court (Lane) Clear harm, narrow remedy, so meet congruent and proportionate test 3. The Fifteenth Amendment Fifteenth Amendment: 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 2 (Enforcing clause): The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Rules (1) Congress CANNOT reach private discrimination through 2 of 15th Amend. (state action required) BUT, state action requirement arguably more lenient for 15th than for 14th Amend. (2) Congress has slightly broader power under 2 of the 15th Amend. than under 5 of 14th Amend. to protect rights above beyond what the courts require (3) Congress CAN enact voting legislation under 2: (a) To set voter qualifications Purpose must be to prevent discrimination Discrimination sought to be avoided need not necessary be race-based (b) Even for non-remedial purposes (South Carolina v. Katzenbach) Very deferential review APPLICATION: (i) Congress can prohibit all voter literacy tests, even if prohibition not strictly necessary in all applications to remedy past discrimination (South Carolina v. Katzenbach) Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting, so long as necessary and proper (ii) BUT, Congress cannot prohibit denial of voting rights to 18-to-21 year olds in state elections, because no legislative finding that states used 21-year-old voting requirement to disenfranchise voters on account of race (Mitchell) Superseded by the 26th Amend. NOTE: Boerne and other recent 14th Amend. cases may call continued applicability of this rule into question (c) That prohibits state action that, even if not intentionally discriminatory, has a discriminatory effect or perpetuates the effects of past discrimination (Rome) (i) Possibly a more relaxed factfinding standard (Rome) In Rome, no factual findings about the racial effect of Romes voting plan Croson problem? (ii) Congress may proscribe actions that have the effect of vote dilution (Rome) Probably easier to sustain congressional action under 2 as proscribing state action with effect vote dilution than as merely proscribing gerrymander APPLICATION: Congress may, under 2, prohibit plan of Rome, GA to elect city commissioners at large because, although the plan does not violate 1, it perpetuates the effects of past discrimination by diluting votes of blacks (Rome)     PAGE  PAGE  PAGE 113 Ҽ89̿׿ٿ5]ELklm~[\ʶʮʨʋh- h%6aJh- h%aJh- hZ6aJh- hZ>*aJ h:oaJh- hZ>*h:o h- hh- hZaJ h- hZh- hZ6 h- hbhbh%h- h%6 h- h%h- h%>*/Ӽ9̿ٿl\]xyL & Fgd$gd$ & FgdZ & FgdZ & FgdZ & Fgdb & Fgd% & Fgd%\]xyLc  !tu 8DKd,-:;?ݸxq h- hih- hi5h- h0>*h- h06 h- h0h- h05>*h- h05 h(5h- h/@5>*h- h/@5h- h$>*h h- h$h- h$5>*h- h$5#h- h$5>*B*CJ aJ phh- h$aJ,#uDd-;m!1 & Fgdq6 & Fgdq6 & Fgdi & Fgdi & Fgd0 & Fgd0 & Fgd0 & Fgd/@ & Fgd$ & Fgd$bcklmFOdeh !'01mz|%&2>Hⳬ񻜻h- hq65h- hq6>*h- hq66 h- h/@h- h/@>* h- hq6h- h06h- hi;h- hi5h- hi6 h- hih- h0>*h- h05 h- h0:    $%&'()678h]hgd*y &`#$gd*yh]hgd: &`#$gd & Fgd/@ & Fgdq6   "#$&')*0145689:Dzh,-@0JmHnHuhA hA0JjhA0JUhHq\jhHq\Uh/@h*y5h/@ hq66hq6 h- hi h- hq6$89: & Fgd/@.:paW/ =!"#$% 50P:p:/ =!"#$% DyK separationofpoewrs}DyK judicialpowerDyK judicialpowergeneralrubric{DyK  jurisdictionDyK fedctjurisdictionDyK polrestraintsonjudDyK caseorcontroversyDyK notadvisoryopinionsDyK  standingDyK mootnessripenessDyK politicalquestionDyK executivepowerDyK executivepowerbasicpowersDyK !executivepowerseparationofpowersuDyK  warpowersDyK executiveprivilegeDyK (congressionaleffortstocontrolexecbranchDyK legislativepowerDyK legislativepowergeneralrubricDyK commerceclause{DyK  the10thamend{DyK  the11themandDyK othercongressionalpowersDyK congresstaxpowerDyK congressspendingpowerDyK congresswarpowersDyK congressforeignaffairspowerDyK federalimitsonstateregulationDyK dormantcommerceclauseDyK "interstateprivilegesandimmunitiesDyK congressionalpreemptionDyK $otheraspectsoffederalstaterelationsDyK thefourteenthamendmentDyK substantivedueprocessDyK #substantivedueprocessgeneralrubricDyK  substantivedpcategoriesofrights{DyK  privacysubdp}DyK abortionsubdp}DyK marriagesubdpDyK familyparentalcontrolsubdpDyK sexualitysubdpDyK righttodiesubdpDyK economiccontractssubdpDyK NOTsubdprightsDyK subdppolicyissuesDyK equalprotectionDyK epgeneralrubricDyK eqcategoriesofclassificationmDyK racepDyK raceepsegregationDyK raceepdisparateeffectsDyK raceepaffirmativeactionDyK !raceepaffirmativeactioneducationDyK "raceepaffirmativeactionemployemtnmDyK sexepuDyK  sexepruleDyK sexepdisparateeffectsDyK sexepaffirmativeactionwDyK  alienageepDyK illegitimacyep{DyK  disabilityepmDyK ageepDyK povertywealthepDyK sexualorientationepDyK fundamentalinterestsepDyK fundintepproceduraldueprocess}DyK fundintepfoodDyK fundintepvotingDyK &fundintepreapportionemtnvotediluationDyK fundinreappgerrymanderDyK polgerrymanderDyK racialgerrymanderDyK ratbasisscrutinyDyK privilegesandimmunitiesDyK requirementofstateactioDyK $congresscivilrigthsenforcementpowerDyK congcivrights13thDyK congcivrights14thDyK congcivrights15thZ$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z <@< NormalCJaJmH sH tH >@>  Heading 1$$@&a$5R@R k Heading 2$<@&56CJOJQJaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List4 @4 Footer  !.)@.  Page Number4U@4  Hyperlink >*ph8@"8 Header  !_H:0@2: M)D List Bullet  & F:j@Cj , Table Grid7:V0FV@QF J.kFollowedHyperlink >*B* ph9y0y.k;=p!w!v a % T & [  U 9 5i1wAH$efz$>$$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$j$jm$.k;=p!w!v a % T & [  U 9 5i1wAH$9QRop <{23CD_37b]Ag $ij|FGWy  *!X!Y!l!s!!r"s""J#K#Y###-$|$$3%4%Z%{%%/&P&&&+'F'''(2)O)})~))))3*4*5*6*m**-+++#,k,'-(-R--c.j....._////00001>11222[3344444506;66687e77788Q9w9 :l:C;;;<<=%?2???l@@8AAIBBBCCDGFFF GaGG>HHHHICIPIzIIJJ KKLM;MMMMJNNOPPQ+QMQQQQ1R~RSESSS*TTTBUUUUYVVVW*W~WWXXXXX`YYYZZ[I[\K\\\\\\\]o]]]^8^J^^^ _C_`d`r```aa>bbbbbbccccCdd(edeeff"ggg2hZhh~iijjkxkk~lm\mm nn#nnnnoppZq8rrBsttvvvvvTw[wwwwZxxx*y>??<@@@iABDD]EFRFF\G>HHGIcIIJJ8K]KKLLLL@MGMVMM3NjNN OIOO)PPPPQ@RR`?```=aaobbccdeeffffggghhh-iiijjjjjj@kLkklXllWmmnoAoNodoo pBpepp]qqrrr`swss4tLttu=uuvtv{vvvTwxxxVyyyza64~8z,`N`h     Y  1  ! 0 \   g iLd E04Ec_Pmh/D]J]HU( ^ q  ?!p!q!!!"e""""e#f#g#h##&$W$$%%%%o&&&l''(( )))**+,-c.d.n...s//K0o0011>111l22;3}3@444566!6(6n666677888899(:B:R::::;H;;;<M<b<u<<z===>>>?5?r?s??@@@t@u@@@@AABBByCCC0DnD%EEEF5FF G.GrGGGHHHHIJnJJJRKrKKK?LLLLLLMRMMNMN~N'OBOOOPPYPPPPP]QAR[SSTTT3UUU3VsVVV+WWW}WWXX.X/XXY Y_Y`YaYbYcYuYvYYY?ZvZZR[[[$\D\\\\\\]]]^+^^=__````````aa[aaaaZb{bb*cccddHdddddeeNeeee,fJfwff֙zٛyehC|^ P]o/gfCSro/()*+,-./<e$߰۱ ٲ!zƴ]dGp¸ oO2I{2K/(,2nNSP EjBOu2cq+_Z(T+34=EGS2{7[y5w-.^_`an-:Sz.~X$mQJpf%2I@s :@'Q 'h7mE;DhVAM|g=n<q )R{!*6[5e[}[C       =       R      2  b>YP<aT(CH?c!6dqtstuG z  !*!M!U!!P"""]#z###$`$$$k%%%&&@'''(_(()b))=*c** +?+,,_,J-c-y-m..s//00,1W1~1|22A334)4455E5y555G6667 88888D999^:8;;1<<<H===>>.>5>E>R>>k???@B@C@D@@AjAA|BBBCCCDE`EEFHHHI!I{IIGJnJJKK8LLLMKMLMNNNNNO8OhOOO PPPQAQQQQQRS&ThTT'UUVVWPXXXYYZZ[ \v\\t]]]<^^___f```raaa bdbbbcccccc8d9d:dddd ee g^ghhihhiiii-jPjj,kk\lmlll#mm?t܆f߇M`R݋&#ۍCDrs{` ?1gєޔ.˖hӗԗBcśқ#ʝ3j؞ijԠO7>}Lѥ3R]2345Ω>aV*#L-1 3Vsu @tͷԹݹ(>?ļD?־ʿ׿*x +UbNTlz*6`pXCEFHIKLNOXYZcdefghuvwz00> 0> 0.> 0k> 0k> 0k> 0.> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0.> 0> 0> 0> 0.> 0!> 0!> 0!> 0!> 0> 0> 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0> 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 01> 01> 01> 01> 01> 0 > 0> 0> 0> 0$> 0$>@0$0000000; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0c; 0c; 0c; 0; 00000; 0; 0G; 0G; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0w; 0w; 0; 000; 0; 0d; 0d00; 0; 0?; 0j; 0j; 0; 0; 0?; 0a; 0a; 0?; 0; 0; 0; 0 00; 0 ; 0T!; 0[!0; 0T!; 0["00; 0 ; 0A#; 0A#; 0A#; 0A#; 0 00; 0 ; 0 ; 0c%; 0; 0&; 0; 0&; 0; 0'; 0.'; 0.'; 0'; 0; 0)0000 00000 0 0U* 0U* 0 0+ 0+ 0+00 0 0 0 0K. 0R. 0R. 0R. 0R. 0K. 0G/ 0G/ 0G/ 0 0/ 0/ 0/ 00 01 01 010 00 02 00 03 00 04 04 04 00 06 06 0 06 06 0M7 0M7 07 0 08 099 0_9 099 0T: 099 0  0#< 0< 0#< 0 ? 0? 0? 0? 0T@ 0  0 A 0 A 01B 01B 01B 0vC 0vC 0 A 0/F 0F 0F 0F 0/F 0/F 0&H 0sH 0&H 0&H 0/F 0+I 08I 0+I 0I 0I 0I 0 A 0K 0K 0M00 0  0M 0M 0M 0  0P 0P 0P 0Q00 0  0Q 0R 0fR 0fR 0Q 0S 0S 0T 0S 0S 0*U 0*U 0*U 0*U 0 0V 0V 0V 0V 0fW 0V 0W 0V 0X 0X 0V 0Y 0Y 0Y 0Y 0[ 0Y 0\000000 0 0\ 0 0] 0] 0] 0] 0] 0 0^ 0^ 0^ 0 0L` 0L` 0` 0` 0a 0`0000 0 0 0c 0c 0c 0c 0 0d 0e 0e 0e 0d 0d 0 0pg 0pg 0h 0pg 0 0fi 0si 0j 0j 0k 0si 0si 0fl 0si 0si00 0 0 0gn 0gn 0n 0n 0n 0gn 0Bq 0 r 0Bq 0*s 0Bq 0t0000 0 0 0F 0 0F 0 0 0> 0 0 0 0 0> 0' 0 0 0(00000000 0) 0= 0 0= 0 0 0= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0m 0m 0 0 0 0 0 0= 0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0 0o 0w 0w 0o 0\ 0o 0 0 05 0B 0B 0B 05 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0d 0 0 0d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0k 0k 0Z 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 00000 0- 0  0'  0  0  0'  0  0'  0' 0 0 0 0? 0 0' 0' 0 0 0  0 0  0 0 0  02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0F! 0. 0 " 0 " 0" 0" 0 " 0/ 0($ 0|$ 0($ 0%00 00 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0) 0) 0) 0) 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0) 0, 0,0000 01 02 0. 0. 0A/ 0. 00 00 0. 02 0. 03 03 03 04 03 05 05 0$6 0$6 05 05 08 0<8 0<8 08 0900 04 05 09; 0; 0; 0p< 0p< 09; 03> 03> 0? 0? 0? 0@ 0@ 0QA 0@ 03> 0D 0EE 0D 0D 0F 03> 0&H 06 0/I 0KI 0KI 0/I 0J 0J 0J 0K00 07 08 0(M 0/M 0>M 0/M 0N 0(M 0N 0N 0N 0O 0O 0O 0P 0N 0Q 0Q 0R 0Q 0cT 09 0 0f 0f 0f0 0? 0g 0g 0g 0@ 0i 0i00 0A 0j 0j 0j 0j 0(k 0(k 0(k 0(k 0(k 0l 0l 0(k 0n 0j 0)o 06o 0Lo 0Lo 06o 06o 0Mp 0Mp 0Mp 0q 0q 06o 0r 0r 0r 0)o 0t 0t 0t 0t 0t 0u 0t 0\v0 0\v 0v 0\v 0x 0B 0x 0>y 0>y 0x 0y 0y 0x 0x 0z 0z 0z 0{ 0z 0z 0x 0| 0| 0| 0| 0~ 0~ 0| 0\ 0\ 0\ 0| 0v 0 0v 05 0v 0, 0v 0v 0 0 0| 0o 0o 0o 0ć 0ć 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ی 0 0 0ی 0o 0 0o 0a 0a 0a 0o 0y 0D 0Ē 0z 0z 0Ē 0P 0] 0m 0m 0P 0 0 0 0E 0 0 0 0 0000 0F 0̙ 0̙ 0 0̙ 0̙ 0̙0 0G 07 0R 0R 0R 0ߝ 0ߝ 07 07 0 000000 0H0 0I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0ɥ 0J 0Ҧ 0 03 03 03 0٧ 0٧ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ҧ 07 0 07 0_ 0l 0 0_ 0 0Ҧ 0 0 0 0 0ʮ 0׮000 0K00 0L 0M 0 0  0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0ܵ 0 0N 0 0{ 0 0S 0S 0 0 0S 0q 0 02 0? 0\ 0\00000 0O 0 0 0 0 000 0P 0 00000000000000000000" 0009 09 0\9 0j9 09 0j9 0j9 0\9 09 0:9 0:9 0O9 0Z9 0O9 09 09 09 09 09 0X9 0X9 0X9 09 09 09 09 09 09 0\9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0-9 09 09 09 0-9 0D9 0D9 0-9 09 09 09 0000009 09 0f9 0f9 09 09 09 09 0F9 0F9 09 09 09 09 09 09 0009 09 0"9 0W9 0"9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 000009 0 9 0I9 0I9 09 09 0s9 09 09 0#9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0h9 0I9 0 9 0G9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0U9 0G9 0g9 0g00009 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0I9 0U9 0U9 09 0009 09 09 09 09 0t9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0-009 09 09 09 09 0&9 0&9 0&9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0 9 0 9 0 9 09 0A 9 09 0 9 09 0 9 0 9 0 9 0u 9 0u 9 0 9 09 09 0 9 09 0 9 0n9 0n9 0 9 0L9 0L0009 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0G9 0G9 0G9 09 09 09 09 09 09 0u9 09 09 0009 09 09 09 09 0,9 0E9 0E9 0,9 0,9 09 0j9 09 0E9 0E9 0E9 09 009 0=9 009 0i9 009 0F 9 0F 9 0 009 09 0!9 0!9 0!9 0!9 0!9 0"0009 0"9 0P#9 09 09 0?$9 0 9 0$9 0$9 0m%9 0$9 0$9 0&9 0&9 0$9 0'9 0'9 0(9 0(9 0(9 0$9 0*9 0*9 0*9 0!009 0"9 0V.9 0.9 0V.9 0[/9 0[/9 0#9 0$9 0%9 019 0&19 0&19 0&19 019 029 019 019 019 049 04009 0&9 0 69 0 69 0V609 0V69 069 0 69 079 079 089 089 079 099 0'9 0:9 0*:9 0*:9 0v:9 0v:9 0*:9 0*:9 0:9 0:9 0:9 0(9 05<9 0J<9 0J<9 0<9 05<9 0)9 0=9 0=9 0=9 0>9 0>09 0=9 0[?9 0[?9 0[?009 0*9 0p@9 0@9 0@9 0@9 0@9 0p@9 0pB9 0+9 0aC9 0jC9 0C9 0C9 0VD9 0jC9 0jC9 0jC9 0E9 0aC9 0F9 0F9 0F9 0F9 0F09 0,9 0H9 0H9 0H9 0mI9 0-9 0.9 0pJ9 0J9 0J9 0/9 0K9 0K0009 009 0L9 0L9 019 0:M9 0:M9 0M9 0M9 0:M9 0O9 0*O9 0O9 0:M9 0O9 0O9 0:M009 029 0P9 0EQ9 0EQ9 0CS9 0EQ9 0P9 0P9 039 0U9 0U9 0U9 0U9 0[V9 0[V9 049 0W9 0W9 0W0000 0000000000 0 0Y 0Y 0Y 0^Z 0^Z 0Y 0Y 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0 0\ 0\ 0\ 0] 0 0] 0^ 0^ 0%_ 0%_ 0] 0p` 0p` 0p` 0p` 0p` 0p`9 059 0`9 0`9 0Ca9 0Ca9 0a9 0Ca9 0Ca9 0`9 0`9 0c9 0c009 069 00d9 00d9 079 0d009 08009 099 0e9 0e9 0:9 0_f00009 0;9 0g9 0g09 0g9 0Rh9 0Yh9 0Yh9 0Yh9 0Rh9 0i9 0j9 0mj9 0j9 0i9 0Rk9 0Rh9 0l9 0l9 0l9 0l9 0nm9 0nm9 0%n9 0l9 0l9 0l9 0n009 0n9 0o9 0n9 0n9 0Rh9 0q9 0q9 0q9 0q9 0g9 0ss9 0ss9 0s9 0s9 0ss9 0t9 0u9 0t9 0 v9 0ss9 0ss9 0w9 0w9 0ss9 0Dy9 0Dy9 0z9 0hz9 0hz9 0z9 0g9 0|9 0|9 0|9 0|9 0|9 0|9 0}9 0}9 0|9 0|9 09 009 0|9 0ɀ9 0ɀ9 0%9 0<9 09 0/9 09 09 09 0/9 09 09 09 09 09 09 0O9 0\9 09 09 0\9 0(9 0\9 0O9 09 0B9 0[9 09 09 049 0Ď9 0Ď9 0Ď9 0Ď9 0Ď9 0=9 0j9 09 09 09 0j9 09 09 09 09 0ё9 0Q9 0ё9 09 09 0[9 09 09 0[9 0f9 0f9 0f9 0[9 0 9 0l9 0[9 09 000009 09 09 09 09 0&9 09 09 09 0n9 0n9 09 09 09 09 09 0ݝ9 0ݝ9 09 0ў9 09 0ў9 09 0j9 0d9 0w9 0w9 0ʠ9 0w9 0}9 0d9 089 0E9 0W9 0W9 0E9 09 09 0E9 0N9 089 0+9 0;9 0j9 09 09 09 0W9 09 0q009 0>9 0ج9 0w9 0ج9 09 0ج00000009 0?9 09 0$9 0M9 09 0$9 0~9 0~9 0$9 0ñ9 0ñ9 09 0ñ9 0$9 09 09 0$9 09 09 0$9 0ȵ9 0$9 09 09 09 0/9 0X9 09 09 0X9 0X9 0W9 0/9 079 079 09 0/9 09 0m9 09 09 0/9 09 09 0@9 09 039 09 09 039 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0V9 09 069 09 0V9 09 089 089 09 0A9 09 09 09 0R9 09 09 0*9 079 0o9 0o9 079 09 079 0K9 0K9 0*9 0y9 09 09 0y9 09 09 0y9 09 09 0B9 09 0<9 0n9 0<9 09 0<9 09 09 0<9 09 0v9 0v009 0C9 0%9 0-9 0r9 09 0r9 0/9 0/9 0/9 0/9 0-9 0;9 09 0;9 0;9 0%9 09 09 0D9 09 09 09 0a9 0a9 09 09 09 09 0_9 0w9 0w9 0_9 09 0_9 000009 0E9 0V9 0V9 0F9 09 0"9 0;9 0;9 0;9 0;9 0"9 09 09 09 0009 0G9 09 09 09 0@9 09 09 0H9 09 09 09 09 09 09 099 09 09 09 09 0X9 0X009 0I9 09 0J9 0 9 09 019 019 019 0K9 0[9 0[9 0[009 0L9 09 09 09 09 0M9 09 09 000009 0N9 09 09 09 09 09 0O9 09 09 09 0P9 09 09 09 09 09 0P9 0k9 0x9 09 09 09 09 0,9 0,9 0x9 0P9 0P09 0Q9 0R9 0)9 059 09 059 059 0)9 0%9 0%9 09 0)9 0Y9 0q9 0Y9 0Y9 0Y9 0:9 0:9 0:9 0)9 09 09 09 09 09 0S9 09 09 09 09 09 0x9 0x9 0x9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0C9 09 09 09 09 0C9 09 09 0{9 09 0009 09 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0t 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0t 9 0 9 0T9 0o 9 0 9 0o 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0J9 09 0J9 0&9 0&09 0 9 09 09 0 9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 009 09 09 09 009 0p9 0p9 0p9 0p009 0U9 09 09 09 0q9 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 0Y9 09 09 09 09 0v9 0009 0v9 0]9 09 0]9 0v9 0 9 0V9 0!9 05!9 0=!9 0!9 0!9 0=!9 05!9 05!9 0!9 0#9 0#9 0#9 0H$9 0$9 0$9 0!9 0%9 0%9 0&9 0&9 0W9 0'9 0'9 0'9 0G(9 0'9 0)9 0)9 0)9 0%*9 0%*9 0%*9 0)9 0'9 0+9 0+9 0'9 02-9 0K-9 0a-9 0a-9 0K-9 0[/9 0K-9 009 02-9 019 019 0f19 0f19 019 019 02-9 039 049 039 049 049 049 039 059 059 059 039 069 03009 02-9 0y89 089 089 0y89 099 099 099 02-9 0<9 0<9 02-9 00=9 00=009 0X9 0>9 0>9 0->9 0:>9 0->9 0>9 0?9 0?009 09 0?9 04@9 0?9 0?9 0OA9 0Y9 0xB9 0B9 0B9 0B9 0B9 0*D9 0*D9 0B9 0JE9 0JE9 0xB9 01122344JJ KKTBUUUU*W~WWXYZ[I[\\\\\\cccCdd(e"ggg2hhBsttvv'Q{kv2 Ĥ:˲ɳ1ݾm!w%^DI/Gt zWi   R S    4 ?fIL ^!!8"{"1###&&')W**/++,<,,-A-c--- .24455<6'8>@D]EFRF\GGIcIIJ8K]KKLLGMO)PPPQ@RR V"VVXX_YZ[[[)\6\X]q^r^^^^^^^^#_2_3_>`?`=a@kLkkll4tLttu=u|||}}+~y'ۛj5Ρ+n.ν"FGJ]^;<t5pLs?J\N^*MZao4,`   !   g iLd_LMNPP]QAR[S+WWW}WWXX.X/XX_Y`YuYvYY?ZvZ[^g_gniijjjk0lllmm5oo;ppqqqs܎4`ݐ/;"4>֙C|Sr߰۱Ou2c+_+GSX$Jpf 'hm!*6}!6dG z  !*!J-c-y-m.s/55E5y555G666DE`EEHhOOO PPQAQQQbbcccccc8d:dddhhihhiii\lllm 0> 0/> 0D> 0D> 0D> 0/B> 0UB> 0U> 0U> 0U> 0U> 0/> 0\> 0\> 0\> 0/> 0> 0> 0> 0u> 0B> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0u> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0 > 0u> 0u> 0u> 0> 0000000j00Dj00Cj00Aj00j00Dj00Cj00B@0 0@0@0j00KX j00Jj00Hj00Ej00Fj00L j00Kj00Ij00Fj00Fj0 0! j0 0j00Fj00Ej00Cj00Cj00j00Cj0&0F' j0&0Ej0&0Cj00j0*0Fj0*0Q+l j0*0Pj0*0Nj0*0Ej0*0F+l j0*0Ej0*0Cj00j00Cj040K5 j040Jj0/0Ej0/0Dj0/0D@0j0=0j00j00j0A0Bj0A0j0A0j0C0j0E0Fj0E0j0E0@0j0I0j0I0@0j0L0Mj0L0j0L0j00j00j0Q0)RXj0Q0(j0Q0&j0U0j0U0j0U0j0U0@0j0Q0Rj0Q0j0Q0j0C0j00j0Y0Zj0Y0j0Y0j0C0@0j0^0_j0^0j0^0@0j00j0h0ij0h0j0h0j00j00j0m0j00@0j0C0D@j0C0j0C0j0A0^j0A0]j0A0[j00@0j0F0]Gzj0F0\j0F0[@0j00j0A0DBj0A0Cj0A0A@0j0Q0R8`j0Q0j0Q0j0H0Dj0H0Ej0H0Ej0H0Ej0H0EIj0H0D@0j00j0M0DNj0M0Cj0M0A@0j0Q0DRzj0Q0Cj0Q0A@0j00j0L0UMzj0L0Tj0L0Sj0L0Qj0Q0Cj0a0Dbj0a0Cj0a0A@0j00j00j0h0Eij0h0Dj0h0Bj00j0l0Fm$j0l0Ej0l0Cj00j0q0]r|;j0q0Zj0p0Ej0p0Fqj0p0Ej0p0Cj00j0t0Fj0t0Fj0t0Fj0t0Fuj0t0Ej0t0Cj00j00j0y0Fzj0y0Ej0y0Cj00j00j00j00FTj00Ej00Cj00j00Ej00Cj00Cj00j00j00j00~j00j00z@0j00|j00z@0j004j00j00j00j00|j00~`j00j00{j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00@0Ǯj00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00`j00j00}j00|j00z@0j00j0112/@0j0314 0h031j031j011@0 j081j081j081j081@0 j091j091@0j0>1?0j0>1j0>1j0>1j0>1j0>1?0j0>1j0>1@0@0j0H1I1j0H1j0H1@0j0L1@0j0N1OT2j0N1j0N1@0@0j0B1j0B1j0>1j0=1>j0=1j0=1j0>1j0>1j0B1Cj091j0\1j0_1`j0_1j091j091j091j091@0@0@0@0j00j00j00Wj00j00j00 j00 j00j00j00j00@0 @0 @0 @0 @0j00 j00j00j00j00j00=j00j00j00j0E0fj0B0j0B0j0B0j0B0j0B0j0B0j0B0j0B0j0B0j0B0 @0@0j00d>j00j00j00j00|j00j00j0000 0 0j0%0j0%0j0%0j0%0j0%0j0*0j0*0+@j0*0j0*0j0%0j0C0D j0C0j0C0j0%0j0%0 j0%0 j0%0&j0%0 j0%0 j0*0j040 j0%0 j070 j070 j070 j070 j0%0&`Gj0%0j0%0 @0 @0 @0@0j0E0iF j0E0hj0V0zW j0V0yj0V0wj0B0j0B0j0B0Cj0B0j0B00 @0j0G0H0j0G0j0G00j0K0j0K0 0@0j0N0Olj0N0 @0j0N0@00j0t0guj0t0fj0t0dj0T0j0T0j0T0Uj0T0j0T00 @0j0n0Poأj0n0Oj0n0Mj0Z0j0r0Pj0r0Nj0Z0j0Z0j0v0Pwj0v0Oj0v0Mj0Z0j0Z0j0Z0[j0Z0j0Z00j0^0_,j0^0j0^000j0c0 dwj0c0 j0c0j0c0j0c0j0c0dwj0c00j0k0lwj0l0j0l00j0o0pwj0o0j0o00j0s0ttwj0s0j0s0j00=vj00<j00:j0w0j0w0j0w0xwj0w0j0w00j0040vj003j001j0{0j0{0j0{0|\kj0{0j0{000j00kj00j00j00)000j00tkj00j0000000j00Tkj00j0000j00kj00j0000j00ojj00j00@0@0j00pjj00j000j00vj00j00 j00j00j0C2DMvh0C2h0C2h00h00j00j00pjj00j00j00@0j00 vj00 j00j00j00 vj00 j00j00j00j00xj00j0000j00j00j000j004 j00j00j0G0j0G0j00 j000j0G0j011"j01j0G0j0G0j0G0j0G0j01 !j01j0 1 "j0 1j0 1j0G0j0G0j01j01j01 "j01"j01j01j01j01j01j01  #j01 j01 j01j01j01 j01j0!1"%j0!1j0!1j01j01j01j010j01j01j01j0G0j0G0j0-1.$'j0-1j0$1j0$1j0$1j0$10j0G0j0*10j0G0j0G0j011j0110j0G0@0j01 ;j01 j01j01j01j01j01j01j01j01j01j01j01j01j01j0*27+hHj0*26j01 j01 j01 j01 j01j01 j01  >j01 j01j01 |>j01j032$4dIj032#j032!j01 j01 j01 $?j01 j01 j01j0<2 =`Jj0<2j0<2j01j01 j01 j01j01j01j01 @j01 j01j01j01 j01j01j01 j01 PAj01 j01j01j01Aj01j01j01j02j02j02j02j02j02j01 "%%%%444447 s ) < q:& #/j$(3-426@;^EIOU[`flrxh~zq7 Ӛ{O,#<~<]\z< vHj"'`-16;@EJ=MdPqV[z^lbj(oArw{}:u=ȤH(,__G 9vx#'K,15?AFxIMVPVD[e^kmpscx{491ڡ!P>E  Vd*"$( .169<;AH+KOT;Z]ebi}m@qTux}[,~i]аOk\:    #%&()+-.01245689:<>?ABDFGIKLNPQRTUWXY[]_`bdeghjkmnprsuvxy{}   !"$&')+,-/13468:;<>@BCDFHIKLNPQSUVXZ\hjln!%s*/'5@;lFNW`4glurAyZk|^ g7\;EJY%.7?5G@OZv`j'osoo%pWp|ppqz =/DVT7_>J0Ce$#* /{4<EK)P9W^*d]khoDtx}!+ĴEvX :BPO\">'H.G398@`KyRXe^glu|iդϱȶC8:  !"$'*,/37;=@CEHJMOSVZ\^acfiloqtwz|~   #%(*.02579=?AEGJMORTWY[ikmo9.Tik >NW}%(DMPt*7;o$8=xO^p3NQuy| !Ruw!Lqv   G _ a  % F O T u ~  ! & I V [   B S U x % 1 4 ^ p s &-9RVYv{~ '05Wdi,1[qw 5<Az =BHl$[$3yXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX %,07!!!8@0(  B S  ?e _Hlt216509390 _Hlt216509391 _Hlt216510016 _Hlt216519874 _Hlt216510199 _Hlt216546251 _Hlt216510358 _Hlt216511613 _Hlt216510461 _Hlt216510659 _Hlt216510968 _Hlt216769613 _Hlt216769598 _Hlt216511472 _Hlt216769578 _Hlt216511329 _Hlt216768373 _Hlt216768374 _Hlt216522325 _Hlt216517944separationofpoewrs judicialpowerjudicialpowergeneralrubric jurisdictionfedctjurisdictionpolrestraintsonjudcaseorcontroversynotadvisoryopinionstandingmootnessripenesspoliticalquestionexecutivepowerexecutivepowerbasicpowers executivepowerseparationofpowers warpowersexecutiveprivilege'congressionaleffortstocontrolexecbranchlegislativepowerlegislativepowergeneralrubric commerceclause10th11thamendmentscommerceclause the10thamend the11themandothercongressionalpowerscongresstaxpowercongressspendingpowercongresswarpowerscongressforeignaffairspowerfederalimitsonstateregulationdormantcommerceclause!interstateprivilegesandimmunitiescongressionalpreemption#otheraspectsoffederalstaterelationsthefourteenthamendmentsubstantivedueprocess"substantivedueprocessgeneralrubricsubstantivedpcategoriesofrights privacysubdp abortionsubdp marriagesubdpfamilyparentalcontrolsubdpsexualitysubdprighttodiesubdpeconomiccontractssubdpNOTsubdprightssubdppolicyissuesequalprotectionepgeneralrubriceqcategoriesofclassificationracepraceepsegregationraceepdisparateeffectsraceepaffirmativeaction raceepaffirmativeactioneducation!raceepaffirmativeactionemployemtnsexep sexeprulesexepdisparateeffectssexepaffirmativeactionsexvsracediscrimination alienageepillegitimacyep disabilityepageeppovertywealthepsexualorientationepfundamentalinterestsepfundintepproceduraldueprocess fundintepfoodfundintepvoting%fundintepreapportionemtnvotediluationfundinreappgerrymanderpolgerrymanderracialgerrymanderratbasisscrutinyprivilegesandimmunitiesrequirementofstateactio#congresscivilrigthsenforcementpowercongcivrights13thcongcivrights14thcongcivrights15thZZ= P   @xyyhj9Rp3D4%~)4*(-MQ\\bv_mZJS &- .:L`Y^#`ϡн"GKq!d.6u@HLX`Y=g_gg*|2(4a *!''J->LbDsz@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@@@ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcd[[> Q   AyzzikQoC_Z%)m*R-MQ\\bvvϬݾlIZ` & ..:LyY5^>`.Fb]!n. 6@HL.XuY^gcggGKT=n L!'(c-.>Mcrӗz(0 $ $''((()0)**..22q3t333D4G4<6=67 7>7A77789a9o9;;#<1<l@z@)A7ACCCCOD[DE$EFF1H>>>@@CCEE%G+GGHIIMMBOIOP#PPPMSXSyTT@ZAZZZR[`[\\]]^^SaYaaa|ccccddddee!f&fqhyhiiqq"u)uxyyy8zAzzzzz8{F{K|L|}}$()+-124ڄބ߄JKѐؐY^`gjq29dk7<_f٠pq_e9BTUgp\dMR`fմ]b|ZbIQFN:A'0!)\d  ioT\w| )/5>rx|}\];A      I P a e   3 4 +3ciC E V!W!##&&9)E)c)d)P+U+O,R,,,,,z-{-X1Y14488::2<3<S>T>??BBEE:FCFFFLLNNVVXX^^|__aahi/s6svv&35<ŃσЃك )mqrt4;@AhiٞڞZ_'ABͷ׷2<ؿٿ8?HR{|(`fCCEEFFHIKLNOwzOU;;% % X Z   , 1 +,.25724fh.0tv>@CCEG #581<1<B@D@BCCEEFFHIKLNOWZbeehtwz.;=p!v wHR D_GV Y!k!l!s!K#X#4%Y%Z%%&&/&&&&&+'F'''~))**++c.j...//06;6e77Q9w9%?2?CIPIM;MMMQQRSVV[I[\\]]8^J^^ _d`r```bb~iijjn"nvvTw[www*y1446'699(:R:::M<u<=>>?u@@yCCF4FHHnJJKKLLLL'OBOPPX/XcYvYYY[D\\\]]] ^^*^^^`accdd,fJf=g_gggjhqhllnno5oss|'|(|J|}})GgZs)[\~PoCS/eð߰o2KBO4<=E7[4w.amS%IP 'AMq )6         2 >Y<a(C  M!]#z#&&'''(,,J-y-4)45588>->.>R>??BCCCHHI I{IINNPQQQRRSShTTVVZZ__aabbddhhii\lllmllХR]3sԹݹʿTl`oCCEEFFHIKLNOwzOU;;% % X Z   , 1 +,.25724fh.0tv>@CCEG #581<1<B@D@BCCEEFFHIKLNOWZeetwz>9o  w6i |*s" 5vFbl \ M>ј#Ԋz>/hzDlj`Jr1%R ~16 ,ke zjD. Dj!+%, {%v[c2)tllK,ܨ:h,vxc-B"W.b$o/$w40qX+27G,3nJ3`etmu 4VBrX35dDGO6 A.6z>ND-?kd@<dpBCP qF:3&jIHOLZ7d5%(NҬN4Oa^WR]psV* ]Vj0DW@7XBZKg\]Z7dp5`Ʊ`-Fc> ldzc|b0j WRbjrPkl].k4p&3p  qʅ z`/vw\,v hh^h`OJQJo(^`5o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`5OJPJQJRJo(h^`5OJQJo(hH pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(.h^`5OJQJo(hH pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJPJQJRJo(h^`OJQJRJo(hH pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5OJPJQJRJo(h ^`5OJPJQJRJo(hHpp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`56o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJPJQJRJo(h^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(n^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(n^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHhhh^h`B*OJQJo(phhHh88^8`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHohxx^x`OJQJo(hHhHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(h^`OJPJQJRJo(pp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJRJo(hHh^`RJo(hH.pp^p`o()@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`5OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH808^8`05o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJPJQJRJo(h^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`5OJPJQJRJo(n^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`6OJPJQJRJo(n^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(h^`RJo(hH.pp^p`o()@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(n^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJRJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(n^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`5OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o()h^`OJQJo(hH pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(h^`RJo(hH.pp^p`o()@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJRJ^J)^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`6OJPJQJRJo(n^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`5OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`5o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJRJo(^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.> {%d@2)sVRbjqF.. DW,vc-dzcw40:h,jJ3j].kX35`/v-Fcr15%(N q#lK,M`6z>-?g\]N4Oi >/%RFbl j!zs" G,3rPkXBZp5`WR+%e C w&3pGO6HOLX+2dpB]V3&jI$o/  u 40k0>> t                         5f                                   j         t                          pZ        Bb                 ⎪5f        t        Bb                 F        Bb        5f        X\                 (        Bb        n        Bb5f       8G  =      ~:o                $         t                5f        4B        5f                 Đ                +        5f        Je                 b        g        Bb                 pZ  =      X                                           TYG        HT         t                                            @*!J.V #XFb0>LMm9nE'1Z29} ]8b@TA7us> 5   = h E- 24 $S [ lb - Kk .iu&<jfq6= B{WkZ2.G[sWYt2=DU!/`etsZA-%I1 A8?3 B h !'!n!e"} #6Y#cq#r#$'$Y$% %;%=%?% V%`%`q%r%'V'Z'(/9(O)h)c!*U+*+!F+,,-v-6-C-\.Q.Lq/bU0]001r1|1-2:X2Y 3%)3 4F4_4d45(6gr667Qb7m7P8k~8:U9V9 Y9: ::M<:;;%;<$<hi=kn=G ?Z?v?8&@,-@/@Hr@AcABNYztYwY yYLZ(jZtZ [=\9D\)R\Hq\3w\ ]H] ]IJ]P]\_]#^_ _*_XIa!cYc6\c-dFd2ddOe'fg9fDgw[gh`ghOhh(1hLGhJhlQh[h_h{h;ihRiSiri=jJ.k9kPkmkl0l|lm`-mEmnnFn6WnjnQlnpnun:opppp*pfp^qyrk~rMs&`sv|sj`tnt{t(u,ucv-vv^v,nvVvwwj*w0NwQw]whcwwSx dx}x*yDyezz#z *zI({%?{E{ | |2}*}8}^}i ~%~N0~R~a[~qF7 aWM1SbTvH vm0oZ 3WGN|t:$&@;>F&2D)-GOSUuRf|63K|H#Xxgs+X c6eFOE>jaMkaTh]#+Hjlo5e Xu *Yu] )Imlo)gq )JRl-0<\z4M#;N z0NWi+aiOWWlfq{6xyY\``:\BGvm7<4]\dc.<HMnrQ WVqJK5>FFT!03M,2K9"- ,FiY E#GPZdTb},8Mw([|"&"%B!sn'HMh>5rlTlz}Kc Fy4V1WZ~&{>B'C4<"Y H:AE!x9x (KMMA\#oX:8^ D{*)6 EHLt9w'V]lw  5_clmrr:1@<B\V /<#E j/?HXk|#kn$ -B'<R\*ZizmGzj+1SL3tO4]f -x@ix]3'56b $1/3=APm.j>ny&?]?N}}gR z-z~/,8^DnI5ys g NHdT/WbcvJ}0(V.Q:D_Xfvj9 5#Hs UX|' -Ktg29>qJAX(G)fO|/3FuuX+5l8_gyy= CUe}K]CLL6^7^J^\^q^r^^^^^^^^#_2_3_e_h_l_o_p_____________`!`"`szOd@\234578FGJLJMJQJRJ*J+JAJBIJhi @)@*@,@-?y`@`:`<`>`@`B`@`R`@`Z`@```@`:`x@`R`@`\`@`|`@``@```<@` `D@`B`@`F`@`x @UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Cx Arial;Wingdings9Garamond?5 :Cx Courier New 1h݌ʦ[̆2Dܑg?ܑg?!4dPP 2qPz26FIELD, Con Law LONG OUTLINE Sarah Miller Chris Bates>                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = Oh+'0,  < H T`hpxFIELD, Con LawLONG OUTLINESarah MillerNormal Chris Bates306Microsoft Office Word@@ʃ0@[ܑg?GVT$m  I I  ."SystemYm|&9*v -@Times New Roman-  2 X -')f 2 ff) -)f''@Times New Roman-@Times New Roman-- 52 )ZCONSTITUTIONAL LAW I OUTLINE}XX88X9X- @ !7AZ- 2 ) z'{@Times New Roman-#2 ?Field, Fall 2008Q%;%J"!QC%%!CCCC 2   H@Times New Roman-@"Arial-@Times New Roman--2 :I.- 2 : -)2 :Separation of Powers*!)&!%&)%.%8!!- 2 : "'@"Arial- -2 a.!- 2 N b-12 Judicial Power (Art. III)I&&!!*&5!5 2  "'-2 ii.- 2  K- 2 General Rubric5!&!!2&& ;2  ................................;2  ................................;2 x ................................;2  ................................2 8.. 2 h1& 2  "'-2 ;Uii..- 2 ; K-2 ; Jurisdiction&&!%&2 ;; (2 ;gfed. ct.!&!2 ;5 jurisd.&%2 ;iction!%&2 ; , 2 ; poli&&2 ;# itical!!,2 ;  restraints on the jud!!&%&&!%&2 ; iciary!!$ 2 ; );2 ; ................................"2 ;A............... 2 ;h1& 2 ; "'-2 @iii.- 2  K-=2 !Case of Controversy Requirement!2!!&2&&&%!$!2!&&":!&2   (2 J not %&2  adv. op.!&%&&2  , 2  standing!%&&%2  , 2  moot9&&2  /ripeness&!&!2 ,  2 n%2 ot t&2 2polt&&2 itical!! 2 (  2 ;?! 2 \)2 z ............ 2 h3& 2  "'-2 b.&- 2 R ^-12 Executive Power (Art. II).%!!&%!+&5!5 2  "'-2 >ii.- 2 > K-2 > Basic Powers2!!+&5!;2 > ................................;2 > ................................;2 >? ................................;2 > ................................2 >.....l 2 >h9& 2 > "'@Times New Roman- -2 Uii..- 2  K-)2 Separation of Powers*!&!!&&&+&5!2 ] (- 2  Youngstown*&&%&&1&-2  , executive!%!!&%!2 =  agr!%2  eementsg!":!& 2  );2  ................................52 $............................2 B10&& 2  !'-2 @iii.- 2  K-2  War PowersF!+&5!C2 L% (War Powers Res., wartime detention)F!+&5!2!6!:!&!!&%&;2  ................................;2 @ ................................2 ........2 B12&& 2  !'-2 @Div..%- 2 @ K-(2 @Executive Privilege.%!!&%!+%!%!;2 @* ................................;2 @ ................................;2 @ ................................22 @J..........................2 @B17&& 2 @ !'-2 Yv.%- 2  K-2 Congr.2&&%C2 %essional Efforts to Control Executive!&&!.&&2%&&.%!!&%!2   Branch.2!&!&2   (nondel.&%&&!2   doctrine&&!&!52  , leg. veto, line item veto)!%%!&&!!9%!&2 ...a2 B18&& 2  !'-2 c.!- 2 N b-22 Legislative Power (Art. I)-"%!%!+&5!5 2  "'-2 Cii.- 2 C K- 2 CGeneral Rubric5!&!!2&&!2 C  (n/p clause)c&&!!&!;2 C! ................................;2 C ................................;2 C ................................2 CA .............c2 CB20&& 2 C !'-2 Uii.a- 2  K-"2 Commerce Clause2&::!!!2!&!2  & a:2 cthe 10th&!&&%2 X  and 0!&%2  11th Amend&&&5:!&& 2 _ s 2 | .;2  ................................;2  ................................2 T ............2 B22&& 2  !'-2 @iii.- 2  K-22 Other Congressional Powers6&!2&&%!&&!+&5!2 6 : 2 ^ Tax.-!&2  , 2  Spending*&!%&&%2  , 2 9 WarnF!2  , "2  Foreign Affairs*&!%&5!;2  ................................"2 ...............2 B32&& 2  !'-2 F d.&- 2 F R ^->2 F "Federal Limits on State Regulation*!&!!-9&&*!!2!%&!%& 2 F  "'-2 ii.- 2  K-.2 Dormant Commerce Clause6&9!&2&::!!!2!&";2 ! ................................;2 ................................;2 ................................2 A ............. 2 B38&& 2  !'-2 Uii.n- 2  K-2  Interstate Pr &!!!*52 Iivileges & Immunities Clause%!%!::9&&!2!&!;2 ................................;2 6 ................................,2 ......................2 B45&& 2  !'-2 H @iii.- 2 H  K-A2 H $Congressional Preemption and Consent2&&%!&&!+!!9&&%!&&1&&!&;2 H ................................;2 H ................................22 H J..........................2 H B47&& 2 H  !'-2 Div..%- 2  K-/2 Other Aspects of Federal6&!5&!!&*!&!! 2 -2 State Rg*!!3 2 e!2 lationships!&&&&;2 5 ................................;2 ................................%2 .................F2 B50&& 2  !'-2 II.t- 2 ; -&2 The 14th Amendment2)!&&)7="**=")- 2  #'-2 K a.!- 2 K N b-.2 K Substantive Due Process*&&!%%!6&!+&!! 2 K  "'-2 ii.- 2  K- 2 General Rubric5!&!!2&& ;2  ................................;2  ................................;2 x ................................;2  ................................2 B51&& 2  !'-2 Uii.t- 2  K-)2 Categories of Rights2!!%&!&2%&;2 P ................................;2 ................................;2  ................................/2 p........................2 B55&& 2  !'-2 N r1.&- 2 N  ^-2 N Privacyg+%!!%;2 N  ................................;2 N Q ................................;2 N ................................72 N ..............................2 N B55&& 2 N  !'-2 r2.&- 2  ^-2 Abortion5&&&%;2  ................................;2 w ................................;2 ................................42 7............................2 B56&& 2  !'-2 r3.&- 2  ^-2 MarriageC!!%";2 * ................................;2 ................................;2 ................................22 J..........................2 B60&& 2  !'-2 Q r4.&- 2 Q  ^-/2 Q Family/Parental Control/*!9$+!!&!2&&&22 Q Access to Children/Living 5!!!&2&&!&-%&%2 Q  Arrangements5!&%":!&;2 Q  ................................2 Q B61&& 2 Q  !'-2 r5.&- 2  ^-2  Sexuality*!%&!%;2 * ................................;2 ................................;2 ................................22 J..........................2 B63&& 2  !'-2 r6.&- 2  ^-2  Right to Die2%&&6 ;2  ................................;2 ................................;2 I ................................+2 ..................... 2 B63&& 2  !'-2 Sr7.&- 2 S ^-&2 SEconomic Contracts.!&&&9!2&&!!;2 Sm ................................;2 S ................................;2 S- ................................2 S .........2 SB65&& 2 S !'-2 r8.&- 2  ^->2 "NOT Substantive Due Process Rights66-*&&!&%!6&!+&!!2%&;2  ................................;2  ................................2 A .............2 B66&& 2  !'-2 @iii.- 2  K-2  Policy Issues*&!$&!;2 l ................................;2  ................................;2 , ................................;2  ................................2 ....2 B66&& 2  !'-2 Vb.&- 2 VR ^-#2 VEqual Protection.&&!*&!!%& 2 V !'-2 ii.- 2  K- 2 General Rubric5!&!!2&& ;2  ................................;2  ................................;2 x ................................;2  ................................2 B68&& 2  !'-2 Uii..- 2  K-72 Categories of Classifications2!!%&!&2!"!&&;2 G ................................;2  ................................;2  ................................2 g ...........2 B69&& 2  !'-2 Yr1.&- 2 Y ^-2 YRace2!!!2 Y (2 Ysegreg"%!&2 Yationg!&&2 Y$ , %2 YI disparate effects &&!!!!!"2 Y2 ,  2 YX affirm. action!9!!&&2 Y  (2 Y educ!&&!2 Y ationg!&&2 Y@, 2 Yfempl!9& 2 Yo& 2 Y y%2 YEment:!& 2 Y) 2 Y)"2 Y...............2 YC69&% 2 Y  2 Y "'-2 r2.&- 2  ^-2 Sext*!%2 x (2 rule&!2 , %2 ?disparate effects&&!!!!"!2 ' ,  2 M affirm. action!9!!&&2  , sex vs. !%%2  race)g!!!;2  ................................&2 ..................2 B78&& 2  !'-2 r3.&- 2  ^-2 Alienage5!&!&";2  ................................;2 w ................................;2  ................................42 7............................2 B83&& 2  !'-2 \r4.&- 2 \ ^-2 \ Illegitimacy!%:!"%;2 \v ................................;2 \ ................................;2 \6 ................................,2 \......................2 \B85&& 2 \ !'-2 r5.&- 2  ^-2  Disability6!&%;2 = ................................;2  ................................;2  ................................12 ]..........................2 B85&& 2  !'-2 r6.&- 2  ^-2 Agee6%";2  ................................;2  ................................;2 R ................................;2  ................................2 ..2 B86&& 2  !'-2 ^r7.&- 2 ^ ^- 2 ^Poverty/Wealth*&%!$F"!&;2 ^ ................................;2 ^H ................................;2 ^ ................................#2 ^................2 ^B86&& 2 ^ !'-2 r8.&- 2  ^-&2 Sexual Orientation*!%&!6!&!%%;2 G ................................;2  ................................;2  ................................2 g ...........2 B87&& 2  !'-2 r9.&- 2  ^- 2 F*)2 2undamental Interests&%&!9!&!&!! 2   ;2  ................................;2  ................................;2 y ................................2 .....a2 B88&& 2  !'-2 aa.!- 2 a b-F2 a4'Procedural Due Process/Access to Courts+&!!&&!5&!+&!!5!!"&2%&;2 a# .................................2 a.......................2 aB88&& 2 a !'-2 b.&- 2  ^-2 4 Food/Shel*&%&)&!2 i ter/Education!.%&!!%%;2  ................................;2 \ ................................)2 ....................2 B90&& 2  !'-2 c.!- 2  b-2 4Voting7&&$;2  ................................;2 n ................................;2  ................................ 2 ...............2 B92&& 2  !'-2 dd.&- 2 d ^-"2 d4Reapportionment2!!&&&&&9!& 2 d= K2 d Vote Dilution6&!6&%%;2 d, ................................;2 d ................................2 d....2 dB93&& 2 d !'-2 e.!- 2  b-"2 4Reapportionment2!!&&&&&9!& 2 = K 2  Gerrymandering5!%:!&&!&%2 w  (2  pol.&&2  itical!!2  , 2  race!!! 2 ;);2 f ................................2 ......2 B94&& 2  !'-2 r10..&&- 2  8-.2 Rational Basis Scrutiny2!&&!2!*!%&$;2  ................................;2 , ................................;2  ................................2 ....2 B96&& 2  !'-2 fc.!- 2 fN b-12 fPrivileges and Immunities.+%!%!!&&99&&!;2 f ................................;2 f+ ................................;2 f ................................:2 f................................2 fB98&& 2 f !'-2 d.&- 2 R ^- 2 T-82 he Requirement of State Action&!2!&&!9!&&*!!5!&&;2  ................................;2  ................................;2 \ ................................&2 ..................2 100.&&& 2  !'-2 e.!- 2 N b-I2 )Congresss Civil Rights Enforcement Power2&&%!2%2%&.&&!!:!&+&5!;2  ................................;2 R ................................;2  ................................2 105.&&& 2  !'-2 iii.- 2 i K- 2 i13th Amendment&&&69!&&:!&;2 i ................................;2 iQ ................................;2 i ................................42 i............................2 i105.&&& 2 i !'-2 Uii..- 2  K- 2 14th Amendment&&&69!&&:!&;2  ................................;2 Q ................................;2  ................................42 ............................2 107.&&& 2  !'-2 @iii.- 2  K- 2 15th Amendment&&&69!&&:!&;2  ................................;2 Q ................................;2  ................................42 ............................2 112.&&%'-                    ՜.+,D՜.+,X hp  Harvard Law SchoolP FIELD, Con LawLONG OUTLINE Title@ 8@ _PID_HLINKSA_Econgcivrights15th^Econgcivrights14thYEcongcivrights13th}l$congresscivilrigthsenforcementpowermsrequirementofstateactiomiprivilegesandimmunitiesratbasisscrutinyracialgerrymandermtpolgerrymandersqfundinreappgerrymander&fundintepreapportionemtnvotediluationcvfundintepvoting fundintepfoodfundintepproceduraldueprocessklfundamentalinterestsepdasexualorientationeplypovertywealthepageep disabilityep}aillegitimacyepd} alienageepa|sexepaffirmativeactionsexepdisparateeffects sexeprule sexep"raceepaffirmativeactionemployemtn!raceepaffirmativeactioneducationfnraceepaffirmativeactionqxraceepdisparateeffects raceepsegregationracepeqcategoriesofclassificationuhepgeneralrubricpqequalprotectionsubdppolicyissuesj|NOTsubdprightsrl~economiccontractssubdpve{righttodiesubdpkixsexualitysubdphxufamilyparentalcontrolsubdprmarriagesubdpoabortionsubdpl privacysubdpahi substantivedpcategoriesofrightscuf#substantivedueprocessgeneralrubriccsubstantivedueprocessoo`thefourteenthamendmentac]$otheraspectsoffederalstaterelationsisZcongressionalpreemptionW"interstateprivilegesandimmunitiesTdormantcommerceclauseQfederalimitsonstateregulationmdNcongressforeignaffairspower KcongresswarpowersHcongressspendingpower EcongresstaxpowerBothercongressionalpowersKM? the11themandJM< the10thamendyi9commerceclause6legislativepowergeneralrubric3legislativepowerzi0(congressionaleffortstocontrolexecbranchvi-executiveprivilege* warpowers'!executivepowerseparationofpowers $executivepowerbasicpowerssl!executivepowerpoliticalquestionmootnessripeness standingpxnotadvisoryopinioncaseorcontroversyj`polrestraintsonjud fedctjurisdiction  jurisdictiona`judicialpowergeneralrubric judicialpowerboseparationofpoewrs  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnoprstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\iRoot Entry Fpq[kData q-1TableWordDocumentgSummaryInformation(\DocumentSummaryInformation8MCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q