ࡱ>     ebjbj W oo3"""""$"CCCPCtZI"dR.Rk4kkkl'u\ џ_rararararararXPar"llarɦ""kkɦɦɦ"k"k_rɦ_rɦɦ7C$""o|YjC)[Rp40dSɦoɦo"p"" C""C !:   Casebook: Sullivan & Feldman (18th ed. + 2014 Supp.) TABLE OF CONTENTS  TOC \o "1-4" TABLE OF CONTENTS  PAGEREF _Toc279309301 \h i I. Background and History  PAGEREF _Toc279309302 \h 1 A. Background  PAGEREF _Toc279309303 \h 1 B. History  PAGEREF _Toc279309304 \h 1 C. Text  PAGEREF _Toc279309305 \h 3 1. Art. I, 8Congressional Powers  PAGEREF _Toc279309306 \h 3 2. Art. I, 9Universal Prohibitions  PAGEREF _Toc279309307 \h 3 3. Art. I, 10Limits on State Power  PAGEREF _Toc279309308 \h 3 4. Art. III, 3Treason  PAGEREF _Toc279309309 \h 4 5. Art. IV, 2Privileges & Immunities  PAGEREF _Toc279309310 \h 4 6. Bill of Rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309311 \h 4 7. Reconstruction Amendments  PAGEREF _Toc279309312 \h 5 8. Voting Rights: 19th, 24th, 26th  PAGEREF _Toc279309313 \h 6 II. Constitutional Interpretation  PAGEREF _Toc279309314 \h 6 A. Judicial Review  PAGEREF _Toc279309315 \h 6 1. Marbury v. Madison (Marshall, 1803): constl supremacy  PAGEREF _Toc279309316 \h 6 2. Cooper v. Aaron (all, 1958): no state nullification  PAGEREF _Toc279309317 \h 8 B. Democratic Objections to Judicial Review  PAGEREF _Toc279309318 \h 9 1. Court Skepticism: Thayer (1893)  PAGEREF _Toc279309319 \h 9 2. Rights Skepticism: Learned Hands Utilitarianism  PAGEREF _Toc279309320 \h 9 3. Responses to Hands Rights-Skepticism  PAGEREF _Toc279309321 \h 9 a) Wechsler (1959): Neutral Principals  PAGEREF _Toc279309322 \h 9 b) Dworkin (1977): Dignity  PAGEREF _Toc279309323 \h 10 c) Ely (1968): Representational Fairness  PAGEREF _Toc279309324 \h 10 d) Originalists: Raoul Berger (1977)  PAGEREF _Toc279309325 \h 10 4. Constitutional Interpretation  PAGEREF _Toc279309326 \h 11 a) Founders Denotative (rights-skeptical)  PAGEREF _Toc279309327 \h 11 b) Connotative (fact- & values-sensitive)  PAGEREF _Toc279309328 \h 11 III. Federalism  PAGEREF _Toc279309329 \h 11 A. Federalist 10 (Madison, 1787): comm rep large territory  PAGEREF _Toc279309330 \h 11 B. McCulloch v. Maryland (Marshall, 1819): political deference  PAGEREF _Toc279309331 \h 13 C. Commerce Clause: Congressional Power  PAGEREF _Toc279309332 \h 14 1. Before the New Deal: variable  PAGEREF _Toc279309333 \h 15 a) Gibbons v. Ogden I (Marshall, 1824): broad  PAGEREF _Toc279309334 \h 15 b) Sugar Trust Case (1895): manufacture `" commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309335 \h 15 c) Shreveport Rates Case (1914): substantial econ effects  PAGEREF _Toc279309336 \h 16 d) Swift & Co v. US (Holmes, 1905): stream of commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309337 \h 16 e) Police Regs: Lottery Case (1903), Hipolite Egg (1911), Hoke (1913)  PAGEREF _Toc279309338 \h 16 f) Hammer v. Daggenhart (1918): no reg child labor  PAGEREF _Toc279309339 \h 16 2. During the New Deal: judicial scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309340 \h 17 a) RR Retirement Bd v. Alton RR (1935): welfare `" commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309341 \h 17 b) Schechter Poultry v. US (1935): processing `" commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309342 \h 17 c) Carter v. Carter Coal (1936): production `" commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309343 \h 17 3. After the New Deal: deference  PAGEREF _Toc279309344 \h 18 a) NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (Day, 1937): substl relation  PAGEREF _Toc279309345 \h 18 b) US v. Darby (Stone, 1941): motive irrelevant  PAGEREF _Toc279309346 \h 18 c) Wickard v. Filburn (Jackson, 1942): aggregation  PAGEREF _Toc279309347 \h 19 d) Heart of Atl. Motel / McClung (1964): civil rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309348 \h 19 e) Perez v. US (1971): criminal law  PAGEREF _Toc279309349 \h 19 4. Today: more scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309350 \h 20 a) US v. Lopez (Rehnquist, 1995): gun violence `" commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309351 \h 20 b) US v. Morrison (Rehnquist, 2000): gender violence `" commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309352 \h 21 c) Gonzalez v. Raich (Stevens, 2005): home-grown = commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309353 \h 21 d) NFIB v. Sebelius (Roberts, 2012): future health `" commerce  PAGEREF _Toc279309354 \h 22 D. State Power  PAGEREF _Toc279309355 \h 22 1. Dormant Commerce Clause: Art. I, 8, cl. 3  PAGEREF _Toc279309356 \h 22 a) Gibbons v. Ogden II (Marshall, 1824): purposive inquiry  PAGEREF _Toc279309357 \h 23 b) Cooley v. Bd. of Wardens (1851): objective inquiry  PAGEREF _Toc279309358 \h 24 2. Transportation Regs: heightened scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309359 \h 24 a) Kassel v. Consol. Freightways (Powell, 1981): actual effects  PAGEREF _Toc279309360 \h 25 3. Facial Protectionism: strict scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309361 \h 25 a) Phila v. New Jersey (Stewart, 1978): landfill exclusion  PAGEREF _Toc279309362 \h 25 b) Dean Milk Co. v. Madison (Clark, 1951): import prohibition  PAGEREF _Toc279309363 \h 26 c) C&A Carbone v. Clarkstown (Kennedy, 1994): waste station monopoly  PAGEREF _Toc279309364 \h 26 d) U. Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer WM (Roberts, 2007): monopoly OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309365 \h 26 4. Implicit Protectionism: strict scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309366 \h 27 a) Baldwin v. GAF Seelig (Cardozo, 1935): sink/swim together  PAGEREF _Toc279309367 \h 27 b) Hood & Sons v. Du Mond (Jackson, 1949): national econ unit  PAGEREF _Toc279309368 \h 27 c) Hunt v. Wash. St. Apples (Burger, 1977): labeling  PAGEREF _Toc279309369 \h 27 d) Neutral Prohibitions OK: Exxon, Clover Leaf  PAGEREF _Toc279309370 \h 28 e) Pike v. Bruce Church (Stewart, 1970): disprop. adverse effects  PAGEREF _Toc279309371 \h 28 5. Art. IV, 2 Privs. & Imms.  PAGEREF _Toc279309372 \h 29 a) U. Bldg. v. Camden (Rehnquist, 1984): local quota  PAGEREF _Toc279309373 \h 29 b) N.H. v. Piper (Powell, 1985): bar exam residency  PAGEREF _Toc279309374 \h 29 6. Congressional Preemption & Consent  PAGEREF _Toc279309375 \h 29 a) PG&E v. Cal. Energy (White, 1983): no preemption nuclear waste  PAGEREF _Toc279309376 \h 29 b) Prudential Co. v. Benjamin (Rutledge, 1946): consent tax discrim  PAGEREF _Toc279309377 \h 31 IV. Free Expression  PAGEREF _Toc279309378 \h 32 A. Political Speech & Subversive Activity  PAGEREF _Toc279309379 \h 32 1. Free Speech Overview: History, Theory, Jurisprudence  PAGEREF _Toc279309380 \h 32 2. Incitement to Violence  PAGEREF _Toc279309381 \h 34 a) Schenck v. US (Holmes, 1919): tendency bad effects  PAGEREF _Toc279309382 \h 35 b) Abrams v. US (Holmes dissent, 1919): shift to objv probability  PAGEREF _Toc279309383 \h 36 c) Masses Publishing (L. Hand, 1917): objv language  PAGEREF _Toc279309384 \h 36 d) Gitlow v. NY (Holmes dissent, 1925): more subversive the better  PAGEREF _Toc279309385 \h 37 e) Whitney v. Cal. (Brandeis concur, 1927): strongest protection  PAGEREF _Toc279309386 \h 37 f) Dennis v. US (Vinson, 1951): broad clear & present danger  PAGEREF _Toc279309387 \h 39 g) Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969): protect even KKK  PAGEREF _Toc279309388 \h 40 B. Overbreadth, Vagueness Doctrines  PAGEREF _Toc279309389 \h 41 1. Overbreadth  PAGEREF _Toc279309390 \h 41 a) Broadrick v. Okla. (White, 1973): substantial overbreadth  PAGEREF _Toc279309391 \h 42 b) Limits on Overbreadth: charity, police, 1st Am, crushing  PAGEREF _Toc279309392 \h 43 2. Vagueness: Coates annoying  PAGEREF _Toc279309393 \h 44 C. Public Places  PAGEREF _Toc279309394 \h 44 1. Fighting Words & Hostile Audiences  PAGEREF _Toc279309395 \h 44 a) Chaplinksy v. NH (Murphy, 1942): broad fighting words  PAGEREF _Toc279309396 \h 44 b) Feiner v. NY (Vinson, 1951): broad hostile audiences  PAGEREF _Toc279309397 \h 45 c) Permits Discretion Invalid: Kunz, Forsyth  PAGEREF _Toc279309398 \h 46 d) Cohen v. Cal. (Harlan, 1971): fuck the draft  PAGEREF _Toc279309399 \h 46 2. Group Libel & Hate Speech (protected today)  PAGEREF _Toc279309400 \h 47 a) Beauharnais v. Ill. (Frankfurter, 1956): group libel by racism  PAGEREF _Toc279309401 \h 47 b) Collin v. Smith (7th, 1978): Skokie Nazi rally OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309402 \h 48 c) RAV v. St. Paul (Scalia, 1992): no content restrictions (cross)  PAGEREF _Toc279309403 \h 48 d) Virginia v. Black (OConnor, 2003): no presumed intent (cross)  PAGEREF _Toc279309404 \h 49 D. Traditionally Unprotected Speech  PAGEREF _Toc279309405 \h 50 1. Libel (narrow)  PAGEREF _Toc279309406 \h 50 a) NY Times v. Sullivan (Brennan, 1964): breathing room  PAGEREF _Toc279309407 \h 50 b) Public vs. Private: Butts/Walker (1967), Rosenbloom (1971)  PAGEREF _Toc279309408 \h 51 c) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (Powell, 1974): private person  PAGEREF _Toc279309409 \h 52 2. Privacy, Mental Distress Torts (very narrow)  PAGEREF _Toc279309410 \h 53 a) Bartnicki v. Vopper (Stevens, 2001): bugging  PAGEREF _Toc279309411 \h 54 b) Hustler Mag. v. Falwell (Rehnquist, 1988): public-fig IIED  PAGEREF _Toc279309412 \h 54 c) Snyder v. Phelps (Roberts, 2011): private-fig IIED  PAGEREF _Toc279309413 \h 55 d) US v. Alvarez (Kennedy, 2012): stolen valor?  PAGEREF _Toc279309414 \h 55 3. Obscenity (narrow)  PAGEREF _Toc279309415 \h 56 a) Roth v. US (Brennan, 1957): prurience  PAGEREF _Toc279309416 \h 56 b) Miller v. Cal. (Burger, 1973): vivid porno  PAGEREF _Toc279309417 \h 57 c) Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton (Burger, 1973): Miller test  PAGEREF _Toc279309418 \h 58 d) Am. Booksellers v. Hudnut (Easterbrook, 7th 1986): no antiporn  PAGEREF _Toc279309419 \h 59 4. Nudity (regulated)  PAGEREF _Toc279309420 \h 60 a) Erznoznik v. Jacksonville (Powell, 1975): no prohibition  PAGEREF _Toc279309421 \h 60 b) Zoning OK: Young, Renton, Alameda Books  PAGEREF _Toc279309422 \h 60 5. NY v. Ferber (White, 1982): child porn wholly unprotected  PAGEREF _Toc279309423 \h 61 6. Indecent Speech (regulated)  PAGEREF _Toc279309424 \h 61 a) FCC v. Pacifica (Stevens, 1978): broadcast  PAGEREF _Toc279309425 \h 61 b) Telephones, Cable, and the Internet  PAGEREF _Toc279309426 \h 62 c) Protecting Children Online  PAGEREF _Toc279309427 \h 63 7. Simulating Reality (protected)  PAGEREF _Toc279309428 \h 63 a) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coaln (Kennedy, 2002): virtual child porn  PAGEREF _Toc279309429 \h 63 b) Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Assn (Scalia, 2011): violent video games  PAGEREF _Toc279309430 \h 64 8. Advertising (intermediate scrutiny)  PAGEREF _Toc279309431 \h 64 a) Va. Pharma. v. Consumer Council (Blackmun, 1976): no ad bans  PAGEREF _Toc279309432 \h 64 b) C. Hudson Gas v. NYPSC (Powell, 1980): 4-part test  PAGEREF _Toc279309433 \h 66 c) Posadas v. PR Tourism (Rehnquist, 1986): vice exception?  PAGEREF _Toc279309434 \h 66 d) 44 Liquormart v. RI (Stevens, 1996): no alcohol price ban  PAGEREF _Toc279309435 \h 66 E. Symbolic Speech  PAGEREF _Toc279309436 \h 67 1. US v. OBrien (Warren, 1968): draft-card burning ban OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309437 \h 67 2. Texas v. Johnson (Brennan, 1989): flag burning protected  PAGEREF _Toc279309438 \h 68 3. Holder v. Humn Law Proj. (Roberts, 2010): terror financing ban OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309439 \h 68 4. Barnes v. Glen Theatre (Rehnquist, 1991): nude dancing  PAGEREF _Toc279309440 \h 69 F. Public Forum  PAGEREF _Toc279309441 \h 69 1. Total Medium Bans  PAGEREF _Toc279309442 \h 70 a) Schneider (1939), Struthers (1943), Kovacs (1949)  PAGEREF _Toc279309443 \h 70 b) City of Ladue v. Gilleo (Stevens, 1994): no private sign ban  PAGEREF _Toc279309444 \h 71 c) Watchtower Bible v. Stratton (Stevens, 2002): no Witness permit  PAGEREF _Toc279309445 \h 71 2. Time, Place, & Manner Regs  PAGEREF _Toc279309446 \h 71 a) Cox. v. Louisiana (Goldberg, 1965): no unequal parade permit  PAGEREF _Toc279309447 \h 71 b) Heffron v. ISKCON (White, 1981): country fair permit OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309448 \h 71 c) Metromedia v. San Diego (White, 1981): no billboard ban  PAGEREF _Toc279309449 \h 71 a) US v. Grace (White, 1983): no SCOTUS sidewalks ban  PAGEREF _Toc279309450 \h 71 b) City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (Stevens, 1984): sign ban OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309451 \h 72 c) Clark v. Creative Non-Violence (White, 1984): camping ban OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309452 \h 72 d) Ward v. Rock Against Racism (Kennedy, 1989): noise regs OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309453 \h 72 e) Abortion Clinic Protests: Frisby, Madsen, Schenck, Hill, McCullen  PAGEREF _Toc279309454 \h 72 3. Rights of Access to Public Property  PAGEREF _Toc279309455 \h 73 a) Brown v. Louisiana (Fortas, 1966): libraries compatible  PAGEREF _Toc279309456 \h 73 b) Adderley v. Florida (Black, 1966): jails incompatible  PAGEREF _Toc279309457 \h 73 c) Grayned v. Rockford (Marshall, 1972): schools incompatible  PAGEREF _Toc279309458 \h 73 d) Lehman v. Shaker Heights (Blackmun, 1974): pub trans limited  PAGEREF _Toc279309459 \h 73 e) SE Promos v. Conrad (Blackmun, 1975): muni theater public  PAGEREF _Toc279309460 \h 73 f) Greer v. Spock (Stewart, 1976): mil base nonpublic  PAGEREF _Toc279309461 \h 74 g) USPS v. Greenburgh (Rehnquist, 1981): mailboxes nonpublic  PAGEREF _Toc279309462 \h 74 h) Perry Ed. Assn. v. PLEA (White, 1983): teacher mailboxes nonpublic  PAGEREF _Toc279309463 \h 74 i) Cornelius v. NAACP (OConnor, 1985): fed charity drive nonpublic  PAGEREF _Toc279309464 \h 74 j) US v. Kokinda (OConnor, 1990): post office sidewalk nonpublic  PAGEREF _Toc279309465 \h 74 k) Lee v. ISKCON (Rehnquist, 1992): airport terminal nonpublic  PAGEREF _Toc279309466 \h 74 4. Rights of Access to Private Property  PAGEREF _Toc279309467 \h 74 a) Marsh v. Alabama (1946): right to company town  PAGEREF _Toc279309468 \h 75 b) Logan Valley ( Lloyd Corp. ( Hudgens: NO right to malls  PAGEREF _Toc279309469 \h 75 5. Compelled Access to Private Property  PAGEREF _Toc279309470 \h 75 a) Miami Herald v. Tornillo (Burger, 1974): NO right newspaper reply  PAGEREF _Toc279309471 \h 75 b) PruneYard v. Robins (Rehnquist, 1980): must allow petitioners  PAGEREF _Toc279309472 \h 76 c) PG&E v. PUC (Powell, 1986): NO compulsion extra mail space  PAGEREF _Toc279309473 \h 76 d) TBS v. FCC (Kennedy, 1997): cable access reqmt OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309474 \h 76 e) Hurley v. GLIB (Souter, 1995): NO parade access  PAGEREF _Toc279309475 \h 76 f) Rumsfeld v. FAIR (Roberts, 2006): mil recruiters campus access  PAGEREF _Toc279309476 \h 77 6. Right to Media Access  PAGEREF _Toc279309477 \h 77 a) Red Lion Broad. v. FCC (White, 1969): fairness doctrine OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309478 \h 77 b) CBS v. DNC (Burger, 1973): NO ad access  PAGEREF _Toc279309479 \h 77 c) CBS v. FCC (Burger, 1981): ad access fed candidates (statute)  PAGEREF _Toc279309480 \h 77 d) FCC v. League Wom. Voters (Brennan, 1984): intermediate scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309481 \h 77 e) AETC v. Forbes (Kennedy, 1998): NO right access pub TV  PAGEREF _Toc279309482 \h 78 f) Denver Cable v. FCC (Breyer, 1996): obscenity regs OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309483 \h 78 g) Reno v. ACLU (Stevens, 1997): no internet obscenity regs  PAGEREF _Toc279309484 \h 78 G. Government & the Media  PAGEREF _Toc279309485 \h 78 1. Kingsley Books v. Brown (Frankfurter, 1957): obscenity injunction OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309486 \h 78 2. Near v. Minnesota (Hughes, 1931): injunctions presumptively invalid  PAGEREF _Toc279309487 \h 78 3. Walker v. Birmingham (Stewart, 1967): ex parte injunction valid  PAGEREF _Toc279309488 \h 79 4. NY Times v. US (1971): Pentagon Papers: no prior restraint  PAGEREF _Toc279309489 \h 79 5. Nebraska Press Assn v. Stuart (Burger, 1976): 1st > 6th  PAGEREF _Toc279309490 \h 80 H. Campaign Finance  PAGEREF _Toc279309491 \h 80 1. Buckley v. Valeo (1976): only anti-corruption; NO equality  PAGEREF _Toc279309492 \h 80 2. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (Powell, 1978): corp referenda unltd  PAGEREF _Toc279309493 \h 81 3. Austin v. Mich. Chamber (Marshall, 1990): segregate corp funds  PAGEREF _Toc279309494 \h 82 4. McConnell v. FEC (2003): soft money regs OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309495 \h 82 5. FEC v. Wisc. Right to Life (Roberts, 2007): protect issue advocacy  PAGEREF _Toc279309496 \h 82 6. Citizens United v. FEC (Kennedy, 2010): unltd indep. expenditures  PAGEREF _Toc279309497 \h 83 7. McCutcheon v. FEC (Roberts, 2014): no aggregate contrib. limits  PAGEREF _Toc279309498 \h 83 I. First Amendment & Disclosure  PAGEREF _Toc279309499 \h 84 1. NAACP v. Alabama (Harlan, 1958): associational privacy  PAGEREF _Toc279309500 \h 84 2. NAACP v. Button (Brennan, 1963): soliciting clients OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309501 \h 85 V. Religious Autonomy  PAGEREF _Toc279309502 \h 85 A. Voluntarism & Separatism vs. Non-preferentialism  PAGEREF _Toc279309503 \h 86 B. Religion  PAGEREF _Toc279309504 \h 87 C. Free Exercise Clause  PAGEREF _Toc279309505 \h 88 1. Babalu Church v. Hialeah (Kennedy, 1993): animal sacrifice  PAGEREF _Toc279309506 \h 88 2. Religious Exemptions  PAGEREF _Toc279309507 \h 88 a) Sherbert v. Verner (Brennan, 1963): 7th Day unemployment  PAGEREF _Toc279309508 \h 89 b) Wisconsin v. Yoder (Burger, 1972): Amish drop-outs  PAGEREF _Toc279309509 \h 90 c) Denying Exemptions: Social Sec., IRS non-profit, prison work  PAGEREF _Toc279309510 \h 90 d) Empl. Div. v. Smith (Scalia, 1990): no peyote exemption  PAGEREF _Toc279309511 \h 91 3. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993  PAGEREF _Toc279309512 \h 91 a) City of Boerne v. Flores (Scalia, 1997): RFRA n/a to states  PAGEREF _Toc279309513 \h 91 b) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (Alito, 2014): corp exemption  PAGEREF _Toc279309514 \h 91 4. Hosana-Tabor Church v. EEOC (Roberts, 2012): ministerial exemption  PAGEREF _Toc279309515 \h 92 D. Anti-Establishment Clause  PAGEREF _Toc279309516 \h 92 1. Public Financial Aid to Religious Institutions  PAGEREF _Toc279309517 \h 93 a) Everson v. Bd. of Ed. (Black, 1947): bus reimbursements OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309518 \h 93 b) Mueller v. Allen (Rehnquist, 1983): tax breaks OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309519 \h 94 c) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (Rehnquist, 2006): vouchers OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309520 \h 95 2. Religion in Public Schools  PAGEREF _Toc279309521 \h 96 a) Lee v. Weisman (Kennedy, 1992): no graduation prayer  PAGEREF _Toc279309522 \h 96 b) Edwards v. Aguillard (Brennan, 1987): no creationism  PAGEREF _Toc279309523 \h 97 3. Endorsement of Religious Doctrines or Symbols  PAGEREF _Toc279309524 \h 97 a) Marsh v. Chambers (Burger, 1983): legv prayer OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309525 \h 97 b) Lynch v. Donnely (Burger, 1984): crche OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309526 \h 98 c) Ten Commandments at Courthouses (no, then yes)  PAGEREF _Toc279309527 \h 98 d) Discretionary Accommodation  PAGEREF _Toc279309528 \h 99 VI. Due Process  PAGEREF _Toc279309529 \h 100 A. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309530 \h 100 1. Barron v. Baltimore (Marshall, 1783): BoR `" states  PAGEREF _Toc279309531 \h 100 2. Dred Scott v. Sandford (Taney, 1857): due process right to property  PAGEREF _Toc279309532 \h 101 3. Slaughter-House Cases (Miller, 1873): 14th Privs & Ims narrow  PAGEREF _Toc279309533 \h 101 4. Saenz v. Roe (Stevens, 1999): 14th Privs & Ims right to travel  PAGEREF _Toc279309534 \h 102 5. Duncan v. Louisiana (White, 1968): BoR incorp. (6th jury trial)  PAGEREF _Toc279309535 \h 103 6. McDonald v. Chicago (Alito, 2010): 2d Am handguns  PAGEREF _Toc279309536 \h 104 B. Substantive Due Process beyond the Bill of Rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309537 \h 105 1. Economic Rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309538 \h 105 a) Calder v. Bull (Chase, 1798): natural law  PAGEREF _Toc279309539 \h 105 b) Lochner v. NY (Peckham, 1905): NO wage regs, equality interest  PAGEREF _Toc279309540 \h 106 c) New Deal Regs: Nebbia, W Coast Hotel, Carolene Prods.  PAGEREF _Toc279309541 \h 107 d) Williamson v. Lee Optical (Douglas, 1955): rational basis  PAGEREF _Toc279309542 \h 107 2. Contraception & Abortion  PAGEREF _Toc279309543 \h 108 a) Griswold v. Conn. (Douglas, 1965): right to contraception  PAGEREF _Toc279309544 \h 108 b) Roe v. Wade (Blackmun, 1973): right to abortion  PAGEREF _Toc279309545 \h 109 c) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (OConnor, 1992): qualified abortion right  PAGEREF _Toc279309546 \h 111 d) Gonzalez v. Carhart (Kennedy, 2007): fed ban D&E  PAGEREF _Toc279309547 \h 112 3. Marriage, Family & Gay Sex  PAGEREF _Toc279309548 \h 112 a) Marriage: Loving (1967), Zablocki (1978), Turner (1987)  PAGEREF _Toc279309549 \h 112 b) Household: Moore (1977) but Belle Terre (1974); Troxel (2000)  PAGEREF _Toc279309550 \h 113 c) Paternity Presumption: Michael H. v. Gerald D. (Scalia, 1989)  PAGEREF _Toc279309551 \h 113 d) Sexual Intimacy: Lawrence v. Texas (Kennedy, 2003)  PAGEREF _Toc279309552 \h 113 e) Marriage: U.S. v. Windsor (Kennedy, 2013): `"DOMA  PAGEREF _Toc279309553 \h 115 4. Right to Die  PAGEREF _Toc279309554 \h 116 a) Cruzan v. Mo. DOH (Rehnquist, 1990): passive OK w living will  PAGEREF _Toc279309555 \h 116 b) Wash. v. Glucksberg (Rehnquist, 1997): no active euthanasia  PAGEREF _Toc279309556 \h 116 c) Vacco v. Quill (Rehnquist, 1997): assisted suicide ban OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309557 \h 117 VII. Equal Protection  PAGEREF _Toc279309558 \h 117 A. Economics (Rational-Basis Scrutiny)  PAGEREF _Toc279309559 \h 119 1. Ry. Express Agency v. NY (Douglas, 1949): NYC truck ads  PAGEREF _Toc279309560 \h 119 2. Heightened Rationality: Animus, Arbitrary  PAGEREF _Toc279309561 \h 120 3. US RR Retirement Bd. v. Fritz (Rehnquist, 1980): hypo purpose  PAGEREF _Toc279309562 \h 120 B. Race (Strict Scrutiny)  PAGEREF _Toc279309563 \h 120 1. Segregation  PAGEREF _Toc279309564 \h 121 a) Strauder v. W. Va. (Strong, 1880): jury duty  PAGEREF _Toc279309565 \h 121 b) Plessy v. Ferguson (Brown, 1896): separate but equal  PAGEREF _Toc279309566 \h 121 c) Brown v. Bd. of Ed. (Warren, 1954): school integration  PAGEREF _Toc279309567 \h 122 d) Extending Desegregation: marriage, custody, prisons  PAGEREF _Toc279309568 \h 125 e) Korematsu v. US (Black, 1944): Japanese internment  PAGEREF _Toc279309569 \h 126 2. Facially Neutral Laws w Discriminatory  PAGEREF _Toc279309570 \h 127 a) Application: Yick Wo v. Hopkins (Matthews, 1886)  PAGEREF _Toc279309571 \h 127 b) Purpose: Gomillion (1960), Griffin (1964), Palmer (1971)  PAGEREF _Toc279309572 \h 127 c) Impact: Washington v. Davis (White, 1976)  PAGEREF _Toc279309573 \h 128 3. Affirmative Action  PAGEREF _Toc279309574 \h 128 a) Univ. Cal. v. Bakke (Powell, 1978): no quotas; scrutiny level?  PAGEREF _Toc279309575 \h 129 b) Adarand Constr. v. Pena (OConnor, 1995): strict scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309576 \h 130 c) Grutter & Gratz (2003): Powells scrutiny: individualized  PAGEREF _Toc279309577 \h 130 d) Parents Involved v. Seattle (Roberts, 2007): no history, no action  PAGEREF _Toc279309578 \h 132 4. Electoral Districting  PAGEREF _Toc279309579 \h 133 a) Shaw v. Reno (OConnor, 1993): maj-minority districts  PAGEREF _Toc279309580 \h 133 b) Upholding Redistricting: Lawyer (1997), Easley (2000)  PAGEREF _Toc279309581 \h 134 C. Gender (Intermediate Scrutiny)  PAGEREF _Toc279309582 \h 134 1. Frontiero v. Richardson (Brennan, 1973): no strict scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309583 \h 136 2. Craig v. Boren (Brennan, 1976): intermediate scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309584 \h 136 3. US v. Virginia (Ginsburg, 1996): exceedingly persuasive  PAGEREF _Toc279309585 \h 137 4. Sex Equality & Sex Differences  PAGEREF _Toc279309586 \h 137 a) Pregnancy: Geduldig v. Aiello (Stewart, 1974): but Title VII  PAGEREF _Toc279309587 \h 137 b) Statutory Rape: Michael M. v. Sup. Ct. (Rehnquist, 1981)  PAGEREF _Toc279309588 \h 138 c) Military Draft: Rostker v. Goldberg (Rehnquist, 1981)  PAGEREF _Toc279309589 \h 138 d) Unwed Fathers: Mohammed (1979): state, Nguyen (2001): fed  PAGEREF _Toc279309590 \h 138 5. Disparate Impact: Persl Admin v. Feeney (Stewart, 1979)  PAGEREF _Toc279309591 \h 139 6. Affirmative Action for Women  PAGEREF _Toc279309592 \h 139 a) Property Tax: Kahn v. Shevin (Douglas, 1974)  PAGEREF _Toc279309593 \h 139 b) Alimony: ORR v. ORR (Brennan, 1979)  PAGEREF _Toc279309594 \h 139 c) Social Security: Weinberger, Goldfarb, Webster, Wengler  PAGEREF _Toc279309595 \h 140 d) Mil. Promotions: Schlesinger v. Ballard (Stewart, 1975)  PAGEREF _Toc279309596 \h 140 D. New Suspect Classes  PAGEREF _Toc279309597 \h 141 1. Sexual Orientation: Romer v. Evans (Kennedy, 1996): rationality?  PAGEREF _Toc279309598 \h 141 2. Alienage (Federalism > Equal Protection)  PAGEREF _Toc279309599 \h 142 a) State Classifications: Strict Scrutiny  PAGEREF _Toc279309600 \h 142 b) Governmental Function Exceptions: Rational Basis  PAGEREF _Toc279309601 \h 142 c) Federal Preemption: Toll v. Moreno (Brennan, 1982)  PAGEREF _Toc279309602 \h 143 d) Federal Classifications: Rationality  PAGEREF _Toc279309603 \h 143 3. Illegitimacy (intermediate scrutiny)  PAGEREF _Toc279309604 \h 143 4. Disability: Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr. (White, 1985): rationality  PAGEREF _Toc279309605 \h 143 5. Age: Mass. Bd. Retirement v. Murgia (1976): rationality  PAGEREF _Toc279309606 \h 144 6. Poverty: James v. Valtierra (Black, 1971): rationality  PAGEREF _Toc279309607 \h 144 E. Fundamental Rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309608 \h 144 1. Voting Rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309609 \h 144 a) Denial: Harper (1966): poll tax; Kramer (1969): property  PAGEREF _Toc279309610 \h 144 b) Voter ID: Crawford v. Marion Cty. Elec. Bd. (Stevens, 2008)  PAGEREF _Toc279309611 \h 145 c) Vote Dilution: Reynolds v. Sims (Warren, 1964): one person/vote  PAGEREF _Toc279309612 \h 146 d) Gerrymandering: Davis v. Bandemer (White, 1986): politics OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309613 \h 146 2. Access to Courts  PAGEREF _Toc279309614 \h 147 a) Transcripts on Appeal: Griffin v. Illinois (Black, 1956)  PAGEREF _Toc279309615 \h 147 b) Counsel on Appeal? Douglas, Ross, Halbert  PAGEREF _Toc279309616 \h 147 c) Civil Litigation: Divorce, Bankruptcy, Welfare Paternity, Custody  PAGEREF _Toc279309617 \h 148 F. Economic Rights?  PAGEREF _Toc279309618 \h 149 1. Welfare and Housing  PAGEREF _Toc279309619 \h 150 a) Welfare: Dandridge v. Williams (Stewart, 1970)  PAGEREF _Toc279309620 \h 150 b) Housing: Lindsey v. Normet (White, 1972)  PAGEREF _Toc279309621 \h 150 2. Education  PAGEREF _Toc279309622 \h 150 a) San Antonio v. Rodriguez (Powell, 1973): no tax equity  PAGEREF _Toc279309623 \h 150 b) Plyler v. Doe (Brennan, 1981): undocumented children  PAGEREF _Toc279309624 \h 151 VIII. State Action & Enforcement of Civil Rights  PAGEREF _Toc279309625 \h 152 A. The Statutes (autonomy ( equality)  PAGEREF _Toc279309626 \h 152 B. State-Action Requirement (expanded)  PAGEREF _Toc279309627 \h 152 1. Civil Rights Cases (Harlan dissent, 1883): private accommodations  PAGEREF _Toc279309628 \h 152 2. Public Function Test: Co. Towns, Priv. Parks & White Primaries  PAGEREF _Toc279309629 \h 153 3. State Nexus Cases  PAGEREF _Toc279309630 \h 154 a) Shelley v. Kraemer (Vinson, 1948): court-enforced covenants  PAGEREF _Toc279309631 \h 154 b) Racist testamentary conditions? It depends.  PAGEREF _Toc279309632 \h 154 c) Burton (lessee), Reitman (repeal) = state action  PAGEREF _Toc279309633 \h 154 4. No State Action (usually procedural issues, not race)  PAGEREF _Toc279309634 \h 155 a) Moose Lodge v. Irvis (Rehnquist, 1972): licensing `" state action  PAGEREF _Toc279309635 \h 155 b) Jackson v. Metro. Edison (Rehnquist, 1974): utility reg `" state action  PAGEREF _Toc279309636 \h 155 c) State Acquiescence, Subsidies, Inaction  PAGEREF _Toc279309637 \h 155 C. Congressional Enforcement against Private Parties  PAGEREF _Toc279309638 \h 156 1. U.S. v. Guest (Stewart, 1966): state sheriff involvement  PAGEREF _Toc279309639 \h 156 2. Criminal Sanctions: 18 USC 241, 242  PAGEREF _Toc279309640 \h 156 3. Civil Sanctions: 42 USC 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(3)  PAGEREF _Toc279309641 \h 157 a) Jones v. Mayer (Stewart, 1968): 13th Am `" state-action req mt  PAGEREF _Toc279309642 \h 157 b) Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park (Douglas, 1969): HOA 1982  PAGEREF _Toc279309643 \h 157 c) Runyon v. McCrary (Stewart, 1976): 1981 to non-relig. priv. sch.  PAGEREF _Toc279309644 \h 158 4. Compulsory Membership  PAGEREF _Toc279309645 \h 158 a) Roberts v. Jaycees (Brennan, 1984): networking  PAGEREF _Toc279309646 \h 158 b) Boy Scouts v. Dale (Rehnquist, 2000): expressive  PAGEREF _Toc279309647 \h 158 D. Enforcement under 14th Am 5, 15th Am 2  PAGEREF _Toc279309648 \h 159 1. 1965 Voting Rights Act  PAGEREF _Toc279309649 \h 159 a) S. Carolina v. Katzenbach (Warren, 1966): literacy-test restrictions  PAGEREF _Toc279309650 \h 159 b) Katzenbach v. Morgan (Brennan, 1966): P. Rico Spanish  PAGEREF _Toc279309651 \h 160 c) Oregon v. Mitchell (Black, 1970): voting age  PAGEREF _Toc279309652 \h 161 d) Rome v. US (Marshall, 1980): disprop impact OK  PAGEREF _Toc279309653 \h 161 2. Shift to Remedial-Only Powers  PAGEREF _Toc279309654 \h 162 a) City of Boerne v. Flores (Kennedy, 1997): no RFRA to States  PAGEREF _Toc279309655 \h 162 b) Shelby County v. Holder (Roberts, 2013): no VRA 4(b) formula  PAGEREF _Toc279309656 \h 162 3. Private Rights of Action & Sovereign Immunity  PAGEREF _Toc279309657 \h 163 a) Florida Prepaid (Rehnquist, 1999): no patent action  PAGEREF _Toc279309658 \h 163 b) Gender: US v. Morrison (Rehnquist, 2000): no VAWA  PAGEREF _Toc279309659 \h 163 c) Age: Kimel v. Florida (OConnor, 2000): no ADEA  PAGEREF _Toc279309660 \h 164 d) Disability: Garrett (2001), Lane (2004), BUT Georgia (2006)  PAGEREF _Toc279309661 \h 164 e) Family Leave: Hibbs (2003), BUT Coleman (2012)  PAGEREF _Toc279309662 \h 165  Background and History Background Constitution as a self-conscious work of political art (unique oppy; brilliant Founders) Inalienable human rights (Locke) Legitimacy based on respect for HR, or else revolution Continual criticism re progress on HR (dialectic: HRlaw) Democracy may ( factionalism (Madison Fed10) & < HR Religious intolerance (most robust constl protections religious liberty) Race hatred, racism Comparative political science (Athenian dem, Roman rep, Dutch rep, Brit const) State-level democratic experiments/-ience pre-Rev (white privilege in Empire?) Contra French inexperience, nave idealization US realism: eg VA oppression Protestants ( Jeff1776/Mad1785 clauses Constitutional supremacy, b/c best protection HR MA-style ratification by Constl Conventions (broad demo: women, blacks) Skeptical of Brit legv supremacy (despotism) Interpretive elements Text: written (vs. British) Interpretive practice: judicial, political History Political science Political Theory: eg self-gov ( self-expression, constant debate/criticism History 164060 British Civil War: Puritan revolt agst hereditary monarchy Cromwell executed Charles I (right to kill tyrant) Innovations in religion (Quakers), literature (Milton), political theory Putney Debates: some advocates for written constitution Rainbraugh: poorest of we is equal to greatest of we Harrington: complex sys, eg selection officers by lots Cromwells failure: pass power to son  eventual return monarchy Charles II 16881776 Glorious Revolution Overthrew James II ( ltd constl monarchy under William III Legv supremacy, unwritten const, but gradual > HR Puritan moral covenant: worship God b/c & as long as just accdg to Bible Legitimacy: justice > power 177681 American revolution No taxation w/o representation is tyranny (slavery!) Many Founders British lawyers: affront to Brit constl ideals, liberty Struggle to give world a more rights-respecting const 178187 Debate Am Constitutionalism Articles of Confederation: essentially treaty indep States; `" taxation, foreign pol State const l experiments, eg MA (John Adams; still in force) Const l Convention = revolution agst Art Conf (debates kept quiet b/c > slavery) 1787 Convention (unique American procedure deep democratic consensus) Comparative experiences, theories (Montesquieu, Hume, Macchiavelli) Willingness to both follow and innovate Fed system, judl review (Marbury), separation of powers 17871803 judl review = hard-fough-for principle 1791 Bill of Rights (Madison both Const & BoR) ( quick ratification Madisons failed proposals (concern unlim state power, eg state slavery): Council of Revision: pol/legv constl review Congl negative any state law (states main threats to HR) 1830s counterrevolutionCalhoun: HR do not exist Sole historical democracies (Athens, Rome) had slavery, subj women Concurrent majorities theorySouth veto power over natl govt Property rights > human rights; should be protected at federal level Lochner SCOTUS protection prop rights/Gilded Age capitalism 1854 Kansas-Neb Act allowing slavery in territories 1857 Dred Scott protection slavery/prop at federal level 1860 Lincoln elected under moderate abolitionism 1830s irony: British abolition slavery in colonies, juxt w US South secession after first electoral loss under Constitution Lincoln: constitutionalism/HR > democratic majoritarianism Lincoln: ending slavery only justification for Civil War (Reconstruction Ams) 1865 13th Am before assassination 1868 14th Am: Madisonian BoR protection ( states (fount of Civ R legislation) 1870 15th Am: right to vote > race (only Am to use race) 1877 collapse Reconstruction after departure fed troops Deprivation right to vote until 1965 Voting Rights Act 1890s Plessy SCOTUS approves Jim Crow segregation 1940s WW2major shift American understanding own constitutionalism Nazism essentially anti-SemitismHitlers democratic support (faction of racial hatred) US abandoned isolationism after 2 WWsenforce Euro constitutionalism (EU emerge) US promotion common Euro mkt (do business together) UN creation (w British) ( Universal Charter HR American self-reflection complicity racism 1954 Brown unanimous overruling Plessy SCOTUS began seriously enforcing HRs: free speech, relig liberty, constl privacy SCOTUS overruled Lochner (HR > prop rights) Internationalization constitutionalism (courts): Germany, South Africa, India, etc Eg Lawrence v. Tex (2003): citations to Euro right to privacy UN/intl systems protecting HR Text Art. I, 8Congressional Powers The Congress shall have power To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; And 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 Art. I, 9Universal Prohibitions 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. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another. Art. I, 10Limits on State Power No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Art. III, 3Treason Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. Art. IV, 2Privileges & Immunities The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Bill of Rights 1st AmCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 2nd AmA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 3rd AmNo soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 4th AmThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 5th AmNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 6th AmIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 7th AmIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 8th AmExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 9th AmThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th AmThe 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. Reconstruction Amendments 13th Amendment: Slavery Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 14th Amendment: Privileges & Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2.Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 15th Amendment: Nonwhites Right to Vote 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. Voting Rights: 19th, 24th, 26th 19th Amendment: Womens Right to Vote 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 sex. 24th Amendment: No Poll Tax The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. 26th Amendment: Right to Vote at 18 (June 30, 1971) The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Constitutional Interpretation Judicial Review From where? Limited British tradition judl review (Bonhams Case), but Parliamentary Supremacy Federalism built off rel Am colonies to Brit Parliament (but now, dem representation) Montesquieu judl independence (but `" review) State adoptions NY: Hamilton defense jud l supremacy ( const lism (Fed78) Madison s failed progs (Council Rev; Cong Neg), reassured that Jud will handle Marbury v. Madison (Marshall, 1803): const l supremacy (p2) Post-Rev Federalist domination (Wash, Wash, Adams) ( divisions: Fr Rev (foreign policy) 1798 Alien & Sedition Act: criminalization of any criticism (Adams = His Rotundity) Federalist courts enforce: Jeffersonian (+Madison) newpapers jailed Va-Ky Resolutions argue unconstl (1st Am) censorship free speech 1800 electoral recourse: Jeffersonians create Democratic Republican Party Throw out Federalists for violating core HR Jefferson: protect HR through demo, not judl review (just need proper leaders) 1801 Act of Cong: court-packing Adams (Federalist) last-min judicial appts, incl William Marbury DC justice of peace Art II 2 cl 2: Pres nomination, Senate consent, SoS (Marshall) seal BUT late delivery to appointees Jefferson (Republican) refused to honorMarbury et al sought mandamus from SoS Madison Jefferson cancelled 2 SCOTUS sittings, so 1803 decision ISSUE: (1) whether SCOTUS power mandamus; (2) whether SCOTUS jx invalidate unconstl statute Judgment for Madison: (1) no; (2) yes Right ( remedy ( mandamus? Marbury property right, vested at sealing Violation of right ( remedy Mandamus appropriate under law, but SCOTUS mandamus power in orig jx? 1801 Act ( 1789 Judiciary Act: SCOTUS mandamus in orig jx 1787 Art III: SCOTUS `" orig jx here (supreme) (1) Mandamus orig jx power SCOTUS orig jx constitutionally ltd (`" mandamus in orig jx) Despite Marbury s vested prop right upon sealing Congress may not expand by legislation orig jx of SCOTUS (2) Constitutional Supremacy mandamus statute (1789 Judiciary Act 13) unconstitutional Popular Sovereignty: written Const = peoples fundamental right = limit govt/leg power But why Judiciary as final arbiter? French legv supremacy alongside written Const Jefferson right to revblood manures Separate constl process/protection from std legislation (eg > demo of Convention) Rousseaudemocracy improve human nature Foundersaware of emerging threats from democracy itself Role/CL power of the judge (implicit judl review) It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial dept to say what the law is. Judicial independence ( legitimacy Chamber of horrors (legitimacy judl review = protection HR when other branches fail) Limitations (Art I 9 unjust tax, attainder; Art III 3 treason) req judl protection Too extravagant to be maintained that judge could allow unconstl acts/laws Judicial oath to protect Constbut why not deference to more demo branches? Textualism: Const as interpretive tool for courts (most lasting argument) Inherent/essential superiority to contradictory statute Art III 2 arising-under jx requires constl analysis Art VI cl 2 (supremacy)state judges bound by Const despite state law (1) State courts/state law ( constl/judl supremacy (2) SCOTUS appellate review of (1) (3) Lower fed cts of (1) (4) SCOTUS/fed law ( constl/judl supremacy Controversy: fed > state, but SCOTUS > co-equal branches? Saving argument: historical understanding: (1) ( fed laws, too Remedy must be sought in ct w orig jx over controversy Marshalls alternatives to direct confrontation Recusal (Adamss SoS) Common Law: eg vest property right upon delivery Political Q: discretionarythey respect the nation, not indiv rights Here, ministerial b/c clear law, remedy Very narrow doctrine post WW2 (eg reapportionment: Baker, Reynolds) French/Jeffersonian view: Const = political (solution = revolution) Statutory Construction: constl avoidance Could read mandamus power in 1789 Judiciary Act as appellate (`" orig) jx Constitutional Interp: Art III 2 cl 2 as non-exhaustive list (Cong may expand, but not contract) 2 Pillars Con Law  HR Marshall vs.  democratic Marshall of McCulloch Cooper v. Aaron (all, 1958): no state nullification (p21) Ark Gov Faubus refused post-Brown integration Little Rock Central High, called Natl Guard Dist Ct injunction, integration under fed troops Dist Ct granted sch bd postponement integrationrevd on appealrare joint SCOTUS opinion ISSUE: whether state officials duty obey fed ct interp Const Affd 8th Cir revl of postponementintegrate! constl rights of childrencan neither be nullified openly and directly by state [officials], nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation Brown was unanimous 3 new Justices unanimous reaffirmance Note: Brown not technically binding on Ark (`" party), but SCOTUS indicating willingness to enforce (p25) Dickerson v. US (Rehnquist 2000) ISSUE: may Cong overturn SCOTUS constl interp (Miranda right) by statute? No: Cong limited to overturning judicial rules of evidence/procedure Miranda set constl rule, so Cong may not overturn Miranda applied to state courts (supremacy) Opinion replete w statements indicating maj thought announcing constl rule Opinion welcomed legv solutions at leaast as effective as Miranda Scalia DISSENT: Miranda never set constl rule (also read Marbury narrowly) Expansion of Constimmense and frightening antidemocratic power Presidential questioning of SCOTUS supremacy (binding on Exec?) Jeffersonpardoned prisoners Sedition Act 1798 Exec equally indep right to decide Jacksonvetoed recharter Bank US 1832, despite 1819 SCOTUS constlity estmt SCOTUS only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve Foundersveto power grounded on constl grounds Modernpolitical grounds Licolnrespect, but narrow interp Dred Scott; work w Cong; appt judges; AG to challenge Reform w/in constl-law framework Rooseveltcourt-packing/appts after Schechter Poultry invalidation Congl push-back, even from own party Frankfurter, Commerce Clause from Marshall to 20 Democratic Objections to Judicial Review Court Skepticism: Thayer (1893) Historical context: judl invalidation progressive legislation (propR > HR) Courts role: only concrete cases/controversiesNO advisory ops (eg Jay refuse Jefferson re treaties) Limited power used only when necy protect citizens re abuse rights (otherwise political Q) Rule of Clear Mistakedeference to political branches; only invalidate when clearly wrong Otherwise citizens would see courts > democratic politics (Alien/Sedition appeal demo) Otherwise torpid, bored, consumerist culture dependant on courts Applications: Britain (tradl, pre-ECHR), NZ Rights Skepticism: Learned Hands Utilitarianism The Bill of Rights (1968) LH pre-conversion: impact on Holmes-Brandeis dissents ( now law re protections HR Liberal, enlightened, urbane NYerprotector free speech Historical/textual argument: Marbury-style judl review = usurpation Little scholarly traction (Wechsler defense HR protection) Political philosophy: proper understanding democracy Prior to Con Law democratic equality; right to revolution if `" take HR seriously Athens: democracy + pol theory + theater (but murder Socrates evid dem excesses) Advocates Brit style utilitarianism (Bentham: poetry = pushpin) Pleasure/pain ultimate metric moral significance Maximize sum utility functionsdeeply insensitive rights small minorities Ideal gvt = majoritarianism (lead over time approximation util principle) Eliminate/sideline non-demo courts Neutral (state-free) theory of Goodthe nerve of liberalism Equal treatment (all personsslavery, subj women, gays (unpub) immoral b/c pain) Bentham philo radicalismtrain lawyers utilitarianism Essay Anarchical Fallaciesrights = nonsense on stilts Critical morality > conventional morality HRs as witchcraft Responses to Hands Rights-Skepticism Wechsler (1959): Neutral Principals Defense judl review w/o attacking political philo/Utilitarianism Hand saw courts as 3rd leg branch, just another policy-maker Legitimacy judl review by demands on judiciary ( > 3d legv branch)neutral principles Con Law Leg/Exec expected to change views in political contextlawyers `" politicians Neutral principles must be both retro- & prospective Brown  clearly just BUT illegitimate b/c `" neutral principle to justify Fundamental right? Maybe Ed, but swimming pools? All racial classifications? But would prohibit aff v action All invidious (hatred) classifications? But why not sexism, homophobia? Associational liberty? But liberty of segregationists? Legal positivism (law `" ethics) Dworkin (1977): Dignity Taking Rights Seriously Understanding Nixon s attack SCOTUS liberal crimproalternative explanations: Rights skeptic? No b/c commitment other righst Court skeptic (instl capacity)? No b/c legislature not better placed Lawyers must take HR seriously, give effect in Con Lawchallenge to dominant state Con theory Challenge sharp distinction law & moralityarguments of principle no value if clearly immoral Alternative: Rawlss theory justice Basic concept = dignity (`" pleasure/pain) Fund l rights (equal liberty) > democractic majoritarianism Progressive politics Difference Principle social justice = worst off better off Tasks of Con Interp Judiciary must use arguments of principle, but rooted in HR (1) Fit decisions to principles (2) Background rights, when fit breaks down (eg moral individuality/personality) Logic of HR discourse: if bkgd principle, then applied to all persons equally Ely (1968): Representational Fairness Democracy & Distrust Accept Dworkins framework, but resist weight given to HR Flip democratic objection to judl review, b/c courts defenders democracy Non-interpretive theory: has process fairly representated all persons affected by law? Explains Brown, since no right to vote ( constitutionality aff v action But `" Roe b/c (1) decades women s vote, (2) fetuses unrepresented Originalists: Raoul Berger (1977) No values ONLY track Founders denotations Brown unconst l b/c Founders accepted racial seg Modern Originalists (Scalia, Thomas, Alito?) inconsistent, unprincpled? Not taken seriously in scholarship Invalidate decades Con Law `" moral authority Constitutional Interpretation Founders Denotative (rights-skeptical) Originalists tend ( majoritarianism Connotative (fact- & values-sensitive) Fact-sensitive (eg Commerce Cl, given mkt shift 19th21st Cs) Values-sensitive (eg HR as progressive value) Federalism (p73) Articles Confed: weak natl gov powers: war, foreign, maritime courts, value fed $$, weights/measures, Indian affairs, post offices, gov regs BUT Art II: States retain every Pwr, Jx, & right, which not by confed expressly delegated to US Impediments to (1) unified natl mkt, (2) strong military/common def, (3) tax revenue Plans Virginia Plan: genl congl auth legislate where States incompetent or harmonize US Art I 8: enumerated powersnew: levy taxes, regulate interstate & foreign commerce + cl 18: 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 Am X: The powers not (`"  expressly ) 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. Federalist 10 (Madison, 1787): comm rep large territory Timeline 1781 Articles Confed (req unanimity for change, so 1787 const = revolutionary) Unicameral Cong, ea State same # (delegates) Commerce/taxation remained in States US couldnt pay Dutch back Rev bonds Trade wars btwn States 1787 Constitution Organization House: people of states Senate: state legislatures elect (originally) Exec: people of nation Jud: Exec/Sen appt Federal delegation comml/taxation power b/c people represented at Fed Commerce Cl most importanthold diverse Rep together by business Montesquieu (1748) commercial republic (Brit > Fr Bourbons) Impossible in large territory w/o Brit monarchy? Athens: ethnically closed, imperial, slavery, < women Rome: small Rep, closed, aristocratic, imperial Washingtons backing essential (couldve become dictator) Legacy political > military authority HR secondary consid (if at all?) Fed10 written in NY, for NY (center Tory though, unfreindly Rep ideals) Opposed to fed tax power (NY banking/comml center) NY followed VA, MA (after BoR) Essentially contestible documentmain criticisms: Charles Beard (1913): proto-Marxist Fed10 favor creditor class > debtorsConst rooted ugly class warfare Bad history: debtors favored Const Robert Dahl (1956): Fed10 as interest-group politicsBad reading: anti-factionalism Adair (1974)/Wills (1981)/D Epstein (1984)/White (1987): well-constructed Union ( tendency to break and control the violence of faction Gvts too unstablePublic good disregarded in conflicts btwn rival partiesMeasures too often decided by superior force of interested and overbearing majority Faction united by common impulse adverse to rights of others/public good (esp race, religion) Hume (1740s): group psychology; out-group dehumanization `" Rousseau: democracy redeem human nature If minority, checked by democracy If majority, can t remove causes, so mitigate effects by hetero republicanism Causes of factionalism (cures worse than disease) Libertycant destroy it any more than destroying air (liberty ( factions) Diversity of opinioninherent result of fallible reasoning Unequal distributions of property ( varied interests Despite judicial rule against judging own case, legislation effectively judging own/factions rights Taxes: there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample of the rules of justice Cant rely on enlightened rulers Solution: Republic > democracy (threat = democratic majoritarinism) Democracy = Roman mobs (Shakespeare: Julius Caesar, Corielanus) Political demagoguery (eg Peloponnesian War) Delegation: Vetted cadre of elected leaders through which constituents interests pass Larger body politic ( (1) larger pool of qualified leaders; (2) competition Elitism: distance natl reps fr people ( consensus building (check by regular elections) Rev/Convention experience: diverse Founders common ground Representation: Larger body politic (efficiency)if too small, then beholden to constituency; if too large, then disconnected altogether Constitution: aggregate interests ( Congress; BUT local ( States But slavery defect in representational design ( Civil War Solution: postWW2 judicial review of racism (Brown), relig intolerancesolve defect of democracy via undemocratic institution Union > States (contra Montesquieus claim republic only small territory) Above local prejudices (state-maj factions ( national minority (detoxify faction) Variety of parties as check on factionalism Obstacles to collusion, entrenchment of majority Slow spread factionalism across States Common market ( interdependence, cooperation Problems if Madisons worst fears majority factions (failure apply BoR to States, Cong negative) Majority white, Christian: Kant: design Const w worry that enemies imght someday take charge McCulloch v. Maryland (Marshall, 1819): political deference (p75) Washington Admin: Jefferson (State) & Madison `" Hamilton (Treasury) re nat l bank 1791 success est 1st Bank US 1811 expiration charter End War 1812 + fiscal crises, even Madison on board w nat l bank 1816 2d Bank US Postwar boom until 1818 panic/depression + congl investigation mgmt1819 failed repeal 1818 Md Act destructive tax non-state-chartered banks (every note or $15k up front) RoA county courts D-James McCulluch (corrupt cashier Balt branch) refused to pay taxPs SJ, affd by Md ISSUES: (1) whether Congress power to charter natl bank; (2) whether Md power to tax fed bank ops Sovereignty: States vs Union Revd for D(1) Cong has power, and (2) Md cant tax (1) Commerce Clause Power of Congress Cong power create natl bank: must allow the natl leg that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform [its duties] in the manner most beneficial to the people THEORY: Soveriegnty = Union of peoples of states (Fed10 representation & delegation) `" States alone (but recognize st borders)  gvt of the Union, though ltd in its powers, is supreme w/in its sphere of action TEXT: Even powers `" enumerated (vs. Art Confed  expressly delegated ) Placement among 8 powers (`" 9 lims) ( enlarge gvt powers Constitution `" legal code Essence of leg v rationality to consid circs, adjust course (esp in econ) TEXT: Fed pwr incl incidental (Art I 8 cl 18  necessary & proper ) ( execution  Nec y& imports no more than that one thing is convenient, or useful, or essential Common usage = useful; whole text (necy vs absly necy) Eg est post offices ( carry mail, punish thieves Proper would be surplussage if necy narrowest (logic) meaning INTENT: lasting constitution adaptable to changing circs (democracy) Enlightenment idea: people will learn from experience Judicial deference to democratic Exec/Leg (`" institutional capacisty re econ)  Let the end be legit, let it be w/in scope of const, & all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist w letter & spirit of the const, are const l Rational Basis:  where law `" prohib, & really calcd to effect any of objects entrusted to gvt, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity, would be to pass the line which circuscribes the jud l dept, & to tread on leg v ground. Accept historical assumption of power b/c only econ `" HR issue As long as people fairly represented (2) Negative/Dormant Commerce Clause Md `" power to tax fed bank operations (discrim) Power never existed, so never delegated up  Self-evident principle: ie taxation w/o representation is tyranny Constl supremacy so interwoven with its web, so blended with its texture, as to be incapable of being separated from it w/o tearing it to shreds Slippery slopeconstitution prostrate at feet of statestax all ops Limits on tyrannical fed power? Judicial review of HR violations Fed can tax state ops (uniformly, non-discrim, fafirly representative) Sovereign taxation power checked by system of gvt (angry constituents) Illegitimate b/c `" representation taxing fed ops affects non-citizens of state Beginning jud l skepticism state-democratic power Essential Q: nat l gvt s broad (abolitionists) or narrow (racists) pwrs re econ Potential Cong pwr end domestic slavery Unexpected success/growth US slavery, interstate commerce (sell South; divide families) South rejected even Const Am entrenching inrastate slavery Fund-raising power for anti-slavery compensation & colonization scheme Incorporation/citizenship only after CivWar Black military successes Dred Scott: narrow construction prevailed Southern racism stronger/more prevalent after CivWar 1877 Hayes-Tilden compromise: Ds exchanged Presidency for troop removal fr South Plessy segregation; violation 15th Am by deny right vote Political-process view: conflicts sorted out through democracy (`" strong judicial review) Commerce Clause: Congressional Power Crucial (along w taxaton pwr) to Union experiment Broadest power would allow prohib slavery Origins: Montesquieu (eg The Persian Letters) + Smith, Hume, etc Distinction fr ancient republics (ethnically closed, subj women, imperialist) Solution: large, commercial republic (eg Britain) build wealth via commerce `"empire But Madison Fed10: class ( faction (solution: nat l represenatative model) Art I 8 cl.3: Regulate Commerce w foreign Nations & among the Several States & w the Indian Tribes Fed22 (Hamilton): purpose suppress interfering & unneighborly regs some Statesif not restrained by natl controlserious sources animosity & discord Promote natl mktend hostile state restrictions, retaliatory trade regs, protective import tariffs Alternative interps: Narrow: movement goods (Carter Coal) Broad: effect >1 state (Marshall) Broadest: any business, any persons, anywhere (Krosky) ( clause superfluous? Types of constraints Purposive (Dagenhart)killed by Darby Substantive/subj-matter (Rehnquist) Major Qs Federalismdivision regulatory responsibility btwn natl & state gvts? Institutional capacityjudiciary capable of setting workable boundaries fed reg pwr? Before the New Deal: variable Gibbons v. Ogden I (Marshall, 1824): broad (p110) P-Ogden NY monopoly state watersD-Gibbons, former partner, competing w fed license Ps judgment in NY courts ( injunction agst Gibbons SCOTUS: Ds judgment b/c fed statute valid, preempt NY mono Commerce = intercourse ( > traffic) incl navigation Among the several states = all commerce affecting >1 state This pwr, like all others vested in cong, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution. Judicial restraintPolitical solution/limits Sugar Trust Case (1895): manufacture `" commerce (p112) 1887 Interstate Commerce Act; 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act American Sugar acquired 4 other sugar mfrs ( 98% control sugar refining Fuller dismissed US complaint: Mfg `" Interstate Commerce  The fact article is mfrd for export another State `" in itself make it an article interstate comm, & intent mfr `" determine time when article/prod passes fr control State & belongs Commerce Subject-matter constraint direct vs. indirect effects Harlan DISSENT:  Any disturb/unreas ly obstruct freedom buy/sell articles mfrd to be sold to persons other States or to be carried to other States affects no incidentally, but directly, the people of all the States; and the remedy fro such an evil found only exercise pwrs confided natl gvt Harlans great dissents, eg Plessy Shreveport Rates Case (1914): substantial econ effects (p113) Hughes upheld ICC order RRs end $$ discrim bwtn intraTex & Tex-La rates Intrastate discrim substl effect on interstate mkt Congl auth over instruments interstate commerce, necly embraces right control ops in all matters close/substl rel to interstate traffic, to efficiency interstate service, & to maint conditions under which interstate commerce conducted fair terms & w/o molestation or hindrance Cong pwr foster/protect interstate commerce, take all measures necessary & appropriate to that end, although intrastate transactions of interstate carriers may thereby be controlled Broad Commerce Power Swift & Co v. US (Holmes, 1905): stream of commerce (p114) Upheld Sherman Act injunction agst price-fixing meat dealers: When cattle sent for sale fr place one State, w expect end transit, after purchase in another, & when in effect they do so, w only the interruption to find purchaser in stock yard, & when this is a typical, constantly recurring curse, the current thus existing is a current of commerce among the States, & purchase cattle part & incident of it Reject mechanical jurisprudence distinguishing stages of mfgdistribution Broad Commerce Power Police Regs: Lottery Case (1903), Hipolite Egg (1911), Hoke (1913) (p114) The Lottery Case (1903) 5-4 upheld 1895 Fed Lottery Act prohibit importing, mailing, interstate trans lottery tickets Harlan: State gd morals by forbidding prod, so Cong protect all Americans Ltd to morally harmful prods Fuller DISSENT: Cong l police pwr `" 10th Am (p116) Hipolite Egg v. US (1911): upheld confisc pres vd eggs mislabeled Pure Food Drug Act 1906 Prohibited good may be seized wherever found, even after delivery w/in State (p116) Hoke v. US (1913): upheld Mann Act prohibition trans women immoral purps Cong complete pwr transportation among several States Incident: all necy + convenient means, incl police regs At least as morally imp as lottery prohibition Hammer v. Daggenhart (1918): no reg child labor (p116) Fed child labor law: prohib trans prods mfrd <14yos or 14-16 >8hr/d > 6d/wk Progressive era: women concerned w expoitation (successful in some, not all states) Father child laborers challenged laws constitutionality Law invalid b/c unconstl (1-transcends Cong auth; 2-infringes local matter) Purposive analysis (admit substance of goods in interstate commerce) Goal of law: control working hours of children Distinct fr Lottery, Hipolite Egg, Hoke b/c interst transport `" nec y to harms addressed by law  Over interst trans, or its incidents, pwr Cong ample, but production articles, intended for interst commerce, matter local reg No Cong pwr req States use police pwr prevent unfair competition (States w/o child labor) Holmes DISSENT: Act facially w/in Commerce Cl powers & Precedent allowing fed moral regs (alcohol, prost) Inappropriate moralizing by majority States free to regulate internal working conditions/domestic commerce But when they seek to send their prods across the state line they are no longer w/in their rights During the New Deal: judicial scrutiny RR Retirement Bd v. Alton RR (1935): welfare `" commerce (p119) 5-4 invalid RR Retirement Act 1934 b/c Cong `"pwr compel pension plan all carriers subj to ICA Goal of law: social welfare `"commerce Schechter Poultry v. US (1935): processing `" commerce (p119) Invalidation Nat l Ind Recovery Act 1933 b/c (1) unconst l delegation (2) > commerce pwr, as applied intrastate `" Swift stream commerce, `" Shreveport affecting commerce Interstate transactions ended once shipments reached slaughterhouse Slippery slope if fed control wages/hours b/c effect on prices Depression `" justification extraconst l means Cardozo CONCUR:  Activities local in their immediacy do not become interstate and national because of distant repercussions. Despite ruling, continued NIRA-like legislation: NLRA (Wagner Act 1935), Bituminous Coal Conservation Act 1935 Carter v. Carter Coal (1936): production `" commerce (p120) Invalidated BCCA 1935: set max hours, min wages neg d by miners reps; tax noncompliance Sutherland MAJ: fed can t control production b/c purely local, `" commerce  Distinction direct vs. indirect turns, not upon the magnitude of either the cause or the effect, but entirely upon the manner in which the effect has been brought about Subject-matter restriction Not a Q of degree, but of character Broad reading Schechter to prohibit gvt intervention both before AND after transport Cardozo DISSENT: Mining/ag/mfr `" themselves interstate commerce, but so related that regs must cover Shreveport shows causal rel so intimate/obvi to permit called direct w/o subj word to unfair/exc strain  so inescapable a relation FDR s Court Packing Plan Feb 1937 Message to Cong: plan add 1 for 1 retirment-age judges all fed cts (SCOTUS max 15) Six >70 Justices March 1937 natl radio: must save Const fr Court & Court fr itself June 1937 rejection Sen Judy Cte: needless, futile, & utterly dangerous abandonmt constl principle But effective? Friendlier decisions + Van Devanter retirement Frankfurter article criticizing New Deal review as contra Const, theory, precedent After the New Deal: deference NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (Day, 1937): substl relation (p125) D-J&L 4th largest US steel producernatl extraction, transport, storage, fabrication NLRB ordered end unfair labor practices by discrim firing union organizers J&L noncompliance Cir Ct for J&L b/c NLRA `" Commerce Power Hughes rev d for NLRB  Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close & subst l rel to interstate commerce that their control is essential & approp protect that commerce fr burdens or obstructions, then Commerce Power Q of degree production process `" determinative Schechter, Carter `"controlling McReynolds DISSENT: too indirect, remote of effects slippery slope US v. Darby (Stone, 1941): motive irrelevant (p127) Fair Labor Stds Act 1938: max hours, min wages (1) Prohib interstate shipment lumber by workers `" FLSA (2) Prohib (intrastate) employment of workers `" FLSA Ga. lumber mfr indicted viol FLSA Dist Ct quashed indictment b/c FLSA unconst l local commerce Stone rev d for US (1)  While mfr `" itself interstate comm the shipment of mfrd goods interstate is such commerce & prohib such shipmt by Cong indubitably reg of commerce (Gibbons) Kill purposive constraints Cong s motive irrelevant Overrule Dagenhart s  bare maj Holmes s  classic dissent (2) employment = so related to commerce (Shreveport, Swift) ( w/in Comm Power Narrow (overrule?) Carter Coal  to extent incompatible10th Am = truism Accepting Frakfurters criticismRelegate Federalism concerns to political solutions Policy: allowing States to undercut natl stds ( race to bottom/free-rider problem Wickard v. Filburn (Jackson, 1942): aggregation (p130) Ag Adjustmt Act 1938 price controls, quotas/penalties Violation originalism (Founders denotations)Jefferson rolled over in his grave But consistent w connotative interpretationmodern economy (mkt overhang) Marshall in McCulloch: mkt designed to endure for ages to come Filburn dairy farmer wheat 2x > quota, but all household use $117 fine Rev d for US (Wickard Sec y Ag) Gibbons broad Comm Power, limited by political (`" judicial) processes Legal formulas no longer feasible (`" production/distribution; `" in/direct)  Substantial economic effect on interstate commerce,  irrespective of  direct or  indirect.  Aggregate approach ( taken together with [actions] of many others similarly situated ) Heart of Atl. Motel / McClung (1964): civil rights (p132) Title II Civ Rights Act 1964 prohib race discrim facilities if ops affect commerce or St action MLK political mvmt ( Civ Rights Act 1964, Voting Rights Act 1965 Affect commerce ( apply Brown anti-discrim to private businesses SCOTUS precedent Reconstruction Civ Rights Cases narrow state-action interp Dicta: potl opening via Commerce Clause Liberal Dems/Reps concerned about grounding in Comm Clbetter under 14 Am 5 Pragmatic response: Comm Cl easier politically Clark unanimous upholding application to motels, restaurants Heart of Atl Motel v. US: motels Increasingly mobile US population Effect on Negro travel/commerce (eg special guidebooks, refrain travel) Determinative testwhether activity = commerce which concerns more States than one & real & substantial relation to the national interest Comm Pwr = pwr reg local incidents interstate commerce, incl local activities origin/destination which might have substl & harmful effect Katzenbach v. McClung (Ollies BBQ): Ala. BBQ joint Received meat interstate commserve near interstate hwy Restaurant discrim negative effect Negro traveldirty diners or dont travel at all Black CONCUR: warn agst overbroad applications to every remote, possible, speculative, effect on commercemaintain some distinctions local vs. national interests Douglas CONCUR: 14th Am better ground than Commerce Power (discrim > econ freedom) Goldberg CONCUR: purpose Civ Rights Act = human dignity `" mere economics Perez v. US (1971): criminal law (p135) Perez indicted fed law prohib loansharking w threat violence Douglas upheld agst local-affairs challenge b/c factfinding re org crime use loansharks to finance national ops Today: more scrutiny US v. Lopez (Rehnquist, 1995): gun violence `" commerce (p136) Gun-Free School Zones Act 1990 (Biden/Thurmond Crime Control Act) Fed crime poss n gun school zone Lopez 12th gr convicted gun/bullets in San Antonio HS Rehnquist aff d for Lopez beyond Cong Comm Power 3 categories of activity (1) `" reg channels of interstate commerce (2) `" reg instrumentalities/persons/things in interstate commerce (3) `" subst l rel to interstate commerce (only close call) gun on campus `" econ transaction Criminal statute (trad l state police power) But ever full state sovereignty, eg family law? What about fed marriage benefits? `" essential part of larger reg econ activity `" jx l element ensuring case-by-case inquiry interstate nature (Law later amended/upheld w jx l element) `" cong l findings to evaluate leg v findings (but `" req mt of Cong) vs Ollie s BBQ  not nec y Tenuous causal link violent crime to (1) > insurance, (2) < travel, (3) < education Slippery slope: nat l control family law, education (policy: state labs morality) Kennedy CONCUR: recognize importance of stability Comm Cl precedent, but not here Cong can reg under assumption single mkt unified purp stable natl econ But Court still role in maintaining federalism balance Federalism unique contribution Framers to pol sci & theory Madison: 2 gvts to compete Peoples affectionsreq clarity natl vs local roles Challenges to federalism: (1) states no longer represented in Senate; (2) Fed lobbying Thomas CONCUR: subst l effects test `" original Const (invention 20th C) Commerce = sell, buy, barter, transport BUT `" produce, grow, mfr Subst l effects test makes express commerce powers (bkrp, mint, etc) surplusage Breyer DISSENT: Subst l effects test =  significant effectWickard aggregate effects Defer to Cong judgment if rational basis for concluding (invented legv history?) Education inextricably intertwined w Nations economy Problems w maj: Contrary to 193795 precedent Turns Q Comm Pwr into formula > practical consids Uncertainty in previously certain doctrine Souter DISSENT: deference to Cong = judl restraint Return to untenable jurisprudence of Carter, Schechter, Dagenharthighly formalistic notions of commerce to invalidate fed social econ legislation Stevens DISSENT: guns = articles of commerce + tools to restrain commerce Cong power prohib guns at any location US v. Morrison (Rehnquist, 2000): gender violence `" commerce (p144) Violence Against Women Act 1994: fed civil action Va. Polytech. college student raped 2 football players Rehnquist aff d for Ds beyond Comm Pwr b/c gender-motivated violence `"  econ activity `" jx l element = cong l findings, but insuff alone Attenuated causal chain (slippery slope ( family law) Criminal law Thomas CONCUR: subst l effects test `" original Const Souter DISSENT: w/in Comm Pwr b/c subst l effect (maj effective rejection subst l effects test) Cong institutional capacity gather/consid evidence Courts only judge rational basis Cong l findings =  mountain of data > Heart of Atlanta/Ollies BBQ Gender violence 1990s ~ race discrim 1960s Broad state support (36) b/c unable to address locallynot the least irony that States will be forced to enjoy the new federalism whether they want it or not. Breyer DISSENT: econ/nonecon distinction complex rules ( drafting guidelines Acknowledge major tech/econ changes Economic nature of education in modern economy as way to attack doctrine? Gonzalez v. Raich (Stevens, 2005): home-grown = commerce (p149) Controlled Subs Act prohib possn, obtaining, mfrg cannabis CA Compassionate Use Act 1996 medical home-grown marijuana (intrastate) Ps Raich & Monson challenge CSA as applied to CUA (prohib home-grown) Stevens revd for US Wickard controlsrational basis for finding substl effect in aggregate; mkt overhang Darby: motive irrelevant `" Lopez, Morrison b/c here  economic activity Scalia CONCUR:  more nuanced Nec y/Proper power to cover intrastate activities as part of OK comprehensive scheme O Connor DISSENT: federalism, state labs social experimentation Distinguishable fr Lopez/Morrison factors: Economic activity Express jxl reqmt Legv findings Attenuation causal link to interstate commerce Courts broad construction econ activity makes Lopez mere drafting guide Most comml goods have homemade analogall subj to regulation? Econ activity should relate directly to comml activitystream of commerce Existence nat l mkt `" dispositive  econ activity Even if  econ activity `" subst l effect interstate commerce Wickard stipulation  actual effects wheat growing Maj renders Morrison incorrect, given extensive leg v findings Disclaimer: O Connor not a pot-head Thomas DISSENT: Cultivation `" Orig  commerce  Founders OK cannabis cultivation `" valid under Nec y/Proper b/c distinct/separable subclass of those covered by CSA `"Fed45 (Madison): fed pwrs  few & defined  state pwrs  numerous & indefinite NFIB v. Sebelius (Roberts, 2012): future health `" commerce (p157) ACA individual mandate solution to inherent free-rider problems Subsidize guaranteed-issue & community-rating provs Prevent delaying coverage until after sick Roberts controlling opinion (+ dissent `" Comm Pwr) (ACA upheld on Tax Pwr) `" existing comm l activity (novel attempt to use pwr) mandate purchase anything? Wickard  perhaps most far reaching  at least there aff v activity  Comm Cl `" gen l license to reg indiv fr cradle to grave, simply b/c he will predictably engage in particular transactions Slippery slope ( forcing purchase veggies Scalia DISSENT in judgment: Wickard = ne plus ultra Raich `"supportive b/c brave new world Other practicable ways to effect goals: surcharge upon ins purchase; tax credits Abstaining fr insurance mkt `" commercial activity Ginsburg DISSENT in part: Unique mkt virtually universal participation huge free-rider problem States inability to solve problem individually Cong chose indiv mandate > single payer system based on MA experiment Practical consids based on actual experience ( rational basis, reasly connected to Congs goal State Power Dormant Commerce Clause: Art. I, 8, cl. 3 (p219) The Congress shall have the Power [to] regulate Commerce [among] the several States. Plenary power when Cong chooses to exercise But preemption? Congl consent? Implication: may States regulate where Cogress silent? Historical origins Anti-discrimination principles (similar to Priv/Ims, Free Speech) Art I, 10, cl. 2 Commerce ClauseMcCulloch broad deference; dormant CC Art. IV, 2 Privileges & Immunitiesaffirmation American citizenship Residents vs non-residents; Fundamental rights 14th Amfilling Madisons gap Equal Protection clausesuspect classes; fundl rights (eg interstate mobility) Priviliges & Immunities clfed protection basic rights Structural Personal Rightsimplicit mobility in fed system (agst States & indivs) Destructive trade wars/Balkanization under Arts Confed (~Eur) Madison: centralized regulation of commerce so widely accepted that < debate Hamilton (Fed22): foresaw continual degeneration interstate relations Political foundations Cardozo sink or swim togetherlong run prosperity in union Stone: judicial invalidation as virtual representation for out-of-staters Economic foundations: Cardozo (Baldwin) prosperity Jackson (Hood & Sons) natl economic unit Ideas effect on EU common mkt Effect of Eries elimination fed common law? Tests Early Diverse vs uniform Direct vs indirect Original package vs not original package Modern (stable case law)legitimate purpose Transportationheightened rationality (actual purpose) Import/Exportleast restrictive alternative (eg 1st Am) Product restriction cases Price restriction cases Gibbons v. Ogden II (Marshall, 1824): purposive inquiry (p223) Gibbons I broad (connotative) reading CC: commerce affecting more states than 1 Taxation/regulation legitimized by demo representation Discriminatory taxation unconstl Gibbons II dicta re dormant CC (but effectively preemption case) States most important part fed system Power taxation (concurrent) `" commerce reg (potentially conflicting) 1787 central drive delegating State power to fed Art I, 8 (con law > ord y law) Founders meant to give both Fed & States plenary taxation power (< discrim) CC distinct b/c regulation natl economy central Cong power BUT Wilson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh (Marshall, 1829): upheld Dels damming navigable river Minor stream, so police power/state interest > commerce Marshall died 1835CJ Taney: State power unless explicit fed law Cooley v. Bd. of Wardens (1851): objective inquiry (p228) 1789 fed law: recognize/incorp existing state navigation laws 1803 Pa law req local pilot Cooley liable/fine `" local pilot Phila port Court s middle ground: validate Pa reg as local matter Local differences among harbors, so local pilotage reasonable Deference to States local reliance on pilotage laws When issue lends itself to diversity approaches, then uphold State regs Flip: When nat l stds req d, the Cong power only Implicit Cong l consent But std for future businesses to follow? Unpredictability ( not followed Failed alternatives Indirect vs. direct? conclusory label `" rule of decision Holmes/Brandeis  too mechanical, uncertain, remote Original product packaging? algorithmic, but over-/under-inclusive MODERN VIEW: Brandeis (Buck, Bradley): purposive inquiry Buck: Wash s purpose denying cert auto stage line Seat-Port void b/c blatantly protectionist Bradley: Ohios purpose denying cert auto stage line Cleve-Flint OK b/c safety (congestion) Better rules b/c better reflection US rep demo Lines of cases Transportationelevated scrutiny by analysis of record Import-Exportmost demanding b/c prohibitions Genl grounds for invalidation of laws Abridgment of fundamental right (facial) Fundamental right to do business/travel anywhere in Union (Dean Milk, Phila) Suspect classifications (purpose) Protection : negv CC :: racism : Equal Protection (ie per se forbidden) Transportation Regs: heightened scrutiny S.C. Hwy Dept. v. Barnwell (Stone, 1938) (p270) Upheld facially non-discrim SC law prohib overweight trucks OK Art IV 2, but dormant CC? Southern P. v. Ariz. (Stone, 1945) (p270) Invalidated facially non-discrim Ariz law prohib overcapacity/long trains Legit State purpose insufficientmust review whole legv record for impartial justification Heightened scrutiny: must show means ( goals (net saving human life) DISSENT: should apply rational basis review Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines (Douglas, 1959) (p271) Invalidated Ill reqmt contoured mud guards (vs. most states straight guards) Disproportionate burden w/o adequate safety justification Fairness worry regulatory restrictions on actors unrepresented in pol process Kassel v. Consol. Freightways (Powell, 1981): actual effects (p265) Invalidated Iowa trucking restrictions: `" doubles, but certain exemptions for locals Concerns Exemptions suggest discriminatory motive Governor s veto of prior bill permitting universal exemption mobile-home shipment Analysis (1) Undue burden, given national norms state power over national market (2) Police power?show legv record net saving human life Road wear dismissed outright Safetyunsupported/contradicted upon close scrutiny of record (actual effects) Tradl deference state hwy regs, but < if disproportionate effects Brennan/Marshall CONCUR: close scrutiny unnecessary b/c law/process nakedly protectionist Rehnquist DISSENT: deference re economic issue `" covering fund l rights Hypothetical-rational-basis analysis (actual purpose inappropriate, esp in econ) (dominant view) Facial Protectionism: strict scrutiny Test: (1) Burden (2) Legit purpose (3) Least restrictive alternative (strictest scrutiny: ~speech, equal protection) Phila v. New Jersey (Stewart, 1978): landfill exclusion (p233) NJ law prohib (`" regulation) import waste fr outside State environmental purpose Challenge by NJ landfill operators, cities other states NJ Trial: unconst l econ discriminationNJSC: revd for police power Stewart invalidated as discriminatory Prohibition virtually per se invalidworst possible re interstate comm (contra regs) (~speech) Presumably constly protected interest mvmt goods/servs (~mobility) Right of doing business anywhere in America free competition Despite acceptance health/safety: protectionism reside legv means as well as ends Narrow exceptionsquarantine laws, Maine v. Taylor (1986) non-native baitfish Rehnquist DISSENT: w/in quarantine exception waste inherently dangerous State s obligation to dispose of own waste `" req mt accept that of others NJ s alternatives? Eg cap overall waste Granholm v. Heald (2005): Kennedy invalidated MI/NY discrim reg out-of-state internet wine dealers Stevens DISSENT: 21st Am made alcohol reg special exemption to valid CC challenges Discriminatory taxes = outright prohibition Chem. WM v. Hunt (1992): invalidated Ala. fee non-state haz waste disposed by Ala. Or. Waste Sys. v. DEQ (1994): invalidated discrim surchg under per se rule invalidity Subsidies OK, but rebates NOpolitical safegds W. Lynn Creamery (1994): Stevens invalidated MA milk tax + local rebate Rehnquist DISSENT: effectively subsidy Camps Newfound (1997): Stevens invalidated ME tax exemption local charities Scalia DISSENT: exemption charities `" similarly situated to covered institutions New Energy of Ind. (1988): invalidated OH tax credit locally prod ethanol, but Ind. subsidy OK Dean Milk Co. v. Madison (Clark, 1951): import prohibition (p242) Wisc law req pasteurization w/in 5mi Madison challenge by Chicago plant = USDA grading Struck down as effective prohibition, `" least restrictive alternative Despite accepting health/safety purpose  Reasonable nondiscrim alts  strict scrutiny (1) charge for local inspection; (2) use model stds w/o geo limits Black DISSENT: defer health regs unless beyond reasl doubt ineffective Prior invalidations in-state inspection Minn. v. Barber (1890): meat Foster-Fountain v. Haydel (1928): shrimp shelling Johnson v. Haydel (1928): oysters Toomer v. Witsell (1948): shimp packing C&A Carbone v. Clarkstown (Kennedy, 1994): waste station monopoly (p244) Clarkstown pub-priv pshp finance waste transfer station5yr local waste monop to contractor Carbone denied export cheaper out-of-state processor Invalidated  by preventing everyone except favored local operator fr perf g initial proc g step, the ord deprives out-of-st bus or access to local mkt Facial discrim per se invalid Reas l nondiscrim alts eg uniform safety regs Revenue generation `" local interest > anti-discrim interst commerce O Connor concur jgmt monopoly excludes all competitors, local & non-local Souter DISSENT: same constraints local/foreign `" protectionism Essentially municipal facility (eventual municipal takeover)tradl local gvt function U. Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer WM (Roberts, 2007): monopoly OK (p246) Upheld municipal-owned WM monopoliesconstl significant difference fr Clarkstown Unique gvt responsibility health/safety/welfare citizenry Most harm falling on local voters who enacted law Alito DISSENT: strict scrutiny regardless of ownpmeans-testingmotives irrelevant Dept. Rev. Ky. v. Davis (2008): Souter upheld discrim taxation state bonds as gvt function Kennedy DISSENT: Utd Haulers unfortunate exception resurrecting police pwr tautology Maj ignoring Utd Haulerss principal rationale: monop equal app local/foreign Implicit Protectionism: strict scrutiny Test: (1) Burden (2) Legit purpose? (A) If protectionistleast restrv alt (B) If neutral, Pike balancingincidental vs. disproportionate effects? Baldwin v. GAF Seelig (Cardozo, 1935): sink/swim together (p257) NY Milk Control Act prohib sale of out-of-state milk purchased < NY wholesale NY argued purpose = adequate supply pure/wholesom milk req paying farmers living income Invalidated as trade barrier (~ custom duty = trade differential) Constitution = 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 States cant protect residents agst reasl interstate competition Whenever they speak of destructive competition, it stinketh of protectionism Hood & Sons v. Du Mond (Jackson, 1949): national econ unit (p258) Hood, Boston milk distributor w NY suppliers3 receiving depots in NY NY denied license 4th depot b/c Commr determined anti-competitive in saturated mkt Invalidated NY law as applied to Hood Our economic unit is the Nationthe states are not separable econ units States may not advance own econ interests by ltg mvmt commerce into or out of state Black DISSENT: facially neutral statute, leg v history showed `" ulterior intent, Comm r `" hostile Frankfurter DISSENT: unimportant commerce effects shouldn t trump important local concerns Hunt v. Wash. St. Apples (Burger, 1977): labeling (p259) Unanimous invalidation NC reqmt only USDA grade Wash. investment grading sys at least as good as USDA Facially neutral, but effective discrim regardless of legv intent Raise costsdisparate effectforce Wash growers chg mktg Deny Wash growers econ advg they had built Leveling effect insidious advantaging NC growers Nondiscrim altseg allow for both grading labels (p260) Bacchus Imports v. Dias (White, 1984): invalidated Haw exemption local root liquor, fruit wine Discriminatory intent & effect Neutral Prohibitions OK: Exxon, Clover Leaf (p261) Exxon v. Maryland (Stevens, 1978): upheld Md prohib all petro producers/refiners fr op stations Md `" local producers/refiners (all gas imported) so `" local bias Interstate marketers `" producers/refiners No prohib flow interstate goods, added costs, or distinction in/out-state mkt actors Blackmun DISSENT: (p262) Minn v. Clover Leaf Creamery (Brennan 1981): upheld Minn ban nonreturnable plastic milk pkg Permission pulpwood containers benefitted in & out-state actors Out-state plastic mfrs still access to mkt prods besides nonreturnable milk jugs Burden `" clearly excessive CC protects interstate mkt, `" particular interstate firms Only invalidate if State s legit purpo < burden on interstate commerce Pike v. Bruce Church (Stewart, 1970): disprop. adverse effects (p263) invalidated Ariz req mt label AZ-grown produce Pike balancing test: If neutral statute & legit public interest & incidental effects interstate comm Uphold unless burden clearly excessive rel to putative local benefits Found legit Ariz interest, but $200k burden new plant clearly excessive Balancing test most contentious dormant comm cl doctrine (Scalia abstains) (p271) Lewis v. BT Inv. Mgrs. (Blackmun, 1980): invalidated Fla. prohib ownp local inv cos by out-state banksparochial prohib entry into mktburden > local interest (p272) Edgar v. Mite Corp (1982): invalidated Ill. Bus Takeover Act reqg SoS registr 20d before takeoverburden interstate comm > local benefits (p272) CTS Corp v. Dynamics Corp (Powell, 1987): upheld Ind law req purchaser controlling share local corp to get majority approval disinterested stockholders in order to get voting rights too Same effects intra/interstate commerce States prerogative to regulate corp governanceinterstate effects incidental Scalia CONCUR: reject Pike balancing White DISSENT: direct reg purchase/sale stock interstate comm Art. IV, 2 Privs. & Imms. (p273) Art IV, 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges & Immunities of Citizens of the Several States. Threshold: formal discrimination: different treatment residents/non-residents Further inquiry: fundamental rights: Corfield v. Coryell (Washington, 1823): pre-BoReg rights to marry, work Baldwin v. Mont. Fish & Game (Blackmun, 1978): elk hunting `" fund l, so discriminatory licensing OK Edwards v. Cal. (1941): invalidated anti-Okie law prohibiting importation indigent person who becomes indigent person Division on reasoning: CC? Art IV 2? 14th P/I? Implicit to fed system? U. Bldg. v. Camden (Rehnquist, 1984): local quota (p274) Invalidated Camden 40% local employment quota city construction projs State action = municipal (b/c power derived fr State) Municipal residency discrimination impermissible Non-residents of State ipso facto (by def) non-residents of city, so effective discrim Non-res `" democractic recourse Test (1) Threshold: const ly protected Priv/Imm? Corfield v. Coryell  fund l rights ( Baldwin `" elk hunting Only those priv/imms bearing upon vitality of Nation as single entity (2) Subst l reason for discrim? Non-res must constitute particular source of evil at which statute is aimed Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978) Blackmun DISSENT: shouldnt expand Priv/Imm Cl to cover intrastate discrim among diff municips Function Priv/Imm Cl = force state res bear same burdens as non-state res Virtual representation non-res interests b/c = in-state/non-city res discrim N.H. v. Piper (Powell, 1985): bar exam residency Invalidated residency reqmt for bar admission (P on Vt border) Practice law imp to natl econLess restrictive alts Rehnquist DISSENT: law state-by-state diversity < uniformity interest Less restrictive means test (borrowed fr 1st Am) impracticable Congressional Preemption & Consent PG&E v. Cal. Energy (White, 1983): no preemption nuclear waste (p281) 1954 Atomic Energy Actfed regs safety nuclear plants 1976 Cal law moratorium new nuclear plant certs until solution long-term waste disposal Upheld Cal law Means of preemption (1) Explicit (2) Implicit (a) Fed scheme so pervasive that no room to supplement (b) Fed field of interest so dominant to preclude state activity (c) Fed purpose preempt PG&Es args all rejected Cal law re nuclear plants for safety oversteps into fed territory Avoid examining purposeecon purpose OK (gap in fed law), so assumed Avoid constructing state statute as nullification Cal law contrary Cong, NRC decisions NRC decisions re safety `" econ efficiency Cal law frustrates fed purpose promote nuclear energy Fed purpose `" pursued at all costs Blackmun CONCUR: unecessary dicta on impermissibility of safety rationale for Cal law (p286) Types of preemption Express Implied FieldRice v. Santa Fe Elev. (Douglas, 1947): Q of Cong purp: (1) Fed scheme so pervasive (2) Act of Cong touch field where fed interest so dominant ConflictHines v. Davidowitz (Black, 1941): Alien Registration Act No rigid formula/ruleobstacle to accompmt, exec full purps and objs Cong Fla. Lime & Avocado v. Paul (Brennan, 1963): only where compliance physical impossibilityOK if fed minimum maturity, Cal higher White DISSENT: Gade v. Natl Solid WM (OConnor, 1992): OSHA preempt Ill hazmat licensing Disagreement on rationale: conflict, express Souter DISSENT: req expr Cong intent preempt historic state powers Negative CC Analysis (assume cong l legal knowledge) If would ve upheld, then Cong `" intend to preempt If wouldn t have upheld, then Cong intended to preempt (p288) Wyeth v. Levine (Stevens, 2009) Prescription drugs under FDCA (silent on preemption)  anti-nausea drug, improper IV push artery ( gangrene, amputation Tort suit: insuff warning label (20 ~ cases) Also agst hosp for nurse s negl ( settled SCOTUS aff d for , rejecting ( s implied preemption args: State req mts to change label reconcilable w/ FDA  change being effected post-change-approval procedure ( s burden clear evid FDA wouldn t have approved change No frustration Cong l purpose b/c `" Cong l intent preempt drug claims Breyer: Cong knew how to write in preemption Thomas: Implied preemption `" Const l Supremacy Cl ( s preemption defense must est agency affirmative action/inaction Thomas CONCUR: dissatisfaction preemption doctrine Preemption only by Art I, 7 enactment (`"  cong l & agency musings ) Alito DISSENT: FDA consideration of IV push, found ben > cost Juries ill-equipped cost-ben that Cong delegated to FDA (p289) Crosby v. Nat l Foreign Tr. Council (Souter, 2000) Fed sanctions preempt MA harsher sanctions agst business w Burma Undermine range of flex Cong intended Undermine Press role as diplomat Prudential Co. v. Benjamin (Rutledge, 1946): consent tax discrim (p290) McCarren Act 1945 assured state control over insurance (a) insurance subj to state laws (b) req explicit preemption in any fed Act (no implied preemption constructions) Upheld SC tax on NJ ins co despite discirm under CC, b/c Cong consent Cong alone ex broad CC pwr (grant `" restriction) Cong may share CC pwr w states Cong only ltd by restrictions  designed to forbid action altogether by any power Equal protection clearly limiting on both Cong, States CC unlimited to Cong; lims only on States Privileges & Immunities Cl? Whether state discrim fundl rights? Why allow discriminatory legislation under CC, vs. other HRs? Institutional competence: Cong best suited econ analysis (reason for controversy eg Lopez) Court best suited fundl HRs CC like a statutejudiciary fillling out through interpCongs right to correct Constitutional common law True constl issues? MarburyCourts last word Eg Eq Prot: Metro Life Ins. v. Ward (1985) Other issues under CL tradition (interstitial)Leg may choose to occupy the field (p292) White v. Mass. Constr. Council: upheld Boston Mayors 50% local-hire quota b/c (1) mkt-participant exception, (2) premption by fed grants favoring residents of proj area Free Expression Structure of Am free-speech law Public forum doctrine Domain of protected speech Strong anti-censorship principle: equality of speech/speaker, OR Demanding clear & present danger (deep skepticism state power) Pol theory: if above conditions satisfied, robust political debate Critique: tendency consolidation power < access poor, minorities ( access principle SCOTUS suspicious any access principle Principle: any govtl prohibition (state or fed) directed at communications in domain of convictions expressing political or moral dissent to governmental policy/dominant moral opinionwhether implied (1917/18 Espionage Act) or express (Gitlow syndicalism, Whitney anarchy) that is not evenhanded (not discrerning) is invalid unless clear & present danger Political Speech & Subversive Activity Free Speech Overview: History, Theory, Jurisprudence Text: 1st Am: Cong shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Cardozo, Palko v. Conn. (1937): fundl liberty, indispl condition nearly all other freedoms Traditionally unprotected: bribery, perjury, antitrust conspiracies, solicitation to murder Debatable categories: incitement, fighting words, libel, obscenity, child porn Debatable partial protections/lower-value categories? (Right to Petition Cl protected official critiques, submitted through formal channels) (p886) History Prior RestraintMiltons Areopagitica (1664) critique English licensing printing presses Milton: central to basic rights = religion, speech Presses, Bible translations ( serious concern democracy; Renaissance Brit Puritan Revolution incompatible w licensing Rise Quakers, pol dissent, idea written const, art/lit Post hoc prosecution OK Blackstone (1760s): no prior restraint but subseq censure, criminalization OK Seditious Libel Pre-Rev England: intl pub, w/o lawful excuse/just, written blame any public man, or of the law, or of any institution est by law  jud l determ  seditious tendencies truth `"def English Bill of Rights 1689 some protection MPs speech in Parliament Debatable whether Founders intended prohibit seditious libel in 1st Am Sedition Act 1798Federalists (Adams) barred crtiques by Republicans (Jefferson) Jailing of Republican journalists (Adams: his Rotundity) French Revolution Republicans influence by lib/frat/egal democracy Federalists influenced by Reign of Terrorcommoners easily manipulated Major factor Fed defeat 1800; Jefferson pardoned Reps; law exp 1801 Resolution HR issue through democratic politics (`" jud l review) Few free speech controversies (abolition, Civ War sedition) until WWI NYT v. Sullivan: Brennan constitutionalized previously political free-speech issue Connection free speech & religious exercise (Brandeis, Whitney) Richards: precious, unique, exceptional American tradition (p888) Political Theory Truthadvance knowledge & truth in mktpl of ideas JS Mill (1859): suppression may silence truth, lose out on hearing wrongs refuted Critical (ethics) vs. conventional (ignorance) morality Free speech push conventional ( critical Uncover ethical truthessential humanity Winnowing true from falsequestion own assumptions Invigorate moral faculties through exposure to falsehoods Power of speech indicated by continual murder of moral leaders Holmes, Abrams: pragmatic: free mkt ideas Holmes lifted entirely fr Ch 2 On Liberty BUT Marcuse (1965): effect of monopol media on manipulation truth Self-governmentfacilitate representative democracy Meiklejohn (1948): protect integrity demo agst politicians attempts to shut up dissent BUT public > private speech Brandies, Whitney: Brennan, NYT v. Sullivan: Black, Mills v. Ala: Functions of political free-spech rational Inform, improve making of pub pol Prevent indefinite gvt entrenchmentkeep clear channels of pol chg Prevent gvt abuse power Promote stability by safety valve dissent (Brandeis, Whitney) Autonomypromote indiv autonomy, self-expression, self-fulfillment Equal dignityIntrinsic worth of speech to individual listeners & speakers Critical to emancipating subjugated minorities (race, religion, sexual orientation) Brandeis, Whitney: Criticism: over-broad, joys of speech indistinguishable fr other activities Negative Theoriesdistrust gvt in realm of speech protection Jackson, Barnette: officials cant dictate orthodoxy in matters of opinion Objections to free speech: Tolerance of the intolerant Counter-utilitarian tendencies Challenges institutions Human dignityhateful speaker vs. hated audience? Clear/present danger limit Marcuse: repressive tolerance, anti-historicalWeimar Rep implosion: Nazi victory through liberal democracy, media manipulation Responsesviolence > free spech allowed Nazi riseresurgent racisim in Europe US: private speech (NAACP, ADL) countering hate speech Liberal theorists (Milton, Locke, Rousseau) refused protection of  wrong thinkers UN anti-racist convention requires hate speech prohibs (US `" sign) (p893) Jurisprudence/Interpretive Practice Political Sedition Act; abolitionist literature JudicialSchenck, Frohwerk, Debs, Abrams Camps Absolutists: Black, Douglas Balancers: Holmes, Hand, Frankfurter, Harlan Disagreements Categories un/protected speech Balancers: libel, obscenity, commercial Absolutists: contract scope unprotected speech Time/place/manner regs (Meiklejohn) Clear & present danger Balancers: permissive Absolutists: either demanding (Brandenberg) or eliminate Modern court Skeptical any categories unprotected speech Closer scrutiny whether regs content-based Very demanding clear/present danger test (effectively none at all) Special solicitude for speech ( great burden of justification for suppression Asymmetry/double-std: regulation of speech (scrutiny) vs. economy (deference) Holmes: Lochner (econ) vs. Abrams (speech) Stone, Carolene Prods fn 4 Frankfurter, explaining Holmess influence on speech law: Categorizationstrict scrutiny (for Ps), min rationality (for Gvt) Incitement to Violence Schenck Circular Right not to be drafted To soldiers Intent Tendency ( effects Frohwerk Newspaper ??? To genl public 10yr sentence Intent Tendency ( effectsDebs Speech Socialism! To Genl public 10yr sentence Intent Tendency ( effectsAbrams Circular Awake! Strike Soldiers 20yr sentence Intent?  Schenck v. US (Holmes, 1919): tendency bad effects (p899) 1917 Espionage Act (1-false statements, 2-cause insubordination, 3-obstruction) Wilsons purpose? Initially isolationist (campaign prom)revl after comml interests affected Attempt shut up dissent re unjust WWI (Versailles German scapegoating) Political result Congl refusal join League of Nations Richards proclaims parallel US Southern racism post-Civ War? Catastrophic consequences suppression free speech The US was decisive in the Allied victory, no doubt about that Thats why we founded the UN after WW2. Never again would we trust those Europeans. Never again! 2,000 convictions 1917-18 Ds passing out leaflets to conscripted soldiers as boarding 13th Am; equating conscription to despotism; Assert Your Rights Affd conviction for willful obstruction mil recruitment Clear and present danger that words ( substv evils that Cong right to prevent A question of proximity and degree The character of every act depends on the circs in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. Depends on factual falsehoodintent (b/c lies `" conviction) Problem: Ds here not lying clearly had conviction Richards:  It s astonishing to see such a godo argument so wrongly deployed. Holmes, the Olympian, sleepeth. Dicta rejecting prior restraint limitation (liberalizing impulse) Political speech requires more protection than just no prior restraint Analogized to criminal accessory/solicitation But ignored distinctions: public/clandestine; garden-var criminality/fundl rights (p901) Frohwerk v. US (Holmes, 1919): affd espionage convictions newspaper publishers Despite disapproval draft riots, approval consciencious objectors Tendency to obstructA little breath would be enough to kindle a flame (p902) Debs v. US (Holmes, 1919): affd conviction Eugene Debs, Socialist P leader, for Ohio speech Despite `" mention draft in speech Allow in extrinsic evidence party platform, Debs s position  One purp of the speech, whether incidental or not it does not matter, was to oppose not only war in general but this war, and that opposition was so expressed that its natural and intended effect would be to obstruct recruiting. Political success > probability of being followed Richards: Its no wonder why we have no real Socialist movement in the US. The constitutional war on the Left was sanctioned by the Supreme Court for a very long time. Abrams v. US (Holmes dissent, 1919): shift to objv probability (p903) Russian immigrant Ds, anarchist revolutionaries, Czarist Russia (US ally) pogroms of Jews ( refugees to US 1918 US intervention Bolshevik Soviet Union (White counterrev) NYC LES leaflets calling for genl strikes Affd Espionage Act convictions for incite, provoke, encourage (1) resistance, (2) curtailment mfg Under Schenk, Frohwerk, Debs: intent + tendency Holmes (+ Brandeis) DISSENT Conviction based solely on 2 leaflets First: Resist WWIPress cowardly silence re Russia reveals hypocrisy plutocracy Second: Prevent ProductionWorkers Wake Upbut w/o specific intent conseqs Urge curtailment, but `" specific intent (dubious) cripple/hinder US war effort Holmes the Olympian, looking down on the rest of us  These poor and puny anonymities  who cares? Unlike Debs, no following Repress those likely to be followed, not lunatic fringe BUT 20yr sentences excessive Change of views ( JS Mill (L Hand influence?): objective probability Suppression speech logical indiv move: sweep away all opposition But long-term bad for society: When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe, even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideasthat the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. Holmes not a values-skepticutilitarianism moral perspective Mixture JS Millian utilitarianism + Metaphysical Club pragmatism Repentence for 1798 Sedition Act1st Am `" CL seditious libel Guide: anything like Alien Sedition Act = per se unconstitutional  Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command,  Cong shall make no [law] abridging the freedom of speech. Masses Publishing (L. Hand, 1917): objv language (p909) P-revolutionary magazine publisher sought inj agst Postmaster denial carry under Espionage Act Eastman bro/sis, NYU Law alumni Criticize Wilson admin unjust WW1, failed peace Ps judgmentno reasonable likely violation Act Categories unprotected speech: false facts; urging disobedience to law; calling refusal duty No false statementsthey fall w/in the scope of that rightto criticise either by temperate reasoning, or by immoderateand indecent invective, which is normally the privilege of the individual in countries dependent upon the free expression of opinion as the ultimate source of authority. No cause insubordinationtoo broad a reading, would cover all hostile criticism Agitation `" incitement to violence  Hard-fought acquisition in the fight for freedom  If one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation No obstructing recruitment Poem to Emma Goldman, Alex Berkman: Russian immig anarchist assassins One may admire and approve the course of a hero w/o feeling any duty to follow him. Masses formula: L. Hand focus on objv language itself, not Holmess focus on probable effects Hand: clearer guide for district judges 2d Cir revd on appeal If natl & reasl effect of what is said is to encourage resistance to law, and the words used in endeavor to persuade to resistance, it is immaterial that the duty to resist is not mentioned Gitlow v. NY (Holmes dissent, 1925): more subversive the better (p914) Criminal anarchy conviction (state law) for Left Wing Socialist publication Manifesto Crim anarchydoctrine violently overthrow orgd government Express content-based restriction on speech Advocate Communist Rev by militant revy Socialism through revy mass action D on board/business dir of official magbut no evid any violent conseqs Affd convictionbifurcate analysis Defer to express categorical legv determination of prohibited class speech Judl review only when implied prohibition on speech Schenck clear & present danger test ONLY where statutory silence re targeted language Incorporation speech to states under Reconstruction Ams Dicta recognized freedom of speech as fundl right/liberty in 14th Am Due Process Holmes (+Brandeis) DISSENT: Clear & present alwayshere call for uprising at some indefinite future Express prohibitions most dangerous Debate w L Handjust because language scary, not necy inciteful If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.the more subversive, the better Whitney v. Cal. (Brandeis concur, 1927): strongest protection (p918) Conviction under Cal. Criminal Syndicalism Act for mbrshp Communist Labor Party Beginnings American feminismadvocacy abortion, contraception criminalized as obscene Crim Syndicalismadvocating, teaching, aiding/abetting violence ( pol chg D opposed violence, advocated democratic socialism But remained member even after radical platform adopted Affd conviction b/c Ds particular facts unreviewble (facial challenge) Valid crim conspiracy legislation, under Gitlow Brandeis (+Holmes) CONCUR: Concern broadness of law (step in prep) > tradl conspiracy (overt act) Incorporation: 14th all liberties (due process + substantive (privs & imms)) ( States Property rights (Lochner) + personal rights Act requires certain circs for suppression; Court must review factual circs (as applied challenge) Violates Scopepolitical speech Violates Equalitytargeted for leftist views No Danger Open Qs: clear, present, level of danger Rationales free speech protection: uncover truth, facilitate self-government, promote autonomy Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared women and burned witches. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. Subversive advocacy most protected speechno prohibs expression conviction alone BUT carefuly crafted conspiracy laws OK BUT public promotion moral values OK Scope: any form conviction challenging gvt No danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear & present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that may befall before opportunity for full discussion Further req relatively serious evil (eg `" trespass) Aff conviction based on other evidence conspiracy Below, challenged facially, not as applied Why does Holmes concur? Accept importance freedom consciencious public dissent Holmes (Abrams): History: 1798 Sedition Act Pol Theory: Utilitarian promote truth, winnowing, expose falseBrandeis (Whitney): - Freedom expression/convictin (fundl right to morally dissent agst laws, even encourage viol) - Equal liberty as central human right, prior to utilitarian analysis After Whitney, lawyers began challenging as appliedSCOTUS inching toward Holmes/Brandeis view Fiske v. Kan. (1927)IWW criticizing US wage system DeJonge v. Or. (1937)ACP mtg attendance alone Herndon v. Lowry (1937)revd Ga. death penalty Comm organizing blacks Dennis v. US (Vinson, 1951): broad clear & present danger (p923) Affd Smith Act 1940 conspiracy conviction agst facial challenge Facts: Smith Act prosecutions after end WW2 Soviet alliance Comm leaders literature/activities ( violent overthrow Act suffly narrowly targetted to advocacy, not mere discussion Overrule Gitlowmust have judl review of express speech prohibitions Accept Holmes-Brandeis test: (1) substl interest; (2) clear/present danger L Hand (below): whether gravity of evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necy to avoid the danger (~ torts B < PL) BUT weak danger test: If ingredients reaction present, cannot bind gvt wait until catalyst added High gravity evil easily overwhelm low probability Frankfurter CONCUR: Balancing test > absolute rules (b/c absolute execptions ( corrode rules) Cong best placed to balance competing policies: security vs. free speech SCOTUS as applied analysis protection against crim prosecution under Smith Actno harm Jackson CONCUR: Clear & present danger test outdated moderninzed revy techniques used by totalitarian parties Best applied when speech/circs tending toward crime Black DISSENT: Cong/Cts reaslness determination shouldnt weaken Constl protection Douglas DISSENT: Facts of case = discussion Marxism-Leninism Why bar advocacy while not barring books advocated? Cure for bad speech is more speech Even if harm infinite, probability infinitessimal Problems: Ignore as applied challenge Ignore Holmess Gitlow dissent: dissenting speech most important Ignore inflated conspiracy charges Chilling effectRichards: The arctic breeze of Dennis Later SCOTUS course corrections Brandenberg As applied protections Overbreadth doctrine Clear & Present DangerSchenck TendencyAbrams Objective probabilityWhitney Very high probability Very grave harm Not rebuttable in normal courseDennis Tradeoff: Prob vs. harm Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969): protect even KKK Mid-Civ Rights MvmtSCOTUS siding w mvmt agst Southern States until Brandenberg Nonviolent dissent (Gandhi-inspired) clarified fascist/irrational violence of racism Response to nonviolence was murder (Gandhi, King) (p931) Revd KKK leaders conviction Ohio Criminal Syndicalism for filmed speeches Overruled Whitney categorical approach (effective overrule Dennis) Accept Brandeiss Whitney concurrence High probability harm Grave harm Not rebuttable in normal course Advocacy `"incitement  The mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it for such action. Douglas CONCUR: Clear & present danger test irreconcilable w freedom speech in peacetime The line btwn what is permissible and not subj to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line btwn ideas and overt acts. Why uphold racist speech in midst Civ Rights Mvmt? Equality of protectionlegitimacy democratic process Consequences of censorshipSouthern censorship eg Black Panthers Same protections to anti-Vietnam protectionsBond v. Floyd (1966)caused first-ever democratic ending of war seen as unjust Later feeding into 2d-wave feminism post-Mystiqueeventually gay rights SCOTUS consistently upholding free speech at heights of minority-dissent mvmtslong American history minority mvmts (eg Civ Wr as tragic conseq stifled free speech) Eg Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobsvoice through literacy, free speech Eg Charles Houston, Thurgood MarshallNAACP Eg Wright, BaldwinHarlem Renaissance, jazz Richards: We all stand equal before free speechA free people does not avoid being confronted by its own injustice. Fixing Dennis I: STRONG (1) domain protected speech; (2) anti-censorship principle, equality protection; (3) clear/present danger test Steady drumbeat through various Justices, bipartisan unanimity As applied analysis (de novo) (Yates) (1) Use (I) to determine where speech can be constly applied (2) Interpret statute, as applied to case, with (I) (3) Can statute, so limited, be applied to facts at hand? Objectionsde novo `" appellate review inst l competence balancing failure address chilling effect overbroad statutes Overbreadth facial analysis (1) Reas l scope of application of statute (2) Are subst l number applications to protected speech where no clear/pres dgr? (3) If yes to (2), unconstl, regardless of application (p934) Hess v. Ind. (1973): revd disorderly conduct conviction Well take the fucking street latertoo indefinite future (p934) NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (Stevens, 1982): Set aside civil dmgs agst NAACP for incitement rel econ boycott Miss. white businesses Advocacy of force alone still protectedno direct acts after speeches (p935) Planned Parenthood v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists (9th 2002): Allowed incitement trial for web WANTED posters abortion providers, strikethroughs killed Jury Q whether true threats (p936) Factual data (bomb-making info) & torts (p937) Terrorism threats Overbreadth, Vagueness Doctrines Overbreadth I: (1) domain protected speech; (2) anti-censorship principle, equality protection; (3) clear/present danger testAs appliedOverbreadth(1) Use (I) to determine where speech can be constly applied (2) Interp statute, as applied to case, with (I) (3) Can ltd statute be appl to facts at hand? Objections de novo `" appellate review inst l competence balancing failure address chilling effect overbroad statutes(1) Reas l scope of application of statute (2) Are subst l number applications to protected speech where no clear/pres dgr? (3) If yes to (2), unconstl, regardless of app (p1277) Procedural invalidation oflaw that sweeps in too much speech Exception to tradl rules constl litigation Facial invalidation Modified/expanded standingallow uncovered litigant raise rights of third parties Policy: prevent chilling effect (3d ps huddling, supine and speechless!) History grounded in Civ R Mvmt (p941) Gooding v. Wilson (Brennan, 1972): Black activist Ds conviction White SOB, Ill kill you Facial invalidation opprobrious words law b/c swept in > fighting words (p1279) US v. Robel (Warren, 1967): judl modesty Inval overbr fed crime Communist employment in defense facility b/c swept in passive mbrs Kick back to Cong to redraft Federalism value when state laws at issue Criticisms of overbreadth doctrine Departure fr usual case/controversy req Court as roving commmn seeking to cure unconstl provs Abstract hypo contexts Too speculative Negative consequences D whose speech constl covered free ride b/c statute overbroad re 3d ps Perverse > pwr covered D vs. uncovered b/c as applied analysis Practical obstacles redrafting Broadrick v. Okla. (White, 1973): substantial overbreadth (p1280) Upheld Okla. Act restricting political activities by registered civ servs Distinguish First Am/speech/assn statutes from conduct statutes Policy: prevent corruption by party bosses (vote my way) Facial invalidation strong medicine, last resort Substl overbreadthparticularly where conduct and not merely speech is involvedoverbreadth must be not only real, but subst l as well, judged in relation to the statute s plainly legitimate sweep. If speech restriction, eg buttons, then any overbreadth unconst l as applied Brennan DISSENT: Subst lity already implicit in trad l overbreadth doctrine No explanation why conduct `" speech, when 1st Am protects both (p1283) NY v. Ferber (White, 1982): upheld NY child porn law Protected expression (Nat Geo, med, etc) tiny fraction of reach, intended at  hard core Stevens CONCUR: rejected quant approach qualitative analysis better (p1284) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Kennedy 2002): invalidated overbr fed child porn law Law swept in (1) adult actors pretending to be children; (2) purely digitally created porn OConnor partial DISSENT: (1) OK; (2) no evidence Rehnquist DISSENT: better to narrowly construe sexly expl as hard core b/c compelling interest behond Act (p1285) Va. v. Hicks (Scalia, 2003): upheld pub housing entry-control policy (+ Ds trespass conviction) Policy auth police serve anyone lacking legit bus/soc purp, arrest trespass if return D no evidence policy swept in substl amt protected speech in addition to intended scope Limits on Overbreadth: charity, police, 1st Am, crushing (p1285) Brockett v. Spokane Arcades (White, 1985): invalidated overbr Wash. obscenity law Law defined prurient interest as lasciviousness/lust, encompassing both normal & shameful sexual desires (SCOTUS Miller test: obscenity `" normal desire) But dismissed suit for lack standing b/c P s speech unpunishable by statute no injury Statute could be  trimmed of unconstitutional branches `"  rotten at core Brennan DISSENT: overbroad means facially invalid, regardless of P s conduct (p1286) Statutes restricting charitable solicitation Schaumberg v. Citizens for Better Env. (White, 1980): invalidated overbr restriction solics orgs <75% $$ charitable purpsfundl logical flaw high costs ( fraud Secy State v. Jos. H. Munson Co. (Blackmun, 1984): invalidated similar restriction despite waiver if org demonstrate overhead lim prohibitive fundraising Riley v. Natl Fed. Blind (Brennan, 1988): invalidated state-mandated reasl fee for prof fundraisers Ill. v. Telemktg Assoc. (Ginsburg, 2003): upheld state antifraud law re misleading statements re percentage charitable contribution 1st Am does not shield fraud (p1289) Overbreadth and Due Process Mass. v. Oakes (Scalia, 1989): leg v narrowing `" overcome overbreadth challenge Amended prohib <18 nude photos to include  lascivious intent Incentivize leg stay w/in const l bounds ex ante Osborne v. Ohio (White 1990): jud l narrowing = overcome overbreadth challenge Child porn case Jud l review `" perverse incentive to leg b/c unpredictable decisions (p1290) Houston v. Hill (Brennan, 1987): gay political caucus activismpick on own size to distract Invalidated overbr police-interference lawoppose, molest, abuse policeman Free verbally oppose or chall police action w/o risk arrest hallmark of free society vs. police state (p1291) Bd. Airport Commns v. Jews for Jesus (OConnor, 1987): invalidated overbr policy blanket prohib engage in First Am activitiesspectacular overbreadthsweep in buttons, reading, talking (p1291) US v. Stevens (Roberts, 2010): invalidated overbr fed Act animal-cruelty/crushing video b/c jxl diversity cruelty laws (killed, tortured), likely sweep in hunting Alito lone DISSENT: real-world conduct > fanciful hypos Vagueness: Coates annoying (p1293) Vagueness and Due Process Procedural vaguenessas applied Vague if persons of common intell must necy guess at meaning and differ as to applicationliberty (fair notice)separation of powers (prevent arbitrary exec) Kolender (loitering), Papachristou (vagrancy) First Am vagueness facial Coates v. Cincinnatti (Stewart, 1971): inval vague law prohib 3+ annoying assembly  Annoying `" standard invitation to discrim enforcement White DISSENT: not vague, not speech (p1294) 3d p Standing (p1294) Subsidies `" vagueness: NEA v. Finley (O Connor, 1998): upheld vague  artistic merit criteria funding b/c  when gvt acting as patron rather than sovereign, the conseqs of imprecision are less severe. Public Places Categories of analysis Action (`" speech) Unprotected speech Fighting words Defamation Obscenity Comml advertising Protected speech (domain, anti-discrim, clear/present) Prior restraintvirtually per se unconstl (super-dooper clear/present danger) After-the-fact Cantwell Feiner Fighting Words & Hostile Audiences Chaplinksy v. NH (Murphy, 1942): broad fighting words (p938) Chaplinsky Jehovahs Witness proselytizing (police refused protect fr hostile mob) At station, Chaplinsky called state marshall goddamn racketeer, fascist (WW2 context) Affd conviction under state law prohib offensive, derisive, annoying word 1st Am fundl persl right/lib protected by 14th fr State action Ltd unprotected classes speechobscene, profane, libelous, insulting/fighting words No essential part of any exposition ideas, such slight social value as step to truth Clearly outweighed by social interests in order & morality NH construction: objv test incitement reasl listener to fight (ie breach peace) Speech too closely related to (male) violence States purpose: preserve peace Statute suffly narrow, ltd to public place, breach peace Why does Court categorize as fighting words, rather than alt category? Clearly not action Prospective carve out broader unprotected speech, to exclude obscenity, libel, advertising General balancing exposition ideas/step to truth ( categorically unprotected by 1st Am Chaplinsky still good law, but SCOTUS never since sustained fighting words conviction BUT still justifies state convictions, esp racial minority back-talk to police Fighting words very narrow today Scope: breach of peace (`" per se injurious) Rationale: public order (`" morality) (p941) Gooding v. Wilson (Brennan, 1972): Black activist D s conviction  White SOB, I ll kill you Facial invalidation  opprobrious words law b/c swept in > fighting words Take seriously Brandenberg scope/danger limits Tex. v. Johnson (Brennan, 1989): rev d conviction flag burner b/c `" directed agst indiv listener Feiner v. NY (Vinson, 1951): broad hostile audiences (p943) Early cases Cantwell v. Conn. (Roberts, 1940): Jeh s Wit street preacher playing anti-Catholic record Rev d conviction b/c no violent/threatening conduct, profane/indecent/abusive language `" clear/present danger, even under broad Dennis test, b/c preacher left on req Protected minority religion  heroes & heroines of free speech Religion most protected US `" blasphemy laws (contra Eur) Terminiello v. Chicago (Douglas, 1949): racist preacher Invalidated breach of peace law prohib  invites dispute  core function free speech Speech which stngs like acid most in need of protectioninvite counterspeech ( constl protection causing offense in public forum Jackson DISSENT: consider Euro fascism/communism Terminiello easier case than Chaplinsky (p945) Feiner young vetstreet corner speech: Truman, Syracuse mayor bumsAm Legion Gestapoblacks should revolt Audience mbr told cop: you better remove him or I will Feiner arrested, convicted disorderly conduct for refusing police order to stop speaking CJ Vinson (Dennis author) affd conviction Arrest `" content-based b/c police motivated by preserving peace re audience anger Clear/present danger b/c Feiner ignored req to stop Recognize heckler s veto problem but here incitement to riot (too close to action) Give police room for judgment Black (absolutist) DISSENT: police duty to protect speaker agst crowd violence silence last resort Police should never exercise power to ratify heckler s veto `" free society Black s views = modern law  Distinguishing Feiner, pre-Brandenberg: > skepticism breach peace laws suppress dissent (p947) Edwards v. SC (Stewart, 1963): revd breach-peace convictions 187 black student activists who refused dispersal orders after white crowd14th Am does not permit State to make crim peaceful expression unpop views Clark lone DISSENT: risk of disorder > than Feiner, considering South context (vs NY) (p948) Cox v. La. (Goldberg, 1965): revd breach-peace conviction minister protesting jailed sit-in activistscheering/clapping for singing inmates (We shall overcome) `" risk violence Film clarified nonviolent protesters, violent racist hecklers Protected speech, equality, `" danger Permits Discretion Invalid: Kunz, Forsyth (p948) Kunz v. NY (Vinson, 1951): racist Baptist minister denied permit Invalidated permit req mt b/c too much discretion prior restraint/anti-religious dissent Jackson DISSENT: permit discretion > police discretion: surveillance/order silence (p949) Forsyth Cty v. Nationalist Mvmt (Blackmun, 1992): $100 fee anti-MLK Day protest Invalidated $1000max fee b/c impermissibly standardless discretionfee ~ hecklers veto Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob. BUT universal flat fee (content-neutral) not ruled out Cohen v. Cal. (Harlan, 1971): fuck the draft (p950) Cohen 30d prison for wearing  Fuck the Draft jacket in LA courthouse corridor (`" room) Cal:  offensive conduct =  tendency to provoke others to acts violence or disturb peace Rev d conviction b/c State crim z single expletive `" 1st Am unless compelling reason Strict as-applied analysis > prior law time-place-manner restrictions Solely speech (`" conduct) lawful underlying message (disagreement w draft) Impermissible reg of manner of speech No decorum issue in suff ly public forums (corridor `" courtroom) `" obscene b/c `" erotic Fighting words ltd to person of hearer (`" groups generally) Cal s unwilling viewers theory untenable in public place, outside home `" like unprotected loudspeakers exception Political theoryconstl backdrop Hope free speech ( more capable citizenry, more perfect polity Individual dignity & choice (Brandeis Whitney)any language adequate to moral disgust Recognize emotive element of speech as content (make love not war) Necy side effects = verbal cacophony, incl tumult discord, offense No limiting principlewhy F-word? State `" right cleanse public debate to point grammatically palatable to most squeamish among us  One man s vulgarity is another s lyric Removed  profane fr Chaplinsky unprotected list Undermined Chaplinsky notion per se injurious words (but see Alito in Snyder v. Phelps) Harlan = conservative fuddy-duddy; serious student Am constlism Blackmun DISSENT: Cohens absurd conduct > speechw/in Chaplinsky rule Group Libel & Hate Speech (protected today) Group libel State powerrisks of abuse by partisanship/legitimating? Private rebuttabilitycounterspeech, eg by NAACP, ADL Deep evaluative disagreementsconscientiously, sincerely believed Individual libel False facts Believed to be false Of & concerning individualsreputation Constitutional significancetoday group libel protected 1st Am, but indiv libel unprotected Beauharnais v. Ill. (Frankfurter, 1956): group libel by racism (p955) White Circle League racist leaflet urging white Chicagoans unite agst black invasion Convicted under Ill. group libel law: denigrating protected classes contempt & derison 5-4 affd conviction/upheld statute If an utterance directed at an indiv may be obj crim sanctions, we cannot deny to a State the pwr punish same utterance dir at defined grp, unless wilful & purposeless restriction unrelated to peace & wellbeing of State. Consider historical contextwe would deny experience to say Ill. w/o reason curb racism Black DISSENT: punishing discussion = censorshipAnother such victory & I am undone Context: Black southerner (ex-KKK) Truman post-WW2 military desegregationDem party schism (S Thurmond, G Wallace) Concern: once racists in power, prosecute Civ R activists for group libel Collin v. Smith (7th, 1978): Skokie Nazi rally OK (p958) Neo-Nazi NSPA denied rally permit in Skokie (suit designed to force Chicago exempt ins req) Skokie (Chi suburb) heavily Jewish, many Holocaust survivors Skokie ords: (1) permit sys; (2) prohib race/natl/rel hate speech; (3) prohib mil-style uniforms NSPA rep by ACLU, Jewish attynormative principle, come hell or high water (~Dworkin) Invalidated Skokie ords as content control Cohen: no content-based restrictions (( skepticism group libel laws) Pol theory: To permit continued building our pols & cult, & assure self-fulfilment ea indiv, our people guaranteed right expr any thought, free fr gvt censorship Obvious exceptions: obscenity (erotic), fighting words Village no good args Nazism `" false fact, and no such thing as false idea Beauharnais tednency to induce violence effectively overruled by eg Cohen, Brandenberg Municipal policy fair housing insuff to > 1st Am protections Psychic trauma (tort) insuff for crim sanction Prohibd speech indistinguishable fr speech that invites dispute (Terminiello) Fundl prop that if civ rights vital for all, must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas quite justifiably rejects & despises Denied certBlackmun DISSENT: must resolve conflict w Beauharnais, est lims, if any, 1st Am prots Hypo: post-march psych injuries (ignoring Snyder)? Pro-recovery: private parties, medical record Anti-recovery: state-court enforcement, chilling effect University anti-discrim regs: (~Brandeis Whitney state may normatively promote liberal education) Public: 1988 U Mich invalid as overbroad & impermissibly vague Private: 1990 Stanford invalid as overbroad & content-discrim under RAV Concern chilling effects RAV v. St. Paul (Scalia, 1992): no content restrictions (cross) (p962) White teens burned cross on black familys lawn Convicted under hate crime ord: reckless symbols on property (eg cross, swast) misd disord cond Trial dismissed b/c facially invalid b/c overbroad & content-basedMinn. SC revd Revd for Dsordinance invalid content-based restriction Clearly criminal conduct under terroristic threats, destruction property BUT statute: content restrictions presumpt invalid (`"  underinclusiveness as concurs charge) Here effectively viewpoint discrimination eg would apply to flag-burning `" reas ly nec y to St. Paul s policy interests Exceptions under ltd categorical approach certain features proscribable Obscenity Threats agst President Secondary effectsparticular content-based subcategory proscribable class of speech can be swept up incidentally w/in reach of statute dir at conduct rather than speech Even under unprotected speech, must be even-handed in criminalization White CONCUR: case dispositive under overbreadth rule Pure categorical analysis better (Stevens objects) Seeming renunciation strict scrutiny Ad hoc exceptions, eg Title VII workplace antidiscrimination (later carve-out `" public forum) Blackmun CONCUR: great harm in censorship despite no social value hoodlums burning crosses Stevens CONCUR: Scalia s new absolutism content-based restrictions Trad l hierarchy: (1) core political; (2) comm l, non-obscene sexl; (3) obscenity, fighting Ad hoc lims to correct Contextual, nuanced review betterconsider nature/scope restrictions Dispositive by overbreadth doctrine (p970) Comparative: most countries strong hate-speech regs Public order (UK, Ire, Israel, Austr) Human dignity (Can, Dmk, France, Germ, Neth) (p970) Wisc. v. Mitchell (Rehnquist, 1993): hate crimes reg OK b/c RAV only re speech Black teens targeted white victim after watching Mississippi Burning Enhanced sentence statute: intentionally selects person based on Different if statute examined racial animus? (p972) Watts v. US (1969): distinguish true threats fr hyperbole Revd felony conviction speech: If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ States motives opened to public discussionfirst time in history, esp wartime Virginia v. Black (OConnor, 2003): no presumed intent (cross) (p973) KKK mbr convicted of cross burning Va. statute: (1) felony burn cross intent intimidate; (2) burning prima facie evid intent Trial instruction: buring by itself suff to infer intent intimidate Revd for Dfacially invalid b/c prima facie provision (1) State auth proscribe cross burning w intent to intimidateprotect fr fear ( disruption True threatserious expr intent commit violence agst indiv or grp Intimidation as type of true threat Cross burning as particularly virulent form of intimidation Content-neutral (all intimidation) (2) Prima facie provision overbroadsweep in potent symbol shared group ID & ideology Ignores contextual factors nec y to decide whether intent intimidate KKK rally: identity, ideology (`" clear/present danger) Private homes: intimidation Stevens CONCUR: Scalia CONCUR: prima facie provision OK b/c rebuttable; marginal practical effect Ds Souter CONCUR: content-based censorship ***Thomas DISSENT: particular American history Cross-burning  paradigmatic example profane speech almost invariable intimidating Even segregationist Va leg decided cross-burning violence/terror criminal conduct `" expr Group libel laws dead in US Traditionally Unprotected Speech Libel (narrow) NY Times v. Sullivan (Brennan, 1964): breathing room (p978) Civ Rs activists NYT ad (Bayard Rustin) accused South wave of terror Sullivan (Ala police commr) sued libel per se, won $500k presumed genl dmgs CL tort: libel/defamation/slander (strict liability) Publication to 3d p False Communication Disparagement w/r/t reference group(1) face of speech; (2) innuendo About individual(1) direct (name); (2) colloquium (inference) Causation of harm Special (actual) damagesbusiness, friendship, love General/presumed damages (per se)unchastity, criminality, business Defenses: truth (high burden) 14th Am scope b/c state-court enforcement private action Revd for NYTfed overhaul CL libel tort (1) Ala libel law unconstl restriction of speech Bkgd pol theory: false statement inevitable in free debate ( breathing room ~JS Millinvigoration ~Mieklejohn (dance in the street)core free speech; protect speech from politics Legal history (argued by H Wexler) 1st Am protects seditious libel (1798; ~Holmes Abrams) Anything even resembling Alien Sedition Act 1798 is per se unconstl Penalty triggered by insult to politician 1st Am reaches both crim & civil penalties b/c chilling effects ( self-censorship (2) Sullivan insuff evid recklessness (actual malice) necy to sustain fed libel action Req e" reckless disregard whether or not false here, NYT d" negligent failure discover Mens Rea moved libel from SL to recklessness (3) Insuff evid statements  of and concerning Sullivan directly no colloquium unconst l (4) No gen l damages, only actual damages Punitive damages only under NY Times mens rea (malice) Black CONCUR: absolute speech protection Malice too elusive, abstract for 1st Am analysis Alternative dispositions Status of defamed personpublic or private figure? (NY Times) Status of the issuepublic or private concern? (Brennan in Rosenbloom) Eliminate general/presumed damages in constlly sensitive area (Gertz) Right of replyEuro influence Pro: more speech is better Con: state meddling in/compulsion to speech (p983) Procedural dvpmts after NY Times: Herbert v. Lando (1979): allow pretrial discovery to establish actual malice Phila. Newspapers v. Hepps (1986): Libel Ps burden to prove falsity Anderson v. Liberty Lobby (1986): probe actual malice at SJ stage Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union (1984): appellate de novo review of facts Subsequent procedural patterns Public officials v. Media (NY Times) Public figures v. Media (Butts/Walker) Private persons v. Media (Gertz) Private persons v. Private persons (Greenmoss) Public vs. Private: Butts/Walker (1967), Rosenbloom (1971) (p984) Curtis Pub. v. Butts & AP v. Walker (Warren, 1967) Plaintiffs: Butts UGa AD/former coach accused match-fixing in Sat Eve Post Walker retired genl accused leading violent segregationist crowd at UMiss NY Times rule ( public figures b/c ~ public officials: (1) social influence, (2) access to media Harlan DISSENT: intermediate speech protection when public figurerecover libel dmgs when highly unreasl conduct, extreme departure fr stds investigation/reporting (p985) Narrowing public figures definition Gertz (1974): active, well-known lawyer private b/c `" gen l fame or notoriety Time Inc v. Firestone (1976): wealthy divorcee private b/c `" role especial social prominence Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979): sci monkey researcher private b/c `" thrust self/views into public controversy to influence others Wolston v. Reader s Digest (1979): man convicted of contempt after refusal appear gr jury private b/c `" voluntarily thrust or injected self into controversy (p985) Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. (Brennan, 1971): protect public subject matter Nudist mag publisher libel action re false reports police action against him Dismissed b/c public issue Critical criterion should be subject matter of allegedly defamatory report rather than status of P Experience since NYT disclosed artificiality public/private individual dichotomy We honor commit robust debate public issues by extending constl protection all discussion & communication involving matters pub or genl concern w/o regard whether person involved famous or anonymous Challenge: who decides what constitutes public issues: courts or social/econ forces? Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (Powell, 1974): private person (p986) Gertz Chicago lawyer repping victims family in civil suit agst policeman convicted murder American Opinion mag (John Birch Society) accused Gertz of frame up, Commy front Jury for Gertz, but JNOV b/c public subj speech protected Revd for Gertzdistinguish public & private individuals Recognize importance of protecting some falsehoods to give breathing room to free speech Dignity: state interest in libel law protect personal reputation NY Times std ( public officials & figures BUT `" private individuals (overrule Rosenbloom  plurality ) Access to self-help by media to contradict, correct  Normative considerations  thrust self into spotlight States may impose liability (but `" SL) for libel private persons Ltd to compensation actual injury (expansive CL view, but `" gen l/presumed) Only punitive dmg when  actual malice Brennan DISSENT: all public issues Inevitable CL reasl care std ( self-censorship White DISSENT: libel (no purpose whatsoever) completely exempt from 1st Am protection (p990) Dun & Bradst., Inc. v. Greenmoss Bldrs. (Powell, 1985): private v. private Greenmoss contractor sued D&B for false credit report to bank alleging Gs bankruptcy Vt. jury $50k actual, $300 punitive dmgs under instr < actual malice Affd by Vt S Ct b/c outside scope NYTimes scope: institutional media Affd by SCOTUS under different rationale Reduced const l value speech `" public concern, state interest outweighs speech interest Burger/White CONCURs: Gertz should be overruled ( categorical exclusion libel fr 1st Am Brennan DISSENT: even speech of private concern equally valuable, subj to protection BUT practical effect on state laws ( Gertz rule, even for private v. private Privacy, Mental Distress Torts (very narrow) True privacy casetrue factsissue: newsworthy? Fully recognized right in all jxs Invented by Warren & Brandeis, Right to Privacy (1890)most influential L Rev article Right to control highly personal/private info about self Law: existing doctrines (prop, copyright) protect some, not enough privacy History: right fully understood by Founders (eg Jefferson at Monticello) Late 19th C threats to privacy of modernitymass media/yellow journalism Anticipate e-surveillance Theory: mass media threats to moral dvpmt HRs Kantian inviolable right of moral personality dependent on privacy Universal adoption tort right w/in generation Prossers 4 torts (priv v. priv) Misappropriationname, likeness in advertising w/o consent (NY tort right privacy) Public disclosure private facts offensive reasl person Defenses: public record, newsworthy Brandeis, Olmstead DISSENTe-surveillance viol 4th Am privacy Finally accepted in Katzinterp Const in light of change, protect HRs Eventually extended to Constl right to privacy (Roe, Lawrence, etc) False lightreckless publication false light highly offensive to reasl person Defense: Truth (~ libel/defamation) Intrusioneavesdropping: intent intrude solitude/highly priv affairs highly offensive reasl person SCOTUS almost always free speech > privacy (contra Europe) (p991) Intrusion into Ps private affairs SCOTUS yet to rule (p992) False-light: Time Inc v. Hill (Brennan, 1967) Life mag story on play re familys hostage ordeal, claimed truth of exaggerated violence Revd for TimeNY privacy statute n/a unless proof reckless disregard for truth Under NYT v. Sullivan rulebreathing room Dictum: newsworthiness might protect even true privacy action Likely wouldnt have survived after Gertz Ignore importance of lost privacy? Incompensable harm (contra libel/defamation, which can be counteracted) (p993) Public disclosure of private facts: rape-victim names Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (White, 1975) Revd tort liability for publishing rape victim names fr public court records Open Q whether OK to limit very private affairs unrelated to public affairs Florida Star v. BJF (Marshall, 1989) Revd tort liability for publishing sexl assault victims names fr police reports White DISSENT: judicial records (Cox) `" police reports hit bottom slippery slope speech > privacy Challenges contra Euro protection privacy Public interest in name/ID? Should Court delegate newsworthiness decision to media? Appropriation name/likeness: Zacchani v. Scripps-Howard Broadc. (White, 1977): right to publicity Allowed P human cannonball to recover agst media co that aired whole act Proprietary interestno chilling effect: only Q is who getst o publish Harper & Row v. Nation Enterpr. (OConnor, 1985): no speech protection unauthd publishing 400 words fr Gerald Fords soon to be pubd memoirs fair use `" expand to public figure exception to copyright Bartnicki v. Vopper (Stevens, 2001): bugging (p994) Bartnicki union negotiator call w union pres anonymous 3d p intercept ( informant ( radio Fed law prohib disclosure of wire tapping Aff d for informant & radio stationstrangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove 1st Am shield fr speech about a matter of public concern Acknowledge content-neutral statute NYT v. Sullivan protection info great public concernbut unresolved Q: punish publisher who lawfully acquired info unlawfully obtained by 3d p? Gvt interests: Deter interceptionbetter to punish 3d p violator than lawful publisher Privacyconsiderably stronger interestchilling effect public disclosure But truthful info public concerns ( core purpose 1st Am Leave open whether purely private concerns (eg trade secrets, domestic gossip) Protect investigative journalism, informants (Pentagon Papers) Breyer CONCUR: balancing test Here, statute disproportionate interference media freedom Rehnquist DISSENT: valid law-enforcement strategy (dry up mkt) w only incidental 1st Am restr Protect Ps intent to keep conversation private Hustler Mag. v. Falwell (Rehnquist, 1988): public-fig IIED (p999) Parody ad Jerry Falwells First Timeincest, alcoholism, hypocrisy Jury for Falwell intentl infliction emo distress (dismissed invasion privacy & libel) State IIED stds genly outrageous Revd for Hustlerprotect satireno IIED for public figures Breathing space1st Am encourages robust political debateinevitably immoderate Garrison v. La. (1964)1st Am protects even speech motivated by malice IIED outrageous std inherently subjective ( risk silencing important speech b/c local tastes Snyder v. Phelps (Roberts, 2011): private-fig IIED (p1001) Phelps/Westboro Baptists picketed Snyders sons Marine funeralanti-Cath, anti-gay Md. jury IIED for Snyderdamages: $2.9m actual & $8m punitive Revd for Westboro Public concern Westboros activityprivate harm incidental Acknowledge reasl time/place/manner restrictions, as long as content-neutral Westboro kept far enough away from actual funeral IIED outrageous std too subjective for public-speech liabilityissue: illegality Breyer CONCUR: fact-specific balancing test Alito DISSENT: revive Chaplinsky inherently injurious words rule Private targets of Westboros speech US v. Alvarez (Kennedy, 2012): stolen valor? (p1004) Alvarez lied about receiving Medal of Honor at Cal local water bd meeting Fed Stolen Valor Act criminalized false military honor claims, enhanced penalty for MoH Alvarez (mendacious coward!) pleaded guilty9th Cir revd conviction Affd for Alvarezprotected speech Narrow scope/few categories content restrictions: Incitement violenceBrandenberg ObscenityMiller DefamationNY Times Fighting wordsChaplinsky Child pornFerber FraudVa. Bd. Pharma True threats Grave and imminent threat NY Times breathing spacesome falsity inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous exprn of views in public and private conversation, exprn which 1st Am seeks to guarantee No limiting principle to gvt power if Act upheldwhat else could gvt prohibit? Our constl trad stands agst idea we need Oceanias Min of Truth. (Orwell 1984) Slippery ( Fascist/Stalinist threatterrorize people into supine obedience Fails strict scrutiny even as applied less restrictive alt: counterspeech Freedom of speech inalienable right (`" granted by gvt) Breyer CONCUR: balancing test  intermediate scrutiny Alito DISSENT: Act narrow personal knowledge; knowledge mens rea; news `" drama/satire; content-neutral Subst l gvt interest tangible & intangible harms Congress reas l to believe alts `" feasible False facts `" intrinsic 1st Am value (fraud, perjury, defamation, false-light) `" like false ideas re conventional wisdom Obscenity (narrow) Historyobscenity law to repress any deviation fr sexual orthodoxy Second-wave feminismreproductive autonomy (contraception, abortion, indep sexuality) Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman jailed early 1900s Whitman (gay) Leaves of Grass prosecuted for womens sexuality Joyces novels Gay rightsjailing advocates pre-Roth Contra Britain (Carpenter), Germany (Herschfeld) American hypocrisy: Chauncey book, Gay NYBUT underground scene Covert speech through double entendre James Baldwin, Gertrude Stein ( Europe Roth v. US (Brennan, 1957): prurience (p1010) 2 consolidated cases Roth fed L `" mailing; Alberts Cal L `" keeping for sale Facial challenges whether obscenity protected speech Aff d for US/Cal obscenity unprotected by 1st Am ( utterly w/o redeeming social purp ) Liberalizing all ideas even slightest redeeming social value = full protection (Meiklejohn) Prefigure clear/present danger test Problems w limiting free speech to political speech BUT art (esp images, dance, music)? Unprotected all sex `" obscenity appeal to prurient interest excite lustful thoughts BUT why ltd to sex/prurience? Under-inclusive gratuitous violence? Exploitation? Over-inclusive consensual pornography Reas l person/contemp cty stds test reject Hicklin (QB 1868) particularly susceptible False history: American tradition/Founders concerned w religious `" sexual obscenity Brennan later disowned position in Miller/Paris dissents line-drawing at adult consent Problem w limiting to political speech Problem w devaluing erotic speech Harlan DISSENT: taking on problems cant handle, of defining vivid porn Douglas/Black DISSENT: absolutismgive broad sweep 1st Am full support Post-Roth approaches obscenity: Black/Douglasfull protection HarlanOK fed bans hard core porn; OK state regs offensive taken as whole Stewarthard-core lim both fed & state pwrI know it when I see it Richards: disgraceful! Arbitrary tastes of elderly SCOTUS Justice Warren/Fortas/BrennanMemoirs v. Mass. test (1) Dominant theme taken as whole ( prurient interest, AND (2) Patently offensive to contemp cty stds (national), AND (3) Utterly w/o redeeming social value Redrup v. NY (per curiam 1967): dodged clear rulings by private screenings, indep determinations whether/not (1) prurient, (2) offensive, (3) utterly valueless Black/Douglas `" go, b/c absolutist protection Harlan blind, so Marshall described scenes (p1013) Kingsley Int l Pictures v. Regents (Stewart, 1959): rev d conviction & invalidated NY film licensing law banning immorality b/c  Lady Chatterly s Lover rejected b/c adultery Effective censorship of idea `" porn/obscenity & `" incitement to illegal action (p1014) Stanley v. Ga. (Marshall, 1969): private poss n of obscene material protected by 1st Am Const l right to receive info/ideas, regardless of social worth, is fund l free society State pwr only to stop conveyance Privacy in own home `" unwilling recipients State `" pwr (1) control private thoughts, (2) prohibit such attenuated antisocial conduct Stewart CONCUR: 4th Am case invalid seizure Miller v. Cal. (Burger, 1973): vivid porno (p1015) Miller convicted sending porn brochures in viol Cal anti-porn-distribution law Remanded for reconsideration under new std Miller Test (1) Avg person, contemp cty stds, whole work ( prurient interest (2) Patently offensive sexual conduct specifically defined by state law (local norms) Eg patently offensive ultimate sexual acts, normal or perv, actual or simulated Eg patently offensive masturbation, excretion, lewd exhib genitals Local `" national stds  nation simply too big, too diverse Rely on jury system (3) Whole work lacks serious artistic, literary, political, sci value (eg medical books) Reject Memoir  utterly w/o redeeming social value test Prurience valueless (4) ~ vivid pornographynecy condition obscenity = patently offensive hard core Rationale: clarity, narrowing of std Prohib obscenity to unwilling viewers, juveniles Protect anything w redeeming value, eg womens & gay rights Douglas DISSENT: obscenity too vague, uncertain for crim liability Brennan DISSENT (about-face): overbroad statute Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton (Burger, 1973): Miller test (p1018) Adult theaters w signs mature films, over 21 State investigators watched porn, offended by oral, group sex `"indicated by signs Compl dismissed at trial Ga SC rev d for gvt, remanded for trial under Miller Remanded for trial under Miller std Legit state interest in regulating comm l obscenity, even if `" risk juveniles, unwitting viewers Quality of life, tone of commerce, public safety, decent society Conclusiveness empirical data = leg v Q rational basis Places public accommodation `" 1st Am privacy rights (`" own home) Strange citation privacy right ~ Orwellian newspeak Incidental regulation utterances/thoughts OK BUT majoritarian moral subjugation minority behaviors Ignore counterarguments re 2dy effects Johnson/Nixon commnno negative effects Reagan commnpotl positive effect by channeling sex energynegv if violent Brennan DISSENT (getting off the ship): line = adult consent Roth std too much impact on speech Vagueness, `" fair notice, chilling effect, stress on jud l machinery Alt approaches State deference Roth  serious value Limit appellate review facts 1st Am absolutism Insuff state interest control viewing/reading habits consenting adults Limit regs to risk juvenile, unwitting audiences Time/place/manner regs OK (p1023) Justifications for obscenity regs Corruption Unwilling onlookers Incitement Eroding moral stds Harming social fabric (p1024) Value of obscenity as speech? Nonpolitical Noncognitive Not susceptible to counter-speech (p1025) Critiques of Miller Jenkins v. Ga. (Rehnquist, 1974): scene Jack Nicholson aroused/climax by sex talk Revd state conviction for showing film Carnal Knowledge Limits to jury discretion `" patently offensive unless vivid depiction (nudity alone insuff) + mainstream: prominent actors, Oscar nominations (p1026) Community Stds Hamling v. US (1974) Smith v. US (1977) Pope v. Ill. (1987) (p1027) Serious Value? Maplethorpe exhibits erotic photography 2 Live Crew rap music Porn as cause of antisocial conductAG Meeses Commn Some states (HI, OR) reject SCOTUS, protect up to obscene Am. Booksellers v. Hudnut (Easterbrook, 7th 1986): no antiporn (p1030) Indianapolis ord: porn < obscenity Porn = pain/humiliation, rape, mutilation, non-human penetration, degradation, domination Affd invalidation of ord b/c content-based restriction (Brandenberg-RAV-Skokie) Under the First Am the gvt must leave to the people the eval of ideas State cannot control approved view of women ~ group libel argument Image of pain `" nec ly pain: Jane Fonda Barbarella, Jack Nicholson Carnal Knowl, Lysistrata  The Constitution does not make the dominance of truth a necessary condition of freedom of speech.  Truth = outcome, not nec y input Porn `" low-value speech BKGD Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon feminism analogous to racism Draw from Simone de Beauvoir pornography as sexist objectification Protect women fr sexual harassment (fed & statecrim & civ) Pornography as vehicle to subordination of women Get rid of Roth/Paris, create civil remedy system for subordination Crim impossible in USBrandenberg group libel Accepted in CanadaButler eg prosecutions agst LBTQ porn Dworkin: terrible mistake Criticisms (Sylvia Law et al)exclusion kinky/LBTQ women Misguided focus on porn rather than eg religion Nudity (regulated) Nudity `" obscene b/c `"  turgid genitals, flapping in the breeze Erznoznik v. Jacksonville (Powell, 1975): no prohibition (p1036) City ord prohib drive-in film nudity (bare butts, bare breasts, bare pubic areas) City s args: (1) police power protect children, (2) distracted drivers Invalidated `" reas l time/place/manner restriction b/c selective why nudity `" violence? Drive-in screen `"  so obtrusive  nudity `"more distracting than other content Can t prohibit communicative material Burger DISSENT: State power prohib public nudity giant creen (p1038) Schad v. Mt. Ephraim (1981): invalidated nude-dancing ban Dancing protected b/c expressive Entertainment protected = political, ideological speech Zoning can apply w/in city but `" wall off completely Zoning OK: Young, Renton, Alameda Books (p1039) Young v. Am. Mini Theatres (Stevens, 1976): scatter zoning OK Upheld Detroit Anti-Skid Row Ord disperse adult theatres d" 2 w/in 1000ft; e" 500ft resid l Would strike down if evidence consenting adults inability to access Interp as time/place/manner reg Stevens plurality lesser-value speechfew would march our sons to war for this Political/ideological most protected (Meiklejohn) Stevens free-speech liberal: absolute crim protection all speech; civ penalties OK Powell CONCUR: reject Stevenss lesser-value speech arg Accept as regulation place, not contentincidental effects Stewart DISSENT: `" selective regs unless captive/juvenile audience Stevens advocating majoritarian moralizing despised minorities need jud l protection (p1043) Renton v. Playtime Theatres (Rehnquist, 1986): concentration zoning OK Upheld Renton WA zoning based on Seattle study d" 2 w/in 1000ft each other Secondary-effects basis for prohibition criminality, retail, prop values, quality of urban life Justification by other cities studies a/l/a reas l belief relevant context Some city land left technically available despite practically unusable Brennan DISSENT: content-based discrimination Renton never reviewed Seattle, Detroit studies for relevance No provision for alternative avenues of communicating same material (p1044) LA v. Alameda Books (OConnor, 2002): scatter zoning OK Upheld density limits adult establishments, counting each service/prod as diff establishment Reasl conclusion fr 1977 LAPD crime studyRenton relevance Kennedy CONCUR: acknowledge content-based restrictionuphold under intermediate scrutiny Credible enough to survive SJ Scalia CONCUR: broad state powers sex regs lower scrutiny Souter DISSENT: agree mid-level scrutiny invalidate b/c `" empirical evidence state interest Unlike Renton, Young blanket location prohibs, here control how to operate business > burden NY v. Ferber (White, 1982): child porn wholly unprotected (p1049) Upheld NY prohib distribute child porn (< obscene)new category unprotected speech Compelling state interest wellbeing children Distribution child porn intrinsically related child abuse Advertising/selling child porn econ motive/integral part of (illegal) production child porn Exceedingly modest social value child porn Excluding child porn fr 1st Am protection compatible w earlier decisions OConnor CONCUR: social value of depiction irrelevant to harm to photo/films child subjects Brennan DISSENT: overbroad application to socially valuable productions (p1052) Osborne v. Ohio (White, 1990): upheld child-porn possn prohib under Ferber rationale Brennan DISSENT: Ohios narrowing construction (nude ( lewd) `" cure overbreadth (p1053) Ashkroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Kennedy, 2002): virtual child porn protected Virtual `" intrinsically related to child abuse Thomas CONCUR: technology may advance to make effective distinction impossible Indecent Speech (regulated) FCC v. Pacifica (Stevens, 1978): broadcast (p1054) George Carlin 7 filthy words: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits Satire: why is natural/female seen as obscene? Man driving w son (midday) heard on radio, complained to FCC FCC Decl Order threatening revocation licenserevd for Pacifica on appeal Revd for FCCregs OK even non-obscene IV(B)indecent language lesser value than core political speech (really?!)minority holding Could be stated non-offensively Richards: citing Cohen fuck the draft was a travesty IV(C)broadcast regulation time/place/manner indecent language Privacypervasive presence in homes Childrenbroadcasts uniquely accessible to children even too young to read Say it at night Powell CONCUR: broadcasting unique, but reject lesser-value speech argument Brennan DISSENT: Listeners choice to take part in ongoing discussioneasy to turn off Holding could prohib literature, political speech (Nixon tapes), Bible Publics righto marketplace of ideasdont limit available speech to that suitable for children Carlin chose his words deliberatelyemotive character Medium is the messagelarger audience Acknowledge cultural pluralismmajoritys acute ethnocentric myopia (p1059) FCC v. Fox TV (Scalia, 2009): upheld reg fleeting expletives under APA (free speech dicta) Any chilled refs to excretory and sexual material surely lie at the periphery of First Am concern Thomas CONCUR: Pacifica questionable in light of tech advancesopen to reconsidering doctrine Stevens DISSENT: distinguish emotional vs sexual/excretory connotations Ginsburg DISSENT: distinguish fleeting from Carlin-like deliberate/repetitive Breyer DISSENT: chill on local broadcasters w/o bleeping tech (p1060) Rowan v. USPS (Burger, 1970): upheld voluntary removal porn mailing listscaptive audience Mailers right to comm must stop at mailbox of unreceptive addressee (p1061) ConEd v. NYPSC (Powell, 1980): invalidated PSC order banning issue inserts in bills (eg nuke) ~ look away by throwing away Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. (Marshall, 1983): invalidated fed law barring contraceptive mailings Content-based restrictionrisk limiting discourse to childs playavoid mailbox ( sandbox Solution: short, reg journey from mailbox to trash can Rehnquist CONCUR: substl gvt interest, but here too-large restriction Stevens CONCUR: offensiveness should count, but here picking sides by prohib ideas, not style Telephones, Cable, and the Internet Sable Comms. v. FCC (White, 1989): protected indecent (< obscene) dial-a-porn service Total ban (vs Pacifica time reg) No captive audience b/c call in (vs unique broadcasting) Less restrictive meansFCC solutions: credit card verification, access code, scrambling Risk ltg content to that which suitable for children Scalia CONCUR: indecency balancing test b/c narrowing obscenity Brennan DISSENT: even obscenity should `" crim penalties if adult consent (p1063) Denver Telecom v. FCC (Breyer, 1996): upheld regs sexual material on cable Std: patently offensive by contemp cty stds Cable highly accessible to children, pervasive, `" prior warning before entering home Opinion `" cover leased- or public-access channels US v. Playboy Ent. (Kennedy, 2000): will not permit Pacifica extension to cable No secondary effects argument b/c `" public forum Content-based bans AND sig burdens ( strict scrutiny Thomas CONCUR: obscenity cable regs OK, just not indecency Scalia DISSENT: sexual speech lesser scrutinyStevens CONCUR: reject Scalia Breyer DISSENT: congl leeway to craft solutions to legit problem Protecting Children Online (p1065) Reno v. ACLU (Stevens, 1997): invalidated Comms Decency Act 1996 protect minors from internet indecency (< obscenity)ACLU challenge o/b/o LGBTQ minors connecting through internet Rationale: `" Miller obscene; `" Pacifica regulation; `" Renton zoning Undermining parents who want access State can t act as super-moral parent Policy: Democratizing power of internet truest public forum: universal, anytime access Wary any state censorious purpose interposed btwn speakers & listeners Require most compelling state interest (p1071) Child Online Protection Act Ashcroft v. ACLU I (Thomas, 2002): cty stds test OK facially b/c narrowed by serious value & prurient interestpublishers must abide by stds of ctys where sending material Ashcroft v. ACLU II (Kennedy, 2004): enjoined COPA enforcement b/c less restrictive alts: filter Breyer DISSENT: filtering faulty, expensive, depends on willing parents, imprecise (p1075) US v. Stevens (Roberts, 2010): invalidated internet-crushing video prohibition Overbroad ( eg hunting vids Reject balancing-test approach to carving new exceptions to blanket 1st Am protection Alito DISSENT: sole purpose ( crushing, OK Simulating Reality (protected) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coaln (Kennedy, 2002): virtual child porn (p1077) Invalidated Child Porn Protection Act 1996appears to be minor Beyond Ferber b/c `" inherent connection child abuse Ignores social value of speech: Romeo & Juliet, Traffic, American Beauty Gvt can t ban adult speech just because kids might access it Potential criminal effects too attenuated pedophiles? Difficult-prosecution argument inverts tradl 1st Am analysis by sweeping in unlawful conduct by prohibiting lawful conduct Affv defense of actual age too burdensome on Ds Thomas CONCUR: consider effects evolving technology on enforcement Rehnquist DISSENT: compelling state interest ( deference Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Assn (Scalia, 2011): violent video games (p1080) Invalidated CA ban on sale violent games to children Video games = speechObscenity = sex `" violence No tradition restrict kids access to violence: Grimm s Tales! Homer, Dante, Lord Flies State interest protecting children fr harm, not ideas Content restriction ( strict scrutiny Under-inclusive: cartoons, gun photos OK? Over-inclusive: permissive parents? Alito CONCUR: invalidate under vagueness (`" fair notice), but not 1st Am violation Today s video games `" normal speech, but ~activity/virtual reality Cong reas l basis conclude video game experience quite diff reading, listening, watching speech Thomas DISSENT: free speech `" to children w/o parental consent Breyer DISSENT: CA law = modest restriction kids can still play, adults can still buy Advertising (intermediate scrutiny) (p1084) Valentine v. Christensen (1942): advertising wholly unprotectedupheld handbill prohib despite 1 side sub tour ad, other side complaint municipal regs Va. Pharma. v. Consumer Council (Blackmun, 1976): no ad bans Richards: most important free speech opinion you will read (p1085) Invalidated law prohib pharmacists fr advertising prices (unprofessional) Domain: free-speech right of autonomous consumers to receive advertising Democratize 1st Am protection to econ needs of ordinary persons Acknowledge absence Meiklejohnian core political speech Public interest topic  predominately free-enterprise economy (eg Commerce Clause) Society s strong interest free flow comm l info ( well-informed private econ decisions Consumer ignorance unnec y to professionalism justification, given industry regulation Bedrock free speech gvt `" super-parent to homogenize moral opinions Trust individual rationality Distrust monopolistic prof orgs Lower-level protection permissible regulations: Time, place, manner restrictions False, misleading ads (contra free false speech) Ads for illegal transactions (contra subversive advocacy) Special problems of broadcast media Overbreadth, prior restraint OKtangible effects, verifiable facts Rehnquist DISSENT: commercial speech unprotected Not core political speech Not autonomy (conviction) (p1090) Arguments for/against protecting comml speech: Self-government (Meiklejohn) Truth (Mill) Autonomy/equalitycorporate speaker? Individual consumer? Distrust government (p1092) Blackmuns commonsense differences of comml speech Hardinessbut also applies to religious convictions? Verifiabilitywhat about unverifiable ads, or verifiable sci/pol claims? Defining commercial speech Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods Corp (Marshall, 1983): contraceptive mailings comml speech despite important public-policy concerns SUNY v. Fox (Scalia, 1989): student Tupperware parties comml speech despite home-ec advising linking prod sales w current events `" transform to core pol speech Central Hudson req not nec ly the most restrictive means but a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective (p1093) Linmark Associates v. Willingboro (Marshall, 1977):  for sale signs protected comm l speech Invalidated prohib real estate for-sale signs despite muni interest prevent white flight State `" power suppress any facts reflecting poorly on municipality Carey v. Pop Servs. Int l (Brennan, 1977): non-Rx contraceptive ads protected comml speech Invalidated NY ban non-Rx adv/displays b/c strong social interest free-flow info (p1094) Lawyers advertising mostly protected comml speech Bates v. State Bar Ariz. (Blackmun, 1977): cant ban price ads routine servs In re Primus (Powell, 1978): invalidated ACLU discipline pro bono solicitation by letters b/c politicking by association, incl litigationflat ban mail solicitations per se unconstl BUT Ohralik v. Ohio Bar Assn (Powell, 1978): upheld discipline ambulance-chasing solicitation for profitspecial danger face-to-face solicitation BUT Fla. Bar v. Went For It (OConnor, 1995): upheld ban solicit w/in 30d injury/disaster Kennedy DISSENT: ignore urgency investigation, preserve evid, ID witnesses Zauderer v. Office Discipline (White, 1985): cant ban illustrated contingency-fee adsprofl dignity interest insuff to > 1st Am speech rights Shapero v. Ky. Bar Assn (Brennan, 1988): cant ban direct-mail targeting specific persons known to need servsfewer problems than face-to-face solicitation Peel v. Ill. (Stevens, 1990): cant ban ads of non-misleading prof-bd certification C. Hudson Gas v. NYPSC (Powell, 1980): 4-part test (p1095) Invalidated PSC ban utility promo ads (elec shortage over) 4-part test for solely comml/econ speech Protected speech (ie lawful, `" misleading)? Subst l gvt interest? Directly advances asserted gvt interest? Narrow tailoring: restriction `" more extensive than nec y to serve asserted interest? Here, more extensive than nec y alts: restrict format, content Blackmun CONCUR: reject 4-part test; reject dicta permissibility suppression in any case Stevens CONCUR: this is a political speech case, not a comml one Rehnquist DISSENT: State power to regulate comml speechpub utility ~ state monopoly Subordinate position comml speech overall (in a democracy, the econ is subord to the pol) (p1098) Metromedia v. San Diego (White, 1981): billboard baninvalidated w/r/t noncomml but upheld comml under C Hudson analysis: traffic safety (p1099) Cincinnatti v. Discovery Network (Stevens, 1993): invalidated comm l handbills reg applied to ad mags but `" newspapers b/c = aesthetic issues differential non/comm l treatment must show distinct harm caused by comm l speech LAPD v. United Reporting (Rehnquist, 1999) (p1100) Rise and fall of the vice exception Posadas v. PR Tourism (Rehnquist, 1986): vice exception? (p1100) Upheld PR casino-gambling-ad ban (state interest: protect PRs fr seductive vice) Vice exception: discrim prohib ads OK (substl state interest + narrow tailoring) US v. Edge Broad. (White, 1993): upheld fed lottery-ad regulation in-state licensees BUT Rubin v. Coors (Thomas, 1995): invalidated fed prohib beer labeling ABVno vice exception Failed C Hudson direct advancement, more extensive than necy 44 Liquormart v. RI (Stevens, 1996): no alcohol price ban (p1101) Invalidated RI prohib alcohol price adsdivergent rationales Stevens/Kennedy/Ginsburg: strict scrutiny b/c full ban unrelated to free mkt Stevens/Kennedy/Ginsburg/Souter: failed C Hudson directly advance, narrow tailor Stevens/Kennedy/Ginsburg/Thomas: Posadas wrong to defer to leg to suppress > narrowly tailor Thomas CONCUR: any ban truthful price info per se illegitimate OConnor CONCUR: more extensive that necy under C Hudson Vice exception dead closer to Blackmun s Va Pharma (time/place/manner, not illegal) (p1106) Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly (O Connor, 2001): Invalidated billboard distance, in-store sign-height regs `" narrowly tailored to protecting children fr tobacco sales Kennedy, Thomas CONCURs: C Hudson test inadequate Stevens DISSENT: remand for further factfinding re adequacy distance/height regs (p1107) Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr. (OConnor, 2002): invalid compounding drug pharmas ad regs Breyer DISSENT: (p1108) Sorrell v. IMS Health (Kennedy, 2011): invalidated prescriber confidentiality law under heightened scrutiny Breyer DISSENT: more lenient scrutiny than C Hudson b/c broad reg scheme But would uphold even under C Hudson Symbolic Speech (p1123) 1st Am protection symbolic conduct = speechRAV v. St Paul (1992) (cross burning) Display anarchist flags: Stromberg (1931) Refuse to salute flag: Barnett (1943) Public library sit in: Brown v. La. (1966) Wear anti-war armbands: Tinker (1969) Pride parades: Hurley (1995) US v. OBrien (Warren, 1968): draft-card burning ban OK (p1124) Upheld conviction for burning draft card knowing illegal Laws: 1948: forges, alters1965 amendments: + destroys, mutilates Alleged illicit congl motive irrelevant Dismissive congl floor debates: clear purpose anti-dissent (content bias) Warren treading lightly given precedent? Look instead to sanitized S, HR Reports Ex post (hypo) justifications for 1965 restrictions OBrien test when conduct mixed w speech (1) W/in constl power of government (2) Text furthers important government conduct-based interest Ex post justifications 1965 ams: addl deterrence, prohibs (distrib, others cards) (3) Government interest unrelated to suppression of free expression (4) Incidental restriction free expression `" greater than nec y Historical note 18th C Enlightenment theory ( 1st Am Descartes/Locke: mind-body dualism protect freedom of mind Radical Protestant conscience `" ecclesiastical/intermediary authority Scientific rationalism (eg Jefferson early anthropologist) Texas v. Johnson (Brennan, 1989): flag burning protected (p1131) Street v. NY (Harlan, 1969): revd black veterans conviction after civ r leader assassination As applied analysis b/c conviction for defiant/contemptuous words Protect moral disgust Smith v. Goguen (Powell, 1974): vagueness protected flag patch on butt White CONCUR: pure speech Rehnquist DISSENT: uniqueness of flag Spence v. Wash. (Rehnquist, 1974): protected peace sign on flag anti-war in Cambodia Intent: emotional appeal, moral disgust Effect: no prospect mislead viewers state endorsement Rehnquist DISSENT: flag as important symbol of national unity Texas v. Johnson (Brennan, 1989): protected anti-Reagan, anti-RNC America we spit on you Flag burning per se protectedas applied analysis OBrien test? No incitement, fighting words ( breach of peace Symbolic value flag = content-based restrictionstatutory text offense suspect Strict scrutinyrelated to expression, so outside OBrien altogether Barnett (Jehovahs Witness flag salute)cant compel patriotism Brandenberg (KKK)subversive advocacy Meaning of flag as symbol must remain in public domain, open to interpretation Rehnquist DISSENT: 200yr history flag as unique symbol Stevens DISSENT: extend to vandalizing Lincoln Memorial?fails to distinguish property vs. icon Congressional responses Statute: US v. Eichman (Brennan, 1990): invalidated Flag Protection Act 1989 Stevens DISSENT: (a) legit social interest, (b) other means available, (c) balance social interest vs speakers unbridled liberty Amendment never passed Holder v. Humn Law Proj. (Roberts, 2010): terror financing ban OK (p1143) Upheld ban material support to non-violent arms of foreign terrorist orgs: PKK, Tamil Tigers Heightened (more rigorous) scrutiny (but < strict) b/c mixed conduct & speech Reject Ps claim pure political speech Reject Govs claim pure conduct Reaffirm Cohen (Fuck draft), Johnson (flag burning) Defer congl, Exec findings terrorist orgs so tainted that any support ( violence No firewall/segregation activities Undermine intl efforts/coalition-building Breyer DISSENT: content-based restriction pure speech so strict scrutiny Coordination unlimited determinatechilling effect Gvts justifications insuff Fungible support n/a to eg training Legitimation also applicable to indep/non-coordinated support Should limit to only when D knows supporting unlawful terrorist actions Effect on Brandenberg KKK speech? Barnes v. Glen Theatre (Rehnquist, 1991): nude dancing (p1151) Upheld Ind. indecency law as content-neutral applied to all public nudity; must wear pasties OBrien test b/c outer limits expressive conduct W/in power of state Substl interest in public morality Unrelated to suppression free expression b/c genly applicable Narrowly tailored Scalia CONCUR: outside 1st Am scrutiny at alllong tradition barring public immorality Souter CONCUR: secondary effects test White DISSENT: outside OBrien b/c law aimed at expressive character of nuditystrict scrutiny City of Erie v. Paps AM (OConnor, 2000): upheld public nudity ban under secondary-effects test Abandoned Barnes public morality rational Minimal reqmt secy effects Scalia CONCUR: outside 1st Am protections at all b/c public moralityskeptical any secy effects Souter DISSENT: OBrien balancing testbut here, insuff evid factual basis for application Revised Barnes concurrence to include evidentiary basis Stevens DISSENT: opposed extension secy effects from zoning to total ban single medium Public Forum Doctrine genly Traditionally open to public Public Property Mandatory minimum accessparks, streets, capitols, Cant cut off Must observe strict equality/even-handedness Discretionary Can cut off Even-handedjails, mil bases, schools, Non-even-handedpub trans, mailboxes, Private Property (very few: company town, shopping malls?) Purposes of free expression consistent w purposes of property? Pub Values: Political (Meiklejohn), Utilitarian (Mill), Autonomy (Brandeis, Whitney) Balance against individual privacy interest: Rowan, Frisby, Pacifica Adequate alternative forums? (Black, Marshall, Brennan) (p1156) 1930s Jehovah's Witnesses solo proselytizing, 1950s calm, 1960s collective actions (p1157) 1st Am right to public forum Mass. v. Davis (Holmes, 1897): gvt right ~ private owner to absolutely exclude Hague v. CIO (Roberts, 1939): dicta gvt as trustee public prop f/b/o public use Publics 1st Am easement of access to streets, parks for speech Guaranteed Access vs. Equal Access (once opened)? (p1158) Standardless Licensing Lovell v. Griffin (1938): invalid leafleting license b/c unfettered discretion Hague v. CIO (Roberts, 1939): invalid park-access permit, under Lovell `" stds ( instrument arbitrary suppression free expr views nat l affairs Cantwell v. Conn (1940): invalid permit solicitation religious causes Saia v. NY (Douglas, 1948): invalid permit loudspeakersimproper prior restraint Loudspeakers indispensible modern messaging Uncontrolled official discretion ( suppression free expression Frankfurter DISSENT: no right force unwilling people to listen Staub v. Baxley (1958): invalid permit solicitation dues-paying mbshp Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell (1976): invalid police permit char/pol canvassing Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub (1988): invalid permit to place newsracks on pub prop BUT Cox v. NH (Hughes, 1941): upheld parade permit req b/c objective criteria State ct had construed law only time, place, manner ( pub convenience Valid as applied, despite prior restraint ~ Roberts Rules of Order for use streets as public forum Total Medium Bans Schneider (1939), Struthers (1943), Kovacs (1949) (p1161) Schneider v. NJ (Roberts, 1939): leaflet ban invalid Alt: anti-littering ord (p1161) Martin v. Struthers (Black, 1943): Witness doorbell-ringing handbills ban invalid Alt: enforce private no soliciting signs (p1162) Kovacs v. Cooper (Reed, 1949): upheld loud & raucous loudspeaker ban Would have struck down absolute ban Jackson CONCUR: Frankfurter CONCUR: Black DISSENT: interpret as effective absolute ban Clear majority any flat ban unconctlequalize access to all classes City of Ladue v. Gilleo (Stevens, 1994): no private sign ban (p1164) Watchtower Bible v. Stratton (Stevens, 2002): no Witness permit (p1165) Breyer CONCUR: Rehnquist DISSENT: Time, Place, & Manner Regs Cox. v. Louisiana (Goldberg, 1965): no unequal parade permit (p1168) Heffron v. ISKCON (White, 1981): country fair permit OK (p1168) even-handed reg public safety, order Available alternativesget permit, distribute outside Brennan DISSENT: literature distrib OK, but may regulate solicitation money Metromedia v. San Diego (White, 1981): no billboard ban (p1171) Brennan CONCUR: Burger DISSENT: Stevens DISSENT: US v. Grace (White, 1983): no SCOTUS sidewalks ban (p1191) City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (Stevens, 1984): sign ban OK (p1173) Brennan DISSENT: majoritarian conceptions of beautyrequire gvt burden evidence clutter part areas Clark v. Creative Non-Violence (White, 1984): camping ban OK (p1178) upheld Natl Park Serv anti-camping law Lafayette Park, across WH, allowed symbolic encampment, overnight vigil, but no sleeping Symbolic speech = expression OBrien: content-neutral, narrowly tailored to substl interest preserve park OBrien = TPM analysis Marshall DISSENT: unreasl TPM regulation b/c `" narrow (`" evid subst l wear/tear on park) Even content-neutral regs may disproportionately affect certain groups Public officials strong incentive to overregulate Ward v. Rock Against Racism (Kennedy, 1989): noise regs OK (p1182) upheld NYC req own sound system to regulate concert noise in Central Park Reas l TPM: narrow tailoring = promotes subst l interest `" least restrictive alt Marshall DISSENT: Abortion Clinic Protests: Frisby, Madsen, Schenck, Hill, McCullen BKGD: 1973 Roe v. Wade const l right to abortion (p1183) Frisby v. Schultz (OConnor, 1988): upheld ban targeted residl picketing Captive audienceprivacy > free speech Brennan DISSENT: req more narrow tailoring Stevens DISSENT: too broad scope discretion (p1185) Madsen v. Womens Health Ctr (Rehnquist, 1994): partial invalidation st-ct injunction 36ft Heightened scrutiny TPM Upheld noise restrictions, 36ft buffer at entrance Narrow enough for safety interest Invalidated 36ft side/back, 300ft images, 300ft no approach patients, 300ft residences Draw blinds Stevens CONCUR: Scalia DISSENT: (p1188) Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (Rehnquist, 1997) Upheld fixed 15fth buffers Invalidated 15ft floating buffers Scalia DISSENT: (p1189) Hill v. Colo. (Stevens, 2000): upheld 8ft buffer around anyone entering Scalia DISSENT: Kennedy DISSENT: (Supp51) McCullen v. Coakley (Roberts, 2014): struck down 35ft buffer Intermediate scrutiny: content-neutral but not narrowly tailored for one-on-one communication Scalia CONCUR: Alito CONCUR: Rights of Access to Public Property Brown v. Louisiana (Fortas, 1966): libraries compatible (p1192) Revd conviction black teens silent protest seg libraryprotesting unconstl racial discrim Symbolic speech compatible w librarys normal use High-water mark of public-forum doctrine Black DISSENT: Adderley v. Florida (Black, 1966): jails incompatible (p1193) Affd conviction trespass student protest jailhouse gates Trad ly `" open to public Purposes of jail inconsistent w free expression security issues Discretionary public forum that can be cut off entirely by even-handed trespass statute Douglas DISSENT: jailhouse = seat gvt ~ exec mansion, leg v chamber, courthouse Protest itself was compatible w jail s purposes `" disruptive Grayned v. Rockford (Marshall, 1972): schools incompatible (p1195) Upheld anti-noise ord near public schools legit TPM reg Lehman v. Shaker Heights (Blackmun, 1974): pub trans limited (p1196) Upheld trans ban political ads but allowance for comml ads Douglas CONCUR: Brennan DISSENT: SE Promos v. Conrad (Blackmun, 1975): muni theater public (p1197) Douglas CONCUR: Greer v. Spock (Stewart, 1976): mil base nonpublic (p1198) Upheld ban political activities on base Powell CONCUR: mil specialized society separate from civilian society Precious Am tradition: de-politicized military, subservient to civilian authority Brennan DISSENT: (p1199) US v. Albertini (OConnor, 1985) USPS v. Greenburgh (Rehnquist, 1981): mailboxes nonpublic (p1200) Perry Ed. Assn. v. PLEA (White, 1983): teacher mailboxes nonpublic (p1201) Cornelius v. NAACP (OConnor, 1985): fed charity drive nonpublic (p1203) US v. Kokinda (OConnor, 1990): post office sidewalk nonpublic (p1205) Lee v. ISKCON (Rehnquist, 1992): airport terminal nonpublic (p1207) 3 holdings upholding regs `" literature, solicitation (5-4) Rehnquist: Airport terminals nonpublic airport as thoroughfare Kennedy DISSENT: public forum despite `" historical tradition/pedigree Souter DISSENT: public forum Solicitation/receipt $$ ban OK Rehnquist: traffic control, risk duress/fraud OConnor CONCUR: analyze character/nature forum (multipurpose), but still OK Kennedy CONCUR: Souter DISSENT: Rights of Access to Private Property Threshold: speech compelled at all? If not, no 1st Am scrutiny (PruneYard) If content-neutral, then intermediate scrutiny (OBrien) If content-based, then strict scrutiny (Tornillo, PG&E) Other factors considered Risk of misidentifying compelled message w speaker (PruneYard) Scarcity of available media (Red Lion) Speakers ability to convey own message despite compelled speech (PG&E) Theory: corps `" human autonomy, so why protect speech at all? (Rehnquist old-fashioned) Value corp speech to system free-flow ideas? Marsh v. Alabama (1946): right to company town (p1221) right of J Wits to proselytize in private company town Supremacy Con Law > even private rights Logan Valley ( Lloyd Corp. ( Hudgens: NO right to malls (p1221) Amalg. Food v. Logan Valley Plaza (Marshall, 1968): right to malls Shopping ctr = public forum ( functional equivalent of Ala business district in Marsh Open to public Consistent purps 1st Am Growing worry privatization free speech in Am (endless bromides = manipulation `"freedom) (p1221) Lloyd Corp v. Tanner (Powell, 1972): no nexus, no right Unrelated to property s use `"nexus vs Logan picketing mall s employment practices BUT Marsh? Available alternative means communication Marshall DISSENT: handbillers tremendous need to access ctr (p1222) Hudgens v. NLRB (Stewart, 1976): NO right to malls Announced Lloyd overruled Logan Valley Marshall DISSENT: Some state constitutions protect malls Compelled Access to Private Property Miami Herald v. Tornillo (Burger, 1974): NO right newspaper reply (p1329) Struck down state-law right reply b/c force publication view editors don't share Publishers must be free to decide what to publish Right reply = compulsion publish = content-based restr ( chilling effect (Brennan s invention) Classic Am view: 1st Am applies only to State `" private parties Guarantee broad right to publish remit editorial decisions to civil society No State interference unless extreme monopolization (Lorraine Journal doctrine) Reject Prof Barron s L Rev arg Growing monopolization newspaper industry grave free-speech problem `" diverse voices Commercial media must sell goods ( lowest commercial common denominator `" controversy Regulate to > diversity access principle PruneYard v. Robins (Rehnquist, 1980): must allow petitioners (p1329) HS students collecting signatures against UN resolution anti-Zionism Upheld state-constitutional right of access agst takings challenge State-by-state experimentation PruneYard open to public, so no risk mistake petitioners for corps views State not discriminating based on speech content Powell CONCUR: acknowledge hypothetical 1st Am concernsnot raised here Force 3d ps onto private property for speech Potl use ones platform for morally repugnant views Landowners freedom of belief w/o publicizing views PG&E v. PUC (Powell, 1986): NO compulsion extra mail space (p1330) Public Utility Commn cant force PG&E to include opposition literature Viewpoint discrimination b/c state policy assist challenger groups Marshall CONCUR: PG&E `" open envelope space to public Rehnquist DISSENT: corp/public utility entirely regulated by state Extending freedom conscience analyses to corps strains rationale to breaking point Stevens DISSENT: PG&E already under Comm n regs, eg typography, messages, so why not 3d ps? TBS v. FCC (Kennedy, 1997): cable access reqmt OK (p1332) Turner I (1994): must-carrycompelling cable to carry broadcast channels Content-neutral burdenpreserve access to 40% w/o cable Intermediate scrutiny: narrow tailoring to important interests Important interests: free TV, dissemination info multiple media, TV competition Remand for factfinding OConnor DISSENT: content-based, eg diversity of programming Ginsburg DISSENT: strict scrutiny (p1334) Turner II (1997): upheld must-carry Intermediate scrutiny: narrowly tailored to TV competition, diversity interests O Connor DISSENT: content-based ( strict scrutiny Arguendo intermediate scrutiny, `" narrowly tailored anticompetitive Hurley v. GLIB (Souter, 1995): NO parade access (p1340) Upheld St Pat s Parade denial GLIB marchers agst MA antidiscrim challenge Parade = expressive speech compulsion would violate 1st Am Parade sponsor ~ newspaper in editorial discretion variety views allowed `" compel all views ~ orchestral composer GLIB alternate forums Bkgd Brandenberg principle Rumsfeld v. FAIR (Roberts, 2006): mil recruiters campus access (p1342) Upheld military compulsion recruiters for federal grants Solomon Amendment control conduct `" speech schools free to speak out against No risk attribution military recruiting to schools viewpoint Right to Media Access Red Lion Broad. v. FCC (White, 1969): fairness doctrine OK (p1464) Upheld FCC fairness doctrine (equal time, right reply personal attacks, political editorials) Scarcity of broadcast frequencies, governments role in allocating, broadcasters as cty proxy Licensee `" right to monopolize frequency exclusion fellow citizens Listeners/Viewers right to receive > broadcasters right to speak Pot l for self-censorship risk, but `" evid defer to FCC findings Open Qs: econ/anti-competitive controls, other fairness devices 1987 FCC repealed fairness doctrine b/c chilling effect Am radio/TV as advertising medium But Brazil, Colombia? Consolidated, monopolized private press Contra British dvpmtBBC indep public corp: TV set user fees (vs Brit yellow press) But Swiss, French biased public media? CBS v. DNC (Burger, 1973): NO ad access (p1467) Upheld CBS ban political ads despite comml adsnot constly required accept political ads Captive audience problem Douglas CONCUR: TV/radio = editorial protection to newspapers/mags Brennan DISSENT: balancing testany absolute ban unjustifiable b/c inhibits robust pol debate CBS v. FCC (Burger, 1981): ad access fed candidates (statute) (p1468) FCC compelled CBS, under FEC Act reasl access political ads by fed candidates 1979 Carter-Mondale Pres Cte denied airtime for documentary Was Burger flip-flopping? White DISSENT: too broad reading of FEC Act FCC v. League Wom. Voters (Brennan, 1984): intermediate scrutiny (p1468) invalidated fed law prohibiting editorializing by ed broadcasting stations funded by CPB Applied intermediate scrutiny: narrowly tailored to further subst l gvt interest AETC v. Forbes (Kennedy, 1998): NO right access pub TV (p1469) Upheld exclusion candidate fr pubTV debate editorial discretion Red Lion `" cable Stevens DISSENT: public broadcasters greater obligation neutrality b/c greater risk state discrim Denver Cable v. FCC (Breyer, 1996): obscenity regs OK (p1472) Regs narrowly limited to obscenity No regulation public access Souter CONCUR: Thomas DISSENT: protect cable = print media Reno v. ACLU (Stevens, 1997): no internet obscenity regs (p1474) Red Lion, Pacifica `" internet, b/c democratic forum `" captive audience problem Government & the Media Prior restraint as core free speech doctrine unanimity 1st Am ratification 1791 Contra seditious libel disagreement Anti-censorship principle grew even broader than Blackstones core prior restraint ( ex post Factors ( urgency free speech/prior restraint Printing press ( literacy Bible translation to vernacular languages Monarchies censorship/licensing schemes Milton Aereopogetica (1664)1st important HR revolution in human history Anglo-Am tradition dating fr British Civ War (`" Fr Rev) Bkgd political philosophy of John Locke Accepted after-fact civil/crim liabilities (p1298) Freedman v. Maryland (Brennan, 1958): prior restraint unprotected (obscene) speech? Heavy burden proof/brief time/judl review for any censorship, even of obscenity Kingsley Books v. Brown (Frankfurter, 1957): obscenity injunction OK (p1302) Near v. Minnesota (Hughes, 1931): injunctions presumptively invalid (p1304) Dismissed police chief injunction cl agst newspaper fr defamatory, anti-Semitic publications Exceptions: troop movements, obscenity (`" Freedman), incitement (`" Brandenberg) Citations to Milton, Blackstone extended fr low-level gvt officials to judges ~ NY Times v. Sullivan, Gertz even after-the-fact protections Walker v. Birmingham (Stewart, 1967): ex parte injunction valid (p1306) Upheld contempt for viol even unconstl ex parte injunction MLKs Letter from Birmingham Jail Public non-violent mvmt agst free speech, equal protection rights CR Mvmt moral + constldisobedience to gain standing to challenge unjust laws Disadvantage w/o representation (right to vote) Brennan DISSENT: free expression > judl administration (p1307) Carroll v. President & Commrs of Princess Anne (1968) NY Times v. US (1971): Pentagon Papers: no prior restraint (p1308) Daniel Ellsberg Pentagon official under McNamararemorse after conversations w vets PPs: Ellsbergs report to McNamaraEllsberg resigned, tried to convince 3d ps publish Gulf of Tonkin Resolution justifying Viet War based on lies that attacked Ellsberg conveyed (contrary to gvt K) to NYT, WaPo June 13 NYT, June 18 WaPo publication June 15-23 DC, Cir litigation June 25 SCOTUS certJune 26 argumentJune 30 decision Black: no prior restraint Douglas: Espionage Act omitted prior restraint (rejected draft b/c prior restraint) Retrospective disclosuresno threat troop movements Brennan: Only surviving Near exception to no PR = troop movements (+ nuclear disclosure) Richards: super-duper clear & present danger test Stewart: no evidence irreparable damage White: possible criminal liability for Ellsberg Note: 1973 Dist Ct dismissed/mistrial Marshall: separation of powersno Congl standards here re foreign policy Harlan DISSENT: Blackmun DISSENT: Burger DISSENT: (p1313) US v. Progressive Inc (WD Wis 1979): enjoined mag fr publishing aggregated H-bomb details (p1315) Snepp v. US (1980): Brennan DISSENT: Nebraska Press Assn v. Stuart (Burger, 1976): 1st > 6th (p1316) Campaign Finance Bkgd debate: relationship political equality to campaign financing2 views Egalitarian (Rawls, Lindblom, Dworkin, Richards, et al) Political equalitysupreme principle on par w free speech, religious liberty Economic inequalityinstrumental as incentive overall wealth dvpmt Shouldnt allow wealth to undermine political equality Libertarian (Nozick)market fundamentalism Comparative lawmost other countries (eg GB) highly regulate campaigns Historical context: Nixon Watergate corruption scandal, resignation Fed Campaign Act 1971 direct response $1000 contrib limit $1000 indep expenditure limit (PACs) Expenditure limits on (1) campaigns, (2) candidates own funds Public disclosure reqmts Public funding mechanism Buckley v. Valeo (1976): only anti-corruption; NO equality Per curiam opinions usually internal compromise (p1383) Fed Election Campaign Act 1971: $1000 limits Upheld contribution limits under intermediate scrutiny Justified by interest in < corruption/appearance Struck down independent expenditure limits under strict scrutiny Struck down candidates personal expenditures limit Upheld Presidential Campaign Funding through tax returns Argument structure Free-speech interestrevd lower courts failure to recognize free-speech issue `" O Brien (draft cards) pure conduct core political speech, even $$ contribs `" Kovacs (loudspeakers) TPM reg loud manner `" large extent of speech Indep expenditures (strict scrutiny) more protected than contributions (intermediate) Compelling state interests Anticorruption Contributions more susceptible to corruption/appearance Indep expenditures PACs Candidate limitsown funds < corruption Campaign limits Equality? Illegitimate Invalidatedthe concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment. Ignored alt arguments equality in free speech One person one vote Fairness doctrine restraining free speech No property qualifications to vote Viewpoint neutrality in speech regulation Burger: remove all limitsexpenditures = contributions + Blackmun White: limit bothexpenditure ceilings reinforce contribution limspublic confidence in elections Defer to Cong Equality: limit influence of personal wealth, equalize access to political arena + Marshall (p1391) Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gvt PAC (Souter, 2000): upheld $1075 limit state campaigns agst challenge too low given inflation Kennedy DISSENT: Thomas DISSENT: (p1393) Randall v. Sorrell (Breyer, 2006): struck down $200-400 limits as too low Thomas CONCUR: overrule Buckleyno limits Stevens DISSENT: overrule Buckleyall limits OK (p1395) Brown v. Hartlage (Brennan, 1982): campaign promises (even illegal) = free speech Strict scrutiny speech restrictions despite anticorruption rationale (p1396) Colo. Rep. Fed. Campaign Cte. v. FEC (1996/2001) Colorado I (Breyer, 1996): struck down limits independent party expenditures Kennedy CONCUR: Thomas CONCUR: Stevens DISSENT: Colorado II (Souter, 2001): facially upheld limits coordinated party expenditures Thomas DISSENT: Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (Powell, 1978): corp referenda unltd (p1398) Struck down corp (genl treasury) expenditure limit for referenda Content-based ( strict scrutiny: type of speech > type of speaker White DISSENT: legitimate state interest in preventing corp domination `" corporate free-speech rights (self-expression, -realization, -fulfillment) Rehnquist DISSENT: (p1400) CARC v. Berkeley (Burger, 1981): struck down $250 limit pers l contribs to ballot-meas PACs (p1400) Meyer v. Grant (Stevens, 1988): struck down prohib paying canvassers (p1401) FEC v. MCFL (Brennan, 1986): Rehnquist DISSENT: Austin v. Mich. Chamber (Marshall, 1990): segregate corp funds (p1401) Upheld limit unsegregated corp indep expenditures o/b/o candidates Interest: corrosive & distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated w help corp form & little/no correlation public support corps political ideas Scalia DISSENT: Kennedy DISSENT: McConnell v. FEC (2003): soft money regs OK (p1404) Dismissed facial challenge to McCain-Feingold Title I: upheld prohibition soft money under intermediate scrutinycorrupting influence Title II: struck down magic words distinction express/issue advocacy (electioneering) Titles III & IV: struck down prohibition <17yos contributions Title V: upheld disclosure requirements Rehnquist DISSENT: Scalia DISSENT: Thomas DISSENT: Kennedy DISSENT: FEC v. Wisc. Right to Life (Roberts, 2007): protect issue advocacy (p1411) Upheld as-applied challenge to McCain-Feingold Political speech ( strict scrutiny  Express advocacy test only if no reas l interpretation other than as appeal to vote for/against particular candidate `" narrowly tailored to compelling gvt interest issue advocacy `" QpQ corruption Alito CONCUR: Scalia CONCUR: Souter DISSENT: (p1417) Davis v. FEC (Alito, 2008): struck down Millionaires Amendment to McCain-Feingold, which tripled limits for opponents of high-spending candidates Substl burden ( strict scrutinyno corruption justification Stevens DISSENT: (p1418) Ariz. Free Ent. Club PAC v. Bennett (Roberts, 2011): struck down state matching program for opponents of high-spending candidatesunconstl burden even if more speech overall No corruption issue Leveling playing field illegitimate state interest Kagan DISSENT: Citizens United v. FEC (Kennedy, 2010): unltd indep. expenditures (p1421) Struck down all independent expenditure limits on corporations Independent expenditures cannot give rise to corruption/appearance concerns (QpQ) Austin overruledGvt may not suppress speech on basis of corp identity Scalia CONCUR: dispute dissents originalismstate corporate charter monopolies Stevens DISSENT: precedential value of Austin, McConnellsuff exemptions for PACs History: Framers skepticism corp power Broad conception of corruption > QpQ Shareholder rights to segregated political funds (PACs) (p1429) speechnow.org v. FEC (DC Cir 2010): (p1431) Am. Tradition Pship v. Bullock (2012): Citizens United preempts state law States cant conclude that indep exps are corrupting McCutcheon v. FEC (Roberts, 2014): no aggregate contrib. limits (Supp63) Struck down aggregate contribution limits under McCain-Feingold Base limits not at issue, remain Political speech core 1st Am (> flag burning, funeral protests, Nazi parades) Corruption = quid pro quodirect exchange political act for money Failed even intermediate scrutiny closely drawn test Congs alternatives: restrict transfers among candidates, tighten earmarking rules Disclosure sufficient check on abuse Thomas CONCUR: should overrule Buckley and strike down any limits any spending Breyer DISSENT: gutting campaign finance laws to natl detriment Too narrow conception corruption (contra Buckley, Beaumont, Shrink Miss, McConnell) Effective overruling McConnell Too much emphasis Citizens United dicta corruption = QpQ Scant analysis poorly tailored statute Insuff evidentiary record re compelling state interest First Amendment & Disclosure NAACP v. Alabama (Harlan, 1958): associational privacy (p1346) Struck down Ala reqmt foreign corps disclose all members, as applied to NAACP Overturned state injunction NAACP activities until disclosure$100k contempt State silencing minority dissent Distinguished Bryant v. Zimmerman (1928) forced disclosure b/c KKK terrorism Close nexus freedoms speech & assembly Association inseparable aspect 14th Am Due Process cl liberty (implied) Vital relationship freedom association, privacy associations Strict scrutiny Disclosure risk substl restraint: exposure econ reprisal, threats, hostility State interest monitoring foreign corps insufficiently compelling (p1347) Shelton v. Tucker (Stewart, 1960): struck down Ark reqmt teachers disclose all assns 5yrs Overbreadth analysis: Chilling effects Line-drawing problem: protected, unprotected conduct De novo factual review Legitimate interest teacher competence, but better alternatives Frankfurter DISSENT: would require as-applied analysis (p1348) Gibson v. Fla. Legv Inv. Cte. (Goldberg, 1963): struck down legv contempt/jailing for NAACP refusal to disclose membership lists for suspected ties to communism Harlan DISSENT: (p1350) Buckley v. Valeo (1976): facially upheld FEC disclosure reqmt Compelling state interests: Informed electorate; Anticorruption; Data-gathering for viol limits Burger DISSENT: (p1352) Brown v. Socialist Workers (Marshall, 1982): struck down FEC disclosure as applied Reasl probability threats, harassment, reprisals McConell v. FEC (2003): facially upheld disclosure provisions McCain-Feingold Citizens United (Kennedy, 2010): upheld disclosure provisions McCain-Feingold as applied to Hillary Recognized possibility unconstl applications if reasl probability threats, harassment, reprisals Thomas sole DISSENT: NAACP v. Button (Brennan, 1963): soliciting clients OK (p1354) Struck down Virginia prohibition on NAACP solicitation clients Impact litigation = protected expression Vague, broad statute risk discriminatory applications State interest in professional stds insuff ly compelling Harlan DISSENT: conduct `" speech Today, would be easily struck down under strong comml speech protections (In re Primus) (p1356) Brotherhood RR Trainmen v. Virginia (Black, 1964): struck down prohib channel union mbrs to union personal injury lawyers Clark DISSENT: U. Mine Workers v. Ill. Bar Assn (Black, 1967): struck down state ord barring unions own lawyer U. Trans. Union v. State Bar Mich. (Black, 1967): struck down injunc union plan curtail excess legal fees Religious Autonomy Crucial features religious liberty interpretation Text (Madison) Free exercise Anti-establishment (fed) (state churches until 1830slater barred by 14th incorp) Bkgd history: European Religious Wars ( calls for political toleration Protestants (Locke) Primacy religious lifeauthentic, indep experience indep fr State Secular interestslife, liberty, propertylegit State power Catholics (Erasmus) Jews (Spinoza) Jefferson/Madisonfreedom conscience Jefferson (Va. 1779) Bill for Religious Freedomdisestablish Va. Church Clear/present danger principle Further than Lockebreak all Church-State connection State tax money never support religious teaching Tradl Church support monarchical despotismbetrayed religion itself Keys: Church alliance Roman power; widespread illiteracy Open room for internal reformsreligion supportive HRs Madison (1785) Remonstrance; (1786) passed Jeffs Bill, above Fed10 (1787) religious factionalism Persecution: European Wars, Va. anti-Baptists BoR (1791) 1st Amendmentreligion primary US compulsory education 19th C dvpmt (free choice religious schools) Madisons greatest achievements: Decl Indep, BoR, U. Va. PostWW2 Europechurches Nazi complicity ( ECHR, etc Democracy insufficient protect HRs (Nazi rise through elections) Vatican 2eschew anti-Semitism as Roman influences JC Murray (US Jesuit) urged JPII religious liberty Political Theory Equal dignity (Rawls) Injury/harm principle: But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say (SAY!!!) there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my back. (Jefferson) Locke secular interests Protect politics from religion Public morality/ethics `" religion (esp 20th C collapse trad l consensus) Protect religion from political corruption (Romanization of Catholic Church) Protect science (esp after Darwinist challenges to trad l Biblical narratives) Interpretive Practice Free Exercise Coercion (or econ detriments keyed to free exercise) Expression of beliefabsolutely forbidden (Barnette, Wooley) Conscientious actiononly if compelling secular state interest (Locke) Anti-establishment (Jeff/Madian heart: 1786 Va. Bill Relig Freedom) Neutrality in acquisition or change of beliefs AcquisitionJefferson: no tax $$ to relig teachers Changesymbols outside schools ( conversion Test Secular purpose Neither advance nor inhibit Excessive entanglement Religion as first suspect class (Fed10) Voluntarism & Separatism vs. Non-preferentialism (p1481) Voluntarism & Separatism (dominant)wall of separation Everson v. Bd. of Ed. (Black, 1947): early settlers escaping persecutionreestablishment colonial churches shocked colonialsJefferson/Madisons Virginia anti-est law Rutledge, even in dissent: Madisons Remonstrance opposed any official relation religion & civil authorityreligion beyond scope civil power either restrain or supporttear out the institution root and branch, and to bar its return forever (p1482) Non-preferentialism (revisionist)gvt may support religion w/o preferring one to another Wallace v. Jaffree (Rehnquist, 1985): Madison concern only est national religionFirst Cong financial aid sectarian schools NW TerritoryMadison never expected BoR ( States Rosenberg v. Rector (Thomas, 1995): Madisons equality principleearly Congl chaplain BUT Lee v. Weisman (Souter, 1992): final version 1st Am rejected non-preferential language Souters separatism = dominant SCOTUS view (p1484) Disputed conclusiveness of either theory b/c based on Jefferson/Madison Jefferson in France during drafting Madison didnt think BoR necyfederalist structure suff check J Brennan: too literal quest advice Founding Fathers futile misdirected. Historical record at best ambiguous, and statements can readily be found to support either side of the proposition Religion (p1488) US v. Ballard (Douglas, 1941): limits of inquiry into religious beliefmail fraud prosecution Jury may consider sincerity of belief Jury may NOT consider truth/verity of beliefs (p1486) No Constl constructions, but statutory under Univ. Mil. Serv. & Training Act 1948 Exemption opposed to war in any form by reason religious training or belief Religionbelief in rel Supreme Being involving duties > those arising fr any human rel, but `" incl essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or merely personal moral code Historically, Quaker conscientious objectors but what about agnostics, spiritualists? Alternative views Mandatory exemption: disfavored (concern incentivize conversions) Discretionary exemption: (1) all warsSeeger, Welsh; (2) some warsGillette US v. Seeger (Clark, 1965): applied exemption despite Seegers open to Supreme Being Test: sincere & meaningful belief, parallel to belief in orthodox God Douglas CONCUR: non-discrimination among belief systems Welsh v. US (Black, 1970): applied exemption despite crossing out religion on form Include any deeply held moral, ethical, religious beliefs Exclude if solely policy, pragmatism, expediency Harlan CONCUR: clear meaning would draw line btwn theists & non-theists, but such line unconstl violation equality principle convictionsAvoidance White DISSENT: limit exemption to theistsCongs prerogative Gillette v. US (Marshall, 1971): no exemption selective objectors (just vs unjust wars) Concern insincerity, fraudunderlying concern classism/racism conscription? Est Cl forbids subtly departures fr neutrality, religious gerrymanders, & obvious abuses, but claimant must be able show absence neutral, secular basis for gvts lines Douglas DISSENT: implied 1st Am right of conscience (free speech absolutism?) Free Exercise Clause Art VI 3: no religious testsno mention God in 1787/91 Constitution Religion as a suspect classper se unconstl (p1490) Torcaso v. Watkins (1961): struck down MD reqmt public officials declare belief in God Neither the State nor the Fed Gvt can constly force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion, or aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs McDaniel v. Paty (Burger, 1978): struck down TN prohib clergy as legislators Strict scrutiny TN s rationale (prevent est religion) `" compelling Brennan CONCUR: freedom belief = freedom practice, even for money Stewart CONCUR: under Torasco freedom believe Babalu Church v. Hialeah (Kennedy, 1993): animal sacrifice (p1491) Struck down Hialeahs facially neutral ritual sacrifice prohib b/c discrim Santeria religion Santerianative E African + Catholic traditions ( Cuba ( Hialeah, Florida Crim penaltiesexemptions clearly aimed at protecting kosher slaughterers Strict scrutiny: protections of the Free Ex Cl pertain if the law at issue discrims agst some or all relig beliefs or regulates or prohibs conduct b/c it is undertaken for relig reasons Discrim law: concerncertain religionsKosher exemptions Uncompelling interest: Less restrictive alts Scalia CONCUR: inappropriate inquiry legv intent/purpose Souter CONCUR: rare eg of law actually aimed at suppressing relig exercisenearly always invalid (p1494) Larson v. Valente (Brennan, 1982): struck down MN selective exemption reporting reqmt Establishment Cl claim > 50% non-member fundraising threshold discrim agst minority religions Legislature had intentionally avoided covering Rom Catholic Church (p1495) Locke v. Davey (Rehnquist, 2004): upheld WA scholarship prohib of use for divinity `" animus Scalia DISSENT: animus irrelevant Religious Exemptions (p1496) Reynolds v. US (1878): upheld fed prohibition bigamy agst Mormons free ex challenge Mormons persecuted, chased out of upstate NY to Utah territory Beliefs absolute 1st Am protection BUT actions/practices limited (no?) 1st Am protections Secular purpose < anti-democratic patriarchy (seriously?) Other secular purposes? Exogomy, children, disgust? ~ human sacrifice, Hindu suttee Cantwell v. Conn. (1940): practices still some 1st Am protections, incorporated agst States Free exercise embraces 2 conceptsfreedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things the second cannot be. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom (p1497) Minersville Sch. D. v. Gobitis (Frankfurter, 1940): upheld expulsion JWs refusal salute flag Flag symbol natl unitystates prerogative train students patriotic impulses Stone sole DISSENT: violation religious convictions W. Va. v. Barnette (Jackson, 1943): freedom to not salute flagemphasized free speech, dissent Freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the State may lawfully protect If there is any fixed star in our constl constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith herein Reaction to violence against dissenters, example of Fascist mass marches (p1498) Braunfield v. Brown (Warren, 1961): upheld PA Sunday-closing law agst Jews challenge No criminalization, forcesimply made practice more expensive Secular state interest in weekly respite, rest, repose, tranquility (despite Christian origins) Brennan DISSENT: alt route: exemption for good faith non-Sunday resters Sherbert v. Verner (Brennan, 1963): 7th Day unemployment (p1499) Forced exemption for unemployment benefits 7th Day Adventist fired for Saturday Sabbath S. Carolina prohib benefits if refuse w/o good cause suitable work when offered Disqualification fr benefits burdened Ps religious exercise ~ fine Test Religious burden by econ detriment keyed to free exercise Uncompelling state interest, given alternative regs to combat fraud Caveats Not fostering establishment 7th Day Adventismno incentive conversion Opening constl right unemployment benefits all religious reasons Stewart CONCUR: should overrule Braunfield as incompatible Harlan/White DISSENT: compelling state carve outseffective overruling Braunfield Favoring religiously motivated reasons > non-religiously motivated Const would allow legislature to grant carve out, but shouldn't compel one (p1502) Thomas v. Review Bd. (1981): forced unemployment exemption for Jehovahs Witness who quit munitions job for opposition to war Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commn (1987): forced unemployment exemption for employee whose religious beliefs changed during employment Wisconsin v. Yoder (Burger, 1972): Amish drop-outs (p1502) Revd conviction/$5 fine of Amish parent who pulled 15yo daughter from school after 8th grade Invalidated Wisc statute compulsory ed to 16, as applied to Old Order Amish Amish objection to HS b/c exposure > basic skills necy Bible study Pierce v. Society of Sisters right to private religious schooling Coercion (crim penalty) for free exercise Religious rootchildrens upbringing (~ constl privacy) `" Thoreau at Walden purely political concerns State interests (prepare citizenship, < ignorance) `" compelling given Amish context `" Establishment issue Douglas DISSENT: recognize conflict interest btwn Amish parents & children Growing suspicion parent-child control in certain areas Denying Exemptions: Social Sec., IRS non-profit, prison work (p1504) US v. Lee (Burger, 1982): upheld application of Soc Sec tax on Amish bus owner, despite religious objectionsmandatory participation indispensable to fiscal vitality of program Stevens CONCUR: too much scrutinyshould be objectors burden to prove unique reason exempt from generally applicable law (p1505) Bob Jones Univ. v. US (Burger, 1983): upheld IRS denial tax-exempt status to racist BJU Goldman v. Weinberger (Rehnquist, 1986): upheld military reg `" yarmulkes Military > deference than civilian regs Stevens CONCUR: slippery slope to other exemptions Brennan DISSENT: `" deference; totally implausible effect yarmulkes on mil group ID Blackmun DISSENT: no evid reason to fear large # exemptions OConnor DISSENT: (p1507) OLone v. Shabazz (Rehnquist, 1987): upheld prison time/place work regs against Muslims religious objections working on Fridays Bowen v. Roy (Burger, 1986): upheld Soc Security reg IDing food stamp beneficiaries by SS#, against free exercise claim by parents concerned that SS# robbed spirit of 2yo child Blackmun/Stevens CONCUR: OConnor DISSENT: White DISSENT: (p1508) Lyng v. NW Indian Cem. Protective Assn (OConnor, 1988): upheld USFS road construction/timber harvest through Indian ceremonial ground regular scrutiny (`" sig burden) Brennan DISSENT: Empl. Div. v. Smith (Scalia, 1990): no peyote exemption (p1510) Upheld OR denial unempl bens Native alc-treat counselor fired for ceremonial peyote (crim) `" exemption gen ly applicable neutral laws (criminalization peyote) Unless combination free exercise + other const l right (Sherbert, Yoder) Floodgates concern case by case chaos preserve War on Drugs No centrality of practices analysis Peyote exemption permissible (30 states + Fed) but `" required O Connor CONCUR: sig burden, so must apply strict scrutiny Compelling interest prohib peyote poss n Historical evidence Framers wanted free-ex exemptions unpopular religions Blackmun DISSENT: `" compelling interest symbolic law, unenforced Tribal supervision, control over longstanding practices ltd to rituals ~ Prohibition exemptions to Catholic Sacrament Legacy popular outrage ( RFRA Cases moved to const l privacy theories (Scalia most hostile) Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 Clinton-era law overturning Smith interpretationFree Ex defense minority religions Reimpose Yoder/Sherbert tests for religious exemptions City of Boerne v. Flores (Scalia, 1997): RFRA n/a to states (p1518) Debating historical basis for Sherbert vs. Smith tests OConnor: history of religious exemptions to general lawsFramers intent Scalia: (p1524) Held 1993 RFRA n/a to states Cong amended w 2000 RLUIPA Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita (Roberts, 2006): 8-0 struck down Customs prohib hallucinogenic tea Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (Alito, 2014): corp exemption (Supp77) Struck down Obamacare contraceptive mandate as applied to closely held for-profit corps objecting on religious grounds through self-certification Corporate personhoodfree exercise, ascertainable if closely held, in charter Accepted arguendo compelling interest `" least restrictive means (1) public funding, (2) expand church/nonprof exemptions Kennedy CONCUR: not as bad as you think Ginsburg DISSENT: Compelling interest bkgd women s health issues RFRA ltd to reimposing pre-Smith jurisprudence not expanding religious freedom Profit corps `" religious freedom `" church/relig nonprofs No subst l burden, since forced only to pay into undifferentiated funds, intermediated by women employees /doctors decisions Slippery slope vaccines, antideps, pig-derived meds, transfusions, Hosana-Tabor Church v. EEOC (Roberts, 2012): ministerial exemption (p1525) struck down ADA as applied to church school teacher fired for disability Religious orgs right to shape its faith & mission through appts Thomas CONCUR: Alito/Kagan CONCUR: Anti-Establishment Clause Analogy to free speech Equality/Anti-censorship principle < factionalism Respect for minority religions, areligion Skepticism majoritarian politics driven by religioncoerced conversion Strict clear/present danger testeg human sacrifice Fed10 factionalism grp tendency excl outsiders scope legit concern, dehumz BUT Madisonian problem: federalism failure prevent national superfactions Post-WW2 judicial review as bulwark against national factionalism religion/race American public education: mixed public & private sys Free exercise private religious options Draw line at state fundingBUT vouchers permissible Alternatives: All public schools (Tawny, Equality)critique Brit class division All private schools (JS Mill, On Liberty)st guarantees, but diversity & excellence Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): free exercise right to private, religious edbut state tax $$? (p1526) Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): struck down certain financial aid to nonpublic schools Lemon test to withstand Est Cl challenge (1) Secular legislative purpose (2) Principal/primary effect neutral: neither advance nor inhibit religion Endorsement? Coercion? (3) Do not foster excessive gvt entanglement w religion Close collaboration religions & secular officials Mixing secular & religious interests Criticisms: Purpose prong would invalidate all deliberate gvt accommodation of religion Leg v purpose impossible toascertain Some entanglement nec y to ensure `" excessive promotion Despite `" formal overruling, Court less and less emphasis on Lemon criteria Public Financial Aid to Religious Institutions Everson v. Bd. of Ed. (Black, 1947): bus reimbursements OK (p1528) Upheld (5-4) NJ reimbursement transportation to nonprofit schools (incl religious)  No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any relig activities or institutions Jefferson s  wall of separation btwn church and State BUT here, neutrality `" hostility to religion Gen ly applicable reimbursement scheme Secular health/safety interest pressure to find any secular interest Money to families `" entanglement Recognize tension Free Exercise & Anti-establishment Freedom to practice by sending children to religious school How much state financial support ( establishment? Jackson DISSENT: comingling church & state Rutledge DISSENT: impermissible support of religion by state tax power Concern admin nightmarehow much support is too much? (p1531) Conflicting holdings Allen (1968): upheld states lending secular-subj books to religious schools Lemon (1971): struck down reimbursement teacher salaries, textbooks, instructional materials Wolman (1975): struck down states lending instructional materials (maps, mags, transparencies, tape recorders, lab equip) Mitchell (2000): overruled Meek prohib on lending books, in light of Wolman Levitt (1973): struck down states reimbursing state-reqd but teacher-prepped tests BUT Regan (1980): upheld reimbursing admin of state-prepped tests (p1532) Beneficiary classthe broader, the more likely to be permissible Especially likely to uphold when class = intermediary (parents) btwn funds & religious org Zorach v. Clauson (Douglas, 1952): upheld released time prog public students ( off-site relig classes Gvt may not coerce religion, but may close shop to allow for religious instruction Black DISSENT: coercion by holding release time during school hours (~ on-site) Jackson DISSENT: coercive use compulsory ed time Contra McCollum v. Bd. (1948): no religious instruction on public school grounds Mueller v. Allen (Rehnquist, 1983): tax breaks OK (p1534) Upheld tax deductions for tuition, textbooks, and transportation (up to $500/700) Secular purposedefray parents costs of educating children Primary effect `" sectarian aims of private schools One of many deductions broad leg v latitude taxation Available to all parents Disproportionate effects (96% private students in religious schools) irrelevant No excessive entanglement distrib to parents `"schools Relieve perceived unfairness to priv-sch parents Marshall DISSENT: prohib any tax breaks for religious students Subst v impact > form of regulation tuition deduction most important for religious schools No secular purpose Primary effect sectarianpredominately benefitting relig schools Excessive entanglement (p1538) Walz v. Tax Commn (1970): upheld state tax exemption religious real/personal property (p1539) Tilton v. Richardson (Burger, 1971): upheld construct grants secular facilities at relig colleges Secondary/higher ed < Est Cl barriers than primaryless impressionable Roemer v. Md. Pub. Works (Blackmun, 1976): upheld grants to relig colleges for any purpose `" sectarian Widmar v. Vincent (Powell, 1981): struck down state-U ban on facility use for prayer/relig instruction Equal access policy OK under Establishment Cl (p1540) Witters v. Wa. Dept. Servs. Blind (Marshall, 1986): unanimous upheld fin aid to blind person attending Christian college ministry Secular purposeeducating handicapped person BUT Marshalls emphasis quantity of aid was minority opinion Bowen v. Kendrick (Rehquist, 1988): upheld fed grants under Adolescent Family Life Act to religious family-planning counselors/researchersremanded as-applied challenge for Q pervasive sectarianism OConnor CONCUR: Blackmun DISSENT: facially invalidunacceptable risk fed money for proselytizing (p1542) Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist. (Rehnquist, 1993): upheld public ASL interpreter for deaf student in relig school Blackmun DISSENT: pub-empl `" directly work for relig Rosenberger v. U. Va. (Kennedy, 1995): upheld inclusion (free speech) Christian student magazine in Student Activities Fund 3d p printing servicesno endorsement problem OConnor CONCUR: Thomas CONCUR: history tax exemptionsmoney subsidy functionally indistinguishable Souter DISSENT: public funding proselytizing (p1544) Agostini v. Felton (OConnor, 1997): upheld public-fund remedial courses in NY relig schools Overturned Ball, Aguilar (Brennan, 1985) prohibs public teachers in relig schools No state-sponsored indoctrination or symbolic union church & state Remediation secular purpose, effect Some gvt fin aid to religious schools OK Souter DISSENT: flat ban subsidization (p1545) Mitchell v. Helms (Thomas, 2000): upheld public funding computers, instr aids to relig schools Neutrality of law paramountno problem when private choice disrupts chain OConnor CONCUR: Souter DISSENT: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (Rehnquist, 2006): vouchers OK (p1546) Upheld 1996 Cleveland Pilot Project Scholarship Program K-8 vouchers district/adjacent boundaries (but no suburban schools participated) Participating schools compliant antidiscrimination Mueller/Witters/Zobrest `"Est Cl issue if neutral assist broad class, indep choice fund religion Prog s disincentives to religious schools (50% cty school, 1/3 magent school funding) Disproportionate effects result of Clevelands ed system overall OConnor CONCUR: realities of district, insignificance of $$ overall ($8m) Secular interestparental control; willingness to send to Catholic schools Thomas CONCUR: education as emancipation Establishment n/a to states (14th Am only Free Exercise) Souter DISSENT: Everson no tax in any amount large or small Uphold principle even in hard cases w deserving kids (if there were an excuse) Reality of system2/3 private-school parents disagree w doctrine but only nonpublic option Foot-in-the-door religious regulation aggrandizing religious schools power Breyer DISSENT: concern risk religious factionalismawkward official mediation antidiscrimination Religion in Public Schools (p1556) Engel v. Vitale (Black, 1962): struck down NY Regents nondenominational prayer Stewart DISSENT: (p1557) Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp (Clark, 1963): struck down 10 Bible versespurpose/effect? Stewart DISSENT: (p1558) Wallace v. Jaffree (Stevens, 1985): struck down Ala. mom silence meditation or voly prayer OConnor CONCUR: endorsement test (p1559) Coercion test? Lee v. Weisman (Kennedy, 1992): no graduation prayer (p1560) Struck down middle school graduation rabbi prayers as coercive Peer pressuredespite growing autonomy secondary students Blackmun CONCUR: Souter CONCUR: Scalia DISSENT: (p1567) Santa Fe Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Doe (Stevens, 2000): struck down student-led football prayers Rehnquist DISSENT: (p1568) Good News Club v. Milford C. Sch. (Thomas, 2001): compelled allowing religious extracurricular clubs since already opened ltd public forum (free speech), consistent w Est Cl Scalia CONCUR: (p1569) Stone v. Graham (per curiam, 1980): struck down 10 Commandments posting in schools Rehnquist DISSENT: (p1570) Elk Grove U. Sch. Dist. v. Newdow (2004): dismissed Pledge suit for `" standing (`" custody) Rehnquist: would ve found no violation Nation s history O Connor: `" violation endorsement test Thomas: Est Cl `" incorporation to States Scientific academic freedom 1664 Milton Aereopogetica never again persecute science (Galileo) Center science from Italy to Netherlands, England 1859 Darwins Origin of Species Corroboration by fossil evidence challenged literal reading Genesis Tennessee Scopes Monkey Trial (1927) lawreq divine teaching (p1570) Epperson v. Ark. (Fortas, 1968): struck down Ark. anti-evolution curriculum law No secular purposescientific literacy reqd Most religions (Catholic) incorp science Effective promotion sectarian view Black/Stewart CONCUR: vagueness (avoid 1st Am issue) Edwards v. Aguillard (Brennan, 1987): no creationism (p1572) Struck down La. "balanced curriculum law: neither creationism nor evolution, or both Sham secular purposeacademic freedom? Historic dvpmt of approach: religious response to Darwinnism Legv history: sponsors floor comments Scientific community consensus agst Powell CONCUR: Scalia DISSENT: (p1576) Kitzmiller (M.D. Pa. 2004) defining religion vs. science Intelligent design = religion Historical context: progeny of creationism Violate sci ground rules permitting supernatural causation Irreducible complexityillogical dualism Refutation by sci community Endorsement of Religious Doctrines or Symbols (p1577) McGowan v. Md. (Warren, 1961): Sunday closing laws OK b/c contemp purposes secular ~ Braunfeld free exercise: rest, gathering, respite Why require rest? Sherbert, Yoder suggest effective overruling Marsh v. Chambers (Burger, 1983): legv prayer OK (1578) Upheld Neb legv prayers as historical practicedid not apply Lemon test Brennan DISSENT: Stevens DISSENT: (Supp83) Town of Greece v. Galloway (Kennedy, 2014): council prayer OK Despite 10yrs all Christian b/c open process History/tradition itself insuffstrike down if any indication discrim Kagan DISSENT: town council not only legislature but also citizens hearings Lynch v. Donnely (Burger, 1984): crche OK (p1580) Upheld Pawtucket RI crche (w/in full Christmas decorations) Secular purposehistorical depiction holidays origins (~ art museum) Effectno greater than other OK endorsements OConnor CONCUR: No endorsement neither speaker nor audience would read sectarian purpose Brennan DISSENT: Lemon test Sectarian purpose miraculous conception Sectarian effect context doesn t cure sectarian defect `" like Christmas Day secular elements gift giving, public festivities, cty spirit Permissible holiday, not compelled `" like  ceremonial deism Blackmun DISSENT: disserving both politics & religion (p1586) Allegheny Cnty. v. ACLU (Blackmun, 1989): mixed decision, endorsement test Line drawing at naked sectarianism/callous majoritarianism Struck down freestanding nativity scene Upheld menorah alongside Christmas tree, liberty banner Kennedy DISSENT: keep both under coercion test Brennan DISSENT: menorah should go, too Stevens DISSENT: strong presumption agst religious symbols public property (p1588) Capitol Sq. Rev. Bd. v. Pinette (Scalia, 1995): upheld KKK cross private prop near OH capitol OConnor CONCUR: endorsement test (majority) Stevens, Ginsburg DISSENTS: Ten Commandments at Courthouses (no, then yes) (p1591) McCreary Cnty v. ACLU of Ky. (Souter, 2005): struck down Ten Cs in county courthouses 3 successive framings 10 Cs: 1-alone, 2-explained, 3-alongside others Sectarian purposeswift revisions after 1st two struck down Sectarian effectoriginalist arguments ignore Jeff/Mad antipathy to establishment Entanglement OConnor CONCUR: anti-establishment independent of popular support Scalia DISSENT: 9/11 responses, Napoleons secular stupidity, originalism (p1597) Van Orden v. Perry (Rehnquist, 2005): Upheld 10 Cs monument Tex courthouse grounds Among mixed historical, religious Scalia CONCUR: Thomas CONCUR: (1) `" incorporation; (2) `"  establishment (actual legal coercion) Breyer CONCUR (swing): borderline case jdgmt call orig donation, setting, longstanding presence Stevens DISSENT: OConnor DISSENT: Souter DISSENT: Discretionary Accommodation (p1605) Locke v. Davey (Rehnquist, 2004): upheld WA refusal scholarships theology degrees Room for play in the joints btwn Free Ex & Est Cls No sanctions, only denial benefit Scalia DISSENT: (p1608) Larkin v. Grendels Den (Burger, 1982): struck down delegation to churches/schools to veto liquor licenses to restaurants w/in 500ft Rehnquist DISSENT: why not, since OK to zone 500ft anyway Est. of Thornton v. Caldor Inc (Burger, 1985): struck down CT law mandating unemployment benefits if employees refusal to work for Sabbath any dayfavoring particular relig practices OConnor CONCUR: (p1609) Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Amos (White, 1987): upheld Title VII anti-discrim exemption for religious orgs after Mormon gym fired non-Mormon janitorLemon test Brennan CONCUR: OConnor CONCUR: (p1610) Tex. Monthly v. Bullock (Brennan, 1989): struck down Tex. income tax exemption exclusively for relig publications b/c unavailable similarly situation secular pubs Blackmun CONCUR: Scalia DISSENT: (p1611) Equal Access Act of 1984 expanded Widmar accommodation from Us to HSs Bd. of Ed. v. Mergens (O Connor, 1990): struck down school s denial formation Christian club, & application of Act `" against Est Cl Lemon test Kennedy CONCUR: Marshall CONCUR: only if special steps disassociate Stevens DISSENT: (p1612) Cutter v. Wilkinson (Ginsburg, 2005): facially upheld RLUIPA (subst l burden relig free ex ( compelling interest + least restrictive alt) Thomas CONCUR: `" incorporation (p1613) Bd. of Ed. of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet (Souter, 1994): struck down NY law redistricting Satmar Ortho Jew town to provide segregated SpEd services discrim purpose O Connor CONCUR: Scalia DISSENT: facially neutral law Due Process Madisons concern illegitimacy 1787 Constitutionletter to Jefferson Failure address race/relig factionalism by protecting inalienable HRs Justification revolution (+ Civ War) Real threats to HRs from States, not Fed (eg Virginia)BUT BoR n/a to States Slavery as unjustified abridgment basic HRspreservation in 1787 Const Mad/Jeff thought over time spread liberal Enlightenment values to States Eg abolition State churches by 1830s Mad/Jeff political advocacy abolitionVirginia almost voted abolition Unexpected hardening as result of economic prosperity fr cotton gin Calhoun anti-HR constlism, emulate Greek/Roman slavery, subj women 1787 Constitution Horizontal separation of powers, judicial supremacy Vertical federalism Some basic-rights protections Federal limits Art I 9 habeas, ex post facto crim, attainder Locke: separate law-making, punishing Art III narrow treason, jury trials State limits Art I 10 freedom K, attainder, ex post facto crim Art IV 2 Privs & Ims; 4 republican gvts (justiciable?) Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Views on incorporation Total, but no more Black concurrences Selective Palko (Cardozo) abstract justice Duncan (White) American national tradition of justice Duncan modified state `" federal Barron v. Baltimore (Marshall, 1783): BoR `" states (p426) Baltimore diverted streams for street construction; in-filled Barron s wharf Dismissed Barron s 5th Am takings/compensation claim for `" jx 5th Am just compensation clause n/a to States Rationale: clear delimiting federalism in Art I, 9, 10 Clear language when limiting state power, but 5th Am silent Legv historyundisputed BoR n/a to States Rejected Madisons incorporation 1st draftworries slavery Dred Scott v. Sandford (Taney, 1857): due process right to property Competing constl views Moderate abolitionism (Lincoln) State indep discretion; fed could encourage via limits, compens Federal level BoRCong free to regulate over territories (`" Dred Scott) Radical abolitionism (p428) Leg v bkgd 1820 Missouri Compromise Mo. admitted as slave state, Maine admitted as free Mo. southern border as boundary of future free/slave states 1850 Compromise Cal admitted as free state exch stronger fugitive slave law & Utah vote 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Actslavery vote in Kan & Neb, both north of Mo line Influx pro- & anti-slavery advocates devolved into near war 1857 Buchanan Inaugural: Dred Scott would speedily & finally settle slavery issue (p429) Scott & wife owned by army surgeon Sandersonpostings in free Ill. State, Wisc. territory Mrs. Sandford denied to sell Scott his & wifes freedom Scott sued for declaratory judgment that 2yrs in free Wisconsin rendered him free Denied Scotts claim for both jx & on merits Jx descendants of slaves `"  citizens contemplated by Const (revisionist originalism) Decl Ind  all men ordinary meaning would comprise blacks BUT Const provs Art I 2 (3/5), 9 (slave trade to 1808); Art IV 2 (fugitive slaves) BUT historical practice slavery MeritsCong powerless to prohibit slavery in territories/statesinvalidated laws U.S. citizens retain property rights while travelling Property rights > HRs Curtis DISSENT: at Independence, 5 states recognized citizenship free native-born blacks Richards: not far enough Lincolns responseopinion put out moral lights in American people Unfair reading basic HRs in Const Reconsidered intent to retire (after 1854 loss for position anti-Mex-Am War) Historian consensus: Civ War inevitable after Dred Scott Lincolns capacity to change moral mind Slaughter-House Cases (Miller, 1873): 14th Privs & Ims narrow (p433) Reconstruction Amendments 186513th Amabolished slavery nationwide Lincolns assassinationRichards: Johnson a drunk racist, goading southerners 1866Civil Rights Actguaranteed civil rights to blacks 186814th Amguaranteed civil rights broadly (all persons born or naturalized) Privileges & immunities clausefr Art IV 2 Due process clausefr 5th Am Equal protection clause Overruled Dred Scottcitizenship guarantee to all native-born 187015th Amguaranteed blacks right to vote Radical Republican failed hope black-white coalitions Louisiana corp charter 25yr monopoly to New Orleans slaughterhouse Excluded butchers raised 14th Am challenge for deprivation right free labor Upheld monopoly 5-4 History of Civil War Amendments, above Privileges & Immunities Clause 14th Am:  citizens of the United Stares `" Art IV 2:  citizen of the several states Art IV 2 fund l rights (Corfield v. Coryell 1823) States must extend own citizens fund l rights to non-citizens w/in jx States responsible for protecting fund l rights Narrow possibilities for Priv/Im protection Concern breadth of fund l rights (> BoR) enforced/created by fed judiciary Courts `" perpetual censors all State laws Some pot l baseline US fund l rights travel; access to ports; access to courts; protection at sea, abroad; assembly/petition; habeas; access to waterways Richards: domesticates & tames normative drive behind 14th Am Sen. Binghams floor speech at 14th: incorporate all 8 BoR, Corfield HRs beyond Effect: transport analysis fr Privs & Ims to (substv) Due Process J Thomasbring it back! Less restrictive alternative to state monopoly? Zoning regs Wouldve led to dvpmt antitrust law under 14th Am Field DISSENT: 14th Am natural/inalienable rights all citizens Baseline rights of citizens all free governmentsequality of right Bradley DISSENT: fundamental rights of citizenship Saenz v. Roe (Stevens, 1999): 14th Privs & Ims right to travel (p440) Bkgd on right to travel Crandall v. Nevada (1867): invalidated tax on passengers leaving state via common carriers Edwards v. California (Byrnes, 1941): invalidated anti-Okie indigent immigr law under Comm Cl Douglas CONCUR: fundl right of interstate travel (p443) Shapiro v. Thompson (Brennan, 1969): struck down total ban welfare 1st year residency 14th Equal Protection Clauseindividual liberty Impermissible purpose exclude needy from state Legacy mixed decisions on durational residency reqmts Dunn (1972): struck down Tenn 1yr before voting Starns (1973): upheld in-state tuition residency Memorial Hosp (1974): struck down Ariz 1yr before indigent medical care Sosna (1975): upheld Iowa 1yr before divorce action agst non-resident (p440) Struck down Cal law limiting welfare benefits before 1yr residency Fundl right to travel Right to enter and leave Right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien during temp stays Right to be treated like other residents upon relocation (here) Strict scrutinyno compelling interest Fencing out indigent is illegitimate Cals claimed budget issues insuff reason for discrimination Non-portable benefit distinct from divorce, in-state tuition Acknowledge states prerogative to combat fake residency claims (benefit and run) Federalism structure Rehnquist DISSENT: welfare benefits ~ in-state tuition Thomas DISSENT: fundamental rights `" any public benefit Duncan v. Louisiana (White, 1968): BoR incorp. (6th jury trial) (p447) Palko v. Connecticut (Cardozo, 1937): denied 5th Am double jeopardy claim by murderer No general rule 14th incorps agst states all 5th Am protections Selective incorporation based on  fundamental fairness, abstract justice Anglophilia Free speech, impartial trial, criminal counsel `" nec ly self-incrim, indictment, jury (p448) Adamson v. California (Reed, 1947): denied 5th Am self-incrim claim by murderer Black DISSENT: total incorporation but nothing beyond Frankfurter CONCUR: contra Blacks position b/c state autonomy (450) Revd Duncans bench-trial conviction misd battery (60d) b/c viol 6th Am right to jury trial History BoR incorporationslimit gvt suppression CB&Q Rwy (1897): 5th Am compensation for takings Fiske (1927): 1st Am speech, press, religion Mapp (1961): 4th Am search & Seizure Malloy (1964): 5th Am self-incrimination Gideon (1963): 6th Am counsel Klopfer (1967): speedy trial Pointer (1965): confront witnesses Washington (1967): obtaining witnesses 6th Am jury trial fundl to Am scheme of justice (founded on adversarial) Jury guarantee central to American protection national factionalism by local peers Right to jury nullification Forget British traditions, focus on American concerns tyranny Exceptions for petty crimes/offenses < 6mo (here, up to 2yr) Black CONCUR: total incorporation BoR, but nothing beyond Harlan DISSENT: (p453) Scope of incorporated rights Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Williams v. Florida (1970): 6 jurors OK McDonald v. Chicago (Alito, 2010): 2d Am handguns (p454) Prior 2d Am cases US v. Cruikshank (1876): vacated lynch mob s gun convictions b/c 2d Am `" to states US v. Miller (1939): upheld Nat l Firearms Act, emphasis on regulated militia DC v. Heller (Scalia, 2008): struck down DC handgun ban indiv right to own gun self-def Militia clause `" limiting on rights clause  Right of the people ( indiv right Limits: felons, mentally ill, special places: schools, gvt bldgs., comm l regs Stevens DISSENT: Breyer DISSENT: (1) no indiv right, but (2) even if right, compelling interest (p457) Struck down Chicago handgun ban2d Am fundl right incorped by 14th Due Process Self-defense basic right deeply rooted in Anglo-Am tradition, implicit 2d Am Unreasl regulation by Ill. (Plurality: total incorporation?) Scalia CONCUR: misgivings about substv due process; OK w incorp self-def b/c tradition Thomas CONCUR: Privs & Ims better route than Due Processoverrule precedents Relevant Q: self defense as basic right? Stevens DISSENT: 14th Am subst v due process case (`" 2d Am) Dynamic interpretation of fund l liberty Guns ambivalent relationship to liberty Right to possess gun diff kind of liberty than others incorped `"autonomy, dignity, equality As applied analyses depending on defenselessness of D Other countries experiences 2d Am different special b/c aimed at States State regulation equally deeply rooted Federalism Breyer DISSENT: Substantive Due Process beyond the Bill of Rights Richards s common analysis Fundamental right? Compelling secular state interest? JS Mill, On Liberty (1859) ch 4-5: Harm Principle British Parliament (Mills intent) vs. US judicial review + political Trend toward democratization Worry trampling rights marginalized minorities: scapegoats of conventional morality HRs must apply equally Constl principles must constrain majoritarian morality by critical morality Criminalization depends on harm principle (otherwise tyranny) JusticeRawlsian: tax redistribution, anti-discrim laws OK Harm others Harm self (eg drug laws) Majoritarian disgust never appropriate Eg criminalized contraceptionno justice, no harm others/self: enhanced dignity Eg US free speech, religious liberty, (& Richards: constl privacy) US right of privacy Since Warren/Brandeis article: private tort right Olmstead (Brandeis dissenting): 4th Am incl privacy right agst State e-bugging (accepted in Katz) Economic Rights Calder v. Bull (Chase, 1798): natural law (p467) Upheld Conn Act setting aside probate court dismissal of will, requiring new hearing, approval Ex Post Facto Clause limited to criminal legislation Nature of free republican gvt = compulsion only under law, liberty in absence of legal prohibs Leg v Acts `"natural law are ultra vires Iredell DISSENT: constitution = limits of state power Natural law analysis too subjective Historical dvpmt due process analysis Pre-Civ Warmostly procedural implications, w some substv exception eg Dred Scott Post-Civ Warsubstv reactions to growth regy state, Slaughter-House limit Privs & Ims (p470) Munn v. Ill. (1877): upheld rate regs grain elevators under police power RR Commn Cases (1886): upheld RR rates Santa Clara Cty v. S. P. RR (1886): corporations are persons under 14th Am Mugler v. Kan. (1887): upheld alcohol prohibition but applied reaslness analysis BUT Chicago RR v. Minn. (1890): struck down admin ratemaking w/o judl review BUT Allgeyer v. La. (Peckham, 1897): struck down insurance law as deprivation substv due process right to lberty of contract Lochner v. NY (Peckham, 1905): NO wage regs, equality interest Lochnerizing Judicial bias, ignoring litigants facts Overreach into political issue Overreach into legv function (p471) Revd conviction Lochner, baker, for violating NY maximum hours (10/d, 60/wk) law Right to work basic HRAm history No compelling secular purpose (bkgd social ideology: Gilded Age Social Darwinism) Male workers w/o need for paternalism Some regs OK: underground mines, women No harm to others No harm to selfslippery slope to controlling professionals, artists (Mozart!!!) Richards: failure to take litigants facts/experiences seriously; inventing facts Abdication of judl responsibility & impartiality Ignore economic equality/social justice as suspect state motive (shocking!!!) Equality ~ racism (are you serious?!) ~ Buckley invalidation equality motive ***Harlan DISSENT: equality principle: bargaining power ( legv prerogative to correct injustice No constl ground to reject equality as suspect motivation, like racism, anti-religion Court inserting itself into political debate w/o justification Health & safety of bakers by trial evidenceoverreaching into legv function Contrary social scienceProf Hirt Diseases on the Worker Holmes DISSENT: Court no business second-guessing econ theory underpinning legislation A constitution is not intended to embody a particular econ theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally different views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon whether the statutes embodying them conflict w the Constitution. 14th Am does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencers Social Statics Economic reg = political Q > judl determination Am tradition unquestioning acceptance many state interventions (tax, antitrust, etc) Some political theories (Mill, Locke) relevant b/c w/in constl tradition I think that the word liberty in the 14th Am is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necly would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundl principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. (p478) Adair v. US (Harlan, 1908): invalidated statutory protection to form labor unions (p479) Coppage v. Kan. (Pitney, 1915): invalidated statutory protection unionsinequality natural Holmes DISSENT: ensure fair bargaining rights Adams v. Tanner (1917): invalidated statutory prohib employment agency fees from workers New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932): invalidated Okla licensing/cert law for ice mfg Muller v. Oregon (Brewer, 1908): upheld maximum hours law for delicate female workers (p480) Bunting v. Oregon (1917): upheld maximum 10hr law for all factory workers Adkins v. Childrens Hosp. (Sutherland, 1923): struck down minimum-wage law for women (19th Am!) Holmes DISSENT: max hours OK but min wages NO? Overruled by Parrish, below (p481) Bailey v. Ala. (Hughes, 1911): struck down criminalization breach K (presumption fraud) as violation 13th Am involuntary servitude Holmes DISSENT: holding parties to contract benefits everyone New Deal Regs: Nebbia, W Coast Hotel, Carolene Prods. (p482) Nebbia v. NY (Roberts, 1934) Upheld Milk Ctrl Bd min prices convict retailer undercutting Due Process: (1) `" unreas l, arbitrary or caprious, AND (2) real & subst l rel to purpose McReynolds DISSENT: what about customers rights to cheap milk? (p483) W. Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Upheld women s min wage, overruling Adkins Procedural protection against deprivation liberty (`" contract) = reas l relation State `" bound to subsidize unconscionable employers Sutherland DISSENT: (p485) US v. Carolene Prods. (Stone, 1938) Upheld fed prohib interstate shipment filled milk Rational basispresumption of legv rational judgment, unless evid to contrary Footnote 4: narrower scope/stricter scrutiny possible, if political process issue: Fundamental rights/BoR Restrictions on political parties, classifications Suspect classifications: discrete or insular relig/racial minorities Williamson v. Lee Optical (Douglas, 1955): rational basis (p486) Upheld Okla reg eligible eye doctors (ophthalmologists & optometrists OK, opticians NO) No basic HR at issue, despite disadvantaging opticians typical democ lobbying (`" deep evil) Leg v prerogative to balance dis/advantages regulation Presumption rationality ( hypothetical  leg r might have concluded&  Perfect logical consistency `" req d, as long as leg r could have thought reas l (p488) Ferguson v. Skrupa (Black, 1963): upheld Kan reg debt adjusting to lawyers (p489) Punitive damages sole remaining subst v due process area BMW v. Gore (Stevens, 1996): struck down $2m punitive on $4k compensatory under procedural Guideposts: Breyer CONCUR: substv due process issue Scalia DISSENT: no substv due process fairness reqmt State Farm v. Campbell (Kennedy, 2003): 1-to-10 max ratio compensatory-to-punitive Philip Morris v. Williams (Breyer, 2007): 100-to-1 grossly excessive State cant consider nonparty injuries in punitive award Stevens DISSENT: Exxon Shipping v. Baker (Souter, 2008): 1-to-1 under fed maritime common law Contraception & Abortion (p492) Broad readings of substv liberty right in Due Process Clause Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): liberty to teach foreign languages (German) to children (Lochner) Richards: parents liberty to direct education of children Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): OR parents right to send children to religious schools Skinner v. Oklahoma (Douglas, 1942): right to marry, procreate (but Equal Protection Clause) Strict scrutiny Habitual Criminal Sterilization Actinvidious discrim, less restrv alts Griswold v. Conn. (Douglas, 1965): right to contraception (p493) Struck down CT laws criminalizing taking, prescribing contraceptives even in marriage CT lone holdout after Margaret Sanger/Emma Goldman success repeals elsewhere Margaret Sanger double life: good US wife, free European spirit (args: eugenics + HRs) Constl zone of privacy implicit in penumbras 1st 3dquartering soldiers 4thsecurity of home 5thself-incrimination zone of privacy 9thMadisons insistence of other rights retained by the people Incorporation agst States by 14th Marriage as const ly protected association, intimate life & relationships Intimate associations e" political associations (NAACP v. Ala) Meyer & Pierce: how to raise children; Skinner: procreation Douglas the hypocritical serial monogamist? Association of way of life, not causes No analysis of legv purpose/harm principleallusion in hypo application to married couples (bugging bedroom)ridiculous in free society But obviously some proscribable acts even in marital bedroom: abuse, rape, murder Goldberg CONCUR: ground privacy right in 9th Am other rights retained by the people, incorp 14th Acknowledge non-exhaustive scope of BoR as full HRs Basic HR to marriagelegit secular purposes: evils of pre- & extra-marital sex Overbroad inclusion of married couples Harlan CONCUR: 14th Am Due Process Clause stands on its own bottomprivacy right in liberty Poe v. Ullman (Harlan dissenting, 1961): full scope of Due Process Clause broader, indep of other Constl provisions (also Privs & Ims under Corfield v. Coryel) Basic HR to contraception w/in marriagestrict scrutiny Leading Founders said so: Witherspoon (Madisons teacher) Deprivation of marriage by slaves b/c dehumanizedabolished at Reconstruction Omitted fr BoR b/c power retained by States Countervailing state interests prohibiting adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest Accept evil of pre- & extra-marital sex Reject evil of non-procreative sex (overpop, industrialized > agrarian civilization) Challenge: too close to Lochner dismissal state interests? Discriminatory White CONCUR: law s coverage of married couples `" reinforce state s interest in < promiscuity Black DISSENT: No const l basis for right to privacy (anti-natural justice analysis) Stewart DISSENT: No const l right to privacy (p501) Eisenstadt v. Baird (Brennan, 1972): expanded contraceptive right to unmarried persons Carey v. Pop. Servs. Intl (Brennan, 1977): strict scrutiny even minors access to contraceptives White CONCUR: insuff connection reg & state interest Stevens CONCUR: irrational means, minors increased risks disease, pregnancy Powell CONCUR: extraordinary protection all personal sexl decisionsoverbroad prohibition even parents giving to their kids Rehnquist, Burger DISSENTS Roe v. Wade (Blackmun, 1973): right to abortion (p503) Struck down Tex crim law prohibiting abortions except to save life of mother Individual constl right of privacy (intimate sexl life) in 14th Am libertystrict scrutiny Logical extension of Griswold contraceptive right: womans relationship to child Controversy of case never about recognition of right, but rather state interests Compelling (secular) state interests Illegitimate interest in prohibiting non-procreative sex Maternal health 1st trimester absolute rightworlds most liberal exit right 2nd trimester: regulations f/b/o maternal health (increased risk complications) Moral args: self-defense, necessity, euthanasia, Good Samaritan double-std Fetuss potential lifeafter viability (but secondary to maternal health) No personhoodwould alter rape exceptions No moral consensus compelling pointdecided anyway at viability Practical maintenance anti-infanticide interest Alts: fertilization, quickening, pain, brain fct, viability, birth, self-consciousness BUT birth untenable, eg induced labor pre-viability? D&E? Summary 1st trimesterno state interventiondoctors orders After 1st trimesterstate regs only to protect maternal health After viabilitystate regs may prohibit abortion except if life/health of mother Stewart CONCUR: recognize substv due process, incl womans decisionto terminate White DISSENT: improvident judicial creation of extra-constl right Rehnquist DISSENT: abortion transactions `"private w/in 4th meaning 14th liberty deprivations OK if subj to due process No fund l HR, so rational basis scrutiny under Lee Optical Liberal constitutionalists critiques (eg Ely) Good arguments for basic HR to abortion, but too controversial to constitutionalize Political problemfailure of women to organize BUT particular impact on sub-class poor women? BUT historical inequality deep rooted? Experience of Roe as empowering 2d-wave fem Any sane populace would decriminalize abortion, but no constl compulsion (p510) Akron I (1983): struck down hostpital reqmt > 1 trimester (p510) Spousal/parental consentharm principle Danforth (1976): struck down (1) husbands written consent first 12 weeks; (2) parental consent Recognize close link to domestic abuse Bellotti I (1976): undue burden test for parental notice reqmtsrecognize child abuse/honor kill Bellotti II (1979): upheld parental consent if judicial bypass Ashcroft (1983): upheld parental consent w judicial bypass, under Bellotti II (p511) Parental notice Matheson (1981): upheld parental notice for minors abortion Hodgson (1990): struck down 48hr pre-notice reqmt, but OK if judicial bypass Akron II (1990): upheld one-parent notice w bypass procedure Waiting periods Akron I (1983): struck down mandatory 24hr waiting period b/c costs > burden Thornburgh (1986): struck down reporting reqmts (IDs of phys, woman) b/c chilling effect (p511) Maher v. Roe (Powell, 1977): upheld CT prohib Medicaid $$ for medically unnecessary abortions Roe s right `" State s obligation to provide public funds Basic difference btwn state interference w protected activity & state encouragement alt activity Brennan DISSENT: Marshall DISSENT: (p512) Harris v. McRae (Stewart, 1980): upheld Hyde Am prohib fed funding except rape, incest, life Liberty to abort `" right to public funding Brennan DISSENT: Stevens DISSENT: unlike Maher, this statute prohibited funding even medically nec y abortions Rust v. Sullivan (Rehnquist, 1991): upheld fed funding restriction on abortion counseling Political shift by Republican appts (OConnor, Kennedy, Souter)expectation overrule Roe Blackmun DISSENT: suppression medically pertinent info; reg unrelated to maternal health (p514) Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs. (Rehnquist, 1989): upheld Mo. prohib abortions in state public hospitals, prohib state employees use public facilities even if woman paid for them Equivalent to not operating any public hospitals at all Different question if no private hospitals in state Planned Parenthood v. Casey (OConnor, 1992): qualified abortion right (p515) Reaffirmed essential holding of Roe Substv privacy right to intimacy in 14th Am Due Process liberty Basic HR marriage, procreation, contraception, family rels, child rearing, education Central to personal autonomy, dignity Modify state-interest analysis (mothers life/health + more weight to potential life of fetus) Reject rigid trimester framework Undue burden standardallow some more regulation 24 hour waiting period OK `" undue burden Informed consent, hosp req mts OK `" undue burden Parental notification, reporting OK `" undue burden Spousal notification/consent, parental consent NO = undue burden Review of stare decisis principles Unworkable? Reliance interest? Fundl evolution of legal principles? Fundl evolution of factual assumptions? Lochner ( West Coast Hotel? Demonstrably false assumptions about mkt realities Plessy ( Brown? False assumptions separate equality Judicial legitimacy & rule of lawavoid changing position under fire Principle > political hackery Stevensneed robust secular state interest State cant attempt to persuade women against abortionintrusion personal autonomy Blackmunstrict scrutiny any abortion laws Gender equalityabortion prohibs as female conscription Rehnquist recognize abandonment of Roe principles: `" fund l right, `" strict scrutiny, `" trimesters Scalia rational basis to uphold entire law (p525) Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (O Connor, 2006): remanded law w/o maternal life/health exception to lower court for reinterpretationwholesale invalidation unnecessary Partial-birth Abortions Stenberg v. Carhart (Breyer, 2000): struck down Neb prohib D&Es w/o health exception Stevens CONCUR: Roe approved by 13 of 17 Justices since decision Kennedy DISSENT: states entitled to promote life Thomas DISSENT: choice of abortion method `" access to abortion at all Gonzalez v. Carhart (Kennedy, 2007): fed ban D&E (p526) Upheld fed ban live-delivery, pre-viability D&Es under Partial-Birth Abortion Act 2003 Distinguished from Stenberg act b/c ltd to live-delivery D&Es (dismemberment in utero OK) Too close to infanticide State interests: (1) fetal life potential; (2) maternal anti-depression/-regret As applied challenge OK, if evid threats to life/health of mother Thomas CONCUR: overrule entire abortion-right jurisprudence as unfounded in Constitution Ginsburg DISSENT: first approval abortion reg w/o health exception All abortion procedures gruesome Undue burden would force women to less safe methods Kennedy imposing moral considerations Maternal regretancient/patriarchal notions womens place Recognize effect of Alitos replacing OConnor in changed balance of Court on issue Marriage, Family & Gay Sex Marriage: Loving (1967), Zablocki (1978), Turner (1987) (p529) Loving v. Virginia (Warren, 1967): struck down interracial marriage ban Right to marry, or not, grounded in 14th Am equal protection & due process Zablocki v. Redhail (Marshall, 1978): struck down Wisc. judl preclearance noncustl parent to marry Equal protection/fundl rights analysis influenced by subst v due process Griswold line: 14th Am due process privacy ( fundamental right to procreate, incl marriage Powell CONCUR: intermediate (`" strict) scrutiny Stevens CONCUR: some subst l restraints on marriage OK, eg incest Stewart CONCUR: subst v due process alone Rehnquist DISSENT: uphold under Lee Optical presumption validity (p530) Turner v. Safley (OConnor, 1987): struck down prison warden approval for marriages Marriage fundl right even for prisonersemo support, public commitment, spiritual significance, expectation eventual release/consummation, pre-condition gvt benefits Essential HR (~ free speech) despite `" sex Household: Moore (1977) but Belle Terre (1974); Troxel (2000) (p531) Moore v. E. Cleveland (Powell, 1977): struck down zoning ord nuclear families only, as applied to grandmother living with cousin grandkids family living arrangements 14th Am due process liberty Constl protection values deeply rooted in tradition/history Recognize ethnic traditions extended families Stevens CONCUR: better grounded in right of enjoyment of property White DISSENT: history/tradition too much broadening substv due process Stewart DISSENT: living arrangements `" procreation/marriage (p532) BUT Belle Terre v. Boraas (Douglas, 1974): upheld zoning out nonfamily households No fund l privacy rights unrelated groups Marshall DISSENT: fund l, personal right to choose living companions (p533) Troxel v. Granville (OConnor, 2000): revd state-courts visitation rights to grandma over fit custodial mothers objectionfundl right parents decide care, custody, control of their children Stevens DISSENT: 14th Am due process flexible room for states consider best interests of child Scalia DISSENT: no fundl right to parenting Kennedy DISSENT: better left to family courts Paternity Presumption: Michael H. v. Gerald D. (Scalia, 1989) (p534) Upheld Cal strong presumption of paternity by husband, despite Michael Hs blood test Substv Due Process (if at all) = fundl liberty & traditional protection Footnote: tradition at most specific level of generalityhere, rights of adulterous bio dads OConnor CONCUR: all except footnoteinconsistent w Griswold, Eisenstadttoo rigid Brennan DISSENT: tradition just as malleable as libertyliving Const A lot has happened since the Foundingracism, sexism Presumption paternity anachronistic Sexual Intimacy: Lawrence v. Texas (Kennedy, 2003) Bkgd US backwardness/underground gay rights advocacy b/c obscenity laws Whitman great prophet of HRsobscenity prosecutions, denial of sexuality European history: (1) decriminalization ( (2) anti-discrim guarantees ( (3) gay marriage (p538) Struck down anti-gay-sodomy law (deviate intercourse: oral/anal, objects) Overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (White, 1986) (upholding Ga. facially neutral sodomy law) (p536) Narrow interp issue as whether fundl right to gay sodomy Richards: Im told cunnilingus is a very popular heterosexual activity, much like fellatio, as I understand. Originalism, BUT inconsistency w Whites concurrences Griswold, Roe? Rational basis scrutinystate interests in family, marriage, procreation Burger CONCUR: long tradition Judeo-Christian anti-sodomy laws Powell CONCUR: no disproportionality/8th Am as applied, despite up to 20yr sentence Later admitted probably a mistake to switch sidesdefender Griswold, Roe In conference: denied having ever met a gayBlackmun: really, Lewis? Blackmun DISSENT: real issue = right to be let alone re sexual intimacy ***Stevens DISSENT: generally applicable law, but selective enforcementno neutral purpose, only habitual dislike/ignorance re disfavored group Majoritarian morality insufficient to uphold criminalization 14th Am Due Process liberty incl intimacy (w/in marriage) 14th Am liberty presumes personal autonomy: thought, belief, expr, certain intimate conduct Emerging awareness (pre-Bowers) liberty incl sexual autonomy Contra Bowers appeal to unbroken Western/Anglo tradition MPC (1955): decriminalize gay sex Wolfenden Report (UK, 1957): decriminalize gay sex ( UK Parliament (1967) Dudgeon v. UK (ECHR 1981): struck down Irish gay sodomy criminalization throughout Council of Europe member states (Atkins v. Virginia (2002): persuasiveness EU re mentally retarded executions) Due Process analysisstrict scrutiny? Griswold: contraceptives for married couples Eisenstadt: contraceptives for all ( Carey: even minors Roe: family planning incl abortion Casey: reaffd substv due process liberty Romer v. Evans (Kennedy, 1996): equal protection gays fr discrim CO constl am CO decriminalization gay sex but constl denial equal protection Kennedy: beyond the paleinvidious discrim, animus, dehumanization Here, avoid Equal Protection analysis b/c no redrafting possible Justices out ahead of even litigators Criminalization gay conduct encourages broader social discrimination State interest? Platos (probably gay) secular justifications: Procreation of soldiers (BUT `"modern: Griswold) Male homosexuality disrupts gender roles (BUT modern: gender equality) Public health (HIV) (BUT less restrictive alts) History of anti-sodomy laws: until late-20th C, gen ly applicable (account for narrow rape def) Homophobia recent phenomenon, esp post-WW2 Tradl state interest in prohibiting all non-procreative sexirrational under Griswold, Roe Living Constitution OConnor CONCUR: Equal Protection analysis (keep Bowers) Richards: I dont think theres a political consensus, even in Texas, to criminalize a little fellatio and cunnilingus for heterosexual couples. Scalia DISSENT: uphold law under rational basis reviewno fundl right to gay sodomy Slippery slope to legalizing adultery, bigamy, fornication, adult incest, bestiality, polygamy Richards: Traitorous lovers in Dantes cental circle of hell Richards: Does anyone here live on farms? That changes ones view of this, Im told. Thomas DISSENT: silly law, but no such thing as substv due process Notes Std of Scrutiny Comparative constl law (p548) Goodridge v. Dept Pub. Health (Mass. 2003): extended Lawrence principle to gay marriage (p549) Gay Parenting Bottoms v. Bottoms (Va. 1994): Lofton v. Secy DCFS (11th 2004): Marriage: U.S. v. Windsor (Kennedy, 2013): `"DOMA (Supp25) Struck down DOMA as violation 5th Am Due Process liberty (via 5th/14th Equal Prot?) Edith Windsor denied fed tax refund $300k estate widow, Thea Spyer (NY recognized marriage) Federalism: trad l fed deference state-law policy decisions re marriage Founders never dreamed of fed interference state marriages (diversity of moral views) Due Process: marriage incl in fundl right to sexual intimacy (Lawrence) NYs recognition of gay marriage conferred dignity, important status Fed discrimination/injury of class NY sought to protect Modern version of national super-faction Think of the children Roberts DISSENT: federalism analysis (ignore Kennedys due process HR args) Fed prerogative standardize marriage definition w/r/t fed benefits Scalia DISSENT: unclear opinion type: equal protection? Disclaimed, but citations to eq-prot cases No mention substv due process, but lurking in background Rational-basis review: valid reasons for law, eg uniformity Despite majs attempt to narrow, clearly SCOTUS will strike down state restrictions gay marriage Alito DISSENT: improper Court insertion into political debate tradl vs. consent marriage Right to Die Historicalprotest injustice Seneca Jews at Masada Moderndeath with dignity Categorization Involuntarymurder Voluntary Activeprescribe medications Passiveremove care Living will No living willmost case law State interests Irrational depression Self-interested heirs Lifebiological vs. meaningful (~ abortion cases: line-drawing) Cruzan v. Mo. DOH (Rehnquist, 1990): passive OK w living will (p550) 1983 car accident left 25yo P vegetative, tube feeding No living will/power of attyfamily testified re intent removal Parents won trial-court-ordered removal feeding tuberevd by Mo. S. Ct. SCOTUS affd Mo., denying forced removal feeding tube Inferred 14th Am Due Process liberty interest in competent refusal unwanted medical treatment BUT incompetent person unable voly/informed decision Upheld Mo. procedural reqmtclear/convincing evidence of patients intent Tort autonomy law (freedom from medical battery) would make living will dispositive Hospitals concerned possible homicide prosecution (no consent defense) State interest in abstract preservation of life State may shift error risk to party seeking termination (error ( status quo) Worry intrafamilial debates OConnor CONCUR: surrogate decision-making still open Q Recognize line-drawing problem of abortion cases Scalia CONCUR: fed courts no roletradl state power to regulate suicide Brennan DISSENT: indiv dignity interest > abstract state interest in preserving life Wash. v. Glucksberg (Rehnquist, 1997): no active euthanasia (p553) Facial challenge to WA felony assisting suicide in light of Natural Death Act withholding treatment `" suicide Stronger historical consensus against killing (vs. letting die) Rev d 9th Cir s recognition of const l right to control time/manner of death, facial invalidation WA law Substantive due process analysis Tradition longstanding history CL proscriptions suicide Narrow scopeno right to die (Cruzan right to freedom from battery) Possible state interests Preserve life Prevent, study, treat suicide Integrity medical profession Protect vulnerable groups Slippery slope toward involuntary euthanasia OConnor CONCUR: case resolvable by WA palliative care exemptions Stevens CONCUR: liberty/privacy right to death w dignity predates CL Souter CONCUR: fundl right to control deathfreedom from arbitrary restraint Compelling state interest in preventing slippery slope to involy euthanasia Breyer CONCUR: fundl right to die w dignity Future as applied challenges to state-imposed prevention palliative care Vacco v. Quill (Rehnquist, 1997): assisted suicide ban OK (p560) Dismissed Equal Protection challenge to NY assisted suicide ban, given refusal right Distinguished assisted suicide from withdrawal treatmentcausation & intent continuum Withdrawal of treatment Aggressive palliative care Assisted suicide Right to bodily integrityfreedom from battery/unwanted touching Stevens CONCUR: open Q future as-applied challenges where blurrier distinctions pain, intent Equal Protection Equal protection as summation of con law principles Abolitionist MORAL reciprocity of benefits and burdens ( anti-slavery, -racism, -sexism Heart of the Reconstruction Amendments: moral critique of history, call for rebirth Requirements No Statestate action (later extended to fed in Bolling v. Sharp) (1) Suspect classification, either express or implied (analogized to slavery) Immutability, salience, etc or (2) Abridgment of fundamental HR Basic HR (speech, religious liberty, privacy, voting, courts) Owed to all persons equally (equal dignity)content of speech, religious conviction Deviate only if clear & present danger OR compelling secular interest Congressional enforcement LevelState InterestEnds-Means TailoringRational BasisLegitimateRationally relatedSocial, econIntermediate ScrutinyImportantSubstantially relatedGenderStrict ScrutinyCompellingNarrowly tailoredRace Totally new, morally radical addition to Const in 14th Am Historical context Moderate Abolitionism1787 Jefferson Notes from Va. (compensation & Af recolonization) Madison Fed10slavery as clearest faction: dehumanization Civil War unanticipated reqmt abolition of slavery Radical abolitionistsGarrison, but mostly black & white women Power of moral voice in constitutionalism Concerned w slavery/racism AND sexism Mostly moral thinkerspacifists, non-legal Equal protection of lawmoral reciprocityfair share benefits and burdens Suspect classification analysis Moral slaverywhole classes (blacks, women) deprived of humanity Vicious circularity Abridgment basic HRsconscience, speech, marriage, labor Rationalized by dehumanizing stereotypes race/gender Radical Republicans dominated Congress post Civ War (South unrepresented) Comparative history (Am & Eur) Distinct fr ancient world slavery Racial/ethnic/color association Possibility of manumission Reaffirmed in ideas of colonization, segregation, anti-miscegenation Pseudosciencefrom cultural injustice to natural fact (Lochner social Darwinism) Scapegoating after defeat Equal protection US federal protection Euro ??? Race hatred as mark of illegitimate regime Tsarist Russian Protocols Elders Zion France Dreyfus Affair Solutions? Educate distinction nature vs. culture (eg Boazs cultural anthropology) Demonstrate effects of unjust disadvantage Law review article Tussman & Tinvoy Every law may be analyzed by relationship of Classification (T = trait) & Secular gvt interest (M = mischief) If perfect overlap, then perfect rationality If no overlap, then irrational Over-inclusive: T > M Eg Korematsu wrong b/c all Japanese > disloyal Americans Under-inclusive: T < M Eg Korematsu wrong b/c all Japanese < Italians, Germans Structure State-action reqmt (Southern states couldnt be trusted) Levels of scrutiny Strictpresumptively unconstl Use of suspect classification (~ Fed10), OR Religion Race Gender Sexual orientation Abridgment of fundl rights Free speech, etc Basic HR Equality principle Clear & present danger or compelling secular interest Voting rights Weak/rational-basis (~ McCulloch)presumptively Lee Opticalopticians excluded fr ophthalmologist benefitsover- & under-inclusiveness tolerable under rational basis Economics (Rational-Basis Scrutiny) Ry. Express Agency v. NY (Douglas, 1949): NYC truck ads (p603) Upheld NYC ad ban on trucks for hire while allowing owner-op trucks to advertise Deference to legv reaslness It is no reqmt of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all Tussman framework: T = for-hire trucks; M = distracted drivers (hypo) Over- & under-inclusiveness OK if reasl connection Jackson CONCUR: distinguish btwn due process vs. equal protection challenges Richards: Jackson was a much better judgesee hard issues Equal protection advantageous Due processPs heavy burden b/c hamstringing gvt regulation of particular area Requires invalidation of state purposes Equal protectionheightened scrutiny of gvt actions to ensure broad impact of laws May accept state purpose & just enforce genl application Equality as a way to ensure fairness w/o inquiring into substv issues ~ OConnor in Lawrence Here, substl difference btwn trucks for hire & owner-op trucks (p605) Williams v. Lee Optical (Douglas, 1955): equal protection only from invidious discrimination (p606) New Orleans v. Dukes (1976): deference to econ preferences, even for closed classes Overruled Morey v. Doud (1957) (invalidating AmEx exemption fr Ill money-order regs) Heightened Rationality: Animus, Arbitrary (p607) Classifications based on animus USDA v. Moreno (Brennan, 1973): invalidated food stamp lims to rel households as anti-hippie Bare cong l desire harm politically unpopular group `" legit gvt interest BUT NYC Transit Auth. v. Beazer (Stevens, 1979): upheld exclusion methadone users fr MTA White DISSENT: invidious discrim agst recovering addicts (p608) Heightened Rationality Review Allegheny Pitt. Coal v. Webster Cty. (Rehnquist, 1989): struck down WVa tax discrim post-1975 No rational rel treating similarly situated prop owners differently (8-35x) BUT Nordlinger v. Hahn (Blackmun, 1992): upheld CA prop tax based on time of purchase Thomas CONCUR: always deference; should overrule Allegheny Stevens DISSENT: neighbors should share in public burdens Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000): invalidated 33ft easement b/c neighbors only 15ft Irrational & arbitrary (`" finding animus nec y) Breyer CONCUR: motive important too US RR Retirement Bd. v. Fritz (Rehnquist, 1980): hypo purpose (p610) 1974 restructuring RR retirement system prohib double benefits unless 25yrs or current service Upheld as rationally related to plausible gvt purpose(s)end of inquiry Recency of association w Ry could encourage hard work Refuse to analyze legv record Stevens CONCUR: should analyze actual purpose or legit purpose of impartial enacting legislature Brennan DISSENT: necy inquiry into actual purpose Rehquist s hypo purpose `" in record Here, actual purpose was to preserve benefits law opposite Cong likely mislead by lobbyist drafting cte (Union + RRs but `" inactive members) Concern re delegation leg v power to private lobbyists Rational basis ( tautology: Cong reasl b/c Cong passed Race (Strict Scrutiny) 14th Am 5 enforcement ~ Commerce Clause Stronger constl basis b/c heart of Marbury power Factors making race/ethnicity quintessential suspect class (analogies to other classes?) Immutable characteristic Salient Irrational prejudice (moral slavery) Historical denial basic HRs (speech, conscience, intimate life, work) ***Dehumanizing stereotypes rationalizing injustice, further stereotypes (vicious circle) Irrelevant to legitimate state purposes (gender?) Political powerlessness (effectively no vote until 1965; isolated minority) (Ely objection re gender) Religion as suspect class follows slightly different justifications Segregation De jure segregation Express (South) Racial classification for benefit/burden? Is classification invidious/suspect? Implied (North, West) Disproportionate impact? Rational justification? De facto segregationno remedy Strauder v. W. Va. (Strong, 1880): jury duty (p616) W. Va. prohibition on black jurors unconstlmurder D shouldv been granted fed removal Common purpose Civ War Ams was guaranteeing blacks rights Contemporary acknowledgment eliminate race hatred Spirit of 14th Am encompasses any origin discrimination > color (Celtic Irishmen) History British colonization/dehumanization of IrishAmerican xenophobia Broadening suspect classification analysis to ethnic prejudice Exclusion from admin of law, as jurors, brands blacks as inferiorimpediment to equal justice Plessy v. Ferguson (Brown, 1896): separate but equal (p617) Aff d 1890 Louisiana law segregating RR passengers History radical abolitionists gen ly `" politicians Massive northern migration Hardening southern attitudes 1877 Compromise troop removal ( Jim Crow retrenchment Challenge by Plessy, 1/8 black, arrested for refusing to leave whites-only compartment 14th Am absolute equality before law BUT no intent abolish all color distinctions Originalist history (1868) Political `" social equality no forced comingling (schools, marriage, theaters, etc) Even Mass had anti-miscegenation laws True, some abolitionists advocated social equality, but minority Avoid slippery slope by reas lness good faith ( public good (`" oppression) Any badge of inferiority self-imposed by blacks Eg Amish/other immigrant self-segregation b/c self-conception superiority BUT slavery forced immigration, forced segregation If eventual social equality, must be voluntary interactions Legislation pwrless eradicate racial instincts or abolish distinctions based on phys differences & attempt to do so can only result in accentuating difficulties of the present situation BUT false correlation superficial attribute to underlying differences of ability Richards: the quintessence of irrationality Harlan DISSENT: no caste system in America Whites deem selves dominant, but must compete on level playing field Color-blind Constitution Destinies of two races indissolubly linked together, and interests of both req that common gvt of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law NO CASTEAmerican exceptionalism `"second-class citizenry  The thin disguise of  equal accomodations will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done. As bad a decision as Dred Scott BUT see also: Chinamen so different from Americans as to be almost wholly excluded from country, yet why does La. law allow them to share compartments w whites? Brown v. Bd. of Ed. (Warren, 1954): school integration Economic & sexual exploitation of Am slaverylynchings w castration Moral voices of resistance: Frederick Douglas, Harriet ??? Slavery/segregation as silencing & Con Law as forum for voice Social upheavalsBlack migration north, Harlem Renaissance: jazz, literature WW2self-reflection racism, anti-Semitism ( UNDHR (Eleanor Roosevelt) Serious interests relig liberty, free speech, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia (p619) NAACP litigation strategypick off equal first, then separate WEB Du Bois, Thurgood Marshall, Charles Hamilton Houston Why education? Public institution Tangible, long-term injury Richard: foundation for future changeintergenerational cultural transmission Why graduate education? Theory: childhood playmates separated by education Delayed primary ed b/c universal application, parental control Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938): Mo. must educate black law student w/in borderspaying out-of-state tuition insufficient Sweatt v. Painter (1950): U Tex Law School must admit black student, despite alt in-state law school for blacksno substl equality (intangibles) McLaurin v. Okla. St. Regents (1950): segregated seating w/in grad program unequal Impair discussion, exch views, learn profession (p620) Brown I (1954): Struck down Kan., S. Car., Va., Del. segregated primary/2y schools Chief J Vinson died btwn 1st & 2d argumentWarren appt Frankfurter: my first indication that there is a God Departure from Originalism: 14th Am ratification history inconclusive Varying conceptions of breadth Significant changes in society Public education Social dvpmt, eg Harlem Renaissance Move from denotative ( connotative: irrational prejudices constlly forbidden Precedent showed separate `" equal (exceptions some HBCUs)  In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opp y of an education. Such an opp y, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms Segregated primary schools inherently unequal and cannot be made equal FOOTNOTE 11: social science researchsegregation ( feelings of inferiority Swedish researcher Gunnar Myrdal, Am Dilemma: racism as social construction Danger of adverting to social science? ~ Nazism Ambiguity Instrumental/strategic? Substandard education of black people More ambitious long-term destruction of racism by integrating children? (p623) Bolling v. Sharpe (Warren, 1954): DCPS federal segregation viol Due Process 5th Am Due process `" always equal protection Liberty no restriction unless proper gvt obj publid-ed segregation `" reas l rel proper interest (p624) Elsewhere Dawson (1955): beaches Gayle (1956): buses Detiege (1958): parks Turner (1962): municipal airport restaurant Johnson (1963): courtroom ( all public facilities Potential theories of Brown Color-blindness Caste White supremacy Integration (p626) Herbert Wechslers challenge: Toward Neutral Principles of Con Law (1959) Brown may be moral breakthrough, but no clear neutral principle Neutral principle must fit case, but also prospectively Fundamental right to education? Then shouldnt have extended to pools, parks Forbidden classification? Then no affirmative action Forbidden classification as expression irrational hatred? Would fit Brown & justify affv action BUT no extension to sexism Associational liberty of black parents? BUT what about that of racist parents? Charles Black (1960): Wechsler doesnt understand southern realities Dworkin: universal HR push toward inclusiveness (p627) Brown II (Warren, 1955): Trial courts to further hear, appraise progress toward desegregation Equitable principlesflexible remedies Extra time? Burden on D school districts to prove necessity in public interest & consistent w good faith compliance at earliest practicable dateall deliberate speed Cooper v. Aaron (1958): condemning desegregation violence and reaffirming Brown Compliance w Brown Periods 1950sSCOTUS alone in desegregation (hostile Congress, WH) 1960sCiv Rights Mvmt (+ Kennedy/Johnson) 1964 Civil Rights Act tied federal funding to desegreg compliance (Commerce Clause) 1965 Voting Rights Act Free-choice plans (p628) Green v. Cty. Sch. Bd. (Brennan, 1968): no rural free-choice plan ( neighborhood Freedom of choice plan would continue segregation in rural areas Imposed geographic zoning instead to elim racial ID of the system root & branch 1970sSCOTUS busing to resolve national problem Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg (Burger, 1971): courts own plan Geographic zoning & free transfers ineffective in urban district Affd district courts own expert planbroad powers after discrim proven (p629) Keyes v. Sch. Dist. (Brennan, 1973): implied de jure discrimination North/West districts may be found segregated if intl discrim in even a portion If affecting substl proportion students, teachers, admin OR probative intent of discrim elsewhere Rehnquist DISSENT: skeptical forced integration beyond neutral boundaries Later SCOTUS withdrawal Milliken v. Bradley (Burger, 1974): NO inter-district busing Revd lower order that Detroit + nonseg suburbs transfer students School district lines important history > mere admin inconvenience Inter-district busing only if one district substly caused seg in other districts White DISSENT: effective shield for states just delegate authority to local SDs (p630) Missouri v. Jenkins (White, 1990): ltd financial burdens Revd reqmt that SD exceed 25% state tax limit for $450m deseg plan Alternativerequire compliance w plan & enjoin state law Missouri v. Jenkins (Rehnquist, 1995): NO raises, remediation Revd salary increases, remediation to correct low achievementdisproportionate Too far removed from racial identifiabilitycant keep programs in perpetuity Bd. Ed. Okla. City v. Dowell (Rehnquist, 1991): termination Oklahoma City SD 1972 court-ordered busing 1977 court terminated case, ended jx 1984 SD reintroduced neighborhood schools redress burdens on black K-4 Challengers argued reintroduction of segregation Ct Apps held still under 1972 jxaffv duty no segregation Revd for SDschool deseg plans temporary measure past discrim Injunctions `" intended to operate in perpetuity Marshall DISSENT: 13 years deseg > 65 years official segregation? Stigmatic harm persists even after ceasing active segregation SDs liable for effects of past discrimination beyond termination active segregation Extending Desegregation: marriage, custody, prisons (p631) McLaughlin v. Florida (White, 1964): invalidated criminal prohib interracial cohabitation Central purpose 14th Am elim racial discrim emanating fr official sources in the States. Racial classifications constly suspect & subj to most rigid scrutiny & in most circumstances irrelevant to any constly acceptable legv purpose Loving (Warren, 1967): Mildred Loving (black) married Richard Loving (white) in DC, moved to Va. Revd miscegenation conviction (Va. + 15 states bans) Genl application insufficient to overcome facially racist law Ratification history 14th inconclusive re marriageprotects agst all racial classifications Suspect classification ( strict scrutinyvery heavy burden of justification State purpose clearly white supremacy (miscegenation only applies to whites) Richards: gender issue at center of Am racism White men could rape black slaves Black men lynched w accusations of raping white women Exploded idealization Southern women Ida Wells Barnett (Miss journalist)rape allegations/lynching successful black men Exposure ugly mythology of Southern violence Terrorized to flee North to Harlem Sexual power > economic implications justifying slavery (p633) Palmore v. Sidotti (Burger, 1984): Struck down state-court custody to father after custodial mom married black man Impermissible considerationsreality of private biases & possible injury The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. (p634) Johnson v. Cal. (OConnor, 2005): Strict scrutiny race segregation even in prisons All racial classifications analyzed under strict scrutiny Even to combat racial gang violence Despite equal application to all races Remand for fact-finding Stevens DISSENT: unconstitutional under equal protectionno remand Thomas DISSENT: prisons demand more lenient scrutiny Korematsu v. US (Black, 1944): Japanese internment (p636) After Pearl Harbor, Exec Order authorizing W Coast commanders military zones in/exclusion First curfews, unanimously upheld in Hirabayashi v. US (1943) Then relocation to camps ( internment Korematsu convicted violating exclusion order in CA Affd conviction, even under strict scrutiny Racial classification, so most rigid scrutiny Pressing public necessitydeference to mil conclusion that some number of disloyal Japanese, impossible to immediately segregate disloyal from loyalsegregation as mil imperative Frankfurter CONCUR: war power means power to succeed Validity of gvt actions in wartime must be judged in context of war Congress pwr to enforce valid military order by authorizing civil courts to try Murphy DISSENT: unconst l even under  reas lness std Obvious racial discrimination `" equal protection Exclusion `" reas l relation to fear of invasion Over-inclusion of loyal Japanese erroneous assumption of racial guilt Under-inclusion of disloyal non-Japanese  Legalization of racism Jackson DISSENT: courts shouldn t have reviewed military orders, regardless of their legitimacy Military orders are temporal, but constl decisions are precedential Roberts DISSENT: consider practical predicament of Korematsu: prohibited from either leaving or remaining in his military zone Britain never segregated Germans and Italians, despite actual bombings (p639) 1988 Cong Ac apologizing for WW2 internment, $20k reparations to surviving victims (p640) BUT Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 Chae Chin Ping v. US (1889): sovereign power to exclude aliens for any reason, even race Facially Neutral Laws w Discriminatory Express discrimination Implied discrimination Disproportionate impact No rational justification Application: Yick Wo v. Hopkins (Matthews, 1886) (p640) Struck down SF licensing wood-structure licensing Discriminatory application: 79/80 white apps; 0/240 Chinese apps granted Whatever may have been the intent of the ord as adopted, they are applied by the pub auths w a mind so unequal & oppressive as to amount to a practical denial of equal protection No reason for it exists except hostility to race & nationality, which is unjustified Purpose: Gomillion (1960), Griffin (1964), Palmer (1971) (p641) Gomillion v. Lightfoot (Frankfurter, 1960): struck down Tuskegee, Ala., gerrymandering Removed almost all 400 black residents but no white residents Segregationist purpose tantamount for all practical purposes to a mathematical demonstration No other voting theories justifying gerrymandering Griffin v. Cty. Sch. Bd. of Prince Edward Cty, (1964): struck down PEC school closings + public grants to white students for private schoolsclear purpose: maintain school segregation (p642) BUT Palmer v. Thompson (Black, 1971): upheld closings Jackson, Miss., public pools Purpose inquiry too difficultdiscriminatory motive insufficient alone (need text or effect) No disproportionate impact on blacks b/c whites depriving too Richards: mechanical std to cut off purposive inquiry Accepted citys evidence that integrated pools `" safely or economically operated Gomillion depended on effect of redistricting (Ignored Frankfurter s use of effects as evidence of intent) Unlike Griffin, no public funding private pools White DISSENT: clear discriminatory purpose, & purpose valid inquiry Impact: Washington v. Davis (White, 1976) (p643) Upheld DC Metro Police test (verbal, vocab, R&C) despite disproportionate impact Basic equal protection principle: racially discriminatory purpose necy for invalidation Burden-shifting framework for facially neutral laws Ps prima facie case: Discriminatory purpose Discriminatory application Discriminatory impact alone in special area, like jury duty Discriminatory impact + totality of relevant facts Ds burden to prove neutral criteria happened to lead to disproportionate outcomes < severe burden than Title VII (disproportionate impact sufficient unless bona fide work requirement) Distinguish Palmer as saying allegations racial animus `"> legit purposes pool closings Here, legit purpose (QC) & neutral test (same as Fed) Stevens CONCUR: fuzzier line btwn discrim impact & intent Here, legit purpose & neutral test used by Fed (p646) Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housng (Powell, 1977) Upheld Chicago suburbs denial multifamily/low-incom rezoning request Discriminatory purpose inquiry Historical background Specific sequence of events leading up to challenged decision Departures from normal procedure Legv/admin history Burden shifting to D to prove same result even w/o impermissible purpose White DISSENT: should have remanded for reconsideration in light of Wash. v. Davis (p648) Rogers v. Lodge (White, 1982): struck down at-large Ga. ct.y election system as vote dilution Powell DISSENT: sociological evidence insufficient to find discrim purpose Stevens DISSENT: subjective intent cannot determine constitutionality (p649) Hunter v. Underwood (Rehnquist, 1985): struck down 1901 Ala. constl provision disenfranchising anyone convicted moral turpitudechallengers had cashed bad checks Discriminatory impact: 10x more blacks than whites Discriminatory purpose clear from racist 1901 constl convention Affirmative Action No problem w affv action to redress de jure (express/implied) segregation Problems arise when de facto discrimination Writing before Bakke Alexander Bickelno racial classifications at all (strict) (Powell, Rehnquist, Roberts) JH Ely, Ronald Dworkindistinguish racist (strict) vs. ameliorative classifications Disagreement rational basis (Ely) OR intermediate scrutiny (Brennan) Univ. Cal. v. Bakke (Powell, 1978): no quotas; scrutiny level? (p650) Struck down UC Davis Meds 16/100 quota for underrepped minorities (< avg GPAs/MCATs) Title VI = 14th Am equal protection Strict scrutiny (Powell alone) for any racial classifications, even white Diversity on campus is compelling (countervailing 1st Am interest) Proportionality not compelling No evidence past discrimination Program not narrowly tailored to diversity, underserved-community doctors Alt Harvard holistic review w/o quotas Symbolismtreat persons as individuals, same std Reject Ely/Dworkins stigma theory of racial classifications Some benign classifications actually invidious Worry injuring innocent 3d parties Social changesnow ethnically diverse country Brennan CONCUR: intermediate scrutiny (~ gender): substl relation to important gvt objv Reject rational basis b/c potl disadvantaging other groups (~ UJO v. Carey) Important gvt interestcorrecting past societal discrimination Compensating otherwise qualified minority applicants for likely educational disadvantage Suggested de jure discrimination nationwide No branding of inferiority on Bakke Harvard approach no better/worse, but less forthright (mandatory > discretionary) Marshall CONCUR: 200yrs of constly sanctioned discrimination requires some undoing Blackmun CONCUR: In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race What about legacy admissions, athletic scholarships, well-connected applicants? Stevens DISSENT: racial classifications not at issue; + Title VI plain meaning `" racial classifications (p658) Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed. (Powell, 1986): struck down minority preferences in union teacher layoffs no compelling interest in minority role models arguendo compelling, not narrow White CONCUR: O Connor CONCUR: Marshall DISSENT: maintain affv action while downsizing Stevens DISSENT: role model justification OK (p659) Fullilove v. Klutznick (Burger 1980): upheld Fed minority set-aside public-K funds Cong reasl to conclude need for remedial measures to correct prior discrimination Powel CONCUR: 14th Am 5 remedial justification, even under strict scrutiny Congl findings pervasive de jure discrimination ( racial classification Marshall CONCUR: intermediate scrutiny Stewart DISSENT: no racial classifications at all Stevens DISSENT: arbitrary 10% set-aside figure (p660) Richmond v. JA Croson Co. (OConnor, 1989): struck down Richmond subK 30% minority quota Remedial measures must relate to prior discrimination by locality itself to be compelling Court remained open to remedial measures re own past discrimination Current demographics: black majority injuring less powerful white minority Stevens CONCUR: would accept some racial classification even beyond remediation Kennedy CONCUR: strict scrutiny > rigin per se invalidity Scalia CONCUR: racial classification only to correct past racial classification (~Brown) Marshall DISSENT: Richmonds (capital of Confederacy) 2 interests Eradicate past racial discrimination Prevent current spending decisions fr reinforcing excl effect of past discrimination First-ever strict scrutiny applied to remedial measures Adarand Constr. v. Pena (OConnor, 1995): strict scrutiny (p663) Fed hwy construction grants econ disadvantaged sub-Ksracial presumption of disadvantage Adarand lowest bid CO hwy guardrails, but Gonzalez Constr. awarded b/c addl fed grant 5th Am equal protection challenge Croson: 14th Am strict scrutiny all racial classificationsgeneral themes Skepticism and racial classification/preference Consistency analysis regardless of race of complainant Congruence 5th & 14th Strict scrutiny all racial classifications, whether 5th or 14th (Fullilove overruled) Distinguish Metro Broadcasting v. FCC (Brennan, 1990) Acknowledge possibility of overcoming strict scrutiny (`"  fatal in fact ) Remand for reconsideration Scalia CONCUR: remediation by aff v action never compelling Thomas CONCUR: paternalism/aff v action ( superiority complex & badge of inferiority Stevens DISSENT: perpetuating caste system `" correcting past discrimination Majority has confused no trespassing sign w welcome mat Fed Cong (national will) `" states (racist) Ginsburg DISSENT: discriminatory realities on the ground Grutter & Gratz (2003): Powell s scrutiny: individualized (p669) Grutter v. Bollinger (OConnor, 2003): upheld race consideration of Michigan Law Compelling state interest in student-body diversity, critical mass minorities Amicus briefs, esp from military (meritocracy) & business (Rhetorical shift? professional > academic concerns) Narrow tailoringindividualized consideration ( race in flexible, nonmechanical way Does not req exhaustion every conceivable race-neutral alt Does req serious, good-faith consid workable race-neutral alts to achieve diversity Cant unduly burden non-members of favored class Limited in time (20 years?) Reject requiring percentage plans b/c racially insensitive straitjacket (eg Thomas) Ginsburg CONCUR: Scalia DISSENT: Grutter-Gratz split will prolong litigation by lack of clarity No state classification by race Thomas DISSENT: unprecedented deference to Univ. Racial classifications always demeaning True state interest = educational benefits `"diversity, so feasible race-neutral alts No pressing public necessity elite law school, any public law school No compelling state interest in elite status of Michigan Law Alts: eg Boalt Hall diversity despite Cal prohibition race; percentage plans Setting up unprepared students to failengendering attitudes of superiority, badge inferiority Rehnquist DISSENT: not narrowly tailored to critical mass minority students Why such annual differences: ~20 black, ~10 Hispanic, ~3 NA? (p677) Gratz v. Bollinger (Rehnquist, 2003): struck down Mich undergrad race 20/100pt bump Accept compelling interest in diversity Not narrowly tailorednot individualized OConnor CONCUR: automatic, not individualized Thomas CONCUR: should categorically prohibit race considerations Souter DISSENT: why punish Mich for transparency of race consideration? Race bump ~ other factors like athletics, poverty, etc Ginsburg DISSENT: discrimination lingers Alito replaced OConnorcurrent SCOTUS very skeptical of race: (Supp35) Fisher v. U. Tex. (Kennedy, 2013): 10% plan OK, but Race consids for remainder > 10% plan? No deference Tex Judicial review of narrow tailoringserious, good-faith consids race-neutral alts Scalia CONCUR: would have even struck down diversity as compelling interest Thomas CONCUR: would overrule Grutter Ginsburg DISSENT: uphold w/o remand b/c patterned after Harvard plan fr Powell, Bakke Race unavoidable in segregated Texas (Supp37) Schouette v. Coalition to Def. Affv Action (Kennedy, 2014) Upheld Michigan constl amendment prohibiting race-conscious affv action Scalia CONCUR: overrule Gratz & Grutter i/f/o plain text 14th Breyer CONCUR: Const permits but does not req race-conscious progs Sotomayor DISSENT: majority suppression minority right to participate on equal terms in political processchanging the rules of the game by amendment Race mattersThe way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly & candidly on the subj of race, & to apply the Const w eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination Parents Involved v. Seattle (Roberts, 2007): no history, no action (p688) Struck down Seattle (high) & Jeff Cty, Ky. (elementary) voluntary integration programs Seattle (never segregated)race as tiebreaker when 10% from district avg Jeff Cty (unitary since 2000)black enrollment min 15%, max 50% Racial classification ( strict scrutiny No compelling interest (pluralityKennedy partial dissent) Remedying past intentional discrimination Diversity in higher ed (Grutter)here, more like Gratz mechanical Merely reducing racial concentration `" compelling w/o pedagogical evidence Not narrowly tailored esp evidenced by ltd effects Breyer s dissent misreads Grutter, Brown Grutter race OK only if single element in nuanced consideration Brown color-blind Constitution Thomas CONCUR: racial imbalance `" segregation (intentional dual system) Racial imbalance may result from private, innocent phenomena Coerced racial mixing not definitively better eg HBCUs Color-blind Constitution, like Harlan, Plessy, Brown plaintiffs ***Kennedy CONCUR: more flexible admission compelling race considerations, if nuanced: Eg site selection new schools; attendance zones; resource allocation; targeted recruitment students & faculty; tracking data Here, less-restrictive race-neutral alts available Dont be too explicit about racial classifications Understatement of the yearwe have come a long way from Brown Stevens DISSENT: cruel irony of reliance on Brownrevisionism Anatole France: The majestic equality of the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Breyer DISSENT: these plans narrower than others previously approved Strict scrutiny-plus (fatal in fact) for exclusionary racial classifications Strict scrutiny-minus (not fatal in fact) for inclusionary racial classifications Compelling interests Remediate prior conditions of segregation Educational benefits of integration Democratic pluralism of broader society reflected in schools Narrow tailoring Race considerations only as outer bounds of broad ranges Voluntary school-choice plans affect only some students School boards have experimented w other altslocal knowledge, expertise Electoral Districting Voting Rights Act as most successful civ rights legislation re politics DOJ pushed for majority-minority districts to guarantee representation (p698) Utd. Jewish Orgs. v. Carey (White, 1977): deferential review of Brooklyn redistricting Attempt to comply w Voting Rights Act black representationsplit Hasidic community Whether or not Voting Rights, NY entitled to consider racial factors in redistributing Burger DISSENT: Hasidim no constl right to single district, but right to freedom from being carved up i/f/o racial gerrymandering Shaw v. Reno (OConnor, 1993): maj-minority districts (p699) Shaw I (OConnor, 1993): North Carolina redistricting after 1990 Census add House seat After `" preclearance, revised plan w 2 majority black districts straddled hwy Facial irregularity gave rise to equal protection claim by white Carolinians Uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid Facial irregularity so egregious that nothing but racial separation w/o compelling interest Analogy to Gomillion gerrymandering Strict scrutiny for race-based districting 14th Am analysis must distinguish Voting Rights permissions vs. compulsions White DISSENT: sidestepping UJO Focusing on aestheticsbut some racial consids inherent in districting Voting Rights Act compliance is compelling state interest Narrowly tailored to AGs objections to first plan Remedying majority vote dilution `" affirmative action Blackmun DISSENT: irony in new cause of action when 1st NC black reps since Reconstruction Stevens DISSENT: permissible attempts to aid any underrepresented groups: race, relig, pol, econ Souter DISSENT: electoral districting special Race considerations unavoidable Advantages for some don t require disadvantages for others (p703) Miller v. Johnson (Kennedy, 1995): struck down Georgia 3d revision even though `" irregular Race-based electoral districting ~ other public segregation (parks, buses, schools, etc) Irregular shape unnecessary to prevail on equal protection-violation claim Ps burden: Direct evidence: race predominated legv purpose Circumstantial evidence: shape, demographics vs. race-neutral consids compactness, contiguity, shared pol/community interests OConnor CONCUR: Stevens DISSENT: standing Ginsburg DISSENT: political reality that ethnicity influences voting groups Why prohibit black districting when Irish, Italian OK? (p705) Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II) (Rehnquist, 1996): struck down NC redistricting under strict scrutiny Since VRA `" require race-based or shape, no compelling interest Sidestepped issue of whether VRA req mt would be compelling Stevens DISSENT: no strict scrutiny, but satisfied anywaysorry history discrimination Bush v. Vera (OConnor, 1996): struck down Texas redistricting under strict scrutinyrace predominant OConnor indiv CONCUR: VRA compliance would be compelling Kennedy CONCUR: some majority-minority districting would be OK (blurred lines), not here Thomas CONCUR: race consids, majority-minority districts always strict scrutiny Stevens DISSENT: political-branch deference Souter DISSENT: overrule Shaw I whole line as unworkable for electoral districting Upholding Redistricting: Lawyer (1997), Easley (2000) (p706) Lawyer v. DOJ (Souter, 1997): upheld Fla district-ct settlement plan State-court intervened after leg v impasse after `" preclearance irreg shape ( dist ct challenge Dist Ct: all parties except Lawyer agreed to settlement plan Souter upheld Dsit Ct plan as reasl w/o holding state-ct plan unconstl Demonstrably benign and satisfactorily tidy End-to-end distance ~ other districts Regard themselves as community Similar econ situation (low-income urban) Not majority-minority, so political competition Scalia DISSENT: federalism problemshould have held state-ct plan unconstl before approving Dist Ct settlement plan (p707) Easley v. Cromartie (Breyer 2001): revd Dist Cts holding predominant racial motives Ordinarily legv sphere of competence, so judl caution Race-neutral potl reasons for excluding higher-registration white districtscross-over behavior Thomas DISSENT: racial gerrymandering constly offensive whether malicious or benign Stereotyping blacks as more reliably Democrats no defense to racial classification Gender (Intermediate Scrutiny) Scenarios Women directly hurt (Reed, Frontiero) Gender stereotypes (Craig) Working women disadvantaged (ORR, etc) History of arguments womens HRs Platos Republic w women guardians 1790 Mary Wolstoncraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women JS Mill & wife, The Subjection of Women No right to speak of women s nature until given freedom & equality No evidence harm to self by empowerment Subjugation b/c male conceptions = slavery `" justice Carol Gilligan gender stereotypes imprison, stultify men progress only together Suspect class? (~ race?) Immutable characteristic Salient Irrational prejudice (moral slavery) Historical denial basic HRs (speech, conscience, intimate life, work) ***Dehumanizing stereotypes rationalizing injustice, further stereotypes (vicious circle) Irrelevant to legitimate state purposes (gender?) Pregnancy Physical strength Nurturing/aggressive Verbal/mathematic Political powerlessness (effectively no vote until 1965; isolated minority) (Ely objection re gender) (p709) No express constl guarantee of womens rights (contra Fra, Ger, India, Can, S Afr) Must be found in equal protection b/c originalism clearly n/a to women 13th Am representation penalties for restricting only mens votes Enraged feministsSeneca Falls suffrage mvmt ( 19th Am (1920) (p710) Bradwell v. State (1873): no Privs/Ims right of women to practice law Natural & proper timidity & delicacy (p711) Minor v. Happersett (1874): no Privs/Ims right to vote instate elections 19th Am no significant effect on politics Only changes w 2nd Wave Feminism 1970s Equal Rights Am passed Congress, failed by 3 states Natural differences Pregnancy & lactation; physique (robust!!!) Macoby & Jacklin (1974)statistically significant differences (out of date?) Verbal > mathematical Non-spatial > spatial Nurture > aggressive impulses (p712) Goesaert v. Cleary (Frankfurter, 1948): rational basis Upheld bartender restriction to owners daughters, wives DISSENT only challenged means-ends test Reed v. Reed (Burger, 1971): struck down male pref probate admins under heightened rational basis Frontiero v. Richardson (Brennan, 1973): no strict scrutiny (p713) Struck down military dependency allowance preferences Wives automatically dependent, husbands must prove dependence Brennan argued for strict scrutiny (`" majority) Immutable fact Salient feature Irrational prejudice Abridgment basic HRs ~slavery Dehumanizing stereotypes  the pedestal is a cage (idealization as denigration) Physical differences n/a to societal contributions Administrative convenience never sufficient Political powerlessness? Ely suspicious, b/c suffrage since 1920, failure to organize Ely: Distinguish pre-1920 stereotypes (invalid) vs. post-1920 (politics) Brennan: women occupy no positions of political powerright to vote insufficient Powerlessness dependent on pervasiveness of sexism Powel CONCUR: strike down on rational basis Wait for passage Equal Rights Amendment to politically force suspect-class status Craig v. Boren (Brennan, 1976): intermediate scrutiny (p715) Struck down Okla underage beer: women under 21, men under 18, as disadvantaging men Intermediate scrutiny Important government interestdrunk driving Substantial relationtoo tenuous (2% vs. 0.2% arrests), and consumption still legal Likely stereotyping: Female temperance Arrest drunk men, drive women home What about ethnic differences? Would have been enough under rational basis Underlying analysis: implicit stigma? Suspicious of idealizing effect Powell CONCUR: heightened scrutinyno fair & substl relation btwn gender & drunk driving Stevens CONCUR: disallow reflexive gender stereotyping Rehnquist DISSENT: men are not a suspect classpowerful enough to change law Rational basis review, like Lee Optical Ignores harm to everyone by the stereotyping itself (p719) Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan (OConnor, 1982): struck down female-only policy state nursing school, under exceedingly persuasive justification phrasing intermediate scrutiny Important government interestno remediation Compensatory only if discrimination, but 95% female nurses Suspicious any gendering of profession Substantial relationno b/c allowing male auditors undermines sex-segregation argument (p720) JEB v. Alabama (Blackmun, 1995): struck down juror dismissal by gender in paternity suit Rehnquist DISSENT: Scalia DISSENT: US v. Virginia (Ginsburg, 1996): exceedingly persuasive (p722) Struck down single-sex at Virginia Military Institutediscipline, rigor, adversarial learning  Exceedingly persuasive intermediate scrutiny review Important government interest pedagogical benefits? Reject diversity b/c post hoc argument `" supported by evidence Reject projected changes if admit women but willing, able women Historical sex segregation was always used to keep women in place Substantial relation n/a Moral individualism of HR framework even if 1 women wants admission Virginal Women s Institute for Leadership `" sufficient remedy ~ Sweatt Texas black law school separate usually reflects denigration Beyond separateness, clear difference in quality, prestige Rehnquist CONCUR: ineffective means toward diversity, comparable all-women school Scalia DISSENT: effectively strict scrutiny Rational basis more appropriate, given women `" insular minority ~ Carolene Prods n.4 Const l prohibition single-sex public education? Open Q allowance single-sex private? Sex Equality & Sex Differences Pregnancy: Geduldig v. Aiello (Stewart, 1974): but Title VII (p731) Upheld exclusion of pregnancy coverage from Cal disability insurance Classification `" gender as such `"invidious discrimination Pregnancy objectively identifiable condition No evidence using pregnancy as pretext for anti-female classification Beneficial non-pregnant class includes many women Deferential review Brennan DISSENT: one gender-linked disability given less favorable treatment No comparable exclusion male disabilities: prostate, circumcision, hemophilia Overturned by 1978 am to Title VII 1964 Civ Rights Act forbid pregnancy discrimination (sex-plus) Statutory Rape: Michael M. v. Sup. Ct. (Rehnquist, 1981) (p731) Upheld Cal statutory rape law punishing male but not female Gender-based classification ( heightened scrutiny State interest in preventing illegitimate pregnancy Pregnancy natural sanction on women Reas l to place legal sanction on men  encourage women s snitching on men Parallel interest in preserving chastity young women `" overcome legit purpose But acknowledge illegitimacy of chastity interest (stereotyping) Men don t need constly protected class status Brennan DISSENT: statute based on outmoded stereotypes (implicit stigma) No substl relation btwn gender-based classification & goal of reduced illegit pregnancy Stevens DISSENT: legit state interest, so irrational to exempt of participants Paramount interest in even-handed enforcement of laws Military Draft: Rostker v. Goldberg (Rehnquist, 1981) (p734) Carter + military advisers sought co-ed registrationCong refused, implemented male-only Upheld male-only military-draft registration agst 5th Am claim Greater deference to national-defense decisionsintermediate scrutiny? Important gvt interest in raising & supporting armies Substl relationreasl conclude future drafts require combat soldiers (women ineligible) Marshall DISSENT: Non-discrim alt: register everyone, draft only men if combat Admin convenience `" adequate justification under Craig > 10% of projected needs non-combat What about combat exclusion itself? Prestige of military service No longer ancient Greek warfare strength Women equally intelligent, lethal Unit cohesion? If we can do it with race, then gender too Other countries experiences (but Israel non-combat) Pregnancy? Rape? Unwed Fathers: Mohammed (1979): state, Nguyen (2001): fed (p735) Caban v. Mohammed (Powell, 1979) Struck down NY adoption law unwed moms (but `" dads) block adoption by withholding consent Important interest in promoting adoption No substl relationshipreject argument fundl difference maternal vs. paternal rel Stevens DISSENT: significant differences maternal vs. paternal, esp in infancy Probable that unwed mothers, not fathers, would have custody of infants (p736) Nguyen v. INS (Kennedy, 2001) Upheld fed law birth citizenship different whether only mom or only dad is citizen If only mom citizen: automatic citizenship at birth If only dad citizen: blood rel, promise $$ support, & recognition paternity Important gvt interests in ensuring (1) biological rel & (2) oppy develop rel w parent, US Substl relation b/c mother-child rel inevitably inheres at birth OConnor DISSENT: no narrow tailoring, given DNA tech No substl rel to verifying biological rel to INS (not present in delivery room) Clearly based on stereotype of nurturing mothers Disparate Impact: Persl Admin v. Feeney (Stewart, 1979) (p738) Upheld Mass. lifetime civ-serv hiring preferences for veterans, despite only 2% female Two-step analysis for facially neutral laws Disparate impact? No, considering distinction veterans & nonveterans Disadvantaging of all nonveterans, incl large numbers men Underlying invidious discriminatory motive? No, despite alleged history of military discrimination (not issue at trial) Impact provides starting point, but only purposeful discrim unconstl Stevens CONCUR: both steps answer the same question Affected class: 33% men, 66% womennot disproportionate enough Marshall DISSENT: creation gender-based hierarchy, perpetuating gender-role stereotypes Where foreseeable impact of neutral policy is so disproportionate, state should have to prove no discriminatory motives (burden shift) Affirmative Action for Women Property Tax: Kahn v. Shevin (Douglas, 1974) (p742) Upheld property-tax exemption for widows but not widowers Deferential review (2 years before Craig intermediate scrutiny) State interest in cushioning disproportionate financial impact of spousal loss Reed substl relation to some ground of difference Brennan DISSENT: compelling interest, but `" least restrictive means (strict scrutiny failure) Alimony: ORR v. ORR (Brennan, 1979) (p742) Struck down Ala. law authorizing court-imposed alimony only on men Legit/important state interests Helping needy spouses Compensating women for past discrimination during marriage Improper means of achieving ends Hearings already occur where case-by-case determinations could be made Perverse results when secure wife, needy husband Must have careful tailoring even when remedying past discrimination Social Security: Weinberger, Goldfarb, Webster, Wengler (p742) Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) STRUCK DOWN death benefits to widow, children, but `" widower Discrimination agst female wage earners less protection for their survivors Regardless of Congress s actual purpose Califano v. Goldfarb (Brennan, 1977) STRUCK DOWN dependency-proof req mt for widowers but not widows (automatic) Discriminate agst female workers Stevens CONCUR: discrimination agst widowers themselves Rehnquist DISSENT: Kahn deference w/r/t benign sex classifications Male discrimination = rational basis b/c `" invidious (p743) Califano v. Webster (per curiam, 1977) UPHELD old-age benefits formula advantaging women (exclude lowest 3yrs fr avg) Important gvt objective in reducing historical econ disparity Direct compensation for past discrimination (p744) Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co. (White, 1980) STRUCK DOWN Mo. death benefits dependency-proof reqmt widowers but auto for widows Discriminates against BOTH men and women Not benign classification Stevens CONCUR: Rehnquist DISSENT: Goldfarb wrong Mil. Promotions: Schlesinger v. Ballard (Stewart, 1975) (p744) UPHELD pref l treatment women officers: 13yr tenure (vs. males dschg if passed over twice) Deferential, rational review Not stereotypes, but rather recognition `" similarly situated re opp ies prof service Brennan DISSENT: should apply strict scrutiny Should fail even rational-basis review No congl record intent to compensate other Navy disadvantages New Suspect Classes Sexual Orientation: Romer v. Evans (Kennedy, 1996): rationality? Less like race Immutable? Debate Salient? Historical covering Irrational prejudice? Yes Irrelevant to legit state purposes? Likely Powerlessness? Less and less More like religion (anti-Semitism) Irrational prejudice Irrelevant to state purpose Bkgd Colorado decriminalization gay sex Out-of-closet political activism ( municipal anti-discrim protections Evangelical counter w Amendment 2: rev/prohibit anti-discrim laws (p746) Struck down Colorado constl amendment prohibiting anti-discrim protections for LGB Literal violation equal protection by singling out ineligible class Irrational prejudiceMoreno (hippies); Cleburn (retarded) Very rare to single out discrete class for disfavor Rational-basis review No legitimate gvt interestplain animus Reject states argument that equal footingactually special disadvantage Both too narrow, too broadsingle-trait classification, wholesale denial rights (Full opinion made reference to Mormons) May criminalize polygamy (conduct), but equal civ rights (status) Even accepting Bowers allowance for criminalized sodomy Majoritarian animus as soon as insular minority asserts own HRs Moral and political agency as equal citizens Scalia DISSENT: states may preserve tradl mores agst politically powerful minority Prohibition special/preferential treatment `" denial equal protection States free to legislate animus re conduct murder, polygamy, animal cruelty ( gay conduct Recognized challenge homosexuality straddling status/conduct line Richards: powerlessness as cheap-shot anti-Semitic trope (p753) Remaining issues Gays in military App Cts deferred to military judgment Political resolution 2010 repeal DADT Gay marriage Windsor (basic HRs > pure federalism) Alienage (Federalism > Equal Protection) Rationale? `" immutable `" salient Irrational prejudice? Sometimes Irrelevant? Sometimes ***Powerlessness (can t vote) State Classifications: Strict Scrutiny (p757) Welfare benefits Graham v. Richardson (Blackmun, 1971): struck down state denials welfare to aliens Discrete & insular minority (Carolene Prods fn4) Persuasive federal immigration policy `" welfare denials fr alienage Bar admission In re Griffiths (Powell, 1973): struck down CT denial bar admission to aliens `" compelling interests in prof stds, client interests, officers of court Civil service jobs Sugarman v. Dougall (Blackmun, 1973): struck down NY civ serv only to citizens Over-inclusive even menial jobs `" policy-making `" narrowly tailored to state interest undivided loyalty States inherent power require citizenship for certain offices Rehnquist DISSENT: no suspect classification beyond race Governmental Function Exceptions: Rational Basis (p758) Deferential rational-basis review Police officers Foley v. Connelie (Burger, 1978): upheld state trooper restriction to citizens Recognize police officers wide discretion of implementing policy Public-school teachers Ambach v. Norwick (Powell, 1979): upheld prohib eligible citizens who `" naturalize Teaching as state function bound up w operation of state as gvt l entity Public schools as preparing students for citizenship: civic values What about a French teacher (that Gallic lilt!)? BUT `" Notaries public Bernal v. Fainter (Marshall, 1984): struck down restriction under strict scrutiny Narrow construction political-function exception Notaries essentially clerical duties `" policy-making, discretion Federal Preemption: Toll v. Moreno (Brennan, 1982) (p759) Struck down U. Md. denial in-state tuition to domiciliary aliens Congress s explicit decision not to bar aliens fr acquiring domicile (ie letting them in legally) Md. imposing ancillary burden not contemplated by Congress `" Supremacy Clause Federal Classifications: Rationality (p760) Deference to fed immigration/naturalization power Probably shouldve decided state cases under preemption, not suspect classification Public Employment: Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong (Stevens, 1976) STRUCK DOWN prohib aliens from competitive civil service (CSC) CSC acted beyond scope of authority, w/o sufficient due process considerations of policy Narrow tailoring? Rehnquist DISSENT: unprecedented mixing equal prot, procedl & substv due process Medical benefits: Mathews v. Diaz (Stevens, 1976) UPHELD Medicare eligibility upon 5yr permanent resident status Deferential review Congress s broad power immigration/naturalization Welfare to some `" req mt for all Valid distinction among different classes of aliens Illegitimacy (intermediate scrutiny) Intermediate scrutiny cutting off death benefits based on legitimacy Rationale? ***Immutable unjust punishment for parents decisions `" salient (covering) Irrational prejudice BUT relevant legit purpose spurious claims Powerlessness Disability: Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr. (White, 1985): rationality (p761) Struck down Texas citys denial of permit to home for mentally retarded Review of equal protection tests Rational basis of social or econ legislation, including age (Murgia) Intermediate scrutiny of gender, illegitimacy Strict scrutiny of race, alienage, national origin Failed rational-basis review (revd 5th Cir quasi-suspect classification ( intermt scrutiny) Negative attitudes/fears of neighborsillegitimate Fear of local students harassing retarded residentsillegitimate Location on 500yr flood plainnot reasly related, given permits other structures Size/occupancy of homeditto above Denial permit appears instead to rest on irrational prejudice/fear of mentally retarded Stevens CONCUR: rational basis review of all classifications Disciplined construction rationallegitimacy, neutrality Multivariable balancing Marshall CONCUR: should acknowledge intermediate scrutiny being applied Age: Mass. Bd. Retirement v. Murgia (1976): rationality (p766) Upheld mandatory retirement age 50 state police Police officers > 50 `" suspect class ( deferential rational basis review Not discrimination agst elderly, but reas l line drawing at middle age `" suspect b/c universal aging process, legit state purpose Marshall DISSENT: history of age discrimination in employment Should apply intermediate scrutiny Poverty: James v. Valtierra (Black, 1971): rationality (p767) Upheld CA constl requirement referendum for future low-income housing Marshall DISSENT: invidious discrimination based on povertysuspect classification ( strict scrutiny Michelmans Rationale for suspect class Quasi-immutable (stuck in cycle) Irrational prejudice Irrelevant Powerless BUT market capitalism central to American society Alternative: fundamental rights & minimum welfare Fundamental Rights Warren Courts egalitarian revolution Voting Rights Denial: Harper (1966): poll tax; Kramer (1969): property (p769) Harper v. Virginia St. Bd. of Elec. (Douglas, 1966) Struck down Vas annual $1.50 poll tax prerequisite to voting Voting as preservative of other fundl rights State interest ltd to setting qualifications Wealth, like race, creed, color `" germane to ability to vote intelligently Black DISSENT: rational basis, not natural-law approach Harlan DISSENT: rational basis Hypo state interests in promoting civic responsibility Trad l political theory: propertied class deeper stake, more responsible, more educated, more knowledgeable, more worthy of confidence Historically practices deemed reasl Virtual representation by most invested citizens (property, male) 2/3 clauses of Constitution (slaves interests ( slaveowners) Women denied vote until 1920 Dred Scott: exclusion blacks from citizenship based on supremacy prop rights Court cant choose political/econ doctrines of the day (Holmes, Locher dissent) Richards counterargument: Civil War/Reconstruction Amendments!!! Human rights > property rights 14th Am 1 cl.1: citizenship by US birth Virtual representation of women? (19th Amendment!!!) (p770) Kramer v. U. Free Sch. Dist. (Warren, 1969) Struck down NY limits school-board elections to owners/renter or parents of schoolkids Strict scrutiny Arguendo state interest in limiting to most interested electorate Not narrowly tailored (over-inclusive lazy renters, under-inclusive engaged basementers) Stewart DISSENT: rational basis (p772) Strict Scrutiny of Vote Denials after Kramer Cipriano v. Houma (1969): struck down La. restriction municipal utility bonds to prop owners Phoenix v. Kolodziejski (White, 1970): struck down restriction genl bonds to prop owners, despite predominant funding through prop taxes BUT Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Dist. (Rehnquist, 1973): upheld landowner voting Rational-basis review restriction water-storage dist., land-value proportional voting Dougles DISSENT: 85% corp ownership ( unprecedented corp-political kingdom (p773) Richardson v. Ramirez (Rehnquist, 1974): upheld disenfranchisement released felons 14th Am 2: for participation in rebellion or other crime ( rational basis Marshall DISSENT: strict scrutiny Voter ID: Crawford v. Marion Cty. Elec. Bd. (Stevens, 2008) (p773) Upheld Indiana voter-ID law under multifactor balancing test State interest in protecting integrity and reliability of electoral process Preventing in-person fraud, evident elsewhere Burdens on affected voters `" substantial DMV IDs free (ignore costs travel, supporting docs) Alt: return w/in 10d election to sign affidavit Partisan support original bill `" dispositive discrimination Q Scalia CONCUR: no strict scrutiny for laws of general application Souter DISSENT: fundamental right to vote No evidence in-person voter fraud in entire Indiana history Breyer DISSENT: more burdensome ($15-100) than Harper poll tax ($1.50 ( $10) (p775) Bush v. Gore (2000): vacated Fla. S. Ct.s recount order as discriminatory agst only some voters Supposed to be limited to facts of case at hand (`" precedential value) Obama For Am. v. Husted (SD Ohio, 2012): cited Bush to invalidate Ohio s conflicting early-in-person-voting rules as discriminatory, in favor of Obama campaign Vote Dilution: Reynolds v. Sims (Warren, 1964): one person/vote Montesquieu guarantee republican government at State level BUT tradly seen as non-justiciable political issue Baker v. Carr (Brennan, 1962): state voting issues justiciable\ Widespread state practice ignoring state-constl reapportionment reqmt (p777) Reynolds v. Sims: struck down Ala. districting fr 1900 census, in light of changed populations Fundamental right to vote ( strict scrutiny Population must be central (sole? predominant?) factor in districting Federal disproportionate Senate n/a to States One person, one vote: districts must be as close to equal population as practicable Give adequate weight to urbanizing populations Moral: represent persons, not trees or econ interests Practical: clear, bright-line rule for recalcitrant states to follow Fair representation much harder std to police Richards: Height of the Warren egalitarian revolution Struck down districting in 5 companion cases, too (Colo., NY, Md., Va., Del.) (p779) Lucas (Warren, 1964): Colo.s referendum `"cure equal-protection defect Harlan DISSENT: 14th Am history clear that elections to be determined as states saw fit No principle to disqualify the 10+ illegitimate factors named by majority (history, econ, etc) Stewart DISSENT: court shouldn t freeze political theory (Holmes, Lochner dissent) Population subordination sometimes necessary to effective, fair representation Gerrymandering: Davis v. Bandemer (White, 1986): politics OK Comparative: British indep expert redistricting commns (p781) Gaffney v. Cummings (White, 1973): upheld political gerrymanderingpolitics inevitable Davisupheld Indiana plan where Democrats won 52% total vote yet only 43/100 seats Gerrymandering is properly justiciable Reject proportional representation i/f/o first-past-post Prima facie case requires proving vote dilution Unconstl discrimination only when electoral sys arranged to consistently degrade a voter/groups influence on political process as a whole by Continued frustration will of majority, or Effective denial to minority of fair chance to influence political process Richards: too amorphous stdthis is supposed to be judicial review!!! Why not allow fair/proportional representation? Pro: minority representation Con: balkanization Madison would have used it, had it existed at the time!!! OConnor CONCUR: non-justiciable political question Powell DISSENT: multifactor balancing testwhether boundaries of the districts have been distorted deliberately & arbitrarily to achieve illegitimate ends (p784) Political gerrymanders after Davis Vieth v. Jubelirer (Scalia, 2004): only 4 votes to deny justiciability, overrule Davis Kennedy CONCUR: claims ay survive if supported by proof that genly permissible classifications applied in invidious manner or way unrelated to any legit legv objectives Stevens DISSENT: whether partisan cosids dominated/controlled lines drawn, forsaking all neutral principles League U. Lat. Am. Citizens v. Perry (Kennedy, 2006): upheld Tex redistricting in 2003 Despite normal practice to await census, despite clear political motivation Access to Courts Transcripts on Appeal: Griffin v. Illinois (Black, 1956) (p786) State must provide free trial transcripts to indigent criminal defendants for nonfed appeals Due process & equal protection require criminal trials w/o invidious discrimination Ability to pay `" causal relationship to guilt/innocence `" excuse deprivation fair trial No equal justice where fairness of trial depends on wealth Harlan DISSENT: neither equal protection nor due process claim Equal protectionno state 14th Am obligation to alleviate econ inequality Due processno constl reqmt to offer appeals at all, so why penalize? Counsel on Appeal? Douglas, Ross, Halbert (p787) Douglas v. Cal. (Douglas, 1963): right to public defender for first mandatory (statute) appeal Cant line-draw btwn rich & poor for one & only mandatory appeal Harlan DISSENT: neither equal protection nor due process Equal protectionlaw genl application Majoritys rule challenges all state fees Due processno constl right to appeals Real Qarbitrary & unreasl w/in states own procedure? (p788) BUT Ross v. Moffitt (Rehnquist, 1974): no right to public defender for discretionary appeals Due processdistinguish trial from appeal; only prohibit purposeful discrim agst poor qua poor Equal protectionnot absolute equality, but fair oppy be heard in adversarial system Not all beneficial services constly reqd Douglas DISSENT: (p789) Halbert v. Mich. (Ginsburg, 2005): right to public defender for appeal even if guilty plea Despite no right to appeal, right to petition for appealformal enough to req counsel Thomas DISSENT: states reasl distinction plea-bargainers, others Only prohibit arbitrary or unreasl financial barriers Civil Litigation: Divorce, Bankruptcy, Welfare Paternity, Custody Richards sees these as emanating from constl right to privacy (p790) Divorce Boddie v. Conn. (Harlan, 1971): right to subsidized divorce Due process concern Basic position of marriage in social hierarchy State monopoly over marriage, divorce Douglas CONCUR: equal protection Black DISSENT: civil `" criminal (p791) Bankruptcy U.S. v. Kras (Blackmun, 1973): NO right to free voluntary bankruptcy proceeding ($50) Distinguishable from divorce Stewart DISSENT: analogous to Boddie Marhsall DISSENT: real issue is right of access to courts, not particularity of proceeding Douglas DISSENT: invidious discrimination based on wealth (p791) Welfare Ortwein v. Schwab (1973): NO right to free judicial review of welfare denial ($25) More like bankruptcy than divorce (p791) Paternity Little v. Streater (Burger, 1981): right of paternity defendant to subsidized blood test Due process fundamental fairnessoppy to be heard Unique role of evidence in paternity proceedings States role in proceeding: quasi-criminal, despite civil No choice alt forum (p792) MLB v. SLJ (Ginsburg, 1996): right to subsidized trial record for state-custody appeal Review of case law Absolute right to crim transcripts. Griffin Qualified right to counsel Trial: felony, GideonBUT not nonfelony, no prison, Scott Mandatory appeals, DouglasBUT not discretionary, Ross (but Halbert? Later) Some civil court fees: yes divorce, BoddieBUT no bankruptcy, Kras Both equal protection and due process concerns Equal protectionillegitimate fencing out appellants unable to pay Due processessential fairness state-ordered proceedings Balancing of interests Appellants interest in fundamental family structure, relationship to child State interest in revenue Strict-scrutiny exceptions to general rule of rationality for fee requirements Right to vote Access to courts in criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings Kennedy CONCUR: due process sufficient to dispose of issues Thomas DISSENT: floodgates concern No due process issuenotice and oppy to be heard No equal protection issueno 14th Am duty to ameliorate econ inequality Washington v. Davis rejected disparate impact theory of equal protection Equal protection violation requires purposeful discrimination Should overrule Griffin line, or narrow to criminal only (`" Rehnquist) Economic Rights? Michelman Poverty `" suspect classification Inequality too much part of market capitalism Class mobility Better analysis: minimum welfare rights food, shelter, education Challenges Founding in agrarian society HR advocates existed at Founding (Thomas Payne), but not central Commerce Clause interpretation has adapted to industrialization, so why not equal protection? Dominant view, since overruling Lochner, is that social/econ = political Q Welfare and Housing Welfare: Dandridge v. Williams (Stewart, 1970) (p797) Upheld Marylands $250 cap on AFDC welfare aid, regardless of family size Rational-basis review of econ & social welfare Political Q: vote, goddammit!!! Marshall DISSENT: false dichotomy rationality vs. strict scrutiny Prior social/econ deference was in business regs, not essential welfare Better to have balancing test Character of the classification Individual interest in gvt benefit Countervailing state interest in support of classification Housing: Lindsey v. Normet (White, 1972) (p798) Upheld Oregon procedure for eviction for alleged nonpayment of rent No fundamental right to housing/shelter or peaceful possn of ones home Deferential (rational?) review No problem that OR law procedurally different from comparable states Education San Antonio v. Rodriguez (Powell, 1973): no tax equity (p800) Transition from Warren to Rehnquist Court Public-interest lawyering by Klune, Koons, Sugarman Direct challenge to property-tax funding Poor Edgewood: max 1% tax ($26) + state subsidy = $333/pupil Rich Alamo Heights: 0.85% tax ($333) + state subsidy = $594/pupil Argumentsinjustices (1) to parents (tax)measurable (2) to children (education funding)harder to measure Powell upheld Texas property-tax funding despite unequal funding at same tax rates No strict scrutiny No suspect classification Poorest families not necly clustered in poorest districts No absolute deprivation of desired benefit Districts too large, diverse to extend classification No fundamental right to education, despite Brown language Close rel to other rights (speech, vote) insufficient Slippery slope to right to welfare, housing: education > food, shelter? Recognize minimum right to education, if public system (`" exclusion) Skeptical left s policy proposals equal expenditures (integration better) Satisfied rationality review Deference to state tax determinations Deference to state education policy Stewart CONCUR: White DISSENT: Marshall DISSENT: false dichotomy strict vs. rational reviewwould satisfy rational anyway Reality: spectrum of stds based on classification, indiv interest, gvt interest Analogy to other rights beyond Const: procreation, state franchise, criminal appeal Task in every case Determine extent constl rights depend on non-constl interests The closer the nexus, the more fundl the interest, the higher the scrutiny Privacy ( procreation First Am ( state franchise Due process ( crim appeals Education ( speech, vote But food, shelter `" nexus NO need absolute deprivation before strict scrutiny wealth (see Harper, Griffin, Douglas) Richards: Powell accepted superiority of Marshall s argument, but refused to change vote Plyler v. Doe (Brennan, 1981): undocumented children (p807) Struck down Texas exclusion undocumented children No suspect class of undocumented aliens (voluntary, const ly significant) No fund l right to education BUT innocence of children, lifetime hardship from deprivation ( heightened scrutiny State purposes `" subst l Discourage illegal immigration Avoid burdening public schools Reserve public ed for likely future residents Blackmun CONCUR: unique complete denial education ( permanent class distinctions Powell CONCUR: Burger DISSENT: intruding into political determinations If not suspect class, not fundl right, then rationality review (p809) After Plyler Martinez v. Bynum (1983): upheld Texas exclusion children living in district, away from parents, for sole purpose of attending district schools Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schs. (1988): upheld imposition busing fee State Action & Enforcement of Civil Rights The Statutes (autonomy ( equality) (p812) Reconstruction Era 1865 Thirteenth Amabolished slavery, but n/a black coded 1866 Civil Rights Act (Congress overrode Johnsons veto)citizenship rights Civil (no state-action requirements) 42 USC 1981equal rights under law (Ks, sue, witness, security, tax, etc.) 42 USC 1982equal property rights Criminal ( 18 USC 242criminalized deprivation of rights under color state law 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Direct overrule Dred Scott citizenship Remainder no State 1870 Fifteenth Amendmentvoting rights Enforcement Act ( 18 USC 241criminalized private conspiracies deny voting rights 1871 Civil Rights Act (KKK Act) 42 USC 1983RoA deprivations, under color state law, of civil rights 42 USC 1985(3)RoA conspiracies to deny civil rights (no state-action reqmt) 1875 Civil Rights Actpublic accommodations (struck down in 1883 Civil Rights Cases) (p814) Second Wave 1957 & 1960 Civil Rights Actsprimarily expanded remedies voting rights 1964 Civil Rights Act Congresss Article I powers Titles I & VIIIvoting rights Titles III & IVdesegregation schools other public facilities 1965 Voting Rights Act Johnsons addl proposals repeatedly blocked in Senate 1968 criminalization violent deprivations civil rights: 18 USC 245 Central philosophy: strong anti-discrimination principle Equality > autonomy State-Action Requirement (expanded) Civil Rights Cases (Harlan dissent, 1883): private accommodations As bad as Slaughter-House, Plessy, Lochner Radical abolitionist Mass. Sen. Sumner, beaten on Senate floor Later death engendered grief 1875 Civil Rights Act passed as tributeextend anti-discrimination to private entities (p814) Five cases (Kan., Cal., Mo., N.Y., Tenn.) appealing crim & civil for segregated public facilities J. Bradley struck down 1875 Civil rights Act as beyond 13th, 14th Ams 13th segregation/discrimination `" slavery former slaves now equal under law Overruled by Jones, Runyon 14thonly state-sanctioned deprivations effectively deny civil rights Private wrongs remedied by state tort, crim laws Open Q: similar statute covering only segregation in interstate commerce? Preserve values Federalismstate prerogatives over own citizens Libertyindividual sphere of action free from gvt oversight Harlan DISSENT: majority ignored purpose of Reconstruction Ams 13thempower Congress to legislate race-based discrimination by anyone w public function Public conveyancesessentially public agency for public benefit Innsquasi-public employment Places of public amusementstate licensing 14thcl. 1 = affirmative citizenship (vs. subseq clauses no state) Citizenship right to freedom from racial discrimination any public function BUT private sphere (home/family/intimate): discriminatory social intercourse protected Public Function Test: Co. Towns, Priv. Parks & White Primaries Non-delegable & exclusive state powers, so private party = state (p818) Company Town Marsh v. Alabama (Black, 1946): company town was state actor re speech limitations Overturned Jehovahs Witness trespassing for distributing literature BUT not military bases (p819) Shopping Centers? Abandoned Logan Valley (Marshall, 1968): state actor, analogous to company town Tanner (1972): some distinctions, so OK to exclude anti-war picketers Hudgens (1976): shopping centers private, overruling Logan Valley (p819) Private Parks Evans v. Newton (Douglas, 1966): private park was state actor b/c municipal nature Distinguished from more private golf clubs, social centers, luncheon clubs, schools Park more similar to fire or police department (p819) Political Party Primary & Pre-Primary Contestsprivate political clubs Nixon v. Herndon (1927): struck down racist Tex law excluding black candidates Nixon v. Condon (1932): struck down implicit racism Tex Dem party exec cte = state actor/agent BUT Grovey v. Townsend (1935): upheld implicit racist Tex Dem party convention = private US v. Classic (1941): Congress may control state primaries if gvd by state elections law Smith v. Allwirght (Reed, 1944): overruled Grovey; party conventions = state actor Delegation of state electoral powers to convention Terry v. Adams (1953): struck down black exclusion fr influential white pre-primary (Jaybirds) Black: 15th Am violated whenever elections at issue, regardless of actor Frankfurter: reqmt state involvement/participation in activities Clark: Jaybirds acting as auxiliary of party, so agents of state State Nexus Cases Shelley v. Kraemer (Vinson, 1948): court-enforced covenants (p821) Struck down judgments enforcing racially restrictive covenants in Mo. & Mich. 14th Am protect civil rights, incl property rights b/c precondition other rights Covenants themselves `" state action b/c private parties OK as long as private agreement But here no longer willing parties Private agreements imposing on later generation too close to private government Bkgd case law banning racist zoning (Buchannan) Judgments = state action ( full panoply of state power; full coercive power of gvt) 14th Am state action refers to exertions of state power in all its forms Personal/individual rightsNO equal protection cure by equal enforcement black-only covenants Racist testamentary conditions? It depends. (p823) Evans v. Abney (Black, 1970): state enforcement OK Upheld parkland reverter to heirs after `" racist condition Distinguishable fr Shelley b/c here eliminating discrim by eliminating park itself Penn. v. Bd. of Dirs. of Trusts (1957): state involvement NO Girard College state actor b/c Philly City as trustee Struck down racist admissions Still state agent even if Philly substituted private trustee Burton (lessee), Reitman (repeal) = state action (p824) Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth. (Clark, 1961): private lessee of state property = state actor Revd Del. judgment upholding parking garage restaurants exclusion black patron Interdependence: public land, bldg. for public uses f/b/o parking auths essential gvt functions Stewart CONCUR: real problem was Del cts rule of law equating race w offensiveness Unconstl racial classification DISSENTS: remand to determine whether Stewarts interp was correct (p826) Reitman v. Mulkley (White, 1967): struck down constl am repealing anti-discrim housing laws Ultimate impact of Cal Prop 14, in context: encourage & involve state in private discrim Harlan DISSENT: no more unconstl than failure to pass anti-discrim laws in first place No State Action (usually procedural issues, not race) Moose Lodge v. Irvis (Rehnquist, 1972): licensing `" state action (p825) Upheld private club s racism despite liquor license Test: whether state fosters or encourages racial discrimination Regulations, licensing insufficient Douglas DISSENT: here, limited licenses, so monopoly-pricing in transfers Brennan DISSENT: pervasive regulation liquor licenses Jackson v. Metro. Edison (Rehnquist, 1974): utility reg `" state action (p828) Upheld no-notice termination agst due-process challenge b/c `" state action Test: sufficiently close nexus btwn state & challenged action of regulated entity so that entity s action may be fairly treated as that of the State itself Thorough regulation, policy approval, monopoly status `" determinative Marshall DISSENT: dispositive factors: monopoly, state-private cooperation, public service/function Majority s rule would shield Metro Edison from challenges to even racist actions Douglas DISSENT: sufficiently intertwined State Acquiescence, Subsidies, Inaction (p830) State Acquiescence `" Action Flagg Bros. v. Brooks (Rehnquist, 1978): warehouseman s sale of bailed goods to satisfy lien NY statute allowing such sale `" state action State s mere acquiescence `" convert private action into state action Stevens DISSENT: weaken federal protections if states can just acquiesce to self help (p831) State Regulation/Subsidies `" Action Blum v. Yaretsky (Rehnquist, 1982): nursing-home patient transfers `" state action Despite extensive state regulations State `" responsible for actions of private parties Brennan DISSENT: nursing home s ops so closely tied to stat fiscal interests & regs Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (Burger, 1982): subsidized private school downsizing `" state action Despite public funds almost all budget Analogous to government contractors `" covered by 14th Am (p832) State Inaction `" Action Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Soc. Servs. Dept. (Rehnquist, 1989) State s failure to protect child from father s known abuse `" state action Special rel aff v duty ONLY when gvt takes custody Brennan DISSENT: focus on state actions: CPS, case worker, home visits Inaction can be equally grave abuse of power Blackmun DISSENT: active state intervention triggered affv duty to act once known (p833) Finding State Action: Lugar v. Edmonson (White, 1982) Ex parte prop attachment =state action b/c jt participation Burger DISSENT: analogous to temporary injunctive relief Powell DISSENT: gen ly applicable legal procedures `" state participation Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete (Kennedy, 1991) Civil peremptory challenges excluding black jurors = state action Jury as quintessential gvt body w/o attributes of private actor Gvt delegation of power to private body includes 14th Am restrictions OConnor DISSENT: no showing gvt involved in specific decision (Jackson) Scalia DISSENT: distorting state-action doctrine to fit anti-racism Brentwood Academy v. Tenn. HS Athletics Assn (Souter, 2001) State athletic assn = state actor b/c public entwinement 84% of mbrs were public schools Thomas DISSENT: enlarging state-actor beyond public function, encouragement, nexus Congressional Enforcement against Private Parties (p835) Two categories of civil rights laws (civil & crim) Under color of law Conspiracy Scope 14th/15th Ams ( state action 13th Am ( private action U.S. v. Guest (Stewart, 1966): state sheriff involvement (p836) Upheld 18 USC 241 charges for 1964 killing of Lemuel Penn, black veteran returning to DC Guest had been acquitted of murder in Ga.; fed indictment for abridging Penns rights District Court held that 241 `" 14th Am rights, dismissed case Rev d for US b/c indictment alleged facts suggesting state involvement Clark CONCUR: 14th Am 5 (enforcement) must also comprise purely private action Brennan CONCUR: 14th Am alone `" private action, but 5 authorizes Cong broad powers 18 USC 241 prohibits all conspiracies, incl private, to interfere w const l rights 14th Am civil right to access public facilities, use w/o discrimination Open Q whether would extend to private facilities (not at issue in case) Criminal Sanctions: 18 USC 241, 242 (p838) Degree of State Involvement US v. Price (Fortas, 1966) Upheld 241-2 charges for 1964 murders civil rights workers in Phila., Miss. 14th Am right not to be summarily punished w/o due process Defendants were 3 police & 15 private citizens Color of law ( 242) & conspiracy ( 241) both satisfied by joint action Screws v. US (Douglas, 1945): Read in specific intent to violate known constl rightsavoid vagueness problem (p840) Extent of 14th Am 5 reach into private actors? Civil Sanctions: 42 USC 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(3) (p841) Conspiracies 1985(3) (previously 1985(c)) Utd. Bros. of Carpenters v. Scott (White, 1983) No coverage of private conspiracies to restrict 1st Am rights (union org) Unless state involvement or conspiracy agst state activity Blackmun DISSENT: Bray v. Alexandria Womens Health Clinic (Scalia, 1993) No coverage animus agst abortion (rejected anti-women argument) Stevens DISSENT: Superseded by Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (p842) Color of law 1983 Monroe v. Pape (Douglas, 1961): general intent Upheld damages for illegal police home invasion, search/seizure Distinguished from Screws criminal scienter reqmtmore like genl tort liability Adickes v. SH Kress & Co. (Harlan, 1970): Custom = state officials practices Brennan DISSENT: custom = peoples practices Jones v. Mayer (Stewart, 1968): 13th Am `" state-action req mt (p843) Upheld 1982 protection of property rights, under Congress s 13th Am power Applied 1982 to private refusal to sell home to black buyer Statute s origin in Civil Rights Act of 1866 Purpose: incorporate agst states BUT not limited to state action 13th Am 2 enforcement power determine badges & incidents of slavery (Civil Rights Cases) When racial discrimination ( ghettoization, then clearly incident/badge of slavery Harlan DISSENT: ambiguous use of  right in 1982 Right to equal status (eg `" state discrim) > absolute right enforceable agst private indivs Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park (Douglas, 1969): HOA 1982 (p845) White homeowner kicked out of ass n for protesting black lessee s denial park mbrshp Upheld homeowner s & lessees right to sue under 1982 for denial, expulsion Interference of property right to lease Rejected argument that neighborhood assn was like private club, b/c open to any white mbr Harlan DISSENT: grave constl issues lurking in bkgd if 1982 extended too far into private sphere Runyon v. McCrary (Stewart, 1976): 1981 to non-relig. priv. sch. (p845) Applied 1981 to private, nonreligious all-white schools 1981 right to K, sue, be parties, give evidence, equal benefit all laws protecting person & prop Allowing suits `" violation white parents ass n, education rights White DISSENT: 1981 prohibits laws restricting K rights but no prohibition refusals to K Many social clubs race-based 1991 reenactment of 1981 conformed to majority s interp No extension to sectarian schools b/c religious liberty more powerful than assnl liberty vs. equality Extension to gender? Compulsory Membership Roberts v. Jaycees (Brennan, 1984): networking (p1370) Upheld Minn. anti-discrim law agst free assn challenge by Jr Chamber of Commerce Rejected 14th Am liberty assntoo large, unselective org Accepted 1st Am assn interest BUT outweighed by compelling state interest in anti-discrim, less restrictive alts State law content-neutral in both text & application Jaycees female mbrship undercut its argument for restricting voting OConnor CONCUR: distinguish Jaycees comml assn from purely expressive assns (p1371) Following Roberts Rotary Intl v. Rotary Club (1987) Upheld anti-discrim law barring exclusion women agst free assn challenge Footnote: open Q whether 1st Am assn would cover particular types of clubs NYS Club Assn v. NYC (White, 1988) Upheld anti-discrim (race, relig, sex) law covering 400+ mbr food & dues clubs Most large clubs covered by law `" viewpoint-specific Hishon v. King & Spalding (1984) Rejected firm s free ass n claim re Title VII sex-discrim application Boy Scouts v. Dale (Rehnquist, 2000): expressive (p1372) Struck down NJ anti-discrim law applied to Boy Scouts excluding gay leaders Boy Scouts as expressive activity & Dales forced inclusion would impair Deference to orgs views (1) nature of expression, (2) impairment Hurley v. GLIB as support for denying forced assn State interests insufficient to overcome burden of right to oppose/disfavor gay conduct Stevens DISSENT: no serious burden, given Boy Scouts unable to clarify own stance Moral straightness & cleanliness say nothing about homosexuality Distinguish Hurley b/c here mere joining (vs. publicizing) disfavored Only apparent explanation is ostracism of homosexuals as a class Enforcement under 14th Am 5, 15th Am 2 Congressional Powers Commerce Clause (McCulloch deference) Any commerce w necy & proper connection to existing interstate mkts Any purpose, incl equality Reconstruction Amendments (Marbury aggressive review) Suspect classification Express Implied: disparate impact AND no non-suspect purpose Unreasonable burden on fundl rights (expression, conscience, liberty, voting, courts) 1965 Voting Rights Act (p846) Johnson shepherded through after JFKs assassination Constitutional politicsinteraction btwn judiciary, HR-oriented politicians Two types of congl measures Remedial Prophylactic Reenactments 19705yr extension, nationwide ban on literacy tests 19757yr extension, permanent nationwide ban on literacy tests 198225yr extension 200625yr extension (House: 390-33; Senate: 98-0) Lassiter v. Northampton Cty. Elec. Bd. (Douglas, 1959) Upheld state literacy tests under rational-basis review Reasl relation to intelligent use of ballot S. Carolina v. Katzenbach (Warren, 1966): literacy-test restrictions Upheld 1965 Voting Rights Act 5 under Congresss 15th Am 2 enforcement power (Richards: equally justiciable under 14th Am fundl rights prong) 5: suspended literacy tests 5yr from last discrimination, & fed pre-clearance 4(b) coverage formula Federal examiners History of ingenious defiance, unsuccessful remedies, justified more elaborate measures 187015th Am & Enforcement Act 1890ssouthern state defiancediscriminatory application Literacy tests (exceptions for illiterate whites) Vague good-morals reqmts Piggy-back on Brown v. Bd. acknowledgement separate never equal 1957, 1960, 1964 Civil Rights Actscase-by-case litigation ineffective Rationality review Congs means to combat racial voting-rights discrim Confinement to (notorious) covered jxs was appropriate target Remediation of clear historical violations of 15th Am Black DISSENT: no need for federal supervision, intervention Resurrected in Shelby County Unthinkable electoral shift: Carter, Clinton, Obama Katzenbach v. Morgan (Brennan, 1966): P. Rico Spanish (p850) Upheld 4(e) anti-discrim for Spanish-speaking >6th-gr Puerto Ricans agst NY English test Rational-basis review of VRA under Congs 14th Am 5 enforcement power (ethnicity) Equal-protection purpose? Plainly adapted to that end? Consistent w letter & spirit of Constitution? Deprivation of vote likely result in substandard delivery public servs. Any ethnically based discrimination public services unconstitutional Right to vote lessen likelihood of constl violation Deference to Congs conflicting considerations of problem, solution Hypothetical post hoc rationalizations (Cong might have found) Spanish media undermined argument that English ( well-informed Arguing for substv broadening 14th Am protection beyond remedial Congs familiarity w American schools One-way ratchet to strengthen equal-protection voting rights Counter dissents concern for congl power to dilute 15th Am Lee Optical reform may take one step at a time Harlan DISSENT: rational-basis review of NY s English req mt Cong s 14th Am power limited to remediation of proven past discrimination Here, Cong defining subst v scope of 14th Am power to contract! (`" Marbury) Expansion/contraction relative to perspective, eg personhood statutes contra Roe Cong s role to develop legislative facts, & jud l respectful consideration, but const l review Here, no hearings or cong l record created to justify actual risk-benefits of 4(e) Discriminatory to other Spanish speakers, ethnicities, minority-language groups Oregon v. Mitchell (Black, 1970): voting age (p856) 1970 VRA reenactment Nationwide literacy-test suspension upheld 9-0 (heritage of Brown) Residency-requirements suspension upheld 8-1 320 equal protection >18yos (response to Vietnam service `" equal protection reciprocity) 5-4 upheld w/r/t FED elections 5-4 struck down w/r/t STATE elections Black: swing vote Ignored text to allow national-level voting rights Art I 2: State-determined qualifications for voting Art I 4: Congress determine time, place & manner of fed elections Richards: almost crazy No 14th Am 5 powerage is not a suspect classification Brennan: should uphold both under rational-basis scrutiny Substv interpretation Reconstruction Ams 14th Am re-striking Art I balance of fed-state voting powers Acknowledge age `" suspect class (Murgia), so remedial purpose n/a Voting a fundamental rights issue 21 unreasonable measure in modern times States already granted many rights at 18 criminality, marriage, school attendance No intellectual aptitude difference 18 vs. 21yos Some states already 18yo voting, so reas l Historical dvpmt 21 keyed to req mt military service (Aristotelian citizenship) Modern warfar/citizenship `" strength Violation principle gender equality in citizenship Political line-drawing appropriate for Congress Acknowledgement that neutral judl principles will under-enforce justice But Reconstruction Ams command justice Fairer shifting benefits & burdens Stewart: should strike down both under remedial-only power (here, substv) Harlan: ditto14th Am only race remedies Threat to Marburycongressional fact-finding to override judl constl value interpretation Superseded by 1971 ratification 26th Am: right to vote at 18 Response to irrational system created by Black opinion Rome v. US (Marshall, 1980): disprop impact OK (p857) Upheld VRA 5 pre-clearance as applied to Rome, Ga., for discrim effects (`" purpose) DOJ blocked effective vote dilution by changing from district to at-large voting Bail-out mechanism if shown `" effects Cong s broad 15th Am remediation power under South Carolina, Morgan, Mitchell Powell DISSENT: no pre-clearance w/o proving of harm Rehnquist DISSENT: not a remedial measureCong usurping judl interpretation power Shift to Remedial-Only Powers City of Boerne v. Flores (Kennedy, 1997): no RFRA to States (p859) Struck down RFRA as applied to states (still applicable to fed, eg Hobby Lobby) Upheld citys zoning denial of church bldg. permit RFRA history Sherbert v. Verner (1963): balancing substantial burden, compelling interest Smith (1990): religious peyote gen ly applicable laws OK even < compelling interest RFRA (1993): reinstate Sherbert strict scrutiny 14th Am 5 exclusively remediation power, `" subst v-rights interpretation Test Congruence relationship Proportionality not too under- or over-inclusive Legv history (Scalia reject) Case law South Carolinaremediate pervasive, unconstl literacy tests Mitchellno majority for extra-remedial power re states Morganbest reading is only remedial power (ethnic discrim) Read Brennans out substv fundl rights dicta Marbury constl supremacy, judl review `" cong l definition own powers No substantial cong l record of recent religious bigotry (vs. voting-rights cases) Test: congruence & proportionality to widespread violation const l rights RFRA so out of proportion that `"remedial BUT instead = substantive Open to preventive measures if laws w significant likelihood of being unconstl (p866) NAMUDNO v. Holder (Roberts, 2009) Facial challenge to 2006 reenactment VRA 5 preclearance Avoided constl Q by including utility district as political subdiv eligible for bailout Recognized outdated formulas, invited congl rewrite Thomas DISSENT: should have held unconstl Constlity dependent on discrim so pervasive that case-by-case litigation impossible Shelby County v. Holder (Roberts, 2013): no VRA 4(b) formula (Supp39) Struck down covered jx formulas in VRA 4(b), gutting 5 pre-clearance Accept remedial nature of VRA pre-clearance Reject relevance of baseline data, coverage formula Baseline principle of equal sovereignty (10th Am; Coyle (Oklas 1911 statehood)) VRA selective pre-clearance extraordinary originally justified by extraordinary problem Then: case-by-case litigation impossible; low rates registration & turnout Now: high registration & turnout in covered areas Recognize effectiveness of 5, but should have altered formulas in 2006 15th Am `" punish past, but rather = improve future Less concerned about gerrymandering Shaw strict scrutiny any race-based districting Thomas CONCUR: clear implication of decision: 5 unconst l as well Ginsburg DISSENT: congl enforcement power under 15th Am 2 Remediating second-generation barriers to voting: gerrymandering, at-large, annexation Court upheld prior reenactments: 1970, 1975, 1982 Massive congl record fr extensive hearings: House 390-33; Senate 98-0 Record provides countless egs flagrant racial discrimination since 1982 Egs of intentional discrimination in covered jxsunique history of practices Racial polarization indicative of vulnerable minority populations Congs power at its height Voting as fundl right preservative of all rights Race as most suspect classification Minimal-rationality review for reauthorization Preexisting legv record from initial law Built-in sunset clause requiring reauth (cf Grutter (OConnor, 2003): 25yrs) Catch-22: successful statute will engender fewer egs of discrimination Statutes flexibility should preclude invalidation Admin bail outs Judl bail ins Severability of provisions unconstly applied Katzenbach clarified Coyles equal sovereignty principle only applies to admission to Union No equal sovereignty protection from local evils subsequently created Private Rights of Action & Sovereign Immunity Florida Prepaid (Rehnquist, 1999): no patent action (p868) Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank Struck down Patent Protection Remedy Clarification Act as beyond 14th Am 5 power Express abrogation state sovereignty Bank sued Fla. agency for ripping off college tuition savings plan Missing any legv record constl deprivations by statecrucial Stevens DISSENT: need for federal uniformity patent law Gender: US v. Morrison (Rehnquist, 2000): no VAWA (p869) Invalidated VAWA provision granting civil right of action Rape charge agst 2 football players & Va. Tech deprivation right free from gender violence Acknowledged pervasive bias in state justice systems agst victims of gender violence 14th Am 5 limited to prohibiting state action (Civil Rights Cases) Here, punishing states failure to act Here, national application, despite `" findings national problem Richards: Civil Rights Cases significantly qualified in later cases Clearly saying gender is different, no expanded state action Public-rivate distinction central to modern feminism Breyer DISSENT: sufficient evidence to assume national problem (cong l `" jud l findings) Age: Kimel v. Florida (O Connor, 2000): no ADEA (p872) Struck down private RoA in Age Discrimination in Employment Act Congress impermissibly elevated age discrimination to heightened scrutiny No record of pattern of age discrimination by states in violation of constl rights Thomas CONCUR: constl Q unnecessary b/c no clear abrogation states rights Stevens DISSENT: abrogation state sovereignty justified under Commerce Clause power Disability: Garrett (2001), Lane (2004), BUT Georgia (2006) (p873) Univ. Alabama v. Garrett (Rehnquist, 2001): Title I Struck down Title I of 1990 ADA: reasl accommodations unless undue hardship Abrogation state sovereign immunity w/o 14th Am justification Age & Disabilityrational basis scrutiny (Cleburn Ctr) No record history unconstitutional discrimination Often rational financial constraints preventing accessibility Kennedy CONCUR: ADA important milestone BUT no evidence history unconstl discriminationwhy so few lawsuits? Breyer DISSENT: deference to Congs 5 enforcement powers (p875) Tennessee v. Lane (Stevens, 2004): Title II Upheld Title II of ADA: no exclusion/discrimination Paraplegic forced to crawl up stairs to criminal hearing ADA (1) prohibition on irrational disability discrimination (2) enforce guarantees other rights, incl access to courts History pervasive unequal treatment disabled persons Inadequacies existing laws protecting rights of disabled Proportional means to address discrimination, eg only reasl modifications Rehnquist DISSENT: rational reasons why courthouses may be inaccessible Scalia DISSENT: should have never signed on to flabby congruence & proportionality std Would limit 14th Am 5 power to remedying conduct violative of 14th Am Grandfather in broader sweep for race discrim (eg VRA), b/c stare decisis (p878) US v. Georgia (Scalia, 2006): Title II in prison Unanimous upheld application of Title II private RoA to disabled prisoner Clear violations 8th Am cruel/unusual, incorped by 14th Am 1 No one doubts that 5 grants Cong power to enforce the 14th Am by creating private remedies agst the States for actual violations of the 14th Ammay abrogate sovereign immunity Family Leave: Hibbs (2003), BUT Coleman (2012) (p878) Nev. Dept. HR v. Hibbs (Rehnquist, 2003) Upheld application to states of Family Medical Leave Act 1993 Guarantee both parents right to parental leave Heightened scrutiny gender discrimination (vs. rational basis age, disability) Legv record evidence of likely unconstl gender discrimination in leave policies Inadequacy Title VII 1964 Civil rights Actstate gender discrim did not cease Scalia DISSENT: no guilt by assnmust show history discrim all states covered Kenneedy DISSENT: no evidence pattern unlawful conduct Heightened scrutiny irrelevant Relevant Q: whether despite passage Title VII, states continued to discriminate (p880) Coleman v. Ct. Apps. of Md. (Kennedy, 2012) Struck down application to states of self-care provision Test Ends: targeted at conduct transgressing 14th Ams substv provisions Means: congruence & proportionality to harm No evidence widespread gender discrimination in self-care leave Thomas CONCUR: overrule Hibbs Scalia CONCUR: congruence & proportionality test inappropriate correcting Congs homework Better to limit 14th Am 5 power to actual violations 14th Am (+ race b/c stare decisis) Ginsburg DISSENT: self-care particularly relevant to pregnancy leave Means properly proportionate in context of act as wholeincentivize equal treatment     Babak Ghafarzade CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Richards) Fall 2014 PAGE  PAGE ii CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Richards) Fall 2014 PAGE 163 GHVWij ݶݶ~m~~ jhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j}hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%NmHnHu*hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUhV%N%5G D  M  G  m P  [)  u)  )  ) gdV%N $ & Fa$gdV%NgdV%N        $ % ? @ A B C D F G h i ؽجؒ؁ؒveؒ jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* jqhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jwhV%NUmHnHu'         - . H I J K L M O P u v      z j_hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jehV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jkhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu0  ' ( B C D E F G J K i j ݾ沜݋Ϝp_p jhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jYhV%NUmHnHu*hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphuh}^hV%NmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu         ( M N h i j k l m o p ۰۰sۄb jhV%NUmHnHu jMhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jShV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu& 0 1 K L M N O P R S y z EF`ϾϭϢπ j hV%NUmHnHu jA hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* j hV%NUmHnHu jG hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHu0 f:rLXFX   E)  )  ) gdV%N u)  [)  g) `abdefhi45689:<=deؾحؾ؜ؾؑؾo j/ hV%NUmHnHu j hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* j5 hV%NUmHnHu j hV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j; hV%NUmHnHu+  *QRlmn¬oaP jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j)hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j hV%NUmHnHu*hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphuh}^hV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHunpqrtu+,FGHJKLNO_hrghV%NmHnHo(u jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j#hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu(LNPTVX\^  4|~%&@ABDEFHI]y龰龰}龰 jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu1yz LNPTVX\^龟龟xg jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHo(uh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j hV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu(  <Nxz| "#A`a{|} j|hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHo(uh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu, !"$%&()<?F\]wxy{|}ؾ؟ؾذ؎ؾ}ؾ jphV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jvhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu-&}n(FNSX !l!!)"""2#q# )  u)  g)  [) Rhjl*,.bdfjlnrt $&(,.ؾإؔؾإ؃ؾrؾ jdhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jjhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHo(uh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu,.N:<>BDFJL-.HХyЊhХ jhV%NUmHnHu j^hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHo(uhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu%HIJLMNPQi23MNOQRSUV|}ؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾ jhV%NUmHnHu jRhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jXhV%NUmHnHu* 7 8 R S T V W X Z [ t !!ؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾ jhV%NUmHnHu jFhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jLhV%NUmHnHu,!!!!! !"!#!K!L!f!g!h!j!k!l!n!o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "#"$"%"'"(")"+","D"^"_"y"ؾحؾؔؾrؾ j hV%NUmHnHu j: hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j@hV%NUmHnHu,y"z"{"}"~"""""""""""""""""""##,#-#.#0#1#2#4#5#P#Q#k#l#m#o#p#q#s#t#####ؾذذ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾ j"hV%NUmHnHu j."hV%NUmHnHu j!hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j4!hV%NUmHnHu.###########$$$$$$$$B$C$]$^$_$a$b$c$e$f$y$$$$$$$$$$$$ % %%%ؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾ j$hV%NUmHnHu j"$hV%NUmHnHu j#hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j(#hV%NUmHnHu+q##$c$$+%`%%&?&&&P''(t(( ):)))8*j** + )  E)  ) gdV%N u)  g)  [) %%&%'%)%*%+%.%/%?%@%Z%[%\%^%_%`%b%c%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ᾲ؋p_pؾ j&hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j%hV%NUmHnHu*hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphuh}^hV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j%hV%NUmHnHu%%&&&&&&&&9&:&;&=&>&?&A&B&O&u&v&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'/'0'J'ؾحؾ؎ؾ}ؾ j (hV%NUmHnHu j'hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j'hV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j&hV%NUmHnHu+J'K'L'N'O'P'R'S'_'''''''''''''''((((((((%(S(T(n(o(p(r(s(t(v(w((((ؾإؾ؃ؾrؾ j)hV%NUmHnHu j)hV%NUmHnHu j)hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j(hV%NUmHnHu,((((((((((()))) ) ) ) )))4)5)6)8)9):)<)=)O)y)z))))))))׽ע׽ra׽ j+hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu ju+hV%NUmHnHu j*hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHu j{*hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu&))))))))))))* ***2*3*4*6*7*8*:*;*I*J*d*e*f*h*i*j*l*m******ݾݰݟ݄sτb j-hV%NUmHnHu ji-hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j,hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jo,hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu&*********+++ + + + +++C+D+^+_+`+b+c+d+f+g+++++++++++++++++++++,| j/hV%NUmHnHu j]/hV%NUmHnHu j.hV%NUmHnHu jc.hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu0 +d++,S,, -p--.K../d//0e00 1D111;22223~3 )  u)  [)  g) ,,,,,2,3,M,N,O,Q,R,S,U,V,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--- - - ----O-P-j-k-l-n-o-p-r-s---Ͼذϟذώذ}ذ j1hV%NUmHnHu jQ1hV%NUmHnHu j0hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jW0hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHu1------------........*.+.E.F.G.I.J.K.M.N.b.........sb j3hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jE3hV%NUmHnHu j2hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jK2hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu&............///////#/C/D/^/_/`/b/c/d/f/g//////////////000000| j5hV%NUmHnHu j95hV%NUmHnHu j4hV%NUmHnHu j?4hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHu000 0 0D0E0_0`0a0c0d0e0g0h0x0000000000000011 1 1 1 111#1$1>1?1@1B1C1D1F1G1Q1m1n1| j7hV%NUmHnHu j-7hV%NUmHnHu j6hV%NUmHnHu j36hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHu0n1111111111111111111112252627292:2;2=2>2W2}2~222222222222׽׽׽|׽ j9hV%NUmHnHu j!9hV%NUmHnHu j8hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHu j'8hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu,22222222233,3-3.30313234353@3E3G3M3O3\3]3^3x3y3z3|3}3~33333333333333334ؾ؟ؾذذذ؎ؾ}ؾ j;hV%NUmHnHu j;hV%NUmHnHu j:hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j:hV%NUmHnHu0~334k4445556H667]777K889j999':::+;; )  )  g)  [)  u) 44444444.4J4K4e4f4g4i4j4k4m4n44444444444444444444455/505ؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾl j>hV%NUmHnHu j=hV%NUmHnHu j =hV%NUmHnHu j<hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j<hV%NUmHnHu*05153545557585V5{5|55555555555555555666'6(6B6C6D6F6G6H6J6K6j66666666666} j?hV%NUmHnHu jz?hV%NUmHnHu j>hV%NUmHnHu j>hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu16666666667777<7=7W7X7Y7[7\7]7_7`7s7777777777777777۰۰۰sb jAhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jnAhV%NUmHnHu j@hV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jt@hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu&7777777*8+8.8E8F8G8I8J8K8M8N8^88888888888888 9 9 9 99999(9xg jbChV%NUmHnHu jBhV%NUmHnHu jhBhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu((9I9J9d9e9f9h9i9j9l9m9z9{999999999999999999999999::!:rrrh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jDhV%NUmHnHu j\DhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jChV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu&!:":#:%:&:':):*:A:g:h:m:::::::::::::::::::: ; ;%;&;';);*;+;-;.;?;k;l;;ؾإؾ؃ؾrؾ jFhV%NUmHnHu jPFhV%NUmHnHu jEhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jVEhV%NUmHnHu,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<#<$<><?<@<B<C<D<F<G<R<z<{<<<<<<<<<<<<<ؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾ jHhV%NUmHnHu jDHhV%NUmHnHu jGhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jJGhV%NUmHnHu,;;D<<=c==(>p>>&???D@@@`AA(BBB$CCC/DD :)  E)  u)  [)  g) <<<<=====#=B=C=]=^=_=a=b=c=e=f=====================>>>">#>ֳͳֳ͔ͳֳ̓ͳͥͥͥͥͥr jJhV%NUmHnHu j8JhV%NUmHnHu jIhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j>IhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*,#>$>&>'>(>*>+>O>P>j>k>l>n>o>p>r>s>>>>>>>>>>>>>?? ?!?"?$?%?&?(?)?*mHnHu j2KhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu1?????????????#@$@>@?@@@B@C@D@F@G@U@z@{@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@A?A@AZA۰۰۰}۰ jNhV%NUmHnHu j NhV%NUmHnHu jMhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j&MhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu0ZA[A\A^A_A`AbAcAuAAAAAAAAAAAABB"B#B$B&B'B(B*B+B8BgBhBBBBBBBBBBBBBؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾrhV%NmHnHu* jPhV%NUmHnHu jPhV%NUmHnHu jOhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jOhV%NUmHnHu,BBBBBBBBBCCCC C"C#C$C&C'C3C4C5C6CACBCCCDCKC_C`CzC{C|C~CCCCCCCCCCCCؾ؟ؾؓذؓذ؂ؾq jRhV%NUmHnHu jRhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NmHnHu jQhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jQhV%NUmHnHu,CCCCCDD)D*D+D-D.D/D1D2DEDpDqDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD&E'E1EAEBECEEEݰݟݎ݃r jyThV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* jShV%NUmHnHu jShV%NUmHnHu jShV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu,DDGEEE8FFFEGGH_HHH`II,JJJK|KKCLLL`M )  u)  E)  g)  [) EEFEGEIEJEXEzE{EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFF2F3F4F6F7F8F:F;FQFvFwFFFFFFFFFFFϰϟώ} jmVhV%NUmHnHu jUhV%NUmHnHu jsUhV%NUmHnHu jThV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHu1FFFFFFFFFFF$G%G7G?G@GAGCGDGEGGGHGaGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH龰饔龰龰r龰 jaXhV%NUmHnHu jWhV%NUmHnHu jgWhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jVhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu,H>H?HYHZH[H]H^H_HaHbHnHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHI?I@IZIxgx jYhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j[YhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jXhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu$ZI[I\I^I_I`IbIcItIIIIIIIIIIIII J J&J'J(J*J+J,J.J/J=JjJkJJJJJJJJJJJJؾإؾ؃ؾrؾ j[hV%NUmHnHu jO[hV%NUmHnHu jZhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jUZhV%NUmHnHu,JJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKK K0K[K\KvKwKxKzK{K|K~KKKKKKKKKKKKأؒؾsؾb j]hV%NUmHnHu jC]hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j\hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jI\hV%NUmHnHu&KKK"L#L1L=L>L?LALBLCLELFLVLrLsLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLM?M@MZM[M\M^M_M`M϶ϔσr j_hV%NUmHnHu j7_hV%NUmHnHu j^hV%NUmHnHu j=^hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu,`MbMcMtMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNN?N@NZN[N\N^N_N`NbNcNrNNNNr j+ahV%NUmHnHu j`hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j1`hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHu&`MMN`NNNGOvOOPGPPP\QQRfRR&SdSSTlTTU g)  [)  )  ) gdV%N m)  u) NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN&O'OAOBOCOEOFOGOIOJOUOVOpOᾲ؋p_pp jbhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j%bhV%NUmHnHu*hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphuh}^hV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jahV%NUmHnHupOqOrOtOuOvOxOyOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP P P P PPPP&P'PAPBPCPؽجؒyhؒW jdhV%NUmHnHu jdhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jchV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jchV%NUmHnHu"CPEPFPGPIPJP\PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP;Q*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu0QQQRRRRRRR R!RERFR`RaRbRdReRfRhRiRRRRRRRRRRRRRSS S!S"S$S%S&S(S| j~hhV%NUmHnHu jhhV%NUmHnHu jghV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jghV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*(S)SCSDS^S_S`SbScSdSfSgSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTT)TKTLTfTgThTۼۢۑۢ͢rۢ͢a jrjhV%NUmHnHu jihV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jxihV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu&hTjTkTlTnToTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUU U UU?U@UZU[U\U^U_U`UbUcUwUUUUUUUUUUU| jflhV%NUmHnHu jkhV%NUmHnHu jlkhV%NUmHnHu jjhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu0U`UU VaVVWCWuWWVX(YY[ZZ[n[[[V\\]N]]^n^ )  ) gdV%N u)  g)  [) UUUVVV V V V VVV@VAV[V\V]V_V`VaVcVdVtVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWWWW"W#W=W| jZnhV%NUmHnHu jmhV%NUmHnHu j`mhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jlhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu-=W>W?WAWBWCWFWGWSWTWjWnWoWpWsWtWuWwWxWWWWWWWWWWWᾲؑeTeؾ johV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jTohV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu**hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphuh}^hV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jnhV%NUmHnHuWWWXXXHXJXLXRXTXVXZX\XXXXYYY$Y&Y(Y,Y.YXYYYYYYYYYYYZ9Z:ZTZUZVZYZZZ[ZХХХrХ jqhV%NUmHnHu jHqhV%NUmHnHu jphV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jNphV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHo(uhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu,[Z]Z^ZqZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[[[[[[[[L[M[g[h[i[l[m[n[p[q[[[[[ra jshV%NUmHnHu j*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHu&[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[\4\5\O\P\Q\T\U\V\X\Y\h\n\p\}\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ]鶥 j0uhV%NUmHnHu jthV%NUmHnHu j6thV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu1 ] ] ]]]]]],]-]G]H]I]L]M]N]P]Q]b]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]^^^^^ ^L^M^g^ؾحؾ؎ؾ}ؾ j$whV%NUmHnHu jvhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j*vhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu juhV%NUmHnHu+g^h^i^l^m^n^p^q^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_______ _(_1_7_?_@_Z_[_\___`_a_c_d_o_t____ؾ؟ؾ؎ؾذذذ}ؾذذ jyhV%NUmHnHu jxhV%NUmHnHu jxhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jwhV%NUmHnHu1n^^_a__N``abkbb+cccc dXddd(ezee0fff.gg )  ) gdV%N [)  u)  g) ______________ ` `@`B`D`J`L`N`R`T`v``````````aaa6aZa\a^ahaja|aaa۰۰۰xxhV%NmHnHo(uhV%NmHnHo(u jzhV%NUmHnHu jzhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jyhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu-aaaaaaaaaabbbbbb b bbIbJbdbebfbibjbkbmbnbbbbbbbbbbbbb c c c$cؾحؾ؎ؾ}ؾrhV%NmHnHu* j|hV%NUmHnHu j|hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j{hV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j {hV%NUmHnHu,$c%c&c)c*c+c/c0cAcBc\c]c^cacbcccecfccccccccccccccdᾲ؋p_pؾQh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j}hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j}}hV%NUmHnHu*hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphuh}^hV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j}hV%NUmHnHuddddd d d d6d7dQdRdSdVdWdXdZd[dxdddddddddddddddddddddؾحؾ؎sbsؾ jhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jqhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j~hV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jw~hV%NUmHnHu&dee!e"e#e&e'e(e*e+e=eXeYeseteuexeyeze|e}eeeeeeeeeeeeeeff)f*f+f.f/f0f2f3fq jhV%NUmHnHu jehV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jkhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu,3fgfhfffffffffffffffffffff g g'g(g)g,g-g.g0g1g>gPgbgcg}g~gggggggq jփhV%NUmHnHu jYhV%NUmHnHu j܂hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*h}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j_hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu,gggggggggggggggggghhh*h+h,h/h0h1h3h4hGhHhbhchdhghhhihkhlhhhhhhhhhhhگگگ|گ jʅhV%NUmHnHu jMhV%NUmHnHu jЄhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jShV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu0gg1hihh,iii.jjj(kkkClllGmmn_nnniiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii j j'j(j)j,j-j.j0j1j=jgjhjϰϟώ} jhV%NUmHnHu jAhV%NUmHnHu jĆhV%NUmHnHu jGhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu1hjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjkk!k"k#k&k'k(k*k+kBkgkhkkkk׽׽r׃a jhV%NUmHnHu j5hV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHu j;hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu&kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!l"llAlBlClElFlelfllllllllllllllllllll| jhV%NUmHnHu j)hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu j/hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu0lllm%m&m@mAmBmEmFmGmImJmZmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnn,n=n>nXnݰݥ݃ jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* j#hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu-XnYnZn]n^n_nanbnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ooo5o6o7o:o;oo?oPoZoؾسؾؔ؃ؾؔrؾؔ jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu,Zo\odofomooovowoxooooooooooooooooooooo pp(p)p*p-p.p/p1p2pFpTpsptppگگrڃ jhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j hV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu+pppppppppppppppppp qq(q)q*q-q.q/q1q2qcqdq~qqqqqqqqqqqqqؾحؾ؜ؾ؋ؾ}h}^hV%N>*mHnHu j|hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu*/ppp/qqq'rqrr;ssst`tt&uuuvkvvwAwwwx )  )  g)  [)  u) qqqqqqqqrr r!r"r%r&r'r)r*rOrPrjrkrlrorprqrsrtrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsss4sؾحؾ؜ؾ؎}ؾ؎ jphV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jvhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu,4s5s6s9s:s;s=s>sGsYsusvssssssssssssssssssssssssttttؾذ؟؄sؾb jdhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jjhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu&tt tt&t,t>t?tYtZt[t^t_t`tbtctmttttttttttttttuuu u!u$u%u&u(u)u9uJufuguuuuuuuݰݟݎ} jXhV%NUmHnHu jۗhV%NUmHnHu j^hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu1uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvvvvvv2v9v;v?vAvHvIvJvdvevfvivjvkvmvnvvvvvvvvv| jLhV%NUmHnHu jϙhV%NUmHnHu jRhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu j՘hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHu0vvvvvwwwwww w ww w:w;w*mHnHu jFhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jɚhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHu'wwwwwwwwww x x xxxxxx-xLxMxgxhxixlxmxnxpxqx~xxxxxxxxxxؾحؾ؎ؾ}qh}^hV%NmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu j:hV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j@hV%NUmHnHu&xnxxycyyzwzz{`{{"||}0~~~1p2< u)  )  ) gdV%N g)  [) xxxxyyyyyyyy5y6yAyBy\y]y^yaybycyeyfyyyyyyyyyyyӧyӧ_2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j.hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j4hV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*hV%NB*OJPJQJ^JmHnHphu!yyyy z zzzzzzzUzVzezpzqzrzuzvzwzyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz{ { { {{{{{>{۰饔۰۰r۰ j"hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu j(hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu,>{?{Y{Z{[{^{_{`{b{c{i{t{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{|||| |"|&|(|P||||||||||||龰龰r jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHo(u jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu,|$}L}}}}}}}}}}}}~~)~*~+~.~/~0~2~3~e~f~y~~~~~~~~~~~ХХyn]y jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHo(uhV%NmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu$~~~~~~~~~~*+,/0134jk,.`bdfln龎xg jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu*hV%NmHnHo(uh}^hV%N>*mHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu j hV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu(nptv$&(.0268Z3567:;<>?Qnoݰݟݔr juhV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuhV%NmHnHu* j{hV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu,Ăł߂/0145689PQklmpqrtuՃݰݕ݄s jhV%NUmHnHu johV%NUmHnHu5hV%N5B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu&6r܃7݄ 8=t & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N g)  [)  u)  ) Ճփ׃ڃۃ܃ރ߃0125679:Lghքׄ؄ۄ܄݄߄ؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾ jhV%NUmHnHu jchV%NUmHnHu jhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jihV%NUmHnHu+ "#;_`z{|Åąޅ߅123678:;Jopؾ؟ؾ؎ؾ}ؾ jԭhV%NUmHnHu jWhV%NUmHnHu jڬhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu j]hV%NUmHnHu+Ɔdž678;<=?@LS\`mt|}ؾذ؟ؾذ؎ؾذذذ}ؾذ jȯhV%NUmHnHu jKhV%NUmHnHu jήhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHu2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphuhV%NmHnHujhV%NUmHnHu jQhV%NUmHnHu1ȇЇчt{'1ۖܖ\aRaگ|tldh&>hV%N>*hE hV%N>*h hV%N>*hh,hV%N>*hShV%N>*hUhV%N>*h_yhV%N>* jhV%NhV%NjhV%NU2hV%NB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJmHnHphu jEhV%NUmHnHujhV%NUmHnHuh}^hV%N>*mHnHuhV%NmHnHu't͈<8g܊%Siʋ`܌ & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NKύ)\ݎY2Pܑ2ZŒ S & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N/m"[ʕC<tݗ xɘ,W~Й & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NOҚ]^Fik;=\^͟ΟcdgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NaҚWY]^Ej9=\]^͟Οcd~԰հ&?@CMNζ޶ƿƞhI{hV%N\hohV%N\ hV%N>*\hhV%N>*\ hI{hV%N hV%N\ hz]ihV%Nhz]ihV%N\ hhV%N hV%N>*hhV%N>* hohV%N hf\ahV%NhV%N;~#;<զ֦z{ϨШ%& $%'(үgdV%NgdV%N԰հBC޶ݷhiϹйϺߺ? & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%NgdV%NgdV%NݷgiϹй RTxUcHJ)4XbvwBhFhV%N>*hjvhV%N>*hd/hV%N6hghV%N5h!hV%N>* h hV%N jhV%Nh hV%N>* h!hV%N hIyhV%NhV%N hhV%NhhV%N>*=? BT½>ؾdUI"Z & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NZZd8Ko@y'#o)o & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N G4{+UH I & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NBGBLv}`gx(:;>xyhOztm hhV%N hV%NaJ hs@hV%Nh/'hV%NaJhIhV%N>* jhV%N h ihV%N hN,hV%N hdhV%NhdhV%N>*h0hV%N>*hhV%N>*h#%hV%N>*hb)hV%N>*hDihV%N>* hV%N>*h VhV%N>*hhV%N>*hV%Nh@!hV%N>*)IxB|~1v#h7fOh%K & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NK~y/(B&&h & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NgdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N-PS}X*&> & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NOPrRS|}RXdnwx^g{tlhz"hV%N>* h;G*hV%N h>hV%N h `hV%Nh~]hV%N>* hhV%NhdhV%N>* jhV%Nh{vhV%N>* h*nhV%N h hhV%Nh8shV%N>* h hV%N hhV%N hz hV%N huhV%N hLhV%N h]qhV%N hV%NaJhV%N h@r6hV%N*>nLNrTl&w:F & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NgdV%NgdV%NdV2 Jxy)}pH & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Ng)1ptFH01fg)*bg()      LN[\B^"!ht hV%N>*hv|hV%N>* hhV%NhWhV%N5 hyhV%Nh hV%N5 h/2hV%NhhV%N5hwhV%N>*hKpVhV%N>* jhV%N hz"hV%Nh hV%N>*hghV%N5hV%N9H4a(?RI0 & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NgdV%N0x!fh :7i$(I & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NR15O{a|0 & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NP m    " T    0dEx4B2 & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NFB[QBwd & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nd:  ! "q" #m####$+$Q$u$~$$%8%c%%%.& & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N!! " ""q"v"####$$$$*$+$6$?$K$P$Q$8%J%%%''))---+-///81K11111222|tthshV%N>* hUhV%NhBhV%N5h`hV%N>* h=hV%N h`=hV%Nhl0hV%N>*h!hV%N>* hDhV%NhjhV%N>*h~hV%N>* h~hV%Nh#hV%N>* h& hV%Nh& hV%N5h^hV%N5 hb?hV%NhV%N jhV%N-.&b&&X''.((>)~)0+++,-M---.///-011 & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N11)2H222 3X455*6`6666K777J88299z:::?; & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N2!2f4~455666<<j<<==">V?`???BC*CFFHH II@IBIJKKKhKiKKOOOO^P`PvPT&TTTZUnUrU|UU󓅸 hsxhV%N h\hV%NhSVhV%N>*h/phV%N>* hR)hV%N ha hV%N h+BhV%N hV%N>*h|9XhV%N>*h@whV%N>*hC-hV%N>* hzJhV%Nh!hV%N>* hUhV%NhyqhV%N>*hV%NhshV%N>*3?;d;;<j<<==`>>>R??L@@&A"BChC(DDFHFF & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NF:G^GHIIBIIJSJJJKKiKKLLM>M*h)hV%N>*hohV%N>* hR)hV%N hJhV%N h hV%N hV%N>*hQhV%N>* hQhV%Nh7VhV%N>*h}JhV%N>*hhV%N>*hhV%N>*h?hV%N>*h/phV%N>* h\hV%Nhc&hV%N>*hV%N jhV%N,Zv[[W\\\']P]]] ^*^L^^ ___`k`abavbb@c d & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N dJddJeeeffdghvhitiiFjjkk(lzlll4mmm & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%Nmpnnoo prpppp q5qiqqrrXss:ttuNuuu>vvwgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nqqqqqqrrruuw x xxyyyyyzz{{|||"|}}}}~~~ހ\l *=>opݍhr hV%N>*hIZhV%N>*h+ hV%N>*hL@hV%N>*hhhV%N>*hXhV%N>* hhhV%N hV%N>*hhV%N>*h|hV%N>* jhV%NhZhV%N>* h>ihV%NhV%Nh6hV%N>*6wxCxx1yUyyyzczzz{-{^||D}} ~~3~B~q~~~FdgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NdހD ,PdZFld nt4pgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Np|1Qݍ%j Aяdz & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%Nݍ%0")AL y֒œ6HtvGg0xzNVZh&-U{{hMhV%N>* hV%N>*h_hV%N>* jhV%NhohV%N>* h[hV%Nh-hV%N>* h[_hV%Nhp87hV%N>*hMhV%N>*hwRThV%N>* hhV%N hahV%NhchV%N>*hBhV%N>*h xhV%N>*hV%Nh[_hV%N5/8b͑ 5l֒eJԔvCgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NזKzrԚ2 &%LuŸ & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NŸ-V U"#Pߢ-jgdV%N  & F8^8gdV%N  & Fh^hgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & FgdV%N & F gdV%N & F gdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NUVp֡ס!"#?,-JJLr­0RzͰTdñѱ|~öܶ(?X!"?B{햴 hqhV%NhKplhV%N>*huKhV%N>* h[hV%N hV%N>*h@phV%N>*h{hV%N>* hN2QhV%N hyhV%NhhV%N>* hP4hV%N jhV%NhV%NhuThV%N>* huThV%N9jYvŦbR`nLlܫ3YgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NY;ޭL0NzͰ%Tñ~<6~gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N~ö?4d"`'{|׽0~gdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N{|=H}~9:Ozjq46DfV]y8`Zpǿֿ}uhbYhV%N>*h dzhV%N>*h?vhV%N>*h)I=hV%N>*hYShV%N>* hV%N>* hCOhV%N hS2NhV%N hD0nhV%NhD0nhV%N>*h7hV%N>* h;v=hV%NhchV%N>* hqhV%Nh.)hV%N>*h>ohV%N>*hV%Nhu"hV%N>* h4hV%N+ʾ9:tɿ!cQ*~Cz']gdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N8ij6BUVJ68)ygdV%N & FgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NRSOv'B9nZ'tgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & FgdV%N&'ABIS9?@AHLn&'@QO\ !)D{sh`dhV%N>*hWhV%N>*h=ZhV%N>*hWhV%N>* hWhV%NhIhV%N>*h)* jhV%NhhV%N>* hIhV%NhKplhV%N>*hhV%N>*hu hV%N>* hV%N>*hIhV%N5 hYhV%N h.hV%NhV%NhhV%N>*-2>H@YO;zq & F"gdV%N & F"gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nq&>W5TD  & F"dgdV%N  & F"dgdV%N  & F"dgdV%NgdV%N & F"gdV%N & F"gdV%N & F"gdV%N & F"gdV%ND`)bR$&td  & F!dgdV%N  & F!dgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & F"gdV%N & F"gdV%N  & F"dgdV%N  & F"dgdV%N  & F"dgdV%N$&4R68NPZ\`g&7=MT"3p~*~vhrhV%N>*hrhV%N6hhV%N>* hqhV%N hHbhV%N hV%N>* hMhV%NhhV%N>*h9hV%N>*hchV%N>* hZhV%NhU:nhV%N>*hGhV%N>*h%LhV%N>* jDhV%N jhV%Nh\ hV%N>* h'-hV%NhV%N,ZVvx7]p & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N  & F!dgdV%N d^gdV%N  & F!dgdV%N  & F!dgdV%N  & F!dgdV%Np.l~*h1Kz  & F3gdV%N & F3gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N M#Jg$sjKc & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F3gdV%N & F3gdV%N*6,JK39!Ov}% # % - / 3 5 ;   ^_}v hXhV%Nh3DhV%N>*hhV%N>*h5hV%N>*hc$hV%N>*hG$hV%N>*hg;hV%N>*h_GhV%N>*h# hV%N>*hXihV%N>*h&jhV%N>* hONhV%Nh?hV%N>*h?hV%N>*h44hV%N>* jhV%NhV%NhQ hV%N>*.tR[Un,U~+U & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%NUPl>V$x_z   & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N   D  p   < B ^      3 J `     @ & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%N"\-;BUZal| $IfgdV%NgdV%N & F#gdV%N & F#gdV%NKLUYVW+,8n!v!""/"0":(;(L(#0$000l2m2t25 5/5M6N647h%QhV%N>*h8~^hV%N>* h|vhV%N h0hV%N h]hV%Nh~QhV%N>* h6^hV%Nh@hV%N>* h(ThV%N jhV%NhKplhV%N>* h=hV%N jh~hV%NhV%Nh~hV%N>*8XSgdV%Nkd°$$Ifl\ |)z z z z t0644 la $IfgdV%N nK`z2k2rBp & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%NgdV%N]ZP,lJt & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%NgdV%N & F%gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F%gdV%N & F%gdV%NgdV%Nt !!""d""w$$$8&&;(m(((#)S))*$+F,, . & F$gdV%NgdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N .&.m.."/J/a/$0d001,111182m222M3i3334 5^55gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N5 6W666 7;7V777 88888 9i94:::::;<|<<p= & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N47:777i93:==/>6>>>@?D?E?L?M?T?t?z??????????@@*A0A;C*hC3hV%N>*hehV%N>*h6hV%N>*h%QhV%N>* hhV%N h\/hV%N hV%N>*h5EhV%N>*hR hV%N>*h~hV%N>* hOHhV%N jhV%NhV%Nh.hV%N>*4p=r===%>9>>>>>@?ojb & F&gdV%NgdV%N~kdQ$$IfTlW0d&6 t0644 laT $IfgdV%N8^8gdV%N @?t?????&@n@@@!AgAAWBBBCLCCCC`DDDD & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%NgdV%N8^8gdV%N & F&gdV%NDD'E[E~EEEEF:FrFFFFFFF $$Ifa$gdV%NgdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%NFFFFFGG/G?G_GfGpG~G $IfgdV%Nkkd$$IfTlL!0" t0644 laT ~GGGGGRHHH[VQIAAI & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%NgdV%NgdV%Nkde$$IfTl@\l!X$ \ X t0644 laTGGGGGHHII,I3IMM PPPPP8T?TKTTTTUUUVVV2WLWWWWWXXZd[e[m[~[[[\z hZdhV%NhZdhV%N>* hVhV%N hhV%N h6^hV%Nh:6FhV%N>* h4}.hV%Nh10hV%N>* hhV%NhhV%N>*hjhV%N>*hhV%N>*hhV%N>*hG~vhV%N>* h ~=hV%Nh5IhV%N>*hV%Nh%QhV%N>*-HI@IVIaIIKK8LL M@MMMENN4O`OOPPPPP.QbQQ & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%NQRS\SS7T8TyTTTTAUUUU.VJVKVzV{VVVVgdV%NgdV%N8^8gdV%NgdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F$gdV%N & F$gdV%NV3W4W?WKWkkd&$$IfTl ## t0644 laT $$Ifa$gdV%NKWLWWWWX@YY!Zf]]]]]]] $IfgdV%Nkd$$IfTl 0k#  t0644 lapT!Z"Z#ZhZZZZF[e[f[[|ttlldt|\ & F+gdV%N & F(gdV%N & F(gdV%N & F(gdV%NgdV%N~kdo$$IfTl0k# t0644 laT [\\F\\\\\ ]3]m]]]]]3^R^^^!_Z__gdV%N & F'gdV%N & F'gdV%N & F'gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F'gdV%N & F+gdV%NgdV%N & F+gdV%N\\'\]]R^d^bbrbb dd5dieqe}efffgggg@jfjjjjk|kkkkTmpmnnp%p0q4qUqqrrrr}uh@hV%N>*h$yhV%N>* hV%N>*h1KhV%N>* jhV%NhEhV%N>*hbhV%N>* h#ZhV%Nh7bhV%N>*hULhV%N>* h~LYhV%NhYChV%N>*hz*hV%N>* hMhV%Nh%QhV%N>* hnhV%NhV%NhThV%N>* h-sQhV%N._`Jalaa`bbbbc d dldddheiee(fffg6hhxigdV%N8^8gdV%Nh^hgdV%NgdV%N & F'gdV%N & F'gdV%N & F'gdV%Nxi j j?jj|kk m mTmmpnnpoo pptpp'q(qqqrgdV%Nh^hgdV%N^gdV%N & F'gdV%N & F'gdV%N8^8gdV%N & F'gdV%Nrrrs2sss2ttHuuuubw~wwww xxx & F-gdV%N & F-gdV%N & F-gdV%NgdV%N8^8gdV%N & F'gdV%N & F'gdV%N & F'gdV%NgdV%N & F'gdV%Nrrssss2t\tuv`wbwxxxxxxxy}}A}K}~~&z,Bn.0Ht΄{sl hhV%Nh?QhV%N>*h/\)hV%N>* h<hV%Nhs]hV%N>*hluhV%N>* hZdhV%NhZdhV%N>*hoLohV%N>* jhV%Nh%QhV%N>* h// hV%Nh~LhV%N>* hV%N>* h,hV%NhN[hV%N>*hoyhV%N>*hLBhV%N>*hV%NhhV%N>*)x2xixxxxxx4yyy3ztzz{X{{{{2|y||| & F+gdV%N & F+gdV%N & F+gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F-gdV%N & F-gdV%N & F-gdV%N|A}}}}~h~~~zln0t"> & F*gdV%N & F*gdV%N & F*gdV%N & F*gdV%NgdV%N8^8gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F+gdV%N & F+gdV%N΄ބ12dž͆Ӈهċ(NX (,:J^LN&'z>R8zhGhV%N>*hvhV%N>*h|hV%N>*h[hV%N>* hM hV%Nh/\)hV%N>* h<hV%N hV%N>*hEw)hV%N>*h@`hV%N>*hw|hV%N>*h4khV%N>*h3hV%N>* hhV%Nh1:hV%N>* jhV%NhV%Nh_UhV%N>*0"ȅ1f6oȇ<rtG" & F*gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F*gdV%N & F*gdV%N & F*gdV%N"<̏?BÑN jؕZ & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%NgdV%N & F*gdV%N & F*gdV%NgdV%N & F*gdV%NT3švTǜӜ Bݝ9 & F0gdV%N & F0gdV%NgdV%N & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%N89LRWxyx~̦TWpq4EpsAL@HQ~̶Ͷz jhV%N h?hV%Nh*hV%N>*hLF hV%N>*hkhV%N>*h`+hV%N>*h hV%N>*h,hV%N>*hNhV%N>* hV%N>*h-thV%N>* hfhV%N jhfhV%NhF/hV%N>* hs hV%NhV%Nh/\)hV%N>* hamhV%N-9xԞ-Q0Sϡ2oѢ'RvxQΦt & F,gdV%N & F,gdV%N & F,gdV%NgdV%Nt֧ 7oѨXqHӪXHح 4gD & F,gdV%NgdV%N & F,gdV%N & F,gdV%ND4yٲ,-ȳ 9:{@ & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%NgdV%N^gdV%N8^8gdV%N & F,gdV%N & F,gdV%N & F,gdV%NG~ٶ?{t:483BygdV%NgdV%NgdV%N8^8gdV%N & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%N & F)gdV%NBV"9LXahst=C !)+5w|  Ztdl h_ghV%NhY*1hV%N>*hQhV%N>*hchV%N>* hV%N>*hbXbhV%N>*hJhV%N>*hGAhV%N>*hV1hV%N>* hs hV%Nh]IphV%N>* jhV%N h||hV%Nh/\)hV%N>*hV%N hM hV%N5yȼMbhv @ݾ8E` & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N<e7~ Z)*In8^8gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N ZfQDA ](}8^8gdV%N & F/gdV%N & F/gdV%N & F/gdV%NgdV%N & F.gdV%N ';>JDN |}BC(*456;]^*.hTuhV%N>* hTuhV%N h_ghV%NhujhV%N>*hohV%N>* hmhV%Nhd<hV%N>*hfhV%N>* h2 hV%N hV%N>*hhV%N>* jhV%NhUhV%N>*hNhV%N>*h/\)hV%N>*hV%N h&ThV%N4ovN.$TUx^gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N^7pMg)|\x & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%NgdV%N<`ef(78"tvjl.5ER~w hUshV%Nhw%hV%N>* h/\)hV%N hV%N>*h.YhV%N>* jhV%Nh/\)hV%N>* h_ghV%Nh% hV%N>*hGiahV%N>* hhV%N hS\?hV%NhE!hV%N>*hy-+hV%N>* hy-+hV%NhLzhV%N>*h!@hV%N>*hV%N hTuhV%N.'<f7IT8^8gdV%N & F.gdV%NgdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%Nh^hgdV%NEv>Mh_m & F.gdV%NgdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%NfT.` Erc*? & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%NgdV%N & F.gdV%N #)0>fnJN .my      hihV%N>* ha>xhV%N hhV%NhW,hV%N>*hhV%N>* hV%N>*h OhV%N>*h1jhV%N>*h/\)hV%N>* hPhV%Nh5hV%N>*hB:jhV%N>* jhV%NhM6hV%N>*hV%NhWAhV%N>*6?LflPS)O & F2gdV%N & F2gdV%N & F2gdV%NgdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%N & F.gdV%Nfx&&~ lnHh^hgdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NgdV%N & F2gdV%N & F2gdV%N` Dlm B   h  \  f  8^8gdV%Nh^hgdV%N^gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N  a/vPEjL, & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NgdV%N 6v^jKLiz1789GLfv  !!!!!{{vnnh=:hV%N>* hV%N>*hVJhV%N>* hmHhV%Nh ^hV%N>* hiVhV%NhiVhV%N>*hhV%N>*hIfhV%N>*h_)hV%N>*h^ hV%N>* ht:hV%Nh/\)hV%N>* hhV%NhhV%N>* h0U hV%N hD6 hV%N jhV%Nhw]hV%N>*hV%N+TD9a:,P :;ep8^8gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N89Lv# : ; gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F1gdV%N8^8gdV%N & F1gdV%N; q r   !t!!"r""X#b$$$%%&?&&&&'?' & F1gdV%N^gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F1gdV%N!!J&N&O&T&&&&&n'o'(((Z,,. ....8.J.~.33 3V3666677b9n9r9|9::<<<<=󨡭󑊨zhbhV%N>*hzohV%N>* h{hV%Nh{hV%N>*h6hV%N>* hX ^hV%N hV%N>*hX ^hV%N>*h/\)hV%N>*hZhV%N>*h3|5hV%N>* h^hV%N h0hV%Nh{hV%N>*hohV%N>*hPN>hV%N>*hV%Nh=:hV%N>*-?'o''(()6*N**++H,J,,---:..z/0!0s00 & F6gdV%NgdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NgdV%N & F4gdV%NgdV%N & F1gdV%N0001k1d2333B4556B66667a777(88T9: & F7gdV%N & F5gdV%NgdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N:A:::;_;;;2<z<{<<4>6>>F??@9@@@AOAvAA & F1gdV%NgdV%NgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NgdV%N=>D>>??@@BBDDEEFFGGGHHHII J(JdLLLbNNNNOOPPPPRR(R8RVRbRxppph30hV%N>*hQ7ShV%N>* hhV%Nh ,hV%N>*h hV%N>* h@hV%Nh@hV%N>*h5OhV%N>*htWhV%N>*hmhV%N>*hT@hV%N>*h\RhV%N>*hhV%N>*hvhV%N>*h/\)hV%N>* h ,MhV%NhahV%N>*hV%N jhV%N,AA'BfBBBB1CBCCC1DgDDDD7EEEBFFFF2GyGh^hgdV%N8^8gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NyGzGGGG`HHH:IIIJ3JlJJJ9KRLTLLRMM`NbNOdOh^hgdV%NgdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NgdV%NdOO"PnPPPQrRSS!THTITmTUUUU+VGVVVV*WqWgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F1gdV%NgdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%NbRmTTU2UUU5V6VVVVWxWX[[ [([z]|]NaPaaakbvbbddjj kkllmm~oopppqqqArEr\ryrrrrsvsh8?hV%N>* h8?hV%Nh6hV%N>*h, hV%N>*hyhV%N>*htqhV%N>*hEhV%N>* hV%N>*hj4hV%N>* hJhV%Nh)hV%N>*h/\)hV%N>* jhV%Nh 6hV%N>*hM&hV%N>*hV%N6qWNXXZYY_ZZZ [M[[6\\R]]:^^f_&``Paakbb & F9gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%N & F1gdV%Nbb7ccccdDeezfffTggg6hZhhhhii;iXieiigdV%N & F8gdV%N & F8gdV%N & F8gdV%N & F8gdV%Niiii'jpjqjj klxmzmDnn|o~opmpnpppqArr8^8gdV%N & F:gdV%N & F:gdV%N & F:gdV%NgdV%N & F8gdV%NrrvstgtttuXvvvwxYxxxNyOyyy{{gdV%Nh^hgdV%N8^8gdV%N & F8gdV%N & F8gdV%N & F8gdV%NgdV%N & F:gdV%N & F:gdV%Nvssttgt}tWynyyyyz{{$|9|} }}^}_}c}k}q}}}}~~~9@.@̀ ~ָzrh hV%N>*hUhV%N>* hUhV%Nhe{hV%N>* he{hV%NhpH,hV%N>*hFhV%N>*hGhV%N>*h(hV%N>*hhV%N>* hw `hV%N h@XhV%Nh6LhV%N>* hV%N>*hdschV%N>*h>AhV%N>*h/\)hV%N>*hV%Nh6hV%N>*,{{{$|]||} }^}_}}}5~z~~ul$uh^hgdV%N & F8gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F8gdV%Nuvق^̃܃6`ׄ,m؅%v & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%NgdV%N & F=gdV%N & F=gdV%NgdV%N & F8gdV%N & F8gdV%Nh^hgdV%NÃ˃̃OXw~Ʉτ҈Ԉ-.>o{'6[\ CNTq~N]ƾ|h"dhV%N>* h*yhV%N hV%N>*h8]hV%N>*hUB:hV%N>*heThV%N>*h!ihV%N>* hu/QhV%N jhV%Nh/\)hV%N>* hq$<hV%Nh32hV%N>*hf3hV%N>*hq$<hV%N>* hcshV%NhzhV%N>*h/^zhV%N>*hV%N.vӆ6·xzZ.gΊ&'n,h^hgdV%NgdV%N & F<gdV%N^gdV%N & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%N,b.=mCiOPh7NFmgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%N8^8gdV%N & F<gdV%N]g ƓǓݓflgmڙ'(2>.P̜LVXZhj<󦡦󊡃{hgXhV%N>* h)hV%Nh)hV%N>*h'-hV%N>* hbhV%N hV%N>*hxehV%N>*hJj^hV%N>* hXhV%NhzhV%N>*hbxhV%N>*h^hV%N>* hu/QhV%Nh@~hV%N>* jhV%Nh 'hV%N>*hV%Nh"hV%N>*06aߒ]Ǔc̔ th^hgdV%N & F;gdV%N & F;gdV%N & F;gdV%NgdV%N & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%N & F<gdV%N[\_ )9n|ØO & FDgdV%N & FDgdV%N & FDgdV%N & FDgdV%N & FDgdV%NgdV%N & F;gdV%NgdV%N & F;gdV%N(`a2ěś.̜Z=8~^gdV%N & F?gdV%N & F?gdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F?gdV%NgdV%N & FDgdV%N & FDgdV%N<=G۞ܞ8G~ʟ"+'09BKQapʡ;KABY PQb89P w~ŧ̧흫흫hKhV%N>* hOUhV%N hBrhV%NhmBhV%N>* hbuhV%NhbuhV%N>*h"hV%N>* h phV%NhNhV%N>* hV%N>*hgXhV%N>* jhV%NhV%Nh)hV%N>* hgXhV%N8~ʟlܠ'Y 23ʢBgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & F@gdV%N & F@gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F?gdV%N8^8gdV%N & F?gdV%Nǣϣޣ IQ9qyݥ(0Ц & FEgdV%N & FAgdV%N & FAgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F@gdV%NZwŧܧl^ԩx>«eG` & FCgdV%NgdV%N & FCgdV%N & FBgdV%N & FBgdV%NgdV%N & FAgdV%N & FAgdV%N & FAgdV%Ņϧҧۧ\^r~ث,A^ɮ֮<O,!"5|~rt[\o&'>qrȸ h_hV%N huhV%Nh!hV%N>* h(hV%NhhV%N>*hZhV%N>* hP(hV%NhWhV%N>*h|hV%N>*hmBhV%N>* hWrhV%NhV%N hphV%N> (89q!23yٯR & F@gdV%NgdV%NgdV%Nh^hgdV%N & FCgdV%N & FCgdV%N & FCgdV%N"X2b~t;K\XgdV%NgdV%N & F@gdV%N & F@gdV%N'jr>Vl m~8pgdV%N & F>gdV%N & F>gdV%N & F>gdV%NgdV%N & F@gdV%N=>bx/6`hjnƽbjvxԿֿR^_`almnov(-UXZl.8훔hhV%N>* h~ZXhV%N hwhV%NhwhV%N>*h=QhV%N>* hd*hV%N jhV%Nhd*hV%N>* hE>hV%N h*hV%Nh5}4hV%N>*hO#hV%N>* h.KhV%N h(hV%NhV%Nh!hV%N>* h^?hV%N4Ƚnxֿ*R.=UZ\(78t & FFgdV%N & FFgdV%N & FFgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F>gdV%N & F>gdV%N & F>gdV%N78@Orst~02 ;<FG"S[6Ld<=S| h%hV%N hQhV%Nhz\hV%N>*hAKhV%N>*h&hV%N>*hz?hV%N>*h-hV%N>* hV%N>* h7hV%NhhV%N>* jhV%NhD2WhV%N>* h @hV%Nhv lhV%N>*hd*hV%N>* hv lhV%NhV%NhhV%N>*0t;NfD4-^ & FIgdV%N & FIgdV%N & FIgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FFgdV%N<w JxKe|gdV%N & FGgdV%N & FGgdV%N & FGgdV%N & FHgdV%N & FHgdV%NgdV%N & FIgdV%N,dd=SR ?a & FIgdV%N & FIgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FJgdV%N & FJgdV%N & FJgdV%NSbi$_ix]p!-.?@tu(P89PTd@hlv||u hhV%Nh(ahV%N>*hO3shV%N>* hhV%Nh`? hV%N>* h#<hV%Nh) hV%N>* jhV%N hghV%Nh3(hV%N>* hhV%Nh\ihV%N>*hhV%N>* h-phV%Nhy",hV%N>*h4 hV%N>*hV%Nhz\hV%N>* hV%N>*.B_2Lx4D] & FMgdV%N & FMgdV%N & FNgdV%N & FNgdV%N & FLgdV%N & FLgdV%N & FKgdV%N & FKgdV%NgdV%N & FIgdV%NNl7ep9~gdV%NgdV%N & FPgdV%N & FPgdV%NgdV%N & FPgdV%NgdV%N & FQgdV%N & FQgdV%N~/<`C{|R&LjgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%NgdV%N & FOgdV%NZ^5@YZx|}\HJtv"@`HOt{5Yf}uh>RhV%N>*hghV%N>* hV%N>*h@GhV%N>*h3VhV%N>*h@JhV%N>* h@JhV%NhlvhV%N>* huthV%N h=hV%N h`? hV%NhJhhV%N>*h+ hV%N>*h~tYhV%N>*h`? hV%N>* hhV%NhhV%N>* hkhV%NhV%N.B'M,-IZ/| & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%NgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%N!h Jd}T3F$J & FOgdV%NgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%NJ]cp)`k,78h^hgdV%N8^8gdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%N & FOgdV%N0Z,-f5EX & FRgdV%N & FRgdV%NgdV%N & FOgdV%N8^8gdV%N & FOgdV%NgdV%N & FOgdV%NfpE_(Neg           AUnh{VhV%N>*hhV%N>*hw{hV%N>*h2hV%N>*hE_hV%N>*hvPhV%N>*hhV%N>*hBwhV%N>*h#KhV%N>*hao^hV%N>*hZ2hV%N>*hphV%N>* jhV%NhhV%N>* hV%N>*hV%Nh>RhV%N>*2;N b# 6 F V g    & FUgdV%N & FTgdV%N & FTgdV%N & FSgdV%N & FSgdV%NgdV%N & FRgdV%NgdV%N                1xa8 & FVgdV%N & FVgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FUgdV%N & FUgdV%N89f.x)`'h=t & FXgdV%NgdV%N & FWgdV%N & FWgdV%N & FWgdV%NgdV%N & FVgdV%N & FVgdV%NgdV%NlK()@wx#34{G & FXgdV%NgdV%N & FXgdV%N & FXgdV%N1B<Lyz)5@c,Nq r O$P$@%m%y%%y(((((()Žyyr hWMhV%Nh$hV%N>* hvhV%N jhV%N h[<hV%NhEhV%N>*hahV%N>*htohV%N>*h9BhV%N>* h=hV%Nh?ehV%N>* hhV%NhmbhV%N>*hn@hV%N>*hhV%N>* hpgshV%Nh&hV%N>*hV%NhB5hV%N>*,Gyz/Jz78, & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FXgdV%NgdV%N & FXgdV%NJ Y    $!8!G!l!!!"9"~""",#P#~###&$[$$ & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%N$$%%)%%% &&L'' ((N((()F)y))))))*F*gdV%N & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%N & FYgdV%N))**.+8+=+I+,,&-'-/-B----//147494>4N4V4X4d4.5956688`:b::< <0<1<I<=== =/?@?`@|@|hihV%N>*h4ShV%N>*h9BhV%N>* hhV%Nh3xhV%N>* hY9hV%NhY9hV%N>*hT<hV%N>*hcNhV%N>*h fhV%N>*haehV%N>* hKhV%N hV%N>*h^+HhV%N>* hhV%Nh fhV%N>*hV%N jhV%N0F**.+ ,!,,/--- . .]...|///0A0B0002n3 & F[gdV%N & F[gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FZgdV%N & FZgdV%N & FZgdV%Nn33 4W4X444-5.55556667c7 8Z8o8888E9 & F]gdV%N & F]gdV%NgdV%N & F[gdV%NgdV%N & F[gdV%N & F[gdV%NE9`:b::;<1<l<<=e=!>\>s>>>&?'????N@P@^gdV%N & F\gdV%N & F\gdV%N & F\gdV%NgdV%N & F]gdV%NgdV%N & F]gdV%NP@A\AA B_BBBB'CGCHCCDD(EwEEE FFGHgdV%N & F_gdV%N & F_gdV%N & F_gdV%N & F_gdV%NgdV%N & F\gdV%N & F\gdV%N|@AAHCYCDDDEEEEH.HVIWIiIKKL#LLL:M_MMMN O`RiRSSST;VLVVVWWXyqqih1~hV%N>*hQGhV%N>*h\;hV%N>*h= hV%N>*hj]hV%N>*hD:#hV%N>*hyhV%N>*hvhV%N>*h:hV%N>*h1hV%N>*h9BhV%N>* hdhV%Nh+!hV%N>*hi#hV%N>* h>hV%NhfhV%N>* hV%N>*h#hV%N>*h*LhV%N>*hV%N)HHqHHIWIII@JJJJKKUKKK$LgLLL9M:MM & F^gdV%N & F^gdV%N & F^gdV%NgdV%N & F_gdV%N & F_gdV%NgdV%NMM_NNN1O\OO\PQ0QQRXRSSSSSlTT"UU V2V3VgdV%N & F`gdV%N & F`gdV%N & F`gdV%NgdV%N3VVVnWWWWWXXDY ZZ$[[[`\\(]]>^^*_f_ & FagdV%N & FagdV%N & FagdV%NgdV%N & F`gdV%NgdV%N & F`gdV%NXX[[[ [X_Z_7`<`x`}`~````````aab+beehh"hhhbiijWjkkkk'lClllFpHppzs hphV%NhphV%N>*hRhV%N>*h1YhV%N>*hkhV%N>* h>xhV%N hN+hV%N h>ahV%N h)bhV%NhYNhV%N>*hRhV%N>* hhV%N hU@hV%NhZ<hV%N>*h[$hV%N>* jhV%Nh!uhV%N>*hV%Nh76hV%N>*-f__`o```!akasaaaabJbb3cYcddexeff & FbgdV%N & FbgdV%NgdV%N & FagdV%NgdV%N & FfgdV%N & FfgdV%NgdV%N & FagdV%NfghJhhhhhi0ibiiijTjjj&kNkkkk&l & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%NgdV%N & FagdV%N & FagdV%NgdV%N & FbgdV%N&l'llllm0m{mmmmmFn^nn@ooHppqqr sfssgdV%NgdV%N & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%NgdV%NppuuvvvvSwYwwwwwxxx xsxxxWyhyyyzzzzzBJ\  T‚̃܃لڄ} hb`hV%Nhd*hV%N>* hDlhV%Nh 8hV%N>* h-hV%NhT24hV%N>*h(hV%N>* h]rhV%N hhV%NhhV%N>*huhV%N>* h7hV%Nh6hV%N>* hV%N>*hI_chV%N>* jhV%NhV%Nh76hV%N>*.s>tttbuuvUvvvvvSwwxoxxxxVyWyyz`zzzgdV%N & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%Nz{n{{{f||}}~t~~)AB ST & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%NgdV%N & FdgdV%N & FdgdV%N & FdgdV%NgdV%Nnʃ̃pڄۄ ~j{ΈaC & FdgdV%N & FdgdV%N & FdgdV%NgdV%N & FcgdV%N & FcgdV%Nڄۄnlprys=Ur9@ĐŐQoőב\]kLk“ȗ zs hJhV%Nh;hV%N>*hdwhV%N>*h!ZhV%N>*hqhV%N>* hyMwhV%Nh&+|hV%N>*hyMwhV%N>* he"hV%Nh[\hV%N>*h{hV%N>*h76hV%N>*hhV%N>*hv3hV%N>*hOaEhV%N>*h hV%N>*hV%N hV%N>* h`EhV%N-CjkҊ-=u r41|ǎ)gbŐgdV%N & FegdV%N & FegdV%N & FegdV%NgdV%N & FdgdV%NgdV%N & FdgdV%N7HI#EF]ْ$3CDrݔ & FhgdV%N & FhgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FggdV%N & FggdV%Nݔt2!SsN{Ǚ1 & FigdV%N & FigdV%NgdV%N & FhgdV%N & FhgdV%NgdV%N & FhgdV%N RSislm<DFKiz1%6d,<K '7ϧЧѧ٧gu)}uh04ThV%N>* hUhV%N hSvhV%NhUhV%N>* h hV%NhhV%N>* hV%N>*hahV%N>* h$ShV%NhBhV%N>*hX;GhV%N>*h|@]hV%N>*h0hV%N>* hAhV%NhwhV%N>*h76hV%N>*h%hV%N>* hJhV%NhV%N,AP`a›(Qm*i UgdV%N & FjgdV%N & FjgdV%NgdV%N & FigdV%NgdV%N & FigdV%N & FigdV%NȞ@˟ܠ,>$&̣!Iؤ#$gdV%N & FkgdV%N & FkgdV%N & FkgdV%NgdV%N & FlgdV%N & FjgdV%N$ӥa5CЧѧZ`!3C_ & FogdV%N & FngdV%N & FngdV%NgdV%N & FmgdV%N & FmgdV%NgdV%N & FkgdV%N & FkgdV%N !\l}~Rt2Ppذ ^ & FogdV%N & FogdV%NgdV%N & FogdV%N)@ܬ\|2\Pn 2±ıp  ,.FRɼ߼ 45Jzz hSZhV%Nh hV%N>* h,]hV%NhUOhV%N>*h76hV%N>* hhV%NhohV%N>* hW hV%Nh'hV%N>* jhV%NhmhV%N>* hxtNhV%NhdhV%N>*hoEhV%N>* hoEhV%Nh;hV%N>*hV%NhFhV%N>*-^`г ^ʴ^̵V!Qw & F{gdV%N & F{gdV%N & F{gdV%N & F{gdV%N & F{gdV%NgdV%N & FogdV%N & FogdV%NgdV%Nwܷ.vFX~ڻ'cɼ  & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%NgdV%N & F|gdV%N & F|gdV%N & F|gdV%NgdV%N & F{gdV%N & F{gdV%N %E JLp cS4d gdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N "e 5s D6d*>egdV%NgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N 5 )*B:$_GS,1LrnCHpthPhV%N>*h_,hV%N>*h!|hV%N>*hahV%N>*hVlhV%N>*hmhV%N>*h76hV%N>* hfVhV%Nh{h@hV%N>* h4hV%Nh#phV%N>* h#phV%N hmDhV%N hUhV%NhV%NhUhV%N>*5XB;y $`G^LgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%NL,rsHPLgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%NgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N^`=|}CpC:w & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%N & FpgdV%NgdV%N & FpgdV%N&Hn ":TV3; %1n}237J M h]UhV%N hV%N>*hHhV%N>*h>UhV%N>* h>PhV%N h)6(hV%NhmlhV%N>*hqhV%N>* hZhV%N jhV%NhJhV%N>* hJhV%NhZhV%N>*hpKhV%N>*hnW)hV%N>*hPhV%N>*hV%N3H "(pgh (J0J & FqgdV%NgdV%N & FqgdV%N & FqgdV%NgdV%N & FpgdV%NJpPf#Fx/F 1X & F}gdV%N & F}gdV%N & F}gdV%NgdV%N & FqgdV%N & FqgdV%N & FqgdV%N3j(LMsn3 & FrgdV%NgdV%N & FrgdV%N & FrgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & F}gdV%N & F}gdV%N & F}gdV%N>Kt -0(OF & FsgdV%N & FsgdV%N & FsgdV%NgdV%N & FsgdV%N & FsgdV%NgdV%NM}*1Gq*5 de*c}%*BP$V~ hhV%NhhV%N>* hhV%NhpKhV%N>*hOhV%N>*hF.hV%N>*hW/hV%N>*h]hV%N>* hdhV%N hV%N>*h rhV%N>*hMvhV%N>* hFhV%N jhV%Nh+hV%N>* h$RZhV%NhV%N hBhV%N/%8"#| ecgdV%NgdV%N & FsgdV%N & FsgdV%N & FsgdV%N & FsgdV%Nff^#WCBh & FugdV%N & FugdV%NgdV%N & FtgdV%NgdV%N & FtgdV%N & FtgdV%N     1 B     % 8    $0bp]j3Myyh.hV%N>*hNhV%N>*h$JhV%N>*hfl6hV%N>*hh hV%N>*hAmhV%N>*h/EhV%N>* hmhV%Nh[83hV%N>*hSKhV%N>* h9hV%NhhV%N>* hV%N>*h)hV%N>*h9hV%N>* jhV%NhV%NhFujhV%N>*/8:8Dm< u    1   %    gdV%N & FwgdV%N & FwgdV%N & FwgdV%NgdV%N & FugdV%N & FugdV%NgdV%N & FugdV%N r   F K b w   W]6p & FvgdV%N & FvgdV%N & FvgdV%N & FvgdV%NBj L2332W & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%NgdV%N & FvgdV%NgdV%N & FvgdV%N & FvgdV%N & FvgdV%N & FvgdV%N(!>!B!""##'#.###$#${$$$$$% %(%]%d%%%%&F&P&&&))**z++l,o,,,-.e.h.001~ ht hV%Nh!whV%N>*h/EhV%N>*hAUhV%N>*h >hV%N>*hhV%N>*hGRhV%N>*hlhV%N>*h4hV%N>*hNzhV%N>*h$ hV%N>* h3AhV%Nh2whV%N>* h(hV%NhSvhV%N>*hV%NhvfhV%N>*1W-x,\)h Nb  @!B!!$"S"gdV%N & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%NS"""# #b#c###${$$% % %]%%%%%F&&&'r(4) & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%NgdV%N & FxgdV%N & FxgdV%N4)V)z)|)D***x+z+,p,,,---=.j../&//// & FygdV%N & FygdV%N & FygdV%NgdV%N & FxgdV%NgdV%N & FxgdV%N/F001111 202Y222#3A3l333D4 5`5b5^6_6w66 7gdV%N & FygdV%N & FygdV%N & FygdV%N & FygdV%N161p11X2Y2`2a2b2c2s2222222p55w66668899<<<<<<<<k=~=4>D>>>1@<@Z@j@TBVBlBvBBBB h)!hV%Nh\hV%N>* jhV%NhyhV%N>*h)!hV%N>*h%hV%N>*hhV%N>*hFujhV%N>*hhV%N>*h^hV%N>* hV%N>* jhDB@hV%N hDB@hV%NhDB@hV%N>* hFhV%NhV%N ht hV%N3 7>7889,:E:::0;s;;;;(<|<<<=j=k==4>gdV%N & F~gdV%N & F~gdV%NgdV%N & FzgdV%N & FzgdV%N & FzgdV%NgdV%N & FygdV%N4>>J??@R@S@@UAVBB2DoDDD(EVFXF G^GGGHI & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & F~gdV%NgdV%N & F~gdV%NBBB CnFFGHxIIIJJJKKKKLLLL&M8MYNaNcNfNOOOOQQMRNRcRdRqRRRRLSTSySSSSSzzh+hV%N>* hV%N>* h2!ahV%NhhV%N>* hYChV%NhlhV%N>*hQ{hV%N>*hhV%N>*hhV%N>* jhV%Nh(0IhV%N>*h}hV%N>* h6hV%Nh["KhV%N>*he.hV%N>*hhV%N>*hV%Nh%hV%N>*0IJIxIIJ]JJ KRKKKKK&LqLLLMsMM#NhNNN & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NNDOOOPPP&QQQQRdRR&SLSySSSSNTTTU9U~U & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NSSSSSSS TMTNTTT V0V W"WjXrXtXwXXX[8[[[[[[[[\^^aa[b\bbcffIgJg{t hThV%N jhV%NhhV%N>* he(hV%N h[hV%Nh[-hV%N>*hv>hV%N>* h6hV%Nh}hV%N>*h~|)hV%N>*h;hV%N>*h@hV%N>* h}qhV%Nh}qhV%N>*h5xhV%N>* hV%N>*h#hV%N>*hV%Nh+hV%N>*+~UUU4VV"WWXxXXXXYY ZIZZZZZ[[s[t[[[gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N[[2\\]^q^^^7_`_v__`h```?aaaaaa & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%Naabbb*h\/hV%N>*hAhV%N>*hQZhV%N>* hrL~hV%Nh|8hV%N>* hhV%NhzhV%N>*hhV%N>*hhV%N>* hhV%N hqhV%Nh~hV%N5 h"hV%Nh$hV%N>* jhV%N h\Q+hV%Nhn8^hV%N>*hV%Nh{hV%N>*&kJkkk*lWlll6mmmmmnnnnn o_olooo & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nop>p|ppq0q1q7qFq[q\q $IfgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N \q]qlqwqq0''' $IfgdV%Nkd$$Ifl\ |)z z z z  t(0644 lap(qqqqqqqXkd$$Ifl\ |)z z z z t0644 la $IfgdV%NqqqqrraXXXX $IfgdV%Nkd$$Ifl\ |)z z z z t0644 lar r rErXrrrsa\TTLDL & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%Nkd$$Ifl\ |)z z z z t0644 las\ssss#tCttttuRuquuuuvdv~vvvvvvw wiw & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Niwwwwx(xUxtxxxxyyWyjyyyyyyyy zz&z & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N&z\zjzz{4{l{{{G|||}J}h}}}3~m~~~ & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N~  pqB0TV.zЄ E`$ & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N8n~ Ed~ێ)ӑrtfz^_rʟ˟ҡUfrxxs hV%N>*hNRhV%N>*hPzhV%N>* hHHhV%Nh@*hV%N>*h8hV%N>*h*hV%N>* h`BhV%N hxhV%N h?yhV%Nh?yhV%N>* jhV%Nh|8hV%N>*h[hV%N>*h#hV%N>*hwhV%N>*hZhV%N>*hV%NhTNhV%N>*,$@v):T‹0GY /uύM & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NMgˎێ*@YqWې$c` & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N`ƒ6P*ҕ6H>-Fb<| & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N|_ڞS>?̠ߠH`ҡU:jkţgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NryŤJʫԫ;BUVMRRZkh|~ȰͰΰܰPkԱƿ hddhV%N hV%N>* h}xhV%Nh}xhV%N>* hWtlhV%NhWtlhV%N>*hyhV%N>*hOhV%N>* hcwhV%NhcwhV%N>*h hV%N>*h~hV%N>* h1hV%N jhV%N hghV%NhV%Nh.hV%N>*41wƤ8t=ϨKU۩ܩlxzʫ & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N;mnNӭCԮJKׯ} & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N}~ΰϰ&Pͱ%f&gKN & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%Nʳ$|3F+78?T־׾jy#4UV{|\]j|~ hjkhV%NhjkhV%N>* h`BhV%Nh/hV%N>* hhV%NhB hV%N>*h9HhV%N>*hLhV%N>*h #WhV%N>* hV%N>* jhV%NhUhV%N>*hN`hV%N>* h hV%N hhV%NhWtlhV%N>* h hV%NhV%N.Nӵ%u3qK\vN``8gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N8>$c XY߿WZ & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NS5j<bBN & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N 5V|+C] & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NUP<=2hD|- & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N%.7>GM\rHZDV*8 ,-Z[*/0=?FU=Pj}v h hV%NhTyhV%N>* hQphV%Nh3hV%N>* hMhV%NhMhV%N>*h:RMhV%N>*h hV%N>* hLhV%NhchV%N>* ho$hV%NhShV%N>* hXhV%Nh$-hV%N>* hV%N>*h[hV%N>*ho$hV%N>*hV%N hchV%N-)@[:Kz{/m>?5gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N56ViM%3Rr & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NQ+x<aZ`b FstgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Njvp{Haaxtz|(*PR`fp&'(.FMqvyyqhWhV%N>*hQ@hV%N>*h;{hV%N>*hCbfhV%N>* hihV%NhihV%N>*hwhV%N>* hV%N>*h>ihV%N>*hY"hhV%N>* ho:hV%NhX)hV%N>*h~hV%N>*h_hV%N>* jhV%Nh*hV%N>*hFhV%N>*hV%NhkhV%N>*,!n@A?m)aRt & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nt%;*`R;L (|gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N-U6%j+sRgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N(NYpF1q@N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NyFab/40>BLN\K e      3<(&2zrjh!`hV%N>*hhV%N>*hjjhV%N>*h_UhV%N>*hX hV%N>*h] hV%N>* hxhV%NhxhV%N>*hVhV%N>*hbhV%N>*h95hV%N>* hV%N>* hXDWhV%NhXDWhV%N>*h+hV%N>* jhV%N hmdhV%Nh[hV%N>*hV%NhWhV%N>*)N Y <zP4 I s     V    gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N C D   L   c 6(Lw*dl"@ & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N7>Oi"$&oHgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N2,8Vpxz4!5!!!!!O(P(g(x(** +,++++ 0 00333P3n344k5l5z599yqhfhV%N>*hDhV%N>*h%hV%N>* hE7hV%Nh2hV%N>* h =hV%N ht.hV%NhnChV%N>*hs!hV%N>*h>=hV%N>*hhV%N>*h&4|hV%N>* hyPhV%Nh`$hV%N>* jhV%Nh@^hV%N>*h^lhV%N>*h hV%N>*hV%N,H V!,   5!T!^!!!!!! & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N!"""f## $$$&%8%%&b&&&&&&#'='>'''"(`(gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N`(((")#)M)n))))5*K*a*****+ ++++r,,,-gdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N-:-v- .>.j.. /Z/// 0A000021H1Z1}1112h22 & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N223H3I34/4j4444I5\5l55666h77l88&99.: & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N.::H;;L<<<6==J>>??@@e@@ANAAAA6BBhCgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N9&<B<L=p=@@AA%A;AAA]EpEbHlHJJJJK*KPKRKtK@MMMOOOOORRSSSSSSSU0URW\W^WfWhWoWqWxWWW(YºhhoshV%N>*hnChV%N>*hghV%N>* hghV%NhyhV%N>*hhV%N>* hV%N>*h(hV%N>*h"phV%N>* jhV%N h =hV%N hi]hV%Nh =hV%N>*hphV%N>*hV%N6hCC$DmDDEMEEE"FiFFF GHGnHHH8IIIIDJJJJ & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NJDKK$LMLLL8M9M^MMM1NNNOVOOOPJP\P & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N\PPPPBQQQQSRRR$SeSSSNT URUUV)VdVVVVgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NVAWyWW>XX&Y(YrY ZLZZB[[[\T\\\\\M]v]]]]gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N(YPYYYJZLZZZ[[\\N]c]g]u]]]]]c`d```aacc#c*c6cicdd"g$g:iHijj@khkl mBnhnpyyyh)hV%N>* h*h+hV%N>* h`{hV%NhhV%N>* jhV%Nh@lhV%N>* hnhV%NhnhV%N>*h< hV%N>* h7 hV%NhF9hV%N>*h5?hV%N>*hA_'hV%N>* hVZhV%NhV%NhE3hV%N>*.]]^^__%`d`x`````agg4h6hfhh iiii & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NijjZjjjkk@kkHlllmnBnn@oopOppppq & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%Nppaqrqstuuwwxxxxyy{{}~~~ʁ_`i{89 !YZpvˆhQhV%N>*h3hV%N>* hSGhV%Nhp-hV%N>* h"zhV%NhvhV%N>* jhV%NhEhV%N>*h@lhV%N>*h9hV%N>* hcIhV%NhcIhV%N>* h9hV%N hOhV%NhOhV%N>*hV%Nh~jhV%N>*0qJqaqTrrlssstuuuxv*hdhV%N>*h3hV%N>* hi hV%N hhV%Nhlm^hV%N>*hEkhV%N>* hEkhV%Nhg"ihV%N>*hahV%N>* jhV%Nh\hV%N>* hV%N>*hFhV%N>*hz;hV%N>*hOI\hV%N>*hV%NhbehV%N>*, 4ijFQێ܎0яҏ,zؐgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NؐhR 7s)Η'b֘ & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N%yޚ#SٛP2UVП  & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N!(V[*()PdϨWfԬլfu֮#5xphr ChV%N>*h| hV%N>*hayhV%N>*hU+hV%N>* h XhV%Nh9pDhV%N>*hrhV%N>* hV%N>*h5hV%N>*hZhV%N>* hx!hV%Nh]hV%N>*h_u?hV%N>*h*h1~hV%N>*h@`hV%N>*hhV%N>*hV%Nh{hV%N>*, 9Ƞ>ѡRoݤ):sץ & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NץV|G`KLegdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N[լVWfXjR & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N#}12ϲ$p%^u۴*8 & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N59CDzβ#7>VZ`gL_ҶӶںۺ ( 4 jhV%Nh!hV%N>*h^hV%N>*h6hV%N>*h hV%N>* hhV%Nh*hhV%N>* h-hV%Nhz4hV%N>*h_RhV%N>*h}*5hV%N>* hV%N>* hihV%NhihV%N>*h&hV%N>*hV%N58sҵLӶ@T2ۺgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NoHf XGxվTi & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Ni%?zK8:1} & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N4v D^TUigdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N4D\^bhiz=>=G*9;ACJ   MTh8}hV%N>*hLhV%N>*h$hV%N>*h M hV%N>*h'[hV%N>*h@ hV%N>* hM7hV%N hV%N>* hhV%NhhV%N>* jhV%NhShV%N>* hShV%NhM7hV%N>*hV%N h-hV%N4>i,Q-TjLLb~ & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N~(m KZZ & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NQ)FqYAM & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N(x|*+=V\ Z\bmtufx}hhV%N>* hV%N>*hDIhV%N>* h5hV%NhhV%N>*h5hV%N>* hhV%Nh?hV%N>*hzhV%N>* h-`qhV%Nh(hV%N>*hQhV%N>* hQhV%N h{WhV%Nh3hhV%N>*hvhV%N>*hV%N hvhV%N0L{|x+~YTP & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N6"m1t\F^_ & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N_tZP,&VL, & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N ~2Prt?@  EFefWXno]hxhsUDhV%N>*h,hhV%N>* jhV%NhqhV%N>*hCjhV%N>* h hV%Nh hV%N>*h[WUhV%N>*hdhV%N>*huPhV%N>*h-`qhV%N>*hV%Nh;6hV%N>* hV%N>* hz1hV%N8,.(p~22DIQ & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%NQt@ Ff%8CIfp & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NZ:]x 0 y    ! W    & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nxyy    T | : H     z   %6i~j8L\{ h2hV%Nh2hV%N>* h=*hV%Nh=*hV%N>*hnmYhV%N>* hV%N>*h5EhV%N>*hChV%N>* jhV%NhShV%N>*h}K2hV%N>*hJ hV%N>*hhV%N>*hb*h|~hV%N>*hhV%N>*hV%N hsUDhV%N-  A T      : i   % K z 4V2 & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N$<d%hRg}Xw & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NwDij8!j7 & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NT U   6!=!!!##3$>$L$&&((Q(e(++,,,....b0t0000B6N6#;*;;zrjhxzhV%N>*h]#hV%N>*h2hV%N>* h(hV%Nh(hV%N>*hehV%N>*hYhV%N>*hIhV%N>* jhV%Nh3whV%N>*hf{hV%N>*hhV%N>*hhV%N>*h#5hV%N>* hvhV%N hV%N>*hlshV%N>* h2hV%NhV%NhtnrhV%N>*& U    !!Q!h!p!!!"O""""""#O# & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NO#c####$3$x$$ %[%s%%%%5&g&&&'O'''(( & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N(Q(((=)W)t)))/*d***)+k+++,t,,-..z/ & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%Nz/0b00001B2222V33%4<4u44456778t89^9 & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N^99:[::::;u;v;;;2<<==;>p>>>?t???@gdV%NgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N;;>(>*>0>2>:>>>>>>g?r???@@ @@@EBSBBBBB'C.C[FlFGGGHHJKNNOOOO~vvh!0hV%N>*h hV%N>*h^/hV%N>*hThV%N>*h/hV%N>*h$fhV%N>*h+hV%N>*hs{ hV%N>*hO0hV%N>* hB{hV%NhB{hV%N>*hnhV%N>*h3whV%N>* h +hV%N hBhV%NhOhV%N>*hV%NhQdhV%N>*,@@ AAAAB*hNhV%N>*h3whV%N>*h@hV%N>* hu hV%Nh5 hV%N>* hV%N>*hu hV%N>*hX$hV%N>*hhV%N>* h9AhV%NhBhV%N>*h( hV%N>*hV%N h!0hV%N3hUUVVrWXWXXX3YnYYY0ZbZZZ[I[J[}[[[&\a\gdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Na\\\]d]]^M^N^^^___#`a```2aaab & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%Nb%bubvbbbb,cXcccdjddeeeee e e eeeedgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%N & FgdV%NgdV%N & FgdV%NeeLeMeVeWeXedeeefeeeeeeeegdV%N &`#$gdV%Nh]hgdV%N &`#$gdV%N  !d`'gdV%NeMeNeTeUeVeXeYe_e`ebecedeeeeeeeeee hu hV%NhV%N0J!mHnHu hV%N0J!jhV%N0J!UhV%N& 001h/ =!"#$`%-01hP:pV%N/ =!"#$`%}DyK _Toc279309301}DyK _Toc279309302}DyK _Toc279309303}DyK _Toc279309304}DyK _Toc279309305}DyK _Toc279309306}DyK _Toc279309307}DyK _Toc279309308}DyK _Toc279309309}DyK _Toc279309310}DyK _Toc279309311}DyK _Toc279309312}DyK _Toc279309313}DyK _Toc279309314}DyK _Toc279309315}DyK _Toc279309316}DyK _Toc279309317}DyK _Toc279309318}DyK _Toc279309319}DyK _Toc279309320}DyK _Toc279309321}DyK _Toc279309322}DyK _Toc279309323}DyK _Toc279309324}DyK _Toc279309325}DyK _Toc279309326}DyK _Toc279309327}DyK _Toc279309328}DyK _Toc279309329}DyK _Toc279309330}DyK _Toc279309331}DyK _Toc279309332}DyK _Toc279309333}DyK _Toc279309334}DyK _Toc279309335}DyK _Toc279309336}DyK _Toc279309337}DyK _Toc279309338}DyK _Toc279309339}DyK _Toc279309340}DyK _Toc279309341}DyK _Toc279309342}DyK _Toc279309343}DyK _Toc279309344}DyK _Toc279309345}DyK _Toc279309346}DyK _Toc279309347}DyK _Toc279309348}DyK _Toc279309349}DyK _Toc279309350}DyK _Toc279309351}DyK _Toc279309352}DyK _Toc279309353}DyK _Toc279309354}DyK _Toc279309355}DyK _Toc279309356}DyK _Toc279309357}DyK _Toc279309358}DyK _Toc279309359}DyK _Toc279309360}DyK _Toc279309361}DyK _Toc279309362}DyK _Toc279309363}DyK _Toc279309364}DyK _Toc279309365}DyK _Toc279309366}DyK _Toc279309367}DyK _Toc279309368}DyK _Toc279309369}DyK _Toc279309370}DyK _Toc279309371}DyK _Toc279309372}DyK _Toc279309373}DyK _Toc279309374}DyK _Toc279309375}DyK _Toc279309376}DyK _Toc279309377}DyK _Toc279309378}DyK _Toc279309379}DyK _Toc279309380}DyK _Toc279309381}DyK _Toc279309382}DyK _Toc279309383}DyK _Toc279309384}DyK _Toc279309385}DyK _Toc279309386}DyK _Toc279309387}DyK _Toc279309388}DyK _Toc279309389}DyK _Toc279309390}DyK _Toc279309391}DyK _Toc279309392}DyK _Toc279309393}DyK _Toc279309394}DyK _Toc279309395}DyK _Toc279309396}DyK _Toc279309397}DyK _Toc279309398}DyK _Toc279309399}DyK _Toc279309400}DyK _Toc279309401}DyK _Toc279309402}DyK _Toc279309403}DyK _Toc279309404}DyK _Toc279309405}DyK _Toc279309406}DyK _Toc279309407}DyK _Toc279309408}DyK _Toc279309409}DyK _Toc279309410}DyK _Toc279309411}DyK _Toc279309412}DyK _Toc279309413}DyK _Toc279309414}DyK _Toc279309415}DyK _Toc279309416}DyK _Toc279309417}DyK _Toc279309418}DyK _Toc279309419}DyK _Toc279309420}DyK _Toc279309421}DyK _Toc279309422}DyK _Toc279309423}DyK _Toc279309424}DyK _Toc279309425}DyK _Toc279309426}DyK _Toc279309427}DyK _Toc279309428}DyK _Toc279309429}DyK _Toc279309430}DyK _Toc279309431}DyK _Toc279309432}DyK _Toc279309433}DyK _Toc279309434}DyK _Toc279309435}DyK _Toc279309436}DyK _Toc279309437}DyK _Toc279309438}DyK _Toc279309439}DyK _Toc279309440}DyK _Toc279309441}DyK _Toc279309442}DyK _Toc279309443}DyK _Toc279309444}DyK _Toc279309445}DyK _Toc279309446}DyK _Toc279309447}DyK _Toc279309448}DyK _Toc279309449}DyK _Toc279309450}DyK _Toc279309451}DyK _Toc279309452}DyK _Toc279309453}DyK _Toc279309454}DyK _Toc279309455}DyK _Toc279309456}DyK _Toc279309457}DyK _Toc279309458}DyK _Toc279309459}DyK _Toc279309460}DyK _Toc279309461}DyK _Toc279309462}DyK _Toc279309463}DyK _Toc279309464}DyK _Toc279309465}DyK _Toc279309466}DyK _Toc279309467}DyK _Toc279309468}DyK _Toc279309469}DyK _Toc279309470}DyK _Toc279309471}DyK _Toc279309472}DyK _Toc279309473}DyK _Toc279309474}DyK _Toc279309475}DyK _Toc279309476}DyK _Toc279309477}DyK _Toc279309478}DyK _Toc279309479}DyK _Toc279309480}DyK _Toc279309481}DyK _Toc279309482}DyK _Toc279309483}DyK _Toc279309484}DyK _Toc279309485}DyK _Toc279309486}DyK _Toc279309487}DyK _Toc279309488}DyK _Toc279309489}DyK _Toc279309490}DyK _Toc279309491}DyK _Toc279309492}DyK _Toc279309493}DyK _Toc279309494}DyK _Toc279309495}DyK _Toc279309496}DyK _Toc279309497}DyK _Toc279309498}DyK _Toc279309499}DyK _Toc279309500}DyK _Toc279309501}DyK _Toc279309502}DyK _Toc279309503}DyK _Toc279309504}DyK _Toc279309505}DyK _Toc279309506}DyK _Toc279309507}DyK _Toc279309508}DyK _Toc279309509}DyK _Toc279309510}DyK _Toc279309511}DyK _Toc279309512}DyK _Toc279309513}DyK _Toc279309514}DyK _Toc279309515}DyK _Toc279309516}DyK _Toc279309517}DyK _Toc279309518}DyK _Toc279309519}DyK _Toc279309520}DyK _Toc279309521}DyK _Toc279309522}DyK _Toc279309523}DyK _Toc279309524}DyK _Toc279309525}DyK _Toc279309526}DyK _Toc279309527}DyK _Toc279309528}DyK _Toc279309529}DyK _Toc279309530}DyK _Toc279309531}DyK _Toc279309532}DyK _Toc279309533}DyK _Toc279309534}DyK _Toc279309535}DyK _Toc279309536}DyK _Toc279309537}DyK _Toc279309538}DyK _Toc279309539}DyK _Toc279309540}DyK _Toc279309541}DyK _Toc279309542}DyK _Toc279309543}DyK _Toc279309544}DyK _Toc279309545}DyK _Toc279309546}DyK _Toc279309547}DyK _Toc279309548}DyK _Toc279309549}DyK _Toc279309550}DyK _Toc279309551}DyK _Toc279309552}DyK _Toc279309553}DyK _Toc279309554}DyK _Toc279309555}DyK _Toc279309556}DyK _Toc279309557}DyK _Toc279309558}DyK _Toc279309559}DyK _Toc279309560}DyK _Toc279309561}DyK _Toc279309562}DyK _Toc279309563}DyK _Toc279309564}DyK _Toc279309565}DyK _Toc279309566}DyK _Toc279309567}DyK _Toc279309568}DyK _Toc279309569}DyK _Toc279309570}DyK _Toc279309571}DyK _Toc279309572}DyK _Toc279309573}DyK _Toc279309574}DyK _Toc279309575}DyK _Toc279309576}DyK _Toc279309577}DyK _Toc279309578}DyK _Toc279309579}DyK _Toc279309580}DyK _Toc279309581}DyK _Toc279309582}DyK _Toc279309583}DyK _Toc279309584}DyK _Toc279309585}DyK _Toc279309586}DyK _Toc279309587}DyK _Toc279309588}DyK _Toc279309589}DyK _Toc279309590}DyK _Toc279309591}DyK _Toc279309592}DyK _Toc279309593}DyK _Toc279309594}DyK _Toc279309595}DyK _Toc279309596}DyK _Toc279309597}DyK _Toc279309598}DyK _Toc279309599}DyK _Toc279309600}DyK _Toc279309601}DyK _Toc279309602}DyK _Toc279309603}DyK _Toc279309604}DyK _Toc279309605}DyK _Toc279309606}DyK _Toc279309607}DyK _Toc279309608}DyK _Toc279309609}DyK _Toc279309610}DyK _Toc279309611}DyK _Toc279309612}DyK _Toc279309613}DyK _Toc279309614}DyK _Toc279309615}DyK _Toc279309616}DyK _Toc279309617}DyK _Toc279309618}DyK _Toc279309619}DyK _Toc279309620}DyK _Toc279309621}DyK _Toc279309622}DyK _Toc279309623}DyK _Toc279309624}DyK _Toc279309625}DyK _Toc279309626}DyK _Toc279309627}DyK _Toc279309628}DyK _Toc279309629}DyK _Toc279309630}DyK _Toc279309631}DyK _Toc279309632}DyK _Toc279309633}DyK _Toc279309634}DyK _Toc279309635}DyK _Toc279309636}DyK _Toc279309637}DyK _Toc279309638}DyK _Toc279309639}DyK _Toc279309640}DyK _Toc279309641}DyK _Toc279309642}DyK _Toc279309643}DyK _Toc279309644}DyK _Toc279309645}DyK _Toc279309646}DyK _Toc279309647}DyK _Toc279309648}DyK _Toc279309649}DyK _Toc279309650}DyK _Toc279309651}DyK _Toc279309652}DyK _Toc279309653}DyK _Toc279309654}DyK _Toc279309655}DyK _Toc279309656}DyK _Toc279309657}DyK _Toc279309658}DyK _Toc279309659}DyK _Toc279309660}DyK _Toc279309661}DyK _Toc279309662$$If!vh5z 5z 5z 5z #vz :V l t065z $$If!vh565#v6#v:V lW t06565T}$$If!vh50"#v0":V lL t0650"T$$If!vh5X5$ 5\ 5X#vX#v$ #v\ #vX:V l@ t065X5$ 5\ 5XT}$$If!vh5##v#:V l  t065#T$$If!vh55#v#v:V l   t0655pT$$If!vh55#v#v:V l t0655T$$If!vh5z 5z 5z 5z #vz :V l  t(065z p($$If!vh5z 5z 5z 5z #vz :V l t065z $$If!vh5z 5z 5z 5z #vz :V l t065z $$If!vh5z 5z 5z 5z #vz :V l t065z 7666666666~~~~vvvvv666666>666666666>6>6666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~PJ_HmH nH sH tH X`X .-\Normald)B*CJPJ^J_HmH nHphsH tH\@\ E% Heading 1$$ F@&5:>*PJ\^JaJ X@X 8q Heading 2$$ & Fx@&5PJ\^JaJT@T -`q Heading 3$$ & F@&6PJ\^JN@N u Heading 4$$ & F@&PJ^Jh@h %\ Heading 5$$d@&^@ !B*OJPJQJ^JaJph$?`tH n@n &\ Heading 6$$d@&^'6B*OJPJQJ]^JaJph$?`tH n@n '\ Heading 7$$d@&^'6B*OJPJQJ]^JaJph@@@tH h@h (\ Heading 8$$d@&^!B*CJOJPJQJ^Jph@@@tH n @n )\ Heading 9 $$d@&^'6B*CJOJPJQJ]^Jph@@@tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R Table Normal4 l4a (k`( No List JJ u Heading 4 CharB*PJ^JaJphPP -`qHeading 3 Char6B*PJ\^JaJphVV `Heading 1 Char!5:>*B*PJ\^JaJ phP!P 8qHeading 2 Char5B*PJ\^JaJph\@\ pTOC 1"$$ Fxp) @& :>*PJ\^JaJV@!V pTOC 2$$ & F@& ^CJPJ\^JaJR@AR pTOC 3$$ & F@& ^CJPJ^JaJN@AN pTOC 4$$ & F@& ^ CJPJ^JDAD \-p TOC Heading  F@& :;aJH.@H \-0 TOA Headingh$ 5;X,@X A~0Table of Authorities$^`:@: y0Headerd!DD y0 Header CharB*PJ^JaJph: @: y0Footerd!DD y0 Footer CharB*PJ^JaJph@@@  List Paragraph ^m$FY@F 0 Document Mapd OJQJaJTT 0Document Map CharB*OJPJQJ^Jph.)@.  0 Page NumberB!B 0Placeholder Text B*phN@2N $0 Balloon Text#dCJOJQJ^JaJ\A\ #0Balloon Text Char!B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJphRQR \ Heading 5 CharB*OJPJQJ^Jph$?`tH XaX \ Heading 6 Char#6B*OJPJQJ]^Jph$?`tH XqX \ Heading 7 Char#6B*OJPJQJ]^Jph@@@tH ZZ \ Heading 8 Char%B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph@@@tH ``  \ Heading 9 Char+6B*CJOJPJQJ]^JaJph@@@tH B'B "e0Comment ReferenceCJaJ>@> ,"e0 Comment Text+daJLL +"e0Comment Text CharB*PJ^JphHj@H ."e0Comment Subject-5CJ\aJ`` -"e0Comment Subject Char5B*CJPJ\^JaJphj`j = Table Grid7:V/0/6U6 f\a0 Hyperlink >*B*ph<^@< 0 Normal (Web)1^JaJ6@6 ipTOC 52^ CJOJQJ6@6 ipTOC 63^ CJOJQJ6@6 ipTOC 74^ CJOJQJ6@6 ipTOC 85^ CJOJQJ6@6 ipTOC 96^ CJOJQJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0 u$Nwc$ans@8JbVKS(.Y$8MVgLYS]"(U֎_o[gv; f>KH|;\XV!]օ Oȥsh]Hg3߶PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!!Z!theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOoE#F{/'M:U i-q;N3' G$$DAč*iEP~wq4;{o?g\=J: BR6{4MGv{i5@R4ŒL nb\ V*[_X! cH \$X-Dބ-,j+ iR[! kF1URLjHl_9m&fa1,h5,l\YSsd+r]SncVu:v^3ੵ] 9][5\|EҌkVky-*5 1_46Y lWY {ym (f4ݟAv2l _j-OQ ev)~'}xPiB$IO1Êk9IcLHY<;*v7'aE\h>=^,*8q;^*4?Wq{nԉogAߤ>8f2*<")QHxK |]Zz)ӁMSm@\&>!7;wP3[EBU`1OC5VD Xa?p S4[NS28;Y[꫙,T1|n;+/ʕj\\,E:! t4.T̡ e1 }; [z^pl@ok0e g@GGHPXNT,مde|*YdT\Y䀰+(T7$ow2缂#G֛ʥ?q NK-/M,WgxFV/FQⷶO&ecx\QLW@H!+{[|{!KAi `cm2iU|Y+ ި [[vxrNE3pmR =Y04,!&0+WC܃@oOS2'Sٮ05$ɤ]pm3Ft GɄ-!y"ӉV . `עv,O.%вKasSƭvMz`3{9+e@eՔLy7W_XtlPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 /_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!!Z!theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ'* theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]% #v  ( 5GDMGmPf:rL S  Y  g [ K@,{.{&GSXPO4=N#:;?\ /!!!>"""E###$f$$'%^%%&e&&&<'{''%(((2)))D*x**1+++$,Z,,-u--.q..$///K000U112o22$333N445Z55 6R667y77$888 9l993:::E;;;Q<<=q==>i>>???M@@@DA{AAA8BBB-CCCADDDHEEE@FFFQGGGBHHH9IIIIGJJKkKK4LLLMfMM%NNN!OvOO8PxPP8QQQJR|RR@SSS T}TT/UkUUUHVVVUWWWVXXXAYYYgZZZX[[[X\\\]]]^u^^_g__ `j`` aWaaaQbbbRcc dCdvdd5eee2fffFg|gg hWhhh?%&=>@A5[\ͣΣФɧʧXܨ'v `0\̫!fݬrݭ?y/h;j ExбK;;pٴRϵGo!j̷Hڸ4qIYѻKܼ_Gw MsϿ;WPj;vN Ux@{C-b`5df@Oue<m#Ko Y_Dq 8Ob(Y@ 1v'xtGy48Y bA E _q b@`}2\0J7w0f 9d<O H"gP+lZXezi A}D:t5&$ZEdt9 ^   / g   * _ x    _   z  XBMEcH*WYlc~j*{Mm^Q!J$F e  !\!!! "|"""#2#h###$z$$$&%e%%%%B&&&.'e'''G((( )1)w))**/*a***U+++,=,t,,,,4-A-v--*.o..;/////0r0011k1111&2f222222@333394l44445r555C6w666>777&8Z88899d999::F:q:::;R;e;;;;4<Q<d<<< =]===.>D>>>>?,?K?x?~??????6@n@@@@/AfAAAA4BBB CiCCCDZDDDEKEEEE%F9FsFFF#GGG HHQHHHHI>IIIIJ:J;J^JJ KPK|K}KKK9LLL M)MRMMMM0NMNNN9OOOPPP,P~PPQFQQQRVRRR6S~SSSSTTT%U}UUUVgVVWRWWWXKXXXXYMYoYYY=ZrZ [([V[[[#\z\\]M]]]]/^^^^__"_I____!`y``gaaa5bbbbFcccXdddd;eteeeffkfffg^gggggThhhi:iiiij^jjj7k8kkkrlsl4m[mmm n'nnnogooApppq>qoqqqqrSrrrss~sstFtttu@ucuuu7vFvZvgvtvvvww_wwww%x[x~xxxxxy?y[yyy$zzzz,{o{{{ ||5|j|||}?}}}&~S~~~~@~2XzkS3NEp„ÄvׅW}و2>v͊܊5hߋ.|?̍Xj&g@{ȐR{בQ{vԓ!d|J:ݖ(C×Hޘ 9bhޙ5Yp̚#f-HŜܜ+,5?CSah{ʝѝڝ  =:q#ݠXʡ͢m$wxϤZ[6 ZӨaө(uĪ?w٫)jȯ`=_Բ׳tӴյtݶ1ytbǹѺf;sOѽ4T6^_?@Qm fgh*qrs1h:Atu*q7A]%<QRijr{4 ^@HM<h 6j5`+gh9:,-Fgs<m;0Dd;XY/E){*@Q bbmWR@Av1oDE^_#$ 'Ii6P 2ALVi 5kjT/ix?k>mnqVh&m+}"F#y3qa dIWOf7vU 1    = I      , S   J    VyEG 2DLG'^I9hz+P L)*eT} 5 e   !*!!!!")"~"""(######$T$$$$$%G%%%%&0&i&&&'&'w'''(@(((A)n)))(*Q*****#+j++++++F,,,--5-Z---- .F.R...=///0\00:111-2z222I34i445[555'6h666797z7778@8888A9999P:::J;w;;;#<\<<<9=S====>h>>>?H???@d@@@@@@AlAAA(BRBvBBBB#CqCCC5DDDDEEzEE FFGcGG"HFHHH/IzIIJAJ_JJJ)KdKKL+LgLLM_MMM,N?NzNNNMOyOOO P^PPP QSQsQQQQQQQRRSXSSS$TZTjTTTUmUUUUCVuVVVVWZWWWW!XVXX Y-YYYY*ZPZZZQ[x[[[+\,\L\j\\\<]h]]]^^^^___``h``` agaaab@bLbbb3cvcccdVdjdddeMeeee5ffff[ggghHhuhhhhJiiiijj%jBjTjjjjjkk0k;kNkdkekkkkkkkk7lrllmmm-m@mTmUmlmmmmmmn]nnn7ooooppppqDqqqq#r\rxrrrr5snssttgtttuu[u|uuuvWvvvwgwww$x_xxxxGyyy=zzzz3{4{t{{ |f|||}w}} ~9~s~~~EI"qF΂Qq Td P RSyMN_|}߉9r;CxU֍ YF_Dב=>2Q۔X˕Gx5r1W;ڙ0T0mHӜ*ŝ2S%Vpß';<z6m_`3ئhYϨ%;dRGH۫ܫĬŬVWX.sn;<snoҲWųճ/Yд%fѵo̶/Ƿ=x2۹9SyzϺ-klǻ8μ43\8X,u(p._s?e&'Qn*b9GtY+,M1xYI7}$ayzMq JRT<DTdu^%BHzXj0W+^<X{D#e~g\Fvw !J _g%k"3Di%>}Dq? de/no 0r^:Y-kd ?sAwj(g ./]#S<RhQF*kCIbA]F7b~I`1_yMuND `W:7jR ; k       p q      ; s   : e    * O     ,a >w'l$7=evJx:E 4de@_2FGm <-Uhx6 )* ! c   C!!! "2"j"k""" #`###$[$$$ %Y%%% &F&o&&&&Q''' (3(}((()Z)[))))*2*r***U+e+f++ ,,,y,,,,,a---.W..../i/j////^000 11*1|11112V2j2y2223:3k333 4^44445X555646E6[6 7#7B777'8=8K8889I9x99999::G:x::`;R<S<<a==>>>?>>>>??@E@s@t@@AA4BFBBBB,CrCCCC8DiDD;EIIIINJJJKKKL@LLLMMaMMM N+N@NNNN6OpOOOO!P>Q?QQQ(R)RRASFTTTT,UUU VmVVWW@WWWWXOXXX/Y0YYYCZvZZ([l[[[\@\\\\-]j]#^^^^^H_p___2`D`E```aaaaakb|bbc[cccdBd}ddd1exeeef-ffff3g}ggggg'h\hhEikiiii'jvjj-krkklGlVljlllll>mrmm n[nnnnn=oooooPp{ppppp7qiqqqq rCrrrrTssstEttttuNuyuuuuvavv9wwwxxfxxx(y{yyyMzzz{{I{{{{|P||||?}W}X}}}"~i~j~~~9gh\]%6 ABP}~5xńT7rIr;Gbʊˊ->?Njȋߋ[Ōƌ(;<_rs֎5^_{S@c͑+Tݒ>^ē 7Ɣ7dܖ!g 2iޘ./Lt&SoCќߜ"lmɝLϞߞUJ=NOŢ֢5ģԣˤ̤s@fCh6H|7Dxש?uȪ[ë*e!i~ޭrJK6cLl b{-f̳e8Q7ݶ3fݷ T~V=o$cݻ;mʼ)` OPʾ%e-C6eYZ Mr jT3LFqDE'1Z2^#U #p5rG)*PKs^(Qp \ _,#pjYB@wM;4 eZ&'yz!JRcj_O#(?T{)g4h:MGD%& &%J kO[A$x)stFm\]t<=MZ|q#$PZ3\ $ 0 C i    \ z   # [        F w   LQBhIJa(8>l34%ReZ.y${+pL$   .!!!"""l"".#T####$V$$$%A%%%%%>&n&&&U'i''5(((&)}))))))P*Q*f****6+++1,z,,, -6---(.b...Y/f/////////0090I0_0u00011q111N222#3j3334;4l44 5F5~555f66677*7H7e777738888D9~990:H:c:t::;#;W;;<<T<<<< =t=======>>>>.>;><>R>\>r>y>z>>>>>>>>>S???@*@P@{@@@*A>AwAAAB7BWBrBBC"C3CICRC}CCCC D8D\DDDDDE/EhEEEEEF-FYFbFgFnFFFFFFGG>GGGHhHHH1IeIII J\JJJKXKoKKKLLpLLLMsMMNNNONtNNOtOOOCPsPPP;QQQQ9RlRRRSTSSSSSTYTsT|TTTBUtUUUV*V>VNVxVVVVVW0WWWWNXXX4YiYYYYZDZZZ[\[[[\>\\\\]^0^[^^^o__`6``aRaaab^bbbb5cDcWcrccc dJdd_eeee=ftfffg-g>gbgggh4iiiijCjjjj klkmk~kkkkkll:lJlPl`lllmlll6mmmm5nnnnn`oo-p.p~pppppqTqkq}qqrfrrrs`sss6t_tttt@uuu%vevvv!wqwww x&xKxxxx=ymyyyAzuzz0{{{{{+|a|||H}}}}}~A~~~~45ʀ/rځ;yӂ0^Eͅ-r89:QhˈMY.yzԌ1o%b׎Y/kWNOΒAbvxÔ  *=ɖ!uVzĘ&F%TwL5ۜ.~Þ)*ן$mƠW@ʢ#eߣQ*tۥG}Ǧs"[;u9ڪ.?߫]߬,حq®2zگۯY/Uбѱ`wM8x۵GŶ.Mҷ IPܺ){޻,eC<LEv!mAw3ax.-.eg`/eN2b5m#v)LQId~!ccd)v8`a<zLJLs O-UCp)*L5wXgfFYV8\6eX$c:L%Np+S*y:nXIR~Ec.}2|U)fLmL@ CEl!>XbC}8+k1V|/Mt{Tc \;l6M, ] s   7 j   b     P    M    $X}-Xfc"U c;s:u [ )3eR6nKp Z 3hiEP/+y g    "!`!!!"U"V""### $T$$$$C%o%%%7&f&&&'I'''>(((?)|)))**g****+++B,r,,,,-----..D////1000A1|112M2w223W3~333 4 4n44#5N5`5a556\66677$7`7t7777 8 88s8889J9K9Z99999;:n:::::N;a;;;;.<q<<<=3=====1>m>>> ?S?????@B@Q@@@@@YAAAA8BgBBBC/COCrCCC!DjDDDDEAEuEEEF2FRFFFFGCGnGGGH\HHHI.IRIbIqIIJpJJJK%K@K[KtKKKALvLLLMjMMMMMANPNNNNNmOOOPPTPPPQ6QQQQQRYRyRRSeSxSSSSTNTeTTTU.URUUUUVrVV!WmWWWWIXYXXXY]YYYY*ZvZZ [M[N[b[[[\\5\{\\]]]l]]]]>^^^E___%```aPabaaaDbbbc?ccc?dkddd3e4eqeeef3fffMggghhihhiPiii j0jzjjjIkk+lll m2mUmmm$nzn{nnnoOooo$p]p^p}ppq9qqqrrr?r|rrr-sosss>ttttunuuuuuuv4vmvv%wewwwRxxx8y_yyyy&zUzzz {{F{|{{{+|f|y|||}C}D}_}}} ~J~p~~~0n7U'+lσlÄ*@V߅:†XYs,PԈ;l K~֊(m4ZD:W`mz45lҏh$|ԑ `,b&ܔAΕGȖ 0mٗ`\.J4Zl՛0i͜ LDe##ѡEz͢'~ _ڤߤ(FOĥ1x˦Yէjʨ^ܩa6JެW.I{ήEЯjް_ױYò_ `o0ж$`&]͸;vw޹SúI0z{<P _3RY=01235689;<>?yz0005050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505 0 0#v#v 0:v 0Ev:v 0v:v 0Ev:v 0Ev:v 03w:v 03w:v 0Ev:v 0Ev:v 0x:v 0x:v 0Ev:v 0x:v 0x:v 0:v 0~y:v 0~y:v 0~y:v 0~y:v 0~y:v 0#v#v 0@z 0Hz@z 0Hz@z 0Hz@z 0{@z 0{@z 0Hz@z 0@z 0{@z 0{@z 0{@z 0|@z 0@z 0|@z 0|@z 0=}@z 0@z 0}@z 0}@z 0}@z 0}@z 0~@z 0~@z 0~@z 0s@z 0}@z 0@z 0"@z 0"@z 0@z 0Ԁ@z 0Ԁ@z 0Ԁ@z 0@z 0Ԁ@z 0@z 0Ԁ@z 0t@z 0t@z 0t@z 0Ԁ@z 0\@z 0\@z 0\@z 0@z 0U@z 0U@z 0@z 0@z 0@z 0@z 0@z 0@z 0E@z 0E@z 0E@z 0@z 0@z 0@z 0#v#v( 0ŇŇ0ʇ0ʇ0ʇ0ʇ0ʇ( 0ŇŇ0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_( 0ŇŇ0w0w0w0w0w( 0ŇŇ000( 0ŇŇ0( 0ŇŇ0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-( 0ŇŇ000000000000( 0ŇŇ000000000 0 0ʧʧ 0 0 0 0 0 0ܨ 0ܨ( 0 0v 0v 0 v 0 v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0!v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0rv 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0rv 0v 0v 0rv 0hv 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0hv 0Ev 0Ev 0hv 0v 0v 0hv 0hv 0;v 0;v 0;v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0rv 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v( 0 0 0H 0H 0 0 0q 0q 00'X'r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00'X'r 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0ʧʧ( 0 0Ͽ 0Ͽ 0;Ͽ 0;Ͽ 0Ͽ 0Ͽ 0Ͽ( 00 0 0j 0 0 0 0v 0v 0v 0N 0 0 0  0N 0N 0N 0 0 0N( 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0b 0b 0b 0b 08 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0f 0f 0f 0 0@ 0@ 08 00O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O8 0 0 0 0 0m 0 0( 08 0 0#8 0 0o 0o 0 0 0  0  0 0Y 0Y 0 0Y 0 0 0 0 0 0q 0q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b 0 0 0( 0( 0 0 0 0 0@ 0@ 0 0 0  0  0 0 0 0' 0' 0 0t 0 0 0 0G 0y 0y 0G 04 04 0 0Y 0 0Y 0  0  0 0Y 0A 0A 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 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0f 0f 0f 0f 0} 0 0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0H 0  0 0 0g 0g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0+ 0 0 0Z 0Z 0Z 0 0 0 0Z 0e 0e 0 0 0( 08 0ii 0 0 0 0A 0A 0A 08 0ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0ii 0 0: 0: 0: 0:8 0ii 0 0 0 08 0ii 0 0 05 0 05 0 0& 0 0 0$ 08 0ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0( 08 0   0/  0g / 8 0   0  0*   0*   0x   0x   0x   0x   0  0 8 0   0z  0z  0z  0Xz  0Xz  0z  0z  0z  0z 0'X'rz 0z  0z  0z  0z  0z  0Mz  0z ( 08 0EE 0c 0c 0c 0c 0c 0c 0c8 0EE 0* 0W* 0W* 0* 0* 0Y* 0l* 0* 0Y* 0~* 0~* 0~*8 0EE 0 0 0 0{ 0 0 0M 0M 0M 0M8 0EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0EE 0! 0!( 08 0|"|" 0" 0"" 0"" 0" 0h#" 0h#" 0h#" 0$" 0z$" 0$" 0$" 0&%" 0$" 0%" 0$" 0%" 0" 0&" 0&" 0.'" 0.'" 0.'" 0" 0G(" 0G(" 0" 0 )" 0 )" 0 )" 0 )" 0*" 0*" 0*" 0" 0*" 0" 0U+"8 0|"|" 0+ 0,+ 0+ 0t,+ 0t,+ 0t,+ 0t,+ 0 + 0 + 0v-+ 0v-+ 0*.+ 0v-+ 0 + 0;/+ 0 +8 0|"|" 0 / 0/0/ 0/0/ 0/ 01/ 01/ 01/ 0/ 01/ 0/ 0&2/ 0f2/ 0f2/ 0f2/ 0f2/ 0&2/ 02/ 02/ 02/ 0&2/ 03/ 03/ 0&2/ 0/ 04/ 04/ 04/8 0|"|" 05 055 055 05 065 065 065 065 05 0&85 0Z85 0&85 05 095 095 095 095 0( 0:::: 0F: 0q:F: 0:F: 0q:F: 0F: 0R;F: 0e;F: 0e;F: 0e;F: 0;F: 0;F: 0e;F: 0d<F: 0d<F: 0e;F: 0R;F: 0]=F: 0]=F: 0F: 0.>F: 0.>F: 0F: 0>F: 0>F: 0>F: 0F: 0F: 0x?F: 0~?F: 0~?F: 0~?F: 0x?F: 0?F: 0?F: 06@F: 06@F:8 0F:F: 0@ 0@@ 0@@ 0@ 0A@ 0A@ 0A@ 0A@ 0A@ 0@ 0 C@ 0 @8 0F:F: 0 C 0DC 0 C 0DC 0DC 0DC 0KEC 0DC 0DC 0 C 0%FC 09FC 0%FC 0 C 0FC 0FC 0FC 0C 0 HC 0 HC 0C 0HC 0HC 0HC 0IC( 0:::: 0I 0II 0I0'X'rI 0I 0;JI 0;JI 0JI 0;JI0'X'rI 0I 0}KI 0}KI 0}KI8 0II 0L 0LL 0 ML 0 ML 0LL 0ML 0ML 0ML 0ML 0MNL 0L 0L 09OL( 0:::: 0O 0PO 0PO 0PO8 0OO 0~P 0P~P 0~P 0~P 0Q~P 0Q~P 0Q~P 0Q~P 0R~P 0~P 06S~P 0~P 0~P 0S~P 0~P 0T~P 0T~P 0~P 0}U~P 0U~P 0}U~P 0V~P 0}U~P8 0OO 0W 0W 0WW 0WW 0XW 0W 0W 0XW 0XW 0XW 0XW8 0OO 0 Y 0YY 0!Y 0rZY 0rZY 0rZY 0"Y 0#Y 0[Y8 0OO 0$z\ 0\z\ 0\z\ 0%z\0'X'rz\ 0&z\ 0]z\ 0/^z\( 0:::: 0'^ 0^^ 0^^ 0_^ 0_^0'X'r^8 0^^ 0(_ 0__ 0)_ 0y`_ 0y`_ 0ga_8 0^^ 0*a 05ba 0+a 0ba 0ba 0,a 0-a8 0^^ 0.Xd 0dXd 0dXd 0dXd 0dXd 0dXd 0dXd0'X'rXd 0/Xd 0fXd8 0^^ 00f 0ff 0ff 0ff 0ff0'X'rf 01f 0gf 0gf 0gf 0gf 0gf8 0^^ 02i 0ii 0ii 0ii 0ii 0ii0'X'ri 03i0'X'ri 04i0'X'ri 05i 0sli 0sli 0sli 0sli( 0:::: 06 n 0'n n 0'n n 0n n 0n n 0n n 0o n8 0 n n 07p 0pp 0pp 0>qp 0>qp 0pp 0qp 0qp 0qp 0qp 0rp 0rp 08p 0sp 0sp8 0 n n 09t 0Ftt 0Ftt 0tt( 0::::8 0@u@u" 0cu" 0ucu" 0cu" 07vcu" 0Fvcu" 0Fvcu" 0gvcu" 0gvcu" 0gvcu" 07vcu" 0wcu" 0wcu" 0wcu" 0wcu" 0wcu" 0wcu" 0%xcu" 0cu0'X'rcu" 0cu" 0xcu" 0xcu" 0xcu" 0ycu" 0ycu" 0xcu" 0ycu" 0ycu" 0$zcu" 0ycu" 0zcu" 0zcu" 0cu" 0o{cu" 0o{cu0'X'rcu 0:cu 0|cu! 0cu! 0cu! 0|cu! 0cu! 0}cu! 0?}cu! 0}cu! 0}cu! 0}cu! 0}cu! 0cu! 0~cu! 0cu! 0@cu0'X'rcu! 0cu! 0cu! 0cu! 0cu8 0@u@u 0;z 0z 0z 0<z 0kz 0kz 0kz 0z 0z 0z 0=z 0z 03z 03z 0z 0z 0z 0z 0z0'X'rz 0>z 03 0v3 0v3 0v3 0v3 0v3 0v3 0Wv3 0Wv3 0v 0vv( 0}}# 0# 0و# 0و# 0و# 0و# 0و# 0# 0͊# 0܊# 05# 05# 0# 05# 0܊# 0͊# 0|# 0|# 0|# 0|# 0̍# 0̍# 0X# 0X# 0̍# 0# 0͊# 0g# 0͊# 0͊# 0# 0{# 0# 0Ȑ# 0Ȑ# 0R# 0R# 0R# 0Ȑ# 0# 0Q# 0# 0{# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0ԓ# 0ԓ# 0ԓ# 0ԓ# 0{# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0{# 0# 0{# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0C# 0C# 0# 0# 0# 0ޘ# 0ޘ# 09# 0b# 0b# 09# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0# 0Y# 0Y# 09# 0# 0# 0# 0ޘ# 0ޘ# 0# 0# 0# 0ޘ( 0}}0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ0Ŝ8 0ŜŜ$ 0 $ 0= $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0q $ 0q $ 0= $ 0= $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0X $ 0 $ 0ʡ $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0m $ 0 $ 0 0'X'r % 0 % 0x % 0x 0'X'r % 0 % 0[ % 0 % 0[ % 0 % 0 8 0ŜŜ$ 0$ 0 $ 0 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0($ 0$ 0Ī$ 0$ 0Ī$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0j$ 0j8 0ŜŜ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0_ȯ$ 0_ȯ$ 0_ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0tȯ$ 0ȯ$ 0ȯ8 0ŜŜ$ 0 յ$ 0յ$ 0tյ$ 0յ$ 0յ$ 0 յ$ 0yյ$ 0yյ$ 0յ$ 0yյ$ 0tյ$ 0 յ$ 0յ$ 0յ$ 0յ$ 0յ8 0ŜŜ$ 0 Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0 Ѻ$ 0sѺ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0OѺ$ 0Ѻ$ 0ѽѺ$ 0ѽѺ$ 0ѽѺ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ$ 0Ѻ0'X'rѺ0'X'rѺ0Ѻ0Ѻ0Ѻ0Ѻ0Ѻ0Ѻ0Ѻ& 0Ѻ& 0hѺ& 0hѺ& 0hѺ0'X'rѺ0'X'rѺ8 0ŜŜ$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0ts$ 0ts$ 0ts$ 0s$ 0us$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0qs$ 0s$ 0qs$ 0qs$ 0s$ 07s$ 07s$ 07s$ 07s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s$ 0s0 & &s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s0s8 0ŜŜ$ 0$ 04$ 04$ 0$ 0 $ 0^$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0M$ 0M$ 0M$ 0$ 0$ 0 $ 0$ 0 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0 $ 0$ 0$ 00 & &أ$ 0$ 00 & &أ$ 0$ 0h$ 0h0 & &أ$ 0$ 0:$ 0:0 & &أ$ 00 & &أ$ 0 0vv( 0FF0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g( 0g( 0g( 0g( 0g( 0Dg( 0g0'X'rg+ 0g+ 0g0'X'rg+ 0g+ 0g' 0g0'X'rg' 0g' 0g' 0g' 0g' 0g' 0g' 0g' 0/g' 0Eg' 0/g8 0gg' 0' 0)' 0{' 0)' 0)' 0*' 0' 0@' 0@0'X'r' 0' 0' 00'X'r' 0' 0' 0' 00'X'r' 0' 0' 08 0gg' 0' 0W' 0W' 0R' 0W0'X'r' 0 ' 0A' 0v' 0v' 0A0'X'r' 0 ' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 00'X'r' 0 ' 0E' 0E0'X'r' 0 0'X'r' 0 ' 0$( 0FF' 0 ' 0' ' 0I ' 0I ' 0' ' 06 ' 0P ' 0P ' 0 0'X'r ' 0  0vv- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0i- 0i- 0- 0( 08 0+ 05+ 0k5+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 05+ 0i5+ 0i5+ 05+ 05+ 0x50'X'r5+ 05+ 05+ 050'X'r5+ 05+ 05+ 050'X'r5+ 0 58 0* 0* 0* 0* 0q* 0* 00'X'r* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 00'X'r* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0"* 0"0'X'r* 0* 0* 0F* 0* 0y* 0y8 0* 0* 0* 00'X'r* 0* 0* 0* 08 0) 0) 0I) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0v) 0) 0) 0U) 0U) 0U) 0) 0( 00 0 0 0=  0 0=  0 0=  0 0 0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0 8 0  , 0 , 0  , 0 , 0  , 0  , 0 , 0 , 0V , 0V 8 0  , 0, 0E, 0E, 0E, 0, 0, 0, 0 , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0L, 0L, 0, 0, 0, 08 0  , 0, 0', 0', 0 , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0h, 0h, 0h, 0, 0 , 0, 0, 0, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0L, 0 , 0 0'X'r, 0 , 0*, 0*0'X'r, 0, 0, 0, 0T0'X'r, 0, 0, 08 0  ) 0) 0 ) 0 ) 0) 0) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0) 0*!) 0!) 0!) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0") 0"0'X'r) 0  0vv( 0##8 0##. 0#. 0$#. 0T$#. 0$#. 0$#. 0$#. 0$#. 0$#. 0$#. 0%#. 0%#. 0$#. 0$#. 0#. 0i&#. 0&#. 0&#. 0&#. 0&#. 0w'#. 0w'#. 0'#. 0w'#. 0i&#. 0(#. 0(#. 0i&#. 0i&#. 0)#. 0#. 0(*#0&Z&e#. 0#. 0*#. 0*#. 0*#. 0*#. 0j+#. 0j+#0&Z&e#. 0#. 0+#. 0+#. 0+#. 0+#0&Z&e#. 0#. 0-#. 0-#. 0-#. 0-#8 0##/ 0-/ 0 .-/ 0F.-/ 0F.-/ 0 .-/ 0 .-0&Z&e-/ 0-/ 0/-/ 0/-/ 0/-/ 0/-0&Z&e-/ 0-/ 01-/ 0-2-/ 01-/ 02-/ 01-/ 01-8 0##. 0i4. 04i4. 04i4. 0i4. 05i4. 05i4. 05i4. 0h6i4. 0h6i4. 0h6i4. 05i4. 097i4. 097i4. 0i4. 07i4. 0 i40&Z&ei4. 0 i4. 08i4. 08i4. 08i4. 08i4. 09i4. 08i4. 08i4. 0 i4( 0##. 0 J;. 0w;J;. 0w;J;. 0;J;. 0;J;. 0;J;. 0<J;. 0<J;. 0;J;. 0S=J;. 0;J;. 0w;J;. 0=J;. 0=J;. 0h>J;. 0h>J;. 0>J;. 0>J;. 0=J;. 0?J;. 0=J;. 0 J;0&Z&eJ;. 0J;. 0@J;0&Z&eJ;. 0J;. 0@J;. 0@J;. 0lAJ;. 0lAJ;. 0@J;. 0@J;. 0RBJ;0&Z&eJ;. 0J;. 0BJ;. 0BJ;. 0BJ;. 0BJ;. 0CJ;. 0CJ;. 0BJ;. 0DJ;. 0DJ;0&Z&eJ;. 0J;. 0EJ;. 0zEJ;. 0EJ;8 0J;J;. 0F. 0GF. 0F. 0GF. 0GF. 0GF. 0HF. 0HF. 0/IF. 0/IF. 0GF. 0F. 0AJF. 0F. 0JF8 0J;J;. 0)K. 0dK)K. 0dK)K. 0)K. 0+L)K. 0+L)K. 0+L)K8 0J;J;. 0_M. 0M_M. 0_M. 0,N_M. 0,N_M. 0zN_M. 0,N_M. 0_M. 0_M. 0yO_M8 0J;J;. 0O. 0 PO. 0 PO. 0O. 0PO. 0 QO. 0 QO. 0 QO. 0 QO. 0 QO. 0 QO. 0 QO. 0 QO. 0PO. 0PO. 0RO. 0RO. 0PO. 0PO. 0O. 0O. 0ZTO. 0ZTO. 0ZTO. 0ZTO. 0UO( 0##2 0U2 0UU2 0UU2 0UU2 0UU2 0UU2 0VU2 0VU2 0WU2 0VU8 0UU1 0W1 0WW1 0W1 0VXW1 0XW1 0XW1 0VXW1 0YW1 0YW1 0YW1 0YW1 0VXW1 0VXW1 0ZW1 0ZW1 0W1 0W0&Z&eW1 0W1 0,\W1 0,\W1 0,\W1 0\W1 0,\W1 0<]W1 0<]W1 0<]W0&Z&eW1 0W1 0^W1 0^W0&Z&eW1 0W1 0_W0&Z&eW1 0W1 0`W1 0h`W1 0`W1 0`W1 0`W8 0UU1 0a1 0 a1 0ba1 0@ba1 0@ba1 0ba1 0ba1 0ba1 0vca1 0@ba1 0ca1 0ca1 0@ba1 0ba1 0da1 0da1 0 a1 0 a8 0UU1 0 e1 0ee1 0ee1 0 e1 0fe1 0fe1 0fe1 0fe1 0ge1 0fe1 0Hhe1 0fe1 0he1 0he1 0e1 0Jie1 0Jie1 0Jie1 0ie1 0ie1 0ie1 0ie1 0Jie1 0Tje1 0Jie0&Z&ee1 0e1 0je1 0je1 0je1 0je1 0je0&Z&ee1 0e1 0eke1 0eke1 0eke0&Z&ee1 0e0&Z&ee1 0e1 0ke1 0ke1 0ke0&Z&ee1 0e1 0me1 0me1 0me0&Z&ee1 0e1 0Ume1 0Ume0&Z&ee1 0e0&Z&ee1 0e8 0UU1 0n1 0]nn1 0n1 0nn1 0nn1 0nn1 0nn1 0nn1 0pn0&Z&en1 0n1 0pn1 0pn1 0pn1 0pn1 0qn1 0qn1 0#rn1 0pn1 0xrn( 0##4 0r8 0rr1 05s1 0ns5s1 05s1 0t5s1 0t5s1 0t5s1 05s0&Z&e5s1 05s1 0u5s1 0u5s1 0u5s8 0rr6 0u1 0uu1 0uu1 0uu1 0uu1 0wu1 0wu1 0u1 0wu1 0u1 0_xu0&Z&eu5 0u1 0_xu1 0_xu1 0_xu1 0_xu1 0 u1 0zu1 0zu0&Z&eu7 0u1 0zu1 0zu1 0!u1 0 |u1 0 |u1 0"u1 0|u( 0##1 0#w}1 0}w}1 0}w}1 0}w}1 0}w}1 0}w}1 0$w}1 0%w}0&Z&ew}1 0&w}1 0'w}0&Z&ew}1 0(w}1 0w}1 0)w}( 0##8 0qq1 0*1 01 01 0F1 0+1 0΂1 01 01 0΂1 01 01 01 0,1 0-1 01 01 01 01 01 00&Z&e1 0.1 0S1 0/1 001 011 020&Z&e1 031 0N0&Z&e1 041 00&Z&e1 051 0}1 0}1 061 078 0qq1 081 0;1 0;1 0;1 0;1 091 0:0&Z&e1 0;1 01 01 00&Z&e1 0<1 0 1 0 1 0=1 0>1 0?8 0qq1 0@1 01 0_1 01 01 00&Z&e1 0A1 01 01 00&Z&e1 0B1 0>1 0>1 0C( 0##8 0221 0DQ1 0Q1 0Q1 0Q1 0Q1 0Q1 0Q1 0EQ1 0FQ8 0221 0G1 051 0r1 0r1 051 011 0H1 01 01 0I1 0J( 0##9 008 0008 08 08 0m8 08 08 0m8 08 0m8 0*8 08 08 0m8 08 08 08 08 08 08 0%8 0%0&Z&e8 08 08 08 08 00&Z&e: 0: 0<: 0<0&Z&e: 0: 0: 0: 00&Z&e: 0: 0: 00&Z&e: 0: 00&Z&e: 0: 0`: 0`: 0: 0: 03: 0`: 0`: 0`8 0008 0Y8 0Y8 0ϨY8 0ϨY8 0ϨY8 0ϨY8 0Y8 0Y8 0Y8 0Y8 0Y0&Z&eY8 0Y0&Z&eY8 0 Y0&Z&eY8 0 Y0&Z&eY8 0 Y8 0008 0 8 0V0&Z&e8 0 0&Z&e8 08 0X8 0008 08 0.8 0.8 0.8 08 08 00&Z&e8 08 0<8 0<8 08 00&Z&e8 08 00&Z&e8 08 08 0W 0vv= 0ų= 0ճų= 0ճų= 0ճų= 0ճų= 0ճų( 0ųų< 0< 0%< 0f< 0f< 0ѵ< 0ѵ< 0%< 0< 0< 0< 0< 00&Z&e< 0< 0< 0< 0( 0ųų< 0< 02< 020&Z&e< 0< 0< 00&Z&e< 0< 0z< 0z< 0z0&Z&e< 0< 0l< 0l< 0< 0< 0l< 0< 0< 0l< 0< 00&Z&e< 0< 0< 03< 0( 0ųų< 0 < 0\< 0< 0< 0\< 0\< 0< 0< 0 < 0,< 0,< 0< 0< 0,< 0 ( 0ųų; 0; 0; 0.; 0.; 0.; 0.; 0; 0; 00&Z&e; 00&Z&e; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0 0vvD 0D 0D 0D 0D 0D 0D 0D 0tD 0tD 0tD 0D 0D 0D 0D 00&Z&e? 00&Z&e? 0? 0? 0? 00&Z&e? 00&Z&e? 0? 0? 0? 01? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 00&Z&e? 0? 0? 0? 0( 08 0@ 0@ 0$0&Z&e@ 0@ 0z0&Z&e@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 08 0@ 0 8 0@ 0R@ 0R@ 0 R( 08 0A 08 0A 0A 0TA 08 0A 0A 0A 0A 08E 0@ 0 u8 0A 0A 08 0A 0 ^A 0^A 0^A 0^A 0B^A 0 ^A 0^A 0^8 0B 0zB 0zB 0z8 0C 0j0&Z&ejC 0jC 0jC 0jC 0j0&Z&ejC 0jC 0jC 0jC 0+jC 0jC 0jC 0jC 0j0&Z&ejC 0jC 0jC 0jC 0j0&Z&ejC 0 jC 0 jC 0 j0&Z&ejC 0 jC 0jC 0 jC 0j( 08 0@ 0 @ 0@ 0@ 0 8 0@ 0 @ 0#@ 0#@ 0#@ 0@ 08 0@ 08 0@ 0@ 0@ 08 0@ 0@ 08 0@ 0@ 0F@ 0@ 0w@ 00&Z&e@ 08 0@ 0J8 0@ 08 0@ 08 0 @ 0 8 0 > 0g> 0g> 0g> 0g> 0g> 0g> 0g> 0g> 0g( 0> 0D> 0iD> 0iD> 0iD> 0%D> 0%D> 0%D> 0D> 0D8 0DD> 0q> 0q8 0DD> 0> 0?> 0> 0> 00&Z&eF 0F 0eF 0F 0F 0e0&Z&eF 0F 0oF 0oF 0o( 08 0  I 00I 0r0I 0r0I 00I 00I 00I 00I 0:0I 0:0I 0:08 0  I 0-I 0k-I 0-I 0k-I 0k-I 0-I 0-I 0-I 0-8 0  H 0sH 0sH 0sH 0sH 0wsH 0s8 0  G 0jG 0jG 0jG 0(jG 0(jG 0jG 0j0&Z&ejG 0jG 0/jG 0jG 0j8 0  J 0#J 0S#J 0S#J 0#J 0S#J 0S#8 0  J 0J 0J 0( 08 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0C8 0K 0K 0K 0K 08 0L 0L 0AL 0AL 08 0N 0N 0]8 0M 0M 0FM 08 0Q 0Q 07Q 0Q 08 0P 0 0vvP 0IP 0`IP 0`IP 0`IP 01IP 01IP 01IP 0`IP 0IP 0IP 0I0&Z&eIP 0IP 0I( 0IIO 0N( 0IIO 0O 0O 0O 0( 0IIO 0 O 0` O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0&Z&e O 0 ( 0IIO 0O 0:O 0O 0:O 07O 07O 07O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0 O 0 O 0; O 0 O 0 O 0 O 00&Z&eO 00&Z&eO 0O 0( 0IIO 0  0vvO 0 O 0  O 0;  O 0;  O 0  O 0  O 0 O 0 O 0  O 0  O 0  O 0  O 0  O 0  ( 0  O 0 O 0 O 0, O 0a O 0, O 0, O 0, O 0 O 0w O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0w O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0$ O 0$ O 0$ O 0 O 0v O 0v O 0J O 0J O 0J O 0J O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0E O 0E O 0E 0&Z&e O 0 O 0 O 0 0&Z&e O 0 O 0 O 0 0&Z&e O 0! O 0e 0&Z&e O 0" O 0 O 0@ O 0@ O 0@ O 0 O 0 ( 0  R 0R 0_R 0R 0R 00&Z&eR 00&Z&eR 00&Z&eR 0R 0( 0  S 0S 0S 0S 0( 0  T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0T 0( 0  U 0U 0U 0U 0U 0U 0U 00&Z&eU 0U 0*U 00&Z&eU 0U 0U 0U 0( 0  V 0! V 0c ! V 0c ! V 0! V 0! V 0!! V 0!! V 0!! 0&Z&e! V 0! V 0! V 0"! ( 0  W 0 #W 0`# #W 0`# #W 0`# #W 0`# #W 0`# #W 0`# #W 0 #W 0 #W 0Y% #W 0% #W 0Y% #W 0Y% #W 0Y% # 0vv( 0&&X 0&X 0&&X 0Q'&X 0Q'&X 0&&X 0&&X 03(&X 0&&X 0(&X 0(&0&Z&e&X 0&X 0[)&X 0)&X 0)&X 0)&X 0[)&X 0&0&Z&e&X 0&X 0*&0&Z&e&X 0&X 0f+&X 0&0&Z&e&X 0&X 0,&0&Z&e&X 0&0&Z&e&X 0&X 0,&X 0,&( 0&&X 0 -X 0.-X 0.-X 0.-X 0 -X 0 -0&Z&e-X 0 -X 0j/-0&Z&e-X 0 -X 0- 0Y 00Y 000Y 0 10Y 0 10Y 000Y 0|10Y 010Y 010Y 010Y 010Y 010Y 0|10Y 0y20Y 020Y 020Y 020Y 020Y 0k30Y 020Y 0y20Y 0y20Y 0^40Y 0y20Y 0|10Y 040Y 0|10Y 0X50Y 0X50Y 0X50Y 000Y 0460Y 0460Y 0460Y 0460Y 0#70Y 0460Y 0460Y 000Y 0'80Y 0=80Y 0=80Y 0=80Y 0'80Y 090Y 0I90Y 0I90Y 090Y 090Y 090Y 090Y 000 000Z 0G:Z 0x:G:Z 0:G:0&Z&eG:Z 0G:Z 0S<G:Z 0S<G:Z 0S<G:Z 0=G:0&Z&eG:Z 0G:Z 0?>G:Z 0?>G:Z 0?>G: 000[ 0?[ 0??[ 0??0&Z&e?[ 0?[ 0t@?[ 0t@?[ 0t@?[ 0t@?[ 04B?[ 04B?0&Z&e?[ 0?[ 0B?[ 0B?0&Z&e?[ 0?[ 0C?[ 0C?[ 0C?[ 0C?0&Z&e?[ 0?[ 0i 0>i 0>i 0>( 0jljlj 0 j 07 j 07 8 0  j 0j 0j 00&Z&ej 0j 0j 0l 08 0  k 0k 0ܖk 0ܖk 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0ik 0k 00&Z&ek 0k 0/k 0k 0k 0/k 0/k 0/0&Z&ek 0k 0k 08 0  m 0om 0om 0om 0om 0om 0om 0o0&Z&eon 0on 0mon 0on 0on 0on 0on 0on 0o8 0  o 0ߞo 0ߞo 0ߞo 0ߞ0&Z&eߞo 0ߞo 0ߞ0&Z&eߞo 0ߞo 0ߞ0&Z&eߞo 0ߞo 0Oߞo 0Oߞ0&Z&eߞo 0ߞo 0ߞo 0ߞ0&Z&eߞo 0ߞo 0ߞo 05ߞo 05ߞo 05ߞ0&Z&eߞo 0ߞo 0ߞ0&Z&eߞo 0ߞo 0̤ߞo 0̤ߞ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 06{ 06{ 06{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 07{ 07 0| 0| 0ש| 0ש| 0| 0| 0( 0p 0p 0Ȫp 0Ȫp 0Ȫp 0p 0p 0( 0p 0ep 0ep 0ep 0ep 0e0&Z&eep 0ep 0ep 0ep 0ep 0ep 0rep 0e0&Z&eep 0ep 0Kep 0Kep 0ep 06ep 0cep 0cep 0cep 06ep 0lep 0lep 0ep 0 ep 0ep 0{ep 0{ep 0{ep 0-e( 0p 0p 0̳p 0p 0̳p 0̳p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0̳p 00&Z&ep 0p 0p 0 p 0p 0p 0p 0ݶp 0ݶp 0ݶp 0p 0ݷp 0 p 0ݷp 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0 p 0op 0 ( 0p 0 $p 0c$p 0c$p 0ݻ$p 0c$p 0m$p 0m$p 0m$p 0)$p 0)$p 0)$p 0)$0&Z&e$p 0 $p 0P$p 0$p 0$p 0$p 0P$p 0e$p 0e$p 0P$p 0$p 0$p 0$p 0$( 0p 0p 0Cp 0Cp 0p 00&Z&ep 0p 0p 00&Z&ep 0p 0Zp 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0Zp 0 p 0jp 0 p 0 p 0p 00&Z&ep 0p 0p 0( 0q 0q 03q 030&Z&eq 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 00&Z&eq 0q 0Eq 0q 0Eq 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0 0} 0} 0} 0} 0} 0#} 0U} 0U} 0U} 0U} 0#} 0p} 0p} 0p} 0p} 0p} 0p} 0} 0} 0( 08 0rrr 0r 0r 0r 0r 0r 00&Z&er 0r 0*r 0*r 0r 0r 0r 0r 0r 08 0rrs 0s 0s 0s 00&Z&es 0s 0s 0s 0 s 0\s 0 s 0 s 0s 0 s 0 s 0s 0s 0s 0,s 0s 0,s 0#s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 00&Z&es 0s 0s 0Ys 0s 00&Z&es 0s 0s 0 s 0@s 0@0&Z&es 0 s 08 0rrt 0t 0t 0t 00&Z&et 0t 0t 0t 0t 00&Z&et 0t 0t 0t 0t 0t 0t 08 0rru 0eu 0eu 0eu 0eu 0e0&Z&eeu 0e0&Z&eeu 0eu 0zeu 0eu 0eu 0eu 0zeu 0zeu 0eu 0eu 0ze( 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 08 0v 0v 0v 0Ov 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0hv 0v 0v 0:v 0v 0v 0v 0:v 0v 0v 0Gv 0v 0v 00&Z&ev 00&Z&ev 0v 0&v 0&v 0&v 0&8 0x 0x 0x 0&x 0&x 0x 0%x 0%x 0x 0x 0x 0%x 0kx 0kx 0kx 0kx 0Ox 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0Ax 0A0&Z&ex 0x 0x 0x 0xx 0xx 00&Z&ex 00&Z&ex 0x 0x 0x 0x 0mx 00&Z&ex 0x 0]x 0]x 0]0&Z&ex 0x 0=x 0=0&Z&ex 0 x 0x 0x 0x 00&Z&ex 0 x 0x 0x 00&Z&ex 0 x 0x 00&Z&ex 0 x 0$x 0$8 0y 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 Py 0Py 0z Py 0Py 0 Py 0Py 0P0&Z&ePy 0P0&Z&ePy 0Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 Py 0 P8 0z 0 z 0  z 0L z 0  z 0  z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0B z 0 ( 08 0~ 0~ 0I0&Z&e~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 00&Z&e~ 0~ 0~ 08 0 0 08 0 08 08 080&Z&e 0 04 040&Z&e 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 00&Z&e 0 0 0$ 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 0n& 0n& 0 0 0i' 0 05( 0( 0( 0 0 0) 0)0&Z&e 00&Z&e 0 0Q* 0Q*8 0 0* 0** 0** 0+* 0** 01,* 01,* 0,* 01,* 0* 06-* 0* 0-* 0-* 0-* 0*( 0 0Y/ 0f/Y/ 0f/Y/ 0Y/ 0Y/ 0/Y/ 0/Y/ 0/Y/ 0/Y/ 0/Y/ 0/Y/ 0Y/ 090Y/ 090Y/ 090Y/8 0Y/Y/ 00 000 000 00 010 010 010 020 020 020 020 020 00 040 00 008 0Y/Y/ 0 5 0F5 5 0F5 5 0 5 05 5 0f6 5 0f6 5 05 5 07 5 07 5 07 5 07 5 07 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 038 5 0 5 08 58 0Y/Y/ 0D9 0~9D9 09D9 09D9 09D9 0~9D9 0D9 0 0; 0#;; 0#;; 0; 0<; 0<; 0T<; 0<; 0<; 0<; 0<; 0<;0&Z&e;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*A; 0*A; 0>; 0>; 0A; 0B; 0B; 0A; 0A; 0A; 0A; 0"C; 0"C; 0A; 0RC; 0RC; 0A; 0C; 0C; 0>; 08D; 0\D; 0\D; 08D; 08D; 08D; 0E; 08D; 0hE; 0; 0E; 0E; 0E; 0F; 0-F; 0-F; 0-F; 0-F; 0F; 0F; 0F; 0F; 0F; 0F; 0E; 0G; 0;;( 0GG 0G 0HG 0HG 0HG 0HG 0G 0eIG 0eIG 0IG 0 JG 0IG 0JG 0JG 0KG 0JG0'X'rG 0G0'X'rG 0G 0LG( 0GG 0L 0LL 0ML 0LL 0ML0'X'rL 0L 0ONL 0tNL 0ONL 0OL 0OL 0ONL 0OL 0OL( 0GG 0P 0PP 0;QP 0PP 0P 0P 09RP 09RP 0RP 0RP 09RP 0;; 0S 0SS 0SS 0S 0TS 0TS 0TS 0|TS 0|TS 0TS 0TS 0tUS 0S( 0SS 0V 0*VV 0>VV 0>VV 0*VV 0VV 0VV 0V8 0VV 0W 00WW 0WW 00WW 0WW 0WW 00WW8 0VV 04Y 0iY4Y 0Y4Y 0Y4Y 0Y4Y 0iY4Y 0iY4Y 0Z4Y 0Z4Y 0Z4Y 0Z4Y 0Z4Y 0Z4Y 0\4Y 0\4Y 0Z4Y 0\4Y 0\4Y 0]4Y 04Y 00^4Y 00^4Y 00^4Y 00^4Y 0o_4Y 0o_4Y 00^4Y8 0VV 0` 0a` 0a` 0a` 0a` 0b`0'X'r` 0` 0b` 0b` 05c` 05c` 05c` 05c` 0b` 0c` 0b` 0b` 0b` 0_e`0'X'r` 0` 0e` 0=f` 0e` 0f` 0f` 0g` 0g` 0f` 0e` 0e` 0g` 0g` 04i` 04i` 0e` 0i` 0i`0'X'r` 0` 0j` 0j`0'X'r` 0` 0mk` 0mk` 0mk` 0mk` 0mk`0'X'r` 0` 0l` 0l` 0l` 0l`0'X'r` 0 ` 0ml` 0ml` 0l` 0l` 0l` 0m` 0l` 0ml` 0ml`0'X'r` 0` 0n` 0n`0'X'r` 0`0'X'r`0` 0` 0p` 0p` 0p` 0p` 0p` 0p` 0}q` 0}q` 0p` 0fr` 0r` 0r` 0fr` 0`s` 0s` 0s` 0`s` 0p` 0t` 0t` 0t` 0t` 0t` 0t` 0%v` 0` 0` 0v` 0v` 0` 0w` 0w` 0w` 0w` 0Kx` 0Kx` 0w` 0x` 0w` 0my` 0my`8 0VV 0Az 0uzAz 0uzAz 0uzAz0'X'rAz 0Az 0{Az 0{Az 0a|Az 0{Az 0|Az0'X'rAz 0Az 0}Az 0}Az 0}Az 0}Az 0A~Az 0A~Az 0}Az0'X'rAz 0Az 0Az 0Az0'X'rAz 0Az 05Az 0Az 0Az 05Az 0Az 0Az8 0VV 0 0ځ 0; 0ځ 0 0ӂ 0ӂ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ͅ 0 00'X'r 0 09 0( 0SS 0 0 0Q 0Q8 0 0 0ˈ 0ˈ 0ˈ8 0 0Y 0Y 0Y 0.Y0'X'rY 0Y0'X'rY 0Y 0zY 0ԌY 0ԌY 0zY 0Y 0Y 0Y 0zY8 0 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎0'X'r׎ 0׎ 0O׎ 0O׎ 0Β׎ 0Β׎ 0Β׎ 0Β׎ 0O׎ 0O׎0'X'r׎ 0׎ 0׎ 0׎0'X'r׎ 0׎ 0 ׎ 0 ׎( 0SS 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0!*8 0** 0 0 0 0z 0Ę 0Ę 0z 0F 0F 0z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ۜ 00'X'r 0 0 0 0 00'X'r 0 0* 0* 0ן 0* 0* 0*0'X'r 0 0 0W 0W 0 0 0 0 0# 0# 0#8 0** 0 0Q 0 0Q 0* 0* 0* 0Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0s 0s 08 0** 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0?[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0 [ 0[0'X'r[ 0 [ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 02[ 0[0'X'r[0[0[ 0 [ 0[ 0Y[ 0[ 0[ 0[ 0U[0'X'r[ 0 [ 0ѱ[ 0ѱ[ 0ѱ[ 0ѱ[ 0[8 0** 0M 0M 0M 0M 0xM 0M 0M 0M 0xM 0M 0ŶM 0ŶM 0M 0MM 0MM 0MM 0M 0IM 0IM 0IM 0IM 0M 0M 0M 0M 0M 0M 0{M 0{M 0{M 0M 0M 0M 0M( 0SS 0 00'X'r 0 0 0 08 0 0 0L 0L 0 0 0 0L 0 0 0m 0m 0m 0m 0  0  0  03 030'X'r 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00'X'r 0  0. 0. 0.0'X'r 0 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g8 0 0/ 0e/ 0e/ 0e/ 0N/ 0N/ 0N/ 0N/ 0N/ 0e/0'X'r/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0;; 0v 0v 0v 0v0'X'rv 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v0'X'rv 0v 0v 0v 0!v 0v 0v 0v0'X'rv 0v 0dv 0dv 0v 0v 0v 0)v 0)v 0)v0'X'rv 0v 0v 0v0'X'rv 0v( 0vv 0 0 0 0z 0z 0z 0 0 0z 0L 0z 0 0 0J 0 0( 0vv 0 L 0L 0L 0L 0L 0sL 0sL 0sL 0L 0L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0L 0L0'X'rL 0 L 0L 0CL 0CL 0L0'X'rL 0L 0*L 0*L( 0vv 0 0 0L 0 0 0 0L 0L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0g( 0vv8 0 0 0 0f 0f 0f 0 0 0Y 08 0 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0eV 0V 0V8 0 0 0 0$ 0$ 0$ 0 0: 0: 0: 0 0 0 0% 0 0p 0p 0 08 0 0 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0*0'X'r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0X 0X( 0vv 0 0I 0 0 0 0 0R 0R 0 0 0 0( 0vv8 0cc 0 0 0 0 08 0cc 0 02 0| 0| 02 0 0 08 0cc 0 0 0 00'X'r 0 0 0 0 0 00'X'r 0 0 0 00'X'r 0  0 0@ 0@ 0 08 0cc 0  0C  0C  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 00'X'r 0 0 0 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0M 0tM 0{M 0M 0M 0tM 0TM 0cM 0tM 0M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M8 0 0; 0l; 0; 0; 0l; 06; 0M; 0M; 06; 0l; 0] ; 0s ; 0s ;8 0 07  0j 7  0j 7 8 0 0b  0 b  0 b  0 b  0 b  0 b  0 b  0 b  0 b  0M b  0M b  0 b  0 b  0 b ( 0 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X( 0 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f 0cf 0cf 0f( 0 0; 0s; 0s; 0; 0; 0u;( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;; 0( 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0n 0n 0n 0K 0K 0K 0K 0n 0n 0 0 00'X'r 0 0i 0i 0 0 0i0'X'r 0 0 00'X'r 0 0 00'X'r 0 0 08 0 0 0 0  0 0  0  0  0 0 0! 00'X'r 0 0V" 0V"8 0 0# 0## 0# 0T$#0'X'r# 0# 0$# 0$# 0o%# 0o%# 0%# 0%# 0%# 0&# 0$# 0# 0I'# 0# 0'# 0# 0(#8 0 0?)0'X'r?) 0?)0'X'r?) 0?) 0*?) 0*?) 0*?) 0*?) 0*?) 0*?) 0*?) 0+?) 0B,?) 0B,?) 0+?) 0*?) 0*?)0'X'r?) 0?) 0-?) 0-?) 0-?) 0-?) 0D/?)( 08 0// 0/ 010/ 010/ 010/ 0/ 0|1/ 0|1/8 0// 0M2 0w2M2 0w2M2 03M2 0W3M2 03M2 03M20'X'rM2 0M2 0 4M2 0 4M2 04M2 0 4M20'X'rM2 0M2 0a5M2 0a5M2 06M28 0// 060'X'r6 06 076 0$76 0`76 0`76 076 0760'X'r6 06 0 86 086 0 86 0 86 0 860'X'r6 06 0K96 0Z960'X'r6 06 096 096 096 096 0960'X'r6 06 0:6 0N;6 0N;6 0;6 0;6 0N;6 0:6 0q<6 0q<6 0:6 0=6 0=6 0:6 0=6 0=6 0:6 0:6 0m>6 0m>6 0>6 0>6 0m>6 0;; 0? 0?? 0?? 0?? 0?? 0? 0@? 0@? 0@? 0@?( 0??8 0AA 0A 0AA 0AA 0A 0BA 0BA 0CA 0CA 0CA8 0AA 0C 0CC 0CC 0jDC( 0??8 0DD 0D 0ED 0AED 0uED 0uED 0AED 0FD 0FD 0ED 0FD 0FD 0FD 0FD 0FD 0FD 0GD 0GD 0GD 0GD 0FD 0HD 0HD 0D 0D 0D 0qID 0qID 0qID 0pJD 0pJD 0JD 0JD 0JD 0JD 0JD 0qID 0qID8 0DD 0AL 0vLAL 0vLAL 0vLAL 0MAL 0jMAL 0jMAL 0jMAL 0AL 0AL 0AL 0PNAL0'X'rAL 0AL 0NAL 0NAL 0 0OO 0O 0PO 0PO 0TPO 0PO 0PO 0TPO 0PO 0QO 0QO 0PO 0QO 0PO 0YRO 0YRO 0PO 0O 0eSO 0eSO 0SO 0SO 0SO 0eSO 0NTO 0eSO 0O 0TO 0OO( 0.U.U 0RU 0RU 0URU 0URU 0RU 0rVRU 0VRU 0!WRU 0VRU 0WRU 0WRU 0rVRU 0IXRU 0IXRU 0RU 0XRU 0YRU 0YRU 0YRU 0XRU 0YRU 0YRU( 0.U.U 0Z0'X'rZ 0Z 0N[Z 0b[Z 0N[Z0'X'rZ 0Z 0\Z 0\Z 0\Z0'X'rZ 0Z 0]Z 0]Z 0]Z0'X'rZ 0Z 0]Z 0]Z 0]Z 0]Z 0]Z 0_Z 0]Z 0%`Z 0%`Z 0%`Z( 0.U.U8 0PaPa 0ba 0aba 0aba 0Dbba 0Dbba 0bba 0aba 0aba 0aba8 0PaPa 0?d 0kd?d 0kd?d0'X'r?d 0?d 04e?d 04e?d 04e?d8 0PaPa 0f 03ff 03ff 03ff 0Mgf 03ff0'X'rf 0f 0hf 0hf( 0.U.U8 0ii 0Pi 0iPi 0iPi 0iPi 0iPi8 0ii 0j 0jj 0jj 0j 0+lj 0j8 0ii 0 m 02m m 0Um m 0Um m 0Um m0'X'r m 0 m 0{n m 0n m 0n m 0n m 0{n m 0o m 0o m0'X'r m 0 m 0^p m 0}p m 0}p m 0}p m 09q m 0}p m0'X'r m 0 m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0r m 0t m 0t m 0t m 0OO 0nu 0unu 0unu 0nu 0unu 0unu( 0nunu 04v 0mv4v 0mv4v 0mv4v 04v 04v 0w4v 0w4v 0x4v( 0nunu 08y 0_y8y 0y8y 0y8y 0y8y 0y8y 0_y8y 0z8y0'X'r8y 08y( 0nunu 0F{ 0|{F{ 0{F{ 0{F{ 0{F{ 0|{F{ 0y|F{ 0y|F{ 0y|F{0'X'rF{ 0F{ 0D}F{ 0_}F{ 0_}F{ 0D}F{ 0 ~F{ 0 ~F{8 0F{F{ 0~ 0~~ 0~~ 0n~ 0~~ 0~ 0~ 0~8 0F{F{ 0 0U 0U 0U 08 0F{F{ 0 0+ 0+ 0 0 0 0 0Ä( 0nunu8 0@@ 0V 0V 0V 0V 0:V 0V 0V0'X'rV 0V 0YV 0sV 0sV 0YV 0,V 0,V 0YV 0ԈV8 0@@ 0; 0l; 0; 0; 0l; 0; 0֊; 0֊; 0m; 0OO 0 0 04 04 0 0 0 0 0( 0 0 0 0 0: 0: 0 0m 0m 0m 0m0'X'r 0 05 058 0 0ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0$ҏ 0$ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0$ҏ 0$ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0ҏ 0bҏ 0ҏ8 0 0 0& 0 0 0 0 0A 0A 0& 0 0G 0 0G 0 00 0 0 0ٗ 0ٗ 0` 0ٗ 0 0ٗ8 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0Z 0l 0l 0Z 0Z 0 0i 0 0i 0i 0L 0L 0L 0L 0D 0D 0L 0 0 0i 0 0 00'X'r 0 08 0 0 0# 0# 0# 0  0 ( 08 0͢͢ 0  0' 0' 0 0 0 0' 0 0ڤ 0ڤ 0 0 0F 0F 0F 0ĥ 0 0' 0x 0x 0x0'X'r 0  0 0 0 0 08 0͢͢ 0  0^ 0 0^ 0^ 0a 0a 0 0 0^ 0 0 0J 0J 0J 0 0 0 0J 0. 0. 0J 0 0 0 0J 0 0 0 0J 0( 08 0 0ް 0ް 0_ް 0_ް 0ް 0ް8 0 0 0ò 0ò 0ò 0 0 0 0` 0` 08 0 0o 0o 0o 0o 0o8 0 0$ 0`$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0]$ 0`$ 0͸$ 0`$0'X'r$ 0$ 0w$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0w$ 0w$ 0$ 0$0'X'r$ 0$ 0{$ 0{$ 0{$8 0 0 0 0P 0P 0P 0  0 0 0 00'X'r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00'X'r0000000000000000@@00@0@00@000 GR`  `ny.H!y"#%%%J'()*,-.0n1240567(9!:;<#>?ZABCEEFHZIJK`MNpOCPQ(ShTU=WW[Z[ ]g^_a$cdd3fghhjklXnZopq4stuvwxy>{|~nՃaBOg!2UqݍU{*47G\r΄8 !=bRvs]<̧Sf)|@Xpڄ )M1BSJgrjy29(Yp54x;Oee     !"$%&'()+,-./013456;>BFIPSW[_cgkosx !&16:@DIMTY]bfkptx| q# +~3;D`MUn^g/pxt?ZIK>H0d.&1?;FPZ dmwdpŸjY~qDp U t .5p=@?DF~GHQVKW!Z[_xirx|"9tDy^? ; ?'0:AyGdOqWbir{uv,~t~J 8G$F*n3E9P@HM3Vf_f&lszCݔ$^w  LJ WS"4)/ 74>IN~U[aceko\qqqrsiw&z~$M`|}N85tN H!`(-2.:hCJ\PV]biqyNؐ ץ8i~_,Q wO#(z/^9@GNhUa\bee #*2789:<=?@ACDEGHJKLMNOQRTUVXYZ\]^`abdefhijlmnpqrtuvwyz{|}~     "#$%'()*+,-./02345789;<=>?ABCEFGHJKLNOPQRSUVWXZ[\^_`acdeghijlmnoqrsuvwyz{}~GVi$@Bh-IKu'CEiMik0LNyEad58d Qmp+ G J  2 N Q 8 T W F b e   : V Y *FIc;>| '*Zvy ),Zvy!$a}&BE2NQ7SV/KN.JM/2lb~8;~-ILr!_{~58s69k:=t; W Z !*!-!m!!!!!!"9"<"n""""""$#@#C#u#######$$E$a$d$$$$%"%%%=%Y%\%%%%%&&D&`&c&&&&&&&'7':'Z'v'y''''( (#(h(((((()-)0)h))))))#*?*B*W*s*v****+,+/+w++++++,,",9,U,X,,,,, --T-p-s-----..P.l.o....//"/j//////*0F0I000000041P1S11111 2 2N2j2m222233"3a3}33333-4I4L44444 5595U5X555556616M6P6666677X7t7w777788"8f888888899K9g9j9999:.:1:m::::::$;@;C;_;{;~;;;;0<L<O<<<<<==P=l=o=====>>H>d>g>>>>>??b?~?????,@H@K@m@@@@@@#A?ABAZAvAyAAAAAAAB3B6BvBBBBBB C(C+CcCCCCCC DF~FFFFFF0GLGOGoGGGGGG!H=H@HsHHHHHHI4I7IkIIIIIIIII%JAJEJ}JJJJKKIKeKiKKKKL.L2LiLLLLLLLMMDM`MdMMMMNN#NbN~NNNNNNOOTOpOtOOOOP2P6PVPrPvPPPPQ2Q6QyQQQQQQ(RDRHRZRvRzRRRRS:S>S}SSSSSSSTT[TwT{TTTT U)U-UIUeUiUzUUUUUU&VBVFVVVVVVV3WOWSWWWWWWW4XPXTXXXXXXXY;Y?Y~YYYYYYEZaZeZZZZZZZ6[R[V[z[[[[[[6\R\V\\\\\\\;]W][]]]]]^^S^o^s^^^^^__E_a_e_____` `H`d`h`````aa5aQaUaaaaaaa/bKbObybbbbbb0cLcPcccccd d!d=dAdTdpdtdddde/e3exeeeeeef,f0fnffffff$g@gDgZgvgzggggghh5hQhUhdhhhhhhi6i:imiiiiiiijjejjjjjjkk kak}kkkkkl$l(lcllllll5mQmUmmmmmmm7nSnWnnnnnnnAo]oaoooo p&p*pEpapeppppp qq?q[q_q{qqqqrr@r\r`rrrrrss)sEsIsssss ttAt]tattttt uuFubufuuuuuvvv %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%GNRY\!!!8@0( HY(% B S  ?k _Toc279309301 _Toc279309302 _Toc279309303 _Toc279309304 _Toc279309305 _Toc279309306 _Toc279309307 _Toc279309308 _Toc279309309 _Toc279309310 _Toc279309311 _Toc279309312 _Toc279309313 _Toc279309314 _Toc279309315_GoBack _Toc279309316 _Toc279309317 _Toc279309318 _Toc279309319 _Toc279309320 _Toc279309321 _Toc279309322 _Toc279309323 _Toc279309324 _Toc279309325 _Toc279309326 _Toc279309327 _Toc279309328 _Toc279309329 _Toc279309330 _Toc279309331 _Toc279309332 _Toc279309333 _Toc279309334 _Toc279309335 _Toc279309336 _Toc279309337 _Toc279309338 _Toc279309339 _Toc279309340 _Toc279309341 _Toc279309342 _Toc279309343 _Toc279309344 _Toc279309345 _Toc279309346 _Toc279309347 _Toc279309348 _Toc279309349 _Toc279309350 _Toc279309351 _Toc279309352 _Toc279309353 _Toc279309354 _Toc279309355 _Toc279309356 _Toc279309357 _Toc279309358 _Toc279309359 _Toc279309360 _Toc279309361 _Toc279309362 _Toc279309363 _Toc279309364 _Toc279309365 _Toc279309366 _Toc279309367 _Toc279309368 _Toc279309369 _Toc279309370 _Toc279309371 _Toc279309372 _Toc279309373 _Toc279309374 _Toc279309375 _Toc279309376 _Toc279309377 _Toc279309378 _Toc279309379 _Toc279309380 _Toc279309381 _Toc279309382 _Toc279309383 _Toc279309384 _Toc279309385 _Toc279309386 _Toc279309387 _Toc279309388 _Toc279309389 _Toc279309390 _Toc279309391 _Toc279309392 _Toc279309393 _Toc279309394 _Toc279309395 _Toc279309396 _Toc279309397 _Toc279309398 _Toc279309399 _Toc279309400 _Toc279309401 _Toc279309402 _Toc279309403 _Toc279309404 _Toc279309405 _Toc279309406 _Toc279309407 _Toc279309408 _Toc279309409 _Toc279309410 _Toc279309411 _Toc279309412 _Toc279309413 _Toc279309414 _Toc279309415 _Toc279309416 _Toc279309417 _Toc279309418 _Toc279309419 _Toc279309420 _Toc279309421 _Toc279309422 _Toc279309423 _Toc279309424 _Toc279309425 _Toc279309426 _Toc279309427 _Toc279309428 _Toc279309429 _Toc279309430 _Toc279309431 _Toc279309432 _Toc279309433 _Toc279309434 _Toc279309435 _Toc279309436 _Toc279309437 _Toc279309438 _Toc279309439 _Toc279309440 _Toc279309441 _Toc279309442 _Toc279309443 _Toc279309444 _Toc279309445 _Toc279309446 _Toc279309447 _Toc279309448 _Toc279309449 _Toc279309450 _Toc279309451 _Toc279309452 _Toc279309453 _Toc279309454 _Toc279309455 _Toc279309456 _Toc279309457 _Toc279309458 _Toc279309459 _Toc279309460 _Toc279309461 _Toc279309462 _Toc279309463 _Toc279309464 _Toc279309465 _Toc279309466 _Toc279309467 _Toc279309468 _Toc279309469 _Toc279309470 _Toc279309471 _Toc279309472 _Toc279309473 _Toc279309474 _Toc279309475 _Toc279309476 _Toc279309477 _Toc279309478 _Toc279309479 _Toc279309480 _Toc279309481 _Toc279309482 _Toc279309483 _Toc279309484 _Toc279309485 _Toc279309486 _Toc279309487 _Toc279309488 _Toc279309489 _Toc279309490 _Toc279309491 _Toc279309492 _Toc279309493 _Toc279309494 _Toc279309495 _Toc279309496 _Toc279309497 _Toc279309498 _Toc279309499 _Toc279309500 _Toc279309501 _Toc279309502 _Toc279309503 _Toc279309504 _Toc279309505 _Toc279309506 _Toc279309507 _Toc279309508 _Toc279309509 _Toc279309510 _Toc279309511 _Toc279309512 _Toc279309513 _Toc279309514 _Toc279309515 _Toc279309516 _Toc279309517 _Toc279309518 _Toc279309519 _Toc279309520 _Toc279309521 _Toc279309522 _Toc279309523 _Toc279309524 _Toc279309525 _Toc279309526 _Toc279309527 _Toc279309528 _Toc279309529 _Toc279309530 _Toc279309531 _Toc279309532 _Toc279309533 _Toc279309534 _Toc279309535 _Toc279309536 _Toc279309537 _Toc279309538 _Toc279309539 _Toc279309540 _Toc279309541 _Toc279309542 _Toc279309543 _Toc279309544 _Toc279309545 _Toc279309546 _Toc279309547 _Toc279309548 _Toc279309549 _Toc279309550 _Toc279309551 _Toc279309552 _Toc279309553 _Toc279309554 _Toc279309555 _Toc279309556 _Toc279309557 _Toc279309558 _Toc279309559 _Toc279309560 _Toc279309561 _Toc279309562 _Toc279309563 _Toc279309564 _Toc279309565 _Toc279309566 _Toc279309567 _Toc279309568 _Toc279309569 _Toc279309570 _Toc279309571 _Toc279309572 _Toc279309573 _Toc279309574 _Toc279309575 _Toc279309576 _Toc279309577 _Toc279309578 _Toc279309579 _Toc279309580 _Toc279309581 _Toc279309582 _Toc279309583 _Toc279309584 _Toc279309585 _Toc279309586 _Toc279309587 _Toc279309588 _Toc279309589 _Toc279309590 _Toc279309591 _Toc279309592 _Toc279309593 _Toc279309594 _Toc279309595 _Toc279309596 _Toc279309597 _Toc279309598 _Toc279309599 _Toc279309600 _Toc279309601 _Toc279309602 _Toc279309603 _Toc279309604 _Toc279309605 _Toc279309606 _Toc279309607 _Toc279309608 _Toc279309609 _Toc279309610 _Toc279309611 _Toc279309612 _Toc279309613 _Toc279309614 _Toc279309615 _Toc279309616 _Toc279309617 _Toc279309618 _Toc279309619 _Toc279309620 _Toc279309621 _Toc279309622 _Toc279309623 _Toc279309624 _Toc279309625 _Toc279309626 _Toc279309627 _Toc279309628 _Toc279309629 _Toc279309630 _Toc279309631 _Toc279309632 _Toc279309633 _Toc279309634 _Toc279309635 _Toc279309636 _Toc279309637 _Toc279309638 _Toc279309639 _Toc279309640 _Toc279309641 _Toc279309642 _Toc279309643 _Toc279309644 _Toc279309645 _Toc279309646 _Toc279309647 _Toc279309648 _Toc279309649 _Toc279309650 _Toc279309651 _Toc279309652 _Toc279309653 _Toc279309654 _Toc279309655 _Toc279309656 _Toc279309657 _Toc279309658 _Toc279309659 _Toc279309660 _Toc279309661 _Toc2793096625#v:v@zŇʇ_w-ʧSvϿO#oi /  z Ec*!|""+/5::F:@CILO~PWYz\^_aXdfi npt@ucuzv}Ŝ ȯյѺsFg 5  ###-i4J;F)K_MOUWaenr5suw}q2Q0Yų Ru^zjJ gDq 0-sj#IN    !  #&&-0G:?FI+NUCZ-]|bff'hrkjlrrMzGߋ oߞe$reP *Y/0 5D9;GGLPSVW4Y`AzY׎*[M/vLVc M;7 b Xf;#?)//M26?AACDDALOO.URUZPaba?dfiPij mnu4v8yF{~@V;ҏ͢ްo$  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijF9vDvGzɇ;ϤSGοOt"J 9. f )  bV!"",.05E:p:@DILPPQWY\^_4bdfi&npEtbuu؈ۜ<3fr(V&4jH<  D& ##$ .4v;GcKM PUWae\nrmsv}:P4S/U-Գ$1[#IS;"[E^h>/qjR@\E6__9   ^b _#&&.0w:?FI?N VuZi]b,ff[hklrr~zȃ66ۖ֩Ǫ˳bB2 H7*e/0E5}9";GHLPS)V/WhY atzف9ʈ<PKd*H1Bski  |r #{)/00v26?AACDEuLOOQUU [aaajd2fOiij1mulv^y{{~T*Uk%-"&]ݰ²_55GGvv>>233556689;<>?GGvv>>233556689;<>?*.=nnX%*s6`*Od/:)02:6Y6Ap#@,eҺ#v/ IhɈ9<(uR#pw2 ,/l6 m! C0s : Z*v X@ ~!(7 l >^LnQı8IaXlr)G/u4*e XvrSwl;*&zxa9&~l0zE~tNVr7")*nQCJ:;yD@Bx){6G"cA6!Ġ#N>JO\Bߢ01Y>Y?8Ff4zv %I.P/g Vfn+8 @"^*"Ix"*$#v^ xP#ԀjM%!&RQ,H',M'5I(*BM(0{($8AH(j r).lT* j+<F-Q3Q6y-~1u.~1y=/F0znK 1"K\#61IB62 4#m]S54p5nlZ%6GСGY 8B`z 8(L9p 8+p9Z9 )<5:ʙFb;Olf7;֮l;%{;UT<9C<`Onp?&6BP? o@tF{D:@AA" %pH|H>bG$IβOI_|ZJ@\K<-IIKp..KP c^>Mhg?mOD"a PxH]PЬ02Q2^jQLmRR-S:ZL'SbwT- |jTyb vV?WWAeX>bRXY:#27Z.[uXN\U_H8y]WKv^'Y_zK[waN !anG 0b yb ||tX%c tD02c, .ac6-n[*dH* d #de:/pqf0G.*fd  Bf&4/Fgb>Wg&{7Khn@d~iܓizliZl 8bzl9H%oDnp>,IQ8q>Dqq@m&`q<T9rKcX[rhPbEnryi^rQ>T r>儜N]txڈ&t2|>(! uȲāqTuXCP8CvNL@]ivnWZHv5Vv#x\|(lx(zTxP1?xSyp*${yXKye|2WH~N\~P:&\AK1t_GW h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o P^P`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(^`.^`.^`.p^p`)@ ^@ `()^`()^`()^`()^`() h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( 8^8`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo( x^x`OJ QJ o(o H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o P^P`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo( h^h`OJQJo( 8^8`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(  ^ `OJ QJ o(o x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJQJo(.Kyb[%%pH; 0b 8%ov/Q,H'WH~l OdLmRF-]P"a P@\K{y01YZHvzTx45 Bf9C<RXY1-=\#61qTuv jM%iT<H8y]02c7Kh0{;'S5Vvg?mOA,eT&t&`qp?_Sw)Gqf{(jTy=/npl;T9r&zr)XN\E~&%vV-S+8 .K' bEnrKySy$IdeG*H G :DBP?JO\OI1?x62lf7;QCVK 1|(lxx"@(! u dG]ivD#27Z C|ZJK1uR 4I`w2 xP#=nK[waXAeX:v )<5:l`^DP8CvH(9+p9^>M^*"IQ8qlT*9")CAi^r;y!a0s BM(\~Dqq)Y6Aac l6 I(?WI?bzlb;tX%cj+(7 Hm]S5pSF:&@ @d~iZlAAD:@O<jQM'e Kv^Q6y-e|G.*fcX[r2Q#xGY 8$Ba9#%6$#Wg1u.){ rLnQ[*d! IKli/g 4/Fgs'Y_AN]t%{,=G"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             E1\R"OK9,~/H/;\eHrP:hUi#_hV%Nܜ,{ʝ @fgRij{s====>>>>.>;><>R>\>r>y>z>>>>>>@t t tJtKtQtRtltm+o+p~̨̩̭̮̯((((((22ffffOOOOO     l!l"l#l%l&W(W)W+W,W.1234589ABZDZEZGLMXOXPXQXSXTXVXWXXXZX\cdfghiopqrwxz{|ˁ˂ˌˍ&&&&uu7777777777777222""""""vv vv!"#()/015679:5D5EFGSTUWXZ[^_`avcvdrfrgrhijrlrmrorprqrstuvpxpypzp|p}،؎jj˷˸eee77777RRRRRRDD22222.2/2728}A}B}H}I}M}N\]_`bcfkikjkkkqksktku{}~YYYYݶݷݸTTZZZ99 9 9 z zzz%&*+56LNCPCQsRsSsYsZs[s\x_x`ghjk=y=z==ԍԎԐԑGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGvv v v v vvvv !"#'(0178?@HItKtLtNtVtWtatcdedidjdkdldmdndodqrs%w%y~ÁÃÄ       XXXX--@(@0@<@X@`@|@@$@|@@@@@@@@@@@  @0@8@ D@(X@4l@8t@<>@BDF@LNPR@X@bdfj@n@rt@|@@,@<@L@X@`@l@x@@@@@@@@@@@ @0@8@ D@&P@,\@<|@J@R@X@`@h@ln@tv@~ @@ @0@8@L@\@d@x@@@@@@@@@  @$@0@8@@@"$L@(*,.`@24l@8t@>@L@R@X@\^`@d@ln@v@z@@@<@X@l@x@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @<@&P@2h@:x@@@P@T@XZ@df@nrt@| @ @ @ @0 @H @T @h @x @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @0 @ D @(*X @0d @4l @8t @> @B @F @V @\ @h @ @ @ @0 @< @P @X @x @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @, @4 @< @"L @,\ @68:> @B @HJ @T @XZ @^ @fhl @rtv @z| @ @ @( @0 @< @P @` @t @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@(@0@<@,`@2h@68t@<|@@@D@J@T@Unknown GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial;Wingdings3NfoQ+-3 fg7NfoQ+-3 00007CalibriCLucida Grande7Cambria? Courier New 0hbBbB#,y%y%!4ll J#HP ?'y0"Dana Wellesly-Stein                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~   Oh+'0x)   @ L X dpx' Normal.dotmDana Wellesly-Stein3Microsoft Word 12.0.0@@ @<hYj@<hYjG'PICT'b HHb bHHdXbb !! Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ_kZg9c^^g9RccscRg9^kZ^wkZ{g9NsskZRkZcg9kZ^g9kZkZckZkZZkZcZwwswswo{sw{wo{wwso{swso{o{skZskZo{wwo{wo{sww Ƣ Ƣ ƢPw{{{w{w{{{ {w{{{e*g9^^Z^^Vso{^^Zg9^c^kZcg9^ZZc^kZkZVVkZ^g9{so{VkZZkZ^ZZskZM{w{w{www{w{wwww{{{{o{o{{{ Ƣ Ƣ9g9o{g9Ns^g9o{g9^^g9kZZZo{^V^kZZc9cZNsBJRJR^VNsVR^JRZVRF1^VNsV Ƣ Ƣ: o{{{wws{sw{wswwsw{{?Vg9F1RRNssNsBwZRZF1VZg9NsV^g9s^4 {w{ww{{{{{{ Ƣ>cJRo{sg9o{kZo{^so{kZkZR^g9o{kZf^NsZg9VJR^ZVZZg9ZVo{Z^R^ccwkZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZ#w{{{޾{ NswZJRJRF1RVJRJRF1Rso{so{o{so{kZo{so{o{so{so{o{so{kZo{so{o{so{so{o{so{kZo{so{o{so{so{o{so{kZo{so{ZkZ'JRcNskZcg9o{g9cwo{g9kZg9kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{#o{ss{޸o{ {cwo{ZRco{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{^+{{{{w{KkZZ^wg9ssZwg9o{^^c^^cZ^o{Z^^Zc{kZ{s{޽Ko{kZo{{o{wwco{skZskZsskZ^o{g9ckZkZo{o{o{{so{o{wo{wD{sskZwkZo{kZsso{kZo{o{kZkZo{w{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wsMwsws{{o{ss{ws{{wwswwss{{wsNo{cg9wkZssg9o{wkZo{cZkZo{Zwc^co{o{ccg9{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wo{{{{{޻{c^cw^cwkZkZw{Zcs{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{^{{{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{QkZckZ{g9g9kZkZwsVo{g9g9o{kZsc{ckZg9g9kZg9kZo{cwss{w{{o{sswssg9o{wo{wo{so{kZsso{s{-ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww- {kZsw{skZ{swwOskZVcsg9sZ^^Zsw{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wg9)ws{{wsR^VVZo{Z=VVZVVZs{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wg9 ƢIwkZco{g9o{o{^o{^kZsccg9{g9^g9{cg9g9g9{wwso{o{g9so{^o{swso{wwo{o{ws5{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ws ƢKRo{{ckZkZsZg9kZ^o{g9o{g9ZkZg9kZkZo{o{g9cckZsci^kZg9^ZcVc^Z^VZkZZ^Zg9JRkZc^Zg9kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{^ Ƣ3V{cNsNsJRZR^B^R^NswR,w{{w{w{{w{wf#skZg9o{g9ss{kZg9wg9wswkZkZswkZkZsskZg9o{swwso{kZ{so{so{NsVRVRRZcg9ZVNsRRVcskZco{g9g9o{wo{kZso{skZkZg9wwccg9kZg9g9kZ{w{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wo{Jwo{w{ws{ {{{ss{s {o{^VRJRRg9o{g9RRNsg9c^kZskZkZg9kZ^ckZcZkZ^Zc^+ZZkZ{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wcw{޼["9ZJRZVR^ZNsc^JRNsZcJRVRo{Ro{F1VF1^JR^BZcRZo{{Nss{wssww{wo{sws{w{wssws{wss{sswsswwsswssws wsswsswwsswssws wsswsswwssws{IskZwwo{o{kZwso{swsg9o{s{swsco{kZkZNso{kZg9kZs^kZcco{cg9skZcco{sskZo{g9{w{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wo{E wo{wswwsssw{s"{o{Z^ZVo{cVV^ZcZ^o{kZZVZ^g9cVZkZg9o{g9^ZR^Z({{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{wg9{{޸QkZRkZcg9^g9g9kZg9kZ^g9g9csRkZ^ckZ^cg9kZg9g9^{wso{ws{w{wss{{wo{o{s{wwkZw/{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{w{I{o{Zo{g9kZg9ssg9ccsg9kZo{kZg9kZkZo{csg9p{swwo{ss{ww{{w{s{wsso{o{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{?so{^o{sg9o{wkZg9o{g9^o{kZo{wwkZq{so{sskZo{ws{{so{kZkZssw{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{wsAw{o{{{o{wssww{w{sw{{s{wo{{g9kZso{g9co{o{g9^g9cg9cg9cg9^sg9kZcg9kZ{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{wkZBss{{w{{o{ws{so{{su sc{g9cRcZg9cwc g9kZ^^Zo{co{wo{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{skZ-{w{{{{{{cg9^VZEVV^^cRcVZVZZ^^w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{ww{{w{{ww{{w{{w{{kZo{{޾M{kZwcg9g9^kZkZo{cg9g9cg9kZwg9g9cco{cg9kZso{j{w{w{w {wo{wwwo{{ww{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{Oo{kZ{o{g9kZg9kZcsscg9o{wcwo{co{o{kZg9kZco{kZwo{t{wwsws{wsswo{{wss{ssws{s{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{ Ƣ/ NsJRNsg9Vcg9RZg9cccU ccwo{kZcg9kZ^g9cco{o{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{kZo{Mw{{{{{{www{sws{{{{/NswZZF1RV=NsR^F1g9RJRF1BJRJRZ^kZF1kZVg9RF1F1JRcVJRcJRNsNs^VZJRJRNs^so{so{so{o{so{kZo{so{o{so{so{o{so{kZo{sV^+{{swwwy0=^RZg9ZF1ZRo{g9wNsRcg9JRZNsg9VRZ^NscF1RNsRNswZVNsRcRg9RNsccZco{c^o{{o{^ZZ^Zcg9ccV^cVZZo{wso{wo{ sswws{co{sso{o{wo{so{swo{o{so{o{so{so{o{so{so{o{so{so{wY g9o{swsswsw{kZkZw{kZsswswwo{swo{Zwswwo{o{g9wkZkZVRg9Zo{c^RVZwg9^RNs^ZZRkZc^ZckZo{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{kZo{kZo{o{kZo{o{cc5w{{{{{{{GkZNsg9Z^g9V^o{cZckZZZcsccVZZ{kZkZ{޳Wwg9skZZ^cg9s{g9c^g9kZkZc^c^c^w^g9co{cg9ccsg9Lw{g9cg9cckZkZg9^ccg9s{{w{ww{{w{w{_o{g9^o{g9sg9kZg9g9sg9ss^ZkZskZg9kZg9 o{g9o{kZsckZg9kZo{{skZv{w{c^^g9g9ccg9c^kZ{w{{wwswswsw{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{a$s{cso{so{sscwo{{o{sswo{kZkZw{wkZsskZwsswswcso{wo{}ws{VZVVcV ^^VVo{wso{swkZo{kZo{so{ skZo{o{ww{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{ws_o{kZ{kZ{kZsw{sg9{kZwo{wwo{g9kZw{sws{wswswwo{wkZ{ZZRZV^Zcg9^VskZkZo{ckZ{skZso{g9cwg9so{g9kZco{g9w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{wo{ow{o{sw{kZ{w{sw{w{ wkZswwsw{o{{s{ o{o{w{wsw{ssws{{s/wkZ{kZkZg9o{g9kZZw^VNsVZZVNsg9sg9o{kZkZZJRVJRVVNsVso{o{wo{cNsNs^kZo{so{s{w{w{w{w{w{wkZA{wwwo{{w{sswsw{w sskZRJRF1NsJR^g9VJRF1JRg9g9o{o{^{Zs^Zo{cZsZc^{{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{sg9+{{{{{{{o{ZZ^cg9c^wVg9ZkZcc^{ZZcc^o{kZ^^Zg9{{{{{{{{{{{kZo{{{kZ{{{{w{w{{{{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{e{kZwZ^ZkZg9kZZo{o{{^g9ckZZkZg9cg9kZsg9kZ^co{^skZg9cg9g9o{skZe{w{ccg9cg9cg9cg9ckZw{ws{{{ww{w{w{w{w{w{eo{kZ^g9o{g9kZg9kZckZw{o{^so{cckZwkZkZo{o{g9kZsco{kZg9kZkZsswkZz{w{^c^g9c^^cg9kZccw{{wwswsswso{wswsww{w{w{w{w{w{w{w{ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ Ƣ w ՜.+,D՜.+,@x  '%yl 'TABLE OF CONTENTSBackground and History Background History Text) Art. I, 8Congressional Powers+ Art. I, 9Universal Prohibitions+ Art. I, 10Limits on State Power Art. III, 3Treason- Art. IV, 2Privileges & Immunities Bill of Rights" Reconstruction Amendments( Voting Rights: 19th, 24th, 26thConstitutional Interpretation Judicial Review? Marbury v. Madison (Marshall, 1803): constl supremacy< Cooper v. Aaron (all, 1958): no state nullification- Democratic Objections to Judicial Review( Court Skepticism: Thayer (1893)9 Rights Skepticism: Learned Hands Utilitarianism. Responses to Hands Rights-Skepticism& Constitutional Interpretation Federalism< Federalist 10 (Madison, 1787): comm rep large territory@ McCulloch v. Maryland (Marshall, 1819): political deference) Commerce Clause: Congressional Power& Before the New Deal: variable/ During the New Deal: judicial scrutiny& After the New Deal: deference Today: more scrutiny State Power3 Dormant Commerce Clause: Art. I, 8, cl. 31 Transportation Regs: heightened scrutiny. Facial Protectionism: strict scrutiny0 Implicit Protectionism: strict scrutiny# Art. IV, 2 Privs. & Imms.+ Congressional Preemption & ConsentFree Expression Title Headings&P :B_PID_LINKBASE'A  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  Root Entry FC|Yj Data 1TableWordDocumentW SummaryInformation( )DocumentSummaryInformation8 CompObj` F Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8