Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Fair Laws

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Would you deem these as being constitutional? Why or why not? Can you explain this to me?

    If the airlines want to ban all individuals of middle-eastern descent from flying during peak hours, what standard must their action meet to pass Constitutional scrutiny?

    State A passes a law prohibiting the use of cell phones in restaurants. Is that constitutional?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 3, 2020, 6:37 pm ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Regarding the airlines question, it, in a general sense, boils down to proving "compelling governmental interest"
    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV § 1. Because the "rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual," Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948), "a [state's] racial classification causes 'fundamental injury' to the 'individual rights of a person,'" Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 908 (1996) (internal citation omitted).

    Accordingly, the Supreme Court's precedents set a high hurdle for any state actor that wishes to apply a race-based classification: The state actor must demonstrate that its racial classification advances a "compelling governmental interest[ ]" and that its use of race is "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995); see also City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 493-94 (1989) (plurality opinion) (same).

    The burden of proving that the racial classification is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest lies with the governmental actor. Mere recital of a compelling governmental interest is not enough to satisfy the government's burden under the strict scrutiny standard. Instead, the government must provide a "strong basis in evidence for its conclusion" that its use of race is compelling. Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 277 (1986) (plurality opinion); Croson, 488 U.S. at 500.

    The Supreme Court has adopted these high hurdles to government's use of race because "[a]bsent searching judicial inquiry into the justification for such race-based measures, there is simply no way of determining what classifications are 'benign' or 'remedial' and what classifications are in fact ...

    Solution Summary

    Would you deem these as being constitutional? Why or why not?