Unique State Rights

Agenda

  • Makeup classes reminder
    • Thursday, April 25th 1:10pm - 3:10pm, Courtroom of the 90s.
    • Friday April 26th 1:10pm until 3:10pm, Courtroom of the 90s.
  • School funding review
  • Unique state rights

—

School Funding Review

—

Hypothetical constitutional provision:

“The Legislature of the State shall make provisions to secure a thorough, efficient, high quality system of free public schools throughout the State for the education of all children.”

Claims that plaintiffs might bring to challenge the constitutionality of a school funding scheme based on local control and property taxes:

  • Equal protection
  • Fundamental right
  • Legislature failing its constitutional duty

—

Unique State Rights

  • Privacy
  • Free speech
  • Civil jury trial
  • Environmental rights
  • Crime victims’ rights
  • Right to hunt and fish

—

Privacy

York v. Wahkiakum School District No. 200

178 P.3d 995 (Wash. 2008)

—

Free Speech

—

Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB

172 P.3d 742 (Cal. 2007)

“Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her statements on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” Cal. Const., Art. I, § 2.

Compare with, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” U.S. Const. Am. 1.

—

Justify the difference under Fashion Valley

Protestors want to crowd out the entrance to a store, intimidating people from shopping there and costing the store $10,000 in revenue. It is constitutional for Fashion Valley to force the protestors to protest elsewhere.

Protestors want to distribute leaflets near the store, discouraging people from shopping there and costing the store $10,000 in revenue. It is unconstitutional for Fashion Valley to force the protestors to protest elsewhere.

—

State v. Stummer

194 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. 2008)

“Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 6.

—

State v. Stummer test for constitutionality of content-based secondary effects regulation

  1. To qualify for intermediate scrutiny, State must demonstrate regulation directed at secondary effects, not speech suppression.
  2. To survive intermediate scrutiny, State must show regulation does not sweep too broadly. Court must examine:
    1. whether regulation protects a substantial government interest, and
    2. whether it significantly reduces secondary effects without unduly interfering with protected speech.

—

Civil Jury Trial

“In 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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” U.S. Const. Am. 7.

—

Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp.

771 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1989)

“The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, but the legislature may provide for a jury of any number less than twelve in courts not of record, and for a verdict by nine or more jurors in civil cases in any court of record, and for waiving of the jury in civil cases where the consent of the parties interested is given thereto.” Wash. Const., Art. I, § 21.

—

McCool v. Gehret

657 A.2d 269 (Del. 1995)

—

Environmental Rights

—

Penn. Env. Def. Found. v. Commonwealth

161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017)

“The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.” Penn. Const. Art. I, § 27.

—

Crime Victims’ Rights

Common goals:

  • restitution for victims
  • ensure legal system is sensitive to victim’s distress and privacy
  • protect victims from intimidation
  • encourage and include victims’ participation in prosecution

—

State v. Strom

921 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 2019)

“[T]he court shall fix the amount of restitution or reparation, which may not exceed an amount the defendant can or will be able to pay…” Section 12.1-32-08(1), N.D.C.C.

A crime victim has the “right to full and timely restitution in every case and from each offender for all losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal or delinquent conduct.” Art. I, § 25(1)(n) North Dakota Const.

—

State v. Damato-Kushel

173 A.3d 357 (Conn. 2017)

“[I]n all criminal prosecutions, a victim shall have the right to attend the trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend, unless such person is to testify and the court determines that such person’s testimony would be materially affected if such person hears other testimony.” Am. XXIX(b), Conn. Const.

—

Right to Hunt and Fish

—

Cabot v. Thomas

514 A.2d 1034 (Vt. 1986)

“The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.” Ch. II, § 39, Vermont Const.