F. Classifications Disadvantaging Aliens

• What legitimate purposes might a state have for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens?
• voting? holding elective office? other functions in the political community? distribution of public support?
• should the use of such a classification be "suspect"? are there the same reasons for doing so that exist in the case of race/national origin or gender?
• GRAHAM V. RICHARDSON, p. 883 (1971)
• what regulation, with what purpose?
• what constitutional bases for objection?
• equal protection
• federal preemption: Truax v. Raich (1915)
• under equal protection, what standard of review?
• cases relied on
• Takahashi (1948), relying on Korematsu!
• Oyama v. California (1948)
• is the rationale of these cases alienage, or race?
• is the classification narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest?
• BERNAL V. FAINTER, p. 885 (1984)
• what regulation, with what purpose?
• what standard of review does the Court apply?
• suspect-classification strict scrutiny?
• rational basis?
• what standard of review would be applied in the following cases?
• citizenship requirement for state police officers (Foley v. Connelie (1978))
• same for public school teachers (Ambach v. Norwick (1979))
• "peace officers", including probation officers (Cabell (1982))
• how do we know which standard to apply?
• MATHEWS V. DIAZ, p. 889 (1976)
• what regulation, with what purpose?
• what standard of review is applied?
• what distinguishes this from an identical state-law requirement? (Sugarman, 1973)
 
G. What Other Classifications will Provoke Strict Scrutiny?

• what regulation, with what purpose?
• what standard of review?
• suspect-classification strict scrutiny?
• fundamental-rights strict scrutiny? (Lawrence v. Texas!)
• rational basis?
• would the result be different, if the regulation were statutory rather than constitutional?