Constitutional Law Mnemonics & Memory Aids

Helps you remember the three levels of scrutiny courts apply in equal protection and due process cases. The level of scrutiny often determines the outcome.

• Strict scrutiny — necessary to achieve a compelling government interest (race, national origin, fundamental rights)
• Intermediate scrutiny — substantially related to an important government interest (gender, legitimacy)
• Rational basis — rationally related to a legitimate government interest (economic/social legislation)

The three-prong Lemon test determines whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause. If the action fails any prong, it is unconstitutional.

• Legitimate secular purpose — the law must have a secular legislative purpose
• Effect must not advance or inhibit religion — the principal or primary effect must be neutral
• Must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion
• Originates from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
• Now supplemented by the historical practices test from Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

Before reaching the merits, courts must determine whether a case is justiciable. CRIMP covers the five key justiciability requirements derived from Article III.

• Case or controversy — must be an actual dispute, not hypothetical
• Ripeness — the injury must not be speculative or premature
• Injury-in-fact — plaintiff must have standing (concrete, particularized, actual/imminent)
• Mootness — the controversy must still be live when the court decides
• Political question — courts will not decide issues committed to the political branches

Three foundational principles governing First Amendment free speech analysis. Useful for issue-spotting on any First Amendment question.

• Prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional
• Exact incitement required to restrict speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio — imminent lawless action)
• No compelled speech (Wooley v. Maynard, Barnette)

The three constitutional requirements for Article III standing, established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. All three must be met.

• Traceable — injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct
• Injury-in-fact — concrete and particularized, actual or imminent
• Can be redressed — a favorable decision must be likely to redress the injury

Framework for analyzing whether a state law impermissibly burdens interstate commerce, even absent conflicting federal legislation.

• Discriminatory — does the law discriminate against out-of-state commerce on its face, in purpose, or in effect?
• If discriminatory, apply strict scrutiny (virtually per se invalid)
• Market participant exception — state acting as market participant may favor its own citizens
• Excessive burden — if non-discriminatory, apply Pike balancing (burden on interstate commerce vs. local benefits)

Framework for Free Exercise Clause claims after Employment Division v. Smith and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

• Facially neutral laws of general applicability get rational basis review (Smith)
• Laws targeting religious conduct get strict scrutiny
• Individualized exemptions — if secular exemptions exist, religious exemptions may be required (Fulton)
• Not generally applicable — laws with discretionary exceptions are not neutral
• Government must show compelling interest if strict scrutiny applies

When the government restricts speech based on content, courts apply strict scrutiny. This mnemonic helps remember what qualifies as unprotected speech categories.

• Strict scrutiny is the default for content-based restrictions (Reed v. Town of Gilbert)
• Categories of unprotected speech exist (obscenity, fighting words, true threats, incitement)
• Actual malice standard for public officials/figures in defamation (NYT v. Sullivan)
• Medium matters — broadcast gets intermediate scrutiny, internet gets full protection (Reno v. ACLU)

Framework for determining whether government action constitutes a taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

• Per se taking if permanent physical invasion (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV)
• Economic impact — total economic destruction is a per se taking (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council)
• Ad hoc balancing under Penn Central for regulatory takings (economic impact, investment-backed expectations, character of government action)
• Reasonable expectations of the property owner
• Legitimate public use required for exercise of eminent domain (Kelo v. City of New London)

The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test for determining what process is due before the government deprives someone of life, liberty, or property.

• Life, liberty, or property interest — must first identify a protected interest
• Accuracy — risk of erroneous deprivation under current procedures
• More procedure — probable value of additional or substitute safeguards
• Burden on the government — fiscal and administrative costs of additional process

The characteristics that make a classification suspect and trigger strict scrutiny under equal protection analysis.

• Race
• Alienage (state laws; federal alienage gets rational basis due to plenary power)
• National origin
• Group history of discrimination and political powerlessness