I did not take notes for this class as well. Below are the slides for the class. I was wondering if you could please answer the questions provided in the slides and explain them. Could you also add any important notes for the questions and other bullet points as well. For exam studying purposes. Or if you know documents/website that may help, a lot of material is Arizona specific too.

- Racial classification: \"most rigid o If state law substantially and directly scrutiny\" & necessary to accomplish interferes with fundamental right to permissible state objective marry, must be supported by . Freedom to marry = basic civil right \"safciently important state and protected liberty interest inter ests\" and must be \"closely 0 Only goal of anti-miscegenation tailored to effectuate those interests.\" statute = maintaining supremacy of 0 Means chosen were underinclusive & white race overinclusive and would not achieve goal when obligor truly indigent Child Support Wisconsin prohibited Oakley, delinquent child support obligor (9 children, 4 women, $25,000+ ), from having more children as condition of probation. Oakley pled guilty to willful nonsupport but challenged prohibition on having After Zablocki . . . children as unconstitutional. . Arguments for Oakley? . Arguments for State?\fBaehr v. Lewin (HI 1993) Federal DOMA (1996) Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003) Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health (Mass 2003) In re Marriage Cases (Cal. 2008) Proposition 8 (Cal. 2008) United States v. Windsor (US 2013) The uneven path to Increasing challenges to same- Obergefell sex marriage prohibitionsObergefell v. Hodges Facts matter! FINALLY 1 4 Ma Ohio plaintiff Jim Obergefell wanted to be listed as surviving spouse of John Arthur Michigan plaintiffs wanted to adopt as married couple. Tennessee plaintiffs wanted their NY marriage recognized in TennesseeWhy does Kennedy discuss evolution of marriage as institution? How does Kennedy respond to argument that Understanding marriage in history and tradition has been union Justice of male and female and there is \"no fundamental right to same-sex marriage\"? Kennedy's ma. 0"\" Does holding rest on Due Process or Equal oplnlon Protection? \"The challenged laws burden the liberty of same- ' sex couples... and abridge central precepts of equality.\" I I What is the Court's holding? Same-sex couples may exercise fundamental right to marry, and state laws are invalid to extent they exclude samesex couples from civil marriage \"on the same terms and conditions as oppositesex couples.\" No basis for state to refuse to recognize samesex marriage performed lawfully in another state. WHY NOT WAIT FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION? Might anything in Kennedy's opinion have bothered unmarried members of Court? l .4 no l1: Ilimu' [may U; B'r-ND \"Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.\" The debate about the role of the Court . . . 5-4 MAJORITY DISSENT 800 Sotomayor Kagan Ginsburg Breyer Kennedy Roberts Scalia Alito ThomasThe dissenters .. . CJ Roberts: Justice Scalia: Court's decision is a "threat to . "Just who do we think we are?" American democracy." . The majority opinion "returns the Justice Alito: Court to the unprincipled approach Court's decision "will be used to vilify of Lochner." Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy." . Majority's reasoning "would apply with equal force to the claim of a Justice Thomas: fundamental right to plural marriage." Court's decision "threatens religious liberty . . ."Applying Obergefell retroactively . . . WELCOME LaFrance v. Cline (Nev. 2020) TO Fabulous 2000: Civil union in Vermont LAS VEGAS 2003: Marriage in Canada NEVADA 2014: Nevada same-sex marriage ban held YESCO unconstitutional 2015: Obergefell v. Hodges FREE WIP - ATM TER WHY DOES COURT HOLD COMMUNITY PROPERTY RIGHTS BEGAN IN 2003?Amber and Lucy live together as couple from 2000 to 2010 and never participate in marriage ceremony. When they split up, they dispute division of assets. Amber argues they would have married if they could have and court should apply marital property law in dividing their property. Lucy argues Obergefe/l doesn't apply if parties never married. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE THE JUDGE? Addressing religious obiections LICENSING OFFICIALS -- the saga of Kim Davis, KY County Clerk, and legislative responses WEDDING RELATED GOODS AND SERVICES Private businesses that refuse to provides services for same-sex weddings may face sanctions under state or city nondiscrimination laws As defense, businesses assert right to free exercise of religion, freedom of expression Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (US 2018) Baker refused to make custom wedding cake for same sex couple on religious grounds. CCRC found him in violation of State's anti-discrimination law. Held: While neutral and generally applicable state law may restrict religious practices, Court found hostility toward Christian religion in record of CCRC's proceedings. Brush & Nib Studio v. Cit of Phoenix Ariz. Calligraphers who refused to make custom wedding invitations for same-sex couple sued for declaratory judgment that Phoenix Human Relations ordinance could not be applied to require them to make invitations. Creating custom invitations = pure speech. Applying ordinance to custom invitations would compel speech and substantially burden free exercise of religion and therefore subject to strict scrutiny. - Governmental interest in nondiscrimination insufficient to justify burden on 1st Amendment free speech and free exercise rights. A S \"Nothing in today's holding allows businesses 2 U preme to deny access to goods or services to Court's customers based on their sexual orientation or other protected status.\" caveat