Also known as:presumptive invalidity · presumptively invalidity · presumption of invalidity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A presumption that a challenged governmental action or regulation is unconstitutional, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling justification or the absence of less restrictive alternatives to overcome it.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Out-of-State Waste Surcharge
Pacific Bank ships hazardous waste from its out-of-state operations to a disposal site in State A. State A charges Pacific Bank a higher per-ton fee than it charges in-state generators for identical waste. Pacific Bank sues, arguing the differential violates the dormant commerce clause. The court treats the origin-based surcharge as presumptively invalid and requires the state to justify it under strict scrutiny.
Religious Use of Peyote
Alfred Smith, a member of the Native American Church, ingests peyote during a religious ceremony and is fired for violating his employer's drug policy. Oregon denies unemployment benefits because the conduct violated state criminal law. Smith claims the denial burdens his free exercise rights. The court declines to treat the generally applicable criminal prohibition as presumptively invalid when applied to religious objectors.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT of HUMAN RESOURCES of OREGON, et al., Petitioners v. Alfred L. SMITH, et al., Respondents.494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990)
Education for Undocumented Children
Plyler, a Texas school district, refuses to enroll children of undocumented immigrants unless they pay tuition. The children sue, claiming the policy denies them equal protection. The court subjects the classification to heightened review because it burdens a discrete group and treats the denial of public education as presumptively invalid absent a substantial state justification.
Plyler v. Doe457 U.S. 202, 231 (1982)
Bias-Motivated Fighting Words
St. Paul prosecutes R.A.V. under an ordinance that criminalizes cross burning and other symbols that arouse anger on the basis of race or religion. R.A.V. argues the ordinance singles out disfavored viewpoints. The court holds that even within the fighting-words category, content-based distinctions are presumptively invalid and must satisfy strict scrutiny.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota505 U.S. 377 (1992)
Economic Development Taking
New London condemns Susette Kelo's waterfront home to assemble land for a private development project expected to increase tax revenue. Kelo challenges the taking as not for public use. The court refuses to treat economic-development takings as presumptively invalid and upholds the condemnation under rational-basis review.
Kelo, et al. v. City of New London545 U.S. 469, 503 (2005)
Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone
Massachusetts enacts a thirty-five-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics that prevents McCullen from offering sidewalk counseling. McCullen sues, claiming the zone burdens protected speech. The court subjects the content-neutral but place-based restriction to intermediate scrutiny rather than treating it as presumptively invalid.
McCullen v. Coakley573 U.S. 464 (2014)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When does presidential action contrary to a statute become presumptively invalid?+
Presidential power reaches its lowest ebb when the President acts in opposition to the expressed or implied will of Congress. In that posture the action is presumptively invalid unless supported by exclusive constitutional authority.
Supporting sources
Does the dormant commerce clause treat all origin-based differentials as presumptively invalid?+
A state law that imposes higher fees on out-of-state waste or bans out-of-state goods while permitting in-state equivalents is treated as presumptively invalid. The state must then prove a legitimate non-protectionist purpose and the absence of reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.
Supporting sources
Are content-based restrictions on speech always presumptively invalid?+
Content-based regulations are presumptively invalid even when they target categories of speech that may be proscribed for other reasons. The government must show that the distinction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
Supporting sources
Does strict scrutiny apply whenever a classification is presumptively invalid?+
A facial racial or ethnic classification is presumptively invalid and triggers strict scrutiny. The government must demonstrate that the classification is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Generalized concerns about foreign influence or administrative convenience do not suffice.
Supporting sources
494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990)Constitutional Law
…366 U. S., at 606, and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid , as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of…