United States constitutional law in the context of "Substantive due process"

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

• The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose. The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
• The party is not directly harmed by the conditions for which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is grounds for asking for a law to be struck down for violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because, even though the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might adversely affect others, because they might not know when they were violating it. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.
• The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees from the defendant if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film, or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a district attorney to do so.

In the United States, a person may not bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit and will dismiss it without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

The equal footing doctrine, also known as equality of the states, is the principle in United States constitutional law that all states admitted to the Union under the Constitution since 1789 enter on equal footing with the 13 states already in the Union at that time. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to admit new states in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, which states:

In each act of admission since that of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has specified that the new state joins the Union "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever". Previously, when Vermont was admitted in 1791, its act of admission said Vermont was to be "a new and entire member" of the United States.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the states and their local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

In United States constitutional law, state action is an action by a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms.

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which nominally guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by race, which was already the case throughout the states of the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate".

The doctrine was confirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which allowed state-sponsored segregation. Although segregation laws existed before that case, the decision emboldened segregation states during the Jim Crow era, which had commenced in 1876, and supplanted the Black Codes, which restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans during the Reconstruction era.

In United States constitutional law, the Vesting Clauses are three provisions in the United States Constitution which vest legislative power in Congress, executive power in the President, and judicial power in the federal courts. They were added by Gouverneur Morris during the Committee on Style's final revisions to emphasize that the public was empowering each of the branches.

President Andrew Jackson responded to his censure in 1834 with a written "solemn protest" in which he interpreted these clauses as expressly creating a separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government. In contrast, Victoria F. Nourse has argued that the Vesting Clauses do not create the separation of powers, and it actually arises from the representation and appointment clauses elsewhere in the Constitution.

Barack Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, when he was elected to the United States Senate. During this part of his career, Obama continued teaching constitutional law part time at the University of Chicago Law School as he had done as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

In 1994, Senator Alice Palmer decided to run for the United States House of Representatives, leaving the Senate's 13th district seat open. When filing opened in 1995 for her seat, Obama entered the race. Eventually, his challengers were disqualified and he won the Democratic primary unopposed in 1996. He won re-election in 1998 and 2002. During his Senate tenure, Obama was involved with a wide range of legislation.