fundamental rights

Question 1

Loving v. Virginia

right to marry diff race

Answer 1

SCOTUS held that freedom to marry has long been recognized as a vital personal right essential to the orderly pursuit of happinness by free men.

Question 2

Zablocki v Redhail

Answer 2

Wisconsin Statute not allowing marriage before court order granting permission. P had child support issues so was not granted marriage then sues. **Held: right to marry as fundamental right by reviewing precedent where it related right to marry to right to procreation. State shouldn’t ban only legal way to procreate (direct + substantial). Court said while there was a susbtantial state interest, the law wasn’t substantially related related to the interest and is not closely tailored to those interests. There are other alternatives.

Question 3

Obergefell v Hodges

right to marry same sex

Answer 3

the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same sex couples by both Due Process CLasue and the Equal Protection CLause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as the keystone of social order

Question 4

limiting right of unmarried fathers

Michael H v Gerald

right to custody of children

Answer 4

As far as substantive due process is concerned, the Clause only protects those interests found to be fundamental rights. This Court does not accept that to exercise parental rights over a child born into another family is a fundamental right sufficient to override a state’s conclusion that the integrity of the family should be maintained. For these reasons, the evidentiary presumption is valid.

Question 5

right to keep the family together

Moore v City of East Cleveland, Ohio

constitutional challenge to zoning law

Answer 5

Such an intrusive regulation of
the ‘‘family’’ cannot be sustained aka zoning law for traditional family. We have a tradition filled with brothers, cousins, etc., all living in the same house. Substantive due process recognizes and protects such historical values. At best, the City’s (D) goals of preventing overcrowding and traffic congestion have an attenuated relationship to the ordinance. While a city may validly restrict unrelated persons from residing together, it may not interfere with traditional family relationships. Reversed.

Question 6

crime to teadch any other language than english

Meyer v Nebraska

defines liberty and right of parents to control upbringing are encompass

Answer 6

A state statute criminalizing non English languages being taught violates the due process guarantees of the 14th Amendment. The state interest to foster a homogenous people with American ideals is legitimate but the means adopted exceed teh limitations upon the power of the state and thus violate the due process. The liberty guaranteed in the 14th amendment is not only economic rights, but the right to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home…enjoy privilges necessary to the pursuit of happiness by free men”

Question 7

Troxel v Granville

parent has fundamental right to care, custody, & control of children

Answer 7

Statute allowing for visitation rights. 14th amendment prohibits state from depriving any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law and this clause provides heighted protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Liberty interest here is that of parent sin care, custody and control of children. The state in question is overbroad and court found that it was infringing upon Granville’s fundamental constitutional right to make decisions regarding her kids.

Question 8

Buck v Bell

Question 9

Skinner v Oklahoma

Question 10

Griswold v Connecticut
right to privacy

Question 11

Einstadt v Baird
right to contraceptive

Answer 11

The Court held that the law’s distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the “rational basis test” of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Married couples were entitled to contraception under the Court’s Griswold decision. Withholding that right to single persons without a rational basis proved the fatal flaw. right to privacy has no meaning if only for married persons it’s for individuals to be free from unwarranted government intervention in fundamental matters

Question 12

Maher v Roe

Answer 12

The Court noted that there was a distinction between direct state interference with a protected activity and “state encouragement of alternative activity consonant with legislative policy.” Holding that financial need alone did not identify a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court found that the law, where state benefits were limited too first trimester only, was “rationally related” to a legitimate state interest and survived scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 13

Bellotti v Baird

Question 14

Planned parenthood v Casey/abortion stuff

Question 15

Cruzan v Director

Did the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit Cruzan’s parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter’s behalf?

Answer 15

the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent “clear and convincing” evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri’s actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state’s heightened evidentiary requirements.

Question 16

Washington v Glucksberg

Did Washington’s ban on physician assisted-suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying competent terminally ill adults the liberty to choose death over life?

Answer 16

No. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two primary aspects: the protection of our nation’s objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington’s ban was rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life.

Question 17

Vacco v Quill

Did New York’s ban on physician-assisted suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by allowing competent terminally ill adults to withdraw their own lifesaving treatment, but denying the same right to patients who could not withdraw their own treatment and could only hope that a physician would do so for them?

Answer 17

No. Employing a rationality test to examine the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that New York’s ban was rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, preventing euthanasia, shielding the disabled and terminally ill from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life. Moreover, while acknowledging the difficulty of its task, the Court distinguished between the refusal of lifesaving treatment and assisted suicide, by noting that the latter involves the criminal elements of causation and intent. No matter how noble a physician’s motives may be, he may not deliberately cause, hasten, or aid a patient’s death.

Question 18

Troxel v Granville

Does the Washington statute, which allows any person to petition for a court-ordered right to see a child over a custodial parent’s objection if such visitation is found to be in the child’s best interest, unconstitutionally interfere with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children?

Answer 18

Yes. In a 6-3 decision delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court held that the Washington Statute violated the right of parents, under the due process clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Justice O’Connor wrote for the Court that “[t]he liberty interest at issue in this case – the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy dissented.

Question 19

Lawrence v Texas

Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?

Answer 19

No, yes, and yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. After explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. “Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government,” wrote Justice Kennedy. “The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” continued Justice Kennedy. Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, with whom Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Thomas joined, filed dissents.

Question 20

Harper v Virginia

Did the Virginia poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer 20

the Court held the poll tax violated the Equal Protection Clause. Overruling its own precedent in Breedlove v. Suttles (1937), the majority reasoned that the eligibility to vote has no rational connection to the wealth of an individual. Thus, the poll tax could not meet the heightened standard of review applied to restrictions on voting, which is a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is important to note that there was no textual basis for this stark reversal, since the Twenty-fourth Amendment applied only to federal elections. This was an example of a situation in which the changing membership of the Court and changing attitudes in society propelled a change in the law.

Question 21

Kramer v Union

Did the requirement that he be a landowner or parent of a student to vote in school district elections violate Kramer’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Answer 21

the Court accepted Kramer’s argument that all district residents share substantial interest in school meeting decisions. While the statute purported to limit voting rights to those who were “primarily interested” in the election’s outcome, the Court found the structure of the law too broad to achieve this goal. The Court concluded that such restrictions must be tailored to achieve the stated goal, and the current classifications “permit inclusion of many persons who have, at best, a remote and indirect interest in school affairs and, on the other hand, exclude others who have a distinct and direct interest in the school meeting decisions.”

Question 22

Crawford v Marion

Does a law that requires voters to present either a state or federal photo identification unduly burden citizens’ right to vote?

Answer 22

the Court upheld the law, concluding that the photo I.D. requirement was closely related to Indiana’s legitimate state interests in preventing voter fraud. The slight burden the law imposed on voters’ rights did not outweigh these interests, which the Court characterized as “neutral and nondiscriminatory.”

Question 23

Reynolds v Sims

Did Alabama’s apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances?

Answer 23

Equal protection requires that state legislative districts should be comprised of roughly equal populations if possible.

the Court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded “no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens….” Noting that the right to direct representation was “a bedrock of our political system,” the Court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis. States were required to “honest and good faith” efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable.

Question 24

Evenwell v Abbott

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that districting take into account the number of people eligible to vote, rather than the total population?

Answer 24

The Court held that constitutional history, judicial precedent, and consistent state practice all demonstrate that apportioning legislative districts based on total population is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause. Based on the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment and the legislative debates surrounding its adoption, the legislature at the time clearly intended for representation to be apportioned in the House based on total population, and it would be illogical to prohibit the states from doing the same within their own legislatures. In cases in which the Court has evaluated whether districting maps violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has consistently looked at total population figures to determine whether the maps impermissibly deviate from perfect population equality. Additionally, the total population approach has been used by all states and many local jurisdictions, and there is no reason to upset this accepted practice.

Question 25

San Antonio School District v Rodriguez

Did Texas’ public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts?

Answer 25

No. The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas’ system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not “so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory.” Justice Powell argued that on the question of wealth and education, “the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.”

Question 26

Boddie v Connecticut

Answer 26

Corut ruled state law requiring payment of filing fees and court costs to receive a divorce violated indigent indicudals due process rights and preventing individuals from obtaining a divorve precludes them from exercising their right to marry someone else.

Question 27

US V Windsor

Answer 27

Court declared DOMA “marriage must be between man and a woman” unconstitutional as denying equal protection. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liebert yof the person protected by teh 5th amendment of the constitution.

Question 28

Fundamental Right/Liberty

Answer 28

so rooted in traditions and consciense of our people as to be ranked as fundamental

Question 29

Liberty Interest

Answer 29

A right conferred by the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions

Question 30

Due Process Clause

Answer 30

Clauses foundin the Fith and Fourteenth AMendments providiing that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”