Fundamental Rights - Case Take Aways Flashcards
Lochner v. New York
Lochner v. New York - Maximum Hours for Bakery Employees
Lochner Era Jurisprudence: Before an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to contract in relation to his own labor, the act must have a direct relation to the health and welfare of the employee, as a means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate.
Fails Heightened Scrutiny: The court found there was no reasonable ground for interfering with the right of free contract by determining a baker’s hours of labor because under such circumstances, the freedom of master and employee to contract with each other in relation to their employment cannot be prohibited or interfered with without violating the Constitution.
- Establishes that the court will use a form of heightened scrutiny without legislative deference for the infringement of fundamental rights
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish - Washington’s minimum wage of $14.50 per 48-hour week for women
Laws regulating business and employment practices will be upheld when rationally and reasonably related in objective to a legitimate government purpose (Deferential Standard)
Passes Rational Basis Review: The exploitation of a class of workers who are at a disadvantaged bargaining position is not in the best interest of the health of the worker and economic health of the community. (End of Lochner Era)
- The state is justified in adopting such legislation to protect the rest of the community from the burden of supporting economically disadvantaged workers.
United States v. Carolene Products Co.
United States v. Carolene Products Co. - Millnut – Imitation milk with coconut oil
Passes Rational Basis Review: The Court upheld a federal prohibition on the interstate shipment of filled milk, because it is a decision that should be made by Congress even if grossly overinclusive.
- Public Health Interest: There was a strong public interest motive for the legislation due to the twenty years of evidence demonstrating the public health dangers from the general consumption of foods that have been stripped of elements essential to the maintenance of health.
- Rationally Related: No alternatives existed because this product was indistinguishable from pure milk, thus making fraudulent distribution easy and protection of the consumer difficult.
Footnote Four: Established that heightened scrutiny is appropriate for certain government action concerning “discrete and insular” minorities and personal rights (Not economic rights)
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma - Opticians need prescriptions to fit new or duplicate lenses
Establishes rational basis review as the appropriate level of scrutiny for judicial review of economic regulation
Passes Rational Basis Review: Legitimate reason of health and safety in regulating opticians and requires prescriptions is rationally related to furthering this interest even though it is effective infrequent circumstances (Even if very overinclusive)
- Demonstrates the high level of legislative deference found in rational basis review
Buck v. Bell
Right to Reproductive Autonomy
Buck v. Bell - 3 Generations of Imbeciles Is Enough! – Mandatory Sterilization
Passes Rational Basis Review: Court found the in better gene pools and not having to remove defect persons from society later to be a legitimate state interest and that the sterilization program was rationally related to this interest
- Demonstrates an extreme deference to the legislature
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Right to Reproductive Autonomy
Skinner v. Oklahoma - Sterilization of Third-Time Felons
Fails Strict Scrutiny: The right to have offspring is a fundamental right, requiring a compelling state interest to interfere with it. (Sterilization of habitual offenders in no way guarantees that new offenders will not be born)
- Furthermore the laws application distinguishes between larcenists and embezzlers for which the state cannot offer any reason for (Overlap of Fundamental Rights & Equal Protection)
Griswold v. Connecticut
Right to Reproductive Autonomy
Griswold v. Connecticut - Fines for the use of contraception
Court holds that the right to privacy in marriage is not specifically protected in either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but it is a right so firmly rooted in tradition that its protection is mandated.
- The right to make reproductive decisions includes purchasing and using contraceptives which is covered by this right to privacy
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Right to Reproductive Autonomy
Eisenstadt v. Baird - Contraceptives for only married couples but not single persons
Equal protection case that piggybacks onto the holding of Griswold to confirm that the fundamental right of access to contraceptives extends to both married and unmarried couples and infringement is subject to strict scrutiny
- Court is unwilling to limit Griswold to only married persons
Roe v. Wade
Right to Reproductive Autonomy
Roe v. Wade - Trimester Viability Framework
Fundamental right to have an abortion is protected by the right to privacy, such that infringement is subject to strict scrutiny
- The State has increasingly compelling interests:
- Health and safety of the mother
- Protecting the unborn fetus
- Court holds that there may be no interference in the 1st trimester and that the state’s interest increases throughout the pregnancy
- There is a profound disagreement of what is the point of viability and when there is “Potentiality of Human Life” (Changes as science develops)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Right to Reproductive Autonomy
Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Undue Burden of Spousal Notification
Court reaffirms the central holding of Roe: Abortion is still a fundamental right up until viability, but after viability, states can prohibit abortion outright, but prior to viability the state may regulate abortions so long as the legislation ensures “thoughtful and informed” decisions and does not impose an undue burden
- Test – Undue Burden: Does the law have a purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion?
Spousal notification is held to be an undue burden
Stare Decisis – When it is permissible to abandon precedent? (1) Unworkable rule, (2) Reliance interests being unsettled, and (3) Factual changes
- O’Connor abandons precedent finding people rely on abortion as a backup plan
Loving v. Virginia
Right to Marriage and Family-Decision Making
Loving v. Virginia - No Interracial Marriage in Virginia – Burdens Whites & Minorities Equally
- The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men
- **Freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed upon by the state **
Meyer v. Nebraska
Right to Marriage and Family-Decision Making
Meyer v. Nebraska - Fundamental right to teach your children as you see fit including the German Language
It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.
The statute as applied is unconstitutional because it infringes on the liberty interests of parents’ right to control and fails to reasonably relate to any purpose of the statute.
- The interest in furthering the English language as the native tongue of all children raised in the state is insufficient because education is a fundamental liberty interest that must be protected, and mere knowledge of the German language cannot be reasonably regarded as harmful.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Right to Marriage and Family-Decision Making
Pierce v. Society of Sisters - Required public education infringes fundamental right to have a private education
The 14th Amendment provides a liberty interest in a parent’s or guardian’s right to decide the mode in which their children are educated.
- The State may not usurp this right when the questioned legislation does not reasonably relate to a viable state interest.
- Deference is given to the parents in how to raise their children (i.e., institutionalizing children)
Moore v. City of East Cleveland
Right to Marriage and Family-Decision Making
Moore v. City of East Cleveland - Grandma cannot live with two grandchildren who are cousins
The State must advance a compelling interest to infringe upon the choice of relatives of a close degree of kinship to live together finding the decision to live in a family arrangement is a fundamental right
- Court had to distinguish from the precedent of Belle-Terre to apply strict scrutiny, and did so on the grounds that Belle Terre dealt only with unrelated people but here there is intrusive governmental invasion slicing deeply into the family itself
- State’s interests are legitimate but not narrowly tailored
- The law in question is both over and under inclusive such that it would divide up blood relatives in this case while allowing an indefinite number of blood relatives to live together depending on their relationship
- This plurality approach has taken the strength of a majority opinion
Lawrence v. Texas
Right to Private Sexual Activity
Lawrence v. Texas - Texas Anti-Sodomy Statute
Demonstrates how important framing the right at issue is
Overturns Bowers by defining the fundamental right in question as adults engaging in private sexual conduct and not just homosexual conduct allowing this broad approach to be accepted by the majority
- Rights must be analyzed in general and it is improper to take a narrow stance and reduce the right to a minimum
- With the narrow approach the court found the history of criminalizing sodomy which is fatal to announcing a fundamental right, however the majority finds it is a recent development that the statutes have targeted same sex conduct
- With a broad approach the court finds that the right to engage in private sexual conduct without intervention is such that the statute fails rational basis review
- The court never announces a fundamental right is at stake triggering strict scrutiny
Unclear Holding By Not Announcing a Fundamental Right:
- Either Private sexual conduct is not a fundamental right and rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrutiny, or
- Private sexual conduct is a fundamental right but it was unnecessary to apply strict scrutiny when the statute would fail rational basis review and strict scrutiny is the appropriate level of scrutiny
O’Connor Concurrence: The statute would fail rational basis review for being based on animus and violate equal protection, but as a morals legislation the statute would pass fundamental rights muster
