Individual Rights: Due Process Flashcards
Facts: A Louisiana statute incorporated a company with a 25 year monopoly to engage in the slaughtering business within a 1,150 square mile area around New Orleans.
The authority of the LA legislature to pass this statute is ample unless some restraint in the exercise of that power can be found in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
Rule: Privileges and Immunities Clause Article 4 Sec. 2
Holding: In regards the privileges and immunities, the Court finds that it is only the citizens of the US that are protected by the Due Process Clause and not the citizens of a particular state unless it involves one of the few exceptions like the Ex Post Facto Laws. Thus, state citizens are not protected by these new Amendments.
Court then goes on to address several fundamental rights of citizens of the US that cannot be abridged by the states:
- The right to transact with governments and the right to seaports (Crandall v. Nevada Case).
- The fundamental right of life, liberty and property when a citizen of the US is on the seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign government.
- The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
**Facts: **D, Adamson, had been convicted of murder. Under California procedure, if a D failed to explain or to deny evidence against him, that failure could be commented upon by the court and counsel. This practice was brought into question when the D did not testify and the District Attorney commented on his failure to testify. The D alleged that his privilege against self-incrimination had thereby been infringed.
- The Court disposed of the D’s claim that the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the 5th Amendment was NOT applicable to state action by relying on the Slaughter House Cases as precedent.
- D also claimed that his right to a fair trial, protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment had been infringed. HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE 5TH AMENDMENT SELF-INCRIMINATION GUARANTEE APPLIED TO THE STATES THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE’S GUARANTEE OF LIBERTY.
**Holding: **Affirmed that the D’s 5th Amendment Rights were not violated as it held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, while guaranteeing fair trial did not “draw all the rights of the federal Bill of Rights under its protection.
Also, The Court held that a state could allow an inference if a D did not testify as that falls under any dilemma facing any D and falls in line with a sate idea of the most efficient administration of criminal justice
Rule: 5th and 14th Amendment
Facts: Lochner, the D, was convicted of violating a NY Statute prohibiting employers from employing workers in bakeries more than 60 hours per week or 10 hours per day. His conviction was affirmed by the NY Court of Appeals.
Analysis: Found that the Statute interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employee. The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the 14th Amendment. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment unless there are circumstances which exclude the right.
Issue: is this a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty, or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate for the support of himself and his family.
**Holding: **-Court also notes the interference on the part of the Legislature in some states with the ordinary occupation of the people seem to be on the increase and there real object is to simply regulate the hours of labor between the master and his employee in a private business, not dangerous in any degree to morals or to the health of the employee. Under such circumstances, this prohibition of the freedom of the master and the employee to contract violates the federal Constitution.
The Majority addresses the 14th Amendment by saying that it only addresses state action and thus does not apply to the private actors that are present in this case. This law addresses private action and not state action, and thus since the enforcement power of Congress can only apply to state action then Congress does not have the constitutional power under the 14th Amendment to pass this Act.
The Majority then addresses the 13th Amendment and says that racial discrimination in private accommodation is not a badge of slavery and thus does not fall under the 13th Amendment.
Court reverses the NY court ruling and finds that the ACT is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Facts: Nebbia, D, was convicted of selling two quartz of milk below the minimum price set by a milk control board acting under a 1993 state law. The Court of Appeals in NY affirmed.
The majority finds that under our form of government, the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not public concern and the general rule is that both should be free of governmental interference. However, these property rights and contract rights are not absolute as equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.
**Holding: **Court finds that the legislation does not appear to be unreasonable or arbitrary, or without relation to the purpose to prevent ruthless competition from destroying the wholesale price structure on which the farmer depends for his livelihood, and the community for an assured supply of milk.
Court holds that so far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitutional restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose.
If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, then the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination to that effect renders a court without the authority to override the legislation.
**Rule: State Action and 5th and 14th Amendment **
Holding: as the burden is on the challenging party to establish that the law has no rational relation to a permissible governmental purpose. Application of this standard has resulted in uniformly upholding economic legislation against due process challenges since the time of the New Deal.
- However, when the government imposes a significant burden on fundamental personal rights, the courts abandon the rationality standard in favor of a more demanding form of due process review. Still, the Court has founds that property does not inherently have rights has only people have rights.
- Some Commentators have found irony that the Court would show much more deferential treatment of the freedom of speech than the freedom of economic interests.
**Facts: **D, Griswold, is Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and D, Buxton, who was a licensed physician gave information and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception.
The Center was only open for 10 days before they got arrested. The D’s got arrested as accessories under a CT statute that forbid any person from using a drug or instrument of the purpose of preventing conception. They were fined $100 each against their claim that this statute violates the 14th Amendment and the Appellate Court upheld their conviction.
-The Court initially held that the D’s had standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship with.
**Holding: **Court finds that the present case concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. Finds that such a law forbidding the use of contraceptives cannot stand in light of the familiar principle that a “governmental purpose to prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms (NAACP CASE IS CITED).
- Court finds that if police had to search martial bedrooms for use of contraceptives that it would be repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the martial relationship.
- Court notes how it is dealing with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights as marriage is not a commercial or social project. However, the court HOLDS IT AS AN ASSOCIATION FOR AS NOBLE A PURPOSE AS ANY INVOLVED IN OUR PRIOR DECISIOn
FELL WITHIN THE PENUMBRA: The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights (specifically the first 8) have shadows, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Thus, various guarantees here create zones of privacy.
**Facts: **Court struck down a MA statute, which did not allow contraceptives to unmarried persons as only married persons were allowed contraceptives
**Holding: **The Court said the right of privacy in Griswold could not be limited to married couples and thus was extended to unmarried persons as well.
Court relied on the Pneumbra used in Griswold
Facts: - state can’t do anything in 1st trimester
- in 2nd trimester - gov’t can regulate for safety
- SC decision has effectively overturned the statutes of the bulk of the states
- Government regulation of abortion or issues
- waiting periods
- medical facilities
- informed consent
- fetal viability
- medical procedures
- spousal and parental
- governmental funding - undue burden - substantial obstacle
Holding: - Blackmun – it is a due process determination ( or 9th ament as trial court determine ) - protecting right to privacy as fundamental right
- he's relying on Due Process Clause ( but not ruling out 9th amend) - Gov't can't tell people that it can't have children - but also can't tell them they can - State does have important and legitimate interests: 1) in potential life and 2) health of mother - trying to present set of rights to answer argument that it is a determination of personal choice - dissenters say this matter should be determined by the states ( no historical practices
**Facts: **The informed consent rule under the Act required doctors to inform women about detriments to health in abortion procedures.
The spousal notice rule required women to give prior notice to their husbands.
The parental notification and consent rule required minors to receive consent from a parent or guardian prior to an abortion.
The fourth provision imposed a 24-hour hold before obtaining an abortion.
The fifth provision challenged in the case was the imposition of certain reporting mandates on facilities providing abortion services.
Holding: The plurality then overturned the formula used in Roe to weigh the woman’s interest in obtaining an abortion against the State’s interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”.
The plurality also replaced the heightened scrutiny of abortion regulations under Roe, which was standard for fundamental rights in the Court’s case law, with a lesser “undue burden” standard previously developed by O’Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.[3] A legal restriction posing an undue burden was defined as one having “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” The plurality also overruled City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983) and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986),[4] each of which applied “strict scrutiny” to abortion restrictions.[5]
Applying this new standard to the Pennsylvania Act under challenge, the plurality struck down the spousal notice requirement, stating that it gave too much power to husbands over their wives
Applying this new standard to the Pennsylvania Act under challenge, the plurality struck down the spousal notice requirement, stating that it gave too much power to husbands over their wives and would worsen situations of spousal abuse. The plurality upheld the State’s 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent requirements, holding that none constituted an undue burden.
Facts: Gerald intervened in the action and moved for summary judgment asserting a California Code, which provided that a child born to a married woman living with her husband, who is neither impotent not sterile, is presumed to be a child of the marriage. This presumption could only be rebutted by the husband or wife.
Michael H, had an affair with Carole D., while she was married to Gerald D. Victoria D was born to Carole and blood tests showed that there was a 98% probability that Michael was the father of Victoria.
**Issue: **1. First, he asserts that requirements of procedural due process prevent the State from terminating his liberty interest with his child without affording him an opportunity to demonstrate his paternity in an evidentiary hearing.
- Michael’s other argument is predicated on the assertion that he has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his relationship with Victoria. He contends as a matter of substantive due process that because he has established a parental relationship with Victoria, protection of Gerald’s and Carole’s martial union is an insufficient state interest to support termination of that relationship
Holding: When the child is born into an existing martial family, the natural father’s unique opportunity, of allowing no other males to develop a relationship with his offspring, conflicts with the similarly unique opportunity of the husband of the marriage, and it is not unconstitutional for the State to give categorical preference to the husband of marriage. Court finds that it is question of legislative policy and not constitutional law on whether California will allow the presumed parenthood to take precedent over the rights of the natural father.
Facts: D, YAZAN AMMAN, was charged with violating GA’s statute criminalizing sodomy by commiting the act with another male, JAMES MOSS, in his bedroom. D challenged the constitutionality of the statute and the Court of Appeals, relying on cases such as Griswold, held the statute unconstitutional.
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Issue: Whether The fundamental right or privacy extends to homosexual sodomy acts?
**Holding: **Found that the Sup. Ct has sought to identify the nature of the rights qualifying for heightened judicial protection. Also, found that the right of homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sex is not a fundamental right or one deeply rooted in America’s history, as many states still outlaw sodomy and other homosexual acts.
Also, held that the Court is must vulnerable when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little design in the Constitution and thus there should be a great resistance to expand the substantive reach of the Due Process Clauses.
**Facts: **Police entered the house of Lawrence’s after a weapons disturbance had been reported and the officers observed Lawrence and another man engaging in a sexual act. The two men were arrested under Texas’s statute that deals with deviate sexual intercourse with member of the same sex.
Issue: Whether the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate and sexual conduct is constitutional?
**Holding: **Court turns to GRISWOLD CASE that established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the martial relationship. Also, found that these prior cases demonstrate a protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause that has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person.
Court overrules BOWERS and finds that the holding in BOWERS demeans the lives of homosexual persons. Court finds that the stigma which the criminal statute imposes is not trivial as it has collateral consequences such as appearing on the D’s future job applications. Also, the Court finds that the foundations of BOWERS have sustained serious erosion from the Court’s recent decisions in CASEY AND ROMER.
Also, finds that the right the D seek in this case have been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries and that there has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.
