The Right of Privacy as a Fundamental Right Flashcards
The Right to Marital Privacy - Griswold v. Connecticut
Facts: A Connecticut statute prohibits any person from using a drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood, gave information, instructions, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception.
Holding: There is a right to privacy in the marital context, and it is infringed here.
Analysis:
The right to privacy, through not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, is a right formed by other explicit guarantees.
The various guarantees that create a body of rights or penumbra concerning privacy include the First Amendment’s right of association, the Third Amendment’s prohibition against the peacetime quartering of soldiers, the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and the Ninth Amendment’s reservation to the people of unenumerated rights.
Concurrence – Goldberg: The 9th Amendment, while not constituting an independent source of rights, suggests that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive. A right will be recognized as fundamental if the traditions and fundamental conscious of the people recognize this right.
The Right to Procreate – Skinner v. Oklahoma
- Facts: Skinner was convicted of three crimes on three separate occasions. Under an Oklahoma statute, he could be declared a habitual criminal and could be ordered to be sterilized to prevent the passing on of criminal genetic traits. The statute was challenged on equal protection grounds, since it applied those to those who committed two or more crimes amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude.
- Holding: The Court, applying strict scrutiny, held that the Habitual Criminal Sterilization is unconstitutional as it violates the Equal Protection Clause. The statute discriminates against poor people; it indicates that rich people who commit white collar crime don’t need to be sterilized, but poor people who commit blue collar crimes do.
- The Court also held that the right to procreate is a fundamental right! Accordingly, the state cannot deprive anyone of this right.
- Concurrence – Stone: The Court should have invalidated this statute on due process grounds, not equal protection.
The Right to Engage in Private Sexual Conduct – Lawrence v. Texas
Facts: The Texas Penal Code provided that a person commits a criminal offense if he engages in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
Holding: Unconstitutional! The right to liberty under the due process clause gives citizens the full right to engage in sexual conduct without intervention of the government. Recent law and tradition (past 50 years) shows an emerging awareness of the liberty that gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.
The Court, however, does not go so far as to recognize a fundamental right to engage in sexual conduct –> is a liberty case for the court. The Court may have been hesitant to recognize the right to engage in sexual activity as a fundamental right because they did not want to legitimize same-sex marriage.
Marriage as a Fundamental Right – Zablocki v. Redhail
Facts: A Wisconsin statute provided that any resident having minor children not in his custody and which he is under an obligation to support by court may not marry without a prior judicial determination that his support obligation has been met and that the children are not likely to become wards of the state.
Holding: The Court found that this statute unconstitutional. The Court suggests, however, that marriage is a fundamental right, stating that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals. It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter into the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The Court may have been hesitant to explicitly recognize marriage as a fundamental right because of the belief that that it may have a negative effect on other statutes that regulate marriage that the court wants to uphold (i.e. you can’t marry a brother/sister).
Concurrence – Stewart: This case should have been decided on due process grounds – the case is not one of discriminatory classifications, but of unwarranted encroachment on a constitutionally protected freedom
The Right to Personal Choice in Family Life - Moore v. City of East Cleveland
Facts: A city ordinance limited occupancy of any dwelling to members of the nuclear family.
Holding: The ordinance violates the due process clause. The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the due process clause. Indeed, the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.
Maher v. Roe – No unqualified right to an abortion
Facts: The state welfare department limits funding for first trimester abortions to those abortions that are medically necessary. Indigent women brought suit, claiming that the statute denies them their constitutional right to an abortion.
Holding: Roe did not declare an unqualified right to an abortion; the right only protects the woman from unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
Rationale:
Here, the regulation before the Court places no obstacles in the pregnant woman’s path to an abortion. An indigent woman who desires an abortion suffers no disadvantage as a consequence of the state’s decision to fund childbirth. The indigency that may make it difficult and in some cases impossible for some women to have an abortion is neither created nor in any way affected by the regulation.
This decision indicates that a state can express its position on childbirth through funding – the state may make childbirth a more attractive alternative so long as it does not impose a restriction on access to abortions. This certainly puts indigent women at a competitive disadvantage but does not take away their right to have an abortion.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey – Undue Burden Analysis
Facts: The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 requires:
The doctor to provide a woman seeking an abortion information regarding the procedure at least 24 hours prior to that procedure.
A minor to obtain the consent of one parent or the court before having an abortion.
A married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she notified her husband of the intended abortion.
A public report on every abortion, detailing information on the facility, physician, patient, and steps taken to comply with the Act.
Holding: To protect the woman’s right to an abortion, while at the same time accommodating the state’s profound interest in potential life, the Court should employ undue burden analysis. An undue burden exists if the purpose or effect of the law is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus obtains viability.
Analysis: The Court determines whether each of the above provisions is constitutional individually:
The information requirement does not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion. Truthful, non-misleading information on the nature of the abortion procedure, health risks, and the consequences to the fetus is reasonable to ensure an informed choice. Additionally, the 24-hour waiting period does not create a health risk and reasonably further the state’s interest in protecting the unborn.
The consent requirement for minors is also constitutional – prior cases establish that a state may require parental consent before abortion by minors, provided there is a judicial bypass procedure.
The reporting requirement is constitutional – it is reasonably directed to the preservation of maternal health.
The husband-notification requirement however imposes an undue burden on abortion rights of abused women who fear for their own safety and the safety of the child and are likely to be deterred from procuring an abortion by this requirement as surely as if the state outlawed abortion.
The Right to Refuse Life-Sustaining Treatment - Cruzan v. Missouri Health Department
Facts: Nancy Cruzan is in a permanent vegetative state as a result of injuries sustained in a car accident. Her parents asked the court to terminate life support. Missouri law allows for a surrogate to act for a patient in electing to withdraw life support, but requires that evidence of the incompetent patient’s wishes as to the withdrawal of treatment be provided by clear and convincing evidence.
Holding & Analysis:
The first question the Court addresses is whether citizens have a right under the Constitution to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The Court held that competent persons do indeed have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment. This interest extends to refusing life-sustaining treatment - hydration and nutrition. The Court does not regard incompetent persons as having the same right.
The Court accordingly upholds that Missouri law that requires clear and convincing evidence of consent by an incompetent person prior to the cessation of life support procedures. The Court may only defer to the wishes of the patient; cannot confide the decision to close family members.
NO Fundamental Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide - Washington v. Gluckberg
Facts: Washington state law makes it a felony to knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide.
Holding: The Washington statute does not violate the due process clause, either on its face or as applied to competent, terminally ill adults who wish to hasten their death through physician-assisted suicide.
Analysis:
The Court begins by examining the nation’s history, legal traditions and practices to determine if the right to die is fundamental. The Court concluded that the US has an almost universal tradition that has long rejected assisted suicide, and continues to explicitly reject it today, even for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. This being the case, the Court cannot recognize the right to assistance in committing suicide as a fundamental right.
Since there is no fundamental right, the Court must determine whether Washington’s ban on suicide survives rational basis review. The Court concludes that it does here - Washington has several legitimate interests in preventing suicide (protection of human life; the medical profession; vulnerable groups) and the ban is reasonably related to their protection and promotion.
