Implied Fundamental Right Cases

Skinner v. Oklahoma- reproduction 

OK sterilization law. The law violated the right to reproduce. Here, the Court stated that there was no distinction in the statute between larceny (punishable by sterilization) and embezzlement (not punishable), this is arbitrary and pointless because similar crimes have substantially different outcomes.

 

The issue here is NOT the punishment, but the unequal application of the punishment.

Epc of 14th

Slayer land v. Tuane Basin- vote 

Only those who owned land that relied on district water could vote in the water election.  

 This is constitutional because water usage is not a traditional government process, but a consumer and provider production an area only for the purpose of water usage.

City v. Boden- vote

At-large election system in AL diluted the strength of black voters.     

Constitutional, because proportional representation is not a Constitutional guarantee as you have the right to vote, NOT the right to have someone from your group represent you.

Harper v. Virgina State Board of Elections- vote

A poll tax to vote in Virgina. Unconstitutional because voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying.  If you grant the right to vote, you cannot grant it in an unequal manner. It would be favoring the wealth

Krammer v. NY- vote

NY law restricts who is allowed to participate in school district elections to those who own property or rent with a student at the school

Unconstitutional, because the law is not narrowly tailored to fit the government purpose of helping those who are “primarily interested” in the school district have their voices heard . . . this denies certain citizens from participating in voting for the government by conditioning the school board on property ownership.

Dunn - vote 

Tennessee req’d durational residency to vote. State argues the durational residency requirement (1) protects against voter fraud and (2) assures the voter is knowledgeable.

Unconstitutional. Impinges on the right to travel and the right to vote. 

 Discriminates against new residents denying them opportunity to vote and directly impinges on the RIGHT TO TRAVEL. This law does not have an adequate justification (intelligent voting, avoiding fraud not enough).

Reynolds v. Sims (1964) -vote

For six years there was no reapportionment of Alabama legislature seats.

Argued that legislative allocation was not proportionate to population growth and denied equal suffrage.

Unconstitutional b/c EPC requires that seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Does not apply to federal legislature.

Williams v. Rhodes (1968) - vote

Ohio election laws made it virtually impossible for a new political party to get on the US President/VP ballot.

The State argued it was promoting a 2-party system to encourage compromise and political stability b/c a large number of parties would confuse voters.

Unconstitutional b/c the state must have a compelling interest to place substantially unequal burdens on both the right to vote and the right to associate.

Shapiro v. Thompson - Travel

State law req’d one year residency to receive welfare benefits. State argued to preserve fiscal integrity of public assistance programs.

Unconstitutional b/c its purpose was to discourage migration of indigent persons into the state and that would likely prevent travel and therefore violates EPC.

Sanez v. Roe

California’s law limited welfare benefits to new residents to the level of the state they moved from for their first year of residency

Unconstitutional b/c violates the privileges and

immunities clause of Art. 4, § 2 (see Slaughter House)

that protects new resident to be treated the same as longer terms residents. Congress does not have the power to authorize states to violate the 14th Amend. Court also relied on Dormant Commerce Clause.

memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County

Arizona statute req’d one year residency to receive nonemergency hospitalization or medical care at the county’s expense.

Unconstitutional- everyone has a right to travel and the right to healthcare is an important interest.

Dandrige v. Williams - right to welfare

The state law capped welfare benefits to families regardless of family size. 

The court held that this is constitutional because welfare is not a fundamental right. the state has an interest in allocating scarce public benefit. Therefore, rational basis is used. 

Dissent 

food/clothing/shelter is need to sustain life which is different from busines regulations

San Antonio Independent School Board v. Rodriguez- Right to Education

Texas local property taxes to fund public school caused

poor areas to be taxed at higher rate w/ little to spend on

education and wealthy areas to be taxed at low rates w/

great amount to spend.

Constitutional because the Plaintiff did not show that the law distinguished based on wealth classifications by showing (1) the law operates to a peculiar disadvantage of class identified as indigent and (2) lack of personal resources is not an absolute deprivation of the desired benefit.

There is no basis on the record that poorest people are concentrated in the poorest districts.

Plyer v. Doe

The Texas law provided free education to citizens and documented immigrants but not undocumented immigrants 

Unconstitutional the state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved. Here, the Court requires strict scrutiny because the children of illegal entrants are not comparably situated to their parents. 

Nebbia - economic interest

NY law required fixed milk prices.Board argues that the legislature is overstepping and they should be able to sell at whatever price. 

The court ruled that it is constitutional because the state of NY may regulate prices as long as it is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt.

A state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote the public welfare and to enforce that policy by legislation adopted to its purpose. Courts without power to override.

West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish - Econ

Washington State enacted minimum wage law for women and children.

Constitutional because liberty under the constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interest of the community in due process.

Based on recent economic experience, the exploitation of a class of workers who have unequal bargaining power are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage which is detrimental to their health and wellbeing. This casts a direct burden for their support upon the community (i.e. lost wages are covered by taxpayers).

Williamson v. Lee Optical - economic

Oklahoma law req’d a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist to provide a written Rx before an optician to fit or duplicate lenses.

Constitutional because the law does not need to be logically consistent in every respect w/ its aim to be constitutional. It is enough there is an evil at hand for correction and the particular legislation was a rational way to correct it.

United Staes v. Caroline Products - economic

Filled Milk Act of Congress prohibited interstate shipment of skimmed milk compounded w/ any fat or oil to resemble milk or cream b/c it was an adulterated food that was injurious to public health (condensed milk).

Constitutional because facts supporting legislative judgment is presumed. Not unconstitutional unless of such character to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis w/in the knowledge and experience of the legislators.

substantive due process

Substantive due process for economic legislation requires the law to rationally relate to a conceivable legitimate purpose. If economic legislation interferes with individual rights, restricts the political process, or discriminates against a discrete and insular minority, strict scrutiny is applied. U.S. v. Carolene Products

right to travel

the right to travel interstate is a fundamental right, and any laws that prohibit or burden that right must meet strict scrutiny.

Griswold v. Connecticut

CT law prohibited any personal use contraceptive or aid in contraceptive 

Unconstitutional because it violates the freedom of privacy guaranteed by the bill of rights penumbra that emanates from those guarantees. Gov’t purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means that sweep unnecessarily broad and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

Zone of privacy is implied through the application of rights 

1st Amend – right of association is penumbra. Originally viewed as right of political association.
3rd Amend – right not prohibit soldiers in home during time of peace is facet of right to privacy.
4th Amend – affirms right to people to be secure in their persons, houses, etc. from unreasonable searches & seizures (privacy).
5th Amend – right against self-incrimination creates a zone of privacy.
9th Amend – rights not enumerated retained by the people

Micro approach 

1st amendment - people joining together for polictical ends → not implicated in this relationship 

3rd amendment- no soldier not be in the house without the consent (quartered in a house) 

4th amendment → right against unreasonable search and seizure → no violation in this specific case 

5th amendment → not plausible implicated 

9th → limitation to the federal not the state power → have not incorporated for the 9th

Harris v. McRae

The hyde amendment denied federal funding for most abortions except or those medically necessary of a result of rape. 

Constitutional because the right to abortion is not a fundamental rights and the government does not need to pay for an abortion

Whole Women’s health v. Hellerstedt & June Medical Service LLC v. Russo

Texas and LA passed law that doctors performing abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles 

Unconstitutional because it places a substantial obstacle in path of women seeking abortion places an undue burden on her to receive an abortion

Dobbs

MS passed a law limiting abortions to only 15 weeks 

Constitutional 

1. No textual basis

   1. Only thomas reject 

   2. There must a textual basis in constitutional 

2. Not deeply rooted in history and tradition 

3. No fettered right for the right of autonomy 

4. Liberty sets limits

5. Struck the balance in another state 

Want to protect life 

The right to destroy potential life 

• Life at conception 

Five Factors

1. Nature of the courts error

2. Workable of rules 

3. Disruptive effect 

4. Quality of reason

5. Absence of concrete reliance - it w

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

The state law prohibited more than a single family from inhibiting into one dwelling 

The plaintiff had an extended family living in the home 

Unconstitutional b/c families are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. There is a private realm of family life that the state cannot enter. The court applied the rational basis test b/c public assistance is not a fundamental right.

Zablocki

Wisconsin law requirement  a person who wanted a marriage license to seek approval that could be denied if they were behind on child support payments or their child was a ward of the state.

Unconstitutional under EPC  state may not prohibit a person from marriage b/c they’re behind on child support payments. It must be closely tailored to meet a compelling gov’t interest (strict scrutiny). Marriage is a fundamental right.

Lyng v. Castillo

Federal law made eligibility for a food stamp program exclusive to the immediate family 

Does not include a distinct family. 

This is constitutional because Congress can create definition of a single household that distinguishes between close families and distant relatives or unrelated individuals for food-stamp eligibility 

lawmaker is not forcing you to live a part, just allowing you to make a choice about benefits (and note that welfare is not a fundamental right)

California v. Jobst

A dependent’s child’s social security benefits terminate upon marriage. Jobst had cerebral palsy and his wife did as well.

This is constitutional, as it is expected that economic status will change upon marriage. 

Rational basis → you don’t have a fundamental right to receive benefits (economic) 

Constitutional b/c not race/religion/political affliliation – the right to marry is dif’t b/c it was rational that a married person is less likely to depend on their parents.

Lawrence v. Texas

Two men arrested for homoesexual sex in violation of the Texas law prohibiting same sex sex. 

Unconsitutional becasue liberty protected by Const allows homosexual persons right to choice just as heterosexuals do.

Cruzan

The woman was in a vegetative state, so the family asked doctors to pull the plug. She previously stated that she did not want to live as a shell 

Statute is upheld 

The Court says yes, because forced administration of medical treatment would impinge on liberty. BUT there is not an absolute fundamental right to die . . . not necessarily. The Court states that a state may prevent a physically capable adult from starving themselves to death. MO has a powerful interest in making sure a patient’s wishes are carried out, but in maintaining life. Standard for this is clear and convincing evidence, so MO statute is upheld. 

Washington v. Glucksberg

Certain states permitted assisted suicide (so note the difference between here and Glucksburg). . 

Rational basis (no right to assisted suicide)

Prohibited assisted suicide 

Physician Assistant sudicide is a not fundamental interest because it is not deeply rooted traditional in the constitu

Board of Regents state of colleges

Professor hired as Professor without tenure for a fixed term then not rehired without explanation. This firing was constitutional. A property interest arises when you have a legitimate claim of entitlement.  

The professor argues procedural due process

Roth did not have a property right, because his contract specified that his employment would terminate after 1 year, with no extension.

Perry v. Sinderman

The professor had a contract that renewed yearly so long as teaching was satisfactory and displayed a cooperative attitude.

Owed a procedural due process

Because there is a legitimate claim of entitlement to the property interest

This is a right to entitlement

Cleveland v. Board of education v. Loudermill

Man was hired as a security guard, but fired after falsely stating that he had never been convicted of a felony without an opportunity to be heard/contest firing. 

Only for cause 

This is unconstitutional. Once the lawmaker makes a property right (here state made property right in job in law), must have due process before revoking it. 

Matthew v. Eldridge

The man received disability benefits, but then terminated his benefits after receiving his medical report. The state gave him an opportunity to respond (he did), but then the agency still terminated interest. 

He asked for an oral hearing

This is constitutional, man’s claim to inadequate due process (written instead of oral hearing) rejected. 

To determine adequate due process, balance 

It is not required to have an oral evidentiary hearing→ he could

Procedural Due Process Rule

Rule: to determine adequate due process, balance (1) private interest affected (2) risk of error if present procedure used versus value of other procedures and (3) government interest including fiscal and costs of other administrative proceedings.