Constitutional Law: Incorporation and Privacy Rights

Before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, not to the states. This meant that states were free to restrict rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

The process by which the Supreme Court applies the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The Supreme Court incorporates specific rights from the Bill of Rights to the states on a case-by-case basis, deeming some rights more fundamental to liberty than others.

The dissenting view in Adamson v. California that all provisions of the Bill of Rights should apply to the states without exception.

The requirement that when a right is incorporated, it must be applied in the same way by state and federal governments.

A Supreme Court case where the majority upheld a state court conviction that used a defendant's silence against them, rejecting the application of the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination clause to states.

A Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the state's forced stomach pumping of a suspect violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A constitutional guarantee that prevents the government from depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures.

A right that has been widely recognized and accepted in our history and tradition.

This clause protects individuals from the government taking away their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It's a core principle of fairness in the legal system.

The highest level of judicial review applied to laws that infringe upon fundamental rights. The government must prove a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

A government interest that is of the highest order and requires a strong justification for infringing on fundamental rights.

A law must be specifically designed to address the compelling state interest and avoid unnecessary infringement on rights.

The lowest level of judicial review, where the government only needs to show that the law is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

When a right is not deeply rooted in our history and tradition, the courts will not protect it as a fundamental right.

Abortion, according to the course material, was not deeply rooted because it was widely banned historically. This means it did not meet the criteria for a fundamental right.

The Supreme Court established a right to privacy in marital relations, prohibiting states from criminalizing the use of contraceptives by married couples. This right was based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Court extended the right to privacy established in Griswold to include unmarried individuals. This decision prohibited states from discriminating against single people by denying them access to contraceptives.

When a state law infringes upon a fundamental right, like privacy, the courts apply strict scrutiny. This means the government must demonstrate a compelling state interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

The Court recognized a woman's right to have an abortion under the right to privacy. The decision established a trimester framework, where the state's interest in protecting fetal life increases as the pregnancy progresses.

In Roe v. Wade, the court recognized a state's compelling interest in protecting fetal life. This interest grows stronger as the pregnancy progresses, justifying greater regulation of abortion in later trimesters.

The Court also recognized a state's compelling interest in protecting the health of the pregnant woman. This interest is particularly strong after the first trimester, when the risks associated with abortion increase.

The 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. These rights, including privacy, cannot be infringed upon by the government without meeting strict scrutiny standards.

Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, so the court cannot create a right to privacy out of thin air. He believed the court was overstepping its bounds.

The Constitution protects the right of individuals to live together with their families, even if it means exceeding occupancy limits. This right is rooted in the historical understanding of families living together.

Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. This means that any law that limits or restricts marriage rights must meet a high level of legal scrutiny.

The Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. The Court found that such a ban violated the Due Process Clause because it infringed on the fundamental right to marry.

The Supreme Court declared a state law unconstitutional that prevented individuals with child support obligations from marrying until they complied with those obligations. This was seen as an unreasonable restriction on the right to marry.

For a law that limits the right to marry to be upheld, the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in justifying the restriction. This interest must be of vital importance and have a direct relationship to the law.

When a state seeks to regulate a fundamental right like marriage, it must use the least restrictive means possible to achieve its goal. This means choosing methods that achieve the goal without overly burdening the right.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is crucial for protecting rights against state interference. It requires states to follow fair procedures and to not arbitrarily deprive individuals of their rights.

Courts consider the historical and traditional understanding of a right when determining if it is fundamental. If a right has deep historical roots and is recognized as essential to a society's values, it is more likely to be considered fundamental.

The legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before taking away someone's life, liberty, or property. This ensures a fair trial and prevents arbitrary government action.

A right protected by the Due Process Clause, often related to personal freedoms or choices, such as the right to travel, to practice a religion freely, or to speak freely.

A legal right to something of value that the government cannot take away without following proper procedures. This can include physical property, but also less tangible things like benefits or official positions.

A two-step process to determine if procedural due process has been violated: 1. Is there a liberty or property interest at stake? 2. If so, was the process given adequate?

The level of process required before taking away a liberty or property interest depends on the circumstances. Sometimes a simple notice is enough, while other times a full hearing is required.

The first step in a procedural due process claim is showing that you have a right affected by the government action.

The Due Process Clause can protect rights not specifically listed in the Constitution.

Winning a procedural due process claim means the government must provide a fair process, usually a hearing or other opportunity to be heard.

The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prevents states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It prohibits discrimination based on a person's group affiliation and ensures that the government treats similarly situated individuals equally.

Courts use different levels of scrutiny to determine if a government action violates the Equal Protection Clause. Strict scrutiny is the highest and requires the government to show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored. Rational basis review is the lowest and simply requires the government to show a legitimate state interest.

A legitimate state interest is a government purpose that is valid and reasonable. For a law to pass the rational basis test, the government must demonstrate that the law serves a legitimate state interest.

A classification is underinclusive if it doesn't apply to all similarly situated individuals. For example, banning certain types of advertising while allowing others is underinclusive because it doesn't ban all advertising.

When a law is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, the government must provide justification for the law and demonstrate it is related to a legitimate state interest. This justification should be consistent with the level of scrutiny applied.

A law must have a reasonable relationship to the state interest. It doesn't need to be the best way to achieve the interest, just a plausible way.

Grandfathering is a legal practice that allows existing practices or businesses to continue even if they are not allowed under new regulations. It can be used to ease the transition to new rules.