Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process PDF

***Fourteenth Amendment*** ***Substantive Due Process*** = The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) prohibits the states from abridging „the rights and immunities\" of any citizen without due process of law. Section 1. - Who is a citizen - whoever is born there or has been neutralized - is subject...

***Fourteenth Amendment*** ***Substantive Due Process*** = The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) prohibits the states from abridging „the rights and immunities\" of any citizen without due process of law. Section 1. - Who is a citizen - whoever is born there or has been neutralized - is subject to the jurisdiction of - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US - deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law - deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - The Due Process Clause - procedural and substantive protection from interference by a State with the rights listed in the first eight amendments ---\> the Incorporation Doctrine - Guarantees the equal protection of the laws - The federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Ku Klux Klan Act) - part of legal developments; it provides for a civil action for deprivation of rights: - A person who in any way **abridges the rights** secured by the Civil Rights Act of the second shall be liable to the aggrieved party by action in court, in a judicial proceeding, or in any other regular proceeding for damages... - Case Monroe v. Pape. - warrantless breaking into a home by 13 Chicago police officers - the police officers could be sued as acting "under the color of state law" - X Chicago could not be sued - Because of this case, individual employees can be sued - The SC - "color of state law" = power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law." - This means that a state employee performing a governmental function, even if exceeding her/his authority, is acting under color of law. **Substantive Due Process** - Substantive due process = principle, the Fourteenth Amendment protects fundamental rights from government intrusion - prohibit the government from depriving anyone of \"life, liberty, or property without due process of law." - the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state action (the 5 A. - federal action) - This terms allow for broad interpretation (not in process) - The Supreme Court's first attempts at defining which government actions violate substantive due process occurred in the area of employment laws - ---\> the freedom to contract and other economic rights were fundamental - The state may not control - BUT 1937, the Supreme Court - approved the implementation of a minimum wage for women and minors - 1938 the Supreme Court indicated that a strict standard of review applied to substantive due process with respect to: - "rights enumerated in and derived from the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution, the right to participate in the political process, such as the rights of voting, association, and free speech, and the rights of 'discrete and insular minorities.' - After that the U.S. Supreme Court - fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are those deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms - Rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights - The amendments merely refer to or imply them - ---\> Personal and relational rights are fundamental and protected - Substantive due process to include the following fundamental rights (the SC): - The right to privacy, specifically a right to contraceptives - The right to marry a person of a different race - The right to pre-viability abortion - The right to refuse medical treatment. - The right to privacy, specifically with respect to childrearing - The right to marry an individual of the same sex. **Case Study: Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)** - Same-sex marriage - controversial in the United States for decades - In the latter part of the 1900's - progress, the movement to repeal the ban same-sex marriage - The landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision (more than 70% of states and the District of Columbia already recognized same-sex marriage) - Fourteen same-sex couples, and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased suits States that refused to recognize same-sex unions - Argument - respondent state officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment - denied them the right to marry in their state of residency or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. - All of the district courts found in favor of the plaintiffs - On appeal, the cases were consolidated, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states\' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to acknowledge legal same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions were not unconstitutional - **Questions of the Supreme Court:** - Does *the Fourteenth Amendment* require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? - Does *the Fourteenth Amendment* require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?  - [**→**]{.math.inline} Answer -- "**yes**" to both questions - **Majority** -- Justice Kennedy (later replace by Justice Gorsuch) - marriage is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. - 4 key reasons of importance of right to marry: - 1\. Marriage is a personal choice that reflects individual autonomy. - 2\. It creates a unique bond between two people, unlike any other relationship. - 3\. It supports families and children, and is closely connected to rights related to parenting, procreation, and education. - 4\. Marriage is a cornerstone of our social structure. - denying same-sex couples the right to marry was a violation of both principles - The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the *Fourteenth Amendment* + promise of equal protection of the laws - *Process Clause* + *Equal Protection Clause* -- make the forth independent principle - *Loving* \[v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967)\] - a prohibition on interracial marriage under both the *Equal Protection Clause* and the *Due Process Clause* - first declaration of prohibition of unequal treatment of interracial couples - It stated: \"*There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause*.\" - More understanding of marriage as a fundamental right - "*No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideal of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family*." - Marriage as an one of civilization\'s oldest institutions - **Dissents** - Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - Chief Justice Roberts -- question of legislation of same-sex marriage is on state legislatures - **traditional** marriage -- connection of one man and one woman - concern of judges' **interpretation** -- unintended results e. g. polygamy - critique of broad interpretation of the *Fourteenth Amendment* **The Obergefell** - opinion has been criticized for doing "too much and too little" - commentators -- relying on a murky theory of synergy between *Due Process* and *Equal Protection* to declare that marriage is a fundamental right (liberty) - theory is making unintentional results in the future without connection with religion **Case Study: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022)** - the *Constitution of the United States* does not confer a right to abortion - The court\'s decision overruled both *Roe v. Wade* (1973) and *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* (1992) - giving individual states the full power to regulate **any aspect** of abortion not pre-empted by federal law - concern of the constitutionality -- **2018 Mississippi state law** - ban of the most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy - 9 weeks before viability[^1^](#fn1){#fnref1.footnote-ref} - Jackson Women\'s Health Organization -- Mississippi\'s only abortion clinic - Thomas E. Dobbs -- health officer with the Mississippi State Department of Health - Lower courts -- prevention of enforcement of the preliminary injunctions - Based on case: *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* - Prevention of states from banning abortion before fetal viability, generally within the **first 24 weeks**, on the basis that a **woman\'s choice for abortion** during that time is protected by the *Due Process Clause* of the *Fourteenth Amendment* to the *U.S. Constitution* - **Vote 6-3** - **Majority** (Justice Alito) -- reversing decision of lower court ruling - Opinion: decision of *Roe* and *Casey* must be overruled - *The Constitution* makes no reference to abortion -- no implicitly protected right - Guarantee of some rights that are not mentioned in *the Constitution* - X but it has to be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" - **Decision** -- abortion is not part of a broader, deeply rooted right supported by past legal decisions - Ruling principle of *stare decisis* (used in previous cases) - Explanation of court's decision -- **consideration of 5 facts**. - 1\. **The nature of the Court's error** It compared *Roe* to a past case, *Plessy v. Ferguson*, which was \"egregiously wrong.\" - 2\. **The quality of the reasoning**: The Court found that *Roe* created rules about abortion that were not based on *the Constitution* or past legal decisions, and these rules were too detailed, like something you'd find in a law or regulation. - 3\. **Workability**: The Court said the \"undue burden\" standard from *Casey* was unclear and hard to apply consistently. - 4\. **Effect on other areas of law**: The Court believed *Roe* caused confusion in other important legal areas. - 5\. **Reliance interests**: The Court ruled that overturning *Roe* and *Casey* wouldn't disrupt important legal interests, like those involving property or contracts, which are more directly affected by changes in the law. - [→]{.math.inline} the Court believed there were strong reasons to overturn the past rulings on abortion - ***Dobbs* decision** - Importance to determine historical practices in protection of new rule - Court's explanation of the word "liberty" - = broad and can mean different things to different people - President Lincoln: "*We all declare for Liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing*" - ***Washington v. Glucksberg*** (1997) case - Careful consideration of new rights - "liberty" protected by the *Due Process Clause* could end up reflecting the personal policy preferences of the judges, rather than being based on law and history - **Finally** -- ruling in *Dobbs* only impacts the constitutional right to abortion and does not affect other rights protected under the *Due Process Clause*. - individual states now have the power to regulate abortion access as they see fit. - **Public** - Politicians: Pro -- Republicans X Against -- Democrats - Public: disagreement by 55-65% - Many States have enacted legislation **limiting** abortion rights - Including ban of entire abortion without exceptions - Several States have enacted laws and Constitutional amendments **protecting** the right to abortion ::: {.section.footnotes} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ::: {#fn1} životaschopnosti[↩](#fnref1){.footnote-back} ::: :::