substantive due process

Question 1

Rule Statement

Answer 1

Substantive Due Process protects only those liberties that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
(Dobbs; Glucksberg).

A liberty interest that qualifies as fundamental triggers strict scrutiny, requiring the government to prove the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
Liberty interests that are not fundamental are upheld so long as the government satisfies rational basis review.

The Court has recognized fundamental liberties include personal privacy and autonomy, including marriage, family integrity, procreation, contraception, intimate sexual autonomy, and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Loving; Griswold; Eisenstadt; Lawrence; Cruzan; Obergefell).

Question 2

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Answer 2

Facts: Connecticut criminalized contraceptive counseling/use; Griswold and Dr. Buxton ran a clinic for married couples and were convicted. Challenge: They argued the law unconstitutionally intruded on marital privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. Holding/Reasoning: The law is unconstitutional because the “penumbras” of several amendments create a fundamental right to marital privacy; moral disapproval cannot justify criminal bans on intimate marital decisions.

Question 3

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022)

Answer 3

Facts: Mississippi banned abortions after 15 weeks; the clinic challenged the law under Roe and Casey. Challenge: The clinic argued the ban violated the Due Process Clause by infringing a fundamental right to abortion. Holding/Reasoning: Abortion is not a fundamental right because it lacks historical grounding; thus rational basis applies. Mississippi’s interests in prenatal life and maternal health suffice. Roe and Casey were overruled for creating a right unsupported by text or history.

Question 4

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) ⚠️ Overruled

Answer 4

Facts: Pennsylvania required a 24-hour wait; spousal notification; and parental consent; Planned Parenthood sued. Challenge: Plaintiffs argued the rules imposed “substantial obstacles” to pre-viability abortion access. Holding/Reasoning: Most requirements upheld under the “undue burden” test; spousal notification struck down as a substantial obstacle. Roe’s core pre-viability protection reaffirmed but trimester framework abandoned.

Question 5

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Answer 5

Facts: Moore lived with her son and two grandsons (first cousins); city ordinance banned extended-family cohabitation. Challenge: Moore argued the law violated substantive due process by restricting traditional family arrangements. Holding/Reasoning: The ordinance is unconstitutional because family autonomy includes extended kin; the rule was arbitrary and not tailored to overcrowding concerns.

Question 6

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)

Answer 6

Facts: Wisconsin denied Redhail a marriage license due to unpaid child support and inability to prove children wouldn’t need public aid. Challenge: He argued the law burdened the fundamental right to marry. Holding/Reasoning: The law is unconstitutional; it directly and substantially burdens marriage and fails strict scrutiny—overinclusive; underinclusive; and less restrictive means exist.

Question 7

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Answer 7

Facts: Lawrence and Garner were arrested under a Texas law criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy. Challenge: They argued the statute violated due process by criminalizing private sexual conduct based solely on morality. Holding/Reasoning: The law is unconstitutional because intimate consensual sexual conduct is protected liberty; moral disapproval alone is insufficient; Bowers overruled for wrongly narrowing privacy to procreation.

Question 8

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) ⚠️ Overruled

Answer 8

Facts: Hardwick was charged under Georgia’s sodomy law after police observed consensual homosexual conduct. Challenge: He argued private sexual activity was constitutionally protected. Holding/Reasoning: The law was upheld because homosexual sodomy was not a fundamental right “deeply rooted in history and tradition”; privacy precedents did not extend to such conduct.

Question 9

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Answer 9

Facts: Washington criminalized physician-assisted suicide; though refusal of life-sustaining treatment remained allowed. Challenge: Doctors and patients claimed the ban violated a liberty interest in choosing to end life. Holding/Reasoning: The ban is constitutional because assisted suicide is not a fundamental right; under rational basis the state’s interests in preserving life; preventing coercion; and maintaining medical ethics justify the law.

Question 10

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri DH (1990)

Answer 10

Facts: Nancy Cruzan was in a persistent vegetative state; Missouri required “clear and convincing evidence” of her desire to withdraw life support. Challenge: Family argued the standard violated her liberty interest in refusing unwanted treatment. Holding/Reasoning: The rule is constitutional: competent persons may refuse treatment; but the state may require heightened proof for incompetent patients due to the irreversible consequences.