Transcript Briefing Supreme Court Cases POL 4502 Spring 2007

Right of Privacy
Where do we find the right to
privacy?
•
First Amendment – HUAC Cases
•
Third Amendment – Quartering soldiers
•
Fourth Amendment – Search and seizure
•
Fifth Amendment – Miranda
•
Ninth Amendment – Other rights
•
Fourtheenth Amendment – Substantive due process
(liberty)
Foundations from the Court
•
Brandeis dissent in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
-- Court’s claim of wiretaps wrong.
•
Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Exclusionary rule.
•
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
•
Does the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a right to
privacy?
•
Yes. 7-2 vote.
•
The law is invalid because the case
concerns a relationship that lies within a
zone of privacy created by a number of
fundamental constitutional guarantees.
Foundations after Griswold
•
Katz v. U.S. (1967): Wiretaps
unconstitutional.
•
Stanley v. Georgia (1969): Privacy in one’s
home.
•
Substantive due process has been key
(rational basis)!
Standards for Deciding Privacy Cases
•
Rational Basis – If something is not
considered a fundamental right the state
only needs to show that it has some interest.
•
Strict Scrutiny – If something is a
fundamental right the state must have a
compelling interest.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
• Is abortion a fundamental right under the privacy
standard set out in Griswold v. Connecticut?
•
Yes. 7-2 vote.
•
The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass
a woman’s decision whether to terminate a
pregnancy. The detriments of not giving a woman
this right reach to financial, psychological, and
physical harms.
Post Roe
•
Harris v. McCrae (1980): Medicaid does not have
to pay for abortions.
•
Akron (1983): Court strikes provisions meant to
limit access to abortions. O’Connor key in this
case.
•
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (1986): Lost Burger.
•
Webster (1989): Public facilities cannot perform
abortions; states may proscribe abortion after
viability; Roe is not overturned.
O’Connor and Abortion
•
Undue burden added to list of possible
approaches to abortion.
•
Anything that places an undue burden on
the fundamental right to obtain an abortion
is subject to strict scrutiny.
•
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
• Do the new provisions of the Pennsylvania abortion
statute violate the constitutional right to privacy?
•
The Court announced a judgment in favor of
Planned Parenthood of Southern Pa. by Justices
O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Some of the
provisions were upheld, and others were struck
down.
•
It is imperative to adhere to the essence of Roe’s
original decision and we do so today.
Post Casey
•
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): Strikes
Nebraska late term abortion law because it
had no provision to protect a woman’s life.
•
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (2006):
Parental notification must include exception
for medical emergencies.
•
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007): Upholds
federal ban on late term abortions. Court
argues for an “as applied” standard.
Private Sexual Activity
•
Bowers (1940): Court will not find new
fundamental rights in the Constitution.
•
Lawrence (2003): Court reverses its Bowers
decision (this does not happen often).
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
• Does a law that criminalizes homosexual activity
violate the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection
clause and a person’s fundamental liberty in the
due process clause of the amendment?
•
Yes. 6-3 vote.
•
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it
is not correct today. It ought not remain binding
precedent, and it is now overruled.
The Right to Die
•
In re Quinlan (1976): Guardians can make
the decision to remove respirator.
•
Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of Health (1990).
Cruzan v. Missouri Department of
Health (1990)
•
Does a citizen have a right to require a hospital to
withdraw life-sustaining treatment when someone
is a persistent vegetative state?
•
No. 5-4 vote.
•
The clear and convincing evidence standard is
constitutionally permissible. Here we cannot say
that the Missouri Supreme Court committed
constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that
Cruzan’s statements are not sufficient to meet this
standard.
Right to Die after Cruzan
•
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997): States
may ban assisted suicide.
•
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006): The Controlled
Substances Act does not control doctor’s
ability to dispense a lethal dose of drugs to
assist in suicide.