DO NOW:
GRAB TODAY’S AGENDA THEN ANSWER THE DO NOW QUESTION.
DO WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY? EXPLAIN.
CONTENT
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
• Yes.
• Nebraska violated the liberty protected by due process of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
• Liberty means more than freedom from bodily restraint. State
regulation of liberty must be reasonably related to a proper state
objective.
• The legislature’s view of reasonableness was subject to supervision by
the courts. The legislative purpose of the law was to promote
assimilation and civic development.
• But these purposes were not adequate to justify interfering with
Meyer’s liberty to teach or the liberty of parents to employ him during
a “time of peace and domestic tranquility.”
Bottom Line
CONTENT
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
• Yes.
• The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited
making private possession of obscene materials a crime.
• The rights to receive information and to personal privacy were
fundamental to a free society.
• The Court noted that “if the First Amendment means anything, it
means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his
own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our
whole constitutional heritage revels at the thought of giving
government the power to control men’s minds.”
• The Court distinguished between the mere private possession of
obscene materials and the production and distribution of such
materials. The latter, the Court held, could be regulated by the states.
Bottom Line
CONTENT
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
• No.
• In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court held that obscene films did not acquire
constitutional protection simply because they were exhibited for
consenting adults only.
• Conduct involving consenting adults was not always beyond the scope
of governmental regulation. The Court found that there were
“legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of
commercialized obscenity,” including the community’s quality of life
and public safety.
Bottom Line
CONTENT
Paul v. Davis (1976)
• No.
• The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to
matters relating to “marriage, procreation, contraception, family
relationships, and child rearing and education.”
• The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall
under the rubric of privacy rights.
Bottom Line
ABORTION
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
• Yes.
• Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to
privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create zones
that establish a right to privacy.
• Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new
constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.
• The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is
therefore null and void.
Bottom Line
ABORTION
Roe v. Wade (1973)
• Yes.
• The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right
to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the 14th
Amendment.
• The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during
the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the
second and third trimesters.
• As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.
Bottom Line
ABORTION
Maher v. Roe (1977)
• No.
• The Court held that the Connecticut law placed no obstacles in the
pregnant woman’s path to an abortion, and that it did not “impinge
upon the fundamental right recognized in Roe.”
• The Court noted that there was a distinction between direct state
interference with a protected activity and “state encouragement of
alternative activity consonant with legislative policy.”
Bottom Line
ABORTION
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
• No, Yes, and Yes.
• In a bitter, 5 to 4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld
most of the Pennsylvania provisions.
• For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine
the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks
whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of
imposing an “undue burden,” which is defined as a “substantial
obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus
attains viability.”
• Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test
was the husband notification requirement.
Bottom Line
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Washington v. Gluckberg (1997)
• No.
• Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused
on two primary aspects: the protection of our nation’s objective
fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious
definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest.
• The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental
liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice
has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and
practices.
• Moreover, the Court held that Washington’s ban was rationally related
to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding
disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might
encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of
human life.
Bottom Line
CONCLUSION
• We have a constitutional right to privacy in the areas of marriage, procreation, contraception, family
relationships, child rearing, and education.
• However, privacy in other areas are questionable.