Con Law Substantive Due Process

Front 1

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Back 1

(1923) recognized parents’ right to determine children’s education

Front 2

Skinner v. Oklahoma

Back 2

(1942) court voided sterilization law; Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the existence and survival of the race

Front 3

Griswold v Connecticut

Back 3

(1965) recognized a married couple’s right to receive information about contraception from their doctor

Johns - Griswold is the landmark modern, post WW2 case which established what seems to be obvious – married people can talk to their doctors about contraception. The reasoning in Griswold – although the BoR protects certain things like quartering soldiers and probable cause – ct said expressions of underlying notion of privacy. “radiates from penumbras of specific BoR amendments. From Griswold flowed Roe v Wade

Front 4

Eisenstadt

Back 4

extended contraception use to unmarried people

Front 5

Carey

Back 5

Extended it to minors under 16

Front 6

Roe v Wade

Back 6

(1973) Abortion Fundamental right until compelling state interest; 2nd trimester interest in health of the mother; 3rd-interest in the life of the fetus

Front 7

Planned Parenthood v Casey

Back 7

Plurality
upheld a woman’s right to terminate pregnancy, but rejected trimester approach and afforded States greater regulatory authority under an undue burden analysis
got rid of spousal notification

Front 8

Stenberg v Carhart (2007)

Back 8

held that the prohibition of a specific abortion procedure was not an undue burden subject to a facial challenge; reserved the possibility that it might be subject to an as-applied challenge

Front 9

Bowers v Hardwick

Back 9

(1986) Upheld a law prohibiting sodomy but wrote it as an opinion against same sex sodomy

"respondent would have us announce a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. this we are quite unwilling to do"

Front 10

Lawrence v Texas

Back 10

(2003)
Overruled Bowers said right to privacy; can’t justify it on moral grounds—still unclear whether this is a fundamental rights case or just that state had no rational basis

Front 11

Cruzan v Director of MO Dept. of Health

Back 11

(1990)
Court said it was alright for MO to say have to prove person’s right by clear and convincing standard; also establishes fundamental right of competent person to refuse unwanted medical treatment

Front 12

Washington v Glucksberg

Back 12

(1997)
No right to commit suicide and gave 2 tests to determine fundamental rights: objectively deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition; implicit in concept of ordered liberty

Front 13

Loving v Virginia

Back 13

Marriage - antidiscrimination statute

Front 14

Moore v East Cleveland

Back 14

Family residence throw the orphan out because stayed with Grandma (zoning regs)