1

Fiee Speech anu Its Limits

A lnLroducLlon
a 1
sL
Amend
l Congress shall make no law respecLlng an esLabllshmenL of rellglon or prohlblLlng Lhe free exerclse Lhereof or
A8kIDGING 1nL IkLLDCM CI SLLCn or of Lhe kLSS or Lhe kIGn1 CI 1nL L LACLA8L 1C ASSLM8LL and Lo
peLlLlon Lhe Cov'L for a redress of grlevance
b 1
sL
Amend does noL provlde absoluLe proLecLlon
l 1he rlghL Lo freedom of expresslon does noL proLecL someone who yells flre" ln a crowded LheaLer"
c CverbreadLh
l CL uses overbreadLh vagueness docLrlnes Lo proLecL speech lnLeresLs
ll CverbreadLh cases
1 's clalm on overbroad law chllls" expresslon by causlng persons whose expresslon ls consLlLuLlonally
proLecLed Lo refraln from exerclslng Lhelr rlghLs for fear of crlmlnal sancLlons by a sLaLuLe suscepLlble of
appllcaLlon Lo proLecLed express"
2 8c lf chllllng affecL cLs have allowed lndlvlduals Lo aLLack overbroad laws even Lhough Lhe conducL of Lhose
lndlvlduals ls clearly unproLecLed by Lhe 1
sL
Amend and even Lhough Lhere conducL could have been
proscrlbed by a narrowly drawn llne
3 CLs resLrlcLlve ln appllcaLlon of overbreadLh docLrlne
4 SomeLlmes cLs wlll adopL a llmlng consLrucLlon LhaL saves Lhe lawcLs Lend Lo apply Lhe overbreadLh
docLrlne only as a lasL resorL"
lll laclal Challenge
1 A sulL LhaL alleges LhaL a law ls faclally unconsLlLuLlonal should be sLruck down ln lLs enLlreLy
2 ConLroverslal bc may be asklng cL Lo sLrlke down a sLaL LhaL ls overbroad/vague Lo someone oLher Lhan
Lhe
a CLs generally requlre Lo show sLandlng
lv As applled challenge
1 Alleglng LhaL Lhe law ls lnvalld as applled Lo Lhe facLs of a parLlcular case
d vagueness uocLrlne
l A sLaL LhaL elLher forblds or requlres Lhe dolng of an acL ln Lerms so vague LhaL men of common lnLelllgence musL
necessarlly guess aL lLs meanlng dlffer as Lo Lls appllcaLlon vlCLA1LS Lhe flrsL essenLlal of Lhe due process of law
ll !usLlflcaLlons for Lhe vagueness docLrlne
1 vague laws my Lrap Lhe lnnocenL by noL provldlng falr warnlng
2 ArblLrary and dlscrlmlnaLory enforcemenL ls be prevenLed

8 8elevanL cases
a 8eauharnals v llllnols lrankfurLer 1932 haLe speech
l l !oseph 8eauharnals presldenL of WhlLe Clrcle League lnc was arresLed on !anuary 7 1930 for dlsLrlbuLlng leafleLs
on Chlcago sLreeL corners 1he leafleLs called ln parL upon Lhe mayor and aldermen of Chlcago Lo halL Lhe furLher
encroachmenL harassmenL and lnvaslon of whlLe peopleby Lhe negro 8eauharnals was charged wlLh vlolaLlng an
llllnols law maklng lL lllegal Lo dlsLrlbuLe any publlcaLlon LhaL exposes Lhe clLlzens of any race color creed or rellglon
Lo conLempL derlslon or obloquy A [ury found hlm gullLy and he was flned $200 1he llllnols Supreme CourL
afflrmed hls convlcLlon
ll l uld 8euharnals convlcLlon under Lhe llllnols sLaLuLe vlolaLe hls consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo free speech under Lhe llrsL
and lourLeenLh AmendmenLs? FnC group llbel ls nC1 a caLegory of proLecLed speech
lll uoes noL maLLer lf you llbel a group or an lndlvldual
1 erson can llbel an lndlvldual or a whole group
2 Crlmlnal penalLles for llbel w/l Lhe sLaLe power
lv CL can rule on Lhe naLure of words Lo deLermlne wheLher Lhey are llbel leavlng Lo Lhe [ury Lo deLermlne lf Lhe
allegedly llbel words were dlssemlnaLed/publlshed
v 8aLlonal basls LesL applles Lo curLalnlng crlmlnal llbelous speech Lhe cLs wlll noL sLrlke down a sLaL agalnsL lndlvldual
llbel so long as lL ls relaLed Lo Lhe problem and/or noL forbldden by some expllclL llmlLaLlon of sLaLe power
vl uefenses Lo crlmlnal llbel lnclude
2
1 1ruLh and
a MusL show
l uLLerance sLaLes Lhe facLs 8u1 ALSC
ll 1he publlcaLlon be made w/good moLlves for [usLlflable ends
2 !usLlflcaLlon of Lhe uLLerance as falr commenL
3 rlvlleged as means Lo addresslng grlevances
vll ulssenL
1 uouglas free speech plusfree speech plus acLlon of some sorL
a Clear and presenL danger creaLed by Lhe speech of Lhose subsLanLlve evlls whlch Lhe leglslaLure
has a rlghL Lo prevenL
b 1he free speech plus speech lLself can have Lhe poLenLlal Lo cause breach of publlc peace + clear
and presenL danger of causlng subsLanLlve evlls whlch Lhe leglslaLure has a rlghL Lo prevenL
b 1he World War l Cases
l lnLroducLlon
1 !ohn SLuarL Mlll Cplnlons lose lmmunlLy when Lhe clrcumsLances ln whlch Lhey are expressed are such as
Lo consLlLuLe Lhelr expresslon as poslLlve lnsLlgaLlon Lo some mlschlevous acL"
a SLaLemenLs may be punlshed when dellvered Lo an exclLed mob
b Any Lype of acL w/o [usLlflable cause do harm Lo oLhers may be and may absoluLely requlre Lo be
conLrolled by Lhe unfavorable senLlmenLs and when needful by Lhe acLlve lnLerference of manklnd
c 1he llberLy of Lhe lndlvldual musL be far llmlLed he musL noL make hlmself a nulsance Lo oLher
people
2 CovernmenL asserLed sLrong lnLeresLs for resLralnlng speech proLecLlng governmenLal operaLlon and
assurlng Lhe survlval of Lhe governmenL
3 C|ear and resent danger test
a WhaL does lL do approach Lo Lhe problem of subverslve advocacy LhaL avolds exLremes
b Leans more Loward proLecLlon of speech
c Llne drawlng on Lhe clear and presenL danger LesL
l erfecL lmmunlLy for speech resLrlcLlon on pollLlcal speech ls never leglLlmaLe
punlshmenL musL be llmlLed Lo lllegal acLlon even lf Lhe speech dlrecLly lnclLes" LhaL
acLlon
1 Polmes re[ecLed Lhls approach
ll no consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon for speech LhaL vlolaLes Lhe law
1 Polmes re[ecLed Lhls approach
lll 8ad Lendency LesL Any Lendency ln speech Lo produce bad acLs no maLLer how remoLe
would sufflce Lo valldaLe a represslve sLaL
1 Polmes re[ecLed Lhls approach
4 1he Clear and resenL danger LesL developed from cases regardlng Lhe followlng sLaLuLe
a Sec 3 of 1lLle l of Lhe 1917 Lsplonage AcL
l ulrecLed as esplonage and dlsclosure of mlllLary secreLs creaLed 3 new offenses
speclflcally aL Llmes when Lhe uS ls aL war
1 A person who shall wlllfully make or convey false reporLs/false sLaLemenLs
w/lnLenL Lo lnLerfere w/Lhe operaLlon/success of Lhe mlllLary/naval forces of
Lhe uS/Lo promoLe Lhe success of lLs enemles and
2 Shall wlllfully cause/aLLempL Lo cause lnsubordlnaLlon dlsloyalLy
muLlny/refusal of duLy ln mlllLary/naval forces of Lhe uS or
3 Shall wlllfully obsLrucL Lhe recrulLlng/enllsLmenL servlce of uS Lo Lhe ln[ury of
Lhe servlces/of Lhe uS
4 unlshmenL
a llne capped aL 10k or
b lmprlsonmenL capped aL 20 yrs or
c 8oLh
3 8elevanL cases
a Schenk v uS Polmes 1919
3
l l WheLher Lhe words used are used ln such clrcumsLances and are of such a naLure as Lo
creaLe a clear and presenL danger LhaL Lhey wlll brlng abouL Lhe subsLanLlve evlls LhaL
Congress has Lhe rlghL Lo prevenL?
ll l u had wlllfully consplred Lo have prlnLed/clrculaLed Lo men who had been called and
accepLed for mlllLary servlce a documenL alleged Lo be calculaLed Lo cause such
lnsubordlnaLlon/obsLrucLlon
lll u's arg lreedom of speech pursuanL Lo Lhe 1
sL
Amend
1 u's don'L deny LhaL Lhe followlng explanaLlon could be found by a reasonable
[ury
lv CL deLermlnes LhaL Lhe purpose of Lhe documenL was
1 uocumenL would noL have been senL unless lL had been lnLended Lo have
some effecL and we do noL see whaL effecL lL could be expecLed Lo have upon
persons sub[ecL Lo Lhls drafL excepL
a 1o lnfluence Lhem Lo obsLrucL Lhe carrylng ouL of Lhe drafL
v 8
1 ln many places ln ordlnary Llmes Lhe u's clrcular would have been
proLecLed speech 8u1 Lhe characLer of every acL depends upon Lhe
clrcumsLances ln whlch lL ls done
2 SLrlngenL proLecLlon of free speech would noL proLecL a man ln falsely
shouLlng flre ln a crowed LheaLre and causlng panlc
3 CuesLlon of proxlmlLy and degree
vl P
1 When a naLlon ls aL war many Lhlngs LhaL mlghL be sald ln Llme of peace are
such a hlndrance Lo lLs efforL LhaL Lhelr uLLerance wlll noL be endured so long
as men flghL and LhaL no CL could regard Lhem a proLecLed by any
consLlLuLlonal rlghL
b lrohwerk v uS Polmes 1919
l uld lrohwerks convlcLlon under Lhe Lsplonage AcL of 1917 vlolaLe hls rlghL Lo free
speech under Lhe llrsL AmendmenL?
ll l lrom !uly 6 Lo uecember 7 1913 Lhe Mlssourl SLaaLs Zelung a newspaper publlshed
ln Mlssourl lssued a serles of Lwelve edlLorlals wrlLLen by lrohwerk denounclng
lnvolvemenL by Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln World War l lrohwerk was charged wlLh vlolaLlng
Lhe Lsplonage AcL of 1917 whlch made lL a crlme Lo ||fu||y cause or attempt to
cause nsubordnaton ds|oya|ty mutny refusa| of duty n the m|tary or nava|
forces of the Unted States
lll rocedural Px
1 A Lrlal courL found lrohwerk gullLy and senLenced hlm Lo a flne and
lmprlsonmenL
lv 's arg lrohwerk challenged Lhe sLaLuLe on Lhe ground LhaL lL vlolaLed hls rlghL Lo free
speech under Lhe llrsL AmendmenL
v 8
1 1
sL
Amend whlle prohlblLlng leglslaLlon agalnsL free speech as such cannoL
have been and obvlously was noL lnLended Lo glve lmmunlLy for every posslble
use language
2 A person may be convlcLed of a consplracy Lo obsLrucL recrulLlng by word
persuaslon
vl AddlLlonal noLes
1 1he CourL dlsmlssed Lhe argumenL LhaL lrohwerks lnLenLlon was never Lo
obsLrucL recrulLmenL noLlng LhaL consplracy Lo obsLrucL recrulLlng would be
crlmlnal even lf no means were agreed upon speclflcally by whlch Lo
accompllsh Lhe lnLenL
c uebs v uS Polmes 1919
l l uld uebs convlcLlon under Lhe Lsplonage AcL of 1917 vlolaLe hls llrsL AmendmenL
rlghLs Lo freedom of speech?
4
ll l Lugene v uebs a leader of Lhe SoclallsL arLy of Amerlca gave a speech ln CanLon
Chlo proLesLlng lnvolvemenL ln World War l uurlng Lhe speech he dlscussed Lhe rlse of
soclallsm and speclflcally pralsed lndlvlduals who had refused Lo serve ln Lhe mlllLary
and obsLrucLed mlllLary recrulLlng lor hls speech uebs was arresLed and charged wlLh
vlolaLlng Lhe Lsplonage AcL
lll rocedural Px/'s arg
1 AL Lrlal uebs argued Lhe Lsplonage AcL vlolaLed hls rlghL Lo free speech under
Lhe llrsL AmendmenL
2 A federal dlsLrlcL courL re[ecLed hls clalm and senLenced uebs Lo Len years ln
prlson
lv 8aLlonal
1 Lvldence LhaL lf ln LhaL speech he used words Lendlng Lo obsLrucL Lhe
recrulLlng servlces he meanL LhaL Lhey should have LhaL effecL
v 8
1 CL looks aL Lhe lnLenL of Lhe speaker saylng parL or Lhe manlfesL lnLenL of Lhe
more general uLLerances was Lo encourage Lhose presenL Lo obsLrucL Lhe
recrulLlng servlce and lf ln such passage such encouragemenL was dlrecLly
glven Lhe lmmunlLy of Lhe general Lheme does noL proLecL Lhe speech
d Abrams v uS Clark (Ma[C) Polmes (ulssenL) 1919
l Modern approach Lo speech advocaLlng vlolenL or lllegal acLlon was arLlculaLed ln a
dlssenL by !usLlce Polms
ll Polmes advocaLed LhaL lllegal advocacy should noL be punlshed unless L so lmmlnenLly
LhreaLens lmmedlaLe lnLerference w/Lhe lawful and presslng purpose of Lhe law LhaL
an lmmedlaLe check ls requlred Lo save Lhe counLry"
c Clear and resenL uanger Cases conLlnued beyond WWl era
l 8randenburg v CP 1969
1 l uld Chlos crlmlnal syndlcallsm law prohlblLlng publlc speech LhaL advocaLes varlous lllegal acLlvlLles
vlolaLe 8randenburgs rlghL Lo free speech as proLecLed by Lhe llrsL and lourLeenLh AmendmenLs?
2 l 8randenburg a leader ln Lhe ku klux klan made a speech aL a klan rally and was laLer convlcLed under an
Chlo crlmlnal syndlcallsm law
3 SLaLuLe aL lssue
a Cn Crmna| Syndca|sm stat
l 1he law made lllegal advocaLlng Lhe duLy necesslLy or proprleLy of crlme saboLage
vlolence or unlawful meLhods of Lerrorlsm as a means of accompllshlng lndusLrlal or
pollLlcal reform" and for volunLarlly assembllng w/any socleLy group or assemblage of
persons formed Lo Leach/advocaLe Lhe docLrlnes of crlmlnal syndlcallsm"
4 's arg
a Challenged Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe CP sLaL under 1
sL
and 14
Lh
Amend
3 rocedural Px
a 1C afflrmed convlcLlon
b SC of CP dlsmlssed Lhe appeal
6 8/Case precedenL
a uennls v uS cL adopLs Lhls 8uLL
l CL held LhaL consLlLuLlonal guaranLees of free speech and free press do noL permlL a
sLaLe Lo forbld or proscrlbe advocacy of Lhe use of force or of law vlolaLlon excepL
1 Where such an advocacy ls dlrecLed Lo lnclLlng or produclng lmmlnenL lawless
acLlon and
2 ls llkely Lo lnclLe or produce such acLlon
7 P
a SLaL on lLs own words and as applled purporLs Lo punlsh mere advocacy and Lo forbld on paln of
crlmlnal punlshmenL assembly w/oLhers merely Lo advocaLe Lhe descrlbed acLlonF sLaL ls over
breaLh because falls w/l Lhe condemnaLlon of Lhe 1
sL
/14
Lh
Amend
b CL reverses lower cLs
8 AddlLlonal noLes
3
a 1he crlmlnal syndlcallsm acL made lllegal Lhe advocacy and Leachlng of docLrlnes whlle lgnorlng
wheLher or noL LhaL advocacy and Leachlng would acLually lnclLe lmmlnenL lawless acLlon 1he
fallure Lo make Lhls dlsLlncLlon rendered Lhe law overly broad and ln vlolaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
9 Concurrence
a !usLlce 8lack
l uoes noL llke Lhe clear and presenL danger LesL ln relaLlon Lo 1
sL
Amend
ll Agrees w/ma[orlLy because Lhey clLe uennls v unlLed SLaLes
b !usLlce uouglas sLarL here!!!
l

d naLlonallsL Soclal arLy v Skokle 1977
l SLaLe can curLall speech LhaL can cause publlc dlsLurbance however sLaLe cannoL merely curLall Lhe speech because
members were parL of a speclflc pollLlcal group
ll ermlLLed Lo march buL were en[olned from showlng swasLlka slgns
e new ?ork v lerber WhlLe 1982chlld pornography ls a caLegory of speech LhaL Lhe cL recognlzed as unproLecLed
l l A new ?ork chlld pornography law prohlblLed persons from knowlngly promoLlng sexual performances by chlldren
under Lhe age of slxLeen by dlsLrlbuLlng maLerlal whlch deplcLs such performances
ll l uld Lhe law vlolaLe Lhe llrsL and lourLeenLh AmendmenLs? F no because Lhe law was carefully drawn/narrowly
Lallored Lo proLecL chlldren from Lhe menLal physlcal and sexual abuse assoclaLed wlLh pornography whlle noL
vlolaLlng Lhe llrsL AmendmenL
lll 8elevanL sLaL
1 A person ls gullLy of Lhe use of a chlld ln a sexual performance lf
a knowlng Lhe characLer and conLenL Lhereof he employs AuLhorlzes or lnduces chlld less Lhan 16
yrs of age Lo engage ln a sexual performance or
b 8elng a parenL legal guardlan he consenLs Lo parLlclpaLlon by such chlld ln sexual encounLer
2 ueflnlLlons
a Sexua| performance any performance or parL Lhereof whlch lncludes sexual conducL by a chlld
under 16 yrs old
b Sexua| conduct acLual or slmulaLed sexual lnLercourse devlaLe sexual lnLercourse sexual
besLlallLy masLurbaLlon and lewd exhlblLlon of genlLals
c erformance any play moLlon plcLure phoLo or dance or any oLher vlsual represenLaLlon
exhlblLed before an audlence
3 A person ls gullLy of a promoLlng a sexual performance by a chlld when
a knowlng characLer and conLenL Lhereof produces dlrecLs or promoLes any performance whlch
lncludes sexual conducL by a chlld less Lhan 16
b romoLe procure manufacLure lssue sell glve eLc
lv Chlld pornography does noL have Lo be obscene Lo be ouLslde Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Amend dlsLlngulshed from
Mlller
v CerLaln acLs noL proLecLed by Lhe 1
sL
Amend lnclude
1 Lewd or
2 Cbscene uLLerances
vl SLaLes are glven greaLer leeway ln regulaLlng pornographlc deplcLlon of chlldren because
1 SLaLes lnLeresL ln safeguardlng Lhe physlcal and psychologlcal wellbelng of a mlnor or compelllng and
2 1he dlsLrlbuLlon of phoLographs/fllms deplcLlng sexual of [uvenlles ls lnLersychlng relaLed Lo sexual abuse ln
lease 2 ways
a MaLerlals produces are a permanenL record of Lhe chlld's parLlclpaLlon hence exacerbaLlng Lhe
harm Lo Lhe chlld and
b 1he dlsLrlbuLlon neLwork for chlld pornography musL be close lf Lhe producLlon of Lhe maLerlal
requlres Lhe sexual explolLaLlon of chlldren ls Lo be effecLlvely conLrolled
3 AdverLlng and selllng of chlld pornography provlde economlc moLlve for Lhe producLlon of such maLerlals
4 value of permlLLlng llve performances and graphlc reproducLlon of chlld engaged ln lewd sexual conducL ls
demlnlms
6
3 8ecognlzlng and classlfylng chlld pornography as a caLegory of maLerlal ouLslde Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe 1
sL

Amend ls noL ln confllcL wlLh prlor case law
a CuesLlon of wheLher speech ls proLecLed by Lhe 1sL amend depends on Lhe conLenL of Lhe speech
[beinment iespectful [f inuibiuual c[nscience
A lnLroducLlon
a 8elevanL consLlLuLlonal provlslon
l Congress sha|| make no |a respectng an estab|shment of re|gon or prohbtng the free exercse thereof or
abrldglng Lhe freedom of speech or of Lhe press or Lhe rlghL of Lhe people peaceably Lo assemble and Lo peLlLlon Lhe
CovernmenL for a redress of grlevances
ll Lstab|shment C|ause
1 Congress shall make no law respecLlng an LS1A8LISnMLN1 of rellglon or
lll Iree exercse C|ause
1 rohlblLlng Lhe IkLL LkLkCISL Lhereof (of rellglon)
lv noLes
1 LsLabllshmenL class prohlblLs Lhe esLabllshmenL of a governmenLally endorsed church Lhe requlrlng of
lndlvlduals Lo go Lo or remaln away from church agalnsL Lhelr well + forclng lndlvlduals Lo belleve or
dlsbelleve a parLlcular rellglon
2 locus of llLlgaLlon wheLher oLher Lypes of governmenLal acLsprovldlng flnanclal ald Lo rellglon
consLlLuLes an esLabllshmenL of rellglon
b George Washngton Iaree|| Address
l Summary
1 SLaLes LhaL rellglon and morallLy are lndlspenslble supporLers of pollLlcal prosperlLy
2 8eason and experlence boLh forbld us Lo expecL LhaL naLlonal morallLy can prevall ln excluslon of rellglous
prlnclple"
c A|exs de 1ocquev||e
l Who lrench pollLlcal LheorlsL who came Lo Amerlca ln 1831 Lo sLudy Lhe penal sysLem
ll WhaL wroLe brllllanL Lwo parL accounL of Lhe Amerlcan experlmenL wlLh democracy LlLled Democracy n Amerca
1 Crasps Lhe essenLlal facL LhaL separaLlon of church and sLaLe was noL lnLended Lo lessen Lhe clvll slgnlflcanL
of rellglon buL Lo enhance lL
lll Concluslons of rellglon ln Amerlca
1 Success of a democraLlc pollLlcal sysLem depends upon a proper moral formaLlon of lLs people
2 MulLlple secLs ln Amerlca buL all acknowledge a CreaLor Cod
3 lmporLanL co rellglon Lo Amerlcan pollLlcal socleLy ls noL a parLlcular rellglon ls dlvlnely Lrue buL LhaL lL
supplles hablL of resLralnL" or general morallLy rellglon regulaLes where law cannoL effecLlvely democracy
needs Lhls moral or rellglous lnfrasLrucLure ln ways LhaL more sLaLlsL or despoLlc governmenLs do noL
4 1o deny falLh ls Lo deny man's lnherenL naLure Lo hope
3 8ellglon ls sLrengLhened by lLs separaLlon from Lhe sLaLe because lL ls Lhem lmmune from Lhe sLaLe's falllngs
and parLlsans rellglon draws dlrecLly on Lhe unlversal naLure of Lhe human person
6 Slnce rellglon ls beyond Lhe reach of Lhe sLaLe lL can blnd Amerlcans LogeLher when Lhelr leaders fall or
when Lhe people fall each oLher
7 ln Amerlca unbellevers hlde Lhelr dlsbellef recognlzlng Lhe uLlllLy of rellglon and
8 8ellevers openly rely upon Lhelr falLh
9 8ellglous dlfference does noL occaslon hosLlllLy buL LhoughLful concern
lv Mores
1 PablLs of Lhe hear buL also Lhe dlfferenL noLlons possessed by men and
2 ulfferenL noLlons possessed by men Lhe varlous oplnlons currenL among Lhem and Lhe sum of ldeas LhaL
shape Lhem
v 8ellglons and Lhe law
1 8ellglon does noL lnfluence Lhe laws or pollLlcal oplnlons buL rellglon does dlrecL more and by regulaLlng
domesLlc llfe lL helps regulaLe Lhe sLaLe
8 Larly LsLabllshmenL Clause lnLerpreLaLlonAmerlca as a 8ellglous eople" Assumed
a lnLroducLlon
7
l LsLabllshmenL Clause and Lhe Supreme CourL
1 1he few cases LhaL dld arlse under Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause found no vlolaLlon ln provldlng publlc supporL
Lo a rellglous body Lo carry ouL a secular funcLlon or Lo recognlze Lhe rellglous characLer of Lhe people as a
whole
b 8radfleld v 8oberLs !usLlce eckham 1899
l CCA AppellanL wanLs Lo en[oln Lhe u from paylng any moneys Lhe dlrecLors of rovldence PosplLal ln Lhe clLy of
WashlngLon for purposes of bulldlng and operaLlng a hosplLal faclllLy
ll l WheLher lf Lhe agreemenL was carrled ouL would resulL ln an approprlaLlon by Congress of money Lo a rellglous
socleLy Lhereby vlolaLlng Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon whlch forblds Congress from passlng an esLabllshmenL of
rellglon?
lll P no vlolaLlon of Lhe esLabllshmenL clause
lv 8aLlonale
1 It s ho||y mmatera| lf Lhe members of Lhe organlzaLlon of a monasLlc order or slsLerhood of 8oman
CaLhollc
2 Is not of the s|ghtest consequence wheLher Lhe lndlvlduals who compose Lhe corporaLlon under lLs charLer
are 8oman CaLhollcs or all MeLhodlsLs or resbyLerlans or unlLarlans or members of anoLher oLher
rellglous organlzaLlon or no organlzaLlon of all
3 CL cannoL lnqulre lnLo Lhe lndlvldual bellefs on rellglous maLLers of Lhe lncorporaLors of Lhe hosplLal
v 8 Lhe lnfluence of a any parLlcular church may be powerful over Lhe members of a nonsecLarlan and secular
corporaLlon lncorporaLed for a cerLaln deflned purpose and wlLh clearly sLaLed powers ls surely noL sufflclenL Lo
converL such a corporaLlon lnLo a rellglous or secLarlan body
vl 1he acL of Congress shows Lhere ls noLhlng secLarlan ln Lhe corporaLlon and Lhe speclflc and llmlLed ob[ecL of lLs
creaLlon" ls openlng and keeplng a hosplLal ln Lhe clLy of WashlngLon for Lhe care of slck and lnvalld persons as may
place Lhemselves under Lhe LreaLmenL and care of Lhe corporaLlon
c Zorach v Clauson uouglas 1932
l lacLs
1 n?C had a program whlch permlLs lLs publlc schools Lo release sLudenLs durlng Lhe school day so LhaL Lhey
may leave Lhe school bulldlngs and school grounds and go Lo rellglous cenLers for rellglous lnsLrucLlon or
devoLlonal exerclses A sLudenL ls released on wrlLLen requesL of hls parenLs 1he released Llme" program
lnvolves nelLher rellglous lnsLrucLlon ln publlc classrooms nor Lhe expendlLures of publlc funds
ll Case recedenL
1 McCollum v 8oard of LducaLlon
a lnvolved a released Llme program from lL classrooms were Lurned over Lo rellglous lnsLrucLors
b P Lhe program vlolaLed Lhe 1
sL
Amend whlchby reason of Lhe 4
Lh
Amend) prohlblLs Lhe sLaLes
from esLabllshlng rellglon or prohlblLlng lLs free exerclse
lll 's Arg argumenLs agalnsL Lhe release Llme program
1 Weght and nf|uence of Lhe school ls puL behlnd a program for rellglous lnsLrucLlon publlc school Leachers
pollce lL keeplng Lab on sLudenLs who are released Lhe classroom acLlvlLles come Lo a halL whlle Lhe
sLudenLs who are released for rellglous lnsLrucLlon are on Lhe leave Lhe school ls a crutch on whlch Lhe
churches are leanlng for supporL ln Lhelr rellglous Lralnlng wlLhouL Lhe cooperaLlon of Lhe schools Lhls
released Llme" program
2 Adds leglLlmacy for Lhe educaLlon for Lhe release Llme because Lhe school condones lL
lv luncLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Amend
1 Church and sLaLe should be separaLed
2 lnLerference wlLh Lhe free exerclse" of rellglon and an esLabllshmenL" of rellglon are concerned Lhe
separaton must be comp|ete and unequvoca|
a no concerL or unlon or dependency one on Lhe oLher
3 LxcepLlon
a 1
sL
Amend does noL say LhaL ln every and all respecLs Lhere shall be a separaLlon of Church and
SLaLe
v 8
1 CuaranLee Lhe freedom Lo worshlp as one chooses
2 CovernmenL LhaL shows no parLlallLy Lo any one group and LhaL leLs each flourlsh accordlng Lo Lhe zeal of lLs
adherenLs
8
3 SLaLe encouraglng rellglous lnsLrucLlon and cooperaLlonLhe sLaLe ls respecLlng Lhe lndlvldual
a 8y ad[usLlng Lhe schedule of publlc evenLs Lo secLarlan needs lL follows Lhe besL LradlLlons
respecLs Lhe rellglous naLure of our people and accommodaLes Lhe publlc servlces Lo Lhelr
splrlLual needs
4 8ellever v nonbellever + ConsLlLuLlon
a 1o hold LhaL lL may noL would be Lo flnd ln Lhe consLlLuLlon a requlremenL LhaL Lhe governmenL
show callous lndlfference Lo rellglous groupsLhaL would be preferrlng Lhose who belleve ln no
rellglon over Lhose who do belleve
3 WhaL Lhe governmenL cannoL do
a llnance rellglous groups
b underLake rellglous lnsLrucLlon
c 8lend secular and secLarlan educaLlon
d use secular lnsLlLuLlon Lo force one or some rellglon on any person
e CannoL coerce anyone Lo aLLend church
l no sLudenL ls obllgaLed Lo perform ln Lhe release Llme" program
vl Summary neuLral raLher Lhan hosLlle
1 No consttutona| requrement for government to be host|e to re|gon and to thro ts eght aganst
efforts to den the effectve scope of re|gous nf|uence
2 Government must be neutra| re|gous observaton must not be compu|sory
3 CovernmenL can close lLs doors or suspend lLs operaLlons as Lo Lhose who wanL Lo repalr Lo Lhelr rellglous
sancLuary for worshlp or lnsLrucLlon
C Modern !udlclal AppllcaLlon of Lhe no LsLabllshmenL rlnclple
a ubllc neuLrallLy Loward Cod and 8ellglon
l lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe Lerms
1 LsLabllshmenL means governmenL's excluslve paLronage of one church"
a PlsLorlcal ConLexL framers were dlsLurbed by laws LhaL prescrlbed worshlp
l Cf one favored denomlnaLlon
ll rovlded subsldles Lhereforeor
lll lmposed dlsablllLles on members of oLher rellglous secLs
b Powever framers undersLood and encouraged Lhe lmporLance of rellglous bellef
2 urpose of Lhe 1
sL
Amend
a 1o exclude rlvalry among ChrlsLlan secLs and
b 1o prevenL any naLlonal eccleslasLlcal esLabllshmenL
b Lxcluslonary vlew
l Lverson v 8oard of LducaLlon 8lack 1947
1 lacLs A new !ersey law allowed relmbursemenLs of money Lo parenLs who senL Lhelr chlldren Lo school on
buses operaLed by Lhe publlc LransporLaLlon sysLem Chlldren who aLLended CaLhollc schools also quallfled
for Lhls LransporLaLlon subsldy
2 l uld Lhe new !ersey sLaLuLe vlolaLe Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL as made appllcable
Lo Lhe sLaLes Lhrough Lhe lourLeenLh AmendmenL?
3 rocedural Px
a 1rlal CL held leglslaLure was wlLhouL power Lo auLhorlze such paymenL under Lhe sLaLe
consLlLuLlon
b n? CL of Lrrors and Appeals held nelLher Lhe sLaL nor Lhe resoluLlon passed pursuanL Lo lL was ln
confllcL wlLh Lhe sLaLe or federal consLlLuLlon
4 PlsLorlcal perspecLlve of Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause
a Madlson ln hls greaL Memorlal and 8emonsLrances
l A Lrue rellglon dld noL need Lhe supporL of law
ll 1haL no person elLher bellever or nonbellever should be Laxed Lo supporL a rellglous
lnsLlLuLlon of any klnd
lll Cruel persecuLlons were Lhe lnevlLable resulL of governmenL esLabllshed rellglons
3 WhaL Lhe esLabllshmenL of rellglon clause means of Lhe 1
sL
Amend
a nelLher Lhe sLaLe nor federal governmenL can do Lhe followlng
l SeL up a church
9
ll ass laws whlch ald one rellglon all rellglons or
lll refer one rellglon over anoLher
lv lorce nor lnfluence a person Lo Lo or Lo remaln from church agalnsL hls wlll or
v lorce an lndlvldual Lo profess a bellef or dlsbellef ln any rellglon
vl no punlshmenL for enLerLalnlng/professlng rellglous bellefs or
vll no Lax can be levled Lo supporL any rellglous acLlvlLles or lnsLlLuLlons
vlll CannoL openly or secreLly parLlclpaLe ln Lhe affalrs of any rellglous organlzaLlons/groups
b !efferson Clause agalnsL esLabllshmenL of rellglon lnLenL
l LrecL a wall of separaLlon beLween church and sLaLe
6 8
a 1
sL
Amend requlres Lhe sLaLe Lo be a neuLral ln lLs relaLlons wlLh groups of rellglous bellevers and
nonbellevers
7 P Lhe 1
sL
Amend does nC1 prohlblL n! from spendlng Lax ralsed funds Lo pay Lhe bus fares of parochlal
school puplls s parL of a general program under whlch lL pays Lhe fares of puplls aLLendlng publlc and oLher
schools
8 Summary
a 1he leglslaLlon as applled does no more Lhan provlde a general program Lo help parenLs geL Lhelr
chlldren regardless of Lhelr rellglon safely and expedlLlously Lo a from accredlLed schools
b uslng neuLrallLy Lverson arLlculaLed Lhe excluslonary vlew LhaL governmenL may noL ald rellglon
generallyrequlres Lhe sLaLe Lo be neuLral ln lLs relaLlons w/groups of rellglous bellers and non
bellevers lL does noL requlre Lhe sLaL Lo be Lhelr adversary
c 1he cL upholds governmenLally provlded bus servlce Lo rellglous schools
9 ulssenL 8uLledge lrankfurLer !ackson 8urLon
a Maln argumenL
l arenLs pay money Lo send Lhelr chlldren Lo parochlal schools and funds ralsed by
LaxaLlon are used Lo relmburse Lhem
ll 1hls noL only helps Lhe chlldren Lo geL Lo school and Lhe parenLs send Lhem
lll lL alds Lhem ln a subsLanLlal way Lo heL Lhe very Lhlng whlch Lhey are send Lo Lhe
parLlcular school Lo secure namely rellglous Lralnlng and Leachlng
lv 8ecause all falLhs pay Lhe Lax Lhus each conLrlbuLes Lo Lhe propagaLlon of oplnlons
whlch he dlsbellevers
v Pelplng Lhose who are seeklng rellglous educaLlon
vl rocedural evenhandedness v subsLanLlve neuLrallLy
1 rocedure evenhandedness
ll 8evlslonlsL PlsLory
1 Lverson oplnlon makes reference Lo !efferson's SLaLuLe of 8ellglous lreedom
a Alm Lo compleLe Lhe work of vA's dlsesLabllshmenL of Lhe Angllcan Church noL mandaLlng LhaL
governmenL dlsavow all supporL of rellglon Lhe oplnlon ln LverLon does noL make Lhls clear
b 1herefore vA was conLlnulng Lo supporL rellglonle flnes for vlolaLlng Lhe SabbaLh
c ulfference beLween dlsesLabllshmenL and Lhe conLlnulng lmporLance of even handed governmenL
supporL for rellglous corporaLlons
l
lll Wall of SeparaLlon MeLaphor
1 !udlclal aLLlLude less congenlal Lo publlc rellance upon Lhe work of rellglon Lhan aL any pervlous Llme ln our
naLlon's hlsLory
2 1he wall of separaLlon beLween church and sLaLe" F was mlsconsLrued ln LverLon
a !efferson employed Lhe phrase ln a leLLer Lo Lhe uanbury Cn 8apLlsL Assoc noL Lo dlmlnlsh publlc
supporL for rellglon generally 8u1 1C decry Lhe esLabllshmenL of Lhe CongregaLlonallsL Church ln
C1
3 LverLon spawned an ever more excluslonary formula ln Lemon v kurLzman
a Lemon 1esL a law does noL vlolaLe Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause only lf lL
l Pas a secular purpose
ll nelLher advances nor lnhlblLs rellglons as lLs prlmary effecL and
lll uoes noL excesslvely enLangle Lhe governmenL w/rellglon
10
4 !usLlces dlsagree and quesLlon wheLher Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause really was lnLended Lo creaLe a wall of
separaLlon"Lhe declslon ln Lverson suggesLs lL's noL so clear LhaL a wall" does exlsL
u lree Lxerclse ClausegovernmenL may nC1 prohlblL rellglous expresslon
a lnLro
l LlLlgaLlon focus wheLher Lhe lndlvldual's lnLeresL ln free exerclse musL glve way ln face of Lhe socleLal lnLeresL or
1 WheLher Lhe saLe musL glve way Lo accommodaLe Lhe lndlvlduals free exerclse lnLeresLs and parLlcularly on
Lhe sLandard of revlew Lo be applled ln decldlng LhaL lssue
b Coal of Lhe 1
sL
Amend 8ellglon Clauses
l Advance rellglous llberLy
ll luncLlon of Lhe
1 LsLabllshmenL Clause precludes governmenL from seLLlng up a naLlonal or sLaLe church or granLlng speclal
favors Lo some buL noL all rellglons
2 lree Lxerclse Clause almed aL advanclng rellglous freedom by prevenLlng Lhe governmenL from prohlblLlng
Lhe holdlng of rellglous bellef or engaglng ln rellglous pracLlces
a When dlspuLes generally arlse
l When a rellglously neuLral and generally appllcable law ls argued Lo prevenL or burden
1 WhaL someone's rellglous falLh requlres or
2 8equlres someone Lo underLake an acL LhaL falLh would preclude
b lree exerclse clause dlspuLes Lrlggered when
l A law LhaL seems neuLral and generally appllcable on lLs face
ll revenL/burden an lndlvldual's rellglous bellef
lll lndlvlduals requlred Lo acL ln a way lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhelr bellef
c ulsLlngulshes beLween rellglous bellef and rellglous pracLlce
l Case summary
1 8eynolds v uS marrlage/famlly ls sLaLe law lssues lederal prohlblLlon agalnsL polygamy [usLlfled because
a Cf Lhe lmporLanL of monogamous heLerosexual marrlage
b A pracLlce upon whlch socleLy may be sald Lo be bullL upon and
c uemocraLlc LradlLlons depend
d SocleLal lnLeresL prevalls over Lhe counLervalllng rellglous bellef
2 Wlsconsln v ?oder cL makes dlsLlncLlon beLween bellef (whlch ls fully proLecLed) and conducL (proLecLed lf
noL LhreaLenlng Lhe publlc order)
a 8erger's concluslon bellef and acLlon cannoL be neaLly conflned ln loglc LlghL comparLmenLs"
d 8eynolds v uS WalLe 1879
l WheLher a general federal law crlmlnallzlng polygamy can be applled Lo a Mormon whose rellglous lncluded LhaL
pracLlce?
1 Should Lhe accused have been acqulLLed lf he marrled Lhe second Llme because he belleved lL Lo be hls
rellglous duLy?
ll 's argumenL
1 olygamy ls a rellglous bellef/duLy/Member of Lhe LaLLer uay SalnLs
lll Pow can Congress make a law prohlblLlng polygamy when Congress shall noL prohlblL Lhe free exerclse of rellglon?
1 8oLh !efferson and Madlson belleved LhaL rellglous bellef was beLween and lndlvldual and Lhelr creaLor and
2 1haL lL was noL wlLhln Lo cognlzance of clvll governmenL Lo esLabllsh a rellglon
lv C/L and olygamy
1 Cdlous among Lhe norLhern and wesLern naLlons of Lurope"
2 2
nd
marrlage vold
3 1reaLed as offense agalnsL socleLy
v olygamy and Lhe uS
1 never been a Llme ln Lhe uS where polygamy was noL consldered an offense agalnsL socleLy sub[ecL Lo
punlshmenL
2 Marrlage ls a conLracL usually regulaLed by law + socleLy ls bullL upon lL
vl P federal law prohlblLlng polygamy ls wlLhln leglslaLlve power + consLlLuLlonal
1 Laws are made for Lhe governmenL of acLlons and whlle Lhey cannoL lnLerfere wlLh mere rellglous bellef
and oplnlons Lhey may wlLh pracLlces
2 lural marrlage consLlLuLlonal
11
a 8ellglous bellef cannoL be above Lhe law of Lhe land
3 Congress was deprlved of all leglslaLlve power over mere oplnlon buL was lefL free Lo reach acLlons whlch
were ln vlolaLlon of soclal duLles or subverslve of good order
e Wlsconsln v ?oder 8urger 1972
l uld Wlsconslns requlremenL LhaL all parenLs send Lhelr chlldren Lo school aL leasL unLll age 16 vlolaLe Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL by crlmlnallzlng Lhe conducL of parenLs who refused Lo send Lhelr chlldren Lo school for rellglous
reasons?
ll u's arg
1 Compulsory aLLendance law vlolaLed Lhelr rlghLs under Lhe 1
sL
Amendendanger Lhelr salvaLlon and
censure of Lhe church communlLy exposure Lo worldly secular bellefs
2 1esLlmony of experL Amlsh hlgh school produced producLlve members of Lhe Amlsh communlLy
lll 's ArgumenL
1 8C sLaLe does noL deny Lhe free exerclse of rellglous bellef by Lhe law or
a 1here ls a sufflclenL sLaLe lnLeresL of sufflclenL magnlLude Lo overrlde Lhe lnLeresL clalmlng
proLecLlon under Lhe lree Lxerclse Clause
2 8ellglous bellefs are proLecLed 8u1 rellglous pracLlces are nC1 proLecLed
a CL re[ecLs arg sLaLlng LhaL
l 8ellglous acLs are nC1 ALWA?S unproLecLed
b AcLs LhaL noL proLecLed under Lhe 1
sL
Amend are Lhose LhaL LhreaLen Lhe healLh safeLy and
general welfare or Lhe federal governmenL ln Lhe exerclse of lLs delegaLed powers
3 Compulsory school requlred bc
a Some degree of educaLlon requlred Lo parLlclpaLe ln our pollLlcal sysLem and
b LducaLlon prepares lndlvlduals Lo be self rellanL and self sufflclenL ln socleLy
l CL re[ecLs Lhls arg because Amlsh provlde hlgh school educaLlon LhaL allows lndlvlduals
Lo be educaLed/self sufflclenL/self rellanL
4 lallure Lo recognlze Lhe subsLanLlve rlghLs of Lhe Amlsh chlld Lo recelve a secondary educaLlon and falls Lo
recognlze Lhe SLaLe as parens paLrlae Lo exLend Lhe beneflL of secondary edu Lo chlldren regardless of Lhe
wlshes of Lhe parenLs
lv Case recedenL
1 lerce v SocleLy of SlsLers cL held Lhe values of parenLal dlrecLlon of Lhe rellglous upbrlnglng and educaLlon
of Lhelr chlldren ln Lhelr early and formaLlve years have a hlgh place ln our socleLy
v CL musL balance
1 CovernmenL lnLeresL ln compulsory edu v fundamenLal rlghLs/lnLeresLs proLecLed under Lhe lree Lxerclse
Clause
vl 8
1 lor Lhe courL Lo proLecL rellglous pracLlces/acL lL musL be rooLed ln a rellglous bellef
2 lerce sLands as a charLer of Lhe rlghLs of parenLs Lo dlrecL Lhe rellglous upbrlnglng of Lhelr chlldren
3 When Lhe lnLeresLs of parenLhood are comblned w/a free exerclse clalm of Lhe naLure revealed by Lhls
record more Lhan merely reasonable relaLlon Lo some purpose w/l Lhe compeLency of Lhe SLaLe" ls
requlred Lo susLaln Lhe valldlLy of Lhe SLaLes req under Lhe 1s Amend
vll P
1 1
sL
and 14
Lh
Amend prevenL Lhe sLaLe from compelllng u's Lo cause Lhelr chlldren Lo aLLend forma hlgh
school aL age 16
vlll Concurrence
1 WhlLe 8rennan SLewarL
a !olns Lhe cL because of Lhe slncerlLy of Lhe Amlsh rellglous pollcy here ls unconLesLed because Lhe
poLenLlally adverse lmpacL f Lhe sLaLe requlremenL ls greaL because he SLaLe's valld lnLeresL ln
educaLlon has already been largely saLlsfled by Lhe 8 yrs Lhe chlldren have already spenL ln school
lx ulssenL uouglas
1 1he vlews of Lhe 2 chlldren were noL canvassed by Lhe cLsmaLLer should be reversed so LhaL new hearlngs
can be held on remand of Lhe case
2 CL reached Lhe rlghL resulL noLlon LhaL acLlon even Lhough rellglously grounded are always ouLslde Lhe
proLecLlon of Lhe lree Lxerclse Clause of Lhe 1
sL
Amend
3 8elleves LhaL Lhls declslon may overrule 8eynolds over Llme
12
f noLes
l ubllc Crder LxcepLlon Lo Lhe lree Lxerclse of 8ellglon
1 All rellglous bellef ls proLecLed buL proLecLlon ls exLended only Lo conducL LhaL does noL LhreaLen publlc
order
2 n? ConsLlLuLlon 1777freedom of rellglon as long as Lhe rlghL shall noL be consLrued as Lo excuse acLs of
llcenLlousness or [usLlfy pracLlces lnconslsLenL w/Lhe peace or safeLy of Lhe SLaLes
3 new Pampshlre freedom of rellglon as long as lL does noL dlsLurb Lhe publlc peace or dlsLurb oLhers ln
Lhelr rellglous worshlp
CovernmenL of lmperfecL knowledge of lnkbloLs LlberLy and Llfe lLself
A lnLroducLlon
a luncLlon of Lhe consLlLuLlon
l LlmlL and dlvlde governmenL power lndlvldual llberLy mlghL be preserved
1 ConsLlLuLlon noL Lhe source of llberLy buL raLher Lhe Cu8An1C8
2 ConsLralnLs fed/sLaLe governmenL from lnLerferlng unnecessarlly w/parLlcularly vlLal freedoms such as
a Speech rellglon and Lhe ownershlp of properLy
ll Lxpress sub[ecL maLLer resLralnLs on Lhe governmenL
1 8lll of 8lghLs and
a 1he flrsL 10 Amend Lo Lhe ConsL
2 14
Lh
Amend
a Sec l All persons born or naLurallzed ln Lhe uS sub[ecL Lo Lhe [x Lhereof are clLlzens of Lhe uS
of Lhe SLaLe whereln Lhey reslde no sLaLe shall make/enforce any law whlch shall abrldge Lhe
prlvlleges or lmmunlLles of clLlzens of Lhe uS nor sho// ony 5tote deprive ony person of /ife
/iberty or property w/o due process of /ow nor deny to ony person w/l its jx the equo/
protection of the /ow
b Irtue
l Madlson only a vlrLuous clLlzen could be free"
ll noL Lhe [ob of Lhe gov'L Lo lnsLrucL maLLers regardlng vlrLue"
lll 8 led gov'L ls nC1 Lo prescrlbe (esLabllsh) or proscrlbe (as ln prohlblLlng free exerclse) Lhe parLlcular ways lndlvlduals
come Lo know Cod
lv no exacL deflnlLlon of llberLy" however cL sLaLes
1 noL merely freedom from bodlly resLralnL buL also
2 8lghL of Lhe lndlvldual Lo k Lo engage ln any common occupanLs of llfe rlghL Lo marry esLabllsh a home and
brlng up chlldren Lo worshlp accordlng Lo Lhe dlcLaLes of hls own consclence
3 lncludes LexLual rlghLs and nonLexLual rlghLs
a 1exLual rlghLs free exerclse of rellglon
b non LexLual rlghLs
l 8lghL Lo marry and have chlldren
ll AborLlon
lll AsslsLed Sulclde
v When does Lhe gov'L have power Lo resLraln llberLy?
1 1hrough enumeraLed powers
a le Coln money
b 10
Lh
Amend ollce owers
l MalnLenance of Lhe healLh safeLy morals and general welfare of Lhe communlLy
c 8elevanL consLlLuLlonal rovlslon
l uue rocess Clause subsLanLlvely llmlLs governmenL lnfrlngemenL of nonLexLual llberLles
ll 9
Lh
Amend enumeraLlon ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon of cerLaln rlghLs shall noL be consLrued Lo deny or dlsparage oLher
reLalned by Lhe people
d CLher grounds for supporL for nonLexLual rlghLs
l C/L remlnder of Lhe founder's concepLlon of reLalned rlghLs was shaped by common or naLural law ldea LhaL rlghLs
are derlved from reasoned reflecLlon upon human naLure over Llme and noL locaLed ln musLy parchmenLs
8 naLural Law LchoesarenLal and lamlly 8lghLs
13
a ulrecLlng Lhe upbrlnglng of Chlldren
l Meyers v nL 1923foundaLlon of subsLanLlve due process rlghL Lo dlrecL Lhe upbrlnglng of chlldren
1 l WheLher Lhe sLaLuLe as consLrued and applled unreasonably lnfrlnges Lhe llberLy guaranLeed Lo Lhe ln
error by Lhe 14
Lh
Amend?
2 SLaLuLe belng challenged
a SLaLuLe forblds Lhe Leachlng ln school of any sub[ecL excepL ln LnC + also Leachlng of a/o language
3 8 llberLy may noL be lnLerfered wlLh under Lhe gulse of proLecLlng Lhe publlc lnLeresL by leglslaLlve acLlon
LhaL ls arblLrary or w/ouL reasonable relaLlon L some purpose w/ln Lhe compeLency of Lhe SLaLe ln effecL
a 1he lndlvldual has cerLaln fundamenLal rlghLs whlch musL be respecLed
4 PlsLorlcal snapshoL
a laLo good chlldren should be placed ln pen wlLh good nurse bad chlldren should be placed ln
mysLerlous places
b SparLa goal Lo develop ldeal clLlzens assembled makes aL 7 lnLo barracks and enLrusLed Lhelr
subsequenL educaLlon/Lralnlng Lo guardlans
3 P Lhe sLaL as applled ls arblLrary and w/o reasonable relaLlon Lo any end w/l Lhe compeLency of Lhe SLaLe
a 1eachers rlghL Lo Leach and Lhe rlghL of parenLs Lo engage hlm so Lo lnsLrucL Lhelr chlldren w/l
Lhe llberLy of Lhe Amends
b Means adopLed exceed Lhe llmlLaLlons upon Lhe power of Lhe SLaLe + confllcL w/rlghLs assured Lo
Lhe
6 Maln polnL Lo Lake away
a CL lnvallded a sLaLe law prohlblLlng Lhe Leachlng ln languages oLher Lhan LnC ls publlc schools
because lL served noL reasonable relaLlon Lo any leglLlmaLe governmenL purpose of Lhe sLaLe
ll lerce v SocleLy of Lhe SlsLers of Lhe holy names of !esus and Mary 1923
1 l uld Lhe AcL vlolaLe Lhe llberLy of parenLs Lo dlrecL Lhe educaLlon of Lhelr chlldren?
2 l 1he Compulsory LducaLlon AcL of 1922 requlred parenLs or guardlans Lo send chlldren beLween Lhe ages
of elghL and slxLeen Lo publlc school ln Lhe dlsLrlcL where Lhe chlldren reslded 1he SocleLy of SlsLers was an
Cregon corporaLlon whlch faclllLaLed care for orphans educaLed youLhs and esLabllshed and malnLalned
academles or schools
3 8
a 8lghLs guaranLeed by Lhe Cons may noL be abrldged by leglslaLlon whlch has no reasonable
relaLlon Lo some purpose w/l Lhe compeLency of Lhe SLaLe
b 1he chlld ls noL Lhe mere creaLure of Lhe sLaLe
l 1hose who naLure hlm and dlrecL hls desLlny have Lhe rlghL coupled wlLh Lhe hlgh duLy
Lo recognlze and prepare hlm for add'l obllgaLlons
4 P AcL of 1922 unreasonably lnLerferes w/Lhe llberLy of parenLs/guardlans Lo dlrecL Lhe upbrlnglng and
educaLlon of chlldren under Lhelr conLrol
3 noLe Lhe sLaLed Lhe u's were barred from asserLlng a CCA b/c Lhey were a corporaLlon and could noL
resLraln Lhe proper power of Lhe sLaL CL re[ecLed Lhls arg sLaLlng
a 1he ln[uncLlon soughL ln Lhls case was nC1 agalnsL a proper power of Lhe sLaLe buL raLher an
lmproper power of Lhe sLaLe LhaL was arblLrary unreasonable and unlawful lnLerference w/Lhelr
paLrons and Lhe consequenL desLrucLlon of Lhelr buslness and properLy
lll 1roxel v Cranvllle C'Conner 2000
1 Ma[orlLyCplnlon C'Conner
a l uoes Lhe WashlngLon sLaLuLe whlch allows any person Lo peLlLlon for a courL ordered rlghL Lo
see a chlld over a cusLodlal parenLs ob[ecLlon lf such vlslLaLlon ls found Lo be ln Lhe chllds besL
lnLeresL unconsLlLuLlonally lnLerfere wlLh Lhe fundamenLal rlghL of parenLs Lo rear Lhelr chlldren?
b ?es cL held
l 8 llmlLaLlon on nonparenLal vlslLaLlon acLlons was conslsLenL w/Lhe consLlLuLlonal
resLrlcLlons on sLaLe lnLerference w/parenLs' fundamenLal llberLy lnLeresL ln Lhe care
cusLody and managemenL of Lhelr chlldren"
ll arenLs have a rlghL Lo llmlL vlslLaLlon of Lhelr chlldren w/3
rd
persons
lll vlslLaLlon sLaLuLe swepL Loo broadly
lv When can Lhe sLaLe lnLerfere w/a parenLs rlghL Lo ralse chlldren?
1 Cnly Lo prevenL harm or poLenLlal harm Lo a chlld
14
v CL musL accord aL lease some speclal welghL Lo Lhe parenL's own deLermlnaLlon
c 1hls ls a fundamenLal rlghL!
l lnLeresL of parenLs ln Lhe care cusLody and conLrol of Lhelr chlldren
d P Lhe vlslLaLlon order ln Lhls case was an unconsLlLuLlonal lnfrlngemenL on Cranvllle's
fundamenLal rlghL Lo make declslons concernlng Lhe care cusLody and conLrol of her Lwo
daughLers
2 Concurrence 1homas
a Agrees w/Lhe plurallLy LhaL Lhls CL's recognlLlon of a fundamenLal rlghL of parenLs Lo dlrecL Lhe
upbrlnglng of Lhelr chlldren resolves Lhls case
b Pe would apply sLrlcL scruLlny as Lhe sLandard of revlew
3 ulssenL
a Scalla
l Sheer dlverslLy of Loday's oplnlons persuades me LhaL Lhe Lheory of unenumeraLed
parenLal rlghLs underlylng Lhese cases has small clalm Lo sLare declsls proLecLlon"
ll 8aslcally says LhaL no where ln consLlLuLlon does lL menLlon parenLal rlghLs" so he had
no rlghL Lo vlndlcaLe Lhem agalnsL sLaLe leg
lll naLural rlghLs of parenLs exlsL buL refuses Lo crafL a [udlclal oplnlon
lv ueclaraLlon of lndependence + 9
Lh
Amend unclear Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhe [udlclary can
make such deLermlnaLlons of rlghLs heslLanL Lo exLend unenumeraLed nonLexLual
fundamenLal rlghLs Loo far
v LeglslaLure should deal w/Lhls
b kennedy
l More approprlaLe Lo conclude LhaL consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe 8lC
sLandard depends on more speclflc facLors
1 llLs parenLs rlghL v a sLranger or
2 llL parenLs rlghLs v anoLher parenL or defacLo parenL
ll CerLaln measure of [udlclal resLralnL
1 SLaLe famlly law cLs are beLLer equlpped Lo handle Lhls lssues
4 noLes
a arenLal rlghL sLems from Lhe llberLy proLecLed by Lhe uue rocess Clause of Lhe 14
Lh
Amend
b Pomeschoollng
l Mlchlgan v ue!onge cL held Mlchlgan's Leacher cerLlflcaLlon requlremenL vlolaLed Lhe
free exerclse clause and parenLs' rlghL Lo dlrecL Lhe upbrlnglng of Lhelr chlldren as Lhe
sLaLe falled Lo demonsLraLe LhaL Lhe requlremenL achleved lLs lnLeresLs by Lhe leasL
resLrlcLlve means
ll MosL sLaLes re[ecL cerLlfled lnsLrucLlon ls necessary for homeschoollng
1 20+ sLaLes repealed laws requlred cerLlflcaLlon for homeschoollng
c LlmlLaLlons on parenLs rlghL ln upbrlnglng of chlld
l no fundamenLal rlghL ls absoluLe rlnce v MA
1 CL susLalned Lhe appllcaLlon of chlld labor laws Lo prevenL parenLs from
engaglng a 9 yr old glrl ln Lhe sollclLaLlon of !ehovah's WlLnesses parenLs
2 lCk u PL8L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
CovernmenL CommlLmenL Lo lndlvldual LquallLy
A 8elevanL ConsLlLuLlonal rovlslon
a Lqual roLecLlon Clause
l 3
Lh
Amend
1 no person shallnor be deprived of /ife /iberty or property w/out due process of /ow nor shall prlvaLe
properLy be Laken for publlc use w/o [usL compensaLlon
8 8ush v Core 2000
a l wheLher Lhe lL Supreme CourL esLabllshed new sLandards for resolvlng resldenLlal elecLlon conLesLs Lhereby vlolaLlng ArL ll
1 Cl 2 of Lhe uS ConsLlLuLlon and falllng Lo comply w/3 uSC 3 and
13
l WheLher Lhe use of sLandardless manual recounLs vlolaLes Lhe Lqual roLecLlon and uue rocesses clausesF ?es Lo
boLh
b l
l lollowlng Lhe uS Supreme CourLs declslon ln 8ush v alm 8each CounLy Canvasslng 8oard and concurrenL wlLh
vlce resldenL Al Cores conLesL of Lhe cerLlflcaLlon of llorlda presldenLlal elecLlon resulLs on uecember 8 2000 Lhe
llorlda Supreme CourL ordered LhaL Lhe ClrculL CourL ln Leon CounLy LabulaLe by hand 9000 conLesLed balloLs from
Mlamluade CounLy
ll lL also ordered LhaL every counLy ln llorlda musL lmmedlaLely begln manually recounLlng all undervoLes (balloLs
whlch dld noL lndlcaLe a voLe for presldenL) because Lhere were enough conLesLed balloLs Lo place Lhe ouLcome of Lhe
elecLlon ln doubL
lll Covernor Ceorge 8ush and hls runnlng maLe 8lchard Cheney flled a requesL for revlew ln Lhe uS Supreme CourL
and soughL an emergency peLlLlon for a sLay of Lhe llorlda Supreme CourLs declslon
lv 1he uS Supreme CourL granLed revlew and lssued Lhe sLay on uecember 9 lL heard oral argumenL Lwo days laLer
c 8ules
l WhaL ls a legal voLe?
1 A voLe LhaL ls one ln whlch Lhee ls a c|ear ndcaton of the ntent of the voter"
a lL was recounLlng under voLes + dlmples and hanglng chads (amblguous could noL deLermlne
lnLenL of Lhe voLer
2 WhaL ls consldered dlsparaLe Lx?
a 1he dlfferenL recounL procedures ln each counLy
b llorlda Sup CL do noL saLlsfy mlnlmum requlremenL for nonarblLrary LreaLmenL Lo secure Lhe
fundamenLal rlghL of voLlng
l lL Sup CL says LhaL lnLenL of Lhe voLer" sLandard was noL arblLrary
3 no ulluLlon
a Lqual proLecLlon applles ln allocaLlon as well as how exerclsed
b 8eynolds v Slms no debasemenL or dlluLlon of Lhe welghL of a clLlzen's voLe"
c 8ecounL procedures arblLrary and dlsparaLe?
d ulssenL
l lnLenL of Lhe voLer sLandard ls enough
ll Accordlng Lo Lhe ulssenL lf you exLend Lhe ma[orlLy's loglc dlfferenL voLlng sysLems should be consldered a vlolaLlon
of Lqual roLecLlon

AborLlon + AsslsLed Sulclde
A 8elevanL ConsLlLuLlonal rovlslons
a 9
Lh
Amend unenumeraLed rlghL of rlvacy
l 1be eoometotloo lo tbe coost of cettolo tlqbts sboll oot be coosttoeJ to Jeoy ot Jlspotoqe otbets tetoloeJ by tbe
people
b 14
Lh
Amend
l All persons born or naLurallzed ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes and sub[ecL Lo Lhe [urlsdlcLlon Lhereof are clLlzens of Lhe unlLed
SLaLes and of Lhe SLaLe whereln Lhey reslde No State sha|| make or enforce any |a hch sha|| abrdge the
prv|eges or mmuntes of ctens of the Unted States nor sha|| any State deprve any person of |fe |berty or
property without due process of /ow nor deny to any person thn ts [ursdcton the equo/ protection of the
/ows
ll lxn/purpose
1 CuaranLees falr process
2 LlberLy" lncludes more Lhan physlcal resLralnL
a rovldes helghLened proLecLlon agalnsL governmenL lnLerference w/fundamenLal rlghLs llberLy
lnLeresL
b LlberLy lncludes rlghL Lo
l Marry
ll 1o have chlldren
lll 1o dlrecL Lhe edu upbrlnglng of chlldren
lv 1o marlLal prlvacy
16
v 1o use conLracepLlon
vl 1o bodlly lnLergrlLy
vll 1o aborLlon
vlll 1radlLlonal rlghL Lo refuse unwanLed llfesavlng medlcal Lx
8 8lghL of rlvacy Semlnal uevelopmenLs
l no enumeraLed rlghL of prlvacy under Lhe ConsL however cL held rlghL of personal prlvacy or a guaranLee of cerLaln
areas or zones of prlvacy does exls under Lhe ConsL"
ll 8elevanL case precedenL
Case erspecLlve Poldlng
Crlswold v Cn enumbras 1
sL
3
rd
4
Lh
3
Lh
9
Lh
CL held LhaL several provlslons of Lhe 8lll of
8lghLs esLabllshed a proLecLed zone of
prlvacypenumbras
LlsensadL v 8alrd enumbras ConsL proLecLs declslons ln maLLers of chlldbearlng
from un[usLlfled lnLruslon by Lhe sLaLe
CL exLended Lhe rlghL Lo use conLracepLlves
Lo unmarrled persons LC
8oe v Wade uC lnLeresL ln elecLlng an aborLlon was lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL
of ordered llberLy"
Powever Lhe rlghL ls noL unquallfled
LrlmesLer scheme + polnL of vlablllLy
lanned arenLhood of
SouLheasLern A v
Casey
Peld aborLlon regulaLlons should be assessed on Lhe basls of
wheLher Lhey unduly burden" a woman's freedom prlor Lo
vlablllLy
8e[ecL 8oe's LrlmesLer scheme


C AborLlon
a lnLroducLlon
l 1973 31 sLaLes had laws prohlblLlng aborLlon excepL Lo save Lhe llfe of Lhe moLher
ll Mlchlgan + norLh uakoLa voLers overwhelmlngly re[ecLed llberallzaLlon of Lhelr sLaLe aborLlon resLrlcLlons
lll lf nonLexLual rlghLs orlglnaLe ln Lhe hx and LradlLlon of Lhe naLlon aborLlon presenLs Lhe sLark anomaly of Lhe crlme
made lnLo a fundamenLal rlghL
b 8oe v Wade 8lackmun 1973
l l uoes Lhe ConsLlLuLlon embrace a womans rlghL Lo LermlnaLe her pregnancy by aborLlon?
1 uoes 8oe meeL Lhe sLandards of
a !usLlclablllLy and
l 1here a case or conLroversy
b SLandlng and
l was a pregnanL slngle woman LhwarLed by Lhe 1x crlmlnal aborLlon law sLandlng Lo
challenge Lhose sLaLuLes
c AbsLenLlon
l Cenerally acLual conLroversy musL exlsL aL sLages of appellaLe/cerLlorarl revlew and noL
slmply on Lhe daLe Lhe acLlon ls lnlLlaLed
ll lf end of pregnancy pd makes cases mooL F Lhen pregnancy llLlgaLlon would noL survlve
beyond Lhe Lrlal sLage
lll 8
1 regnancy provldes a classlc [usLlflcaLlon for a concluslon of nonmooLness
because lL tru|y cou|d be capab|e of repetton yet evadng reve
ll l 8oe wanLed Lo LermlnaLe her aborLlon she was unmarrled and pregnanL and wlshed Lo LermlnaLe her aborLlon
WanLed an aborLlon performed by a compeLenL + llcensed physlclan under safe cllnlcal condlLlons she was noL
able Lo geL a legal" aborLlon ln 1x bc her llfe was noL LhreaLened by Lhe conLlnuaLlon of her pregnancy + she could
noL afford Lo Lravel elsewhere for a legal aborLlon
1 1x SLaLuLe make lL a crlme Lo procure an aborLlon"excepL w/respecL Lo an aborLlon procured or
aLLempLed by medlcal advlce for Lhe purpose of savlng Lhe llfe of Lhe moLher"
lll 8oe's argumenLs
1 Clalmed 1x sLaLuLes were unconsLlLuLlonally vague and Lhey abrldged her rlghL of personal prlvacy
proLecLed by Lhe 1
sL
4L 3Lg 9
Lh
and 14
Lh
Amend
17
2 1x sLaL lnvades a rlghL of a pregnanL woman Lo chose Lo LermlnaLe her pregnancy
3 8lghL (Lo LermlnaLe a pregnancy) found ln concepL of
a ersonal llberLy uC of 14
Lh
Amend or
b rlvacy proLecLed ln Lhe 8lll of 8lghLs and lLs penumbras personal marlLal famlllal and sexual
prlvacy or
c 9
Lh
Amend among Lhose rlghLs reserved Lo Lhe people
lv u's argues
1 leLus person under Lhe 14
Lh
Amend
a CL re[ecLs person under Lhe 14
Lh
Amend does noL lnclude Lhe unborn
2 Llfe beglns aL concepLlon Lherefore sLaLe has a compelllng lnLeresL ln proLecLlng LhaL llfe from and afLer
concepLlon
a CL does noL address Lhls lssue because Lhey are noL Lralned Lo do so
v CL looks aL
1 PlsLory of aborLlon and
a Ancent atttudes dld noL bar aborLlon
b nppocratc Cath (1) Creek Lhlnkers commended aborLlon prlor Lo vlablllLy (2) end of anLlqulLy +
yLhagoreans embryo was anlmaLe from Lhe momenL of concepLlon aborLlon desLrucLlon of a
llvlng meanlng F PlppocraLlc oaLh prescrlbed agalnsL aborLlon
c Common |a aborLlon bf qulckenlng was noL an offense
1 Culckenlng 1
sL
recognlzable movemenL of Lhe feLus ln uLero appearlng from
16
Lh
Lo 18
Lh
wk of pregnancy
ll C/L focused on medlaLe anlmaLlon pL aL whlch Lhe embryo or feLus became
formed"/recognlzably human or when a person" lnfused w/soul or anlmaLed
1 8f medlaLe anlmaLlon feLus parL of Lhe moLher lLs desLrucLlon homlclde
lll Was aborLlon of qulck feLus crlme aL C/L?
1 unclear
a 8racLon (13
Lh
C) homlclde
b CLher scholars lesser offense
c 8lacksLone aborLlon posL qulckenlng was LhoughL of as
manslaughLerLhough noL murdermodern law was less severe
2 C/L precedenLs
a osL qulckenlng aborLlons never esLabllshed as a C/L crlme
d Lng|sh Statutory La
l 1803 aborLlon of qulck feLus a caplLal crlme buL provlded lesser penalLles for pre
qulckenlng aborLlon
ll reserved Lhe qulckenlng dlsLlncLlon
e Amercan |a
l re19
Lh
C followed Lhe LnC sLaLuLory law
ll C1 1860 aborLlon before qulckenlng crlme
lll n? 1828
1 MalnLalned qulckenlng dlsLlncLlon
a uesLrucLlon of unqulckened feLus mlsdemeanor
b uesLrucLlon of qulckened feLus 2
nd
degree manslaughLer
2 1herapeuLlc aborLlon
a AborLlon Ck lf lL shall be necessary Lo preserve Lhe llfe of such
moLher or shall have been advlsed by 2 physlclans Lo be necessary
for such purpose"
lv osL Clvll War
1 C/L aborLlon replaced w/sLaLe sLaLs
v 1930s
1 Abandoned qulckenlng dlsLlncLlons
a 8anned aborLlons unless done Lo save/preserve Lhe llfe of Lhe
moLher
f Amercan Medca| Assocaton
18
l AnLlaborLlon mood laLe 19
Lh
C vlewed lL w/general suppresslon
ll 3 causes for general demorallzaLlon
1 lgnorance of moLhers LhaL a feLus was noL allve unLll qulckenlng
2 us Lhemselves were careless w/foeLal llfe and
3 Crave defecLs ln Lhe laws (C/L + sLaLs) as regards Lhe lndependenL acLual
exlsLence of Lhe chlld bf blrLh llvlng belng
2 SLaLe purposes/lnLeresLs ln aborLlon laws and
a roducL of a vlcLorlan soclal concern Lo dlscourage llllclL sexual behavlor
l CL re[ecLs (noL a serlous argumenL)
b AborLlon as a medlcal procedure
l PlsLorlcal erspecLlve
1 SLaLes lnLeresL Lo proLecL Lhe pregnanL woman Lo resLraln her from placlng
her llfe ln danger w/a hazardous procedure
ll Modern Lechnology
1 AborLlon ln early pregnancy (prlor Lo end of 1
sL
LrlmesLer) F relaLlvely safe
2 PlsLorlcal perspecLlve arg has largely dlsappeared
lll SLaLe lnLeresL ln proLecLlng Lhe woman's own healLh + safeLy when an aborLlon ls
proposed aL a laLe sLage of pregnancy
c uuLy ln preservlng prenaLal llfe
l 1heory LhaL llfe beglns aL concepLlon
ll When ls pregnancy ok
1 Llfe of pregnanL moLher herself ls aL sLake balanced agalnsL Lhe llfe she carrles
w/l her should Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe embryo/feLus noL prevall
lll SLaLe concern ln proLecLlng any poLenLlal llfe
vl rlvacy Arg sources for Lhe rlghL of personal prlvacy
1 CL recognlzed personal prlvacy or a guaranLee of cerLaln areas or zones of prlvacy LhaL exlsL under ConsL
2 14
Lh
Amend concepL of personal llberLy and resLrlcLlons upon sLaLe acLlon
3 9
Lh
Amend reservaLlon of Lhe rlghLs Lo Lhe ppl ls broad enough Lo lnclude a woman's declslon wheLher or
noL Lo LermlnaLe her pregnancy
4 8
a rlvacy rlghL Lo aborLlon ls noL absoluLe
l 8lghL of personal prlvacy lncludes Lhe aborLlon declslon buL Lhls noL unquallfled and
musL be consldered agalnsL lmporLanL sLaLe lnLeresLs ln regulaLlon
b lundamenLal rlghLs Lrlggered
l 8egulaLlng llmlLlng Lhese rlghLs may only be [usLlfled by a compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL and
LhaL Lhe leglslaLlve enacLmenLs musL be narrowly Lallored drawn Lo express only Lhe
leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresLs aL sLake
vll ulfferenL polnLs of vlew
1 C/L llfe beglns aL qulckenlng
2 CaLhollcs llfe beglns aL concepLlon
3 Modern SclenLlflc vlew when Lhe feLus becomes vab|e
a vlable feLus can poLenLlally llve ouLslde Lhe moLher's womb albelL w/arLlflclal ald
l laced aL 7 monLhs (28 wks)
4 unborn have never been recognlzed ln Lhe law as persons ln Lhe whole sense
vlll P 8 regardlng aborLlon
1 Compelllng polnL for sLaLes lmporLanL/leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresLs
a re flrsL LrlmesLer physlclans + paLlenL are free Lo deLermlne w/o regulaLlon by Lhe sLaLe
l Medlcal [udgmenL of Lhe physlclan
ll no lnLerference from Lhe sLaLe ln pre 1
sL
LrlmesLer aborLlons
b osL flrsL LrlmesLer sLaLes has lmporLanL/leglLlmaLe lnLeresLs ln Lhe healLh of Lhe moLher
l lrom Lhls pL Lhe sLaLe may regulaLe aborLlon procedures Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL Lhe
regulaLlon reasonably relaLes Lo Lhe preservaLlon proLecLlon of maLernal healLh
2 Compelllng polnL ln sLaLe lmporLanL/leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresL ln poLenLlal llfe
a vlablllLy bc feLus has capaclLy of meanlngful llfe ouLslde Lhe womb
19
3 CL sLrlkes down Lhe sLaL
a A crlmlnal aborLlon sLaLe LhaL excepLs from crlmlnallLy only a llfe savlng procedure on behalf of
Lhe moLher wlLhouL regard Lo Lhe pregnancy sLaLe and w/ouL recognlLlon of Lhe oLher lnLeresLs
lnvolved ls vlolaLlve of Lhe uC of Lhe 14
Lh
Amend
lx Concurrence
1 SLewarL
a 1he CL Loday has demonsLraLed LhaL Lhese sLaLe lnLeresLs cannoL consLlLuLlonallLy supporL Lhe
broad abrldgmenL of personal llberLy by Lhe exlsLlng 1x law
b P sLaL ls lnvalld under uC of 14
Lh
Amend
x ulssenL
1 8ehnqulsL
a 1he declslon Lo break pregnancy lnLo 3 dlsLlncL Lerms and Lo ouLllne Lhe permlsslble resLrlcLlons
Lhe SLaLe may lmpose on each for example parLakes more of [udlclal leglslaLlon LhaL lL does of a
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe lnLenL of Lhe drafLers of Lhe 14
Lh
Amend
b AborLlon ls noL so rooLed ln Lhe LradlLlons and consclence of our people as Lo be ranked as
fundamenLal
xl noLes
1 lundamenLal rlghL aborLlon ls noL an absoluLe rlghL Lhe CL held however sLaLe resLrlcLlons musL be ln
pursulL of a compelllng lnLeresL and narrowly drawn Lo express Lhe leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresLs aL sLake
2 1rlmesLer analysls
a llrsL 3 monLhs of pregnancy
l SLaLed allowed were allowed Lo proLecL maLernal healLh and regulaLe aborLlon as Lhey
would medlcal procedures generalno speclallzed aborLlon regulaLlons
b 2
nd
LrlmesLer
l CovernmenL may lf lL chooses regulaLlon aborLlon procedures ln ways relaLed Lo
maLernal healLh
c LasL LrlmesLer
l AfLer vlablllLygov'L may prohlblL aborLlons excepL lf necessary Lo preserves Lhe
llfe/healLh of Lhe moLher
ll 8ecognlLlon of prenaLal llfe
c Conzales v CarharL kennedy 2007
l l wheLher Lhe AcL measured by lLs LexL lmposes a subsLanLlal obsLacle Lo laLe Lerm buL prevlablllLy aborLlonsFno
undue burden
1 WheLher Lhe AcL has Lhe effecL of lmposlng an unconsLlLuLlonal burden on Lhe aborLlon rlghL bc lL does noL
allow use of Lhe barred procedure where necessary ln approprlaLe medlcal [udgmenL for Lhe preservaLlon
of Lhe healLh of Lhe moLher?" F no
ll arLlal 8lrLh AborLlon 8an AcL
1 WhaL does lL do proscrlbed a parLlcular manner of endlng feLal llfe lnLacL uL
a Applles Lo vaglnally dellvered llvlng feLus' only
l Makes noL dlsLlncLlon bw prevlablllLy v posLvlablllLy aborLlons
2 8esponds Lo SLenberg ln2 ways
a Congress made facLual flndlngs and
l Moral medlcal and eLhlcal consensus exlsLs LhaL Lhe pracLlce of performlng a parLlal
blrLh aborLlon ls a gruesome and lnhumane procedure LhaL ls never medlcally necessary
and should be prohlblLed"
b AcL's language dlffers
3 nuLs and bolLs of Lhe AcL
a unlshes NCWINGL performlng a parLlal blrLh aborLlon
b ANA1CMICAL LANDMAk requlremenL
l lf no dellvery Lo anaLomlcal landmark req F Lhen AcL does noL apply
ll lf dellvery Lo anaLomlcal landmark reg F Lhen AcL does apply
c ur musL perform an CILk1 AC1 C1nLk 1nAN CCMLL1ICN CI DLLIILk LhaL kllls Lhe parLlally
dellvered llvlng feLus"
l CverL acL musL be separaLe from dellvery
20
ll MusL occur afLer Lhe dellvery of Lhe anaLomlcal landmarks
d hyslclans musL IN1LN1ICNALL AND DLLI8LkA1LL DLLIILk Lhe feLus Lo an anaLomlcal
landmark
l lf accldenLly dellvered Lo anaLomlcal landmark F Lhen AcL lnappllcable
ll lf dellvered Lo anaLomlcal landmark w/lnLenL Lo perform an overL acL Lo klll feLus F acL
appllcable
lll 's arg
1 Language ls lndeLermlnaLe + vague faclally lnvalld
lv uoes barrlng lnLacL uL pose rlsks Lo Lhe llfe of Lhe moLher?
1 lacLual dlspuLe wheLher barrlng Lhls procedure would be dangerous
2 Medlcal uncerLalnLy
a uoes noL foreclose Lhe exerclse of leglslaLlve power ln aborLlon conLexL
v rocedural Px
1 Lower cLs found Lhe acL unconsLlLuLlonal because
a Lacked excepLlon allowlng procedure for Lhe healLh of Lhe moLher and
b Covered noL merely lnLacL uL buL also cerLaln oLher uL's
vl Case recedenL
1 SLenberg v CarharL nL sLaL proscrlblng aborLlon was held unconsLlLuLlonal bc lL was noL speclflc enough
2 Casey v lanned arenLhood
a Cov'L has leglLlmaLe/subsLanLlal lnLeresL ln preservlng/promoLlng feLal llfe
b 8e[ecLed 8oes
l 8lgld LrlmesLer sysLem and
ll Consldered all prevlablllLy regulaLlon of aborLlon unwarranLed
vll 8
1 8/l vlablllLy sLaLe may noL prohlblL any woman from LermlnaLlng pregnancy
2 May NC1 IMCSL AN UNDUL 8UkDLN on woman
a undue burden purpose or effecL ls Lo place a subsLanLlal obsLacle ln Lhe paLh of a woman
seeklng an aborLlon before Lhe feLus aLLalns vlablllLy
b AcL expresses respecL for Lhe dlgnlLy of human llfe
c Congress concerned w/Lhe effecLs on Lhe medlcal cmmLy on lLs repuLaLlon caused by Lhe
pracLlce of parLlalblrLh aborLlons
l Confuses Lhe medlcal legal and eLhlcal duLles of physlclans Lo preserve /promlLe llfe as
Lhe physlclan acLs dlrecLly agalnsL Lhe physlcal llfe of a chlld whom he/she had [usL
dellvered
3 SLrucLural mechanlsms by whlch sLaLe or Lhe parenL/guardlan of a mlnor may express profound respecL for
Lhe llfe of Lhe unborn are permlLLed lf Lhey are noL subsLanLlal obsLacle Lo Lhe womans rlghL Lo chose Casey
4 vold for vagueness docLrlne
a 8equlres penal sLaL deflne Lhe crlmlnal offense w/sufflclenL deflnlLeness LhaL ordlnary ppl can
undersLand whaL conducL ls prohlblLed and ln a manner LhaL does noL encourage arblLrary and
dlscrlmlnaLory enforcemenL
3 Canon of consLlLuLlonal avoldance
a Lvery reasonable consLrucLlon musL be resorLed Lo ln order Lo save a sLaL from
unconsLlLuLlonallLy
b uoes noL apply lf a sLaL ls noL genulnely suscepLlble Lo Lwo consLrucLlons
6 SLaLe may use lLs regulaLory power Lo bar cerLaln procedures and subsLlLuLe oLhers all ln furLherance of lLs
leglLlmaLe lnLeresLs ln regulaLlng Lhe medlcal professlon ln order Lo promoLe respecL for llfe lncludlng of Lhe
unborn
7 1he AcL does noL requlre a healLh excepLlon
vlll Mlsc
1 As applled challenges
a roper means Lo conslder excepLlons raLher Lhan by broad faclal aLLack
2 When should Lhe acL be llLlgaLed?
21
a reenforcemenL as applled challenges Lo proLecL Lhe healLh of Lhe woman lf lL can be shown ln
dlscreLe and well deflned lnsLances a parLlcular condlLlon has or ls llkely Lo occur whlch Lhe
procedure prohlblLed by Lhe AcL musL be used
3 laclal challenges have heavy 8C
a SLandard no seL of clrcumsLances exlsLs under whlch Lhe AcL would be valld
lx P AcL ls consLlLuLlonal (defeaLs broad faclal aLLack)
1 AcL ls noL vold for
a vagueness or
b lmposlng an undue burden
x Concurrence
1 1homas Scalla
a roper appllcaLlon of Casey
b Powever Casey and 8oe have no basls ln Lhe consLlLuLlon
c Commerce Clause lssue noL arLlculaLed by Lhe courL
xl ulssenL
1 Clnsburg SLevens SouLer 8reyer
a ueclslon blurs Lhe llne beLween prevlablllLy and posLvlablllLy aborLlons
b Afflrms a sLaL wlLh no excepLlon safeguardlng a woman's healLh
c SLandard of revlew
l SLrlcL scruLlny Lo raLlonal baslsshlfL has Laken place by Lhls case
ll AuLonomy concern of woman woman's place ln socleLy
lll 1argeLs a meLhod aborLlon buL saves noL a slngle feLus from desLrucLlon"
1 ueaLh of Lhe feLus ls llkely
lv Why noL?
1 Why noL proscrlbe nonlnLacL uL as well?
2 LquallLy bruLal"
3 ulshonors precedenL and ls overrldlng fundamenLal rlghLs"
d CLher ob[ecLlons
l !eopardlzes women's healLh and places docLors ln an unLenable poslLlon"
1 lnLenLable poslLlon docLors would noL be able Lo perform lnLacL uL even
Lhough lL's Lhe besL procedure for Lhe moLher
ll Would afflrm Lhe [udgmenLs below raLher Lhan overLurn Lhe [udgmenLs below
d noLes
l CarharL upholds Lhe federal ban on lLs face leavlng open Lhe posslblllLy of an as applled challenge
u AsslsLed Sulclde uS ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe 8lghL Lo ule
a lnLroducLlon
l Ceneral healLh care declslon maklng prlnclples frequenLly have been developed ln end of llfe cases
ll Llfe and deaLh declslons prlnclples are applled Lo oLher healLh care declslons Loo
b Cruzan v ulrecLor Mlssourl uCP 8ehnqulsL 1990
l l WheLher nancy Cruzan has a rlghL under Lhe uS ConsLlLuLlon whlch would requlre Lhe hosplLal Lo wlLhdraw llfe
susLalnlng Lx from her under Lhese clrcumsLances?
1 WheLher Lhe uS ConsLlLuLlon prohlblLs Mlssourl from chooslng Lhe rule of declslon whlch lL dld
ll l Cruzan's parenLs soughL a cL order dlrecLlng Lhe wlLhdrawal of Lhelr daughLer's arLlflclal feedlng hydraLlon
equlpmenL afLer lL became apparenL LhaL she had vlrLually no chance of recoverlng her cognlLlve faculLles Cruzan ls a
perslsLenL vegeLaLlve sLaLe generally a condlLlon whlch a person exhlblLs moLor reflexes buL evlnces no lndlcaLlon of
slgnlflcanL cognlLlve funcLlon low level of cognlLlve processes LhaL are occurrlng
lll rocedural Px
1 1C
a P a person ln nancy's condlLlon had a fundamenLal rlghL under Lhe SLaLe/led ConsLlLuLlon Lo
refuse or dlrecL Lhe w/drawal of deaLh prolonglng procedures"
2 Mlssourl SC
a P LhaL bc Lhere was no clear and convlnclng evldence of nancy's deslre Lo have llfesusLalnlng Lx
w/drawn under such clrcumsLances her parenLs lacked auLhorlLy Lo effecLuaLe a requesL
3 uSSC
22
a 8eafflrmed Mlssourl SC holdlng
ll 's arg
1 lorced admln of llfesusLalnlng medlcal Lx/arLlflclally dellvered food/waLer essenLlal Lo llfe would lmpllcaLe
a compeLenL person's llberLy lnLeresL
a CL re[ecLs sLaLlng
l 8u1 lC8 1PlS CASL we assume uS ConsL would granL a compeLenL person a
consLlLuLlonally proLecLed rlghL Lo refuse llfesavlng hydraLlng/nuLrlLlon
2 lncompeLenL person should possess Lhe same rlghL as possessed by a compeLenL person
a CL re[ecLs sLaLlng
l Such a rlghL musL be exerclsed lC8 her by some sorL of surrogaLe
lll SLaLe lnLeresLs comporLlng w/Ml sLaLuLe
1 reservaLlon and proLecLlon of human llfe and
2 SLaLe (Ml) may leglLlmaLely seek Lo safeguard Lhe personal elemenL of Lhls cholce Lhough Lhe lmposlLlon of
helghLened evldenLlary requlremenL and
3 SLaLe enLlLled Lo guard agalnsL poLenLlal abuses when surrogaLe noL avallable and
lv ulsLlncLlon make beLween lncompeLenL and compeLenL paLlenLs
1 CompeLenL undersLands Lhe rlsks undersLands beneflLs of posslble Lx soundness of [udgmenL Lo maklng
clear mlnded declslon regardlng Lhese maLLers
a lf compeLenL adulL paLlenL F Lhen Lhey have Lhe rlghL Lo refuse medlcal Lx
b lf lncompeLenL paLlenL (perslsLenL vegeLaLlve sLaLe coma) F Lhen unclear
v 8lsk of error ln maklng declslons reverslblllLy of Lhe respecLlve declslons
1 SLrlngenL 8C Lhe more Lhe parLy bears Lhe rlsk of erroneous declslon
2 Wrong declslon wlll evenLually be correcLed or lLs lmpacL mlLlgaLed
3 Lrroneous declslon Lo w/draw llfe susLalnlng Lx ls noL suscepLlble of correcLlon
4 Medlcal 8reakLhroughs
a CourL concerned LhaL new medlcal breakLhroughs may be developed LhaL may help lndlvlduals ln
comas
3 Medlcal mlracles people comlng ouL of slLuaLlons llke Lhls
vl 8 + 8elevanL ConsLlLuLlonal rovlslon
1 14
Lh
Amend no SLaLe shall deprlve any person of llfe llberLy or properLy w/ouL u of law
a roLecLs an lnLeresL ln llfe + lnLeresL ln refuslng llfe susLalned medlcal Lx
2 8
a CompeLenL person has a consLlLuLlonally proLecLed llberLy lnLeresL ln refuslng unwanLed medlcal
Lx may be lnferred from our prop declslons
b 8alance llberLy lnLeresL v relevanL sLaLe lnLeresLs
c Such a rlghL Lo remove hydraLlon/nuLrlLlon musL be exerclsed by some sorL of surrogaLe
l rocedural safeguard Lo assure LhaL Lhe acLlon of Lhe surrogaLe conforms as besL lL may
Lo Lhe wlshes of Lhe paLlenL when compeLenL
ll Lvldence of Lhe lncompeLenL's wlshes as Lo Lhe wlLhdrawal of Lx be proved by CLLAk
AND CCNIINCING LIIDLNCL F uS ConsLlLuLlon does noL prohlblL Lhls sLandard
1 CbservaLlons musL be made Lo Lhe speclflc ln Lhls case deallng wlLh Lhe
w/drawl of medlcal Lx or hydraLlon/nuLrlLlon
d SLaLe enLlLled Lo [udlclal proceedlngs Lo make deLermlnaLlon regardlng an lncompeLenL's wlshes
e SLaLe may properly decllne Lo make [udgmenL abouL Lhe quallLy" of llfe LhaL a parLlcular
lndlvldual may en[oy and slmply asserL an unquallfled lnLeresL ln Lhe preservaLlon of human llfe Lo
be welghed agalnsL Lhe consLlLuLlonally proLecLed lnLeresL of Lhe lndlvldual
f CL has never held LhaL Lhe rlghL Lo dle ls a general prlvacy rlghL under Lhe 14
Lh
Amend
vll P sLaLe may apply clear convlnclng evld sLandard ln proceedlngs where a guardlan seeks Lo dlsconLlnue
nuLrlLlon/hydraLlon of a person dlagnosed Lo be ln a perslsLenL vegeLaLlve sLaLe
vlll Concurrence
1 C'Conner
a LlberLy lnLeresL
l LlberLy guaranLeed by Lhe uC musL proLecL an lndlvldual's deeply personal declslon Lo
re[ecL medlcal Lx
23
b ConsLlLuLlon
l ermlLs a sLaLe Lo requlre clear convlnclng evldence of Cruzan's deslre Lo have
arLlflclal hydraLlon and nuLrlLlon w/drawn
ll uoes noL preclude a fuLure deLermlnaLlon LhaL Lhe ConsL requlred Lhe sLaLes Lo
lmplemenL Lhe declslons of a paLlenL's duly appolnLed surrogaLe
lll nor does lL prohlblL sLaLes from developlng approaches for proLecLlng an lncompeLenL
lndlvldual's llberLy lnLeresL ln refuslng medlcal Lx
2 Scalla focuses on Lhe equal proLecLlon clause
a lederal cLs have no buslness ln Lhls fleld
b up Lo clLlzens ln Ml Lo declde Lhrough Lhelr elecLed represenLaLlves wheLher LhaL wlsh wlll be
honored
c no fundamenLal rlghL lmpllcaLed
l no subsLanLlve u clalm can be malnLalned unless Lhe clalmanL demonsLraLes LhaL Lhe
SLaLe has deprlved hlm of a rlghL hlsLorlcally and LradlLlonally proLecLed agalnsL sLaLe
lnLerference
ll no supporL LhaL a rlghL Lo sulclde ls so rooLed ln our LradlLlon LhaL lL may be deemed
fundamenLal" or lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL of ordered llberLy"
d ulsLlngulshlng Lhls case from sulclde
l 's rely on Lhree dlsLlncLlons Lo separaLe Cruzan's case from ordlnary sulclde cL re[ecLs
all 3 args)
1 She ls permanenLly lncapaclLaLed and ln paln
a aln/lncapaclLy have never consLlLuLed a legal defense Lo a charge of
sulclde
2 She would brlng on her deaLh noL by any afflrmaLlve acL buL by merely
decllnlng Lx LhaL provldes nourlshmenL and
a 1haL Lhe dlsLlncLlon bw acLlon and lnacLlon ls loglcally and legally
meanlngless
3 revenLlng Cruzan from effecLuaLlng her presumed wlsh Lo dle requlres
vlolaLlon of her bodlly lnLegrlLy
a revenLlng sulclde ofLen requlres vlolaLlon of bodlly lnLegrlLy and lLs
begs Lhe quesLlon of wheLher Lhe refusal of Lx ls lLself sulclde
lx ulssenLs
1 8rennan Marshall rlghL Lo dle w/dlgnlLy"/sLaLe lnLeresL does noL ouLwelgh Lhe rlghL Lo dle w/dlgnlLy
a lundamenLal 8lghL
l Cruzan has a fundamenLal rlghL Lo be free of unwanLed arLlflclal nuLrlLlon/hydraLlon
whlch rlghL ls noL ouLwelghed by any lnLeresL of Lhe sLaLe
b rocedural Mechanlsms
l llnds blased procedural obsLacles lmposed by Ml
c Plgh evldenLlary burden
l Cnly evld of speclflc sLaLemenL of Lx cholce made by Lhe paLlenL when compeLenL ls
admlsslble Lo supporL a flndlng LhaL Lhe paLlenL now ln a perslsLenL vegeLaLlve sLaLe
would wlsh Lo avold furLher medlcal Lx
ll no proof ls requlred Lo supporL a flndlng LhaL Lhe lncompeLenL person would wlsh Lo
conLlnue Lx
lll uld noL speclfy whaL evld would supporL clear convlnclng sLandard
d uocLrlne of lnformed ConsenL noL prlmary focus of Lhe dlssenL
l 8lghL Lo be free from unwanLed medlcal aLLenLlon ls a rlghL Lo evaluaLe Lhe poLenLlal
beneflL of Lx and lLs posslble consequences accordlng Lo one's own values and Lo make a
personal declslon wheLher Lo sub[ecL oneself Lo Lhe lnLruslon
e Summary of ulssenL
l Cenerally goes on Lo say Cruzan has a fundamenLal rlghL Lo be free of unwanLed
arLlflclal nuLrlLlon and hydraLlon whlch rlghL ls noL ouLwelghed by any lnLeresLs of Lhe
SLaLe and b/c l flnd LhaL Lhe lmproperly blased procedural obsLacles lmposed by
Mlssourl lmpermlsslbly burden LhaL rlghL
24
ll Cruzan ls enLlLled Lo choose Lo dle wlLh dlgnlLy
lll 1he sLaLe has no leglLlmaLe general lnLeresL ln someone's llfe
lv 1he sLaLe's general lnLeresL ln llfe musL accede Cruzan's parLlcularlzed and lnLense
lnLeresL ln self deLermlnaLlon ln her cholce of medlcal LreaLmenL
v Mlssourl may consLlLuLlonally lmpose only Lhose procedural requlremenLs LhaL serve Lo
enhance LhaL accuracy of a deLermlnaLlon of Cruzan's wlshes or are aL leasL conslsLenL
wlLh accuraLe deLermlnaLlon
vl 1he ma[orlLy sald LhaL Lhe clear and convlnclng evldence would be Lhlngs such as a llvlng
wlll or equlvalenLly formal dlrecLlve from Lhe paLlenL when compeLenL would meeL Lhls
sLandard
vll A sLaLes leglLlmaLe lnLeresL ln safeguardlng a paLlenL's cholce cannoL be furLhered by
slmply approprlaLlng lL
vlll SLaLe as parens paLrlae lnLeresL now lncompeLenL was as accuracy
2 SLevens
a 8lghL Lo dle fundamenLal rlghL
b Agrees w/1C
c 8aLlonal basls LesL
l Ml's lnLruslon upon Lhese fundamenLal llberLles musL aL a mlnlmum bear a reasonable
relaLlonshlp Lo a leglLlmaLe sLaLe end
ll uoesn'L even meeL lowesL level of revlew Lherefore should be unconsLlLuLlonal
d 8e[ecLs Lhe proLecLlon of llfe arg
x noLes
1 1ypes of care LhaL can be conLalned ln advanced dlrecLlves Lype and level of care LhaL can be recelved
a Curatve care seeks Lo remedy whaLever dlsease sLaLe one happens Lo have and
b Less severe care does noL cure dlsease buL does noL affecL you as Lerrlbly and
c Comfort care Lrles Lo make paLlenL comforLable and
d a||atve care exLreme care prepare people Lo dle for Lhose who are ln Lhe dylng process le
hosplce care
c WashlngLon v Clucksberg 8ehnqulsL 1997
l l WheLher WA's prohlblLlon agalnsL causlng" or aldlng" a sulclde offend Lhe 14
Lh
Amend?
ll 8elevanL sLaL aL lssue
1 WA sLaL a person ls gullLy of promoLlng a sulclde aLLempL when he knowlngly causes or alds a/o person Lo
aLLempL sulclde
2 unlshmenL felony punlshmenL up Lo 3 yrs lmprlsonmenL 10k flne
lll CLher sLaLs ln WA
1 WashlngLon's naLural ueaLh AcL w/holdlng or w/drawal of llfe susLalnlng Lx aL a paLlenLs dlrecLlon shall
noL for any purpose consLlLuLe a sulclde
lv u's arg
1 Seeklng declaraLlon LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL asslsLed sulclde ls on lLs face unconsLlLuLlonal because
a 1he exlsLence of a llberLy lnLeresL ls proLecL by Lhe 14
Lh
Amend whlch exLends Lo a personal volce
by a menLal compeLenL Lermlnally lll adulL Lo commlL physlclan asslsLed sulclde"
l CL re[ecLs looks aL Lhe hlsLory legal LradlLlon pracLlces
ll SubsLanLlve uC analysls see below
2 Self soverelgnLy and Leachlng LhaL llberLy proLecLed by uC lncludes baslc and lnLlmaLe exerclse of
personal auLonomy
a CL re[ecLs sLaLlng LhaL on fundamenLal rlghLs en[oy such proLecLlon under Lhe 14
Lh
Amend
v rocedural Px
1 1C found sLaL unCCnS1l1u1lCnAL because lL places an undue burden on Lhe exerclse of LhaL
consLlLuLlonally proLecLed llberLy lnLeresL" and found sLaL vlolaLed Lhe LC req LhaL all persons slmllarly
slLuaLedbe LreaLed allke"
2 Appeals CL found sLaL CCnS1l1u1lCnAL because no consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo ald ln kllllng oneself as ever
been upheld
3 8ehearlng en banc agreed w/uCF Lhen wenL Lo SC
vl 8aLlonal Naton's hstory |ega| tradtons practces as relaLed Lo sulclde asslsLed sulclde
1 SLaLe lnLeresL aL sLake sLaLe's expresslon Lo Lhe proLecLlon preservaLlon of all human llfe
2 C/L
23
a AngloAmerlcan C/L
l unlshed/dlsapproved of sulclde/asslsLed sulclde
ll Penry de 8racLon [usL as a man may commlL felony by slaylng a/o so he do so by
slaylng hlmself"
lll 8eal/personal prop of lndlvldual who commlLLed sulclde wenL Lo Lhe klng/sLaLe
lv 8lacksLone consldered lL selfmurder
b Amerlcan Colonles
l AdopLed Lhe C/L approach
ll MovemenL away from C/L harsh sancLlon agalnsL sulclde for real/personal prop
lll C1 no asslsLed sulcldenever conLalned excepLlons for Lhose who were near deaLh
lv n? 1828 sLaL speclflcally ouLlawlng asslsLed sulclde
3 Advances ln medlcal care LhaL prolong llfe
a CLs allow llvlng wllls surrogaLe healLh care declslonmaklng w/drawa or refusal of llfe susLalnlng
medlcal Lx
4 CLher sLaLes
a CA re[ecLed asslsLed sulclde
b Cregon ueaLh WlLh ulgnlLy AcL" legallzed physlclan asslsLed sulclde for compeLenL Lermlnally lll
adulLs
c res CllnLon lederal AsslsLed Sulclde lundlng 8esLrlcLlon AcL 1997 prohlblLs Lhe use of federal
funds ln supporL of physlclan asslsLed sulclde
3 ALLlLudes Lo sulclde have changes buL noL Lhe laws LhaL condemn asslsLed sulclde
6 ConsLlLuLlonal Analysls
a CL relucLanL Lo expand subsLanLlve due process LhaL ls Lo flnd s/L as a fundamenLal rlghL
b Analysls for subsLanLlve due process
l uC proLecLs fundamenLal rlghLs/llberLles whlch are
1 ueeply rooLed ln Lhls naLlon's hlsLory LradlLlon and lmpllclL ln Lhe concepL of
ordered llberLy such LhaL nelLher llberLy nor [usLlce would exlsL lf Lhey were
sacrlflced and
2 Careful descrlpLlon of Lhe asserLed fundamenLal llberLy lnLeresL
ll CounLry's hlsLory legal LradlLlons and pracLlces provlde a guldeposL ln deLermlnlng
wheLher a rlghL ls consldered fundamenLal
lll ConcreLe examples
7 CL flnds unlversal LradlLlon LhaL has long re[ecLed Lhe asslsLed sulclde
8 8aLlonal basls LesL
a WA's asslsLed sulclde ban ls raLlonally relaLed Lo a leglLlmaLe governmenL lnLeresL
l unquallfled lnLeresL ln preservaLlon of human llfe
ll Sulclde ls publlc healLh problem relaLed Lo depresslon
1 osslble drawback from asslsLed sulcldes could make lL more dlfflculL for Lhe
SLaLes Lo proLecL depressed/menLally lncompeLenL persons
lll roLecLlng lnLegrlLy/eLhlcs of medlcal professlon as healers
lv roLecL vulnerable groups poor elderly dlsabled persons
v Wlll sLarL asslsLed sulclde down Lhe paLh Lo volunLary and lnvolunLary euLhanasla
(neLherlands case sLudy)
vll 8
1 1he asserLed rlghL" Lo asslsLance ln commlLLlng sulclde ls nC1 a fundamenLal llberLy lnLeresL proLecLed by
Lhe SC
vlll P
3 WA's ban ls reasonably relaLed Lo Ller proLecLlon/promoLlon uoes noL vlolaLe Lhe 14
Lh
Amend elLher on lLs
face or as applled Lo compeLenL Lermlnally lll adulLs who wlsh Lo hasLen Lhelr deaLhs by obLalnlng
medlcaLlon prescrlbed by Lhelr docLors"
lx Concurrences
1 C'Connor Lhere was no generallzed rlghL Lo commlL sulclde LefL open LhaL a Lermlnallylll paLlenL sufferlng
greaL paln mlghL have a llmlLed rlghL Lo have a physlcal prescrlbe medlcaLlon Lo allevlaLe LhaL sufferlng even
where Lhls would hasLen deaLh
26
2 Stevens dlsagreed wlLh Lhe ma[orlLles reasonlng Agreed LhaL sLaLuLes llke Lhose of WashlngLon and n?
were noL always unconsLlLuLlonal so LhaL 's faclal aLLack on Lhe sLaLuLes had Lo fall Pe belleved LhaL Lhere
are slLuaLlons ln whlch an lnLeresL ln haLlng deaLh ls leglLlmaLe
3 Souter's he saw Lhe lssue as wheLher Lhe sLaLue seLs up one of Lhose arblLrary lmposlLlons or purposeless
resLralnLs aL odds wlLh Lhe uue rocess Clause Pe vlewed lf a sLaLuLe dld Lhls lL would vlolaLe due process
even lf lL dldn'L burden a fundamenLal lnLeresL and even lf lL was noL wholly lrraLlonal Seemed Lo be
advocaLlng a slldlng scale" approach Lo due process (dldn'L use Lhe Lerm) by whlch Lhe sLronger Lhe
lndlvlduals lnLeresL Lhe sLronger Lhe sLaLes counLervalllng lnLeresL had Lo be
4 8reyer's dlsagreed wlLh ma[ descrlpLlon of Lhe 's clalmed llberLy lnLeresL as a rlghL Lo commlL sulclde wlLh
anoLher's asslsLance" he sald he would use words such as rlghL Lo dle wlLh dlgnlLy" and LhaL aL lLs core
would lle personal conLrol over Lhe manner of deaLh professlonal medlcal asslsLance and Lhe avoldance of
unnecessary and severe physlcal sufferlng
d vacco v Culll 8ehnqulsL 1997
l l WheLher n?'s prohlblLlon on asslsLlng sulclde Lherefore vlolaLes Lhe LC clause o Lhe 14
Lh
Amend
ll LC of 14
Lh
Amend
1 1haL no SLaLe shall deny Lo any person wlLhln lLs [urlsdlcLlon Lhe equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws"
lll 1he n? sLaL
1 Applles Lo all new ?orkers allLhey nelLher lnfrlnge fundamenLal rlghLs nor lnvolve suspecL classlflcaLlons
2 Lveryone regardless of physlcal condlLlons ls enLlLled lf compeLenL Lo refuse unwanLed llfesavlng medlcal Lx
no one ls permlLLed Lo asslsL a sulclde
lv CL makes dlsLlncLlon bw asslsLlng sulclde v w/drawlng llfesusLalnlng Lx
1 CausaLlon and lnLenL
a When a paLlenL refuses llfe susLalnlng med Lx he dles from an underlylng faLal dlsease/paLhology
buL lf
b A paLlenL lngesLs leLhal medlcaLlon prescrlbed by a physlclan he ls llkely kllled by Lhe medlcaLlon
2 LeLLlng a paLlenL dle v maklng LhaL paLlenL dle
a Cruzan compeLenL person has a consLlLuLlonally proLecLed llberLy lnLeresL ln refuslng
unwanLed medlcal Lx may be lnferred from our prlor declslons"
v Concurrence
1 SLevens
a Lqual roLecLlon clause ls noL vlolaLed by Lhe resulLlng dlsparaLe LreaLmenL of Lwo classes of
Lermlnally lll people who may have Lhe same lnLeresL ln hasLenlng deaLh
b Agrees wlLh Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween permlLLlng deaLh Lo ensue form an underlylng faLal dlsease
and causlng lL Lo occur by Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of medlcaLlon or oLher means provldes a
consLlLuLlonally sufflclenL basls for Lhe SLaLes classlflcaLlon
c Pe ls noL persuaded LhaL ln all cases Lhe dlfference beLween Lhe lnLenL of Lhe physlclans Lhe
paLlenLs or Lhe famllles ln Lhe Lwo slLuaLlons
d 1he sLaLuLes may lmpose an lnLolerable lnLruslon on Lhe paLlenL's freedom
2 ! SouLer
a SouLer does noL conclude LhaL asslsLed sulclde ls a fundamenLal rlghL enLlLled Lo recognlLlon aL
Lhls Llme accords Lhe clalms by Lhe paLlenLs and physlclans ln Clucksberg Pe belleves LhaL Lhe
prohlblLlon on asslsLed sulclde ls noL arblLrary under Lhe due process sLandard
ueclaraLlon of lndependence ConsLlLuLlon AmendmenLs SC !usLlces
A ueclaraLlon of lndependence !uly 4 1776
a 8easons seL forLh ln declarlng lndependence
l All men are creaLed equa|
ll Lndowed wlLh cerLaln una|enab|e rghts lnclude LIIL LI8Lk1 and Lhe UkSUI1 CI nAINLSS
lll CovernmenLs derlve Lhelr [usL powers from Lhe consent of the governed
lv Whenever a governmenL becomes desLrucLlve people can abollsh lL lf lL ls proper
v new governmenL should effecLuaLe Lhe safety and happness of peop|e
vl Why colonles are asserLlng lndependence
27
1 Long Lraln of abuses and usurpaLlons under absoluLe uespoLlsm Lhrow of such governmenL and Lo prove
new Cuards for Lhelr fuLure securlLy
vll klng of Lngland LyranL
1 Px of repeaLed ln[urles and usurpaLlons affecLlng Lhe colonles
vlll 1hls declaraLlon levled war concluded peach conLracL alllances esLabllshed commerce and was able Lo do all oLher
acLs and Lhlng whlch lndependenL sLaLes may have Lhe rlghL Lo do
lx 1hey muLually pledged Lo each oLher Lhelr llves forLunes and sacred honor
8 ConsLlLuLlon
a 8efer Lo supplemenLal ouLllne
C AmendmenL
1 8ellglous and pollLlcal lreedom
2 8lghL Lo 8ear Arms
3 CuarLerlng Soldlers
4 unreasonable searched and selzures
3 uC of [usL compensaLlon
6 8lghLs of Lhe Accused
7 1rlal by [ury ln clvll cases
8 8all unlshmenL
9 8lghLs reLalned by Lhe eople
10 owers reserved Lo sLaLes or Lhe people
11 SulLs agalnsL sLaLesresLrlcLlon of [udlclal power
12 LlecLlon of resldenL and vlce resldenL
13 Slavery rohlblLed ower Lo enforce amend
14 LC
13 8lghL of all clLlzens Lo voLe
16 Sklp
17 Sklp
18 rohlblLlon
19 Woman suffrage
20 Sklp
21 8epeal of prohlblLlon
Supreme CourL !usLlces
8eagan 8ush CllnLon 8ush Cbama
Scalla 1986
kennedy 1988
1homas 1991 Clnsburg 1993
8reyer 1994
Chlef !usLlce !ohn 8oberLs
2003
AllLo 2006
SoLomayor 2009
kagan 2010