Thus, legislatures cannot make laws that allow the government to invade people’s privacy, even 
though no specific amendment can be pointed to. The constitutional right to privacy must often be 
balanced against the state’s compelling interests such as promoting public safety. The courts have found 
the right to privacy in the context of reproductive freedom (See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 
(1972) (right to abortion), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (the right of married persons to 
possess contraceptives), Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (declaring invalid the ban on 
contraceptives), Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) (the right to view and possess adult pornography), 
and the right of adults to engage in consensual sexual contact), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 
(the right of adults to engage in consensual sexual contact). 
State Constitutions 
States’ constitutions, similar to the federal constitution, set forth the general organization of state 
government and basic standards governing the use of governmental authority. Although the federal 
constitution is preeminent because of the Supremacy Clause, state constitutions are still significant. State 
constitutional rules are supreme as compared to any other rules coming from all other state legal sources 
(statutes, ordinances, administrative rules) and prevail over such laws in cases of conflict. The federal 
constitution sets the floor of individual rights, but states are free to provide more individual freedoms and 
protections that are granted by the federal constitution. State constitutions are defined and interpreted by 
state courts, and even identical provisions in both the state and federal constitution may be interpreted 
differently. For example, the state constitution’s guarantee to be free from unreasonable searches and 
seizures may mean that, under state law, roadblocks established to identify impaired, intoxicated drivers are 
impermissible, but under the federal constitution, these roadblocks are permitted and are not deemed to be 
unreasonable seizures. 
Comparing Cases Exercise 
Compare the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) to 
the Michigan Supreme Court holding interpreting the same case under Michigan Constitution, 506 N.W.2d 209 
(Mich. 1993). 
Rule of Law, Constitutions and Judicial Review 
One of the key features of the American legal system has been its commitment to the rule of law. Rule 
of law has been defined as a “belief that an orderly society must be governed by established principles and 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
98