Emphasizes that these extended family arrangements are more prevalent in minority and immigrant communities (i.e., vulnerable communities). The nuclear family is a fixture of white suburbia. Brennan noted that there was no evidence that the ordinance in this case was racially motivated. East Cleveland was a black, middle-class, upwardly striving community. The residents wanted to exclude They wanted to preserve their middle-class, “ghetto” families. It to community. “Leave Beaver” Stewart & Rehnquist, Dissenting State may regulate any household that is not a marital household. Substantive due process only protects the traditional, nuclear family. Right to Privacy Meyer v. Nebraska (U.S. 1923) Substantive Due Process Law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (U.S. 1925) Substantive Due Process Law providing that parents could satisfy the education law state’s compulsory only by enrolling their children in public schools violated the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of “Liberty children under their control.” Prince v. Massachusetts (U.S. 1944) and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose “The custody, care primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder. There is a private realm of family life which the State cannot enter.” Poe v. Ullman (U.S. 1961) Denied certiorari because there was no realistic prospect of enforcement (arrest and prosecution). Parties were seeking declaratory judgment. Justice Harlan dissented and, reaching the merits, took a broad view of the protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process clause to include not “liberty” merely state violations of one of the first eight amendments which had been held to be in the 14th, but against any law which imposed on “incorporated” “liberty” unjustifiably. Griswold v. Connecticut (U.S. 1965) Facts CT law criminalized using contraceptives or aiding and abetting the use of – contraceptives. Doctors could not give contraceptives to anyone, including married couples. Holding (Douglas) Violated 14th Am., DPC. – Question Constitutional violation in denying contraception to married – couples? Strict Scrutiny
Emphasizes that these extended family arrangements are more prevalent in minority and immigrant communities (i.e., vulnerable communities). The nuclear family is a fixture of white suburbia. Brennan noted that there was no evidence that the ordinance in this case was racially motivated. East Cleveland was a black, middle-class, upwardly striving community. The residents wanted to exclude “ghetto” families. They wanted to preserve their middle-class, “Leave It to Beaver” community. Stewart & Rehnquist, Dissenting State may regulate any household that is not a marital household. Substantive due process only protects the traditional, nuclear family. Right to Privacy Meyer v. Nebraska (U.S. 1923) Substantive Due Process Law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (U.S. 1925) Substantive Due Process Law providing that parents could satisfy the state’s compulsory education law only by enrolling their children in public schools violated the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. “Liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” Prince v. Massachusetts (U.S. 1944) “The custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder. There is a private realm of family life which the State cannot enter.” Poe v. Ullman (U.S. 1961) Denied certiorari because there was no realistic prospect of enforcement (arrest and prosecution). Parties were seeking declaratory judgment. Justice Harlan dissented and, reaching the merits, took a broad view of the “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process clause to include not merely state violations of one of the first eight amendments which had been held to be “incorporated” in the 14th, but against any law which imposed on “liberty” unjustifiably. Griswold v. Connecticut (U.S. 1965) Facts – CT law criminalized using contraceptives or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives. Doctors could not give contraceptives to anyone, including married couples. Holding (Douglas) – Violated 14th Am., DPC. Question – Constitutional violation in denying contraception to married couples? Strict Scrutiny
Family%20Law%20Outline_Ross.docx