In future cases, the Supreme Court continues to admit that enhanced protection of privacy rights is the result of substantive due process reviews, which is Lochner Because it was applied only to the interests of “basic” freedom. As a result, the doctrine of the court is that the interests of “basic” liberty, where government intervention is presumed to be unconstitutional, are presumed to be freely restricted by the government as long as it acts reasonably. Requested to distinguish from.
Judges continued to dispute which freedom was fundamental. A narrower test endorsed by a more conservative judge is considered essential when the basic rights are clearly stated in the text of the Constitution or when the Article 14 amendment was enacted in 1868. I limited it to only what I had. Gnawing And in other cases, we turned more to a contemporary assessment of an individual’s profound interests.Yet another approach proposed in the following cases: Lawrence v.TexasIt seemed to evolve an essential understanding of individual freedom, as evidenced by the popular consensus.
nevertheless Gnawing It continued to be controversial in the field of legal theory because of its broader understanding of basic rights and the surprising peculiarities of its trimester framework for examining abortion law. Planned parent-child relationship v.Casey In 1992, in a joint opinion, it seems that he confirmed his understanding of the substantive due process that evolved along with general values. A series of groundbreaking events over the next quarter century seemed to establish this understanding. In particular, courts have the right of homosexuals to form intimate relationships and marry on the basis of a “new perception” of equal claims of dignity in very important relationships, despite the lack of historical protection. We have extended the same privacy principles to protect ourselves. For these rights.
On this landscape Dobbs Of course, it was a signal of a sudden reversal. The court did not completely reject the concept of substantive due process, but rejected the grounds for recognizing “basic rights” other than the text of the Constitution or deeply rooted historical traditions. Because the right to abortion was not included in the text, and because the framer of the 14th Amendment of 1868 did not consider abortion to be fundamental freedom, the court found that there was no basis for special constitutional respect for women’s choice. I ruled that there was no such thing. Instead, the majority make pregnancy decisions that, as long as the government acts reasonably, are subject to bohemian regulation and have the same rank of normal freedom as common lifestyle, commercial, or recreational choices. I found the right to give.
Therefore, in the future Dobbs‘The approach involves a fundamental right to strong constitutional protection against a narrow range of freedoms that are universally respected over time, so there is little potential for political interference in any case. There is none.
Right to “privacy” Dobbs The aim was actually the right of individual autonomy. Dobbs “Make and execute important personal decisions without government intervention,” he says.And in Dobbs, That right has shrunk considerably.That is why many suggest that the next right to the crosshairs may be for contraception or same-sex marriage, as Judge Thomas openly encouraged in his consent: these rights If not found in the text of the Constitution, and 14 framers amendments could not imagine them in 1868, it is not clear why they are in a more solid position under the logic of Dobbs..
“Very different” types of privacy: “Right to protect information from disclosure”
Impact of court opinion Dobbs The impact on autonomy in the name of privacy is an earthquake, Dobbs Under both the Constitution and other laws, it does not mean the end of legal protection against other forms of privacy. For example, the text of Article 4 of the Constitutional Amendment makes it clear that the government cannot freely search for a home without a warrant. the Dobbs Opinions do not change that.
Dobbs It also makes no mention of what Judge Arito called in his majority opinion a “very different” type of privacy, the “right to protect information from disclosure.” Given that both the benefits of autonomy and disclosure stem from the common roots of privacy in the sense of “needless to say”, it may seem like a faint distinction, but with the right to constitutional autonomy. Information privacy rights have different purposes and often have different legal foundations. ..