Meyer v. Nebraska(1923): 14th A., Due Process, Privacy

t Nebraska, along with other states, prohibited the teaching of modern foreign languages to grade school children. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this law. Does the Nebraska statute violate the 14^th A.’s Due Processclause?

n Majority: McREYNOLDS: Yes, the Nebraska law is unconstitutional. Nebraska violated the liberty protected by due process of the 14^th A. Liberty means more than freedom from bodily restraint. State regulation of liberty must be reasonably related to a proper state objective. The legislature's view of reasonableness was subject to supervision by the courts. The legislative purpose of the law was to promote assimilation and civic development. But these purposes were not adequate to justify interfering with Meyer's liberty to teach or the liberty of parents to employ him during a "time of peace and domestic tranquillity."

n Dissent: HOLMES, SUTHERLAND: N/A, but peculiar alliance…

Poe v. Ullman(1961): 14^th A., Due Process, Individual Rights, “Ripeness”

t An old Connecticut law prohibited the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice in the use of those devices. The law also applied to married couples. The Conn. Atty. Gen. threatened to enforce the law against three individuals in this case including Jane Doe (Doe v. Pullman). Mrs. Doe, having recovered from a tough pregnancy that threatened her life and left her with several emotional and physical disabilities, was informed by her physician that any additional pregnancies could be fatal. She challenged the Connecticut law since it criminalized her use of contraceptives.

n Majority: FRANKFURTER: The court sidestepped the issue for “ripeness,” which is a term that means the case was brought too early, or because not all avenues of relief have been explored. The Court said that the record suggested that the sate was unlikely to prosecute the offenders, and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to decide hypothetical cases. Since the statute had been on the state's books for over three-quarters of a century without ever having been enforced, the Court found no sense of "immediacy which is an indispensable condition of constitutional adjudication."

n Dissent: BLACK, DOUGLAS, HARLAN, STEWART: There are two issue here, whether the Court should decide the issue of the Constitutional effect on birth control and privacy, and what the decision of the Court should be. While some justices made their point of view clear, others were not so clear.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 662