Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

Key Facts– Massachusetts convicted Baird for distributing contraceptives to people not married, and without being a pharmacist or doctor.

Issue– Is Massachusetts’ distinction between married and unmarried couples based on rational grounds?

Holding– No

Result– Law struck down

Reasoning– The law cannot be intended to deter premarital sex, because that would make fornication punishable by pregnancy, and also because this would have barely any effect on the desired goal. Also, the right to contraceptive access must be the same for married and unmarried people. The right to privacy belongs to everyone.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Key Facts– Connecticut had a statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives. Griswold worked with Planned Parenthood in disseminating contraceptives. After Griswold was arrested and fined, she appealed.

Issue– Is there a right to contraceptive use?

Holding– Yes

Result– Law overturned.

Reasoning– Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have additional implications, “penumbras.” The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments each create certain privacy rights, from which other rights may be inferred. Here, Connecticut violates a married couple’s right to privacy through its law.

Griswold
Griswold
Connecticut
Connecticut

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

Key Facts– Parents in Texas living in poorer areas felt their children were in sub-par schools due to a lack of property tax funding in their areas. Their parents sued to change the Texas system of financing public education.

Issue– Is there a constitutional right to education? If so, can Texas be sued for not providing an equal level of education to everyone?

Holding– No and no

Result– Suit dismissed.

Reasoning– Just because a state service is important, or even arguably necessary, does not make it a fundamental right. Here, there is also no clear discrimination against a well-defined category of the poor, so Equal Protection does not apply. The Court also notes there is no right to education in the Constitution.

Guess not.
Guess not.

Troxel v. Granville (2000)

Key Facts– Washington’s law permitted anyone to petition a court for visitation rights to a child at any time. Grandparents Jennifer and Gary Troxel petitioned for the right to visit their grandchildren, while Granville, the mother, opposed.

Issue– Does the Washington law unconstitutionally interfere with parental rights?

Holding– Yes

Result– Law overturned

Reasoning– Parental rights deserve to be accorded significant deference by the law. Under Due Process, the parents’ determination of their child’s best interests should receive special weight. Here, it seems that based on the local law, the lower courts behaved in the opposite way.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio (1977)

Key Facts– An ordinance in East Cleveland limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family, with “family” specifically defined. Moore appeals her conviction for permitting her grandchildren to live with her.

Issue– Does the ordinance violate Due Process?

Holding– Yes.

Result– Law overturned.

Reasoning– Cities cannot intrude so extensively into family life without a major interest involved. Here, whether it’s deliberate or not, a major impact of the statute is to dictate familial structures, which is unconstitutional.

Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)

Key Facts– Under California law, children born to married women living with their husbands are presumed to be children of the marriage. Michael H. had an affair with a woman married to Gerald D., and Michael H. now sues for the right to establish his paternity of the child he fathered with the wife.

Issue– Are parental rights guaranteed when one alleges paternity of a child born to a married couple?

Holding– No

Result– California law held to apply to the case.

Reasoning– California law provides an assumption of paternity for the husband. Historically, the interests of men in Michael’s situation have not been protected through any special measures. To have Due Process protection, a right must be fundamental, rooted in tradition and conscience. Since no such right exists here, state law shall apply.

Stanley v. Illinois (1972)

Key Facts– Under Illinois law, the children of unwed fathers became wards of the state upon the death of their mother. This happened to Peter Stanley’s children when Joan Stanley died.

Issue– Is a regulation automatically taking children from their parents constitutionally permissible?

Holding– Of course not.

Result– Law overturned.

Reasoning– The integrity of the family is protected by Due Process. There is no way of categorically saying all unwed fathers are unfit to have custody of children. This statute runs roughshod over family rights, and it cannot stand.

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)

Key Facts– Wisconsin had a law requiring that people who fell into some category (being behind on child support) get a special court order prior to getting a marriage license. It essentially made it impossible for Redhail to get married.

Issue– Is this sort of regulation constitutionally permissible?

Holding– No

Result– Law overturned.

Reasoning– Marriage is a fundamental right, and laws that make it more difficult to get married should be strictly scrutinized. This law effectively makes it impossible for some people to marry, particularly the indigent.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Key Facts– Virginia had a law that prohibited interracial marriage. Loving and his wife married outside of the state and then returned to Virginia.

Procedural History– Trial court sentenced the couple to one year in jail, suspended for twenty-five years. Trial judge noted “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Supreme Court of Appeals upheld constitutionality of the law, but modified the sentence. Supreme Court grants well-deserved certiorari.

Issue– Is a law prohibiting interracial marriage constitutional?

Holding– No.

Result– Law overturned.

Reasoning– This violates the Equal Protection Clause. Marriage is a basic civil right. This law should not still exist in 1967, especially given that Heart of Atlanta was three years before this case (my reasoning).

Interracial marriage, back when it was a novel concept (depiction of Othello)
Interracial marriage, back when it was a novel concept (depiction of Othello)

Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (1925)

Key Facts– Oregon required that all youths attend public school, and parents and guardians obtained orders of restraint against this.

Issue– Can a state compel all youths to attend public schools?

Holding– No

Results– Law overturned

Reasoning– The state is not acting under exigent circumstances here. Also, children are not “mere creature[s] of the state.” Their families have a right and a duty to nurture them, which includes providing an education.