The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Right to Privacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1990.11.0.105-124Abstract
Since its creation in 1965, the constitutional right of privacy has been difficult to understand, even contradictory. This may be explained as the result of the incremental implementation of the sweeping language of Griswold v. Connecticut, with privacy coming into conflict with other rights such as the freedom of the press. In addition, the initial criticisms of Griswold’s synoptic privacy reasoning intensified when Roe v. Wade provoked potent political opposition. These influences combined with the changing membership on the Supreme Court to produce an evaporation of privacy language from recent decisions, most notably Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. Furthermore, the Court is transforming Roe's declaration of privacy as a “fundamental right” protected by “strict scrutiny” into a “liberty interest” protected by the relaxed standard of “rational-basis scrutiny.” Finally, Rehnquist and Scalia want to give a narrow historical interpretation to any “liberty interest,” thus limiting the application of privacy to other areas of constitutional law.References
Abraham, Henry J. 1987. The Judiciary: The Supreme Court in the Governmental Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Beal v. Doe. 1977. 432 U.S. 438.
Beardsley, Elizabeth L. 1971. "Privacy: Autonomy and Selective Disclosure." In J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. Privacy. New York: Atherton Press.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1970. Four Essays on Liberty. New York: Oxford.
Bolger v. Young's Drug Products Corp. 1983. 463 U.S. 60.
Bowers v. Hardwick. 1986. 478 U.S. 186.
California v. Greenwood. 1988. 108 S.Ct. 1625.
California v. Cirado. 1986. 476 U.S. 207.
Carey v. Population Services. 1977. 431 U.S. 678.
Cooley, Thomas M. 1888. A Treatise on the Law of Torts. Chicago: Callaghan.
Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn. 1975. 429 U.S. 469.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept, of Health. 1990. 111 L. Ed. 2d 222.
Curry, James A., Richard B. Riley, and Richard M. Battistoni. 1989. Constitutional Government: The American Experience. St. Paul: West.
Doe v. Bolton. 1973. 410 Ct. 69.
Domino, John C. 1990. "Judicial Innovation and the Right to Privacy: An Application of A Diffusion of Innovation Model." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Political Science Association.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1975. "Hard Cases." Harvard Law Review 88:1057-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1340249
Eisenstadt v. Baird. 1972. 405 U.S. 438.
Epstein, Richard A. 1976. "Substantive Due Process by any Other Name: The Abortion Cases." Supreme Court Review 159-185.
Fisher, Louis. 1990. American Constitutional Law. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Florida. Riley. 1989. 109 Ct. 69.
Florida Star v. B J.F. 1989. 109 S.Ct. 2603.
Gavison, Ruth. 1980. "Privacy and the Limits of the Law." Yale Law Journal 89: 421-63.
Griswold v. Connecticut. 1965. 381 U.S. 479.
Hall, Kermit L. 1989. The Magic Mirror: Law in American History. New York: Oxford.
Harris v. McRae. 1980. 448 U.S. 297.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. 1988. 108 S.Ct. 876.
In Re Quinlan. 1976. 355 A. 2d 647 (N.J.).
Johnson, Charles A., and Bradley C. Canon. 1984. Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Katz v. United States. 1967. 389 U.S. 347.
Lochner v. New York.. 1905. 198 U.S. 45.
Maher v. Doe. 1977. 432 U.S. 45.
Michael II. and Victoria D. v. Gerald D. 1989. 105 L. Ed. 2d 91.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland. 1977. 431 U.S. 494.
Mill, John Stuart. 1951. On Liberty. In John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty, and Representative Government. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Murphy, Walter F., James E. Fleming, and William F. Harris, II. 1986. American Constitutional Interpretation. Mineola, New York: The Foundation Press.
National Treasury Employees' Union v. VonRaab. 1989. 109 S.Ct. 1384.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. 1985. 469 U.S. 325.
New York v. Ferber. 1982. 458 U.S. 747.
New York v. Sullivan. 1964. 376 U.S. 254.
Nankivell, Ross. 1990. "This Far and No Further: Is There a Constitutional Right to Die?" ABA Journal. April 76: 66-69.
Note. 1973. "Privacy and the First Amendment." Yale Law Journal 82: 1462-81.
Note. 1981. "The Right to Privacy in Nineteenth Century America." Harvard Law Review 94: 1892-1910.
O'Brien, David M. 1990. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
Oliver v. United States. 1984. 466 U.S. 170.
Olmstead v. United States. 1928. 211 U.S. 438.
Osborne v. Ohio. 1990. 109 L. Ed. 2d 98.
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton. 1973. 413 U.S. 49.
Paul v. Davis. 1976. 424 U.S. 693.
Poe v. Oilman. 1961. 367 U.S. 497.
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association. 1989. 109 S.Ct. 1402.
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. 443 U.S. 97.
Stanley v. Georgia. 1969. 394 U.S. 557.
Schwartz, Bernard. 1985. The Unpublished Opinions of the Warren Court. New York. Oxford.
Schwartz, Bernard. 1988. The Unpublished Opinions of the Burger Court. New York. Oxford.
Shapiro, Martin. 1965. "Stability and Change in Judicial Decision-Making: Incrementalism or Stare Decisis." Law in Transition Quarterly 2: 134-157.
Snortland, Neil E. and John E. Stanga. 1973. "Neutral Principles and Decision-Making Theory: An Alternative to Incrementalism." The George Washington Law Review 41: 1006-1032.
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians. 1986. 476 U.S. 747.
Tilestonv. Oilman. 1943. 318 U.S. 44.
Time, Inc. v. Hill. 1967. 385 U.S. 374.
United States v. Dunn. 1987. 480 U.S. 294.
United States v. Carolene Products Co. 1938. 304 U.S. 144.
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez. 1985. 473 U.S. 531.
Warren, Samuel D., and Louis B. Brandeis. 1890. "The Right to Privacy." Harvard Law Review A 193-220.
Washington v. Chrisman. 1982. 455 U.S. 1.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 1989. 109 S.Ct. 3040.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. 1937. 300 U.S. 379.
Whalen v. Roe. 1977. 429 U.S. 589. 38. 304 U.S. 144.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
