The DPC will no longer be used to strike down state laws regulating business and industrial conditions because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.
-    it is for the legislatures, not the courts, to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new requirement. The legislature may have concluded that the cases in which prescriptions are essential are frequent enough to justify requiring one in every case. Hence, it cannot be said that the regulation had no rational relation to legitimate objectives
Parrish: Represents a break from the past – no law has been held unconstitutional on substantive
due process grounds since before this case Lochner: “mere assertions” do not justify laws Parrish: unless law is “arbitrary and capricious,” not invalid
Nebbia: Upholds law that sets minimum price for milk to protect producers
Carolene: Upholds law that prohibits the transportation of “filled milk”
1) Implies a presumption of constitutional legislation 2) Evidence showing hazardous to health (implies strict scrutiny) 3) Separation of Powers – can’t substitute finding of Court
Sets up Rational Basis Review: Presumption of constitutionality Plaintiff has burden
1) Show law’s justifications are illegitimate (A&C), or 2) Show law’s ends don’t fit means
Williamson: Law that requires opticians must have prescription to filled glasses orders – no reason
given for law Court can apparently invent a legitimate reason Footnote 4 – Heightened level of review:
1) Bill of Rights 2) Political – voting 3) Racial or religious 4) Discrete (separate, but easily identifiable) and insular minorities
37
© Fourth Financial 2008
Loving: Due Process Clause protects right to marry A “basic civil right of man” Liberty right, protected by AXIV – “fundamental to our very existence and survival”
Zablocki: If individual has children not in his custody and he is responsible to them financially, he
has to show to the court Man attempted to obtain “permission” from court, and claimed law violated his
fundamental right to marry Court holds the law unconstitutional:
1a) Even though non-textual, marriage falls under “liberty” 1b) Marriage falls under privacy protection 2) Fundamental right, but not all regulations will be subject to strict scrutiny
a) Substantial and significantly interfere with right, or Strict scrutiny
b) Regulations that do not Rational Basis Review
Court didn’t want to completely take from the State the power to regulate marriage Why didn’t the court determine that this law didn’t “interfere” with marriage, that it only
set up a hurdle in certain situations Two requirements:
1) Compelling interest giving counseling to parents
protect the welfare of the children affect 2) Narrowly tailored
law isn’t tailored at all to require counseling law can either be over-inclusive AND under-inclusive
Right to Custody of One’s Children: How robust of a fundamental right does a father have over his children