Substantive Due Process Study Outline

Substantive due process is a constitutional doctrine that protects certain fundamental rights from government interference. It originated from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Unlike procedural due process, which ensures fair processes before the government can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, substantive due process involves the rights themselves — evaluating whether the government's interference with these rights is justified.

The doctrine allows courts to review the substance of laws and governmental actions to ensure they do not infringe upon fundamental rights, generally recognized as rights deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. For instance, the right to marry, the right to privacy, and the right to raise children exemplify rights often protected under substantive due process. The Supreme Court's approach requires courts to balance governmental interests against individual liberties.

In analyzing substantive due process claims, courts usually start with the identification of a fundamental right and then assess whether the government's infringement on that right is justified by a compelling state interest, typically employing strict scrutiny. If the right is not deemed fundamental, a rational basis standard applies, leading to more lenient scrutiny of the governmental action.

When evaluating substantive due process claims, courts primarily utilize two levels of scrutiny: strict scrutiny and rational basis review. If a law or action is challenged as infringing on a fundamental right, it is subject to strict scrutiny. This means the government must prove that the law is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. This standard is difficult for the government to meet, and courts are often skeptical of such justifications.

In contrast, if the right being asserted is not fundamental, courts apply a rational basis review, where the government only needs to show that the law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. In practical application, this leads to a higher rate of success for laws challenged under rational basis since the government's burden is significantly lower.

Significant cases such as Washington v. Glucksberg and County of Sacramento v. Lewis illustrate the application of these standards. In Glucksberg, the Supreme Court emphasized a careful definition of asserted rights, finding that assisted suicide was not a fundamental right under the substantive due process framework, thereby applying the rational basis standard instead.

Several landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped the doctrine of substantive due process. One of the earliest and most significant cases is Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion as a fundamental right rooted in privacy. This case established a framework balancing the state's interests against a woman's right to privacy but was heavily criticized and later modified by cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Another important case is Obergefell v. Hodges, where the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. This decision reaffirmed the idea that personal choice and autonomy in relationships are fundamental under the substantive due process doctrine. Similarly, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, underscoring the protection of individual rights against state encroachment. These cases collectively illustrate how substantive due process unfolds in protecting individual liberties against state infringements.

Just as important are cases like Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which highlighted parental rights and the rights of individuals to control their own education, demonstrating the broad implications of substantive due process in shaping family autonomy.