The “right to privacy,” although never stated in the Constitution is implied through different amendments. The 14th Amendment is usually most consistently cited; it states: “No state…shall deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of the law.” The issue that most commonly appears in privacy-related Supreme Court cases, is whether or not personal privacy can inflict upon surrounding society? In a search for a true definition of the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has battled with this question and issue in several cases. The first two cases at hand regarding the right to privacy involves issues surrounding gay rights in America.
In Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al. (1986), the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment did not extend a right to privacy to private, sexual conduct between homosexuals. In August 1982, Hardwick (respondent) was charged with violating the Georgia statute, which criminalizes sodomy between two people of the same sex. The District Attorney, Bowers, after a preliminary hearing, refused to present the case to the grand jury unless more evidence progressed. Hardwick then sued Bowers on account of the Georgia statute being invalid. The case was then presented to the District Case, where it was dismissed. Hardwick then appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, where the Georgia statute was indeed found to be an infringement of Hardwick’s Constitutional rights. The state of Georgia then appealed the decision and the case was sent to the United States Supreme Court.
The case’s critical issue was “whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidate the laws of many States that still make such conduct illegal.” Hardwick felt that the decision of homosexual sodomy should be a different case when occurs in the privacy of a home. He also felt that there was no reasonable rational for the Georgia statute and felt that it was a belief among the Georgia electorate that homosexual sodomy was unacceptable and immoral. The Supreme Court stated that “the law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality.” On June 30, 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the state sodomy laws should not be invalidated.
The next Supreme Court case regarding gay rights and the right to privacy is Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. v. James Dale (2000). James Dale (respondent) was an active Boy Scout from age 8 up until age 18, where he graduated and was granted with the highest ranking of Eagle Scouts. He then applied to be an assistant scoutmaster, was accepted, and was also granted an adult membership. Upon attending college, Dale acknowledged to himself and others that he was gay. He quickly became actively involved with the Rutgers University Lesbian/Gay Alliance. In 1990, while attending a seminar, he was interviewed by a newspaper; this article, as well as a picture of Dale, was soon after published, which stated that he was co-president of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance. Later that month, Dale received a letter from the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) which revoked his membership. The first letter contained no explanation, so Dale requested one and the response stated “that the Boy Scouts ‘specifically forbid membership to homosexuals.’” Two years later, Dale filed a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court that stated that the BSA had violated New Jersey’s public accommodations statute, which “prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in place of public accommodation.”
The New Jersey Superior Court’s Chancery Division upheld that the NJ law was inapplicable to the BSA because it was not a place of public accommodation. The New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division upheld that the BSA did indeed violate the NJ law. The New Jersey Supreme Court then agreed with the decision of the Appellate Division saying that the BSA violated the NJ law by revoking Dale’s membership on account of his homosexuality. The BSA felt that the NJ law violated their 1st Amendment right of expression. The BSA then appealed the decision the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to first decide key questions before making their final decision: the BSA engages in expressive activity, Dale’s activity in BSA would affect their ability to express their opinion, Dale’s presence would interfere with the BSA’s viewpoints, and that the NJ law violates the BSA’s right to freedom of expression.
The two court cases, Bowers v. Hardwick and Boy Scouts v. Dale, created a precedent for gay rights in America, which is a constantly debated topic in America. With the above decisions, the Supreme Court decided that homosexuals were not granted a right to privacy and their actions could potentially affect surrounding society.
The following cases deal solely with the right to privacy and the 1st and 14th Amendments. Myer v. State of Nebraska (1923) was one of the earliest cases regarding the right to privacy. On May 25, 1920 an instructor at Zion Parochial School in Hamilton county, Nebraska was charged with illegally teaching ten year old Raymond Parpart how to read German. The instructor, in doing so, had violated a 1919 law which stated that it was illegal to teach any other language than English to anyone who had not passed eighth grade. Modern languages were specifically targeted and classical languages were exempt; this law was probably in response to the recently ended World War I. The rationale for the law was to create a more united people with a common language, rather than a large percentage of immigrants with foreign languages.
The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the conviction and stated that the NB statute did not conflict with the 14th Amendment. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court regarding a question of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court overturned the before decisions and ruled that the NB law had overstepped the state’s right to regulate. The Court also stated that learning how to read German would be to a child’s benefit and in extremely rare cases would it create a national security threat.
The 14th Amendment and the rights granted were again debated in the 1969 decision of Stanley v. Georgia. Investigators were granted a search warrant for apparent evidence of bookmaking activity in Mr. Stanley’s home, but while searching, found three reels of film. After watching the film, the investigators concluded that they were porn and labeled them “obscene.” Stanley was then “indicted for ‘knowingly hav[ing] possession of…obscene matter’ in violation of Georgia law.” The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the decision of the indictment.
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court under the constitutional question of whether or not possessing obscene matter is a crime. The Court’s decision overturned those of the lower courts and stated that the 1st and 14th Amendments prohibit making possession of obscene material a crime. The majority vote felt that Stanley obtained a right to privacy in his home and a right to the pursuit of happiness, which can be achieved in various ways.
The next Supreme Court case, Kelley v. Johnson (1976), deals with the right to privacy in terms of personal appearance and uniform. The police department of Suffolk County, New York enacted regulations regarding hair-styles of all police officers. The regulations described the correct style and length of facial and head hair. The regulation were the carried to the court under the statement that they violated the 1st and 14th Amendment to a protection of freedom of expression. The Court of Appeals and the District Court both ruled that the regulations were unconstitutional because there was no rationale for uniformity and the police force was not “para-military.”
The United States Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lowers courts. The Court stated that because the police officers already had to wear uniforms, the addition of regulated hair styles would be added to the “uniform” list and would be a part of the 1st Amendment violations that police officers were required to accept. In addition, the Court stated that in order for the police force to have a “espirit du corps” and to be easily identifiable to the public, a regulated hair style would be necessary.
The decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the right to privacy have created a precedent for following historical issues pertaining to the same topic. Although the Constitution does not contain a “right to privacy,” both the 1st and 14th Amendments imply this right to privacy, along with other stated freedoms, and these are the rights that have essentially created the “free” nation in which we live.
In Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Hardwick et al. (1986), the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment did not extend a right to privacy to private, sexual conduct between homosexuals. In August 1982, Hardwick (respondent) was charged with violating the Georgia statute, which criminalizes sodomy between two people of the same sex. The District Attorney, Bowers, after a preliminary hearing, refused to present the case to the grand jury unless more evidence progressed. Hardwick then sued Bowers on account of the Georgia statute being invalid. The case was then presented to the District Case, where it was dismissed. Hardwick then appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, where the Georgia statute was indeed found to be an infringement of Hardwick’s Constitutional rights. The state of Georgia then appealed the decision and the case was sent to the United States Supreme Court.
The case’s critical issue was “whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidate the laws of many States that still make such conduct illegal.” Hardwick felt that the decision of homosexual sodomy should be a different case when occurs in the privacy of a home. He also felt that there was no reasonable rational for the Georgia statute and felt that it was a belief among the Georgia electorate that homosexual sodomy was unacceptable and immoral. The Supreme Court stated that “the law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality.” On June 30, 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the state sodomy laws should not be invalidated.
The next Supreme Court case regarding gay rights and the right to privacy is Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. v. James Dale (2000). James Dale (respondent) was an active Boy Scout from age 8 up until age 18, where he graduated and was granted with the highest ranking of Eagle Scouts. He then applied to be an assistant scoutmaster, was accepted, and was also granted an adult membership. Upon attending college, Dale acknowledged to himself and others that he was gay. He quickly became actively involved with the Rutgers University Lesbian/Gay Alliance. In 1990, while attending a seminar, he was interviewed by a newspaper; this article, as well as a picture of Dale, was soon after published, which stated that he was co-president of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance. Later that month, Dale received a letter from the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) which revoked his membership. The first letter contained no explanation, so Dale requested one and the response stated “that the Boy Scouts ‘specifically forbid membership to homosexuals.’” Two years later, Dale filed a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court that stated that the BSA had violated New Jersey’s public accommodations statute, which “prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in place of public accommodation.”
The New Jersey Superior Court’s Chancery Division upheld that the NJ law was inapplicable to the BSA because it was not a place of public accommodation. The New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division upheld that the BSA did indeed violate the NJ law. The New Jersey Supreme Court then agreed with the decision of the Appellate Division saying that the BSA violated the NJ law by revoking Dale’s membership on account of his homosexuality. The BSA felt that the NJ law violated their 1st Amendment right of expression. The BSA then appealed the decision the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to first decide key questions before making their final decision: the BSA engages in expressive activity, Dale’s activity in BSA would affect their ability to express their opinion, Dale’s presence would interfere with the BSA’s viewpoints, and that the NJ law violates the BSA’s right to freedom of expression.
The two court cases, Bowers v. Hardwick and Boy Scouts v. Dale, created a precedent for gay rights in America, which is a constantly debated topic in America. With the above decisions, the Supreme Court decided that homosexuals were not granted a right to privacy and their actions could potentially affect surrounding society.
The following cases deal solely with the right to privacy and the 1st and 14th Amendments. Myer v. State of Nebraska (1923) was one of the earliest cases regarding the right to privacy. On May 25, 1920 an instructor at Zion Parochial School in Hamilton county, Nebraska was charged with illegally teaching ten year old Raymond Parpart how to read German. The instructor, in doing so, had violated a 1919 law which stated that it was illegal to teach any other language than English to anyone who had not passed eighth grade. Modern languages were specifically targeted and classical languages were exempt; this law was probably in response to the recently ended World War I. The rationale for the law was to create a more united people with a common language, rather than a large percentage of immigrants with foreign languages.
The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the conviction and stated that the NB statute did not conflict with the 14th Amendment. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court regarding a question of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court overturned the before decisions and ruled that the NB law had overstepped the state’s right to regulate. The Court also stated that learning how to read German would be to a child’s benefit and in extremely rare cases would it create a national security threat.
The 14th Amendment and the rights granted were again debated in the 1969 decision of Stanley v. Georgia. Investigators were granted a search warrant for apparent evidence of bookmaking activity in Mr. Stanley’s home, but while searching, found three reels of film. After watching the film, the investigators concluded that they were porn and labeled them “obscene.” Stanley was then “indicted for ‘knowingly hav[ing] possession of…obscene matter’ in violation of Georgia law.” The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the decision of the indictment.
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court under the constitutional question of whether or not possessing obscene matter is a crime. The Court’s decision overturned those of the lower courts and stated that the 1st and 14th Amendments prohibit making possession of obscene material a crime. The majority vote felt that Stanley obtained a right to privacy in his home and a right to the pursuit of happiness, which can be achieved in various ways.
The next Supreme Court case, Kelley v. Johnson (1976), deals with the right to privacy in terms of personal appearance and uniform. The police department of Suffolk County, New York enacted regulations regarding hair-styles of all police officers. The regulations described the correct style and length of facial and head hair. The regulation were the carried to the court under the statement that they violated the 1st and 14th Amendment to a protection of freedom of expression. The Court of Appeals and the District Court both ruled that the regulations were unconstitutional because there was no rationale for uniformity and the police force was not “para-military.”
The United States Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lowers courts. The Court stated that because the police officers already had to wear uniforms, the addition of regulated hair styles would be added to the “uniform” list and would be a part of the 1st Amendment violations that police officers were required to accept. In addition, the Court stated that in order for the police force to have a “espirit du corps” and to be easily identifiable to the public, a regulated hair style would be necessary.
The decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the right to privacy have created a precedent for following historical issues pertaining to the same topic. Although the Constitution does not contain a “right to privacy,” both the 1st and 14th Amendments imply this right to privacy, along with other stated freedoms, and these are the rights that have essentially created the “free” nation in which we live.
2 comments:
Nice blog Ariella. Good and accurate detail on the cases. We would have liked more of YOUR voice here through some critical analysis. But this is excellent.
DB
Nice blog Ariella. Good and accurate detail on the cases. We would have liked more of YOUR voice here through some critical analysis. But this is excellent.
DB
Post a Comment