2008-07-04 Washington D.C.
State Police Power
The Maine Constitution says: “The Legislature … shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations.” Me. Const. Art. IV, pt 3, § 1.
“The police power may be exerted … to invade rights … when such legislation bears a real and substantial relation to the public health [and] safety.” Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111,112; 49 S.Ct.57, 59 (1928). “[P]public interest demands that all dangerous conditions be prevented or abated.” Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 537 (1967).
“The police power of a state … is subordinate to constitutional limitations. Under it there is no unrestricted authority to accomplish whatever the public may presently desire. It is the governmental power of self-protection and permits reasonable regulation of rights and property in particulars essential to the preservation of the community from injury.” Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. v. Highway Comm'n, 294 U.S. 613, 622 (1935).
“The power of the State over the property of the citizen under the constitutional guaranty is well defined .. the State .. may control the use and possession of property, so far as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of others. The doctrine that each one must so use his own as not to injure his neighbor-sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas-is the rule by which every member or society must possess and enjoy his property; and all legislation essential to secure this common and equal enjoyment is a legitimate exercise of State authority.” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 13, 145 (1876).
“‘[A] governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.’” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485 (1965); NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 (1964)
State “police power which trenches upon the constitutionally protected freedom even though enacted pursuant to a valid state interest, bears a heavy burden of justification … and will be upheld only if it is necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.” McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196; 85 S.Ct. 283, 290 (1964); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965); Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494,.497 (1975). Emphasis added.
“[P]olice powers … ‘are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty …. the power to govern men and things.’” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 125 (1876).
‘“The fundamental guaranties of the Constitution cannot be freely submerged if and whenever some ostensible justification is advanced and the police power invoked.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 546 (1934). Emphasis added.
“[T]he police power of the State … can only interfere with the conduct of individuals in their intercourse with each other, and in the use of their property.” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 145 (1876).
“Criminal statutes [must] be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny … if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967).
“ ‘Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling.’” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524, 80 S. Ct. 412,417 (1960); Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 155, 93 S.Ct 705, 35 (1973); Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494, 497 (1975).
“Where certain ‘fundamental rights’ are involved, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a ‘compelling state interest’ … and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 155; 93 S.Ct 705 (1973).