Compelling State Interest- Public Health-Public Safety

The task of the court, when determining whether a right is fundamental so as to require legislation to be supported by a compelling state interest is to assess whether there is such a right explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the constitution. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 33-4, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1296-1297 (1973).

The Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 647 (1961) > Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635(1886).

“ ‘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).

"liberty" is …….freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and …..that certain [liberty] interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992). >[367 U.S. 497, 543]

“Criminal statutes [must] be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny,” ….and, 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)

It “makes a crime of a grandmother's choice to live with her grandson in circumstances like those presented here. When a city undertakes such intrusive regulation of the family the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate.” Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 499

Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the 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(1973)

“legislative enactment’s must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interest at stake.” Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 485, 85 S.Ct., at 1682.

“This constitutional guaranty demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that means selected shall have real and substantial relation to the object. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, (1934).

"The act is sought to be sustained specifically upon the ground that it is reasonably calculated to promote the public health; and the determination we are called upon to make is whether the act has a real and substantial relation to that end or is a clear and arbitrary invasion of appellant's property rights guaranteed by the Constitution." ….Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111 (1928).

"If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, ……or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution." 123 U.S. 623, 661 

…the "`subordinating interest of the State must be compelling'" in order to overcome the individual constitutional rights at stake. Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 127 (1959)

Only cases requiring stricter standard of review than whether statute bears rational relationship to legitimate state purpose are those cases which involve infringement of a right explicitly enunciated in the Constitution or otherwise recognized as fundamental. Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct 705 (1973), Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1965)

" In the absence of compelling justification, the police power does not extend so far as to permit the Government to protect an individual against himself and that the concern for public health and safety is relevant only insofar as the action of one individual may threaten the well-being of others." United States V Kiffer 477 F2.d 349 (1973), at 354.

in a long series of cases this Court has held that where fundamental personal liberties are involved, they may not be abridged by the States simply on a showing that a regulatory statute has some rational relationship to the effectuation of a proper state purpose. [381 U.S. 479, 497]

State “police power which trenches upon the constitutionally protected freedom … 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 (1964); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, (1965); Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494, 497 (1975). Emphasis added.

Accordingly, “the Judiciary may not sit as a super legislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.....” New Orleans v. Duke, 427 U.S. 297, 303, (1976)