Also known as: abridges · abridged · abridging · abridgment · abridgements · abridgement
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
To reduce or diminish the scope or availability of a right or interest. The term captures both outright prohibitions and measures that intentionally burden exercise of the right on a prohibited basis.
The city council enacts an ordinance requiring advance approval and a substantial fee for any public speech criticizing local officials. Alice Atkins applies for a permit to speak at a rally but is told the fee must be paid first. The ordinance abridges protected speech by imposing a prior restraint and financial barrier that deters expression.
Maria files a diversity class action in federal court seeking interest on security deposits under New York law. A state statute bars representative actions for these claims. The federal court applies Rule 23 to certify the class because the federal rule governs procedure and does not abridge any substantive right created by state law.
A state welfare statute conditions cash assistance on one year of residency and excludes recent arrivals who are predominantly of color. Adrian Aguilar, a new resident denied benefits, challenges the rule. The statute abridges privileges of citizenship by imposing a burden that effectively withholds equal protection on account of race.
A city ordinance grants two hours of paid election-day leave solely to male manufacturing workers. Female employees such as Ariana Azizi must take unpaid time or lose wages to vote. The ordinance abridges the right to vote on account of sex by creating a sex-based financial obstacle to participation.
An irrigation district adopts a year-round residency requirement for voting eligibility. Seasonal migrant workers of color who live on farms only during harvest are excluded. Ava Adebayo, a worker denied a ballot, shows the rule abridges the franchise on account of race by systematically removing a class of citizens from the electorate.
A city ordinance defines family so narrowly that a grandmother cannot live with her grandchildren. Aaron Adams challenges enforcement of the rule against his extended household. The ordinance abridges the freedom of related family members to live together by intruding on personal choice without constitutional justification.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
View caseAbridgment reaches both outright prohibitions and intentional measures that burden or diminish exercise of the right. Legislative history showing a purpose to make registration or voting harder for a protected class establishes an abridgment even when formal eligibility remains intact.
Supporting sources
A federal rule is valid only if it regulates procedure and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. When Rule 23 conflicts with a state bar on representative actions, the federal rule controls because it addresses the manner of litigation without changing the underlying claim to interest on deposits.
Supporting sources
Denial eliminates the right entirely while abridgment includes any intentional scheme that burdens or diminishes the ability to exercise the franchise on a prohibited basis such as sex or race. A facially neutral rule adopted to make voting more difficult for women constitutes an abridgment even if women can still vote through a more onerous process.
Supporting sources
…in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights. Abele v. Markle , 342 F. Supp. 800 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-56; Abele v. Markle , 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730; Doe v.…