Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Constitutional liberties receiving heightened protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These liberties trigger strict scrutiny when a state law burdens them, requiring the government to show that the restriction is necessary to serve a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to that end.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Interracial Marriage Ban Challenged
Fernando Farrell, a Black resident of State X, and Felicity French, a white resident, applied for a marriage license. State X denied the license under a statute prohibiting interracial marriage. The couple sued, arguing the statute infringed their protected liberty to choose a spouse. The court applied strict scrutiny because the classification burdened the right to marry and struck down the law for lacking a compelling justification independent of racial discrimination.
Parents Choose Private Schooling
Fabian Flynn and Fiona Foster wanted to enroll their children in a private religious academy rather than the local public school. State Y enacted a law requiring all children to attend only public schools. The parents sued, claiming the statute violated their liberty to direct their children's education. The court held that the law impermissibly burdened this fundamental right and invalidated the requirement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Compulsory Sterilization Statute
Finn Fletcher, convicted of a nonviolent offense, faced mandatory sterilization under State Z's habitual-offender law. Fletcher sued, asserting that the statute violated his protected liberty to procreate. The court applied strict scrutiny because the law directly burdened the right to have children and invalidated the sterilization requirement for lacking narrow tailoring to any compelling state interest.
Amish Parents Seek School Exemption
Francesca Fiore and her Amish community refused to send their children to public high school after eighth grade, citing religious beliefs. State W enforced its compulsory-attendance law against them. The parents sued, claiming the law burdened both free exercise and their fundamental right to direct their children's upbringing. The court granted an exemption because the state's interests were satisfied by the community's alternative practices.
Child-Support Debt Blocks Marriage
Frostline Textiles employee Foster Forge owed unpaid child support. State V required anyone with such arrears to obtain court permission before marrying. Forge sued after the state denied permission. The court held that the statute significantly interfered with the fundamental right to marry and struck it down because it was not narrowly tailored to the state's legitimate collection interests.
Abortion Regulation Faces Challenge
Freeman Engineering employee Freeman and his spouse sought an abortion at a clinic subject to State U's spousal-notification requirement. They sued, arguing the rule burdened the fundamental liberty interest in reproductive choice. The court applied heightened scrutiny and invalidated the provision because it imposed an undue burden on the protected decision without sufficient justification.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What level of scrutiny applies when a law burdens a fundamental right?+
Strict scrutiny applies. The government must prove that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to serve only that interest.
Supporting sources
Does the right to marry qualify as fundamental?+
Yes. Laws that significantly interfere with the decision to marry receive strict scrutiny and must be supported by sufficiently important state interests that are closely tailored to those interests.
Supporting sources
How does the fundamental right of parents to direct education operate?+
Parents may choose private schooling for their children. A state may not require all children to attend only public schools, because that requirement burdens the protected liberty to direct upbringing and education.
Supporting sources
Is the right to procreate protected as fundamental?+
Yes. Compulsory sterilization statutes that permanently deprive individuals of the ability to have children violate substantive due process and equal protection.
Supporting sources
410 U.S. 113 (1973)Constitutional Law
…as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach. Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," Kramer v. Union Free School District , 395 U. S. 621, 627…