Ordered liberty

Last updated

Ordered liberty is a concept in political philosophy, where individual freedom is balanced with the necessity for maintaining social order.

Contents

The phrase Ordered liberty originates from an opinion by Justice Benjamin Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), wherein the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause protected only those rights that were "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" and that the court should therefore incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states gradually, as justiciable violations arose, based on whether the infringed right met that test. [1]

Utilizing a case-by-case approach known as selective incorporation, the Court upheld Palko's conviction, asserting that the appeal regarding double jeopardy was not "essential to a fundamental scheme of ordered liberty." The decision was made with an 8–1 vote, with Justice Pierce Butler serving as the sole dissenter, although he did not write a dissenting opinion.

In "Ordered Liberty: The Original Intent of the Constitution," Charles McC. Mathias Jr. examines the concept of ordered liberty and its relationship to the U.S. Constitution. He argues that the Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty within a framework of ordered liberty, which balances the need for social order with the importance of individual freedom. [2]

Mathias contends the Constitution's original intent is a framework for ordered liberty, not a fixed set of rules. It highlights the founders' use of historical lessons and political theory, particularly the separation of powers, to create a flexible system adaptable to changing conditions. The article critiques the notion of adhering strictly to "original intent," emphasizing that the Constitution's principles should guide contemporary interpretation to ensure liberty and prevent tyranny.

Matthew Grothouse argues in his work that the Obergefell majority opinion, by upholding the right to same-sex marriage, aligns with extending substantive due process to "important conduct implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." This approach argues for a more expansive view of protected liberties, recognizing that understanding fundamental rights can evolve over time. It focuses on protecting personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, even if those rights lack a longstanding historical basis.

Grothouse reasons that the Obergefell majority opinion demonstrates how courts can recognize new dimensions of freedom that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" without resorting to an entirely unconstrained or subjective interpretation. [3]

While Grothouse does not offer a concise definition of "liberty," he emphasizes the ongoing debate over its meaning and scope within the context of the Due Process Clause. The author suggests that a nuanced understanding of Ordered liberty allows for recognizing new rights while remaining grounded in legal principles and respecting the balance between individual freedom and societal interests.

Grothouse identifies two main arguments surrounding the interpretation of “liberty” under the Due Process Clause:

Narrow Interpretation Based on Historical Practices ("The Party of Glucksberg"):

This view, championed by figures like Justice Antonin Scalia and reflected in the Dobbs majority opinion, argues that the Due Process Clause protects only those specific liberties that were objectively recognized and protected as of 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. This approach emphasizes a strict adherence to historical practices and a narrow reading of the Constitution's text. It seeks to limit judicial discretion and prevent judges from imposing their own values when interpreting the Constitution. [3]

Broader Interpretation Based on Evolving Principles ("The Party of Harlan or Casey"):

This perspective, associated with figures like Justices Harlan and Souter, posits that the concept of “liberty” is not frozen in time but evolves alongside societal values and understandings. This approach emphasizes the importance of reasoned judgment and the application of abstract principles to contemporary issues. Proponents argue that a rigid focus on historical practices ignores the aspirational nature of constitutional principles and limits the Constitution's ability to adapt to changing social contexts. [3]

According to Grothouse, this broader interpretation often grounds its justifications in the concept of “ordered liberty,” which recognizes that individual freedom must coexist within a framework of laws that protect both autonomy and social order. This framework considers the historical development of legal principles alongside evolving societal values. Grothouse argues that the Court has a duty to protect certain fundamental rights and liberties that are essential for individuals to live meaningful lives, even if those rights are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized many fundamental freedoms as falling under the constitutional protection of "ordered liberty," including the freedom of association, marriage, family planning, child-rearing and education. However, the Court has also held that the Constitution protects ordered liberty and that laws made in good faith to protect public health and safety are constitutional. [4] [5] [6] [7]

Considerations of positive and negative liberty

"Ordered liberty" refers to a political philosophy that balances the concepts of positive liberty and negative liberty. Negative liberty is the absence of external constraints on the individual, while positive liberty is the ability to act on one's desires and goals. Ordered liberty acknowledges the importance of negative liberty but recognizes that this liberty can only be exercised within the constraints of a well-ordered society. At the same time, it recognizes the importance of positive liberty, but places limits on it to ensure that individual actions do not harm others or the broader social order.

This concept has been discussed by many political philosophers, including Friedrich Hayek, who emphasized the importance of negative liberty in his work "The Constitution of Liberty," [8] and Isaiah Berlin, who distinguished between positive and negative liberty in his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty." [9]

Overall, the concept of ordered liberty attempts to strike a balance between individual freedom and social order, recognizing that both are important and necessary for a healthy and just society. [3]

Historical context

In the United States, the concept of "ordered liberty" was first introduced in the majority opinion of Benjamin Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut (1937). In his opinion, Cardozo argued that fundamental constitutional rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the societal/public welfare and the individual/personal rights provides the primary judicial recognition of ordered liberty.

Cardozo acknowledged the difficulty of achieving "proper order and coherence" and argued that some constitutionally enumerated rights are not essential to a scheme of "ordered liberty" and, therefore not incorporated in the fourteenth amendment and applied to the states. He stated that "to abolish [these rights] is not to violate a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental."

However, Cardozo also argued that certain rights are "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty". He identified "freedom of thought and speech" as an example of such a right because they constituted "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom."

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The concept of ordered liberty was the initial standard for determining what provisions of the Bill of Rights were to be upheld by the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment encompasses all of the guarantees on fundamental fairness included in, or that arose from, the Bill of Rights rather than a small class of provisions essential to ordered liberty. According to some legal scholars, [10] [11] [12] [13] the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution covers all the protections of fundamental fairness contained in or that emerged from the Bill of Rights, rather than only a few provisions deemed crucial to "ordered liberty." This view suggests that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to respect the specific rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights and the general principles of due process and equal protection under the law. [14]

This interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is rooted in the Supreme Court's decisions over time, which have recognized that it incorporates various rights from the Bill of Rights that are fundamental to our system of justice. [15] For example, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech, [16] the right to bear arms, [17] and the right to counsel, [18] among other rights.

2022 Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade

In a 6 to 3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned the abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade. [19] This decision has raised concerns among legal scholars, including Melissa Murray and Katherine Shaw, that it may narrow the Fourteenth Amendment's protections. [20] They argue that the ruling could set a precedent endangering other civil liberties, such as the rights to interracial marriage and marriage equality for LGBTQ+ people, in future cases. [21] [22]

The Dobbs decision notably challenged the principle of stare decisis by overturning established precedents like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This has prompted debate about the implications of the ruling and the future of constitutional law in the United States. Murray, Shaw, and Greenhouse argue that disregarding stare decisis in this context impacts the concept of ordered liberty, potentially leading to uncertainty in protecting other civil liberties that have relied on similar judicial precedents. [23] [24]

2022 Majority Supreme Court opinions: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Justice Alito

When referring to ordered liberty with respect to the legality of abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling Justice Samuel Alito writes:

"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Further, Alito comments, "That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

Justice Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas suggests that the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling on Roe V. Wade is an opportunity to "correct the error" of legal gay marriage; in his written opinion, he contends that Obergefell will continue to have "ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

Thomas writes that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell; he contends that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous":

  • Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) established that married couples have a right to purchase and use contraception without government interference in a 7–2 decision.
  • Lawrence v. Texas (2003) showed that criminal penalties for sodomy or private sexual acts between consenting adults are unconstitutional. That decision came down in a 6 to 3 ruling.
  • Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision.

Additional background: Footnote 4

The Court clarified in the United States v. Carolene Products Co. that in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, more judicial scrutiny might be applied to laws that inhibit rights specified in the Bill of Rights, laws that impose "restrictions upon the right to vote," or laws that express "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities.”

Protection of "ordered liberty" means that some minor restrictions on various activities will be upheld because by safely establishing public order, more opportunities are provided for us to exercise our liberties freely. Specifically in this case, a section known as footnote 4, states that there is a need for special protection of "religious . . . or national ... or racial minorities" and this protection may from time-to-time require additional judicial inquiry. [25]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Loving v. Virginia (1967) regarding interracial marriage, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that governments commit not to abridge, either by constitution, legislation, or judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Little Comstock Act" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a New York State statute that prescribed maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision has since been effectively overturned.

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the "Siman Act", a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting minority languages as both the subject and medium of instruction in schools, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court's ruling is one of the earliest articulations of substantive due process.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Lochner era was a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies". The court did this by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights. The era takes its name from a 1905 case, Lochner v. New York. The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which overturned an earlier Lochner-era decision.

Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Its decision is part of a long line of cases that eventually led to the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 17, established in 2015, underscores the link between promoting human rights and sustaining peace.

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), is a landmark court decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too.

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

References

  1. ↑ Palko v. Connecticut , 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
  2. ↑ Mathias, Charles McC. Jr. (1987). "Ordered Liberty: The Original Intent of the Constitution". Maryland Law Review. 47 (1): 174–188.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Grothouse, Matthew (2016). "Implicit in The Concept of Ordered Liberty: How Obergefell v. Hodges Illuminates the Modern Substantive Due Process Debate". John Marshall Law Review. 49 (4): 1021–1054.
  4. ↑ Pilon, R. (2008). Ordered Liberty. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/OrderedLiberty.html
  5. ↑ Fleming, James E. and McClain, Linda C., "Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues" (2013). Books. 156. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/books/156
  6. ↑ Abraham, Henry J. 1987 Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States, 8th ed. Kansas City: University Press of Kansas.
  7. ↑ Rostow, N. (1974). The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. The Yale Law Journal, 83(6), 1045–1075. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/795711
  8. ↑ Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. University of Chicago Press.
  9. ↑ Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. Oxford University Press.
  10. ↑ Ely, John Hart (1988). "The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights". Stanford Law Review. 40 (1): 131–152.
  11. ↑ Curtis, Michael Kent (1986). "The Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitutionalization of the Bill of Rights". Duke Law Journal. 36 (1): 101–135.
  12. ↑ Brennan, William J. (1985). "The Incorporation Debate: A Reconsideration". Virginia Law Review. 71 (1): 1–32.
  13. ↑ Fairman, Charles (1949). "The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights: A Study in Constitutional Interpretation". Harvard Law Review. 62 (3): 505–535.
  14. ↑ David A. Strauss, The Living Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2010).
  15. ↑ McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
  16. ↑ Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
  17. ↑ McDonald, 561 U.S. at 778.
  18. ↑ Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
  19. ↑ Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 594 U.S. (2022).
  20. ↑ Melissa Murray and Katherine Shaw, "Dobbs and Democracy," Harvard Law Review, vol. 137, no. 3, January 2024.
  21. ↑ Kevin Liptak and Ariane de Vogue, "Why the Supreme Court's abortion decision is considered a turning point," CNN, June 24, 2022.
  22. ↑ Melissa Murray and Katherine Shaw, "Dobbs and Democracy," Harvard Law Review, vol. 137, no. 3, January 2024.
  23. ↑ Linda Greenhouse, "A Tidal Wave of Disregard for Precedent," The New York Times, June 27, 2022.
  24. ↑ Melissa Murray and Katherine Shaw, "Dobbs and Democracy," Harvard Law Review, vol. 137, no. 3, January 2024.
  25. ↑ Coenen, Dan T. "The Future of Footnote Four." Georgia Law Review, vol. 41, no. 3, Spring 2007, pp. 797–842. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/geolr41&i=780.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.