Note: This is an educational course, not legal advice.
This topic covers the Court's main cases on marriage, on private conduct between adults, and on decisions at the end of life. Like the abortion cases, they are taught here in strictly legal terms: the clause, the test, the holding and the later history. Each builds on the family and autonomy cases.
| Case | Question | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) | Does due process protect private conduct between consenting adults of the same sex? | no; Georgia's law upheld (5 to 4) |
| Lawrence v. Texas (2003) | the same question about a Texas law | yes; the law violated due process liberty (6 to 3); Bowers overruled. Justice O'Connor concurred on equal protection grounds; Justice Scalia's dissent warned about the reach of the reasoning |
| Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) | Must states license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex? | yes, under due process and equal protection (5 to 4); four dissents (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito) said the question belonged to the people and legislatures |
| Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) | May a state require clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes before ending life support? | yes (5 to 4), assuming a competent person has a protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment |
| Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) | Is there a fundamental right to assistance in committing suicide? | no; Washington's ban was rational. States may choose by statute to allow medical aid in dying, and some do |
Why it works
Notice how the methods from the methods topic show up. Glucksberg described the asserted right narrowly and found no deep tradition supporting it. Lawrence and Obergefell reasoned from broader principles of liberty and dignity, and Obergefell expressly declined to apply Glucksberg's careful-description step to marriage. Cruzan shows a third pattern: the Court assumed a right existed and still upheld the state's procedure, because a state may protect against mistakes in decisions that cannot be undone.
Key idea
Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down bans on interracial marriage (equal protection and due process). Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) held same-sex couples may marry. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) assumed a right to refuse treatment; Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) found no fundamental right to assisted suicide.
Worked example: Glucksberg's holding
A student writes: "Glucksberg held that terminally ill patients have a constitutional right to a doctor's help in dying." Is that right?
- Glucksberg described the right carefully and found it was not deeply rooted in history and tradition.
- So it is not a fundamental right, and Washington's ban passed rational basis review.
- States remain free to allow the practice by statute.
Answer: No; Glucksberg held there is no such fundamental right, though states may allow it by law.
Worked example: Two clauses
Loving v. Virginia rested on which clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
- The law classified by race, so the Equal Protection Clause applied with the strictest review.
- The Court added that the freedom to marry is protected liberty under the Due Process Clause.
Answer: Both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.
Common mistake
Thinking Glucksberg found a right to assisted suicide. It held there is no such fundamental right, though states may choose to allow it. Another slip: thinking Cruzan decided the patient must be kept on life support forever. It upheld a requirement of clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes, while assuming a competent person may refuse treatment.