Also known as: fundamental right and interest · fundamental rights · fundamental interests · basic rights · constitutional rights
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Constitutional protections afforded to personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy. These interests trigger heightened scrutiny when government action burdens them and include rights to direct a child's education, to marry, and to other intimate decisions that define personal identity.
Felix Franco alleged that federal agents violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights during a warrantless search of his home. He filed suit in federal court seeking damages directly under the Constitution. The court exercised jurisdiction because the complaint asserted a right to relief under federal constitutional provisions even without an express statutory cause of action.
Fumiko Fujimoto faced criminal charges and sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity to protect her constitutional right to present a defense. The court admitted the evidence after determining that its exclusion would violate the defendant's constitutional rights under the applicable evidentiary exception.
Felicity French enrolled her child in a private school that taught German in addition to English. State officials threatened to close the school under a statute banning instruction in any language other than English. The court held that the statute infringed the protected liberty interest of parents to direct their children's education.
Flora Ford, an inmate, requested permission to marry another adult. Prison officials denied the request under a regulation requiring superintendent approval. The court invalidated the regulation because it was not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest and therefore improperly burdened the inmate's fundamental right to marry.
Fabian Flynn, a presidential aide, faced a civil suit alleging violation of constitutional rights during a discretionary decision outside foreign affairs. The court granted only qualified immunity because the aide's functions were not closely tied to presidential decisionmaking in areas of national concern.
Fernando Farrell and his partner sought a marriage license from state officials who refused on the ground that state law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court held that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples under the Due Process Clause and invalidated the exclusionary laws.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseStrict scrutiny applies. The government must show that the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
Supporting sources
Yes. Parents possess a protected liberty interest in choosing the language and manner of their children's education, and state laws that prohibit instruction in a foreign language infringe that interest.
Supporting sources
Only if the regulation is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. A blanket approval requirement that lacks any such connection is invalid even under the lenient standard applied to inmate rights.
Supporting sources
…the Does and Hallford did not. Pp. 123-129. (a) The normal rule of federal standing is that a litigant may assert only his own constitutional rights or immunities. The rule has no application where, as here, the plaintiff is himself or herself the immediate object of the challenged statute. Pp. 123-129. (b) The Does' complaint based on…