Also known as: undue burden tests · undue burden · undue burden standard · undue burden analysis
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A standard of review that invalidates a state regulation if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of an individual seeking to exercise a constitutional right. The test replaced the trimester framework and strict scrutiny of Roe v. Wade. It permits regulations that do not impose such an obstacle even if they have the incidental effect of making the right more difficult or expensive to exercise.
A standard of review that invalidates a state regulation if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of an individual seeking to exercise a constitutional right. The test replaced the trimester framework and strict scrutiny of Roe v. Wade. It permits regulations that do not impose such an obstacle even if they have the incidental effect of making the right more difficult or expensive to exercise.
A married woman sought an abortion at a Pennsylvania clinic but faced a statutory requirement that she notify her husband. The clinic challenged the provision. The court struck it down because the requirement imposed a substantial obstacle by creating a risk of domestic violence that would deter many women from exercising their right.
A limitation on discovery of electronically stored information or compliance with subpoenas that permits a responding party to avoid production when the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. The responding party must show inaccessibility on a motion to compel or for protective order. The court may still order discovery upon a showing of good cause after considering proportionality factors.
Subscribers sued Horizon Mobile alleging unauthorized fees and moved to compel ten years of call-detail records stored on a discontinued mainframe. Horizon submitted affidavits showing that retrieval required an extraordinarily expensive conversion project. The court denied the motion because Horizon demonstrated the data were not reasonably accessible due to undue burden or cost and the subscribers failed to show good cause for production.
A limitation on discovery of electronically stored information or compliance with subpoenas that permits a responding party to avoid production when the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. The responding party must show inaccessibility on a motion to compel or for protective order. The court may still order discovery upon a showing of good cause after considering proportionality factors.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Indiana voters challenged a statute requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls. The state defended the law as a measure against fraud. The court upheld the requirement because the evidence did not show that it imposed a substantial obstacle on a large number of voters who lacked qualifying identification.
Missouri prohibited the use of public facilities or employees for performing abortions even when the patient paid privately. Reproductive health providers challenged the ban. The court sustained the prohibition because it did not place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortions before viability.
The undue burden test permits regulations that do not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a previability abortion even if they incidentally increase cost or difficulty. Strict scrutiny would require the state to prove the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.
Yes. A regulation is invalid if either its purpose or its effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a previability abortion.
Investors sued Apex Capital and sought internal chat archives and legacy emails stored on encrypted backup tapes. Apex moved for a protective order after showing that decryption would cost several million dollars. The court granted the motion in part because Apex established undue burden or cost and the investors had not yet demonstrated good cause under proportionality limits.
NimbusSoft sued CodeSphere for patent infringement and served a subpoena seeking ten years of deleted server logs from decommissioned data centers. CodeSphere moved to quash after proving that restoration would require specialized vendors and cost millions. The court quashed the subpoena because it subjected CodeSphere to undue burden.
The responding party must demonstrate that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. Once that showing is made the requesting party must then demonstrate good cause for production after the court weighs proportionality factors.
The court may order discovery if the requesting party shows good cause considering the limitations in Rule 26(b)(2)(C) and may impose conditions such as cost shifting or sampling to mitigate the burden.
…of our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been the principle that the States may not impose regulations that place an undue burden on interstate commerce, even where those regulations do not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state businesses. See Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor…