Law Commons^™

Without Due Process Of Law: The Dobbs Decision And Its Cataclysmic Impact On The Substantive Due Process And Privacy Rights Of Ohio Women, Jacob Wenner

Journal of Law and Health

Since the overturning of prior abortion precedents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, there has been a question on the minds of many women in this country: how will this decision affect me and my rights? As we have seen in the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have pushed for stringent anti-abortion measures seeking to undermine the foundation on which women’s reproductive freedom had been grounded on for decades. This includes right here in Ohio, where Republican lawmakers have advocated on numerous occasions for implementing laws seeking to limit abortion rights, including a 6-week abortion ban advocated …

“I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free”: A Lamentation On Dobbs V. Jackson’S Pernicious Impact On The Lives And Liberty Of Women, April L. Cherry

Cleveland State Law Review

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned nearly fifty years of precedent when it declared in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion was not a fundamental right, and therefore it was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and substantive due process. In law school corridors and legal scholar circles, discussion of the Court’s evisceration of abortion rights focused on the corresponding changes in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and the Court’s outright dismissal of stare decisis. But in homes, hospitals, community centers, and workplaces, different conversations were happening. Conversations, mostly had by women, concerned the real-life consequences of overturning …

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.: The Court's Forgotten Virtue, Camille Pollutro

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article recommends a shift in constitutional interpretation that requires the existence of respect for the class at issue when a fundamental right is being considered under the narrow, historical deeply rooted test of the Fourteenth Amendment. By focusing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Article highlights that the class at issue—women—are having their fundamental rights decided for them by the legal sources of 1868. In applying this strict and narrow historical deeply rooted test, the Court fails to consider the lack of respect and autonomy that women had in 1868. To the Court, if twenty-eight out …

In Pursuit Of A Modern Standard: The Constitutional Proportions Of Collateral Harm From Pursuits And Police High-Speed Driving, Julian Gilbert

Cleveland State Law Review

Police chases and high-speed driving are common practices that pose a substantial amount of harm and are often unjustified. The benefits of such chases are questionable, and rapid police action at all costs is often unnecessary. When bystanders are injured as a result of police high-speed driving, there are few avenues to have their rights vindicated, and federal court cases require plaintiffs to meet an almost impossible burden. However, under the United States Supreme Court case of County of Sacramento v. Lewis, a plaintiff can put forth evidence that their substantive due process right to life under the Fourteenth …

Love Is Love: The Fundamental Right To Love, Marriage, And Obergefell V. Hodges, Reginald Oh

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process fundamental rights doctrine is about love. It is, at least, based on a close reading of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case in which the Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right of individual autonomy and dignity.

Part I of this Article discusses the concept of love. Part II examines Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell and argues that it expresses unconditional love for LGBT people in tone, language, and substance. Part III argues that, in Obergefell, Kennedy’s key reasons for concluding that marriage is …

Notice, Due Process, And Voter Registration Purges, Anthony J. Gaughan

Cleveland State Law Review

In the 2018 case of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld the procedures that Ohio election authorities used to purge ineligible voters from the state’s registration lists. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that the Ohio law complied with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) as amended by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). This Article contends that the controlling federal law—the NVRA and HAVA—gave the Supreme Court little choice but to decide the case in favor of Ohio’s secretary of state. But this article also argues …

Forgotten Cases: Worthen V. Thomas, David F. Forte

Cleveland State Law Review

According to received opinion, the case of the Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, decided in 1934, laid to rest any force the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution had to limit state legislation that affected existing contracts. But the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions belies that claim. In fact, a few months later, the Court unanimously decided Worthen v. Thomas, which reaffirmed the vitality of the Contract Clause. Over the next few years, in twenty cases, the Court limited the reach of Blaisdell and confirmed the limiting force of the Contract Clause on state legislation. Only …