ANALYSIS | Overturning Roe v. Wade could send ripples across legal precedents

Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021. Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In one form or another, every Supreme Court nominee is asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of the landmark abortion rights ruling that has stood for a half century. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File)
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021. Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In one form or another, every Supreme Court nominee is asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of the landmark abortion rights ruling that has stood for a half century. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File)

TEXARKANA, Texas -- In early May, a leaked Supreme Court document detailed the potential overturn of Roe v. Wade and associated case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote the document, citing multiple cases as having rights that aren't deeply rooted in history or labeling some precedents as unsound.

"The right to privacy (14th Amendment) gets very little air time," said Texarkana attorney Jon Beck of the 98-page document. "It's mentioned seven times, but it's the cornerstone of these cases."

Alito chose to focus on the moral issue of destroying unborn life rather than the 14th Amendment right of on which the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade was founded. Thus, overturning the ruling has implications for other laws protecting the right to privacy.

The following are Supreme Court decisions that could be reviewed or overturned should Roe v. Wade be dismantled.

Loving v. Virginia (1967): Right to marry someone of a different race

The case was a unanimous decision. It was based on a case out of Virginia in which a black woman and a white man were married in the District of Columbia. They were found guilty of violating the ban on mixed-race marriages and sentenced to a year in jail. The trial judge said the sentence would be suspended if the Lovings left Virginia.

The 14th Amendment was used to defend the couple on the basis that racial classifications are irrational and that the court violated the couple's right to due process.

Turner v. Safley (1987): Right to marry while in prison

The case was a unanimous decision. It is based on a case out of Missouri in which two inmates at a complex prison wished to marry each other. The female inmate was transferred to a different prison, and the male inmate attempts to contact Watson were intercepted by prison guards. The court held that the state's Department of Corrections violated the inmates' fundamental right to marry.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): Right to obtain contraception

This case was a 7-2 decision. It is based on a case out of Connecticut in which a gynecologist opened a birth control clinic with Planned Parenthood executive Estelle Griswold. They both were arrested in violation of the law banning the use of any drug, medical device or other instrument in conception. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. The various guarantees within the Bill of Rights creates zones that give a right to privacy. The First, Third, Fourth and Ninth amendments create a right to privacy in marital relations.

Moore v. East Cleveland (1977): Right to reside with relatives.

The case was a 5-4 decision. A grandmother in East Cleveland was given criminal charges when living in a dwelling when her family -- including her son, and two grandsons -- didn't meet the legal definition of family in East Cleveland. East Cleveland limited occupancy to one single family unit. The Supreme Court decided that Moore's rights were violated by the ordinance as it constituted "intrusive regulation of the family."

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Right to make decisions about education of one's children

The case was a unanimous. The Compulsory Education Act of 1922 out of Oregon required parents or guardians to send children to public school in the district where the children resided. The Society of Sisters was an organization that facilitated the care and education of youths. The Court held that due process of the 14th Amendment was violated because "the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept education from public school teachers only."

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942): Right to not be sterilized without consent

The case was a unanimous decision. Out of Oklahoma, the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935 allowed the state to sterilize someone who committed three or more crimes amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude. Jack T. Skinner was convicted once for stealing chickens and twice for armed robbery. After a fourth criminal conviction, he was ordered to be sterilized. Skinner argued that decision violated his 14th Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reasoned that certain crimes like those committed by Skinner were excluded from the Act. They also decided that the implication and irreversible nature of sterilization procedures should be held to strict scrutiny.

Winston v. Lee (1985): Right in certain circumstances to not undergo involuntary surgery, forced administration of drugs or substantially similar procedures

The case was a unanimous decision. It was based on a case from Virginia in which a robber was shot and the police determined that the lodged bullet would show whether he was guilty or innocent. The Supreme Court reasoned that the surgery would violate the robber's right to be secure in his person and the search would be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): Right to engage in private consensual acts

The case was a 6-3 majority decision. Out of Texas, two men were engaging in a sex act in the privacy of their home when Houston police entered. The police entered under a suspicion of weapons, but John Geddes Lawrence Jr. and Tyron Garner were arrested for deviant sexual intercourse. Texas law at the time forbade two people of the same gender to engage in sexual conduct. The Court reasoned that the Texas statute violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and that Lawrence and Garner were free to engage in private conduct in an exercise of their liberty.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Right to marry person of same sex

A 5-4 decision. The case out of Ohio involves two men who were married out of state. One man died, but due to the marriage not being recognized in Ohio, the widower could not be recognized on the death certificate. The Court reasoned that the 14th amendment requires that valid, out-of-state, same-sex marriage licenses be recognized as valid by all states. The court asserted that the due process clause protects liberties associated with "choices about marriage" and that the Constitution protects the "right to marry."

Beck said the interconnectedness of Supreme Court decisions cannot be overlooked, which makes any decision on Roe v. Wade significant.

"The court usually expands rights," Beck said. "The court was made to hold back the government from infringing on rights. This case has been different."  photo  Jon Beck, local attorney with Morgan, Cook, and Beck. (Submitted photo)
 
 


Upcoming Events