norml23 - Page 8

Page 8 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 individual's home cannot be breached absent a
 persuasive showing of a dose and substantial
 relationship of the intrusion to a aegitimate
 governmentaJ interest. Here, scientific
 doubts wi[[ not suffice° The state must
 demonstrate a need based on proof that the
 public hea_th or weffare will in fact suffer
 if the controls are not applied.
 Id. at 506, 509-511 (footnote omitted).
 B. Applicable Constitutional Standards to be Applied
 in this Case.
 The Fifth Amendment states, inter alia, that: "No person
 shall be.. o deprived of. o. _iberty o.. without the due
 process of law...'_ The plain _anguage of this portion of the
 Amendment establishes explicit substantive protection for due
 process rights. However, while not containing the actual phrase
 "equal protection of the law," it is "o ° also now established
 that the basic concepts of equal protection appay to the federal
 government through the due process clause of the Fifth
 Amendment." Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 36t, 364, n. 4, 94
 S.Cto 1160, 39 UEd.2d 389 (1974); Richardson v. Belcher, 404
 UoSo 78, 81, 92 SoCto 254; 30 L. Ed.2d (1 971); United States v.
 Hawes, 529 Fo2d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v.
 Gordon-Nikkar, 518 F.2d 972, 976 (5th Ciro 1975).
 The Supreme Court has utiJize two standards of review in
 assessing equal protection challenges to legislative provisions.
 Where the challenged statutory scheme has involved infringement
 of a constitutional guarantee or a "fundamental interest," or
 discrimination based upon a "suspect classification," the Court
 has applied "strict scrutiny" and has upheld the statutory scheme
 only when it has been shown necessary to promote a "compelling
 governmental interest." San Antonio independent: School District
 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. I, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Edo2d 16 (1973);
 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 LoEd.2d 600
 (1969); Graham vo Richardson, 4.03 UoS. 365,371, 91 S.Ct. 1848,
 29 L. Ed.2d 534 (1971). in aH other circumstances;, the Court has
 applied the "rational relationship" tesS:

Previous , Next , Return to Index