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