Right to Privacy

The “Right to Privacy,” while not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, is more or less implied through various amendments. The most often cited one is the 14th Amendment which states that, “No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” However, is there a point where personal privacy can actually interfere with and endanger society as a whole? The Supreme Court has struggled with this question in its search to define how private privacy actually is.

One of the earliest cases referring to privacy was Meyer vs. Nebraska. On May, 25, 1920 an instructor at Zion Parochial School in Hamilton, Nebraska was charged with illegally teaching ten year old Raymond Parpart how to read German. In doing so, the instructor had violated a 1919 Nebraska law banning the instruction of a foreign language to anyone not having successfully passed the eighth grade. Classical languages (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) were exempt from the law. This law was most likely a reaction to World War I which had pitted the U.S. against the German Empire and had ended only a year before the law’s passing. The law’s intent was to create a more homogeneous population in a state with a rather large percentage of foreign born people. Many of those immigrants were of German origin whose loyalties were often questioned during the war. The Nebraska Supreme Court consequently upheld the decision, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States over a question of violation of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the lower courts in a 7-2 decision. The Court ruled that the Nebraska law overstepped the authority the state had to regulate schools. Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out that it would be to a child’s benefit to begin language study as early as possible in development, and a ten year old who could read German would hardly be a threat to national security.

The rights granted under the 14th Amendment were again called into question is the case of Stanley vs. Georgia (1969). Investigators had obtained a search warrant to enter and search the house of Mr. Stanley to look for evidence of bookmaking activities (meaning betting paraphernalia). Instead, they found several reels of tape which, when put into a projector, turned out to be porn. Declaring the material “obscene,” Stanley was taken to court and convicted under a Georgia Law forbidding the possession of such material. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the decision.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court under the logic that possession of obscene material cannot be made a crime. It was thought that reference back to the Roth decision would uphold the Georgia Laws. However, as Roth referred to the public distribution of obscene material, it was not suitably applicable to the present case. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts declaring that the 1st and 14th Amendment prohibited making the private possession of “obscene” material a crime.

Does the Right to Privacy, however, even extend to those in uniform? This exact issue was called into question in the 1976 Supreme Court case Kelly vs. Johnson. The police department of Suffolk County, New York put in place regulations regarding hair styles that were to be adhered to by all members of the force. These regulations outlined proper hairdos as well a proper facial hair and sideburns. These regulations were then brought to court on the pretext of violating the 1st Amendment right to “freedom of expression” and 14th Amendment rights to “due process” and “equal protection.” Both the Court of Appeals and the District Court declared the regulations unconstitutional because the police force was not “para-military” and uniformity only existed for the sake of uniformity.

Upon arrival at the Supreme Court, the before rulings were overturned. The Court declared that police officers are legally restricted in other ways (like being required to wear a uniform), so regulation of hair styles would merely be added to the accepted 1st Amendment violations police officers were required to tolerate. Furthermore, uniformity was needed to foster a genuine “espirit du corps” and to make police officers readily identifiable to the public.

The question over right to privacy has also brought up in much more grave situations. One such situation was the Supreme Court case of Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990). On the night of January 11, 1983 Nancy Cruzan crashed along the side of a road in Jasper County, Missouri. Paramedics were able to restore her breathing and heartbeat, but not before she had suffered serious brain injuries. Taken to the hospital, Nancy was able to continue living in a vegetative state. When it was discovered that she would most likely never regain any cognitive abilities, her parents asked to discontinue life support. The hospital said it could only do so with court permission. A lower court in Missouri ruled that based on conversations Nancy had had with a housemate, she would probably have opted for the discontinuation of life support. This case was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court which then denied Nancy’s parents permission to shut off life support because Nancy’s conversations were an unreliable context for discontinuing medical treatment.

The case was appealed again to the Supreme Court. In question was whether the 14th Amendment’s “right to life” implied the right to refuse medical care in this case. The Court confirmed the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court declaring that because of a lack of evidence to support the discontinuing of life-support, the Missouri Supreme Court had committed no breach of the Constitution.

As for the right to sexual privacy, such a case, Lawrence vs. Texas, came before the Supreme Court in 2003. In Houston, Texas police officers were sent to a private residence where a weapons disturbance had been reported. Instead of weapons, the police officers found two men engaged in butt-sex. The men were arrested, taken to court, and convicted under a Texas Law banning homosexual sodomy. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court as the defendants believed the Texas law to be in violation of 14th Amendment rights.

Upon arrival at the Supreme Court, supporters of the Texas law argued that the law was a protection of ancient Judeo-Christian morals much in the same way as laws against murder and adultery. The Supreme Court, however, declared that because the sexual conduct was consensual between non-minors, it was a clear infringement of Constitutional freedoms. The decision of the Texas Courts was overturned.

The decisions of the Supreme Court have been, in general, quite consistent in affirming the citizens’ right to personal privacy. Over the last hundred years, these five Supreme Court decisions have set the precedent in declaring a person’s private business outside the control of the state. Even the Cruzan decision confirmed the right to discontinue medical care, but only with sufficient evidence. Though the Constitution does not specifically declare one to have a “right to privacy,” the five Supreme Court decisions discussed here show that the 1st and 14th Amendment are widely interpreted to imply that such a right exists. The “right to privacy” is one of those rights, along with freedom of speech, that have made the United States the uniquely free-spirited nation that it is today.