• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
MENUMENU
MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • FlaglerLive Board of Directors
    • Comment Policy
    • Mission Statement
    • Our Values
  • Live Calendar
  • Submit Obituary
  • Submit an Event
  • Support FlaglerLive
  • Advertise on FlaglerLive (386) 503-3808
  • Search Results

FlaglerLive

No Bull, no Fluff, No Smudges

MENUMENU
  • Flagler
    • Flagler County Commission
    • Beverly Beach
    • Economic Development Council
    • Flagler History
    • Mondex/Daytona North
    • The Hammock
    • Tourist Development Council
  • Palm Coast
    • Palm Coast City Council
    • Palm Coast Crime
  • Bunnell
    • Bunnell City Commission
    • Bunnell Crime
  • Flagler Beach
    • Flagler Beach City Commission
    • Flagler Beach Crime
  • Cops/Courts
    • Circuit & County Court
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • Federal Courts
    • Flagler 911
    • Fire House
    • Flagler County Sheriff
    • Flagler Jail Bookings
    • Traffic Accidents
  • Rights & Liberties
    • Fourth Amendment
    • First Amendment
    • Privacy
    • Second Amendment
    • Seventh Amendment
    • Sixth Amendment
    • Sunshine Law
    • Third Amendment
    • Religion & Beliefs
    • Human Rights
    • Immigration
    • Labor Rights
    • 14th Amendment
    • Civil Rights
  • Schools
    • Adult Education
    • Belle Terre Elementary
    • Buddy Taylor Middle
    • Bunnell Elementary
    • Charter Schools
    • Daytona State College
    • Flagler County School Board
    • Flagler Palm Coast High School
    • Higher Education
    • Imagine School
    • Indian Trails Middle
    • Matanzas High School
    • Old Kings Elementary
    • Rymfire Elementary
    • Stetson University
    • Wadsworth Elementary
    • University of Florida/Florida State
  • Economy
    • Jobs & Unemployment
    • Business & Economy
    • Development & Sprawl
    • Leisure & Tourism
    • Local Business
    • Local Media
    • Real Estate & Development
    • Taxes
  • Commentary
    • The Conversation
    • Pierre Tristam
    • Diane Roberts
    • Guest Columns
    • Byblos
    • Editor's Blog
  • Culture
    • African American Cultural Society
    • Arts in Palm Coast & Flagler
    • Books
    • City Repertory Theatre
    • Flagler Auditorium
    • Flagler Playhouse
    • Flagler Youth Orchestra
    • Jacksonville Symphony Orchestra
    • Palm Coast Arts Foundation
    • Special Events
  • Elections 2022
    • Amendments and Referendums
    • Presidential Election
    • Campaign Finance
    • City Elections
    • Congressional
    • Constitutionals
    • Courts
    • Governor
    • Polls
    • Voting Rights
  • Florida
    • Federal Politics
    • Florida History
    • Florida Legislature
    • Florida Legislature
    • Ron DeSantis
  • Health & Society
    • Flagler County Health Department
    • Ask the Doctor Column
    • Health Care
    • Health Care Business
    • Covid-19
    • Children and Families
    • Medicaid and Medicare
    • Mental Health
    • Poverty
    • Violence
  • All Else
    • Daily Briefing
    • Americana
    • Obituaries
    • News Briefs
    • Weather and Climate
    • Wildlife

Privacy Isn’t In the Constitution. But It’s Everywhere in Constitutional Law.

June 19, 2022 | FlaglerLive | 3 Comments

Who’s allowed to watch what you do and say? (Shannon Fagan/The Image Bank via Getty Images)
Who’s allowed to watch what you do and say? (Shannon Fagan/The Image Bank via Getty Images)

By Scott Skinner-Thompson

Almost all American adults – including parents, medical patients and people who are sexually active – regularly exercise their right to privacy, even if they don’t know it.




Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. But for half a century, the Supreme Court has recognized it as an outgrowth of protections for individual liberty. As I have studied in my research on constitutional privacy rights, this implied right to privacy is the source of many of the nation’s most cherished, contentious and commonly used rights – including the right to have an abortion.

A key component of liberty

The Supreme Court first formally identified what is called “decisional privacy” – the right to independently control the most personal aspects of our lives and our bodies – in 1965, saying it was implied from other explicit constitutional rights.

For instance, the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly allow people to privately decide what they’ll say, and with whom they’ll associate. The Fourth Amendment limits government intrusion into people’s private property, documents and belongings.

Relying on these explicit provisions, the court concluded in Griswold v. Connecticut that people have privacy rights preventing the government from forbidding married couples from using contraception.




In short order, the court clarified its understanding of the constitutional origins of privacy. In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting the right to have an abortion, the court held that the right of decisional privacy is based in the Constitution’s assurance that people cannot be “deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” That phrase, called the due process clause, appears twice in the Constitution – in the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

Decisional privacy also provided the basis for other decisions protecting many crucial, and everyday, activities.

The right to privacy protects the ability to have consensual sex without being sent to jail. And privacy buttresses the ability to marry regardless of race or gender.

The right to privacy is also key to a person’s ability to keep their family together without undue government interference. For example, in 1977, the court relied on the right to private family life to rule that a grandmother could move her grandchildren into her home to raise them even though it violated a local zoning ordinance.

Under a combination of privacy and liberty rights, the Supreme Court has also protected a person’s freedom in medical decision-making. For example, in 1990, the court concluded “that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.”

Limiting government disclosure

The right to decisional privacy is not the only constitutionally protected form of privacy. As then-Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist noted in 1977, the “concept of ‘privacy’ can be a coat of many colors, and quite differing kinds of rights to ‘privacy’ have been recognized in the law.”

This includes what is called a right to “informational privacy” – letting a person limit government disclosure of information about them.




According to some authority, the right extends even to prominent public and political figures. In one key decision, in 1977, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Rehnquist – both conservative justices – suggested in dissenting opinions that former President Richard Nixon had a privacy interest in documents made during his presidency that touched on his personal life. Lower courts have relied on the right of informational privacy to limit the government’s ability to disclose someone’s sexual orientation or HIV status.

All told, though the word isn’t in the Constitution, privacy is the foundation of many constitutional protections for our most important, sensitive and intimate activities. If the right to privacy is eroded – such as in a future Supreme Court decision – many of the rights it’s connected with may also be in danger.

Scott Skinner-Thompson is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Boulder.


The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.

Previous Conversations:

  • Understanding the Heat Dome: Why America Is Baking
  • Endorsements Aren’t As Influential as You Think
  • Wiccan Celebrations and the Permanence of Change
  • Privacy Isn’t In the Constitution. But It’s Everywhere in Constitutional Law.
  • Anti-Trans Legislation and Lawsuits Are Pushing back Against Chosen Pronouns
  • How Mike Pence’s Unremarkable Actions on Jan. 6 Saved the Nation
  • Blaspheming Human Rights: The Hypocrisy at the Core of Authoritarian Muslim Nations
  • There Is No One ‘Religious View’ on Abortion
  • Inflation Is Spiking. Can the Fed Raise Interest Rates Without Spiking Unemployment, Too?
  • Blaming ‘Evil’ Is Not Enough
  • Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Diminish Mass Shootings? Yes.
  • Crowded Primaries Are Good for Extremists, Bad for Voters
  • To Get Safe Schools, Mental Health Resources Are Critical
  • Antarctica’s Riskiest Glacier Is Losing Its Grip
  • The Legal Age to Buy Assault Weapons Doesn’t Make Sense

See the Full Conversation Archives
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
You and your neighbors collectively read our articles about 25,000 times each day (that's not a typo) with up to 65,000 daily reads during emergencies like hurricanes. Flagler County residents rely on FlaglerLive for essential, bold and analytical journalism that cannot be found anywhere else. But we depend on your support. Please join our December fund drive! If you donate the cost of a scoop of ice cream, you will be helping us continue to provide comprehensive local news and honest, serious journalism for our community. If you can donate more or become a monthly donor, even better. Donations are tax deductible since FlaglerLive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donate by clicking anywhere in this box. Think of it as buying a scoop, in every sense of the term!  
All donors' identities are kept confidential and anonymous.
   

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Michael Cocchiola says

    June 20, 2022 at 6:43 am

    We have to remember… we are living under a radical red scourge. Laws and constitutional protections are fluid, at best. Conservative justices, red-state supreme courts, governors, and attorneys general are all now free to make rulings based on cultural beliefs. They have shown complete disdain for law and precedent. And they are all protected from the consequences of their actions.

    America is no longer a democratic bastion. We are subject to the whims of the cancerous red tide.

    Reply
    • Ben Hogarth says

      June 21, 2022 at 9:03 am

      It’s growing more frightening by the day too. At this point it’s open treason, talks of secession 2.0, and now “hunting down those who don’t agree.”

      This isn’t a game. The politicians benefitting from the rhetoric are moving seriously ill individuals to act on their behalf. And at this point, it’s clear they aren’t slowing down, but ramping up. A lot of people are going to be hurt or worse as a result. My fear is that all of this is designed to lead us into the result they want, which is open civil conflict or total abdication of democratic norms with the enthroning of tyrants nationwide.

      This is going to get very very bad. I believe 2022 will be the spark and 2024 could be the last American election. To those who still value democracy, I say that running is not the answer. Leaving the worlds most powerful military and nuclear weapons delivery systems in the hands of the insane is not saving yourself, but damning everyone and everything. Our place is here. Running isn’t an option.

      Reply
  2. Timothy Patrick Welch says

    June 20, 2022 at 9:21 am

    So does an abortion deprive the unborn child of their of life, liberty or property, without due process of law?

    And, if the unborn child is not yet a child, then why is there a punishment for someone causing harm or killing a pregnant woman’s child?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Advertisers

  • grand living realty
  • politis matovina attorneys for justice personal injury law auto truck accidents
  • WNZF Creekside Festival

Recent Comments

  • Flapharmtech on Covid Deaths in Florida Near 91,000
  • Angela Smith on A Mixed Bag in New Rankings of Florida’s Colleges and Universities as DeSantis Polarization Dims Luster
  • TR on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • CH on Rezoning Enabling Up to 850 Homes in Seminole Woods Causes Sharp Debate Before Palm Coast Approval
  • Angela and others are fearful on Moms for Liberty: Joyful Warriors or Anti-Government Conspiracists?
  • CH on Rezoning Enabling Up to 850 Homes in Seminole Woods Causes Sharp Debate Before Palm Coast Approval
  • James on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • Another Concerned Taxpayer !!! on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • James on Rezoning Enabling Up to 850 Homes in Seminole Woods Causes Sharp Debate Before Palm Coast Approval
  • Lorraine on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • DMFinFlorida on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • Villein on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • TRex on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • Unacceptable! on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • Nephew Of Uncle Sam on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • The dude on Malacompra Beach Annexation Into Palm Coast Draws Frosty but Not Fatal Response from Joint Committee

Log in