fbpx

The Incautious Justice Kennedy

While many have celebrated the result in Obergefell v. Hodges, fewer have praised the craftsmanship of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion. That is as it should be because the opinion is longer on sentiment and empathy than legal analysis. And yet it is now as much a part of the United States Reporter as the most well-reasoned judgment. Thus, it is worth looking at its doctrinal implications, none of which are happy.

First, Kennedy consciously removes the historical constraints on the Court’s ability to declare new fundamental rights.  Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the most important modern substantive due process case, required fundamental rights to be deeply rooted in the history and tradition of America. Whatever else can be said about it, same-sex marriage does not begin to meet that test. Kennedy says correctly that some other substantive due process cases did not meet that test either (Roe comes obviously to mind). While Kennedy does not quite say that he is overruling Glucksberg altogether, its relevance has been gravely weakened. Justices seem free to look to their views on the nature of justice rather than history to discern new fundamental rights.

While some libertarians in the past have been enthusiastic about this development, it is unlikely the Court will use this power to pursue economic liberties. I think this development is likelier to revive claims that some other social rights, like the right to assisted suicide, are also constitutional ones.

Kennedy also gestured to the equal protection clause in his decision. I say gestured because he did not conclude that homosexuals were a suspect class, discrimination against whom triggered strict scrutiny. But this very absence of analysis may encourage arguments that other groups are sufficiently like the classic racial and ethnic minorities, even if not suspect classes, that the classifications which disadvantage them should receive some kind of heightened scrutiny. Here I would think renewed litigation might target the decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) that rejected the proposition the poor could be a suspect class in the context of school financing.

Finally, the case is notable for arguing that state recognition of marriage is a liberty. Justice Clarence Thomas powerfully argues that it cannot be one, because the liberty that the Constitution protects is negative. It prohibits the government from interfering with individual rights but does not require the conferral of government benefits. This line is the one that so far has made it impossible to seriously argue even under an adventurous view of substantive due process that the Constitution confers welfare rights. Look for the Left to argue that Obergefell begins to erase it.

Now I want to be clear, I do not believe we will see welfare rights, the poor as a suspect class, or even the right to assisted suicide this year or next. Justice Kennedy at least would not be enthusiastic about most of them. But say Hillary Clinton gets a few appointments. The ground has been laid for a progressive substantive due process clause and a less disciplined equal protection clause. Kennedy’s opinion disclaims “caution” and its doctrinal development, such as it, is very incautious.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on June 29, 2015 at 01:15:35 am

First, we must realize that "same-sex marriage" is still "Marriage", and marriage, as cited in the majority opinion, is among the oldest institutions of civilization. Therefore it can be said that marriage is a fundamental right for purposes of 14th amendment due process provision. Lawrence et al. V. Texas (2003) recognized the legal right of a man to be homosexual, and therefore created a protected class. The court then looked to cases such as loving V. virginia, amongst others, which dealt with the same legal posture, and marriage has been considered a liberty within a vein of case law. Therefore, I would submit that the writer probably hasn't carefully read the majority opinion.

read full comment
Image of john Doe
john Doe
on June 29, 2015 at 10:18:19 am

"First, we must realize that “same-sex marriage” is still “Marriage”, and marriage, as cited in the majority opinion, is among the oldest institutions of civilization"

So now we begin to re-write history. Yes, marriage is as old as civilization - in fact the two (along with burying the dead (thanks to R. Richard for this observation)) may be said to be coincident / co-equal. BUT, it was always male-female marriage not SSM.

And one should read Kennedy's opinion to see how it is that same-sex marriage IS NOT as old as civilization but is rather a "newly" discovered liberty that is able to now be discerned because succeeding generations are better able to explore and divine all the various components of liberty. Amazing isn't it - how much smarter we are than those old fuddy-duddies of the founding era.

And we have Justice Kennedy to thank for this.
One can imagine the good Justice, in his Black Robes, bursting into a rendition (slightly modified, of course) of a favorite song by a 1950's operatic tenor, Mario Lanza: "Ahh, Sweet Mystery of (Liberty), at last I have found you!!!" Lanza had a better voice - with greater range and timbre.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on June 30, 2015 at 00:22:50 am

[…] Go for clarity rather than depth of feeling, advises Paul Horwitz [PrawfsBlawg] Re: AMK’s revival of substantive due process, warns John McGinnis, libertarians should be careful what they wish for [Law and Liberty] […]

read full comment
Image of What Anthony Kennedy could have learned from Brown v. Board | Internet Tax Lawyers
What Anthony Kennedy could have learned from Brown v. Board | Internet Tax Lawyers
on June 30, 2015 at 10:26:32 am

Kennedy also gestured to the equal protection clause in his decision. I say gestured because he did not conclude that homosexuals were a suspect class, discrimination against whom triggered strict scrutiny.

Is equal protection limited solely to protecting members of suspect classes? In Loving v. Virginia, the court struck down the practice of convicting people for marrying someone of a different race. Does McGinnis argue that the Court found it illegal to criminalize a black person marrying a white person – but perfectly fine to punish the white person who, lacking membership in a suspect class, is not entitled to equal protection?

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on June 30, 2015 at 21:21:51 pm

Right, because we have always been at war with Eastasia.

read full comment
Image of MichaelGC
MichaelGC
on July 01, 2015 at 21:36:46 pm

Not to mention "transsexual" Eastasian-Antarcticans!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on July 02, 2015 at 18:24:11 pm

Which state passed laws putting homosexuals in jail for marrying?

read full comment
Image of Glen
Glen

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.