Select a Chapter to start the quiz.
In substantive due process cases, the Four Horsemen (Justices McReynolds, Butler, Sutherland and Van Devanter) _______.
provided a solid bloc of votes for upholding state regulation of business because such regulation did not involve the federal government intruding on the rights of the states.
Did not form a unified bloc like they did in the Commerce Clause cases.
provided a solid bloc of votes against state regulation of business in much the same way that they stood unified against federal regulation of business in key Commerce Clause cases.
In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), a hotel company challenged a state law setting mandatory minimum wage levels. The company seemingly stood on firm ground, because in Adkins (1923) the Supreme Court held such laws violate constitutional due process guarantees. In West Coast Hotel, the Supreme Court ________.
struck down the law, applying the Adkins precedent
upheld the law, overruling the Adkins precedent
upheld the law, ignoring Adkins and instead applying the precedent set in Nebbia (1934 milk regulation case)
struck down the law, applying the precedents of both Adkins v. Children’s Hospital and Lochner v. New York (1905 state regulation of maximum working hours case).
In Griswold, the concept of substantive due process has been applied to _______.
the right to privacy
the right to religious freedom
the right to education
the right to freedom of speech
In Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955), the Supreme Court heard a substantive due process challenge to an Oklahoma law that said that opticians could only grind lenses and fit eyeglasses when presented with a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The law was challenged as unreasonable, unwise, and wasteful. The Supreme Court ________.
upheld the law saying that questions about the wisdom or need for a particular law should be answered by the legislature and not the courts. Thus, challenges to such laws should be made through the electoral process and not through lawsuits
struck down the law explaining that although the relevance of substantive due process had declined, it still barred states from enacting regulatory laws without sufficient evidence demonstrating the need for such regulation
struck down the law saying that the state had failed to show that it had a compelling state interest in passing such legislation
upheld the law, concluding that the state had satisfied its obligations under the compelling state interest test
