{"title":"分岔审查时代的最高法院3","authors":"G. White","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments followed an uneven pattern in the period covered in this volume. From a posture of aggressive review in cases posing due process challenges to state and judicial legislation, the court retreated to one of deference when the legislation affected “social and economic transactions.” But in other cases, such as when free speech and freedom of religion were restricted by legislative or administrative policies, the Court retained an aggressive posture. Eventually, after initially announcing that it eschewed “substantive” interpretations of the Due Process Clauses, the Court began advancing those interpretations in cases involving restrictions on the use of contraceptives and abortion decisions.","PeriodicalId":283594,"journal":{"name":"Law in American History, Volume III","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Supreme Court in the Era of Bifurcated Review III\",\"authors\":\"G. White\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments followed an uneven pattern in the period covered in this volume. From a posture of aggressive review in cases posing due process challenges to state and judicial legislation, the court retreated to one of deference when the legislation affected “social and economic transactions.” But in other cases, such as when free speech and freedom of religion were restricted by legislative or administrative policies, the Court retained an aggressive posture. Eventually, after initially announcing that it eschewed “substantive” interpretations of the Due Process Clauses, the Court began advancing those interpretations in cases involving restrictions on the use of contraceptives and abortion decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":283594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law in American History, Volume III\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law in American History, Volume III\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law in American History, Volume III","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Supreme Court in the Era of Bifurcated Review III
The Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments followed an uneven pattern in the period covered in this volume. From a posture of aggressive review in cases posing due process challenges to state and judicial legislation, the court retreated to one of deference when the legislation affected “social and economic transactions.” But in other cases, such as when free speech and freedom of religion were restricted by legislative or administrative policies, the Court retained an aggressive posture. Eventually, after initially announcing that it eschewed “substantive” interpretations of the Due Process Clauses, the Court began advancing those interpretations in cases involving restrictions on the use of contraceptives and abortion decisions.