Has a right determined to be constitutional ever been reversed?

[Imardr]

Jurisdiction

California

Need help settling a discussion.

In the case of Row v Wade, it was determined that the woman's right to an abortion was guaranteed by the due process provision of the 14th amendment.

Has a ruling - such as this - of a constitutional right ever been reversed in a subsequent SCOTUS ruling?

 

[army judge]

Need help settling a discussion.

In the case of Row v Wade, it was determined that the woman's right to an abortion was guaranteed by the due process provision of the 14th amendment.

Has a ruling - such as this - of a constitutional right ever been reversed in a subsequent SCOTUS ruling?

With the passage of time Supreme Court decisions do get reversed when the court grants cert to new cases.

The ruling in Dred Scott was changed as black people are no longer considered to be property, for example.

Brown v Board of Education began desegregating our schools, as another example.

An Internet search will reveal others.

 

[mightymoose]

The short answer is yes, the court does from time to time reverse earlier decisions with reasoning that they were flawed in some way.

For the sake of your argument/example, it may be important to note the details of the specific decisions being discussed.
In the case of Roe the decision was not so much affirming a woman's right to choose as it was denying states the ability to criminalize the abortion process.
Even after Roe there remained restrictions on abortions that the court justified, despite the woman's right to choose.

 

[Imardr]

Forgive me. I think that my original question was too vague.

Let me rephrase:

Has The supreme court - in one ruling - determined that a person, or group had a specific right guaranteed by the Constitution, only to reverse itself in a later ruling and rescind that right?

One possible example is wolf v Colorado and then mapp v Ohio.

Looking for an example where SCOTUS ruled: Yes the Constitution protects you're right to X , and then later ruled no, the Constitution does not protect your right to X.

BTW..... thank you for posting a reply.

 

[army judge]

Looking for an example where SCOTUS ruled: Yes the Constitution protects you're right to X , and then later ruled no, the Constitution does not protect your right to X.

I don't often do homework assignments, but my interest in the Supremes often overcomes my reluctance to say NO to homework, I offer you a few Supreme tidbits to pique your intellectual curiosity about the Supremes.

Fewer than 2% of Supreme Court rulings are ever overturned.

The US Supreme Court has overturned its own precedents 236 times during its 230 years of existence (as of March, 2019).

If you think that sounds high, consider this: Between 1946 and 2016, there were 8,809 decisions made by the high court.

Here are 10 decisions overturned by the Supremes:

Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Adler v. Board of Education (1952)

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Pace v. Alabama (1883)

Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990)

Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)

Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

The case I originally cited: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)



Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

In the aftermath of the Civil War and the 13th and 14th Amendments, southern states passed laws attempting to create disadvantages for blacks, restrict their rights and keep them separate from whites. Homer Plessy had one-eighth black ancestry, and his light skin allowed him to frequently ride in the white sections of trains, even though Louisiana had laws establishing separate facilities for blacks. He had been selected by the Citizens' Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law specifically for that purpose -- the intent was to carry the case to the Supreme Court in hopes that it would strike down the law. Plessy sat in the white section of a train, announced his ancestry, and then refused to move to the black section. He was arrested.

The argument against Louisiana's "separate facilities" laws (and those of other states) was that they violated the 14th Amendment, the separation indicating an institutional belief that blacks were inferior to whites. The Supreme Court didn't believe that the laws were a constitutional violation, ruling against Plessy in a 7-1 ruling (Justice David Josiah Brewer's daughter had recently died, so he wasn't in Washington to hear the case).

This ruling entrenched the legal doctrine of "separate but equal" in U.S. law for more than 50 years. While in Plessy's specific case, the black train was in fact of equal quality to the white train, this was the exception. During the "separate but equal" years, black facilities were underfunded, poorly maintained and generally anything but equal.

In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy, finding that "separate but equal" was invalid and banning racial segregation. Southern states didn't give in easily, and the threat of military force was necessary in some instances to enforce desegregation.


You can seek information on the others.

 

[Imardr]

Wow!

I am overwhelmed that you provided as through an examination as you did.

Please accept my appreciation for your military service as well.

I think Wolf v Colorado is the only decision that fits the parameters I was looking for. I have to admit I was expecting a lot more, however the narrow scope of those parameters precluded that.

I will return to the robust and spirited discussion with the information garnered with your assistance.

Again, Thank You for your time.

 

[army judge]

Wow!

I am overwhelmed that you provided as through an examination as you did.

Please accept my appreciation for your military service as well.

I think Wolf v Colorado is the only decision that fits the parameters I was looking for. I have to admit I was expecting a lot more, however the narrow scope of those parameters precluded that.

I will return to the robust and spirited discussion with the information garnered with your assistance.

Again, Thank You for your time.

You're most welcome.

The research was done years ago, as I wrote an article for one of my law school's two student published journals, which ended up being published in both.

I was conned into writing the article by my "con law" professor.

Back in the day if you graduated with a 3.5 (or better) you didn't have to for the bar exam, you gained bar admission upon recommendation of the dean and faculty committee.

In all of the years I've practiced law, I never sat for one bar exam, because the other bar admissions all came through reciprocity.

Anyway, I gave you a jump start.

For your purposes "Wolf v. Colorado (1949)" does discuss abortion law.

Good luck, mate.