• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Questions for lawyers - how do the courts define or view a 'state's interest' in something?

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
118,485
Reaction score
74,287
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
How do the courts define or view a 'state's interest' in something? My question relates to the fact that in RvW the interests of women are considered on behalf of the state. Women are equal citizens, persons will full rights. After that, secondary to that, they they examine states' interest in the unborn.

What are a state's interests in the unborn?

Then, considering that unless a woman consents, they would never know if there was an unborn...how can states 'interests' have any validity? Or how can there be an authority to act on behalf of something they done know exists?
 
In America, if the voters are interested in something, the state is interested in it too. Politicians want votes.

You can see it in the Supreme Court Barret senate hearings. The senators don't care about abortion, but they know their voters do, so the senators pretend they do too.
 
In America, if the voters are interested in something, the state is interested in it too. Politicians want votes.

You can see it in the Supreme Court Barret senate hearings. The senators don't care about abortion, but they know their voters do, so the senators
Thanks but I think it has to be more than that. Something more specific.

In that particular issue in the OP...is the state deciding it's best to have more people, more taxpayers?
 
How do the courts define or view a 'state's interest' in something? My question relates to the fact that in RvW the interests of women are considered on behalf of the state. Women are equal citizens, persons will full rights. After that, secondary to that, they they examine states' interest in the unborn.

What are a state's interests in the unborn?

Then, considering that unless a woman consents, they would never know if there was an unborn...how can states 'interests' have any validity? Or how can there be an authority to act on behalf of something they done know exists?

Sometimes the “state’s interest” is explicitly stated in the text of the law itself. Some laws will make statements or findings. At times the “state’s interest” is a logical inference based on the text of the law itself. On some occasions, the state’s interest cannot be discerned in either way, and the state’s interest is articulated to the court.

How the court “views” the state’s interest is contingent upon the level of scrutiny. Rational basis, lowest level, and the courts are rather deferential to the state’s interest. There is then what is called intermediate scrutiny, and then strict scrutiny, the latter in which the court sets a very high bar in terms of the state’s interest and the law in relation to the interest.
 
State interest means nothing more than a public policy concern of a state versus the federal government. The original question seems to take the term too literally. But again, the answer (I believe) is essentially nothing more than public policy. Perhaps that's not an answer at all?
 
State interest means nothing more than a public policy concern of a state versus the federal government. The original question seems to take the term too literally. But again, the answer (I believe) is essentially nothing more than public policy. Perhaps that's not an answer at all?
It seems to be all that I can find. Yet many court decisions take the 'state's interest' into consideration, and often weight it heavily, yet never define it.

I agree it must be different for each issue, right? But how does one find out what it is if even the courts dont define it? Is it a way to provide 'wiggle room', meaning ambiguity to either cover things more broadly or provide 'room' for future adjustment?
 
It seems to be all that I can find. Yet many court decisions take the 'state's interest' into consideration, and often weight it heavily, yet never define it.

I agree it must be different for each issue, right? But how does one find out what it is if even the courts dont define it? Is it a way to provide 'wiggle room', meaning ambiguity to either cover things more broadly or provide 'room' for future adjustment?
This is not going to be a very eloquent, or perhaps helpful answer but I will put it this way: a "state interest" is not a matter of a specific definition but more an issue of whether there is some reason the state should even care. What interest of the state, and by state I mean the populace of the state, is being advanced by the action. Do they really have a dog in the fight? If so, why? If you want to lay down naked in the middle of your 100 acre corn field, It would would be difficult to imagine what interest the state would advanced by passing a law saying nudity out doors is 100% against the law. Who is harmed by your conduct; who is aided by the law? Now, pass a reg that you can't sunbathe nude in the middle of the towne square and it might be a lot easier to demonstrate there is a state interest in barring your free expression. Hope that helps some.
 
It seems to be all that I can find. Yet many court decisions take the 'state's interest' into consideration, and often weight it heavily, yet never define it.

I agree it must be different for each issue, right? But how does one find out what it is if even the courts dont define it? Is it a way to provide 'wiggle room', meaning ambiguity to either cover things more broadly or provide 'room' for future adjustment?

I’m not sure what cases you reference with the phrase “many court decisions...yet never define it.”

As I said before, a “state interest” is at times explicitly stated in a statute, including challenged statutes in court.

On other occasions, where the statute doesn’t explicitly assert a state’s interest, the state’s interest is raised for the first time in litigation before a court by representatives/attorneys of the state.

Yet, where a statute doesn’t explicitly enumerate a state interest, it can’t be logically inferred from the text.

Then, at times, a state court itself will say specifically what the state’s interest is for a statute. However, on appeal to federal court, the federal court may reject the state’s purpose as elucidated by the state court. Indeed, this happened in Eisenstadt v Baird.
 
I’m not sure what cases you reference with the phrase “many court decisions...yet never define it.”

As I said before, a “state interest” is at times explicitly stated in a statute, including challenged statutes in court.

On other occasions, where the statute doesn’t explicitly assert a state’s interest, the state’s interest is raised for the first time in litigation before a court by representatives/attorneys of the state.

Yet, where a statute doesn’t explicitly enumerate a state interest, it can’t be logically inferred from the text.

Then, at times, a state court itself will say specifically what the state’s interest is for a statute. However, on appeal to federal court, the federal court may reject the state’s purpose as elucidated by the state court. Indeed, this happened in Eisenstadt v Baird.
Can you direct me to the 'state's interest' referred to in RvW? I know where they refer to that but I cannot find it defined.
 
Can you direct me to the 'state's interest' referred to in RvW? I know where they refer to that but I cannot find it defined.

“ The third reason is the State's interest-some phrase it in terms of duty-in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception.45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life... As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.... Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
 
“ The third reason is the State's interest-some phrase it in terms of duty-in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception.45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life... As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.... Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
OK, yes I have read that. I guess that 'protect life' just struck me as too general, too generic.

Here are my questions, not necessarily challenges to you, but my questions:

Protect that life why? Why is that in the state's interests? More tax payers?

Where is that "protect life" in the Const? Where did they derive that? The govt uses the Const to determine what and how to protect person's RIGHTS. And the unborn are specifically not persons under the Const. Nor do they have any rights recognized.

So to me, that should not stand "when it results in the violation of a woman's rights" that are protected under the Const. How can it? The govt HAS a stated obligation to protect women constitutionally, not the unborn.

Re: the orange, that only comes into play if the former bold is accepted. And that's what I'm challenging. But...what specifically then, makes that point in a pregnancy 'sufficiently compelling?' Is the unborn a life that must be protected or not?
 
It seems to be all that I can find. Yet many court decisions take the 'state's interest' into consideration, and often weight it heavily, yet never define it.

I agree it must be different for each issue, right? But how does one find out what it is if even the courts dont define it? Is it a way to provide 'wiggle room', meaning ambiguity to either cover things more broadly or provide 'room' for future adjustment?
As it may concern a State's sovereign interest as distinct from a personal individual interest. The traditional police power of a State to promote and provide for their general welfare.
 
In America, if the voters are interested in something, the state is interested in it too. Politicians want votes.

You can see it in the Supreme Court Barret senate hearings. The senators don't care about abortion, but they know their voters do, so the senators pretend they do too.

No, there is a difference between "in the public interest" and "of interest to the public".
 
Back
Top Bottom