Legal Definitions - fundamental interest

A fundamental interest refers to a right or liberty that is considered so essential to individual freedom, human dignity, or the structure of a democratic society that it receives the highest level of legal protection against government interference. When a government action potentially restricts a fundamental interest, courts apply a very strict standard of review, requiring the government to show a compelling reason for its action and that the action is precisely designed to achieve that reason.

Here are some examples illustrating fundamental interests:

• The Right to Marry: Imagine a state law that attempts to prohibit individuals from marrying based on certain characteristics, such as a specific profession or income level. The right to marry is considered a fundamental interest because it is deeply personal and central to individual autonomy and the formation of families. A court reviewing such a law would likely find it unconstitutional, as the state would struggle to demonstrate a compelling government interest that justifies such a broad restriction on who can marry.

• The Right to Vote: Consider a state attempting to pass a law that significantly restricts who can vote, for instance, by imposing a poll tax or requiring voters to own property. The right to vote is a fundamental interest because it is crucial for a functioning democracy and allows citizens to participate in their government. Courts would subject such a law to strict scrutiny, demanding a very strong justification from the state, which would be difficult to provide, as these types of restrictions directly undermine democratic principles.

• The Right to Travel Freely Between States: Suppose a city tries to enact an ordinance that requires all new residents moving from out-of-state to pay a substantial fee or wait a year before accessing public services like libraries or parks. The right to travel freely between states and settle in a new one is a fundamental interest, essential for a unified nation and individual liberty. A court would likely strike down such an ordinance, as the city would struggle to show a compelling government interest that justifies burdening the fundamental right of interstate travel and equal access to public services.