Legal Definitions - fundamental right

A fundamental right refers to a group of personal liberties that the Supreme Court has recognized as so essential to individual freedom that they receive the highest level of protection from government interference.

These rights are either explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (particularly in the Bill of Rights) or have been identified by the courts as inherent to the concept of "due process" – the idea that the government must respect all legal rights owed to a person. When a government law or action appears to restrict a fundamental right, courts apply a very rigorous standard of review called "strict scrutiny." This means the government must prove that its action serves a "compelling government interest" (a truly vital and important goal) and that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest, meaning it's the least restrictive way possible to accomplish the goal. If the government cannot meet this high bar, the law or action is typically struck down as unconstitutional.

It's important to note that while these rights are highly protected, the Supreme Court can, over time, re-evaluate whether a particular right qualifies as fundamental, as it did with the "right to contract."

Here are some examples illustrating fundamental rights:

• Parental Autonomy in Education: Imagine a state legislature passes a law requiring all children to attend public schools, effectively banning private schools and homeschooling options for all families.

  Explanation: This law would likely be challenged as infringing upon parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Because this right is considered fundamental, the state would face "strict scrutiny." This means the state would have to demonstrate an overwhelmingly compelling government interest for such a broad restriction (e.g., an immediate, widespread public safety threat that only universal public schooling could address) and prove that the law is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest. Without such an extraordinary justification, the law would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.

• Freedom of Movement within a State: Consider a city ordinance that prohibits residents from leaving their designated neighborhood between certain hours, even for non-emergency reasons, without obtaining a special permit from the city.

  Explanation: This ordinance would likely be challenged as infringing on a fundamental aspect of personal liberty – the right to move freely within one's own community or state. While the right to travel between states is explicitly recognized, the broader concept of freedom of movement within one's locality is also a deeply protected liberty. The city would need to show an extremely compelling reason (like a severe, widespread public health crisis or an immediate, verifiable security threat) and that this restriction is absolutely necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. Otherwise, it would be deemed an unconstitutional overreach.

• Right to Refuse Unwanted Medical Treatment: Suppose a state passes a law mandating that all adults over 50 must undergo a specific, non-life-saving medical screening procedure, even if they object due to personal beliefs or potential health risks, and there is no public health emergency.

  Explanation: This law would likely be challenged as infringing upon an individual's fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make personal decisions about their own medical care. This right, often derived from the broader rights to privacy and liberty, is highly protected. The state would have to demonstrate an exceptionally strong and compelling government interest to justify forcing such a procedure on individuals, and that the law is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest. Without meeting this high bar of "strict scrutiny," the law would likely be found unconstitutional.