Abstract
Substantive due process has been of great importance to the decision of many Supreme Court cases since its beginning. Since its inception in Lochner v. New York,[1] the Supreme Court has used the theory of substantive due process in order to grant numerous rights to individuals and this theory has been interpreted differently by each Justice that has crossed its path.
This thesis will explain how recent changes in the composition of the United States Supreme Court make it likely that judicial opinions involving substantive due process will be decided differently. The United States Supreme Court’s future substantive due process jurisprudence will narrow the reach of Substantive Due Process. Justices and their past opinions as well as statements on their analysis of substantive due process will be scrutinized in order to come to this conclusion.
This thesis will examine the evolution of substantive due process as well as how each Justice’s distinct views affect it within the Supreme Court’s composition. By determining how the Supreme Court is most likely to proceed and examining the rights already granted through substantive due process this thesis will come to a determination on whether the protection of the rights granted to individuals would be maintained.
[1] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905)
Thesis Completion
2020
Semester
Spring
Thesis Chair/Advisor
Merriam, Eric
Degree
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.)
College
College of Community Innovation and Education
Department
Legal Studies
Language
English
Access Status
Open Access
Release Date
5-1-2020
Recommended Citation
Olivo Factor, Vitoria, "The Evolution of Substantive Due Process Throughout Time" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 740.
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/740