introduce

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly stipulate the right to privacy. However, the Bill of Rights reflects james madison's and other lawmakers' concerns about specific aspects of privacy protection, such as the privacy of belief (amendment 1), opposition to the privacy of requiring houses to be used to house soldiers (amendment 3), opposition to the privacy of people and property subjected to unreasonable search (amendment 4) and the privilege of self-incrimination in amendment 5, which provides protection for personal information privacy. In addition, the Ninth Amendment stipulates that "some listed rights" in the Bill of Rights shall not be interpreted as denying or belittling other rights enjoyed by the people. The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some people (including Judge Goldberg in his Griswold agreement) explained the Ninth Amendment as a reason to read the Bill of Rights extensively, and the way to protect privacy was not specified in the first eight amendments.

Whether the Constitution protects privacy in a way that is not clearly stipulated in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originators, including the most famous judge Robert Burke, believed that there was no such universal right to privacy at his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearing. However, the Supreme Court began as early as 1923, and continued to interpret the "freedom" guarantee of the 14th Amendment extensively through its recent decisions, so as to guarantee a fairly broad right to privacy, which has included decisions on child support, childbirth, marriage and termination of medical treatment. Polls show that most Americans support a broader interpretation of the Constitution.

In two judgments of 1920, the Supreme Court interpreted the freedom clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibited the states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents in shaping children's education. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court overturned a state law prohibiting the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children before the ninth grade. The state believes that foreign languages can lead to instilling in students thoughts and feelings that have nothing to do with the best interests of the country. However, the Supreme Court, in a judgment written by Judge Macreynolds by 7 votes to 2, concluded that the state failed to prove it necessary to infringe on the right of parents and teachers to decide what kind of educational courses are most suitable for young students. Judge Macreynolds wrote:

"Although the Court has not tried to define the freedom so guaranteed accurately, the term has been widely considered and some of its contents have been clearly stated. Undoubtedly, it not only means freedom from physical constraints, but also means that individuals have the right to contract, engage in any ordinary occupation in life, acquire useful knowledge, get married, establish a family and raise children, worship God according to their own conscience, and generally enjoy those privileges that have long been recognized by common law as essential for free people to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. "

Two years later, in the case of Pierce v. Sisterhood, the court overturned a law in Oregon that forced all children to attend public schools, which effectively closed all parish schools in the state.

1960' s privacy principle was reborn in Warren Court in 1960' s. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the court overturned a state law prohibiting married couples from owning, selling and distributing contraceptives. People have provided different reasons for this conclusion, from Justice Douglas's court opinion that the penumbra and radiation guaranteed by various Bill of Rights create a "privacy zone", to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the reference of the Ninth Amendment to "other rights reserved by the people", to Justice Harlan's view that the freedom clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state government from engaging in acts inconsistent with the government based on the concept of order and freedom (such as searching for marriage)

In the case of 1969, the court agreed that the right of privacy protects the right of individuals to own and watch pornography in their own homes, including pornography that may be the basis for criminal proceedings against their manufacturers or distributors. Judge Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia: Both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment support the court's decision:

"No matter what other laws and regulations that control obscenity are justified, we don't think they touch the privacy of a person's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no right to tell a person sitting alone in his home what books he can read or what movies he can watch. Our entire constitutional heritage rebellious ideas give the government power to control people's minds. "

In Roe v Wade (1972), the Hamburg court expanded the scope of privacy to include women's right to abortion, but later refused several invitations to expand this right. In the case of Kelly v. Johnson (1976), the Supreme Court upheld a provision on gfd, a policeman, which showed the trend of restricting the scope of "privacy zone" (however, the court did not solve the question whether the government could apply the grooming law to the public, because it believed that the public had some free interest in personal appearance. However, some state courts are not so reluctant to push the privacy field into new areas. Alaska's Supreme Court has gone further than any other state in protecting privacy. In the case of Ravin v. State (1975), Stanley and Griswold were used for reference, but the Alaska Constitution made a ruling on the more generous protection of privacy. The Supreme Court of Alaska held that citizens' right to own and use a small amount of marijuana in their own homes was protected by the Constitution.

In recent decades, the Supreme Court in the case of Cruzan v. Missouri Ministry of Health (1990) recognized that individuals enjoy the benefits of freedom, including the right to decide on medical measures to prolong life (although the Supreme Court acknowledged that states may impose certain conditions on the exercise of this right). In 2003, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned an earlier judgment, arguing that Texas violated their freedom clause by enforcing a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy on two gay men. Justice Kennedy, when writing an article for Lawrence's court, broadly reaffirmed the constitutional protection of privacy:

"These things involve the most intimate and personal choices that a person may make in his life. These choices are crucial to personal dignity and autonomy and are the core of the freedom protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The core of freedom is the right to define their own existence, meaning, universe and mysteries of human life ... Petitioners have the right to demand respect for their private lives. The state cannot belittle their existence or control their destiny by criminalizing their private sexual behavior. The freedom granted to them by the due process clause gives them full rights to engage in their own actions without government intervention. This is the promise of the constitution, and there is a field of personal freedom that the government cannot enter. "

One question that the Supreme Court has been trying to solve in its privacy ruling is how much interest States must show in order to overcome individuals' claims that they have violated protected freedom interests. Early judgments such as Griswold and Roe show that when States impose a burden on basic privacy, they must show convincing interests and narrow means, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence show that the burden on States is not so heavy.

The future of privacy protection is still an open question. For example, Judge scalia and Judge Thomas are not inclined to protect privacy, except in cases where claims are based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees. However, the public wants a constitution to fill the privacy gap and prevent the ultra vires Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed. The best way is for the court to continue to recognize the protection of general privacy.

English version only