Is the doctrine of substantive due process more appropriate for use in supporting contract rights as in Lochner v. New York than right to privacy as in Roe v. Wade?

Answer 1

When directly comparing the two cases, it becomes clear that substantive due process actually undermined workers' rights in Lochner v. New York, (1905), but was used to elevate and enhance rights in Roe v. Wade (the "right to privacy" precedent was actually set in Griswold v. Connecticut,(1965), not Roe).

Lochner reduced individuals' legal rights by depriving them of protection from government regulation of the workplace, leaving them at the mercy of powerful employers. Instead of gaining rights, as suggested in the opinion of the Court, Lochnerensured the working class remained a source of cheap and exploitable labor for industry by stripping them of the ability to support themselves without working long hours.

Roe v. Wade, (1973) on the other hand, advanced the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965). While most right-to-life supporters would probably evaluate this question negatively because of the emotional tie to abortion, the fact is the use of substantive due process in Roe actually protects the individual from unwelcome outside intrusion in a variety of situations. Privacy rights have been used for more than upholding abortion laws: they've also resulted in couples having access to Birth Control and family planning information; have protected people from laws regulating private sexual practices between consenting adults; and help maintain the integrity of medical records and other personal information, among other things.

Because the doctrine of substantive due process involves implied liberty interests not explicitly written in a single constitutional amendment, it lends itself to interesting contortions that may be perceived as either protective or harmful, depending on individual beliefs and values.

Since the question requires expression of opinion, I believe the doctrine is better applied in instances that allow greater use of free will, as in Roe (or Griswold), than in instances that inhibit free will, as in Lochner.

Incidentally, the way this question is phrased is somewhat reminiscent of Republican push polls. Whomever posed it chose to compare what most contemporary people would consider an emotionally neutral case with one that's emotionally charged. Expect opinions to be skewed based on ideology: Pro-choice supporters may favor the use of substantive due process in Roe v. Wade, (1973); Right-to-Life supporters may favor the use of substantive due process in Lochner v. New York, (1905).

Answer 2

The doctrine of substantive due process can be applied to protect both contract rights and rights to privacy. However, the case of Lochner v. New York, which applied substantive due process to strike down a state law regulating working hours, has been widely criticized for its interference with social and economic legislation. In contrast, the case of Roe v. Wade, which applied substantive due process to recognize the right to privacy and protect a woman's right to choose an abortion, has been considered more justified in balancing individual rights against state interests.