Washington V. Glucksberg (1997): Privacy, Right to Die, 14th a.

• Dr. Glucksberg, along with terminally ill individuals contemplating physician assisted-suicide, brought this suit challenging the state of Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide. Washington has historically criminalized the promotion of suicide attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." Did Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide violate the 14^th A. Due Process Clause by denying competent terminally ill adults the liberty to choose death over life?

• Majority: REHNQUIST: No. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two primary aspects: the protection of our nation's objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life.

Railway Express Agency V. New York (1949): 14th a., Rational Basis review

• Section 124 of the Traffic Regulations of New York prohibits people from having advertisements on the side of their vehicle. However, the statute does allow people to advertise their own business. Suit was brought on EQUAL PROTECTION grounds because theoretically, one company is allowed to have the same sign that another company can not, despite the equal distraction to other drivers, causing traffic

• Majority: (split court) DOUGLAS: The Court upheld the statute. The Court should not judge wisdom of statute, or its effectiveness. The city has to determine what it feels will solve the traffic problem. The type of discrimination is not the type against which the Equal Protection Clause affords protection. It is no requirement that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.

• Concurring: JACKSON: The Court must be weary of statutes that only effect a minority, BUT there is a real difference between doing in self-interest and doing for hire, so that it is one thing to tolerate action from those who act on their own and its another thing to permit the same action to be promoted for a price.

Fcc V. Beach Communications (1993): 5th, 14th a, Rational Basis Review

• Act provides that cable television systems be franchised by local governmental authorities, but exempts, facilities serving "only subscribers in 1 or more multiple unit dwellings under common ownership. The FCC ruled that a satellite master antenna television (SMATV) system is also subject to the franchise. Does this violate the equal protection guarantee of the 5^th A. Due Process Clause because there is no RATIONAL BASIS for distinguishing between those facilities exempted by the statute and SMATV systems linking separately owned and managed buildings.

• Majority: THOMAS: Statute upheld. The Court discussed the methodology of minimal scrutiny review. “Whether embodied in the 14^th A or inferred from the 5^th, Equal Protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes on fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a RATIONAL BASIS for the classification.” The democratic process will rectify the problem.