Civil Rights, Individual Liberties, and Substantive Due Process in Modern Jurisprudence

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization marked a seismic shift in American jurisprudence, carrying with it wide-ranging implications both symbolically and materially as to the Court’s future and where rights lie.

Dobbs brought out the worst of vitriol across political lines. It invariably changed the way we think of fundamental rights, legally and socially.  If the central thrust of  Dobbs is that a person’s right to terminate a pregnancy stemmed from “fruit of the poison tree,” do we rethink how we approach those civil liberties that facilitate a forward-thinking society? Are all substantive due process rights derived from that same principle? Or are rights like abortion sui generis or distinctly unique—that is, should substantive due process rights undergo individualized scrutiny in lieu of our current 5th and 14th Amendment considerations? Where does this change the role of the judicial system, and what do we make of our Constitution now? What role, if any, does  stare decisis play in attempting to predict the Court’s posture? And does it matter—are we in a post-judicial world anyways?

These questions and more will guide this Fall’s symposium. Given the importance and relevance of the Court following this most recent term, this symposium will feature a cluster of notes centered around these very topics—ranging from papers concerning more granular issues to broader trends our Writers see. 

Submissions will be due the day of our in-person symposium, December 2nd. Notes should be around 1500 words, but no longer than 3000. Submissions need not be written exclusively for the symposium; they can be papers written for course credit if they relate to the theme in a significant way.