Right to Privacy

(redirected from Warren Court)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Wikipedia.
Related to Warren Court: Rehnquist Court

Right to Privacy

The right not to be violated without one's consent. For example, the right to privacy includes the right to be secure in one's own person or home. The right to privacy in guaranteed in many jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions that do not explicitly provide a right to privacy may provide some protections. For example, a government may prohibit searches in a private area without a warrant.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
When presented with opportunities to build on the work of its predecessor, the Burger Court declined to extend Warren Court precedents and, instead, distinguished them away.
During that "thrilling" year, (28) Fiss watched the unassuming Marshall resist Second Circuit powerhouses like Henry Friendly, who disapproved of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution.
Besides that, some of the Warren Court's objectives had been accomplished, (51) so further expansions of criminal defendants' rights might not have been justified.
Brent Bozell, Raoul Berger, and Robert Bork was developed explicitly to counter the Warren Court's progressivism.
Even before Miranda, the Warren Court was particularly concerned with the privilege against self-incrimination.
A linear regression of the BFI on the term variable shows that the BFI is flat during the Vinson years (1946-1952) and dips slightly (though significantly so) during the Warren Court era (1953-1968), (44) dropping by about 0.6% with each passing term.
Of all that the Warren Court did to make constitutional law "fair," as Chief Justice Earl Warren so often demanded that it be, the Gideon decision was its noblest effort.
Stone's understanding of the Court's proper role became a template for the jurisprudence of the Roosevelt and Warren courts and has not been successfully disavowed by any subsequent court.
During the time of the Warren Court, the Supreme Court made specific clauses of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, extended the right to counsel to all indigent defendants, established that suspects to a crime should be informed of their rights, and created, in Mapp, what has come to be known as the "poisonous tree doctrine" by disallowing the use of illegally seized evidence at trial.
Unfortunately, as Bork observed, "it would not be amiss to point out that the principles required of the Warren Court's decisions never did put in an appearance." According to Bork, judicial review by the Warren Court was founded on a flawed premise: that courts must 'make fundamental value choices' in order to "protect our constitutional rights and liberties." But if the Constitution already makes those fundamental value choices, then for the Court to do so is profoundly illegitimate.
Originalism became best known as a Reagan era conservative reaction to the Warren Court era and the desire to restrain what was perceived as judicial activism.
Although the Warren Court was an exception, the chief historical role of the federal courts has been to say no to democratically enacted social reform.