Natural Law Jurisprudence in U.S. Supreme Court Cases Since Roe V. Wade

This text will examine U.S. Supreme Court cases which highlight, feature and illuminate some facets of natural law reasoning since the Court’s decree in Roe v. Wade. For most of our constitutional and legal history, there has been an exhilarating debate about whether natural law commands or encourages certain legal resolutions - even from the time of the Founders. Most would concur that the legal philosophy of Jefferson and other Founders favored a natural law basis for this republic and its corresponding rights. And while the proposed text accepts that the concept and understanding of natural law reasoning has both supporters and detractors in contemporary settings, earlier Supreme Court rulings on controversial subject matter used natural law language with regularity. Since the 1970s, the idea of a perennial, immutable and unassailable natural law has lost favor. And given the recent surge in controversial case law and conflicting decisions on highly charged topics, a return to first principles grounded in nature and natural law might be beneficial. Indeed, the proposed research hopes to gauge its current relevance, usage and reliance in more modern judicial cases.

Charles P. Nemeth, chair and professor at John Jay College in New York City, has spent the vast majority of his professional life in the study and practice of law and justice. He is a recognized expert on professional ethics and the justice system, private sector justice and private security systems. An educator for more than 40 years and a prolifi c writer, Nemeth has published widely on law and justice and also on Thomas Aquinas. He has also served as chief editor of the peer-reviewed journal The Homeland Security Review since 2005.