substantive due process challenge in Alabama

2011The Court has recognized as fundamental, the right to vote and to associate freely, Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); the right to travel interstate, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); and those familial rights referred to supra which fall within a recognized ‘zone of privacy.’ [When the] case involves neither a ‘suspect class’ nor a ‘fundamental right,’ the rational basis test is the proper test to apply to either a substantive due process challeng

2011The Court has recognized as fundamental, the right to vote and to associate freely, Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); the right to travel interstate, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); and those familial rights referred to supra which fall within a recognized ‘zone of privacy.’ [When the] case involves neither a ‘suspect class’ nor a ‘fundamental right,’ the rational basis test is the proper test to apply to either a substantive due process challeng

2011The Court has recognized as fundamental, the right to vote and to associate freely, Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); the right to travel interstate, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); and those familial rights referred to supra which fall within a recognized ‘zone of privacy.’ [When the] case involves neither a ‘suspect class’ nor a ‘fundamental right,’ the rational basis test is the proper test to apply to either a substantive due process challeng

2011The Court has recognized as fundamental, the right to vote and to associate freely, Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); the right to travel interstate, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); and those familial rights referred to supra which fall within a recognized ‘zone of privacy.’ [When the] case involves neither a ‘suspect class’ nor a ‘fundamental right,’ the rational basis test is the proper test to apply to either a substantive due process challeng

2011The Court has recognized as fundamental, the right to vote and to associate freely, Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); the right to travel interstate, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); and those familial rights referred to supra which fall within a recognized ‘zone of privacy.’ [When the] case involves neither a ‘suspect class’ nor a ‘fundamental right,’ the rational basis test is the proper test to apply to either a substantive due process challeng

2011The Court has recognized as fundamental, the right to vote and to associate freely, Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 , 89 S.Ct. 5 , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); the right to travel interstate, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); and those familial rights referred to supra which fall within a recognized ‘zone of privacy.’ [When the] case involves neither a ‘suspect class’ nor a ‘fundamental right,’ the rational basis test is the proper test to apply to either a substantive due process challeng

2010(Pet. at para. 59, 61-62, 67-68) This claim is addressed as follows: "(a) This claim is procedurally barred from this Court's review, under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and Rule 32.2(a)(5) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, because it could have been but was not raised at trial or on direct appeal. *1249 Nicks v. State , 783 So.2d 895 , 906-07 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Medina v. Singletary , 59 F.3d 1095 , 1106 (11th Cir.1995) ('A Pate claim "can and must be raised on direct appeal" ') (quoting James v. Singletary , 957 F.2d 1562 , 1572 (11th Cir.1992) ). "(b) It does not appear that Scott raises a su

2010To the extent Scott does raise a substantive due process claim, however, it is summarily denied pursuant to Ala.R.Crim.P. 32.7(d) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the facts alleged do not demonstrate his incompetence. '[A] petitioner raising a substantive claim of incompetency is entitled to no presumption of incompetency and must demonstrate his or her incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence.' Nicks , 783 So.2d at 908 -09 (quoting Medina , 59 F.3d at 1106 ).

2010(Pet. at para. 59, 61-62, 67-68) This claim is addressed as follows: "(a) This claim is procedurally barred from this Court's review, under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and Rule 32.2(a)(5) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, because it could have been but was not raised at trial or on direct appeal. *1249 Nicks v. State , 783 So.2d 895 , 906-07 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Medina v. Singletary , 59 F.3d 1095 , 1106 (11th Cir.1995) ('A Pate claim "can and must be raised on direct appeal" ') (quoting James v. Singletary , 957 F.2d 1562 , 1572 (11th Cir.1992) ). "(b) It does not appear that Scott raises a su

2010(Pet. at para. 59, 61-62, 67-68) This claim is addressed as follows: "(a) This claim is procedurally barred from this Court's review, under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and Rule 32.2(a)(5) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, because it could have been but was not raised at trial or on direct appeal. *1249 Nicks v. State , 783 So.2d 895 , 906-07 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Medina v. Singletary , 59 F.3d 1095 , 1106 (11th Cir.1995) ('A Pate claim "can and must be raised on direct appeal" ') (quoting James v. Singletary , 957 F.2d 1562 , 1572 (11th Cir.1992) ). "(b) It does not appear that Scott raises a su

2014“The right to maintain family integrity is a fundamental right protected by the due process requirements of the Constitution.” Bowman v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 534 So.2d 304, 305 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (citing Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), citing in turn May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 , 73 S.Ct. 840 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953)). “ ‘[T]he liberty interest protected by the substantive due process clause was [not] intended to protect every conceivable family relationship from governmental interference, no matter how far removed....’ Pittsley [ v. Warish ], 927 F.2d [3,] 9 [ (1st C

2014“The right to maintain family integrity is a fundamental right protected by the due process requirements of the Constitution.” Bowman v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 534 So.2d 304, 305 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (citing Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), citing in turn May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 , 73 S.Ct. 840 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953)). “ ‘[T]he liberty interest protected by the substantive due process clause was [not] intended to protect every conceivable family relationship from governmental interference, no matter how far removed....’ Pittsley [ v. Warish ], 927 F.2d [3,] 9 [ (1st C

2014“The right to maintain family integrity is a fundamental right protected by the due process requirements of the Constitution.” Bowman v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 534 So.2d 304, 305 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (citing Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), citing in turn May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 , 73 S.Ct. 840 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953)). “ ‘[T]he liberty interest protected by the substantive due process clause was [not] intended to protect every conceivable family relationship from governmental interference, no matter how far removed....’ Pittsley [ v. Warish ], 927 F.2d [3,] 9 [ (1st C

2011Flores, 507 U.S. at 302 .

2011Gideon v. Alabama State Ethics Comm’n, 379 So.2d 570 (Ala.1980). ‘Under the rational basis test the Court asks: (a) Whether the classification furthers a proper governmental purpose, and (b) whether the classification is rationally related to that purpose.’ 379 So.2d at 574 .” 33 So.3d at 564 .

2006Strandberg, 791 F.2d at 748 and note 1.

2005However, we need not decide this issue because Barfield's due process claim fails even under the less stringent Shields/Piper standard." 396 F.3d at 1149 n. 8.

2005As the Supreme Court has explained, to establish a substantive due process violation in cases involving executive action, the plaintiff must prove the challenged conduct is so egregious that it `shocks the conscience.' County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 846-47 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 1716-17 n. 8, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998).

2005As the Supreme Court has explained, to establish a substantive due process violation in cases involving executive action, the plaintiff must prove the challenged conduct is so egregious that it `shocks the conscience.' County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 846-47 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 1716-17 n. 8, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998).

2004School Dist. , 15 F.3d 443 , 450-52 (5th Cir. 1994), quoting in turn Collins v. City of Harker Heights , 503 U.S. 115 , 125 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 , 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)).

2004School Dist. , 15 F.3d 443 , 450-52 (5th Cir. 1994), quoting in turn Collins v. City of Harker Heights , 503 U.S. 115 , 125 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 , 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)).

2004School Dist. , 15 F.3d 443 , 450-52 (5th Cir. 1994), quoting in turn Collins v. City of Harker Heights , 503 U.S. 115 , 125 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 , 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)).

2002Gideon v. Alabama State Ethics Commission , 379 So.2d 570 , 574 (Ala. 1980). "`Under the rational basis test the Court asks: (a) Whether the classification furthers a proper governmental purpose and (b) whether the classification is rationally related to that purpose.' Gideon , [3]79 So.2d at 574." 393 So.2d at 1055-56 .

1999To the extent, however, that Nicks's claim raises a substantive due process claim — i.e., that he was tried and convicted while he was mentally incompetent — the claim is not subject to procedural bars. 5 See Nguyen v. Reynolds , 131 F.3d 1340 , 1346 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 852 , 119 S.Ct. 128 , 142 L.Ed.2d 103 (1998).

1999To the extent, however, that Nicks's claim raises a substantive due process claim — i.e., that he was tried and convicted while he was mentally incompetent — the claim is not subject to procedural bars. 5 See Nguyen v. Reynolds , 131 F.3d 1340 , 1346 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 852 , 119 S.Ct. 128 , 142 L.Ed.2d 103 (1998).

1999To the extent, however, that Nicks's claim raises a substantive due process claim — i.e., that he was tried and convicted while he was mentally incompetent — the claim is not subject to procedural bars. 5 See Nguyen v. Reynolds , 131 F.3d 1340 , 1346 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 852 , 119 S.Ct. 128 , 142 L.Ed.2d 103 (1998).

1999Therefore, we reject the means-end relationship test of Lochner and its progeny, in favor of the more deferential articulation of the substantive-due-process test enunciated in Carolene Products , 304 U.S. at 152 -54 .