This article is not a treatise on the family laws of the world (which would require at least one volume), but a general overview of the general legal problems associated with the family. For example, the Supreme Court has found in a number of cases that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a “private sphere” of family life – the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and procreation. The Court also ruled that citizens have a fundamental right to marry, rooted in freedom and privacy, and have the right to marital and individual intimacy in contraception and reproduction. Because family law was primarily state law, state trial judges generally have wide discretion in interpreting their own state laws. There is no legal impediment to federal courts hearing these cases when they involve citizens of various states where the value in dispute exceeds $75,000. However, a “family relations exception” created by the courts in the nineteenth century allows federal courts to avoid judicial intervention in substantive issues of internal relations, such as divorce and its incidents. As recently as 1992, the Supreme Court declared that the whole question of internal relations was a matter for the law of States. The coronavirus pandemic continues to disrupt daily life in the EU in unprecedented ways. But the way this affects our societies is changing. As governments gradually lift some of the measures to contain the spread of COVID-19, new human rights concerns are arising: how to ensure that the rights to life and health are respected as daily life moves to a “new normal”? This bulletin deals with the declaration of a state of emergency or equivalent and how they were reviewed. It addresses the impact on fundamental rights in key areas of daily life and includes a thematic focus on the impact of the pandemic on older persons. Article 16 (1) The right of every person to integrity and privacy is guaranteed. This right may be restricted only in cases expressly provided for by law.
(…) Section 19 (1) Everyone has the right to respect for human dignity, personal honour, reputation and the protection of his reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to protection against unauthorized interference with private and family life. Section 21 (1) The home is inviolable. It cannot be entered without the consent of the resident. (2) A house search shall be permitted only in the context of criminal proceedings and only on the basis of a written order of the judge. The manner of the search shall be determined by law. (3) Other interference with the inviolability of the home may be permitted only if necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the life, health or property of persons, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or the prevention of a serious threat to public order.
If the dwelling is also used for commercial purposes or for the exercise of another economic activity, such violations may be authorized by law even if it is necessary for the performance of the tasks of the public administration. Article 22 (1) The confidentiality of letters and the secrecy of messages and other written documents as well as the protection of personal data shall be guaranteed. 2. No one may violate the secrecy of correspondence and the secrecy of other written documents and records, whether kept secret, sent by mail or otherwise, except in cases provided for by law. The secrecy of messages transmitted by telephone, telegraph or similar means is also guaranteed. There is much to celebrate about this empirical shift in family law. Traditionally, family law decision-makers have relied on a combination of moral judgments, dominant cultural norms and perceived common sense. 12 12 See section I.A. Closing An empirical justification of family law has considerable advantages over this historical approach. 13 13 See section II.A. Close A detailed understanding of family life and the legal system is essential to developing effective rules. A rigorous review of empirical evidence can guide government investments, promote the efficient and effective use of limited resources, and give decision-makers a clearer picture of where legal contributions could lead to specific social outcomes.
It can help family law be more inclusive and move beyond narrow dominant norms. And it has the potential to depoliticize struggles for family recognition and support, or at least separate political arguments and social beliefs from empirical evidence. 14 14 With the new presidential administration skeptical of well-established science, the evidence may be greater than ever. Perhaps the best example of President Trump`s willingness to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence is climate change. Compare Juliet Eilperin, Trump says `no one really knows` if climate change is real, Wash. Post (December 11, 2016), www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/trump-says-nobody-really-knows-if-climate-change-is-real/?utm_term=.9a2c5009c609 [perma.cc/9SV7-FHPC] (reports that then-President-elect Trump said of climate change: “I`m always open-minded. No one really knows”), with Scientific Consensus: Earth`s Climate Is Warming, Global Climate Change, NASA, climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ [perma.cc/YF6S-FUZQ] (last visited September 11, 2017) (“[Ninety-seven] percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: trends in global warming over the past century are most likely due to human activities.”). However, President Trump`s skepticism of the well-established evidence for childhood vaccines is a good example of family law. See Michael D. Shear et al., Anti-Vaccine Activist Says Trump Wants Him to Lead Panel on Immunization Safety, N.Y.
Times (January 10, 2017), www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/anti-vaccine-activist-trump-immunizations.html (filed in Columbia Law Review) (describes how then-President-elect Trump met with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a vaccine skeptic, and asked him to chair a committee on vaccine safety). For a discussion of the empirical evidence and legal debate on mandatory vaccines, see infratext notes 237-244. It is therefore not surprising that Professor Kenji Yoshino says about litigation involving legislative facts: “There is a trial.” 15 15 Yoshino, op. cit. cit., note 1, p. 280 (emphasis omitted); see also Linda Greenhouse & Reva B.
