Footnote four
|
|
Footnote four is a famous footnote from a U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Carolene Products Co.. By imposing a general presumption of constitutionality, it essentially limited judicial review to violations of specific provisions of the Constitution. It has greatly influenced equal protection jurisprudence, and even spawned a theory of judicial review (John Hart Ely's book, Democracy and Distrust).
Text of the footnote
- There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the 14th. [...]
- It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the 14th Amendments than are most other types of legislation...
- Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious...or nationaL...or racial minorities; [or] whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry...