Does the "unreasonable burden" test factor in those design decisions?
Take the unreasonable burden test, the one test that New York Telephone clearly establishes.
I fail to see how anyone can think that saying a statute does not impose an unconstitutional burden under any standard, including the undue burden test, amounts to adopting the undue burden test as the exclusive standard.
Beyond the "unreasonable burden" test, it's not clear what to make of the other matters that the court mentions.
Clarifying the undue burden test, a test that only applies in abortion cases, is a good thing.
Will the Court's conservatives — who appear to have, with the addition of Anthony Kennedy, a one-vote majority on this issue — define the "undue burden" test into meaninglessness?
Using a burden test, no significant excess of rare variants in any of the genes in our cohort compared with controls was found.
"Applying the substantial burden test requires courts to distinguish important from unimportant religious beliefs, a task for which we have already explained courts are particularly ill-suited," Sotomayor wrote, before applying the test anyhow.
In my dissent in Casey, I wrote that the "undue burden" test made law by the joint opinion created a standard that was "as doubtful in application as it is unprincipled in origin," "hopelessly unworkable in practice," "ultimately standardless".
She did away with Blackmun's creaky trimester system and firmly implanted her "undue burden" test in abortion law, signalling to the states that any restrictions on abortion would still have to pass judicial review.
