The Doctrine of Compelling State Interest: A Justification for Tyranny

The doctrine of compelling state interest, used by courts to justify government infringement of fundamental rights, is often lauded as a balancing mechanism between individual liberties and state power. However, at its core, this doctrine is a dangerous concession: an admission that unalienable rights—those which are supposedly beyond the reach of government—can, in fact, be violated when the state deems it necessary.

History provides chilling examples of how this doctrine has enabled some of the most egregious government overreaches in American history. The Constitution was written to limit government power, not to create legal loopholes for infringing upon natural rights under the guise of necessity. When the courts defer to a supposed compelling interest, they forsake the very principles they are sworn to uphold.

Unalienable Rights: Government Cannot Grant What It Has No Authority to Take Away

Unalienable rights are not privileges bestowed by government; they are natural rights that exist by virtue of being human. The government cannot lawfully infringe upon them because it was never granted the power to do so. Yet, under the doctrine of compelling state interest, courts have repeatedly sanctioned such violations. Let’s examine specific rights that have been trampled by this judicial overreach.

Right to Life: A Government That Can Take It at Will

The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. No government, under any circumstance, should have the authority to decide who may live and who must die. And yet, history tells a different story.

Example: The Internment of Japanese Americans (Korematsu v. United States, 1944)

During World War II, under the pretense of national security, the U.S. government forcibly removed over 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes and placed them in internment camps. Families were torn apart, property was confiscated, and thousands were subjected to brutal conditions—all because the government claimed it had a compelling interest in preventing espionage. The Supreme Court upheld this atrocity in Korematsu v. United States, proving that under this doctrine, no right is truly unalienable if the government finds a justification to violate it.

Right to Liberty: Freedom Exists Only at the Government’s Discretion

Liberty—the freedom to think, speak, and act without undue interference—is a foundational principle of American governance. Yet, when government invokes a compelling interest, liberty becomes conditional.

Example: The Red Scare and McCarthyism

In the 1950s, during the height of the Cold War, the government launched aggressive efforts to root out suspected communists. Under the justification of national security, innocent Americans were blacklisted, imprisoned, and stripped of their livelihoods. People were compelled to testify before Congress, forced to prove their loyalty to the state, and some were even jailed for refusing to comply. The Supreme Court allowed these violations to stand, prioritizing state interests over individual freedom.

Right to Property: When the Government Can Take What It Wants

Private property is a pillar of personal liberty, yet history has shown that the doctrine of compelling state interest has been used to seize land and wealth without due process.

Example: The Government’s War on Property Rights (Kelo v. City of New London, 2005)

The Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that private property could be taken by the government and handed over to private developers if the state determined that doing so served a public purpose. The ruling destroyed the concept of property rights, as it placed personal ownership at the mercy of government convenience. If the state finds a compelling reason, your land, home, or business can be confiscated—without a crime being committed, without due process, and without accountability.

Compelling State Interest: The Government’s License to Oppress

The doctrine of compelling state interest does not merely acknowledge the government's ability to infringe on rights; it institutionalizes it. It allows unelected judges to determine whether an individual’s most fundamental freedoms can be curtailed for the sake of some greater good. The historical consequences of this doctrine expose its flaws:

1. Korematsu v. United States (1944) – Justified racial internment.

2. Schenck v. United States (1919) – Justified suppression of free speech.

3. McCarthy-era Persecutions – Justified government-led ideological purges.

4. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) – Justified property seizures for corporate interests.

   
   

Every one of these cases demonstrates that when government is allowed to define what is compelling, the rights of the people are at risk.

Judicial Activism: A Tool for Tyranny

The problem is not merely that governments violate rights—it is that courts have sanctioned those violations under this doctrine. Judicial activism, under the pretext of necessity, has redefined rights not as inherent protections, but as privileges that can be taken away if the government deems it expedient.

Roe v. Wade (1973) – The Court created a right to abortion while simultaneously allowing restrictions under compelling interest, undermining the right to life.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – The Court declared marriage a fundamental right, yet left the door open for states to regulate or restrict that right.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) – The Court allowed the federal government to compel individuals to purchase health insurance, redefining personal liberty.

Each of these cases reinforces the principle that courts, rather than protecting rights, often serve as the enforcers of government overreach.

Rejecting the Doctrine of Compelling State Interest

If rights are unalienable, then no government has the authority to violate them—under any circumstances. The doctrine of compelling state interest contradicts this fundamental truth by suggesting that the state may infringe upon rights when it finds justification to do so. This doctrine must be rejected outright.

To safeguard liberty, we must:

• Restore Constitutional Originalism – The Constitution does not grant government the power to infringe upon unalienable rights. Courts must return to an originalist interpretation.

• End Judicial Activism – Justices must cease redefining rights to accommodate government interests.

• Reaffirm Unalienable Rights as Absolute – Any doctrine that allows rights to be violated is a doctrine of tyranny.

A free society cannot exist if the government is permitted to decide which rights are expendable. If unalienable rights are to mean anything at all, then the doctrine of compelling state interest must be recognized for what it is—a tool of oppression, disguised as a legal principle.