A city enacts an ordinance that prohibits adults from cohabiting without being legally married, citing the need to uphold traditional family values. Several unmarried couples challenge the ordinance, arguing that it infringes upon their substantive due process rights to personal autonomy and association. What is the most likely outcome of this legal challenge?
The ordinance is invalidated because it imposes undue restrictions on individuals' personal relationships without a compelling justification.
The ordinance is upheld as a legitimate exercise of the city's authority to regulate relationships.
The ordinance is modified to allow exceptions for certain types of cohabitation arrangements.
The ordinance is dismissed on procedural grounds unrelated to the substance of the law.
The ordinance is likely to be invalidated because it restricts individuals' fundamental liberties related to their personal relationships. The state's rationale for preserving traditional family structures does not provide sufficient justification for such a significant intrusion into private lives without demonstrating a compelling interest.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are substantive due process rights?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does the term 'personal autonomy' refer to in legal contexts?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes a compelling governmental interest?