No. 01-1757 Stogner v. California - FindLaw: Supreme Court Center

34
719-20 (1997). Protected are those fundamental rights that
are “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and
tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,
such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they
were sacrificed.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21 (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
The Court has “always been reluctant to expand the
concept of substantive due process.” Collins v. Harker
Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992); Albright v. Oliver, 510
U.S. at 271-72 (observing that defendant’s claim of a
substantive due process right to be free of prosecution
without probable cause was “markedly different” from
those matters – relating to marriage, family, procreation,
and the right to bodily integrity – that, for the most part,
have been accorded this protection). By extending constitutional
protection to an asserted right or liberty interest,
the Court, to a great extent, places the matter outside the
arena of public debate and legislative action. Washington
v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720. It appears, however, that
petitioner would have this Court do just that, and find
that a criminal defendant has a new fundamental right,
protected by the Due Process Clause, in retaining the
benefit of an expired statute of limitations against subsequent
attempts to amend the time during which criminal
charges may be filed. The Court should decline that
suggestion.
1. The Expiration of a Statute of Limitations
Confers No Fundamental Right
or Liberty Interest
In Chase Securities Corporation v. Donaldson, this
Court held that the shelter of a statute of limitations,
“which represent[s] a public policy about the privilege to