Minnesota Law Review

Children’s Constitutional Rights

The long history of denying children the full range of constitutional rights has its roots in a choice theory of rights that understands rights as deriving from the decisionmaking autonomy of the individual. From the perspective of choice theory, children do not enjoy most constitutional rights because they lack the capacity for autonomous choice. Choice theory not only justifies the long history of denying children rights but also serves to explain the recent and growing number of modern Supreme Court cases in which children’s constitutional rights have been recognized. Choice theory regards these newly recognized rights as “autonomy rights,” that is, adult rights given to older children based on their increasing capacity for auton­omous choice.

As explained in the Article, choice theory falls short as a theory of children’s constitutional rights for two reasons. First, as a descriptive matter, choice theory is simply too narrow. As choice theorists would acknowledge, the theory does not address whole categories of existing rights where the decisionmaking autonomy of the rightholder is not in issue. Even more limiting, choice theory has no conceptual apparatus for defining children’s rights in terms of children’s future autonomy or for conceiving of children’s rights in socializing terms. Second, as a psychology of decisionmaking, choice theory rests on an excessively rationalist model of decisionmaking that ignores numerous core aspects of mature, autonomous choice. Psychological research on decisionmaking illuminates the broad range of mental skills—cognitive, emotional, and imaginative—that children must acquire in order to become auton­omous decisionmakers. By associating autonomous choice with critical-thinking skills learned in school, choice theory ignores the noncognitive attributes of choice and the family caregiving essential to their development.

The Article presents a developmental theory of children’s constitutional rights that focuses on the fundamental role of children’s rights in the socialization process leading to adult autonomy. The theory overcomes the descriptive and psychological limitations of prevailing choice theory while preserving its central commitment to individual autonomy. The developmental theory’s core insight into the importance of caregiving to children’s future autonomy supports recognizing children’s fundamental constitutional rights in the caregiving relationship. As described in the Article, children’s caregiving rights take three basic forms. First are children’s rights under the Due Process Clause to be free from state intervention into established caregiving relationships. Second are children’s rights arising under other constitutional provisions where the rights at issue touch upon their caregiving interests. Third, and most far-reaching, are children’s affirmative constitutional rights to a minimum level of caregiving services from the state. This final category of rights focuses the debate on state support for the caregiving relationships children need to become autono­mous adults and citizens. In elaborating a developmental theory of children’s constitutional rights, the Article aims to secure children’s rightful place as full members and future auton­omous participants in the constitutional scheme.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times

    The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]

  • Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed

    The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.

  • Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15

    The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.

  • Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board

    The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.

  • Minnesota Law Review Announces 2013 Symposium Topic

    The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that its 2013 symposium will address the legal and political issues facing organized labor in the United States. The symposium will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 25, 2013.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days