The Court began its opinion by stating that the New York law did not infringe upon a fundamental right. In this line of reasoning, the Court referenced San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, , which said, in relevant part, that the judiciary must look to the Constitution, rather than to the stated "importance" of a right, when determining whether that right was, indeed, fundamental. Because New York's ban did not infringe upon a fundamental right, and because respondents were not claiming that the "right to die" was fundamental, the Court reiterated its policy of according such laws a great deal of leeway. In the Court's own words, from Heller v. Doe, , laws such as those enacted by New York were entitled to a "strong presumption of validity."
