From NPR: Australia is the latest country to give workers the 'right to disconnect' after hours

We will discuss the unenumerated rights.

Might this be one? 

Would this be recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court?

- Click here for the article.


Millions of Australians just got official permission to ignore their bosses outside of working hours, thanks to a new law enshrining their "right to disconnect."

The law doesn't strictly prohibit employers from calling or messaging their workers after hours. But it does protect employees who "refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact outside their working hours, unless their refusal is unreasonable," according to the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

That includes outreach from their employer, as well as other people "if the contact or attempted contact is work-related."

The law, which passed in February, took effect on Monday for most workers and will apply to small businesses of fewer than 15 people starting in August 2025. It adds Australia to a growing list of countries aiming to protect workers' free time.

"It's really about trying to bring back some work-life balance and make sure that people aren't racking up hours of unpaid overtime for checking emails and responding to things at a time when they're not being paid," said Sen. Murray Watt, Australia's minister for employment and workplace relations.

The law doesn't give employees a complete pass, however.

The law says a person's refusal to respond will be considered unreasonable under certain conditions, taking into account the seniority of the employee, their personal circumstances (including caregiving responsibilities), the reason for the contact, and how much disruption it causes them.

For more: 

- Right to disconnect.

- Human Rights.

The right to have ones vote counted

Another one of our unenumerated rights perhaps?

This is part of what former president Trump was accused of violating with his actions surrounding the 2020 elections.

But there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution stipulating such a right. Does it therefore not exist?

Some related readings: 

- Right to Have Vote Counted.

- Vote Counting and Tabulation.

The Right to "Quiet Enjoyment"

This is argued to justify making breach of the peace illegal. It interferes with peace, which suggests that we have a right to it. Since this is not mentioned in the U.S. or Texas Bills of Rights, we would assume this is an unenumerated right.

LII: quiet enjoyment.

Quiet enjoyment is the right to inhabit or use certain property without disturbance. This term is most frequently used in property law, where the right to quiet enjoyment protects tenants from intrusions and guarantees certain basic necessities of a home. Moreover, in states such as California, quiet enjoyment protects tenants from not only landlords personally, but neighbors under the landlord as well.

There is an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment in leases and states generally have their own statutes codifying these protections. For example, under the California Civil Code, an agreement to hire property also secures the hirer the quiet possession of the property against all persons lawfully claiming the property. Furthermore, a landlord may not, for the purposes of forcing a tenant from the premise, engage in conduct that is menacing or significantly interferes with the tenant's purpose of leasing the premise. Significant interference generally encompasses more than denial of access or possession to the premises. For example, in New Hampshire, where partial access to a commercial lessee's property was blocked due to the landlord's construction, it is deemed to be a breach of quiet enjoyment because the denial of access, even partial, was significant enough to deprive the lessee's beneficial use of the premise.

 

Is there a constitutional right to be annoying?

We discussed this in a class today.

The answer might be yes.




- Asserting a Constitutional Right to Annoy.

- Coates v. City of Cincinnati.

- New York's Highest Court Upholds the Right to Be Annoying.

A key phrase IMO: "intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm"

Annoyance is included in this broader list of behaviors. Does it belong?

Is there an implicit right to rebel in the Constitution?

The following author suggest that it exists within a broader understanding of the right to petition, which is in the Magna Carta, and as a result in our First Amendment. I'm not sure how much I agree with all his points, but its an interesting read.

Expect something on Magna Carta - and the development of governing institutions throughout British history. There might be something about the British Bill of Rights as well. And while I'm at it - the notes touched on Roman history and how it applies to the design of U.S. institutions.

- Click here for: Right to rebel is 800 year old!

When right to petition was thought of in Magna Carta, it included a significant right, right to rebel if grievance is not redressed. Article 61 provided for the presentation of grievances to the king, and required the king to redress grievances within 40 days or risk rebellion. The Magna Carta’s Right to Petition includes, if the right is abridged, the right to wage whatever war against government needed to get just redress. The Magna Carta’s Petition Right included a Right to Rebel in the event that the Right to Petition were abridged, Right to rebel? It’s unimaginable.

One might be free to file a petition, but unless it is legally recognised as specific right, petitioner faces the risk of being prosecuted for sedition, libel or seditious libel. Jailing a petitioner for requesting something is atrocious. A mere mention of Right to petition is of no use without guaranteeing protection from the criminal prosecution.