The State's Due Process Denial: Is It Legal?

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution contain Due Process Clauses, which prohibit the federal and state governments from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process typically requires public hearings prior to the creation of a taxing district, as taxation is a deprivation of property. Procedural due process, based on principles of fundamental fairness, addresses the legal procedures to be followed in state proceedings, including notice, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, basis of decision, and availability of counsel. Substantive due process guarantees fundamental rights and prohibits vague laws. The Supreme Court has held that this protection extends to all natural persons, regardless of race, color, or citizenship.

Procedural due process

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This clause is a legal obligation for all states, mandating that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.

In criminal procedures, the court looks at whether the procedure adopted by the government is offensive to the notion of fundamental fairness. This analysis inquires more narrowly into the specific procedures employed. In civil contexts, the courts utilize a balancing test that evaluates the government's chosen procedure in light of the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest, and the government's interest.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to impose the same procedural due process limitations on the states as the Fifth Amendment does on the federal government. This means that state actors must provide certain procedural protections before depriving a person of any protected life, liberty, or property interest.

The requirements for procedural due process include notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker. Other procedural rights may also be guaranteed, depending on the specific circumstances.

Substantive due process

The concept of substantive due process is evolving, ensuring that essential personal freedoms are protected from unwarranted government intrusion. The Supreme Court has interpreted substantive due process to include fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, the right to work in an ordinary job, to marry, and to raise one's children. The Supreme Court's first attempt to define which government actions violate substantive due process came during the Lochner Era in 1905, when it ruled against a New York law regulating the working hours of bakers.

The Supreme Court has since moved away from the Lochner Era approach, and in 1937, it rejected that era's interpretation of substantive due process by allowing Washington to implement a minimum wage for women and minors. The Court has determined that fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms. These rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights but are considered implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

The term "substantive due process" is used to identify a particular line of case law and to signify a political attitude toward judicial review under the two due process clauses. Much of the litigation involves legal challenges to the validity of unenumerated rights and seeks particular outcomes, with critics arguing that such decisions should be left to politically accountable branches of government. The distinction between substantive and procedural due process arises from the words "of law" in the phrase "due process of law". While substantive due process protects individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed governmental authority, procedural due process focuses on ensuring fair and impartial adjudication processes under valid laws.

Due process and equal protection

The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, contains the same wording, known as the Due Process Clause, which applies to all states.

The Fourteenth Amendment also promises that all persons in the United States shall enjoy the "equal protection of the laws". This means that citizens cannot be discriminated against without good reason. While all laws discriminate, as governments must make choices about what is lawful, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the state has a good reason or a "rational basis" for such choices.

The Due Process Clause is the source of an array of constitutional rights, including procedural protections, such as notice and a hearing before termination of entitlements; individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and criminal procedure protections; and fundamental rights that are not specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, such as the right to marry, the right to use contraception, and the right to abortion.

Procedural due process addresses which legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. Relevant issues include notice, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, basis of decision, and availability of counsel.

The Supreme Court has elaborated significantly on the core understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment since its adoption. For example, in the early 1970s, the Court decided that whether a teacher at a state college had "property" in their job, and was therefore entitled to a hearing before their contract was terminated, depended on whether persons in their position would ordinarily have an expectation of continued employment.

In another example, the Court used the Due Process Clause to extend the Bill of Rights to the states through a practice known as "incorporation". In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibits banning political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity.

In summary, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are fundamental to protecting the rights of citizens and ensuring equal treatment under the law.

Due process in civil cases

Due process is a legal concept that guarantees certain protections to citizens when they are involved in legal proceedings. It is mentioned in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which state that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". Due process can be divided into two categories: procedural due process and substantive due process.

Procedural due process focuses on the legal procedures that must be followed in state proceedings. This includes the right to notice, an opportunity for a hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, the basis of the decision, and the availability of counsel. In civil cases, procedural due process rights may be implicated in a variety of contexts, such as disputes over insurance policies, employment contracts, and parental rights. For example, in a case involving the termination of parental rights, the Court recognised the parent's interest as "extremely important" but also noted the state's strong interest in protecting children's welfare. Thus, the litigant did not have a right to appointed counsel.

On the other hand, substantive due process examines the substance of a law or regulation, rather than the procedures followed. It considers whether a law or regulation violates fundamental rights or liberties. For instance, plaintiffs have claimed that a state's practice of approving permits for fossil-fuel infrastructure violates substantive due process and public trust rights to natural resources.

State constitutions generally protect both procedural and substantive due process rights. State courts review a broad range of civil due process questions, including claims of inadequate procedures, questions about standing and the right to a jury, fundamental rights claims, and allegations of unfair procedures or inadequate access to justice.

In civil cases, due process rights may be balanced against other interests, such as the state's interest in efficient and effective administration of justice. Additionally, the specific procedures required by due process may vary depending on the context and the specific facts of each case. The Supreme Court has outlined three factors to be considered in determining what process is due: the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest, and the government's interest.

Due process and corporate rights

The Due Process Clause, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, prohibits the federal and state governments from depriving individuals of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law. This clause guarantees a variety of protections, including procedural due process in civil and criminal proceedings, substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state governments, and equal protection under the laws of the federal government.

Procedural due process is based on the concept of "fundamental fairness" and includes an individual's right to be notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and the right to an impartial decision-maker. Substantive due process, on the other hand, guarantees certain fundamental rights that the government cannot infringe upon, even if it provides procedural protections.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted to apply to state governments, while the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies to federal government actions. This interpretation has formed the basis for many high-profile Supreme Court cases, including those involving the rights of teachers at state colleges who had their contracts of employment terminated due to their political positions.

In the context of corporate rights, the Due Process Clause has been invoked in cases involving insurance companies, surety companies, and foreign corporations. For example, in one case, the Court held that a state statute making a life insurance company liable for fixed damages and attorney's fees if it failed to pay the amount due under a policy after the insured's death was not unconstitutional, even if the company had reasonable grounds for resisting payment. In another case, the Court found that a surety company was not denied due process when it missed the opportunity for a hearing by inadvertently pursuing the wrong procedure in state courts.

Additionally, the Court has considered the due process rights of foreign corporations in cases involving in personam jurisdiction. For instance, in Hanson v. Denckla, the Court denied the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over corporate trustees of disputed property who were residents of another state, despite the trend toward expanding state jurisdiction over nonresident corporations.

Frequently asked questions