Procedural due process
Procedural due process is a constitutional principle that safeguards individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government without fair procedures. Rooted in historical documents like the Magna Carta, this principle is enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which mandate that no person shall face deprivation without due process of law. The Supreme Court has deemed procedural due process a fundamental right, highlighting its application in both civil and criminal contexts. Central to this concept are two key components: the right to notice and the opportunity to be heard, ensuring that individuals have meaningful participation in proceedings affecting their rights.
The Supreme Court has clarified that procedural due process requires deliberate governmental action and cannot be invoked for mere negligence. Additionally, due process mandates a neutral adjudicator to oversee legal proceedings, reinforcing fairness in the judicial process. The Court has addressed various scenarios, including the rights of welfare recipients and the due process protections for individuals in criminal and mental health contexts. Recent cases, such as United States v. Texas, illustrate ongoing debates about due process in the context of immigration policy, reflecting the dynamic nature of this constitutional principle in contemporary legal frameworks.
Procedural due process
Description: Right not to be deprived by the government of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to be heard according to fair procedures.
Relevant amendment: Fifth
Significance: The Supreme Court considers procedural due process to be one of the most fundamental constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court recognized that the constitutional right to procedural due process derived historically from the Magna Carta (1215). This document prohibited the English monarch from depriving a certain class of subjects of their rights except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land. When the United States gained its independence, language modeled on the Magna Carta provision was included in several state constitutions. Soon after the ratification of the US Constitution, the Fifth Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment, applicable to the federal government, provided in part that “no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment formulated the same prohibition with regard to state—and, by implication, local—governments.
The due process clauses apply to criminal as well as civil procedures. Other constitutional protections are triggered in criminal matters by specific provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. The court therefore has often invoked these more specific constitutional provisions in criminal procedure cases when it is unnecessary to address the more general requirements of the due process clauses.
Basic Principles
The Supreme Court ruled, in Collins v. City of Harker Heights (1992), that due process clauses provide a guarantee of fair procedure in connection with governmental deprivations of life, liberty, or property. In Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999), it held that procedural due process does not prevent governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property; it merely prevents such deprivation without due process of law. Furthermore, the governmental deprivation must be deliberate. According to its finding in Daniels v. Williams (1986), a civil action against a governmental entity cannot be predicated on a due process theory if the governmental conduct at issue was merely negligent.
The two major components of fair procedure are notice and an opportunity to be heard. A primary purpose of the notice requirement is to ensure that the opportunity for a hearing is meaningful, as the court determined in West Covina v. Perkins (1999). In both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, the court determined that due process requires a neutral and detached judge in the first instance in Concrete Pipe and Products of California v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust (1993). However, where an initial determination is made by a party acting in an enforcement capacity, it found that due process may be satisfied by providing for a neutral adjudicator to conduct a de novo review (complete rehearing) of all factual and legal issues in Marshall v. Jerrico (1980).
The court often (but not always) evaluates procedural due process issues by considering the three factors brought out in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976): the private interest affected by the official action; the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of other procedural safeguards; and the relevant governmental interest.
Criminal Procedure
The court applied the due process clauses in the criminal law area in cases in which other constitutional provisions do not apply. For example, the court held that the adjudication of a contested criminal case in a mayor’s court violates due process where the mayor’s executive responsibilities may create a desire to maintain a high flow of revenue from the mayor’s court in Ward v. Village of Monroeville (1972). It also held that a child in delinquency proceedings must be provided various procedural due process protections in In re Gault (1967).
The court also made two rulings regarding placement in mental institutions. In Vitek v. Jones (1980), it held that a convicted felon serving a sentence in prison may not be transferred to a mental institution without appropriate procedures to determine whether he or she is mentally ill. In Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), it determined that a person found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity who is accordingly confined in a mental hospital is entitled to constitutionally adequate procedures to establish the grounds for continued confinement when the original basis for the confinement no longer exists.
Other Applications
The court applied the procedural component of the due process clause in many other contexts. For example, in United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property (1993), it held that, absent exigent circumstances, due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the government can seize real property subject to civil forfeiture. In Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), the court held that welfare recipients could not be deprived of their benefits without procedural due process protections. Similarly, in Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft (1978), the court established federal due process procedures for termination of public utility service to customers in states that have a just cause requirement for such termination.
In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), the court determined that tenured classified civil servants were entitled to at least some procedural due process before termination. Examples included notice of allegations and opportunity to respond, coupled with a full post-termination hearing. However, it found that defamatory statements by governmental officials, in the absence of other governmental action, do not trigger due process analysis in Paul v. Davis (1976).
A 2023 Supreme Court procedural due process case, United States v. Texas, focused on immigration. At heart, the case demonstrated different philosophies between the presidential administration of Joe Biden and Republican governors of border states on the treatment of immigrants detained at the U.S. southern border. In 2021, through the Department of Homeland Security, President Biden ordered the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to stop deportations of detained immigrants. The state of Texas, later joined by Louisiana, sued the federal government to prevent this guidance from taking effect. The objections cited the Administration Procedure Act (1946), which mandated an administrative process be followed for government agencies to enact regulations. The plaintiffs asserted the government did not follow due process when President Biden ordered the change in ICE deportation procedures.
After a series of injunctions and appeals at lower courts, the case arrived at the Supreme Court for final adjudication. After hearing oral arguments on November 29, 2022, the Court rendered its decision on June 23, 2023. The Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration in asserting that states lack the legal standing to challenge executive branch enforcement guidelines. The Court rendered its decision by an 8–1 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito in dissent.
Bibliography
American Bar Association. Due Process Protection for Juveniles in Civil Commitment Proceedings. American Bar Association, 1991.
Decker, John F. Revolution to the Right: Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence During the Burger-Rehnquist Court Era. Garland, 1993.
Ely, James W., Jr. "Due Process Clause." The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, The Heritage Foundation, 2012, www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/14/essays/170/due-process-clause. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.
Galligan, Denis J. Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996.
"List of Court Cases Relevant to Procedural Rights." Ballotpedia, 2024, ballotpedia.org/List‗of‗court‗cases‗relevant‗to‗procedural‗rights. Accessed 28 Aug. 2024.
Roach, Kent. Due Process and Victims’ Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice. Toronto, Toronto University Press, 1999.
Sullivan, Thomas E., and Toni Marie Massaro. The Arc of Due Process in American Constitutional Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
"10 Supreme Court Cases about the 14th Amendment." National Constitution Center, 9 July 2020, constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment. Accessed 28 Aug. 2024.
"United States v. Texas (2022)." Ballotpedia, 2024, ballotpedia.org/United‗States‗v.‗Texas‗(2022). Accessed 28 Aug. 2024.