The Constitution: Due Process Safeguards

Due process is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, protecting individuals against arbitrary government decisions and ensuring fairness in legal matters. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Due Process Clauses, safeguard citizens when the government deprives them of life, liberty, or property, limiting the government's arbitrary exercise of its powers. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the source of various constitutional rights, including procedural protections, individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, and fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The interpretation and application of due process have been the subject of Supreme Court cases and continue to shape the understanding of this constitutional guarantee.

Explore related products

Due Process of Law: A Brief History

$24.99 $29.99

Constructing Basic Liberties: A Defense of Substantive Due Process

$30 $30

Defending Due Process: Why Fairness Matters in a Polarized World

$23.3 $29.95

The Concept of Ordered Liberty and the Common-Law Due-Process Tradition: Slaughterhouse Cases through Obergefell v. Hodges (1872–2015)

$41.99 $41.99

Constitutional Law for Criminal Justice

$115.03 $170

Due Process As American Democracy (Theoretical Perspectives in Law)

$20.95 $41.99

Procedural due process

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a critical source of constitutional rights, including procedural protections such as notice and a hearing before the termination of entitlements. For example, state prisoners who may be involuntarily transferred to a mental hospital are entitled to written notice, an adversary hearing before an independent decision-maker, written findings, and timely notice of their rights.

In criminal procedures, the court examines whether the government's chosen procedure conflicts with the notion of fundamental fairness. This analysis is narrower than in civil procedures, focusing on the specific procedures outlined in the Bill of Rights. For instance, the Eighth Amendment guarantees reliable procedures to protect innocent individuals from execution, which would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Substantive due process

The concept of substantive due process has been interpreted to include rights such as the right to work, to marry, and to raise children. The Supreme Court's first attempt to define government actions that violate substantive due process came in 1905, in Lochner v. New York. The Court ruled that a New York law regulating the working hours of bakers was unconstitutional, citing the right to freedom of contract. This decision is now widely reviled as an instance of judicial activism.

In the mid-20th century, substantive due process jurisprudence experienced a renaissance. In 1965, the Court struck down state bans on the use of contraception by married couples, citing the "right to privacy", which was inferred from the penumbras of rights that are explicitly enumerated in the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments.

Critics of substantive due process argue that it allows unelected Supreme Court Justices to impose their policy preferences on the nation, as the rights protected by substantive due process are not explicitly listed in the Constitution. Instead, they are considered deeply rooted in US history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms.

Individual rights

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees an array of constitutional rights, including procedural protections, individual rights, and fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Procedural protections include notice and a hearing before termination of entitlements such as publicly funded medical insurance. Individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and various criminal procedure protections. The Due Process Clause also protects fundamental rights such as the right to marry, the right to use contraception, and the right to privacy, which may be inferred from the penumbras of rights that are explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The Due Process Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect substantive rights that are not listed in the Constitution. This interpretation is based on the idea that certain liberties are so important that they cannot be infringed upon without a compelling reason, regardless of the process given. For example, in 1965, the Court struck down state bans on the use of contraception by married couples, citing the "right to privacy" as a substantive due process right.

In criminal cases, due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment, which guarantees reliable procedures to protect innocent people from being executed, which would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. An example of criminal due process rights is the case of Vitek v. Jones, where the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required certain procedural protections for state prisoners who may be transferred involuntarily to a state mental hospital, including written notice of the transfer and an adversary hearing before an independent decision-maker.

Due process guarantees the right to fair treatment and legal hearings when an individual's life, liberty, or property is at risk. This includes both citizens and non-citizens in the US, who have the right to defend their rights and have a fair hearing. Due process is a safeguard against discrimination and injustice and ensures fairness in legal matters.

Explore related products

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Constitutional Law Series)

$3.99

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$104.13 $150

Due Process Denied: Detentions and Deportations in the United States (Framing 21st Century Social Issues)

$24.36 $49.99

[‎‎1510777814] [‎‎978-1510777811] A book Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law Dershowitz Hardcover 2023

$8.99 $35.99

The Constitutional Rights of Children: In re Gault and Juvenile Justice (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$15.97 $29.99

Fundamental fairness

The concept of "fundamental fairness" is integral to the notion of due process guaranteed by the US Constitution. Due process, as outlined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, safeguards citizens from arbitrary government decisions and ensures fairness in legal matters, regardless of their background or immigration status. This means that the government must abide by certain procedures to protect the essential interests of all citizens.

In criminal cases, due process often overlaps with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment, which aims to protect innocent people from cruel and unusual punishment, such as being executed. For instance, in the case of Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provided state prisoners facing involuntary transfer to a mental hospital with protections, including written notice, an adversary hearing, and timely notification of their rights.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees an array of other constitutional rights, including procedural protections, individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights (such as freedom of speech and religion), and fundamental rights not specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, like the right to marry and the right to use contraception.

The interpretation of "fundamental fairness" and due process has evolved over time. In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court used the Due Process Clause to strike down economic regulations that sought to improve workers' conditions, arguing that they violated "freedom of contract," despite this freedom not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. However, in 1937, the Court repudiated this stance, signalling a more cautious approach to unenumerated rights.

In civil cases, courts employ a balancing test, weighing private interests, the government's public interest, and the potential for erroneous deprivation of private interests by government procedures. In criminal procedures, the court assesses whether the government's procedures conflict with the notion of fundamental fairness.

The specific procedures guaranteed by the Constitution may vary depending on the nature of the case and the individual's circumstances. For example, in Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915), the Supreme Court held that while the Constitution does not require "due process" for establishing laws, it does apply when the state acts against individuals based on unique characteristics.

Overall, due process, grounded in the principle of fundamental fairness, serves as a critical safeguard against discrimination and injustice in the US legal system.

Procedural protections

The U.S. Constitution requires federal and state governments to abide by certain procedures to protect the essential interests of all citizens. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, also known as the Due Process Clauses, protect citizens when the government deprives them of life, liberty, or property, and limit the government's arbitrary exercise of its powers.

Procedural due process refers to the constitutional requirement that when the government acts in a manner that denies a citizen of life, liberty, or property interest, it must follow specific procedures. These procedures include the right to a fair hearing, legal representation, and the opportunity to present evidence and arguments. For example, in criminal cases, due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment, which guarantees reliable procedures to protect innocent people from being executed.

The specific procedures guaranteed by the Constitution may depend on the nature of the subject matter and the individual's circumstances. In civil trials, the courts balance private interests, the government's public interest, and the possibility of erroneous deprivation of private interests. In criminal procedures, the court evaluates whether the government's procedure is offensive to the notion of fundamental fairness.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees procedural protections, such as notice and a hearing before termination of entitlements. For instance, in Vitek v. Jones, the Clause required procedural protections for state prisoners facing involuntary transfer to a state mental hospital, including written notice, an adversary hearing, and written findings.

The Due Process Clause has also been interpreted to protect substantive rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court struck down state bans on contraception for married couples, finding that the right to privacy could be inferred from the penumbras of enumerated rights.

Frequently asked questions