Due Process: Constitutional Amendments Explained

The Due Process Clause is found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, to extend this obligation to the states. The Due Process Clause guarantees a variety of protections, including procedural due process, substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and equal protection under the laws of the federal government.

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

$115.06 $170

Due Process As American Democracy (Theoretical Perspectives in Law)

$20.95 $41.99

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause

Procedural due process often requires the government to provide notice and a hearing before depriving someone of their rights. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause to include substantive due process guarantees, protecting certain fundamental constitutional rights from federal government interference, regardless of the procedures followed when enforcing the law. This has generally dealt with specific areas such as liberty of contract, marriage, or privacy.

Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words as the Fifth Amendment, extending the obligation to the states.

The Due Process Clause guarantees "due process of law" before the government deprives someone of "life, liberty, or property". It does not prohibit the government from depriving someone of these substantive rights, but it does require that the government follows the law. The Supreme Court has interpreted the term "liberty" broadly, extending beyond freedom from bodily restraint to the full range of conduct an individual is free to pursue.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been applied in two main contexts. Firstly, it provides protections similar to those of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, but while the Fifth Amendment applies to federal government actions, the Fourteenth Amendment binds the states. Secondly, the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to impose on the states many of the Bill of Rights' limitations, a doctrine known as incorporation against the states through the Due Process Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been construed to protect substantive due process, guaranteeing certain fundamental rights that the government may not infringe upon, even if procedural protections are provided. Critics of substantive due process decisions argue that these liberties should be left to the politically accountable branches of government.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been applied in cases such as Goldberg v. Kelly, where the Court found that governmental benefits, such as welfare benefits, amount to "property" with due process protections. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibits banning political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity.

Procedural due process

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Due Process Clauses, guarantee procedural due process to all persons located within the United States. Procedural due process refers to the constitutional requirement that when the government acts in a manner that denies a person of their life, liberty, or property, the affected person must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker. The government must also demonstrate that there is an articulated standard of conduct for their actions with sufficient justification. These requirements, called "fundamental fairness," protect people from unjust or undue deprivation of interest.

The specific procedures guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution may depend on the nature of the subject matter of the interest in question as well as each individual’s circumstances. In civil contexts, the courts utilize a balancing test between private interests, the government’s public interest, and the possibility of the government procedure’s erroneous deprivation of private interest in evaluating government conduct. In criminal procedures, the court looks to whether the procedure the government has adopted is offensive to the notion of fundamental fairness for the due process analysis.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This clause has been construed by the Supreme Court to impose the same procedural due process limitations on the states as the Fifth Amendment does on the Federal Government. The Court has applied the Clause in two main contexts: procedural due process and substantive due process.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$104.13 $150

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Constitutional Law Series)

$3.99

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

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

$15.97 $29.99

[‎‎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

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

$24.36 $49.99

Substantive due process

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution contain the Due Process Clause, which prohibits the government from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law". Substantive due process refers to a guarantee of fundamental rights and a prohibition against vague laws. The Supreme Court has interpreted substantive due process to include rights such as the right to privacy, the right to work in an ordinary job, to marry, and to raise one's children.

The term "substantive due process" (SDP) first appeared in the 1930s as a categorical distinction between selected due process cases and has been used in two ways: to identify a particular line of case law and to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause. SDP involves liberty-based due process challenges that seek certain outcomes instead of merely contesting procedures and their effects.

The Supreme Court's first attempt to define which government actions violate substantive due process came during the Lochner Era, which lasted from 1897 to 1937. During this time, the Court used substantive due process to strike down minimum wage and labour laws to protect freedom of contract. For example, in Lochner v. New York (1905), the Supreme Court found a New York law regulating the working hours of bakers to be unconstitutional. However, in 1937, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation of substantive due process in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, allowing Washington to implement a minimum wage for women and minors.

Since the Lochner Era, the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution protects numerous other freedoms, even if they are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights. The Court has determined that fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are those deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms. These rights include personal and relational rights, such as the right to privacy, rather than economic rights.

Due process and the death penalty

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain Due Process Clauses, which prohibit the federal and state governments from depriving "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

The Due Process Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to guarantee a range of protections, including procedural due process, substantive due process, equal protection under federal law, and a prohibition against vague laws. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause also incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states, ensuring that most provisions of the first eight Amendments apply to both state and federal governments.

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a state-sanctioned punishment for specific crimes, prescribed by Congress or state legislatures. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Eighth Amendment does shape procedural aspects of when and how the death penalty may be carried out.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been central to several Supreme Court cases involving the death penalty. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Court invalidated existing death penalty laws, finding that they resulted in arbitrary and disproportionate sentencing, particularly discriminating against impoverished and minority communities. In Simmons v. South Carolina (1994), the Court reversed the defendant's death sentence, citing a violation of the Due Process Clause as the trial court failed to inform the jury about the defendant's parole ineligibility. In Crampton v. Ohio and McGautha v. California (1971), the defendants argued that unrestricted jury discretion in capital cases violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, resulting in arbitrary sentencing.

The Supreme Court has also addressed the role of jurors in death penalty cases, holding that jurors can only be disqualified if their attitude towards capital punishment would prevent them from making an impartial decision. Additionally, the Court has ruled on the constitutional rights of defendants in capital trials, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as seen in Estelle v. Smith (1981).

Frequently asked questions