532 U.S. 189 (2001)
In 1995, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement determined that G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., serving as a subcontractor on three public works projects, had violated the Labor Code by failing to pay the prevailing wage and failing to keep and furnish payroll records upon request.1 The Division issued notices to the awarding bodies on those projects directing them to withhold from the prime contractors amounts equal to the wages and penalties forfeited due to G & G's violations.2 The awarding bodies withheld payment from the contractors, who in turn withheld payment from G & G, with the total amount withheld exceeding $135,000.3
G & G sued the Division, the Department of Industrial Relations, and several state officials in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.4 G & G sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the issuance of the withholding notices without a hearing constituted a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.5
The District Court granted G & G's motion for summary judgment, declared several Labor Code sections unconstitutional, and enjoined the State from enforcing those provisions against G & G.6 A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment.7 The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan.8
On remand, the Ninth Circuit reinstated its prior judgment and opinion.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision holding that the statutory scheme violated the Due Process Clause because subcontractors were afforded neither a pre- nor post-deprivation hearing when payments were withheld.10
Whether the California Labor Code provisions authorizing withholding of payments due a subcontractor on public works projects, without a hearing before or after the withholding, deprive the subcontractor of a protected property interest without due process of law?11
Where a state law is challenged on due process grounds, the inquiry is whether the State has deprived the claimant of a protected property interest, and whether the State’s procedures comport with due process.12 The Due Process Clause grants the aggrieved party the opportunity to present his case and have its merits fairly judged.13 If California makes ordinary judicial process available to a subcontractor for resolving its contractual dispute over withheld payments, that process is due process.14
No. The Court assumes without deciding that G & G has a property interest in its claim for payment under its contracts.15
However, unlike the claimants in cases such as United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property or Barry v. Barchi, G & G has not been denied any present entitlement.16 G & G has only a claim that it complied with the contract terms and therefore is entitled to be paid in full.17
The California Labor Code provides a means by which a subcontractor may bring a claim for breach of contract to recover wages and penalties withheld.18 The Labor Code allows the contractor or his assignee to sue the awarding body on the contract.19 Respondent has in fact sued awarding bodies in state superior court pursuant to the Labor Code to recover payments withheld on previous projects.20
Even if assignment is not obtained, a suit for breach of contract against the contractor remains available under California common law.21 The Labor Code's exclusivity provision applies only to the contractor and his assignees.22
The California Labor Code provisions do not deprive G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., of a protected property interest without due process of law.23