Also known as: due process of law · due-process · due process clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A constitutional guarantee requiring government officials to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before depriving any person of life, liberty, or property.
A constitutional guarantee requiring government officials to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before depriving any person of life, liberty, or property.
Federal prosecutors charge Diane Dawson with a capital offense arising from events on a military base during peacetime. The government attempts to proceed by information rather than indictment. The court dismisses the charge because the Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury presentment before any person may be held to answer for a capital crime outside actual wartime military service.
A constitutional protection that shields fundamental personal liberties from arbitrary or unreasonable governmental interference regardless of the procedures employed.
Danielle Dixon, a white woman, and Demetrius Douglas, a Black man, apply for a marriage license in a state that prohibits interracial unions. State officials deny the license solely on racial grounds. A court invalidates the denial because the freedom to marry a person of another race is a fundamental liberty protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause.
A constitutional protection that shields fundamental personal liberties from arbitrary or unreasonable governmental interference regardless of the procedures employed.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Damian Decker owns property that a state agency seizes under a statute allowing immediate forfeiture upon suspicion of illegal use. Decker receives no prior notice or hearing. The court holds the seizure unconstitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment forbids any state from depriving a person of property without due process of law.
Duarte Shipping owns Grand Central Terminal and seeks to build a large office tower above it. New York City designates the terminal a landmark and blocks the project. The owners sue claiming the restrictions deprive them of property without due process. The court analyzes whether the regulation goes too far under the Due Process and Takings Clauses.
In 1965 New York City enacted the Landmarks Preservation Law, which created an eleven-member Landmarks Preservation Commission and authorized it to designate buildings at least thirty years old that possess special historical or aesthetic interest. The law required owners of designated landmarks to obtain Commission approval before altering exterior architectural features and imposed an affirmative duty to keep those features in good repair. In August 1967 the Commission designated Grand Central Terminal a landmark and the city tax block it occupies a landmark site; the Board of Estimate confirmed the designation the following month. Penn Central Transportation Co. and its affiliates owned the Terminal, an eight-story Beaux-Arts structure completed in 1913 that served as the main station for the New York Central and Harlem lines. On January 22, 1968, Penn Central entered a fifty-year renewable lease with UGP Properties, Inc., under which UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building cantilevered above the Terminal and to pay Penn Central at least three million dollars annually after construction. Penn Central and UGP submitted two plans prepared by architect Marcel Breuer: Breuer I, a fifty-five-story tower resting on the Terminal roof, and Breuer II Revised, a fifty-three-story building that would have removed part of the 42d Street facade. After four days of hearings at which over 80 witnesses testified, the Commission denied this application as to both proposals. Penn Central filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Trial Term, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for a temporary taking. The trial court granted the injunctive and declaratory relief. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Penn Central had failed to prove deprivation of all reasonable beneficial use. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Terminal could still earn a reasonable return and that transferable development rights provided significant compensation. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View case1 common questions
The clause requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any deprivation of property occurs. The Fifth Amendment applies this rule to the federal government and the Fourteenth Amendment applies it to the states.
Daphne Doyle is convicted of a nonviolent crime and faces mandatory sterilization under a state eugenics law. She challenges the statute as an infringement on her fundamental right to procreate. The court strikes down the law because substantive due process protects the right to procreate from arbitrary state compulsion.
Darrell Duncan lives with his nonmarital child and the child's mother until the mother dies. State officials immediately remove the child without any hearing on his fitness as a parent. The court rules that due process protects his established custodial relationship and requires a fair process before severing the parental bond.
2 common questions
Due process protects both. Procedural due process guarantees fair procedures while substantive due process shields fundamental liberties such as the right to marry and the right to procreate from arbitrary governmental interference.
The Court examines whether the asserted right is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition and whether it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Rights meeting this standard, such as marriage and procreation, receive protection against state infringement.
…found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.…