Right not to be deprived by government of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to be heard according to fair procedures.
The Supreme Court recognized that the constitutional right to procedural due process derives historically from the Magna Carta (1215), which prohibited the English monarch from depriving a certain class of subjects of their rights except by 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 some of the state constitutions. Soon after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Amendment
The due process clauses apply to criminal as well as civil procedures. However, because other constitutional protections are triggered in criminal matters by specific provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, the Court 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.
The Court ruled, in Collins v. City of Harker Heights
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
The Court often (but not always) evaluates procedural due process issues by considering the three factors brought out in Mathews v. Eldridge
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
The Court also made two rulings regarding placement in mental institutions. In Vitek V. Jones
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
In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
American Bar Association. Due Process Protection for Juveniles in Civil Commitment Proceedings. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1991. Champion, Dean John. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, and the Law. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2003. Cox, Steven M., John J. Conrad, and Jennifer M. Allen. Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory and Practice. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003. Decker, John F. Revolution to the Right: Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence During the Burger-Rehnquist Court Era. New York: Garland, 1993. Galligan, Denis J. Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Orth, John V. Due Process of Law: A Brief History. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003. Roach, Kent. Due Process and Victims’ Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1999.
Due process, substantive
Self-incrimination, immunity against