Constitutional Due Process, Rights, and Property Law: Key Cases and Principles

Due Process

The Due Process clause states that the government shall not deprive any person (including corporations) of 'life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'.

Procedural Due Process (PDP)

PDP ensures the government takes certain steps before depriving someone of their rights, minimizing unfair or mistaken deprivations.

Minimum Requirements of PDP

Notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a fair/impartial tribunal.

Property Interests

Must be a legally recognized proprietary interest or 'entitlement' (e.g., tenured teachers, government benefits).

Matthews v. Eldridge Balancing Test

Courts weigh (1) the nature of the property right, (2) the adequacy of the existing procedures, and (3) the burden that additional procedures would impose on the state.

Civil Cases Requirements

Requires notice (service of process), opportunity to raise defenses, and 'minimum contacts' with the forum state.

Criminal Cases Rights

Includes rights against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, right to a jury trial, right to confront witnesses, right to counsel, and presumption of innocence.

Schools and PDP

Imposing a 10-day suspension requires preliminary hearings (Goss v. Lopez), but corporal punishment does not require prior notice and hearing (Ingram v. Wright).

Substantive Due Process

Substantive Due Process protects fundamental rights and privacy from government interference, asking whether the government has a sufficient purpose to justify the deprivation.

Fundamental Rights

Includes rights deeply rooted in history or recognized by courts (e.g., marriage, contraception).

Abortion Rights

Roe v. Wade originally recognized abortion as a fundamental right using a trimester framework; Planned Parenthood v. Casey replaced it with an 'undue burden' standard.

Dobbs v. Jackson

Overruled Roe and Casey, finding no fundamental constitutional right to an abortion.

Medical Care Rights

There is a fundamental right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment (Cruzan), but there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide (Glucksberg).

Marriage Rights

The right to marry is protected, extending to same-sex couples (Obergefell).

Takings Clause

The government cannot take private property for 'public use' without providing 'just compensation'.

Types of Takings

Physical Takings: Eminent domain or condemnation; Regulatory Takings: Laws that significantly lower property value.

Public Use Interpretation

In Kelo v. New London, the Court allowed the government to take depressed property for economic development as a 'public use'.

Freedom of Speech

The government is restricted in how it regulates expression.

Content-Based Laws

Regulate speech based on its message or ideas and are generally unconstitutional.

Content-Neutral Laws

A regulation on symbolic speech is justified if it furthers an important government interest and is no greater than essential.

Time, Place, and Manner (TPM) Restrictions

The government can regulate when, where, and how speech occurs in public forums.

Unprotected Speech

Includes 'Incitement' and 'Fighting Words' (face-to-face verbal encounters likely to provoke a violent reaction).

Student Speech Rights

Students do not lose their rights at school; to suppress speech, schools must prove it would 'materially and substantially interfere' with operations.

Compelled Speech

The government cannot force individuals to speak or identify with beliefs they disagree with.

Minimum PDP Test

Notice + Opportunity to be heard + Fair tribunal.

O'Brien Test

Content-Neutral Speech regulation test.

TPM Elements

Elements for Time, Place, and Manner restrictions.

Case Name to Concept

Griswold = Privacy/Contraception; Dobbs = Overturned Roe/No right to abortion; Kelo = Takings clause / Public use includes economic development; Lucas = Regulatory takings require nearly total loss; Tinker = Student speech requires 'material and substantial interference'.

Goldberg v. Kelly

Held that due process requires a pretermination hearing before the government can terminate welfare assistance.

Matthews v. Eldridge

Held that due process does not require a pretermination hearing for the termination of Social Security (SSA) benefits; established a balancing test.

Goss v. Lopez

Held that imposing a 10-day school suspension without preliminary hearings violates procedural due process.

Ingram v. Wright

Held that a corporal punishment statute does not require notice and a hearing prior to imposing the punishment.

Substantive Due Process & Privacy Rights

Cases addressing whether the government has sufficient justification to interfere with fundamental, substantive rights.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

An early substantive due process case where the Supreme Court struck down a state regulation limiting bakers to working 60 hours a week.

The Slaughterhouse Cases

The Court previously held that the privileges and immunities clause did not protect individual fundamental rights.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Struck down a criminal law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, establishing a fundamental right to privacy.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Extended the Griswold ruling, recognizing the right to contraception for single, unmarried individuals.

Lawrence v. Texas

Overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, establishing the right to engage in private sexual activity.

Moore v. East Cleveland

Struck down a housing ordinance to protect the right to family living arrangements.

Michael H. v. Gerald D

Upheld a state law establishing a presumption that a child born during a marriage is the child of the husband.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health (1990)

Recognized a fundamental right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment.

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Held that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide.

United States v. Windsor (2013)

Struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), ruling that it denied same-sex couples the federal rights of marriage.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Recognized that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples.

Dept. of State v. Munoz (2024)

Examined whether the fundamental right to marry extends to having a non-citizen spouse stay in the U.S.

Abortion Jurisprudence

Cases addressing the legal status and rights surrounding abortion.

Roe v. Wade

Originally established that women had a fundamental right to an abortion, applying a 'trimester test'.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Declined to reverse Roe but eliminated the trimester test, replacing it with an 'undue burden' analysis.

Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Org. (2018)

Overruled both Roe and Casey, holding that abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history.

The Takings Clause (Eminent Domain)

Legal principle regarding the government's ability to take private property for public use.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

The Court ruled that a law barring an owner from building on beachfront property constituted a regulatory taking.

Kelo v. New London (2005)

Held that seizing private property through eminent domain for private developers constitutes valid 'public use'.

Freedom of Speech (First Amendment)

Legal protections regarding the expression of ideas and speech.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Established the historical 'clear and present danger' test for unprotected speech.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Moved to the modern 'incitement' standard for unprotected speech.

United States v. O'Brien (1968)

Established the balancing test for symbolic speech and content-neutral laws.

Spence v. Washington (1974)

Invalidated a flag misuse statute applied to a protestor who attached a peace symbol to an American flag.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Struck down a flag desecration statute, granting flag burning full protection as expressive conduct.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991)

Applied the O'Brien test to uphold a ban on non-obscene public nude dancing.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)

Upheld a park regulation forbidding sleeping in tents during a homelessness protest.

Matal v. Tam (2017)

Held that the government cannot deny a trademark simply because the speech expresses ideas that are offensive.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

Ruled that the government cannot compel individuals to speak or identify with beliefs they disagree with.

Student Speech & Social Media

Cases addressing the rights of students regarding speech and expression in school settings.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Held that students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War was protected pure speech.

Mahoney School District v. BL (2021)

Addressed a student suspended from cheerleading for posting a vulgar caption on Snapchat off-campus.

Packingham v. North Carolina

Struck down a state law making it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social media sites.

Still learning (14)

You've started learning these terms. Keep it up!