Study Notes on Due Process and Related Cases
Due Process Clauses Overview
The U.S. Constitution includes two significant due process clauses:
Fifth Amendment: Protects against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process by the federal government.
Fourteenth Amendment: Protects against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process by state governments.
Key Differences between Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies to state governments.
Both protect similar rights but refer to different levels of government.
Supreme Court treated interpretations of both due process clauses similarly.
Applications of Due Process
The clauses serve to protect two primary types of rights:
Procedural Due Process:
Definition: Rights ensuring fair processes before government deprivation of life, liberty, or property.
Examples of required processes:
Right to trial by jury.
Formal accusation before trial.
Presentation and cross-examination of evidence.
Ensures governmental adherence to legal procedures before taking action against individuals.
Substantive Due Process:
Definition: Protects certain fundamental rights from being infringed upon, irrespective of the legal processes followed.
Government cannot take away these rights without violating due process, regardless of procedures.
Criticism:
Some argue these rights are not explicitly mentioned in the due process clauses.
Others suggest it gives judges undue power to create rights not found in constitutional texts.
Historical Cases and Examples
Dred Scott v. Sandford:
Context: Relates to the Missouri Compromise and slavery in U.S. territories.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, asserting that it violated property rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Highlights the Supreme Court's use of substantive due process to protect certain rights (like property ownership of slaves) deemed fundamental.
Lochner v. New York:
Issue: Challenged New York's regulation of bakers' working hours.
Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the "liberty to contract."
Established a period known as the "Lochner Era," in which many laws regulating labor and economic relationships were struck down based on substantive due process.
20th Century Shifts and Further Cases
Gradual shifts in the focus on substantive due process leading into modern interpretations:
The Supreme Court started to lean towards a broader interpretation of due process laws by the late 1930s.
Some substantive due process protections retained, particularly concerning rights deemed fundamental.
Right to Privacy (established in Griswold v. Connecticut):
Context: Connecticut law banning contraceptives challenged.
Supreme Court stated that its ruling was more about the right to privacy, asserting its existence from the penumbras of other amendments.
Justice Douglas suggested that rights combine to create a shadow (penumbra) that includes personal decisions surrounding privacy.
Roe v. Wade:
Affirmed the right to abortion under the right to privacy; laid out the trimester framework for state laws regarding abortions.
Subsequent rulings like Planned Parenthood v. Casey revised Roe's standards, replacing the trimester framework with fetal viability and the undue burden standard.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization:
Overturned Roe and Casey, asserting that abortion laws could be determined by the states without the constitutional protections established in previous cases.
Emphasized a return to the original interpretation of the Constitution without the commonly applied substantive due process over the last few decades.
Conclusion
The due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are fundamental to understanding individual rights against governmental actions in the U.S. legal system.
The distinction between procedural and substantive due process continues to evolve and impacts various issues including privacy and reproductive rights.