Procedural due process: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:36, 27 June 2017

Latest revision as of 17:00, 24 March 2025

(9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Legal doctrine}}

{{Distinguish|Substantive due process}}

'''Procedural due process''' is a [[legal doctrine]] in the [[United States]] that requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of [[life]], [[liberty]], or [[property]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite booksfn|title = Administrative Law: Agency Action in Legal Context|last = Glicksman|first = Robert L.Levy|publisher = Foundation Press|year = 2010|isbn p= |___location = 9781599416106|pages = |last2 = Levy|first2 = Richard E.}}</ref>{{Rp|657}} When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process minimally requires at least for the government to afford the person notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker. Procedural due process is required by the [[Due Process Clause]]s of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendments]] Amendments to the [[US Constitution|United States Constitution]].<ref name=":0" />{{Rpsfn|Glicksman|Levy|2010|p=617}}

The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge [[Henry Friendly]] created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority.".<ref name="Strauss Due Process Rights">{{citeCite journal web|last=StraussFriendly |first=PeterHenry |date=1975 |title=DUESome Kind of Hearing PROCESS|url=https://wwwscholarship.law.cornellupenn.edu/wexpenn_law_review/due_processvol123/iss6/2/ |publisherjournal=[[LegalUniversity Informationof InstitutePennsylvania Law Review]] |accessdatevolume=8123 March|issue=6 |pages=1267–1317 2013}}</ref> TheseThe rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are the following:<ref name="Strauss Due Process Rights">{{cite web |last=Strauss |first=Peter |title=DUE PROCESS |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process |access-date=8 March 2013 |publisher=[[Legal Information Institute]]}}</ref>

# An unbiased tribunal.

# Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

# OpportunityThe opportunity to present reasons whyfor the proposed action should not to be taken.

# The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

# The right to know the opposing evidence.

# The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

# A decision based exclusivelyonly on the evidence presented.

# Opportunity to be represented by counsel.

# RequirementA requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.

# RequirementA requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

Not all the above rights are guaranteed in every instance when the government seeks to deprive a person life, liberty, or property. At minimum, a person is due only notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker. Courts use various tests to determine whether a person should also be guaranteed any of the other above procedural rights.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

<references />

==Sources==

* {{cite book |last1=Glicksman |first1=Robert L. |last2=Levy |first2=Richard E. |title=Administrative Law: Agency Action in Legal Context |date=2010 |publisher=Foundation Press/Thomson Reuters |isbn=978-1-59941-610-6 }}

==Further reading==

* {{cite journal |last1=Eberle |first1=Edward |title=Procedural Due Process: The Original Understanding. |journal=Constitutional Commentary |date=1987 |id={{CORE output|76347743}} |url=https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/293/ }}

* {{cite journal |last1=Chemerinsky |first1=Erwin |title=Procedural Due Process Claims |journal=Touro Law Review |date=6 April 2016 |volume=16 |issue=3 |url=https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol16/iss3/12/ }}

* {{cite journal |last1=Redish |first1=Martin H. |last2=Marshall |first2=Lawrence C. |title=Adjudicatory Independence and the Values of Procedural Due Process |journal=The Yale Law Journal |date=1986 |volume=95 |issue=3 |pages=455–505 |id={{CORE output|160249325}} |doi=10.2307/796487 |jstor=796487 |hdl=20.500.13051/16382 |hdl-access=free }}

* {{cite journal |last1=Grossi |first1=Simona |title=Procedural Due Process |journal=Seton Hall Circuit Review |date=28 August 2017 |volume=13 |issue=2 |id={{CORE output|151531836}} |ssrn=2935505 |url=https://scholarship.shu.edu/circuit_review/vol13/iss2/1/ }}

* {{cite journal |last1=Rubin |first1=Peter J. |title=Square Pegs and round Holes: Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, and the Bill of Rights |journal=Columbia Law Review |date=2003 |volume=103 |issue=4 |pages=833–892 |doi=10.2307/1123779 |jstor=1123779 }}

* {{cite book |doi=10.4159/9780674059733-010 |jstor=j.ctv1smjtdq.14 |chapter=The Myths of Substantive Due Process |title=The Constitution and the New Deal |date=2000 |pages=241–268 |isbn=978-0-674-05973-3 |last1=White |first1=G. Edward |publisher=Harvard University Press }}

[[Category:American legal terminology]]