Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Name	Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Caption	Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
Location	United States
Adopted	1868
Amendment	Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Text	No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the constitutional provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that restrains state action by forbidding states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It functions as a central interpretive tool in United States constitutional law, influencing doctrines developed by the Supreme Court of the United States and debated by scholars at institutions such as Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and Columbia Law School. The Clause intersects with key historical actors and events including the Reconstruction era, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and decisions emerging from courts like the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Text and scope

The operative language appears in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and reads that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Clause addresses state action, distinguishing it from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment which constrains United States federal government action; both have been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in decisions such as Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago and Mapp v. Ohio. The words "life," "liberty," and "property" have been variously defined by courts, with interpretations informed by precedents from panels like the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and doctrines articulated by justices such as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, and Antonin Scalia.

Historical background and adoption

The Clause emerged from debates during the Reconstruction era after the American Civil War and was adopted as part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868. Sponsors and framers were influenced by figures such as John Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens, and by earlier instruments like the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights 1689. Congressional action during the period, including the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and events like the Colfax Massacre shaped legislative intent. Ratification battles involved state legislatures and political actors including Andrew Johnson and members of the United States Congress who contested the amendment's scope in hearings and debates recorded in the Congressional Globe.

Incorporation and procedural due process

Incorporation refers to the process by which the Supreme Court of the United States applied protections in the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Landmark doctrines of incorporation were forged in cases like Gitlow v. New York, Near v. Minnesota, and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Procedural due process requires fair procedures when the state deprives individuals of protected interests; cases such as Goldberg v. Kelly and Mathews v. Eldridge established tests balancing private interests, risk of erroneous deprivation, and governmental burdens. The procedural framework has guided litigation involving entities like the Federal Trade Commission and institutions such as state prisons and public universities adjudicated in tribunals including the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Substantive due process and major doctrines

Substantive due process addresses whether the Constitution protects certain fundamental rights from state interference, regardless of procedures. The doctrine has been applied to issues like privacy, family relations, and economic regulation. Decisions such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges invoked substantive due process or related liberty principles. The Court has developed tests assessing whether a right is "fundamental" and whether state action is narrowly tailored, while critiques often invoke originalist readings advanced by scholars affiliated with The Heritage Foundation and jurists like Neil Gorsuch. Economic substantive due process surfaced in cases like Lochner v. New York, while later doctrines in Kelo v. City of New London and South Dakota v. Opperman touched property and regulatory takings.

Key Supreme Court cases

Important decisions interpreting the Clause include Dred Scott v. Sandford (precursor context), Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago (incorporation of just compensation), Gitlow v. New York (first incorporation of speech), Mapp v. Ohio (exclusionary rule via incorporation), Goldberg v. Kelly (procedural due process for welfare), Griswold v. Connecticut (privacy rights), Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion doctrine), Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex intimacy), Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), and recent decisions reshaping substantive due process doctrines from the bench of justices such as John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

Criticisms and scholarly debate

The Clause has been the focus of intense scholarly debate. Critics from originalism and textualism traditions, represented by scholars at University of Chicago Law School and commentators like Robert Bork, argue that substantive due process permits judicial overreach. Proponents from living constitutionalism camps at Yale Law School and New York University School of Law defend its role in protecting evolving liberty interests, citing decisions by justices like Stephen Breyer. Debates also engage interdisciplinary fields connected to scholars at Princeton University, Stanford University, and University of Michigan Law School concerning democratic legitimacy, rights protection, and the balance between federal and state authority exemplified by disputes involving the National League of Cities and state legislatures.

Category:United States constitutional law