Also known as: due process defence · due-process defense · due process
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A claim that government action has deprived a person of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures or by infringing a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clauses.
Dylan Duffy faced federal charges for an infamous crime. He raised the due process defense because prosecutors bypassed the grand jury and filed an information instead. The court dismissed the charges, holding that the Fifth Amendment required indictment before trial could proceed.
David Dawson sought to marry a partner of a different race in a state that banned interracial unions. He asserted a due process defense grounded in the fundamental right to marry. The court struck down the statute, ruling that the state could not infringe the individual choice to marry across racial lines.
Devon Drake lost his state-issued professional license through an administrative process lacking any hearing. He raised a due process defense under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ordered reinstatement pending proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Diego Duarte faced a state law mandating sterilization after a third conviction. He asserted a due process defense because the right to procreate is fundamental. The court invalidated the statute, finding no compelling justification for the compulsory procedure.
Diane Dawson lived with her nonmarital child as part of a family unit. After the mother died, the state removed the child without a hearing. She raised a due process defense and the court held that the state must provide process before severing the protected relationship.
Diana Delgado lived with her son and two grandsons in a single-family home. The city cited her under an ordinance restricting occupancy to nuclear families. She raised a due process defense and the court held that the regulation impermissibly intruded on protected family choices.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
View caseThe defendant must demonstrate that the government's conduct was so outrageous that it violated fundamental fairness even if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. Courts rarely find such violations and require extreme circumstances such as government agents inducing violence.
No. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause applies to the federal government. State deprivations are governed by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that states may not bar interracial marriage.
Supporting sources
Yes. The right to procreate is fundamental, and states cannot impose mandatory sterilization on certain offenders without violating substantive due process.
Supporting sources
…her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v.…