Also known as: due process
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The constitutional command that government may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures and without a legitimate basis for the deprivation. The command appears in the Fifth Amendment as a limit on federal power and in the Fourteenth Amendment as a limit on state power. It encompasses both procedural protections such as notice and an opportunity to be heard and substantive limits on government authority to interfere with fundamental rights.
Federal prosecutors charge Demetrius Douglas with a serious federal offense without first presenting the matter to a grand jury. Douglas moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the charging process itself violated constitutional limits on how the government may proceed against an individual. The court dismisses the case because the government failed to follow the required procedure before seeking to deprive Douglas of his liberty.
Delilah Duran and Darius Dixon, an interracial couple, apply for a marriage license in their home state. State officials refuse the license solely because of the couple's races. The couple sues, claiming that the refusal deprives them of a protected liberty interest. The court invalidates the state law because it imposes an unconstitutional barrier on the fundamental right to marry.
Deanna Davenport owns property that a state agency seizes and sells to satisfy an alleged tax debt. The agency provides no notice or hearing before the seizure. Davenport sues the state, arguing that the seizure deprived her of property without the required constitutional protections. The court orders the state to return the property or provide compensation because the procedures used were constitutionally inadequate.
Damian Decker is convicted of a nonviolent crime and the state seeks to apply a statute requiring his sterilization. Decker challenges the statute as an unconstitutional interference with a protected liberty interest. The court strikes down the statute because it imposes an impermissible burden on the fundamental right to procreate.
Deborah Dunn lives with her nonmarital child and the child's mother until the mother dies. State officials immediately remove the child from Dunn's custody without any hearing on his parental fitness. Dunn petitions the court, claiming the removal violated his protected relationship with the child. The court orders a hearing because due process protects the custodial interests of such fathers.
Delta Dynamics employees Demetrius Douglas and Delilah Duran seek a marriage license from state officials who refuse on the ground that the couple is same-sex. The couple sues, asserting that the refusal deprives them of a fundamental liberty interest. The court invalidates the state restriction because it unconstitutionally burdens the right to marry.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseThe clause prevents government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures and without a legitimate basis for the action. It applies to both federal and state governments through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Supporting sources
Yes. In addition to requiring fair procedures, the clause limits the government's ability to interfere with fundamental rights such as marriage and procreation even when procedures are followed.
Supporting sources
An unmarried father who has established a custodial relationship with his child receives constitutional protection. The state cannot sever that relationship without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard on the question of parental fitness.
Supporting sources
The clause requires that serious federal criminal charges be brought by grand jury indictment and prohibits compelled self-incrimination and double jeopardy. It also guarantees an impartial jury when prejudicial publicity has saturated the community.
Supporting sources
…found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.…