Also known as: Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause · 14th Amendment Due Process Clause · Fourteenth Amendment due process · Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment · 14th Amendment Due Process
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The constitutional command in the Fourteenth Amendment that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It incorporates most Bill of Rights protections against the states and requires fair procedures before deprivations occur. Voluntariness of confessions and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence are enforced through this clause in state proceedings.
Faith Fitzgerald was charged in state court after officers searched her home without a warrant and seized documents. The trial court admitted the documents over her objection. On appeal the court reversed the conviction because the evidence had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Faye Fuller, a nineteen-year-old with limited education, was questioned for twelve hours without counsel or rest. She signed a confession after repeated accusations. The court excluded the statement after examining her age, condition, and the interrogation setting.
Flora Ford, a resident of a city that banned handguns in the home, sued after police seized her licensed pistol. She argued the ordinance violated her right to keep arms for self-defense. The court applied the incorporated Second Amendment to strike down the ban.
Floyd Franklin, a Delaware corporation president, received service while his company maintained sales representatives and contracts in Washington. The state sued for unpaid contributions. The court upheld jurisdiction because the company had purposefully availed itself of the forum.
International Shoe Co. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. The company manufactured and sold shoes and other footwear. During the years 1937 to 1940 the company employed eleven to thirteen salesmen who resided in Washington and whose principal activities were confined to that state. These salesmen were compensated by commissions totaling more than $31,000 each year. The salesmen displayed samples to prospective purchasers. On occasion they rented permanent sample rooms in business buildings or rented rooms in hotels or business buildings temporarily for that purpose. The cost of such rentals was reimbursed by the company. The authority of the salesmen is limited to exhibiting their samples and soliciting orders from prospective buyers, at prices and on terms fixed by appellant. The salesmen transmit the orders to appellant's office in St. Louis for acceptance or rejection. When accepted the merchandise for filling the orders is shipped f. o. b. from points outside Washington to the purchasers within the state. Washington state maintained a comprehensive unemployment compensation scheme. The costs of the scheme are defrayed by contributions required to be made by employers to a state unemployment compensation fund. The contributions are a specified percentage of the wages payable annually by each employer for his employees' services in the state. The assessment and collection of the contributions and the fund are administered by appellees. For the years in question notice of assessment for delinquent contributions was personally served upon a sales solicitor employed by appellant in the State of Washington. A copy of the notice was mailed by registered mail to appellant at its address in St. Louis, Missouri. Appellant appeared specially before the office of unemployment and moved to set aside the order and notice of assessment on the ground that the service upon appellant's salesman was not proper service upon appellant. Appellant also asserted that it was not doing business within the state and that it is not an employer and does not furnish employment within the meaning of the statute. The motion was heard on evidence and a stipulation of facts by the appeal tribunal which denied the motion and ruled that appellee Commissioner was entitled to recover the unpaid contributions. That action was affirmed by the Commissioner. Both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court affirmed. The company appealed to the United States Supreme Court under section 237(a) of the Judicial Code. The facts found by the appeal tribunal and accepted by the state courts showed that the company had no office in Washington and makes no contracts either for sale or purchase of merchandise there. It maintains no stock of merchandise in that state and makes there no deliveries of goods in intrastate commerce. All the merchandise shipped into Washington is invoiced at the place of shipment from which collections are made. No salesman has authority to enter into contracts or to make collections.
Fatou Fall, a terminally ill patient, sought a physician's assistance to end her life under a state statute. The legislature had banned such aid. The court examined whether the claimed right was deeply rooted in history before rejecting the challenge.
Washington has prohibited assisting suicide since its territorial days. In 1854, the first Territorial Legislature outlawed assisting another in the commission of self-murder. The current statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.060, provides that a person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide, and classifies it as a class C felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Washington's Natural Death Act, enacted in 1979, states that the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment at a patient's direction shall not constitute a suicide, but the state has consistently rejected efforts to legalize physician-assisted suicide, including a 1991 ballot initiative defeated by voters. The respondents in this case are four physicians who practice in Washington and treat terminally ill patients, three terminally ill patients who sought to end their lives with physician assistance and have since died, and Compassion in Dying, a nonprofit organization that counsels people considering physician-assisted suicide. The physicians declared that they would assist their patients in ending their lives if not for the assisted-suicide ban. Petitioners are the State of Washington and its Attorney General. In January 1994, the respondents filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. They sought a declaration that Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.060 is unconstitutional on its face and an injunction against its enforcement. The District Court held that the statute was unconstitutional. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, but the full court sitting en banc reversed the panel and affirmed the District Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Fernando Farrell received disability payments that the agency terminated after an internal review. He received only written notice and no pre-termination opportunity to present evidence. The court weighed his private interest, the risk of error, and the government's burden to decide what process was due.
George Eldridge was first awarded Social Security disability benefits in June 1968. In March 1972 he received a questionnaire from the state agency charged with monitoring his medical condition. He completed and returned the questionnaire, indicating that his condition had not improved and identifying recent medical sources. The state agency obtained reports from his physician and a psychiatric consultant. After reviewing those reports and other information in his file, the agency sent Eldridge a letter stating that it had made a tentative determination that his disability had ceased in May 1972. The letter included a statement of reasons for the proposed termination and advised Eldridge that he could request time to submit additional information. Eldridge responded in writing, disputing one characterization of his medical condition and asserting that the agency already possessed sufficient evidence of his disability. The state agency then made a final determination that Eldridge had ceased to be disabled in May 1972; the Social Security Administration accepted that determination. In July 1972 Eldridge received written notice that his benefits would terminate after that month and that he could seek reconsideration by the state agency within six months. Instead of requesting reconsideration, Eldridge filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He challenged the constitutionality of the Secretary's termination procedures and sought an injunction barring termination of benefits until a pretermination evidentiary hearing was provided, together with immediate reinstatement of benefits. The District Court held that the existing procedures violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, ordered the Secretary to provide Eldridge a pretermination hearing, and directed reinstatement of benefits pending that hearing. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and heard the case.
The clause makes most Bill of Rights guarantees applicable to state and local governments when those rights are fundamental to ordered liberty. Courts examine whether a particular protection is deeply rooted in history and tradition before applying it to the states.
Supporting sources
…of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending…
…v. Hogan , 378 U.S. 1 (1964), established that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
…Public Education in the United States (1934 ed.), cc. II-XII. School practices current at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
…Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court. The questions for decision are (1) whether, within the limitations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, appellant, a Delaware corporation, has by its activities in the State of Washington rendered itself amenable to proceedings in the courts of that state to recover unpaid contributions to…
…sequestration order on the ground that the sequestration statute was unconstitutional. They argued that the statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it permitted the Delaware courts to exercise jurisdiction over them without sufficient minimum contacts with the State. The Court of Chancery rejected the constitutional challenge…
Voluntariness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect's age, education, mental and physical condition, and the length and manner of interrogation. A confession obtained through physical coercion is automatically involuntary and inadmissible.
Supporting sources
No. The clause requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time, but the precise procedures depend on a balancing of the private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government's interests. Pre-deprivation process is not always required when property can be dissipated or when post-deprivation remedies suffice.
Supporting sources
Evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. The rule deters police misconduct and is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Supporting sources