Also known as: notice and opportunity to be heard · procedural due process · due process hearing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural safeguard required by the Due Process Clause before the government may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. It ensures that affected individuals receive adequate information about the proceeding and a meaningful chance to present their case. The requirement applies whenever a protected interest is at stake.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nyah Ndlovu left her child with a relative in State A for several months while working out of state. The other parent filed a custody petition in State B and obtained an ex parte order granting sole custody. The State B court entered the order without attempting to locate or notify Nyah or the relative who had physical custody. The order is subject to challenge because the statute requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any custody determination.
Neville Norton taught at a state college under a one-year contract. At the end of the year the college simply notified him that it would not renew the contract and gave no reasons. Norton sued, claiming the college should have provided notice of any stigmatizing charges and an opportunity to respond before the nonrenewal took effect.
Noelle North received public assistance payments that the state agency planned to end based on an internal report. The agency mailed a letter stating the payments would stop but provided no pre-termination hearing. North challenged the cutoff, arguing that due process required notice and an evidentiary hearing before benefits could be terminated.
Nicholas Nunez received Social Security disability benefits for several years. The agency reviewed his medical file, concluded he had improved, and sent a termination notice without an in-person hearing. Nunez argued that the existing procedures failed to provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard before his benefits ended.
Noah Nakamura worked as a public school custodian under a statute that allowed termination only for cause. The school board fired him after an internal investigation but gave no pre-termination hearing. Nakamura sued, contending that due process entitled him to notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond before his employment ended.
Nia Nkosi, an inmate, had personal property taken and destroyed by a prison guard during a cell search. Nkosi sued under the Due Process Clause, claiming the state should have provided notice and some opportunity to be heard before the intentional deprivation occurred.
The requirement attaches before any court makes a child-custody determination. It applies to parents whose rights have not been terminated and to any person having physical custody of the child. Courts must follow the notice standards of the governing statute and cannot proceed ex parte when those parties are known or readily locatable.
Supporting sources
…a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Goldberg v. Kelly , 397 U.S., at 267. But the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite. The words "liberty" and "property" in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments must be given some meaning. In Board of Regents v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564…
…particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing
…delays incident to judicial proceedings the Act substitutes an administrative tribunal for the court; and, besides providing for notice and opportunity to be heard, endows the proceedings before the deputy commissioner with the customary incidents of a judicial
…in secret. This is not the way to run a university in a free society. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that a person be given notice and an opportunity to be heard
…which to assess the propriety of the State's action at some time after the initial taking. . . satisf[ies] the requirements of procedural due process
Only when the employee possesses a protected property interest in continued employment. At-will employees lack such an interest and receive no constitutional protection. Employees who may be terminated only for cause hold a property interest and must receive notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond before termination.
Supporting sources
The test weighs the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation under current procedures, and the government's interest in avoiding additional process. When the private interest is substantial and the risk of error is high, a pre-deprivation hearing is usually required. When the government's interest in prompt action is strong and post-deprivation remedies are adequate, a hearing after the fact may suffice.
Supporting sources
The order violates the statute and may be vacated. The statute does not govern enforceability of an order entered without notice, so sister states need not recognize it. The parties denied notice can move to set the order aside and obtain a new hearing at which they may participate.
Supporting sources