Due Process

Question 1

Due Process analysis

Answer 1

is something life, liberty, or property? if yes, gov cannot deprive a person unless there is procedural due process

Question 2

14th Amendment Due Process

Answer 2

FOR THE STATES
-Bill of rights is not directly applicable to states, must be incorporated under the 14th amendment
- state due process right to liberties under the amendments; state does not violate the amendment
-If a state tries to limit individual rights, must show a direct relation between the regulation and appropriate state goal

Question 3

5th Amendment Due Process

Answer 3

FOR THE FEDERAL GOV

Question 4

Fundamental Rights

Answer 4

Trigger strict scrutiny
-government regulation must be necessary to achieve a compelling interest, must be narrowly tailored
-government usually loses

Question 5

Non-Fundamental Rights

Answer 5

Triggers rational basis review
-state pursues a legitimate government objective and the means are rationally related to the objective

Question 6

Economic and Social Welfare Regulations

Answer 6

rational review, not strict scrutiny
-Legitimate state objective (but virtually any health safety or general welfare goal is within states police power)
-minimally rationally related (SC will presume statute is constitutional unless legislature has acted in a completely arbitrary and irrational way)

Question 7

Procedural Due Process

Answer 7

refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property
-The remedy for a PDP violation is to be afforded more process: Notice and the opportunity to be heard (can get hearing and outcome will be the same)

Question 8

Corporations

Answer 8

are persons within the meaning of the 14th amendment, so can argue due process and equal protection

Question 9

Procedural Due Process requires

Answer 9

Notice and Opportunity to be Heard

state does not need provide actual notice, just that it attempted to notify

Question 10

Slaughterhouse Cases

Answer 10

-narrow interpretation of 14th amendment; only applied to the federal gov’t not states (OVERRULED)

Question 11

Saenz v. Roe

Answer 11

California limited welfare benefits of newly arrived residents (one year)
HOLDING: unconstitutional b/c violated p&i fundamental right to move/travel cannot be burdened

Question 12

Lochner v. New York

Answer 12

NY labor law restricts bakers working hours to 60 a week
HOLDING: Unconstitutional b/c freedom to contract is a liberty from due process; no reasonable reason to limit freedom of K b/c it doesn’t apply to general welfare, just bakers

Question 13

Nebbia v. New York

Answer 13

-distinguishes Lochner and shifted view of gov ability to regulate economy
NY fixed the price of milk; Nebbia was convicted of selling milk below the fixed price
HOLDING: Constitutional; State can pass regulations that promote the public good
REASONING: Use rational review, as ling as the policies are not unreasonable or arbitrary, a state can pass an economic policy that promotes public welfare

Question 14

What rights have been incorporated?

Answer 14

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (not guarantee of grand jury), 6th, 8th

Question 15

Board of Regents v Roth

Answer 15

Non-tenured professor was not rehired at the end of his K, not given notice or hearing so claimed violation of SDP’s property right
HOLDING: Constitutional; he had no legitimate property interest
REASONING: b/c the K had ended, no legitimate property right, and liberty is not violated b/c he can look for other jobs

Question 16

Property Rights

Answer 16

-Something for which a person has more than an abstract need or desire for.
-He must have more than a unilateral expectation for it.
-Mutual, not unilateral
-He must instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.
-There are no property interests in the Const. they are created and defined by independent sources of law such as state law. But, once created, they cannot be taken away without process.

Question 17

Perry v. Sinderman

Answer 17

Teacher in a state system was not rehired even though the school had a de facto tenure system; did not get a hearing and was not told why he was not rehired
HOLDING: Unconstitutional, he had a property right in the implied contract (tenure system) and has a right to a HEARING

Question 18

2 step analysis to Procedural Due Process

Answer 18

• Whether something can be termed life, liberty, or property. If so, the gov must offer the guarantees of procedural due process before depriving the person of it.
• What type of process and when is that process due.

Question 19

What process is due?

Answer 19

Balancing test; consider:
-the private interest being affected, risk of error in procedures and probable value of additional/substitute procedures, and the government interest

Question 20

Test of DP

Answer 20

Straightforward test of Reasonableness under the circumstances

Question 21

Goldberg v. Kelly (14th Amendment)

Answer 21

NY terminated welfare to someone without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination
HOLDING: Unconstitutional violation of PDP
REASONING: welfare is a brutal need (essential for those on welfare), so a quasi-judicial hearing is required BEFORE termination

Question 22

Matthews v. Eldridge (5th Amendment)

Answer 22

Eldridge’s social security disability benefits were terminated without a hearing
HOLDING: Constitutional; no hearing required for disability benefits termination
REASONING: Social Security is not based on need like welfare is, used a 3 factor test

Question 23

Matthews 3 factor test

Answer 23

1. Private interest that will be affected by official action
2. risk of error
3. Government interest (including fiscal and administrative burdens)

can help determine PDP, but not required test (only reasonableness under the circumstances required)

Question 24

Cleveland v. Board of Education v. Loudermill (14th amendment)

Answer 24

Loudermill was employed by Cleveland BOE as a civil servant. Ohio law stated civil servants can only be terminated for cause with a right to administrative review; he was fired for dishonesty in his application and not given a hearing
HOLDING: Unconstitutional; even though state had cause, must still give a pretermination hearing
REASONING: Once a law confers a substantive right, a person may not be deprived of that substantive right without constitutionally adequate procedures; Although a legislature may confer a substantive right, once conferred the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits deprivation of that substantive right without constitutionally adequate procedures

Question 25

Bill of Attainder

Answer 25

a statute that convicts someone and punishes them for a crime

Question 26

Bill of Attainder Elements

Answer 26

1. Specificity
2. Punishment
3. Without benefit of judicial trial

Question 27

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services

Answer 27

Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act authorized future implementation of standards of review and maintenance of presidential records
HOLDING: Constitutional; not a bill of attainder
REASONING: Use historical test (punishment), functional test, motivational test

Question 28

Requirements for interfering with contract obligations

Answer 28

• An emergency existed
• The legislation was addressed to a legit end (not for the mere advantage of particular individual but for interest of society)
• The relief afforded was of a character appropriate to that emergency
• The conditions upon which the extensions are granted are reasonable
• It is limited to the exigency which called it forth.

Question 29

Public contracts

Answer 29

• If the state is trying to escape from its own financial obligations, then the Court will closely scrutinize this attempt.
• Here, the state attempt to “weasel” will be struck down unless the modification is “reasonable and necessary to support an important public purpose” (basically middle-level review)
• When you’re dealing w/ contracts between state and individual, and state makes changes in it, trying to contract its way out of it, those laws are suspicious.
  e. They’re trying to change the rules of the game, to benefit themselves.

Question 30

Private Contracts

Answer 30

• when the state is re-writing contracts made by private parties, the judicial review is not so stringent.
  -Here, even a substantial modification to contracts between private parties will be allowed so long as the state is acting “reasonably” in pursuit of a “legitimate public purpose.”
  -So we apply what is basically “mere rationality” review in this situation.
  f. Has to be some severe or substantial impairment of contract.
  g. Court looks at how narrow the legislation is, do they accomplish all they need to do, and not do more… A reasonably narrow means to accomplish the obligation.

Question 31

Factors to determine if contractural interference is constitutional

Answer 31

1. Emergency
2. Substantial impairment
3. reliance
4. reasonable
5. temporary
6. area previously regulated

Question 32

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell

Answer 32

During the Great Depression, Minnesota put a moratorium on collecting mortgage payments
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: -A TEMPORARY economic EMERGENCY necessitating state involvement to protect individual debtors can impose temporarily increased limits on the freedom of contract; Here, the Mortgage law is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to protect the public’s welfare.

Question 33

emergency doesnt

Answer 33

CREATE power, but means the government can implement regulations already granted

Question 34

Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus

Answer 34

Minnesota Private Pension Benefits Act required private employers to pay a fee if they terminated employee pension plans or moved their offices away from the state, leaving insufficient funds to cover the pensions of employees having worked for the companies for over ten years.
HOLDING: Unconstitutional violation of contracts clause
REASONING: invaded an area never before subject to regulation by a state; severe, permanent, and immediate change in relationships, too narrow
- Substantially impaired the contractual relationship

Question 35

Takings Clause

Answer 35

government may take private property under eminent domain, but has to pay a fair price (even if it serves a compelling gov interest)

Question 36

Taking by Possession

Answer 36

Exercise of eminent domain where the Gov takes possession of a privately owned parcel of land
-duty to compensate
-can be temporary or permanent

Question 37

Taking by Regulation

Answer 37

Gov regulation intereferes w/ people’s enjoyment of the land
-no need for compensation even if owner is substantially diminished of use
normally fall under police power and are constitutional
-unconstitutional when intrudes on family structure

Question 38

for a land use regulation to avoid becoming a taking

Answer 38

(1) It must “substantially advance legitimate state interests”; and
(2) It must not “deny an owner economically viable use of his land.”

-regulation becomes a taking if it goes too far

Question 39

to determine if a regulation has become a taking, a court will consider:

Answer 39

(1) The economic impact of the regulation on the claimant;
(2) The extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations;
(3) The character of the governmental action;
(4) Interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by the government.

Question 40

United States v. Causby

Answer 40

the military began using an airport next to Causby’s chicken farm and home; the noise and lights from the planes was was overwhelmingly intrusive, which caused the family to suffer ongoing sleep deprivation, nervousness and fear, led to the death of 150 chickens, and forced Causby to close his business.
HOLDING: Partial taking, compensable
REASONING: Value of a taking is an owners loss, not a taker’s gain; loss of enjoyment and use of the land; use of airspace is so frequent and they fly so low, limits utility of the land and causes diminution in value

Question 41

Kelo v. New London

Answer 41

City wanted to take ugly homes and turn them over to private developers so the area will be redeveloped and increase the City’s tax base
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: Zoning is a state police power; taking is for public use

Question 42

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

Answer 42

Belle Terre issued an ordinance restricting land use to one-family dwellings, and classified family as people being related by blood, adoption, or marriage, or two unmarried cohabiting people
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: Economic and social regulations are generally upheld against equal protection challenges where the law is reasonable and bears a rational relationship to a proper state objective; was not arbitrary because it was designed to reduce noises and traffic, and to provide quiet and open spaces for children to play.