Constitutional Law- Substantive and Procedural Due Process

Coppage v. Kansas → liberty to contract freely without State imposing work conditions is part of SDP

-Supreme Court struck down a Kansas law that required employers to require employees to sign conditions of employment in agreement that they would not join a union -Supreme Court said that this interfered with liberty; so the liberty of contract was read into the contract clause

Threshold Question: SDP and Enumerated Federal Power

...to what extent may the federal government legislate pursuant to its enumerated powers (commerce and taxing) without undue deprivation of liberty and property?

5th and 14th Amendments

SDP is founded upon Due Process from the 5th and 14th Amendments -----5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived [by the federal government] of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" -----14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens in the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law." -Substantive limitations of legislatures to enact legislation that affects "liberty" and "property."

Standard of Review for Economic Regulatory Legislation

a) Rational Basis Standard of Review → Rational Basis -If the State has a legitimate interest and the legislation is rationally related to the achievement of that interest, the Supreme Court will sustain the legislation

Procedural Due Process Definition

Procedural Due Process (PDP): process by which the court reviews the procedures in which legislation is carried out

Lochner v. New York → baking case where dough and yeast caused health issues

RULE: A state may not regulate the working hours mutually agreed upon by employers and employees as this violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to contract freely under the Due Process Clause; employees could bargain with employers for different working hours Compare with: -Holden v. Hardy -Muller v. Oregon *Note: Substantive due process is a determination of how far the state can go in interfering with the liberty and property (including economic ventures) of the people when enacting legislation

United States v. Carolene Products → regulation for consumer protection of milk (standard of review)

RULE: a statute may be upheld if there is a legitimate purpose and the statute is rationally related to the legitimate purpose -Congress enacted a statute that regulates the transportation and process of filling skim milk. -Manufacturers of milk challenged the statute under the commerce clause but this failed. The challenge was then brought under SDP because the "taking" deprived the process of filling milk. Statute was upheld pursuant to the rule above. *Note: this case changed the standard of review for economic regulation (see below)

Williamson v. Lee Optical → rational basis to enact eye care legislation (standard of review)

RULE: as long as a State has a legitimate goal for regulation and there is a rational basis for the means to achieve the goal, the legislation will be upheld as constitutional -State enacted a statute that prohibited opticians from prescribing eyeglasses (i.e., a doctor must do the prescribing). Opticians challenged this but the Court upheld the statute because the legitimate goal was promoting eye health.

In re Jacobs → police power vs. SDP

RULE: legislation that constitutes a taking of property and limits liberties is a violation of SDP -NY legislation required cigar manufacturers to provide healthier work conditions for employees in promotion of police powers. Court struck down the legislation because it constituted a taking of property (costs money) from the employer and limits the liberties of employees

Rights vs. Privileges of Procedural Due Process

Rights → government cannot take it away without a law being passed Privileges → government can take it away Note: -A procedural due process challenge is not common in criminal cases because there are specific rights prescribed to suspected criminals in the Bill of Rights. -Not logical to rely on a vague due process challenge when you have specific provisions prescribed to your situation in the Bill of Rights that you may challenge

Threshold Question: to what extent may a state legislature protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals without undue deprivation of liberty and property? SDP and State Police Power

Standard of Review for economic regulation → Rational Basis If Government can show reasonable basis and legitimate interest for enacting legislation → Court will sustain the legislation *Note: the low level of standard of review in economic cases will lead to all legislation being sustained

Substantive Due Process

Substantive Due Process (SDP): process by which the courts review the fairness of the substance of the legislation itself to ensure that it is sufficiently reasonable so that it does not deprive people of their liberty or property

Difference between SDP and Procedural Process:

Substantive: -What is legislated -What the government can do Procedural: -How its legislated -How the government can do it

Economic Substantive Due Process-Overview

The Court has not struck down legislation on the basis of a violation of an economic interest since 1936. The Doctrine still remains, but it is rarely used.

Stricter Scrutiny

When the liberties prescribed in the Bill of Rights (non-economic personal liberties) are infringed upon, the Court may invoke a higher standard of review for such other types of legislation, specifically with cases involving: ---Bill of Rights and the personal liberties prescribed by it ---Denial of access to the political process ---Political process impact on minorities ---Race, religion, and/or political *Rationale: these cases involve a heightened standard of review because there may not be an alternative to having such rights upheld

SDP and Commerce Clause Analysis

When attacking a statute, which should you use first? Federal: 1) Commerce Clause THEN 2) Substantive Due Process State: 1) Contract Clause THEN 2) Substantive Due Process

SDP and Commerce Clause

When attacking a statute, would you use SDP or another doctrine? -SDP is a "loose" doctrine, meaning that it gives the Court a lot of discretion -It is much easier to assess whether the Commerce (federal) or Contract (state) clause should apply because there is more precedent to rely upon compared to SDP

Holden v. Hardy

→ Sustained law limiting the number of hours coal miners could work. Mining is more strenuous and dangerous than baking

Muller v. Oregon

→ Sustained law limiting the number of hours women could work "Brandeis Brief" - Law was very clear on its face, so presented facts and empirical data to support and convince (compared to Lochner where no evidence/data was presented in support of legislation)

Paul v. Davis (procedures required by due process)

→ city officials warned merchants of people who were considered shoplifters Potential of damage to reputation did not require state to provide plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to be heard before posting a public notice that the plaintiff might be a shoplifter Lack of procedural due process didn't prevent plaintiff from suing for libel

Perry v. Sindermann (procedures required by due process)

→ entitlement to a hearing even though contract did not provide for a hearing Court held that a non-tenured professor who had received 10 one-year contracts was entitled to a pre-termination hearing even though his contract did not provide for a hearing because after 10 years there was a reliance interest and reasonable expectation

Board of Regents v. Roth (Procedures required by Due Process)

→ entitlement to a hearing was dependent on the expectation (i.e., contract) of the worker -Plaintiff was not entitled to be informed of the reason for his termination or to receive a hearing because the plaintiff's contract did not provide for either and did not create any expectation of either. -Moreover, the termination did not impact his reputation or otherwise interfere with his rights

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

→ minimum wage law for women was upheld -compare w/ Nebbia v. NY -The difference between these two cases is the timing (Court Packing Plan). FDR was reelected and legislation allowed him to add six new justices to the Supreme Court. One of the justices was afraid to strike down the minimum wage requirement in this case out of fear of the new justice legislation also being struck down. This set the demise of the economic due process.

Morehead v. Tipaldo (Demise of Economic SDP)

→ minimum wage of women workers violated due process -NY limited the minimum wage of women workers. This violated due process because there was not a sufficient need for the legislation to interfere with the ability of women to contract with their employers Note: this was the last case where the Supreme Court struck down SDP Compare: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Mathews v. Eldridge (Procedures required by Due Process)

→ no requirement of a hearing for disability ​​-Recipient of disability payments has less need of a hearing than recipient of welfare payments (not entitled to a hearing as it was entitled in Kelly) Difference between this case and Kelly: -----Disability benefits/payments are not based on need, but they are based on disability - a person may receive disability payments but not have a financial need as those who are receiving welfare payments -----Welfare is only based on income - person receiving welfare benefits are only receiving these benefits for a source of income

Goldberg v. Kelly (Procedures required by Due Process)

→ privilege becoming a right required a hearing -Federal welfare payments could not be terminated without a pre-termination evidentiary hearing before a neutral decision-maker, with a right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and with a right to privately-paid counsel -----Federal welfare benefits were an entitlement and Congress did not have to provide them in the first place - but once they did provide the benefits, the benefits became an invested right

Wisconsin v. Constantineau (procedures required by due process)

→ prohibiting alcohol sale -State had to provide notification and hearing before posting notice forbidding sale of alcohol to plaintiff

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (procedures required by due process)

→ public employees must receive some type of notice ​​-Public employees must receive some kind of notice and termination procedures, in this case pre-termination notice, review procedures and a post-termination hearing -To the extent there is an expectation of reliance on the continuation of employment

Nebbia v. New York (Demise of Economic SDP)

→ rejection of only regulating businesses "affected with a public interest" RULE: States can regulate any business by enacting economic policies as long as the policies are not unreasonable or arbitrary - it no longer matters if the business is "affected with a public interest" Previously, the law set forth that States can only regulate businesses that are "affected with a public interest." BUT, this created the issue of, "How do you draw the line as to which businesses are affected vs. are not affected?"