Due process is a fundamental constitutional protection against government overreach. It encompasses both substantive rights and procedural safeguards, ensuring fair treatment and protecting essential liberties from unjustified infringement.

The evolution of due process jurisprudence has shaped key rights like privacy and marriage equality. Courts use varying levels of scrutiny to balance individual freedoms with government interests, adapting to changing societal norms and technological advancements.

Understanding Due Process

Substantive vs procedural due process

• Substantive due process protects fundamental rights against unjustified government infringement evaluates content of laws and regulations requires sufficient justification for government action
• Procedural due process ensures fair procedures when government deprives life, liberty, or property focuses on enforcement process requires notice and opportunity to be heard

Fundamental rights in due process

• Fundamental rights essential to individual liberty not explicitly enumerated in Constitution receive heightened protection (privacy, marriage, procreation, interstate travel)
• Levels of scrutiny applied: strict scrutiny for most fundamental rights, intermediate scrutiny for certain rights, rational basis review for non-fundamental rights

Evolution of due process jurisprudence

• Lochner v. New York (1905) established economic substantive due process struck down labor regulations
• West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) ended Lochner era shifted away from economic substantive due process
• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) established right to privacy using penumbras and emanations theory
• Roe v. Wade (1973) recognized right to abortion as part of privacy right
• Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) introduced undue burden test for abortion regulations
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) recognized right to same-sex marriage

Requirements of procedural due process

• Notice provides timely and adequate information about proceedings explains charges or issues at stake
• Opportunity to be heard allows presentation of evidence and arguments includes right to confront adverse witnesses in some contexts
• Impartial decision-maker ensures unbiased judge or hearing officer
• Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) balancing test considers:
  1. Private interest affected
  2. Risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards
  3. Government's interest and administrative burden
• Applied in various contexts (criminal proceedings, civil litigation, administrative hearings, public employment termination, student disciplinary proceedings)

Balance of rights in due process

• Competing interests include individual liberty and autonomy, public safety and welfare, efficient government operations
• Balancing factors consider nature and importance of right at stake, extent of government intrusion, governmental interest pursued
• Judicial approaches use levels of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, rational basis) and balancing tests (Mathews v. Eldridge)
• Challenges in striking balance include evolving societal norms, technological advancements, national security concerns
• Impact of balance affects criminal justice system, privacy rights, economic regulations, civil rights and anti-discrimination measures