AMENDMENT XIV Part 1

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment echoes that of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth
Amendment, however, applies only against the federal government, but after the Civil War, Congress
adopted several measures to protect individual rights from interference by the states. Among them was
the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.” When it was adopted, the Clause was understood to mean that the
government could deprive a person of rights only according to law applied by a court. Yet since then,
the Supreme Court has expanded significantly on this fundamental understanding. Rights protected
under the Fourteenth Amendment can be understood in three categories:

1. Procedural due process.
2. The individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, “incorporated” against the states.
3. Substantive due process.
   Procedural Due Process
   Procedural due process relates to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an
   individual of life, liberty, or property. Key questions that arise are, what procedures satisfy due process?
   And what constitutes “life, liberty, or property”?
   In the past, due process customarily necessitated a jury trial, where a jury determined the facts, and the
   judge enforced the law. However, in the past two centuries, states have developed a variety of
   institutions and procedures for deciding disputes. To provide avenues for these innovations, the Court
   has determined that due process requires, at a minimum of a:
4. Formal notification. *
5. The opportunity to be heard. *
6. An impartial tribunal. *
   *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950).
   Life, Liberty, and Property
   Conceivably the most prominent development is the Court’s enlargement of the concept of property
   beyond real or personal property. In the case of Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), the Court found that some
   governmental benefits found that in cases, such as, welfare benefits, amounted to “property” with due
   process protections. The Court and subsequent courts appraised the procedure for depriving someone
   of a “new property” right by considering:
7. The nature of property rights.
8. The adequacy of the procedure compared to other procedures.
9. The burdens that other procedures would impose on the state. *

• Mathews v. Eldridge (1976).
  2
  Incorporation of the Bill of Rights within the States
  The Bill of Rights comprised of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution which in the
  beginning referred only to the federal government. In a dramatic case brought before the Court.
  Baltimore wharf owner John Barron alleged that construction by the city of Baltimore, Maryland, had
  diverted water flow in the harbor area. His argument was that sand accumulations in the harbor
  deprived Barron of deep waters, which reduced his profits. He sued the city to recover a portion of his
  financial losses. Hence, the question asked before the Court was, does the Fifth Amendment deny the
  states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly
  compensating the property’s owner?
  Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government voiced
  the Fifth Amendment was specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. * Citing
  the intent of the Framers and the development of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) as an
  exclusive check on the federal government, Marshall reasoned that the Supreme Court had no
  jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable (at that time) to the states. The
  decision implied that Barron was not entitled to damages for his property loss from the city under the
  Fifth Amendment provision on just compensation for a government taking. In the end, the local trial
  court awarded him $4,500 in damages, which a Maryland State Appellate court struck down. Those who
  sought to protect their rights from state governments had to rely on state constitutions and laws.
• Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
  Since Barron v. Baltimore, and additional rulings, the initial purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was
  to provide federal protection of individual rights against the individual states, but, reluctantly, the
  Supreme Court excluded the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause as a source of
  robust individual rights against the states. In 1873, the question that was raised before the Court was did
  Louisiana passaged a law that restricted slaughterhouse operations in New Orleans to a single
  corporation. Pursuant to the law, the Crescent City Live-stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company *
  received a charter to run a slaughterhouse downstream from the city. No other areas around the city
  were permitted for slaughtering animals over the next 25 years, and existing slaughterhouses would be
  closed. A group of butchers argued that they would lose their right to practice their trade and earn a
  livelihood under the monopoly. Specifically, they argued the monopoly created involuntary servitude in
  violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and abridged privileges or immunities, denied equal protection
  of the laws, and deprived them of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the
  Fourteenth Amendment.
  The Court held that the monopoly violated neither the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments,
  reasoning that these amendments were passed with the narrow intent to grant full equality to former
  slaves. Thus, to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment only banned the states from depriving blacks of
  equal rights; it did not guarantee that all citizens, regardless of race, should receive equal economic
  privileges by the state. Any rights guaranteed by the Privileges or Immunities Clause were limited to
  areas controlled by the federal government, such as access to ports and waterways, the right to run for
  federal office, and certain rights affecting safety on the seas. Moreover, the Court held that the butchers
  who brought suits were not deprived of their property without due process of law because they could
  still earn a legal living in the area by slaughtering on the Crescent City Company grounds. Thus, the Court
  concluded that the Louisiana law was constitutional.
  3
  However, Justice Stephen Johnson Field’s dissent argued that the Fourteenth Amendment could not be
  construed as only protecting former slaves. Reasonably, he believed that it incorporated strands of
  common-law doctrine and needed to be interpreted outside the Civil War context. This position would
  become widely accepted.
• The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
  Since the ruling, the Court has held that the Due Process Clause “incorporates” many—but not all—of
  the individual protections of the Bill of Rights against the states. If a provision of the Bill of Rights is
  “incorporated” against the states, this means that the state governments, as well as the federal
  government, are required to abide by it. If a right is not “incorporated” against the states, it applies only
  to the federal government.
  A notable debate about incorporation occurred between two factions of the Supreme Court. One side
  believed that all Rights should be incorporated indiscriminately, while the other believed that only
  certain rights could be affirmed upon the individual states. While the partial incorporation faction
  prevailed, its victory rang hollow. As an all-encompassing certainty, all the Rights put forth in the Bill of
  Rights must amalgamated against the individual states, with exceptions, of course, are the Third
  Amendment’s restriction on quartering soldiers in private homes, the Fifth Amendment’s right to a grand
  jury trial, the Seventh Amendment’s right to jury trial in civil cases, and the Eighth Amendment’s
  prohibition on excessive fines.
  Sources:
  As stated above