This document outlines the analysis for procedural due process and substantive due process claims under the US Constitution. For procedural due process, it first determines if there is state action and deprivation of rights, then examines if proper notice and an impartial hearing were provided. For substantive due process, it determines if a fundamental right is involved, and then applies either strict scrutiny for fundamental rights or rational basis for non-fundamental rights. The equal protection analysis classifies types of discrimination and applies different levels of judicial scrutiny depending on the class affected - strict scrutiny for suspect classes, intermediate scrutiny for quasi-suspect classes, and rational basis for all other classes.
This document outlines the analysis for procedural due process and substantive due process claims under the US Constitution. For procedural due process, it first determines if there is state action and deprivation of rights, then examines if proper notice and an impartial hearing were provided. For substantive due process, it determines if a fundamental right is involved, and then applies either strict scrutiny for fundamental rights or rational basis for non-fundamental rights. The equal protection analysis classifies types of discrimination and applies different levels of judicial scrutiny depending on the class affected - strict scrutiny for suspect classes, intermediate scrutiny for quasi-suspect classes, and rational basis for all other classes.
This document outlines the analysis for procedural due process and substantive due process claims under the US Constitution. For procedural due process, it first determines if there is state action and deprivation of rights, then examines if proper notice and an impartial hearing were provided. For substantive due process, it determines if a fundamental right is involved, and then applies either strict scrutiny for fundamental rights or rational basis for non-fundamental rights. The equal protection analysis classifies types of discrimination and applies different levels of judicial scrutiny depending on the class affected - strict scrutiny for suspect classes, intermediate scrutiny for quasi-suspect classes, and rational basis for all other classes.
as applied to the federal government through the 5 th amendment and the states through the 14 th amendment
IS THERE A STATE ACTOR?
IS THERE INTENTIONAL DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY?
WAS THERE NOTICE AND A HEARING WITH AN IMPARTIAL DECISIONMAKER?
WAS THE SCOPE OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING ADEQUATE?
NO Private actors are generally exempt from PDP requirements YES No violation of procedural due process NO Do the facts involve either An at will public employee or Harm to reputation? NO YES There is no property interest in unilateral expectation of employment Harm to reputation, standing alone, does not implicate deprivation of liberty or property triggering Due process NOTICE Did it tell what rules are and what was allegedly violated? HEARING Opportunity to rebut governments case? IMPARTIAL DECIONMAKER Did IDM have no interest in the outcome? YES Per Se violation of procedural due process NO BALANCING TEST (Subjective) Importance of interest deprived Risk of erroneous deprivation of the interest Burden or cost associated with using a new procedure YES 2013 Michigan Bar Exam Constitutional Law Charts SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS
Applies to unenumerated rights in the 9 th
as applied to the federal government through the 5 th amendment and the states through the 14 th amendment
APPLY WHERE THERE IS A LAW (STATE ACTION) THAT AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY:
Fundamental Right? Not Fundamental? NO marry, divorce, and maintain children Family Relations Contraceptives Right to Die Refuse medical care Private consensual sexual activity Obscene material in privacy of home (not child porn) Abortion Economic regulation Or any other non- fundamental right APPLY STRICT SCRUTINY
Government has burden Compelling government interest? o Morals cannot stand alone Narrowly tailored and least restrictive means? (best way and no reasonable alternative) APPLY PP v. CASE TEST
Pre-viability? State can regulate But no undue burden (substantial obstacle) on mother to get abortion -24 Hr waiting period, requirement by license Doctor
Post-Viability State can ban o Health and Safety Exception
-Never need spousal consent. -Minors need judicial bypass option. -No government duty to subsidize abortions. APPLY RATIONAL BASIS
Challenger has burden Legitimate state interest (To protect health, safety, and morals of adults and children) o Morals cannot stand alone Means are rationally related (but not necessarily the best way) YES YES YES LAW IS VALID YES LAW IS INVALID NO YES 2013 Michigan Bar Exam Constitutional Law Charts EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS
as applied to the federal government through the 5 th amendment and the states through the 14 th amendment
APPLY WHERE THERE IS A LAW (STATE ACTION) THAT AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF SOME PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY:
SUSPECT (Discreet, Insular minorities)
Race Ethnicity/National Origin Alienage Except Rational Basis Test for o Government function of state that has direct impact on public policy (employment, licensure) o Congressional action on Feds (plenary power)
Affirmative Action Based on race (gender is intermediary scrutiny) o Employment Remedying past or present discrimination in a particular institution o Higher Education Individual review to achieve diverse student body QUASI-SUSPECT
Gender Illegitimacy Undocumented alien children NON-SUSPECT
All others Age Sexual orientation Mental Disability Undocumented Adult aliens Poverty Anything not in another classification STRICT SCRUTINY INTERMEDIATE RATIONAL BASIS Government has burden Compelling government interest? o Morals cannot stand alone Narrowly tailored and least restrictive means? (best way and no reasonable alternative) Government has burden Exceedingly persuasive interest for gender? OR Important interest for illegitimacy? OR Substantial interest for undocumented alien children AND Government interest substantially related to achieving means? Challenger must prove NO: Legitimate state interest? o Government loses if purpose is animus (desire to harm a politically unpopular group), thus interest is not legitimate) Means are rationally related (but not necessarily the best way) o Government loses if means are arbitrary or irrational