Due process of law and Administrative Law
⚖️ Due Process of Law and Administrative Law
✅ What Is Due Process?
Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, "due process of law" ensures that the government does not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures or legal justification.
There are two components:
Procedural Due Process – Fair procedures before depriving someone of rights.
Substantive Due Process – Government must have a valid reason for actions that affect fundamental rights.
🏛️ Due Process in Administrative Law
Administrative agencies (e.g., Social Security Administration, EPA, USCIS) are part of the executive branch, but perform quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions. Their actions must comply with due process when:
They issue decisions affecting individual rights (e.g., deportation, denial of benefits, fines).
They create rules that affect liberties or property.
They conduct hearings or adjudications.
Due process ensures agencies provide:
Notice of proceedings
Opportunity to be heard
Impartial decision-makers
Reasoned decisions
🧑⚖️ Key Case Law Illustrating Due Process in Administrative Law
1. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
397 U.S. 254
Facts: The State of New York terminated welfare benefits without giving recipients a pre-termination hearing.
Issue: Does due process require a hearing before terminating welfare benefits?
Holding: Yes. The Court held that welfare recipients have a property interest in their benefits.
Significance:
Procedural due process applies to government benefits.
The state must provide an evidentiary hearing before cutting off benefits.
Established that administrative actions must be fair and timely when they impact a person's livelihood.
2. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
424 U.S. 319
Facts: Eldridge's Social Security disability benefits were terminated without an in-person hearing.
Issue: Is an in-person hearing required before terminating disability benefits?
Holding: No. The Court introduced the Mathews balancing test to determine the scope of due process.
Mathews Test (3-part balancing):
Private interest affected
Risk of erroneous deprivation
Government’s interest, including administrative burden
Significance:
Due process is flexible — not every case requires a full hearing.
Helps courts decide how much process is due in administrative proceedings.
3. Londoner v. City of Denver (1908)
210 U.S. 373
Facts: Property owners were taxed for street improvements without a personal hearing.
Issue: Was a hearing required before imposing individual assessments?
Holding: Yes. Since the decision applied to a small group based on individualized facts, procedural due process required notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Significance:
Introduced distinction between adjudicative and legislative actions.
When administrative decisions affect individuals, more process is required.
4. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915)
239 U.S. 441
Facts: A state agency increased property taxes across Denver without individual hearings.
Issue: Did this general tax increase require due process hearings?
Holding: No. When a rule affects a large number of people equally, individualized hearings are not required.
Significance:
Reinforces that rulemaking (legislative-type) actions don’t trigger individual due process rights.
Due process applies more strongly to individualized adjudications than to broad policy changes.
5. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
542 U.S. 507
Facts: U.S. citizen Hamdi was detained as an enemy combatant without formal charges or a hearing.
Issue: Does a U.S. citizen held by the military have a right to due process?
Holding: Yes. Even in matters of national security, due process requires a neutral decision-maker and notice of charges.
Significance:
Extended due process principles to executive detention.
Reinforces that administrative detention must still meet constitutional standards.
Important for agencies involved in immigration or security-related detentions (like ICE).
6. Withrow v. Larkin (1975)
421 U.S. 35
Facts: A medical licensing board investigated and held hearings on revoking a license.
Issue: Did combining investigative and adjudicative roles violate due process?
Holding: No per se violation. Due process is not automatically violated by agencies performing multiple functions.
Significance:
Allows administrative agencies to investigate and adjudicate, but due process is still required (e.g., impartiality).
However, a showing of actual bias can justify judicial intervention.
7. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath (1950)
339 U.S. 33
Facts: Immigration authorities conducted deportation hearings without following APA procedures.
Issue: Did the agency violate procedural due process and APA requirements?
Holding: Yes. Deportation hearings must follow Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rules.
Significance:
Merged APA procedural requirements with constitutional due process.
Emphasized the importance of formal procedures in immigration adjudications.
🧠 Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Holding | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) | Termination of welfare benefits | Pre-termination hearing required | Expanded procedural due process to entitlements |
| Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) | Termination of disability benefits | No hearing required; Mathews Test created | Flexible framework for evaluating due process |
| Londoner v. Denver (1908) | Individual tax assessment | Hearing required | Due process stronger in individual decisions |
| Bi-Metallic (1915) | General rule affecting many | No hearing required | Legislative rules don’t need hearings |
| Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) | Military detention of U.S. citizen | Hearing and process required | Due process applies even in national security |
| Withrow v. Larkin (1975) | Same agency investigates and adjudicates | Not automatically a due process violation | Functional overlap is permitted unless bias shown |
| Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath (1950) | Immigration hearing without APA compliance | APA must be followed | Formal procedures are essential for fairness |
📌 Key Principles of Due Process in Administrative Law
Flexibility: Not all agency actions require full trials. The amount of process depends on the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test.
Notice and Hearing: When an agency affects individual rights (e.g., licenses, benefits, deportation), individuals must be informed and given a chance to respond.
Impartiality: Agencies must ensure decisions are made by neutral adjudicators. Bias or conflict of interest violates due process.
Separation of Roles: Though agencies can investigate and adjudicate, the process must appear fair.
Rulemaking vs. Adjudication: Broad, general rules (legislative) don’t require hearings; individual decisions (adjudicative) do.
APA Compliance: Many due process protections in administrative proceedings are mirrored or enhanced by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
🧾 Conclusion
Due process is the constitutional backbone of fairness in administrative law. While administrative agencies have flexibility in structure and function, they must follow procedural safeguards when affecting people’s rights, especially in matters involving livelihood, liberty, or property.
RELATED Blog
0 comments