The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 154

Due Process of Law

SOURCE AND EVOLUTION OF THE MEANING OF THE TERM

The phrase "due process of law" comes from chapter 3 of 28 Edw. III (1355), which reads: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law." This statute, in turn, harks back to the famous chapter 29 of Magna Carta (issue of 1225), where the King promises that "no free man (_nullus liber h.o.m.o_) shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor shall we come upon him or send against him, except by a legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land (_per legem terrae_)." c.o.ke in Part II of his Inst.i.tutes, which was the source from which the founders of the American Const.i.tutional System derived their understanding of the matter, equates the term "by law of the land" with "by due process of law," which he in turn defines as "by due process of the common law," that is "by the indictment or presentment of good and lawful men * * * or by writ original of the Common Law."[78] The significance of both terms was therefore purely procedural; the term "writ original of the common law" referring to the writs on which civil actions were brought into the King's courts; and this is the significance they clearly have in the State const.i.tutions. In the earlier of such instruments the term "law of the land" was the form preferred, but following the adoption of Amendment V "due process of law" became the vogue with const.i.tution draftsmen. Some State const.i.tutions even today employ both terms. Whichever phraseology is used always occurs in close a.s.sociation with other safeguards of accused persons, just as does the clause here under discussion in Amendment V.

As a limitation, therefore, on legislative power the due process clause originally operated simply to place certain procedures, and especially the grand jury-pet.i.t jury process, beyond its reach, but this did not remain its sole importance or its princ.i.p.al importance.[79]

Today the due process clause in Amendment V, in Amendment XIV, and in the State const.i.tutions is important chiefly, not as consecrating certain procedures, but as limiting the substantive content of legislation. Thus one of the grounds on which Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott Case, stigmatized the Missouri Compromise as unconst.i.tutional was that an act of Congress which deprived "a citizen of his liberty or property merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law";[80] and sixty-six years later the Court held the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act for women and minors to be void under the due process clause of Amendment V, not on account of any objection to the methods by which it was to be enforced but because of the content of the act--its substantive requirements.[81] And it is because of this extension of the term "due process of law" beyond the procedural field that the Court has been asked to pa.s.s upon literally hundreds of State enactments since about 1890 on the representation that they invaded the "liberty" or property rights of certain persons "unreasonably." In short, this development of the meaning of "due process of law" came in time to furnish one of the princ.i.p.al bases of judicial review, and indeed it still remains such so far as State legislation is concerned. _See_ pp. 971-974.

SCOPE OF GUARANTY

This clause is a restraint on Congress as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the National Government; it cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process it chooses "due process of law."[82] All persons within the territory of the United States are ent.i.tled to its protection, including corporations,[83] aliens,[84] and presumptively citizens seeking readmission to the United States.[85] It is effective in the District of Columbia[86] and in territories which are part of the United States,[87] but it does not apply of its own force to unincorporated territories.[88] Nor does it reach enemy alien belligerents tried by military tribunals outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.[89]

Procedural Due Process

GENERAL

The words "due process of law" do not necessarily imply a proceeding in a court of justice,[90] or a plenary suit and trial by jury in every case where personal or property rights are involved. "In all cases, that kind of procedure is due process of law which is suitable and proper to the nature of the case, and sanctioned by the established customs and usages of the courts."[91] Proceedings for contempt of court[92] or to disbar an attorney[93] may be determined by a court without a jury trial. For persons in the military or naval services of the United States,[94] trial by military tribunals is due process. This principle extends to persons who commit offenses while undergoing punishment inflicted by court martial; as military prisoners they are still subject to military law.[95]

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

The due process clause supplements the specific procedural guaranties enumerated in the Sixth Amendment and in preceding clauses of the Fifth Amendment for the protection of persons accused of crime. The Court has relied upon this provision in holding that an accused shall plead, or be ordered to plead, or a plea of not guilty be entered for him before his trial proceeds;[96] and in ruling that if the accused is in custody he must be personally present at every stage of the trial where his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him.[97]

It is not within the power of the accused or his attorney to waive such right. Inasmuch as proceedings for criminal contempt do not const.i.tute a criminal prosecution, it is immaterial if proceedings are held in the absence of the defendant; the requirement of due process of law is satisfied by suitable notice and opportunity to be heard.[98]

NOTICE AND HEARING

Due process of law signifies a right to be heard. A decree _pro confesso_ entered against a defendant after striking his answer from the files for contempt of court is void.[99] A man may, however, consent to be bound by a judgment in a case in which he has no right to partic.i.p.ate.[100] Accordingly, due process of law was held not to be denied to a surety on an undertaking for the release of attached property when the undertaking required the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of the court and to agree to abide by the judgment in relation to the property attached.[101] Where, in a suit for specific performance of a contract, evidence admitted without objection at the trial established all the facts necessary for application of the formula specified by the contract, the appellate court which rejected the trial court's interpretation of the contract did not infringe the right to a hearing by entering judgment without remanding the case for a new trial.[102] After a State court, in proceedings designed _inter alia_ to invalidate certain releases, rendered judgment without a special finding on the exact point, a federal court did not deny due process in a subsequent proceeding by treating such judgment as conclusive on the validity of the releases.[103] Since proceedings in bankruptcy are in the nature of proceedings _in rem_, personal notice to creditors is not required; creditors are bound by the proceedings in distribution on notice by publication and mail.[104] Where a statute providing for a public improvement levied an a.s.sessment against ab.u.t.ting property it was held to be "conclusive alike of the question of the necessity of the work and of the benefits as against ab.u.t.ting property."[105] Notice to the property owner is not necessary to sustain the a.s.sessment. On the other hand, when the legislature submits these questions to a commission or other officers the inquiry becomes judicial and the property owner is ent.i.tled to notice or an opportunity to be heard. Notice by publication is sufficient.[106]

EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTION IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Error in the admission of evidence or the entry of an erroneous judgment after a full hearing does not const.i.tute a denial of due process.[107] A statute authorizing cancellation of naturalization certificates for fraud and providing that the taking up of permanent residence abroad within five years after naturalization shall be _prima facie_ evidence of lack of intention to become a permanent resident of the United States at the time of applying for citizens.h.i.+p was found not to be so unreasonable as to deny due process of law.[108] Likewise, it was held reasonable for Congress to enact that a defendant who was discovered to be in possession of opium should be required to a.s.sume the burden of proving that he had not obtained it through illegal importation.[109]

But a presumption that a firearm or ammunition in the possession of a person convicted of a crime of violence was transported or received in violation of law was held invalid because there was no rational connections between the facts proved and that presumed.[110]

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

With respect to action taken by administrative agencies the Court has held that the demands of due process do not require a hearing at the initial stage, or at any particular point in the proceeding so long as a hearing is held before the final order becomes effective.[111] In Bowles _v._ Willingham,[112] it sustained orders fixing maximum rents issued without a hearing at any stage, saying "* * * where Congress has provided for judicial review after the regulations or orders have been made effective it has all that due process under the war emergency requires."[113] But where, after consideration of charges brought against an employer by a complaining union, the National Labor Relations Board undertook to void an agreement between an employer and another independent union, the latter was ent.i.tled to notice and an opportunity to partic.i.p.ate in the proceedings.[114] Although a taxpayer must be afforded a fair opportunity for hearing in connection with the collection of taxes,[115] collection by distraint of personal property is lawful if the taxpayer is allowed a hearing thereafter.[116]

"A FAIR HEARING"

When the Const.i.tution requires a hearing it requires a fair one, held before a tribunal which at least meets currently prevailing standards of impartiality.[117] An opportunity must be given not only to present evidence, but also to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them. Those who are brought into contest with the Government in a quasi-judicial proceeding aimed at control of their activities are ent.i.tled to be fairly advised of what the Government proposes and to be heard upon the proposal before the final command is issued.[118] But a variance between the charges and findings will not invalidate administrative proceedings where the record shows that at no time during the hearing was there any misunderstanding as to the basis of the complaint.[119] The mere admission of evidence which would be inadmissible in judicial proceedings does not vitiate the order of an administrative agency.[120] A provision that such a body shall not be controlled by rules of evidence does not, however, justify orders without a foundation in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay does not const.i.tute the substantial evidence requisite to support the findings of the agency.[121] While the Court has recognized that in some circ.u.mstances a "fair hearing" implies a right to oral argument,[122] it refuses to lay down a general rule that would cover all cases.[123] It says: "Certainly the Const.i.tution does not require oral argument in all cases where only insubstantial or frivolous questions of law, or indeed even substantial ones, are raised.

Equally certainly it has left wide discretion to Congress in creating the procedures to be followed in both administrative and judicial proceedings, as well as in their conjunction."[124]

JUDICIAL REVIEW

To the extent that const.i.tutional rights are involved, due process of law imports a judicial review of the action of administrative or executive officers. This proposition is undisputed so far as questions of law are concerned, but the extent to which the courts should and will go in reviewing determinations of fact has been a highly controversial issue. In St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. _v._ United States,[125] the Supreme Court held that upon review of an order of the Secretary of Agriculture establis.h.i.+ng maximum rates for services rendered by a stock yard company, due process required that the Court exercise its independent judgment upon the facts to determine whether the rates were confiscatory.[126] Subsequent cases sustaining rate orders of the Federal Power Commission have not dealt explicitly with this point.[127]

The Court has said simply that a person a.s.sailing such an order "carries the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that it is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences."[128]

There has been a division of opinion in the Supreme Court as to what extent, if at all, the proceedings before military tribunals should be reviewed by the courts for the purpose of determining compliance with the due process clause. In In re Yamas.h.i.+ta[129] the majority denied a pet.i.tion for certiorari and pet.i.tions for writs of _habeas corpus_ to review the conviction of a j.a.panese war criminal by a military commission sitting in the Philippine Islands. It held that since the military commission, in admitting evidence to which objection was made, had not violated any act of Congress, a treaty or a military command defining its authority, its ruling on evidence and on the mode of conducting the proceedings were not reviewable by the courts. Without dissent, the Supreme Court in Hiatt _v._ Brown[130] reversed the judgment of a lower court which had discharged a prisoner serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial, because of errors whereby the respondent had been deprived of due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the Court below had erred in extending its review, for the purpose of determining compliance with the due process clause, to such matters as the propositions of law set forth in the staff judge advocate's report, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain respondent's conviction, the adequacy of the pre-trial investigation, and the competence of the law member and defense counsel. In summary, Justice Clark wrote: "In this case the court-martial had jurisdiction of the person accused and the offense charged, and acted within its lawful powers. The correction of any errors it may have committed is for the military authorities which are alone authorized to review its decision."[131] Again in Johnson _v._ Eisentrager[132] the Supreme Court overruled a lower court decision, which, in reliance upon the dissenting opinion in the Yamas.h.i.+ta Case, had held that the due process clause required that the legality of the conviction of enemy alien belligerents by military tribunals should be tested by the writ of _habeas corpus_.

ALIENS

To aliens who have never been naturalized or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the decision of an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, as to whether or not they shall be permitted to enter the country, is due process of law.[133] The complete authority of Congress in the matter of admission of aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce the exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon the owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country, a money penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of clearance.[134] If the person seeking admission claims American citizens.h.i.+p, the decision of the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a fair hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the evidence. A decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence has been omitted is not a fair hearing.[135] Where the statute made the decision of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal did not, by an allegation of citizens.h.i.+p, acquire a right to a judicial hearing on _habeas corpus_.[136]

DEPORTATION

Deportation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The authority to deport is drawn from the power of Congress to regulate the entrance of aliens and impose conditions upon the performance of which their continued liberty to reside within the United States may be made to depend. Findings of fact reached by executive officers after a fair, though summary deportation hearing may be made conclusive.[137] In Wong Yang Sung _v._ McGrath,[138] however, the Court intimated that a hearing before a tribunal which did not meet the standards of impartiality embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act[139] might not satisfy the requirements of due process of law. To avoid such const.i.tutional doubts, the Court construed the law to disqualify immigration inspectors as presiding officers in deportation proceedings. Except in time of war, deportation without a fair hearing or on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process which may be corrected on _habeas corpus_.[140] In contrast with the decision in United States _v._ Ju Toy[141] that a person seeking entrance to the United States was not ent.i.tled to a judicial hearing on his claim of citizens.h.i.+p, a person arrested and held for deportation is ent.i.tled to a day in court if he denies that he is an alien.[142] A closely divided Court has ruled that in time of war the deportation of an enemy alien may be ordered summarily by executive action; due process of law does not require the courts to determine the sufficiency of any hearing which is gratuitously afforded to the alien.[143]

Substantive Due Process

DISCRIMINATION

Almost all legislation involves some degree of cla.s.sification whereby its operation is directed to particular categories of persons, things, or events; and it is partly in recognition of this fact that Amendment Fourteen forbids the States to deny to persons within their jurisdiction "equal protection of the laws." But this restriction does not rule out cla.s.sifications that are "reasonable"; and the due process of law clause of Amendment Five is at least as tolerant of legislative cla.s.sifications, which would have to be arbitrarily and unreasonably discriminatory to incur its condemnation.[144] In fact, it does not appear that the Court has up to this time ever held an act of Congress unconst.i.tutional on this ground. Thus it has sustained a law imposing greater punishment for an offense involving rights and property of the United States than for a like offense involving the rights of property of a private person.[145] Likewise, a requirement that improved property in the District of Columbia be connected with the city sewage system, with different sanctions for residents and nonresidents was upheld over the argument that the cla.s.sification was arbitrary.[146] The allowance to injured seamen of a choice between several measures of redress without any corresponding right in their employer was held not to deny due process of law.[147] Differences of treatment accorded marketing cooperatives in milk marketing orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture[148] and the selection of a limited number of tobacco markets for compulsory grading of tobacco[149] have also been sustained.

The priority of a federal tax lien against property pa.s.sing at death, may, without offending the due process clause, be different from that which attaches to property transferred _inter vivos_ in contemplation of death.[150]

There are indications, however, that the Court may be prepared to go further than it has in the past in condemning discrimination as a denial of due process of law. Relying upon public policy and its supervisory authority over federal courts, it has reached results similar to those arrived at under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in refusing to enforce restrictive covenants in the District of Columbia,[151] and in reversing a judgment of a Federal District Court because of the exclusion of day laborers from the jury panel;[152]

and in Steele _v._ Louisville & N.R. Co.[153] the Railway Labor Act was construed to require a collective bargaining representative to act for the benefit of all members of the craft without discrimination on account of race. Chief Justice Stone indicated that any other construction would raise grave const.i.tutional doubts,[154] while in a concurring opinion, Justice Murphy a.s.serted unequivocally that the act would be inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment if the bargaining agent, acting under color of federal authority, were permitted to discriminate against any of the persons he was authorized to represent.[155]

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

In consequence of the explicit a.s.surances of individual liberty contained in other articles of the Bill of Rights, the clause in the Fifth Amendment forbidding the deprivation of "liberty" without due process of law has been invoked chiefly in resistance to measures alleged to abridge liberty of contract. The two leading cases which held legislation unconst.i.tutional on this ground have, however, both been overturned in recent years. Adair _v._ United States,[156] which invalidated an act of Congress prohibiting any interstate carrier from threatening an employee with loss of employment if he joined a labor union, was overruled in substance by Phelps Dodge Corp. _v._ National Labor Relations Board.[157] Adkins _v._ Children's Hospital,[158] in which a minimum wage law for the District of Columbia was found to be an unwarranted abridgment of the liberty of contract, was expressly repudiated by West Coast Hotel Co. _v._ Parrish.[159] Numerous other statutes--ant.i.trust laws,[160] acts limiting hours of labor,[161]

prohibiting advance of wages to seamen,[162] making carriers liable for injuries suffered by employees irrespective of previous contractual arrangements,[163] requiring employers to bargain collectively with employees[164] and fixing prices of commodities[165] have been sustained against attack on this ground.

Interpreting statutes which made the guaranty of due process of law applicable to Hawaii and the Philippine Islands, the Court enjoined enforcement of an act of the Territory of Hawaii which prohibited maintenance of foreign-language schools except upon written permit and payment of a fee based upon attendance,[166] and held unconst.i.tutional a Philippine statute which prohibited Chinese merchants from keeping any accounts in Chinese.[167]

DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY

Retroactive Legislation Sustained

Federal regulation of future action, based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated, is not prohibited by the Const.i.tution.

So long as the Const.i.tution authorizes the subsequently enacted legislation, the fact that its provisions limit or interfere with previously acquired rights does not condemn it. Accordingly, rent regulations were sustained as applied to prevent execution of a judgment of eviction rendered by a State court before the enabling legislation was pa.s.sed.[168] An order by an Area Rent Director reducing an unapproved rental and requiring the landlord to refund the excess previously collected, was held, with one dissenting vote, not to be the type of retroactivity which is condemned by law.[169] The retroactive effect of a new principle announced by a decision of an administrative tribunal has been likened to the effect of judicial decisions in cases of first impression. In Securities Comm'n. _v._ Chenery Corp.,[170] the Supreme Court sustained a decision of the Commission which refused to approve a plan of reorganization for a public utility holding company so long as the preferred stock purchased by the management was treated on a parity with other preferred stock even though the purchase of such stock, when made, did not conflict with any law or rule of the Commission. In the exercise of its comprehensive powers over revenue, finance and currency, Congress may make Treasury notes legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted[171] and may invalidate provisions in private contracts calling for payment in gold coin.[172]

An award of additional compensation under the Longsh.o.r.emen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,[173] made pursuant to a private act of Congress pa.s.sed after expiration of the period for review of the original award, directing the Commission to review the case and issue a new order, was held valid against the employer and insurer.[174] The application of a statute providing for tobacco marketing quotas, to a crop planted prior to its enactment, was held not to deprive the producers of property without due process of law since it operated, not upon production, but upon the marketing of the product after the act was pa.s.sed.[175]