In the realm of constitutional law, substantive due process serves as a cornerstone principle of safeguarding individuals fundamental rights from arbitrary government action. Its a concept deeply embedded in the fabric of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In this blog post, well explore the meaning of substantive due process, its application in criminal proceedings, and its significance for incarcerated individuals, bolstered by relevant case law examples.

What is Substantive Due Process?

Substantive due process is a doctrine in American constitutional law that scrutinizes the essence, rather than the procedural fairness, of law. It involves the courts evaluating whether certain laws enacted by the government infringe on fundamental personal rights, which are not explicitly listed in the Constitution but are deemed essential to the American legal and cultural ethos.

Unlike procedural due process, which focuses on the fairness of procedures, substantive due process asks whether the government has sufficient justification for interfering with individuals rights at all. Essentially, it protects individuals from laws that might not just be administered unfairly but are inherently unfair or oppressive.

Modern Substantive Due Process Cases

Landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped our understanding of how substantive due process analysis can protect rights. Here are two notable examples:

Griswold v. Connecticut

Griswold v. Connecticut, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1965) is perhaps one of the most significant cases regarding substantive due process. This ruling struck down a Connecticut law that prohibits the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, finding that it violated the right to marital privacy. The Court argued that there exists a zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.

Obergefell v. Hodges

In Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision underscored the principle that substantive due process includes a broader interpretation of liberty, which encompasses personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy.

Substantive Due Process in Criminal Proceedings

In the context of criminal proceedings, substantive due process ensures that individuals are not deprived of their fundamental rights arbitrarily. This means that laws governing criminal behavior and punishment must be reasonable and justifiable, and they must not violate fundamental rights such as the right to liberty, privacy, or equal protection of the law.

One landmark case illustrating substantive due process in criminal proceedings is Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing consensual homosexual activity. The Court held that the law violated substantive due process by infringing upon individuals’ fundamental rights to engage in private, intimate conduct without unwarranted government intrusion.

Substantive Due Process for Incarcerated Individuals

Substantive due process also extends to individuals who are incarcerated, ensuring that they are not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and that their basic human rights are respected even while in confinement. While incarceration necessarily involves a loss of liberty, it does not entail a loss of all rights.

In Estelle v. Gamble, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976), the Supreme Court addressed the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the context of prison healthcare. The Court held the deliberate indifference to an inmates serious medical constituted cruel and unusual punishment, thus illustrating how substantive due process protects the basic human rights of incarcerated individuals.

Moreover, in Turner v. Safley, 107 S.Ct. 2254 (1987), the Court recognized that prisoners retain certain constitutional rights, including the right to access the courts. The decision created what is commonly referred to as the Turner Test and underscored that while limitations on these rights may be justified by legitimate penological interests, they cannot be imposed arbitrarily or without justification.

My Final Thoughts

Substantive due process remains a fundamental, though sometimes contentious, principle within American jurisprudence. It serves as a critical mechanism by which the courts can safeguard individual rights against governmental overreach. By understanding its origins, its applications, and the debates surrounding it, we can better appreciate both the power and the limitations of this legal doctrine in promoting justice and liberty.

If you, or someone you know, will be engaging in self-representation in a criminal matter or is seeking post-conviction relief following a conviction, our book, The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations, is a crucial tool in the pursuit of justice with an entire section dedicated to the topic of due process. Order your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated. Our books are in stock, softcover, and institution friendly.