5.1 State Action Doctrine, Procedural Due Process & Substantive Due Process

5.1 State Action Doctrine, Procedural Due Process & Substantive Due Process

The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment establish robust constitutional shields for individual liberties. However, before any constitutional claim under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments may proceed, a plaintiff must satisfy the threshold State Action Requirement.

---

1. The State Action Doctrine

As established in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the United States Constitution regulates governmental power, not private conduct. Private individuals, corporations, and non-governmental entities are free to engage in discriminatory, arbitrary, or restrictive behavior without violating the federal Constitution, unless regulated by federal or state statutory enactments (such as Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                        THE STATE ACTION THRESHOLD                           |
|                                                                             |
|   [ GOVERNMENT ACTOR ]                                                      |
|   - Federal, state, county, or municipal government agencies & officers.    |
|   - Direct application of Constitutional constraints (Bill of Rights / 14A).|
|                                                                             |
|   [ PRIVATE ACTOR ]                                                         |
|   - General Rule: NO Constitutional liability for private conduct.          |
|   - Exception 1: EXCLUSIVE PUBLIC FUNCTION DOCTRINE                         |
|     Private entity exercises powers traditionally & exclusively reserved    |
|     to the sovereign state (e.g., company town, political party primary).   |
|   - Exception 2: SIGNIFICANT STATE ENTANGLEMENT / ENCOURAGEMENT             |
|     State affirmatively facilitates, coerces, or participates in private    |
|     conduct (e.g., judicial enforcement of covenants, symbiotic leasing).   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Exclusive Public Function Exception

A private entity is deemed a state actor only when it performs a function that is traditionally and exclusively the sovereign prerogative of the state.

• Satisfies Exception:
  • Company Towns (Marsh v. Alabama): A private corporation operating a self-contained municipality (providing streets, utilities, police, and commercial districts) cannot ban religious literature distribution.
  • Elections (Terry v. Adams): Conducting primary elections or pre-primary electoral processes that determine ballot access for public office.
• Does NOT Satisfy Exception:
  • Public Utilities (Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.): A heavily regulated private electric utility holding a state-granted monopoly is not performing an exclusively sovereign function.
  • Shopping Centers (Hudgens v. NLRB / Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner): Privately owned shopping malls are not company towns, even if open to the public.
  • Public Access Cable Television (Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck): Operating public access cable channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function.
  • Private Schools / Foster Agencies: Receiving substantial government funding or performing educational services does not convert a private institution into a state actor (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn).

The Significant State Entanglement Exception

Private action is attributed to the state where the government commands, affirmatively encourages, or significantly entangles itself in the unconstitutional private behavior:

• Judicial Enforcement (Shelley v. Kraemer): The judicial enforcement by state court judges of private, racially restrictive neighborhood real estate covenants constitutes unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Symbiotic Relationship (Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority): Where a private restaurant leasing space in a publicly owned and operated municipal parking garage engaged in racial discrimination, the mutual financial benefits and interdependence constituted state action.
• Insignificant Entanglement (Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis): The mere granting of a heavily regulated state liquor license to a private racially discriminatory club does not constitute state action, absent affirmative state encouragement of the discrimination.
• Peremptory Jury Challenges (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. / Batson v. Kentucky): Private civil litigants using race-based peremptory challenges in court constitute state action because the trial judge enforces the exclusion.

---

2. Procedural Due Process Framework

The Fifth Amendment (applicable to the federal government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (applicable to state and local governments) provide that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                  PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TWO-STEP INQUIRY                    |
|                                                                             |
|   STEP 1: HAS THERE BEEN A DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY?       |
|   [+] Life: Capital punishment / state execution.                           |
|   [+] Liberty: Physical restraint, loss of constitutional rights, or        |
|       statutory freedom (e.g., revocation of parole).                       |
|   [+] Property: A "legitimate claim of entitlement" under state law or      |
|       contract (Board of Regents v. Roth).                                  |
|   [!] Requirement: Must involve INTENTIONAL or RECKLESS government action;  |
|       negligence NEVER constitutes a Due Process deprivation (Daniels).     |
|                                                                             |
|   STEP 2: WHAT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED?         |
|   Apply the Mathews v. Eldridge 3-Factor Balancing Test:                    |
|   1. Magnitude of the PRIVATE INTEREST affected;                            |
|   2. RISK OF ERRONEOUS DEPRIVATION under current procedures & probable      |
|      value of additional procedural safeguards;                             |
|   3. GOVERNMENT'S FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS.                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Defining Protected Interests

1. Deprivation Requirement: The government action must be deliberate. Mere government negligence causing property damage or personal injury does not violate the Due Process Clause (Daniels v. Williams).
2. Liberty Interests:
   • Physical custody, imprisonment, institutionalization, or civil commitment.
   • Loss of fundamental constitutional rights (freedom of speech, right to travel).
   • Reputation Alone Is Not Liberty (Paul v. Davis): Defamation or injury to reputation by a state official does not trigger procedural due process unless accompanied by the loss of a tangible legal status or right (the "Stigma-Plus" doctrine).
3. Property Interests (Board of Regents v. Roth):
   • A protected property interest requires more than an abstract need, unilateral expectation, or desire. The individual must possess a legitimate claim of entitlement established by an independent legal source, such as state statutes, municipal rules, or explicit employment contracts.
   • Public Employment: A tenured public employee or an employee terminable only "for cause" holds a protected property interest (Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill). Conversely, an at-will public employee possesses no property interest in continued employment.
   • Government Benefits: Welfare benefits create an entitlement (Goldberg v. Kelly), as do disability payments, driver's licenses (Bell v. Burson), and public school education (Goss v. Lopez).

The Mathews v. Eldridge Balancing Test

Once a protected interest is established, the court determines what specific procedures (notice, hearing, right to counsel, cross-examination) are required by balancing three factors:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                    MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE BALANCING FACTORS                    |
|                                                                             |
|     [ Factor 1: Private Interest ]         [ Factor 2: Error Risk ]         |
|     - Severity of individual loss.         - Adequacy of current process.   |
|     - Survival vs. temporary hardship.     - Value of oral hearings/cross.  |
|                            \                     /                          |
|                             \                   /                           |
|                              v                 v                            |
|                       [ CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS DUE ]                        |
|                                      ^                                      |
|                                      |                                      |
|                       [ Factor 3: Government Burden ]                       |
|                       - Cost of additional hearings.                        |
|                       - Administrative delays/strain.                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Timing and Nature of Required Hearings

• Pre-Deprivation Hearing Required:
  • Welfare Benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly): Because welfare provides basic subsistence, an evidentiary pre-termination hearing is mandatory.
  • Tenured Public Employee Termination (Loudermill): Requires pre-termination notice of charges, an explanation of employer evidence, and an opportunity to respond, followed by a full post-termination evidentiary hearing.
  • Real Property Seizure (United States v. James Daniel Good): Civil forfeiture of real estate requires pre-seizure notice and hearing absent exigent circumstances.
• Post-Deprivation Hearing Permitted:
  • Disability Benefits (Mathews v. Eldridge): Disability is not based strictly on financial need; medical determinations can be reviewed reliably via paper records prior to post-termination hearings.
  • Driver's License Suspension (Mackey v. Montrym): Prompt post-suspension hearing is constitutional for drivers who refuse a breathalyzer test.
  • Academic Dismissal from Public University (Board of Curators v. Horowitz): Requires only informal notice and review, not a formal adversary hearing.
  • Emergency Situations: Seizure of contaminated food or emergency bank closures.

---

3. Substantive Due Process & Tiers of Judicial Scrutiny

While Procedural Due Process guarantees fair decision-making mechanics, Substantive Due Process inquires whether the government possesses adequate substantive justification for depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property, regardless of how much process is provided.

The Tiers of Scrutiny Matrix

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS SCRUTINY FRAMEWORK                  |
|                                                                             |
|   IS THE ASSERTED RIGHT A "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT"?                              |
|   Deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in      |
|   the concept of ordered liberty (Glucksberg).                              |
|                                                                             |
|   [ YES: STRICT SCRUTINY ]                     [ NO: RATIONAL BASIS ]       |
|   - Government must prove:                     - Challenger must prove:     |
|     1. Compelling state interest.                1. No legitimate interest. |
|     2. Narrowly tailored means.                  2. Arbitrary/irrational fit|
|     3. Least restrictive alternative.          - Deferential to legislature.|
|   - High presumption of INVALIDITY.            - Presumption of VALIDITY.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

4. Fundamental Rights Inventory

The Supreme Court recognizes a core inventory of fundamental liberty interests protected under Substantive Due Process (and the Equal Protection Clause):

1. Right to Privacy & Bodily Autonomy

• Contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird): The right of married and unmarried individuals to obtain and use contraceptives without government prohibition.
• Private Consensual Adult Sexual Intimacy (Lawrence v. Texas): The liberty interest of consenting adults to engage in private non-commercial sexual conduct without criminalization.
• Refusal of Unwanted Medical Treatment (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health): Competent individuals have a liberty interest in refusing life-sustaining medical treatment. However, states may require clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's prior wishes.
• Physician-Assisted Suicide (Washington v. Glucksberg): There is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide; state bans are evaluated under rational basis review.

2. Right to Marriage

• Marriage (Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, Obergefell v. Hodges): Marriage is a fundamental right. Severe direct restrictions on marriage (such as conditioning marriage on child support clearance in Zablocki, or banning same-sex marriage in Obergefell) are subject to strict scrutiny.

3. Family Integrity & Child-Rearing

• Care, Custody, and Control of Children (Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Troxel v. Granville): Parents possess a fundamental right to direct the education, upbringing, and moral instruction of their children. State courts cannot override a fit parent's visitation decision absent heightened deference to the parent's wishes.
• Right of Related Family Members to Live Together (Moore v. City of East Cleveland): Zoning ordinances cannot prohibit extended biological family members (e.g., grandmother living with grandsons) from cohabiting in a single home. (Distinguish Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, where restricting groups of unrelated individuals was sustained under rational basis).

4. Right to Interstate Travel (Saenz v. Roe, Shapiro v. Thompson)

• Citizens possess a fundamental right to travel between states and to be treated as equal residents when establishing domicile in a new state.
• Durational Residency Requirements: State laws conditioning vital government benefits (such as basic welfare assistance or non-emergency healthcare) on living in the state for a durational waiting period (e.g., 1 year) are subject to strict scrutiny and routinely invalidated.
• Permissible Residency Distinctions: In-state college tuition discounts and 1-year residency requirements to obtain a divorce are generally upheld as non-critical penalties on travel (Sosna v. Iowa).

5. Right to Vote (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, Reynolds v. Sims)

• The right to vote in state and federal elections is fundamental. Poll taxes (Harper), property ownership voting requirements (Kramer), and severe ballot access barriers are subject to strict scrutiny.
• One Person, One Vote: State legislative districts must be substantially equal in population (minor deviations under 10% are presumptively valid; congressional districts under Article I, § 2 require near-exact mathematical equality under Wesberry v. Sanders).