Topics such as military tribunals, same-sex marriage, informative privacy, reproductive rights, affirmative action, and states' rights fill the landscape of contemporary legal debate and media discussion, and they all fall under the umbrella of the Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. However, what is not always fully understood is the constitutional basis of these rights, or the exact list of due process rights as they have evolved over time through judicial interpretation. In The Arc of Due Process in American Constitutional Law, Sullivan and Massaro describe the intricate history of what are currently considered due process rights, and maintain that modern constitutional theory and practice must adhere to it. The authors focus on the origins and contemporary uses of due process principles in American constitutional law, while offering an overarching description of the factors or normative concepts that allow courts to invalidate a government action on the grounds of due process. They also analyze judicial interpretations and expressions as a key manner and perhaps the most powerful source of how due process has taken form in the United States. In the process of charting this arc, the authors describe the judicial analysis of rights within each category applying an illustrative list, and identify several fundamental norms that span these disparate threads of due process and the most salient principles that animate due process doctrine.

Mindful of the English background and of constitutional developments in the several states, Orth in a succinct and readable narrative traces the history of due process, from its origins in medieval England to its applications in the latest cases. Departing from the usual approach to American constitutional law, Orth places the history of due process in the larger context of the common law. To a degree not always appreciated today, constitutional law advances in the same case-by-case manner as other legal rules. In that light, Orth concentrates on the general maxims or paradigms that guided the judges in their decisions of specific cases. Uncovering the links between one case and another, Orth describes how a commitment to fair procedures made way for an emphasis on the protection of property rights, which in turn led to a heightened sensitivity to individual rights in general.

The casebook reflects developments through the most recent Term of the United States Supreme Court. This supplement includes material from the 1997 to date Terms of the Supreme Court, as well as some developments in the lower courts.

This book gathers, synthesizes and analyzes case law in a variety of substantive contexts, including public employment, prison administration, and government benefits. It places current case law into historical context, serving as a reference guide for students, practitioners, judges and scholars interested in procedural due process. The author addresses the central requirements of notice and the opportunity to be heard as well as the day in court ideal. It also examines the protection due process affords against litigation in a distant forum with which the defendant has no connection.

This book examines the right to a neutral and detached decisionmaker as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. This right resides in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to procedural due process and in the Sixth Amendment’s promise of an impartial jury. Supreme Court cases on these topics are the vehicles to understand how these constitutional rights have come alive. First, the book surveys the right to an impartial jury in criminal cases by telling the stories of defendants whose convictions were overturned after they were the victims of prejudicial pretrial publicity, mob justice, and discriminatory jury selection. Next, the book articulates how our modern notion of judicial impartiality was forged by the Court striking down cases where judges were bribed, where they had other direct financial stakes in the outcome of the case, and where a judge decided the case of a major campaign supporter. Finally, the book traces the development of the right to a neutral decisionmaker in quasi-judicial, non-court settings, including cases involving parole revocation, medical license review, mental health commitments, prison discipline, and enemy combatants. Each chapter begins with the typically shocking facts of these cases being retold, and each chapter ends with a critical examination of the Supreme Court’s ultimate decisions in these cases.