Substantive Due Process Claim Analysis

To fully understand Due Process, students and parents have a right to know the school’s rules ahead of time. If a student is facing a violation, there must be a meaningful notice of the misconduct against the student along with an explanation of the evidence involved. The student must also be afforded the opportunity to tell their side of the story. Actions taken against any student must be done in a fair and even handed

Shahmaleki attended a hearing with KSU officials Leitnaker and Reed about his alleged conduct. At this hearing, the officials provided him with a detailed explanation of the six violations of the threat management policy as well as the evidence supporting each of these charges. The officials gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to those allegations and he was able to present his side of the story as well as any evidence that he wished. Kansas State University satisfied due process requirements by providing Shahmaleki an account of the evidence against him and giving him a meaningful opportunity to respond. Shahmaleki failed to show in his complaint any procedural due process issues as the officials provided him the required amount of process under established law. Shahmaleki claims that KSU did not give an opportunity to defend himself, but the record shows that he in fact get a chance to respond to the claims at the original meeting with the defendants. In this meeting Shahmaleki denied each claim and use the opportunity to explain why he believed each one was not accurate. This type of opportunity is a quintessential example of what Goss

Judge Simon Skinner and Judge Leslie Tiller are judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, respectively. Each judge has an involved history with Minnesota’s governor, Joyce Cooper. In this paper, I address whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause bars Skinner and Tiller from hearing two unique cases to which Cooper is a party. I conclude that, for both judges in both cases, it does not.

The Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) case has great historical significance and present day value. The background surrounding the case is of a defendant who fell into oppressing situations, leaving him in a lengthy legal battle over social security disability claims. Administrating procedures of programs like the social security might cause issues, resulting with the judicial branch to assists in clarifying with, if not create, policy making and implementation. This case can be viewed as one of interest of government versus personal interest. This case tested administrative law and due process procedures, concluding with a “U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has define the requirements of administrative due process since it was rendered in the mid- 1970s” (Cooper, 2007). “On the few occasions when the Supreme Court has commented on this aspect of due process, it has suggested a choice between extremes: either due process requires one-size-fits-all procedures designed for the average or typical person in a particular context, or due process requires procedures that are determined on a case-by-case basis” (Parkins, 2014). Parkins is commenting on the due process issue that is to be reviewed pertaining to Mathews v. Eldridge.

Again, it would appear from the plan language of the complaint, that Petitioner’s issue b is that the District failed to

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Homer Plessy was arrested for refusing to sit in a Jim Crow car. In this case, the Due Process Clause was addressed when the “separate but equal” doctrine was introduced. Because the “separate but equal” doctrine upheld the constitutionality of segregation, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated. In addition, the Due Process Clause also enforced equality of the two races. As well as the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause was addressed in this case because “states could not deprive any person of the Equal Protection Clause”(wikipedia). In Plessy’s arguments, he stated that segregated facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause, and because of what the Equal Protection Clause states,

Joshua and his mother filed a complaint against the DSS, which alleged that the DSS deprived Joshua DeShaney of his liberty without due process, which would be violating his rights under the 14th amendment, by failing to protect him against his father’s abuse which they knew of or should have known of yet didn’t intervene. The district court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents’. They held that the Due Process Clause doesn’t require the state to protect its citizens from “private violence or other mishaps not attributable to the conduct of its employees” (DeShaney v. Winnebago). By doing this, the Court of Appeals was overturning several precedents, including Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York (1985) and Jensen v. Conrad (1984) which held that once the State has knowledge that a child is in danger of abuse and actually takes action to protect him/her from that danger, a “special relationship” emerges between the State and the child thus imposing a constitutional duty to provide adequate protection. Furthermore, in relation to Martinez v. California, the “casual connection” between the DSS’ conduct and Joshua’s injuries was too diminished to establish a deficiency in his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals therefore found it unnecessary to answer whether the respondents’ conduct showed the “state of mind” needed to make a due process claim after the precedents set in place by Daniels v. Williams and Davidson v. Cannon.

Thirty-five years later after Weeks’ case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks’ case did not apply to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states’ criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf’s verdict was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).

Again this is one of the most important laws an HR personal can come across. If an employee is being fired and they feel like they are being discriminated from a previous incident they have the right to take the company to court. Companies/employers need to make sure they aren’t singling anyone out or even watch what they say to people of certain race. If they feel offended they could take matters into the legal

When including a bill of right, James Madison, consciously added the Ninth Amendment to assure individuals that the listed rights in Constitution were nowhere near exhaustive. Concerns about too much power from a federal government, Madison wrote the Bill of Rights as a restriction against federal since states had their own bill of rights. However, this left states to act as they wished without checks from the federal government. Through the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment, congress had hoped to safeguard individual rights from states as well. Its vague language, though, left too much room for interpretation and ushered in what many saw as a blatant disregard for textual understanding the Constitution.

Courts are very careful to only allow very narrow exceptions to the general prohibition of discrimination against a protected status, and in the case of race there is no exception in case law. The most common exceptions are generally crafted for religion and gender. As an employer, you

My favorite case we went over in constitutional law this year is Lochner v. New York because of the display of power by the justices joined in the majority and the fervent dissent countering their reasoning. I have described Lochner above in the context of the Commerce clause above but my focus for this question is the case in context of the Substantive due process section of the class. The substantive due process clause deals with the law itself and not the process, substantive rights are protected under the Due Process Clause. This clause has come to encompass more and more rights, such as abortion, the right to die, and many other. “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law” (U.S. Const.

The U.S. Constitution provides equal protection to all citizens, regardless of race, color, or state of residence. As such, cases of Fourth Amendment violations should yield consistent verdicts across jurisdictions. The objective reasonableness standard adopted in Heien, however, fails to ensure uniform application of the Forth Amendment. In contrast, a categorical exclusion of evidence obtained through a mistake of law would have ensured equal application of the law and excluded inconsistency in criminal verdicts.

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) is an example of the Due Process Clause. David Roth was employed at Wisconsin State University. After Roth contract end, the school informed Roth that his contract was not up for renewal. The school did not provide Roth with a reason; consequently, Roth filed a claim. The ruling stated that although Roth is owed an explanation for not rehiring him, Roth’s right was not violated. Roth does not have any property rights.

Now Cometh Triginal D. Jackson in a Motion for Dismissal on the grounds of excessive Governmental Involvement and abuse of Fourth Amendment 's "right of the people to be secure in their persons" the Fifth Amendment. Ninth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.