Preserving Dignity in Due Process

Abstract

Procedural due process is a guarantee of fairness. It is fundamental to the rule of law to protect individuals from arbitrary state action by requiring – at least – notice and opportunity to be heard. Procedural protections vary according to the context of a particular case, and protections in administrative actions are distinct from those provided in a formal judicial proceeding. The administrative state developed to address a pressing need: how to govern and regulate when none of the three branches of government are fully equipped to administer an ever-evolving society. Consequently, administrative law is concerned with how to govern effectively and efficiently. But, as society has developed and expanded over the years, increased individual interaction with the administrative state has necessitated expanding procedural due process into an area of law that prioritizes efficiency over individual rights. Both the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court addressed this tension, but with different emphases. Where the United States Supreme Court applies a constitutional threshold for rights implicating procedural protections, the California Supreme Court applies a broader, statutorily-conferred interest or benefit threshold and balances the interests at stake in the case. Where the United States Supreme Court uses a three-factor balancing test for procedural adequacy, the California Supreme Court asserts a four-factor balancing test, specifically recognizing a person’s dignitary interest in procedural protections against the state. However, California’s due process analysis has, at best, been applied haphazardly, leading to confusion amongst lower courts. The uneven application of the doctrine demeans an affected individual’s dignitary interest in asserting their position before and being heard by the pertinent state actor. Though there is significant confusion about the nature of the due process trigger, this Note focuses on the dignitary interest in due process procedures as highlighted by the California Supreme Court. After outlining the development of the federal and state frameworks and explaining the misapplication of the California test by the state’s courts, this Note argues for a more vigorous application of the dignitary interest and a truer appreciation and protection of an individual’s position before a state actor.