List of court cases relevant to procedural rights

Five Pillars of the Administrative State
Procedural rights
	Read more about the administrative state on Ballotpedia.

Administrative State Banner - Circle Graphic - V2.jpg

Procedural rights is one of five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Procedural rights encompasses debates about individual due process and standing before administrative agency adjudication and enforcement actions. Procedural rights also include citizen access agency rulemaking processes and decision making proceedings.

The following page contains two tables. The first table lists court cases about due process rights within the administrative state. The second table contains court cases related to standing.

Court cases related to due process[edit]

This table contains major state and federal court cases related to due process.

Cases relevant to due process
Case	Court	Year	Impact
Holmes & Ketcham v. Walton	1780	New Jersey Supreme Court	Court held proceedings and statute unconstitutional for failing to provide a jury
Ten Pound Cases	1787	Inferior Court of Common Pleas of Rockingham County, NH	Court held proceedings and statute unconstitutional for failing to provide a jury
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 518	1819	U.S. Supreme Court	Daniel Webster, a lawyer in the case, argued that the law of the land provision in the New Hampshire Constitution was the same as a requirement for due process
Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272	1855	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that due process of law meant the same thing as by the law of the land in Magna Carta and cited early state constitutions as evidence
The Slaughter House Cases	1873	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state
Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. 505	1873	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that lawyers may not lose their licenses to practice law without a hearing
Davidson v. City of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97	1878	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that jury trials are not always required by due process standards where personal or property rights are involved
Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265	1883	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that procedures count as due process if they are “suitable and proper to the nature of the case, and sanctioned by the established customs and usages of the courts”
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516	1884	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that anything that upheld principles of liberty and justice to further the general public good must be held to be due process of law
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581	1889	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that immigration was a privilege and not subject to due process restrictions
McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517	1892	Supreme Court of Massachusetts	Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that public employment is a privilege not protected by due process
Allgeyer v. Louisiana	1897	U.S. Supreme Court	Court rejected the idea that liberty only meant that citizens had a right to be free from physical restraint
Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409	1897	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that deprivation of property violates due process if done without a trial
Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86	1903	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that immigrants were entitled to procedural due process protection before deportation
United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161	1904	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that people who did not appeal final immigration decisions could not acquire a right to a judicial hearing under habeas corpus by claiming citizenship
Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497	1904	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that jury trials are not always required by Due Process standards where personal or property rights are involved
United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253	1905	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that due process is when an executive or administrative officer acts within the powers given to them by Congress
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45	1905	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that fundamental rights of liberty and property receive substantive due process protection against regulation
Central of Georgia Ry. v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127	1907	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that taxpayers must have a fair opportunity for a hearing related to tax collection
Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373	1908	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that sometimes the right to a fair hearing implies a right to oral argument
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78	1908	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that American courts relied on Edward Coke to say that due process of law was equivalent to the law of the land provision in Magna Carta
Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161	1908	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that fundamental rights of liberty and property receive substantive due process protection against regulation
Londoner v. City of Denver, 210 U.S. 373	1908	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that taxation of property without adjudication violates due process
Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210	1908	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that administrative rulemaking was exempt from procedural requirements of due process
Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U.S. 272	1912	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that findings of fact by an executive officer after a summary deportation hearing may be made conclusive
ICC v. Louisville & N. Ry., 227 U.S. 88	1913	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that agency decisionmaking had to meet the procedural standards of civil trials and that only certain questions could be definitively answered by agencies
Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441	1915	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that administrative rulemaking was exempt from procedural requirements of due process, especially when the rule applied to more than a few people because it would be impractical for every person to participate in the adoption of the rule
Butler v. Perry	1916	U.S. Supreme Court	Justice McReynolds argued that Fourteenth Amendment liberty referred to common law fundamental rights
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454	1920	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that decisions made based on a record that omitted relevant evidence was not a fair hearing
Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287	1920	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that due process means constitutional questions about agency actions require de novo review
Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276	1922	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that a person held for deportation is entitled to a day in court if he denies he is an alien
Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U.S. 557	1922	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that taxpayers must have a fair opportunity for a hearing related to tax collection
Meyer v. Nebraska	1923	U.S. Supreme Court	Court articulated an expansive definition of liberty
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86	1923	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that depriving someone of liberty without a proper trial violates due process
Adkins v. Children's Hosp., 261 U.S. 525	1923	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that fundamental rights of liberty and property receive substantive due process protection against regulation
United States v. Abilene & S. Ry., 265 U.S. 274	1924	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that agency decisionmaking had to meet the procedural standards of civil trials and that only certain questions could be definitively answered by agencies
Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230	1926	U.S. Supreme Court	Case involving the irrebuttable presumption doctrine
Western Chem. Co. v. United States, 271 U.S. 268	1926	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld an administrative order following proceedings where there was evidence admitted that would be inadmissible in a court
Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312	1926	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Due Process Clause requires “that state action, whether through one agency or another, shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions and not infrequently are designated as ‘law of the land.’”
Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117	1926	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a CPA admitted to practice before the Board of Tax Appeals could not lose that privilege without a hearing
Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363	1927	Tennessee Supreme Court	Court held that states are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment when dealing with its own employees engaged in state work.
United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commission of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103	1927	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that immigrants were entitled to procedural due process protection before deportation
Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101	1927	U.S. Supreme Court	Court did not require agencies to use juries during adjudication
Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589	1931	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that seizing personal property as payment for debt is legal if a hearing is available after the collection
Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22	1932	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that questions about the jurisdiction of an agency require de novo review by courts
Hamilton v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 293 U.S. 245	1934	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that attendance at college was a privilege not subject to due process protections
St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38	1936	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that due process required courts to exercise independent judgment on the facts when reviewing an order by the Secretary of Agriculture setting maximum rates for stockyard services
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1	1937	U.S. Supreme Court	Court did not require agencies to use juries during adjudication
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm'n, 301 U.S. 292	1937	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that agency decisionmaking had to meet the procedural standards of civil trials and that only certain questions could be definitively answered by agencies
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319	1937	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that fair procedures were a fundamental right that supported ordered liberty
Margan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1	1938	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that in the case of a quasi-judicial proceeding between a person and the government people have a right to be advised of what the government proposes and to be heard before any final action
NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333	1938	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld as due process instances where the charges and findings varied
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197	1938	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a union was entitled to notice and the opportunity to participate in the proceedings when the National Labor Relations Board sought to void an agreement
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbldg. Corp., 303 U.S. 41	1938	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that administrative remedies had to be exhausted before a person may seek judicial review on the merits
California Comm'n v. United States, 355 U.S. 534	1938	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that access to the courts is essential to deciding questions about the constitutional or statutory authority of agencies
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1	1940	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that procedure is the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by law and for justly administering remedy and redress when those rights and duties are violated
Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126	1941	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that due process does not require a hearing at the initial stage of the administrative process so long as a hearing is held before the agency’s final order becomes effective
Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503	1944	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that Congress could provide for judicial review after regulations and orders become effective and still comply with due process in a war emergency situation
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160	1948	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that summary executive action to deport an enemy alien during war was consistent with due process and the law does not require courts to decide whether any hearing provided was sufficient
FCC v. WJR, 337 U.S. 265	1949	U.S. Supreme Court	Court did not require oral argument as a component of a fair hearing
Bailey v. Richardson	1950	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld a D.C. Circuit decision that said the First Amendment does not guarantee government employment
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33	1950	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that when the U.S. Constitution requires a hearing it must be fair and held before a tribunal that meets current standards of impartiality; also held that a hearing in front of a tribunal that doesn’t meet the impartiality standards of the APA might violate due process
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123	1951	U.S. Supreme Court	Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a concurring opinion that outlined several factors for courts to balance when deciding due process questions
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183	1952	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that an Oklahoma law was an assertion of arbitrary power that offended due process
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590	1953	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that resident aliens held for deportation were entitled to procedural due process
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206	1953	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held consistent with due process the practice of excluding returning resident aliens without a hearing on the basis of secret information
United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1	1953	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that it was sufficient due process for a person to receive a resume of adverse evidence from the FBI during an auxiliary hearing
Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 347 U.S. 535	1954	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that administrative exhaustion is not required when an agency’s action is allegedly unconstitutional or beyond the scope of the agency’s authority
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260	1954	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the U.S. attorney general could not circumvent department procedures that allowed requests to suspend deportation to go before the Board of Immigration Appeals first
Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442	1954	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that there was no right to have a license to practice medicine
Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331	1955	U.S. Supreme Court	Court invalidated a finding by a board that relied on informants and that did not allow the claimant to cross-examine them
Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397	1955	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that an individual was entitled to a fair summary of the material in an FBI report on him
Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407	1955	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the law and regulations implicitly required the Department of Justice to give individuals copies of adverse recommendations from the civil service appeal board so that they could make adequate replies
In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133	1955	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12	1956	U.S. Supreme Court	Justice Frankfurter argued in a concurring opinion that due process is “the least frozen concept of our law” and that it can absorb the progressive social standards of modern society
Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345	1956	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld using secret informers in hearings to suspend deportation proceedings
Slochower v. Board of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551	1956	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that invoking the Fifth Amendment is not evidence of guilt, so firing an employee on that basis violates due process
Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536	1956	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that Congress had not empowered the FDA to apply a loyalty program to an inspector
In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330	1957	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld secret proceedings of an Ohio fire marshal and sustained a prison sentence even though lawyers had been excluded from the process
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232	1957	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that denying a person permission to take the bar exam because of her arrest record, use of aliases, and past Communist Party membership, but without evidence of bad moral character, violates due process because it is arbitrary and irrational
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234	1957	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a state legislature’s delegation of power to the attorney general was so broad that it was impossible to tell whether he was following the rules the legislature had established
Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363	1957	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that regulations for State Department loyalty-security dismissals must be followed even in the case of a dismissal that would have happened for other reasons too
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116	1958	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Secretary of State was not given unlimited discretion to grant or withhold passports for citizens
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121	1959	U.S. Supreme Court	Court described decisions under the Due Process Clause as being based on an inquiry into the fundamental principles of society, which include a tribunal trained to make such decisions operating with safeguards for impartiality and detachment
Anonymous v. Baker, 360 U.S. 287	1959	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld a prison sentence even though lawyers were excluded from the process of investigation
Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535	1959	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that security dismissal regulations must be followed when a department begins proceedings under them even when it could have simply fired the employee for other reasons
Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474	1959	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Department of Defense was not authorized by Congress to deny security clearances based on confidential information
Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420	1960	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld procedures during a purely fact-finding investigation that did not allow cross-examination of witnesses
Gonzales v. United States, 364 U.S. 59	1960	U.S. Supreme Court	Upheld the process in a case that did not allow the defendant to challenge certain evidence or consult certain records
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603	1960	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld terminating Social Security benefits for deported immigrants because the termination followed a valid general law
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886	1961	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not require a trial-like hearing for every case where the government impairs a private interest
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.)	1961	5th Circuit	Court held that due process requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a tax-supported college may expel a student for misconduct
Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36	1961	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that denial of admission to the bar based on a failure to answer questions is not a denial of due process
In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82	1961	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that denial of admission to the bar based on a failure to answer questions is not a denial of due process
Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S. 96	1963	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that an unsuccessful bar applicant was denied due process when the Committee on Character & Fitness never allowed him to cross-examine those who spoke ill of him
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398	1963	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that denying unemployment benefits to a Seventh-Day Adventist who refused work on a Saturday violated the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment
Hornsby v. Allen, 26 F.2d 605 (5th Cir.)	1964	5th Circuit	Court ruled that uncontrolled discretion invites abuse and that officers of the government have to follow prescribed standards and make adjudications on the basis of merit
Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360	1964	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that loyalty oath requirements from the State of Washington were invalid because unduly vague, uncertain, and broad
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399	1966	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that laws fail to meet due process requirements when they are so vague and standardless that they allow judges and jurors to decide what is prohibited and not in each particular case without any legally fixed standard
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541	1966	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that juveniles have due process rights
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589	1967	U.S. Supreme Court	Court rejected the right-privilege distinction approach to deciding due process cases
Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1	1968	U.S. Supreme Court	Court set precedent that "no explicit statutory provision was necessary to confer standing, since the private utility bringing suit was within the class of persons that the statutory provision was designed to protect"
In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544	1968	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a disbarred lawyer was denied due process when he was denied fair notice of new charges against him after proceedings began
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145	1968	U.S. Supreme Court	Justice John Harlan in a dissenting opinion described due process as fundamental fairness
McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185	1969	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that some exceptions to the requirement of administrative exhaustion arise because there are no benefits that would come from continued administrative processes
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411	1969	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a board of inquiry’s identification of violators of criminal law violated due process
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150	1970	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a plaintiff seeking standing must allege an “injury in fact” and demonstrate that their interest is "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question” (the zone of interest test)
Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U.S. 280	1970	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that California had to provide a hearing prior to termination of old-age benefits
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254	1970	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that welfare recipients were entitled to a hearing before the state could terminate their benefits
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389	1971	U.S. Supreme Court	Court allowed hearsay evidence to support agency determinations during administrative proceedings so long as it is shown to be reliable and there is an opportunity for the claimant to cross-examine the witnesses
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535	1971	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that if a state issued licenses, those licenses could not be revoked without the procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment
Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433	1971	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a state law allowing local officials to post notices in liquor stores forbidding selling liquor to certain people drinking excessively violated due process because those targeted by the law did not get a hearing or notice
Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207	1971	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that individuals had a right to due process when facing dismissal from public employment
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564	1972	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that employees must meet a threshold showing of a protected liberty or property interest to make a due process challenge
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593	1972	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that teacher who claimed tenure was entitled to an opportunity to establish that he had tenure, which would require school officials to give him a hearing where he could learn why they were not rehiring him and could challenge their reasons
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753	1972	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that when the Executive Branch exercises discretion to reject the visa of a communist based on a legitimate reason, courts will not look behind the exercise of that discretion or use a balancing test with the First Amendment
Norlander v. Schleck, 345 F. Supp. 595	1972	United States District Court for the District of Minnesota	Court ruled that a person who was removed from the waitlist for a civil service position because of confidential bad references was denied due process because she had no notice of the basis for removal nor the opportunity to refute that basis
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67	1972	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a claimant must prove that his ability to obtain the truth was severely prejudiced in order to claim a denial of due process
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471	1972	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the nature of an interest determines whether due process requirements apply and decided that informal hearings were required before ending a criminal’s parole
Gagnuon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778	1973	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a probationer is entitled to a hearing when losing probation, but not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer
Mourning v. Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356	1973	U.S. Supreme Court	Case upholding general, uniform administrative rules
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224	1973	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that rulemaking constitutes legislative judgments by agencies while adjudication concerns agency actions that implicate due process protections; held that formal rulemaking is only required when a statute calls for a hearing “on the record”
Weinberger v. Hynson, Wescott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609	1973	U.S. Supreme Court	Court affirmed the expediency and desirability of replacing individual adjudication with general rules
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663	1974	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld seizure of a yacht by Puerto Rican transportation officials without notice and a hearing
Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134	1974	U.S. Supreme Court	Court was divided over the source of constitutionally-protected liberty and property interests
NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267	1974	U.S. Supreme Court	Court suggested that agencies making retroactive changes through adjudication might violate due process if there had been a good faith reliance on the earlier order
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632	1974	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that legislative use of irrebuttable presumption against pregnant teachers was unconstitutional
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539	1974	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a prison could not create the right to good-time credits and then deny them to inmates without minimum procedures
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35	1975	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not necessarily violate due process by creating an unconstitutional risk of bias
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565	1975	U.S. Supreme Court	Court looked at property rights to determine what level of due process applied
Montanye v. Haymes	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require a hearing prior to the transfer of prison inmates
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Case upholding general, uniform administrative rules
Kelley v. Johnson	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a county regulation limiting policeman's hair length did not violate due process
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Court introduced a balancing test to determine what process is due in a given situation and limited Goldberg v. Kelly by denying a general right to a pre-termination hearing for disability benefits
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 786	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that the government’s interest in administrative efficiency has some weight in determining what process, if any, is due
Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that citizens do not have an absolute entitlement to public employment or benefits but that the legislature may recognize certain interests to trigger due process protections
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that prisoners did not have due process protection when state prison officials transferred them between facilities without prior notice and a hearing because the relevant law gave officials complete discretion to transfer prisoners
Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105	1977	U.S. Supreme Court	Court applied the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge to uphold an Illinois statute that allowed the secretary of state to suspend or revoke drivers' licences without a preliminary hearing
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651	1977	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that corporal punishment of children deprives them of liberty and requires adequately minimum procedural protections
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307	1978	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the U.S. Constitution requires a search warrant for an administrative search to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1	1978	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that public utilities could not terminate service except for good and sufficient cause
Webster v. Redmond, 599 F.2d 793, 801-02 (7th Cir. 1979)	1980	7th Circuit	Court held that no one can claim that they have suffered a due process violation without a deprivation of a liberty or property right
Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480	1980	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Due Process Clause created the right to avoid being stigmatized by government activity
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527	1981	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a prisoner had no due process claim against prison officials who lost a hobby kit that he had ordered
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422	1982	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a legal cause of action was a kind of property protected by the Due Process Clause
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460	1983	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that liberty interests protected under the Fourteenth Amendment can come from the Due Process Clause or state laws
Olim v. Wakinekona, 103 S. Ct. 1741	1983	U.S. Supreme Court	Court upheld prisoner transfer because the regulations governing that transfer did not trigger Due Process Clause protections
Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532	1984	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that an Ohio civil servant was entitled to notice and a pre-termination hearing before losing his job
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555	1992	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that Article III forbids Congress from granting standing to citizens to bring suit if they have not suffered a demonstrable injury; court applied the zone of interest test to limit access to standing
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154	1997	U.S. Supreme Court	Court developed a two-part test to determine what qualifies as a final agency action for the purposes of judicial review: the final agency order must have exhausted all internal agency appeals and must either determine “ ‘rights or obligations” or result in legal consequences resulting in hardship
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678	2001	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that aliens within the U.S. have some due process protections and that Congress must give clear indications to authorize indefinite detention of undocumented aliens
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510	2003	U.S. Supreme Court	Court limited the ruling in Zadvydas and said the Due Process Clause did not require the government to employ the least burdensome means to deport aliens
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507	2004	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that the government may not detain a U.S. citizen enemy combatant overseas indefinitely without the ability to offer evidence that he is not an enemy; also, the court held that a combatant must be given notice of the factual basis for holding him and a fair chance to rebut that evidence before a neutral decision-maker and be allowed to consult an attorney
Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059	2008	9th Circuit	Case where citizens argued that the exclusion of an alien impinged upon the citizens’ due process rights
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. ___	2015	U.S. Supreme Court	Five justices agreed that it did not violate due process rights of a U.S. spouse to deny an immigrant visa to her husband without explanation because he was found inadmissible under a provision of immigration law related to terrorism

Court cases related to standing[edit]

This table contains major cases from England, U.S. states, and federal courts related to standing.

Cases relevant to standing
Case	Court	Year	Impact
Arthur v. Commissioners of Sewers, 88 Eng. Rep. 237 (K.B. 1724)	1724	English Court	Court held that strangers who were not parties to a case could still seek discretionary judicial relief
Attorney Gen. v. Bucknall, 26 Eng. Rep. 600 (Ch. 1741)	1741	English Court	Court said anyone, even remote from the case, could bring suits in the name of the attorney general
Rex v. Brown	1789	English Court	Court allowed strangers to enforce acts of Parliament since such acts were of interest to everyone in the kingdom
Zylstra v. Corporation of Charleston, 1 S.C.L. (I Bay) 382	1794	South Carolina Court	Court issued a writ of prohibition requested by a stranger
State v. Justices of Middlesex, 1 NJ.L. 283	1794	New Jersey Court	Court allowed a citizen action
State v. Corporation of New Brunswick, 1 N.J.L. 450	1795	New Jersey Court	Court rejected the idea that courts should reject citizen requests unless they show that they will be affected by the outcome
Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 171	1829	U.S. Supreme Court	Court treated a writ of prohibition against an allegedly unconstitutional tax as a constitutional case
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343	1875	U.S. Supreme Court	Court allowed citizens to bring a petition for mandamus
Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212	1905	U.S. Supreme Court	Court said that people have been allowed to bring suits based on interests created by statutes for hundreds of years in England and since the foundation of the United States
Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24	1907	U.S. Supreme Court	Court refused to stop payments for the Panama canal because the plaintiff in the case showed no interest and the court held that that kind of relief would be extraordinary
Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126	1922	U.S. Supreme Court	Court dismissed a challenge to the process behind ratification of the 19th Amendment
Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447	1923	U.S. Supreme Court	U.S. Supreme Court denied standing to a taxpayer seeking to sue over expenditures he thought violated the commerce clause
Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288	1936	U.S. Supreme Court	Justice Brandeis wrote a concurring opinion opposing a constitutional attack by appealing to what we now call standing
Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633	1937	U.S. Supreme Court	Court denied standing to a private individual unless he could show he has more than a general interest in the result of a government action beyond that shared by the rest of the public
Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464	1938	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a private electric company lacked standing to challenge federal loans offered to competitors
Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118	1939	U.S. Supreme Court	Court described the kind of legal rights subject to judicial protection if violated by an agent of the executive branch
Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113	1940	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that a person had standing to challenge administrative action if he had a claim on the merits
FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470	1940	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that a station had standing to challenge the grant of a license to a competitor under the Federal Communications Act
United States ex rel Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 541 n.4	1943	U.S. Supreme Court	Court said that laws have allowed people with no interest in the controversy other than that created by a statute to bring suits for hundreds of years in England and from the beginning of the United States
Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288	1944	U.S. Supreme Court	First U.S. Supreme Court case to mention standing as an Article III limitation
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123	1951	U.S. Supreme Court	Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in a concurring opinion that American courts follow the same approach to standing as colonial and English courts at the time of the founding
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay, 225 F.2d 924	1955	D.C. Circuit	Court denied standing to utility companies who claimed they would suffer competitive harm if the federal government fulfilled certain power contracts made with other companies
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965	1965	2nd Circuit	Court held that those with an interest in the aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects of power development could sue to challenge a hydroelectric project
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994	1967	D.C. Circuit	Court ruled that people affected by government decisions could sue to challenge those actions
Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1	1968	U.S. Supreme Court	Court set precedent that "no explicit statutory provision was necessary to confer standing, since the private utility bringing suit was within the class of persons that the statutory provision was designed to protect"
Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redev. Agency, 395 F.2d 920	1968	2nd Circuit	Court ruled that people affected by government decisions could sue to challenge those actions
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83	1968	U.S. Supreme Court	Court gave a federal taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending that supported denominational schools
Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859	1970	D.C. Circuit	Court held that an unsuccessful bidder on a government contract had standing to sue the winner because the award violated law and regulations
Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150	1970	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that plaintiffs did not need to show a legal interest or legal injury to establish standing and that standing existed for those who could show an injury in fact within the zone of interests related to a regulatory statute
Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159	1970	U.S. Supreme Court	Court allowed those who were aggrieved or adversely affected in a way related to a regulatory statute to sue even without legal authorization
Bivins v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388	1971	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that the Fourth Amendment creates a private right of action, which allows people to sue to vindicate their Fourth Amendment rights
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727	1972	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires that a person be injured in fact by the government action for him to have standing
Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205	1972	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that tenants of an apartment complex had statutory standing to sue over racial discrimination
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669	1973	U.S. Supreme Court	Decision allowed public interest plaintiffs to have standing to challenge administrative action
Linda R.S. v. Richard D, 410 U.S. 614	1973	U.S. Supreme Court	Court denied the mother of an illegitimate child standing to sue the local prosecutor for not initiating child support proceedings against the father of the child
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490	1975	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that plaintiffs must show a nexus between the benefit to the plaintiff and the proposed relief the court might grant to establish standing
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26	1976	U.S. Supreme Court	Court denied standing to indigent people protesting a change in tax policy that reduced the amount of services hospitals had to provide to the indigent
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 33	1977	U.S. Supreme Court	Court articulated standards for associations to claim standing
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 5	1978	U.S. Supreme Court	Court ruled that an environmental organization, a labor union, and some people who lived near nuclear power plants under construction had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law governing federally licensed nuclear power plants
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265	1978	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that Bakke faced an injury, which gave him standing, from the fact that he could not compete for all places in a medical school class because of his race
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464	1982	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that standing is not recognized for those with merely generalized grievances
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363	1982	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that Congress created a legal interest for those testing for housing discrimination to sue violators
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737	1984	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that parents of black children attending public schools working through desegregation did not have standing to challenge tax deductions that went to segregated private schools
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332	1989	U.S. Supreme Court	Court endorsed standing for people challenging environmentally harmful construction in the area where they live
Air Courier Conference of Am. v. American Postal Workers Union, 111 S. Ct. 913	1991	U.S. Supreme Court	Court denied standing on zone-of-interest grounds
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130	1992	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that more is needed to establish standing when a plaintiff challenges governmental regulation, or lack of regulation, of someone else
Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman	1996	United States District Court for the District of Columbia	Court granted standing to plaintiffs claiming that they suffered aesthetic harm by seeing primates kept in what they believed were inhumane conditions in a zoo
Tozzi v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services	2001	D.C. Circuit	Court found that Health and Human Services (HHS) could be liable for harms caused by the actions of third parties taken in reaction to HHS’s allegedly arbitrary decision to list a chemical as a known carcinogen
Barnum Timber Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2011	9th Circuit	Court held that a plaintiff had standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the agency's allegedly arbitrary approval of a list under the Clean Water Act
Thole v. U.S. Bank	2020	U.S. Supreme Court	Court found that people get the right to sue in court when they can establish a concrete stake in the outcome of a case which reaffirmed limits on who can challenge actions taken by administrative agencies
United States v. Texas	2023	U.S. Supreme Court	Court held that states lack standing to challenge the scope of the executive branch's immigration enforcement because the separation of powers limits the judicial branch from directing executive branch enforcement discretion

List of court cases relevant to procedural rights

Contents

Court cases related to due process[edit]

Court cases related to standing[edit]

Explore more pillars[edit]

See also[edit]

Footnotes[edit]