DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
716 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
5
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
716 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically outlining the applicable law concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It defines and distinguishes between procedural and substantive due process by citing several court cases, including Martinez v. McAleenan and United States v. Salerno. The text highlights the two-step analysis for procedural due process and notes the Supreme Court's reluctance to expand the concept of substantive due process, as stated in Washington v. Glucksberg.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martinez | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
|
| McAleenan | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
|
| Salerno | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987).
|
| Arzberger | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
|
| Washington | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997).
|
| Glucksberg | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997).
|
| Graham | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
|
| Connor | Party in a lawsuit |
Cited in the case Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as being reluctant to expand substantive due process and for its holding in Graham v. Connor.
|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the cases United States v. Salerno and United States v. Arzberger.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in citations for Martinez v. McAleenan (2019) and United States v. Arzberger (2008), referring to the Unite...
|
Relationships (5)
Parties in the case United States v. Salerno.
Parties in the case United States v. Arzberger.
Parties in the case Washington v. Glucksberg.
Key Quotes (8)
"[n]o person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . ."Source
— Fifth Amendment
(Quoted as the text of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #1
"protects individuals against two types of government action."Source
— Martinez v. McAleenan
(Describing the function of the Due Process Clause.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #2
"ensures that government cannot unfairly and without meaningful process deprive a person of life, liberty, or property,"Source
— Martinez v. McAleenan
(Defining procedural due process.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #3
"prevents the government from engaging in conduct that shocks the conscience, or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."Source
— Martinez v. McAleenan
(Defining substantive due process.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #4
"government action depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. . . [is] implemented in a fair manner,"Source
— United States v. Salerno
(Describing the focus of procedural due process analysis.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #5
"Courts examine procedural due process questions in two steps: the first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the [Government]; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient."Source
— United States v. Arzberger
(Outlining the two-step analysis for procedural due process questions.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #6
"always . . . reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended."Source
— Washington v. Glucksberg
(Explaining the Supreme Court's stance on substantive due process.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #7
"that where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of"Source
— Graham v. Connor
(A holding from the Supreme Court related to constitutional protections.)
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,098 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 131 of 239
misconduct that would justify the extraordinary remedy the defendant seeks—the motion must be denied.
a. Applicable Law
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . .” The Due Process Clause “protects individuals against two types of government action.” Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Procedural due process “ensures that government cannot unfairly and without meaningful process deprive a person of life, liberty, or property,” while substantive due process “prevents the government from engaging in conduct that shocks the conscience, or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration omitted).
Procedural due process analysis focuses on whether “government action depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. . . [is] implemented in a fair manner,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987). “Courts examine procedural due process questions in two steps: the first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the [Government]; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.” United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
As to substantive due process, the Supreme Court is “always . . . reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because of this reluctance, the Supreme Court held in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), “that where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of
104
DOJ-OGR-00003065
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document