Editing Due process (section)

== By jurisdiction ==

=== Magna Carta ===
In clause 39 of [[Magna Carta]], issued in 1215, [[John of England]] promised: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."<ref name="Magna">{{Cite web|work=Internet History Sourcebooks Project|url=https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/magnacarta.asp|access-date=2023-02-12
| title= The Text of the Magna Carta
| orig-date= 1215 | date= 1995
| editor1= G.R.C. Davis
|via=Fordham University}}</ref> Magna Carta itself immediately became part of the "[[law of the land]]", and Clause 61 of that charter authorized an elected body of 25 barons to determine by majority vote what redress the King must provide when the King offends "in any respect against any man".<ref name="Magna" /> Thus, Magna Carta established the [[rule of law]] in England by not only requiring the monarchy to obey the law of the land but also limiting how the monarchy could change the law of the land. However, in the 13th century, the provisions may have been referring only to the rights of landowners, and not to ordinary peasantry or villagers.<ref>{{cite book |last=McKechnie |first=William Sharp |title=Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John |publisher=Robert MacLehose and Co., Ltd. |year=1905 |location=Glasgow |pages=[https://archive.org/details/magnacartaacomme00mcke/page/n153 136]–37 |url=https://archive.org/details/magnacartaacomme00mcke}}: "The question must be considered an open one; but much might be said in favor of the opinion that 'freeman' as used in the Charter is synonymous with 'freeholder'...."</ref>

Shorter versions of Magna Carta were subsequently issued by British [[monarchs]], and Clause 39 of Magna Carta was renumbered "29".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents|title=Featured Documents|date=2015-10-06|website=National Archives|language=en|access-date=2020-03-28}}</ref> The phrase ''due process of law'' first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in 1354 during the reign of [[Edward III of England]], as follows: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."<ref>[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3/28/3 28 Edw. 3, c. 3] (1354).</ref>

In 1608, the English jurist [[Edward Coke]] wrote a treatise in which he discussed the meaning of Magna Carta. Coke explained that no man shall be deprived but by ''legem terrae'', the law of the land, "that is, by the common law, statute law, or custom of England.... (that is, to speak it once and for all) by the due course, and process of law.."<ref>[http://www.constitution.org/18th/coke2nd1797/coke2nd1797_051-100.pdf 2 ''Institutes of the Laws of England'' 46 (1608)]</ref>

Both the clause in Magna Carta and the later statute of 1354 were again explained in 1704 (during the reign of [[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]]) by the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|Queen's Bench]], in the case of ''Regina v. Paty''.<ref name="paty">{{Cite book
| chapter = ''Regina v. Paty'', 92 Eng. Rep. 232, 234 (1704) 
|editor1= John Bayley | volume= 2|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SA4wAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1108|title=Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas: In the Reigns of the Late King William, Queen Anne, King George the First, and King George the Second. &#91;1694-1732&#93;|last=((Raymond, Baron Raymond))|first=Robert|date=1792|publisher=E. Lynch|pages=1105–1108}}</ref> In that case, the [[British House of Commons]] had deprived John Paty and certain other citizens of the right to vote in an election and committed them to [[Newgate Prison]] merely for the offense of pursuing a legal action in the courts.<ref>{{Cite book | title= A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History | edition = 3rd | last = Medley | first = Dudley Julius | date = 1902 | publisher= B. Blackwell | page= 613
| url= https://books.google.com/books?id=uHZDAAAAIAAJ | chapter= Abbey ''v'' White (1704)
}}</ref> The Queen's Bench, in an opinion by [[Littleton Powys|Justice Littleton Powys]], explained the meaning of "due process of law" as follows:
{{Quote|[I]t is objected, that by Mag. Chart. c. 29, no man ought to be taken or imprisoned, but by the law of the land. But to this I answer, that lex terrae is not confined to the common law, but takes in all the other laws, which are in force in this realm; as the civil and canon law.... By the 28 Ed. 3, c. 3, there the words lex terrae, which are used in Mag. Char. are explained by the words, due process of law; and the meaning of the statute is, that all commitments must be by a legal authority; and the law of Parliament is as much a law as any, nay, if there be any superiority this is a superior law.<ref name="paty" />}}

[[John Holt (judge)|Chief Justice Holt]] dissented in this case because he believed that the commitment had not in fact been by a legal authority. The House of Commons had purported to legislate unilaterally, without approval of the [[British House of Lords]], ostensibly to regulate the election of its members.<ref>{{Cite book | pages= 51–56 | chapter= Sir John Holt | editor1-last = Cunningham| editor1-first = George Godfrey | volume= 4 | title= Lives of Eminent and Illustrious Englishmen | date= 1835
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=cysAAAAAQAAJ
}}</ref>{{rp|54}} Although the Queen's Bench held that the House of Commons had not infringed or overturned due process, John Paty was ultimately freed by Queen Anne when she [[legislative session#Procedure in Commonwealth realms|prorogued]] Parliament.

=== English law and American law diverge ===

Throughout centuries of British history, many laws and treatises asserted various requirements as being part of "due process" or included in the "law of the land". That view usually held in regards to what was required by existing law, rather than what was intrinsically required by due process itself. As the [[United States Supreme Court]] has explained, a due process requirement in Britain was not "essential to the idea of due process of law in the prosecution and punishment of crimes, but was only mentioned as an example and illustration of due process of law as it actually existed in cases in which it was customarily used".<ref name="caselaw1">''[[Hurtado v. California]]'', {{ussc|110|516|1884}}</ref>

Ultimately, the scattered references to "due process of law" in [[English law]] did not limit the power of the government; in the words of American law professor [[John V. Orth]], "the great phrases failed to retain their vitality."<ref name="Orth1">{{cite book |last1=Orth |first1=John V. |title=Due Process of Law: A Brief History |date=2003 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |location=Lawrence, KS |isbn=9780700612420 |pages=30–31 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1yOQAAAAMAAJ&q=great+phrases+vitality |access-date=8 October 2020}}</ref> Orth points out that this is generally attributed to the rise of the doctrine of [[parliamentary supremacy]] in the United Kingdom, which was accompanied by hostility towards [[judicial review]] as an undemocratic foreign invention.<ref>Orth, 28–30.</ref>

Scholars have occasionally interpreted Lord Coke's ruling in ''[[Dr. Bonham's Case]]'' as implying the possibility of judicial review, but by the 1870s, [[John Campbell, 1st Baron Campbell|Lord Campbell]] was dismissing judicial review as "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially in Dr. Bonham's Case..., a conundrum [that] ought to have been laughed at".<ref name="Orth2">{{cite book |last1=Orth |first1=John V. |title=Due Process of Law: A Brief History |date=2003 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |location=Lawrence, KS |isbn=9780700612420 |page=29 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1yOQAAAAMAAJ&q=conundrum |access-date=8 October 2020}}</ref> Lacking the power of judicial review, English courts possessed no means by which to declare government statutes or actions invalid as a violation of due process.<ref name="Ilbert">{{cite book |last1=Ilbert |first1=Courtenay |author-link1=Courtenay Ilbert |title=The Mechanics of Law Making |date=1914 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |pages=3–9 |isbn=9781584770442 |edition=2000 reprint |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FVXiIXjsSGQC&pg=PA3 |access-date=8 October 2020}}</ref> In contrast, American legislators and executive branch officers possessed virtually no means by which to overrule judicial invalidation of statutes or actions as due process violations, with the sole exception of proposing a constitutional amendment, which are rarely successful.<ref>The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that it is nearly impossible for the legislative branch to overrule the Court's constitutional interpretations in ''[[Washington v. Glucksberg]]'', 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997): "By extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field."</ref> As a consequence, English law and American law diverged.  Unlike their English counterparts, American judges became increasingly assertive about enforcing due process of law.  In turn, the legislative and executive branches learned how to avoid such confrontations in the first place, by tailoring statutes and executive actions to the constitutional requirements of due process as elaborated upon by the judiciary.<ref name="Ilbert" />

In 1977, an English political science professor explained the present situation in England for the benefit of American lawyers:
<blockquote>An American constitutional lawyer might well be surprised by the elusiveness of references to the term 'due process of law' in the general body of English legal writing.... Today one finds no space devoted to due process in Halsbury's ''[[Halsbury's Laws of England|Laws of England]]'', in Stephen's ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England|Commentaries]]'', or Anson's ''Law and Custom of the Constitution.'' The phrase rates no entry in such works as Stroud's ''[[Stroud's Judicial Dictionary|Judicial Dictionary]]'' or Wharton's ''Law Lexicon.''<ref name="Marshall, 69" /></blockquote>

Two similar concepts in contemporary English law are [[natural justice]], which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions, and the British constitutional concept of the [[rule of law]] as articulated by [[A. V. Dicey]] and others.<ref name="Marshall, 69" /> However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.<ref name="Marshall, 69–70" />

=== United States ===
{{Main|Due Process Clause}}
The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendments]] to the [[United States Constitution]] each contain a [[Due Process Clause]].<ref>{{Cite web|date=2015-11-04|title=The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription|url=https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript|access-date=2021-09-22|website=National Archives|language=en}}</ref> Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.<ref name="PAMadisonDPC">{{cite web |last=Madison |first=P. A. |title=Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section |url=http://www.federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#due |publisher=The Federalist Blog |access-date=19 January 2013|date=2 August 2010}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] interprets the clauses as providing four protections: [[procedural due process]] (in civil and criminal proceedings), [[substantive due process]], a prohibition against [[void for vagueness|vague laws]], and as the vehicle for the [[incorporation of the Bill of Rights]].

=== Others ===
Various countries recognize some form of due process under [[custom (law)|customary]] [[international law]]. Although the specifics are often unclear, most nations agree that they should guarantee foreign visitors a basic minimum level of justice and fairness. Some nations have argued that they are bound to grant no more rights to aliens than they do to their own [[citizens]], the doctrine of [[national treatment]], which also means that both would be vulnerable to the same deprivations by the government. With the growth of [[international human rights law]] and the frequent use of [[treaty|treaties]] to govern treatment of foreign nationals abroad, the distinction, in practice, between these two perspectives may be disappearing.