Opinion ID: 2448874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Balancing of Interests

Text: ¶ 21 The United States Supreme Court established a balancing test to determine the constitutional sufficiency of the administrative procedures involved. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976): More precisely, our prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. See e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. [254] at 263-271, 90 S.Ct. [1011] at 1018-1022 [25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970)]. [emphasis added]. ¶ 22 The state's interest must be balanced against the risk of unconstitutionally depriving a property owner of an opportunity to protect his interest. The state's interest in having a smooth administrative process for issuing mining permits is not outweighed by according due process to Daffin and other property owners by allowing them to appear and be heard at an informal conference. Allowing the current procedures to stand, however, threatens the interests of individual property owners and deprives them of due process. Formality at the conference is not required, but they are entitled to appear and be heard. ¶ 23 The right to due process is conferred by constitutional guarantee by the United States and the Oklahoma Constitutions. Daffin's and others' property interests may not be limited by procedures allowing only owners within one mile of the site to appear and be heard. OAC Rule 460:10-17-6(a), and 45 O.S. Supp.2008, 724(H)(2), on which it is based, deprive Daffin and others similarly situated of their constitutional right to be heard. ¶ 24 ODM's charge that it will certainly face district court challenges if the injunction is allowed to stand is not well taken. The injunction was necessary because the applicable rule and statute precluded due process to affected property owners. With our pronouncement today that the statute and rule are unconstitutional, future applications will be subject to requests by all county residents for an informal conference. If the ODM administrative process cannot withstand such challenge without depriving property owners of due process, district court challenges were already inevitable.