Opinion ID: 2710681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: general due process principles

Text: The federal due process provision guarantees that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”36 Prior caselaw has interpreted this language to “guarante[e] more than fair process,”37 but to encompass a substantive sphere as well, “barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.”38 Determining whether the ordinance in this case violates due process requires that we engage in several inquiries, the first and most essential of which asks whether the interest allegedly infringed by the challenged government action—here, a property owner’s interest in repairing an unsafe structure— 36 US Const, Am XIV. 37 Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719, 117 S Ct 2258; 138 L Ed 2d 772 (1997). 38 Daniels, 474 US at 331. 14 comes within the definition of “life, liberty or property.”39 If it does not, the Due Process Clause affords no protection. If, however, a life, liberty or property interest is found to exist and to be threatened by the City’s conduct, the next two queries will address what process is due before the government can interfere with that interest. Because the Due Process Clause offers two separate types of protections—substantive and procedural— separate inquiries must examine whether these protections have been provided.
Plaintiffs allege that their property rights have been violated by the City’s decision to order their structures demolished without providing them with the option to repair the structures. Explicit in our state and federal caselaw is the recognition that an individual’s vested interest in the use and possession of real estate is a property interest protected by due process.40 Accordingly, plaintiffs, as owners of the three structures at issue and the land on which those structures are situated, have a significant property interest within the protection of the Due Process Clause.