Opinion ID: 542853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dichotomy.

Text: 35 The essentials of procedural due process comprise notice of the charges and a reasonable chance to meet them. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348, 96 S.Ct. 893, 909, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Collins, 894 F.2d at 480. The basic purport of the constitutional requirement is that, before a significant deprivation of liberty or property takes place at the state's hands, the affected individual must be forewarned and afforded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). As the rubric itself implies, procedural due process is simply a guarantee of fair procedure. Zinermon v. Burch, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 975, 983, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). 36 There is no mechanical formula by which the adequacy of state procedures can be determined. To the contrary, due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Courts thus conduct their tamisage according to a sliding scale, balancing a number of factors, including the nature of the private and public interests involved; the risk of erroneous deprivation accruing under the procedures used by the state; and the probable benefit of demanding additional procedural safeguards. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903; Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 481, 92 S.Ct. at 2600; see also Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 17-18, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1564-1565, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978). When a procedural due process claim is advanced, the proper focus must be on the manner in which the state has acted: how and when the alleged deprivation was effected. See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 66, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 2650, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979); see also Zinermon, 110 S.Ct. at 983. Whether the deprivation (e.g., license revocation) was itself erroneous is beside the procedural due process point. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1053, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). 37 In contrast, a substantive due process claim implicates the essence of state action rather than its modalities; such a claim rests not on perceived procedural deficiencies but on the idea that the government's conduct, regardless of procedural swaddling, was in itself impermissible. Stating the proposition does not cabin it very well. It has been said, for instance, that substantive due process protects individuals against state actions which are arbitrary and capricious, Newman, 884 F.2d at 25, 5 or those which run counter to the concept of ordered liberty, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 152, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), or those which, in context, appear shocking or violative of universal standards of decency, Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 95 (1st Cir.1979) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1035, 100 S.Ct. 710, 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980). See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172, 72 S.Ct. 205, 209, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952) (in substantive terms, Due Process Clause condemns conduct too close to the rack and the screw); cf. Tenoco Oil Co. v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 876 F.2d 1013, 1020-24 (1st Cir.1989) (discussing disfavored status of substantive due process claims). 38 We decline the invitation to sort out so wide a variety of labels. Wordplay aside, we agree with Judge Friendly that, in the circumscribed precincts patrolled by substantive due process, it is only when some basic and fundamental principle has been transgressed that the constitutional line has been crossed. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973). As distinguished from its procedural cousin, then, a substantive due process inquiry focuses on what the government has done, as opposed to how and when the government did it. And although the yardstick against which substantive due process violations are measured has been characterized in various ways, we are satisfied that, before a constitutional infringement occurs, state action must in and of itself be egregiously unacceptable, outrageous, or conscience-shocking. 39