State Constitutions and Due Process: Beyond Federal Protections

The relationship between state constitutions and due process is a profound testament to the American experiment in federalism. While the U.S. Constitution sets a national baseline for individual rights, it is in the state constitutions where the true diversity and dynamism of American liberty are found. The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that neither the federal nor state governments may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Yet, as history and jurisprudence reveal, state constitutions can and often do provide more robust protections than those recognized at the federal level. This reality underscores the importance of state constitutional law, not as a mere echo of federal doctrine, but as an independent and evolving source of individual rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause was adopted to curb state abuses and ensure a baseline of fairness in state actions. However, the Supreme Court quickly limited the reach of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, instead relying on the Due Process Clause as the vehicle for incorporating many-but not all-of the Bill of Rights against the states. This process of “incorporation” means that some rights, such as free speech or protection against unreasonable searches, apply to the states, while others remain solely federal guarantees. The result is a patchwork of protections, with state constitutions often stepping in to fill the gaps left by federal law.

Procedural due process and substantive due process are the two pillars of constitutional protection. Procedural due process requires that the government follow fair procedures before depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property. This includes notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral arbiter. Substantive due process, on the other hand, protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, regardless of the procedures used. Both doctrines are found in federal and state law, but state courts are free to interpret their constitutions more expansively, offering broader safeguards than the federal baseline.

This flexibility is not merely theoretical. Throughout American history, state courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater protection for individual rights than the federal courts have recognized. For example, some state constitutions prohibit “cruel or unusual punishment,” a phrase that has been interpreted to afford greater protection than the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment.” Other states guarantee the right to “meet the witnesses against him face to face,” a higher standard than the federal confrontation clause. These textual differences, and the willingness of state courts to interpret them independently, have led to a flourishing of rights at the state level.

The doctrine of new judicial federalism emerged in the latter half of the twentieth century as state courts began to assert their authority to interpret their own constitutions, particularly when federal protections stagnated or were rolled back. Justice William J. Brennan famously encouraged state courts to look to their constitutions as “a font of individual liberties,” noting that their protections often extend beyond those required by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law. This movement gained momentum as federal courts, especially during the Burger and Rehnquist eras, scaled back on certain liberties, prompting citizens and advocates to seek redress in state courts.

The independent and adequate state grounds doctrine is central to understanding the autonomy of state courts in protecting rights. Under this doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court will not review a state court decision that rests on independent and adequate state law grounds, even if the case involves similar federal issues. This doctrine affirms the authority of state courts to interpret their constitutions as they see fit, so long as their rulings do not conflict with federal law. It also means that state courts can be laboratories of democracy, experimenting with broader protections and innovative remedies.

The reach of state constitutions is not unlimited. The Supremacy Clause ensures that state constitutions may not conflict with rights secured under the federal Constitution. State constitutions can supplement federal rights, but they cannot subtract from them. This balance preserves a national floor of protection while allowing states to tailor their laws to the needs and values of their citizens. In practice, this means that a right recognized under state law may be more expansive than its federal counterpart, but never less.

The incorporation doctrine has played a pivotal role in shaping the relationship between state and federal due process protections. By selectively applying portions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Supreme Court has established a baseline of rights that all states must respect. Yet, not every right has been incorporated, and the Court has left room for states to innovate and expand upon these protections. This dynamic creates a healthy tension between national uniformity and local autonomy.

One of the most significant developments in recent years has been the willingness of state courts to resist federal retrenchment on substantive due process rights. When the Supreme Court narrows the scope of federal protections, state courts have often stepped in to maintain or even expand individual rights under their constitutions. This has been especially evident in areas such as privacy, reproductive rights, and criminal procedure, where state courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide broader protections than those recognized by the Supreme Court.

The responsiveness of state constitutions to popular preferences is a defining feature of American federalism. Many states have constitutional initiative processes that allow citizens to amend their constitutions directly, often to overrule unpopular court decisions or legislation. This mechanism ensures that state constitutions remain living documents, responsive to the evolving values and priorities of their people. It also means that rights can be both expanded and contracted at the state level, depending on the political climate and the will of the electorate.

The diversity of state constitutional provisions is striking. Some states enshrine rights to education, privacy, or environmental protection that have no direct analogue in the federal Constitution. Others offer more robust procedural safeguards in criminal and civil cases, such as broader rights to counsel, stricter exclusionary rules, or enhanced protections against self-incrimination. These differences reflect the unique histories, cultures, and priorities of the states, as well as the willingness of state courts to interpret their constitutions independently.

The rise of state constitutional litigation has important implications for attorneys and advocates. It requires a deep familiarity with both state and federal law, as well as a strategic understanding of when to pursue claims under state constitutions. In some cases, state courts have proven more receptive to arguments for expanded rights, particularly when federal courts have been reluctant to innovate. This has led to a growing body of state constitutional jurisprudence, with state courts often citing each other’s decisions and developing their own doctrines and standards.

The interplay between state constitutions and federal law is not always harmonious. Preemption challenges can arise when state constitutions expand rights in ways that conflict with federal statutes or regulations. The Supremacy Clause resolves these conflicts in favor of federal law, but the boundaries are not always clear. For example, state constitutional provisions that protect collective bargaining rights for public sector workers may be challenged if they conflict with federal labor law. These disputes highlight the ongoing negotiation between state autonomy and federal supremacy.

The process for amending state constitutions varies widely, but it generally involves a higher threshold than ordinary legislation. This makes rights enshrined in state constitutions more durable and less susceptible to the shifting winds of political change. At the same time, the possibility of amendment ensures that state constitutions remain responsive to the needs and desires of their citizens. This balance between stability and adaptability is one of the hallmarks of American constitutionalism.

The protection of individual rights under state constitutions is not limited to the text of the document itself. State courts have developed a rich tradition of interpreting their constitutions in light of history, tradition, and evolving social norms. This interpretive flexibility allows state courts to adapt their jurisprudence to new challenges and to provide remedies where federal law falls short. It also means that state constitutional law is a living, evolving field, shaped by the ongoing dialogue between courts, legislatures, and the people.

The importance of state constitutions in protecting due process and other rights is likely to grow in the coming years. As the Supreme Court signals a willingness to reconsider or limit certain substantive due process protections, state courts and constitutions will become even more critical as bulwarks of individual liberty. This is especially true in areas where federal law is silent or ambiguous, and where state courts are free to chart their own course.

From a center-right perspective, the vitality of state constitutions and state courts in safeguarding due process reflects a healthy skepticism of centralized power. Federalism is not merely a structural feature of the Constitution; it is a safeguard of liberty, ensuring that no single authority can dictate the contours of individual rights for the entire nation. State constitutions allow for experimentation, diversity, and responsiveness to local values, all while preserving a national baseline of protection.

The role of state courts in interpreting and enforcing state constitutional rights cannot be overstated. These courts are often more attuned to the needs and values of their communities and are better positioned to respond to local concerns. Their decisions can serve as models for other states and, in some cases, for the federal courts themselves. The development of independent state constitutional jurisprudence is a testament to the resilience and adaptability of the American legal system.

The relationship between state constitutions and due process is not static. As social, political, and technological change accelerates, state courts will continue to confront new challenges and opportunities. Issues such as digital privacy, environmental protection, and the rights of marginalized groups are increasingly being addressed at the state level, often with greater innovation and flexibility than is possible under federal law.

Attorneys and advocates must be vigilant in monitoring developments in state constitutional law. The growing body of state court decisions interpreting due process and other rights provides a rich resource for legal argument and advocacy. It also underscores the importance of engaging with state courts and legislatures to shape the future of individual rights in America.

The future of due process protections in the United States will depend in large part on the continued vitality of state constitutions and state courts. As federal protections ebb and flow, the states will remain laboratories of democracy, testing new ideas and expanding the frontiers of liberty. The interplay between state and federal law will continue to shape the contours of due process and other fundamental rights, ensuring that the American experiment in liberty and self-government endures.

In sum, the story of state constitutions and due process is one of diversity, innovation, and resilience. While the federal Constitution provides a necessary foundation, it is in the state constitutions that the full promise of American liberty is realized. By embracing the unique strengths of state constitutional law, and by remaining vigilant in the defense of individual rights, Americans can ensure that due process remains a living, evolving principle, responsive to the needs and aspirations of a free people.

Citations:

• The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: Scope and Protections
• Procedural Due Process: Legal Definition and Key Principles
• State Courts and State Constitutions: Substantive Due Process Analysis (PDF)
• State Courts and Constitutional Structure: Yale Law Journal Article (PDF)
• State Constitutions and the Supreme Court: Research Starter Overview
• Due Process and Expanding Fundamental Rights: Law & Liberty Analysis
• State Constitutions and Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
• State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights: Teaching American History
• Due Process of Law: Fourteenth Amendment Analysis by Justia
• Due Process Clause: Wikipedia Overview and Historical Context
• State Supreme Court Initiative: ACLU Campaigns and Advocacy
• Due Process, Equal Protection, and Disenfranchisement: PBS Constitution USA
• Rallying Cry Against Lockstepping in State Courts: State Court Report
• Due Process: Legal Definition and Applications from Cornell Law
• Can State Supreme Courts Preserve or Expand Rights? New Yorker Feature
• The Fourteenth Amendment: Milestone Documents from the National Archives
• State Courts and Voters Turning to State Constitutions for Rights Protection
• Civil Due Process Issues: State Court Report Analysis
• State Constitutional Law and Substantive Due Process: SMU Law Review
• Comparing Federal and State Courts: US Courts Official Guide
• State Constitutional Rights and Federalism: Federalism Encyclopedia Entry
• State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights: Teaching American History
• SCOTUS and the Rise of New Substantive Due Process: Michigan Law Interview
• State Constitutional Law and Due Process: Cleveland State Law Review
• State Constitutional Rights and Democratic Proportionality: Columbia Law Review
• The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: Constitution Center Analysis
• State Courts and State Constitutions: Substantive Due Process Analysis (PDF)
• State Constitutional Provisions on Expressive Rights: First Amendment Encyclopedia
• Justice Brennan on State Constitutions and Individual Rights: Harvard Law Review (PDF)
• Due Process Generally: Constitution Annotated Analysis
• 2023’s Most Significant State Constitutional Cases: State Court Report
• State Constitutional Law After Dobbs and Bruen: State Court Report
• Articles on State Constitutional Rights: Michigan Law Repository
• Independence of State Constitutional Interpretation in New Jersey Courts