Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process Clause

The due process clause in the 14th Amendment says no state should “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Court decisions have made clear that correctional personnel must provide due process provisions and procedural safeguards during inmate disciplinary procedures, but the procedures, as long as they are fair, do not have to mirror due process rights of a defendant on trail. Two significant U.S. Supreme Court cases on this subject are Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) and Sandin v. Conner (1995).

In Wolff v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court established minimum due process requirements for prison disciplinary hearings when the possible outcomes include the loss of “good time” credit or other privileges. According to the court, the inmate must be sent written notification of his or her alleged violation and be given a minimum of 24 hours to prepare for the hearing. The prisoner may call witnesses and submit documents as long as such actions do not cause a security risk. They may also ask for assistance in helping with the case. Inmates, however, do not have the right to a lawyer, nor may they cross-examine adverse witnesses during disciplinary hearings.

A series of subsequent Supreme Court cases have limited prisoner due process rights. In Meachum v. Fano (1976), the Supreme Court held that prisoners do not have any constitutionally protected rights to be assigned or transferred to a particular prison, even if the prison conditions are less desirable. In Montanye v. Haymes (1976), hearings are not required when transferring a prisoner to another correctional facility. More recently, in Sandin v. Conner (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's due process clause does not apply to prisoners unless they are subject to “atypical and significant hardship” beyond what is ordinary in prison life. In the same case, the court ruled that disciplinary segregation of up to 30 days does not in itself constitute a significant hardship and, thus, does not require the due process procedures outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell.

...