Law
In November 2015, officials from the state of New Tudor Department of Wildlife and Fisheries reviewed Robert McCloskey’s fish plant and found evidence that he had a fish catch that was double his license limit. Criminal charges were brought against McCloskey but due to technical deficiencies, the charges were dropped two years later. A month later, the Department wrote to McCloskey advising that it would recommend that he not be issued a 2018 fishing license. Numerous documents were attached to the letter. McCloskey was also advised that he could make written submissions to the ALJ prior to the decision being made. Rather than submitting any evidence to counter the evidence presented in the letter, McCloskey’s counsel made arguments about why the license should be issued. The license was denied.
Have procedural due process requirements been satisfied? Your response should discuss (in part) whether a “paper hearing” to determine whether a fishing license should be granted or revoked satisfies procedural due process requirements, or is a full oral hearing required to sort out the issues in this case? Why/why not? Please cite to one or more cases in your response.
Please do NOT address the issue of potential attorney malpractice.
Law
Based on the case scenario provided, the procedural due process requirements have not been satisfied. Instead, the paper hearing to determine whether a fishing license should be granted or revoked would have satisfied the procedural due process requirements. For fundamental fairness to exist, the procedural due process should be adhered to within any jurisdiction. Granting Robert McCloskey a paper hearing would have fulfilled the fundamental fairness that satisfies procedural due process requirements. In Mountain States T. & T. Co. v. Department of Lab. & Employment (1974), the Court emphasized the significance of procedural due process in its ruling that highlighted the requirement of providing adequate advance notice to offer an opportunity to be heard preceding the action resulting in the denial of an important property interest. In consideration of Mountain States T. & T. Co. v. Department of Lab. & Employment, the paper hearing to determine whether a fishing license should be granted or revoke would satisfy the procedural due process requirements.
In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the Supreme Court adopted a procedural due process that must be evaluated under a balancing test. The balancing test provided by the Supreme Court in the case when applied in the McCloskey to determine whether a fishing license should be granted or revoked should establish that McCloskey has a vested interest in the fishing license, there is a risk of error in depriving McCloskey’s license, and that the government has an interest in keeping Mr. Kendall within the perimeters of his license. The Court further provided circumstances under which license can be denied or taken away, including if the license owner has been convicted for a criminal offense. In the case scenario provided, the charges against McCloskey were dropped, eliminating the possibility of denying him the license based on a criminal conviction. Therefore, the New Tudor Department of Wildlife and Fisheries should have provided McCloskey with adequate notice and opportunity for a paper hearing to satisfy procedural due process.
References
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
Mountain States T. & T. Co. v. Department of Lab. & Employment, 520 P.2d 586 (1974)
