Jenkins v. McKeithen
395 U.S. 411 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state investigatory body's primary function is not legislative fact-finding but rather to publicly find named individuals guilty of specific criminal violations, it acts as an adjudicatory body and must provide procedural due process protections, including the rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.
Facts:
- Louisiana enacted Act No. 2, creating the Labor-Management Commission of Inquiry to investigate and find facts about potential criminal law violations in the field of labor-management relations.
- The Act empowered the Commission to hold public hearings, compel witness testimony, and make public findings as to whether there was probable cause to believe specific individuals had violated criminal laws.
- The Commission’s authority was limited to investigating criminal matters and making recommendations for prosecution; it could not issue binding adjudications or participate in civil proceedings.
- The Act's procedures severely limited the rights of a person being investigated, restricting their ability to cross-examine other witnesses and to call witnesses on their own behalf, leaving such decisions to the Commission's discretion.
- Edward Jenkins, a labor union member, alleged that Louisiana's Governor and the Commission members singled him and his union out for punitive action.
- Jenkins alleged that these state officials, acting under the authority of the Act, engaged in a course of conduct to publicly brand him and other union members as criminals without a trial.
- As part of this alleged effort, Jenkins claimed officials procured false statements and initiated baseless criminal proceedings against him.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Jenkins filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Governor McKeithen and members of the Labor-Management Commission of Inquiry.
- Jenkins sought a declaratory judgment that the statute creating the Commission was unconstitutional and an injunction against its operation.
- A three-judge federal district court was convened to hear the constitutional challenge.
- The defendants (appellees) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing Jenkins lacked standing and had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The three-judge district court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Jenkins' complaint.
- Jenkins (appellant) filed a direct appeal of the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that creates an investigatory commission empowered to publicly find named individuals guilty of criminal violations, without providing those individuals the rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses or call their own witnesses, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. A state statute creating a commission that functions to publicly find named individuals guilty of specific criminal violations without providing adequate procedural safeguards violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike the purely investigative body in Hannah v. Larche, which gathered facts for legislative or executive action, this Louisiana Commission serves an accusatory function. Its primary purpose is to publicly expose and brand specific individuals as criminals, which is akin to an adjudication of criminal culpability. When a state body performs such a function, it must afford the accused fundamental due process protections. The procedures established by Act No. 2 are constitutionally deficient because they deny the rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence, leaving these protections to the 'unfettered discretion of the Commission.' While the Commission is not a grand jury, which has deep historical roots and serves as an independent buffer, it is a state-created body whose function of making specific findings of guilt demands procedural fairness.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No. The state statute creating this investigatory commission does not violate the Due Process Clause, as the Commission is not an adjudicatory body. First, Jenkins lacks standing to sue because his complaint fails to allege that he has been or will be subjected to any of the Commission's procedures he challenges. On the merits, the Commission's function is purely investigatory and fact-finding, designed to assist law enforcement, much like a prosecutor's office or federal agencies such as the FTC or SEC. These bodies are not required to provide full adjudicatory safeguards during investigations because their findings are not final and any accused person will receive full procedural rights in a subsequent criminal trial. Any damage to reputation from the Commission's public findings is a collateral consequence of a legitimate government investigation, not a final determination of guilt that would trigger heightened due process requirements.
Concurring - Justice Black
Yes. The Louisiana law creating the Commission is a clear violation of due process. The statute is nothing more than a scheme for a nonjudicial tribunal to charge, try, convict, and punish individuals without any of the procedural protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as courts, juries, lawyers, and witnesses. This system is reminiscent of historically condemned bodies like the Star Chamber and cannot be squared with the constitutional requirement that no person be deprived of liberty without a trial conducted in accordance with the law of the land. The decision in Hannah v. Larche, which upheld a similar body, was wrongly decided and should not be reaffirmed.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the doctrine established in Hannah v. Larche by creating a functional distinction between different types of government investigations. It establishes that the 'investigatory' label is not dispositive; courts must analyze what a body actually does. By holding that an accusatory body whose primary purpose is exposure and public condemnation must afford due process, the Court placed constitutional limits on the government's power to damage reputations through official proceedings that lack judicial safeguards. This decision provides a crucial precedent for challenging quasi-judicial actions by administrative or executive bodies that, while not issuing formal legal sanctions, inflict serious harm by publicly branding individuals as wrongdoers.
Unlock the full brief for Jenkins v. McKeithen