The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of property without due process and from denying equal protection of the laws. It does not promise that property can never be regulated, taxed, or taken. The question is what governmental action occurred, what protected interest is involved, and which constitutional rule applies. [1]
Due process requires appropriate procedures
When government action threatens a protected property interest, procedural due process can require meaningful notice and an opportunity to object. The precise procedures depend on the setting. A disputed tax sale, a benefits termination, and an emergency seizure do not necessarily require the same sequence or kind of hearing.
The Supreme Court’s notice standard asks whether the method is reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to inform interested people and allow objections. Constitution Annotated explains that further reasonable steps may be required when government learns that an attempted notice failed. Sending a document is therefore not always the end of the inquiry. [2]
Property interests must be identified
Land and personal possessions are familiar examples, but some legal entitlements can also qualify. The claimant must identify the source and nature of the asserted interest. A hoped-for discretionary benefit is not necessarily equivalent to an established entitlement.
For example, a city threatening to sell an owner’s home for unpaid taxes raises questions about the owner’s interest, notice methods, returned mail, and available objections. Merely disagreeing with the tax amount does not resolve whether the required procedures were provided.
Equal protection and takings are distinct
Equal protection addresses impermissible unequal treatment. A property owner challenging selective treatment must establish the applicable legal standard, rather than assuming every difference between properties is unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment principally addresses state and local action; federal due-process claims arise through the Fifth Amendment.
Eminent domain and regulatory-takings disputes also involve the Fifth Amendment’s protections, applied to states through constitutional doctrine. A government rule reducing property value does not automatically establish a compensable taking. The type and extent of interference require separate analysis.
Preserve the record
- Save notices, envelopes, decisions, and hearing records.
- Identify the responsible government entity.
- Record deadlines for objections and review.
- Separate procedural defects from the merits of the regulation.
Related litigation questions include Section 1983 liability and immunity and declaratory judgment standing. A constitutional argument does not by itself suspend an administrative or court deadline.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.