In the 1971 case Jennings v. Mahoney, Director, Financial Responsibility Division, Department of Public Safety of Utah, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning due process rights in relation to driver's license suspension. The petitioner was involved in an accident and failed to post security as required by state law after being unable to prove financial responsibility for potential judgments against him. As a result, his driving privileges were suspended indefinitely until he complied with the requirements or proved that he had satisfied any judgment resulting from the accident. He argued this violated his right to due process under Fourteenth Amendment because it deprived him of property without providing notice or opportunity for hearing before suspension took effect. The court held that there was no violation since adequate notice and hearing procedures were provided prior to final determination of liability and amount necessary as security; thus satisfying procedural due process requirements. Furthermore, they found that indefinite suspension did not constitute deprivation without due process since it could be lifted once compliance with statutory provisions occurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jennings v. Mahoney argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of due process rights, and it failed to consider the state's interest in maintaining public safety on its roads. The dissent emphasized that driving is not an absolute right but a privilege granted by states under certain conditions. They believed Utah had every right to suspend or revoke this privilege if drivers fail to meet their financial responsibilities after causing an accident, as long as they are given notice and opportunity for hearing before suspension or revocation takes place. Furthermore, they pointed out that requiring proof of ability to respond financially does not necessarily mean having insurance; one could also post bond or deposit security with the state treasurer. Therefore, according to them, there was no violation of equal protection clause since everyone has been treated equally under law regardless of their wealth status.