Procedural justice as social justice: Why psychologists must confront due process failures

Procedural justice concerns the fairness of decision-making processes in allegations of wrongdoing and is essential to the legitimacy of their outcomes. In administrative contexts where cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) professionals work-such as universities, state licensing boards, and federal systems like the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-adjudicatory procedures can depart from reasonable due-process norms. Those in power can use flawed procedures to punish or marginalize politically or ideologically disfavored psychologists, to stifle dissent, and to chill scholarship and clinical innovation. This paper examines procedural justice characteristics of adjudication systems governing psychologists, focusing on due-process deficits such as vagueness, opacity, low evidentiary thresholds, role conflicts, and a lack of meaningful opportunities to contest allegations. A set of procedural justice principles is outlined and applied to administrative processes. Psychologists have ethical and practical obligations to (a) critically evaluate the adjudicatory systems that regulate their work, (b) advocate for reforms that embed robust due-process protections, and (c) resist legitimizing processes that predictably generate unjust outcomes. Procedural justice is indispensable to sustaining a credible commitment to social justice.