|
|
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)
Paul v. Davis No. 74-891 Argued November 4, 1975 Decided March 23, 1976 424 U.S. 693
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A photograph of respondent bearing his name was included in a "flyer" of "active shoplifters," after he had been arrested on a shoplifting charge in Louisville, Ky. After that charge had been dismissed, respondent brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioner police chiefs, who had distributed the flyer to area merchants, alleging that petitioners’ action under color of law deprived him of his constitutional rights. The District Court granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433. Held:
1. Petitioners’ action in distributing the flyer did not deprive respondent of any "liberty" or "property" rights secured against state deprivation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 699-710.
(a) The Due Process Clause does not ex proprio vigore extend to a person a right to be free of injury wherever the State may be characterized as the tortfeasor. Pp. 699-701.
(b) Reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment, does not implicate any "liberty" or "property" interests sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause; hence, to establish a claim under § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, more must be involved than simply defamation by a state official. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, supra, distinguished. Pp. 701-710.
(c) Kentucky law does not extend to respondent any legal guarantee of present enjoyment of reputation that has been altered by petitioners’ actions, and the interest in reputation alone is thus quite different from the "liberty" or "property" recognized in such decisions as Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, where the guarantee of due process required certain procedural safeguards before the State could alter the status of the complainants. Pp. 710-712.
2. Respondent’s contention that petitioners’ defamatory flyer deprived him of his constitutional right to privacy is without merit, being based not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be "private," but on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act like an arrest. Pp. 712-713.
505 F.2d 1180, reversed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, and in which WHITE, J., joined in part, post, p. 714. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) in 424 U.S. 693 424 U.S. 694. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HICQC1RNAHCMXVH.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), in 424 U.S. 693, page 424 U.S. 694. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HICQC1RNAHCMXVH.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). cited in 1976, 424 U.S. 693, pp.424 U.S. 694. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HICQC1RNAHCMXVH.
|