Barsky v. Board of Regents

Supreme Court of the United States · 1954 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawProfessional LicensingDue Processdue processprofessional licensingmedical license suspensionpolice powercrime conviction

Facts

Barsky, a licensed New York physician, was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of violating 2 U.S.C. § 192 by refusing to produce subpoenaed papers before a House committee, and he served five months in jail. After that conviction was affirmed, New York education officials charged him under Education Law § 6514(2)(b), which permitted discipline of a physician convicted of a crime in any court of competent jurisdiction within or without New York. Following hearings before the Medical Committee on Grievances, the Committee on Discipline, and the Board of Regents, the Board ultimately suspended his license for six months. Barsky argued that the statute was vague and that suspending his license on this basis, and on the evidence used at the hearing, violated due process.

Issue

Whether New York's Education Law, on its face or as construed and applied, violates the Fourteenth Amendment by authorizing suspension of a physician's license because he was convicted in federal court of failing to produce subpoenaed papers before a congressional committee. Also, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague or was applied through arbitrary or capricious procedures denying due process.

Rule

A state has broad police-power authority to regulate the practice of medicine and may make conviction of any crime in a court of competent jurisdiction a violation of professional standards, so long as the standard is clear and the statute provides reasonable procedural protections, including notice, hearing, and review. A statute is not unconstitutionally vague merely because it is broad, when it clearly identifies the triggering conduct and leaves administrators only the discretion to determine the appropriate measure of discipline.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Lena Ortiz is a licensed pharmacist. She is convicted in federal court in Kentucky of a misdemeanor for willfully failing to file a required federal export report, serves 30 days in jail, and then faces discipline under an Ohio statute allowing suspension or reprimand of any pharmacist convicted of a crime in any court of competent jurisdiction after notice, hearing, and judicial review.

Lena argues that disciplining her for a non-health-related federal misdemeanor exceeds the state's legitimate authority over professional licensing and violates due process. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority upheld a state's broad authority to regulate professions affecting health and to make conviction of any crime in any court of competent jurisdiction a disciplinary ground. Due process is satisfied where the standard is clear and the procedures include notice, hearing, and review. The majority specifically rejected the need for the crime to involve moral turpitude or to be criminal under state law. (Derived from Barsky v. Board of Regents (1954).)