Paul v. Davis

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Administrative Law

Administrative Law42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentdefamationreputationlibertyproperty

Facts

Two Kentucky police chiefs jointly distributed to about 800 local merchants a flyer headed "Active Shoplifters," containing mug shots and names of persons including respondent. Respondent had previously been arrested on a shoplifting charge, but at the time of distribution his guilt or innocence had never been resolved, and the charge was later dismissed. Respondent alleged that the flyer impaired his employment prospects and deterred him from entering stores for fear of suspicion and apprehension. He sued under § 1983, claiming deprivation of liberty without due process and violation of a constitutional right to privacy.

Issue

Whether alleged defamation by state officials, standing alone and apart from any other governmental action altering the plaintiff's legal status or depriving him of some other recognized right, states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also considered whether publicizing respondent's arrest implicated any constitutional right of privacy.

Rule

Injury to reputation alone, even when inflicted by a state official acting under color of law, is neither a liberty nor a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Procedural due process is implicated when governmental defamation is accompanied by the alteration or extinguishment of a right or legal status previously recognized by state law, but not by stigma alone.

🔒

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 Dayton, Ohio, the county sheriff posts on the department's public website a list titled "Known Check Forgers" that includes Nina Patel's photo. Nina was once questioned about a forged check, but she has never lost any license, job, or legal entitlement because of the posting; she alleges only that local employers now avoid her.

If Nina brings a § 1983 procedural due process claim based solely on the posting, what is the strongest argument for dismissal?

Explanation. The majority held that defamation by a government official, standing alone, does not amount to a deprivation of liberty or property. Injury to reputation may support a state tort claim, but without some additional state action altering or extinguishing a recognized right or legal status, there is no procedural due process claim under § 1983.