Wisconsin v. Constantineau

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawProcedural Due ProcessAbstentiondue processnoticehearingstigmareputation

Facts

Wisconsin Statute § 176.26 authorized designated officials to forbid the sale or gift of intoxicating liquors to a person who, by excessive drinking, produced certain harmful conditions or became dangerous to the peace of the community. Acting under that statute, the Hartford chief of police caused notices to be posted in all retail liquor outlets in Hartford stating that sales or gifts of liquor to Constantineau were forbidden for one year. Constantineau received no notice and no hearing before the posting. She challenged the statute's constitutionality in federal court.

Issue

Whether a state may, without notice or an opportunity to be heard, officially post a person under a statute that forbids liquor sales to her and thereby labels her as someone whose excessive drinking produces harmful or dangerous conditions. Also, whether the federal court should have abstained in favor of state-court proceedings.

Rule

When the government acts in a way that puts a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity at stake by attaching a degrading or stigmatizing label, procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Federal courts should not abstain under Pullman when the state statute is unambiguous and the case presents a direct federal constitutional challenge on the statute's face.

🔒

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 Toledo, Ohio, a city health director is authorized by statute to circulate a list to all grocery stores identifying any resident the director finds to be a "compulsive food hoarder who endangers household welfare." Stores receiving the list may not sell bulk groceries to the named person for six months. The director adds Lena Ortiz to the list without notifying her or giving her any chance to contest the designation.

If Lena brings a federal due process challenge, what is the strongest argument that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to her?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when the government officially brands a person with a stigmatizing label putting her good name, reputation, honor, or integrity at stake, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the action. The defect is not the government's substantive power to regulate, but the absence of procedure before imposing the degrading designation.