Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 25

2 

CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES 

SOUTER, J., concurring 

argue against inferring any guarantee of a level of protec-
tion  or  safety  that  could  be  understood  as  the  object  of  a 
“legitimate claim of entitlement,” Board of Regents of State 
Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972), in the nature of 
property arising under Colorado law.*  Consequently, the
classic  predicate  for  federal  due  process  protection  of 
interests under state law is missing. 

Gonzales implicitly recognizes this, when she makes the 

following argument: 

“Ms.  Gonzales  alleges  that  . . .  she  was  denied  the 
process laid out in the statute.  The police did not con-
sider  her  request  in  a  timely  fashion,  but  instead  re-
peatedly  required  her  to  call  the  station  over  several 
hours.  The  statute  promised  a  process  by  which  her 
restraining  order  would  be  given  vitality  through 
careful  and  prompt  consideration  of  an  enforcement 
request . . . .  Denial of that process drained all of the 
value from her property interest in the restraining or-
der.”  Brief for Respondent 10. 

The  argument  is  unconventional  because  the  state-law 
benefit for which it claims federal procedural protection is 
itself a variety of procedural regulation, a set of rules to be 
followed by officers exercising the State’s executive power: 
use  all  reasonable  means  to  enforce,  arrest  upon  demon-
strable probable cause, get a warrant, and so on, see ante, 
at 2–3. 

When her argument is understood as unconventional in 
this sense, a further reason appears for rejecting its call to 
apply  Roth,  a  reason  that  would  apply  even  if  the  statu-
tory  mandates  to  the  police  were  absolute,  leaving  the 
police with no discretion when the beneficiary of a protec-
tive order insists upon its enforcement.  The Due Process 
Clause  extends  procedural  protection  to  guard  against 

—————— 

*Gonzales does not claim to have a protected liberty interest.