Opinion ID: 804143
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unreasonable Government Interference1

Text: The right to hold private employment and to pursue one's chosen profession free from unreasonable government interference is encapsulated in the liberty concept of the Due Process Clause. See Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 492 (1959); Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 38 (1915). Courts typically have held that this right is implicated only by government interference that is direct and unambiguous, as when a city official demands that a restaurant fire its bartender, see Helvey v. City of Maplewood, 154 F.3d 841, 84344 (8th Cir. 1998), or a state agency explicitly threatens to prosecute a private company's clients if they continue to contract with the company, see Stidham v. Tex. Comm'n on Private Sec., 418 F.3d 486, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2005). There are no comparable allegations in this case. Like her claim against IA, Mead's claim against the DHHS employees focuses on the decision to terminate her from employment, not the requirement that she be replaced as Goldeneye's administrator. According to the complaint, as we have already explained, DHHS never prohibited or even discouraged IA from continuing to employ Mead. Mead was fired only after IA carried out its own 1 Cobb and Braden argue that Mead forfeited this theory by failing to raise it below. We disagree. In opposing the dismissal of her complaint, Mead insisted that she was entitled to protection from unreasonable governmental interference with [her] employment and cited many of the cases we rely on here. That presentation was sufficient to preserve the issue for our review. -9- investigation into her performance and discerned deficiencies warranting termination. It follows that Mead has not adequately alleged that there was any unreasonable government interference with her private employment.