Opinion ID: 2601946
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Damage to Reputation, When Accompanied by a Change in Legal Status, Constitutes a Deprivation of an Individual's Liberty Interest

Text: ¶ 29 In Wisconsin v. Constantineau, the United States Supreme Court held that [w]here a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential. [29] In Constantineau, a statute authorized certain local officials or spouses of affected individuals to post in retail liquor stores the name of individuals who engaged in excessive drinking and became dangerous to the peace of any community. [30] The statute forbade the sale or gift of alcohol to the individuals whose names had been posted. [31] The plaintiff in Constantineau, whose name was posted on such a list, challenged the statute on procedural due process grounds because the statute did not provide notice or a hearing before individuals' names could be posted. [32] The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it contained no provision for notice and a hearing before the state was permitted to attach a badge of infamy to the plaintiff. [33] ¶ 30 In Paul v. Davis, the Court clarified that damage to reputation alone is insufficient for a procedural due process claim without some further showing that the state action has deprived the individual of a right previously held under state law. [34] Therefore, the government must provide constitutionally adequate process before it deprives individuals of a reputational interest that affects their legal status. [35]