Paul v. Davis

Paul v. Davis
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 4, 1975 Decided March 23, 1976
Full case name	Paul, Chief of Police, Louisville, et al. v. Davis
Citations	424 U.S. 693 (more) 96 S. Ct. 1155; 47 L. Ed. 2d 405; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 112; 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1827
Prior history	Davis v. Paul, 505 F.2d 1180 (6th Cir. 1974).
Subsequent history	None
Holding
Reputation alone is not a constitutionally protected interest.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Majority	Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a sharply divided Court held that the plaintiff, whom the local police chief had named an "active shoplifter," suffered no deprivation of liberty resulting from injury to his reputation. In the case, the court defines the constitutional right to privacy was "limited to matters relating to 'marriage procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education"

Background

The plaintiff, Edward C. Davis III, had been previously arrested on shoplifting charges. After the chargers were dropped, Davis sued the Louisville, KY chief of police for distributing "active shoplifter" posters to merchants throughout the city.

Decision of the Court

In a 5-3 decision in favor of Paul, Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court held that petitioner's alleged defamation, a typical state court claim, was not actionable under the Due Process Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause could not be the source for a body of general federal court law. The Court also found that respondent's injury to reputation was not specially protected by § 1983 and the Due Process Clause. Damage to reputation, alone, apart from some more tangible interests, was not sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause. Further, the police chief did not deprive respondent of any state-provided right, and respondent's case was not within the constitutional zone of privacy. The Court reversed the judgment.^[1][2]

Notes

1. "Paul v. Davis - 424 U.S. 693 (1976)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 28 October 2013.
2. "Paul v. Davis - 424 U.S. 693 (1976)". Justia: The US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 28 October 2013.