No. 24-102

Manuel Adams, Jr. v. City of Harahan, Louisiana

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-31
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (3)Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: career-advancement circuit-split civil-rights due-process fourteenth-amendment government-interference liberty-interest occupational-liberty professional-rights standard-of-review
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a plaintiff must plead that the government 'effected [a] prohibition' of his ability to pursue his career to state a claim for a violation of his occupational liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, or whether a less significant showing is sufficient to state a claim

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED For centuries this Court has recognized that the Constitution’s liberty protection includes “the right ... to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference.” Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 492 (1959) (collecting cases). In Greene, the Court held that the revocation of an aeronautical engineer’s security clearance, severely limiting his opportunities in the field of aeronautical engineering, impinged on his occupational liberty interest. See id. at 507-08. The Circuits are intractably divided over the standard a person must meet to show that her right to pursue her chosen occupation has been infringed. The Court has not revisited the standard since Greene. Numerous Circuits have weighed in. Some require only a modest showing; some require more. But no Circuit has ever required a showing as stringent as the standard the Fifth Circuit announced below. The Fifth Circuit, after first issuing (then withdrawing) an opinion holding that there is no such thing as an occupational liberty interest protected by the Constitution, issued a substitute opinion holding that “a plaintiffs liberty interest in pursuing a specific profession is violated only if he has been completely prevented from working in that field.” App.14a. The panel held that to meet that standard, petitioner was required to show that the government “effected the permanent, or otherwise—of his career as a police officer”; anything less, even action making his continued advancement “nearly impossible,” was not enough. App. 15a. The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff must plead that the government “effected [a] prohibition” of his ability to pursue his career to state a claim for a violation of his occupational liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, or whether a less significant showing is sufficient to state a claim. (i)

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-09-11
Amicus brief of National Police Association submitted.
2024-08-30
Amicus brief of Professor Michael E. LeRoy submitted.
2024-08-30
Amicus brief of National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. submitted.
2024-08-30
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. filed.
2024-08-30
2024-08-29
Amicus brief of National Police Association submitted.
2024-08-29
Brief amicus curiae of National Police Association filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-28
Waiver of City of Harahan of right to respond submitted.
2024-08-28
Waiver of right of respondent City of Harahan to respond filed.
2024-07-29
2024-06-13
Application (23A1095) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 29, 2024.
2024-06-05
Application (23A1095) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 27, 2024 to August 26, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

City of Harahan
Leslie Weill EhretFrilot LLC, Respondent
Manuel Adams, Jr.
Andrew Timothy TuttArnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Petitioner
National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.
Tristan L. DuncanShook, Hardy & Bacon, Amicus
National Police Association
Jeffrey Calvin HendricksonPierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., Amicus
Robert S. LafferrandrePierce Couch Hendirckson Baysinger & Green, LLP, Amicus
Professor Michael E. LeRoy
Peter Andrew BrulandSidley Austin LLP, Amicus