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

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 plaintiff’s 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 prohibition—temporary, 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)