Paul v. Davis

Respondent's main argument was that the pamphlet violated his privacy and liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Davis particularly objected to the title, "Active Shoplifters." He contended that inclusion of his photo and name in the pamphlet was inappropriate; police action intruded on his privacy and jeopardized his personal autonomy. Davis contended that classifying him as an "active shoplifter" ruined his reputation and limited future employment opportunities. He also maintained that police authorities defamed him by characterizing him as a criminal and that reason alone sufficiently justified bringing suit without having to prove specific damages.

The U.S. Supreme Court found the respondent's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was incorrect. Five justices for the majority opinion reasoned it was inappropriate to hold that arrest by law officials and later publication of that fact entitled a person to claims under 42 U.S.C 1983. The justices also pointed out that attacks on a person's "good name" did not equate to "liberty" or "property" deprivations actionable under 42 U.S.C 1983. The majority opinion explained that every legally performed action which might be recognizable as injury by state officials could not be regarded as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, injury by governmental employees did not invoke protection under the Due Process Clause unless claims first invoked state-law torts. Citing Screws v. United States (1945), the Court held that "violation of local law does not necessarily mean that the federal rights have been invaded." Only when action by government officials resulted in deprivation of specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution could the issue of a rights violation be considered. Furthermore, the justices stressed that there must always be a clearly understandable right which was forfeited to reasonably expect protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, procedural guarantees established under due process of law were not related to privacy expectations. According to previous cases where state law torts were available as remedy, they explained that constitutional provisions under the Fourteenth Amendment were not litigated.