Connection lost
Server error
PAUL v. DAVIS Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police distributed a flyer identifying a man as an “active shoplifter.” The Supreme Court held that reputational harm alone, without the loss of a more tangible interest created by state law, is not a deprivation of “liberty” or “property” under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Legal Significance: This case established the “stigma-plus” test, requiring that government defamation be accompanied by the alteration or extinguishment of a separate, state-recognized right or status to trigger the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause. It significantly narrowed the scope of constitutionally protected liberty interests.
PAUL v. DAVIS Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Police chiefs in Louisville, Kentucky, distributed a flyer to approximately 800 local merchants identifying individuals as “Active Shoplifters.” The flyer included the name and photograph of respondent, Edward Davis, who had previously been arrested for shoplifting. At the time the flyer was circulated, the charge against Davis was still pending; it was dismissed shortly thereafter. Davis, a newspaper photographer, was confronted by his supervisor about the flyer but was not terminated from his employment. Davis filed a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the police chiefs’ action of publicly branding him a criminal without a hearing deprived him of liberty and property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. He claimed the stigma would inhibit his daily life and impair future employment opportunities. The core of his claim was that the government’s defamatory action, standing alone, violated his constitutional rights.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state official’s defamation of an individual, which damages their reputation but does not alter or extinguish a right or status previously recognized by state law, constitute a deprivation of “liberty” or “property” sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
No. The Court held that the petitioners’ defamatory publications did not deprive Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state official’s defamation of an individual, which damages their reputation but does not alter or extinguish a right or status previously recognized by state law, constitute a deprivation of “liberty” or “property” sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Conclusion
This decision established the influential "stigma-plus" doctrine, which significantly limits procedural due Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, qui
Legal Rule
Reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interest such as employment, is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cu
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice Rehnquist reasoned that the Due Process Clause Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culp
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Defamation by a state official, by itself, does not constitute a