Bell v. Burson
402 U.S. 535 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to provide a hearing on the issue of fault or liability before it can suspend the driver's license and vehicle registration of an uninsured motorist involved in an accident.
Facts:
- Bell, a clergyman, required his car to travel between three rural communities for his ministry.
- A five-year-old child, Sherry Capes, rode her bicycle into the side of Bell's automobile.
- The child's parents filed an accident report with the Georgia Department of Public Safety, claiming their daughter suffered substantial injuries and seeking $5,000 in damages.
- Bell was not covered by a liability insurance policy at the time of the accident.
- The Director of Public Safety informed Bell that his license and registration would be suspended unless he posted a $5,000 security deposit or presented a release from liability.
- Bell asserted that he was not liable for the accident, claiming it was unavoidable.
Procedural Posture:
- Bell requested an administrative hearing before the Director of the Georgia Department of Public Safety, who refused to consider evidence of fault and affirmed the pending suspension.
- Bell appealed to the Superior Court of Georgia (a state trial court), which held a de novo hearing, found him free from fault, and ordered the suspension be stayed.
- The state agency appealed the trial court's order to the Georgia Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that fault was irrelevant to the statutory scheme.
- The Georgia Supreme Court (the state's highest court) denied review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that authorizes the suspension of an uninsured motorist's driver's license and registration after an accident, without a pre-suspension hearing on the issue of fault or liability, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. A state statute that authorizes the suspension of a driver's license without a prior hearing on the issue of liability violates procedural due process. Once issued, a driver's license is an important entitlement that cannot be taken away without due process. While states have an interest in ensuring financial responsibility, a hearing that excludes any consideration of fault is not meaningful when the statutory scheme itself is based on liability. Due process requires a pre-suspension inquiry into whether there is a 'reasonable possibility' of a judgment being rendered against the licensee. This inquiry does not need to be a full adjudication of liability but must occur before the state terminates the interest in the license.
Concurring - The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Blackmun
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Blackmun concurred in the result without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in the expansion of procedural due process protections to government-conferred benefits and licenses. It firmly rejected the 'right-privilege' distinction, holding that a driver's license is a significant property interest or 'entitlement' requiring due process before deprivation. By establishing the need for a pre-suspension hearing that considers fault, the Court balanced the state's regulatory interests with individual rights. This ruling influenced subsequent due process jurisprudence, requiring governments to provide some form of pre-deprivation hearing before terminating a wide range of important interests.
Unlock the full brief for Bell v. Burson