Gibson v. Berryhill
411 U.S. 564 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state administrative board, empowered to adjudicate disciplinary proceedings, is composed of members who have a substantial pecuniary interest in the outcome of those proceedings.
Facts:
- Prior to 1965, Alabama law permitted corporations like Lee Optical Co. to operate optical departments staffed by licensed optometrists.
- In 1965, the Alabama Legislature repealed the law that expressly permitted corporations to employ optometrists.
- The Alabama Optometric Association, a professional group for independent practitioners, filed charges of 'unprofessional conduct' with the Alabama Board of Optometry against optometrists employed by Lee Optical.
- The Alabama Board of Optometry, the state's licensing and disciplinary body, was composed solely of members of the Alabama Optometric Association.
- The members of the Board were independent optometrists in private practice and were therefore direct economic competitors of the employed optometrists against whom the charges were filed.
- If the Board revoked the licenses of the nearly 100 optometrists employed by corporations, the Board's members stood to personally and financially benefit from the resulting increase in business.
Procedural Posture:
- The Alabama Optometric Association filed charges with the Alabama Board of Optometry against licensed optometrists employed by Lee Optical Co.
- The Board of Optometry then filed a suit in Alabama state court seeking to enjoin Lee Optical from employing optometrists.
- The state trial court rendered judgment for the Board, enjoining Lee Optical. Lee Optical appealed this decision to the Alabama Supreme Court.
- Following its trial court victory, the Board reactivated its own administrative disciplinary proceedings against the individual optometrists.
- The individual optometrists (appellees) filed suit in the U.S. District Court against the Board of Optometry (appellants), seeking to enjoin the Board's hearings on constitutional grounds.
- A three-judge District Court enjoined the Board from conducting the hearings, finding the Board was unconstitutionally biased.
- The Board of Optometry appealed the District Court's injunction directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 optometry board, composed solely of members of a private professional association who are competitors of the licensees facing disciplinary action, violate the Due Process Clause by adjudicating charges against those licensees due to the board members' pecuniary interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. A state administrative board composed of members with a substantial pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings it adjudicates is constitutionally disqualified from hearing those cases under the Due Process Clause. The court reasoned that the principle prohibiting biased adjudication, established in cases like Tumey v. Ohio, applies with equal force to administrative bodies. Here, the Alabama Board of Optometry was comprised solely of independent practitioners who were members of a professional association. They were adjudicating cases against their direct business competitors, the optometrists employed by corporations like Lee Optical. Success in these proceedings would redound to the personal financial benefit of the Board's members, creating a 'possible temptation to an average man sitting as a judge to try the case with bias.' This inherent conflict of interest rendered the Board incompetent to provide a fair and impartial hearing consistent with due process.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. The Chief Justice agreed with the Court's judgment but wrote separately to state that the District Court should have exercised judicial discretion and abstained from acting until the related state court appeal in the Lee Optical case was resolved.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes. Justice Marshall joined the Court's opinion but wrote to emphasize his view that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is never required for suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He believed the majority's opinion was not sufficiently definitive on this settled point of law.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the constitutional due process requirement of an impartial adjudicator from the judicial context to administrative agencies. It establishes that a professional licensing board cannot be composed of members who have a direct financial stake in disciplining their economic competitors. The decision limits the ability of states to delegate regulatory and adjudicatory power to boards dominated by self-interested market participants. This precedent impacts the composition of numerous state professional licensing boards, requiring them to be structured in a way that avoids such inherent conflicts of interest to ensure constitutional fairness.
Unlock the full brief for Gibson v. Berryhill