Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran
287 F.3d 786 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The next of kin's exclusive right under state law to possess, control, and dispose of the body of a deceased relative constitutes a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- In October 1997, Richard Newman, child of Robert Newman, and Kenneth Obarski, child of Barbara Obarski, died in Los Angeles County.
- The Office of the Coroner for the County of Los Angeles obtained possession of the bodies of both deceased children.
- Following procedures authorized by a California state law, the coroner's office removed the corneas from the bodies of Richard Newman and Kenneth Obarski.
- The coroner's office performed these removals without the knowledge of the parents, Robert Newman and Barbara Obarski.
- The coroner's office made no attempt to notify the parents or to request their consent before removing the corneas.
- The parents only became aware of the coroner's actions in September 1999, nearly two years later.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Newman and Barbara Obarski sued the Los Angeles County Coroner's office in the U.S. District Court, alleging a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The coroner filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The district court (the trial court) granted the coroner's motion and dismissed the parents' complaint.
- The parents (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the coroner being the appellee.
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 the next of kin's state-recognized right to possess the body of a deceased relative constitute a property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, such that a state's removal of the decedent's corneas without notice or consent is a deprivation requiring due process of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Fisher
Yes, the next of kin's state-recognized right to possess a deceased relative's body constitutes a constitutionally protected property interest. While property interests are created by state law, federal constitutional law determines whether an interest rises to a level protected by the Due Process Clause. California law, rooted in a long common law tradition, grants next of kin an exclusive bundle of rights to possess, control, and dispose of a decedent's remains. This bundle of rights, including the right to exclude others, is a legitimate claim of entitlement sufficient to be considered a property interest. The state's characterization of this interest as mere 'quasi property' is not dispositive; the substance of the rights controls. The state statute allowing cornea removal without consent did not extinguish this underlying property interest but rather unconstitutionally authorized its deprivation without procedural safeguards.
Dissenting - Judge Fernandez
No, the interest California confers upon relatives in a decedent's body is not a property interest for federal constitutional purposes. California law has historically maintained that there is no property right in a dead body. The right given to next of kin is more accurately described as a duty to ensure proper burial, with an associated right to custody solely to fulfill that duty. The statutory scheme, which prioritizes who bears this duty and expense, underscores its nature as a public-welfare-oriented obligation, not a private property right. Because the state created this limited right, it can also define its boundaries. The statute permitting cornea removal was a constitutional limitation on that right, meaning the parents never possessed a protected property interest in the corneas to begin with.
Analysis:
This decision establishes significant precedent in the Ninth Circuit by recognizing that the next of kin's interest in a decedent's body is a constitutionally protected property right, not merely an emotional or 'quasi' interest. It aligns with the Sixth Circuit, creating a stronger consensus among federal courts that states must provide due process before harvesting organs or tissues, even when authorized by state statute. The ruling forces state and local governments to re-evaluate 'presumed consent' organ donation laws, requiring them to balance public health objectives against the fundamental due process rights of families. This case reinforces the principle that a state cannot legislate away a constitutionally protected property interest by simply eliminating the procedures for its protection.
