Withrow v. Larkin
421 U.S. 35 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The combination of investigative and adjudicative functions within a single administrative agency does not, in itself, constitute a violation of procedural due process. A due process violation requires a specific showing that, under the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the risk of actual bias or prejudgment is intolerably high.
Facts:
- Dr. Duane R. Larkin, a physician licensed in Michigan and Wisconsin, operated a practice in Milwaukee that included performing abortions.
- The Wisconsin Examining Board notified Larkin that it would conduct a private investigative hearing to determine if he had engaged in professional misconduct.
- The Board held the investigative hearing, which Larkin's counsel attended, but where cross-examination of witnesses was not permitted.
- Following the investigation, the Board notified Larkin that it would hold a contested hearing to determine whether his license should be temporarily suspended for alleged violations, including fee-splitting and practicing under an alias.
- After a court order prevented the contested hearing, the Board issued formal "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law" stating there was probable cause to believe Larkin had violated state statutes.
- The Board forwarded these findings to the Milwaukee County District Attorney as a verified complaint to initiate formal license revocation and criminal proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Larkin filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the members of the state Examining Board, seeking an injunction.
- The District Court initially denied a temporary restraining order against the Board's investigative hearing.
- After the Board scheduled a contested hearing to consider a license suspension, the District Court granted Larkin's motion for a temporary restraining order to halt that hearing.
- A three-judge District Court was convened, which found a high likelihood that the statutory scheme violated due process.
- The three-judge court issued a preliminary injunction, forbidding the Board from enforcing the temporary suspension statute against any licensee, and later modified it to apply only to Larkin.
- The Board members, as appellants, appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 authorizing a medical examining board to both investigate a physician's alleged misconduct and subsequently adjudicate whether to suspend that physician's license violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. A state statute that permits a medical examining board to both investigate alleged misconduct and subsequently adjudicate the matter does not inherently violate the Due process clause. The mere combination of investigative and adjudicative functions in a single administrative body is not a per se violation of due process. The Court reasoned that there is a strong presumption of honesty and integrity among administrative adjudicators. This presumption can only be overcome by a showing that, under the specific circumstances, the risk of actual bias is intolerably high. Citing precedents like FTC v. Cement Institute, the Court affirmed that this combination of roles is a common and often necessary feature of the administrative state. The Court distinguished the case from In re Murchison, noting that the Board's preliminary finding of probable cause is functionally different from a final adjudication of guilt and does not foreclose a fair consideration of evidence at a later adversarial hearing. Therefore, the District Court abused its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction based on the theory that such a procedural structure was unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision provides significant deference to the structure of state and federal administrative agencies, confirming that the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions is presumptively constitutional. It establishes a high bar for parties claiming a due process violation, requiring them to demonstrate specific evidence of bias rather than merely pointing to the agency's dual roles. The ruling solidifies the understanding that the procedural safeguards required in administrative hearings are not identical to those in judicial proceedings. Consequently, this case makes it much more difficult to challenge agency actions based on structural bias alone, forcing litigants to focus on actual prejudice or other specific procedural flaws in their cases.
Unlock the full brief for Withrow v. Larkin