Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149

Supreme Court of the United States

1978

Chapter

9

Title

State Action, Baselines, and the Problem of Private Power

Page

1551

Topic

Pure Inaction and the Theory of Governmental Neutrality

Quick Notes

Brooks challenged the constitutionality of a state law that authorized a warehouseman's lien sale of her property without prior hearing on due process grounds .

Rule

o         A warehouseman's lien sale, authorized by state law, is not an action properly attributable to the state so as to come within the protections of the Due Process Clause

o         Enacting and authorizing state law, without more, does not constitute state action subject to due process protection.

Rehnquist - Holding

o         The Court reversed, holding that plaintiff failed to allege facts that constituted a deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The state did not compel the sale of plaintiff's possessions but merely announced the circumstances under which its courts would not interfere with a private sale. Thus, the allegations of plaintiff's complaint did not establish a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights either by defendant or the state.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether a warehouseman's lien sale, which is authorized by state statutory law, an action properly attributable to the state so as to come within the protections of the Due Process Clause?  No.

o         Whether Flagg Brothers action may fairly be attributed to the State of New York?  No

Procedure

Appellant

o         United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which found sufficient state involvement with the proposed sale of plaintiff's possessions to invoke the provisions of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Supreme

o         The Court reversed, holding that plaintiff failed to allege facts that constituted a deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The state did not compel the sale of plaintiff's possessions but merely announced the circumstances under which its courts would not interfere with a private sale. Thus, the allegations of plaintiff's complaint did not establish a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights either by defendant or the state.

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl -   Flagg Brothers

Df -   Brooks

Description

o          Brooks was evicted from her apartment and the city marshal arranged for the storage of her belongings at Flagg Brothers' warehouse.

o         After payment/charge disputes arose, Flagg Brothers notified Brooks that her property would be sold, in accordance with state law dictating the conditions for warehouseman's lien sales.

o         Brooks filed suit contending that the sale of her possessions, without a prior judicial hearing, would violate her rights under the Due Process Clause.

Rehnquist

Section II

o         No public officials have been named as defendants.

o         Whether Flagg Brothers action may fairly be attributed to the State of New York?  No

o         We hold that the state in enacting a law authorizing a warehouseman's lien sale is not conduct attributable to the state.

Brooks - Due Process requires that debtors be afforded a hearing before deprivation of property may occur.

o         Brooks relies upon a series of cases that held that due process requires that debtors be afforded a hearing before a creditor may invoke remedies involving deprivation of property.

Court - Overt official involvement is absent here

o         However, these cases are distinguishable from this case because of the total absence here of overt official involvement.

o         Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, only a state, or a private person whose action may be fairly treated as that of the state itself, may deprive an individual of an interest protected by the Amendment.

o         Thus, the only question in this case is whether the conduct of Flagg Brothers may be attributed to the state.

Section III

Brooks' argument - The law delegates power to Flagg Brothers

o         The state, by enacting the law permitting warehouseman's lien sales, has delegated a power to Flagg Brothers that has traditionally been exclusively reserved to the state.

Court - Statute provides a damage remedy.  Private arrangements are not exclusive to the States

o         We reject the argument because the statute involved provides a damage remedy against the warehouseman for violations of the statute.

o         By doing so, it recognizes the place of private arrangements in the commercial world, and cannot be said to be an exclusive prerogative of the state.

Section IV

Brooks argues - The States has authorized and encouraged the law

o         The proposed lien sale is attributable to the state because the state has authorized and encouraged it in enacting the law.

Court - Merely announced the circumstances that a court will  not interfere with a private sale.

o         The state has not compelled the sale of goods; it has merely announced the circumstances under which the courts will not interfere with a private sale.

o         The state's refusal to act does not equate with compelling the deprivation of property.

Reversed.

Dissent - Justice Stevens

o         The question is whether a state statute which authorizes a private party to deprive a person of his property without his consent must meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

o         This question must be answered in the affirmative unless the State has virtually unlimited power to transfer interests in private property without any procedural protections.

Power to sell if derived from state law

o         The power of the warehouseman to sell the goods derives from the state law.

o         The issue is, must a state statute which authorizes a private person to deprive another of his property without consent meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

o    I believe that the answer should be yes.

Majority Reasoning - State Law Permits but does not compete

o         The majority's holding is based on the reasoning that the state law "permits" but does not "compel" the sale, and the sale is not a power exclusively reserved to the states.

o         This reasoning would permit the use of self-help without the possibility of federal challenge.  The distinction between permission and compulsion should not be determinative factors.

Focus on State Conduct, not Private Conduct

o         We must focus on the state's conduct, whether action or inaction, and not the private conduct.

o         The state statute in this case places the state power to conduct judicially binding sales in the hands of the warehouseman without constitutional challenge.

Rules

Class Notes