## Facts

- H. John Putnam taught music at Central Community College’s Columbus, Nebraska campus for 29 years and founded and directed the “Chorale” performance group.
- Putnam retired in 2000 but continued part-time teaching through fall 2000 and enrolled as a continuing-education student for the 2000–2001 school year.
- In January 2001, the College eliminated Putnam’s part-time position.
- College counsel sent Putnam a letter barring him from campus until at least June 1, 2003, while the College investigated alleged misappropriation of school funds, potentially implicating school policy and criminal law.
- The letter also accused Putnam of permitting and encouraging Chorale events with “inappropriate sexual overtones” and making the group appear “cult-like.”
- Putnam denied the allegations and repeatedly requested in writing that the “stay-away” ban be lifted, without success.
- Putnam sued multiple College officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of liberty interests without procedural due process, violation of substantive due process, and violation of First Amendment speech and association rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity on the procedural due process and First Amendment claims.
2. Whether College officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim based on stigmatizing accusations combined with a significant alteration of status (the campus ban).
3. Whether College officials were entitled to qualified immunity on Putnam’s First Amendment free speech and association claims arising from the campus ban and related accusations.
4. Whether College officials were entitled to qualified immunity on Putnam’s substantive due process claim.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit exercised interlocutory jurisdiction to the extent the qualified-immunity appeal presented legal questions.
- The court affirmed denial of qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim, allowing it to proceed.
- The court affirmed denial of qualified immunity on the First Amendment free speech and association claims, allowing them to proceed.
- The court affirmed qualified immunity for the officials on the substantive due process claim, ending that claim.

## Legal Principles

- An interlocutory order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent it turns on a question of law, rather than disputed facts.
- Qualified immunity protects officials unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have known.
- Under the “stigma-plus” doctrine, a protected liberty interest may arise when government officials disseminate stigmatizing accusations and also impose a material change in legal status or tangible burden; procedural due process generally requires a meaningful opportunity to clear one’s name.
- Public-institution restrictions that broadly burden expressive or associational activity may violate clearly established First Amendment protections when imposed on contested grounds without adequate safeguards.
- Substantive due process liability is reserved for egregious, arbitrary conduct (often framed as “conscience-shocking”); officials are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established substantive due process right covers the challenged actions.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s qualified-immunity rulings: Putnam’s procedural due process (stigma-plus) and First Amendment claims could proceed because the alleged multi-year ban and stigmatizing accusations implicated clearly established rights, but the officials were immune from the substantive due process claim because no clearly established substantive due process violation was shown.


Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2003)