## Facts

- Wisconsin law authorized specified local officials to forbid, by written order, the sale or gift of intoxicating liquor to persons whose “excessive drinking” allegedly caused enumerated harms (e.g., exposing self or family “to want” or being “dangerous to the peace”).
- The Hartford chief of police invoked the statute against Norma Grace Constantineau for a one-year period.
- The chief posted written notices at Hartford liquor outlets directing that no liquor be sold or given to Constantineau.
- The posting occurred without prior notice to Constantineau and without any hearing or opportunity to contest the allegations.
- Constantineau filed a federal action seeking damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural due process requirements.
- A three-judge federal district court held the statute unconstitutional on its face and enjoined its enforcement; Wisconsin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the State publicly “posts” a person as prohibited from receiving liquor based on allegations of excessive drinking.
2. Whether government action that publicly stigmatizes an individual and alters legal rights or status triggers a protected liberty interest requiring procedural safeguards.
3. Whether federal courts should abstain from deciding the federal constitutional claim where the challenged state statute is unambiguous.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction and held the statute unconstitutional as applied on its face for lack of required procedures.
- The Court concluded that the posting functioned as an official branding that could seriously damage a person’s reputation in the community.
- Because the statute imposed this public stigma while also restricting the person’s ability to obtain liquor, due process required prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- The Court rejected abstention, reasoning that the statute was unambiguous and the case presented a direct federal constitutional question suitable for federal adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- When government action places a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity at stake through an official public characterization, procedural due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- A state may not impose a public, stigmatizing designation coupled with a tangible alteration of legal status or rights without basic procedural protections.
- Due process focuses on the adequacy of procedures; when a statute authorizes a substantial stigma without any mechanism for notice and hearing, it denies due process.
- Abstention is not required where the challenged state statute is clear and the dispute turns on a federal constitutional claim.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Wisconsin could not publicly post an individual as prohibited from receiving liquor, in a manner that stigmatizes the person and restricts legal rights, without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.


Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971)