TTTBE #45: Early Answer for Patrons!

This question asked whether a state could arbitrarily revoke the license for a massage parlor simply because some unsavory activities take place at other massage parlors.  The key fact in the question was this:  "The only procedure provided was a letter from the city declaring a new policy on massage parlors that had to be rapidly instituted for the welfare of the community. "

The correct answer, therefore, was "D" -- "No, because she had a property right in her license, which was taken without due process."  Here, we can look to the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971), which involved suspending the drivers' license of a priest:

"Once licenses are issued, as in petitioner's case, their continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood. Suspension of issued licenses thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Answer "A" (you have no basic right to earn a living) was wrong because it looked to the substantive due process clause.  Substantive due process claims involve fundamental rights; there is no fundamental right to run a massage parlor.

Answer "B" (the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public from illegal activities) was similarly wrong; we look to the compellingness of the state's interest in substantive due process cases.  Here, we were looking to the process provided by the state before they took the license away, which was nothing.

And answer "C" (you can't take away a license until it comes up for renewal) was rightly dismissed by Thomas as silly.

Thomas got this answer correct and is now 25-for-45 (55.6%), breaking his three-question losing streak and ensuring he will finish this first textbook at .500 or better even if he misses the next five questions in a row.