Barsky v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York

1954-04-26

Headline: Upheld New York’s power to suspend a physician’s license after his federal conviction for refusing a congressional subpoena, allowing the state to discipline doctors convicted elsewhere while following its review procedures.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Allows states to suspend professional licenses after federal convictions elsewhere.
Affirms New York procedures as sufficient under federal due-process standards.
Permits state professional boards to set discipline based on convictions.

Topics: professional licensing, due process, congressional subpoenas, medical discipline

Summary

Background

A New York doctor who chaired a refugee charity refused a 1946 congressional subpoena for the group’s financial papers and was later convicted in federal court for that refusal. After serving about five months in jail, the doctor faced disciplinary charges in New York under a statute allowing suspension when a practitioner is convicted of a crime in any competent court. State grievance panels, a Regents committee, and the Board of Regents considered evidence and imposed a six-month suspension, which state courts affirmed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether New York’s law and the way it was applied denied the doctor fair process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court said the conviction was a crime within the New York statute, the state’s disciplinary procedures provided notice, hearings, and review, and the Board’s action was not arbitrary. The majority concluded the State’s approach—making convictions a basis for discipline but leaving the measure of punishment to professional bodies—did not violate federal due process.

Real world impact

The decision upholds a State’s broad power to regulate and discipline health professionals after convictions in other courts, so long as the State provides the hearing and review procedures the statute describes. The ruling left open that state boards must act within their procedures and that courts can review constitutional claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices strongly dissented, warning the Board relied on prejudicial evidence (an Attorney General ‘‘list’’) and that the Regents’ wide, hard-to-review discretion risked arbitrary deprivations of a doctor’s right to work. They would have sent the case back for reconsideration.