Bohannan v. Arizona Ex Rel. Smith

Background

A member of Arizona’s State Board of Public Welfare faced a civil quo warranto lawsuit (a proceeding to remove someone from office) brought by the Arizona Attorney General. The Arizona courts found the official should be excluded from his current office and “forever disqualified” from holding any public office under an Arizona statute that bars officials who profit from contracts. The official then raised federal constitutional claims in a petition for rehearing, arguing the civil proceeding denied due process and amounted to a bill of attainder (punishment without a proper trial).

Reasoning

The narrow question the Supreme Court addressed was whether a properly presented federal question existed for this Court to review. The Court, in a per curiam order, granted the State’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal for lack of a properly presented federal question. The Court did not reach the constitutional merits about permanent disqualification, so it left the Arizona court’s construction and judgment in place without deciding whether the process used there violated federal constitutional protections.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the Arizona ruling excluding and permanently disqualifying the official remains effective. The Court’s action means the federal constitutional questions raised (due process and bill-of-attainder claims) were not resolved by this decision. The opinion also notes that a federal question may be timely presented in a petition for rehearing when a highest state court unexpectedly construes a state statute.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Black, dissented, arguing the constitutional issues were substantial and that the Court should have noted probable jurisdiction or heard argument before dismissing. They emphasized the seriousness of permanently barring someone from public employment and urged a full review.