887 F.3d 927
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Ernest J. Franceschi, an attorney, failed to file/pay California income taxes for 1995–2012; FTB issued notices of proposed assessments and later notified him he would be on the statutory "Top 500" delinquent taxpayer list (>$100,000) and face DMV license suspension under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 19195 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 494.5.
- Section 19195 requires twice-yearly public listing of the 500 largest delinquencies and 30 days’ pre-publication notice to taxpayers; § 494.5 (effective 2012) requires DMV to suspend licenses of those on the Top 500 after at least 90 days’ notice, with limited opportunities to avoid suspension (payment, payment plan, financial hardship).
- Franceschi did not avail himself of pre-assessment protest procedures or post-assessment remedies (including paying and suing for refund) and received additional proposed assessments after § 494.5’s enactment, which he ignored.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and that § 494.5 was a bill of attainder; district court dismissed and denied injunctive relief; DMV suspended his license during the litigation.
- Ninth Circuit reviews de novo dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and affirms: it finds adequate process, no substantive due process violation, rational-basis equal protection, and no bill of attainder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process (driver's license suspension) | Franceschi: § 494.5 lacks adequate pre-deprivation hearing; exemptions (payment plan/hardship) are illusory | Defendants: Pay-first-then-litigate (pay & file refund suit) and prior assessment procedures provide constitutionally adequate process; Dixon allows no pre-revocation hearing | Affirmed: No procedural due process violation—available pre/post remedies (pay & sue) and prior notice/protest avenues suffice (Mathews factors met) |
| Substantive due process — burden on profession | Franceschi: License suspension materially interferes with ability to practice law (driving necessary) | Defendants: License suspension is not a complete prohibition on practicing law; any burden is incidental and subject to rational-basis review | Affirmed: No substantive due process violation—no complete prohibition; at most incidental burden; rational basis supports law |
| Substantive due process — retroactivity | Franceschi: § 494.5 is retroactive punishment for tax conduct predating enactment | Defendants: § 494.5 targets ongoing nonpayment, not past completed acts; sanction depends on current nonpayment | Affirmed: Not retroactive—attaches to continuing nonpayment, not past completed events |
| Equal protection (selecting Top 500) | Franceschi: Singling out Top 500 (>$100k) is arbitrary unequal treatment of similarly situated persons | Defendants: Legislature has rational basis (significant interest in tax collection; broad legislative latitude on classifications) | Affirmed: Rational-basis review satisfied; classification rationally related to tax-collection interest |
| Bill of attainder | Franceschi: Listing + license suspension is legislative punishment aimed at identifiable individuals without judicial trial | Defendants: Statutes are general, fluid, affect a changing class, and permit escape by paying; not punitive legislative targeting | Affirmed: Not a bill of attainder—statutes do not specify a fixed class of persons and target continuing nonpayment; plaintiff failed to show the "clearest proof" required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) (driver's license is property interest protected by due process)
- Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977) (pre-revocation hearing not required for driver’s license suspension)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for required procedural safeguards)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (statutory retroactivity test: attaches new legal consequences to completed events)
- Selective Serv. Sys. v. Minn. Pub. Int. Research Grp., 468 U.S. 841 (1984) (elements and guideposts for bill of attainder analysis)
- Brown v. Walker, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) (statute targeting a politically defined group can be a bill of attainder when specificity and retrospective effect present)
- Phillips v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 283 U.S. 589 (1931) (pay-first procedures in tax context can be consistent with due process)
- FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis review: law valid if any conceivable state of facts provides rational basis)