González-Droz v. González-Colón, 660 F.3d 1

Puerto Rico Board Regulation (2005) restricted cosmetic medicine to board-certified plastic surgeons or dermatologists; González-Droz, not board-certified in those specialties, challenged it as unconstitutional.
Board provisionally suspended González-Droz’s medical license for alleged illegal practice and potential patient harm; hearing scheduled within 15 days of the resolution.
González-Droz filed suit in federal court seeking to enjoin the hearing and challenge the Regulation's validity; hearing proceeded and the Board issued a final five-year suspension and $5,000 fine in 2008.
District court granted summary judgment to defendants on immunity grounds and to uphold the Regulation as a valid medical-regulatory measure; the First Circuit reviewed on appeal.
This appeal focuses on whether the Regulation withstands constitutional challenges, whether due process was satisfied in suspend-and-hear proceedings, and whether retaliation claims have merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rational basis for Regulation	González-Droz argues regulation lacks rational basis.	González-Droz cannot show irrational basis; classification tied to patient safety.	Regulation passes rational basis review.
Vagueness of Regulation	Regulation is impermissibly vague about its scope.	Regulation provides sufficient indicia; reasonable professionals understand coverage.	Regulation not unconstitutionally vague.
Procedural due process in suspension	No pre-deprivation hearing; insufficient notice and safeguards.	Prompt post-deprivation hearing adequate given patient-safety concerns and licensee's opportunity to be heard.	Procedural due process satisfied; post-deprivation hearing adequate.
Substantive due process and retaliation	License suspension so punitive as to shock conscience; retaliation for protected speech.	Actions not egregious; timing does not show retaliation; same outcome would occur absent protected speech.	No substantive due process violation; no retaliation.

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (rational basis review requires plausible legitimate purpose)
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. Supreme Court 1955) (legislative classifications may be upheld even with imperfect line drawing)
Beach Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (rational basis review affords deference to regulatory classifications)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (government classifications subjected to rational basis scrutiny; not invidious necessity)
Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748 (1st Cir.1990) (procedural due process and flexibility of safeguards)
Nnebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2011) (post-deprivation hearing within prompt time frame adequate where public safety at stake)
Barzinji v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir.2010) (retaliation in administrative settings requires causal connection beyond temporal proximity)