DIXON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF ILLINOIS v. LOVE
No. 75-1513
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 1-2, 1977—Decided May 16, 1977
431 U.S. 105
James O. Latturner argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Alan M. Freedman, Richard J. Hess, and Allen L. Ray.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether Illinois has provided constitutionally adequate procedures for suspending or revoking the license of a driver who repeatedly has been convicted of traffic offenses. The statute and administrative regulations provide for an initial summary decision based on official records, with a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation has taken effect.
The case centers on
One of the statutorily enumerated circumstances justifying
Another circumstance, specified in the statute, supporting suspension or revocation is where a licensee
“[h]as been repeatedly involved as a driver in motor vehicle collisions or has been repeatedly convicted of offenses against laws and ordinances regulating the movement of traffic, to a degree which indicates lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the safe operation of a motor vehicle or disrespect for the traffic laws and the safety of other persons upon the highway.”
§ 6-206 (a) (3) .
Here again the Secretary has limited his broad statutory discretion by an administrative regulation. This regulation allows suspension or revocation, where sufficient points have been accumulated to warrant a second suspension within a 5-year period.5 The regulation concludes flatly: “A person who has been suspended thrice within a 10 year period shall be revoked.”
II
Appellee Love, a resident of Chicago, is employed as a truckdriver. His license was suspended in November 1969, under
“This action has been taken as a result of: Your having been repeatedly convicted of offenses against laws and ordinances regulating the movement of traffic, to a degree which indicates disrespect for the traffic laws.” App. 13.
Appellee, then aged 25, made no request for an administrative hearing. Instead, he filed this purported class action9 on June 5 against the Illinois Secretary of State in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. His complaint sought a declaratory judgment that
A three-judge District Court was convened to consider appellee‘s claim that the Illinois statute was unconstitutional. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that a license cannot constitutionally be suspended or revoked under
III
It is clear that the Due Process Clause applies to the deprivation of a driver‘s license by the State:
“Suspension of issued licenses . . . 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.” Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S., at 539.
It is equally clear that a licensee in Illinois eventually can obtain all the safeguards procedural due process could be thought to require before a discretionary suspension or revocation becomes final. Appellee does not challenge the adequacy of the administrative hearing, noted above, available under
“[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and
probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government‘s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id., at 335.
The private interest affected by the decision here is the granted license to operate a motor vehicle. Unlike the social security recipients in Eldridge, who at least could obtain retroactive payments if their claims were subsequently sustained, a licensee is not made entirely whole if his suspension or revocation is later vacated. On the other hand, a driver‘s license may not be so vital and essential as are social insurance payments on which the recipient may depend for his very subsistence. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264 (1970). The Illinois statute includes special provisions for hardship and for holders of commercial licenses, who are those most likely to be affected by the deprival of driving privileges. See n. 7, supra. We therefore conclude that the nature of the private interest here is not so great as to require us “to depart from the ordinary principle, established by our decisions, that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S., at 343. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974).
Moreover, the risk of an erroneous deprivation in the absence of a prior hearing is not great. Under the Secretary‘s regulations, suspension and revocation decisions are largely automatic. Of course, there is the possibility of clerical error, but written objection will bring a matter of that kind to the Secretary‘s attention. In this case appellee had the opportunity for a full judicial hearing in connection with each of the traffic convictions on which the Secretary‘s decision was based. Appellee has not challenged the validity of those convictions or the adequacy of his procedural rights at the time they were determined. Tr. of Oral Arg. 41, 47. Since appel-
Finally, the substantial public interest in administrative efficiency would be impeded by the availability of a pretermination hearing in every case. Giving licensees the choice thus automatically to obtain a delay in the effectiveness of a suspension or revocation would encourage drivers routinely to request full administrative hearings. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S., at 347. Far more substantial than the administrative burden, however, is the important public interest in safety on the roads and highways, and in the prompt removal of a safety hazard. See Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 657, 671 (1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). This factor fully distinguishes Bell v. Burson, supra, where the “only purpose” of the Georgia statute there under consideration was “to obtain security from which to pay any judgments against the licensee resulting from the accident.” 402 U.S., at 540.11 In contrast, the Illinois statute at
issue in the instant case is designed to keep off the roads those drivers who are unable or unwilling to respect traffic rules and the safety of others.
We conclude that the public interests present under the circumstances of this case are sufficiently visible and weighty for the State to make its summary initial decision effective without a predecision administrative hearing.
The present case is a good illustration of the fact that procedural due process in the administrative setting does not always require application of the judicial model. When a governmental official is given the power to make discretionary decisions under a broad statutory standard, case-by-case decisionmaking may not be the best way to assure fairness. Here the Secretary commendably sought to define the statutory standard narrowly by the use of his rulemaking authority.12 The decision to use objective rules in this case provides drivers with more precise notice of what conduct will be sanctioned and promotes equality of treatment among similarly situated drivers. The approach taken by the District Court would have the contrary result of reducing the fairness of the system, by requiring a necessarily subjective inquiry in each case as to a driver‘s “disrespect” or “lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care.”
The second count of appellee‘s complaint challenged
The judgment of the District Court is reversed.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, concurring.
While I join the opinion of the Court, I believe it is important to point out that the Court has not rejected the constitutional analysis of the District Court. The District Court held that a driver‘s license may not be revoked on the basis of an ex parte determination that certain facts “indicate . . . disrespect for the traffic laws.” This Court does not disagree. It merely holds that the District Court erred in its assumption that appellee‘s license was revoked on the authority of the first sentence of Rule 6-206 (a)3 (1975),1 which the District Court construed to require such a determination.2
The Court interprets the Secretary‘s action as resting on the second sentence of Rule 6-206 (a)3 which provides that a person‘s license must be revoked if it has been suspended three times in 10 years. Appellee‘s license had already been suspended twice. A third suspension would have been required under a different rule because appellee had three convictions in one year.3 Consequently, appellee‘s license was subject to mandatory revocation, see ante, at 111 n. 8, and no prior hearing was necessary.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in the result.
My Brother STEVENS’ concurring opinion makes clear that appellee‘s license was revoked under a valid regulation making
Notes
“A person repeatedly involved in collisions or convictions to a degree which indicates the lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the safe operation of a motor vehicle, or whose record indicates disrespect for traffic laws and the safety of other persons on the highway, and who has accumulated sufficient points to warrant a second suspension within a 5 year period, may either be suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State, based upon the number of points in his record. A person who has been suspended thrice within a 10 year period shall be revoked.”
“The Secretary of State is authorized to exercise discretionary authority to suspend or revoke the license or permit of any person without a preliminary hearing, or to decline to suspend or revoke such driving privileges. In making a determination of the action to be taken, the Secretary of State shall take into consideration the severity of the offense and conviction, the number of offenses and convictions, and prior suspensions or revocations on the abstract of the driver‘s record. The Secretary may also take into consideration the points accumulated by the driver and noted on his driving record.
“For the purpose of this Rule and its companion rules, a conviction is the final adjudication of ‘guilty’ by a court of competent jurisdiction, either after a bench trial, trial by jury, plea of guilty, order of forfeiture, or default, as reported to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is not authorized to consider or inquire into the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction.”
The District Court construed Rule 6-206 (a)3 as follows:“The statute makes suspension or revocation dependent on a determination of whether the driver‘s repeated involvement in collisions or conviction of offenses indicates lack of ability to use due care or disrespect for the traffic laws and the safety of others. The regulation makes suspension or revocation dependent both on such a determination and the accumulation of a given number of points, and even then the Secretary ‘may’ but
“A person who has been convicted of three (3) or more offenses against traffic regulations, governing the movement of vehicles, with the exception of those offenses excluded under provisions of Section 6-204 (2) and whose violations have occurred within a twelve (12) month period may be suspended as follows:
| “Number of Points | Action |
|---|---|
| 20 to 44 | Suspension up to 2 months |
| 45 to 74 | Suspension up to 3 months |
| 75 to 89 | Suspension up to 6 months |
| 90 to 99 | Suspension up to 9 months |
| 100 to 109 | Suspension up to 12 months |
| Over 110 | Revocation for not less than 12 months.” |
This rule can be fairly construed to leave the Secretary substantial discretion concerning only the length of the suspension. Moreover, this rule implements
The District Court noted that appellee had previously been “notified by letter that a further conviction would result in loss of his driving privileges.” App. 17.
“A person who has been convicted of three (3) or more offenses against traffic regulations, governing the movement of vehicles, with the exception of those offenses excluded under provisions of Section 6-204 (2) and whose violations have occurred within a twelve (12) month period may be suspended as follows:
| “Number of points | Action |
|---|---|
| 20 to 44 | Suspension up to 2 months |
| 45 to 74 | Suspension up to 3 months |
| 75 to 89 | Suspension up to 6 months |
| 90 to 99 | Suspension up to 9 months |
| 100 to 109 | Suspension up to 12 months |
| Over 110 | Revocation for not less than 12 months. |
“A person who has accumulated sufficient points to warrant a second suspension within a 10-year period may be either suspended or revoked,
“A person repeatedly involved in collisions or convictions to a degree which indicates the lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the safe operation of a motor vehicle, or whose record indicates disrespect for traffic laws and the safety of other persons on the highway, and who has accumulated sufficient points to warrant a second suspension within a 5 year period, may either be suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State, based upon the number of points in his record. A person who has been suspended thrice within a 10 year period shall be revoked.”
Any driver whose license is suspended or revoked, in order to “relieve undue hardship,” may apply for a restricted permit to drive between his residence and his place of employment “or within other proper limits.”