Hawker v. New York

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Hawker v. New York
ArgueDate=March 9
ArgueYear=1898
DecideDate=April 18
DecideYear=1898
FullName=Hawker v. People of State of New York
Citation=18 S. Ct. 573; 42 L. Ed. 1002; 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1537
USVol=170
USPage=189
Prior=Hawker convicted of unlawful practice of medicine
Subsequent=None
Holding=Laws may specify past acts (and convictions) as evidence of current qualification for a profession without being considered additional "ex post facto" punishment.
SCOTUS=1898-1902
Majority=Brewer
JoinMajority=Fuller, Gray, Brown, Shiras, White
Dissent=Harlan
JoinDissent=Peckham, McKenna
LawsApplied=New York state law

"Hawker v. New York", 170 U.S. 189 (1898), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New York state law preventing convicted felons from practicing medicine, even when the felony conviction occurred before the law was enacted.

The case

Dr. Hawker was convicted in 1878 of performing an illegal abortion. He served his time, and then resumed the practice of medicine. In 1893 and 1895, the legislature of the State of New York passed public health laws making it illegal for convicted felons to practice medicine. Dr. Hawker was convicted under this law in 1896, but contended that the law passed after his conviction was putting an additional penalty on him, contrary to the protection from "ex post facto" laws in Section 10 of Article One of the United States Constitution.

Majority opinion

Justice Brewer's opinion cites Dent v. West Virginia and other cases which held that states may add new qualifications for practicing medicine that apply to those already in practice. It also cites Jones v. Brim ussc|165|180|1897 which held that the states have a right to classify individuals for application of laws and also Alabama and California cases where the right to vote or to sell liquor (respectively) could be revoked on the basis of a prior conviction whan that conviction is reasonable evidence that a person has broken a law, and thus is evidence of insufficient good character to exercise the right.

Dissenting opinion

Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion contends that this is a case of an "ex post facto" law, given that the law does not consider the doctor's current fitness for the job, but rather relies on a conviction nearly 20 years old, which he does not consider evidence of current character.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 170
* Gabriel J. Chin, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=390120 Are Collateral Sanctions Premised on Conduct or Conviction: The Case of Abortion Doctors,] 30 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1685 (2003) (discussing case).