University of Chicago Law Review

Start Page



In determining the procedural safeguards to be afforded to property interests under the due process clauses of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has assumed that the principal value at stake is the interest in an accurate decision, and that this interest can be protected only by requiring some form of evidentiary hearing. Focusing on the job security cases, in particular the recent decision in Bishop v. Wood, Professor Rabin contends that these assumptions have resulted in setting too high a threshold for the recognition of property rights and in an unwarranted deference to state law in determining the scope of constitutionally protected property. He argues that in addition to the interest in an accurate decision, courts should attend to the interest in a reasoned explanation for the termination of employment, an interest that can be secured through a modest form of judicial review without requiring a costly evidentiary hearing.