Hawker v. New York
Citations
- 170 U.S. 189
- 18 S. Ct. 573
- 42 L. Ed. 1002
- 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1537
Syllabus
<p>The provision in the act of the legislature of New York of May 9, 1893, c. 661, relating to the public health, as amended by the act of April 25, 1895, c. 398, that “ any person who, ... after conviction of a felony, shall attempt to practise medicine, or shall so practise, . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or imprisonment for six months for the first offence, and on conviction of any subsequent offence, by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not less than one year, or by both fine and imprisonment,” does not conflict with Article I, section 10, Of the Constitution of the United States which provides that “ No State shall ... . pass any Bill of Attainder1, ex post facto Law or law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” when applied to a person who had been convicted of a felony prior to its enactment.</p>
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help **improve it ** or discuss these issues on the **talk page **. (Learn how and when to remove these messages )
(Learn how and when to remove this message )
1898 United States Supreme Court case
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.
Case
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_v._New_York&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: 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 9 of Article One of the United States Constitution , also known as the Bill of Attainder.
Majority opinion
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_v._New_York&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: 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 _ 165 U.S. 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 when that conviction is reasonable evidence that a person has broken a law, and thus is evidence of insufficient good character to exercise the right.
An exigent threat to patient safety was provided as the reason to revoke Dr. Hawker's medical license. He was not an existential threat when legally practicing. When the law changed, the safety of the public suddenly became of paramount concern and he was disbarred. "It is, no one can doubt, of high importance to the community that health, limb and life should not be left to the treatment of ignorant pretenders and charlatans. It is within the power of the legislature to enact such laws as will protect the people from ignorant pretenders, and secure them the services of reputable, skilled and learned men... To require this is an exercise of the police power for the protection of the public against incompetents and impostors, and is in no sense the creation of a monopoly or special privileges. The door stands open to all who possess the requisite age and good character, and can stand the examination which is exacted of all applicants alike."[1]
Dissenting opinion
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_v._New_York&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: 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.
See also
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_v._New_York&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: See also")
]
Gabriel J. Chin, Are Collateral Sanctions Premised on Conduct or Conviction: The Case of Abortion Doctors , 30 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1685 (2003) (discussing case).
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_v._New_York&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: References")
]
- ↑ Hawker v. New York , vol. 170, 415, p. 189, retrieved April 28, 2019
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_v._New_York&action=edit§ion=6 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Works related to Hawker v. New York at Wikisource
- Text of Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress
show
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
show
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
show
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
show
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
show
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_v._New_York&oldid=1351341501 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Hawker v. New York
Add languages [Add topic](h
…
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that ban on practice of medicine by felons did not impose punishment and therefore did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause
- upholding prohibition of doctors who had been convicted of a felony from practicing medicine
- precluding convicted felon from practicing medicine not bill of attainder when relevant to qualification for profession
- upholding New York statute making it a misdemeanor for anyone convicted of a felony to practice medicine
- upholding law under which felony conviction was conclusive evidence of lack of fitness to practice medicine
- upholding character requirements for medical licensing because of the “most intimate” relationship between the medical profession and the “life and health” of the general public
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brewer, Haelan, Peokham, McKenna
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.