Hawker v. New York
Encyclopedia
Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...

 (1898), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...

 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
Article One of the United States Constitution
Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. The Article establishes the powers of and limitations on the Congress, consisting of a House of Representatives composed of Representatives, with each state gaining or...

.

Majority opinion

Justice Brewer's opinion cites Dent v. West Virginia
Dent v. West Virginia
Dent v. West Virginia, , was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the reputable practice of physicians and state laws in the late nineteenth century.-The Case:...

 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  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.

See also

The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK