MBE Rules · Constitutional Law
Stigma-Plus
Paul v. Davis
The rule
Reputational harm alone is not a protected liberty interest; due process attaches only when defamation accompanies alteration of a legal status or right (stigma plus), as in firing plus disqualification.
In plain English
The Stigma-Plus rule states that simply damaging someone's reputation is not enough to trigger due process protections. There must also be an accompanying change in legal status or rights, such as being fired from a job and then barred from future employment in that field.
Worked example
A public school teacher is fired for alleged misconduct and the school district publicly states that the teacher is unfit for future employment in education. This combination of being fired (alteration of legal status) and the public defamation (stigma) gives rise to a protected liberty interest under the Stigma-Plus rule, allowing the teacher to seek due process.
Memory hook
Stigma needs a plus: defamation plus a legal change equals due process.
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where a candidate must distinguish between mere reputational harm and situations that involve a legal status change, leading to confusion. Students often mistakenly believe that reputational harm alone is sufficient for due process.
How examiners test it
Questions typically involve a fact pattern where an individual faces reputational damage alongside a significant change in their legal rights or status, prompting candidates to identify the Stigma-Plus requirement.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.