July 2019
The Taxi and Limousine Commission of New York City (the “TLC”) has
the authority to issue, revoke, and suspend taxi drivers’ licenses. These tandem
cases require us to examine the TLC’s suspension procedures under the Due
Process Clause to determine whether the TLC provides meaningful hearings to
drivers whose licenses have been suspended pending the outcome of criminal
proceedings. We conclude that it does not.
We first determine that evidence of a driver’s ongoing danger to health
and public safety is relevant under the statutory and regulatory scheme. We then
conclude that, in light of the significant private interest at stake, the unacceptably
high risk of erroneous deprivation, and the fact that additional safeguards can be
provided with minimal burden on governmental resources, the TLC’s refusal to
consider such evidence violates due process.
As we have already stated in this case, “the private interest at stake . . . is enormous
¯ most taxi drivers rely on the job as their primary source of income and often
earn the sole income for large families in a city where the cost of living
significantly exceeds the national average.” Nnebe II, 644 F.3d at 159 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have previously held that this factor favors
more extensive process where the interest at stake is “operating a business
and . . . pursuing a particular livelihood.” Spinelli v. City of New York, 579 F.3d
160, 171 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “[t]he
Supreme Court has ‘repeatedly recognized the severity of depriving someone of
his or her livelihood.’” Id. (quoting FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 243 (1988)); see
also Brock v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 481 U.S. 252, 263 (1987); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 543 (1985); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264 (1970).
Thus, while we take seriously the Government interest implicated, we hold
that, given the potential of conducting far more meaningful hearings at little or
no additional financial or administrative cost to the TLC, that interest is
outweighed by the private interest at stake and the unacceptably high risk of
erroneous deprivation.
Read On
