Shirvinski v. United States Coast Guard - 673 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2012)

Rule:

A government's allegedly defamatory request that its prime contractor no longer assign one of its subcontractors to a particular government contract fails to rise to the level of a constitutional injury.

Facts:

Plaintiff subcontractor to a subcontractor to a prime contractor with defendant United States Coast Guard (USCG) brought a procedural due process claim against the USCG and tort actions against defendant contractor for allegedly causing the termination of his at-will consulting agreement. The subcontractor argued that without providing him procedural protections, the USCG deprived him of his liberty interest in his reputation by requesting his removal from a project while spreading defamatory statements about him as a reason for the request. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The subcontractor appealed.

Issue:

Did the subcontractor suffer constitutional injury?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Even if the USCG's concerns impaired his future employment prospects, that fact alone did not amount to a constitutional injury. Rather than being foreclosed from reentering the field, the subcontractor had merely lost one position in his profession; he could still operate as a government subcontractor. Allowing the subcontractor's constitutional claim to go forward would have transformed the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause into a font of tort law in the field of government contracts.