In the 1975 case Paul, Chief of Police, Louisville, et al. v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person's reputation is not protected by either the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case arose when Edward Aloysius Davis Jr., who had been arrested but not convicted for shoplifting in Kentucky was included on a flyer distributed by local police labeling him an "active shoplifter." He sued under Section 1983 claiming defamation and violation of his constitutional rights. However, Justice William Rehnquist wrote for a majority court stating that harm to reputation alone did not constitute deprivation of liberty or property interests protected under these clauses unless it was coupled with some more tangible interest such as employment termination.

In the dissenting opinion for Paul, Chief of Police, Louisville, et al. v. Davis (1975), Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that reputational harm alone did not constitute a deprivation of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He argued that reputation is an essential aspect of personal security and must be protected by due process guarantees against state defamation. Brennan contended that when government action seriously damages an individual’s good name or standing in their community without providing them with notice or opportunity to clear their name, it violates basic principles of fairness encapsulated in constitutional due process protections. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for narrowly interpreting "liberty," arguing instead for a broader interpretation encompassing more than just physical restraint but also extending to protection from governmental actions causing significant damage to one's social and economic status.