protected right to physical integrity, to bodily protection," ² At stake,
in Sullivan's view, was the deprivation of Joshua DeShaney's "right
that arises out of the Constitution to remain alive." ³

In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the
Supreme Court ruled that the state was not liable under the Four-
teenth Amendment for Joshua's injuries. Mr. Sullivan's understanding
of the scope of Fourteenth Amendment rights received a skeptical
hearing during the oral argument. Chief Justice Rehnquist, the author
of the six-member majority opinion, questioned Mr. Sullivan's charac-
terization of the state's duties under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
chief justice explained: "Certainly we've held in many cases that the
state may not deprive someone of life, but we've never held that
provision protects, in the constitutional sense, a private attack on
another person." ⁴ Here Chief Justice Rehnquist was referring to the
distinction between public and private action embedded in the Four-
teenth Amendment, which reads in part, "nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Since the amendment mentions only state action, the Department of
Social Services could not be held constitutionally responsible for the
abuse perpetrated by a private individual, Mr. DeShaney. Further,
Chief Justice Rehnquist went on, the Fourteenth Amendment pro-
scribes state action that trammels upon due process of law, but it does
not impose "affirmative government duties."

The skeptical remarks aimed at Attorney Sullivan during the oral
argument prefigured the final majority opinion, in which the chief
justice once again emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment func-
tions as a limit on state action and is not a source of constitutional
duties or substantive constitutional rights for the individual. To inter-
pret the amendment as requiring government to furnish the assistance
necessary to sustain life, liberty, or property would be, in the majori-
ty's assessment, an "expansive reading of the constitutional text"
unhinged from the language and history of the Fourteenth Amend-

-2-