# Hettinga v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 13, 2012 · 677 F.3d 471

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9843122

## Case

- **Full name:** Hein HETTINGA, Et Al., Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 13, 2012
- **Citations:** 677 F.3d 471; 400 U.S. App. D.C. 218; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7443; 2012 WL 1232592
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Griffith
- **Judges:** Sentelle, Brown, Griffith
- **Cited by:** 613 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9843122

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that courts may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be futile
- holding that a court need not “accept legal conclusions cast as factual allegations[,]” or “inferences drawn by [the] plaintiff if those inferences are not supported by the facts set out in the complaint”
- noting that “[t]he challenger bears the burden of showing that the statute is not a rational means of advancing a legitimate government purpose”
- holding that plaintiffs must plead a “threshold requirement” of due process claims: “that the government has interfered with a cognizable liberty or property interest”

## Opinion text

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I, too, agree fully with the per curiam opinion, but do not join my colleagues’ concurrence with its spirited criticism of the Supreme Court’s long-standing approach to claims of economic liberty. Although by no means unsympathetic to their criticism nor critical of their choice to express their perspective, I am reluctant to set forth my own views on the wisdom of such a broad area of the Supreme Court’s settled jurisprudence that was not challenged by the petitioner.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9843122. Public record. Not legal advice.