Fin. Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 342, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (Harlan, J., concurring) (“The property of which petitioner has been deprived is the use of the garnished portion of her wages during the interim period between the garnishment and the culmination of the main suit.” (emphasis added)). Properly construing Appellants’ claim, we hold section 9 — 11— 90 provides a basis to assert a property interest. Specifically, Appellants’ takings claim is predicated on their entitlement to retain the percentage of their salary — 13.6%—that was used to pay the employer portion of the retirement contributions. It follows that Appellants are able to point to a property interest rooted in state law. See Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam’rs, 370 S.C. 452, 636 S.E.2d 598 (2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri
holding that an alien is not deprived of due process if he or she receives actual notice of a denial of an application to withhold deportation holding that the root requirement of due process is that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest holding that in order to prove a denial of due process a party must show that he was arbitrarily and capriciously deprived of a cognizable property interest rooted in state law holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process