371, 378-79, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786-87, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971)): More recently, the Court has refined the exception: “An important government .interest, accompanied by a substantial assurance that the deprivation is not baseless or unwarranted, may in limited cases demanding prompt action justify postponing the opportunity to be heard until after the initial deprivation.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 240, 108 S.Ct. 1780, 1787-88, 100 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Over the years, the Court has broadened this exception considerably, frequently holding a post-deprivation hearing to be sufficient. Compare Board of Regents, 408 U.S. at 570 n. 7, 92 S.Ct. at 2705 n. 7 (describing use of exception as “rare”), with e.g., Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979) (<HOLDING>), and Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 108 S.Ct. 1780, 100
holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding that this lack of any reasonable expectation of continued employment suffices to establish the lack of property in the constitutional sense and hence the lack of a viable due process claim recognizing the states interest in preventing deception of consumers holding that states interest in preserving integrity of sport of horse racing justifies lack of predeprivation hearing holding that a states interest in the integrity of its property tax system lies at the core of the states sovereignty it is impossible to imagine that a state government could continue to exist without the power to tax