with whom Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Stevens join, concurring in part.
I agree that the District Court properly declined either to abstain in this case or to require exhaustion of state remedies *69that were themselves being challenged as unconstitutional.1
I also agree that appellee’s trainer’s license clothes him with a constitutionally protected interest of which he cannot be deprived without procedural due process. What was said of automobile drivers’ licenses in Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, *70539 (1971), is even more true of occupational licenses such as Barchi’s:
“Once licenses are issued, . . . their continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood. Suspension of issued licenses . . . involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
See Dixon v. Love, 431 U. S. 105, 112 (1977); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564 (1973); cf. New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 439 U. S. 96 (1978). Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972), stated, in identifying protected interests, that Bell v. Burson was an example of situations in which “[t]he Court has . . . made clear that the property interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money.” 2 Appellants seek to avoid these cases by characterizing appellee’s license as a “privilege” and arguing that one who has accepted the benefits of a license is precluded from challenging the conditions attached to it, including the procedures for suspension and revocation. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (1974) (plurality opinion). The Court properly rejects this contention — indeed, does not even mention it. Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 571, emphasized that “the *71Court has fully and finally rejected the wooden distinction between 'rights’ and 'privileges’ that once seemed to govern the applicability of procedural due process rights.” Having once determined that the interest at stake is protected by the Due Process Clause, a court has occasion only to inquire what process is due. See Dixon v. Love, supra, at 112; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 332-333 (1976).
Turning then to the question whether the procedures available to Barchi satisfied the mandates of due process, appellants argue that the State’s interests in protecting horses and in protecting the repute of racing and the State’s income derived from racing justify summary suspensions of trainers’ licenses when traces of drugs are allegedly found in their horses’ urine.3 Prior decisions establish that- ''[bjefore a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded opportunity for some kind of a hearing, 'except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event,’ ” Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 570 n. 7, quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 379 (1971); see Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 848 (1977); Bell v. Burson, supra, at 542. Even where a State’s *72interests justify action, after only summary informal proceedings, that temporarily infringes on protected interests pending a later full hearing, that full hearing must be available promptly after the temporary deprivation occurs. See North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U. S. 601 (1975); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 266-267 (1970). In any event,
“[t]his Court consistently has held that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest. [Citations omitted.] The 'right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.’ Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965). See Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394 (1914).” Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 333.
The District Court held in this case that “[o]n balance . . . the absence of either a pre-suspension hearing or a prompt post-suspension hearing denie[d Barchi] the meaningful review due process requires.” Barchi v. Sarafan, 436 F. Supp. 775, 782 (SDNY 1977). I agree with the District Court and with the Court that the absence of an opportunity for a prompt postsuspension hearing denied Barchi due process. Given the “in the alternative” phrasing of the District Court’s judgment and the absence of a cross-appeal by Barchi,4 however, I would not reach the question whether due process required a presuspension hearing in this case. Even assuming that the presuspension procedures afforded Barchi satisfied due proc*73ess in light of the State’s allegedly substantial interests,5 the State has failed to identify any substantial interest in postponing Barchi’s opportunity for a full hearing once Barchi’s license was suspended. Yet the District Court found that no opportunity for an immediate postsuspension full hearing was available. Furthermore, the District Court found that, in harness racing, even a temporary suspension can irreparably damage a trainer’s livelihood. Not only does a trainer lose the income from races during the suspension, but also, even more harmful, he is likely to lose the clients he has collected over the span of his career.6 Where, as here, even a short *74temporary suspension threatens to inflict substantial and irreparable harm, an “initial” deprivation quickly becomes “final,” and the procedures afforded either before or immediately after suspension are de facto the final procedures. A final full hearing and determination after Barchi had been barred from, racing his horses and had lost his clients to other trainers was aptly described by the District Court as an “exercise in futility,” 436 F. Supp., at 782, and would certainly not qualify as a “meaningful opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time.” To be meaningful, an opportunity for a full hearing and determination must be afforded at least at a time when the potentially irreparable and substantial harm caused by a suspension can still be avoided — i. e., either before or immediately after suspension.
I therefore join those parts of the Court’s opinion holding that the District Court properly refused to abstain or to require exhaustion and that the procedures available to Barchi failed to satisfy the requirements of due process because they did not assure a suspended trainer an opportunity for an immediate postsuspension full hearing and determination. In light of this holding, of Barchi’s failure to cross appeal from the judgment of the District Court, and of possibly significant changes in the procedures applicable to all future suspensions,7 I would not reach the additional questions whether Barchi was constitutionally entitled to a pre-suspension hearing and whether the difference between the procedures in harness racing and those in flat racing violates the Equal Protection Clause.
*75Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court insofar as it nullifies Barchi’s suspension because the procedures applicable to his case at the time of his suspension did not satisfy due process. Like the Court, I express no view as to the constitutionality of procedures under § 8022 as it may have been modified by subsequent legislation; I would therefore vacate that portion of the District Court’s judgment that declares § 8022 unconstitutional and enjoins its enforcement.
I also agree that the Court need not address the District Court’s, holding that the rebuttable presumption of trainer responsibility is constitutional; appellee did not cross appeal, and he is not to be heard upon the challenge to that holding made in his brief, since agreement with that challenge would result in greater relief than was awarded him by the District Court. See FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U. S. 548, 560 n. 11 (1976); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 27 n. 7 (1960).
Lower court decisions conflict on the question whether an irrebuttable presumption of trainer responsibility is constitutional. Compare Brennan v. Illinois Racing Board, 42 Ill. 2d 352, 247 N. E. 2d 881 (1969) (irrebut-table presumption unconstitutional), with Hubei v. West Virginia Racing Comm’n, 513 F. 2d 240 (CA4 1975) (irrebuttable presumption constitutional). See generally Note, Brennan v. Illinois Racing Board: The Validity of Statutes Making a Horse Trainer the Absolute Insurer for the Condition of His Horse, 74 Dick. L. Rev. 303 (1970).
408 U. S., at 571-572. Both explained that “[t]o have a [protected] property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Id., at 577. No extended inquiry into' the formal and informal “rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits,” ibid., is necessary here. Cf. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 599-603 (1972). Appellee’s claim to an entitlement in his duly issued trainer’s license is confirmed by the state statutes authorizing the issuance of licenses. See N. Y. Unconsol. Laws § 8010 (McKinney 1979).
Cf. Hubel v. West Virginia Racing Comm’n, swpra, which described West Virginia’s interests as follows:
“The state has at least two substantial interests to be served. It has a humanitarian interest in protecting the health of the horse, and it has a broader and more weighty interest in protecting the purity of the sport, both from the standpoint of protecting its own substantial revenues derived from taxes on legalized pari-mutuel betting and protecting patrons of the sport from being defrauded. ... If a horse is fleeter or slower than his normal speed because of having been drugged, the integrity of the race is irretrievably lost. Of course, if stimulated, his artificial position at the finish may be corrected and he may be deprived of any purse that he apparently won. But the interests of bettors cannot be protected. Winning tickets must be paid promptly at the end of the race before the disqualification of the horse, except for the most obvious reasons, can be accomplished.” 513 F. 2d, at 243-244.
See n. 1, supra.
My reservation of the presuspension hearing issue does not imply agreement with the Court on this matter. The record in this case, in my view, raises serious doubts that the alleged state interests in this context are sufficient to justify postponing a trainer’s hearing until after his suspension. See Mackey v. Montrym, ante, at 25-26 (Stewart, J., dissenting). The asserted importance of New York’s interests in summary action is plainly depreciated by the State Board’s claimed practice of staying suspensions when appropriate. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10-12; Tr. 27-30; affidavit of John M. Dailey, Aug. 26, 1976, App. 34a. Moreover, in this case 16 days elapsed between the positive urine test and the suspension order. These practices are hardly consistent with appellants’ claim that summary suspensions are necessary to serve important state interests whenever a drug test is positive.
“Race horse trainers may be entrusted with the care of a number of trotters at any given time. A trainer’s income is derived in large measure from the proceeds of horse races (as opposed to a salary), and, since, harness ‘meetings’ are sporadic, trainers cannot recapture the racing opportunities lost by missed meetings. Once a trainer is suspended, even for a brief period, an owner will immediately seek the services of another trainer so that the horse is not barred from racing. This change is often permanent in order to avoid further disruption in the care of the animal. Significantly, plaintiff has proffered the affidavit of a third-party trainer/ driver who experienced just such a loss during a suspension for a similar drug infraction. He had also suffered irreparable damage for a subsequent ex parte suspension that was later reversed. Racing opportunities lost because of a suspension cannot be recovered by a later reversal in [a] review hearing for obvious reasons. Furthermore, defendants do not *74dispute the fact that a loss of horses in a trainer’s stable occasioned during his suspension can often be an irremediable injury, even though such suspension is erroneous and without justification.” Barchi v. Sarafan, 436 F. Supp. 775, 778 (SDNY 1977).
See affidavit of John Barchi, July 12, 1976, App. 23a; affidavit of Lucien Fontaine, Aug. 17, 1976, App. 39a.
See ante, at 68-69, n. 13.