United Public Workers v. Mitchell
Encyclopedia
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75
(1947), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939
, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First
, Fifth
, Ninth
, or Tenth
amendments to U.S. Constitution
.
(such as the National Federation of Federal Employees
, American Federation of Government Employees
, and the United Federal Workers of America
) began representing employees working for the federal government of the United States. The leadership of the United Federal Workers of America (UFWA) was leftist
. The leadership was militant in its advocacy of the rights of its members and most of the national and local union leadership advocated leftist ideals; associated with left-wing intellectuals, activists, and political people; and supported left-wing organizations. This led many politicians and others to believe the organization was Communist-controlled.
The political leanings of the UWFA led to passage of two pieces of legislation intended to restrict its political activities. In June 1938, Congress
passed a rider
to appropriations legislation which prevented the federal government from making payments (such as salaries) to any person or organization which advocated the overthrow of the federal government (as many communist
organizations at the time proposed). In 1939, Congress passed the Hatch Act of 1939, which restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. A provision of the Hatch Act made it illegal for the federal government to employ anyone who advocated the overthrow of the federal government. The UFWA immediately hired lawyer Lee Pressman
to challenge the constitutionality of the Hatch Act. Various individual employees of the federal government, some of whom were members of the United Public Workers of America, sought an injunction
against the second sentence of §9(a) of the Hatch Act, and a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional
.
On April 25, 1946, the State, County, and Municipal Workers of America
(SCMWA) merged with the UFWA to form the United Public Workers of America
. Joining the new organization were several local unions which had been expelled from the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT) for being communist-dominated. Congress repeatedly investigated the union for violations of the Hatch Act and prohibitions on advocacy of the right to strike. In January 1947, the House of Representatives Committee on Campaign Expenditures reported that it had found evidence that the UPWA (and other unions) had violated the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
by failing to report expenditures in support of various political parties and candidates for federal office.
In the 19th century, American courts had established the "doctrine of privilege." This legal doctrine concluded that public employment was a privilege, not a right, and subsequently significant restrictions could be placed on public employees that could not be constitutionally tolerated in the private sector. By the middle of the 20th century, however, the doctrine of privilege had been markedly weakened. Abuse of the privilege had led to widespread corruption; the tolerance of sexual harassment
, racism, religious discrimination
, and gender discrimination; and workplace abuse (such as forcing employees to buy goods and services from a supervisor, or forcing employees to run errands for the supervisor). The courts were becoming less and less tolerant of the doctrine of privilege.
Stanley Forman Reed
wrote the decision for the majority.
On the substantive issues raised, Justice Reed noted that none of the appellants, except George P. Poole, had violated the provisions of the Hatch Act. Since the federal courts do not issue advisory rulings, Reed dismissed the issues raised by all appellants except Poole. Poole, however, had been charged with a violation of the Hatch Act, and an order for his dismissal entered by the government. (He was a ward executive committeeman for a political party, acted as a poll worker on election day, and acted as a paymaster for other poll workers engaged by that political party.)
Poole contended that the Hatch Act violated the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Reed also asserted (without explanation) that the Hatch Act implicated rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and by implication the due process
protections of the Fifth Amendment as well. Justice Reed found unpersuasive Poole's claim that off-hours political activity was different from such activity conducted during working hours. "The influence of political activity by government employees, if evil in its effects on the service, the employees or people dealing with them, is hardly less so because that activity takes place after hours." Reed next concluded that no rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute, and that all rights "are subject to the elemental need for order without which the guarantees of civil rights to others would be a mockery." But how should the rights of the Ninth and Tenth amendments be balanced against those of the First and Fifth? Justice Reed found the majority's answer in the fact that the Ninth and Tenth amendments are reserved, rather than enumerated powers, and so carry less weight than enumerated powers. He wrote:
Justice Reed then used a traditional balancing test to weight the infringement of First and Fifth amendment rights against "a congressional enactment to protect a democratic society against the supposed evil of political partisanship by classified employees of government." That balance had been decided previously by the Court in Ex parte Curtis
, 106 U.S. 371 (1882), and the infringements upheld. Without providing evidence or explanation, Reed asserted that the dangers posed by partisan political activity have only worsened since Curtis. Justice Reed next applied the balancing test to the doctrine of privilege. Reed noted that in United States v. Wurzbach
, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), the Court had upheld the doctrine of privilege in a single sentence against rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Poole had argued that his actions were nonpartisan, however. The majority concluded that since Congress had seen fit to find danger in even nonpartisan political activity by federal workers, the Court would not dispute it. Reed note: "[Such restrictions have] the approval of long practice by the Commission, court decisions upon similar problems and a large body of informed public opinion. Congress and the administrative agencies have authority over the discipline and efficiency of the public service. When actions of civil servants in the judgment of Congress menace the integrity and the competency of the service, legislation to forestall such danger and adequate to maintain its usefulness is required. The Hatch Act is the answer of Congress to this need. We cannot say with such a background that these restrictions are unconstitutional."
The constitutionality of the Hatch Act was upheld, and the judgment of the district court affirmed.
concluded that the Supreme Court should not have accepted the case, as the appeal had been untimely filed. Compelled to accept jurisdiction, however, by the majority, he concurred with the majority's reasoning on the substantive issues.
noted that the §9 of the statute made it illegal for federal workers to engage in political activity, and yet explicitly protected the right of workers to "express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates." Black also refused to accept the conclusions to be drawn from the doctrine of privilege: "Had this measure deprived five million farmers or a million businessmen of all right to participate in elections, because Congress thought that federal farm or business subsidies might prompt some of them to exercise, or be susceptible to, a corrupting influence on politics or government, I would not sustain such an Act on the ground that it could be interpreted so as to apply only to some of them." Black concluded that, on its face, the Hatch Act and implementing civil service regulations were unconstitutionally overbroad (a fact even the government had admitted in its brief, Black said).
Black provided a ringing defense of the right to freedom of speech. He dismissed out of hand the majority's reliance on Ex parte Curtis and United States v. Wurzbach (concluding that they did not support the conclusions the majority came to), and argued that corruption could be dealt with without resorting to the "muzzling" of six million people.
concurred with Justice Black's dissent regarding Poole. He concurred with the majority that the case was not ripe
regarding the other appellants.
took issue with the majority on two grounds. First, he would not have dismissed the claims of the 12 other appellants as unripe, arguing that consideration of a declaratory judgment
in the case would be proper. Second, Douglas argued that Poole's position as an industrial worker at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
was an important distinction. Administrative and political personnel may be susceptible to pressure and corruption via political activity, Douglas wrote, but industrial workers are "as remote from contact with the public or from policy making or from the functioning of the administrative process as a charwoman." Douglas concurred with Justice Black's dissent that the Hatch Act was overbroad in its application and approach to the problem of corruption.
, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), and a number of high court decisions in areas such as nonpartisan
speech, due process
, search and seizure
, the right to marry
, the right to bear children, equal protection
, education, and receipt of public benefits over the next two decades continued to undermine the concept. Although the Supreme Court later reaffirmed United Public Workers v. Mitchell in 1973 in United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers
, 413 U.S. 548 (1973), it did so narrowly on the grounds that permitting public employees to engage in political activity was dangerous.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell is one of only seven Supreme Court decisions which addressed the Ninth or Tenth amendments prior to 1965. It is the only one to do so in a substantive way.
Legal commentators have taken issues with the decision's characterization of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. One scholar has characterized the two amendments as a way to "reserve sovereign power rather than recogniz[e] any particular individual right", and as a means of emphasizing that the federal government's powers were enumerated, specific, and limited. This perspective leads to a criticism of United Public Workers v. Mitchell for seeing the amendments as subordinate to the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Another legal scholar has criticized Justice Reed's conception of the Ninth and Tenth amendments as "dubious" because 1) It equates the meaning of the Ninth with the Tenth (which is clearly incorrect), 2) It leaves the two amendments completely subordinate to all enumerated powers and therefore meaningless, and 3) It creates a situation where the Ninth Amendment interprets the Tenth Amendment, strengthening the Tenth Amendment and eviscerating Justice Reed's conclusion that the two amendments are subordinate.
It may also be that the decision is in direct conflict with the intent of the Founding Fathers. In 1841, Secretary of State
Daniel Webster
, in a directive to heads of the federal agencies condemning the use of civil servants to political advantage, warned:
One legal scholar has concluded that congressional debate in 1791 supports Webster's opinion, not the decision by Justice Reed in United Public Workers.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1947), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939
Hatch Act of 1939
The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and the Vice President, from engaging in partisan political activity...
, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
, Fifth
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
, Ninth
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.-Text:-Adoption:When the U.S...
, or Tenth
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
amendments to U.S. Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
.
Background
Beginning at the start of the 20th century, several unionsTrade union
A trade union, trades union or labor union is an organization of workers that have banded together to achieve common goals such as better working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members and negotiates labour contracts with...
(such as the National Federation of Federal Employees
National Federation of Federal Employees
The National Federation of Federal Employees is an American labor union which represents about 100,000 public employees in the federal government.NFFE has about 200 local unions, most of them agency-wide bargaining units...
, American Federation of Government Employees
American Federation of Government Employees
The American Federation of Government Employees is an American labor union representing over 625,000 employees of the federal government, about 5,000 employees of the District of Columbia, and a few hundred private sector employees, mostly in and around federal facilities...
, and the United Federal Workers of America
United Federal Workers of America
The United Federal Workers of America was an American labor union representing federal government employees which existed from 1937 to 1946. It was the first union with this jurisdiction established by the Congress of Industrial Organizations , and one of the unions which merged in 1946 to form...
) began representing employees working for the federal government of the United States. The leadership of the United Federal Workers of America (UFWA) was leftist
Left-wing politics
In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist generally refer to support for social change to create a more egalitarian society...
. The leadership was militant in its advocacy of the rights of its members and most of the national and local union leadership advocated leftist ideals; associated with left-wing intellectuals, activists, and political people; and supported left-wing organizations. This led many politicians and others to believe the organization was Communist-controlled.
The political leanings of the UWFA led to passage of two pieces of legislation intended to restrict its political activities. In June 1938, Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
passed a rider
Rider (legislation)
In legislative procedure, a rider is an additional provision added to a bill or other measure under the consideration by a legislature, having little connection with the subject matter of the bill. Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision that would not pass as its...
to appropriations legislation which prevented the federal government from making payments (such as salaries) to any person or organization which advocated the overthrow of the federal government (as many communist
Communism
Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production...
organizations at the time proposed). In 1939, Congress passed the Hatch Act of 1939, which restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. A provision of the Hatch Act made it illegal for the federal government to employ anyone who advocated the overthrow of the federal government. The UFWA immediately hired lawyer Lee Pressman
Lee Pressman
Lee Pressman was a labor attorney and a US government functionary publicly exposed in 1948 for having been a spy for the Soviet foreign intelligence network during the middle 1930s...
to challenge the constitutionality of the Hatch Act. Various individual employees of the federal government, some of whom were members of the United Public Workers of America, sought an injunction
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
against the second sentence of §9(a) of the Hatch Act, and a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
.
On April 25, 1946, the State, County, and Municipal Workers of America
State, County, and Municipal Workers of America
The State, County, and Municipal Workers of America was an American labor union representing federal, state, county, and local government employees which existed from 1946 to 1952...
(SCMWA) merged with the UFWA to form the United Public Workers of America
United Public Workers of America
The United Public Workers of America was an American labor union representing federal, state, county, and local government employees which existed from 1946 to 1952. The union challenged the constitutionality of the Hatch Act of 1939, which prohibited federal executive branch employees from...
. Joining the new organization were several local unions which had been expelled from the American Federation of Teachers
American Federation of Teachers
The American Federation of Teachers is an American labor union founded in 1916 that represents teachers, paraprofessionals and school-related personnel; local, state and federal employees; higher education faculty and staff, and nurses and other healthcare professionals...
(AFT) for being communist-dominated. Congress repeatedly investigated the union for violations of the Hatch Act and prohibitions on advocacy of the right to strike. In January 1947, the House of Representatives Committee on Campaign Expenditures reported that it had found evidence that the UPWA (and other unions) had violated the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
Federal Corrupt Practices Act
The Federal Corrupt Practices Act was a federal law of the United States enacted in 1910 and amended in 1911 and 1925. It remained the nation's primary law regulating campaign finance in federal elections until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. Created by President William H...
by failing to report expenditures in support of various political parties and candidates for federal office.
In the 19th century, American courts had established the "doctrine of privilege." This legal doctrine concluded that public employment was a privilege, not a right, and subsequently significant restrictions could be placed on public employees that could not be constitutionally tolerated in the private sector. By the middle of the 20th century, however, the doctrine of privilege had been markedly weakened. Abuse of the privilege had led to widespread corruption; the tolerance of sexual harassment
Sexual harassment
Sexual harassment, is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. In some contexts or circumstances, sexual harassment is illegal. It includes a range of behavior from seemingly mild transgressions and...
, racism, religious discrimination
Religious discrimination
Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe.A concept like that of 'religious discrimination' is necessary to take into account ambiguities of the term religious persecution. The infamous cases in which people have been...
, and gender discrimination; and workplace abuse (such as forcing employees to buy goods and services from a supervisor, or forcing employees to run errands for the supervisor). The courts were becoming less and less tolerant of the doctrine of privilege.
Decision
A significantly divided Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privilege and the Hatch Act. Associate JusticeAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States...
Stanley Forman Reed
Stanley Forman Reed
Stanley Forman Reed was a noted American attorney who served as United States Solicitor General from 1935 to 1938 and as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1938 to 1957. He was the last Supreme Court Justice who did not graduate from law school Stanley Forman Reed (December 31,...
wrote the decision for the majority.
Majority holding
Justice Reed initially dealt with an issue which arose due to the untimely filing of the appeal, and concluded the Court could hear the case.On the substantive issues raised, Justice Reed noted that none of the appellants, except George P. Poole, had violated the provisions of the Hatch Act. Since the federal courts do not issue advisory rulings, Reed dismissed the issues raised by all appellants except Poole. Poole, however, had been charged with a violation of the Hatch Act, and an order for his dismissal entered by the government. (He was a ward executive committeeman for a political party, acted as a poll worker on election day, and acted as a paymaster for other poll workers engaged by that political party.)
Poole contended that the Hatch Act violated the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Reed also asserted (without explanation) that the Hatch Act implicated rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and by implication the due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
protections of the Fifth Amendment as well. Justice Reed found unpersuasive Poole's claim that off-hours political activity was different from such activity conducted during working hours. "The influence of political activity by government employees, if evil in its effects on the service, the employees or people dealing with them, is hardly less so because that activity takes place after hours." Reed next concluded that no rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute, and that all rights "are subject to the elemental need for order without which the guarantees of civil rights to others would be a mockery." But how should the rights of the Ninth and Tenth amendments be balanced against those of the First and Fifth? Justice Reed found the majority's answer in the fact that the Ninth and Tenth amendments are reserved, rather than enumerated powers, and so carry less weight than enumerated powers. He wrote:
- The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.
Justice Reed then used a traditional balancing test to weight the infringement of First and Fifth amendment rights against "a congressional enactment to protect a democratic society against the supposed evil of political partisanship by classified employees of government." That balance had been decided previously by the Court in Ex parte Curtis
Ex parte Curtis
Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 , is an 8-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Act of August 15, 1876, was a constitutionally valid exercise of the enumerated powers of the United States Congress under Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.The...
, 106 U.S. 371 (1882), and the infringements upheld. Without providing evidence or explanation, Reed asserted that the dangers posed by partisan political activity have only worsened since Curtis. Justice Reed next applied the balancing test to the doctrine of privilege. Reed noted that in United States v. Wurzbach
United States v. Wurzbach
United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 , is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was not impermissibly vague...
, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), the Court had upheld the doctrine of privilege in a single sentence against rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Poole had argued that his actions were nonpartisan, however. The majority concluded that since Congress had seen fit to find danger in even nonpartisan political activity by federal workers, the Court would not dispute it. Reed note: "
The constitutionality of the Hatch Act was upheld, and the judgment of the district court affirmed.
Frankfurter's concurrence
Justice Felix FrankfurterFelix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.-Early life:Frankfurter was born into a Jewish family on November 15, 1882, in Vienna, Austria, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe. He was the third of six children of Leopold and Emma Frankfurter...
concluded that the Supreme Court should not have accepted the case, as the appeal had been untimely filed. Compelled to accept jurisdiction, however, by the majority, he concurred with the majority's reasoning on the substantive issues.
Black's dissent
Justice Hugo BlackHugo Black
Hugo Lafayette Black was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme...
noted that the §9 of the statute made it illegal for federal workers to engage in political activity, and yet explicitly protected the right of workers to "express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates." Black also refused to accept the conclusions to be drawn from the doctrine of privilege: "Had this measure deprived five million farmers or a million businessmen of all right to participate in elections, because Congress thought that federal farm or business subsidies might prompt some of them to exercise, or be susceptible to, a corrupting influence on politics or government, I would not sustain such an Act on the ground that it could be interpreted so as to apply only to some of them." Black concluded that, on its face, the Hatch Act and implementing civil service regulations were unconstitutionally overbroad (a fact even the government had admitted in its brief, Black said).
Black provided a ringing defense of the right to freedom of speech. He dismissed out of hand the majority's reliance on Ex parte Curtis and United States v. Wurzbach (concluding that they did not support the conclusions the majority came to), and argued that corruption could be dealt with without resorting to the "muzzling" of six million people.
Rutledge's dissent
Justice Wiley Blount RutledgeWiley Blount Rutledge
Wiley Blount Rutledge, Jr. was an American educator, lawyer, and justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.-Early life:...
concurred with Justice Black's dissent regarding Poole. He concurred with the majority that the case was not ripe
Ripeness
In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never...
regarding the other appellants.
Douglas' dissent
Justice William O. DouglasWilliam O. Douglas
William Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
took issue with the majority on two grounds. First, he would not have dismissed the claims of the 12 other appellants as unripe, arguing that consideration of a declaratory judgment
Declaratory judgment
A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a dispute. A declaratory judgment is legally binding, but it does not order any action by a party. In this way, the declaratory judgment is like an action to...
in the case would be proper. Second, Douglas argued that Poole's position as an industrial worker at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is a government agency within the United States Department of the Treasury that designs and produces a variety of security products for the United States government, most notable of which is paper currency for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve itself is...
was an important distinction. Administrative and political personnel may be susceptible to pressure and corruption via political activity, Douglas wrote, but industrial workers are "as remote from contact with the public or from policy making or from the functioning of the administrative process as a charwoman." Douglas concurred with Justice Black's dissent that the Hatch Act was overbroad in its application and approach to the problem of corruption.
Assessment
United Public Workers v. Mitchell was the last time the Supreme Court expansively applied the doctrine of privilege. The Supreme Court largely rejected the doctrine in Wieman v. UpdegraffWieman v. Updegraff
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 , is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that Oklahoma loyalty oath legislation violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it did not give individuals the opportunity to abjure...
, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), and a number of high court decisions in areas such as nonpartisan
Nonpartisan
In political science, nonpartisan denotes an election, event, organization or person in which there is no formally declared association with a political party affiliation....
speech, due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
, search and seizure
Search and seizure
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have...
, the right to marry
Marriage
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found...
, the right to bear children, equal protection
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
, education, and receipt of public benefits over the next two decades continued to undermine the concept. Although the Supreme Court later reaffirmed United Public Workers v. Mitchell in 1973 in United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers
United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers
United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 , is a ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939 does not violate the First Amendment, and its implementing regulations are not unconstitutionally vague and...
, 413 U.S. 548 (1973), it did so narrowly on the grounds that permitting public employees to engage in political activity was dangerous.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell is one of only seven Supreme Court decisions which addressed the Ninth or Tenth amendments prior to 1965. It is the only one to do so in a substantive way.
Legal commentators have taken issues with the decision's characterization of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. One scholar has characterized the two amendments as a way to "reserve sovereign power rather than recogniz
It may also be that the decision is in direct conflict with the intent of the Founding Fathers. In 1841, Secretary of State
United States Secretary of State
The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. The Secretary is a member of the Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence...
Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster was a leading American statesman and senator from Massachusetts during the period leading up to the Civil War. He first rose to regional prominence through his defense of New England shipping interests...
, in a directive to heads of the federal agencies condemning the use of civil servants to political advantage, warned:
- It is not intended that any officer shall be restrained in the free and proper expression and maintenance of his opinions respecting public men or public measures, or in the exercise to the fullest degree of the constitutional right of suffrage. But persons employed under the Government and paid for their services out of the public Treasury are not expected to take an active or officious part in attempts to influence the minds or votes of others, such conduct being deemed inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the duties of public agents acting under it; and the President is resolved, so far as depends upon him, that while the exercise of the elective franchise by the people shall be free from undue influences of official station and authority, opinion shall also be free among the officers and agents of the Government.
One legal scholar has concluded that congressional debate in 1791 supports Webster's opinion, not the decision by Justice Reed in United Public Workers.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 330
- Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service CommissionOklahoma v. United States Civil Service CommissionOklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, 330 U.S. 127 , is a 5-to-2 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939 did not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.-Background:...
, (decided concurrently)
Further reading
- Rosenbloom, David H. "Public Personnel Administration and the Constitution: An Emergent Approach." Public Administration ReviewPublic Administration ReviewPublic Administration Review is a bi-monthly academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration. The editor is Richard J. Stillman II....
. 35:1 (1975). - Wormuth, Francis D. "The Hatch Act Cases." Western Political Quarterly. 1:2 (1948).