# TRR ATTORNEY 

# GENERAL OF TEXAS

June 24, 1974 The Honorable Robert S. Calvert Comptroller of Public Account8 State Finance Building Austin, Texae Opinion No. H- 333 Re: Validity ofprovirion in Appfoptiation Act rertricting employment ofaliapr. ~DearMr. Calvert:

The General Appropriatione Act for fiecal 1974-1975 (Actr 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 659, p. 1786) containe, ae one **of** the rpecial provirionr applicable **to executive**  and adminirtrative dapaztnient and agenciee, the followipg, Art. III Section 2(a’tp. 2054): No money rhall be paid **out** of **any** appropriation made in thir Article for personal rervicer for a longer period than ninety (90) dayr to any perron who ir not a citizen ofthe United Stater **unlerr** the pereon bar **begun** naturalization proceedingr. You have aoked whether the provirion ir (1) unconrtitutional or (2) in conflict with other provirionr ofthe **Act** forbidding that perronnel transactions be made onthe barie ofnational **.origin** (Sec. III,at p. 1967),

We believe the firet **pert** of**your,quertion** ia definitely answered **by** the U.S. Supreme **Court** decirion in Sugarman v., Dougall, 413U.S. 634, (1973) where the **Couzt** had for conoideration a rection oftheNew York Civil Service Law providing: Except ae herein otherwire provided, noperron ehall be eligible for appointment for any position in the competitive clarr unlear he ir a citizen of the United Staten.

p. 1539The Honorable Robert S. Calvert page 2 (H-333)
Citing careo Buchaa Graham v. Richardron, 403 U.S. 365 (1971), the **Court** held the New York **statute** violated the Fourteenth Amendment’8 equal protection guarantee. And see Attorney General@’ Opinion0 0866 (1939). R-2247 (1950). M-447 (1969), H-81 (1973), and H-157 (1973).

The **Court,** however, wan careful to note that it did not hold that, **on** the basis ofanindividual determination, analien might **not** be refuoed or discharged from public employment onthe ba8ir ofnoncitieenrhip. It further pointed outthat‘it did not hold that a rtate could **not,** in an appropriately defined clan8 of positiona, require citizenrhip as aqualification for office. .

Ina footnote the Court stated that it intimated noview aa to the conrtitutionality of citizenship requirement8 impored in federal government employment. And see Eoninooa v. Farah Manufacturing Company, 414U.S. 86, (1973), concerning private industry hiring practicea.

It ir **our** opinion that the quoted provirion ofthe Texan ApRropriation Act is too broad and ii violative ofthe equal protection claure ofthe Fourteenth Amendment tom the United Statea Conrtitution. Inview ofthe foregoing opinion, it ir unnecerrary for usto anawer whether thequoted provirion conflictr with thone prohibiting national origin as a basin for personnel tranractionr. But see Erniwa v. Farah Manufa - **turing** Company. SU.MMARY A.rtate may require citisenrhip or commencement ofthe naturaliration procena as a requirement for employment **in** specific, appropriately defined poritionl. However a broad policy declaration that citizenrhip or

p. 1540’ The Honorable Robert S. Calvert page 3 (H-333)
filing for naturalization is **a** requirement for all State employment violate6 the equel protection clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment and ie unconstitutional. Very, tiuly **yourn,** * 

# c/ Attorney General ofTexan AP ROVED: fi

2 LARR?~ F. tORK, Fire/tAoaistant 

# 5GLc=-=-u

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 1541