Document: 357 U.S. 468 78 S.Ct. 1311 2 L.Ed.2d 1423 Max LERNER, Appellant,v.Hugh J. CASEY, William G. Fullen, Harris Klein, et al. No. 165. Argued March 4, 1958. Decided June 30, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, See 79 12. [Syllabus from pages 468-469 intentionally omitted] Mr. Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for appellant. Daniel T. Scannell, appellees. Mrs. Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, N.Y., the State of York, as amicus curiae, with consent Justice HARLAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case raises questions under Fourteenth Amendment to Constitution United States concerning validity appellant's dismissal his position a subway conductor in City Transit System. The was pursuant Security Risk Law N.Y.Laws 1951, c. 233, amended, 1954, 105. Law, enacted by 1951,1 provides pertinent part follows: Civil Service Commission is authorized classify any bureau or agency within 'security agency' (§ 3), defined unit government '* * wherein functions are performed which necessary security defense nation and state *.' 2.) appointing authority each such given powers suspension employee if, after investigation, it found that, upon all evidence, reasonable grounds exist belief because doubtful trust reliability, employment person (in agency) would endanger state' 5). Such evidence not be restricted normal rules prevailing courts, required finding may based an employee's past conduct include, but shall limited (d) membership organization group civil service commission subversive' 7).2 A discharged has right appeal Commission, take further 6). 3 In November 1953 determined Authority, appellees this constitute, agency,'3 1954 listed Communist Party 'subversive group,' adopting, contemplated similar listing Board Regents made provisions Feinberg 1949, 360, hearings at appeared counsel. September appellant summoned office Commissioner Investigation course investigation being conducted Law.4 Appellant, who had been sworn, asked whether he then member Party, refused answer claimed privilege against self-incrimination Fifth Federal Constitution.5 After advised time reconsider refusal engage counsel, appellant, accompanied two appearances October before Department Investigation, on adhered initial position. 4 Appellees, informed these events, thereupon adopted resolution suspending without pay sent him copy covering letter. letter notified that followed § 5 reliability *,' continued national security. (invocation of) Appellant also advised, thirty days submit statements affidavits showing why should reinstated. At expiration period appellees, having heard nothing dismissed confirmed previous 'suspension' findings. did statutory right, brought proceeding courts reinstatement. He attacked appellees' actions various grounds, including constitutional asserted here. Supreme Court, assuming jurisdiction despite failure exhaust administrative remedies, upheld its application constitutional, ruled adversely law contentions, proceeding. 138 N.Y.S. 2d 777. Appellate Division, Dept., A.D.2d 1, 154 N.Y.S.2d 461, Court Appeals, N.Y.2d 355, 161 7, 141 N.E.2d 533, both affirmed, divided court. An 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), U.S.C.A. we postponed hearing merits question our jurisdiction. 355 803, 19, 27. As will appear opinion, consider us relate primarily, more substantially, propriety findings rather than Law. Accordingly, think better dismiss appeal, treat papers petition writ certiorari, hereby granted.6 2103. Cf. Sweezy v. Hampshire Wyman, 354 234, 236, 77 1203, 1204, 1311. 6 We address ourselves initially challenges entirety certain provisions. It said York's statute deprives procedural due process, employees first instance hearing, opportunity cross-examination, disclosure based. However, no complain defects statute. His own blocked proceedings important failed pursue remedy appealing obtaining Commission.7 7 argues could applied since public emergency existed justify law. But enact legislation protect persons fairly deemed untrustworthy unreliable, therefore risks, can hardly regarded constitutionally dependent existence emergency, do open inquire into motives led Legislature extend beyond original effective period. Nor say so irrational make impermissible apply one employed major artery transportation system, even though daily task simply shut doors. here concerned wisdom, solely validity, 8 Finally, claim offends process mere present regard character membership, cf. Wieman Updegraff, 344 183, 73 215, 97 L.Ed. 216, must fail. Apart fact makes subversive elements enter ultimate determination 'doubtful reliability,' Appeals viewed accordingly them here, party member. 9 come what claim, goes manner him. contended 'of risk, process. contention (1) rests inference, drawn invocation Amendment, inference lacked rational connection exercise privilege; (2) drawing event derogation policy behind contrary teaching Court's decision Slochower Higher Education, 350 551, 76 637, 100 692. misconceives basis sustained assumes incorrectly availability proceedings. Consequently rejected aspects. 10 read held neither nor assertion protection, doubt created 'reliability' relevant employer, court justifiable quite independently reasons silence. effect, action interpreted rest respond. said: 11 '(N)o (the Communist) (appellant's) reply *. (Appellant) invoking Amendment; creating trustworthiness refusing membership.' page 372, 20, 542. 12 other words, court's meaning justifiably lack frankness, Garner Public Works, 341 716, 71 909, 95 1317; Beilan 399, 1317, just if give information about himself might employment. candor provided scheme constituted risk. went reason refused, more, question, reliability' have undoubtedly permissible, finding, answer, destroyed accept adequate explanation refusal. 13 Accepting, do, premises find block sustaining Postponing moment entitled rely local federal privilege, seems clear discharge unlike supra, definitively rights. Further, inquiry qualifications employment, carefully distinguished situation where, conducting fitness employees. Nor, stressed, possible unreliable. Hence faced rationally inferred directed where incriminate, Adamson People California, 332 46, 67 1672, 91 1903, 'innocent' relied ground denial supra; Konigsberg Bar 353 252, 722, 810; Schware Examiners, 232, 752, 796. 14 scarcely debatable there conclude conceded purposes reliability. conclusion 'so strained relation circumstances life know them.' Tot States, 319 463, 468, 63 1241, 1245, 87 1519. pointed out pain respond probing matters matter. supra. Certainly controlling distinction impose employees, Beilan, absolute duty permissible threat refusal, lacking governmental employer evidences involved problem inadequate notice consequences specifically lead dismissal. 15 chosen base whom finds they effect risks' requires different determination. classification arbitrary justified saying Neither purported equate 'disloyalty.' That term, carries distinct connotation, never justification 16 issue reduces narrow otherwise reached barred privilege. does not. available through investigation. Knapp Schweitzer, 371, 1302, decided today; And see merit suggestion teachings cases, plea acting agent for, collaboration with, Government. support record. matter requirement, accorded circumstances, inquiry, validly invoke 18 3481; Wilson 149 60, 765, 37 650; Grunewald 391, 963, 931. Under cannot silence precluded concluding engendered 17 hold violation rights assured Constitution. Affirmed. 19 For concurring FRANKFURTER, 1324. 20 dissenting Chief WARREN, 411, 1325. 21 DOUGLAS, BLACK concurs, 22 BRENNAN, 417, 1328. originally passed measure thereafter extended year year. terminal date advocate, advise, teach embrace doctrine political subdivision thereof overthrown overturned force, violence unlawful means, duty, necessity adopting Authority body corporate subject Commission's agency.' 365 367, 14—15, 538—539. bound holdings. although city official, act respect arising investigations. incriminate explained reference 'Fifth Amendment.' reference, (see 477, 1316, infra), equivalent self-incrimination. Quinn 349 155, 162 163, 75 668, 673, 99 964; Emspak 190, 194, 687, 690, 997. convenience, continue refer parties reject denied noted only revealed activities (appellant) good *' These were us, answer. pursued remedy, sought review Commission.

Category: 2