Document: 362 U.S. 1 80 S.Ct. 527 4 L.Ed.2d 494 Thomas W. NELSON and Arthur Globe, Petitioners,v.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. No. 152. Argued Jan. 31, 1960. Decided Feb. 29, Messrs. A. L. Wirin Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, Cal., for the petitioners. Mr. William E. Lamoreaux, respondents. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. Petitioners, when employees County California, were subpoenaed by appeared before a Subcommittee House Un-American Activities Committee, but refused to answer certain questions concerning subversion. Previously, each petitioner had been ordered Board Supervisors any asked relating his subversive activity, § 1028.1 Government Code State California1 made it duty public employee give testimony such activity on pain discharge 'in manner provided law.' Thereafter discharged petitioners ground insubordination violation Code. Nelson, permanent social worker employed County's Department Charities, was, upon request, given Civil Service Commission hearing which resulted in confirmation discharge. Globe was temporary same department denied that, as such, he not entitled under Rules adopted pursuant Charter. Petitioners then filed these petitions mandates seeking reinstatement, contending that California statute their discharges violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Nelson's affirmed District Court Appeal, 163 Cal.App.2d 607, 329 P.2d 978, Globe's summary dismissal likewise affirmed, 595, 971. A petition review cases without Supreme three judges dissenting. 614, 983; 606, 978. We granted certiorari. 360 928, 79 1455, 3 1543. The judgment case is an equally divided will be discussed. conclude valid. 2 On April 6, 1956, served with subpoena appear at Angeles. date, copy order Supervisors, originally issued February 19, 1952, appearances Subcommittee. This provided, among other things, so or subpoenaed, specifically stated 'employee who disobeys declaration this considered have insubordinate * shall constitute grounds *.'2 At appointed time, interrogated its counsel familiarity John Reid Club. He claimed matter entirely 'own business,' and, being pressed answer, question 'completely out line far my rights citizen are concerned, (and) I refuse First Fifth Amendments Constitution United States.' further Club, including one own membership. Upon if observed Communist activities part members suggested committee 'that you get your trained seals up here ask them.' testify whether 'a member Party now' 'on grounds' 'as previously previous reasons.' May 2, letter, discharged, 'without notice,' 'the (he had) guilty Section *.' letter recited fact 'duty said committee' although appearing directed, question, 'Are now?' requested Angeles Commission, found employee, Rules.3 does dispute. However, contends despite status, arbitrary unreasonable therefore, violative due process. reasons based invocation Amendments. But record support even inference regard, both avoided it. In fact, California's court held contrary, saying, 'At no time has cause petitioner's alleged anything section 1028.1, nor indeed us could be.' page 599, 974. Moreover, finding buttressed language statute. Both require interrogation field outlined. Failure whatsoever questions' renders 'guilty insubordination' requires 'be suspended dismissed from employment law declared court, 'has vested right county may therefore summarily.' take interpretation binding us. We, reach contention nevertheless unreasonable. regard places reliance Slochower v. Higher Education, 350 551, 76 637, 100 L.Ed. 692. New York operated 'to every city invokes practical effect taken confessed basis discharge.' Id., 558, 641. 'built-in' guilt, derived solely Amendment claim, we test here, rather than constitutional privilege, failure answer. predicated guilt statute, information legitimate interest securing. See Garner Public Works City 1951, 341 716, 71 909, 95 1317; Adler 342 485, 72 380, 96 517. Moreover must remembered unlike Slochower—the 5 controlled Beilan School Dist. Philadelphia, 1958, 357 399, 78 1317, 1414, Lerner Casey, 468, 1311, 1423. It determinative federal body state one, those cases. employer well These reference privileges. If simply refused, more, Subcommittee's questions, think principles certainly him. chose place refusal claim puts different posture, Lerner, supra, 477, 1316, did employ drawing guilt. Nor do vitiated deterrent might exercise privilege. legitimately predicate touching security. Adler, supra. Likewise, cannot say process State's choice securing means body4 can denied. Finally, believe constituted classification. 478, 1316. invalid 6 remand procedural required Vitarelli Seation, 1959, 359 535, 968, 1012, bearing here. First, issues raised case. Next, Federal Interior 'could summarily Secretary giving reason.' 539, 972. held, however, since national security discharge, 'fell substantially short requirements applicable departmental regulations,' 'illegal effect.' 545, 975. raises point, clearly asserts 'whether accorded issue here.'5 bases whole affords protection against depriving him ground' Having 'insubordination' arbitrary, need go further. 7 pass Privileges Immunities Amendment, neither courts. judgments affirmed. 8 Affirmed. 9 Chief WARREN took consideration decision 10 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS joins, 11 Code, applied, provides refuses incriminate himself Congressional Committee 'shall Bill Rights, person compelled ('to witness against') himself. petitioner, States Congress promptly him, Court's says, 'insubordination Code.' violation' consisted exclusively Committee; answers beyond doubt job away only because privilege Constitution. 12 Here, then, plain conflict between told could, penalty, arm Government; deprived exercised supremacy law, approves Article VI makes supreme Law Land Thing Laws Contrary notwithstanding.' also authentic historical sense: encroach individual people except valid 'Law Land.' Land' necessity includes itself. 13 basic purpose Rights protect liberty governmental procedures Framers though should used. That great completely frustrated holdings like this. would hold put kind penalty claiming authorized holding contrary bode America. 14 BRENNAN, 15 another series involving local positions after they self-incrimination investigating committees. Solochower 692; 1414; While adhere views expressed dissent latter two cases, 417, 1328, enough governed squarely Slochower, dissent. Of course limited 16 commanded broad categories propounded them bodies, bodies involved Cal.Government 1028.1. Invocation body, response sorts, discharge.1 come given, least, opportunity explain Education San Francisco Unified Mass, 47 Cal.2d 494, 304 1015. probationary interpreted authoritatively courts below, ado. pages 605—606, Opportunity explanation administrative circumstances foreclosed law. 17 identical situation There 'equivalent resignation' struck down Only word necessary add statement there reason voiding provision: 'As applied courts, operates (temporary) No factors subject remoteness period justification matters plea mistake, inadvertence legal advice concientiously wisely unwisely. heavy hand falls alike all full enjoyment receive.' distinguished instances employing government itself conducting investigation into 'fitness' employee. 18 As employees, contains vice automatic concerned involved. sought equate Lerner. view sustainable employees' pleas agency investigations competence reliability prevented having adequate affirmative conclusion reliability. cooperate fully (styled lack candor) within framework employer's proceeding determine fitness, 405—408, 1321—1323; 475 479, 1315—1317, see 410, 1324 (concurring opinion). vaguest semblance procedure designed fitness employment.2 hitherto authorizing resolutions extend enabling perform functions grant-in-aid States. Accordingly presented very action—the unfitness attempt relate employee's conduct employment—as Slochower. announced abdication body's function determining favor per se rule dependent behavior charged fitness. 19 differs determination, substantive misconduct, while involves answered. first place, involve authorities treated equivalent resignation, 554, 639, effect,' id., 641, confessed;3 is, power action, employment, confession charged. office, drawn arbitrarily explain, assertion thin patina encrusts change matter. labeled mandatory respond strangers street, action pointless arbitrary. point direction sort covered thought bore some generic relationship position. again indistinguishable unconstitutionally treat conclusive command command. not, suppose, attending religious services Sunday, Wieman Updegraff, 344 183, 192, 73 215, 219, 97 216, enforce, 'insubordination,' general attend services. 20 tenure, basis, concluded requirement outlined Slochower—that ipso facto more particularized inquiry administered apply. 601—603, 975—976. nothing civil service systems States, such. And contend hearing; attack specified Doubtless constitutionally specification all; offend Clause, entire internal policy stand so. Negro Jew, explicit reason, squared So Slochower's case; reverse York's highest disrespected tenure rights, sanctioned expressly basis. end matter; appearing, rest permissible superiors chooses bottom basis—like automatic, unparticularized reaction self-incrimination—which sustained constitutionally, escape obligations effected minimum formality. Cf. Seaton, 972, 1012. 21 For reversed. 1028.1: 'It subpenaed governing employed, subcommittee thereof, duly Legislature State, committee, subcommittee, oath to: '(a) Present personal advocacy forceful violent overthrow state. '(b) knowing membership organization now advocating '(c) Past October 3, 1945, which, knowledge during advocated '(d) Questions present past 1945. '(e) foreign Unites event hostilities 'Any fails violating original forerunner enacted 1953, refinements embodied levels claims unconstitutionality. note 1, '19.07. Probationary Period Following Appointment. 'An yet completed reduced accordance Rule 19.09 appointing written notice, specifying particular facts reduction based. Such deny charges writing ten business days hearing, fraud discrimination political opinions, racial extraction, organized labor membership.' '19.09. Consent Commission. 'No consent secured recurrent employee.' noteworthy bodies. make afford questions. noted appears terms directed self-incrimination, covers refusals factor militating vailidity. seems somewhat strange singular decline investigation; most private soldier large army commonly declining respond. am afraid realistcally. wholeheartedly face value does, consequence reasonable, hardly avoids rationale adds privileges list, results undifferentiating crowning extent arbitrariness exposed followed justifies essence lump together good all, automatically ensue all. What arbitrary—undifferentiating treatment merely pleading privilege—seems almost reasonable comparison. said, thing themselves inquire quite events occurring whose property, affairs, city, official employees." distinction asserted 408, 1323; Appeals clear inquired about. Daniman Educations, 306 N.Y. 532, 538, 119 N.E.2d 373, 377.

Category: 2