Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/454/432
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:33:30+00:00

Document:
One of the appellees, Chavez-Salido, subsequently became a citizen. By that time, however, there were no longer any openings for the job he had previously been denied on the grounds of his noncitizenship. Appellees, at the time they applied for the positions in question, were all lawfully present, resident aliens. Therefore, we do not consider, and intimate no opinion about, any limits the Constitution may place upon state action directed at aliens who are here without the permission of the Federal Government or who, if legally here, are not residents of the State.
Under the California statute, the kinds of responsibilities of deputy probation officers are the same as those of probation officers, and both are considered "peace officers." Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 830.5 (West Supp.1981). This opinion, therefore, will refer simply to "probation officers" in discussing the positions at issue.
The third appellee, Bohorquez, claimed only that he failed to appeal a test score that disqualified him because he had been informed that, without citizenship, an appeal would be useless. As relief in this suit, Bohorquez sought only an opportunity to take a new examination.
Although the individual defendants did not contest the jurisdiction of the federal court, the county did. In their complaint, appellees waived any claim against the county under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- the complaint was filed before this Court's decision in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), which held that such an action could be brought against a county. Appellees argued, and the District Court agreed, that they did have a claim against the county directly under the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 with jurisdiction in the Federal District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) because there was more than $10,000 in controversy. In its second opinion, the District Court readopted its earlier jurisdictional holdings and declined to release appellees from their previous waiver of a possible claim against the county under § 1983. Given our resolution of the merits, and because jurisdiction over the individual defendants is clear, we need not evaluate or otherwise accept the District Court's jurisdictional findings with respect to the county.
Congress has since limited the availability of three-judge courts, The Three-Judge Court Amendments of 1976, Pub.L. 94-381, 90 Stat. 1119. This case, however, is not affected by those changes, which do not apply to actions commenced before the date of the new statute's enactment.
Both the District Court and the parties mistakenly refer to this argument as one based on the constitutional doctrine of "overbreadth." "Overbreadth" is a doctrine of standing applicable in certain First Amendment cases and under which litigants may assert the rights of others not presently before the court. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611-615 (1973). Appellees do not claim to be asserting the constitutional rights of others; rather, they claim that California denies them the equal protection of the laws because the restriction is so overinclusive that it destroys the State's asserted justification.
It is worth noting, however, that, of the categories mentioned by the District Court, toll-service employees, inspectors of the Bureau of Livestock, and cemetery sextons were all eliminated from coverage by amendments to Cal.Penal Code Ann.§ 830.4 (West Supp.1981), passed in 1980. 1980 Cal.Stats., ch. 1340, p. 4724, § 12, effective Sept. 30, 1980.
The dissent specifically questions only four positions. Post at 455, n. 7. Three of these -- Dental Board Inspectors, Parks and Recreation Department employees, and voluntary fire wardens -- are designated "peace officers" only when their "primary duty" is law enforcement. See Cal.Penal Code Ann. §§ 830.3(b), (c), (j) (West Supp. 1980).
The dissent accuses the Court of holding that the law enforcement character of some of the covered positions justifies application of the citizenship restriction to unrelated positions. Post at 455. We indicate no opinion as to whether noncitizen applicants for other positions could successfully challenge the statute as applied to them.
Appellees also argue that the statute is facially invalid because it is impermissibly underinclusive. The District Court did not consider this contention, and the only argument advanced by appellees in support of this claim is that California fails to impose a citizenship requirement upon its public school teachers. Brief for Appellees 29. At various points, the dissent also relies upon the alleged underinclusiveness of the statute.
Measuring the scope of community contacts is more difficult than it may appear. Although the probation officer has responsibility for only a relatively small part of the community, in exercising that responsibility, the probation officer necessarily comes in contact with a much broader section of the community. His supervisory responsibilities will bring him into contact with many of those with whom those under his supervision must interact -- e.g., employers, teachers, landlords, and family. In this respect, he is very much like a policeman, who exercises his coercive authority over a small class of individuals but carries out his responsibilities through interactions with a much larger segment of the community.
Thus, we do not find compelling the statistics presented by amicus Service Employees International Union, and cited by appellees at oral argument, Tr. of Oral Arg. 40, which indicate that, because of a growing caseload, the time a probation officer has to spend with any individual offender may be minimal.
Appellees Jose Chavez-Salido, Pedro Luis Ybarra, and Ricardo Bohorquez are American-educated Spanish-speaking [p448] lawful residents of Los Angeles County, California. [n1] Seven years ago, each had a modest aspiration -- to become a Los Angeles County "Deputy Probation Officer, Spanish-speaking." Each was willing to swear loyalty to the State and Federal Governments; indeed, appellee Chavez-Salido declared his intent to become a citizen. By competitive examination, two of the appellees, and possibly the third, demonstrated their fitness for the jobs they desired. [n2] Appellants denied them those jobs solely because they were not citizens. The Court today concludes that appellees' exclusion from their chosen profession is "a necessary consequence of the community's process of political self-definition." Ante at 439. The Court reaches this conclusion by misstating the standard of review it has long applied to alienage classifications. It then asserts that a lawfully admitted permanent resident alien is disabled from serving as a deputy probation [p449] officer because that job "‘go[es] to the heart of representative government.'" Ante at 440, quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 647 (1973).
the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [Fourteenth] Amendment to secure. . . . If this could be refused solely upon the ground of race or nationality, the prohibition of the denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws would be a barren form of words.
In Sugarman v. Dougall, supra, we expressly refused to exempt public employment positions from this general rule. Sugarman, an 8-1 decision, struck down as facially inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause a New York statute that excluded lawfully admitted aliens from all state civil service jobs offered on the basis of competitive examinations. Sugarman directed that permanent resident aliens may not be barred as a class from the common public occupations of the community. There, as here, the State had asserted its substantial interest in ensuring "that sovereign functions must be performed by members of the State." Brief for Appellants in Sugarman v. Dougall, O.T. 1972, No. 71-1222, [p450] p. 10. Without denying the weight of that interest, the Court concluded that, "judged in the context of the State's broad statutory framework and the justifications the State present[ed]," 413 U.S. at 640, the State's chosen means were insufficiently precise to uphold its broad exclusion of aliens from public employment.
the governmental interest claimed to justify the discrimination is to be carefully examined in order to determine whether that interest is legitimate and substantial, and inquiry must be made whether the means adopted to achieve the goal are necessary and precisely drawn.
Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 605 (1976). See also Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 7 (1977); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 721-722 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 376 (1971). "Alienage classifications by a State that do not withstand this stringent examination cannot stand." Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. at 7.
in one fell swoop, the legislature passed Government Code Section 1031, which applied the mandatory citizenship requirement to all of the positions on the list.
It is our opinion that . . . this citizenship requirement can no longer validly be imposed. . . .
[P]rior to 1961, there was no general requirement of citizenship to be a peace officer. We are aware of no change that occurred that would justify the change at that date. . . . [W]e are of the opinion that the classification is not constitutionally permitted. There does not appear to be a compelling state interest . . . to justify classifying certain peace officers as to alienage.
Opinion No. 69-199, 53 Op. Cal.Atty.Gen. 63, 67-68 (1970).
Without even a glance at § 1031(a)'s history, the Court today reverses, reasoning that the District Court improperly "applied a standard of review far stricter than that approved in Sugarman and later cases." Ante at 442. The Court reads Sugarman to hold that "strict scrutiny is out of place when the restriction [on lawfully resident aliens] primarily serves a political function." Ante at 439. Based on its "casual reading" of the list of "peace officer" positions from which aliens are excluded, the Court then decides that "the unifying character of all categories of peace officers is their law enforcement function." Ante at 443. Conceding that § 1031(a) also bars aliens from jobs that "may have only a tenuous connection to traditional police functions of law enforcement," ante at 443, the Court nevertheless declares that alienage classifications "need not be precise; there need only be a substantial fit" between the classification used and the State's asserted interest. Ante at 442.
historical and constitutional powers to define the qualifications of voters or of "elective or important nonelective" officials "who participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy."
in seeking to achieve this substantial purpose, with discrimination against aliens, the means the State employs must be precisely drawn in light of the acknowledged purpose.
accomplish this end with a citizenship restriction that "sweeps indiscriminately," . . . without regard to the differences in the positions involved.
435 U.S. at 296 and 297, n. 5, citing Sugarman, 413 U.S. at 643. Similarly, Ambach declared that judicial tolerance of citizenship requirements for essential public offices "is an exception to the general standard applicable to classifications based on alienage." 441 U.S. at 75.
Thus, exactly like the statute struck down in Sugarman, California's statutory exclusion of aliens is fatally overinclusive and underinclusive. It bars aliens from employment in numerous public positions where the State's proffered justification has little, if any, relevance. At the same time, it allows aliens to fill other positions that would seem naturally to fall within the State's asserted purpose. Cf. Sugarman, 413 U.S. at 642. "Our standard of review of statutes that treat aliens differently from citizens requires a greater degree of precision." Ibid.
While Sugarman unambiguously proscribed blanket exclusion of aliens from state jobs, its dictum acknowledged a State's power to bar noncitizens as a class from a narrowly circumscribed range of important nonelective posts involving direct participation "in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy." 413 U.S. at 647. Under Sugarman's exception, States may reserve certain public offices for their citizens if those offices "perform functions that go to the heart of representative government." Ibid.
As originally understood, the Sugarman exception was exceedingly narrow. Less demanding scrutiny was deemed appropriate only for statutes deriving from "a State's historical power to exclude aliens from participation in its democratic political institutions" or its "constitutional responsibility for the establishment and operation of its own government." Id. at 648. Long before Sugarman, the Court warned that "the power of a state to apply its laws exclusively to its alien inhabitants as a class is confined within narrow limits," Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 420 (1948). In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973), decided the same day as Sugarman, further emphasized the "narrowness of the [Sugarman] exception" by asserting that States could not reserve for their citizens every "vital public and political role." Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. at 11, citing In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. at 729.
Sugarman's holding made clear that a State's power to exclude resident aliens from public occupations that entail only "execution . . . of broad public policy" is limited. Sugarman, 413 U.S. at 647. Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978), and Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979), then clarified that public jobs involving execution, but not formulation or review, of executive and judicial policy will meet Sugarman's exception if they constitute "one of the basic [p457] functions of government" and "fulfil[l] a most fundamental obligation of government to its constituency." Foley, 435 U.S. at 297.
Without such a rigorous test, Sugarman's exception swallows Sugarman's rule. Yet the Court does not apply such a rigorous test today. Instead, it "look[s] to the importance of the [governmental] function as a factor giving substance to the concept of democratic self-government." Ante at 441, n. 7. Applying this nebulous standard, the Court then concludes that Los Angeles County probation officers perform three "important sovereign functions of the political community." Ante at 445. Yet on inspection, not one of those functions justifies excluding all permanent resident aliens from the deputy probation officer position.
First, the Court declares that probation officers "partake of the sovereign's power to exercise coercive force over the individual." Ibid. Yet the Court concedes that "the range of individuals over whom probation officers exercise supervisory authority is limited." Ibid. Even over those individuals, a probation officer's coercive powers are carefully conditioned by statute. Probation officers cannot carry guns. See 490 F.Supp. at 985, n. 2. They may arrest only those probationers under their jurisdiction, and even then only for the purpose of bringing them before the court for a determination whether they should be held or released. Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 1203.2 (West Supp.1981). State statutes authorize probation officers to detain juveniles only in emergencies and, even then for only brief periods. Cal.Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. §§ 309, 313, 315 (West Supp.1981).
The Court claims that § 1031(a) "limit[s] the exercise of the sovereign's coercive police powers over the members of the community to citizens." Ante at 444. Yet other statutes [p459] belie that assertion. The State gives the power of arrest to a number of public employees who are not peace officers, but does not require that those employees be citizens. See Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 830. 7 (West Supp.1981) (describing "[p]ersons not peace officers but having powers of arrest"). Moreover, California authorizes any "private person," including permanent resident aliens, to arrest others who have actually committed felonies or who have committed or attempted public offenses in their presence. §§ 834, 837. The Court's hollow assertion that the legislature has reserved its sovereign coercive powers for its citizens ignores the reality that the State has already bestowed some of those powers on all private persons, including aliens.
Second, the Court asserts that probation officers necessarily have "discretion that . . . must be exercised, in the first instance, without direct supervision." Ante at 446. Yet to say this is to say very little. Almost everyone who works in the government bureaucracy exercises some discretion that is unsupervised in the first instance. The Court itself observes that probation officers have discretion primarily to investigate, to supervise, to evaluate, and to recommend. Ante at 446-447. Their primary duties are preparing presentence reports, supervising probationers, and recommending sentences and probationary terms. Chavez-Salido v. Cabell, 427 F.Supp. at 171.
While I do not denigrate these functions, neither can I equate them with the discretionary duties of policemen, judges, and jurors. Unlike policemen, probation officers are not "clothed with authority to exercise an almost infinite variety of discretionary powers." Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. at 297. [n9] Unlike jurors who deliver final verdicts and [p460] judges who impose final sentences, the decisions of probation officers are always advisory to and supervised by judicial officers. California probation officers cannot, by themselves, declare revocation of probation. Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 1203.2 (West Supp.1981). Furthermore, the investigative and reporting duties of a probation officer are extensively regulated by statute. §§ 1203.2-1203.12. The fact that probation officers play an integral role in the criminal justice system does not separate them from prison guards, bailiffs, court clerks, and the myriad other functionaries who execute a State's judicial policy.
haphazard as to belie the State's claim that it is only attempting to ensure that an important function of government be in the hands of those having the "fundamental legal bond of citizenship."
Nor am I convinced by the Court's claim that a probation officer personifies the State's sovereign powers in the eyes of [p462] probationers and the larger community. This justification knows no limit. Surely a taxpayer feels the State's sovereign power when the local tax collector comes to his door; the larger community recognizes the sovereign power of the government when local firefighters put out a fire. The State could not also demand citizenship for those jobs, however, without thoroughly eviscerating Sugarman. Nor does the Court deny that the sight of foreign-born individuals not merely following, but encouraging others to follow, our laws is an equally powerful symbol of respect for our society's social norms.
In the end, the State has identified no characteristic of permanent resident aliens as a class which disables them from performing the job of deputy probation officer. Cf. Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. at 308 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). The State does not dispute that these appellees possess the qualifications and educational background to perform the duties that job entails. See nn. 1 and 2, supra. Indeed, the State advances no rational reason why these appellees, native Spanish-speakers with graduate academic degrees, are not superbly qualified to act as probation officers for Spanish-speaking probationers, some of whom themselves may not be citizens. Cf. Amach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. at 84, 87-88 (dissenting opinion).
The State cannot challenge the appellees' lack of familiarity with local laws or rules. Such a consideration might disqualify nonresident citizens, but not permanent resident aliens who have lived in California for much of their lives. Nor can the State presume that aliens as a class would be less loyal to the State. The Court's rulings in In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. at 726, n. 18, and Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 111, n. 43 (1976), clearly state that one need not be a citizen in order to swear in good conscience to support the Constitution. When these appellees applied for their jobs, they expressed their willingness to take such oaths. One later declared his intent to become, and then became, a citizen. See [p463] 490 F.Supp. at 985, n. 2. Finally, the State cannot claim that, by enacting § 1031(a), it seeks to encourage aliens to become citizens. That objective is an exclusively federal interest. Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. at 10-11.
I would affirm the District Court's ruling that § 1031(a) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
Chavez-Salido, born in Mexico, has been a permanent legal resident of this country for 26 years. He has received all his formal education in California, including a Bachelor of Arts degree in Mexican-American studies from California State College at Long Beach.
Bohorquez, born in Colombia, has been a permanent resident of this country since 1961. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Latin-American studies from the University of California at Los Angeles. App.19-23.
Chavez-Salido scored 95 out of 100 on a qualifying oral examination for the Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) II, Spanish-speaking, position and 100 out of 100 on the oral examination for the DPO Trainee position, but was offered neither job, solely because of his citizenship. Ybarra was denied employment after passing examinations for the DPO Trainee and DPO II positions. Bohorquez did not pass his initial oral examination for DPO II, but did not appeal his examination results after appellants told him his alienage made an appeal useless. Id. at 124.
Section 1031(a) provides that a peace officer must be at least 18, fingerprinted, of good moral character, a high school graduate (or the equivalent thereof), physically and mentally healthy, and "a citizen of the United States."
After this litigation began, and the District Court had twice declared § 1031(a) unconstitutional, the California Legislature twice amended sections of its Penal Code, removing some positions from the "peace officer" list and adding others. See 490 F.Supp. 984, 986-987, n. 6 (CD Cal.1980) (listing additions to and deletions from the peace officer list). See also 1980 Cal.Stats., ch. 1340, effective Sept. 30, 1980 (same). The legislature still has never declared what criteria it uses to decide whether a particular government position deserves "peace officer" status.
No mystery surrounds extension of the traditional definition of peace officer to such an unrecognizable degree by the Legislature. The Legislature must respond to the interests of various groups. Correctional officers, for example, were granted the status of "peace officers" in order that they may obtain better group insurance benefits. . . . [B]ecause peace officers appear to have enjoyed better benefits in times past, many employee groups, even tangentially associated with the role of peace officers, have persuaded the Legislature to include them within the term "peace officer."
Hetherington v. State Personnel Bd., 82 Cal.App.3d 582, 600, 147 Cal.Rptr. 300, 311 (1978) (Reynoso, J., dissenting).
See Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State, 71 Cal.2d 566, 456 P.2d 645 (1969) (invalidating citizenship requirement for employment on public works); 1970 Cal.Stats., ch. 653, p. 1277, § 1, repealing Art. 2, ch. 2, Pt. 7, Div. 2, Cal.Lab. Code Ann. § 1940 (West 1955) (former citizenship requirement for employment in any department of the State or of any county or city). See generally Comment, The California Exclusion of Permanent Resident Aliens from Appointive Public Office, 11 C.W.L.R. 117, 126-131 (1974) (listing California governmental positions from which permanent resident aliens have and have not been excluded).
The Court cannot seriously argue, for example, that the positions of Dental Board inspector, messenger in the State Treasurer's office, Parks and Recreations Department employee, and volunteer fire warden represent "important nonelective positions," see Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 647 (1973), of the type the States historically or constitutionally have reserved for their citizens. Yet even after the legislature's latest amendments, all remain "peace officer" positions from which aliens are excluded by § 1031(a).
In Foley v. Connelie, the Court held that the State may require policemen to be citizens because they are "clothed with" what are described as "plenary discretionary powers." 435 U.S. at 297-298. Policemen exercise those powers "over people generally" as part of their "pervasive" presence in modern society. Id. at 297-299. Because policemen often act "without prior judicial authority," they require a grant of "prophylactic authority" from the State. Id. at 298. Exercise of that authority demands a "very high degree of judgment and discretion, the abuse or misuse of which can have serious impact on individuals." Ibid.
Ambach v. Norwick held that a State may bar aliens who have not declared their intent to become citizens from teaching in public schools because teachers perform a similarly significant "governmental function." Schoolteachers, Ambach noted, possess a high "degree of responsibility and discretion" which they exercise to fulfill the government's basic obligation to provide public education. 441 U.S. at 75. Furthermore, teachers have "direct, day-to-day contact" with their students, exercise unsupervised discretion over them, act as role models, and influence their students' attitudes about the government and the political process. Id. at 779.
Nor can the Court argue by analogy to Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979), that probation officers, like teachers, influence their probationers' "attitudes . . . toward government, the political process, and a citizen's social responsibilities." Id. at 79. Such an assertion would ignore the reality of a modern probation officer's life.
In 1973, the average federal probation officer supervised nearly 100 offenders. Federal Judicial Center, Probation Time Study 3 (Feb. 26, 1973). Each offender under supervision was accorded between six and eight hours of supervision from his probation officer in a year, or seven to nine minutes per week. Ibid. It blinks reality to suggest that a probation officer subject to these pressures has either the time or the inclination to give his probationers lessons in civics.
Until 1966, Cal.Gov't Code Ann. §§ 69600, 68804 required that Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices be citizens. In 1967, however, those provisions were repealed. 1967 Cal.Stats., ch. 17, pp. 841, 845, §§ 61, 87. As a result, the only remaining restriction on becoming a judge in California is membership in the state bar for a certain number of years. Cal.Const., Art. VI, § 15. After the California Supreme Court's decision in Raffaelli, aliens became eligible for the bar and, hence, to become judges.
The Court concedes as much when it notes that "almost every governmental official can be understood as participating in the execution of broad public policies." Ante at 441, n. 7.

References: § 830
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1981
 § 1331
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1031
 § 1031
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1203
 § 1031
 § 830
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1203
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1031
 v. 
 § 1031
 § 1031
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 Art. 2
 § 1940
 v. 
 § 1031
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15