Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/634/case.html
Timestamp: 2014-03-10 19:14:25
Document Index: 236625582

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 53', '§ 40', '§ 41', '§ 42', '§ 43', '§ 44', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53']

Sugarman v. Dougall - 413 U.S. 634 (1973) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Sign In	Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 413 > Sugarman v. Dougall - 413 U.S. 634 > Case	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Sugarman v. Dougall - 413 U.S. 634 (1973)
Case	U.S. Supreme CourtSugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973)Sugarman v. DougallNo. 71-1222Argued January 8, 1973Decided June 25, 1973413 U.S. 634APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 413 U. S. 649. Page 413 U. S. 635
"Except as herein otherwise provided, no person shall be eligible for appointment for any position in the competitive class unless he is a citizen of the United States. [Footnote 1] "Page 413 U. S. 636
The four appellees, Patrick McDougall, Esperanza Jorge, Teresa Vargas, and Sylvia Castro, are federally registered resident aliens. When, because of their alienage, they were discharged in 1971 from their competitive civil service positions with the city of New York, the appellees instituted this class action challenging the constitutionality of § 53. The named defendants, and appellants here, were the Administrator of the city's Human Resources Administration (HRA), and the city's Director of Personnel and Chairman of its Civil Service Commission. The appellees sought (1) a declaration that the statute was invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, (2) injunctive relief against any refusal, on the ground of alienage, to appoint and employ the appellees, and all persons similarly situated, in civil service positions in the competitive class, and (3) damages for lost earnings. A defense motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was denied by Judge Tenney, 330 F.Supp. 26 (SDNY 1971). A three-judge court was convened. That court ruled that the statute was violative of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause, and granted injunctive relief. 339 F.Supp. 906 (SDNY 1971). [Footnote 2] Judge Lumbard joined the court's opinion and judgment, but wrote separately in concurrence. Id. at 911. Probable jurisdiction was noted. 407 U.S. 908 (1972). Page 413 U. S. 637
Appellee Jorge was born in November, 1948, in the Dominican Republic. She has been a resident of New Page 413 U. S. 638 York City since 1967. She was employed by the Puerto Rican Forum as a clerk typist and, later, as a human resources technician. She worked in the latter capacity for MCDA.
As is so often the case, it is important at the outset to define the precise and narrow issue that is here presented. The Court is faced only with the question Page 413 U. S. 639 whether New York's flat statutory prohibition against the employment of aliens in the competitive classified civil service is constitutionally valid. The Court is not asked to decide whether a particular alien, any more than a particular citizen, may be refused employment or discharged on an individual basis for whatever legitimate reason the State might possess.
In line with this rather flexible constitutional measure, the classified service is divided by statute into four classes. New York Civil Service Law § 40. The first is the exempt class. It includes, generally, the higher offices in the state executive departments, certain municipal officers, certain judicial employees, and positions for which a competitive or noncompetitive examination may be found to be impracticable. The exempt class contains no citizenship restriction whatsoever. § 41. The second is the noncompetitive class. This includes positions, not otherwise classified, for which a noncompetitive examination would be practicable. There is no citizenship requirement. § 42. The third is the labor class. This includes unskilled laborers holding positions for which competitive examinations would be impracticable. No alienage exclusion is imposed. § 43. The fourth is the competitive class with which we are here concerned. This includes all positions for which it is practicable to determine merit and fitness by a competitive examination. Page 413 U. S. 640 § 44. Only citizens of the United States may hold positions in this class. § 53. The limits of these several classes, particularly the competitive class from which the appellees were deemed to be disqualified, are not readily defined. It would appear, however, that, consistent with the broad scope of the cited constitutional provision, the competitive class reaches various positions in nearly the full range of work tasks, that is, all the way from the menial to the policy making.
We thus have constitutional provisions and a number of statutes that, together, constitute New York's scheme for the exclusion of aliens from public employment. The present case concerns only § 53 of the Civil Service Law. The section's constitutionality, however, is to be judged in the context of the State's broad statutory framework and the justifications the State presents. Page 413 U. S. 641
A. Appellants argue, however, that § 53 does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment because the statute "establishes a generic classification reflecting the special requirements of public employment in the career civil service." [Footnote 6] The distinction drawn between the citizen and the alien, it is said, "rests on the fundamental concept of identity between a government and the members, or citizens, of the state." [Footnote 7] The civil servant "participates directly in the formulation and execution of government policy," and thus must be free of competing obligations to another power. [Footnote 8] The State's interest in having an employee of undivided loyalty is substantial, for obligations attendant upon foreign citizenship "might impair the exercise of his judgment or jeopardize public confidence in his objectivity." [Footnote 9] Emphasis is placed on our decision in United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 (1947), upholding the Hatch Act and its proscription of political activity by certain public employees, and it is said that the public employer "has broad discretion to establish qualifications Page 413 U. S. 642 for its employees related to the integrity and efficiency of the operations of government." [Footnote 10]
Applying this standard to New York's purpose in confining civil servants in the competitive class to those persons who have no ties of citizenship elsewhere, § 53 does not withstand the necessary close scrutiny. We recognize a State's interest in establishing its own form of governme