Decision United Public Workers v. Mitchell

1 decision

1.1 majority holding
1.2 frankfurter s concurrence
1.3 black s dissent
1.4 rutledge s dissent
1.5 douglas dissent

decision

a divided supreme court upheld doctrine of privilege , hatch act. associate justice stanley forman reed wrote decision majority.

majority holding

justice reed dealt issue arose due untimely filing of appeal, , concluded court hear case.

on substantive issues raised, justice reed noted none of appellants, except george p. poole, had violated provisions of hatch act. since federal courts not issue advisory rulings, reed dismissed issues raised appellants except poole. poole, however, had been charged violation of hatch act, , order dismissal entered government. (he ward executive committeeman political party, acted poll worker on election day, , acted paymaster other poll workers engaged political party.)

poole contended hatch act violated ninth , tenth amendments u.s. constitution. justice reed asserted (without explanation) hatch act implicated rights guaranteed first amendment, , implication due process protections of fifth amendment well. justice reed found unpersuasive poole s claim off-hours political activity different such activity conducted during working hours. influence of political activity government employees, if evil in effects on service, employees or people dealing them, hardly less because activity takes place after hours. reed next concluded no rights guaranteed constitution absolute, , rights subject elemental need order without guarantees of civil rights others mockery. how should rights of ninth , tenth amendments balanced against of first , fifth? justice reed found majority s answer in fact ninth , tenth amendments reserved, rather enumerated powers, , carry less weight enumerated powers. wrote:

the powers granted constitution federal government subtracted totality of sovereignty in states , people. therefore, when objection made exercise of federal power infringes upon rights reserved ninth , tenth amendments, inquiry must directed toward granted power under action of union taken. if granted power found, objection of invasion of rights, reserved ninth , tenth amendments, must fail.

justice reed used traditional balancing test weight infringement of first , fifth amendment rights against congressional enactment protect democratic society against supposed evil of political partisanship classified employees of government. balance had been decided court in ex parte curtis, 106 u.s. 371 (1882), , infringements upheld. without providing evidence or explanation, reed asserted dangers posed partisan political activity have worsened since curtis. justice reed next applied balancing test doctrine of privilege. reed noted in united states v. wurzbach, 280 u.s. 396 (1930), court had upheld doctrine of privilege in single sentence against rights guaranteed constitution.

poole had argued actions nonpartisan, however. majority concluded since congress had seen fit find danger in nonpartisan political activity federal workers, court not dispute it. reed note: [such restrictions have] approval of long practice commission, court decisions upon similar problems , large body of informed public opinion. congress , administrative agencies have authority on discipline , efficiency of public service. when actions of civil servants in judgment of congress menace integrity , competency of service, legislation forestall such danger , adequate maintain usefulness required. hatch act answer of congress need. cannot such background these restrictions unconstitutional.

the constitutionality of hatch act upheld, , judgment of district court affirmed.

frankfurter s concurrence

justice felix frankfurter concluded supreme court should not have accepted case, appeal had been untimely filed. compelled accept jurisdiction, however, majority, concurred majority s reasoning on substantive issues.

black s dissent

justice hugo black noted §9 of statute made illegal federal workers engage in political activity, , yet explicitly protected right of workers express opinions on political subjects , candidates. black refused accept conclusions drawn doctrine of privilege: had measure deprived 5 million farmers or million businessmen of right participate in elections, because congress thought federal farm or business subsidies might prompt of them exercise, or susceptible to, corrupting influence on politics or government, not sustain such act on ground interpreted apply of them. black concluded that, on face, hatch act , implementing civil service regulations unconstitutionally overbroad (a fact government had admitted in brief, black said).

black provided ringing defense of right freedom of speech. dismissed out of hand majority s reliance on ex parte curtis , united states v. wurzbach (concluding did not support conclusions majority came to), , argued corruption dealt without resorting muzzling of 6 million people.

rutledge s dissent

justice wiley blount rutledge concurred justice black s dissent regarding poole. concurred majority case not ripe regarding other appellants.

douglas dissent

justice william o. douglas took issue majority on 2 grounds. first, not have dismissed claims of 12 other appellants unripe, arguing consideration of declaratory judgment in case proper. second, douglas argued poole s position industrial worker @ bureau of engraving , printing important distinction. administrative , political personnel may susceptible pressure , corruption via political activity, douglas wrote, industrial workers remote contact public or policy making or functioning of administrative process charwoman. douglas concurred justice black s dissent hatch act overbroad in application , approach problem of corruption.