*1 v. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE OKLAHOMA
COMMISSION. 18, 1946. Argued 10, 1947. February No. 84. Decided October *2 Williamson, Q. Oklahoma, Attorney General Mac Bounds, ar- Attorney General, and James W. Assistant gued petitioner. and filed a brief the cause respondent. With F. cause for Ralph argued Fuchs McGrath, Assist- him on the brief were Solicitor General *3 Sweeney A. and Attorney Sonnett, Paul ant General Samuel D. Slade. of the Court. opinion delivered
Mr. Reed Justice of brings phase another This to this Court* proceeding Oklahoma, of petitioner, the Hatch Act. The State Civil by the United States objects to the enforcement (a) of the Act. Service of § Commission today, ante, p. 75. Mitchell, Workers v. decided *See United Public amended, 767: Stat. Stat. agency (a) employee any local 12. officer or of State or “Sec. No any employment activity which principal connection with whose grants made the United in whole or in loans or financed any part in by any shall . . . active States or Federal take agency political management political campaigns. or in . . . any duty making
“(b) any agency charged If Federal with the of any activity grant of use in loan or funds of United States for (a) by any employee provisions of officer or to whom the subsection employee any or applicable reason to believe that officer has such report provisions make subsection, has of such it shall a violated respect to the United Civil Service thereto States ‘Commission’). rеceipt of (hereinafter Upon the referred to as any receipt any which upon the information report, such or other investigation, to an the Commission seems the Commission to warrant by registered hearing, fix mail place shall a time and and a shall Highway member Paris has been a State France He January Commission of Oklahoma since State Central was chairman the Democratic elected charged to the employee send or with the violation and officer employee agency employing officer a notice set- State or local such or place ting summary alleged and time forth a violation and hearing. hearing (which ten of such At such be not earlier than shаll notice) days mailing employee after the such the officer or either both, appear agency, or local or and may the State or with counsel hearing, be heard. After such the Commission shall determine any whether violation of such subsection and whether has occurred any, violation, employee such if removal warrants the of the officer or employment, whom was committed from his officeor and shall by registered notify employee appropriate mail or such officer and the agency any State or local If in case Com- such determination. employee finds mission that such officeror has not from been removed thirty employment days his office or within after nоtice of a deter- removal, mination the Commission that such violation his warrants or that he subsequently (within has been so removed has period eighteen months) appointed any employment been office or any agency State, State or local in such make Commission shall certify appropriate agency requiring to the Federal an order it to grants agency withhold from its loans or or State local to which given such equal years’ notification was an compensa- amount two tion at the rate employee receiving such officer or at the time violation; except any such subsequent case appoint- of such a position ment to a agency another State local which receives grants loans or agency, Federal such order shall re- *4 quire withholding the of such amount from such other or State agency: local ....
“(c) Any party aggrieved by any determination or order of the (b) Commission under may, thirty days subsection within after the mailing of notice of such order, proceedings determination or institute for by filing the review petition thereof a written in the district court of the United States for in the district which employee such officer or resides; but proceedings the commencement of operate such shall not stay as a of such (1) determination or order specifically unless it is by court, (2) so ordered the and employee such officer suspended or employment during from his office or pendency the proceed of such ings. copy A petition of such shall upon forthwith be served the Commission, thereupon and certify Commission shall file in and in February third term Committee for Oklahoma his until position continuously 1942 and he occupied such On 18, 1943, resigned. 12, 1943, October October when he charges issued its letter of the Civil Service Commission in Oklahoma, France Paris and the State of the matter of in informa which Mr. Paris and Oklahoma that it notified tion had received war which the Civil Service Commission transcript upon of the record which the determination or court complained review the order of made. The court shall be entire, including on the record all of the evidence takеn on the hear questions ing, questions of and law. . and shall extend to fact . . order, affirm the determination or The court shall Commission’s or order, or if its modified the court determines that the determination any in with If court same is accordance law. determines order, order, such determination or or modified determination or law, proceeding not in accordance with the court shall remand the to directions to make such determination the Commission with either inbe with or order as the shall determine to accordance law court court, proceedings as, opinion in the of the take further such judgment final, be requires. and decree the court shall the law The appeals appropriate court of as in subject to circuit cases, ap judgment decree of such circuit court and other final, subject Supreme peals to review Court shall be provided or certification as sections 239 States on certiorari United (U. edition, Code, C., 1934 as amended title 240 of the Judicial 347). provision of any If this subsection is held to 346 and secs. party respect any any determination applied to be invalid as determination or order shall there such or order party in the effective as to such same manner upon become final and provision had been enacted. as if such provisions prohibit persons which of this Act 15. “Sec. taking part political apply from active provisions such whom campaigns prohibit shall deemed management or persons part of such the United States on the Civil same activities determined are at the time this has heretofore Service prohibited part employees on the in the classi- takes effect section provisions States civil- the United service fied civil employees taking any active such prohibiting rules service campaigns.” management or in political *5 an investigation alleged ranted into an improper political activity on the of France Paris provisions under of 12 charge of the Hatch Act. The was that since Janu Mr. ary 14, 1943, Paris had an been officer of Oklahoma principal employment whose was is in connection with activity an financed in in part by whole or loans and grants from a federal agency of the during United States and that such time Mr. Paris also held a political party office, to wit, the chairmanship of the State Central Committee above referred to. It later no developed general elec tion in occurred Oklahoma 1943. The State Demo Headquarters cratic had been on January closed reopened Mr. Paris and were later during year under charge direct of the vice-chairman of that committee, we prior resignation assume to Mr. Paris’ on October On June sponsored the committee a “Victory Dinner” City. Oklahoma The trial court found as follows: designed
“This providе dinner the National Democratic Committee and the State Democratic with discharge Committee funds to a deficit incurred by their political activities and to provide funds for contemplated promoted future activities. also sale of war bonds and did result of approxi- sale mately $14,500,000.00 war bonds. The dinner netted the party, Democratic which was conceded to be a party, $30,000.00. approximately staged general dinner was supervision under the of the Governor of the state and the details han- were dled a committee appointed by the Governor. W. G. Johnston was chairman of this committee. France ex Paris was an officio member the com- mittee and he advised the Govеrnor concerning meeting the dinner and called to order and intro- toastmaster, duced the but was he not active in plan- ning arranging the dinner.” *6 that these facts determined Civil Service management political taking an active constituted that the viola- It considered campaigns. in political High- the office of Mr. Paris’ removal from tion warranted notice It ordered that of Oklahoma. way Commissioner to given § be pursuant aforesaid determinations of the foreshadowed, if Mr. of the Hatch Act. This order (b) by the Commission removed, Paris a further order was not agency that cer- appropriate under to the federal (b) § “in withheld be highway grants tain to Oklahoma should Mr. years compensation” equal an amount two Paris. Oklahoma, hav after (c) the State of
Pursuant deter Commission’s ing notice of the Civil Service received the review mination, proceedings for these instituted States. court of the United proper the order in the district Commis That the action of Civil Service upheld court affirmed Supp. 355, and action was sion, F. State Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. the Circuit Court of Service States Civil Oklahoma United because sought 2d and allowed 153 F. 280. Certiorari in the adminis importance of issues involved of the (c), under Stat. justice, tration 328 U. Judicial and 240a of the as 54 Stat. amended, Code. invalid judgments below are
The state contends following reasons: for the Act, in so far
“(1) Activity The Hatch Political state, regulate affairs оf attempts the internal the states viola- sovereignty an invasion Constitution. further tion the United States delegation power. invalid as unlawful an “(2) valid, applies only par- If Act to ‘active’ management cam- ticipation is not shown to participation Such ‘active’ paigns. in this case. present valid, If did “(3) the Act not warrant the United ordering Civil Commission in the re- States Service or, alternatively, moval of a officer appli- state of a penalty cation to the State of Oklahoma. “(4) place The decisions of the lower courts an unjustified right intolerable and upon restriction aggrieved person of an a complete Activity under Hatch Political Act.” *7 First. Government’s first that the contention is рetitioner, Oklahoma, the State of no standing has to at constitutionality argued tack the of 12. § is that the legal state no capacity has to manner in which the the United States limits the appropriation of funds 12 through (a); (b) that 12 is merely procedural § § to statutory assure that requirements are observed and 12 (c) safeguard that is a against arbi exercise of trary power by wage not a permission to arrangement.2 an attack on the entire If this objection contention treated as an to the state’s capacity bring suit, objection to this noas was made until the memorandum respondent for the the petition on certiorari, it object would be out of time. A failure to in the court party’s trial to a сapacity is waiver that Sales, defect. Parker v. Motor U. Boat S. hand, On the other if the contention meaning is treated as justiciable that no controversy as to the exists (a) petitioner because in suffers no which jury may protect legally the withdrawal United portion States of a of a grant-in-aid, objection, as it questions judicial on power point, timely act that although first made think that Court.3 We Mellon, Massachusetts v. Perkins v. Lukens 447, 482; S.U. Co., Ickes, Steel Alabama Power Co. v. 113; U. 302 U. S. authority, together are as cited other with cases. respondent 3 A support judgment any ground can ap his on that Scofield, the record. LeTulle v. pears in Gaines 415, 421; 308 U. S. Co., ville Brown-Crummer 54, 59. 277 U. S. con correctly respondent’s more reflects рosition latter in note urges tention. The the cases listed Commission and that the state showing above as the relation between grants-in-aid politi government arising federal out of be cal that the order that Paris Commission issue removed was not therefore treat the mandatory. We before us. properly challenge whether can the con The issue is Oklahoma 12 on stitutionality statutory review a Commission (c) aggrieved a gives party order. Subsection review is review of Commission order. The \ questions on record of fact the entire and extends law. The if the court questions of \ order is to be affirmed If the it is “in with law.” determines accordance law, court determines the order is not accordance “with рroceeding is to be to the remanded order as directions such determination or either make law or accordance with court shall determine to proceedings as, opinion to take such further *8 challenge can court, requires.” the law We think the in to proceedings made these review the constitution ality order review is upon of the law which the under . predicated. .. Oklahoma Highway activities of the Commission of part
were from a federal by grants financed loans the or during pertinent all the times. agency This During a ganization of which Paris was member. 1943, to
period question, January 15, October while was also Chairman of the Democratic State Paris through allotment Committee, Central thе United States high by $2,000,000 for the federal statute contributed over indi Nothing way work of the Oklahoma Commission.5 cates Oklahoma that these sums were to be received regular appor with statutory otherwise than accordance 1, supra, (c). See note § Highway Act, amended, See C. Federal Stat. 1-117. among highway of federal funds and tionment states the sums were to be so received Oklahoma. we assume rights enforceable where none Congress may legally create made at the Payments before existed. were not unfet disbursing or highway tered inclination of a federal officer according statutory standards, agency compliance but Oklahoma receive her share proper with which entitled highway of the federal construction appropriations If through agencies. state it were not for Oklahoma legally payment would have been entitled to receive sums, disbursing including the federal office of the 12 (b) that Civil amount authorizes the Service Com require disbursing allocating mission to federal agency grants.6 to withhold from its loans or Oklahoma legal right highway a to receive federal funds had virtue congressional certain enactments under the terms prescribed. statutory right therein Violation of such a normally justiciable a creates cause of action even without statutory authorization for review.7 It specific may be payment that before the those funds Oklahoma Con gress grant legal сould have withdrawn the without respon sibility for such action either its officers or the National Perhaps, disbursement, Government. before it add could of its own free will additional but when requirements bars, is, erected administrative a condition that a might of the allotment be withheld action of the with review of Commission’s determination, we think those bars left to Oklahoma right highway to receive all federal funds allotted to that subject only to the condition that the limitation on state, right complied receive the funds the Con *9 suit, though this even presented by stitution. Issues 6 States, 407, 422. System Cf. Columbia v. United 316 U. S. 7 190, 198, 200-201; See Deitrick v. 309 Steele v. Greaney, 192, 202. 323 U. S. Co., Louisville Nashville Railroad &
137 wrongs.8 private akin state, closely a are raised be may party the state employee Either the state judicial review. may the action for aggrieved maintain of to examine power into given grant courts the federal conditions legality of the Civil Service authority review the 12 right a of review of order. Therefore when § given Oklahoma, we Commission’s Civil Service order constitutionality of the statu that the opinion adjudication. 12 tory basis, (a), open of the order for Congress power has the conditions for review to fix By providing administrative orders.9 Commission, Congress Civil Service orders of the right judi matter of made Oklahoma’s to receive funds a enforce cognizance. right legally cial Oklahoma’s became full with the allotment payment able. Interference highway of fedеral funds to Oklahoma made the statu or con tory proceeding to set aside the order case troversy whose between Oklahoma and reading A order Oklahomawas authorized to chanenge.10 12 had special will show the interest Oklahoma Commission’s preventing exercise the Civil Service power to direct that Oklahoma’s funds be withheld.11 (a). 12 Notices employer was named as the affected sent to it Funds to Oklahoma were to were allotted . ag It was a “party withheld "under certain conditions. brought statu grieved.”12 suit, When it under this 8 549. Colegrove Green, the discussion in v. 328 U. S. See 385, v. S. E. 325 U. S. 389. C., Power American Co. Light Co., v. Federal Power Power & Pacific S. U. S. Chicago Case, (Second); F. U. Junction Z. & 470, 485. v. Hull, 311 U. S. Corp. Assets Realization Light Co., Commission v. Power & Federal Power Pacific 159; S. U. v. Communications Commission Sanders Federal 470, 476; 309 U. S. Co. v. Station, Brothers Radio American Power 385, 390; C., 325 U. S. 329 U. Fleming, E. S. Parker *10 138 to a deter authority, Oklahoma was entitled
tory of Service whether the order the Civil mination as to “in with Was the accordance law.” That competency of Commission? within the order the issue of the consti competency of included order, (a). Only if tutionality § basis for the for an order within constitutional statutory basis resulting legal. said that the order is To limits can be must statutory review include question, determine constitutionality (a). §of to determine the the power pointing by The cases cited the Government toward adjudicate constitutionality of 12 power of lack Laughlin, 1, 25, 43, 49; v. Jones Cf. Labor Board & U. S. States, Norwegian Nitrogen Unitеd Products Co. v. Ruzicka, S.
321-24; 329 U. United States normally includes issues of the Judicial review 237, 243, (e): 60 Stat. and action thereunder. enactments necessary “Scope pre- far as to decision Review.—So and where reviewing questions law, court shall decide all relevant sented interpret statutory provisions, and constitutional and determine the meaning any agency applicability or of the terms action. It shall (A) compel unlawfully agency unreasonably action withheld or (B) delayed; agency action, unlawful and set aside hold find- ings, (1) arbitrary, and conclusions found to capricious, an abuse discretion, (2) or otherwise law; contrary accordance with right, power, (3) to constitutional privilege, immunity; or in excеss statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or or short of statu- tory right; (4) procedure without required by law; observance of (5) unsupported by subject substantial evidence in case requirements of sections 7 or and 8 otherwise reviewed on the hearing by agency provided statute; record of an (6) unwarranted subject the facts to the extent that the facts are de to trial novo reviewing making In foregoing court. determinations the court shall portions such the whole record or may thereof as by any party, be cited and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.” the full “Scope See discussion of of Review,” Legislative His-
tory, Act, Administrative Procedure Doc. No. 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 213, (e), p. 10 (е). jurisdiction deny None to a court inapposite. administrative orders the legality
statute to review constitutionality of the statute power to examine *11 which order was entered. authorities virtue of the Government, do not the above, upon by 2 relied in note In our contrary to conclusion. imply position hold or a Mellon, 447, the 262 U. S. Common Massachusetts v. sought enjoin to the enforcement others decrees wealth and federal Act. This Court denied Maternity of the Federal upon was a jurisdiction, placed no burden p. because v. Perkins Lukens right infringed, p. no 482. state and Co., who desired 310 U. S. denied a manufacturer Steel a right govern sell the Government to to to which the official “locality,” ment official’s dеfinition of mini to make to determine the required by statute “locality” of the under the Public Contracts wages mum jurisdiction ques to Act. The denial of federal decide “litigable rights” to deal with the tion was because no on the had bestowed statute United States been seller prospective and 127. The seller, pp. would be 125 to do with the con nothing or otherwise had by statute Alabama fixed the United States. purchase ditions of Ickes, power v. U. S. denied that the Power Co. to free of com legal right had enforceable company loans, 479. This by illegal p. present financed petition, foregoing case is differentiated each of Oklahoma the existence authority statutory right grants legally enforceаble to receive allocated . . . without unlawful deductions. may think rule the same We do not that one appli a proceeding rely both and assail statute14 upon In the.Govern present cable to the situation. the cases 223; See v. Hurley Fisheries, United U. 300; Kentucky, v. Railroad Commission Fuel Gas Co. Attorney General, 124U. S. Mfg. Falls Great Co. cites, litigants sought advantages
ment had received or advantages they attack, from the statute that wished to right other than the mere sue. What we are concerned estoppel with this case is not an sue but allowable statutory jurisdiction. scope of the point respondent From view, urges did Congress justiciable not intend to broad right create enough attack upon to include an (a). We think the final sentence note (c), §of supra, demonstrating near to comes the unsoundness of such a contention. reads: any provision
“If be in- this subsection held to as applied any party respect any- valid determination or order of the such deter- *12 mination or shall and thereupon order become final effective party as to such the same as if manner provision such had not been enacted.” We do not see can other anything that sentence mean than invalidity any pro- that the (unconstitutionality) of 12 (b) vision of subsection should not affect determi- nation of the Civil In Service Commission. of our view expressed conclusion hereinafter (a) that 12§ is constitu- tional, whether the Commission’s determination would be particular enforceable without a provision statutory is not involved in this case.
The urges Government that legislative absence of consideration of on attacks §of through provision judicial negatives for review “the Congress conclusion that intended Section (c) as an avenue of attack (a).”15 on Section 12 But we do not agree that this lack of extended scope discussion of of judicial implication litigant denies to a the right to attack The constitutionality. final form
15It Cong. cites 86 2354, 2429, Rec. 2440, 2468-2474, 9448, 9452; Rep. 2376, 76th H. Cong., Sess., 3d 9.p. first proposed. from that is different
judicial review however, ap change purpose, 2468. Cong. Rec. No arbitrary- judicial review feared proposer The pears. liberty. political Id., a violation action. Others with objection might be reached thought the latter constitu intimated right judicial review. No one out review.16 not be reached tionality could 16 Cong. Rec. 2470: opinions the Senator great respect I have
“Mr. Lucas. question: Does from him the Senator I rise from Nebraska. to ask liberty is involved in question political -of that Nebraska believe way? pending legislation “Mr. I have thought so. Norris. that the words, the Senator does not believe
“Mr. Lucas. In other charged of the rights with violation of an individual who being invaded statute ? ques- President, “Mr. Mr. I now understand the Senator’s Norris. lawyers who do honest men are better tion. I not believe so. Some rights question are invaded. That can I am believe those than adopted having easily tested, however, the amendment be without rights an individual were passed upon. If the and unconstitutional, get one could invaded, the law be then would ques- immediately by applications. into court various kinds of Supreme placed could court and carried to the Court tion before a adoption particular pass upon could it. The Court respect. in that If the law amendment in would not assist unconstitutional, very soon, without it will be so found even adoption amendment, of this and the law will fall.
“Mr. But if entertains the same the Senator Nebraska Lucas. *13 respect by view as that from Illinois with entertained the Senator political rights then, individual, it, invasion оf the I take an agree the Senator in case an individual from Nebraska will that were charged rights with violation of the statute he should have his deter- mined the court of last resort? agree
“Mr. Norris. I But we need Senator. do not this get my amendment in order to a decision on the matter. That is con- put anything law, ingenious tention. could not We into the however might be, away rights we which would take the constitutional citizen, attempt go and if such an were made citizen could into court and determined, adoption have the even without the language pending such as contained amendment.” in the bill are effective changes subsequent of the None scope of this of the modify this construction review.17 for contention chief reliance its
Second. Petitioner’s Hatch Act is unconstitutional (a) of the that proceeding that this is applied to Oklahoma bf a state penalty provisions invade the sovereignty so-called way the Tenth Amendment18 as to violate such “possible alterna providing for state forfeiture of office says (c) against the state.” Oklahoma penalties tive an an “provides appeal that the commencement of from . operate stay order of ‘. . shall not as a the Commission: (1) specifically of such determination or order unless is (2) court, employee so ordered such officer or suspended his employment during office or pendency . . proceedings. of such .’” The coercive effect withhold authorization to allocated to a state sums upon relied as an powers interference with the reserved of the state. Mitchell,
In United Public Workers v. day, decided this ante, p. 75, we have considered the provision from the viewpoint of interference with a federal employee’s freedom expression political mat- ters and as to whether acting as an official of a party provision violates the in 12 against (a) taking part in political management or in campaigns. We do not think that the facts in this require any case further discussion angle. of that think acting We as chair- man of the Democratic State Central Committee and act- do, ing, ex as a member of the “Victory Dinner” com- off mittee for the purpose raising funds for the Democratic Party and selling war bonds constitute taking an active 9446, 9495. Cong. See Rec. powers delegated “The to the United States the Consti- tution, prohibited nor by it to States, reserved the States respectively, or to people.” *14 States the United management. While in local with, power regulate, no is not and has concerned officials, have it does of state as such activities money allotments upon which its power to fix the terms shall disbursed. to states forbid the exercise not Tenth Amendment does Congress proceeded has way power
of this Darby, v. in United States pointed As out this case. has been consist Tenth Amendment 100, 124, U. S. govern the national depriving “as not ently construed the exercise all authority to resort to means ment of plainly appropriate which are granted power of a sought The end Con end.” adapted permitted to the service public is better gress through Hatch Act needs funds for national who administer requiring those even So political partisanship. active abstain from Congress upon does have effect action taken though the been state, it has never within the activities certain act invalid.19 the federal effect made thought that such any attempt suspend record shows nothing As High member of the State from his duties as a Mr. Paris to deal with the not called upon we are way may be sus officer that a state of Oklahoma assertion is an if 12 is There court valid. a federal pended by imposed was penalty No separability clause. adequate conformably had, A hearing state. upon the par active that Mr. Paris’ reached and the conclusion was member his removal justified ticipation politics Oklahoma chose Highway Commission. ship on of the state’s any violation him. We do not see to remove adopted hearing or order. Oklahoma in the sovereignty urges is to what she yielding of not “simple expedient” 547; v. Minnesota, v. Fenno, Wall. Stearns Bank Veazie 12; Helvering Therrell, 244; v. v. 273 U. S. Mellon, Florida 502, 516; Co., 218; Wright S. U. 303 U. S. Central Ins. Union U. Valley Authority, v. Tennessee Ashwander *15 Mellon, Compare federаl coercion. Massachusetts v. 447, 482. The offer of a state benefits to dependent upon cooperation by United States the state plans, assumedly general federal for the welfare, not unusual.20
In order to the Civil Commission give adequate Service standards to active in participation political measure ac tivities, Congress adopted Act, 15 of quoted the Hatch § above in By Congress note 1. this section made the test political activity employees for state the same in employees test then effect for in the classified civil serv ice. The Commission had at that time determined that political “service or for any on or committee similar or ganization is prohibited.” only This could mean that service on such committee was participation active politics. Such determination was made a matter record charge Senator Hatch bill during debate on scope political prohibition.21 Obviously the activi ties of Mr. Paris were covered purpose and language 12 (a) § 12. The words of requiring Mr. Paris’ ab “any stention from management active campaigns” are derived from I Rule Civil Service persisted Commission and have there since 1907.22 argues
Oklahoma also that the Civil Service Commis sion determination that the acts of Mr. Paris constitute (a) such a of 12§ violation as to warrant his removal from his state officeis not in accordance with arbitrary, law but unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. The facts of Mr.
20Steward, Davis, 593-98; Machine Co. 548, S.U. United Bekins, grants-in-aid States v. 304 U. S. 51-54. A review of will Review, be found in 8 American Law School Corwin: National-State Cooperation, 687, 698. Cong. 21 86 Rec. of15 exhibit.
22See United Public Mitchell, Workers v. ante, pp. 79-81, *16 support exist to facts whether sufficient to “determine the statute whether Commission, of decide the order independently and reasonably justly applied, has been and though the court federal the entire resolve for The basis the forum in first instance.” had been referred it differs from that argument, so far as language from the paragraph, in the is drawn preceding shall be on 12 the court (c) of that “The on including all of the evidence taken entire, record ques and questions of fact hearing, and shall extend to Commis law. . . The court shall affirm the tions of . or modified determina order, sion’s determination or its tion or if determines that the same is order, the court stipulated accordance with the facts were law.” As objection 61 findings fact, no has been taken F. Supp. 355, 280, attack, 153 2d on this (5); 283, 357 F. issue, is limited to an into whether or not the examination its discretion in the order of removal. abused As stated, provisions heretofore review underwent changes during passage the Act.24 As finally Siegel See Jacob Trade Co. Federal 327 U. S. Cong. 2468-2474; Repre- See 86 Rec. in the House of S. 3046 sentatives, 4, 1940, pp. 17; Union Calendar No. 4 and H. June Rep. Cong., Sess., p. No. 76th 3d 9. The amendment which Cong. presеnt appears resulted in the form of the section at 86 Rec. 9448. re
adopted, however, reviewing court directed to mand of the Commis when determines the action (c). sion “is not accordance with law.” question of “the removal of an employee,” officer or (b), supra, note we think is a matter administrative I discretion. Since under Rule Civil Service Com “any taking part mission the active man agement political campaigns” had been determined the Commission to include service on a commit tee, see notes 37 and of United Public Workers v. Mitchell, ante, p. position it is clear Mr. Paris’ violated supra. § 15 the Hatch Act. Note 1, hardly It could be said that determination the Commission in ordering his an removal was abuse of its discretion. See 61 F. Supp. (6) at 2d (7); 153 F. at 283-84.
Judgment affirmed. Murphy and Mr. Justice Mr. Justice took Jackson no in the consideration or decision of this case. Rutledge
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice dissent. *17 Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring. is of course settled that this consider, Court must question
whenever the is though raised or even not raised by counsel, jurisdiction of the lower federal courts as jurisdiction well of this Mansfield, Court. L. C. & Ry. Swan, M. 382. But whether a State standing has urge a claim of constitutionality under a following appears The also the section: its, may modify findings “The Commission of fact or its determina- tion or order reason of the additional evidence so taken and shall file with findings, the court such determination, modified order, findings such modified if fact, supported by substantial еvidence, shall be conclusive.” Stat. “juris not involve
Congressional grant-in-aid statute does capac only but power diction” in the of a court’s sense In litigant power. that of the to be a invoke ity State stand challenge did not litigation the Government of the ing question of Oklahoma to I is late to here. think it too Act until case came it stage. Assuming that at this raise legis inAct, the Hatch here, my view that under read, be in which it must lative and context procedure question only the correctness State can Civil Service and the determination of the Act. 54 Stat. (b), (c), Section validity not the (b) U. C. 61l 53 Stat. 767, amending (c). apply Act does not The Administrative Procedure 11, 1946, of June 60 Stat. present case. Act present course, problems due will, 12. That Act ought anticipate when, not to them adjudication. We ought before us. Act irrelevant, they not being illus- purpose because used even for illustrative of the Act. depend on construction trations agree with Mr. Justice foregoing, from the Apart I opinion. Reed’s notes and 6. with the Democratic his connection Paris’ activities and as a office his tenure of during Committee State Central have of Oklahoma Highway member F. said, 153 Appeals Court The Circuit been stated. footing had solid “Manifestly, the Commission 2d at of Paris removal that Act for the conclusion agree.23 warranted.” We officewas 1, supra, note says (c), petitioner Finally, the case” detail of “every minute a review of authorizes