*1 OF AMERICA WORKERS UNITED PUBLIC v. MITCHELL (C. O.) I. et et al. al. Argued Reargued 17, 1946. 3, 1945. October
No. 20. December February 10,
Decided *3 Lee Pressman argued appellants. the cause for With him on the brief were Frank Donner Milton V. Freeman.
Ralph F. argued Fuchs appellees. the cause for With him on McGrath, the brief were Solicitor General As- sistant Attorney Sonnett, General David L. Kreeger and Abraham J. Harris. of the Court. opinion Reed delivered
Mr. Justice unlawful 1940, declares Act,* The Hatch enacted employees. activities of federal specified political certain in the executive 9 forbids officers Section exceptions, Government, branch Federal political management or taking “any part active 15 declares that the activ political campaigns.” Section * today. controversy Okla- Another under the same act is decided post, Commission, p. homa United States Civil Service 127. 1August 2, 1939, 1147; July 19, 1940, 767; 54 Stat. 56 Stat. 53 Stat. 181, 986; 136, 148,727; 108, 658; Only 58 Stat. Stat. Stat. important the first two are for consideration of this case. 61h, C. 2 18U. S. as amended: any employed person It shall be unlawful for in the executive ["(a) Government, any agency department
branch of the Federal or or thereof, authority purpose to use his official or influence for the interfering affecting with an election or result thereof. No officer employee Government, or in the executive branch of the Federal or any agency department thereof, except part-time part- or officer or employee compensation compensation time without with nominal serving existing effort, any in connection with the other than in war capacity relating procurement to the or manufacture of war material part political management shall take active inor campaigns persons right they All such shall retain the to vote as, .] express opinions political subjects choose and their on all purposes and candidates. For the of this section the term 'officer’ 'employee’ (1) shall not be construed to include the President *4 States; (2) persons and Vice President compen of the United whose paid appropriation President; sation is from the for the office of the (3) departments; (4) heads and assistant heads of executive officers appointed by President, by who are the and with the advice and Senate, policies pursued consent of the and by who determine to be foreign powers the United States in its relations or in the Nation wide administration of Federal laws. Any person violating provisions the of this section shall be ["(b)
immediately position by him, removed from the or office held and part appropriated by any thereafter no of the funds Congress Act of position pay compensation for such or office shall be used to of 181.] 1148; person.” 767; such Stat. 54 Stat. 56 Stat. Civil the United States by determined ities theretofore prohibited employees be in Service Commission the Civil by United States classified civil service to federal prohibited to be shall be deemed Service Rules the Hatch Act.3 These sections employees covered whether employees Act all federal officers and cover or and a of dis penalty in the civil service not classified imposed for violation. There employment is missal from governmental agency its single designation is no enforcement. had Congress Act the many years
For before Hatch employees in the com the exclusion of federal authorized polit in participation from petitive classified service active June, 1938, In management political campaigns.4 ical and 3 18 61o: U.S. C. § provisions subchapter prohibit persons
“The which to whom this taking part provisions apply any in man- such from active agement political campaigns prohibit in shall be deemed to persons part activities on the of such as United States Civil same are at the time this Commission has heretofore determined Service employees prohibited the-part in the effect on classified section takes provisions the civil-service civil of the United States service prohibiting taking any part politi- in such active rules management political campaigns.” cal Stat. (1883), 2, 22 403-404: See Civil Service Act Stat. duty That it shall said commissioners: “Sec. 2. President, may request, preparing as “First. To aid he suit- carrying effect, into rules shall able rules for this act when said promulgated duty all have been it shall be officersof the United departments any which rules States in the and offices to such aid, ways, proper carrying rules, relate all said thereof, modifications effect. into And, among things, provide other said rules shall “Second.
declare, nearly good warrant, as the conditions of administration will as follows: any right
“Sixth, person no to use his official said service has *5 for had authorization exclusion been congressional the more a Civil Service Commission dis-. by made effective members power discipline rule.5 That of. ciplinary competitive classified civil service continues the the by present under Hatch Act virtue of Commission 8705, 5, of the Executive Order No. March applicability Civil Commission applicable Service rules are. authority any person or influence to coerce action of body.” 631:
5 U.S.C. § regulations President . establish “The is authorized to . . persons appointments conduct who receive the civil service.” Report, Commission, Annual Civil Ex.
First Service H. R. Doc. No. 105, 48th Cong., Sess.,p. 1st 45: power
“In exercise of the vested in the President the Consti- tution, and Statutes, virtue of the 1753d of the section Revised approved January 16, 1883, and of the civil act following service regulation improvement rules for civil executive service hereby promulgated: are amended and
Rule I. person authority “No said service shall use his official or influence any person either coerce body action of or to interfere election.” 642, (amended
Executive Order No. June to consolidate changing wording, without 15, 1907); Executive Order June No. Twenty-Fourth Report, Commission, Annual Civil Service House Doc. 600, 60th Sess., Cong., p. No. 1st 104: 1 of hereby amended “Section Rule I of the civil-service rules is read as follows: person “No in the Executive civil service shall use official his author-
ity purpose or influence interfering for the with an election or affecting the who, by result thereof. provisions Persons these competitive rules in the service, retaining right classified while they please to vote as express privately opinions their on all political subjects, part shall take political management no active political campaigns.” or in 15, 3 Civil Service Rules Fed. Reg. 1525. *6 in the Civil Serv change margin.6 only The the
printed Hatch by activity, caused relating to ice Rules is the case this significance that legislation, Act “privately” word 1941, of the elimination on March opinions.” their express privately phrase from the “to regulated had expression to private This limitation since 1907.7 personnel classified injunction before present sought appellants of Co of the District three-judge district court
statutory Supp., with elections. R., “No 5 C. F. Cum. §1.1: interference authority use his official person in the executive civil service shall No affecting interfering or purpose with an election or influence for the the rules provisions thereof. Persons who results retaining service, competitive while chapter classified this express opinion on all they please their right to vote as and to management part political subjects, no active shall take political campaigns.” inor compensation. necessary “Legal appointment 15.1:
Section opportunity for finds, after due notice and the Commission Whenever holding any any appointed or is explanation, person has been assignment, promotion, by original appointment, position, whether orAct transfer, reinstatement, in violation of the Civil Service or Commission, any regulation of Rules, any or of Executive order or Rules, Act, any employee subject violated or that thereto has such appointing certify proper orders, regulations, the facts to the or it shall discipline specific or dismissal with instructions as to officer carry appointing fails to employee If the officer person affected. or receipt days within 10 after of the Commission out the instructions disbursing certify proper thereof, the facts to the the Commission shall payment allow- auditing officers, make no or and such officersshall any person employee thereafter salary wages such ance of the accruing.” 5, 1941, 6 Reg. O. 8705, Fed.
See E. March 1.1, 1, 1938. F supra, 5 C. R. June See note § comply change also in Rule 15. This was A occurred Attorney Act made removal ruling of the Hatch General mandatory activity. 40 penalty for forbidden from office a January 8, G., Activity by Employees, Op. A. Political Government 5, supra, prior to Hatch Act. 1941. See note for Rule the United States members of against appellees, lumbia from enforc Commission, prohibit them Service Civil of the second sen provisions against appellants ing reason that the Hatch Act for the (a) of 9 tence the United repugnant to the Constitution sentence is judgment A of the unconstitution declaratory States.8 sought.9 The sentence was also ality of sentence in the executive employee “No officer or reads, referred to . . . shall take the Federal Government *7 branch of political in management in part political active campaigns.” the federal executive employees
Various individual
of
America,10
Workers of
civil service and the United Public
and other executive
a labor union with these
joined
members,
members,
as a
of all its
representative
as
the individuals desire to
alleged
in the suit.
It is
management
political
in
and in
engage
political
acts of
in
excerpt
campaigns.
purposes
Their
are as stated
11
margin.
in the
From the
complaint
from the
set out
8
(a);
380
11-306 District of Columbia Code.
See 28 U. S. C. §
§
9
274d; 28
C. 400.
Judicial Code
U. S.
§
§
10
appellant,
No contention that
United Public Workers of America
(C.
bring
appellees.
O.),
capacity
this
is made
I.
lacked
to
action
Furlaud,
question here.
We need not consider the
McCandless
Drydock
Fishgold
Repair
293
73-74. See
v. Sullivan
&
U. S.
Corp.,
“The Section Hatch deprivation of the as a the funda- the Constitution States United people engage right States mental of the United *8 people and activity, reserved to the of the United States the Ninth Tenth Amendments. (a) repugnant sentence of
“The second Section Hatch Act unreasonably pro- States, of to the since it Constitution United employees engaging in be hibits Federal activities which lawfully by persons employees, thus carried on are not Federal who constituting deprivation liberty Fifth a of violation of Amendment. (a) repugnant second sentence of
“The Section 9 of Hatch Act is arbitrary to the Constitution of the United since it and States effects an grossly unreasonable between the Federal discrimination subject provisions Government the classified civil service to its employees specifically therefrom, in exempted of the Fifth violation Amendment. (a) repugnant
“The second sentence of Section Hatch Act is to vague the Constitution of the since it indefi- States is so United nite prohibit lawful as as activities as well activities which are properly provisions made law, other in violation of unlawful the Fifth Amendment.” regulation. Defendants moved to dis
missible limits justiciable for lack a case or contro complaint miss the versy. The Court determined that each of these District appellants individual had an interest their claimed engaging political activities, sufficient to privilege give maintain this suit. United Federal right them Mitchell, (C. O.) Supp. Workers America I. 56 F. 621, 624. The District Court further that the determined questioned of the Hatch Act provision was valid and complaint therefore failed to state a cause action. .of accordingly granted It dismissed the complaint sum mary judgment to defendants. judgment
First. The of the District Court was entered September 26, on 1944. An order duly was entered on October 26, 1944, allowing an appeal. 28 U. S. C. 380a. § The same provides: section of the “In statutes the event an appeal is taken under section, this the record shall be made up and the case docketed in Supreme Court of the United within States sixty days from the time such appeal is allowed, under such rules may prescribed by the proper courts.” appeal This was not docketed in this Court until February 2, 1945, a date after the return date of the order under § 380a. Thereafter the Govern- ment suggested jurisdiction lack of in this Court consider appeal because of the failure of appellants appeal docket the in time. We postponed considera- tion jurisdiction of our over this appeal to hearing. proceed We now to a disposition of question. this comply To with the suggestion of 380a, this Court adopted Rule 47.13 In other cases of appeals, Rule Supreme Rules of the Court of the States, United Rule 47: *9 “Appeals to this court under the August 24, Act of 1937, shall be governed, may as far be, by as the rules of regulating this court the procedure appeal on in other cases from courts of the United States; . . . The record up shall be made and the case docketed in days this court within sixty from the appeal time the is allowed.”
85
appeals
also
applies
If
11
Rule
governs docketing.14
steps for dis
the
may
appeal,
hear
for
380a,
under
we
this
§
appellees.
by the
11
not taken
required by
missal
Rule were
judge
aby
an appeal
This is
of
upon
because
the allowance
10
Rules
Supreme
the
Court
here,
district court
to this
the
court
36,
case,
the
district
is transferred
are
or affirmance
for dismissal
subsequent steps
Court
provi
If, however,
above-quoted
the
taken
here.15
power
to the
prerequisite
is a
docketing
sion of 380a as to
fail.
review,
appeal must
this
Court to
this
appeals docketed after
380a,
passage
Prior
the
of §
us tohear this appeal.17
[Second.At the threshold of we consideration, are called upon to decide whether the complaint controversy states a cognizable in this Court. We defer consideration of the cause of action of Mr. Poole until section Three of this
17Compare Georgia
Compañía,
Lumber Co. v.
person gave who his name as . . . . my Mr. . . stated that if I used watcher’s certificate, the Civil Service Commission see that would I job was my dismissed from at the ... for violation of the Hatch Act. I, therefore, did not use the certificate as I had intended.] Congress may “I believe that constitutionally abridge not my right engage to in the activities However, mentioned above. unless prevent the courts Civil Service enforcing Commission from this law, unconstitutional will freely I rights unable to my exercise as a citizen.” (Identifying omitted.) words pursuant established courts known, the federal well As is advisory render do not III the Constitution Article of issues, of constitutional adjudication For opinions.19 not ab cases, in actual issues, presented legal “concrete declaratory is as true This requisite.20 are stractions,” seem appellants field.21 These other judgments as claims of broad upon advisory opinions seek clearly to Tenth Ninth and Fifth, 'First, by rights protected are appellants As these to the Constitution. Amendments gen to the right superior have a employees, they classified U. S. Hughes, 258 compare Fairchild citizens, erality of in their civil interest of their 126, but the facts personal interference possible rights, general threat its under Commission rights Service those Civil. not does by appellants, done things if rules, specified want Appellants controversy. justiciable make a case or cam management engage “political views appellants’ to follow persuade others paigns,” reasonably acts articles and other discussion, speeches, appellants’ designed to secure the selection an attack objection really generality of choices. Such pres not the Act, the Hatch political expediency on the competence legal beyond entation of issues. It is Interstate decision. Texas v. to render such a courts Commission, 158, 162. 258 U. S. Commerce courts, ultimately Court, of this power of [The upon Congress arises pass constitutionality acts *13 19 Papers Jay, 3, p. 486; Correspondence of John Vol. & Public Hayburn’s notes, 409; Arizona, 2 Dall. Alabama v. 291 S. Case and U. 286, 291; McAdory, Labor Alabama Federation v. 325 U. S. State 450, 461. 20 Exchange Bond Commis Electric & Share Co. v. Securities sion, 419, 443; Appalachian Power 303 S. United v. Electric U. States 423; Co., Alabama Labor v. Mc U. S. State Federation of Adory, supra, 461, cited; Corporations, and cases Breeze Coffman 316, 324, 323 U. S. and cases cited. Freeman, 359, 363. Altvater v. 319 U. S. this require the use of litigants when the interests of
only
inter
against actual
judicial
protection
for their
authority
can
enough.
A
We
threat
is not
hypothetical
ference.
activity
as to the kinds of
only speculate
their
contents of
engage
desire to
to the
appellants
as
their
circumstances of
proposed public statements or the
judicial responsibil
publication.
It would not accord
involving constitutionality,
ity
adjudge,
a matter
require
between
individual and the
the freedom of the
rights appear
ments of
when definite
public
except
order
upon
prejudicial
the one side and definite
interferences
upon the other.]2
judicial power
Constitution allots the nation’s
the federal
limits
respect
courts. Unless these courts
unique authority,
powers
of that
vested
they
upon
intrude
legislative
in the
or executive branches.
Judicial adher-
separation
powers preserves
ence to
doctrine of the
the courts for the decision of issues,
litigants,
between
capable
exposition
effective determination.
Judicial
upon political
when
proposals
permissible only
is
neces-
sary to decide definite
litigants.
issues between
When the
courts act continually
constitutionally
within these
im-
posed boundaries
power,
ability
perform
of their
their
their function as a
people’s protection
balance for the
against abuse
power by
other
government
branches of
remains unimpaired. Should the
expand
courts seek to
power
their
so
to bring
jurisdiction
under their
ill-de-
fined controversies over
issues,
constitutional
they would
long
It has
practice
been this Court’s “considered
not to decide
abstract, hypothetical
contingent questions,
any
. . . or to decide
question
constitutional
necessity
advance of the
for its deci
sion, ...
or to formulate a rule of constitutional
law broader than
required by
precise
facts
applied,
to which it is to be
...
or to
decide
question
constitutional
except
particu
with reference to the
applied,
lar facts to which it is to be
. . . .” Alabama State Federa
tion
McAdory,
Labor v.
450, 461,
325 U. S.
and cases cited. See
Alma Motor Co. v.
Co.,
Timken-Detroit
“However, proposed I have been served with a order of the United Commission, January 12, 1944, States Civil Service dated which advises me above, that because activities mentioned *15 charged the Commission by has been
Poole qrder from his removal for his and a activity proposed right .under Commission subject his adopted to position further charges present and to procedure reply the con in to consider proceed refutation.24 We evidence Poole at issue between power constitutional troversy over charge prelim and .by as defined and the Commission of Poole’s and the admissions finding upon one side inary limited to is the other. Our determination upon affidavit the re so limited meets proceeding those facts. This definite threat inter quirements rights of defined and a rights by penalty the menaced possessor fere with a for an act done in of the claimed restraint.25 violation reason, is, ., opinion ‘it . . of this Commission and for no other George Poole, employee of Mint at P. the United States Pennsylvania, guilty political activity in Philadelphia,' has been I’ I refute 1, Rule and that unless can violation of Section Civil Service charges engaged political activity, I that I in will be dismissed have my position Philadelphia, in Mint as a Roller the United States at Pennsylvania.” 24 charge finding The tentative and reads:
I. charged:
“It . That . . George political party “The said P. Poole held the office of Demo- City Philadelphia, cratic in Ward Executive Committeeman Pennsylvania. George by aiding politically
“The said P. and Poole was active assist ing Party capacity polls the Democratic of worker at the on general day, 5, 1940, election and assisted the distribution November paying party general of funds workers for their services on election day, 5, 1940.” November
III. taking activity part “The above described constitutes an active political management political campaign’in contravention of regulations I, adopted Section Civil Service Rule Commissioners thereunder.” 25Maryland Casualty Co., v. & Co. Coal Oil 312 U. S. Pacific 273; Freeman, 359, 364; Nashville, Altvater v. C. & St. L. U. S. Ry. Wallace, 249, 260. U. S. prohibition that the hereinafter we conclude
Because *16 pro remedies. The act the exhaustion of administrative the order statutory vides no or review for administrative v. Compare Stark Wick of the Civil Service Commission.] S. S. ard, Macauley 288, 306-10; 321 U. S. v. Waterman of Corporation, prior proceeding, 327 no U. S. [As in otherwise, an fering remedy pending effective is problem judicial there discretion as to courts, is no Brillhart v. Ex cognizance whether to take of this case.] Co., 491, 496-97, cess Insurance 316 S. dissent at 500; U. Corporation, 450, General Motors 134 F. 2d Larson v. why circumstances, such we see no reason 453. [Under judgment action, though even constitutional declaratory Pro involved, issues are does not See Rules of Civil lie.] Railroad cedure, Rule 57. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Co., v. Brotherhood 192, 197, 207; 323 U. Tunstall S.
26 controversy except “In with 28 U. S. C. cases of actual § 400: respect shall have to Federal taxes the courts of United States declaration, complaint, appropriate power upon petition, or other pleadings rights legal to declare and other relations of interested party petitioning declaration, for such whether or not further relief prayed, could and such declaration shall the force and is or have judgment effect of a final or decree and be reviewable as such.” Haworth, 227, 241; Nashville, Aetna Insurance v. 300 Co. U. S. Life Ry. Wallace, 249, 264. C. & St. L. 288 S.U. 27 Berry, 366, 377; Sawyer, See White v. U. S. In re U. S. 200, 212. 212, Enginemen, U. S. Firemen &
Locomotive *seq. et im narrow but Fourth. [This brings us to consider Poole’s situation.28 point involved Poole’s portant man part “active taking offense is stated ward execu He was a campaigns.” agement politically was party and committeeman of a tive pay and a polls at the day on as a worker active election The issue workers. party services of other master for the we decide is whether such and the one only for decision Hatch Rule of the Commission breach of the Act and basis be made the violating Constitution, without can, action.] disciplinary the interference narrowed, When the issue is thus expression proportion compared free is seen better requirements orderly management with the of admin- personnel. Only employee polit- istrative while the ically active, the sense of Rule must he withhold subjects. 6. We expression opinion public on See note assume that Mr. Poole would be comment expected to publicly political matters, as committeeman on so that indirectly accept there is an attenuated We interference. appellants’ political rights contention that the nature of *17 people by reserved to the the and Tenth Amend- Ninth right ments are The involved. claimed as inviolate right be party stated as the of a citizen to act as a official worker to further his own views. Thus we Myers Shipbuilding Corp., v. Bethlehem 41, *In 303 U. S. a declara- tory judgment proceeding, p. 46, prior adoption 57, to the of Rule a proceeding required. statutory B. before the N. L. R. was There is judicial decisions, review from that Board’s however. 28 agree complaint We with the Government that the not fail does against state a cause of action the Commission because it seeks against relief the Commission’s action under the Hatch instead .Act controversy 1 Rule of the Commission. So far as Poole’s is concerned, the act the rule the are same.
95 Act and the Hatch by interference the a measure of have the freedom would be with what otherwise Rules and Tenth First, Ninth civil under servant as a upon process if due And, we look Amendments. is corre- there fields, in those guarantee freedom Fifth Amend- right under the of that impairment sponding Amendments are objections under the Appellants' ment. basically same. that argument appellants' persuasion do not find
We subject to regula are during time not activities free such cannot though political activities admittedly tion even po The influence of indulged during working hours.29 if evil in its government employees, activity by litical dealing service, employees people on effects activity place takes them, is less so because hardly need for this course, question hours. Of after government rather than regulation for other branches Act if the Hatch duty in this case ends the courts. Our under examination is constitutional. provision accepted doctrine that Of it is constitutional course, The rights are not absolutes. these fundamental human The age must be met. requirements of residence and rights some instances essential of the First Amendment which subject elemental need for without to the order would be mocke guarantees rights of civil to others granted to the ry.30 powers by Constitution 29 labor-management recognized by this relationships, it been In has might justify prohibition employers of Court circumstances activity employer’s property, though on union even Republic Corp. during non-working Aviation v. carried out hours. Board, 793, Labor 324 U. S. National Relations 571; Chaplinsky Hampshire, 568, v. New 315 U. Cantwell v. S. Connecticut, State, 304, 310; 310 U. S. Schneider v. U. S. Jonge 165; Oregon, 353, 364; Hampshire, v. De v. Cox New U. S. 569, 574; 158, 169; Prince Massachusetts, 312 U. S. v. U. S. Reynolds States, United S. 145. U. *18 totality
Federal Government are from of subtracted the originally the There sovereignty people. the states and fore, objection when is made exercise a federal that the of power infringes upon rights by the Ninth and reserved Amendments, Tenth must inquiry be directed toward granted power under which the action of the Union granted power found, necessarily was taken. If objection by of invasion of those reserved the Ninth rights, Amendments, Again and Tenth must fail. this Court guarantees must balance of of freedom the extent against congressional protect a democratic enactment society against political supposed partisanship evil of government. employees classified pointed opinion, practice
As out hereinbefore this excluding party classified from offices employees personal political activity polls at the has been effect for several decades. Some similar incidents to those are under examination here have been before this Court prohibition against types certain activ ity by upheld. officeholders has been leading case Curtis, was parte decided 1882. Ex U. S. There a subordinate United employee States was indicted for violation of an act that not forbade who were appointed by the President and confirmed the Senate from giving receiving money purposes or to other employees of the government on dis penalty of charge and criminal punishment. Curtis urged that statute was unconstitutional. Court upheld right This of Congress to punish the infraction this law. The deci sive principle power was the Congress, within reason able limits, regulate, might so far necessary, as it deem conduct of its A employees. list prohibi against tions by public acts officials that are permitted to other given. citizens was This said, p. Court 373:
“The evident purpose Congress in all this class of enactments has been to promote efficiency and *19 duties, and to official discharge in the of integrity in the service. public proper discipline maintain of just scope is within the Clearly purpose such act why the easy not to see it is legislative power, and within fairly not come does under consideration now end.” to such an legitimate the means through money fellow right to contribute held not was political theories to the contributor’s advance It was provision. protected to constitutional Brad by Mr. Justice regulation. A dissent subject to held opinion. of Court’s ley the broad basis emphasized his right promote to He that a citizen’s contended he was merely so because could not be restricted views government.31 official of joined in this dissent. of other member the Court
No no constitu that there was Court, The conclusion of of financial contributions regulation tional bar to of such politi distinguished from exercise public servants acceptance has ballot, cal such as found privileges Congress growth and the subsequent practice neutrality pub classified required political for principle The con efficiency.32 lic servants as a sound element every having proper qualifi 376-77: “. citizen 31 106U. S. . . right accept office, to be therefor. cations has the a candidate legislature deprive right This is a fundamental which the cannot citizen, clog repugnant nor its conditions that are. exercise with rights. regard imposed his fundamental condition I that other Such a co-operating question prevents the law be. It citizen promotion with other citizens of his in the his own choice Neither, thing . . The whole seems to me men’s views. . absurd. constitutionally way.” purses up nor their mouths can be tied that 32 Kaplan, Neutrality Service, Political the Civil 1 Pub. Pers. 10; White, (1930); Rev. Civil Service in the Modern Mosher State Kingsley, (1936); White, Public Administration Gov Personnel Meriam, (1935); ernment Career Service Public Personnel Problems (1938).
Military personnel is Army restricted in much the same manner. governmental personnel
viction
an actively partisan
that
Ex
parte
good
deepened
threatens
has
since
administration
Curtis.
Congress
danger
the service
recognizes
than
effort
advancement
may
rather
official
earn
and to
public
governmental
favor
be chan
through political
neled
connections.33
*20
Wurzbach,
United States v.
In
396,
280 U. S.
the doc-
legislative
governmental
trine of
over
of
power
actions
held
officials was
valid when extended to members of Con-
gress.
Congress
prohibited
The members of
were
receiving
“any political purpose
contributions for
what-
ever” from
other
employees.
federal
Private citizens
argument
unconstitutionality
were not affected. The
of
political rights
because of interference with the
of a citizen
by that
time was
in a
Compare
dismissed
sentence.
Thayer,
United
States
The 9 of the Hatch Act and Civil Service Rule are in not dissimilar from the purpose against statutes political of money. contributions prohibitions now political under discussion are directed at by contributions of energy government employees. Regulations 600-10, p. persons No. “6. Political in 5: activities of military Army, service.—a. General.—No member of the while on duty, active authority use purpose will his official or influence interfering with affecting an election or the course or outcome persons, thereof. duty, right vote, Such while on active retain express opinions privately their informally political on all sub- jects candidates, public and to become candidates for office as permitted regulations. They in these permitted will par- not be ticipate any way political management in political campaigns.” interesting general An subject discussion of the of interference federal officers elections Appendix will be found in the to the Con- gressional Globe, 19, Dec. 1839, pp. 157, 1838-Feb. 160 and 33 Cong. 2338-2367, Rec. 2426-2442, 2696-2723, 2920-2963, 2969- 2987, 9360-9380, 9426-9432, 9434-9463. disa background too, long contributions, have
These responsible are Congress and the President pproval.34 effi If, judgment, their public for an efficient service. partici prohibiting active ciency may be best obtained officers politics party pation by classified objection.35 workers, we see no constitutional whole, on the Congress may that, Another determine management by federal limitations on active teaching, experience has personnel are unwise. The provisions. the Hatch Act evidently Congress led to enact present supposed To declare that evils Congress redress would activity beyond power sincere impotent many leave the nation to deal what system. men is a material threat to the democratic believe regardless Congress politically public is not naive or It leaves untouched employees. welfare or that of the decisions at participation by employees full only partisan activity the ballot box and forbids *21 efficiency. deemed offensive to With personnel federal their only, employees may that limitation make contri- interests, affairs or their own public protect butions to passage as before the of the Act.
34Richardson, Messages Papers (1897), Har- of the Presidents 4, rison, IV, p. 52; id., Hayes, VII, pp. note vol. vol. 450-51. See supra. Bedford, Mass., police in 1891 under a removed a
When New rule by Justice, Judge, political activity, opinion man for Mr. then disposed summarily Holmes of McAuliffe’s contention that the rule right express political opinion epigram, his his with the invaded right petitioner may politics, “The have a constitutional to talk but right policeman.” he has no constitutional v. New be a McAuliffe Bedford, 216, 220, 29 155 Mass. E. 517. N. provisions. (1940), 12, Several states have similar Ala. Code Tit. 157; (Supp. 1939), 698e; Conn. Gen. c. 105a Stat. Ohio Gen. Code § § (Page, 1937), § 486-23; (Purdon, 1942), Ann. Pa. Stat. Tit. 741.904; Resolves, 1939, p. I. & R. Acts indis- neutrality is not that argument may be employees for federal system to a merit
pensable does not indispensable is accepted. But because it not Modern permissible. mean that it is not desirable or political parties. organized American involves politics been employees have Many government classifications of local— state and politics—national, to work accustomed Con- principle to assure their tenure. as matter of activity limit reasonably party desire to gress may a one- tendency avoid a toward employees federal so as to parties It have would party system. may considered if public public more devoted to the welfare serv- truly politically. ants were not overactive Appellants urge protected that federal Rights the Bill “enact Congress not regulation providing Republican, Negro that no Jew or appointed shall be or that federal office, federal no employee part shall attend Mass or active take missionary work.” None would such limitations on deny congressional power but, because there are limita some tions, it not prohibition does follow that a against acting as ward leader worker A polls reading at is invalid. of the Act and Rule 1, supra, *22 by law so long government employee does direct not his activities toward party success.
It is urged, however, that further Congress gone has Commission, Activity United States Civil Service Political and Assessments, Political January Form types all political activity in prohibiting necessary than pointed by appellants out employees. It is of classified is a of com many of these impartiality “that the matter of their performance” plete the effective indifference a illustra Mr.;Poole appear good duties.37 would to be states that complaint tion for appellants' argument. job calling this is he is a in the mint. We take it a roller it and does for the skilled mechanic that qualities a if in Nevertheless, public. not contact with the involve activity, Congress may time engaged political free he is retard may promote or activity have concluded that Con superiors. with his preferment his advancement government employees gress may thought have to use handy policy for leaders elements regulation employees building machine. For more regulated anything the act be necessary it is not Congress to interfere an deemed reasonably than act hun There are efficiency public with the service. posi employees dreds of thousands of United States determination than upon policy no influential tions more Congress Evidently feared was that of Mr. Poole. what employee effect on morale the cumulative partici who be induced to activity employees all could It not seem to us an unconstitutional pate actively. does legislation. basis for responsibility light “In in duties of these variations and wide reasonably public enforcement, policy
for and fair a restriction its designed impartiality Revenue, preserve the Collector of the of a utterly agent Marshal, Treasury F. B. absurd U. S. an I. or unjustified clerk, applied grinder, a machin- when to a lens a stock operator. impossible ist, It both to observe elevator is therefore sweeping regard rights reasonable enact constitutional political rights applicable prohibitions to all as to Federal complicated dealing whatever nature of duties. In with so their subject matter, readily be substituted varied a a hatchet cannot scalpel.” for a *23 may- administrative suggestion that workers
There is management constitutionally, political barred, be may workers the industrial while political campaigns and barred, “narrowly an act constitutionally, without not be specific the punish and selectively drawn to define us, lies the fact answer, A it seems to ready conduct.” (a) “applies Hatch Act of 9 of the prohibition industrial employees all whether without discrimination Rules, by Civil administrative” and that Service Act, clear that in- part Hatch makes § made prohibition against dustrial workers are covered political activity. has Congress determined presence government employees, industrial or whether administrative, ranks of party workers is bad. Whatever there between differences be admin- employees government istrative and industrial in its employ workers far are differences detail so as the power constitutional under review is concerned. Whether there are such weight differences what to attach to them, all are matters of detail for Congress. We do not
know whether the number federal will ex- pand contract; whether the need for regulation of their political activities will increase or diminish. The use of the constitutional power regulation Congress, not for the courts.
We have said that Congress may regulate government conduct of employees “within reasonable limits,” though regulation even trenches to some ex- tent upon unfettered action. The determination of the extent to which political governmental activities of employees shall regulated lies primarily Congress. Courts will interfere only when regulation passes such beyond the generally existing conception governmental power. That conception develops from practice, history, changing educational, social and economic conditions. The regulation of such activities as Poole carried on has Commission, court approval long practice by in- large body and a upon problems decisions similar *24 Congress and the administrative public opinion. formed and agencies authority discipline efficiency have over the public of the service. When actions of civil servants judgment Congress integrity menace the and the competency service, legislation to forestall such danger is’required. and maintain its adequate to usefulness Congress The Hatch Act is the answer of to this need. We cannot say background such a that these restrictions are unconstitutional. above,
Section 15 of the Hatch Act, note 3 defines an part management active political political campaigns or as the same activities that the States Civil Service United Commission has prohibited determined to be to classified employees by provisions civil service of the Civil Serv ice Rules when 15 July 19, 1940. § took effect Stat. 767. Poole, The activities of Mr. as ward executive committee man and polls, a worker at the fall within obviously prohibitions against taking of 9 of the Hatch Act § management part active and cam They paigns. prior also covered determina tions of the Commission.38 We need to examine no fur Commission, Activity United States Civil Service Political and Assessments, 1236, September Political Form 1939: “15. any political Committees.—Service on or for committee or organization prohibited. similar is . . . Activity polls
“20. at the and for candidates.— . . . duty employee any “It is the activity of an to avoid offensive at primary regular and soliciting votes, elections. He must refrain from assisting ballots, voters to helping get mark regis- out the voters on days, acting tration and election checker, as the accredited watcher, challenger any party or faction, assisting counting vote, engaging activity other polls except marking at-the depositing of his own ballot.” the definition of validity of this time into the
ther at 15.39 activity accordingly judgment of the District Court
Affirmed. Murphy Jackson took Mr. Justice Mb. Justice of this case. in the consideration or decision part no Rutledge for the rea- Mr. Justice dissents as to Poole Black. He pass does not Mr. Justice sons stated other by the questions presented upon constitutional controversy that he feels appellants for reason exer- discretionary yet appropriate to them is not jurisdiction. *25 judgment declaratory cise of concurring. Frankfurter, Mr. Justice 751, August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. The terms of the Act of have con- light history, in of its 380a, 28 U. S. C. § for want of me case should be dismissed vinced that this jurisdiction. time within Congress
In a limit to the Act, put that below appeal here after an may which a case be docketed in exer- by Congress is is allowed. Such a limitation regulate jurisdiction power appellate cise its enlarge a limit power It is not within our this Court. gave itself the Court Congress Congress unless fixed dispensing power. such a district this Court from allowing appeal
In a direct Congress may prescribed,” “under such rules as court the con- this Court to defeat give power not mean to did in controversies speed disposition siderations of which legislation of federal involving constitutionality case be docketed specific provision that a led to appeal is allowed.” from the time such sixty days “within Wurzbach, 396, 399. United 280U. S. States disregard limitations for No rule of this Court could Rule perfecting appeal Congress. made Nor does August which Act of responsive was the rule to the 24, 1937, It purport merely do so. reasserts statu- tory requirement in “The record a case like this shall sixty be made and the in within up case docketed this court days appeal from the time the is allowed.” The introduc- tory part of 47, whereby Rule the Rules of this Court regulating appellate adopted in procedure other cases “as far as may be,” ample operation has for without scope qualifying the necessity speedy perfection appeal for of an involving constitutionality, validity cases so Congress through acts not remain in doubt litigation. protracted deep This was a concern of Con- gress and its reason for imposing sixty-day limitation perfecting appeals for this class of cases. compulsion assumption
But under Court’s jurisdiction, join reach the merits and I Mr. Justice Reed’s opinion. Black,
Mr. Justice dissenting. The makes statute, upheld, sentence 9 of the here it unlawful in the executive any person employed branch of the Federal with minor numerical Government, manage exceptions,1 part to “take active in political pro ment or campaigns.” punishment *26 1 excepted part-time employee part-time Those “a officer or compensation compensation serving in without or with nominal con- existing effort,” commonly designated with the nection war “Dollar-a-year “(1) men” and President and Vice President of States; (2) persons compensation paid the United whose from the appropriation President; (3) for the office of the heads and assistant (4) departments; appointed heads of executive officers who are by President, by Senate, and with the advice and consent of the policies pursued by and who in determine to be the United States its foreign powers relations with inor the Nation-wide administration of 9a; (a), Federal laws.” 18 U. S. C. 61h as amended. § against ban discharge permanent vided is immediate The number of position.2 in the same reemployment action is barred from employees thus federal Act Section of the same million. approximately three many in political campaigns participation affects the No of all these mil employees.3 thousands of state one can, violating law, any this “take lions of citizens without in or for a candidate any campaign active for cause part” “specifically any if the cause or candidate is identified party.” Since under our com National or State 2“Any person violating provisions this imme- section shall be position by diately him, removed from the or office held and there- part appropriated by any Congress no of the funds Act of for after pay position compensation or office shall be used to such of such (b). 9b; person.” C. 61h U. S. agency All state who work for state in financed grants part or in federal whole or loans are affected the Act. 12a; 18 61l. Section U. S. C. paid $865,729,569.15 grants In 1945 the Federal Government in in Report states, Secretary Treasury aid to Annual on the Finances, year 30, (1946)
State ended June fiscal 714, $688,506,157.11 payments in direct to states for the social security public program, emergency maternity roads and infant expenditures care. Id. at 718. states, provid- Grants to and within ing relief, relief, direct and other Agricultural work aid such as the Adjustment Program, Housing Agency National contributions, annual etc., $1,353,427,735.68. totaled Id. at 721. July persons employed by
In 1946 the number of state and local governments approximately 2,754,000 641,000 totaled of whom were 2,114,000 employed in employees. schools and were non-school Public Employment July, 1946, in Government Employment, Dept, of Com merce, Census, 7, (1946) Bureau of the Vol. No. 3 1. A breakdown county employees sample suggests proportion is a which state paid in part by and local whose salaries whole or in federal coming provisions funds thus under the of this Act. Of a total 310,000 county employees in non-school country, 77,000 entire employed highway departments; 4,700 were resources; natural 12,600 sanitation; 40,000 hospitals; in health and 22,000 public County Employment welfare. Government Employment, (1944) op. supra, cit. Vol. No. 2
mon and candidates are political practices most causes espoused by that, the result because political parties, is they treasury, are out all these citizens paid public of the in effective engage public really who work can take no changes in their part campaigns may bring about lives, fortunes, happiness.4 their and their
We are not left in numerous and varied doubt as to how prohibited. sweepingly are the “activities” For 15§ describes them as “the same activities ... as the United States Civil deter- Service Commission has heretofore prohibited mined are at the time this section takes effect on the part employees in the classified civil service of the United States . . . .” with Along vague uncertain prior prohibitions of Commission, are these things which the clearly prohibited: Commission had serving as an officer; publicly expressing politi- election cal at party political gathering views caucus or for or against any candidate or cause identified with a party; exceptions. only granted There are minor One concession is those vicinity federal who live “in the immediate of the National Capital Maryland Virginia municipalities the States of or in majority employed by of whose voters are Government may “permit” United States . . . .” The Civil Commission Service participate campaigns involving them “municipality politi they cal subdivision” which reside “to the extent the Commission 16; deems to be in domestic interest . . . .” Section [their] 61p. general A exception permits (1) U. S. C. participation in an preceding campaign “election and the if none of the candidates is to be representing [political] party nominated elected ... . . . (2) any question in connection with specifically which is not identified any party. purposes National or State For. the of this section, questions relating amendments, referendums, to constitutional approval municipal ordinances, character, and others of a similar specifically shall not be deemed to identified with National or political party.” State importance 18 U. S. C. 61r. The § number of excepted, issues Sunday movies, thus e. g. local issues, school bond parks, location of local election of local officials political party whom no interested, obviously very small. *28 in candidate; participating a soliciting party for or votes publishing or political parade; writing publication a for in or favor of article, signed unsigned, or any letter or faction; initiat- candidate, or against any political party, canvassing signatures petitions ing, on, community or petitions Congress. to In is prohibitions, view of these it little consolation they employees contradictorily says that the Act that may opinions political subjects on all and “express their For this permission “express opin- candidates.” their is, rightly said, “subject ions” the Commission has prohibition employees that not take active may in part . . . con- political campaigns.” hopeless tradiction an talk privilege employee between this in against talking and the stands out prohibition his to all warning employees Commission’s further that they can their express opinions publicly, but “Public ex- pression opinion way such a as to constitute taking part active political management cam- paigns accordingly prohibited.” Thus, opin- whatever may ions employees express, dare to even secretly, must peril. be at their They know particular cannot what expressions be may reported to the Commission and held by it to be a political activity sufficient to cost them their jobs. Their peril is all greater because of another warning by the Commission that “Employees are . .. accountable for activity persons other than themselves, including wives or husbands, if, in fact, the employees are thus accomplishing collusion and indi- rection what they may not lawfully do directly and openly.” Thus the families of public employees stripped of their freedom of political action. The result is that the sum political privilege government left to state employees, and their families, to take part in political campaigns seems to be this: They may in silence; vote they may carefully and quietly express political view at (this is the “spectators” may become they peril; their it though campaign gatherings, word) at Commission’s motion” to “second for them highly dangerous with a disagree agree or they or let it be known speaker. challenge the constitutional
All of here petitioners pro which statute validity of 9 of the sentence part active taking “any hibits all federal political campaigns” political management or *29 prohibition this only sweeps under by which reference charge The then-existing regulations. civil service all regu by supplemented that thus provision, this by prohibiting Amendment lations, violates the First that it violates assembly; press, speech, freedom of arbitrary it effects an because the Fifth Amendment government employees between gross discrimination Fifth that it also violates exempted; and those covered as to and indefinite vague because it is so Amendment which are as well as activities lawful activities prohibit Thus, law. by provisions made unlawful other properly petitioners Poole and all the other these attacks of is unconstitutional namely, provision identical, question against decides this on its face. The Court justiciable a presents that his case holding Poole after the,constitu challenge I think Poole’s controversy. [ And since be sustained. tionality provision should Douglas petitioners’ that all the agree with I Mr. Justice threats controversy, and show complaints state a case or I con damages, think that irreparable of imminent tention, challenged provision is unconstitutional that the them.] as to all of on its face should be sustained farmers or a deprived five million Had this measure elections, right to participate million businessmen of all farm or business Congress thought that federal because or be exercise, of them to might prompt subsidies some gov politics influence on susceptible to, corrupting ernment, ground I would such an Act on the not sustain interpreted apply only it so as to to some could Certainly guar of them. laws which restrict the liberties narrowly anteed the First Amendment should be drawn only to meet the evil aimed at and to affect the minimum people imperatively necessary number of prevent grave danger Furthermore, and imminent the public.5 what federal can or cannot do, consistently with the various civil service regulations, rules, warnings, etc., great is a matter of so uncertainty person that no can intelligent guess. even make an This was demonstrated government’s arguments briefs and oral in this I case. would hold that provision here attacked is broad, ambiguous, too consequences uncertain its to be made removing deserving employees the basis of jobs. dissenting their See opinion, Williams Carolina, North 226, 261, 325 U. S. 276-278 and cases collected, note 16. right privately to vote and to express opinion political matters,
on important though they be, are but parts the broad freedoms which our Constitution has *30 provided as political the bulwark of our free institutions. Popular government, effective, permit to be must and 6 encourage political much wider activity by people. all the Real popular government means “that men as speak think they on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through processes of education and discussion . . . Those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and reasoning fearless and communication of ideas to spread discover and political 5 Alabama, 88; Thornhill v. Alabama, U. S. Marsh v. S.U. 501; Bridges California, v. 252, 260, 263. 314 U. S. require Some employers pay states their for the they spend away time voting. People from work while See v. Ford Co., Motor App. 141, 697; Pay Div. Note, N. Y. S. 2d While Voting, (1947). 47 Col. L. Rev. 135
Ill Alabama, truth.” Thornhill v. 310 U. S. and economic citizens Legislation which muzzles several million 95. injures it popular government, only threatens not because harmful muzzled, the individuals but also because of its in it of the body politic depriving political effect on the large segment and interest of such a of our participation Forcing public employees money citizens. to contribute in and influence can well be the interest of proscribed I politics” public “clean and administration. But think legislation mil- prohibits prevents the Constitution which contributing arguments, of citizens from their com- lions plaints, suggestions to the debates which are engag- them democracy; prevents essence of our activity urge in others to vote and ing organizational affairs; take an interest bars them from per- his forming duty insuring the interested citizen’s and his fellow citizens’ are counted. Such drastic votes right people express political limitations on the of all the opinions and take action would be inconsistent guaranty the First Amendment’s of freedom of speech, assembly, and it press, petition. And would vio- I late, dangerously violating, come close to Article Constitution, Seventeenth Amendment of the which Congress- protect right people of the to vote for their men and their United States Senators and to their have Yarbrough, Ex parte 651; votes counted. See 110 U. S. Mosley, United 383; States 238 U. S. United States v. Classic, 313 U. S.
There nothing about and state employees federal justifies depriving a class which them or society benefits of their like participation public They, affairs. other citizens, pay peace taxes and serve their country they pay The taxes and the war. wars which *31 they fight are spokesmen determined the elected all the people. They come from the homes, same com- munities, schools, churches, colleges as do the other them to guarantees the Constitution I think
citizens. have good citizens groups other right the same rep- elected who their which decide engage activities be. shall resentatives attempted so before ever Congress has
No statute utter- written political spoken drastically to stifle state federal and activities political and lawful ances the Civil was approach a class. The nearest employees as which 403-4, authorized 1883, Stat. Act of Service things, that, among other rules so promulgate President to authority “use his official employee should government no or any person action of the political influence to coerce or Commission, purport- 1907, In the Civil body.” Service the Court authority Act, did, ing to act of the under employees taking civil from out, prohibit service points management part “an active campaigns.” approved But this has not the statu- Court rule, power promulgate such a tory of the Commission implication nor has it expressly approved ever validity sweeping abridgement constitutional such right Ex expression. parte of freedom of Neither Curtis, Wurzbach, nor States v. U. S. United slightest U. S. lend the to the statute. support present Both these cases related to did more statutes which no than right limit the money collect other employees political purposes. Indeed, Curtis decision seems implicitly to have rested on the assumption many activities of government employees, beyond merely voting and speaking secretly, would not, and could not under the im- Constitution, be paired by legislation Curtis, there issue. at parte Ex supra, at 375.
It is argued that it is in the interest of clean politics to suppress political activities of federal and employees. state It would hardly seem imperative to muzzle millions *32 their constitutional if left them, of because some citizens of politi- All process. political freedoms, might corrupt em- and federal state not traceable to corruption is cal may groups other possible it that Therefore, ployees. right participate their compelled to sacrifice be later of protection of the purity for the political activities they part. which are a Government of em contended, higher that some may true, It as might their coerce subordinates restrained, unless ployees, po use their employees might official government or that possibility a coerce citizens. But is such sition to other gov limited to employer of a his coercion subordinate relationships? The same employer-employee ernmental argument a law to quality support suppress would employees private employers, freedom all political money borrow or draw particularly employers who plaus does it subsidies from Government. Nor seem whose employees that all of the millions of public ible they if expression might, to free are here stifled rights in elections, employed coerce citizens not participate other Poole, one peti the Government or the States. in a His here, tioners is a roller United States mint. job is about on in terms influence par a state, federal, private that of most other business em generally give such ployees. jobs Such do not to enable to wield authority who hold them sufficient them world. dangerous coercive influence on public employees If the exists some other possibility more coerce may, by positions, reason of their influential citizens, or other laws can be drawn public employees other the eoercers.8 It consistent with punish hardly seems non-government Many protecting employees from states have laws voting independence. Note, their employer interference with See Voting, (1947). Pay 135, 136, note 9 47 Col. L. Rev. While 7, supra. note See justice system equal suppress our to all to speaking good freedom of millions of citizens because might engage few bad citizens coercion.9 true, contended, It also be if public em- *33 ployees are to exercise full permitted express a freedom to in their views political campaigns, public some officials will discharge employees grant promotion some and a political others on rather than a merit For on basis. the same reasons other public officials, occupying positions of influence, may use their to have influence their own political supporters appointed promoted. But here if again, practice making discharges, promotions or promotions recommendations a political on basis is great so require an. evil as to legislation, the law could punish public those officials who in engage practice. punish To employees millions of and to deprive nation of their public contribution to in affairs, order to remove temptation from a proportionately small number of public officials, seems at the least to be a novel sup- method of pressing thought what is to be an practice. evil
Our system, different from many others, rests on the foundation by of a belief rule people—not some, all people. but Education has been fostered people better to fit for self-expression good and citizenship. In a country people whose elect their leaders and decide great public issues, the voice of none should be sup pressed—at least such assumption is the of the First Amendment. That Amendment, unless I misunderstand its meaning, includes a command that the Government must, order to promote interest, its own people leave the at liberty speak their thoughts own about government, advocate their governmental own favored causes, and work for their own parties. candidates and Act, fact, higher leaves free the positions officials whose give power them the actual to coerce subordinates and other citizens employed by 9a; not the Government. 18 U. S. C. 61h. the con- reduces Act held valid here The section million citizens liberty of several stitutionally protected mil- relegates It of its substance. to less than a shadow to the state, municipal lions federal, hinge which spectators upon role mere of events em- including public safety people, welfare of all the electorate of our ployees. proportion It removes a sizable to mould the destined participation from full affairs participation nation. It makes honest fortunes of the punishable by activities an essential offense gov- a It endows public employment. from proscription to censor power ernmental board with the awesome citi- law-abiding thoughts, expressions, and activities person which no zens in field free expression, it government which boasts should be barred people. government of, for, people—all *34 it to to hack at be, as its seems me purpose may Laudable themselves; and by people the of a Government the roots agree validity. I its cannot to sustain consequently Douglas, dissenting in part. Mr. Justice matters disagree on two of four with the Court [I decided. ask here appellants There individual First. are twelve passes The adjudication rights.1 Court ing for an their to them, one Poole. It declines only on the claim ground on the that pass the claims of other eleven on Board; Statistician, Elkin, Retirement Senior Economic Railroad Security Board; Abelson, Analyst, Phillips, Associate Financial Social Administration; Wage Economist, Mitchell, Shipping Labor An- War Board; Fagan, alyst, Director, War Man- National War Labor Area Prisons; power Commission; Winegar, Officer, Senior Bureau of Assistant, Security Agency; Rieck, Hindin, Federal Stock Procedural Clerk, Administration; Roller, Mint; Poole, Veterans United States Shane, Arsenal; Weber, Special- Grinder, Lens Frankford Machinist ist, Arsenal; Philadelphia Tempest, Welder, Frankford Electric Navy Yard. justiciable not
they present do cases or controversies. I agree. With conclusion cannot this declaratory procedure It that is judgment is clear in involving only available federal courts cases may not to obtain actual controversies and be used opinion controversy in a advisory yet not Coff arisen.] Corporations, 324-325, man v. Breeze 323 U. S. requirement cases of an controversy,” cited. “actual [The (Judicial which 274d, is written into the statute Code § 400) its § U. S. C. and has roots the Constitution (Article III, 2), me fully seems to to be met here.
What appellants enough. these to do propose plain is If they do what it they propose do, they is clear that discharged will be from their analysis positions.] situation District Court seems me to be accurate and conclusive: mere
“The existence that statute, saying they engage shall not penalty activity, the statute if they they do, shall be dismissed and the warning addressed them the Civil Serv- ice Commission in posters certainly prevent their them from in such engaging activity, if the statute is constitutional. If the statute is unconstitutional, they being prevented things they which have right If do. the statute is constitutional, it mandatory they doing dismissed for such . . things. provisions . The of Civil Service Rule XV that of any case violation of Civil Service *35 Act or Rules or of any any regu- Executive Order lation Commission the Commission shall cer- tify the facts to proper officer appointing specific to discipline instructions as or dismissal is provisions now controlled of the Hatch Act that in case of violation Section 9 of that (a) Act, dismissal is mandatory.” 56 F. Supp.
117 to show sufficiently specific is conduct proposed [Their The policy Act. it will violate the plainly lingering no of the Act leave and the mandate Commission consequences.2 doubt as to the jobs, their employees would lose discharge
On a these They civil service benefits. seniority, their and other United of Claims. in the Court could, course, sue Lovett, remedy is a there States v. U. 303. But the 328 S. formerly to the office not a restoration money judgment, available might be remedies course, other held. Of there rights to the offices their to determine these situations Berry, discharged. See White they from which employees first require these 366, 377. But to U. S. them only not to make discharge is hardship suffer illu wholly if inadequate, not it makes incur penalty; Men who have.3 any legal remedy they may which sory, to test livelihood order their means of must sacrifice prolonged jobs pursue must either rights their to their persons pull unemployed expensive as litigation employ careers, life and seek roots, change their up their average person At ment in other fields. least to taking that course the burden of groups the lower income is, therefore, situations where Court unlike those case declaratory judgments, the state to entertain refused actions being challenge hypothetical was to statutes facts in the sense that specific application known. yet had been their which not construed or Exchange Commission, & v. Securities and See Electric Bond S. Co. McAdory, 419, 443; S. Alabama State Federation Labor v. U. S. 450. U. legal remedy appro- adequate, it be the more Where supra, priate Corporations, v. Breeze declara- one. Thus in Coffman tory patent relief was denied a licensor of a who sued his licensee adjudication Adjustment Royalty was for an Act unconstitu- tipnal royalties appeared it since that a suit recover was ade- legal quate remedy could be and that the constitutional issues litigated there.
118 parte Young, cf. Ex U. irreparable injury,4 123,
is 209 S. 165, matter how exact the Cf. Watson required no showing.] Buck, 387, 400. 313 U. v. S. not, of declaratory judgment procedure may course, [The equitable as a substitute for used other remedies to legislative Huffman, Lakes v. policy, defeat a Great Co. 319 or 293, 300-301, necessity U. S. to circumvent the exhausting administrative Order Conduc remedies. 166; Penn. Co., Macauley tors v. R. U. v. Waterman S. Corp., S. S. 540. fills U. S. But it a need serves a high previously “performed function clumsily by rather our equitable proceedings the law inadequately H. R. Rep. Cong., Sess., p. courts.” No. 2d 1264, 73d 2.5 prayer declaratory separately If the relief be considered prayer injunction, may be, allegations irreparable for an as it injury required. Haworth, threatened are not Aetna Ins. Co. Life 300 U. S. Report: As stated Senate procedure especially
“The has been avoiding useful in necessity, present, having now so peril often to act one’s at or interpretation on to act one’s rights, own his or abandon one’s rights incurring damages. because of fear of a nowSo it is often necessary, declaratory judgment the absence of procedure, purport or violate violate a statute order to obtain a judicial meaning validity determination of its ... So now it necessary lease, upon often to break a or a act contract one’s interpretation rights own disputed, of his present when in order to justifiable controversy. to the court a jurisdictions In hav- [sic] ing declaratory judgment procedure, necessary it is not bring about such social economic waste and destruction in rights to obtain order a determination of one’s . . . There seems question many little that in in the situations conduct business disputes serious parties, where, occur between if pos- were a there sibility obtaining judicial rights declaration of in a formal action, much peace economic waste could be avoided and social promoted. peril, danger Persons now often to act have at their frequently which could be ability avoided sue for a declaratory judgment rights Rep. as to their or duties.” S. No. Cong., Sess., pp. 73d Borchard, 2d 2-3. And see Declara- ed.) tory Judgments (2d p. 4. *37 designed “to is declaratory judgment procedure The interested legal relations of rights and other declare is or could be . not further relief . . whether or party The C. 400. 274d, § Code 28 U. S. prayed.” Judicial wrongful removal would not restrain a equity fact that complainant to his but would leave the of an officeholder imma therefore, remedies, Berry, supra, is, v. legal White adjudicates more, A without judgment which, terial. Declaratory under the person permissible status of is a Elg, 325, v. 307 U. S. 349-350. Judgment Act. Perkins exer was the earliest perhaps The of a status “declaration procedure.” Rep. 1264, Cong., H. R. No. 73d cise of this position p. public 2d 2. The hold officeor right to an Sess., its use.6 against example threats is a common such seq. Judgments (2d ed.), 858 et Borchard, Declaratory pp. singular remedy available here Declaratory relief is the rights quo the status while constitutional preserve and to en to make these utterances appellants of these threat are determined. The gage these activities immediate not remote. against fanciful, them is real not one.7 hypothetical not a The case is therefore actual moving party shows no unlike one where the The ease therefore (Per only injury public legal rights possible to the invasion of his but judicial 125) Co., 113, where no kins v. Lukens Steel 310 U. S. or one remedy alleged wrong General Committee v. for the has been created. Co., Missouri K.-T. R. S. 323. U. following actions are cases which the Court has allowed v. declaratory judgments Aetna Ins. to be entertained: Co. Life company Haworth, supra, the insurance where an insured claimed and totally permanently hence and disabled and denied that he had become pre payment of obligation was relieved of the to continue miums; Wallace, Currin v. 306 U. S. where tobacco warehousemen Inspection Act was unconstitu and auctioneers claimed the Tobacco tional; Elg, supra, claiming citizen Perkins v. where one to be a deportation declined a was threatened with as an alien and had been Casualty Maryland passport ground; Coal on the same Co. Pacific suing Co., party where third was an insured & Oil 312 U. S. a sought judgment the insurer it was not liable to defend good example me to be a case seems present And insecurity uncertainty, peril, where a situation to asserted result, immediate threats imminent rights. constitutionality reach the not the Court does
Since discus individual these eleven the claims of appellants, premature.] to be of them would seem sion category not in the administrative Second. Poole is in the roller worker—a He is an industrial civil service. work or functions mint, whose a skilled laborer or artisan relation involve agency nor way policy no affect *38 in the marked difference public. with the is a ships There em industrial of administrative and British treatment And the between under civil service.8 ployees difference we have here. problem the two is for me relevant to the indemnify party re the the insured if the third insured nor to covered; Freeman, 359, royalties Altvater v. 319 U. where were S. injunc being paid protest and under and reason of an demanded Honeywell tion; Corp. Co., 680, alleged Mercoid v. 320 U. S. where an patent infringer sought invalidity patent; declaration of the Coal, Local, 590, Tennessee I. & R. Co. v. Muscoda 321 U. S. where employer representatives adjudi sued an its for portal-to-portal pay cation of whether was due under the Fair Labor Act; Hillsborough Cromwell, 620, Standards v. 326 U. S. where a tax payer sued in the federal court to have assessments declared on invalid ground they Constitution, the violated the Federal the state remedy being inadequate protect right; Katzinger the federal Co. v. Chicago Mfg. Co., 394, sought Metallic 329 U. S. where a licensee royalties invalidity a declaration that he owed no because of the patent; Railway Swan, the Order Conductors 329 U. S. sought where it was determine which division of the National Adjustment jurisdiction yardmas Board had over Railroad railroad Railway Corsi, ters. Cf. Mail Assn. v. 326 U. S. where a labor membership corporation, negroes which did not admit and was declaring threatened practice with enforcement of a state statute organizations unlawful, adjudica of labor sued in court a state for an constitutionally applied tion that the statute could not to it. 8Report, etc., Parliamentary, Committee on Candidature of Crown (1925), pp. 12, 13. Servants great “the one been called system has
The civil service democracy.9 century of nineteenth invention” and important government, the of modern The intricacies required, expertise it skill and performs, manifold tasks the in the various vested discretionary powers the vast claim work on individual impact the of their agencies, and have made general welfare well as on ants as who the men and women and skill of integrity, devotion, many concern of compose system deep a matter will ebb parties Political fortunes thoughtful people.10 will and come flow; top men in administrations policy or re amended passed and old ones go; new laws will be administration, give continuity But those who pealed. efficiency to skill and those who contribute basic new as government, those whom the work of on daily smooth dependent well old as the administration gov functioning complicated machinery of modern they If bene service. ernment are core of civil ca professional rather than patronage ficiaries of might so could reerists, Congress serious results follow—or objectivity reasonably believe.' Public confidence might weak system civil service be so integrity jeopardize the of administrative ened as to effectiveness might Or on incom government. it founder the rocks of *39 if out every change political in fortunes turned petency, administration, incumbents, continuity broke and with development expert,man thus interfered (2d Wallas, ed.), in p. Human Nature Politics
10Fish, Patronage (1905); Meriam, The Civil The Service and XI; (1938), Kingsley, Public Personnel Problems ch. Mosher & Public XVIII; Kingsley, (1941), Representative Personnel Administration ch. Bureaucracy X; (1944), Marx, Management ch. Morstein Public Democracy (1940), XIV; Field, (1939), the New ch. Civil Service Law p. 196; Dawson, Principle Independence (1922), pp. The Official seq.; Kaplan, Neutrality Service, et Political of the Civil Per- Public 10; Chen, Neutrality sonnel Rev. The of Civil Service Doctrine Party (1937). Conflicts States and Great Britain United if the incumbents
agement at the technical levels. Or workers, party partisanship were adventurers or might corrupt processes color or administration of are agencies law which most of the administrative entrusted. which philosophy can develop is to a civil service will serve loyally equally party well power.11
which comes into might Those considerations apply well to the entire group of civil in the category— servants administrative whether they expert are those the so-called classification clerks, stenographers or are like. They are the ones who have files, access who meet the ar- public, who range appointments, prepare basic who on which data policy decisions made. Each tributary, though one, a small main perhaps to the stream which we making call policy If administrative action. the ele- ment of partisanship enters into the official activities any member of the it group, may repercussions have its throughout effect process. the administrative Thus type of case support there would be much the view Congress Court that need not draw undertake to only line include the more important but offices can precaution take the of protecting the whole insulating even the lowest partisan echelon from activities.
So, I think if the issues tendered by Poole were tendered by an administrative employee, we would have quite a different case. For Poole right claims the to work e., executive committeeman, i. as a ward as an officeholder in a party.
But Poole, being an industrial worker, is as remote from contact with public or from policy making or from the functioning of the process administrative as a charwoman. supra cit. Chen, op. I; See Report note ch. of President’s Com mittee on Civil Improvement, Service H. Doc. No. Cong., 77th *40 Sess., 1st ch. III. I not, service is civil in the classified that he The fact is his to which degree question think, relevant to the position He is a be curtailed. political activities ma- in the works from one who essentially different not Govern- which the steamship shop of a railroad or chine manufacturing in a rolls aluminum runs, or who ment all Can operates. owns plant which Government constitutionally industrial categories of those life? If at some political insulated from American it has as pass country, it in this time should come future of basic ownership England, policy a broad state that all mean is does this decision inaugurated, industries of industrial workers affected of the hundreds thousands which activity could be debarred from the normal is one of our valued traditions? course, end system not,
The evils of do "spoils” History servants. group with the administrative civil in- government political regimentation shows that the crop workers its own of abuses. Those produces dustrial positions might top policy posts supervisory or others seek to knit industrial workers in civil service into make weapon they might machine. As a seek to dependent po- the advancement of industrial workers on on on loyalty, contributions, par- litical financial or other tisan efforts. Or activities of these workers government might place government take on premises, on time, government expense. or otherwise These are at require evils which treatment. specific specific would is, however, any There such abuse here. showing no did, compulsion What Poole he did on his without own suggestion higher Nor up. invitation from one government appear does it that what he did done on was government premises. Moreover, time or on Me. out, punish be drawn to points laws can Justice Black Curtis, parte those who use Ex such coercion. See S. 371. Such than the exercise of activity U. more *41 it
political prerogatives; power is the use of official well, Bakery and hence can be punished. restrained or Cf. Wohl, Drivers Local v. 769, 776-777; U. S. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 543-544. question
The
permissible remedy
is whether a
is com
plete
partial political
or
sterilization of the industrial
group.
is,
course,
There
the possibility of the mobiliza
tion, whether voluntary or
otherwise,
of em
millions
ployees of the Federal Government and federally assisted
agencies
state
purpose
for the
of maintaining a particular
in
party or group
power. The marked
in
increase
number of government employees in
years
recent
has
accentuated
problem.
difficulty
The
lies in attempt
ing
preserve
our
way
democratic
life
measures
which deprive
large segment
of the population of all
political rights except
right
to vote. Absent coercion,
improper
government
use of
position
government
or
funds,
neglect
or
or
in
inefficiency
the performance
duty,
federal employees have
rights
the same
as other citizens
under
the Constitution.
They are not
second-class
citizens.
If,
the exercise of their rights, they find com
mon
join
interests and
with each other or other
groups what they conceive to be their interests or the
interests of the nation,
they
simply
are
doing what any
other group might
In
do.
other situations where the bal
ance was between
rights
constitutional
of individuals and
a community interest which sought
qualify
those rights,
we have insisted that the statute be “narrowly drawn to
define
punish
specific conduct as constituting a clear
and present danger to a substantial
interest”
govern
ment.
Connecticut,
Cantwell v.
That seems to me proper course to follow here. The prohibition in 9 (a) of the Hatch against Act govern- ment employees taking part an “active man- without applies campaigns” agement industrial whether to all discrimination Service of the Civil is true The same administrative. Supp., R. Cum. XV, 5 C. F. I, 1,§ Rules Rules. See different and are both evils 1.1, 15.1. supposed But the §§ in the they than workers industrial narrower case of interest public group.12 administrative case of the *42 operator or machinist elevator activity of a political in the In problem.13 and different is distinct or charwoman a in the of preservation is the concern public cases those in free group from group, a unregimented industrial an power their official superiors who use pressures of political misused, power is Then official partisan purpose. for a op. supra, 10, pp. 205-206; Report Marx, cit., note Morstein See Parliamentary, etc., of Crown Candidature Serv- of the Committee on (1937), pp. supra, 32; Finer, The British Civil Service ants, p. note 203-204. op. cit., supra, Marx, pp. note 205-206: in Morstein As stated clerk, of a political neutrality postal of a conductor on
“The subway York, system of a in city-owned in New technician the class, in Chicago sanitary district, or artisan labor the of an the neutrality significance as the does not have the same Department the of prominent section chiefs of State in political neutrality to a a New the of an assistant commissioner problem City department. the which York No discussion of employees categories any- ignores is the between of differences thing problem. Top the official- but academic consideration of shaping policy opportunities dom that its has such marked question must so neutral as to raise no behavior be divergence point view it and the executive a in between quite therefore, require government. proper, It is officers of neutrality impeccable political such But most officials. average typical opportunity has more in civil servant no sphere average policy citizen. He making than does the nature, is in routine entrusted with a function ministerial task wholly political point almost unaffected his of view. This principle recognized English is in the rule that industrial work- government election, employment privilege ers stand for employees.” denied administrative
perverted. by making its corrupted Government political captives, industrial workers victims of bureau power, agents perpetuating for party power. cratic one against public Offset that concern are interests in the exercise of cherished constitutional rights. The importance rights nature and of those have expounded been If fully Mr. Black's opinion. Justice rights qualified larger those be requirements of modern government, democratic the restrictions should narrowly drawn to selectively define and punish the which specific conduct constitutes a clear present danger operations government. to the It plain seems me evil has its roots the coercive activity hierarchy those power regiment who have group industrial or who undertake to so. do To sacrifice rights of the industrial goes workers far be yond any demonstrated or demonstrable need. Those rights are too basic and fundamental in our democratic political society to be qualified sacrificed or anything *43 short of a clear present danger to the civil sys service tem. No showing such has been made the case of these industrial justifies workers14 which their political steriliza distinguished tion as from selective measures aimed at the practices coercive on which the spoils system feeds. Act, being Whether the unconstitutional applied Poole, could applied be separably civil categories service in other ais question I do not reach. notes Rule see Service Hatch Act and Civil 9 of the 1,] consider, as unnecessary to it is valid, abovedare not this action, whether or judgment declaratory this is a injury irreparable that an sufficiently alleges appellant position.26 his his removal from him result from would would equity or not a court inquire Nor need we whether declaring rights.27 judgment injunction any enforce against the rule violated Poole admits he Since that, is there from office activity and removal toas question under the there is no mandatory act, fore
Notes
notes together the Commission’s determination range shows the wide public activities with which there is no interference legislation. It only is partisan political activity that is It interdicted. participation political manage active ment and political campaigns. Expressions, public or pri vate, on public affairs, personalities public and matters of interest, objective not an of party action, are unrestricted