Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission
Encyclopedia
Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, 330 U.S. 127
(1947), is a 5-to-2 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939
did not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
.
The Oklahoma
State Highway Commission had received funds from an agency of the United States government to build roads and bridges in that state. An employee of the State Highway Commission was also chairman of a committee of a political party. The United States Civil Service Commission
ruled the employee's conduct to be in violation of the Hatch Act. The Civil Service Commission asked that the employee be fired. If the employee was not fired, the Civil Service Commission recommended that all federal highway funds be withheld from the state of Oklahoma.
The state of Oklahoma sued to overturn the Civil Service Commission's ruling. The district court upheld the ruling. The appellate court upheld the district court's ruling.
Oklahoma appealed again, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari
. The state made four claims:
The federal government contended the state had no standing
to sue.
Stanley Forman Reed
wrote the decision for the majority. The case was decided concurrently with United Public Workers v. Mitchell
, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).
Justice Reed noted that the United States did not raise the issue of standing in a timely fashion. However, he interpreted the government's argument to be that no actual penalty had yet been applied and thus the case was not yet ripe
for review. This latter interpretation was not barred because it was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. Section 12, Subsection (c) of the Act gave the courts jurisdiction over questions of law, which Reed interpreted to mean constitutional questions as well as questions of fact. Thus, the courts had jurisdiction. Reed subsequently engaged in an extensive review of the Court's jurisdiction.
Reed relied heavily on United Public Workers v. Mitchell, decided earlier that day, for his rationale that the Civil Service Commission and Hatch Act had not violated Oklahoma's Tenth Amendment rights.
As for whether the employee's service was active or passive, Reed relied on two facts. First, he deferred to the Civil Service Commission's expertise, which had previously determined that "service on or for" a political committee constituted participation. Second, he relied on the congressional debate during passage of the Act, which clearly indicated that there was no distinction between active and passive participation.
Did the Civil Service Commission have the authority to impose the penalties it did? Reed believed so, and entertained no doubts that the Commission had the right to order the employee fired (a right explicitly granted in the Act) even though the employee was a state one.
concurred in the decision. However, he felt that the government was untimely in raising the issue of Oklahoma's standing to sue. He also believed that the state of Oklahoma lacked standing to challenge the constitutional validity of the Act. But since the majority had held otherwise on both these issues, he concurred in the majority's reasoning regarding the interpretation of law.
and Wiley Blount Rutledge
dissented, but wrote no opinion.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1947), is a 5-to-2 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939
Hatch Act of 1939
The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and the Vice President, from engaging in partisan political activity...
did not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
.
Background
The Hatch Act of 1939 barred federal employees from engaging in any political activity, either during working hours or non-working hours.The Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma is a state located in the South Central region of the United States of America. With an estimated 3,751,351 residents as of the 2010 census and a land area of 68,667 square miles , Oklahoma is the 28th most populous and 20th-largest state...
State Highway Commission had received funds from an agency of the United States government to build roads and bridges in that state. An employee of the State Highway Commission was also chairman of a committee of a political party. The United States Civil Service Commission
United States Civil Service Commission
The United States Civil Service Commission a three man commission was created by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which was passed into law on January 16, 1883...
ruled the employee's conduct to be in violation of the Hatch Act. The Civil Service Commission asked that the employee be fired. If the employee was not fired, the Civil Service Commission recommended that all federal highway funds be withheld from the state of Oklahoma.
The state of Oklahoma sued to overturn the Civil Service Commission's ruling. The district court upheld the ruling. The appellate court upheld the district court's ruling.
Oklahoma appealed again, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
. The state made four claims:
-
- The Hatch Act violates the sovereignty of the states and is an unlawful delegation of power.
- The Hatch Act applies only to "active" political participation, which the employee did not engage in.
- Nothing in the Act permits the Civil Service Commission to order the removal of a state officer or apply a penalty to a state.
- The decisions of the district and appellate courts erred in not permitting the State of Oklahoma to pursue judicial review of the Act's constitutionality.
The federal government contended the state had no standing
Standing (law)
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case...
to sue.
Majority opinion
Associate JusticeAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States...
Stanley Forman Reed
Stanley Forman Reed
Stanley Forman Reed was a noted American attorney who served as United States Solicitor General from 1935 to 1938 and as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1938 to 1957. He was the last Supreme Court Justice who did not graduate from law school Stanley Forman Reed (December 31,...
wrote the decision for the majority. The case was decided concurrently with United Public Workers v. Mitchell
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 , is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth amendments to U.S...
, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).
Justice Reed noted that the United States did not raise the issue of standing in a timely fashion. However, he interpreted the government's argument to be that no actual penalty had yet been applied and thus the case was not yet ripe
Ripeness
In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never...
for review. This latter interpretation was not barred because it was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. Section 12, Subsection (c) of the Act gave the courts jurisdiction over questions of law, which Reed interpreted to mean constitutional questions as well as questions of fact. Thus, the courts had jurisdiction. Reed subsequently engaged in an extensive review of the Court's jurisdiction.
Reed relied heavily on United Public Workers v. Mitchell, decided earlier that day, for his rationale that the Civil Service Commission and Hatch Act had not violated Oklahoma's Tenth Amendment rights.
As for whether the employee's service was active or passive, Reed relied on two facts. First, he deferred to the Civil Service Commission's expertise, which had previously determined that "service on or for" a political committee constituted participation. Second, he relied on the congressional debate during passage of the Act, which clearly indicated that there was no distinction between active and passive participation.
Did the Civil Service Commission have the authority to impose the penalties it did? Reed believed so, and entertained no doubts that the Commission had the right to order the employee fired (a right explicitly granted in the Act) even though the employee was a state one.
Frankfurter's concurrence
Associate Justice Felix FrankfurterFelix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.-Early life:Frankfurter was born into a Jewish family on November 15, 1882, in Vienna, Austria, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe. He was the third of six children of Leopold and Emma Frankfurter...
concurred in the decision. However, he felt that the government was untimely in raising the issue of Oklahoma's standing to sue. He also believed that the state of Oklahoma lacked standing to challenge the constitutional validity of the Act. But since the majority had held otherwise on both these issues, he concurred in the majority's reasoning regarding the interpretation of law.
Dissent
Associate Justices Hugo BlackHugo Black
Hugo Lafayette Black was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme...
and Wiley Blount Rutledge
Wiley Blount Rutledge
Wiley Blount Rutledge, Jr. was an American educator, lawyer, and justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.-Early life:...
dissented, but wrote no opinion.