Ambach v. Norwick
441 U.S. 68 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, require public elementary and secondary school teachers to be U.S. citizens or to have manifested an intent to seek citizenship, as teaching in public schools constitutes a governmental function for which citizenship is a relevant qualification.
Facts:
- New York Education Law § 3001(3) forbids the certification of any person as a public school teacher who is not a U.S. citizen, unless they have manifested an intention to apply for citizenship.
- Appellee Norwick, a British citizen, and Appellee Dachinger, a Finnish citizen, were both long-term U.S. residents married to U.S. citizens.
- Both Norwick and Dachinger met all of New York's educational requirements for teacher certification.
- Both were eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship but had consistently refused to do so.
- Norwick and Dachinger were denied teaching certificates by New York solely because they failed to meet the citizenship requirement of the law.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellees Norwick and Dachinger were denied teaching certificates by New York state education officials.
- Norwick filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin the enforcement of the state law, and Dachinger intervened as a plaintiff.
- A three-judge District Court was convened, which applied 'close judicial scrutiny' to the law.
- The District Court held that the New York statute violated the Equal Protection Clause and granted the injunction.
- The state school officials, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York law that prohibits the certification of non-citizen public school teachers, who are eligible for but refuse to seek U.S. citizenship, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
No. The New York law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because public school teaching falls within the 'governmental function' exception, which permits states to require citizenship for certain positions. While classifications based on alienage are typically subject to strict scrutiny, an exception exists for state functions that are so bound up with the operation of the State as a governmental entity as to permit the exclusion of non-citizens. Citing precedents like Foley v. Connelie, the Court found that public education is a fundamental obligation of government, and teachers play a critical role in inculcating civic values and preparing students for participation in a democratic society. Because this function goes 'to the heart of representative government,' the state's citizenship requirement need only bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest, a standard which this narrowly tailored law meets.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes. The New York law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is an irrational and indiscriminate classification that should be subject to strict scrutiny. The dissent argues that this case is logically indistinguishable from In re Griffiths, which held that states cannot bar resident aliens from practicing law. The 'governmental function' exception is misapplied, as teachers do not formulate or execute broad public policy in the same manner as police officers. Furthermore, the statute's irrationality is revealed by its own exceptions, its failure to apply to private school teachers who also educate children, and the state's policy of allowing aliens to serve on some local school boards. The law is a remnant of outdated xenophobia and unconstitutionally denies qualified resident aliens the right to pursue their occupation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the 'governmental function' exception to the strict scrutiny standard typically applied to alienage classifications. By categorizing public school teaching alongside law enforcement (from Foley v. Connelie) as a role central to the political community, the Court gave states greater latitude to impose citizenship requirements for public employment. This ruling shifts the judicial analysis for such jobs from a demanding inquiry into compelling state interests to a much more deferential rational basis review. The case marks a key point in Equal Protection jurisprudence, distinguishing between an alien's right to pursue common occupations and a state's power to define its own political community through its public servants.
