No, it's not against the Constitution. A government job is a privilege, not a right like freedom of speech. The President is the boss of the executive branch and needs to be able to fire people he doesn't trust. Since this isn't a criminal trial, the government doesn't have to provide all the protections you'd get in court, like confronting your accusers. Firing someone is different from formally punishing them, like banning them from all future jobs, which would require a trial.

Yes, this is totally against the Constitution. Being fired for 'disloyalty' is a serious punishment that ruins a person's life and reputation. You can't punish someone without a fair trial. A 'hearing' where you don't know the evidence against you or who is accusing you is not a fair hearing. This process violates due process and free speech because it scares all government workers into having only the most popular, 'safe' opinions.

Yes, the President can do this. Being a government worker is not a guaranteed right, so the President has the power to decide who can work for the government. The Constitution doesn't require a full court trial for firing someone over disloyalty concerns, and it's not against the Constitution to fire someone this way. The First Amendment doesn't ensure a right to government employment.

No, firing Bailey like this violates the Constitution and the President's own rules. The rules say there must be evidence and a chance to question accusers, which Bailey didn't get. Firing someone for disloyalty is punishment and needs the protections of a full trial. It also goes against Bailey's constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly, and thought. Disloyalty is about thoughts, not actions, and can't be the reason for firing from a non-sensitive government job.

—the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of a civil service employee for alleged communist activities, which she stoutly denied but which she was unable to disprove because of the Government's refusal to reveal its anonymous informants:[TIhe ability, integrity and loyalty of purely executive employees is exclusively for the executive …

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, but it does not guarantee government employment.

"The due process clause provides: `No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...'It has been held repeatedly and consistently that Government employ is not `property'and that in this particular it is not a contract. We are unable to perceive how it could be held to be `liberty'. Certainly it is not `life'. So much that is clear would seem

"In a leading case decided many years ago, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that public employment in general was a `privilege,'not a `right,'and that procedural due process guarantees therefore were inapplicable.

Due process of law is not applicable unless one is being deprived of something to which he has a right.

No function is more completely internal to a branch of government than the selection and retention or dismissal of its employees.***[Id. 353 F. 2d at 829.]

We note that the federal courts look to presidential intent when construing the meaning of a proclamation

Until relatively recent times, the privilege doctrine stood as the stock response to procedural attacks on the termination of public benefits

—prohibition against the dismissal of Government employees because of their political beliefs, activities or affiliations. That document, standing alone, does not prevent Republican Presidents from dismissing Democrats (or vice versa)....[I] t has not continued to so great an extent... because the people became convinced that it was not good government and the Congress …

The question is not what the word might mean otherwise or elsewhere; the question is simply what the President used it to mean

No. The dismissal of a federal employee based on a reasonable belief of disloyalty without a quasi-judicial hearing does not violate the Constitution, as government employment is a privilege, not a right, and the power of removal is an inherent executive function. The Sixth Amendment's trial protections do not apply because dismissal from service is not a criminal prosecution or punishment in the constitutional sense, unlike a permanent proscription from all government service. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause is not implicated because government employment does not constitute 'life, liberty, or property.' Furthermore, the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and assembly do not guarantee government employment, and the government may regulate its employees' activities and affiliations to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the public service. The responsibility for the loyalty of executive branch personnel rests with the President, who must have the power to remove employees in whom he lacks confidence.

Yes. The dismissal for disloyalty is a punishment that stigmatizes an individual's reputation and impairs their livelihood, thereby requiring the full procedural safeguards of a judicial trial under the Constitution, including the right to confront accusers. To dismiss someone based on secret, unsworn statements from anonymous informants violates the fundamental principles of due process. The Executive Order's own requirement that a finding be based 'on all the evidence' necessitates more than confidential reports; it implies a fair administrative hearing where evidence can be tested through cross-examination. Furthermore, dismissing an employee from a non-sensitive position for her supposed political beliefs and associations is an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech, thought, and assembly, creating a chilling effect that pressures government employees into ideological conformity.

The President has the authority to dismiss a government employee for suspicion of disloyalty without a full judicial trial. The dismissal does not violate the employee's constitutional rights because government employment is not a right but a privilege. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment does not restrict the President's discretion in respect to executive personnel, and the dismissal for disloyalty is not a punishment that requires the safeguards of a judicial trial. The loyalty program established by the President's Order does not violate any congressional limitation or constitutional right. The First Amendment's guarantees do not extend to securing government employment.

The dismissal of Bailey without trial, evidence, or the ability to confront her accusers violates both the Constitution and the President's Executive Order. The Order requires evidence and an opportunity for cross-examination, which were not provided. Dismissal for disloyalty is punishment and requires all the safeguards of a judicial trial under the Sixth Amendment. The dismissal also abridges Bailey's freedoms of speech, assembly and thought protected by the First Amendment. Disloyalty is a state of mind, not speech or conduct, and cannot constitutionally be the basis for dismissal from non-sensitive government employment.

Bailey v. Richardson

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot