Broadrick v. Oklahoma
413 U.S. 601 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state statute regulates conduct and not merely speech, the overbreadth doctrine will not apply unless the statute's overbreadth is both real and substantial in relation to its plainly legitimate sweep.
Facts:
- Appellants, Broadrick and others, were classified employees of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
- Their employment was subject to Section 818 of Oklahoma’s Merit System of Personnel Administration Act, which restricted partisan political activities.
- The Act prohibited classified employees from soliciting political contributions or taking part in the management of any political party or campaign.
- During the 1970 re-election campaign of a Corporation Commissioner, who was their superior, the appellants actively participated in his campaign.
- Appellants solicited other Corporation Commission employees to perform campaign work and to provide referrals to potential campaign supporters.
- Two of the appellants solicited money for the campaign from fellow Commission employees.
- One appellant was also involved in receiving and distributing campaign posters.
- These activities were conducted, in part, at district offices of the Corporation Commission.
Procedural Posture:
- The Oklahoma State Personnel Board charged the appellants with violations of Section 818 of the state's Merit System of Personnel Administration Act.
- The Board agreed to stay its own disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of a federal lawsuit.
- The appellants filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, a three-judge court, seeking to have the statute declared unconstitutional and its enforcement enjoined.
- The District Court upheld the statute and denied the appellants' request for relief.
- The appellants filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 state statute that restricts the partisan political activities of state employees, and is constitutional as applied to the employees' conduct, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face because it is potentially overbroad in some hypothetical applications?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, the statute does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face. The principle that a person whose own conduct may be constitutionally regulated will not be heard to challenge a statute because it might be unconstitutionally applied to others is a traditional rule of standing. While an exception exists for First Amendment overbreadth challenges, this doctrine is 'strong medicine' to be used sparingly. Where a statute regulates conduct, and not just pure speech, its overbreadth must be 'real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.' The appellants' conduct of actively soliciting funds and campaign support from coworkers falls squarely within the 'hard core' of conduct the state can validly proscribe. Any potential overbreadth of the Oklahoma statute, such as its application to political buttons or bumper stickers, is not substantial enough to justify invalidating the entire law on its face.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes, the statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face. The statute's specific protection for 'privately' expressing an opinion emphasizes that public expression is not tolerated, which is contrary to the core principles of the First Amendment. Public employees should not have 'watered-down constitutional rights' and are a vital part of the public discourse. Suppressing the First Amendment rights of millions of government workers deprives the public of their voices and creates a submissive, inert bureaucracy, which is detrimental to the public interest.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face. The Court's introduction of a 'substantial overbreadth' requirement is an unjustified retreat from established First Amendment principles, effectively overruling Coates v. City of Cincinnati. The Oklahoma statute is far more vague and undefined than the federal Hatch Act, and its implementing regulations, such as the ban on wearing political buttons, demonstrate its unconstitutional breadth. The Court offers no clear definition of 'substantial' and wrongly creates a distinction between speech and conduct for overbreadth analysis. When a statute, on its face, authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct, it must be invalidated to prevent a chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly narrowed the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine by establishing the 'substantial overbreadth' test. It makes facial challenges to statutes that regulate conduct—even expressive conduct—much more difficult. Prior to Broadrick, a statute could potentially be invalidated if it had any unconstitutional applications that might 'chill' protected speech. Post-Broadrick, challengers must demonstrate that the law's unconstitutional reach is substantial relative to its legitimate scope, pushing most challenges into 'as-applied' litigation rather than facial invalidation.
Unlock the full brief for Broadrick v. Oklahoma