No, the state's law doesn't violate the Constitution. Normally, it's not okay to treat non-citizens differently from citizens. But being a police officer is a special kind of job. It's a fundamental part of the government and involves making split-second decisions that can seriously affect people's lives. A state has the right to decide that only its own citizens should hold these powerful government positions.

I agree with the decision, but I'm starting to think we've been too tough on these kinds of laws in past cases.

No, this is constitutional. Being a trooper is a basic government function. So, it's reasonable for the state to want only citizens, who are part of the 'political community,' to do that job.

Yes, this law violates the Constitution. Police officers enforce the laws; they don't *make* the laws. The special exception for 'policymaking' jobs shouldn't apply here. This law should be judged very strictly, and if it is, it's clearly unfair to a whole group of people.

Yes, this is unconstitutional. A police officer's job is to carry out the rules, not decide what the rules are. We don't let the government fire a cop for their political party, so why should we let them block someone just for not being a citizen? This is unfair discrimination.

No, the law is okay. The main judge explained that being a state trooper is a special job that involves making important decisions and carrying out policies that really matter to the community. There's a special rule that says it's fine for states to only let citizens do jobs like this that are closely related to how the government works. The Court said that while we welcome immigrants and let them have things like education and other jobs, the right to be part of running the government is something only for citizens.

Justice Stewart agreed with the final decision but said it was hard to fit with some of the Court's past decisions that he now has doubts about.

Justice Blackmun also agreed, saying New York gave state troopers powers that are really basic and important to how the state government works. He said it makes sense for New York to want troopers to be people who share the state's values, like citizens do.

Justice Marshall disagreed, arguing that state troopers don't actually make the big policies but just carry them out. He said there's a big difference between making the policies and applying them to specific situations. He didn't think New York had a good enough reason to completely ban non-citizens from being troopers.

Justice Stevens, along with Justice Brennan, also disagreed. He said it's wrong to act like every state trooper is a top official who makes big policies. In a democracy, the police and military carry out policies made by the citizens, not make the policies themselves. He said the Court should have made New York say exactly what about all non-citizens makes them unfit to be troopers.

The Supreme Court goes on to state that "[w] e must therefore inquire whether the `position in question... involves discretionary decisionmaking, or execution of policy, which substantially affects members of the political community.'"Id.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a "political function" exception to the strict scrutiny ordinarily accorded laws discriminating on the basis of alienage, one that permits the exclusion of such persons on a rational basis test from "positions intimately related to the process of democratic self-government," such as members of police forces, public school teachers …

—clarifying that the Graham court's rationale for subjecting alienage-based classifications to "heightened judicial solicitude" was that "aliens-pending their eligibility for citizenship-have no direct voice in the political processes" (citing

As the Court has written, "a State's historical power to exclude aliens from participation in its democratic political institutions [is] part of the sovereign's obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community."

As a Nation we exhibit extraordinary hospitality to those who come to our country, which is not surprising for we have often been described as `a nation of immigrants

"It would be inappropriate*** to require every statutory exclusion of aliens to clear the high hurdle of `strict scrutiny,'because to do so would `obliterate all the distinctions between citizens and aliens, and thus depreciate the historic values of citizenship.'"

The Supreme Court clearly and emphatically said that police "are clothed with authority to exercise an almost infinite variety of discretionary powers" and are vested with "plenary discretionary powers."

In Foley, the United States Supreme Court held that a statute requiring members of the state police force to be United States citizens did not violate the equal protection clause.

And in upholding a ban on aliens serving as police officers, the Court stated that, "although we extend to aliens the right to education and public welfare, along with the ability to earn a livelihood and engage in licensed professions, the right to govern is reserved to citizens."

The police function is "one of the basic functions of government," a "most fundamental obligation of government to its constituency."

No. The New York law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because classifications based on alienage are not always subject to strict scrutiny. A less demanding standard applies to positions that are 'firmly within a State’s constitutional prerogatives' to define its 'political community.' Police officers exercise broad discretionary powers that significantly affect the public, making the police function a basic role of government, not merely a 'common occupation of the community.' Therefore, the position falls within the category of important nonelective officers who execute broad public policy, and a state may rationally conclude that citizenship is a relevant qualification for such a role.

Joins the majority opinion but expresses increasing doubt about the validity of prior decisions that applied strict scrutiny to alienage classifications.

No. While strict scrutiny is the general rule for alienage classifications, an exception exists for state functions that are 'basic to the function of state government.' The powers and duties of state troopers fall within this exception, as they are central to preserving the political community. Therefore, the State may rationally require that those who execute these fundamental duties be citizens.

Yes. The New York law violates the Equal Protection Clause. The 'political function' exception from Sugarman v. Dougall applies only to those who formulate broad public policy, not those who merely execute or apply it in specific factual settings. Police officers, like firefighters, execute policy but do not make it; their discretion is factual, not political. Because the job of state trooper does not involve policymaking, the law should be subject to strict scrutiny, which it cannot survive.

Yes. The New York law violates the Equal Protection Clause. The majority incorrectly transforms the role of a police officer into a high-ranking, policymaking official. The police function is to implement policies formulated by the citizenry, not to create them. The blanket exclusion of all aliens, without regard to individual qualification, is an irrational discrimination and is inconsistent with the Court's holding in In re Griffiths, which allowed aliens to practice law.

No, the New York statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the role of a state trooper involves discretionary decision-making and execution of policy that substantially affects members of the political community. The Court recognized a 'political function' exception to the strict scrutiny ordinarily accorded to laws discriminating on the basis of alienage, allowing for the exclusion of non-citizens from positions intimately related to the process of democratic self-government on a rational basis. The Court emphasized the state's historical power to exclude aliens from participation in its democratic political institutions as part of the sovereign's obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community. The Court concluded that the police function is one of the basic functions of government and a most fundamental obligation of government to its constituency, where citizenship bears a rational relationship to the special demands of the position, and therefore, the statute is constitutionally permissible.

Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment, noting that while it is difficult to reconcile with some past decisions, he has become increasingly doubtful about the validity of those decisions.

Justice Blackmun concurred in the result, agreeing that New York has vested its state troopers with powers and duties basic to the function of state government. The State may rationally conclude that those who execute these duties should be limited to persons presumed to share the values of its political community, such as citizens.

Justice Marshall dissented, arguing that state troopers do not fall within the narrow exception for positions involving direct participation in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy. He contended there is a vast difference between the formulation and execution of broad public policy and the application of that policy to specific factual settings. Troopers are not policymakers but rather implement policies contained in laws and regulations. The dissent found no compelling state interest to justify the blanket exclusion of aliens.

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Brennan, also dissented, asserting that the Court's transformation of every state trooper into a high-ranking, policymaking official for purposes of this question rests on the flawed premise that the police function is at the heart of representative government. In a democratic society, neither the police nor the military are vested with broad policymaking responsibility but rather implement policies formulated by the citizenry. The dissent argued the statute should not be upheld without expressly identifying the group characteristic justifying the discrimination against aliens as a class.

Foley v. Connelie

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