Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong
426 U.S. 88 (1976)
Rule of Law:
A federal administrative agency's regulation that broadly deprives a class of persons of a liberty interest violates due process if the agency's justifications for the rule are based on overriding national interests for which the agency has no responsibility or expertise. Such a decision must be made by Congress or the President, the political branches responsible for such national interests.
Facts:
- Five individuals, including Mow Sun Wong, were lawfully admitted, permanent resident aliens living in San Francisco.
- All five were qualified for various federal civil service positions.
- Kae Cheong Lui was hired by the Post Office but was terminated after 10 days solely because he was not a U.S. citizen.
- Mow Sun Wong, an electrical engineer, was deemed ineligible for a janitor position with the General Services Administration (GSA).
- Siu Hung Mok, an experienced businessman, could not keep his job as a file clerk at a GSA Federal Records Center.
- Francene Lum, a teacher with a master's degree, was not permitted to take an examination for an evaluator position at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
- Each plaintiff was denied federal employment opportunities solely because of their status as non-citizens, pursuant to a Civil Service Commission regulation.
- Two of the plaintiffs had filed declarations of intent to become citizens, while the other three had not.
Procedural Posture:
- Five lawfully resident aliens filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the heads of the Civil Service Commission and other federal agencies.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the federal hiring regulation was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants (the government), upholding the regulation.
- Four of the plaintiffs (respondents here) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that the regulation violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- The Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission (petitioners here) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by 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 United States Civil Service Commission regulation that categorically excludes all non-citizens from most federal competitive civil service employment violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes, the regulation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. While Congress or the President may have the authority to exclude aliens from federal employment based on overriding national interests, a federal administrative agency like the Civil Service Commission cannot impose such a broad deprivation of liberty for reasons outside its specific mandate. The Commission's sole responsibility is to promote the efficiency of the federal service, a goal which does not justify a wholesale exclusion of all non-citizens. The government's asserted justifications—such as providing the President a bargaining chip in treaty negotiations or creating an incentive for naturalization—are policy concerns that fall outside the Commission's area of expertise and responsibility. Therefore, the decision to impose such a significant deprivation must be made by a political branch of government accountable for those interests, not by a subordinate agency whose actions are not supported by its own mission.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, the regulation does not violate the Due Process Clause. The power to regulate aliens is a political question vested in Congress and the President, who have broad authority in this area. Congress delegated the power to regulate federal employment to the President, who in turn delegated it to the Civil Service Commission. The Court's novel due process analysis improperly scrutinizes the reasons for a policy decision made by a duly authorized agency. Once it is established that the Commission acted within its delegated authority, the judiciary should not question the wisdom of its policy, just as it would not question a direct act of Congress on the matter.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan
I join the majority's opinion but write separately to emphasize that the Court is not deciding the constitutionality of such an exclusion if it were enacted directly by Congress or the President. The opinion correctly focuses on the improper exercise of authority by the Civil Service Commission. It reserves the distinct equal protection questions that would arise if one of the political branches mandated the same citizenship requirement.
Analysis:
This case establishes a unique form of procedural due process review focused on the legitimacy of the decision-making entity. Instead of striking down the substance of the alienage classification on equal protection grounds, the Court invalidated the rule because the Civil Service Commission, as an administrative agency, was the wrong body to make such a broad policy decision for reasons outside its mandate. This 'who decides' principle requires that when the federal government infringes upon a liberty interest based on an 'overriding national interest,' the decision must be made by a political branch (Congress or the President) directly accountable for such interests. The ruling impacts administrative law by limiting the ability of agencies to promulgate broad, constitutionally suspect rules unless the justification is squarely within their delegated authority and expertise.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong (1976)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"