Kelley v. Johnson
47 L. Ed. 2d 708, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 35, 425 U.S. 238 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state or local government's regulation of a public employee's personal appearance does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty guarantee so long as there is a rational connection between the regulation and a legitimate state interest, such as promoting public safety or fostering esprit de corps within a uniformed service.
Facts:
- The Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department promulgated Order No. 71-1, which established hair-grooming standards for male members of the police force.
- The regulation dictated the style and length of hair, sideburns, and mustaches.
- It prohibited beards and goatees, except for medical reasons approved by a Police Surgeon.
- The regulation also limited the use of wigs to cosmetic purposes, such as covering baldness, and required any wig to conform to the hair standards.
- A patrolman, who was also the president of the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, challenged the regulation as an undue restriction on his personal liberty.
Procedural Posture:
- A patrolman sued the Suffolk County Police Commissioner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The District Court initially dismissed the patrolman's complaint.
- The patrolman, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the dismissal and remanded the case.
- On remand, the District Court held a hearing and granted the relief sought by the patrolman.
- The Police Commissioner, as appellant, appealed this judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the patrolman.
- The Police Commissioner petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 county police department's regulation of the hair length and style of its male officers violate the liberty interest guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, the county police department's regulation does not violate the liberty interest guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. While citizens may have a liberty interest in personal appearance, the state's interest as an employer is significantly different and greater than its interest in regulating the general public. For a uniformed service like a police department, regulations governing appearance are entitled to a presumption of validity and must only have a rational connection to a legitimate state interest. The desire to make police officers readily recognizable to the public or to foster esprit de corps and uniformity within the force are sufficiently rational justifications to defeat a constitutional challenge. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate that the regulation is so irrational that it may be branded as 'arbitrary'.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the county police department's regulation violates the liberty interest guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The liberty guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly encompasses matters of personal appearance, which are fundamental to privacy, self-identity, and autonomy. The justifications offered by the state—making officers identifiable and promoting esprit de corps—are not rationally related to the hair-length regulation. An officer's uniform, not hairstyle, ensures recognizability. Furthermore, the fact that the police union itself challenged the rule indicates it undermines, rather than enhances, esprit de corps. A citizen does not surrender this fundamental right by becoming a public employee.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No, the regulation does not violate the officer's liberty interest in this specific context. Although there is a liberty interest within the Fourteenth Amendment regarding matters of personal appearance, it is not absolute. When the state has a legitimate interest in regulating appearance, as it does with a uniformed police force, a court must weigh the degree of infringement on individual liberty against the state's need for the regulation. This balancing test justifies applying a reasonable regulation to police officers that would be an impermissible intrusion on liberty in a different context.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that the government has significantly more authority to regulate its employees than it does the general citizenry. It establishes that challenges to such regulations, particularly for uniformed services, will be judged under the highly deferential rational basis test, making them very difficult to overturn. The decision creates a clear distinction between the constitutional rights of public employees in their employment context and the rights of private citizens, effectively creating a 'watered-down' version of certain liberties for government workers on the job. This precedent gives wide latitude to police and fire departments, as well as other government agencies, to enforce grooming and uniform standards to promote discipline and public image.
Unlock the full brief for Kelley v. Johnson