McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission
1976 U.S. LEXIS 21, 47 L. Ed. 2d 366, 424 U.S. 645 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal regulation requiring city employees to be residents of that city is a bona fide continuing-residence requirement and does not violate the constitutionally protected right of interstate travel.
Facts:
- An individual served for 16 years in the Philadelphia Fire Department.
- The City of Philadelphia had a regulation requiring all municipal employees to be residents of the city.
- The firefighter moved his permanent residence from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to the state of New Jersey.
- As a result of his move and non-compliance with the residency regulation, the firefighter's employment was terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant's employment was terminated by the City of Philadelphia.
- The appellant challenged the residency regulation in state court.
- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court, sustained the regulation.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied the appellant's petition for review.
- The appellant filed a timely 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 municipal regulation requiring city employees to be residents of the city violate the constitutionally protected right of interstate travel?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A municipal regulation requiring employees to live within the city does not violate the right to interstate travel. The Court distinguished this type of bona fide continuing-residence requirement from durational residency requirements that it had previously struck down in cases like Shapiro v. Thompson and Dunn v. Blumstein. Those cases involved laws that penalized the right to travel by imposing a waiting period (e.g., one year of residency) before a new resident could receive benefits or vote. The Court reasoned that there is no constitutional support for the claim that a person has a right to be employed by a city while living elsewhere. This case involves a valid condition of employment, not a penalty on the exercise of the right to migrate from one state to another.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice, Brennan, and Blackmun
This was not a formal opinion on the merits. In a brief statement, The Chief Justice, Justice Brennan, and Justice Blackmun noted that they would have set the case for full oral argument rather than deciding it summarily. This indicates their belief that the issue presented was substantial enough to warrant more thorough consideration.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the constitutional distinction between durational residency requirements and continuing residency requirements. By upholding a continuing residency rule for public employment, the Court clarified that the right to travel does not guarantee a right to a specific public job irrespective of one's place of residence. This decision provides a clear constitutional basis for municipalities across the country to require their employees to live within the communities they serve, limiting the scope of right-to-travel challenges in the public employment context.
