Sugarman v. Dougall
413 U.S. 634 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that broadly prohibits all non-citizens from holding positions in the state's competitive civil service violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because classifications based on alienage are subject to close judicial scrutiny and such a sweeping prohibition is not narrowly tailored to a substantial state interest.
Facts:
- Patrick McL. Dougall, Esperanza Jorge, Teresa Vargas, and Sylvia Castro were all lawfully admitted resident aliens living in New York City.
- They were employed by nonprofit organizations funded through the city's Human Resources Administration (HRA).
- When federal funding for their organizations ceased, the city's Manpower Career and Development Agency (MCDA), a part of HRA, absorbed their organizations and continued to employ them directly.
- New York Civil Service Law § 53(1) required that all persons holding positions in the competitive civil service class must be United States citizens.
- In February 1971, Dougall, Jorge, Vargas, and Castro were informed they were ineligible for their city employment due to their alien status.
- Shortly thereafter, they were discharged from their jobs with the MCDA solely because they were not U.S. citizens.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick McL. Dougall and other discharged resident aliens filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sued the Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration and other city officials, challenging the constitutionality of New York Civil Service Law § 53.
- The defendants' motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was denied by the district court.
- A special three-judge District Court was convened to hear the constitutional challenge.
- The three-judge court ruled that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause and granted injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendant city officials, as appellants, appealed the decision directly 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 prohibits all non-citizens from holding positions in the state's competitive civil service violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, a state statute that prohibits all non-citizens from holding positions in the state's competitive civil service violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny. While a state has a substantial interest in defining its political community, the means used to do so must be precise and narrowly drawn. New York's law is impermissibly overbroad, as it indiscriminately applies to a vast range of positions, from low-level sanitation workers to typists, that have no direct relationship to the formulation or execution of public policy. The state's proffered justifications, including ensuring undivided loyalty and efficiency, are insufficient because the statute is not tailored to serve these interests; it excludes aliens from menial jobs while permitting them to hold certain high-level, policy-influencing positions in the exempt class. The 'special public interest' doctrine, which previously allowed states to favor citizens in the distribution of public resources, was substantially weakened by Graham v. Richardson and is not controlling here.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, a state statute that prohibits all non-citizens from holding positions in the state's competitive civil service does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Constitution itself frequently distinguishes between citizens and aliens, so alienage should not be treated as a suspect classification subject to heightened scrutiny. Instead, the law should be evaluated under the rational-basis test. New York has a rational basis for its requirement, as it can reasonably presume that citizens, including naturalized ones who have studied U.S. history and government, possess a greater familiarity with and commitment to American social and political institutions. This understanding is relevant to the effective functioning of government, even for employees who are not high-level policymakers, and thus provides a rational justification for the citizenship requirement.
Analysis:
This decision solidified the application of strict scrutiny to state classifications based on alienage, extending the principle from Graham v. Richardson (welfare benefits) to the context of public employment. It significantly curtailed the 'special public interest' doctrine, which had previously given states wide latitude to discriminate against non-citizens in distributing public resources. However, the Court carved out a critical 'political function' exception, suggesting that citizenship requirements for positions central to self-government and the execution of broad public policy might be permissible under a less demanding standard of review, a concept further developed in subsequent cases like Foley v. Connelie.
Unlock the full brief for Sugarman v. Dougall