U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell
Primary source
Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.
Background
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell )
1947 United States Supreme Court case
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
**United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell **
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939 , as amended in 1940, does not violate the First , Fifth , Ninth , or Tenth amendments to U.S. Constitution .
Background
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Public_Workers_v._Mitchell&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
]
At the start of the 20th century, several unions (such as the National Federation of Federal Employees , American Federation of Government Employees , and the United Federal Workers of America ) began representing employees working for the federal government of the United States. The leadership of the United Federal Workers of America (UFWA) was leftist . The leadership was militant in its advocacy of the rights of its members and most of the national and local union leadership advocated leftist ideals; associated with left-wing intellectuals, activists, and political people; and supported left-wing organizations. This led many politicians and others to believe the organization was Communist-controlled.
The political leanings of the UWFA led to passage of two pieces of legislation intended to restrict its political activities. In June 1938, Congress passed a rider to appropriations legislation which prevented the federal government from making payments (such as salaries) to any person or organization which advocated the overthrow of the federal government (as many communist organizations at the time proposed). In 1939, Congress passed the Hatch Act of 1939, which restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. A provision of the Hatch Act made it illegal for the federal government to employ anyone who advocated the overthrow of the federal government. The UFWA immediately hired lawyer Lee Pressman to challenge the constitutionality of the Hatch Act. Various individual employees of the federal government, some of whom were members of the United Public Workers of America, sought an injunction against the second sentence of §9(a) of the Hatch Act, and a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional .
On April 25, 1946, the State, County, and Municipal Workers of America (SCMWA) merged with the UFWA to form the United Public Workers of America .
Joining the new organization were several local unions which had been expelled from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) for being communist-dominated. Congress repeatedly investigated the union for violations of the Hatch Act and prohibitions on advocacy of the right to strike. In January 1947, the House of Representatives Committee on Campaign Expenditures reported that it had found evidence that the UPWA (and other unions) had violated the Federal Corrupt Practices Act by failing to report expenditures in support of various political parties and candidates for federal office.
In the 19th century, American courts had established the "doctrine of privilege." This legal doctrine concluded that public employment was a privilege, not a right, and subsequently significant restrictions could be placed on public employees that could not be constitutionally tolerated in the private sector. By the middle of the 20th century, however, the doctrine of privilege had been markedly weakened. Abuse of the privilege had led to widespread corruption; the tolerance of sexual harassment , racism, religious discrimination , and gender discrimination ; and workplace abuse (such as forcing employees to buy goods and services from a supervisor, or forcing employees to run errands for the supervisor). The courts were becoming less and less tolerant of the doctrine of privilege.
Decision
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Public_Workers_v._Mitchell&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]
A significantly divided Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privilege and the Hatch Act. Associate Justice Stanley Forman Reed wrote the decision for the majority.
Majority holding
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Public_Workers_v._Mitchell&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Majority holding")
]
Justice Reed initially dealt with an issue which arose due to the untimely filing of the appeal, and concluded the Court could hear the case.
On the substantive issues raised, Justice Reed noted that none of the appellants, except George P. Poole, had violated the provisions of the Hatch Act. Since the federal courts do not issue advisory rulings, Reed dismissed the issues raised by all appellants except Poole. Poole, however, had been charged with a violation of the Hatch Act, and an order for his dismissal entered by the government. (He was a ward executive committeeman for a political party, acted as a poll worker on election day, and acted as a paymaster for other poll workers engaged by that political party.)
Poole contended that the Hatch Act violated the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Reed also asserted (without explanation) that the Hatch Act implicated rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and by implication the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment as well. Justice Reed found unpersuasive Poole's claim that off-hours political activity was different from such activity conducted during working hours. "The influence of political activity by government employees, if evil in its effects on the service, the employees or people dealing with them, is hardly less so because that activity takes place after hours." Reed next concluded that no rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute, and that all rights "are subject to the elemental need for order without which the guarantees of civil rights to others would be a mockery."
But how should the rights of the Ninth and Tenth amendments be balanced against those of the First and
…
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.