Garner v. Board of Public Works facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Garner v. Board of Public Works |
|
---|---|
![]() |
|
Argued April 25, 1951 Decided June 4, 1951 |
|
Full case name | Garner, et al. v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, et al. |
Citations | 341 U.S. 716 (more)
71 S. Ct. 909; 95 L. Ed. 1317; 1951 U.S. LEXIS 1731
|
Prior history | From the District Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District |
Holding | |
A municipal loyalty oath which required an oath and affidavit about one's beliefs and actions for the previous five years and which was enacted more than five years previous is not an ex post facto law nor a bill of attainder | |
Court membership | |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Clark, joined by Vinson, Reed, Jackson, Minton |
Concur/dissent | Frankfurter |
Concur/dissent | Burton |
Dissent | Black |
Dissent | Douglas, joined by Black |
Garner v. Board of Public Works was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1951. The case was about whether the city of Los Angeles could ask its employees to sign a special "loyalty oath." This oath asked them to promise they had not done certain things or believed certain ideas for the past five years. The Supreme Court had to decide if this oath was fair and legal.
Contents
What Was Garner v. Board of Public Works About?
This case was about a rule in Los Angeles that required city workers to take a loyalty oath. An oath is a serious promise. This specific oath asked employees to swear they had not been part of any group that wanted to overthrow the government by force. It also asked them to state they had not supported such groups for the past five years.
Loyalty Oaths: What Are They?
A loyalty oath is a promise to be loyal to your country or government. Governments sometimes use these oaths to make sure their employees are trustworthy. During the 1950s, there was a lot of worry in the United States about communism. Because of this, many governments, including cities and states, started asking their employees to sign loyalty oaths.
The Case in Los Angeles
The city of Los Angeles passed a rule in 1941 that required its employees to take a loyalty oath. In 1948, the city added to this rule. It now required employees to sign an affidavit. An affidavit is a written statement made under oath. This affidavit asked employees to say if they had ever been a member of the Communist Party. It also asked if they had supported any group that wanted to overthrow the government by force.
What the Oath Asked For
The oath and affidavit asked employees to confirm two main things:
- They had not supported any group that wanted to overthrow the government by force in the past five years.
- They had not been a member of the Communist Party since 1941.
Several city employees, including a man named Garner, refused to sign this oath. They believed it was unfair and went against their rights. They argued that the oath was like punishing them for things they might have done before the oath even existed. This is called an "ex post facto law." They also argued it was like a "bill of attainder," which is when a law declares someone guilty without a trial.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The case eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court had to decide if Los Angeles could legally require its employees to sign this loyalty oath.
Why the Court Agreed
The Supreme Court decided that the loyalty oath was legal. The majority of the judges, led by Justice Tom C. Clark, said that the city had a right to protect itself. They believed the city could ask its employees to promise loyalty, especially those in sensitive jobs. The Court said the oath was not an "ex post facto law" because it was about future loyalty, even if it looked at past actions. They also said it was not a "bill of attainder" because it didn't punish specific people without a trial. Instead, it set a rule for all city employees.
The Judges Who Disagreed
Not all the judges agreed with the decision. Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas wrote strong dissenting opinions. They believed the oath was unfair and went against the idea of freedom. They argued that the oath punished people for their beliefs or past associations, which they felt was wrong. They worried that such oaths could limit people's freedom of speech and thought.
Why This Case Matters
Garner v. Board of Public Works is an important case because it dealt with the balance between government security and individual freedoms. It showed how the Supreme Court viewed loyalty oaths during a time of national concern about communism. The case helped shape how governments could ask for loyalty from their employees. It also highlighted the ongoing debate about how far the government can go to protect itself without limiting the rights of its citizens.