Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 17–18, 1946 Decided February 10, 1947 |
|
| Full case name | Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission |
| Citations | 330 U.S. 127 (more)
67 S. Ct. 544; 91 L. Ed. 794; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2860
|
| Prior history | 61 F. Supp. 355 (N.D. Okla. 1945); affirmed, 153 F.2d 280 (10th Cir. 1946); cert. granted, 328 U.S. 831 (1946). |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Reed, joined by Vinson, Douglas, Burton |
| Concurrence | Frankfurter |
| Dissent | Black, Rutledge |
| Murphy and Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission was a big case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1947, the Court ruled 5-to-2 that a law called the Hatch Act of 1939 was constitutional. This law said that federal employees could not be involved in political activities. The Court decided that this law did not go against the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the rights of states.
Contents
Why did this case happen?
The Hatch Act of 1939 was a law that stopped people who worked for the federal government from taking part in political activities. This rule applied whether they were at work or not.
The state of Oklahoma had a State Highway Commission. This group received money from the U.S. government to build roads and bridges. One employee of this commission was also the leader of a political party committee.
The United States Civil Service Commission (a government agency) decided that this employee's actions broke the Hatch Act. They asked that the employee be fired. If Oklahoma did not fire the employee, the Civil Service Commission said they would stop giving federal money for highways to the state.
Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They sued to try and stop the Civil Service Commission's ruling. However, both a lower court and an appeals court said the Civil Service Commission was right.
Oklahoma then asked the Supreme Court to hear their case. The Supreme Court agreed to review it.
What did Oklahoma argue?
Oklahoma made several arguments to the Supreme Court:
- They said the Hatch Act took away power from the states. They felt it was an illegal way for the federal government to control states.
- Oklahoma argued that the Hatch Act should only apply to "active" political involvement. They believed their employee was not actively involved enough to break the law.
- They also said the Hatch Act did not give the Civil Service Commission the power to force a state employee to be fired. They also felt it could not punish a state.
- Finally, Oklahoma argued that the lower courts were wrong not to let them challenge if the Hatch Act was constitutional.
The federal government, on the other hand, argued that Oklahoma did not have the right to sue in the first place. This is called "standing" in law.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
Justice Stanley Forman Reed wrote the main decision for the Supreme Court majority. This case was decided at the same time as another similar case, United Public Workers v. Mitchell.
Justice Reed first looked at whether Oklahoma had the right to sue. He said the government brought up this issue too late. However, he also said that the case was "ripe" for review. This means it was ready for the Court to decide because a real problem had happened. The Court decided it had the authority to hear the case.
Justice Reed used the United Public Workers v. Mitchell case as a guide. He explained that the Civil Service Commission and the Hatch Act did not violate Oklahoma's rights under the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment says that powers not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people.
Regarding whether the employee's political work was "active" or "passive," Justice Reed looked at two things. First, he trusted the Civil Service Commission's experience. They had already decided that working "on or for" a political committee counted as participation. Second, he looked at what lawmakers said when they created the Hatch Act. This showed they did not want to make a difference between active and passive involvement.
Finally, Justice Reed believed the Civil Service Commission had the power to order the employee fired. Even though the employee worked for the state, the Act clearly gave the Commission this right.
What did others think?
Some justices agreed with the main decision, while others disagreed.
Agreeing with the decision
Justice Felix Frankfurter agreed with the final decision. However, he thought the government was too slow in saying that Oklahoma did not have the right to sue. He also believed that Oklahoma should not have been able to challenge if the Act was constitutional. But since the majority of the Court decided differently on these points, he agreed with their legal reasoning.
Disagreeing with the decision
Justices Hugo Black and Wiley Blount Rutledge disagreed with the majority decision. However, they did not write down their reasons why.
