413 U.S. 634 (1973)
In 1971 four lawfully admitted resident aliens employed by New York City were discharged from their positions in the competitive class of the civil service solely because they were not United States citizens.1 The four appellees—Patrick McL. Dougall, Esperanza Jorge, Teresa Vargas, and Sylvia Castro—had previously worked for nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the United States Office of Economic Opportunity.2
Those organizations were absorbed by the Manpower Career and Development Agency of the city's Human Resources Administration.3 The appellees were initially continued in employment by the city.4 They were soon notified that section 53 of the New York Civil Service Law rendered them ineligible, and they were terminated.5
Dougall was born in Guyana in 1927 and had resided in New York City since 1964; he held the position of administrative assistant in the staff development unit.6 Jorge was born in the Dominican Republic in 1948 and had resided in New York City since 1967; she worked as a human resources technician.7 Vargas was born in the Dominican Republic in 1946 and had resided in New York City since 1963; she worked as a clerk-typist.8 Castro was born in El Salvador in 1944 and had resided in New York City since 1967; she worked as a human resources technician.9 None of the four had taken any steps toward United States citizenship.10
The appellees filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Administrator of the Human Resources Administration and the city's Director of Personnel and Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.11 They sought a declaration that section 53 was invalid, an injunction against refusals to appoint or retain aliens in competitive civil service positions, and damages for lost earnings.12 A three-judge district court was convened.13 That court held the statute unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause and granted injunctive relief.14 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on direct appeal.15
Whether New York's statutory prohibition on the employment of aliens in the competitive classified civil service violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?16
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects lawfully admitted resident aliens as persons within its meaning.17 State classifications based on alienage are subject to close judicial scrutiny.18 The state must demonstrate that the discrimination is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.19 The means employed must be precisely drawn in light of that interest.20
Yes. The New York statute imposes a flat ban on aliens holding any position in the competitive class.21 This prohibition directly caused the discharge of appellees Dougall, Jorge, Vargas, and Castro from their respective roles as administrative assistant, human resources technician, and clerk-typist after their prior nonprofit employers were absorbed by the city's Human Resources Administration.22 Those positions bear no relation to the formulation or execution of broad public policy.23
The state's asserted interests in loyalty, efficiency, and defining the political community do not justify the indiscriminate exclusion.24 Narrower alternatives exist to screen for qualifications, and the statute sweeps far more broadly than necessary.25
The statutory prohibition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.26
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Chief Justice Burger
Justice Rehnquist dissented because alienage classifications are not suspect under the Equal Protection Clause.27 The Constitution itself distinguishes citizens from aliens in eleven separate provisions, demonstrating that such classifications were never intended to trigger heightened scrutiny.28 He argued that the proper standard of review is rational-basis review rather than close judicial scrutiny.29
Under that standard, the New York statute rationally advances the state's interest in efficient administration.30 It does so by presuming that citizens possess greater familiarity with American political and social institutions than aliens who have taken no steps toward naturalization.31 This presumption supports the conclusion that the citizenship requirement is a rational means of ensuring effective public service.32
Whether a state may impose a blanket citizenship requirement for all positions in the competitive civil service on the basis of asserted interests in loyalty, efficiency, or political community?33
A state possesses a legitimate interest in limiting participation in government to members of the political community.34 A state also has an interest in ensuring loyalty and efficiency among civil servants.35 Any citizenship requirement must be narrowly confined to positions that bear a rational relationship to those interests.36 It may not be applied indiscriminately across the entire competitive class.37
No. The blanket prohibition reaches every competitive-class position regardless of its connection to policy formulation.38 This is shown by the termination of the four appellees from routine administrative and clerical roles within the Manpower Career and Development Agency.39 The state failed to demonstrate why less drastic measures such as individualized loyalty oaths or competence requirements would not suffice to protect its interests in loyalty and efficiency.40
A state may not impose a blanket citizenship requirement for all positions in the competitive civil service on the basis of asserted interests in loyalty, efficiency, or political community.41
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Chief Justice Burger
Justice Rehnquist would have upheld the statute under rational-basis review.42 The competitive civil service encompasses employees who exercise de facto policymaking authority when applying rules to individual cases.43 It is rational for the state to conclude citizens are more likely than aliens to share the social and political mores necessary for efficient interaction with the public and fellow civil servants.44
Aliens who have taken no steps toward naturalization lack demonstrated familiarity with American institutions.45 This distinction justifies the citizenship requirement as a rational means of promoting effective government administration without violating equal protection.46