Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong case brief summary
426 U.S. 88 (1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Certiorari was granted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to determine whether 5 C.F.R. § 338.101(a) (1976) of the U.S. Civil Service Commission Regulations, barring respondent resident aliens from employment in the federal competitive civil service, was constitutional. Petitioner U.S. Civil Service Commission adopted and enforced the regulations.
CASE FACTS
Respondent resident aliens challenged the validity of 5 C.F.R. § 338.101(a) (1976), adopted and enforced by petitioner U.S. Civil Service Commission, which excluded all persons except American citizens and natives of American Samoa from employment in most civil service positions. Respondents were all lawfully admitted resident aliens, and alleged that the advantage given to citizens seeking federal civil service positions was arbitrary and violated the Due Process Clause of U.S. Constitutional amend. V.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, concluding that, by broadly denying resident aliens civil service employment, petitioner Civil Service Commission deprived respondents of an aspect of liberty. The Court held that the regulation at issue deprived respondents of liberty without due process of law, and the Court invalidated the regulation.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
426 U.S. 88 (1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Certiorari was granted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to determine whether 5 C.F.R. § 338.101(a) (1976) of the U.S. Civil Service Commission Regulations, barring respondent resident aliens from employment in the federal competitive civil service, was constitutional. Petitioner U.S. Civil Service Commission adopted and enforced the regulations.
CASE FACTS
Respondent resident aliens challenged the validity of 5 C.F.R. § 338.101(a) (1976), adopted and enforced by petitioner U.S. Civil Service Commission, which excluded all persons except American citizens and natives of American Samoa from employment in most civil service positions. Respondents were all lawfully admitted resident aliens, and alleged that the advantage given to citizens seeking federal civil service positions was arbitrary and violated the Due Process Clause of U.S. Constitutional amend. V.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- The district court held that petitioner commission's discrimination against aliens was constitutional.
- The district court noted that the federal power over aliens was quite broad, almost plenary, and, therefore, the classification needed only a rational basis.
DISCUSSION
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the regulation violative of the Due Process Clause of U.S. Constitutional amend. V.
- The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, and concluded that 5 C.F.R. § 338.101(a) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations deprived respondents of liberty without due process of law.
- Accordingly, the Court invalidated the regulation.
The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, concluding that, by broadly denying resident aliens civil service employment, petitioner Civil Service Commission deprived respondents of an aspect of liberty. The Court held that the regulation at issue deprived respondents of liberty without due process of law, and the Court invalidated the regulation.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment