Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York

Citation72 S.Ct. 380,342 U.S. 485,96 L.Ed. 517
Decision Date03 March 1952
Docket NumberNo. 8,8
PartiesADLER et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel, New York City, for appellants.

Mr. Michael A. Castaldi, New York City, for appellee.

Mr. Wendell P. Brown, Albany, N.Y., for the State of New York amicus curiae by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellants brought a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, praying that § 12—a of the Civil Service Law, McK. Consol. Laws, c. 7,1 as implemented by the so-called Feinberg Law,2 be declared unconstitutional, and that action by the Board of Education of the City of New York thereunder be enjoined. On motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court held that subdivision (c) of § 12—a, the Feinberg Law, and the Rules of the State Board of Regents promulgated thereunder violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and issued an injunction. Lederman v. Board of Education, 196 Misc. 873, 95 N.Y.S.2d 114. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court reversed, 276 App.Div. 527, 96 N.Y.S.2d 466, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division, Thompson v. Wallin, 301 N.Y. 476, 95 N.E.2d 806. The appellants come here by appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.

Section 12—a of the Civil Service Law, hereafter referred to as § 12—a, is set forth in the margin.3 To implement this law, the Feinberg Law was passed, adding a new section, § 3022, to the Education Law of the State of New York, Mck.Consol. Laws, c. 16, which section so far as here pertinent is set forth in the margin.4 The Feinberg Law was also to implement s 3021 of the Education Law of New York.5 The constitutionality of this section was not attacked in the proceedings below.

The preamble of the Feinberg Law, § 1, makes elaborate findings that members of subversive groups, particularly of the Communist Party and its affiliated organizations, have been infiltrating into public employment in the public schools of the State; that this has occurred and continues notwithstanding the existence of protective statutes designed to prevent the appointment to or retention in employment in public office, and particularly in the public schools, of members of any organizations which teach or advocate that the government of the United States or of any state or political subdivision thereof shall be overthrown by force or violence or by any other unlawful means. As a result, propaganda can be disseminated among the children by those who teach them and to whom they look for guidance, authority, and leadership. The Legislature further found that the members of such groups use their positions to advocate and teach their doctrines, and are frequently bound by oath, agreement, pledge, or understanding to follow, advocate and teach a prescribed party line or group dogma or doctrine without regard to truth or free inquiry. This propaganda, the Legislature declared, is sufficiently subtle to escape detection in the classroom; thus, the menace of such infiltration into the classroom is difficult to measure. Finally, to protect the children from such influence, it was thought essential that the laws prohibiting members of such groups, such as the Communist Party or its affiliated organizations, from obtaining or retaining employment in the public schools be rigorously enforced. It is the purpose of the Feinberg Law to provide for the disqualification and removal of superintendents of schools, teachers, and employees in the public schools in any city or school district of the State who advocate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means or who are members of organizations which have a like purpose.

Section 3022 of the Education Law, added by the Feinberg Law, provides that the Board of Regents, which has charge of the public school system in the State of New York, shall, after full notice and hearing, make a listing of organizations which it finds advocate, advise, teach, or embrace the doctrine that the government should be overthrown by force or violence or any other unlawful means, and that such listing may be amended and revised from time to time.

It will be observed that the listings are made only after full notice and hearing. In addition, the Court of Appeals construed the statute in conjunction with Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Act, Gilbert-Bliss' N.Y.Civ.Prac., Vol. 6B, so as to provide listed organizations a right of review.

The Board of Regents is further authorized to provide in rules and regulations, and has so provided, that membership in any listed organization, after notice and hearing, 'shall constitute prima facie evidence for disquali- fication for appointment to or retention in any office or position in the school system';6 but before one who is an employee or seeks employment is severed from or denied employment, he likewise must be given a full hearing with the privilege of being represented by counsel and the right to judicial review.7 It is § 12—a of the Civil Service Law, as implemented by the Feinberg Law as above indicated, that is under attack here.

It is first argued that the Feinberg Law and the rules promulgated thereunder constitute an abridgment of the freedom of speech and assembly of persons employed or seeking employment in the public schools of the State of New York.

It is clear that such persons have the right under our law to assemble, speak, think and believe as they will. American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925. It is equally clear that they have no right to work for the State in the school system on their own terms. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754. They may work for the school system upon the reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at libertyto retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere. Has the State thus deprived them of any right to free speech or assembly? We think not. Such persons are or may be denied, under the statutes in question, the privilege of working for the school system of the State of New York because, first, of their advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force or violence, or, secondly, by unexplained membership in an organization found by the school authorities, after notice and hearing, to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence, and known by such persons to have such purpose.

The constitutionality of the first proposition is not questioned here. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 667—672, 45 S.Ct. 625, 630—632, 69 L.Ed. 1138, construing § 161 of the New York Penal Law, McK. Consol. Laws, c. 40.

As to the second, it is rather subtly suggested that we should not follow our recent decision in Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 341 U.S. 716, 71 S.Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317. We there said: 'We think that a municipal employer is not disabled because it is an agency of the State from inquiring of its employees as to matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service. Past conduct may well relate to present fitness; past loyalty may have a reasonable relation- ship to present and future trust. Both are commonly inquired into in determining fitness for both high and low positions in private industry and are not less relevant in public employment.' 341 U.S. at page 720, 71 S.Ct. at page 912.

We adhere to that case. A teacher works in a sensitive area in a schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds towards the society in which they live. In this, the state has a vital concern. It must preserve the integrity of the schools. That the school authorities have the right and the duty to screen the officials, teachers, and employees as to their fitness to maintain the integrity of the schools as a part of ordered society, cannot be doubted. One's associates, past and present, as well as one's conduct, may properly be considered in determining fitness and loyalty. From time immemorial, one's reputation has been determined in part by the company he keeps. In the employment of officials and teachers of the school system, the state may very properly inquire into the company they keep, and we know of no rule, constitutional or otherwise, that prevents the state, when determining the fitness and loyalty of such persons, from considering the organizations and persons with whom they associate.

If, under the procedure set up in the New York law, a person is found to be unfit and is disqualified from employment in the public school system because of membership in a listed organization, he is not thereby denied the right of free speech and assembly. His freedom of choice between membership in the organization and employment in the school system might be limited, but not his freedom of speech or assembly, except in the remote sense that limitation is inherent in every choice. Certainly such limitation is not one the state may not make in the exercise of its police power to protect the schools from pollution and thereby to defend its own existence.

It is next argued by appellants that the provision in § 3022 directing the Board of Regents to provide in rules and regulations that membership in any organization listed by the Board after notice and hearing, with provision for review in accordance with the statute, shall constitute prima facie evidence of disqualification, denies due process, because the fact found bears no relation to the fact presumed. In other words, from the fact found that the organization was one that advocated the overthrow of government by unlawful means and that the person employed or to be employed was a member of the organization and knew of its purpose,8 to presume that such member is disqualified for employment is so unreasonable as to be a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
273 cases
  • First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1957
    ...1317, affirming Garner v. Board of Public Works, 98 Cal.App.2d 493, 220 P.2d 958), public school teachers (Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517; Steinmetz v. California State Board of Education, 44 Cal.2d 816, 285 P.2d 617; Board of Education of City of Los ......
  • Drake v. Covington County Board of Education
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • January 23, 1974
    ...unfit schoolteachers. Beilan v. Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399, 406-408, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 493, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517. The problems associated with unmarried women who have become pregnant and seek abortions is commonly known an......
  • Morrison v. State Board of Education
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1969
    ...(See Beilan v. Board of Education (1958) 357 U.S. 399, 406--408, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414; Adler v. Board of Education (1952) 342 U.S. 485, 493, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517; Board of Education v. Swan, supra, 41 Cal.2d 546, 553--554, 261 P.2d 261; Vogulkin v. State Board of Education (1......
  • Vogel v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1967
    ...the same type of inquiry as was made in the old certificate condemned here. Then in 1952, in Adler v. Board of Education (342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517, 27 A.L.R.2d 472), supra, this Court passed upon the identical statute condemned here. It, too, was a declaratory judgment actio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 books & journal articles
  • The application of labor relations and discrimination statutes to lay teachers at religious schools: the Establishment Clause and the pretext inquiry.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 64 No. 2, December 2000
    • December 22, 2000
    ...a teacher, and the danger that religious doctrine will become intertwined with secular instruction persists."); Adler v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 485, 493 (1952) ("A teacher works in a sensitive area in a schoolroom [and] [t]here he shapes the attitude of young minds towards the society in wh......
  • Garcetti v. Ceballos: judicially muzzling the voices of public sector employees.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 53 No. 2, June 2008
    • June 22, 2008
    ...which was later adopted by the United States Supreme Court. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 144 (1983). See, e.g., Adler v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 485 (1952); Garner v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 341 U.S. 716 (1951); United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947); United States v. Wurzbach, 28......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...of the District of Columbia, 261 U.S. 525, 43 S.Ct. 394, 67 L.Ed. 785 (1923), 440-41, 563, 1163, 1252-53 Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517 (1952), 623, Adoption of B.G.S., In re, 556 So.2d 545 (La. 1990), 1263 Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660,......
  • The Supreme Court and political speech in the 21st century: the implications of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 76 No. 1, September 2012
    • September 22, 2012
    ...Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 341 U.S. 56, 57 (1951) (per curiam). (50) See Garner, 341 U.S. at 723. (51) E.g., Adler v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 485, 486 nn.3-4 (1952) (explaining an unsuccessful challenge to New York State's Feinberg Law, requiring comprehensive investigation of politica......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT