Bailey v. Richardson

Decision Date22 March 1950
Docket NumberNo. 10382.,10382.
Citation182 F.2d 46
PartiesBAILEY v. RICHARDSON et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit


Mr. Thurman Arnold, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Abe Fortas, Paul A. Porter and Milton V. Freeman, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Howard C. Wood, Washington, D. C., of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, with whom Assistant Attorney General H. G. Morison, Mr. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., and Mr. Edward H. Hickey, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Granted June 5, 1950. See 70 S.Ct. 1025.

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a civil action brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment and for an order directing plaintiff-appellant's reinstatement in Government employ.1 The defendants-appellees are the Administrator of the Federal Security Agency, the members of the Civil Service Commission, members of its Loyalty Review Board, and members of its Loyalty Board of the Fourth Civil Service Region. Answer to the complaint was made by the defendants-appellees, and affidavits were filed. Both plaintiff and defendants made motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted the motion of the defendants. This appeal followed. Upon motion filed in this court by the appellant, the Secretary of Labor was added as party appellee.

The Facts.

Appellant Bailey was employed in the classified civil service of the United States Government from August 19, 1939, to June 28, 1947. Upon the latter date she was separated from the service due to reduction in force. On March 25, 1948, she was given a temporary appointment, and on May 28, 1948, she was reinstated under circumstances to be related.

The regulations of the Civil Service Commission in effect at the time of appellant's reinstatement2 made reinstatements subject to the condition that removal might be ordered by the Commission if investigation of the individual's qualifications, made within eighteen months, disclosed disqualification. The regulations listed as a disqualification:3

"(7) On all the evidence, reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States."

On July 31, 1948, two months after her reinstatement, Miss Bailey received from the Regional Loyalty Board of the Commission a letter and an enclosed interrogatory. The letter said in part:

"During the course of an investigation of your suitability for appointment, information was received which the Commission believes you should be given an opportunity to clarify. Consequently, there are inclosed an original and copy of an interrogatory to be answered by you under affirmation or oath.

* * * * * *

"Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated."

The interrogatory said in part:

"As part of the process of determining your suitability for Federal Employment, an investigation of you has been conducted under the provisions of Executive Order 9835, which established the Federal Employees Loyalty Program. This investigation disclosed information which, it is believed, you should have an opportunity to explain or refute.

"The questions in the attached Interrogatory are based on the information received, and are to be answered in writing in sufficient detail to present fairly your explanation or answers thereto. * * *

"You are further advised that you have the right, upon request, to an administrative hearing on the issues in the case before the Regional Loyalty Board. You may appear personally before the Board and be represented by counsel or representative of your own choice; and you may present evidence in your behalf. Such evidence may be presented by witnesses or by affidavit.

* * * * * *

"The Commission has received information to the effect that you are or have been a member of the Communist Party or the Communist Political Association; that you have attended meetings of the Communist Party, and have associated on numerous occasions with known Communist Party members.

* * * * * * "The Commission has received information to the effect that you are or have been a member of the American League for Peace and Democracy, an organization which has been declared by the Attorney General to come within the purview of Executive Order 9835.

* * * * * *

"The Commission has received information to the effect that you are or have been a member of the Washington Committee for Democratic Action, an organization which has been declared by the Attorney General to come within the purview of Executive Order 9835.

* * * * * *

"Are you now, or have ever been, a member of, or in any manner affiliated with, the Nazi or Fascist movements or with any organization or political party whose objective is now, or has ever been, the overthrow of the Constitutional Government of the United States?"

Miss Bailey answered the interrogatories directly and specifically, denying each item of information recited therein as having been received by the Commission, except that she admitted past membership for a short time in the American League for Peace and Democracy. She vigorously asserted her loyalty to the United States. She requested an administrative hearing. A hearing was held before the Regional Board. She appeared and testified and presented other witnesses and numerous affidavits. No person other than those presented by her testified.

On November 1, 1948, the Regional Board advised the Federal Security Agency, in which Miss Bailey was employed, that:

"As a result of such investigation and after a hearing before this Board, it was found that, on all the evidence, reasonable grounds exist for belief that Miss Bailey is disloyal to the Government of the United States.

"Therefore, she has been rated ineligible for Federal employment; she has been barred from competing in civil service examinations for a period of three years, and your office is instructed to separate her from the service."

On the same day, a letter was sent by the Board to Miss Bailey, reading in part:

"As shown in the attached copy of a letter to your employing agency, it has been found that, on all the evidence, reasonable grounds exist for belief that you are disloyal to the Government of the United States.

"Your application for or eligibility from each of the examinations mentioned below has been cancelled and you have been barred from civil service examinations in the Federal service for a period of three years from October 29, 1948. When the period of debarment has expired the Commission will, upon request, consider the removal of the bar.

"If you wish to appeal the Board's decision, the Loyalty Review Board, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Washington 25, D. C., should be notified within 20 days from the date of receipt by you of this letter."

Miss Bailey appealed to the Loyalty Review Board and requested a hearing. Hearing was held before a panel of that Board. Miss Bailey appeared, testified, and presented affidavits. No person other than Miss Bailey testified, and no affidavits other than hers were presented on the record.

On February 9, 1949, the Chairman of the Loyalty Review Board advised the Federal Security Agency that the finding of the Regional Board was sustained, and he requested that the Agency remove Miss Bailey's name from the rolls. Notice to that effect was sent to counsel for Miss Bailey on the same day. The full Board subsequently declined to review the conclusions of its panel.

Miss Bailey's position from May 28, 1948, to November 3, 1948, was that of a training officer (general fields) CAF-13.

The Question.

The rights claimed by and for appellant must be discovered accurately and defined precisely. The events with which we are concerned were not accidental, thoughtless or mere petty tyrannies of subordinate officials. They were the deliberate design of the executive branch of the Government, knowingly supported by the Congress.

The case presented for Miss Bailey is undoubtedly appealing. She was denied reinstatement in her former employment because Government officials found reasonable ground to believe her disloyal. She was not given a trial in any sense of the word, and she does not know who informed upon her. Thus viewed, her situation appeals powerfully to our sense of the fair and the just. But the case must be placed in context and in perspective.

The Constitution placed upon the President and the Congress, and upon them alone, responsibility for the welfare of this country in the arena of world affairs. It so happens that we are presently in an adversary position to a government whose most successful recent method of contest is the infiltration of a government service by its sympathizers. This is the context of Miss Bailey's question.

The essence of her complaint is not that she was denied reinstatement; the complaint is that she was denied reinstatement without revelation by the Government of the names of those who informed against her and of the method by which her alleged activities were detected. So the question actually posed by the case is whether the President is faced with an inescapable dilemma, either to continue in Government employment a person whose loyalty he reasonably suspects or else to reveal publicly the methods by which he detects disloyalty and the names of any persons who may venture to assist him.

Even in normal times and as a matter of ordinary internal operation, the ability, integrity and loyalty of purely executive employees is exclusively for the executive branch of Government to determine, except in so far as the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
120 cases
  • Greene v. Elroy
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1959
    ...L.Ed. 253, were equal protection cases wherein discrimination was claimed. Greene alleges no discrimination. 5. See Bailey v. Richardson, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 182 F.2d 46, affirmed by an equally divided Court, 1951, 341 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 669, 95 L.Ed. 1352; Peters v. Hobby, 1955, 349 U.S. ......
  • Allison v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 15, 1971
    ...McAuliffe v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517 (1892); Jenson v. Olson, 353 F.2d 825 (8th Cir. 1965); and Bailey v. Richardson, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 182 F.2d 46 (1950), aff'd, 341 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 669, 95 L.Ed. 1352 (1951). Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that offi......
  • Chambers v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 15, 1971
    ...the right of free speech but it does not guarantee plaintiff employment with the City of Minneapolis. * * * In Bailey v. Richardson, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 248, 182 F.2d 46 (1950), aff'd 341 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 669, 95 L.Ed. 1352 (1951), the court * * * The First Amendment guarantees free speech a......
  • Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1951 the entire loyalty program grossly deprives government employees of the benefits of constitutional safeguards. Bailey v. Richardson, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 182 F.2d 46, 66. 4. The Appendix is an illustration of persecution of Protestants by Catholics. For instances of persecution of Catho......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • 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
    ...has never hesitated to deny the individual's right to use the privileges for the overturn of law and order."). (35) Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46, 48-49, 50 (D.C. Cir. 1950), affd, 341 U.S. 918 (1951) (per (36) Id. at 50. (37) Id. at 51. (38) See Bailey v. Richardson, 341 U.S. 918, 918 ......
  • Schoolhouse Property.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...protected property interest entitling public employees to procedural protections prior to termination. See Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46, 57 (D.C. Cir. (61.) JERRY L. MASHAW, DUE PROCESS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE 1-3 (1985) (explaining how the Due Process Clause has served as a vehicl......
  • Unearthing the Lost History of Seminole Rock
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 65-1, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...977 (2d Cir. 1951) (refusing deference to litigation position in case involving Department of Labor regulations); Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1950) (giving deference to a Presidential Memorandum, which was published in the Federal Register, in a case involving the Civil Ser......
  • Designating the Dangerous: from Blacklists to Watch Lists
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 30-01, September 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...No. 9835, supra note 55, at pt. IV, f2. 69. BROWN, supra note 25, at 100. 70. BONTECOU, supra note 60, at 131. 71. Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F.2d 46, 67 (D.C. Cir. 1950) (Edgerton, J., dissenting), aff'd by an equally divided court, 341 U.S. 918 72. Id. at 66. 73. See Michael E. Parrish, Re......

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