United States v. Lovett
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not use an appropriations rider to permanently ban three named government employees from federal employment because it believed their political associations were disloyal, calling the measure an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
The decision reaffirms that Congress cannot punish specific, named people through legislation instead of a court trial, and it lets the three employees collect back pay for work the government had let them keep doing.
“This permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the Government is punishment, and of a most severe type.”
The Court explains why permanently barring the employees from government work counts as punishment.
How it got here: The three employees sued for back pay in the Court of Claims, which ruled in their favor; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the constitutionality of the pay-cutoff provision.
The Case in Depth
What happened
During World War II, a House committee investigated federal employees suspected of "subversive" beliefs and associations. Congressman Martin Dies publicly accused thirty-nine employees, including Goodwin Watson, William Dodd, and Robert Lovett, of disloyalty. Their own agencies were satisfied with their work and wanted to keep them, but Congress attached a rider to an appropriations bill barring payment of their salaries unless the President reappointed them with Senate approval, which never happened.
The question before the Court
Could Congress permanently bar three named government employees from federal jobs by cutting off their pay in an appropriations bill, without giving them a trial?
Why it matters
The ruling protects individuals from being singled out by name in legislation and stripped of their livelihood based on legislative suspicion rather than a courtroom trial with normal legal protections. It reassures federal employees and others that Congress cannot bypass the judicial process to punish people it deems politically undesirable, and it lets Lovett, Watson, and Dodd recover their pay.
What changes now
The ruling is final on the merits: the Court of Claims judgments awarding back pay to Lovett, Watson, and Dodd stand, and the government must pay them for the work performed after the cutoff date. The Court did not decide separate questions about Congress's removal power over executive employees or possible due process violations, leaving those issues unresolved for future cases.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly did not decide whether the provision also violated the President's exclusive authority over removing executive officials, or whether it separately denied the employees due process. The ruling rests solely on the bill of attainder ban, leaving those other constitutional theories unaddressed.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Black (author).
Separate writings (2). Justice Frankfurter (author of a concurrence), joined by Justice Reed.
Concurrence — Justice Frankfurter
Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justice Reed, agreed the employees should recover their pay but rejected the majority's reasoning. He argued the provision should be read narrowly as merely blocking disbursement of funds, not as a legislative declaration of guilt, and that under this reading no bill of attainder existed at all. He stressed courts should avoid constitutional rulings when a statute can reasonably be read to sidestep the issue, and warned that the majority's approach too readily condemned Congress's action as attainder without the historical hallmarks—like an explicit declaration of guilt—that define that offense. Read the full concurrence →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first had to decide whether the dispute was even one courts could resolve, since Congress argued the provision was just a routine appropriations decision beyond judicial review. Looking at the law's language and the debates behind it, the Court found it was designed to force the employees' permanent removal, not merely to redirect how they were paid, making the constitutional challenge a real, decidable case.
- The Court then applied the definition of a bill of attainder from an earlier case, Cummings v. Missouri: a law that inflicts punishment on specific people without a judicial trial, whether the punishment is death or something lesser.
- The Court found the provision targeted only three named individuals and permanently barred them from any future government job because Congress believed they held disloyal views, which the Court treated as a severe form of punishment comparable to penalties Congress otherwise reserved for serious crimes like treason or bribery.
- Because this punishment was imposed directly by Congress rather than through a judicial trial with the usual protections — a jury, notice of charges, confrontation of witnesses, and the like — the Court concluded the provision fit squarely within the constitutional definition of a bill of attainder.
- Having found the law was a bill of attainder, the Court held it violated the Constitution's explicit and absolute ban on such laws, meaning it could never justify withholding the employees' pay.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Cummings v. Missouri (4 Wall. 277)
The Court relies on this case's definition of a bill of attainder as punishment without a judicial trial.
Reaffirms Ex parte Garland (4 Wall. 333)
The Court treats this case as continuing precedent barring permanent legislative exclusion from a profession.