Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles

1951-06-04

Headline: Upheld Los Angeles loyalty oath and Communist-membership affidavit, allowing the city to require employees to deny advocating violent overthrow and to report Communist Party ties under an assumed limiting interpretation.

Holding: The Court ruled that Los Angeles could lawfully require city employees to disclose past or present Communist Party membership and to take an oath denying advocacy of violent overthrow, and it affirmed the dismissals under those requirements.

Real World Impact:

Allows cities to require loyalty oaths for municipal employees.
Permits requesting disclosure of Communist Party membership from city workers.
Employees who refuse may be lawfully dismissed unless oath is narrowly interpreted.

Topics: loyalty oaths, government employees, communist party disclosures, freedom of association

Summary

Background

A group of 17 civil service employees of the City of Los Angeles refused to comply with a 1948 city ordinance that required an oath and an affidavit. The 1941 City Charter had barred people who advised or advocated violent overthrow; the 1948 ordinance required employees to swear they had not advocated overthrow within the prior five years and to state whether they were ever members of the Communist Party. Two employees took the oath but refused the affidavit; fifteen refused both and were discharged. The state courts denied relief and the employees appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court separated the two requirements. It held the affidavit valid because a municipal employer may ask about past political affiliations that bear on fitness for public service. On the oath, the Court relied on the Charter amendment already barring advocacy of violent overthrow and treated the ordinance as an administrative implementation of that qualification. The Court concluded the oath was not an illegal retroactive punishment and was not a forbidden legislative attainder because it set employment qualifications rather than imposed punishment. To avoid other constitutional problems, the majority assumed the city and courts would read the oath to require knowledge (scienter) about proscribed advocacy. Relying on that interpretation, the Court affirmed the dismissals and the lower-court judgments.

Real world impact

The decision permits a city to require loyalty oaths and membership disclosures for municipal employees and to discipline those who refuse. The ruling rests in part on the Court's assumed, narrower reading of the oath and so could be limited by later state or federal interpretation.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented or partly dissented, arguing the oath operates as a retroactive punishment or bill of attainder and threatens freedom of association; one Justice would have ordered reinstatement unless a narrower oath were offered.