Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

Background

Five lawfully admitted, permanent resident aliens living in San Francisco were denied competitive federal civil service jobs solely because they were not U.S. citizens. They sued to challenge a long-standing Civil Service Commission regulation that generally bars noncitizens from admission to competitive examinations and appointment to most federal positions. The District Court upheld the rule, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Commission regulation is constitutional.

Reasoning

The central question was whether an agency rule that broadly excludes resident aliens from competitive federal jobs satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The Court assumed, without deciding, that Congress or the President might be able to justify a citizenship requirement in the federal service. But it held that the Civil Service Commission itself lacked responsibility for the national interests invoked and had not given adequate agency reasons. Because the rule operates nationwide and deprives a discrete class of an important liberty interest, due process requires that the deprivation be made at a comparable political level or be justified by reasons within the agency’s competence.

Real world impact

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and invalidated 5 C.F.R. § 338.101(a), finding the regulation deprived respondents of liberty without due process. The ruling removes a broad barrier to federal employment for lawfully admitted resident aliens and requires agencies to justify citizenship exclusions or narrow them to sensitive or policymaking positions. The Postal Service later changed its own rules during the litigation, illustrating possible administrative responses.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing the Court invented a new due process test and that decisions about alien employment belong to Congress and the President; Justice Brennan concurred, reserving equal protection questions.