Foley v. Connelie

Background

The case was brought by Edmund Foley, a lawful permanent resident who is not yet a U.S. citizen, after New York refused to let him take the competitive exam to become a state trooper. New York law says only U.S. citizens may be appointed to the state police. Foley argued that the rule denied him equal treatment under the Constitution; lower courts upheld the ban, and the issue reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a State may limit trooper jobs to citizens. The Court said citizenship can be a relevant qualification for important non-elective positions. It explained that troopers exercise broad discretionary powers—making arrests, stopping and searching people, and using force—that significantly affect members of the public. Because the police role bears a rational relationship to citizenship, the Court applied a less demanding review and concluded New York’s rule was constitutional, affirming the lower court.

Real world impact

Lawful permanent residents who are not yet citizens may be blocked from joining New York’s state police and similar agencies in other States. The decision permits States to continue or adopt citizenship requirements for many law enforcement jobs. Some class members may never qualify because of age limits or federal naturalization waiting periods.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices strongly dissented, arguing that routine police officers do not make policy and that a blanket ban on aliens is unjustified and denies individual opportunity. Other Justices wrote separate opinions agreeing with the judgment.