Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Adler v. Board of Education

Supreme Court of the United States · 1952 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessPublic EmploymentEducationpublic employmentteachersschool integrity

Facts

New York's § 12-a barred public-school employment for persons who advocate overthrow of government by unlawful means or who organize, join, or help organize groups teaching or advocating such overthrow. The Feinberg Law directed the Board of Regents, after notice and hearing, to list organizations it found to advocate such doctrines and to provide that membership in a listed organization would constitute prima facie evidence of disqualification. Under the statutory scheme, listed organizations had review, and any employee or applicant facing disqualification was entitled to a full hearing, representation by counsel, and judicial review. Appellants challenged the scheme as violating freedom of speech and assembly and due process.

Issue

Whether New York's § 12-a, as implemented by the Feinberg Law and Regents rules, unconstitutionally infringed the freedom of speech and assembly of public-school employees and applicants, or denied due process by making knowing membership in a listed organization prima facie evidence of disqualification. Also, whether the Court should consider a vagueness challenge to § 3021 that had not been raised below.

Rule

Public-school employees and applicants have no right to work for the State on their own terms; the State may prescribe reasonable conditions of employment related to fitness and loyalty. The State may consider a teacher's associations and may treat knowing membership in an organization, listed after notice and hearing as advocating unlawful overthrow of government, as prima facie evidence of disqualification, provided the presumption is rebuttable and the individual has a full hearing and judicial review. A federal court will not pass on the constitutionality of a state statute not challenged in the state courts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Ohio Board of Learning adopts a rule barring public-school employment for any applicant who personally advocates overthrow of the United States or Ohio government by force or other unlawful means. Lena Ortiz, a qualified history teacher in Columbus, admits at her interview that she has publicly endorsed violent revolution but argues the State cannot deny her a teaching job because she retains full freedom to speak as a private citizen.

If Lena challenges the rule on First Amendment grounds, what is the strongest argument for upholding the denial of employment?

Explanation. The majority upheld denial of public-school employment based on advocacy of unlawful governmental overthrow because public-school employees and applicants have no right to work for the State on their own terms. The State may prescribe reasonable conditions related to fitness and loyalty, especially in schools. The ruling does not say teachers lose all First Amendment rights, nor does it authorize criminalization of all harmful speech.