Arnett v. Kennedy

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessPublic EmploymentFirst AmendmentVaguenessOverbreadthLloyd-La Follette Act5 U.S.C. 7501

Facts

Wayne Kennedy was a nonprobationary federal employee in OEO's Chicago Regional Office. OEO charged him in writing with several incidents of misconduct, including publicly stating without proof and in reckless disregard of the facts that the regional director and his assistant had attempted to bribe a representative of a community action organization. He was given written notice, access to the supporting material, and the opportunity to respond orally and in writing, but he did not answer the substance of the charges and instead argued that he was entitled to a pre-removal trial-type hearing and that his statements were protected by the First Amendment. After OEO removed him, available regulations allowed administrative appeal, including a post-termination evidentiary hearing with backpay if reinstated.

Issue

Whether the dismissal procedures authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 7501 and related regulations denied Kennedy due process by failing to provide a pretermination trial-type hearing, and whether the statutory standard allowing removal only for 'such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service' was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to employee speech.

Rule

When Congress creates a federal employee's statutory right not to be removed except for cause and in the same enactment specifies the procedures for determining cause, the employee's entitlement is the substantive guarantee as defined by those procedural limitations, not a broader property interest requiring additional constitutional procedures. A post-termination hearing is sufficient to protect any liberty interest in clearing one's name from allegedly false charges. The Lloyd-La Follette Act's 'cause' standard is constitutionally sufficient because it is a general employment standard, not a criminal prohibition, and it does not encompass constitutionally protected speech.

🔒

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.

Nadia Torres is a nonprobationary analyst for the fictional Great Basin Records Agency in Denver. A federal statute says competitive-service employees may be removed only for cause that promotes the efficiency of the service, requires written charges and a chance to respond in writing and orally, and provides a post-removal evidentiary appeal hearing with backpay if reinstated.

Nadia is fired after using the statute's notice-and-response process. She argues the Fifth Amendment required a full trial-type hearing before her removal became effective. Which is the strongest answer under the lead opinion?

Explanation. The lead opinion treats the employee's expectancy of continued federal employment as created and defined by the same statute that specifies the procedures for determining cause. Because Congress granted job protection and simultaneously limited the required procedures, due process did not require an added pretermination trial-type hearing beyond written notice, access to materials, opportunity to respond, and post-termination evidentiary appeal.