Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessFederal EmploymentAlienageFifth Amendmentdue processalienagefederal civil service

Facts

Five lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens in San Francisco were denied federal employment solely because they were not citizens, even though each was qualified for the available position sought or held. The Civil Service Commission regulation allowed admission to competitive examination and appointment only for citizens or persons owing permanent allegiance to the United States, which the Commission construed to include only natives of American Samoa. The plaintiffs challenged that policy as arbitrary under the Fifth Amendment and as inconsistent with federal executive policy against discrimination. The Supreme Court treated the challenged rule as one adopted by the Civil Service Commission rather than expressly required by Congress or the President.

Issue

Whether a Civil Service Commission regulation that broadly excludes resident aliens from employment in the federal competitive civil service violates the Fifth Amendment. More specifically, whether the Commission itself may justify that nationwide alienage discrimination by invoking overriding national interests not shown to be within the Commission's own responsibility or expressly adopted by Congress or the President.

Rule

When the Federal Government defends a discriminatory rule that would violate equal protection if adopted by a State by invoking overriding national interests, due process requires a legitimate basis for presuming that the rule was actually intended to serve those interests. That presumption exists when the promulgating agency has direct responsibility for fostering or protecting the asserted interest, or when Congress or the President expressly mandated the rule. If neither is true, the deprivation of liberty caused by the rule must be justified by reasons properly within the agency's own mission.

🔒

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 Federal Archives Personnel Board, a hiring agency for clerical and records jobs nationwide, adopts a regulation excluding all lawful permanent residents from competitive positions. When challenged in Seattle, the Board argues the rule helps the Nation bargain with foreign governments and encourages immigrants to seek citizenship, but neither Congress nor the President has expressly required the exclusion.

Is the regulation most likely valid under the Fifth Amendment as applied by the Court's majority reasoning?

Explanation. The majority held that when a federal agency defends a discriminatory rule by invoking overriding national interests that would be unavailable to a State, due process requires a legitimate basis for presuming the rule was actually intended to serve those interests. That presumption exists if Congress or the President expressly mandated the rule, or if the agency has direct responsibility for the asserted interest. A personnel board has no responsibility for treaty bargaining or naturalization policy, so those interests cannot justify the board's own wholesale exclusion.