McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1892 · Administrative Law

Administrative Lawmandamuspolice officer removalpublic employmentgood behavior tenurecause sufficientdue hearingpolitical activity restrictions

Facts

The petitioner was a New Bedford police officer removed by the mayor after a written complaint and hearing. The mayor found that he had violated Rule 31, which prohibited members of the department from soliciting money or aid for any political purpose, and there was also evidence that he had been a member of a political committee. The city had accepted the Act of 1890, under which police officers held office during good behavior and until removed by the mayor for cause deemed by him sufficient after due hearing. The petitioner argued that the rule was invalid, that violation of it was not sufficient cause, and that he had not received a due hearing.

Issue

Whether the city could lawfully make obedience to a rule forbidding political solicitation a condition of holding the office of policeman, so that violating the rule constituted sufficient cause for removal, and whether the petitioner received the due hearing required by statute.

Rule

A city may impose any reasonable condition upon holding offices within its control, and may make obedience to such a rule part of the good conduct required for the office. A public employee may have constitutional rights generally, but has no constitutional right to hold a particular public office on different terms than those offered. Removal satisfies a statutory requirement of due hearing when the officer has notice and an opportunity to be heard and the mayor does all that justice requires under the circumstances.

🔒

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 city of Akron adopts a fire-department rule stating that no firefighter may solicit campaign contributions or other political assistance for any candidate or party. After written charges and a hearing, Mayor Elena Ward removes firefighter Marcus Doyle for personally collecting donations for a city-council campaign while on the department roster.

If Marcus seeks reinstatement, what is the strongest argument supporting the mayor's action?

Explanation. The majority reasoned that a city may impose any reasonable condition on holding offices within its control and may make obedience to such a rule part of the good conduct required for the office. The employee may have constitutional rights generally, but has no constitutional right to hold the office on different terms than those offered. Thus a reasonable ban on political solicitation may support removal after due hearing. (Derived from McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford (1892).)