Slochower v. Board of Higher Education

Supreme Court of the United States · 1956 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessPublic EmploymentSelf-IncriminationFourteenth AmendmentDue Process ClauseFifth Amendmentpublic employee dismissal

Facts

Slochower was a tenured associate professor at Brooklyn College and, under state law, could be discharged only for cause and after notice, hearing, and appeal. When questioned before a United States Senate subcommittee investigating subversive influences in education, he stated he was not a Communist and was willing to answer questions about his beliefs and associations since 1941, but he invoked the Fifth Amendment as to questions about membership in 1940 and 1941. The Senate chairman accepted the claim as a valid assertion of the privilege, but shortly afterward New York City suspended Slochower and declared his position vacant under Charter § 903. As interpreted by New York courts, § 903 made assertion of the privilege equivalent to resignation and allowed automatic dismissal without charges, notice, hearing, or opportunity to explain.

Issue

Whether New York City may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, automatically discharge a tenured public employee solely because he invoked the Fifth Amendment before a federal legislative committee. More specifically, the question was whether § 903, as applied, was an arbitrary basis for termination.

Rule

Due process forbids a state from summarily terminating a public employee on a patently arbitrary basis. A statute that automatically discharges an employee solely for invoking the Fifth Amendment, by treating that invocation as the equivalent of guilt or resignation without regard to the subject matter, remoteness, justification, or any bona fide inquiry into fitness, violates due process.

🔒

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.

Nina Patel is a tenured librarian employed by the City of Cleveland. A city charter provision states that any city employee who invokes the Fifth Amendment before any legislative committee is deemed to have resigned immediately. After Nina invokes the privilege before an Ohio legislative committee investigating private charities, the city terminates her without notice, charges, or a hearing.

Is Nina's termination most likely constitutional under the governing due process rule?

Explanation. Due process forbids a state from summarily terminating a public employee on a patently arbitrary basis. The majority opinion held unconstitutional the automatic discharge of a tenured employee solely because she invoked the Fifth Amendment, where the government made no bona fide inquiry into fitness and instead relied on a conclusive presumption arising from the assertion of the privilege itself.