Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

1784, Oct. 22, 7 Stat. 15 (Ft. Stanwix, Indian Six Nations)...
1789, Jan. 9, 7 Stat. 33 (Ft. Harmar, Indian Six Nations)...
1794, Nov. 11, 7 Stat. 44 (Canandaigua, Indian Six Nations).
1794, Dec. 2, 7 Stat. 47 (Tuscarora Indians et al.) . . . . .
1797, Sept. 15, 7 Stat. 601 (Big Tree, Seneka Indians).
1838, Jan. 15, 7 Stat. 550 (New York Indians). . . .
1909, Jan. 11, 36 Stat. 2448 (Boundary Waters, Canada).
1950, Feb. 27, 1 U. S. T. 694 (Canada)..

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

[blocks in formation]

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1959.

NELSON ET AL. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.

No. 152. Argued January 13, 1960.-Decided February 29, 1960. Petitioners, when employees of a California County, were subpoenaed by and appeared before a Subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee; but, in violation of specific orders of the County Board of Supervisors and the requirements of § 1028.1 of the Government Code of California, refused to answer certain questions concerning subversion. The County discharged them on grounds of insubordination and violation of § 1028.1. Nelson, a permanent employee, was given a Civil Service Commission hearing, which resulted in confirmation of his discharge. Globe, a temporary employee, was denied a hearing, since he was not entitled to it under the applicable rules. Both sued for reinstatement, contending that § 1028.1 and their discharges violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; but their discharges were affirmed by a California State Court. Held:

1. In Nelson's case, the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. P. 4.

2. Globe's discharge did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the judgment in his case is affirmed. Pp. 4-9.

(a) Globe's discharge was not based on his invocation before the Subcommittee of his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments; it was based solely on insubordination and violation of § 1028.1. P. 6.

Opinion of the Court.

362 U.S.

(b) Under California law, Globe had no vested right to county employment and was subject to summary discharge. P. 6.

(c) Globe's discharge was not arbitrary and unreasonable. Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551, distinguished. Beilan v. Board of Education, 357 U. S. 399, and Lerner v. Casey, 357 U. S. 468, followed. Pp. 6–8.

(d) The remand on procedural grounds required in Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535, has no bearing on this case. Pp. 8-9. 163 Cal. App. 2d 607, 329 P. 2d 978, affirmed by an equally divided Court.

163 Cal. App. 2d 595, 329 P. 2d 971, affirmed.

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the brief was Nanette Dembitz. Wm. E. Lamoreaux argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Harold W. Kennedy.

Murray A. Gordon filed a brief for the National Association of Social Workers, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners, when employees of the County of Los Angeles, California, were subpoenaed by and appeared before a Subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee, but refused to answer certain questions concerning subversion. Previously, each petitioner had been ordered by the County Board of Supervisors to answer any questions asked by the Subcommittee relating to his subversive activity, and § 1028.1 of the Government. Code of the State of California 1 made it the duty of any

1 California Government Code, § 1028.1:

"It shall be the duty of any public employee who may be subpenaed or ordered by the governing body of the state or local agency by which such employee is employed, to appear before such governing body, or a committee or subcommittee thereof, or by a duly authorized committee of the Congress of the United States or of the Legislature of this State, or any subcommittee of any such

1

Opinion of the Court.

public employee to give testimony relating to such activity on pain of discharge "in the manner provided by law." Thereafter the County discharged petitioners on the ground of insubordination and violation of § 1028.1 of the Code. Nelson, a permanent social worker employed by the County's Department of Charities, was, upon his request, given a Civil Service Commission hearing which resulted in a confirmation of his discharge. Globe was a temporary employee of the same department and was denied a hearing on his discharge on the ground that, as such, he was not entitled to a hearing under the Civil Service Rules adopted pursuant to the County Charter. Petitioners then filed these petitions for mandates seeking

committee, to appear before such committee or subcommittee, and to answer under oath a question or questions propounded by such governing body, committee or subcommittee, or a member or counsel thereof, relating to:

"(a) Present personal advocacy by the employee of the forceful or violent overthrow of the Government of the United States or of any state.

"(b) Present knowing membership in any organization now advocating the forceful or violent overthrow of the Government of the United States or of any state.

"(c) Past knowing membership at any time since October 3, 1945, in any organization which, to the knowledge of such employee, during the time of the employee's membership advocated the forceful or violent overthrow of the Government of the United States or of any state.

"(d) Questions as to present knowing membership of such employee in the Communist Party or as to past knowing membership in the Communist Party at any time since October 3, 1945.

"(e) Present personal advocacy by the employee of the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities between said foreign government and the United States.

"Any employee who fails or refuses to appear or to answer under oath on any ground whatsoever any such questions so propounded shall be guilty of insubordination and guilty of violating this section and shall be suspended and dismissed from his employment in the manner provided by law."

« AnteriorContinuar »