Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City (1955)
- Docket
- 23
- Decided
- 1955-01-01
Summary
Question: Does §903 violate Due Process by denying notice or a hearing before discharge? Conclusion: Yes. Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for a 5-4 majority, reversed the lower court. The Supreme Court held that dismissal of the review motion was improper. §903 is unconstitutional as applied in this case because it denies due process of law. The Court emphasized that invoking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to an admission of guilt. Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas concurred, writing that they also adhered to the views in their dissents in Garner v. Board of Public Works , Adler v. Board of Education , and their concurrence in Weiman v. Updegraff Justice Stanley Reed dissented, expressing that New York City had a reasonable ground to require employees to give information about their official conduct or give up their positions. Justices Sherman Minton and Harold Burton joined in the dissent. Justice John M. Harlan wrote a separate dissent, stating that no Due Process violation occurred in this case.