Connell v. Higginbotham (1970)
- Docket
- 79
- Decided
- 1970-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Is the requirement of a pledge to support the Constitution of the United States and the state invalid? Does a school board’s decision to dismiss an employee based on the refusal to sign the loyalty oath denying belief in the overthrow of the United States government or that of the state violate the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion: No, yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that requiring all employee applicants to pledge to support the federal Constitution and that of the state was valid because it demands no more than what is required of all state and federal employees. However, the Court held the dismissal from public employment for refusing to sign the oath without hearing or inquiry violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a concurring opinion in which he stated the “overthrow” clause of the oath was invalid because the state could not show that an applicant believed in an overthrow. Justice William O. Douglas and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. joined in the concurrence. Justice Potter Stewart wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he agreed the with the validity of the section of the oath that required support of the federal and state Constitutions. However, Justice Stewart would remand the case to discover the state’s meaning behind the “overthrow” clause.