stating that public employees had no constitutional right to work for the government “on their own terms,” and that those who did not wish to conform to state-imposed conditions of employment were “at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere”
How later courts described this case
- stating that public employees had no constitutional right to work for the government “on their own terms,” and that those who did not wish to conform to state-imposed conditions of employment were “at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere”
- rejecting argument by public school teacher that statute and regulations dis- qualifying from employment individuals who belonged to certain organizations violated First Amendment rights
- upholding New York statutory scheme for identifying and removing subversive school teachers
- “They may work for the school system upon the reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY, 385 U.S. 589 (1966)
Listed in the Constitution Annotated's table of Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision (entry 118).
The opinion
Mr. Justice Black,
dissenting.
While I fully agree with the dissent of Mr. Justice Douglas, the importance of this holding prompts me to add these thoughts.
This is another of those rapidly multiplying legislative enactments which make it dangerous — this time for school *497 teachers — to think or say anything except what a transient majority happen to approve at the moment. Basically these laws rest on the belief that government should supervise and limit the flow of ideas into the minds of men. The tendency of such governmental policy is to mould people into a common intellectual pattern. Quite a different governmental policy rests on the belief that government should leave the ,mind and spirit of man absolutely free. Such a governmental policy encourages varied intellectual outlooks in the belief that the best views will prevail. This policy of freedom is in my judgment embodied in the First Amendment and made applicable to the states by the,Fourteenth. Because of this policy public officials cannot be constitutionally vested with powers to select the ideas people can think about, censor the public views they can'express, or choose the persons or groups people can associate with. Public officials with such powers are not public servants; they are public masters.
I dissent from the Court’s judgment sustaining this law which effectively penalizes school teachers for their thoughts and their associates.