# Kelley v. Johnson

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 5, 1976 · 425 U.S. 238

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426355

## Case

- **Full name:** Kelley, Commissioner, Suffolk County Police Department v. Johnson
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 5, 1976
- **Citations:** 425 U.S. 238; 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,788; 96 S. Ct. 1440; 47 L. Ed. 2d 708; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 35
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Powell
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, Burger, Stewart, White, Blacicmun, Powell, Marshall, Brennan, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 460 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Crain v. Board of Police Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Department of St. Louis, 920 F.2d 1402 (1990).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426355

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that policies regulating the uniforms and conduct of police officers are entitled to great deference, and should not be set aside unless individual officers “can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation, based as it is on the county’s met…
- holding that deference is owed to police department grooming regulations under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause based on such organizations' "overall need for discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity"
- noting that it was “highly significant” that the plaintiff subject to the restriction on personal appearance was a police officer and not a member of the public; police department’s regulations “infringe[d] on respondent’s freedom of choice in personal matters”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court and write to make clear that, contrary to the concern expressed in the dissent, I find no negative implication in the opinion with respect to a liberty interest within the Fourteenth Amendment as to matters of personal appearance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 541-543 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). When the State has an interest in regulating one’s personal appearance, as it certainly does in this case, there must be a weighing of the degree of infringement of the individual’s liberty interest against the need for the regulation. This process of analysis justifies the application of a reasonable regulation to a uniformed police force that would be an impermissible intrusion upon liberty in a different context.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426355. Public record. Not legal advice.