Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

PETITIONER: Hampton
RESPONDENT: Mow Sun Wong
LOCATION: Interstate Commerce Commission, U.S. Congress

DOCKET NO.: 73-1596
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION: 426 US 88 (1976)
REARGUED: Jan 12, 1976
DECIDED: Jun 01, 1976
ARGUED: Jan 13, 1975

ADVOCATES:
Edward H. Steinman - for respondents
Robert H. Bork - for petitioners

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 13, 1975 in Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong
Audio Transcription for Oral Reargument - January 12, 1976 in Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 01, 1976 in Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

John Paul Stevens:

In the second case, No. 73-1596, the matter involves a challenge to the validity of a civil service regulation, which excludes all persons, except American citizens and natives of Samoa, from employment in most positions in the federal service.

In a suit brought by five aliens who had been denied federal employment for which they were otherwise qualified, the United States District Court in San Francisco sustained the regulation.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the regulation, although authorized by Congress and the President, was unconstitutional.

Because of the importance of the question, we granted certiorari.

For reasons stated in an opinion filed with the clerk, without reaching the question whether Congress or the President might expressly adopt such a rule, we hold that the regulation deprives a large and already disadvantaged class of persons of an interest in liberty and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because it was not expressly mandated by either Congress or the President and was not adopted by an agency of the federal government having any responsibility for the national interest which are asserted in justification for the rule.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall have filed a brief concurring statement.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist has filed a dissenting opinion in which the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Blackmun have joined.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Mr. Justice Stevens.