Connell v. Higginbotham
Click on the PDF link below for the full version including footnotes.
Introduction
Since its founding, the United States has sought to function as a country centered around the freedom of the people, with the First Amendment allowing for a diversity of opinions to flourish. Employees of state and local governments are protected by the First Amendment from being denied a job, denied government benefits, or dismissed from a position due to their political, religious, or social beliefs.Moreover, substantive due process, as implied in the Fifth Amendment and incorporated to the states to protect implicit rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a compelling state interest to be presented in order for the courts to deprive a public employee of free speech protections. In Connell v. Higginbotham, the firing of a public employee based on the assumption of a particular political belief is questioned.
Facts
In 1969, Stella Connell applied for and was hired to fill a substitute 4th grade teacher position with the Orange County school system in Florida, after being interviewed by the principal of Callahan Elementary School. Two months after she was hired, Connell was dismissed from the position for refusing to sign the loyalty oath required of all Florida public employees. In its totality, the oath had individuals pledge: (1) “that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida”; (2) “that I do not believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence”; (3) “that I am not a member of the Communist Party”; (4) “that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party”; and (5) “that I am not a member of any organization or party which believes in or teaches, directly or indirectly, the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of Florida by force or violence.”
Legal Background
Legal action was first brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Sections 876.05-876.10 of the Florida Statutes, which required all state employees to take a loyalty oath, were challenged. The district court found three of the five clauses in the oath unconstitutional, and prevented the school from revoking employment due to an oath containing language that infringed upon the First Amendment rights of employees. The constitutionality of the remaining two clauses, requiring employees to pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the State of Florida and pledge that they “do not believe in the overthrow of the government of the United States or the State of Florida,” was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Holding & Reasoning
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the first clause of the oath (requiring employees to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Florida state constitutions) was valid, as it “demands no more” than the U.S. Constitution, which declares that all state and federal officers “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Therefore, the oath’s first clause was not deemed an infringement upon Connell’s First Amendment protections. However, the school could not dismiss an employee for refusing to sign the second clause, which asks employees to pledge that they “do not believe in the overthrow of the government of the United States or the State of Florida.” The Court made reference to Slochower v. Board of Education, which states that a refusal to provide information or sign an oath is not sufficient evidence to fire a public employee without due process under the law, in the sense of both substantive and procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that dismissing an employee for refusing to sign the oath without “hearing or inquiry” violated procedural due process. Procedural due process requires government officials to take proper action before depriving an individual of “life, liberty or property” – including a proper hearing, justification for actions being taken, jury, etc. Since none of this was provided to Connell, her dismissal was found to be in violation of procedural due process. However, according to the Supreme Court, the greater issue of Connell’s dismissal was that the cause of her dismissal, the refusal to sign the second clause of the oath, violated substantive due process’s requirement that states must provide a compelling enough state interest to deprive an individual of “life, liberty or property.” The Court decided that her refusal “cannot be the predicate of government action” and did not constitute a compelling interest for her dismissal, invoking substantive due process to her defense.
Analysis
Based on the First Amendment protections afforded to public employees against deprivation of certain privileges and opportunities solely based on political belief, and lack of sufficient evidence to have this right revoked, the Court decided correctly that the second clause of the oath was an invalid reason for Connell’s dismissal. The Court appropriately invoked substantive due process since the school has no basis to deprive Connell of her First Amendment rights and fire her due to her refusal. In order to deprive an individual of this First Amendment right and dismiss them due to a political belief, a “compelling reason” supported by credible evidence must be presented. Refusal to answer if one believes in the “overthrow” of a State or Federal government is an inadequate basis for definitively determining whether an individual does actually believe in overthrowing the government, as Connell’s intentions behind her refusal are unknown to her employer. Drawing conclusions from her refusal is presumptuous. Furthermore, even if Connell did believe in the “overthrow” of these institutions, her belief is protected by the First Amendment and does not undeniably prove that she has previously incited or will actively incite treasonous behavior.
Furthermore, if the school wished to revoke her First Amendment rights, procedural due process requires that Connell receive a hearing of the school’s rationale, a proper evaluation of the situation, and a chance to offer her reasoning as to why her actions were valid, among other procedures, before her dismissal. While it is evident that the school had no basis for depriving Connell of this right, the manner in which they did so is also incompatible with the Constitution. The decision in Connell v. Higginbotham continues to define public employees’ freedom of speech and the complex legal procedures involved in depriving an individual of a fundamental right.