Due Process Case: Arnett v. Kennedy
Visit the following website: http://www.oyez.org/issues (
This website is a nice place to get the very basics regarding Supreme Court opinions. The often 40, 50 or 100 page opinions written by the justices are summed up into neat little paragraphs.
Using the menu on the left (which groups cases together by their issue – I would recommend civil rights, criminal procedure, due process, or 1st Amendment ) select a Supreme Court case that interests you.
Several things are required here (400 words):
In the case, Arnett v. Kennedy, Kennedy worked as a non-probationary worker for the federal Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). Following allegations that Kennedy had recklessly made defamatory and false statements towards OEO employees, the appellee got dismissed from his work position. Even though Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the OEO regulations permitted him to reply to these charges in writing and in person, Kennedy responded in writing only. The appellee chose to file a suit on the OEO on grounds that it interfered and violated his freedom for expression under 1st Amendment and that it denied him due process rights as stipulated under the 5th Amendment. As per Kennedy, this was because the agency did not hold a pre-termination hearing before dismissing him from his non-probationary employment position. The District Court Judges concurred with the appellee on his due process claim.
Present the “question” exactly as worded on Oyez
May the federal government dismiss a non-probationary employee without a trial type pre-removal hearing? Must the federal government provide sufficiently precise guidelines as to what kind of speech might be made the basis for a removal action?
Sum up the conclusion of justices
The 3-judge District Jury sided with the appellee on his due process claim. In this case, the justices concluded that the statute in question was not unconstitutional on its face. Led by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the bench cited that the OEC’s failure to follow the trial type of pre-removal hearing was a violation of the appellee’s due process rights and that the CSC regulations were unconstitutionally vague for the agency failed to stipulate what form of speech amounts removal for cause. Also, the imposed standard of recruitment protection was not overboard and impermissibly vague when it comes to federal employees’ speech regulation.
Implications the court ruling has on American society
In the context of the American society, the three-judge district court ruling implies that unless a federal agency stipulates the type of speech that would constitute removal for cause, dismissing a federal employee on ground of false and defamatory statements would amount to a violation of his freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Also, this ruling implies that agency’s cannot apply vague regulations on employees, because this is a violation of the due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Again, civil service employees are protected by the law, implying that agency’s must follow all due process requirements such as pre-termination hearing before dismissing a federal worker otherwise the dismissal will be null and void.