| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Kelley v Johnson

Page history last edited by Sarah Mann 14 years ago

Sarah Mann

 

Kelley v. Johnson

Decided April 5, 1976

 

 

Historical Context of Case:

 

The right of privacy, although not expressly guaranteed by the United States Constitution, has been interpreted to be protected by the Bill of Rights.  For example, the Fourth Amendment provides protections that to citizens in the privacy of their own homes against unreasonable searches, while the Fifth Amendment affords protections to privacy concerns of individuals by extending the privilege against self-incrimination. 

 

The high court began to explore the expansion of privacy rights as early as 1923, with the case of Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), which examined the privacy right of parents to educate their children, but it was not until well into the 1960s that privacy was revisited in the matter of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), when the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting the sale and possession of contraceptives to married individuals. 

 

The sixties brought huge social change to America.  Of course, the Civil Rights movement played a major role in this social transformation.  In addition, young people in particular began to revolt against the conservative norms and conformity of the time, and to move towards more liberation.  This included not only a sexual revolution, but a demand for more freedom for minorities and for women.  America had become far more accepting of individual, personal freedom.  When the Burger Court decided in the 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973)that privacy included a woman’s right to have an abortion, the door was seemingly wide open for expansion of privacy rights, and certainly one would expect the Court to be willing to expand the right to a lesser degree that it had done in Roe.  By the time Kelley v. Johnson was decided in 1976, many of the ideas that seemed radical in the sixties become widely accepted in the seventies. 

 

 

Relevant Precedent:

 

As the Court in Kelly v. Johnson pointed out, the “liberty” interest there at stake did not rise to the level of the claims set forth in prior cases such as Roe v. Wade (1973), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), all of which involved intimate reproductive rights, or Stanley v. Illinois (1972), which dealt with parental rights.   The Court therefore looked to employment matters for precedential guidance, for Respondent had sought the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment as an employee of a New York State police department.  The Supreme Court cited the matters of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), and Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973).  In Pickering, the Court preserved a teacher’s First Amendment right of free speech absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made.  This ruling in effect provided that state employment could not come with the condition of speech regulations that differed from those that applied to citizens in general.   In Broadrick, the Court upheld a statue which prohibited state employees from participating in certain political activities, thereby limiting rights and protections in the context of public employment.  Other than these cited matters, however, the Court had little upon which to rely in deciding the case of Kelly v. Johnson. As the Court itself stated, “…whether the citizenry at large has some sort of “liberty” interest within the Fourteenth Amendment in matters of personal appearance is a question on which this Court’s cases offer little, if any, guidance.” 

 

 

Story Behind Kelley v. Johnson:

 

This case began in 1971, when a Civil Rights action was instituted against the Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department by the president of the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.  An order had been put into effect requiring that male members of the police force abide by certain hair-grooming standards.  Police officers were forbidden from having beards or goatees, and the length of hair and sideburns were likewise regulated.  There was an exception for medical need.  The action was said to violate Johnson’s First Amendment right of free expression, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection.  The District Court dismissed Johnson’s complaint, and he appealed.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court, where testimony was taken on the issue of whether there was a “genuine public need” for these regulations.   There was but one witness, the Suffolk County Police Department’s Deputy Commissioner.  He contended that the hair-grooming regulations met a need for uniformity and satisfied a concern for public safety of the patrolmen.  A ruling was made in favor of Respondent based upon this testimony, with the District Court determining that there was no proof to support these claims.  The Court felt as if the police department was seeking “[u]niformity for uniformity’s sake.”  The District Court’s ruling was affirmed on petitioner’s appeal.

 

 

Composition of Court in 1976:

 

In 1976, Chief Justice Warren Burger led the Supreme Court.  Although he was said to have conservative leanings, the Burger Court decisions in general were fairly moderate in nature (Oyez Project).  The majority opinion in Kelly v. Johnson was written by Justice Rehnquist, and joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun and Powell.  Justice Marshall penned a dissent, which was joined by Justice Brennan.

 

 

Constitutional Question as defined by the Supreme Court:

 

In Kelly v. Johnson, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the hair-grooming and hair-length regulations at issue violated Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by infringing upon liberty interests. 

 

 

Decision and Ramification:

 

Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion in Kelley v. Johnson.  The Court upheld the grooming regulations for police officers, thereby limiting the scope of privacy concerns.  The Court’s holding established that there is no protected liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment when it comes to personal appearance, distinguishing the case from those that impact an individual’s choice with respect to basic and fundamental matters of procreation, marriage, sexual relations, and family life.  Justice Rehnquist noted that there were countless demands placed upon police officers, including the need to wear a uniform, the requirement of saluting the flag while in uniform, the prohibition against smoking in public, and the restriction against participating in political affairs.  Rehnquist believed that Suffolk County’s organized structure for its police force served the purpose of discipline and uniformity.  The Court looked at the hair-length regulation similarly, and declined to use the standard that had been applied by the Court of Appeals, which had attempted to establish whether there was a “genuine public need” for the regulation.  The Supreme Court instead indicated that the standard was “whether respondent can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation, based as it is on the county’s method of organizing its police force, and the promotion of safety of persons and property.”  The Court ruled that the regulations were not so irrational as to be deemed “arbitrary,” and therefore respondent had not been deprived of liberty.   To the contrary, the Court determined that similarity in appearance of police officers was desirable and served as a rational basis for the regulations imposed by the police force. 

 

Marshall issued a dissenting opinion in which he declared that the regulations did indeed violate the Fourteenth Amendment, for by imposing such regulations the state forces an individual to sacrifice his individual identity.  Marshall felt as if liberty of appearance was on par with other protected liberties such as “privacy, self-identity, autonomy, and personal integrity.”  He also failed to find a rational basis for the law. 

 

The Kelley v. Johnson case limited the scope of privacy rights, after having taken a giant leap in 1973 when it significantly extended the right of privacy to include a woman’s right to have an abortion.  The Court was seemingly reluctant to push the zone of privacy further than it had already done by determining that personal appearance was protected by the Constitution.  This decision no doubt permitted state employers to continue to impose restrictions and regulations upon its employees with respect to their personal appearance.  I suspect that the issue has only intensified over the years, as individuals have adopted further means of expressing individuality through personal appearance, such as tattoos and piercings. 

 

 

Position on Opinion:

 

I agree with Justice Rehnquist’s decision in Kelley v. Johnson, because I believe that being employed as a police officer requires conformity to a particular standard of behavior and appearance.  Police officers are to be respected, and in order to command respect, they must look and behave in a professional and dignified manner.  I do not believe that requiring officers to wear their hair in a neat, trimmed fashion impinges upon their personal liberties.  In addition, it seems unreasonable to me for an officer to suggest that these regulations infringe upon his liberties when he is already required to abide by clothing restrictions and wear a uniform.  The regulations are reasonable and serve the purpose of uniformity among officers. 

 

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

 

 

“Broadrick v. Oklahoma”http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/601/case.html

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

“Eisenstadt v. Baird” http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/405/438.html

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

“Griswold v. Connecticut” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html>

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

“Kelly v. Johnson” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/KelleyvJohnson.html>

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

“Meyer v. Nebraska” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Meyer%20v%20Nebraska%20%281923%29.html> (5 March 2010)

 

 

“Warren E. Burger” The Oyez Project. http://oyez.org/justices/warren_e_burger.html>

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

“Pickering v. Board of Education” http://supreme.justia.com/us/391/563/case.html

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

“Roe v. Wade” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe.html

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

“Stanley v. Illinois” http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/645/case.html

            (5 March 2010).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (1)

mberry said

at 10:15 pm on Mar 8, 2010

Well done Sarah! DB

You don't have permission to comment on this page.