## Facts

- Massachusetts required public employees to take an oath to “uphold and defend” the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions and to “oppose the overthrow” of the U.S. or Massachusetts governments “by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method.”
- Lucretia Peteros Richardson was hired as a research sociologist at Boston State Hospital.
- Richardson refused to take the oath on constitutional grounds and was discharged.
- Richardson sued in federal court challenging the oath under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- A three-judge district court upheld the “uphold and defend” clause but held the “oppose the overthrow” clause unconstitutional as vague and unspecific; the judgment for Richardson was reaffirmed after a remand on mootness.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may condition public employment on an oath requiring employees to “uphold and defend” the federal and state constitutions consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether the oath’s requirement to “oppose the overthrow” of government “by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method” is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad under the First Amendment.
3. Whether an employee who refuses to take such an oath must receive an additional evidentiary hearing before discharge.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, upholding the Massachusetts oath.
- The “uphold and defend” clause was constitutional because it was materially a paraphrase of constitutionally authorized oaths to support the Constitution.
- The “oppose the overthrow” clause was not void for vagueness when read as reinforcing commitment to constitutional processes and rejection of unlawful overthrow, rather than requiring specific responsive action in hypothetical situations.
- The statute’s only sanction was perjury, which requires a knowing and willful falsehood, reducing fair-notice and chilling concerns.
- Because there is no constitutionally protected right to overthrow government by force, violence, or illegal means, the state could discharge an employee for refusing the oath without a further hearing to determine other facts.

## Legal Principles

- Government may not condition public employment on oaths that burden rights secured by the First Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).
- Oaths requiring support for constitutional government are generally permissible when they track the Constitution’s own support-oath model and are not ideological tests.
- An oath provision is not unconstitutionally vague where its meaning, reasonably construed, gives fair notice of what is required and where enforcement mechanisms (such as perjury) require knowing falsity.
- A state may deny or terminate public employment for refusal to take a constitutionally valid oath; no additional hearing is required where the refusal itself is the dispositive fact.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Massachusetts could require public employees to swear or affirm support for the federal and state constitutions and to renounce violent or otherwise unlawful overthrow, concluding the oath was sufficiently definite, did not infringe protected expression, and justified discharge upon refusal without an additional evidentiary hearing.


Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972)