## Facts

- The United States Civil Service Commission (CSC) adopted a regulation barring noncitizens, including lawfully admitted resident aliens, from most positions in the federal competitive civil service.
- Mow Sun Wong and other lawful permanent residents were denied eligibility for competitive federal civil service employment solely because they were not U.S. citizens.
- The exclusion effectively foreclosed resident aliens from employment in a major sector of the economy.
- A three-judge federal district court held the CSC regulation unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- CSC officials sought Supreme Court review, arguing the federal government’s authority over aliens supported the categorical citizenship requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether a CSC regulation categorically excluding lawful resident aliens from competitive federal civil service employment violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
2. Whether an administrative agency may justify alienage discrimination by invoking broad national interests absent a clear congressional or presidential decision authorizing that policy.
3. Whether asserted interests such as treaty bargaining, encouraging naturalization, or administrative convenience can sustain the CSC’s blanket rule.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the invalidation of the CSC regulation in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held the rule unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment because it deprived lawful resident aliens of liberty without due process.
- The Court treated the categorical employment exclusion as a substantial deprivation requiring judicial scrutiny.
- The Court assumed, without deciding, that Congress or the President might be able to adopt a similar blanket exclusion based on national interests, but held those interests could not justify the CSC’s rule.
- The Court found no adequate basis to treat the regulation as a policy adopted or ratified by Congress or the President; appropriations measures and executive orders cited by the government did not demonstrate such approval.
- The Court concluded the CSC lacked authority and a sufficient policy basis to impose a broad alienage-based exclusion resting on interests outside its competence, and it did not adequately justify the administrative-convenience rationale.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause imposes an equality constraint on federal action; federal classifications based on alienage that significantly burden lawful resident aliens require meaningful justification.
- Exclusion from employment in a major sector of the economy may constitute a deprivation of a liberty interest for due process purposes.
- The national government may have interests that can justify alienage-based rules beyond what states may impose, but those interests cannot be invoked arbitrarily by any federal agency.
- When the federal government relies on an overriding national interest to justify a discriminatory rule, due process requires a legitimate basis to presume the rule was intended to serve that interest, including a proper connection between the asserted interest and the responsible decisionmaker.
- Courts scrutinize agency action closely when constitutional rights are affected and the agency acts outside its normal responsibility; judicial deference is limited where the asserted justifications fall beyond the agency’s expertise.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the CSC could not categorically bar lawful resident aliens from competitive federal civil service employment without due process, because the sweeping citizenship requirement was not shown to be a deliberate national policy choice by Congress or the President and could not be sustained by rationales outside the CSC’s proper authority or supported by an adequate administrative justification.


Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976)