## Facts

- Suffolk County, New York adopted Police Department Order No. 71-1 regulating male officers’ hair length and style, sideburns, and mustaches; it barred beards and goatees except for medical reasons and allowed conforming wigs for cosmetic reasons.
- The order required that hair not touch the ears or collar (except closely cut hair at the back of the neck) and imposed detailed limits on facial hair.
- A county police officer challenged the order under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including due process and equal protection, based on a claimed liberty to control personal appearance.
- The department justified the rule as advancing uniformity, discipline, public recognizability, morale within a quasi-military organization, and officer safety.
- The district court initially dismissed the complaint.
- The Second Circuit reversed, treating personal appearance as a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest and requiring the department to show a “genuine public need” for the rule.
- On remand, the district court found the department’s proof insufficient under the Second Circuit’s standard and granted injunctive and declaratory relief; the Second Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review to evaluate the constitutional doctrine applied by the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether a county police department’s grooming regulation for uniformed officers violates the Fourteenth Amendment (liberty/due process and equal protection).
2. Whether the regulation is so irrational and arbitrary that it constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
3. Whether the Constitution requires the department to prove a specific “genuine public need” for the grooming restrictions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and upheld the grooming regulation.
- The Court held that the hair-length and grooming restrictions did not violate any right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court rejected the Second Circuit’s requirement that the government affirmatively establish a “genuine public need.”
- Applying deferential review, the Court held the regulation was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in managing a uniformed police force.
- The Court assumed, without deciding, that some liberty interest in personal appearance may exist, but concluded any such interest was adequately accommodated under rational-basis review in the public-employment context.

## Legal Principles

- A state or local government has broader authority to impose restrictive regulations on its employees, particularly uniformed law-enforcement personnel, than it has to regulate the public at large.
- Appearance rules for police may be treated like other organizational choices (dress, equipment, structure) and are entitled to a presumption of validity.
- The constitutional question is whether the challenger can show there is no rational connection between the grooming rule and legitimate objectives tied to policing.
- Legitimate objectives supporting grooming standards include public recognizability of officers, internal discipline and morale, and operational safety within a quasi-military organization.
- Even if personal appearance implicates a liberty interest, it is not treated as a fundamental right in this setting and may be restricted by rational regulations.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained a police department’s detailed grooming standards for uniformed officers, holding that Fourteenth Amendment challenges fail absent a showing that the regulation is arbitrary in the sense of lacking any rational relationship to legitimate interests in organizing and operating a police force.


Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1976)