## Facts

- The City of Muskegon’s ordinances authorized the police chief, with managerial approval and filing, to promulgate and enforce rules governing the police department’s efficiency, discipline, and conduct.
- Acting under that authority, the chief adopted a rule barring any Muskegon police officer from being or becoming a member of an organization identified with a labor union or federation that (a) admits non-department members or (b) could place obligations on an officer that would interfere with full performance of police duties.
- The rule required officers who were then members of such organizations to disassociate within 30 days; noncompliance was grounds for immediate dismissal.
- Local 201 of AFSCME and certain Muskegon police officers who belonged to the local challenged the rule and sought an injunction.
- Plaintiffs alleged the rule was ambiguous, arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional under state and federal provisions, including freedom of association and equal protection.
- The circuit court enjoined enforcement, reasoning the rule was unconstitutional and impermissibly ambiguous.
- The city appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the city lawfully delegated authority to the police chief to adopt a rule restricting police officers’ union-affiliated memberships as a departmental regulation.
2. Whether the rule was so ambiguous or vague that it was invalid.
3. Whether the restriction impermissibly infringed officers’ constitutional rights of association (and related constitutional claims) given the nature of police employment.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the injunction and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
- The court held the ordinances provided sufficient authority for the chief to promulgate the rule as an internal police regulation.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of proving the rule unconstitutional.
- The court rejected the claim that the rule’s language was invalid for ambiguity, reading it in light of its stated purpose to prevent conflicting loyalties and interference with police duties.
- The court upheld the restriction as a reasonable means to maintain police neutrality, discipline, and public confidence.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal regulations governing police conduct and discipline are presumed valid; challengers bear the burden to establish unconstitutionality.
- A city may regulate police officers’ outside affiliations when the restriction is reasonably related to maintaining departmental efficiency, discipline, and impartial law enforcement.
- A personnel rule is not void for ambiguity if officers of ordinary intelligence can understand the prohibited conduct when the text is read in context and in light of the rule’s evident purpose.
- Constitutional associational interests of public employees may be subject to employment conditions reasonably connected to the proper functioning and neutrality of a police force.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court upheld Muskegon’s police rule limiting officers’ membership in labor-union-affiliated organizations that included non-department members or could create conflicting obligations, ruling the measure fell within delegated municipal authority, was sufficiently definite, and was constitutionally permissible as a reasonable police discipline regulation.


Loc. No. 201, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps. v. City of Muskegon, 120 N.W.2d 197 (Mich. 1963)