## Facts

- New York Civil Service Law § 53(1) barred noncitizens from appointment to any position in the state’s competitive-class civil service.
- Four lawful permanent residents worked in New York City competitive civil service positions and were discharged in 1971 solely because they were not U.S. citizens.
- The employees brought a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of § 53 and damages for lost earnings.
- The statutory ban applied broadly to permanent competitive-class jobs, including many nonpolicy positions, while not governing many high governmental offices.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s categorical exclusion of noncitizens from permanent competitive-class civil service positions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. What level of judicial scrutiny applies to state classifications based on alienage in public employment.
3. Whether a state interest in defining its political community and ensuring employee loyalty justifies a broad citizenship requirement for competitive civil service jobs.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating § 53 under the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court applied close judicial scrutiny because alienage is a suspect classification and lawful resident aliens constitute a discrete and insular minority.
- New York’s asserted interests in loyalty and an effective civil service were insufficient to sustain a statute that swept across a wide range of positions regardless of whether loyalty or political responsibility was implicated.
- The statute was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly confined to positions where citizenship could be required to protect substantial state interests.
- Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing alienage should not be treated as a suspect classification and that the statute should be reviewed more deferentially.

## Legal Principles

- State classifications based on alienage are generally suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- To survive close scrutiny, a state must show a substantial interest and a discrimination scheme narrowly limited to achieving that interest.
- A state may have a legitimate interest in defining its political community and setting citizenship qualifications for elective and certain important nonelective positions closely tied to democratic self-government.
- Broad, categorical exclusions of noncitizens from public employment that include routine, nonpolicy jobs and omit many high-level positions are not sufficiently tailored to asserted loyalty or governmental-structure interests.
- Generalized assumptions about alien loyalty or permanence are inadequate to justify sweeping employment exclusions under close scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The Court held that New York’s blanket citizenship requirement for permanent competitive civil service employment denied equal protection because alienage triggers close scrutiny and the statute’s indiscriminate scope was not narrowly limited to positions where citizenship could be justified by substantial state interests.


Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973)