## Facts

- Congress enacted the Hatch Act, barring executive-branch employees from taking “any active part in political management or in political campaigns,” with enforcement by the Civil Service Commission.
- A federal-employee union and several executive-branch employees sought to enjoin enforcement, alleging the prohibition violated the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.
- Most employee plaintiffs alleged only an intention to engage in partisan political activities but had not violated the Act and faced no pending administrative action.
- One employee, George Poole, Jr., alleged specific violations of the Act and that the Civil Service Commission had initiated a removal proceeding against him.
- A three-judge district court denied injunctive relief and upheld the statute, entering summary judgment for the Commission.
- The plaintiffs took a direct appeal; the appeal was not docketed within 60 days, raising a question whether the delay defeated Supreme Court jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not docketed within 60 days after allowance.
2. Whether employees who had not violated the Act and faced no enforcement action presented a justiciable Article III case or controversy.
3. Whether the Hatch Act’s prohibition on “active” partisan political management or campaigning, enforced through Civil Service rules and dismissal, was constitutional as applied to an employee facing removal.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction; the 60-day docketing language was not a jurisdictional bar, and appellees had not properly pursued dismissal under the Court’s rules.
- The Court dismissed the claims of plaintiffs who alleged only a desire to engage in prohibited conduct without pending proceedings, holding their request amounted to an advisory ruling.
- The Court found Poole’s challenge justiciable because he alleged specific violations and a pending proposed removal order.
- On the merits as to Poole, the Court upheld the Hatch Act’s restriction on active partisan political management and campaigning as a permissible condition of federal employment.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may not decide constitutional questions in the absence of a concrete dispute involving actual or imminent governmental action affecting the plaintiff; generalized fear of future enforcement is insufficient.
- An employee subject to an initiated removal proceeding based on alleged statutory violations presents a justiciable controversy.
- Congress may, within reasonable limits, restrict partisan political activities of federal executive-branch employees to protect the integrity and efficiency of the public service.
- Conditioning federal employment on refraining from active partisan political management or campaigning does not, without more, violate the First, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments.

## Conclusion

The Court allowed the appeal to proceed despite late docketing, refused to issue pre-enforcement constitutional rulings for plaintiffs facing no concrete enforcement action, and sustained the Hatch Act’s limits on active partisan political activity as a valid means of maintaining an impartial and efficient federal civil service.


United Pub. Workers of Am. (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)