## Facts

- Federal employees, a federal employees’ union, and local political committees challenged § 9(a) of the Hatch Act, which barred most executive-branch employees from taking “an active part in political management or in political campaigns.”
- The statute tied the meaning of prohibited “political management” and “political campaigning” to Civil Service Commission determinations and related executive-branch restrictions predating 1940.
- The Civil Service Commission issued regulations and enforcement guidance identifying specific prohibited partisan activities (e.g., holding party office, organizing a party club, fundraising for partisan candidates or parties, managing partisan campaigns, circulating partisan nominating petitions, soliciting votes for partisan candidates, and serving as a delegate to a party convention).
- Plaintiffs alleged the ban was facially unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment and as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
- A three-judge federal district court enjoined enforcement, concluding the statutory language (as implemented) was vague and overbroad.
- Federal officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may constitutionally prohibit federal executive-branch employees from taking an active part in partisan political management or campaigns consistent with the First Amendment.
2. Whether the Hatch Act’s prohibition, read with implementing regulations and longstanding administrative interpretations, is unconstitutionally vague.
3. Whether the prohibition is facially overbroad because it burdens protected political expression and association.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and upheld § 9(a) of the Hatch Act and its implementing regulations.
- The Court reaffirmed that Congress may restrict federal employees’ partisan political management and campaigning to protect the effective operation and perceived neutrality of the civil service.
- The Court held the challenged provisions were not unconstitutionally vague when considered together with the Civil Service Commission’s regulations and interpretive history.
- The Court rejected the overbreadth challenge, concluding the law targeted identifiable partisan campaign-management activities rather than general political discussion or belief.
- Justice Douglas, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented, emphasizing the statute’s breadth and its chilling effect on protected political participation.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may impose uniform, viewpoint-neutral limits on federal employees’ partisan political management and campaigning to protect civil-service integrity, prevent political coercion, and maintain public confidence in politically neutral administration.
- In assessing vagueness for public-employee activity restrictions, courts may consider detailed implementing regulations and longstanding authoritative administrative interpretations that supply concrete guidance.
- A restriction aimed at partisan political management and campaign activity, rather than at political ideas or debate, is less susceptible to facial invalidation for overbreadth when supported by substantial governmental interests.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the Hatch Act’s prohibition on federal employees’ active participation in partisan political management and campaigns, holding that the government’s interests in an impartial, coercion-free, and trusted civil service justified the limits and that the statutory scheme, as clarified by regulations, was neither vague nor overbroad on its face.


United States Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548 (1973)