Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
509 citation events (74 in the last 25 years) across 79 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gorokhovsky v. State Public Defender Office (wied, 2021-01-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gorokhovsky v. State Public Defender Office
E.D. Wis. · 2021 · confidence medium
It has found that a teacher hired without tenure or formal contract was entitled to due process “with a clearly implied promise of continued employment.” Id. at 577 (citing Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 (1971)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul R. Hoesterey v. City of Cathedral City Jack R. Smith
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
For example, the law of contracts in most, if not all, jurisdictions long has employed a process by which agreements, though not formalized in writing, may be 'implied.' "); Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 (citing Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 (1971), for the proposition that due process protections may be extended to public employees "hired without tenure or a formal contract, but nonetheless with a clearly implied promise of continued employment.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Long Estate
pactcomplcumber · 1990 · confidence medium
Although “the property interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate chattels, or money,” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571-2 (1972), citing Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 (1971), we do not believe due process protections extend to such a tenuous interest as that held by objector.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jesse A. Vail v. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95, Terrance C. Parks, Charles R. Fox and Bernie Rinehart (8×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 [ 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 ]. 40 Certain attributes of "property" interests protected by procedural due process emerge from these decisions.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hayes v. Mobile County Board of School Commissioners
Ala. · 1981 · confidence medium
Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 [, 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 ].
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte Hayes
Ala. · 1981 · confidence medium
Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 [, 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 ].
examined Cited as authority (rule) Lake Michigan College Federation of Teachers v. Lake Michigan Community College (4×)
W.D. Mich. · 1974 · confidence medium
Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 [ 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418, 420, 421 ]. 408 U.S. at 576-577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d at 560-1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kekoa Ex Rel. Enomoto v. Supreme Court
Haw. · 1973 · confidence medium
The “legitimate claim of entitlement” test seems to have been stretched so far as to include deprivation of benefits from government if claimed under a “clearly implied promise. ” Board of Regents v. Roth, supra at 577, citing, Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 (1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fields v. Askew (2×)
Fla. · 1973 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] 405 U.S. 676 , 92 S.Ct. 1332 , 31 L.Ed.2d 593 (1972). [2] 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971). [3] 405 U.S. at 638 , 92 S.Ct. at 1336 , 31 L.Ed.3d at 601. [4] Id., 405 U.S. at 687 , 92 S.Ct. at 1338 , 31 L.Ed.3d at 604 (Stewart and White, JJ., concurring.) [5] Id., 405 U.S. at 692 , 92 S.Ct. at 1341 , 31 L.Ed.3d at 607 (Marshall and Brennan, JJ., dissenting.) [6] 403 U.S. at 208 , 91 S.Ct. at 1773 . [7] Id. at 209 , 91 S.Ct. at 1774 (Marshall, Douglas, and Brennan, JJ., concurring.) [8] Id. at 210 , 91 S.Ct. at 1774 (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Socialist Workers Party v. Martin (2×)
S.D. Tex. · 1972 · confidence medium
Law Students [Civil Rights] Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154 [ 91 S.Ct. 720 , 27 L.Ed.2d 749 ] (1971) ; Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 [ 91 S.Ct. 702 , 27 L.Ed.2d 639 ] (1971); Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 209 [ 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1774 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 ] (1971) (Marshall, J., concurring).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Cole v. Richardson (8×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
SCOTUS · 1972 · confidence medium
Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154 (1971); Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U. S. 1 (1971); Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U. S. 207, 209 (1971) (MARSHALL, J., concurring in result).
cited Cited as authority (rule) EUGENE L. BARRINGTON v. TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, ET AL
unknown court · confidence medium
Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 (1971); Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed., 350 U.S. 551 (1956); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952).
cited Cited "see" Saqib Ali v. Lawrence Hogan, Jr.
4th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See 403 U.S. at 208 .
examined Cited "see" Lachtman v. Regents of University of California (6×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
College professors and staff members dismissed during the terms of their contracts "have interests in continued employment that are safeguarded by due process." ( Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 576-577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 ; see Connell v. Higginbotham (1971) 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 [Supreme Court decisions "proscrib[e] summary dismissal from public employment without hearing or inquiry required by due process"].) Lachtman was not, however, dismissed from his graduate student researcher position.
examined Cited "see" Woodard v. Andrus (3×)
5th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971).
examined Cited "see" Geraghty v. Berkeley Heights Tp. (3×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 418 (1971) and cases cited therein.
examined Cited "see" Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States (3×)
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. at 2709 (citing Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that teacher without tenure or formal contract enjoyed due process rights)); cf. Orloff, 708 F.2d at 377 (remanding to district court for findings on existence of mutually explicit understanding that part-time physician had expectation of continued employment).
examined Cited "see" Roth v. Veteran's Administration (3×)
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. at 2709 (citing Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that teacher without tenure or formal contract enjoyed due process rights)); cf. Orloff, 708 F.2d at 377 (remanding to district court for findings on existence of mutually explicit understanding that part-time physician had expectation of continued employment).
cited Cited "see" Ago
Fla. Att'y Gen. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See , Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, 137 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1962).
cited Cited "see" Jackson v. Kurtz
Ohio Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham (1971), 403 U. S. 207 .
examined Cited "see" Webster v. Redmond (3×)
N.D. Ill. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham, 305 F.Supp. 445 (M.D.Fla.1969), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971); compare Hegler v. Board of Education of Bearden School District, Bearden, Arkansas, 447 F.2d 1078 (8th Cir. 1971).
examined Cited "see" Millard v. Connecticut Personnel Appeal Board (3×)
Conn. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
Ed. 692 ; or those without tenure or formal contract who were hired with implied promises of continued employment; see Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S. Ct. 1772 , 29 L.
examined Cited "see" Page v. Jackson (3×)
N.D. Ga. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971); Roane v. Collisburg Independent School District, supra. As a result, irrespective of the formal characterization of a Georgia liquor license as a mere privilege, this court has concluded that a license holder has a sufficient property interest in holding the license to the date of its automatic termination that the revocation of that license must be accompanied by rudi *269 mentary due process protections.
examined Cited "see" Roche v. Foulger (3×)
D. Utah · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971).
examined Cited "see" Pelisek v. TREVOR STATE GRADED SCH. DIST. NO. 7, SALEM, WIS. (3×)
E.D. Wis. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971).
examined Cited "see" Acanfora v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (3×)
D. Maryland · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971).
examined Cited "see" Gould v. Walker (3×)
N.D. Ill. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 , 87 S.Ct. 675 , 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 , 81 S.Ct. 247 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 , 78 S.Ct. 1332 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 , 73 S.Ct. 215 , 97 L.Ed. 216 (1952); Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943); and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , 43 S.C…
discussed Cited "see" Baronoff v. Board of Education
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
(Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 599 ; Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 ; see Matter of Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc 2d 651 .) Any “ stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities ” (Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, p. 573 ) or the curtailment of a clear promise, either express or implied, of continued employment (Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U. S. 207, 208 ), or threatened infringement of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech or association, resulting from the board determination, invokes the panoply of due pr…
examined Cited "see" Biklen v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, CITY SCHOOL DIST., SYRACUSE, NY (5×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D.N.Y. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. at 161 , 91 S.Ct. at 726; see Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 210 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (Stewart, J„ concurring and dissenting). 11 . 401 U.S. at 178, 91 S.Ct. at 733. 12 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Association of Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (teacher with clearly implied promise of continued employment); Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956) (tenured college professor); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 , 73 S.Ct. 215 , 97 L.Ed. 216 (1952) (staff dismissed during terms of contract).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Comb v. BENJI'S SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, INC. (3×)
S.D. Tex. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
Perry, 408 U.S. at 601-02 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 ; see also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that a teacher recently hired without tenure or a formal contract, but with a clearly implied promise of continued employment, could not be summarily dismissed from public employment with hearing or inquiry).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Comb v. Benji's Special Educational Academy, Inc. (3×)
S.D. Tex. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
Perry, 408 U.S. at 601-02 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 ; see also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that a teacher recently hired without tenure or a formal contract, but with a clearly implied promise of continued employment, could not be summarily dismissed from public employment with hearing or inquiry).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Bernstein v. Lopez (3×)
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Roth, 856 F.2d 1401 , 1409 (9th Cir.1988) ("even as a probationary employee, Roth could still have a property interest in his job"); see also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that a teacher without tenure or formal contract enjoyed due process rights). 26 Property interests are not solely grounded in state law or in contracts, but arise from a variety of sources from which rules or policies develop that create entitlements to benefits.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Bernstein v. Lopez (3×)
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Roth, 856 F.2d 1401, 1409 (9th Cir.1988) (“even as a probationary employee, Roth could still have a property interest in his job”); see also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that a teacher without tenure or formal contract enjoyed due process rights).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Lawson v. Umatilla County (3×)
9th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. (holding that university may have created tenure system in practice even though it had no explicit tenure system); see also, Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that recently-hired teacher without tenure or formal contract nevertheless had property interest in job because of implied promise of continued employment).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Lawson v. Umatilla County (3×)
9th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. (holding that university may have created tenure system in practice even though it had no explicit tenure system); see also, Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (holding that recently-hired teacher without tenure or formal contract nevertheless had property interest in job because of implied promise of continued employment).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Faucher v. Rodziewicz (3×)
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 578 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (“Only last year, the Court held that this principle ‘proscribing summary dismissal from public employment without hearing or inquiry required by due process’ also applied to a teacher recently hired without tenure or a formal contract, but nonetheless with a clearly implied promise of continued employment,” citing Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 ).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Faucher v. Rodziewicz (3×)
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 578 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) ("Only last year, the Court held that this principle 'proscribing summary dismissal from public employment without hearing or inquiry required by due process' also applied to a teacher recently hired without tenure or a formal contract, but nonetheless with a clearly implied promise of continued employment," citing Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 ).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Adorno v. Gonzalez (3×)
D.P.R. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Howe v. Baker (3×)
11th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (prohibiting summary dismissal of teacher who had implied promise of continued employment); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (requiring hearing before terminating welfare benefits).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Howe v. Baker (3×)
11th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208 , 91 S.Ct. 1772, 1773 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (prohibiting summary dismissal of teacher who had implied promise of continued employment); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (requiring hearing before terminating welfare benefits).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Pillow v. Avco Financial Services (In Re Pillow) (3×)
Bankr. D. Utah · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (teacher without tenure or formal contract); Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 , 73 S.Ct. 215 , 97 L.Ed. 216 (1952).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Podgor v. Indiana University
Ind. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Connell v. Higginbotham (1971), 403 U.S. 207 ; Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), 397 U.S. 254 ; Flemming v. Nestor (1960), 363 U.S. 603 ; Slochower v. Board of Education (1956), 350 U.S. 551 ; Wieman v. Updegraff (1952), 344 U.S. 183 ; Town of Speedway v. Harris (1976), 169 Ind.App. 100 , 346 N.E.2d 646 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Barchi v. Sarafan (6×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 , 91 S.Ct. 1586 , 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971); see also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 , 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Arnett v. Kennedy (4×)
SCOTUS · 1974 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U. S. 207 (1971).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
SCOTUS · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U. S. 207, 208 ; Bell v. Burson, supra; Goldberg v. Kelly, supra. “Although the Court has not assumed to define ‘liberty’ [in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause] with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 499 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors (3×)
Cal. · 1971 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Connell v. Higginbotham (1971) 403 U.S. 207 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 418 , 91 S.Ct. 1772 ]; Cramp v. Board of Public Institutions (1961) 368 U.S. 278, 288 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 285, 292 , 82 S.Ct. 275 ]; Beilan v. Board of Education (1958) 357 U.S. 399, 405 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1414, 1419 , 78 S.Ct. 1317 ]; Board of Education v. Mass (1956) 47 Cal.2d 494 [ 304 P.2d 1015 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 759 ].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CONNELL
v.
HIGGINBOTHAM Et Al.
79.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 7, 1971.
403 U.S. 207
Sanford Jay Rosen argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Tobias Simon and Melvin L. Wulf., Stephen Marc Slepin argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Rivers Buford, Jr., and James W. Market.
Marshall, Stewart, Douglas, Brennan.
Cited by 177 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an action commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida challenging the constitutionality of §§ 876.05-876.10 of Fla. Stat. (1965), and the various loyalty oaths upon which appellant’s employment as a school teacher was conditioned.- The three-judge U. S. District Court declared three of the five clauses contained in the oaths to be unconstitutional,* and enjoined the State from con[*208] ditioning employment on the taking of an oath including the language declared unconstitutional. The appeal is from that portion of -the District Court decision which upheld the remaining two clauses in the oath: I do hereby solemnly swear or affirm (1) “that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida”; and (2) “that I do not believe in the overthrow ' of the Government of- the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence.”

On January 16, 1969, appellant made application for a teaching position with the Orange County school system. She was interviewed by the principal of Callahan Elementary School, and on January 27, 1969, appellant was employed as a substitute classroom teacher in the fourth grade of that school. Appellant was dismissed from her teaching position on March 18, 1969, for refusing to sign the loyalty oath required of all Florida public employees, Fla. Stat. § 876.05.

The first' section of the oath upheld by the District Court, requiring all applicants to pledge to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida, demands no more of Florida public employees than is required of all state and federal officers. U. S. Const., Art, VI, cl. 3. The validity of this section of the oath would appear settled. See Knight v. Board of Regents, 269 F. Supp. 339 (1967), aff’d per curiam, 390 U. S. 36 (1968); Hosack v. Smiley, 276 F. Supp. 876 (1967), aff’d per curiam, 390 U. S. 744 (1968); Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (1969), aff’d per curiam, 397 U. S. 317 (1970).

The second portion of the oath, approved by the District Court, falls within the ambit of decisions of this Coúrt proscribing summary dismissal from public employment without hearing or inquiry required by due process. Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551[*209] (1956). Cf. Nostrand v. Little, 362 U. S. 474 (1960); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958). /That portion of the oath, therefore, cannot stand.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

The clauses declared unconstitutional by the court below required the employee to swear: (a) “that I am not a member of the Communist Party”; (b) “that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party”; and (c) “that I am not a member of any organization or party which believes in or teaches, directly or indirectly, the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of Florida by force or violence.”

Concurrence

Mr. Justice Marshall, with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join,

.concurring in the result. '

I agree that Florida may require state employees to affirm that they “will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.” Such a forward-looking, promissory oath of constitutional support does not in my view offend the First Amendment’s com-, mand that the grant or denial of governmental benefits cannot be made to turn on the political viewpoints or affiliations of a would-be beneficiary. I also agree that Florida may not. base its employment deeisiotis, as -to state teachers or any other hiring category, oti an applicant’s willingness vel non to affirm “that I do.nbt believe - in the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence.”

However, in' striking down the latter Oath, the Court has left the clear implication that its objection runs, .not-against Florida’s determination to exclude those who “believe in the overthrow,” but only against the State’s decision to regard unwillingness to take the oath as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of the proscribed belief. Due procéss may rightly be invoked to condemn Florida’s mechanistic approach to the question of pro. f. But in my view it simply does' not matter what kind of evidence .,a State can muster to show that a job applicant “believe [s] • in the overthrow.” For state action injurious to an individual cannot be justified on account of the nature of the individual’s beliefs, whether he “believe[s] in the overthrow” or has any other . sort of belief. “If[*210] there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion . . . Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943).

I would strike down Florida’s “overthrow” oath plainly and simply on the ground that belief as such cannot be the predicate of governmental action.

Concurrence in Part

Mr. Justice Stewart,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The Court upholds as clearly constitutional the first clause of the oath as it comes to us from the three-judge District Court: “I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida . . . .” With this ruling I fully agree.

As to the second contested clause of the oath, “I do not believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence,” I would remand to the District Court to give the parties an opportunity to get from the state courts an authoritative construction of the meaning of the clause. If the clause embraces the teacher’s philosophical or political beliefs, I think it is constitutionally infirm. Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U. S. 1, 9-10 (concurring opinion); Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304. If, on the other hand, the clause does no more than test whether the first clause of the oath can be taken “without mental reservation or purpose of evasion,” I think it is constitutionally valid. Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 163-164. The Florida courts should, therefore, be given an opportunity to construe the clause before the federal courts pass on its constitutionality.[*211] See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 43-44; Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82, 85-87; Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 498-501.

The Supreme Court of Florida has explicitly held that the various clauses of- the oath are severable. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 137 So. 2d 828, 830-831.