5 U.S.C. § 7311

Loyalty and striking

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 524.)

Historical and Revision Notes
	5 U.S.C. 118p.	Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, § 1, 69 Stat. 624.
	[Uncodified].	June 29, 1956, ch. 479, § 3, (as applicable to the Act of Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, § 1, 69 Stat. 624), 70 Stat. 453.

Historical and Revision Notes

5 U.S.C. 118p.

Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, § 1, 69 Stat. 624.

[Uncodified].

June 29, 1956, ch. 479, § 3, (as applicable to the Act of Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, § 1, 69 Stat. 624), 70 Stat. 453.

The word “position” is coextensive with and is substituted for “office or employment”.

In paragraphs (1) and (2), the words “in the United States” in former section 118p(1), (2) are omitted as unnecessary in view of the reference to “our constitutional form of government”.

In paragraphs (3) and (4), the reference to the “government of the District of Columbia” is added on authority of the Act of June 29, 1956, in order to make these paragraphs meaningful with respect to individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia. The words “From and after July 1, 1956”, appearing in the Act of June 29, 1956, are omitted as executed.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Executive DocumentsExecutive Order No. 10450

Ex. Ord. No. 10450, Apr. 27, 1953, 18 F.R. 2489, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 10491, Oct. 15, 1953, 18 F.R. 6583; Ex. Ord. No. 10531, May 27, 1954, 19 F.R. 3069; Ex. Ord. No. 10548, Aug. 3, 1954, 19 F.R. 4871; Ex. Ord. No. 10550, Aug. 6, 1954, 19 F.R. 4981; Ex. Ord. No. 11605, July 2, 1971, 36 F.R. 12831; Ex. Ord. No. 11785, June 4, 1974, 39 F.R. 20053; Ex. Ord. No. 12107, Dec. 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055, which related to security requirements for Government employees, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 13467, § 3(a), as added by Ex. Ord. No. 13764, § 3(v), Jan. 17, 2017, 82 F.R. 8128, which is set out in a note under section 3161 of Title 50, War and National Defense, and which contains additional construction provisions related to the revocation.

Executive Order No. 11605

Ex. Ord. No. 11605. July 2, 1971, 36 F.R. 12831, which amended Ex. Ord. No. 10450, Apr. 27, 1953, 18 F.R. 2489, which related to security requirements for government employees, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11785, June 4, 1974, 39 F.R. 20053, set out below.

Ex. Ord. No. 11785. Security Requirements for Governmental Employees

Ex. Ord. No. 11785, June 4, 1974, 39 F.R. 20053, provided:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., 3301, 3571, 7301, 7313, 7501(c), 7512, 7532, and 7533; and as President of the United States, and finding such action necessary in the best interests of national security, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Section 12 of Executive Order No. 10450 of April 27, 1953, as amended [set out as a note under this section], is revised to read in its entirety as follows:

“Sec. 12. Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, as amended, is hereby revoked.”

Sec. 2. Neither the Attorney General, nor the Subversive Activities Control Board, nor any other agency shall designate organizations pursuant to section 12 of Executive Order No. 10450, as amended, nor circulate nor publish a list of organizations previously so designated. The list of organizations previously designated is hereby abolished and shall not be used for any purpose.

Sec. 3. Subparagraph (5) of paragraph (a) of section 8 of Executive Order No. 10450, as amended, is revised to read as follows:

“Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.”

Sec. 4. Executive Order No. 11605 of July 2, 1971, is revoked.

Richard Nixon.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 93 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Am. Postal Workers Union Afl-Cio v. United States Postal Serv., San Francisco Bulk Mail Ctr., Richmond, California, 682 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Postal Workers Union Afl-Cio v. United States Postal Serv., San Francisco Bulk Mail Ctr., Richmond, California, 682 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1982). · cites it 8× “This appeal presents two questions: (1) whether the arbitrator’s decision required the Postal Service to perform an illegal act, and (2) if so, whether the award is enforceable.”

United Fed'n of Postal Clerks v. Blount, 325 F. Supp. 879 (D.D.C. 1971). · cites it 14× “The Clerks seek declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating portions of 5 U. S.C. § 7311, 18 U.S.C. § 1918 , an affidavit required by 5 U.”

Roy L. Schapansky v. Dep't of Transp., Faa, 735 F.2d 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984). · cites it 6× “BACKGROUND Removal was based on charges of participation in a strike against the United States from August 3 to August 5, 1981, absence without leave for the same period, and violation of the “loyalty and striking” provision of 5 U.S.C. § 7311 . 1 Schapansky appealed to the…”

Feaster v. Vance, 832 A.2d 1277 (D.C. 2003). · cites it 7× “05 carried forward the formerly applicable ban on strikes by employees of the District of Columbia government that is contained in 5 U.S.C. § 7311 . 10 The Council modeled the new provision on New York’s “Taylor Law,” N.”

Charbonnet v. Gerace, 457 So. 2d 676 (La. 1984). · cites it 3× “[3] In their testimony the claimants admitted that they had signed many documents at the beginning of their employment, one of which contained a copy of 5 U.S.C. § 7311 , which prohibits strikes against the United States government.”

Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “), reprinted as amended in 5 U.S.C. § 7311 ). The Egan court did not rely on the Executive Order for the proposition that agencies have “final,” unreviewable authority with respect to the necessary suitability determinations at issue here—a matter that was addressed in the…”

Jean Dehainaut v. Federico Pena, 32 F.3d 1066 (7th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “” 5 U.S.C. § 7311 . Though the statute was phrased in absolute terms, a regulation provided: When a person is disqualified for any reason named in § 731.”

Nelson v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 568 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “29, 1953), reprinted as amended in 5 U.S.C. § 7311 (2007). Thus, for over fifty years, Executive Order 10,450 has required that "in no event shall the investigation [of civil service employees] include less than a national agency check (including a check of the fingerprint files…”

United States v. William T. Taylor, United States of Am. v. Billy J. Florence, 693 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1982). · cites it 4× “§ 1918 (3), prohibiting strikes against the federal government, is unenforceable becausé a portion of its defining statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7311 (3), dealing with assertion of the right to strike, has been found unconstitutional.”

United States v. Gary Greene, United States of Am. v. Harry L. Grant, United States of Am. v. Ronald A. May, 697 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “While defendants’ argument may have some validity for 5 U.S.C. § 7311 (3), the civil statute forming the basis for 18 U.”

United States v. Prof'l Air Traffic Controllers Org., 504 F. Supp. 432 (N.D. Ill. 1980). · cites it 6× “” That question is not as simply answered, for it requires analysis not only of Title VII but of two pre-existing enactments, 5 U.S.C. § 7311 and 18 U.S.C. § 1918 . Title VII and FLRA Jurisdiction Under 5 U.”

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 836 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 5 U.S.C. § 7311 (“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States .”

Show all 93 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.